Ramset found this link to Rosemary Ainslie's work, and I found it interesting enough to fool around with. So I built a circuit, identical only with some different components, and started testing it. I haven't done nearly enough to give a final evaluation, but one thing I do see already: the input power signal is very spiky and so will be more or less underestimated by Ainslie's described technique.
That is, if my circuit behaves anything like hers.
http://www.feelthevibe.com/free_energy/rosemary_ainslie/transient_energy.pdf
So here's a picture of my "replication" of Ainslie's circuit. I couldn't find the IRFGP50 MOSFET locally, so I used a similar one, 2SK1548. And instead of using a 555 timer clock circuit I just used my trusty Interstate F34 function generator to make the gate drive pulses. And instead of using a .25 ohm current-viewing shunt I used a 2.5 ohm shunt. But the rest is as specified.
Here's the instrument stack. From the top, Fluke frequency counter (if it works, it's a "Fluke"!) showing 2.4 kilohertz. Next the F34, set on "pulse" mode with a DC offset to bring the baseline to zero volts and the peaks to about 10 volts, and the duty cycle cranked way down.
Next is the Tek scope, showing the pulse output from the F34. There are 5 minor divisions per horizontal cm, so one minor div would be 5 percent duty cycle if the entire wave takes 4 cm. You can see that this cycle is a bit over 4 cm, and the peaks are about half a minor division, so that's less than 5 percent and more than 2.5 percent. (Ainslie specifies 3.7 percent. How she got that precise with her equipment I'll never know.)
Next is the Philips scope with the current (input) waveform on top and the load (output) waveform on bottom. This is with the gate drive potentiometer turned down relatively low, so there isn't much distortion--that is, the device isn't yet operating in the Ainslie "OU" regime.
Now it starts to get interesting. The MOSFET is being operated way out of its normal operating regime. This circuit is actually a reasonably good amplifier, if you give it a sine input and moderate gate voltage. But with the short pulse input in this circuit the gate voltage has to be turned up higher than spec, so the circuit gets non-linear. I haven't been able to get mine to do the "random oscillations" that Ainslie talks about, but without seeing her scope trace I can't really tell what she's talking about. Things like that often occur from poor circuit layout, but this circuit shouldn't be too sensitive to that since it isn't really high frequency. (The MOSFET seems to do OK up to 2 MHz, which is where my equipment pretty much tops out).
So here's the result of increasing the gate drive to the point of non-linearity. Note the spikes developing in the current (input) trace.
Now, there can be a lot of power hiding in those leading and trailing spikes. My oscilloscopes at home aren't fast enough to reveal just how much power is in there, but you can get an idea from the following pictures. I cranked the gate drive up all the way and here's the result: the output waveform is still OK but there are some huge spikes on the input. There's a lot of power in those spikes. They are the inductive kickback from the inductances formed by the wirewound load resistor and the wiring. They represent energy, input from the battery over a "long" time, kicked back in a "short" time by the collapsing magnetic field.
I think.
The fact that the trailing spike is strongly negative may mean that the battery is self-recharging a bit. But regardless, it represents power that isn't being dissipated in the load resistor.
Now, Ainslie uses a calorimetric procedure to estimate her output, and since she saw her load resistor getting warmer than it should have, _given her input power calculations_, she makes the claim of COP > 17. It will be some time before I am able to repeat her output power measurements...
Since my load resistor has not perceptibly warmed up at all.
Yet...
:'(
Leading edge spike:
Start and finish of trailing edge spike: (second picture has the area shown in the first picture, cranked a full screen up out of sight, to reveal the bottom of the spike.)
With a faster scope the spike would no doubt be seen to go even further. There's actually a lot of power in that skinny spike.
Interesting, I have never heard of Rosemary Ainslie before.
nice work TK, i wish my stuff was as neat.
just a couple of things you are using wire wound resisters, lots of inductance at 2.4 kHz. which explains the spikes.
a FET is just a switch so my money is on bad measurements. easy enough to make a filtered supply and measure DC on the input to
see what the real input is.
have fun
fritznien
any plan on doing it right? meaning getting proper components for the ones that you have that are not spec.
do you plan to use a calorimeter if/when you make the circuit to spec?
i am assuming you have a diode on the genny output? could you confirm?
Hi All,
The paper from Ainslie and Buckley is intriguing because the output/input power ratio is enormous, near 20!
But the setup is very simple, so electronics engineers should have observed such anomalies long time ago.
1) the main source of errors is RF interferences. A temperature probe placed inside a heating resistance is capacitively coupled to the circuit. As the signal in the resistance has components at high frequencies, HF currents can flow to the "heatmeter" and completely pollutes the measurement. Ham radio operators know what I mean. I don't know the background of Ainslie and Buckley but if they are not familiar with HF, they may have been trapped.
2) we also should not forget that power is needed to control the FET switching. Normally it is weak and negligeable. Nevertheless if the signal amplitude goes beyond the linear limits and the FET spec, a non negligeable part of the switching control power can pass to the output.
Thus take great care when replicating this experiment. In particular, a RF wattmeter should be used.
Quote from: fritznien on June 17, 2009, 12:04:39 AM
nice work TK, i wish my stuff was as neat.
just a couple of things you are using wire wound resisters, lots of inductance at 2.4 kHz. which explains the spikes.
a FET is just a switch so my money is on bad measurements. easy enough to make a filtered supply and measure DC on the input to
see what the real input is.
have fun
fritznien
Well said, and I agree that it is most likely a measurement error. If it was actually OU, what would be the source of the extra power?
OK, several points to address.
First, yes, when I can find them I will use identical components to Ainslie's circuit. Her MOSFET is kind of pricey and will have to be ordered; the one I'm using is...well, you can look up the data. It's pretty close, good enough for prelim testing. I will replace the shunt with .25 ohm today.
Second, yes, I know the inductances are causing the spikes. I think that's rather the point.
Third, there is no third thing.
Fourth, yes, in this circuit the pulse generator will be adding power. Ainslie's 555 pulser would most likely be even worse in this regard than my direct FG drive, but without details it's hard to tell for sure.
Fifth, yes, I have access to a proper water-bath calorimetric power meter, but first I want to see if I can get anything using Ainslie's method. So far my load isn't warming at all that I can tell.
More later.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 16, 2009, 09:52:52 PM
Ramset found this link to Rosemary Ainslie's work, and I found it interesting enough to fool around with.
You may find these useful. The first link connects to her patent
and other papers.
http://www.free-energy.ws/rosemary-ainslie.html
http://rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com/
Paul.
TK
Quote.>Third, there is no third thing.
3rd is THANKS
You just can't put a price on this[priceless]!!
Chet
If there is anything useful to you all here, feel free to
repost:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie.html
Quote from: qiman on June 17, 2009, 02:38:12 PM
If there is anything useful to you all here, feel free to
repost:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie.html
Hmm. Interesting thread, full of ideas.
I do note one thing, though--those who are reporting lots of heat in the load seem to be using longer duty cycles. I like Stiffler's calorimeter setup, but I think I can do even better. And I guess I'll have to try Lindeman's circuit too.
Now, I have a question: In the original circuit in the pdf, Ainslie uses a 555 timer circuit, not specified, to drive the MOSFET gate. What voltage is being applied? I'm using as much as 10 volts, which is more than spec, but not enough yet to cause shoot-through. Could her drive voltage be even higher? I am having trouble getting my load to heat up, because of the short duty cycle.
Or is it possible that the 3.7 percent figure is a misprint?
It's hard for me to imagine that the MOSFET type itself would make that much difference. The one I'm using is an exact replacement for about 90 percent of all applications of the IRFPG50, has the internal diode and everything. But I'm ordering the IRFPG50 anyway, now that I don't think I'll smoke it (ten bucks!) right off the bat. No telling when it will arrive.
Anyway, I replaced my original 2.5 ohm shunt with a 0.25 ohm shunt as specified, and it made a lot of difference in the behaviour of the circuit. I'm uploading a video now, and I'll post a link when it's up.
@TinselKoala,
She used 12 volt to drive the 555 circuit.
Groundloop.
OK, thanks, I'll build it and compare.
But can you explain the notations on the resistors like
"[R]/50 k ohm/50%"
I don't understand what that means.
But from that, it certainly looks like my gate voltage isn't the problem. However the output of that circuit is likely to be less "clean" than my FG, which might be a good thing as it could help drive the MOSFET into the "O-zone", where the horizontal becomes vertical and the vertical goes ballistic...
So far:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trip8gjoxMQ
@TinselKoala,
Here is a cleaned up drawing of the circuit.
[EDIT] Added the Eagle CAD files. (For those of you that uses Cadsoft Eagle.)
GL.
It's so pretty! Thanks, much easier to work with. I get the resistor values now.
:)
@TinselKoala,
I have read the papers of RA. She noted that the frequency of the HEXFET was different (higher) than the oscillator frequency. Have you noticed such behavior in your circuit?
GL.
The input Gate drive parameters are not critical. It's there only to elicit and maintain parasitic oscillation in the MOSFET.
.99
Quote from: Groundloop on June 17, 2009, 08:31:46 PM
@TinselKoala,
I have read the papers of RA. She noted that the frequency of the HEXFET was different (higher) than the oscillator frequency. Have you noticed such behavior in your circuit?
GL.
Well, there's that ringdown frequency, which is quite a bit higher than the 2.4 kHz drive. But without seeing a scope trace I don't know if that's what she's talking about. So far, except for the spikes, my mosfet tracks the input frequency exactly, up to 2 MHz, which is where my FG tops out.
I don't quite understand what's happening in her circuit to produce the "random oscillations" that she talks about in the paper. She says she has to turn the gate drive down?? to get that? I guess I'll have to build the 555 portion to see what it introduces into the mix. That will be tomorrow, though.
Maybe the particular MOSFET does make a difference. I hate waiting for stuff. I wish I could find one locally.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 17, 2009, 09:22:07 PM
I don't quite understand what's happening in her circuit to produce the "random oscillations" that she talks about in the paper. She says she has to turn the gate drive down??
The Gate drive parameters may not critical in terms of frequency and duty cycle. In fact each device type and even between batches there will be variances. Again, the input is only a stimulus to excite parasitic oscillation natural to the MOSFET. This is of course the opposite effect one normally wants to achieve.
Parasitic oscillations come about when the MOSFETs are allowed to operate in their analog (or linear) region for a long enough time for a parasitic oscillation to get going. This region exists between the MOSFET gate threshold voltage and saturation voltage. MOSFETs have extremely high voltage gain, combined with very high capacitances, which makes the devices very prone to parasitics unless steps are taken to prevent them.
There is an optimum value of series gate resistance with all setups. Variance from optimum will result either in spiky edges as seen in your scope shots, or oscillation.
"Turning down the Gate Drive" means introducing more and more series gate resistance, Rg, until the things breaks into continuous parasitic oscillation.
Quote
Maybe the particular MOSFET does make a difference.
Almost all will oscillate, especially the higher voltage and current devices. Even obtaining the same part number she specified may not guarantee you'll get the same results. You may have to tweak the duty cycle, frequency, and Rg.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on June 17, 2009, 09:49:58 PM
The Gate drive parameters may not critical in terms of frequency and duty cycle. In fact each device type and even between batches there will be variances. Again, the input is only a stimulus to excite parasitic oscillation natural to the MOSFET. This is of course the opposite effect one normally wants to achieve.
Parasitic oscillations come about when the MOSFETs are allowed to operate in their analog (or linear) region for a long enough time for a parasitic oscillation to get going. This region exists between the MOSFET gate threshold voltage and saturation voltage. MOSFETs have extremely high voltage gain, combined with very high capacitances, which makes the devices very prone to parasitics unless steps are taken to prevent them.
There is an optimum value of series gate resistance with all setups. Variance from optimum will result either in spiky edges as seen in your scope shots, or oscillation.
"Turning down the Gate Drive" means introducing more and more series gate resistance, Rg, until the things breaks into continuous parasitic oscillation.
Almost all will oscillate, especially the higher voltage and current devices. Even obtaining the same part number she specified may not guarantee you'll get the same results. You may have to tweak the duty cycle, frequency, and Rg.
.99
Yes, thanks for the review.
You will note that Ainslie uses a 100 ohm pot to vary the gate drive. I didn't know that when I put my circuit together, so I used 200 kilo ohms. So I can "turn down" my gate drive through her available range and much further. Plus I can vary the output attenuation of the FG.
The parasitic oscillations that she generates in her circuit are absent in mine. When I turn the gate drive down with short duty cycles, the MOSFET simply turns off and stays off. Did you watch my video? You can see me doing this several times. No wild parasitic oscillations evident. With longer duty cycles even the full 200K isn't enough (with 10V p-p on the FG output) to shut off the mosfet, and it happily amplifies, relatively cleanly, the 2.4 kHz input pulse. Still no parasitic oscillations. So I'll put more resistance in there, and I'll continue to wonder about the numbers in Ainslie's paper. 3.7 percent duty cycle? 100 ohms gate resistance? 2.4 kiloHertz? With these numbers I get no heating of the load. If I increase the duty cycle to 30 percent or more I get plenty heat of load and mosfet. But at 3.7 percent I get no parasitic oscillation, and no heat on the load.
So perhaps I have a "good" mosfet, or perhaps my circuit layout is "better", that is, less prone to oscillations, or perhaps her 555 driver is forcing the oscillations to happen.
I just can't get my circuit to misbehave properly, and yes, I've explored the parameter space, up to 2 MHz, as I said, and from 3 to 97 percent duty cycles, and 0 to 200K Rg (Vgs=10V)
Another thing to consider here, is stray capacitance. I'm not sure if Rosemary used a breadboard to wire her circuit or not, but you can easily get 12pF (I've seen 20 on some) of capacitance between contact strips. By comparison, your clean, point to point wired circuit, may be too stable for the task at hand. You could try soldering a few centimeters of wire onto the MOSFET gate to act as an antenna. Sometimes it just takes a bit of outside noise to tickle a circuit into oscillation.
TK
If I may ,I have a question[while you wait for parts][like you have nothing better to do]
As you know a few weeks ago I met with that fellow who filed a patent app
for a mag motor
I mentioned he had a levitation disc ,a 12 inch circle cut in a piece of 1/4 inch plywood, in the circle was a 11inch [approx] plastic disc hovering in the field
he claimed people could stand on this Disc and not free it from the field
That part I said in a post and yes I held it in my hand [not heavy}
This part I did not say
It was partially disassembled [missing mags that had come out of the glue over time]but still hovering ,only to one side
It just occurred to me what I had in my hand
The disc was STUCK to one side [attraction] because the mags on the other side[that used to pull it back and center it] were missing
I know you have MUCH magnet experience
Have you ever done this?
It was claimed to be the BIG piece of a motor concept
Before I replicate this [Quite simple concept]
Will it be easier to turn/spin ,floating in attraction
Is it possible that when he says magnets can shield themselves.
He meant, in a field like this??
I value your opinion tremendously and won't waste time replicating a paper weight
Did I describe this well enough for you to know what the hell I'm talking about?
Chet
PS
in the motor, he said this same disc would be hovering about 4 inches[what ever that means]
Quote from: derricka on June 18, 2009, 04:29:13 AM
Another thing to consider here, is stray capacitance. I'm not sure if Rosemary used a breadboard to wire her circuit or not, but you can easily get 12pF (I've seen 20 on some) of capacitance between contact strips. By comparison, your clean, point to point wired circuit, may be too stable for the task at hand. You could try soldering a few centimeters of wire onto the MOSFET gate to act as an antenna. Sometimes it just takes a bit of outside noise to tickle a circuit into oscillation.
Probably the first time I've ever been "accused" of being too neat. :P
First I'll try the 555 gate drive circuit and the IRF mosfet. Then we'll see what else needs to be done.
I was finally able to get some chaotic oscillations out of my rig...by cranking the duty cycle past 40 percent and the pulse voltage past 10 volts...and disconnecting the 24 volt battery completely!
Quote from: ramset on June 18, 2009, 04:09:18 PM
TK
If I may ,I have a question[while you wait for parts][like you have nothing better to do]
As you know a few weeks ago I met with that fellow who filed a patent app
for a mag motor
I mentioned he had a levitation disc ,a 12 inch circle cut in a piece of 1/4 inch plywood, in the circle was a 11inch [approx] plastic disc hovering in the field
he claimed people could stand on this Disc and not free it from the field
That part I said in a post and yes I held it in my hand [not heavy}
This part I did not say
It was partially disassembled [missing mags that had come out of the glue over time]but still hovering ,only to one side
It just occurred to me what I had in my hand
The disc was STUCK to one side [attraction] because the mags on the other side[that used to pull it back and center it] were missing
I know you have MUCH magnet experience
Have you ever done this?
It was claimed to be the BIG piece of a motor concept
Before I replicate this [Quite simple concept]
Will it be easier to turn/spin ,floating in attraction
Is it possible that when he says magnets can shield themselves.
He meant, in a field like this??
I value your opinion tremendously and won't waste time replicating a paper weight
Did I describe this well enough for you to know what the hell I'm talking about?
Chet
PS
in the motor, he said this same disc would be hovering about 4 inches[what ever that means]
So the hovering plastic disk had some magnets on it, but some were missing, and the plywood was the outer frame and it had magnets on it too?
I think you are describing a sort of magnetic bearing, of the type that I call the "2-df magnetic trailer hitch".
It's tricky to get the stable position, and I've never seen one support that much weight, but I think the concept is good, and I know it's used in some commercial sophisticated high-speed magnetic bearings, like are used on some kinds of turbo-molecular high vacuum pump systems. They don't simply levitate but hold in attraction as well due to the configuration of the magnets. Of course these systems are generally hybrids of electromagnets and permanent magnets.
If you can find a strong donut magnet, a clear plastic tube that fits in the hole, and a rod or cylinder magnet that fits inside the tube, you can discover some interesting things including, I believe, the levitation/attraction configuration. But with just these few magnets you need the plastic tube to keep things stable.
The fact that you saw it offside, and stuck on one side, seems very normal to me. Getting it to center and remain stable is the trick, using only permanent magnets.
TK
Thanks for the response,Yes held in "attraction' Does seem amazingly difficult.
That would explain all the layout lines he had crossing the disc every 1/4 inch
Thanks
Chet
PS
and Bill seems to have learned something from this [his comment that magnets can shield themselves??]
I will take your suggestion to do this and see what I can learn
Hi TinselKoala,
now I am watching a bit from the sideline and checking in once and awhile
to contribute my experience with switching MOSFET´s.
I was following the whole conversation in the energetic-forum and I must say that I really do not understand why all these people do a lot of blah blah - and do not mention this one thing I learned a month ago about switching MOSFET´s.
Before I take it upon myself to explain all this, please see attachment of MICREL´s Application note on this subject.
Be aware, that you have to charge up the full gate-capacitance which needs a total charge of 190 nanocoulomb. Not before the Miller-Capacity is charged up can the gate-to-drain-charge be filled up an be effective in switchting the MOSFET to its specified rds_on of 2 Ohm.
Second - if the MOSFET-driving Voltage of NE555 is cut of - this very charge at the gate must be removed as fast as possible for the MOSFET to shut down fast.
How can the charge in this circuit be removed ? There is no bypass-way to escape. It even has an 100 Ohm resitor in its way.
I personally doubt that - if this setup published by Rosemary is for real - this circuit will work as described. There is a lot of information missing concerning these technical details ( driving MOSFETs )
I used a MIC4424 MOSFET-Driver in a different circuit which can take a backward-current resulting from the Gate up to 0.5 Ampere and it worked very well
TinselKoala , you see the point ?
Best Regards
Kator01
@all
hi, i am not a technical person at all. i was just wondering if Rosemary Ainslie circuit can be a looped system.
what i mean to ask is that can we get a loop system using Rosemary Ainslie circuit using the system described below.
1. we get a electric boiler and fill it with steam using electricity from the grid.
2. we use that steam generated to generate electricity, now using this circuit produce steam from the electricity generated in 1st step.
this steam should be 15 - 20 times more,since Rosemary Ainslie circuit is 15- 20 times more efficient.
3.now again using the steam generated in pt 2 (15-20 times more than in pt 1) we produce electricity using a steam generator.
now if the electricity produced at pt 3 stage is more we can loop the sys.
eg .(this is a totally hypothetical figures i am taking ).
1. we use 10 kWh (from grid) to produce lets say 10 kg of steam (1 kWh =1 kg of steam) .
2. 10kg of steam produces 8 kwh of power.(80 % efficient)
3. 8 kWh produces 136 kg of steam (8 * 1 * 17) using Rosemary Ainslie circuit.
4. 136 kg of steam produces 108.8 kWh
now we use 100.8 kWh as excess power and use the remaining 8 kwh back to produce 136 kg of steam and so on.
kindly comment on the calculations.
if any tecnical person reads this feel free to give the exact conversion numbers for electric to steam conversion and stem to electric conversion.
since we already have the rest of the things( boiler , steam generator) easily available all we need is Rosemary Ainslie circuit to work and all our energy problems could be solved very easily.
since i am not a technical person i do not have the ability to contribute in testing of this circuit, but i would be grateful if more and more people test and develop this circuit and give laymen like the easy to follow instructions to make this circuit work.
thanks
jasbir
Jasbir
Nice ideas!!
This circuit is QUITE DIFFICULT to validate,very deceptively simple.
We have a gentleman here that goes by user name Tinsel Koala
He has been researching this circuit and attempting an exact replication
STAND BY
Chet
Ps
along with the help of the other amazing talent in this forum
thanks for the reply
looking forward for exact replication.
@Kator: Yes, of course I am aware of those facts about switching mosfets. I assure you that this is not the first circuit of this type that I have constructed! You will note that I have mentioned several times that the mosfet in this circuit is being operated out of its normal performance envelope and should be expected to behave non-linearly. I'm not trying to "improve" Ainslie's circuit, just yet--first I need to confirm (or not, as the case may be) her initial measurements on the circuit to see if they are valid and reproducible. So far, with the short duty cycles specified, I am not seeing heating of the load. Only when the mosfet duty cycle (triggered by whatever: the FG actual input, or the chaotic parasitic oscillations that I am finding difficult to induce) exceeds about 30 percent do I notice warming of the load.
Now that I have breadboarded up the Ainslie 555 timer trigger circuit I will be experimenting with that later today. So far, the 555 circuit is effective at producing a short duty cycle pulse at the appropriate frequency range, but the 100 ohm attenuator doesn't do much (or anything) at all to the signal.
Yes, I am coming to the opinion that either 1) some things are left out of the information available, and/or 2) there may be misprints in some component values and/or measurements.
@Jas_bir: Yes, certainly it would be "trivial" from an engineering standpoint to harness the COP>17 claimed for this device. Since the circuit has been around for many years, you'd think that someone would have done so by now. Of course, the answer could be as simple as this: No overunity performance is actually exhibited by this circuit. But we'll see what we shall see, won't we.
:o
@TinselKoala
best of luck
@TinselKoala,
I have uploaded the Rosemary Ainslie patent. Can be found here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;down=290
Also, I noted that she state in an article that she did add inductance to the heating resistor. See snip. If you read the patent then you can see in one of the drawings that she put the heating resistor (load) in parallel with the coil. I think there is more to this circuit than just the load resistor.
Groundloop.
Erp. Yesss....
I have found very interesting behavior using the 555 timer circuit as compared to the FG output.
The FG output, set to 10 V peak and under 5 percent duty cycle, gave no heating of mosfet or load.
The 555 timer circuit produces pulses that are, as I expected, not as "clean", that is, rectangular, as the FG pulses, but a casual inspection would say that they are very similar indeed.
However they produce radically different behaviours in the Ainslie oscillator.
I'm still playing with it, but I can definitely say this much: the mosfet and load resistor/inductor do definitely get quite warm at short duty cycle (load resistor went up to 76 C quite rapidly); the major spikes are now on the leading edge of the pulse, and there may be more peculiarities of interest as well.
The 100R pot in the 555 circuit has miniscule effect on anything, until you look really closely at the spikes on a fast timescale. It might be possible to induce false triggering with setting this pot, but it sure doesn't induce anything like random oscillations or parasitic ones either.
The 200K pot in my original circuit still has the greatest effect on waveform.
Also some power leaks through from the battery powering the timer circuit, but it really doesn't look like much, just off the cuff.
I will make a video showing what I mean later on tonight, unless the MIB get here first.
;)
(I'm still not seeing anything like chaotic or random behaviour though...I have seen false triggering or non-triggering of the scopes due to the complexity of the spikyness...could she be referring to false triggering? I mean, even parasitic oscillations are usually regular enough to be resolved on the scope...)
(light bulb goes on over head)
Is it possible that my FG is making the device operate at a duty cycle of 3.5 percent "on" and the 555 is making it operate at a duty cycle of 3.5 percent "off" ??
This would move the apparent position of the spikes, and would account for the vast heating discrepancy...
(runs off to check polarities, yet again....)
WHOLLY CRAP!!!
The Ainslie 555 timer circuit as posted above produces a duty cycle that is from 0 to 10 percent or so OFF, and CANNOT be adjusted to make a duty cycle that is 3.5 percent ON.
When I was testing the circuit I inadvertently had the scope's "polarity invert" switch for the 555 channel in the invert position, and I compared the waveforms of the FG and the 555 and they looked alike--but of course since the 555 waveform was inverted, what represented "ON" peaks from the FG corresponded with OFF peaks from the 555 circuit.
So the complete circuit as specified in the above posts from ramset and groundloop generates what I would call a 96.5 percent duty cycle, NOT a 3.5 percent one. The mosfet is ON most of the time, the spikes are still on the trailing edge of the pulses, the heating is not unusual at all, and all the power calculations in Ainslie's papers are, shall we say, "in error" because of this mistake in duty cycle.
Can anybody confirm this with a quick build of the 555 circuit and an oscilloscope?
Quote from: Groundloop on June 20, 2009, 03:07:56 PM
@TinselKoala,
I have uploaded the Rosemary Ainslie patent. Can be found here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;down=290
Also, I noted that she state in an article that she did add inductance to the heating resistor. See snip. If you read the patent then you can see in one of the drawings that she put the heating resistor (load) in parallel with the coil. I think there is more to this circuit than just the load resistor.
Groundloop.
That patent application (not patent!) says completely different things wrt "duty cycle" than does the original pdf that started this whole thing, and also makes much more conservative claims as to efficiency. In the cases cited in the application the margin is so small that measurement error is the first suspect, and the devices described in the application are intended to work at completely different frequencies and duty cycles than the circuit in the pdf. As far as I can tell, that is.
In the pdf she represents the load symbolically as an inductor in series with a resistance because she uses a wirewound resistor of significant inductance. I'm using the same total inductance as far as I can tell.
Grrr. See what happens when you open these cans of worms?
In the pdf of the EIT paper, on page 8, she describes a "control" experiment where she just hooks the 10 ohm wirewound load resistor up to a battery. And she calculates 17.7 watts as the average power dissipation here.
Then she cites and tabulates the results of an experimental run where she estimates the power dissipated in the load resistor, over the 997 minutes of the experiment to average 17.5 watts and total power 1.22 Megajoules.
And then that figure is compared to the calculated 67.6 kiloJoules calculated to have been delivered by the battery.
And this is where the COP>17 comes from.
BUT:
She states in the pdf that the circuit is ON for 3.7 percent duty cycle. However I have determined that the 555 circuit posted here produces a 96.3 percent ON duty cycle, and that it appears that she may be mistaken about what the true ON duty cycle is in her experiments.
Just roughly looking at the input parameters using this circuit, I get a 600 mV, nearly rectangular pulse shape, representing the voltage drop across a 0,25 ohm shunt. Ignoring the spikyness for the moment just to get ballpark values: that gives a current of 2.4 Amps, and times 24 volts that's 57.6 Watts, times 0.963 (actual duty cycle) gives about 55.5 Watts average power drawn from the battery. No wonder my load and mosfet heat up so quickly.
55.5 Watts times 997 minutes times 60 minutes per second gives about 3.3 MegaJoules input energy.
So the effect of the duty cycle mistake, if it is such, is to bring the COP down from >17 to about only 37 percent or so (COP<1/2), which is just what is expected in this kind of circuit. A substantial portion of the input power is going to the mosfet as heat, and some more is being radiated as EM waves, and some is even being reflected back into the battery.
What's not happening is "more energy out at load than in from battery".
well done TK!
Wow I certainly hope it wasn't this little "innocent" mistake that caught Rosemary, although it would not surprise me.
Many people invert their scopes or swap the scope leads around to make the wave form "look better" only to later fail to realize that all their measurements will be inverted as well, as TK has just shown can easily happen.
.99
Quote from: fritznien on June 20, 2009, 08:19:40 PM
well done TK!
Thanks, but we need confirmation of several things before we can put the issue to bed.
First, did I build and connect my 555 circuit correctly, and am I right about its performance?
Second, did Ainslie really make the same error that I did at first? That is, is she really using 3.7 percent OFF instead of 3.7 percent ON?
And third, does her power calculation method (which seems a bit screwy from the outset) come up with the same input figures, proportionally, if the duty cycle correction is made?
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 20, 2009, 06:22:15 PM
WHOLLY CRAP!!!
The Ainslie 555 timer circuit as posted above produces a duty cycle that is from 0 to 10 percent or so OFF, and CANNOT be adjusted to make a duty cycle that is 3.5 percent ON.
When I was testing the circuit I inadvertently had the scope's "polarity invert" switch for the 555 channel in the invert position, and I compared the waveforms of the FG and the 555 and they looked alike--but of course since the 555 waveform was inverted, what represented "ON" peaks from the FG corresponded with OFF peaks from the 555 circuit.
So the complete circuit as specified in the above posts from ramset and groundloop generates what I would call a 96.5 percent duty cycle, NOT a 3.5 percent one. The mosfet is ON most of the time, the spikes are still on the trailing edge of the pulses, the heating is not unusual at all, and all the power calculations in Ainslie's papers are, shall we say, "in error" because of this mistake in duty cycle.
Can anybody confirm this with a quick build of the 555 circuit and an oscilloscope?
Consider your solution confirmed. At least as far as your description of the real circuit behavior.
This circuit is not at all uncommon. In fact, I have one in-use for quite some time. I had to put a 2N2222 follower on the 555 pin 3 to invert the output so the 'REAL' ON cycle was the -short- part of the cycle. Using the CMOS flavor of the 555 you can have some very short pulses, once inverted.
The 100 ohm pot on pin 3 would just allow adjustment to a cleaner square wave out - or more sloppy. Whatever your preference. It does make a cleaner wave around 500 ohms with a 12V supply on the 555 while driving an IRF510.
The part values on the RC side would make it easy to push the 555 into La-La land. And yes, my sacrificial scope, an old 100meg Tektronix, can't keep up with the 555 when it goes ballistic with total cycle times less than off+on.
Attached is a way to fire the MOSFET with the shorter 'OFF' part of the 555 output.
TK
Does this mean I have to cut your grass for the rest of my life?
If your findings are true ,you've saved this community a lot of wasted time.
Chet
@BEP: yep, I also have used similar circuits for years. I consume 555s and 2222s like candy. (My, they're crunchy.) And over the years I've learned to wear safety glasses around 555s that are hooked up to inductances. A liberal sprinkling of good fast diodes in the circuit will often keep the smoke in, but it is amazing how loud that little chip can be when it blows up. Tends to startle the landlord.
@ramset: lol, I neither sow nor do I reap, I just let it grow...
But before we consider the issue completely closed it would be nice to hear from someone (Rosemary? Are you out there somewhere?) who can confirm or deny that her research actually suffers from this problem. Although at this point it seems increasingly likely.
For your amusement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18raNyVTL6g
Hi TinseKoala,
why not report your findings here in order to stop all the blah-blah of the so called experts and save time and energy of innocnet members of this group:
http://www.free-energy.ws/rosemary-ainslie.html (http://www.free-energy.ws/rosemary-ainslie.html)
and ask Rosemary the relevant question her at her Blogsite
http://rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com/ (http://rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com/)
As I stated before, you can save blowing your 555-chips by using the MIC4423-24-25.
NE555 can blow because of the huge reverse-current originating from the charge in the gate. It does not have anthing to do with inductance in this case.
Despite these facts, the low Inductance of 8 to 10 Myko-Henry does not store much energy at this frequency.
In another circuit where I was testing ( Cap recharge project byuser null_points ) I used a 2 Milli-Henry coil from an old speaker-filter. It had a inner resistance of 0.7 Ohm and I switched one fully charged cap with a BUZ11 via this coil to another cap. Here I found a very long off-ringing oscillation the frequnecy of which did not change much even if I used half of the inductivity ( 1 Millihenry ). Attached some the pics I made of this circuit including the damped oscillation. You have to adapt the frequency so the oscillation ends just before the next puls ( which i had not done yet in this pic set_ocill_01.jpg ) The red circled area is the time the flyback-diode is active. If it shuts of the rest of the flyback-energy oscillates between C1- and C2. Without the diode the oscillation was absolutly weird and the recharge efficiency very bad. I was able to regain the energy with this ultrafast diode so I had only a loss of 20 % at the end of the discarge-cycle. The discharge-cycle ended when the voltage-Level C2 and C1 was almost equal.
Frankly speaking : I think that especially if I observe the way, this is discussed in the above mentioned forum, this is jet another game of some known desinformation-agents acting in the free-energy.ws-forum in order to destract the attention of people.
Best Regards
Kator01
Tk
All
In regard to this circuit,I believe its real purpose is to prove the following.
posted by User Skywatcher [and agreed upon by P. Lindemann]
Quote<
And that is that we can charge a coil, make a magnetic field and use the field in a non-impeding manner such as an attraction motor or other setup and then we can reuse most of the field when it collapses.
>end Quote
Chet
PS
See this type of claim seems feasible to me,but I am unschooled in these matters
Sure, all that's fine, but let's not forget the specific nature of the claim, in the magazine article, the pdf of the paper, the patent application, and elsewhere: the circuit as published is alleged to produce 17 times as much energy output as heat, as it receives as input from the batteries. COP>17, for a specific set of circuits.
I believe that I have shown that the circuit AS PUBLISHED and as I built it, does not perform as claimed, and in fact could not do so, since the 555 timer circuit CANNOT be set to provide a short ON duty cycle. And in fact, as I have shown, the numbers she obtained and cited in the pdf paper can be accounted for precisely, by computing power using her incorrect figure of 3.7 percent ON, but using the correct 96.3 percent ON duty cycle that her timer circuit provides, the true energy supplied by the battery is in the neighborhood of 3 MegaJoules, and thus the circuit's COP is in reality <1/2, far from the >17 that has been claimed.
This fact is independent of the MOSFET used, of course, so the fact that I am using the 2SK1548 instead of the specified IRFPG50 should be irrelevant here.
Now, as to the issue of chaotic, random, or parasitic oscillations caused by "turning down" the 100R potentiometer in the published circuit: It ain't happening, folks. Not for me. What IS happening, is false triggering of the oscilloscope, which can certainly look like random oscillations. And of course parasitic oscillations can be induced by means cited in previous posts by others: poor circuit layout, stray capacitances, improperly meeting the demands of the MOSFET's gate capacitance, dirty gate drive pulses, and so forth. Unfortunately (!?!) my build does not seem to suffer from these "features".
I am prepared to consider arguments that the MOSFET I am using is not the exact one Ainslie uses, and so my results could be invalid for that reason. But please, if you are going to make that argument, read the data sheets for the two MOSFETS first and please provide some hard reasoning for your stance.
I am also prepared to repeat the experiment, if Ainslie or somebody else can refute my finding that her duty cycle, as stated in the paper, is reversed, that is, not what she says it is. This finding alone calls into serious question her OU claims and, by extension, her entire theoretical structure, so I should hope that it is taken seriously.
Is there any chance her load on the source pin is creating an inversion of the 555 output or causing some nonlinear state?
Then there is the 555. Output can go to what I term 'a garbage state' when you try for a <50% duty cycle, with this circuit and many other 555 circuits.
I think you are correct, TK. If there is such a measurement mistake the usual response from academia is to ignore the claim.
I don't see how, with the specific component values, that there could be instability of the 555 or "flipping" of its output cycle. But sure, those things can behave strangely sometimes. And I am always prepared to admit that I may have made some weird error in my build--but I don't think I have. That's why I've asked for some independent confirmation of the 555 circuit, at least, and it appears we've gotten that.
(EDIT to add: I even went back and checked --again-- to make sure my 2sk1548 and her irfpg50 are both N-channel mosfets--)
Is Ainslie still around? I think that if I were she, I'd be whipping up circuitry, photographing scope traces, and all kinds of other stuff, in order to refute that fool skeptic TK who can't even put a circuit together properly to oscillate wildly.
What about it, Rosemary? Can you tell us, one way or the other: Does YOUR circuit give YOU a 96.3 percent ON duty cycle, as I believe, or does it really give you a 3.7 percent ON duty cycle as you claimed in several published places?
I can't really see going further in this research (calorimetry, etc.) until this question is resolved.
Inquiring minds want to know...
I just checked the thread on energeticforum. Nobody seems concerned at all that her claims of excess energy are completely invalidated, IF her circuit in the pdf, which is the only one with reported test results, is doing what I found. They are happily theorizing and going off on tangents, while ignoring my work completely (except for ramset--thanks, Chet...)
When they should be seeking information from Ainslie, or building their own damn replications, or at least telling me why I'm full of crap.
TK
may i post a summary
perhaps a very brief # 3
Chet
Quote from: ramset on June 22, 2009, 01:05:13 PM
TK
may i post a summary
perhaps a very brief # 3
Chet
Absolutely, please do.
I've been trying to get on that forum myself. Register, wait for email validation, disable browser security, first try doesn't work, second validation number received, validation accepted, now I must be "moderated" before I can post. Since Friday I've been trying.
PM
Jibbjuy [member here and there]He got me on in ten minutes[slight exaggeration ]
Chet
PS
I also put in a request on the Thread
TK
Aaron says your good to go
Chet
BTW when you have a moment,whats a scalar wave?[besides dangerous]
Ive heard these are the longitudinal waves Tesla spoke of?
nothing can shield them?
There making them in the Ed Gray tube thread over there.
Quote from: ramset on June 22, 2009, 10:21:33 PM
TK
Aaron says your good to go
Chet
BTW when you have a moment,whats a scalar wave?[besides dangerous]
Ive heard these are the longitudinal waves Tesla spoke of?
nothing can shield them?
There making them in the Ed Gray tube thread over there.
Thx, chet, discussion in progress over there now.
Scalar waves...mostly misunderstood. You will even hear people talk about "scalar vectors" which always cracks me up. A vector, of course, is a quantity with both a definite magnitude and a definite direction, like a force for example. A scalar is just a magnitude, with no direction associated with it. So a "scalar vector" is sort of like a "jumbo shrimp" only worse--a contradiction in terms. Like saying "free" and "energy" in the same breath.
But anyway, the idea seems to be that EM can come in two flavors--second, like the transverse and orthogonal E and M oscillations from normal radio systems, and first, like what Tesla and others have called "longitudinal waves" or perhaps scalar waves. While the transverse waves can be viewed like a vibrating string under tension, with nodes, a plane of oscillation, and so on, the longitudinal waves are more like sound itself--that is, a "compression and rarefaction" of the medium, so the oscillation is not at right angles to the direction of propagation like in transverse waves, but is in the same direction--longitudinal--as the propagation.
Shielding? The experiments that I have done myself indicate that longitudinal waves are indeed very difficult to shield by normal RF shielding means. I was able to transmit a longitudinal signal into a Faraday screen room, using a circuit I found on JLN's site.
Dangerous? I would imagine that given enough power and at the right frequencies they could be dangerous. So could anything else.
Reality: I think what most people are referring to as scalar or longitudinal waves (even Tesla) are really wide powerful broadband bursts of simple RF.
@TinselKoala
QuoteI just checked the thread on energeticforum. Nobody seems concerned at all that her claims of excess energy are completely invalidated, IF her circuit in the pdf, which is the only one with reported test results, is doing what I found. They are happily theorizing and going off on tangents, while ignoring my work completely (except for ramset--thanks, Chet...)
Completely Invalidated you say,LOL, I do not think one minor attempt qualifies as "completely invalidated" in any sense of the word. You should understand that many real inventors can spend months or years to perfect a device, then some yahoo throws together a bunch of crap in a single day and yells "Ah-ha it's all a lie" and the cycle of ignorance continues. I would suggest you actually try to understand the circuit process before you go off judging anyone.
Regards
AC
AC
In the context of TK's findings [replicating the published circuit]
He has valid questions ,his replication did not produce the published result,
And the lack of interest in" THAT"fact was curious ,and I felt the basis of his remark[at least thats how I took it after reading all his posts ]
In no way has he intimated he has shot this down ,on the contrary he's looking for answers [joining the forum]
hopefully they [the answers ]will come
Chet
@ramset
What I found offensive was his statement "that her claims of excess energy are completely invalidated", I don't think he has a clue what the term validation means. I spent two months on a simple circuit (Teslas ozone patent 568177) before I could validate Tesla's claims and this circuit is hardly more complex than the Ainslie circuit. Validation is making every effort to prove a device using the exact same materials and components in exactly the same manner, validation is not throwing whatever crap you may have on hand together in a few hours, this is not replication nor validation of anything.
My validations start with reading all know literature by the author in question, next I study all known devices in detail to establish a timeline of technology. This research could take weeks or months alone, then based on these endless hours of research I build the device to exact specifications if they are available. If specs are not available then the device "CANNOT" be validated---period, you can only make an effort to validate it based on incomplete information, based on nothing more than opinion.
Regards
AC
AC
Your point is well made [and taken],Rosemary seems to be begging for replication and challenge from the status quo.
I take TK's comment as a shot across the bow[permission to ask questions about your findings Rosemary?] Bought on by his initial findings in his attempt at replication
He asked Her to comment in this thread ,perhaps she will in the other.
AC ,I just sweep the floors around here ,but I have admired your posts and work for quite some time.
Chet
Quote from: allcanadian on June 23, 2009, 04:58:20 PM
@TinselKoala Completely Invalidated you say,LOL, I do not think one minor attempt qualifies as "completely invalidated" in any sense of the word. You should understand that many real inventors can spend months or years to perfect a device, then some yahoo throws together a bunch of crap in a single day and yells "Ah-ha it's all a lie" and the cycle of ignorance continues. I would suggest you actually try to understand the circuit process before you go off judging anyone.
Regards
AC
Who am I judging? Who are you judging? Who are you calling names?
I suggest that you actually try to understand the English sentences in my post, before you go off judging someone.
Perhaps you, in all your vaunted wisdom, can tell us just what it means to her claims of overunity, IF (there, I even capitalized it AGAIN so that you might notice it) her duty cycle, as generated by the circuit SHE PUBLISHED, is actually making a 3.7 percent OFF cycle instead of the 3.7 percent ON cycle she claimed.
Did you build the circuit yourself? I am waiting eagerly for your report of your results.
@TK
It is settled then, both of us agree my comments were out of line and I apologize for my behavior. Regarding Rosmary Ainslie's claims, as far as I can tell a printing error in the published circuit diagrams would have no bearing on her claims or her technology. Unless of course this mischievous printing error could somehow stop all of her circuits from working as stated and erase her patents from history by some divine intervention in which case I would be mistaken.
Regards
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on June 24, 2009, 04:59:28 PM
@TK
It is settled then, both of us agree my comments were out of line and I apologize for my behavior. Regarding Rosmary Ainslie's claims, as far as I can tell a printing error in the published circuit diagrams would have no bearing on her claims or her technology. Unless of course this mischievous printing error could somehow stop all of her circuits from working as stated and erase her patents from history by some divine intervention in which case I would be mistaken.
Regards
AC
Accepted, and I also apologize for my sarcastic tone. It's in my nature, but that's no excuse.
(gee I hate the mushy parts)
My point is simply that her theory (I have read her blog articles) seems constructed to explain certain observed phenomena under certain conditions, and if it turns out that the observations are incorrect because the conditions are other than as specified, it really does put the status of the theory in question.
In the "real world" of academia and peer-review, entire careers have been "tubularized" for similar errors.
But I'm really not too concerned about theories, anyway. I'm with Feynman as far as theories go:
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
And I'm trying to clear up just that issue: Is it a printing error? Or is the error deeper than that?
Curious, isn't it, that the "printing error" circuit gives the exact inverted duty cycle at the exact freq range specified, instead of not working or producing some random frequency and duty cycle...I wish I could be that lucky.
And also curious that the "printing error" circuit behaves rather like the claimed circuit, as far as heating the load resistor goes, while function-generator driven versions (where the duty cycle is set at 3.7 percent ON) do not...and I'm not talking only mine, here. Others using FGs have also not been able to show load heating at short duty cycles, according to reports.
Of course, after all these years I am sure that the original tested apparatus that produced the COP>17 is no longer in existence, or cannot be found, or...something.
Down the rabbit hole...
(Oh, and what's this talk of "patents" and working circuits? All I've seen is a patent application and some diagrams, but I have not seen any circuits that do what she claims as far as being overunity in performance.)
@TinselKoala,
Attached is a snip from the article.
I have highlighted the part where she say:
"This article describes the precise circuit, as"
"depicted in Figure 1, that is used to expose this"
"benefit in transient energy. This is to enable and"
"urge others to duplicate the experiment and"
"determine the measurements independently."
Groundloop.
Yes, I see that, and I built the exact circuit (with the exception of the MOSFET, but that's not where the problem lies.)
If you want to see what I am talking about, check out that other thread, where I am trying to deal with DrStiffler saying that the 555 circuit is a misprint or has been "inserted"...Stiffler's position seems to be that it doesn't matter what was published, replicators can make up their own circuits rather than testing the published one--which he says is wrong, but he won't explain HOW it's wrong or WHY the paper has been out since 2002 with a WRONG circuit diagram...
The problem that I have identified is that the circuit in the above article Does Produce Heat in the load. It also has a 96.3 percent ON duty cycle, NOT the 3.7 percent ON that the authors of the paper claim. But a 3.7 percent ON duty cycle does NOT produce heating of the load.
So the conclusion is pretty clear to me.
Unless somebody can show me that Ainslie's circuit actually does produce the 3.7 percent ON duty cycle that is claimed in the above paper, I must conclude that the data and calculations based thereon are erroneous and that paper should be retracted.
And meanwhile I am coming to certain conclusions about the cognitive ability and style of certain OU researchers.
Let me review: I was presented with a circuit that Ainslie says is overunity. I built the circuit exactly as specified from Ainslie's publications. I found an inverted duty cycle, which invalidates the power calculations based on using the circuit. And now I am being told that the circuit is some unspecified misprint, even though it makes heat in the load and makes the correct frequency and makes the correct but inverted duty cycle...but the overunity claims in the paper are not wrong, so the circuit (which circuit, now?) is still worth investigation.
I've got to say, it's really hard to figure out how to do replications under these conditions. I mean, if the published diagrams are wrong but even so they produce the OUTPUT behaviour correctly...and correct diagrams are unavailable, and FG pulse drives at the specified duty cycle do NOTHING but FG pulse drives at the inverted duty cycle make things behave just as the "wrong" published circuit does...
Oh, well, what did I expect....
TK
quote<
Oh, well, what did I expect....
end quote
RESPECT !!
For taking the time and money to do exactly as Rosemary requested.[replication]
Hopefully she will show up.
Chet
@TinselKoala,
I found the other forum and did read the posts. LOL
I personally think you have done a good job replicating the circuit. The only person
that can clear up the "misprint" circuit is the inventor of the circuit. So far this has
not happen, so I must assume that until she decide to post the correct circuit, then
we are left with your conclusions that she got the math wrong because of the
duty cycle error.
Regards,
Groundloop.
Quote
The problem that I have identified is that the circuit in the above article Does Produce Heat in the load. It also has a 96.3 percent ON duty cycle, NOT the 3.7 percent ON that the authors of the paper claim. But a 3.7 percent ON duty cycle does NOT produce heating of the load.
quite logical dont you think, more current flows, thus more heat is wasted.
ask yourself why you would want a small dutycycle?
MY 2 CTS, havent studied the circuit very much, so my view could be wrong:
The dutycycle must correlate/compensate the time constant of the coil, the time it takes for current to rise.
at one instant, you get potential difference over the coil - this is felt by the load, without current going through it - call it static electricity, or scalar wave, or radiant energy.
I think you can even up the frequency, while keeping the same dutycycle in units of time, not percentage.
While the FET is low or non conducting, a displacement current flows, inducing a magnetic field and all, and voltage is built up, current stops flowing [contrary to a closed loop] but voltage stays there, just like a regular wire, and the field collapses because current changes to zero amps.
Now introduce ground to the coil, current starts flowing through the coil but gets inhibited by the reactance, while the potential over the coil remains.
After a short pulse duration, when FET gets low again, the voltage on the ground side gets replenished.
I don't know if you have done this, but analyze this:
measure with a scope the voltage over the coil while pulsing, but also when switching on the power.
see if it gets magnetized when switching power on, but while fet stays in non conducting state.
You can conclude that a bigger coil is better, because current will rise slower.
Hi Alan
Thanks for taking a look. But I suggest you spend a moment and look at the Quantum article and the EIT pdf paper (links above in the thread somewhere.)
The heating of the load is the "output" of this circuit as claimed, and as far as I can tell the overunity claim depends on the true duty cycle that was fed to the mosfet. The heating of the load isn't in question, but rather what duty cycle was actually used to produce the heating shown in Rosemary Ainslie's paper.
I've built the circuit exactly, with the exception of the MOSFET--the one that I'm using is the 2sk1548 which has similar parameters to the IRFPG50. However the mosfet isn't the issue for me--but rather, the duty cycle of the 555 timer circuit.
One possible reason for the "mistake" if there is one, is the fact that the voltage at point "A", where she monitors the load, is high (that is, at battery voltage) when the MOSFET is OFF. This might make some think that the duty cycle at this point is short, when actually the load is OFF when the voltage here is high. So the load is ON (current flowing through it, causing heating) when the voltage at "A" is LOW, which means the circuit shown here is making a LONG duty cycle not a short one. Current is flowing in the load (and being drawn from the battery) for 96.3 percent of the time, not 3.7 percent as the papers state.
Hence the OU calculations are in error.
UNLESS:::Unless I have made some really embarrassing mistake. So I have been trying to get people to build the 555 timer portion of the circuit at least, using the Quantum paper (or the cleaned-up diagram from Groundloop) to verify or deny that it makes the duty cycle that I found.
If I've made a mistake I would really like to know, because I'd like to continue on with output measurements, as it's an interesting project. But if what I've found re duty cycle is true (and I don't consider it confirmed yet) then there isn't much point in continuing, that I can see.
As far as the magnetic measurements that you suggest Alan, I'll position a Hall sensor in the appropriate place and see what it does, the next time I fire up the system, which will probably be later this evening. I think I've already looked at the voltage drop across the load, looking for power injection from the FG or timer circuit...but I can't really remember right now, so I'll repeat those measurements as well. Thanks for the suggestions...I don't know what to do with the findings but maybe you will.
--TK
(EDIT I don't know why you removed your comment; it made perfect sense to me...)
-
I made it some more readable :)
I've read the article
my comments wasn't really relevant to the circuit, I had something different in mind, remembered the circuit incorrectly.
I thought the load was placed parallel over the coil, but the load is the inductive resistor itself.
Have you done any temperature measurements?
anyway, I saw your vid's and you did a great experiment, I give it a thought later again.
tk
i see you tossing the word 'exact' or 'exactly' out in a few of your posts. maybe you need a refresher?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exactly
did you drop the $10! for the correct fet yet? i should think after your $1000 U.S. equiv. offer to mylow? and your own admission that you spent $900 and 80hrs of your time on it (mylow's wheel) you wouldn't be so pompous as to expect us to think you can't cough up the $10! for the correct fet for this 'debunking'. i should also think you wouldn't want to leave this fet issue open for contention whatsoever. nice work as usual.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on June 27, 2009, 04:06:40 AM
tk
i see you tossing the word 'exact' or 'exactly' out in a few of your posts. maybe you need a refresher?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exactly
did you drop the $10! for the correct fet yet? i should think after your $1000 U.S. equiv. offer to mylow? and your own admission that you spent $900 and 80hrs of your time on it (mylow's wheel) you wouldn't be so pompous as to expect us to think you can't cough up the $10! for the correct fet for this 'debunking'. i should also think you wouldn't want to leave this fet issue open for contention whatsoever. nice work as usual.
What I do with my time and money seems to be, last time I checked, My Business.
And even you should be able to tell that the problem I identified has NOTHING to do with the choice of MOSFET, as long as all are N-channel. And all the ones I used are.
If you are so concerned, why don't YOU build the circuit, or just send me any MOSFET you would like me to test.
But I can tell you this: ANY mosfet of the correct voltage and current ratings will produce heating of the load that looks just like what Ainslie reported, if the duty cycle used is 96.7 percent ON.
Once again, it seems that people who refuse to go out and assemble any components on their own are attempting to criticize the work of those who actually do build and test things.
So, at this point, I would be glad to hear explanations, even from you, wilby, as to the cause and effect of the DUTY CYCLE ERROR in Ainslie's work that I found. Until this issue is resolved the question of the MOSFET is irrelevant.
(Your hero DrStiffler is cracking me up, over on that other forum. His "replication" is wrong in every respect, every post he's made since I've been looking has contained severe errors and absolute asinine reasoning--"I'm not even going to try her 555 timer circuit because..." for totally invalid reasons. He's using wrong voltages, regulated supplies instead of batteries, wrong captions on his scope shots, wrong monitoring points, mistaken reads of the circuit diagram, and he doesn't even seem concerned when it's pointed out to him. It's pretty hilarious when an English-speaking reader reads his posts and mine, looking for real information on a "replication" of Ainslie's published work.)
Tk
It does not seem like Stiffler is replicating the circuit [or even trying to].
He seems to be trying to replicate or enhance an" effect" .
Chet
PS he refers to "interesting findings" in the first 10 minutes of a test he performed.
_____________________________________________________________________
HERE
Run with oscillation
This is of course not what I should be doing, but I wanted to see if that 50V hash would do something that would not make sense.
Anyway as it turns out it is 'ho hum', here is the data from the run, 31.4% eff. is what one might expect, but more to come that we do not expect.
Tmin qa qc Vs Is Q = c m dq ein (J) CEC
0 26.4 28.50 12.00 0.022
10 26.3 29.90 12.00 0.020 117.236 151.200
20 26.3 30.02 12.00 0.018 10.049 136.800
30 26.5 31.00 12.00 0.018 82.065 129.600
40 25.8 31.90 12.00 0.018 75.366 129.600
50 26.3 32.00 12.00 0.018 8.374 129.600
60 25.6 32.00 12.00 0.018 0.000 129.600
70 26.0 32.50 12.00 0.018 41.870 129.600
80 25.4 32.50 12.00 0.018 0.000 129.600
334.960 1065.600 0.314339339
Gate pulse was 37uS and the Drain pulse was 72uS
Sorry the Greek symbols do not come across, but qa is the ambient temp, qc is the cell temp and of course Vs and Is need no further. What is so very interesting is that first 10 minutes.
Yes, Chet, I saw that post, thanks for putting it here, where some discussion might actually happen.
Feel free to explain the post. All I can get out of it is that his MOSFET's turn-off time is unusually long and his load warmed up some.
Oh, and the "ho-hum" part, I got that.
But what it's doing in a thread that is supposed to be about replicating a specific Ainslie circuit, that I don't get.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 27, 2009, 12:22:20 PM
What I do with my time and money seems to be, last time I checked, My Business.
And even you should be able to tell that the problem I identified has NOTHING to do with the choice of MOSFET, as long as all are N-channel. And all the ones I used are.
If you are so concerned, why don't YOU build the circuit, or just send me any MOSFET you would like me to test.
But I can tell you this: ANY mosfet of the correct voltage and current ratings will produce heating of the load that looks just like what Ainslie reported, if the duty cycle used is 96.7 percent ON.
Once again, it seems that people who refuse to go out and assemble any components on their own are attempting to criticize the work of those who actually do build and test things.
So, at this point, I would be glad to hear explanations, even from you, wilby, as to the cause and effect of the DUTY CYCLE ERROR in Ainslie's work that I found. Until this issue is resolved the question of the MOSFET is irrelevant.
(Your hero DrStiffler is cracking me up, over on that other forum. His "replication" is wrong in every respect, every post he's made since I've been looking has contained severe errors and absolute asinine reasoning--"I'm not even going to try her 555 timer circuit because..." for totally invalid reasons. He's using wrong voltages, regulated supplies instead of batteries, wrong captions on his scope shots, wrong monitoring points, mistaken reads of the circuit diagram, and he doesn't even seem concerned when it's pointed out to him. It's pretty hilarious when an English-speaking reader reads his posts and mine, looking for real information on a "replication" of Ainslie's published work.)
i don't care what you did or said on who... it's not really EXACT or EXACTLY until you get the right fet, REGARDLESS OF THE SPECS SHEET OR KNOWN FET BEHAVIOR. why would you even leave it open for discussion or debate by 'believers' unless you're nothing but an internet 'tick' that feeds on such juvenile drama? why not get the right fet and put it all to rest. why use words like EXACTLY when IT'S NOT EXACT? i would expect better, even from you...
why do you always avoid the explicit point being made with some bullshit excuse? i've asked you this before, are you mental?
once again, it seems one of our members here who thinks he runs in more 'erudite' circles, is making ee101 mistakes and bitching and crying about others not building, all the while talking about how his non-exact build is exact...
you're missing the point. i agree with you on the fet issue. THE POINT IS, (read slow and careful here so you can comprehend this) you can tell me whatever you want, just don't tell me it's exact until it is...
so at this point i would love to hear your explanation of how your circuit is exact.
stiffler isn't my hero. which is one of the reason i asked you to do one of your 'debunkings' on his circuit. if i recall, when i did ask you that, you went off on some tirade about stalkers and trolls, etc.
then you made up some bullshit about how he was scared of you and so you couldn't put up a youtube video on your own channel 'debunking' him for some asinine reason...
i can find the posts if you need me to. i know you're really busy being a pompous ass that makes EE 101 mistakes like forgetting about the invert switch. ::)
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 27, 2009, 02:00:33 PM
Oh, and the "ho-hum" part, I got that.
if you're referring to the correct fet, about time... ::)
was that so hard? and now you are 'bulletproof', barring anymore of those ee101 mistakes. ;)
if you were not referring to acquiring the correct fet, all i can say is "damn, it's like pulling teeth or something."
Well whatever the DOC meant by the above, its getting better
Moving closer
From ~1.5'C in 10 min to 1'C in four minutes, now it starts to look a bit better.
Included is a scope shot of the last run.
Attached Thumbnails
cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-aosc002.jpg
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-5.html
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on June 27, 2009, 02:22:11 PM
if you're referring to the correct fet, about time... ::)
was that so hard? and now you are 'bulletproof', barring anymore of those ee101 mistakes. ;)
if you were not referring to acquiring the correct fet, all i can say is "damn, it's like pulling teeth or something."
Build the circuit as shown in the Quantum paper. Look at the duty cycle produced by the timer portion.
Then, tell me who has made the ee101 mistake.
Then, once you've done that, tell me logically why I should bother to do any more testing, since the ORIGINAL Ainslie circuit produces the WRONG duty cycle.
And while you're at it, tell me why Stiffler has made ee101 mistakes in every post he's made over there.
Quote from: ramset on June 27, 2009, 05:59:21 PM
Well whatever the DOC meant by the above, its getting better
Moving closer
From ~1.5'C in 10 min to 1'C in four minutes, now it starts to look a bit better.
Included is a scope shot of the last run.
Attached Thumbnails
cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-aosc002.jpg
And as I said in an apparently unread reply to one of Stiffler's posts over there: his mosfet isn't turning off properly and so his duty cycle, once again, is LONGER by far than the 3.7 percent specified AS PRODUCING THE OU EFFECT by Rosemary Ainslie.
But this seems to be OK, as far as the "replication police" are concerned.
But there has still been no explanation of the fundamental issue: the Ainlsie paper is WRONG--the heating produced was not accomplished with a short ON duty cycle as claimed.
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-5.html
Quote from: ramset on June 27, 2009, 05:59:21 PM
Well whatever the DOC meant by the above, its getting better
Moving closer
From ~1.5'C in 10 min to 1'C in four minutes, now it starts to look a bit better.
Included is a scope shot of the last run.
Attached Thumbnails
cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-aosc002.jpg
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-5.html
Stiffler's frequency: 239 kHz
Ainslie's frequency: 2.4 kHz
Stiffler's gate drive duty cycle: about 18-20 percent
Ainslie's CLAIMED duty cycle: 3.7 percent
Ainslie's ACTUAL duty cycle: 96.3 percent
Stiffler's MOSFET effective duty cycle: around 30-40 percent
Stiffler's gate drive from FG
Ainslie's gate drive from specified 555 circuit
Stiffler's mosfet source power 12 volts from regulated supply
Ainslie's mosfet source power 24 volts from batteries
So I ask again: what does Stiffler's work have to do with Rosemary Ainslie's circuit and the claims made in her paper?
Here's some more information, for whatever it's worth.
I have been testing the circuit with, in addition to my Philips and Tek oscilloscopes, a FLUKE ScopeMeter 199, as reportedly used by Ainslie.
Here's what I found: In addition to the "trace invert" setting, the "duty cycle" display function also may be set to read percent high or percent low. And the 3.6-3.7 percent value is about as low as it will go. In fact when I first hooked up the scope to my Ainslie circuit, using the FG setting "eyeballed" as I have been, it immediately read "3.7 %" .
Very suspicious, that I was able to "accidentally" set my duty cycle, by eye, exactly to the tenth of a percent (one part per thousand). This number is simply the shortest that the Fluke will report under these conditions. It may not be accurate at all.
Also, with trace invert and duty cycle polarities set properly, monitoring Channel B at the point indicated by Ainslie, the 555 timer circuit driving---the FLUKE scopemeter indicates 3.7 percent ON.
But of course, since it is indicating HIGH or battery voltage at this 3.7 percent ON duty cycle, what it really is indicating is that the LOAD is ON, conducting current, for 96.3 percent of the time.
At monitoring point A, the current-viewing resistor, the FLUKE isn't getting enough signal to lock onto a duty cycle or frequency value at all. So I must conclude that her Duty Cycle and Frequency information came from "B", the load--where "HIGH" or battery voltage means that the load is OFF, not conducting...
Just like I said.
And, just like I said, the FLUKE exhibits false triggering and gets the frequency and duty cycle wrong, in response to those inductive ringdown spikes and complex waveforms induced at HIGH (not low) gate drives.
This accounts for the reports of "random chaotic" oscillations and changes in duty cycle and frequency READINGS that were reported.
Sometimes you need a digital storage oscilloscope, and sometimes you don't. They have their advantages and their limitations.
So, the Ainslie paper is wrong; her misunderstanding of her own circuit and the use/abuse of the Fluke 199 ScopeMeter are contributing factors; the load heats plenty, just as the papers claim, but the calculation of input energy is flawed because the wrong duty cycle was used in the calculations.
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
I am a Novice member in this forum, but a retired electronic engineer with some 35 years of experience. I take the chance that my posting is a little bit beside what is discussed in this tread.
In the last one and a half year or so I have done research on capturing energy from the inductive back spike from transformers. I use my own kind of circuit and use a microcomputer to control the switches. Experimentally I have several times â€" and with different duty cycles - obtained 2 - 5 times electrical energy output relative to the input.
I have read a lot in this forum and other forums - of similar circuits to the Rosemary Ainslies, and I am worried of the fact that she and Peter Kevin ASHBY has obtained a patent on a circuit which seem to operate in similar - or quite similar ways, that many other publizised circuits do. In my oppinion it should not be possible to get a patent on a system or circuit that have been discussed openly for such a long time.
Here is the link to the patent:
http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?wo=1999038247&IA=IE1999000005&DISPLAY=STATUS
Do any of you have comments to this.
Regards from S.Roksund - Norway.
@S.Roksund,
wrote: <obtained 2 - 5 times electrical energy output relative to the input.>
Can you post the information on how you managed to do that? If you do not want to
post the information here, please PM me and will give you my email address.
Regards,
Groundloop, Norway.
Isn't that a patent APPLICATION, not a patent?
Has an actual patent been granted?
To me it look like an issued patent. It is even shown that it was patented in most countries of the world. If I am wrong on this, it is the first time I see someone applying for worldwide patentents before they have got the original patent accepted. But - I am not an expert on patent laws, I just know that one can not patent something that has been discussed and shown openly. Just trying to get things right here.
SR
To Groundloop
I will contact you.
Regards
SR
It has a WIPO number, so looks like a granted patent to me, too.
The patent is obviosuly rather dated, 1998/1999. Are you aware of significant prior art before 1998 where Back EMF was attemptedly captured using a similar circuit? I suppose it would be your duty to contact its inventor, and WIPO with such information.
If little has been accomplished in real life with such circuits, it's at best costing the patent holders a lot in patent maintainance fees. Within a decade, it will be free for anyone to use.
Or is this a commercial product today?
Cloxxki, thank you for answering to my posting.
I will see what I can do to dig up similar circuits from time before 98/99.
It may take some effort though. I am not aware of a commercial product.
Else - I agree with you.
To Groundloop;
I guess it is you that must contact me first. My mail is in the profile.
Rgds
SR
Well, I've looked in the USPTO database, and as far as I can tell that is a patent application, not a patent. Certainly Rosemary Ainslie has no US patent in her name that I can find. But when searching for applications the WIPO application comes up.
S.Roksund
You are in good company here ,men of like mind looking for answers.
you mentioned a circuit cop< 2-5
This is not common here ,can you share?
I hope so
Chet
It is good if no patent has been issued.
I will post my electronic schema and a component list - as
well as the measurement methods I have used, here in this forum.
My intention is that someone (hopefully) will make a replicate and test.
When I get the circuit and measurements confirmed, I will start making
units that can be tested in practice - before I start the production.
If all fails, - well it has been exciting all the way, and I have learnt a lot.
I am leaving to celebrate my mother (98), so no posting until next week.
Rgds
Sigvald
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 29, 2009, 04:53:00 PM
Well, I've looked in the USPTO database, and as far as I can tell that is a patent application, not a patent. Certainly Rosemary Ainslie has no US patent in her name that I can find. But when searching for applications the WIPO application comes up.
http://v3.espacenet.com/searchResults?locale=en_EP&IN=Rosemary+Ainslie&ST=advanced&compact=false&DB=EPODOC&submitted=true
Quote from: rensseak on June 30, 2009, 03:42:48 PM
http://v3.espacenet.com/searchResults?locale=en_EP&IN=Rosemary+Ainslie&ST=advanced&compact=false&DB=EPODOC&submitted=true
Thank you. Those all look like Applications, not issued patents. There are no "B" documents, they are all "A" or "A1" as far as I can tell.
From the FAQs:
"What does A1, A2, A3 and B stand for after an EP publication number in the "Also published as" list?
When a European patent application is published together with the search report, it is known as an A1 publication. When this application is published without the search report, it is an A2 document. The search report is then published later as an A3 document. When the patent is granted, it is published as a B document."
@S.Roksund,
I'm glad you decided to open source your circuit. When you are ready to post you information, please ask Stefan Hartmann, Moderator of overunity.com forum, to make you a new thread. Then ask him to make you the moderator of your new thread.
Looking forward to your information.
Regards,
Groundloop.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 30, 2009, 04:21:40 PM
Thank you. Those all look like Applications, not issued patents. There are no "B" documents, they are all "A" or "A1" as far as I can tell.
From the FAQs:
"What does A1, A2, A3 and B stand for after an EP publication number in the "Also published as" list?
When a European patent application is published together with the search report, it is known as an A1 publication. When this application is published without the search report, it is an A2 document. The search report is then published later as an A3 document. When the patent is granted, it is published as a B document."
i think it then never reached the status B1
@ramset,
I saw you post over at Energetic Forum where you said:
"One good thing ,a fellow from Holland showed up on the thread at OU".
If you are referring to S.Roksund (Retired electronic engineer with some 35 years of experience.) then he is from Norway, not Holland.
I'm in email contact with him and will cooperate with him to be able to replicate his circuits.
Regards,
Groundloop.
OOpppss....
Thanks Groundloop
Sorry Mr Roksund
Chet
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 28, 2009, 02:16:23 PM
Build the circuit as shown in the Quantum paper. Look at the duty cycle produced by the timer portion.
Then, tell me who has made the ee101 mistake.
Then, once you've done that, tell me logically why I should bother to do any more testing, since the ORIGINAL Ainslie circuit produces the WRONG duty cycle.
And while you're at it, tell me why Stiffler has made ee101 mistakes in every post he's made over there.
so i take it that is a no then. you still don't have the "exact" fet.
rosemarie did. then you did also.
as i said before, i agree with you about the duty cycle (only because you failed to get the fet into self oscillation...) and i don't care what you do on who, just don't tell me it's "exact", or you replicated it "exactly" here or on any other forum until it
is "exact".
why are you bringing stiffler into it? did he help you pick out the wrong fet? did he put the words "exact" or "exactly" in your posts? misdirection and ad hominem...
Wilbynice?
Or Wilby Not nice?
TK was just getting there attention[seems pretty hard to do!!]
Can anything be exact ?
What I would like to know is, why so much off time?
Why so many hours to accumulate the "EFFECT'
Chet
PS
and Stiffler threw some low blows [made fun of the penguin[mascot]
Quote from: ramset on July 01, 2009, 08:26:06 PM
Wilbynice?
Or Wilby Not nice?
TK was just getting there attention[seems pretty hard to do!!]
Can anything be exact ?
What I would like to know is, why so much off time?
Why so many hours to accumulate the "EFFECT'
Chet
PS
and Stiffler threw some low blows [made fun of the penguin[mascot]
i dont care what stiffler did or didn't do, it's irrelevant.
no, nothing can be exact. obviously semiconductor components have a inherent variation even from the same batch, but for the love of zeus get the right fet before one calls it "exact". i should hope you can see this self evident truth and not have issue with that.
i asked TK a simple question at the beginning of this thread and all he has done is beat around the bush. if it's not exact don't use the word exact... and furthermore, if it's not exact don't be a pompous ass while using the word exact and expect not to get called on it, especially after someone asked you on page 1 of the thread if you planned on doing it "exactly".
PS i think TK does great work, he just never quite does it exactly ;)
PPS i agree with stiffler, stuffed animals are for children...
it's not TK's madness that i have issue with, it's his method.
if TK is not willing to retract/correct his erroneous statement about his circuit being "exact" why should rosemary retract/correct her paper?
Wilby
I appreciate TK's efforts ,without men like him this forum would be all talk
He takes action gets to the point [no BS] ,can take on almost any job
,skills in many areas
TK I SALUTE YOU AND THE BIRD
Chet
Quote from: ramset on July 01, 2009, 08:51:49 PM
Wilby
I appreciate TK's efforts ,without men like him this forum would be all talk
He takes action gets to the point [no BS] ,can take on almost any job
,skills in many areas
TK I SALUTE YOU AND THE BIRD
Chet
so taking action by "replicating" a circuit and
NOT using the correct/exact mosfet on the build and then saying it's "exact"
ISN'T BS?
huh? well you and i seem to have a differing definition of BS i guess...
yes i agree on the almost any job statement, he is surely a "jack of all trades, master of none."
OK, if it will make you happy, my replication is "nearly exact" since I did not use the IRFPG50 Mosfet. Obviously. Shame on me.
However it certainly is more "exact" than anything anybody else has done--and the fact remains:
THE PROBLEM IN THE AINSLIE CIRCUIT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MOSFET.
Since I stated that from the beginning, and I asked people to compare specifications and tell me logically why the choice of mosfet should make a difference--which nobody, including Wilby, has done--I would have thought it to be a non-issue.
However, I have now used 4 different MOSFETS now and they all behave similarly, with exceptions that I have noted. None of them are capable of re-inverting the duty cycle mistake that led Rosemary Ainslie to publish the wrong COP claim. And I have offered to test any mosfet that anybody will send me.
(The IRFP450 shows the long turn-off times, and I see from the data sheet that the IRFPG50 also has a long turnoff time. What this means for the inverted duty cycle is that the MOSFET Ainslie actually used will stay ON NEARLY 100 PERCENT of the time when driven by the 555 circuit she published.)
Now, as to my mastery or lack of it. There are one or two things that I have come close to mastering. They don't have anything to do with the issues here on this forum. In these issues, I am a dabbler, a dilettante. That's what makes it so embarrassing, when I am right and the "experts" are wrong.
And I'm still waiting for that retraction from Ainslie.
The Dude has skills
As far as Rosemary goes he's just Coasting [not breaking a sweat]
Chet
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 01, 2009, 08:47:06 PM
it's not TK's madness that i have issue with, it's his method.
if TK is not willing to retract/correct his erroneous statement about his circuit being "exact" why should rosemary retract/correct her paper?
The answer to that, of course, is that I say what I say on a discussion forum, and she says what she says in published articles, the EIT paper, and patent applications. Her claim is false, mine is a slight exaggeration. My claim can be corrected simply by switching out the mosfet. Hers cannot be corrected so easily--her claim depends on an erroneous data input into calculations and would require re-running the experiment.
Would you care to make a little wager, Wilby?
If you can show a significant difference between the performance of the IRFPG50 mosfet used by Ainslie, and the 2SK1548 mosfet that I used in my replication, using the published circuit and parameters of Ainslie, I will gladly make a public apology to you. On the other hand, if the performance is substantially the same, you get off my back.
If you really think the mosfet makes a difference, you should take the bet.
(EDIT I was going to offer to bet money at odds, but I realised that would be unethical--like taking candy from a baby--. Sorry.)
Thanks for the support, Chet. Sometimes it feels like nobody cares.
:'(
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 01, 2009, 09:16:03 PM
OK, if it will make you happy, my replication is "nearly exact" since I did not use the IRFPG50 Mosfet. Obviously. Shame on me.
thanks. as i said before, a couple times i think, that's really the only thing i had issue with. nice that you tried 4 others though ;)
damn, it's like pulling teeth...
i meant the "jack of all trades" as a compliment tk... ie:polymath
"jack of all trades, master of none, though oft times better than master of one."
i thought you ran in erudite circles? ;) all that jumping must keep you in good shape?
edit: offering bets? after i twice said i agree with you (mostly) about the duty cycle? i have to again ask, are you mental? what's with your reading comprehension?
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 01, 2009, 09:37:51 PM
Thanks for the support, Chet. Sometimes it feels like nobody cares.
:'(
TK I have a lot of respect for you and your methods.
My advice to you is to ignore folks like this. Sometimes their only aim is to entice you into battle. Usually it's not worth the time or effort.
Regards,
.99
@TinselKoala,
Rosemary Ainslie has joined the energetic forum.
Groundloop.
TK
The big man in the house
Rosemary said
TinselKoala - I viewed your Utube on our circuit. It was interesting but my first point is that the waveform on both the first and the second are nothing like our own. It did not go into resonance and it is nowhere near as complex as the one's we generate across the load. Something between your circuit and ours is out of synch.
I'm so sorry I can't get a picture of our waveform. I'll ask my co-author if he can perhaps organise something but suspect that it will take a little time. Michael John Nunnerley was bang on in pointing out that we were probably using a resonating frequency. Indeed we are. We sweep the duty cycle until it first goes into oscillation. That is the point that we usually get the best results. The waveform is not periodic - which makes for some tricky calculations of power - hence the need for that Fluke scopemeter and for those calorimetric values.
The other thing I did not see was the diode return to the positive teminal of the battery? I presume this was included? But I have a real problem in watching the battery voltage collapse on the second video. The load is light - and with the best will in the world, even with a 90% on duty cycle, I cannot understand how a fully charged 24 volt lead acid battery can deplete within the first 10 minutes of running. Were you using a flat battery? Certainly one would expect that it's capacity would enable a current flow of a resistor at 10 ohms (was it?) - therefore not more than 2.4 amps for longer than 10 or even twenty minutes even without any applied switching cycle. I also noticed at one stage that the battery seemed to lose it's voltage entirely - then go into a negative voltage value and then spring back to 24 volts. I can only say that such is really strange and in the years that I've been testing our circuit have never seen the like. I am reasonably certain that your battery was nearly flat or that its rated capacity may be somewhat questionable.
I am also concerned that you used a different mosfet. Not that it needs to be identical to the one that we used - but I am just not sure of the properties of the one that you used.
Regarding the 555 switch as opposed to the function's generator. There really should be no real difference between the two. However it is easier to adjust the 555 switch to enable that resonance which is both the object of the circuit and the main object of the thesis. Why you are not able to get the circuit into oscillation I do not know. Perhaps you must vary the frequency better. Incidentally I could not make out the frequency you applied on that demo.
The niceties regarding the actual published switch and the one that you built - here I cannot comment. What I do know is that if the switch is set at 5% on and the load shows 5% on then it cannot default to 90% on. It is that simple. I could not make out the positioning of the probes in relation to the load resistor. Again. Your questions seem earnest - but your references not so easily detected on that video.
In any event, the other problem I have is with the value of that spike which your referenced in the second video - I think it was. Our spike is generally far higher, upwards on 120v but is largely dependant on the applied duty cycle. In any event the amount of energy in the on cycle is always marginally more than the amount delivered by the spike. The value to the energy gain is in that this energy is repeatedly returned to the battery and to the load. This can be seen if you use 2 x 12 volt batteries as we did. If you run the test on the one battery and connect the second to the first with a common negative rail - then feed the diode to the positive of the second battery, you will see an immediate recharge to that second battery. That test was done to prove that the returning energy does, in fact recharge the energy source.
So it is that we justify the value of the energy delivered by the battery as the sum of the on and off cycles. The energy dissipated is the product of both cycles. Therefore is there a gain. And at this fast resonating frequency the gain is really substantial.
I do hope this addresses those points that you repeatedly refer to through these threads
Incidentally, TinselKoala - there's another point. We actually ran our tests with a control. The reason the published article and the paper deal with a test period of 10. something hours is because that is how long it takes the control battery to deplete its energy. For some reason, both in the quantum article and the paper I was specifically advised that any reference to battery duration was essentially irrelevant. Apparently battery draw down rates are subject to too many vagaries?
In any event, the actual draw down rate of the tested batteries is consistent with the energy measured to be delivered by the battery as the difference between the energy measured and calculated from the two cycles of each waveform being above and below zero. At the end of that test period the test batteries are more or less the same as at the start of the test period. The control is entirely flat.
We then recharged both battery sets (always used typical 12 volt car batteries) and swapped the control with the test. Variations of this was called for by BP to enable their accreditation of the tests. It was exhaustive and painfully repetitive.
CHET
PS
TK thank God you showed up ,or they wouldn't have had anything to talk about
You make us proud !!
Finally the question
Thanks for the reply, Rosemary.
Without going into the further points you made, let's just get back to the issue of the circuit in the Quantum article and what kind of duty cycle it generates.
For some reason, I seem to be the only one who has been willing to build the 555 portion of that circuit for testing. Could you, or your colleague, please confirm that the circuit shown in the Quantum article was, or was not, used to do the experiment described?
If it wasn't, what was the correct circuit?
If it was, what about the duty cycle?
Thanks very much.
--TK
I'll reply to some of these points here.
Quote from: ramset on July 02, 2009, 08:23:22 PM
Rosemary said
TinselKoala - I viewed your Utube on our circuit. It was interesting but my first point is that the waveform on both the first and the second are nothing like our own. It did not go into resonance and it is nowhere near as complex as the one's we generate across the load. Something between your circuit and ours is out of synch.
Scope traces can show very different features depending on the scope settings. It is possible that I am emphasizing different features than you are. It's hard to reproduce a scope signal...if there isn't a model to work from. I hope you can show us what your scope traces look like. It does not mean that "something is out of synch."
Quote
I'm so sorry I can't get a picture of our waveform. I'll ask my co-author if he can perhaps organise something but suspect that it will take a little time. Michael John Nunnerley was bang on in pointing out that we were probably using a resonating frequency. Indeed we are. We sweep the duty cycle until it first goes into oscillation. That is the point that we usually get the best results. The waveform is not periodic - which makes for some tricky calculations of power - hence the need for that Fluke scopemeter and for those calorimetric values.
It's hard for me to see how this circuit could achieve any kind of real resonance at the frequency used. I have been able to reproduce what LOOKS like aperiodic waveforms but this is due to false triggering of the Fluke 199 ScopeMeter. The analog scopes are not as sensitive to this.
Also, the idea of aperiodic waveforms and resonance are, shall we say, oxymoronic. Like jumbo shrimp.
And I have swept both duty cycle and frequency through the entire range allowed by the 555 circuit as shown in the Quantum article.
Quote
The other thing I did not see was the diode return to the positive teminal of the battery? I presume this was included?
Please take a closer look.
Quote
But I have a real problem in watching the battery voltage collapse on the second video. The load is light - and with the best will in the world, even with a 90% on duty cycle, I cannot understand how a fully charged 24 volt lead acid battery can deplete within the first 10 minutes of running. Were you using a flat battery? Certainly one would expect that it's capacity would enable a current flow of a resistor at 10 ohms (was it?) - therefore not more than 2.4 amps for longer than 10 or even twenty minutes even without any applied switching cycle.
Yes, those batteries were depleted at the start of the video. And they are 2 Amp-hour, whereas according to your article yours are 20 A-h. And they are surplus pulls from decomissioned UPS units. No, the load is not light, it's heavy, at 10 ohms and 96 percent ON, as produced by the published 555 circuit.
Quote
I also noticed at one stage that the battery seemed to lose it's voltage entirely - then go into a negative voltage value and then spring back to 24 volts. I can only say that such is really strange and in the years that I've been testing our circuit have never seen the like. I am reasonably certain that your battery was nearly flat or that its rated capacity may be somewhat questionable.
As I thought I demonstrated in the video, cheap digital multimeters (and midrange scopemeters like the Fluke 199) are confused by spiky inputs and will read all kinds of strange things. It does not mean that is what's really going on in the circuit. Many of the folks doing this kind of research have, in the years they've been testing, seen the like many times.
And yes, as I said before, and in the video, the batteries were flat, but that doesn't have anything to do with the wild and sometimes negative DMM readings.
Quote
I am also concerned that you used a different mosfet. Not that it needs to be identical to the one that we used - but I am just not sure of the properties of the one that you used.
You can look up the data sheets and compare the properties. The main difference is in gate capacitance and turn-off times--the latter is a significant difference, because it means that, driven by the 555 timer in the published circuit, the IRFPG50 mosfet will be ON even LONGER than 96.3 percent of the time when driven by the 96.3 percent ON duty cycle that the timer generates. On even longer.
But don't you say in your papers and patent applications that the mosfet isn't critical? (And I now have tested and compared 4 different mosfets in the circuit: 2SK1548, IRFP450, 2SK1603, and 2SK5138. All behave substantially the same with the exception of the IRFP450 which has by far the longest turn-off time. My supplier does not stock the IRFPG50, and I would have to order a minimum of 10, and they are a bit expensive. If someone wants to send me one, PM me and I'll give address details.)
Quote
Regarding the 555 switch as opposed to the function's generator. There really should be no real difference between the two. However it is easier to adjust the 555 switch to enable that resonance which is both the object of the circuit and the main object of the thesis. Why you are not able to get the circuit into oscillation I do not know. Perhaps you must vary the frequency better. Incidentally I could not make out the frequency you applied on that demo.
The top instrument in the stack, with the little red numbers that say 2.404 or so, is a Fluke frequency counter, monitoring the output of the Interstate F34 sweep function generator. It is indicating the frequency of the pulse output of the FG. It is saying 2.404 kiloHertz. I agree that there SHOULD be no difference between the FG and the 555 output--but due to the duty cycle inversion, there is actually a HUGE difference. The 555 circuit as published in the Quantum article CANNOT be adjusted to provide a 3.7 percent ON duty cycle.
Quote
The niceties regarding the actual published switch and the one that you built - here I cannot comment. What I do know is that if the switch is set at 5% on and the load shows 5% on then it cannot default to 90% on. It is that simple. I could not make out the positioning of the probes in relation to the load resistor. Again. Your questions seem earnest - but your references not so easily detected on that video.
And yet, these "niceties" as you call them, call into question your entire experiment. And the probes are positioned and labelled exactly as in your diagrams in the Quantum article and the EIT pdf paper. The problem seems to be this: at point A, where the load is being monitored by the oscilloscope, when the voltage goes HIGH the load is actually OFF, that is, non-conducting. So if you are looking at this point with the Fluke-o-Scope set properly, it will report a 3.7 percent ON duty cycle--but in this case it means the load is OFF 3.7 percent of the time, allowing the voltage at point A to go HIGH.
Conmffsuing? Appraently.
Quote
In any event, the other problem I have is with the value of that spike which your referenced in the second video - I think it was. Our spike is generally far higher, upwards on 120v but is largely dependant on the applied duty cycle. In any event the amount of energy in the on cycle is always marginally more than the amount delivered by the spike. The value to the energy gain is in that this energy is repeatedly returned to the battery and to the load. This can be seen if you use 2 x 12 volt batteries as we did. If you run the test on the one battery and connect the second to the first with a common negative rail - then feed the diode to the positive of the second battery, you will see an immediate recharge to that second battery. That test was done to prove that the returning energy does, in fact recharge the energy source.
Again, experimenters here can tell you that pulse charging a lead-acid battery with HV pulses will cause the battery to indicate high no-load voltages even when its energy store is mostly depleted. I do not dispute that your circuit returns HV spikes back into the powering battery, so that this battery will indicate a no-load voltage that makes it seem to be fully charged. This is a well-known phenomenon around here.
As to the magnitude of the spike, it is here that the faster Fluke ScopeMeter does outperform my slower analog scopes at home. I have no doubt that the magnitude of the inductive spike is greater than what my 10 MHz scope could resolve.
Quote
So it is that we justify the value of the energy delivered by the battery as the sum of the on and off cycles. The energy dissipated is the product of both cycles. Therefore is there a gain. And at this fast resonating frequency the gain is really substantial.
And of course this entire claim depends on the correctness of the duty cycle numbers that went into your calculations. Nobody, under any circumstances, has been able to produce anything like the "really substantial" gains you have claimed--and I believe the reason is that your calculations are in error. Until we can resolve the issue of the actual duty cycle you used, this has to be the most likely reason.
Quote
I do hope this addresses those points that you repeatedly refer to through these threads
Not really.
Quote
Incidentally, TinselKoala - there's another point. We actually ran our tests with a control. The reason the published article and the paper deal with a test period of 10. something hours is because that is how long it takes the control battery to deplete its energy. For some reason, both in the quantum article and the paper I was specifically advised that any reference to battery duration was essentially irrelevant. Apparently battery draw down rates are subject to too many vagaries?
That's right. I have no issue with your control experiment. It is in line with my own. And you are right, batteries are difficult to measure in terms of energy content and "draw down rates" as you say. But with some understanding and the right equipment, useful measurements can be made.
Quote
In any event, the actual draw down rate of the tested batteries is consistent with the energy measured to be delivered by the battery as the difference between the energy measured and calculated from the two cycles of each waveform being above and below zero. At the end of that test period the test batteries are more or less the same as at the start of the test period. The control is entirely flat.
We then recharged both battery sets (always used typical 12 volt car batteries) and swapped the control with the test. Variations of this was called for by BP to enable their accreditation of the tests. It was exhaustive and painfully repetitive.
In the paper you say the batteries used were rated 12 volts, 20 Amp-hours. Most automotive batteries are rated in the hundreds of amp hours. So there is a discrepancy here. (EDIT: should read 80-100 Amp-hours for car batteries. Sorry. Still a discrepancy with Ainslie's report.)
And I gather you are attempting to measure the state of charge of your batteries by measuring the no-load voltage. Typically, a fully charged 12 volt lead-acid battery will read 13 or even 13.5 volts no-load. If it's only reading 12 volts no-load, it isn't charged fully. And in addition, if it has been subjected to HV spikes during charging it may indicate 13 volts even when its true charge state (energy content) is low. Only repetitive full-load high current discharge tests can truly indicate the energy content of a lead-acid battery.
Quote
CHET
PS
TK thank God you showed up ,or they wouldn't have had anything to talk about
You make us proud !!
Thanks, Chet, we shall see what we shall see. It seems from Rosemary's response that she may not be the electronics specialist in her research group. I hope that whoever was helping her can still reproduce the original circuit, or reconstruct it according to the directions they gave in the Quantum article and the EIT paper, because there are several issues that seem to need resolving...
Would one of you with an account on the EnergeticForum please copy the following text over there? Thanks.
==============================
Rosemary,
I have a suggestion for you and TinselKoala. Let's turn things around. You can critque his work. Take the time to review his circuit, have your assistant help if necessary, study his circuit and his procedures and point out his mistakes. Make sure you have references to back up what you say.
He has asked several questions. So why not start asking some in return, but keep them relevant. He's an experimentalist, so stay focused on the experiment. Let's get things resolved.
I think you will find TK will admit to any errors he might have made. He may argue about procedure. After all he is a highly qualified and thorough researcher and he has his own ideas about how things should be done. Then again, he might just shut up and ignore you in the future.
I probably know TK better than most, and I have my own differences with the guy (if you do some digging on the Internet or just ask around in these forums, you will discover what some of our differences might be), but it does not have anything to do with his knowledge, competence, or the quality of his work. He is a multi-talented and very capable person.
Regards,
Overconfident
" witsend wrote:
Tinselkoala - I have no intention of answering any further posts. In truth I'm not sure that you wrote the last post as your standard of language is different to the previous. I think Gauss answered in your name. How do you do that? Do you share computers?"
So, there you have it. "My" 555 problem, according to her in another post, is "extraordinarily irrelevant".
Which says to me that she may have some cognitive difficulties--because the 555 problem completely invalidates the overunity claim, if the incorrect duty cycle figure goes into the calculations.
But she has refused, or dodged, all specific questions about the circuit.
She claims the batteries were car batteries--but the publications say they were 12 volt 20 Amp-hour rated--a far cry from a car battery around here.
She claims resonance and aperiodic oscillations--simultaneously.
She apparently does not understand that instrument readings sometimes are inaccurate, and some of her reported findings sound exactly like instrument artifacts, that I have reproduced in her circuit with my Fluke 199 ScopeMeter. But no scope traces from her experiments, showing the "aperiodic resonance", seem to exist. And, of course, NOBODY using a short duty cycle has seen heating of their load, nor have there been any reports of resonance or especially simultaneous aperiodic oscillations with resonance.
Now, I've tried to play nice here. Anybody reading my posts, who is familiar with me, like 0c, can tell you that I am being quite polite and restrained, compared to my usual response to bullshit. But seeing the flack I am getting, from people who cannot even be arsed to assemble seven dollars worth of components to see how they behave...that's starting to piss me off.
And I am coming to the conclusion that Rosemary Ainslie is another one of a type that we know all too well. She's got a theory, and refuses to be distracted by facts, and whoever challenges the theory, based on correct experimentation, is by definition part of the suppression conspiracy and is evil. Never mind the new experimentation that shows that the original data from which the theory was derived is wrong... it is extraordinarily irrelevant.
A lot of us are watching the progress from the sidelines, and trying to stay out of the way.
Having said that, please do continue without letting feelings of exasperation get in the way of the development of this discussion.
As long as one maintains a respectful level of decorum toward others, things will unfold with the best possible outcome for all concerned.
Remember, its not how you feel...its how you look.
As you were.
Regards...
I like that, it's not how you feel it's how you look. That's a good saying.
Fortunately nobody can see me...
:D
But you are right--I even sort of feel like this might be some kind of deliberate trap to get me to commit to a position that is designed-in to be wrong. That's why I really really want somebody else to build the circuit, from the Quantum diagram or Groundloop's cleaned up version, to confirm or reject what I (believe I) have found. I find it really strange that the believers haven't come out and put me down by showing my build is incorrect. Unless, of course...they have built it and know I'm right.
But research continues:
Today I got hold of two each 12 volt 20 Amp-hour batteries, Ritar RT 12200, brand new and fully charged to 12.8 volts no-load. They do make a difference in the Ainslie circuit. The input current (voltage drop across the 0.25 ohm resistor, point B in the diagram) looks pretty much the same, but the load voltage (point A) doesn't sag nearly as much as it did with my old worn out 2 A-h batteries (duh...) and there's a lot more power in the inductive spikes--both of which makes it harder to notice the inverted duty cycle. In fact, if you are just looking at the inductive ringdown spike at high time magnification, you don't even notice the difference between the FG 3.7 percent duty cycle and the 555 96.3 percent duty cycle. But the load sure notices--when the unit is running on the true 3.7 percent from the FG, the load does not heat up noticeably over the time period tested. But when it's switched to the 555 , the nearly 100 percent ON mosfet causes the load to heat up fast.
Again, with the stronger batteries, the inverted duty cycle is harder to detect on the oscilloscopes, but it still has full effect wrt heating the load. No heating of load at short (FG) duty cycles, ample heating of load in line with Ainslie's reported heating with long (555, Ainslie circuit) duty cycles.
I still don't detect resonant phenomena or non-periodic waveforms, at any gain or duty cycle settings, in the frequency range available from the 555 timer. But I can certainly make the Fluke 199 ScopeMeter go psychotic and report all kinds of things that aren't really happening.
The inductive spikes and the nice ringdown at the trailing edge (going off edge) do not depend at all on duty cycle. I can vary the FG cycle from zero on to zero off, full range, and one doesn't even see it affecting this portion of the waveform. And within the frequency range of the 555 timer, freq doesn't affect it either. This is because this spike doesn't have anything to do with the freq or duty cycle!!! It is a result of the rapid switching off of the load, allowing the stored energy to slosh back and forth between inductances and capacitances until it's lost to Joule heating. As long as the edges of the gate drive pulse are reasonably square, it doesn't matter the freq or duty cycle, the mosfet will switch more or less cleanly and the inductive spike and ringdown will occur.
Some really interesting spikes can be observed on the output (load, point A) when the main 24 volt batterypack is Disconnected Completely and the circuit is allowed to run just on the FG or 555 timer input. To me, these are more interesting than the powered spikes. But of course these do not heat the load, they represent only milliwatts of power leaking past the mosfet.
Now, it would help me immensely if I could access the report on the Ainslie tests from the ABB laboratory in North Carolina. Has this information been made available, and where can I see it?
Thanks, friends.
--TK
Tk
Thats a very good question ,If Rosemary payed for the tests she owns them
Chet
Rosemary didn't pay
Hello RAMSET - I was never given the results of any of the tests conducted by those accreditors. It was not from want of trying. But I was given their permission to use their names as accreditors in the Quantum article. The reason we simply used that precise experiment for the paper submitted to the IET was to reference their names. I do have the report for BP because we had to conduct those experiments on battey duration. But the context of that report is just on the effect as it relates to battery delivery - and it has got to be the single most boring exercise in all of history. It's object impeccable - but the testing exhausting.
I think the truth is that these companies allocate a certain amount of funding to research. And having found their answers they do not make it public. Presumbaly having paid for their own lab time they rightly regard the results as being their property - or their company's property. We did try and get the results - but failed - miserably.
OK, I have more data.
I have for the moment stopped using the 555 timer circuit, giving Ainslie the benefit of the doubt, as they say, and so I'm just trying to examine the behaviour of the circuit at a true 3.7 percent ON gate drive cycle.
(This is not to say that the 555 issue is unimportant or that it is resolved--I still see a big problem here.)
I've been testing using the new batteries I obtained, the 12V20Ah ones, and I can report that I have finally gotten substantial heating in the load, but still not of the magnitude Rosemary has reported.
This set of data is very much "pilot experiment" stuff--the numbers are rough estimates from my reading of my analog oscilloscopes. (I have the Fluke 199 here and will be comparing its numbers later.)
Running from the FG at 3.7 percent ON and 2.4 kHz, 12 ohm load.
Looking at the input scope trace and calling the top of the flat part of the pulse the instantaneous voltage drop across the 0.25 ohm shunt, ignoring the spikes and whatnot, and figuring in the duty cycle, I get around 1.1 watt average input power. That's around 0.3 volts drop across 0.25 ohms for 3.7 percent of the time at 25 volts battery supply.
This produced heating in the load that went from 28 degrees at 0 minutes, up to 37 degrees at 37 minutes, and remained at 37 degrees until 60 minutes when the power was disconnected and the system allowed to cool down. Load temp returned to 26 degrees at 24 minutes after shutdown.
I was surprised to see this much heating from a measly 1.1 watts input. It's not the 50 degrees above ambient that Ainslie saw but it's not negligible.
Now, the control experiment. I found Ainslie's control experiment to be kind of backwards. She used an adjustable power supply to achieve the same temperature in the load, and then used the voltage and current settings of the supply to calculate the instantaneous power (and for DC that's the same as average power) needed to maintain the load at that temperature, and then looked at a long time period.
I'll do it that way too, but for now, I think the more appropriate measure is to supply the same DC power to the load, as the circuit does in the experiment, and see how warm the load gets. I think the rate of temperature rise is more important than the eventual stable temperature, but that's just my impression at this point.
So I used a regulated, current-limited supply -- unfortunately not quite powerful enough to give the necessary 3.6 volts, 0.3 A in the load to make the full 1.1 watts -- my supply maxxed out at 0.25 A at 3 volts, for an average power of 0.75 watts in the load.
This, too, produced a surprising amount of heat in the load. From 27 degrees at 0 minutes, the load rose to 33 degrees at 21 minutes, and at 60 minutes was at 34 degrees.
Meanwhile ambient temp in the room dropped from 22 degrees at the start to 21 degrees at the end.
OK, to reiterate: The Ainslie circuit supplied 1.1 watts average to the load and the load stabilized at 37 degrees.
A regulated DC source supplying 0.75 watts to the load caused the load to stabilize at 33 degrees.
I'll have to graph the power vs. time curves to approximate the energy, but it sure doesn't look like I've gotten anywhere near COP>17, or even overunity, yet.
But at least I am somewhat closer to getting the Ainslie numbers. The "eyeball" method almost certainly underestimates the input power, but if conditions warrant I can pull out some "big guns" here and get much more precise input power measurements. Not with what I've got at home!!
Still seeing nothing like "aperiodic resonance".
Now if someone will only send me a couple of IRFPG50 MOSFETs...
;)
(There sure are a lot of 37's, aren't there? But that's what the numbers say...)
I'll also post this over there...
Quote from: ramset on July 04, 2009, 09:22:23 AM
Rosemary didn't pay
Hello RAMSET - I was never given the results of any of the tests conducted by those accreditors. It was not from want of trying. But I was given their permission to use their names as accreditors in the Quantum article. The reason we simply used that precise experiment for the paper submitted to the IET was to reference their names. I do have the report for BP because we had to conduct those experiments on battey duration. But the context of that report is just on the effect as it relates to battery delivery - and it has got to be the single most boring exercise in all of history. It's object impeccable - but the testing exhausting.
I think the truth is that these companies allocate a certain amount of funding to research. And having found their answers they do not make it public. Presumbaly having paid for their own lab time they rightly regard the results as being their property - or their company's property. We did try and get the results - but failed - miserably.
I'm afraid I don't understand this. She continues to cite the ABB test as a replication and confirmation--but now it appears that they wouldn't give a report at all??? So how can she cite them as confirmation?
Here's the citation from the EIT paper:
"ABB Electric Systems Technology Institute in North Carolina who conducted
independent tests. Here tests were confined to the evaluation of instantaneous
power delivered simultaneously by the battery supply source and dissipated in
the load. Measurements were enabled through the use of four channel
oscilloscopes."
The implication is that they verified the input and output calculations.
But now we are allowed to know that they may have "evaluated", but since no report was issued we cannot know if the Ainslie measurements were validated or not.
Now I'm really getting burned up. The Queen is not even reading my posts, evidently, and is either distorting or simply lying about what she thinks she has read.
"Inverted position of my probes?" Look again, Rosemary. They are EXACTLY positioned as in the Quantum paper and the EIT paper.
"Fluke 123?" WTF? Rosemary, your published documents say you used a Fluke 199, and I have this one sitting right here and I have compared its readings to my 2 analog scopes, the Tek and the Philips.
"Armaged's challenge for me to build the 555 circuit?? " AGAIN, I seem to be the only one to actually build the circuit published by Ainslie. INCLUDING the 555 circuit, which can be seen in the video and the photograph. Where's Ainslie's video and photograph?
There is a lot of abuse directed towards me on that forum. At least you would think they could come up with something TRUE, instead of lies and distortions and assumptions.
I'm reposting this here, because as things go, we all know that critical posts tend to dissappear down the memory hole...
Rosemary's comments quoted, my replies interspersed:
"I'm not sure that the question of TinselKoala can be entirely dropped. I remain deeply concerned that the representation of a 90% duty cycle is only achieved through the inverted position of his probes. "
My probes are not inverted. They are positioned exactly as in your publications.
"If so, then he is laughing at us from many, many different levels. "
Nobody's laughing, Rosemary. We are trying to get to the truth.
"And the fact that he shows this in conjunction with the entire depletion of two x 24 volt batteries in the space of 10 minutes from the current flow at it's max of 2 amps - simply adds to that concern. "
Clearly you haven't bothered to read my "huge chapters."
"I would also add that Oppenheimer would not allow a single sceptic on his team. "
Are you comparing yourself to Oppenheimer?
"And I would also point out that he is posting huge chapters from his previous forum. "
For the record. Which, evidently, nobody bothers to read before they begin criticizing.
"I can never work out the motives of such people. The idea of an actual conspiracy still seems a little bazaar. One would assume that he would then be richly rewarded."
This is not even worthy of comment.
" Seems that he even has difficulty getting hold of a Fluke 123."
Fluke 123? Your papers that I am addressing say you are using a Fluke 199 ScopeMeter, which I have sitting right next to my Philips and Tek analog scopes. And I also have available to me at least 12 other sophisticated oscilloscopes, as well as a lot of other instrumentation. I have barely begun my analysis of your work, Rosemary. I am prepared to put the whole circuit inside the world's most sophisticated civilian calorimeter system if I have to.
" His compensations for killing this thread should then, at its least, deserve a tektronix or somesuch. I just don't know. "
Yes, you just don't know.
"Also at issue is the fact that he never explains how he establishes, or actually measures, the energy delivered by the battery. It needs to be done with some transparent reference to the waveform across the shunt including the sum of both parts of that duty cycle."
I am using standard techniques: I compute the instantaneous power waveform using the instantaneous voltage and current signals, and then I integrate that power waveform over an appropriate time period.
" If he is using a simple current meter then it is also - quite simply - wrong. I'm afraid I really do need to address this point - over and over - as his contributions are likely to become highly counter productive. "
Straw man. Do you see a simple current meter in my experimental setup?
"I think Armagdn03's final challenge to let him build his own 555 is appropriate."
Which "him?" What "challenge?" The circuit that you published is right there in black and white. Certainly anybody can build it. When I first did, and discovered that the timer portion behaves as it does, the first thing I suspected was that I had made a mistake, so I built the circuit again, twice, and I asked others to build it--over and over I asked for others to build it. I'm still asking...
But if you would bother to read what you are criticizing, you will see that I have abandoned your published 555 circuit and am using my function generator exclusively.
TK...it is clear by what is written that you are being trolled...albeit from someone with a technical background.
I get the impression that you are dealing with a male...possibly oriental, judging from the word combinations and the usage and application of various phrases.
The assertions directed your way could very well be accurate if turned in the direction of origin.
Regards...
TK, all.
The EIT paper and the Quantum article are at odds regarding the flyback diode. The latter does not use one.
Is it used or not?
.99
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 05, 2009, 12:23:22 PM
Now I'm really getting burned up. The Queen is not even reading my posts, evidently, and is either distorting or simply lying about what she thinks she has read.
There is a lot of abuse directed towards me on that forum. At least you would think they could come up with something TRUE, instead of lies and distortions and assumptions.
Hey TK,
Saw this you must have missed .......
http://www.energeticforum.com/59039-post185.html
QuoteTinselkoala - I have no intention of answering any further posts. In truth I'm not sure that you wrote the last post as your standard of language is different to the previous. I think Gauss answered in your name. How do you do that? Do you share computers?
Quote from: poynt99 on July 05, 2009, 02:32:49 PM
The EIT paper and the Quantum article are at odds regarding the flyback diode.
Which is the EIT paper? Link please.
Quote from: 0c on July 05, 2009, 02:51:10 PM
Which is the EIT paper? Link please.
Hmmm---this is the Quantum article:
http://www.feelthevibe.com/free_energy/rosemary_ainslie/transient_energy.pdf
And this is the EIT paper:
http://dc147.4shared.com/download/110716349/15cc31e0/EIT_paper.pdf
Is it possible that there are two versions of the Quantum article circuit diagram? I see the inconsistency for sure, now that it's pointed out to me. I wonder if I have stuck my foot in my mouth bigtime??
I'm going to have to cancel my evening plans and go back to the breadboard, it seems.
I used the EIT paper at first, building for the FG input as shown, then I built the 555 circuit from the GroundLoop diagram and simply inserted it into the EIT circuit in place of the FG, using a separate battery supply for the 555 portion. Now I can see that this might not be equivalent to the Quantum circuit in the link.
So it appears that I have been testing a hybrid, of sorts, of the EIT and the Quantum circuits. Although lately I have not been using the 555 at all, just the FG.
I will have to do some exploration and experimentation to see if it makes a difference.
So there is still a question: The EIT paper and the Quantum article appear to be reporting the exact same experiment. So I'd still like to know what the correct circuit was, that was used in the experiment.
Meanwhile, thank you so much for poynting this out, poynt99. It might mean that my rep is about to be totally shot down...
???
All right, I've looked carefully at the Quantum article diagram, yet again.
It seems that the flyback diode is simply left out, or not mentioned, or something.
In the parts list the 1n4007 appears, and it's shown in the EIT paper across the load, and it's mentioned in that paper...in the Quantum diagram there's no diode across the load, and there's an unlabelled diode in the 555 Vcc line--in Groundloop's cleaned up version this is listed as 1n4148 like the other two, so that's what I used here...
I don't think this re-inverts the duty cycle like I was afraid of, but it's easy enough to check.
The only difference is the presence or absence of the flyback diode. I've already tested several in this position, but DUH, I didn't think to test "no diode" here.
And the beat goes on...
I don't think the flyback diode is going to change the duty cycle, and as you can see I have verified that Ainslie and her crew have indeed inverted their calculations.
Next is to see if I can get the FET to oscillate, but will check out the wave form with a flyback as well.
.99
I wasn't able to get the MOSFET to oscillate (no surprise eh TK? ;) ).
I tired the full range of the 100 Ohm Gate resistor and even added some stray inductance in the Gate and Source, still no oscillation. With the MOSFET in saturation 96% of the time it's probably no wonder it won't oscillate. So for fun I drove the MOSFET separately from a square wave with 3.7% duty cycle and still could not elicit any oscillation.
The effect of the flyback diode really just cleans up the pulses a bit, for either case, 3.7% or 96%. There is no substantial flyback present below 0V as Ainslie mentions. Apparently this is where her circuit gains come from, but in my case there is very little and only without the diode in place.
I think at this point it would be necessary to see a picture of the actual built circuit used for their testing. Poor circuit construction can play a large part in how circuits behave, particularly with high current pulsing type circuits. Was a cheap breadboard used perhaps, long wires, etc?
Also, after reading Ainslie's posts at energeticforum, I'm beginning to get the feeling that she doesn't possess the technical prowess to really defend against TK's points, and this by her own admission. Why then is she lashing out at anyone that questions the accuracy of her reports ??? Human nature.
.99
99
Rosemary has some fellow Donavon [I think] that is her "expert"
He's supposed to be showing up to help out
Chet
@99: Thank you so much for doing that. I was afraid for a while that I was going nutzo. Not that that would be bad, necessarily...
Do you mind if I post a link over there to this post, so those with eyes to see can take a look?
(Now, she is presuming to teach me how to use and read an oscilloscope... :D )
EDIT: I really don't like the "tone" she is taking with me. This is starting to get a bit personal, and I will be happy to pull out the "big guns" of accurate calorimetry to blow her out of the water. There's the matter of the patent applications...which in her mind seem to have the status of "patents"...and the supposed confirmations by independent labs, which turn out to be no such thing....and of course the Quantum circuit, which simply turns the mosfet ON and heats the load through simple Joule heating from the current conduction...
I suppose arrogance is a necessary concomitant of prevarication and mendacity, if one wants to enhance seeming credibility among the credulous. But it's the arrogant liers that are the worst, because they will never never admit that they are wrong and have been shovelling you a line of bs.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 05, 2009, 10:26:13 PM
@99: Thank you so much for doing that. I was afraid for a while that I was going nutzo. Not that that would be bad, necessarily...
Do you mind if I post a link over there to this post, so those with eyes to see can take a look?
Sure. I don't mind.
What might have caught them: If you look at the MOSFET Drain with the scope referenced to ground, the wave form will look like a 3.7% duty cycle. But in reality it looks that way because the MOSFET is pulling the coil down to ground, 96% of the time. After all, the MOSFET is connected as an INVERTER :o
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on July 05, 2009, 11:16:58 PM
Sure. I don't mind.
What might have caught them: If you look at the MOSFET Drain with the scope referenced to ground, the wave form will look like a 3.7% duty cycle. But in reality it looks that way because the MOSFET is pulling the coil down to ground, 96% of the time. After all, the MOSFET is connected as an INVERTER :o
.99
Thanks.
Yep, as I explained in one of the videos, when the voltage at her monitoring point "A" goes HIGH (to battery voltage positive rail) , that means the MOSFET is OFF. And her circuit turns the mosfet OFF in the range of about 1 to 10 percent of the time. It cannot be adjusted to turn the MOSFET ON for a short duty cycle, with the component values given, as you've confirmed.
Again, I really appreciate your taking a look at this. I posted a link, but I'm pretty sure it won't do any good.
I would like to get on with testing the main OU claim. My results so far, using a 3.7 percent duty cycle and tuning the gate drive for maximum ringdown weirdness (where the battery-monitoring voltmeter goes crazy from the spikes returning on the input), I get heating of the load that seems similar to what is reported in the Quantum article and the paper. So my main beef is with the published diagram, not the data itself. It seems that a true 3.7 percent duty cycle can heat the load, with a similar profile to what Ainslie claimed.
BUT--my control experiment, which used the very same load resistor-inductor, and a DC current-limited source supplying the same average power as was given to the load in the experimental condition (about 1.1 watts, in line with Ainslie's number)--the control experiment causes almost exactly the same heating. So I am not detecting anything like COP>17. Not even COP>1, at this point. But the mosfet gets pretty warm too, and after all, I still don't have the IRFPG50 to play with.
There seemed to be another feature to her circuit.
Was it not mentioned that the batteries lasted a long time, considering the amount of heat produced?
I'm a newbie, but I suppose with a 3.7% duty cycle, your batteries are supposed to last a while? Yet, if the inverted duty cycle is the actual case, how long could her batteries be expected last?
Quote from: Cloxxki on July 06, 2009, 02:24:08 AM
There seemed to be another feature to her circuit.
Was it not mentioned that the batteries lasted a long time, considering the amount of heat produced?
I'm a newbie, but I suppose with a 3.7% duty cycle, your batteries are supposed to last a while? Yet, if the inverted duty cycle is the actual case, how long could her batteries be expected last?
Well, that's a question, isn't it? In the EIT paper she says the batteries were 12 volt, 20 Amp-hour rated. In the discussion thread where she is posting now, she says they were "car batteries", which are usually in the range 80-100 Amp-hours, and could even be as high as 200 Amp-hours.
So, I got two brand new 12V 20 A-h batteries, charged them fully with an 8-amp automotive "automatic" battery charger, and running the experiment over 4 hours continuously at 3.7 percent, the no-load voltage of the pair is still 25.4 volts. (It was 25.6 when charging was complete.)
It will take a long time for the batteries to deplete noticeably. The current drain is about 1.2 amps when ON, so figuring 25 volts x 1.2 amps that's 30 watts when ON, and on for 3.7 percent of the time that's about 1.1 watts average. They will go a long time before there's much of a voltage drop below 24 volts. Ten days? Maybe.
I don't think the reported experiment was done with the long duty cycle that the circuit produces, because of mosfet heating. And my load gets well over 110 degrees C when run with good batteries at long duty cycles. But even making 30 watts continuously, the batteries will last a long time. Many hours.
There are so many inconsistencies popping up in what's been reported that I'm not sure what to think. Ainslie isn't giving any actual information, if you look at her posts. She's engaging in theoretical discussions and ad hom attacks against me but isn't answering any actual questions about the circuit or the experiment.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 03, 2009, 04:56:04 PM
Now, I've tried to play nice here. Anybody reading my posts, who is familiar with me, like 0c, can tell you that I am being quite polite and restrained, compared to my usual response to bullshit. But seeing the flack I am getting, from people who cannot even be arsed to assemble seven dollars worth of components to see how they behave...that's starting to piss me off.
you get that $10 fet yet? or are you a hypocrite?
@poynt99
what fet did you use? the same as tk? or the right one?
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 06, 2009, 03:31:02 AM
you get that $10 fet yet? or are you a hypocrite?
@poynt99
what fet did you use? the same as tk? or the right one?
As I have explained several times, my local suppliers do not stock them, and I would have to order a minimum of 10. I don't need these expensive transistors in order to prove that Ainslie's circuit does not produce 17 times more energy out than in.
And I have also offered to test any transistor anybody would care to send me.
And the fet used by poynt99 is specified right there on the circuit he made, and if you would learn to read instead of troll you might be able to see it.
I've not been reading Tk for too long, he does strike me as extremely friendly and patient by his standard as I (limitedly) got to know them :-)
Good job though, friendliness is one of the strongest weapons, and it's FREE.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 06, 2009, 04:08:27 AM
As I have explained several times, my local suppliers do not stock them, and I would have to order a minimum of 10. I don't need these expensive transistors in order to prove that Ainslie's circuit does not produce 17 times more energy out than in.
And I have also offered to test any transistor anybody would care to send me.
And the fet used by poynt99 is specified right there on the circuit he made, and if you would learn to read instead of troll you might be able to see it.
re: your first paragraph. ie:more tk BS
http://cgi.ebay.com/IRFPG50_W0QQitemZ370108354282QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item562c2d4eea&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262&_trkparms=%7C293%3A10%7C294%3A30
look, $4! gasp! and if you would learn to use the web for something other than being a tick, you might be able to find a single IRFPG50 fet for half of what you claim they cost.
re: your second paragraph. it was a rhetorical question, more of another poke at you to get the right one. obviously...
edit: i'm curious though, and feel free to jump to the conclusion that ainslie is my new hero. how much did you spend on those "brand new" 20ah batteries?
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 06, 2009, 03:31:02 AM
you get that $10 fet yet? or are you a hypocrite?
@poynt99
what fet did you use? the same as tk? or the right one?
I used the IRFPG50 as noted on the diagram. You may not have noticed, but this circuit was modeled and simulated. Mainly I wanted to confirm the duty cycle, which I did.
Most component models are pretty good if one knows how to use them, but I didn't expect the MOSFET to oscillate. I wouldn't be surprised mind you if it did, as PSpice has impressed me with it's accuracy many times over the years I have been using it.
The IRFPG50 has a relatively high gain, but also a high input capacitance. Probably why it likes to oscillate in the low 100's of kHz. I tried 1000 Ohms in the Gate and no oscillation. Again, the model may not be 100% correct, but I will look into using perhaps the small signal model instead of the large signal one. This might do it.
.99
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 06, 2009, 06:22:27 AM
re: your first paragraph. ie:more tk BS
http://cgi.ebay.com/IRFPG50_W0QQitemZ370108354282QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item562c2d4eea&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262&_trkparms=%7C293%3A10%7C294%3A30
look, $4! gasp! and if you would learn to use the web for something other than being a tick, you might be able to find a single IRFPG50 fet for half of what you claim they cost.
re: your second paragraph. it was a rhetorical question, more of another poke at you to get the right one. obviously...
edit: i'm curious though, and feel free to jump to the conclusion that ainslie is my new hero. how much did you spend on those "brand new" 20ah batteries?
Well, clearly you have the ability to order your own parts and build your own circuit, since you can use a web catalog. Oh, wait--using the catalog only requires a single finger for typing. Actually building something requires opposable thumbs.
If you want to buy that from ebay and send it to me, I'll deduct the cost from the bill I send you for the consulting work.
And the batteries cost "somebody" seventy-six dollars each. But I just had to walk around the building to get them.
Now, from your elevated pulpit, can you read me the gospel chapter on how the choice of any particular N-channel mosfet would make a likety-split of difference in the duty cycle issue? And why do you care so much anyway? Why don't you go attack her, there are a LOT more holes in her story than you will ever find in mine.
Zipons! Hah!
Quote from: poynt99 on July 06, 2009, 08:37:24 AM
I used the IRFPG50 as noted on the diagram. You may not have noticed, but this circuit was modeled and simulated. Mainly I wanted to confirm the duty cycle, which I did.
Most component models are pretty good if one knows how to use them, but I didn't expect the MOSFET to oscillate. I wouldn't be surprised mind you if it did, as PSpice has impressed me with it's accuracy many times over the years I have been using it.
The IRFPG50 has a relatively high gain, but also a high input capacitance. Probably why it likes to oscillate in the low 100's of kHz. I tried 1000 Ohms in the Gate and no oscillation. Again, the model may not be 100% correct, but I will look into using perhaps the small signal model instead of the large signal one. This might do it.
.99
Hey, .99, could you stick a 2SK1548 in the model and see if you see any real difference? I'd also like to know if adding a little external capacitance to the 2sk is predicted to make any difference.
Of course, "Wilby won't be" happy until I find the exact same circuit board material that Ainslie used and run the experiment in the southern hemisphere. Since those things clearly make a huge difference--after all, hers works and mine doesn't. So clearly the fault must be in my construction or location.
No, wait...we don't know if hers works or not, since we don't have any real idea WHAT THE RIGHT CIRCUIT IS, and she won't tell us. All we really know is that nobody anywhere, working from the information she provides, has gotten any overunity performance...no matter what MOSFET or batteries they used.
I've been using a 200 K pot to vary the gate; the mosfet behaves interestingly only when the gate input resistance is very very low. Like at zero ohms. Otherwise the pot works just like a gain control. Duh. Using the 100 ohm pot here is incomprehensible to me as it has almost no effect on the circuit. This is another discrepancy in the Quantum circuit that needs explanation.
All
Something else "Very Good' is happening this week.[in regard to this circuit]
S.Roksund
I am a Novice member in this forum, but a retired electronic engineer with some 35 years of experience. I take the chance that my posting is a little bit beside what is discussed in this tread.
In the last one and a half year or so I have done research on capturing energy from the inductive back spike from transformers. I use my own kind of circuit and use a microcomputer to control the switches. Experimentally I have several times â€" and with different duty cycles - obtained 2 - 5 times electrical energy output relative to the input.
I have read a lot in this forum and other forums - of similar circuits to the Rosemary Ainslies, and I am worried of the fact that she and Peter Kevin ASHBY has obtained a patent on a circuit which seem to operate in similar - or quite similar ways, that many other publizised circuits do. In my oppinion it should not be possible to get a patent on a system or circuit that have been discussed openly for such a long time.
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #94 on: June 30, 2009, 08:12:09 PM »
* Reply with quoteQuote
It is good if no patent has been issued.
I will post my electronic schema and a component list - as
well as the measurement methods I have used, here in this forum.
My intention is that someone (hopefully) will make a replicate and test.
When I get the circuit and measurements confirmed, I will start making
units that can be tested in practice - before I start the production.
If all fails, - well it has been exciting all the way, and I have learnt a lot.
I am leaving to celebrate my mother (98), so no posting until next week.
Rgds
Sigvald
Happy Birthday, Sigvald's Mom!!
:)
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 06, 2009, 10:04:49 AM
Well, clearly you have the ability to order your own parts and build your own circuit, since you can use a web catalog. Oh, wait--using the catalog only requires a single finger for typing. Actually building something requires opposable thumbs.
If you want to buy that from ebay and send it to me, I'll deduct the cost from the bill I send you for the consulting work.
And the batteries cost "somebody" seventy-six dollars each. But I just had to walk around the building to get them.
Now, from your elevated pulpit, can you read me the gospel chapter on how the choice of any particular N-channel mosfet would make a likety-split of difference in the duty cycle issue? And why do you care so much anyway? Why don't you go attack her, there are a LOT more holes in her story than you will ever find in mine.
Zipons! Hah!
well, you clearly have the ability to make BS up on the spot and then misdirect and obfuscate when called on it... i am assuming $4! is still "expensive" for you then? or is it that ebay is as difficult for you to use as google? or do you just like posting outright falsehoods as justification for doing it wrong?
send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum.
building "something" may or may not require opposable thumbs. from your elevated pulpit do let us know when you get around to building it "right"...
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 06, 2009, 01:35:22 PM
well, you clearly have the ability to make BS up on the spot and then misdirect and obfuscate when called on it... i am assuming $4! is still "expensive" for you then? or is it that ebay is as difficult for you to use as google? or do you just like posting outright falsehoods as justification for doing it wrong?
send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum.
building "something" may or may not require opposable thumbs. from your elevated pulpit do let us know when you get around to building it "right"...
He is not being paid to do any of this, and you are not paying to have it done, so your level of agitation is somewhat comical.
Sorry TK,
I could not find a 2SK1548 model in PSpice. The closest part number was a 2SK1544, and it is quite a different animal by the looks of it.
I've just done some more reading over at the other forum, and also in the EIT paper, and I am almost in disbelief :o There is such a comedy of errors now from Ainslie herself, her co-author Donovan, and the guy that apparently designed the 555 circuit and wrote the Quantum article, that I don't know where to begin.
Perhaps it's best I don't ;D
.99
Hello poynt99, hello TK
I agree on your statement "Perhaps it's best I don't".
Now this guy Donovan either shows a total lack of electronic knowledge or he ist just poking fun on gullible members in this forum.
He makes the members believe that you can regain most of the E_mag-Energy in a coil by a flybackdiode and at the same time have all the termal energy generated by the same current available. It does not occur to him by this oversimplified example he presents that energy-balance demands E_in = E_mag + E-thermal. So for me this discussion over there develops into a comedy-show. It is very obvious that this Donovan is just an invention of Rosemary... if this person Rosemary ever exists as such in the first place
This thing is the worst desinformation-activity of a special desinfo-group I have seen up to now.
Waste of time
Regards
Kator01
Quite a change of tune (and tone) over at the other forum now.
It's pretty much self-explanatory.
.99
A question put to Rosemary
. As soon as the Mosfet switches OFF, the inductor will do all it can to preserve the flow of current that was already established through itself, and consequently, the rest of the circuit....But still, none of these conditions produces, nor necessitates, any reverse current flowing through the Mosfet (in the body diode).Altair
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok. I'm going to try and answer this. But I need to remind you all - all those that agree with Altair on this issue. I am an amateur. No-one taught me about electric current flow - and no-one taught me about the nature of inductors and their need to 'retain a directional flow in current'. It was entirely omittted from my frame of reference. From technicians all the way up to some highly qualified electrical engineers - many of whom are acknowledge experts in the art, those many who helped build or evaluate the circuit - never tried to teach me conventional current flow. And this was despite pretty constant discussion over a decade and many instances where I asked the question directly. It used to puzzle me - as I was anxious to learn this. I was looking for a common frame of reference. Then I realised that they were probably simply accommodating my view of this - precisely because it was different. Maybe, therefore it could possibly account for the anomalies that were evident in these results.
So, Altair, I need to impose on you to hear my view point. If it is wrong then the measured results will refute my analysis. But my lack of understanding conventional flow has never been addressed. You will note that my knowledge, such as it is, of conventional current flow eventully relied on my own research. It is in two earlier consecutive posts on page 6, (from memory) in this thread. And both argue that conventional current flow, based on a concept of the 'flow of electrons' is simply illogical. But having said that - I happen to be the 'beginner' here and you guys are just so much better trained and experienced. If I am wrong then it will very quickly be shown. In fact henieck was the first person who ever showed me that - at its least - it could be argued that 'free floating' electrons could be responsible for charge distribution between two terminals. But even that entirely contradicts Pauli's exclusion principle, based as it is on the argument that two electrons (charged particles from the lepton family) cannot 'share' the same path. While Pauli was referring to the an atom's energy levels - and we are here looking at a far grosser field of application - then perhaps this law too, needs to be modified.
This has been a remarkably extensive 'apologia' and I think it may well stress the tolerance of such as Dr Stiffler, so - apologies all round. But I feel it is really important that you know where I come in.
I'm going to post this - because I've found that long posts cannot be easily edited - and I may well need to do so. I'll continue in the next post.
2
As soon as the Mosfet switches OFF, the inductor will do all it can to preserve the flow of current that was already established through itself, and consequently, the rest of the circuit....But still, none of these conditions produces, nor necessitates, any reverse current flowing through the Mosfet (in the body diode).Altair
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm still trying to answer this question. So I've duplicated the reference. And as pointed out in the previous post my 'concept' of curent flow is not consistent with classical analysis. But as I do not understand classical concept I'm going to see if I can share my own.
To start with I need to refer to well known induction laws. In this, I think it was Farraday, established that changing magnetic fields induce electric fields. Then Maxwell argued and proved that changing electric fields also induce magnetic fields. But no-one to this day has found an electric field in a simple magnet on magnet interaction. Put two bar magnets together within a critical proximity and the one will attach to the other. That interaction shows an energetic movement of one or both magnets towards each other in space and over time - that, at its least, requires an energetic interaction. And - in that interaction - there is no evident manifestation of an electric field. It may, indeed, be hidden within the body of the magnet. But if it is there it has never been found. Now. I have discussed this point with acknowledged experts in the field - and, to a man - I have been assured that while the electric field has not been shown to exist in this magnet on magnet interaction - it is, nonetheless, assumed to exist. In fact I need to refer to a paper written on this but cannot, for the life of me, find it again. But there was an attempt at finding this field and the results were inconclusive. This also means that the lack of this electric field has been addressed. For some reason it has also apparently been put on hold - presumably in the hopes of finding a means of detecting it? I just don't know.
Well this is the first radical departure from known physics. In effect, if this magnet on magnet interaction - in fact manifests no electric field - then it may indicate that the magnetic force is an entirely independant field that is extant - as a newly identified and independant force - like gravity - or the strong nuclear force. And - in this way - the electromagnetic force may simply be a secondary force, relying, in its essential definition, on the existence of that primary field. That was the foundational basis of the field model.
I wont bore you with the tedious deductions that led to the field model except to reference one single effect that I have found resonates with most people. But I'll reference it in the next post - again, because I have found that I cannot edit my posts if they're too long. Apologies to Aaron if this, in fact, is not allowed.
3
As soon as the Mosfet switches OFF, the inductor will do all it can to preserve the flow of current that was already established through itself, and consequently, the rest of the circuit....But still, none of these conditions produces, nor necessitates, any reverse current flowing through the Mosfet (in the body diode).Altair
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's the thing. Imagine that one has a machine that propels rocks in a vacuum. And it always applies a constant force so there are no extraneous forces to take into account. Under those circumstances then the smaller the rock the further the throw and vice versa. But if the rock were too big the machine could not lift it. And if it were too small the machine could not detect it. That's a boundary constraint.
(By the way there is an inverse proportional relationship suggested between velocity and mass - in that interaction. It is not required to answer Altair's quesion but I will refer to it in due course. It may possibly interest Armagdn03.)
The second point is this. All things are the sum of their parts. If we were to grind down a rock to its finest parts we'd find collections of atoms and molecules that formed the amalagam of the rock in its earlier bound state.
That's my definition of a principle of correspondence.
These were the tools that I used to determine the properties of a magnetic field. Again - just to get to the nub and to exclude the tedious dialectic that requires it I'll just deal with the conclusions.
My proposal is that magnetic fields comprise particles. They are too small and too fast for light to detect the particle. In effect they are outside the boundary constraints of light itself. They are magnetic dipoles that attach - north to south - head to toe. They form long strings that eventually close in on themselves to form circles. The whole field comprises many, many such strings to form the shape of a toroid. The particle, being a magnetic dipole, continually adjusts its position to its neighbouring dipoles in the field. This necessitates a compelementary movement of every particle in that entire field. This gives the field a fixed justification or direction. The force of the entire field maintains that direction. The particle is referred to as a zipon. It has a velocity of 2c and its mass is half that of a photon. All particles are composites of this zipon. The charge of the whole field is perfectly neutral and the zipons move to maintain that neutrality. Therefore each part of the entire field is perfectly balanced with every other part to produce a net zero charge.
In a simple bar magnet that symmetry is broken because one half of the orbit is shielded from the other half.
4a
As soon as the Mosfet switches OFF, the inductor will do all it can to preserve the flow of current that was already established through itself, and consequently, the rest of the circuit....But still, none of these conditions produces, nor necessitates, any reverse current flowing through the Mosfet (in the body diode).Altair
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Still the same question - but still the circuitous path (no pun intended) to answer it. Hope this is all readable and understandable. Anyway - fingers crossed and I'll plod on in the real knowledge that I'm taxing your patience. It is just that I SO need to make these points and hopefully to make them clearly. The arguments have been laboriously covered in my field model. That's where the actual dialectic comes in. But this, at its least, may serve as a synopsis.
So. The next point is purely hypothetical. Imagine that the universe comprises a backdrop of these magnetic fields. What if all of space comprises these little undetectable zipons that move around at twice light speed but always maintain that perfect charge distribution. They are entirely undetectable yet their force is - in fact - in every nook and cranny of the universe. Because the strings join - the influence on any part will be entirely consistent with the whole. Those strings would have to be really, really long, and really, really thin. And each string would have to move in 'lock step' with every other string. The outer strings would need to be longer than the inner - but the 'shoulder to shoulder' lateral arrangement of those strings would counter the distribution of charge and energy - that is makes for this required 'smoothness'. So. Hypothetically, this could be a fair description of the field - as a backdrop or a skeletal frame - to the condition of apparent vacuum of space. A really big toroid comprising an uncountable number of these tiny zipons. This, I think, may now occur to you as a possible source of both dark matter and dark energy required by our physicists.
But, in any event. Let's hypothesise further. What would happen if one of those strings broke?
4b
As soon as the Mosfet switches OFF, the inductor will do all it can to preserve the flow of current that was already established through itself, and consequently, the rest of the circuit....But still, none of these conditions produces, nor necessitates, any reverse current flowing through the Mosfet (in the body diode).Altair
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The last question was 'what would happen if one of those strings broke?' I'm not too concerned as to the cause. It could be due to the unfortunate juxtaposition of two like charges in a chance coincident positioning of two or more zipons. Or, as I've described it in my field model, perhaps God Himself simply snipped one of those threads. In any event - once out of the smooth structure of the field I imagine that the truants would lose velocity and gain mass in an inverse proportion. In other words they would 'slow down' to the speed of light and light, itself, would find the zipon. That change in its manifest nature is likened to, and indeed proposed as - the source of all nebulae in space. Just a lot of zipons that have tumbled out of nowhere to structure into huge piles of manifest zipons.
But, in its state out of the field I've referred to the zipon as a truant. It is still a magnetic dipole but it no longer has the cohesive and coherent condition that it expressed in the field. Just a mass of manifest truants that have tumbled together from the force of a broken string of zipons. Like a pile of sugar - or clouds from a nuclear explosion - or falling leaves from a tree in autumn - or iron filings from a lathe.
However for symmetry - while some truants may have slowed down, equally therefore some truants may have speeded up. Those that have increased their velocity would do it at the expense of their mass in direct opposition to the those that increased their mass at the expense of their velocity. The smaller truant is referred to as the antitruant. And because of the boundary constraint, the zipons in the field can find neither truant. The one is too big and the other is too small. In effect, both truants remain invisible to the field. The field simply closes ranks to compensate for that broken string and they continue their march, ever forward, entirely oblivious to the break in that string and to the loss of the string, to the field.
I want to refer to the next points in a single paragraph - with apologies to purists who would require a fuller description. Again, it is fully described in the field model itself. This is merely a synopsis relating to the conclusions of the model rather than to an account of the logic that precedes the conclusion.
Virtual particles are those particles that lose their mass - regain their velocity and slip back into a string in that background universal structure. Stable particles are those truants that 'link' with their antitruant across the field, the 'ground zero' so to speak or the great divide. The point being that in this movement towards each other brings their mass/velocity back into co-incidence with the field which means that they are no longer invisible to the field. They would then be moved - by the force of the field at that point that they interacted with each other. Therefore, the antitruant is also a quark - here defined as that truant that anchors a composite out of the field. And composite truants can only be stable if they comprise 2, 3 or 9 truants. All other composites between 4 to 8 would variously subdivide into 1, 2 or three composites. The model also determines that 2 composites comprise the photon, 3 the electron and 9 the proton. But I'll return to this point at a much later stage - when and if anyone wants a fuller explanation of the field model. Otherwise a fuller description is largely irrelevant. I think I've covered the more salient features as needed to answer Altair's question.
5a
I think I'm nearing the point where I can finally answer the question. Apologies for taxing everyone by telling them so much more than they may want to know. In any event. The end looms large. Please bear with me. And again to the purists, the following statements need to be argued. But, again, this is just an abbreviated, broad brush stroke account. It is more fully explained in that model.
The next point is this. The truants in that nebulus are still simply very small magnets and they do what all magnets do. They try to congregate in orderly formations. They cannot, however, re-constitute that string. Rather do they cohere or fuse into stable or virtual particles in a series of 'small steps' so to speak. The first amalgam is into photons and electrons. The second more complex step is into the structure of a proton which, with it, comes the first real closed system away from the nebulus and out of the field. But in the accretion or 'fusion' into this hydrogen atom - and really to satisfy the symmetries of 'charge distribution' - it is proposed that the creation of this atom is also accompanied by a field of zipons that decay from truants in the nebulus itself. It is proposed that these zipons form the energy levels or hydrogen lines that are measurably evident. It is these energy levels themselves that it is proposed, maintains the hydrogen atom as the first truly closed system away from the primary fields of the universe itself.
Then further accretion - and the hydrogen atom itself is massed with other hydrogen systematically generating the structure of a new star. However, the actual binding of those atoms and their energy levels is at the cost of yet more traunts and antitruants from that same nebulus. They form fields that circle that atomic structure - holding one atom hydrogen atom away from another. This is the point. The actual material of the star body is held together by an unseen binding force of zipons that decayed from the truants and antitruants to form a kind of glue. This first holds star amalgams together and then - on a more universal scale - all amalgams.
The proposal is, therefore, that in the visible evidence of any gross amalgam, be it battery acid, iron, rocks, whole mountains, buildings, whatever - the thing that actually binds such structures are always zipons. These fields circle the atoms and determine the kind of 'abodes' of such atoms and their alignments in chaotic or structured crystalline formations. We don't see them because they orbit. Therefore, regardless of their justification or direction, the field is neutral. And we cannot find them because their velocity exceeds light speed. They are, therefore, outside the boundary constraints of light itself.
The existence of this field is relevant because it is proposed that it is these fields that move as current in electric energy through circuit components. These same fields manifest as flame in 'fire' which I'll discuss later. I mention it here because it most easily illustrates this particle. But for now, it is just necessary to point to these fields, entirely extraneous to the atomic structure, that are responsible for ensuring the equal distribution of atoms within amalgams. If the atom's basic structure is ionised therefore requiring some equal distribution of charge through the positioning of those abodes - then these zipons align the atoms to achieve that balance.
So it is proposed that current flow is - in fact - the flow, not of electrons that are essentially of like charge and therefore mutually repellent - but of zipons that easily structure into plastic formations, can extend their influence through space, and can adjust their own and other atomic charge by the careful positioning of atoms - one against another and can move to realign molecules and atoms so that the charge distribution is better balanced.
5b
As soon as the Mosfet switches OFF, the inductor will do all it can to preserve the flow of current that was already established through itself, and consequently, the rest of the circuit....But still, none of these conditions produces, nor necessitates, any reverse current flowing through the Mosfet (in the body diode).Altair
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
So here's my take on current flow through the circuit. The material of the battery acid comprises ionised molecules and atoms that essentially have a like charge and are therefore mutually repellent. Between these molecules and atoms are fields of zipons that spin in the opposite direction to those molecules and atoms to counter the ionised condition of those atoms at the source. But having a like spin they themselves are mutually repellent - the one field to the other. Their object is to change their spin - realign this to accommodate their own mutual repulsion. And by so doing they then rearrange the abodes of those molecules and atoms at the source, thereby diminishing the effects of that like charge. In so doing they also diminish the potential difference at the source.
But they cannot simply change their orbits, any more than a flux field from a permanent magnet can change its orbit. However, if they move from one terminal to another they effectively describe an orbit. And then their re-introduction to the field in that amalgam can then also enable that required 'changed spin'. In effect they change their position in space. Just think of a bar magnet. It has to change it's actual physical position to adjust to another magnetic field. The same with these little fields. They also move through space by interacting with the inductive and conductive material of the circuit components themselves. That way they reach the opposite terminal with an opposite spin and can re-introduce themselves into the material at the source with an adjusted spin.
But they do not interact with anything in that circuit other than the circuit's own binding magnetic fields. The zipon is restricted to its own boundary constraint. Anything that moves at light speed is too big and too slow to be seen or detected. Matter iself is invisible to this particle. It simply only sees and only interacts with those binding fields because these binding magnetic fields are precisely the right velocity and mass to enable an interaction. And both the zipon particle and the field of zipons are always neutral. It is just the justification and direction of their spin that determines their charge.
Therefore with the full force of potential difference measured at the supply source, it can overwhelm these binding zipons in circuit components to move them out of the structure of the circuit material or interact with them to move themselves through the circuit. Their only object is to reach the opposite terminal in order to change their justification. And having changed this they also realign the molecules and atoms so that that they no longer repel each other. They simply realign their own spin as it relates to the atoms in the source amalgam. That way they diminish the potential difference of the source amalgam over time.
6
As soon as the Mosfet switches OFF, the inductor will do all it can to preserve the flow of current that was already established through itself, and consequently, the rest of the circuit....But still, none of these conditions produces, nor necessitates, any reverse current flowing through the Mosfet (in the body diode).Altair
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, finally, I think I can answer your question. The transfer of these fields through the circuit material is proposed to be at twice light speed. The extruded magnetic fields across the resistor is also therefore, instantaneous, with respect to our own time frame. The justification of that extruded magnetic field is determined by the applied potential difference from the source.
So. During that ON period of the duty cycle when the switch is open - these zipons from the battery supply source line up in fields through the circuit material and across the circuit itself to discharge at the opposite terminal. Let's call that justification or path - south/north. And the extruded fields from the resistor/inductor would then, correspondingly, be north/south.
When the switch is closed and the battery can no longer deliver any current, then the extruded fields collapse. Collapsing magnetic fields are simply magnetic fields changing in time. They induce a reversal in the voltage which is also a measure of the newly applied potential difference from the material of the resistor itself. Changing magnetic fields induce an electric field. The justification of the voltage has changed - say south/north so the resultant current will change, let's say north/south. Those same zipons that have not yet discharged at the terminal now do an 'about face' so to speak and move towards the postive terminal of the battery. Their justification is such that they then recharge the material at the source.
In effect, the fields have simply flowed in the reverse direction to recharge the material that they had previously intended to discharge. I don't mean, by the word 'intended' that they sat around and discussed the issue. Just that they are compelled to move in the direction of the applied potential difference. The applied potential difference during the off period of the duty cycle is in reverse to the on period.
The bias of the flyback and the body diode in the MOSFET enables this flow during the off period, as their polarity is now consistent with the flow of current.
The point about the flow of zipons as opposed to the flow of current is, the known speed of current flow would be enabled - seen to be at light speed - but proposed herein to be at 2c. The zipon is able to change direction and justification. The zipon is not constrained to the exclusion priniciple as, far from being mutually repellent, zipons would attach, exactly as magnets attach - in long plastic lines through the circuit itself. And their path would be restricted through polarised materials such as the diodes - depending on their justification as they respond to different potential differences. Then the recharge system would simply force the realignment of these same zipons to their previously charged state within the material of the battery itself.
I hope that's answered the question Altair. And if I've told you much, much more than you intended to ask - apologies.
End quote
Chet
PS
This is good ,It will not take years to have this "revealed"one way or the other.
And some big names "in the business " are helping!
This is the proof is in the pudding part
Thank you for posting that, Chet.
The tests of a good theory are these: Does it make testable, falsifiable predictions? Does it account in a consistent manner for experimental observations already made? Does it account, in a testable falsifiable way, for new observations? And finally, is it consistent with what is already known about the world?
(Note that good theories can be falsified, and they are, all the time. "Goodness" doesn't mean correctness in this context.)
And there are many other, finer points, like: Are the constructs well-defined? Are there mathematical formulations for any parts of the theory, and is this math consistent and correct? Has the theory been peer-reviewed and published for comment and criticism?
And so forth.
If a theory has trouble passing these minimal tests, and yet includes entities such as "zipons" and "truants" and "antitruants" that are unknown to conventional science, what is to distinguish it from the rantings of a paranoid schizophrenic?
OK, for my morning blood pressure boost, I read up on the recent posts "over there". Hah!
It seems that Rosemary has a lot of time and energy to answer the difficult questions, but is ignoring my simpler, easier questions regarding verifiable facts.
So I asked them again.
(Quoting my post)
I see you're having fun answering hard questions. But why don't you answer my easy ones?
1) Did any of your patent APPLICATIONS result in the actual granting of PATENTS, and if so, where are the patent documents available?
2) Was the circuit published in the Quantum article used to generate the data in that article and in the EIT paper, or not?
3) Can you assure us that the energy balance calculations in the article and the paper do NOT suffer from the "duty cycle" problem that I have identified? I mean "assure" not "assert." I'd like to see some original data from the experiment and exact details of calculations. After all, the claim is COP>17. Surely something that robust can survive a little scrutiny.
4) Do you (or other readers) realize that if the data was generated with the Quantum circuit, the energy balance conclusions are Wrong, and so--all theoretical speculation based upon them are, at best, unsupported by evidence..???
Easy questions, straightforward. And all of them are critical this "discussion."
(End quoted post)
The thing that I find perhaps most ironic is that she is repeatedly pleading for someone to replicate her "results".
Well, I've done so. I've used her published circuit to show that the heating from that circuit is nothing unusual as the mosfet is ON most of the time.
I've given her the benefit of the doubt and used a 3.7 percent ON duty cycle and shown heating of the load that is in line with the load heating that she reported--within experimental error. So no real problem here--even though I obtained it with (4 different) "wrong" mosfets.
BUT: in a properly-performed control experiment, where I fed the same load with DC at a constant power level (constant regulated voltage and current) that was the same as the computed AVERAGE power coming from the Ainslie circuit at 3.7 percent ON, the load heated to a little above the same temperature and at the same rate of temperature increase as in the Ainslie experimental condition.
Note that this procedure is different from the "control experiment" used by Ainslie which relies on "guesstimations" of power dissipated in a load resistor over a long time period.
My preliminary conclusion USING THE WRONG MOSFETS (there, Wilby, you happy?) is that the Ainslie circuit produces no effects that are not also produced by straight DC at the same average power levels. (The Ainslie circuit also heats up the MOSFET, so less overall power is actually delivered to the load. Also, the Ainslie circuit allows a small amount of power from the clocking circuit to leak to the load. In a proper experiment these amounts should be quantified.)
My hypothesis for future research is that the "proper" IRFPG40 mosfet will not perform substantially differently in this experiment. BUT--in fact the 2sk1548 has a guaranteed +-30 volt gate-to-source voltage max, while the IRF unit only specifies +- 20 volts max--so it is indeed possible that the mosfet used in Ainslie's work was being overdriven. She has made statements about blowing mosfets...
(EDIT: as Wilbyshouldbedeleted so politely pointed out, I made a boo-boo in the post: it should say IRFPG50, not IRFPG40. I certainly hope that error doesn't cause anybody to waste time building the WRONG CIRCUIT, like the one in Ainslie's still-not-retracted Quantum article.)
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 07, 2009, 11:00:56 AM
My hypothesis for future research is that the "proper" IRFPG40 mosfet will not perform substantially differently in this experiment. BUT--in fact the 2sk1548 has a guaranteed +-30 volt gate-to-source voltage max, while the IRF unit only specifies +- 20 volts max--so it is indeed possible that the mosfet used in Ainslie's work was being overdriven. She has made statements about blowing mosfets...
wow! that's brilliant ::)
let us know when you get around to do the "proper" and "correct" experiment that should go along with that hypothesis. you know, the one i have been asking you about since the first page of this thread...
wasn't it a irpfg50? and you were giving me crap about not being able to read. you make me laugh tk.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 07, 2009, 01:51:37 PM
wow! that's brilliant ::)
let us know when you get around to do the "proper" and "correct" experiment that should go along with that hypothesis. you know, the one i have been asking you about since the first page of this thread...
wasn't it a irpfg50? and you were giving me crap about not being able to read. you make me laugh tk.
Look!!
TinselKoala made a TYPO!!!
Call out the RCMP, the FBI, CSIS, and the Salvation Army, there's something wrotten in Denmark!! Clearly all his work is invalidated, since "4" and "5" are on completely different parts of the keyboard...
Check your PM, I've sent you an address so you can send me your mosfet. Be sure to wrap it in foil to protect from static. If it gets here and doesn't work for some reason, it will clearly be your fault.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 07, 2009, 04:05:22 PM
Look!!
TinselKoala made a TYPO!!!
Call out the RCMP, the FBI, CSIS, and the Salvation Army, there's something wrotten in Denmark!! Clearly all his work is invalidated, since "4" and "5" are on completely different parts of the keyboard...
Check your PM, I've sent you an address so you can send me your mosfet. Be sure to wrap it in foil to protect from static. If it gets here and doesn't work for some reason, it will clearly be your fault.
you forgot the MIB... ::)
no, it's clearly invalidated because you have done it incorrectly 4? times now, and haven't got any? fet to self-oscillate. obviously...
wrotten? you make me laugh.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 07, 2009, 04:26:20 PM
you forgot the MIB... ::)
no, it's clearly invalidated because you have done it incorrectly 4? times now, and haven't got any? fet to self-oscillate. obviously...
wrotten? you make me laugh.
Try not to pee your pants. It makes the smell even worse.
So now, it's "self-oscillation". Before it was "random chaotic" oscillations or "non-periodic resonance."
Well, since you are the expert on self-oscillation (careful, you'll grow hair on your palm, or is it easier to use your foot...) perhaps you can publish a screen shot of your oscillating MOSFET oscillating, so I can be sure you aren't sending me a dud...
EDIT and by the way, in her latest, Rosemary explains just how to get overunity power measurements, and with her technique it appears that the mosfet isn't critical--in fact, it isn't even required, as just about any oscillating circuit will behave as she describes, and will give "overunity" gain when measured and calculated as she recommends. The duty cycle doesn't even matter.
"And that is all that is required to prove the over unity claim. It will not matter what duty cycle you use. It will not matter what frequency you run the test at. The sum over the shunt resistor will always be less than the product over the load resistor. That's strictly in terms of classical analysis of energy delivered by the battery and dissipated at the load. You do not need to be a genius to see that the one will inevitably be greater than the other."
That's all, it's easy. Even you, Wilby, should be able to prove the overunity claim, using her technique.
it's a simple question, i asked it on page one. yet you avoid it like, how did you say? a politician.
any plans on doing it right?
nice try on the latest misdirection though
You mean this post?
You want me to confirm a diode on the FG output---Just like Rosemary used...where's Rosemary's diode there? I don't see it.
Do I plan to use a calorimeter--just like Rosemary did? No, wait--she didn't use a calorimeter. She just used a "draft shield" of some non-specified type, and showed no data for the construction or performance of the "shield".
By now it should be clear, even to you, that even Rosemary Ainslie herself has no idea what circuit was used to make the data in the Quantum article or the EIT paper. Since I have asked her repeatedly to confirm or correct the circuit and she hasn't done so---I feel free to use whatever components I like to make my replication, and it's up to someone else to show, BY COMPARISON TO THE CORRECT CIRCUIT, whether or not I am using the "exact" parts or not.
After all, other "replicators" add capacitors, use different valued loads, different frequencies, different duty cycles, different transistors, and so forth--yet they don't have their "wilbys" grafted to their backs like I seem to...
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on June 17, 2009, 03:33:40 AM
any plan on doing it right? meaning getting proper components for the ones that you have that are not spec.
do you plan to use a calorimeter if/when you make the circuit to spec?
i am assuming you have a diode on the genny output? could you confirm?
Of course, once you send me that MOSFET, you will have to find some other inaccuracy in my build to complain about. How about the color of the base? No, wait--we don't know what her base color was. And she's not answering questions from me. So maybe you could ask her, in the interests of accurate replication: What color was her circuit board base material?
After all, I live only to please you, Wilby, and making an accurate replication is my lifetime goal. I wouldn't want to let you down by passing up a chance to generate SEVENTEEN times more energy out than I put in...just because I used the wrong mosfet--4 times running.
Even though I am quite sure that Rosemary could measure overunity performance even from a dead shorted mosfet.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 07, 2009, 05:12:08 PM
You mean this post?
You want me to confirm a diode on the FG output---Just like Rosemary used...where's Rosemary's diode there? I don't see it.
Do I plan to use a calorimeter--just like Rosemary did? No, wait--she didn't use a calorimeter. She just used a "draft shield" of some non-specified type, and showed no data for the construction or performance of the "shield".
By now it should be clear, even to you, that even Rosemary Ainslie herself has no idea what circuit was used to make the data in the Quantum article or the EIT paper. Since I have asked her repeatedly to confirm or correct the circuit and she hasn't done so---I feel free to use whatever components I like to make my replication, and it's up to someone else to show, BY COMPARISON TO THE CORRECT CIRCUIT, whether or not I am using the "exact" parts or not.
After all, other "replicators" add capacitors, use different valued loads, different frequencies, different duty cycles, different transistors, and so forth--yet they don't have their "wilbys" grafted to their backs like I seem to...
Of course, once you send me that MOSFET, you will have to find some other inaccuracy in my build to complain about. How about the color of the base? No, wait--we don't know what her base color was. And she's not answering questions from me. So maybe you could ask her, in the interests of accurate replication: What color was her circuit board base material?
After all, I live only to please you, Wilby, and making an accurate replication is my lifetime goal. I wouldn't want to let you down by passing up a chance to generate SEVENTEEN times more energy out than I put it...just because I used the wrong mosfet--4 times running.
Even though I am quite sure that Rosemary could measure overunity performance even from a dead shorted mosfet.
so that's a no then?
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 07, 2009, 05:16:54 PM
so that's a no then?
No, that's a yes. Assuming, of course, someone can tell me just what the correct circuit is, and someone else is able to get a stamp properly stuck to an envelope.
This is a no:
NO.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 07, 2009, 05:19:05 PM
No, that's a yes. Assuming, of course, someone can tell me just what the correct circuit is, and someone else is able to get a stamp properly stuck to an envelope.
This is a no:
NO.
you still think i'm sending you a fet? LMFAO you
are funny. look tk, the other "replicators" weren't being pompous asses about their circuit being "exact", which i can't even believe you would dare to utter when i asked you straight up on page one if you had plans to do it right. then you do the same things you cry foul about R.M.A. doing, ad hom, misdirection (ie:talking about my circuit when it's yours that is up for criticism. i didn't post my incorrect "replication", you posted yours remember?)
edit: i did like how you did it wrong 4 times and then came up with that brilliant hypothesis you last posited. that one about using the fet you should have used first... ::)
that was classic, thanks.
OMG!!! I"VE MADE A SERIOUS ERROR!!
An error that has profound implications for my "replication" of Ainslie's "work".
In fact it is so serious that I've got to go out immediately and get supplies and components to correct it.
What have I done? How could I have been so stupid and foolish?
Oh, well, I guess there's nothing for it but to admit:
:'(
I've RUN OUT OF BOOZE!!!
"you still think i'm sending you a fet? LMFAO you are funny."
So this post from you was a baldfaced lie, then.
Well, color me especially stupid and naiive, because I tend to believe what people tell me they will do.
No more.
Either you come through and send me the transistor like you said you would, or you can go play in somebody else's yard, because my Mom won't let me play with liars.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 06, 2009, 01:35:22 PM
well, you clearly have the ability to make BS up on the spot and then misdirect and obfuscate when called on it... i am assuming $4! is still "expensive" for you then? or is it that ebay is as difficult for you to use as google? or do you just like posting outright falsehoods as justification for doing it wrong?
send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum.
building "something" may or may not require opposable thumbs. from your elevated pulpit do let us know when you get around to building it "right"...
"exactly"
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 07, 2009, 05:27:51 PM
you still think i'm sending you a fet? LMFAO you are funny. look tk, the other "replicators" weren't being pompous asses about their circuit being "exact", which i can't even believe you would dare to utter when i asked you straight up on page one if you had plans to do it right. then you do the same things you cry foul about R.M.A. doing, ad hom, misdirection (ie:talking about my circuit when it's yours that is up for criticism. i didn't post my incorrect "replication", you posted yours remember?)
edit: i did like how you did it wrong 4 times and then cam up with that brilliant hypothesis you last posited. that one about using the fet you should have used first... ::)
that was classic, thanks.
Yes, I used a fet that was rated, on that critical parameter, higher than the one Rosemary allegedly used. Alleged--there is at this point nothing more than her bogus claims that says she actually used anything at all. And my "hypothesis" if you can interpret it correctly, is that she may have been using a BLOWN mosfet--in which case even you would probably admit that it would make no difference what mosfet it is.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 07, 2009, 05:36:53 PM
"exactly"
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
Wilby
A....A.... LLLLIIIIIIIAAAAAAAARRRRRRRR!!!!!?? :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 07, 2009, 05:37:37 PM
Yes, I used a fet that was rated, on that critical parameter, higher than the one Rosemary allegedly used. Alleged--there is at this point nothing more than her bogus claims that says she actually used anything at all. And my "hypothesis" if you can interpret it correctly, is that she may have been using a BLOWN mosfet--in which case even you would probably admit that it would make no difference what mosfet it is.
great, grand, wonderful. let us know when you get around the proper and correct experiment part that comes next.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 07, 2009, 05:40:48 PM
great, grand, wonderful. let us know when you get around the proper and correct experiment part that comes next.
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
I'll be checking my mail every day, looking for a little package from you.
Quote from: ramset on July 07, 2009, 05:40:26 PM
Wilby
A....A.... LLLLIIIIIIIAAAAAAAARRRRRRRR!!!!!??????
it's a $4 part. i've made it abundantly clear in prior posts that tk can easily afford it. why he chooses not to is beyond me. why you all are naive enough to think i was serious after i made explicit points of tk's demonstration of his deep pockets and his willingness to bet, why anyone would think i was serious is also beyond me. ::)
nice try on the misdirection though...
It will probably make as big a difference as the kind of scotch you drink
Quote from: ramset on July 07, 2009, 05:46:01 PM
It will probably make as big a difference as the kind of scotch you drink
i don't drink, but nice ad hom...
If Aaron wasn't so busy with Jerry in his tube thread ,
this never would have gone on this long.
Look at Rosies cavalier response to the fact that the article is corrupt
Not even important enough for her to give a clear answer [we should search all her posts]
How many days??
Chet
Quote from: ramset on July 07, 2009, 05:55:59 PM
If Aaron wasn't so busy with Jerry in his tube thread ,
this never would have gone on this long.
Look at Rosies cavalier response to the fact that the article is corrupt
Not even important enough for her to give a clear answer [we should search all her posts]
How many days??
Chet
how is this relevant to tk using the wrong fet?
nice try on the misdirection though.
so after 19 pages what do we have, an unproven hypothesis (reached by adhering to some asinine attitude of "i'm not going to use the specified fet if it's the last thing i do") by tk...
damn, it's like pulling teeth.
edit: hold on, let me get a comfortable chair and some popcorn, this is classic "science", i don't want to miss it it. ;)
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 07, 2009, 05:44:42 PM
it's a $4 part. i've made it abundantly clear in prior posts that tk can easily afford it. why he chooses not to is beyond me. why you all are naive enough to think i was serious after i made explicit points of tk's demonstration of his deep pockets and his willingness to bet, why anyone would think i was serious is also beyond me. ::)
nice try on the misdirection though...
Maybe it was the part where you said, "send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum" that made us think you were going to send me the part.
And I have already explained several times that I do not need, nor will I be ordering, the minimum 10 parts that my suppliers want me to order, and I have philosophical objections to using ebay for anything--it's against my religion, which is an obscure sect of Sufism that does not believe in auctions or "buy-it-now".
And speaking of misdirection--this thread is about "Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie".
So, without even referring to my "replication" which is making Wilby prance around like a debutante with a bladder issue...
I will here reiterate several problems with the Ainslie affair.
First, the Quantum article and the EIT paper give circuits that are different in several respects, yet the data and descriptions contained in the works appear to be describing the exact same experiment and control runs. The Quantum article's diagram does not include the flyback diode and the article does not even mention it. However, the EIT paper's diagram does include the diode, and current statements from Ainslie say that this diode is absolutely necessary.
Since these two papers are describing the same experiment, there is a major inconsistency here that needs to be explained.
(And I didn't even mention the mosfet or the duty cycle, did I.)
(But I will now.)
Second, the circuit as published in the Quantum article definitely produces a duty cycle that is inverted from what the paper claims. And definitely the flyback diode is not on the diagram. These are facts that anyone can check for themselves.
So definitely this circuit is in error. And yet it has not been corrected or retracted by Ainslie, and she rejects all criticism and questions about this topic. Why? I see this as a major problem. How can we trust anything from Ainslie, if this is how she regards the truth and correctness of publication? Her name is right there on the paper.
I mean--it's OK to make mistakes, I even make them sometimes...but to willfully let them stand and to refuse to correct them after they have been pointed out--that's something different.
Third, she refers in various places to her "patents"--and yet, I cannot find any issued patents in her name. I find patent applications on the links that I have been given--applications, not issued patents. I have asked her over and over to confirm that she has patents issued--to deafening silence. Why not just give me a link to an issued patent? I must conclude that there aren't any, and she was "exaggerating" when she called them "patents". Of course I am always willing to be proven wrong with evidence, and I would be especially happy to see patents of these particular ideas.
Fourth, there's that pesky MOSFET. That self-oscillates for her, every time. But nobody else (yes, Wilby, there are others using that correct IRFPG50 mosfet that I refuse to buy) has been able to reproduce this behaviour. Then there's that "random chaotic resonance" that the mosfet is able to achieve, when the gate drive current is turned DOWN. Another effect that nobody has been able to duplicate. What is up with that? If you read Ainslie's posts you would have to be a total "wilby" to not get overunity, no matter the mosfet, the frequency, the duty cycle, or whatever---until of course you try it and report failure--then she can come up with all kinds of things you aren't doing right.
Fifth, there's the issue of reproducing her heating effects and numbers. Hmm. Now I must mention my circuit and experiment. Even though I didn't use the same mosfet, I got the same heating in the load (within experimental error and accounting for the 2-ohm difference between my load and her reported load). So actually that's another data point that says the Quantum circuit is in error--because it generates a 97.3 percent ON duty cycle, and I'm using a FG at 3.7 percent ON--so my experiment supports her generated heat values, and at the same average input power that she calculates--mine is about 1.1 watts average.
Odd, isn't it, if my mosfet is wrong, that it works just like hers does at 3.7 percent ON, and heats the load the same way. What do you say to that, Wilby?
The problem is that, when I take the exact same load and put 1.1 watts through it with a regulated DC supply with negligible ripple--that's straight DC, so voltage x current = power--I get "exactly" the same heating of the load resistor.
TO reiterate again once more: I have had no problem repeating Ainslie's INPUT power and EXPERIMENTAL load heating. It's the CONTROL part of her experiment that I have a problem with. My control experiment indicates no overunity, not because the experimental load doesn't heat up enough--it's because the CONTROL load heats up just the same on straight DC power.
And if Wilby can explain how my choice of mosfet could account for these facts, I'll buy the drinks if we ever meet. Explain coherently, I mean. The usual hanuman chatter probably won't convince me.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 16, 2009, 09:58:53 PM
So here's a picture of my "replication" of Ainslie's circuit. I couldn't find the IRFGP50 MOSFET locally, so I used a similar one, 2SK1548. And instead of using a 555 timer clock circuit I just used my trusty Interstate F34 function generator to make the gate drive pulses. And instead of using a .25 ohm current-viewing shunt I used a 2.5 ohm shunt. But the rest is as specified.
1,2,3 things non spec, but the rest is "exact"
nice try on the misdirection though.
what "others". no one here is. and really we are talking about YOUR circuit. nice try on the misdirection again.
i've said several times i agree with you mostly, it's your pompous ass combined with a standard approach of substituting whatever you have on hand that i have issue with.
edit: as i also said before, get the right fet and put this to rest or shut up. furthermore don't expect people to "fund" you or send you parts with the incorrect approach you have taken so far.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 07, 2009, 05:42:39 PM
I'll be checking my mail every day, looking for a little package from you.
Sounds like something I might say.
(Oh why, oh why do these discussions degenrate so?)
I just read (and understood) the quotes from 'her'. Now I have an extreme headache. My fault, I know.
So ON is OFF and OFF is ON. No wonder some folks have trouble reading a scope.
For the life of me I can't think of any diode that can 'block' at 2c. Even with forward, <1c, current they aren't on by default. If the current is careening at 2c the diode is a short circuit.
The read was ..... interesting. I'll agree on a few points but my conclusion is this: These ideas can never be proved as it would require equipment that is either faster than 2c or worked in a time warp.
At least with these ideas it doesn't matter that I can't get to my bench because there is no point in trying to test those theories. I've already done the 'you can't see it because it is impossible to measure with current equipment' <expletive deleted>.
Like most, I truly hope things like free energy will be realized and proven. I still spend a large amount of my free time toward that goal.
It is a good thing I can't get to my bench right now.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 07, 2009, 06:26:14 PM
1,2,3 things non spec, but the rest is "exact"
nice try on the misdirection though.
what "others". no one here is. and really we are talking about YOUR circuit. nice try on the misdirection again.
i've said several times i agree with you mostly, it's your pompous ass combined with a standard approach of substituting whatever you have on hand that i have issue with.
You're digging up obsolete posts. Running out of new material? The current shunt was replaced with a 0.25 ohm shunt right after that post. And it turns out that the 555 timer isn't the right way to go at all, Ainslie herself says to use a FG, so it looks like I was correct in my first try.
And I didn't have the 2sk1548 on hand, I scoured a major metropolitan area of nearly 10 million persons in order to get that close. I would also have considered using 2sk1365, 2sk1120, and 2sk1934. I even considered the possibility that a p-channel mosfet was used by mistake. And it's pretty clear that I understand more about transistor substitution than you do. And you're a fine one to talk, you'd win the grand award for pomposity just about anywhere they allow monkeys to compete.
And no, we, that is, the ones who count, are talking about Ainslie's circuit, whatever it might turn out to be.
Quote from: 0c on July 07, 2009, 06:27:47 PM
Sounds like something I might say.
(Oh why, oh why do these discussions degenrate so?)
It's a law of nature, like Moore's law.
Would you believe that Canada Post won't even start looking for something until it's missing 90 days past the send date? It's a vast frontier, I'm telling you that for nothing.
Quote from: BEP on July 07, 2009, 06:33:10 PM
The read was ..... interesting. I'll agree on a few points but my conclusion is this: These ideas can never be proved as it would require equipment that is either faster than 2c or worked in a time warp.
Won't be a problem once we herd up and harness some of them zipons. ;)
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 07, 2009, 06:38:36 PM
You're digging up obsolete posts. Running out of new material? The current shunt was replaced with a 0.25 ohm shunt right after that post. And it turns out that the 555 timer isn't the right way to go at all, Ainslie herself says to use a FG, so it looks like I was correct in my first try.
And I didn't have the 2sk1548 on hand, I scoured a major metropolitan area of nearly 10 million persons in order to get that close. I would also have considered using 2sk1365, 2sk1120, and 2sk1934. I even considered the possibility that a p-channel mosfet was used by mistake. And it's pretty clear that I understand more about transistor substitution than you do. And you're a fine one to talk, you'd win the grand award for pomposity just about anywhere they allow monkeys to compete.
And no, we, that is, the ones who count, are talking about Ainslie's circuit, whatever it might turn out to be.
you set the precedent. my material has been the same, for 19 pages now...
1 when are you going to do it correctly?
2 don't call it exact if it isn't.
great,grand wonderful. let us know when you get around to doing the experiment that goes with that brilliant hypothesis.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 07, 2009, 06:41:15 PM
you set the precedent.
great,grand wonderful. let us know when you get around to doing the experiment that goes with that brilliant hypothesis.
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
Oh, maybe you mean trying to account for the inverted duty cycle by giving her the benefit of the doubt and trying a p-channel mosfet in the circuit to see if it re-inverts the inverted cycle back to the claimed one, by some strange silicon alchemy?
Why bother--you'd just say I was in the wrong hemisphere or something.
(OOPS, did I just show your trump card for when all your other objections are met and the circuit still doesn't make COP>17? Sorry...)
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
Gee, isn't this fun? I get to mock you with your own words. And all you can do is go "exact"--when it's been days since I retracted even that claim, right here on this thread, thanks to your poking.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 07, 2009, 06:46:42 PM
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
Oh, maybe you mean trying to account for the inverted duty cycle by giving her the benefit of the doubt and trying a p-channel mosfet in the circuit to see if it re-inverts the inverted cycle back to the claimed one, by some strange silicon alchemy?
Why bother--you'd just say I was in the wrong hemisphere or something.
(OOPS, did I just show your trump card for when all your other objections are met and the circuit still doesn't make COP>17? Sorry...)
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
Gee, isn't this fun? I get to mock you with your own words. And all you can do is go "exact"--when it's been days since I retracted even that claim, right here on this thread, thanks to your poking.
you know i'm not sending you a fet, why repeat that? too bad if you're that naive.
all you've done is give asinine reasons why you won't get the specified fet.
i'm not going to stop nor be distracted until you either shut up or do it right.
no i mean use the specified fet so there can't be any petty (other than the ones about color, etc. that you noted earlier) objections, as i have said before... you can read can't you?
@BEP: Thanks for taking a look at the material. I know it was hard, my eyeballs cross up when I read that stuff, because I too am looking for testable hypotheses and real-world consequences of these theories.
What gets me is the incredible close-mindedness of these so-called open-minded researchers. I've grown to expect it, but usually when faced with incontrovertible evidence of incompetence and prevarication, like the discrepancies between the Quantum article and the EIT paper, the culprit fades away gracefully. Not in this case. Foot happily in mouth, the monologue continues, with 2c zipons and delinquent antitruants leading the way.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 07, 2009, 06:50:46 PM
you know i'm not sending you a fet, why repeat that? too bad if you're that naive.
i'm not going to stop nor be distracted until you either shut up or do it right.
no i mean use the specified fet so there can't be any petty (other than the ones about color, etc. that you noted earlier) objections, as i have said before... you can read can't you?
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
ROTFL! You have abandoned any credibility you may have ever had here, and just as I was beginning to like you, too.
You can forget what I said about the drinks. You are definitely buying.
why are you looking for testable hypothesis "over there" when you won't even test your own here?
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 07, 2009, 06:50:46 PM
you know i'm not sending you a fet, why repeat that? too bad if you're that naive.
all you've done is give asinine reasons why you won't get the specified fet.
i'm not going to stop nor be distracted until you either shut up or do it right.
no i mean use the specified fet so there can't be any petty (other than the ones about color, etc. that you noted earlier) objections, as i have said before... you can read can't you?
But Wilby, if you'd bother to get someone to read my posts out loud to you in whatever language you stutter in, you'd see that I have reproduced the heating of the load. So how could it get any better, or even be different, if I used a different mosfet? Are you saying that DC produces overunity too? Or maybe that, since I got the same heating as she did, I'm getting COP>17 already, and using the mosfet you promised to send me will improve on that? Wow, I sure hope it gets here soon then. Maybe you should airmail it, so we can hurry up and save the world from the tyranny of big oil. Since you've been so helpful, I'll even cut you in for a percent. Not a percentage, a percent.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 07, 2009, 06:56:26 PM
why are you looking for testable hypothesis "over there" when you won't even test your own here?
You wouldn't know a testable hypothesis if you woke up next to one.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 07, 2009, 07:01:00 PM
You wouldn't know a testable hypothesis if you woke up next to one.
nice ad hom, you're quite good at that.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 07, 2009, 07:02:13 PM
nice ad hom, you're quite good at that.
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
Not as good as the "pro".
:D
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 07, 2009, 07:00:24 PM
But Wilby, if you'd bother to get someone to read my posts out loud to you in whatever language you stutter in, you'd see that I have reproduced the heating of the load. So how could it get any better, or even be different, if I used a different mosfet? Are you saying that DC produces overunity too? Or maybe that, since I got the same heating as she did, I'm getting COP>17 already, and using the mosfet you promised to send me will improve on that? Wow, I sure hope it gets here soon then. Maybe you should airmail it, so we can hurry up and save the world from the tyranny of big oil. Since you've been so helpful, I'll even cut you in for a percent. Not a percentage, a percent.
but TK, if you'd bother to comprehend my posts, you'd see that i have said i agree with you, SEVERAL TIMES NOW... i just don't like your half-assed approach of using the wrong fet and coming up with some hypothesis by using some ass backward approach instead of just using the right damn fet. but you refuse, justifying it with all sorts of obscure and pathological reasons.
Some very funny stuff here ;D ;D ;D ;D
Thanks guys
Chet
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 07, 2009, 07:04:09 PM
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
if the shoe fits, wear it...
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 07, 2009, 07:05:11 PM
but TK, if you'd bother to comprehend my posts, you'd see that i have said i agree with you, SEVERAL TIMES NOW... i just don't like your half-assed approach of using the wrong fet and coming up with some hypothesis by using some ass backward approach instead of just using the right damn fet. but you refuse, for all sorts of obscure and pathological reasons.
At this point it's mostly because it's fun to rattle your cage.
Because you see, the mosfet has nothing to do with the problems in Ainslie's claim, and the 67 percent of scientists who understand statistics will agree that I have shown that her claims are not supported by reality.
Nevertheless, should an IRFPG50 mosfet miraculously arrive from somewhere beyond, I will assiduously test it, just for the satisfaction of saying "I told you so" to you.
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
I love doing that! Ctrl-v and it makes you twitch, at the speed of thought! Zipons, eat your little bitty hearts out!
Tk, I've gone through at least 20 pages of WilbyInebriated posts, this is the only constructive thing that I found.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on November 30, 2008, 12:38:53 AM
just connect the scope to one of your coil windings.
EVERYTHING ELSE WAS JUST ARGUING! ::)
Do yourself a favor and just put him on the IGNOR list!
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 07, 2009, 07:09:28 PM
At this point it's mostly because it's fun to rattle your cage.
Because you see, the mosfet has nothing to do with the problems in Ainslie's claim, and the 67 percent of scientists who understand statistics will agree that I have shown that her claims are not supported by reality.
Nevertheless, should an IRFPG50 mosfet miraculously arrive from somewhere beyond, I will assiduously test it, just for the satisfaction of saying "I told you so" to you.
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
I love doing that! Ctrl-v and it makes you twitch, at the speed of thought! Zipons, eat your little bitty hearts ou!
no, it's mostly because you need to save face. its been how many days now? surely you can afford a $4 part. get your friend whose address you PM'd me to use ebay for you. do they live in the same "sufist" cult building as you? or make up another pathetic excuse...
Quote from: Justalabrat on July 07, 2009, 07:10:16 PM
Tk, I've gone through at least 20 pages of WilbyInebriated posts, this is the only constructive thing that I found.
EVERYTHING ELSE WAS JUST ARGUING! ::)
Do yourself a favor and just put him on the IGNOR list!
Well, that post was even wrong, because I've always connected the scope just as in the Ainslie papers, and yes, it is connected to the positive rail, along with one end of the coil-resistor load.
But don't let Wilby get you down, I understand his motivation perfectly. He's a truth seeker, and wants to keep me honest, and he's right to do that.
Too bad he's not a "truth-speaker" as well.
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
Besides, if I just ignore him, he'll eventually go away, and what fun would that be?
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 07, 2009, 07:12:14 PM
no, it's mostly because you need to save face. its been how many days now? surely you can afford a $4 part. get your friend whose address you PM'd me to use ebay for you. do they live in the same "sufist" cult building as you? or make up another pathetic excuse...
Why should I? I have it on the best authority that I will be getting one in the mail soon.
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 07, 2009, 07:14:31 PM
Why should I? I have it on the best authority that I will be getting one in the mail soon.
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
you're a betting man, i bet you $1000 US that you can't keep your mouth shut until it arrives... ;)
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 07, 2009, 07:13:42 PM
Well, that post was even wrong, because I've always connected the scope just as in the Ainslie papers, and yes, it is connected to the positive rail, along with one end of the coil-resistor load.
But don't let Wilby get you down, I understand his motivation perfectly. He's a truth seeker, and wants to keep me honest, and he's right to do that.
Too bad he's not a "truth-speaker" as well.
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
Besides, if I just ignore him, he'll eventually go away, and what fun would that be?
actually it was a different circuit, but your pompous knee jerk jump to assumption is typical.
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
You know, the more I think about this, the more pissed off I'm getting. You made a challenge and a promise, and I took you up on it by sending you a good address to use. Now you are reneging, and I have no idea what you will try to do with that address. I feel betrayed, because I trusted you, to a certain extent. But now I am thinking that I was right about you that other time: You are a troll, a stalker, and you do not care about truth, you care about getting a rise out of someone. Well, you've gotten a rise from me now.
Either send me the part or STFU and get off this thread. We are trying to do some serious work here and your posts are not constructive and in fact are disruptive.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 07, 2009, 06:54:09 PM
Foot happily in mouth, the monologue continues, with 2c zipons and delinquent antitruants leading the way.
Must be those delinquent little buggers that keep getting me in trouble. I wonder if wives can sense them. After all, wives can hear a squeaking hinge before the husband.
YES! That IS the answer! I must drop all research now so I can develop a hearing aid for delinquent antitruants. I'll have the boss off my back in no time!
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 07, 2009, 07:19:11 PM
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
You know, the more I think about this, the more pissed off I'm getting. You made a challenge and a promise, and I took you up on it by sending you a good address to use. Now you are reneging, and I have no idea what you will try to do with that address. I feel betrayed, because I trusted you, to a certain extent. But now I am thinking that I was right about you that other time: You are a troll, a stalker, and you do not care about truth, you care about getting a rise out of someone. Well, you've gotten a rise from me now.
Either send me the part or STFU and get off this thread. We are trying to do some serious work here and your posts are not constructive and in fact are disruptive.
no you're not. you mocking someone who has, from page one asked you when you are going to do it right.
all you have to show, up to this very point, is an untested hypothesis... serious work, you are funny.
OOOOHHHHH......
A bet
parcel post or next day?
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 07, 2009, 07:16:39 PM
you're a betting man, i bet you $1000 US that you can't keep your mouth shut until it arrives... ;)
The difference between my bets and this bogus one is that mine are sincere and directed towards making people provide evidence for their outrageous claims. Your "offer" is clearly cynical, not in earnest, and it appears that you do not intend to send me the part after all, even though you said,
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
So, like I said before, STFU and go away, STALKER, TROLL.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 07, 2009, 07:20:30 PM
no you're not. you mocking someone who has, from page one asked you when you are going to do it right.
all you have to show, up to this very point, is an untested hypothesis... serious work, you are funny.
Wrong again.
I notice there aren't a lot of people jumping in to support your point.
I made an hypothesis, well specified, and I tested it and reported results. You've just been trolling and obfuscating the real issue, which has nothing at all to do with the mosfet, which you promised to send me.
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 07, 2009, 07:22:31 PM
The difference between my bets and this bogus one is that mine are sincere and directed towards making people provide evidence for their outrageous claims. Your "offer" is clearly cynical, not in earnest, and it appears that you do not intend to send me the part after all, even though you said,
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
So, like I said before, STFU and go away, STALKER, TROLL.
nice work on the misdirection, you must be sweating with all that jumping around.
do it right or shut up. test your hypothesis, i'm betting you won't, that's how your "science" flys.
Quote from: ramset on July 07, 2009, 07:20:48 PM
OOOOHHHHH......
A bet
parcel post or next day?
Of course he doesn't mean it, and he's said that he won't send me the mosfet anyway, so it's a cynical attempt to silence me.
He's probably never even seen that much cash in one place. I'm talking about the 4 dollars for the mosfet from ebay...
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 07, 2009, 07:25:22 PM
nice work on the misdirection, you must be sweating with all that jumping around.
do it right or shut up. test your hypothesis, i'm betting you won't, that's how your "science" flys.
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
I'm betting you won't, because you are a liar and a troll and a stalker.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 07, 2009, 07:25:11 PM
I made an hypothesis, well specified, and I tested it and reported results. You've just been trolling and obfuscating the real issue, which has nothing at all to do with the mosfet, which you promised to send me.
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
you tested this one?
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 07, 2009, 11:00:56 AM
My hypothesis for future research is that the "proper" IRFPG40 mosfet will not perform substantially differently in this experiment. BUT--in fact the 2sk1548 has a guaranteed +-30 volt gate-to-source voltage max, while the IRF unit only specifies +- 20 volts max--so it is indeed possible that the mosfet used in Ainslie's work was being overdriven. She has made statements about blowing mosfets...
i didn't think so. that's how your "science" flys.
the real issue is, you never did it (your original "replication") properly, and have been avoiding that
fact with all sorts of asinine reasons. i didn't promise anything, but nice try on the misdirection again. let us know when you test that hypothesis...
OOOHHHH.....
"" I'm betting you won't, because you are a liar and a troll and a stalker."""
The 1 2 3 combo
better than a triple dog dare
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 07, 2009, 07:27:58 PM
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
I'm betting you won't, because you are a liar and a troll and a stalker.
back to "serious" work i see...
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 07, 2009, 07:30:23 PM
you tested this one?i didn't think so. that's how your "science" flys.
the real issue is, you never did it properly, and have been avoiding that fact with all sorts of asinine reasons. i didn't promise anything, but nice try on the misdirection again. let us know when you test that hypothesis...
How could I test that hypothesis, since I just made it today and I don't have the parts? That's why it's a hypothesis, not a demonstrated fact. And I could swear I see "future experimentation" there in that post you quote. Of course I could just be making that part up too...
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
Yeah, that's not a promise, it's a threat.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 07, 2009, 07:55:58 PM
How could I test that hypothesis, since I just made it today and I don't have the parts? That's why it's a hypothesis, not a demonstrated fact.
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
Yeah, that's not a promise, it's a threat.
you never did your "replication" properly, and are still avoiding that
fact with asinine responses. as far as you testing your "hypothesis for future research", i think that's what you labeled it? correct me if i'm wrong counselor. i doubt that will ever happen, even though it's what you should have done first, but that's what you call "science"... ::)
nice misdirection attempt, again.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 07, 2009, 07:59:04 PM
you never did the replication properly. as far as you testing your "hypothesis for future research", i think that's what you labeled it? correct me if i'm wrong counselor. i doubt that will ever happen, even though it's what you should have done first, but that's what you call "science"...
nice misdirection attempt, again.
You are starting to sound really weak there. You're grasping at straw men now--attacking research that I haven't even done yet and just proposed this morning. Yet you already know how I'm going to do it and how it will turn out. Sad. Maybe you should take a break, go get a milkshake if you're old enough to go to the store by yourself.
By the way, your heroine has moved the goalposts yet again. If you compare her present description of the "control" test--which she now says depleted the batteries--with the report of the control test in the EIT paper, you will see that she doesn't even seem to understand what she herself is reporting. The batteries in the control test are nowhere near depleted, if you can trust her figures at all at any time. Take a look for yourself and see.
Now, once again, why are you attacking me, Wilby, when Ainslie is so much a better target? Is it because I will play and she won't? Well, I'm getting tired and I hear Mom calling, so I better go home, it's almost dark.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 07, 2009, 08:11:40 PM
You are starting to sound really weak there. You're grasping at straw men now--attacking research that I haven't even done yet and just proposed this morning. Yet you already know how I'm going to do it and how it will turn out. Sad. Maybe you should take a break, go get a milkshake if you're old enough to go to the store by yourself.
By the way, your heroine has moved the goalposts yet again. If you compare her present description of the "control" test--which she now says depleted the batteries--with the report of the control test in the EIT paper, you will see that she doesn't even seem to understand what she herself is reporting. The batteries in the control test are nowhere near depleted, if you can trust her figures at all at any time. Take a look for yourself and see.
Now, once again, why are you attacking me, Wilby, when Ainslie is so much a better target? Is it because I will play and she won't? Well, I'm getting tired and I hear Mom calling, so I better go home, it's almost dark.
ok, bye now. say hi to mom for me. let us know if you do get around to testing the "future research" hypothesis. i'll grab a chair, i'm sure it will be classic.
i don't care what RMA is doing. we are talking about your circuit. the one that still doesn't have the specified fet. nice try on the misdirection though. you do that every time, such stamina...
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
Oh, I just remembered:
Here's a good way to tell if someone is feeding you science, or bullshit. Is their claimed result repeatable, by anyone, at any time?
Mine is.
Hers isn't.
And yours--well, we just don't know, do we.
Now, this thread is about the Claimed Overunity Circuit of Rosemary Ainslie.
So I am going to make a post concerning that circuit and those claims.
If I had a circuit that produced robust overunity at the levels that Rosemary is claiming, and she's claiming they can be easily gotten, and with common components, I would certainly be using it, if not to heat my home, at least to boil water for coffee.
Or, failing that, I would have a demonstration circuit set up that I could show to anyone who is interested, with some unequivocal means of demonstrating excess heat (SEVENTEEN times excess heat.)
Or, I would be able to keep batteries charged with real energy and run some lights or something for anomalously long times, and would be glad to refute any criticisms with solid proof.
But instead we have someone who seemingly doesn't understand the basics of electronics, formulating a wild elaborate theory based on flawed data from a poorly-designed and performed experiment, who ignores and flames the person who has done the most NEARLY EXACT reproduction of her experiment--even to the point of obtaining the same kind of heating in the load...and who cannot show any scope traces, any currently working build of her device, or any useful work performed by it.
And we seem to have picked up a parasite from being exposed to the flim-flam, as well.
Very much par for the course, I'd say, but still disappointing.
Oh, did I distract the thread from Wilby's pounding issue? Sorry...here, I'll reset it:
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
Damn, the reset key seems to be stuck.
Just for grins, let's see what a COP of >17 means in reality, if it's obtained with these kinds of components and at the power levels claimed.
My 1500 watt space heater is pretty efficient, converting the electrical power into heat. Let's say it's 33 percent efficient, so when it's drawing 1500 watts from the wall it's making about 500 watts of real heat power, or releasing 500 Joules per second into the room. (1 watt = 1 joule-second, so one watt of power for one second is one Joule of energy.) It's eating 1500 Joules per second to do this.
(The real efficiency is probably much higher, of course. But let's stay with the 1/3 figure as it is a nice underestimate and easy to compute with.)
Now, if Ainslie's claims were true, we should be able to do much better than this, using the SAME heater (it's got a bunch of nichrome wire spirals in it; cut them to the right length, adjust the inductances by geometry, hook up a bank of mosfets and diodes, a wall-wart instead of the batteries...and Bob's your transvestite auntie.)
So now with a COP>17 available...that's a clumsy number, let's use 15 (to compensate for the wrong MOSFETS?)...
The heating coils may be assumed to have the same 33 percent overall electricity-to-heat conversion efficiency...we haven't done anything to them except cut and stretch them...so let's still say it takes 1500 Joules into the coils to get 500 Joules of heat out. But the mosfet circuitry will give us that 1500 Joules for 1/15th the cost--that is, 100 Joules. So the COP>17 Ainslie circuit would give AT LEAST 500 Joules per second heat out, for 100 Joules per second electrical energy in--which means, even with inefficiencies included, and cutting the numbers down a bit more for Wilby, you could still run a 1500 watt space heater for the same energy cost as a 100 watt light bulb.
Don't you think someone would have noticed?
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 07, 2009, 09:05:17 PM
Just for grins, let's see what a COP of >17 means in reality, if it's obtained with these kinds of components and at the power levels claimed.
My 1500 watt space heater is pretty efficient, converting the electrical power into heat. Let's say it's 33 percent efficient, so when it's drawing 1500 watts from the wall it's making about 500 watts of real heat power, or releasing 500 Joules per second into the room. (1 watt = 1 joule-second, so one watt of power for one second is one Joule of energy.) It's eating 1500 Joules per second to do this.
(The real efficiency is probably much higher, of course. But let's stay with the 1/3 figure as it is a nice underestimate and easy to compute with.)
Now, if Ainslie's claims were true, we should be able to do much better than this, using the SAME heater (it's got a bunch of nichrome wire spirals in it; cut them to the right length, adjust the inductances by geometry, hook up a bank of mosfets and diodes, a wall-wart instead of the batteries...and Bob's your transvestite auntie.)
So now with a COP>17 available...that's a clumsy number, let's use 15 (to compensate for the wrong MOSFETS?)...
The heating coils may be assumed to have the same 33 percent overall electricity-to-heat conversion efficiency...we haven't done anything to them except cut and stretch them...so let's still say it takes 1500 Joules into the coils to get 500 Joules of heat out. But the mosfet circuitry will give us that 1500 Joules for 1/15th the cost--that is, 100 Joules. So the COP>17 Ainslie circuit would give AT LEAST 500 Joules per second heat out, for 100 Joules per second electrical energy in--which means, even with inefficiencies included, and cutting the numbers down a bit more for Wilby, you could still run a 1500 watt space heater for the same energy cost as a 100 watt light bulb.
Don't you think someone would have noticed?
LMFAO, you should apply for a job on mythbusters, your "science" would be a perfect fit.
just for grins, let us know when you get around to that "serious" work, and that test of your hypothesis about the irfpg50. is this endless prattle just that, your idea of serious work?
No, I do it to rattle your cage, and it's something to do while the videos upload. In the one I'm uploading now I have the Fluke0Scope hooked up, and I show that it apparently defaults to 96.3 percent on duty cycles with short off times, and 3.7 percent on duty cycles with short on times. That is, those numbers are the maximum and minimum duty cycles that it will report. At least at 2.4 kHz. (EDIT: it does flip to 96.4 there for a moment but I can't get it to stabilize there. I would hope that the scope could do better than this.)
So this even calls into question the reliability of the "3.7" percent number, and especially the shorter number that she says happens during "random chaotic resonance"--which is almost certainly her term for false triggering of the Fluke. Which I will also be illustrating, if Wilby will cut me a break.
Oh, and there's also this:
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
(I'll never get tired of that, it's so much fun. So you might as well just send it--no, wait, then you wouldn't have anything to bitch about at all, and we wouldn't want that.)
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 07, 2009, 09:07:06 PM
LMFAO, you should apply for a job on mythbusters, your "science" would be a perfect fit.
just for grins, let us know when you get around to that "serious" work, and that test of your hypothesis about the irfpg50. is this endless prattle just that, your idea of serious work?
I'll be pleased if you can show me the error(s) in my calculations. Other than the one I made by expecting you to understand it, that is.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 07, 2009, 10:06:15 PM
No, I do it to rattle your cage, and it's something to do while the videos upload. In the one I'm uploading now I have the Fluke0Scope hooked up, and I show that it apparently defaults to 96.3 percent on duty cycles with short off times, and 3.7 percent on duty cycles with short on times. That is, those numbers are the maximum and minimum duty cycles that it will report. At least at 2.4 kHz. (EDIT: it does flip to 96.4 there for a moment but I can't get it to stabilize there. I would hope that the scope could do better than this.)
So this even calls into question the reliability of the "3.7" percent number, and especially the shorter number that she says happens during "random chaotic resonance"--which is almost certainly her term for false triggering of the Fluke. Which I will also be illustrating, if Wilby will cut me a break.
Oh, and there's also this:
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
(I'll never get tired of that, it's so much fun. So you might as well just send it--no, wait, then you wouldn't have anything to bitch about at all, and we wouldn't want that.)
what fet are you using this time? the correct one? ::)
i like this one for fun, it never fails to make me laugh.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 16, 2009, 09:52:52 PM
So I built a circuit, identical only with some different components, and started testing it.
great video. still the wrong fet...
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 08, 2009, 12:31:14 AM
great video. still the wrong fet...
Seems to me TK has tested the circuit while you've done jack squat (other than whine). Please tell the class why a slightly different FET will make a huge difference, let alone create OU.
Quote from: Asymatrix on July 08, 2009, 01:12:43 AM
Seems to me TK has tested the circuit while you've done jack squat (other than whine). Please tell the class why a slightly different FET will make a huge difference, let alone create OU.
wrong, tk has tested every variation but the circuit, all i have done is continue to point that out.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 08, 2009, 01:56:29 AM
wrong, tk has tested every variation but the circuit, all i have done is continue to point that out.
He's tested the circuit with one minor component variation.
I suppose my car it will transform into a jet if I attach wings...
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 07, 2009, 09:05:17 PM
...
My 1500 watt space heater is pretty efficient, converting the electrical power into heat. Let's say it's 33 percent efficient, ...
It's close to 100% efficient (even more with heat pump).
All electric heaters are 100% efficient because the "losses" are... heat!
Quote from: exnihiloest on July 08, 2009, 03:00:48 AM
It's close to 100% efficient (even more with heat pump).
All electric heaters are 100% efficient because the "losses" are... heat!
Shhh! You'll wake the troll!
I know that, and you know that, but do you realize what that does to my calculation of real-world implications?
It means that I could run my 1500 watt heater for the same cost (roughly) as the light bulb in my desk lamp.
And yet...nobody's noticed, except Rosemary, and even she isn't heating her home this way.
Quote from: Asymatrix on July 08, 2009, 02:57:55 AM
He's tested the circuit with one minor component variation.
I suppose my car it will transform into a jet if I attach wings...
Only if you can achieve random chaotic resonance.
:P
(Oh, and did you see the part where I asked someone to send me a mosfet, and Wilby said it would do so, and then reneged? "send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum" and it even got that wrong. I'm not a bum, I'm a jerk. (Thanks, Steve...))
I am pleased to report that Rosemary Ainslie has now acknowledged that she holds no patents. She only has patent APPLICATIONS, which she claims were "dropped" in the interests of humanity.
More likely, the applications were rejected as unoriginal and non-physical and she didn't pursue them further. But no matter, the issue of PATENTS vs. APPLICATIONS is now settled--and as I said from the beginning, she has no patents.
Even though she still presents the link on her web page as a "patent".
And, there is more news on the "duty cycle" front. She now has an "expert" who has viewed my videos and is accusing ME of fraudulently presenting my results, or making them up, or something.
Still, nobody has actually built the circuit to see if I am right or she is right.
And of course there is another "explanation" that tries to show that I am wrong, while actually demonstrating that she has no clue.
COME ON PEOPLE, all you have to do to PROVE ME WRONG is to build the circuit in the quantum article and look at the duty cycle it generates.
@Tinselkoala
Do you know what a motorcycle is? It is a means of transportation that utilizes two wheels and a motor. However there are people who have the ability to transcend what we call transportation into a form of art. They fly 100's of feet through the air performing backflips, they jump off the bike with their feet straight up holding on to only the handlebars --- this is not transportation it is a form of individual expression.
I watched your video's and while you may be competent at standard electronics I am afraid this is not going to cut it, not in any way. As well from your scope shots it is obvious that you have done nothing out of the ordinary, so why would you expect extraordinary results. I wonder why Rosemary requires a mosfet rated at 1000v@6.2A when her source is only 24v? or why she requires a mosfet with an on resistance of only 2 ohm and rise/fall times in the 35/36 ns range when the 555 timer is relatively slow at 100ns max?. It would seem the circuit properties are designed for high speed switching of high potentials and yet everyone is still preoccupied with trying to push slow pulsed low potential currents through the resistance and hoping to come out ahead,LOL. Rosemary also states that in operation the internal diode is conducting, if the drain to source breakdown voltage is 1000v then we can assume her transient spikes are in excess of this. I wonder has any of your circuit voltages exceeded 1000v? If your video's are any indication then I can assume you are nowhere near the operating parameters dictated by Rosemary. All of this relates to the beginning of this post, if you want to practice common electronics then you should expect common results, if however you take your circuits and your understanding to the next level then you become the artist not bound by common practice nor common results.
Regards
AC
replicate
Verb
[-cating, -cated] to make or be an exact copy of; reproduce [Latin replicatus bent back]
replication n
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 08, 2009, 09:00:46 AM
Only if you can achieve random chaotic resonance.
:P
(Oh, and did you see the part where I asked someone to send me a mosfet, and Wilby said it would do so, and then reneged? "send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum" and it even got that wrong. I'm not a bum, I'm a jerk. (Thanks, Steve...))
lots of useless chatter and the endless litany of excuses continue...
any plans on doing it right?
edit: get the correct $4 fet, or the shoe fits...
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 08, 2009, 11:24:04 AM
COME ON PEOPLE, all you have to do to PROVE ME WRONG is to build the circuit in the quantum article and look at the duty cycle it generates.
you mean build the circuit that you haven't built yet? or did you still manage to
not find that fet in a major metro area... ::)
Quote from: allcanadian on July 08, 2009, 12:33:20 PM
@Tinselkoala
Do you know what a motorcycle is? It is a means of transportation that utilizes two wheels and a motor. However there are people who have the ability to transcend what we call transportation into a form of art. They fly 100's of feet through the air performing backflips, they jump off the bike with their feet straight up holding on to only the handlebars --- this is not transportation it is a form of individual expression.
I watched your video's and while you may be competent at standard electronics I am afraid this is not going to cut it, not in any way. As well from your scope shots it is obvious that you have done nothing out of the ordinary, so why would you expect extraordinary results. I wonder why Rosemary requires a mosfet rated at 1000v@6.2A when her source is only 24v? or why she requires a mosfet with an on resistance of only 2 ohm and rise/fall times in the 35/36 ns range when the 555 timer is relatively slow at 100ns max?. It would seem the circuit properties are designed for high speed switching of high potentials and yet everyone is still preoccupied with trying to push slow pulsed low potential currents through the resistance and hoping to come out ahead,LOL. Rosemary also states that in operation the internal diode is conducting, if the drain to source breakdown voltage is 1000v then we can assume her transient spikes are in excess of this. I wonder has any of your circuit voltages exceeded 1000v? If your video's are any indication then I can assume you are nowhere near the operating parameters dictated by Rosemary. All of this relates to the beginning of this post, if you want to practice common electronics then you should expect common results, if however you take your circuits and your understanding to the next level then you become the artist not bound by common practice nor common results.
Regards
AC
So far, we have an admission from Rosemary that the circuit in the Quantum article is in ERROR and was NOT used to gather the data in the article (or in the report of the same experiment in the EIT paper.)
And we now have the admission that she has NO patents, just has filed patent applications.
And we have her putting her foot in mouth over and over about the duty cycle issue--which is easily checked and has been confirmed here as well.
So why do you believe ANYTHING she has told you? There is NO evidence of any of her claims. Not a scope trace, not a copy of those "independent lab" tests, nothing--just the Quantum article and the EIT paper, both reporting the SAME experiment but with DIFFERENT circuits...
OK, pick on me all you want. But Rosemary Ainslie is feeding you a line of BS for sure.
And all you have to do to PROVE ME WRONG is to build that Quantum article's circuit and test it yourself. The problem has nothing to do with the MOSFET used.
Oh, and did you see where Wilby promised to send me the mosfet, and then reneged?
(And Rosemary has done nothing out of the ordinary either. So why should anyone expect out-of-the-ordinary results--especially when nobody else has gotten them...)
Oh, Allcanadian...did you notice that I have reproduced the load heating profile that Ainslie reports?
Even though Wilby refuses to send me the mosfet he promised?
Yes, that's right--at a true duty cycle of 3.7 percent ON from the FG, I get the same heating, the same rate of heating, the same final equilibrium temperature after the same amount of time, in the load as Ainslie reports. And at the same average power levels that she quotes. Within experimental error, of course.
So this is another bit of evidence that the Quantum circuit is WRONG--as it does not have the flyback diode and generates the WRONG duty cycle to boot. Yet by NOT using it I am able to make the right heat.
What do you say to that? If I get the same heating as Rosemary, and I have the same average power input am I not also creating overunity? And tell me (because Wilby cannot) how the MOSFET choice could change these findings???
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 08, 2009, 04:13:08 PM
Oh, Allcanadian...did you notice that I have reproduced the load heating profile that Ainslie reports?
Even though Wilby refuses to send me the mosfet he promised?
Yes, that's right--at a true duty cycle of 3.7 percent ON from the FG, I get the same heating, the same rate of heating, the same final equilibrium temperature after the same amount of time, in the load as Ainslie reports. And at the same average power levels that she quotes. Within experimental error, of course.
So this is another bit of evidence that the Quantum circuit is WRONG--as it does not have the flyback diode and generates the WRONG duty cycle to boot. Yet by NOT using it I am able to make the right heat.
What do you say to that? If I get the same heating as Rosemary, and I have the same average power input am I not also creating overunity? And tell me (because Wilby cannot) how the MOSFET choice could change these findings???
getting the correct mosfet would mean doing it correctly and tk doesn't want any part of correct science. he has demonstrated this again and again with his endless excuses and asinine justifications of why he can't or shouldn't get the correct fet.
all tk has put on the table is a couple hack attempts of replication (and still refuses to do it right) and an untested hypothesis for future research.
edit: independent confirmation with a sim? LOL, you are funny. and the BU508A--an expensive experiment? but you still can't afford the $4 irfpg50? ::)
And all you've put on the table is some sticky stuff dripping off your fingers.
Better be careful, you'll grow hair on your palm.
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
Lying Troll.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 08, 2009, 10:32:30 PM
And all you've put on the table is some sticky stuff dripping off your fingers.
Better be careful, you'll grow hair on your palm.
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
Lying Troll.
my circuit isn't posted for critique, your hack is (that one you've done wrong how many times now?) remember? stop trying to misdirect, it doesn't work.
still no plans to do it right? i know you're pretty busy with all that ad hominem, you are probably tired from zig zagging all around with your excuses.
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
Gee, I just can't seem to get that phrase off my mind. It sounds like a LYING TROLL is lying to me again.
(If anybody actually wants to discuss Ainslie's circuit and her claims and my work with it, you may look at my YT videos and comment there. We won't be bothered by WilbyLaughedAt there.)
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 08, 2009, 10:55:49 PM
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
Gee, I just can't seem to get that phrase off my mind. It sounds like a LYING TROLL is lying to me again.
(If anybody actually wants to discuss Ainslie's circuit and her claims and my work with it, you may look at my YT videos and comment there. We won't be bothered by WilbyLaughedAt there.)
yes it's such a bother to have someone pester you to do it right...
i tried to comment on your video that you weren't using the correct fet, but it won't let me. banned by desertphile and TK...
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 08, 2009, 11:03:03 PM
yes it's such a bother to have someone pester you to do it right...
i tried to comment on your video that you weren't using the correct fet, but it won't let me. banned by desertphile and TK...
That's got to be a rare honor.
Desertphile banned me long ago, and I banned him -- and his effete brother NotSoYoungAnymoreHippy -- in return. Now you are banned by both of us. Sort of a mutual dis-admiration society.
Now, if we could only get you banned again from this site, we could get back to work.
Quote from: HeairBear on July 08, 2009, 12:42:01 PM
replicate
Verb
[-cating, -cated] to make or be an exact copy of; reproduce [Latin replicatus bent back]
replication n
Ah, another helpful critic.
Could you, then, HeairBear, please explain, since I am getting similar heat output to my load as Ainslie claims, and my batteries are "not depleting" just as Rosemary's "aren't depleting", why my mosfet needs changing?
Because a certain other critic cannot seem to do so, and I'd really like to know.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 08, 2009, 11:58:04 PM
Ah, another helpful critic.
Could you, then, HeairBear, please explain, since I am getting similar heat output to my load as Ainslie claims, and my batteries are "not depleting" just as Rosemary's "aren't depleting", why my mosfet needs changing?
Because a certain other critic cannot seem to do so, and I'd really like to know.
the answer is obvious, your mosfet needs changing for it to qualify as a "replication".
replicate
Verb
[-cating, -cated]
to make or be an exact copy of; reproduce [Latin replicatus bent back]
replication n
there's that darn exact word you seem to have so much trouble with, you never have trouble with the misdirection and excuses as to why you won't get the correct fet though...
@WilbyInebriated,
Like this?
http://home.no/ufoufoufoufo/
Groundloop.
Quote from: Groundloop on July 09, 2009, 03:29:57 AM
@WilbyInebriated,
Like this?
http://home.no/ufoufoufoufo/
Groundloop.
nice work groundloop! and i see you are giving them away, bravo!
do you plan to start with the irfpg50? ;)
@WilbyInebriated,
Yes, I plan to start with the circuit as shown in the circuit drawing.
If it turns out to something positive then we can change things later on.
I will be giving away 23 PCBs in total, and GotoLuc will handle the delivery of
those PCBs in the US. He will be getting 15 of the PCBs and I will send
the rest over here in Europe. I will take some time, though, the PCBs will
arrive in the last week of August. Just PM GotoLuc for a PCB request if
you live in the US. PM me for the rest of the world.
BTW, RS do stock the irfpg50 mosfet.
I have also designed a powerful switch that can handle 110 VAC or 230VAC
and is capable of switching a space heater of up to 5000 Watt/h. I will open
source this switch later on. If we can use this system to at least save SOME
power by inductive switching, then it is worth the cost.
Groundloop.
Groundloop
As always you are AMAZING!!
RS?=Radio shack
R A D I O S H A C K ????
TK what metro area of 10 mil do you live in
Zimbabwe ??
TK I'm making a road trip today to see Bill[Mag motor]
I'll see if they stock them in USA
Chet
Quote from: ramset on July 09, 2009, 08:47:02 AM
Groundloop
As always you are AMAZING!!
RS?=Radio shack
R A D I O S H A C K ????
TK what metro area of 10 mil do you live in
Zimbabwe ??
TK I'm making a road trip today to see Bill[Mag motor]
I'll see if they stock them in USA
Chet
Hey GL did you build that 555 circuit you so nicely laid out for me? I'm curious as to the duty cycle you found.
Chet, the Radio Shacks around here are toy stores, "The Source", they don't even call them Radio Shacks any more. They stock fuses, some connectors, and a lot of cell phone and ipod stuff. Very few components. No IRFPG50 in stock around here. Don't you think I've looked? Weren't you the one that asked me to look into this in the first place? And see what trouble it's become.
Besides, someone has promised to send me one, so I'm checking my mail daily. Of course, that person is a known Liar and Troll...
And still, nobody can even hint at why the mosfet choice would make any difference in what I've found.
Even Rosemary herself has proclaimed that many different transistors would work. Without evidence, of course.
So if you don't see my circuit as replicating her main claim, perhaps you can wrap your mind around the fact that I am testing "many different transistors" according to Rosemary's claims, at least 3 of them approved substitutions for the IRFPG50 and some with even better specs.
So far, no free energy has been detected.
(However, the circuit seems to be an extremely good bullshit generator.)
Oh, and have you all been planning ahead for when I do start using this IRFPG50 and reporting the results?
Because you had better find something else to harp on.
Unless of course you want to accuse me of making the whole thing up, like Rosemary and her "experts".
I must be getting really good at CGI and photoshopping, I'll tell you.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 09, 2009, 12:03:51 AM
the answer is obvious, your mosfet needs changing for it to qualify as a "replication".
replicate
Verb
[-cating, -cated] to make or be an exact copy of; reproduce [Latin replicatus bent back]
replication n
there's that darn exact word you seem to have so much trouble with, you never have trouble with the misdirection and excuses as to why you won't get the correct fet though...
Tell me, Mr Accuracy Incarnate, just which CIRCUIT I'm supposed to use then? Since there are two to choose from in her documents and we can't get a straight answer about which one was used to produce the results, nor a straight answer about the actual duty cycle used.
And keep stretching, maybe you'll get that foot out of your mouth eventually.
I mean after all, you really have no idea what's sitting on my workbench, do you?
@ramset,
See this link:
http://www.rs-online.com/index.html
@TinselKoala,
I haven't build it yet. Will do that later on when my PCBs arrive.
Groundloop.
TK
I would be flabbergasted if that particular mosfet made any difference
If it does, you better find out what kind of gum she chews when she runs the tests [that should be just as important]
R.S. opens in another Hr. here I will check
Chet
Groundloop I see the link above thanks
BTW how is your countryman doing [The fellow that had interest and results cop<2-5]
@ramset,
I have been in contact with S.Roksund via email. He has
shared some information with me. He has asked me NOT to
post this information. I have described a test
method for him that will show if his circuit is o/u or not.
He is currently running this test.
Groundloop.
Groundloop
Thank you for your response
Chet
Quote from: Groundloop on July 09, 2009, 09:20:40 AM
@ramset,
See this link:
http://www.rs-online.com/index.html
@TinselKoala,
I haven't build it yet. Will do that later on when my PCBs arrive.
Groundloop.
Beautiful circuit board, as usual. But...
You did see the part where Rosemary says that the Quantum article circuit is wrong, didn't you?
Another confirmation that the Ainslie circuit in the Quantum article generates the wrong duty cycle:
http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=61848&page=1#Item_27
@TinselKoala,
Yes, I saw that.
Groundloop.
Quote from: Groundloop on July 09, 2009, 12:47:29 PM
@TinselKoala,
Yes, I saw that.
Groundloop.
It's extremely nice work. But I hope you haven't spent too much time or money.
Others are chiming in to confirm my original finding--this circuit does not generate a short ON duty cycle.
TK
I hope you don't mind ,but I don't want to post this in The William Landon jr. thread [because now it comes up on a google search of his name]
I met with Bill again today ,once again he is like a man starving to share,
He told me he was in negotiations with an investor
His design ran for an hour [made of things he had around [not machined ]
I don't know [nor did I ask] what the mode of failure was ,
As you know he was an aerospace engineer Know retired and wanting to share this gift with the world
I tried to explain the pitfalls of not open sourcing ,but he has chosen a path
and assured me he could share in a few months
He asked me about the weight of electricity in a wire [regardless of current]
and how come the weight didn't change [this is a big part of how his motor works]
He spoke of magnets as if they were multi dimensional ,connected to gravity
some how.
I am quite sure Bill is not full of B.S.
I am sure I will remember more [his wife kept shushing him]
He is an amazing man to talk to hopefully someday soon he will share here
Chet
@TinselKoala,
Thanks for the kind words. No, the boards is not that expensive. Only 33 Norwegian kroner (approx. 5$ US) for a single board. I needed 2 boards myself for testing but it is always cheaper to buy 25 of them than just 2. I just give away the other 23 boards since I just need two of them myself.
As I said before, people can use different values for the timing capacitors and timing variable resistor if they like. Then the board can switch other duty cycles. It is always nice to have a switch anyway when researching different circuits.
There is a board in there for you also. Just PM GotoLuc. He will be receiving 15 of the boards by the end of next month.
Groundloop.
Hi,
My power system has nothing to do with Ainslie's circuit at all. The reason I
posted here was to try and get informatiom about the validity of Rosemary Ainslie's
patent. Now that it is stated that there is no patent but a patent application,
I have got my information.
I also need more time on the charging test (mentioned by Groundloop) and test
several circuit configurations. Thank you for being interrested in my test
results. I will be back mid september.
Mvh. sroksund
Quote from: Groundloop on July 10, 2009, 01:21:13 AM
@TinselKoala,
Thanks for the kind words. No, the boards is not that expensive. Only 33 Norwegian kroner (approx. 5$ US) for a single board. I needed 2 boards myself for testing but it is always cheaper to buy 25 of them than just 2. I just give away the other 23 boards since I just need two of them myself.
As I said before, people can use different values for the timing capacitors and timing variable resistor if they like. Then the board can switch other duty cycles. It is always nice to have a switch anyway when researching different circuits.
There is a board in there for you also. Just PM GotoLuc. He will be receiving 15 of the boards by the end of next month.
Groundloop.
Heh, that's pretty cheap all right. No, I don't need one, thanks.
It's good that you left room for a big heatsink for the mosfet. With a 10-ohm resistive/inductive load running at 90 percent or more ON, you might even need a small fan to protect that expensive mosfet. Mine rose very quickly to over 120 degrees C in just a couple minutes, due to the usual factors. Increasing the load to 85 ohms keeps most of the power in the load, even at longer duty cycles, so the transistor doesn't heat as much.
@TinselKoala,
The mosfet you are using has an RDSon of approx. 2 Ohm. The one I will be using
has an RDSon of 0,01 Ohm. I will also run the 555 (with different parts) at a frequency
of 100KHz and duty cycle at 50%. Then the heat sink size will be perfect for MY usage
of the board.
I will also build ONE board with the parts shown in the RA papers and test that board.
Groundloop.
Ah, I see.
OK, my main concern here is vetting the claims of Ainslie, so I am looking at the performance of the circuit at 2.4 kHz, and with the component values she specified as used in the experiment she reported where she claims to have gotten COP>17 with a duty cycle of 3.7 percent ON--which is impossible with the published circuit. As you will see.
Her claims are quite specific as to that experiment, and that is what I am examining.
But according to her there is wide latitude in general. The patent application says low freqs like 60-100 Hz,; she refers to 2.4 kHz as a "high" freq quite often...and she has said that most any transistor should work.
So you are planning to use some other mosfet as well? I see the data sheet for the IRFPG50 lists a Rds "on" of about 2 ohms, as you say, and the 2sk1548 is a bit higher.
What component do you intend to use that has Rds of 0.01 ohms? I don't think I could stick a piece of buswire in the transistor socket between the D and S pins and get that low.
@TinselKoala,
Sorry, I was a little off with the RDSon number.
The correct number is less than 0,004 Ohm.
STP80NF03L-04 FET N-ch 30V 80A TO220 RDSon <0,004 Ohm.
I will not go into what I'm planning to switch with this mosfet.
I will use the IRFPG50 in when I test the claimed COP>17 circuit.
Groundloop.
Great minds think alike!
When I googled after reading above, that was one I picked as most probable, considering the package and the other components; I was surprised to see you working at such a low voltage, though. But high power anyway, that's an impressive little puppy indeed.
Good luck, whatever it is you're doing. I don't think I even want to know...
;)
I've just been reading the Ainslie thread at nakedscientists.
It seems the reception there wasn't very, well, receptive to her ideas.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=23243.0
She really says some remarkable things there.
Such as this:
"No, I really do not know what a capacitor is. You can safely assume that there is no limit to my lack of knowledge especially as it relates to electric circuitry. I find all electric circuits quintessentially boring. It was just a means to an end. My only interest is in physics."
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=23243.msg255644#msg255644
So what are you saying? She's an idiot and your trying to debunk her with your replication?
I'm saying that I do not like to be lied to, and insulted by the person doing it, simultaneously. Especially when they are ignorant and arrogant about it.
And I have demonstrated several, shall we say, misstatements of fact, in the Ainslie material. The report of the performance of the circuit in question, for example.
Build it and see for yourself.
And read the thread at nakedscientists, yourself. That's why I posted the link.
I'm quoting her words. I built her circuit. What is there to debunk? The circuit does not even do what she says wrt the duty cycle it generates, and her power/energy calculations depend on the duty cycle.
I have actual facts that can be verified by anyone, unlike her claims.
She is not telling the truth about the work done on her circuit, and she displays appalling ignorance of basic science facts and methodology.
Then you admit it is a personal issue with you and her which in turn makes you biased...
Quote from: HeairBear on July 10, 2009, 11:29:09 PM
Then you admit it is a personal issue with you and her which in turn makes you biased...
I admit that I built her circuit in good faith, then I noticed the very clear and blatant discrepancies, and when I began, very politely, to discuss it with her, she responded with a great deal of disrespect, and still will not acknowledge that she is wrong.
Yes, it has indeed become a personal issue. But I am always ready to be corrected by DATA.
If you can find any fact that I have stated that is WRONG, please tell me so that I may correct it.
If you find any fact that Rosemary has stated that is WRONG, please let her know, and see how far you get.
Come on, you seem to have a lot to say, Heair Bear. PROVE ME WRONG. For goodness sake.
(And before you bring up some particular mosfet part number, I will just ask you this: How do you know what's sitting on my bench?)
Thank you for the offer, I would rather not beat a dead horse.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 10, 2009, 11:48:52 PM
(And before you bring up some particular mosfet part number, I will just ask you this: How do you know what's sitting on my bench?)
Wilby came through after all?
Quote from: 0c on July 11, 2009, 12:37:28 AM
Wilby came through after all?
Of course not, the prevaricatious hamadryad. He probably is still waiting to be stiffed by the Ebay seller. Meanwhile Mr. Postman brought my DigiKey order. 56 bux plus tax and customs for 10 of those puppies. But I can use the ones I don't smoke in the Ains-lie, in the Groundloop/Gotoluc H-bridge to build a mean DRSSTC.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-ibD9YeUrE
Quote from: HeairBear on July 11, 2009, 12:03:14 AM
Thank you for the offer, I would rather not beat a dead horse.
Its simple what you have to do , can be made in 3 parts
Part #1
Build the circuit, take no more than 10-15min of your time, hook up your oscilloscope to it and came back to the forum and re-read what TinselKoala was saying about the circuit. I must agree the longest part will be to read what TinselKoala wrote but im sure you are able to do that.
Part #2
go here
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=23243.msg255644#msg255644 (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=23243.msg255644#msg255644)
and here
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie.html)
Read all what Rosemary said about the circuit, that will reveal her background too(Maybe not) and what she know about the circuit and the principle behind it.
Part #3
Tell me where the dead horse is now ?
Best Regards,
IceStorm
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 10, 2009, 11:48:52 PM
I admit that I built her circuit in good faith, then I noticed the very clear and blatant discrepancies, and when I began, very politely, to discuss it with her, she responded with a great deal of disrespect, and still will not acknowledge that she is wrong.
I wonder if you know any more about this Physics than you do about Lawrence Tseung's
Physics.
What is pathetic is that you do not care to learn.
Quote from: Paul-R on July 11, 2009, 10:02:27 AM
I wonder if you know any more about this Physics than you do about Lawrence Tseung's
Physics.
What is pathetic is that you do not care to learn.
Teach me then, PaulR.
Show me what you've got.
Build a device using Tseung's "theory" and show it doing something, anything at all, that is not fully in line with conventional high-school physics.
Build the circuit under discussion here, test it however the flmp you like, and report your results.
In other words, put YOUR WORK where your mouth is.
(Oh, and by the way, there is only one "Physics", and it does not belong to anyone. It's testable and its results are public and may be repeated any time by anybody who has the right tools and the knowledge to use them. Mathematics being the primary tool.)
And just see what a dangerous thing the TRUTH is:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-16.html#post60054
At this point everyone at energetic is quite aware THERE IS A PROBLEM.
So now its playtime [fun for some]
Hopefully they will utilize some of Aarons parallel coil stuff or the tensor flat coil stuff In Stiffler's Thread [VERY interesting things being discussed the last few days][especially from the penguin fellow]
Here http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3934-high-voltage-thin-air-26.html
Perhaps now the stops can be pulled out on a lot of these Ideas/facts?
Chet
I have not been approved over at energetiforum, otherwise I would likely respond to some posts in the Ainslie thread and Gotoluc's bemf recirculating thread.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on July 11, 2009, 01:46:43 PM
I have not been approved over at energetiforum, otherwise I would likely respond to some posts in the Ainslie thread and Gotoluc's bemf recirculating thread.
.99
They say you are approved now.
You will have to carry the banner of truth and accuracy of information;
I have been banned and my posts removed (the recent ones anyway). And I used no profanity, no insults, I just asked questions, pointed out discrepancies, and provided true information.
In my opinion, the fact that that forum's moderators will actively censor posts and remove them, even though they are not abusive or obscene, even though they are reporting on experiments that Ainslie requested, is a travesty of the entire concepts of truth, freedom of information, open-sourcing, and so forth. The site, which seems to be at root a religious one, is clearly fascistic and totalitarian in what it will allow to be discussed.
Not like this one at all.
Thanks, Stefan, for allowing contrary opinions and facts to flourish, and to be subject to the same tests as other extraordinary claims.
Skeptics perform a very necessary role in the quest. Some are more credible than others, just like the researchers they criticize. But a real discovery is skeptic-proof, and the harder skeptics try to knock it down, and fail, the "realer" the discovery. And the real researcher welcomes the challenge to attempt to disprove her ideas; indeed, cooperates with it. Most scientific papers reporting experiments include substantial error analyses, references to published support for ideas in the paper, and so forth, and on review, if the reviewers ask for the raw data, it almost always is provided. Certainly, references to calibration and other vetting must be real and traceable, if it is to be taken seriously.
Hi Folks,
Do you know what happened to the energeticforum.com ? it has been down for some hours now. Last time I visited their pages was about 6 hours ago and now my web browser says it cannot be found.
Gyula
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 11, 2009, 04:19:24 PM
They say you are approved now.
You will have to carry the banner of truth and accuracy of information; I have been banned and my posts removed (the recent ones anyway). And I used no profanity, no insults, I just asked questions, pointed out discrepancies, and provided true information.
In my opinion, the fact that that forum's moderators will actively censor posts and remove them, even though they are not abusive or obscene, even though they are reporting on experiments that Ainslie requested, is a travesty of the entire concepts of truth, freedom of information, open-sourcing, and so forth. The site, which seems to be at root a religious one, is clearly fascistic and totalitarian in what it will allow to be discussed.
Not like this one at all.
Thanks, Stefan, for allowing contrary opinions and facts to flourish, and to be subject to the same tests as other extraordinary claims.
Skeptics perform a very necessary role in the quest. Some are more credible than others, just like the researchers they criticize. But a real discovery is skeptic-proof, and the harder skeptics try to knock it down, and fail, the "realer" the discovery. And the real researcher welcomes the challenge to attempt to disprove her ideas; indeed, cooperates with it. Most scientific papers reporting experiments include substantial error analyses, references to published support for ideas in the paper, and so forth, and on review, if the reviewers ask for the raw data, it almost always is provided. Certainly, references to calibration and other vetting must be real and traceable, if it is to be taken seriously.
ohhh you got banned. poor poor pitiful you. i was gonna make a wager with you on how long that was going to take...
you were told in no uncertain terms that your posts were no longer welcome in that thread and to refrain from posting in that thread or your posts would be deleted... and yet here you are, acting all surprised and shocked that that's what happened after you continued to post. again i have to ask, are you mental?
i saw you claim to have the correct fet now, no data yet? well, let us know when your 'i got myself banned' pity party is over and you get back to serious work. ::)
can i cry too? :'( since you banned me from your youtube channel for asking questions and pointing out discrepancies. hypocrite.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 11, 2009, 10:46:19 AM
Teach me then, PaulR.
Show me what you've got.
I did that - in Lawrence's thread. I shall not bother to
do it again.
Quote from: gyulasun on July 11, 2009, 05:09:35 PM
Hi Folks,
Do you know what happened to the energeticforum.com ? it has been down for some hours now. Last time I visited their pages was about 6 hours ago and now my web browser says it cannot be found.
Gyula
Still works for me. I can even still post there, although I won't anymore. As you can see, the odor is clinging.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 11, 2009, 05:41:55 PM
ohhh you got banned. poor poor pitiful you. i was gonna make a wager with you on how long that was going to take...
you were told in no uncertain terms that your posts were no longer welcome in that thread and to refrain from posting in that thread or your posts would be deleted... and yet here you are, acting all surprised and shocked that that's what happened after you continued to post. again i have to ask, are you mental?
i saw you claim to have the correct fet now, no data yet? well, let us know when your 'i got myself banned' pity party is over and you get back to serious work. ::)
can i cry too? :'( since you banned me from your youtube channel for asking questions and pointing out discrepancies.
Do I feel badly about the banning and censoring? Not really, as the experience supports my hypothesis: If a society is more concerned with Ego than with Truth, those who tell the truth at the expense of ego will eventually be censored and banned, even killed if necessary.
Surprised? Not at all. It is completely par for the course. If you ever learn to read, take a look at the Nakedscientists thread, you will see that by the 4th page Rosemary was pleading for it to be locked and certain critics removed or banned. And she started trying to get me banned as soon as I reported the first discrepancy, of many, between what she says and what is reality.
Am I mental? Absolutely. What's your excuse?
And am I back to work? Yes. Will I be sharing any of my data with you? Not specifically. But it will be public, and if you can get somebody to explain it to you in single syllables, I'm sure you'll enjoy it.
(And if you seriously think that I would ever wager with someone who reneges on a simple promise, you belong in Las Vegas.)
And the "questions" you asked over and over have been answered over and over, and the "discrepancies" (more than one?) have also been addressed. Unlike my questions and the discrepancies I pointed out over there. If you want to argue you should at least get your controller to load a new text file with some coherent arguments.
Quote from: Paul-R on July 11, 2009, 05:55:31 PM
I did that - in Lawrence's thread. I shall not bother to
do it again.
Thank goodness for small favors.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 11, 2009, 06:07:41 PM
And am I back to work? Yes. Will I be sharing any of my data with you? Not specifically. But it will be public, and if you can get somebody to explain it to you in single syllables, I'm sure you'll enjoy it.
(And if you seriously think that I would ever wager with someone who reneges on a simple promise, you belong in Las Vegas.)
LMFAO, will you be using the correct fet this time? like you should have done from the start if you were at all concerned with good science.
i promised you nothing. there you go making stuff up again. using words that don't apply like 'identical', 'exactly', 'fascist' and 'totalitarian'... show 'exactly' where i said "i promise".
whoops, there i go pointing out your discrepancies again...
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 11, 2009, 06:15:57 PM
LMFAO, will you be using the correct fet this time? like you should have done from the start if you were at all concerned with good science.
i promised you nothing. there you go making stuff up again. using words that don't apply like 'identical', 'exactly', 'fascist' and 'totalitarian'... show 'exactly' where i said "i promise".
whoops, there i go pointing out your discrepancies again...
Remember when you posted this?
"send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum"
The phrase "I will" would be interpreted in any court of contract law as a promise to perform.
If, that is, it was uttered by an entity competent to enter into a contract.
Which you, being a troll of the first magnitude, clearly are not.
@TK
QuoteDo I feel badly about the banning and censoring? Not really, as the experience supports my hypothesis: If a society is more concerned with Ego than with Truth, those who tell the truth at the expense of ego will eventually be censored and banned, even killed if necessary.
I started writing a reply and half way through understood how futile it was, LOL. I can only be thankful I do not live in your little world where one can never be wrong.
Regards
AC
DBL Post
@allcanadian, you're right it is futile, but this post from you on 9-24-08 was so excellent that I had to save it for future events such as this:
QuoteI would like to make a point about skeptics, skepticism to a point can be a healthy thing but you should understand where this path leads.Take a look at this website and read the posts for a while and you will get the picture.---http://forums.randi.org/
These guys must be the most self rightious, egostical bafoons I have ever had the displeasure of talking with. They are hard core skeptics who believe reason and logic must dictate everything as such they cannot imagine how "there" logic could be flawed in any way,so they continually degrade and humiliate each other. In essence there logic concludes that 99.99% of the people on this planet are misguided, delusional or stupid relative to them. But there logic has a flaw, the individual, there logic cannot explain the wright brothers airplane, goddards rockets or Teslas alternating current. Because at that time all these technologies were "unproven" to the skeptics the key word being "unproven", the skeptic needs concrete proof before he will believe anything as such he believes almost nothing which is why I have yet to hear of any true skeptic accomplish anything that could be regarded as beneficial to society in any way.
I usually simply ignore the skeptics as they have absolutely nothing to offer me in the way of understanding, they come to degrade and humiliate to make themselves feel superior----that is there nature.
Regards, Larry
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 11, 2009, 06:15:57 PM
LMFAO, will you be using the correct fet this time? like you should have done from the start if you were at all concerned with good science.
If you look at energeticforum.com , Rosemary said that the Fet is not a critical part
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-8.html#post59195 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-8.html#post59195)
Larry
Thanks for sharing that post
Chet
TK
PLEASE don't get banned !!
Your contribution is more important then rubbing Mary's nose in her "Article"
Please take a breath [count to ten ,bite your lip etc...]
Chet
Quote from: IceStorm on July 11, 2009, 09:00:44 PM
If you look at energeticforum.com , Rosemary said that the Fet is not a critical part
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-8.html#post59195 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-8.html#post59195)
are you suggesting that when attempting a 'replication' one should use whatever parts they can substitute rather than the specified components? is that your idea of good science?
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 11, 2009, 10:16:16 PM
are you suggesting that when attempting a 'replication' one should use whatever parts they can substitute rather than the specified components? is that your idea of good science?
No, i dont mean to use whatever part but in same time that dont invalidate the result that TinselKoala and I got, Rosemary already said that the Fet is not a critical part and she used other fet's too. When you take a circuit who should use 3.7% ON duty cycle and finaly you find that in reality its 96.3% ON duty cycle, that kind of thing can invalidate all the circuit, if the 555 part is erroneous, can you trust the rest of the circuit ? no.
Think about that, if you was "CLAIMING" to have a OU Device, and in same time you want to share it with the rest of the world, im sure you will take GREAT care to make the schematic exactly the same as what you used, no ? you will not burn your name on something that is not what you created, and you will be "THE MAN" to explain exactly how it work and why you choosed each parts of your circuit and what can be used if X part is not available.
Dont get me wrong , i whish it was a OU device, the world need that right now. But when i see people unable to answer clearly to any simple question, that make me think its BS, and when lab test testify its BS , then its ...
Best Regards,
IceStorm
Quote from: allcanadian on July 11, 2009, 08:32:14 PM
@TK
I started writing a reply and half way through understood how futile it was, LOL. I can only be thankful I do not live in your little world where one can never be wrong.
Regards
AC
I am quite willing to be PROVEN wrong, and I will be grateful when it happens, because that is the only way I will be able to learn.
So if you think I am wrong about ANYTHING, please provide some evidence that supports your position. Whenever I say that something is wrong, you will note that I always provide some support for my position.
Come on, PROVE ME WRONG about something. In this thread, please provide some evidence that I am wrong about anything that I have posted about the Ainslie circuit. So that I may correct it. Because I, unlike some others apparently, do not want my name or identity attached to something that is clearly in error.
Now, if you want to read some posts from someone who actually does fit your description, please take a look at Ainslie's thread on nakedscientists.
Thanks in advance.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 11, 2009, 10:16:16 PM
are you suggesting that when attempting a 'replication' one should use whatever parts they can substitute rather than the specified components? is that your idea of good science?
What part of "Rosemary said that the Fet is not a critical part" are you having trouble understanding?
Is your idea of good science identical with trolling? You are making the same post over and over, a point which I happily conceded many pages, many days ago. That is a textbook definition of trolling.
Especially since your point has no longer even the slightest trace of validity, if it ever did. Because you see, I've been using the IRFPG50 mosfet for some time now, and if I didn't tell you which one I was using for any particular test, you would not be able to tell the difference with any instruments you might know how to use. Like a hammer.
Can't you come up with something constructive, or at least not so damn monotonous?
I've uploaded a couple more videos. I see that one of my fans has already assigned a "one star" rating to #4.
In the second one (#5) I show an effect that I found interesting. I'm not sure of the explanation. Perhaps some of the actual scientific thinkers on this thread can give some kind of explanation.
I'm sure the trolls will have their opinions too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXielVyBauo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x0wQJrc9To
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 12, 2009, 12:34:28 AM
What part of "Rosemary said that the Fet is not a critical part" are you having trouble understanding?
Is your idea of good science identical with trolling? You are making the same post over and over, a point which I happily conceded many pages, many days ago. That is a textbook definition of trolling.
Especially since your point has no longer even the slightest trace of validity, if it ever did. Because you see, I've been using the IRFPG50 mosfet for some time now, and if I didn't tell you which one I was using for any particular test, you would not be able to tell the difference with any instruments you might know how to use. Like a hammer.
Can't you come up with something constructive, or at least not so damn monotonous?
she said that long after you used the incorrect fet. my point still has the same validity it always did. which is, substituting what you have on hand while attempting a 'replication' is not good scientific method, even if it turns out later that the part may be acceptable. why do you have such trouble understanding that? nice try at the misdirection though. too bad you don't know the textbook definition of exactly, identical or replicate. ::)
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 12, 2009, 01:36:47 AM
she said that long after you used the incorrect fet. substituting what you have on hand while attempting a 'replication' is not good scientific method, even if it turns out later that the part may be acceptable. why do you have such trouble understanding that? nice try at the misdirection though.
I hope you do understand that there a world between "1 part not identical" and "Circuit not doing what it should be". Personaly if i was not getting the effect Rosemary was claiming with all the circuit working, i will think that maybe the fet make realy a big difference, but when the circuit dosent work at all like it should be from start... i hope you do understand that the FET part make no difference at all.
Best Regards,
IceStorm
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 12, 2009, 01:36:47 AM
she said that long after you used the incorrect fet. substituting what you have on hand while attempting a 'replication' is not good scientific method, even if it turns out later that the part may be acceptable. why do you have such trouble understanding that? nice try at the misdirection though.
No, she actually said it long before--years ago. I suppose you will read the material, eventually. And I'll put my scientific method up against yours, any day of the week.
Done much classroom teaching at the university level? Got any credentials from universities? Got a job in a scientific field? Got any publications in major peer-reviewed scientific journals? Good, I'm glad. Because I have, and I do, too. I still get about a dozen reprint requests a month, and it's been nearly ten years since that particular paper was published.
Nice straw man, though.
Now, will you ffs change your tape?
Quote from: IceStorm on July 12, 2009, 01:46:19 AM
I hope you do understand that there a world between "1 part not identical" and "Circuit not doing what it should be". Personaly if i was not getting the effect Rosemary was claiming with all the circuit working, i will think that maybe the fet make realy a big difference, but when the circuit dosent work at all like it should be from start... i hope you do understand that the FET part make no difference at all.
Best Regards,
IceStorm
have you read my posts re: the fet where i said i agree with him? (mostly) ::)
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 12, 2009, 01:48:37 AM
No, she actually said it long before--years ago. I suppose you will read the material, eventually. And I'll put my scientific method up against yours, any day of the week.
Done much classroom teaching at the university level? Got any credentials from universities? Got a job in a scientific field? Got any publications in major peer-reviewed scientific journals? Good, I'm glad. Because I have, and I do, too. I still get about a dozen reprint requests a month, and it's been nearly ten years since that particular paper was published.
Nice straw man, though.
Now, will you ffs change your tape?
you didn't know that at the time. nice misdirection though. the point remains, you used a circuit diagram which specified a irfpg50 among other components and you substituted whatever you felt like. and then proceeded to use words like identical and exact and then compared your hack to good scientific method. that's what i have always had an issue with, 30 pages running now.
as i said before, i don't care what you did on who. it's irrelevant.
If you fkn agree, mostly, and if I have long ago conceded your point, then why in the world do you keep on harping on it?
It's getting to be quite ridiculous. You seem fairly intelligent for a troll, and it might be nice to actually discuss something substantive with you, if only you would change your meds or something.
Oh, I get it--you are a paid lackey of the Free Energy Gurus In White, and you are keeping me uselessly distracted on this thread, answering your inanities, while everybody else is happily developing their gravitymagnoSECgenerator, without skeptical interference.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 12, 2009, 01:53:24 AM
If you fkn agree, mostly, and if I have long ago conceded your point, then why in the world do you keep on harping on it?
It's getting to be quite ridiculous. You seem fairly intelligent for a troll, and it might be nice to actually discuss something substantive with you, if only you would change your meds or something.
Oh, I get it--you are a paid lackey of the Free Energy Gurus In White, and you are keeping me uselessly distracted on this thread, answering your inanities, while everybody else is happily developing their gravitymagnoSECgenerator, without skeptical interference.
because you still haven't shown any data with a correct replication, obviously...
just do it, put it to rest.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 12, 2009, 01:52:15 AM
you didn't know that at the time. nice misdirection though. the point remains, you used a circuit diagram which specified a irfpg50 among other components and you substituted whatever you felt like. and then proceeded to use words like identical and exact and then compared your hack to good scientific method. that's what i have always had an issue with, 30 pages running now.
Wrong yet again. The very first thing when I started this fiasco was to read everything I could find, and it's in her early material. I knew she said the mosfet wasn't critical before I did the first thing with this project.
And I did not use whatever I felt like, I used the closest match I could find at the time, after pouring over data sheets for hours.
And you will be happy to know that I have just burned up my dinner, ruined a pan, and I have nothing else to eat in the house.
So troll along off, little troll, I'm not playing with you any more. You can't even come up with a proper criticism.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 12, 2009, 01:57:34 AM
because you still haven't shown any data with a correct replication, obviously...
just do it, put it to rest.
I don't have to show you no stinkin badges.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 12, 2009, 01:57:57 AM
Wrong yet again. The very first thing when I started this fiasco was to read everything I could find, and it's in her early material. I knew she said the mosfet wasn't critical before I did the first thing with this project.
And I did not use whatever I felt like, I used the closest match I could find at the time, after pouring over data sheets for hours.
And you will be happy to know that I have just burned up my dinner, ruined a pan, and I have nothing else to eat in the house.
So troll along off, little troll, I'm not playing with you any more. You can't even come up with a proper criticism.
no you didn't or you would have pulled out the 'zipons' ad hom right away. and, if that was the case, which it's not, why wouldn't you have said that in this reply to my first critique of your 'replication'?
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 17, 2009, 09:13:03 AM
OK, several points to address.
First, yes, when I can find them I will use identical components to Ainslie's circuit. Her MOSFET is kind of pricey and will have to be ordered; the one I'm using is...well, you can look up the data. It's pretty close, good enough for prelim testing. I will replace the shunt with .25 ohm today.
wow, what an amazing confabulation you have there tk...
nobody cares... mint?
You will please stop making things up about which you have no idea.
I first mentioned the "zipons", I believe, in my very first post on this issue. Which is not in this thread. It's in the post where I replied to ramset when he asked me to look into this matter. I'm sure you could find it, if you could just get your head out of that dark smelly place you live in.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 12, 2009, 01:48:50 AM
have you read my posts re: the fet where i said i agree with him? (mostly) ::)
No, ive not seen it
Best Regards,
IceStorm
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 12, 2009, 02:00:27 AM
no you didn't or you would have pulled out the 'zipons' ad hom right away. and, if that was the case, which it's not, why wouldn't you have said that in this reply to my first critique of your 'replication'?wow, what an amazing confabulation you have there tk...
nobody cares... mint?
Lying troll, you cannot even get your own facts straight. Now go away and bother someone else.
Wilby, just what will it take to get you off my back? I have long ago conceded your only point.
I really do not want to continue this ridiculous exchange. Why don't you seriously go pick on Rosemary, who has clearly made manymany more of the kinds of statements you seem to object to, and where it might do some good?
You are not doing good here.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 12, 2009, 02:11:08 AM
Lying troll, you cannot even get your own facts straight. Now go away and bother someone else.
that's your justification for not saying right then and there that the fet didn't matter? LOL this is rich, hold on, i gotta grab a chair this is sure to be classic...
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 12, 2009, 02:16:38 AM
Wilby, just what will it take to get you off my back? I have long ago conceded your only point.
I really do not want to continue this ridiculous exchange. Why don't you seriously go pick on Rosemary, who has clearly made manymany more of the kinds of statements you seem to object to, and where it might do some good?
You are not doing good here.
i've told you several times now. do it right, for the love of zeus.
you and i are not talking about RA, we are talking about your bad scientific method. i've seen your definition of 'good' in regards to your scientific method. i think i'll stay, i got heathens aplenty right here...
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 12, 2009, 02:18:10 AM
i've told you several times now. do it right, for the love of zeus.
you and i are not talking about RA, we are talking about your bad scientific method. i got heathens aplenty right here...
That is it. Goodbye. You get the last word. Enjoy playing with yourself.
Quote from: IceStorm on July 11, 2009, 09:00:44 PM
If you look at energeticforum.com , Rosemary said that the Fet is not a critical part
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-8.html#post59195 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-8.html#post59195)
Also, Tinselkoala appears to have been slung off that thread. Nice use
of red ink:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-16.html
Hello TinselKoala (and others as well),
You seem to be very reasonable guy. I know you from the other forum and I am happy I have found you here because I would like to ask you a question. You are well seasoned member of wide interest of this community while I am just a fresh one, and my little request to you is if you could express what is your perspective on “free energy†field in terms of what seems to be bull s. or what has been successfully replicated by some people. So far I have proved just to myself that Rosemary’s circuit is a joke. I hope others will be able to make it working â€" but I really doubt it.
The worst is that years later there will be people who will be trying out this stupid circuit and be puzzled by the surface effect of the flyback loop â€" what a waste of time. So after my first encounter in this field it seems to me that designer is uneducated- but made a virtue from this fact and reframed it into open-mind-ness, emotional about the outcome, childish about criticism, not capable of objective, down to the point thinking, not being able to detect her own errors in judgments and trace her own mind deceit. I was shocked to discover that the “inventor†did not know basic operational facts about electric current, energy or even her very simple circuit.
This woman was not even aware of the fact that it takes energy to make magnetic field exist, and that a coil can store some energy in the form of magnetic field, until it is disconnected form the current! This is just most shocking of all. The woman who was gong to energetically save the world had no most basic understanding about energy. It wasn’t somebody who knew it, saw a flaw in it and proposed different, better theoryâ€" it was somebody who had an amazing informational “hole†in this region and in few others (the battery example). There was no model about this piece of reality in her mind at allâ€" so instead of getting educated she was forced to make a new zipon theory.
Even when I pointed out how energy is stored in a coil - nothing helped, like there was total blockage for any new input. Just her littlie world of sick hallucinations and zero capability to processing any new information â€" just deletion. She had no other choice - she had to delete all the contradictory information because otherwise she would be forced to rebuild her entire pitiful world and all the past experiences about this circuit. Infinitely pitiful. I didn’t want to put new convictions through throat â€" I just wanted her to process new information somehow. She must have had sensed, that asking questions expose to herself her inconsistencies â€" so she insisted on deletion of those who asked inconvenient questions.
Some other users of forum disappointed equally â€" evidently they want to live in entirely other semi scientific, semi religious world and don’t want to be disturbed by any sober, they call “debunkersâ€. I think that first of all she was trying to debunk widely accepted point of view â€" and the fact that they call me debunker confirms that they had readily swallowed her infantile, yet complicated zipon theory like Lindemann swallowed gravity wheel idea. Seeing this great “nothingness†compared to her great claims I have to admit I have got carried away a bit â€" so they blocked me entirely that I can’t even read what is next there. Does it happen very often here as well?
Scientifically, playing with this idiotic circuit for few days was a pure waste of time, although one learns all the time something new. Conversely, from psychological point of view â€" it was fascinating to have first hand experience in this field how psychology of one such “inventor†really operates. Priceless experience â€" and I am wondering â€" do you think that other pseudo-scientific “inventors†in this field are equally contaminated by this sort of psychological problems as well? But most of all, like I wrote above â€" I would love to hear your opinion about other things potentially worth of at least looking at. Are there any preliminarily promising things in this “free energy†field? I consider this Rosemary’s idiotic thing finished for me and need new inspiration. What is yours now?
Best regards, henieck.
Quote from All Canadian
I would like to make a point about skeptics, skepticism to a point can be a healthy thing but you should understand where this path leads.Take a look at this website and read the posts for a while and you will get the picture.---http://forums.randi.org/
These guys must be the most self rightious, egostical bafoons I have ever had the displeasure of talking with. They are hard core skeptics who believe reason and logic must dictate everything as such they cannot imagine how "there" logic could be flawed in any way,so they continually degrade and humiliate each other. In essence there logic concludes that 99.99% of the people on this planet are misguided, delusional or stupid relative to them. But there logic has a flaw, the individual, there logic cannot explain the wright brothers airplane, goddards rockets or Teslas alternating current. Because at that time all these technologies were "unproven" to the skeptics the key word being "unproven", the skeptic needs concrete proof before he will believe anything as such he believes almost nothing which is why I have yet to hear of any true skeptic accomplish anything that could be regarded as beneficial to society in any way.
I usually simply ignore the skeptics as they have absolutely nothing to offer me in the way of understanding, they come to degrade and humiliate to make themselves feel superior----that is there nature.
BTW TK is NOT a skeptic ,
He is a scientist/experimenter with a very good bullshit meter
Chet
Perhaps Rosemary is Mylow's cousin...
witsend [Rosemary ]
Quote
Ramset - I looked at the video and simply can't comment because it's impossible to say what the circuit is. And it seems that he's got a resistive load and a motor in parallel - but I have no idea where the diode is?
I wish people would make their circuit references clearer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the vid she is referring to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x0wQJrc9To
Quote from: ramset on July 12, 2009, 11:15:00 AM
witsend [Rosemary ]
Quote
Ramset - I looked at the video and simply can't comment because it's impossible to say what the circuit is. And it seems that he's got a resistive load and a motor in parallel - but I have no idea where the diode is?
I wish people would make their circuit references clearer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the vid she is referring to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x0wQJrc9To
ROLLING On THE FLOOR LAUGHING MY bleeping ASS OFF!
On the second-to-the last post of mine on "her" thread, which was REMOVED by the "moderator", I photographed the circuit, and the diagram from HER OWN PAPERS, to show her just what circuit I am using--so far the only one to do so that I can see--in a direct response to her query there. No flames, no comments, just "here is the circuit I am using" with a photograph--this photograph--and the post was removed.
Perhaps, Chet, you could get her to look at this photo here, since it has been censored over there.
(Since this photo, and before the video above, I took out the hardwired diode, put in a SPDT center off toggle switch and a terminal block, so that I could mount several diodes and switch between them easily to see their effects on the circuit. This modification is clearly visible in this video, and in the previous one I show it specifically and explain its slight effect on the waveform (although with my low bandwidth analog scopes it is hard to see, so I did not show it.) This is why I am so surprised that it made such a "macroscopic" effect with the motor and bulb.)
Now, anyone with eyes to see can see what circuit I am using--it is the published circuit of Rosemary Ainslie.
BUT--can anyone tell me just what circuit Rosemary Ainslie used to generate the data in the Quantim article and the EIT.pdf paper? And how it was clocked?
Anyone?
Quote from: henieck on July 12, 2009, 09:46:13 AM
Hello TinselKoala (and others as well),
You seem to be very reasonable guy. I know you from the other forum and I am happy I have found you here because I would like to ask you a question. You are well seasoned member of wide interest of this community while I am just a fresh one, and my little request to you is if you could express what is your perspective on “free energy†field in terms of what seems to be bull s. or what has been successfully replicated by some people. So far I have proved just to myself that Rosemary’s circuit is a joke. I hope others will be able to make it working â€" but I really doubt it.
The worst is that years later there will be people who will be trying out this stupid circuit and be puzzled by the surface effect of the flyback loop â€" what a waste of time. So after my first encounter in this field it seems to me that designer is uneducated- but made a virtue from this fact and reframed it into open-mind-ness, emotional about the outcome, childish about criticism, not capable of objective, down to the point thinking, not being able to detect her own errors in judgments and trace her own mind deceit. I was shocked to discover that the “inventor†did not know basic operational facts about electric current, energy or even her very simple circuit.
This woman was not even aware of the fact that it takes energy to make magnetic field exist, and that a coil can store some energy in the form of magnetic field, until it is disconnected form the current! This is just most shocking of all. The woman who was gong to energetically save the world had no most basic understanding about energy. It wasn’t somebody who knew it, saw a flaw in it and proposed different, better theoryâ€" it was somebody who had an amazing informational “hole†in this region and in few others (the battery example). There was no model about this piece of reality in her mind at allâ€" so instead of getting educated she was forced to make a new zipon theory.
Even when I pointed out how energy is stored in a coil - nothing helped, like there was total blockage for any new input. Just her littlie world of sick hallucinations and zero capability to processing any new information â€" just deletion. She had no other choice - she had to delete all the contradictory information because otherwise she would be forced to rebuild her entire pitiful world and all the past experiences about this circuit. Infinitely pitiful. I didn’t want to put new convictions through throat â€" I just wanted her to process new information somehow. She must have had sensed, that asking questions expose to herself her inconsistencies â€" so she insisted on deletion of those who asked inconvenient questions.
Some other users of forum disappointed equally â€" evidently they want to live in entirely other semi scientific, semi religious world and don’t want to be disturbed by any sober, they call “debunkersâ€. I think that first of all she was trying to debunk widely accepted point of view â€" and the fact that they call me debunker confirms that they had readily swallowed her infantile, yet complicated zipon theory like Lindemann swallowed gravity wheel idea. Seeing this great “nothingness†compared to her great claims I have to admit I have got carried away a bit â€" so they blocked me entirely that I can’t even read what is next there. Does it happen very often here as well?
Scientifically, playing with this idiotic circuit for few days was a pure waste of time, although one learns all the time something new. Conversely, from psychological point of view â€" it was fascinating to have first hand experience in this field how psychology of one such “inventor†really operates. Priceless experience â€" and I am wondering â€" do you think that other pseudo-scientific “inventors†in this field are equally contaminated by this sort of psychological problems as well? But most of all, like I wrote above â€" I would love to hear your opinion about other things potentially worth of at least looking at. Are there any preliminarily promising things in this “free energy†field? I consider this Rosemary’s idiotic thing finished for me and need new inspiration. What is yours now?
Best regards, henieck.
Hi Henieck and well met.
I am glad to hear from you here. You bring up a lot of important points.
First, let me say that this forum is in general more tolerant of skepticism and positive "debunking" efforts. The owner, Stefan, is, I believe, a real seeker of truth, and is also highly experienced in working with many of the types of designs you might see discussed here. Sometimes he allows individuals to moderate specific threads, and these moderators may be more, or less, forgiving of skepticism.
However, this openness also tends to let people make the kinds of posts that would be considered blatant trolling on many other forums. That can get annoying--if you read back through this thread you will see some good examples.
In fact, as you can see, I am now very leery of posting here, because of the trolling problem. I do not mind reasoned criticisms and rational arguments, I even can take and dish out the occasional drunken insult with equanimity, but the useless harping on an already-conceded minor point is quite ridiculous, especially when combined with lies and distortions about what I actually do and post.
As far as the other questions you have re my general take on the OU field I will send you a PM here later this afternoon. I really need to get out of the basement for a while.
Thanks again, and welcome to the forum.
--TK
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 12, 2009, 12:14:51 PM
As far as the other questions you have re my general take on the OU field I will send you a PM here later this afternoon.
Awww, c'mon TK. Post it publicly. Lotsa folks would like to know what really goes on in that head of yours. ;)
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7620.0;attach=35896
test
Quote from: 0c on July 12, 2009, 01:10:01 PM
Awww, c'mon TK. Post it publicly. Lotsa folks would like to know what really goes on in that head of yours. ;)
Including me.
::)
Quote from: 0c on July 12, 2009, 01:10:01 PM
Awww, c'mon TK. Post it publicly. Lotsa folks would like to know what really goes on in that head of yours. ;)
Some of my own whacky ideas have been discussed, but it always brings out the trolls so I don't do it very much.
But let's just say that I "have faith" in the Standard Model and in Quantum Electrodynamics (QCD I'm not so sure about). And in the usual suspects: the conservation laws, the utility of mathematical modelling (with Korzybski's caveat that "the map is not the territory". Unless you're a cartographer.)
I have faith in these things--because I don't have the ability to understand them fully, so I cannot say that I
know them (cf. Feynman)-- but everytime I've tested them I find them to be correct, to within measurement accuracy. And I test them quite frequently--like with every step, breath, and eyeblink I take.
Now, within that context obviously I do not believe energy can be obtained "for free". Do I believe that one may obtain useful energy without economic cost? Yes, absolutely. But one must find a source, a flux, and a sink, and one must position oneself in the flux in such a manner and with such technology that some of the flux may be diverted to be wasted in driving your pitiful Earth machinery. Er, I mean put to good use in our society.
What's the flux? I dunno. I still think the main flux is going to turn out to be electrodynamic; I believe there is a tremendous energy reservoir made up by the capacitor of the earth and its atmosphere and ionosphere; I think that this reservoir, which ultimately powers lightning discharges, is continually recharged by the sun; I hope that someday someone might be able to position some apparatus that would be able to exploit this reservoir in two main ways: First of course as a power "source", and second, as a means of global power transmission, perhaps from some central plant that down-converted the Schumann cavity's energy store to a form that is perhaps more useful to puny Earthlings, er, I mean to us...and then re-inject it by "ringing" the cavity at harmonics of its fundamental resonant frequency.
Do I perhaps think that Nikola Tesla was on the right track? Sure. Plus he made a bunch of really neat apparatus that sparks and makes ozone--and I love that stuff.
There, that should feed the trolls for a while.
--TK
(Edit to add, no, I do not consider 0c to be a troll. )
Quote from: ramset on July 12, 2009, 01:14:42 PM
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7620.0;attach=35896
test
Worked for me as a download link. No image until I downloaded it.
H ,
Some Nasa and other FE stuff
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3809-interesting-articles-free-energy-etc.html#post46942
Chet
For banned folks http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20030033916_2003038530.pdf
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20050170447_2005172301.pdf
complete post
lamare
NASA: Advanced Energetics for Aeronautical Applications
NASA publishes 2 interesting volumes "Advanced Energetics for Aeronautical Applications":
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...2003038530.pdf
Volume 2: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...2005172301.pdf
Volume 2 contains some very interesting chapters on ZPE:
Chapter 3: ADVANCED ELECTRIC CONCEPTS
Chapter 4: BREAKTHROUGH ENERGETICSâ€"ZERO POINT ENERGY
Chapter 4 handles specifically about free energy:
Zero Point Energy Principles in the Similar Technologies of Nikola Tesla and E.V. Gray
4.3.1 Dr. Peter Lindemann
4.3.2 ZPE Principles Suggested in E.V. Gray's Technology
4.3.3 The Energy Science of Dr. Nikola Tesla
4.3.4 Dr. Lindemann's Definition of "The Electro-Radiant Event"
4.3.5 Comparing E.V. Gray's Technology with that of Tesla
4.3.6 Summary of Principles for Accessing ZPE
H,
also look here :o :o :o :o :o
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7679.msg190845#new
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 12, 2009, 01:37:36 PM
(Edit to add, no, I do not consider 0c to be a troll. )
(a stalker maybe? ;) ) Thanks for being so candid.
TK
Yes thanks for sharing [and all the doing!!!]
Chet
Quote from: 0c on July 12, 2009, 02:15:26 PM
(a stalker maybe? ;) ) Thanks for being so candid.
Let's say, "A fellow traveller." I think that would be most accurate.
8)
OK, back to "work". (EEK, I scared myself.)
I would really like to know the make and model of the function generator used, if one was used, to drive the Ainslie circuit for her reported experiment. She's not telling me, but it's an important question.
I need to know its adjustment capability and characteristics: Peak output voltage into 50 ohms; pulse width range; DC offset capability; sweep functionality or not; and so forth.
In the Quantum report of the experiment, of course, the FG is not mentioned AT ALL and the clocking is assumed to be from the accompanying circuit diagram--the infamous 555. There is also NO MENTION of the flyback diode and it does not appear on the diagram.
Yet in the EIT.pdf report of the same experiment:
In the EIT.pdf paper, the only mention of a FG is the little symbol on the diagram in that paper, and this phrase in the text:
"The oscillator is adjusted to output a frequency of 2.4KHz at a 3.7% duty
cycle on time. Adjusting the variable resistor in series with the gate of the
MOSFET reduces the gate current and results in random oscillation that
overrides the predetermined frequency and duty cycle."
The oscillator. And in the equipment list she makes much of the fact that her Fluke 199C is calibrated, and other equipment parameters are noted with calibration information. Yet the FG is not mentioned.
And now the flyback diode has mysteriously appeared and is a critical component of the experiment.
So, you have to see how this makes me think that the 555 circuit WAS in fact used in the reported experiment.
But if it wasn't, the information about what WAS used to clock the circuit is necessary, to make sure that what has been called a "typical first year EE mistake" (in reference to ME in the second video!!??!!) has not been made all through Ainslie's work.
I am coming to the opinion that we are being Mylowed, yet again.
(I note that in the NakedScientists thread she several times refers to the Fluke 123 scope she used. OOPS, in the papers I have it's a 199C. It's an easy mistake to make--the 199C is only twice the physical size of the 123, and when you google them quickly for a picture of a scopemeter you might get confused, especially if your eyesight is even worse than your memory...
No matter, as I have shown, I have BOTH a 199C and a 123 at my fingertips, and as soon as she gets her story straight I can use whatever she used in my replication attempt.)
Oh, and another question: with so many people building her circuit, with her right there giving instructions, and the circuit is supposed to be making COP>17, and the all the sophisticated measurements being made, many of which according to her are showing OU...
Why hasn't anyone reported burning their fingers!!??!!???
Aaron said
For the record, TK is knowingly posting false information.
In the video description, "And finally, the thread where Ainslie is currently posting, from which most of my relevant posts have been removed by "moderation":"
Take note that nothing has been removed.
__________________
With Gratitude, Aaron
Aaron again commenting
:
Originally Posted by witsend View Post
Hoppy - to yet again involve you, if you don't mind. Here's the thing. Regardless of the level of efficiency I do see a recharge value in that returning energy from the collapsing fields. Does this fall in line with classical thinking?
In other words, is it acknowledged that a battery supply source can be recharged from energy supplied by the circuit? This sort of goes to the heart of the thesis? Academics have only commented that the measurement of the energy is correct. But if so, then their own measurements protocol allows for this benefit. And logic therefore points to a gain over the energy dissipated? I'd be very glad to have a discussion on this point. If not Hoppy someone? Allcanadian, Aaron? anyone?
Rosemary, there is an extreme psychological collective block on all of these concepts.
"I do see a recharge value in that returning energy from the collapsing fields. Does this fall in line with classical thinking?" - This concept is self-evident in many natural events I believe.
"is it acknowledged that a battery supply source can be recharged from energy supplied by the circuit?" - I'm not sure if it is acknowledged in any honest way, but it IS being applied in many instances. One example is Solar powered yard lights that have small rechargeable batteries are ALL charged very efficiently by the inductive spike coming off of a coil AFTER the transistor is turned off. It is the only way they can get those batteries to charge like they do instead of putting the solar cell straight to the battery. Solar cell charges primary then power turns off and the collapsing spike charges the battery. Again, the battery is charged AFTER input power is disconnected from the circuit.
Another example is every photoflash unit in cameras. Those caps are charged many times above the voltage of the battery powering it. The caps are all charge with the inductive spikes coming back AFTER input power is disconnected from the circuit.
These aren't the "source" battery but they do demonstrate utilizing energy AFTER source energy is taken away.
__________________
With Gratitude, Aaron
witsend
Thanks very much for answering the question Aaron. So then it's significant. In other words - if this can be generally proved that a battery can, in fact, recharge itself, then that will represent some unequivocal proof of over unity?
I say this because this is definitely measurable on our circuit. It's so quick. No fancy measuring instruments required. Surely then, all that is needed is to have everyone replicate the circuit to prove this. Thereafter we can play with that resonating frequency? That extreme overunity effect is not difficult - but for some reason is not happening. I'm sure that Donovan can help in this regard.
I'm trying to assist in the problem that Dr Stiffler pointed to where the thread will go on into infinity without standard parameters. Just a thought.EDIT in other words let's knock the OU claim on the head and then we can move on? Classicists won't argue the measurement of this. The real boffins gave me the required parameters to measure it. And other experts - the accreditors - could not argue this point.
Quote from: ramset on July 12, 2009, 03:01:09 PM
Aaron said
For the record, TK is knowingly posting false information.
In the video description, "And finally, the thread where Ainslie is currently posting, from which most of my relevant posts have been removed by "moderation":"
Take note that nothing has been removed.
__________________
With Gratitude, Aaron
:
Originally Posted by witsend View Post
Hoppy - to yet again involve you, if you don't mind. Here's the thing. Regardless of the level of efficiency I do see a recharge value in that returning energy from the collapsing fields. Does this fall in line with classical thinking?
In other words, is it acknowledged that a battery supply source can be recharged from energy supplied by the circuit? This sort of goes to the heart of the thesis? Academics have only commented that the measurement of the energy is correct. But if so, then their own measurements protocol allows for this benefit. And logic therefore points to a gain over the energy dissipated? I'd be very glad to have a discussion on this point. If not Hoppy someone? Allcanadian, Aaron? anyone?
Rosemary, there is an extreme psychological collective block on all of these concepts.
"I do see a recharge value in that returning energy from the collapsing fields. Does this fall in line with classical thinking?" - This concept is self-evident in many natural events I believe.
"is it acknowledged that a battery supply source can be recharged from energy supplied by the circuit?" - I'm not sure if it is acknowledged in any honest way, but it IS being applied in many instances. One example is Solar powered yard lights that have small rechargeable batteries are ALL charged very efficiently by the inductive spike coming off of a coil AFTER the transistor is turned off. It is the only way they can get those batteries to charge like they do instead of putting the solar cell straight to the battery. Solar cell charges primary then power turns off and the collapsing spike charges the battery. Again, the battery is charged AFTER input power is disconnected from the circuit.
Another example is every photoflash unit in cameras. Those caps are charged many times above the voltage of the battery powering it. The caps are all charge with the inductive spikes coming back AFTER input power is disconnected from the circuit.
These aren't the "source" battery but they do demonstrate utilizing energy AFTER source energy is taken away.
__________________
With Gratitude, Aaron
witsend
Thanks very much for answering the question Aaron. So then it's significant. In other words - if this can be generally proved that a battery can, in fact, recharge itself, then that will represent some unequivocal proof of over unity?
I say this because this is definitely measurable on our circuit. It's so quick. No fancy measuring instruments required. Surely then, all that is needed is to have everyone replicate the circuit to prove this. Thereafter we can play with that resonating frequency? That extreme overunity effect is not difficult - but for some reason is not happening. I'm sure that Donovan can help in this regard.
I'm trying to assist in the problem that Dr Stiffler pointed to where the thread will go on into infinity without standard parameters. Just a thought.EDIT in other words let's knock the OU claim on the head and then we can move on? Classicists won't argue the measurement of this. The real boffins gave me the required parameters to measure it. And other experts - the accreditors - could not argue this point.
Then where's my post with the photograph? Why didn't Ainslie see it?
It is Aaron who is lying--or mistaken. The photo was posted between posts 455 and 470--in which post Aaron chides me for posting again after he "asked" me not to. But where's that post? It is gone, and I sure as flmp did not remove it.
AARON, for the record, your slur is actionable, because there have indeed been relevant posts of mine removed from your thread. You will either retract your slur or I will pursue it, to the ends of the earth.
And if we want to talk about "knowingly posting false information"...there is that whole Ainslie thread of yours. Most of the "information" in there is false, Rosemary knows it, and many other people do too.
The Quantum article is a good example. Clearly false information that has not been retracted in the SEVEN years since its publication.
AARON's post # 479:
"Anyone that wants the publicly available gripe sessions in this thread, please copy them now within 12-24 hours from this post. I have decided to delete a certain amount of them so that we do not a lot of irrelevant information that will not help replication attempts."
He (or somebody) just started early with mine, I guess. And I can't seem to find some of Henieck's posts either.
Just checking... is the http://www.energeticforum.com/ site also unreachable for you guys? It has been for some time. I got a misunderstanding email from one member there, and soon after I could not even see the site anymore. Probably coincidence. Thanks!
Quote from: Cloxxki on July 12, 2009, 03:19:13 PM
Just checking... is the http://www.energeticforum.com/ site also unreachable for you guys? It has been for some time. I got a misunderstanding email from one member there, and soon after I could not even see the site anymore. Probably coincidence. Thanks!
Oddly enough, I can still see it. They sometimes will block people from even reading the site, by IP number, I have been told. Try a proxy server or a hardware firewall with NAT translation. If you use a different IP number you might be able to see it. Let us know if this is actually their policy.
I have not used any such subterfuge; I'm just on a Rogers system, behind the usual router. Perhaps they've forgotten to block my read access (although I cannot even PM anyone or post there at all).
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 12, 2009, 01:37:36 PM
There, that should feed the trolls for a while.
;D ;D ;D
That is why I think people like that are reasonable - except sense of humor, strong philosophical fundaments (Korzybski -but this is just a model ;), valid method of cognition (senses + logic), extended knowledge base and some faith in something what worked so far but in the same time open mindedly searching if there is possibly anything else, and constantly evaluating one’s position.
Conversely, Rosemary is incapable of going to meta-position and seeing herself from a healthy perspective. She thinks that her model is the reality itself (interesting model ;) and has very limited knowledge in the field she is trying to operate in. But her bad science and mysticism, especially mixed with this tricky circuit, is like a mind virus. Well, you can’t get rid of an informational virus if your system is already attacked. One has to go one operational level higher â€" and that is what this African, poorly educated, yet somewhat intelligent woman is entirely incapable of doing. Fascinating case to me.
Interestingly, nobody from this forum and other one, answered that there is some free E device many people were successfully replicating. So I assume, that the situation is not much different from that from few years back - everybody are searching, every second guy is trying to spin Bedini’s wheel, some claims to have something but nobody can replicate that - others make a fuss but do not disclose any details of the device, and someone is always somewhere going already into the “mass production phaseâ€...
Thanks TK. I'll presume a technical mishap at my end and try to remember attempting from work tomorrow.
The uptight and inconsistent posting style there does make me wonder though. I probably p'd off someone while only meaning good. Certainly the case with the member I corresponded with by email.
With plenty of due respect... Your personal attitude may also not work very well over there, but IMO they could have done better dealing with you and your wise-behind questions. Because they do warrent serious answers.
In this RA discussion, for me it's nearing the point where I think your efforts are now better used coming up (or replicating) something newer than to try and get this inventor admit oversight or incomplete documentation. Your talents and resources may bring the OU world more elsewhere. Which doesn't mean I'd love to fast forward and learn the ins and outs.
If I did get banned there, then probably for my general commentary with regards to publishing OU inventors, for failing to get their devices out there. Rosemary's for instance, once working in a lab, can be copied quite easily, boxed, and sent off. Couple hundreds dollars worth of material, and receiving parties would only hook up their own measuring equipment. OU, after all, should be determined on the most and least reliable measuring equipment alike. An AA battery bringing a 1 litre (or 10) bowl of water from ambient temperature to bowling, that's something unmistakeble.
Recharging batteries, run times, voltage spikes, duty cycles, it's all nonsence until you get a small input to do great work. Who boils most water, from a standardized externally provided battery and water bowl?
The OU community needs stricter "rules", to avoid wasting time on Mylows and more sincere inventors on the wrong track (like recently Tommey Reed's with this BEMF circuits).
We are doing this together, so once you think you have something, replicate YOURSELF and ask an expert you respect.
[/off topic]
Quote from: Cloxxki on July 12, 2009, 03:30:26 PM
Thanks TK. I'll presume a technical mishap at my end and try to remember attempting from work tomorrow.
The uptight and inconsistent posting style there does make me wonder though. I probably p'd off someone while only meaning good. Certainly the case with the member I corresponded with by email.
With plenty of due respect... Your personal attitude may also not work very well over there, but IMO they could have done better dealing with you and your wise-behind questions. Because they do warrent serious answers.
In this RA discussion, for me it's nearing the point where I think your efforts are now better used coming up (or replicating) something newer than to try and get this inventor admit oversight or incomplete documentation. Your talents and resources may bring the OU world more elsewhere. Which doesn't mean I'd love to fast forward and learn the ins and outs.
I agree mostly. I just went back and looked at the early pages of this thread. I see that I was very mild and calm, honestly trying to replicate the circuit and performance--I even put "exact" in quotes and joked about my component substitutions--which by the way are no longer substituted--. And it wasn't until the end of Page 4 or so that I discovered the duty cycle problem, and when I tried to see if I had made an error by asking the people at the energetic forum, I got dissed really badly and insulted as to my capabilities and work. Coming from someone with Ainslie's admitted qualifications, I took that as an extreme insult, in addition to being a travesty of "science" and the entire open-source concept. So yes, I am personally engaged by this one, even more than with Mylow--at least he admitted on a comment to my video that I had caught him fair and square.
Then when I realized that she wants people to believe that she has actual patents, when she really only has applications filed, I began to understand a bit more about Ainslie herself. This really is a situation with parallels to Mylow. Ainslie is telling a story that has internal inconsistencies that are so glaring it is impossible to believe that she does not see them as well. The two different reports of the same experiment, for example--different circuits, different claims, different emphasis...but the same data. The distortions about what the vetting labs and consultants found and reported. The random chaotic oscillations. The energy balance calculations.
All of it seems to add up to me to a little more than a simple mistake or two.
The patent issue is an example. She has NO patents issued, only applications filed. Anybody can file an application for a patent about anything at all. It means exactly zip, except to establish a date, and that can be done by mailing yourself a letter. Yet, on the NakedScientist thread, she engages a fully experienced EE with several actual awarded patents, who clearly is under the impression that when Ainslie refers to her "Patent" she is talking about something that has been vetted and granted.
You are right, I am trying to just walk away. And I could, if I didn't feel so personally insulted. Those people flamed me for being wrong, without trying it themselves...and now that many have tried it and find out that I was RIGHT all along, do I get un-flamed? Do I get even a hint of an apology? No--I get accused of Knowingly Posting Incorrect Information or some shit, when that itself isn't even true, as I have hopefully shown.
So I will continue testing this circuit and the experimental protocol in general, and I will continue to post my findings and rants, somewhere or another, until Rosemary retracts the Quantum article or otherwise addresses the "error", and until I can definitively fail to show excess energy in her paradigm, regardless of the "exactness" of my replication (or the damned logic of failure to reproduce results.) It's personal. I don't need a personal apology, I already know I don't want to be Rosemary's friend. I just want her misrepresentations of reality, in publication form, to be corrected or to stop.
RAMSET
just one question
Rosemary,
would you know the make and model of the function generator used, if one was used, to drive the circuit for your experiment.
I need to know its adjustment capability and characteristics: Peak output voltage into 50 ohms; pulse width range; DC offset capability; sweep functionality or not; and so forth.
If you could provide the Info that would be great
Chet
witsend
Ramset - your question as to what functions generator I used? May I ask why you are asking this? I've never used one other than for testing purposes in sundry engineering labs. I've always used a 555
@henieck:
Actually I do know of a single device that works. It's called the Farnsworth Fusor, and it does indeed produce fusion on the tabletop. Emits neutrons and everything.
Unfortunately its COP is like 1.000000000000000000000000001 or something, and it does not appear to be scalable.
http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/fusor/bigsys3.html
(Look at other pages on that site, if you aren't familiar with it already.)
Cloxxki said:
Quote
Just checking... is the http://www.energeticforum.com/ site also unreachable for you guys? It has been for some time.
This is EnergeticForum's home page. Works for me, and I have a 'Net Nannie' filtering block on this borrowed computer.
I also have a copy of a Mandriva freeware 'Net browser with Mozilla Firefox bundled with it to get around that. Maybe you have a software compatibility issue? Hard to say.
--Lee
Quote from: ramset on July 12, 2009, 04:03:11 PM
RAMSET
just one question
Rosemary,
would you know the make and model of the function generator used, if one was used, to drive the circuit for your experiment.
I need to know its adjustment capability and characteristics: Peak output voltage into 50 ohms; pulse width range; DC offset capability; sweep functionality or not; and so forth.
If you could provide the Info that would be great
Chet
witsend
Ramset - your question as to what functions generator I used? May I ask why you are asking this? I've never used one other than for testing purposes in sundry engineering labs. I've always used a 555
BINGO.
Thanks Chet, I appreciate it. That should put some nails in the coffin. I really hope the readers over there can connect the dots.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 12, 2009, 03:22:01 PM
Oddly enough, I can still see it. They sometimes will block people from even reading the site, by IP number, I have been told.
I have tried different ethernet card, IP, and removed the cookie - can't even see if they removed my posts - and now I don't even try anymore â€" there are only blind believers in theirs messiah (Rosemary) left there anyway. If they are serious about replication and measurements - it is just a question of time when poor woman will have many negative results reported. Then there will be interesting to watch her reaction. But if the guys will get lost in paying attention to the fact that one resistor is warmer than the other, instead of concentrating on the input/output energy values â€" than the Rosemary’s virus may spread and stay here for longer.
I have pissed off Lindemann openly making jokes about his excitement about every piece of shit which has “free energy†in the title and was a bit harsh for blunt Rosemary who couldn’t answer the key questions - so perhaps they started messing up in the system to block me like Peter warned.
Thanks for the elaboration TK. I was seeing it in a most similar WAY.
As an outsider though (I only started to read - and spam - this OU scene recently) I do notice that your prior reputation and attutude slip later in the discussion, is working against you in your efforts. And, in the way I've gotten to know the human mind, proving you wrong is now more important to Rosemary's admirers, more than someone actually accomplishing signifant over unity, in any field. This is all most counter productive.
What amazes me when reading into OU fields and prior research, is how the foremost scientists, who has done actual significant non-OU work, treat their OU work much like a religion. No doubts, just references to existing devices, not unlike citing a bible verse or merely its number.
"OU is established and true, and this new device I'm proposing here is merely different or better."
Globally respected highly educated scientist are backing up OU inventors, endorsing their work, yet we all still have a utility bill every month. We all still get to go to the gas station, buy Alcaline batteries for our camera's, etc.
Windmills and solar panels are looking better and better. Who doesn't have a roof?
I see many very promising technologies, to improve efficiency, reduce toxis exhaust gasses, etc. Yet, very little happens, and the limiting factors, as always, is again the human mind. Too little co-operation. Panacea seems to be doing the best job in trying to overcome human's inability to get technology fully developed, and out there.
TK, with your experience of all things that DON't work, I'd be interested to hear from you where you think we should be looking for things that MIGHT work. Mechanical, electrical, biological.
But whether anything is going to beat a solar panel or windmill for kWh/kg...
Quote from: henieck on July 12, 2009, 04:09:47 PM
I have pissed off Lindemann openly making jokes about his excitement about every piece of shit which has “free energy†in the title...
They don't need you.
And if Stefan does not do something about the troublemakers here, then he will end up owning a big box with nothing in it.
Quote from: henieck on July 12, 2009, 04:09:47 PM
I have tried different ethernet card, IP, and removed the cookie - can't even see if they removed my posts - and now I don't even try anymore â€" there are only blind believers in theirs messiah (Rosemary) left there anyway. If they are serious about replication and measurements - it is just a question of time when poor woman will have many negative results reported. Then there will be interesting to watch her reaction. But if the guys will get lost in paying attention to the fact that one resistor is warmer than the other, instead of concentrating on the input/output energy values â€" than the Rosemary’s virus may spread and stay here for longer.
I have pissed off Lindemann openly making jokes about his excitement about every piece of shit which has “free energy†in the title and was a bit harsh for blunt Rosemary who couldn’t answer the key questions - so perhaps they started messing up in the system to block me like Peter warned.
Hi henieck,
Thought I'd stop by with "three" friends from Energetic Forum, and I read that your having problems with accessing the Forum ...... TK is exactly correct about the options of banning someone and one is by IP address, sorry dude. The only way around this is if you have a broadband connection is to unplug it for 8 - 12 hours or use the reset button on the back of the modem to gain a new IP address from your ISP provider through automated means, the other is to use a proxy server. This I know being a moderator on several Forums (not energetic forum) and being able to use SMF and vBulletin software.
As your familiar with the RA circuit and have a good knowledge of electronics I think you wold agree that if the circuit works great ... if it doesn't the first person that figures out whats wrong and corrects the problem using the old "copyright" notice will have some exclusive rights, so maybe it's off to the races so to speak? I find the circuit interesting, possibly unique and RA is the one that came up with what is being discussed no one else but her co-author "years" ago, and no one can take that away .....
Oh ya ..... many times semi conductor manufactures years ago and even today like many other company's sell mis-marked or out of tolerance items to 3rd world countries, so as not to lose money on products.
Fuzzy
:)
Quote from: ramset on July 12, 2009, 04:03:11 PM
witsend says:
Ramset - your question as to what functions generator I used? May I ask why you are asking this? I've never used one other than for testing purposes in sundry engineering labs. I've always used a 555
- guys, Rosemary said in few places if you add everything she says together â€" that her “revelation†will work with many different transistors, very wide range of frequency, rather low duty cycle and (implicitly) almost any resistive coil (I would add that it can be any coil â€" even one winding of a transformer+ resistor). You don’t have to copy her circuit literally and search for special resonance and you don’t have to hang up on the specific components form that article â€" please ask her about it if you don’t believe. She even wonders “how is it possible that anybody can not see itâ€. Reading her words it seems like what she is talking about is almost “everywhereâ€. I have an impression that she doesn’t understand why exactly all of you are trying to use IRFPG50 (or something) transistor or asking about some strange to her technicalities about the timer or something or wire. It doesn’t matter so much. Just take any transistor within the range of the specification, any spiral of wire and start pulsing this idiotic circuit. You will see, that when you connect the flyback diode â€" the current measured from the battery to the coil will increase. In fact it will increase in response to any other load - its own battery is just the special case which makes things hard too see at first. Now sweep a little the duty cycle (or freq) so after when you connect the diode to the battery again â€" the gain will be the biggest (can be almost double â€" “but always little less than that†â€" her own words.) This is it, leave the diode permanently connected now. There you have it. According to her this current which is now flowing from the battery to the coil is the magical free energy flyback (which can both charge the battery and give heat at the same time) ;D while it is just increased intake to compensate the flyback’s load (battery charging). There is deceiving LOOP, which she cannot properly understand, she makes serious logical errors about its nature and based on that makes entirely wrong calculations. It is like swapping multiple times a small amount of money between bank accounts (loop) and later seeing the volume of trade (amperage) thinking that she is a millionaire(free energy). This is all that is to it. It is painfully pitiful. You are searching for the magical frequency or transistor in the clouds â€" while it is a piece of shit on the pavement… Look there! ;D
Below I just paste my results which are exactly the same as those on the other forum already â€" so it +-complete set in one place of one replication attempt.
*****
I have been busy on an uninterrupted basis for two days with this project. The core I have made from an ordinary brick using diamond blade cutter and drill machine. It is 200mm long, has 35mm diameter, weights 300g and has 10mm diameter hole for temperature probe. On this I wound 111turns of unknown resistive wire I have already had somewhere. The coil of wire is 138mm long. Using coil calculator http://www.captain.at/electronics/coils/ I determined its inductance â€" 96.62 microH. Its resistance is determined by measurements and calculations form Ohm law and checked by multimeter â€" so it is 4,64Ohms. I have 12V motorbike flooded battery of unknown capacity. Because of that I made 10 hours controlled discharge using known resistance to determine its characteristics. Every 15 minutes I measured voltage (under load) and in that way determined how many Joules it can deliver from full charge correspondingly to any lower voltage, correspondingly to any degree of discharge (within reasonable range of course, I didn’t discharge it lower than 10,5V). From full charge to 10.5V (under average 0.3A load) it delivered 3Ah â€" so I don’t know- perhaps it is rated 5Ah or something…
I used 2SK1120 transistor http://www.datasheetcatalog.org/datasheet/toshiba/2998.pdf and BY448V diode for the flyback http://www.datasheetcatalog.org/datasheet/vishay/86006.pdf As a signal source I used home made signal generator based on timer chip NE555 made in such a way that I had possibility to change duty cycle as well (influencing at the same the f, but it is sufficient). For measurements I used only most typical mulimeters (analog display type for Amperes). I didn’t use shunt resistor, because I think there is already calibrated one inside the multimeter, so all the current went through ammeter. Voltage meter was all the time hooked directly to the battery terminals.
First of all I played a little bit to get acquainted with the mysterious circuit. By varying adjustable resistor I found that the flyback gains the most when I have minimal setting on the variable resistor, so only the value of protective resistor 510Ohms which I had in place from different application was left between timer and transistor. In this setup I have noticed that when the flyback diode is connected back to battery â€" than amperage almost doubles comparing to the situation with the diode disconnected. This flyback gain, like Rosemary said, was present in very wide spectrum of frequency and duty cycle except higher frequencies, and was always less then the input value. To investigate further the nature of this flyback I collected its charge to capacitor 47000microF. It took 25s to reach over25Volts on that capacitorâ€" and using the calculator http://www.electronics2000.co.uk/calc/capacitor-charge-calculator.php I have determined quantity of the collected energy. Unfortunately the result of this simple calculations is that catching the energy to capacitor makes input amperes (translated further to Joules) go exactly directly proportionally higher. At ca. 13V the amount of current flow increased by approximately 50mA during this exercise. That means that by using the flyback diode we recycle the same energy :( Clearly, unlike proposes Rosemary - my coil “knows†that somebody switched off the current and is trying to collect the impulse from collapsing magnetic field â€" and automatically, proportionally increases its energy input to “compensate†this so to speak. No free energy here… Perhaps other transistor or other “freaquency†will do… ;) Btw, I don’t know exact frequency yet â€" I have to move my circuit and hook up to computer to see what was my final choice in terms of kHz, but probably I ended up somewhere between 2-3kHz, and 5-10% duty. I don’t know yet…
But I was determined to check if maybe there was something in interaction with the battery like Bedini maintains, or that by other mysterious phenomenon it would result in much less discharging of the battery. So I fully charged the battery again, and logging everything started to pulsate the coil with disconnected flyback diode from the positive terminal of the battery. The test duration was 3h. Using on average 3.51W it rose the temperature of my resistive coil by max 9.4 degrees C while the temperature of transistor’s heat sink rose more distinctively to touch although being aware of it’s drainage of energy I didn’t measure that at this stage. Similarly to the way I determined the characteristics of my battery â€" I collected all the records and made charts (temperature to time, voltage drop to time, energy cumulatively delivered to time. That was my baseline very nicely comparable to the previously obtained characteristics, and I was ready to connect the magical flyback diode now…(!)
Again fully recharged the battery (every step takes hours, but at least recharging goes by itself). I have noticed that my long time unused battery every successive charge was gaining somewhat higher initial voltage â€" but all that was without any flyback diode whatsoever, only thanks to intensive charging of that long time unused battery (only refreshing charge once every few months). Anyway, having all the collected reference points in the form of previous measurements of performance I started the great final experiment with the magical flyback diode…
There was slightly higher initial voltage (0.16V higher comparing to no flyback example), but the battery was very freshly recharged and I have started the experiment almost immediately. I was one step from proving to myself existence of free energy, so I was excited probably almost as much as Lindemann sitting in self perpetuating lavatory…
Yes, indeed since the temperature went higher than without the diode, but nothing like10-fold increase of input energy would do, or even 30% :( This time instead of 9.4 degrees â€" it was 11.4 â€" so quite some sudden percentage gain, beyond possibility of measurement error. (btw, I used home purpose electronic thermometer).
I thought perhaps there was a little gain and some tweaking would increase it, but very quickly I have noticed, that during this flyback operation â€" the transistor is completely cold. So that is the answer to the slightly higher temperature of the coil â€" the heat normally dissipated in transistor, thanks to higher voltage was “transferred†to the coil. To finally check this I was ready to put both transistor and the coil into small insulation box â€" so together it might achieve over 40 degrees or something â€" and this way measure the total energy dissipated as heat and get the ultimate confirmation of the second law of thermodynamicsâ€" but to me at this moment that would be additional waste of time. I saw the flyback in action, thanks to relatively good inductance to resistance ratio it was almost as big as the input (but less of course). It cannot be much bigger â€" because even Rosemary says it is always smaller than the input â€" so there is no room for magic â€" unless other components will enable some different kind of electricity come into existence. But again, I doubt it because Rosemary says that it “works†with many different transistors. This also explains why there is very little “gain†in Rosemary’s opinion in AC 50Hz applications â€" because the voltage drops very slowly, and this causes very little voltage spike comparing to abrupt disconnect of current in “our†circuit we were concentrating on…
Anyhow â€" no matter how you translate the energy: either high voltage and few amperes â€" or low voltage and many amps â€" the amount of energy in it is exactly the same. I saw something like transcript of Tesla’s interview and he explained the time-compression of electricity quite clearly. He compared it himself to a hammer. To swing a hammer you don’t need very high force (analogy to voltage) â€" but you do it using some distance (amperes). Now- when hammer hits something it decelerates on extremely short distance compared to what it took to make a swing. The harder the surface â€" the shorter way to stop â€" and by the laws of physics it generates enormous force, because the higher acceleration, the more it has to compensate by increased force. If deceleration was entirely sudden- that is in zero of time and distance â€" the force would be infinite... Think about this for a while… Literally infinite, it is no joke, every physics teacher will confirm this to you. Take a closer look at the F=ma formula. In reality there is always some plasticity of material and deceleration occurs at certain, greater than zero distance- tiny fractions of mm â€" and because of that generates unbelievable high, short surge of force (equivalent to voltage spike with almost no amperes- distance). So there is no magic amplification of energy in hammer action â€" exactly the same in and out â€" but force can be enormous, it term of pressure that most people would refuse to believe the numbers. The coil to my knowledge works exactly the same way. But there is something like information war in energy field â€" and judging form examples of legendary Howard Johnson, who was supposed to invent permanent magnet “perpetum mobileâ€, but who didn’t have any turning device in his workshop; form Rosemary’s example and probably others â€" I am getting more skeptical about this free energy thing. Does anybody know any other device which is a bit more promising than that one, worth of duplicating? Seriously, there is so much to dig through, that perhaps somebody could help with this â€" what happened to magnetic Vankel idea, water fuel cell, Bedini’s motors or other. Is any of that successful? Can anybody generate any “free†E? or everybody is generating free E but nobody mysteriously can close the loop :/ Is everybody in this field going to end up the same way â€" advising to use less electricity and drive 20HP automobiles, at best? Don’t you plane to accelerate at all? This is the same problem with understanding simple F=ma equation and its consequences (force equals mass time acceleration). Can work only if you lower the whole mass proportionally, or agree to accelerate many, times slower, not even talking about maximal speed or going uphill.
In the final conclusion - the circuit, thanks to the diode, circulates the same energy twice. Ammeter shows almost double value of what really is dissipated as heat. In the end of the multi hour exercise, the total sum of Joules which went through the meter is ridiculously high â€" nearly double of what is really available in the battery (determined in the previously conducted controlled discharge) â€" therefore it may give the false impression that battery is not discharging that quickly. (so many amps went through but the battery still keeps strong :). Moreover, during operation without the flyback diode the transistor gets hot. During operation with that diode connected back to the battery - the transistor does not get that hot. That energy is being “moved†to, and finally turned into heat in the coil â€" what may give another faulty impression, that not only we have battery charging â€" but also the same extra energy which charges the battery, also somehow rises up the coil’s temperature :)
*
It has tried to trick me to believe that it used 56000J while it really used 34000J to heat up the resistive element which can be heated directly to the same degree without transistor switching losses using just 18000J :)The main point is that thanks to the flyback diode there is a redundant, almost doubled flow of energy permanently present in this circuit. It is always less than double, because the coil is not capable of giving back more than it was delivered to make the magnetic field establish, and always loses some part of energy as heat in the process How much - depends on timing. With the additional, looped current you can interpret it differently. I say “it tried to trick me to believe it used 56000J†- because I measured total amount or current flowing. Depends where you place the meter you may come to the conclusion, that this additional current can be not added like I did but subtracted if you measure the reverse flow to the battery, and in this case you may come to equally false conclusion, that it used not 34+22=56 but 34-22=12. In this case I should have written, that “
It has tried to trick me to believe that it used 12000J while it really used 34000J...†Doesn’t matter either way.
The point is that the flow goes to the battery terminal and returns to the coil â€" and if you measure “backward†ghost flow (but real!) to the battery it falsely represents itself as charging current. Then at the battery terminal you can think of it, that it turns to the coil again in the loop â€" and if you measure it in this direction like I did â€" it shows that almost double current is present. The point is that this ghost current doesn’t do any work, just circulates here, introduces confusion and shouldn’t be taken into account in power distribution, either way. It is like having the same constant multiplier on both sides of an equation â€" you can just forget about it as well, it doesn’t matter to the equation at all, and the whole story behind the equation will become clearer.
So to have the external, objective reference point I have made the discharge curve of my small battery. During the course or 10h I discharged it to 10,6V and calculated all the Joules along the way. This way, by referring to it the actual battery voltage (under the same load) I know how much energy the battery has already spent to this point. By this reference I know, that despite strange current present, in which I don’t know how much is really dissipated and how much of it is just going round and round â€" I can obtain how much from the battery was really extracted, even if there was any charging present. The battery makes all the real time measurements â€" it is just the matter to get them translated to real energy reading- that is why I made this controlled discharge first. After 180min of the circuit’s work, the battery’s voltage was 11,73V â€" what by reference to the freshly obtained battery’s characteristics curve means that there was ca 34000J missing from the battery’s full capacity. I have the exact measurements, this is just rounded… This is generally exactly the same value compared to the run without the diode connected at all. In this case after 180 min run the voltage was 11,71V and the Joules obtained form 15min intervals measurements and further interpolated were also very close. 37450 Joules corresponds to 11,71V in the reference curve â€" and value calculated during the course of the experiment shows, that it was used 38200J (as I mentioned I had slightly better voltage after every next battery charging, so it may account for this small difference). Meantime, measurements of flyback run shows that in this time frame 56800J were traveling from the battery terminal to the transistor. It is as simple and as idiotic as that… If you place the meter differently and just look in this one place loosing the big picture from the sight entirely - you will be enabled to subtract and have in your thoughts free energy for a while. Rosemary has had for many years, for example…
Finally, I have also had the temperature curve from both runs at my disposal. For the flyback operation it showed maximal temperature (reached after 90min) 33,4deg C, but for the next two hours it stabilized between 32,7 and 33,1 degC. So I have connected variable power supply and figured out after few hours of adjusting and stabilizing the temp output, that I only need 1,68W of ordinary DC power to obtain the same temperature at the same level. This gives us that at the same point of time there would be just 18150J needed to obtain the same curve. I am aware, that output from the battery is lowering with time and the power supply is not â€" but we could estimate this and perhaps change the final number to 18500 or 19000 to have perfect common denominator characteristicsâ€" which doesn’t change much…
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on July 12, 2009, 05:33:52 PM
The only way around this is if you have a broadband connection is to unplug it for 8 - 12 hours or use the reset button on the back of the modem to gain a new IP address from your ISP provider through automated means.
- I did that, waited just seconds, but didn't check if I really had new IP. I didn't know I had to wait hours for new one. Thanks.
QuoteOh ya ..... many times semi conductor manufactures years ago and even today like many other company's sell mis-marked or out of tolerance items to 3rd world countries, so as not to lose money on products.
- I am from Poland, very probable may have many out of tolerance parts here as well.
henieck
No beating around the bush from you [I like that]
Welcome to the forum,you come at a good time a lot of things going on.
My personal view on OU is very similar to TK
and perpetual motion?Its the norm in our world ,every thing, every where is Always in motion
Welcome
Chet
@henieck
QuoteThere you have it. According to her this current which is now flowing from the battery to the coil is the magical free energy flyback (which can both charge the battery and give heat at the same time) ;D while it is just increased intake to compensate the flyback’s load (battery charging). There is deceiving LOOP, which she cannot properly understand, she makes serious logical errors about its nature and based on that makes entirely wrong calculations. It is like swapping multiple times a small amount of money between bank accounts (loop) and later seeing the volume of trade (amperage) thinking that she is a millionaire(free energy). This is all that is to it. It is painfully pitiful. You are searching for the magical frequency or transistor in the clouds â€" while it is a piece of shit on the pavement… Look there! ;D
Wow, you deduced all that from a circuit you can't seem to get working, I sense a Nobel in your future. At least you are doing the experiment, there is more here than meets the eye and if you want to understand it you will.
Regards
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on July 12, 2009, 06:57:21 PM
@henieck
Wow, you deduced all that from a circuit you can't seem to get working
- show me your results from your "working circuit" then. This is just my sick point of view, Rosemary is gonna show to all of you how to have COP 17 very soon.
She said at first that I got it all right but I had to interpret the results differently â€" or something like that. By placing the ammeter in different place or deciding to interpret differently I can subtract bogus loop current and show that the circuit used much less Joules than it is read from the battery capacity. That would be successful replica, I could get a hug form Rosemary and kiss in the forehead form Lindemann â€" but I simply refuse to tweak my logic in an attempt to satisfy anybody’s ego, including mine. I much higher value honesty to the reality.
QuoteMaybe you can get your simulator to figure out how I can light up a 40w bulb 20 feet away with only one wire and zero measurable current in that wire.
- look, I meant that "one resistor warmer than the other" phenomenon Rosemary was so excited about just lays within the most typical model range - of inductive collapse, 150V and several mA.
Quote from: allcanadian on July 12, 2009, 06:57:21 PM
how I can light up a 40w bulb 20 feet away with only one wire and zero measurable current in that wire.
- while you have thousands of Volts why are you so excited about very little Amps anyway? Better show me some energy GAIN there, for which all we came here for :)
TK is absolutely knowingly spreading disinformation not only about this circuit, about me and the forum.
In his youtube post, he said:
"
TinselKoala (1 hour ago) Show Hide
Marked as spam
Reply
There seem to be certain individuals who are having trouble figuring out the exact circuit used here. Hopefully those individuals will read the description to the upper right of this page, and follow some of the links to Ainslie's original documents, where the circuit I am using is described.
Or, Rosemary, maybe you can ask Aaron to undelete the post where I showed the photo and the circuit.
See, that's one of the problems with allowing censorship. You might miss something you need to know."
"
Tk, you can post your pics and schematics here. I have asked TK not to participate in the thread I started because he is disruptive, lacks respect and tactfulness and is incredibly arrogant. I don't know if his attitude is welcome here but it isn't welcome in my own forum. I always encourage different points of view if it is on target but when someone starts to argue the difference between a patent application and a patent, it is obvious what the persons intent is and it has nothing to do with sharing replication attempt data. It is to cause trouble.
I asked him not to post 3 times, once in a PM and twice in the thread. He continued to post, which is an obvious sign of his true colors and willful intent to have zero respect for anyone starting a thread or moderating a forum.
I deleted the two messages because I asked him not to post anymore to begin with and I said I WOULD delete any more posts that he makes.
So many people with nothing to offer but disrespect and lack of results always wants to claim CENSORSHIP because for people that don't know better, believes that it implies that there was something worthy to be censored - an egotistical way of elevating one's own worth through deception.
Again, it is common sense that he can post any pic, video, opinions elsewhere on the web and his deleted posts were because of blatantly disrespecting the wishes of the person that started the thread (me) and has ZERO do to with censorship. We have links back to this thread here in OU so don't flatter yourself on the censorship claim because it is bogus.
TK is ANONYMOUS and is not confident enough to use his real name or show his face while he hides behind a username and insults others. He claims others have met the same failure as his and again, failed to provide their names or their willingness to show the failures themselves.
Any childish prankster can hide behind the phone while calling someone up and insulting them.
Good luck to you all and your replication attempts and remember that TK's failure to produce results only is a failure for him and only applies to him and over time, more attempts will reveal the value of the circuit and not one individual's attempt coupled with arrogant disrespect.
There are members that are getting interesting and positive results with heating at very low duty cycles, which is something that TK has been unable to figure out how to do. Results are results and documentation beats conversation any day.
Quote from: ramset on July 12, 2009, 06:55:29 PM
Welcome to the forum,you come at a good time a lot of things going on.
- what would you recommend to take a closer look at first, well, second? What is “hot†now? There is so much going on that it is hard to get the big picture.
Quote
Welcome
Chet
- thank you very much. That was nice of you.
post from Jolt
Hi
I did complete right now the Timer Circuit with the Parts from the Quantum article.
I had only a 5k Resistor instead of the 5,2k.
But the Timer does, what it says.
Its actually One Line, but i had to use a longer exposure time.
Clock is set there 2µS, Scale at 200µS Voltage 1V, Probe 1:1, Source 8,5V
Else i used all other Parts what are in the List.
I can adjust it as i need it.
So? i guess i save better my further Comments on that....
PS. Seems, some better bake a Cake as to make Circuits, and cry, when they dont work for her.
__________________
Quote from: qiman on July 12, 2009, 07:43:08 PM
TK is absolutely knowingly spreading disinformation not only about this circuit, about me and the forum.
In his youtube post, he said:
"
TinselKoala (1 hour ago) Show Hide
Marked as spam
Reply
There seem to be certain individuals who are having trouble figuring out the exact circuit used here. Hopefully those individuals will read the description to the upper right of this page, and follow some of the links to Ainslie's original documents, where the circuit I am using is described.
Or, Rosemary, maybe you can ask Aaron to undelete the post where I showed the photo and the circuit.
See, that's one of the problems with allowing censorship. You might miss something you need to know."
"
Tk, you can post your pics and schematics here. I have asked TK not to participate in the thread I started because he is disruptive, lacks respect and tactfulness and is incredibly arrogant. I don't know if his attitude is welcome here but it isn't welcome in my own forum. I always encourage different points of view if it is on target but when someone starts to argue the difference between a patent application and a patent, it is obvious what the persons intent is and it has nothing to do with sharing replication attempt data. It is to cause trouble.
I asked him not to post 3 times, once in a PM and twice in the thread. He continued to post, which is an obvious sign of his true colors and willful intent to have zero respect for anyone starting a thread or moderating a forum.
I deleted the two messages because I asked him not to post anymore to begin with and I said I WOULD delete any more posts that he makes.
So many people with nothing to offer but disrespect and lack of results always wants to claim CENSORSHIP because for people that don't know better, believes that it implies that there was something worthy to be censored - an egotistical way of elevating one's own worth through deception.
Again, it is common sense that he can post any pic, video, opinions elsewhere on the web and his deleted posts were because of blatantly disrespecting the wishes of the person that started the thread (me) and has ZERO do to with censorship. We have links back to this thread here in OU so don't flatter yourself on the censorship claim because it is bogus.
TK is ANONYMOUS and is not confident enough to use his real name or show his face while he hides behind a username and insults others. He claims others have met the same failure as his and again, failed to provide their names or their willingness to show the failures themselves.
Any childish prankster can hide behind the phone while calling someone up and insulting them.
Good luck to you all and your replication attempts and remember that TK's failure to produce results only is a failure for him and only applies to him and over time, more attempts will reveal the value of the circuit and not one individual's attempt coupled with arrogant disrespect.
There are members that are getting interesting and positive results with heating at very low duty cycles, which is something that TK has been unable to figure out how to do. Results are results and documentation beats conversation any day.
Well, by now you have read at least 5, countem, 5 different "replicators" who have actually demonstrated heat in the load, as I have, and have explained why it happens and what the problem is with Ainslie's calculations.
So, if you accuse me of posting disinfo about you and or the circuit, Please Support Your Claims by pointing to ,or quoting, this 'disinformation" that I am posting.
Everything I post about this circuit and my experience with it is true. Much of what I have posted comes directly from Rosemary, or someone posting as witsend in her stead. I give references, links, and very clear video explanations of what I've done.
SO, where's the disinfo? Do you mean where I say "many of my relevant posts have been deleted by "moderation""? Is the beef over the use of "many" instead of "two"?? (EDIT: I suppose I have to concede this point. Only in some third world countries is "two" considered many. So I'll go and change my slanderous scandalous misinfo. When will you change yours? Rosemary's?)
Because it is undeniable that at least two relevant posts of mine were deleted, one of which was in answer to a direct question from Rosemary as to what circuit I am using.
Is it about the patent vs. patent application? Who's spreading disinfo here?
Do you think I should show my application for a driver's licence the next time I show ID, or is there actually a difference between an application and the thing applied for? It is apparent to me, from reading all the posts on various forums, that she wants people to think she has actual patents, when she doesn't.
Disinfo? No, speculation about what is true.
Now, there's the issue of the duty cycle. Do you not realize that some people are even having circuit boards manufactured with that circuit? Which as I have shown many times and others have shown as well, does NOT and CANNOT do what Rosemary says it does. Disinformation? Yes--but it's not coming from me.
I think it's wonderful that people may be trying to PROVE ME WRONG. If it's so easy, why hasn't anyone shown that the 555 circuit Rosemary keeps saying she used, does something different than what I say it does? Hmmm...?
There is nothing to replicate here. Rosemary does not even know herself what her patent contains--see the thread on NakedScientists, where she says she has never even read the "patent".
The duty cycle is wrong, the energy calculations are wrong, the two publications describing the same experiment with different circuits, one with and one without that pesky diode...wrong.
Yes, there is certainly a lot of disinformation and knowingly wrong material out there about this topic. But it isn't coming from me. I can PROVE or demonstrate all the assertions about the circuit that I have made.
Can you? Can Rosemary?
At least Mylow had something himself to demonstrate.
And as far as arrogant disrespect goes, read the early posts, and read how people responded to me when I politely reported the duty cycle issue...which should have set off a lot more real alarm bells than it did. In this case I didn't start it. But I will carry it through.
(EDIT to add: now we see Joit's scope shot showing what appears to be a long on duty cycle...time to bake a cake.)
Well, I can tell Joit won't be around over there very long.
And I see DrStiffler is trying to explain the very same thing Henieck has explained so well, here and there. He doesn't see the battery recharging, he knows the diode recirculates to the coil.
And in post 502 Aaron says:
"Take note that nothing has been removed." Which, even at the time he posted it, was and is a lie. In fact the post with the photo and another post were between 470 and 500 somewhere. And they are gone. And I obviously did not remove them. Since I can't even log on.
Inductance in a coil of wire, from physical dimensions:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/indsol.html
The light bulb that I used in #4 and #5 measures 0.109 milliHenry. ( !! )
The load used by Ainslie is stated to be 0.00864 milliHenry.
I am actually having trouble finding a resistive/inductive load that goes as low as hers. Tonight I tried a stock 0.0082 mH choke, it measured 9.6 ohms DC. But it was small, low power handling capability, wound with fine wire.
Why am I speaking of it in the past tense?
Do you really need to ask?? Damn, it's hard to get the smoke back into those little things.
:P
I've been using several others that can handle the power, but their inductance is a bit high; I would like to get Ainslie's number more closely. Calculating the inductance using the applet above gives the right ballpark figure based on the stated physical dimensions. So I will obtain still more nichrome wire--ribbon this time--and wind Yet Another coil.
Using the low-power but fairly close otherwise inductor as the load, I found some very interesting differences in the waveform with and without the various recirculating diodes that I'm trying. If you like spikes, it looks to me like the slower 1n4007 is actually making sharper and cleaner spikes. It may be that the ultrafast diode is actually switching so much faster that the scope trace is just dimmer for that one. I'll have to look at this portion on a faster scope later in the week.
But the signal without the diode is really weird. Not random chaotic resonant, I still think that's a myth caused by faulty scope triggering. But weird anyway, like the spikes on a cartoon dinosaur's back. And even weirder is how the scope trace transforms when a diode is switched in. It smooths out that old dino's backbone all the way flat. Does it send those spikes to the battery? It tries to...but the battery fights back.
A problem that catches people who are pulse-charging lead acid batteries, is that HV pulses will raise the battery's indicated no-load voltage to anomalously high values, considering the state of charge of the battery.
@TK
I watched your Electric OU 5: The Ainslie circuit as PWM Motor Controller--Effect of Recirculation Diode video. I think you have made a few very common mistakes in the video. One, your motor is a brushed dc motor which as Im sure you know shorts the inductive discharge through the commutator into the next winding each cycle, this cannot be considered as anything remotely close to a pure inductance. Two, you are simply pulsing a poor inductance at any old frequency with nothing resembling resonance, you know resonance. When an inductance is pulsed at resonance the input equals the output minus ohmic resistance or zero impedence. From your scope shots I will have to assume that either you do not know what you are doing or you do not know what resonance is. From your equipment I know you know better than this so I was wondering what it is exactly that you are trying to prove here?.
Regards
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on July 13, 2009, 12:04:50 AM
@TK
I watched your Electric OU 5: The Ainslie circuit as PWM Motor Controller--Effect of Recirculation Diode video. I think you have made a few very common mistakes in the video. One, your motor is a brushed dc motor which as Im sure you know shorts the inductive discharge through the commutator into the next winding each cycle, this cannot be considered as anything remotely close to a pure inductance. Two, you are simply pulsing a poor inductance at any old frequency with nothing resembling resonance, you know resonance. When an inductance is pulsed at resonance the input equals the output minus ohmic resistance or zero impedence. From your scope shots I will have to assume that either you do not know what you are doing or you do not know what resonance is. From your equipment I know you know better than this so I was wondering what it is exactly that you are trying to prove here?. Your going to have to do a lot better than that, did I mention I have 30 years experience in electronics?
Regards
AC
Mistakes? What mistakes?
I am simply showing a phenomenon in that video. How could I make mistakes?
I show what the Ainslie circuit does when you hook a motor up to it with a light bulb in parallel.
You are drawing some conclusions. Where are the conclusions I am drawing from this video? How have I applied or implied what I show in this video, to the Ainslie problem?
I think you are flaming a straw man here. It might look spectacular, and give you a warm feeling, but still, it's a straw man.
I respect your experience. But what does that have to do with this demonstration of an interesting effect?
And from your remarks about resonance, I can tell you know resonance pretty well. Maybe it even visits your home once in a while.
So could you explain to me Rosemary's Random Chaotic Resonance, and tell me how to obtain it in this circuit? Not the one with the motor, I am talking about the circuit with the 0.00864 milliHenry inductance that she used. What is the expected resonant frequency of this circuit?
Thanks in advance.
(Oh, and if you are concerned about mistakes in circuits and claims made in error about them...well, there are some doozies for you to look at, you know where...I'd be curious to know how Rosemary will respond to you when you tell her, along with all those others, that her circuit making the duty cycle is WRONG and so is her explanation and understanding of it.)
(Edited a thypo.)
@TK
When I read the comments below the video I thought it was pretty much implied that this is what the rosemary circuit was doing. Maybe Im losing it, LOL, I have been a bit cranky lately and stressed. I think maybe I need to stop posting for a few months again, keep at it Im sure you will get it.
Best Regards
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on July 13, 2009, 12:54:51 AM
@TK
When I read the comments below the video I thought it was pretty much implied that this is what the rosemary circuit was doing. Maybe Im losing it, LOL, I have been a bit cranky lately and stressed. I think maybe I need to stop posting for a few months again, keep at it Im sure you will get it.
Best Regards
AC
Heh, believe me, I know what you mean.
No, I was just fiddling and I thot that since the circuit is a highpower pulse width modulator, it might work pretty well on that little DustBuster motor. I had already scoped the inductive ringdown and looked at the difference the different diodes make there, but with my slow scopes one could see it but it wasn't very photogenic. Of course that was with the low inductance Ainslie load, or the surprisingly high inductance (relatively) light bulb. The difference with those looked small on the scope. So I was kind of surprised that it made such a difference with the motor. And you've got to admit, seeing the 2 elements in parallel behave oppositely in response to the change is kind of counter intuitive.
I hope you enjoy your break. I need one too. But the only thing I really want to get from this, besides the experience fooling with the gadgets, is to get a retraction of evident errors in the published information.
But I don't think I'll get it. Here's my sealed prediction (to be opened in three years):
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
xXXXXXXxXXXXXXx
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
later--
TK
From my work I can reach EF just fine now. It also automatically logs me in. Maybe my internet provider (more evil than most) just doesn't like free energy research, and failed to spot ON.com just yet :-)
[Rosemary]
Joit - is your waveform proving TinselKoala's point? Is that 555 switch wrongly presented? To me it looks like it is. In which case, I must apologise to all concerned. Clearly the Quantum article was wrong.
So, to all concerned - to everyone who built the circuit as presented in that article, and if, indeed, it is wrong, my abject apologies. I had a shrewd idea it may have been wrong because, thinking back, a university professor kindly edited the quantum paper prior to presenting it to the IET. And his first recommendation was that we ommitted a detailed circuit of the 555 switch as being irrelevant to the claim. Which is why I was reluctant to endorse the Quantum article as being a correct presentation. I just wish, in retrospect, that he had pointed out the error. In any event, it seems that I have been entirely at fault. My own objection to it was due to the lack of the feedback diode - which was the entire subject of the exercise. I knew it was in the apparatus. It certainly was not in diagram.
I would point out though, that my reluctance to point this out is due to the fact that the person who presented that diagram was a good friend and he, like all of us, was 'giving' his time. I was not keen therefore to expose the problem before I could ascertain the facts. So, if you're reading this, don't even worry. It's not a train smash. In any event, the blame was not his. I should, at least, have had the circuit vetted - considering my own inability to read such.
So. Many apologies, even to TinselKoala and anyone in the entire world who duplicated that circuit. It is wrongly presented. I am sincerely sorry that I have wasted so much of your time. And Joit - you've put the question to bed. I would be very glad to refund you for your time and trouble - if required - and if I can get the money to you with our exchange control. Just send me an account on the PM system. You've done a very good thing here.
What I do assure you all is this. The switch may have been wrongly drawn. Our own duty cycle application is NOT. I have the experimental apparatus available and it has been checked by EE's even at universities. We have also, over the years, built many different 555 switches and by different people. And there are replicated experiments by others using nothing but a functions generator. And all this prior to publication. More to the point is that the battery duration is consistent with measurements based on the duty cycle. But, in point of fact, after publication I never experimented again for a period of 7 years and I certainly never even looked at the article again. The only reason I could scan a copy for the blog when I eventually did this, was because my children kept a copy of the original publication. I was just so dejected at the entire lack of interest it seemed to generate. I had no idea that the test would really ever be duplicated.
Therefore, please take this admission as a sincere apology to all those who have tried to build the switch according to the quantum article. I see that the Quantum article was the primary reference point as the IET paper was only posted to the blog after July. It seems that Ramset and TinselKoala started their thread on OU.COM in mid June. Unfortunate. But there you are. Sorry guys - It's all I can say.
Quote from: Cloxxki on July 13, 2009, 05:08:27 AM
From my work I can reach EF just fine now. It also automatically logs me in. Maybe my internet provider (more evil than most) just doesn't like free energy research, and failed to spot ON.com just yet :-)
Hi,
I have been unable to access the energeticforum.com since last Saturday afternoon. First I turned to my internet provider but I still wait for their answer (it was the weekend they have not done anything).
This morning I have found I cannot access energetic forum from my office either (different internet provider in another location within the city).
From both my home and office I have accessed the forum without any problems for about 2 years now. And I did not write any word yet in the Rosemary thread... lol
Though I cannot rule out a technical problem en route from my location towards the energetic forum server location, I wrote a polite letter to Aaron, what he thinks on this.
rgds, Gyula
Quote from: Cloxxki on July 13, 2009, 05:09:37 AM
[Rosemary]
So, to all concerned - to everyone who built the circuit as presented in that article, and if, indeed, it is wrong, my abject apologies.
- at least the woman is honest here. I hope she will also say I am sorry for your wasted time, when she finally gets the whole picture of her invention.
Quote from: gyulasun on July 13, 2009, 05:54:57 AM
Hi,
I have been unable to access the energeticforum.com since last Saturday afternoon.
- Gyula, somehow I haven't succeded to answer the message for you, so I have to post it here for a while.
I can't access their site - but different provider form my City works OK. Meybe they are so scared that henieck could come back under different name - that they have blocked entire Eastern Europe ;)
Quote from: ramset on July 12, 2009, 09:37:53 PM
I did complete right now the Timer Circuit with the Parts from the Quantum article.
I had only a 5k Resistor instead of the 5,2k.
But the Timer does, what it says.
- hi, one could double check it here:
http://clarkson-uk.com/555-timer/operation/hiframes.html
Quote from: henieck on July 13, 2009, 06:19:20 AM
- Gyula, somehow I haven't succeded to answer the message for you, so I have to post it here for a while.
I can't access their site - but different provider form my City works OK. Meybe they are so scared that henieck could come back under different name - that they have blocked entire Eastern Europe ;)
OK, thanks for your answer. LOL ;) :D ::)
Gyula
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 12, 2009, 10:50:42 PM
It smooths out that old dino's backbone all the way flat. Does it send those spikes to the battery? It tries to...but the battery fights back.
- I would dress it in slightly different words - that you probably have real charging - but the very next milli second during the on phase, the battery gives everything back, plus some more energy (the net. quantity which is going to be turned into heat during that cycle). Closer look with the scope will reveal…
Actually that might explain why after every run I was able to recharge my old battery to slightly higher voltage. Perhaps it has been a little desulfated by the great quantity of those spikes.
jolt says
@Witsend
it only prooves, that you are RIGHT and Tinselkoala is WRONG, and all his discreding and debunking Post here and at OU.com.
As i did write, the Timer does what IT says, not what HE(TK) says.
But they turn my Words allready at OU.com, as if TK is her God, what can not fail.
I know, the importend Things from here will go 1:1 over there to OU.com Thanks Ramset, to copy ours Posts and past them there to Ou.com
to feed the Trolls and her further insulting Comments.
You dont have to excuse to anyone, for me, you are right Witsend.
But what bother me is, that they still read here, and complain at OU.com
call it an idiotic Circuit, think they know all about Coils, and that we are a religious Forum, when we dont want to have such Troublemakers here.
Thats just another Proove and a bad Advertising for OU.com, what a crap comunity there do build up.
Thanks to the Admins, to take some Action in that Case.
I dont miss one of them.
Witsend the Wave is right, because the Peak from the Pulse can be adjusted with the Pot at the Base from the Transistor,
in what lenght it hits the Base, so alot Transistors should work.
I can adjust the Peak to a standing Triangle or a laying Triangle,
The Peak, what hits the Base can get adjusted over the Pot at the Base,
and therefor you get different Duty Cycles.
And i bet, when i play further around with it, i even get the same Results, as you did at your Tests at the Table from the Quantum Article.
I know, it works, because i had a different Thread about How to get extra Energy from a Coil, where the Point is, that you have to pulse the Coil at the right Moment, and get very much better Results from it.
But the Magneticfield, what is build up in the Coil does matter, when that Point of Time is.
And well, i use a RGP02-18 Diode here for the Timer, fast switching Diodes too, but i dont hink, that does matter.
My Circuit is easy and exactly adjustable from 0 - 11Khz right now.
__________________
Theorizer are like High Voltage. A lot hot Air with no Power behind but they are the dead of applied Work and Ideas.
Rosemary says,
Notwithstanding my apology to TinselKoala and others that the 555 circuitry was wrong - I've now been assured that it was, in fact, correct. I'm in the happy postion therefore of retracting my apology. I'm reasonably certain that Joit's representations will either not be acknowledged or not believed, but either way - TinselKoala has now lost all credibility in this matter.
I was going to marshall the evidence to prove not only a prejudice but the deliberate distortions that TinselKoala either alluded to, or specifically referenced or simply challenged us to refute. However it is possible that this was required as a function of his interests in any of these forums that look into overunity claims. Happily I don't need to prepare that schedule. We know the facts. And Aaron's instincts in this regard were unerring.
I think we must remember that there are those out there who's mission in life is to discredit any over unity claim. There are those who simply do not believe it possible, those who are prepared to argue it, those who know that over unity is possible and those who are prepared to fight to prove it. I think we can accommodate all such opinions on this thread excepting those in the very first category. They're toxic. Fortunately these detractors grossly underestimate our general intelligence or the expert opinion that is available to us from both within and outside this forum.
I'm relying on Ramset to post this in Overunity.com and trust that this will be his last function as it relates to this forum.
Quote from: ramset on July 13, 2009, 07:54:21 AM
(jolt?)... like High Voltage. A lot hot Air with no Power behind but they are the dead of applied Work and Ideas.
- while entirely IGNORING his provocative attempts I wonder what is this guy trying to say in his motto - that there is no power or work from high voltage? Of course not - the same way like there is no work from force alone or displacement alone. Similarly there is no surface “behind†one side of a square. Equally there is no work behind even 10000Amperes of Practice. You have to multiply both quantities Volts times Amperes to have Work - but it is just a Theory - some hot air and nothing behind it :)
QuoteThanks to the Admins, to take some Action in that Case.
â€" men, try to get over this somehow. It is ok now…
Everything the best for this guy, God- I mean Rosemary bless, and have a lot of heat form this device during the winter time.
Quote from: ramset on July 13, 2009, 09:00:39 AM
Rosemary says,
I think we must remember that there are those out there who's mission in life is to discredit any over unity claim. There are those who simply do not believe it possible, those who are prepared to argue it, those who know that over unity is possible and those who are prepared to fight to prove it. I think we can accommodate all such opinions on this thread excepting those in the very first category.
- Amen ;)
Someone else, from Eastern Europe as well i believe (not that it matters), has replicated at least some aspects of the circuit successfully now.
That and Luc's very interesting related findings make it more like "2 to 2" by my count. So instead of being "Supreme Court Judges of Technology", some here would appear to have been "demoted" to being just members of the Jury ;) But don't worry, this is still an important and worthy position. We can argue the actual percentages of accuracy in these particular "replications" or similar circuits: But that is not the point... Which is that the opinions are NOT monolithic, nor are the present results as "conclusive" as some here make them out to be ;)
So let's wait until we get 8 more peeps (the more the better) to properly build and document this to get a full "Jury of 12 Peers". Thus the questions can be answered, the speculation ended, and the technology either moved forward into multiple applications with much importance both empirically and theoretically... Or "shelved" as being a good idea with much promise and interesting aspects, that didn't pan-out as expected in the end.
Imo one of the reasons we have not gotten more attempts to date here is because of all the constantly repeated negative results: It stands to reason that fewer peeps want to replicate something they heard over and over won't work.... But simply having a failed replication by a person, then trying to use the lack of more attempts as "proof"; does not work either.... Because the people who come to these forums all have their own projects, their own lines of research, and they replicate things on their own schedules... Not anyone else's.
Regarding Energetic Forums: No one there gives a hoot if the Members who frequent the Energy section have anything at all to do with the other sections there. As regards to it being "Religious", that is false: It is "Spiritual" in nature, and falls under the category of "self-help" ; but like i said you can take that part or leave it, and no one will care at all ;)
What they do care about there is having polite, open-minded, meaningful, constructive, and sincere discussions and debates on technology. This means that those who participate should not attack others for their honestly-held views; nor should they try to use the forum as a advertising campaign for their own opinions, constantly repeating them like irritating ads on TV (or government propaganda)... Growing more insistent and less polite by the post.
Good forums, like this one, embrace the concepts of "Free Speech". However, if the Admins are wise; they do not allow some to use that as a weapon against the general health of the forum. Start you own forum, and see what it takes: It is not so easy to determine the best route, no one can look into another's heart. All there is to go on in making these decisions are the actions of the people in question. If you have been "mis-judged", perhaps you should have thought of that and thus changed your tack when warned, to keep from being "misunderstood". I'm sure the Admins themselves will tell you they are not omniscient; but they also have a duty to the others. And it is important to remember none of this exists in a vacuum: If you are rude and derogatory on another forum (this is a small F-E "world", after all), it can make an effect elsewhere; and it becomes "fair game" for these kinds of difficult considerations; possibly even tip the balance. Thus the danger of "widebanding" your opinions lol ;)
People had their say there; but with some it was becoming repetitious and starting to show signs of deep disrespect and lack of concern towards others, and so they were checked (meaning as in "chess").
No one there was really dissuaded from trying out the circuit, nor was anyone "afraid" of anything (a disgusting and demeaning suggestion).... We should not expect peeps to drop everything else they are doing to start a new build because of one person's results; no matter how insistently they post or how many forums they post it in. When dealing with others we must at least try to view from the other's perspective... If our interest really is finding the Truth, and not pushing our own version of it for some obscure reason. It is important to remember that the louder and more insistent the claims, the more personally invested the one making them becomes (because the "stakes" of possible loss of face grow with each pronouncement)... Thus their objectivity can begin to be legitimately questioned. This of course goes for both sides of any argument: And how this is handled by the person goes to their credibility.
But i believe the real Truth behind this circuit and possible discovery will come out in the end, either way: When the FULL JURY makes the deliberation, and not just the self-appointed Supreme Judges. Is there some critical time factor here that we are missing, that it is so important to rush to judgment? If so please let us know ;)
gyulasun said, on Reply #380, this thread:
Quote
I have been unable to access the energeticforum.com since last Saturday afternoon. First I turned to my internet provider but I still wait for their answer (it was the weekend they have not done anything).
This morning I have found I cannot access energetic forum from my office either (different internet provider in another location within the city).
From both my home and office I have accessed the forum without any problems for about 2 years now. And I did not write any word yet in the Rosemary thread... lol
Really? I just tried a GOOGLE search of "energeticforum" and then clicked on the link to bring up the site at once. I do admit I'm using a freeware 'Web browser based on Mozilla, which you may not have anything like that to use.
It also occurs to me that some people in public venues(i.e., libraries) sometimes experience problems, while others nearby have no problems at all. If there was a widespread virus, that shouldn't happen. Everyone's computer should be affected. It's also randomly intermittent.
--Lee
Quote from: gyulasun on July 13, 2009, 05:54:57 AM
Hi,
I have been unable to access the energeticforum.com since last Saturday afternoon. First I turned to my internet provider but I still wait for their answer (it was the weekend they have not done anything).
This morning I have found I cannot access energetic forum from my office either (different internet provider in another location within the city).
From both my home and office I have accessed the forum without any problems for about 2 years now. And I did not write any word yet in the Rosemary thread... lol
Though I cannot rule out a technical problem en route from my location towards the energetic forum server location, I wrote a polite letter to Aaron, what he thinks on this.
rgds, Gyula
apart popup use:
http://www.englishtunnel.com/index.php/010110A/687474702s7777772r656r65726765746963666s72756q2r636s6q2s7365617263682r7068703s73656172636869643q313638333536
http://tools.rosinstrument.com/cgi-proxy.htm
Quote from: jibbguy on July 13, 2009, 10:13:47 AM
Someone else,has replicated at least some aspects of the circuit successfully now.
That and Luc's very interesting related findings make it more like "2 to 2" by my count.
- on which side did you count my findings (if any). I can tell that this circuit showed that uses 1J to give heat like 3J as well. A bit out of the full context -but no problem with me. Let us make it 3 to 1 - if this is going to increase the number of analysis of this circuit.
Wow- this is like almost everybody has replicated at least some aspects of the circuit successfully now.
.
Absolutely amazing. Another person who cannot read an oscilloscope, apparently.
The 555 timer circuit has been constructed multiple times and tested multiple times by a lot of people. Using the component values in the Quantum article and Groundloop's cleaned up diagram, the circuit generates long, not short, ON times. This has been shown many times by several builders.
I stand by my work and I challenge Joit to a "duel." Send me his timer--or I will send him one that I build--and they can be compared side-by-side on the same oscilloscope. Or we can both send them to an agreed-upon third party for testing. Best is if we could have yet another person build yet another copy of the timer for testing as well. Anyone can then see what components are used, how they are connected, and what the performance is.
I don't know what JOIT is doing; his scope trace certainly does not look like a clean 555 timer trace. But I and others have published good clear traces that clearly show that I am right and JOIT and Rosemary are wrong.
It's like I'm in Bizzaro World, or something.
Well, at least I know what's right, and I will be happy to demonstrate it and prove it to any detail requested.
I will even draw the parts out of bins and assemble the circuit and test it live on camera if necessary.
But is it really necessary?
I think it's pretty clear from this quote that Joit has made some kind of strangeness...
"Witsend the Wave is right, because the Peak from the Pulse can be adjusted with the Pot at the Base from the Transistor,
in what lenght it hits the Base, so alot Transistors should work.
I can adjust the Peak to a standing Triangle or a laying Triangle,
The Peak, what hits the Base can get adjusted over the Pot at the Base,
and therefor you get different Duty Cycles.
And i bet, when i play further around with it, i even get the same Results, as you did at your Tests at the Table from the Quantum Article.
I know, it works, because i had a different Thread about How to get extra Energy from a Coil, where the Point is, that you have to pulse the Coil at the right Moment, and get very much better Results from it.
But the Magneticfield, what is build up in the Coil does matter, when that Point of Time is."
The Peak, of course, should not be triangular at all. The 555 timer circuit, at whatever settings, should be producing a nice rectangular pulse. And the 100 ohm pot in the gate drive will not affect the duty cycle, except when the resistance is reduced to zero or near zero.
TK
Good to know 99 has your back
I honestly don't understand how you got the bad guy roll,all you did was replicate [as required] this is bizarre
Chet
Thanks, poynt99.
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-19.html#post60343
Quote from: ramset on July 13, 2009, 02:15:31 PM
TK
Good to know 99 has your back
I honestly don't understand how you got the bad guy roll,all you did was replicate [as required] this is bizarre
Chet
I understand it quite well. I reacted as I will, when I know for sure that I am right and someone with fewer facts at their disposal attacks me and accuses me of error. That is, I got (and still am) angry, and when Angry I do not mince words.
The very most amazing thing is that, when I reported the duty cycle error, several folks dissed me hard, without even trying it for themselves--even though, in every early post on this issue, I asked for people to build it to see if I had made some mistake.
I even thought that I had been "set up" to take a fall in public. So I built it again, and again. And it's still wrong.
Now, for the readers from over there that might still be interested in what I say::: Figure a 96.3 percent input duty cycle, and run the numbers on the energy calculations again.
And don't forget what Rosemary said: She did not use a FG, she always used a 555 circuit.
Oh, and just for the record, Rosemary, Watts measure Power, Joules measure power over a period of time, which is Energy.
Watts are not Joules, power is not energy. You cannot legitimately do what you are trying to do in your numbers.
Have you studied calculus? Did they cover that before you quit school at age 16?
And why do you have to ask someone else to try to get the documents you would like to show, concerning your patent applications? Don't you keep important records? I would be perfectly happy to accept your own posts of your copies of the material, I know you wouldn't mislead anyone intentionally. As long, of course, as you post ALL the information.
By the way, Roesmary, have you read your patent application yet?
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=23243.msg254872#msg254872
For any electronics dummies trying to make sense of all this like me, here's some 555 timer references that may help understand what all the "duty cycle" arguments are about. I especially like the animation in the first one.
555 Tutorial with a nice animation
http://www.williamson-labs.com/555-circuits.htm#timing
555 and 556 Timer circuits
http://www.kpsec.freeuk.com/555timer.htm#dutycycle
LM555 - ASTABLE OSCILLATOR CALCULATOR
http://home.cogeco.ca/~rpaisley4/LM555.html#3
Astable 555 Square Wave Calculator
http://www.csgnetwork.com/ne555timer2calc.html
555 Frequency Calculator
http://www.electronicdesignworks.com/utilities/555_frequency_calculator/555_frequency_calculator.htm
555 Component Finder
http://www.electronicdesignworks.com/utilities/555_component_finder/555_component_finder.htm
Looks like the waveform may depend on where you take your measurements.
Quote from: the_big_m_in_ok on July 13, 2009, 10:45:53 AM
.....
It also occurs to me that some people in public venues(i.e., libraries) sometimes experience problems, while others nearby have no problems at all. If there was a widespread virus, that shouldn't happen. Everyone's computer should be affected. It's also randomly intermittent.
--Lee
@Lee
Thanks for your answer, I tried 3 different web browsers Mozilla Firefox, Google Crome and Explorer, all reported the energeticforum.com could not be found...
@wings
Thanks for the links, tried the first one and the energeticforum.com has loaded immediately.... now I can see it! Without your link I cannot see it.
So what is the conclusion for my case? My IP address (both at home and at the office) have been blocked? Can someone explain?
(I asked a friend to load it on his own computer yesterday, he lives near to the city where I am but he could not see it either, found the same error message, this may mean IP addresses for my country are blocked or there is somewhere a technical problem inside or near to my country which got out of function and blocks us?)
Thanks, Gyula
PS To the rest of the Folks here: sorry for the off topic!
jibbguy, you made so strong point about the strong point that I am affraid that now we have to wait untill the FULL JURY makes the deliberation, and not just the self-appointed Supreme Judges. Is there some critical time factor here that we are missing, that it is so important to rush to judgment? If so please let us know ;)
Quote from: 0c on July 13, 2009, 03:06:17 PM
For any electronics dummies trying to make sense of all this like me, here's some 555 timer references that may help understand what all the "duty cycle" arguments are about. I especially like the animation in the first one.
555 Tutorial with a nice animation
http://www.williamson-labs.com/555-circuits.htm#timing
555 and 556 Timer circuits
http://www.kpsec.freeuk.com/555timer.htm#dutycycle
LM555 - ASTABLE OSCILLATOR CALCULATOR
http://home.cogeco.ca/~rpaisley4/LM555.html#3
Astable 555 Square Wave Calculator
http://www.csgnetwork.com/ne555timer2calc.html
555 Frequency Calculator
http://www.electronicdesignworks.com/utilities/555_frequency_calculator/555_frequency_calculator.htm
555 Component Finder
http://www.electronicdesignworks.com/utilities/555_component_finder/555_component_finder.htm
Looks like the waveform may depend on where you take your measurements.
You mean, like Northern vs. Southern Hemisphere?
Actually it looks like whoever designed Rosemary's 555 didn't know about these (standard) circuits, because I don't see any diodes in these, and there also are more capacitors in her 555 circuit.
I took the measurements in my basement kitchen, with a 1 megohm impedance oscilloscope. Actually, now three different oscilloscopes: the Philips, which does NOT EVEN HAVE a trace invert or polarityreversal function; the Tektronix which does, and the Fluke 199 which also does, and also has a cycle select function that also could be reversed.
That's right, the Fluke-O-Scope has 2 modes that could have been selected in error...which means only one out of 4 possibilities will give the "correct" duty cycle, that is, one that goes in the right direction on the display and is also calculated correctly by the scope software.
Tonight I will be looking at the behaviour of the circuit with a Hitachi VC-7504.
If I can figure out how to turn it on.
Quote from: gyulasun on July 13, 2009, 03:29:46 PM
So what is the conclusion for my case? My IP address (both at home and at the office) have been blocked? Can someone explain?
(I asked a friend to load it on his own computer yesterday, he lives near to the city where I am but he could not see it either, found the same error message, this may mean IP addresses for my country are blocked or there is somewhere a technical problem inside or near to my country which got out of function and blocks us?)
Thanks, Gyula
PS To the rest of the Folks here: sorry for the off topic!
Hi Gyula,
It is entirely possible that your country ISP is banned, many forums block out trouble areas because of continued abuse from IP addresses .... some are shown here in a previous post of mine.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3893.msg139759#msg139759
Fuzzy
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 13, 2009, 03:58:48 PM
You mean, like Northern vs. Southern Hemisphere?
I mean like look at the animation at the top of the first link. See that sawtooth waveform on the upper left?
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 13, 2009, 03:58:48 PM
Actually it looks like whoever designed Rosemary's 555 didn't know about these (standard) circuits, because I don't see any diodes in these, and there also are more capacitors in her 555 circuit.
In the first link, look at the "Duty Cycle <50%" diagram. There's a diode there.
Quote from: henieck on July 13, 2009, 03:44:01 PM
jibbguy, you made so strong point about the strong point that I am affraid that now we have to wait untill the FULL JURY makes the deliberation, and not just the self-appointed Supreme Judges. Is there some critical time factor here that we are missing, that it is so important to rush to judgment? If so please let us know ;)
Hi Henieck
It makes no difference what a "supreme jury" does or does not report. You will be greatly amused by the Mylow saga, if you haven't already read it. And of course, there is Steorn and their professional jurors--whose verdict was announced a few weeks ago--that jury gave a negative report, but Steorn won't accept it...
For example, even after Mylow was caught red-handed so to speak, and even had admitted faking some of his motors, some people still believed that other of his motors "worked" actually.
So I expect people to be trying to "replicate" Rosemary's reported results for years to come, no matter what any "jury" might say.
But no matter what any Jury might say, I doubt if we'll be seeing any actual home heaters or actual battery chargers using this circuit. Ever.
Quote from: 0c on July 13, 2009, 04:22:15 PM
I mean like look at the animation at the top of the first link. See that sawtooth waveform on the upper left?
In the first link, look at the "Duty Cycle <50%" diagram. There's a diode there.
OK, thanks, I see it now. The ramp waveform isn't the output of the circuit, it's showing the relation between that cap charging and the square output pulse.
The diode, now...I'll get back to you on that. Got to run right now
Oh, and I decided to use the LeCroy scope instead of the Hitachi--the Hitachi does not do integration on board, but the LeCroy does.
Joit said
poynt99
I did my shot at the Output (Pin3) from the Timer.
Its an ST NE555N
I did not connect it now to the Base of any Transistor, for that, i play extra around.
This 'Line' what you see, is the laying Triangle, looks more like it generates a Sawtooth Wave. But you can turn it down or up.
With the 100Ohm Potentiometer at the Base of the Transistor you should can set the Duty Cycle.
You are using 3 Pots at all?
I will try to make a Video, and see, what i else can do with it.
__________________
Theorizer are like High Voltage. A lot hot Air with no Power behind but they are the dead of applied Work and Ideas.
Hi Guys,
Just my 2cents.
I have beadboarded the Quantum's paper 555 timer CirCuiT.
It works fine. I can read (at pin 3) the less than 4% duty cycle with
a freq. of 2.4 khz. Of course, I have to swap the probes of my scope
(and the probes of my freq meter) to see these results.... ;D
I mean: IMHO - and if I'm not mistaken - the Quantum 555 CCT
does *not* give the claimed results but just the opposite
as initially stated by NikolaTesla mingled (TK)....
My 555 circuit also "generates (at pin 3) long, not short, ON times".
Now, some guys are telling that the Quantum 555 CCT actually works as claimed =
generates short not long ON times (at pin 3? with the probes correctly wired?)
I'm lost.... I guess I will have another drink. :P
Anyway, an extra 2N2222 (or similar) at pin 3 should inverse the wave.
Should it not?
BTW I have ordered some IRFPG50.
http://www.awatronic.fr/index.php?_a=viewProd&productId=20219&added=1 (http://www.awatronic.fr/index.php?_a=viewProd&productId=20219&added=1)
Now, What about this circuit??? Sounds familiar. No?
Are the maths right?
More, In French (sorry) on : http://freenrg.info/Misc/FR_Zoltan_ZPE_Circuit/ (http://freenrg.info/Misc/FR_Zoltan_ZPE_Circuit/)
Very Best
Quote from: NerzhDishual on July 13, 2009, 06:36:33 PM
Hi Guys,
Just my 2cents.
I have beadboarded the Quantum's paper 555 timer CirCuiT.
It works fine. I can read (at pin 3) the less than 4% duty cycle with
a freq. of 2.4 khz. Of course, I have to swap the probes of my scope
(and the probes of my freq meter) to see these results.... ;D
I mean: IMHO - and if I'm not mistaken - the Quantum 555 CCT
does *not* give the claimed results but just the opposite
as initially stated by NikolaTesla mingled (TK)....
My 555 circuit also "generates (at pin 3) long, not short, ON times".
Now, some guys are telling that the Quantum 555 CCT actually works as claimed =
generates short not long ON times (at pin 3? with the probes correctly wired?)
I'm lost.... I guess I will have another drink. :P
Anyway, an extra 2N2222 (or similar) at pin 3 should inverse the wave.
Should it not?
BTW I have ordered some IRFPG50.
http://www.awatronic.fr/index.php?_a=viewProd&productId=20219&added=1 (http://www.awatronic.fr/index.php?_a=viewProd&productId=20219&added=1)
Now, What about this circuit??? Sounds familiar. No?
Are the maths right?
More, In French (sorry) on : http://freenrg.info/Misc/FR_Zoltan_ZPE_Circuit/ (http://freenrg.info/Misc/FR_Zoltan_ZPE_Circuit/)
Very Best
Hi NerzhDishual,
I really liked your link added a English version .......
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http://freenrg.info/Misc/FR_Zoltan_ZPE_Circuit/&sl=fr&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Thanks
Fuzzy
Hi FuzzyTomcat,
Thanks.
The google translation is not so bad...
I was expecting some Jean-Loup Chiflet's "Sky English"
Basically, Jean-Loup Chiflet, the author, translates word-for-word French expressions and then gives the actual meaning... Funny and useful...
Few examples:
Poser un lapin [To put down a rabbit] - To stand someone up
Ca ne court pas les rues [It doesn't run the streets] - To be rare
Rien à cirer [nothing to polish] - Not to give a damn
Un nom à coucher dehors [A name to sleep outside] - An impossible name
Very Best
Quote from: 0c on July 13, 2009, 04:22:15 PM
I mean like look at the animation at the top of the first link. See that sawtooth waveform on the upper left?
In the first link, look at the "Duty Cycle <50%" diagram. There's a diode there.
I just tried shorting my diodes with a bit of wire while the 555 circuit is running.
Guess what.....
It makes a miniscule difference in the freq and duty cycle. Much less than I would have predicted.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 13, 2009, 07:39:53 PM
I just tried shorting my diodes with a bit of wire while the 555 circuit is running.
Guess what.....
It makes a miniscule difference in the freq and duty cycle. Much less than I would have predicted.
And you're sure you shorted where you should have shorted? Instead of shorted where you should have cut (opened)?
(Hey, if my comments are nonsense, just ignore me. As far as I'm concerned, those 'trons are mystical beings that do whatever they please anyway.)
Quote from: NerzhDishual on July 13, 2009, 06:36:33 PM
Hi Guys,
Just my 2cents.
I have beadboarded the Quantum's paper 555 timer CirCuiT.
It works fine. I can read (at pin 3) the less than 4% duty cycle with
a freq. of 2.4 khz. Of course, I have to swap the probes of my scope
(and the probes of my freq meter) to see these results.... ;D
I mean: IMHO - and if I'm not mistaken - the Quantum 555 CCT
does *not* give the claimed results but just the opposite
as initially stated by NikolaTesla mingled (TK)....
My 555 circuit also "generates (at pin 3) long, not short, ON times".
Now, some guys are telling that the Quantum 555 CCT actually works as claimed =
generates short not long ON times (at pin 3? with the probes correctly wired?)
I'm lost.... I guess I will have another drink. :P
Anyway, an extra 2N2222 (or similar) at pin 3 should inverse the wave.
Should it not?
BTW I have ordered some IRFPG50.
http://www.awatronic.fr/index.php?_a=viewProd&productId=20219&added=1 (http://www.awatronic.fr/index.php?_a=viewProd&productId=20219&added=1)
Now, What about this circuit??? Sounds familiar. No?
Are the maths right?
More, In French (sorry) on : http://freenrg.info/Misc/FR_Zoltan_ZPE_Circuit/ (http://freenrg.info/Misc/FR_Zoltan_ZPE_Circuit/)
Very Best
;D
Hey, Nertz. Thanks for doing that--have a drink on me!
I've finally gotten around to running some comparisons between the IRFPG50 and the 2SK1548.
Heh.
From a "traditional engineering" viewpoint the 2sk1548 diode performs MUCH better in this circuit...that is, if things like THD and proper pulse tracking concern you. The long turn off time of the IRFPG50 really messes with the signal at these excessively short (using the FG) or LONG (using the 555) duty cycles.
The IRF unit does seem to heat up less than the 2SK, but that's just an early impression.
I think if you are into spikes in your signal, the 2SK might be a better choice here too. It turns on and off better than the IRF unit (not surprising, is it, looking at the data sheets and considering the gate capacitances). And since it turns on and off with faster rise and fall times, it produces a higher inductive pulse from the coil. I think. Maybe.
So there goes my hypothesis that the two transistors would perform pretty much the same. I was wrong about that. The 2SK1548, when properly cooled, outperforms the IRFPG50, as far as I can tell. And it's smaller. And quite a bit cheaper. And locally available.
Quote from: 0c on July 13, 2009, 07:46:11 PM
And you're sure you shorted where you should have shorted? Instead of shorted where you should have cut (opened)?
(Hey, if my comments are nonsense, just ignore me. As far as I'm concerned, those 'trons are mystical beings that do whatever they please anyway.)
Look at Rosemary's circuit. Opening those lines--well, I didn't try it, I tested my hardwired version and I didn't want to cut anything out---but I don't think opening those particular lines would have the desired effect. But OK, I'll try it. Check back in an hour or two.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 13, 2009, 04:44:57 PM
It makes no difference what a "supreme jury" does or does not report.
- because the skeptics get paid from the big oil companies ;)
I have been observing information war in this field for some time and was always curious what is this fuss all about and who is right. Logically one side must have been heavily wrong. I was surprised to find uneducated guru with some blind followers, but most shocking to me was to experience how the guru operates psychologically. An anorectic can be literally dying of hunger, looking at herself in a mirror and being deeply convicted, that she is definitively too fat. This is phenomenal. Nothing helps, there is no argument nor evidence in such a situation which could change anything. Only professional therapy and pharmacology. Every incoming information, inconsistent with beliefs is just deleted, doesn’t even get processed. Rosemary is not in the worst stadium yet - but probably close. The same effect you can see in plastic surgery field (M. Jackson). No matter how razor blade-nose he had - it was still to big or to wide. It is well known phenomenon- and I am surprised to find it in work here (what was I thinking?) Actually I was more expecting liars in action - but on contrary - they are the most honest believers an fanatics. (perhaps not all).
Quote
You will be greatly amused by the Mylow saga, if you haven't already read it.
- in fact, that could be quite interesting to me. Can I find it on this forum somewhere?
Quote
But no matter what any Jury might say, I doubt if we'll be seeing any actual home heaters or actual battery chargers using this circuit. Ever.
- actually I have found yesterday, that it really works as promised ;)
It is in a way an interesting/unconventional circuit to study - but there is no way it can generate any free E.
Quote
So I expect people to be trying to "replicate" Rosemary's reported results for years to come, no matter what any "jury" might say.
- yes, like gravity wheels which were busted in the mediaeval centuries already.
And I have also just now been testing the circuit using the LeCroy 9370M digital sampling oscilloscope (1GHz bandwidth). This scope will do just about everything except butter the toast. It even has an internal thermal printer for screen dumps. 2-channel, 4-trace, more math functions than I know what to do with. This particular unit has "issues" with the #2 channel; it is queued up for repair which is why I was able to abscond briefly with it. But the #1 channel is fine and everything else is copacetic.
EXCEPT: the silly thing is even worse at resolving those really sharp spikes than my slow analog scopes. And yes, I have global BWL and local channel BWL off, and all that. Maybe the #1 has "issues" too, because I seem to remember this scope doing much better than that, and at 500 Megasamples/second you'd think you would be able to resolve some 2 Mhz spikes.
BUT: That's OK because it does integration, and (a constant) X (the integral of a function) is the same as the integral of ((a constant) X ( a function)).
If I remember my calculus. It's been a very long time.
So that means I can integrate the current trace over time, and if the battery voltage remains reasonably constant I can declare that it is constant, and multiply that times the integrated current trace, and still wind up with energy in Joules.
Can't I?
Anyway, I'll post a video showing off this fancy osk-kill-osk-o-pee later this evening.
(I still prefer analog scopes, especially for the kinds of work generally done around here. They are much easier to fix when they get zapped.)
@Henieck, re Mylow.
Oh, where to start.
Here, I guess.
LRCan's backups of the original Mylow video postings on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/user/LRCan1
And
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?board=117.0
is the "catalog" of the remaining Mylow threads, and
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7162.0
I believe is the first thread, where it started, on this forum. There may have been one or two threads removed by the moderator, I can't recall exactly.
(EDIT to add: I just read back over some of those threads, and I am flabbergasted at the amount of removals of posts that have happened. Down the memory hole! I suggest that if you make posts that are particularly entertaining while at the same time critical, you save them off-forum, because things sometimes disappear around here, it seems.)
I think most of the interesting links are still in the threads, but be sure to check out the PESwiki site and search for Mylow:
http://peswiki.com/energy/News
And, of course, there are many YT videos concerning the subject. Here's my personal favorite:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvpTXdWAd1M
Bringing up "Mylow" won't help the issue, lol. Mylow mylow mylow mylow mylow... See, it has no "ju-ju" power at all ;)
(Gee what a waste of time that was then for ALL CONCERNED hehehe)
As for Steorn, i've never had a real opinion on it, as there are some excellent arguments on both sides. Utterly screwing-up an important electronic device Demo in front of Customers has been done thousands of times before in the "real" world (unfortunately i've seen it happen a couple extremely uncomfortable and sweaty times lol), so that incident didn't weigh too much with me. But i gotta say being behind 5 years for Release is a bit much even for all-new concepts (although some may be surprised to hear that missing the Release date some marketing moron arbitrarily sets by 1 to 2 years is actually more common than not in the electronics industry) .
If you guys were suggesting from your paraphrasing / quoting of the last part of my previous post that i am convinced the circuit works... Well read it again because you obviously missed the points there. We should wait and not blindly take any one person's opinion on it, either way.
TK might be right but that is not the point ... The point is that despite whatever great talents he may have, they are not all-encompassing (i've never met anyone who's are), nor does his obvious bias exude confidence in his objectivity ;) This is not to suggest he is deliberately "tilting" results (which i don't think is the case), it is that his mindset in viewing it could be so pre-conceived as to cause him to miss something others' may not. That happens ALL THE TIME, even with professional top-notch EE's with many years' experience. I've seen that several times too: It is one of the worst dangers we all face in many endeavors, imo.
But should he indeed be proved wrong in the end, i would not crow, or even rejoice (about that specifically, anyway). Because, professionally, i've been there. And learned not to invest too heavily with only my own opinions and results to go on; as these things have myriads of possible unforeseen factors that WILL bite you in the ass, eventually... Even if you are the "Clint Eastwood" of electronic circuit building ;) . It's as simple as that.
In business we would not take any one person's word on whether or not to go with an all-new technology... Especially when there is any controversy at all attached to it, and even more so if a lot of R&D money and the company's future market share were riding on it. It would go before a Review of several Engineers, including some off-site independent consultants as well, so all possible factors would have a much better chance of being caught... Before any real decisions were made. That's how it is done.
But we can pretty much assume that while we are waiting a few weeks for more results, that the world won't suddenly be "fooled" into accepting the concepts of Free Energy... So none of the skeptics here need lose any sleep in the mean time ;)
You know, Jib, I agree with you almost, well, 96.3 percent. :D
You might see that there are some things I know for certain, there are some things I am pretty sure about, and there are some things I speculate on, and there is a whole lot of stuff I have no idea about. I usually try to indicate, one way or the other, where I am on that continuum when I make statements of fact. When I come up with something (like the first discovery of the duty cycle issue) that seems odd or weird or unexpected, the FIRST thing I suspect is that I have made an errror.
Like that one. How many rrrrrrs are therrrrre in errorrrr? But here's the thing: I have learned that one should suspect error even more strongly when one gets results that are exactly as predicted and that are in line with one's theory. That is when error is particularly dangerous, and sadly that is where so many of us fail. To fail by confirming one's theory!! See how strange that is. No wonder high-school dropouts don't get it. Why, I even dropped out of 5 colleges and universities before I got it.
The general topic here is "cognitive bias" and there are many of them. There is even a formal study of the field, in social psychology mostly but getting more and more interdisciplinary as time goes on and scientists gradually figure out how to think.
The Adam Curtis documentary, The Way of All Flesh, relates a very interesting story along these lines. I can't find a link right now but it's out there.
The main factor that gets me in the Ainslie case is that she, once again, has apparently not done her homework, and that causes this profound misunderstanding of basic electricity and power measurement, coupled with her overweening holier-than-thou attitude about the whole thing. It would be OK if she was right once in a while--but to have her insult me when I am trying to do exactly what she's been asking for, without even addressing the theoretical aspects at all--that burns me up. In this case it really is about being right, because she dissed me while saying I was wrong and essentially full of crap--when we now know the inverse is true. ;D
She now says she wants to just forget the Quantum article, put it to rest. But in the EIT.pdf paper, she says:
"
EXPERIMENT
The following test was published in Quantum Magazine October edition, 2002.
RL
Rshunt
BAT 1
D1
Q1
0V Reference
OSCILLOSCOPE
0V Reference
CHA
CHB
Figure 1 Circuit schematic diagram
A 24 volt battery, (BAT 1) is applied in series with a 10 Ohm wire wound
resistive load (RL). A flyback diode, (D1) is placed in parallel with (RL) thus
connecting it back to the positive terminal of the battery. At the junction of the
diode and the inductor is an N Channel power MOSFET, (Q1), connected, in
turn, to a 555 switching circuit with variable duty cycles and frequency"
You see, she herself in the EIT paper refers to the Quantum article--and in fact it is the only searchable reference in the paper. And you will note that the flyback diode is not in the quantum article but is in the EIT paper. In the Quantum article it specifically talks about the mosfet's internal diode.
So, we don't just have a misprinted circuit diagram. We have 2 different descriptions that go with the diagrams in the 2 publications.
And we have Ainslie's statement to Ramset that she always uses or used 555 timers, not function generators...yet the EIT paper shows a FG pulse symbol and doesn't mention the clock at all---the other instruments are given, but no FG--because she used the 555 timer.
Hey, I'm still perfectly willing to accept that it is the diagram that is in error, if she will only correct it and say once and for all what the actual circuit, including whatever clock, was used to make the experiment described in these papers.
Once we've put that issue to bed, then I will move on to the power and energy calculations. Because even the folks over there are starting to realize the holes in her logic.
I just read back over that thread, and do you realize this: Most of what is actually known about that circuit comes from DrStiffler, Henieck, Hoppy, poynt99, and TK. Others seem to be working with other circuits altogether, or simply speculating without any builds or tests.
Traffic continues. Did you see my new video showing off the broken LeCroy?
--TK
Dear Aaron:
Congratulations on receiving your new Ohmite high-power wirewound resistor. I'm sure you will be very happy together, in love and light.
Oh, have you had a chance to measure its inductance? Remember, the number you are trying for is 8.64 microHenries. That would be .009 on my meter here, .011 if you count the lead inductance. I hope yours is closer than mine is.
May you find whatever it is you are really seeking. Or whatever it is you really deserve.
--TK
;D ;D
With enemies like these, who needs friends?
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-20.html#post60414
Joit, for goodness sakes please watch my video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXielVyBauo
Ainslie's recent answer to Joit and poynt99 shows that she is becoming less certain that she is properly in control.
I think it's time to have her explain the relationship between the mosfet conduction state (ON or OFF) and the oscilloscope trace at point A, or directly at the mosfet drain.
She says the 555 issue is irrelevant-- but of course it is not. It shows her profound misunderstanding of what's going on in her circuit. If she agrees that Joit's trace shows a 3.7 percent on duty cycle for the load, then clearly she has been constructing and performing and analyzing her experiment(s) incorrectly. That is, WRONG.
I have made and uploaded Yet Another Video showing the relation between the load conduction or not, the mosfet conduction or not, and the duty cycle, as produced BY THE FUNCTION GENERATOR, so there is no doubt that my trace is like Joit's, and it means when the drain trace goes HIGH, the mosfet is OFF and the load is not energised. This video should be clear enough for even a child to understand. And look, no 555 timer, just a FG--even though she used a 555 timer in her experiment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhIDnjmPjW4
OK, Rosemary, we really need to know.
It seems likely to me that the data in the EIT paper (why do you call it the IET paper? The filename on your website is EIT_paper.pdf, is it not?), I say it seems likely that the data was collected using a 555 timer making the inverted duty cycle. You don't think this matters--but it does. Since you did not use a scope's integration function to integrate an instantaneous power waveform, but likely used the assumed duty cycle figures in your calculations with the spreadsheet, it is possible that this error crept in somehow in spite of your care and expertise in circuitry and measurement.
So we really really need to know: what duty cycle was used, and how do you know? Because if you agree with Joit, you are waaaaayyyyy off in your calculations.
Or are you prepared finally to say, in spite of your constant denials to this point, that the MOSFET and the LOAD are OFF when the signal is high at point A....???
Because you must acknowledge this, if we are to believe your calculations, which perforce used the duty cycle figures you gave.
This is one reason that the 555 "error" is so significant. You used the wrong duty cycle figures in your energy calculations, not because the 555 is wrong, but because you have this misunderstanding of the state of the mosfet.
Or so we must assume, until you correct us, not with more words, but with actual data. You mentioned you still had the apparatus from the original experiment. Methinks it's time to dust it off and fire it up, to see what kind of duty cycle yours makes.
Come on, I've shown you mine. Let's see yours, Rosemary.
Do I sound pissed off? I wonder why. I had to order 10 of these magic mosfets, and they aren't even as good as the 2sk1548. I've been flamed, dissed, banned, lied to and lied about. Losing sleep, missing meals, missing work, losing weight. Spending waay too much time doing remedial circuit testing. It's getting harder, to describe, sailors, to the underfed...
This is even more fun than Mylow!!
Quote from: jibbguy on July 13, 2009, 09:11:09 PM
If you guys were suggesting from your paraphrasing / quoting of the last part of my previous post that i am convinced the circuit works...
- not at all.
QuoteWe should wait and not blindly take any one person's opinion on it, either way.
- absolutely.
You have made a point that we shouldn't rush with judgment - but I have just noticed that doing that you have made judgment by saying this -and proposed to wait and see what the whole jury will tell about this statement of not making the statement. It looks to me that one needs to have possibility to make a statement - because without that possibility - you can't even make a statement about not taking this statement :)
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 14, 2009, 03:52:28 AM
,,, that the MOSFET and the LOAD are OFF when the signal is high at point A....???
- with her understand of electronics she may have hard time to get this. It is going to be deleted or entirely ignored.
What a mess on Rosemary’s thread â€" so much time passed by and people can’t even figure out the timing readings on different parts of the transistor-coil circuit. Adding the loop effect on top of it â€" and I bet you will never agree on what is going on and how to properly measure the energy there (by using the oscilloscope). Such a simple looking circuit and such an insidious, messy trap…amazing. But what is worst is that this is being tried to solve mostly by amateurs, especially including Rosemary.
It should be obvious the duty cycle is as reported by TK.
Well, maybe not for some. For those I suggest they replace the load resistor with a light bulb....also add one to the gate feed (tricky here because they'll be forced to figure out where to connect the reference for the bulb).
Then change a few caps to get the actions down to where they are visible.
All without changing the circuit function.
Light bulbs should be easier to read than a silly-scope?
>Edit...
I would suggest using LEDs but they are also considered mystical beasts by some folks in this field. ;)
Quote from: BEP on July 14, 2009, 07:30:22 AM
It should be obvious the duty cycle is as reported by TK.
Well, maybe not for some. For those I suggest they replace the load resistor with a light bulb....also add one to the gate feed (tricky here because they'll be forced to figure out where to connect the reference for the bulb).
Then change a few caps to get the actions down to where they are visible.
All without changing the circuit function.
Light bulbs should be easier to read than a silly-scope?
>Edit...
I would suggest using LEDs but they are also considered mystical beasts by some folks in this field. ;)
Actually I posted one light bulb video two days ago, I think, and another one last night. I thought they were pretty clear and unambiguous. The amazing thing is that some of the people we are referring to actually saw the first vid, and THEN still are managing to connect foot with mouth.
The last night's one, I was pretty worked up, you can tell from my voice. But I still think I was pretty nice, direct and clear, showing FG (NOT the damn 555) driving the Ainslie circuit with light bulb as load, monitoring mosfet drain just as Joit, (already showed Point "A" in the earlier vid--same thing naturally) using the most expensive oscilloscope I could get my hands on (since that seems to be the important characteristic of a tool, to some) to show something a smart seven-year old could tell you just by looking.
Good grief, what if I have to explain using the "AC coupling" feature to display a small signal riding on top of a much bigger DC offset.....like all the channel A traces have been. It's clear from posts that she believes "AC coupling" is what you use when you want to measure AC, as opposed to DC.
**pours a stiff jolt of Henessey's into the coffee**
**forget the coffee...just use the cognac.**
Oh no!
Not the AC component of a DC signal!
Do that and they will think it is AC out.
Come to think of it....
There are many who think variations in DC means the signal is AC. Better not go there.
TK
I know you have Rosemary on the stove right now, but perhaps you could comment on Don Smith ?
We know you like to play with voltage and Sparky things
Besides there's movies to watch
Bolt posted
Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #368 on: Today at 04:44:44 PM »
go and watch my 3 videos i posted here some time ago before you do anything else on this subject.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2820531/don_smith_free_energy/
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http://freenrg.info/Misc/FR_Zoltan_ZPE_Circuit/&sl=fr&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Rosemary says:
"YouTube - Electric OU 7: Up is OFF
This link has been provided by a friend from OU.Com. It's been posted by TK and apparently shows that a MOSFET is constitutionally unable to apply any effective duty cycle to a battery supply source."
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-21.html#post60482
This of course is NOT TRUE. I never said nor implied such. I show the mosfet delivering precisely any duty cycle it is sent at its gate. A mosfet is a switch, just as poynt99 explained. You tell it to turn on, it does. You tell it to turn off, it does. Depending on freq and drive current of course.
Rosemary said,
"Joit - TK is now going public with the complaint that no MOSFET can actually turn off. I think that's what he's saying. It's becoming pitiful. Certainly this is not a comment on your switch. In fact, I simply cannot understand his point. I've now viewed the video. Perhaps you can make sense of it. Very strange - to say the least. As I say - I have NO IDEA what he's trying to point to. Am not sure if .99 can explain what it's about. Is he saying the the MOSFET never turns off. Or is he just trying to ask the public why there's an apparent voltage during the off period. This is almost embarrassing."
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-21.html#post60500
This again is NOT TRUE. It is a LIE and I believe she knows it. Nobody who can use a computer could possibly be that stupid.
No mosfet can actually turn off? Where did I say or even imply that?
RIGHT BEFORE YOUR EYES I show a mosfet turning FULL ON and FULL OFF, and I show the relationship between the mosfet (switch!! it's a switch, not some magical device!!), I show the relationship between the gate signal, the mosfet state (ON or OFF!!!) and the current in the load.
Rosemary, if you don't understand this, fine. Lots of other important people do, and I'm quite sure Robert Oppenheimer would also. But you don't have to--you can continue to delegate your understanding, just as you have for years.
But if you continue saying that I am saying things that I am NOT saying, you are just digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole, like you did on NakedScientists. Because my statements are all here available in public and can be checked against what you claim about me.
And Joit!!! Good grief man, will you just hook up a simple light bulb to YOUR EXACT CIRCUIT and show us what it does---if you aren't too embarrassed.
And Aaron with reference to your questions and diagram:
The answer to all 3 questions is of course "YES". ((EDIT: oops. The second answer is of course NO. When the DRAIN looks 3.7 percent HIGH, the mosfet is OFF 3.7 percent of the time. Earlier I misread drain as gate.))
But they are the wrong questions.
The issue is whether or not Rosemary used the right numbers in her duty cycle calculations. Clearly an accurate number for the time the MosFet is ON is needed. But this corresponds to the Drain voltage being LOW. Not high, as Joit claims and as Rosemary appears to maintain.
If you are reading here, imagine a voltmeter or oscilloscope connected at the mosfet drain. Or at the top of the resistor where it connects to the positive rail. When the gate signal is ON and the mosfet is conducting, light is on, what is the voltage at these points? When the gate signal is OFF and the mosfet is NOT conducting, light is off, what is the voltage at these points??
(Don't use an LED, you will be missing half the action. Use an incandescent bulb like I am using, or gotoluc is using. Resistive-inductive, remember? Not an led.)
Do you get it now? Do you now see why Joit is wrong, Rosemary is wrong, and poynt99 is right and I am right?
When the mosfet is conducting the voltage at those points is LOW, not high. When the voltage at those points is HIGH the mosfet is not conducting, it is off. Joit's trace shows the voltage going HIGH at the mosfet drain for short periods. The transistor is OFF at these times. If you still don't believe it, after my vids and the real builders telling you so, just hook up a bulb like I have done. Try it!
For goodness sakes, try it for yourselves with the light bulb, since interpreting scope traces is sooo very difficult and confusing.
Light bulb, Aaron and Joit.
Slow the freqs down, and think about what you are seeing. Carefully.
And also think about the implications for energy calculations that are done manually using Rosemary's method.
Aaron's example drawing is fine, and yes, as I have clearly shown the mosfet STATE (on or off) clearly exactly follows the gate drive state: ON is ON, for sure. But that's not the issue: the issue is HOW LONG it's on, and how that on time is measured. If you are looking at the Point A in Ainslie's circuit or the drain of the mosfet in your diagram, the VOLTAGE that the scope is measuring--what it uses to give the duty cycle figure...that voltage is HIGH when the MOSFET ( and the light) IS OFF. Use that exact circuit and put a meter in the exact place Rosemary does. Push that damn button and tell us what the voltage is on your meter.
I hope your done [for the moment]
Look up please
Rosemary from energeticF.:
Quoteâ€Then comes the tricky part. The duty cycle changes. The battery is, in effect, no longer able to deliver any current. The fields on the resistor collapse to zero. And the strength of that collapse relates to the applied energy from the On cycle. Energy is energy. What comes in must go out.â€
- can anybody ask her please how she explains the fact â€" that when I measure the coil â€" it conforms to the Ohms Law and there is never any extra energy entering the coil over what Ohm’s Law “permits†â€" therefore magnetization of the coil gets for free. In other words: both an ordinary resistor and her resistive coil conforms to the Ohm’s Law â€" so the magnetization was suppose to be for free! From zipoons!
This is getting really hilarious now. Hey, what happened to the zipons and the whole theory?
Rosemary is clearly making some progress â€" she doesn’t say anymore that the coil gets magically energized by itself or by zipons :) There was a big argument about that with me. She maintained just few days ago, that while measuring the resistor- it conforms to Ohms law â€" and that since there is no additional energy above that Law entering the coil = therefore the magnetization was far free. :) :) :) So there is a huge change in her brain taking place - but somehow it wasn’t sufficient to destroy the whole concept yet… That was the main base for the entire concept of free energy. It magical magnetization was the place where the free energy was suppose to magically enter the system. Now she is changing her model somewhat. Fascinating…Talking about being aware of one’s own processes â€" I wonder whether she is aware of her last change. Normally when somebody realizes that reality differs form the beliefs gets anxious. Maybe this is why she had to walk the dog today…;)
Rosemary:
Quote„It takes full advantage of that 'moment' and developes a spike to carry the full force of the energy applied in the On time and kicks it back in nano seconds as a 'spike' that is always evident 'beween' the on and off period. That's the counter electromotive force.â€
- it is always good to know something new. It is about the other CMF â€" collapsing magnetic field, it is not the same as BEMF. Counter electromotive force fights back the applied current- energy from collapsed magnetic field occurs when current stop to flow. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-electromotive_force
Rosemary:
Quote“We don't have to go into too much detail about the 'inductive component' as the inductive componenet here is in the resistor itself. Whatever it measures as 'heat' WILL also reflect the energy that was delivered.
- this is fundamentally false. It even contradicts the previous statement from the same letter â€"“And the strength of that collapse relates to the applied energy from the On cycleâ€. The way she thinks does not cease to amaze me. She clearly uses the unique human mind’s feature that it can believe in two contradictory statements at the same time : all energy delivered goes into heat â€" and: “the strength of that collapse relates to the applied energy from the On cycle. Energy is energy. What comes in must go out.â€
Rosemasy:
Quote“But that energy is evidently also measurable on the shunt. And where does it go? It goes first through the battery, thereby recharging it - and then to the load thereby heating it up.â€
- you have 10$ in the battery, take it and put into the resistive coil. Let us say 2$ turn into heat and 8$ turn into magnetic field (what is the exact ratio depends upon the resistive coil characteristics). When all 10$ are spent then the switch opens. What is heat â€"is not mutually convertible back to electricity in this setup- but due to the magnetic field collapse you can have all the 8$ back in electric form again. This goes into the battery. End of the “off“ cycle. Therefore there is less in the battery, but taking additional 2$ from the battery you can make the new cycle again. What is tricky is that normally without the feedback the circuit would only take 5$ during on cycle (4 recoverable and 1$ for the heat). The circuit tries to automatically compensate for any load â€" so when you connect the battery â€" it takes all the collapsing energy â€" and as much you have to give in addition on the front end during the next cycle.
Now if you think about heat as a taxation (for poor conductivity) â€" that it is obvious that there is more tax form 2$ than from 1$. (one resistor hotter than the other one).This is how I see it…
henieck
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2820531/don_smith_free_energy/
You asked whats new
Also
RAMSET
An engineers opinion [TK}
Aaron with reference to your question and diagram: imagine a voltmeter or oscilloscope connected at the mosfet drain. Or at the top of the resistor where it connects to the positive rail. When the gate signal is ON and the mosfet is conducting, what is the voltage at these points? When the gate signal is OFF and the mosfet is NOT conducting, what is the voltage at these points
When the mosfet is conducting the voltage at those points is LOW, not high. When the voltage at those points is HIGH the mosfet is not conducting, it is off. Joit's trace shows the voltage going HIGH at the mosfet drain for short periods. The transistor is OFF at these times. just hook up a bulb like I have done. Try it!
.
Slow the freqs down, and think about what you are seeing. Carefully.
Aaron the drawing is fine, and yes, as shown the mosfet STATE (on or off) clearly exactly follows the gate drive state: ON is ON, for sure. But that's not the issue: the issue is HOW LONG it's on, and how that on time is measured. If you are looking at the Point A in Ainslie's circuit or the drain of the mosfet in your diagram, the VOLTAGE that the scope is measuring--what it uses to give the duty cycle figure...that voltage is HIGH when the MOSFET ( and the light) IS OFF. Use that exact circuit and put a meter in the exact place Rosemary does. Push that button and tell us what the voltage is on your meter.
Spiritual Entrepreneur
@@Aaron said
simple question
Ramset,
That is right but that does not answer the specific questions.
A closed switch is like taking a voltmeter and putting both leads next together on the same wire, there will be no potential difference even though current is flowing and there is voltage moving. That much is common sense. Actually, there will be small milivolt reading because there is a small potential difference but for all practical purposes, there is no voltage.
If the DRAIN has a 3.7% duty cycle, IS IT or IS IT NOT conducting current from a power source for 3.7% of the time per pulse?
It really is a simple yes or no question.
The ball is in your court TK
ramset, I can see the both threads now, thanks. I just can’t send posts there.
Thanks, chet. Aaron's question has an easy answer: NO. When the drain signal is at battery voltage (high) the mosfet is OFF and the load is non-conducting. Clearly. You can wire up that circuit, using a real bulb instead of an LED, and if your voltmeter is sensitive enough to pick up the small voltage drop, you will see it. What looks like a big signal on the scope traces is really a very small fluctuation sitting on top of a large DC offset---the battery voltage. This is why 'AC coupling' must be used to resolve it. If you use DC coupling, if the screen shows a line at battery voltage the fluctuation will be too small to resolve--the voltage doesn't drop very much when the mosfet is ON. But it drops, for sure. If an oscilloscope is relatively dumb, like the Fluke 199, it needs to be TOLD whether you are calling the "high" signal "OFF" or "ON" to give a duty cycle output. There are 2 separate controls in the FLuke that must be set properly: the trace invert function AND the duty cycle definition. Only ONE of the Four possible combinations of these controls is correct in this experiment.
Fortunately the LeCroy is smarter than that. And fortunately the Philips analog scope does not even have a trace invert function, and it is a true 2 beam scope, so no fancy fiddling is done with the signal, as in the 2-trace (not 2 beam) Tek 2213 scope, which does have a Ch2 trace invert function.
@Chet: thanks for posting those things over there. It's pretty ridiculous I know. Re Zoltan: I've known about him for some time now. It appears to me that he too does not understand that energy is the area under an instantaneous power curve. But I have not tested his circuit, nor do I have plans to.
Re Don Smith...him too I have been aware of for a while.
In the past I have tried to stay out of the electric and electronic OU discussions unless I see some obvious error, or an incredible claim, or both at once like here. It's not really my field (although I will pit my knowledge against the likes of Ainslie, Joit, and Aaron any day any where) and I don't like to get entangled doing remedial EE101.
I will take a look at those things you asked me to, later on. I just have too much going on right now to give it proper attention. For example, I mistakenly put the coffee pot in the refrigerator this morning.
Keep up the good work. I hope you don't wind up getting tarred with the same brush they are chasing me with.
--TK
Quote from: ramset on July 14, 2009, 07:21:02 PM
If the DRAIN has a 3.7% duty cycle, IS IT or IS IT NOT conducting current from a power source for 3.7% of the time per pulse?
It really is a simple yes or no question.
- what is a duty cycle? To me normally it indicates signal like from 555 timer where you have voltage and current in phase. What are you referring as duty cycle while talking about the Drain? Is it about voltage or current?
OK then, if Aaron thinks the way he does, how does he explain my video?
Am I faking something?
When anyone with a scope and a few components can do EXACTLY the same thing?
Where's the error here? Can't you SEE that when the drain signal is high, the mosfet is OFF?
How is that light lighting up when the drain signal is low, if Aaron and Rosemary are right?
And, once again, "if" I am right, what does that do to the calculations in her paper?
Are you accusing me of faking this video? When ANYONE with a scope , the knowledge to use it, and a few components can do it for themselves?
And has Joit reported his light-bulb results yet?
TK
I might get thrown off the buss [hopefully not under]
Chet
Quote from: henieck on July 14, 2009, 07:50:50 PM
- what is a duty cycle? To me normally it indicates signal like from 555 timer where you have voltage and current in phase. What are you referring as duty cycle while talking about the Drain? Is it about voltage or current?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_cycle
Henieck, a duty cycle is a parameter of a pulse train that gives the proportion of HIGH signal to LOW signal. A pulse train, that is a set of rectangular pulses like that we have been dealing with. Normally duty cycles are considered in percentages. So a perfect square wave would have a duty cycle of 50 percent.
Now, in a situation where the baseline is at zero volts and the peaks are at 10 volts like the 555 timer gives, you consider the time the signal is LOW (at baseline) compared to the time the signal is HIGH. One cycle, or many, it doesn't matter as long as you use complete cycles.
But the Ainslie paper is talking about current being conducted by the load, and she appears to believe (edit) (along with Joit and some others) that the load is conducting when the DRAIN of the mosfet is high. The peaks in Joit's trace, and in the last trace shown in my #7 video, those peaks are at battery voltage, and the low parts are somewhat (not much) lower. This signal must be read on AC coupling as the signal is much smaller than the DC offset. So, it's easy to see how the mistake was made. She appears to think that since the "duty cycle" at the drain is HIGH only 3.7 percent of the time, that the mosfet is ON at that time and conducting current through the load. But as I have shown, and as others agree, this is backwards.
Sure, the DRAIN duty cycle is 3.7 percent high, no argument there. That means the transistor is OFF for 3.7 percent of the time. That's where the argument is.
But that's not the duty cycle of interest---it's the LOAD's duty cycle we need to know for the calculations, and it's only the assumed shortness of that cycle that makes this OU claim possible. If the cycle AT THE LOAD is long, there's no mystery about the load heating up to 50 degrees over ambient.
And that's what I believe has happened.
So fine, if someone wants to call the drain signal a 3.7 percent duty cycle, that's OK with me, as long as everyone knows the MOSFET is OFF at that time. Not ON.
TK
I must say you are a saint [not a religious one]
I sincerely appreciate your tolerance and sharing /teaching nature
And you got skills
Chet
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 14, 2009, 08:08:51 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_cycle
a duty cycle is a parameter of a pulse train that gives the proportion of HIGH signal to LOW signal.
- I know that - but what is a SIGNAL then? My statement from the above : ...555 timer where you have voltage and current in phase. What are you referring as duty cycle while talking about the Drain? Is it about voltage or current?
- It is obvious for you and me, but they one time take voltage, another time the current for the power calculations or measure the voltage and think that the current is the same (phase) or mix everything the other way around or who knows what else. They need basic course on this. If you take any shortcuts on this they are going to throw you out from the forum again ;)
TK
changes the thread
Headliner on first post by Aaron[just added]
NOTE: DO NOT USE THE CIRCUIT FROM THE QUANTUM ARTICLE. THE CIRCUIT FROM ROSEMARY'S PAPER ON THE EXPERIMENT IS WHAT NEEDS TO BE USED.
Aaron
duty cycle
My question was:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
If the DRAIN has a 3.7% duty cycle, IS IT or IS IT NOT conducting current from a power source for 3.7% of the time per pulse?
Quote:
Originally Posted by poynt99 View Post
The MOSFET switch needs to be set to exhibit a 3.7% ON duty cycle
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAMSET[TK] View Post
NO.
When the drain signal is at battery voltage (high) the mosfet is OFF and the load is non-conducting.
PS - If you want to call the drain signal a 3.7 percent duty cycle, that's OK as long as you know the MOSFET is OFF at that time. Not ON.
Right, but I never mentioned anything about determining 3.7% on by doing the voltage check as explained. Just that if there is a 3.7% duty cycle then the switch is on 3.7% of the time and if the drain is on that long, the whole switch has 3.7% duty cycle.
__________________
With Gratitude, Aaron
PS
TK
when your drinking your frozen coffee watch some of this
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2820531/don_smith_free_energy/
99 you also please
Thanks again Chet...here's more fuel for the fire
I took Aaron's question circuit and breadboarded it up and shot a video. It's uploading and processing now.
I am afraid my anger and frustration come through, and I apologize for that.
Now that I have hopefully shown beyond any doubt that the mosfet drain, or the load at point A in the Ainslie circuit, is HIGH when the mosfet is OFF. That is, the duty cycle produced by the original 555 timer circuit causes the MOSFET to conduct 96.3 percent of the time.
And, since AINSLIE has, until this moment, apparently believed that a HIGH signal or voltage here means the mosfet is ON and the load is conducting.....and the energy calculations were based on this mistaken duty cycle number.....well, you do the math.
So the point that I have been trying to make all along is this: Ainslie most probably generated the data in the experiment with a mosfet that was ON and conducting, 96.3 percent of the time.
So it was feeding much much more power to the load than her calculations indicate.
BUT until she tells us FOR SURE what the experiment was actually doing wrt duty cycle, and until she "shows her work" by actually showing how she calculated the energy--not with words but with example equations and results--until then, I think we must conclude that the entire paper is in error and the data invalid.
Not only is there no OU or battery charging here, we have all been wasting our time and money because of Ainslie's strong personality and mistaken ideas about circuitry.
Oh well, I will be able to make a spanky DRSSTC with these mosfets and the Groundloop/Gotoluc H-bridge circuit--which is extremely useful. So all isn't lost.
I haven't seen the vid, but bight your lip these are very sensitive folks no anger just facts
please post a link to the vid
Chet
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2820531/don_smith_free_energy/
99 you also please
RA circuit (minus the 555 of course).
Negative current spikes at the MOSFET Source lead (200mA spikes at the Drain lead)
Any guesses how/why? (hint at EF post?)
.99
Uh-huh. I have no problem with simulated free energy. Or simulated battery charging.
It's the reality that I have trouble with.
Here is a clear demonstration of Aaron's little circuit--which clearly shows that when the mosfet drain is HIGH the mosfet is OFF. OR, conversely, when the mosfet drain is LOW the mosfet is ON.
So, when any clock, a 555 or a FG provides a positive pulse to the mosfet, it turns ON and conducts, and the Drain goes LOW. When the FG provides a low or zero voltage to the gate, the mosfet turns OFF and the Drain goes to battery voltage--that is, HIGH.
So, if one monitors the mosfet drain like Joit, or equivalently, the load at point A in the Ainslie circuit, one will see a 3.7 percent HIGH duty cycle...when the mosfet is OFF 3.7 percent of the time. And, since that's where the circuit is supposed to be monitored according to Ainslie...the conclusion is inescapable. When Ainslie says the circuit is running at a 3.7 percent ON duty cycle, she WANTS the mosfet to turn on for that short interval. But--as we all now know, that's backwards. When the Drain has a 3.7 percent HIGH duty cycle, the MOSFET is ON 96.3 percent of the total time.
That sort of thing can really mess up your energy balance calculations, if you are doing them by hand instead of having the scope's math function do it. Even then, the scope must be set right, and read right, and more importantly, interpreted correctly.
NOTE: at about :18 I mistakenly call the negative rail the positive, and at about :50 in the vid, I refer to the LED's cathode, when I should have said "anode". Sorry about that. The circuit is correct as Aaron posted it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSFS99SaZTA
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 14, 2009, 11:06:26 PM
Uh-huh. I have no problem with simulated free energy. Or simulated battery charging.
It's the reality that I have trouble with.
I'm not saying this is going to push the RA circuit ou ;) I have no trouble with PSpice behaving itself, in fact I'm confident it can't show ou. It's the users that can mess things up and obtain incorrect results.
For now it's an observation, and I feel it is the parasitic capacitances around the MOSFET that is providing the path.
I'll be doing an analysis of the RMS power in them there spikes to see what gives.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on July 14, 2009, 11:17:42 PM
I'm not saying this is going to push the RA circuit ou ;) I have no trouble with PSpice behaving itself, in fact I'm confident it can't show ou. It's the users that can mess things up and obtain incorrect results.
For now it's an observation, and I feel it is the parasitic capacitances around the MOSFET that is providing the path.
I'll be doing an analysis of the RMS power in them there spikes to see what gives.
.99
Yup, I totally agree. In fact you can see in my latest vid, at reallly rreallly low frequencies, there is so much gate capacitance that without the proper pull-down resistor the mosfet actually does leak a bit. It's doing this at higher freqs too, you just don't notice it as much. And the Ainslie circuit relies on whatever's coming from the FG to pull the gate back down. Maybe that's OK--in circuit my mosfets seem to be quenching properly-- but in this case I'm not so sure.
And then, in the real circuit, there's the DC offset problem. If the FG is used, most FGs of course want to make a positive AND negative pulse train, with the zero voltage level being in the middle. The DC offset control of my Interstate F34 allows me to set the offset up==so that the bottom is at zero, not some negative value.
The 555 timer does not have this problem in its present configuration--it always generates a positive pulse and the baseline is at ground. Or zero, which may not be the same unless you take pains to make it so.
If one's FG cannot be set for a full 5 or 10 volts DC offset, you will have to use a diode or something to keep the negative going part of the pulse out of your gate drive.
(Not "you", point99. I know you know this stuff. I mean "you" all out there who are trying to replicate Ainslie's experiment.)
One big difference I have noted wrt mosfet type: the IRFPG50 is sslllooowwww in this circuit. The 2sk 1548 does much better in making spikes and turning off correctly, and it's only about 2.50, compared to 8 bux or so for the IRFPG50. The 2sk runs hotter--because of all that spikyness sloshing around in there, I imagine. But on a heat sink you can run the 2sk at full 96.3 percent ON, just don't touch it, you'll burn your fingers. The IRFPG50 runs cooler, so it's not making the intense spikes that the 2SK does--by taking it's own sweet time to turn off.
This effect is shown in the video from last night. I put in a 3-pole dt slide switch, and another mosfet socket and heat sink. So I can switch the mosfets with the circuit running and observe the effects.
2sk1548, I think your spice didn't have that one. You could also try 2sk1365, 2sk1120, or 2sk1934, to see the effect they have on spikyness and heat dissipation.
Thanks, poynt, I really appreciate your taking the time, you and Chet both, to communicate over there. My blood pressure would not take it at all. I come from a culture that sees facts more important than style or "politeness", and we try to give as good as we get, in the "diss" department.
If anyone wants to criticise me, I don't mind as long as the criticisms are supported with data and reasoned argument. I'm ugly, my feet smell and my nose runs, I park on a driveway and I drive on a parkway, but I do know how to use and interpret an oscilloscope, most of the time.
Speaking of time, did you know: Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana.
;D
TK, all.
No flyback diode.
Spikes are up to about 540V. IRFPG50 is 1000V MOSFET, which may in fact be why it was chosen.
I can see now the possibility that with the Quantum circuit, they may have intentionally left out the flyback diode. If what you want is large spikes back into the battery, then it would appear leaving the diode out maximizes this effect.
A power dissipation measurement on the load and shunt resistors showed there is very little change with or without the flyback diode connected. Power from the supply had little change as well (but was not a precise measurement).
An analysis of the power spikes from and to the power supply is as follows (without the flyback diode):
RMS forward power from supply ~ 1.82W (15.2us/50W pulses)
RMS reverse power to supply ~ 27mW (277ns/-40W pulses)
PERIOD ~ 416us
That's about 1.5% power returned to the battery.
Note the displayed wave form is inverted :P (i.e. + is- and - is +)
.99
Yup, I concur from reality with my analog scopes. The circuit does that. I don't get those extreme voltages but that could be due to "reality" (ie all that stray capacitance) as well as my scope bandwidth. Still, I get big spikes that are bigger and more impressive without the diode. I have also compared really fast diodes with the specified (or was it?) 1n4007. I don't see a whole lot of difference there; do you have the MUR1100E in your sim? Any "FR" series or HV Schottkys?
The transistor also makes a diff here. I am not impressed with the 1kV IRFPG50. The 2sk1548 is rated 900 V and guarantees a +/- 30 Vgss, where the IRF only promises 20 V, iirc. And the 2sk seems to encourage spikes because it switches faster.
Oddly, the 1GHz LeCroy didn't see any really big spikes either. I guess that's a good thing; I'd hate to have to pay the repair bill on that thing. The #2 channel has a DC offset issue; the repair and recalibrate from LeCroy is gonna be over 4 grand. If this nonsense is still happening in three weeks, maybe I'll be able to show simultaneous voltage and current capture, realtime trace multiplication, and the integration, on the 4 traces simultaneously, and display the parameters like duty cycle, rise and fall, frequency--the thing can show signal parameters that I've never even heard of. That would be fun. And it's got a built in thermal printer!
I have not been able to divert any visible charge onto a 900 mF filter cap; I wonder if I've inadvertently punctured it with the spikes--but wait, maybe I used the wrong end of the diode. Have to run that one again.
But the diode issue: Rosemary seems really attached to this diode. Yet, as you say, it was left out of the Quantum article and not even mentioned; instead the mosfet's internal diode is discussed.
So once again: we are getting more and more puzzled as to just what Rosemary did or did not do.
You'd think she would be able to recall a little thing like a 1n4007, or its absence, especially since it's the key to overunity.
I'm feeling a bit over-untied myself. Must freshen beverage. I made a vid of the LeCroy comparing the transistors. Did you see?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8TCOS7VYlw
TK,
That's actually a scope shot of power, not voltage, which may explain the big numbers.
.99
Good job on the videos ;)
Today Rosemary gave the speech so it felt like in church again. “The measurements on our circuit, notwithstanding .99's attestations to the contrary - prove that efficiency or overunity is only constrained to the limit of one's courage to find new levels of such efficiency. It is, indeed an infinite supply source.â€
She is 60 â€" so most probably she is going to pass away in paranoid state thinking that everybody has mental blockage, has suspicious motives, or that the other personalities on the forum are anonymous so they can hide the same TinsenKoalas’s, heniecks and other returning debunkers behind it.
Why nobody is doing the easy battery tests like I did and she did as well??? Are you holding back because of the fact that it is not the most exact method available? But it is fool proof instead, and very easy to implement. A little laborious perhaps but very reliable just to get the whole picture. Even if in the worst case this method allows for few % disparity (which I doubt and can be narrowed by running multiple tests) â€" it should be enough to see instead of COP=17 â€" just COP=16 or 18, or COP=0.95 or something…
beware! - behind Nerzdishual may be somebody else hiding ;) She needs fresh members and get rid of the skeptic ones to keep her illusion going.
I believe that in this case psychological close up of this entire story is equally important as the electro-engineering one.
Hi All,
I try to follow this thread, but it gets too technical for my electronically challenged mind. Is it or is it not OU? I found a post by user bolt that seemed elegant in its simplicity here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=455.0
" Another way is find a value resistor on the input that just gets hot then take that out and put the same value in the output. If the output one goes up in smoke you have OU "
Can this simple test end this argument once and for all?
tishatang
Quote from: tishatang on July 15, 2009, 06:25:45 AM
I try to follow this thread, but it gets too technical for my electronically challenged mind. Is it or is it not OU?
- Hi, to me it looks like the more knowledge one has and the more closely examines the circuit - the more skeptical he is (lightly said). For now only Rosemary seems to be deeply convicted about its over unity. Others are perplexed, like you are, but trying to get educated first so they know what they are trying to measure and how. In my opinion the more time goes by - the more number of skeptics you see. Rosemary says - it is just the mental blockage- which if laughable to me â€" but I am not any prophecy either. It has been shown many times on the forums, and she herself confirms it as well - that she doesn't have basic knowledge about physics, electronics, battery chemistry - nothing. One can only observe a lot of faith. Lots of it... I tried to be objective â€" but you know â€" it is just my point of view.
This is all so damaging for the OU community. OU exist, in theory, but probably even the inventor makes her tea with a normal water heater from the store, using 1000W+.
Why not settle this in a simple contest.
- An impartial jury determines the capacity of standard big-brand batteries.
- Contestents get to boil a substantial amount of water off said batteries. Standardized water container, hang heating elements over the side.
- (S)he who gets the most water boiled with the least battery capacity, wins.
I'll be impressed when someone makes us all a good cup of tea from one AA battery.
Duty cycles, voltage readings, coils, loops, etc, it says so little. Take a fresh battery from the supermarket, hook it to your circuit, and boil some water.
Quote from: poynt99 on July 15, 2009, 01:42:50 AM
TK,
That's actually a scope shot of power, not voltage, which may explain the big numbers.
.99
Good job on the videos ;)
Thks, got that. I meant the bigger spikes that you mentioned earlier, talking about the Vdss of the transistors.
(Edit: I made a guess at your puzzler, but I don't know if it was a hallucination or not so I removed it.)
I'm glad you liked the demos. You know when I have to move to the living room floor the situation is serious.
::)
Quote from: henieck on July 15, 2009, 05:44:51 AM
Today Rosemary gave the speech so it felt like in church again. “The measurements on our circuit, notwithstanding .99's attestations to the contrary - prove that efficiency or overunity is only constrained to the limit of one's courage to find new levels of such efficiency. It is, indeed an infinite supply source.â€
She is 60 â€" so most probably she is going to pass away in paranoid state thinking that everybody has mental blockage, has suspicious motives, or that the other personalities on the forum are anonymous so they can hide the same TinsenKoalas’s, heniecks and other returning debunkers behind it.
Why nobody is doing the easy battery tests like I did and she did as well??? Are you holding back because of the fact that it is not the most exact method available? But it is fool proof instead, and very easy to implement. A little laborious perhaps but very reliable just to get the whole picture. Even if in the worst case this method allows for few % disparity (which I doubt and can be narrowed by running multiple tests) â€" it should be enough to see instead of COP=17 â€" just COP=16 or 18, or COP=0.95 or something…
beware! - behind Nerzdishual may be somebody else hiding ;) She needs fresh members and get rid of the skeptic ones to keep her illusion going.
I believe that in this case psychological close up of this entire story is equally important as the electro-engineering one.
Hi henieck
I'm not holding back on battery testing at all. I'm just dealing with one issue at a time. Believe me, I can obtain excellent measurements of battery capacity, discharge rate, and whatever other parameters are necessary to monitor performance in real time. But look how much trouble and pain it's been just to explain how to read an oscilloscope or integrate a power curve. Once there is recognition that the duty cycle issue, itself, calls into question the validity and reliability of the original energy calculation itself--that is, the input error...Then I am fully prepared to address the output error: the measurement of output energy (NOT power ffs) versus the true input energy, properly calculated from accurate measurements.
One big psychological problem has to do with the difference between inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning. I believe Rosemary is a brilliant but sadly undereducated inductive reasoner, and it is this that has led her astray. Inductive reasoning is fine, as far as it goes, and in fact leads to great creativity and advancement. But it must be properly applied, and applied to good data, and even then it is fallible. Deductive reasoning also must be correctly applied to good data, but it is much more reliable.
(EDIT I forgot to mention that next on my schedule is dealing with the "random chaotic resonance" issue, that I think was probably false triggering of the Fluke-O-Scope 199. Because, after all, there is no such thing as random chaotic resonance, and this circuit at these low frequencies (Why does she keep calling 2.4 kHz a high freq? It's audio...) is very well behaved. I haven't even seen anything "bad" after I sprinkled in some trimmer caps randomly between leads in the circuit.)
Quote from: tishatang on July 15, 2009, 06:25:45 AM
Hi All,
I try to follow this thread, but it gets too technical for my electronically challenged mind. Is it or is it not OU? I found a post by user bolt that seemed elegant in its simplicity here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=455.0
" Another way is find a value resistor on the input that just gets hot then take that out and put the same value in the output. If the output one goes up in smoke you have OU "
Can this simple test end this argument once and for all?
tishatang
Is it OU? A resounding NO. Or at least, the work being discussed is so full of holes that it is very questionable, and most certainly the main claims, of perpetual battery recharging and vastly greater energy out than in, have not been replicated, not even close. Does the load get warm? Sure. Anomalously so? No.
Can your test tell us what we want to know? NO. Unfortunately with electronics, it's not that simple. If we were concerned about power, your test would work. But we are concerned about energy, which is power over a period of time. Consider the fuse in your computer's power supply. That's only rated a couple amps at most. So that fuse is like a little low-resistance resistor sitting in series with the input power. Now take a fuse of that same rating and put it across the 12 volt output leads of the same power supply. Which fuse blows?
When people are insecure in their assertions then they will not allow their mind to entertain logical thoughts that contradict their beliefs, in effect their minds are closed in order to protect the ego boosting charade that allows them to feel bigger.
It is so simple, if you scope the drain of an N channel FET, as specified in Ainslees papers then you WILL observe this:
When the FET switches OFF then Rload pulls the probe UP to the positive rail.
When the FET switches ON then the low Rds (relative to Rload) will pull the probe DOWN to ground.
It´s an inverted version of the gate signal. And you can´t ever switch an inductive load by placing it between ground and source, to get correct duty cycle readings, because backspikes will kill the FET. Anyone who has any experience with N channel FETs knows this, you can only scope inverted, interestingly many forget this because they´re interested in inductive backspikes which appear positive and are much taller (of course they are really neg).
This coupled with the fact that the specified 555 circuit gives 97% on duty tells us that this whole COP17 heater idea is just so much poppycock! Anyone who "believes" and argues against these facts is (in my opinion) a complete moron! :D
Quote from: Cloxxki on July 15, 2009, 08:05:44 AM
This is all so damaging for the OU community. OU exist, in theory, but probably even the inventor makes her tea with a normal water heater from the store, using 1000W+.
Why not settle this in a simple contest.
- An impartial jury determines the capacity of standard big-brand batteries.
- Contestents get to boil a substantial amount of water off said batteries. Standardized water container, hang heating elements over the side.
- (S)he who gets the most water boiled with the least battery capacity, wins.
I'll be impressed when someone makes us all a good cup of tea from one AA battery.
Duty cycles, voltage readings, coils, loops, etc, it says so little. Take a fresh battery from the supermarket, hook it to your circuit, and boil some water.
Yep, you are of course talking about basic calorimetry, long known to be the "right" way to test any OU claim. But good calorimetry has its own problems.
It's sad. Rosemary said she was having a cold winter. But I doubt if she's warming her hands over an Ainslie heater.
Quote from: Yucca on July 15, 2009, 08:43:05 AM
When people are insecure in their assertions then they will not allow their mind to entertain logical thoughts that contradict their beliefs, in effect their minds are closed in order to protect the ego boosting charade that allows them to feel bigger.
It is so simple, if you scope the drain of an N channel FET, as specified in Ainslees papers then you WILL observe this:
When the FET switches OFF then Rload pulls the probe UP to the positive rail.
When the FET switches ON then the low Rds (relative to Rload) will pull the probe DOWN to ground.
It´s an inverted version of the gate signal. And you can´t ever switch an inductive load by placing it between ground and source, to get correct duty cycle readings, because backspikes will kill the FET. Anyone who has any experience with N channel FETs knows this, you can only scope inverted, interestingly many forget this because they´re interested in inductive backspikes which appear positive and are much taller (of course they are really neg).
This coupled with the fact that the specified 555 circuit gives 97% on duty tells us that this whole COP17 heater idea is just so much poppycock! Anyone who "believes" and argues against these facts is (in my opinion) a complete moron! :D
Thass wot i says too, mon.
Last week, iirc.
;)
Aaron, you are doing it again. Since I am being censored by you, through the use of prior restraint, I cannot respond directly to the slanders you are slinging.
Here are a couple links for you, since you seem to be "definitionally challenged" in addition to being scientifically so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
And if you think about it for more than an instant, you will realise that the mosfet duty cycle issue is at the heart of the energy calculations in the paper that Rosemary has repeatedly asked someone, anyone, to examine and criticize. Oh, no, that's what a scientist would do. What she actually asked for is that someone, anyone, PROVE her paper to be correct. Well, I have shown that there are so many holes in the paper that it is unlikely to be correct. When the holes are plugged, and only then, can the real claim even begin to be examined. If it survives that long. And it doesn't look good at this point.
How's that Ohmite resistor working for you? What's its inductance?
Quote
p.s.
For the real truth seekers and you know who you are - lets not forget that at a 95% duty cycle, you can still get gains. Please stay focused on the topic and the truth will prevail."
You know, I think I'm finally getting through. It sounds almost like you are acknowledging finally what I've been telling you for over a week, in increasingly simpler and simpler terms. I'm glad I finally reached a level that you could understand, when I moved to the living room floor to show you how YOUR circuit behaves. Thank you.
Now, perhaps we can get on to testing the "gains" issue. Because it's wrong as well, and when your mind clears up we can start examining why.
Hint: Calculus helps. It actually is good for something.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 15, 2009, 08:46:03 AM
Yep, you are of course talking about basic calorimetry, long known to be the "right" way to test any OU claim.
LOL, where do you get this stuff? Is that penguin pecking at your brain when your not looking? When your mouth is closed, it keeps feet from entering.
Quote from: HeairBear on July 15, 2009, 09:06:47 AM
LOL, where do you get this stuff? Is that penguin pecking at your brain when your not looking? When your mouth is closed, it keeps feet from entering.
Perhaps you would care to elaborate on just how my statement is in error.
Oh, and I sure would like to see some of your work, so I know what kind of troll I'm dealing with.
>>> Personal message fot FuzzyTomcat,
I have received your personal message.
I cannot answer it as the forum 'send message' function
is not working for me ???
BTW the 'Spell Check' is no working too. :-\
So, here is my answer:
I'm a member of the Energetic Forum since a while and
aware of the Rosemary Ainslie's thread. Infortunately,
I'm not allowed to see the attached pictures and to post anything...
I had 'stolen', the wed page about the Zoltan Szili's FE circuit in
this famous (French) site : http://quanthomme.free.fr/ (http://quanthomme.free.fr/)
And more precisely here:
http://quanthomme.free.fr/qhsuite/circuitzolt.htm (http://quanthomme.free.fr/qhsuite/circuitzolt.htm)
I very rarely 'steal' web pages and if I do it, I, at least, give the
URL of the initial page. That was not the case about the Zoltan FE CCT page.
Shame on me...
However, as I'm sometimes at phone with the Quanthomme site webmaster,
I guess that I could be forgiven :))
Very Best
Uh huh. Are you giving us the Zoltan story to illustrate yet another case of measurement and interpretation error? Sorry, it's got to take its place in the queue.
Quote from: NerzhDishual on July 15, 2009, 09:18:23 AM
>>> Personal message fot FuzzyTomcat,
I have received your personal message.
I cannot answer it as the forum 'send message' function
is not working for me ???
BTW the 'Spell Check' is no working too. :-\
So, here is my answer:
......
salut NerzhDishual
i have posted your answer here
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-23.html#post60636
You know, it's really remarkable. I identified the duty cycle issue last week, or even longer ago, and pointed out how it affects the manual "integration" that was used to figure the energy balance in the originally cited documents of the experiment.
And yesterday I was finally required to put together the simplest possible mosfet circuit (that would work more than once!) in order to demonstrate in no uncertain terms that I was correct about that issue.
Aaron, the moderator of the thread on energeticforum, asked some questions concerning this circuit, which I answered unequivocally in the video for all to see. The circuit turns the mosfet ON when the gate drive is HIGH: therefore power is supplied to the load when the gate is HIGH. And the voltage at the Drain pin (where the load is normally connected) goes LOW when the gate drive is HIGH and power is being supplied to the load.
Load ON, Drain signal LOW. Load OFF, Drain signal HIGH.
That's now been demonstrated by now sufficiently enough that even Aaron will agree.
And the 555 circuit also behaves as I said. The output pulse goes HIGH for a long time wrt the LOW period.
And it cannot be adjusted to deliver a 3.7 percent ON duty cycle with the components specified. This has now also been conclusively demonstrated by many builders. Even some who still apparently do not understand the first point above.
THEREFORE, sorry to shout, the complete circuit turns the load ON for 96 percent of the time. Not for 4 percent.
This is deductive reasoning and it is correct, and has been confirmed by experiment over and over and over.
Now, logically, if the designer tells us to use a function generator to do what the 555 was doing, but herself makes the same error about duty cycles referred to above--the mosfet drain cycle, remember...it is almost certain that the same error about the load cycle will be made. THEREFORE again, the data in the paper, since they were probably generated using the wrong duty cycle figures, are invalid.
This is inductive reasoning...it could be wrong. It is up to Ainslie to show the error. With data, Rosemary. I believe you said you still have the original apparatus. Let's dig it out, hook it up to any scope you want, and see how it behaves.
We now have posts on the energeticforum that are saying that a 555 timer was NOT used in the Quantum experiment and the EIT paper.
However, Rosemary has said that she always used a 555 timer; the Quantum article gives the circuit; the EIT paper refers to the Quantum article as its only reference; the EIT paper specifically says that the experiment was done with a 555 timer, although its circuit is not given in that paper.
So once again the story is changing in an inconsistent manner. What, exactly, including the timer, was the circuit used? How the HELL are we supposed to replicate if the maker does not specify the circuit?
And it is abundantly clear that Rosemary used the wrong duty cycle--otherwise she would have instantly explained otherwise -- but since she does not understand that the load is OFF when the point A is ON or high, ...
oh, never mind.
I just hope they get their story straight and at least specify the EXACT circuit used to make the Quantum and EIT paper data. I don't give a flying flimp about what other circuits were or are being used or recommended. My point is and continues to be that those papers are WRONG and it is extremely likely that, since a 555 timer WAS used according to Rosemary, the duty cycle was figured into the calculations incorrectly.
Quote from: poynt99 on July 14, 2009, 11:17:42 PM
I'm not saying this is going to push the RA circuit ou ;) I have no trouble with PSpice behaving itself, in fact I'm confident it can't show ou. It's the users that can mess things up and obtain incorrect results.
For now it's an observation, and I feel it is the parasitic capacitances around the MOSFET that is providing the path.
I'll be doing an analysis of the RMS power in them there spikes to see what gives.
.99
Dear All, I've been viewing this thread any many like it for some time now with great interest. It would seem that we have become so blinkered on the goal post, we forgot all about the goal :'(
As EE's I'm sure we are all familiar with the lectures of Dr Lewin as a starting point in highlighting Kirchoff's Mesh Law violations, as most of our simulation tools uses this matrix models. This link to one still works. He makes a typo in the beginning though :-[
http://www.whatsontv.co.uk/youtube/search/lewin/video/eqjl-qRy71w/1
Furthermore I'm sure that we are in agreement that any controlled sharp gradient into a system most likely causes an interaction within itself and it's local environment or resonance(for visualization clarity). As for me I do think that we are emersed in a stressed mechanical universe which responds to these sharp impulses.
Also if you have the time, investigate "Negative luminescence "(Not the wikipedia definition ;)) as used in many of the designs, when doing caloric measurements.
My Two cents worth (not forgetting the recession of course). I wish I had the time to explore as many of you are able to, however still involved and audited ever so often by certain organizations.
Quote from: NerzhDishual on July 15, 2009, 09:18:23 AM
>>> Personal message fot FuzzyTomcat,
I have received your personal message.
I cannot answer it as the forum 'send message' function
is not working for me ???
BTW the 'Spell Check' is no working too. :-\
So, here is my answer:
I'm a member of the Energetic Forum since a while and
aware of the Rosemary Ainslie's thread. Infortunately,
I'm not allowed to see the attached pictures and to post anything...
I had 'stolen', the wed page about the Zoltan Szili's FE circuit in
this famous (French) site : http://quanthomme.free.fr/ (http://quanthomme.free.fr/)
And more precisely here:
http://quanthomme.free.fr/qhsuite/circuitzolt.htm (http://quanthomme.free.fr/qhsuite/circuitzolt.htm)
I very rarely 'steal' web pages and if I do it, I, at least, give the
URL of the initial page. That was not the case about the Zoltan FE CCT page.
Shame on me...
However, as I'm sometimes at phone with the Quanthomme site webmaster,
I guess that I could be forgiven :))
Very Best
Hi NerzhDishual,
I sorry your having trouble and Aaron is aware of the problem and I'm sure he's working on it to get you in on the project.
As far as you stealing I would never say that, any web page not having "copyright" or "All Rights Reserved" is pretty much fair game to copy excerpts or parts of the page as long as you "Quote" it as is and refer where it came from with a link.
I wouldn't worry so much as I heard from the author of the paper today in a e-mail I recieved
Quote
Hello Glen xxxxxxxxxxxx.
Thank You for your e-mail.
My name is Zoltan SZILI. ( born in Hungary )
My english is not to good, but I understend and I can write it
a little bit.
I am a canadian private researcher. ( Near Montreal, Qc. )
My work is 99% simulation, using a computer program ( MICROCAP ).
This program include the Giles-Atherton physical model of electro-magnetism.
I have some experimental results in the electronic laboratory.
Actually, I have more than a thousend simulated electronic circuit of ZPE or
free energy. After 12 years of simulation, I have a good idea, what is the physical
processus of zero point energy extraction ( from vacuum energy fluctuations ).
I can also calculate the value of extracted energy using a simple formula.
E extr. = F * L * ( I max. * I max )/2
E extr. is the extracted ZPE energy.
F is frequency.
L is inductance.
I max. is the maximum current.
This formula is a degenerated formula.
The original physical formula is more complicated.
Can You communicate me the e-mail address of Rosemary Ainslie ?
Thank You for all.
Best regards, Zoltan SZILI.
Hopefully we can be enlightened by this fine academic and scholar .....
Best Regards,
Fuzzy
:)
Quote from: ddmdragon on July 15, 2009, 01:37:57 PM
Dear All, I've been viewing this thread any many like it for some time now with great interest. It would seem that we have become so blinkered on the goal post, we forgot all about the goal :'(
As EE's I'm sure we are all familiar with the lectures of Dr Lewin as a starting point in highlighting Kirchoff's Mesh Law violations, as most of our simulation tools uses this matrix models. This link to one still works. He makes a typo in the beginning though :-[
http://www.whatsontv.co.uk/youtube/search/lewin/video/eqjl-qRy71w/1
Furthermore I'm sure that we are in agreement that any controlled sharp gradient into a system most likely causes an interaction within itself and it's local environment or resonance(for visualization clarity). As for me I do think that we are emersed in a stressed mechanical universe which responds to these sharp impulses.
Also if you have the time, investigate "Negative luminescence "(Not the wikipedia definition ;)) as used in many of the designs, when doing caloric measurements.
My Two cents worth (not forgetting the recession of course). I wish I had the time to explore as many of you are able to, however still involved and audited ever so often by certain organizations.
huh? the only thing i understood was typo.
fritznien just an EET
@ddm dragon
I applaud efforts to achieve the "goal" to which you refer.
I am not an EE (although I sometimes play one on YT ;D ); I see myself in the position of a qualified anonymous reviewer of a submitted scientific article. Rosemary pleaded for someone to examine her papers, her patent applications, and her theories. I am dealing with the published reports of one claimed experiment only--the one described (rather differently) in both the Quantum article and the "EIT" paper (which for some reason she calls the IET paper--but the .pdf file is as I call it, so who knows.)
Since you've been reading this thread for a while, you know that I have found and unambiguously demonstrated several severe problems with the design and execution of the experiment and its interpretation.
Regardless of the "goal", this particular "play" needs to be severely penalized, as it is a classic example of "pathological science" and cannot be trusted to be an accurate report or analysis of even a poorly performed experiment.
We are dealing with someone who likely would not understand a single word of any of Professor Lewin's excellent lectures (many of which are available on YT.) After all, she does not have the basic math background demanded of even a freshman EE guppy, so Lewin might as well be speaking Basque for all the good it would do.
When I think of the struggles I went through, in the RLM building at UT Austin in the 1980s, trying to get through the Differential Equations and Boundary Value Problems course...and then to have a high-school dropout who thinks in "patterns" tell me that my analysis is wrong or faked or misinfo or disinfo without providing any evidence, it makes me rather irate. It is indeed ironic that most of what is actually known about the Ainslie circuit's behaviour (other than what is found in the basic Circuits, Devices, and Systems texts, that is) was found out IN SPITE OF Rosemary's "cooperation" and was found and posted by the most educated, experienced, and skeptical workers.
The goal is fine, but with players like these, you really don't need to wonder why the field is considered "amateur" by the pros.
As far as Zoltan Szili is concerned, I am aware of his work and have been for some time.
Let's let him speak for himself:
"My work is 99% simulation, using a computer program ( MICROCAP )."
I believe this is quite enough information to evaluate his claims, at least until we see that remaining 1 percent.
Well
99 is gonna run a sim ,if it shows OU ,that will be a first for him
Some Don Smith Stuff [Tesla coils simple things VERY BIG ""RESULTS""
http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Smith.pdf
his vids showing all AMAZINGLY SIMPLE
Chet
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2820531/don_smith_free_energy/
Oh my goodness.
Hoppy said,
Quote
"We have all stated our various opinions and clearly and understandably there are still differences. My suggestion is to take Rosemary's circuit complete with 555 timer design and simply run it for sufficient hours to completely discharge the test battery at its C20 rating and take a before and after ampere hour capacity reading with a good quality battery capacity meter (BCM) on a battery with say a before test at rest voltage of 25.00V battery.
Rosemary has made it very clear to us that her circuit running at 90% plus duty cycle has been authenticated as being OU big time. If this is the case, then it will be easy enough to prove. I suggest that the test must be conducted to ensure that its duration be based on fully discharging the battery at a current based on that used for the DC control test which in Rosemary's case was 17.74W / 13.32V = 1.33A. This would require a battery of 25 - 30A/hrs. Assuming a seperate battery supply is used to run the 555 pulse circuit as was the case in Rosemary's test, then any loss of battery capacity measured after a good rest after the test, will strongly suggest under unity. Comparative 'before and after' test open circuit battery voltage measurements are not a reliable guide of capacity loss or gain."
Which sounds to me like he's saying, build the exact Ainslie circuit as published and test it using the correct protocol for battery discharge testing.
And Rosemary replied,
Quote
Hoppy - I would rather you do not dictate the terms and conditions for authentication. I have already stipulated what is required. I would also thank you and .99 to explain your dependence on simulator software that you are also confident will not allow for any overunity result.
I am awaiting the details of a post that apparently went to OU.COM - written by -.99 that speaks to this. When I have it I will address the issue again.
Which sounds like she is saying "OU is proven; if your tests don't show OU on my circuit your tests are (or will be) wrong."
In other words, "how can I lose, with the stuff I use?"
I am literally flabbergasted by this attitude. You can take any of my work and pick it apart using any tool you like ,and if a valid tool used correctly finds an error I want to know about it--so that I can correct it. If I don't understand something, it does NOT go out the door with my name on it.
It is a big mistake to delegate understanding.
(Somebody please post this where Rosemary can see it.)
Rosemary,
To give the rest of the replicators a definitive baseline to work from:
1) Could you please locate the device you used for your experiments and post some detailed photographs of the circuitry? This should resolve any questions about the actual circuit construction (flyback diode, etc.).
2) Could you then provide a video of the experimental procedure described in your papers, using your original device, which clearly demonstrates the gains you have reported? Please include shots of your instruments, sampling points, settings, and waveforms.
This should help clear up much of the confusion.
Regards,
overconfident
And now she is accusing poynt99, of all people, of lacking the "required intellectual integrity" to vet her work.
And this one in particular really cracked me up:
"Nor did you point out that PSpice could not, under any circumstances, simulate anomalous conditions. That is less than intellectually honest - by its kindest assessment."
IF she knew what she was talking about, this might be sad. But since she has no clue about how to even use the "PM" feature of a web forum (don't you just click?) she probably won't be running any circuit sims any time soon.
So it's just ridiculous, not even sad.
I wonder about the "intellectual honesty" of continually referring to patent applications as "patents" when it is clear that the folks she is talking to believe they are actually granted patents. Is that intellectually honest? I wonder about the "intellectual honesty" of someone who allows an admittedly incorrect (OR WAS IT?) diagram persist in literature with her name on it, for over seven years. Is that intellectually honest? I wonder about the "intellectual honesty" of someone who praises you as long as you agree with her but as soon as you provide evidence that she MAY be wrong, she seeks to discredit you , to have you silenced, and she starts slinging mud.
Welcome to the club, .99.
Quote from: 0c on July 15, 2009, 04:24:33 PM
(Somebody please post this where Rosemary can see it.)
Rosemary,
To give the rest of the replicators a definitive baseline to work from:
1) Could you please locate the device you used for your experiments and post some detailed photographs of the circuitry? This should resolve any questions about the actual circuit construction (flyback diode, etc.).
2) Could you then provide a video of the experimental procedure described in your papers, using your original device, which clearly demonstrates the gains you have reported? Please include shots of your instruments, sampling points, settings, and waveforms.
This should help clear up much of the confusion.
Regards,
overconfident
Don't hold your breath. After all, why should she do any of that? That's what a "traditional" scientist would do. But we are dealing with an enlightened being, on the intellectual order of a Robert Oppenheimer, by her own humble admission.
She don' haff to show you no stinkin badges.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsdZKCh6RsU
So let's see:
Aaron says you cannot use Spice, or the fact that using Spice reproduces all the behaviour of the circuit including load heating but NOT including OU...to disprove Rosemary's thesis.
And Rosemary says that you cannot use her actual circuit, like I did, which shows heating in the load like her published results, with conventional analysis which does not show OU, to prove that her circuit (which was what, now?) does not produce OU.
Apparently, only analyses that show OU on the Ainslie circuit are valid to test her circuit with. If it doesn't show OU, you (or I) didn't do it right. Since the OU has already been proven. So be sure to analyze this circuit (or a different one?) with a method that will show OU, otherwise the method is wrong. QED.
How can one argue with logic like that? I certainly cannot.
@TinselKoala,
I was just giving some informations about "yet another claimed
OU CCT using squares waves and a coil" (YACOUCUSVAC).
We still had YACC (Yet Another Compiler-Compiler)
http://dinosaur.compilertools.net/#yacc
Now we have YACOUCUSVAC.
Due to the draconian specifications of this CirCuiT I do not intend to
reproduce it.
To be clear:
I'm not a skeptic. I do "believe" that "OU" (COP >1) is possible and not
only with heat pumps just because that there is an 'Aether' that could be harnessed.
I'm just wondering whether this "achievement of OU" were not (for the moment)
also a strange and elusive phenomenon that is reserved to some fortunate few ???
Something could only work with somebody or in some place or during some time.
Kinda paranormal ??? Go figure... See William A. Tiller.
@Tagor.
Merci.
@FuzzyTomCat,
Thanks.
I have amended my page. BTW: it was not up to date as the Quanthomme page
http://quanthomme.free.fr/qhsuite/circuitzolt.htm (http://quanthomme.free.fr/qhsuite/circuitzolt.htm) was updated since March 2005.
Translation here:
http://translate.google.fr/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fquanthomme.free.fr%2Fqhsuite%2Fcircuitzolt.htm&sl=fr&tl=en&hl=fr&ie=UTF-8 (http://translate.google.fr/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fquanthomme.free.fr%2Fqhsuite%2Fcircuitzolt.htm&sl=fr&tl=en&hl=fr&ie=UTF-8)
Happy to see that you could get in touch with Zoltan SZILI.
Very Best
QuoteEgmQC - I need to endorse Armagdn03 here. Our paper shows what is well known as a Parastic Hartley Effect. It's a random oscillation that needs to be taken out of signal circuitry. It's well known and problematic. What has not been known is that it gives a remarkable overunity result as it applies to applications for heat.
The point is this. No-one seems to be able to duplicate that resonance. It is characterised by spikes that are entirely aperiodic - and it is, therefore, very tricky to compute. Hence the need for specialised measuring equipment.
Parasitic Hartley effect? Hmm...google is stumped too.
But that's ok because I have a "specialized measuring equipment"--the Fluke 199 ScopeMeter that she originally used (but on the NakedScientists forum she said it was a Fluke 123--no matter, I have both.)
This scope is a child's toy compared to the LeCroy that I have demonstrated, and it has well known (at least by scope users) triggering issues on spiky signals. I have even inserted trimmer caps in my circuit in an attempt to make it produce any non-regular behaviour--and it won't.
I am almost certain that what she is describing here is false triggering of the FlukeOScope, but without seeing a scope trace from her it's just a conjecture. But a strong one.
I will be posting a video tonight of this false triggering phenomenon, and maybe she can tell us if what she saw is anything like what I will show.
But I don't expect any real cooperation. After all, she is sitting at a computer, typing words, while I am lugging expensive test equipment around, building circuits and testing them, while swimming upstream with one hand.
Demanding recognition vs. requesting verification.
Perhaps you would spend your time wiser by just making a two-column list.
One for the firm believers, nomatter what.
And one for those who put serious doubt in an inventor who chooses to discredit their long-awaited replicators when they post critical questions.
It's interesting how this circuit seems sufficiently complicated to maintain this myst of doubt, or hope actually, yet also simple enough to be replicated easily.
Really, if TK has it right here, the article should be corrected by the editors. It being out there discredits the OU community more than it helps now. Even if it does work, the inventor is not really cooperative. In a less serious thread the inventor would be accused of being as WIB. Drawing attention of the world's most energetic OU researchers, directing it away from things that really matter, obvious gains for technology to be made at the cost of the establishment.
@Nerzh: ;D Yet another....
I suppose you are talking about Zoltan Szili, who is familiar to me. He says 99 percent of his work is done on simulations.
And Rosemary is very excited about Zoltan. Even though DrStiffler has cautioned us about the specific simulation program that Zoltan uses--it won't produce results contrary to CoE unless misused.
Somehow, this does not surprise me.
So, I guess the situation is like this: If your simulation doesn't produce OU behavior, you cannot use it to test Ainslie's circuit, because as everyone knows, simulations are unreliable and in the hands of intellectually dishonest researchers they could be used in an attempt to disprove OU, and that proves they are inappropriate tests.
And, if your simulation does produce OU behaviour, regardless of whether you are operating it correctly or not, it CAN and should be used to PROVE (not disprove) the Ainslie circuit is OU.
Somehow, this does not surprise me either.
Um.
Could I have another beverage, please? I don't seem to be drunk enough to understand this logic.
@Cloxxki: What do you mean, "IF"??
;D
Even the most die-hard deniers seem to have been convinced by my "critical thinking supplement." I showed it to my landlord's 7 year old daughter, and she got it. Drain HIGH = Load OFF. The hydraulic analogy even works here.
555 duty cycle as I said = confirmed by many other builds and sims.
Probability that Ainslie used the wrong duty cycle in her manual calcs: extremely high, and not yet addressed by Ainslie.
But there's still that JOIT thing. Well, he will see too, eventually, if he ever bothers to test his circuit or read a textbook.
Quote from: NerzhDishual on July 15, 2009, 04:53:15 PM
@Tagor.
Merci.
NerzhDishual membership from Aaron
He's all set. Please let him know.
If anybody is going to make battery test â€"there is one more idea. You can easily add one more independent indicator -aerometer for battery’s acid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerometer This will indicate density â€" which is directly related to number of ions â€" which is related to the degree of charging/discharging. I couldn’t use it in my test because I had too small battery to fill up my bulky probe. I would just measure the density at the extreme points. It is not extremely exact - but will entirely independently to voltage measurement confirm any substantial anomalies if any are present. If you are going to use it as a rookie â€" remember to wear work/old clothes â€" because if there is any invisible droplet of acid, after some hours will destroy the fabric- so after next washing you will see a little hole, or many holes…Just don’t make any mess with this idea again, because I don’t know if it was me who mentioned to use simulation first â€" but now people are trying to prove/disprove the whole over unity concept this way. I was mainly thinking about the fact that “one resistor warmer then the other one†phenomenon was not any supernatural occurrence â€" since it was defined in the software already. But ff there is any NEW zipon theory or over unity to be found â€" I think it is logical to search in reality, not in already existing software models.
I don’t know if I understood it right, but I think I saw comments that there is very little current going back from the coil. At one, random instance as example I recovered 31J into the capacitor out of every 185J delivered to the coil (unknown freq and duty cycle). Connecting the flyback to the battery â€" the increased current was even bigger, closer to 40:60 (probably due to different internal resistance or something). Like Rosemary says â€" you can sweep the frequency and duty - and find the range where the current circulating in the circuit almost doubles. Connect and disconnect the flyback to the battery’s positive terminal to see and detect that. The current measured between the battery and the coil will substantially increase.
On the other hand there is no overall charging visible â€" because in on cycle battery takes charge â€" and the very next one gives everything away, plus some more for heating.
Quote from: tagor on July 16, 2009, 01:01:54 AM
NerzhDishual membership from Aaron
He's all set. Please let him know.
Clearly Rosemary has a mission here to prove the concept- and everything contrary to this goal is being deleted. She acts like omniscient and enlightened sect master. She even asked her dedicated servant Aron to check the background of new members. Whoever turns “against†the master is condemned or accused of suspicious motives, discredited and ejected. Stalin would simply kill… Those who show just ANYTHING that can be interpreted her way are cherished.
Quote from: henieck on July 16, 2009, 04:59:20 AM
She acts like omniscient and enlightened sect master. She even asked her dedicated servant Aron to check the background of new members. Whoever turns “against†the master is condemned or accused of suspicious motives, discredited and ejected. Stalin would simply kill… Those who show just ANYTHING that can be interpreted her way are cherished.
LOL, :D, So funny, she certainly knows how to groom people by feeding them extra sugary compliments, calling them "angels" and so forth.
What I thought was particularly entertaining was when you entered her thread, at first she was all gushy and luvvy, trying to attract you into the fold, then as you kept hold of your logic she started to turn nasty and now you´ve rubbed shoulders with TK you´re on her execution list! :D
henieck,
Yes it's the age old pattern. It's part of life on FE forums it seems, and there's no clear way to change it.
I've failed to do any real good over there and very little over here as well it seems. I had hoped that the folks who needed the info would have been discussing it. I suppose it is human nature to ignore information that requires a little time and open-mindedness to understand. I've been around long enough to have known beforehand the outcome of such a proposition, but I guess we all need reminders from time to time. Consider me "refreshed".
Time to re-focus on my own work, but I am interested in seeing what Zoltan has to present.
So far my simulation results are quite different than his. Basically, the wave forms I am obtaining are "mirrored" compared to his, and I am getting only about 1/10th the voltage and current he is.
Fundamentally, the circuit he used is predisposed to unrealistic results because the inductor model used is unrealistic. There is no series DC resistance, nor parallel capacitance included in the model. Also, the Gate drive is unrealistic as well, as there must be some finite resistance in the Gate path, which by nature will reduce the rise and fall times the MOSFET can switch. Albeit this is a somewhat minor omission, but is good practice to include when doing simulations.
I am a little surprised that at his level, these important elements were omitted.
.99
99
please don't think your wasting time!!
Your Skills are quite obvious and you plant many seeds when you post
[and save people a lot of wasted time]
Besides Rosemary obviously doesn't know your a good guy[very smart and very skilled ] seeking the truth
Chet
Too bad EF has no overunity prize to collect.
With knowledge offered to us all in the RA thread, a semi-skilled researcher should be able to add some diffusing components and loops, and then use RA's unquestioned measuring methods in attaining triple digit COP.
With the present thread's members all behind the circuit, it will be hard for the RA posse to refute the even greater gains reached.
Two new vids up, EOU9 parts 1 and 2, playing with oscilloscopes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIALHiRL4PY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTcG1dAsrdc
And I ran an experimental run this morning, comparing load heating vs. time for the 96 percent and 4 percent duty cycles from the FG, using a load of R = 3.8 ohms, L = 82 microHenrys.
Briefly, the time and temp endpoints were:
4 percent ON: about 11 degrees over ambient (target = ambient + 52 as per Ainslie) at 70 minutes.
96 percent ON: experiment terminated at 4 minutes; load temp 103.2 C and rising fast, about 80 degrees over ambient.
I'll give the full experiment parameters (voltages, currents, powers) later on today. I've got to go to work now.
As I continue the temperature testing, I will make the .csv files of the raw data available for public crunching. All comments welcome, pro and con. Of course, if you are too con, I'll send Owlsley to get you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2HHtTtfDT0
TK
Ramset I've just watched those videos. Strange 20 minutes of my life. Be that as it may - can someone advise TK that he needs to put his probes directly across the shunt resistor. The meter has got a dc coupling function. He needs to get a fairly wide range of sample waveforms because he's now dealing with some pretty aperiodic waveforms and some pretty hectic numbers. The scope meter will show him the voltage.
When he's found the number and measured a fair sample range, on the scope - then do a dump of those numbers and work it through a spread sheet. Then - take the sum of the voltages divided by the number of samples and it should tally with voltage value at the digital display at the scope. Then simply use that voltage number - divide it by his shunt (from memory 0.5v) will give the amperage. His shunt isn't ideal. It should be pure carbon - but it's ok.
That's the important number. He needs a temperature gauge for his energy measure dissipated at the load because of the complexity of his waveform. Then just compare those two values.
Hi everyone,
@TK and other interested parties ...
There is a posting of mine at Energetic Forum I'd like to share and get comments on, I feel there is some importance here because of the need for a "
squeeky clean" ground so as there is no frequency's or harmonics induced into operation and measurements.
As you know I'm sure, in a residential area as many as five (5) homes can be connected to one utility transformer supplying 120/240 volt "with a common neutral" to each home and bonded to a grounding system (if there) possibly inducing unwanted results in simulations of replications and measurements of results.
Any comment would be appreciated .......
http://www.energeticforum.com/60534-post635.html
Quote
Ground - Grounded - Grounding
Hi everyone,
There has been something that I have noticed looking at many older documents and illustrations of the term "Ground" as in Earth or "Terra firma" Terra firma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . As you all know common voltages from countries vary, the UK, Europe, Africa parts of Asia many more not to be named for example use 240 volt ..... but the United States and other North and South America countries use 120/240 volt ..... the big difference is how the "Ground" is connected and referenced.
Where 240 volt is and the only voltage available meaning "NO" 120 volt, a ground conductor is actually Grounded to "Ground", Earth or "Terra firma".
Where 120/240 volt is a ground conductor is bonded to the Neutral wire in a Electrical Service Panel (circuit breaker or fuse) whether in a residence, commercial or industrial application. This would also include "Bonding" of any ground rods, water pipes ( if metal ) and natural gas lines all bonded to the Service neutral conductor. SO A GROUND WIRE AND EVERYTHING CONNECTED TO IT ( neutral wire, pipes ) IS NOT A TRUE GROUND and anything connected to it can be subject to unwanted frequency's or harmonics induced into the grounding system through the neutral conductor.
How To Fix -
A separate "Ground" Earth or "Terra firma" connection must be used generally called a "Isolated Grounding System" using one 8'-0" ground rod a minimum of 6 (six) feet from any other ground rod system or underground water and gas lines. It must be totally isolated using a minimum of a #8 AWG insulated green conductor and must not be connected in any way to you existing grounding system ..... any questions you should contact a qualified person (disclaimer).
Testing equipment causing harmonics can be somewhat isolated during operation using a "UPS" power battery back up supply ( AC to DC to AC ) but that does not solve the ground reference problem.
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http://freenrg.info/Misc/FR_Zoltan_ZPE_Circuit/&sl=fr&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Quote:
Not need an oscilloscope to demonstrate on the unit: it is enough to measure currents ex 2: between the earth and the resistance R2, and between the land and the resistance R1 "
Regards,
Fuzzy
:)
Busy day TK
Rosemary says
Ramset - how can he gauge energy dissipated without also knowing energy delivered? And how can he know energy delivered when he hasn't got the probe and earth directly across the shunt? And why is he not using the digitial display on his scopemeters. They are both state of the art. And why has he not got more waveforms.
I hope, once he's positioned his probes as required - that he will see the problem related to ground. The only way to measure the voltage over the resistors is to put the probe across the resistor with a direct reference to ground.
And if he then objects that my paper shows the probe directly across the circuit - please explain that this is a required convention. To take voltage measurements themselves the earth needs to be adjusted to ground as I've just indicated EDIT and tell him I'm sorry I've only just picked this up now. It's the first time I could read his waveforms.
Man oh man
Tk you have the floor
You work to hard you should ask for a raise [unless your the boss ;D]
Chet
In fucking credible.
Time and time again, I have said and SHOWN that my probes are positioned and GROUNDED just as she has them in the EIT paper. The Channel B probe is positioned directly across the shunt resistor just as she "suggests" above. With its ground lead, as anyone (except, apparently, Rosemary) can see, on the battery side (neg terminal) of the shunt resistor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trip8gjoxMQ&feature=related
Posted JUNE 17th.
Can you see this video? What are those two black things, hooked up to either side of the shunt resistor? Gee, I wonder...
OK, I'll tell you. The one on the right is the probe, and the one on the left is the probe's ground lead alligator clip.
It is connected to the terminal where I connect the negative battery terminal and also an Earth ground ( a wire to a cold water pipe under my kitchen sink which I always use in electrostatic experiments--which, by the way, show far far more "free" energy that any mosfet circuit can.
What is the matter with the reading and viewing comprehension here? I actually thought we were all speaking English, more or less. It is clear from her comments that she has some strange ideas about oscilloscopes--like the AC versus DC coupling issue, which I was apparently unsuccessful at explaining in the new vids. She apparently thinks that "ac coupling" is for measuring AC, and DC coupling is for DC. Uh-huh...
Is it really possible for anyone to watch my oscilloscope videos, and then seriously tell me that I do not know how to use an oscilloscope? Especially someone who manifestly does not know how to use one?
I would wager that the way she would use the Fluke-O-Scope would be to hook it up and press the "auto" button, and then believe everything it tells her, as gospel. After all, it's DIGITAL. So how could it be wrong?
And I can just see her reading this and saying to herself, "What is he talking about? How else could you use a scope? What's the "AUTO" button for if not to make the operator's task easier? And my scopemeter is Calibrated!! So it cannot be wrong."
Not only is she not paying attention, she apparently is either incapable of seeing what I am showing, or she is remaining willfully ignorant. I believe it is the latter, which is also the "worser".
Will someone please inform this woman that:
1) I am attaching the probes to her circuit just as she specifies in the EIT paper; and
2) I am and have been for many years a professional metrologist (no, not meteorologist); that is, I actually get paid lots of money--much more than I truly deserve-- to do what I am doing here for nothing;
3) The FLUKE 199 is FAR from a "state of the art" oscilloscope. It's more like a child's toy compared to most of the equipment I use daily. The only reason we even keep it around the lab is because it is reasonably portable. The main reason I used it at all in the videos is to show some of its problems when viewing spiky signals. The Fluke 123 hasn't even been out of its suitcase in months, it's so "sophisticated state of the art." The LeCroy was state of the art--ten years ago. When we get its second channel DC offset issue fixed, it will be able to do all the necessary measurements of electrical parameters in the Ainslie circuit simultaneously in real time including current x voltage trace multiplication, integration of the resulting instantaneous power trace to give energy, and so forth.
4) I didn't drop out of school at age 16 and decide I could understand the world thru "patterns." I have a solid university grounding in pure and applied mathematics, physics, engineering, chemistry, and psychology. My advanced degrees are in experimental cognitive psychology, specifically in the area of mathematical formal models of human perception and cognition. I have real, actual peer-reviewd publications in major scientific journals.
Please, Rosemary, do not presume to "teach" me how to use an oscilloscope. And don't pretend to understand things you do not, especially about me.
You can impugn my personal abilities, that's fine...but you, Rosemary, have no respect for education, which in my case was the best that money can buy, and I have had some truly world-class teachers. Maybe I even was able to learn something from them--because I continued to come to class.
5) My papers went through a fine-tooth shredder before they saw publication, and my thesis defense would have probably killed a sensitive individual like yourself. You should be able, IF your ideas are correct, to defend them against attacks from the Devil himself, and do it without begging moderators to ban critics or close threads. The people who are criticising your work are doing it because that is the way science works, and that is the only way to assure that what we "know" is really the way the world is.
If there is ANY POSSIBILITY AT ALL that a claim like COP>17 with the world's most basic mosfet circuit that will work more than once, is WRONG, then we have a DUTY to find out. Because if we, as scientists, let a WRONG result like that to be published, it sets back everyone's efforts who do any work in the area. You, as the originator of the work, have an OBLIGATION yourself to seek out any possible error and correct it. That is one reason that I am so upset about your continued lack of correction or retraction of the Quantum paper, and your failure to specify EXACTLY what circuit was used to make the experiment and the data. [bold]You , Rosemary, are not cooperating. [/bold] In fact you are obfuscating efforts to reproduce your results--because nobody has seen YOUR complete circuit diagram, nobody has seen YOUR scope shots, raw data, reports from all those vetting labs, statements from your "academics", NONE OF IT has been made public, beyond your mere words.
6) The most real and accurate information about this circuit and how it behaves has come from the people you have rejected or will soon reject: TK, Henieck, Hoppy, point99, DrStiffler, and one or two others. (apologies if I left any major contributor out.)
7) Again, your statements about what you think you see in my videos reveal that you are either not paying attention to what I am saying and writing, and/or you simply do not have the educational background to absorb and contemplate what I am showing. They are clear enough for a seven year old child to understand (my landlord's daughter gets them just fine). But since your world-view is already established, you see everything from a single perspective, behind your own blinders. That's fine for you, you are in your second Saturn, and will not change before you die. But do not go around trying to educate people who have more learning and experience than you do.
I suggest you sit down and use your computer to look at Professor Lewin's MIT lectures on YT. And also, if you can watch objectively instead of through your paranoid blinders, you should watch and read the descriptions for my YT videos. There are a lot to choose from, but you will of course be most interested in the Electric OU series, in progress.
Now, if you really want to make progress in TESTING your claims as opposed to PROVING them, you should learn to cooperate with your reviewers. Because they aren't attacking you, they are defending the delicate body of known things from being corrupted by POSSIBLY bad data and bad conclusions.
IF your data is good, nobody will be able to knock it down, so you should help them try.
IF, on the other hand, there are theoretical holes and bad procedures and misunderstandings of test equipment and improper and incomplete and contradictory documentation and calculations, then it is no wonder that you get very defensive and try to save matters by killing off the bringers of bad news.
But the bad news won't go away. It's still bad.
And that, dear one, is what is going on here.
Here is the link to the post where I published here the circuit photo that was censored and removed from energeticforum by their enlightened thread moderator in love and light.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg190832#msg190832
Anyone with eyes to see will note the point indicated as "B" is the same place that she specifies to attach the probe--the current viewing shunt. And, all the way over on the other side of that little grey resistor, where it hooks to the negative battery power connector jack, that is where I connect that probe's ground lead.
That is, the probe is connected across the current-viewing shunt. Why is that so difficult to see..since I show it in EVERY video--"here is the shunt, here is the probe, here is the ground..."
And that's where I have always connected it. Because that is how you monitor the voltage drop across a current viewing resistor.
Rosemary, in her comments on energetic forum concerning my videos, is making it very clear that she has no clue about actual circuit measurements.
"EDIT and tell him I'm sorry I've only just picked this up now. It's the first time I could read his waveforms."
Picked what up? Some straw man that you are constructing re my waveforms or how I am obtaining them?
Take a look at the very first frames of This Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trip8gjoxMQ&feature=related
Do you see the shunt resistor? Do you see the scope probe hooked to it on the right side? Do you see the big black alligator clip hooked to the other (negative, grounded) side? That, dear one, is the ground lead of the scope probe. Just as you have specified, and just as is shown in the diagrams.
And all vids where I show an input, channel B, measurement, are taken just like this. What's wrong with this?
And yet I've been posting them for nearly a month. Did Rosemary just now get a computer? I don't think so. There's that willful ignorance again. Has anyone else had trouble viewing my waveforms? I don't think so.
And wouldn't it be nice, if we had even a SINGLE waveform from Rosemary to compare? I especially want to see these Random Chaotic Hartley Resonant NonPeriodic Oscillations.
Or even a reference (not just "go google it", which I have done...) to a scholarly paper describing the phenomenon.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 16, 2009, 07:34:42 PM
5) ... your continued lack of correction or retraction of the Quantum paper, and your failure to specify EXACTLY what circuit was used to make the experiment and the data. [bold]You , Rosemary, are not cooperating. [/bold] In fact you are obfuscating efforts to reproduce your results--because nobody has seen YOUR complete circuit diagram, nobody has seen YOUR scope shots, raw data, reports from all those vetting labs, statements from your "academics", NONE OF IT has been made public, beyond your mere words.
7) ... if you can watch objectively instead of through your paranoid blinders, you should watch and read the descriptions for my YT videos. There are a lot to choose from, but you will of course be most interested in the Electric OU series, in progress.
IF your data is good, nobody will be able to knock it down, so you should help them try.
These are the things I was hoping to accomplish with the posts I asked to be forwarded to Rosemary (and nobody did).
1) I was trying to get her to review your circuits and procedures and point out anything which was not consistent with her experiments. Then these could be discussed in a rational manner.
2) I hoped she might actually share some photos, diagrams, procedures, and reports that were used to validate her experiments so these could also be discussed in a rational manner.
I think I know where all this will eventually wind up. It just seems like such a long and painful process getting there. Why can't both sides just turn all their cards face-up (most of yours already are) so they can be counted?
You are getting way too hot, TK. Chill!. Step back a bit and use that left brain of yours. Quit being so defensive and antagonistic. Same for Rosemary. This is no way to make progress.
I can relate only too well with both sides.
Does anyone here have the ability to pull a still off TK"S vid and highlight the meter connections in RED?
Chet
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 16, 2009, 07:57:27 PM
"EDIT and tell him I'm sorry I've only just picked this up now. It's the first time I could read his waveforms."
Picked what up? Some straw man that you are constructing re my waveforms or how I am obtaining them?
Take a look at the very first frames of This Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trip8gjoxMQ&feature=related
Do you see the shunt resistor? Do you see the scope probe hooked to it on the right side? Do you see the big black alligator clip hooked to the other (negative, grounded) side? That, dear one, is the ground lead of the scope probe. Just as you have specified, and just as is shown in the diagrams.
And all vids where I show an input, channel B, measurement, are taken just like this. What's wrong with this?
And yet I've been posting them for nearly a month. Did Rosemary just now get a computer? I don't think so. There's that willful ignorance again. Has anyone else had trouble viewing my waveforms? I don't think so.
And wouldn't it be nice, if we had even a SINGLE waveform from Rosemary to compare? I especially want to see these Random Chaotic Hartley Resonant NonPeriodic Oscillations.
Or even a reference (not just "go google it", which I have done...) to a scholarly paper describing the phenomenon.
You know, what i find so ridiculous its there some people who are still so proud to defend Rosemary's theory beside the fact that NOTHING work as expected, we are not building a satellite here , its only a simple circuit with 5 parts and 1 battery if you dont use the 555 circuit. All the procedure are already there for the mesurement.
The only one who took the time to make the circuit and to use all the same test equipement as was wrote on the IET paper was TK and he is one who get all the @#$@#$ because the circuit dosent work like it should.
Someone should contact by email ABB to validate if they made some test on the Rosemary's device. The ABB name got used in her paper about a overunity device and if its not a overunity device i dont think they will tolerate that. We talk about a big compagny here, in Q1 of 2009 the net income was 652 million, if the ABB name got used falsely, they will sue her for sure, because there no compagny in the world who want to burn his name on someone false claim, and in the other way, if some test have been done and they know that the ABB name is used in her paper, maybe its the lack of electronic knowledge of Rosemary who make the replication difficult.
I still believe its a honest people but her arrogance against anything who is not inline in what she think make the process realy complicated.
Best Regards,
IceStorm
Quote from: 0c on July 16, 2009, 08:19:34 PM
These are the things I was hoping to accomplish with the posts I asked to be forwarded to Rosemary (and nobody did).
1) I was trying to get her to review your circuits and procedures and point out anything which was not consistent with her experiments. Then these could be discussed in a rational manner.
2) I hoped she might actually share some photos, diagrams, procedures, and reports that were used to validate her experiments so these could also be discussed in a rational manner.
I think I know where all this will eventually wind up. It just seems like such a long and painful process getting there. Why can't both sides just turn all their cards face-up (most of yours already are) so they can be counted?
You are getting way too hot, TK. Chill!. Step back a bit and use that left brain of yours. Quit being so defensive and antagonistic. Same for Rosemary. This is no way to make progress.
I can relate only too well with both sides.
You are quite right, of course, as usual, 0c.
Damn right.
My heart is pounding in my ears, I am so mad. She is telling me how to use an oscilloscope!!
I want to kill something.
So I'm gong to spend the rest of my evening listening to jazz and installing ubuntu linux on an off-lease ibm t41 that I just scored for cheap. It will be my metrology server: full on LabView, or as much as it will handle, all the instrument control and analysis packages for all the DSOs, maybe even a HPIB stack for the "real" stuff. Plus the usual spreadsheet and stats and maybe even FruityLoops. But first I'm going to take out the hard drive (WinXP) and melt it down with an oxyacetylene torch.
I may take the torch to that damn Ainslie circuit too. Then you'll see some OU.
(Speaking of audio, did you know that all those big booming car stereos are OU? Yep, they use mosfets to drive low inductance loads at 2400 Hz all day long, and the car battery never becomes discharged. Unless you hook the scope probes up wrong. No wonder they sound like the driver's head's full of gravel most of the time.)
Icestorm I meant to call ABB last week
I will tomorrow, It doesn't cost me for the call
TK check pm
Chet
Quote from: ramset on July 16, 2009, 09:09:23 PM
Icestorm I meant to call ABB last week
I will tomorrow, It doesn't cost me for the call
TK check pm
Chet
Its excellent ramset, i dont think they will disclose anything but at least if they know that ABB name got used, that will make a little little bit more of credibility about the experiment, but in same time, that dont say if the test was good or bad.
Best Regards,
IceStorm
Ice
I'm only calling to see if they have the info available
even to pay for a reprint of the actual test for research purposes
Chet
Well, if she can change the past, I suppose I can too.
I'd pay money to see that report from ABB. Not much, but a little.
Does it sound, from her recent posts, that she sees my random chaotic Hartley resonant aperiodic oscillations, as similar to what she remembers seeing?
Because enquiring minds really need to know what those waveforms look like.
OK, I figured that the easiest way for me, and the hardest way for all our gentle readers, is for me to just take a picture of the data sheet from my run this morning and put it up here. Then, if anybody really needs to spreadsheet and graph it, that would take a load off, thanks. But I think those with eyes to see will see whatever those eyes will see.
I'm pretty sure all the info is here; everybody (er, almost) knows what the equipment list was so I'm not going to repeat it here. Except for the thermocouple temp gauges, they are LCD modules, self contained, with a tiny K-type thermocouple on an 18 inch lead. Update 5 seconds, precision 0.1 degrees C, accuracy PDC.
Sorry about the light...er, I mean the fuzzy lowcontrast image. I don't have any image editing stuff right here right now, so TIWYG.
(er, the raw jpg is too large for the attachment. I'll upload it to the file section. If someone would enhance contrast and shrink it enough to post in-line, I would be grateful. )
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;down=338
Rosemary said
Could someone, Ramset? inform TK that I am not a high school drop out. I am very proud of my academic record. It is - however - not scientific. I have never said that I am a high school drop out. I've only acknowledged that I have no formal training in science.
I know why he says this. It's because I told gotoluc that I also left school at 16 and that I also like asking questions, or something to that effect. Gotoluc left school because he didn't like the system. I left because I was matriculated. I sat my matriculation exams when I was 15. I left school exactly one month after turning 16. I saw a coincidence. In SA there's a required minimum standard for university qualification. My matriculation pass was more than adequate. Unlike TK my name is out there and these facts can be verified.
But having said that - I see no value to any education unless, like gotoluc, it leaves one with an enquiring mind. Life would be very boring unless, like him, one confronted ones own questions.
Well, if she has indeed matriculated, and is qualified for university on that basis, I owe her an apology. What was the name of the school? I'd like to give them a call and ask about their curriculum.
In the United States, where I was educated, high-school graduates who intend to pursue scientific careers--you know, the ones where people do theories to replace quantum electrodynamics, design circuits, do experiments and write papers--they generally have had at least maths through trigonometry and precalculus...But that's here. Sorry for assuming the same standards everywhere.
Tell us, Rosemary, is the status of your matriculation the same as the status of your patent? Can you perhaps be so kind as to show us a photo?
Because we know you and I don't always agree on what things are called.
What you call a "patent" is really only an application, and what you call a scientific paper is, well, not publishable as such. And what you call ON I call OFF, and what you call ...Oh, never mind. We do not speak the same language and we never will.
You graduated high school (albeit without what I would consider a basic education.) So I apologize for implying that it was you to whom I referred as a "high school dropout."
And you really should apologize to me, for you have insulted me far more seriously. In addition, I have done, so far, thousands of dollars of work for you, for nothing. In fact, had you gone the correct route of hiring a qualified engineering firm to research and test your idea at YOUR expense like it should be done, it is very likely that I would still be testing your device--just as I am now--only then I would be getting paid royally for it.
If you really want people to replicate your work, they need to see :
1) the exact circuit diagram that was used to generate the data in your experiment, including the correct 555 timer AS ACTUALLY USED BY YOU, and they need some evidence of that. Evidence, not more words.
2) they need to see an example of these random periodic resonant oscillations that you are describing. A scope shot. I happen to know that the Fluke 199's serial interface allows the transfer of screen shots to your computer for storage, display...and printing. And I believe they had cameras back then, even in your neck of the woods. Your experiment is insufficiently documented.
3) they need to see the reports from all the labs and universities and academics and all, that you showed your device to and who, according to you, approved your work and your numbers.
Readers, ask yourselves why Rosemary is being given any credence at all?
I think it is because of the patent. We have a lot of respect for ideas that get patented, like HJ's linear SMOT that may be the basis for a permanent magnet motor. And there are many other patents that we pay attention to, because the patenting process provides at least a small degree of vetting, and for other good reasons.
I think many people are paying attention, who wouldn't otherwise, because of the patent.
But--there is no patent. This high school graduate has only filed an application.
When I first got into this I was under the impression that there was a patent. And from reading the NakedScientists thread, I can tell that other people were too. I mean, I understand there is no intent to deceive, but when someone says "I have a patent" and links to a document, calling it a "Patent", I and at least some others expect that to be true.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 17, 2009, 12:00:11 AM
(er, the raw jpg is too large for the attachment. I'll upload it to the file section. If someone would enhance contrast and shrink it enough to post in-line, I would be grateful. )
Beautiful. Thanks, ATT.
Well, that's clear enough, isn't it? Anybody with a high school education should be able to figure that out.
So that's what raw data looks like. With a little crunching. You know, it gives a lot of credence to the fact that the experiment was actually performed as described. No--wait. That's MY experiment. We haven't seen any of Ainslie's raw data yet.
OK, note some things. In the 4 percent ON duty cycle, the load did not heat as much as Ainslie's did "in a little over an hour." By a big margin.
On the other hand, with the 96 percent ON duty cycle the load heated so much I had to terminate the experiment because my draft shield was made of plastic, after about 4 minutes or so.
So it is pretty clear that so far, I have been unable to make the magic.
My load parameters in this pilot experiment are sufficiently different from Ainslie's to make it difficult to draw conclusions, other than it is not surprising that the load got hot with the long duty cycle, since it was essentially shorted across a 25 volt battery.
But why didn't it heat more with the 4 percent duty cycle? This load should have heated more than Rosemary's did, but it didn't.
So, either way, I did not see anything that I would write home about. And my batteries did not seem to recharge, although there was one reading that was higher than the previous one. Nothing to get excited about.
I haven't done the energy calculations; I prefer to let the instruments do those, there are fewer chances of error that way..at least for me.
More to follow.
Quote from: ramset on July 16, 2009, 08:28:23 PM
Does anyone here have the ability to pull a still off TK"S vid and highlight the meter connections in RED?
Chet
Press “pauseâ€, then press “Print Screen†key on your keyboard (the screen shot is now in memory). Open “Paint†(or any other graphic application). Press Ctrl+V or use “paste†form the menu, then make whatever you like with this, and save it.
TinselKoala â€" judging by the extension of your last posts you have really huge mental block installed. Most apparently now, not only you don’t know how to use oscilloscope the right way â€" but also you don’t even know how to spell “meteorologist†correctly. Besides- why would meteorologist think he is in the right position to judge the most scientifically advanced heater made of piece of wire formed into spiral and transistor? You have no idea how advanced it is, I guarantee that you haven’t even heard about zipons before â€" so you better don’t thing you know better. You don’t know how to think "out of the box" to see the OBVIOUS. On contrary â€" I had such an open mind that couldn’t take any more school knowledge at the age 16 somewhere deep in Africa. Thanks to that fact I could discovered all this. For hundreds of years, millions of others miserably failed - but finally, ten years ago I was chosen to discover how it REALLY is. Yes, I don’t have a clue about electronics but I make up for that by my very strong feeling of mission ;)
That was for your entertainment, TK. It is amazing story. Paradoxically she has thrown away one of the best member, most dedicated and qualified one of the team â€" but unfortunately you didn’t fit to what she was going to achieve. The obvious is already proven, we don’t wonder whether it works or not â€" it is obvious that it does :)
Quote from: henieck on July 17, 2009, 06:05:23 AM
Most apparently now, not only you don’t know how to use oscilloscope the right way â€" but also you don’t even know how to spell “meteorologist†correctly.
OMG!
@TK,
Hold onto your chest. This may be the big one! It just took me a full minute to pick myself up off the floor.
BTW: Is 'PDC' a common metrological term? I hear it in my metrology lab, as well :) (No, I'm not talking about the weather)
TK
I think you need some time off
I am personaly getting I'LL over seeing The "Don't confuse me with the FACTS my mind is made up" attitude
Let some time pass a couple days see what energetic members do to replicate
COP 17 there should be results pretty quick for that
Make them work for it ,instead of this armchair crap thats going on over there
Take a trip somewhere breathe some fresh air think about your theory ,whatever ,Jazz it up Dude
Chet
OR you could look at this?
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7679.msg191820#new
Make some thunder!
What does a person have to do to get a answer around here .... light my fir on fire and run around this room yelling and screaming like a fool ??
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg191649#msg191649
Can anyone here read ????
So Tk you have no problem mixing a "DC" ground on a United States "AC" 120 volt grounded system with a bonded neutral that is susceptible to stray voltages, frequency's and harmonics ??
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 16, 2009, 07:34:42 PM
In fucking credible.
Time and time again, I have said and SHOWN that my probes are positioned and GROUNDED just as she has them in the EIT paper. The Channel B probe is positioned directly across the shunt resistor just as she "suggests" above. With its ground lead, as anyone (except, apparently, Rosemary) can see, on the battery side (neg terminal) of the shunt resistor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trip8gjoxMQ&feature=related
Posted JUNE 17th.
Can you see this video? What are those two black things, hooked up to either side of the shunt resistor? Gee, I wonder...
OK, I'll tell you. The one on the right is the probe, and the one on the left is the probe's ground lead alligator clip.
It is connected to the terminal where I connect the negative battery terminal and also an Earth ground ( a wire to a cold water pipe under my kitchen sink which I always use in electrostatic experiments--which, by the way, show far far more "free" energy that any mosfet circuit can.
What is the matter with the reading and viewing comprehension here? I actually thought we were all speaking English, more or less. It is clear from her comments that she has some strange ideas about oscilloscopes--like the AC versus DC coupling issue, which I was apparently unsuccessful at explaining in the new vids. She apparently thinks that "ac coupling" is for measuring AC, and DC coupling is for DC. Uh-huh...
Is it really possible for anyone to watch my oscilloscope videos, and then seriously tell me that I do not know how to use an oscilloscope? Especially someone who manifestly does not know how to use one?
I would wager that the way she would use the Fluke-O-Scope would be to hook it up and press the "auto" button, and then believe everything it tells her, as gospel. After all, it's DIGITAL. So how could it be wrong?
And I can just see her reading this and saying to herself, "What is he talking about? How else could you use a scope? What's the "AUTO" button for if not to make the operator's task easier? And my scopemeter is Calibrated!! So it cannot be wrong."
Not only is she not paying attention, she apparently is either incapable of seeing what I am showing, or she is remaining willfully ignorant. I believe it is the latter, which is also the "worser".
Will someone please inform this woman that:
1) I am attaching the probes to her circuit just as she specifies in the EIT paper; and
2) I am and have been for many years a professional metrologist (no, not meteorologist); that is, I actually get paid lots of money--much more than I truly deserve-- to do what I am doing here for nothing;
3) The FLUKE 199 is FAR from a "state of the art" oscilloscope. It's more like a child's toy compared to most of the equipment I use daily. The only reason we even keep it around the lab is because it is reasonably portable. The main reason I used it at all in the videos is to show some of its problems when viewing spiky signals. The Fluke 123 hasn't even been out of its suitcase in months, it's so "sophisticated state of the art." The LeCroy was state of the art--ten years ago. When we get its second channel DC offset issue fixed, it will be able to do all the necessary measurements of electrical parameters in the Ainslie circuit simultaneously in real time including current x voltage trace multiplication, integration of the resulting instantaneous power trace to give energy, and so forth.
4) I didn't drop out of school at age 16 and decide I could understand the world thru "patterns." I have a solid university grounding in pure and applied mathematics, physics, engineering, chemistry, and psychology. My advanced degrees are in experimental cognitive psychology, specifically in the area of mathematical formal models of human perception and cognition. I have real, actual peer-reviewd publications in major scientific journals.
Please, Rosemary, do not presume to "teach" me how to use an oscilloscope. And don't pretend to understand things you do not, especially about me.
You can impugn my personal abilities, that's fine...but you, Rosemary, have no respect for education, which in my case was the best that money can buy, and I have had some truly world-class teachers. Maybe I even was able to learn something from them--because I continued to come to class.
5) My papers went through a fine-tooth shredder before they saw publication, and my thesis defense would have probably killed a sensitive individual like yourself. You should be able, IF your ideas are correct, to defend them against attacks from the Devil himself, and do it without begging moderators to ban critics or close threads. The people who are criticising your work are doing it because that is the way science works, and that is the only way to assure that what we "know" is really the way the world is.
If there is ANY POSSIBILITY AT ALL that a claim like COP>17 with the world's most basic mosfet circuit that will work more than once, is WRONG, then we have a DUTY to find out. Because if we, as scientists, let a WRONG result like that to be published, it sets back everyone's efforts who do any work in the area. You, as the originator of the work, have an OBLIGATION yourself to seek out any possible error and correct it. That is one reason that I am so upset about your continued lack of correction or retraction of the Quantum paper, and your failure to specify EXACTLY what circuit was used to make the experiment and the data. [bold]You , Rosemary, are not cooperating. [/bold] In fact you are obfuscating efforts to reproduce your results--because nobody has seen YOUR complete circuit diagram, nobody has seen YOUR scope shots, raw data, reports from all those vetting labs, statements from your "academics", NONE OF IT has been made public, beyond your mere words.
6) The most real and accurate information about this circuit and how it behaves has come from the people you have rejected or will soon reject: TK, Henieck, Hoppy, point99, DrStiffler, and one or two others. (apologies if I left any major contributor out.)
7) Again, your statements about what you think you see in my videos reveal that you are either not paying attention to what I am saying and writing, and/or you simply do not have the educational background to absorb and contemplate what I am showing. They are clear enough for a seven year old child to understand (my landlord's daughter gets them just fine). But since your world-view is already established, you see everything from a single perspective, behind your own blinders. That's fine for you, you are in your second Saturn, and will not change before you die. But do not go around trying to educate people who have more learning and experience than you do.
I suggest you sit down and use your computer to look at Professor Lewin's MIT lectures on YT. And also, if you can watch objectively instead of through your paranoid blinders, you should watch and read the descriptions for my YT videos. There are a lot to choose from, but you will of course be most interested in the Electric OU series, in progress.
Now, if you really want to make progress in TESTING your claims as opposed to PROVING them, you should learn to cooperate with your reviewers. Because they aren't attacking you, they are defending the delicate body of known things from being corrupted by POSSIBLY bad data and bad conclusions.
IF your data is good, nobody will be able to knock it down, so you should help them try.
IF, on the other hand, there are theoretical holes and bad procedures and misunderstandings of test equipment and improper and incomplete and contradictory documentation and calculations, then it is no wonder that you get very defensive and try to save matters by killing off the bringers of bad news.
But the bad news won't go away. It's still bad.
And that, dear one, is what is going on here.
What kind of "junk" science is this ....
QuoteIt is connected to the terminal where I connect the negative battery terminal and also an Earth ground ( a wire to a cold water pipe under my kitchen sink which I always use in electrostatic experiments--which, by the way, show far far more "free" energy that any mosfet circuit can.
Nice paragraph I really like this part .......
Quotewhich, by the way, show far far more "free" energy that any mosfet circuit can.
Even admitting problems with stray voltages, frequency's and harmonics ......
You may know a lot about scopes, semi conductors and electronic schematics ...... for god sake open you eyes to your testing technique and grounding reference when the circuit needs it to operate properly without ground loops and other factors you right off as "OK".
I see re-testing is in order, your facts are now skewed by your own admission, I can't believe you would try to pull a fast one on us all not disclosing your "COMPLETE" connections you made. I just hope you didn't do this on purpose ?
I didn't mention the Sola isolation transformers? OOPS, sorry.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 17, 2009, 03:18:42 PM
I didn't mention the Sola isolation transformers? OOPS, sorry.
Thats great to isolate the 120 volt or 120/240 volt loads almost as good as a UPS, but that doen't address the issue of grounding ....... you know this or you should ......
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg191649#msg191649
QuoteAs you know I'm sure, in a residential area as many as five (5) homes can be connected to one utility transformer supplying 120/240 volt "with a common neutral" to each home and bonded to a grounding system (if there) possibly inducing unwanted results in simulations of replications and measurements of results.
Grounding connections needed in the operation of "DC" semi conductor circuits cannot share United States "AC" utility grounding systems bonded to a neutral sharing 120 volt loads, especially in a residential area. There's to much intermittent neutral line noise this is why many replications of devices invented in areas with "only" have 240 volt with "NO" 120 volt or neutral connections can use a water pipe, gas line, plate ...... that is in "earth" because there is nothing but a ground. A bonded ground wire to a neutral all connected together running around your home, the next door neighbors and everyone connected to the utility transformer where your power comes from ..... look at the wire connections on a tele-pole, three wires ...... two hot ..... one neutral (bonded to ground) .... and in your CB panel where by "code" the neutral and ground is bonded.
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on July 17, 2009, 03:56:53 PM
Thats great to isolate the 120 volt or 120/240 volt loads almost as good as a UPS, but that doen't address the issue of grounding ....... you know this or you should ......
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg191649#msg191649
Grounding connections needed in the operation of "DC" semi conductor circuits cannot share United States "AC" utility grounding systems bonded to a neutral sharing 120 volt loads, especially in a residential area. There's to much intermittent neutral line noise this is why many replications of devices invented in areas with "only" have 240 volt with "NO" 120 volt or neutral connections can use a water pipe, gas line, plate ...... that is in "earth" because there is nothing but a ground. A bonded ground wire to a neutral all connected together running around your home, the next door neighbors and everyone connected to the utility transformer where your power comes from ..... look at the wire connections on a tele-pole, three wires ...... two hot ..... one neutral (bonded to ground) .... and in your CB panel where by "code" the neutral and ground is bonded.
What is your point? How can I have ground loops if my instruments are all on line isolation transformers and I use a single point cold water pipe earth ground?
I agree that this is not the best scheme, but I am at home in my basement, ffs. If somebody wants to pay me, I will take the thing to my lab and power it up inside a complete microwave-tight Faraday room, with full isolating power supplies, laboratory reference standards, and of course a good earth ground.
But why?? To reproduce a rumor?
Forget it.
I'll tell you what, Fuzzy. You test your build the way you want to, and I'll test mine, and then we will swap builds and repeat. If you can show significant differences in measurements from what I get, I'll strip naked and paint my balls red and photograph it for you. If we get substantially the same results, you do the same.
What about it? Put your balls where your mouth is? So to speak...
I hope this thread is preserved for posterity. If I ever again need to illustrate to a crowd of freshmen some examples of logical fallacy, this is the place to come to.
Any more examples of the Straw Man argument? That last one didn't hold up very well, if you ask me.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 17, 2009, 05:03:28 PM
What is your point?
Grounding and Grounding Loops
Quote
How can I have ground loops if my instruments are all on line isolation transformers and I use a single point cold water pipe earth ground?
Proper operation of DC semi conductors using a AC grounding system
Quote
I agree that this is not the best scheme, but I am at home in my basement, ffs. If somebody wants to pay me, I will take the thing to my lab and power it up inside a complete microwave-tight Faraday room, with full isolating power supplies, laboratory reference standards, and of course a good earth ground.
All one would have to do is pound in a ground rod connect a wire for DC replication purposes of European made devices and testing of them you could scope between the new isolated ground rod and your "sink" connection and see whats there ......
Quote
But why?? To reproduce a rumor?
what rumor ??
Quote
Forget it.
I'll tell you what, Fuzzy. You test your build the way you want to, and I'll test mine, and then we will swap builds and repeat. If you can show significant differences in measurements from what I get, I'll strip naked and paint my balls red and photograph it for you. If we get substantially the same results, you do the same.
What about it? Put your balls where your mouth is? So to speak...
How rude for for me just pointing out a error and now you have "isolation transformers" it's the first you mentioned them when I point something out in a civil manner.
QuoteIf I ever again need to illustrate to a crowd of freshmen some examples of logical fallacy, this is the place to come to.
Any more examples of the Straw Man argument? That last one didn't hold up very well, if you ask me.
I have nothing more to add to this as I assume your talking about me and all I did was point out if your to be the debunker of debunkers a error .... just like you I do have skills and it's obvious that you have nothing to add but a fancy test lab thats not needed ..... just a ground rod .....
Quote
Forget it.
I have better things to do also than to be toyed with, good luck with "YOUR" thread
Hi belligerents ;D
My2cents.
To, perhaps(?), avoid too much discussions about measurements
of what is going on versus what is going out (NRG-Wise), I propose
the following set-up (see picture).
I have already made some colorimetric measurements with a
Peter-D.-Davey-Like device.
You can consult:
http://freenrg.info/Sonettes_Davey/calcul_sonette.htm (http://freenrg.info/Sonettes_Davey/calcul_sonette.htm)
My COP was from 0.91 to 1.10. Due to amateurish measurements,
I do not claim any OU. :P
But, with the R. Ainslie CCT, If the COP is so huge as claimed (17) we
should be able to test it in spite of lack of bats and losses in the DC supply.
IMHO, a COP> 3 would be conclusive. What do you think?
Very Best
PS: just in case, the attached picture is also here:
http://freenrg.info/Pic/Proposed_Set_up.jpg (http://freenrg.info/Pic/Proposed_Set_up.jpg)
@fuzzytom: I apologise, I really didn't mean to make you mad. I've had a relly rough day, and I am a bit snappy. Sorry, really.
I agree that you have a valid point, and I take the isolation transformers for granted, they've been in the utility closet for so long. It would indeed be interesting to see the potentials between my copper cold water pipe penetrating the cinderblock wall of by basement kitchen, and a remote copper rod pounded into the dirt.
I still don't see the relevance to this discussion, though.
Now, do you think that Rosemary is more, or less, likely than I am to suffer from the effects you mention? Maybe that ground potential difference is what caused her circuit to produce random chaotic non-periodic Hartley resonance in the first place. In which case people like me, who cannot even spell "meteorologist", are out of luck.
Oh, did you happen to calculate the resonant frequency of a circuit with minimal capacitance and an inductive load of 0.00864 milliHenries?
And can anyone give me a rational explanation as to why, if she has the circuit still, as she says, why she hasn't shown us it, or straightened out the circuitry and clocking issue, or demonstrated an example scope shot of the random aperiodic resonance?
Are there no digital cameras down under?
@Henieck: rolling laughing on the floor!
Too bad you are pre-censored, I'm sure Rosemary would let you back into her royal court if you posted that.
I drink to you, my friend.
@Nerzh: have you seen my data from the pilot experiment I ran? Now that I have settled some of the circuit issues to my satisfaction, I have gone on to heat measurements, and comparisons of transistors, recirculation diodes, loads, duty cycles, and so forth on the time vs. temperature output measurements. When I have successfully and reliably replicated her heat profile results, then it will be time for more complex calorimetry. If necessary I can arrange to put the device in the world's most accurate civilian bulk active calorimeter.
But if the circuit performs as claimed, that won't be necessary at all. You could just make coffee for seven people on one D-cell flashlight battery.
That would convince even me.
Heh, Chet, I see you are talking high voltage with MileHigh. No, actually I don't want to be floating, because I have a linoleum floor over concrete, in a basement, and if I wear insulating shoes, that puts about a half-inch of dielectric between the soles of me feet (one plate) and the concrete (the other plate) and when, for example, I inadvertently build up a charge and it discharges _there_, I tend to jump...it's very snappy. Fortunately I work with static, that is, very little actual charge is behind that voltage, so I hardly ever kill myself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpoTGdbcUzE
I'm holding the NE-2 with a bamboo chopstick--an excellent EHV bleeder resistor. So I do charge up. And you can see the cold water pipe ground lead plugged into the base of the little VDG.
HEEE hee I just tested the ground fault idea and you won't believe what I found.I had better upload the video quick, before the MiBs get here.
Sterling, get out the microphone, Stefan, dust off the prize money...I'm sure you will be hearing from Rosemary shortly.
TK
I think Owlsley needs to kiwl the kitty
Chet
Well, I think several things. First, I detect a certain restrained but still evident commonality in style and substance. You might be able to put swimming goggles on a troll but it still will be the same old troll.
However, trolls occasionally do have good ideas. Who they steal them from, I'll never guess.
Thanks to fuzzytomscat, I have finally seen something interesting in this circuit. Physically interesting I mean, rather than psychologically interesting.
Well, not exactly Physical, either--that is, nothing surprising wrt to Physics. But certainly something that anyone in a 2-year electronics technician AA degree program will encounter, at some overpriced third-rate commercial college trade school with crappy workbenches and surplus gear.
But it's certainly something no rational person would try on purpose. Let the Earth and fuzzycatscat's bonded ground third wire act as the negative battery wire to your Ainslie circuit. (Why do we keep calling it that? It's a basic mosfet audio amp.)
Please: Only crazy people try this experiment (hazards to life and equipment):
Unplug the negative wire from your battery, I am saying, and let the scope's ground return lead, attached just as in the Ainslie circuit, provide the connection. Run a ground wire from the water pipe ground to the negative battery terminal. No connection to the negative input to the Ainslie circuit, except the scope probe ground. Now look at the signal, and compare with and without the Battery.
You will not see this behavior if your system is isolated, properly grounded, and connected in the proper order.
Which is why I did not see it until now, and others may also not be seeing it.
It's not OU, it's just what fuzzy says: It's power coming in from the utility wiring through the system ground.
If you were listening to this signal on audio, it would probably sound like a really loud bad buzz, and you would unplug stuff right away.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 18, 2009, 06:23:32 AM
It's power coming in from the utility wiring through the system ground.
So a really high impedance signal source not capable of any real work?
Quote from: Yucca on July 18, 2009, 09:42:53 AM
So a really high impedance signal source not capable of any real work?
Evidently. I am taking a time vs. temp profile right now, and so far (a little over an hour) I have reached 37.1 degrees, at 22.9 ambient. 4 percent Load on, from 10 v peak FG signal; running battery starts at 25.2 volts.
Compare to the previous raw data sheet, run 1. All conditions the same except for the ground loop.
I'll be posting a pic of the data sheet when I finish.
For now, there are 2 new vids up, illustrating AC vs DC coupling, and the ground loop signal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mRVej2cE_A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZzzMVx6rPY
TK
I've become confused
Glen said this invalidated your results and all testing was skewed
now this quote validating his statement?
FuzzyTomCat FuzzyTomCat is online now
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 229
Ground Loops
Hi everyone,
I sure everyone has had time to digest my claims on "not" using a AC grounging system for DC circuits in the United States.
Some interesting developments and some verification of my statements have been made through testing with a oscilloscope for "ground loops" ........ Please view these new videos from TK on his findings ...... you as he was, will be surprised.
YouTube - Electric OU 10: AC coupling vs. DC coupling
YouTube - groundloop c2 (the best one)
Best Regards,
Glen
Confused in what way?
He was perfectly correct, it just did not apply to my system, since I am doing things right--that is, how I learned it in the "school of smoking oscilloscopes."
But if I do it "wrong"...then I see the phenomenon he was talking about.
If this is the route to actual OU, we're truly in trouble. But I don't think it is--I've done a heat run in this mode and there isn't any real difference at 4 percent ON with the FG. Later I'll do other comparisons, but so far, certainly not very different from the first raw data sheet, #1 run.
I'll post a photo of the data sheet from this run, and I'm at home so I can edit it down for inline posting. Stay tuned.
Oh, and for MileHigh---"PDC" in the context of measurement accuracy, is about like an "RCH" in machining...that is, "Pretty Damn Close", or a "Red C... Hair" which is even closer.
(Is it too drunk to be this early?)
Oh, and I totally agree that heat tests and so forth are just pilot baselines, until I can reproduce for sure the waveform used in the Quantum/EIT experiment. And I'm afraid only Rosemary can help us here.
Since she has said several times that she still has the circuit...well, you can do the math, even if she can't.
Take that thing out, there, girl, and show us what you've got. Make that booty shake for us, on camera--there will be a lot of people watching.
TK
Glen said about your two vids
" you as ""he""[TK] was, will be surprised."
He's patting himself so hard on the back, I'm getting chilly from the breeze here.
IN which part of those vids were you surprised ?
Chet
I was surprised by the fact that it was so easy to demonstrate the effect of the groundloop on the Ainslie circuit.
And I was surprised at the magnitude of the inductive spikes in that condition. I knew the noise would be there but I did not anticipate the relatively large increase in the _indicated_ current and voltage traces.
But I was not surprised that it seems to have made little difference on the temp vs time profile in a load, at least at 4 percent ON. (all I've had time for so far).
OK let's see if this works.
If anybody is really interested I can upload the full-res pic to the files section.
SO...
I suppose Glen will retract this statement On Energetic?
I have recommended that the testing is skewed by his own admission and that should be thrown out, you cannot cross reference "AC" and "DC" grounding through ground loops with bonded neutrals connected and have semi conductors operate 100% properly.
The one made prior to TK's vids
Quote from: ramset on July 18, 2009, 06:09:33 PM
SO...
I suppose Glen will retract this statement On Energetic?
I have recommended that the testing is skewed by his own admission and that should be thrown out, you cannot cross reference "AC" and "DC" grounding through ground loops with bonded neutrals connected and have semi conductors operate 100% properly.
The one made prior to TK's vids
I dunno.
It depends on what "skewed" means, in Rosemary-speak. If it means that the groundloop must be present, than indeed my previous results are skewed. But if it means that the circuits and instruments must be properly isolated and grounded and so forth, then it probably means that Rosemary's results are skrewed. Er, I mean skewed.
Actually I think "Glen" is trying to be helpful. And I am glad he pointed out this item.
Now, if he would only use those great critical talents and his practical electronics knowledge to assess the circuit under question, instead of mine...Oh, wait...My circuit is so far the ONLY KNOWN Ainslie reproduction attempt that is even close to what was described in her paper, with the ability to do comparisons and control testing...
So I suppose we have to be talking about my circuit, since there aren't any others, that I can see.
Well...
Helpful or not he was trying to throw you, Owlsly the testing,all data Right off the bus!!
Yes Glen made a very useful observation for members to understand, it just had NOTHING to do with YOU and how you do things[the right way]
Chet
Waiting on data
PS
personally I think he Hates Owlsley [just like Wilby]
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 18, 2009, 05:15:22 PM
Oh, and I totally agree that heat tests and so forth are just pilot baselines, until I can reproduce for sure the waveform used in the Quantum/EIT experiment. And I'm afraid only Rosemary can help us here.
Since she has said several times that she still has the circuit...well, you can do the math, even if she can't.
Take that thing out, there, girl, and show us what you've got. Make that booty shake for us, on camera--there will be a lot of people watching.
How many times now have we, or somebody, asked to see a scope shot from her circuit?
And next: as jibbguy pointed out, and as I also pointed out here and in the video ("hope I don't kill myself here", "school of smoking oscilloscopes" etc. ) fooling around like I did in EOU#11 is dangerous to life and equipment. Do a quick check with a DMM before you go risking your life or your equipment by trying what I showed.
I won't be doing this test on the Fluke-O-Scope because it is borrowed and I don't want to take the chance of smoking it. And the LeCroy, fergeddabout it.
To address jibbguy's speculation, the Fluke's power comes either from its internal battery or from its wall-wart isolated DC power supply/charger. So it probably would be a safe test for the Fluke, and if it were mine I'd do it in a heartbeat. But it would be just my luck, a car would hit the pole outside just as I hook it up...
Of course in the video shown, the FG and the analog scopes are providing the ground link, through the bonded line ground, back to the negative battery pole. THAT IS THE POINT of the video.
And as far as connecting the probes goes, I am connecting them as Ainslie showed in her paper, remember...not necessarily where or how I would have connected them.
The issue of isolation and groundloops does not appear to have been addressed in the EIT.pdf paper.
Post from Jolt
@witsend Well, anyhow, you came in with the Timer and the Mosfet.
Its only just such a mess to read there through, and i dont, when its not really needed.
Its clear for me, that -some Peoples- never do mistakes and are never wrong.
Therefor i am glad to be just here.
Btw, with the Timer, lol. What is clear now ?
I state to have ~ 10-50% Switch Time at the Mosfet with this Circuit.
Means, this Time is the Mosfet ON and do lead through S and D.
For the low Cycle it works.
When the Frequency is to high, i can lower it with the Pot at the Gate.
If its not clear, then i do make a new Thread.
Still got a new Shot, where you see the Spike equals the ON Time, not the lower Line, what is the Offtime.
Maybe my Scope shows it different then others, or, for the use of the Mosfet it is actually only different explained, what do match better.
Anyhow, i got something like this in Mind.
Otherwise, the Timercircuit is usable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This is just to show where the other replicator is.
Not the guy who's doing his damnedest to copywright some PATH TO
MONEY[peace love light and show me the money][An FE entrepreneur,WTF is that? a paradox, an oxymoron ]
Chet
TK, I would assume by this statement from Rosemary Ainslie it would make me believe that any ground or grounded connection used possibly was a "Earth" ground similar to whats in the UK, Europe, Australia, Asia and Africa on all their 240 volt circuits.
http://www.energeticforum.com/61046-post801.html
Quote:
Regarding the need for grounding, and at the risk of prolonging an argument regarding this - I have to see clear evidence of the earth attached to the neck of the probe attached to the meter and across the shunt. This is sadly lacking. And from memory - that waveform looks like a single probe connection. I'm sending the link to experts at Fluke for final comment. I need to put this 'evidence' to bed. We also never saw full benefit of the scope functions. But certainly early suggestions of the Hartley effect.
Tk
The cat is suspect[posts things to fit its agenda ,saving face]
Owlsley is the Urim and Thummin of F E [no BS just the facts]
Chet
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on July 18, 2009, 09:49:02 PM
TK, I would assume by this statement from Rosemary Ainslie it would make me believe that any ground or grounded connection used possibly was a "Earth" ground similar to whats in the UK, Europe, Australia, Asia and Africa on all their 240 volt circuits.
http://www.energeticforum.com/61046-post801.html
Quote:
Regarding the need for grounding, and at the risk of prolonging an argument regarding this - I have to see clear evidence of the earth attached to the neck of the probe attached to the meter and across the shunt. This is sadly lacking. And from memory - that waveform looks like a single probe connection. I'm sending the link to experts at Fluke for final comment. I need to put this 'evidence' to bed. We also never saw full benefit of the scope functions. But certainly early suggestions of the Hartley effect.
Well, she isn't very observant, I guess. I showed a closeup of where the "B" probe connects: sense lead to the circuit side of the shunt, the "neck" of the probe, i.e. signal ground of scope, to the battery side of the shunt, which is connected to the negative pole of the battery, which, in the GL video, is connected to the EARTH by hooking to that copper cold water pipe that penetrates my basement wall. Sure, that pipe is probably also connected to the bonded line ground. So what? If it wasn't, the circuit wouldn't work at all, probably. As I show in the video, it matters not whether I connect it or not, EXCEPT when the neg batt is disconnected and the scopes are not isolated. The Ainslie circuit isn't a one-wire circuit, after all. (I think that's why they call it a groundLOOP.)
The Fluke, as you might be able to tell from the above photos, does not even HAVE a third prong and its ps is isolated. Doubly so, usually.
Note carefully the description of "ground" or "zero volt reference" on the EIT paper's diagram and in the text. One might assume from the diagram that the "FG" and the circuit are tied to one zero volt reference, and the oscilloscope is tied to another, or the same one at a different point...and where's the "neck of the probe" attached? It isn't shown in the diagram...
I mean I know where it's supposed to go, but what assurance, from this diagram, do we have that her system was properly connected, :earthed: and isolated?
(Also, as an aside, note that she says the "Load resistor was wound to deliberately yield (sic) a high level of inductance." 8.6 microHenries!!! Wow. The 6 inch leads of my inductance meter, all by themselves, have about 2 microHenries.)
And I will point out again that with the Fluke I was illustrating deliberate False Triggering. And she is calling that the "hint of the Hartley effect."
What is this all about anyway? Is there something wrong with any of my measurements? I have shown that there is only a miniscule effect of the ground/bonded/waterpipe, whatever, when the circuit is properly energized.
And isn't anyone going to comment on the large power injection from the FG (likewise the 555 when it is used)?
Remember, my circuit is wired exactly like the Quantum diagram AND the EIT.pdf paper--I can switch between the two on the fly (diode in or out; 555 inverted cycle or truly known FG cycle).
Quote from: ramset on July 18, 2009, 10:18:37 PM
Tk
The cat is suspect[posts things to fit its agenda ,saving face]
Owlsley is the Urim and Thummin of F E [no BS just the facts]
Chet
Yep, and like another of its ilk, tomscat is stuck on a single point that does not even really apply. But I am sure that we will be hearing about it again and again, until some other little nit sticks up and needs picking.
Chet, since Rosemary has now said several times that she still has the circuit, I think it is time for her to show it in operation. So far, you realise, we have less real stuff from her than from anybody, except that one poster that said he has something, wouldn't say what, and generated 11 pages of comments on that before he disappeared -- you remember?
Well, we only have a little more than that to go on from Rosemary. Just words and a couple of papers, not even a patent.
We need more. Other wise we are in danger of having MY results be the only real data set out there on this topic.
And we wouldn't want that, would we.
Congratulations TK! Sometimes being "too" right can be wrong, eh?
Quote from: HeairBear on July 19, 2009, 01:21:40 AM
Congratulations TK! Sometimes being "too" right can be wrong, eh?
Well. I'll agree there, but again, what does that have to do with the present case?
I'm still not sure Ainslie's oscillations were the groundloop or the false triggering or something else. Without seeing a scope trace, or her seeing one of mine, and her saying :that's it!: we are just guessing. Educated guessing, but still.
I mean, aperiodic resonance, come on. What's that?
So I made yet another video showing how to do a systematic search for resonance using the Interstate F34 Sweep Function generator.
It's uploading now.
But before that one finishes, here are a couple of others. First, a supplement: the Ainslie Free Energy Audio Amplifier. Then, more on Flukoscopy and LoundGroops. Er, groundloops.
Am i asleep enough to fall drunk yet?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0ovUxSwn1g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU1YGaEBKwM
Hello all,
Again, this has nothing to do with this thread - but since Groundloop and I has left
information of my circuit here, I will comment on my promises to post the schematic
and news in Overunity.com.
I have done preliminary testing with two batteries according to Groundloop's suggestion,
and found that I have no overunity. My own measurements showing overunity was false
since I do not have suitable measurement-instruments. It was also my intention to get
other qualified opinions that made me post here initially.
However, my circuit is near 100% and will suit my own application in other ways for the
commercial product that I am working on. Also my circuit is operating in a similar way as
Gotoluc's - in the thread "Re: Effects of Recirculating BEMF to Coil".
My work is continuing, and I will have private contact with Groundloop after his vacation.
I have other ideas on how to get OU. When I am ready to reveal some news I will make
a new thread in the forum.
This is all for now.
Have a nice summer!
Best regards S.Roksund
Thanks, S.Roksund, for your candor. I know your are disappointed but I hope you have better luck in the next project.
However, I think it would be helpful to others, if you could share with us some details of your experience. If it's not too much to ask, could you please describe (in general terms, or in detail) a few things? I think it would be good to know the general idea of the circuit; how you were first led to believe it might be OU; the kinds of tests you did that were mistaken; and how you finally determined the actual performance.
We need more stories of this kind, so that others may learn from our mistakes.
Electrical measurements can be particularly tricky and any help would be appreciated, I'm sure.
Thanks, and keep trying!
--TK
Well, AT LAST!
Another consummate scientist, Joit, has made and posted a video showing scope traces from an Ainslie circuit build.
No--wait--what's that huge toroidal transformer doing there? And isn't this the same Joit that actually built the 555, showed a screenshot of its trace, and _still_ got the duty cycle issue wrong...?
Something tells me he's not too sure about how to use that fancy digital oscilloscope. I sure am not able to get much information from what he's showing here. Of course, I have no idea what the message is--but Rosemary seems to like his video more than she likes any of mine.
I'm jealous...what's Joit got that I haven't?
That really should be telling you something, I think. What, I'm not sure.
http://www.energetictube.com/play/Energy__Unsorted/Torroid%20Coil%20pulsed%2012V%20DC
TK i do not understand how you can appear to agree with me about the Fluke 199's input circuit then go on about the possible "ground loop"... Because the Fluke acts as a fully Differential / Isolated device, it is then a moot point and THERE WAS NO GROUND LOOP POSSIBLE when using it (*unless the ground was coming through the signal generator instead).
Also, for the same reason, the reading directly across the resistive element would not show the 25V DC batt voltage riding on it and would only show the voltage dropped across the element. These things you supposed in your last 2 videos can happen only when the scope has a "SINGLE ENDED TO GROUND" input circuit. The Fluke does not; because it has no resistive connection to "wall-power" AC Ground; it can be considered "Differential / Isolated"
Thanks for showing the Fluke's wall wart PS as it answers that Q, and you are correct that the missing third prong in the wall plug matters in this case. The wall wart very likely acts like a isolation transformer then, de-coupling the little PS/charger from Earth Ground even when in "charge / AC power mode" (...as it certainly is while in "battery powered mode").
BTW: Many peeps try to "cheat" with their "Single-Ended" scopes by cutting-off the third prong of the power plug, to "float" the chassis... This is DANGEROUS, because if your home wall power socket was wired backwards (and this happens all the time), you will get a serious shock if you touch the scope's chassis or anything metal attached to it.
Now it is also within the realm of possibility that a "ground loop" situation could occur through the Wavetek with your setup... Which also has a "Single-Ended to Ground" output. And i believe that the "Signal Low" of the SG's output could tie everything to "Earth", and there be no outward signs seen (but such a situation could also suppress transient spikes). The only way to know for sure is the measure with a DMM between the "Battery Low" and the wall-power Earth ground, with and without the wavetek or any other bench equipment at all hooked up.
Again, for those who didn't read the other forum explanation, as this a VERY IMPORTANT POINT: The reason "Single Ended To Ground" (the input circuit most "CRT" scopes without batteries use) is serious a problem for reading off-ground circuits is this: There is only RESISTANCE between the Signal Low of the scope channel, and the power supply Ground of the scope (which is also closely tied to Chassis/ Earth Ground through the third prong of the plug)... IT IS NOT "ISOLATED". So if you try to put the ground lead of the probe on a point that is NOT at ground potential, it will try to MAKE it ground potential, lol... Sometimes with disastrous consequences. Also, a voltage will be seen across this internal resistance of the scope's input circuit, and if current flows there, you will likely smoke the instrument. If in question, use a DMM to measure between wall-power Earth ground and the point in the circuit you wish to put the Signal Low of the scope probe on FIRST. Most of the scopes i repaired over the years were damaged from making this mistake (putting the ground lead of the scope probe at a point with off-Ground voltage potential)... And most of the Data Acquisition systems i have seen that were damaged beyond repair happened the same way as well.
Waveteks (sig gen's), bench meters of all types, Calibrated DC Power Supplies, and nearly all wall-powered Data Acquisition devices and bench equipment are "Single Ended to Ground". Hand-held DMM's are not, and are truly Isolated, because they are BATTERY POWERED and have no connection with the wall power Earth ground. It is possible to buy truly Isolated bench-type scopes but they are much more expensive... That is why these batt powered scopemeters are worth the money if you want to read Differentially / Off Ground voltages (such as across coils, which are nearly always "floating").
Another alternative solution is to buy external Signal Conditioners ("amplifiers"), with Isolation, as a "front end"... And then run the output to the scope or data acquisition sys.
If resolved before in this thread, apologies and disregard this post.
From TK´s videos i extracted the info that Ainslie´s 555 circuit can´t produce correct duty cycles.
The reason for that might be a little deviation from the recommendations of 555 circuit modification to achieve low duty cycles. I might be wrong though, need to simulate it in spice to be sure.
There is only one bypass diode in there and in her diagram´s she displays 2 in opposite directions.
Low 555 duty cycles are explained here: http://www.edn.com/article/CA238425.html
Never did it before like that, but with only one diode i can go pretty low on the 555 duty cycles.
XLabs
Rosemary excepts NO sim programs [not designed for OU]
And she only accepts actual builds [except for TK's]
But so far TK is the only builder of RA circuit
Took T K 1/2 hour 4-5 weeks ago to assemble and test /video the circuit
??
Chet
PS they threw him out [no posting read only]
Hi Tinsel,
great work with the recent ground loop
oscillation finding in the Rosmary circuit...
Many thanks and please try to see, if you
can extract some additional power
via the ground loop oscillation condition.
Do you get the scope to sync to it ?
You did not show this in your one video...
Many thanks and keep up the great work.
Maybe you stumbled on the Kapanadze effect ?
Please try to explore this in detail.
Sorry, have not followed much your other last
video for the Rosmary tests, but just watched only
the last 5 ones...
Also what I don´t understand, why you don´t increase the frequency in
your videos, so you hit the resonance frequency of your
damped oscillation and then the oscillation will get all in
all much bigger ?
Then you can use an Avramenko plug to extract
power via displacement current without Lentz law
or try to use a RF transformer in an LC circuit to
have a light bulb load on the secondary with the right
impedance matches and on resonance frequency...
P.S. Good explanations with the
scope settings in your videos !
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: ramset on July 19, 2009, 11:53:04 AM
XLabs
Rosemary excepts NO sim programs [not designed for OU]
And she only accepts actual builds [except for TK's]
But so far TK is the only builder of RA circuit
Took T K 1/2 hour 4-5 weeks ago to assemble and test /video the circuit
??
Chet
Hmm, it was not meant for her to "accept" or anything, i am just realizing that some of the 555 problems TK had might be due to that 2nd diode and i felt like bringing that up in the context of this thread. Maybe some 555 ace can verify that or consider it insignificant for the operation of the 555, that i don´t know.
QuotePS they threw him out [no posting read only]
They (?) threw whom out? You mean TK from Ainsie`s forum ?!?
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 19, 2009, 02:07:21 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0ovUxSwn1g
Good work Tinsel.
Just make the short pulse drive frequency as high
as the damped oscillation fequency.
Then you will get resonance and it will
be a contineous sine wave output without the damping..
Xlabs
quote
They (?) threw whom out? You mean TK from Ainsie`s forum ?!?
Yes ,the only replicator [to date]
been at least 5 weeks since his replication
maybe 3 wk's since the boot
Chet
PS
He has not stopped his work on the circuit
Please Tinsel,
really try to trigger on the A-channel,
to see, how the hum really looks in the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZzzMVx6rPY
Many thanks in advance...
@Stefan:
Thanks for taking a look. The inductive ringdown appears to be in the 150-200 mHz range and my FG only goes to 2 MHz...I know that if I drive the circuit at that frequency the sine oscillations will be continuous as you say.
However, Rosemary constantly refers to 2.4 kHz as a "High" frequency and most of her reported work is with even lower freqs than that. My purpose here is and has always been to reproduce, or replicate if you like, the claims for the original COP>17 circuit, found in the Quantum article and the EIT.pdf file (in two different versions for the same experimental runs.)
So I am using her exact diagram, the exact component values (with variations for comparisons) and the exact electrical parameters including voltages, battery capacities, frequency and duty cycle as stated in her papers.
I am not interested here in exploring an entire problem space. Just the Ainslie circuit and claims. So far I have found many discrepancies.
The calculated resonance of a 0.00864 milliHenry load with minimal capacitance in its circuit, is, as you can appreciate, very high, and realistically to operate at that frequency and expect to get good measurements, one would have to be much neater and more shielded than any of us could hope to attain at home.
@jibbguy:
You are right of course, and if you look back at my vids and comments you will see that I have and do warn against the same things--perhaps in a bit more casual manner than you do ("I hope I don't kill myself, only crazy people try this, school of smoking oscilloscopes," etc.)
In my basement lab, and also where I work, if I still have a job that is, I have available line isolation transformers of the SOLA kind, that I can use if I need to isolate any of the equipment from the mains, including the mains ground or earth. The Fluke is of course always isolated by its power supply.
But the issue, I would have thought, is rather moot. Since, as shown, the FG and scopes are not isolated in these recent vids, even the isolated FLUKE will show the groundloop signal change when the Ainslie battery negative is disconnected from the circuit but the battery negative is earthed. If the other instruments were isolated, would the Fluke still show the GL? No, because then the circuit would have NO path to the negative of the battery and the circuit would not run at all.
Now, we are unable to determine the state of grounding, isolation, and proper order of connection of the circuit in Ainlsie's reports. There simply isn't enough information in the reports, and I trust "Ainslie said" even less than I trust "Steorn said."
So I recommend that further criticisms and questions about instrument hookups, possible groundloops, and the precautions taken to prevent them be directed to Ainslie. Because there is much less information about these issues concerning HER work than there is about mine, and this information may be critical to replicating her results.
As I thought I was illustrating in the recent videos.
@XLabs: There is no doubt that "A" 555 timer can be made to produce the short or long dutycycles, whatever.
The issue is that the EXACT circuit with the component values shown by Ainslie in the Quantum paper, and cleaned up by Groundloop in the diagram you posted, that circuit does not make the short duty cycles claimed, and in the Ainslie circuit will turn the transistor ON for 80-99 precent of the time and CANNOT be adjusted, with the components specified, to make short 0-20 percent ON duty cycles.
You will see what I mean if you just use the circuit Ainslie specified in the article, rather than designing a correct timer.
I went on and on about this because, as you can see for yourself if the posts haven't been removed, the folks over there would simply not believe that I was right for many days, until the reports of other builders started coming in....and now, the Ainslie 555 circuit error is being "swept under the rug", even though it isn't being CORRECTED in the publications...because some astute observers are finally getting the message that Ainslie's manual energy balance calculations depend on the Correct Duty Cycle going into the calculations...and the 555 timer error most likely means that when Ainslie thought she has 3.7 percent ON she actually had more like 96.3 percent ON...which point is also supported by her confusion, and that of others like Joit and Aaron, about the relationship between the gate signal and mosfet state, that caused me to make the increasingly simpler and simpler videos showing that relationship...
There are so many holes in the Ainslie story that I am genuinely appalled at the credence she is being given. At this point it is very nearly a "MyLOW" situation, if mylow had only showed you words and nothing else.
And the critics are criticising me, when it's clear that people like Joit and Ainslie herself need far more instruction in scope use and measurement
than I do.
Yes, this is the issue that got me kicked off that forum, but that suits me fine. Fascistic monarchies are not to my liking, especially if they are also "spiritually" oriented. The reek of hypocrisy always makes me seek cleaner air.
"Love and Light"...
--TK
Quote from: hartiberlin on July 19, 2009, 01:24:12 PM
Please Tinsel,
really try to trigger on the A-channel,
to see, how the hum really looks in the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZzzMVx6rPY
Many thanks in advance...
Hi Stefan
The Philips scope has a "line" triggering function, so that the line signal, whatever it is, becomes the scope trigger and signals at the line frequency can be separated from the other signals. Since the Ainslie oscillations are at 2.4 kHz about, and the line is at 60 Hz, there is no way to display both features simultaneously. As illustrated I cannot get the scope to trigger on the Ainslie "CH A" signal reliably when the GL is there--hence the appearance of "Aperiodic oscillations".... If I trigger on the mains, and use a timebase that is slow enough to show the 60 Hz amplitudes, then the 2.4 kHz becomes the "noise" and the trace still looks like garbage.
However, I will try to resolve the GL signal for you. It will be later tonight before I have a chance to try again.
Strangely, it is much different by night than by day. There may be some heavy electrical stuff on the line during daylight hours. Remember, Canada is a developed nation, but the veneer of development is very thin in spots. I don't trust the mains for reliability or signal purity, that's for sure.
Hi TK,
yes, after seeing all your trials and experiments with all
your scope setups, etc..I believe, that Ainslie
has made some errors in her measurements or her
components might have already been damaged or
she had a amateur-radio neighbour broadcasting into her
circuit or some other weird things...
Or she has a much lower ringdown frequency in the Khz range
and she just excited it with the same frequency, so she had
stable oscillations..
Anyway, just better quit the Ainslie circuit and try to see, if you
can get some energy output from this groundloop setup and
better try the Kapanadze circuit to resonante on this groundloop
oscillation via some LC tank circuits and a transformer.
Thanks, Stefan, I'll take a look, it's not something I am familiar with.
I see that MileHigh is making a lot of sense, but there's a minor issue or two that I would like to comment on. But I have to do it here.
First, I think the very best evidence that HV (relatively) spikes are making it back to the battery is this: Cheapo DMMs used to monitor battery voltage at the battery (WITHOUT filter caps!! None are shown in the Ainslie circuit!!) anyway, the Cheap DMMs will almost always flip out and show random fluctuations, caused by this HF component coming in from the circuit. You can see this in some of my vids; it was especially severe during the recent experimental run--you can see that I could not even record some readings--and you can even see it clearly with the HUGE inductive load that Joit is using. I love it when my detractors prove my points!
I can see it clearly on the analog scopes, and yes indeed MileHigh is right about the leads picking up signals like that...but the DMM is more remote and is picking up the spikes through its direct connection to the battery.
But MileHigh is also right that the energy in these spikes is miniscule and, even over the long periods we are discussing, cannot sum to anything like a significant charge return to the battery. What it CAN do is make what they call over there a "Fluffy Charge" (i love that term) whereby the battery's indicated no-load voltage is anomalously high wrt its actual energy content. Any charge scheme that spike-pulses a battery of certain chemistries will cause this effect. It's fooled a whole lot of folks, even ones with college educations. And it's still doing so.
So I believe the spikes to the battery are real, as .99 says and as Rosemary says. I also believe that they are not capable of significantly recharging the battery, as MileHigh says. So yes, Rosemary, they can both be right.
And to address the "techie" points that MH brings up: You bet these are important. Especially for those who are breadboarding. A close inspection of the pics of my build though will show that I have followed the good practices that MH recommends. For example, there are decoupling caps in the right places, the timer is hardwired on pad-per-hole phenolic board, the FG input is BNC, copper buswire is used for the basic connections; the 555 output to the Ainslie portion goes in by a 2" length of tiny coax, all points are soldered, even the crimpon connections to the header socket wires; I use a 200K linear pot in place of the 100 ohm attenuator in the gate drive line (This pot, btw, has a bad spot caused by an overload while testing a Darlington transistor in the circuit; you can see the noise from this rough spot in several of the vids).
I even put, with appropriate decoupling caps, a 78L12 regulator on the 555 board, since I sometimes power it with a higher-voltage wall-wart (not used in any of these tests!!).
On all tests I show, the 555 timer is always powered by its own separate 12-volt sealed lead-acid battery of 2A-h capacity. Which of course by necessity shares a common negative with the rest of the system.
MileHigh said
Ramset: Yes I think that the concerned scientist's points are all valid and he indicates that he is taking care of the circuit issues related to analog setups and propagating square wave signals properly. You can imagine a scenario where someone has a 555 timer on a small breadboard a few feet away from the MOSFET setup and they are interconnected with a long separate light-gage wires for signal and ground. They might not be aware that there is a "whol' lotta' shakin' an' bouncin' goin' on" in the signal levels between the 555 setup and the MOSFET setup which would wreak havoc with the results.
Anyway, hopefully somebody will crunch some watts!
To be serious: IMHO, if there are results that indicate extra energy, the circuit would then have to be picked apart some more by the first reporter with a scope and such. In parallel with that you would need at least three other replicators that then verify the results. Everybody's results would have to be shared with everything reasonably documentated as far as procedures and measurements go. Everybody should be able to generate an Excel spreadsheet or other document for others to review. In my case, I simply suggested a test procedure that if properly documented should stand up reasonably well unless I made an oversight or mistake somewhere.
A biggie documentation issue for example that I did not touch on is the error tolerance in every one of the measurement steps made. As you process the data the error tolerances typically add up, so +/-1% becomes +/-2% and so on. That means if you measure 1% excess energy and your error tolerance is +/-2% then you've proved nothing.
Now we can't forget that the paper states a COP of 17. For every watt of electrical power you put in you get 17 watts of heat power out. If the results are indeed this good, then the data should leap off of the page. Keep in mind the recent Gotoluc experiments with the dim bulb and the bright bulb or the cool resistor and the hot resistor. I believe that in all of those experiments the input power from the battery was not measured. Therfore the relevant data for drawing conclusions from wasn't even there in the first place. If you document and measure correctly you should be fine.
Aaron said
fluffy charge
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAMSET View Post
But MileHigh is also right that the energy in these spikes is miniscule and, even over the long periods we are discussing, cannot sum to anything like a significant charge return to the battery. What it CAN do is make what they call over there a "Fluffy Charge" (i love that term) .................
I also believe that they are not capable of significantly recharging the battery, as MileHigh says.
@Aaron says
Not sure why this disinformation keeps popping up.
I'm the one that started the term "fluffy charge" or "fluffy voltage" over 5 years ago to explain that with some radiant spike charging, the voltage is "fluffy" (mostly a light static charge) that gets popped (usually) as soon as applying a load to it (if it is a straight inductive load).
About 6 years ago, I was using my Bedini circuits to charge caps. Microwave caps for example with super low capacitance. 2uf or less. The cap was connected to a separate battery with an SCR in the circuit. Neon bulb triggered at 90v and dumped the cap. THOSE spikes from that circuit gave my battery a "fluffy charge" where the voltage went up then was unable to power a load. The load I was trying to power from it was a strong inductive load so no wonder. If there is a resistive load, you will see power from it. In a mixed component like an inductive resistor, that "fluffy voltage" will see resistance and you'll have some real watts.
So, it CAN and DOES supply measurable power in real wattage over time. And, NOT all charging with spikes is fluffy. Look at the Bedini chargers, that is far from fluffy. Of course that is with a real coil. With the inductive resistor, it is simply scaled down and proportionately, the spikes are just as good.
You say: "cannot sum to anything like a significant charge return to the battery" but that is your opinion not based on fact or experimental evidence and if you insist it is, then that is only based on your experiments that have not been able to produce results that Rosemary, myself and others have achieved.
The term SIGNIFICANT is 100% subjective to what you believe to be significant but overlooks the fact that ANY volume of potential can do work and if it supplies 1 single nano joule of work, then that is ABOVE what the math says. Take those spikes and charge a cap, you will see that REAL work can be had from it.
I've already done the test and the spikes from the resistor can charge a cap quite nicely and even a second battery. I have the recovery diode and it charged the FRONT battery (2 X 12v 7ah bank) to as high as 24.65 when the resting voltage was 24.45 before the test. 24.65 is above the resting voltage before the test was started and over 12 hours later, the circuit is STILL running from the "fluffy voltage". Every bit of wattage I'm getting through the circuit until it gets back down to resting voltage is ALL above and beyond (totally free) what you claim I can get.
MileHigh said
Aaron: Even if you can do something with the feeble return spikes, you can't forget the banking analogy. So what if the bank gives you a check for $10 every year for being a good customer if your banking costs for your enterprise are $15,000 per year.
For the fluffy voltages for whatever projects are going on, I can suggest that everyone use measurements of a battery's output impedance as a second way of describing the condition of their batteries before and after charging, running load tests, etc. All that everyone needs to do is standardize on a few key values of 10-watt resistor to use as the output impedance testing resistors. You could determine and agree on the right resistors to use for various standard battery sizes and types. Then everybody could exchange data about the voltages, fluffyness, and output impedance measurements and be on the same playing field. The higher the output impedance, the fluffier the battery, so why not measure it? All that you have to do is connect the resistor across the battery, measure the voltage drop, do some basic calculations, and you have your data. Who knows, perhaps there is already a Java applet online somewhere or somebody could create it.
Explains my circuit:
http://www.feelthevibe.com/free_energy/rosemary_ainslie/ainslieheater.pdf
Youtube video demo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z84u7--u3Qw
When the circuit is setup, it is common sense how to get the mosfet to go into high frequency self oscillation. Duty cycle is irrelevant as Rosemary said because it can happen at 99% duty cycle, which I have done and it still sends power to the front battery.
Allcanadian said about Aarons replication circuit and vid
@Aaron
Thank you for finally showing the self-oscillation that Rosemary stated was required. I was starting to wonder if all the so-called experts here and were ever going to figure it out. It should have been obvious from the start that there was no way in hell the 555 timer could hit the true resonance of such a small inductance in the inductor/resistor, not in a million years. It also should have been just as obvious that the 555 timer rise/fall times are way to slow to produce efficient conversion, they must be at the minimum rise/fall duration of the mosfet, the circuit disrupter. Excellent video
Regards
AC
MileHigh responce to vid and AC comment
Aaron and Allcanadian: I am looking at Aaron's clip right now and it is a pretty good first go at it. I may comment more later but permit me to raise a red flag about a pressing hot issue in this clip:
> Thank you for finally showing the self-oscillation that Rosemary stated was required. I was starting to wonder if all the so-called experts here and were ever going to figure it out.
Here is a clear example where you are misunderstanding the information the scope is giving you. In the clip, the "self-oscillation" is simply the scope loosing it's triggering for a fraction of a second and you are seeing the waveform being displayed free-running with no trigger. How can you make this mistake, it should have been the first thing that entered both of your minds when you saw this!
TK also made the same mistake in one of his clips. The triggering was on the rising-edge ringing in one of his setups. Very occasionally the scope was triggering on the lower-amplitude falling-edge ringing. Once in a while a falling-edge spike was caught by the trigger circuit. This created a composite display that flashed back and forth between the two waveform snapshots and he speculated that it was the random oscillation effect.
> It should have been obvious from the start that there was no way in hell the 555 timer could hit the true resonance of such a small inductance in the inductor/resistor
A stand-alone inductor has no innate resonant frequency associated with it unless you are referring to stray capacitance in the coil and immediate surroundings forming an LC resonater. Also, you must keep in mind that this is a pulse circuit, and by definition, there is no resonance associated with the normal operation of this circuit. All the ringing that you see are standard problems that you see in just about any circuit. The ringing effects are somewhat exaggerated by the fact that you are breadboarding it.
MileHigh
AARON TO MH
Your red flag is misleading and is not a red flag.
If it is a problem with the scope, there would be no difference in the operation of the circuit. When it goes into the oscillation as shown on the scope, you blatantly ignore the fact that the battery voltage rises at that point.
Again, the self-oscillation shown on the scope is CORROBORATES with measurable changes in the circuit so any claims of scope goofiness is misinformation.
If the issue is with the scope, none of that should happen.
Please don't mislead people with false analysis. No amount of technical jargon about scope function changes the FACT that at those points - 100% of the time the scope shows the oscillation, the batter voltage climbs meaning the effect is there and it is NOT a problem with the scope.
The change in battery draw during the oscillation is not a small difference relative to what is being drawn, it can be 16 times different. One test showed 500mv over the shunt and instantly during self oscillation as shown by the scope, it dropped to as low as 30mv.
Aaron
p.s.
p.s. The draw from the battery with the scope DETACHED is the same as the reduced draw when the scope shows the self-oscillation. So the scope isn't even in the picture.
I can watch the draw and know if I am in self oscillation or not WITHOUT THE SCOPE DETACHED.
I can watch the draw and when not in oscillation, I can hook up the scope and see that it corroborates with the draw showing the non oscillation.
I can then watch the draw and when it is obviously in self-oscillation, I can hook up the scope and guess what, it corroborates and shows me the self oscillation.
The scope issue brought up is bogus and not based on any facts whatsoever.
I've never seen so many people scared of the truth in all my life.
Please no more pen jockey ideas or technical explanations as they have no basis in reality. Do the experiments and post them, otherwise, keep your uninformed distracting opinions to yourselves.
This thread is for duplication of the circuit and constructive talk of the results even by people not duplicating. I don't mind "skepticism" but outright misinformation will not be tolerated so please give it up.
MileHigh
Aaron: A few more comments about your clip:
The shut resistor is comparable to the resistance of the coil-resistor. I know that this is your fist shot at it so it is understandable. However, it limits the current through the circuit and affects the overall operation. The baddie here is that it is pushing the source pin voltage of the MOSFET way up above ground as the current starts to flow, which will make the "on" signal from the 555 start to drop relative to the MOSFET gate input.
The first thing that is noteworthy is that there are two separate time constants associated with the rising waveform across the coil-resistor when the MOSFET switches on. It may be related to the shunt resistor being too large, I don't know. The big point is that it is not supposed to be there, the circuit clearly shows that. You should try to find out why it is there and explain it.
You are not telling your audience where the scope ground and signal leads are connected also, and that could be relevant. If the scope ground lead is "far away" from the coil-resistor other potentials in the interconnect wires may be affecting the waveform. Ideally you would put the scope probe directly across the big coil-resistor.
Note that the reverse-voltage coming out of the coil-inductor after the MOSFET switches off is about -0.6 volts, just like I stated it would be. You can clearly see this in all of the scope shots. This is a very very important fact that should not be overlooked. When the coil discharges it generats a potential directly related to the effective resistance across the coil. In this case, the diode clamps the output voltage from the coil-resistor inductive discharge to -0.6 volts.
Yes, there is a pretty big looking negative spike at the very beginning of the coil-resistor discharge cycle (the instant the MOSFET switches off). HOWEVER, I already indicated that a lot of this could be associated with the breadboarding. As the circuit builds get better and better with every new iteration you can expact that spike to decrease in energy and amplitude. If you got this build down to a refined printed circuit board layout with eveything done just right, there is a decent chance that that first big spike would be become a tiny tiny whisp, barely noticable in a scope shot.
Since you are not scoping the current across the shunt resistor in your first go at it, at this point in time we don't know if there is any current flow associated with that first big negative spike. In a way, the point is moot anyways, because any curent flow from that spike would not be in the right direction to charge the source battery.
It's hard to tell in the clip, but if you see distinctive ringing associated wth any of the spikes, then they are not necessarily ringing spikes directly from the coil. The interconnect wires themselves can ring because of a whole mess of stuff about impedance mismatching between the source, the impedance of the transmission line associated with the wires themselves, and the load. It all comes into play when you are dealing with square-like waves. If you could match all of the impedances in the "wire transmisson line system" then at least all of the ringing associated with the wires themselves would go away.
Aaron, thanks, a very good first clip overall. We got to see some guts at work!
Also many thanks to TK, who has been working on this project and has done a multitude of clips filled with relevant information.
MileHigh
@MikeHigh: You said, in reference to Aaron's vid:
Quote
"Here is a clear example where you are misunderstanding the information the scope is giving you. In the clip, the "self-oscillation" is simply the scope loosing it's triggering for a fraction of a second and you are seeing the waveform being displayed free-running with no trigger. How can you make this mistake, it should have been the first thing that entered both of your minds when you saw this!
TK also made the same mistake in one of his clips. The triggering was on the rising-edge ringing in one of his setups. Very occasionally the scope was triggering on the lower-amplitude falling-edge ringing. Once in a while a falling-edge spike was caught by the trigger circuit. This created a composite display that flashed back and forth between the two waveform snapshots and he speculated that it was the random oscillation effect."
Don't tell me you too have missed the entire point of my triggering videos!!
It has been my contention FROM THE BEGINNING that false triggering was what was being described by the Ainslie camp as "random resonance, aperiodic oscillations, Hartley self-oscillation" or whatever. Look back and you will see that this is true, and this is what I have been trying to show the whole time. Ainslie has even said that one of my FALSE TRIGGERING illustrations has gotten me "almost there" to win the OU Prize.
When I say in the video "that looks like ..random aperiodic hartley blueberry cake with creamcheese" my voice, to me, sounds dripping with sarcasm.
I guess my sarcasm and irony is just too subtle for some folks. Aperiodic random resonance? Give me a flimping break.
I will say this one time. Most of us already know it. Some of "us" should really meditate on it.
You Cannot make reliable measurements on a spiky circuit like this with cheap handheld DMMs. Not the kind that need to be made, that is.
A reliable power meter that will indicate accurately on this kind of circuit costs many thousands of dollars. But it is worth it, and if anybody really wants to know what's going on in Rosemary's circuit, just rent one of these for a week and hook it up. Of course, someone will have to tell you what her circuit is, first...since nobody really seems to know.
http://www.clarke-hess.com/2335.htm
Quote
I've never seen so many people scared of the truth in all my life.
Please no more pen jockey ideas or technical explanations as they have no basis in reality. Do the experiments and post them, otherwise, keep your uninformed distracting opinions to yourselves.
This thread is for duplication of the circuit and constructive talk of the results even by people not duplicating. I don't mind "skepticism" but outright misinformation will not be tolerated so please give it up.
Amazing. Isn't it? The hypocrisy astounds me. How can a single brain hold such contradictory statements in such close proximity without burning out? I suppose the insulation must be very very strong.
I'm posting these comments on Aaron's video. How long will they last? I am asking legitimate questions.
Quote
Nice load resistor. What's its inductance? I estimate it at between 150 and 200 microHenrys. In other words, roughly twenty times the value of Ainslie's 8.64 microHenrys. So your "replication" fails right there.
Or is that figure in Ainslie's paper a misprint, like the circuit diagram, too?
Just asking. After all, we wouldn't want any misinformation posted, now, would we?
and
Quote
Is that 555 timer constructed according to the Quantum article diagram? If not, why not? That article still has not been corrected by Ainslie so we must assume that it was the one she used, until she tells us exactly otherwise. After all, she still has the circuit in her possession.
and
Quote
3:10
talk real fast, say "right" and think we'll miss it? No, not right. Some is being stored in the inductor's mag field, and after the fet turns off and the field is collapsing by bouncing back and forth between the inductances and capacitances in the circuit, that's when this stored energy is dissipated. See the ringdown on the end of your spikes? That's this stored energy sloshing back and forth. See it exponentially decreasing? That's because it is being dissipated as heat.
And I will try to post This old vid of mine as a "reply"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tW2g4KinuA
Well, that's ten minutes of my life I'll never get back.
Nice views of the tabletop and under the workbench, btw.
I'm flabbergasted. They were perfectly right to ban me. There is no way I can possibly communicate with someone who will not even read the manual for their oscilloscope.
Self-oscillation? You mean uncontrolled feedback due to poor construction (screwing the mosfet to the workbench!! ROTMFFLMAO I have Never seen that one before); and the fact that you cannot resolve it on your scope tells me that you cannot use an oscilloscope properly. When you figure out how to set your scope's trigger correctly, you will be able to resolve that signal, because while it might be self-oscillation, it certainly is also regular, not a-periodic or random.
Ahh, a blast from the past:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxabhjHoV50
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwbdvDms0Bk
I wonder what the COP is of this device.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxEpSX2Hd54
Or this one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ir9RIsXzmzY
Aaron says:
Quote
TK has been defended as an apparent expert with credentials and I think he bragged about published papers, etc... but couldn't even intentionally get the mosfet into self oscillation but I could. Therefore, the argument is null and void. The argument of credentials stands or it doesn't and is not subject to "conditions."
And I say: See the led glowing a bit, even when the "switch" is open??? What is the matter with your eyeballs?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSFS99SaZTA
just left this post
A scientist searching for OU [rare as hens teath]
MIB ? bad oil guy?
Can't use equipment?[every day of his life]
wonder what the COP is of this device.
YouTube - Dirod 1
Or this one.
YouTube - Bonetti Machine clip #3
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron is on the right page" heat some water" If your COP is that high
then your BTU will be obvious
You go Aaron make it so boil some water make steam Forget all these tests
HOT WATER HEAT is what where after COP 17 and higher
Chet
PS you don't need a lab for that
Heh. Thanks for posting that, Chet. I was just reminiscing...
But they might like the Resonance Effects for Everyone vids better, since they are so impressed by charging a cap thru a diode, and might like to see what a real resonance from a mosfet driving an inductive ringing system is like.
And every time I look over there I am more amazed. Joit has finally admitted that even his 555 circuit can't make short duty cycles. Now if we can just get people to follow that thought all the way through her energy balance calcs...
And in practically the same sentence where she gripes about me calling her a mendacious prevaricator, she proceeds to post yet another canard saying that neither I nor anybody else has done power measurements...I beg your pardon, Rosemary, but that's a lie too. Or, rather, another statement of your willful ignorance.
QuoteHave you ever looked through the OU.Com thread on this? It beggars belief. Malice hardly describes it. And the amount of money that is spent on displaying tests and parading brand new state of the art equipment that is never effectively used.
Money? When a COP>17 claim is being made? What is money when the world is at stake?
Brand new state of the art equipment? Where?
Never effectively used? You mean MISUSED like Aaron and Joit's scope work? I laugh in your face, liar.
Quote
Weeks go by without a single test result - just promises of this. Yet we are constantly advised that the claim is wrong. Has it ever occurred to anyone that - to this day - no single power measurement has been made on the circuitry?
More lies. I have been reporting test results for a month or more, sometimes several a day. And I have made MANY measurements, published my raw data and ALL test parameters including scope shots and photos of the apparatus and videos of it being operated and tested. And I have even made so far 3 full experimental runs comparing heat profiles.
Quote
No test has been run to duration of a battery capacity.
And no test has been run under water. There is no need. The heat results are far more more conclusive.
Quote
Brand new state of the art equipment is constantly on display but never are its full functions referenced. Small irrelevant points become critical evidence of a lack of proof and are championed with an unabashed repetitiveness that is boringly persistent but brutally destructive. But no actual proof is offered.
There's that brand new state of the art equipment again. You must be talking about someone else, because all my stuff is obsolete junk. But it still works fine, and more importantly, I know how to use it.
And the significance of the points I keep stressing is fatal to your claims. If you used the wrong duty cycle, as it is increasingly obvious that you did, your energy calculations are wrong wrong wrong.
Where's the circuit, Rosemary? It's been over a month now. You have shown us NOTHING except words. And many of those words are, well, as I have shown, untrue.
And everything that I have said about the circuit and its performance and testing is TRUE and VISIBLE and REPEATABLE by anyone who can read a circuit diagram and an oscilloscope manual.
But who is repeating ANY of the Ainslie effects, and how?
Just Aaron, by screwing a mosfet to his workbench and violating every rule of good circuit construction to make a feedback circuit. But even he can''t get much heating at short duty cycles.
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-32.html#post61506
What Aaron is seeing there in his vid is not "false triggering" / being "off trigger"... Or anything to do with a friggin' scope trigger!
I'm not sure why this particular avenue of denial seen here infuriates me so much (we should all be used to it by now), but it does. I will try to be "civil" nonetheless (lol but it's difficult).
When a scope drifts off-trigger but the waveform's Frequency doesn't change, the signal representation ROLLS across the screen. With the scope's time base set the same as before; the waveform will still be visible and mainly recognizable, just looking like an old TV with "Horizontal Hold" problems.
The "Triggering" circuitry by itself CANNOT CHANGE THE SCOPE'S TIME BASE SETTING!! ... Thus, when previously set to see 2 or 3 cycles spaced across the screen, you can't suddenly get it to display 400 cycles squeezed together (showing the unmistakable "all white" solid envelope that denotes a way-too-slow time base setting)... By simply screwing around with the Trigger Level. You good folks out there try it yourselves and see what i mean. It will take a significant change in the signal's actual Frequency for this to be seen.
Frankly, i am finding it hard to believe that these peeps claiming the contrary don't know this. On one hand they are accusing Aaron of making a very "noob" mistake, yet we find it is THEY who are claiming an utterly NOOB and COMPLETELY MISTAKEN point in denial... Which is certainly doing their credibility no favors. And so they deserve to be lambasted for it (as turnabout is fair play), and perhaps their actual motives here QUESTIONED.... They certainly are not acting here as those who are seeking Truth, by putting forth weak justifications for previously stated strong opinions.
Aaron is also getting a small increase at the batt charge voltage on the DMM at the exact same time as the oscillation effect is seen on the scope... Verses when the scope is showing the "normal" waveform. Explain that one by "poor scope triggering".
And for the benefit of the folks out there who will now be SUCCESSFULLY building this circuit, and who also happen to have a storage scope (or a PC-based one that can "freeze" the screen): This talk about triggering is a total distraction, and give it no heed: Just take a "snap shot" (screen "sample and hold") of the signal.... Whatever is shown on the screen is the actual and accurate representation of the signal at that particular moment, and all this B-S about "scope triggering" be damned. And please, if possible, post the "screenies" of that much higher F oscillation waveform for us all to look at, as it is of interest to many of us ;)
So Aaron has gotten his MOSFET to go into astable oscillation (...just as Rosemary said it would). Congrats to him, and may many more folks out there now follow his fine example!!
left at EF
A scientist[FE scientist] works the resonance
Groundloop gutoluc and An FE scientist
YouTube - resonance effects for everyone
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tW2g4KinuA
And from another scientist[TRON]
tank circuit video: resonance and harmonics
a great video on resonance and oscilloscope signals in a tank circuit
Make: Online : Short Circuit #2: Frequency multiplication with tank circuits
http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2009/04/short_circuit_2_frequency_multiplic.html?CMP=OTC-0D6B48984890
Quote from: jibbguy on July 20, 2009, 10:13:17 AM
What Aaron is seeing there in his vid is not "false triggering" / being "off trigger"... Or anything to do with a friggin' scope trigger!
I'm not sure why this particular avenue of denial seen here infuriates me so much (we should all be used to it by now), but it does. I will try to be "civil" nonetheless (lol but it's difficult).
When a scope drifts off-trigger but the waveform's Frequency doesn't change, the signal representation ROLLS across the screen. With the scope's time base set the same as before; the waveform will still be visible and mainly recognizable, just looking like an old TV with "Horizontal Hold" problems.
The "Triggering" circuitry by itself CANNOT CHANGE THE SCOPE'S TIME BASE SETTING!! ... Thus, when previously set to see 2 or 3 cycles spaced across the screen, you can't suddenly get it to display 400 cycles squeezed together (showing the unmistakable "all white" solid envelope that denotes a way-too-slow time base setting)... By simply screwing around with the Trigger Level. You good folks out there try it yourselves and see what i mean. It will take a significant change in the signal's actual Frequency for this to be seen.
Frankly, i am finding it hard to believe that these peeps claiming the contrary don't know this. On one hand they are accusing Aaron of making a very "noob" mistake, yet we find it is THEY who are claiming an utterly NOOB and COMPLETELY MISTAKEN point in denial... Which is certainly doing their credibility no favors. And so they deserve to be lambasted for it (as turnabout is fair play), and perhaps their actual motives here QUESTIONED.... They certainly are not acting here as those who are seeking Truth, by putting forth weak justifications for previously stated strong opinions.
Aaron is also getting a small increase at the batt charge voltage on the DMM at the exact same time as the oscillation effect is seen on the scope... Verses when the scope is showing the "normal" waveform. Explain that one by "poor scope triggering".
And for the benefit of the folks out there who will now be SUCCESSFULLY building this circuit, and who also happen to have a storage scope (or a PC-based one that can "freeze" the screen): This talk about triggering is a total distraction, and give it no heed: Just take a "snap shot" (screen "sample and hold") of the signal.... Whatever is shown on the screen is the actual and accurate representation of the signal at that particular moment, and all this B-S about "scope triggering" be damned. And please, if possible, post the "screenies" of that much higher F oscillation waveform for us all to look at, as it is of interest to many of us ;)
So Aaron has gotten his MOSFET to go into astable oscillation (...just as Rosemary said it would). Congrats to him, and may many more folks out there now follow his fine example!!
It was MileHigh who first said that Aaron's scope shot might be false triggering, and then later he saw the rest of the vid and agrees that Aaron's circuit is feeding back and oscillating, and so do I. There is some false triggering, but definitely his circuit is blasting away. And it is also true that I have not been able so readily to make my circuit do that.
It is also true that adjusting the scope's trigger and timebase would have allowed the feedback oscillation to be resolved into a regular periodic waveform...but that would have been anti-OU, so we won't see that being shown.
It is also clear that Aaron's "success" is a result of poor construction practices.
And it is very very clear that his resistor isn't heating much at short duty cycles.
And it's very difficult to say what the duty cycle is during the feedback--because if the signal were only resolved properly, it will no longer be seen to be a pulse, but rather a more sinusoidal wave, and it would sound like a very loud screech.
Is it surprising that the mosfet passes more power when screeching than it does at a short duty cycle?
Not to me.
And if you really trust that DMM to read correctly under the conditions in Aaron's vid, you must be on someone else's payroll...because even the MiBs are not that naiive.
TK
perhaps a few moments here
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7679.510
The spot Stephan was talking about [coils and Don Smith easy stuff]
Perhaps a brief interlude [from church]
Chet
And your take on this
tank circuit video: resonance and harmonics
a great video on resonance and oscilloscope signals in a tank circuit
Make: Online : Short Circuit #2: Frequency multiplication with tank circuits
http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2009/04/short_circuit_2_frequency_multiplic.html?CMP=OTC-0D6B48984890
it has girls in it
I need to go to church, myself. I'll take a look later on. Thanks for the heads up.
I see that you are beginning to fall from grace--better watch out, the Free Speech Police might be sending you a warning soon...
Free speech police
Yah mean the Church of peace love light and show me the PATH to money Freedom of speech police??
Nahh
Chet
I don't believe in going around quoting, i personally think it's kinda lame for the most part in these cases. But peeps saw above that you accused Aaron of not being able to read a scope: They can come to their own conclusions what you meant there.
I gotta say, once the one bogus explanation is exploded, moving on to the next one like nothing happened will garner diminishing returns (just as it was 3 days ago with the last red herring, the "ground loop" stuff based on "Single Ended to Ground" input circuit oddities which were totally MOOT in this case; nearly as much as the "triggering" claims).
Although now i think we have gone through all possible obfuscations regarding the instrumentation (although i could be wrong about that, hehehe ;) ).
I guess it's your bad luck you ran across someone who knows WTF they are talking about when it comes to test & measurement instrumentation. Those 18 years in the field, traveling all over the world to over 24 countries, visiting over 450 mostly high-profile Customers on-site (such as every NASA center, Edwards AFB, Fort Meade, several nuc power plants and plenty of coal-fired ones, a dozen other important military bases, N.I.H. in Bethesda, hundreds of major hospitals including Johns Hopkins and Mayo Clinic, and virtually every major University in the U.S. doing medical research and many doing physical science research as well)... Wasn't totally wasted time after all. That resume is not to brag: Just to show that if you make a claim about instrumentation, you had better have your ducks in a row next time... I used to feed my family on what i know about it.
Sure the DMM is not accurate in reading transients it only proves SOMETHING OF INTEREST HAPPENED (...which i will remind peeps, was in denial for weeks in the above thread).
And i will say again (as i did several pages ago), the only accurate way of amplitude measurement in these cases is to capture them on a digital storage scope or data acquisition system with a proper high sample rate, and let either the on-board calc functions or PC-based analysis software do the averaging... These are pretty much infallible (i've done months of Beta Testing on these in the past and i know for fact they can be relied upon... They ARE the industry standard and multi-million dollar corporate decisions, or important medical Studies, are based on their results every day).
I would personally very much like to see us all move in this direction (digital storage and PC analysis): It will gain us credibility and professionalism that will utterly shut up critics, and allow our positive results to make it into the mainstream much faster. Of course the problem there is "cost"... They ain't cheap (even to rent). And the faster the max per-channel Sample Rate, the more expensive the devices get. You can get a "Dataq" 4 channel DAQ system, with analysis software thrown in for free, for about $300.. But what use is "280 samples per second" here?? NONE at all of course (well except for reading "Temp" which can be very slow). The per-channel Sample Rate should be at least 10 times the fastest F you want to record, for real accuracy. That would mean that we need to capture this with AT LEAST "2.4 Megasamples / sec" sample rate PER CHANNEL.
As for Aaron's vid, he showed what he set out to do. And at the time, it was enough to totally refute the claims of "no oscillation"... Which are now sunk.
If he couldn't get it to trigger at the higher time bases, it is because it is "astable" and not "STABLE", get it? It must be a REPEATABLE cycle at a measurable repeatable period for the scope's triggering circuit to work properly.
That is why a storage scope, PC-based scope, or PC-based Data Acquisition system with "sample & hold" (such as the Fluke 199) WILL show that signal in all it's glory via a "snap shot". And that is important, as it really does need to be captured, measured, and analyzed... And of course it would be even better if an "FFT" could be done on it in PC-based analysis software so we could see the most common beat freq's verses amplitude (which could ultimately give us some important clues to making it more reproducible, and useful). THAT'S how it would be done in the "real world".
But i believe that will come too eventually as the good folks out there reproduce this effect (...since they won't be listening to all the nay-saying anymore) ;)
I'm going to try one more time in this thread to see if I can make a difference. I'm not on either side, but I have a vested interest in freeing up one of the participants so he can focus on something else. If there is good response to this post, then maybe I'll try and move on to the next object of contention.
This is a 2-part question and there are potentially as many answers as there are builders. If there are a lot of proposals, we should attempt to reduce the list to a small number of accepable solutions that can best suit the diverse capabilities and resources of the experimentors involved.
1) What is the best means of measuring the total input and output energy to determine the ratio between them?
2) Will you provide a detailed step-by step test procedure document which also includes a list of all required equipment and materials required to complete the test, and sources for any equipment or materials most hobbiests are not likely to have in their garage?
Those of you having accounts on EnergeticForum, please ask them to participate in this exercise. Hopefully we can come to some sort of consensus on this part at least.
OC
you selfish Bastid !![only kidding I've been trying to do the same]
Freeing up TK !!
This needs closier
These guys should MAKE SOME HEAT already!!
COP up the Kazzooo enough back slapping
Where not talking COP .oooooooo1
COP 17 +1700% and rising lotsa f**kin power BURNS the fingers stuff
not 2 degrees over ambient [my farts are OU then]
Aaron boil water, count the time, no voodoo just BTU 1700% SMOKINNNN..
6 weeks 2 degrees
1700%???
No criticism just facts if Rosemaries circuit has legs let that dog run[circuit]
define the"" effect""and make it grow!!
Thats the reason TK is here
a published paper that claimed COP 17
So far 2 dgrees above ambient [ something stapled to Aarons desk?? not Rosemary's}
DEFINE THE EFFECT, PRODUCE THE EFFECT!!ENHANCE THE EFFECT!!
BOIL some water 1700 % you better have a fire extinguisher
Chet
Quote from: jibbguy on July 20, 2009, 12:40:01 PM
I don't believe in going around quoting, i personally think it's kinda lame for the most part in these cases. But peeps saw above that you accused Aaron of not being able to read a scope: They can come to their own conclusions what you meant there.
I gotta say, once the one bogus explanation is exploded, moving on to the next one like nothing happened will garner diminishing returns (just as it was 3 days ago with the last red herring, the "ground loop" stuff based on "Single Ended to Ground" input circuit oddities which were totally MOOT in this case; nearly as much as the "triggering" claims).
Although now i think we have gone through all possible obfuscations regarding the instrumentation (although i could be wrong about that, hehehe ;) ).
I guess it's your bad luck you ran across someone who knows WTF they are talking about when it comes to test & measurement instrumentation. Those 18 years in the field, traveling all over the world to over 24 countries, visiting over 450 mostly high-profile Customers on-site (such as every NASA center, Edwards AFB, Fort Meade, several nuc power plants and plenty of coal-fired ones, a dozen other important military bases, N.I.H. in Bethesda, hundreds of major hospitals including Johns Hopkins and Mayo Clinic, and virtually every major University in the U.S. doing medical research and many doing physical science research as well)... Wasn't totally wasted time after all. That resume is not to brag: Just to show that if you make a claim about instrumentation, you had better have your ducks in a row next time... I used to feed my family on what i know about it.
Sure the DMM is not accurate in reading transients it only proves SOMETHING OF INTEREST HAPPENED (...which i will remind peeps, was in denial for weeks in the above thread).
And i will say again (as i did several pages ago), the only accurate way of amplitude measurement in these cases is to capture them on a digital storage scope or data acquisition system with a proper high sample rate, and let either the on-board calc functions or PC-based analysis software do the averaging... These are pretty much infallible (i've done months of Beta Testing on these in the past and i know for fact they can be relied upon... They ARE the industry standard and multi-million dollar corporate decisions, or important medical Studies, are based on their results every day).
I would personally very much like to see us all move in this direction (digital storage and PC analysis): It will gain us credibility and professionalism that will utterly shut up critics, and allow our positive results to make it into the mainstream much faster. Of course the problem there is "cost"... They ain't cheap (even to rent). And the faster the max per-channel Sample Rate, the more expensive the devices get. You can get a "Dataq" 4 channel DAQ system, with analysis software thrown in for free, for about $300.. But what use is "280 samples per second" here?? NONE at all of course (well except for reading "Temp" which can be very slow). The per-channel Sample Rate should be at least 10 times the fastest F you want to record, for real accuracy. That would mean that we need to capture this with AT LEAST "2.4 Megasamples / sec" sample rate PER CHANNEL.
As for Aaron's vid, he showed what he set out to do. And at the time, it was enough to totally refute the claims of "no oscillation"... Which are now sunk.
If he couldn't get it to trigger at the higher time bases, it is because it is "astable" and not "STABLE", get it? It must be a REPEATABLE cycle at a measurable repeatable period for the scope's triggering circuit to work properly.
That is why a storage scope, PC-based scope, or PC-based Data Acquisition system with "sample & hold" (such as the Fluke 199) WILL show that signal in all it's glory via a "snap shot". And that is important, as it really does need to be captured, measured, and analyzed... And of course it would be even better if an "FFT" could be done on it in PC-based analysis software so we could see the most common beat freq's verses amplitude (which could ultimately give us some important clues to making it more reproducible, and useful). THAT'S how it would be done in the "real world".
But i believe that will come too eventually as the good folks out there reproduce this effect (...since they won't be listening to all the nay-saying anymore) ;)
Jib, your remarks are better addressed to Rosemary than to me. In the VERY FIRST videos in the series, I demonstrated the DMM crazy effect and pointed it out as evidence that spikes were making it back to the battery. And I have shown cap charging thru a diode many times before with inductors pulsed by mosfets.
So you once again are burning a straw man.
The purpose of my investigation has been to check the specific claims of a specific circuit. Aaron's circuit is NOT the circuit I am examining; it is NOT the circuit used in the Ainslie papers, and it oscillates the way it does because of poor construction, and you know that perfectly well. Nobody who has built the ACTUAL circuit using proper construction has seen that oscillation--or at least has not reported it.
The Fluke 199 cannot do on-board integration.
The Fluke 199 cannot resolve very short or very long duty cycles.
The LeCroy that I have sitting here, can, however. Is the 9370M an acceptable instrument, Jib? I know it's old, and only has 1 GHz bandwidth with a sample rate of 500Ms/sec...oh, well, it's the best I can do, right off the shelf.
And as soon as I am able to reproduce AINSLIE's oscillatons, not Aaron's, you can bet your bippy that I will be analyzing them.
Ainslie has yet to provide any real information regarding the oscillations in HER circuit, which Aaron's is not.
There are several ways to test properly this circuit, 0c. Unfortunately, all these ways are rejected by Rosemary. Only ways that show the circuit to be OU will be allowed.
Perhaps the easiest and fastest way, without the DAQ bs that Jibguy favors (but will not conduct himself) would be to rent a Clarke-Hess 2335, and measure the input and output power directly with no BS in between.
http://www.clarke-hess.com/2335.html
Earthtech International has one of these and I'm sure that I could arrange for them to test Rosemary's actual circuit, if I asked them nicely. I would even go so far as to pay for the test myself--with Rosemary's actual COP>17 circuit, of course.
And if we only had Rosemary's actual circuit to test.
Perhaps Jibbguy will tell us why the Clarke-Hess won't work, after he's read up on the instrument.
Oh, and #2: For the folks that do not have access to the Clarke-Hess (like me right now) should read and use MileHigh's test protocol that he outlined on energetic forum.
But first, of course, you need to know just what circuit to use. Rosemary's (Which one)? Aaron's? Joit's?
If you've got anything over unity, that test method will show it easily. And if you have COP>17...well, then, I suppose I'll be buying the beer _and_ the pizza.
TK
A request from the Boss
Ramset - I wonder if I could impose on you to desist from giving us links to TK's videos until he is in a position of show us the actual wattage measurements using the instruments to hand.
All videos - to date - have been somewhat misleading and utterly confusing.
Thank you
Rosemary
Quote from: ramset on July 20, 2009, 03:28:24 PM
TK
A request from the Boss
Ramset - I wonder if I could impose on you to desist from giving us links to TK's videos until he is in a position of show us the actual wattage measurements using the instruments to hand.
All videos - to date - have been somewhat misleading and utterly confusing.
Thank you
Rosemary
Heh. I saw that.
In other words:
Please don't distract me with facts. My mind is made up, and besides, I can't understand them anyway.
Misleading?
How about the Quantum paper's circuit diagram? How about the patent, which isn't a patent at all? How about the duty cycle, which is now utterly confirmed to be wrong? How about the waveform descriptions...verbal, with no scope shots? How about the Labs and Academics--who we only know about second-and third-hand. Where are these reports? Why can't we see them?
TK misleading?
Sorry, wrong again. The misleading information is coming from Rosemary.
Everything I post is understandable, verifiable, repeatable, and documented.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 20, 2009, 02:59:24 PM
Perhaps the easiest and fastest way, without the DAQ bs that Jibguy favors (but will not conduct himself) would be to rent a Clarke-Hess 2335, and measure the input and output power directly with no BS in between.
http://www.clarke-hess.com/2335.html
Thanks, TK. Now if you could write up an unambiguous test procedure (protocol?) that any dummy having access (jibguy maybe?) to a Clarke-Hess 2335 could follow, we can proceed from there. Please use a subject line like I have here so the posts will be easier to find. I didn't want to start a new thread to hold this.
For the moment, as far as I know, the circuit in the Quantum article (and the equivalent gotoluc diagram) is the only baseline we have. So any references to test points in the procedure should be made relative to that circuit. The procedure can be amended later if a modified or different circuit is found to be more appropriate.
I would appreciate it if MileHigh could post the details of his test protocol here. Again, it should be explained in a step-by-step fashion using simple english terms that any dummy (like me) could follow.
TK,
More from the Boss
Ramset - abject apologies. I actually watched all the links. They were really interesting. Sorry about being shirty. I thought it was another attack at my own circuit.
May I add that I am really impressed that TK duplicated gotoluc's experiment. It seems that I may have underestimated his ability to be impartial. Just ask him to apply the same impartiality to my little circuit. It would be a welcome change. The circuit offers nothing new. It just shows a gain on the measurements of energy in/out that classicists can't refute. That's the only reason it's on offer.
Thank you - and, again, apologies.
The Clarke-Hess appears to maybe not be "microprocessor calculation based"; therefor i do not know if the transient voltage capturing can be wholly trusted or not yet for this case. The reason on-board calc or PC analysis software is considered "better", is because it only looks at raw "DC" signal (meaning "unaveraged" by any actual circuit), then does an "area under the curve" -type math averaging using a constantly rolling time base (but please don't confuse this again with actual "Integration"; although the functions are done in similar ways). The advantage of this is, it does not rely on assumptions about repeatable waveforms like most "RMS'ing" circuitry does, and you can control the Sample Rate / Frequency Response at least up to the maximum value, to better insure there is no "Digital Signal Aliasing". Also, scopes nearly always have higher Frequency Response than traditional power monitoring gear; which of course can make a huge diff with fast transients. So generally i would say "go with the storage scope", since even the lowest price ones have at least "20 MHz" F response these days. Perhaps the cheapest way to go is a PC-based scope with a "USB box" Front End. These often have very nice sample storage features for much less money than any stand-alone DSO (or a least the capability to "sample and hold", or "freezing" a screen for calc measurements and "screen saves").
If there is any physical circuity for performing the "RMS'ing" internal to the device (like a DMM has when set to "AC/RMS", which actually physically conditions the signal into a DC representation first, then displays the value), they the device will almost certainly fall down when reading non-repetitive transient spikes (and their Frequency Response is usually rather poor to boot).
I can't really tell yet if this is the case with that Clarke-Hess unit or not; but in my experience, we only trusted the on-board or PC software generated math-based calcs in these cases for the above important reasons.
Regarding the limitations of the Fluke 199: It shouldn't matter if it can do "Integrations" on board or not (because it can do "Averaging").... And with the non-repetitive waveform, it can simply be used in "sample and hold" mode to read the calcs. It has some significant features of a DSO; which in this case could be very useful, as captured data could be sent to a PC for all kinds of later analysis. And it does have the battery operation which gives it the "Differential / Isolated" input. In many ways it is ideal for this application.
Now you could do classic "Integrations" as mentioned if you wish once the data is captured and stored for later analysis, but since they are generally "reset-time-based" you would probably have to arbitrarily choose a reset time factor: 10 mS? 1 second? 5 seconds? 10 secs? Which "reset" time for Integration would be best to choose in other words.. So the significance of the result could be a little hard to understand, as it will probably simply appear as a constantly rising slope representing "accumulated" voltage over time up until it "resets" back to zero and starts climbing again... although it really wouldn't hurt to try it.
Simple "Average" calc's should be sufficient for all this i think; and might be easier to interpret.
LeCroix' are very good scopes, imo (and used to be one of the most expensive on the market). As long as you keep the probe ground lead from any "floating" location: The problem with this issue is (mentioned a couple days ago), we do not yet know how tieing the whole circuit to Ground through the Wavetek's Signal Low, the scope's ground lead, or anywhere else affects it yet (...because this ground through one of the instruments might somehow keep the MOSFET from going into astable oscillation, who knows).
And as far as me doing this myself lol; i would be happy to IF I HAD ANY OF THAT COOL STUFF ;)
I realize that in our American consumer-based society, "Poverty" is a serious crime ;) Well i'm guilty then, hehehe. No more fun toys to play with (except an old "Fluke 79" and a seriously broken Gould DSO that needs a CRT), i generally spend what cash i can get on stupid stuff like fixing the roof these days... But that doesn't mean i forgot how to use this stuff yet. Maybe some millionaire who wants to see "Free Energy" finally realized for Humankind, will help out and send me a well-stocked bench, lol. Or more likely, maybe my next job coming up will allow some after-hours testing with the project's equipment ;)
Quote from: 0c on July 20, 2009, 03:49:42 PM
Thanks, TK. Now if you could write up an unambiguous test procedure (protocol?) that any dummy having access (jibguy maybe?) to a Clarke-Hess 2335 could follow, we can proceed from there. Please use a subject line like I have here so the posts will be easier to find. I didn't want to start a new thread to hold this.
For the moment, as far as I know, the circuit in the Quantum article (and the equivalent gotoluc diagram) is the only baseline we have. So any references to test points in the procedure should be made relative to that circuit. The procedure can be amended later if a modified or different circuit is found to be more appropriate.
I would appreciate it if MileHigh could post the details of his test protocol here. Again, it should be explained in a step-by-step fashion using simple english terms that any dummy (like me) could follow.
You take the Clarke-Hess and hook it up to the Ainslie circuit on the input side, like an ammeter, in series. It sits there and measures realtime current and voltage and power factor while your circuit is working. So it reads the input power with low insertion loss. Then you take it and put it on the output between the Ainslie circuit and its load. The Clarke-Hess sits there with low insertion losses and measures the voltage and current and power factor coming out--hence being dissipated by the load. You take the second measurement and subtract it from the first. If the number is positive, that is the power loss in the circuit itself. If the number is negative, you have just discovered overunity performance.
It is done with smoke and mirrors--very tiny ones--which is why the unit costs so much. And I believe it would do a sufficiently good enough job in this case. The stuff jibguy is worried about might account for a couple percent inaccuracy. Not 1700 percent.
Now, Jibbguy.
About Aaron's video.
First, he is using a higher driving frequency and a 50 percent or so duty cycle. So his inductive ringdown with that Ohmite resistor--which I estimate between 160 and 200 microhenries--is much closer to the driving frequency than in the true Ainslie circuit like mine.
Bearing that in mind, please look at Aaron's video at 6:43, and in the region around 7:25.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z84u7--u3Qw
Aaron's scope is losing trigger on a perfectly normal signal. The voltmeter reading drops because the slow irfpg50 is not fully on before it is being told to turn off.
I show a true parasitic oscillation riding on the mosfet drain signal here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igRqMU2r-v0
When you are done there, the video of my build of Aaron's circuit is uploading.
Well...
''When you are done there, the video of my build of Aaron's circuit is uploading''
This is VERY benevolent and above and beyond the call.
TK You are a Gem A pearl AAA.......One cool Dude ,and it helps that you can use the smarts God gave you, so well
Please post a link.
PS
TK
I don't know if you noticed but Rosemary is being denied access to the forum
I told her I would PM Stephan [perhaps you can][more appropriate]
this could have nothing to do with OU,, but still needs attention after all ,she is the Boss
Chet
Quote from: ramset on July 20, 2009, 06:14:47 PM
Well...
''When you are done there, the video of my build of Aaron's circuit is uploading''
This is VERY benevolent and above and beyond the call.
Please post a link
.
PS
TK
I don't know if you noticed but Rosemary is being denied access to the forum
I told her I would PM Stephan [perhaps you can]
this could have nothing to do with OU,, but still needs attention after all she is the Boss
Chet
Yes, I noticed her "saying" that, but I never have known Stefan to put anyone on "no read", and how could she be denied if she hasn't applied?
She will have to take that up with Stefan, I guess. Do you really think that I would ask Stefan to let her in, after the way she's treated me? Uh-uh. She can figure it out for herself. I doubt if it is a problem on this end.
But she is not tough enough to play in this 'hood, I'm afraid. Homies eat that girl fo breakfast.
She was crying and moaning by the fourth page of the NakedScientists thread. And they are Nice, not at all like me!
I would like everybody to take a look at Aaron's video at the times I mention above. Look at the waveform when the scope does catch it. See the shape? See the inductive ring portion on the trailing edge? You are looking at a mosfet that is running at such a high frequency with so little gate voltage that it is not fully turned on before it is being turned off. Hence the volt meter drop. Hence the triggering dropout. The waveform during dropout is not substantially different--you can still see the bands of contrast moving past--it is simply not locking in. When it does, several times, you can see the ordinary waveshape. As he changes the gate voltage and the duty cycle, the features of the shape change and at some point the scope is unable to trigger. The mosfet is NOT oscillating any more or less at these points.
My Philips scope has an especially good trigger circuit, and since it is a true 2-beam scope (not a 2-trace scope like the Tek) there is no finagling with the trigger signal by the beam chopper. It is hard to fool the Philips, but I managed it for a few seconds.
(The digital scopes like the Fluke and even the LeCroy divide their bandwidth between the traces sort of like a 2-trace analog. But the true 2-beam scopes like the Philips and really expensive full-BW DSOs don't. It is like having 2 complete oscilloscopes using a single CRT, whereas the Tek and similar 2-trace scopes chop a single beam to display the 2 traces. And hence introduce artifacts that must be understood. )
Jibbguy can explain that, I'm sure he knows what I mean.
Still processing, the title and description aren't there yet either...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9F4kqesrds
TK
please describe what it is you do to cause the false trigger
BTW you don't have the ability to do a sloppy build [Ain't in yah]
You say you can do it at will '' THE effect"""
i need it in print in your words
Quote from: ramset on July 20, 2009, 06:51:49 PM
TK
please describe what it is you do to cause the false trigger
BTW you don't have the ability to do a sloppy build [Ain't in yah]
I figured it out, after watching Aaron's vid again. (I need a drink, out of booze, ohno...)
He is using a much higher driving freq from his 555, and a long duty cycle of 50 percent or more. This, plus the high inductance of that load, results in the inductive ring being a substantial portion of the pulse duration, not just a little spike like at 2.4 kHz drive.
So now, you just turn the gate drive down (increase the resistance of that pot) until the scope's trigger is being shown the garbage in the very first little piece of the ringdown. And since the trigger circuit is not so good, or it's set on the wrong coupling, or just because it is a 2-trace scope in "vertical mode" trigger, it can't keep up and the waveform slips past in the time dimension. You can see from the contrast bands that the waveform is nearly the same when it's slipping as when it's caught. Plus, since the mosfet isn't turning fully on before you turn it off and start the ringing, the current draw goes down and the batt voltage goes up.
Now turn the gate up or the duty cycle longer. The mosfet turns on fully so the current goes up and the batt voltage goes down. And the scope's trigger sees a cleaner rising portion of the wave and locks it in.
This is a lot easier to do on the other scopes. My Philips has rock-solid triggering and no beam chopper stuff to get in the way of the trigger. But I was able to fool the Philips, even at the low 2.4 kHz used by Ainslie, and me (but not Aaron.)
Quote from: qiman on July 19, 2009, 06:26:32 PM
Explains my circuit:
http://www.feelthevibe.com/free_energy/rosemary_ainslie/ainslieheater.pdf
Youtube video demo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z84u7--u3Qw
When the circuit is setup, it is common sense how to get the mosfet to go into high frequency self oscillation. Duty cycle is irrelevant as Rosemary said because it can happen at 99% duty cycle, which I have done and it still sends power to the front battery.
This group is too hard on Aaron. You just don't understand him.
Isn't it evident that Aaron has already learned all there is to know about basic electronics and electrical theory?
When are you guys going to finally learn that despite 40 years of extensive design and use of the common buck-boost converter circuit, that there is more there than meets the trained eye? Yes, indeed, your formal training is what is preventing you from seeing the truth. You must also know by now that ALL well-established "laws" in science are simply just poppycock! They can not be valid, even after millions of hours of study and use.
And for goodness sake, how many times do you need to be told that inductive kickback is a free energy effect, unbeknown to even the likes of Tesla, who by the way was only a mechanical engineer, and had no formal training in electricity! But I digress. Use the force Luke! It is there for the taking if only you would forsake the laws of nature.
Of course do not be afraid of using your test equipment in the utmost unconventional manners. You DO know that this is the real intended use and operation of this equipment don't you? It is 100% valid to unknowingly obtain "good" results, as long as everything "looks" the way you have so desired it to be.
You have so much to learn, you learned folks of norm. Let the man teach you because he knows a great deal not commonly known by your common electrical technician. For example, USE that energy so freely supplied by the "environment", it is a free gift from the cosmos. You only pay for it once, and it does work for, not once, but TWICE! Yes, you can believe your eyes this time...TWICE! All that energy obtained from your battery is only half of what you get out. Are you beginning to understand now?
You guys would be so lucky to have Aaron (qiman) join us here, for we have so much to learn you and I. We can only keep our fields crossed that he will.
Until then, please try to erase most of the common sense and logic form your brain, you know that it is only holding you back from your next great "discovery!".
.99
99
unfortunately you are right !!
This is how Aaron comes across,equally unfortunate ,is they don't recognize the opportunity of having men that sincerely search for the same things, but with better understanding and equipment
You guys save a lot of wasted time at this forum and are worth your weight in GOLD
Just the facts
Chet
User Ren offers help
Hi Aaron,
In regards to variable duty cycle/on time I have a schematic here that drives a TL494 PWM and allows for complete control of pulse width and frequency, as well as dead time, which may or may not be needed in this case. Anyway, it will directly trigger a mosfet from the output, or it can be sent through an opto coupler and the output transistor can drive the fet or transistor etc.
Will go up to 600kHz plus by simply changing the cap off pin 5. Lower the value for higher frequency.
Pulse width can be varied from 0 on time, to 100%, I think it would be perfect for this circuit.
If you are interested I can email it to you, I need to check with the author who gave it to me whether he is happy for it to be posted in the thread, I dont think he will mind at all, but best to be sure.
Anyway let me know if you are interested and whether you can source the TL494 locally, I will check with the author in the mean time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ahhh the smell of burning mosphets
I know its not AM or RA circuit anymore
I wonder if Ren knows the peace love light show me the PATH to money ,I copy wright bowel movements deal
Chet
f
Get over the "triggering". It's just not happening for you. Put a triggered waveform on and turn the Trigger Level until it breaks lock: It will ROLL like a "Horizontal Hold" problem. NOT A SOLID ENVELOPE... In order to look "all white" like that, the F will have to rise considerably first (...so the time base is now set way too slow). Otherwise, it will just look like a quickly moving around representation of the original waveform.... Not a solid band.
As as for the MOSFET not having enough time to turn on, and that being the actual reason for raising the charging V and not the oscillations themselves... If that is true then when he gets it to oscillate at different F's and duty cycles, it should make a measurable difference in this charge voltage change amount then, as compared to before. Because this effect you suggest can only happen at certain "Lucky" combo's of F and duty cycle... Since we NOT talking about reaching the maximum rise times of the MOSFET itself (which should be several orders of magnitude faster than the operating F's we are concerned with here).
In your vid, i am not convinced at all that this is the same effect Aaron is seeing, or that Rosemary described.
For one thing, i do not think what we are concerned here with are actually "Parasitic" as you described, but another effect all together that has to do with forcing the MOSFET into an unstable state somehow (which has nothing to do with what we saw there).
Secondly, you said you are triggering on it "just fine" , but you were NOT triggering on it at all, you were still triggering off the "normal" waveform which had been magnified off the screen. You are trying to sell us oranges and we want apples ;)
The usual "M.O." of these astable runaway oscillations, as i was familiar with since they happened a lot with op-amp and discrete transistor instrumentation differential amplifier circuits, is that they tend to obliterate the main waveform and can't be triggered on, as they are essentially a mass of mostly random transient spikes. That's why i was glad to see Aaron's waveform band because it closely matched what i have seen in the past.
But not to worry folks, the study of this circuit will be done carefully and diligently, by many good peeps. What we may find, who knows yet: What we do know is, that pissing on it can't put out the fire hehehe ;)
Comment from Jolt [I don't think he means any disrespect with the last sentence]
Ramset for a quick reply from me.
I did try to replicate it now, what i did at the Vid, and i couldnt,
maybe i still did not arrange it right now, because i did change all again.
Anyway, Arron did use a 10K Pot at the Gate?
He mentinoned, that maybe a 1k is enough, for the Gate Pot.
Seems for me anyhow, the 100Ohm Resistor at the Article is to low,
for wich Reason ever, maybe its was a different Element.
And my other Thinking, that the Shunt and the Resistor must match in a Way too.
Thats what i had at my Setup.
Plus ->Timer - 50kPot - Gate Transistor
Plus -> 600Ohm/10WPot - Coil - Drain - Source - 5kPot - Minus.
Where the 50K was very low set.
The 600Ohm should replace for me the Resistor at the Circuit, what is around the 24 V Batt.
The 5k Pot and the Coil was for the Shunt other Side.
Now i have actually 5 Pots, 2 at the Timer, 1 for the Gate, and 2 at the 24V Circuit.
Maybe he can get it into Oscillation when he use a higher Pot, otherwise, i can only think of, that he put some more Pots into the Circuit from the recover Part in Serie
and try to match the Parts to eachother.
But thats just in case, he has nothing else to do, as to play with it.
__________________
Come on, Jib, you are ignoring the evidence of your own eyeballs. At 6:40 -6:51 in Aaron's vid, where he is fooling with the timebase and voltage, the scope is clearly rolling, just as you say, and when it rolls nice and fast you see the bands. And when it locks you can see the waveform clearly. And in my vid at 3:54 you see the same stuff, rolling bands, but not at a fast time base.
Am I going to have to switch to the Tek and make the exact same bands?
Haven't we been here before? It's like Deja Vu all over again.
If what I do looks like his and quacks like his, why isn't it the same as his?
(Oh, and re the maximum rise time of the irfpg50 mosfet: this sucker is "slow". Especially if you don't give it enough gate charge. Read the data sheet and compare it to the 2sk1548, and look at my hot-swap mosfet comparisons in my videos.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8TCOS7VYlw
delete
Sigh. OK.
I have made Yet Another Video, showing that jibbguy's conjecture about the triggering was not quite right. I have made bands that look like Aaron's using Aaron's circuit, using the Tek scope in an "unusual" mode, very likely how Aaron was using his.
The reason Jibbguy may not have seen this in his long years of experience is because, well, he might be sane, and no sane person would use a scope this way.
(EDIT: I'm having some trouble with this vid. Might not get it tonight. Sorry.)
Quote
"Aaron - just for the record. My neighbour is now also blind to OU.COM. Guess that's the last hope for the immediate future.
Puts paid to any accidental disconection. And TK is apparently on record as requiring this. Can I ask that someone on that forum look into it? TK has gone on record as preferring the disconnect. I'd be very grateful."
Another lie from Rosemary. I have never "gone on record preferring the disconnect." Several people who are contrary to her opinions have been banned from even reading "her" forum thread, though, for simply speaking the truth.
I want to make something perfectly clear: I do not moderate this thread, nor would I if I could. I have nothing to do with the running of this forum. Stefan has threatened to ban me several times over other matters--matters in which time has proven me to have been right all along. That is neither here nor there.
I have nothing whatsoever to do with Rosemary's access, or lack of it, to this forum.
Rosemary's last few posts are also rife with misrepresentations and distortions, and even more lies.
One should never delegate understanding, Rosemary. You have let others "understand" things that you yourself do not--like my position, who my "controllers" are, and so forth. You are making terrible mistakes, and your ego just won't let you see it.
If you want to read here, you will see lots of things like this:
The most telling of all is that it has been nearly six weeks now, with people all over the world building variations of your little mosfet amplifier, and nobody has shown excess heat AT ALL, much less 17 times. And get off the battery charge claim--your paper and article are talking about excess heat energy. The battery recharge is a separate claim.
Where is the excess heat?
It is not showing up.
And where is your circuit? It's not showing up.
And where is...all the other supporting stuff that we expect from ANY claimant...except for some reason, you--the endorsements, the reports from the labs...not showing up.
The corrected circuit diagram. Not showing up.
The scope shots from your circuit, that you still have in your possession. Not showing up.
Let's review: What have we seen from Rosemary? A patent application, a Quantum magazine article, a "EIT.pdf" paper, published nowhere. And a lot of words, insults, and disrespect.
What else? Nothing. Not even a photograph, a scope shot, a page of raw data, an eyewitness...NOTHING.
And many of the claims in the two papers have been shown to be wrong. Duty cycle, 555 timer, diode vs. no diode, heat vs. battery recharging, heat output at 3.7 percent ON, random aperiodic resonant oscillations with a period of 3.7 percent, the energy balance calculations...every claim of hers that has actually been examined is WRONG.
But she will squeal and cry and make up things without proof to try to discredit those who have actually worked hard to see what's going on. It makes me very angry, and her last series of posts underscores the whole affair. We are dealing with a paranoid, extremely manipulative personality, and I'm not just talking about me.
The Clarke Hess is a "fancy ammeter."
That is the kind of willful ignorance that really makes me angry.
Calorimeter testing of a Clarke-Hess power meter:
http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/sono/chtest3.html (a model 2330)
From the Clarke-Hess 2335 brochure:
QuoteTRUE RMS/REALLY BROADBAND
The Model 2335 Sampling Watt Meter is a precision, high accuracy, auto-ranging instrument which simultaneously measures and displays true rms Voltage, true rms Current and true mean Power over a frequency range from dc to more than 1MHz. Full scale Current and Voltage inputs are typically measured within ±0.1% of the reading in amplitude to at least 500kHz. The corresponding Power is typically measured to within ±0.1% of the input Volt-Amperes to 250kHz and to within ±0.2% of the input Volt-Amperes to 500kHz for loads having any Power Factor.
LOW POWER FACTOR ACCURACY.
Five digits or resolution combined with excellent phase matching between the current and voltage channels make the Model 2335 watt meter an exceptionally good instrument for making low power factor measurements up to 1MHz. This makes the instrument ideal for high frequency core loss measurements which are inherently low power factor.
MULTI-FUNCTION
In addition to the rms Voltage, rms Current, and mean square Power the Model 2335 watt meter also measures simultaneously the peak Voltage, the peak Current and the Frequency and calculates the Volt-Ampere product, the Power Factor and the Harmonics of the current and the voltage. These functions may be displayed or may be read over the IEEE-488.2 or RS-232 interfaces.
UNPARALLELED HIGH FREQUENCY ACCURACY
The Model 2335 watt meter allows broadband and high accuracy measurements of both sinusoidal and highly distorted wave shapes. The Current, Voltage, Power, and Power Factor accuracies to 1MHz of the Model 2335 watt meter far exceed any other sampling Watt Meter, or for that matter, with respect to Current or Voltage, almost all conventional multimeters.
Full scale Power ranges exist for loads with impedances from (0.6V/1.5A) = 0.4W to (600V/1.5mA) = 400kW.
WIDE MEASUREMENT RANGE
The Model 2335 watt meter has full scale Power ranges from 1.0000mWatt to 10000Watts. With external shunts or current to voltage transducers the upper range may be extended by a factor of ten or one hundred. Full scale Voltage from 2.000V to 2000V (usable to 1000V) and full scale Current ranges from 5.000mA to 5.000A (all rms values) cover a wide range of load impedances. Full scale Current and Voltage inputs may have crest factors up to three while smaller inputs may have even higher crest factors. Sinusoidal inputs with rms values of twice the nominal Full Scale value may be measured with no loss in accuracy.
POSSIBLE MEASUREMENT USES
Measurement of Ultrasonic Equipment of all types and power levels, Finished Transformers, Transformer Core Material, Switching Power Supplies, Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts of all types, Mercury Arc Lamp Circuits, Sodium Lamp Ballasts, Speed Controlled Motors of all types, Efficiency of any device with an electrical input and an electrical output, SCR Controlled Devices of all types, High Frequency and/or Distorted Currents from any source, Voltage Response of any device from DC to 1MHz, and the Characteristics of Electric Automobile Drives.
EASY TO CALIBRATE AND MAINTAIN
The Model 2335 watt meter is an all solid state instrument with optically isolated input channels. DC coupling in both channels allows calibration and/or verification with high accuracy dc sources. Internal software calibration routines allow most recalibrations to be accomplished without opening the instrument and without screwdriver adjustments.
UNIQUE SAMPLING APPROACH / ISOLATED INPUTS
The Voltage and Current inputs of the Model 2335 watt meter are simultaneously sampled (with 16 bit resolution), converted to digital form, and transmitted via optical links to the main chassis. This allows both the Current and Voltage inputs to be completely isolated from each other and from the main chassis. The asynchronous sampling frequency is controlled by the system microprocessor in such a fashion that neither it nor any of its harmonics can come close to the measured input frequency or any of its harmonics. This precaution prevents "beats" with their accompanying jitter in the displayed values.
REMOTE CONTROL
The Model 2335 watt meter is equipped with an IEEE-488.2 interface and an RS-232 interface which both incorporate all of the IEEE-488.2 Common Commands and Queries. Any function that can be entered via the front panel can be controlled via either interface. In addition, any or all of the functions which can be displayed, can be queried and sent simultaneously to the Controller over the either interface. The status (e.g. Current range, Voltage range, etc) of the instrument may also be queried and sent over either interface..
The bus address for the IEEE-488 interface is set from the front panel and is displayed both at turn-on and when the Local key is depressed. A Remote lamp indicates that the Model 2335 watt meter has been placed in its Remote state by the IEEE-488 Controller.
All canadian
@Ramset
Quote:
Aaron is using a much higher driving freq from his 555, and a long duty cycle of 50 percent or more. This, plus the high inductance of that load, results in the inductive ring being a substantial portion of the pulse duration, not just a little spike like at 2.4 kHz drive.
So now, you just turn the gate drive down (increase the resistance of that pot) until the scope's trigger is being shown the garbage in the very first little piece of the ringdown. And since the trigger circuit is not so good, or it's set on the wrong coupling, or just because it is a 2-trace scope in "vertical mode" trigger, it can't keep up and the waveform slips past in the time dimension. You can see from the contrast bands that the waveform is nearly the same when it's slipping as when it's caught. Plus, since the mosfet isn't turning fully on before you turn it off and start the ringing, the current draw goes down and the batt voltage goes up.
Now turn the gate up or the duty cycle longer. The mosfet turns on fully so the current goes up and the batt voltage goes down. And the scope's trigger sees a cleaner rising portion of the wave and locks it in.
This is a lot easier to do on the other scopes. My Philips has rock-solid triggering and no beam chopper stuff to get in the way of the trigger. But I was able to fool the Philips, even at the low 2.4 kHz used by Ainslie, and me (but not Aaron.)
Aaron, Steve ,All, please comment
Thanks for the link to TK's video, I always get a real kick out of them,LOL. Fortunately I do not use the triggered sweep function on my scope and I perform secondary measurements with a good quality frequency meter used to calibrate ham radio equipment. So you and others may want to rethink this "false trigger" theory and consider other options as to why you cannot produce the secondary oscillations.
Regards
AC
Well, I have considered one other alternative. The 555 timer that Aaron is using might be making the oscillations, rather than the mosfet. I will have to make one like his, or he will have to make one like Rosemary's (which mine is from--the Quantum paper, remember?)
I have tried the entire range of my FG and can't make the circuits, Ainslie's or Aaron's, do anything but lose trigger. And ditto with my 555 timer at its freq range.
I've seen 555s do this kind of thing many times, especially if they are a bit flakey. There can be wide variations between individual 555 chips. They get hot, they respond to spikes...I don't see any decoupling caps...
Can a FG be used to make the circuit behave that way, if it's not a trigger issue? Anyone?
That old Interstate (not wavetek!) that I use does not have the most square pulses in the world, but it usually is better than a 555 at a given freq.
Looks like Rosemary thinks I'm in charge or something. ;D
Too bad nobody else does. :'(
I don't know if this is the case with Aaron's circuit but...
As most already know: With the wrong 555 circuit design or a fault in the circuit, like a bad connection or faulty part, if the pulse width is less than the 555 and circuit can handle the 555 will throw out a garbage signal that is about as 'aperiodic' as can be. Think 'noise'. Try getting a scope to sync to that ;)
Yes, the FET will happily go right along with the noise and amplify it too.
Quote
Can a FG be used to make the circuit behave that way, if it's not a trigger issue? Anyone?
Not an FG that is in good working condition.
Any chance the circuit is being driven into an avalanche condition? An FG will not cause this but can be the trigger to start such a problem in a bad circuit.
http://www.mourick.com/parasitic_oscillations.html#IMPATT-Schwingungen
I don't see the above linked info being related to this simple circuit - but who knows?
Edit>
Sorry 0C er - a - I mean 'BOSS'. I should have asked you before posting ::)
0c, you da Boss, I guess.
BEP, that was an interesting article, and interestingly enough it addresses a different problem we have had with an IGBT project that is on the shelf.
I am fully prepared to believe that it is the 555 that is making the chaos in Aaron's vid. I definitely had to misuse my scopes to make the lost triggers that I showed. I still believe that Aaron is losing trigger, but OK, at least I now see a Mechanism for the oscillations observed...which are clearly not Parasitic oscillations as strictly defined.
Since the Duty-Cycle fiasco is still not settled (Rosemary being the only one who can really settle it, by showing her circuit) I have been using the FG exclusively for testing--that, or my hardwired version of Rosemary's circuit with shielded output lead, decouplers and 78L12 regulator. I have always tried to Avoid Oscillations in timer circuits so I just do those things automatically.
But now I see that I will have to reproduce yet another bit of bad circuitry to get the 555 to misbehave.
Because that's another conflict:
Rosemary has been saying that the duty cycle issue is irrelevant so FGs can be used to clock the circuit. But nobody (except Aaron who is using a very different 555 circuit) has seen the oscillations precisely like his--no matter what they do to the mosfet.
So, yes, at this point I am testing the hypothesis that the oscillations are NOT coming from the mosfet but rather from the improperly designed and operated 555 timer portion of the circuit. That will be much easier for both the simulators like .99 to emulate, as well as the hardware folks like me.
And, IF TRUE, it would be another example of poor work on the part of the original "investigators" who did not do a proper error analysis of their results.
And IF TRUE, the fact that it has taken six weeks to get to this point is because of the non-cooperation and active obfuscation of Rosemary and her crewe.
doublepost sorry
I see that AAron Love and Light is Yelling at me for using an "inductive" resistor as a shunt. It's a valid concern; that was the first one that came to hand.
But don't you think I'll try the same thing with a different resistor, as soon as I dig one up?
Isn't there a much "bigger" inductive problem with his choice of that Ohmite resistor as his load? Like 20 times bigger? Is Aaron going to do something about that?
So, the Circuit can be driven into wild oscillations, not by effects of the Mosfet but rather by the breadboarded 555. That, I have no problem with at all, and will be trying it myself later today.
I have always said that until I can reproduce the Ainslie waveform--and I have been working FROM ONLY VERBAL DESCRIPTIONS SO FAR--that heat measurements and so forth were moot.
Even so I have made a bunch of heat measurements using the FG at known NON-WILD oscillation duty cycles, and these will be a fine baseline, as they show no excess heat.
OK, now we FINALLY may be making some progress, no thanks to the obfuscators and confirmers, but rather by exploring a problem space and eliminating explanations that don't wash.
And never fear, Rosemary, once I am ready to show something on the Fluke-O-Scope, using all its fancy toy bells and whistles, you will be among the many eventually to know about it, if you can ever figure out how to use your internet connection.
And then I'll show the same thing on a Real DSO, with features.
Oh, and about the Clarke Hess power meter: It was tested CALORIMETRICALLY with a complex signal electroMECHANICALLY heating water--an ultrasonic transducer, a very non-linear driver. The electrical power in (as measured by the Clarke Hess) agreed with the CALORIMETRICALLY measured heat output from the system.
Sorry to shout...but this method looks at input power to the D.U.T. on the Carke Hess, which is clean DC and surely measureable by most any means, and the TOTAL HEAT OUTPUT of whatever is in the calorimeter.
Let that sink in for a while.
The accuracy of the meter used in this manner is TOTALLY INDEPENDENT of the d.u.t.'s output waveform. The test report from ETI can be considered a laboratory calibration of the instrument against a known NIST-traceable standard, and you can see from the ETI data that the instrument did quite well. Certainly well enough to use on a preliminary vetting of the device that will save the world from the Tyranny of Oil.
And why one would trust the general purpose microprocessor in a desktop computer, over the processor in the top-line product of a company that is an industry leader in power measurement...well, I guess there are Windows users, and there are other people, in the world.
Me, I trust the Clarke-Hess far more than some cobbled-together system of mismatched parts communicating over USB 2.0 with a MicroShaft OS in the way messing with timing and stuff.
Or even a professionally designed but still modular bunch of HPIB data bus hogs that take up a whole room and uses more power than...well, than your overunity DUT puts out, that's for sure. But if necessary I can put together such a roomful. And I can arrange for calorimetry if necessary. COP>17, remember? Your broom closet will be a good enough calorimeter for that.
By request, from MileHigh over at EF:
QuoteI will offer some more details for a suggested measurement system.
The shunt resistor should be moved to the battery postive terminal, that way you can record the voltage drop across the shunt and derive your source voltage and current with a single recording channel. The recording channel could come from a digital storage scope that can export it's data to a PC or a PC-based oscilloscope. It would preferably be 10-bit or higher resolution and have a sampling rate high enough to get you enough sample points per cycle (500 or more?). It may be necessary to tweak the value of the shunt resistor to provide a sufficient voltage range to match the A/D conversion range of the recording device. The A/D recording device should be checked against your most accurate digital multimeter at the low shunt voltages to see if they are in accord and if not derive any required offset and gain values to compensate for any sampling inaccuracies. These compensation calculations can be done during the Excel preprocessing. It goes without saying that the actual value of the shunt resistor must be measured as accurately as possible.
All of the recorded data could be imported into Excel. A good person with Excel could massage it and turn it into voltage and current plots over time, compute the average power over one cycle, etc.
On the thermal side, you first have to turn the resistor-coil and the diode into a single thermal entity. All that you have to do is affix the diode up against the body of the resistor-coil and embed the diode in thermal paste. This assembly should be suspended in air by the two wires connected to the rest of the circuit. With about three inches of bare wire on each side of the resistor-coil-diode assembly, and by having it suspended about five or more inches above the desktop, and by ensuring that the air circulation during various tests remains the same, you can create a controlled, repeatable thermal environment for making tempreature readings. This setup only conducts heat to the outside world by air convection and radiation, and not through physical contact with other surfaces, which is what you want. Depending on the size of the resistor, this setup will probably reach 99% of the way to thremal equilibrium within 10 or 15 minutes. Let's just assume it is ten minutes for purposes of this discussion. If you are going to use a non-contact LASER/infrared temperature measuring device, it must be mounted on a tripod and always point at the same place. With a thremocouple, this is not an issue.
Suppose that the resistor-coil will only dissipate a maximum of two watts. That can be sliced into 20 parts, and you can run a thermal profile for every 0.1 watt incrememt in power dissipated in the suspended resistor-coil-diode thermal assembly. So you set up your variable DC power supply to put exactly 0.1 watts of power through the thermal assembly, wait ten minutes until the temperature has stabilized, and record the final temperature, then do it for 0.2 watts, wait, 0.3 watts, wait, etc. After about three hours you will have enough data points to plot a delta-temperature (y-axis) vs. power (x-axis) thermal profile curve in Excel. i.e.; a delta-temperature vs. wattage graph. Of course you should try to keep a fixed ambient temperature in the room for these tests.
Finally, you run the actual setup with the 3% duty cycle waveform, wait 10-15 minutes, and record the final temperature and record your shunt resistor waveforms. Then export the waveforms into the Excel spreadsheet that has been setup to do all of the number crunching mentioned above, and calculate the average electrical power consumed by the setup over one cycle. Then take your temperature reading and compare it to your delta-temperature vs. wattage graph and get the thermal power dissipated during the actual operation of the circuit.
Compare the electrical power with the thermal power and the answer will finally be found.
I just outlined what I think is a reasonably accurate approach for determinining if the circuit does what it claims to do or not. If somebody has any other suggestions for doing this I am sure that we would all be interested in hearing them. And of course the real question is the issue of whether somebody who believes in this circuit is actually going to do it and make the measurements and crunch the data.
Re the Ground Loop issue:
The GL was brought up first, not by me, but by someone else who, I thought, was suggesting it as a possible source of error in my measurements; I showed in various ways that it was not, and in the process showed that an improperly grounded and energized system could show GL effects that would skew results; and we now see that the GL explanation FOR AINSLIE's RESULTS is unlikely to be correct.
But we would not have KNOWN this without exploring the issue and testing hypotheses (and indeed we still do not know it, strictly speaking).
So for jibb to dismiss that work as being a time-waster or irrelevant is kind of disingenuous. But I understand that all bits and pieces of my work are being gone over with that nitcomb...even though someone else has the nits.
Thanks .99. for posting that from MileHigh. That's the protocol I referred to in a few earlier posts for 0c.
There are lots of ways to do it but I see nothing wrong with MH's protocol. First, though, one must know the circuit and the waveform parameters to test. Apples and oranges, remember?
EDIT: And, of course, if you want to see some real data generated by actually running a protocol essentially the same as above, look back a few pages and you will find my pictures of the raw data sheets, containing ALL the necessary information to see for oneself that I, at least, saw no excess heat from my Ainslie replication so far. But we all know my mosfet wasn't oscillating--and I pointed out at the time that it makes my results usable only as baselines.
That pesky load...chosen for its inductance of 8.64 microHenries. How was that measured, I wonder? The leads alone of my cheapo (not really!!) inductance meter read about 2 microhenries just by themselves.
A CALCULATION based on the quoted physical dimensions in the Ainslie article, though, comes very close.
What is the story here? Was the inductance of the Ainslie load measured or calculated?
See, these are very real questions and they have not been realistically answered.
EDIT: one of my raw data sheets is here, the other in the file section for download. Crunch away!
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg192047#msg192047
I should point out that DrStiffler has, on the energeticforum, shared details of his calorimetric load, which is, I believe, the closest LOAD to Ainslie's load parameters that is being used, and his temperature measurements are, I believe, precise and reliable. He has not reported any recent results that I can find, though.
In any case, Rosemary's allegations that heat measurements are not being done, are clearly in error.
Lol you don't like being thrown on the "Defensive", i don't blame you, no one does
Well except maybe my ex-wife whom i suspect enjoyed controversy and argument for its own sake ;)
This 555 timer being the issue is another example of what i was saying about throwing up anything to see what sticks. Maybe you are so emerged in this that you don't realize it.
I must have changed maybe 200 555's in my solder-soldiering days: Ive never seen one go into oscillation.
(but they are weak as hell and sometimes they would die if you look at them crossly)
I think the probably reason for this is the associated control R's and C's which won't let them.
Now regarding the Clarke-Hess... Having actually written the drivel that goes on instrument Data Sheets and Brochures before, i am rarely impressed and have learned to read between the lines. And it is a Power Meter, what even else it is marketed as.... No Project Engineer in their right mind would use this specifically for transient capture and troubleshooting... And that is the real-world Application that most fits what we are trying to do here imo. They now use fast sample-rate Data Acquisition (which are the modern equivalent and direct replacement for oscillographic chart recorders), or Digital Storage Oscilloscopes. The DAS systems are prefered because they can be set up with Capture Triggers (including "Pre-Trigger" to look at events leading up to the Trigger), for untended operation to "catch" transient spikes... Which if happening in very high-current devices like cascaded relays or giant SCR's, can cause huge havoc to other electronics in the area (lol, these spikes that can knock out a computer half a KM away on a factory floor.. The PC's being on a SEPARATE AND TOTALLY CLEAN GROUND, are what convinced me that Free Energy is REAL in the first place.. They are actually "Longitudinal" waves imo, like what Tesla experienced, and they happen every day in heavy industry ;) Anyway, this is a major application for data acquisition in the real world, and peeps have spent many years working on it. BTW: This kind of "triggering" has nothing to do with scope triggers; it is a means of starting to store sample data via a certain event (since no one wants to store more of these samples than they need to).
I am sure it is an excellent power meter, but my main complaint about using it is this: We cannot see the actual signal through it. And the actual signal in this case, will hold much more interest than just the RMS reading. Because we could possibly overlay that to a second simultaneous-stored channel and do timing comparisons or power multiplications, or we can analyze it any number of fun ways such as Integration or FFT. In a non-storing power meter.. It's just gone forever.
As for the issue of a crummy home PC's processor, and crappy USB connections, whatever... Used to analyze sample data:
WHAT REALLY MATTERS in a Data Acquisition System (or DSO that sends sample data to a PC which is essentially the same thing); is the signal capturing "train":
1) The "Front End"; be it a separate Signal Conditioner / Amplifier that pre-conditions the signal, or just the input circuit of the device itself. Percent accuracy, full scale voltages allowed, if it can read "off-ground" safely or not, etc.
2) The Digital Resolution of the "A to D" ("12 bit" is common now and is fine for most applications, "8 bit" is a waste of time and "10 bit" will do for most stuff). Why "8 bit" suxx, is because that means there are only 256 "steps" in the "x - axis" Full Scale; and this can look rather "stair steppy" and fine accuracy suffers. If you are reading "5V full scale", divide that by 256 = "19.5 mV" of resolution. Boo. Divide that by "12 bit" / 4096 bits = "1.2 mV" of res... Cool!
3) The User-set Sample Rate, which is crucial for insuring no important data is lost through Digital Signal Aliasing (sampling too slow). Usually as rule of thumb, you want 10 samples per the fastest waveform you want to capture in order to get good y-axis resolution. Now with repetitive sine waves, you can get by with as few as 4 samples per cycle and the scope will try to "fill in the blanks", but the problems with this should be apparent when doing Transient work.
4) As is true with any instrumentation, the actual analog Frequency Response of that "Front End" and thus the entire system is of course of key importance. It won't help much to sample at "20 MHz" if the F Response of your amplifier is "100kHz".
Once the Samples are captured; they could be sent to either the latest gen Cray Supercomputer, or a POS 5-year old laptop with dead streaks in the screen that smells like old cigar smoke and chair farts... And my point is, this data can be sent ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD for analysis, and that's why i think it's ideal for Open Source (ideal except for the price of this stuff lol).
So i was glad to hear that you can procure the use of a DSO, because this can cut through a lot of crap, and i really do think it or something that captures samples will be required in the end to either PROVE, or DISPROVE to everyone's satisfaction (well let's not get carried away lol... THAT will never happen! But you guys know what i mean).
It´s all too funny. Rosemary is always contradicting herself like this lol:
QuoteWith the utmost respect to TK I am not inclined to trust his impartiality
How can a flim flam carpetbagger such as rosemary attract such ardent followers? They´re just setting themselves up for a fall? Is it because she applied for a patent? Woopity f*kn doo! so anyone can spend a small amount of money for a patent app and then thy´re the messiah! She´s not the messia, she´s just a very naughty girl!
Plus aaron clearly does not respect equipment or measurement, his scope was on the floor and I don´t know if anyone else noticed but his scopes trace rotation was not even straight. I couldn´t sleep if my scope was on the floor, let alone if the trace rotation wasn´t spot on!
Also the load being inductive has storage capability (as TK already said wayback, aaron removed the ytube comment) but aaron seems to think that every joule that goes into that load will be dissipated and he thinks any kickback is free energy.... jeez as you said TK, for chrisakes don´t try and explain power factor to them.
Lol i've seen $100,000 instruments propped up on a dirty concrete floor in front of a power cabinet. In the real world they are just tools to do your job, not something to revere like a jade idol.
Power Factor in a pulse DC circuit? Regarding spikes charging a battery and generating heat in a resistor? Interesting. Would like to see how that matters a tinker's damn.
If this circuit efficiently heats up the resistive element as reported, i don't think anyone will give a hoot if some here disapprove of the "improper" use of inductive spikes ;)
General interest in this circuit is growing, along with replication attempts... Despite the ad hominem nonsense and irrational, premature negativity we have so often seen here in this thread.
Quote from: jibbguy on July 21, 2009, 04:02:29 PM
Lol i've seen $100,000 instruments propped up on a dirty concrete floor in front of a power cabinet. In the real world they are just tools to do your job, not something to revere like a jade idol.
Power Factor in a pulse DC circuit? Regarding spikes charging a battery and generating heat in a resistor? Interesting. Would like to see how that matters a tinker's damn.
If this circuit efficiently heats up the resistive element as reported, i don't think anyone will give a hoot if some here disapprove of the "improper" use of inductive spikes ;)
General interest in this circuit is growing, along with replication attempts... Despite the ad hominem nonsense and irrational, premature negativity we have so often seen here in this thread.
Seems like the only interest being generated is why anyone still thinks this circuit produces OU. Rosemary can't even pull it out of the closet to test it, or even show it, in spite of the fact that there is more discussion about it now than there has ever been. And she obviously did not use the ultra expensive digital sampling equipment you mentioned when originally testing, so that point is moot.
Quote from: jibbguy on July 21, 2009, 04:02:29 PM
Lol i've seen $100,000 instruments propped up on a dirty concrete floor in front of a power cabinet. In the real world they are just tools to do your job, not something to revere like a jade idol.
I have worked as an embedded software engineer in the "real world" for over 10 years, I have seen quite a few dropkicks who do not appreciate equipment, but then I have seen many more engineers who realise that equipment is as important as ones eyes and as such they keep it accurate and usually on a bench. Of course in field situations sometimes you have to put a scope on asphalt, grass or dirt. It´s just quite telling about a persons priorities with regard to measurement when in a domestic situation the scope is on the floor, no ad hominen intended, it´s just something I wouldn´t do, I´m sorry if I upset you with my metrological fascism. Love and light :D
Quote from: jibbguy on July 21, 2009, 04:02:29 PM
Power Factor in a pulse DC circuit? Regarding spikes charging a battery and generating heat in a resistor? Interesting. Would like to see how that matters a tinker's damn.
Rosemarie always talks of aperiodic hartley oscillation, any oscillatory component will have power factor in it.
A pulsed load that has an inductive element will interacts with the capacitance inside of itself and the rest of the circuit, this results in oscillation (termed ringdown), unless of course you´ve got your magic hartley oscillation which might be far more magnificent and then you can ignore the ringdown and just concentrate on that primarily.
Every oscillation, in case your not aware, has to be analysed taking PF into account, best way would be a really low ohm purelely resistive element in series with the load, observing across the load and the R using a scope. But don´t worry, simply calorimetry will expose any OU characteristics using nice and simple methods, so no need to worry over such matters to prove Rosemaries concept should it be valid. Of course deep digging engineers would cover PF ground just to get a better undertstanding of any anomoly should it arise.
Quote from: jibbguy on July 21, 2009, 04:02:29 PM
If this circuit efficiently heats up the resistive element as reported, i don't think anyone will give a hoot if some here disapprove of the "improper" use of inductive spikes ;)
"If" being a very axiomatic point.
Quote from: jibbguy on July 21, 2009, 04:02:29 PM
General interest in this circuit is growing, along with replication attempts... Despite the ad hominem nonsense and irrational, premature negativity we have so often seen here in this thread.
Yes, it´s all good carry on.
I have nothing against drilling deep into the analysis of pulsed DC systems, and I´m not saying there may not be some magical stuff to see when you do drill deep, but it irks me when people talk beyond the data and prop up a folly they have gathered around for god knows what reason.
One thing I will say is this, I consider myself a fairly impartial observer and have read every post in this thread as well as energetic forum thread. It is absurdly clear to me where any ad hom started. It seems that any question that threatens the "status quo" is met with an overly defensive response, one has to wonder why?
Also If I ever thought TK to be in gross error I would not hesitate to voice my opinion and if I was (through logical discourse i.e. debate) correct then I´m certain TK would not hesitate to acknowledge his error without too much drama, as would I, that´s one thing about being an engineer; leave your ego at the door and only "worship" real data.
Follow the one thing we might all share in common, the truth discovered by real observation, or follow whatever else you wan´t, I´m not to bothered either way.
WELL ...
I am sure proud of you guys ,and I know not one of the posters here
is insincere in their quest
BUT 6 weeks 35,000 views[both forums] on a circuit that has not been posted
The Boss would have our ass in a sling !!
TK
I wouldn't want to have to hand your bill to the Boss Geeeesh
I'm sure glad O C is only a paper boss [although he does sound pissed]
It continues......
" when people talk beyond the data and prop up a folly they have gathered around for god knows what reason"
There seems to be a lot of that going on lately...I see a lot of that occurring when important truths are revealed.
Regards...
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on July 21, 2009, 06:18:46 PM
" when people talk beyond the data and prop up a folly they have gathered around for god knows what reason"
There seems to be a lot of that going on lately...I see a lot of that occurring when important truths are revealed.
Regards...
I can see why you say that Cap-Z-ro, your posts often touch on objective observation of political goings on and they are often met with kneejerk responses by some trying to uphold their fragile card house worldview, the blueprint for which being mainstream media, or more correctly; propoganda. You try and have logical discourse and it is met with exaggerated defense mechanisms.
I would like to take this opportunity to say most all of your observations hold water in my opinion. Though I stopped being outwardly political many moons ago, I still know and embrace ojectivity and introspection despite any ego reducing effects it may bring.
I just got tired of talking to a wall with regard to political matters in the public domain, I admire your vigour that you soldier on (as I do TK in the matter of this thread).
Having said that, to those nearest and dearest to me I am still politically passionate and thank god my nearest and dearest still listen to logic, lest my world would shrink.
Best regards back at you.
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on July 21, 2009, 06:18:46 PM
" when people talk beyond the data and prop up a folly they have gathered around for god knows what reason"
There seems to be a lot of that going on lately...I see a lot of that occurring when important truths are revealed.
Regards...
Amazing how a physical birth certificate is not proof of citizenship to certain 'truthtellers'....
Never assume a conspiracy theory is true by virtue of being an alternate view.
Oh my my ??
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on July 21, 2009, 07:23:06 PM
Oh my my ??
LOL capz, see what I mean, brick walls my friend, brick walls! (all in all they´re just an...other brick in the wall!)
Pray asymatrix provide a reference to this full birth certificare, in fact don´t bother because I couldn´t care less, never voted in my life. Politics... no just BollockTicks lol! I will do as I please like the birds in the trees, I can only recommend that you do the same.
Thanks for your supportive words yucca.
It helps stoke my passion for truth and enlightenment...and my small efforts to expose and thwart those who try to impede and suppress those ideals.
By simply following the path to truth it naturally becomes very easy to discard all previous theories of belief when the truth dictates otherwise.
Something that comes out in your postings also.
Your assessment of the discourse involving TK confirms to me that my sense was right...as too much of the technical jargon was beyond me due to my lack of knowledge of the instrumentation.
To be honest, my 'troll radar' went off early on in this thread...it was clear that TK was not being engaged directly in a forthright manner.
I just hope the energy sappers don't wear down his resolve, as he is a key member in this movement we are all a part of.
Regards...
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on July 21, 2009, 07:53:16 PM
Thanks for your supportive words yucca.
It helps stoke my passion for truth and enlightenment...and my small efforts to expose and thwart those who try to impede and suppress those ideals.
By simply following the path to truth it naturally becomes very easy to discard all previous theories of belief when the truth dictates otherwise.
Something that comes out in your postings also.
Your assessment of the discourse involving TK confirms to me that my sense was right...as too much of the technical jargon was beyond me due to my lack of knowledge of the instrumentation.
To be honest, my 'troll radar' went off early on in this thread...it was clear that TK was not being engaged directly in a forthright manner.
I just hope the energy sappers don't wear down his resolve, as he is a key member in this movement we are all a part of.
Regards...
You know as well as I do... nobody can suppress your ideals but yourself. Your intuitive radar senses were quite spot on with regard to this debacle. As you say TK has not received logical discourse on the points he has raised. Seems to me that self acclaimed "prize fighters" are stepping into the fray but they seem to lack muscle or skills poor things ::)!
Aaron said
self oscillation
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAMSET View Post
Plus, since the mosfet isn't turning fully on before you turn it off and start the ringing, the current draw goes down and the batt voltage goes up.
Now turn the gate up or the duty cycle longer. The mosfet turns on fully so the current goes up and the batt voltage goes down. And the scope's trigger sees a cleaner rising portion of the wave and locks it in.
Ramset,
Is TK willing to show what his shunt shows during the "false triggering" or not?
TK is claiming in the "false triggering" mode that the mosfet can't turn on completely because it is being turned off too fast.
What kind of analysis is this?
If what TK says is true, then the mosfet can't conduct. If the mosfet can't conduct, then no current can leave the battery. If no current leaves the battery, there can be no waveform on the shunt.
Ramset, I think this needs to be posted at ou.com on the thread to
debunk the disinformation. Ramset, why not post the below picture into
the heater thread at ou?
Please ask him to do the same test.
NOTE PICTURE WON"T POST GO TO ENERGETIC
For everyone else, this should give you confidence that when the noise is
on the scope, the battery is delivering exactly what it is predicted to do.
It is delivering high frequency pulses.
__________________
With Gratitude, Aaron
"nobody can suppress your ideals but yourself "
Ha, oddly enough my life is a testament to that.
I'm not so sure that TK wasn't dealing with a male moniker over there.
Among a group of males only a "female" could get by that long without showing something...after all, look how quickly they went at mylow.
Unless something concrete shows up this thread it just another road apple along the path to over unity.
Maybe that mean ol' Stefan will let her/him post over here.
I believe she/he may be only person banned from an internet site before posting a word.
Or could it be that the elusive circuit happened to be in the 'on' mode at the very moment she/he registered, and caused a malfunction at the junction ?
Regards...
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on July 21, 2009, 08:24:17 PM
"nobody can suppress your ideals but yourself "
Ha, oddly enough my life is a testament to that.
I'm not so sure that TK wasn't dealing with a male moniker over there.
Among a group of males only a "female" could get by that long without showing something...after all, look how quickly they went at mylow.
Unless something concrete shows up this thread it just another road apple along the path to over unity.
Maybe that mean ol' Stefan will let her/him post over here.
I believe she/he may be only person banned from an internet site before posting a word.
Or could it be that the elusive circuit happened to be in the 'on' mode at the very moment she/he registered, and caused a malfunction at the junction ?
Regards...
You're probably right, it all seems quite Freudian. She seems to offer a bossom that some find irresistable. Of course I could be wrong here lol. :D Anyways, it's all harmless fun at the end of the day. Rock on capz!
Quote from: Yucca on July 21, 2009, 07:32:13 PM
LOL capz, see what I mean, brick walls my friend, brick walls! (all in all they´re just an...other brick in the wall!)
Pray asymatrix provide a reference to this full birth certificare, in fact don´t bother because I couldn´t care less, never voted in my life. Politics... no just BollockTicks lol! I will do as I please like the birds in the trees, I can only recommend that you do the same.
I did. Obama provided the birth certificate, it was examined, protographed, the documents office was contacted, and it's legit. Factcheck.org is a neutral agency. The alarmist posts 'ol Cap seems fond of creating should not be taken as gospel simply because he thinks they should be.
@jibbguy: 555 expert, eh? OK, take a look at Aaron's "diagram"--the picture of his circuit with labels at the front of his video. Do you see the 555 timer? Do you see that it is being powered with a 9 volt battery?
Do you see the series resistor in the positive battery lead?
Do you see the value of that resistor? I make it 2.1 or 2.7 kiloOhms.
And that , my dear friends, is the cause of the 555 timer and mosfet oscillations. The 555 is not getting enough voltage to make a nice pulse.
With that resistor out, the circuit is wellbehaved. I even literally set the breadboard ON FIRE with mosfet heat--and the mosfet still works fine.
With that resistor in, I can even get the Philips to lose trigger, and yes, there are some pretty weird waveforms there.
SO that is my tentative explanation for the Aaron oscillations--they are not mosfet-produced in the way that was suggested. They are made by that 555 circuit as it is starved for voltage.
Aaron can test this easily simply by removing that silly resistor and comparing the 555's signal at pin 3 before and after.
Now, for the bad news: I picked up a real score today. I got a DataPulse 101 pulse generator!! And it works!! 5 nanosecond rise time at 10 volts into 50 ohms. And it can make pulses in the tiny fractions of one percent duty cycles. And--when the mosfet sees a truly fine truly short pulse, a very interesting thing happens.
Of course, as I shorten the pulse, the ON part of the trace gets shorter and shorter but the inductive ring stays constant--it comes after the mosfet is off, so isn't affected by the length of the on time. But--when the pulse is so short that the mosfet turn on, the input current goes way down...but the inductive spike still is there. It looks like I can make the pulse so short that the input current almost totally goes away...but the inductive spike on the output is STILL THERE in all its glory.
Let this sink in, I'll try to put up a video but I'm pretty tired, might have to wait till tomorrow.
But a fast risetime short pulse is really interesting. This pulse generator makes the Interstate's pulses look really bad in comparison. And the performance (by traditional standards) of the circuit is better too.
TK,
It's coupling from your new pulser through the G-D capacitance.
Take the MOSFET right out of there and put a 470p cap in series with the pulser to the coil. I'll bet you'll see the same thing.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on July 22, 2009, 01:06:55 AM
TK,
It's coupling from your new pulser through the G-D capacitance.
Take the MOSFET right out of there and put a 470p cap in series with the pulser to the coil. I'll bet you'll see the same thing.
.99
I'm sure you're right. It looks pretty dramatic, though, to sweep the pulse width and see the input current trace just sort of dry up and fade away, but that ring is still there on the load, just like the smile of a Cheshire cat.
I'll make a little vid, toss it in the ring, and I'm sure it will start another whole revolution in the FE community: TK proves free energy but is too stupid to see it.
I don't have any numbers yet, except that I'm staying at 2.4 kHz just to KISS.
Except for Aaron's little toy, that one is all over the place.
One thing more: I made a better load, using an ots inductor of 12 microH, with a series anti-sense extra winding of 10 turns of resistance wire. So it's a ferrite core, 9 ohms, something in the low tens of microH, and it fits in a test tube, and can handle 50 watts without smoking, and I put the 1n4007 right between its legs.
So the whole thing is in the test tube cushioned and "sealed" by loose cotton wadding.
But a preliminary run shows that it will heat at 3 or 4 percent duty cycle, and it approaches the equilibrium temps cited by Rosemary.
Right now I am doing a control, a DC heat profile at 500 milliamps, 4 volts...or two watts average power input to load, similar to "eyeballed" average input to Ainslie circuit when running.
@ TK
Hey, I really like all your videos on the "Ground Loop" issue there very informative and should be easy for anyone to follow on what I'm sure you agree the issue of "grounding" is very important. I would say that the only thing that could have been nice is a close still photo up of the scope shot so everyone could easily seen the difference between each subject (loop, frequency, noise or dirt) but good stuff.
I'm attaching the PDF that was forwarded earlier to members such as yourself for your review on "Stray Voltages" in best and worse case, I call it the "cow" document published in 1986. The information is prepared as an activity of the North Dakota Power Use Council, an organization of the Rural Electric Cooperatives, Investor Owned Utilities, Generating and Transmission Cooperatives, North Dakota State University of Agriculture and Applied Science and the Rural Electrification Administration in North Dakota. This is in a dairy situation a milking parlor and the length to which one has to go to limit "Voltages" from neutral to earth below .5 volts or the "miking cows" will be shocked, from resistive and inductive loads.
http://www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/abeng/pdffiles/epq108.pdf
There are also Three (3) other attached drawings two (2) modified to show what diffrences between the United States and UK, European, Asian and African connections from the "high voltage" transmission lines, pole step down transformer to the structure electrical service panel (home , farm or business all the same utility service line connections). The USA 120/240 Volt transformer winding center tap 3-wire and the UK, European, Asian and African 240 Volt transformer winding 2-wire are the first two.
The third drawing is a illustration of the only "ground loop" through the water pipe , and to anyone reading this, what TK did find and show us was outstanding work these things we are discussing are hidden voltages, frequencies and harmonics induced into our "neutral-grounding" system and out of our control and it's only getting worse.
My Quote posted in response to your remark ..... http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg191700#msg191700
QuoteOK, I'll tell you. The one on the right is the probe, and the one on the left is the probe's ground lead alligator clip.
It is connected to the terminal where I connect the negative battery terminal and also an Earth ground ( a wire to a cold water pipe under my kitchen sink which I always use in electrostatic experiments--which, by the way, show far far more "free" energy that any mosfet circuit can.
This was because of items I saw, one not identified and was actually a oscillating "audio" signal only you were able to see, the find is totally yours, and possibly I think has some significance to it as even Stefan thinks this could also be a possibility.
The one you didn't find was also not to obvious a water pipe "ground loop" (A) or better known as the RF antenna system, I would imagine that you live in the basement of a two story home with a bath on the 2nd floor maybe, with that nice scope shot on the mains you got is really busy.
To correct this I would recommend to get a 15a 120v replacement plug cord end, and use a #12 AWG "green" wire only in the assembly and plug it into the receptacle (*) where you have your electronics pluged into, if there isn't enough plugs for your electronics add a plug strip into one of the first plug strip receptacles (back to back plug strips) so as the grounding has equal potential. Try not to use the plug strip for this testing ground as the plug strips uses #16 AWG wire which limits the amps to around 12 or so maximum.
I would also like your or other members opinion's on what type of power "testing" system to get this grounding plane problem resolved, a isolated ground system is expensive for replicators building devices that need this clean ground. I saw after posting the "ground -grounded - grounding" posting here and at Energetic, Aaron in a YouTube video came up with a 12 Volt car battery with a 120 VAC inverter for his scope operation which could possibly work for everyone what are your thoughts ?? OR do you think a UPS is the way to go ??
Regards,
Fuzzy
Hi FuzzyTom
Thanks for that, that's a big chunk of info but it's important stuff, maybe will save someone some trouble, and it certainly reveals some stuff I didn't know about the Euro system as opposed to N America.
Your water pipe circuit is almost right, but the nipple that comes out under my sink comes in from outside, I believe, not down from up. It's on a branch that feeds the rear lawn hose bib, other end goes to the cold side of the water heater, and its feed pipes appear to be buried in the concrete of the basement floor. I think it's a pretty good earth for the electrostatic stuff, but certainly RF can make it in.
The idea of using a consumer-grade inverter or UPS on an instrumentation system gives me cold chills. But I suppose it's done all the time. Still, I recommend scoping your power supply...if you are using one of those inverters or UPS you might be surprised at what you see.
Since the circuit we're testing is battery powered and not normally earthed (or is it? Another ambiguity) and since the claim at issue is not one of third or second order effects - - COP>17, heat output -- a little imprecision in rough bench testing is permitted, I think.
Back to the Issue, though...I'm uploading a couple vids of my adventures today with Aaron's circuit, trying to get these mysterious oscillations that are the key to free energy.
And maybe I finally did. And the cause of them, at least in this case, is pretty clear. Vids uploading and processing now. Best to watch in order, A then B.
And another thing: Aaron is trying to move the goalposts. The COP>17 claim was that heat energy out in Joules was 17 times greater than electrical energy input in Joules. That is the claim; that is what I am testing. If the battery recharges itself that is really not my concern. I'm just measuring the flow at the millwheel, I don't care if the pond fills up or not.
If battery state of charge measurements become necessary, you can bet that I have access to the means to do them. Or will, once everything is unpacked from the relocation.
I've seen it stated here and over there that a MOSFET gate works on voltage not current.
Well, that's mostly true, I think. The transistor junction operates on Charge.
Current is the movement of charge. Voltage is the ability of a current to overcome resistance. Everything (except superconductors of course) has resistance.
To switch a mosfet, you need to get sufficient Charge packed into the junction. Charges of like sign repel of course (that's what voltage is, really--the pressure of repelling negative charges) so the only way this can be accomplished is by providing an excess voltage, so that some charge can flow into the gate's capacitance. This isn't much by ordinary standards but it is a flow of current, and it takes a finite time. More time if the voltage is less. A higher gate capacitance means a slower switching mosfet at the same gate voltage.
Don't provide enough charge in there (not enough voltage to push some charge into the gate) and the mosfet will switch slowly or incompletely or not at all. Don't provide a path for the charge to flow back out (the pull-down resistor) and the mosfet may stay on like an SCR or may oscillate or leak.
So there is a bit of current at the gate. Has to be, to vary the charge and switch the mosfet.
Tonight's feature, Part A:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkTuVlpl0iI
Part B uploading
@ TK
QuoteSince the circuit we're testing is battery powered and not normally earthed (or is it? Another ambiguity)
Well I'm not sure now knowing what you do now on 240V utility power in Europe with the grounding as it is, and Rosemary makes the statement ........
QuoteRegarding the need for grounding, and at the risk of prolonging an argument regarding this - I have to see clear evidence of the earth attached to the neck of the probe attached to the meter and across the shunt.
I would assume any electronic device including measuring equipment except the Fluke was plugged in with a 240 volt 3-prong plug (hot-hot-earth) could there have been possibly another scope being used at the same time creating a "earth" (ground) loop connection , she can't remember I think she said .... so many posts now.
Fuzzy
@Fuzzytom:
Yep, that's the problem. Incomplete records and reporting, and so on and so forth. No matter. I don't think there's much error in the input measurements. Measurements.
See next post.
Quite near thermal equilibrium after 1 hour. 3 percent ON duty cycle from DataPulse 101 pulse gen, 5 ns rise time.
New load in TKCalo, diode right up in there.
Shunt is 4 x 1 ohm metal film resistors in parallel, 0.25 ohm, a few microH inductance. Top of voltage drop (channel B) is around 630 mV average for the run. Duty cycle 3 percent on. Battery voltage 25.1 volts average.
Computation of estimated average input power -- assuming squareosity and neglecting spikiness -- is left as an exercise for the reader. The neglects and estimations will be in the "over" category, that is, true input energy will likely be a bit smaller than our estimates based on clean pulse edges.
;)
(Edit: if there's a 50-50 chance of something, I'll get it wrong 75 percent of the time.)
TK, you are close on my 555 but not quite. Your 2k+ resistor on the battery is about double what I had and I have no problem getting square waves from my timer with a 1.1k. At least on the timer circuit I used in that first video. Brown Brown Red Gold is 1.1k 5% typical resistor you can get at radio shack. Use the 2k+ resistor you use and of course it will give you problems.
If you don't think a 555 timer powered by a battery with 1.1k resistor won't give you square waves, I will prove it 100% conclusively that it will but I'd rather not waste my time on that.
And how charged is your battery? Are you using a dead battery like you did on the original heater test? If so, then of course it will fail.
Your diagnosis at the moment is from using too high of a resistance from the battery on YOUR circuit but not mine.
It really isn't needed but it was there anyway. My current 555 circuit gives me as low as 1% duty cycle now so this is all moot but if you want to analyze what my video was anyway, with any kind of honesty whatsoever, do what I did, not what you think I did.
Here is the resistor in the picture closeup.
http://www.feelthevibe.com/free_energy/rosemary_ainslie/original555closeup.jpg
Make sure to zoom in on the picture.
1.1k resistor with a fully charged battery.
This is the best pic I could do enhancing contrast so you can see it better.
http://www.feelthevibe.com/free_energy/rosemary_ainslie/555resistor.jpg
Making false assertions against someone while attempting to lower their profile to make your own appear high is readily apparent to most people on a forum of this intellectual level.
Dragging a wagon of porcine excrement around behind you without wheels, with a good wind breeze behind you, makes you look bad a smell even worse.
Regards...
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 22, 2009, 12:51:41 AM
Do you see the value of that resistor? I make it 2.1 or 2.7 kiloOhms.
Just looking backwards in this thread, 2.1 or 2.7k ohm? brown brown red gold is 2.1 or 2.7k? Make sure your battery is FULLY charged. :)
p.s. I have never seen the mosfet get that hot and melting solder is a sign of a flawed circuit. TK, use one that works, like mine.
Mine ran about 48 hours and no melting solder - it was very cool to the touch and the input battery gained voltage above resting voltage.
The 555 works just fine and if you scope the shunt in the "false triggering" mode you will see that the battery is chopped perfectly fine at high frequency.
Ramset claims the picture won't post that addresses your claims, so I'll post the link.
Everyone, please look at this pic:
http://www.feelthevibe.com/free_energy/rosemary_ainslie/selfoscillatingmosfet.jpg
Make sure to zoom in.
When in the false triggering mode, TK claims the mosfet is turned off before fully turning on so the battery voltage climbs because there is no conduction since the mosfet never really turned on.
It does turn on during that "false triggering" mode as the mosfet is actually in self oscillation and scoping the shunt, as any real scientist would know to do secondary validations, will see the triangle wave from the battery being delivered at high frequency as well as a negative spike meaning the battery is being recharged from the inductive collapse of the inductive resistor.
Here is the post that Ramset refuses to make: (note: interesting how any of my legitimate points don't make it here by Ramset - proxy servers are trackable) but I'll play the game anyway TK.
TK, don't take the below personally, I posted that at my forum but "ramset" wink wink doesn't want to post the whole thing here so I did.
------------
scope the shunt during "false triggering"
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAMSET View Post
Aaron, Steve ,All, please comment
"555 timer circuit that is wrong anyway."
"Poor sloppy construction layout."
I'm very happy in my ability to not have excuses to
make things work without all the perfect parts or tools
to make things look nice and if I can do it with scotch tape
and bubble gum and get results, I will.
His good humor towards me is embraced with open arms.
I laugh at myself all the time for the goofy looking circuit
that I make even if they do work, they still look goofy.
There is nothing wrong with his replication. It works just fine.
However, with a 10 ohm shunt, not much heat will happen
obviously. He needs a 0.25 ohm shunt or lower.
I already said in this thread where my probe is. The ground of the probe at the negative of the resistor and the probe at the top where the diode cathode goes back to. I'm seeing what is really there.
Anyway, it appears his resistor is an inductive resistor...typical wire wound power resistor in the white rectangle ceramic case. Does that make a difference? I don't know if it matters, but just commenting. How many professionals use inductive resistors for shunts? Is that what TK is using? I don't know but I thought I'd ask.
False triggering? Here are references relating to mosfets and other components. False triggering goes hand in hand with self-oscillation and this is a very well-known phenomena. EVERYONE, please do a little search on it:
keywords: "false triggering" "self oscillation" mosfet, etc... You will see across the industry, that many devices in high frequency self oscillation IS false triggering. ANY SIGNAL that is is at a high enough level can "false trigger" a gate. UNLESS, it has "false triggering" safeguards built in and many devices are immune to false triggering.
Google Search: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22false+triggering%22+%22self+oscillation%22+mosfet
The FIRST AND SECOND in google. This thread must be an authority on the subject. I'll just post a few random references anyway, just to add some spice to the mix.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread/t-116975.html
diyAudio Forums Archive - optocoupling power stage - hiss with 6N137
"False triggering only happens during transients and may create a self oscillating system (this has happened to me)."
(false triggering goes hand in hand with the real oscillation)
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fiel5%2F7298%2F4358683%2F04459070.pdf%3Farnumber%3D4459070&authDecision=-203
IEEE Xplore - Login
"Simulation results show that this clamp is immune to false triggering and power supply noise. Furthermore, the stability problem in clamps is addressed, and the new clamp is shown to be immune to oscillation."
(false triggering goes hand in hand with the real oscillation)
http://www.hittite.com/content/docum...put_signal.pdf
"to prevent the self-oscillation and therefore the false triggering"
(false triggering goes hand in hand with the real oscillation)
I don't mind his smugness lol because in that video he REALLY almost sounds like he is being sincere. But here is where the money shot is...
WHILE IT IS IN THAT "FALSE TRIGGERING" MODE...
SHOW THE SCOPE SHOT OF A PROBE ACROSS THE SHUNT RESISTOR - BUT USE A REAL SHUNT AND NOT AN INDUCTIVE ONE IF THAT IS WHAT HE IS USING...AND THAT TELLS THE WHOLE STORY!
WHILE IT IS IN FALSE TRIGGERING MODE - TRUE AND HONEST TO GOD SELF-OSCILLATION, YOU WILL SEE THE BATTERY GIVING VOLTAGE PULSATIONS AT HIGH FREQUENCY. IT IS PROOF THAT THE MOSFET IS CHOPPING THE BATTERY AT THOSE HIGH FREQUENCIES.
You will see the slanted rise (that means on), the straight fall (that means off) and the negative spike (that means the battery gets recharged from the diode).
I have no idea of TK's real credentials since he is anonymous but I'd appreciate it if my own "credentials" are not questioned while I actually show results.
The battery is getting a charge, which negates the credentials of anyone in this thread that says otherwise. At least, those credentials are proven to be irrelevant to this circuit. I'm sure they are well-trained and highly skilled in their own field but it is obvious non-equilibrium circuits are not it.
I believe everyone on this forum, the members at ou.com and especially Rosemary Ainslie deserves a serious public apology for wasting all our time with this foolishness.
Calling these debunking attempts and false accusations of what my scope is showing and the work that I do as something other than what I am saying it is...that isn't science and calling that stuff science borders on blasphemy. TK has embarrassed himself far too long, please ask him to stop while he has some reputation with those that care about him.
Those are my comments.
__________________
With Gratitude, Aaron
Aaron,
I think the whole "false triggering" issue is with regards to the oscilloscope, NOT the gate of the MOSFET as you seem to be indicating in your posts.
When an oscilloscope loses "trigger", or does not have the "trigger" control set to a good point for that particular wave form, the display on the scope will look very much like what you saw in your video (blurred, scrolling etc.).
Also, it is quite common to have a good solid display on the scope, and if the amplitude of the wave form decreases for some reason (such as yours does at a few points), that too can cause the scope to lose trigger and display a blur of scrolling wave forms. This can be interpreted by those not so aware as a jump to a much higher frequency, when in fact it is only the scope losing trigger. Next time you see the display do that, try tweaking your trigger control and see if you can "bring the wave form back" to the way it was displayed before. You might be surprised.
.99
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on July 22, 2009, 06:17:14 AM
Making false assertions against someone while attempting to lower their profile to make your own appear high is readily apparent to most people on a forum of this intellectual level.
Dragging a wagon of porcine excrement around behind you without wheels, with a good wind breeze behind you, makes you look bad a smell even worse.
Regards...
False assertions? In my opinion some of your posts do smack of racism. You are free to accuse Obama of not being a US citizen. I am free to refute your assertion with facts of my own. Since you seem to think your posts are the gospel truth, it doesn't lend itself to any form of debate..
Quote
whatever problem Rosemanry had with access to overunity.com
[she blamed you by name several times at energetic] has gone away ,Its fixed
Hmm, I did not block her.
Maybe she was on an IP address that was earlier blocked
by some spammers ?
I still have a few IP addresses in my Ban list that are
still blocked from abusive users and spammers...
If she does not get access, she should please contact me and
tell me her IP adress,then I will look it up and fix it.
Thanks.
Regards, Stefan.
Please, fellow travellers, let's keep the political discussions on some other threads. Thanks. Not that I disagree...
@Aaron: Thanks for clearing up the series resistor. It really is hard to see on the stills from the video. I will try the 1.1 k in my circuit and see if it still gives me the false triggering and mosfet underdriving. Which is what I am seeing, and somehow, I have more confidence in my results and their interpretation than in yours.
Next time please post relevant details in text so that we don't waste time building an incompletely specified circuit. Er...like another circuit that we all would like to see completely specified.
You are as usual way behind, as well as being wrong. In the video where I made your waveforms, I am using a 0.066 ohm non-inductive shunt measured at 3 microHenries.
What does your shunt measure?
My mosfet gets hot because I am driving it wild with ecstasy. And I was using 24 volts from a real battery.
Let's see, what else....Oh, yeah, if you don't like my research, fine. I forbid you to use any of my results to guide your own work.
grokking the fullness, waiting is...
--TK
Quote from: hartiberlin on July 22, 2009, 12:00:22 PM
Hmm, I did not block her.
Maybe she was on an IP address that was earlier blocked
by some spammers ?
I still have a few IP addresses in my Ban list that are
still blocked from abusive users and spammers...
If she does not get access, she should please contact me and
tell me her IP adress,then I will look it up and fix it.
Thanks.
Regards, Stefan.
IMHO, it is far more likely that she simply is making a user error. She apparently has figured out how to get read access...and sometimes her explanations of what is happening are, shall we say, somewhat distorted by her viewpoint. For example, I seriously doubt that anyone not authorized is reading her emails or preventing her from having internet access.
Quote from: qiman on July 22, 2009, 06:20:59 AM
Just looking backwards in this thread, 2.1 or 2.7k ohm? brown brown red gold is 2.1 or 2.7k? Make sure your battery is FULLY charged. :)
I can't make out the color bands or the text on my screen. Aaron has now indicated 1.1 K, so I will repeat my test with that value.
Will I also be made to obtain the exact make and model of Aaron's scope?
I would like to know what it is--so that I can do that if it really becomes necessary to compare scope performance in a side-by-side test. But that's the kind of thing I usually get paid for.
All my equipment is known, as are the settings.
More raw data from an actual Ainslie experimental run and a DC control run at the same average input power settings.
Of course, my mosfet is not oscillating--it's just being accurately driven at a known 2.4 kHz and a known 3 percent ON with a fast risetime clean pulse.
Note that the load heating profile is similar to the reported heat profile in the Ainslie papers. Ballpark, certainly. In the TKTTCalo, heat is retained well and the equilibrium temp is likely higher than hers for that and other minor reasons. But certainly I am getting heat, as one can see.
And of course, in the DC control condition, using the same average power as was _estimated_ roughly for experimental condition, the load heated a bit faster and got a bit hotter at equilibrium. Energy in and out can be easily calculated from these data, and clearly show a COP under 1.
Errors of course can be many. But they are none of them of sufficient possible magnitude to turn a substantial OU condition into a substantial underunity on.
Conclusion: No excess energy or efficiency was found in this experimental pilot run. Since the claim in the Ainslie paper is of excess heat energy out, 17 times more than electrical energy in, the issue of battery charging is irrelevant. The energy flowing through the shunt resistor was measured--this is the energy "over the millwheel" -- and this amount of energy was found to be more than was necessary to heat the load to similar temps with similar DC power level. Since the energy "over the millwheel" is the simple sum of any "leaving" and "returning" energy, the actual measurement does the computation automatically and gives the true net energy flow.
Which in this case is more than enough to heat the load resistor, just like DC would.
So, unless my DC power supply is also overunity, or I made some 17 x mistake, or sufficient error has accumulated to do that factor of 17+, there's no OU in this set of runs.
Even though the heating is impressive.
So, now we must see details of Rosemary's actual data -- the spreadsheet, the numbers that went in, the actual calculations. Because at this point, Ainslie load heating at 3 percent can be considered confirmed, if the circuit is properly driven with short risetime clean pulses. Even though the 555 timer circuit in the Quantum article is definitely wrong and incapable of making the short cycle.
To clear up the "oscillation" issue we need to know the exact circuit, Rosemary, that you used to clock your system. I still believe, based on what I have seen, that scope triggering on an unclean mosfet signal is the culprit, and if the mosfet is oscillating it is because of the 555 circuit.
Aaron's circuit from the Mims booklet is not as controllable or stable as the Quantum article's circuit. Too bad that one's output is flipped. It may actually be better for experimenters to use the Quantum circuit with a 2n2222 as an inverter--as has been suggested before--, because at least the F and % are separately controllable in that one, and it operates in the right freq range.
Of course, there are also simple mosfet gate driver chips that will give the right kind of pulse to your mosfet--the H-bridge switches quite well as high as my F34 will go...and with the DP101 it will go even higher than 2 Mhz with clean edges and big inductive spikes. DRSSTC here we come!!
But remember, I have forbidden Aaron to use my findings to guide his research. So he better not build that 555 correctly, or try sharper pulses, or a different mosfet. No no no.
I have _at last_ been able to get some true parasitic oscillations out of my "Aaron's Rod" circuit. Now that I've got the right resistor in the positive rail...
So I've made a couple new vids, they are processing and uploading now. I'm able to show that I do get parasitic oscillations of the classic textbook kind, and I still believe that Aaron's scope is missing triggering to produce the bands that he is seeing.
The parasitic oscillations are regular, albeit quite complex. Since the voltage on the battery monitor goes up, this means that the mosfet is not allowing as much power through during these oscillations.
Or, it means that power is being fed back to the battery, and the battery monitor is just showing the sum of the forward and reversed power.
Or the crack into the seventh dimension is leaking again.
Note that the Aaron's circuit is widely different than Ainslie's and is being operated at a much higher frequency. I still have not been able to get my Ainslie build to misbehave. I guess I'll have to (cringe) hook up this breadboarded timer to clock it and see what happens.
But at least I know for sure what happens in the Ainslie circuit with a good solid 3 percent pulse when there's NO OU.
So any OU will have to beat that baseline.
I'll post the links here when they are done uploading.
EDIT: Here you go.
Part C:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcKg0oXtNjA
Part D:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1iRpEM0qTw
have _at last_ been able to get some true parasitic oscillations out of my "Aaron's Rod" circuit. Now that I've got the right resistor in the positive rail...
So I've made a couple new vids, they are processing and uploading now. I'm able to show that I do get parasitic oscillations of the classic textbook kind, and I still believe that Aaron's scope is missing triggering to produce the bands that he is seeing.
The parasitic oscillations are regular, albeit quite complex. Since the voltage on the battery monitor goes up, this means that the mosfet is not allowing as much power through during these oscillations.
Or, it means that power is being fed back to the battery, and the battery monitor is just showing the sum of the forward and reversed power.
Or the crack into the seventh dimension is leaking again.
Note that the Aaron's circuit is widely different than Ainslie's and is being operated at a much higher frequency. I still have not been able to get my Ainslie build to misbehave. I guess I'll have to (cringe) hook up this breadboarded timer to clock it and see what happens.
But at least I know for sure what happens in the Ainslie circuit with a good solid 3 percent pulse when there's NO OU.
So any OU will have to beat that baseline.
I'll post the links here when they are done uploading.
EDIT: Here you go.
Part C:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcKg0oXtNjA
Part D:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1iRpEM0qTw
Jetijs
Location: Latvia
Hi all.
Today I did some experiments with the heater circuit. What we found out was that it makes a huge difference if you put a air cored copper wire coil in series of the inductive resistor. See for yourself.
This is the scope shot across the resistor with no recovery diode:
And this is the scope shot of the series of coil and resistor also without recovery:
''[I cant get scope shots with the posts ant suggestions""] Chet
Quite a difference huh?
And this is for the same input power.
This is the scope shot with the recovery diode doing its job. In both cases the image is identical:
After that I tried out the circuit from my attraction motor v2.0. I used a bifilar coil so that I could use one winding to establish a magnetic field and another to capture the spike and put it on the front side capacitor. The power winding had a 10 Ohm resistor in series. The switching was done using a signal generator with adjustable frequency and duty cycle. I used an adjustable power supply for powering the circuit, it can adjust the voltage up to 30V and the current up to 20A. I observed up to 3x greater currents circulating through the resistor than that what the power supply gave out. And all this with a duty cycle of 15%, this is what the lowest setting of my signal generator is and on the scope I can see that this is clearly too much and I am wasting much of the power. Anyway, the resistor did heat up quite nicely up to 160 degree, but I did not have the time to compare if there is a difference in the heating up times depending on weather or not the recovery is used. I monitored the currents in two different spots in the circuit and the weird thing was that if I touched the MOSFET or some other places of the circuit, the input current did not change, but the circulating current did increase up to 40%. So far I blame that on the cheap meters I am using. I will test it more tomorrow. But so far seems pretty great
__________________
It's better to wear off by working than to rust by doing nothing.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 22, 2009, 12:05:21 PM
You are as usual way behind, as well as being wrong. In the video where I made your waveforms, I am using a 0.066 ohm non-inductive shunt measured at 3 microHenries.
You know exactly what my reference to you using a 10 ohm inductive resistor means. In the first video you showed using a 10 ohm resistor. If you changed it - you are deceitful in your ways - as you would have people believe that I am claiming your new shunt is the original 10 ohm one you used.
Do your followers actually buy this?
There was no need to post what resistor was on the 555's battery as it is irrelevant. You can make any variation of a 555 that will give you 50-99% with frequency control.
--------------
.99 - TK has clearly linked any triggering flaw to NON OSCILLATION in the mosfet, which of course is a bogus analysis since he didn't even know to verify the shunt to see if the mosfet was indeed in oscillation or not.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 22, 2009, 01:59:55 PM
I have _at last_ been able to get some true parasitic oscillations out of my "Aaron's Rod" circuit. Now that I've got the right resistor in the positive rail...
So I've made a couple new vids, they are processing and uploading now. I'm able to show that I do get parasitic oscillations of the classic textbook kind, and I still believe that Aaron's scope is missing triggering to produce the bands that he is seeing.
The parasitic oscillations are regular, albeit quite complex. Since the voltage on the battery monitor goes up, this means that the mosfet is not allowing as much power through during these oscillations.
Or, it means that power is being fed back to the battery, and the battery monitor is just showing the sum of the forward and reversed power.
Or the crack into the seventh dimension is leaking again.
Note that the Aaron's circuit is widely different than Ainslie's and is being operated at a much higher frequency. I still have not been able to get my Ainslie build to misbehave. I guess I'll have to (cringe) hook up this breadboarded timer to clock it and see what happens.
But at least I know for sure what happens in the Ainslie circuit with a good solid 3 percent pulse when there's NO OU.
So any OU will have to beat that baseline.
I'll post the links here when they are done uploading.
I'll take this as a public apology from you ;) that I was truthful in what I claimed and that your dog and pony show was a mis-diagnosis. When I see that noise on the scope, I can adjust the settings and see the high frequency spikes. They are there and there is a lot more to it than one would expect. I also had enough sense to see what the shunt showed for secondary validation and it showed high frequency pulsations from the battery and of course back to the battery, which is what you should have done in the beginning.
I'll post at Energetic Forum that you finally had the courage to admit my claims are accurate - to admit that my 555 does indeed cause the mosfet to oscillate. However, your belief in what my scope showed is still not lost trigger - you missed that one big time.
I already have a different 555 timer that gives me as low as 1% duty cycle and my shunt has been changed to a 0.05 ohm calibrated resistor. I will replace my inductive resistor with one that matches the size of Rosemary's as soon as I can.
Everyone needs to realize that in my original video, my goal was to just see if I can get the mosfet to self-oscillate since TK couldn't. I succeeded on the first try.
The 555 timer I used with 50%+ duty cycle is NOT what I want to use for my real test, I didn't have the transistors on hand to give me the flexibility I needed so used the bare basic with what I had on hand. I don't believe in procrastinating until I have all the right parts. Even the 10 ohm shunt, it was the lowest I had and wasn't going to put 40 of them in parallel. I'm glad I did do that because I saw potential gaining and gaining and gaining and gaining in the battery up to 1/4 volt in 2 X 12v 7ah batteries, which was
able to power a restive load...it wasn't a phantom charge...it kept the resistor a few degrees above ambient the entire time while continuing to gain charge on the front battery. It took almost 24 hours before it ever came down to the initial resting voltage before I started the test to begin with.
Quote from: qiman on July 22, 2009, 04:11:17 PM
You know exactly what my reference to you using a 10 ohm inductive resistor means. In the first video you showed using a 10 ohm resistor. If you changed it - you are deceitful in your ways - as you would have people believe that I am claiming your new shunt is the original 10 ohm one you used.
Do your followers actually buy this?
There was no need to post what resistor was on the 555's battery as it is irrelevant. You can make any variation of a 555 that will give you 50-99% with frequency control.
--------------
.99 - TK has clearly linked any triggering flaw to NON OSCILLATION in the mosfet, which of course is a bogus analysis since he didn't even know to verify the shunt to see if the mosfet was indeed in oscillation or not.
That entire statement is a lie, Aaron.
First, I used a 10 ohm "shunt" because that's what you used. Unlike you, I actually measure inductances and you will be surprised to know that that cement 10 ohm resistor has almost exactly the same inductance as your carbonfilm or metalfilm 10 ohmer.
And you can also see that your timer is "grounded" to the wrong side of your "shunt"... but OK.
You are the one who used that resistor on your timer power.
Your statement to .99 is also a lie. I have linked your triggering flaw to your induced oscillations in the mosfet, which are primarily caused by your improper signal driving the mosfet. I have indeed looked everywhere in that circuit, and your implication that I "don't know" to look somewhere is just ridiculous.
You are the one who is misusing your scope to "SHOW" what you are trying to prove. I am using mine rationally to see what is really there. I challenge you ONCE AGAIN: do a side-by-side comparison with your circuit using a decent oscilloscope properly operated, and you operating your scope like you do. Or compare my circuit with yours on your oscilloscope or mine or a third one.
You are seeing false triggering; I am reproducing your signal exactly --after all, I am using the SAME COMPONENTS AND THE SAME LAYOUT that you are using.
And I am in NO WAY apologizing to you, or "admitting" anything of the sort that you are implying. I still maintain that you are wrong; that the mosfet is oscillating because of "bad" driving signal and/or poor construction technique and/or damaged components; that you do not know how to use an oscilloscope properly, and/or there is something wrong with your scope, and/or it is just not "up to snuff" with a complex signal; and that you are not focussing on the real issue at hand: the many discrepancies in what Ainslie is telling you.
Now, by following your excellent suggestions, that is, by regressing to 10th grade electronics, and perhaps by using a roasted mosfet and a purpose-built chaotic 555 circuit, I have been able to show classic parasitic oscillations on top of the mosfet trace. Hooking up the probes incorrectly like you did helped too, thanks.
Now that I can maybe induce the same oscillations as you (After all, you ADMIT that mine are the same as yours, in the above posts) it will be much easier to show that there is no free energy coming from the Ainslie system, even when the mosfet is oscillating.
Besides, this oscillation thing is Yet another Red Herring.
Anyone with eyeballs can see that I have already reproduces essentially the heating profile that Ainslie claimed to get, and I'm using a known fast risetime clean 3 percent dutycycle with no parasitic oscillations. And my input power figures are nearly the same as Ainslie's.
The appearance of battery recharging and the accounting of the power flows through the circuit have been analyzed by Henieck and MileHigh and others, and this phenomenon also does not depend on the mosfet oscillation--as it can and has been observed in many other pulsed charging systems, that even Aaron can probably cite.
So, if the oscillation isn't necessary for the heat, and it isn't necessary for the appearance of battery recharging, what's it there for?
It is there to obfuscate the issue. Please tell me how the duty cycle figures cited in Ainslie's paper are compatible with the oscillations on Aaron's scope. Take single shots all you want...they will still result in regular traces that can be easily computed, when done properly.
(Don't forget, I have these 2 digital sampling storage oscilloscopes sitting here next to my analog ones. It is just possible that I do know whereof I speak, in spite of Aaron's enlightenment.)
Quote from: ramset on July 22, 2009, 02:12:15 PM
TK
Can you just add the links to the above comments [last post previous page]
Please?
Then I will delete this and headline it here and elsewhere
Chet
Done. And here they are again:
Part C:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcKg0oXtNjA
Part D:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1iRpEM0qTw
@Ramset: Wow! That post looks a lot more aggressive over there than it does here, even with the little "edit". Some arrows will fly over that, I'm sure.
But I'm really curious about one thing:
I've done some experiments where heat was measured, and I've reported those experiments. Why hasn't there been any comment on those? I thought that photo especially would have gotten some play.
Is it because people already realize that the heat can't be OU, so they're trying to find OU in the battery charging explanation...even though we should know by now that voltage is not power, power is not energy, and energy is all that matters?
And with all this brouhaha about minor circuit variations making big differences in behavior, why hasn't Rosemary shown us the exact circuit, since she has said several times that she still has the apparatus...
You see, many direct questions have been dodged or ignored, and that is not helping people like me. Or anybody else, except those who wish to hide the truth or change history.
Rosemary, we need to see your exact circuit used, your raw data, your spreadsheet calculations, the vetting laboratory and university laboratory reports you keep citing, and so forth, in order to be able properly to evaluate your claims.
Publication in even a fringe peer-reviewed journal like JSE would need those items and more. They would need to see those things before even considering publishing a claim like COP>17.
Don't believe me? JSE is actively looking for experimental reports of this kind.
I suggest you submit your article to them and see what kind of response you get.
http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal.html
Because at the conclusion of my researches concerning your claims, I will be preparing a paper for submission to them, and you really do deserve equal time.
And I, as you know, have hard data, and I'm not afraid of scientific scrutiny.
I have made Yet Another Video of the scope lost trigger phenomenon, using the Tek 2213A scope. As I suspected, its trigger is not as good as the Philips and it is easy to show the phenomenon Aaron demonstrated. The mosfet is oscillating because of the bad ( in Engineering terms, not Free energy terms) drive signal from the 555 timer, and at certain settings the scope loses trigger on the complex noisy signal. There is actually very little true "noise" in that signal, though.
However, when I try to upload the video I get this:
QuoteThis functionality is not available right now. Please try again later.
This is clearly an attempt by the Ainslie crewe to prevent me from posting my results. They must be reading my emails and personal correspondence, and I want it stopped. I understand Ainslie takes her orders from someone called, "Jolt." Probably a pseudonym, intended to conceal a true identity.
Or it could be that YT is doing maintenance, so I'll try again in a few minutes.
;)
(EDIT: Which delay gave me time to make Yet Another video, part F, where I trace the oscillation to the 555 timer definitely, and show again, definitely, that the oscillation is regular and Aaron's phenomenon is loss of scope trigger.)
I'll post the links here as soon as I can upload them.
Grok the Fullness!
VERY IMPORTANT: I just realized, and confirmed, that the oscillation in my circuit, and probably Aaron's is happening when the mosfet is supposed to be OFF. Remember, the drain signal is High when the mosfet is OFF, and the 555 timer is high when the mosfet is supposed to be ON. So timer pulse High, Mosfet ON, drain signal Low.
Look at the traces. The oscillation happens before the timer is turning ON, not off, so the oscillations in the mosfet drain are causing the mosfet to leak power when it's supposed to be OFF according to the driving pulse.
Another point obfuscated by Aaron's misinformation project.
Aaron said
TK's fraud
Ramset,
I don't have a smiley appropriate for this forum to respond that this deception but I'll try.
First, I'm quite aware of where I placed the timer ground originally, yes it should be on the other side of the resistor. But what has that got to do with the FACT that my circuit WAS producing square waves with the resistor on the battery EXACTLY like I said? Nothing, it is a distraction from the point that my mosfet was oscillating, period but you want to jiggle a sock puppet out in the other direction so people don't see the main point.
First he claims there is NO oscillation, second it is oscillating because of bad timing signal. No consistency in what he is saying, a bit of truth goes a long way, would be good to see him demonstrate some. I can get it to oscillate to at 99% duty cycle and he gripes about the quantum circuit. lol
It should be more than obvious to anyone that he is deceiving people. He said clearly on his video that he ADMITS that he can't get his mosfet to oscillate no matter what.
That is a very clear claim. Then he says:
Here is his exact quote from ou:
"I have _at last_ been able to get some true parasitic oscillations out of my "Aaron's Rod" circuit. Now that I've got the right resistor in the positive rail...
So I've made a couple new vids, they are processing and uploading now. I'm able to show that I do get parasitic oscillations of the classic textbook kind, and I still believe that Aaron's scope is missing triggering to produce the bands that he is seeing.
The parasitic oscillations are regular, albeit quite complex."
Then he now says:
"I have linked your triggering flaw to your induced oscillations in the mosfet, which are primarily caused by your improper signal driving the mosfet."
So improper signal causes???
* true paracitic oscillation
* parasitic oscillations of the classic textbook kind
* parasitic oscillation that are regular
That means that my circuit produced real clean oscillations that the scope is reading. When I zoom in, I see very clear high frequency pulses going thru the coil and the shunt. That means there is no improper signal driving the mosfet, it means that I was zoomed out too much on the scope.
He said he gets true oscillations that he can see with my circuit since he duplicated it exactly. Yet he claims at the same time that improper signal is causing the triggering flaw. Yet, if he can see the oscillations with my circuit and my circuit is dong true oscillations as he claimed word for word, then that means he has multiple personality disorder where one personality doesn't remember what the other said.
His analysis is fraud or incompetance. In either case, it is bogus. He couldn't even see his mosfet oscillating until he used my circuit and got it right! I guess I shouldn't say stole because I give it away from free. At least he has something that works now that he can learn from since nothing he built works right.
__________________
With Gratitude, Aaron
I see that Aaron, in addition to his other cognitive difficulties, has trouble with the concept of hypothesis testing. Several of my hypotheses have been shown, BY ME, to have been incorrect, and I freely report that fact. In addition, testing those hypotheses has revealed what is ACTUALLY going on in the circuit.
Perhaps if Aaron repeats his lies even louder and brighter, someone will believe him.
Meanwhile, anybody who is interested can watch my videos and reproduce what I'm showing on a decent oscilloscope for themselves.
And the last three (uploading now) show yet again that Aaron either is deliberately trying to mislead, or simply does not know how to use and interpret an oscilloscope.
Meanwhile we still see absolutely nothing from a genuine Ainslie circuit--except of course MINE.
Isn't it ironic that most of what is actually known about this circuit comes from me and those whose analysis follows conventional electronics?
That reminds me--the stuff about Ainslie's theories from the Naked Scientists thread.
Ainslie says some pretty ignorant things about Quantum Electrodynamics without, apparently, realising that QED is the most accurate theory, in terms of prediction of experimental quantities from first principles, that humans have ever constructed. QED makes some predictions that have been found to be accurate to over 13 significant digits. The formulae and relationships of QED allow engineers to design and construct, for example, massively integrated circuitry with millions of components per square cm, and to understand and predict exactly how it will behave. For just a single amazing example.
Yet Rosemary sees problems with this all-encompassing theory, which is the life work of people like Feynman and DeBroglie and Hawking, and seeks to replace it with zipons and antitruants in a theory that makes not a SINGLE quantitative prediction, much less an accurate one.
And one wonders why TK is so irate.
THbbppbb. I thumb my nose at Aaron and his aaarogance.
I have shared my finds and failures and I have shown how you make a hypothesis and test it and revise hypotheses and discard them as new experimental data become available. I have nothing to worry about, my conscience and record are clean.
Please see the very latest video, PART H one and two, (uploading now) for my latest on the matter. While Aaron is shooting his colors off and looking for a leg to stand on, I am doing proper research and am identifying several key issues.
For example, now it will be easy to drive the mosfet into the "desired" mode by using an FG at 1.64 MHz with an appropriate waveshape. Forget duty cycle, IF this is the desired operating mode.
And so, that is another red herring in the original paper. If this is the desired operating mode of the mosfet, just drive it with a roughly sinusoidal wave with a bit of noise at 1.64 MHz, and then you will be able to make tea for six on one D-cell battery.
Or maybe not.
Regardless of the circuit, it is still to be shown that this has anything at all to do with Ainslie's claim of 17 times more heat energy out than electrical energy in.
Hi Everyone,
I have been asked by Rosemary Ainslie in deep regret the event that RAMSET was not available to post this from Energetic Forum .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.energeticforum.com/61955-post1081.html
Quote:
Fuzzy - if you're there please take my last post across if Ramset's too busy to do so. I'd be obliged.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.energeticforum.com/61949-post1079.html
Quote :
TK. My own suggestion, for what it's worth would be to stop talking to us and about us. I would assume that you've now debunked?? I do hope we can at least conclude that much. Except perhaps to write that paper - in due course - or hot on the heels of? Please do. I certainly won't contest your findings. Not now or ever. Indeed I'd be pleased to see your hard faught efforts translated into something publishable. We all would.
Will that now be enough? Except perhaps for a predicted period of gloating and a few sad moments to parade all that ego? I think you've completed your mission - to the best of your ability. I would add that I have found your thread really entertaining. Personally I enjoy a good turn of phrase and there are those moments when yours shine, usually and paradoxically when you're slinging yet more of the stuff that archeologists politely refer to as copralites. I confess I've often found myself rolling with laughter.
But what moves through the underbelly of your thread like a keel hauled sailor - is an entire want of moderation and objectivity. To be entirely plausible you should have given this a little more air. Just way too much testosterone. I can't say whether it's damaged your credibility. Some readers will think one way and others will think another. History will no doubt judge it fairly.
Anyway OC - if you haven't got your boy back quite yet, I think you're a few short days away? Meanwhile I take it as read that you've disproved our circuit, exposed all claims as 'wishful' at best, 'fraudulent' at worst. Our experimental standards not up to par, and - for my part - probably wilfully withholding the required information for your revered and exclusive evaluation.
And thank you for the attention you've given us. I'm just sorry it wasn't more in our interests. And good luck with Don Smith's invention. And there is one rather questionable video on offer to the public that I personally can discount in its entirety. Be that as it may. Cheers TK May you have as much sucess on your next mission to debunk.
Perhaps Ramset can oblige and post this across? And please feel free to block access to OU.COM if you want to. I've finished with it for now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuzzy :(
Quote
His analysis is fraud or incompetance. In either case, it is bogus. He couldn't even see his mosfet oscillating until he used my circuit and got it right! I guess I shouldn't say stole because I give it away from free. At least he has something that works now that he can learn from since nothing he built works right.
__________________
With Gratitude, Aaron
Your hypocrisy is matched, just barely, by your idiocy. You are grossly misrepresenting my position, my findings, and my ability. In other words, you are full of bullshit and lies.
Take any of those assertions in that last statement of yours.
Fraud or incompetence: that's slander, my non-friend, and I should sue the britches off of you. I am in fact extremely competent--and would be happy to prove it in front of witnesses-- and if there is fraud here it is coming from your Queen.
I can see and make a mosfet oscillate at any time. I reported what I found during some specific work with specific circuits, using partial and misleading information from YOU.
That circuit is not yours. You got it from Forrest Mims, and it is a well known circuit that produces the most wildest behaviour you can get from a 555, ON PURPOSE to interest kids making science fair projects.
And a lot of stuff that I make works just fine--I'll put my designing and building skills up against yours any day of the week. Watch some of my early YT videos to see some of the things I build that work just fine. How about a 60,000 volt generator that you can put in a shoebox and turn with your fingers?
I'm a lot closer to what you are seeking than you are, Aaron, and that makes you angry, I know...but when you become enlightened you will see that you are in fact full of bullshit. So your signing your note "with gratitude" when you feel no such thing for me, is, like I said, the greatest hypocrisy.
thus, i refute thee
What?? Did I miss something while Aaron distracted me with his straw men burning?
not that i saw ,
just someone trying to stear the thread back to experiments
"stuff that archeologists politely refer to as copralites"
Hmmmm....
Do you think she meant coprolites? This person sounds like my mother in-law. In the same sentence she'll tell you how funny you are and call you fossilized crap.
At least fossilized crap withstands the test of time :)
@BEP
ROFL
:D
.99
Hi!
Reading a few pages of this thread... I wander.. What is so special about this claim?
In the era of "DMM" measurements, anything is possible!
Looking at the schematics, it's just an electronic circuit made of a very well known electronic components.
Which, btw, never were and probably never will be related with any kind of OU.
Although the "mission" is noble, the results are - sadly, predictable..
Nothing extraordinaire, especially if one observes it through the energy balance glasses.
So, why all the fuzz about it?
How come that this thread has so many pages?
Proving an OU claim is really not that difficult, especially with electronic circuits.
Known conditions - energy input and the (more or less) valid output measurements.
With a "COP" of 17, even a human "sensors" should be enough to feel the "UAU!" difference....
Ah, nevermind.
I'm sure this setup is like all (or most) of the others, where output (or input, or both) were measured wrongly.
Another "measurement Error". Sorry.
What's the matter with you, Spinner? Don't you know that you are criticizing the work of the greatest unsung theorist of physics since...well, since PeeWee Herman?
The person who has performed the definitive demonstration that proves free energy heat and battery recharging?
Which has been confirmed many times and long ago by her minion Murakami, who, I understand, will be receiving the Nobel Prize for inventing the self-recharging battery.
We are in the presence of real genius here and should be more respectful. After all, it's only been seven years. These things take time, we don't want, for example, hybrid auto manufacturers to get too far ahead of things by using this simple mosfet technology to extend range or improve payload capacity.
Nor would we want to see the shameful spectacle of an old lady huddled over a bunch of power resistors and some golf cart batteries, trying to keep warm in some strange inverted Australian winter. So we have to wait, until mainstream science drops their obsession with that ridiculous QED nonsense and adopts Zipon Antitruant theory and starts making commercial heaters using the Ainslie circuit.
I suppose this is a good place to announce:
I've Done IT! Since Aaron has demonstrated that all you need for free energy is to show an increase in battery voltage, I CLAIM THE OU PRIZE.
The battery I used to make the heat tests yesterday, 2 x 12 v 20 mA-H sealed lead-acids, was down to 25.0 volts at the completion of testing.
And it's been sitting on my Free Energy Workbench, not connected to anything, but in the presence of the Lord.
This morning, the battery is at 25.2 volts. That's 200 miliVolts increase!!
200 mV x 25 volts, why, that's 5 Watts!!! Overnight!! Do you realize what an incredible amount of free energy that is? Let's see, 5 watts times 8 hours, that's 5 x 8 x 60 x 60, that's 144,000 Joules. For Nothing, from Nowhere! No, wait, it must be from the Zero Point. See, I can show you this blur on my oscilloscope....that's the Zero Point energy doing that.
So, since all I did was wait, I have a COP of...let's see....divide by zero...er....ummm....Can anyone help me? I wasn't in class the day they covered dividing by zero...but I know the COP of my system is huge, so huge that I will inevitably be ignored and suppressed by Big Oil and Academia.
Wait a minute...that's also the number of souls who will be Raptured to heaven at the second coming of Christ.
Do you see? That proves it beyond any doubt. Free Energy, the Rapture, it's all connected.
Grok the Fullness!
(Next you'll be telling me I don't know how to calculate power or energy. Well, isn't 0.2 x 25 equal to 5? Of course it is. If I use different numbers, I'll get a different answer. There wasn't any current, obviously, so I can't use that. But the duty cycle was infinitely short, so that makes up for it. That's why I used the voltage twice, because V=IR and there isn't any I.
And since R is infinite in an open circuit, the energy just comes from the volts. Everyone who follows Murakami's work knows that you can get energy from volts.)
He he... Howdy TK!
Thanks for your excellent & enthusiastic work!
Like i said before, while the guys like you are here, no real harm (to the humanity) is done....
Keep on!
Hell, I'm just blabbing....
Quote
What's the matter with you, Spinner? Don't you know that you are criticizing the work of the greatest unsung theorist of physics since...well, since PeeWee Herman?
Who the hell is PeeWee Herman?
lol...
Cheers!
Quote from: ramset on July 23, 2009, 03:25:40 AM
not that i saw ,
just someone trying to stear the thread back to experiments
Then they should get rid of Rosebud and the Littlest Samurai. Because they would not know a true experiment if one dropped out of the sky and hit them on the headbone.
Demonstrations are done to illustrate a point or to show an interesting phenomenon.
Experiments, of course, are constructed and performed to try to DISPROVE an hypothesis that is well-formed and falsifiable in principle. Criteria for performance are established beforehand; constructs are defined and operationalized; data schema and statistical analyses are prepared in advance; and proper experimental controls are put in place. Control experiments are performed if necessary to understand and eliminate the influence of so-called "third variables."
If an hypothesis survives the staunchest attempts at DISPROOF, by bulletproof experimentation, only then does it become interesting.
No amount of demonstration of an effect constitutes proof of a theory's correctness.
Many theories can be constructed to explain any given fact or phenomenon. Obviously--zipon theory being a feeble example of a case in point. Pushing gravity, electric universe, those are some less feeble alternative theories that explain everyday phenomena but are not in line with mainstream scientific thought
Only those cases where an attempt at disproof fails may be counted in a theory's favor.
That's why I'm not upset when an hypothesis of mine can be shown to be wrong. That's a GOOD THING, because in that way and in that way only, can real knowledge advance. And that's why I put components side by side for comparison testing, and that's why I have different scopes with different characteristics, and that's why I report results in realtime and full detail. I want to be proven wrong. And I have shouted that many times--so many it is almost a trademark.
PROVE ME WRONG.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 23, 2009, 08:59:17 AM
I've Done IT! Since Aaron has demonstrated that all you need for free energy is to show an increase in battery voltage, I CLAIM THE OU PRIZE.
The battery I used to make the heat tests yesterday, 2 x 12 v 20 mA-H sealed lead-acids, was down to 25.0 volts at the completion of testing.
And it's been sitting on my Free Energy Workbench, not connected to anything, but in the presence of the Lord.
This morning, the battery is at 25.2 volts. That's 200 miliVolts increase!!
200 mV x 25 volts, why, that's 5 Watts!!! Overnight!! Do you realize what an incredible amount of free energy that is? Let's see, 5 watts times 8 hours, that's 5 x 8 x 60 x 60, that's 144,000 Joules. For Nothing, from Nowhere! No, wait, it must be from the Zero Point. See, I can show you this blur on my oscilloscope....that's the Zero Point energy doing that.
Dear Mr. Koala,
Congratulations on your amazing discovery. Your check is in the mail and the Noble award committee has been notified. Will you be available to present your findings at the upcoming award selection meeting?
Disrespectfully yours,
Alfred E. Newman
Chairman, Bored of Detractors
In all seriousness, has anyone tabulated the data? Documented the circuits tested? Described the test procedures used?
C'mon guys, let's get this over with and move on to something more promising.
TK,
Just curious what is the volts/Div on the 555 trace in the TEK scope shots?
Is there enough amplitude of that HF osc from the 555 to turn on the FET?
Also, what is the p-p amplitude of the oscillations on the drain compared to that on the 555?
Thanks.
.99
Quote from: spinner on July 23, 2009, 09:10:44 AM
He he... Howdy TK!
Thanks for your excellent & enthusiastic work!
Like i said before, while the guys like you are here, no real harm (to the humanity) is done....
Keep on!
Hell, I'm just blabbing....
Who the hell is PeeWee Herman?
lol...
Cheers!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVKsd8z6scw
--TK
Lol what specifically would be more "promising"...? Hmm lets see:
We could always try to devise a better formula for keeping gasoline from vaporizing, the current one that is added to most of our petrol is only about 60% effective.... Do you people realize how much gas is wasted because it turns into vapor and flies away?? Billions and billions of eh, drops. Yeah, and it would be helping out the Environment too, right?
Or we could try to do what we could to help those great peeps in the coal industry come up with better "Clean Coal" solutions... That would be the PATRIOTIC American thing to do! There are 12 (and as many as 14!) coal miners in West Virginia that would prefer working in coal mines, over working in air conditioned factories building alternative energy devices.. It is our duty to insure they and their offspring can do so freely forever!
And we could do whatever possible whenever possible to stop these dirty energy terrorists from trying to ruin our American Way of Life.
"I can see and make a mosfet oscillate at any time. I reported what I found during some specific work with specific circuits, using partial and misleading information from YOU.
That circuit is not yours. You got it from Forrest Mims, and it is a well known circuit that produces the most wildest behaviour you can get from a 555, ON PURPOSE to interest kids making science fair projects."
Well put TK!
Let Aaron&Co prove R-M exists.... Nobody ever saw a picture of her.... This is about something else than good FE technology my friends. ;)
Quote from: Gauss on July 23, 2009, 01:21:33 PM
Let Aaron&Co prove R-M exists.... Nobody ever saw a picture of her.... This is about something else than good FE technology my friends. ;)
I agree. Where's the proof of a 17 COP?
Quote from: spinner on July 23, 2009, 09:10:44 AM
Who the hell is PeeWee Herman?
lol...
Cheers!
Isn't he that guy who earned his name by 'closing the loop' in pubic and got caught?
Maybe that's why you never see an OU researcher close the loop? They are afraid they'll go blind!
LOL, you guys are like a bunch of cackling old hens criticizing the one hen who flu the coop and found herself a rooster, Oh they all criticize and condemn but deep down there is not one of them that would not sell their soul to trade places. Maybe when you understand the phrase "Mediocrity is self-inflicted while genius is self-impossed" you may actually get somewhere because I have seen nothing here that resembles open minded thinking.
Regards
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on July 23, 2009, 02:04:09 PM
LOL, you guys are like a bunch of cackling old hens criticizing the one hen who flu the coop and found herself a rooster, Oh they all criticize and condemn but deep down there is not one of them that would not sell their soul to trade places. Maybe when you understand the phrase "Mediocrity is self-inflicted while genius is self-impossed" you may actually get somewhere because I have seen nothing here that resembles open minded thinking.
Regards
AC
Open-minded thinking is required in order to learn and consider new possibilities, however we should not be so open-minded that our brains fall out.
.99
Quote from: 0c on July 23, 2009, 09:40:51 AM
..snip..
In all seriousness, has anyone tabulated the data? Documented the circuits tested? Described the test procedures used?
C'mon guys, let's get this over with and move on to something more promising.
What, Me Worry?
;D
In answer to your 'serious' question, yes, I have. You can see for yourself the photos of the raw data sheets with all necessary information for analysis. And of course there are those damn videos.
And I know that DrStiffler has as well, although I have not seen a post from him lately. Maybe he's rushing to commercialize, before the crowd.
And what could possibly be more promising than COP>17 from 20 dollars worth of components, and a Theory to Replace Quantum Electrodynamics thrown in for free to boot.
I mean, Richard Feynman worked his entire life on QED, and all he got was that silly Nobel. What a tool.
Quote from: poynt99 on July 23, 2009, 09:47:51 AM
TK,
Just curious what is the volts/Div on the 555 trace in the TEK scope shots?
Is there enough amplitude of that HF osc from the 555 to turn on the FET?
Also, what is the p-p amplitude of the oscillations on the drain compared to that on the 555?
Thanks.
.99
Umm--let's see...no, the amplitude is pretty low, 850 mV or so peak, as I demonstrate in the next video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oehuoaIhts
It's about one-fifth the amplitude of the main 555 pulse. The mosfet is not turning on during this oscillation period, at least not in my setup. It is just capacitatively passing the gate oscillations to the load (mosfet drain). The amplitude of these oscillations at the load is about the same, for me, whether the main battery is plugged in or not.
I'll post a couple still shots of the LeCroy looking at this signal in a minute or two.
(But I'll bet you knew the answers already, didn't you... :D )
1) pin 3 output, normal mode, Ainslie circuit main batt connected, load "bullitt1" as in the video
2) pin 3 output, oscillation mode, as above
3) Ainslie Point A (batt side of load, almost identical to mosfet drain signal) in osc mode with main battery ON
4) As above but with main battery OFF. Compare to #2. Nearly identical signal but at reduced amplitude.
Freq of oscillation about 1.64 MHz, amplitude at the 555 (or mosfet Gate) about 850 mV p-p, at the point A about 550-600 mV p-p.
Load heating is nil in oscillating mode, for me.
NOTE: the upload seems to have scrambled the photos order . But if you look at the filenames you can figure it out. Sorry about that...
So, either I am still not seeing the right oscillations, even though they quack exactly like a duck, or the Skeptic Force is strong within me, and I'm cancelling all interesting effects with the power of my negativity. Which, I'll admit, is far more likely than obtaining COP>17 from this little project.
Did Poynt think of that one himself? Hehehe i guess "originality" is also sometimes a problem besides "out of the box thinking" here ;) . I am sure we may all be guilty of derivative thinking to some extent (me as well); but think how exciting this forum would be if all the posts went like this:
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it think"
or
"There is more than one way to skin a cat"
Lol not that "cat skinning" is very acceptable sport these days.... Hehehe, but i predict the horrible shrill sound a live cat would make in such a situation, will be similar to what we will be seeing here; the closer we get to gaining real understanding about this circuit ;)
AllCanadian is of course correct, the almost universal lack of honest desire to determine if this concept is actually viable or not is so thick here it can be touched.
... But i would recommend using the proverbial "10 foot pole" to do so. ;)
This rather transparent attitude for some here, unfortunately for them, is hard to hide and still get their "talking points" out. It is possible to do so; but not the way these folks are going about it ;)
Its pretty funny how they never learn that. And once their motives become apparent for all to see; their effectiveness is pretty much negated.
And as far as having a photo to look at, is that a requirement now? Would you prefer a "personalized wallet-size" perhaps, lol?
If a person gives their name, and it is openly published to the world along with their controversial work to be freely criticized by all and sundry... That is much, much farther out on a limb than many of these "courageous defenders of reality" here would ever be willing to go...
Lol especially since they may have first-hand knowledge of how nameless nonentities wearing dirty "wife-beaters" sitting in front of their Twinkie-crumb-coated KB's in their mother's basement will spend all their time trying to maliciously dis the work of others.. When of course they have no idea if is actually valuable or not.
... BTW Mom's calling you again: "Will you take out the garbage already!!? Iv'e asked you 5 times!"
But no worries: The truth about this circuit's viability will come out nonetheless, no matter how loud and hideous the cat screeches get ;)
_________________________________
Just a little fun, nothing personal and not aimed at anyone in particular.... Since this is apparently "comedy day" here in the thread ;)
Well, the purpose of this thread and my work here is not to examine a concept for viability. It is to examine the specific claims about a specific circuit. And that's what I'm doing. This "easily replicable" claim is not so easy to replicate after all, and has been shown to be outright wrong in several respects already.
Patent? No.
Duty Cycle 3 percent? No.
Heating in excess of DC at similar power levels? No, at least not in the 4 different operational modes that I have examined.
Now, I have been trying to get that magic waveform so that I could examine its "viability" as far as the original claims are concerned.
I either have gotten it or I haven't. It's unclear to me which, since the only other person who has does not seem to be capable of displaying actual information on a scope trace. However, I am still looking, and if someone can give me waveform specifics I can pull out the arbitrary waveform generator and synthesize the damn thing if necessary.
Meanwhile I can definitely show --and I thought I did, in that last video above--that the oscillation that I am dealing with produces no heating in the load. Is it Murakami's oscillation? I dunno. But when I do know, so will you.
Any more straw men, there, jibbguy?
(Mother's basement? Is that remark directed at me? I laugh in your face. My mother never had a basement...except for the one in Munchen where she sheltered from the British bombers during WWII...)
And I keep my personal identity private because nobody gives a flying flmp who I am anyway, and I like it that way. I'm not trying to promote a book or sell anybody anything. If people want to use their "real" names on the internet, that's their business. If they don't, that's OK too, and probably, IMHO, a whole lot smarter.
Remember the MyLow fiasco? I got death threats over that one, and I was right on the whole time.
And for goodness sakes, when will it sink in that
I HAVE GOTTEN LOAD HEATING SIMILAR TO AINSLIE'S
using a known 3 percent ON duty cycle,
AT AVERAGE POWER LEVELS IN LINE WITH AINSLIE'S
reported input power levels in her papers.
Sorry to shout but doesn't this deserve to be said out loud?
That is, I feel that I have replicated Ainslie's EXPERIMENTAL results to a fair degree of accuracy at the duty cycle originally claimed, using not the erroneous 555 timer that makes the inverted cycle from the Quantum paper, but rather a fast risetime (5 ns) pulse generator set at 2.4 kHz and 3 percent KNOWN ON duty cycle.
There is no problem there.
The problem is with Ainslie's CONTROL run and her calculations of the energy balance.
So far, my control runs, using the same load, powered by a DC regulated power supply set to deliver the appropriate DC current to give the same average INPUT power to the load...these cause the load to heat somewhat faster and to reach a somewhat higher temperature at equilibrium.
Now, if someone can tell me how the mosfet oscillation or non-oscillation can possibly affect these results in a pro-OU direction...I would really appreciate it.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 23, 2009, 05:31:45 PM
And I keep my personal identity private because nobody gives a flying flmp who I am anyway, and I like it that way. I'm not trying to promote a book or sell anybody anything. If people want to use their "real" names on the internet, that's their business. If they don't, that's OK too, and probably, IMHO, a whole lot smarter.
Remember the MyLow fiasco? I got death threats over that one, and I was right on the whole time.
TK,
Seems like some people here (and more so on other forums) would rather perpetuate fantasy (and speculation) rather than pursue the truth (aka science), but I think you're doing a pretty good job and more scientific than most.
Thanks.
I'm not averse to a little fantasy now and then myself, as you can probably guess. And I don't mind taking flack for what I've done with my education, because that's my responsibility.
But when someone tries to diss my education itself, that's when I start to burn up. I've slept through classes in 5 of the finest universities in the English-speaking world, flunked out hard from one, and was able to get back in, pull myself out of the gutter and get almost as far as the curb. Ahh, those were the days, wine and roses, buds and honeys. Anyway, I've had the opportunity to learn from the finest, and much of what I was taught actually seems to hold up under inspection. The rest I must take on (informed and considered) faith. When we landed that robot on Titan, that sort of told me that we pretty much must know what is what, as far as kinematics goes--along with all the other physics involved as well. Some pretty darn good shooting, that.
So I'm extremely skeptical of speculation that attempts to disguise itself as theory, and I'm reactionary when it comes to the philosophy of experimental science. The issues at stake in the present case are not to do with the COP>17 claim, which is ridiculous on the face of it (that is, it has little or no "face validity", a technical term) and is easily dismissed by the most rudimentary experimentation.
They have rather to do with confirmatory bias in research design, the philosophy of science, the psychology of experimenters, and even the psychopathology of everyday life, to borrow a famous title from Uncle Siggy.
Certainly the interpersonal byplay has revealed much more true and interesting detail than has the exploration --yet again-- of an ancient circuit and an ancient idea for the production of energy.
TK, Don't take it personally. You're not the one that asked for a photo , are you? Everything is not about you, you know ;)
(geez an old girl friend said that to me once years ago lol)
Imo, you are entitled to your anonymity, UP UNTIL you make personal and scurrilous claims about an opponent's honesty or honor who IS NOT anonymous. Then it's time to either bite the bullet and come forward out of the dark... Or shut the hell up. Because otherwise you can expect no respect or consideration for your opinions... You have then become a meaningless gadfly, or a shill. And neither are worth listening to.
I always use my internet name, but have published articles under my own and have often linked to them here and other places so it's no secret (it's "Steve Windisch"). That is fine but i draw the line at a photo ;) There is no reason for anyone to have a friggin' photo. I've made so many enemies in the past (mainly from my political days, usually neo-cons who are not interested in real debate only personal attack, and so got utterly ego-crushed via Karma, using their own tactics back at them lol), that i don't need to be recognized by some half-witted fascist with inadequacy syndrome and an old "Bush-Cheney" bumper sticker. Such fisticuffs might even be extremely fun and satisfying, but they are illegal and prone to get you sued when you win, lol.
As for all this here in the thread: We shall eventually see one way or another, as it NOW is receiving more of the interest due to it ;)
THAT IS MY POINT IN A NUTSHELL.
And why some others' here don't want to see it pursued (..Not referring to you, lol), is really rather strange when you think about it.
Quote from: jibbguy on July 23, 2009, 06:41:01 PM
And why some others' here don't want to see it pursued (..Not referring to you, lol), is really rather strange when you think about it.
I'm not saying it shouldn't be pursued. I'm saying TK has done more than enough. I'm satisfied there is no OU to be had with the circuits presented so far. If Rosemary, Aaron, FuzzyTomCat, Jetijs, AllCanadian, et al. want to carry on, more power to them. When they can present some unambiguous evidence they have achieved what Rosemary's circuits fail to, let them present their case. Oh yeah, don't forget Wilby. :D If it interests him enough, I'm sure TK would step up to the plate.
And I have requested this be properly put to bed. A lot of work has been done, it should be prepared as if it was to be submitted for peer review. I don't think it should be dropped and forgotten. It might even be a good idea, as TK suggested, to submit it to a journal for publication.
There are other mysteries out there, begging for some attention (including a couple of mine ;) ). I think we would all be better served if TK applied some of his energy and talent to those. This one has been solved.
Quote from: 0c on July 23, 2009, 07:10:15 PM
I'm not saying it shouldn't be pursued. I'm saying TK has done more than enough. I'm satisfied there is no OU to be had with the circuits presented so far. If Rosemary, Aaron, FuzzyTomCat, Jetijs, AllCanadian, et al. want to carry on, more power to them. When they can present some unambiguous evidence they have achieved what Rosemary's circuits fail to, let them present their case. Oh yeah, don't forget Wilby. :D If it interests him enough, I'm sure TK would step up to the plate.
And I have requested this be properly put to bed. A lot of work has been done, it should be prepared as if it was to be submitted for peer review. I don't think it should be dropped and forgotten. It might even be a good idea, as TK suggested, to submit it to a journal for publication.
There are other mysteries out there, begging for some attention (including a couple of mine ;) ). I think we would all be better served if TK applied some of his energy and talent to those. This one has been solved.
Hey Oc,
There was a posting I made earlyer in the thread, a reply to henieck on: July 12, 2009, 11:33:52 PM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg190915#msg190915
"MY QUOTE" -As your familiar with the RA circuit and have a good knowledge of electronics I think you wold agree that
if the circuit works great ... if it doesn't the first person that figures out whats wrong and corrects the problem using the old "copyright" notice will have some exclusive rights, so maybe it's off to the races so to speak? I find the circuit interesting, possibly unique and RA is the one that came up with what is being discussed no one else but her co-author "years" ago, and no one can take that away .....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just for the record ..... so to speak ..... also my Tektronix 2445a oscilloscope was out getting calibrated so the only wave I could see coming out of the circuit would be of the ocean kind and there was no tsunami that was visible. ;)
Fuzzy
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on July 23, 2009, 08:27:47 PM
Hey Oc,
There was a posting I made earlyer in the thread, a reply to henieck on: July 12, 2009,
No offense intended. Care to contribute any data, schematics, photos, or test protocols to the archives?
Quote from: 0c on July 23, 2009, 09:55:13 PM
No offense intended. Care to contribute any data, schematics, photos, or test protocols to the archives?
@ Oc
Well I talked about it to members on both sides of the pond and personally never have ever posted results on replications for the obvious reasons, on any device because of to many variables to make mistakes. I did see things with my scope I wasn't sure of ..... electronic and power signals are one thing and when messing around saw something I never saw before I thought something was wrong with my scope, and sent it out for calibration. It was my knowing utility power as I do and forced a grounding and "ground loop" issue which TK from one of his statements (kinda a loaded question) and through his work in posting videos on my questioning him is when he replicated what I saw and he knew what it was and I didn't, this is in reference to the audio signal, thats his find. I will admit there are far better electronic masters here or there and my hope is for us all to learn something from this simple
hand full of parts, the talent is obviously here, just read the posts. I see the normal jockeying for position which, can be good thing, as long as you can finish the race and maybe even grab the "
golden" ring on the way.
Regards,
Glen
:)
Thanks OC, I will continue and you seem to have elected yourself to the steering committee for this thread.
TK, be honest with your work. Do the control with a battery. Put the 10 ohm resistor straight on the battery bank fully charged up. When connecting the resistor, let it go and then start your measurements after it drops to a certain voltage. 24 volts so you're not just on the surface charge. See how long it lasts until it drops to 21 volts.
Even without a side by side test, charge the SAME bank, then hook up the Ainslie circuit, let it go until it hits 24 volts. Then see how long it takes to drop to 21 volts.
You will see that it takes much longer producing the same heat.
That is one simple test that I think you can wrap your head around.
Show the true RMS draw on the shunt. You have the equipment to do that I'm sure. Please show it. It is important.
Anyone can see on that picture that potential is returning to the battery.
http://www.feelthevibe.com/free_energy/rosemary_ainslie/scopeshunt1.jpg
Anyone fancies a discussion about how to pulse HV(+10 kV on one electrode, the other switched off, then do the inverse) and pull the water molecules from side to side taking advantage of the water dipole in creating steam?
That actually holds a logical base and was called water steam resonator by Stan Meyer.
If you check the history of achievements of the "initiators and FE political people in favour of RM" you might want to reconsider your time priorities... ;)
Blablabla..
Quote from: qiman on July 24, 2009, 04:22:26 AM
Thanks OC, I will continue and you seem to have elected yourself to the steering committee for this thread.
Any "steering" I do will be an attempt to steer away from this thread and onto some other, more promising topic. I think this thread has run its course. Nothing here has shown any hint of overunity and can be thoroughly explained using conventional textbook physics. This thread was interesting for a while. But nothing has been shown which requires current theories to be rewritten. It's time to move on.
There are a number of other topics in this forum that have never been adequately explained, including a couple I presented. I have no idea what TK might choose next, if anything (Of course, I hope he'll spend some more time investigating my stuff). He deserves a vacation for a few days at least (not too long now).
But I don't think the Ainslie topic should be abruptly abandoned. A lot of good work was done here. It should be recorded and made available for use by future Ainslie researchers and others who dabble in electronics experimentation. I'm willing to contribute a little effort (not a lot) to see that happen.
So carry on with your efforts. And if you manage to discover something truly anomalous, and have the evidence to support it, come on back and compete with the rest of us for the attentions of the real experts.
OC
If Aaron wants his scope shots to be takes seriously he MUST include the horizontal and vertical settings at bare minimum. AND if he wishes to tell the TRUE story of those spikes he needs to look at them at a much higher time magnification.
Display the ringdown of a single pulse. The spike has negative components and positive ones. Overall, the energy flow in the spike almost totally cancels itself out. That is, it integrates to nearly zero.
His trace is helpful but his comment about RMS readings is incoherent.
There is not a consumer-grade TRMS meter made that can properly read this circuit at these waveforms and frequencies, and for Aaron even to suggest it is very telling. My analog Simpson will actually do better than most digital meters at this task when properly applied.
I can actually use the scope --and he can too -- to calculate the ENERGY being transferred through the shunt resistor--or anywhere else in the circuit--during a period of time, and as soon as I know that I have the correct waveform I will do so.
What Aaron is showing above looks nothing at all like the oscillatory waveforms he has been showing. It looks like a normal input current trace like many I have shown, made when the circuit is normally amplifying a square wave pulse.
And everybody, I thought, even Rosemary herself, agrees that battery drawdown tests like Aaron has proposed have too many variables and are too difficult to control to be preformed adequately by, shall we say, amateurs.
One proper way to do the energy comparisons is as I have done it: Compute or measure the average power in from the battery when the Ainslie circuit is running, and take a temperature vs. time profile of the load as it heats to equilibrium. Then take the same load and supply it with DC from a regulated supply at the SAME AVERAGE POWER that you found in the first case, and run that temperature vs. time profile to equilibrium again. Compare the profiles, and then explain how, if the Ainslie circuit is using the SAME POWER more effectively, its load does not heat as fast as the DC case.
Besides, it takes days of testing to significantly deplete my 2x12V 20 mA-H battery. I've run the Ainslie load well past 110 degrees C many times in the last few days and the battery is still indicating 25.2 volts cold. Battery depletion testing will only be worthwhile IF there is the slightest indication of excess energy. So far there isn't, for me.
Funny, isn't it? Aaron has found excess energy and self-running motors and self-recharging batteries several times, to hear him tell it. In fact everything he makes, works.
And yet...he's still posting stuff on a free energy website and building 555 circuits from a Radio Shack book.
Something is wrong with this picture.
The input power MEASUREMENT if properly made must logically be the Algebraic Sum of any power flows into and out of the battery, automatically. That's what those spikes represent (whether they actually get to the battery as charge is another issue--they don't really, as MH and Henieck have shown). And that's what the magic of integration will tell us---the SUM of the battery energy flow in and out.
New
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1fE4ez1EPc
cat
Quote from: powercat on July 24, 2009, 11:52:44 AM
New
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1fE4ez1EPc
cat
ROTFLMAO!!
Yet another demonstration from Aaron that he does not know how to use an oscilloscope to display information.
That thing is more than just a light show, Aaron. It is a precision measurement tool, and it's a shame to see it being operated by someone who either does not know how to use it, or who is deliberately using it to obfuscate the truth.
You are using a micrometer as a C-clamp. Trying to measure a grain of sand with a postal scale and a yardstick.
And when you get garbage, that's what you believe and that's what you report--since it came from an "instrument".
But instruments must be used correctly, and you aren't doing that.
What kind of scope does not even have an automatic trigger? You said yours does not, I believe.
I have actually NEVER seen a modern scope that did not have an auto trigger. No wonder you are having so much trouble displaying a stable waveform.
By a curious coincidence, I too made a video this morning.
It's uploading now. You may find it instructive.
But more likely, Aaron, you just won't understand it.
Since I explain clearly what I'm showing and how it was obtained...which you seem to be incapable of doing.
Can Anyone tell me the make and model of Aaron's oscilloscope?
If it's not a well-known make, could I please be permitted to see a clear photograph of the front panel?
Thanks in advance.
Hi TK
in this video you can see his scope/ 52 seconds in
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxsoze9CZ9E
it's the weekend and my megabytes very slow/ I didn't see the make of the scope
18 vids on aaronmurakami's Channel
http://www.youtube.com/user/aaronmurakami
cat
Quote from: powercat on July 24, 2009, 02:42:42 PM
Hi TK
in this video you can see his scope/ 52 seconds in
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxsoze9CZ9E
it's the weekend and my megabytes very slow/ I didn't see the make of the scope
18 vids on aaronmurakami's Channel
http://www.youtube.com/user/aaronmurakami
cat
Thanks. And groan. If I have to watch all those I'm quite sure that the tiny remaining portion of my brainbone will turn to reeking green mush and start running out my earholes.
And here's this, for whatever it's worth. Of course, I have no idea what I'm doing so this is clearly a fraud. But at least you can see the scope traces and someone is explaining what you are seeing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeIVSiEZDnc
(And I know I multiplied when I should have divided by the value of the shunt resistor when I was talking about the actual VALUE of the instantaneous power trace. This has nothing to do with the principle illustrated here. But I'm sure I will hear about it.)
EDIT: I just found one that might be more up Aaron's alley. What is said applies to analog scopes as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFc1ev-uJ1A
TK,
Everyone knows you're conducting phony tests and don't have the honesty to show power in and power out measurements even though you have the equipment. You will see the gain and that will make you look bad for all the bogus information you are feeding everyone.
The shunt scope shot I show is as it appears. There is NO ringdown in that spike whatsoever. I zoomed in as much as possible, tuned the resistance to the bare minimum necessary to eliminate the ring, zoomed out and took the picture. If you want to see the ring being eliminated, I can show you that since you can't figure it out for yourself. I already posted that with no resistance at the gate, there is a ring, increasing the resistance at the gate 100% eliminates the ring that is visible at the shunt in the negative spike going back to the battery.
Stop showing phony results with flat-lining on your scope with oscillation and other clowning around. You're already lost your reputation with quite a few people already and if you keep up your dog and pony show, there will be more.
I already have the results and am waiting for you to post more nonsense so I can reveal your games. In the end, the truth always wins and it was won before you ever got started.
Quote from: qiman on July 24, 2009, 04:22:39 PM
I already have the results and am waiting for you to post more nonsense so I can reveal your games. In the end, the truth always wins and it was won before you ever got started.
Instead of playing games why don't you just post your results; and save us the agony of having to listen you two smart guys bicker...
Phony tests. When I have seen and reported time and again heating of the load similar to Ainslie's at similar input power levels as she reports, and at a genuine known 3 percent duty cycle. And when I report all pertinent values and settings so that anyone can repeat my results to SEE FOR THEMSELVES whether what I report is phony or not.
Sure, if you want to say that's fake, fine. You are really a one-man comedy of error, ERRon.
And once again we have lies and innuendo and no real information from qiman.
Zoomed in, zoomed out, no info on scope settings. Garbage in, garbage out, is what I say.
You can see a complete energy measurement made with the Holy Digital God of Oscilloscopes if you just shut up and watch my videos. Of course since it involves actual numbers you won't be able to grok its fullness.
I even show energy being returned to the battery in the latest one. Which is uploading now.
Of course, we know from qiman that my measurements must be fake. Even though I report them in sufficient detail for anyone to check them.
Unlike some others I could mention.
Waiting is!
Quote from: newbie123 on July 24, 2009, 04:34:58 PM
Instead of playing games why don't you just post your results; and save us the agony of having to listen to you smart guys bicker...
My results are of course posted as I get them, and corrected when I find errors. And they are posted in enough detail for anyone who wants to check them for themselves.
And I guess you better take up the issue of having to listen, with whoever has you strapped to that chair in front of your computer, with your eyeballs propped open with toothpicks.
Quote from: qiman on July 24, 2009, 04:22:39 PM
TK,
Everyone knows you're conducting phony tests and don't have the honesty to show power in and power out measurements even though you have the equipment. You will see the gain and that will make you look bad for all the bogus information you are feeding everyone.
Aaron, pack up your marbles and go home. TK tried to play in your sandbox and you banished him. Don't keep coming over here to pick fights. Take a close look at your posts and compare what you have been posting here with those unacceptable posts on EF from that evil skeptic, TK. Your posts here would get you banned from your own forum, if it wasn't for the double standard of administration.
Tell you what, when you got something you think is OU and have the evidence to back it up, go show it to Sterling Allen. Maybe if it makes the headlines at Free Energy News, we'll take another look.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 24, 2009, 04:48:27 PM
My results are of course posted as I get them, and corrected when I find errors. And they are posted in enough detail for anyone who wants to check them for themselves.
And I guess you better take up the issue of having to listen, with whoever has you strapped to that chair in front of your computer, with your eyeballs propped open with toothpicks.
Well, that comment was more for qiman, who basically just said that he's holding out on posting his OU results to make TK look more like "the bad guy" ... Which is pretty much playing games in itself...
Quote from: 0c on July 24, 2009, 04:50:36 PM
Aaron, pack up your marbles and go home. TK tried to play in your sandbox and you banished him. Don't keep coming over here to pick fights. Take a close look at your posts and compare what you have been posting here with those unacceptable posts on EF from that evil skeptic, TK. Your posts here would get you banned from your own forum, if it wasn't for the double standard of administration.
Tell you what, when you got something you think is OU and have the evidence to back it up, go show it to Sterling Allen. Maybe if it makes the headlines at Free Energy News, we'll take another look.
Yep, as I've said before his hypocrisy is just barely matched by his willful ignorance.
And of course I have shown power input and output measurements for weeks, along with temperature profiles and Charlie knows what else.
And perhaps the most telling fact about this whole Ainslie affair is that Sterling Allen won't even touch it with his ten foot pole.
I actually knew what I was getting into as soon as I found out that the "patent" was only a patent application. And when I found the "error" in the 555 circuit in the Quantum article, which still has not been corrected or retracted, and got flamed for that, my original impression was confirmed in the worst way.
Quote from: newbie123 on July 24, 2009, 04:56:32 PM
Well, that comment was more for qiman, who basically just said that he's holding out on posting his OU results to make TK look more like a bad guy... Which is pretty much playing games in itself...
I know I know, sorry, I just get tired of his crap. It genuinely appears that he really does not know how to properly display a simple waveform on his scope, nor does he appear to understand what all those little numbers are around the knobs.
Certainly what he is showing on that last video has nothing to do with "resonance" that I can tell. If one wants to see some illustrations of resonance, some old vids of gotoluc's, and some of mine, explain it quite well.
So please forgive my snappiness, newbie. I know you are watching in rapt fascination, like everyone else, in the hope that TK will make some fatally discrediting mistake, shrivel up, and die in embarrassment.
:D
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 24, 2009, 05:10:11 PM
I know you are watching in rapt fascination, like everyone else, in the hope that TK will make some fatally discrediting mistake, shrivel up, and die in embarrassment.
:D
Hardly. As far as I'm concerned I just want to know the facts. This is why I read your posts, TK.
My current opinion on this circuit is most folks just humored her. Humoring these types is a good thing if you wish to walk away in good health and all body parts.
Most do that for me. I'm supposed to be the crackpot. When a crackpot labels someone a crackpot things are pretty severe.
Eliminate ringing of spike returning to battery by increasing gate resistance.
Congratulations Aaron.
You finally figured out how to show a waveform on your scope. I see that some of my instruction has actually helped you.
Now, please remember to show or state
1)the Probe Coupling (Ac or DC)
2) the Probe Attenuation (probably 10x if it is an actual scope probe rather than some alligator clips and a scrap of wire)
3) the Horizontal timebase setting (sec/div) and the vertical amplifier setting (V/div)
4) the zero position (by grounding the channel and showing where the trace is).
Then we will be able to tell you what your frequency and voltages are. These basic things must be known in order properly to interpret a waveform.
By the way, I showed those same waveforms what, 4 weeks ago now?
You are a little behind.
And what's the bandwidth of your scope, and its fastest risetime?
And what do your waveforms actually show? They show that when the gate of the mosfet is NOT overdriven, the transistor switches more cleanly and with less distortion. Turn that pot down even more and the signal will get even cleaner. Use a different mosfet and ditto.
Perhaps you should add that as a chapter to your book. Since it is ancient wisdom.
Now, can you show your "random resonant aperiodic oscillations" in some coherent way, or is the above waveform the correct one to use in a proper Ainslie experiment??
If the above waveform IS the correct one, what was all that BS about random aperiodic parasitic Hartley oscillation, or whatever you wound up calling it?
If the above waveform is NOT the correct one, why did you bother to show it at all, since we've all seen it long before?
Is it just to show that your scope can indeed trigger on a waveform when you've finally figured out how to set it?
(BTW I've been meaning to ask you: Is your quantum theory compatible with zipon-antitruant theory? That is, could both your theory and Rosemary's be correct? Just wondering....)
But that's a good way to reduce energy loss in the ringing--you prevent the mosfet from passing that energy in the first place by reducing the drive. So it stays in the battery where it belongs, instead of being dissipated in the circuit's resistances during the ringdown.
Good Work!
Preparing for actual (as opposed to pilot) heat profile experiments.
#1: Hotpoint calibration of "Bullitt1" Ainslie loadcell. Load and thermocouple encased in heatshrink, immersed in mineral oil, in test tube, in boiling water for 15 minutes. Water at 100 C, load TC indicates about 4 degrees low. Coldpoint calibration to follow.
#2: TK lab snapshot, preparing for testing. Be afraid, be very afraid.
Note load temp at HHH--this is over 120 degrees C. The Aaron clock does not produce short duty cycles, and at 40 percent or so the load heats very rapidly. So I will be going back to a known 3 percent from a pulse generator, unless the magic HF random resonant aperiodic oscillation is "LESS" effective than the normal square edged pulse.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 25, 2009, 02:16:36 PM
#2: TK lab snapshot, preparing for testing. Be afraid, be very afraid.
Doen't that penguin get a bit warm?
I wonder how much heat you'd get if you pumped a bit of Hendrix through that Ainslie circuit?
Note how Aaron starts talking about BATTERY VOLTAGES INSTEAD OF MEASURING TRUE HEATING INPUT/OUTPUT... ;D
This is part of their ever repeating plans, always include a battery power source to confuse all results and prolong the thread, after 3-6 months they always drop their thread and move on to the next one(see at Energetic: Plasma spark, Electric motors, Gray tube, Bedini SG, Stan Meyer etc, etc).
It´s useless trying to fight a club of people with a record history of non-achievement during 30+ years. Note also they have endless time filling up threads with 1000s of messages here and on Energetic.....
Here is the deal about the battery, a trillion people have reported increasing voltages if you pulse an old or even new battery, my company also offers a battery pulsing device to increase the battery lifespan by about 2-3 times in a car, this is a fact and no news. There are loads of suppliers out there for this equipment.
So Aaron now mixes up the subject discussing rising battery voltages instead of measuring heating COP. Hence their rhetorics will last a little longer. Anyone understands how a guy can even PRINT so many words in such a short time period without cloning himself.....;D
And TK, thanks again for your hard work lowerring your brainpower to this level, just continue killing them off by professional engineering work. You are actually making them show who they are, over and over again, brilliant.
AND I STILL HAVE NO PROOF THAT RM EXISTS! ;D
Eagerly awaiting at least another 100 LONG replies from the club of people with endless time on their hands..... ;D
How's WITTS and "Sir Timothy" Thrapp coming along, Gauss ?
For those that didn't see that, Gauss was their "unofficial spokesman" in the other forum on that subject. When it did not receive the attention he desired, he made it his mission to attack Aaron and Peter in any way he could. Peter's only "crime" was being around long enough to refute with personal knowledge many of the claims Thrapp makes.
BTW, We are still waiting to see our open sourced device from WITTS.
Could this little bit of hatred here on this subject be revenge from being questioned at Energetics forum about the absurd statements and claims of WITTS?
Lol you should understand that few here are going to be listening to you about how WITTS invented every major F-E technology for the last 200 years either. If you want to despise everyone who disagrees with you on this subject, be prepared for a lot of spilkus.
And how dare you denigrate the work of the fine people who made great contributions to those topics you mentioned. Their worth & value to this community is not in question.... Nor are the topics themselves.
However, i think it is right to question why the most "questionable" group of all regarding wild claims, WITTS, is being pushed on one hand, and then legitimate, effective, and prolific Open Source researchers attacked on the other... What are you really about, Gauss?
BTW: "Sir Timothy" uses batteries with many of "his" devices too... Is it OK in his case?
And for the record, true pulsing commercial battery chargers for large lead-acids are not that common, nor "old" as far as being marketed goes. If it was, we would see slightly better results posted for conventional alternative energy systems (wind, solar); which our brothers on the accepted alternative energy side have not fully embraced yet. Although some chargers have had much "ripple" for many years (because they were not using filter caps after the bridge); it will not give the same effects at all as fast rise-time pulses; in both charging and desulfating. Little coil flybacks for little batteries are not the same thing either. It appears the key to making that technology effective is carefully monitoring the pulse's amplitude and width for the best results and longevity of the battery; and doing so is not as easy as it looks.
But you should know that already, since Sir Timothy and WITTS undoubtedly invented pulsing battery chargers too ;)
Thanks Aaron Jr(or whoever is your boss;)...
That was a truly brilliant message and piece of manouverring from you to yet again avoid answerring whether your "RM" is for real.... Well we both know the truth and you have a job to do here.
And you excluded me from Energetic when my questions became too embarassing and you lost it during the Witts thread and Peter admitted he did not write his own messages on the forum.. Plain as day always.
Then you guys never dared checking out Witts tech to verify it - how does that look... Why do you call RM "Witsend"?.... ;)
The super bankers(BIG BOSSES) said 2 years ago real FE must now be presented, the bees are dieing off(with them we go too), HOW WILL THAT AFFECT YOU?
Quote from: jibbguy on July 26, 2009, 09:27:42 AM
How's WITTS and "Sir Timothy" Thrapp coming along, Gauss ?
For those that didn't see that, Gauss was their "unofficial spokesman" in the other forum on that subject. When it did not receive the attention he desired, he made it his mission to attack Aaron and Peter in any way he could. Peter's only "crime" was being around long enough to refute with personal knowledge many of the claims Thrapp makes.
BTW, We are still waiting to see our open sourced device from WITTS.
Could this little bit of hatred here on this subject be revenge from being questioned at Energetics forum about the absurd statements and claims of WITTS?
Lol you should understand that few here are going to be listening to you about how WITTS invented every major F-E technology for the last 200 years either. If you want to despise everyone who disagrees with you on this subject, be prepared for a lot of spilkus.
And how dare you denigrate the work of the fine people who made great contributions to those topics you mentioned. Their worth & value to this community is not in question.... Nor are the topics themselves.
However, i think it is right to question why the most "questionable" group of all regarding wild claims, WITTS, is being pushed on one hand, and then legitimate, effective, and prolific Open Source researchers attacked on the other... What are you really about, Gauss?
BTW: "Sir Timothy" uses batteries with many of "his" devices too... Is it OK in his case?
And for the record, true pulsing commercial battery chargers for large lead-acids are not that common, nor "old" as far as being marketed goes. If it was, we would see slightly better results posted for conventional alternative energy systems (wind, solar); which our brothers on the accepted alternative energy side have not fully embraced yet. Although some chargers have had much "ripple" for many years (because they were not using filter caps after the bridge); it will not give the same effects at all as fast rise-time pulses; in both charging and desulfating. Little coil flybacks for little batteries are not the same thing either. It appears the key to making that technology effective is carefully monitoring the pulse's amplitude and width for the best results and longevity of the battery; and doing so is not as easy as it looks.
But you should know that already, since Sir Timothy and WITTS undoubtedly invented pulsing battery chargers too ;)
FYI: It looks like Rosemary has had a change of heart. She is now offering to help TK.
;)
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-40.html#post62227
Frankly Gauss, the suggestion that someone else is replying in Peter's name on the forum is so ridiculous it doesn't require, or deserve, any reply.
I am just an observer & Member there, same as here... Lol my only "boss" as far as these subjects are concerned, is "the betterment of Humankind" ;) . Which means i am doing what i feel is right.
But if you were excluded from there it is because you deserved it... And it had nothing to do with your earlier posts & opinions about WITTS; it was because of how you took the replies that contradicted them personally and what lengths you took to get "revenge" for them.
Regarding checking out WITTS, i am sure that if the request & suggestion to submit JUST ONE of their "Hundreds" of F-E technologies for Open Source study was followed; then it would be taken seriously and studied, even now. Why WITTS & Thrapp are NOT being taken seriously currently, is the requirement of "donation" to get anything from them at all, other than outrageous claims of a 200 year old secret society, and how every major F-E inventor including Tesla and Keeley, have "stolen" ideas from them. Most of these people, like Stanley Meyer, are conveniently DEAD, and since he and others cannot reply to these claims of "theft" for themselves, maybe someone should.
Here's something else to consider, just as a hypothetical:
If all these unbelievable stories are true about WITTS, and they have been the major force for F-E over the years and behind nearly everything... Then we have THEM to blame for it being still suppressed and not in the mainstream; with yet no significant body of solid proofs to stand by. That spells "failure" then decade after decade (no matter what wonderful techs they may have created), and not very deserving of our money.
But the idea around here lately is attack Open Source projects where no one is asking for any money... As it is the REAL DANGER to those who would suppress... Since the only effective weapon left then is to convince us to stop study on our own.
You are really curious about Witts and now change the subject again, why don´t you ask for a consulting session with Sir Timothy?.... ;) I am not Witts you know...
Quote from: jibbguy on July 26, 2009, 01:00:10 PM
Frankly Gauss, the suggestion that someone else is replying in Peter's name on the forum is so ridiculous it doesn't require, or deserve, any reply.
I am just an observer & Member there, same as here... Lol my only "boss" as far as these subjects are concerned, is "the betterment of Humankind" ;) . Which means i am doing what i feel is right.
But if you were excluded from there it is because you deserved it... And it had nothing to do with your earlier posts & opinions about WITTS; it was because of how you took the replies that contradicted them personally and what lengths you took to get "revenge" for them.
Regarding checking out WITTS, i am sure that if the request & suggestion to submit JUST ONE of their "Hundreds" of F-E technologies for Open Source study was followed; then it would be taken seriously and studied, even now. Why WITTS & Thrapp are NOT being taken seriously currently, is the requirement of "donation" to get anything from them at all, other than outrageous claims of a 200 year old secret society, and how every major F-E inventor including Tesla and Keeley, have "stolen" ideas from them. Most of these people, like Stanley Meyer, are conveniently DEAD, and since he and others cannot reply to these claims of "theft" for themselves, maybe someone should.
Here's something else to consider, just as a hypothetical:
If all these unbelievable stories are true about WITTS, and they have been the major force for F-E over the years and behind nearly everything... Then we have THEM to blame for it being still suppressed and not in the mainstream; with yet no significant body of solid proofs to stand by. That spells "failure" then decade after decade (no matter what wonderful techs they may have created), and not very deserving of our money.
But the idea around here lately is attack Open Source projects where no one is asking for any money... As it is the REAL DANGER to those who would suppress... Since the only effective weapon left then is to convince us to stop study on our own.
Quote from: 0c on July 26, 2009, 12:47:46 PM
FYI: It looks like Rosemary has had a change of heart. She is now offering to help TK.
;)
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-40.html#post62227
That's hilarious. I guess she can't figure out how to watch YouTube or something.
Thanks for your offer, Rosemary, but I already know how to push the "Auto" button.
Of course, real help would be very much appreciated. I need some things that only Rosemary can supply.
1) Please show the Exact Circuit Diagram including the CORRECT 555 timer circuit that was used to make the experiment described in the Quantum article and the EIT.pdf paper.
2) Please show a scope shot or a coherent description of the oscillations that you refer to as "aperiodic resonance". If Aaron's oscillations are those, please give the amplitude and frequency of Aaron's oscillations.
3) Please show the reports from the vetting labs and academics that you consulted. The actual reports, not your recollections of them.
4) Please show the spreadsheet calculations that you used to determine the COP>17 figure. The actual spreadsheet calculations, not a verbal description of them.
5) Please show a photo of your circuit, and if possible a scope shot on the oscilloscope of your choice, when it is operating in COP>17 mode.
There may be other things that would be very helpful to me, but these are the bare minimums I need, Rosemary, if you really want someone to check your work. Because with what I've got so far (the inverted duty cycle, the performance at true 3 percent, the DC control tests, the performance with Aaron's clock, the energy balance and flux measurements with the LeCroy...) all of that is not looking good for the Ainslie claim.
Of course, when Aaron succeeds in making coffee for six with a D-cell, or Joit bakes a cake with his huge inductors, I suppose I'll have to give it all up and become a monk, again.
But I won't be holding my breath. Except when the stench of mendacity rises up from the outback.
TK,
We're looking forward to your results with power measurements. When can we expect them?
From Rosemary:
-----------------------------------
Guys this is for TK.
I'm not from the outback. I'm from AFRICA that dark and beautiful continent South of Europe and South East of Canada. I have never been to Australia.
And TK we need you to post results. I'm sincerely sorry that I didn't keep better records of the test procedure but was not advised that it was required. And as we all know now, I'm an amateur. I hope you'll find it in yourself to eventually forgive the oversight.
A monk? That's a new twist. Never would have thought it.
and FE to all.
We seem to have lost the good offices of ramset for the time being. Could someone else with 'dual citizenship' please oblige and post this across to OU.com?
Quote from: jibbguy on July 26, 2009, 01:00:10 PM
If all these unbelievable stories are true about WITTS, and they have been the major force for F-E over the years and behind nearly everything... Then we have THEM to blame for it being still suppressed and not in the mainstream; with yet no significant body of solid proofs to stand by. That spells "failure" then decade after decade (no matter what wonderful techs they may have created), and not very deserving of our money.
But the idea around here lately is attack Open Source projects where no one is asking for any money... As it is the REAL DANGER to those who would suppress... Since the only effective weapon left then is to convince us to stop study on our own.
I whole heartedly agree. Anyone that has true OU in hands, is part of the PROBLEM, not the solution. All our job to mankind is not to invent, but to share after we've invented. Inventing is our nature, egoism our worse disease.
Ever seen a Gorilla aplha male demand all the bananas for himself? Give them a big pile of the good stuff, and after he's had a good meal, he'll share his wealth with his "people". Asking nothing in return but respect.
When you ask money for free energy, you deserve neither that, nor respect.
Many of the FE inventors were god fearing man. How do they explain themselves to their maker, or ever the guy at heaven's gate?
Cloxxki, you are hereby uncoverred too..... ;) I agree about the inventors not sharing but you know what, many never got the chance sharing anything since health quickly deteriorated after some "friendly guys" visited them.
They really haunt you these Witts guys. Since you worry so much about them here is their website: www.witts.ws - I am sure when they have news you will see it there.
If I were in your(or maybe Peter´s clothes that is) clothes I would sell one of all the FE devices he got hold of during the 70s and 80s when he assisted all those great inventors. Some people are bound to get rich very soon if the world is still standing.
Good luck!
Quote from: Cloxxki on July 27, 2009, 06:01:12 AM
I whole heartedly agree. Anyone that has true OU in hands, is part of the PROBLEM, not the solution. All our job to mankind is not to invent, but to share after we've invented. Inventing is our nature, egoism our worse disease.
Ever seen a Gorilla aplha male demand all the bananas for himself? Give them a big pile of the good stuff, and after he's had a good meal, he'll share his wealth with his "people". Asking nothing in return but respect.
When you ask money for free energy, you deserve neither that, nor respect.
Many of the FE inventors were god fearing man. How do they explain themselves to their maker, or ever the guy at heaven's gate?
Quote from: qiman on July 27, 2009, 03:23:49 AM
TK,
We're looking forward to your results with power measurements. When can we expect them?
You, Err-on, can expect them when hell freezes over.
Or you can look back along some of the pages in this thread where I have been posting them.
This past weekend I did about a dozen DC control runs and graphed them. If you're especially clever you might be able to find them when I post them.
Because, you see, unlike YOU, Aaron, all my results are posted and repeatable.
And Aaron, none of my scope shots are faked, as you continue to cry. If you continue to LIE about me and what I'm doing, you continue to defile yourself thereby.
All of my scope shots are repeatable by anybody who knows how to use an oscilloscope, and there is sufficient detail in my posts for anyone to do it.
Your posts and scope shots, however, are either deliberately designed to obfuscate, or are evidence of incredible incompetence.
Or both.
I especially mock you for your continuing failure to see and absorb what I continue to show on my videos.
When are you going to post a coherent scope shot of your magic oscillations?
One that includes the point monitored, the scope settings, and the other pertinent information that is necessary to interpret it.
Otherwise we just have to conclude that, although you may have finally figured out how to set your trigger, you still don't know what all those tiny little numbers mean.
And folks, the Thrapp-Witt discussion is a bit OT here; there are several threads on those fraudsters already; I personally don't think that Witt is Witsend, although both seem a bit witless to me. Nor do I give some rat's sass for conspiracy theories unless they have some foreground effects. In this case, that is the Ainslie file, the foreground effects are far too flimsy and transparent to hold up to any deep background conspiracy. IMHO, of course. And of course we all could be part of the conspiracy.
That being said, I may have a new hypothesis concerning the Ainslie circuit and data, thanks to the flailings of the great scientist and seer Err-on.
The original Ainslie circuit published in full (except, curiously, the crucial diode) in the Quantum article includes a 555 timer, which I and others have shown produces an inverted duty cycle--that is, it makes the mosfet turn ON 96 percent instead of 4 percent. Using the battery and load parameters cited in the experiment, this 96 percent duty cycle produced far too much heating in my load, whereas a true 3 percent duty cycle seemed to mimic Ainslie's heat profile closely.
I have long been puzzled by this "error". The numbers are too close for coincidence, particularly in the freq and duty cycle of the timer.
But---I obtained these results using 12 volts Vcc supplying my 555 timer circuit, as apparently specified in the Quantum article's circuit.
Aaron's "work" using a series resistance -- or a low battery voltage-- in series with the 555 power supply, runs the 555 at a lower voltage than is normally considered adequate. When I tried this on Aaron's circuit I was able to make some strange oscillations happen when the mosfet is off, but these oscillations can't transfer power to the load, as the mosfet isn't turning on at all from them.
BUT:: Using a series resistance in the power supply to the ORIGINAL 555 timer circuit, delivering the flipped duty cycle (which gives a 4 percent High signal at the mosfet DRAIN, remember--up is off here--) "turning down the volume" of the 555 signal, reduces the mosfet's gain to the point where only a small average current passes, even at 96 percent duty cycle.
(The 100R pot in the gate is nowhere near enough to do have this effect. Even a 200K pot here won't turn the gain down enough at 96 percent ON to limit load heating.)
No, I haven't made any "aperiodic resonance", I still think that is false or lost triggering on scope signal, but at least I have come up with a rational explanation that seems to fit the facts better than "it's a misprinted circuit diagram".
And I just came up with this possibility a couple of hours ago, using the small light bulb so that I could easily visualize what was happening to the current in the load as the 555 power level, the duty cycle, and the gate attenuator were changed. I haven't taken any quantitative heating data in this configuration YET. I sure would like to know just what waveform to use, but for now I will set up with 95 percent ON from the Quantum 555, at low voltage to the timer, and look for some mode that doesn't heat the load or the transistor TOO much.
So the point of the above is this: the original 555 timer could well have been used in the original experiment, if it was underpowered or attenuated enough to reduce the transistor's gain by a large margin.
Unfortunately it seems that inadequate records were kept of the original experiment.
So maybe Ainslie should repeat her own experiment, with modern equipment and better record-keeping. I'm sure there won't be any objection to that--after all, she still has the original apparatus, and she's getting her Fluke-0-Scope fixed...and it's an easy experiment to do, after all.
COP>17, remember?
Quote from: qiman on July 27, 2009, 03:41:48 AM
From Rosemary:
-----------------------------------
Guys this is for TK.
I'm not from the outback. I'm from AFRICA that dark and beautiful continent South of Europe and South East of Canada. I have never been to Australia.
And TK we need you to post results. I'm sincerely sorry that I didn't keep better records of the test procedure but was not advised that it was required. And as we all know now, I'm an amateur. I hope you'll find it in yourself to eventually forgive the oversight.
A monk? That's a new twist. Never would have thought it.
and FE to all.
We seem to have lost the good offices of ramset for the time being. Could someone else with 'dual citizenship' please oblige and post this across to OU.com?
I got the idea somehow that you had gone to Australia from Africa. Sorry, I stand corrected. I don't really care where you are.
Keeping good records of experiments is basic scientific practice, taught to eighth graders here where I come from. Bound lab notebooks and so forth, and it is quite customary for reviewers to ask to see original data records especially when the paper is unusual or controversial.
And one might expect records of an experiment which showed COP>17 to be made in exquisite detail and preserved for posterity, or at least for the grandkids.
Which is why I have been posting test results here, all along, daily, for nearly six weeks.
But what we NEED is for you to focus a bit, Rosemary, and answer some of the questions that I have been asking you for nearly 6 weeks now.
Let's just do them one at a time.
1) What is the EXACT circuit including the timer portion that was used to make the experiment described in the Quantum article and the EIT.pdf paper?
Once you've finally answered that one, we can move on to the others.
If you want to skip ahead (not recommended) you can ponder the next question and its branches.
The Load Resistance/Inductance.
How was the 0.00864 milliHenry inductance determined?
Was it measured, or calculated from the physical dimensions of the resistor as given in the paper?
How was it measured?
(A calculation from the physical dimensions gives nearly the exact figure quoted...)
The reason for this question is that 8 microHenries is a quite small, not a large, inductance, and most loads being used by me and by others will be much larger than this value. Larger inductances, much larger, OTO hundreds of milliHenrys, will make much better charging spikes and "shockingly" higher voltages in this circuit. Why was the extremely low inductance resistor used in your experiment ?
The whole deal is that Lindemann&Co wanted to have Witts stop the debate about the Witts water heater... And they managed that and then started the RM thread in reply. So no, RM belongs to Lindemann´s group and nobody else. Sorry that we got that debate in this thread.
Just keep advancing TK!
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 27, 2009, 09:21:10 AM
And folks, the Thrapp-Witt discussion is a bit OT here; there are several threads on those fraudsters already; I personally don't think that Witt is Witsend, although both seem a bit witless to me. Nor do I give some rat's sass for conspiracy theories unless they have some foreground effects. In this case, that is the Ainslie file, the foreground effects are far too flimsy and transparent to hold up to any deep background conspiracy. IMHO, of course. And of course we all could be part of the conspiracy.
That being said, I may have a new hypothesis concerning the Ainslie circuit and data, thanks to the flailings of the great scientist and seer Err-on.
The original Ainslie circuit published in full (except, curiously, the crucial diode) in the Quantum article includes a 555 timer, which I and others have shown produces an inverted duty cycle--that is, it makes the mosfet turn ON 96 percent instead of 4 percent. Using the battery and load parameters cited in the experiment, this 96 percent duty cycle produced far too much heating in my load, whereas a true 3 percent duty cycle seemed to mimic Ainslie's heat profile closely.
I have long been puzzled by this "error". The numbers are too close for coincidence, particularly in the freq and duty cycle of the timer.
But---I obtained these results using 12 volts Vcc supplying my 555 timer circuit, as apparently specified in the Quantum article's circuit.
Aaron's "work" using a series resistance -- or a low battery voltage-- in series with the 555 power supply, runs the 555 at a lower voltage than is normally considered adequate. When I tried this on Aaron's circuit I was able to make some strange oscillations happen when the mosfet is off, but these oscillations can't transfer power to the load, as the mosfet isn't turning on at all from them.
BUT:: Using a series resistance in the power supply to the ORIGINAL 555 timer circuit, delivering the flipped duty cycle (which gives a 4 percent High signal at the mosfet DRAIN, remember--up is off here--) "turning down the volume" of the 555 signal, reduces the mosfet's gain to the point where only a small average current passes, even at 96 percent duty cycle.
(The 100R pot in the gate is nowhere near enough to do have this effect. Even a 200K pot here won't turn the gain down enough at 96 percent ON to limit load heating.)
No, I haven't made any "aperiodic resonance", I still think that is false or lost triggering on scope signal, but at least I have come up with a rational explanation that seems to fit the facts better than "it's a misprinted circuit diagram".
And I just came up with this possibility a couple of hours ago, using the small light bulb so that I could easily visualize what was happening to the current in the load as the 555 power level, the duty cycle, and the gate attenuator were changed. I haven't taken any quantitative heating data in this configuration YET. I sure would like to know just what waveform to use, but for now I will set up with 95 percent ON from the Quantum 555, at low voltage to the timer, and look for some mode that doesn't heat the load or the transistor TOO much.
So the point of the above is this: the original 555 timer could well have been used in the original experiment, if it was underpowered or attenuated enough to reduce the transistor's gain by a large margin.
Unfortunately it seems that inadequate records were kept of the original experiment.
So maybe Ainslie should repeat her own experiment, with modern equipment and better record-keeping. I'm sure there won't be any objection to that--after all, she still has the original apparatus, and she's getting her Fluke-0-Scope fixed...and it's an easy experiment to do, after all.
COP>17, remember?
@.99
Just popping in to tip my hat to you, I see you´ve just banned youself :D from energetic forums RA thread because your postings were to no avail and the time taken posting was eating into your valuable life. After all one can only talk to a wall for so long until boredom sets in, I´m suprised you lasted as long as you did!
Your postings were all logical and concise and on the seldom occasion that you were in error you admitted it quickly without any drama. Unlike your "opposition" who were frequently in error and at the same time overly dramatic, almost like an amateur magician flurrying one hand to distract from the sloppy palming taking place in the other hand lol.
It´s so funny how a cult has formed around something with no real substance over there, if something special were happening then very few words would need typing, just a detailed experimental method (including 6 axis photographs of the build) along with with the results (scoped power input over a meter shunt and simple water bath calorimetry output measurements). Instead the discoverer feels no urge to even replicate, one has to wonder why?
Rest assured, I´m sure you will dream better now that you no longer visit the asylum.
Rosemary
I was broad sided By a bad guy, can't access the internet [using a buddies comp]
have fresh armor coming tomorrow.
Chet
PS
I hear 99 threw himself on his sword![not good]
PPS
I have a feeling my problem came from looking at something "BAD" ::)[you know politics!!]
And not these forums
TK sorry I get distracted When things aren't moving forward[We need a red face guy over here]
Quote from: ramset on July 27, 2009, 06:04:16 PM
Rosemary
I was broad sided By a bad guy, can't access the internet [using a buddies comp]
have fresh armor coming tomorrow.
Chet
PS
I hear 99 threw himself on his sword![not good]
PPS
I have a feeling my problem came from looking at something "BAD" ::)[you know politics!!]
And not these forums
TK sorry I get distracted When things aren't moving forward[We need a red face guy over here]
No new problems here, I hope everything works out OK for you internet-wise. My email server has been unusually slow for some weeks now. I'm sure we are not being scanned. After all, when a government says something isn't so, you've got to believe them, right?
I'm not distracted. More like disgusted. But at least I've shaken the bugs out of the experimental apparatus and am confident in the data coming from it. It turns out, surprisingly, that small time offsets in the trigger points of the stored current and voltage waveforms do NOT seem to affect the energy integration math in the LeCroy. Either that box is smarter than it looks or it really doesn't matter much, as long as one is plus or minus some small fraction of a ringdown cycle in the time alignment of the two stored traces.
If this is correct it means that I can actually get reasonable energy flux calculations even with the LeCroy's single functional channel, by using stored voltage and current waveforms taken sequentially on that single channel and doing the math on the stored traces as in the demonstration video.
Plus I've done a bunch of DC baseline temperature profiles, so that I know how the load+calorimeter behaves with a given power input--in fact I know this so well that I can use the system as a crude power meter. Give it some unknown power from zero to 40 Watts, tell me the curve of the time-temp graph over an hour's time, and I'll tell you the average power dissipated within a few tens of milliwatts.
And I've done a few actual experimental measurements and compared the heating graph obtained, with the graphs of DC heating. Using the scope measurements to read instantaneous input V and I, and calculating "roughly" the average power based on these measurements (in the ordinary way using a calculator not a fancy scope)...the load heating I have found with the Ainslie circuit is always a bit LESS than is the case with the same DC power levels. Some energy is undoubtedly lost in heating other components in the circuit.
But I will be the first to "admit" that it is very difficult to know, in this case, just what waveform I am supposed to be using, and since I am not finding OU heat (nor battery recharging, unfortunately) I am obviously using the wrong waveform.
How con you argue with that? Mon.
Yeah,
It was time to get out. It's an up-hill battle with R&A and sometimes it felt as if we were playing into the hands of a collective troll. I sure hope that is not the case.
What MH said about the folks there "not knowing what they don't know" seems so applicable.
The facts will come out if they're obtained by a competent crew. My greatest fear is that the data will be swayed, manipulated, or just plain mis-treated with the same eager bias evident in every step of the debative process thus far. All "seemingly positive" results have been met with unhindered exuberance and improvidence, while the sobering heavily backed-up facts of the classicist have only been shunned, ignored, slandered and incoherently questioned.
A most basic level of technical understanding is required before true judgment can be impartially placed on any theory or accepted practice. I think it is quite evident that R&A are not quite there yet.
.99
:D
Rosemary,
If you are reading this, please you're taking this way too far. Trust me, nobody is reading your email, and no one is blocking your internet access, particularly from OU. It is difficult to log on to OU at the best of times! Certainly Ramset is no black ops thug spying on you and your email. Him becoming a grandfather near the same time you became a grandmother was pure coincidence, and you are quite clearly being unduly paranoid.
.99
TK, not interested in your foul mouth. So you claim to have posted
real results. I suppose you give up and admit that you have been
unable to get over 1.0 COP with this circuit?
Anyway, here is a 555 circuit anyone can use to get 3.7% and 2.4kHz.
This is the timer circuit I built right after the first timer circuit. The schematic is a circuit Peter came up with. I modified that picture of the schematic to reflect the actual values of components that I am using in the 555 circuit you see in my pics. I've used it over the course of the soap opera and am very happy with it since it does everything necessary. You can of course go to higher frequencies, etc... and get a feel for the circuit.
The circuit has a max of 50% duty cycle. With the 100k pots, you can have pretty wide variability. I'm only using the lower 10% or so, but you can play with it on your own scopes to see the range you have.
As Peter said, it does 3.7% duty cycle at 2.4 kHz.
Make sure to use an inductive resistor with AS MUCH INDUCTANCE AS POSSIBLE for 10 OHMS. (wire wound ceramic hollow core resistor)
http://www.feelthevibe.com/free_energy/rosemary_ainslie/heater555timer.jpg
From Aaron:
Quote
QuoteQuote:
Originally Posted by Armagdn03 View Post
Cant say how long I have known, but I dont really think it is understood by almost anybody. I was watching a guy speak, who was a former "black ops" who said that the military had circuits which only "spent time".
This is the whole point to the voltage potential spikes. There is no real width to them because they are storing the TIME POTENTIAL. That time is what is being used to power the circuit when a load is applied. That time potential will cause current to flow when load is applied.
Literally using TIME as fuel.
It is clearly no longer possible to consider rational discussion with R&A. They can both of them just make things up out of dreams or science fiction.
In answer to a "hard question" from Gre:
Quote
Rosemary's test was already certified at COP 17 by BP, Fluke Instruments certified the results, etc...
If you're new to the thread, there have already been multiple confirmations that there is more current circulating in the system that what left the battery. There are many more to come and many more to be posted in this forum.
Which of course is full of lies.
What did "BP" certify? Where is any evidence of a report?
Even Rosemary says that Fluke only "certified" the calibration of the ScopeMeter 199 used in the experiment, NOT THE RESULTS OR CONCLUSIONS of the experiment.
And there have been no "confirmations" that there is any " more current circulating in the system that what left the battery. " There have only been conjectures and speculations about the meaning of spikes, and a lot of misunderstood descriptions of the behaviour of circuit elements.
Nobody has produced excess heat over and above what could be produced by DC at the same applied power levels. Nobody has shown the circuit to be recharging its battery or doing anything more than transferring energy from one battery to another or to a separate cap through a diode--effects which are well known, ancient, and known to be less than 100 percent efficient.
And now, to top off the comedy of lies and error even more, ramset and TK have been discovered to be the same person.
But tell us, Err-on, which one of us is the real one, and which is the disguise? Maybe you can find out by looking between the time slices on your oscilloscope.
I'm using one of Peter's power supplies to heat the resistor to determine the control wattage necessary at a continuous DC for a certain temperature.
The below pic has notes telling what to do. Use this method to determine what volts and amps your steady direct current supply (100% duty cycle - constant on) is needed to get the resistor to be at the temp that your Ainslie circuit runs at.
Make sure both are at the same ambient temp for accuracy.
If your resistor gives you 175 degrees on the Ainslie circuit for your particular batteries when they're charged (use good condition batteries - no junk) and you're at your preferred duty cycle and frequency...and that temp stays pretty much the same when the battery shows you that it isn't going down anymore...use that temp as your gauge for the control.
When resistor is cool, connect steady dc supply. If it gives you 175 when you are at 6 volts and 0.6 amps, then 3.6 watts is your control wattage.
(The 0.6 amps current leaving the supply shows the resistor is really 10 ohms right on the nose)
The resistance stays the same at ALL temperatures. They are designed for that so don't pay attention to misinformation that says otherwise.
These are very tuned resistors specifically made to be at their rated resistance for a wide range of temperatures in the many hundreds of degrees. The resistance will be consistent and reliable for your calculations.
If you measure your power on your shunt during the Ainslie circuit test - do so only with True RMS meter that can store the data to give you a running total of the watt hours it used for that particular temp for so many hours.
You don't have to run the control for as longas the Ainslie circuit. Once you know the temp when everything is equalized, take the power reading and it won't change over time.
The control shows that for 175F for 8 hours at 3.6 watts, that is 28.8 watt hours. 3.6 watts x 1 hour = 3.6 watt hours. 3.6 watt hours X 8 hours = 28.8 watt hours.
If your Ainslie circuit gets to 175F and stays there for 8 hours but your true RMS watt hour reading is 28.7 watt hours. Then you just went over 1.0 COP.
28.8 watt hours is what is required and 28.7 is less.
If you get 20 watt hours, then you beat it by more.
If you get 10 watt hours true rms reading, then you beat it by almost 3 times.
etc...
This is the first basic test to do to replicate the findings of Rosemary Ainslie's tests. Once doing PLENTY of these over and over and over. Then, goto putting your resistor in whatever kind of calorimeter, etc... that you want.
Do your tests with 0 resistance at the gate, increase resistance to remove the ringing and do the tests, get your mosfet in oscillation and do the tests. Change frequencies and duty cycles and see the relationship between them all.
http://www.feelthevibe.com/free_energy/rosemary_ainslie/rosemaryainsliecontrol.jpg
And I see that you have done some actual work for a change, Aaron, congratulations.
Now if you would only do it right.
I have done all you have described and more, using now 4 known signal sources. And I am afraid I believe my measurements more than I believe yours.
I have done temperature-time profiles for several different DC input power settings, using more precise methods than you describe, and I have done them for an Ainslie load matching her parameters, and with other loads as well.
My results differ from yours. And not because of your special talents with 555 timers.
But I must say, you have a lot of gall, to censor people from your thread, lie about results to Gre, and then come over here and post that amateurish comedy of error.
Your results are so "last week". In addition to being incorrect interpretations of the data.
The numbers I show in the control test are MY particular numbers. Don't be confused if your numbers don't match. They are only for examples.
I would recommend doing the control from a few volts up to X volts. Go up 1/4 volt each time and let the resistor stabilize its temp for a bit. Go up 1/4 volt and record temp, repeat and you'll see the full range for YOUR particular resistor.
You can put that on a graph if you want and for your Ainslie circuit, you can use it as a guage by looking at the Ainslie circuit temp and comparing to graph of control to see how your true rms power readings on the shunt compare for equal temperature.
Your methodology is incorrect. You should be using a calibrated load cell with integral temperature sensor and all the rest of that. But it is useless for me to carry on a conversation with you Aaron, as you are irrational and a hypocrite. You have every right to post whatever you like wherever you like; I will not censor you like you censor others. But I will not pretend to discuss rationally with someone who believes that circuits are powered by "time".
Here is a rough example of the CORRECT kind of data that will allow an experimenter to decide if the Ainslie circuit, or any such, is making excess heat. These are "pilot" DC control time-temp profiles. This is just a rough example from shake-down tests; the main work has yet to begin.
I suggest you read MileHigh's posts and design for yourself a calorimeter load cell and a proper methodology that you can use for reliable heat measurements. The way you are doing it is relatively useless. And resistors DO change resistance with temperature; just because you can't measure it with your gear doesn't mean it isn't so. I can measure it easily. But then I understand measurement, measurement tools, how to use them, and their errors. And I have a grasp of the quantities being measured.
Seeing how warm a resistor gets doesn't cut it. You need to know the rate of power dissipation, which can easily be obtained from my measurements.
EDIT to add: the graph shows time-temperature profiles obtained from Ainslie load "Bullitt1", 8.4 ohms, 200 uH, in an oil bath in the TCCalo, with integral thermocouple. TC calibration available on request, but it reads about 4 degrees low at 100 C. DC power was supplied by ST-1 regulated bench supply, voltage monitored by DMM, current by Simpson analog meter. The Simpson meter dissipates a small amount of power so the actual power to the load will be a few milliWatts less than computed. So the "3 Watt" graph would actually be a 3.01 Watt graph, for example. The average error in the times is maybe 15 seconds, and the error in the temperature is 0.1 C.
And did you just say "true RMS power"?
I laugh in your face, again.
Hi,
Join the world recognized MBBS program in Ukraine.
You can now earn your MBBS degree at an expense less than 30% by doing it in one of the most reputed universities in Ukraine with world class accreditation.
" 50% Aggregate In Physics, Chemistry & Biology
" 30% Cheaper
" World Class Standards
" Medical University Listed With International Medical Education Directory (IMED).
Karabuts
Logovenko Street,
Mykolayiv
Ukraine - 16600
+380930484422
Quote from: arkins on July 28, 2009, 05:37:36 AM
Hi,
Join the world recognized MBBS program in Ukraine.
You can now earn your MBBS degree at an expense less than 30% by doing it in one of the most reputed universities in Ukraine with world class accreditation.
" 50% Aggregate In Physics, Chemistry & Biology
" 30% Cheaper
" World Class Standards
" Medical University Listed With International Medical Education Directory (IMED).
Karabuts
Logovenko Street,
Mykolayiv
Ukraine - 16600
+380930484422
I don't care if this IS spam, Ukrainian women are beautiful and the beer is excellent.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 28, 2009, 05:44:42 AM
I don't care if this IS spam, Ukrainian women are beautiful and the beer is excellent.
HERE! HERE!
The ?Education? may benefit some of the Ainsley minions, as well :D
RMS Power? OMG! When will folks read a book? Apparently they can publish one before they read one?
Edit>
So I may be considered a fruit, again, I'll not discount the idea that stretching or compressing time can provide an apparent variation in fuel.
What I will deny is this variation being done with this circuit and components.
So new, thanks to Peter Lindemann, apparently, we have a 555 timer circuit (WITH 2 transistors added) that is Approved Officially as making the Ainslie circuit produce overunity.
Is that correct? Because I don't want to WASTE ANY MORE TIME working with the WRONG circuit that was published in the Quantum article, and that still has NOT been corrected in any official way by Ainslie.
And we have full instructions from Aaron as to how to make it so.
But--there is still one element missing. Those pesky mosfet oscillations.
Evidently they weren't the ones that are riding on Aaron's old 555 timer signal...so which ones are they? Let's see a scope shot, with parameters. Or a digital capture from that fancy computer scope shown on energeticforum.
I still don't believe in your oscillations, Aaron. But if you can show me how to produce them-- I will be more than happy to do so.
Of course, I think I already have. They are actually poor scope triggering on fluctuating signals that have nothing to do with "oscillation" or resonance as is normally defined.
But of course the people that wrote those definitions did not grok zipon antitruant theory in its fullness. Nor, probably, do they believe time is a fuel.
And I really really wish I did not have to keep bringing this up, but it never has been answered yet.
The question is about the inductance of the Ainslie load.
And it becomes more obvious with Aaron's new timer picture, where he stresses (in RED yet) : "The best resistor to use is the MAXIMUM INDUCTANCE you can get for 10 ohms for a wire wound resistor."
And then he says his Ohmite is way too small.
And by measurements here on a similar resistor I estimate his is between 160 and 200 microHenries.
Now, I refer the interested reader to the original Ainslie papers. What is the inductance stated for her load?
I make it 8.64 microHenries. Or about one-twentieth the inductance of Aaron's "too small" load.
Curiously, the inductance of Ainslie's resistor closely matches the inductance calculated from its physical dimensions. (I'll bet you didn't even know you could do that, did you A-man.)
SO what the flmp is up here? We have Ainslie using a ridiculously low inductance, close to the theoretical low limit for such a resistor; and we have Aaron saying that a resistor of 20 times that is still "too low".
See what I mean? Anything, everything, works. High inductance, low inductance, 99 percent, 3 percent, oscillating, not oscillating, spikes, not spikes, it all works.
Except when I try it.
It must be a conspiracy.
New vid from aaronmurakami
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52O4UJDknqA
cat
555 circuit correction.
I forgot I was putting pin 3 directly to the gate of the mosfet. You can see
that in my photos.
The photo with schematic is corrected.
Peter's comments on the 555:
Here are a few more "liner notes" on the pictures and 555 schematic that Aaron posted in Post #1341 . The signal drive to the Gate of the FET comes directly off PIN 3 of the 555 chip, before the 5.1K resistor going to the Base of the 2N2222. You can see it in the photographs as a YELLOW WIRE leading from PIN 3 to the 10K Pot connected to the Gate of the FET. The schematic drawing does not show this connection, since it was drawn simply as a timer/controller.
The GREEN LED and the 5.6K resistor connected to it are there just to indicate that the timer circuit is running, since its on a separate supply.
The Duty Cycle, or ON TIME of the Timer is controlled by the setting of Pot #1. The OFF TIME of the Timer is controlled by the settings of both Pot #1 plus Pot #2. So, if Pot #2 is dialed down to zero, the duty cycle is 50% (ON TIME and OFF TIME are equal to Pot #1). It is also advisable to add a 1K resistor in line with Pot #1 so there is always some resistance left even if it is dialed down to zero. This is also not shown on the schematic drawing, but it is used on the Timer Board and can be seen in the photos.
@TK
Quote: post #758
"It is clearly no longer possible to consider rational discussion with R&A. They can both of them just make things up out of dreams or science fiction."
LOL, this science fiction you speak of is in fact an integral part of all modern physics, not the simplistic BS many are taught in highschool however. I would suggest reading James Clerk Maxwells--"A dynamical theory of the electromagnetic field" and "On physical lines of force", I found both very enlightening. If you have issues with this I will save you some time. All energy in all forms relates to motion, an applied force over a distance, this work a function of time. Time a measure of change to be considered in both a relative and an absolute sense. Therefore you cannot hope to consider nor understand energy in any sense of the word without first understanding time in a relative sense as it always relates to everything else. Now tell me, How can you hope to understand the nature of the energy in and around your circuits without first understanding "what" energy is fundamentally?. Maybe you should also ask yourself why you have pre-judged certain person's based on your lack of knowledge and not necessarily their's. Time is energy as it is inseperable from it, as is space. Hence the term space/time as a fundamental description of all energy in any form it may take. If you are such a wizz at this maybe you can answer this simple question for me-- what is electricity? This simple question would seem more relavent to the circuit in question than any other as fundamentally it applies to every aspect of it.
Regards
AC
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 28, 2009, 05:33:02 AM
And did you just say "true RMS power"?
I laugh in your face, again.
You know exactly what it means.... mr monk
documentation beats conversation...
So you clearly admit defeat and you are unable to even show over 1.0 COP.
I guess this is what the record book can show for your replication attempt ;)
Quote from: BEP on July 28, 2009, 06:23:39 AM
HERE! HERE!
The ?Education? may benefit some of the Ainsley minions, as well :D
RMS Power? OMG! When will folks read a book? Apparently they can publish one before they read one?
Edit>
So I may be considered a fruit, again, I'll not discount the idea that stretching or compressing time can provide an apparent variation in fuel.
What I will deny is this variation being done with this circuit and components.
You people do like drama. RMS voltage that the datalogger sees will account for what goes back to the battery (accounting for the current at such real voltage) and that is your real power (THAT TK IS UNABLE TO SHOW - because he either will show over 1.0 COP, which he doesn't want to do or that his ability to make the circuit work is just not up to snuff).
When I say true rms power, you know exactly what i mean. Stop misdirecting attention away from the facts. The fact remains, it is the data you need to compare. I do know the difference and I could care less about all of your anal retentive jargon, which means nothing.
Again, record shows that TK failed in producing any gains.
The battery self charges on the Ainslie circuit - quite a bit actually and there is no honest reporting from TK because if he showed it, it would show you all the serious gain.
http://www.feelthevibe.com/free_energy/rosemary_ainslie/rosemaryainslieringing.jpg
Youtube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlUndkhki3Q
More lies from Err-on, I see.
The recent posting of Aaron's (or rather Peter's) 555 timer circuit, that "will" make a 3.7 percent ON duty cycle, is FINALLY an admission from the Ainslie camp that the ORIGINAL circuit, as published in the Quantum article, and as referenced in the EIT.pdf paper, CANNOT under any circumstances perform as Ainslie claimed in those documents.
And it should be obvious that this new circuit is NOT the one that Ainslie used, either.
SO, we are still waiting to see the CORRECT ACTUAL EXACT circuit that Ainslie did in fact use in the experiment.
And I am still waiting for some apology or at least acknowledgement that I was right about this issue ALL ALONG, since 6 weeks or so ago. And this was the issue that got me dissed and kicked off energeticforum with lots of people saying I couldn't be right. YOU WERE ALL WRONG about this fact, and you were all wrong about the drain voltage being HIGH when the transistor is OFF, and you will be shown to be wrong about the "random aperiodic oscillations" and you will be shown to be wrong about the heat excess and the battery charging. There is NO COP>17 here.
And, my dear Aaron, you aren't seeing any gains either.
But what does this have to do with the original Ainslie apparatus? She used some undetermined circuit, she used an impossibly small inductance, she used a Fluke ScopeMeter 199 to make her measurements, she used a recirculation diode in the EIT report but not in the Quantum report (of the SAME experiment)...there are just too many discrepancies. And now we have a new circuit that ALSO works.
Shades of Mylow.
Everything Aaron builds is OU. Yet he is still posting on energeticforum and trying to make YET ANOTHER ou device. And nobody but nobody else is able to get what he's reporting.
Maybe the key is a cheap oscilloscope without a good trigger. If so, I am out of luck.
Quote from: qiman on July 28, 2009, 01:48:34 PM
You know exactly what it means.... mr monk
documentation beats conversation...
So you clearly admit defeat and you are unable to even show over 1.0 COP.
I guess this is what the record book can show for your replication attempt ;)
Did you read that attached .pdf? No, of course not. Perhaps you can tell us, Err-on, what RMS power is and what it means.
I provide you with documentation, all you provide is asininity.
I have indeed not been able to achieve COP>1 with this circuit. Neither have you.
Do I now have the correct waveform to use? Is that a scope shot of the GATE of the mosfet? And made using your new 555 timer from Peter?
Where is the random aperiodic oscillation that was so important last week?
You can't even be consistent with your misinformation, Err-on.
And WHEN will someone answer the question about the inductance?
Oh, I forgot, Aaron has no way to measure inductance and can't figure out how to do it "manually" using an oscilloscope and a signal generator.
But the question still remains: Ainslie claimed to use 0.00864 milliHenries. Aaron's load resistor is about 0.160 to 0.200 milliHenries. And Aaron says it is TOO SMALL.
SO, Err-on, what is up with that? Huh?
How did Ainslie manage to do what she claimed, with a TINY inductance, a FLIPPED 555 duty cycle, and no knowledge of calculus?
Huh?
HOW.
Middle one has spike much higher than battery supply voltage and with smooth ringing.Superior charging and heat production. It is the obvious winner but still do the tests.
http://www.feelthevibe.com/free_energy/rosemary_ainslie/ringingrepeat.jpg
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 28, 2009, 04:08:54 PM
The recent posting of Aaron's (or rather Peter's) 555 timer circuit, that "will" make a 3.7 percent ON duty cycle, is FINALLY an admission from the Ainslie camp that the ORIGINAL circuit, as published in the Quantum article, and as referenced in the EIT.pdf paper, CANNOT under any circumstances perform as Ainslie claimed in those documents.
Here is where you continue to not tell the truth and deceive people as usual.
I never said my 555 circuit is the quantum circuit. But the quantum circuit WILL work a it works at ANY duty cycle.
This is NO admission of a fault with the quantum article circuit. Does it do 3%? I don't know because I'm not interested in building that circuit.
I post this because this is what I happen to be using and that is it. It is what it is and not the fiction you're creating in your mind about it and spewing to everyone else.
Your very pathological in the truest sense.
@Poynt99
Disagreements on EF is one thing but to insinuate that any of us will lie and make up results is really pathetic. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 28, 2009, 04:08:54 PM
And I am still waiting for some apology or at least acknowledgement that I was right about this issue ALL ALONG, since 6 weeks or so ago. And this was the issue that got me dissed and kicked off energeticforum
No, what got you kicked off isn't your disagreement. It was your belligerent, arrogant and egotistical attitude and your personal attacks that had nothing to do with the issues at hand.
You could be right about that circuit not doing 3%, I don't know. I choose to use a circuit that I already know for a fact does produce 3.7% and 2.4kHz.
What you are absolutely wrong about is that 97% duty cycle will not give results and it will.
Quote from: allcanadian on July 28, 2009, 01:39:13 PM
@TK
Quote: post #758
"It is clearly no longer possible to consider rational discussion with R&A. They can both of them just make things up out of dreams or science fiction."
LOL, this science fiction you speak of is in fact an integral part of all modern physics, not the simplistic BS many are taught in highschool however. I would suggest reading James Clerk Maxwells--"A dynamical theory of the electromagnetic field" and "On physical lines of force", I found both very enlightening. If you have issues with this I will save you some time. All energy in all forms relates to motion, an applied force over a distance, this work a function of time. Time a measure of change to be considered in both a relative and an absolute sense. Therefore you cannot hope to consider nor understand energy in any sense of the word without first understanding time in a relative sense as it always relates to everything else. Now tell me, How can you hope to understand the nature of the energy in and around your circuits without first understanding "what" energy is fundamentally?. Maybe you should also ask yourself why you have pre-judged certain person's based on your lack of knowledge and not necessarily their's. Time is energy as it is inseperable from it, as is space. Hence the term space/time as a fundamental description of all energy in any form it may take. If you are such a wizz at this maybe you can answer this simple question for me-- what is electricity? This simple question would seem more relavent to the circuit in question than any other as fundamentally it applies to every aspect of it.
Regards
AC
No, the real question here is this one: How can time be used as a fuel?
Please show me some serious peer-reviewed references--just a single one will do-- that shows how time can be used as a power source. Or that "time" flows.
And I don't have to understand the nature of energy. All I have to do is to be able to replicate results that were generated by a simple method, and confirm their analysis. So far, the results I am getting are quite in line with the published experimental results from Ainslie. And this data, when correctly analyzed, indicates an efficiency of the circuit to be much less than 1700 percent. In fact it is somewhat less than 100 percent.
None of this requires that I "understand" the nature of energy. Rosemary doesn't, you don't, I don't, Aaron doesn't. Anyone who says they do is mistaken or lying.
All that it requires is that I understand the RELATIONSHIPS between certain quantities, including ELAPSED TIME aka DURATION. And that I do.
Energy is the time integral of the instantaneous power waveform. The instantaneous power waveform is computed by multiplying each voltage sample by each synchronous current sample.
The resolution of my sampling (1 GHz LeCroy 9370M DSO) is 500,000,000 samples/second. The frequency being sampled is 2400 cycles per second. A possible higher frequency of oscillation is in the 1.6 MegaHertz range. So for each cycle of the waveforms I can use between 300 and 200,000 voltage and current samples to compute the instantaneous power waveform. For EACH CYCLE.
Anslie's figures were taken from a spreadsheet analysis that included, by her statements, 5 or even 6 samples per cycle, and her analysis technique was developed, apparently, without the conceptual aid of the Calculus.
The Fluke ScopeMeter 199 has a bandwidth of 200 Mhz and a sample rate at the timebase setttings used of 20 Megasamples/sec, or one-twentyfifth that of the LeCroy. In addition, the LeCroy does trace integration on board in real time using numerical methods and all the bandwidth it has available, whereas the Fluke cannot do this, and must export its data to a spreadsheet for manual SELECTION and ANALYSIS. To make the process at all wieldy, only a small number of samples can be analyzed this way.
One does not need to understand electricity to know that the light will come on when I flick the switch, all other things being normal. And one does not need to grok the fullness of the seventh dimension to be able accurately to measure a circuit that produces SEVENTEEN TIMES more energy out than in.
And I'd still like to see you fill your tank with time, and drive off.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 28, 2009, 04:13:45 PM
Did you read that attached .pdf? No, of course not. Perhaps you can tell us, Err-on, what RMS power is and what it means.
I provide you with documentation, all you provide is asininity.
I have indeed not been able to achieve COP>1 with this circuit. Neither have you.
Do I now have the correct waveform to use? Is that a scope shot of the GATE of the mosfet? And made using your new 555 timer from Peter?
Where is the random aperiodic oscillation that was so important last week?
You can't even be consistent with your misinformation, Err-on.
Listen non-monk man,
My original oscillations came easy with using higher frequencies.
At lower frequencies, it is more difficult to get it into the same
oscillation.
Unlike you, I do things methodically when I actually do my real tests.
First no oscillation and zero resistance. Then full testing with smoothed
out ring, then with no ringing. It is obvious what to use. And all at 2.4kHz
with no oscillation. Then I'll do the same tests with oscillation.
I do these long tests with each little tuning change on the circuit so I
can see what actually happens instead of jumping to conclusions like you
and your friends in the peanut gallery. "Spike dosen't charge", etc... what
a bunch of rotten bologna.
I do things point by point and have NOT reported any results and any
of your claims of what results I'm seeing from you is complete fabrication
as usual. Please don't hate me because I know what I'm doing and I actually
use a very systematic and methodological approach to each part. You seem
to throw a bunch of mud on the wall and see what sticks. That isn't science,
it is a three ring circus.
Everything I have posted is random so far in each step of the investigation
but none of this has anything to do with power comparisons. I have posted
what I posted so far to help people and not to confuse them like you.
Those are scope shots of the SHUNT. Over a 0.05 ohm calibrated shunt.
rms is root mean squared and I know how it is applied. Play your games
as usual but it doesn't change the fact that the scope takes the real
readings and considers the spike coming back.
The FACT is, I know what the true power measurement is and how to
obtain it. I know what I mean and I know what I intend and anyone
that is reasonable will see this perfectly well.
The MYTH - this is you wanting to distract people with your dog and pony show
of rhetoric so that anyone with low self esteem and low comprehension of
the facts will be distracted by the fact that I don't use the same technical
jargon to explain the same thing. But that has nothing to do with the FACT
listed above.
When you have no value in your argument and you have apparently lost,
you resort to name calling, disrespecting all of our names, etc... I've known lots
of monks and you sir have disgraced the very concept.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 28, 2009, 04:37:11 PM
And I don't have to understand the nature of energy.
ROFLMAO . And you don't have to get results either!!
If you do actually understand the nature of the energy, you will
GROK the essence of what the circuit is all about and will know how to tune it to do what you want it to do. LOL
Take care,
From: The Grokmeister
Quote from: qiman on July 28, 2009, 04:27:54 PM
No, what got you kicked off isn't your disagreement. It was your belligerent, arrogant and egotistical attitude and your personal attacks that had nothing to do with the issues at hand.
You could be right about that circuit not doing 3%, I don't know. I choose to use a circuit that I already know for a fact does produce 3.7% and 2.4kHz.
What you are absolutely wrong about is that 97% duty cycle will not give results and it will.
You can't even get your own lies straight. I have always said that long duty cycles produce heat. In fact it only takes a couple of minutes using the original 555 timer to make an ACTUAL ainslie load overheat. That's why I said that HER ORIGINAL DATA could not have been made with the 97 percent duty cycle--her resistor only got to 50 degrees above ambient--UNLIKE YOURS.
So once again you are lying about what I said and did, and you are continuing to make some other circuit than Ainslie's, with different performance parameters. So why are you discussing it here? I am trying to do what Ainslie did. You are doing something else, apparently.
Here are some FACTS:
1) Rosemary Ainslie does not have any issued patents. She only has filed patent applications, which apparently are no longer current.
2) The Quantum article and the EIT.pdf paper describe the same experiment, yet one uses a diode and the other does not.
3) The Quantum article gives a 555 timer circuit that produces an inverted duty cycle from what is claimed in the paper.
4) The EIT.pdf paper cites the Quantum article as the only reference, and refers to the circuit given there.
5) The stated inductance of the Ainslie load is quite low, and most people are using much higher inductances. Yet Ainslie specifically states that the load resistor was chosen "for its inductance" hence implying that a low inductance is important.
6) The claim is being made that most any circuit of this type running at most any frequency and most any load inductance or duty cycle will produce overunity. Yet no overunity is being shown. Especially not 17 times overunity.
These are just a few undeniable facts that have emerged from my work.
There are more undeniable facts as well.
Time will tell.
And I find it quite hilarious that you are finally showing those particular waveforms.
Because I have been showing identical ones for about a month now, in my YT videos and on this thread.
But it's nice that you finally figured out how to display a waveform (almost) properly.
I'd like to suggest we start a Murakami Magic thread. He's obviously next in line for a Nobel. But it's not the Ainsley circuit, it's his own brew and deserves its own thread at OU.com. Certified by Aaron!
So let's make sure we have the circuit right, and the test protocol. Let's get it all down to a science so everyone can see it and we can all get something built to heat our homes and reduce our utility bills by winter.
Now, how much heat does it generate vs. power consumed? 17x, you say? Sounds good to me. Have you started selling them yet? Where can I get one? How come you are not using it to promote your book yet, as you are with Rosemary's circuit, which doesn't work (see Bonus #10 near the bottom of the page at: http://www.thequantumkey.com/index.html ).
Quote from: qiman on July 28, 2009, 04:24:59 PM
@Poynt99
Disagreements on EF is one thing but to insinuate that any of us will lie and make up results is really pathetic. You should be ashamed of yourself.
This is what you are referring to?
Quote from: poynt99 on July 27, 2009, 10:22:12 PM
Yeah,
It was time to get out. It's an up-hill battle with R&A and sometimes it felt as if we were playing into the hands of a collective troll. I sure hope that is not the case.
What MH said about the folks there "not knowing what they don't know" seems so applicable.
The facts will come out if they're obtained by a competent crew. My greatest fear is that the data will be swayed, manipulated, or just plain mis-treated with the same eager bias evident in every step of the debative process thus far. All "seemingly positive" results have been met with unhindered exuberance and improvidence, while the sobering heavily backed-up facts of the classicist have only been shunned, ignored, slandered and incoherently questioned.
A most basic level of technical understanding is required before true judgment can be impartially placed on any theory or accepted practice. I think it is quite evident that R&A are not quite there yet.
.99
Lie and make up results? Sorry if it was not clear to you, but that is not what I was trying to say exactly.
Swayed, manipulated, mis-treated in the context of a heavily biased position is what I meant. I do not expect or even think that you guys will deliberately lie or make up results. I just think the results might get mis-interpreted and used incorrectly; all because of bias, and wanting to believe so badly.
I'm not even accusing you guys of doing it on purpose, I'm just saying that I can see this happening. I see it happening already with your latest scope shots.
Anyway, just ignore me and everyone else Aaron, at least until folks have had a chance to review your officially submitted results. The only thing that counts are your results, if properly obtained. They will speak for themselves, and I have told Rosemary the very same thing. The same goes for TK or anyone else seriously doing the tests.
.99
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 28, 2009, 04:37:11 PM
No, the real question here is this one: How can time be used as a fuel?
I think the real question is ... Where are the COP 2+ measurements (or self running circuits) and replications to verify the claim. If it works, it works.. Who cares about theory.
Quote from: newbie123 on July 28, 2009, 08:29:35 PM
I think the real question is ... Where are the COP 2+ measurements (or self running circuits) and replications to verify the claim. If it works, it works.. Who cares about theory.
That's right. And since there aren't any, we can conclude that the big claims were bogus.
@.99. You are so right. The cognitive distortions, while perhaps not completely deliberate, are so severe that the folks in question will not even acknowledge supportive results, if it comes from the wrong side of the fence. Aaron has lied about several things in this regard: Contrary to what he spews venomously on his thread, I have 1) reproduced the Ainslie time-temperature profile, such as it is 2) using an approx. 3.7 percent ON duty cycle, from a FG and from a 555 timer; and 3) I have produced oscillations in the mosfet, although they are now acknowledged by Aaron to be irrelevant (since he gets all effects without them now) and 4) I have done many power measurements at many different combinations of parameters and 5) I have done many DC control tests at various input power levels and 6) I have shown in at least 3 different ways that the battery does experience spikes from the circuit that transfer energy back to the battery from the circuit, in spite of the classical analyses by MH and others...BUT 7) they are right that these spikes cannot recharge the running battery because the energy in them came FROM THE BATTERY in the first place.
SO that's at least SEVEN claims that Aaron makes continually about me and my work that are false. He says I didn't and don't and can't and all the rest--when in fact I can and do and have done.
What I also have done is make the measurements quantitatively with good instrumentation and proper protocol. Thus, I can clearly see that there is the same energy out as in. The load heats, no matter the parameters, exactly in line with DC at the same average input power. Maybe a bit less, in fact, due to losses elsewhere in the circuit. Some of the energy leaving the battery comes back to it. A miniscule amount per cycle. I have measured it, I believe, fairly accurately with one particular configuration and can do so with others--but it's tiny, only a few percent of the "forward" energy. And again this is not unusual in oscillating circuits. All it means is that less energy is delivered to the load during some parts of a wave cycle, and more is delivered during other parts.
What it can do, is charge up a battery or a cap external to the circuit, or a weak one parallelled to the stronger running battery (a bad idea for a number of reasons.) But the charge on the battery or cap is coming from the other battery, not from "time" or the fullness of zipons in the seventh dimension.
No free energy, no COP>17.
My results so far are convincing. With the new 555 circuit from Peter and confirmation of the fact that MY WAVEFORMS ARE CORRECT and have been so all along, I will be able to generate even more convincing results. Results that fail, yes, FAIL to show any overunity when analyzed correctly, but which can easily be misinterpreted by known mistaken techniques improperly applied.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 28, 2009, 08:58:42 PM
That's right. And since there aren't any, we can conclude that the big claims were bogus.
I think it might be too early to conclude the claims are 100 percent bogus ... But there's just nothing real to talk about until there's a well documented experiment (or video even) that shows a self running circuit, ou measurements, etc (assuming "ou" is even possible). Until then, you guys are just arguing about speculation.
Quote from: poynt99 on July 28, 2009, 06:30:09 PM
This is what you are referring to?
Lie and make up results? Sorry if it was not clear to you, but that is not what I was trying to say exactly.
Swayed, manipulated, mis-treated in the context of a heavily biased position is what I meant. I do not expect or even think that you guys will deliberately lie or make up results. I just think the results might get mis-interpreted and used incorrectly; all because of bias, and wanting to believe so badly.
I'm not even accusing you guys of doing it on purpose, I'm just saying that I can see this happening. I see it happening already with your latest scope shots.
Anyway, just ignore me and everyone else Aaron, at least until folks have had a chance to review your officially submitted results. The only thing that counts are your results, if properly obtained. They will speak for themselves, and I have told Rosemary the very same thing. The same goes for TK or anyone else seriously doing the tests.
.99
I'm glad to hear that. I honestly really appreciate that. I see how you might think that. But yes, I can speak for myself personally but I believe the same for others, but I'll simply report the facts in my testing. I can accept that I'll interpret them one way and you'll interpret them in another. They may not be the same interpretation.
We're all waiting for TK's full published scientific report demonstrating his maximum competence with non-equilibrium circuit knowledge and tuning ability.
I'm sure it will be in depth and absolutely becoming of a metrologist, according to his anagrammatic soul twin
RAMSET. lol
TK was the second to jump on it with in depth reports (Skywatcher was the first to report anything and it was positive). So TK should pave the way with published results starting with his own. I owe him that much. He deserves it. He probably spent more time on it than me and already said he wanted to submit his paper for publication. Good luck to him.
The paper will contain lots of stuff like this, and my raw data and spreadsheet analyses will be made available to anyone that wants to see them. And I take pictures of the pertinent waveforms, too.
The below comments apply to the Ainslie circuit, driven by the Datapulse 101 at 4.5 percent ON, clean 5 ns risetime pulses. The gate atten is turned slightly down to make a current "B" waveform similar to Aaron's, with a nice smooth voltage ringdown on the load point "A". Battery voltage went from 25.1 at the start to 24.9 at the end, and after 15 minutes sitting came back up to 25.1.
Now, as anyone can see from the graph below, the Ainslie circuit does not put as much of the input power to the load, as does a DC supply at about the same average power.
So the only hope for OU at these parameters is if the difference is put entirely back into the battery, and somehow is multiplied by at least a factor of ten.
And the only way that's going to happen is if someone does the multiplication themselves.
In error, of course. Or in willful misunderstanding.
Quote from: newbie123 on July 28, 2009, 11:00:20 PM
I think it might be too early to conclude the claims are 100 percent bogus ... But there's just nothing real to talk about until there's a well documented experiment (or video even) that shows a self running circuit, ou measurements, etc (assuming "ou" is even possible). Until then, you guys are just arguing about speculation.
Bedini energizer is over 1.0 COP. Can easily get back 90% in secondary battery with measurable 15%+ in mechanical work in rotor. 1.05%. Everyone seems to want to ignore the mechanical work. It is an over 1.0 COP device.
The 2 stage mechanical oscillator, over 1.0 COP by quite a bit.
Peter's rotary attraction motor, over 1.0 COP.
Anyone trained in classical EE is not qualified to measure it because all the defeats are built into the math and logic.
Abbreviated response to MH from Energetic Forum:
The spike reduces what the input pulse delivers. AND, the oscillation cancels itself out.
EXCESS HEAT IN THE INDUCTIVE RESISTOR thanks to the ringing. PLUS CHARGING IN THE SUPPLY BATTERY thanks to the spike.
But make sure it is tuned or you'll get less heat and less charge for equivalent input. There is a difference.
TK, I posted your results and link to pic on Energetic Forum.
It is there for the record and I'm sure you stand behind your
results. You can verify that I posted it verbatim.
Well, if you liked those results, I'm sure you will love the newest video, uploading now.
You know, if you took out the "for free" your description of your waveform above would almost be correct.
But it isn't for free, it comes from the battery, and it isn't increasing, as you can see from the nice exponential DECAY of the waveform. Each cycle is a little smaller in amplitude than the last--because some power is being dissipated as heat. Power from the battery. Not increasing--the envelope shows you that.
(Oh, and there aren't very many people, even on this forum, that believe any of those things you mentioned are even close to being OU. If you really think they are, why haven't you applied for any of the MANY prizes that you would get? If only you could PROVE IT.)
So, is this Ainslie thing put to bed yet?
Quote from: 0c on July 30, 2009, 09:17:58 PM
So, is this Ainslie thing put to bed yet?
Getting cranky, are we? Maybe it's time for a nap.
Meanwhile, I finally BLEW UP something with the Ainslie circuit.
Using the same technique as in the last video, irfpg50 mosfet, MUR1100E diode...and...
I was charging a bigger cap, using a much larger inductance as the load (an electromagnet really, 2.35 milliHenry) and I was able to reach over 600 volts, and would have gone higher--but the SHUNT resistor blew up with a sharp bang, and the irfpg50 mosfet failed as well.
I was pulsing with the DP-101, using a short duty cycle (10-20 percent) and sweeping frequencies...I think I was at about 16 kHz or so for the high voltages. 660 volts on the capacitor, about, when the thing blew--some actual power in there. I don't think the cap discharged; it still had the 600 volts on it after the resistor blew.
It was pretty exciting, and also puzzling, as it took a few moments for me to figure out what all had blown.
I'm glad I'm wearing glasses. I also blew up (literally) a heavyduty LED on this circuit.
Hey 0c, maybe you are the one to ask about a little problem I'm having. I'm trying to get a Velleman k8055 board to work with my new-old Ubuntu Linux laptop.
The board works fine with Windblows but I want to use it on linux of course.
I've downloaded this package of code:
http://libk8055.sourceforge.net/
and I seem to have all the prerequisites mentioned: gcc, libusb, newest kernel, and a few they don't mention like swig, python, wxwidgets.
The problem is that I follow the instructions, but the code won't compile. The "make" returns errors and I've forgotten how to figure it out.
This is a real Grrr for me. lsusb reports the card's name and address fine, dmesg reports it plugging in and out, the 2.6.30.3 kernel is supposed to include a driver for the 8055...but the only bunch of software I can find won't compile and I can't figure out why.
At least I went through a day, adding and fiddling, making sure the prereq packages were there, and so I got a little further up the error tree...but still no complete compile.
:'(
(this card will make it easy to do datalogging from, for example, a coil with a magnet pendulizing above it, and lots of other stuff too "trivial" to break out the HPIB instruments or the LabView DAQ system...)
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 30, 2009, 11:52:53 PM
Hey 0c, maybe you are the one to ask about a little problem I'm having.
It'll have to wait til I get to one of my Linux boxes tomorrow. I'm afraid all I have is SuSE and RedHat enterprise systems at the moment, so even if I manage to build it, there might be some differences with Ubuntu. And I don't have the board, so I wouldn't be able to test or validate the library afterwards.
I downloaded the 8055 source and looked at the Makefile. It looks like a pretty simple build. I haven't looked at the dependencies yet though.
I could probably help more if I could see the actual error messages you are getting. Here's a good opportunity to use that email address of mine.
OC
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 30, 2009, 11:52:53 PM
Hey 0c, maybe you are the one to ask about a little problem I'm having.
TK, No problem here on SuSE SLES 10 with the standard development environment. Maybe you have a stripped down set of libraries or something? Built with no errors right out of the box.
All I did was extract sources from libusb-1.0.2.tar.bz2
cd libusb-1.0.2
./configure
make
make install
Extracted sources from libk8055.0.4.tar.gz
cd src
make
make install
If you could send me some error messages, maybe I could give you an idea what's wrong.
Quote from: 0c on July 31, 2009, 01:28:30 PM
TK, No problem here on SuSE SLES 10 with the standard development environment. Maybe you have a stripped down set of libraries or something? Built with no errors right out of the box.
All I did was extract sources from libusb-1.0.2.tar.bz2
cd libusb-1.0.2
./configure
make
make install
Extracted sources from libk8055.0.4.tar.gz
cd src
make
make install
If you could send me some error messages, maybe I could give you an idea what's wrong.
Darn. I was afraid of that. Thanks, btw, I appreciate your looking at the code.
I'll trap the error output and make a file that I will post to you, later tonight. I think the libusb went in all right.
@0c: Check your PMs, I sent the errors for your amusement.
Thanks royally.
--TK
From Rosemary:
Guys - I've just watched yet another sad attempt at TK trying to apply power analysis to my circuit - two efforts on youtube, both using a LeCroy. He's using a machine which, by his own acknowledgement has the dc off set on the blink. Any analysis after this point is entirely erroneous. Please disregard any numbers at all that he references in either of the two videos. The wattage analysis function that he's employed relates to the product of the entire waveform. It is not able to determine the returning energy that is evident in voltage across the shunt and across the battery.
Also. There is clear evidence of aliasing - and he does not have enough samples to draw an analysis. He does not have a periodic waveform and is trying to draw conclusions from a ridiculously small sample range. If there were any validity in his claim he should be able to point to the dump with the numbers that determine the voltage across the shunt. He can't do this because DC coupling on the LeCroy is broken! For goodness sake.
Quite apart from which I suggest he brush up on his mental arthimetic. It's sadder than this new attempt at debunking. What qualifications does this man have? I'm an amateur and can see through this nonsense? Why .99 are you not poynting this out? And Hoppy? And MileHigh? Why do I need to do this? Where is the impartiality of our mainstream scientists?
ps. from me - your recommended Mosfet is AVALANCHE PROOF ensuring that it cannot ever go into oscillation. Good recommendation on the diode though :)
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 31, 2009, 08:15:11 PM
@0c: Check your PMs, I sent the errors for your amusement.
Thanks royally.
--TK
Looks like headers are missing or can't be located or some necessary #define isn't defined. The compiler is complaining about some references to things it doesn't grok. In the second case, the compiler is trying to use an intuitive internal definition and is warning you that what it is doing has a high risk of being wrong (they usually are wrong).
I'll have to bring up my SuSE system again and see where those calls are defined. I don't know whether they come from that libusb or whether they are system calls into the driver. I'll try to look at it in the morning.
You did the "make install" for libusb, right?
Quote from: qiman on August 01, 2009, 03:43:35 PM
From Rosemary:
Guys - I've just watched yet another sad attempt at TK trying to apply power analysis to my circuit - two efforts on youtube, both using a LeCroy. He's using a machine which, by his own acknowledgement has the dc off set on the blink. Any analysis after this point is entirely erroneous. Please disregard any numbers at all that he references in either of the two videos. The wattage analysis function that he's employed relates to the product of the entire waveform. It is not able to determine the returning energy that is evident in voltage across the shunt and across the battery.
Also. There is clear evidence of aliasing - and he does not have enough samples to draw an analysis. He does not have a periodic waveform and is trying to draw conclusions from a ridiculously small sample range. If there were any validity in his claim he should be able to point to the dump with the numbers that determine the voltage across the shunt. He can't do this because DC coupling on the LeCroy is broken! For goodness sake.
Quite apart from which I suggest he brush up on his mental arthimetic. It's sadder than this new attempt at debunking. What qualifications does this man have? I'm an amateur and can see through this nonsense? Why .99 are you not poynting this out? And Hoppy? And MileHigh? Why do I need to do this? Where is the impartiality of our mainstream scientists?
ps. from me - your recommended Mosfet is AVALANCHE PROOF ensuring that it cannot ever go into oscillation. Good recommendation on the diode though :)
To Rosemary... Show us the OU... It is your job... Not everyone else's job.
Quote from: qiman on August 01, 2009, 03:43:35 PM
From Rosemary:
Guys - I've just watched yet another sad attempt at TK trying to apply power analysis to my circuit - two efforts on youtube, both using a LeCroy. He's using a machine which, by his own acknowledgement has the dc off set on the blink. Any analysis after this point is entirely erroneous. Please disregard any numbers at all that he references in either of the two videos. The wattage analysis function that he's employed relates to the product of the entire waveform. It is not able to determine the returning energy that is evident in voltage across the shunt and across the battery.
Also. There is clear evidence of aliasing - and he does not have enough samples to draw an analysis. He does not have a periodic waveform and is trying to draw conclusions from a ridiculously small sample range. If there were any validity in his claim he should be able to point to the dump with the numbers that determine the voltage across the shunt. He can't do this because DC coupling on the LeCroy is broken! For goodness sake.
Quite apart from which I suggest he brush up on his mental arthimetic. It's sadder than this new attempt at debunking. What qualifications does this man have? I'm an amateur and can see through this nonsense? Why .99 are you not poynting this out? And Hoppy? And MileHigh? Why do I need to do this? Where is the impartiality of our mainstream scientists?
ps. from me - your recommended Mosfet is AVALANCHE PROOF ensuring that it cannot ever go into oscillation. Good recommendation on the diode though :)
Well, it's clear from that that she has no idea what she is talking about.
I'll have to let someone else explain it to her, because clearly she is incapable of understanding my extremely simplified explanations--requiring as they do an elementary understanding of math and science.
And Aaron, no mosfet is avalanche proof, and if the 2sk1548 is not right, how come it WORKS BETTER in the Ainslie circuit than the irfpg50?
You are a fool, and it shows more and more with every post you make here.
And I thought we put to bed the false issue of mosfet oscillation. Your mosfet isn't oscillating--at least your scope shots aren't showing it.
I DARE YOU to show a side-by-side comparison of the two mosfets as I have done.
And for those innocent spectators out there who may be tempted to believe the lies coming from Rosemary and Aaron:
The LeCroy does indeed have ONE CHANNEL unusable. That's the only reason I haven't used it to do REALTIME power measurements that would blow Rosemary's claims out of the water instantly (as if they already haven't been).
That's why ALL of the LECROY work that I have shown, AS I CLEARLY STATE SEVERAL TIMES IN ENGLISH, all of the LeCroy work that I have shown has been done on the FULLY FUNCTIONAL CHANNEL of the oscilloscope. The math functions are NOT AFFECTED by the non-functioning input channel. ALL TRACES of the scope are operational.
The math that I show is on STORED TRACES that were both taken from the FULLY FUNCTIONING channel of the scope, and are FULLY VALID AND ACCURATE, they just are not simultaneous and so a nit-picker could legitimately complain about their accuracy for that reason.
It's pretty clear that Rosemary does not understand the difference between a "channel", a "trace", and a "beam" on an oscilloscope. Does Aaron, I wonder?
Rosemary's complaint is like saying I can't drive my car to the grocery store because the spare tire in the trunk is flat. In other words, it's either a willful misundertanding or a lie.
(And as far as the number of samples goes--what part of 500,000,000 sample per second do you not understand? The math on stored traces uses ALL of those samples, so at 2.4 kiloHertz...or even 1.6 MegaHertz for the ring oscillations...well, some of us can follow the math, I hope. Each single cycle of the ring oscillation is covered by hundreds of samples. At least. Compare this to Rosemary telling MH that 5 or even 6 samples per cycle should be used for accuracy.)
Quote from: 0c on August 02, 2009, 01:48:13 AM
Looks like headers are missing or can't be located or some necessary #define isn't defined. The compiler is complaining about some references to things it doesn't grok. In the second case, the compiler is trying to use an intuitive internal definition and is warning you that what it is doing has a high risk of being wrong (they usually are wrong).
I'll have to bring up my SuSE system again and see where those calls are defined. I don't know whether they come from that libusb or whether they are system calls into the driver. I'll try to look at it in the morning.
You did the "make install" for libusb, right?
Yes, I did and it seemed to work OK--no complaints from compiler-- but I don't know how to tell for sure.
mount says:
null@gershwin:~$ mount | grep usb
procbususb on /proc/bus/usb type usbfs (rw)
usbfs on /dev/bus/usb/.usbfs type usbfs (rw,relatime,devmode=600,busmode=700,listmode=644)
usbfs on /proc/bus/usb/.usbfs type usbfs (rw,relatime,devmode=600,busmode=700,listmode=644)
On plugging in the 8055 usb card, dmesg says:
null@gershwin:~$ dmesg | grep usb
[ 0.079588] usbcore: registered new interface driver usbfs
[ 0.079611] usbcore: registered new interface driver hub
[ 0.079641] usbcore: registered new device driver usb
[ 0.877119] usb usb1: configuration #1 chosen from 1 choice
[ 0.877917] usb usb2: configuration #1 chosen from 1 choice
[ 0.879236] usb usb3: configuration #1 chosen from 1 choice
[ 0.879531] usb usb4: configuration #1 chosen from 1 choice
[ 2351.676062] usb 3-2: new low speed USB device using uhci_hcd and address 2
[ 2351.839330] usb 3-2: configuration #1 chosen from 1 choice
[ 2351.948922] usbcore: registered new interface driver hiddev
[ 2351.979215] generic-usb 0003:10CF:5500.0001: hiddev96,hidraw0: USB HID v1.00 Device [Velleman USB K8055] on usb-0000:00:1d.1-2/input0
[ 2351.979241] usbcore: registered new interface driver usbhid
[ 2351.979246] usbhid: v2.6:USB HID core driver
null@gershwin:~$
I don't know if that's helpful. But at least we know the cable works!
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 02, 2009, 12:52:06 PM
Yes, I did and it seemed to work OK--no complaints from compiler-- but I don't know how to tell for sure.
.
.
.
I don't know if that's helpful. But at least we know the cable works!
I've never worked with any USB devices so I'm afraid I won't be much help there. The mount mossages look promising. You will need to install or write an application or test program to determine how well things are actually working. Did the 8055 code come with some sort of test driver?
Hi everyone,
Here are some possible suitable substitutions for the MOSFET .....
PDF - International Rectifier - IRFPG50 (http://www.datasheetcatalog.org/datasheet/irf/irfpg50.pdf)
PDF - Fairchild Semiconductor - FQH8N100C (http://www.fairchildsemi.com/ds/FQ/FQH8N100C.pdf)
PDF - Fairchild Semiconductor - FQAF11N90C (http://www.fairchildsemi.com/ds/FQ/FQAF11N90C.pdf)
PDF - ST Microelectronics - STW9N150 (http://www.st.com/stonline/products/literature/ds/13539.pdf)
Regards,
Fuzzy
:)
Quote from: 0c on August 02, 2009, 12:59:47 PM
I've never worked with any USB devices so I'm afraid I won't be much help there. The mount mossages look promising. You will need to install or write an application or test program to determine how well things are actually working. Did the 8055 code come with some sort of test driver?
When you say "8055 code" do you mean the stuff that came with the card? Only windblows programs and drivers in there.
The 8055 package that's in the tarball from sourceforge contains a Python directory (Pyk8055) which contains some python GUI apps and example screenshots therefrom. Getting these to work would be considered "success beyond wildest dreams".
The "lib" package is supposed to have the command line tool, and there's a "gui" package in k8055gui_v0.1.tar.gz that is supposed to duplicate the Windows demo GUI which operates all the card's functions.
But of course the command line tool and the GUI both depend on the k8055lib thing to compile and install.
And when you say "You will have to write a program..." surely you are referring to the Papal "you"... My memory is getting to be like Frank's...I can remember FORTRAN IV syntax better than I can c++...but it looks like I actually have a FORTRAN compiler installed so maybe we aren't completely in the twentyfirst century yet...
;)
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on August 02, 2009, 01:01:47 PM
Hi everyone,
Here are some possible suitable substitutions for the MOSFET .....
PDF - International Rectifier - IRFPG50 (http://www.datasheetcatalog.org/datasheet/irf/irfpg50.pdf)
PDF - Fairchild Semiconductor - FQH8N100C (http://www.fairchildsemi.com/ds/FQ/FQH8N100C.pdf)
PDF - Fairchild Semiconductor - FQAF11N90C (http://www.fairchildsemi.com/ds/FQ/FQAF11N90C.pdf)
PDF - ST Microelectronics - STW9N150 (http://www.st.com/stonline/products/literature/ds/13539.pdf)
Regards,
Fuzzy
:)
Oh, nooo....can't touch the Holy Mosfat...IRFPG50 is the only one that will work--no, wait, any transistor will work...no, wait, only the 2sk1548 won't work....no, wait.....I'm confused.
Do the data sheets for those transistors specify the avalanche parameters? (ED. I see they do, some anyway. Good.)
Anyway, thanks fuzzy. I still have 9 good IRFPG50 units, which will work well in my DRSSTC h-bridge driver, even if they don't make free energy.
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 02, 2009, 01:16:41 PM
When you say "8055 code" do you mean the stuff that came with the card? Only windblows programs and drivers in there.
I was speaking of the k8055lib package. I didn't read far enough into the docs to see whether it contained some sort of test driver or not. I was just reading stuff regarding the build process.
As far as rolling your own, that's only necessary if the available software doesn't do what you need it to. Language isn't important, but interfacing Fortran to C++ might be pretty challenging, and I'm afraid I wouldn't be much help with that (I have a hard enough time dealing with some of the legacy COBOL code I have to deal with). If it's C/C++/Java, I can probably help, as long as it doesn't suck up too much of my time. I may be able to help with BASIC or Pascal, depending on how complex it is, I'm getting a bit rusty there. I can make some sense of Perl and Python, but I don't really like either one and avoid them whenever possible.
Well, thanks for taking a look. I think if I can just get the compile issues out of the way the rest will be smooth sailing. Yeh, right. At least it looks like the gui and the python apps are what I need, and once the system knows it knows about the board, I might even be able to get LabView to wiggle it and bwink its wee wittle wights.
But the compile...it would be good if we could figure that one out.
And since there is once again discussion of the mosfet, I will once again point out:
ALL the data and experimental results that I have posted about the Ainslie circuit, since long ago, are taken with the IRFPG50 mosfet.
I only use the 2SK1548 for comparison purposes--to show that it is superior at producing heat, and voltage spikes--and demonstration.
The heat profiles, the power calculations, the LeCroy energy balance demos using stored traces--ALL of those are done using the IRFPG50 mosfet.
So, fine, if you don't want to compare the performance in your circuits, that's up to you. But you can't invalidate my data so easily--because I didn't use the 2sk for the Ainslie data runs, just for comparison runs. As CLEARLY STATED in the appropriate places.
So we have yet more distortion and misinformation and willful misunderstanding and misrepresentation from Err-on, Master of Straw Men.
Quote from: 0c on August 02, 2009, 01:41:53 PM
I was speaking of the k8055lib package. I didn't read far enough into the docs to see whether it contained some sort of test driver or not. I was just reading stuff regarding the build process.
As far as rolling your own, that's only necessary if the available software doesn't do what you need it to. Language isn't important, but interfacing Fortran to C++ might be pretty challenging, and I'm afraid I wouldn't be much help with that (I have a hard enough time dealing with some of the legacy COBOL code I have to deal with). If it's C/C++/Java, I can probably help, as long as it doesn't suck up too much of my time. I may be able to help with BASIC or Pascal, depending on how complex it is, I'm getting a bit rusty there. I can make some sense of Perl and Python, but I don't really like either one and avoid them whenever possible.
If it's missing headers I can install them, but I can't tell from looking at the available list what I might need.
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 02, 2009, 12:21:58 PM
And Aaron, no mosfet is avalanche proof, and if the 2sk1548 is not right, how come it WORKS BETTER in the Ainslie circuit than the irfpg50?
You are a fool, and it shows more and more with every post you make here.
You still disgrace the concept of a monk - blasphemy! lol
You could be right and the mosfet manufacturer could be wrong but somehow, I think they know what they're talking about more than you do.\
And your mosfet only works better in NON-OSCILLATION MODE.
From Rosemary:
"The function that is down on the LeCroy is the DC off set by your own admission. How then can you average the energy delivered and returned to the battery? edit. And the voltage across the shunt averaged at one value then - for some reason doubled? And no-one pointing this out? And then the scope showing a wattage as a waveform? What was that about? And the apparent recharge that might not be a recharge? Just look at the waveform across a battery when it's being recharged. The same thing TK - unless a recharge from an actual recharger also means it's not being recharged. What nonsense you talk.
It's not so much driving to the grocery with a flat in the boot. It's more like leading us up the garden path because you haven't got a license to drive."
-------------------------
From me: Show your mosfet oscillate TK, I don't think you even know how.
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 02, 2009, 02:04:53 PM
If it's missing headers I can install them, but I can't tell from looking at the available list what I might need.
Looks like you need an older version of libusb. There is a file created in older versions, named "usb.h" that doesn't seem to be created in newer versions. Instead, the newer versions create a file named "libusb.h".
They are not the same!.
My SuSE system already has version 0.1.12 installed, which is newer than the 0.1.9 requirement for libk8055. So the already installed package (and "usb.h" and library) was the one on my system that was used during my build, and properly resolved everything.
The build and install I did for libusb-1.0.2 had no effect. It was stuffed in /usr/local. The compile found the required files in /usr/include and /usr/lib. Apparently there is only a certain range of versions that will work with the k8055 SW. I didn't walk through all the different releases to find where the API change occurred, but I would guess it was probably with the major revision change at 1.0.
So get yourself a pre 1.0 release of libusb, and I think you might be OK.
Quote from: qiman on August 02, 2009, 04:06:55 PM
From Rosemary:
"The function that is down on the LeCroy is the DC off set by your own admission. How then can you average the energy delivered and returned to the battery? edit. And the voltage across the shunt averaged at one value then - for some reason doubled? And no-one pointing this out? And then the scope showing a wattage as a waveform? What was that about? And the apparent recharge that might not be a recharge? Just look at the waveform across a battery when it's being recharged. The same thing TK - unless a recharge from an actual recharger also means it's not being recharged. What nonsense you talk.
It's not so much driving to the grocery with a flat in the boot. It's more like leading us up the garden path because you haven't got a license to drive."
-------------------------
From me: Show your mosfet oscillate TK, I don't think you even know how.
OK, since nobody else is explaining this, I suppose I will have to try, AGAIN.
The LeCroy has TWO INPUT CHANNELS.
One of them works perfectly.
The other one has a DC OFFSET problem so IS NOT USED in ANY of my demonstrations or measurements.
The FULLY FUNCTIONAL channel can be used to capture and store waveforms. It has several memories but I only used M1 and M2.
I used it to capture and store a CURRENT waveform from Ainslie point "B" in the standard way in M1. Then I reconfigured the FULLY FUNCTIONAL channel to capture and store a voltage waveform from directly across the battery in memory M2. I took pains to make sure the trigger points were the same in time for both signals.
Then I disconnected all inputs to the scope.
Then I displayed the signal stored in M1 on TRACE 1, and the signal stored in M2 on TRACE 2, and I programmed the scope to make an instantaneous multiplication--An INSTANTANEOUS POWER TRACE, or Watts--using 500,000,000 samples per second from the stored current and voltage traces. I displayed this computed Watts signal on TRACE 3 of the scope's display. (This seems strange to you Rosemary??--You apparently has never heard of an instantaneous power waveform, even though we have been discussing them for six weeks, and even though the integration of this waveform is what you have been trying to describe with your 3rd grade math language.)
Then I programmed the scope to use all 500,000,000 samples per second of the instantaneous power waveform on TRACE 3 and integrate it over time. The value of this trace--the amplitude--at any given time point is the ENERGY transferred through the circuit up to that time point. This integrated trace is displayed on TRACE 4 of the oscilloscope's display.
GOT THAT?
The scope is operating on stored signals obtained with its SINGLE FUNCTIONAL CHANNEL.
The Trace display and the math functions have nothing at all to do with the non-functioning channel.
THE NONFUNCTIONING CHANNEL WAS NOT EVER USED in any of my demos or measurements.
Nevertheless, the energy balance computations on stored traces are correct for what they measured. Small inaccuracies in synchronization do not affect the results significantly.
Rosemary really reveals her ignorance once again with that post, and you do too, Aaron, because you should have been able to explain to her what I wrote above. But you don't understand it yourself, clearly, or it would not have been an issue.
And Err-on, you haven't shown your mosfet oscillating. SO why should I?
Especially since I can produce ALL the effects that Rosemary has claimed in her circuit--thus demonstrating that the COP>17 is a logic and math error, not a real overunity measurement.
And I think it's hilarious that you circle "avalanche proof" on a manufacturer's data sheet and try to use that as evidence that the 2sk1548 cannot avalanche.
You are so very naive, it's actually kind of cute.
Even the toy Fluke0Scope does waveform multiplication (but not integration) on board. So you should have used it to multiply your current and voltage traces on board to give you an instantaneous power waveform in Watts, which could then be integrated by hand in the spreadsheet. If you didn't do this. but instead did even the current and voltage multiplication by hand, this is another source of probable error in your calculations. Especially if you really used the tiny number of samples you implied in your response to MileHigh.
Quote from: 0c on August 02, 2009, 04:20:02 PM
Looks like you need an older version of libusb. There is a file created in older versions, named "usb.h" that doesn't seem to be created in newer versions. Instead, the newer versions create a file named "libusb.h". They are not the same!.
My SuSE system already has version 0.1.12 installed, which is newer than the 0.1.9 requirement for libk8055. So the already installed package (and "usb.h" and library) was the one on my system that was used during my build, and properly resolved everything.
The build and install I did for libusb-1.0.2 had no effect. It was stuffed in /usr/local. The compile found the required files in /usr/include and /usr/lib. Apparently there is only a certain range of versions that will work with the k8055 SW. I didn't walk through all the different releases to find where the API change occurred, but I would guess it was probably with the major revision change at 1.0.
So get yourself a pre 1.0 release of libusb, and I think you might be OK.
OK, mucho progresso. I uninstalled the later version using Synaptic package mgr, then installed libusb 0.1.12 from the tarball. K8055 lib compiled and installed without error.
I haven't figured out how to get anything working yet but at least we are past that one hurdle.
I'm sure there will be others....
again, thanks loads!
(At least we didn't have to resort to "Replace End User"...yet.)
@0c:
SUCCESS!!
;D
I definitely owe you a beverage. Thanks once again. Sysadmins Rule the Earth!
Now for the python part...
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 02, 2009, 08:41:44 PM
I definitely owe you a beverage. Thanks once again. Sysadmins Rule the Earth!
The official title is "Consulting Software Engineer", but I do my fair share of sysadmin stuff. And I'll take you up on that beverage, next time you decide to visit this neighborhood. :-*
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 02, 2009, 08:41:44 PM
Now for the python part...
I'll pass on that part. I'm not that good at it and it would take too much of my time, which is in short supply at the moment.
Quote from: 0c on August 02, 2009, 09:02:40 PM
The official title is "Consulting Software Engineer", but I do my fair share of sysadmin stuff. And I'll take you up on that beverage, next time you decide to visit this neighborhood. :-*
I'll pass on that part. I'm not that good at it and it would take too much of my time, which is in short supply at the moment.
Er..., but the first part was so easy...
Now when I do "make pylib" (instructions from README.txt) I get a bunch of more errors. I have the latest python 2.6.2 and swig 1.3.36.
And what's time for, but to spend fixing computers (and their users...)
I understand, but if you have a chance...I sent you a PM with the errors. Kind of looks like sort of the same thing:
"Python.h: no such file or directory"
So maybe it's another version conflict--and all you have to do is to tell me which version I need and which I don't....
(I should be so lucky...)
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 02, 2009, 07:10:33 PM
Rosemary really reveals her ignorance once again with that post, and you do too, Aaron, because you should have been able to explain to her what I wrote above. But you don't understand it yourself, clearly, or it would not have been an issue.
And Err-on, you haven't shown your mosfet oscillating. SO why should I?
Especially since I can produce ALL the effects that Rosemary has claimed in her circuit--thus demonstrating that the COP>17 is a logic and math error, not a real overunity measurement.
I'm not interested in following your bogus dog and pony show so haven't kept up on how you are misusing your equipment so there is nothing for me to explain to Rosemary.
You can't hide behind that mustache all your life. You obviously have zero confidence in anything you are doing and because you think you are anonymous, anything you post is irrelevant to this entire project.
Be a man tk and put your real name on your work here. Otherwise, it is meaningless garbage.
@0c: Well, I solved that problem and several others and am on still another one. But you can disregard the errrs in the PM, got that sorted.
More later. Good night.
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 02, 2009, 11:44:59 PM
@0c: Well, I solved that problem and several others and am on still another one. But you can disregard the errrs in the PM, got that sorted.
More later. Good night.
Tried to PM you here, but it wouldn't work for me. Check your youtube PMs.
From Rosemary:
Have read up and am amazed at the sampling ability of the LeCroy. My concern is that you're applying your own computations to that data. Especially as it relates to the DC average.
I can live with the fact that readings aren't simultaneous. I now understand that point. Thank you.
Now TK. We will need to see the actual software relating to your computations - if you don't mind. Alternatively just hook the FLUKE 123 probes across the shunt and SHOW US the DC average. The sample range is not as broad but it has the real advantage of giving an IMMEDIATE voltage value. (emphasis is not shouting - just intended for emphasis) within a reasonable level of margin for error.
The logic applied for the computation of energy delivered is definitely a 'nested if'. If below zero - subtract - from previous'. You get the picture? Again - back to the Fluke. It has the advantage of being able to deduct the one voltage from the other and give the difference. We can then apply our own math. So. My question. Why are you ignoring the use of that little instrument? I cannot understand it.
And please attend to OC's PM on your youtube. If it's what I suspect - it may be that you have to adjust the conclusions from that sad display of mental arithmetic.
And could you please address the fact that the 'recharge' may, indeed, be a recharge cycle. The more so as it self-evidently IS. Comments such as 'doesn't mean it is recharging - mind' - could otherwise indicate a preference and a bias.
It's really hard to keep up with your duplicity TK - the more so as I'm constrained by that stupidity and lack of technical know how which you gratuitously bring to everyone's attention.
One of the stored traces used on the LeCroy is the voltage across the current-viewing shunt, Rosemary, your Point B. Are you being deliberately dense?
Rosemary, the math that I showed on the LeCroy is what you are trying to explain, and sadly, if you had just stayed in school long enough to learn what "integration" means, you would know this. I'm not applying "my own math" to anything. The oscilloscope is doing the computation.
The process of integration, which is the mathematical computation of the AREA UNDER A WAVEFORM, takes into account the positive area (above zero, going one way) and the negative area (below zero, going the other way) of the power waveform to give the total energy flow. You have tried to describe this process in your primitive way many times apparently without realizing you are describing a standard procedure and one that is well understood--integration.
QuoteThe logic applied for the computation of energy delivered is definitely a 'nested if'. If below zero - subtract - from previous'. You get the picture? Again - back to the Fluke. It has the advantage of being able to deduct the one voltage from the other and give the difference. We can then apply our own math. So. My question. Why are you ignoring the use of that little instrument? I cannot understand it.
That's right, you cannot understand it. The little Fluke cannot do the integration; the operation must be done on the power waveform NOT on either the voltage or the current waveform individually. That is another error you seem to be making. The voltage and current must be multiplied together first, THEN the integration is done. If you are doing it on the voltage first, you are making another error.
I am tired of your accusing me of duplicity and stupidity, while in the same breath you yourself are exhibiting the highest degree of both.
You have a lot of gall to ask ME for computations, when I have been asking YOU for YOURS for six weeks now.
Especially since all my work is shown, in my posts here and in my videos.
My work is transparent. My circuits are published. My scope shots are real and repeatable and give actual information. Anyone can repeat my work.
Why can't anyone repeat yours?
My circuit is as nearly exactly the same as yours as I can humanly make it. I am measuring it where you say to measure it.
AND I HAVE GOTTEN THE SAME OBJECTIVE RESULTS YOU HAVE GOTTEN.
The difference is that I understand how properly to compute the energy balance, and you do not.
Quote from: qiman on August 02, 2009, 11:42:26 PM
I'm not interested in following your bogus dog and pony show so haven't kept up on how you are misusing your equipment so there is nothing for me to explain to Rosemary.
You can't hide behind that mustache all your life. You obviously have zero confidence in anything you are doing and because you think you are anonymous, anything you post is irrelevant to this entire project.
Be a man tk and put your real name on your work here. Otherwise, it is meaningless garbage.
That's pretty funny coming from you, Err-on. You might think my work is irrelevant, and you are probably right, because it's sort of like working really hard to prove that the moon isn't made of green cheese. But as long as people like you and Rosemary are trying to sell green cheese as caviar, I'll keep working to show how ridiculous you are.
It's going to be winter soon, if it already isn't where you are. How will you heat your home?
How will you charge the batteries in your electric vehicle?
Using an Ainslie circuit?
Somehow, I don't think so.
But if it made COP>17, what's to stop you?
And you keep accusing me of being bogus. What exactly of my work is bogus? I give all details and anybody can repeat it for themselves. But you--your latest 555 diagram is even wrong.
And let's not even talk about the bogosity of zipons and antitruants, and trying to replace QED with a "theory" that cannot even make a single testable prediction--because its originator has no math beyond arithmetic.
Bogus bogus bogus. Bogus "patent", bogus Quantum circuit diagram, bogus understanding of duty cycle, bogus "random aperiodic resonant Hartley oscillations", bogus bogus bogus.
Dog and pony show? The only thing I have trouble with is figuring out which one of you is the dog and which is the pony.
From Rosemary:
TK - I'm hoping I can bend your mind around this problem.
The battery recharges, power through, voltage first drops - then a spike to, what was it - say 50 volts or thereby? At that same moment the value across the shunt say 0.4volts positive drops to about 1.2volts negative, (aproximate because I couldn't see the actual value) . Then how do you work out the product of the energy available at that moment. In my reckoning it is 1.2/0.25 = plus/minus 4.8 amps. So. I need to be reasonably certain that the actual energy calculated at that moment as v*i = 240 watts BACK TO THE SYSTEM. (Again not shouting. Just emphasis)
Now. If you do not do the integration simultaneously how is this advantage or gain made evident? And more alarmingly, if you simply do the product of both values and add it to the general loss - then your methodology is wrong.
If, as you say the LeCroy is doing the math - then I'm afraid I need to see it. I'm still concerned that it is not capable of doing that DC offset. To my primitive way of thinking this means that it cannot gauge zero in order to make a comparison as to where the waveform was found in relation to zero.
Please explain this. Sorry to impose.
You are right. Its's the best I can do to explain my concern. I use primative example and analogy. But it serves its purpose.
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 03, 2009, 03:57:00 AM
...You have tried to describe this process in your primitive way many times apparently without realizing you are describing a standard procedure and one that is well understood--integration.That's right, you cannot understand it. The little Fluke cannot do the integration; the operation must be done on the power waveform NOT on either the voltage or the current waveform individually. That is another error you seem to be making. The voltage and current must be multiplied together first, THEN the integration is done. If you are doing it on the voltage first, you are making another error.
...
That is right. dW=U(t)*I(t)*dt and an integral of a product is not generally the product of integrals.
To integrate separately voltage and current is an error of beginners in electronics and ignorants in physics.
Quote from: qiman on August 03, 2009, 04:58:39 AM
The battery recharges, power through, voltage first drops - then a spike to, what was it - say 50 volts or thereby? At that same moment the value across the shunt say 0.4volts positive drops to about 1.2volts negative, (aproximate because I couldn't see the actual value) . Then how do you work out the product of the energy available at that moment.
The term "product of the energy available at that moment" is nonsense. A "product" is the answer you get when you multiply two numbers. What happens here is that the INSTANTANEOUS CURRENT VALUE (say, at a time t=0.0000000001 sec) is multiplied by the INSTANTANEOUS VOLTAGE VALUE at that SAME TIME, t=0.0000000001 sec, to give a single value of the INSTANTANEOUS POWER. Power, not energy. And it's not "worked out", it's calculated by the powerful and expensive computer in the LeCroy. And it's an entire waveform, not just a single value. Every one of the 500,000,000 samples per second is used in the calculation.
Quote
In my reckoning it is 1.2/0.25 = plus/minus 4.8 amps. So. I need to be reasonably certain that the actual energy calculated at that moment as v*i = 240 watts BACK TO THE SYSTEM. (Again not shouting. Just emphasis)
If the voltage drop across the shunt at a given instant is 1.2 Volts, then the current in the shunt is given by 1.2/0.25, which is 4.8 Amperes, INSTANTANEOUS CURRENT. The instantaneous power dissipated in the shunt is then ( 4.8 x 4.8 )( 0.025 ) or about 6 Watts. This represents POWER DISSIPATED IN THE SHUNT, not "going back" anywhere, and to find the energy this instantaneous power waveform must be integrated over a suitable time period. The number you quote is an instantaneous power value for a peak of the power waveform In the Circuit, whose resistance is somewhat more, and is offset as you know by a similar peak in the other direction. This is what DrStiffler and others mean when they say "The peaks integrate to zero". That is, they nearly perfectly cancel each other out, WHEN THE WAVEFORM IS INTEGRATED to produce the energy value at a given time.
Quote
Now. If you do not do the integration simultaneously how is this advantage or gain made evident? And more alarmingly, if you simply do the product of both values and add it to the general loss - then your methodology is wrong.
Now, you finally (almost) have added "integration" to your vocabulary. Unfortunately your understanding is still incomplete--as it will remain until you study the calculus. Integration is a process that is "outside" of time in a way, since it adds up all the time slices of a waveform to figure the area underneath it. Energy is the PRODUCT (two numbers multiplied, remember?) of POWER and TIME. Power is Watts, Energy is Joules, Joules are Watt-seconds. So if you have a GRAPH of POWER vs. time, the AREA under the curve on that graph is Power times Time, which is Joules, or energy. Integration operates on an entire waveform at one time and gives the area under the waveform __FULLY ACCOUNTING FOR THE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE SWINGS_ (that is a SHOUT).
My methodology is not wrong. Your attitude and lack of understanding and your arrogance are what is wrong.
Quote
If, as you say the LeCroy is doing the math - then I'm afraid I need to see it. I'm still concerned that it is not capable of doing that DC offset. To my primitive way of thinking this means that it cannot gauge zero in order to make a comparison as to where the waveform was found in relation to zero.
IF, as I say? Who's doing the math if it isn't the LeCroy? Certainly not you.
Can you see the math inside your computer?
As I have TRIED to explain to you over and over, the DC offset issue affects ONE of the scope's TWO input channels. It does NOT affect any of the scope's other functions and has been inactive, that is, I have NOT used it at any time in these demos or calculations. It has nothing to do with the TRACES or the MATH displayed, and if you had any real inkling about scopes you would know this. You are tilting at a non-existent windmill. Your primitive way of thinking is in error, as even Aaron should be able to explain to you.
Quote
Please explain this. Sorry to impose.
You are right. Its's the best I can do to explain my concern. I use primative example and analogy. But it serves its purpose.
It IS an imposition, because I am trying to explain to you the things that are normally covered in a high-school precalculus class lasting three months, where students actually DO HOMEWORK and SOLVE PROBLEMS like the one we are trying to discuss here. And this kind of math is considered PREREQUISITE for any even elementary study in electronics. So I am doing remedial math and EE with someone who thinks she knows it all already yet is making basic errors with almost every step, and compounding them with willful misunderstanding--hence I know my effort is futile.
And you are NOT sorry at all.
But at least some others reading here will know what's up.
You can take that 240 Watts you calculated, and mutiply it by the time width of the spike that produced it.
The frequency of the spikes in my rig is about 1.6 Mhz, so a single cycle occupies 1/1,600,000 second.
Approximating the spike by a long skinny rectangle (which OVERESTIMATES it) we get 150 MicroJoules of energy in the spike. This is offset by another, say, 140 microJoules coming back in the negative part of the cycle. The difference, 10 millionths of a Joule per cycle, is dissipated as heat.
This can be clearly seen in the LeCroy's display, as the Energy integral has "humps" in it where the spikes and ringdown are occurring--the energy (flowing one way) stops increasing and decreases a bit (representing the reverse flow) before resuming its normal course.
The integrated Power trace--that is, the energy-- on the LeCroy clearly shows that small reverse energy flow--and also clearly shows that it does NOT accumulate in the battery, it merely puts a tiny amount of the battery's energy back into the battery--or it can be made to accumulate into a second batt or cap external to the circuit. This energy comes from the running battery and the total is NOT increasing.
It's easy to calculate the energy that can be returned to the battery by this method. You can even neglect the dissipation due to heating and just say that the entire spike decay is due to energy passing back into the battery.
So figure 150 microJoules is actually going back to the battery on each pulse of the primary freq--which is 2.4 kHz. So each second there is ( 0.00015 ) x (2400) or 0.36 Joule going back.
Really there is much less, but OK. So that's 0.36 Joules per second going back. 0.36 Joules is 0.36 Watt-seconds, and 0.36 Watt-seconds per second is 0.36 Watts, AVERAGE POWER that may be returning to the battery. And that's an overestimate from several overestimated approximations.
The average power being dissipated in the load, meanwhile, is something like 2.5 or 3 Watts, or nearly eight or ten times as much. So about 10 or 15 percent, under the very most favorable assumptions, is available to get back to the battery. As the LeCroy shows, the actual number is much smaller, more like 2 percent.
Even using the numbers you come up with, Rosemary, you can see that the actual average power available to return to the battery is quite small. Most of this 0.36 Watts is actually dissipated as heat.
The real numbers can be read directly (using a simple conversion factor) from the display of the LeCroy.
From Rosemary:
Hi TK - thanks for the 'off thread' science lesson. Re post 837. Can you please advise the relevance of the point in your second para 'hard copied' hereunder.
...The instantaneous power dissipated in the shunt is then (4.8 x 4.8)(0.25) or about 6 Watts.
I fail to see the relevance.
Then - who programmed the 4th Trace on your LeCroy?
Re the next post 838. Are you seriously proposing that the 'spike' that first reaches -1.2 volts and then returns to zero - somehow 'cancels out'? I would have thought that both moments have energy associated with it. Not so much a 'canceling out' but an addition to the energy delivered to the battery.
Kindly explain your comment that the waveform over the battery looks like it is recharging but 'may not be recharging' - 'mind' - or words to that effect. And, more to the point - why do you think the battery is showing the same waveform pattern associated with recharging batteries yet it is not recharging?
Please, people...
This is a page 80+, and there is still an ongoing debate if this "Ou electronical circuit" is really OU or not... :D
Well, it certainly isn't OU... Wanna bet???
In fact, it is well "underunity"- it's just a common, or, better, quite useless electronic circuit. It actually doesn't have a real purpose... (except to feed all the amateur trolls at this very moment)...
People who claim it is OU, should do their best to prove it. That is a must if they want somebody would take the concept (or them) seriously.
A bunch of a common electronic components, connected with a battery? And, OU? ;D Yeah, sure...
"CoP" of 17??? That would be very easy to prove...
For a starter, I'd make a "self sustaining" demo circuit...
A piece of cake, never mind the source of the "extra" energy...
Why it wasn't done already? Are there any problems??
So, cut the crap with all the "could be ringing and swinging" waveforms and questionable measurements procedures....
A battery shunt-bypass measurements are not necessarily the wright thing to do.... Lol...
Jeeeeez!
Please, TK, save yourself for something more promissing....
See Ya!
Spinner,
I whole heartedly agree.
At COP17, the very worst of sterling engines would manage to loop this circuit, and take the whole battery out, let it all run indefinately.
Especially Dr. Lindeman seems to be throwing his well-earned reputation up for grabs, to support a friend's claims. All of the EF community loes credibility with their attitude to critics, and is 2009's #1 waste of research time. I'd know much better ways to use TK's valuable time than the vast amount he much have invested in this. No need to publish in magazines to be worthy of that, I hope?
Dear Stefan, I am posting this on behalf of Rosemary Ainslie
Quote "
There are many comments from contributors that are addressed to me that I am unable to answer. Could you please lift the block on my access to your forum. I would like to join and am unable to register until this is done
Kind regards
Rosemary Ainslie "
Quote
...The instantaneous power dissipated in the shunt is then
( 4.8 x 4.8 )( 0.25 ) or about 6 Watts.
I fail to see the relevance.
Clearly. The relevance is multifold, but here are two points: First, this is an instantaneous power figure that seems absurdly high--this is a 1 Watt resistor, after all--just as the "240 Watts" figure you emphasize is an instantaneous power figure that does not reflect the average power at all. It is an instant peak value. Second, the shunt resistor does in fact dissipate a small amount of power, WHETHER THE CURRENT IS FLOWING TO OR FROM the battery. Just as do the rest of the resistances in the circuit, and just as does the battery's internal impedance.
Quote
Then - who programmed the 4th Trace on your LeCroy?
YET AGAIN, now, and for the very last time: The top two traces are stored traces, obtained about 30 seconds apart, from the Channel 1 input of the scope and stored in memory. By me.
The third trace is the scope's instantaneous power waveform computed from all 5 hundred million samples per second of the two stored traces in memory above. I set up ("programmed" if you like) the scope to do the computation and to display the trace in the third position. The scope's internal computer performed the computation.
The FOURTH TRACE displayed in the video is the TIME INTEGRATION of the THIRD TRACE. Since the third trace is an instantaneous power waveform, the fourth trace is...wait for it....the ENERGY in Joules on the vertical (and the time on the horizontal, as it is on all the traces). So you can see the energy flowing as the trace rises, and the little dips during the ringdown indicate the small REVERSE FLOW of energy. Between cycles, of course, the transistor is off and no energy flows, so this trace is flat during those times.
If the reverse energy flows approached or exceeded the forward energy flows, you would see it very clearly on this trace. As long as energy is flowing out of the battery the trace climbs. When energy flows back into the battery the trace falls, and the amounts of rise and fall measure the ENERGY involved as accurately as the instrument allows.
This is a series of correct computations, done correctly, on correctly obtained data--with two flaws: One, that the waveforms were not obtained simultaneously, and Two, obviously no "free energy" is shown. The interpretation of the trace is clear, if you understand the math and the physics involved.
Who programmed the 4th trace? I set up the scope ("programmed" if you like) to do this--by going into its math function menu and scrolling past many many other functions until I came to "integration" and then I selected that, and told the sub-menus what I wanted integrated and where I wanted it displayed. A global (that is, affecting all computations) setting that I demonstrated on the video selects the number of sample points to use in the computation--this can be turned down to improve the scope's response rate when performing realtime measurements--as you can see I selected the maximum number of points: five hundred million per second. The oscilloscope then performed the integration by using what is referred to as a "numerical method", and the result is displayed on the 4th trace. There is no "interpretation" or fudging of any kind here. The scope is doing math on data. You can see for yourself what it is reporting. Well, maybe not "you", Rosemary, but certainly those with the necessary prereqs can.
I am not going to explain this again.
Quote
Re the next post 838. Are you seriously proposing that the 'spike' that first reaches -1.2 volts and then returns to zero - somehow 'cancels out'? I would have thought that both moments have energy associated with it. Not so much a 'canceling out' but an addition to the energy delivered to the battery.
Positive current spikes are cancelled by negative current spikes. You can expand the ringdown including all spikes, trace them on paper, cut them out or count little squares, and see that the spikes above the line (positive) and the spikes below the line (negative) have almost the same area in total. This means, yes, they cancel out in the long run. The reason there is a "decay"--that nice trumpet shape--is because, with each "slosh" back and forth a little power is dissipated as heat. Or, if a spike is high enough to get past the diode and the impedance of the battery, a tiny amount can be returned to the battery in a way that "sticks". But this is a small fraction of the energy THAT CAME FROM THE BATTERY IN THE FIRST PLACE and so cannot "recharge" it, it can only slow its rate of discharge.
Quote
Kindly explain your comment that the waveform over the battery looks like it is recharging but 'may not be recharging' - 'mind' - or words to that effect. And, more to the point - why do you think the battery is showing the same waveform pattern associated with recharging batteries yet it is not recharging?
Once again you are talking nonsense. The "waveform pattern associated with recharging batteries" depends on the charger, mostly, and secondly on the particular battery chemistry. I can charge these batteries with all kinds of whacky waveforms--but I assure you, straight filtered regulated DC will give the best results in terms of energy efficiency and battery life.
Got that?
Now, I am not speaking for Stefan, but I know that he has better things to do than to look at this thread for messages. But I can certainly tell you this much: Stefan rarely blocks or bans people and does so only for really good reasons. After all, he hasn't blocked ME yet!! And I have NEVER heard of him blocking anyone pre-emptively. So I think that it is very unlikely that Stefan has anything at all to do with Rosemary's inability to access here. More likely it is her own ignorance and willingness to come to fast conclusions that is once again getting in the way. After all, how difficult is it to use a proxy server or an anonymizer, even if one's home IP address is in a banned block?
@spinner
Quote:
"In fact, it is well "underunity"- it's just a common, or, better, quite useless electronic circuit. It actually doesn't have a real purpose... (except to feed all the amateur trolls at this very moment)..."
It seems almost every word you type is a contradiction to actual fact, the circuit is not useless it has been proven to generate heat, that is the "real" purpose you stated doesn't exist, LOL. As for the simple, common or otherwise circuit components, do you know how many people have won a nobel prize for simply describing the interactions in and around a simple coiled piece of wire which in fact represets an air core inductance? If it is so common or better quite useless I wonder why all these people were awarded a nobel prize for their understanding of it?. As well there are those fools from MIT playing with simple coils of wire and transmitting electrical power, which Intel just paid millions of dollars to for stock options, maybe you can explain to them how common or useless their simple components are. Are these now very rich person's from MIT troll's as well? You see what you and your merry gang of critics understand of basic electronics is not even a start in regards to what you need to know and understand in order to succeed and blaming others for your ignorance will not help matters. You are never going to succeed by measuring what is happening in the circuit proper, you have to understand the field interactions exterior to it and how they relate to one another and the circuit.
Regards
AC
Yes, let's not forget the circuit "generates heat."
Picture the image of a grandmotherly old woman in a rocker, huddled over an Ainslie heater in the cold South African August winter, while contemplating this graph:
@TK
That is an interesting graph but of course it does not show the heat dissipated in the mosfet of the Ainslie circuit in which case the graphs would be nearly identical because as we all know energy is conserved. We also know the circuit generates heat, it is simply a matter of how much relative to the input and where it is generated in the circuit. In essence if one wanted to judge the graph as depicted it would represent a violation of the conservation of energy because you cannot get any less energy out than you put in for the same reason you cannot get more energy out than you put in, within a closed system. When you find out how one would make this closed system an open one then you will have the answers your looking for.
Regards
AC
From Rosemary:
"You're right. I have various neighbours who've sorted out an intermittent access. But it does not enable registration.
Come on TK. You've got a monologue going there - a really long winded one sided argument. And I can't accuse you of impartiality, moderation, fair mindedness, objectivity, or accurate data presentation. And if you look at our posts you'll see Aaron's got a cogent argument as to why we need you to use that Fluke. I'd like to advance that other face of the argument that you persistently refuse to address."
Quote from: allcanadian on August 04, 2009, 08:08:21 PM
@TK
That is an interesting graph but of course it does not show the heat dissipated in the mosfet of the Ainslie circuit in which case the graphs would be nearly identical because as we all know energy is conserved. We also know the circuit generates heat, it is simply a matter of how much relative to the input and where it is generated in the circuit. In essence if one wanted to judge the graph as depicted it would represent a violation of the conservation of energy because you cannot get any less energy out than you put in for the same reason you cannot get more energy out than you put in, within a closed system. When you find out how one would make this closed system an open one then you will have the answers your looking for.
Regards
AC
All TK would have to do for the control DC case to make it completely fair, is to place the MOSFET, diode, and shunt in series with the load resistor/coil and fix-bias the gate so the MOSFET is fully ON.
But then I wouldn't be surprised if TK already did it this way.
.99
@poynt99
Quote:
"All TK would have to do for the control DC case to make it completely fair, is to place the MOSFET, diode, and shunt in series with the load resistor/coil and fix-bias the gate so the MOSFET is fully ON.
But then I wouldn't be surprised if TK already did it this way."
LOL, unfortunately it does not work that way in the real world, do you think the mosfet would dissipate the same heat when switching at high speed and fully on from a DC source?. As well you missed my point completely, I don't care if the comparison is "fair" in any way, shape or form, it is irrelevant. The fact remains that the conservation of energy applies in every case and the same heat will be generated in both the Ainsley circuit and control unless energy enters the system from somewhere else. As well you cannot just measure at the resistor/inductor, you must measure all heat generated everywhere in the circuits and they will always be equal unless more energy enters the system. It should be obvious that until you understand where this "extra" energy comes from or how it could be utilized, this whole experiment is pointless. You are doing nothing more than verifying the conservation of energy and not very well I might add.
Regards
AC
Please review the original claims of Ainslie in the two relevant publications.
The main claim is that the LOAD heat energy is 17 times more than the BATTERY supplied during the time in question.
No claims have been made, nor investigated, concerning heat in the mosfet--except that I realize, OF COURSE, that the heating of components must be taken into account in the final accurate energy balance computations...which Ainslie has NOT done.
The above graph shows that, if the Ainslie circuit is OU in heating the load, then so must be my DC regulated supply, and by an even larger margin.
Any "wasted" heat in the mosfet or other components is irrelevant to this claim, or to the data displayed in the graph.
I assure you that I have nothing at all to do with whether or not anyone can or cannot access this website.
And I do not read the "energeticforum". I don't have time for the sports page or the funny papers, either.
@AC
Quote@TK
That is an interesting graph but of course it does not show the heat dissipated in the mosfet of the Ainslie circuit in which case the graphs would be nearly identical because as we all know energy is conserved. We also know the circuit generates heat, it is simply a matter of how much relative to the input and where it is generated in the circuit. In essence if one wanted to judge the graph as depicted it would represent a violation of the conservation of energy because you cannot get any less energy out than you put in for the same reason you cannot get more energy out than you put in, within a closed system. When you find out how one would make this closed system an open one then you will have the answers your looking for.
Regards
AC
@poynt99
Quote:
"All TK would have to do for the control DC case to make it completely fair, is to place the MOSFET, diode, and shunt in series with the load resistor/coil and fix-bias the gate so the MOSFET is fully ON.
But then I wouldn't be surprised if TK already did it this way."
LOL, unfortunately it does not work that way in the real world, do you think the mosfet would dissipate the same heat when switching at high speed and fully on from a DC source?. As well you missed my point completely, I don't care if the comparison is "fair" in any way, shape or form, it is irrelevant. The fact remains that the conservation of energy applies in every case and the same heat will be generated in both the Ainsley circuit and control unless energy enters the system from somewhere else. As well you cannot just measure at the resistor/inductor, you must measure all heat generated everywhere in the circuits and they will always be equal unless more energy enters the system. It should be obvious that until you understand where this "extra" energy comes from or how it could be utilized, this whole experiment is pointless. You are doing nothing more than verifying the conservation of energy and not very well I might add.
Regards
AC
These two sentences from your post refers to the two tests not being a "fair" comparison. Even though the word "fair" was not used, it is implied.
Quote"...it does not show the heat dissipated in the mosfet of the Ainslie circuit in which case the graphs would be nearly identical because as we all know energy is conserved."
and
Quote"In essence if one wanted to judge the graph as depicted it would represent a violation of the conservation of energy because you cannot get any less energy out than you put in for the same reason you cannot get more energy out than you put in, within a closed system."
Clearly you missed the point I was making, and that is: in order to show that indeed "energy is conserved", the initial test done as I proposed would take into account all other component dissipations in the circuit that would not have been accounted for if they were ommitted.
Pulsing the MOSFET at 2.4kHz is hardly a high frequency and the losses in it will be negligable, provided the gate drive has a reasonable (555 is ~100ns) rise and fall time. With a rise and fall time of 1us (relatively slow), there is about a 5% increase in dissipation in the MOSFET. The power dissipation in the MOSFET in each case will be about 200mW.
Taking a second look at the circuit and the proposed DC control test, the flyback diode in the RA circuit dissipates next to no power with the flyback spike being so incredibly short in duration. In fact this circuit is so heavily biased towards the resistive vs. reactive component that it is hardly worthwhile treating the resistor as an inductor at all. As such, the diode should be left out of the DC control test. Therefore, only the coil/resistor, MOSFET, and shunt should be in the control circuit. A DC voltage of about 4.6V will be required to achieve the same heat dissipation in the coil/resistor as in the pulsed-mode case using a 24VDC supply.
You go on to say this:
Quote"As well you cannot just measure at the resistor/inductor, you must measure all heat generated everywhere in the circuits and they will always be equal unless more energy enters the system."
Both the circuits (as proposed) now contain the same components which are active in the heating process. As such, it is only necessary to measure the heat in the coil/resistor in each case, and compare input powers. The DC voltage in the control test is adjusted to achieve the same settled temperature as obtained with the pulsed circuit.
The COP btw of both circuits (pulsed and DC) is about 0.86.
And Regards to you too fine Sir,
.99
@spinner
Quote:
"In fact, it is well "underunity"- it's just a common, or, better, quite useless electronic circuit. It actually doesn't have a real purpose... (except to feed all the amateur trolls at this very moment)..."
Quote
It seems almost every word you type is a contradiction to actual fact, the circuit is not useless it has been proven to generate heat, that is the "real" purpose you stated doesn't exist, LOL.
"actual fact"(?), "prooven to generate heat".... "real purpose"...
Big words... Tell me, what are the "actual facts"? Provided by which "authority"? A bunch of "OU enthusiasts"? Yep, those few must be smarter than the rest, millions of currently active experts, combined with all the previous generations and knowledge....
And, FET can "generate" heat? Uau!
17-times more than any other (obsolete) "electricity to heat" converter? OK..
Ah, got it... Electrons are somehow pumping the heat from surrounding (or any other currently unknown not recognised source, like a stardust radiation,..), entering the FET, dissipating the (additional) heat, and leaving the FET cold ....
Logical.
The other, rather old explanations, like a "FET" is just a "transistor" (link it with a bunch of obsolete "laws" like Ohm's...) Even the 'ole mr. Kirchhoff can come handy... As long as you know what are you looking for...
Quote
As for the simple, common or otherwise circuit components, do you know how many people have won a nobel prize for simply describing the interactions in and around a simple coiled piece of wire which in fact represets an air core inductance?
"Air core inductance"? A "simple coiled piece of wire" can really do that? And some people actually got a Nobel prize for that? Eh, you're kidding, right?! That's impossible!
Quote
If it is so common or better quite useless I wonder why all these people were awarded a nobel prize for their understanding of it?. As well there are those fools from MIT playing with simple coils of wire and transmitting electrical power, which Intel just paid millions of dollars to for stock options, maybe you can explain to them how common or useless their simple components are. Are these now very rich person's from MIT troll's as well?
People are transmitting "electrical power" ? No way... We all know that Tesla was just a crook, as were all his successors afterwards....
Even though I heard that an EM "transmission of energy" is quite common and widely used nowadays, I simply cannot believe it... "I'll ring you with my mobile"? Yeah, right... Joker...
I want to see you being "provided with a 10kW wireless power" (will it be enough for your needs?).
Just pick the frequency and the rest of the conditions...
Quote
You see what you and your merry gang of critics understand of basic electronics is not even a start in regards to what you need to know and understand in order to succeed and blaming others for your ignorance will not help matters. You are never going to succeed by measuring what is happening in the circuit proper, you have to understand the field interactions exterior to it and how they relate to one another and the circuit.
Regards
AC
Me and "my merry gang of critics" will do our best to understand what is going on.
I sincerely suggest that you do the same.
It seems there's a loooong way ahead of you before you'll catch anyone...
But I see you are improving your knowledge, which is good!
You're spreading the word of the damned "CoE principle" allmost like you know what you're talking about..!
Forgive me, I'm still remembering some of our previous "fruitfull" conversations, where you were calling me "ignorant" on many occasions... Like in that Archer's thread,.. (Well, lever isn't an OU device, is it?) ...
Or the "OU pool pump" ... Or... Name it... Doh... Never mind..
Cheers,
spinner
P.S.
It's still kind of fun, isn't it?
I would like to have a "FET OU heater" for myself, too...!
But, I'm just an ignorant skeptic, so I'll probably never see the revelation....
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 05, 2009, 02:04:02 PM
Please review the original claims of Ainslie in the two relevant publications.
The main claim is that the LOAD heat energy is 17 times more than the BATTERY supplied during the time in question.
No claims have been made, nor investigated, concerning heat in the mosfet--except that I realize, OF COURSE, that the heating of components must be taken into account in the final accurate energy balance computations...which Ainslie has NOT done.
The above graph shows that, if the Ainslie circuit is OU in heating the load, then so must be my DC regulated supply, and by an even larger margin.
Any "wasted" heat in the mosfet or other components is irrelevant to this claim, or to the data displayed in the graph.
I assure you that I have nothing at all to do with whether or not anyone can or cannot access this website.
And I do not read the "energeticforum". I don't have time for the sports page or the funny papers, either.
Lol..
Battery is recharging while the "Ainslie circuit" is "generating" the heat... And, generating heat is the best possible task for "electronic circuits", we all know that. And, "CoP of 17" is a good start..
Can we have a contest, who would provide "The best FET heating circuit with the known input power"? Please?? Eh, I'll pass...
TK, I'd go for yours "CoP of 20+" dc regulated/control circuit...
1 kW in, 20 out?; :o
No wander that MiB are messing with your computers....
;D
@spinner
QuoteP.S.
It's still kind of fun, isn't it?
I would like to have a "FET OU heater" for myself, too...!
But, I'm just an ignorant skeptic, so I'll probably never see the revelation....
Every day I wake up is fun, LOL, and if the truth be known I am an ignorant skeptic as well. I am ignorant (lacking knowledge) of many facts, in fact I know for certain no matter how long I research and experiment I will never know everything I would want to. I am skeptical as well, in the thousands of hours of research I have done you learn to differentiate between what is BS and what is not, but again the fact that I am ignorant dictates that I could be wrong about anything I prejudge as BS, so what in the hell do I know. The one thing I do know and you may as well, is that more and more people are coming to an understanding of what is required to succeed in this technology and it's time has come.
regards
AC
Well, they are almost on their own to enjoy each others company over at the Energetic forum, now that I've been disconnected as a naughty skeptic!
I've now learnt from Rosemary that the 'load' itself produces the 16 parts of the energy gained by this super heater circuit!!
Hoppy
Quote from: Hoppy on August 06, 2009, 05:25:41 AM
Well, they are almost on their own to enjoy each others company over at the Energetic forum, now that I've been disconnected as a naughty skeptic!
I've now learnt from Rosemary that the 'load' itself produces the 16 parts of the energy gained by this super heater circuit!!
Hoppy
Sure it does. Right.
But where does it go, and how can it be put to use?
Since it arises only from Rosemary's calculations, and has no other affect on reality, its only observable use is to bolster her pitiful attempt at theory.
When I think about all those various mathematics and physics and engineering homework problems that I struggled with for YEARS, learning what I know and practicing it...then to see what gross errors Rosemary's combination of arrogance and ignorance can produce...it gets me pretty hot under the collar, that's for sure.
Never fear, this small interlude in my own program concerning this fiasco is just a pause, so that I can properly prepare the protocol and data logging for the longer-term battery discharge experiments. I am confident that these will answer any questions that may remain about battery charging and long-term energy balance.
Meanwhile, I note that her application is still being referred to as a "Patent".
Why is this important? Because having an actual issued PATENT gives a person a certain cachet that a simple application--which anyone with a fancy lawyer can file, about any topic whatsoever without the least vetting--does not.
For example, can you imagine the scene if I walked off the airplane in JoBurg with an _application_ for a visa, and showed the immigration folks my _application_ for a passport, and identified myself with my _application_ for a driving licence?
And I note that the Quantum article still has not been retracted nor its errors corrected; there still has been no proof--no document, no report, no calibration certificate-- from any outside lab or institution's vetting of any part of Ainslie's apparatus or claims: just "Rosemary says". And "Rosemary says" morphs from "verifying scope calibration" in the paper, to "verifying the experiment and its conclusions" in current discussions.
We are not even allowed to see a picture of her apparatus or a scope shot of its operation.
We still don't have her original data or spreadsheet to examine; we don't have the exact complete circuit diagram used (OR DO WE??); we still don't have an answer to the questions about the load inductance; we still don't have an answer about the differences between what Aaron says now and what Rosemary says in the papers and application...
We have, in fact, exactly jack from Rosemary. Zipons and Antitruants.
Most of what is ACTUALLY KNOWN about the behaviour of Rosemary's claimed circuit comes from...where now?
_________________________________________
"As an amateur, the prospect of attempting a meaningful comment on physics is, at best, inappropriate."
--Rosemary Ainslie
http://rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com/
Two points with reference to .99's post:
Zeroeth, he's right about everything as usual, but I just want to clear up a couple things. First, the inductance and frequency: 2.4 kHz which Rosemary calls "high" but which is in fact audio, that is, VLF in terms of oscillating EM or RF. This frequency is far from the natural resonant frequency of the circuit. The inductance cited in Ainslie's paper for the load is close to the theoretical value calculated for an inductor of the physical dimensions cited...too close, and too low, for physical reality IMHO. At this small (0.00864 milliHenry, IIRC) inductance value the resistive component is entirely dominant and the diode has almost no observable effect. BUT: in practice it is nearly impossible to use such a small inductance. 6 or 8 inches of lead-in wire, if not carefully routed, will approach that value, and e.g. Aaron's Ohmite resistor has about 0.150-0.200 milliHenries of inductance, or twenty times the load Ainslie cites. AND I have found that the diode makes a difference at higher inductances, and using 200 milliHenries (an electromagnet core) I was able easily to charge a cap to over 600 volts.
And third, in the control experiment graphed above, I was driving the mosfet with the DP-101 pulse generator, which at that low frequency has a very nice clean square-cornered pulse with a rise time of under 5 ns, faster than any of my analog scopes can resolve, and the 4.5 percent dutycycle was carefully set with reference to the LeCroy's parameter display. So if the 555 timer's dirty signal is required for the "magic" to appear, one can disqualify this data for that reason. But then one is resorting to religious pleading, not scientific. Besides, I have tried various combinations of clocks and duty cycles and freqs, with similar results.
Anyway, I don't believe that, at the "normal" Ainslie drive parameters, much power is lost in mosfet heating or in other components. At longer duty cycles there is more mosfet heating; using dirty drive signals there is more mosfet heating; using a mosfet with higher internal resistance like the 2sk1548 there is more heating; using higher inductances there is more heating; all the expected stuff.
EDIT to add: It is appropriate to ask why the two curves aren't closer together, after all. Especially if the circuit is "efficient", that is dissipating most of its power in the load rather than in the components.
There's probably less lost there than "Mr. Finger" can detect, and I don't have enough thermocouples to see for sure.
When the electrical input to a load last only a fraction of a second, a steady state thermal condition is never reached. Therefore, transient temperature rise should be calculated and when doing this, convective, conductive, and radiative cooling contributions are usually neglected. However, this is a "continuous" transient heating process.
If anyone thinks these effects are anomolous, then harness them. This is easier than in-depth transient heating analysis or 100 pages of arguing. Boiling water with that circuit would be impressive.
Well, I can certainly boil water with it.
In fact my Ainslie "Bullitt1" load, immersed in mineral oil, regularly tops out my thermocouple system -- at over 120 degrees C -- if I give it the appropriate duty cycle input.
I might could even boil a tiny amount of water giving it 3.5 percent ON.
But I could boil water with less overall power using straignt DC, of course.
Now, boiling water while at the same time recharging its own battery...that would be impressive. So far no evidence of anything like this has been given.
Hi TK,
just dropping in to ask you if you know what this is because I know you have experience with HV.
I was watching my Jacob ladder arcing with a TV flyback source.
I noticed that as the arc climbed and the gap increased that the ark showed asymettry. The arc is fat near the output side and skinny on the return side.
When the ladder starts the climb at the bottom, the arc is all fat, but at a certain gap distance I start to see a clear interface point where beyond it the arc is skinny. The arc climbs further and the skinny part grows. The fat part seems to have a limit to its length.
Below is a video still. You can just see the skinny arc on the right hand side. Its about 66% fat and 34% skinny at this point.
The flyback has an output diode and so the left arc side is +ve and the right -ve.
This doesn't happen sometimes it happens all the time, is it an understood and documented thing? I've not been able to find an explanation for this online but maybe because I don't know the name for this phenomena?
edit: my working theory is that the fat arc contains gas ions depleted of 2 electrons and the skinny part only 1. The interface might demark the energy transition point between the two states. Maybe with a higher source and longer arc one might see 2 interfaces and 3 arc states?
@Yucca:
You might try looking at "Faraday Dark Space" or "Crooke's Dark Space". I have also noticed this in my own Jacob's ladders, and I think it may be a manifestation of the same phenomenon.
Hey All!!!!!
I can see clearly now, the rain is gone,
I can see all obstacles in my way
Gone are the dark clouds that had me blind
It’s gonna be a bright (bright), bright (bright)
Sun-Shiny day.
I think I can make it now, the pain is gone
All of the bad feelings have disappeared
Here is the rainbow I’ve been prayin' for
It’s gonna be a bright (bright), bright (bright)
Sun-Shiny day.
MileHigh gettin' into the proto-reggae groove!
Welcome aboard MH.
You know of course here you not only can see clearly, you are welcome to speak freely, as long as you're making sense, which you always do :P
Cheers,
.99
.99:
Thank you, looking forward to seeing what happens!
MH
My circuit is a replication of Aaron's & Peter Lindeman's circuit diagram as posted on the Energetic forum. Using just an AVO analogue meter to do some basic measurements with the circuit running at the shortest duty cycle available by adjustment of the pot , the circuit power is 0.28W * battery voltage which was 25.5V = 7.14W. Heating an identical resistor using a variable PSU to the same stabilised temperature consumes 7.83w. Although these are basic measurements, there is a very close correlation of control and circuit power dissipation here. There was very little heat being dissipated in the mosfet and given that the inductor / resistor is mostly resistive, the true efficiency if measured very accurately with a DSO would probably be quite high.
Hoppy
Quote from: Hoppy on August 06, 2009, 05:11:24 PM
My circuit is a replication of Aaron's & Peter Lindeman's circuit diagram as posted on the Energetic forum. Using just an AVO analogue meter to do some basic measurements with the circuit running at the shortest duty cycle available by adjustment of the pot , the circuit power is 0.28W * battery voltage which was 25.5V = 7.14W. Heating an identical resistor using a variable PSU to the same stabilised temperature consumes 7.83w. Although these are basic measurements, there is a very close correlation of control and circuit power dissipation here. There was very little heat being dissipated in the mosfet and given that the inductor / resistor is mostly resistive, the true efficiency if measured very accurately with a DSO would probably be quite high.
Hoppy
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't the electrical to heat energy conversion always = 100%, as long as you consider every element in the circuit? Isn't heat just the physical manifestation of entropy? Now try converting back to electricity and see what efficiency numbers you get.
Hoppy,
Out of curiosity, what was the DC voltage required to obtain your 7.83W control test?
Was the MOSFET and shunt resistor in the circuit?
Thanks,
.99
Hey I just lost my dual-citizenship. Aaron threw a small hissy-fit and kicked my ass. Funny, it doesn't hurt.
Hoppy: I think that you are looking good and it is just measurement error. There has got to be a limit to how good the analog meter does averaging to measure the current consumption. The higher frequency components in the current waveform probably can't be averaged out, and hence you are measuring less power than there really is. There are work-arounds to allow you to make pretty accurate measurements without having a DSO through, I even posted one in the Energetic Forum.
I have to answer a lingering question from across the great divide (one tab away) for Quantum, Joit, and Harvey: Michael's circuit converts the resistive load of the water heater into a reactive load using the triac/heater coil/diode/second heating element. Most older household electricity meters can't measure reactive power, hence Michael's electrical costs go down. That's probably a legal loophole in most areas and you can't be accused of stealing electricity, just guessing. As you can see, it has absolutely nothing to do with Rosemary's circuit.
MileHigh
Hey All,
I am going to respond to Aaron's kicking me off of the forum, but I promise you that I am not championing a cause or anything. Just closing the loop.
Aaron: You are so paralyized by fear that it is bad for your mental health. Anytime anybody has tried to correct you, the proper usage of your scope comes to mind right away, you instantly go on the defensive and will go to almost any length to feign that you were not wrong. Even when it is very obvious, you stick to your story. I am telling you, there is something wrong there. You try to stick to what you think is right, and the proper information almost has to be pounded into your head before you will accept it. You are acting like a petty despot dictator that is "infallable." Instead of trying to assimilate the opinions of others that are often more knowledable than you with respect to electronic circuits, you create a shield of defensiveness and hostility around yourself. The easiest way out when you can't respond to questions to defend your point is to call the other person an idiot. You are the author of your own misery.
You are afraid to admit that you are wrong, Aaron. You are afraid to demonstrate a willingness to learn from the "other side" and at least give the new information some thought and consideration. You paint yourself into a corner and are afraid to step on the fresh paint. To you the fresh paint looks like burning coals. Why? WHY?
The sroryline of the thread has been like a bad C-grade science fiction movie at times over the past few weeks. You run like a crazy person from spike to spike to resonance to oscillation, to diode to no diode like a chicken with its head cut off. Every time you find a new fixation you can sense the tension in the air lest someone disagree with you.
Your abject fear makes you make "Twilight Zone" statements like .99, myself, TK, Hoppy, and others are "not qualified" when any person reading the forum would CLEARLY SEE that we do know what we are talking about. This is such a disconnect from reality that I question your overall makeup as a person. You are a powder keg of cognitive dissonance. What the f*ck is going on with you? On top of that, ANY person with a solid electronics or engineering background could read your postings and look at your clips and quickly come to the realization that you are just slightly past the beginner stage when it comes to electronics. They would also notice that you are prone to making grand statements about things that you may know the buzz words for, but in fact barely understand what they really mean. Your pronouncements about various aspects of the circuit are mostly incorrect, and it is beyond me how you make these leaps of faith and continuously push the envelope with respect to your true capabilities.
You deleted my last few comments and for all I know you are on a rampage deleting everything else. You need to chill out and take it easy. You also need to decide if you are going to up your electronics skills by reading a book or taking a few courses and start trying to engage with people and try to learn from them, or forever be this tragi-comic character pushing the latest electronic "free energy" circuit like some uneducated goon.
I am going to do a copy paste of your big posting with your litany of complaints and that will be it. Let the discussion continue as time progresses. You can't play the big mean boss anymore threatening to pull the plug anymore and there is nothing that you can do to stop the crosspolination between threads so enjoy the ride. You are in for a shock when the results come in, it is starting to look a bit like a Sterling-Mylow road show. Guess whose shoes you fit in?
MileHigh
From Wikipedia:
Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The "ideas" or "cognitions" in question may include attitudes and beliefs, the awareness of one's behavior, and facts. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.[1] Cognitive dissonance theory is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.
Dissonance normally occurs when a person perceives a logical inconsistency among his or her cognitions. This happens when one idea implies the opposite of another. For example, a belief in animal rights could be interpreted as inconsistent with eating meat or wearing fur. Noticing the contradiction would lead to dissonance, which could be experienced as anxiety, guilt, shame, anger, embarrassment, stress, and other negative emotional states. When people's ideas are consistent with each other, they are in a state of harmony, or consonance. If cognitions are unrelated, they are categorized as irrelevant to each other and do not lead to dissonance.
A powerful cause of dissonance is an idea in conflict with a fundamental element of the self-concept, such as "I am a good person" or "I made the right decision." The anxiety that comes with the possibility of having made a bad decision can lead to rationalization, the tendency to create additional reasons or justifications to support one's choices. A person who just spent too much money on a new car might decide that the new vehicle is much less likely to break down than his or her old car. This belief may or may not be true, but it would likely reduce dissonance and make the person feel better. Dissonance can also lead to confirmation bias, the denial of disconfirming evidence, and other ego defense mechanisms.
Fine work, friends, congratulations and welcome.
I am not sure about the validity of taking the load to "a stabilized temperature" as an endpoint.
This measure does not take into account the time involved to get there, and is fraught with error potential in other ways. I think it's one of the problematic areas of Ainslie's original control experiment as reported.
I'm not saying that it is entirely inappropriate, I just think it's harder to do correctly than the method I use, which is to apply the same average power in both cases, or nearly so, and to look at the rate of temperature increase, the final stable temp, and when it got there.
Only by looking at the shape of the temp-time curve can you really tell, I believe, when your load has stabilized, and it is far easier to set power levels by simple reference to volts and amps than by looking at a time-lagged temperature.
I'd encourage Hoppy, if so inclined, to take a swing at it using this technique, and see if the results are still "suggestive".
The drag is that it takes hours of rapt attention, recording data every couple or three minutes. But with a properly "leaky" calorimeter you can make the runs less than 90 minutes each, and that's not too bad. I watch a movie on the computer while I'm logging.
@MileHigh: Thanks for that. I'm amazed at how Aaron tries to change the past by deleting posts. Even more amazing is when he crows about being open-minded and seeking Truth, while censoring any contrary information that challenges his world view.
He posts here as "qiman", and I'm sure we'll be hearing from him soon. We can't ban him, and I wouldn't even if I could--it's too much fun to mock him with his own statements.
What he won't do is explain the discrepancies--some of which you noted--between his circuit and Rosemary's.
I'm still on the load inductance thing...what is up with that? If you look back several pages you might see (if he hasn't removed it) a picture where he puts up another bad 555 circuit and says that the load inductance must be "as high as possible" for a 10 ohm resistor. Yet Ainslie used, she claims, 0.00864 milliHenry, and Aaron's Ohmite is probably 0.150 - 0.200 milliHenry...a not insignificant difference...
______________________________________
"As an amateur, the prospect of attempting a meaningful comment on physics is, at best, inappropriate."
--Rosemary Ainslie
http://rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com/
Hey TK,
Thanks for the welcome and the comments. I am just going to rebut Aaron's "kick me out" posting and then move on. I will try to make an intelligent comment or two about your research later. Good news that Hoppy is in on the action also!
MH
PART 1 OF 2
Okay Aaron,
Here we go with the big rebut. I may have no comments to some of your points because they deal with some fine details that I am not going to go back and look up.
fasten your seat belts. It's going to be a bumpy night!†- Bette Davis
Quote:
Originally Posted by MileHigh:
I explained to Aaron that his proposed method for measuring the power in the inductive resistor was wrong. Did you see that posting? Do you have any comments?
I ALREADY commented but you ignore that and misdirect people's attention to other things. The AC measurement on load doesn't take into account inductance or the power factor.
> Disconnect, my question was not directed at you. I notice that you take great liberties with this and respond to points like they were addressed to you when they are not.
> Your response about your mistake in measuring the power through the coil-resistor with the DSO was the following:
-------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't take into account inductance and power factor.
No more distractions from you. <- kiss my ass, that's the last time you say that to me
If you know what is input from the battery, you can find the required wattage to make the same temp. That input compared to the necessary wattage to run at the same temp is over 1.0 COP.
-------------------------------------------------------------
> You didn't take into account that it was an inductance? Really, so where have you been for the last few months? What really happened is that you were a victim of your uneducated simplified thinking process when it comes to inductors. You have been treating them like ordinary resistors for years because you don't understand them. I can speculate that only within the last few weeks of this thread have you had any inklings about how inductors really work. All the time previous to this you have been in blissful ignorance and have dealt with coils like they were resistors. It was only last week or so where you were having difficulty with the concept of pure DC current through an ideal inductor resulting in zero voltage across the inductor. You couldn't wrap your brain around that concept. Good on you for trying to learn something.
> Then comes the laughable part where you "lecture" me and try to tell me to go with the thermal method when that was the whole point of my posting: v-squared/R does not work, go thermal
> One more time Aaron, abject paralyzing fear on your part to admit fallibility resulting in your trying to "save face" and lecture me. Aaron, everybody can see though this nonsense and you are making a fool of yourself, not to mention the stress you create for yourself. All that you had to do was thank me and say that you made a mistake.
> Back to your posting....
When you get the shunt measurement of what is leaving the battery, you can simply put a control supply on the resistor to make equivalent heat and whatever wattage the supply is putting to the load is the baseline.
If the wattage leaving battery is less for the same temperature, then you are over 1.0 COP.
> I am not going to run your prose above through my head 25 times to understand what you are really saying. Suffice to say I don't think there will be much contention about the thermal measurements. You can go back to my original protocol posting because it is quite detailed.
There are "points" that your skeptical group bring up - and is on record to show how much you, Poynt, Hoppy and any other skeptic have a strong consistency in being wrong and making false claims.
1. TK's claim the Quantum article timer is wrong (FACT - it works)
2. TK's claim the Quantum article circuit won't oscillate (FACT - it does)
3. TK's claim the oscillation is a red herring (FACT - it isn't)
> This circuit in normal operation will not oscillate, period. Certainly there will be ringing in the wires, but that ringing is normal, and cannot give you any possible OU. The ringing is just the dissipation of small amounts of inductive and capacitive energy in the circuit when the switching takes place.
> Any possible oscillation that you can induce in the MOSFET by fiddling with the gate resistor, or playing with the waveform duty cycles, or whatever else, will be counterproductive. This is not the key to OU. When the MOSFET oscillates, there will never be enough "on" time to get real current going through the coil-resistor. Therefore the power consumption of the circuit will go down and less power will be dissipated in the coil-resistor.
PART 2 OF 2
4. You and Poynt's claim there is NO AC in this circuit at all (FACT - there is)
> Not sure what you are really talking about but I can tell you this: You have a difficulty with terminology with respect to AC and DC. I seem to recall that you claimed a DC pulse train that varied between zero volts and five volts was "not AC but chopped DC." WAKE UP, that's an AC waveform with an added DC bias and any parts of your circuit that will react to AC will react to "chopped DC" also. WAKE UP!!!
5. All claims the diode can't help charge input battery (FACT - it does)
> A KNOWN FACT that anybody that knows anything about electronics knows: You put a diode across a coil if you want to absorb the coil discharge to prevent any spikes from disturbing the rest of your circuit. This is STANDARD PRACTICE.
> YES, you are getting a recharging spike going into the battery, but BIG DEAL, the numbers I have heard so far indicate that it contains between 1/100th and 1/25th of the energy of the discharging waveform. Time to stop tilting your hat at windmills.
6. All claims the spikes will damage the mosfet and that the ringing should be stopped (FACT - this mosfet is designed EXACTLY for this kind of application)
> For this one I an going to show you no mercy: You are a f*cking moron. Suck on that!
7. Your claim that the spike would be too small to be significant (FACT - on a decent circuit the voltage is 4 times the input voltage, it charges batteries or caps - it is VERY significant)
> Time to LEARN SOMETHING - PUSH IT IN - It's all about the spike energy, and not about the spike voltage. Your statement above is one of those clues where you are clearly demonstrating your "just above electronics beginner" status, after seven years. And you are not aware that you are doing it.
8. You and Poynt claiming when the mosfet is off, the battery cannot conduct (FACT - the diode in the mosfet allows just this exact current conduction as it is designed to do this!)
> No it is NOT designed to do this. That's good ol' Despot Aaron talking and pushing the envelope of his electronics knowledge way way past his comfort zone. You are letting your fear get the better of yourself so you issue a proclamation about the function of the diode when in reality you are clueless. Another telltale statement that reveals the true extent of your electronics knowledge. You haven't gone online or opened a book, you are just BSing and trying to make yourself sound important. The diode works the OTHER WAY, and is designed to breakdown at a certain voltage and protect the MOSFET from abuse, the very abuse that you are now recommending.
9. Your claim that the spike will disappear with improved circuit connections, etc... (FACT - it only makes the spike bigger)
> Bulls*it misdirection on your part. Take a generic statement by me and apply it to a specific case that may indeed be what you saw for that very specific case. Aaron, you are a DISINFORMATION AGENT.
10. All claims that the inductive resistor will change resistance as it heats up will throw off all the numbers (FACT - these resistors are made to be VERY ACCURATE at these operating temperatures. That is the whole point. They can be within 5% across a WIDE range of temperatures but the most discrepancy will be when they are extremely cold (way below ambient - or way too hot - this demonstrates the skeptics knowledge of this kind of resistor is completely lacking)
> More straw man DISINFORMATION AGENT work by the despot, trying to take one small fact about the particular resistor that you are using and use this to impugn the (ex)skeptics in the thread.
11. Skeptics claim that a battery capacitance analyzer is an accurate way to determine battery capacitance for load testing and this supposedly makes the actual draw down tests unnecessary. (FACT - they are good only for sorting through batteries to see which ones need replacing or not. They are in NO WAY AT ALL - an accurate way to see what a battery will deliver.)
> I don't disagree with you there. On the other had your and Rosemary's proposed battery rundown tests are a farce and so full of technical holes that they are pure Swiss cheese. Yes indeed you could do battery rundown testing, but not using the rank amateurish methodology that you are proposing. And I assume that you have been handing out advice on battery rundown testing to your subscribers for years.
The above points and COUNTLESS other points and claims you and your crew have brought up show that you skeptics simply have zero credibility and zero background necessary to review this circuit in any capacity whatsoever.
> I enjoyed rebutting your points. You would not have wanted me to keep a running tally of all of the ridiculous nonsensical points and processes that you made in your thread and in your clips about "Rosemary's circuit." The listing would be in the HUNDREDS.
Quite simply put, you're not even qualified to be skeptical about this circuit because you have no valid frame of reference through which to analyze this circuit.
> Total cognitive dissonance at play on your part Aaron. Keep the good fight going on in that brain or yours. Do you remember that Star Trek with the master male humanoid robot that's in charge of all of the female clone humanoid robots? The crew goes around switching the female clones off because the crew's actions are illogical and "don't compute." Then the cut to the shot of the poor master male robot's head smoking up a storm? Think about that scene.
Poynt claims a few posts ago that he knows this circuit well enough! That's ridiculous and some of the above points clearly show that none of you know this circuit from a hole in the ground that you all keep digging for yourselves.
> You are the one in the hole, read above!
When valid points are brought up about various items that show you and your crew obviously don't know what you're talking about in regards to this circuit, you ignore them and start to discuss something else. That is because you can't deal with the truth or are intentionally spreading disinformation.
> Cognitive dissonance, your hair is on fire like Michael Jackson's.
Time to lick your wounds and move on. Sorry, I kicked your ass and you deserved it. Wether you believe it or not, I am just trying to help you and Rosemary get to the right conclusion, make the right measurements, and see for YOURSELVES what is REALLY going on.
MileHigh
Not to take away from your thunder MH, good stuff ;)
This was probably my final post at EF as no doubt Aaron will kick my arse as well. The post is equally valid here so I'd like to cross-post it:
You know,
We (as in the two divided camps here) are probably never going to establish any common ground in terms of the tests, the results, how they were processed and interpreted, and the final conclusion drawn from them.
I will tell you what is likely to happen as this story continues to unfold:
Aaron and Peter will do their tests using an unpublished test procedure. If the test procedure is published, it will no doubt contain several serious flaws that by professional standards would invalidate the test.
Nonetheless, the results will be published, and in all likelihood they will appear "positive" in terms of achieving COP>1. The chances of the results appearing to support a COP=17 are slim to none, but anything is possible where the desire to believe is much stronger than the perceived need for transparency. [NOTE: Bias is going to kill any credibility here. The only way both parties could ever hope to agree on the results, is if the tests are performed by an unbiased 3rd party technically capable and willing to oblige. Does such a party exist? Unfortunately, not very likely.)
The classicists will cry "foul play!" and the new-agers will bite their thumbs at them. Debate and argument will ensue and in the end the classicists will maintain the results are "inconclusive" while the new-age zealots proclaim victory, success, and fulfillment of their grandest dream.
No agreement, and no common ground.
The RA builders thread will continue for a while, the supporting members still enchanted and enthralled by their self-proclaimed victory. All the while the classicists will discuss things a bit longer and TK will have tested the circuit in all it's fantabulous glory beyond the limits normally humanly possible before closing the book and moving on from this cantakerous debacle.
Aaron and Peter will eventually throw in the towel exclaiming that the circuit has too limited an output and is not viable, but nonetheless exhibits "copious amounts of COP" (tongue-in-cheek) or something to that effect. Meanwhile, Rosemary (peace, love, and light to you) will fade back to familiar surroundings once more and continue to develop her grand anti-thesis which by no small measure shall change our view of the very fabric of nature.
And then some time later when conditions allow, the next Rosemary Ainslie will appear and the story will repeat...
.99
@milehigh
QuoteI have to answer a lingering question from across the great divide (one tab away) for Quantum, Joit, and Harvey: Michael's circuit converts the resistive load of the water heater into a reactive load using the triac/heater coil/diode/second heating element. Most older household electricity meters can't measure reactive power, hence Michael's electrical costs go down. That's probably a legal loophole in most areas and you can't be accused of stealing electricity, just guessing. As you can see, it has absolutely nothing to do with Rosemary's circuit.
Let's see both Michael's circuit and Rosemary's circuit --
1)charge an inductive resistance with current to saturation
2)disrupt the source current at a low duty cycle
3)the disruption to current produces an inductive discharge
4)the inductive discharge then charges a resistance producing heat
Yes I can see how you came to the conclusion that they have nothing in common, LOL.
Now about this reactive power you mention, what is reactive power?, Here is one definition:
Quotereactive loads such as inductors and capacitors dissipate zero power, yet the fact that they drop voltage and draw current gives the deceptive impression that they actually do dissipate power. This “phantom power†is called reactive power, and it is measured in a unit called Volt-Amps-Reactive (VAR), rather than watts.
It would seem reactive power is when an inductance draws current and produces a voltage drop but dissipates zero power. In this respect we could say the inductance only stores power in the form of a magnetic field and this power is not dissipated. Now let me get this straight, both Michael and Rosemary's nearly identical circuits draw current from the source and produce a voltage drop furnished by the source which is by definition real power VA or energy in watt/sec, but is not dissipated--so it is now imaginary or phantom power, this current is then disrupted or cutoff from the source --- But Michael is somehow stealing reactive power through the power meter which cannot see these amps or volts?---Hmm. If the Amps and volts were imaginary "phantom power" then I wonder what produced the inductive discharge when the source was disconnected. This is quite a predicament we have because something must have charged the inductance to produce the magnetic field which collapsed producing the very real inductive discharge which heated michael's secondary resistance, Im going to take a wild guess and say it was current and volts(power) from the source. Maybe you can clarify your statements for me, or perhaps someone else here can?
Regards
AC
YEEESH......
Banning ??,closing the door to researchers ?
This is truly a conundrum, a paradox.
I cannot understand Aaron?? ,there is toooooo much at stake here !!
Things really do have to change!
And Banning is not the answer
WE are at war!! ,throwing the cannons overboard is not the answer!!
Doncha know? This is how all "conventional" or "classic" science should be treated? :D
Now if TK would like to do something with a lot more promise, there's a couple things sittin there on his back burner.
TK:
For starters for everyone: The tough-talking trash talk from me is over, the rebut was done and it's time to move on.
>
I'm still on the load inductance thing...what is up with that? If you look back several pages you might see (if he hasn't removed it) a picture where he puts up another bad 555 circuit and says that the load inductance must be "as high as possible" for a 10 ohm resistor. Yet Ainslie used, she claims, 0.00864 milliHenry, and Aaron's Ohmite is probably 0.150 - 0.200 milliHenry...a not insignificant difference...
>
Aaron is incorrect here. This one is easily explained with a narrative. You look at your shunt current waveform, and see the exponential rise in the current waveform. So, if you put in a much larger inductor, but assume the resistive part of the coil-resistor remains the same 10 ohms, what do you get? You get the same rising current waveform but it takes longer to rise, i.e.; a longer time constant. So what's the result?
Larger inductance means longer times to charge and also discharge the energy into/out of the coil-resistor. This means that your total cycle period has to go up and therefore your pulse frequency has to go down. We are assuming that you want to tweak the MOSFET on and off pulse widths to match the timings of the larger coil. Larger inductance gives you more energy per discharge, but with a trade-off of less discharges per second. It looks like any possible power gains with a larger inductive component would be marginal at best.
Is this all starting to sound like a zero-sum game to you? It does to me. Without doing any real math, just following the narrative, it looks to me like there is no reason to get excited about the amount of inductance in the coil-resistor.
It just occurred to me there is one nice little benefit from more inductance: less MOSFET switching, less power lost in the MOSFET.
MileHigh
PS: There is another "advantage" with a larger inductive component. With a large inductor the current starts to flow more slowly, so you can get a better ratio of inductive stored energy to lost energy dissipated in the resistor when you swtch off the MOSFET. You can "chop early" and start to increase the pulse rate again. BUT, the energy per discharge pulse goes down again.
The truth though is that you can do the same thing for any coil value, the smaller the coil the shorter the "chop time" has to get to maintain the same ratio of inductive stored energy to lost energy dissipated in the resistor before you discharge.
AllCanadian:
>
Let's see both Michael's circuit and Rosemary's circuit --
1)charge an inductive resistance with current to saturation
2)disrupt the source current at a low duty cycle
3)the disruption to current produces an inductive discharge
4)the inductive discharge then charges a resistance producing heat
Yes I can see how you came to the conclusion that they have nothing in common, LOL.
>
You are making a valid point. I should have added more commentary and fleshed out my point. Certainly both setups charge a coil and capture the discharge energy, but after that, there is not too much in common between them. Rosemary's circuit makes a claim of COP 17, Michael's circuit makes a claim of reduced electricity bills. Yes, you can "trick" the power company (unless they are sniffing out "power factor offenders" on the block) and soak up Joules of energy and then discharge that energy through a second resistive element and fool the electrical meter. That is not a claim of COP 17, that is not even a claim of COP > 1, it's just a claim of diverting mains energy into an inductor and using that as heat energy. Do you get me now? I was just too tired to write it all out.
>
If the Amps and volts were imaginary "phantom power" then I wonder what produced the inductive discharge when the source was disconnected. This is quite a predicament we have because something must have charged the inductance to produce the magnetic field which collapsed producing the very real inductive discharge which heated michael's secondary resistance, Im going to take a wild guess and say it was current and volts(power) from the source. Maybe you can clarify your statements for me, or perhaps someone else here can?
>
It is inded the the voltage times the current going into the coil that produces the reactive power. Suppose at one instant in time the voltage drop through the resistive part of the coil-resistor is 1 volt and it's 10 volts for the coil part. Since power is proportional to the square of the voltage, the coil is absorbing 100 times more power than the resistor is disipating - at that instant in time.
Normally the reactive power gets pushed back into the mains through one full cycle for net zero energy transfer. In both Michael's and Rosemary's case that does not happen, the coil accumulates reactive energy, and then the MOSFET or TRIAC switches off and it it pumped into the load. Michael's circuit is "stealing" the "return cycle" for the reactive power. In Rosemary's case there is no return cycle for the reactive energy, it has to go somewhere when the MOSFET switches off.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on August 06, 2009, 11:15:12 PM
In Rosemary's case there is no return cycle for the reactive energy, it has to go somewhere when the MOSFET switches off.
In Paris Hilton's immortal words: "That's Hot"!
Quote from: poynt99 on August 06, 2009, 05:44:40 PM
Hoppy,
Out of curiosity, what was the DC voltage required to obtain your 7.83W control test?
Was the MOSFET and shunt resistor in the circuit?
Thanks,
.99
Voltage 8.7V. Mosfet and shunt resistor not in control test circuit.
Hoppy
Quote from: MileHigh on August 06, 2009, 06:15:22 PM
Hey I just lost my dual-citizenship. Aaron threw a small hissy-fit and kicked my ass. Funny, it doesn't hurt.
Hoppy: I think that you are looking good and it is just measurement error. There has got to be a limit to how good the analog meter does averaging to measure the current consumption. The higher frequency components in the current waveform probably can't be averaged out, and hence you are measuring less power than there really is. There are work-arounds to allow you to make pretty accurate measurements without having a DSO through, I even posted one in the Energetic Forum.
I have to answer a lingering question from across the great divide (one tab away) for Quantum, Joit, and Harvey: Michael's circuit converts the resistive load of the water heater into a reactive load using the triac/heater coil/diode/second heating element. Most older household electricity meters can't measure reactive power, hence Michael's electrical costs go down. That's probably a legal loophole in most areas and you can't be accused of stealing electricity, just guessing. As you can see, it has absolutely nothing to do with Rosemary's circuit.
MileHigh
You are correct about analogue meter measurements. This simple measurement of my circuit was just to show that there is no big difference between the power consumed in the circuit compared to the 'control', assumed the measurements are interpreted correctly, which clearly is not the case from Rosemary's COP17 conclusion.
Hoppy
Here are some measurements from my replication of Aaron's / Peter's circuit: -
Frequency: Approx 2.4KHz.
Voltage across load inductor / resistor: 23V scoped, 2.2V AVO meter.
Voltage across mosfet (drain to source): 23V scoped, 23V AVO meter.
Voltage across shunt: See attached scope shots.
Duty cycle: 10.4% scoped across mosfet drain to source. 8.3% scoped 555 pin3 to ground.
Hoppy
Scoped across shunt 5V / 50us - Deleted, see post 893.
Scoped across mosfet gate to source, 5V / 50uS: -
Scoped across mosfet drain to source, 5V / 50uS: -
Quote from: MileHigh on August 06, 2009, 07:24:04 PMI am going to respond to Aaron's kicking me off of the forum, but I promise you that I am not championing a cause or anything. Just closing the loop.
There are "points" that your skeptical group bring up - and is on record to show how much you, Poynt, Tinsel Koala and any other skeptics have a strong consistency in being wrong and making false claims.
1. TK's (Tinsel Koala) claim the Quantum article timer is wrong (FACT - it works)
2. TK's claim the Quantum article circuit won't oscillate (FACT - it does)
3. TK's claim the oscillation is a red herring (FACT - it isn't)
4. Poynt99 and Poynt's claim there is NO AC in this circuit at all (FACT - there is in the load inductive resistor)
5. All claims the diode can't help charge input battery (FACT - it does)
6. All claims the spikes will damage the mosfet and that the ringing should be stopped (FACT - this mosfet IRFPG50 is designed EXACTLY for this kind of application)
7. All claims that the spike would be too small to be significant (FACT - on a decent circuit the voltage is 4 times the input voltage, it charges batteries or caps - it is VERY significant)
8. All claims that when the mosfet is off, the battery cannot conduct and therefore won't receive a charge (FACT - the diode in the mosfet allows just this exact current conduction as it is designed to do this!)
9. All claims that the spike will disappear with improved circuit connections, etc... (FACT - it only makes the spike bigger)
10. All claims that the inductive resistor will change resistance as it heats up will throw off all the numbers (FACT - these resistors are made to be VERY ACCURATE at these operating temperatures. That is the whole point. They can be within 5% across a WIDE range of temperatures but the most discrepancy will be when they are extremely cold (way below ambient - or way too hot - this demonstrates the skeptics knowledge of this kind of resistor is completely lacking)
11. Skeptics claim that a battery capacitance analyzer is an accurate way to determine battery capacitance for load testing and this supposedly makes the actual draw down tests unnecessary. (FACT - they are good only for sorting through batteries to see which ones need replacing or not. They are in NO WAY AT ALL - an accurate way to see what a battery will deliver.)
12. When skeptics analyzed my waveform of the shunt - it was determined all the ringing was above the 0 line in the positive including the bottom half of the ringing. (FACT - The middle of the positive and amplitude of the ringing after the negative spike is in fact the zero line - and by not knowing this, they admit they don't understand how to read a waveform.)
13. The skeptics claimed that the ringing cancels out any charging effect the negative spike will give. (FACT - The negative spike reduces what the battery delivers in net - the ringing down itself cancels itself out as far as battery charging ability but provides extra heat to the coil.)
There are a LOT more.
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 06, 2009, 07:26:45 PM
I am not sure about the validity of taking the load to "a stabilized temperature" as an endpoint.
This measure does not take into account the time involved to get there, and is fraught with error potential in other ways. I think it's one of the problematic areas of Ainslie's original control experiment as reported.
Irrelevant scientific quackery.
Start timing the test after it is at a stabilized temperature and battery drops to certain voltage from full charge.
With the control wattage on the same battery after charged up, do not start timing until battery is also down to certain voltage.
This is an ACCURATE way to do it.
Quote from: Hoppy on August 07, 2009, 05:21:49 AM
Scoped across shunt 5V / 50us: -
Wrong waveform. That looks like the waveform of a probe not even connected or grounded to anything. And you have the negative happening before the positive.
Show the real shunt and across the load.
Oscillation video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiSWJ4fp-k4
1. TK claims the oscillation is a red herring. (disbelief or lack of skills?)
2. He also says no matter what, he just can't get the mosfet to "misbehave." (admitting incompetence)
3. He showed on a scope that when his grok grok circuit was in "oscillation" the waveforms
all flat lined. MH was quick to point out that it was an obvious sign the oscillation
concept was bogus. If that is what he calls oscillation, it is complete FRAUD.
I already showed it in my old vids, here is a better view with the updated circuit.
In full grokness...
Quote from: qiman on August 07, 2009, 05:50:07 AM
There are "points" that your skeptical group bring up - and is on record to show how much you, Poynt, Tinsel Koala and any other skeptics have a strong consistency in being wrong and making false claims.
1. TK's (Tinsel Koala) claim the Quantum article timer is wrong (FACT - it works)
2. TK's claim the Quantum article circuit won't oscillate (FACT - it does)
3. TK's claim the oscillation is a red herring (FACT - it isn't)
4. Poynt99 and Poynt's claim there is NO AC in this circuit at all (FACT - there is in the load inductive resistor)
5. All claims the diode can't help charge input battery (FACT - it does)
6. All claims the spikes will damage the mosfet and that the ringing should be stopped (FACT - this mosfet IRFPG50 is designed EXACTLY for this kind of application)
7. All claims that the spike would be too small to be significant (FACT - on a decent circuit the voltage is 4 times the input voltage, it charges batteries or caps - it is VERY significant)
8. All claims that when the mosfet is off, the battery cannot conduct and therefore won't receive a charge (FACT - the diode in the mosfet allows just this exact current conduction as it is designed to do this!)
9. All claims that the spike will disappear with improved circuit connections, etc... (FACT - it only makes the spike bigger)
10. All claims that the inductive resistor will change resistance as it heats up will throw off all the numbers (FACT - these resistors are made to be VERY ACCURATE at these operating temperatures. That is the whole point. They can be within 5% across a WIDE range of temperatures but the most discrepancy will be when they are extremely cold (way below ambient - or way too hot - this demonstrates the skeptics knowledge of this kind of resistor is completely lacking)
11. Skeptics claim that a battery capacitance analyzer is an accurate way to determine battery capacitance for load testing and this supposedly makes the actual draw down tests unnecessary. (FACT - they are good only for sorting through batteries to see which ones need replacing or not. They are in NO WAY AT ALL - an accurate way to see what a battery will deliver.)
12. When skeptics analyzed my waveform of the shunt - it was determined all the ringing was above the 0 line in the positive including the bottom half of the ringing. (FACT - The middle of the positive and amplitude of the ringing after the negative spike is in fact the zero line - and by not knowing this, they admit they don't understand how to read a waveform.)
13. The skeptics claimed that the ringing cancels out any charging effect the negative spike will give. (FACT - The negative spike reduces what the battery delivers in net - the ringing down itself cancels itself out as far as battery charging ability but provides extra heat to the coil.)
There are a LOT more.
Oh dear, loads more 'facts' and plenty more in reserve ::)
Hoppy
Quote from: qiman on August 07, 2009, 05:59:36 AM
Wrong waveform. That looks like the waveform of a probe not even connected or grounded to anything. And you have the negative happening before the positive.
Show the real shunt and across the load.
Yes, wrong scopeshot selected - too many on my camera! Should be as under 0.2V @ 50uS.
Hoppy
Quote from: qiman on August 07, 2009, 05:53:42 AM
Irrelevant scientific quackery.
Start timing the test after it is at a stabilized temperature and battery drops to certain voltage from full charge.
With the control wattage on the same battery after charged up, do not start timing until battery is also down to certain voltage.
This is an ACCURATE way to do it.
You are completely wrong.
As usual.
Battery voltage in this test is not a good number to use, because you do not know sufficiently well the state of charge of the battery, its capacity, its discharge parameters, and a number of other things you need to know.
And you continue to lie and distort.
Quote from: qiman on August 07, 2009, 05:50:07 AM
There are "points" that your skeptical group bring up - and is on record to show how much you, Poynt, Tinsel Koala and any other skeptics have a strong consistency in being wrong and making false claims.
1. TK's (Tinsel Koala) claim the Quantum article timer is wrong (FACT - it works)
The REAL FACT: I said that the QUANTUM circuit produces an inverted duty cycle and cannot be made, using the specified componets, to make a 3.5 percent ON duty cycle. This is a fact and has been confirmed, by now, MANY times.
Quote
2. TK's claim the Quantum article circuit won't oscillate (FACT - it does)
No evidence has been shown, Aaron. Your scope shots continue to be ininformative garbage.
Quote
3. TK's claim the oscillation is a red herring (FACT - it isn't)
Yet heating and battery charging and ALL the other effects cited by Rosemary in the papers can be produced without "oscillation"...just not OU. Right. Plus there's that pesky lack of demonstrated oscillation, even from you....
Quote
4. Poynt99 and Poynt's claim there is NO AC in this circuit at all (FACT - there is in the load inductive resistor)
Now you are distorting .99's points, and he can deal with that himself. But it's clear from your statements and your use of the scope that you do not understand AC, DC, DC offset, ripple, and so forth yourself.
Quote
5. All claims the diode can't help charge input battery (FACT - it does)
Once again, distortions. The diode "helps" in the sense that MH explained above. And slowing a discharge rate is NOT the same as recharging. And the parameters under which the diode helps, and how much, and what kind of diode to use are now known...because of certain experiments performed and reported by ME (and ignored by the Ainslie crewe).
Quote
6. All claims the spikes will damage the mosfet and that the ringing should be stopped (FACT - this mosfet IRFPG50 is designed EXACTLY for this kind of application)
Who said the mosfet would be damaged by ringing? Not me. Please provide a reference.
We have said that ringing is a power LOSS mechanism in the mosfet.
Quote
7. All claims that the spike would be too small to be significant (FACT - on a decent circuit the voltage is 4 times the input voltage, it charges batteries or caps - it is VERY significant)
Voltage is not power, power is not energy, trala. And you are displaying once again your ignorance of this issue. If you like voltage, I have shown you how to get it--use a different mosfet and diode, for one thing.
Quote
8. All claims that when the mosfet is off, the battery cannot conduct and therefore won't receive a charge (FACT - the diode in the mosfet allows just this exact current conduction as it is designed to do this!)
Reference please--I certainly never made any such claim and I don't recall seeing anyone else making it. What does the state of the mosfet have to do with whether the battery can or cannot conduct? You are incoherent, once again.
Quote
9. All claims that the spike will disappear with improved circuit connections, etc... (FACT - it only makes the spike bigger)
Again you are confused. The spikes are a result of well-known phenomena; nobody claims that better circuit connections will make them go away; it is your "random aperiodic oscillations" that, if they exist, will be corrected by better build technique. More straw man argument on your part.
Quote
10. All claims that the inductive resistor will change resistance as it heats up will throw off all the numbers (FACT - these resistors are made to be VERY ACCURATE at these operating temperatures. That is the whole point. They can be within 5% across a WIDE range of temperatures but the most discrepancy will be when they are extremely cold (way below ambient - or way too hot - this demonstrates the skeptics knowledge of this kind of resistor is completely lacking)
Once again you are wrong. The resistance changes MEASURABLY in your Ohmite resistor from room temperature to operating temperature. You might see it remain at 10 ohms with your measuring tools. You probably believed Mylow when he measured his magnet spacing with a digital caliper, too. You have no idea what precision measurement entails, nor do you understand the Temperature Coefficient of Resistance. It is your partial knowledge in this area that is misleading you into sticking your foot in your mouth over and over.
Quote
11. Skeptics claim that a battery capacitance analyzer is an accurate way to determine battery capacitance for load testing and this supposedly makes the actual draw down tests unnecessary. (FACT - they are good only for sorting through batteries to see which ones need replacing or not. They are in NO WAY AT ALL - an accurate way to see what a battery will deliver.)
Again, you must be talking about a group of Straw Skeptics. Nobody I know would disagree with you on this one. But everybody I know would also put your "measurements" in this category as well.
Quote
12. When skeptics analyzed my waveform of the shunt - it was determined all the ringing was above the 0 line in the positive including the bottom half of the ringing. (FACT - The middle of the positive and amplitude of the ringing after the negative spike is in fact the zero line - and by not knowing this, they admit they don't understand how to read a waveform.)
Again, I don't know what waveform analysis you are talking about, since you have such difficulty showing waveforms in a consistent and coherent way. All I've seen from you is uninterpretable garbage, so you can't be referring to my analysis here. And you've shown many times Aaron that you don't know how to even display, much less interpret a waveform.
Quote
13. The skeptics claimed that the ringing cancels out any charging effect the negative spike will give. (FACT - The negative spike reduces what the battery delivers in net - the ringing down itself cancels itself out as far as battery charging ability but provides extra heat to the coil.)
Which is what I said, and what I showed on the LeCroy. Your skeptics must be on some other channel.
I also showed that the return of energy to the battery is very small, on the order of 1 to 10 percent of the energy DELIVERED BY THE BATTERY IN THE FIRST PLACE.
You are really reaching for those straws, now.
Quote
There are a LOT more.
Bring it on.
But be sure to include references, since you so often "interpret" what people are actually saying.
You are a liar, you distort the positions of others, you use classic straw man arguments, and you are simply and quite obviously WRONG most of the time.
Aaron, your recent scope shots using the digital scope (a Fluke?) are a lot better. You are still showing a bit of false triggering but I see your "oscillations" and I agree that these are not a false signal FROM THE SCOPE.
Your circuit is still not "oscillating" in the sense normally understood. It is likely that it is responding to just what the 555 timer is sending it. A more informative set of scope traces would be to show the 555 timer output (not pin 3 but the total 555 circuit output, where it hooks to the gate attenuator) on one trace and the simultaneous load signal (your bottom right picture) on the other trace.
Now, you also must face this issue: The timer circuit in the Quantum article does not produce this behaviour, your original 555 circuit does not, several other 555 variants that I have tried do not, a function generator does not, a pulse generator does not...only the circuit you are using now, does. So what relevance does this have to the Rosemary Ainslie circuit, which she has said can be driven by any clock, including a FG?
And please, post your scope shots as individual jpgs or pngs, and put the text in the post rather than on the image. It is very difficult to read an image that is 3 times as wide as my screen. Of course, most of what you say in the text of your picture is wrong anyway. But one may safely ignore the text, since the only significant shot is the one on the bottom right.
Now, Aaron. To display a signal properly, we only want to see one or two cycles on the screen, not a whole row of them, unless there's some point to make--like your little red lines (but what about the other spike envelopes--like the DECREASING ONE just to the left? And what about aliasing? Look carefully at how that screen displays its images, and you might learn something useful.)
So, one or two complete cycles, with horizontal (timebase) and vertical (voltage) settings in view or given in text. Also some details about the circuit would be nice. "My circuit" isn't enough. "Ainslie circuit, 555 timer as here, load as here, main batt voltage here, waveform taken at Ainslie's Point A". Something like that.
Then one might be able actually to interpret the data, rather than having to filter the undigested kernels from the rest of the crap.
Oh, and Aaron, you might want to check the Fluke manual for the meaning of those big letters on the display that say:
OL
If that's Rosemary's newly-repaired Fluke0Scope, you should be more careful.
Also, the fact that you have the scope set to display "Volts RMS" where you do is laughable.
Aaron
You highlight the results of my basic measuremnt test in red and post them on your EF as if you really believe that these measurements are accurate enough to confirm that the my system is running overunity. Of course its not! This test was done simply to take measurements using basic measuring instruments. I can assure you that when taken using very accurate measuring methods, these two figures will reverse. The figures quoted simply shows that the power levels between 'control' and 'circuit' are close, not the ridiculous 16x higher than being claimed by you and Rosemary.
Hoppy
It is not "laughable" to display an RMS reading in this case, especially across the heating element/ shunt resistor.
Are you suggesting that only DC power will heat it, and spikes of both polarities won't?
Or are you just attacking anything you can get away with?
Aaron:
About your latest clip showing the oscillation:
The first and fundamental error you are making is that you are triggering on the falling edge of the spike across the shunt resistor. We all know that the nature of the spike has a natural variability, and then that changes even more when you change the gate trimpot. All that you had to do for a more or less rock-steady display on your scope was to use the second channel to trigger on the 555 timer waveform. Something so simple that I would have done it that way without thinking, it would have been a reflex - a no-brainer.
My first recommendation to you would be to do the whole clip over again triggering on the 555 timer signal.
Before going on any further, I am not a fan of low-end devices like these with a very limited pixel resolution. The A/D sampling rate is being massaged down to the pixel resolution of the display. There must be some sort of software layer in there that is repackaging the data for display, and most likely trying to make a "one size fits all" compromise display when you are looking at noisy or aperiodic data. Just like a digital multimeter, you can assume that the software algorithm has limits and gets "challenged" fairly easily. Then you can't forget the biggie: humungous aliasing effects when you try to display a large number of periodic waveforms on the display at one time, or for any high frequency transitions, like ringing. To overcome this limitation you have to keep on turning up the timebase to take a peek at what the "spikes" really look like, and then go back to your "working" time base. I hope that you are taking notes Aaron.
At 0:50 Aaron changes the gate resistance, and like magic the frequency of the waveform appears to drop considerably. What gives Aaron? I don't think that you were mistakenly playing with the 555 trimpots, so it looks to me that somehow the scope already has "scrambled brains" and everything on the display is now suspect.
Here is the first one that comes to my mind: The spikes have gotten much thinner because Aaron changed the gate resistance, and the notorious aliasing and software layer effects are coming into play. You can assume that the spikes are still being digitized by the scope and put into the memory buffer. Then the software looks at the spikes and decides that they are "too thin" to merit displaying yet another single-pixel with spike on the display for the current time base. However, some of the real spikes from the shunt resistor "make the grade" and are just wide enough for the software to decide to display them. Of course we "all" know that the width of the spikes are subject to some variability.
Therefore Aaron, at 0:50 what you describe as "oscillation" is really just display aliasing effects coupled with your ridiculous choice of a trigger. Note that the trigger is only valid for a spike that is wide enough to make the grade, meaning the triggering itself is also intermittent under these conditions.
I am only at 50 seconds but I think that I will post this already.
So what do you think Aaron? Do you agree with what I am saying, or is what I am saying simply not credible because I am not credible?
MileHigh
Quote from: jibbguy on August 07, 2009, 10:08:51 AM
It is not "laughable" to display an RMS reading in this case, especially across the heating element/ shunt resistor.
Are you suggesting that only DC power will heat it, and spikes of both polarities won't?
Or are you just attacking anything you can get away with?
Of course it is. First, the "heating element" and the "shunt resistor" are two different components. The voltage drop across the shunt is the input CURRENT measurement; this is a squarish pulse with a very short, comparatively, ringdown at the end. RMS voltage makes no sense here. You want an AVERAGE voltage for the power calculation here.
Across the load, the "heating element" as you call it: you will be seeing a small AC signal riding on top of a relatively large DC offset here. Again, displaying "RMS Voltage" is not a useful measure. The important parameter here is the peak spike voltage and the peak to peak spike range--NOT including the DC offset.
@MileHigh:
I just realized why Aaron, Ainslie et al. seem to prefer these digital toy oscilloscopes: it is because they do not understand how to make quantitative measurements using an analog scope.
All those little numbers around the dials, the graticle display, doing the math...it's just too much for them, so they need to see the digital numbers right in front of them. And they trust digital displays implicitly. After all, they are digital, how could they possibly be wrong?
Aaron:
Another posting to back up what I just said in my previous posting. Call this the "smoking gun" posting.
Let's talk about the picture on the right side in your posting #891, the one you have marked-up with the diagonal red lines.
Notice that the distance between the main spike in the center of the display to the main spike to the left of that is slightly less than two divisions. Notice that the distance between the main spike in the center of the display to the main spike to the right of that is slightly more than two divisions. It doesn't jive, you know that the waveform is regular and periodic, so this should not happen. In this case we are "forgetting" that there appears to be a "magic drop" in frequency.
I can't explain everything that is going on in that waveform but there is no point to explaining it anyway if you think it contains suspect data.
With respect to your "increasing oscillation" and the diagonal red lines that show the envelope of the increasing amplitude: In all likelyhood these are aliasing effects again. There is a "beat frequency" or a "Moiré pattern" between the real scope sampling and the input signal that affects what data is being digitized into the memory buffer, or between the memory buffer and the display-layer software and the LCD display itself that is creating the ILLUSION of increasing oscillation amplitude. In reality the "oscillation" is almost certainly at a more or less fixed amplitude.
I have a feeling that the "oscillations" are just the ring-downs from the negative spikes of the shunt current waveform that "make the grade" and manage to get displayed on the LCD display. We can't forget the "magic drop" in frequency now, can we? However, I can't explain the other missing parts of the shunt waveform when the MOSFET is on. Perhaps there is a higher noise level on these shunt waveforms and the software filters them out completely because it decides not to display very high frequency noise as a rectangular blob of all-black pixels? Just a guess.
With all of that baggage from the first 50 seconds and your posted picture, I doubt it is worth commenting on the rest of the clip but I might.
Remember what Hoppy said, "Competency to carry out the testing is another issue", something like that.
MileHigh
PS: So I looked at the clip a second and last time and the whole clip is a triggering and display aliasing fiasco. All that you had to do was trigger on the 555 signal, and then display the shunt current waveform for various gate resistance settings. For each gate resistance setting you should have showed us the waveform at a few different time bases. The most important time base setting would have been the one that shows two full pulse waveforms. The seond most important time base setting would have been the zoom-ins on the ring-downs. If you have an X10 setting on the time base, you could have inspected a full sweep from one pulse to the next to hunt for interesting stuff.
My conclusion by making inferences based on the extremely poor views of the waveform that you showed us is that there is no or very minimal oscillaton going on here. However, the MOSFET itself is definately not starting to oscillate in the sense that I think you were meaning. The only thing that is happening is that the nature of the current waveform signal changes as you change the gate resistance, the amplitude and look of the ring-downs change, etc. This should be something that everybody is familiar with by now.
Quote from: jibbguy on August 07, 2009, 10:08:51 AM
It is not "laughable" to display an RMS reading in this case, especially across the heating element/ shunt resistor.
Are you suggesting that only DC power will heat it, and spikes of both polarities won't?
Or are you just attacking anything you can get away with?
Exactly. It is an automatic setting that will show both AC and DC readings at the same time so pick the numbers you want depending on what you're measuring?
The load has alternating current plain and simple.
Quote from: MileHigh on August 07, 2009, 11:49:22 AM
The first and fundamental error you are making is that you are triggering on the falling edge of the spike across the shunt resistor.
No, I don't agree with what you're saying.
You can put the trigger on any place you want and you get the same thing. The difference is this... nothing and if you think it gives different results on the screen for these waveforms, you are 100% wrong.
I guess I'll give you a hint since the skepti-crew can't make anything work right.
I saw TK's vid talking about using coil with really high inductance (compared to these inductive resistors) and made it sing. LOL
These little resistors sing and are extremely loud, if he hasn't figured that out...it took him almost a month to get nowhere?
Here is the difference...
When these resistors sing with a very steady note - it is not in oscillation as the frequency is very periodic.
When in oscillation that DOES cause aperiodic frequency - the sound of the coil turns into one that sounds like an aerosol spray can. sssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. That is the "RANDOMNESS" caused by the oscillation and the sound is not evidence, it is proof of an aperiod frequency. The sound tells the story if you don't know the differences between ringing and the shhhhh or hissing, then you really ought to do more experiments. This is why these mosfets are used to generate
white noise.
Anyway, my oscillation video is ACCURATE and that is what you want if you want the biggest gains and there ARE gains plain and simple. If you have the oscillation with aperiodic frequency in a resonance over many samples, that is the highest gain possible for your circuit.
Quote from: MileHigh on August 07, 2009, 12:24:10 PM
I have a feeling that the "oscillations" are just the ring-downs from the negative spikes of the shunt current waveform that "make the grade" and manage to get displayed on the LCD display.
LOL - more disinformation.
TK:
Those little portabe guys are handy, but you of course have to know their limitations. For the kind of stuff that we are looking at here I agree that the Vrms and Vdc are almost useless.
Aaron:
> You can put the trigger on any place you want and you get the same thing. The difference is this... nothing and if you think it gives different results on the screen for these waveforms, you are 100% wrong.
One more time, you can't step on the fresh white paint, can you? I fear that you would faint.
> When these resistors sing with a very steady note - it is not in oscillation as the frequency is very periodic.
I assume that you mean that you are listening to the normal 2.4 KHz excitation frequency here - no oscillation.
As far as the white noise goes, that indeed sounds like the "oscillation." Great, why didn't you say this before? I am not on the bench so I can only speculate here. This could go way back to my posting about no true need for a variable gate resistor where I said if you leave the MOSFET input floating or nearly floating it will exhibt metastability, a form of aperiodic oscillation, or true positive-feedback based oscillation. The former would indeed most likely sound like white noise. It would be nice if you could set that up and measure it properly, shunt resistor waveforms and coil-resistor waveforms.
> if you don't know the differences between ringing and the shhhhh or hissing, then you really ought to do more experiments
Dear Aaron, you know that I could spin circles around you blindfolded on the bench and in terms of my electronics knowledge. Why don't you just drop the "can't punch your way out of a wet paper bag" punches? You are just executing your built-in programming wired into your personality and ego. Time to reboot.
> If you have the oscillation with aperiodic frequency in a resonance over many samples, that is the highest gain possible for your circuit.
Why? Just because you said so? What is your reasoning behind getting the highest gain?
MileHigh
Quote from: qiman on August 07, 2009, 12:45:21 PM
Exactly. It is an automatic setting that will show both AC and DC readings at the same time so pick the numbers you want depending on what you're measuring?
The load has alternating current plain and simple.
Nope. The load has a small AC component sitting on top of a large DC offset (the battery voltage). That is, if you are being CONSISTENT and measuring the load at Ainslie's POINT A.
But consistency isn't one of your strong points, now, is it, Err-on.
Quote
"If you have the oscillation with aperiodic frequency in a resonance over many samples, that is the highest gain possible for your circuit."
Your definition of "gain" is non-standard, but we are used to that--you and your crewe just make words mean whatever you want them to mean, or whatever you think they mean, without regard to actual accepted definitions.
Hah. Let's see you charge an external capacitor to over 600 volts with your "aperiodic frequency in a resonance."
You are incoherent. There is no such thing as "aperiodic frequency in resonance."
But regardless, just DO IT. Set up your "aperiodic frequency in resonance" or whatever you want to call it, and then show it charging a cap to over 600 volts.
Quote
The sound tells the story if you don't know the differences between ringing and the shhhhh or hissing, then you really ought to do more experiments. This is why these mosfets are used to generate white noise.
irfpg50 mosfet "white noise" - Google Search
Google returned no results for this search.
And as you can see from the patent claims of 7129797, a mosfet used as a white noise generator isn't wired up like yours is.
"1. A white noise generator comprising a MOSFET operated in its linear region and having zero source-drain DC bias current wherein the source or drain terminal of the MOSFETis connected to a gate terminal of a MOSFET amplifier and wherein the MOSFET amplifier is a multi-stage differential amplifier.
2. The white noise generator according to claim 1, wherein the source and drain terminals are at the same DC potential so as to prevent the flow of DC current through the MOSFET.
3. The white noise generator according to claim 1, wherein the MOSFET amplifier comprises: a first differential amplifier having positive and negative inputs for coupling to respective noise sources and having respective positive and negativeoutputs, a second differential amplifier having positive and negative inputs coupled to the positive and negative outputs respectively of the first differential amplifier, a positive output of the second differential amplifier fed back to a noise sourcecoupled to the negative input of the first differential amplifier, and a negative output of the second differential amplifier fed back to a noise source coupled to the positive input of the first differential amplifier.
4. The white noise generator according to claim 1, wherein the MOSFET amplifier is configured as a frequency dependent feedback amplifier that operates at DC and low frequencies as a unity gain amplifier and whose feedback is significantlyreduced at higher frequencies, whereby 1/f noise is attenuated since low frequencies are substantially not amplified."
QuoteTK will have tested the circuit in all it's fantabulous glory beyond the limits normally humanly possible before closing the book and moving on from this cantakerous debacle
@.99,
great writing!
Quote from: MileHigh on August 07, 2009, 01:39:49 PMI assume that you mean that you are listening to the normal 2.4 KHz excitation frequency here - no oscillation.
More fraudulent disinformation.
2.4khz is for Rosemary's own circuit. Each circuit will have it's own frequencies that it operates best at.
And assuming my circuit must be at 2.4khz - that shows you have no idea about resonance and that each circuit will have it's own.
You say no oscillation - this is your misdirection attempt - please don't try.
The coil whining at a steady tone is non oscillation.
When the coil sounds turns into an aerosol spray can sound, that is oscillation with aperiodic frequency and the sound turns into WHITE NOISE. You IGNORE that distinction I made to get people off the track of the truth and try to make people believe that there is only one sound and it doesn't correspond to oscillation.
If anyone here at overunity.com is reading this, please don't fall for that bogus fraud.
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 07, 2009, 01:49:01 PM
irfpg50 mosfet "white noise" - Google Search
Google returned no results for this search.
And as you can see from the patent claims of 7129797, a mosfet used as a white noise generator isn't wired up like yours is.
"1. A white noise generator comprising a MOSFET operated in its linear region and having zero source-drain DC bias current wherein the source or drain terminal of the MOSFETis connected to a gate terminal of a MOSFET amplifier and wherein the MOSFET amplifier is a multi-stage differential amplifier.
2. The white noise generator according to claim 1, wherein the source and drain terminals are at the same DC potential so as to prevent the flow of DC current through the MOSFET.
3. The white noise generator according to claim 1, wherein the MOSFET amplifier comprises: a first differential amplifier having positive and negative inputs for coupling to respective noise sources and having respective positive and negativeoutputs, a second differential amplifier having positive and negative inputs coupled to the positive and negative outputs respectively of the first differential amplifier, a positive output of the second differential amplifier fed back to a noise sourcecoupled to the negative input of the first differential amplifier, and a negative output of the second differential amplifier fed back to a noise source coupled to the positive input of the first differential amplifier.
4. The white noise generator according to claim 1, wherein the MOSFET amplifier is configured as a frequency dependent feedback amplifier that operates at DC and low frequencies as a unity gain amplifier and whose feedback is significantlyreduced at higher frequencies, whereby 1/f noise is attenuated since low frequencies are substantially not amplified."
Please don't misinform people. Transistors and MOSFETS has the ability to create "randomness" from the fluctuations in the oscillations. If you don't understand that, give up.
The typical circuits to create the white noise are not the same as this but the intrinsic property of the oscillation will give randomness in virtually every topology. This is a FACT.
resonance vid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyRCN6f5qig
The increase in heat production compared to input correlates
to the circuit being in resonance as shown.
Here are some pics of resonance and what is not resonance.
Hey Aaron:
Your new clip: How to tune your Rosemary Ainslie circuit for RESONANCE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyRCN6f5qig
Now we are definitely in bad C-grade science fiction movie territory.
Did you read TK's and my comments about how to properly use that portable scope and try to disply only one or two waveforms at a time? Did you read my comments about problems with the low-resolution discrete-pixel displays and being aware of aliasing effects, beat frequencies and Moiré patterns?
This entire clip is a nonsense clip where you discovered you can make cool beat frequency displays if the waveform time period is close to the equivalent time period for the pixel width on the display. You are playing with display beat frequencies, a.k.a. aliasing effects and pretending that they are some kind of weird "resonance effects" that you have invented in your head.
There is no resonance Aaron, you just don't have a clue what you are looking at, and I am assuming that you read my and TK's comments beforehand. Your brain is not processing information properly. No wonder you think that a bouncing ball is a display of COP > 1.
It's just unbelievable!!!!!!!
MileHigh
P.S.: The above farce demonstrates precisely the reason that I made the posting on how to measure the power into the load with the Tektronix DSO that you will be getting in about two weeks. It is very apparent that you would need a lot of coaching to get that done properly. Are you listening Rosemary? On both of your parts, you showed such low class behaviour in not acknowledging that posting.
P.P.S.:
> You IGNORE that distinction I made to get people off the track of the truth and try to make people believe that there is only one sound and it doesn't correspond to oscillation.
Your entire posting #912 is just you failing to understand what I said in my original posting #907. I am speechless.
-------
Aaron cameo:
> You need enough samples to see the big picture to see if it is in resonance and if you think you can tell that from one or two samples, you have no idea what you are talking about.
No, it is all about aliasing effects between the waveform and the pixel resolution of the display. So three attempts were made to try to explain this to you and knowing your psychology you will never be able to admit that you were wrong. That's just more cognitive dissonance creating more stress for you. So for the rest of this thread you can have fun sticking to your story and keep on making yourself looking like a complete fool. Unless J.B. chimes in and confirms what I say and then you can act like the perfect sycophant for him.
Quote from: MileHigh on August 07, 2009, 04:54:09 PM
Did you read TK's and my comments about how to properly use that portable scope and try to disply only one or two waveforms at a time?
Pathetic.
You need
enough samples to see the big picture to see if it is in resonance and if you think you can tell that from one or two samples, you have no idea what you are talking about.
What I show IS resonance take it or leave it and what I show as resonance also
corresponds to the greatest heat production for minimum input.
Are you going to tell me that is simply a coincidence? If it is a coincidence, then that is pretty darn amazing.
Your batting .000 as usual.
Quote from: MileHigh on August 07, 2009, 04:54:09 PM
Your brain is not processing information properly. No wonder you think that a bouncing ball is a display of COP > 1.
And it is but your too incompetent to understand non-equilibrium systems. Go back to school! Wait, you did and it is screwed you all up. Never mind, there is no hope for you guys.
Aaron:
Explain why the "resonance" gives you the "greatest heat production for minimum input?" You say this ALL the time. Step up to the plate and back up your statement with an explanation.
This is the real world Aaron, you have to back up your statements with a logical explanation.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on August 07, 2009, 04:54:09 PM
No, it is all about aliasing effects between the waveform and the pixel resolution of the display.
You may have made history MH. For the first time ever about this project, you may have actually said something correct - yes, for the first time.
I stopped the video until I can get it confirmed. Thanks for your observation.
But that effect has NOTHING to do with the aperiod pulsations / oscillation whether you like it or not.
Quote from: MileHigh on August 07, 2009, 06:07:31 PM
Aaron:
Explain why the "resonance" gives you the "greatest heat production for minimum input?" You say this ALL the time. Step up to the plate and back up your statement with an explanation.
This is the real world Aaron, you have to back up your statements with a logical explanation.
MileHigh
Why should I do your work for you? You have been 100% mouth and haven't even posted a picture of a circuit! Pen jockey nonsense.... a dime a dozen.
M-H: "Beat Freq's" and moire patterns on a LCD screen have nothing to do with Aliasing effects. Where did you get that idea?
The only determiner for Aliasing is the channel's Sample Rate. Most of these have an automatic Frequency Response low-pass filter to virtually eliminate this anyway. So what ever we are seeing there is has nothing to do with Aliasing. Lol but it does appear to have something to do with people getting testy about results that don't fit their world-view ;)
The display's time base settings are independent of the sample rate. If he decided to show 5 or 6 primary cycles on screen, it was to best display what he is describing, as an Envelope. If you don't like his time base setting that's too bad... He wasn't going for a measurement, or to show the individual waveforms to best advantage, he was showing the oscillation effect so others' know what to look for.
But there certainly is a difference with a CRT tube scope's display that we can see here; and that is unless it is a "high phosphorus" model (usually only used in slow applications like medical), it will not have nearly as much Trace Persistence as the flat screens do... Meaning that the spikes may stay a few milliseconds longer on an LCD (..or whatever specific type of flat screen), than on a tube. Thus the LCD's can actually be slightly more useful for seeing transient/ aperiodic/ non-repetitive waveforms than CRT tube models (dependent on their phosphorus / persistence level which is pretty low in most 'scopes); because the transients will show up for a little longer. This has a lot to do with the effect we are seeing on the Fluke's screen.
And it is ignorant and wrong to dis LCD screen scopes simply for their "screens"... It is a meaningless distinction compared to the real specifications of importance like digital resolution, maximum sample rate, frequency response, DC voltage accuracy, internal memory size & interface, and the built-in calculation features. Most of the very expensive DSO's have transited away from CRT's anyway and now use flat screens.... There is nothing inherently "better" in CRT's, and in fact they are just a pain, and even more expensive to manufacture these days than flat screens.
Of course freeze frames of the running oscillation effect ("sample and holds" on a DSO that are then sent to PC for later analysis), will prove once and for all if these waveforms are aperiodic or not. And we are looking forward to seeing some in the near future ;)
Aaron:
Congratulations on making the breakthrough on the display artifacts. Finally!
QuoteWhy should I do your work for you? You have been 100% mouth and haven't even posted a picture of a circuit! Pen jockey nonsense.... a dime a dozen.
You continue to evade the issue. This is your big pitch about this circuit, "resonance" gives you better results. It looks to me like you are running and hiding. You have to be able to back this statement up, it's your main point, time for you to get real. You must have an explanation.
MileHigh
"(quote)
Why should I do your work for you?"
Why stop at 93 pages of this slow motion train wreck of a debate ?
I only know 1 dog in this fight...and due to his past history of reasoned responses and cooperative interaction in other technical discussions, my money is where yucca sits.
Regards...
Jibbguy:
Yes, there can be aliasing related to the A/D sample rate. Each pixel on the display is just another sample of the data in memory and has its associated "sample rate", hence the aliasing.
QuoteThe display's time base settings are independent of the sample rate.
Not the case. The scope will adjust its A/D sample rate based on the time base setting. If not the scope would likely run out of memory for the slower time base settings.
MileHigh
Once again MH is right on the money. The Fluke 199 adjusts its sample rate automagically based on the timebase setting. The LeCroy does too but can be overridden manually to use all 500 megasamples per second in whatever timebase setting one chooses.
Aliasing is a big problem with any digital oscilloscope. It is amusing to see the spike peaks AS DISPLAYED on the Fluke0Scope fluctuate up and down by +/- 50 percent, if the timebase is correctly "incorrectly" set, when the analog scopes displaying the same signal at the same timebase are rock solid. And to see the digital signal peaks fluctuate up to 3 times in width--when I know the frequency and duty cycle are not changing--just emphasizes the point that MH made earlier. You have to be very careful about interpreting the display when the features you are concerned with are near the pixel size, especially horizontally. If the horizontal width of the displayed feature is only a few pixels or less, you absolutely cannot rely on the peak value to be correct on the display.
Triggering is another issue. My analog Philips will trigger better on glitchy signals than either the LeCroy or the Fluke, within its low bandwidth. This again is a sample rate issue. You need a REALLY fast digital scope to get the kind of triggering that a decent analog scope will provide, and really fast DSOs are really expensive.
Around here we generally prefer analog scopes, and we have some fast ones available. But the digital ones occasionally come in handy too--once one understands their very real limitations.
http://www.mediafire.com/?zzytymnjyy5
But to do quantitative measurements on an analog scope requires a bit of skill and some math ability. So it's no surprise to me which type Aaron and Rosemary prefer.
__________________________________
"As an amateur, the prospect of attempting a meaningful comment on physics is, at best, inappropriate."
--Rosemary Ainslie
http://rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com/
It's just too funny. Better than television, for sure.
I checked in to look at the energeticcomedyforum, which I haven't done in days, and I see in the most recent posts Harvey congratulating Aaron, Aaron taking down his "resonance" video because even he at last acknowledges it is erroneous, someone else being congratulated for posting scope shots from a BLOWN mosfet, and Rosemary still nattering about not being able to get on this forum.
And she objects to my post above, without addressing the issue: Which is that I am accusing her of not knowing how to make a quantitative measurement on an analog oscilloscope because of her lack of math and other skills.
Instead of refuting me by demonstrating her ability in a paragraph, or showing a little video, she chooses to threaten me.
Harvey, I am truly disappointed in you.
It's sort of like learning that the hot chick you've just started dating is really a Jehova's Witness, or a guy, or a vegetarian or something.
From Rosemary:
"But to do quantitative masurements on an analog scope requires a bit of skill and some math ability. So it's no surpise to me which type Aaron and Rosemary prefer." (me)
Am relieved to see that you have not actually refuted the Fluke's measurements albeit that there is so much implied in this post. Speak more clearly to your implications here and I think you would probably have answer to it in Court. Why then, may I ask, do you never use it? It allows an immediate and reliable reference to the DC value that your LeCroy seems to contradict. Could it be that you are anxious to distract your armchair audience?
It appears that my 'banning' on your thread and on the OU.Com forum has now been established through my email address. We have advised Sefan through his PM system. Yet nothing is done about this? I must presume therefore that you require that monologue to emphasise your bias. Which makes me wonder what are the real intentions of that forum in the first instance.
EDIT And thanks for providing that link to my blogspot. I owe you for all that gratuitous exposure. I am inordinately attached to the logic applied to the field model and would be gald to share it more broadly.
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 07, 2009, 11:49:50 PM
It's just too funny. Better than television, for sure.
I checked in to look at the energeticcomedyforum, which I haven't done in days, and I see in the most recent posts Harvey congratulating Aaron, Aaron taking down his "resonance" video because even he at last acknowledges it is erroneous, someone else being congratulated for posting scope shots from a BLOWN mosfet, and Rosemary still nattering about not being able to get on this forum.
And she objects to my post above, without addressing the issue: Which is that I am accusing her of not knowing how to make a quantitative measurement on an analog oscilloscope because of her lack of math and other skills.
Instead of refuting me by demonstrating her ability in a paragraph, or showing a little video, she chooses to threaten me.
Harvey, I am truly disappointed in you.
It's sort of like learning that the hot chick you've just started dating is really a Jehova's Witness, or a guy, or a vegetarian or something.
Well, to quote meatloaf "Two out of three ain't bad" ;)
And you know precisely why I'm disappointed in what your doing here. The whole reason Rosemary had the engineers build this circuit was to see in her theory panned out or not. That was what...in 1998?. When they found a COP>17 naturally they concluded she was on to something, filed for a patent and tried to have it confirmed by academia. Failing to have the matter properly addressed she managed to get it tested by the guys at Quantum. When they got the same results the article was published. Then it just died on the vine. From her perspective she has something worthwhile and she's banging heads with a bunch of thick skulls that wouldn't know a true anomaly if it rattled and bit 'em in the butt. And then you come along and kick her while she's down. Did you really expect me to do anything less than evaluate the matter in depth? And with all your experience, you know precisely what a multifrequency harmonic overlay looks like on a scope and your waving your hands around jabbering 'lost triggers'. Of course it didn't set well with me. And isn't your own words that insisted on "exact replication" as the only true measure for falsifying the whipmag? But you kluge who knows what together, even misrepresenting the 555 schematic as having an inverted signal and try to pass it off as a valid comparative analysis of her original work. You know full well that the values of those control pots allow full latitude of the pulse adjustment.
Whoa, I just fell off my soap box - now I lost my train of thought. And why are you up so early? o.O
Well on that note, I'm gunna hit the racks.
:P
Below are two scope shots taken at 10V / 0.1ms across the inductive resistor with probe on + rail.
The first is taken DC coupled and the second AC coupled.
Hoppy
Quote from: Harvey on August 08, 2009, 06:02:04 AM
Well, to quote meatloaf "Two out of three ain't bad" ;)
And you know precisely why I'm disappointed in what your doing here. The whole reason Rosemary had the engineers build this circuit was to see in her theory panned out or not. That was what...in 1998?. When they found a COP>17 naturally they concluded she was on to something, filed for a patent and tried to have it confirmed by academia. Failing to have the matter properly addressed she managed to get it tested by the guys at Quantum. When they got the same results the article was published. Then it just died on the vine. From her perspective she has something worthwhile and she's banging heads with a bunch of thick skulls that wouldn't know a true anomaly if it rattled and bit 'em in the butt. And then you come along and kick her while she's down. Did you really expect me to do anything less than evaluate the matter in depth? And with all your experience, you know precisely what a multifrequency harmonic overlay looks like on a scope and your waving your hands around jabbering 'lost triggers'. Of course it didn't set well with me. And isn't your own words that insisted on "exact replication" as the only true measure for falsifying the whipmag? But you kluge who knows what together, even misrepresenting the 555 schematic as having an inverted signal and try to pass it off as a valid comparative analysis of her original work. You know full well that the values of those control pots allow full latitude of the pulse adjustment.
Whoa, I just fell off my soap box - now I lost my train of thought. And why are you up so early? o.O
Well on that note, I'm gunna hit the racks.
:P
Harvey, it appears that you are badly misinformed. It's understandable that you think what you do since you are working with bad information.
First, the 555 timer. Build it for yourself. It performs as I have indicated many times. It CANNOT be adjusted to make the shorter duty cycles using the component values specified. This has been confirmed by many others, including even Joit. Your saying that I know "full well" implies that I am misleading about this issue--look and see how many times I doubted myself and asked for others to build and check my findings!!! When people finally did they confirmed that I was and am right.
Build it yourself and see.
Second, if you look at the original discussions with Rosemary when I first reported this, you will see that they were (and are still ) confused about the signal at the mosfet Drain being HIGH (batt voltage) when the mosfet is OFF. This is related to the 555 issue.
Third, it is more and more certain that the "oscillations" reported are lost triggers on the scope. I have a lot of experience with the Fluke 199, I daresay more than Rosemary, and it's really not a very good oscilloscope as these things go, and certainly Aaron has demonstrated his incompetence with scopes and scope signals many times.
His last set of videos shows this particularly well--no, wait, he's altered the past again...that vid is gone.
Fourth, you are misrepresenting the experiment. The Quantum article and the EIT pdf are describing the EXACT SAME EXPERIMENTAL RUNS, not two different instances. Look at the numbers, if you can stand to.
Fifth, no independent replications of the COP>17 or any of that was done. Rosemary's "vetting" consists of calibrations for the scope and other instruments, verification of the values of the components, and so forth, and NO RECORD EXISTS of any other vetting or overunity.
You see, the story here is like the story of the Patent. She
wants people to think she's got a patent; only when pressed will she acknowledge that it is only a filed application with no vetting whatsoever. And when she talks about other labs "confirming her findings" that's not what they did at all. They confirmed her resistor was 10 ohms, and the like, and they did NOT bother to issue her a written report. But she talks about this as if some respected lab tested her circuit and found it to be overunity. It did not happen that way, Harvey.
My "kluge" of who knows what as you call it, is the most accurate replication of what AINLSIE HAS REPORTED in her papers. And I am able to reproduce her HEAT PROFILE, and most of her other numbers. And it has been shown time and time again, by me and by others who know, that using Rosemary's calculation and logic, one can come up with large OU figures, for MY configuration, as well as hers. But when measured CORRECTLY and analyzed correctly, there is no OU, of course.
Harvey, you need another drink. It's not like you to misrepresent and misunderstand facts like in the above post. And wasn't it your "exact as possible" replication of the "wimpmag" what enabled you to realize what its explanation was? So too, my "as exact as possible" replication of Ainslie's work that allows me to understand how it is in error--for in error it certainly is.
You might like to look at the two Ainlsie threads on the Naked Scientists Forum. Your "depth evaluation" is actually quite shallow, I'm surprised you can see at all through all the mud you're kicking up.
I invite you to build the circuit for yourself and test it however you like, before you take sides in the matter. I would tend to believe you, if you posted a scope shot of a random aperiodic Hartley resonance oscillation.
Or is that a "Harvey" oscillation--big and fuzzy, but invisible when looked at closely?
;)
I can even arrange to send you a mosfet or two, if you like.
Not blown ones, either...or is it now deemed necessary to use damaged components to achieve the Ainslie Effect?
Quote from: Hoppy on August 08, 2009, 08:38:06 AM
Below are two scope shots taken at 10V / 0.1ms across the inductive resistor with probe on + rail.
The first is taken DC coupled and the second AC coupled.
Hoppy
@Hoppy: Are you quite sure of that?
That looks to me much more like a shot of the voltage drop across the current viewing shunt resistor.
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 08, 2009, 08:48:37 AM
@Hoppy: Are you quite sure of that?
That looks to me much more like a shot of the voltage drop across the current viewing shunt resistor.
Hi TK
Yes. There's virtually no inductance in my resistor, so I doubt there's much in Aarons, although my resistor is physically smaller. I cannot see how any spikes from these resistors can do anything to boost real power!
Hoppy
Quote from: Hoppy on August 08, 2009, 09:03:02 AM
Hi TK
Yes. There's virtually no inductance in my resistor, so I doubt there's much in Aarons, although my resistor is physically smaller. I cannot see how any spikes from these resistors can do anything to boost real power!
Hoppy
I am quite confused then. We are talking about the LOAD and not the current-viewing shunt, right?
Have you measured the inductance in your resistor? I have measured an Ohmite resistor similar to Aaron's and find it to have 0.150-0.200 milliHenry, not a negligible amount and about 20 times what Ainslie specifies. The inductance, however, makes little difference in the gross features of the signal.
The signal at Ainslie point A, the positive rail side of the load resistor, should be at battery voltage when the mosfet is OFF and when the mosfet is ON it should read somewhat less--but certainly not zero.
However, at the shunt resistor, when the mosfet is off you should get zero voltage and when the mosfet is on you should get something like 500 millivolts to 1500 millivolts depending on the value of your shunt. I get 600 mV with 0.25 ohms, at the Ainslie frequency and duty cycle.
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 08, 2009, 09:10:14 AM
I am quite confused then. We are talking about the LOAD and not the current-viewing shunt, right?
Have you measured the inductance in your resistor? I have measured an Ohmite resistor similar to Aaron's and find it to have 0.150-0.200 milliHenry, not a negligible amount and about 20 times what Ainslie specifies. The inductance, however, makes little difference in the gross features of the signal.
The signal at Ainslie point A, the positive rail side of the load resistor, should be at battery voltage when the mosfet is OFF and when the mosfet is ON it should read somewhat less--but certainly not zero.
However, at the shunt resistor, when the mosfet is off you should get zero voltage and when the mosfet is on you should get something like 500 millivolts to 1500 millivolts depending on the value of your shunt. I get 600 mV with 0.25 ohms, at the Ainslie frequency and duty cycle.
I too get about 0.6V across my 0.25R shunt.
Hoppy
@Hoppy: Could you please show both traces, like I did above? The voltage drop across the current viewing shunt, Ainslie's Point B, and the voltage at the positive rail side of the inductive load, Ainslie's Point A, on the same screen at the same time?
Thanks.
--TK
(The battery capacity could be a factor here. If your battery is low or not enough amp-hour capacity the voltage will drop radically when the mosfet turns on, but your trace shows a voltage drop to zero--that cannot be right.)
Another thing is that there don't seem to be any spikes or ringdown visible. Even the stray inductances in the wires, and the built-in inductance in the mosfet, should be generating visible spikes here.
You might try using a small 18-24 volt light bulb, which will be about 3 ohms and 100 microHenries, as a load to visualize what's happening. It behaves electrically much like an actual "Ainslie load" (except for the OU of course, we couldn't have OU flashlights after all) and can be quite revealing.
TK,
I believe Hoppy is measuring across the load resistor, not from V+ to gnd.
If so, then his scope shot makes sense, other than the lack of spikes. He could be using a non-inductive type resistor which would explain it.
.99
Which circuit are you folks talking about?
If it is the one where the load resistor is on the negative rail then putting the probe tip on the positive rail with the clip side of the probe on the positive side of the load resistor will cause a display inversion.
Nothing unexpected about that.
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 08, 2009, 09:17:35 AM
@Hoppy: Could you please show both traces, like I did above? The voltage drop across the current viewing shunt, Ainslie's Point B, and the voltage at the positive rail side of the inductive load, Ainslie's Point A, on the same screen at the same time?
Thanks.
--TK
(The battery capacity could be a factor here. If your battery is low or not enough amp-hour capacity the voltage will drop radically when the mosfet turns on, but your trace shows a voltage drop to zero--that cannot be right.)
Another thing is that there don't seem to be any spikes or ringdown visible. Even the stray inductances in the wires, and the built-in inductance in the mosfet, should be generating visible spikes here.
You might try using a small 18-24 volt light bulb, which will be about 3 ohms and 100 microHenries, as a load to visualize what's happening. It behaves electrically much like an actual "Ainslie load" (except for the OU of course, we couldn't have OU flashlights after all) and can be quite revealing.
I have shown the dual trace shot below at 0.2V @ 50uS
My battery is fine and the spikes are there but very faint the scope is old and the focus control is on the way out.
The resistor is wire wound but now having measured it is barely registering as an inductor on my Atlas LCR, so I will find a replacement with a higher value.
Hoppy
Quote from: poynt99 on August 08, 2009, 09:44:57 AM
TK,
I believe Hoppy is measuring across the load resistor, not from V+ to gnd.
If so, then his scope shot makes sense, other than the lack of spikes. He could be using a non-inductive type resistor which would explain it.
.99
Yes, this is what I said in my post 929.
Hoppy
Hi BEP,
In this circuit the MOSFET Drain Load is what we're referring to as the load resistor.
The resistor in the Source is the "shunt".
So I assume Hoppy had the probe on the V+ rail and the gnd clip on the Drain.
.99
Quote from: Hoppy on August 08, 2009, 10:48:01 AM
Yes, this is what I said in my post 929.
Hoppy
I know Hoppy ;)
I was re-iterating/emphasizing it because it seemed TK may have missed that.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on August 08, 2009, 10:50:00 AM
Hi BEP,
In this circuit the MOSFET Drain Load is what we're referring to as the load resistor.
The resistor in the Source is the "shunt".
So I assume Hoppy had the probe on the V+ rail and the gnd clip on the Drain.
.99
Thanks. I must have missed that somewhere along the line. I assume this was done because the output of the 555 and the action of the MOSFET -ARE- reversed from the way RA and her clan understand it?
To be honest BEP, I don't know what the RA clan understands and doesn't understand anymore.
For our own sake, I think it's best we use commonly-accepted terminology so at least we understand each other when we're discussing this circuit.
The 555 output is definitely not a 3.7% duty cycle, regardless of whether it is required or not, which still has not been fully clarified by the RA camp IMO, and the 555 circuit as published in the Quantum article certainly can not be adjusted lower than about 70% duty cycle despite any ignorant comment about it made by Mr. Mis-informed/misguided-- Harvey.
.99
Hoppy and Gang,
Like .99 said, if the scope probe is across the coil-resistor then the waveform looks fine, and in Hoppy's case it is very clean. It's almost too clean looking but the real check for any inductance can be done at the shunt resistor.
There is not much point in putting the scope coupling on AC for this experiment, DC will do you just fine. Will Aaron take that phrase and with his limited understanding try to turn it into another "MH doesn't not know what he is talking about" sleazy pitch to his audience of the converted? Time will tell.
Rosemary's channel A measurement has always been bogus anyways and gives you no real information at all. It just shows you how the battery is coping with the load. Some "experts."
If you look at the shunt resistor waveform and barely notice the exponential rise in the current waveform for you normal MOSFET "on" time then indeed it would indicate there is very little inductance in your coil-resistor. If you measure the total series resistance in the loop including the MOSFET when on, and up your scope time base to make your very narrow exponential curve more visible then you can calculate the inductance if you want to by eyeballing the 63% rise time.
To make a general comment: When you are first exploring any circuit it is always preferable to use both traces on your scope at the same time -> 555 vs. shunt resistor, 555 vs. coil-resistor, etc. I think of all of the text generated over things like the ring-down oscillation on the shunt resistor waveform. Over and over the point was made that the MOSFET was off during the oscillation. Just displaying the 555 trace next to the shunt resistor trace would have made that perfectly clear right away. I still think that the ring-down was nothing more than the ringing in the wire itself. That's a concept that Rosemary can't understand at all.
My minor pet peeve is that people almost never use both scope traces, when you gleam 10 times as much information with two channels as compared to a single channel. My major pet peeve is when people do a clip and do not explicitly state at the beginning of the clip which two points that they are measuring across. I suppose that everyone assumes that the ground of the scope channel is on the ground of the circuit but in fact it could be anywhere. Often people make clips and don't even say where the scope probe is connected in the circuit at all! Rant off.
MileHigh
Quotebattery charging
Without the diode, the voltage spike at the coil is easily 10 times the plus voltage. And with the diode, it was about 4 times the voltage.
Sounds exciting Aaron!!!! Big spikes, we all want big spikes! They must be charging the battery big time!!
Some nutcase is saying that the spikes are smacking the MOSFET! Just like in the old days where dad smacked his kid in the head with a rolled-up newspaper to keep him in line.
So who is going to arrest the coil-resistor? lol
Somebody needs circuit design counseling....
MH
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 08, 2009, 09:17:35 AM
@Hoppy: Could you please show both traces, like I did above? The voltage drop across the current viewing shunt, Ainslie's Point B, and the voltage at the positive rail side of the inductive load, Ainslie's Point A, on the same screen at the same time?
Thanks.
--TK
(The battery capacity could be a factor here. If your battery is low or not enough amp-hour capacity the voltage will drop radically when the mosfet turns on, but your trace shows a voltage drop to zero--that cannot be right.)
Another thing is that there don't seem to be any spikes or ringdown visible. Even the stray inductances in the wires, and the built-in inductance in the mosfet, should be generating visible spikes here.
You might try using a small 18-24 volt light bulb, which will be about 3 ohms and 100 microHenries, as a load to visualize what's happening. It behaves electrically much like an actual "Ainslie load" (except for the OU of course, we couldn't have OU flashlights after all) and can be quite revealing.
TK
I don't have a suitable lamp to hand but I did try a 250uH choke and this gives me a visible spike of 0.4V but even at this inductance, these spikes count for nothing in power terms.
I think Aaron needs to get himself an analogue scope before he goes any further with experimentation!
Hoppy
A scope shot across the load resistor (aka the "inductor"-resistor).
Inductances in the circuit are from the load resistor (8.64uH) and parasitic inductances in the MOSFET leads. No other inductances are used in the circuit for this shot.
Note the nice ringdown in the zoomed shot. This is with the flyback diode installed.
.99
OK, if I am interpreting the posts right, Hoppy says he is using the probe tip at the positive rail side of the load and the probe ground at the other side of the load. But that's not what .99 said. But you are agreeing...???
Now, to be consistent, and to be able to compare results with Rosemary's cited results, we have to use the same measuring points. Look at the Quantum article and the EIT paper.
I have ALWAYS used the Ainslie points A and B, simultaneously, which of course requires that the channels use a common ground, that is, the negative rail.
The Fluke 199 is completely isolated though; it appears that even the scope channel grounds are isolated, so it might be possible to use different ground references with that scope, but that is unusual.
I agree that the channel "A" as Ainslie has it, from positive side of load to ground, provides little useful information. But that is the place where Ainslie shows it being monitored. And it is here that one will see the ringdown, the spikes, the diode effect.
Hoppy's monitoring, directly across the load, shows even less useful information, and of course if that's what's being shown, there isn't any difference with AC or DC coupling.
However, using Ainslie's point A, as I have been, you can clearly see the effect of coupling, and the spikes, and the load ringdown and all the rest.
I have no problem monitoring any point at all, but certainly we should know what's being monitored, and try to compare traces from the same points.
As I said, I ALWAYS refer to the points as named in the Ainslie paper; I ALWAYS use the same common ground for both channels unless otherwise specified; I ALWAYS display the traces in the "normal" polarity (the Philips cannot even do trace inversion); I always display the "B" current trace on top and the "A" load voltage trace on bottom.
And VERY IMPORTANT:
I indicate where "zero" is (or the DC offset zero) on the scope display, by checking it with the probe shorted or the channel grounded, and then marking it with a little line on the white tape.
Voltage across the shunt zoomed in on the same pulse.
The ~90% rise time looks about perfect (about 4.32us)
Second shot zoomed in to see ringing.
.99
.99's simulations show that the spikes and ringdown can be seen on the voltage directly across the load as well.
But how does one monitor this trace and the current trace at the same time, since the ground references are different?
One needs a completely isolated scope, I suppose.
Also the scale difference makes the ringdown hard to see. If you are showing a 24 volt signal, and the spikes and ring are only a few volts +/- that 24 volts, you need to do the blowup like .99 showed.
But if you monitor the load like I do--Point A wrt negative rail--, you can use the AC coupling feature to remove the 24 volt DC offset, and then use much more amplification of the vertical scale, to see the detail in the spikes and ringdown much better.
Of course, to do this one needs to understand the offset and the coupling features, and to remember that the "zero" of an AC-coupled trace isn't necessarily at zero volts.
And of course my current trace looks quite like that as well. My risetime from the pulse generator is around 5 ns.
I think I have more inductance than you are using in your sim.
Try pumping the load inductance up to a more realistic 100 microHenry if you have a chance...
I see spikes in my current trace that aren't showing up on yours. Plus the switching time of the mosfet is again getting in the way here. If you use a faster switching mosfet you will see more spikes, more voltage, more of everything "good" in the circuit.
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 08, 2009, 11:49:46 AM
OK, if I am interpreting the posts right, Hoppy says he is using the probe tip at the positive rail side of the load and the probe ground at the other side of the load. But that's not what .99 said. But you are agreeing...???
Isn't the "Drain" equivalent to "the other side of the load" ???
QuoteI have ALWAYS used the Ainslie points A and B, simultaneously, which of course requires that the channels use a common ground, that is, the negative rail.
For our own clarity to be sure we're all on the same page (and I think we are), point "A" is simply the battery voltage, and point "B" is simply the shunt voltage...agreed?
If that is the case then the RA clan never measured the load voltage, which is what Hoppy and I have done with the scope shots.
.99
TK and .99:
I agree about sticking to the paper's measuring points to compare apples to apples. How much ringing and spiking you observe will be dependent a lot on the battery's input and output impedances. I assume that if you use a full-sized car battery then any ringing or spiking would be brought down to the millivolt range. It certainly would not hurt to "add value" and do a true coil-resistor voltage measurement also.
That first plot of the shunt resistor voltage is interesting. I am trying to figure out what causes that little dimple at the end. In fact all of the plots are rather impressive. Are you adding any wire cap-inductive effects also? Or do you just give it a certain length of wire connection and PSpice models the capacitive and inductive effects per cm or something?
MileHigh
Big pee ess for Rosemary and Aaron: Look at the zoom-up on the coil-resistor discharge in .99's post #947. Do you see how the voltage across the coil-resistor goes to about -0.8 volts at the end of the main pulse for a while? That's the inductive part of the coil-resistor DISCHARGING THROUGH THE DIODE. Try to force that one into your collective brains.
You've done everything correctly TK. Just showing another point in the circuit.
I can also show all the voltage effects across the battery if I introduce an accurate value for the battery impedance/resistance. However I can show current effects without having to do so, and I believe I did show scope shots of current ringing on the battery V+.
Carry on Maestro ;D
.99
Quote from: MileHigh on August 08, 2009, 12:19:03 PM
TK and .99:
Are you adding any wire cap-inductive effects also? Or do you just give it a certain length of wire connection and PSpice models the capacitive and inductive effects per cm or something?
MileHigh
MH,
I'm not adding anything to the circuit in terms of capacitance or inductance, other than a smidgen of parallel capacitance (50pf in series with 1k Ohm) with the inductor/resistor combo for a more realistic model.
The only major sources of inductance are from the load itself, and the parasitic lead inductances included as part of the IRFPG50 MOSFET model.
No wire inductance, capacitance or resistance has been added. All wire connections made in SPICE are "ideal".
.99
Hey .99:
Could you drop a current probe in series with the infamous diode and then crank out a plot for us? It would be appreciated if it isn't too much work.
A shunt resistor plot and a diode current plot on the same graph would be oh so sweet.
I can imagine somebody dismissing the results... "I don't trust those stupid programs!"
MileHigh
@Poynt99
I was wondering, have you built and tested this circuit or are you using your simulator as the basis for all the conclusions you have come to?
Hey Michael!
QuoteHi all,
It seems to me the people who want to disrupt do not want to show who they really are, I wonder why!!!!!!!!! I use my own name, Aaron and Peter as well, how about coming clean?
Mike
How come Rosemary's "experts" are so secret that she won't even discuss their generic background(s) and qualifications without giving any names? That's a big fat double-standard staring you and Rosemary and Aaron in the face.
If I want to give out my name I will create a Facebook page, thank you. It's my right to remain anonymous. What if a rabid free-energy nutcase lives in the same city as me and is convinced that I am a Man in Purple?
So -screw- -you- you have no right to "force" me to compromise my safety, biatch! Using handles is an accepted practice that goes all the way back to the original BBS days in the early Eighties.
MileHigh
P.S.: Aaron and Peter use their real names because they are hitching a ride on the Gravy Train.
MH.
Shunt voltage and Diode current together:
.99
@milehigh
Thank you for that last post I found it very mature and professional, I am sure it will help in everyone's understanding of the topic at hand.
@AllCanadian
I was wondering, have you built and tested this circuit or are you using your ??? as the basis for all the conclusions you have come to?
.99
Allcanadian: Yes I take my safety seriously, as should you. So your sarcasm is b*llshit. There is no reason not to not believe that people that go online and make postings like "THE SUN IS ELECTRICAL" and "All musical instruments that resonate are over unity devices" might have a screw loose.
Trying to "force" people to give up their identities is like asking them to go through an intersection with a blindfold on. What's wrong with people that pose that question, are they so incredibly stupid that they cannot see this potential danger staring them in the face? How many times have you seen a news story about an "Internet based attack?"
.99: Fascinating plot, thank you very much. It looks like the one nanosecond reverse current spike through the diode is related to it's junction capacitance? I am not sure but it was a surprise to see it. Thank's again. The main point is very clear: The inductive part of the coil-resistor discharges through the diode after the MOSFET switches off. (Calling Rosemary and Aaron!)
MileHigh
@Poynt99
LOL, Honestly I didn't expect to get an answer from you, it is a little embarrassing isn't it? I am learning to have a new found respect for Tinselkoala and others who at least make the effort to go that extra mile and build in order to understand the reality of any situation, not that I did not have a great deal of respect for him or his work prior. The point I make is that you cannot base what others refer to as out of the ordinary effects using ordinary tools and equations let alone a simulator, there is no logic in this. Your simulator cannot show you the electric and magnetic fields present nor their geometry, the parasitic capacitance as it relates to the components and so on. As well my point is not to discredit you nor your opinion outright, you seem like a very intelligent person but this seems like a case of the pot calling the kettle black if you have no real facts based on real experiments. To answer your question yes I have built this circuit, I build everything within my means and time available, I can post some pictures when I get off work if you like.
Regards
AC
@milehigh
I agree with everything you stated, the way in which you stated it however is offensive in every sense of the word.
OK, nice to see we're all friends again and on the same page.
I think the sims have an important role to play when they are properly applied, and I think .99 is properly applying them.
I see that little "dimple" too, before the shut-off of the mosfet, and in my realworld circuit it has its own little ringdown and spike. I thought it was coming from my DP-101 pulse generator but if .99 is seeing it on the sim it must be real. How's that for pretzel logic?
I just posted a new video showing actual boiling water with the Ainslie "Bullitt1" load in mineral oil, in a water jacket, at about 60 or 70 percent ON. The mosfet is pretty darn hot too.
Also there's some cartoon Fluke-0-scopy shown, for the peanut gallery. Barbie and Ken were using it, but I managed to swipe it for an afternoon.
Allcanadian: Take a chill pill, at least this chat board is not a police state with a feigned code of good conduct that the despot and his cronies can waive at their discretion. I contributed a much as anyone to the understanding of the circuit. I did the energy buckets, I did the box car in the chocolate pudding ooze, I explained how an inductor works from five different angles. I brought a lot of understanding to many people on how a "coil discharging through a resistor and diode" works. Yet the despot is always in cognitive dissonance spin mode (his brain is heating up) and whenever I asked him a question or two about his claims about this very complex circuit he dismissed my questions as "irrelevant" and tried to claim that I was "stupid" - after all that contributing. If you want to find "offensive" behaviour, follow the crumbs.
And we are still left with the maestro's point that "resonance will make it run better", but he can't define the resonance, he made a clip that was supposed to show it that was a total farce and was taken down four hours later for "consultation." Nor can he explain why it is supposed to "run better" in "resonance."
I tried and failed in asking him the questions, so why don't YOU ask him the same questions. Aren't you curious yourself? Don't you believe that every observation you make must have a mechanism behind it that needs to be understood and explained?
Note, "Gravy Train" Peter Lindemann has put on the jackboots and the brown shirt: "Great idea!!! Is it possible to limit this thread just to people who use their real names? That way, it can settle down to being a quiet "replication thread", since all of the disrupters, hiding behind their anonymity, will be forced out."
Force them out Peter!!!!
MileHigh
Lower trace I load 0.2V / 50uS.
Top trace 20V / 50uS scoped with probe on drain to ground. Load 220uH choke. 110V spike.
Hoppy
EDIT: Traces reversed.
OK, my real name is Kate Allison. Prove me wrong!
Now, MH has indeed done more than a fair share in trying to eduficate the masses. But pearls before swine, let them eat cake, drink the horse's water, all of that. It's a thankless task but it has its rewards--there's nothing more humorous in my book than seeing someone trip over his own tongue. And Aaron seems to have "written the book" on that subject.
Quote from: allcanadian on August 08, 2009, 01:17:11 PM
@Poynt99
LOL, Honestly I didn't expect to get an answer from you, it is a little embarrassing isn't it? I am learning to have a new found respect for Tinselkoala and others who at least make the effort to go that extra mile and build in order to understand the reality of any situation, not that I did not have a great deal of respect for him or his work prior. The point I make is that you cannot base what others refer to as out of the ordinary effects using ordinary tools and equations let alone a simulator, there is no logic in this. Your simulator cannot show you the electric and magnetic fields present nor their geometry, the parasitic capacitance as it relates to the components and so on. As well my point is not to discredit you nor your opinion outright, you seem like a very intelligent person but this seems like a case of the pot calling the kettle black if you have no real facts based on real experiments. To answer your question yes I have built this circuit, I build everything within my means and time available, I can post some pictures when I get off work if you like.
Regards
AC
You missed the point AC. I don't give a damn if you've built it or not. The only thing that matters from the folks making claims (does that include you?), is that they show proof. I don't give a damn if you show me a picture of your breadboard, what the hell does that prove? Any fool can show a picture of the ratsnest circuit they've built, and many do. It means very little to me unless some coherent results and rational conclusions are clearly drawn from them. And this rarely takes place.
If you can conclusively SHOW us your OU results, then fine, otherwise your attempt at invalidating the simulation results (or hand analysis, take your pick) and the real scope shots shown here is a waste of effort and bandwidth on your part.
.99
Nice shots.
Oh, a question .99 asked earlier: No, the signal at the mosfet drain is not identical to the signal at the Ainslie Point "A" which is at the positive rail side of the load. There is a slight difference.
Sometimes where a circuit is measured can make a large difference in what you see on the instruments, even if you are technically looking at the same "node".
Professor Lewin of MIT has a YT video demonstration of this phenomenon that is pretty instructive. I don't have the url handy but I'm sure Harvey does.
This doesn't really mean much at the freqs we're discussing but it might mean something wrt displayed polarities--that is, if the positive probe tip is on the drain and the "ground" is on the positive rail...for some reason....
This seems to be becoming a scope endurance trial...the Fluke does have isolated probe and channel grounds, BTW, I just checked it--so one can take readings wrt 2 different ground references...handy feature, that. I just might have to revise my opinion of this scope.
Of course, they probably did it that way to enhance its idiot-proofness...I mean how often does one need to use two different ground references, and do it safely...
Actually TK that's not what I was saying.
It's just a bit of confusion here regarding point "A", the Drain, and circuit GND.
Point "A" is the battery +'ve terminal, and I was calling this V+. The load is connected here. The other end of the load is connected to the MOSFET Drain.
The voltage monitored at V+ and at the Drain are going to be miles apart in appearance or amplitude, if the reference is GND.
Hoppy and I showed a scope shot across the Load, which is of course from V+ (probe tip) to the Drain (probe gnd clip).
Hopefully that clears up what I was trying to say earlier ;)
.99
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 08, 2009, 01:45:34 PM
there's nothing more humorous in my book than seeing someone trip over his own tongue.
like when you said the ifrpg50 would behave the same (which it didn't)? or your earlier comments about your opinion of the fluke (which you are now considering revising)?
yes, very humorous indeed... and poynt is catching on fast, asking people to show their build when all he has is a sim ::)
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on August 08, 2009, 02:11:14 PM
and poynt is catching on fast, asking people to show their build when all he has is a sim ::)
Are you retarded?
Read it again. I didn't ask
to see anyone's "build". If anyone asks me for my build and proclaims that conventional analysis is bogus, then surely they must have their own proof of this right? I am asking for them to show this proof.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on August 08, 2009, 02:19:48 PM
Are you retarded?
Read it again. I didn't ask to see anyone's "build". If anyone asks me for my build and proclaims that conventional analysis is bogus, then surely they must have their own proof of this right? I am asking for them to show this proof.
.99
surely they must? more assumption... more of your typical flawed logic.
Quote from: poynt99 on August 08, 2009, 12:52:57 PM
@AllCanadian
I was wondering, have you built and tested this circuit or are you using your ??? as the basis for all the conclusions you have come to?
.99
are you retarded? i am wondering myself. have you built and tested this circuit or are you STILL using your sim as a basis for your conclusions? 98 pages later... ::)
turnabout is fair play no?
Yes turnabout is fair play.
I knew you would immediately go copy that quote as your proof of nothing.
Did you not read my subsequent posts? I don't give a rat's ass about build pictures. If you and AC don't give a rat's ass about conventional analysis, then stay out of the conversation. AC came knocking on my door, not the contrary.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on August 08, 2009, 02:31:41 PM
Yes turnabout is fair play.
I knew you would immediately go copy that quote as your proof of nothing.
Did you not read my subsequent posts? I don't give a rat's ass about build pictures. If you and AC don't give a rat's ass about conventional analysis, then stay out of the conversation. AC came knocking on my door, not the contrary.
.99
now i know you're retarded. re: conventional analysis. i was they guy who rode tk's ass for about 30 pages for NOT using the correct components (at least as far as was 'known' to be correct at that time). remember? no you probably don't.
i was the ONLY person asking tk to adhere to decent scientific method... where the fuck were you then? oh yeah, playing with your sim...
don't post your sim data if you don't want shit about it, ie: don't come knocking on my door with sims and calculations... build a circuit NOT using your lame sim.
@milehigh
Quote:
"Allcanadian: Take a chill pill, at least this chat board is not a police state with a feigned code of good conduct that the despot and his cronies can waive at their discretion. I contributed a much as anyone to the understanding of the circuit. I did the energy buckets, I did the box car in the chocolate pudding ooze, I explained how an inductor works from five different angles. I brought a lot of understanding to many people on how a "coil discharging through a resistor and diode" works. Yet the despot is always in cognitive dissonance spin mode (his brain is heating up) and whenever I asked him a question or two about his claims about this very complex circuit he dismissed my questions as "irrelevant" and tried to claim that I was "stupid" - after all that contributing. If you want to find "offensive" behaviour, follow the crumbs."
I am concerned as well, it takes a great deal of restraint when emotions are running high not to resort to name calling or offensive behavior. Don't think that when I read my own posts that I do not find my sarcasm and as a matter a fact attitude offensive on many occasions. I believe it is the nature of this impersonal form of communication that instigates this disrespect for others, the belief that somehow it is acceptable and I am as guilty as anyone. I am as critical of myself and my thoughts as I am of any one here.
Quote:
"I tried and failed in asking him the questions, so why don't YOU ask him the same questions. Aren't you curious yourself? Don't you believe that every observation you make must have a mechanism behind it that needs to be understood and explained?"
My observations and understanding may not fall perfectly in line with theirs so I will wait and see what happens, I think they are making progress and at some point they will understand why they have succeeded with proof of concept or why they have not succeeded because of errors made or a lack of proof, I cannot predict which it will be, time will tell.
Regards
AC
@ WI
Whatever man ::)
Go have another drink.
.99
Rosemary,
Please change tabs on your browser. lol
QuoteAnd I'd give my right arm to know how TK can afford to spend all this time and all that money on testing equipment, on this debunking exercise. It's a really costly exercise - unless he's getting some compensation for his efforts. In which case from whom and why?
You really really don't get it. The skeptics know that there is no point in "debunking" the claim. It never works, the believers go on the defensive and the discussion falls apart. The reasonable thing to try to do is educate and offer some guidance so that the believers can progress through the testing and measuring phase and then FIGURE IT OUT FOR THEMSELVES. No one is going to believe a skeptic, that's a given. But I figure that you will believe it if you can get to the point where you look at your OWN data, data that you generated YOURSELVES, data where you truly UNDERSTAND the measuring methodology and have an understanding of the circuit yourselves. THEN and ONLY THEN will you be convinced.
HOWEVER, you CANNOT get there if the person or persons that are trying to do the tests for themselves will not accept any outside input that he or she cannot understand or refuses to try to understand.
So just trying to get you to the point to where you could make some reasonable measurements with a reasonable understanding of what is going on has become a total failure.
It's pig-headed Aaron that is blocking your progress towards arriving at your OWN conclusions so that you can BELIEVE YOURSELVES.
The ridiculous nonesense with Aaron puffing out his chest and adamantly refusing to accept that the scope was loosing trigger in his clip from a few weeks ago is just one of many prime examples where Aaron is pigheadedly blocking progress towards reaching the final goal.
So WE are not your best enemy, you YOURSELVES are your own best enemies. The longer all of you remain bit players in this theater of the absurd farce, the less chance you ever have of arriving at the proper conclusion ALL BY YOURSELVES.
Hence the tragicomic operatic farce continues.
QuoteThere's the intimation that he works as a technician on fixing these instruments and that is the source of the ready supply. If so, then he's also abusing his client base. And why then would his clients send in a brand new Fluke 123 for fixing? Seems a bit redundant. If he works for some research laboratory - then even more cause for concern. What patents and what technologies is he protecting that he needs to destroy my own.
This is "get real" time for you Rosemary. You have no "technology." You have zero chance of getting a patent. Your alleged "technology" is the fact that you are using a MOSFET to charge a coil-resistor and then looking at the discharge. Forget about over unity, there is a metaphysically zero chance of that ever happening with 100% certainty. That is the truth and there is nothing that you can do about it except to confirm it for yourself, because that's the only way you are going to believe it. That is what I have been trying to help you and Aaron do. Your "technology" in nothing more than a lab experiment in a grade-12 physics class.
I don't care about your zippons, I am telling you the metaphysical truth. TK and Hoppy have already proved it is not COP 17. You and Aaron got all exited about Hoppy's PRELIMINARY results and paraded them on your chat board much to the chagrin of Hoppy. It's time to GROW UP and be scientific about these things. If Hoppy can make better measurements he will show there is no OU. This I am confident of with metaphysical certitude.
So simmer on those points and see of you can drag Aaron kicking and screaming all the way to the point that he can see for HIMSELF that there is no over unity in a coil discharging through a resistor and a diode. He can take a relay and energize the coil with five volts and then put his tongue across the contacts and then disconnect the battery and feel the "compressed time potential" for HIMSELF.
You can try to go forward and accept some input from the skeptics, or fail completely and totally because Aaron doesn't know his ass from his elbow when it comes to oscilloscopes and electronics and how energy works. As far as I am concerned Aaron and his flock are like ignorant and illiterate peasants living in the Dark Ages. Serfs that never see more than the plot of land that their Lord has rented to them to work all their lives in an attempt to pay off their debts. Myself and TK and .99 and others are trying to shed some light on you.
I know that my prose was harsh and not politically correct, that's life.
MileHigh
Quote from: poynt99 on August 08, 2009, 02:40:09 PM
@ WI
Whatever man ::)
Go have another drink.
.99
LOL, nice rebuttal. i see you have nothing.
You're right bud, I have nothing ;)
Now run along please and go play with all the other inebriated ones, bless their soggy souls :'(
.99
Quote from: MileHigh on August 08, 2009, 02:41:20 PM
Rosemary,
Please change tabs on your browser. lol
You really really don't get it. The skeptics know that there is no point in "debunking" the claim. It never works, the believers go on the defensive and the discussion falls apart. The reasonable thing to try to do is educate and offer some guidance so that the believers can progress through the testing and measuring phase and then FIGURE IT OUT FOR THEMSELVES. No one is going to believe a skeptic, that's a given. But I figure that you will believe it if you can get to the point where you look at your OWN data, data that you generated YOURSELVES, data where you truly UNDERSTAND the measuring methodology and have an understanding of the circuit yourselves. THEN and ONLY THEN will you be convinced.
HOWEVER, you CANNOT get there if the person or persons that are trying to do the tests for themselves will not accept any outside input that he or she cannot understand or refuses to try to understand.
So just trying to get you to the point to where you could make some reasonable measurements with a reasonable understanding of what is going on has become a total failure.
It's pig-headed Aaron that is blocking your progress towards arriving at your OWN conclusions so that you can BELIEVE YOURSELVES.
The ridiculous nonesense with Aaron puffing out his chest and adamantly refusing to accept that the scope was loosing trigger in his clip from a few weeks ago is just one of many prime examples where Aaron is pigheadedly blocking progress towards reaching the final goal.
So WE are not your best enemy, you YOURSELVES are your own best enemies. The longer all of you remain bit players in this theater of the absurd farce, the less chance you ever have of arriving at the proper conclusion ALL BY YOURSELVES.
Hence the tragicomic operatic farce continues.
This is "get real" time for you Rosemary. You have no "technology." You have zero chance of getting a patent. Your alleged "technology" is the fact that you are using a MOSFET to charge a coil-resistor and then looking at the discharge. Forget about over unity, there is a metaphysically zero chance of that ever happening with 100% certainty. That is the truth and there nothing that you can do about it except to confirm it for yourself, because that's the only way you are going to believe it. That is what I have been trying to help you and Aaron do. Your "technology" in nothing more than a lab experiment in a grade-12 physics class.
I don't care about your zippons, I am telling you the metaphysical truth. TK and Hoppy have already proved it is not COP 17. You and Aaron got all exited about Hoppy's PRELIMINARY results and paraded them on your chat board much to the chagrin of Hoppy. It's time to GROW UP and be scientific about these things. If Hoppy can make better measurements he will show there is no OU. This I am confident of with metaphysical certitude.
So simmer on those points and see of you can drag Aaron kicking and screaming all the way to the point that he can see for HIMSELF that there is no over unity in a coil discharging through a resistor and a diode. He can take a relay and energize the coil with five volts and then put his tongue across the contacts and then disconnect the battery and feel the "compressed time potential" for HIMSELF.
You can try to go forward and accept some input from the skeptics, or fail completely and totally because Aaron doesn't know his ass from his elbow when it comes to oscilloscopes and electronics and how energy works. As far as I am concerned Aaron and his flock are like ignorant and illiterate peasants living in the Dark Ages. Serfs that never see more than the plot of land that their Lord has rented to them to work all their lives in an attempt to pay off their debts. Myself and TK and .99 and others are trying to shed some light on you.
I know that my prose was harsh and not politically correct, that's life.
MileHigh
i feel so silly. i understand now. you are a wonderfully magnanimous trinity.
you said it yourself, no one believes a skeptic, take your own advice and stfu.
oh yeah, why am i picking on you guys? i know that's the burning question your type always tosses out there. perhaps i am hoping the allegedly 'erudite' crowd will get the hint. you outlined the futility fairly well in your last post, but i am reasonably sure there will be another 50 pages of useless ladies aid chit chat and neither 'side' will have converted any from the other. but go on, you can 'save' them, i know you can ::)
Quote from: poynt99 on August 08, 2009, 02:47:40 PM
You're right bud, I have nothing ;)
Now run along please and go play with all the other inebriated ones, bless their soggy souls :'(
.99
indeed, nothing but a simulation.
LOL i think i'll stay. it's fun, you have lots of kids games here...
From Rosemary:
1 -Re the 555. .."It CANNOT be adjusted to make the shorter duty cycles using the component values specified."
I cannot comment here. All I can assure you is that we used switches that could enable the required duty cycle.
2- I have NEVER discussed the MOSFET. I cannot understand your point here. Certainly this was never discussed. You simply stated it as fact. It is not true. The duty cycle applied to the switching circuit is as claimed in the publication.
3 -Evaluations of the oscillations were determined by experts - not by me. This includes a guarantee from Fluke that the numbers associated with those oscillations were correct. And Aaron has only withdrawn a video that relates to the HF sounds associated with resonance.
4 - The quantum article and the IET (Institution of Engineering and Technology) are indeed the same experiment. The difference between the two is that the paper submitted to the IET included the diode parallel to the load - as I wanted to emphasize the recharge cycle. This may possibly have been a mistake. But as the paper was not published it really does not matter. The only reason we duplicated the experimental data and apparatus associated with the Quantum publication is because I have the written consent to associate the accreditors names in relation to that publication. It may have been difficult to rally their interest again 8 years after the initial publication. This is the more so as it seemed that in many cases, personnel associated with those tests have changed.
5 - This is simply not true. Many replications were done by all those associated with accreditation - with the possible exception of one instance where the test was demonstrated rather than duplicated by the accreditors. It is precisely because of this that I was not able to get their full reports. Had I paid for the reports I may have been in the happy position of demanding them I did not know enough at the time of advancing the replications that I should also have demanded their test results. And 'vetting' certainly does not apply to calibrations of measuring instruments. What nonsense.
I would add here that - to a man, and notwithstanding the lack of their reported results - they required that the test be evaluated by academics in order to explain the results - which could hardly be considered anomalous as they were also replicable.
6 - I do not want people to think that I have a patent. On the contrary. I am most anxious to advise everyone that I do not have one. And have done so on every reference to this that there is no patent. It was in the introduction to my blog. But I also assure you that I was invited to register a patent at the expiry of the period where the patent was published for the public to lodge any prior claims. That documentation is on record. And if you doubt this too - then check with the patent authorities. Their correspondence to me is on public record.
But I've told you all this. I've proved it where possible. Why do you insist on these premises to your argument TK? When you know they are not true? It continually amazes me that you are still arguing the points that I have continually refuted. Is it because you assume that I am simply a liar? To what end? That I can enjoy this debate that rages through the internet? I will tell you that I do not 'chase' the media. I'm essentially a retiring person. That I put this forward was done after some real internal debate and dialogue between this natural inclination and the desire to discuss the model. The latter interest prevailed. Do you think that I could also enjoy reading your atrocious account of my character through every posting you put your name to? My stomach knots every time I read yet another one of your attacks. You are a dedicated bully - a kind of reckless thug who uses every possible talent - which is clearly quite considerable - to incinerate my name - my knowledge and my passionate interest in physics. To what end? Why all this time and effort?
I would have thought that if you are truly attempting to validate my experimental claims you would simply repeat the test conditions as required, and then post your results to deny them or approve them. Why does it also necessitate the absolute requirement to attack me at so many levels? Are you just naturally inclined to hurt other people. Or do you reserve this unbridled attack because I've presumed to challenge conventional knowledge regarding over unity constraints? I've said this privately to Oc and I'll say it publicly here. I think you're simply the playground bully whose taken trolling to new levels of expertise in order to entertain an audience.
But I'll hang in here. At least until Aaron either manages to prove or disprove the claim. In a strange way you represent a kind of closed minded malice that is the antithesis of everything that I hold dear. And I'm braced, of necessity - to your next attack. It will follow as day follows night.
Oh come on guys...zero point/quantum is the cause that has created everything...it is a different energy and was well created without beginning and without end so it will last forever...if you doubt this go have a good look at the time domain...it will prove that.
The universe recycles it's self endlessly...the electron that does not dissipate proves that...it is the divine law of give more out than in and is a miracle that only god him self in the deep blue knows.
This sort of stuff needs a serious attitude...to look at the bigger picture...conventional em knowledge does not fit this kind of stuff..so it is like blindly pokeing a cow up the backside so to speak.
Best to study cavitys or get something to read about it...because rf knowledge with cavity knowledge will help you succeed better...some peoples approach to this is like..pfft.
But then thanks to the hoaxs that have done this damage and as i can read peoples minds through the vibe/influence...well ......everyone needs to be open...but being flamed for being open is not for the win...you have got to have a very very close look at it..to see the obvious...don smith pdf will help you to understand it.
Really only claiming that this works is not enough really...you have got to have a video exposeing everything so people watching it know you are not hideing something....yea well that is what it takes for people to do it.
People are interested in the money..but really it has all been done before and look at what most people are using until you admit going the money route does not go really far in regards to get everyone to use it.
Don't treat is as complex it is like not knowing how to draw a star...really it is simplistic..if you study these things take the key points..then understand it your own way but study the key principles that was suppressed..or study something near it...like cavitys because that is what overunity really is all about really..it is a catalyst.
I'll tell you something the universe is a intelligent being...and zero point/quantum is basicly cavity effect...this zero point interacts with everything..since is sustains it...if you see the cavity effect in everything...it is even working in nature it's self really as it is like part of the universe magnetic/electric system.
I have been able to make it rain faster...even stop it...cause lightings...even a huge thunder rumble and it is very dangerous...like as if you sang to the sun or something you think about the effect when the sun comes out and it makes a slight noise in your area...or you feel the effect of it coming out...yea your body is like connected to the earth in a way and your soul...if you think it does not work regarding this..then it does not...if you think it has an effect then it does...do or do not really :/...it deals with the subconscious..well that should prove it> http://www.life-enthusiast.com/twilight/research_emoto.htm ...sick thoughts will make you sick by the way..but i see it more broader realisticly.
If you look at this the Gravity effect...these overunity devices work with neutral centers and i mean NEUTRAL..is there anything neutral about this...ooo i bet you that there is...because it how the universe works...if your lost ...take a good look at the neutral center..or neutrons..
Take this for example it works around the 'NEUTRAL CENTER' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut6FVjKMrBo i can't hear any motors...oh go to the new section and click on more pdfs...i put some good e-books there...and read the one about keely.
If we have issues regarding who's who harti berlin should have a system where is shows you near the user name or something so everyone can see everyones ip address but only shows the first two or three numbers and the read x'd out like 82.xxx.xxx.xxx
If your not going to do that..then how can you work this one out?
Quote from: MileHigh on August 08, 2009, 03:23:34 PM
Wilby:
I have seen you around but I can't seem to recall any of your postings. I don't want to prejudge you but I would not be surprised if your typical posting is something like "Great build!", "It should show great gains!" or "Cool!"
For the "stfu" - get your jackboots and brown shirt and report to "Doc" Peter Lindemann. Just hope and pray a "Night of the Long Knives" never happens!
MileHigh
wow nice rebuttal. assumption, conjecture, the usual... LMFAO nice guess, wayyy off. again, typical.
try looking at the first page of this thread. how do you fit that big head up your anus like that? there's nothing more humorous in my book than seeing someone trip over his own tongue... ::)
do you really think you are going to convert even one of 'them'? seriously? same goes for 'them'.
you're all wasting your time, and after 90 pages it looks pathetic i might add.
as i told agent99, i'll stay, it's fun you guys play kids games all day long. ::)
Willie, who really needs your low-class trash-talking swagger? Are you contributing? Watch me play the game: What does the "F" mean? Bye-bye Willie. Bye-bye Willie be good.
Quote from: MileHigh on August 08, 2009, 03:47:38 PM
Willie, who really needs your low-class trash-talking swagger? Are you contributing? Watch me play the game: What does the "F" mean? Bye-bye Willie. Bye-bye Willie be good.
how does your response address any of my points? ::)
are you contributing? ::)
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on August 08, 2009, 03:29:23 PM
wow nice rebuttal. assumption, conjecture, the usual... LMFAO nice guess, wayyy off. again, typical.
try looking at the first page of this thread. how do you fit that big head up your anus like that? there's nothing more humorous in my book than seeing someone trip over his own tongue... ::)
do you really think you are going to convert even one of 'them'? seriously? same goes for 'them'.
you're all wasting your time, and after 90 pages it looks pathetic i might add.
as i told agent99, i'll stay, it's fun you guys play kids games all day long. ::)
It is best to study the old stuff...learn the bigger principles from books like keely and take points from it...this zero point/quantum is something that speeds up all the time...and it's speed is instantanous...no matter the distance...faster than light speed...it is the backbone for everything in a way.
Kid games on this forum is stupid...i'd rather keep quiet and not remove doubt that i am a fool...but this is what i am certain with here...i studied this stuff regarding all of it around the internet and i just told you the basicly principle..sure some things are not clear but trust me it deals with what i said above..if you really want a overunity machine..well those are the keys...sure science goes into more detail but when i read stuff about neutons...yea :/...it is like dna, zero point is very fast and does not stop speeding up...the dna is like a level off that does not change..zero point even interacts with your bodys Dna...the principles of the universe is vortex.
I've read about...how electrical stuff effects your cells...they can harm them or heal them...the bodys electric is like bio electric...if you put your finger tips to gether and get that tingling sensation...and then put that towards a pyramid you might do something quite ....if you knew how to do it...hard to put it in words.
There is just about enough stuff on the internet for you to study...use rapid share or bittorrent...or torrentscan.com and search for books..or scribd.
I paid for this book and also paid for it to get it scanned because i thought it would be nice for it to be on the internet :D.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18237593/Universal-Laws-Never-Before-Revealed-Keelys-Secrets
People need to be on the same page...study tom bearden...why the hell has a guy who got discplined in the military go on about overunity is there...you really ought to know that the military takes no sh&* what so ever and it stays with you for a lifetime.
When i was at school and got shouted by someone who served in the military...they really DO SHOUT.
TK, (or is Kata Ellison) your confidence on the matter has given me pause despite the apparent lack of empathy toward Rosemary's negative experinces with regard to this.
If you wish to part with the G50's you should still have the address of the safe house down by the river on file somewhere. UPS knows that location, but FedEx always gets lost - so if you use FE, PM the TN :D I'll do my best to correctly measure the events correctly ;)
Cheers,
8)
Hey TK,
I watched your new clip and it is very informative: Electric OU: Boiling Water and Fluke-0-Scopy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7zQdplnCA8&feature=channel_page
Anyone that is curious about the differences between analog CRT display and digital LCD display oscilloscopes should study your clip.
Anyone who is interested in seeing what Aaron was alleging was "resonance" in his removed "resonance demo" clip, have a look at TK demonstrating Moiré patterns starting at 2:10. Aaron made a six minute clip where he mistakenly thought that the Moiré patterns he was looking at demonstrated some sort of "poly-frequency resonance" effects.
This is Aaron's comment about the issue, "MH may for once be right about something about it being refresh rate on the scope."
Nice try Aaron, your choice of language is not quite right, but we can read between the lines and know what you were trying to say. It's something about too many spikes generating patterns on the display because you are trying to draw them with a limited number of pixels. It is related to the timebase setting, which is more or less like saying "refresh rate on the scope."
Oops - I see there is an Aaron cameo that was just posted:
QuoteDoes anyone know of an online calculator for coil inductance for nichrome wire?
Anyone with any basic electronics knowledge would know that the type of metal used in the wire of an inductor is of no real significance. (Armagdn03 picks up some Brownie Points!!!)
MileHigh
---
Epilogue from Joit!!!
Aaron, Thanks for the Answer, i know about the Diode, lol.
With the Diode, you get Charge for the Batterie and lesser Heat,
Without the Diode, you get more Heat and lesser Charge.
Nothing to confuse, lol.
I think, all this Calculators are only made for Copperwire,
maybe the Factor for nichrom against Copper can help to calculate it.
!Muchas Gracias Usted Joit!
Rosemary:
QuoteI would add here that - to a man, and notwithstanding the lack of their reported results - they required that the test be evaluated by academics in order to explain the results - which could hardly be considered anomalous as they were also replicable.
I think that they could be considered to be extremely anomalous, especially since not a single replicator will get OU with the possible exception of Aaron. However, unless Aaron gets his act together, he will forever be "challenged" and his results will have to be thrown out.
You are very welcome for teaching Aaron that his method of measuring the power through the coil-resistor using the DSO to measure v-squared/R would not work. Just think, if I did not go over that issue with Aaron, there is a good chance that the entire week with the DSO would have been completely ruined. Peter Lindemann would probably not have noticed either. Again, you are very very welcome.
Your whole pitch about your "experts" doesn't smell right. It seems to me that whenever you are in a tight spot, you always make reference to your "experts." Perhaps Jimmy Stewart knows him?
However, for me, the really stinky one about you is when you said some something like, "We have letters from Fluke Instruments attesting to the fact that the measurements are accurate for our waveform."
No way Rosie, not a chance.
I have worked in the tech industry for more than 25 years and Fluke would never do that. They would roll their eyes when that kookie request came in. It simply would not happen and the first time I read that statement from you, I knew that there was something wrong. I am not even going to go into the reasons why.
And trust me, someone talked their way into getting a loaner 15-year-old Tektronix DSO as long as you were willing to pay the shipping both ways. I can assure you that there is a very good chance it would get yanked back in a heartbeat if a paying customer was found to rent it out to. There is absolutely no question about that whatsoever. Freebie zero-potential "onesie" "customers" are at the very lowest wrung on the totem pole and merit almost zero consideration in the operations of any tech enterprise.
I read .99's scenario and agree with it completely. I can envision a long-shot alternative scenario:
A couple of replications come in and they all show COP < 1. Aaron is the last one to report in, and after much struggling he finally manages to get some valid data and it shows COP < 1. Yea Aaron! That will be your cue to take flight and vanish. End of story.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on August 08, 2009, 07:13:01 PM
Oops - I see there is an Aaron cameo that was just posted:
Anyone with any basic electronics knowledge would know that the type of metal used in the wire of an inductor is of no real significance. (Armagdn03 picks up some Brownie Points!!!)
MileHigh
Your statement is correct but needs expanding.
Anyone with a basic electronics knowledge and using basic electronics circuitry should be safe by assuming there is no real difference between metals of low resistance, as long as the metals are not ferromagnetic/paramagnetic.
Compare two coils, one of copper and the other iron with all other parameters the same. If there isn't much wire length you are almost 100% correct. Start adding turns and one factor that is used to calculate inductance (resistance) starts throwing things out of kilter. Keep going and the iron wire starts effecting inductance in almost the same way as an iron core.
I'm not trying to defend anyone. I've just spent a lot of time experimenting with 'nonstandard' coils and have seen these and other effects.
Quote from: MileHigh on August 08, 2009, 09:40:11 PM
I have worked in the tech industry for more than 25 years and Fluke would never do that. They would roll their eyes when that kookie request came in. It simply would not happen and the first time I read that statement from you, I knew that there was something wrong. I am not even going to go into the reasons why.
this is the real world milehigh, you have to back up your statements with a logical explanation. isn't that what you said?
Quote from: MileHigh on August 07, 2009, 06:07:31 PM
This is the real world Aaron, you have to back up your statements with a logical explanation.
or do you hold yourself to different standards? don't answer, it's a rhetorical question, and the answer is obvious...
@milehigh
QuoteI think that they could be considered to be extremely anomalous, especially since not a single replicator will get OU with the possible exception of Aaron. However, unless Aaron gets his act together, he will forever be "challenged" and his results will have to be thrown out.
LOL, you seem to be in a very big hurry to discredit this and move on. You know I have worked months on a single circuit fine tuning every component,every element until it was just right. It is also documented that Moray, Tesla, Hendershot and others had spent 20 years to perfect circuits and here you are all hot and bothered because things are not happening as you would like them in the first few weeks--very strange.
QuoteHowever, for me, the really stinky one about you is when you said some something like, "We have letters from Fluke Instruments attesting to the fact that the measurements are accurate for our waveform."
No way Rosie, not a chance.
I have worked in the tech industry for more than 25 years and Fluke would never do that. They would roll their eyes when that kookie request came in. It simply would not happen and the first time I read that statement from you, I knew that there was something wrong. I am not even going to go into the reasons why.
Fluke is a very reputable company that is based on the quality and accuracy of the measurement tools they build. I have owned and been involved with more than a few companies and if any employee of mine told a customer that they could not guarantee the quality or accuracy of a product I would have them fired on the spot--not only is it bad business, it is corporate suicide as word of mouth travels at near light speed in the business world. As well all measurement tools give statements of accuracy on all modes of measurement and I'm guessing they would probably guarantee that accuracy considering the fact they have printed it in every freaking manual of every unit they have ever built, what you suggest is absurd.
AC
Wilby and AC:
I think that she was referring to a digital multimeter and not a scope, at least that was what I was thinking when I wrote that. Whichever it is, you sell a meter to an engineering company and you expect the engineers using it to be competent and understand it's limitations. You are not going to bow-tow to a ridiculous request to certify that your piece of equipment can properly measure an unknown waveform that's part of their development project, even if they fax or email it to you. It's simply ridiculous and you are letting your company be held accountable to a paper trail that you have zero interest in becoming part of. Who knows what the ramifications of that could be in the future. It's a ridiculous request that would not even cross the mind of a competent electrical engineer anyways. The Fluke sales person or apps engineer taking the call would politely decline getting sucked into a paper trail for an unknown onesie customer. That's the way it is. Rosemary's request would be treated like "noise."
Now if General Electric was considering buying 5000 of your measuring devices for some application and wanted some assurances that might be a different story. The next step would be to have GE send you the device that they want to use your meter on and go from there.
So yes, something definitely did not smell right there with Rosemary.
MileHigh
"I have worked months on a single circuit fine tuning every component,every element until it was just right." - I am not surprised at all AC.
P.S.: Me llamo Irving Shmitzelheimer-Poppanickallopollous :)
@milehigh
QuoteI think that she was referring to a digital multimeter and not a scope, at least that was what I was thinking when I wrote that. Whichever it is, you sell a meter to an engineering company and you expect the engineers using it to be competent and understand it's limitations. You are not going to bow-tow to a ridiculous request to certify that your piece of equipment can properly measure an unknown waveform that's part of their development project, even if they fax or email it to you.
Ok, I understand the context now, I forgot about the control techs I have to deal with and their issues,LOL. If your referring to any DMM trying to accurately measure any transient effects like in rosemary's circuit well that's a pipe dream. I have enough trouble finding adequate DSO specs let alone the DMM's which I would agree have severe limitations even on upscale true RMS models, basically anything outside the context of DC and domestic AC starts producing errors at a major rate, it's all bad.
AC
From Rosemary:
Thanks for the video Aaron. Yet again, it seems that I need to apologise. The published circuit clearly does not cut it and TK's complaints about the design appear to be valid.
So - let me again apologise to TK. Abject apologies about this. It does seem that the circuit design was erroneous and your comments regarding this were valid. I should, indeed, have had the circuit checked before publication.
And apologies to all those who built that circuit. The only thing that I can assure you is that the design is erroneous - not our test results. Hopefully Aaron can tweek the circuit to get the duty cycle function up to par - and yet hold onto that oscillation. It's just so much in line with our own findings here.
Sorry TK. Abject apologies. But run with that 'wrong' switch. It should, at its least, give the required waveform oscillations.
-----
My vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoQD0N3k1Jw
---
I've now tried a variety of inductors and inductive resistors and cannot see anything but the normal spikes expected from these. I've tried gate resistances up to about 10K but still no oscillations that Aaron describes.
Hoppy
Hoppy,
I wanted to comment on the waveforms that you posted yesterday but did not get around to it. You put in a much larger inductance and therefore you only we able to see a snippet of the exponential waveform because the time constant became much much larger. To get back to "normal" you would have had to slow down the clock by about 10X and then the familiar pattern would be visible again.
QuoteI've tried gate resistances up to about 10K but still no oscillations that Aaron describes.
Aaron still has not seen any oscillations himself but thinks he has, simply because he is unable to properly drive his oscilloscope in interpret what he is looking at. He made another clip today and through the whole clip his scope disply is intermittently flipping back and forth between very narrow spikes and another pattern. He never makes a serious attempt to stabilize the display so whatever he was looking at was inconclusive. Aaron being Aaron, he pays almost no notice to this major problem and plods on.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on August 08, 2009, 03:23:34 PM
Wilby:
I have seen you around but I can't seem to recall any of your postings. I don't want to prejudge you but I would not be surprised if your typical posting is something like "Great build!", "It should show great gains!" or "Cool!"
For the "stfu" - get your jackboots and brown shirt and report to "Doc" Peter Lindemann. Just hope and pray a "Night of the Long Knives" never happens!
MileHigh
The "wilby" bot is just a troll. The recent posts are exactly representative of his usual posts. You may safely put him on your "ignore" list as he gets stuck on single topics and will go on wasting pages and pages on them.
Quote from: qiman on August 08, 2009, 03:24:32 PM
From Rosemary:
1 -Re the 555. .."It CANNOT be adjusted to make the shorter duty cycles using the component values specified."
I cannot comment here. All I can assure you is that we used switches that could enable the required duty cycle.
Then don't. Everyone who has built it using the specified components knows that I am right. Except maybe for Joit, who is still learning how to bake cakes.
Quote
2- I have NEVER discussed the MOSFET. I cannot understand your point here. Certainly this was never discussed. You simply stated it as fact. It is not true. The duty cycle applied to the switching circuit is as claimed in the publication.
Wrong again. There was quite a long discussion and several videos concerning the duty cycle and the voltage at the mosfet drain, and we all remember it even if you don't.
Quote
3 -Evaluations of the oscillations were determined by experts - not by me. This includes a guarantee from Fluke that the numbers associated with those oscillations were correct. And Aaron has only withdrawn a video that relates to the HF sounds associated with resonance.
So you say. Let's see a report.
Quote
4 - The quantum article and the IET (Institution of Engineering and Technology) are indeed the same experiment. The difference between the two is that the paper submitted to the IET included the diode parallel to the load - as I wanted to emphasize the recharge cycle. This may possibly have been a mistake. But as the paper was not published it really does not matter. The only reason we duplicated the experimental data and apparatus associated with the Quantum publication is because I have the written consent to associate the accreditors names in relation to that publication. It may have been difficult to rally their interest again 8 years after the initial publication. This is the more so as it seemed that in many cases, personnel associated with those tests have changed.
I refer to the paper as the EIT paper because that's what the link on your website calls it, and that's what the .pdf file is named.
It may be difficult to rally interest about a device that "they" acknowledge to be 17 times overunity? Yeah, right.
Quote
5 - This is simply not true. Many replications were done by all those associated with accreditation - with the possible exception of one instance where the test was demonstrated rather than duplicated by the accreditors. It is precisely because of this that I was not able to get their full reports. Had I paid for the reports I may have been in the happy position of demanding them I did not know enough at the time of advancing the replications that I should also have demanded their test results. And 'vetting' certainly does not apply to calibrations of measuring instruments. What nonsense.
I would add here that - to a man, and notwithstanding the lack of their reported results - they required that the test be evaluated by academics in order to explain the results - which could hardly be considered anomalous as they were also replicable.
I remind you and everyone else that you have produced ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that anybody has even looked at your work, much less confirmed it.
What nonsense, indeed.
Quote
6 - I do not want people to think that I have a patent. On the contrary. I am most anxious to advise everyone that I do not have one. And have done so on every reference to this that there is no patent. It was in the introduction to my blog. But I also assure you that I was invited to register a patent at the expiry of the period where the patent was published for the public to lodge any prior claims. That documentation is on record. And if you doubt this too - then check with the patent authorities. Their correspondence to me is on public record.
More "innocent protestation." I invite anyone to look at the threads on Naked Scientists Forum where you are discussing your "patent" with EEs and others who actually do have ISSUED PATENTS in the semiconductor industry. It is obvious to me that these people believe they are talking to someone who also has an ISSUED PATENT and you do not disabuse them of that idea.
Ditto me. I'll bet you that if I had not insisted on the issue, there would still be people that believe that you have a patent, when you don't.
Quote
But I've told you all this. I've proved it where possible. Why do you insist on these premises to your argument TK? When you know they are not true? It continually amazes me that you are still arguing the points that I have continually refuted. Is it because you assume that I am simply a liar? To what end? That I can enjoy this debate that rages through the internet? I will tell you that I do not 'chase' the media. I'm essentially a retiring person. That I put this forward was done after some real internal debate and dialogue between this natural inclination and the desire to discuss the model. The latter interest prevailed. Do you think that I could also enjoy reading your atrocious account of my character through every posting you put your name to? My stomach knots every time I read yet another one of your attacks. You are a dedicated bully - a kind of reckless thug who uses every possible talent - which is clearly quite considerable - to incinerate my name - my knowledge and my passionate interest in physics. To what end? Why all this time and effort?
Yep, you are a liar and distorter of facts. For example nobody has ever implied or intimated that I am "a technician involved in the repair of oscilloscopes." So the whole train of your distortions--using clients' scopes, etc, is a ridiculous distortion and straw man. In other words, a LIE that you wish people to believe about me. Just for a single example. There are many others.
Quote
I would have thought that if you are truly attempting to validate my experimental claims you would simply repeat the test conditions as required, and then post your results to deny them or approve them. Why does it also necessitate the absolute requirement to attack me at so many levels? Are you just naturally inclined to hurt other people. Or do you reserve this unbridled attack because I've presumed to challenge conventional knowledge regarding over unity constraints? I've said this privately to Oc and I'll say it publicly here. I think you're simply the playground bully whose taken trolling to new levels of expertise in order to entertain an audience.
But I'll hang in here. At least until Aaron either manages to prove or disprove the claim. In a strange way you represent a kind of closed minded malice that is the antithesis of everything that I hold dear. And I'm braced, of necessity - to your next attack. It will follow as day follows night.
I am not attempting to "validate" your experimental claims. That, believe it or not, is not how science is done. I am trying to invalidate them. If I (or someone with greater skill and knowledge) cannot, despite my best efforts, then and ONLY then should anybody pay attention to them at all. Falsification, or the inability to falsify, is at the core of the scientific process. But you are only concerned with "VALIDATION" so attempts to invalidate, when successful, to you look like failure and attack. You really should grow up, it is about time.
You will recall, if you look back and if Aaron hasn't deleted the posts, that I pointed out the 555 error and asked some questions, and you and your cronies immediately attacked me for being the typical debunking skeptic. I respond when I am attacked, and as I looked further into the matter I began to see certain patterns of prevarication and mendacity.
Well, you clearly had no idea with whom you were trifling. I have the ability to pursue this issue, PASS OR FAIL, all the way...all the way. If there was anything at all to your claim I could make the entire world stand up and pay attention, and you would see your brightest dream come true before your eyes. On the other hand, if your little toy can't make it past my preliminary vetting, there's no reason at all to embarrass anyone by inviting it into the laboratories with which I am connected, for real work.
The entire stack of junk that I used to show that your device is in no way OU or unusual in its behaviour, cost about 500 dollars. The most expensive single bit was the batteries, which I purchased especially for you. The digital oscilloscopes are legitimately borrowed by permission from and with full knowledge of their owner, and I certainly am not a "repair technician" nor am I qualified to attempt repair of anything like the LeCroy.
The last time I checked, what I choose to do with my time and my money is entirely my business, and if I choose to make any part of it "public" as I have done with my work on your toy, that too is entirely up to me. I have no "handlers" or bosses in this matter, although there are certain individuals who are watching this story unfold, with great amusement I hope.
So, Rosemary, once again you have posted incorrect statements, distortions, accusations and innuendo. But you have NOT posted any original data, any reports from independent vetting, any corrections of the errors pointed out, and you and your crewe have NOT posted anything like OU results. It's all been a wild goose chase, and the goose isn't even a goose.
EDIT to add: I see now that we have an "abject apology" from Rosemary, after nearly, what, TWO MONTHS, for the "incorrect" circuit diagram of the 555 timer in the Quantum article. Never fear, Rosemary, the simple addition of a 2n2222a transistor and a couple of resistors is sufficient to flip the output, without significant distortion, and I'm sure anyone who cares has done this long ago. I know I have. Lindemann's more complex circuit isn't necessary--unless you want those "oscillations". The Quantum circuit is pretty clean if you give it enough input voltage.
Of course, you get the best spikes with a "really" clean pulse, like from a pulse generator.
And, no, I do not accept your insincere "abject" apology, Rosemary. I have taken literally weeks of flack over your "delegation of understanding" and your poor vetting of your own publications, and even to this very day my finding about that damn 555 circuit is being questioned, by people who really should know better. So, no, just a post from you, abjectly apologising in an insincere way, doesn't smooth my ruffled feathers at all. I see it as just another lie from you.
Aaron:
A few comments on your resonance treatise:
QuoteIt is a synchronization in the circuit plain and simple. With all resistances, impedances, etc... taken into account, the circuit will be at a resonant frequency when everything is timed right... charging coil discharge, etc... impedance of battery, etc...
Ahhh.... that's an incredibly crude description. The simple description is that resonance in a circuit is when it naturally oscillates at some frequency determined by the capacitance and inductance and active components.
QuoteBasically, we know the SG type circuits find their own resonant frequency for the most part. Yes, there are the sweet spots, but the wheel spinning gets up to speed and the speed sits at wherever is the exact perfect timing for everything it its own circuit taken into account. Magnet spacing, coil, battery, transistor switching, etc...
It is an example of SELF ORDERING. That is resonance.
When the SG circuits self oscillate, it finds its own frequency according to the above.
Here you are off by a country mile. The final speed of an SG motor is based on energy in and energy out being in balance. The motor will spin at a speed where the energy being supplied by the pulsing power coil is in balance with the energy being burned off due to friction in the bearings and air resistance.
Indeed it finds it's own rotational frequency but it is due to the energy balance, and has nothing to do with resonance in terms of its accepted definition.
Change the voltage for a resonant circuit, and the resonance frequency does not change. Change the voltage for a Bedini motor, and it speeds up and finds a new balance point.
"I can see clearly now the rain has gone."
QuoteDepending on gate resistance, frequency, etc... the aperiodic pulsing is an indication in and of itself that it is pulsing in resonance and it is not a steady frequency...it will stay close to the same frequency (the pulsations) but not exactly because in reality, with nature's perfect imperfections, the frequency is FUZZY
I think that something else is FUZZY. You can have metastability implying that a circuit can randomly jump around between a few different resonant frequencies. Or you can have "standard" resonance at one or more fixed frequencies.
The rest of your posting is like the "resonance demo" clip that you took down where you were looking at Moiré patterns and thinking you were looking at a some kind or multiple frequency resonance phenomena. In both cases you generate verbage but not much else.
QuoteEven without oscillation, the circuit can show a gain (over 1.0 COP).
With oscillation, much more.
TELL US *WHY* AARON THAT YOU GET "MUCH MORE" WITH OSCILLATION.
Stop ignoring the question, inquiring minds want to know. If you don't answer then everybody will conclude that you have no idea why and are just saying it because it "sounds right."
Step up to the plate AARON.
MileHigh
Hey Joit!
QuoteAnd Mr. MH Weisenheimer knows of course, that there is no different at all Wires, because he did hundrets of practical Tests with different Materials,
because Doctor Know-all is our best. You wish. MH
GET IT. YOU NEVER WANNA AND WILL GET OU. DROP A EGG OVER YOUR THREAD THERE.
CLOSE IT, LOCK IT. IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE FOR YOU. AND YOU KNOW IT.
I can almost see you jumping up and down in frustration! lol
For weeks now you have been attacking the skeptics so I was just "playing ball" with you, have some fun!!
You know how a movie has a "tag line"? For example the tag line for the movie "Titanic" is "Nothing On Earth Could Come Between Them."
I have a *great* tag line for the Energetic Forum and I am asking you to pass it onto Aaron.
"Like Singapore on Acid."
Isn't that great? Just think about it and it should make some sense to you.
Have a good day Jumping Jack Joit! (Did you bust a button on your trousers? lol)
MileHigh
Quote from: allcanadian on August 09, 2009, 12:19:07 AM
@milehighLOL, you seem to be in a very big hurry to discredit this and move on. You know I have worked months on a single circuit fine tuning every component,every element until it was just right. It is also documented that Moray, Tesla, Hendershot and others had spent 20 years to perfect circuits and here you are all hot and bothered because things are not happening as you would like them in the first few weeks--very strange.
Fluke is a very reputable company that is based on the quality and accuracy of the measurement tools they build. I have owned and been involved with more than a few companies and if any employee of mine told a customer that they could not guarantee the quality or accuracy of a product I would have them fired on the spot--not only is it bad business, it is corporate suicide as word of mouth travels at near light speed in the business world. As well all measurement tools give statements of accuracy on all modes of measurement and I'm guessing they would probably guarantee that accuracy considering the fact they have printed it in every freaking manual of every unit they have ever built, what you suggest is absurd.
AC
Actually it is very interesting to look at the story of who certified what and when. According to the only PUBLISHED work available, the vetting and certification was pretty thin and tentative. But as Rosemary has been describing it over the past 3 months in various forums it becomes more detailed and confirmatory...but there are NO reports, nothing but "Rosemary says."
Would you accept that level of "proof" from, say, TinselKoala? I don't think so.
The two pix below are the only published references to the independent vetting or measurement confirmations or calibrations, whatever you like to call them.
Aaron is finally realizing that inductance can be calculated from physical dimensions.
Although the wire material does make a difference, the better calculators allow for insertion of core and wire permeabilities.
Here's one inductance calculator that's fairly useful:
http://www.technick.net/public/code/cp_dpage.php?aiocp_dp=util_inductance_calculator
And, IIRC, when I first brought up the issue SEVERAL WEEKS AGO I thought I included a link to another one, that I used in my initial computations concerning the numbers in Ainslie's papers.
Quote from: Harvey on August 08, 2009, 05:14:57 PM
TK, (or is Kata Ellison) your confidence on the matter has given me pause despite the apparent lack of empathy toward Rosemary's negative experinces with regard to this.
If you wish to part with the G50's you should still have the address of the safe house down by the river on file somewhere. UPS knows that location, but FedEx always gets lost - so if you use FE, PM the TN :D I'll do my best to correctly measure the events correctly ;)
Cheers,
8)
I'm glad you've been given pause. Now, with the addition of Grace, perhaps you'll make progress.
We are skirting very close to some edges here. I was wondering about your defense of Rosemary, and when I saw where she got her parts I began to wonder even more.
Hey TK,
QuoteAlthough the wire material does make a difference, the better calculators allow for insertion of core and wire permeabilities.
That may indeed be true. However, the key point to consider is how much of a difference the choice of wire makes in your calculation. A common mistake made in these forums is to fail to distinguish between what's significant and what isn't significant. Its all about being cognisant of the orders of magnitude for various effects.
I'll just invent a hypothetical example: Two coils with the same dimensions, but one coil is made with a different wire material and the gage of the wire is slightly different. Suppose the percentage difference in inductance between the two is 0.0000000007%,
That means that just the form (a.k.a. path) the wire takes at the end of the coil, will have several orders of magnitude more impact on the inductance than the wire material and the gage.
And BOTH of these differences will have almost no impact on the operation of the circuit, and you will not be able to distinguish any difference in the waveforms as you probe around with your scope.
The bottom line is that Aaron's question was bogus, another time when Aaron was demonstrating his "just past beginner status" in electronics.
See Rosie, we can disagree around here. Meanwhile, it looks like you are losing your composure. The only question is are you going to go out gracefully or crash and burn when nobody can get a COP > 1. I suppose that you can blame it on your "experts" before you delete your Energetic Forum cookie and stop responding to emails.
MileHigh
TK
Having dealt with test labs most of my life,I cannot believe it possible even a small lab would let anything go out the door that was not 100% accurate.
And then a claim like this? ,From a Big ass lab!!
The scrutiny would have been meticulous !!
SOMETHING IS REALLY SCREWY HERE!!
But that's why your here.
Chet
Quote from: Aaron;63928
1) All claims the spikes will damage the mosfet and that the ringing should be stopped (FACT - this mosfet IRFPG50 is designed EXACTLY for this kind of application)
2) All claims that the spike would be too small to be significant (FACT - on a decent circuit the voltage is 4 times the input voltage, it charges batteries or caps - it is VERY significant)
3) All claims that when the mosfet is off, the battery cannot conduct and therefore won't receive a charge (FACT - the diode in the mosfet allows just this exact current conduction as it is designed to do this!)
1) You are correct in that a "ruggedized" (i.e. avalanche rated) MOSFET can take the hammering. However, it's not quite correct to state that they were "designed" to be used this way. In fact using a MOSFET as an avalanche device is not very efficient. There are better devices (such as the diode version) that should be used for avalanche applications, such as pulse generators and voltage suppressors.
In general, active devices such as MOSFETs, BJT's etc, aren't "designed" for any specific application (yes there are exceptions). If for example you know that the switch in your application will experience periodic pulses exceeding it's rated VDS, then yes it would be a very wise choice to use an avalanche-rated MOSFET for this application.
2) The energy in the kickback pulse through the flyback diode (causing current to go back into the coil or external battery) is equal to the energy stored in the inductor prior to the switch opening (turning OFF), minus the energy loss in the inductor's resistor (10 Ohms) and the energy loss in the flyback diode itself. The fact that the voltage is higher than V+ is obviously good if we want to charge a battery, but the voltage itself is not an indication of the energy available in that pulse. When you load that pulse down (as you do when charging a battery), the voltage will drop quite a lot.
3) I have already identified the possible current paths through and around the MOSFET when it is OFF. These are via capacitances in and around the MOSFET. In the case where the flyback diode is removed, and there are large kickback spikes hitting the MOSFET, then the voltage would have to be in excess of 1000V (for the IRFPG50) to cause reverse breakdown of the body diode (actually a NPN transistor) and thus allow conduction current for the battery. From what I've seen in all the tests done by Aaron and TK (and my sims) the kickback voltage is well below 1000V.
.99
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 09, 2009, 11:08:47 AM
The "wilby" bot is just a troll. The recent posts are exactly representative of his usual posts. You may safely put him on your "ignore" list as he gets stuck on single topics and will go on wasting pages and pages on them.
like requesting that you use the specified components? how did that turn out for you again? oh yeah you were wrong, and i was right. furthermore it shows that you care little about correct and proper methodology...
This one came first:
Quote from: Aaron;63961When I brought up one wire charging. You and MH both were quick to jump on the false idea that all one wire charging must be AC.
In either case, after that soap opera on that subject, you and MH were basically pointing out the false claim that "there is no ac on this circuit" so it is irrelevant.
But it turns out with the diode in the mosfet allowing reverse current, there is ABSOLUTELY AC in this circuit plain and simple.
I'm still trying to put together exactly when where and how I said or implied anything regarding AC present or not present in the RA circuit.
The only mechanisms by which current can pass through or around the MOSFET D-S, are by parasitic capacitances, channel capacitance, body diode capacitance, and by avalanche breakdown of the body diode. In order to break down that body diode in the reverse direction, it's going to need to see at least 1000V from D-S. Now this is not even going to happen if the flyback diode is present across the coil. The Drain to Source voltage is always positive in this circuit, which means the body diode is never forward biased. So this only leaves the capacitances in and around the MOSFET, and they do allow spikes to reach ground potential and hence a spiky reverse current, so in that sense there is AC current in this circuit. The vast majority of the current however (about 99%) is pulsed-DC current.
Aaron's (and most everyone else's) circuit probably exhibits much more reverse spiking due to the higher inductance as compared to the resistor used in the RA circuit.
.99
Aaron has agreed with Harvey on Energetic forum who has said that a circuit having a COP > 17 is a bit different than saying the circuit produces more energy than it consumes. Who would like to come forward and define exactly what 'a bit different' actually means in this context?
Hoppy
Quote from: poynt99 on August 09, 2009, 01:50:21 PM
1) You are correct in that a "ruggedized" (i.e. avalanche rated) MOSFET can take the hammering. However, it's not quite correct to state that they were "designed" to be used this way. In fact using a MOSFET as an avalanche device is not very efficient. There are better devices (such as the diode version) that should be used for avalanche applications, such as pulse generators and voltage suppressors.
In general, active devices such as MOSFETs, BJT's etc, aren't "designed" for any specific application (yes there are exceptions). If for example you know that the switch in your application will experience periodic pulses exceeding it's rated VDS, then yes it would be a very wise choice to use an avalanche-rated MOSFET for this application.
2) The energy in the kickback pulse through the flyback diode (causing current to go back into the coil or external battery) is equal to the energy stored in the inductor prior to the switch opening (turning OFF), minus the energy loss in the inductor's resistor (10 Ohms) and the energy loss in the flyback diode itself. The fact that the voltage is higher than V+ is obviously good if we want to charge a battery, but the voltage itself is not an indication of the energy available in that pulse. When you load that pulse down (as you do when charging a battery), the voltage will drop quite a lot.
3) I have already identified the possible current paths through and around the MOSFET when it is OFF. These are via capacitances in and around the MOSFET. In the case where the flyback diode is removed, and there are large kickback spikes hitting the MOSFET, then the voltage would have to be in excess of 1000V (for the IRFPG50) to cause reverse breakdown of the body diode (actually a NPN transistor) and thus allow conduction current for the battery. From what I've seen in all the tests done by Aaron and TK (and my sims) the kickback voltage is well below 1000V.
.99
Hi poynt99,
I'm not aware that you may have seen this from "International Rectifier" Application Note AN-1005 -
Power MOSFET Avalanche Design Guidelines this has some good information everyone might like.
http://application-notes.digchip.com/014/14-15377.pdf
Also another good one from "Advance Power Technology"
Understanding the Differences Between Standard Mosfet's and Avalanche Energy Rated Mosfet'shttp://www.nalanda.nitc.ac.in/industry/appnotes/APT/APT9402.pdf
Regards,
Fuzzy
:)
Ramset:
QuoteAnd then a claim like this? ,From a Big ass lab!!
The scrutiny would have been meticulous !!
SOMETHING IS REALLY SCREWY HERE!!
Exactly. If this effect was real and was observed it would have become world wide news eight years ago.
I will quote the line that that comes from the laws of thermodynamics that the believers hate, "It's impossible."
On a simple practical level this circuit is nothing more than a coil in series with a resistor in series with a diode. Somebody connects two wires of a battery to start a current flow through the coil and the resistor. Then they remove the wires and the coil discharges through the resistor and the diode.
That is all there is.
And when I was 12 years old, my father took me to a circus, the greatest show on earth.
There were clowns and elephants and dancing bears.
And a beautiful lady in pink tights flew high above our heads.
And so I sat there watching the marvelous spectacle.
I had the feeling that something was missing.
I don't know what, but when it was over,
I said to myself, "Is that all there is to a circus?"
Is that all there is, is that all there is?
If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep dancing.
Let's break out the booze and have a ball.
If that's all there is...
Welcome to the Rosemary and Aaron circus.
There is no shortage of clowns.
MileHigh
One scope shot of RA circuit without the flyback diode (now the accepted version?)
Note no avalanche possible based on this simulation. Peak Drain voltage is only about 88V, and that is from Drain to GND. It will be a few volts less from Drain to Source.
Main purpose of this scope shot is to clearly show (by conventional analysis) that the ringdown current present in the supply battery or source is AC, meaning that it's net average current measured inside the battery is zero. Notice the red trace "0A" and the oscillatory wave form equally above and below the zero line as the current rings down.
.99
Thanks FT. Good docs ;)
.99
.99:
Thanks again for your efforts. Some interesting colour commentary: This graph clearly demonstrates the relationship between the voltage and the current in an inductor.
v = L di/dt (the voltage across an inductor is proportional to the rate of change of current with respect to time)
It's very clear starting at 849 nSec where the exponential drop in current causes an exponential rise in voltage. The first derivative with respect to time of exp^(t) is exp^(t).
Note that "exp" is the base of the natural logarithm = 2.7182818.... (on to infinity)
Then when the oscillation starts you can clearly see that they are 90 degrees out of phase. The first derivative with respect to time of sin(t) is cos(t). (which is equal to sin(t + 90 degrees))
I am simplifying things and forgetting the shunt resistor and probably have some polarities wrong but the key point is to try to understand what v = L di/dt means. Your graph plots current as a function of time, i(t), and voltage as a function of time v(t).
Hence.... <drum roll>......
v(t) = L di(t)/dt.
You just drop in the equation for i(t) and then calculate the first derivative of that equation with respect to time which gives you a new equation that's also a function of time. Them multiply the new equation by the value of the inductance to get a new equation for v(t).
The first derivative of i(t) with respect to time is just the slope of the i(t) plot. You can easily eyeball the slope of the i(t) plot and see how that generates the v(t) plot.
Great job!
MileHigh
Aaron: Care to comment? Is this in the realm of your experience? (ha ha - just rubbing it in to illustrate how ridiculous your comments were about me not knowing what I was talking about. Stick with "compressed time potential" and using your tongue or try to really understand what is going on, your choice)
MH, you seem to forget: While you and I and .99 and Hoppy and Henieck and lots of others of us were sweating through those years of Calculus classes, solving stacks of problems nightly, sitting weekly quizzes and monthly exams, Rosemary--and probably Aaron, from the sounds of it--were pursuing less "relevant" educational pathways. Until last week Rosemary thought "integration" was somehow opposite to "apartheid", and no doubt Aaron still believes that derivatives are bought and sold in financial markets.
TK:
I have this funny image in my mind of an "Energetic Science Practitioner." Something akin to Dan Aykroyd suited up in "Ghostbusters." What they do I have no clue but the funky hardware they are carrying is interesting to look at.
There are modular plug-in slots on their backpacks. They give Aaron $299.99 for various "Mind Energetics Power Modules" (MEPMs) and are then even more energized to practice "Energetic Science." They eye each other on the street to see who can boast that they are carrying the most MEPMs in the plug-in slots of their backpacks.
If you have a full compliment of MEPMs on your backpack, you qualify for the "Tony Robbins" bonus "Super-Power" pack that fits on top of all the MEPMs for only $499.99. It's a mind-e_x_p_a_n_d_i_n_g experience.
Finally, if you get at least eight people to sign up to become "Energetic Science Practitioners" and they collectively purchase at least 50 MEPMs form Aaron, then you get.......... <drum roll>..........................
A Veg-O-Matic!!!!
Yep.... Yep.....
P.S.: Henieck, I hope that you are still reading. You got kicked off the forum by the despot because he and his cronies refused to believe that the coil stores the energy supplied by the battery. I think that one has been pounded into Rosemary and Aaron's' brains after 26 attempts. Too bad you are not still around, you seemed like a nice guy. Remember - "Like Singapore on Acid" and you had a bad trip.
Now what happens if we keep all other parameters identical, but increase the inductance by a factor of about 200x up to a value of 1600uH? (1.6mH).
We see that the power draw from the battery is ramping down to the point of switch-off (about -5.75W), then immediately reverses direction at a slightly less peak value (~4.2W). It looks like almost all the energy that came out of the battery is going back in as charging. Of course the subsequent ringdown energy has a net of zero as mentioned before.
This at first glance may seem quite encouraging to the new-agers, and even perhaps some classicists, but at closer inspection you can see that the area under (or inside) the top triangle (returning energy) is somewhat smaller than the area under the bottom triangle (energy leaving the battery). The difference between these two amounts is actually what went to the load as heating energy as shown in green. There is also energy being dissipated in the MOSFET and 0.25 Ohm shunt as well, but it is insignificant in comparison to the load dissipation. For illustrative purposes, they were not included in this shot.
.99
Hey .99:
Great plot again. I think that I am seeing it differently than you. The large inductor gives you the nearly straight line for the increasing battery power because the current is increasing in a nearly straight line, due to the fact that the time constant is so much longer now. So the first green hump is the power burned in the coil-resistor during the MOSFET on time where the nearly straight ramp is occurring. It resembles a y = x-squared curve which all makes sense.
Then the MOSFET switches off so the second smaller green hump is a small amount of the coil energy being discharged in the coil-resistor. What you don't see of course is the much larger amount of energy being discharged through the MOSFET. I am assuming that there is a drain-source DC leakage resistance as part of the MOSFET model.
The key thing in this case is that with a much larger inductor most of the battery energy is going into the coil during the initial ramp-up, and a relatively small amount of energy is being dissipated in the 10-ohm resistor.
So the end of the second green hump is telling you that the main bulk of stored energy in the coil has fully discharged, where most of it has blasted it's way through the poor MOSFET. The energy blasted through the MOSFET is much larger than the measly second green hump for the 10-ohm resistor.
Finally you are in ring-down mode, and as you show there is a very limited amount of remaining energy being burned off during this phase in the resistive part of the coil-resistor.
Great sheww!
MileHigh
P.S.: If I am right, throwing in the plot of the MOSFET power dissipation in yellow would be cool. Not that I would ask you. lol But it might give Aaron a sobering moment.
MH.
SPICE unfortunately does not include real models for inductors. The inductor model is an "ideal" inductor, so the user must insert his own series DC resistance and parallel self-capacitance.
So for all inductors I use an ideal inductor in series with a resistor. In the RA case, it is a 8.64uH inductor in series with a 10 Ohm resistor.
When I showed the instantaneous power in the load, it is for the 10 Ohm resistor only, as this is the dissipative component in the "model".
Is this not correct? (I believe this is valid and correct). If it is correct, then what you see in green is the instantaneous power of the 10 Ohm resistor part of the model only, not the inductor. Since we are only concerned with heat dissipation, I assume this is correct. This is then compared to the NET power of the battery. MOSFET power can be plotted as well. It has a quite large narrow spike of power in both directions.
We see what appears to be a lot of energy coming from the battery, but the trick is that most of the energy in this case is being stored in the inductance part of the model, it's not being dissipated. What I show in green is the energy that IS going towards heat dissipation in both phases. The energy not dissipated in the resistive part of the load, is stored then returned back to the battery as shown, even though the MOSFET is in an "OFF" state and no flyback diode is present.
It is interesting to note that although the battery power rings in accordance with the inductor ringdown, this ringdown contributes almost zero power (very small ripple) dissipation in the resistive component of the load, and hence no appreciable additional heat.
.99
From Rosemary:
TK - Your 'ability to pursue this issue, PASS OR FAIL' and 'all the way'...repeat ...'all the way'. Frankly I'll pass on this. I would be sorry if it were you - of all people - to 'make the world stand up and pay attention'. And it would not make my brightest 'dreams come true' if you were in any way associated with this circuit unless it's to debunk it.
If I thought that there were any truth in the claims and I depended on someone like you to promote it - then I'd definitely have thought twice before putting it out there. I have no respect for your judgement, your experimental abilities or your character. And anyone with any discernment would think the same. It is my opinion that you're a monster. And I know of one video demonstration that is a complete lie from beginning to end.
Whether the circuit is right or wrong - I'm happy to leave Aaron to determine this. And if it's wrong I am entirely satsified that he's man enough to admit it. And if it's right - then he's also more than competent to develop it and to progress it. I suspect that your rash pleasure in demeaning me as you do - will yet come back to bite you. I've said it before and I'll say it again. You're the playground bully and your 'gang' are sadly trying to imitate you. All they manage with startling effect is to parade that same delusions of intelligence and power that you seem to enjoy.
And my apology was for the record. It was never intended to 'smooth your ruffled' On the contrary I prefer them to stay just as they are - ridiculous, small minded and petulant. Of course I knew you would not accept the apology. To do so you'd need something of the character of a gentleman. That description isn't even in your frame of reference.
Rosemary,
I am not in any way speaking for TK, but let me give you my spin on things.
I was not kicked off the entire Energetic Forum site for bad behaviour, I was kicked off for standing up to Aaron, plain and simple. One too many times he dismissed my questions about his proclamations, and tried to twist the meaning of my questions in an attempt to make me look "stupid." So I called Aaron out on that and made a posting that said that very fact. I exposed Aaron's behaviour for all on the thread to see and he didn't like that at all. Of course that posting was deleted by Aaron. I was having fun with some of the users about Michael's water heater project and said "My lips are sealed" in a posting. Then Aaron made a short posting to the effect of "I'll make sure of that." Ten minutes after that my account was deleted by Aaron and he deleted his nasty little posting.
So your hero Aaron had a hissy-fit because I was asking him to back up his statements and I explicitly told him to stop attempting to state that my questions were "irrelevant" and then twist the meaning of them in a pathetic attempt to impugn my intelligence. In other words, unacceptable behaviour by any other user except for the user Aaron, the Big Cheese. So what say you Rosemary?
QuoteWhether the circuit is right or wrong - I'm happy to leave Aaron to determine this.
He has clearly demonstrated over and over that he does not have the skill set to do this. I also think that you secretly believe this too but feel hopelessly trapped and have no other choice at this point in time but to go with the flow.
QuoteAnd if it's wrong I am entirely satisfied that he's man enough to admit it.
You have got to be kidding. You are as astute as anyone else around here and you can clearly see that he almost never admits his mistakes and when he does he is in a total spin zone. Look at the example of the v-squared/R incorrect power measurement. Aaron pathetically tried to "lecture" me to go the thermal route after "forgetting" that there is an inductor in the coil-resistor.
QuoteYou're the playground bully and your 'gang' are sadly trying to imitate you.
You had better open your eyes and look around and find the real playground bully around here. I don't think that you are completely blind.
QuoteAll they manage with startling effect is to parade that same delusions of intelligence and power that you seem to enjoy.
That is so completely and utterly pathetic Rosie baby. I think that inside you are completely mortified at how this is going down and turning into a complete fiasco. Almost every attempt to correct a mistake made by either you or Aaron degenerates into a pitched battle where Arron "has his story and he is sticking to it." Instead of being willing to entertain other options and look into them, there is absolute refusal. Then finally when you or Aaron realize that you were totally wrong, there is stony silence and then things move on. That is how the bully in the playground reacts when he or she makes a huge mistake, stony silence.
QuoteI have no respect for your judgement, your experimental abilities or your character.
Based on the evidence, you should be directing that opinion at someone else.
So that's it Rosmary. I think that you are absolutely mortified at how this has gone down and you are more and more uncomfortable about Aaron "leading" this project and being associated with him. The big thing that the two of you have in common is your severely lacking understanding of electronics and test equipment. I can sincerely understand it in your case, but in the case of Aaron I have to assume that he has been working with electronics and scopes for the past eight years that he has had his web site, and he appears to be "barely above beginner" status. That would imply that he is learning at a glacial pace.
Enjoy the rest of the ride. We will see how it works out when the DSO arrives. Based on the experience so far, it's possible that it will turn into a complete disaster. You are welcome again for me saving the day with the v-squared/R error and writing out the proper method for using the DSO in a posting a while back. You are very very welcome. I would have to assume that you are secretly relieved that I did that and you are crossing your fingers that Aaron and Peter will use it. It's no fun living in a police state, is it? I made a suggestion for a tag line for Aaron's site, "Like Singapore on Acid." I think it fits, you just have to comtemplate it for a few seconds.
Let the tragicomic farce continue. Too bad you will be nervous and squirming all the way instead of engaging with other people and learning and having fun at the same time. Like I said, there is a 0% chance of this setup showing "over unity" anyway.
Peace out,
MileHigh
Quote
If I thought that there were any truth in the claims and I depended on someone like you to promote it - then I'd definitely have thought twice before putting it out there. I have no respect for your judgement, your experimental abilities or your character. And anyone with any discernment would think the same. It is my opinion that you're a monster. And I know of one video demonstration that is a complete lie from beginning to end.
Fortunately the people that signed off on my university degrees and the people who now are signing my paychecks don't agree with you. And their opinions matter far more than yours.
Your opinion is worth nothing to me, Rosemary. You call me a monster--that's pretty harsh. All I've called you is a foolish old uneducated prevaricating hypocrite. And you call me a monster! Better be careful, if I had feelings you might hurt them.
My video is a lie from beginning to end?
Which one is that, Rosemary? I have been wrong about some of my conjectures, which I have freely admitted when I have discovered my error or it has been pointed out to me. But I have never knowingly lied to or about you. Please provide a link to this video which you say is a lie from beginning to end.
Then, in turn, I will provide links to Aaron's videos, so you can see what real misinformation looks like. And I will provide link after link to you referring to your "patent."
By the way, has anyone built Aaron and Peter's little joke circuit here? I have. And that's one reason why I continue to stay very pissed off about this crew of jokers and liars.
I don't know if Rosemary knows at all what she wants and who she wants in "control". Her and Aaron seem to be at odds half the time. She wants me to remain in the EF thread, while Aaron is just waiting for me to slip one more time so he can boot me too. What I don't understand is why he doesn't just do it? ???
He and Rosemary appear to read this thread at OU just as much as they do their own, so since I am allowed to speak freely and truthfully here (not that I am implying I ever intentionally lied to them or tried to mislead them on their thread), I might as well just post here.
It's pathetic what Aaron did to MH over there. The problem is you can't rationalize with paranoid, irrational individuals. It's a classic case of "artsies" vs. "tech-heads". They'll probably never see eye to eye being from opposite ends of the spectrum.
I sometimes wonder why an artsie would venture into techy territory and presume to teach him the err of his ways ??? I would certainly not be lecturing a brain surgeon how wrong his techniques are and that his education was a complete waste of time.
Oh well, it's a free world...sorta. Each to his own.
.99
@poynt99
QuoteIt's a classic case of "artsies" vs. "tech-heads". They'll probably never see eye to eye being from opposite ends of the spectrum.
I sometimes wonder why an artsie would venture into techy territory and presume to teach him the err of his ways ??? I would certainly not be lecturing a brain surgeon how wrong his techniques are and that his education was a complete waste of time.
I have always considered myself to be both artist and engineer and I am in fact, I have often wondered why people purposely segregate themselves and others to justify their own individuality. As well most every tech I know personally has little or no artistic side, they know what they have been taught and little else, they have no grasp of the abstract whatsoever. I have a tech education but that counts for very little if nothing here, my greatest insight was found by researching the masters Tesla, Faraday, Gauss, Amphere, Maxwell, Einstein ect...---not from a textbook or a professor but from their original works in their own words. If you did this you would understand just how creative and artistic all of them really were in fact. All your tech is the product of their "creative" genius, the inventor in them wanting to resolve the unknown so I would disagree with your thoughts in this respect.
Regards
AC
No problem AC.
I have talent in the arts as well, and I agree, a clever invention or amazing design is as artistic as any beautiful painting. Technology and creativity not only can co-exist, they must co-exist.
I also know a lot of artistic people that have no logical or technical side. Maybe they're what would be referred to as "spiritual entrepreneurs". LOL.
.99
Art and technology are complimentary for sure. The best art is enabled and informed by technology, and always has been, from the first Neandertal who selected a pointed stone to bore a hole in a seashell, all the way up to today's electronic musicians, and beyond. And technology is even driven by art and the demands of artisans. Design links tech with art in humanly comprehensible form.
One thing that distinguishes the Artist from the hack, is that the artist working in a technological medium, or using tech tools, generally has a fairly high degree of understanding of the medium and the tools. The art of Ansel Adams comes to mind. In the hands of a true artist the medium, however technological, becomes utterly transparent, and all that is seen is the artist's vision itself. When you look at an Adams print, you see a photograph for sure; that's one of the points of the exercise...but you see what Adams uses a photograph FOR, which is to let you see a tiny glimpse for a brief moment of what he sees.
What you don't see, unless you are specifically looking for it, is the hours of lens grinding, the mixing of chemicals, the sweat on location and in the darkroom, the hundreds of discarded plates and internegatives and prints...in short, the Mastery of the highly technological medium of photography. Ansel Adams didn't have his snapshots developed at the One-Hour Photo by someone who thought that photons are just retarded Antitruants.
But what we are dealing with in the Ainslie case is, I believe, more akin to a Cargo Cult than to art or design.
Certainly it isn't technology, it only uses the trappings of technology and science, to erect a hopeful but internally bogus structure in the hope of attracting the notice of some strange John Frum who will use their structure to save the world.
And there is no sense of mastery of tools or media, just cobbled together bits of technological flotsam that sort of look like technology but don't do much more than dissipate energy.
Yes, I think the Cargo Cult metaphor is very apt, now that I consider it.
Like a landing strip in the sand of a distant island's beach, the Ainslie circuit looks real from the air, and some people from the island will swear that you can land there, and that fuel is available, and so forth...then when you do land you find out that the control tower is a thatched hut on bamboo stilts, the "radio" woman has coconut shells for headphones, the "fuel" is buckets of salt water, and by the time you get back to the aircraft someone's stolen the tires and the radios and you're stuck, on an island, with a bunch of people who believe in zipons and antitruants, and they are looking hungry, and some of them are building a fire and dragging over a big pot...
I see from dipping into the last two pages of the energetic comedy thread that Harvey is getting involved.
@Harvey: I encourage your efforts, because I believe you know how to use an oscilloscope, and when you build the circuit for yourself (let me know if you really can't find a mosfet, bearing in mind that it will be international shipping if I send you a couple) when you build it, I say, you will be able to see for yourself that Aaron continues to spread disinformation because of his lack of understanding of what his scope is showing. His most recent scope shots are more of the same non-oscillation garbage that he has been showing all along. But you do not have to take my word for it. You know how to use a scope--and it's your time to waste, so go for it. But when you are done, I will refer you back to this thread and the other one.
Do you see that people over there are posting results that I have reported nearly two months ago, and are acting surprised about them?
Now, I see that there is still some discussion about the 555. The very easiest way to "correct" the situation, if you really need to, is to install a NPN transistor like a 2n2222 on the output as an inverter. One transistor, two resistors, and you are done. The output flips exactly with very very little distortion. I believe .99 or one of the other experienced builders suggested this early on, and I installed it long ago on my hardwired timer board.
Does it make a difference, being able to use the 555 circuit at 3.5 percent ON, finally, instead of the other circuit Aaron came up with, or the other ERRONEOUS circuit in the picture I posted above, from Peter L. that also makes incorrect claims? Or instead of a FG or pulse generator?
Not really too much, but some.
I have tested now 1) the F34 FG; 2) the original 555 circuit; 3) Aaron's first toy circuit; 4) the Aaron-Peter joke in the picture above; 5) yet another 555 timer circuit; 6) the DataPulse DP-101 5ns risetime pulse generator; and 7) the original 555 with the transistor inverter.
There are detectable differences; as anyone with REAL ELECTRONICS KNOWLEDGE could predict, the faster cleaner drive pulses produce the best effects: Less heat in the mosfet and more in the load, and higher voltage spikes, and if desired longer ringdowns. Which means that the DP-101 works the best, with the f-34 next best, and the 555 variants just not so good, because of their slow rise times and lack of stability.
I also see that .99 has simulated the reflected power, and is able to show higher reflection efficiencies than I was able to get with the LeCroy demo,where I estimated 1 to 10 percent reflection back to the battery. I'd call that a good result, considering the experimental difficulties in making the realworld measurement with real components.
It's really "too bad" that all that reflected power comes from the battery in the first place.
(Oh, and Aaron: on your calculation of the inductance for the Ainslie resistor: You don't need to assume thick wire at all (the thick wire will screw up the resistance anyway, and the wire turns can be spaced, after all) The wire on resistors like that can be ribbon or flat wire, and in fact flat ribbon is often used when it is desired to limit self-inductance. Do you understand now why your statement that your Ohmite resistor's inductance is too LOW, was so ridiculous in light of Rosemary's original claim?)
Quote from: poynt99 on August 09, 2009, 08:01:48 PM
I don't know if Rosemary knows at all what she wants and who she wants in "control". Her and Aaron seem to be at odds half the time. She wants me to remain in the EF thread, while Aaron is just waiting for me to slip one more time so he can boot me too. What I don't understand is why he doesn't just do it? ???
{snip}
.99
You've become the "token skeptic"-- you know, the "house" skeptic as opposed to the "yard" or "field" skeptic, who might perform a valuable function but who would never be allowed into the mansion. The "house" skeptic is clean and relatively polite, whereas the "field" skeptic is likely to track mud onto the expensive fake Persian carpet. And use the begonia as a spittoon.
Righteous mud, but still mud. Righteous spit, but still...
There's another category, the "kitchen" skeptic, who is allowed to eat the scraps from the main table and chat with the cooks, but is free to come and go as he pleases, usually as a merchant or tradesman, keeping his own counsel...I think Harvey might be in this category.
QuoteAnd if you're finding your pickings lean - then it's probably because you're not opening your eyes to what's actually on offer. For that you need the liberal use of your Fluke 123 and all its functions. How about it TK? Just one video and exclusively with probes across the shunt - at the 3% you now claim you can get.
Still having trouble getting your story straight, I see. YOU first mentioned using a Fluke 123 on the Naked Scientists forum, and had to be reminded that the Quantum article and the EIT paper said it was a Fluke 199. No matter, I have BOTH at hand. When you decide which one you used, let us know.
My videos showing the artifacts that Aaron mistakes for "resonance" and "oscillation" were done with the Fluke 199, but I can get out the 123 if you really need me to.
And I am using the monitoring points THAT YOU SPECIFY EXACTLY in your Quantum paper and your EIT article. I have checked several times. So for you to now move the goalposts and criticise me for using the "wrong" points is, shall we say, somewhat disingenuous.
Since, after all, I ALWAYS do show a trace taken directly across the shunt. Monitoring point "B", remember? Like in your papers, remember? Like in ALL my videos ... remember? Like in the recent one where I show Aaron's Moire artifact on the Fluke 199 monitoring directly across the shunt, and also in the LeCroy video where I show the overall energy flow, and where you first added "integration" to your vocabulary...remember? Each and every one, I show a scope trace taken directly across the shunt.
No, let's be clear: To imply in any way that I have not shown a scope trace from the shunt is another one of your damn lies and distortions.
And I have always been able to produce any duty cycle I needed. Remember? It is YOUR circuit published under YOUR name SEVEN years ago that is WRONG and is unable to produce what the publications claim.
I have an adjustable function generator AND a fast rise-time pulser, and I know how to use them. And I understand 555 circuits pretty well too, since I have been designing and using them for many more years than I care to recall.
There are no shadowy "claims" in my work, Rosemary, only solid repeatable data, and I include sufficient detail in my reports for anyone who cares to, to repeat the results for themselves. And, lo and behold, all who have, have confirmed my results.
Where is the confirmation of your results?
Well Rosmary's prose has lost almost all of its feminine charm, nary a "giggles" in sight, and it's sometimes downright nasty.
This reminds me of the movie "2010" where the Cold War flares up again and the American and Russian space crews retreat to their respective space ships. We are communicating back and forth with two tin cans and a length of waxy string.
There will be no Black Monolith to save the day unfortunately. Inductors are not "magic", they don't get extra energy from the vacuum or from zippons, its all a fantasy.
Special note to Aaron: Bedini motors are not COP >1 devices. You have simply been deluding yourself all these years because you cannot understand. What's your plan for the DSO measurements and please explain why "resonance" in the circuit will make it "work better", still waiting for you to answer that.
The funny thing is with human nature being what it is we are at the point were Aaron with flat-out refuse to tell us how he is going to use the DSO. He is probably afraid to post it because he fears that his mistakes will be pointed out yet again, or "he will be attacked" depending on your point of view.
The real biggie about Aaron is the fact that he makes aggressive sales pitches to advance his agenda and the believers are afraid to ask him to back up his statements. Of course everybody would like to know why the "resonance" will make the circuit "work better." The truth is that Aaron has no explanation whatsoever for why this allegedly would be the case. Therefore he will refuse to answer the question right to the bitter end. Nor has he demonstrated any "resonance" at all, his "resonance" demos have been inconclusive. Singapore on Acid man, take a hit and speculate about inductors in yellow and green, towering over your head. Just watch out for that big wind-up ass whacker if you get out of line. <insert a smiley-face emoticon expressing pain here >
We can always try reverse psychology since we are getting nowhere: Hey Aaron baby! We are not interested in knowing your test plan when you get the DSO, who friggin' cares!!!
MileHigh
@MH: Aaron's test plan will be one that demonstrates to all us fools that he does indeed have OU in whatever device he chooses to test. Curiously, none of us will be able to repeat his measurements or calculations. You may put this prediction into a sealed envelope and open it when Aaron announces proof of OU from his digital scope.
@Rosemary and the rest of her crewe: I know you all have trouble with my videos; maybe it's the south Texas accent or the fact that I often forget my audience and use technical terms like "integration" or "instantaneous power waveform", for which I apologize. Just as sincerely as you apologize to me. But never mind: in the video linked below you may simply "cut to the chase" and start viewing at 1:09. Hopefully you will not seek to castigate (or perhaps castrate) me for calling the voltage on the B trace "600 milliVolts" instead of its true measurement of slightly less than 500 mV. You will note, I hope, that I am showing, ON THE FLUKE 199 DSO, the trace obtained ACROSS THE SHUNT RESISTOR on the "B" trace of the scope...JUST AS I ALWAYS DO and ALWAYS HAVE DONE.
(Those are shouts, by the way, to overcome the evidently dense medium between facts and Rosemary's brain.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7zQdplnCA8
TK:
Yes I agree, it is amazingly easy to discover over unity when you want to find it and you don't know what you are doing. My analytical engineering side still cringes when I see all of those ridiculous battery voltage before-after tests that everybody does. I found a great posting on this forum that was plucked from Sterling Allen's site about Lutec and I will have to find it and post it because it really illustrates the point. I hope that Gotoluc is listening.
.99:
I was tired yesterday and so today returned back to the discussion about your recent power waveform plots in post #1021. I honestly can't explain how you get a quite significant pulse of return power going back into the battery when you have no fly-back diode and a much larger inductor. Don't worry about it though, please don't feel obliged to drop more probes and all that. You still have net discharging as you pointed out and I am burned out on the subject.
A fun question about PSpice: Can you ask it to integrate on any waveform? Like for example integrating on the ring-down power through the 10-ohm resistor?
MileHigh
GAHH!!!
It never stops with this madwoman.
Quote
I don't always find your links because I don't always get access to your forum? or is it your thread? Either way.
It is the 123 Fluke - but you're right. I always get them confused. Sorry.
The positioning of the probes as per the diagram is with the use of the dual channel showing the both waveforms across both the load and the shunt simultaneously. In which case the waveform is inverted.
First, your papers say you used a Fluke 199C ScopeMeter. Second, see the video linked above. The probes are positioned as specified and as they always ARE AND HAVE BEEN for two months now, and as they were for the LeCroy energy flow calculation video.
Third, the waveforms shown are NOT inverted. Up is positive, down is negative voltage. You do not understand waveform inversion or oscilloscope displays and you continue to make that abundantly clear. Perhaps your confusion lies in the distinction between positive and negative flows of CURRENT as conventionally depicted, versus the flows of ENERGY back and forth in the ringing and spikes. Or perhaps the explanation is that you simply refuse to educate yourself because you know it all already.
And zeroeth, it is neither my forum nor my thread. I have absolutely no control over anything that goes on here, except for my own postings.
Your difficulties in accessing this forum are entirely your own problem.
Hey All,
The Lutec report in all its glory is reported below.
I would like to highlight two key points for Aaron and Gotoluc:
KEY POINT #1
QuoteThey assumed that the battery terminal voltage would decrease linearly as the battery was used.
KEY POINT #2
QuoteUnfortunately, battery terminal voltage is almost flat for perhaps 90 percent of the battery capacity, before it drops off rather steeply for the last 10 percent of it's capacity.
CONCLUSION:
Can you please stop all of these riduculous battery voltage before-after tests and spread the word to all of the other experimenters? You are going to have to develop a strategy for running battery charge-discharge cycle tests to make ENERGY measurements to derive any useful data for all of your experiments. This will be much more time consuming and much harder to do.
Colour commentary: This posting if made on the Energetic Forum would get my ass booted off right away. Such is life in a police state. :) :) :)
MH
-------
Quote: http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Lutec1000/
Rosenthal and Cole
Report by Sterling D. Allan
March 8, 2003
Engineers, Walt Rosenthal and Parke Cole were invited to measure the Lutec1000 in January 2001.
Their measurements showed results that showed 28% efficiency.
The exchange was amendable, despite the negative test results.
Rosenthal stated, "I walked them through the calculations carefully so they would understand,
but they didn't want to believe the results." Test entailed a dynamometer measuring output the motor,
powering with power supply from wall producing DC volts, optical shaft encoder on end of shaft to measure rpm.
Results showed 50 Watts power going in and 14 Watts equivalent of mechanical power coming out.
After receiving the above synopsis, Walt Rosenthal added the following:
Report by Walt Rosenthal
(recorded March 8, 2003)
The inventors would start with fully charged batteries for the demonstration.
They assumed that the battery terminal voltage would decrease linearly as the battery was used.
So, after using the battery for, say, 30 minutes, they would again measure the battery terminal voltage,
and subtract this value from the start voltage, then multiply that difference voltage times the known amp-hour
capacity of the battery bank, to come up with their assumption of the total energy consumed from the battery bank.
Unfortunately, battery terminal voltage is almost flat for perhaps 90 percent of the battery capacity, before it
drops off rather steeply for the last 10 percent of it's capacity.
Parke Cole and I tried to explain this to the inventors. I am not sure we succeeded.
We were about the 15th group of people to show up on their door step after they went public.
We were the first people to bring our own test equipment.
The inventors said that the first people to show up were the Russian Mafia.
Our bottom line was 50 watts of DC power input, which resulted in 14 watts of rotary mechanical power output.
I hope the inventors have improved their device from where we tested it so that it now matches their statements of it's performance.
End Quote:
It's not a trivial problem, for certain.
This article may be useful, for those with eyeballs to see.
http://www.mpoweruk.com/performance.htm
and
http://www.mpoweruk.com/soc.htm
Also interesting:
http://batteryuniversity.com/partone-16a.htm
and further at that site.
Hi MH
QuoteCan you please stop all of these riduculous battery voltage before-after tests and spread the word to all of the other experimenters? You are going to have to develop a strategy for running battery charge-discharge cycle tests to make ENERGY measurements to derive any useful data for all of your experiments. This will be much more time consuming and much harder to do.
sorry to but in
could this problem be solved by using capacitors instead of batterys
at least when testing for OU ?
cat
TK:
I took a glance, very hot links.
Alas, almost all of the people that play with batteries are not even aware that with a few load resistors and a voltmeter you can make some quick measurements to calculate the output impedance of a battery at a given charge state. That would also be incredibly useful information about the state of health of the battery. That is the essence of the "battery check" function on a typical multimeter.
Calculating the value of the "invisible resistor" inside the battery is too hard for most of the experimenters unless you give them the exact formulas.
I mentioned this issue to Aaron a few weeks back but I have to assume it flew right over his head.
Ok, sorry for the off-topic stuff. Back to the real subject: I want spikes! Spikes! Spikes I tell you! lol
MileHigh
Cat:
Great question. In a nutshell, using a very large capacitor to simulate a battery and then measuring how much time it takes to drop from say 13 volts to 12 volts is a way to give you an accurate power consumption for the device under test. This will compensate for any arbitrary current consumption waveform from the load and also factor in any power being returned to the capacitor from the device under test. Some math has to be done to compensate for the dropping voltage.
So, you can get a very accurate power consumption measurement that a standard and possibly even a "true RMS" multimeter would not be able to do. That might help you in your testing for OU.
MileHigh
P.S.: There is a way to make the "dropping voltage" problem go away, and I posted what that setup is like on Aaaron's Ainsley thread about two weeks ago.
Hee hee. Yersss, Cat, and if you should happen to manage to accidentally short-circuit that very large capacitor, you will find out what very low internal resistance really means. Ever drop a wrench across a car battery? Imagine that, times about a tenth of the battery's output impedance.
It's a good idea, just be careful with capacitors, they will eventually bite you and they do bite hard.
But come on, if the energy returned, per cycle, is always and forever measurably less than the energy "lead out" per cycle, there isn't any mystery...no recharge, just slowed discharge.
So the issue dissolves back to the original one: does the slowed discharging battery still produce an anomalously high level of heat? So far, the answer is no.
A question: Does the COP calculated by Rosemary's method actually increase, the longer the test is run?
(And if Kemo-Sabe wantum Spikes, him try 2sk1548 buffalo chip, on a heatsink. Gettum plenty big spikes, much wampum too. )
@milehigh
You are correct about the inaccuracies of battery measurement, they will hold their voltage to near the 90% discharged mark as stated and then fall flat on their face. Input/output power measurement to and from the circuit is the easiest way to know where you stand assuming the volts/amps are relative, trying to measure HV/HF output relative to a low voltage DC input is not nearly as easy as it sounds in fact it's a nightmare. As well caps on input/output have many issues ESR, max current ratings, inductance, the caps need to have comparable properties as well as the power charging/discharging them.
AC
QuoteQuote from: TinselKoala on August 10, 2009, 01:46:43 PM
Hee hee. Yersss, Cat, and if you should happen to manage to accidentally short-circuit that very large capacitor, you will find out what very low internal resistance really means. Ever drop a wrench across a car battery? Imagine that, times about a tenth of the battery's output impedance.
It's a good idea, just be careful with capacitors, they will eventually bite you and they do bite hard.
Thank's for the warning Tk
as I live on a boat with no shore power. I have spent a long time on batteries
and tested them with a drop tester many times when they were old
anyway it's always good to give a warning we don't want those ambulance chasing lawyers after us
cat
AC:
Your comments about capacitors are true. I am always thinking in terms of the KISS principle in that for my specific "simulated battery" example the ESR and other properties can be ignored when working with a typical Bedini motor or other typical experimenter setup on a bench.
Rosemary:
QuoteI have no idea what the actual rms voltage is across the load
I am going to assume that you are interested in the RMS voltage across the load to calculate the power being dissipated. The "load" of course is the "coil-resistor." How many times Rosemary do you have to be told that you can't use RMS voltage, and the power dissipated across the coil-resistor is voltage AND waveform/frequency dependent? We must have tried to get this fundamental concept through to you at least 50 times, and it still doesn't stick and you are apparently back at square one.
Quoteit's 10 volts, then that's hardly enough to boil water, assuming that the load is 10 Ohm
You don't understand how thermal systems work. Plus you are making a subjective call with nothing to back it up, you are learning from Aaron. If not 10 volts, then how many volts? 12? 15? 27.5? You have no clue. The real answer is that for a 10-ohm load, any DC voltage could boil water as long as the thermal resistance to the outside world is high enough.
QuoteI would love to see the dc average across the shunt from the Fluke 123 at a duty cycle of 3% and with the required oscillation.
If you understood what I said above then you would conclude that the DC average is irrelevant, garbage data. <CORRECTION: I was thinking of the DC average across the coil-resistor, and not the shunt resistor. The DC average across the shunt resistor is relevant. However, like for any measuring device, the Fluke DC averaging measurement is bandwidth limited, and will fail to measure and average any high-frequency current waveform components above a certain frequency. My apologies.>
MileHigh
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlzXuIg3qvY
Also,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3eI4SVDyME
the relevant part starts from around 38 minutes.
oscillation videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoQD0N3k1Jw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84Yf5JhL9Rc
from Rosemary:
May I say that your video does not attempt any power analysis. I have no idea what the actual rms voltage is across the load and - if you're suggesting that it's 10 volts, then that's hardly enough to boil water, assuming that the load is 10 Ohm.
Also, the waveform you are presenting does not describe our own. You may want to see a description of this in post 1891 - for Harvey.
And yes, I would love to see the dc average across the shunt from the Fluke 123 at a duty cycle of 3% and with the required oscillation.
MH - I do not need a lecture from you. I'm trying to get answers from TK.
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 10, 2009, 12:38:27 PM
GAHH!!!
It never stops with this madwoman.
...
I guess there's those who "can't handle the truth"!
And then there's some of us who want "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". I currently have 3 suggested original projects here, and one on another forum discovered by someone else, that have not managed to come to a final conclusion. I would sure like to see some final resolution on at least one of them.
0c
Anyone that wants the modified Quantum article that gives the exact ranges needed, use this:
Aaron:
For you latest video you indicate that the probe is connected across the gate input, which is the same as the 555 timer output. The 555 output is 27.6% duty cycle and the frequency is 1.347 KHz.
Then you connect the main battery to power the setup and you say, "now you can see the oscillation." This is most likely wrong.
I can envision two scenarios:
1. For whatever reason, when you connected the battery the scope lost trigger. So what you are describing as "oscillation" is just the 555 timer signal running at the same 27.6% duty cycle at 1.347 KHz but without a locked trigger. When you saw that happen the first thing that should have run through your mind is that you lost trigger. If the MOSFET itself was in oscillation, there is no logical reason for it to affect the 555 output signal being read at the MOSFET gate input.
2. The 555 output really does "go crazy" when you connect up the main battery to the circuit. That would imply that you have a 555 circuit that is loosing stability and extra sensitive to the external environment. This should not be happening, the 555 circuit should be very robust and extremely immune to outside influences. I mentioned another time for one of your 555 circuits that the resistor values may have been too high and your capacitor values may have been too low, which would make the circuit less robust and possibly sensitive to outside influences. I noticed that one of the caps that you are using is 0.001 uF, or 1000 pico-Farads (thank you Joit). I am not sure if this particular cap is one of the main timing caps for the "off" or the "on" time constant, but if it is, I would be concerned. It is a microscopic capacitor value.
Then at 0:59 in your clip you can see that the frequency is 65 KHz. So the question is, how did you go from 1.347 KHz to 65 KHz? Also and very importantly, you can see that the duty cycle looks like it is now 98% "on". It looks like scenario #2 above provides a partial answer. The 555 output does not "go crazy" because you can see it is very stable at 65 KHz.
So that leads into the next question, how can you explain going from a stable 1.347 KHz 555 output at a 27.6% duty cycle, to what appears to be a stable 65 KHz 555 output with a 98% duty cycle??? I know that the first thing you want to say is "CONFIRMATION OF OSCILLLATION!!!!!" but NO, you have to check if the 555 output itself is running at a stable 65 KHz and check the duty cycle. If that is the case, then the circuit is not oscillating, it's just running at the higher unexplained 555 clock frequency.
You claim that the shunt waveform never goes to zero, but that is impossible if we are assuming that the MOSFET is switching off. You can pretty much see the shunt voltage going to zero at 1:15 in your clip.
Then you switch over to looking at the load resistor. You can see the big negative spikes that are smacking into the switched-off MOSFET.
Now you appear to have a new fixation, "It does NOT settle at zero volts. This is what you want." Dare I ask Aaron, can you explain WHY this is what is wanted? At the same time, can you explain WHY "resonance" or "oscillation" will give you better results?
At a fairly high frequency of 65 KHz and with a 98% "on" duty cycle it is normal and expected that the scope will show you that the voltage across the coil-resistor, a.k.a.; the load resistor, will stay above ground. The MOSFET is only switching off for a very short time, so the coil may not get to completely discharge and some DC current is running through it all the time. This fact plus the fact that there is stray capacitance will give you the waveform you see: a DC offset voltage with a train of regular negative DC spikes corresponding to the coil partial discharge. All of these effects do NOT add up to "oscillation."
QuoteThis is another video of the full blown "parasitic hartley effect".
No it is not, there is no confirmed evidence of any "oscillation" or "resonance" in your clip. I suggest that you investigate the unexplained frequency and duty cycle change that appears to be happening to the 555 circuit and fix that problem before you do any more testing.
MileHigh
News from the "other side of the tin can and waxed string":
About the Michael John Nunnerley TRIAC-based water heater project:
QuoteThe first thing I think is that the bemf is totally free.
Reduction in power consumption over base line of direct power to inductive element only= 39% over same time period and temp: differencial
Any thoughts anyone?
You may not have caught it, I already mentioned that it appears that you can make your heating element act as a mostly inductive load if you chop off the power early in the cycle with your TRIAC controller. Did you hack into a TRIAC-based light dimmer? Then the coil discharges into your secondary heating element and heats the water. This energy is not "free", it came from your AC mains supply. The "free" part is that your electrical meter most likely cannot measure any reactive power and your setup basically converts the load as seen by the power company from a normal load into a reactive load.
If you try to develop this as a real product and put it on the market you will be shut down by the EU regulatory agencies in your country. If you imagine that you did get approval, then the power companies would go after you and take you to court.
And no Aaron, you speculated about some "magic" power savings for your water heater in your home by adding a capacitor in the mix. Ain't gunna happen.
MileHigh
P.S.: No disruptions from you Aaron.
I've built and run Aaron's latest circuit mod and I have managed to send my mosfet into the 'oscillation' I think Aaron is referring too. I had a glimpse of the spikes on the scope for a short while before the mosfet failed due to a short circuit after overheating! It appears to be a fairly critical adjustment which I was unable to repeat. The mosfet appears to be running into some kind of thermal runaway in this condition. Aaron is probably able to control the onset of this by very careful tuning at around the point it occurs. There is a distinctive change of tone as he has reported.
The important thing is that Aaron appears not to be monitoring his supply current whilst tuning his circuit, because if he was, he would clearly see that the supply current suddenly increases dramatically in this 'oscillatory' condition. This is probably being masked by high capacity of his battery. I suggest he places a 10Amp analogue ammeter in series with his battery and take note of the current draw as he tunes his circuit to he 'optimum' point.
I'm running on a 24V supply made up of 2 x 12, 2.8A/hr SLA batteries and the drop in terminal voltage in this oscillatory state was considerable. My inductive resistor was 8.9uH for this test run.
I can now see some variation in the spikes when the gate resistor is adjusted but in all cases with my tuning, inreased spikes results in a higher current draw.
I will post some scope shots of the stable waveforms I am getting from this Ainslie circuit mod in the morning.
Harvey's proposed Ainslie circuit mod just would not work for me.
Now to bed!
Hoppy
Hoppy,
It sounds like your spikes hitting the MOSFET were putting it into a short period of avalanche breakdown each time a spike hits it. I think that would explain the large current increase and heat.
Remember the two day's worth of "avalanche breakdown fixation" as being the "key" to achieving over unity? lol
My second guess is that your setup is simply whacking the s*it out of the MOSFET every time the coil discharges. That's a long-shot guess though because that wouldn't explain the increased current draw.
MileHigh
Ah, Rosemary, I am really beginning to wonder about you. Your inconsistencies are beginning to be really hard to conceal or cover up.
So now it's a Fluke 123, in spite of the papers and all the other posts where you say it's a 199. In spite of your previous insistence on the Fluke 199 as the Alpha and Omega of oscilloscopes. Now you want to use the 123, which is even more of a toy. Well, I draw the line at your flipflopping on this issue. I will use whatever scope I choose to present the point I am trying to make, and you can "go spit" as we say in this part of the world.
And you think "10 volts" isn't enough to boil water. That is so laughable I won't even justify it with a response.
And you think that "rms voltage" across the shunt is going to tell you something coherent. When you have been referred to excellent literature and explanations as to why rms voltage is not an appropriate measure here. I will even upload a paper, again, that might clear up some of your understanding, if only you could comprehend it.
And you think Aaron's "oscillations" are the waveforms you want? But the ones I show in the video linked above, WHICH LOOK EXACTLY LIKE AARON's, aren't?
And you want me to dance and sing for you, when you haven't addressed any of my points or answered my questions. No, I don't think so, Rosemary. You need to develop some critical thinking skills, and I must say, your comprehension of presented information is somewhat deficient. For you see, I have been presenting POWER data for two months now, almost daily. But you are too blind or arrogant or willfully ignorant to see and understand it.
@Hoppy: OOPs, the current draw is supposed to go DOWN during your "oscillations". Otherwise there isn't any hope at all for any "free energy". And replacing those mosfets probably gets old after a while.
Quote from: MileHigh on August 10, 2009, 12:28:37 PM
.99:
I was tired yesterday and so today returned back to the discussion about your recent power waveform plots in post #1021. I honestly can't explain how you get a quite significant pulse of return power going back into the battery when you have no fly-back diode and a much larger inductor. Don't worry about it though, please don't feel obliged to drop more probes and all that. You still have net discharging as you pointed out and I am burned out on the subject.
A fun question about PSpice: Can you ask it to integrate on any waveform? Like for example integrating on the ring-down power through the 10-ohm resistor?
MileHigh
It's no problem ;)
So, what if we replace the 24V battery with a 1uF capacitor charged to 24V?
We get a nice clear graph illustrating the capacitor discharge while MOSFET is ON, and a partial (54%) recharge when the MOSFET is OFF. Vcap_Pload01, Vcap_pload02 (zoomed).
The larger inductance to resistance ratio is what allows this energy exchange to occur. More of the total energy is now stored rather than dissipated.
The flyback diode is not required because there are paths across the MOSFET that allow the recharge. The flyback diode actually kills the recharge effect, but at the same time it causes more dissipation in the load resistor. So the battery/capacitor will die faster, but the load will heat up to a higher temperature.
Intergral of PRload? See graph. Notice no significant contribution to power dissipation during ringdown. VLoad_IntPload01.gif
.99
Quote from: Hoppy on August 10, 2009, 07:07:36 PM
The important thing is that Aaron appears not to be monitoring his supply current whilst tuning his circuit, because if he was, he would clearly see that the supply current suddenly increases dramatically in this 'oscillatory' condition.
It does not increase proportionately to the pulsing that is added by the oscillation.
Ask yourself this question...with oscillation, you have X amount more pulses of on time. Now look at the increase at the shunt. Are they locked in proportion? The answer is no and you can verify this yourself. If you have 10 times the "on time" from the oscillation, does the shunt show you any kind of increase that fits the increase in oscillation? No. :)
You will see the answer is no and that the increase of current at the shunt increases, but not as much as you would expect from the extra on time from the oscillation.
TK melted solder on his because he is clueless about well, everything. You seem to have a heck of a lot more sense than most of the skeptics.
My mosfet, even when resistor is at 150C and running on some batteries that don't even drop 0.01volts over an hour, (since there is free heat production and free battery recharging) the mosfet may only be 50 degrees. Why can't TK show this kind of result and why doesn't he show power readings? Because he is a fraudulent "metrologist" as his fake second identity account name claims that doesn't know an ohmmeter from a probe.
TK already admitted he doesn't have to understand the nature of the energy - oh well. Just like doctors that don't think they have to know the person, they just see a symptom and prescribe the drug recommended. That isn't science, that is mickey mouse nonsense.
Anyway Hoppy. I'm glad you're at least doing the experiments and are reporting honestly. I don't care that you report that you think I'm not giving all the info. I can see that after all, you may just have good intentions.
Quote from: MileHigh on August 10, 2009, 05:03:55 PM
The 555 output really does "go crazy" when you connect up the main battery to the circuit. That would imply that you have a 555 circuit that is loosing stability and extra sensitive to the external environment.
The 555 is stable. It is the relationship of the 555 circuit and how it signals the mosfet.
You can simply build the 555 as I have shown and you will see it is extremely stable with no problems.
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 09, 2009, 12:58:56 PM
I'm glad you've been given pause. Now, with the addition of Grace, perhaps you'll make progress.
We are skirting very close to some edges here. I was wondering about your defense of Rosemary, and when I saw where she got her parts I began to wonder even more.
I could ask Walter from that Fringe program, but I'm sure his memory is not as good as yours. But perhaps Grace can model that skirt for us ;)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0491796/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112104/
The secret is to make you choose what we want you to do.
dmib
Joit:
Thank you for catching my 'big' mistake about the capacitor size.
QuoteHardly to believe, he did even did do one Grade in Electronics.
That acid must be good s*it, eh? Do you see colours everywhere, like a rainbow? lol
QuoteTK melted solder on his because he is clueless about well, everything. You seem to have a heck of a lot more sense than most of the skeptics.
Poor Aaron forever trapped in a washing machine set on "spin."
Quote(since there is free heat production and free battery recharging)
Well now Aaron, are you going to tell us what you are going to do with the DSO and be "open sourced" and transparent about your upcoming testing???? Because if you do your testing right you are going to turn bright blue and green, and you are gunna hurl!
QuoteThe 555 is stable. It is the relationship of the 555 circuit and how it signals the mosfet.
Aaron, Aaron... That second sentence doesn't even make any sense. I know that you desperately want it to slip by.... Have you been dabbling in the purple microdot yourself?
Aaron and Joit:
Try answering the following question as straight individuals:
So that leads into the next question, how can you explain going from a stable 1.347 KHz 555 output at a 27.6% duty cycle, to what appears to be a stable 65 KHz 555 output with a 98% duty cycle???
.99:
I'm freaking out at all those psychedelic colours man!!! Far out and thank you that was really cool stuff!!!
Aaron and Joit, did you all see those fancy colours??? Did you see the flaming red cap voltage drop, drop, drop every time it spanks, spanks, spanks the MOSFET??? That looks like you are going downhill and discharging... Unless you stand on your heads for the rush and then it looks like it is going uphill and charging!!!
MileHigh
P.S.: If you play the Beatles "A Day in the Life" backwards after you medicate yourselves then it also looks like the capacitor is going uphill and charging. Far out man.
Quote from: MileHigh on August 10, 2009, 07:23:14 PM
Hoppy,
It sounds like your spikes hitting the MOSFET were putting it into a short period of avalanche breakdown each time a spike hits it. I think that would explain the large current increase and heat.
Remember the two day's worth of "avalanche breakdown fixation" as being the "key" to achieving over unity? lol
My second guess is that your setup is simply whacking the s*it out of the MOSFET every time the coil discharges. That's a long-shot guess though because that wouldn't explain the increased current draw.
MileHigh
I was very tired last night when I last posted, so I will explain what I did in detail, with Aaron's latest Ainslie circuit mod.
I could only see the spikes like Aaron displays when I overload the input with a 10R, 8.9uH choke in circuit. With the correct voltage per div setting, I could see a clean and very short duty cycle waveform. My camera is on charge at the moment, so I will post the these waveforms when I get home today.
Because I could not get the mosfet into the 'high frequency' oscillation Aaron speaks about, I decided to replace the resistor / inductor with a 220uH choke. With this, I managed to 'tweak' the gate pot and get the mosfet to 'oscillate' at a much higher frequency. I saw a lot more spiking whilst I was viewing the scope in overload, set at 0.2V per div, whilst scoping between drain and source. The adjustment was quite critical and I was able to put the mosfet in and out of this oscillatory mode with somewhere between 100R and 200R gate resistance, until it overheated and shorted out. The important thing as I pointed out in my previous post, is that the supply current dramatically increased at the onset of this oscillatory mode. The mosfet locked into permanent conduction at this point and was clearly being damaged as a result.
When I replaced the mosfet, I fitted a 10R, 8.9uH choke and from thereafter I could not get the mosfet back into oscillation. However, I could still see lots of very sharp 'dancing' spikes, as Aaron displays with a 0.2V per div setting and timebase around 50uS.
Hoppy
Quote from: Hoppy on August 11, 2009, 04:32:14 AM
I was very tired last night when I last posted, so I will explain what I did in detail, with Aaron's latest Ainslie circuit mod.
At least your making progress. TK doesn't know how to make a mosfet oscillate and neither does Mile High. You're light years beyond both of them put together.
Hoppy said:
Quote
I was able to put the mosfet in and out of this oscillatory mode with somewhere between 100R and 200R gate resistance, until it overheated and shorted out. The important thing as I pointed out in my previous post, is that the supply current dramatically increased at the onset of this oscillatory mode. The mosfet locked into permanent conduction at this point and was clearly being damaged as a result.
And then a clown posting as qiman said:
Quote from: qiman on August 11, 2009, 05:28:40 AM
At least your making progress. TK doesn't know how to make a mosfet oscillate and neither does Mile High. You're light years beyond both of them put together.
And I laugh and laugh and laugh....You are making progress, Hoppy!
I hope you bought your mosfets in bulk!!
Oh, and Aaron, perhaps you should concentrate on demonstrating YOUR claims, since you still haven't done so, yet...for example, how are you measuring the heat in your load and in your mosfet? With your fingers?
How come your results differ so wildly from everyone else's (not just mine) even those who are using the same circuit as you?
I'll tell you why: Because you still don't know what you are looking at on your scope.
And why did you put up that picture of Lindemann's bogus 555 circuit, and make the claims about it that you did, since you apparently know that it is wrong, too? Another "innocent" mistake, or more deliberate misinformation and time-wasting distraction?
Oh, who cares.
Quote from: qiman on August 11, 2009, 05:28:40 AM
At least your making progress. TK doesn't know how to make a mosfet oscillate and neither does Mile High. You're light years beyond both of them put together.
I'm amazed at how these people seem to be able to tell just what's going on in my workshop, on my workbench. Wilby telling me I don't have the right mosfet, qiman telling me I don't know how to make a mosfet oscillate...whatever. Keep sticking your feet in your mouth, it's hilarious to watch.
I've shown just as much evidence of "mosfet oscillation" as you have, Aaron, the difference being that I always then reset the scope to display the waveform properly.
Look at your favorite picture of your "oscillations" and then look at my last video. I'm showing a trace that looks EXACTLY like yours.
Then I reset the timebase and trigger to show that it is a regular waveform from the mosfet, amplifying whatever signal the TIMER IS SENDING IT with digital artifacts overlaid on the display.
(And by the way, do you suppose that I show videos of every little thing I do in the lab? So if you don't see it, it isn't done? That's pretty typical logic from you.)
One thing I haven't shown videos of, that you might find interesting, is the behaviour of the circuit with the main battery disconnected but the timer running as usual. Scope the usual points, make all the adjustments like usual. What do you see?
Quote from: Harvey on August 11, 2009, 01:59:33 AM
I could ask Walter from that Fringe program, but I'm sure his memory is not as good as yours. But perhaps Grace can model that skirt for us ;)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0491796/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112104/
The secret is to make you choose what we want you to do.
dmib
Well, I don't know about that, but the general thesis explains a lot, especially in the current context.
I mean, the Ainslie affair really does seem like a bad screenplay from that genre, doesn't it?
There's the shadowy semi-suppressed free energy device, invented by a grandmotherly old dear taking time off from her knitting, so she can keep warm in the cold August veldt; there's the little dwarf retainer and his mob of sub-minions with all kinds of hunchbacks and speech defects; there's the even more shadowy invisible rabbit Yoda character with insufficient degrees of separation; and of course the Evil Monster Skeptic who is the frontman for the military-industrial Establishment which is trying to grab the circuit for itself --- I'd write it up and send it in myself but I'm afraid it would be rejected out of hand, as just too fantastic. Nobody would ever believe it, there are too many inconsistencies.
But certainly, if there was a deliberate intent to distract me from other work, that part's working fine. The only problem is that there isn't any other work to distract me from.
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 11, 2009, 06:33:34 AM
I'm amazed at how these people seem to be able to tell just what's going on in my workshop, on my workbench. Wilby telling me I don't have the right mosfet, qiman telling me I don't know how to make a mosfet oscillate...whatever. Keep sticking your feet in your mouth, it's hilarious to watch.
I've shown just as much evidence of "mosfet oscillation" as you have, Aaron, the difference being that I always then reset the scope to display the waveform properly.
Look at your favorite picture of your "oscillations" and then look at my last video. I'm showing a trace that looks EXACTLY like yours.
Then I reset the timebase and trigger to show that it is a regular waveform from the mosfet, amplifying whatever signal the TIMER IS SENDING IT with digital artifacts overlaid on the display.
(And by the way, do you suppose that I show videos of every little thing I do in the lab? So if you don't see it, it isn't done? That's pretty typical logic from you.)
One thing I haven't shown videos of, that you might find interesting, is the behaviour of the circuit with the main battery disconnected but the timer running as usual. Scope the usual points, make all the adjustments like usual. What do you see?
you didn't have the specified mosfet for a "replication" and made all sorts of asinine excuses of why you couldn't get one. and your foot was pretty far in your mouth when you actually got around to using the specified one if i recall. it didn't quite behave as you hypothesized it would now did it? so much for you having a clue of what you are talking about... and furthermore, had you used the specified one from the start (as any proper replicator would have done and as i already knew) it would have boosted your position much sooner. ::) it was great listening to you harp on about data sheet similarity, 'give me a reason', etc. all i had to do was maintain my original objection to your component substitution and you kept digging that hole deeper. that was effing classic tk... and par for your course. keep on singing and dancing little bear, it's hilarious to watch.
By the way, all you experimenters: If you want spikes and more "battery charging", as well as more heat in your loads, you should try the 2sk1548 mosfet. It works better than the irfpg50 and it's about half the price. I found this out early on by doing side-by-side comparisons, and it was very amusing to see the troll hoisted on his own tiny petard, as it squeaked about my "not having" what I had sitting right in front of me.
Plus there's this:
Ctrl-v. See it jump?
Now, as to Aaron's "oscillations": I think you can see that every claim that he made in his last picture of his "oscillations" can also be seen in this picture, and since you can see the scope's settings and you know where I always take my readings, you can extract some useful information from the image.
A note for experimenters who are using 555 circuits as clocks for the Ainslie circuit:
If you are seeing "oscillations" or other strange behaviour like Hoppy has, it is far more likely that the strangeness is coming from the 555 circuit than from the mosfet.
555s misbehave in all kinds of ways; anyone who thinks they are "stable" either has little experience with 555s or has a different definition of "stability" than usual in the electronics world. There can be big differences between individual chips and between manufacturers, and they can fail totally or partially, and a partially failed one can behave strangely indeed.
But you don't need failures; a dirty pot or interlead capacitance will also cause misbehaviour, as will insufficient input power.
It's a good idea in this circuit to include those big caps on the input power leads to your 555, especially with the irfpg50 mosfet, as its gate capacitance is high and the 555 signal will sag as the pulse "fills" the gate.
I strongly recommend, if you are seeing what Hoppy describes, to scope the pin 3 output of the 555, or the total output of the clock where it connects to the gate attenuator pot or resistance.
Compare the signal here to the "oscillation" signal out from the mosfet at your favorite monitoring point.
If the 555 or total clock signal is regular and square, yet the mosfet signal (shunt or load, whatever) is wildly oscillating at a different frequency or at "aperiodic Hartley resonance"---get your camera quick and take a picture, before the mosfet blows. There are a few folks who would really like to see that picture. Please set the timebase so only 3 or 4 cycles of the 555 waveform are shown -- there should be many many of the oscillation cycles, in contrast.
I would be extremely interested to hear about anyone getting any kind of misbehaviour or mosfet aperiodic resonant Hartley oscillations (whatever they are) using a function generator or pulse generator for the clock.
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 11, 2009, 07:14:59 AM
By the way, all you experimenters: If you want spikes and more "battery charging", as well as more heat in your loads, you should try the 2sk1548 mosfet. It works better than the irfpg50 and it's about half the price. I found this out early on by doing side-by-side comparisons, and it was very amusing to see the troll hoisted on his own tiny petard, as it squeaked about my "not having" what I had sitting right in front of me.
Plus there's this:
Ctrl-v. See it jump?
Now, as to Aaron's "oscillations": I think you can see that every claim that he made in his last picture of his "oscillations" can also be seen in this picture, and since you can see the scope's settings and you know where I always take my readings, you can extract some useful information from the image.
early on? lmfao, relatively speaking of course right? it took you over 30 pages of tripe before you posted your "findings" about the irfpg50 and you probably never would have, had i not rode your ass trying to get you to adhere to decent scientific method.
plus there is this:
ctrl-v. see it jump... ::)
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 01, 2009, 09:28:24 PM
Would you care to make a little wager, Wilby?
If you can show a significant difference between the performance of the IRFPG50 mosfet used by Ainslie, and the 2SK1548 mosfet that I used in my replication, using the published circuit and parameters of Ainslie, I will gladly make a public apology to you. On the other hand, if the performance is substantially the same, you get off my back.
If you really think the mosfet makes a difference, you should take the bet.
(EDIT I was going to offer to bet money at odds, but I realised that would be unethical--like taking candy from a baby--. Sorry.)
you're a fool, QED
LMFAO giddy-up...
"CONCLUSIONS
A large number of oscillator applications can be implemented
with the extremely simple, reliable, inexpensive and
versatile CMOS oscillators described in this note. These oscillators
consume very little power compared to most other
approaches. Each of the oscillators requires less than one
full package of CMOS inverters of the MM74C04 variety.
Frequently such an oscillator can be built using leftover
gates of the MM74C00, MM74C02, MM74C10 variety. Stability
superior to that easily attainable with TTL oscillators is
readily attained, particularly at lower frequencies. These oscillators
are so versatile, easy to build, and inexpensive that
they should find their way into many diverse designs."
From http://www.fairchildsemi.com/an/AN/AN-118.pdf
which describes square-wave oscillators built from inexpensive CMOS inverter chips.
"Significant difference" in this context clearly means OVERUNITY performance. And the two mosfets do not differ significantly in this respect.
You is da fool, monkey.
(And of course much of the tripe to which you refer is your own guts hanging out, sliming over this one single point. And you are STILL on it.)
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 11, 2009, 08:07:38 AM
"Significant difference" in this context clearly means OVERUNITY performance. And the two mosfets do not differ significantly in this respect.
You is da fool, monkey.
(And of course much of the tripe to which you refer is your own guts hanging out, sliming over this one single point. And you are STILL on it.)
no it doesn't. your words and meaning are quite clear, i can dig up all the rest of the relevant posts and drag your confabulation into the light or you can fess up.
that's a pretty lame ass stretch of any confabulation, even from you.
wrong again ::) you're still the fool.
the tripe was you making excuses for why you couldn't get a irfpg50, or stating how it wouldn't make a difference...
ctrl-v. watch it twitch
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 13, 2009, 07:50:12 PM
;D
Hey, Nertz. Thanks for doing that--have a drink on me!
I've finally gotten around to running some comparisons between the IRFPG50 and the 2SK1548.
Heh.
From a "traditional engineering" viewpoint the 2sk1548 diode performs MUCH better in this circuit...that is, if things like THD and proper pulse tracking concern you. The long turn off time of the IRFPG50 really messes with the signal at these excessively short (using the FG) or LONG (using the 555) duty cycles.
The IRF unit does seem to heat up less than the 2SK, but that's just an early impression.
I think if you are into spikes in your signal, the 2SK might be a better choice here too. It turns on and off better than the IRF unit (not surprising, is it, looking at the data sheets and considering the gate capacitances). And since it turns on and off with faster rise and fall times, it produces a higher inductive pulse from the coil. I think. Maybe.
So there goes my hypothesis that the two transistors would perform pretty much the same. I was wrong about that. The 2SK1548, when properly cooled, outperforms the IRFPG50, as far as I can tell. And it's smaller. And quite a bit cheaper. And locally available.
you're a fool and a liar caught by your own words, QED
i missed that public apology you promised, although in fairness i didn't demonstrate it for you, i let you stuff your foot wayyy down your throat and then prove yourself wrong. but that's classic tk "science"
I have attached below the scope shot of the normal waveforms for Aarons Ainslie circuit mod, taken across the shunt resistor (top trace)@ 0.1V, 1mS and between drain and source (lower trace) @ 20V, 1mS.
The overheating of the mosfet was very likely caused by a locking-up of the 555 into a 'high' output condition, caused by high voltage spiking from the 220uH inductor. Lower value inductors would probably also cause interference to the operation of the 555 and this is why all good designs should be opto isolated at the output. Interferance can be minimised but not eliminated by using seperate supplies and 'star' earthing. I can detect erratic pulsing from the scoped waveform even when using the 10R, 8.9uH inductive resistor.
I'm hoping that we can move on now and all accept that this oscillatory effect is caused by a poorly designed interface between pulse generator and mosfet switch.
Hoppy
Wilby:
The MOSFET is just acting like an on-off switch. As a general statement, there is no reason you can't substitute one type of MOSFET with another. Obviously there are different MOSFETs designed for different applications, and I assume the main property that distinguishes them is power handling capability. I am also going to assume that there is a trade-off between power handling capability and switching speed and/or gate capacitance.
So don't get sucked into the "cult of getting it exactly identical" like happened in the Mylow fiasco, there is no logic whatsoever in that. In fact, I think that this cult is nurtured and promoted by Bedini and Bearden and all of the others in the "Top Ten" free energy gang.
Look at the example of "Bedini's Kromrey Converter." A bunch of replicators are struggling. Nobody can get the same results that are showed in one of the EFTV DVDs. They obsess if their shafts are the right diameter or if their generator coils have the right number of turns. They are assuming that it will only work if they have the correct identical "magic" configuration, and then like magic, they will have an over unity device. It is all complete crap, and the "Kromery Converter" is just a fanciful variation on an alternator, and will never in a million years become an over unity device. So there is no point in arguing about the choice of MOSFET, you are wasting your time.
I will remind you again, this is all about an inductor discharging. We have demonstrated to you and others that an inductor gets its energy from the battery, not from anywhere else. It is as ridiculous as saying, "Every relay in existence is an over unity device."
It would be wonderful for Aaron and Peter to actually follow through and prove it for themselves. Four months of posting and bickering and fantasizing over what in reality is a grade 12 physics lab experiment. Do the lab, record your results, go home and crunch your measurements and write out your lab assignment and hand it in to your teacher. What should be three hours worth of work translates into four months and thousands of postings with acid-trip-like fantasies and acrimony and bickering on two web sites. What a fishbowl!!!
Meanwhile it appears that Rosemary is bailing out, just like I predicted, and will watch silently from the sidelines.
There is no resonance, that's a fantasy, this is a pulse circuit.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on August 10, 2009, 07:06:11 PM
News from the "other side of the tin can and waxed string":
About the Michael John Nunnerley TRIAC-based water heater project:
You may not have caught it, I already mentioned that it appears that you can make your heating element act as a mostly inductive load if you chop off the power early in the cycle with your TRIAC controller. Did you hack into a TRIAC-based light dimmer? Then the coil discharges into your secondary heating element and heats the water. This energy is not "free", it came from your AC mains supply. The "free" part is that your electrical meter most likely cannot measure any reactive power and your setup basically converts the load as seen by the power company from a normal load into a reactive load.
If you try to develop this as a real product and put it on the market you will be shut down by the EU regulatory agencies in your country. If you imagine that you did get approval, then the power companies would go after you and take you to court.
And no Aaron, you speculated about some "magic" power savings for your water heater in your home by adding a capacitor in the mix. Ain't gunna happen.
MileHigh
P.S.: No disruptions from you Aaron.
Hola MileHigh from sunny Spain, you are the lucky one, this is the first post I have made on this forum even though I have been a member for quite some time.
Thank you for your input but this has been taken into consideration and for your information there is not going to be a commercial consideration for this, it is free for all. The control circuit is quite complicated from my point of view as I am trained to probably a considerably lower level in ee than you are, but I am sure I am more than enough qualified in other areas as I do not hide my titles and I am now of an age that any reprocusions or threats I take now more on the light side.
Please post on my thread that I have set up on the energetic forum under my REAL name not my company name
Mike
Quote from: MileHigh on August 11, 2009, 12:15:17 PM
Wilby:
The MOSFET is just acting like an on-off switch. As a general statement, there is no reason you can't substitute one type of MOSFET with another. Obviously there are different MOSFETs designed for different applications, and I assume the main property that distinguishes them is power handling capability. I am also going to assume that there is a trade-off between power handling capability and switching speed and/or gate capacitance.
So don't get sucked into the "cult of getting it exactly identical" like happened in the Mylow fiasco, there is no logic whatsoever in that. In fact, I think that this cult is nurtured and promoted by Bedini and Bearden and all of the others in the "Top Ten" free energy gang.
Look at the example of "Bedini's Kromrey Converter." A bunch of replicators are struggling. Nobody can get the same results that are showed in one of the EFTV DVDs. They obsess if their shafts are the right diameter or if their generator coils have the right number of turns. They are assuming that it will only work if they have the correct identical "magic" configuration, and then like magic, they will have an over unity device. It is all complete crap, and the "Kromery Converter" is just a fanciful variation on an alternator, and will never in a million years become an over unity device. So there is no point in arguing about the choice of MOSFET, you are wasting your time.
I will remind you again, this is all about an inductor discharging. We have demonstrated to you and others that an inductor gets its energy from the battery, not from anywhere else. It is as ridiculous as saying, "Every relay in existence is an over unity device."
It would be wonderful for Aaron and Peter to actually follow through and prove it for themselves. Four months of posting and bickering and fantasizing over what in reality is a grade 12 physics lab experiment. Do the lab, record your results, go home and crunch your measurements and write out your lab assignment and hand it in to your teacher. What should be three hours worth of work translates into four months and thousands of postings with acid-trip-like fantasies and acrimony and bickering on two web sites. What a fishbowl!!!
Meanwhile it appears that Rosemary is bailing out, just like I predicted, and will watch silently from the sidelines.
There is no resonance, that's a fantasy, this is a pulse circuit.
MileHigh
Sometime this year I will have the opportunity to carry out tests on a Kromrey Coverter very accurate replication of the device shown in John Bedini's DVD presentation, complete with the requisite Barium magnets. Of course, I do not expect it to run OU in anyway but I'm hoping to observe why John Bedini and others think it does and then provide a feasible technical explanation.
This thread has been very important, as it highlights the measuring errors and misunderstanding of basic principles that many people make when experimenting with various devices that are claimed to be overunity.
Hoppy
Hi Hoppy,
If the top trace is your shunt resistor trace then it looks to me like you have your MOSFET duty cycle inverted, it's almost always on when it should be almost always off. Making a measurement between the drain and gate is an unusual measurement and I cannot get that one. Depending on where you put your probe hot and ground leads, you will get a regular or inverted pulse. The drain and gate voltage should be opposite polarities all the time. You would be much better off looking at the drain voltage relative to the circuit ground. That should be high and pulse low when the MOSFET switches on.
I really don't think that you need opto-isolators either. The main reason for using opto-isolators is to decopule your core logic from power switching devices that are switching 120 or 240 VAC mains power. That ensures that the user of a device can never be electrocuted as well as protecting the logic core. In the case of this experiment, the MOSFET gate input gives you perfectly acceptable isolation from the 24-volts supply.
TK:
I haven't played with a 555 in eons. What I do know is that all a 555 does is charge and discharge a timing capacitor through a resistor between two thresholds, which are fixed 1/3 and 2/3 of the supply voltage. The thresholds track the supply voltage if it moves up and down. Therefore the device has very good timing immunity from any supply voltage changes. I think the biggie issue is component value selection. Ideally you want to use "Goldilocks" component values, but certainly there is wide latitude there also. "RC" is your time constant, so a 100 MOhm resistance coupled with 10 nano-Farad capacitor will give you one second. However, that is a ridiculously large resistance and a ridiculously small capacitance. Just waving your hand near the chip with those values will probably affect it. Switching to 1K ohm and 1000 uF will give you the same time constant of one second and be much much more robust. Beyond that, decoupling the 555 chip ground and Vcc as per standard practice and you should be fine. At the same time I concede that you have probably played with 555s much more than me, I haven't touched one in 25 years. (That's good ammunition for the other guys, bring it on! lol)
I can feel the "You're not doing the experiments!" wrath coming my way.
The funny thing is how many amateur experimenters blow transistors and chips like they are popcorn kernels popping or something. It is rare that someone actually investigates why, they just replace the part or try a different part number in the same setup. Johnny should try to figure out _why_ the part blew.
MileHigh
Hi Mike,
This is to acknowledge your reply to my posting, thank you. Also thanks for the invite to your forum but I am going to have to pass for two reasons. The first reason is that I am restricting my interests to a very narrow focus these days, and only check out other threads on a very casual basis. The second reason is that Aaron kicked me off the Energetic forum. Subsequent to that I talked quite tough about Aaron and his belief system, so I am only going to be on overunity.com.
Good luck with your project.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on August 11, 2009, 01:08:44 PM
Hi Hoppy,
If the top trace is your shunt resistor trace then it looks to me like you have your MOSFET duty cycle inverted, it's almost always on when it should be almost always off. Making a measurement between the drain and gate is an unusual measurement and I cannot get that one. Depending on where you put your probe hot and ground leads, you will get a regular or inverted pulse. The drain and gate voltage should be opposite polarities all the time. You would be much better off looking at the drain voltage relative to the circuit ground. That should be high and pulse low when the MOSFET switches on.
I really don't think that you need opto-isolators either. The main reason for using opto-isolators is to decopule your core logic from power switching devices that are switching 120 or 240 VAC mains power. That ensures that the user of a device can never be electrocuted as well as protecting the logic core. In the case of this experiment, the MOSFET gate input gives you perfectly acceptable isolation from the 24-volts supply.
TK:
I haven't played with a 555 in eons. What I do know is that all a 555 does is charge and discharge a timing capacitor through a resistor between two thresholds, which are fixed 1/3 and 2/3 of the supply voltage. The thresholds track the supply voltage if it moves up and down. Therefore the device has very good timing immunity from any supply voltage changes. I think the biggie issue is component value selection. Ideally you want to use "Goldilocks" component values, but certainly there is wide latitude there also. "RC" is your time constant, so a 100 MOhm resistance coupled with 10 nano-Farad capacitor will give you one second. However, that is a ridiculously large resistance and a ridiculously small capacitance. Just waving your hand near the chip with those values will probably affect it. Switching to 1K ohm and 1000 uF will give you the same time constant of one second and be much much more robust. Beyond that, decoupling the 555 chip ground and Vcc as per standard practice and you should be fine. At the same time I concede that you have probably played with 555s much more than me, I haven't touched one in 25 years. (That's good ammunition for the other guys, bring it on! lol)
I can feel the "You're not doing the experiments!" wrath coming my way.
The funny thing is how many amateur experimenters blow transistors and chips like they are popcorn kernels popping or something. It is rare that someone actually investigates why, they just replace the part or try a different part number in the same setup. Johnny should try to figure out _why_ the part blew.
MileHigh
Hi MH
Apologies, the probe was in fact between drain and source. I have now corrected this.
I'm afraid I don't agree with you about this type of circuit not needing an opto-isolator.
Hoppy
109 pages :o
What are the conclusions ?
Quote from: MileHigh on August 11, 2009, 12:15:17 PM
Wilby:
The MOSFET is just acting like an on-off switch. As a general statement, there is no reason you can't substitute one type of MOSFET with another. Obviously there are different MOSFETs designed for different applications, and I assume the main property that distinguishes them is power handling capability. I am also going to assume that there is a trade-off between power handling capability and switching speed and/or gate capacitance.
So don't get sucked into the "cult of getting it exactly identical" like happened in the Mylow fiasco, there is no logic whatsoever in that. In fact, I think that this cult is nurtured and promoted by Bedini and Bearden and all of the others in the "Top Ten" free energy gang.
Look at the example of "Bedini's Kromrey Converter." A bunch of replicators are struggling. Nobody can get the same results that are showed in one of the EFTV DVDs. They obsess if their shafts are the right diameter or if their generator coils have the right number of turns. They are assuming that it will only work if they have the correct identical "magic" configuration, and then like magic, they will have an over unity device. It is all complete crap, and the "Kromery Converter" is just a fanciful variation on an alternator, and will never in a million years become an over unity device. So there is no point in arguing about the choice of MOSFET, you are wasting your time.
I will remind you again, this is all about an inductor discharging. We have demonstrated to you and others that an inductor gets its energy from the battery, not from anywhere else. It is as ridiculous as saying, "Every relay in existence is an over unity device."
It would be wonderful for Aaron and Peter to actually follow through and prove it for themselves. Four months of posting and bickering and fantasizing over what in reality is a grade 12 physics lab experiment. Do the lab, record your results, go home and crunch your measurements and write out your lab assignment and hand it in to your teacher. What should be three hours worth of work translates into four months and thousands of postings with acid-trip-like fantasies and acrimony and bickering on two web sites. What a fishbowl!!!
Meanwhile it appears that Rosemary is bailing out, just like I predicted, and will watch silently from the sidelines.
There is no resonance, that's a fantasy, this is a pulse circuit.
MileHigh
blah blah blah, you don't have any idea what is being argued between tk and i, so read the whole thread or stfu with your assumptions and misdirection. i don't give a rat's ass for your assumptions or tk's for that matter. tk made a claim after lambasting me to show him the difference tween the specified fet and the one he had on hand and used instead. he was wrong and now he is confabulating another asinine excuse as to what he 'really meant'. his words are there for everyone to read. he is a liar. plain and simple, but i hardly expect a sycophant like you notice a little detail like that.
did you notice that it took your hero over 40 pages to get around to testing the SPECIFIED fet? did you notice his plethora of asinine excuses for why he couldn't? did you notice his effing laughable hypothesis regarding the specified fet vrs. the one he was using?
why don't you start from post 1 and read on from there, get caught up a bit, otherwise you almost look as asinine as tk when you open your mouth to assume something.
Wilby, How about you do some experiments and post the results.
Quote from: Asymatrix on August 11, 2009, 05:11:57 PM
Wilby, How about you do some experiments and post the results.
because this is tk's little singing and dancing bear show. we are critiquing his hack of a replication and lack of proper scientific method...
why don't you?
You are just a "bad trip" Wilby, all bad vibes all the time. I read most of the thread and choose my own "tune outs." I was never concerned about the choice of the MOSFET. All that you have to do is look at the specs for "on" resistance and switching time and there are probably hundreds of metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistors that will fit the bill for this incredibly complex circuit: You run current through a resistive coil, then switch off and monitor the coil discharge.
The coil discharge either demonstrates E = 1/2 L i-squared or it is "magic" and puts out 17 times more energy than you were expecting.
Aaron is convinced it is real because somebody else says it is true. Woo! Hoo! Let's see if any replicators can prove the "magic" and if the collective brainpower of Aaron and Peter can actually make proper measurements. Watch out for Moiré patterns!!! Now of course we can't forget that Aaron and Peter just might be biased since promoting "free energy" puts the bacon and eggs on their respective breakfast tables.
Of course in five years you might have commercial small-scale Ainsley electrical generation plants: Produce enough heat to drive two turbines, one for your output power and and a separate and smaller independent turbine for the "bootstrap" electrical power that feeds the main array of Ainsley Coils (she got the Nobel Prize, you know). This way you have true independence in the electrical generation for the "bootstrap" part of the generating station where the only link is a thermal heat link and not an electrical link. This is because Aaron repeatedly says that you "can't close the loop" for any electrical over unity device. You can't take its electrical output and feed it back into itself because that will instantly "kill the effect." So why not play it safe and have a separate "bootstrap" turbine based on a thermal power connection only?
So what say you Wilby, will we have Ainsley thermo-electric "free energy" electrical generation plants in five years? You don't need any fuel at all.
Quote from: MileHigh on August 11, 2009, 05:20:50 PM
You are just a "bad trip" Wilby, all bad vibes all the time. I read most of the thread and choose my own "tune outs." I was never concerned about the choice of the MOSFET. All that you have to do is look at the specs for "on" resistance and switching time and there are probably hundreds of metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistors that will fit the bill for this incredibly complex circuit: You run current through a resistive coil, then switch off and monitor the coil discharge.
The coil discharge either demonstrates E = 1/2 L i-squared or it is "magic" and puts out 17 times more energy than you were expecting.
Aaron is convinced it is real because somebody else says it is true. Woo! Hoo! Let's see if any replicators can prove the "magic" and if the collective brainpower of Aaron and Peter can actually make proper measurements. Watch out for Moiré patterns!!! Now of course we can't forget that Aaron and Peter just might be biased since promoting "free energy" puts the bacon and eggs on their respective breakfast tables.
Of course in five years you might have commercial small-scale Ainsley electrical generation plants: Produce enough heat to drive two turbines, one for your output power and and a separate and smaller independent turbine for the "bootstrap" electrical power that feeds the main array of Ainsley Coils (she got the Nobel Prize, you know). This way you have true independence in the electrical generation for the "bootstrap" part of the generating station where the only link is a thermal heat link and not an electrical link. This is because Aaron repeatedly says that you "can't close the loop" for any electrical over unity device. You can't take its electrical output and feed it back into itself because that will instantly "kill the effect." So why not play it safe and have a separate "bootstrap" turbine based on a thermal power connection only?
So what say you Wilby, will we have Ainsley thermo-electric "free energy" electrical generation plants in five years? You don't need any fuel at all.
more blah blah that is irrelevant to the issue i have with tk.
one more time for the blind sycophant...
THE CLAIM:
ctrl-v watch it jump
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 01, 2009, 09:28:24 PM
Would you care to make a little wager, Wilby?
If you can show a significant difference between the performance of the IRFPG50 mosfet used by Ainslie, and the 2SK1548 mosfet that I used in my replication, using the published circuit and parameters of Ainslie, I will gladly make a public apology to you. On the other hand, if the performance is substantially the same, you get off my back.
If you really think the mosfet makes a difference, you should take the bet.
(EDIT I was going to offer to bet money at odds, but I realised that would be unethical--like taking candy from a baby--. Sorry.)
THE ERROR:
ctrl-v. watch it twitch
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 13, 2009, 07:50:12 PM
;D
Hey, Nertz. Thanks for doing that--have a drink on me!
I've finally gotten around to running some comparisons between the IRFPG50 and the 2SK1548.
Heh.
From a "traditional engineering" viewpoint the 2sk1548 diode performs MUCH better in this circuit...that is, if things like THD and proper pulse tracking concern you. The long turn off time of the IRFPG50 really messes with the signal at these excessively short (using the FG) or LONG (using the 555) duty cycles.
The IRF unit does seem to heat up less than the 2SK, but that's just an early impression.
I think if you are into spikes in your signal, the 2SK might be a better choice here too. It turns on and off better than the IRF unit (not surprising, is it, looking at the data sheets and considering the gate capacitances). And since it turns on and off with faster rise and fall times, it produces a higher inductive pulse from the coil. I think. Maybe.
So there goes my hypothesis that the two transistors would perform pretty much the same. I was wrong about that. The 2SK1548, when properly cooled, outperforms the IRFPG50, as far as I can tell. And it's smaller. And quite a bit cheaper. And locally available.
THE CONFABULATION:
ctrl-v watch it squirm
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 11, 2009, 08:07:38 AM
"Significant difference" in this context clearly means OVERUNITY performance. And the two mosfets do not differ significantly in this respect.
You is da fool, monkey.
(And of course much of the tripe to which you refer is your own guts hanging out, sliming over this one single point. And you are STILL on it.)
your hero is a fool and a liar, and you assume too much. nice try on the misdirection though, you're learning fast from tk, for a sycophant...
So I suppose your point is that since I tested both transistors and reported the results, including their differences, I am a fool and a liar. I see.
But MY point is that since neither one of them produces OVERUNITY -- which was the original claim, remember --, there isn't a significant difference, and I am still right and you are still a troll.
Not even a creative one, either, since that is still the single topic of your "discussion".
I'll bet you're a big hit at parties.
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 11, 2009, 05:41:49 PM
So I suppose your point is that since I tested both transistors and reported the results, including their differences, I am a fool and a liar. I see.
But MY point is that since neither one of them produces OVERUNITY -- which was the original claim, remember --, there isn't a significant difference, and I am still right and you are still a troll.
Not even a creative one, either, since that is still the single topic of your "discussion".
I'll bet you're a big hit at parties.
you're a fool for assuming they would behave the same, more of a fool for the arguments you put forth in support of that assumption. you're a liar because you're now trying to confabulate a cover for your blatant error.
@MH:
heh, my remarks about the 555 were directed toward you-know-who, since he's been posting those ridiculous 555 circuits -- like the one in the pic above which also doesn't work -- and because of his remarks about "stability".
;)
I see that Rosemary now is claiming to have wound her own resistors using wire as thick as shoelaces.
I wonder why this is the first we've heard of that.
Boiling water, too. My my.
But in the publications, she says she used a commercially available resistor "chosen for its inductance" and only got to 50 degrees above ambient.
I wonder why she didn't report the more striking results with the homemade resistors, and they are only showing up now? And no mention of boiling water, until....someone else showed it in a YT video.
Hmmm.....?
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on August 11, 2009, 05:44:10 PM
you're a fool for assuming they would behave the same, more of a fool for the arguments you put forth in support of that assumption. you're a liar because you're now trying to confabulate a cover for your blatant error.
They behave the same, in that neither produces unusual behavior. They behave differently AS PREDICTED from inspection of the data sheet in parameters such as rise/fall time, gate capacitance, and heat dissipation due to internal resistance.
You are troll, and your behaviour proves it.
I've made no errors of the kind you imply. My major error was getting involved in this waste of time in the first place, and my most recent error is responding to your trolling disruption. But you came in at the right time--everyone else is leaving, since the free beer is all gone.
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 11, 2009, 05:55:05 PM
They behave the same, in that neither produces unusual behavior. They behave differently AS PREDICTED from inspection of the data sheet in parameters such as rise/fall time, gate capacitance, and heat dissipation due to internal resistance.
You are troll, and your behaviour proves it.
I've made no errors of the kind you imply. My major error was getting involved in this waste of time in the first place, and my most recent error is responding to your trolling disruption. But you came in at the right time--everyone else is leaving, since the free beer is all gone.
i'll call your bluff, you lying fool. please show where you "predicted from inspection of..." ::)
i have shown your post where you predicted something quite different, and there are more i can post as well. please show the post that supports your latest confabulation about this "prediction". hold on let me grab a chair this is going to be another classic.
by the way, it's behavior... can't even spell correctly or use the spell check, how amazingly analytical you are. such attention to detail. ::)
Hey TK:
It will be interesting to see how this all ends. I have a feeling we are going out on a whimper. Aaron's MO is to only respond to one in ten issues that arrive from his statements and his clips. For example, he took down the "proof of oscillation" video that was noting more than him looking at Moiré patterns and thinking he was looking at the MOSFET in oscillation. He stated that he was going to have it double-checked or something at report back. In fact he will never report back and conveniently forget it. Another example that comes to mind is the two day period where he was convinced that avalanche breakdown was directly related to "oscillation" and he started issuing proclamations about this to the minions and even marked up his schematics. I don't think that we will ever hear from Aaron about avalanche breakdown again, nor will any of the participants in the thread ever say anything about the lack of follow-up on the oscillation video or the avalanche breakdown issue. Hence, this one will go out with a big whimper and nobody will say anything.
Almost no one on his web site seems to want to hold him accountable for this kind of stuff and nobody ever seems to question a "proclamation." So .99's endgame scenario will probably come true and nobody on the Energetic Forum will have anything critical to say, the whole thing will just fade into obscurity.
Now we all know what they do to you in Singapore if you dare to spit your chewing gum out onto the sidewalk, can't forget that.
MileHigh
I'm newbie in electronics so please bear with me :
does MOSFET contain parasitic diode which has also leakage current value ? if so does it dissipate so called "back emf" to the power source causing spikes observed in replications.
Maybe original MOSFET had damaged internal diode ?
Second thought : if all MOSFETS from the same model are really exact and stick to data sheet then why millitary equipment uses own restricted models ?
Isn't that because FET's are noisy devices compared to old vacuum tubes and cannot make an effect ? Resonance is not the only requirement if you read Tesla.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on August 11, 2009, 05:16:53 PM
because this is tk's little singing and dancing bear show. we are critiquing his hack of a replication and lack of proper scientific method...
why don't you?
I'm not spending my time complaining about scientific method, you are. With all of the BS you spew, you could have done the experiments 100x times by now.
And don't think we don't all know that if it wasn't a MOSFET you found to complain about, it would absolutely be something else. Kindly tell us how in the world a slight difference in a MOSFET could ever produce OU.
I have said this before on another topic.
There may be laws of physics that prevent using the output of a device to power itself.
Because it somehow disrupts the effect.
But one could build multiple copies of the device and use the output from #1 to run #2
and the output from #2 to run #3. Then use the output from #3 to run #1, thus closing the loop.
There should be no laws of physics that prevent one from doing this.
If you have enough of the devices running off one another the close loop problems will widdle away.
So before someone says they can't close the loop they should try this method first.
Quote from: Asymatrix on August 11, 2009, 06:33:18 PM
I'm not spending my time complaining about scientific method, you are. With all of the BS you spew, you could have done the experiments 100x times by now.
And don't think we don't all know that if it wasn't a MOSFET you found to complain about, it would absolutely be something else. Kindly tell us how in the world a slight difference in a MOSFET could ever produce OU.
what BS is that? could you be specific? probably not ::)
tk is just getting what he gives, you can cry about it all you want, it won't change the fact that his method is shoddy, assumption is his usual measurement and he lies when his errors are exposed.
perhaps you can show where tk "predicted from inspection of..."? probably not ::)
Quote from: MileHigh on August 11, 2009, 06:18:22 PM
Hey TK:
It will be interesting to see how this all ends. I have a feeling we are going out on a whimper. Aaron's MO is to only respond to one in ten issues that arrive from his statements and his clips. For example, he took down the "proof of oscillation" video that was noting more than him looking at Moiré patterns and thinking he was looking at the MOSFET in oscillation. He stated that he was going to have it double-checked or something at report back. In fact he will never report back and conveniently forget it. Another example that comes to mind is the two day period where he was convinced that avalanche breakdown was directly related to "oscillation" and he started issuing proclamations about this to the minions and even marked up his schematics. I don't think that we will ever hear from Aaron about avalanche breakdown again, nor will any of the participants in the thread ever say anything about the lack of follow-up on the oscillation video or the avalanche breakdown issue. Hence, this one will go out with a big whimper and nobody will say anything.
Almost no one on his web site seems to want to hold him accountable for this kind of stuff and nobody ever seems to question a "proclamation." So .99's endgame scenario will probably come true and nobody on the Energetic Forum will have anything critical to say, the whole thing will just fade into obscurity.
Now we all know what they do to you in Singapore if you dare to spit your chewing gum out onto the sidewalk, can't forget that.
MileHigh
Bizarre behavior isn't it? Instead of doing the right thing, and admitting they're wrong (to prevent more confusion) ... Some folks such as Aaron will just jump to something else, and basically change the subject... and essentially mislead people.
It's no wonder Energeticforum.com has 100s of threads that tout "Free Energy!" and NOT ONE single excess energy measurement or conclusion.... They just fade way with 1000s posts of speculation just as the "COP 17" thread will...
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on August 11, 2009, 07:29:00 PM
what BS is that? could you be specific? probably not ::)
tk is just getting what he gives, you can cry about it all you want, it won't change the fact that his method is shoddy, assumption is his usual measurement and he lies when his errors are exposed.
perhaps you can show where tk "predicted from inspection of..."? probably not ::)
The BS is feigning ignorance and claiming that the thorough science/analysis is somehow wrong because of the slightest variation with a MOSFET. That assertion alone actually proves beyond a doubt that you are trolling.
And it's funny that you wanted TK to use a MOSFET off ebay. Imagine that, all this BS about accuracy, and you'd be fine with a God-knows-what spec MOSFET off eBay.....
What in the world is Harvey up to?
Quote
Notwithstanding the initial 1.8A capacitor current spike, if we were to take the 800ma of current as a flat line (worst case scenario) and multiply it by the source power for the 200ms duration we find that we draw 3.84 Watt Seconds out of our source. Now, if we evaluate loosely, the inductor power from 468 Watts down to zero (which it didn't quite reach) over the next 200ms, we end up with 33.08 Watt Seconds. [(468 / 2) *.707 * 0.2]
Where does the apparent gain come from?
Erp, Harvey.
How do you get Watt-seconds from multiplying "source power" times "current" times "time"? But never mind, you probably meant source voltage, not source power.
And at the end there, you aren't computing energy correctly.
Or is that the point?
(Edit--maybe I see what you mean. You are trying to say that the average power dissipated during the second 200 ms is somehow greater than the average power delivered in the first 200 ms. But it isn't. The power dissipated in the ringdown is not represented by the height of the spikes, thus it is not represented by an average or rms value derived from the waveform. It is rather the rate of decay of the exponential envelope that represents the power dissipated. The ringdown, as you well know, is just the same energy sloshing back and forth between capacitances and inductances. If nothing were dissipated, the ringdown would not decay. A little is lost to heat in every cycle, though, so the ORIGINAL ENERGY that was input is dissipated over a long time, and the rate of dissipation is represented by the rate of the exponential decay envelope. Not by the average or rms value of the ringdown waveform. Right?)
Second edit: I can't quite figure out what Harvey is getting at. Perhaps I'm totally misinterpreting what he's trying to say.
But I do know this: He's winding up with an answer in Joules, or watt-seconds, which is energy, so he's comparing energy in during the first 200 ms with an energy value that he computes from what happens during the second 200 ms... but in the second case, where he computes it by taking the rms value of a power waveform times the time, that is not equivalent to integrating the power waveform over that time. So it isn't an energy value that represents any real quantity. It's not the power dissipated in that time period; it's a false addition of the same energy (that in the first peak) over and over to itself (because of the rms sign flipping), minus just a little each cycle for dissipation...
The true state of affairs in the ringdown is this:the area under that first cycle peak, or spike, represents the energy in the system of L and C. It sloshes back and forth, the sign of the current changing every half cycle, and a little going away as heat with each cycle. The energy goes one way, then it comes back, then it goes one way, then it comes back. It's the same energy. It decreases a bit with each cycle. Harvey, and Rosemary too, seem to want to add the energy to itself with every cycle, and call it a gain. But if you compute the total energy over the entire ringdown, you see that the area of the first peak is just what all the little decreases in each subsequent peak add up to, until the thing flatlines. That is, the total input energy (represented by the area of the first cycle's peak) is dissipated over the whole of the ringdown.
There's an OverUnity CON-vention in town, and three friends decided to share a room after the festivities, so they went to the MosFetMotel down on Lake Ponchartrain, down by the seawall.
They stopped in the office to check in. "How much is the room?"
"I'm not sure, I'm just the janitor, the clerk stepped out for a smoke. Just give me thirty bucks, and I'll bring your change, if any, up to the room when he comes back."
"OK". So the three OUFreeks (so said their t-shirts) each gave the janitor a ten-spot and they went up to their room.
Now, when the clerk came back and heard the janitor's story, he said, "Well, the room is only twenty-five bucks, so here are five ones, go on up there and give them their change."
So the janitor, he's no dummy. He figures, it's too hard to split 5 bucks three ways anyway. So he'll just pocket 2 dollars as his tip, and give each of the OverUniteers a dollar each back. So he does, and goes on off on his lunchbreak.
Now, the three guys each put in ten bucks. And they each got back one dollar, so that makes nine dollars each, and nine times three is twentyseven dollars.
And the janitor put two dollars in his pocket.
Twenty-seven plus two is twenty-nine.
But they started with thirty dollars.
What happened to the other dollar?
:-X
(It went to the same place Harvey's 29 or 33 extra watt-seconds came from.)
Quote from: Asymatrix on August 11, 2009, 08:07:21 PM
The BS is feigning ignorance and claiming that the thorough science/analysis is somehow wrong because of the slightest variation with a MOSFET. That assertion alone actually proves beyond a doubt that you are trolling.
And it's funny that you wanted TK to use a MOSFET off ebay. Imagine that, all this BS about accuracy, and you'd be fine with a God-knows-what spec MOSFET off eBay.....
feigned ignorance? could you provide a reference? HIS REFUSAL TO USE THE SPECIFIED FET FOR OVER 30 PAGES IS WHAT YOU CONSIDER THOROUGH? AND SCIENCE? LMFAO
THAT IS WHAT IS WRONG WITH TK'S SCIENTIFIC METHOD. there, it is in caps, maybe you will understand it now with your 5th grade comprehension skill.
where did i request he use a ebay mosfet? i suggested he might be able to find one off ebay after his litany of asinine excuses as why he could not find one. there is a difference there, but i wouldn't expect you to be aware of it... and yes using an ebay irfpg50 would have been better scientific method AND MORE ACCURATE than just using whatever is laying on the bench.
BS about accuracy? please show where i posted BS about accuracy...
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 11, 2009, 10:25:54 PM
There's an OverUnity CON-vention in town, and three friends decided to share a room after the festivities, so they went to the MosFetMotel down on Lake Ponchartrain, down by the seawall.
They stopped in the office to check in. "How much is the room?"
"I'm not sure, I'm just the janitor, the clerk stepped out for a smoke. Just give me thirty bucks, and I'll bring your change, if any, up to the room when he comes back."
"OK". So the three OUFreeks (so said their t-shirts) each gave the janitor a ten-spot and they went up to their room.
Now, when the clerk came back and heard the janitor's story, he said, "Well, the room is only twenty-five bucks, so here are five ones, go on up there and give them their change."
So the janitor, he's no dummy. He figures, it's too hard to split 5 bucks three ways anyway. So he'll just pocket 2 dollars as his tip, and give each of the OverUniteers a dollar each back. So he does, and goes on off on his lunchbreak.
Now, the three guys each put in ten bucks. And they each got back one dollar, so that makes nine dollars each, and nine times three is twentyseven dollars.
And the janitor put two dollars in his pocket.
Twenty-seven plus two is twenty-nine.
But they started with thirty dollars.
What happened to the other dollar?
:-X
(It went to the same place Harvey's 29 or 33 extra watt-seconds came from.)
the three OU freaks must be the magnanimous trinity... ::)
Let's see, I'm not supposed to set anything up until I have all the exact exact parts, even if they go into a circuit that by inspection has a high potential for damaging expensive components. That's OK though, because those components grow on trees, and there's no point at all in getting my apparatus together and my measurement techniques shaken out, because all that work will be irrelevant unless I've got the exact exact parts. Otherwise I'm not doing Science.
Right. I'll try to remember that the next time. Anything to keep from waking up the one-track troll.
Wilby, you are an idiot. And a dull and boring one, to boot.
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 11, 2009, 11:16:09 PM
Let's see, I'm not supposed to set anything up until I have all the exact exact parts, even if they go into a circuit that by inspection has a high potential for damaging expensive components. That's OK though, because those components grow on trees, and there's no point at all in getting my apparatus together and my measurement techniques shaken out, because all that work will be irrelevant unless I've got the exact exact parts. Otherwise I'm not doing Science.
Right. I'll try to remember that the next time. Anything to keep from waking up the one-track troll.
Wilby, you are an idiot. And a dull and boring one, to boot.
why then did it take you 30+ pages to get around to proper scientific method? from the time you proposed your 'candy from a baby' wager to the time you mentioned testing the irfpg50 was 13 days, 13 DAYS!!! how much time do you need little bear? you have to 'shake out' your measurement techniques? LMFAO that's classic tk there for you all. as far as next time goes, don't worry little bear, i will be there.
tk, you are a fool and a liar. and your scientific method is pathetic, to boot.
edit: i notice you failed to show your "predicted from inspection of..." post. typical.
I'm not quite sure what Harvey is trying to show or prove, and also why he's using that toy simulator when by his own admission he has a decent one at hand ??? Are those MOSFETs real? (what type?), generic, ideal?, other?
Why two switches? If they are models of real MOSFETs, then I can see why, but if they are more of an ideal switch, then only one is necessary and the circuit can be simplified further.
Also, those inductor and cap values are wack. Something much more realistic should be used, especially pertaining to the RA circuit. The values I used worked quite well if you want to stretch things a bit for better illustration purposes; i.e. 1600uH with series 10 Ohm // 50pF with series 1k.
.99
no the mosfets are not real, they are virtual, sims. are you not familiar with the difference between real and virtual?
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on August 11, 2009, 11:04:19 PM
feigned ignorance? could you provide a reference? HIS REFUSAL TO USE THE SPECIFIED FET FOR OVER 30 PAGES IS WHAT YOU CONSIDER THOROUGH? AND SCIENCE? LMFAO
THAT IS WHAT IS WRONG WITH TK'S SCIENTIFIC METHOD. there, it is in caps, maybe you will understand it now with your 5th grade comprehension skill.
where did i request he use a ebay mosfet? i suggested he might be able to find one off ebay after his litany of asinine excuses as why he could not find one. there is a difference there, but i wouldn't expect you to be aware of it... and yes using an ebay irfpg50 would have been better scientific method AND MORE ACCURATE than just using whatever is laying on the bench.
BS about accuracy? please show where i posted BS about accuracy...
You posted a link to the mosfet on ebay. The reason for the delay was not wanting to have buy a large batch of mosfets (from a reliable source) An ebay mosfet certainly would NOT have been better scientific method or more accurate.
Just keep looking for irrelevant minutia while the circuit is tested with every conceivable metric. It's now been tested with the 'right' MOSFET, with no difference, do you even realize that? Of course not, it's still page after page of BS.
Quote from: Asymatrix on August 12, 2009, 02:03:11 AM
You posted a link to the mosfet on ebay. The reason for the delay was not wanting to have buy a large batch of mosfets (from a reliable source) An ebay mosfet certainly would NOT have been better scientific method or more accurate.
Just keep looking for irrelevant minutia while the circuit is tested with every conceivable metric. It's now been tested with the 'right' MOSFET, with no difference, do you even realize that? Of course not, it's still page after page of BS.
so how is that a request to use that particular mosfet? furthermore if you follow the context of the conversation at that time (which i doubt you can with your limited comprehension) the link was posted to demonstrate single fets were in fact available, contrary to your hero's assertions otherwise and they were nowhere near as "expensive" as he made them out to be. ramset even asked tk if he was in zimbabwe... and yes, using a irfpg50 when attempting (and i use that term loosely here regarding tk's "apparatus") a replication that specifies a irfpg50 would be more accurate and would have actually adhered to scientific method. using whatever is on hand does neither. sounds like your pushing BS to me. explain how when attempting a replication using what you have on hand is good scientific method. i got my chair all ready.
no difference? what about this statement by your hero?
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 13, 2009, 07:50:12 PM
I've finally gotten around to running some comparisons between the IRFPG50 and the 2SK1548.
Heh.
From a "traditional engineering" viewpoint the 2sk1548 diode performs MUCH better in this circuit...that is, if things like THD and proper pulse tracking concern you. The long turn off time of the IRFPG50 really messes with the signal at these excessively short (using the FG) or LONG (using the 555) duty cycles.
The IRF unit does seem to heat up less than the 2SK, but that's just an early impression.
I think if you are into spikes in your signal, the 2SK might be a better choice here too. It turns on and off better than the IRF unit (not surprising, is it, looking at the data sheets and considering the gate capacitances). And since it turns on and off with faster rise and fall times, it produces a higher inductive pulse from the coil. I think. Maybe.
So there goes my hypothesis that the two transistors would perform pretty much the same. I was wrong about that. The 2SK1548, when properly cooled, outperforms the IRFPG50, as far as I can tell. And it's smaller. And quite a bit cheaper. And locally available.
this is the part that should concern you, "So there goes my hypothesis that the two transistors would perform pretty much the same. I was wrong about that." as it is contrary to your statement that "It's now been tested with the 'right' MOSFET, with no difference, do you even realize that?" you and your magnanimous trinity partner should get that worked out... your loyalty as a sycophant is admirable and laughable at the same time ::)
edit: my favorite part is the "And since it turns on and off with faster rise and fall times, it produces a higher inductive pulse from the coil. I think. Maybe." statement by the dancing bear.
that's brilliant, classic tk... i think, maybe ::)
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on August 12, 2009, 02:16:02 AM
so how is that a request to use that particular mosfet? furthermore if you follow the context of the conversation at that time (which i doubt you can with your limited comprehension) the link was posted to demonstrate single fets were in fact available, contrary to your hero's assertions otherwise and they were nowhere near as "expensive" as he made them out to be. ramset even asked tk if he was in zimbabwe... and yes, using a irfpg50 when attempting (and i use that term loosely here) a replication that specifies a irfpg50 would be more accurate and would have actually adhere to scientific method. using whatever is on hand does neither. sounds like your pushing BS to me. explain how when attempting a replication using what you have on hand is good scientific method. i got my chair all ready.
You 'demonstrated' that if someone wants to use a mosfet from god-knows-where off ebay, in order to buy a single item, it would be OK according to your laughable scientific method.
Now that TK spent the $ and got the 'right' mosfet from a reliable source, tested the circut, and showed no real difference in regards to OU, how is it that you did not simply admit you were completely wrong, and crawl back under a rock?
Simple. You are a troll.
i repeat, HOW IS THAT A REQUEST?
i missed your explanation of how when attempting a replication using what you have on hand is good scientific method...
and now you claim in your last post that using the specified fet when attempting a replication is "laughable". does anyone, other than tk and his sycophants, believe such to be good scientific method?
you still haven't reconciled this statement from tk
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 13, 2009, 07:50:12 PM
So there goes my hypothesis that the two transistors would perform pretty much the same. I was wrong about that. The 2SK1548, when properly cooled, outperforms the IRFPG50, as far as I can tell. And it's smaller. And quite a bit cheaper. And locally available.
with this statement of yours.
Quote from: Asymatrix on August 12, 2009, 02:03:11 AM
It's now been tested with the 'right' MOSFET, with no difference, do you even realize that?
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on August 12, 2009, 02:30:12 AM
i missed your explanation of how when attempting a replication using what you have on hand is good scientific method...
does anyone, other than tk and his sycophants, believe such to be good scientific method?
you still haven't reconciled this statement from tk with this statement of yours.
Because slight variations in a single part makes no difference in achieving OU. Everything you whine about has been shown to be completely irrelevant, yet here you are, still trolling.
Meanwhile, you do no tests of your own, and offer no data at all.
Perhaps you can find another board to troll on.
Quote from: Asymatrix on August 12, 2009, 02:45:59 AM
Because slight variations in a single part makes no difference in achieving OU. Everything you whine about has been shown to be completely irrelevant, yet here you are, still trolling.
Meanwhile, you do no tests of your own, and offer no data at all.
Perhaps you can find another board to troll on.
tk never said anything about ou, he was comparing the performance. it's right here. open your eyes and comprehend what has been said.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 13, 2009, 07:50:12 PM
I've finally gotten around to running some comparisons between the IRFPG50 and the 2SK1548.
Heh.
From a "traditional engineering" viewpoint the 2sk1548 diode performs MUCH better in this circuit...that is, if things like THD and proper pulse tracking concern you. The long turn off time of the IRFPG50 really messes with the signal at these excessively short (using the FG) or LONG (using the 555) duty cycles.
The IRF unit does seem to heat up less than the 2SK, but that's just an early impression.
I think if you are into spikes in your signal, the 2SK might be a better choice here too. It turns on and off better than the IRF unit (not surprising, is it, looking at the data sheets and considering the gate capacitances). And since it turns on and off with faster rise and fall times, it produces a higher inductive pulse from the coil. I think. Maybe.
So there goes my hypothesis that the two transistors would perform pretty much the same. I was wrong about that. The 2SK1548, when properly cooled, outperforms the IRFPG50, as far as I can tell. And it's smaller. And quite a bit cheaper. And locally available.
where does he say any thing about ou in that post? POINT IN FACT, he specifically says, and i quote, "from a traditional engineering viewpoint".
we have been over that, we are critiquing tk's hack of a replication. not mine.
perhaps you can work on your comprehension skills?
again, your loyalty as a sycophant is admirable and laughable at the same time.
check out this post where he asks me to show him a difference in PERFORMANCE.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 01, 2009, 09:28:24 PM
Would you care to make a little wager, Wilby?
If you can show a significant difference between the performance of the IRFPG50 mosfet used by Ainslie, and the 2SK1548 mosfet that I used in my replication, using the published circuit and parameters of Ainslie, I will gladly make a public apology to you. On the other hand, if the performance is substantially the same, you get off my back.
If you really think the mosfet makes a difference, you should take the bet.
(EDIT I was going to offer to bet money at odds, but I realised that would be unethical--like taking candy from a baby--. Sorry.)
and lo and behold! there WAS a significant difference. how did tk say it? "From a "traditional engineering" viewpoint the 2sk1548 diode performs MUCH better in this circuit". MUCH better, he even emphasized MUCH.
he then tried to twist his way out by saying the original claim was something different and all the good sycophants bought it. hook, line and sinker.
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 11, 2009, 05:41:49 PM
But MY point is that since neither one of them produces OVERUNITY -- which was the original claim, remember --
it sucks for you and your hero that there are a few of us here that can read, comprehend and have a decent memory...
edit: anyone have any idea what a "2sk1548 diode" is? must be more of that phenomenal attention to detail that tk applies. ::)
more clear evidence that tk was
not referencing "overunity performance" as he is so conveniently now trying to claim.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 06, 2009, 10:04:49 AM
Now, from your elevated pulpit, can you read me the gospel chapter on how the choice of any particular N-channel mosfet would make a likety-split of difference in the duty cycle issue?
sycophants take notice that he never mentions "overunity performance" until now. ::)
Hi !
2sk1548 is not a diode but an N Channel Power Mos-Fet !
Data Sheet :
http://www.datasheetcatalog.org/datasheets2/17/175358_1.pdf
Obelix
this one really makes me laugh.
Quote from: Asymatrix on July 08, 2009, 01:12:43 AM
Seems to me TK has tested the circuit while you've done jack squat (other than whine). Please tell the class why a slightly different FET will make a huge difference, let alone create OU.
::) did he forget he said this? is he "playing" stupid? blind sycophant loyalty no matter what? no matter really, it's funny that he made the distinction that we weren't talking about "overunity performance" then but can't seem to now...
Further investigation of Aaron's latest Ainslie circuit mod reveals that my replication is very unstable, which resulted in the overheating of my mosfet. The pulses dance around on the scope as a result of this and its almost impossible to get a steady screen. Also, my frequency pot appears not to work properly. I have now managed to repeat the sudden 'oscillatory' effect which causes the mosfet overheating. It looks like the circuit suddenly increases in frequency and duty cycle, although its difficult to see the waveform clearly at the point this happens. I cannot reproduce this effect with the original Aaron / Peter Lindeman design.
I'm not aware that anyone else has built Aaron's latest mod, so it would be interesting if perhaps MH or TK could build this and report their findings.
Hoppy
Cash Advance: 30.00
Room: -25.00
Janitor -2.00
=================
Amt Due: 3.00
Oops, I guess I can add after all...o.O
(Now if I can just find out where I left that voltage...hmmm)
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on August 12, 2009, 02:53:02 AM
tk never said anything about ou, he was comparing the performance. it's right here. open your eyes and comprehend what has been said. where does he say any thing about ou in that post?
The point is, you spend all of your time labeling TK incompetent, in spite of the volumes of real testing data on real equipment. The point IS that a small mosfet difference makes NO DIFFERENCE in Ainslie's circuit, of which entire point of testing is it's claimed OU. You offer nothing, you do no science, no experiments, and spend all of your energy trying to discredit someone you are clearly psychotically jealous of. Give it a rest.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on August 12, 2009, 05:09:15 AM
this one really makes me laugh.
::) did he forget he said this? is he "playing" stupid? blind sycophant loyalty no matter what? no matter really, it's funny that he made the distinction that we weren't talking about "overunity performance" then but can't seem to now...
The entire point of this thread, and testing the circuit, is it's claimed OU. The idea that you think anything else is relevant regarding the circuit demonstrates how desperate you are to legitimize trolling.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on August 12, 2009, 02:53:02 AM
we have been over that, we are critiquing tk's hack of a replication. not mine.
Absolute proof that you are a troll. "Hack replication?" Because of the slightest Mosfet difference? Laughable and sad.
Quote from: Hoppy on August 12, 2009, 05:35:38 AM
Further investigation of Aaron's latest Ainslie circuit mod reveals that my replication is very unstable, which resulted in the overheating of my mosfet. The pulses dance around on the scope as a result of this and its almost impossible to get a steady screen. Also, my frequency pot appears not to work properly. I have now managed to repeat the sudden 'oscillatory' effect which causes the mosfet overheating. It looks like the circuit suddenly increases in frequency and duty cycle, although its difficult to see the waveform clearly at the point this happens. I cannot reproduce this effect with the original Aaron / Peter Lindeman design.
I'm not aware that anyone else has built Aaron's latest mod, so it would be interesting if perhaps MH or TK could build this and report their findings.
Hoppy
Hoppy, most small inexpensive potentiometers are rated 1/2 Watt or even 1/4 Watt. It is very easy to "burn" a tiny spot on the resistance strip, and when the slider contacts this area a noisy or intermittent contact can be experienced. I have such a spot on one of the pots in my circuit, which came from a momentary overload using a different transistor.
I would suggest repeating your exact tuning test with a different, new, pot, and see if that makes any difference.
Also, if you could show a scope shot, as I suggested earlier, of 2 simultaneous traces, it would be very helpful in diagnosis: one, the output of the timer (either pin 3 or if there is other following circuitry the point where the timer connects to the gate atten. pot) and two, the mosfet drain trace (Ainslie "A" or the transistor side of the load). Trigger the scope with the first (timer) trace.
In this way we will be able to see if the "oscillations" are coming from the timer, which I believe, or from the mosfet. In case we aren't already convinced enough.
Please do try some different pots, though. That might be the source of your fine-tuning "oscillations".
As far as building Yet Another of Aaron's kludges, no thanks, I'm about done with that. How did you get the Aaron-Peter circuit to work properly? Even after correcting the stupid mistake of connecting the output to the positive rail LIKE THE DRAWING SHOWS, the thing still won't make the right duty cycle for me.
And again, it's really easy to get the right duty cycle and fairly good behaviour with the original Quantum circuit if you just put an inverting 2n2222 on the output.
If that's what floats your OU boat, I mean.
Oh, and I see that the 2sk1548 is a MOSFET, not a diode, and even long-dead typos are fair game for trolls to dig up. Even when it's clear from the CONTEXT exactly what is meant.
Let that be a lesson to anyone who dares to post on the internet: some fool will remember everything you ever said and will use it against you, years from now.
Well, shut my mouth and call me "mammy".
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 12, 2009, 07:14:05 AM
Oh, and I see that the 2sk1548 is a MOSFET, not a diode, and even long-dead typos are fair game for trolls to dig up. Even when it's clear from the CONTEXT exactly what is meant.
Let that be a lesson to anyone who dares to post on the internet: some fool will remember everything you ever said and will use it against you, years from now.
Well, shut my mouth and call me "mammy".
yes, the context is clear, as clear as the non ou context surrounding our fet debate. i'm just pointing out your numerous errors and lack of attention to detail, as it bears relevance to your ability to analyze and your credibility.
yup, let that be a lesson to those that would misrepresent, obfuscate and outright lie.
we can only hope you will... ::)
edit: i notice you failed to show your "predicted from inspection of..." post, again.
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 12, 2009, 07:14:05 AM
Hoppy, most small inexpensive potentiometers are rated 1/2 Watt or even 1/4 Watt. It is very easy to "burn" a tiny spot on the resistance strip, and when the slider contacts this area a noisy or intermittent contact can be experienced. I have such a spot on one of the pots in my circuit, which came from a momentary overload using a different transistor.
I would suggest repeating your exact tuning test with a different, new, pot, and see if that makes any difference.
Also, if you could show a scope shot, as I suggested earlier, of 2 simultaneous traces, it would be very helpful in diagnosis: one, the output of the timer (either pin 3 or if there is other following circuitry the point where the timer connects to the gate atten. pot) and two, the mosfet drain trace (Ainslie "A" or the transistor side of the load). Trigger the scope with the first (timer) trace.
In this way we will be able to see if the "oscillations" are coming from the timer, which I believe, or from the mosfet. In case we aren't already convinced enough.
Please do try some different pots, though. That might be the source of your fine-tuning "oscillations".
As far as building Yet Another of Aaron's kludges, no thanks, I'm about done with that. How did you get the Aaron-Peter circuit to work properly? Even after correcting the stupid mistake of connecting the output to the positive rail LIKE THE DRAWING SHOWS, the thing still won't make the right duty cycle for me.
And again, it's really easy to get the right duty cycle and fairly good behaviour with the original Quantum circuit if you just put an inverting 2n2222 on the output.
If that's what floats your OU boat, I mean.
Oh, and I see that the 2sk1548 is a MOSFET, not a diode, and even long-dead typos are fair game for trolls to dig up. Even when it's clear from the CONTEXT exactly what is meant.
Let that be a lesson to anyone who dares to post on the internet: some fool will remember everything you ever said and will use it against you, years from now.
Well, shut my mouth and call me "mammy".
Hi TK
I'm not being mislead by faulty pots! I only use brand new quality ten turn pots for this type of replication work. The ocsillations are definately coming from my control circuit because its unstable.
Peter's and Aarons circuit works OK but I too cannot get 3.7% from it.
Hoppy
Wilby, No, you are blatantly trolling, in violation of this site's TOS and the common internet definition of trolling. In addition, you are pointing out the SAME POINT over and over and over and over again, not new points.
Most of the "thirty pages" you keep referring to are YOU trolling and me teasing you. And you have absolutely no idea when I started testing what. You only know--or think you know--what I posted and when I posted it.
You haven't given any substantive criticism of my analyses at all. Nor have you pointed out any errors. You have just shown quotes from ME pointing out my own errors. Which, when I make them, I freely admit.
And once again: the issue here is the COP>17 overunity claim of Rosemary Ainslie. In regards to that claim, there is NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE in any of the mosfets that I have tried, as stated at the time. In regards to traditional engineering criteria, assuming that spikes are what you want (Aaron has flip-flopped on this several times) then the 2sk1548 is probably better, and I demonstrated this several times in the videos with side-by-side comparisons. But that issue is entirely my own. Most people have actually REFUSED to try any other mosfets, specifically avoiding the 2sk1548! So your entire argument involving my use or not of this mosfet is the flimsiest of straw men. The fact that you are so stuck on it indicates that you have even less of a real life than I do, and that is extremely pitiful.
And to top it off, you are simply wrong.
@Hoppy: good, that at least reduces the chances of the dirty pot. I suppose I'll have to build it after all. Can you be specific as to which of Aaron's circuits you are using? I've lost count, so a link to the actual diagram would be nice.
Did you try several different 555 chips in there with the same or similar control settings? There can be partial failures as well as large differences between chips.
I'd still like to see a scope shot if you can manage to make it hold still long enough.
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 12, 2009, 08:06:29 AM
Wilby, No, you are blatantly trolling, in violation of this site's TOS and the common internet definition of trolling. In addition, you are pointing out the SAME POINT over and over and over and over again, not new points.
Most of the "thirty pages" you keep referring to are YOU trolling and me teasing you. And you have absolutely no idea when I started testing what. You only know--or think you know--what I posted and when I posted it.
You haven't given any substantive criticism of my analyses at all. Nor have you pointed out any errors. You have just shown quotes from ME pointing out my own errors. Which, when I make them, I freely admit.
And once again: the issue here is the COP>17 overunity claim of Rosemary Ainslie. In regards to that claim, there is NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE in any of the mosfets that I have tried, as stated at the time. In regards to traditional engineering criteria, assuming that spikes are what you want (Aaron has flip-flopped on this several times) then the 2sk1548 is probably better, and I demonstrated this several times in the videos with side-by-side comparisons. But that issue is entirely my own. Most people have actually REFUSED to try any other mosfets, specifically avoiding the 2sk1548! So your entire argument involving my use or not of this mosfet is the flimsiest of straw men. The fact that you are so stuck on it indicates that you have even less of a real life than I do, and that is extremely pitiful.
And to top it off, you are simply wrong.
this is rich, glad i grabbed a chair right away. i know you didn't start with testing the irfpg50 as proper scientific method re: a replication would demand. and no, that wasn't what you stated at the time. i have shown this by quoting your post several times now. nor is it what was stated at the time by your sycophants, as i have shown also.
to top it off, didn't you say earlier that responding to me was an error? and here you are repeating what you have stated to be a known error repeatedly. ::) this habit of yours isn't doing your credibility any favors...
you failed to provide any evidence of your "predicted by..." post, AGAIN. a baseless claim from the dancing bear.
WI,
Why are you here?
It's obvious you are no dummy, and I apologize for calling you the "R" word.
But why are you being so antagonistic? Have you nothing positive to contribute rather than bantering on about details that have no real bearing on things?
OK, so TK has made some mistakes, I have made some mistakes, MH has made some mistakes, Harvey has made some mistakes, Hoppy...etc. We've all made some mistakes, and most have admitted them. Have you not made any mistakes?
Let's move on from the antagonistic banter as your points have been duly noted.
What is your take on Aaron's Test Spreadsheet? What's your take on RMS measurements at the load, and DC measurements at the shunt?
Cheers,
.99
I see that you are ignoring important questions...
This thread is horrible.Better close it.
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 12, 2009, 08:11:19 AM
@Hoppy: good, that at least reduces the chances of the dirty pot. I suppose I'll have to build it after all. Can you be specific as to which of Aaron's circuits you are using? I've lost count, so a link to the actual diagram would be nice.
Did you try several different 555 chips in there with the same or similar control settings? There can be partial failures as well as large differences between chips.
I'd still like to see a scope shot if you can manage to make it hold still long enough.
TK
Its the 10th August revision. (EE forum post 1927).
I did try various chips including the 7555.
I have attached two scope shots both taken at 0.1mS. The first is the 'normal' waveform and the second is where the load starts to draw a heavy current.
Hoppy
EDIT: Posting error.
Hoppy
Hey Hoppy,
Can you provide more information about each of those pairs of scope shots? You have to remember when you are working in your own "bubble" it all seems so clear. Step outside of the bubble and you would see that it might not be as self evident as you think. I know that I can be a pain, but my preference is to know exactly where each probe channel's ground and signal leads are connected. I do not take it for granted that each scope channel's ground clip is connected to the circuit ground.
I'm not sure if you are showing a 555 output or not. That's a critical question because we are looking at the possibility that the 555 circuit is subject to outside influence, and may be spontaneously increasing in frequency. Nor do I see a trace that looks like a familiar shunt resistor waveform.
You should also try to show two or three cycles max on your display, and adjust the vertical gain on each channel to make a nice display. Stating what the vertical gain for each channel is important, as well as the time base. Stating where the ground reference for each channel is is also very important. Something as simple as a small piece of masking tape with a horizontal line marked on it and then placed on the left edge of the scope display for each channel would do the trick. If the channel is AC or DC coupled can sometimes be very important to mention also.
This also applies to Aaron or anyone else that wants to submit scope shots. Going the full distance to provide clear information would be very much appreciated.
Thanks,
MileHigh
TK:
I have another suggestion to reduce the "555 oscillator agony." My solution is to use two 555s in series. Radical man! lol The first 555 is just a free-running oscillator, a.k.a. "bistable multivibrator." You can lay it out on your breadboard and just swap your main timing capacitor and trimpot + series resistor combination to your hearts content to get any frequency sweep range you want.
The output of the first 555 connects to a second 555 configured as a "one shot", a.k.a. "monostable multivibrator." For this you also have a main timing capacitor and and trimpot + series resistor combination to determine the time constant for the monostable multivibrator.
With this dual-555 combination you can make a oscillator that runs at just about ANY frequency and gives you ANY duty cycle. It is very easy to do and can put all of the 555 agony to bed.
For those that need a schematic, just type in "555 application notes" and find your favourite "astable multivibrator" and "monostable multivibrator" circuits. These two circuits are the most basic 555 designs around.
If you really want to finish this off properly, find a good standard CMOS "line driver" hex inverter chip that has high-current-drive outputs. It is extremely important to have symmetrical current sourcing and sinking capabilities for driving the gate input of the MOSFET so make sure that the buffer/inverter chip you use is symmetrical. Note that all of the unused inputs on the hex inverter chip shoud be tied to ground. This is not trivial, it is extremely important.
You can run your 555 monostable multivibrator output into two cascaded inverters so that you have high-current-drive standard and complimentary outputs. This could be very handy if you want a quick and easy way to switch from a 5% duty-cycle waveform to a 95% duty cycle waveform.
If you build this dual-555 + high-current-drive hex inverter chip setup on a single breadboard then chances are you will never need to make another 555 circuit again. The only thing that you may need to do from time to time is change the timing components.
MileHigh
SPECIAL MESSAGE TO AARON: So do you like the design above Aaron? If yes build it and make good use of it. However, it is time for you to stop making a COMPLETE FOOL OF YOURSELF by trying to claim that myself and other "skeptics" have no clue of what we are talking about. Stop making yourself look like a pathetic dumb-assed bitch and get your act together. Get out of your hopeless pathetic spin zone and GET REAL.
On that topic did you say August 20th was the delivery date for the DSO? So what is your test plan Aaron? Are you going to try my suggestion or what? You have been asked about five times now. EVERYBODY on both sites wants to know what it is.
If you never reveal what you are going to do, and then try to claim that you found over unity, then you are f*cked, pure and simple. No one will believe you and you may as well shut down your web site and go crawl into a hole.
One more time, DO NOT try to claim that I don't know what I am talking about. Is that LOUD AND CLEAR AARON?
Quote from: MileHigh on August 12, 2009, 12:31:17 PM
Hey Hoppy,
Can you provide more information about each of those pairs of scope shots? You have to remember when you are working in your own "bubble" it all seems so clear. Step outside of the bubble and you would see that it might not be as self evident as you think. I know that I can be a pain, but my preference is to know exactly where each probe channel's ground and signal leads are connected. I do not take it for granted that each scope channel's ground clip is connected to the circuit ground.
I'm not sure if you are showing a 555 output or not. That's a critical question because we are looking at the possibility that the 555 circuit is subject to outside influence, and may be spontaneously increasing in frequency. Nor do I see a trace that looks like a familiar shunt resistor waveform.
You should also try to show two or three cycles max on your display, and adjust the vertical gain on each channel to make a nice display. Stating what the vertical gain for each channel is important, as well as the time base. Stating where the ground reference for each channel is also very important. Something as simple as a small piece of masking tape with a horizontal line marked on it and then placed on the left edge of the scope display for each channel would do the trick. If the channel is AC or DC coupled can sometimes be very important to mention also.
This also applies to Aaron or anyone else that wants to submit scope shots. Going the full distance to provide clear information would be very much appreciated.
Thanks,
MileHigh
Hi MH
I have not altered my probes. Both grounds are on battery 0V and the probes on the shunt resistor and mosfet drain. Timebase is 1mS. Top trace is 20V per div and bottom trace 1V per div.
Hoppy
@milehigh
Quote:
"SPECIAL MESSAGE TO AARON: So do you like the design above Aaron? If yes build it and make good use of it. However, it is time for you to stop making a COMPLETE FOOL OF YOURSELF by trying to claim that myself and other "skeptics" have no clue of what we are talking about. Stop making yourself look like a pathetic dumb-assed bitch and get your act together. Get out of your hopeless pathetic spin zone and GET REAL."
You may want to take a real good hard look in the mirrror, I have never met a technical person as you claim to be act so immature and quite frankly I find your behaviour as an embarrassment to anyone who calls themselves a proffessional.
Regards
AC
Quote Aaron, he has the DSO!!! Fantastic!!
QuoteI think it is clear that any claims that the spike can't get to the battery and that the spike is insignificant, etc... are all completely laughable at this point. I already saw this on drawdown tests but this is just icing on the cake.
It looks like from the shot of the DSO display that it is telling him that the spike and ring-down are 6.76 microseconds wide. From the scope display it is safe to say the the main spike that he is getting all excited about is less than 0.5 microseconds wide. That's LESS THAN 500 NANOseconds.
Aaron, the spike IS INSIGNIFICANT, and what you are saying is the thing that is truly laughable.
Honestly this all gets me depressed to the extent of my limited emotional involvement in this project.
I just can't see Aaron getting his act together. He has been told over and over that a spike going back to the battery that has a very narrow pulse width will contain only a very small and insignificant amount of energy. He has also been told repeatedly that the original source for the spike energy is in fact the battery.
In a way, it is unbelievable. Aaron is not in the "real world" when he is working with circuits on the bench, he has his own reality. It's truly a shame considering what a nice piece of high technology that DSO is.
MileHigh
AC:
QuoteYou may want to take a real good hard look in the mirror, I have never met a technical person as you claim to be act so immature and quite frankly I find your behaviour as an embarrassment to anyone who calls themselves a professional.
Yes I admit to a certain extent it is immature, and it stems from frustration. However, the one thing that you chose to overlook is that what I am saying is TRUE. It is TRUE, AC, deal with that fact.
I choose not to live in a PC straightjacket sometimes.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on August 12, 2009, 01:58:50 PM
Quote Aaron, he has the DSO!!! Fantastic!!
It looks like from the shot of the DSO display that it is telling him that the spike and ring-down are 6.76 microseconds wide. From the scope display it is safe to say the the main spike that he is getting all excited about is less than 0.5 microseconds wide. That's LESS THAN 500 NANOseconds.
Aaron, the spike IS INSIGNIFICANT, and what you are saying is the thing that is truly laughable.
Honestly this all gets me depressed to the extent of my limited emotional involvement in this project.
I just can't see Aaron getting his act together. He has been told over and over that a spike going back to the battery that has a very narrow pulse width will contain only a very small and insignificant amount of energy. He has also been told repeatedly that the original source for the spike energy is in fact the battery.
In a way, it is unbelievable. Aaron is not in the "real world" when he is working with circuits on the bench, he has his own reality. It's truly a shame considering what a nice piece of high technology that DSO is.
MileHigh
MH
You say: "I just can't see Aaron getting his act together. He has been told over and over that a spike going back to the battery that has a very narrow pulse width will contain only a very small and insignificant amount of energy. He has also been told repeatedly that the original source for the spike energy is in fact the battery."
I agree with you and I think even Aaron will agree that the spike has miniscule power in EE terms. However, as I'm sure you know, the 'spike' to Aaron, John Bedini and others has extra special significance, in that they claim the spike acts as a trigger mechanism for battery self-charging in the right conditions. It is pointless trying to argue this point, as it is a fundamental belief based on an esoteric 'New Age' theory.
Hoppy
@Hoppy
Quote:
"I agree with you and I think even Aaron will agree that the spike has miniscule power in EE terms. However, as I'm sure you know, the 'spike' to Aaron, John Bedini and others has extra special significance, in that they claim the spike acts as a trigger mechanism for battery self-charging in the right conditions. It is pointless trying to argue this point, as it is a fundamental belief based on an esoteric 'New Age' theory."
LOL, this statement----"I agree with you and I think even Aaron will agree that the spike has miniscule power in EE terms", tells me how little you and MH actually understand of Electrical Engineering. If fact the spike is an called an "inductive discharge" which is EQUAL to the power required to charge the inductance at resonance. The power in equals the power out minus ohmic losses--- this is resonance, Power is Volt-Amps or Watts. While the inductive discharge is at a higher voltage and a lower amperage the power is almost equal to the power input in Watts at resonance. So how exactly can the POWER in the inductive discharge or "spike" be miniscule when in fact it is nearly equal to the power input? Is this one of YOUR new age theories, because it violates the conservation of energy, energy cannot just dissappear?
AC
Quote from: poynt99 on August 12, 2009, 09:32:19 AM
WI,
Why are you here?
It's obvious you are no dummy, and I apologize for calling you the "R" word.
But why are you being so antagonistic? Have you nothing positive to contribute rather than bantering on about details that have no real bearing on things?
OK, so TK has made some mistakes, I have made some mistakes, MH has made some mistakes, Harvey has made some mistakes, Hoppy...etc. We've all made some mistakes, and most have admitted them. Have you not made any mistakes?
Let's move on from the antagonistic banter as your points have been duly noted.
What is your take on Aaron's Test Spreadsheet? What's your take on RMS measurements at the load, and DC measurements at the shunt?
Cheers,
.99
p9
to make sure the dancing bear follows decent scientific procedure, as he has demonstrated he is incapable of doing so without someone riding his ass (supervising). why are you here? did you just show up like a good like sycophant to make sure the thread is completely biased? or do you have a shred of integrity?
obviously. mea culpa accepted.
for the same reason(s) tk is... and i have noted the bearing that my argument has (tk's lack of credibility, etc.)
yup, yup, yup, yup, yup. maybe.
let's not, as tk has continued to try twist what he has really said, thereby demonstrating that he is still refusing to admit his error(s) again and again. why don't you work on getting that public apology from him?
i have been very careful to not take a stance one way or the other, and you think you are going to get me to now? because you offer a little sugar after your vinegar assault? LMFAO, nice try. my "take" is not open for criticism, tk's is. why don't you try on a little integrity poynt? why aren't you asking tk to reconcile these contradictions he has posted? are you a blind little sycophant too? i really didn't think you were, but now i'm starting to wonder.
can you show his post where he "predicted by..."? didn't think so. but you don't call him on that bullshit, why?
edit: poynt, you could always try simulating my behavior to figure it out... ::)
TK, if you do decide to build an Ainslie Circuit, you may wish to review my proposed changes. IMHO, the .047 microfarad capacitor is problematic to the correct action of the timer and should be removed. Also, the discharge (pin 7) should be moved to the resistor/anode junction of the charge leg to prevent 'burn spots' in the pot and possible chip failure. Then the 5.2K can be removed, allowing a much tighter pulse width. I have recommended elsewhere that a Schmitt Trigger (http://uk.farnell.com/fairchild-semiconductor/cd40106bcn/4000-cmos-mm74c14n-40106/dp/1014051?in_merch=) like the CD40106 (15V operation) be used between the timer and the gate to ensure sharp rise times.
I would also like to encourage some discussion here regarding the split supply and the effect this could have to negative gate current. The Drain to Gate capacitance will look like a dead short at certain frequencies and energy will pass directly through that path from the higher 24V supply to the negative rail through the output transistor in the 555. Because that current must flow in the substrate of the chip for some of the path, it could alter the trigger bias - especially if the ground wire for the chip has any contact resistance etc. This scenario can result in spurious re-triggering of the 555 and may be part of the aperiodic results some have experienced.
8)
::) did you checked energy wasted by proposed Ainslie circuit radiated as EM waves ?
Quote from: Harvey on August 12, 2009, 04:35:03 PM
TK, if you do decide to build an Ainslie Circuit
LOL ;D
just look back at the last 100 pages of this thread!
:)
@forest
Quote:
"did you checked energy wasted by proposed Ainslie circuit radiated as EM waves ?"
Yes, the EM wave energy you refer to is called "Heat", this Heat or EM energy radiated from excited matter within the infrared spectrum is in fact the pupose of the circuit so I am not sure how it could be wasted.
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on August 12, 2009, 04:26:16 PM
@Hoppy
Quote:
"I agree with you and I think even Aaron will agree that the spike has miniscule power in EE terms. However, as I'm sure you know, the 'spike' to Aaron, John Bedini and others has extra special significance, in that they claim the spike acts as a trigger mechanism for battery self-charging in the right conditions. It is pointless trying to argue this point, as it is a fundamental belief based on an esoteric 'New Age' theory."
LOL, this statement----"I agree with you and I think even Aaron will agree that the spike has miniscule power in EE terms", tells me how little you and MH actually understand of Electrical Engineering. If fact the spike is an called an "inductive discharge" which is EQUAL to the power required to charge the inductance at resonance. The power in equals the power out minus ohmic losses--- this is resonance, Power is Volt-Amps or Watts. While the inductive discharge is at a higher voltage and a lower amperage the power is almost equal to the power input in Watts at resonance. So how exactly can the POWER in the inductive discharge or "spike" be miniscule when in fact it is nearly equal to the power input? Is this one of YOUR new age theories, because it violates the conservation of energy, energy cannot just dissappear?
AC
Come on AC, stop being so crass. The guys know what they're talking about, and you're twisting what they're saying. Of course the energy out is what energy was "stored" in the inductor prior to de-energizing, minus losses. I think we're way past that level of understanding here. At least I hope we are.
::)
.99
Quote from: allcanadian on August 12, 2009, 05:13:36 PM
@forest
Quote:
"did you checked energy wasted by proposed Ainslie circuit radiated as EM waves ?"
Yes, the EM wave energy you refer to is called "Heat", this Heat or EM energy radiated from excited matter within the infrared spectrum is in fact the pupose of the circuit so I am not sure how it could be wasted.
AC
oops..I meant radio range Em waves
@Mile High,
I agree that a 556 (dual timer) staged setup would provide more flexibility in frequency control and duty cycle. It will be good to isolate the cause of the increased frequency which many have proven exists. If it is a self resonance between the xFET and the inductor then that is one thing, and if it is a feedback into the 555 then that is another.
As mentioned above, energy that finds its way from the 24V supply through the gate circuit and back to the negative rail is not seen by the current sensing resistor that exists between the transistor and the negative terminals of the batteries. If the current sensing resistor is between the positive rail and the inductor, then that energy would be included in the readings, but may interfere with any inductor battery interaction.
There are a couple of things that some may want to explore.
1. Sympathetic energy external to the circuit that may add to the magnetic field energy. Theoretically, magnetic fields are infinite - the field of this inductor no doubt crosses other fields both in the RF and local wiring spectrums. The conditions may allow extraction of energy from those other sources. This goes back to why we need to treat a changing field as non-conservative.
2. Ionized air blanket. The action of the inductor at 143KHz and above, may result in Ionized air becoming attracted to the resistor body. This air will not move by normal convection and can function as a thermal insulator prohibiting normal thermal dissipation and the subsequent over heating of the device compared to the baseline. The Oil Bath tests would alter the results significantly if this is the case.
8)
Quote from: Justalabrat on August 12, 2009, 04:52:40 PM
LOL ;D
just look back at the last 100 pages of this thread!
:)
Point well taken, please read as "modified Ainslie Circuit"
;)
Quote from: allcanadian on August 12, 2009, 04:26:16 PM
@Hoppy
Quote:
"I agree with you and I think even Aaron will agree that the spike has miniscule power in EE terms. However, as I'm sure you know, the 'spike' to Aaron, John Bedini and others has extra special significance, in that they claim the spike acts as a trigger mechanism for battery self-charging in the right conditions. It is pointless trying to argue this point, as it is a fundamental belief based on an esoteric 'New Age' theory."
LOL, this statement----"I agree with you and I think even Aaron will agree that the spike has miniscule power in EE terms", tells me how little you and MH actually understand of Electrical Engineering. If fact the spike is an called an "inductive discharge" which is EQUAL to the power required to charge the inductance at resonance. The power in equals the power out minus ohmic losses--- this is resonance, Power is Volt-Amps or Watts. While the inductive discharge is at a higher voltage and a lower amperage the power is almost equal to the power input in Watts at resonance. So how exactly can the POWER in the inductive discharge or "spike" be miniscule when in fact it is nearly equal to the power input? Is this one of YOUR new age theories, because it violates the conservation of energy, energy cannot just dissappear?
AC
@AC
I'm talking about a ''spike' when the switch closes, not the complete discharge from an inductor - different things entirely! John Bedini is on record as saying that he is not interested in what happens after the switch closes. Its obvious that an inductor will discharge the energy used to charge it minus losses and that this level of energy is not miniscule, otherwise how on earth would a forward converter function.
Hoppy
Hoppy:
Thank you for your comments about the "New Age" battery theory. That's the claim for Bedini motors. Interestingly enough if you look around this web site and elsewhere for people that have tried to do serious measurements on their batteries after cycling them back and forth with their Bedini motor setups, they state that there is no over unity found. I can't give you a link but I am pretty sure that there is a thread about that very subject on this site. Also, a typical Bedini motor spike back into the charging battery will most likely have millions of times more energy than the sub 500 nanosecond pulse that Aaron pointed out.
We also can't forget that the Ainsley white paper is not about the battery at all, but free energy believers are drawn to batteries and we have seen that happen repeatedly here.
AC:
QuoteLOL, this statement----"I agree with you and I think even Aaron will agree that the spike has miniscule power in EE terms", tells me how little you and MH actually understand of Electrical Engineering. If fact the spike is an called an "inductive discharge" which is EQUAL to the power required to charge the inductance at resonance. The power in equals the power out minus ohmic losses--- this is resonance, Power is Volt-Amps or Watts. While the inductive discharge is at a higher voltage and a lower amperage the power is almost equal to the power input in Watts at resonance. So how exactly can the POWER in the inductive discharge or "spike" be miniscule when in fact it is nearly equal to the power input? Is this one of YOUR new age theories, because it violates the conservation of energy, energy cannot just dissappear?
To regain focus for all of us, especially considering it is easy to mix up terms, you typically talk about the total energy in a pulse, and even though the instantaneous power can be quite high, the total pulse energy can still be quite low. The higher the load resistance the discharging coil-resistor sees, the shorter the pulse and the higher the power.
The energy in the sub 500 nanosecond pulse going back to the battery can be expected to be a fraction of the initial discharge energy coming from the inductive part of the coil-resistor. I think that is fair to say that it will be much less than 10% just by eyeballing the DSO display. So there is no equality going on here. Most of the energy will be lost in the switched-off MOSFET when the coil tries to "push forwards" after the MOSFET switches off.
The only resonance related effects here will be related to the standard ringing and related effects. The circuit itself as a functioning system does not resonate.
QuoteSo how exactly can the POWER in the inductive discharge or "spike" be miniscule when in fact it is nearly equal to the power input? Is this one of YOUR new age theories, because it violates the conservation of energy, energy cannot just dissappear?
Again, it is worth repeating that you are wrong here. The discharging inductive component in the coil-resistor will dump most of it's energy into the highest resistance element in the circuit path, and that would be the switched-off MOSFET. The return spike to the battery is just a reflection of energy back due to ringing and related effects. There is no violation of conservation of energy and I would assume that in setups without the fly-back diode the MOSFETs will start to get hot quite quickly.
Quote...tells me how little you and MH actually understand of Electrical Engineering
From Wikipedia:
The Big Lie (German: Große Lüge) is a propaganda technique. The expression was coined by Adolf Hitler in his 1925 autobiography Mein Kampf for a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously".
George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four refers to the Big Lie theory on several occasions. For example:
* “The key-word here is blackwhite. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain factsâ€. [6]
* “To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed...â€.
MileHigh
Quote from: Harvey on August 12, 2009, 05:39:42 PM
@Mile High,
I agree that a 556 (dual timer) staged setup would provide more flexibility in frequency control and duty cycle. It will be good to isolate the cause of the increased frequency which many have proven exists. If it is a self resonance between the xFET and the inductor then that is one thing, and if it is a feedback into the 555 then that is another.
As mentioned above, energy that finds its way from the 24V supply through the gate circuit and back to the negative rail is not seen by the current sensing resistor that exists between the transistor and the negative terminals of the batteries. If the current sensing resistor is between the positive rail and the inductor, then that energy would be included in the readings, but may interfere with any inductor battery interaction.
There are a couple of things that some may want to explore.
1. Sympathetic energy external to the circuit that may add to the magnetic field energy. Theoretically, magnetic fields are infinite - the field of this inductor no doubt crosses other fields both in the RF and local wiring spectrums. The conditions may allow extraction of energy from those other sources. This goes back to why we need to treat a changing field as non-conservative.
2. Ionized air blanket. The action of the inductor at 143KHz and above, may result in Ionized air becoming attracted to the resistor body. This air will not move by normal convection and can function as a thermal insulator prohibiting normal thermal dissipation and the subsequent over heating of the device compared to the baseline. The Oil Bath tests would alter the results significantly if this is the case.
8)
Harvey
With respect, there is no need to apply advanced physics to the design of a 555 timer that can provide a PWM output. The only problem is that the Aaron's latest modification offering does not work properly, its unstable and anyone who bothers to build it may even find it does not work at all!
Hoppy
Quote from: MileHigh on August 12, 2009, 06:26:34 PM
Hoppy:
Thank you for your comments about the "New Age" battery theory. That's the claim for Bedini motors. Interestingly enough if you look around this web site and elsewhere for people that have tried to do serious measurements on their batteries after cycling them back and forth with their Bedini motor setups, they state that there is no over unity found. I can't give you a link but I am pretty sure that there is a thread about that very subject on this site. Also, a typical Bedini motor spike back into the charging battery will most likely have millions of times more energy than the sub 500 nanosecond pulse that Aaron pointed out.
We also can't forget that the Ainsley white paper is not about the battery at all, but free energy believers are drawn to batteries and we have seen that happen repeatedly here.
AC:
To regain focus for all of us, especially considering it is easy to mix up terms, you typically talk about the total energy in a pulse, and even though the instantaneous power can be quite high, the total pulse energy can still be quite low. The higher the load resistance the discharging coil-resistor sees, the shorter the pulse and the higher the power.
The energy in the sub 500 nanosecond pulse going back to the battery can be expected to be a fraction of the initial discharge energy coming from the inductive part of the coil-resistor. I think that is fair to say that it will be much less than 10% just by eyeballing the DSO display. So there is no equality going on here. Most of the energy will be lost in the switched-off MOSFET when the coil tries to "push forwards" after the MOSFET switches off.
The only resonance related effects here will be related to the standard ringing and related effects. The circuit itself as a functioning system does not resonate.
Again, it is worth repeating that you are wrong here. The discharging inductive component in the coil-resistor will dump most of it's energy into the highest resistance element in the circuit path, and that would be the switched-off MOSFET. The return spike to the battery is just a reflection of energy back due to ringing and related effects. There is no violation of conservation of energy and I would assume that in setups without the fly-back diode the MOSFETs will start to get hot quite quickly.
From Wikipedia:
The Big Lie (German: Große Lüge) is a propaganda technique. The expression was coined by Adolf Hitler in his 1925 autobiography Mein Kampf for a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously".
George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four refers to the Big Lie theory on several occasions. For example:
* “The key-word here is blackwhite. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain factsâ€. [6]
* “To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed...â€.
MileHigh
MH wrote: -
"Thank you for your comments about the "New Age" battery theory. That's the claim for Bedini motors. Interestingly enough if you look around this web site and elsewhere for people that have tried to do serious measurements on their batteries after cycling them back and forth with their Bedini motor setups, they state that there is no over unity found. I can't give you a link but I am pretty sure that there is a thread about that very subject on this site. Also, a typical Bedini motor spike back into the charging battery will most likely have millions of times more energy than the sub 500 nanosecond pulse that Aaron pointed out."
I have spent literally hundreds of hours load testing batteries charged by Bedini monopole motors and other devices and yes, the energy used to charge the batteries is that discharged from the inductor and in 'front to back' electical efficiency terms it amounts to around 50% to 60% of input using 'open' constructed inductors. As I've pointed out to AC, John Bedini states that he is not interested in the events after switch closure. Its this pre-switch opening event that I think Aaron is interested in.
Hoppy
Hoppy:
QuoteWith respect, there is no need to apply advanced physics to the design of a 555 timer that can provide a PWM output. The only problem is that the Aaron's latest modification offering does not work properly, its unstable and anyone who bothers to build it may even find it does not work at all!
It's very interesting that you state that. My feelings are that to get the 555 to operate at normal frequencies in the few KHz range that just a vanilla 555 circuit should be fine with one caveat: When you try to squeeze a very asymmetrical duty cycle out of the 555 you are probably getting into "difficult" territory because the charge and discharge cycles for the cap are so different. A few times I mentoned that you want to use timing components that are "typical" and avoid very very high resistance values and very very small capacitance values because yes indeed, you could pick up "noise" and cause false triggering in the comparators inside the timer chip.
So my dual 555 timer suggestion is not that radical in the sense that you are just stringing two "vanilla" 555 circuits together and can always pick component values that are in the "normal" range. This gives you a circuit that can do the extremes of duty cycle without "pushing the envelope" that would be required with a single 555 circuit. The dual 555 setup would always be very robust and highly immune to external noise.
It certainly would be interesting if Aaron's "oscillation" was just his 555 timer circuit undergoing false triggering. It certainly looks like that in his video clip, you clearly see that the 555 frequency and duty cycle changes the moment that he energizes the rest of his circuit. I wrote up a full posting about my observations of his clip but Aaron being Aaron simply dismissed what I said with a single incoherent sentence that did not even make sense. (doubling the point for emphasis)
MileHigh
Harvey:
QuoteThere are a couple of things that some may want to explore.
1. Sympathetic energy external to the circuit that may add to the magnetic field energy. Theoretically, magnetic fields are infinite - the field of this inductor no doubt crosses other fields both in the RF and local wiring spectrums. The conditions may allow extraction of energy from those other sources. This goes back to why we need to treat a changing field as non-conservative.
2. Ionized air blanket. The action of the inductor at 143KHz and above, may result in Ionized air becoming attracted to the resistor body. This air will not move by normal convection and can function as a thermal insulator prohibiting normal thermal dissipation and the subsequent over heating of the device compared to the baseline. The Oil Bath tests would alter the results significantly if this is the case.
Your theories are a bit esoteric for me. I am a "classicist" so I don't believe that changing magnetic fields are non conservative and you can somehow use the alleged non conservative to property extract energy.
Interestingly enough, the magnetic field generated by the coil-resistor in this circuit effectively creates a "magnetic bubble" relative to the Earth's magnetic field. Yes the field extends out to infinity, but the net vector field when you add it to the Earth's magnetic field results in a "bubble" where the magnetic lines of force form their own "local loop."
The ionized air blanket is too esoteric for me also. Even if there was ionization, you would still get thermal convection from the heat transfer across the boundary layer between the ionized air and the "regular" air.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on August 12, 2009, 06:50:19 PM
Hoppy:
It's very interesting that you state that. My feelings are that to get the 555 to operate at normal frequencies in the few KHz range that just a vanilla 555 circuit should be fine with one caveat: When you try to squeeze a very asymmetrical duty cycle out of the 555 you are probably getting into "difficult" territory because the charge and discharge cycles for the cap are so different. A few times I mentoned that you want to use timing components that are "typical" and avoid very very high resistance values and very very small capacitance values because yes indeed, you could pick up "noise" and cause false triggering in the comparators inside the timer chip.
So my dual 555 timer suggestion is not that radical in the sense that you are just stringing two "vanilla" 555 circuits together and can always pick component values that are in the "normal" range. This gives you a circuit that can do the extremes of duty cycle without "pushing the envelope" that would be required with a single 555 circuit. The dual 555 setup would always be very robust and highly immune to external noise.
It certainly would be interesting if Aaron's "oscillation" was just his 555 timer circuit undergoing false triggering. It certainly looks like that in his video clip, you clearly see that the 555 frequency and duty cycle changes the moment that he energizes the rest of his circuit. I wrote up a full posting about my observations of his clip but Aaron being Aaron simply dismissed what I said with a single incoherent sentence that did not even make sense. (doubling the point for emphasis)
MileHigh
You make a good point about noise immunity and I think it very likely that this is a problem with the design offered up by Aaron. His latest Ainslie mod is very 'sensitive' to hand capacitance. The original Peter / Aaron design is a lot more stable and I cannot get this into an unstable condition by adjustment or handling of the circuit. As I wrote in a few posts back, if Aaron fitted a simple analogue ammeter in series with his battery, he will very likely see that in the 'oscillatory condition', the current shoots up and the mosfet starts to get hot due to the 555 suddenly mis-operating.
Hoppy
Joit:
QuoteA Reason why i more laugh about all the Sims, and the Peoples who trust in. There are a lot of Magnetmotor Sims at Youtube, they do all work, just not, when you rebuild it. And for the Circuits maker, they simple dont show OU. Go Figure.
Don't confuse a "Magnetmotor Sim" with a PSpice circuit sim.
A magnet motor sim on YouTube is typically somebody playing with a 3D CAD application to make something that "looks cool."
A PSpice sim is a numerical analysis technique that plugs in all of the differential equations that model how the components work in the real world. The numbers are crunched and you get real-world results.
The typical 3D YouTube magnet motor sims are nonsense, and are just the expressions of the fantasies of people that dream about motors that run themselves. The PSpice simulations are real, and the more precise you make your model, the better the simulation is. The PSpice simulations that .99 has posted are all the real thing. The only thing that he is omitting are the interconnect wire capacitances and inductances and related effects. This is desireable, you don't necessarily want to see the effects of the wire interconnects, you just want to see how the components in the circuit interact.
Now you are a little bit wiser Joit.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on August 12, 2009, 07:25:37 PM
Joit:
Don't confuse a "Magnetmotor Sim" with a PSpice circuit sim.
A magnet motor sim on YouTube is typically somebody playing with a 3D CAD application to make something that "looks cool."
A PSpice sim is a numerical analysis technique that plugs in all of the differential equations that model how the components work in the real world. The numbers are crunched and you get real-world results.
The typical 3D YouTube magnet motor sims are nonsense, and are just the expressions of the fantasies of people that dream about motors that run themselves. The PSpice simulations are real, and the more precise you make your model, the better the simulation is. The PSpice simulations that .99 has posted are all the real thing. The only thing that he is omitting are the interconnect wire capacitances and inductances and related effects. This is desireable, you don't necessarily want to see the effects of the wire interconnects, you just want to see how the components in the circuit interact.
Now you are a little bit wiser Joit.
MileHigh
they most certainly are NOT the real thing, they are the simulated thing, hence the word "simulation". ::)
you can't make your model "precisely" like the actual real physical world. for one, you don't know all the parameters. second, your desktop pc has nowhere near the MIPS required to even come close to containing all the parameters even if they were all known, which they aren't.
there, now you are a little bit wiser. ::)
and it's desirable... wtf is with all you self proclaimed experts that can't effing spell?
I just picked up a dozen more 555s and some caps, and I'll be building and testing the circuit from Aaron that Hoppy's using, later this evening if I can stay awake.
I appreciate MH's dual 555 suggestion. I used to use that setup long ago , or the 556 equivalent, when I didn't have a disposable FG to play with; then I discovered CMOS inverter / Schmitt trigger combos which will make nice fast risetime pulses; now of course if I need pulses I will use this DataPulse 101 pulse generator, 10 v output into 50 ohms, 5 ns risetime.
But isn't anybody paying attention to me?
:'(
Long ago when the inverted timer issue was first discussed here, one of the contributors (.99? groundloop? I don't recall, but thanks) showed how to put a 2n2222 transistor on the output of the Original Quantum Circuit, to flip the output. I did this long ago and it works just fine with minimal added distortion. All these other flailings by Aaron and Peter to come up with a circuit that makes the Ainlsie parameters is just silly. IMHO, of course.
Now, if distortions from the clock are necessary to make the OU effect (which nobody has yet seen) that's another story, and a rather disingenuous one at that--since it directly conflicts with the claims of Ainslie in the theory, the "patent" application, the two papers, and much of what she's said on multiple forum threads.
@Harvey:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading
That's the problem with "replication" attempts, isn't it.
I'm quite certain that no matter how closely I duplicated the original conditions under which Ainslie's data were taken, it would always be possible to explain my negative results away, and continue the infinite regress of hand-waving instead of hypothesis testing.
Allow me to point out, yet again, that I am concerned with examining specific claims about a specific circuit.
So far, here's a synopsis: There isn't any patent. The published circuit diagrams contain errors. The two extant reports of the same experimental and control runs contain inconsistencies. The principal investigator has declined to share original data, original calculations, original scope shots, reports from other labs and institutes, and so forth. From discussions with the principal investigator and others, it seems to me that it is likely that the calculations used to make the COP>17 claim are in gross error. They may be suffering from the same sort of foolishness as in Harvey's recent posts at energeticforum where he attempts to account for energy in an inductive ringdown using (rms power) times (time) as a measure of...what now? It sure isn't energy, even if it has the same units.
Continuing with the synopsis: In all regimes of frequency and duty cycles explored by me (3 percent to 97 percent ON, DC to about 2 MHz) using well-behaved clocks, either 555s or commercial equipment, taking power measurements as Ainslie specifies and taking time-temperature profiles of various loads, no hint of overunity or excess energy has been found. By me.
Using notso wellbehaved clocks or deliberate abuse, non-regular behaviour has been noted by me and by others. Unfortunately, the MOSFET does not generally survive long enough under these conditions to make any definitive long term energy measurements, but since input current generally goes way up during these episodes it is extremely unlikely that they are making any "free energy" either.
It appears that Ainslie has announced her departure, due to TK's monstrous "death of a thousand cuts" torture, slicing her work to little bitty shreds, finding fault and error in almost every single part of it that is examined closely. Perhaps it was her final confusion over the model of her oscilloscope that did the trick. No matter, some of her outrageous claims still have not been demolished and buried before her eyes, so research continues, until they are.
Or until they can be supported, of course.
However, we've seen these departures before, from others. They just can't seem to stay departed, so I'm sure we haven't heard the last from Ainslie.
Next (after these pesky random aperiodic Hartley resonant oscillations) I will be tackling the longterm heat flow and battery discharge (or lack of it) claims. This will take a little while though, as I'm still having chart recorder trouble.
Thanks for the spell check Wilby. Spice has been around for decades and the calculus behind the modeling for capacitors and inductors has been around for what - 300+ years? PSpice running on a modern PC has thousands of times more number crunching power at it's disposal as compared to a PDP11 or whatever computer was originally running Spice in the 1970s. You are in my element here so why not back off? I know you are itching for yet another pissing contest but I won't bite. You may have a really creative comeback that might really hit home, I don't care - go piss somewhere else.
Isn't it nice to have our own little TypoTroll?
In addition to the red underlines I get from my browser whenever I happen to use the British or Canadian English spellings of, for example, colour, cheque, or the one the troll especially likes, behaviour, we now will get them pointed out in the thread. To ignore, or to scoff at, or even perhaps to provoke with deliberate missspelings just to see it twitch.
Next it will be grammar and punctuation that the troll, objects to.
TK:
QuoteLong ago when the inverted timer issue was first discussed here, one of the contributors (.99? groundloop? I don't recall, but thanks) showed how to put a 2n2222 transistor on the output of the Original Quantum Circuit, to flip the output.
That was me, and I am glad it worked. There are limitations there in that the transistor will pull the output active low and give you a low impedance output that should suck the excess charge off of the gate input quite readily. Then when the transistor switches off, supposing you use a 100-ohm resistor between your Vcc and the transistor collector - hence you have a 100-ohm impedance source to charge up the gate capacitance again. That's not too shabby, the pull-down impedance will be lower than the pull-up impedance, but still pretty good.
Somebody posted the app note for checking the MOSFET performance and their strategy was quite interesting. The high signal from the signal source went through a diode to charge up the gate capacitance - hence low impedance, and the gate capacitance was pulled down by a 50-ohm resistor after the diode. So the "suck down" was done by a 50-ohm resistor. This of course also gives you an impedance match with the signal generator for the high output drive.
In my dual-555 treatise, I suggested using "line driver" CMOS inverters which I am pretty sure give you a symmetrical low impedance pull-up and pull-down for the best of both worlds. You also have the option to add a resistor at the gate input to ground which might give you a little bit of "extra edge" (on your signal transitions). :)
MileHigh
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 12, 2009, 07:47:55 PM
However, we've seen these departures before, from others.
Hey, I'm still here, working on 2 years now. It shouldn't take too much effort to get rid of me, though. All you need to do is "PROVE ME WRONG". Of course, that might be difficult. Except for a whimsical device name, I have not made any "impossible" claims, merely suggestions for some investigations of what I consider to be unusual phenomena.
Now Harvey has something far more interesting sitting on his coffee table than this Ainsley circuit or that other suitcase thingy.
Aaron:
QuoteThe simulators and companies that use them are not manufacturing non-equilibrium thermodynamic EM circuits that recycle the energy over and over so what is the point of their simulators simulating things that are not even being manufactured? There isn't.
Using these simulators on non-equilibrium circuits is about as pointless as using an English dictionary to translate Chinese. It just isn't going to happen.
It's very easy for you to try to claim that an inductor discharging its 1/2 L i-squared energy through a resistor and a diode is a "non-equilibrium thermodynamic EM circuit" but the truth is that's not the case. You have absolutely nothing to back up that statement with or give you justification.
Here is your attempt at justification, "recycle the energy over and over." No, that is not the case at all, you are deluded. Just like you are deluded when you state that a bouncing ball is COP > 1 because the "energy is being recycled." You need to take a grade 8 physics class.
I have seen you mention this "concept" for many examples and they are all not true. It's like you have a card up your sleeve that you try to play or have some kind of "escape clause" so that all the conventional theories don't apply.
It's all nonsense, a fantasy.
Make your measurements properly and that's what you are going to find out.
MileHigh
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on August 12, 2009, 07:34:02 PM
they most certainly are NOT the real thing, they are the simulated thing, hence the word "simulation". ::)
you can't make your model "precisely" like the actual real physical world. for one, you don't know all the parameters. second, your desktop pc has nowhere near the MIPS required to even come close to containing all the parameters even if they were all known, which they aren't.
there, now you are a little bit wiser. ::)
and it's desirable... wtf is with all you self proclaimed experts that can't effing spell?
WilbyInebriated, or is it CaptainScat, whichever, I see you've joined the fray over at EF.
You've not rested much of a case at all. You just nit-pick to death everything anyone says in true troll fashion. Guess you've made it to my ignore list.
Farewell.
.99
Quote from: 0c on August 12, 2009, 08:14:14 PM
Hey, I'm still here, working on 2 years now. It shouldn't take too much effort to get rid of me, though. All you need to do is "PROVE ME WRONG". Of course, that might be difficult. Except for a whimsical device name, I have not made any "impossible" claims, merely suggestions for some investigations of what I consider to be unusual phenomena.
Of course, I was referring to other departures, most directly to MyLOW, since I see some similarities between him and Ainslie. But there have been others. I might be having a departure of my own, soon.
Quote
Now Harvey has something far more interesting sitting on his coffee table than this Ainsley circuit or that other suitcase thingy.
And yet he's spending a lot of time setting up simulations and posting technical stuff on that other forum, concerning the Ainslie circuit. I am having trouble grokking the fullness of his post where he looks at the instantaneous power waveform of a simulated inductive ringdown, takes the rms value of this decaying power waveform and multiplies it by a time interval...and then appears to be claiming an increase or an excess in energy over an earlier, input, time interval. However his calculation, although it has the units of energy, does not correspond to any physical reality. The power dissipated in that ringdown--the energy that went into heating stuff up during its time of ringing--is entirely represented by the area under the very first peak at the beginning of the ringdown. This energy sloshes out of the inductor as its field collapses, and it goes into the distributed capacitances--or a single cap, or another inductor, whatever-- of the rest of the circuit. Then it sloshes back into the load inductor. But a little is lost as heat. So the second peak is not as high as the first peak. And this process continues until the entire energy in the first peak--the "spike" if you like--is dissipated. Reduce the resistive and radiative losses and a ringdown can continue for a long time. This does not mean the energy continues to increase!!
This decrease in amplitude from peak to peak in the instantaneous power waveform is the power dissipated, and all that power in the first peak is dissipated over the entire ringdown as the energy sloshes back and forth. Harvey is taking the waveform of the entire ringdown, "rms" ing it by simply multiplying its "average peak" value (whatever that is) by .707, then further multiplying that figure, which represents no physical quantity, by the ringdown time, and then is comparing that nonsense number to the input energy.
This, by the way, underscores a point I made much earlier, the significance of which is underappreciated.
That is, it appears that by using Ainslie's energy calculation methods, the longer one runs the experiment the greater the COP becomes. This, of course, is non-physical behaviour and points strongly to calculation error.
I could be wrong about this; I always try to leave "higher math" to the experts. But certainly Harvey's calculation behaves this way, and maybe that's what he's trying to illustrate.
(AND in further comedy news: I see that Aaron has mounted his mosfet, which doesn't get warm, on a heatsink. I wonder why?
And he has made Yet Another Revision of the 555 circuit.
It will be extremely amusing if he blows the input preamp of that nice borrowed scope. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for him.)
Hey TK:
In the school of "keep it simple" here is the rebut for Harvey's analysis:
Boing! lol
MH
Aaron:
QuoteIt has CLEARLY been explained by the skeptics that the entire oscillation effect is a red herring and therefore, they have disqualified themselves (on many occasions) from even having enough experience to discuss this circuit.
Without even looking at your new clips (which I will later) here are my first two comments/recommendations:
1. Check the 555 output to see if it is stable or not. If it is running at a high frequency, is it the same frequency as your spikes?
2. If the 555 output is stable, then wet the tip of your finger and start touching the circuit to see what happens. The first place that you want to touch with your fingertip is the MOSFET gate input.
And I have some questions: How come your battery voltage seems to have about one volt peak-to-peak of noise on it? Can you trigger on it to see if it is regular? How about seeing the 555 output displayed at the same time as your battery voltage?
MileHigh
P.S.: I just watched the clips. The unknown is that you did not look at the 555 waveform, so the jury is still out on that. There is the distinct possibility that the 555 circuit is too suspectable to outside influence as Hoppy stated and the oscillation loop is between the 555 circuit and the MOSFET/coil-inductor circuit.
Certainly the oscillation can be due to the MOSFET itself going into a metastable on/off positive-feedback defibrillation. It all looks very impressive, but all that means is that a lot of energy is being burned off in the MOSFET. Yes indeed there are spikes going back into the battery, but as previously stated, it is simply a revolving energy door.
It appears that the current consumption may be going up as Hoppy stated. In previous postings I said that the current consumption would go down because the inductor in the coil would choke the current off.
These two statements are seemingly contradictory but they are not. The precise on/off duty cycle for the MOSFET in defibrillation will determine how much current ends up flowing through the coil-resistor. The amount of inductance in the coil-resistor is a big determining factor also.
Anyway you have a nice piece of equipment to work with and it should be possible to figure out what is going on.
A little tip about the dispay when the MOSFET is in defib: There is probably a "one-shot" display mode where you just show a single captured frame after a trigger happens. It is worth trying that out so that you can look carefully at a single snapshot in time. This removes the distractions of the display updating all the time.
MileHigh
Well, meanwhile I have been playing with the circuit of Aaron's that Hoppy recommended earlier.
The only way I can get it to make a short ON duty cycle is to adjust it so that the output is actually clipped a bit and the circuit is definitely in a non-linear mode.
There's a point where adjusting the freq pot in the increasing freq direction, then suddenly the freq decreases, with a very short on duty cycle, and the freq is quite unstable at that point. I have no doubt that the mosfet will amplify this craziness which is coming from the 555 all on its own.
I'm just testing the clock alone; later I'll hook it into the rest of the circuit and see if the interaction with the mosfet does anything interesting.
But first I need to refresh my beverage. This is thirsty work.
(And Aaron: MH's advice is great. But you can forget the finger, just use your tongue.)
Harvey:
QuoteHowever, the battery may not be accepting any current during that pulse duration. Remember, the battery has an internal inductance, so it will take time for the current to start flowing into it after the voltage is applied.
That is an excellent point. The coil acts as a current source for the brief time it discharges. Let's assume in simplified terms, the current source hits the wall of the switched-off MOSFET, and this generates a very high voltage. Some of the energy in the voltage spike is dissipated in the MOSFET itself, and some is reflected back and goes back to the battery.
Normally the battery would muffle the reflected high voltage spike down to a very low voltage if it was directly absorbed into the battery. However, like you said, there can be another "stray inductance" or "battery inductance" that is in fact preventing the battery from absorbing the bulk of the energy from the reflected spike and you instead get a ringdown.
Everything I am stating is just a preliminary guess so I can't be held to it.
In essence we are talking about some sort of transient analysis associated with the 555/MOSFET in defib, or the MOSFET itself in defib. It is not trivial but can be figured out with some focused investigation.
The downer for all of the believers is that all of this is "normal" and just represents energy from the battery being dissipated in the circuit. That can be confirmed with the DSO in conjunction with the thermal analysis.
MileHigh
TK still seems to be wrestling (or Wrastlin' as they say in Springfield) with the power dissipation portion of the 400ms Energy Cycle I posted in the other forum. There is no dispute that all of the energy represented is stored in the inductor during the first 200ms. What happens to this energy now that it is stored? And how much energy is it? To simplify this, I took the current slope of the sensing resistor and averaged it. The slope goes from near nothing to about 942ma - so being generous I said 800ma flat. We take the battery voltage, times the current to calculate the power. We then multiply that times the time interval to determine the energy in Watt Seconds or Joules (3.84J). That's what we put into the circuit and then the flow of energy from the battery ceases. Next we see an immediate 468 Watts of Power at the inductor. How much energy is that? And what will happen to it? If that power were a straight DC wattage, then the energy would be easy to calculate, W x t = J. But it's not, it is sinusoidal, and therefore we must take its RMS value if we intend to flatline the energy. But this is not a consistent thing, that 468W only represents the first peak in the first cycle. Each cycle is less and less. And over a 200ms period it decays enough that we can just say its back to zero for easy calcs. If you draw a line through all the tops of the peaks you'll have a slope and relative to the baseline it makes a triangle. A little simple geometry tells us if we drop the left side of the line and raise the right side of the line, then we will get a level line and our triangle will be a rectangle. The area of both is the same. Therefore, if I divide my initial power by 2 I get the same area under my line. Now I need to apply the RMS factor of .707 and this gives us the flatline power value. So now we have the flatline watts, we multiply it by the time period and we get the Joules dissipated in the inductor. If we knew the frequency, then we could use TK's approach and arrive at the same value. Just think of the ringing as available AC power running through a heating element in your house for 200ms. How many KWH did your little wheel turn?
Now, to confuserize things a bit (dropped my fuse in my beverage so now its soakin' fused) - power is never consumed by inductive or capacitive reactance. This means that an ideal inductor and capacitor in resonance will never stop ringing. The consumption of power is in the resistance. So the ringing you see represents available power and when it fully dissipates then the power is considered to be consumed (even though we all know its just converted into something else).
So where did the apparent extra energy come from?
Show your work. ;D
8)
Quote from: Harvey on August 12, 2009, 11:45:55 PM
So where did the apparent extra energy come from?
Show your work. ;D
8)
Tried twice and no one got it ? (or did they?)
It's apparent power, therefore not real. Volt-Amps, not Watts.
.99
Hmm. OK, I believe I have reproduced what Hoppy reports. And I see why Aaron has put a heatsink on his mosfet.
The 555 timer circuit is definitely behaving in a "non-linear" way, and it gets worse when you run it to the mosfet gate.
From what I'm seeing it looks like this: As the 555 timer is adjusted to that critical point where the frequency stops increasing and drops abruptly, keeping a very short duty cycle: It looks like the mosfet shouldn't be turning on. But: in my case, what happens is that the Baseline of the 555 pulses rises from zero to about 5 volts. If you are on AC coupling you might not notice this. Of course this, with the short duty cycle, is enough to turn the mosfet almost completely--but not quite full on 100 percent of the time. The Simpson analog meter in series with the battery shows about 1.8 amps, and I see 500-600 mV drop continuous DC, no pulses but with a little ripple, on the Ainslie point B, across my 0.25 ohm shunt. And the mosfet gets very hot very fast and so does the load. If I use a higher inductance, like Aaron is using, I get things that look very similar to what Aaron shows in his latest stills.
I'd like to see, at this point, on Aaron's digital scope, a shot of the oscillations "across the battery", that is, Ainslie point "A", on one trace and the Ainslie point B (voltage drop across the shunt) on the other, during these "oscillations." Since that's a 4-trace scope we might also be able to see the raw output from the timer too.
Let me emphasize here that what I am seeing is the mosfet responding to what it's being told; and it's being told to stay just on the edge of being full on 100 percent of the time.
I think.
So that is probably why Aaron is now using a heatsink on his mosfet.
Like I said in my little MosfetMotel example, the apparent excess energy comes from the same place the extra dollar went. Into mistaken problem setup and calculation, caused by the garden-path patter of the initial story combined with some correct numbers to lull the complacent mind.
Not only that, but here's the mistake:
QuoteNext we see an immediate 468 Watts of Power at the inductor. How much energy is that? And what will happen to it? If that power were a straight DC wattage, then the energy would be easy to calculate, W x t = J. But it's not, it is sinusoidal, and therefore we must take its RMS value if we intend to flatline the energy. But this is not a consistent thing, that 468W only represents the first peak in the first cycle. Each cycle is less and less. And over a 200ms period it decays enough that we can just say its back to zero for easy calcs. If you draw a line through all the tops of the peaks you'll have a slope and relative to the baseline it makes a triangle. A little simple geometry tells us if we drop the left side of the line and raise the right side of the line, then we will get a level line and our triangle will be a rectangle. The area of both is the same. Therefore, if I divide my initial power by 2 I get the same area under my line. Now I need to apply the RMS factor of .707 and this gives us the flatline power value. So now we have the flatline watts, we multiply it by the time period and we get the Joules dissipated in the inductor.
You are adding up the same energy, over and over, by using your mistaken calculation method. RMS Power does not represent any useful real quantity in this case. See the pdf file linked below. In addition, you are conflating energy, which has the units watt-seconds, with your calculation which has the same units but does not represent an energy--because you got to it wrong.
ALL the energy available from the ringdown is in the area of the first peak. All of it. It moves out of the inductor into the circuit's capacitance, and then the current changes sign and it comes back. Lather rinse and repeat. It loses a bit each cycle. THIS LOSS IS THE POWER DISSIPATION. If there were no loss, the ring would not ring "down" but would continue forever. If there were any gain, the ring WOULD INCREASE IN AMPLITUDE.
Over the entire time length of the ringdown, all the energy, which is contained in that first peak ONLY and has been sloshing back and forth, is lost to heat. You cannot compute the energy the way you are doing it. The proper comparison is to take the area of that FIRST BIG SPIKE. That's the energy that was stored; that's all the energy there is. Compare the value of that spike, in Watt-seconds, with your input energy value.
If you want to know the energy balance in the ringdown, you need to integrate the waveform, not "rms" it and multiply by the time. You can even tell, by the shape of the decay envelope, whether more power is being dissipated in inductances or capacitances.
And You know all this full well, Harvey, so quit screwing around.
So, you take that 468 Watt initial spike, and since you can't solve that nasty shape analytically you use the tried and true Grungey-Kuttoff method of numerical approximation --which can overestimate by as much as a factor of 2 or 3 -- and call it a rectangle of height 468 Watts and width, er, um, 1/2f seconds. At 1.6 MHz which is typical for my ringdowns with my load, that's, let's see, my gosh, nearly a hundred and fifty MICROJOULES. Sorry, my caps key got stuck I was so excited by the amazing amount of energy stored in a small inductance.
But that's the real number to be compared against the number you cite as input energy. And if you go along the ringdown and add up all the little pieces by which the consecutive peaks decrease, you will be back to the original 150 microJoules.
Unless I misplaced a decimal again.
There is very little power dissipated in the resistor while ringdown occurs (I and V are 90º apart), and much more when the inductor is being energized. The power in the inductor is huge in comparison to that in the resistor because of the relatively large Inductance to resistance ratio. This huge (mostly apparent) power will drain slowly due to the long ringdown.
.99
Uh huh, that's another way of looking at it. Ultimately, a tiny bit might get back into the battery during the first couple cycles, and that contributes to the decay. But ultimately the stored energy is all dissipated as Joule heating of one kind or another. I think.
Now, I'm really getting paranoid that Harvey is setting me up for a big embarrassing fall. OK, at this point I don't care too much, I have as much respect for a good fisherman as anybody. I flunked diffy-Q's anyway.
OK, what's behind door number three?
(EDIT: and of course, I mean the power is being dissipated in the real resistances associated with real inductors and real capacitors. In the real situation, you can tell from the envelope in which _components_ the power is being dissipated, I should have said. I know that ideal inductors and caps don't dissipate power through Joule heating. They may radiate it as RF or something...OK, tear me apart.)
I don't think there's a big setup.
I could be wrong but I think my last couple posts point out the little trick Harvey was playing to see if anyone would catch it. He 'apparently' even gave a pretty big clue.
.99
Peter,
QuoteThe Naysayers are now shown to be the real amateurs who have no insight into this circuit. Sorry Poynt99, but SPICE just isn't going to show this level of complexity. Aaron has now published a circuit that has all of the flexibility necessary to produce all of the necessary effects. And, by placing the scope probe directly on the battery, you can see when the oscillations are happening, both when the FET is ON or OFF.
Don't be too hasty. You have to take a step back from the "jumping the gun" strategy.
For example, if Aaron has the 4-channel version of the DSO you are in heaven. You can scope the following signals relative to the physical battery ground terminal: The 555 signal at the 555 source pin (not at the gate input because you don't want to disturb it for the first go round), the shunt resistor, the MOSFET drain pin, and the battery positive terminal. That will give you a complete picture of what the ringings look like.
The DSO has a resolution of 2 nSec so you should be able to see propagation delays in the signals at the physical nodes so that would be interesting. There may be a few nanoseconds delay between the MOSFET drain spiking high (i.e.; the coil-resistor is the same node) and the battery positive terminal spiking high, which is showing you the reflection (If that is the case TBD). You can put a shunt resistor on the battery positive terminal to see if there is any charging current when the spike hits. I know Aaron mentioned the voltage potential only mechanism for charging the battery. That doesn't mean you don't want to look anyways.
If you can see how the transients work and generate the oscillation on demand (assuming that there is no bug in the 555 circuit TBD) then you should be able to follow the energy trail. It would be nice to have a full sense of the whole orchestration of the signals when the circuit is oscillating right down to the transient analysis level. This is not trivial, and I doubt that Aaron has ever done it. It is basically about generating a timing diagram for what is happening down to the nanosecond resolution level. You are reverse-engineering what the circuit is doing in time.
If you can do that, you should be able to do the full audit of the energy trail.
If .99 was interested, he could try to insert some inductive and capacitive values for the wire interconnects to generate what looks like the same ringing that you see in the real life circuit.
If the DSO can't cut it looking for propagation delays, then I assume Aaron has a very fast analog scope that could do the job.
Spice, the navigation through the heavens of the circuit, totally blue eyes.
If you do this properly, you should be able to crunch some numbers to see the energy going out of the battery being sliced up like a pie. One slice is the "recharge" comeback slice. Another slice of the pie is the resistive element of the coil-resistor, another slice the MOSFET, and another slice is called "other."
The comeback slice of the pie can be further subdivided into two slices, the true recharge slice and the energy lost in recharging slice.
Now that's one pie. Then there is the hope that there are 16 extra delicious heat pies that fall out of the sky and sit next to the main pie for every cycle.
MileHigh
OK, I think I've got the circuit behaving as Aaron wants. It is indeed pretty tricky to tune it to get this behaviour, but Hoppy's clues, the kluged 555 circuit, and Aaron's final stable scope shots have given me enough information, finally.
I'll post a photo in a few minutes, in this post, as an edit. (I have to upload it from another computer.)
The only problem is that, as Hoppy noted, this mode turns the mosfet on most of the time. SO things heat up quick and the mosfet will likely fail if it isn't on a heatsink.
EDIT: here: and look I even used the Flukeoscope. "A" trace is the timer pin 3, "B" trace is across the battery; note the 200 volt spikes; load is 12.5 ohms, 200 uH or so ("catfood2"). Mucho heat and something over an amp average input current.
Great work TK. In your setup the 555's not functioning properly. You can see how you captured two cycles of a repeating irregular pattern. The 555 is simply never supposed to do this. Did you try the magic laying on of hands?
MH
Touché Wilby, that was a high quality posting!
Quote from: MileHigh on August 13, 2009, 01:35:22 AM
Spice, the navigation through the heavens of the circuit, totally blue eyes.
the spice melange, an awareness drug from frank herbert's 'dune'. the ironic thing is you using it in such context, as the book was largely about what could happen through dependence on such a substance. ::)
but then i'm sure you were busy saying things like "nice stillsuit!" or "cool blue eyes!" instead of being able to comprehend the many interweaving plot layers...
may your knife chip and shatter.
"most discipline is hidden discipline, designed not to liberate but to limit. do not ask
why? be cautious with
how?
why? leads inexorably to paradox.
how? traps you in a universe of cause and effect. both deny the infinite." - the apocrypha of arrakis
@MH: you're telling me! It is totally unstably stable. But regularly unstable. You can see the same fine features repeating from cycle to cycle.
And sure, fingers make the frequency vary, and can kick it over the threshold into nice clean pulses. The pot settings to get it here are, as hoppy said, incredibly sensitive (and in my case I do think they are related to that bad spot). I see that Aaron has gone to 3 ten-turn precision pots.
But I think we really need, now, to see Aaron's 4 traces like you suggested, or even just any two including the current trace. At least in my case, the average input current is high.
But still, my traces aren't exactly like Aaron's, and that bothers me. I need to do some more fiddling.
since you are dressing up this travesty of a thread with dune references, here is one that is fitting for you self styled "experts and specialists":
"above all else, the mentat must be a generalist, not a specialist. it is wise to have decisions of great moment monitored by generalists. experts and specialists lead you quickly into chaos. they are a source of useless nit-picking, the ferocious quibble over a comma. the mentat-generalist, on the other hand, should bring to decision-making a healthy common sense. he must not cut himself off from the broad sweep of what is happening in his universe. he must remain capable of saying: "there's no real mystery about this at the moment. this is what we want now. it may prove wrong later, but we'll correct that when we come to it." the mentat-generalist must understand that anything which we can identify as our universe is merely a part of larger phenomena. but the expert looks backward; he looks into the narrow standards of his own specialty. the generalist looks outward; he looks for living principles, knowing full well that such principles change, that they develop. it is to the characteristics of change itself that the mentat-generalist must look. there can be no permanent catalogue of such change, no handbook or manual. you must look at it with as few preconceptions as possible, asking yourself: "now what is this thing doing?" - the mentat handbook
TK:
QuoteIt looks like the mosfet shouldn't be turning on. But: in my case, what happens is that the Baseline of the 555 pulses rises from zero to about 5 volts.
This finally registered in my brain. That may put the MOSFET in its linear region, burning DC power in the MOSFET and the coil-resistor all the time. Very freaky since you have to assume the 555 ground pin is at ground.
QuoteAnd sure, fingers make the frequency vary
That could indicate a stray capacitive effect is forming a stray resonant circuit with the unwilling 555 and overpowering it.
Wilby:
Back to the real world, throw this at the problem:
http://www.lanl.gov/discover/roadrunner_fastest_computer
:)
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on August 13, 2009, 03:35:59 AM
Wilby:
Back to the real world, throw this at the problem:
http://www.lanl.gov/discover/roadrunner_fastest_computer
:)
MileHigh
yes, back to the real world, that's not the computer you're using to run pspice. and using GPUs is old news ::)
It's for crunching down to the level of individual zippons. :)
hey,experts, hats off , your knowledge is incredible
but eliminate RF waste , you have ringing and waste by heat or RF output
As for analogy with hotel clerk - here is the end of the story : one of the man was much more clever then others, he realized he get back his own money but not all :) so he called the owner of the hotel and made a big quarrel.The owner then returned him all the invested money plus a gift - a vacancy for a weekend
call the owner and he will (hopefully) respond...
I have tested Aaron's latest mod with the ten turn pots. This mod was quite stable but again I cannot get down to a 3.7% duty cycle at the mosfet gate and the adjustment is very limited. I am still getting good correlation between the temperature of the 'control' and circuit at equivalent power into the control resistive inductor, so I cannot see how the high COP is arrived at.
I also tested the theory that the battery is being charged with heavy current spikes as claimed by Aaron. To do this, I connected a high voltage diode in series with the battery to block any spikes that may be coming back into the battery. I then carefully monitored the discharge rate of the battery with the diode in circuit and then switched a short circuit across the diode and again monitored the rate of discharge. I could not see any evidence of charging with or without the flyback diode connected across the 8.9uH, 10R resistive inductor.
The amplitude of the spike could be adjusted up and down with the gate pot but at no point did I see any of Aaron's 'oscillations' when scoped across the battery. They may have been there but my waveform resolution is suffering because of a drifting focus control. However, if they are present, IMO they are certainly not producing any noticeable charge into the battery.
Hoppy
Hoppy,
Aaron is going to refer you to his video showing HV spikes going backwards through a string of diodes.
He would be correct in stating that this will happen and this is the reason you are seeing no difference.
I've stated it a few times and I'll re-emphasize again, when dealing with high frequency and high rise/fall time circuits we can't think of these devices and how they operate in terms of DC behaviour. Consideration has to be given to transient conditions and under such, all the reactive components within and around these devices need to be taken into account. For example, there is a junction capacitance across all diodes, and although small in a reversed-bias condition (but is non-linear and slow), it is there and represents a path for spikes to conduct.
Similar consideration must be given to the MOSFET.
.99
Oh, dear...
This thread is still alive?
Can't believe it....
"OU FET heaters"??? ;D ;D ;D
:(
It's well over 100 pages now...
What exactly is the problem? That the circuit isn't OU? Anything else?
Jeeez....
Quote from: poynt99 on August 13, 2009, 09:34:35 AM
Hoppy,
Aaron is going to refer you to his video showing HV spikes going backwards through a string of diodes.
He would be correct in stating that this will happen and this is the reason you are seeing no difference.
I've stated it a few times and I'll re-emphasize again, when dealing with high frequency and high rise/fall time circuits we can't think of these devices and how they operate in terms of DC behaviour. Consideration has to be given to transient conditions and under such, all the reactive components within and around these devices need to be taken into account. For example, there is a junction capacitance across all diodes, and although small in a reversed-bias condition (but is non-linear and slow), it is there and represents a path for spikes to conduct.
Similar consideration must be given to the MOSFET.
.99
EXACTLY. Do you know maybe the way to damage internal MOSFET diode but let FET still working ?
Hi Hoppy,
QuoteI also tested the theory that the battery is being charged with heavy current spikes as claimed by Aaron. To do this, I connected a high voltage diode in series with the battery to block any spikes that may be coming back into the battery. I then carefully monitored the discharge rate of the battery with the diode in circuit and then switched a short circuit across the diode and again monitored the rate of discharge. I could not see any evidence of charging with or without the flyback diode connected across the 8.9uH, 10R resistive inductor.
Are you indicating that you were working with two diodes, a series diode at the battery positive, and the more familiar parallel diode across the coil-resistor. You tried with the series diode or bypassing the series diode with no noticeable difference across the shunt resistor? Then as a separate test you tried with/without the parallel diode across the coil-resistor and got similar results?
I have a new tentative theory about the high voltage spikes that Aaron is seeing at the battery positive terminal: It's back to basics again because you can't forget that the MOSFET is not conducting so current can't flow in the circuit. That's the only way to get the high voltage pulse in the first place.
The fact that the inductive energy from the discharging coil-resistor has "nowhere to go" because the MOSFET is switched off results in the energy going to three places: 1) Some of the energy is capacitively coupled through the MOSFET junction capacitances of the gate and source pins and goes into the 555 circuit and the shunt resistor because of dv/dt to ground. 2) Some of the energy is dissipated through the MOSFET "off" resistance and goes through the shunt resistor to ground. 3) Some of the energy is reflected back to the battery positive terminal and travels through the battery to ground.
For the battery, the real issue is how do you model it for high-speed transients. Like Harvey stated earlier, there may be a type of battery "inductance effect" for high-speed transients.
I am going to suggest something similar to that based on input impedance. The battery has a "dynamic impedance" model for when high-speed voltage transients enter at the positive terminal. For something on the order of a few microseconds, when the battery is first hit with a voltage transient, it acts like a very high input resistance and a very small input capacitance. We know what happens with the input capacitance, you get dv/dt current to ground.
I want to focus on the dynamic input resistance. This only lasts for a few microseconds before you drop down to the input charging resistance that might only be 0.5 ohms or less. So the 500 nSec high-voltage spike hits the battery and is "dissipated" in the battery as a v-squared/R dissipation, where R is a very large value for just a few microseconds.
It is highly doubtful that the battery is actually charging under this voltage transient condition, because you normally associate charging with a very low battery input resistance.
In theory, this can be confirmed by measuring the current going into the battery when the 500 nSec high-voltage transient hits it. If what I am saying is true, you should measure relatively little input current. You can actually measure the battery input resistance under the voltage transient condition since you have the transient voltage and the transient current.
Exactly where this transient spike energy goes in the battery is perhaps for somebody else to answer, I am not a battery expert. I have a feeling it is perhaps more than 90% energy dissipation as heat and less than 10% battery recharging.
The net result of this theory, and I stress that it is a theory only, is that the big voltage transients going into the battery that are about 500 nSec wide (to be confirmed with measurements) do not really charge the battery. The individual spikes have very little energy in them, and almost all of it becomes resistive heat.
The net result is that the 500 nSec voltage transients at the battery positive terminal are simply too fast and too short in duration to charge the battery.
You can contrast this with a typical Bedini motor configuration. In this case the spikes going into the charging battery are much much longer in duration, so the spikes are "slower." The charging battery has more than enough time to react to these slow spikes and really gets charged. The battery reduces the charging spikes to low-voltage current spikes, that are just a few volts max above the battery voltage. That's in distinct contrast to what Aaron is seeing in his recent clips, where the spikes are "too fast" for the battery to react and the spikes don't get muffled down to a low voltage at all.
Some food for thought for everybody!
MileHigh
Hi Hoppy,
Poynt99 has a point..HV Transients do strange things to point contacts where there may be any form of impurities, as they will act very similar to PN junctions and parasitic capacitances love to just let them through I tell you... :'(
Also did you establish some form of control test to verify that the battery was draining at the expected rate?
@TK
Quote@MH: you're telling me! It is totally unstably stable. But regularly unstable. You can see the same fine features repeating from cycle to cycle.
And sure, fingers make the frequency vary, and can kick it over the threshold into nice clean pulses. The pot settings to get it here are, as hoppy said, incredibly sensitive (and in my case I do think they are related to that bad spot). I see that Aaron has gone to 3 ten-turn precision pots.
But I think we really need, now, to see Aaron's 4 traces like you suggested, or even just any two including the current trace. At least in my case, the average input current is high.
But still, my traces aren't exactly like Aaron's, and that bothers me. I need to do some more fiddling.
I hope you now understand why so few people understand this simple effect, LOL. I call this the hand grenade effect, the pin is either pulled or it is not and there is no almost or inbetween. The major issue is the incredibly narrow band of operation, either you are on it or you are not which is why the chances of stumbling onto this are slim to none unless you are actually looking for it. This is also why the spice simulator is completely useless here--we are speaking of electromechanical effects in the components.
Quote from: MileHigh on August 13, 2009, 10:51:34 AM
Hi Hoppy,
Are you indicating that you were working with two diodes, a series diode at the battery positive, and the more familiar parallel diode across the coil-resistor. You tried with the series diode or bypassing the series diode with no noticeable difference across the shunt resistor? Then as a separate test you tried with/without the parallel diode across the coil-resistor and got similar results?
I have a new tentative theory about the high voltage spikes that Aaron is seeing at the battery positive terminal: It's back to basics again because you can't forget that the MOSFET is not conducting so current can't flow in the circuit. That's the only way to get the high voltage pulse in the first place.
The fact that the inductive energy from the discharging coil-resistor has "nowhere to go" because the MOSFET is switched off results in the energy going to three places: 1) Some of the energy is capacitively coupled through the MOSFET junction capacitances of the gate and source pins and goes into the 555 circuit and the shunt resistor because of dv/dt to ground. 2) Some of the energy is dissipated through the MOSFET "off" resistance and goes through the shunt resistor to ground. 3) Some of the energy is reflected back to the battery positive terminal and travels through the battery to ground.
For the battery, the real issue is how do you model it for high-speed transients. Like Harvey stated earlier, there may be a type of battery "inductance effect" for high-speed transients.
I am going to suggest something similar to that based on input impedance. The battery has a "dynamic impedance" model for when high-speed voltage transients enter at the positive terminal. For something on the order of a few microseconds, when the battery is first hit with a voltage transient, it acts like a very high input resistance and a very small input capacitance. We know what happens with the input capacitance, you get dv/dt current to ground.
I want to focus on the dynamic input resistance. This only lasts for a few microseconds before you drop down to the input charging resistance that might only be 0.5 ohms or less. So the 500 nSec high-voltage spike hits the battery and is "dissipated" in the battery as a v-squared/R dissipation, where R is a very large value for just a few microseconds.
It is highly doubtful that the battery is actually charging under this voltage transient condition, because you normally associate charging with a very low battery input resistance.
In theory, this can be confirmed by measuring the current going into the battery when the 500 nSec high-voltage transient hits it. If what I am saying is true, you should measure relatively little input current. You can actually measure the battery input resistance under the voltage transient condition since you have the transient voltage and the transient current.
Exactly where this transient spike energy goes in the battery is perhaps for somebody else to answer, I am not a battery expert. I have a feeling it is perhaps more than 90% energy dissipation as heat and less than 10% battery recharging.
The net result of this theory, and I stress that it is a theory only, is that the big voltage transients going into the battery that are about 500 nSec wide (to be confirmed with measurements) do not really charge the battery. The individual spikes have very little energy in them, and almost all of it becomes resistive heat.
The net result is that the 500 nSec voltage transients at the battery positive terminal are simply too fast and too short in duration to charge the battery.
You can contrast this with a typical Bedini motor configuration. In this case the spikes going into the charging battery are much much longer in duration, so the spikes are "slower." The charging battery has more than enough time to react to these slow spikes and really gets charged. The battery reduces the charging spikes to low-voltage current spikes, that are just a few volts max above the battery voltage. That's in distinct contrast to what Aaron is seeing in his recent clips, where the spikes are "too fast" for the battery to react and the spikes don't get muffled down to a low voltage at all.
Some food for thought for everybody!
MileHigh
Hi MH
My test involved carefully observing the rate of discharge on a voltmeter across the battery with and without a series diode and with and without a flyback diode across the inductive resistor, not looking at the shunt resistor. I'm not saying that there is no spiking back to the battery but I am reasonably confident in saying that any spikes getting back into the battery are not charging the battery to any useful extent. The situation is very different where the inductor discharge is directed to a secondary battery as in the case of a Bedini monopole motor / charger.
Hoppy
The simple solution here is to simply put an ammeter in the supply path and run the circuit without oscillation and check the average current draw, then put it in oscillation and see if the current draw drops. If it does, then energy is being put back, if it doesn't then its not.
I have a cold beer in my fridge for anyone that can prove the current reduces instead of increases as the heater goes into oscillation.
;)
Quote from: Harvey on August 13, 2009, 02:36:51 PM
The simple solution here is to simply put an ammeter in the supply path and run the circuit without oscillation and check the average current draw, then put it in oscillation and see if the current draw drops. If it does, then energy is being put back, if it doesn't then its not.
I have a cold beer in my fridge for anyone that can prove the current reduces instead of increases as the heater goes into oscillation.
;)
I know someone who would want one ;-) Unfortunately he is gone.:-(
I know that I have nothing interesting to say to all of you , respectable EE experts, but maybe you should listen somebody else ... ?
"I mean this: If you pass a current into a circuit with large self-induction, and no radiation takes place, and you have a low resistance, there is no
possibility of this energy getting out into space; therefore, the impressed impulses accumulate."
Nikola Tesla
Quote from: Harvey on August 13, 2009, 02:36:51 PM
The simple solution here is to simply put an ammeter in the supply path and run the circuit without oscillation and check the average current draw, then put it in oscillation and see if the current draw drops. If it does, then energy is being put back, if it doesn't then its not.
I have a cold beer in my fridge for anyone that can prove the current reduces instead of increases as the heater goes into oscillation.
;)
You mean like I did last night? The average current indicated on the Simpson in series was about 600 mA just before onset and about 1 or 1.2 amps during, and could go as high as 2 amps. During the "oscillations" my current-viewing shunt, which is made from 4 ea. 1.0 ohm 1/2 Watt precision resistors in parallel, gets noticeably warm and the mosfet and load get quite hot quite quickly. The voltage drop across the shunt looks like a continuous 500 to 600 milliAmps (EDIT: should read milliVOLTS of course, for a current of I = 0.6 / 0.25 or about 2.4 Amps ) with a bit of ripple on top, so the current is nearly continuous, even though the mosfet is spiking.
So I guess you'll have to save that beer for someone Else. I'm sure Aaron will be claiming it soon.
Why is your mosfet now on a heatsink, Aaron? Did you discover that it gets hot, after all?
Quote from: Harvey on August 13, 2009, 02:36:51 PM
The simple solution here is to simply put an ammeter in the supply path and run the circuit without oscillation and check the average current draw, then put it in oscillation and see if the current draw drops. If it does, then energy is being put back, if it doesn't then its not.
I have a cold beer in my fridge for anyone that can prove the current reduces instead of increases as the heater goes into oscillation.
;)
Harvey.
I've already done that and I'll wager that your beer will stay in the fridge!
Hoppy
Jibbguy:
The glass is more than half-full in my book. No need to go into the "big picture" stuff yet.
If the effect is real, then forget about the "100 possible real-world applications", it would represent a paradigm shift for the world. Free heat, you could do anything with that. That's a big win!
Or, just figuring out what the circuit is doing, even if there is no free heat, is another win. It would be a fun learning experience.
TK has reported a flaky 555 circuit producing a semblance of oscillation. You can run with that and look for free heat if you want to. Perhaps Aaron's observations are totally different. He needs to check his 555 waveform.
Or suppose that is fixed, and you invoke the "real" MOSFET oscillation by playing with the gate resistance and the 555 waveform. Then you can look for free heat there. Then of course the non-oscillatory mode is also supposed to produce free heat.
Or you can focus on the battery spikes and run-down times, which is not what Rosemary's paper is really about but I am not in the driver's seat!
It's fun, don't get too serious yet!
Hoppy: Thanks for the info!
.99: he he
MileHigh
Hoppy:
QuoteI am reasonably confident in saying that any spikes getting back into the battery are not charging the battery to any useful extent.
For your setup I would agree with you also. You mentioned that as you turn your gate trimpot you can see the spikes on the battery getting higher and lower. So when you have the highest spikes, assume that your MOSFET is switching the fastest.
With that setup and then trying the diodes out as you did, you are enabling and disabling the feedback spikes to the battery. When you check the battery voltage with your multimeter, you should definitely see the DC battery voltage creep up a bit if the spikes are there. You indicated that you didn't, demonstrating that the return spikes have no affect on the standard voltage drop when the battery is powering the circuit.
Don't mind me I am just repeating what you said for the sake of completeness. That would just confirm that the spikes are returning only a very small amount of power back into the battery. This is in agreement with just eyeballing the spikes and performing the integration in your head.
Also, I acknowledge what .99 said about diodes and transients. I will go out on a limb and assume that the spikes the diode would be blocking coming from the coil discharge reflection would be much larger than whatever could go through the diode junction capacitance. They have to be if you are assuming the return spikes have any chance of "recharging" the battery, a.k.a lowering the discharge rate.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on August 13, 2009, 03:58:32 PM
Hoppy:
For your setup I would agree with you also. You mentioned that as you turn your gate trimpot you can see the spikes on the battery getting higher and lower. So when you have the highest spikes, assume that your MOSFET is switching the fastest.
With that setup and then trying the diodes out as you did, you are enabling and disabling the feedback spikes to the battery. When you check the battery voltage with your multimeter, you should definitely see the DC battery voltage creep up a bit if the spikes are there. You indicated that you didn't, demonstrating that the return spikes have no affect on the standard voltage drop when the battery is powering the circuit.
Don't mind me I am just repeating what you said for the sake of completeness. That would just confirm that the spikes are returning only a very small amount of power back into the battery. This is in agreement with just eyeballing the spikes and performing the integration in your head.
Also, I acknowledge what .99 said about diodes and transients. I will go out on a limb and assume that the spikes the diode would be blocking coming from the coil discharge reflection would be much larger than whatever could go through the diode junction capacitance. They have to be if you are assuming the return spikes have any chance of "recharging" the battery, a.k.a lowering the discharge rate.
MileHigh
MH
I totally agree with your assessment.
Hoppy
Aaron:
Sorry, but your posting about the spikes is misdirected. When you remove the fly-back diode, then you get spikes, we always said that. Your MOSFET switching is really good since you are getting such high voltages.
Your individual spikes are about 140 nSec wide and they appear to be happening every 4 uSec. That's an equivalent duty cycle of 140/4000 = 3.5%.
Your oscillation frequency is about 250 KHz. That's mighty fast!
QuoteOn a 23uH coil, the oscillation spikes are about -440v and the normal pulse that precedes every oscillation burst has it's own spike at OVER -800v
That's what .99's PSpice simulation showed also. Isn't that cool? <Edit: Actually I should correct myself, he showed a ring-down which is not what you are showing.>
Watch out for aliasing effects between your 250 KHz pulse train and your 100 uSec time base.
MileHigh
My goodness, high voltage spikes from an inductive discharge. What a discovery!
You know, I'll bet that if you optimized a circuit for spikes, and directed those spikes somewhere useful, like into the primary of a step-up transformer...and if the spikes actually had some useful energy (ie lasted a bit longer)...you might be able to get some interesting effects, and if voltage is what floats your boat, I'll bet you could easily get to 20 kV, if you knew what you were doing.
No, wait, it looks like someone's already done something like that....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNL8QTS0sM0
(Hmm...nearly a hundred views even before I get around to posting a link...looks like someone's keeping tabs...that's pretty scary when you think about it...)
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 13, 2009, 02:50:38 PM
You mean like I did last night? The average current indicated on the Simpson in series was about 600 mA just before onset and about 1 or 1.2 amps during, and could go as high as 2 amps. During the "oscillations" my current-viewing shunt, which is made from 4 ea. 1.0 ohm 1/2 Watt precision resistors in parallel, gets noticeably warm and the mosfet and load get quite hot quite quickly. The voltage drop across the shunt looks like a continuous 500 to 600 milliAmps (EDIT: should read milliVOLTS of course, for a current of I = 0.6 / 0.25 or about 2.4 Amps ) with a bit of ripple on top, so the current is nearly continuous, even though the mosfet is spiking.
So I guess you'll have to save that beer for someone Else. I'm sure Aaron will be claiming it soon.
Why is your mosfet now on a heatsink, Aaron? Did you discover that it gets hot, after all?
I have to say, those waveforms you posted up yesterday have to be among the ugliest I've seen in my whole career, and I've seen some ugly ones. I'm the guy that got Unitrol Sirens MOSFET's to work as linear PA amplifiers without melting into the ground, and there were a few of those that made waveforms like yours - bleagh. Clean that up, will 'ya? ;)
Aaron:
On a "Rant" scale, that was a 9.5.
QuoteI have identified almost a dozen unique modes of oscillation from this one mosfet and have only showed a couple. The only oscillation he showed was the scope flatlining - and Milehigh proclaimed that is evidence the whole oscillation thing is a fraud. It is obvious they are intentionally deceiving people in a very willful and wanton manner.
Look, this circuit on paper was not purposefully designed to oscillate. You get switching transients and ring-downs like you would for any other circuit. You can apparently induce an oscillation with a flaky 555 timer circuit and/or possibly having the main spike induce a very robust 250 KHz spike-rate oscillation.
Nobody is arguing this point. Any oscillations and excessive ringdowns are arguably undesirable in the sense that the circuit was not originally designed to do this. However, you feel that this is the key to excess heat production or battery recharging, then go for it, nobody is stopping you.
What's just as interesting is trying to stop the oscillations with your trusty wet fingertip. This would include touching the pins of the 555. Just to explore and perhaps learn something.
There is no way in hell that any of us are intentionally deceiving anyone. Come out of the reality distortion field, I don't know what else to say about that.
Suppose that you have an oscillator that outputs a fixed 10% duty cycle with a widely variable frequency range. You connect it to the gate input and you start to sweep the frequency up. As the frequency gets higher, you still are "on" 10% of the time but the average current through the coil will drop and continue to drop and hit zero when the frequency hits "infinity" with a 10% duty cycle. That's a thought experiment. Can you see that for yourself?
Yes indeed, in an older TK clip, he demonstrated/stumbled across that and you seem to think that was a conspiracy or something.
MileHigh
Aaron:
QuoteAnd by the way, the battery voltage didn't even drop 1/100th of a volt producing almost 150C at the load for the whole video. Let's see him replicate that as well - again, he doesn't have the necessary technical experience to do it
This is "garbage data" and you can't infer anything from it.
So what, you take the ampere-hours of the battery and compare it to the power drain and time period, and do what exactly with the fact that the battery voltage droped by 0.01 +/-0.005 volts? (Assuming your meter has two digits of precision.)
MH
QuoteAnyway, until the skeptics have the INTELLECTUAL HONESTY to realize that non-equilibrium thermodynamics explain this circuit phenomena and all other open circuit systems, they'll be forever stuck in the dark as they have so darkly demonstrated.
This is a very serious issue and it is worth revisiting again, it goes to the heart of the matter.
There are no "non-equilibrium thermodynamics (that) explain this circuit phenomena." That is simply NOT TRUE. There is no rational reason to accept this statement as being true. If what he is stating is true, than any electrical circuit connected to a battery or power supply is a "non-equilibrium thermodynamics circuit."
There is no such thing as non-equilibrium thermodynamics, period. (I don't want to argue quantum mechanics here.)
A reminder, this circuit is about as simple as they get, an inductor, a resistor, a diode, and a battery. Don't be deceived into believing that thermodynamics breaks down in this case.
This circuit takes battery energy and turns it into mostly heat and a very small amount of mechanical energy (the coil-resistor singing or hissing - which also becomes heat) and a microscopic amount of EM energy that is radiated away into space. Ultimately, the heat produced by this circuit gets radiated away into space also. There is your equilibrium.
The burden is on Aaron and others to prove what I am saying is not true, it doesn't go the other way around.
MileHigh
Aaron:
On the technical side:
QuoteSome simple tests I already did before are running the circuit and checking the draw from battery and then putting control on resistor to get to same temp at whatever wattage. The control seems to always need more wattage to get resistor to same temp. That is clearly very telling in and of itself - the real test is drawdown compred to control.
Here is the scary part. How are you checking the draw from the battery? If you aren't measuring this properly, then any control vs. device under test draw-downs are all suspect. As far as I am concerned your draw-down time for control vs. device under test methodology is no good also, as i have stated in the past. Can you come up with a better system by measuring the before and after energy in the battery and comparing that with how much energy you calculated was burned off in the device under test?
MileHigh
Quote from: forest on August 13, 2009, 10:04:28 AM
EXACTLY. Do you know maybe the way to damage internal MOSFET diode but let FET still working ?
I have not read of a way to do this, I have tried in the past by slightly overpowering the diode but it always closes short. I have also tried with short HV impulses but the FET always gets damaged with it. Since then I have learned to use a good transistor instead.
FET protection diode is usually 100+ volts avalanche breakdown device anyway so just keep it below avalanche by sinking the spikes elsewhere using another diode and it wont conduct.
Having tried to do this and thinking about it further Ive realised that there is little point in trying to remove the protection diode, if you remove it to have high back V manifest accross S and D then you will blow the FET anyway at only slightly higher than the diodes avalanche V.
Better to use a nice switching transistor with high max reverse voltage if you want to float the ringing, I recommend 13005 base tied with 1k to gnd, provided your base drive signal has moderate power (like sig genny) then the squares should have reasonable risetime. If you want to drive straight from 555 then you may need a small transistor to preamp the base drive in order to get sharper transients.
But wait using anything other than IRFPG50 (or whatever it is) will not work in this fantabulous COP17 circuit! cough cough.. BULLSHIT.. cough!
edit:
note to all:
You will get less FET heating and more load heating by softening the gate drive using a small cap to gnd or a series inductor. A simple mod to increase the COP of this circuit. The other even easier mod is to solder the drain to the source.
"The other even easier mod is to solder the drain to the source."
;D
Works good. Great way to recycle those blown mosfets.
And Aaron, simply turning up the power until your "control" resistor is at the same temperature (monitored how now? and how calibrated?) is not a good way to do it. The more valid comparison would be to do as I showed, where I monitor the time and temperature profile of the load under the Ainslie condition and under DC at the same or similar average input power. Clearly, if the Ainlsie system is making more power somehow, the load should heat up faster and get hotter, with the same input power. It's the rate of heating that is most important, at the same known input power.
Your method is actually backwards and is subject to large error. Obviously.
Quote from: Yucca on August 13, 2009, 07:33:37 PM
I have not read of a way to do this, I have tried in the past by slightly overpowering the diode but it always closes short. I have also tried with short HV impulses but the FET always gets damaged with it. Since then I have learned to use a good transistor instead.
FET protection diode is usually 100+ volts avalanche breakdown device anyway so just keep it below avalanche by sinking the spikes elsewhere using another diode and it wont conduct.
Having tried to do this and thinking about it further Ive realised that there is little point in trying to remove the protection diode, if you remove it to have high back V manifest accross S and D then you will blow the FET anyway at only slightly higher than the diodes avalanche V.
Better to use a nice switching transistor with high max reverse voltage if you want to float the ringing, I recommend 13005 base tied with 1k to gnd, provided your base drive signal has moderate power (like sig genny) then the squares should have reasonable risetime. If you want to drive straight from 555 then you may need a small transistor to preamp the base drive in order to get sharper transients.
But wait using anything other than IRFPG50 (or whatever it is) will not work in this fantabulous COP17 circuit! cough cough.. BULLSHIT.. cough!
edit:
note to all:
You will get less FET heating and more load heating by softening the gate drive using a small cap to gnd or a series inductor. A simple mod to increase the COP of this circuit. The other even easier mod is to solder the drain to the source.
i am pretty sure no one has ever said the irfpg50 is required for fantabulous COP>17. can you direct us to this statement? or is it one of those imaginary ones like tk's "predicted by..." statement that somehow neither he nor his sycophants can find? what
has been stated about the irfpg50 repeatedly is that since it was specified in the original schematic using something else was bad scientific method in regards to replication.
and of course the naked emperor stated that it would perform the same as the other fets, which it doesn't.
Quote from: Harvey on August 13, 2009, 06:14:45 PM
I have to say, those waveforms you posted up yesterday have to be among the ugliest I've seen in my whole career, and I've seen some ugly ones. I'm the guy that got Unitrol Sirens MOSFET's to work as linear PA amplifiers without melting into the ground, and there were a few of those that made waveforms like yours - bleagh. Clean that up, will 'ya? ;)
Hey, this mosfet is one tough little puppy. It takes a lot of abuse. I've only blown one, even though I've gotten them hot enough to melt the solder a few times, and scorch my bamboo "breadboard" that I bought back when Aaron was claiming these oscillations with a circuit that couldn't produce them.
(Of course even that one still works, when I hook it up like Yucca said...)
But I don't think it's really the mosfet doing this. It's just responding to what it's being told by the 555 timer circuit. Without that misbehaving 555 the mosfet is also well-behaved.
Or, at worst, it's an interaction between the mosfet and the unstable 555 circuit. As Yucca says, there are ways to reduce the heat in the mosfet. But I don't see any ways to make the load produce more energy out than in.
I guess we'll just have to wait for Aaron to show us how to do that. Since it's pretty clear we aren't discussing the Ainslie circuit any more.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on August 13, 2009, 09:25:05 PM
i am pretty sure no one has ever said the irfpg50 is required for fantabulous COP>17. can you direct us to this statement? or is it one of those imaginary ones like tk's "predicted by..." statement that somehow neither he nor his sycophants can find? what has been stated about the irfpg50 repeatedly is that since it was specified in the original schematic using something else was bad scientific method in regards to replication.
Sorry you got me, I was wrong to say that, I shall now set about flagellating myself with 1m of 18AWG cable onto which is soldered numerous blown FETs.
Whats really bad scientific method is publishing a schematic containing a timer stage with a completely wrong duty cycle, and then saying "Oh I dunno, it may be wrong yeah whatever, can I bum a ciggy off you? hey did you see that zippon?". Because the schematic was published the error was multiplied, hindering many replication attempts.
@Yucca,
;D
.99
Quote from: Yucca on August 13, 2009, 09:55:36 PM
Sorry you got me, I was wrong to say that, I shall now set about flagellating myself with 1m of 18AWG cable onto which is soldered numerous blown FETs.
Whats really bad scientific method is publishing a schematic containing a timer stage with a completely wrong duty cycle, and then saying "Oh I dunno, it may be wrong yeah, can I bum a ciggy off you?, hey did you see that zippon?" that is a multiplied error, hindering many replicators.
yes, you were wrong to say that. this the real world, where you are accountable for your words, something your naked emperor can't seem to grasp. at least you know when to admit you're wrong, however sarcastic that admission may be... ::)
ahhh i see, so you hold RMA to a different standard than you hold your emperor. hmmm, that's interesting. any particular reason? speaking of errors, you haven't come across that "predicted by..." post from your naked emperor have you?
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on August 13, 2009, 10:08:13 PM
yes, you were wrong to say that. this the real world, where you are accountable for your words, something your naked emperor can't seem to grasp. at least you know when to admit you're wrong, however sarcastic that admission may be... ::)
ahhh i see, so you hold RMA to a different standard than you hold your emperor. hmmm, that's interesting. any particular reason? speaking of errors, you haven't come across that "predicted by..." post from your naked emperor have you?
RMA and TK are both just folk, probably neither have a real bad bone in their bodies.
RMA is setting herself up for a bit of ribbing though, what with the tall claims and absolutely no experimental data to back it up. Hell if it were me I´d have posted working circuits to various people for verification through independent calorimetry.
edit: removed some bad vibes, just like Jack Herer would have us all do.
Hey TK:
QuoteAnd Aaron, simply turning up the power until your "control" resistor is at the same temperature (monitored how now? and how calibrated?) is not a good way to do it. The more valid comparison would be to do as I showed, where I monitor the time and temperature profile of the load under the Ainslie condition and under DC at the same or similar average input power. Clearly, if the Ainslie system is making more power somehow, the load should heat up faster and get hotter, with the same input power. It's the rate of heating that is most important, at the same known input power.
Your method is actually backwards and is subject to large error. Obviously.
Let's look at this issue one more time. We want this one to be clear plus if we demonstrate that we can disagree with each other we earn the respect of the opposing camp. lol
Aaron is actually right when he checks the final temperature as the reference. Of course you have to be sure that you really are at the final temperature and not jumping the gun.
If the Ainsley system is generating more heat like you say above, the load will heat up faster and get hotter. Here is the biggie: The time it takes to reach 63% of the final temperature will be exactly the same for the control experiment or for the Ainsley circuit test. The final temperatures may be different but the overall timing profile will be the same.
What's determining the time it takes to reach 63% of the final temperature, a.k.a. the thermal time constant? It's good ol' "RC", but this time we are not talking about a resistor and a capacitor, we are talking about the thermal resistance between the coil-resistor and the outside world, and the thermal capacity of the body of the coil-resistor that's being heated up.
The thermal resistance to the outside world in the control test or the Ainsley circuit test will be the same. It is related to how air currents convect heat away from the coil-resistor and how much thermal IR radiation it generates. The thermal capacity for both tests will also be the same, it is related to the physical mass and materials used to make the coil-resistor itself.
So for the control test and the Ainsley circuit test it will take exactly the same amount of time to reach 63% of the final temperature. The final temperature is of course when the heat injected into the system by the electrical power source is equal to the amount of heat removed by radiation and thermal convection. It is an equilibrium point. (The thermal circuit is a current source feeding a cap in parallel with a resistor)
So a general rule of thumb is to wait at least five time constants to consider the temperature to have stabilized. It the same old exponential curve, where here the plot is delta-T vs. time.
The real data is in the final temperature of the coil-resistor. The time profile for getting there is of no real importance.
MileHigh
Actually, early on, Rosemary said that most any transistor would do. Several times. She also said that FG drive would be fine. But as we now know, those things are, well, just not true, are they. And how and why do we now know those facts, I wonder?
It's Aaron who said several times that the transistor has to have the repetitive avalanche rating and the high Vdss -- like the IRFPG50 -- which is why he said my 2sk1548 won't work, since right there on the data sheet it says "avalanche proof". But of course searching through Aaron's posts is futile, since he adopts the tactics of Orwell's Ministry of Truth -- "down the memory hole" with so much that has been posted on threads that he controls.
Now, if anyone can point me to a similarly high Vdss and repetitive avalanche rated mosfet that is NOT the IRFPG50, I would be glad to test it.
And in one of the very earliest posts in this thread I encourage critics to compare the data sheets for the two mosfets. Sorry, I failed to point out in that post that the difference in gate capacitance and turnon-turnoff times would likely mean that the 2sk would make better spikes used in this manner. But of course that elementary fact would have been clear to anyone who actually bothered to read the data sheets as I suggested, way back before the troll started pissing on straw men in the thread.
Quote from: MileHigh on August 13, 2009, 11:00:25 PM
Hey TK:
Let's look at this issue one more time. We want this one to be clear plus if we demonstrate that we can disagree with each other we earn the respect of the opposing camp. lol
Aaron is actually right when he checks the final temperature as the reference. Of course you have to be sure that you really are at the final temperature and not jumping the gun.
If the Ainsley system is generating more heat like you say above, the load will heat up faster and get hotter. Here is the biggie: The time it takes to reach 63% of the final temperature will be exactly the same for the control experiment or for the Ainsley circuit test. The final temperatures may be different but the overall timing profile will be the same.
What's determining the time it takes to reach 63% of the final temperature, a.k.a. the thermal time constant? It's good ol' "RC", but this time we are not talking about a resistor and a capacitor, we are talking about the thermal resistance between the coil-resistor and the outside world, and the thermal capacity of the body of the coil-resistor that's being heated up.
The thermal resistance to the outside world in the control test or the Ainsley circuit test will be the same. It is related to how air currents convect heat away from the coil-resistor and how much thermal IR radiation it generates. The thermal capacity for both tests will also be the same, it is related to the physical mass and materials used the coil-resistor itself.
So for the control test and the Ainsley circuit test it will take exactly the same amount of time to reach 63% of the final temperature. The final temperature is of course when the heat injected into the system by the electrical power source is equal to the amount of heat removed by radiation and thermal convection. It is an equilibrium point. (The thermal circuit is a current source feeding a cap in parallel with a resistor)
So a general rule of thumb is to wait at least five time constants to consider the temperature to have stabilized. It the same old exponential curve, where here the plot is delta-T vs. time.
The real data is in the final temperature of the coil-resistor. The time profile for getting there is of no real importance.
MileHigh
Um hm, your analysis is in depth and is correct, I have no problem with it. But I still maintain that the rate gives important information as well, even if, as you show, it is really the same information. Take a look at this graph, again. You, and hopefully everyone else, will see that the equilibrium temperatures are approached asymptotically, and just as you say one must wait a while for the temperature actually to stabilize in its dynamic equilibrium with the surroundings. The "leaky" calorimeter idea is clearly crucial here. You can't be totally open to drafts and convection and you can't be totally thermally sealed either, to do it on the desktop in a reasonable time.
The rate information is important, well, because it makes nice visual impact, for one thing. See?
But I hope we are agreed that the way NOT to do it is to sit there, turning up the power supply a little at a time, until you think your resistor is at some particular temperature, and then reading the power at that point. That's just backwards. Even if one discards the rate info (a mistake, I maintain) one still needs to set the power at the beginning and keep it there, at whatever chosen value, and let the load temp equilibrate without further fiddling.
Current methods of calorimetry used on this circuit are not ideal due to heavy thermal coupling to the atmosphere. The maths to straighten it all out for absolute values are difficult and its much simpler to do better calorimetry.
A hot drink glass vacuum flask filled with distilled water, deep styrofoam plug in the top with holes for load leads and thermocouple. Dip any exposed leads of the load in varnish. Run X joules in with straight DC. Run X joules in with claimed OU circuit. Same water volume and start temp in each case. For best accuracy run times should be equalised by varying (via voltage) the DC input power to match the pulsed RMS power. For even better accuracy two identical calorimeters should be built and ran close to each other.
edit:
TKs aymptotic equilibrium curves of the leaky calorimeter runs above do say underunity if they were conducted at approx the same ambient temps, pressures and relative humidity. But without real calorimetry obtaining absolute heat out figures is difficult and noisy.
While we are on this topic, I would like to point out a subtle fact that maybe Aaron is missing: The circuit, operated in this oscillatory mode, produces waaaaay tooooo mucccchhh heeeaaaattt.
How do you, Aaron, or anybody else, account for the fact that in Ainslie's reported experiment, her load equilibrated at about 50 degrees over ambient in "about an hour"...
Whereas anybody who is experiencing these oscillatory experiences is experiencing a load that heats to, well, let's just say it gets HOT, and it gets HOT FAST.
The implication is pretty clear to me. I'll even say it out loud. This mode of operation, call it the Aaron mode, is NOT the mode of operation of the Ainslie circuit reported in the article.
Plus, one may compare the results in the graph above with Ainslie's actual reported heat profile. As anyone can see, my Ainslie load, driven at a known and stable 4.5 percent ON with no "oscillations", got to about 50 degrees above ambient in about an hour. Just as Ainslie reports in her experiment.
But the circuit operating in "Aaron mode" makes the load heat to well over 100 degrees over ambient in just a few minutes. Just like using Yucca's mosfet-recycling circuit. And for the same reason. And with the same effect.
This is why I say the oscillations are a red herring, and when we are discussing them, particularly when they are generated in the manner being used, we are no longer discussing the Ainslie circuit or her experiment.
TK:
I pretty much agree with you and let me state my version of a quick pass/fail for COP > 1. (COP > 17 is for stage 2) Just for the fun of it dammit.
For me the setup would be just the bare coil-resistor hanging vertically by one of the wires, not being in physical contact with anything else, in the controlled conditions of a room, no fans, etc. The resistor is hollow and thus will give you a nice "smokestack" effect when it is hot.
Run the Ainsley circuit and record the stabilized temp and make your most accurate power consumption measurement possible.
Then the control test - put the same amount of DC power through the vertical smokestack coil-resistor and let the temperature stabilize and see what gives.
If the Universe is still right you should measure a higher temperature for the control test.
This setup will have a much shorter time constant than your calorimeter based test and give you equally accurate results. The only thing to really watch out for is to make sure the air currents around the coil-resistor are exactly the same for both tests, which should be trivial.
The bottom line is that there can be many variations on the theme here, as long as the person doing the measurements is cognisant of the thermal related issues and does something that makes sense.
In one of Aaron's clips the coil-resistor was sitting on top of his wooden bench. That would be a no-no because here you have a situation where the coil-resistor is now slowly heating up the bench also, and the thermal capacity shoots through the roof. Therefore the time constant becomes hours or more. You don't want your workbench to become part of the thermal equilibrium equation.
MileHigh
P.S.: To quote the Strolling Bones:
And she was hot - as she kissed my mouth
She was hot - as I wiped her brow
She was hot - she pinned me to the ground
She was quick - she knew her way around
She was hot - as she tore my clothes
She was hot - she had no place to go
She was hot - on a cold and rainy night
lol
Quote from: Yucca on August 13, 2009, 11:19:35 PM
Current methods of calorimetry used on this circuit are not ideal due to heavy thermal coupling to the atmosphere. The maths to straighten it all out for absolute values are difficult and its much simpler to do better calorimetry.
A hot drink glass vacuum flask filled with distilled water, deep styrofoam plug in the top with holes for load leads and thermocouple. Dip any exposed leads of the load in varnish. Run X joules in with straight DC. Run X joules in with claimed OU circuit. Same water volume and start temp in each case. For best accuracy run times should be equalised by varying (via voltage) the DC input power to match the pulsed RMS power. For even better accuracy two identical calorimeters should be built and ran close to each other.
edit:
TKs aymptotic equilibrium curves of the leaky calorimeter runs above do say underunity if they were conducted at approx the same ambient temps, pressures and relative humidity. But without real calorimetry obtaining absolute heat out figures is difficult and noisy.
Come on, Yucca, of course you are right but the claim is SEVENTEEN times overunity. Not some few percent experimental error caused by a three degree difference in ambient temperature or a damp morning.
The details of my "leaky calorimeter" as well as the hot and cold point calibrations of the thermocouple are published earlier in the thread. But briefly for review, the Ainslie load with diode right up against it is wrapped tight in heatshrink , and immersed in mineral oil in a test tube, with a loose cotton plug at the top. This assembly was degassed by holding it in a pan of boiling water for 15 minutes or so, and also by using DC to heat it up until the bubbles stopped coming out of the load assembly. This test tube is in turn hung inside another glass jar, an olive jar I think, and prevented from contacting the sides or bottom. The air in the jar is trapped.
If the calorimeter is too tight, it takes too damn long for the load to equilibrate.
And finally, if necessary I was prepared to submit the Ainslie circuit to some "friends of ours" who would be glad, I'm sure, to run it in the world's most sophisticated civilian bulk calorimeter, the MOAC. But it's very clear at this point that that is unnecessary and in fact ludicrous.
To be fair, and to give that dead horse yet another blow, I have to point out that the Ainslie OU figures refer to a long-term experimental run, during which the battery is alleged to have delivered less energy (by a factor of 17) than was dissipated in a similar load running at a similar temperature for a similar time driven by DC.
So, even though we might have shown that there isn't any evidence for significant battery recharging or excess heat wrt input power in the short term, longer runs still should be performed, with some kind of reliable measure of battery energy content.
Now, in that context---does Rosemary's method of energy calculation depend on the length of time the experiment is run? To me it appears that it does, but I'm not exactly sure since she won't let us see the actual calculations--she only "describes" them.
If it does depend on the length of the experiment, is that actually a correct possible result, or should the COP be constant over time?
I dunno, and I'd like to hear some opinion on this.
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 13, 2009, 11:49:33 PM
Come on, Yucca, of course you are right but the claim is SEVENTEEN times overunity. Not some few percent experimental error caused by a three degree difference in ambient temperature or a damp morning.
The details of my "leaky calorimeter" as well as the hot and cold point calibrations of the thermocouple are published earlier in the thread. But briefly for review, the Ainslie load with diode right up against it is wrapped tight in heatshrink , and immersed in mineral oil in a test tube, with a loose cotton plug at the top. This assembly was degassed by holding it in a pan of boiling water for 15 minutes or so, and also by using DC to heat it up until the bubbles stopped coming out of the load assembly. This test tube is in turn hung inside another glass jar, an olive jar I think, and prevented from contacting the sides or bottom. The air in the jar is trapped.
If the calorimeter is too tight, it takes too damn long for the load to equilibrate.
And finally, if necessary I was prepared to submit the Ainslie circuit to some "friends of ours" who would be glad, I'm sure, to run it in the world's most sophisticated civilian bulk calorimeter, the MOAC. But it's very clear at this point that that is unnecessary and in fact ludicrous.
Of course TK, using your calorimeter you wouldn´t miss the elephant in the living room that is COP17. Using constant leakage to find equilibrum temps gives a good relative handle as to whats going on. I suppose it´s not worth dropping it into the mother of all calorimeters unless you see performance close to or above straight DC.
TK:
IMHO, it makes more sense to work with power measurements as we have been discussing. Going the calorimeter route is unnecessarily complicated and watts are just as good as joules or calories in this case. The calorimeter is just a watt integrator. It's not really giving you any new information. It may indeed be more accurate in the long run but like you said, the two goal posts are COP > 1 and COP > 17. If you don't even hit COP > 1, then it's game over.
As far as I am concerned your leaky calorimeter test is the definitive reference at this point in time and makes it as clear as a bell where we currently stand.
I wonder if the DSO did something interesting today....
MileHigh
So now the problem isn't getting heat, but getting too much heat. What are we comparing to? Certainly not the Ainlsie experiment.
If I run the circuit in the "oscillatory mode" that I can produce (which I still am not convinced is the same as Aaron's) it exceeds the power rating of my commercial resistors. 25 volts times 2.4 amps times nearly full on is more than 50 watts, anyway, and the closest I come to being able to handle that for a long term are the "catfood1 and 2" loads which are made from 2 ea. 25 ohm 50 Watt precision power resistors in parallel--the kind that are in their own metal heatsink cases and are supposed to be mounted on a metal chassis. And they get Hot Fast.
The custom load ("Bullitt1") that I made seems to be able to take the heat, but that's because I put it in oil. I'm pretty sure it would burn out if it was just dangling in air. I've blown several OTS chokes that didn't have thick enough wire or enough surface for heat dissipation.
Quote from: MileHigh on August 14, 2009, 12:21:19 AM
TK:
IMHO, it makes more sense to work with power measurements as we have been discussing. Going the calorimeter route is unnecessarily complicated and watts are just as good as joules or calories in this case. The calorimeter is just a watt integrator. It's not really giving you any new information. It may indeed be more accurate in the long run but like you said, the two goal posts are COP > 1 and COP > 17. If you don't even hit COP > 1, then it's game over.
As far as I am concerned your leaky calorimeter test is the definitive reference at this point in time and makes it as clear as a bell where we currently stand.
I wonder if the DSO did something interesting today....
MileHigh
Sure, and it's important to point out that I'm not using the "leaky calorimeter" as a calorimeter, even. It's just there to reduce error in the temp measurement, raise the equilibrium temperature and slow down the rate of climb. Eventually it could be used to make quantitative energy measurements, because its leak rate at various equilibrium temperatures will be known, and the input power required to maintain those temperatures will be known as well. But that's way ahead of where we are at today, and likely won't be necessary anyway. DrStiffler actually started doing those kinds of quantitative calorimetry early on, but I haven't seen any results from him in a while.
On a side note, I think the believers actually miss us. :) Without us around to fight with and kick around, the believer's forum actually shows down to a crawl and gets quite boring. It's a love thing and a hate thing, throw in a bit of humiliation... I had better not keep going down that path. lol
Next Christmas I want Ainsley mittens that always keep my hands warm on the coldest winter days. Anybody listening? lol
MileHigh
Quote from: Yucca on August 13, 2009, 10:35:45 PM
RMA and TK are both just folk, probably neither have a real bad bone in their bodies.
RMA is setting herself up for a bit of ribbing though, what with the tall claims and absolutely no experimental data to back it up. Hell if it were me I´d have posted working circuits to various people for verification through independent calorimetry.
edit: removed some bad vibes, just like Jack Herer would have us all do.
so that's a no then? you can't provide any evidence of this "predicted from..." post. so where then is your integrity? you won't even call out tk on his bald faced lie, why is that?
Quote from: MileHigh on August 14, 2009, 12:44:38 AM
On a side note, I think the believers actually miss us. :) Without us around to fight with and kick around, the believer's forum actually shows down to a crawl and gets quite boring. It's a love thing and a hate thing, throw in a bit of humiliation... I had better not keep going down that path. lol
Next Christmas I want Ainsley mittens that always keep my hands warm on the coldest winter days. Anybody listening? lol
MileHigh
it's completely laughable the way this magnanimous trinity makes up its own definitions of words ( like tk's usage of identical and exact, mh's usage of real, etc. )
it appears, as usual you need a refresher on definitions...
according to webster's revised unabridged dictionary, a skeptic is: "one who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons."
thus, if evidence is presented, and your response is a knee jerk reaction of disbelief, if you assume a priori that the evidence cannot possibly be valid if it doesn't fit with your personal beliefs, if you think that there MUST be something wrong with the methods of the researchers responsible for the evidence, you do NOT fall under the definition of a skeptic. you would however, fall under the definition of cynic and debunker, and more pointedly... believer.
you haven't seen that "predicted by..." post that your fearless leader can't seem to produce have you? you know, that one he needs to reconcile his bald faced lies about his predictions re: fet performance...
Wilby:
Call me a realist if you want. I believe in the foundation of knowledge that we have built up over the last 400 years. There is nothing wrong with that.
Capacitors and inductors are energy storing devices only. The experiments and mathematical modeling confirms this. Magnets are not a source of energy no matter how you configure them. It took man a long time to understand energy and gravitation and electricity and a myriad of other things. We are fortunate to have been born in an enlightened age. Part of the enlightenment and the rational thought process is to take the knowledge base that you have and then be able to apply it to new situations. You have to have "faith" in that, and if your assumptions prove to be wrong then you have to go back and look at your model and fix any problems that might be there.
I firmly believe that "we" know what is going on with respect to things like Rosemary's setup, the model works and has been proven. Aaron would disagree.
The working and understood model puts the burden of proof on Rosemary and her supporters. I am certainly willing to look at the data and see if there is something there. Of course it has to be good data. So far we have seen no real data with the new test hardware so bring it on.
That's as far as my open-mindedness extends to experiments like this. I think that is fair. Please don't bring out the flat earth and the first flying machine arguments.
As far as the choice of MOSFET goes, I vaguely remember the posting, but I may have said before I don't care. I think there is a very good chance that the two devices provide the required "excitation" to the coil-resistor within a few percentage points such that the "effect" should manifest itself if it is real. I am using my knowledge base to make an informed "I don't care" decision. What does the MOSFET really do? It repeatedly pulls the floor away from under the coil-resistor's feet and gets it to start conducting current. Then it puts the floor back in place and the coil-resistor goes crashing to the floor. The coil-resistor is just being "yanked around" by the MOSFET to induce it to spit out a discharge of stored energy. I don't care, as long as each type of MOSFET is not being driven past it's maximum current rating and if the "on" resistances and switching times are comparable and they are being operated in the saturation region relative to the battery voltage and the load. If that's true, then the 16 extra magic heat pies should be popping into existence if the "Ainsley effect" is real for either MOSFET.
MileHigh
Well, I see that Err-on has posted a bunch of more non-interpretable scope shots from his borrowed DSO, along with more blatant distortions of what I and others here have said and found. Most of it is just trolling and lies but one thing in particular is really funny. He's complaining about my 500-600 mV drop across my current viewing shunt. Idiot.
I remind him that I am using AS AINSLIE SPECIFIES a 0.25 ohm shunt made of 4 ea. 1 ohm resistors in parallel. While he is not.
And 600 Mv drop across this resistor at full on with an 8.5 ohm load is perfectly normal and expected, as it gives 2.4 amps for the current value.
Aaron on the other hand is using some tiny value shunt that is different from Ainslie's value and so will be seeing a much smaller--and harder to measure accurately--voltage drop. His objection to my 600 mV figure is idiotic to the max.
Also I will point out that he is claiming a dozen different oscillatory modes, none of which have been reproduced by anybody else. And it appears that he is claiming to be able to produce the oscillatory mode with a FG instead of a 555. That I would like to see.
I say again, Aaron is not working with Ainslie's circuit. His circuit produces TOO MUCH HEAT. Which means that it is either MUCH MORE OU than even Ainslie's, or...the whole thing is a big mistake.
It will be interesting to see if that expensive DSO survives the week.
you've more than shown yourself to be a believer.
Quote from: MileHigh on August 14, 2009, 01:33:56 AM
As far as the choice of MOSFET goes, I vaguely remember the posting, but I may have said before I don't care. I think there is a very good chance that the two devices provide the required "excitation" to the coil-resistor within a few percentage points such that the "effect" should manifest itself if it is real. I am using my knowledge base to make an informed "I don't care" decision. What does the MOSFET really do? It repeatedly pulls the floor away from under the coil-resistor's feet and gets it to start conducting current. Then it puts the floor back in place and the MOSFET goes crashing to the floor. The coil-resistor is just being "yanked around" by the MOSFET to induce it to spit out a discharge of stored energy. I don't care, as long as each type of MOSFET is not being driven past it's maximum current rating and if the "on" resistances and switching times are comparable and they are being operated in the saturation region relative to the battery voltage and the load. If that's true, then the 16 extra magic heat pies should be popping into existence if the "Ainsley effect" is real for either MOSFET.
MileHigh
it really doesn't matter whether you remember that post or not, the telling and important post is the one from your fearless leader where he tries to claim an "overunity performance" context that clearly did NOT exist in the conversation about the fets. i demonstrated this with HIS OWN POSTS. and THAT is the thing, tk posted a baldfaced lie and has refused to back it up. i imagine he will continue to refuse similar to his behavior with refusing to use the proper and correct fet for a "replication" in the first place .
and here the real bitch, none of you have the integrity to call him on it, yet you want his work on a pedestal. when it has been demonstrated again and again by the emperor penguin himself that he has:
little if any attention to detail.
a habit of redefining words to suit himself.
a habit of repeating the same mistakes.
a habit of confabulating excuses when he has been caught red handed.
a habit of stubborn refusal to take accountability for his words.
a habit of being a hypocrite (crying about being banned from energetic while at the same time banning me from his youtube channel), etc.
so again i ask you, where is your integrity? and do you realize that in showing none, it damages your credibility?
Wilby:
It's all a bit much for me. I don't know what the real issue is but I can say this: Nobody is perfect and TK does a much better job than Aaron and knows a lot more than Aaron. I make the comparison because of your list.
I just read Aaron's last posting. It looks like he is going to do the old warhorse testing method. He is going to make a measurement of the power consumption of the Ainsley circuit. Then he is going to take a hopefully newish freshly charged battery and run the Ainsley circuit and time how long it takes to get to 11 volts. Then he is going to recharge the same battery and connect a load resistor that draws the same DC power and time how long it takes to get to 11 volts. If the Ainsley circuit runs longer then that's proof of COP > 1. There is a chance that he may even take another battery (same type) and run the DC control resistive test in parallel, which would be unthinkable in my book.
This test would not be acceptable for me. It is just the same-old same-old. He may even put a multimeter in series with the Ainsley circuit to measure the current consumption to set up the control test. That would be totally the wrong way to go about it.
Aaron once mentioned his commercial pulsing charger to charge the batteries and it has an indicator light to tell you when the battery is charged. That's an "idiot light" and you would be a fool to use that as an indication of full charge for a test like this. You should not even start the test with the batteries fully charged, that's probably a nonlinear area. You should start the test with the batteries 80% charged, but that's me.
So is that where we are, your "Leader" is going to use a $6000 DSO to look at battery and coil-resistor spikes and then do his dumb battery rundown test? He can make much better use of his equipment. He should set up his favourite spike display and do the real power measurement with the two channels of the DSO and spit out the V-I product waveform and calculate the real power consumption in Excel and then do the thermal profiling. That's the real deal.
You should report back. (Actually either Aaron's laptop or his desktop is "OU cookie free" so he is probably here in spirit) :)
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on August 14, 2009, 02:20:24 AM
Wilby:
It's all a but much for me. I don't know what the real issue is but I can say this: Nobody is perfect and TK does a much better job than Aaron and knows a lot more than Aaron. I make the comparison because of your list.
I just read Aaron's last posting. It looks like he is going to do the old warhorse testing method. He is going to make a measurement of the power consumption of the Ainsley circuit. Then he is going to take a hopefully newish freshly charged battery and run the Ainsley circuit and time how long it takes to get to 11 volts. Then he is going to recharge the same battery and connect a load resistor that draws the same DC power and time how long it takes to get to 11 volts. If the Ainsley circuit runs longer then that's proof of COP > 1. There is a chance that he may even take another battery (same type) and run the DC control resistive test in parallel, which would be unthinkable in my book.
This test would not be acceptable for me. It is just the same-old same-old. He may even put a multimeter in series with the Ainsley circuit to measure the current consumption to set up the control test. That would be totally the wrong way to go about it.
Aaron once mentioned his commercial pulsing charger to charge the batteries and it has an indicator light to tell you when the battery is charged. That's an "idiot light" and you would be a fool to use that as an indication of full charge for a test like this. You should not even start the test with the batteries fully charged, that's probably a nonlinear area. You should start the test with the batteries 80% charged, but that's me.
So is that where we are, your "Leader" is going to use a $6000 DSO to look at battery and coil-resistor spikes and then do his dumb battery rundown test? He can make much better use of his equipment. He should set up his favourite spike display and do the real power measurement with the two channels of the DSO and spit out the V-I product waveform and calculate the real power consumption in Excel and then do the thermal profiling. That's the real deal.
You should report back.
MileHigh
your post does not answer either of my questions, nor address any of my points.
we are not talking about aaron or rma or the pope, we are talking about your penguin emperor. and you attempt misdirection yet again, such a loyal little sycophant you are...
again you demonstrate that you have zero integrity. where is your evidence clearing tk of his baldfaced lie?
Gimme a break, I don't even know what the issue is. The real thrust of my posting was a techie posting, I wasn't trying to deflect. I am concerned about getting some real testing done and I know Aaron is reading this.
MileHigh
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 13, 2009, 11:06:29 PM
Now, if anyone can point me to a similarly high Vdss and repetitive avalanche rated mosfet that is NOT the IRFPG50, I would be glad to test it.
Hi TK,
You must have missed my post #813 in the haze ;)
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg194978#msg194978
Fuzzy
:)
Quote from: MileHigh on August 14, 2009, 02:34:01 AM
Gimme a break, I don't even know what the issue is. The real thrust of my posting was a techie posting, I wasn't trying to deflect. I am concerned about getting some real testing done and I know Aaron is reading this.
MileHigh
no rest for the wicked, and don't try and claim you don't know what the issue is when i just spelled it out for you with a list, and you respond with you don't know what the issue is? ::) LMFAO
plus, there is this post where it is spelled out for you.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg196782#msg196782
you aren't a very good observer are you? it appears your comprehension skills are rather lacking as well. starting to look like a liar too.
At this point I am tired and don't care right now. Uncle!
Back to Aaron:
QuoteI have test several timer chips and other components and the mosfet always oscillates. It isn't from a funny timer and it runs really cold. The 110 ohm resistor was the only thing getting warm so I changed to a 6 volt battery and it runs fine and I can hardly feel warmth on resistor anymore. Still works fine.
Yikes, Aaron. You are saying that you are running your 555 timer at 6 volts instead of 12 volts?
You have to double-check the datasheet for your MOSFET to make sure you are still running it in saturation mode with only a 6-volt pusle arriving at the gate. Even if the MOSFET does not seem to be heating up, you should check that. You may be just at the transition point between the linear region and the saturation region with only a 6-volt input.
Who cares if the 110-ohm resistor runs warm? Do you think that you are exceding its wattage rating? If yes use two 220-ohm resistors in parallel and go back to a 12-volt source for your 555.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on August 14, 2009, 02:50:09 AM
At this point I am tired and don't care right now. Uncle!
Back to Aaron:
Yikes, Aaron. You are saying that you are running your 555 timer at 6 volts instead of 12 volts?
You have to double-check the datasheet for your MOSFET to make sure you are still running it in saturation mode with only a 6-volt pusle arriving at the gate. Even if the MOSFET does not seem to be heating up, you should check that. You may be just at the transition point between the linear region and the saturation region with only a 6-volt input.
Who cares if the 110-ohm resistor runs warm? Do you think that you are exceding its wattage rating? If yes use two 220-ohm resistors in parallel and go back to a 12-volt source for your 555.
MileHigh
no, no uncle. if you were not aware of tk's lie before (which is highly improbable) there is no escaping that you are aware of it now. you are quite quick to call out the 'other' side but want to ignore it when tk does what he accuses the 'others' of doing? so, i ask you again, WHERE IS YOUR INTEGRITY?
Quote from: MileHigh on August 14, 2009, 02:50:09 AM
At this point I am tired and don't care right now. Uncle!
Back to Aaron:
Yikes, Aaron. You are saying that you are running your 555 timer at 6 volts instead of 12 volts?
You have to double-check the datasheet for your MOSFET to make sure you are still running it in saturation mode with only a 6-volt pusle arriving at the gate. Even if the MOSFET does not seem to be heating up, you should check that. You may be just at the transition point between the linear region and the saturation region with only a 6-volt input.
Who cares if the 110-ohm resistor runs warm? Do you think that you are exceding its wattage rating? If yes use two 220-ohm resistors in parallel and go back to a 12-volt source for your 555.
MileHigh
Just move the discharge wire as I have said and you can get rid of that resistor altogether. ::)
p.s.
The gate should see 8V to work properly - but its probably moot if the FET is self-oscillating, because then you are only using the timer for the off FLOP's ;)
TK, I notice a big difference between your ugly waveform and Aaron's clean spikes. Aaron's wave form shows a very clear defined off period. An earlier post here by...brain fart...can't recall, anyhew - by someone with the math skills to calculate the duty cycle from the scope readouts shows very nicely that the FET would not be getting hot.
Yours on the other hand is very clearly operating in a linear region with heavy on times. Fix it. Until then your credibility regarding the heat goes right out the window. My guess is your 555 has a floating ground ref. or is damaged in some way. Also, did you use 5K pots instead of 50K? My setup shows good adjustment range, waaaay different from your first posts regarding a mostly on circuit requiring an inverter. Puzzling.
8)
MOSFET should work as a one way valve with extremely short time of close and left LC circuit unconnected to the power source.It should crack like a glass, do not allowing slowly dissipating energy stored in inductor.
In other words is like pumping the balloon which is easy if there is a correct valve
I don't see how it could be done efficiently with electronic parts and with closed circuit. For me MOSFET internal diode has been added to GROUND something which is OU and which manifest itself as a damaging heat if not directed properly.
In perfect world we would not have unstable 555 operation, heat, oscillations,some kind of resonance etc. I think they are results of non-linearity caused by interaction with ambient energy, but we are learned not to struggle with that topic...
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 14, 2009, 01:37:51 AM
Well, I see that Err-on has posted a bunch of more non-interpretable scope shots from his borrowed DSO, along with more blatant distortions of what I and others here have said and found. Most of it is just trolling and lies but one thing in particular is really funny. He's complaining about my 500-600 mV drop across my current viewing shunt. Idiot.
I remind him that I am using AS AINSLIE SPECIFIES a 0.25 ohm shunt made of 4 ea. 1 ohm resistors in parallel. While he is not.
And 600 Mv drop across this resistor at full on with an 8.5 ohm load is perfectly normal and expected, as it gives 2.4 amps for the current value.
Aaron on the other hand is using some tiny value shunt that is different from Ainslie's value and so will be seeing a much smaller--and harder to measure accurately--voltage drop. His objection to my 600 mV figure is idiotic to the max.
Also I will point out that he is claiming a dozen different oscillatory modes, none of which have been reproduced by anybody else. And it appears that he is claiming to be able to produce the oscillatory mode with a FG instead of a 555. That I would like to see.
I say again, Aaron is not working with Ainslie's circuit. His circuit produces TOO MUCH HEAT. Which means that it is either MUCH MORE OU than even Ainslie's, or...the whole thing is a big mistake.
It will be interesting to see if that expensive DSO survives the week.
the hypocrisy never ends...
i remind you that it took you 42 pages ( and you later referred to that as "early on" ::) ) before you got around to showing any data re: the irfpg50 AS SPECIFIED. hypocrite.
you have spent so long talking through your hat and out both sides of your mouth that you can't even remember what you have said. every time you open your mouth, you run into your own contradictions.
New /Ainslie Battery Charging 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1_TpXDTNI4
cat
OK, I've reset my 555 control circuit supply to 6V and I can now see the waveform patterns that Aaron shows on his DSO. If you use a variable bench supply to power the control circuit and vary the voltage above and below 6V, you should see various points where the frequency suddenly increases and decreases. At 6.4V I get the high frequency banding effect reported by Aaron and the widths of the bands can be adjusted by very careful adgustment of the various pots. These effects are much reduced when the mosfet is driven by higher and proper amplitude gate voltages around 10V-12V. I'm now of the opinion that Aaron is seeing the effects of a mosfet being driven with an inadequate gate voltage. This is rather a strange effect that I've not seen before but there again, I have always driven my mosfets with an adequate amplitude and shaped gate signal!
Aaron will have his work cut out to prove that this effect is giving him COP17 - LOL. He certainly won't convince anyone that matters using the Ainslie method and procedure and as for his Bedini charger being able to automatically take a battery back to exactly the same capacity as before it was discharged, thats even more laughable!
Hoppy
Quote from: MileHigh on August 14, 2009, 02:20:24 AM
He can make much better use of his equipment. He should set up his favourite spike display and do the real power measurement with the two channels of the DSO and spit out the V-I product waveform and calculate the real power consumption in Excel and then do the thermal profiling. That's the real deal.
MileHigh
Yes ;)
.99
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on August 14, 2009, 02:35:15 AM
Hi TK,
You must have missed my post #813 in the haze ;)
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg194978#msg194978
Fuzzy
:)
No, I didn't miss it. I have the part numbers written in my little book and I have checked my local suppliers and they aren't stocked. So I would have to order, again, a minimum quantity. And since I have tested many transistors already, none making OU that I can see, I really don't see the need, just to make a point to the wilby-trollbot.
And another thing about the bot: Look at the title of this thread. Every discussion on this thread has to do (or should) with the overunity claims of Rosemary Ainslie. If I talk about a mosfet being used as a paperweight, it should be clear to any thinking person reading this thread that I am referring to its usefulness as an OU paperweight.
The troll is starting to leak smoke out its ears at this point, trying to find something to whine about.
And preventing one's property from being defaced by vandals is different from being banned from a thread for speaking the truth. That should be clear even to a bot.
The bot is fond of citing thread page numbers, which is laughable to me, because most of those pages are of course filled with the same piss and shit from Wilby and my egging him on. Also found in those pages are many many instances of his LIE, where he told me that if I would tell him my address, which I did in good faith, that he would send me the correct MOSFET. Which he never, apparently, intended to do, the lying liar. This is exactly the sort of thing Ainslie's crewe does to the ringdown energy--adding up the same irrelevancies over and over and trying to use that bogus result as evidence of anything but their own idiocy. Just as the one-track bot continues to do.
@Harvey: As I pointed out several times, I know that the waveforms I showed in the last pic are not identical to what Aaron is showing. Can you make Aaron's waveforms? Can Anyone else?
(EDIT I see Hoppy is saying that he's got it, by using 6 volts in to the 555. OK, I'll try that.)
And how can Aaron be making "dozens" of these different oscillatory waveforms when nobody else is able to make any of them? I am genuinely puzzled by this. He accuses me of incompetence, but I am using the identical component values, as near as I can tell, that he is using (and yes I have tried a miniscule shunt, it makes no difference to me).
Your statement about the early 555 circuit is also puzzling, as I and several other people have now built that circuit several times, and we all agree, that using the component values specified in the Quantum article, and trying both stated values for the one mislabeled cap, the circuit can't make a short duty cycle. So how did you, Harvey, get it to do so? I would gladly accept that I was wrong--I even begged for others to check my work at the time--but we all can't be wrong about that circuit. Even the Ainlsie crewe accepted that it was wrong, finally. SO what are you on about?
The one legitimate complaint is that I haven't shown the same waveforms as Aaron--recently. I do think I've gotten to Hoppy's condition. And I accept this criticism as valid. What I don't accept is accusations of incompetence and deliberate misrepresentation. I'm doing my best to report what I see as I see it, in a clear and REPRODUCIBLE manner. If I can't get the oscillations Aaron is seeing, it isn't due to my incompetence. It's due to the components being operated in some mystery regime of cold solder joints, insufficient input power, and "idiosyncratic" circuit design. Accusing me of incompetence because I can't seem to make my circuit do what Aaron's is doing, is like accusing a bus driver of incompetence because he can't park his bus in your living room.
But now we are informed by Peter that the critical oscillations are occurring when the mosfet is OFF, and they look in Aaron's latest scope shots very much like the oscillations I showed riding on the OFF part of the signal when driven by Aaron's oscillator of 2 weeks ago.
And we are now informed that the 555 oscillator must be supplied with Vcc of 6 volts.
I refer all once again to the original Ainslie papers and claims, shrug my shoulders and continue.
You will notice that Aaron uses the fully charged battery for his 'charging' battery. This gives a much faster charging rate than discharge rate from the other battery which is at a much lower voltage having been used in his previous tests. If he were to reverse the two batteries or start with two batteries fully charged, it will be clearly seen over time that the source battery will discharge at a higher rate than charging battery is being charged.
Aaron has learnt how to please the 'New Age' punters! As it stands his source battery will still discharge faster than the other battery charges given enough time but we will not see this of course on any of his videos.
Hoppy
TK wrote: -
"And how can Aaron be making "dozens" of these different oscillatory waveforms when nobody else is able to make any of them? I am genuinely puzzled by this. He accuses me of incompetence, but I am using the identical component values, as near as I can tell, that he is using (and yes I have tried a miniscule shunt, it makes no difference to me)."
I have seen the banding effect Aaron shows but I have difficulty resoving the high frequency waveform because of my scope focus problem. See my post 1246.
Hoppy
Quote from: poynt99 on August 14, 2009, 08:54:43 AM
Yes ;)
.99
I haven't looked at Aaron's scope's specs, but it is possible that the scope might be able to do all that on board. The LeCroy can, and I've shown just such a power and energy calculation using it (albeit on stored waveforms, since it has an input channel inop). Which clearly shows the same sort of thing that .99 showed from the sim.
But of course all my early work is more or less irrelevant, since I was examining Ainlsie's claim and her circuit, not Aaron's.
So, using an underdriven 555, to make those little spiky things on top of the signal when the mosfet is supposed to be OFF, is the key?
Like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=948GxRN1Qxo&feature=related
Or some other oscillation that I can't make, due to my incompetence?
(There are several other vids in that time frame where I also show these oscillations. Which were rejected by the Ainslie crewe at the time, because they happened when the mosfet is OFF. Now look what they are claiming.)
So Aaron is charging an already charged battery, in order to "prove" his claim of battery charging? That's pretty typical. But how is that not "misinformation"? Shouldn't one use a battery at some known discharged state, if one is testing a battery charger?
Or do Free Energy Ainslie Chargers (tm) only "work" on fully charged batteries? I wouldn't be surprised at that.
Here's a suggestion: Use the commercial battery charger as the main "battery" in the Ainslie circuit. Discharge a battery by running it into a reverse-biased 9 volt 5 Amp Zener diode and a resistor in series. Time how long it takes before the Zener cuts the current. Then charge that external battery from the recirc diode in the "normal" way, to whatever "full charge" criterion you like. Time how long it takes. Then discharge that battery with the Zener and resistor again, timing how long it takes until the Zener cuts off. Then hook that battery directly up to the charger and wait for its idiot light to light up. Time how long it takes. Do another discharge with the Zener, recording times.
Draw your own conclusions based on the times.
(A properly heat-sunk 1n2973A would probably be OK to use, with the right resistance. By a strange coincidence I have 4 on hand. Now if I could only get some chart recorder action happening...)
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 14, 2009, 10:33:45 AM
Here's a suggestion: Use the commercial battery charger as the main "battery" in the Ainslie circuit. Discharge a battery by running it into a reverse-biased 9 volt 5 Amp Zener diode and a resistor in series. Time how long it takes before the Zener cuts the current. Then charge that external battery from the recirc diode in the "normal" way, to whatever "full charge" criterion you like. Time how long it takes. Then discharge that battery with the Zener and resistor again, timing how long it takes until the Zener cuts off. Then hook that battery directly up to the charger and wait for its idiot light to light up. Time how long it takes. Do another discharge with the Zener, recording times.
Draw your own conclusions based on the times.
Two considerations here. Firstly it takes more energy to put back the same level of capacity into a battery than was take from it. Secondly, the final cut off voltage is not a good indicator of state of charge. This means that over a number of charge / discharge cycles down to a fixed voltage point or low termination point (LTP), even if it were possible to replace the previous capacity exactly, the capacity removed down to the LTP will vary over a number of load test cycles.
Many Bedini followers claim that they have OU from their batteries using battery load testing down to a fixed LTP. The reality is that the whole method and procedure is badly flawed and not a reliable way of showing overunity in a system.
Hoppy
Aaron:
Your last two charging demo clips showed a variation on a solid state Bedini charger. I will repeat the mantra: That configuration completes the circuit for the coil discharge so you can get real current flowing in a loop. There is no "real loop" in the Ainsley circuit so you are comparing apples to oranges.
The problem with the solid state Bedini setup is that it is a pain to disconnect and measure the battery's resting voltage. You are really measuring the battery voltage plus the charging-input-impedance voltage increase due to the charging. This measured voltage is the averaged out to a rough DC voltage by the battery chemistry reacting like a sort of low pass filter while it is being hit by the charging spikes. The multimeter itself samples the voltage and it's algorithm can cope with the spikes and gives you a fairly steady DC voltage reading. The same thing is happening in reverse on the discharging battery.
So you are measuring this:
Charging battery: True resting voltage + averaged charging input resistance voltage increase
Supply battery: True resting voltage - averaged discharging output resistance voltage decrease
The value of the input and output resistances are not fixed, they vary with the battery temperature, state of charge, and age of the battery, and even the load on the battery. That's why I recommend that they be measured at a few different load values as a way for you to exchange reliable data with outher testers about the conditions of your various batteries before and after yourun tests, etc.
The true resting voltages may be dependent on the battery temperature, I am not sure.
So when you are measuring the cut-off voltage for any rundown test, you are dealing with the above variables on top a series of other variables.
Deciding on when a battery reaches the cut-off voltage for a rundown test depends on the following:
1. The current draw I: That's the most important because it determines the voltage drop across the battery's output resistance.
2. The current draw II: The larger the current draw, the more the battery will dissipate energy internally due to its output resistance. This can then cause the battery to heat itself up more quickly, possibly causing the output voltage to rise. This rise in output voltage has no meaning and can be misinterpreted as the battery "gaining in energy" while it is driving a load. You are probably also changing the dynamic output resistor value due to the temperature rise.
2. The initial amount of energy in the battery. It's really hard to be sure that you have "filled her up" to a precise, repeatable charge level. And no, you don't do this by measuring the battery voltage.
3. How the dynamic output resistance of the battery will react over the whole discharge cycle considering that you many variables: a) the state of charge of the battery, 2) the age of the battery, b) the overall battery condition, c) where the battery is in it's overall discharge-charge cycle lifetime, d) the temperature of the battery.
What a complete mess. That's the baggage that goes along with your rundown tests. Let's assume for you that a lot of the variables discussed above are unknowns. I'll imagine that your typical rundown time is about two hours. Many of the variables above can probably affect the final voltage time measurement by +/- 10 minutes. That's just ONE variable, there are many others.
In a previous posting I pasted the Lutech battery measurement fiasco as an illustration of how just measuring battery voltages is meaningless in a generic sense.
When you crunch all of the above your head, I think that it is fair to say that your rundown testing would yield measurement times with a variability of +/-15%. In other words the testing would not be repeatable from test to test.
You really should use amazing built in capabilities of the DSO. TK, it can do waveform multiplication, I read the manual.
MileHigh
Joit:
QuoteThat shows one more that you can charge with a Batterie with LOWER Voltage a Batterie to HIGHER Voltage, as the Source,
what is anyway far beyond classical Understanding.
It's hard to not like you when you make statements like that. You are a happy shiny person.
When logic and proportion
Have fallen sloppy dead
And the White Knight is talking backwards
And the Red Queen's "off with her head!"
Remember what the dormouse said:
"Feed your head
Feed your head
Feed your head"
MileHigh
@MH and Hoppy: of course you are right about the battery discharge complications. But the "rough and ready" test that I described might have several tens of percent error, sure--repeated runs and proper application of statistical methods would take care of much of that--but we are talking about a claim of 1700 percent excess.
And one of the points of the trial that I described is that it is in a sense its own control--since you are comparing the battery's behaviour with itself, at the same or about the same _indicated no-load_ voltages. But sure, I agree that the whole battery discharge issue is not one for amateurs.
Re the DSO: multiplication is easy. But will it do the integration on board as well? I have a Hitachi 4-channel DSO that I didn't show yet, simply because it won't integrate on board--but it does all the other stuff and all its inputs are working. Maybe I'll break it out.
Meanwhile, here are some pix for Harvey and, it seems, for jibbguy:
The trace is from pin 3 of Aaron's 555 circuit tuned to the weird point with about 7 volts Vcc and in circuit with the mosfet gate. And the next pic is what happens a bit later, when further adjustments are made.
Ive worked with hundreds of 555's... In my experience they either crap (short to VCC) or they work. To suggest that this effect is caused by it doesn't make a whole lot of sense... And sounds rather convenient. They are notoriously "weak", sometimes it seems if you look at them crossly they will poop the bed... But "Flaky"? Unlikely. In my experience, 555's work to spec or they don't work at all.
Not true for transistors or op-amps, tho ;)
Ive seen similar astable oscillations as Aaron shows many times (it very is common with high gain op-amps and cascaded or paired discrete transistors). NO ONE EVER STUDIES THE EFFECT: All they EVER do is change the "bad" component and move on ASAP (sometimes it is because the component is only marginally "off" from other's but not actually "failed" by the manufacturer's standards). What would be the point of playing with it when it's unwanted? None in a business world: GET IT OUT THE DOOR is the only concern.
So it is quite possible, that if there is a unique condition here during oscillation, that it was ignored and missed these 45 years or so.
Its also possible that when the first field tests on transistors were done and the first real-world circuits designed around them, done in secret by contractors to the US Defense Department in the 1950's and early 60's long before they were available to the public (...they had them for nearly 10 years before the general public was allowed to), that this effect was noted then... And sat on; either ignored or suppressed. In fact, these early days would probably be the ONLY time it would be noted and properly studied in all these years.
The first commercially-available transistors came out along with the first circuit design books for Engineers regarding them...
I happen to know quite well how transistor & IC analog circuits are designed in the commercial world: And since the late 1970's when pretty much EVERYTHING about "Analog" had been discovered and tested, it is ALWAYS done by "stealing" the design of an earlier circuit. No one bothers trying to re-invent the wheel... They look it up in their books (...or now, use a sim proggy which has all the canned circuits listed), and choose one that fits the bill. What "inventiveness" there is, comes in by combining sections, and by making certain replacement IC's or discrete components work in the circuits for reasons of cost, availability, or desired performance... And that is often hard enough to do properly ;) . This "theft" is fully acceptable behavior; and there's nothing "wrong" about it at all, as most circuits are in the public domain, and everyone is under a time restraint... But it means that the art of analog circuit design has pretty much been static for decades. I used to work with true Grand Masters of it, and many of these guys were there from the transition from tubes/valves to semi's. They would NEVER consider spending a minute looking at astable oscillation; for them in the design stage it meant only: "Failure, time to try something else".
The point being that there is very little innovation going on with standard analog circuitry (where power economy specifically is not an issue). What innovation that has happened in analog electronics since has to do with very low power devices for laptops, cell phones, etc that require low operating voltage; and are designed to use as little power as possible. Little of this new stuff is discrete (as IC's are inherently more energy efficient)... But if you look at the new circuits, they usually still follow the older designs, just made for lower VCC's.
Even the device manufacturers, would only look at it long enough to say: "Oops, try again"... Or: "OK; i guess that's the limit for this one".
So over the years, only a hand-full of peeps have ever actually had the real opportunity and desire to study what can happen when a semiconductor circuit goes into "unwanted" oscillation.
THAT'S WHY this is all "possible".. And deserves our attention.
@jibbguy: build the circuit for yourself and play around with it. You just "possibly" might learn something new about 555s. Never seen a partial failure? I have, many times. That's why I buy them by the dozen. Never seen anything but shorts to ground or Vcc, and just not working? I've seen much different failure modes than that. See the pic above for a fairly common one.
But we all know that I'm incompetent, so pay no attention to the evidence before your eyes.
Quote from: MileHigh on August 14, 2009, 01:28:41 PM
Joit:
It's hard to not like you when you make statements like that. You are a happy shiny person.
When logic and proportion
Have fallen sloppy dead
And the White Knight is talking backwards
And the Red Queen's "off with her head!"
Remember what the dormouse said:
"Feed your head
Feed your head
Feed your head"
MileHigh
So, for example, according to Joit the Cakeman, when I take a 12 volt battery, run a small VDG machine with it, and use the output of the VDG to charge a capacitor to 60,000 volts or so, that's beyond classical understanding. Gee, where do I apply for my Nobel, I sure could use some of that Danish beer.
And my Jacob's ladder, using essentially the same Ainslie circuit with a secondary on the "load inductor", which is making 20,000 volts at least, with pretty good current, is only running on 12 volts too. Darn, I wish I understood this mysterious process better.
TK:
I would take relatively new but not brand new battery and discharge it under heavy load with an appropriate load resistor. When you hit the turning point and the voltage starts to drop, then switch over to a lighter load resistor, and then say stop the discharging at 11.5 volts. That is your consistent methodology for creating a "discharged battery." That is your reference datum point.
Supposing the battery holds 1 Megajoule of energy. The next step is to hook the discharged battery up to a charger and charge it for a fixed amount of time, TIME being the variable that you have complete control over. You charge your battery with 800 Kilojoules.
To figure out how to put 800 Kilojoules of energy into the battery you have to experiment with timed-charge-discharge cycles where you measure the energy that you can extract from the charged battery vs. the amount of time you have it hooked up to the charger. That is a whole separate investigation. To measure the discharged energy without fancy tools, you take voltage measurements across the load resistor every 10 minutes and punch that into your spreadsheet.
Finally you arrive at a point that you are quite certain that your battery has 800 Kilojoules of energy in it if you measure it as per your standard protocol.
So then you do a form of run-down test where you hook up the device under test and run it for a certain amount of time. Again, we are working with time here. You make a rough estimate of how long the device under test should run to dissipate 400 Kilojoules, 1/2 of the energy that you "know" is in the battery. I forgot the error tolerance, say it's +/-3 percent.
Then you disconnect the device under test, and then hook up your battery to your standard discharge protocol and measure how much energy is left in the battery.
It may sound complicated and it is real work. Starting off with a battery with a known amount of energy in makes the most sense to me. It also makes sense to stay away from a potentially nonlinear "fully charged" battery state state.
Then you do a "burn" with the battery on the device under test. Then you burn off the remaining energy in the battery to calculate how much energy was consumed by the device under test.
This whole process stays away from the potentially nonlinear fully charged state and stays away from the definitely nonlinear nearly depleted state of the battery.
The only time you really measure a voltage is at the end of the test when you have to discharge the battery to see the remaining energy in it. You are in a Catch 22 here, you have to define some sort of method to determine that you have a "discharged battery", your reference datum point.
So those are my ideas about the issue. I confess lest I be struck down in my tracks by a Tesla lightning bolt that I have no experience doing it. I am just applying my knowledge instead of going into the woods to look for lime and tin and whatever else so that I can make my own batteries. You have to be a doer! lol
Anyway, I am not a fan of batteries as I have stated before. To make the test "real", one of my favourite words, you would have to do something like 20 runs of the same test to get more accurate data just by averaging your data.
The real way to "navigate" is to use the DSO for the battery output power calculation and the thermal profiling for the thermal calculation.
You can't forget that on top of all of the battery baggage that goes along with the run-down tests, an equally big hurdle is to make a truly accurate measurement of the power consumption of the device under test so that you know precisely what load resistor to use for the control test. That is another big +/-X% variable that could easily muck up the whole works. You really have to work hard on that one.
MileHigh
Hehehe, i never said you were incompetent, although i have often thought you were married to a real "bitch" (...meaning conventional mainstream science) ;)
Regarding the "triple nickles", What you can do if you try hard enough, is to not properly use them (...not use the correct value ranges in the support caps & resistors). But that's not the same thing ;)
They could possibly have been made more robust within the last few years... But i doubt it. IC's tend to just go on as ever, because engineers are a Conservative lot and don't like their stuff being screwed around with; as it can cause lots of woe with the older circuits still out there, often in very unexpected ways. Usually another ID number will be used if specs are significantly altered; and there are several similar packages of oscillator/single-shots on the market with slightly different specs & ID no's.
TK:
You don't need integration for this test. The DSO does the weighted I*V waveform dump. The only thing that you have to do in Excel is calculate the average waveform value and then multiply it by the conversion factor to turn it into the true average power consumption over X cycles.
jibbguy:
Quote
Its also possible that when the first field tests on transistors were done and the first real-world circuits designed around them, done in secret by contractors to the US Defense Department in the 1950's and early 60's long before they were available to the public (...they had them for nearly 10 years before the general public was allowed to), that this effect was noted then... And sat on; either ignored or suppressed. In fact, these early days would probably be the ONLY time it would be noted and properly studied in all these years.
You are dreaming here. Engineering academics would certainly be more comfortable than front line engineers in explaining these phenomena. If you look hard enough you will find hard core analog engineers that understand this stuff also.
You are burying analog oscillation effects in mysticism, and nothing could be further from the truth. The reasons that you get spurious oscillations is that the "s-plane transfer function" for a given analog circuit has "poles" that lie in "the right half of the s-plane." There is no point in saying any more but rest assured this kind of stuff is understood inside-out.
I fully agree with you though that conventional analog engineers had their heyday in the 40s, 50s, 60s, and to a certain extent the 70s. On the other hand, the people that design high-speed computer boards and design ASICs have in a sense become microwave/analog engineers. They are much different from "old school" analog engineers, but high-speed digital and ASIC design is all about PCB transmission lines and whatnot because the frequencies are so high now.
MileHigh
IMO there is very little chance that Aaron will use the full capability of his DSO at the real risk of learning the truth about the real power in his Ainslie spikes. Anyway I'm signing off for a week so I hope that on my return that this Ainslie COP17 Heater fiasco will be cooling off.
Hoppy
Have a good one Hoppy!
Quote from: Hoppy on August 14, 2009, 03:55:38 PM
I hope that on my return that this Ainslie COP17 Heater fiasco will be cooling off.
lol, ever the optimist :D
Quote from: MileHigh on August 14, 2009, 03:23:46 PM
the "s-plane transfer function" for a given analog circuit has "poles" that lie in "the right half of the s-plane."
Indeed, I know it as the Z-plane coming from digital. Right hand poles introduce energy feedback leading to overdrive and often chaotic behaviour like the 555 instability problem. If all poles of every system node are plotted then usually left hand poles carry more weight and so it is lossy. If right poles dominate (when ALL system nodes are considered) then it is OU.
@TK,
To get a better measure on system COP (with regard to it being a heater) have you thought about having the FET in the calorimeter as well as the load?
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 14, 2009, 02:23:52 PM
@jibbguy: build the circuit for yourself and play around with it. You just "possibly" might learn something new about 555s. Never seen a partial failure? I have, many times. That's why I buy them by the dozen. Never seen anything but shorts to ground or Vcc, and just not working? I've seen much different failure modes than that. See the pic above for a fairly common one.
But we all know that I'm incompetent, so pay no attention to the evidence before your eyes.
so you poke fun when the "others" let the smoke out, but you admit to doing it all the time and that's fine with you and your sycophants. you "consume them like candy" as so noted by you "early on". more hypocrisy and cherry picking from the magnanimous ones.
Quote from: MileHigh on August 14, 2009, 01:28:41 PM
When logic and proportion
Have fallen sloppy dead
And the White Knight is talking backwards
And the Red Queen's "off with her head!"
Remember what the dormouse said:
"Feed your head
Feed your head
Feed your head"
MileHigh
Foot in mouth and head up ass-hole
Whatcha talkin' 'bout?
Difficult to dance 'round this one
'til you pull it out, boy
You must have been so high
You must have been so high
Steal, borrow, refer, save your shady inference
Kangaroo done hung the juror with the innocent
MileHigh.... You can stick yer "mysticism" the same place you can stick yer "new age" nonsense... In yer rectifier ;)
I WAS an analog electronics engineer; as well as several other things in the electronics industry... over 27 years with Fortune 500 corps. Ive traveled all over the world, and been there and done it friggin' ALL. Ive closed single deals that approached 500 Mil; and been to more important customer sites than could be easily remembered lol... Like every NASA center, Edwards AFB, Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, Mayo Clinic, N.I.H., Johns Hopkins, nearly EVERY major University and pharmaceutical lab in the USA (over two hundred), 8 or 9 nuc plant sites, and literally hundreds of large factories covering a hundred different applications. You name the industry; and chances are i've been there & done that too... On the ground, in the trenches, in the labs, and in the board rooms.
And one thing all this has taught me is, that techno-weenies who claim they know it all, rarely know their asses from a hat... Especially when their sacred textbooks don't cover the subject at hand. Those that cling to the "sure-thing" of conventional mainstream science as a religion... Are "worse" than those who worship their God openly, for they try to hide their Faith behind endless techno-speak... That in the end, is little better than political doctrine. While i truly respect those that worship, i have no respect at all for those who try to push their conventional mainstream science doctrines on everyone like a sunday morning sermon.
All you've got here is your opinion. You really don't know if this circuit / effect is valid or not yet... You are taking on your FAITH that is not.
Sounds kinda "mystical" to me ;)
What is the point of TK's detractors here? The fact that there are minor deviations from the schematics in the TK replication does not prove that Ainslie's circuit is OU.
Isn't the goal to show OU? If you guys want to defend Ainslie, make an OU circuit based on her plans, and then TK will shut up about it forever and ever.
Jibbguy:
That's an incredibly impressive sounding resume. In fact, it sounds a bit too good.
You made a flaky "victory" posting the other day, right out of the Twilight Zone.
I thought that you described yourself as a technician in postings going back a few weeks.
Aaron:
You made three YouTube clips where you reconfigure the Ainsley circuit and turn it into a solid state Bedini setup where you demonstrate how it can charge a target charging battery while you play with the oscillations. What was the point of that? There is no target charging battery in the Ainsley setup. That was a total waste of time.
May we ask what your next step is?
MileHigh
Quote from: utilitarian on August 14, 2009, 06:23:27 PM
What is the point of TK's detractors here? The fact that there are minor deviations from the schematics in the TK replication does not prove that Ainslie's circuit is OU.
Isn't the goal to show OU? If you guys want to defend Ainslie, make an OU circuit based on her plans, and then TK will shut up about it forever and ever.
the point is tk lies, obfuscates, misdirects, has zero integrity and credibility, refuses to be accountable for his words... etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseam. even when it is spelled out in front of you in his own words you little sycophants look the other way. the minor deviations do prove he has little attention to detail and STILL doesn't comprehend the definition of the words "replication" or identical or exact ::)
tk's goal isn't to show ou, that's more than obvious. i can quote a post of his that shows his precise attitude towards these things if you wish, since you're too lazy to read and comprehend yourself.
and should someone actually show ou, tk will spend the rest of his life trying to show how it was faked. because he is not a skeptic, he is a BELIEVER.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on August 14, 2009, 06:31:20 PM
the point is tk lies, obfuscates, misdirects, has zero integrity and credibility, refuses to be accountable for his words... etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseam. even when it is spelled out in front of you in his own words you little sycophants look the other way.
tk's goal isn't to show ou, that's more than obvious. i can quote a post of his that shows his precise attitude towards these things if you wish, since you're too lazy to read and comprehend yourself.
and should someone actually show ou, tk will spend the rest of his life trying to show how it was faked. because he is not a skeptic, he is a BELIEVER.
So why are you so fixated on TK? This thread is about the claimed OU circuit of Ainslie. So, this circuit is either OU, or it is not OU. And I think that if you are posting in this thread, you ought to have at least some interest as to which of these two possibilities is reality. So if you think that the deviations that TK makes are critical, you can easily shut him up about it once and for all. Make an OU circuit. Or are you too lazy or too broke to do it?
Quote from: utilitarian on August 14, 2009, 06:40:09 PM
So why are you so fixated on TK? This thread is about the claimed OU circuit of Ainslie. So, this circuit is either OU, or it is not OU. And I think that if you are posting in this thread, you ought to have at least some interest as to which of these two possibilities is reality. So if you think that the deviations that TK makes are critical, you can easily shut him up about it once and for all. Make an OU circuit. Or are you too lazy or too broke to do it?
are you mental? i just answered that.
where have i ever said his deviations are what is stopping him from achieving OU? can you find that post and show it to the world please? no you can't, because it doesn't exist. POINT IN FACT, all you will ever find is me telling him that it's bad methodology to use 'whatever' instead of SPECIFIED components.
more BASELESS assumption and attempts at misdirection from the peanut gallery is all you have offered. ::) typical.
Are you accusing me of being a liar too, now, MileHigh?
BE VERY CLEAR HERE. ARE YOU?
Lol why peeps like you think others will take your crap is beyond me.
Wilby,
I followed the link from last night and I agree with you that TK's comments before and after being able to compare the two physical MOSFET devices "conflict." I am using quotations because he was speculating before he got his hands on the two devices and then later he could "compare" the two devices in real life and make further comments. I am using quotations because you can only find out so much about a device in one day. For all we know if you had an optimum gate drive setup for both MOSFETs the performance differences would be reduced. And like I said about myself previously, I don't care so much about the choice of MOSFET if it appears to be doing its job properly.
So I acknowledge that TK made contradictory statements. Now, let's MOVE ON.
You made a few good postings and now you are back in the gutter. Lift yourself up and try to make some interesting comments about the issue at hand: testing the Ainsley circuit to look for OU.
I have moved on.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on August 14, 2009, 06:53:04 PM
Wilby,
I followed the link from last night and I agree with you that TK's comments before and after being able to compare the two physical MOSFET devices "conflict." I am using quotations because he was speculating before he got his hands on the two devices and then later he could "compare" the two devices in real life and make further comments. I am using quotations because you can only find out so much about a device in one day. For all we know if you had an optimum gate drive setup for both MOSFETs the performance differences would be reduced. And like I said about myself previously, I don't care so much about the choice of MOSFET if it appears to be doing its job properly.
So I acknowledge that TK made contradictory statements. Now, let's MOVE ON.
You made a few good postings and now you are back in the gutter. Lift yourself up and try to make some interesting comments about the issue at hand: testing the Ainsley circuit to look for OU.
I have moved on.
MileHigh
WOW, perhaps i misjudged you. of course that remains to be seen...
one little baby step of recognition doesn't quite pull you out of the hole you are mile deep in. ;) recognizing his conflicting statements is just the first 'baby' step, if you have ANY integrity you must reconcile these 'conflicts' BEFORE moving on. you can't just sweep them under the rug as they are absolutely relevant to his credibility. capiche?
edit: it was such a cute speculation, don't you think? even more so when he 'tried' to give me shit about who knows more about fet substitution ::)
To All:
This is off topic, but I am going to quote an unnamed user on this forum web site.
QuoteI can only briefly look at this thread on the weekdays because of the prodigious amount work presented to me lately. I have just recently traveled for a contract from which I just returned, only to see fruitless arguments and bickering here. How is any progress going to be made if arguments are the only subject matter being debated. @ PL: I apologize for my so called "dodging" of direct measurement requests but as I stated before. I have a prodigious amount work presented to me, and your not the only one to request a specific measurement.
So let me just explain where I come from and why I have come to the conclusions I presented. I graduated from a technical trade school with a "Certificate of Proficiency" in electronics and a textbook understanding of electricity. I then moved on to college out of state where I acquired a bachelors in electrical engineering. My final project's subject was on Nikola Tesla. Which guided me toward some basic knowledge of electrical phenomenology. As intrigued as I was with electrical phenomena I decided the best path for me would be to study physics. So I attended a college in my home state for material science, physics and particle physics. After gathering knowledge of electrical engineering, advanced physics, and some basic electrical phenomena I knew their was a big piece of the picture missing. So I worked hard to acquire a job with the privilege to work on "out-of-the-box" technology's which the average citizen is not privy too. I have now since worked on those technology's. Let me just give you a short list of the companies, corporations, institutions, military centers, and laboratory's, to which I have been contracted to work with.
General Electric Company, General Dynamics, General Atomics, General MEMS Corp, The Boeing Company, Boeing Satellite Systems Inc, Lockheed Martin Corp, Orbital Science Corp , Pratt & Whitney, Apache Aerospace, The Aerospace Corp, Ball Aerospace & Technology Corp, Bell Aerospace Textron, Boeing Aerospace Division, Ensign Bickford Aerospace, GE Aerospace Division, Grumman Aerospace, I.S. Aerospace, ITT Aerospace/Communications Division, Kanan Aerospace Bloomfield, Kidde Aerospace, Michigan Aerospace Corp, Rosemount Aerospace Inc, Smith Aerospace LLC, JDS Uniphase Corp, Quantum
Electro-Optical Systems Inc, Raytheon Optical Corp, Quantum Applied Science & Research Inc, Northrup Grumman Space Technology, Kamaan Aerospace,
Florida Space Institute, NASA Glenn Research Center, NASA Langley Research Center, NASA Ames Research Center, NASA Kennedy Space Center, NASA Johnson Space Center, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Naval Under Sea Warfare Center, Naval Air Warfare Center, Naval Oceans System Center, NRAD (Naval Research & Development), NCCOSC (Naval Command Control and Surveillance Center), Wright Patterson Airforce Base, Naval Research Laboratory, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Air Force Research Laboratory, US Army Laboratory Command, US Army Research Laboratory, US Army Aviation & Missile, US Naval Observatory, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, AVCO Research Laboratory, Sandia National Labs, Los Alamos National Labs, Wyle Laboratories, Perdue University Birck Nanotechnology Center, University of Illinois Micro & Nanotechnology Laboratory, John Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory and many more..
These companies, corporations, institutions, military centers, and laboratory's, hire people to utilize, apply and understand the process of reality to which I have been suggesting. (Even if you don't believe it) To say that any or all of them are incorrect in their assumptions would be indubitably wrong and naive none the less. (Or ur an agent of disinformation) I don't merely make up what I say or quote it from the works of great scientists like Tesla, and Bearden. I have directly been involved in working with this technology and know for a FACT what is going on in my circuits. I do not use computer simulated math equations or conventional magnetic theory to build, compose, and engineer any of my circuits.That will never lead you toward "overunity", it only guarantees failure. I use real wisdom of the quantum vacuum from actual laboratory experiments and tests preformed in REALITY. From this experience I measure and calculate the effects I want to engineer when permitted to do so.
I had an agreement with Stefan to discuss my experiment "Free Electrical Energy". Under the conditions that I'm not forced to violate any nondisclosure agreements that I may have signed with any companies, corporations, institutions, military centers, or laboratory s.
By his voice from his YouTube clips he sounded like he was in his mid-twenties. Somebody asked him to go to a "capacitor calculator" web site where you punch in some numbers and hit the "Calc" button and it spits back your capacitor value or your timing resistor value, etc. This person went to the web site and came back with screen captures of his data entry.
He did not understand how the "capacitor calculator" web page worked and was not able to correctly enter the data.
Just a little story from the Naked Internet.
MileHigh
Interesting how MileHigh did not list the person's name he quoted. Is that OK to do these days? It certainly isn't proper etiquette at any forum i know of.
So anyway, i wonder what he was trying to imply with it ;)
Quote from: jibbguy on August 14, 2009, 07:30:27 PM
Interesting how MileHigh did not list the person's name he quoted. Is that OK to do these days? It certainly isn't proper etiquette at any forum i know of.
So anyway, i wonder what he was trying to imply with it ;)
no it's not ok jibb, but it is par for the course with these believers. improper method and etiquette are quite ok for them to use. the hypocrisy continues...
no idea what he is trying to imply. he probably has no idea either. i think he is inebriated most of the time, look at all the drug references in his posts. perhaps he is trying to emulate the naked emperor, who always seems to be needing a drink.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on August 14, 2009, 06:45:11 PM
are you mental? i just answered that.
where have i ever said his deviations are what is stopping him from achieving OU? can you find that post and show it to the world please? no you can't, because it doesn't exist. POINT IN FACT, all you will ever find is me telling him that it's bad methodology to use 'whatever' instead of SPECIFIED components.
more BASELESS assumption and attempts at misdirection from the peanut gallery is all you have offered. ::) typical.
OK, so your goal is to prove that a part time experimenter, who is not getting paid, and whose work you are not paying to have done, made an immaterial deviation, which in no way invalidates the experiment. How big of a loser do you have to be to go on this month long lunatic rant about some shit that doesn't even matter?
Quote from: utilitarian on August 14, 2009, 07:59:40 PM
OK, so your goal is to prove that a part time experimenter, who is not getting paid, and whose work you are not paying to have done, made an immaterial deviation, which in no way invalidates the experiment. How big of a loser do you have to be to go on this month long lunatic rant about some shit that doesn't even matter?
no my goal is to keep tk HONEST and to make sure he adheres to PROPER SCIENTIFIC METHOD, and when he isn't or doesn't, i don't let him sweep it under the rug like you sycophants do. as far as his integrity, there is NOTHING that can be done for that.
your comprehension skills really suck. how can you even suggest that his 42 page refusal to adhere to proper scientific method "doesn't even matter"? and how do you talk with your foot in mouth like that?
and i notice you failed to provide that post i asked you about. remember?
here is the question again for those with the limited comprehension skills:
where have i ever said his deviations are what is stopping him from achieving OU?
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on August 14, 2009, 08:09:13 PM
no my goal is to keep tk HONEST and to make sure he adheres to PROPER SCIENTIFIC METHOD, and when he isn't or doesn't, i don't let him sweep it under the rug like you sycophants do. as far as his integrity, there is NOTHING that can be for that.
your comprehension skills really suck. and how do you talk with your foot in mouth like that?
and i notice you failed to provide that post i asked you about.
You have made posts claiming it is bad to deviate from the specified configuration, but you have been unable to explain why. The reason you have been unable to give a reason, beside "um, it's different, you lying liar, you asshole - make it the same, duh" is because you cannot articulate a reason, which is, of course, because you lack the knowledge to articulate a valid reason.
You now admit the deviation is immaterial. Which leads to the question of why you are still on this tirade. You are worse than the "sycophants" you refer to. The supporters at least have a clear view of the objective - to show that the Ainslie's claim is invalid. This is a fine goal in science - all new claims purporting to overturn well established conclusions should be put to the most rigorous of tests. Your goal is completely unfathomable. TK has probably done more experiments with this stuff in one day than you have done your entire life. You admit you cannot prove that TK has made any error in his conclusions. What the hell is left to argue about, except to spew pointless vitriol?
Quote from: utilitarian on August 14, 2009, 08:19:26 PM
You have made posts claiming it is bad to deviate from the specified configuration, but you have been unable to explain why. The reason you have been unable to give a reason, beside "um, it's different, you lying liar, you asshole - make it the same, duh" is because you cannot articulate a reason, which is, of course, because you lack the knowledge to articulate a valid reason.
You now admit the deviation is immaterial. Which leads to the question of why you are still on this tirade. You are worse than the "sycophants" you refer to. The supporters at least have a clear view of the objective - to show that the Ainslie's claim is invalid. This is a fine goal in science - all new claims purporting to overturn well established conclusions should be put to the most rigorous of tests. Your goal is completely unfathomable. TK has probably done more experiments with this stuff in one day than you have done your entire life. You admit you cannot prove that TK has made any error in his conclusions. What the hell is left to argue about, except to spew pointless vitriol?
absolute lies, you can withdraw this statement immediately or i can go fetch all the relevant posts and drag you over the coals. i knew long ago the irfpg50 wouldn't perform the same as his original substitution. why do you think i played him for so long? why do you think i let him talk himself into a corner? never mind, you can't see the whole board and refuse to think a couple moves ahead. anytime you wanna play chess for $ you let me know. ::)
i have never admitted the deviation is immaterial. can you show some evidence of your claim? this is the real world where you are accountable for your words. i have always maintained and continue to maintain that using "whatever" and claiming some data sheet similarity is NOT a replication. and WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE of my "admission"? tk has made numerous errors in his conclusions, and i have pointed most (not all, there is a few left...) of them out.
edit: i noticed you failed to provide evidence of your last asinine claim and still moved right on to the next asinine claim, which you also failed to provide evidence of. ::)
Quote from: utilitarian on August 14, 2009, 08:19:26 PM
You have made posts claiming it is bad to deviate from the specified configuration, but you have been unable to explain why. The reason you have been unable to give a reason, beside "um, it's different, you lying liar, you asshole - make it the same, duh" is because you cannot articulate a reason, which is, of course, because you lack the knowledge to articulate a valid reason.
You now admit the deviation is immaterial. Which leads to the question of why you are still on this tirade. You are worse than the "sycophants" you refer to. The supporters at least have a clear view of the objective - to show that the Ainslie's claim is invalid. This is a fine goal in science - all new claims purporting to overturn well established conclusions should be put to the most rigorous of tests. Your goal is completely unfathomable. TK has probably done more experiments with this stuff in one day than you have done your entire life. You admit you cannot prove that TK has made any error in his conclusions. What the hell is left to argue about, except to spew pointless vitriol?
Because, at some point, TK obviously made Wilby look extremely foolish. All he does is complain, no tests, no data, no nothing.
Quote from: Asymatrix on August 14, 2009, 08:40:36 PM
Because, at some point, TK obviously made Wilby look extremely foolish. All he does is complain, no tests, no data, no nothing.
ohhh that's so cute. you were made to look extremely foolish by me here in this post:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg196861#msg196861
and this post:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg196863#msg196863
and this one where he himself CLEARLY demonstrates he understands the context:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg196876#msg196876
and now you are trying some psychological projection... ::)
never mind, the sycophants wouldn't understand psychology.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on August 14, 2009, 08:53:42 PM
ohhh that's so cute. you were made to look extremely foolish by me here in this post:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg196861#msg196861
and this post:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg196863#msg196863
and this one where he himself CLEARLY demonstrates he understands the context:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg196876#msg196876
and now you are trying some psychological projection... ::)
never mind, the sycophants wouldn't understand psychology.
WTF, you are citing yourself? I can barely stand to read your garbage the first time. I am not going to revisit it.
With all this bluster, one would think you have done at least one experiment to contradict TK's findings. One would be sadly mistaken.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on August 14, 2009, 08:53:42 PM
ohhh that's so cute. you were made to look extremely foolish by me here in this post
and now you are trying some psychological projection... ::)
never mind, the sycophants wouldn't understand psychology.
The amazing thing, which you fail to realize, is that you are the antagonist.
To have such hostility toward someone who is doing irrefutably thorough experimentation and spends no time criticizing yours (because you don't do any) can only be explained by one of the labels you are so fond of projecting onto others. Take your pick.
Aaron:
We are going to take a second look at one of your points made today:
QuoteShowing recharge of second battery through flyback diode. It has been wondered if these high frequency spikes at any voltage with super low pulsewidth can actually cause a battery to charge. Yes it can.
I am the person that was doing the wondering.
In your statement above you are neglecting mentioning that you rewired the fly-back diode and connected it to a charging battery. This is NOT the Ainsley circuit anymore. This is a point that myself and others made to Rosemary over and over and she still persisted in doing what you demoed today to "demonstrate" the recharging.
Aaron and Rosemary: You simply cannot change the topology of a circuit to one that is more favourable to support your argument and then try to claim that it applies to the original circuit also. You just CAN'T do this. This is cognitive dissonance reality distortion at work.
Plus, the evidence is staring you right in the face. With the Ainsley setup the spikes remain at a very high voltage. With the switch over to the Bedini setup the spikes are muffled down to a few volts. You simply cannot ignore this difference.
The only reason you see high voltage spikes is because the discharging coil is acting as a temporary current source. It encounters a high impedance "wall" and raises it's voltage proportionally in an attempt to keep the current flowing.
Also, we cannot forget that in the Ainsley case the MOSFET is SWITCHED OFF, and there is no true current path for the discharge current to flow. I made a whole posting on that speculating on what was happening.
It looks like there would probably be no real charging current associated with the high voltage spikes that arrive at the battery positive terminal. Instead, the spikes could be nothing more than a fleeting wave of potential associated with the stray capacitance of the coil-resistor discharging. The stray capacitance would be initially be charged up by the discharging coil in the coil-resistor. I am not sure, I am just speculating. We are talking "fluffy fluffy fluffy" here.
What I am pretty sure of is that there is almost certainly negligible or unmeasurable current flow associated with the 140 nSec high voltage spikes that arrive at the battery positive terminal. On more time, the MOSFET is OFF, and there is no "real way" for the current to flow.
You have the technology Aaron. If you want to really know what is going on, you have to add a second shunt resistor to the battery positive terminal and then measure the potential and current associated with each spike. You can even do the multiplication in the DSO, export the spike I*V waveform, then integrate and normalize it with your Excel spreadsheet and give us the measured micro or nano-joules associated with an individual spike. When you are spiking at 250 KHz with the full blown continuous oscillation mode, you can then multiply your spike energy times the 250 KHz per second and give us your estimate of the spike power.
It's all so easy to do if you show the initiative. If you are not sure but want to ask some questions, then fire away, I am sure that myself or others would be pleased to take a crack at answering them.
Please forget about the solid state Bedini configuration, it has zero to do with your investigation.
MileHigh
Quote from: Asymatrix on August 14, 2009, 09:22:17 PM
The amazing thing, which you fail to realize, is that you are the antagonist.
To have such hostility toward someone who is doing irrefutably thorough experimentation and spends no time criticizing yours (because you don't do any) can only be explained by one of the labels you are so fond of projecting onto others. Take your pick.
the amazing thing is, you fail to provide evidence for your claims every time. and when i provide evidence for mine you ignore it, or like your fellow sycophant utilitarian, outright refuse to even look. the pathetic thing is, you think
that is being skeptical, even when the definition has been shown to you.
Quote from: utilitarian on August 14, 2009, 09:13:47 PM
WTF, you are citing yourself? I can barely stand to read your garbage the first time. I am not going to revisit it.
With all this bluster, one would think you have done at least one experiment to contradict TK's findings. One would be sadly mistaken.
you have ignored repeated requests for you to back up your baseless claims with some substance. and now you admit to refusing to look at evidence because it doesn't fit your personal belief. ::) the hypocrisy continues...
nice try at the misdirection though.
Quote from: jibbguy on August 14, 2009, 07:30:27 PM
Interesting how MileHigh did not list the person's name he quoted. Is that OK to do these days? It certainly isn't proper etiquette at any forum i know of.
So anyway, i wonder what he was trying to imply with it ;)
Hey Jibbguy,
MileHigh's partial quote is from a member "NRGFromTheVacuum" in another thread here "Real OU-Effect to Share with everyone!!!" post #205 ...... http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6734.msg162050#msg162050 ...... Implications being off topic .... hummm ...... maybe he found my
catnip again :D
Fuzzy
;D
Quote from: MileHigh on August 14, 2009, 09:24:34 PM
You simply cannot change the topology of a circuit to one that is more favourable to support your argument and then try to claim that it applies to the original circuit also. You just CAN'T do this. This is cognitive dissonance reality distortion at work.
so you choose to not reconcile tk's contradictory statements before moving on and continue to attempt to bury them quietly. THAT is cognitive dissonance reality distortion at work.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on August 14, 2009, 10:39:08 PM
the amazing thing is, you fail to provide evidence for your claims every time. and when i provide evidence for mine you ignore it, or like your fellow sycophant utilitarian, outright refuse to even look. the pathetic thing is, you think that is being skeptical, even when the definition has been shown to you.
Evidence? Do you deny initiating the antagonism? Nit picking anything you can find to soothe your bruised ego? There you go. using the word 'sycophant' again, while simultaneously confirming the fact that you are one. And still, not a single experiment or test out of you. Has it ever occured to you that you serve no purpose?
Wilby's entire existence apparently revolves around procuring negative attention. Much like an 8 year old.
Quote from: Asymatrix on August 14, 2009, 11:26:21 PM
Evidence? Do you deny initiating the antagonism? Nit picking anything you can find to soothe your bruised ego? There you go. using the word 'sycophant' again, while simultaneously confirming the fact that you are one. And still, not a single experiment or test out of you. Has it ever occured to you that you serve no purpose?
yes evidence, back up your claims with evidence. is there a sign language i can do to help you comprehend that? i deny it completely. please provide some evidence of that claim. mine is not open for discussion tk's is. it's 'occurred'... ::) has it ever 'occurred' to you that when the word turns red you spelled it wrong and it just might be my purpose to tell you that?
much like an 8 year old playing with his 5 year old neighbor whose refuses to admit he was picking his nose when caught red handed, yes.
Here's the biggest most blatant and most manipulative lie on this thread, where the trollbot offers to send me a mosfet if I tell him my address--which, in his trusting innocence, he thinks I did. But it turns out he never intended to send me a transistor, he was only manipulating me into revealing personal information, for who knows what evil troll purpose.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg189752#msg189752
Quote
Quote
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 06, 2009, 04:04:49 PM
Well, clearly you have the ability to order your own parts and build your own circuit, since you can use a web catalog. Oh, wait--using the catalog only requires a single finger for typing. Actually building something requires opposable thumbs.
If you want to buy that from ebay and send it to me, I'll deduct the cost from the bill I send you for the consulting work.
And the batteries cost "somebody" seventy-six dollars each. But I just had to walk around the building to get them.
Now, from your elevated pulpit, can you read me the gospel chapter on how the choice of any particular N-channel mosfet would make a likety-split of difference in the duty cycle issue? And why do you care so much anyway? Why don't you go attack her, there are a LOT more holes in her story than you will ever find in mine.
Zipons! Hah!
well, you clearly have the ability to make BS up on the spot and then misdirect and obfuscate when called on it... i am assuming $4! is still "expensive" for you then? or is it that ebay is as difficult for you to use as google? or do you just like posting outright falsehoods as justification for doing it wrong?
send me your address and i will send you the part, you worthless bum.
building "something" may or may not require opposable thumbs. from your elevated pulpit do let us know when you get around to building it "right"...
I may have made some statements that could be interpreted as being inconsistent. Or not, depending. But Wilby's a liar, plain and simple, and a manipulative, non-creative, one-track one to boot. And the proof is in his own words in the link above.
Oh, did I mention that Wilby is a lying jerk? See above.
tk, i'm glad you're here. mh has some contradictions of yours he would like to talk to you about. so we can all move forward. to checkmate. most players usually resign a lost game before being checkmated but tk is slow learner. that's why he dropped out of 5? schools. mh is the only one who knows enough to distance himself from a sinking ship. so for that mh, i was wrong, you are not a blind sycophant, just a sycophant. here is your big chance to show some integrity, don't fail as usual.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on August 14, 2009, 11:30:47 PM
yes evidence, back up your claims with evidence. is there a sign language i can do to help you comprehend that? i deny it completely. please provide some evidence of that claim. mine is not open for discussion tk's is. it's 'occurred'... ::) has it ever 'occurred' to you that when the word turns red you spelled it wrong and it just might be my purpose to tell you that?
much like an 8 year old playing with his 5 year old neighbor whose refuses to admit he was picking his nose when caught red handed, yes.
The EVIDENCE is YOU INITIATING and PERPETUATING the ANTAGONISM.
Here it is again:
The EVIDENCE is YOU INITIATING and PERPETUATING the ANTAGONISM.
Read it. write it down, and ask your mommy to read it to you before she tucks you in tonight.
Quote from: Asymatrix on August 14, 2009, 11:48:55 PM
The EVIDENCE is YOU INITIATING and PERPETUATING the ANTAGONISM.
Here it is again:
The EVIDENCE is YOU INITIATING and PERPETUATING the ANTAGONISM.
Read it. write it down, and ask your mommy to read it to you before she tucks you in tonight.
LOL, you really don't have a clue do you? i pity you, i really do.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on August 14, 2009, 11:44:42 PM
tk, i'm glad you're here. mh has some contradictions of yours he would like to talk to you about. so we can all move forward. to checkmate. most players usually resign a lost game before being checkmated but tk is slow learner. that's why he dropped out of 5? schools.
How's this, you lying asshole. FUCK OFF and die. I have convinced myself that there is no OU to be had from this ridiculous waste of time, and I don't care if one day I call you an idiot and the next I call you an ignoramus. I am done taking abuse for what I've done here. Especially from little trolls like you, Wilbydrunkenfool. You have indeed won your little game. SO go play with yourself, nobody else wants to play with you.
Bye now. Good luck with your overunity projects.
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 15, 2009, 12:00:28 AM
How's this, you lying asshole. FUCK OFF and die. I have convinced myself that there is no OU to be had from this ridiculous waste of time, and I don't care if one day I call you an idiot and the next I call you an ignoramus. I am done taking abuse for what I've done here. Especially from little trolls like you, Wilbydrunkenfool. You have indeed won your little game. SO go play with yourself, nobody else wants to play with you.
Bye now. Good luck with your overunity projects.
and that's what happens when you ask tk to be accountable for his words... SHAH MAT!
and it's wilby as in 'will be'. that's future tense. not present tense, not past tense. ::)
Quote from: Asymatrix on August 14, 2009, 11:26:21 PM
Wilby's entire existence apparently revolves around procuring negative attention. Much like an 8 year old.
Indeed. The simple solution guys is to put him on your "ignore list" as I have done, both here and at EF (he's CaptainScat).
If no one responds to his posts, he will likely go away or give up. As long as we keep responding to his posts, he'll continue making them, and he'll keep getting what he wants. Why keep feeding the fire?
So it's too simple, go to your profile and add him to your ignore list. Then we can keep the focus on what counts.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on August 15, 2009, 12:16:19 AM
Indeed. The simple solution guys is to put him on your "ignore list" as I have done, both here and at EF (he's CaptainScat).
If no one responds to his posts, he will likely go away or give up. As long as we keep responding to his posts, he'll continue making them, and he'll keep getting what he wants. Why keep feeding the fire?
So it's too simple, go to your profile and add him to your ignore list.
.99
poynt are you a slow learner too? that won't work. if you talk out your pompous and lie like tk, asymatrix, utilitarian, etc. do, i
will call you on it. if you try to represent that a sim is something more than a weak ass sim, i
will call you on it. if you suggest that substituting what is on hand instead of using the specified components is good scientific method and then call it exact, i
will call you on it. etc. ignoring me doesn't change a lie to a truth or make a sim anything more than an incomplete sim no matter how hard you close your eyes and click your heels and say 'there's no place like home' ::)
Go to Profile=>Modify Profile=> Personal Messaging=>Ignore list=>add WilbyInebriated
.99
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on August 15, 2009, 12:04:43 AM
and that's what happens when you ask tk to be accountable for his words... SHAH MAT!
You need to rethink that. TK, and nobody else either, is accountable to you for anything. If you think you have been misled and defrauded by reading about some other guy's experiments that he did on his own time and described in a forum post, well, you can go pound sand. If you don't like what he did, you can do your own thing. WTF is your problem?
Quote from: utilitarian on August 15, 2009, 12:26:12 AM
You need to rethink that. TK, and nobody else either, is accountable to you for anything. If you think you have been misled and defrauded by reading about some other guy's experiments that he did on his own time and described in a forum post, well, you can go pound sand. If you don't like what he did, you can do your own thing. WTF is your problem?
wrong, this is the real world where you
are accountable for your words... this isn't your mom's house where you can bend any rule and get away with it ::)
you have ignored repeated requests for you to back up your baseless claims with some substance. and you admitted to refusing to look at evidence because it doesn't fit your personal belief. ::) the hypocrisy continues...
nice try at the misdirection though.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on August 15, 2009, 12:28:48 AM
wrong, this is the real world where you are accountable for your words... this isn't your mom's house where you can bend any rule and get away with it ::)
you have ignored repeated requests for you to back up your baseless claims with some substance. and you admitted to refusing to look at evidence because it doesn't fit your personal belief. ::) the hypocrisy continues...
nice try at the misdirection though.
The real world? If you think that strangers on the Internet, to whom you have given nothing but insults, are accountable to you for anything, you are living in a dream world.
Quote from: utilitarian on August 15, 2009, 12:50:33 AM
The real world? If you think that strangers on the Internet, to whom you have given nothing but insults, are accountable to you for anything, you are living in a dream world.
i have given
nothing but insults? this is simply another one of your baldfaced lies.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 01, 2009, 09:59:22 PM
i meant the "jack of all trades" as a compliment tk... ie:polymath
more of utilitarian's bullshit. QED
This was sent to me today in an email from a friend of mine with a PhD who owns M.H. Consulting group in California. It is an interesting test - and given the previous 10 post, it may be appropriate.
1. How do you put a giraffe into a refrigerator?
Stop and think about it and decide on your answer before you scroll down.
The correct answer is: Open the refrigerator, put in the giraffe and close the door.
This question tests whether you tend to do simple things in an overly complicated way.
2 How do you put an elephant into a refrigerator?
Did you say, open the refrigerator, put in the elephant and close the refrigerator?
Wrong answer.
Correct answer: open the refrigerator, take out the giraffe, put in the elephant and close the door.
This tests your ability to think through the repercussions of your previous actions.
3. The Lion King is hosting an animal conference. All the animals
attend, except one. Which animal does not attend?
Correct answer: the Elephant. The elephant is in the refrigerator. You just put him in there.
This tests your memory.
Okay, even if you did not answer the first three questions correctly, you still have one more chance.
4. There is a river you must cross but it is used by crocodiles, and
you do not have a boat. How do you manage it?
Correct answer: you jump into the river and swim across. Have you not been listening? All the crocodiles are attending the animal meeting.
This tests whether you learn quickly from your mistakes.
According to Anderson Consulting Worldwide, around 90% of the
professionals they tested got all the questions wrong, but many preschoolers got several correct answers.
Anderson Consulting says this conclusively disproves the theory that most professionals have the brain of a four-year-old.
ROFLMAO ;D
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on August 15, 2009, 02:22:59 AM
i have given nothing but insults? this is simply another one of your baldfaced lies.
more of utilitarian's bullshit. QED
OK, I amend my previous statement to "you have given mostly nothing but insults." And TK amended his statement to "nearly exact" replication.
But this post of your is a perfect example of your lack of cognitive reasoning skills. You nitpicked and found an inaccuracy. But so what? The inaccuracy is not relevant. Just because you gave someone a halfway sorta compliment does not raise any kind of responisbility on their part to be accountable to you for anything.
Nobody owes you jack. You don't like the experiment as described? Do your own, instead of throwing a tantrum about it. This is not your project - you did not commission it. You therefore have zero standing to complain about the way it has been carried out.
Question:
How do you put Wilby in a refrigerator?
Answer:
Say what you mean and mean what you say...and do none of it out of your ass.
An observation...I have noticed that in the jewel thief thread, where there is an absence of boasting and grandstanding, and only the sharing of information...Wilby seems to get along fine with everyone there.
A little advice for all...Wilby has got to be the stickiest tar baby I've seen on the net to date...so, I would avoid taking pokes at him, and just keep things real.
Regards...
Aaron and Rosemary:
We are going to discuss what is going on with your circuit and your testing yet again. If you completely ignore what I say, that's your choice, welcome to the New Dark Age.
Sprocket:
QuoteIt's a travesty the type of 'infestation' that permeates the Over Unity forum - a board that purports to be striving for FE solutions, yet any promising lines of enquiry are allowed to be completely dominated by paid sceptics! Stefan sold out? I sometimes wonder...
The real travesty Sprocket is that you would consider people around here to be "paid skeptics." Yet one more time somebody is getting all excited about a discharging inductor. The high voltage spikes are "magic" and are a source of energy - or not. Sure, I am a member of the "Anti Spike League" and myself and others are on a mission to suppress all of the free energy discoveries derived from coils that are out there there in the world. It's a thankless job but somebody has to do it, and the pay sucks. Sprocket please!
Also, your use of the word "infestation" is positively creepy. You seem to have your own NWO agenda forming. Set up concentration camps for scientists and other "non believers" to keep society "clean." Perhaps for starters a law proclaiming that people of that ilk would only have to wear arm bands would be more acceptable.
Aaron:
QuoteA draw down test is needed using the wattage draw that a control supply shows is necessary to produce the same heat as the Anislie circuit at whatever settings.
If 10 watts from control supply to get same temp, then appropriate resistance on control battery to draw exact wattage from full charge down to x voltage is necessary.
And of course Ainslie circuit running at that same temp on full charge battery down to x volts.
Recharge batts and swap batteries and do that back and forth. This will show the truth.
Well this is the same "old school technology" testing that I am sure that you have done many times before. You don't need the DSO at all to run these tests. All of this testing should be postponed until you return the DSO.
It's worth noting that you will be making the following comparison:
Control: Burning equivalent heat of Ainsley coil-resistor only with no other overhead.
Ainsley test: Burning coil-resistor heat plus overhead heat to run the rest of the circuit.
Under these conditions you can expect the control to run longer than the Ainsley test. The good thing is that you avoid any requirement to make an accurate electrical power consumption measurement of the Ainsley setup while it is running because you are going the thermal route. You have to get your coil-resistor off of the wooden board on your desk and hang it in mid air. If you leave the coil-resistor on the wooden board then your test data will be invalid.
The big unknown is how you are charging the batteries up until they are fully charged. How are you doing this? Are you using the "idiot light" on your battery charger? If yes, do you have any idea how it works? Alternatively, are you charging the batteries up for a certain amount of time, or to a specific voltage? How old and what is your estimate of the condition for each of the batteries?
The big question: Are you expecting the rundown test on the Ainsley setup to last at least 10 times longer than then control rundown? If the COP is 17 that's what should be happening. Free energy heat pies are supposed to be appearing like magic.
Now Aaron and Rosemary - are you going to answer the questions above and be open and transparent?
Here is a little thought experiment for both of you: (A) I ask the questions and you ignore them. (B) A "good guy" on the Energetic Forum asks exactly the same questions and then you are compelled to answer them.
So, do the two of you have the character required to not make a distinction between (A) and (B)?
MileHigh
Aaron and Rosemary:
This posting is going to focus exclusively on the DSO and what you are going to do with it. The clock is running, you have had it for a few days so I assume that you will have to return it by the end of this coming week at the latest.
It's most unfortunate in that you were asked repeatedly what your plans were for the DSO and the question was repeatedly ignored. What happened to being open and sharing with your data?
From what I can see, over the past few days you looked at the voltage profile of the spikes in the circuit with the DSO, perhaps giving you a clearer picture as compared to your other scopes. Then you went on a wild goose chase and wasted a day where you reconfigured the Ainsley circuit and turned it into a solid state Bedini circuit and showed that the solid state Bedini circuit could recharge a battery. That's all fine and dandy but big deal, it has nothing to do with your experiment.
Here is the deal: Your DSO shows up online as used piece of equipment for sale for about $6000 USD. This probably meas that it was about $15,000 - $20,000 USD when it was launched in the marketplace. So a beautiful $15,000 piece of measuring equipment is yours to play with for free, and it's time to start doing something really useful with it. You should drop all thoughts of running you battery rundown tests until after you return the DSO.
Rosemary, I am going to quote you:
QuoteThe benefit is always there. The extreme benefit is with resonance.
Aaron has also made the pitch that there is much more benefit with "oscillation" or "resonance." and you are repeating the same mantra.
I have asked Aaron repeatedly to explain WHY this would be the case and he has repeatedly ignored my question. I now pose the same question to you.
Here is a suggestion:
1. Explain your theory behind the mechanism behind the "extreme benefit" due to "resonance."
2. Make a series of measurements with the DSO to validate or invalidate your resonance theory. Make various DSO measurements with and without resonance to back up your theory/claim. Focus on making POWER MEASUREMENTS because that's what the claim is all about and that's where the action is. Also make measurements on spike voltages, currents, and energy. Look at the circuit in as many ways as you possibly can with the DSO in conjunction with thermal power measurements across the coil-resistor in an attempt to figure out if the "resonance" claim is real or not and TRY TO FIND OUT WHERE THE EXTRA ENERGY IS MANIFESTING ITSELF.
That is what you should be doing. Aaron would be absolutely crazy to start running his rundown tests while the $15,000 DSO is sitting on his bench like a glorified paperweight.
In addition to this, I laid out the measurement procedure for making an accurate power consumption of the Ainsley circuit on a silver platter for both of you in a posting on the Energetic Forum a few weeks back. Honestly, you would make yourselves look like complete and total fools if you never make that measurement. It is essentially the same measurement being made in Rosemary's white paper, and it is a critical piece of data that is sitting in front of both of your faces like low hanging fruit, just daring you to pick it. If Aaron doesn't make true power consumption measurements with the DSO for the standard running mode, as well as a few of your oscillatory or "resonance" modes, while at the same time making accurate temperature measurements of the coil-resistor at it's stabilized temperature - then both of you are a joke. You were given a $15,000 DSO, and all that you did was make rundown tests? You have got to be kidding.
Yes, I know that I am straying into "tough love" territory here and I am not being so PC. The most important fact is that what I am saying is TRUE.
I already suggested that Aaron make the true measurement of energy in the high voltage spikes at the battery positive terminal because it is most likely that those spikes are potential only with no real energy in them - they are a fake-out. Don't confuse what I am saying with Aaron's claim that potential-only spikes at the battery positive terminal induce "currents inside the battery that charge it." Aaron's claim is an unsubstantiated free energy concept that would have to be backed up with data that is outside the scope of this round of testing.
There is a whole myriad of testing that could be done with the DSO. You could try to reverse-engineer the timings for the voltage and current flow in the circuit and make a highly accurate timing diagram and energy audit trail. The list goes on an on.
So that's the challenge for you Aaron and you Rosemary. It's time for both of you to start thinking "outside of the box" of your battery rundown tests. You have a fantastic piece of test equipment to play with for FREE, and you had better start doing something useful with it.
I will repeat again, if you don't even do the most basic test: Record the voltage and current waveforms for the standard and various oscillatory modes so that you can make very accurate measurements of the power consumption and also make accurate measurements of the spike power being returned back to the battery - then both of you fall flat on your face and this is yet more of a fiasco than it already is.
Sorry for the tough talk, but that's where we appear to be since Aaron has decided to "hide" as of a couple of days ago because of some "frustration" with TK's comments or something like that. Aaron, it's time to use one of your "mind energetics" modules to show some real character.
MileHigh
Joit:
QuoteI try again Milehigh
Noone cares about your Suggestions Estimations or complaining.
Really, Noone cares about, to show you a Proof, or investigate something with or for you.
You would be the last Person on Earth, whom i would show something, or want to have Progress with and i am sure, i am not alone.
Noone needs you here to put your further smarts Comments in here, leave and be quiet,
even with your crap Estimation, 'The Equipment is surely damaged'.
Okay Joit, so you want to be nasty and play "hard ball?" My suggestions can be taken or ignored, I am fully aware of that.
I don't want to say this but I will. Joit, you are the "village idiot" on the Energetic Forum and by extension also here. The majority of what you state is nonsensical gibberish, and it very obvious that you have very little understanding of electricity and electronics. Your level of "un-understanding" is so deep that nobody wants to correct you 100% of the time. At the same time you seem to be a perfectly nice and honest person as far as day to day life goes. When you talk about energy and electricity and electronics you become the village idiot.
Your spelling and strange grammatical constructs are getting old and tiresome. I can't believe that you don't know how to spell "battery" and still appear to have your own special way to mangle English syntax even though you have probably been on the Energetic Forum for years and have been downloading and reading all sorts of information - in English.
So are you a strange ephemeral pixie faerie character that floats around like a butterfly and talks about electronics in a strange incomprehensible pixie faerie dialect, or is it all an act?
I am truly trying to help Aaron and Rosemary even if there is tension in the air. Like I said before I am trying to help them discover what is going on by themselves, because that is the only way they are going to believe the data.
If you are going to always act like this strange floating pixie faerie character that speaks gibberish in tongues, that's your choice.
MileHigh
Quote from: utilitarian on August 15, 2009, 09:12:24 AM
OK, I amend my previous statement to "you have given mostly nothing but insults." And TK amended his statement to "nearly exact" replication.
But this post of your is a perfect example of your lack of cognitive reasoning skills. You nitpicked and found an inaccuracy. But so what? The inaccuracy is not relevant. Just because you gave someone a halfway sorta compliment does not raise any kind of responisbility on their part to be accountable to you for anything.
Nobody owes you jack. You don't like the experiment as described? Do your own, instead of throwing a tantrum about it. This is not your project - you did not commission it. You therefore have zero standing to complain about the way it has been carried out.
and you still have a post which is a outright lie which you have to withdraw, i'm just letting you stick your foot all the way down your throat before i roast you...
no that post is a perfect example of me calling out a liar... the accuracy is COMPLETELY relevant, you said i gave nothing but insults (a baseless lie), i showed otherwise.
it's not hard to do. most of what you post is inaccuarate.
what is irrelevant is your allusion that a half compliment is relative to accountability... ::)
wrong again. if he posts it here on a FORUM, it is open for criticism and review. too bad if you don't like that fact that i pointed out your hero is a liar with no integrity or credibility, much like yourself.
Quote from: MileHigh on August 15, 2009, 04:24:56 PM
Joit:
Okay Joit, so you want to be nasty and play "hard ball?" My suggestions can be taken or ignored, I am fully aware of that.
I don't want to say this but I will. Joit, you are the "village idiot" on the Energetic Forum and by extension also here. The majority of what you state is nonsensical gibberish, and it very obvious that you have very little understanding of electricity and electronics. Your level of "un-understanding" is so deep that nobody wants to correct you 100% of the time. At the same time you seem to be a perfectly nice and honest person as far as day to day life goes. When you talk about energy and electricity and electronics you become the village idiot.
Your spelling and strange grammatical constructs are getting old and tiresome. I can't believe that you don't know how to spell "battery" and still appear to have your own special way to mangle English syntax even though you have probably been on the Energetic Forum for years and have been downloading and reading all sorts of information - in English.
So are you a strange ephemeral pixie faerie character that floats around like a butterfly and talks about electronics in a strange incomprehensible pixie faerie dialect, or is it all an act?
I am truly trying to help Aaron and Rosemary even if there is tension in the air. Like I said before I am trying to help them discover what is going on by themselves, because that is the only way they are going to believe the data.
If you are going to always act like this strange floating pixie faerie character that speaks gibberish in tongues, that's your choice.
MileHigh
welcome to the new dark ages, where the sycophants claim to not be able to see their hero's lies and contradictions because it is too dark... ::)
may i remind you milehigh, you still have little, if any integrity here. you dodged a bullet when tk so graciously exited, but don't think that lets you off the hook. not even for a minute. i am far from done with you...
when you lie and pretend you don't see the contradictions that have been pointed out to you numerous times, i suggest that makes you the 'village idiot'. sorry for the 'tough love' ::)
edit: and your soliloquy of a response to sprocket... creepy you say? like your night of the long knives racial slur? the one that got removed by the admin. that kind of creepy?
Quote from: MileHigh on August 15, 2009, 01:39:21 PM
Here is a little thought experiment for both of you: (A) I ask the questions and you ignore them. (B) A "good guy" on the Energetic Forum asks exactly the same questions and then you are compelled to answer them.
So, do the two of you have the character required to not make a distinction between (A) and (B)?
MileHigh
i'll take a shot at that one for you mh since you are so slow.
you had your chance at being listened to over there. you blew it. you were warned, you didn't listen. you got booted. so now anything you say, good, bad or otherwise is ignored.
JUST LIKE THE BOY WHO CRIED WOLF, YOUR INTEGRITY AND CREDIBILITY ARE ZERO.
your character is why you are not allowed to speak or be heard there anymore.
do you have the intelligence to make that distinction?
Wilby:
That reference was not intended as a racial slur, nor was I even considering where this site is hosted from. That expression has become generic and is used in everyday conversation, political or otherwise. Sorry if anybody took offense. This will be my only reply.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on August 15, 2009, 05:58:06 PM
Wilby:
That reference was not intended as a racial slur, nor was I even considering where this site is hosted from. That expression has become generic and is used in everyday conversation, political or otherwise. Sorry if anybody took offense. This will be my only reply.
MileHigh
"has become generic and is used in everyday conversation,"
i dare you to even try and back that up with some substance.
im calling you on this latest BULLSHIT it was absolutely a racial slur, that's why it got deleted.
a racist, with little to no integrity or credibility. that's where you stand now. you really aren't doing yourself any favors by continuing to talk out your anus...
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on August 15, 2009, 05:17:52 PM
and you still have a post which is a outright lie which you have to withdraw, i'm just letting you stick your foot all the way down your throat before i roast you...
no that post is a perfect example of me calling out a liar... the accuracy is COMPLETELY relevant, you said i gave nothing but insults (a baseless lie), i showed otherwise.
it's not hard to do. most of what you post is inaccuarate.
what is irrelevant is your allusion that a half compliment is relative to accountability... ::)
wrong again. if he posts it here on a FORUM, it is open for criticism and review. too bad if you don't like that fact that i pointed out your hero is a liar with no integrity or credibility, much like yourself.
Your opinion that we are all dirty lying liars has been duly noted. Now shut the fuck up.
Quote from: utilitarian on August 15, 2009, 06:16:08 PM
Your opinion that we are all dirty lying liars has been duly noted. Now shut the fuck up.
it's not an opinion. it has been demonstrated. there is a not so subtle difference that i wouldn't expect you to understand, being that you are a liar.
want me to show where you lied again? which time? you keep sticking that foot farther down your throat even yet ::)
Will whomever is moderating this thread please ban Wilby. Enough already.
Quote from: Asymatrix on August 15, 2009, 06:34:49 PM
Will whomever is moderating this thread please ban Wilby. Enough already.
yes please ban me for saying that using what is on hand instead of the specified component is
not good scientific method.
please ban me for pointing out lies and misdirections.
please ban me for taking offense to and pointing out racism.
please ban me for pointing out hypocrisy.
etc. etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseam
please ::)
if anyone should be banned it would be that racist mh. but stephan let him off easy and just removed his post. i wonder if he spoke to him? actually i'm glad stephan didn't ban him. getting banned doesn't have the same effect as getting your nose rubbed in it in public.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on August 15, 2009, 06:42:57 PM
yes please ban me for saying that using what is on hand instead of the specified component is not good scientific method.
please ban me for pointing out lies and misdirections.
please ban me for taking offense to and pointing out racism.
please ban me for pointing out hypocrisy.
etc. etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseam
please ::)
if anyone should be banned it would be that racist mh. but stephan let him off easy and just removed his post. i wonder if he spoke to him? actually i'm glad stephan didn't ban him. getting banned doesn't have the same effect as getting your nose rubbed in it in public.
You need to be banned for being a troll.
No one asks for or wants your psychosis-driven fault finding missions disguised as constructive criticism.
Please ban him.
Wilby
You need to go on a hiking holiday in Afghanistan's Helmand province,
with a stopover at the Gaza Strip.
The way you are going many people here would contribute
learned some respect and stop being rude
cat HISSSSSSSSS
On the contrary... I agree with Wilby. Do not ban him. Use that bucket of sand labeled "ignore list". All you have to do is stick your head in the bucket of sand and all the stuff you don't like goes away. Ignorance is bliss!
No need to ban. Just rename the thread.
Aaron:
Thank you for stating your test plan. You have confirmed that it is going to be a battery rundown test with battery swapping. In principle it should work fine. Myself and a lot of other people are extremely disappointed that you will not be using the DSO in a way that gives you better information related to any possible over unity effect that the battery rundown test is supposed to find.
Quote4. Put exact resistance on control battery(s) to draw that amount of wattage - you don't have to record heat on control battery draw because you are simply duplicating the wattage requirement draw on that battery. Start recording measurements - there may be 1 hour difference between the start of this test and your experiment but that is ok, just record when you started control test and monitor voltage over time.
Just a little note of caution. That exact resistance is going to have to be tweaked after it is connected to the control battery(s). The battery voltage will take its initial drop after you connect up the variable resistor, and then you tweak the variable resistor and monitor the voltage and current to give you the exact amount of watts of dissipation that you are looking for.
You are not telling us how you determine that the batteries are fully charged.
QuoteThis is the only test I'll be doing while I have the Tektronix loaned to me unless I'm satisfied with the results early on and do other tests.
No way Aaron. To have any credibility you have to run the full set of tests as per your protocol. No "executive decisions" can be made to stop the testing early and change course because you are "satisfied."
Like I said, you don't even need the DSO for any of this stuff. It is incredibly disappointing.
Special message for Joit: Did you ever hear of "freedom of speech" Joit? Do you live in a country that has freedom of speech? If you only knew how terrible you sound when you express disdain for freedom of speech and classical knowledge and education and any dissenting thought. I have cringed in reading your many statements that are tantamount to "book burning." You may want to flutter around like a pixie faerie and try to force people to refrain from saying what you don't want to hear but it is not going to affect me. You want to suppress all thought and expression that you don't like. It is truly truly awful.
I was banned from the Energetic Forum for asking Aaron questions in pursuit of knowledge. Sometimes the pursuit of knowledge involves debating and disagreeing. That is a good thing Joit. No matter what you say, I will be saying what I want to say, but not on the Energetic Forum. Nobody is forcing you to read what I am saying here at overunity.com, and you will not stop me from expressing my opinion. People died so that I could express my opinion and I thank them for it.
You Joit, should bow your head in shame for your horrible anti knowledge and anti free expression and pro suppression statements. You represent what we do not want to see around here.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on August 15, 2009, 10:31:29 PM
Aaron:
Thank you for stating your test plan. You have confirmed that it is going to be a battery rundown test with battery swapping. In principle it should work fine. Myself and a lot of other people are extremely disappointed that you will not be using the DSO in a way that gives you better information related to any possible over unity effect that the battery rundown test is supposed to find.
Just a little note of caution. That exact resistance is going to have to be tweaked after it is connected to the control battery(s). The battery voltage will take its initial drop after you connect up the variable resistor, and then you tweak the variable resistor and monitor the voltage and current to give you the exact amount of watts of dissipation that you are looking for.
You are not telling us how you determine that the batteries are fully charged.
No way Aaron. To have any credibility you have to run the full set of tests as per your protocol. No "executive decisions" can be made to stop the testing early and change course because you are "satisfied."
Like I said, you don't even need the DSO for any of this stuff. It is incredibly disappointing.
Special message for Joit: Did you ever hear of "freedom of speech" Joit? Do you live in a country that has freedom of speech? If you only knew how terrible you sound when you express disdain for freedom of speech and classical knowledge and education and any dissenting thought. I have cringed in reading your many statements that are tantamount to "book burning." You may want to flutter around like a pixie faerie and try to force people to refrain from saying what you don't want to hear but it is not going to affect me. You want suppress all thought and expression that you don't like. It is truly truly awful.
I was banned from the Energetic Forum for asking Aaron questions in pursuit of knowledge. Sometimes the pursuit of knowledge involves debating and disagreeing. That is a good thing Joit. No matter what you say, I will be saying what I want to say, but not on the Energetic Forum. Nobody is forcing you to read what I am saying here at overunity.com, and you will not stop me from expressing my opinion. People died so that I could express my opinion and I thank them for it.
You Joit, should bow your head in shame for your horrible anti knowledge and anti free expression and pro suppression statements. You represent what we do not want to see around here.
MileHigh
and here you are again demonstrating that you have no integrity. why are you not decrying the 'ban and lynch' attitude of your cronies here?
not only that, you have once again failed to reconcile your patently false statements like this one, "has become generic and is used in everyday conversation". exactly how is what you said used in everyday conversation and exactly how has what you said become generic?
Quote from: MileHigh on August 15, 2009, 10:31:29 PM
No way Aaron. To have any credibility you have to run the full set of tests as per your protocol. No "executive decisions" can be made to stop the testing early and change course because you are "satisfied."
Please don't take my words out of context and give them your meaning.
What I mean by satisfied is that after swapping batteries several times over the test and if the gain is overwhelmingly obvious over these several swaps. I will stop because it is simply common sense what the conclusion is.
If there is no gain, I will continue until I see or don't see one until the remainder of the loan period of the scope.
At that time, there will be results that show one or the other and that is exactly what I will report.
More limbs stuck in the tar baby I see.
I don't believe I go into how reliability, honesty, and integrity and are what establishes the character and credibility of the faceless internet masses.
From my observations, Wilby has done nothing to besmirch his profile here.
On the other hand...everyone he's taken to task for double talking have been outed by him...through his posting their own words next to their contradictory statements.
It could not be any more clear.
Willbe may be kicking a little ass, but he's doing it with his Sunday boots on.
If people are banned for telling the truth, there willbe nobody left but the trolls...and they won't be long leaving after that.
Regards...
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on August 16, 2009, 10:03:14 AM
More limbs stuck in the tar baby I see.
I don't believe I go into how reliability, honesty, and integrity and are what establishes the character and credibility of the faceless internet masses.
From my observations, Wilby has done nothing to besmirch his profile here.
On the other hand...everyone he's taken to task for double talking have been outed by him...through his posting their own words next to their contradictory statements.
It could not be any more clear.
Willbe may be kicking a little ass, but he's doing it with his Sunday boots on.
If people are banned for telling the truth, there willbe nobody left but the trolls...and they won't be long leaving after that.
Regards...
And, of course, the king of all trolls felt the need to chime in with the usual absurdity.
Ban #2.
Sorry, I neglected to include Cap-Z-ro.
The real trolls can now be seen jumping like fleas from host to host trying to avoid Wilby's relentless posting of their past 'foot in mouth' drivel.
Which to their agony is acid to their scaly skin.
Wilby still has some questions they seem to be overlooking...gee, why wood that be now ?
Its always tough on the BSer when all attempts at misdirection stop working.
How about a break for comedy? Now tonight, it's going to be a really big sheww...
QuoteIt is also important to note here that although the Adams Thermomotor Generator is primarily designed for generation of power to heat water, it, with the advent of the capacitor bank, supplies wattless D.C. impulsed energy for the generation of further electrical power via the steam turbine generator. The machine is flanked on the one side by it's super power multi-farad capacitor bank, and on the other side by it's steam turbine generator which performs the role of a "rising" heat controller. Together with it's high torque A.C. and/or common D.C. power generation, it has now further massive power available to operate other Adams Thermomotor Generators ad infinitum. Thus the foregoing AdamsThermomotor Generator now evolves in what is to be known as the Adams Megawatt Generator.
The Beatles!!!
Damn! Somebody stole my idea! lol
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on August 16, 2009, 02:07:28 PM
The real trolls can now be seen jumping like fleas from host to host trying to avoid Wilby's relentless posting of their past 'foot in mouth' drivel.
Which to their agony is acid to their scaly skin.
Wilby still has some questions they seem to be overlooking...gee, why wood that be now ?
Its always tough on the BSer when all attempts at misdirection stop working.
Wilby is on a psychotic, hurt ego driven fault-finding mission.
He tries to label it 'constructive criticism' in order to avoid accountability.
Precisely what you do all day, every day.
Two trolls in a pod.
Fear of Wilby's ghosts of words past haunting you ?
Sometimes thats just what happens when you troll...you eventually run into someone who takes the time to go back and dig up fr you to choke on.
The luck of the draw.
*steps out of ring with phantom tag on Wilby, avoiding freshly re-tarred hands*
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on August 16, 2009, 04:45:08 PM
Fear of Wilby's ghosts of words past haunting you ?
Sometimes thats just what happens when you troll...you eventually run into someone who takes the time to go back and dig up fr you to choke on.
The luck of the draw.
*steps out of ring with phantom tag on Wilby, avoiding freshly re-tarred hands*
Considering I'm relatively new, your assertions are as predictably idiotic as everything else you post.
The tag team analogy is perfect, though. Tag team trolls. 100% accurate.
ooOOOOOMarley...Wilby Marley...what do you want from me ?
Wilby Marley:
The truuuth, youuuu trollll...the truuthh...
Either that or your lying a$$, you lyin' trollll...
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on August 16, 2009, 05:41:37 PM
ooOOOOOMarley...Wilby Marley...what do you want from me ?
Wilby Marley:
The truuuth, youuuu trollll...the truuthh...
Either that or your lying a$$, you lyin' trollll...
This is all coming from the guy who believes in reptilians, Illuminati NWO, chemtrails, is a "birther", a "truther", thinks milk is going to kill you, and that the the world governments are behind the swine flu epidemic. If you think any of this is "lies" or "misdirection", just take a gander at the topics under "We can't live without the truth."
I think your credibility is zero.
And presently Wilby has you caught up to your neck/a$$ in your own bullshit...
we are all waiting for your response.
So, before you present similar evidence of me contradicting myself, why don't you respond to Will ?
Its a much better strategy/misdirection to move on to more baseless BS about me isn't it ?
Hey...I got a new plan for you...why not try more baseless assertions about Willby ?
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on August 16, 2009, 06:02:59 PM
And presently Wilby has you caught up to your neck/a$$ in your own bullshit...
we are all waiting for your response.
So, before you present similar evidence of me contradicting myself, why don't you respond to Will ?
Its a much better strategy/misdirection to move on to more baseless BS about me isn't it ?
Hey...I got a new plan for you...why not try more baseless assertions about Willby ?
You want a response? Wilby is a troll who is derailing the thread. He is not addressing the main topic, which is Ainslie's device and its overunity properties. Instead, he is nitpicking on irrelevant inconsitencies by some of the posters. Here is the order of what happened, briefly.
1. TK posts his replication of Ainslie's device. He admits up front that some parts were not exactly as posted in the specs. Again, he admits this, right up front, it's like one of the first things he says. So to insist later that the issue with the mosfet is somehow a lie is absurd.
2. Wilby immediately jumps in with a derisive post to the effect of, " are you ever going to do this right?" Who the hell starts off this way? It is an immediate attack on the experimenter, and could have been phrased much more constructively, but he is an asshole, so whatever.
3. More posts go by, and apparently somewhere down the road TK refers to his experiment as an exact replication.
4. Wilby of course jumps over this, banging on the issue of the mosfet. He insists that TK is a liar, even though TK admitted up front that the mosfet was different, so anyone following the thread COULD IN NO WAY BE MISLEAD by the "exact" phrase. TK makes an argument that the mosfet difference is not critical to the conclusion of the experiment. To this day, Wilby cannot make a scientific argument why it is critical or affects the over/under unity of the device, and in fact he has conceded as much.
5. TK amends his previous statement to "nearly exact."
6. Ever since, Wilby has been calling TK a liar and has been demanding that the experiment be repeated to spec. Incidentally, Wilby has reneged on his promise to send TK the mosfet in question, despite an explicit promise to do so. (Liar, liar pants on fire?) He has similarly called me a liar for my claim that he has hurled nothing but insults. Apparently, my missing his "jack of all trades" backhanded compliment somehow makes me a lying liar.
Wilby, in his frothing state of mind, is unable to distinguish between a lie and an inadvertent inaccuracy, one that is tangential to the main purpose of this thread - to decide whether Ainslie's device is overunity or not.
My take:
a. Wilby is clearly not concerned with whether Ainslie's device is overunity or not. He is just madly trying to find fault with the replication. Unable to articulate why the different mosfet would or would not make a difference in the conclusion of the replication, he is reduced to picking fights with TK over the "exact / nearly exact" issue.
b. Wilby does not offer an experiment of his own to prove/disprove the overunity claims in question. He has admitted that this is not his concern, even though he will not let go of the mosfet issue. You would think that someone that obsessed with the issue of exact specs would get of his ass to do his own replication, but apparently it is more entertaining for him to just troll this thread.
c. Wilby has not contributed any way to the efforts of TK, so his demands that the experiment be done his way are like the tantrum of a child.
Quote from: utilitarian on August 15, 2009, 02:19:26 AM
Quote
You have made posts claiming it is bad to deviate from the specified configuration, but you have been unable to explain why. The reason you have been unable to give a reason, beside "um, it's different, you lying liar, you asshole - make it the same, duh" is because you cannot articulate a reason, which is, of course, because you lack the knowledge to articulate a valid reason.
You now admit the deviation is immaterial. Which leads to the question of why you are still on this tirade. You are worse than the "sycophants" you refer to. The supporters at least have a clear view of the objective - to show that the Ainslie's claim is invalid. This is a fine goal in science - all new claims purporting to overturn well established conclusions should be put to the most rigorous of tests. Your goal is completely unfathomable. TK has probably done more experiments with this stuff in one day than you have done your entire life. You admit you cannot prove that TK has made any error in his conclusions. What the hell is left to argue about, except to spew pointless vitriol?
absolute lies, you can withdraw this statement immediately or i can go fetch all the relevant posts and drag you over the coals. i knew long ago the irfpg50 wouldn't perform the same as his original substitution. why do you think i played him for so long? why do you think i let him talk himself into a corner? never mind, you can't see the whole board and refuse to think a couple moves ahead. anytime you wanna play chess for $ you let me know. ::)
i have never admitted the deviation is immaterial. can you show some evidence of your claim? this is the real world where you are accountable for your words. i have always maintained and continue to maintain that using "whatever" and claiming some data sheet similarity is NOT a replication. and WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE of my "admission"? tk has made numerous errors in his conclusions, and i have pointed most (not all, there is a few left...) of them out.
edit: i noticed you failed to provide evidence of your last asinine claim and still moved right on to the next asinine claim, which you also failed to provide evidence of. ::)
see how he makes stuff up to suit his argument, BUT can provide NO evidence.
utilitarian, you have made several statements in the recent past that have been shown to be patently false. again you show no evidence of your claims. i remind you that this is the opposite of credibility.
you can assume whatever you want about me, i could really care less of the opinion of someone who won't back up their claims.
i have shown tk's lack of credibility and integrity with HIS OWN words. i have done the same to you, to milehigh and to poynt99. can you return me the favor? you've hung yourself more than once already, here is an opportunity to not repeat the same mistakes... something you and your sycophants do all to often.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on August 16, 2009, 09:29:08 PM
Quote from: utilitarian on August 15, 2009, 02:19:26 AMabsolute lies, you can withdraw this statement immediately or i can go fetch all the relevant posts and drag you over the coals. i knew long ago the irfpg50 wouldn't perform the same as his original substitution. why do you think i played him for so long? why do you think i let him talk himself into a corner? never mind, you can't see the whole board and refuse to think a couple moves ahead. anytime you wanna play chess for $ you let me know. ::)
i have never admitted the deviation is immaterial. can you show some evidence of your claim? this is the real world where you are accountable for your words. i have always maintained and continue to maintain that using "whatever" and claiming some data sheet similarity is NOT a replication. and WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE of my "admission"? tk has made numerous errors in his conclusions, and i have pointed most (not all, there is a few left...) of them out.
edit: i noticed you failed to provide evidence of your last asinine claim and still moved right on to the next asinine claim, which you also failed to provide evidence of. ::)
Let's play the Wilby game for a moment.
Wilby, your grammar is extraordinarily bad, as evidenced by your inability to capitalize the first word of your sentences.
According to Wilby Logic, you should rightfully be classified as illiterate.
Is my conclusion too extreme?
And away we go...
Quote from: Asymatrix on August 16, 2009, 09:42:22 PM
Let's play the Wilby game for a moment.
Wilby, your grammar is extraordinarily bad, as evidenced by your inability to capitalize the first word of your sentences.
According to Wilby Logic, you should rightfully be classified as illiterate.
Is my conclusion too extreme?
And away we go...
let me show you how it is played...
can you demonstrate how NOT capitalizing the first word of a sentence changes it's meaning?
if you can't tell where the sentence starts and stops via punctuation, well you're an idiot.
grammar typically includes syntax and morphology, can you show
where in the list of syntactic terms capitalizing the start of a sentence is referenced?
your conclusion is a logical fallacy. furthermore, you have no ground to stand upon because my habits of sentence structure are NOT the topic of this thread. questions regarding tk's integrity and credibility ARE COMPLETELY RELEVANT, as well as questions regarding the credibility of anyone else offering their opinions or assumptions about this circuit. i remain on solid ground because i have offered no such opinions OR assumptions.
here is what it all boils down to, and i will use as few words as possible for the slower members of the class...
professional integrity is the cornerstone of a scientists credibility.asymatrix, you still have NOT provided any of the requested evidence of your prior claims and here you are moving on.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on August 16, 2009, 10:10:52 PM
let me show you how it is played...
can you demonstrate how NOT capitalizing the first word of a sentence changes it's meaning?
if you can't tell where the sentence starts and stops via punctuation, well you're an idiot.
grammar typically includes syntax and morphology, can you show where in the list of syntactic terms capitalizing the start of a sentence is referenced?
your conclusion is a logical fallacy. furthermore, you have no ground to stand upon because my habits of sentence structure are NOT the topic of this thread. questions regarding tk's integrity and credibility ARE COMPLETELY RELEVANT, as well as questions regarding the credibility of anyone else offering their opinions or assumptions about this circuit. i remain on solid ground because i have offered no such opinions OR assumptions.
here is what it all boils down to, and i will use as few words as possible for the slower members of the class...
professional integrity is the cornerstone of a scientists credibility.
asymatrix, you still have NOT provided any of the requested evidence of your prior claims and here you are moving on.
Perfect.
I didn't state it changed the meaning of a sentence, I said your grammar is extraordinarily bad.
By virtue of this fact, according to Wilby Logic, you are indeed illiterate.
See how this works?
It's also effective when one needs to classify a thorough experimenter as incompetent.
Over to the troll...
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on August 14, 2009, 06:45:11 PM
are you mental? i just answered that.
where have i ever said his deviations are what is stopping him from achieving OU? can you find that post and show it to the world please? no you can't, because it doesn't exist. POINT IN FACT, all you will ever find is me telling him that it's bad methodology to use 'whatever' instead of SPECIFIED components.
more BASELESS assumption and attempts at misdirection from the peanut gallery is all you have offered. ::) typical.
Here is your evidence. You are not contesting the fact that the deviation from specs is what is stopping TK from achieving OU.
So which is it, are you claiming that the deviation from specs is what is preventing OU, or are you not saying that? If you are claiming the deviation is material, i.e., but for the mosfet, TK would have OU, please state your basis for this claim.
You guys are still trying to argue with Wilby? Heh.. Come on! It's like trying to reason with a 3 year old!!
Just put him on your ignore list, and stop wasting your time.
Cap-z-ro is pretty much the same way....
@Wilby and Cap'n:
This is a big boy thread. Why don't you guys go play in the "truth" section.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on August 16, 2009, 10:10:52 PM
can you demonstrate how NOT capitalizing the first word of a sentence changes it's meaning?
Similarly, can you demonstrate how NOT using the specified mosfet will result in a different conclusion to the experiment, i.e. that the circuit is overunity, rather than underunity as demonstrated?
Aaron:
QuoteWhen testing at 122PM, it was a -41.3mv (-0.0413 volts) yes, negative average voltage on shunt for almost 10 hours. You can see it at the
bottom right of the scope. I also have the shunt RMS just for reference. That is more going back to the batteries than what left the batteries.
It looks to me like your shunt resistor channel is AC coupled when it should be DC coupled. The waveform drifts down when you are AC coupled so that the real DC ground is now showing a negative potential relative to the AC coupling ground. Thus the DSO Channel 2 "Mean" calculation gives you a negative voltage. The solution is to switch to DC coupling.
Ironically enough, your purple trace, your battery voltage, is DC coupled when it should be AC coupled if you are trying to find small spikes on the battery voltage.
It looks like your 555 trace is AC coupled when it should be DC coupled.
A pointer: The time base you are on is more for a quick glance for when you want to get a sense of the relative proportion of high to low in your signals. There is much more information to gleam at much faster time bases.
MileHigh
Quote from: utilitarian on August 16, 2009, 10:59:44 PM
Similarly, can you demonstrate how NOT using the specified mosfet will result in a different conclusion to the experiment, i.e. that the circuit is overunity, rather than underunity as demonstrated?
You got it
Aaron:
QuoteThat is more going back to the batteries than what left the batteries.
Suppose that you check and I am right in what I just said in my previous posting. If I am right that should be a sobering moment, for everybody.
I have a peace offering for your consideration:
If you want to bounce ideas off myself, TK, .99 and anybody else about your testing with the DSO, then that would be fine. I am going to go out on a limb and assume TK and .99 would also say yes.
That's it, keep it simple and drama free, and we can try to work together.
What do you say?
MileHigh
Quote from: utilitarian on August 16, 2009, 10:59:44 PM
Similarly, can you demonstrate how NOT using the specified mosfet will result in a different conclusion to the experiment, i.e. that the circuit is overunity, rather than underunity as demonstrated?
that wasn't the conclusion being posited by tk. he had concluded (apparently before he started his hack of a 'replication') it was perfectly ok to substitute a mosfet based on data sheets. i called him on it. he didn't actually voice this conclusion until page 2.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 17, 2009, 09:13:03 AM
OK, several points to address.
First, yes, when I can find them I will use identical components to Ainslie's circuit. Her MOSFET is kind of pricey and will have to be ordered; the one I'm using is...well, you can look up the data. It's pretty close, good enough for prelim testing. I will replace the shunt with .25 ohm today.
he then made an asinine hypothesis (see below for how that turned out) about the irfpg50 performance,
never once specifying 'over unity performance'. i called him on it. he then asked if i could show how it would perform any different on page 11.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 01, 2009, 09:28:24 PM
The answer to that, of course, is that I say what I say on a discussion forum, and she says what she says in published articles, the EIT paper, and patent applications. Her claim is false, mine is a slight exaggeration. My claim can be corrected simply by switching out the mosfet. Hers cannot be corrected so easily--her claim depends on an erroneous data input into calculations and would require re-running the experiment.
Would you care to make a little wager, Wilby?
If you can show a significant difference between the performance of the IRFPG50 mosfet used by Ainslie, and the 2SK1548 mosfet that I used in my replication, using the published circuit and parameters of Ainslie, I will gladly make a public apology to you. On the other hand, if the performance is substantially the same, you get off my back.
If you really think the mosfet makes a difference, you should take the bet.
(EDIT I was going to offer to bet money at odds, but I realised that would be unethical--like taking candy from a baby--. Sorry.)
please take note of these words...
My claim can be corrected simply by switching out the mosfet. Hers cannot be corrected so easilyhere he is referring to his claim of no difference in mosfet performance, let alone OU, and her claim of over unity which he was calling erroneous due to the duty cycle issue.
and these words...
significant difference between the performance of the IRFPG50 mosfet used by Ainslie, and the 2SK1548 mosfet that I usednote no mention of over unity performance, just performance. why oh why do i have to hammer this in? oh yeah, the slow ones...
they (tk and his merry band of sycophants) all jabbered for a while pretending how smart they are and then, asymatrix quantified it
once again as being non relative to over unity performance by saying this on page 24.
Quote from: Asymatrix on July 08, 2009, 01:12:43 AM
Please tell the class why a slightly different FET will make a huge difference, let alone create OU.
tk did
not amend this to being specifically relative to OU performance. while they (tk and his merry band of sycophants again) continued to jabber about how smart they are and how little i know, etc. i waited for him to get around to actually testing this experimentally. when he finally did, on page 42 i might add. he found this out.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 13, 2009, 07:50:12 PM
The long turn off time of the IRFPG50 really messes with the signal at these excessively short (using the FG) or LONG (using the 555) duty cycles.
The IRF unit does seem to heat up less than the 2SK, but that's just an early impression.
I think if you are into spikes in your signal, the 2SK might be a better choice here too. It turns on and off better than the IRF unit (not surprising, is it, looking at the data sheets and considering the gate capacitances). And since it turns on and off with faster rise and fall times, it produces a higher inductive pulse from the coil. I think. Maybe.
So there goes my hypothesis that the two transistors would perform pretty much the same. I was wrong about that. The 2SK1548, when properly cooled, outperforms the IRFPG50, as far as I can tell. And it's smaller. And quite a bit cheaper. And locally available.
take note of these words...
So there goes my hypothesis that the two transistors would perform pretty much the same. I was wrong about that.he did however, try to claim he 'meant' over unity performance later. much later. page 108 actually.
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 11, 2009, 08:07:38 AM
"Significant difference" in this context clearly means OVERUNITY performance. And the two mosfets do not differ significantly in this respect.
i called him on that too.
i have shown this again and again. are you so slow that you want me to show it yet one more time?
Modify the circuit to change path of inductive flyback away from MOSFET
then back to heating element, make heating element highly self-inductance
The shunt resistor:
It's just supposed to be a very small resistor that is small enough to not affect the rest of the circuit so that you can measure the voltage across it to deduce the current flow. You don't want it to be too small because then your analog scope will not see it well or DSO will not "use all of the bits" in the analog to digital conversion.
Magnacoaster:
There are lots and lots of "MEG" type OU products out there and they never pan out. So the expectation is the same for Magnacoaster. The current question is did the Dragon's Den TV show angel investor cough up the cash? This was contingent upon a successful real demo done with independent verification of the technology. This was many months ago and there was no announcement of a partnership and investment so draw your own conclusions. On the technical side, I stumbled across the user manual for his product and in his battery diagrams he shows big car batteries wired in parallel. You would be crazy to do this so in terms of the harsh engineering criteria pass/fail this guy fails the litmus test with flying colours.
Boguslaw:
QuoteShortly : ask yourself , how RESONANCE is at all is possible ? When you struck a rod at correct frequency and it sings very long - isn't that an unexpected miracle ?
It's not a miracle because it's the same resonance ring-down that you see in an RLC resonant oscillator. The stiffness of the rod is like a spring, and that represents the size of the coil. The mass of the rod is like a capacitor - the speed of the moving mass is like the voltage across the capacitor, and the amount of mass is like the size of the capacitor. The fact that the rod does not sing forever, is because there is some energy lost in the mechanical hysteresis loop of the rod. This is like the resistance in the electrical RLC resonator.
When you hit the rod you put energy into it. The rod stores that energy by singing. The stored energy goes back and forth between the moving mass and the compressed spring. When the mass is moving its fastest, the spring is completely decompressed, and all of the stored energy is in the moving mass. When the mass has stopped moving, the spring is at it's maximum compression, and all of the stored energy is in the spring.
Just like in the electrical version the energy goes back and forth between the capacitor and the coil. When the capacitor voltage is at it's maximum, there is no current in the coil, and all of the stored energy is in the capacitor. When the capacitor voltage is at zero, there is maximum current in the coil, and all of the stored energy is in the coil.
So in both cases, energy is just going back and forth in a nice smooth sine wave pattern. Resonance is just energy smoothly moving back and forth between two things that can store the energy.
At the same time, the form of the energy is always transforming back between two different states in a sine wave pattern. In the above examples the two states are a moving mass and a compressed spring, and a capacitor with voltage across it and a coil with current going through it.
That is the key to understanding resonance and it applies to almost anything that resonates. If you don't understand it, it is worth reading through until you do understand it. The prize is five Brownie Points.
MileHigh
@newbie123
QuoteYou guys are still trying to argue with Wilby? Heh.. Come on! It's like trying to reason with a 3 year old!!
Just put him on your ignore list, and stop wasting your time.
Cap-z-ro is pretty much the same way....
@Wilby and Cap'n:
This is a big boy thread. Why don't you guys go play in the "truth" section.
Well-----, they were arguing with Rosemary, then almost everyone else including each other and now milehigh is arguing with himself I guess? As he is critiquing points from another forum who's members are most likely not even here, LOL. Im not so sure this is a "big boy thread" in any sense of the word.
AC
Hi everyone,
Attention members making actual replications, some of you like myself may be in need of, or more of the "International Rectifier" IRFPG50 and may have found it difficult to find at a reasonable cost and a supplier in the USA.
http://www.questcomp.com/
Quest Components, Inc. 250 Turnbull Canyon Road Industry, CA 91745
Part Number Search Results IRFPG50
http://www.questcomp.com/QuestDetailsAll.aspx?pn=IRFPG50&pnid=91660&stock=Yes
530 available
These are at $1.95 US each there is a minimum order of $25.00 US , so .......
that is a Quantity of (13) with instant 5% rebate and shipping for $30.58 US delivered ..... not bad ..... cheaper than the last ones !!
Fuzzy
:)
Quote from: allcanadian on August 18, 2009, 07:33:21 PM
LOL. Im not so sure this is a "big boy thread" in any sense of the word.
AC
I agree, this thread has been pretty much derailed by Capn and Wilby... It was somewhat productive for a while.
It turned into a troll thread because of you and your band of trolls...which is why you resurfaced it.
You need your daily troll thread to play in don't you ?...you are far too obvious.
Lack of gray matter...you are there.
There is nothing Anslie-centric going on on the Eastasia thread either. The Oceania thread will recover if there is any news. A few new faces chimed in and said that they would replicate but no news. No news from Aaron with the rundown tests and the DSO. We're watching you.
Another slow news day.
MileHigh
*News Flash*
Aaron:
It looks like you have found a frequency that's close to the frequency the capacitive touch lamp circuit runs at when you touch it, so you are simulating a touch by bombarding the area with EMI.
Anything that is running moderate power like your setup and has square waves or very high frequencies in it will emmanate a lot of RF over a wide spectrum.
Now for some major pointers on your DSO. Instead of just watching a blurry updating display when you set up one of your oscillation modes, you want to do a "one shot" capture, and fill up the DSO's waveform memory with your snapshot. Then you have a single static capture of an oscillation event, and you can examine it in detail be scrolling through it and zooming in and out on it.
From your manual:
QuoteCapturing a Single-Shot Signal
The reliability of a reed relay in a piece of equipment has been poor
and you need to investigate the problem. You suspect that the relay
contacts arc when the relay opens. The fastest you can open and
close the relay is about once per minute so you need to capture the
voltage across the relay as a single-shot acquisition.
To set up for a single-shot acquisition, do these steps:
1. Adjust the vertical SCALE and horizontal SCALE to appropriate
ranges for the signal you expect to see.
2. Push the acquire MENU button.
3. Push the Resolution screen button.
4. Select Normal acquisition resolution.
5. Push the SINGLE SEQ (single sequence) button.
QuoteOptimizing the Acquisition
The initial acquisition shows the relay contact beginning to open at
the trigger point. This is followed by a large spikes that indicate
contact bounce and inductance in the circuit. The inductance can
cause contact arcing and premature relay failure.
Before you take the next acquisition, you can adjust the vertical and
horizontal controls to give you a preview of how the next acquisition
might appear. As you adjust these controls, the current acquisition is
repositioned, expanded, or compressed. This preview is useful to
optimize the settings before the next single-shot event is captured.
When next acquisition is captured with the new vertical and
horizontal settings, you can see more detail about the relay contact
opening. You can now see that the contact bounces several times as
it opens.
QuoteUsing the Horizontal Zoom Function
If you want to take a close look at a particular spot on the acquired
waveform, use the horizontal zoom function. To look closely at the
point where the relay contact first begins to open, do these steps:
1. Push the zoom button .
2. Use the horizontal POSITION to place the expansion point close
to where the relay contact begins to open.
3. Adjust the horizontal SCALE to magnify the waveform around
the expansion point.
The ragged waveform and the inductive load in the circuit suggest
that the relay contact may be arcing as it opens.
The
Have fun,
MileHigh
What i realy dont understand its why he change the circuit all the time, we dont care about the SSG Circuit, the claim is about the RA Circuit. So there is a conclusion who can be extracted by this suddenly change in the RA Circuit Aaron ?
I've asked the same question. - MH
Ladies and gentlemen, TK has left the building. ;)
T
It is my understanding that he is trying different resistors and certain changes are necessary to adjust for those new values.
8)
Quote from: Thaelin on August 20, 2009, 11:17:58 PM
Ladies and gentlemen, TK has left the building. ;)
T
Yeah - probably stumbled on a high COP and decided to melt away into the shadows somewhere before anyone noticed... ;D
Here is a big present for the rude boyz in Eastasia:
It has been found that any repeating, non-sinusoidal waveform can be equated to a combination of DC voltage, sine waves, and/or cosine waves (sine waves with a 90 degree phase shift) at various amplitudes and frequencies. This is true no matter how strange or convoluted the waveform in question may be. So long as it repeats itself regularly over time, it is reducible to this series of sinusoidal waves. In particular, it has been found that square waves are mathematically equivalent to the sum of a sine wave at that same frequency, plus an infinite series of odd-multiple frequency sine waves at diminishing amplitude:
This truth about waveforms at first may seem too strange to believe. However, if a square wave is actually an infinite series of sine wave harmonics added together, it stands to reason that we should be able to prove this by adding together several sine wave harmonics to produce a close approximation of a square wave. This reasoning is not only sound, but easily demonstrated with SPICE.
Sum of 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th and 9th harmonics approximates square wave.
The end result of adding the first five odd harmonic waveforms together (all at the proper amplitudes, of course) is a close approximation of a square wave. The point in doing this is to illustrate how we can build a square wave up from multiple sine waves at different frequencies, to prove that a pure square wave is actually equivalent to a series of sine waves. When a square wave AC voltage is applied to a circuit with reactive components (capacitors and inductors), those components react as if they were being exposed to several sine wave voltages of different frequencies, which in fact they are.
The fact that repeating, non-sinusoidal waves are equivalent to a definite series of additive DC voltage, sine waves, and/or cosine waves is a consequence of how waves work: a fundamental property of all wave-related phenomena, electrical or otherwise. The mathematical process of reducing a non-sinusoidal wave into these constituent frequencies is called Fourier analysis, the details of which are well beyond the scope of this text. However, computer algorithms have been created to perform this analysis at high speeds on real waveforms, and its application in AC power quality and signal analysis is widespread.
SPICE has the ability to sample a waveform and reduce it into its constituent sine wave harmonics by way of a Fourier Transform algorithm, outputting the frequency analysis as a table of numbers. Let's try this on a square wave, which we already know is composed of odd-harmonic sine waves:
squarewave analysis netlist
v1 1 0 pulse (-1 1 0 .1m .1m 10m 20m)
r1 1 0 10k
.tran 1m 40m
.plot tran v(1,0)
.four 50 v(1,0)
.end
The pulse option in the netlist line describing voltage source v1 instructs SPICE to simulate a square-shaped “pulse†waveform, in this case one that is symmetrical (equal time for each half-cycle) and has a peak amplitude of 1 volt. First we'll plot the square wave to be analyzed:
Here, (Figure above) SPICE has broken the waveform down into a spectrum of sinusoidal frequencies up to the ninth harmonic, plus a small DC voltage labelled DC component. I had to inform SPICE of the fundamental frequency (for a square wave with a 20 millisecond period, this frequency is 50 Hz), so it knew how to classify the harmonics. Note how small the figures are for all the even harmonics (2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th), and how the amplitudes of the odd harmonics diminish (1st is largest, 9th is smallest).
This same technique of “Fourier Transformation†is often used in computerized power instrumentation, sampling the AC waveform(s) and determining the harmonic content thereof. A common computer algorithm (sequence of program steps to perform a task) for this is the Fast Fourier Transform or FFT function. You need not be concerned with exactly how these computer routines work, but be aware of their existence and application.
This same mathematical technique used in SPICE to analyze the harmonic content of waves can be applied to the technical analysis of music: breaking up any particular sound into its constituent sine-wave frequencies. In fact, you may have already seen a device designed to do just that without realizing what it was! A graphic equalizer is a piece of high-fidelity stereo equipment that controls (and sometimes displays) the nature of music's harmonic content. Equipped with several knobs or slide levers, the equalizer is able to selectively attenuate (reduce) the amplitude of certain frequencies present in music, to “customize†the sound for the listener's benefit. Typically, there will be a “bar graph†display next to each control lever, displaying the amplitude of each particular frequency.
Thinking cap time!!!!!!
MileHigh
P.S.:
I forgot that the Internet now supports graphics. :)
http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_7/2.html
Hey TK:
I hope that you are reading. Nice little clip showing the shunt resistor waveforms.
I think that I may have pieced together enough of the clues about the oscillations. You show how it is the 555 output itself that is flaking out. Aaron showed a clip demonstrating how much EMI is being put out by the circuit. Assuming that you are using Aaron's latest circuit, we have already discussed the robustness and noise immunity of the 555 circuit as being suspect because the resistor values are very high and the capacitor values are very low.
Putting this all together it looks like the threshold and trigger inputs on the 555 are picking up the EMI spikes from the Anslie circuit and this is causing false triggering in the 555 comparators. This is just another way of saying that you are setting up the conditions for oscillation. This is making the Set-Reset flip-flop go staccato and you get the flaky output.
Here is a block diagram of the 555 for extreme reference fun:
http://www.ecelab.com/555-block-diagram.htm
Anyway, all of this is pretty run of the mill stuff but it's still a bit surprising that the 555 is choking. It's a result of a number of factors all put together.
Thanks for doing the rough power out vs. power in calculation. Gotta keep swatting that pesky "battery recharging" fly.
The real challenge is that when the 555 and MOSFET start singing the harmony of the spheres together, how do you explain that there would be even more over unity heat production? This is a claim that has been made by Rosemary and Aaron but both have not backed up the claim with any substantive arguments.
The battery voltage going up is meaningless data as you well know. It fact, as a general statement, battery voltages are meaningless or near meaningless or provide very little information for the vast majority of tests that you see here and in Bedini clips, etc. I am just repeating it here again to demonstrate how futile it is to say it, this important point is always ignored! Variety is the spice of life. lol
Aaron:
QuoteTK's vid shows negative average on the shunts:
No, you probably looked at the digital voltage display for both waveforms and thought that it was the average voltage. TK clearly states that the digital readouts are the peak negative voltage detection, he was interested in the magnitudes of the negative spikes.
I assume that you are trying to bolster your claim that the average battery voltage showing negative on your clip from a few days ago indicated continuous battery recharging while you ran your 10-hour test. As far as I am concerned my point that you mistakenly had the shunt resistor waveform AC coupled instead of DC coupled still stands. You were faked out by misinterpreting the negative average voltage on your shunt resistor as battery charging when that wasn't the case.
Since I have your attention, when are you going to show some results of the battery rundown tests on the Anslie circuit vs. the control circuit? Will you have something to show us with the DSO on the Ainsley circuit?
MileHigh
The Ainslie circuit should be of interest to the battery desulfator design groups, as the poor 555 to mosfet coupling can create the high frequency oscillations that they are seeking for the battery conditioning spikes. Unintentionally, Rosemary may have helped in this regard but insofar as a COP 17 heater - no chance!
Hoppy
Hoppy:
I just read all of the new posts. When I read between the lines it looks to me like Aaron did his battery rundown tests but only got data that shows a very slight COP > 1. As a result, he is actually now trying to use the DSO to record waveforms and do some processing on them, which would be great.
Good old "battery conditioning spikes." Aaron even dragged out the old Bedini quote:
Quote... To usefully tap the enormous locked-in energy of that stress, all one has to do is crack it sharply and tap the vacuum oscillations that result. The best way to do that is to hit something resonant that is imbedded in the vacuum, then tap the resonant stress of the ringing of the vacuum itself ...
I assume that is his way of responding to the question asking why oscillations would allegedly make the Ainsley circuit create even higher free energy gains. The fact is that Bedini motors do not demonstrate free energy or over unity at all. It is simply a myth, and any experimenter that is a beginner will get all excited seeing the voltage on his charging battery increase. On this site, or on the Energetic Forum site, there is a very sobering Bedini thread where the people that have done serious extensive testing, sometimes charging the same sets of batteries back and forth 10 times, have all reported no over unity effects with Bedini motors. Proponents will say, "But a Bedini charger can recondition an old dead battery." Big deal, you can get some more life out of a dead battery, this has nothing to do with over unity.
If you want real insight into John Bedini, just go to his website and see that he sells a few flavours of a "CD Clarifier." The "CD Clarifier" is supposed to make audio CDs "sound better and clearer" if you put your CD into this device before you put it into your CD player.
QuoteUltra Clarifier "Quadri Beam"
NOTHING TREATS DIGITAL MEDIA BETTER
"Just when you thought it couldn't get any better"
After several intensive years of research, Bedini has developed the new Ultra Clarifier "Quadri Beam". Now with four beams, nearly twice the rotation speed and improved timing processing, you can expect the very best treatment available. The new "Quadri Beam" extracts even more information, which has to date, still been masked by the discs inherent problems in how the information is retrieved. If you are an owner of the previous Ultra Clarifier "Dual Beam" then you can expect to relive the experience again. We guarantee you will be listening to every disc you own as least one more time.
"Quadri Beam" Ultra Clarifier $400.00 US MSRP
This is a piece of audiophile electrical quackery that has no affect on the audio CD. That's your smoking gun on John Bedini that can go all the way back to the "Bedini motor."
Aaron:
QuoteJust like a bouncing ball, which is over 1.0 cop absolutely. You put x in and that is work you get in lifting it. Each bounce after is less than the one before but you add up all the joules of work in each bounce and it is more than can be accounted for in the initial lift.
You shouldn't say this in public! lol You are going to really have to figure this one out one day Aaron because it creates a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach just like when myself and .99 tried at least 20 times to explain to Rosemary how an inductor works and she still didn't get it.
It's like being a Creationist and walking around telling people that the Earth is only 6000 years old. It's that bad.
MileHigh
:o
How could the OUBB (overunity bouncing ball) eluded humanity for so long ???
Thanks Aaron.
.99
Milehigh: -
Having studied John Bedini's copius articles and forum postings, it dawned on me a long time ago that his overunity claim seems to be based on the argument that if one conditions a battery or bank of batteries with HV spikes from a monopole motor / charger for long enough, then the intenal resistance will reduce considerably, thereby substantially improving the overall capacity of the battery / bank of batteries. Because this cannot be achieved with conventional DC charging he attributes this to the 'unique' charging waveform from the monopole motor / charger, underpinned by his and Tom's grand new age 'free energy' theory.
Those people able to properly understand and apply basic electical principles soon establish that although the batteries do indeed improve from continuous conditioning in terms of capacity gained, there is absolutely no OU in the overall system when properly measured 'front to back'. However, when energy is computated using one of the various load test methods and procedures posted on the various forums, OU can sometimes be seen but this is just an illusion because of complex waveform measurement problems. This is because the front-end of the monopole is ignored and measurements are taken from the monopole output into the battery and energy calculated and then compared to energy extracted from the batteries under load.
Unfortunately John Bedini has never to my knowledge detailed or approved any load test method and procedure. In cosequence, various load testing regimes are adopted by experimenters, all of which are claimed to be fit for purpose. However, he is on record as saying that the energy consumed by the monopole motor / charger must be accounted for in total before comparing with that drawn by the load, Despite this, many experimenters still appear to ignore this important advice!
Hoppy
.99:
I heard that the US Navy's submarines all run on top-secret "magnetic motors" and need no fuel. What most people don't know is that the back-up power plant is an OUBB system. This system is almost never used though because of its distinctive audio signature that can be picked up with today's sensitive hydrophones.
MileHigh ;D
MH,
:D
Seems the thread at EF has all but died. Rosemary doesn't post much there either. Why is Aaron taking so long I wonder? Seems he's spending more time on the tangents he finds himself on than testing the task originally at hand. A stalling tactic? But why ??? COP of 17 should stand out like a tube amp at a MOSFET convention.
.99
Hi everyone,
A parts up date ...... as far as I can tell "no one" has sourced or acquired the 10 OHM resistor in the RA circuit -
The load resistor was made by Specific Heat CC (SA). It comprises a 10 ohm hollow core wire wound ceramic structure with a length of 150 mm (5.9055 in long). and a diameter of 32 mm ( 100.5308 mm / 3.9579 in circumference). 48 turns of resistance wire (4825.4784 mm / 189.9795 in / 15.8316 ft long) are spaced at 1 mm. It was chosen for its inductance (8.64 micro Henries).
I have sourced a resistor similar to Aarons and will be getting it Monday or Tuesday for group data comparison ....... BUT ....... being my son is a "glass blower" I have access to this .......
I will be "MAKING" the proper one using the following parts which should be more than adequate for this replication -
____________________________________________________________________________________
"Borosilicate Glass Tube" ( Pyrex )
32 mm OD. x 26.4 mm ID. ( w/ 2.8 mm heavy wall )
____________________________________________________________________________________
"Nichrome Wire"
10 ohms @ 15.8316 feet = .63165 ohms ft
AWG 20 [.032 dia] ( .6592 ohms ft ) = ( 10.4362 ohms ) "Ni Cr C" 60% nickel, 16% chromium, 24% iron
AWG 20 [.032 dia] ( .6348 ohms ft ) = ( 10.0499 ohms ) "Ni Cr A" 80% nickel, 20% chromium
____________________________________________________________________________________
"Counter Totalizer"
Durant - Part Number E402400
____________________________________________________________________________________
If anyone is interested or have comments please feel free .....
Regards,
Fuzzy
:)
.99:
Why? Why? WHY!? *sob* lol
The second mystery is what happened to TK?
Rosemary just asked you to account for the battery voltage increase during TK's last clip. It's a Fifth Column!! She is looking to create discord over here in Oceania! ;D
Tangents are a comfort zone, like a teddy bear. When things are looking shaky, you can always plug that trusty diode into a charging battery and watch the voltage go up. Ahhh.
Quote(A) COP of 17 should stand out like a tube amp at a MOSFET convention.
A COP of 17 should stand out like.... an M1A1 Abrams tank at a WWI military hardware convention. ("E" for effort lol)
MileHigh
Fuzzy:
I assume that you are going to wrap the wire around the glass tubes. I have a feeling you are going to end up with something akin to a toaster element. The wire will get very hot and may even glow, and then will slowly heat up the thick glass tube to thermal equilibrium.
That's in contrast to the real power resistor where the wire is embedded within the ceramic material giving you full thermal contact with the wire. The ceramic resistor body will heat up more quickly and evenly as it gets to thermal equilibrium.
I get a much better feeling about the real ceramic resistor for measuring the temperature changes.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on August 23, 2009, 04:45:19 PM
Fuzzy:
I assume that you are going to wrap the wire around the glass tubes. I have a feeling you are going to end up with something akin to a toaster element. The wire will get very hot and may even glow, and then will slowly heat up the thick glass tube to thermal equilibrium.
That's in contrast to the real power resistor where the wire is embedded within the ceramic material giving you full thermal contact with the wire. The ceramic resistor body will heat up more quickly and evenly as it gets to thermal equilibrium.
I get a much better feeling about the real ceramic resistor for measuring the temperature changes.
MileHigh
Hi MileHigh,
Not to worry back in the days of Tesla they used tinned iron wire wound on asbestos, or porcelain tubes ( ie: Hawkins Electrical Guide copyrighted 1917 ) ...... I will be using a special cement to cover the windings and baking the Borosilicate Glass Tube assembly in a "kiln" at a specific time frame and rate to harden the external covering.
Have you been able to source this resistor for a replications ?? It appears to me be a custom made one by Specific Heat CC (SA) ??
Fuzzy
;D
Hi Fuzzy,
If you can bake it and embed the wires in the glass that should make a big difference.
I don't know much about high power wire-wound resistors. I have to assume that similar parts would also be available in North America. I am pretty sure that I read that they are available in "regular" and "low inductance" versions.
The regular version is probably a single coil of resistive wire embedded in a ceramic tube shape. The low inductance version is probably two half size wire coils embedded in a ceramic tube, one with clockwise turns and the other with counterclockwise turns. The low inductance version would be a bit more expensive because it would be more expensive to manufacture.
A few phone calls to some of your local electronics component distributors would probably do the trick if you can't find anything online.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on August 23, 2009, 06:11:19 PM
Hi Fuzzy,
I am pretty sure that I read that they are available in "regular" and "low inductance" versions.
The regular version is probably a single coil of resistive wire embedded in a ceramic tube shape. The low inductance version is probably two half size wire coils embedded in a ceramic tube, one with clockwise turns and the other with counterclockwise turns. The low inductance version would be a bit more expensive because it would be more expensive to manufacture.
A few phone calls to some of your local electronics component distributors would probably do the trick if you can't find anything online.
MileHigh
Hi MH,
Been there done that, and as I said
"NO ONE" has to my knowledge or postings has found or is using the correct 10 OHM resistor on a RA replication
"AND" to get one is a custom order, with minimum quantity for $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ .... been looking for two months now and so has everyone else from the looks of it.
Regards,
Fuzzy
;D
Quote from: MileHigh on August 23, 2009, 01:03:52 PM
Hoppy:
I just read all of the new posts. When I read between the lines it looks to me like Aaron did his battery rundown tests but only got data that shows a very slight COP > 1. As a result, he is actually now trying to use the DSO to record waveforms and do some processing on them, which would be great.
Good old "battery conditioning spikes." Aaron even dragged out the old Bedini quote:
I assume that is his way of responding to the question asking why oscillations would allegedly make the Ainsley circuit create even higher free energy gains. The fact is that Bedini motors do not demonstrate free energy or over unity at all. It is simply a myth, and any experimenter that is a beginner will get all excited seeing the voltage on his charging battery increase. On this site, or on the Energetic Forum site, there is a very sobering Bedini thread where the people that have done serious extensive testing, sometimes charging the same sets of batteries back and forth 10 times, have all reported no over unity effects with Bedini motors. Proponents will say, "But a Bedini charger can recondition an old dead battery." Big deal, you can get some more life out of a dead battery, this has nothing to do with over unity.
If you want real insight into John Bedini, just go to his website and see that he sells a few flavours of a "CD Clarifier." The "CD Clarifier" is supposed to make audio CDs "sound better and clearer" if you put your CD into this device before you put it into your CD player.
This is a piece of audiophile electrical quackery that has no affect on the audio CD. That's your smoking gun on John Bedini that can go all the way back to the "Bedini motor."
Aaron:
You shouldn't say this in public! lol You are going to really have to figure this one out one day Aaron because it creates a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach just like when myself and .99 tried at least 20 times to explain to Rosemary how an inductor works and she still didn't get it.
It's like being a Creationist and walking around telling people that the Earth is only 6000 years old. It's that bad.
MileHigh
Or like saying that the earth is flat. EEs always fall (!) for that one.
janne
Fuzzy:
There is a reasonable Plan B. You assume that the a ceramic high-power wire-wound resistor with the same specifications can be found from a second source locally. You have the material composition and physical type of resistor, ceramic cylinder hollow body, the resistance, the maximum power dissipation and the dimensions. The number of turns and the resistive wire used in the second source is likely to be nearly identical to the original, so you should be fine. It doesn't really matter if the inductance is slightly different. If need be you can adjust your pulse wave timing to compensate for that. Good luck!
Janne:
I forget the specifics and am too tired to look it up, but about 1000 years ago, a scientist looked at the sun at noon time and noted how high it was in the sky. Then he traveled due south for one full day, perhaps he traveled 100-200 miles. Then he noted the angle of the sun in the sky at noon. With that information he deduced the size of the spherical Earth with quite high accuracy. Way cool, eh!
MileHigh
Hi everyone,
After the testing is completed on the common RA replication build, I will be making my Borosilicate Glass Tube, 10 Ohm resistor to the available specifications -
The load resistor was made by Specific Heat CC (SA). It comprises a 10 ohm hollow core wire wound ceramic structure with a length of 150 mm (5.9055 in long). and a diameter of 32 mm ( 100.5308 mm / 3.9579 in circumference ). 48 turns of resistance wire (4825.4784 mm / 189.9795 in / 15.8316 ft long) are spaced at 1 mm. It was chosen for its inductance (8.64 micro Henries).
I'm not to sure what the maximum temperature will be so the liquid inside the tube is up in the air right now until some information is obtained. This device will more than likely be in some containment container for any accidental spillage of the liquids used. Any comments or further ideas would be appreciated especially fluids that could be used over 212 F or 100 C with out any damage to the fluid.
The testing method for temperature I have envisioned a way of using the tube itself as part of the measuring device -
Regards,
Fuzzy
;D
Hey Glen,
About your sketch of the liquid filled tube: What I will say may be a bit surprising to you but adding the liquid to the tube will have one effect only. It will take longer to make your measurements because you will have to wait longer for the temperature to stabilize. The stabilized temperature will be the same if you use the liquid or not. In this sense adding liquid to your tube will serve no real function at all with respect to your measurements, and make it take longer to make your measurements.
What I said above may throw you off kilter. Don't let that happen! Just think about what I said and if it doesn't make any sense to you feel free to ask questions.
MileHigh
Hoppy - when your average electrical engineer can also explain dark energy, dark matter, the casimir effect and other sundery imponderables, then I will also take your theory of inductors more seriously. Until then I would sooner test it - experimentally.
I share that feeling in the pit of my stomach - but it's only because of the extraordinary arrogance associated with mainstream science. Why are you guys not happy to have your convictions tested experimentally? You should welcome it. All such may strengthen your 'belief' structure rather than otherwise. And I would remind you that we are only testing those paradigms.
Quote from: witsend on August 24, 2009, 06:07:52 AM
Hoppy - when your average electrical engineer can also explain dark energy, dark matter, the casimir effect and other sundery imponderables, then I will also take your theory of inductors more seriously. Until then I would sooner test it - experimentally.
I share that feeling in the pit of my stomach - but it's only because of the extraordinary arrogance associated with mainstream science. Why are you guys not happy to have your convictions tested experimentally? You should welcome it. All such may strengthen your 'belief' structure rather than otherwise. And I would remind you that we are only testing those paradigms.
Rosemary - Welcome to the Lions Den!
I thought Aaron was delighting you with his competent test methods and procedures ::). Has he not already proved to your satisfaction that EE principles are fundamentally flawed, or are you still waiting as we are for a properly written test report based on his and Peter's DSO testing of your original circuit, to validate your COP17 claim??
IMO too much time and effort has already been expended on your heater circuit and it just rests with Aaron and Peter to prove COP17 to those that matter outside of the fora. Until they do this, all we can really do is clown around reiterating our opinions over and over again and thouroughly getting on each others nerves to boot!
Hoppy
Hi Hoppy. Bridging the great divide here. Not too difficult as TK's away - but definitely in need of Dutch courage? Hopefully Wilby lurks within earshot.
Have been reading through the entire thread. What a lot of hot air rising. Don't you guys get tired of talking 'smug'. It gets awfully repetitive. But some of it really entertaining. I'd give 5 stars to TK and Henieck. But altogether a lot of bombast and not enough of it actually crack out the laughter.
Where has TK gone? Has he abandoned his argument? Love to know more. Truth is I've had such an unadulterated diet of attack that without it I'm in a holiday mood.
Quote from: witsend on August 24, 2009, 07:39:08 AM
Hi Hoppy. Bridging the great divide here. Not too difficult as TK's away - but definitely in need of Dutch courage? Hopefully Wilby lurks within earshot.
Have been reading through the entire thread. What a lot of hot air rising. Don't you guys get tired of talking 'smug'. It gets awfully repetitive. But some of it really entertaining. I'd give 5 stars to TK and Henieck. But altogether a lot of bombast and not enough of it actually crack out the laughter.
Where has TK gone? Has he abandoned his argument? Love to know more. Truth is I've had such an unadulterated diet of attack that without it I'm in a holiday mood.
Hi Rosemary,
If you continue posting as a newbie at this quality, you run the risk of being labelled as a Troll like Wilby :(
Hoppy
A fun "Experimenter's Corner" project:
Suppose that you have your standard Ainslie circuit setup (without the fly-back diode).
You set one of your scope channels to look at the shunt resistor to ground, which is the standard "Channel B" connection in the white paper.
For the second scope channel, look at the voltage between ground and the MOSFET drain pin. Note that this is the same node as the "far side" of the coil-resistor, where you normally see the negative spikes.
When you run the setup now the spikes that you see at the MOSFET drain pin after the MOSFET switches off will go POSITIVE.
This is a more realistic view of what's really going on in the circuit because you are looking at the voltage on the second scope channel relative to ground.
The zener protection diode inside the MOSFET has a certain "breakdown voltage" where it will start to conduct electricity. The reason for this is to protect the metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistor inside the device.
[EDIT: There is no true zener protection diode inside the MOSFET although they use a zener diode icon in the schematic symbol for the MOSFET. For more information, see later postings below HOWEVER, the discussion below is still valid but the "zener breakdown voltage" is really the standard MOSFET breakdown voltage.]
If you look carefully at the spikes with this setup you may see some noticeable clipping of the spikes giving the spikes squared-off flat tops. The squaring off is the giveaway that the zener protection diode is cutting in and conducting electricity. If you do see the clipping, you should take note of the clipping voltage and compare that with the datasheet of the MOSFET that you are using to see if it checks out.
Note that if the zeneer protection diode is conducting electricity, the battery is discharging.
The second question you should ask yourself if you see the clipping is to wonder if you are possibly going to damage the MOSFET. The datasheet has some information on this but let's just keep it simple and say that you want to make sure the MOSFET is not running hot by touching it.
The zener protection diode cutting in is not to be confused with the avalanche breakdown failure mode for the MOSFET.
I have a feeling this posting is somewhat academic because I don't recall seeing any spike clipping on any YouTube clips. Of course YouTube has it's limitations.
The real lesson is to check your maximum spike voltage in your setup against the zener protection diode breakdown voltage for your particular MOSFET so you have an idea if it might be happening or not. It's a basic heath check for your circuit.
Also visualize that when the MOSFET switches off, the classic "negative back-EMF spike" is just as easily viewed as a massive POSITIVE spike relative to your circuit ground. That big positive spike represents a potential danger to the short term or long term health of the MOSFET.
MileHigh
Mile High,
Could you post the datasheet information that shows a zener in the IRFPG50 that is different than the body diode hexfet avalanche path?
According to my understanding this is one in the same and is an integral part of the actual substrate geometry and not a separate internal device as you have stated.
8)
Hi Harvey,
I did some searching around and came back to the pleasant sight of your explanation looking like the right one. It would appear that the standard symbol for a MOSFET shows a "virtual" zener diode that simply is a rough model for what is actually going on with the various effects associated with the substrate geometry. I am guessing that the zener symbol does double-duty, representing the fact that there is a slow "body diode" that kicks in if you forward bias the source to drain voltage, and it also represents that the MOSFET has a reverse breakdown voltage.
Before doing some searching, I thought that there was a true zener diode that was built into the semiconductor layers with selective doping, etc, or it was even possible a multi-chip module with a true zener diode bonded to the MOSFET transistor itself.
It is worth it to simplify though, especially in the forums, so the icon of a zener diode in the MOSFET schematic symbol helps to visualize.
In my diggings I found this which is interesting:
QuoteBeware the MOSFET body-diode !
Those familiar with MOSFETs will know that the fabrication process results in a built-in anti-parallel diode between the source and drain terminals of the device. This is often referred to as the "body-diode." Referring to any MOSFET data sheet will reveal specifications for this intrinsic diode.
At first it appears that the internal body-diodes are a bonus since they provide the desired free-wheel diode function for free. This is often the case in many power electronics applications where they provide the function of the free-wheel diodes with ease. Sadly it is not the case in this application. The MOSFET body-diode is a side effect of the fabrication process and is not a particularly good diode. The same design criteria for good MOSFET characteristics do not produce the best body-diode characteristics. The design of a MOSFET is always a compromise, and it is the characteristics of the body-diode that suffer.
When compared to discrete high speed diodes, the body-diode's reverse recovery time is very long. This means that the diode takes a long time to turn off when the current flowing through it changes direction. As explained previously, this leads to a shoot-through condition when the opposing switch is turned-on. For this reason the body-diodes are clearly not suitable for free-wheel diode duty in this application and should be isolated.
Thanks for the question Harvey.
MileHigh
Any time Mile High,
This is one of the reasons the HEXFET is superior to the everyday MOSFET, because it does handle repetitive avalanche; up to 19mJ if the junction temperature is minded in the IRFPG50. However, the reverse recovery action (negative spike on the drain) is as much as 950ns long to reset after the reverse current has run its course. This isn't too important in the single device application like the RA circuit. But in a motor drive using a push pull dual device where it is tempting to use the diode in a free wheeling mode, it can cause problems because of the timing where unwanted current flows between the two devices when they are each tied to opposite rails.
Other than this, everything else in your post seemed spot on ;)
8)
New vid from hhoforvolts
HHO meets Rosemary Ainslie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xyw_qCOUqc
cat
Attached are some Excel charts taken from Aaron's Ainslie circuit power measurements. Can anyone see more back to the battery in these?
Hoppy
Aaron:
It's nice to see that you decided to make use of the DSO. Me thinks I see a lot of points that you are making that are uncredited to me. It doesn't really matter because I am just stating the obvious. Still, it wouldn't hurt to try puttting some hair on your chest. Then you and Rosemary pull up the wagons and attack .99 for asking some astute questions very delicately, what's up with that? Both of you need to take a chill pill and engage.
I there is a definite pattern here: Do your experiment and then analyze it from your perspective. A lot of your comments may be correct but some my be wrong. Then you will defend your incorrect points aggressively, sometimes digging yourself into a hole. When you finally concede that point "x" is wrong after the contrary is proved to you conclusively, you barely acknowledge it and then it is never mentioned again. Then you issue new "directives" that are just the current flavour of the week based on what you saw in your latest experiment, with a chance that they will be totally forgotten if you discover something contradictory the following week. You are still making progress and I credit you for that.
You mentioned that this has been a great learning exercise for you and that's great. However, if you didn't fight tooth and nail over the past few months you would have learnt 10 times as much as you have learned by now. Nonetheless, I know that you are silently taking notes in the background.
Anyway, that's the drama that forms the backdrop to this whole set of threads, now let's move on to the meat and potatoes.
The first and most important point that was not mentioned is that your hunt for the "maximum COP when running at 'resonance'" or more appropriately stated as "some kind of intentionally induced spurious oscillation mode" turned up goose eggs. You went in all excited with the DSO ready to record waveforms showing huge COPs and found nothing special.
Sorry to state it up front but I can't seem to "forget" that that's what you and Rosemary have been saying all along, that you are going to get the maximum possible COP with resonance/oscillation in the circuit and that didn't happen. Somewhere down the line I probably stated several times that there was no logical reason for this to happen. How about dem apples?
MileHigh
Some comments on your report:
Thanks for putting real effort in documenting what you did, it was obviously a lot of work.
You didn't make precise measurements of your shunt resistors. For the current/energy in vs. current/energy out that is not too critical because you can look at the relative values. However, it is critical if you wanted to add the load current to the 555 timer current to see the true net current in and out of the battery. Besides that, it is good practice and you should measure your shunt resistors in the future, not to mention that you are doing power calculations based on the instantaneous voltage values and the current values which are derived from the shunt resistor.
Quote1K potentiometer between NE555N positive input and positive terminal on load power supply.
That's just plain wrong and I think that I know why you did this. It's your solution for preventing 555 timers from being blown in past experiments. I know that there is a "culture" of blowing chips and transistors among the experimenters and they come up with workarounds instrad of figuring out why the part blew in the first place. I will guess that the real reason the 555s blow is that the loads experimenters put on the output pin are completely wrong sometimes and source or sink way too much current.
So you are taking that legacy strategy along for the ride here when there is no need to do this. The MOSFET input is essentially an open circuit and the only issue is charging and discharging the capacitance associated with the semiconductor gate layer. The MOSFET is barely putting any load on the 555 output and the load is zero once the output voltage has stabilized.
There is no reason whatsoever for adding a resistor in series with the Vcc power input pin on the 555 chip. This is never done in real life because it makes absolutely no sense. The voltage drop across your current limiting trimpot is making the 555's Vcc take a wild ride when this is never supposed to happen in real life. The comparators in the 555 are given a bumpy ride.
I can't remember if the trimpot in series with the 555 power pin is critical for searching for your preferred oscillation mode. However, it sure is screwing up your "on time" and "off time" timing resistors/trimpot setups.
QuoteOn pot resistance: 32.8 ohms
• Off pot resistance: 293.9 ohms
• NE555N power adjustment pot resistance: 193.1 ohms
Yikes! Look at that. The "on pot" resistance is something akin to 193 + 32 ohms. The "off pot" resistance is something akin to 193 + 239 ohms.
Also, the 193 ohm "power adjustment pot" resistance is sucking the life out of your 555's output stage. It can't possibly source or sink the current as per its specifications because of that trimpot. This is sucking the life out of the rise time for your 555 when it wants to drive the gate capacitance high. It's also making the output voltage of the 555 unstable, tracking the voltage drop across the potentiometer setting.
Again, I don't know if you need it for an oscillation mode or what, but you simply NEVER do this in real life. You do not choke off the power supply for a chip, it is simply not done.
MileHigh
Aaron:
QuoteThe difference between a positive dominant waveform and negative dominant waveform is that the
“negative dominant waveform†can be quantitatively shown to have more power below zero or ground
than above. This appears to indicate that there is a theoretical chance that at higher voltages, the battery
can recharge.
Okay so this is the essence of the report that you prepared. In this case what I would have done is take stock of the situation. You are measuring heat production in various parts of the setup. This is telling you that the battery *is* putting out power. Yet your measurements state that there is a net charging of the battery from the load and the 555 circuit.
Even though you want to believe in over unity, the right thing to do in this case is operate from the assumption that there is a net power outflow from the battery, and somehow your measurements need a second looking at. There is nothing "wrong" about this and there is nothing wrong in questioning your own measurements, and I commend you because you clearly state that these are not definitive results. It's really like the first go round, and if you continue investigating you may be able to fine tune your measurements in a second round. This is of course natural and healthy.
I don't think you made it perfectly clear where you placed your ground clips for your measurements. If I was going to look at load current and the 555 current, and knowing that you are worried about fractions of milliwatts here, I would have soldered the two resistors right onto the negative battery terminal. Then all of my ground clips from my three scope channels would be physically connected to the battery ground terminal. This would eliminate any minor potentials due to current flowing through the wire interconnects affecting the precision of your readings. I am just being very conservative here.
I would also add the load current to the 555 current. You would have to make precise shunt resistance measurements and then convert the shunt voltage waveforms in Excel into true current values. Then add up the true current values to get the true waveform for current in and out of the battery. I an not saying that there is anything wrong with treating them as separate entities, I just feel more comfortable adding them together to look at the true current waveform for the battery. I am assuming that ugly 5 Mhz noise on the 555 current waveform (which becomes a VERY ugly 5 MHz noise modulation on the 555's Vcc pin) just might go away if your got rid of the 555's "power adjustment pot."
Anyway, to repeat: You made a first crack of measuring the net power flow from the battery and you got negative power flow. Even though you want to believe in over unity the correct approach is to assume that altough your measurements are probably quite accurate, they just quite aren't there and need tweaking and refinement. If you get the measurements spot on, you should show a small net power out-flow from the battery. Do you recall me telling you that there was a good chance high frequency excitation of the coil-resistor with a narrow duty cycle waveform would yield very little power flow because the inductor was going to choke off the current flow because inductors block high frequencies? It looks to me like you were seeing this very thing when you ran your experiment.
As .99 stated the ambient temperature of the coil-resistor is not the room ambient temperature, it is whatever your thermocouple was picking up on the coil-resistor itself before you started the experiment. If you put your thermocouple inside the coil-resistor, I view that as a potentially unstable thermal environment. Putting the thermocouple on the outside is the way to go.
In this experiment I assume you had the coil-resistor siting on the wooden plank. For future experiments I strongly recommend suspending it vertically by a wire or a string. The wooden plank + desk is an unknown heat sink that has a serious potential to affect your temperature readings.
MileHigh
As far as your current waveform goes, that is one funky freaky Frankenstein Monster current waveform. You can clearly see how different effects are taking place at different times in the cycle. You clearly see what looks like an exponential decay curve at the center of your scope shot. Then there are positive and negative peaks that may be the coil kick-back and who knows what else.
Interestingly enough, the voltage waveform across the coil-resistor is basically a sine wave with a few mysterious spikes poking their way through. This looks like there is some sort of series LC circuit phenomenon going on that is being driven by the MOSFET gate signal. You may have noticed in your circuit travels that as you make your square wave excitation high in frequency everything starts to look like Sine waves anyways. Something about filtering out all of the higher harmonics and Fourier transforms come into play there.
The real teaser is that you did not show a display on the DSO with the coil-resistor voltage waveform, the load current waveform, and the MOSFET gate voltage waveform. That just might give you enough information to understand the Frankenstein current waveform and the coil-resistor voltage waveform.
It's all about taking it to the next level. Instead of just setting up the circuit and making measurements looking for over unity with this particular oscillation mode, in the best case scenario you would have seen that Frankenstein current waveform and tried to figure out what was going on there before you started making the measurements. However, this is really not trivial stuff, and takes a lot of skill to pull off. It would not be easy for anybody to do.
However, there would be a huge bonus to figuring out the Frankenstein current waveform: You would understand what was really going on and that would shoot an arrow straight through your and Rosemary's "resonance for maximum COP" argument. Once you really understood what was going on in that oscillation mode, you would be able to account for all of the energy, and come to the realization that there are no magic free heat pies coming out of the "stressed fabric of space-time through sympathetic resonances" argument. You would see and understand for yourself the energy audit trail through one cycle of the oscillation.
With respect to the coil-resistor dropping in temperature after the experiment starts, forget it, assume that you had that problem with room ambient vs. the start temperature of the coil-resistor being used in the test (NOT one sitting next to it).
All of the speculations about negative temperature and negative energy, all the musings in the posts the past few days are simply "Acid." ALL of that discussion is NONSENSE, plain and simple. The coil-resistor would NEVER drop in temperature when you started to put juice through it. I suggest that you just drop the subject, it is pie in the sky.
MileHigh
Aaron:
This one will wrap it up for tonight.
QuoteIf you add all those up, conventional theory will require that it is definitely in the positive wattage range at whatever watts. To know the wattage needed is irrelevant to the point that definite heat is produced on the circuit at negative wattages.
That is all real work even if load stays ambient. There is very obvious positive work (heat) shown and is absolutely MORE than the negative wattage that is the net draw on the circuit. So that COP is what? Do we divide positive watts the circuit is showing by the negative input? In any case, it is a very clear and very straight forward proof of concept that more work is done than input.
So, I believe that because there is heat and the battery is showing gain as the circuit is running negative, the argument stands no matter what.
No matter what, there is clear evidence that heat is being dissipated on the circuit (mosfet up to 1 above) (timer up to 8C above) and (timer power pot up to 10C above) while the circuit total draw is around negative -0.3 watts.
That is heat produced on the switching side of the circuit - even without any cooling or heating on load - for negative wattage.
That appears to be free energy to me and I don't know that this has been shown at this precise of detail with the high sampling data dumps openly before. What is the COP? I don't know but it is over 1.0 for sure.
Does RF come into play? Even with my computer off, I get the same results. But there still is RF all over the place. In either case, this shows classical electron theory of electricity may need some serious revisions.
Rosemary, all the evidence points towards your theory as being much more accurate to describe the electromagnetics than conventional electron theory.
Personally, I think the negative is a break in the symmetry of the vacuum and this causes a potential difference that acts as a sink for negative energy to move into the circuit from the active vacuum. Instead of lifting the board at one end to break the symmetry, you're taking one end of the board and pulling it below ground.
So you did your first round (?) of testing and the conclusion is that you have a negative wattage draw from the battery, the coil-resistor is not showing any real heat, and the support components (555, trimpot, MOSFET, resistors, etc) are all showing increased temperature indicating the real production of heat in the support components.
It sounds just great, battery getting a net energy influx, and heat being generated in some components.
Now there is another school of thought that says that somehow your energy in/out measurements based on the shunt resistor currents and battery voltage are just slightly off, tipping the balance in favour of negative wattage. In other words, a fake-out. Then there is no real surprise that the coil-resistor is staying cold because I have stated that possibility many times, perhaps more than a month ago. At least we agree that the support components are heating up and dissipating energy.
So there is a perfectly logical followup test to determine which school of thought is on the right track. You probably have a nice big fat 50,000 uF/25-volt electrolytic capacitor floating around or something similar?
All that you have to do is swap out your battery and hook up your big fat capacitor charged to 12.6 volts and see what happens.
If you are right, the voltage on the cap will slowly increase because of the negative wattage.
If I am right, the voltage on the cap will go down.
Don't you dare try to play the "but you have to have a battery to make it work" card. I read the whole thread tonight and your whole premise is based on net negative watts of power measured at the battery terminals. If you put a capacitor in place of the battery then you should get the same kind of result - negative output wattage. If you want to model the battery more closely, you are welcome to measure the output impedance of your battery and then put an equivalent resistance in series with the capacitor. It might have an output impedance of about 0.1 ohms (just guessing).
So that's it Aaron, everything that you said tonight in your discussions with Rosemary and Harvey indicate that you can put a trusty big fat electrolytic cap in place of the battery and you should see the cap voltage slowly increase as you run the circuit and you have changed the entire world.
However, Aaron, I think deep down inside you know that the cap voltage is going to go down, and most of tonight's discussion was "Acid mode."
Beyond that, here we are in a new nook and cranny, and you are investigating something that has absolutely nothing to do with the claim in the Ainsley white paper. You got somewhat unexpected results, and the Free Energy Spin Doctors have said, "Hey! Let's run with THIS one!"
One more time, you are all running down a blind alley. This discussion has almost nothing to do with the Ainsley claim made in her white paper.
So, please do the capacitor test, watch the voltage drop, and if you still have that awesome 4-channel (heart skipping beat) DSO, then PLEASE try to investigate the claim made in the Ainsley white paper. Is that asking for too much????
MileHigh
@ Milehigh
I posted earlier an Excel chart of the 555 power measurements taken from Aaron's data. Can you explain why this chart is showing negative power? Surely the passive 555 circuit cannot cause a reverse current flow in its supply shunt resistor?
Hoppy
Hi Hoppy,
I can't explain why the 555 circuit sometimes shows negative power. The strange thing is that you can see how there is a corelation between the sinusoidal voltage waveform across the coil-resistor and the sinusoidal waveform of the power measurement of the 555. It almost looks like something is modulating the power consumption of the 555 up and down so that sometimes the power is negative. This is all taking place at around 400 KHz, which is a moderately high frequency. The fact is that the 555 circuit simply cannot be outputting power itself, so there is some sort of a fake-out going on.
Like I said in my earlier postings, the "555 power limiting trimpot" should simply not be there and that complicates things. Also note that the 555 circuit is active, not passive.
It simply does not make any sense that this is happening. It would have to be carefully looked at with a scope and playing with the routing of the wires in the setup and so on.
The first thing that I would do would be to build a stand-alone version of the 555 circuit, taking the MOSFET and the coil-resistor out of the the equation to see what happens. For starters I would even keep the "555 power limiting trimpot" in place even though it makes me nauseous.
You can assume that you would see a normal power flow from the battery into the 555 circuit in this case with no kind of modulation on the power waveform going into negative territory. There would be no modulation at all. Then when you plugged this 555 reference circuit back into the full blown setup with the MOSFET and coil-resistor, you would expect to see the power modulation stuff that goes into negative territory again. Looking at the differences in the 555 circuit with and without the MOSFET + coil-resistor would be the key to figuring it all out.
If I was doing this and calling the shots I would remove the "Bizarro logic" power limiting trimpot and I then would expect to see the 555 frequency and duty cycle change. Therefore the main "on pot" and "off pot" settings would need to be adjusted to bring the frequency and duty cycle back to your desired settings. You can expect that measuring the power on this modified setup would be normal, you would not see any negative power consumption at all.
Then I would plug this back into the MOSFET + coil-resistor setup and see what happens. Chances are the oscillations would be killed by these improvements to the 555 circuit so it is kind of a moot point since what you are looking for is the oscillation.
If I can make a suggestion to Aaron, why not just measure the vanilla circuit in its normal running mode without oscillation? How about some nice clean exponential curves and no horrendous noise and oscillation. Both you and Rosemary have repeatedly claimed that the normal operating mode for this circuit will be over unity and produce excess heat in the coil-resistor. In fact, if I recall correctly, the COP 17 claim in Rosemery's paper is based on the normal running of the circuit.
Why not keep life simple and just look at the circuit in its normal operating mode and leave the esoteric and complicated spurious oscillation mode testing for step 2? Just Keep It Simple, Aaron.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on August 29, 2009, 08:44:16 AM
If I was doing this and calling the shots I would remove the "Bizarro logic" power limiting trimpot and I then would expect to see the 555 frequency and duty cycle change. Therefore the main "on pot" and "off pot" settings would need to be adjusted to bring the frequency and duty cycle back to your desired settings. You can expect that measuring the power on this modified setup would be normal, you would not see any negative power consumption at all.
Then I would plug this back into the MOSFET + coil-resistor setup and see what happens. Chances are the oscillations would be killed by these improvements to the 555 circuit so it is kind of a moot point since what you are looking for is the oscillation.
If I can make a suggestion to Aaron, why not just measure the vanilla circuit in its normal running mode without oscillation? How about some nice clean exponential curves and no horrendous noise and oscillation. Both you and Rosemary have repeatedly claimed that the normal operating mode for this circuit will be over unity and produce excess heat in the coil-resistor. In fact, if I recall correctly, the COP 17 claim in Rosemery's paper is based on the normal running of the circuit.
Why not keep life simple and just look at the circuit in its normal operating mode and leave the esoteric and complicated spurious oscillation mode testing for step 2? Just Keep It Simple, Aaron.
MileHigh
but your not doing it, nor calling the shots... and why not? why aren't you building and showing all?
then you would... in your imagination? chances are? chances are you're assuming things again... how scientific of you. did tk teach you that?
no, you can't make suggestions. you COULD HAVE, but you got yourself banned from energetic for your continual running at the mouth.
why not build it for yourself instead of proselytizing these endless soliloquies.
don't forget you still haven't explained how your racist anti-semitic comment "has become generic and is used in everyday conversation, political or otherwise..."
you didn't think i was going to forget about that did you?
Wilby, you are all about the mental masturbation that you get from being a pain in the ass and making noise whereever you go on these chat boards. Get yourself some mental Kleenex and have fun somewhere else. Imagine the shame and embarrassment you would feel if we were all suddenly in the same room together in real life. I think that Farrah Day would take pleasure in scratching your back with her long sharp nails.
Quoteyour racist anti-semitic comment
You have got to be kidding, talk about twisting meanings and being a pathetic spin doctor in search of his next jerk-off.
This is the only response that you will get from me Wilby, go play somewhere else.
Quote from: MileHigh on August 29, 2009, 09:36:07 AM
Wilby, you are all about the mental masturbation that you get from being a pain in the ass and making noise whereever you go on these chat boards. Get yourself some mental Kleenex and have fun somewhere else. Imagine the shame and embarrassment you would feel if we were all suddenly in the same room together in real life. I think that Farrah Day would take pleasure in scratching your back with her long sharp nails.
You have got to be kidding, talk about twisting meanings and being a pathetic spin doctor in search of his next jerk-off.
This is the only response that you will get from me Wilby, go play somewhere else.
i like how you avoided answering any of the questions...
no, no uncle.
you said, and i quote:
"get your jackboots and brown shirt and report to "Doc" Peter Lindemann. Just hope and pray a "Night of the Long Knives" never happens!"
then you claimed this about your racist comment:
"has become generic and is used in everyday conversation, political or otherwise..."
when in fact it got deleted by the admin who should have removed your posting privileges immediately instead of sweeping it under the rug. shame and embarrassment should be felt by you for saying such heinous things.
since you claim i am twisting your meaning, here is your chance to clarify your meaning. please explain how your comment wasn't anti-semitic or racist. i'm going to throw it in your face until you do.
i got my chair, this should be as good as some of tk's classics...
as far as us being in a room together, you would be dangling from that noose of your own words, begging for uncle, while i was beating your racist ass like a piñata. farrah would be in the corner struggling with a 15 component circuit while calling everyone else in the room a retard...
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on August 29, 2009, 09:53:33 AM
i like how you avoided answering any of the questions...
no, no uncle.
you said, and i quote:
"get your jackboots and brown shirt and report to "Doc" Peter Lindemann. Just hope and pray a "Night of the Long Knives" never happens!"
This comment is not actually antisemitic. If it is, it is only insofar as it refers to Nazis, who of course did not like Jews. But the Night of the Long Knives had nothing to do with Jews - it was a party purge.
Quote from: MileHigh on August 29, 2009, 08:44:16 AM
Hi Hoppy,
I can't explain why the 555 circuit sometimes shows negative power. The strange thing is that you can see how there is a corelation between the sinusoidal voltage waveform across the coil-resistor and the sinusoidal waveform of the power measurement of the 555. It almost looks like something is modulating the power consumption of the 555 up and down so that sometimes the power is negative. This is all taking place at around 400 KHz, which is a moderately high frequency. The fact is that the 555 circuit simply cannot be outputting power itself, so there is some sort of a fake-out going on.
Like I said in my earlier postings, the "555 power limiting trimpot" should simply not be there and that complicates things. Also note that the 555 circuit is active, not passive.
It simply does not make any sense that this is happening. It would have to be carefully looked at with a scope and playing with the routing of the wires in the setup and so on.
The first thing that I would do would be to build a stand-alone version of the 555 circuit, taking the MOSFET and the coil-resistor out of the the equation to see what happens. For starters I would even keep the "555 power limiting trimpot" in place even though it makes me nauseous.
You can assume that you would see a normal power flow from the battery into the 555 circuit in this case with no kind of modulation on the power waveform going into negative territory. There would be no modulation at all. Then when you plugged this 555 reference circuit back into the full blown setup with the MOSFET and coil-resistor, you would expect to see the power modulation stuff that goes into negative territory again. Looking at the differences in the 555 circuit with and without the MOSFET + coil-resistor would be the key to figuring it all out.
If I was doing this and calling the shots I would remove the "Bizarro logic" power limiting trimpot and I then would expect to see the 555 frequency and duty cycle change. Therefore the main "on pot" and "off pot" settings would need to be adjusted to bring the frequency and duty cycle back to your desired settings. You can expect that measuring the power on this modified setup would be normal, you would not see any negative power consumption at all.
Then I would plug this back into the MOSFET + coil-resistor setup and see what happens. Chances are the oscillations would be killed by these improvements to the 555 circuit so it is kind of a moot point since what you are looking for is the oscillation.
If I can make a suggestion to Aaron, why not just measure the vanilla circuit in its normal running mode without oscillation? How about some nice clean exponential curves and no horrendous noise and oscillation. Both you and Rosemary have repeatedly claimed that the normal operating mode for this circuit will be over unity and produce excess heat in the coil-resistor. In fact, if I recall correctly, the COP 17 claim in Rosemery's paper is based on the normal running of the circuit.
Why not keep life simple and just look at the circuit in its normal operating mode and leave the esoteric and complicated spurious oscillation mode testing for step 2? Just Keep It Simple, Aaron.
MileHigh
MileHigh:
The 555 circuit can only be sinking current, so this makes the data recorded for both shunts highly suspect in terms of being truly negative and suggesting that appreciable power is being returned to the battery. Both shunts need to be connected hard on the battery neg terminal, so that any volt drop in the wiring is eliminated. This also applies to all scope ground leads. Looking at his latest video using the 0.25R shunt, he has the shunt connected to the battery neg using a croc clip lead! This is a definite no-no, as from my experience, the leads to the croc clips are usually badly crimped and should always be soldered before use. Even then, they are not suitable for this purpose. It's quite possible that Aaron has used these clips for his Bedini experiments, in which case, if they have been used in high voltage and inductive circuits, then the lead to clip connections may well be oxidised and have appreciable resistance. His inter wiring is long and messy; IMO, he needs to repeat the whole experiment with the shortest wiring interconnections possible, using a heavier guage wire for the mosfet, inductive resistor and shunt circuit.
Your comment about the 555 circuit not being passive but active is of course correct. I should have said what I meant - non inductive.
Hoppy
New vid from aaronmurakami
Ainslie circuit waveform analysis regular 0.25 ohm load "shunt"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTUR_5CPDAw
Cat
Quote from: utilitarian on August 29, 2009, 10:21:24 AM
If it is, it is only insofar as it refers to Nazis, who of course did not like Jews.
correct, care to tackle how it has become generic and used in everyday conversation...?
QuoteResults 1 - 10 of about 63,100 for Night of the Long Knives. (0.05 seconds)
http://news.google.ca/archivesearch?q=Night+of+the+Long+Knives&as_ldate=2000&as_hdate=2009&sugg=d&scoring=a&hl=en&ned=ca&um=1&sa=N&start=0
Quotestrange, i did a search here
at overunity.com, you know, checking the everyday conversation...
didn't find any results other than my quote of you.
That is such a pathetic attempt to recover lost face on your part Wilby. You have been completely owned between Utilitarian and myself. Plus I apologized in case my comment was offensive to anybody.
Now, if you want to discuss the Ainsley circuit that's great. If not, play somewhere else please.
Quote from: MileHigh on August 29, 2009, 11:37:47 AM
http://news.google.ca/archivesearch?q=Night+of+the+Long+Knives&as_ldate=2000&as_hdate=2009&sugg=d&scoring=a&hl=en&ned=ca&um=1&sa=N&start=0
strange, i did a search here at overunity.com, you know, checking the everyday conversation...
didn't find any results other than my quote of you.
owned? because you posted a google search with the results largely being political articles in the media trying to sensationalize the issue they are writing about by using such a gross reference? ::) actually if anything, you stuck your foot in mouth again with that search. my search was for the "otherwise" you mentioned, remember? owned ::) the only thing you or utilitarian own is a guilty conscience.
your mea culpa will be acceptable to me if and when you make a public apology addressed to peter lindemann and concede that your comment was gross and irrelevant.
regarding the ra circuit, i have tried to discuss it with you, point in fact, i just asked you why you aren't building it instead of proselytizing your opinions, assumptions and conjecture. you didn't respond to any of those questions, you instead told me to go away.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on August 29, 2009, 11:04:31 AM
correct, care to tackle how it has become generic and used in everyday conversation...?
Doesn't cut it. People refer to George Bush and other conservatives as Nazis all the time (example of "generic" for you) - again, not an antisemitic comment. Merely mentioning Nazis is not sufficient.
Care to tackle how a reference to the Night of the Long Knives is antisemitic?
Quote from: utilitarian on August 29, 2009, 12:59:35 PM
Doesn't cut it. People refer to George Bush and other conservatives as Nazis all the time (example of "generic" for you) - again, not an antisemitic comment. Merely mentioning Nazis is not sufficient.
Care to tackle how a reference to the Night of the Long Knives is antisemitic?
sure it does, you're forgetting he said "political or OTHERWISE"... imagine that.
it's not. suggesting that i grab a brown shirt and jackboots is what then? furthermore, i asked mh to CLARIFY what he meant, he hasn't yet., he's dancing around avoiding questions like you guys always do when you're caught talking out your anus. let's let him speak for himself shall we? he doesn't need you helping to dig a hole for him like you and asy did for tk...
Moderator, please ban Wilby.
Aaron:
It's time for the Big Fat Capacitor Challenge. Are you up to it?
QuoteThe negative wattage net draw test shows any work that is done under those circumstances is all free. This is simply an example of the circuit out of equilibrium with it's environment so that work can be done from free environmental potential that enters the circuit. Is it from RF, vacuum energy, zipons, etc...? Irrelevant in the point that the system is getting energy from somewhere and if it isn't from the battery, then that is very clear evidence that there is energy entering from the outside - it is NOT a closed system, therefore, conventional closed system equilibrium thermodynamics do not even apply.
You hook up a big fat capacitor to your version of the Ainsley circuit and we will see what happens. The voltage is either going to go up or down.
If the voltage goes up, you win and get ready for the media onslaught and the Nobel Prize.
If the voltage goes down, then all is well with the world and Big Ben will continue to chime.
If the voltage goes down, you are looking at two possibilities:
1. The Tektronix TDS3054C 4-channel digital storage oscilloscope is making measurement errors.
- or -
2. You Arron are the one that's making the measurement errors.
My bet is on number two.
It's unbelievable that you make a few measurements in your rat's nest of wires and are so arrogant as to not question them and take a critical second look. Not to mention the fact that you have been fully qualified as someone that has just a basic understanding of electricity and electronics and are prone to taking wild leaps of faith that have resulted in countless crashes and burns.
Meanwhile, you were completely dismissive of the the DSO and originally stated that you were simply going to do battery rundown tests. That was what, about 10 days ago? Now you are evangelizing the merits of high-end digital storage oscilloscopes like they are the greatest thing since sliced bread. The mind boggles.
It's time for the Big Fat Capacitor Challenge. Are you up to it?
MileHigh
Aaron:
QuoteWith showing a negative net wattage on circuit, with cooling at load and heat at switching components, ANY heat at all is automatic free energy. I believe you and your peers may be at a loss to describe what is happening with conventional electron current model theories - but you're welcome to try.
I have a very succinct answer to that one: You don't know what you are doing.
Hook up the capacitor to see if my statement is true or not, I dare you!
MileHigh
Good.Hook up capacitor and make it resonance with inductance of heating coil ;D
Quote from: MileHigh on August 29, 2009, 04:48:33 PM
Aaron:
I have a very succinct answer to that one: You don't know what you are doing.
Hook up the capacitor to see if my statement is true or not, I dare you!
MileHigh
MH
He won't do that because the battery is his protection. Remember, for new agers, the magic is in the battery!
Hoppy
Hoppy,
All of the measurements on the current draw through the shunt resistors using the digital storage oscilloscope were made external to the battery itself. The voltage measurement was made external to the battery itself. Therefore it should not matter if the battery is "magic" or not because all of the measurements were made external to the battery.
If Aaron is measuring a negative power consumption with his Ainsley setup then if he swaps the battery for a large capacitor then he should still measure the same negative power consumption.
"Negative power consumption" means that the Ainsley circuit is supplying power to the battery or the big capacitor, depending on the setup. Normally you would expect the power to flow the other way, from the battery or the big capacitor into the Ainsley circuit.
Negative power consumption when you use the large capacitor (power being put into the capacitor from the Ainsley circuit) will result in the capacitor voltage going up because that's how capacitors work.
Positive power consumption when you use the large capacitor (power being put into the Ainsley circuit from the capacitor) will result in the capacitor voltage going down because that's how capacitors work.
I know that you know all of this but I am just stating it in simple terms for those readers that are beginners in electronics.
I encourage anyone that is interested in the Ainsley circuit to ask Aaron to perform this simple test. It will tell us right away if the Ainsley setup is receiving power from the power source, or supplying power back to the power source. It will also tell us if Arron was making his measurements correctly or not.
MileHigh
Aaron:
QuoteI just heard that some people that are convinced they are qualified to analyze this circuit is calling for a retest on the negative wattage test to be done on a capacitor because it should never go down?
I have 2 responses:
1. Do you own tests, I'm nobody's surrogate.
2. This shows complete and total ignorance - what in a capacitor is going to resonate with the spikes in order to stress the local active vacuum to draw in free radiant potential? Nothing. The ELECTROLYTES in the battery are needed and suggesting otherwise is not simply evidence, it is proof that there is zero understanding of anything at all regarding these circuits - give it up! Bedini spelled this out for over 25 years - take a hint. The end.
Let me translate that for the audience: You are chickening out because you know that the voltage on the capacitor will go down, proving that your measurements were incorrect.
In addition, you said this TODAY:
QuoteThe negative wattage net draw test shows any work that is done under those circumstances is all free. This is simply an example of the circuit out of equilibrium with it's environment so that work can be done from free environmental potential that enters the circuit. Is it from RF, vacuum energy, zipons, etc...? Irrelevant in the point that the system is getting energy from somewhere and if it isn't from the battery, then that is very clear evidence that there is energy entering from the outside - it is NOT a closed system, therefore, conventional closed system equilibrium thermodynamics do not even apply.
So between your first quote and your second quote you are basically contradicting yourself, all in the same day! What a creepy Orwellian world you live in.
You are afraid to do the capacitor test, as simple as that.
Hoppy was right, you fell back to the "magic battery" argument. I will remind you that your theories about the electrolytes and radiant potential and the whole gamut are all unproven wild speculations made up as part of a pseudoscientific word view that you espouse. None of what you stated above has been proven to be true. Bedini has proven absolutely nothing and anybody that does any serious searching can find this out for themselves.
I will also take this opportunity to remind you that John Bedini sells a FOUR HUNDRED DOLLAR (USD) "Deluxe Dual-Beam CD Clarifier" that is supposed to "make your audio CDs sound better."
Anyone that knows how an audio CD works would tell you that the "Deluxe CD Clarifier" is NONSENSE, pure ELECTRONIC QUACKERY, that will have zero effect on the sound quality of your audio CDs.
Your buddy John Bedini sells a small project box that probably has about $15 worth of parts in it for FOUR HUNDRED DOLLARS and it does NOTHING, it is useless junk, ELECTRONIC QUACKERY. It's a rip-off, plain and simple.
So here we are Arron. You had a $15,000 digital storage oscilloscope for almost two weeks, and apparently you never once made a serious attempt to do a COP measurement on the Ainsley circuit that was in line with her white paper, where you are supposed to compare electrical power in as compared to heat power out. About one month ago I even wrote up a procedure for you to make that exact measurement with the DSO to comfirm or deny the claims in Rosemary's paper and you didn't even do it. Instead you farted around with solid state Bedini setups to get the warm and fuzzies seeing a second battery charging. You started to realize how good the DSO really is and decided to try to make an oscillation measurement. Much to your surprise there was no big COP to be found, and you decided instead to focus on another dead end, the nonsensical notion that the Ainsley circuit is now returning power to the battery because you are not smart enough to take a critical look at your own data and question it's validity. I gave you a simple, tried and proven way to check for the net current flow using a large capacitor, and you chickened out and played the old unproven "It won't work without a battery" card. It's pretty pathetic if you ask me.
You seemed to be hinting that you have about two days with the DSO before you have to return it. Why don't you simply try to verify the standard claim made in Rosemary's white paper? You are now familiar enough with the DSO to dig up my posting and actually do it.
MileHigh
Aaron:
I can't resist a little followup comment:
QuoteI just heard that some people that are convinced they are qualified to analyze this circuit is calling for a retest on the negative wattage test to be done on a capacitor because it should never go down?
I think that is just another example of Orwellian speakuntruth from you. I am unperson had thoughtcrime dared turn thoughtcrime into speakcrime on your web site. You have been reading this site for years, and you have been reading this thread every single day for months now. It doesn't take an Internet rocket scientist to assume that one of your two computers does not have the OU.com cookie enabled and you come here as an anonymous guest.
Why should anybody believe anything you say if you can't even admit that you read this thread?
QuoteMinistry of Truth (Newspeak: Minitrue)
The propaganda arm of Eastasia's regime, controlling information: news, entertainment, education, and the fine arts. Winston Smith works for the Records Department (RecDep) of Minitrue, "rectifying" historical records and newspaper articles to make them conform to Big Brother's most recent pronouncements, thus making everything that the Party says 'true'.
QuoteDoublethink
The keyword here is blackwhite. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink. Doublethink is basically the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on August 29, 2009, 07:37:45 PM
I will also take this opportunity to remind you that John Bedini sells a FOUR HUNDRED DOLLAR (USD) "Deluxe Dual-Beam CD Clarifier" that is supposed to "make your audio CDs sound better."
Anyone that knows how an audio CD works would tell you that the "Deluxe CD Clarifier" is NONSENSE, pure ELECTRONIC QUACKERY, that will have zero effect on the sound quality of your audio CDs.
Your buddy John Bedini sells a small project box that probably has about $15 worth of parts in it for FOUR HUNDRED DOLLARS and it does NOTHING, it is useless junk, ELECTRONIC QUACKERY. It's a rip-off, plain and simple.
so here we are with mh posting his opinions, assumptions and conjecture, again. ::)
http://amasci.com/freenrg/bedini.html
you can build one and do the experiment (gasp!) yourself or you can continue to talk out your anus as usual. i got my money on you talking out your anus... like ac noted, if you had ever stop talking long enough to build something you would know it works. a little due diligence wouldn't hurt either, it's pathetic i had to post that for you. more of your meticulous attention to detail i imagine. well, at least now you know how it is done so you can set about debunking it without doing the experiment.
how come you are avoiding the questions i posed to you about the ra circuit? i asked you several questions along with a poke about your gross comment, and the only thing you responded on was the gross comment. you danced around for a couple posts and then said if you want to talk about the ra circuit fine otherwise go away. i reminded you that i had asked you questions about the ra circuit that you then ignored and you went off on some multi post soliloquy which did not address any of my questions regarding the ra circuit. you do see the contradiction there that the rest of us see don't you?
Wilby:
I looked at your link:
QuotePurchase two identical music CDs. Listen to both to verify that
they are identical. Now let the "scalar beam" play all over the
surface of one of the CDs for about one minute. You may want
to build a simple rotating platform to make this process more
convenient. Now play the two CDs and compare them again. Hear
any difference? (Note, this process is patent pending, so do not
use it for any other purpose except to demonstrate the reality
of the effect)
Can you imagine making a pitch for this outside the OU or the EF bubble to a technical crowd Wilby? You would be laughed out of town. The fact that you could seriously post a link to this says a lot about you, and indeed it is pathetic.
Do you know how an audio CD works? If not, look it up and come back and comment please.
I'm not building the RA circuit and I don't have a scope. I think that answered all your questions on that topic.
The reference that is your real hard-on material is a comment about life in the despot realm of the Energetic Forum, where you can be cut at any time with a wave of the mouse by Aaron if you dare to speak your mind. "Singapore on Acid", remember? Pretend that you are happy and feign niceness or else. I don't think that you are _that_ stupid Wilby, and the whole harassment is just your means of getting your mental jerk-off material. Are you satisfied now and will you drop this nonsense?
Well, they'll stone you and say that it's the end.
Then they'll stone you and then they'll come back again.
They'll stone you when you're riding in your car.
They'll stone you when you're playing your guitar.
Yes, but I would not feel so all alone,
Everybody must get stoned.
MileHigh
Having seen Aaron's latest video where he is playing with 'noise', he is clearly miles away from demonstrating COP17 with the original Ainslie circuit. I'm just wondering how long it will be before the next 'bad boy' -Poynt99 - vanishes for arguing with the magician.
Hoppy
How about that : ?
- use heating element which doesn't change resistance (hmm..do exists any such ?)
- make it as high of self-inductance as possible (shaping it for example in bifilar manner ?)
- remove battery,remove resistor near battery, connect a drained capacitor here
- it HAS TO be resonant circuit
- adjust 555 to resonant frequency of that circuit
- start circuit and give it a power spike using external inductor magnetic field , when external inductor being a part of another external circuit working on resonant frequency of that circuit (signal generator + inductor)
- measure heat and voltage on capacitor after dismantling circuit
It's just my proposition...Nothing fancy...
Aaron, stop this silly messing about and just do as Poynt99 suggests and leave the shunt in circuit and use a voltmeter across the shunt.
Hoppy
Quote from: MileHigh on August 30, 2009, 01:39:12 AM
Wilby:
I looked at your link:
Can you imagine making a pitch for this outside the OU or the EF bubble to a technical crowd Wilby? You would be laughed out of town. The fact that you could seriously post a link to this says a lot about you, and indeed it is pathetic.
Do you know how an audio CD works? If not, look it up and come back and comment please.
I'm not building the RA circuit and I don't have a scope. I think that answered all your questions on that topic.
The reference that is your real hard-on material is a comment about life in the despot realm of the Energetic Forum, where you can be cut at any time with a wave of the mouse by Aaron if you dare to speak your mind. "Singapore on Acid", remember? Pretend that you are happy and feign niceness or else. I don't think that you are _that_ stupid Wilby, and the whole harassment is just your means of getting your mental jerk-off material. Are you satisfied now and will you drop this nonsense?
Well, they'll stone you and say that it's the end.
Then they'll stone you and then they'll come back again.
They'll stone you when you're riding in your car.
They'll stone you when you're playing your guitar.
Yes, but I would not feel so all alone,
Everybody must get stoned.
MileHigh
so you choose to talk out your anus instead of doing some actual science... imagine that.
pathetic opinions, assumption and conjecture is all you have ever offered here, and most likely all you ever will.
i do know how they work, do you know how science works? for starters, your opinion is worth nothing, nor is conjecture. you have to do the EXPERIMENT.... try actually doing an experiment and come back when you have something other than your asinine opinions.
you are not going to build it and you don't have a scope? you're just going to talk out your anus about a circuit you don't have aren't you. i'm wondering what makes you think anyone gives a damn about your opinions, assumptions and conjecture.
it is cute though, watching you and hoppy talk to yourselves while you pretend someone gives a damn about your opinions, assumptions and conjecture. at least your fearless leader tk could put together a circuit, albeit a hack job, but at least he tried to assemble something before spewing his opinions, assumptions and conjecture.
and no i am not satisfied. what has that explanation got to do with your gross comment to me here? i hadn't posted anything on the ra thread at energetic at that time. point in fact, none of you sycophants even knew i had an account over there. furthermore, why did you NOT say something to asymatrix and anyone else that was crying 'ban wilby, please ban wilby'?
was it
your lack of integrity? is that what it was mh?
i told you what was required, and that is all i will accept. you do that, and i will leave you and your fellow sycophants to talk amongst yourselves...
Wilby,
Go get a new box of Kleenex and look somewhere else for your jerk-off material. Get a dictionary also.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on August 30, 2009, 11:53:45 AM
Wilby,
Go get a new box of Kleenex and look somewhere else for your jerk-off material. Get a dictionary also.
MileHigh
i see you're still talking out your anus... how does your response address any of the points in my post?
typical avoidance. how did you end up so full of opinion, assumption and conjecture yet totally lacking integrity?
why is it that you are not building the ra circuit but instead offering your opinions, assumptions on conjecture?
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on August 30, 2009, 12:03:56 PM
i see you're still talking out your anus... how does your response address any of the points in my post?
typical avoidance. how did you end up so full of opinion, assumption and conjecture yet totally lacking integrity?
why is it that you are not building the ra circuit but instead offering your opinions, assumptions on conjecture?
Dude, you are like a wind-up monkey.
Gee what a wonderful thread this has devolved into. Im sure TK would be pleased, lol ;)
What's next i wonder.
At least Stefan should be able to attract some good advertising buisiness from acne cream manufacturers ;)
Too bad there isn't a first person shooter video game about electronics design... Then you could go on those forums and yell at the other clans about how "n00bish" they are, and how you will pwn them all and their mothers too, lol... Call yourselves "Maxwell's Ninja Avengers" or the "J.P. Morgan Army of Death" or something. Maybe even post in "gamespeak": StFu@mHufFlooZeR .
Quote from: utilitarian on August 30, 2009, 12:13:38 PM
Dude, you are like a wind-up monkey.
so stop winding me up with your endless assumptions, opinions and conjecture and do the experiment. ::)
Aaron:
Yet another look at the issue of your conclusion about net negative power when the battery is powering the circuit.
In many clips in the past where you induced the spurious oscillation, you could see a sequence of spikes triggered after an edge of the 555 signal that lasted a limited amount of time then stopped, then there was a gap with no activity, and then it started up again, etc. In other words, the oscillation was a subset of a longer more complicated waveform.
I am not sure what your base 555 frequency was set at, but I'll assume that it was somewhere around 2.4 KHz, as per the Ainsley white paper. This corresponds to a waveform period of about 417 microseconds. We also know that your waveform analysis was on a time slice of about 2.4 microseconds.
Since you were potentially only looking at a 2.4 microsecond slice of a waveform with a 417 microsecond period, it is possible that your measurements are invalid. In the vast majority of the clips where you showed oscillation, the oscillation was only one component of the total waveform.
Knowing the way you think, it would be consistent for you to misinterpret your data, and erroneously apply it to the total waveform, assuming the waveform is more complex than the 2.4 microsecond slice where we see the Frankenstein Monster current.
The issue of your overall measurement techniques and the neatness of your setup is still in question. Those issues apply to anyone trying to make presice measurements.
In trying to work with you by questioning the data and suggesting some new angles, we see your classic pigheadedness where you fight tooth and nail and aggressively resist suggestions. I can only assume that you actively resist because you are afraid that what you will see is not what you want to see. You measured something with the DSO, and now you are "sticking to your story" no matter what. It is just outrageous behaviour. There you are sulking in the corner refusing suggestions to double-ckeck your "negative power" conclusion. It is just so ridiculous.
Let's look at the suggestion for using an ammeter. The current waveform that we see in the 2.4 uSec time slice has a few extra ups and downs and the spike parts have quite high slew rates. 2.4 uSec translates into 417 KHz. Therefore I will conservatively estimate that the bandwidth of the current waveform extends all the way out to 2 MHz.
When you compare analog and digital multimeters in current measurement mode, I have more faith in analog ammeters. I am not an expert in digital or analog multimeters, but I am familiar with their limitations.
If you imagine a digital multimeter sampling it's shunt resistor waveform where the bandwidth of the signal is 2 MHz, I simply doubt that the sampling algorithm can cope with that situation. If the display is stable and consistent perhaps that indicates successful sampling and averaging is taking place, but even there I wonder about the accuracy.
For analog ammeters, for sure you get a nice analog averaging function, but one more time, for me the bandwidth issue is a real big question mark again. What is the -3 dB roll-off frequency? How close is it to the roughly 2 MHz bandwidth of the current waveform? For me these are unknowns.
Of course, I am not doing the experiments, so you may as well not listen to a thing I am saying even though I have worked in the electronics industry in one form or another for the past 25 years. On the other hand, perhaps what I said in the two paragraphs above flew way over your head and I discussed issues that have never even entered your mind because you don't have the educational background or the real world experience to even formulate these questions in your head? Not to mention the fact that I have thrown tons of information your way in the past two months that goes way above and beyond what a typical "enthusiast" will post.
I think that it's worth stating one more time how by now you have done perhaps upwards of a hundred setups over the past few years and what... perhaps one half of them show over unity? Here you are playing with a resistive inductor on a bench with a battery and a MOSFET and a DSO and holy s*it, you set up some spurious oscillations and find that the battery is being recharged. Over unity again! Shazam! Shazam! Shazam! Golly gee! On the other hand, this has to be checked and double checked, because that's how science works. My 25 years worth of experience tell me that you are dead wrong, even without doing the experiment. How about that?
I am going to tackle the battery issue one more time.
MileHigh
Aaron:
Even with my expressed misgivings about analog and digital multimeters in current measurement mode, you should still try making those measurements.
Here is a scenario for you: You hook up the analog ammeter in place of the main shunt resistor in series with the MOSFET and coil-resistor and set up your oscillations and to your shock you see that the battery is supplying current to the load. Then you turn down your time base on your DSO and start looking at the full waveform and you can clearly see how when not in the oscillation part of the waveform that there are times when it is obvious that current from the battery is flowing into the circuit. It would not surprise me if that was the case, just a guess.
To express a pet peeve, we have all been agonizing about the waveforms, yet with your four-channel DSO, I don't think that you have shown us the MOSFET gate signal? How you cannot do this is beyond me. I think that we are all operating on the assumption that the 555 output is spiking when you are in your oscillation mode, just like TK has shown us multiple times. Such a critical piece of information, and your brain is apparently not in gear here.
Also, people have backed me up about getting rid of that ridiculous trimpot that screws up the 555 timer supply. Do you need it for your spurious oscillations? If yes, I suggest that you get rid of it anyways and try to induce the oscillation some other way. The trimpot on the 555 power supply pin is pure quackery. What say you?
MileHigh
Aaron:
Let's tackle the issue of substituting the battery with a capacitor and monitoring the voltage to see if it increases or decreases.
I noticed that you posted the good old battery pitch about the electrolyte resonating at the vacuum energy zero-point oscillation frequency, bla bla bla. This I think comes from a old Bearden-Bedini book, perhaps from as far back as 1984. In fact you posted the same thing about 10 days ago. I suppose that you get some comfort in posting the "explanation" about how a battery is an "antenna" for the vaccum foam energy or whatever.
Well, Aaron, in my opinion that is a purely nonsensical explanation. I think that Bedini and Bearden are full of crap, and they wrote this nonsense to exploit gullable people and sell books to make money. It's the same thing like saying that a spike from an inductor is "radiant energy." Myself and .99 and TK and Hoppy and Heinrick (sp?) have been trying to pound into your and Rosemary's heads that the spike is nothing more than the energy stored by the inductor, which came from the battery source originally, being released. It is not "radiant energy," nor is it "time compressed potential", it is just the electrical equivalent of releasing a stretched elastic band. I think that that has slowly started to sink in for the both of you.
Even though your "battery antenna" postulation is complete nonsense, part of a storyline to sucker money out of people, let me shock you and assume that it is true as part of the capacitor discussion.
So, with the battery in place, assume that it can gain extra energy when a current pulse goes into it a la Frankenstein Monstor current waveform. Assuming that is true, let us now expose the tragic flaw in that argument in the case of your Ainsley setup. Note that we know from your DSO waveforms that the battery voltage is pretty much constant, and it's the current that is spiking.
A simplified timing diagram in text:
1. The battery outputs a current spike into the Ainsley load.
2. The Ainsley load sends a current spike back into the battery and the battery gains extra energy.
3. The battery outputs a current spike into the Ainsley load.
4. The Ainsley load sends a current spike back into the battery and the battery gains extra energy.
.
.
.
Great, the battery is gaining energy because of the return current spikes.
Here is the catch: The energy gain is INSIDE the battery ONLY, and nowhere else. There is no mechanism to explain how extra energy was RETURNED to the battery.
Do you see this? Even if the battery is tapping into some cosmic orgasmic Orgone energy, that CANNOT provide an explanation as to how extra energy is measured going BACK into the battery FROM the Ainsley circuit.
So your battery argument DOES NOT APPLY in this case. It is just another example of your simplistic way of thinking where you have a "grab bag" of "free energy" concepts. When you are in a bind, you can always go into the grab bag and throw some unproven "free energy" concepts at your unsuspecting audience and hope that they stick and diffuse the situation. I have seen several instances in threads on your web site where people are starting to express serious doubt and then you go and get your heat pump posting, your Bedini-Bearden battery posting, the "you can't connect the output to the input because it won't work" posting and thrown in a few more for good measure. Before you know it, you have flooded the thread with your "free energy" babble and you have intimidated the participants in the thread and they start to shut up and stop expressing doubts. You did it on your own Ainsley thread about a month ago. I am not going to be intimidated.
The big fat capacitor test is REAL, and I would not be surprised if you have already done it. It WILL show if your circuit is draining current or supplying current. The quantum foam battery argument DOES NOT APPLY in this case because the the DSO allegedly shows that the "extra energy" is coming from the AINSLEY CIRCUIT and NOT FROM THE BATTERY.
So I dare you to do a clip where you show the voltage decreasing on the big fat cap, just like you probably tried yourself last night. That will put the "negative energy" argument for the Ainsley circuit when in your particular oscillation mode to bed, and it will probably be backed up by the digital and/or analog ammeter tests. Not to mention the fact that you could have duped yourself by only doing a measurement on a 2.4 uSec slice of a much larger periodic waveform like I stated in my earlier posting.
If you can put this one to bed, then I assume that everybody will be begging you to actually do a real test of the Ainsley circuit to confirm or deny the claims made in her white paper. COP 17, remember?
The person that is probably the most affected by this situation is Rosemary. She is probably begging and screaming inside and is totally desperate and totally stressed out hoping and praying that you will make a serious attempt to confirm or deny her COP 17 claim as laid out in her white paper. She is watching you fritter away the time with the DSO helplessly, afraid to say anything. The only thing that she can do is be a good citizen of Eastasia.
Please do the capacitor tests and the ammeter tests to refute your assumption of negative power and move on before the clock runs out on the Tektronix DSO.
MileHigh
MH:
All Aaron has to do is look at the polarity sign of his DVM when connected on a suitable range across the shunt resistor. If the battery is charging, then it will be obvious! However, do not expect him to report his result because this will prove conclusively that all his Ainslie variant circuits are not overunity. I am currently running his very latest Ainslie variant circuit and read a +58mV drop across the shunt resistor, measured with my Fluke 75 on its 300mV range, indicating that there is a net draw from the battery.
Hoppy
Hot off the presses from the other tab on your browser, a FuzzyTomCat data dump of the "Ainslie-Murakami Negative Dominant Waveform Generator" Replication build:
Quote1] Time (24 hour)
2] DC Battery Voltage
3] Ambient Temperature Degrees F
4] 555 Timer Temperature Degrees F
5] Mosfet Temperature Degrees F
6] 10 Ohm Resister Temperature F
7] 555 Potentiometer Temperature F
[ 1 ] | [ 2 ] | [ 3 ] | [ 4 ] | [ 5 ] | [ 6 ] | [ 7 ]
22:40 | 12.52 | 78.3 | 77.8 | 76.8 | 76.4 | 79.1
22:50 | 12.52 | 78.6 | 78.3 | 77.2 | 76.3 | 79.4
23:00 | 12.52 | 78.1 | 78.3 | 76.8 | 76.4 | 79.9
23:10 | 12.52 | 78.3 | 78.3 | 76.9 | 78.4 | 79.8
23:20 | 12.51 | 78.1 | 78.3 | 77.6 | 76.6 | 80.4
23:30 | 12.51 | 78.8 | 78.6 | 77.8 | 77.3 | 80.4
23:40 | 12.51 | 79.0 | 79.1 | 78.3 | 78.3 | 81.3
23:50 | 12.51 | 79.4 | 79.4 | 78.8 | 78.3 | 82.2
24:00 | 12.51 | 79.8 | 79.9 | 79.1 | 78.6 | 82.3
00:10 | 12.51 | 80.1 | 80.3 | 79.7 | 79.7 | 83.1
00:20 | 12.51 | 80.3 | 80.4 | 79.8 | 79.4 | 83.3
00:30 | 12.51 | 81.3 | 80.5 | 80.1 | 79.8 | 83.5
00:40 | 12.51 | 81.5 | 80.8 | 80.1 | 80.1 | 83.8
00:50 | 12.51 | 81.7 | 81.5 | 80.5 | 80.1 | 83.6
01:00 | 12.51 | 81.5 | 81.1 | 80.1 | 80.3 | 83.4
01:10 | 12.51 | 81.5 | 81.3 | 80.3 | 80.4 | 84.2
01:20 | 12.51 | 81.3 | 81.3 | 80.6 | 80.6 | 83.6
01:30 | 12.51 | 81.5 | 81.4 | 80.7 | 80.4 | 84.3
01:40 | 12.50 | 81.7 | 81.3 | 80.6 | 80.4 | 84.2
Followup astute comments from Rosemary herself:
QuoteHi Fuzzy. Seems like you got the same 'cooling effect' that Aaron saw - except over the pot which was also Aaron's result. But you've got a more general cooling as I think Aaron got heat on his switches. EDIT And an evident net loss to the battery? Is this consistent with the voltage you measured across the load?
May I say that this has got to be the tidiest set of results I've seen yet on the forum. Many, many thanks for this and for doing the test. Hopefully Harvey will add his comments here.
I tried and I tried and I just couldn't see a "cooling effect" on column 7, the 555 potentiometer temperature. ???
I took a hit of acid and _then_ I saw the "cooling effect" on the pot when I was peaking. ;D
I came back down and then I concluded that the expenditure of battery power over time was warming things up. <two smiley faces clicking beer mugs together>
EightMilesHigh
8MH - I've taken the trouble to read your last post because it's got the rare merit of being short. You should adopt this brevity as a more general practice as it makes your posts marginally more digestible.
Thanks for highlighting Fuzzy's results here. And may I echo Wilby's question here. When are you going to do your own tests. At least Hoppy supports his objections with actual data.
Rosemary:
Were you standing on your head to see the cooling? Or is it because you are in the Southern Hemisphere? Or because your Coriolis effect is the opposite from mine? Or did you have to drop acid to see the cooling effect?
So, do you think that Aaron's setup with the oscillation is puttting power back into the battery, or do you think that he is completely wrong?
MileHigh
P.S.:
QuoteYou should adopt this brevity as a more general practice as it makes your posts marginally more digestible.
Your fall from grace happened a long time ago. *giggles*
MH - I think our difference is perspective because mine is still from ground level. Your's is stratospheric. I think the coriolis effect distorts yours more than mine.
I don't think energy is returned to the battery. The voltage below ground is not greater than the battery voltage. But I do think that less energy is being delivered than dissipated. Hopefully we'll see these results at higher voltage levels.
I also think it's interesting to see the 'cooling effect'. I had never even heard of this before and apparently it's well known.
Rosemary:
There is a great old joke by the comedian Steven Wright, "I put instant coffee in a microwave oven and almost went backwards in time."
Perhaps that's how you are seeing the "cooling effect." Looking forward to seeing some real results one day.
MileHigh
P.S.: I finally get it. Remember yet another antagonistic discussion with Aaron over the ambient temperature issue where .99 said that it would be normal to observe lower initial temperatures on the ceramic coil-resistor as compared to the measured room ambient temperature? Thank you Mr. FuzzyTomCat a.k.a. Glen for providing data to back up .99's statement. I tried to find some info about that online myself but was having an off searching day. It has to do with the way objects radiate heat away from their surfaces, their "emissivity", and related stuff but I could not find a definitive statement on that. Poor Aaron jumping the gun AGAIN!!! Jeeze!
So the "cooling effect" is noting more than a "discovery" about the natural properties of materials. If a mechanical engineer was around you would get the real deal on that.
Aaron wrong again!!?? Impossible! lol
MH check out Harvey's references here. The cooling effect is accommodated in terms of classical and quantum physics. Why are you not inclined to believe it? It seems to be related to negative energy? And Aaron crossed referenced this measurement with more than one instrument. By our closest reckoning the 1.5 degrees difference over the 100 watt resistor is close to half a watt. Admittedly not much - but definitely measurable. Over and above which it seems that Fuzzy found similar values. I think that's significant.
The problem here is that the values are still so low. Hopefully the numbers will be evident with higher wattage values. That's something I'd really like to see.
See my posting above it has zero to do with Aaron's setup. ::)
I saw your post. Poynt's point was not valid. Discussed by Harvey at some length. And you will note that Poynt did not argue it. The 'base line' ambient moves more slowly than measured ambient. And 'apparent' cool to the touch - is not indicative of actual temperature.
In any event, it's the phenomenon that intrigues me. But it's apparently accommodated in mainstream physics. Just never heard of it before.
Rosemary:
I didn't read Harvey's discussion. From my searching what I found was not too clear and I had no energy so I gave up.
I think that the gist of it is this: The measured temperature of an object in a room is determined by several factors. The ambient air temperature will put thermal energy into the object because of the air molecules crashing into it and transferring their energy. There is light energy and infrared energy shining on the object and some is absorbed and some is reflected off. Then the object is radiating away the energy imparted into it at various wavelengths, I assume mostly infrared wavelengths. Everything falls into balance where (air molecule + light input energy = radiated energy due to emissivity). Therefore objects that radiate away more energy than other objects and/or absorb less imparted energy from external radiation have a lower baseline temperature. I am really out of my realm here but I think that is the essence of it. Thereofore the physical makeup of objects, their colour and surface texture and the materials they are made of will determine their baseline temperature. The baseline temperature is normally lower than the ambient air temperature. It's something like that.
MileHigh
Golly MH A rare admission of doubt? You're definitely growing on me. I won't add to your summation here because I'm also not an expert. But I'm inclined to believe that Harvey is. So, unless I hear to the contrary I'll go with his explanation.
Quote from: witsend on August 30, 2009, 08:07:46 PM
I saw your post. Poynt's point was not valid. Discussed by Harvey at some length. And you will note that Poynt did not argue it. The 'base line' ambient moves more slowly than measured ambient. And 'apparent' cool to the touch - is not indicative of actual temperature.
Don't mistake a non-response as an admission of error. There are other reasons for not responding. To be kind and not waste my time, I'd rather leave it at that.
.99
To Glen and other replicators:
QuoteThe strange thing for me is the 10 ohm wire wound resistor and its ambient cooling ..... this is a large device 7.657 sq.in. of surface area always cooler by 1 degree F minimum for three hours with a slowly increasing ambient temperature keeping the same ratio. The nay sayers say ..... "you don't get something for nothing" ..... well I'm the .01 Volt Loss auditor ( hehehe ) and what did this cooling cost me "nothing" or "something"??
Now that you are set up may I suggest that you focus on the real task at hand. What you want to try to do is measure your electrical power delivered to the circuit and compare that to the thermal power given off by the inductive load resistor. The object of the experiment is to see if the thermal power given off by the load resistor is 17 times greater than the electrical power supplied by the battery or the power supply. I am going to sound a bit harsh, but voltage drops on the battery over time are absolutely meaningless with respect to this experiment. The "cooling effect" is another waste of time that has nothing to do with this experiment. I realize that you are just getting the feel for the setup and all that. Once that is done then you can move forward with the real task at hand.
There is a risk that the replicators will fall into the "Bedini trap" where Bedini replicators build Bedini motors and look at source and charging battery start and end voltages. That's it, that's all they do. They never do any real analysis and it all becomes meaningless. I can sort of feel that starting to happen here. If that's all that you want to do to have a bit of fun then more power to you.
On the other hand, if you really want to see if there is a COP of 17 for your setup, then at a certain point you need to male a list of steps to take to reach that goal. Without a DSO you can still make a very accurate power consumption measurement by doing some tricks with resistors and capacitors. .99 is working on that with Gotoluc right now. The power dissipation measurement on the coil-resistor is trivial to do and just takes some time to do.
Myself and others would be happy to offer suggestions to help you reach your goal. Personally I am only interested in the true electrical power in vs. thermal power out measurements. If you are going to do battery rundown tests then good luck, but I can't see those tests giving you convincing data to demonstrate a COP of 17.
The challenge for everybody is to overcome the "fizzle out" factor and not loose focus. In my opinion the past few weeks on both threads have been a mishmash and the project has only moved forward by a few baby steps. I think that both the believers and the skeptics would agree with that statement.
For example a question to Glen: If we assume that you are going to go the electrical power in vs. thermal power out route, how are you going to measure your electrical input power? What would you say your electronics knowledge level is? If you could develop a good methodology for doing that then you could also use the same technique elsewhere.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on August 30, 2009, 11:06:39 PM
To Glen and other replicators:
Now that you are set up may I suggest that you focus on the real task at hand. What you want to try to do is measure your electrical power delivered to the circuit and compare that to the thermal power given off by the inductive load resistor. The object of the experiment is to see if the thermal power given off by the load resistor is 17 times greater than the electrical power supplied by the battery or the power supply. I am going to sound a bit harsh, but voltage drops on the battery over time are absolutely meaningless with respect to this experiment. The "cooling effect" is another waste of time that has nothing to do with this experiment. I realize that you are just getting the feel for the setup and all that. Once that is done then you can move forward with the real task at hand.
There is a risk that the replicators will fall into the "Bedini trap" where Bedini replicators build Bedini motors and look at source and charging battery start and end voltages. That's it, that's all they do. They never do any real analysis and it all becomes meaningless. I can sort of feel that starting to happen here. If that's all that you want to do to have a bit of fun then more power to you.
On the other hand, if you really want to see if there is a COP of 17 for your setup, then at a certain point you need to male a list of steps to take to reach that goal. Without a DSO you can still make a very accurate power consumption measurement by doing some tricks with resistors and capacitors. .99 is working on that with Gotoluc right now. The power dissipation measurement on the coil-resistor is trivial to do and just takes some time to do.
Myself and others would be happy to offer suggestions to help you reach your goal. Personally I am only interested in the true electrical power in vs. thermal power out measurements. If you are going to do battery rundown tests then good luck, but I can't see those tests giving you convincing data to demonstrate a COP of 17.
The challenge for everybody is to overcome the "fizzle out" factor and not loose focus. In my opinion the past few weeks on both threads have been a mishmash and the project has only moved forward by a few baby steps. I think that both the believers and the skeptics would agree with that statement.
For example a question to Glen: If we assume that you are going to go the electrical power in vs. thermal power out route, how are you going to measure your electrical input power? What would you say your electronics knowledge level is? If you could develop a good methodology for doing that then you could also use the same technique elsewhere.
MileHigh
Hi MH,
The task for me at hand is
two circuits the first being the original "Rosemary Anislie COP>17 Heater Circuit" Revised : August 12, 2009 and second the "Ainslie - Murakami Negative Dominate Waveform Generator Circuit" amongst the other projects of mine. The "Ainslie - Murakami Negative Dominate Waveform Generator Circuit" is what the build is set up now and I will be trying just a few more times using a wet cell lead acid battery instead of the gel cell lead acid type and maybe some other items ....but I'm fairly convinced that my Tektronix 2445A 150MHz scope just isn't fast enough to accurately make the fine adjustments required, the sampling rate just isn't high enough .... but well see.
The original "Rosemary Anislie COP>17 Heater Circuit" Revised : August 12, 2009 is the one I'm most interested in, and will be making my own 10 ohm wire wound resistor with the correct inductance of 8.64 micro Henries since no one else ( replicator ) has tried this specified size of resistor ....... I will have the correct parts the middle to late this week and had very good results with the 10 ohm resistor that I'm using now .... but well wait and see for those results.
I'm not really in a big hurry and would rather take my time and do it correct instead of making some small error by overlooking, misinterpiting or mismatching components that could very well make a difference in function and operation of the circuit, as you may already know these 17 or handful of components have had the best puzzled at times ... I for one love a good mystery ... the outcome as of now "unknown".
I did see some really cool "aperiodic oscillations" with the "Rosemary Anislie COP>17 Heater Circuit" though very impressive stuff.
Fuzzy
;D
I have just watched Aarons latest video with his digital ammeter in circuit. I have also carried out this test and with careful adjustment of the pots can see a waveform on my scope with the meter reading zero. However, there is virtually no power being consumed by the circuit and the meter is not sensitive enough to see the very small current that is actually flowing. When I replace the digital ammeter with an analogue AVO meter set on the 50uA scale, I can see a 1uA deflection in the positive direction.
Aaron's digital ammeter test is only showing him that if he reduces the circuit current low enough, his meter fails to respond.
I now suggest that with Aaron's circuit tuned as he has it in the video, that he now connects a large cap across the battery and fully charge it and then disconnect the battery, leaving the cap in circuit. He can then watch the cap very slowly decrease in voltage.
Hoppy
Hoppy,
It would appear that maybe a shunt voltage measurement is more reliable/obtainable using a DC volt meter. Have you tried this?
In Aaron's latest video he's adjusting the circuit down so low that only 500-700uV is reading on the scope. This in order to get an apparent net negative mean value. It would be interesting to understand why if it is indeed going net negative, but down at these levels there can be many factors causing this, and it may not even be "real".
Anyway, I think it's futile unless he can show the effect several magnitudes higher. He seems to have indicated he's moving on to heat measurements now. Not sure which heat he is referring to...in the original Ainslie circuit perhaps.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on August 31, 2009, 11:03:09 AM
Hoppy,
It would appear that maybe a shunt voltage measurement is more reliable/obtainable using a DC volt meter. Have you tried this?
In Aaron's latest video he's adjusting the circuit down so low that only 500-700uV is reading on the scope. This in order to get an apparent net negative mean value. It would be interesting to understand why if it is indeed going net negative, but down at these levels there can be many factors causing this, and it may not even be "real".
Anyway, I think it's futile unless he can show the effect several magnitudes higher. He seems to have indicated he's moving on to heat measurements now. Not sure which heat he is referring to...in the original Ainslie circuit perhaps.
.99
Yes, I have tried this and Aaron is simply testing the sensistivity limit of his meter. He is supposed to be convincing us that he is putting back more than he is taking out of his battery whilst powering a load, that is heating his resistor. I can assure him that this circuit cannot do this and he will prove this to himself when he fully understands his observations.
Hoppy
Its interesting how Peter Lindeman has not posted to support Aaron given that the testing was to be a combined effort. I reckon he must be cringing at Aaron's conclusions about the negative wattage shown on the meter in the video.
Hoppy
Hoppy - with the utmost respect - how can you conclude anything at all until the data is to hand? And since when has science been determined without first evaluating the experimental evidence? Or is this propensity to 'prejudge' acceptable as long as it's also endorsed by mainstream thinking and mainstream paradigms? for some reason prejudice can be paraded as long as it's also approved by a consensus?
Personally I would recommend that you reserve your predictions here as it shows the rather desperate need to deny anything new. So the actual question is this. Why do you so desperately need to deny this? If evident, then it's only a small phenomenon. And it is, in any event, allowable in terms of known physics. What is unusual is that this energy does not appear to come from the supply source. Surely, if proven, that would - at its least - be of interest?
Quote from: witsend on August 31, 2009, 03:15:07 PM
Hoppy - with the utmost respect - how can you conclude anything at all until the data is to hand? And since when has science been determined without first evaluating the experimental evidence? Or is this propensity to 'prejudge' acceptable as long as it's also endorsed by mainstream thinking and mainstream paradigms? for some reason prejudice can be paraded as long as it's also approved by a consensus?
Personally I would recommend that you reserve your predictions here as it shows the rather desperate need to deny anything new. So the actual question is this. Why do you so desperately need to deny this? If evident, then it's only a small phenomenon. And it is, in any event, allowable in terms of known physics. What is unusual is that this energy does not appear to come from the supply source. Surely, if proven, that would - at its least - be of interest?
With respect Rosemary, I do not desperately need to deny anything new. I'm simply saying that I do not agree with Aaron's negative wattage conclusion for the reason that I have posted. To remind you, this reason is that his digital meter is simply not sensitive enough to see a current flow of a microamp or so. My analogue meter is sensitive enough and I can see a positive deflection of the meter needle (positive wattage).
Aaron clearly needs to repeat the tests ensuring that the DSO is calibrated as advised by Tektronics before he can conclude that he is seeing true negative energy. At the moment he is adamant that he is right and I'm adamant that he is wrong. I see nothing wrong about having opposite opinions based on personal observations.
The bottom line is that Aaron has a long way to go in convincing us all that he can demonstrate COP 17 from your circuit using the DSO.
EDIT: And remember, Aaron still needs to do the capacitor test.
Hoppy
Poynt - the purpose of Aaron's last video was to show you that he was NOT using getting the numbers shown on his ammeter by artificially increasing its senstivity range. You called for proof. Aaron went to some trouble to give you the evidence. Then you discount the evidence on the basis that it was against too broad a range of comparisons? Some acknowledgement of his efforts to satisfy those arbitrary demands of yours would be appropriate here. He at least has shown you that courtesy. Where is your acknowledgement?
I must say I tend to sympathise with Aaron's assessment of your objects here. You are not dispassionately trying to assess a phenomenon. You're rather trying to discount it on any excuse you can find. I could run through a pretty lengthy schedule here relating to your predictions of waveforms - efficiencies - comparative ambient references - and on and on. Personally if I were Aaron I would not give you the time of day - let alone such time consuming efforts required to satisfy the arbitrary requirements you dream up. And your dismissal of his best efforts is not only arrogant and rude. It is wholly inappropriate.
Rosemary wrote: -
"Poynt - the purpose of Aaron's last video was to show you that he was NOT using getting the numbers shown on his ammeter by artificially increasing its senstivity range."
Rosemary, you are correct about Aaron not artificially increasing his meters sensitivity but the fact is, he reduced the power in the load by adjustment of the pots until his meter could no longer register the extremely small current discharging from the battery. Please think hard about this.
Hoppy
Hoppy - you are something else. Do you now require Aaron to rerun the tests with the ammeter in series to satisfy you all that he is not distorting values when the ammeter itself distorts the value? This is getting tiresome in the extreme. The ammeter test was meant to be conclusive. It's now not enough? Aaron would have to be half mad to even consider re-running anything here. You are all wasting his and our time.
Here's the thing. We have a circuit which, at a rough estimate and including all the evidence of heat dissipation - measured wattages - et al (assuming one can 'add' an advantage to the negative wattage measured) that comes to something under 0.8 watts. The cost of this? Cannot be determined, but apparently close to zero if not zero. That in itself is odd and definitely needs detailed analysis. So the data is collected over the most of 21 hours straight. Then what comes to light is some more extraordinary facts. The resistor is not getting hotter. In fact it's getting cooler. More checks and cross checks. Then the post. And all you and Poynt and MH can say about it is that it's not cop >17 - it's probably incorrect - and who cares anyway? You know what really puzzles me is what you guys are doing on a forum that is dedicated to studying over unity effects. No wonder Wilby treats you guys with so much contempt. You're posting at the wrong address.
Edit - And you're right. It's not COP>17. It's now much, much higher subject only to a calibration run on the Tektronix.
Quote from: witsend on August 31, 2009, 04:09:50 PM
Hoppy - you are something else. Do you now require Aaron to rerun the tests with the ammeter in series to satisfy you all that he is not distorting values when the ammeter itself distorts the value? This is getting tiresome in the extreme. The ammeter test was meant to be conclusive. It's now not enough? Aaron would have to be half mad to even consider re-running anything here. You are all wasting his and our time.
Here's the thing. We have a circuit which, at a rough estimate and including all the evidence of heat dissipation - measured wattages - et al (assuming one can 'add' an advantage to the negative wattage measured) that comes to something under 0.8 watts. The cost of this? Cannot be determined, but apparently close to zero if not zero. That in itself is odd and definitely needs detailed analysis. So the data is collected over the most of 21 hours straight. Then what comes to light is some more extraordinary facts. The resistor is not getting hotter. In fact it's getting cooler. More checks and cross checks. Then the post. And all you and Poynt and MH can say about it is that it's not 17 Cop - it's probably incorrect - and who cares anyway? You now what realluy puzzles me is what you guys are doing on a forum that is dedicated to studying over unity effects. No woner Wilby treats you guys with so much contempt. You're posting at the wrong address.
Rosemary,
Aaron needs to decide for himself whether he wishes to carry out the meter test again with a more sensitive analogue ammeter.
I don't understand why you appear to be getting rattled about me giving you my honest opinion based on observation. The whole purpose of this thread is to discuss and try to validate your COP17 claim. If you are not interested in listening to points of view that do not fall in line with your thinking and beliefs, then carry on taking a 'head in the sand' approach. The easy way out is to believe in everything that Aaron concludes from his tests. I know that you are far too intelligent to do that and this shows clearly in your posts.
Hoppy
Quote from: Hoppy on August 31, 2009, 04:25:31 PM
Rosemary,
Aaron needs to decide for himself whether he wishes to carry out the meter test again with a more sensitive analogue ammeter.
I don't understand why you appear to be getting rattled about me giving you my honest opinion based on observation. The whole purpose of this thread is to discuss and try to validate your COP17 claim. If you are not interested in listening to points of view that do not fall in line with your thinking and beliefs, then carry on taking a 'head in the sand' approach. The easy way out is to believe in everything that Aaron concludes from his tests. I know that you are far too intelligent to do that and this shows clearly in your posts.
Hoppy
The jury is still out on whether an ammeter gives an appropriate number. At best the consensus is that it may give the polarity bias indicating whether or not there is a net loss to the supply. Aaron ran this test - not to duplicate a number but to show that the ammeter does - indeed - show a negative result. This should have been enough. Now it appears that the number shown needs also to be proven to be correct. That will never happen. There is no ammeter made that can handle the frequencies of this switching circuit. You are resetting those goal posts and I suspect the object is to put them entirely out of reach.
To answer your question as to why I'm getting rattled. I am very happy with discussion. I am happy with data that is collected that contradicts or approves the thesis . What I find absolutely distasteful is when points are made by implication and innuendo. And I do not hide my head in the sand. I rather think that is something that you are all doing and will hold to this impression until I see a real interest in the data as is appropriate. That it may yet need proof from a calibration run on the instrument is acknowledged. But if that calibration run is completed? What then? Where will you put your next objection?
Quote from: witsend on August 31, 2009, 04:46:54 PM
Aaron ran this test - not to duplicate a number but to show that the ammeter does - indeed - show a negative result.
Please explain how a reading of "0.000" which fluctuates between + and - can or should be construed as solid evidence that the current in fact has a net negative bias?
Would you place a valuable bet on that? Would you place a bet if the meter read -0.001?
I thought so.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on August 31, 2009, 05:05:37 PM
Please explain how a reading of "0.000" which fluctuates between + and - can or should be construed as solid evidence that the current in fact has a net negative bias?
Would you place a valuable bet on that? Would you place a bet if the meter read -0.001?
I thought so.
.99
You thought what???? Take the trouble to read my post to Hoppy. I don't feel like repeating my argument. I would NEVER place a bet on the potential accuracy of any Ammeter reading at these frequencies. You should know better yourself.
Edit I would add that it was your requirement to use an ammeter at all. It's rather reckless to assume that it will ever do more than show a polarity bias. And to run the test with ammeters in series will seriously distort the values of the experiment as Aaron is dealing with really low current values. The small value of a series resistor in the ammeter would definitely distort the overall values in that experiment.
Quote from: witsend on August 31, 2009, 04:46:54 PM
The jury is still out on whether an ammeter gives an appropriate number. At best the consensus is that it may give the polarity bias indicating whether or not there is a net loss to the supply. Aaron ran this test - not to duplicate a number but to show that the ammeter does - indeed - show a negative result. This should have been enough. Now it appears that the number shown needs also to be proven to be correct. That will never happen. There is no ammeter made that can handle the frequencies of this switching circuit. You are resetting those goal posts and I suspect the object is to put them entirely out of reach.
To answer your question as to why I'm getting rattled. I am very happy with discussion. I am happy with data that is collected that contradicts or approves the evidence. What I find absolutely distasteful is when points are made by implication and innuendo. And I do not hide my head in the sand. I rather think that is something that you are all doing and will hold to this impression until I see a real interest in the data as is appropriate. That it may yet need proof from a calibration run on the instrument is acknowledged. But if that calibration run is completed? What then? Where will you put your next objection?
Lets resume this discussion after Aaron repeats the tests post calibration.
Hoppy
Quote from: witsend on August 31, 2009, 05:09:13 PM
You thought what???? Take the trouble to read my post to Hoppy. I don't feel like repeating my argument. I would NEVER place a bet on the potential accuracy of any Ammeter reading at these frequencies. You should know better yourself.
Edit I would add that it was your requirement to use an ammeter at all. It's rather reckless to assume that it will ever do more than show a polarity bias. And to run the test with ammeters in series will seriously distort the values of the experiment as Aaron is dealing with really low current values. The small value of a series resistor in the ammeter would definitely distort the overall values in that experiment.
Rosemary,
But we did not expect Aaron to reduce the power dissipated in the circuit to a level that the meter could not register! As I said earlier - please think hard about this because both you and Aaron claim that the circuit is returning more to the battery than it is taking, whist the inductive resistor is running hot. Surely, this is a case of Aaron moving the goalposts, not us!!
Hoppy
Quote from: witsend on August 31, 2009, 05:09:13 PM
You thought what???? Take the trouble to read my post to Hoppy. I don't feel like repeating my argument. I would NEVER place a bet on the potential accuracy of any Ammeter reading at these frequencies. You should know better yourself.
Edit I would add that it was your requirement to use an ammeter at all. It's rather reckless to assume that it will ever do more than show a polarity bias. And to run the test with ammeters in series will seriously distort the values of the experiment as Aaron is dealing with really low current values. The small value of a series resistor in the ammeter would definitely distort the overall values in that experiment.
The ammeter test was inconclusive because of the low current level.
Stating that an ammeter's shunt will distort the values more than the shunts presently being used in the circuit is ludicrous.
I have given a better option several posts ago on the EF forum. Did you catch it? I specifically stated that for the least degree of interference and detrimental influence to the circuit, it would be better to measure the DC VOLTAGE across the same shunt the scope was connected to. So the ammeter argument is moot at this point.
If the voltmeter still can't read anything across the shunt, then a milli-voltmeter such as the one Luc has, ought to be used.
The scope's interpretation of the mean current value is still inconclusive until post self-calibration and the test re-run, and it can be verified by a second instrument such as the DC voltmeter.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on August 31, 2009, 05:31:44 PM
The ammeter test was inconclusive because of the low current level.
Stating that an ammeter's shunt will distort the values more than the shunts presently being used in the circuit is ludicrous.
I have given a better option several posts ago on the EF forum. Did you catch it? I specifically stated that for the least degree of interference and detrimental influence to the circuit, it would be better to measure the DC VOLTAGE across the same shunt the scope was connected to. So the ammeter argument is moot at this point.
If the voltmeter still can't read anything across the shunt, then a milli-voltmeter such as the one Luc has, ought to be used.
The scope's interpretation of the mean current value is still inconclusive until post self-calibration and the test re-run, and it can be verified by a second instrument such as the DC voltmeter.
.99
No Poynt - absolutely NOT. I refuse to believe that any voltmeter anywhere will improve on the accuracy of the Tektronix. Sorry. I simply will not do this test nor recommend that it be done. It is crazy. I need Jibbguy here to argue this. But even I, as an amateur, know that you're now asking for inferior data to prove what?
All:
Quite a spirited debate. I think the backdrop to this whole thing is that Rosemary and Aaron keep on insisting that the circuit is "unconventional" and they are in "new undiscovered territory."
Those points have no substance behind them and are rooted in ignorance. I am not using that term in a pejorative way.
Every comment I have seen on the forums or on a YouTube clip where people are experimenting (or playing with depending on your point of view) with coils, capacitors, transistors, etc, where the experimenter says that they are in uncharted "unconventional" territory are simply not true. The same thing applies to the phrase "this is an open system, not a closed system." Simply meaningless.
With respect to instrumentation, any astute experimenter knows that as you get to the lower limits of the measurement scale of the instrument, the less accurate the measurement is. This is especially true of digital instruments like digital multimeters.
I get two Brownie Points because I read the user manual for the DSO and in my posted spec for doing the COP 17 measurement I specifically state that the probes and the instrument itself be calibrated (I forget the terminology for the second calibration step). Speaking of being rude, Rosemary, that spec was a considerable effort on my part in an effort to help you and Aaron and you never acknowledged it. I can clearly see Aaron using my suggestions and never acknowledging them. It is really quite a sad state of affairs. In fact, if Aaron had used my test spec as a basis for starting his measurements, chances are the COP 17 issue would have been resolved two weeks ago with the results showing a COP of less than one.
The simple truth Rosemary is that Aaron's testing skills are very limited. For example look at this:
QuoteDo you honestly believe that all the circuit sees in a amp meter is a resistor like a shunt? None of the extra components in the meter are seen? I know for a fact that that all of these meters take away from the circuit because the output reduces anytime a scope (no matter which one) or even simple multimeter is hooked up to it. I can be taking readings with one scope, hook another up and the other scope can be seen to take away from the readings...hence the concept of SAMPLE.
This is Aaron revealing his limitations by his awkward phraseology that would never be spoken by engineers and technicians doing research in an electronics lab. You put that together with the "negative wattage" results and the credibility is simply not there. Hence the desire to push Aaron in the right direction in search of the real truth.
I certainly hope that he does the capacitor test!
MileHigh
Quote from: Hoppy on August 31, 2009, 05:27:46 PM
Rosemary,
But we did not expect Aaron to reduce the power dissipated in the circuit to a level that the meter could not register! As I said earlier - please think hard about this because both you and Aaron claim that the circuit is returning more to the battery than it is taking, whist the inductive resistor is running hot. Surely, this is a case of Aaron moving the goalposts, not us!!
Hoppy
Hoppy. Let me start this again. Aaron had a decent number over a 1Ohm inductive resistor which he was using as a shunt. His own calibtrated 0.25 Ohm shunt was elsewhere on the circuit. The surprise was that he then found that extraordinary waveform - and his voltage values were significant. Harvey - in the interest of good measurement required that the 0.25Ohm resistor be placed at the negative rail of the battery. That's when the values of the voltages fell - inevitably. But the waveform shape persisted and the implications of this were supported. The actual measurements across the shunt are, of necessity, small - the more so as the actual draw down from the battery appears to be even smaller.
Then through the next two pages on both forums we get into a discussion on the accuracy of the measurement across the 0.25Ohm shunt - which was only used to prove that the waveform retained its shape. Now - surprise, suprise - it seems that this measurement across the 0.25 Ohm shunt is the only one that is of any relevance. Personally I preferred the reading on the 1 Ohm shunt, the more so as it also had as much heat or cooling as the R10 load resistor. Both are 100 watt rated. So 1 degree loss in temperature over ambient represents a smudge more than 0.1 watt. Edit. Not sure that this is strictly correct because it's not a linear relationship - and certainly I'm unsure when it comes to 'cooling' that the wattages are computed the same way. It will be a difficult value to establish over a control because it would be impossible to generate the cooling effect without using the same circuitry.
Quote from: witsend on August 31, 2009, 05:46:03 PM
No Poynt - absolutely NOT. I refuse to believe that any voltmeter anywhere will improve on the accuracy of the Tektronix. Sorry. I simply will not do this test nor recommend that it be done. It is crazy. I need Jibbguy here to argue this. But even I, as an amateur, know that you're now asking for inferior data to prove what?
Rosemary,
We are not talking about accuracy, simply the direction of current. Of course a meter cannot measure as accurately as the DSO; nobody here is saying that it can. If the battery is charging whilst supplying the load and the current is of sufficient level to register on the meter, then the meter will show this with its polarity indicator. That's all we want it to do. A millivolt meter across the shunt resistor will do the same job and not load the circuit anymore than the scope, as Poynt99 has said. The ultimate test is with the cap. Once we see the cap charging and the resistor running hot, we can all get excited!
Hoppy
Quote from: witsend on August 31, 2009, 06:00:11 PM
Hoppy. Let me start this again. Aaron had a decent number over a 1Ohm inductive resistor which he was using as a shunt. His own calibtrated 0.25 Ohm shunt was elsewhere on the circuit. The surprise was that he then found that extraordinary waveform - and his voltage values were significant. Harvey - in the interest of good measurement required that the 0.25Ohm resistor be placed at the negative rail of the battery. That's when the values of the voltages fell - inevitably. But the waveform shape persisted and the implications of this were supported. The actual measurements across the shunt are, of necessity, small - the more so as the actual draw down from the battery appears to be even smaller.
Then through the next two pages on both forums we get into a discussion on the accuracy of the measurement across the 0.25Ohm shunt - which was only used to prove that the waveform retained its shape. Now - surprise, suprise - it seems that this measurement across the 0.25 Ohm shunt is the only one that is of any relevance. Personally I preferred the reading on the 1 Ohm shunt, the more so as it also had as much heat or cooling as the R10 load resistor. Both are 100 watt rated. So 1 degree loss in temperature over ambient represents a smudge more than 0.1 watt. Edit. Not sure that this is strictly correct because it's not a linear relationship - and certainly I'm unsure when it comes to 'cooling' that the wattages are computed the same way. It will be a difficult value to establish over a control because it would be impossible to generate the cooling effect without using the same circuitry.
Rosemary,
The truth is that Aaron could not even display a decent waveform at the beginning until MH and TK helped him to use his timebase properly! As for an extraordinary waveform being discovered, this is a matter of opinion and certainly not mine. My scope shows no indication of negative power when I display the full waveform cycle but I accept that Aaron has a much better scope than I have, so if calibrated correctly, I see no reason why the DSO should show a net negative power.
Its a bit academic talking about heating effects until the accuracy of the data can be confirmed.
Hoppy
Quote from: Hoppy on August 31, 2009, 06:26:23 PM
Rosemary,
The truth is that Aaron could not even display a decent waveform at the beginning until MH and TK helped him to use his timebase properly! As for an extraordinary waveform being discovered, this is a matter of opinion and certainly not mine. My scope shows no indication of negative power when I display the full waveform cycle but I accept that Aaron has a much better scope than I have, so if calibrated correctly, I see no reason why the DSO should show a net negative power.
Its a bit academic talking about heating effects until the accuracy of the data can be confirmed.
Hoppy
Hoppy what nonsense is this? Aaron romped home with a waveform that showed spikes reaching heaven when all TK did was winge about 555's - erroneus designs - and sundry nonsense - in a dreary monologue over a six week period. When he did, belatedly, get that aperiodic osciallation - his waveform was 'horrible' to quote Harvey on the issue. And as for MH teaching anyone? His advice may very well be good. But it lacks the authority needed because he only preaches. He needs to do some replication before he'll earn respect. Then I'm sure we'll always read his advices - in full.
Regarding the 'extraordinary' nature of the waveform. Hoppy show me where - in mainstream science - one can generate a full above and below ground perfectly symmetrical waveform over a resistor - from a dc supply source where the supply is interrupted from a switched supply for at least 50% of each duty cycle. I think that is, indeed, extraordinary.
Regarding the heating effects. Or rather the cooling effects? That's been replicated by Fuzzy. But not with the same voltage values. I think his were closer to yours. I think this 'negative energy' if such it is needs to be proven. I'm not sure about capacitors doing this proof. Personally I'd like to see these tests at higher voltages. Alternatively I'd like to see some clear evidence of gain to the system - apart from the 'cooling' or heating. But if proven through the calibration run on the tektronix - then I'm satisfied that the tests are conclusive and they merit some serious academic attention. Alternatively Harvey must find some way to progress this.
The only thing that I'm not prepared to do here is to minimise this significance of this effect.
Rosemary:
The "do the replications" deal. I did all of this stuff in my Pulse Circuits class about 28 years ago and got an A+ in the course, the best mark in the class. However, when we ran square waves through capacitors and inductors, and watched the discharges through resistors on the scope, we had to measure the time constants and verify that corresponded to the inductance and capacitance values. We had to account for tolerances and margins of error. We had to see if the energy stored in the capacitor or inductor was in accord with the observed energy in the exponential decay waveform. In other words, we took the derivations based on the differential equations describing capacitors and inductors and verified the results experimentally.
When I tell you that the famous spike generated by an inductor comes from the battery itself and not from the "foam bubble vacuum" or the "compressed time potential" its because it is true, and also because I have done the experiment to see it and verify it for myself.
I am never going to do any of these trivial experiments. However, it is fun to try to help people doing them for the first time.
QuoteRegarding the 'extraordinary' nature of the waveform. Hoppy show me where - in mainstream science - one can generate a full above and below ground perfectly symmetrical waveform over a resistor - from a dc supply source where the supply is interrupted from a switched supply for at least 50% of each duty cycle. I think that is, indeed, extraordinary.
There is absolutely nothing, NOTHING, extraordinary about that, I assure you.
QuoteOr rather the cooling effects?
There are no cooling effects. We touched on this the other day. Any discussions of "cooling effects" allegedly generated by this circuit are a complete waste of time and a complete farce.
MileHigh
To the whole gang of misfits:
It was a big news high drama day! Wasn't it fun?! lol
For Aaron:
Ok, so you are utterly convinced that you are correct, and you believe that you have solid data to back the claim up. Plus you have the DSO for another month, yippee!!!!
So, at this point, will you do a capacitor test? It's so ridiculously easy to do. Get a large capacitor and charge that baby up. In the spirit of being as accurate as possible, I suggest that you do a control first. We need to do this because you are tweaking the circuit to the point were the power consumption is extremely low.
Just take your big 50,000 uF electrolytic cap, and charge her up to 12.6 volts and just let it sit there for 15 minutes with nothing connected to it, and then take a sample of the voltage with your best multimeter. Are the two voltages the same? This is just to establish that the thing isn't leaking.
Then leave your best multimeter connected to it for 15 minutes. This is just to see how the multimeter load affects the voltage. With a cap that big the voltage drop will probably be less than 0.01 volts.
Let's number crunch on the fly and limbo at the same time!!!
50,000 uF = 0.05 Farads
1 MOhm = 1,000,000 Ohms
R x C = 50,000 seconds!!! That's one hard hard boiled egg!
Connect the multimeter for 15 minutes anyways, just to be sure....
Now we are ready to go where no man has gone before, we have the technology.
Connect the big fat 50,000 uF cap charged to 12.6 volts to your setup, where you have already done your tweaking ahead of time to get the negative power consumption. After the cap is powering the circuit you might want to take a spot check with your scope to see that you have the correct "negative power" waveform like you have in your clips.
Now, let that baby run and monitor the cap voltage and see what happens.
I am a bit concerned about the current consumption being so low and the capacitor being very big such that the voltage barely changes after 10 minutes....
Hmmm... Let's look into that...
i = C dv/dt
dv/dt = i/C
So... if we assume 1 microampere of current consumption (OUT or IN depending on your side of the fence)... Hmmmm.....
dv/dt = 10^-6/0.05 = 0.00002 volts per second. So after 10 minutes, you are looking at a voltage drop or increase of roughly (we are going to be bad and smart and ignore the exponential curve here) 600 x 0.00002 = 0.012 volts.
Hmmmmmmm.... If we are assuming 1 mircoamp negative current into a 50,000 uF cap then we get a roughly 0.012 volt increase on the cap after 10 minutes.
Hmmmmmmm.... Perhaps it would be wiser to use a cap of 5000 uF instead of 50,000 uF because then we would expect a voltage increase (decrease dammit!) of 0.12 volts. That sounds better to me. The time constant is 5000 seconds under the multimeter load in this case which is still fine.
In summation, assuming your circuit supplies 1 uA to the battery when running in "negative consumption" mode, using a cap of 5000 uF should give you a voltage increase of about 0.12 volts after 10 minutes.
That was my theoretical expertise in action for you Aaron - I stepped into the Way-Back Machine and found some neurons were still flashing!
Pretty please do the cap test.
[EDIT: Since the drain (or source) current to/from the load may be super miniscule, DON'T leave the multimeter connected, just take a three second sample of the voltage after 10 minutes - do not disturb.]
OMG!!! OMG!!! Look out!!! Look out!! It's a bird! It's a plane!!! No! It's... it's.. an *ELEPHANT*... Coming down.... Run! Run!
Aiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeeeee ***SQUASH!!!***
I'M ALIVE!!! I'M ALIVE I'M ALIVE I'M ALIVE!!!!!
Just a few more comments, briefly, it's late and I am tired.
Aaron - your two most recent clips - I'll back .99 on this one by a google percent - playing with ZEROS on your display - ZEROS with a flashing negative sign????
Let's start a web site, "Pseudo Tech Geeks Gone Crazy" - we can sell millions of DVDs and get rich!!! Seriously dude... what planet are you on, man?? That whole scene was just grody to the max - wasn't tubular at all.
Looking at a digital multimeter displaying goose eggs with a flashing negative sign is metaphysically inconclusive data, dude! Go for a flight on a pink elephant.
QuoteThe video I showed you on the meter - well, the gel cell battery CLIMBED IN VOLTAGE OVERNIGHT. As of about 3am this morning, it was at 11.59 and it is now as of noon 11.61! So obviously on the smaller 7ah batt is it able to get charged up better than the bigger flooded cell at these low negative wattage levels. The flooded cell will give extended running time on draw downs compared to the gel but this shows even more in favor that I have shown accurate data - THE BATTERY VOLTAGE INCREASED 0.02 VOLTS OVER 9 HOURS!!!
I am pulling the hair out of my head Aaron!!! I know, I know.... sob.... sniff.... It's the "Attack of the Pseudo Tech Geeks and their Magnificent Battery Voltage Increases" - and Pamela Anderson Lee makes a appearance in her "Barb Wire" character. Joit wants to show her his coil and it goes "Boooooing!"
Barb Wire whips all you pseudo tech geek boy bitches into shape and tells all of you that there will be no more silly reports of battery voltage increases because they mean absolutely nothing. She is looking for a pseudo tech geek with real ENERGY and a big coil, and nothing else will do! She is watching your skanky little asses to make sure you can pump out ENERGY, because voltage doesn't cut it at all in the REAL WORLD.
Any chance you pseudo tech geeks will actually take note of this? Watch out for Pamela's whip and stiletto heels. It's enough to make any coil prematurely discharge.
MileHigh
MH,
Although I agree with the cap test, it's most likely quite futile to expect it to be performed by Aaron, or anyone in that camp for that matter, including their straw hero Harvey.
Anything that might jeopardize their momentum is out of the question. In fact, if they are not careful and watchful, Harvey may soon bring down the whole ship while gargling on his boot.
Anyway, you've read Aaron's posts today so you see to what lengths he will go to to prevent the house of cards from falling. Almost nothing he said today was rational nor logical, and anyone outside these forums who have not been so conditioned to read such nonsense would be flabbergasted at what they would see.
I have invited a Tektronix Applications Engineer to the EF forum. How interesting would that be?
So Aaron has put me on his ignore list, but he wants to see my video. :D Imagine that. I will probably do it anyway and post the link here. I doubt the folks at EF would be interested anyway, and it would seem none would believe it either. So I won't bother posting it there.
Regards,
.99
You crack me up DUDE :D
That was *sick* and tubular man.
.99
And crawling on the planet's face...
Some insects called the human race....
Lost in time....
And lost in space....
And meaning.... :(
Oh boy!
AC is about to chime in so predictably.... ::)
.99
Well, I'm amazed that Aaron has not yet realised that Harvey has burst his bubble with one powerful video!
Hoppy
Hoppy - hold your horses here. Rather read what Harvey has to say about it. And bear in mind - Aaron runs his switch off the supply battery to the experiment.
Am so looking forward to an impartial post from this side of the forum.
Oh, dear...
Are you still messing with this "OU/FE" electronic circuit? (Ainslie's FET OU heater)
I always thought that evaluation of an electronic device with an "energy producing" claim of +10"CoP" is quite easy...
So, what's the real problem?
Oh, I see... The Trolls.
Well, WilbyDegenerated is not exactly a problem. Self thought expert of many trades is just a simple minded guy with severe personal problems...
Yet, he managed to scare away most of the knowing & sincere guys....
OK. Well, I can tell you, he's just a ....
Anyway, if you care to proceed....
Almost all the measurements made were wrong. (Method, equipment, procedures... )
If you would make them in a proper way, you would see that there's nothing unusually going on. NO FE, NO OU, NO SUPERHEAT...
Fet's producing OU Heat?
Lol, a good one... ;D ;D ;D
"Transistor" is an abbreviation of a "transformable resistor" (or something similar..). That's the original declaration.
But, if there's something extraordinary going on, just prove it. Please?
Resistor is a "CoE" dependable "component". As is capacitor, inductor, diode, IC, ...
Cheers!
Quote from: witsend on September 01, 2009, 04:41:51 AM
Hoppy - hold your horses here. Rather read what Harvey has to say about it. And bear in mind - Aaron runs his switch off the supply battery to the experiment.
Am so looking forward to an impartial post from this side of the forum.
Rosemary,
Harvey's waveforms say it all for me.
From what I can see, Harvey also runs his circuit from just one run battery. However, he is not using the pot in series with the 555 circuit, which is not necessary.
Hoppy
Well I don't visit this side that often - I punched in here on page 142, saw Mile Highs post regarding the 555 back there, (Sorry MH, your wrong about the 555 supply voltage messing with the timing), skimmed a couple of posts and realized I should just skip to the end.
Evidently we do need a current limiter on these timers during this type of testing. I blew out my trusty 30 year old NE555 from 1980 tonight when the circuit went into aperiodic oscillation. The timer section was still clocking, but the output was hosed. It seemed to be tracking the discharge pin, no flipity floppity. This confirms my suspicions that resonant pulses are punching through the drain-gate capacitance at specific frequencies and routing through the output sink of the 555 and also making its way back to the reset transistor internally.
Also, MH - if you read the specs on the 555 you will find that the timing cap energy runs through the discharge pin which is only limited by case dissipation, nothing we are doing is pegging that.
I isolated the 555 from the HEXFET with a 40106BCN and found that the charge requirements are almost starving even with all six gates being used to pump it. There was no self oscillation and no retriggering with that circuit. That's when I pulled my 1.6ohm protection resistor from the gate and smoked the 555.
I am seeing way too many variables associated with this circuit and wonder at this point if anyone will be able to accurately produce with today's parts, the effects Rosemary once experienced 10 years ago. I will continue to try, but so far I am not getting the heating I expected.
Well, didn't mean to blog here - just stopped in briefly -
Cheers,
8)
Quote from: Harvey on September 01, 2009, 06:54:25 AM
Well I don't visit this side that often - I punched in here on page 142, saw Mile Highs post regarding the 555 back there, (Sorry MH, your wrong about the 555 supply voltage messing with the timing), skimmed a couple of posts and realized I should just skip to the end.
Evidently we do need a current limiter on these timers during this type of testing. I blew out my trusty 30 year old NE555 from 1980 tonight when the circuit went into aperiodic oscillation. The timer section was still clocking, but the output was hosed. It seemed to be tracking the discharge pin, no flipity floppity. This confirms my suspicions that resonant pulses are punching through the drain-gate capacitance at specific frequencies and routing through the output sink of the 555 and also making its way back to the reset transistor internally.
Also, MH - if you read the specs on the 555 you will find that the timing cap energy runs through the discharge pin which is only limited by case dissipation, nothing we are doing is pegging that.
I isolated the 555 from the HEXFET with a 40106BCN and found that the charge requirements are almost starving even with all six gates being used to pump it. There was no self oscillation and no retriggering with that circuit. That's when I pulled my 1.6ohm protection resistor from the gate and smoked the 555.
I am seeing way too many variables associated with this circuit and wonder at this point if anyone will be able to accurately produce with today's parts, the effects Rosemary once experienced 10 years ago. I will continue to try, but so far I am not getting the heating I expected.
Well, didn't mean to blog here - just stopped in briefly -
Cheers,
8)
Hi Harvey,
Great video. We have four pots to play with, so yes lots of variables! I've spent hours twiddling mine and I still cannot get any negative power.
Hoppy
Hey Harvey,
QuoteWell I don't visit this side that often - I punched in here on page 142, saw Mile Highs post regarding the 555 back there, (Sorry MH, your wrong about the 555 supply voltage messing with the timing), skimmed a couple of posts and realized I should just skip to the end.
Evidently we do need a current limiter on these timers
during this type of testing. I blew out my trusty 30 year old NE555 from 1980 tonight when the circuit went into aperiodic oscillation. The timer section was still clocking, but the output was hosed. It seemed to be tracking the discharge pin, no flipity floppity. This confirms my suspicions that resonant pulses are punching through the drain-gate capacitance at specific frequencies and routing through the output sink of the 555 and also making its way back to the reset transistor internally.
Also, MH - if you read the specs on the 555 you will find that the timing cap energy runs through the discharge pin which is only limited by case dissipation, nothing we are doing is pegging that.
I'll agree to split the difference with you on this one. I see how the timing cap is discharged through an open-collector transistor inside the 555, so a flaky supply would not really affect that. On the other hand, the timing cap is typically charged through the external Vcc power supply. So certainly the timing for the charging portion is affected by the external trimpot, where the trimpot resistance is on the same order of size as the timing resistor itself.
The bottom line is that the external trimpot to the 555 power pin is simply wrong. There is no logical reason for the trimpot resistor, in fact it is illogical, and I hope that Aaron removes it for future clips and others don't use it in their builds. If a 555 fails in a circuit, you should look at each pin to see why that's happening.
Since I have your attention, and assuming that we get through this positive vs. negative micro-milliwatt debate, I would encourage all of the builders to build and test the Ainsley circuit in its vanilla configuration, no oscillation, just a regular pulse waveform switching the MOSFET on and off without any spurious oscillation to see if you can find over unity. It should be easy to do, and easily repeatable.
This spurious oscillation business is almost never going to be the same between two different setups whereas the vanilla setups should be quite similar to one another.
Also Fuzzy, with all due respect, worrying about the ground is yet another Red Herring that is going to sap energy and confuse the builders. It represents throwing another monkey wrench into the works and is pointless. The ground for this circuit is the battery ground, plain and simple. The grounding is a non issue.
Meanwhile, I don't think Aaron has responded to the 555 trimpot issue.
MileHigh (Join the club! lol)
P.S.:
Cold War US Government instructions on how to build an elephant fallout shelter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOcVkofa1AU
Quote from: MileHigh on September 01, 2009, 06:11:15 PM
Also Fuzzy, with all due respect, worrying about the ground is yet another Red Herring that is going to sap energy and confuse the builders. It represents throwing another monkey wrench into the works and is pointless. The ground for this circuit is the battery ground, plain and simple. The grounding is a non issue.
MileHigh (Join the club! lol)
P.S.:
Hey MH,
I would say anyone trying this type of experiment should have the equipment to check whats coming out the wall your plugging your testing equipment and replication into ..... every instance is different and should never be overlooked especially when data recording is taking place. My option to resolve 99% of my problems is using a UPS or "Uninterruptible power supply"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uninterruptible_power_supply
It works very nicely and is inexpensive per say
Fuzzy :)
Quote from: MileHigh on September 01, 2009, 06:11:15 PM
The ground for this circuit is the battery ground, plain and simple. The grounding is a non issue.
This statement is half true .... are not the oscilloscope
"probe" grounds internally connected (bonded) inside the oscilloscope to the ground on the oscilloscopes 115 Volt power connector? This connector plugs into a receptacle where the
neutral and ground in a United States 115 volt electrical system are bonded together ...... with inductive and resistive loads ..... this is the issue for some
Fuzzy :)
Hi Fuzzy,
I avoided the whole "grounding" debate. As far as any type of electronic lab equipment goes it is reasonable to assume that each piece of equipment has it's own isolation transformer as part of it's power supply. Therefore any equipment ground that you access (scope, signal generator, multimeter, etc) is almost certainly floating relative to your AC mains neutral or the third prong ground plug.
If you connect the grounds of different pieces of equipment together they are all now linked to form a common equipment ground reference, and that is all still floating and has nothing whatsoever to do with the AC mains neutral or the third prong ground.
TK made a big point about the two ground channels of a scope not necessarily being separate. I am not sure but I would assume only the cheapest of the cheap scopes are like that. In a normal scope, it is reasonable to assume that each channel's input amplifier is being powered by it's own separate isolation transformer. The outputs from each input amplifier to go to the display drive electronics must also be differential. I just think that it is reasonable to assume this is the case for almost all scopes, and it is perfectly reasonable to check this with a multimeter before you start seriously playing around with your scope lest you create a short circuit somewhere if in fact your two scope channel grounds are common.
In contrast, I get the feeling that USB scopes do not have separate and independent grounds for the two channels, they are ganged together. This is to reduce cost.
QuoteThis statement is half true .... are not the oscilloscope "probe" grounds internally connected (bonded) inside the oscilloscope to the ground on the oscilloscopes 115 Volt power connector
?
I posted your question to emphasize the point. Absolutely not, it makes no sense for your scope channel ground to have any relation whatsoever with your AC mains neutral or third prong plug ground.
I am talking to you from my knowledge base, I have no specifics to offer you. Any bonding would simply be crazy.
In my 25+ years of working in the electronics industry, working in development labs on the bench, or later in just talking shop with the engineers, for all practical intents and purposes the issue of grounding and worrying about grounding has NEVER come up.
Among the enthusiasts in places like this web site there is a whole cult of mystery associated with grounds and grounding. People connect an earth ground to their CFL or LED circuit and see the lights get brighter and they think that "power is coming from the ground." This is all complete nonsense, what they are really doing is changing the impedance of their circuit so that they are getting more power from the BATTERY.
I urge anybody working on this circuit to simply work with their batteries or power supplies and completely forget about the grounding issue because it is a non issue. It just another distraction that will lead you away from the task at hand.
I will repeat my suggestion: Everybody, especially Aaron, try to test the circuit as per Rosemary's white paper and look for COP 17. After that, do whatever oscillation mode testing you want to do. This is the logical way to go about this project. Start with something simple and digestable and master that, then move on to the more complicated stuff.
Turn this whole thread around from a theater of the absurd to something simple and manageable.
This whole Aaron deal where he thinks that he has discovered fee energy producing microwatts of power is just a smoke screen because you are working at the limits of your instrumentation, and that includes the DSO, especially considering Aaron's rat's nest of wires.
And for what it's worth, even though I expressed major concerns about digital multimeters, in certain cases, like this case where you are trying to get the average voltage across the shunt waveform, it may indeed be workable. Certainly a digital multimeter has a freak-out when it tries to measure high voltage spikes and the display goes crazy. However, even though the shunt waveform has sharp spikes, they are in a very regular stream and the amplitude is not too high. It just might be the case that the multimeter will do a half decent case in determining the DC average - or not. Don't forget that I said "might." What happens is that you have regular sampling done by the multimeter passing through some kind of algorithm being run by the mircocontroller. No one is privy to the algorithms, those are likely to be trade secrets. However, there is a decent chance that you set up a "pseudo Monte Carlo method" sampling of the waveform. Look it up if you are curious. If that is indeed happening, then there is a very good chance that the DC average displayed by the multimeter is at least accurate for the average current flow direction. This might be hit and miss - you change manufacturer or model of multimeter and you have potentially different A/D sampling technology and a different algorithm.
Going back to the current Ainsley circuit drama, several people including myself think that a simple capacitor test would resolve the issue of which way the minuscule power is flowing in Aaron's setup once and for all. Presumably Aaron is stewing in his juices (Hi Aaron!) and will eventually come round and do this ridiculously easy and definitive test.
I can only hope and pray that after that is put to bed that everybody tries to set up and make measurements on the standard Ainsley setup as per her white paper. Measure electrical power in and thermal power out. At least then we can fight about something that is relevant to the claim. Don't be surprised if everyone measures a COP less than unity, and that will put this whole project to bed for good.
The sooner that is done the better for Aaron, because then he can do new and much more interesting things with his four channel DSO for the rest of the month.
MileHigh
Aaron:
This is my second talking point relative to your latest rant. You were so high and mighty in that rant that you merit being cut down to size - again.
QuoteAgain, you are on the fast track to becoming the laughing stock of the free energy world - especially by suggesting the use of a volt meter across a shunt! lol Go tell that to any professional that actually knows what they're talking about and they will simply laugh in your face.
I saw that you said that you have been playing with electronics now for 10 years - TEN YEARS.
What the fvck do you think the multimeter is doing when you put it in current measurement mode, Aaron?
Answer: It's measuring the voltage across its internal shunt. You are just unfvcking believable sometimes.
QuoteGo tell that to any professional that actually knows what they're talking about and they will simply laugh in your face.
Go to the blackboard and write that out 1000 times.
Rosemary:
QuoteBut I'm not sure about Poynt. He is uncompromising in his claim that we're not pointing to anything new. Yet he posts that his own simulator - which presumably is designed with algorithms that conform to classical analysis - actually gives results that defy classical prediction. Yet, by his own admission he has said that he's 'satisfied that the programme cannot give an overunity result' or words to that effect. If so, then why is he now stating that he can run a circuit on his simulator at a 27% on (I think it was) duty cycle without any input from the battery? Self oscillation with a consistent measurable voltage across the resistor presumably also dissipating energy - but with no requirement for a supply source once the oscillation has been triggered. That's got to be strange. Especially as such an effect would go to the gullet of classical theory.
This is where all of the flowers in the room wilt Rosemary. Myself and .99 feel the same sentiment and our faces are long and dejected and we stare down uncomfortably at the floor.
I don't know how many times we tried to get across the point to you that inductors and capacitors are energy storage devices. Amazing huh? You can disconnect the supply battery and then the circuit still shows activity because there is still energy available in the circuit by virtue of the fact that there may be charged capacitors and inductors with current flowing through them at the instant that you disconnect the battery power source.
Rosemary, it's time to take a "humble" pill and realize in no uncertain terms that you are in no position whatsoever to make any kind of call with respect to what "classical theory" says can and cannot be done. You would be better off simply taking a back seat an listening in these cases.
MileHigh
I'll interject here a bit MH, just a few points.
We haven't always agreed, and this is probably one more such instance.
In my experience, test equipment designed with a 3-prong plug, of which all modern ones are, does indeed have the probe (or connector) ground electrically connected to earth ground. Of course earth ground is also tied to the neutral back at the distribution transformer.
So in many cases it is necessary to utilize a true isolation transformer whilst working on equipment so that one doesn't accidentally short something to earth ground. The internal power supply transformer secondary will be connected to this earth ground also at some point, so it does not provide isolation in this respect.
About the DC voltage meter....you are giving these meter manf. folks too much credit ;D. Very few if any of them use computer algorithms for computing average voltage (digital scopes etc. are exceptions). It's done either with a simple averaging circuit with associated amplifier/attenuator, or most commonly now by using an integrating A/D converter, which is essentially a low pass filter that tells a counter to count.
A similar story goes for the RMS meters. They use RMS-DC converters on a chip, which up until recently are analog IC's. Somewhat recently, a new breed of RMS-DC converter has emerged and it operates using delta-sigma technology, but in principle, they are the same as the pure analog types(see Linear Technology). Of course we can't forget the the beautiful but now defunct LT1088 which worked with heating and thermistors. Too bad that chip is gone for ever.
Anyhoo, just my 2 bits worth.
.99
Hey .99:
To switch to sales mode, my confidence level with respect to the grounding stuff is about 65%, not super high. I am curious enough that this week I may check out a decent modern scope in the lab at work to check the resistance between the third prong ground and the lead grounds. It just seems counterintuitive to me. Yes, the scope chassis is connected to the third prong ground to prevent it from ever getting hot if there is an internal short to L1. But why should the scope probe ground bear any responsibility for shorting out any external device that gets hot and is connected to L1? By the same token, I can see how this makes things ostensibly safer, and will not really affect your testing, with the trade-off that you loose the independence of your probe grounds. Is this making sense? I concede that you are much more "hands on" than me with respect to all of this stuff.
QuoteAbout the DC voltage meter....you are giving these meter manf. folks too much credit ;D. Very few if any of them use computer algorithms for computing average voltage (digital scopes etc. are exceptions). It's done either with a simple averaging circuit with associated amplifier/attenuator, or most commonly now by using an integrating A/D converter, which is essentially a low pass filter that tells a counter to count.
My confidence about the guts in a digital multimeter is 50%. However an integrating A/D converter is really a sample and hold circuit that connects to the counter, no? So it is still sampling.
My gut feel has always been that at typical digital multimeter does something like a running average of the last 8 samples where it rejects the highest and lowest samples in the last eight to reject the "oddballs." The running average is essentially a software low pass filter. Ultimately the "running average of the last good six" is akin to a pseudo Monte Carlo method sampling. However, I stated my confidence level.
Confidence level even lower on the true RMS stuff. I always assumed that implied very very fast sampling coupled with real RMS number crunching. In theory that implies there is a fixed or variable time span that you are integrating over, possibly dynamically adaptable by a software algorithm that is "sniffing out" the waveform to make a decision on the integration time span.
Anyway, you have to give me credit for trying to reverse-engineer stuff in my head! lol
The bottom line is that I sense that you know much more than me about the guts inside multimeters. My true days of designing and really working on the bench are long gone. Nowadays it's only once in a blue moon that I need to play with a scope to find the source of a problem. I haven't touched a logic analyzer in years and years and am proud to say I never will again! lol
MileHigh
Hey MH,
Here's a good document by Intersil on the ICL7135 chip. I think you may find it interesting.
.99
Quote from: MileHigh on September 01, 2009, 09:34:56 PM
Hi Fuzzy,
I avoided the whole "grounding" debate. As far as any type of electronic lab equipment goes it is reasonable to assume that each piece of equipment has it's own isolation transformer as part of it's power supply. Therefore any equipment ground that you access (scope, signal generator, multimeter, etc) is almost certainly floating relative to your AC mains neutral or the third prong ground plug.
If you connect the grounds of different pieces of equipment together they are all now linked to form a common equipment ground reference, and that is all still floating and has nothing whatsoever to do with the AC mains neutral or the third prong ground.
TK made a big point about the two ground channels of a scope not necessarily being separate. I am not sure but I would assume only the cheapest of the cheap scopes are like that. In a normal scope, it is reasonable to assume that each channel's input amplifier is being powered by it's own separate isolation transformer. The outputs from each input amplifier to go to the display drive electronics must also be differential. I just think that it is reasonable to assume this is the case for almost all scopes, and it is perfectly reasonable to check this with a multimeter before you start seriously playing around with your scope lest you create a short circuit somewhere if in fact your two scope channel grounds are common.
In contrast, I get the feeling that USB scopes do not have separate and independent grounds for the two channels, they are ganged together. This is to reduce cost.
I posted your question to emphasize the point. Absolutely not, it makes no sense for your scope channel ground to have any relation whatsoever with your AC mains neutral or third prong plug ground.
I am talking to you from my knowledge base, I have no specifics to offer you. Any bonding would simply be crazy.
In my 25+ years of working in the electronics industry, working in development labs on the bench, or later in just talking shop with the engineers, for all practical intents and purposes the issue of grounding and worrying about grounding has NEVER come up.
Among the enthusiasts in places like this web site there is a whole cult of mystery associated with grounds and grounding. People connect an earth ground to their CFL or LED circuit and see the lights get brighter and they think that "power is coming from the ground." This is all complete nonsense, what they are really doing is changing the impedance of their circuit so that they are getting more power from the BATTERY.
I urge anybody working on this circuit to simply work with their batteries or power supplies and completely forget about the grounding issue because it is a non issue. It just another distraction that will lead you away from the task at hand.
I will repeat my suggestion: Everybody, especially Aaron, try to test the circuit as per Rosemary's white paper and look for COP 17. After that, do whatever oscillation mode testing you want to do. This is the logical way to go about this project. Start with something simple and digestable and master that, then move on to the more complicated stuff.
Turn this whole thread around from a theater of the absurd to something simple and manageable.
This whole Aaron deal where he thinks that he has discovered fee energy producing microwatts of power is just a smoke screen because you are working at the limits of your instrumentation, and that includes the DSO, especially considering Aaron's rat's nest of wires.
And for what it's worth, even though I expressed major concerns about digital multimeters, in certain cases, like this case where you are trying to get the average voltage across the shunt waveform, it may indeed be workable. Certainly a digital multimeter has a freak-out when it tries to measure high voltage spikes and the display goes crazy. However, even though the shunt waveform has sharp spikes, they are in a very regular stream and the amplitude is not too high. It just might be the case that the multimeter will do a half decent case in determining the DC average - or not. Don't forget that I said "might." What happens is that you have regular sampling done by the multimeter passing through some kind of algorithm being run by the mircocontroller. No one is privy to the algorithms, those are likely to be trade secrets. However, there is a decent chance that you set up a "pseudo Monte Carlo method" sampling of the waveform. Look it up if you are curious. If that is indeed happening, then there is a very good chance that the DC average displayed by the multimeter is at least accurate for the average current flow direction. This might be hit and miss - you change manufacturer or model of multimeter and you have potentially different A/D sampling technology and a different algorithm.
Going back to the current Ainsley circuit drama, several people including myself think that a simple capacitor test would resolve the issue of which way the minuscule power is flowing in Aaron's setup once and for all. Presumably Aaron is stewing in his juices (Hi Aaron!) and will eventually come round and do this ridiculously easy and definitive test.
I can only hope and pray that after that is put to bed that everybody tries to set up and make measurements on the standard Ainsley setup as per her white paper. Measure electrical power in and thermal power out. At least then we can fight about something that is relevant to the claim. Don't be surprised if everyone measures a COP less than unity, and that will put this whole project to bed for good.
The sooner that is done the better for Aaron, because then he can do new and much more interesting things with his four channel DSO for the rest of the month.
MileHigh
Textronix 2445A Oscilloscope Service Manual
http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/tektronix/scope/070-3829-00_2445svc_Jan83.pdf
Page 207
Like you said we went through this and I'm right :P
Fuzzy
;D
Hey Fuzzy and .99,
I have to concede defeat. I will check a decent scope at work tomorrow and consult with the real engineer in charge that has a background in the telecom industry.
I get 17 demerit points and a seven minute punishment session with Barb Wire! lol
I wouldn't be surprised if Aaron's DSO has true floating independent scope channel grounds though. With four channels you need that flexibility. I wouldn't be surprised if I am wrong there also! lol
MileHigh
P.S.: A shout out to Tinsel Koala who was also right!
MH In future when I post a serious observation I'll label it 'to be taken seriously'.
Fortunately my interests and their expression are not prescribed by you - or, for that matter, by anyone. And regarding the storage of energy on an inductor or otherwise - I'm satisfied that you are no expert in physics. When you are I'll defer to your opinion. I find it so strange that you spend so much time and energy on this subject. Surely if you disagreed you'd simply stop reading these two threads? Or even posting on them? What compels you MH? At the risk of misquoting the Bard - I think you generally 'protest too much'. Such an interesting compulsion. Is it because you find in this a subject that could possibly afford you an opportunity to parade an assumed superiority? If so, then you should look closely to the grounds of that assumption. If you see it as an urgent need to disabuse some naive free energy thinkers of their 'hopes' - then why? We're doing no harm. If you see it as a messianic need to protect known physical paradigms - you've lost already lost that war. Those paradigms have shifted so far away from Newtonian and even classical physics that they're entirely irrecoverable. If you're hanging around to see if there's any validity in the 'claims' detailed in the published paper - then why do you need to do so with such an excessive parade of equally excessive verbosity? And I might add, an inappropriate certainty.
When do your true objects here ever filter through that aetherised mind of yours? Such a tragedy MileHigh. Such brilliance - with no moderation, no introspection and no direction. What a cynic. No wonder you attack anything that still represents hopefulness or goodwill. What will you do with yourself when you find that you're actually wrong. Far greater thinkers than you or Poynt know that FE is there and is for the taking. I am almost certainly wrong on so many issues. But these guys aren't. They're acknowledged experts - even by mainstream. I have always said my contribution - if anything - is very, very small. But I sincerely believe that ZPE is available in switching circuitry. Let's see if this is valid. It would certainly make it more accessible than as allowed by conventional thinking which only sees it as accessible from a sub atomic level. And - disregard Aaron's evidence all you will. Your opinion here carries no authority.
Aaron is tasked to demonstrate COP17 on behalf of Rosemary. That means that the circuit has to produce / capture / acquire a lot more energy than the user is putting into the circuit. If the temperature of the resistor does not rise above ambient and the meter does not climb above a zero reading because there is insufficient power available for the meter to register, then he cannot reasonably claim that the circuit is producing negative power.
As soon as Aaron tweaks the circuit to increase power consumed, the flashing minus sign on his meter disappears. If he bothers to use a sensitive analogue ammeter with say a 50uA scale, he will see clearly that his circuit is always drawing power from the battery no matter how he adjusts the waveform.
Aaron has so far failed to demonstrate that his battery is charging with his load dissipating measurable heat above ambient and more importantly that the circuit is running at a COP above unity!
Hoppy
Answering Hoppy here.
Aaron is tasked to demonstrate COP17 on behalf of Rosemary. That means that the circuit has to produce / capture / acquire a lot more energy than the user is putting into the circuit. If the temperature of the resistor does not rise above ambient and the meter does not climb above a zero reading because there is insufficient power available for the meter to register, then he cannot reasonably claim that the circuit is producing negative power.
There are a few conditional clauses here. My own understanding is that any anomalous result should be recorded and, ideally replicable.
As soon as Aaron tweaks the circuit to increase power consumed, the flashing minus sign on his meter disappears. If he bothers to use a sensitive analogue ammeter with say a 50uA scale, he will see clearly that his circuit is always drawing power from the battery no matter how he adjusts the waveform.
He has used a more sensitive ammeter - and for that matter various voltmeters. Indeed beyond a certain level there appears to be some 'draw down' from the battery. Until that point there appears to be a recharge of the battery.
Aaron has so far failed to demonstrate that his battery is charging with his load dissipating measurable heat above ambient and more importantly that the circuit is running at a COP above unity!
That is merely an opinion and is not based on the evidence.
In reply to Rosemary: -
Aaron is tasked to demonstrate COP17 on behalf of Rosemary. That means that the circuit has to produce / capture / acquire a lot more energy than the user is putting into the circuit. If the temperature of the resistor does not rise above ambient and the meter does not climb above a zero reading because there is insufficient power available for the meter to register, then he cannot reasonably claim that the circuit is producing negative power.
There are a few conditional clauses here. My own understanding is that any anomalous result should be recorded and, ideally replicable.
Agreed, but this is a secondary mission and should not cloud the primary.
As soon as Aaron tweaks the circuit to increase power consumed, the flashing minus sign on his meter disappears. If he bothers to use a sensitive analogue ammeter with say a 50uA scale, he will see clearly that his circuit is always drawing power from the battery no matter how he adjusts the waveform.
He has used a more sensitive ammeter - and for that matter various voltmeters. Indeed beyond a certain level there appears to be some 'draw down' from the battery. Until that point there appears to be a recharge of the battery.
I see no evidence of this, only his statement that he had charged his battery overnight.
Aaron has so far failed to demonstrate that his battery is charging with his load dissipating measurable heat above ambient and more importantly that the circuit is running at a COP above unity!
That is merely an opinion and is not based on the evidence. Logged
Agreed, but where is the evidence to alter my opinion?
Hoppy
Hi Hoppy. I think you've missed out on his last video. Check it out. He shows the voltmeter defaulting to zero or below zero at a recorded value. This simply confirms the measurements from the Tektronix. He also shows the 'recharge' value of the gell cell battery. If it had been on the lead acid I doubt that the change would have been evident as the wattage is greater.
I think Fuzzy is close to replicating this effect. I know he's running the tests and seems to have found a really symmetrical waveform. Bias to a loss rather than a gain - but I think he ran his test over 24 hours showing a lower than ambient result over the resistor.
Aaron has shown no evidence that could be considered convincing that anything unusual is occurring in his circuit.
He has set the pots in such a way as to render the circuit "inoperable" and the current draw is almost nil. The fact that his battery recovered a minute amount of voltage overnight can not be construed as evidence of recharging. That is not proof.
Again Rosemary, if you take nothing away from this experience at all, please take this:
An indication of +/- 0.000 on a meter is inconclusive evidence of a measured signal.
In other words, one can not conclude that anything at all is being properly measured and indicated.
.99
Poynt - if that was all that was measured then I would agree. It was not. You have taken one moment from a voltmeter reading and are asking me to take this as a definite reading of the whole experiment. It is a reading of the average voltage taken across a 0.25 Ohm shunt. And this reading was done to satisfy your requirement. The voltage reading off the Tektronix was more definitive. And both readings give an average at zero or below. Not zero voltage. Zero average voltage. There's a big difference between this and what you are implying.
Rather give us a detailed power analysis from your simulator. Why are you not giving us full values of the entire experimental run? You have got the rms value across the resistor. You know the inductance on the resistor. If you want credibility then play your cards openly.
Quote from: witsend on September 02, 2009, 04:54:34 AM
Hi Hoppy. I think you've missed out on his last video. Check it out. He shows the voltmeter defaulting to zero or below zero at a recorded value. This simply confirms the measurements from the Tektronix. He also shows the 'recharge' value of the gell cell battery. If it had been on the lead acid I doubt that the change would have been evident as the wattage is greater.
I think Fuzzy is close to replicating this effect. I know he's running the tests and seems to have found a really symmetrical waveform. Bias to a loss rather than a gain - but I think he ran his test over 24 hours showing a lower than ambient result over the resistor.
Rosemary,
I had seen this video and I'm not impressed at all! The only way that I can simulate the negative readings he has shown on the video, is to pulse my meter lead. I then get exactly the same range of readings as Aaron on my 200mV range. I would ask Aaron to carefully check that one of his meter leads is not intermittently going open circuit or high resistance.
The fact remains that his circuit is working at an ridiculously low power level which is not even going to heat his resistor above ambient!
Hoppy
Quote from: poynt99 on September 02, 2009, 09:11:39 AM
He has set the pots in such a way as to render the circuit "inoperable" and the current draw is almost nil. The fact that his battery recovered a minute amount of voltage overnight can not be construed as evidence of recharging. That is not proof.
...In other words, one can not conclude that anything at all is being properly measured and indicated.
.99
Run a switch at plus/minus half a watt - have heat over a MOSFET and reduce the temperature from 2 hundred watt resistors and still recharge a a 12volt 3AH battery over a 7 hour run period? Which part of this is 'insignificant' and which part 'not properly measured and indicated?' You forget that the tektronix is equal to these measurements. What is significant is that the battery in fact recharged.
Quote from: Hoppy on September 02, 2009, 11:03:34 AM
Rosemary,
I had seen this video and I'm not impressed at all! The only way that I can simulate the negative readings he has shown on the video, is to pulse my meter lead. I then get exactly the same range of readings as Aaron on my 200mV range. I would ask Aaron to carefully check that one of his meter leads is not intermittently going open circuit or high resistance.
The fact remains that his circuit is working at an ridiculously low power level which is not even going to heat his resistor above ambient!
Hoppy
And the fact remains that he has an apparent zero draw down rate. You guys asked for voltage measurements across a shunt at 0.25 Ohms taken from a standard voltmeter. We're looking at an average dc voltage from a shunt ONLY. What about the measurements across the loads, the switch, the pots and on and on? What is wrong with you all? There is about 0.8 watts dissipated at zero cost to the battery as proven by the measurements across a shunt using every possible meter to hand. And the conclusions relating to zero battery draw down concur with the evidence on the battery voltage as well as the careful measurements taken from a 'rolls royce' measuring instrument. It is acknowledged that the results are small. But they are not insignificant and they are not wrong.
You keep complaining that the voltage reading across the shunt is small. It IS small. It is not drawing energy from the battery. And that you can't duplicate this Hoppy? I cannot explain why. Perhaps it's because you'd rather not.
Quote from: witsend on September 02, 2009, 11:17:34 AM
And the fact remains that he has an apparent zero draw down rate. You guys asked for voltage measurements across a shunt at 0.25 Ohms taken from a standard voltmeter. We're looking at an average dc voltage from a shunt ONLY. What about the measurements across the loads, the switch, the pots and on and on? What is wrong with you all? There is about 0.8 watts dissipated at zero cost to the battery as proven by the measurements across a shunt using every possible meter to hand. And the conclusions relating to zero battery draw down concur with the evidence on the battery voltage as well as the careful measurements taken from a 'rolls royce' measuring instrument. It is acknowledged that the results are small. But they are not insignificant and they are not wrong.
Rosemary,
You too are looking at Aaron's tests at a distance by video. I see only a rundown of the battery on my bench. Ask Aaron to power his circuit with a cap and even at the ridiculous low power level, his cap will discharge. If he wants to explain this away by saying that the battery does the magic, then fine because this is always the get out clause. Go on take a gamble and ask Aaron to do just one more test Rosemary, with the cap, to prove us all wrong. He can then rejoice and claim the OU prize and have his name go up in lights!!
Hoppy
Good grief Rosemary ::)
Indeed Poynt
Rosemary wrote: -
"You keep complaining that the voltage reading across the shunt is small. It IS small. It is not drawing energy from the battery. And that you can't duplicate this Hoppy? I cannot explain why. Perhaps it's because you'd rather not."
Of course the voltage is small across the shunt. However, it is drawing energy from the battery and a 50uA analogue meter will show this. A charged cap in place of the battery will also show that the circuit is consuming power.
I would love to be proved wrong but if I cannot duplicate what Aaron is showing, how am I going to be convinced. Why do you take things at face value when you watch a video. Is it simply because your overwhelming desire to believe in free energy - blind faith. I have experimented and built electronic circuits since I was a youth. I have had a technical education and worked in the Telecommunications industry all my life. I am willing to spend time on these forums in the hope that someone will convince me that EE is fundamentally flawed but I'm not going to let a video of an ammeter spuriously flashing negative and positive and a DSO that may well not be calibrated correctly, convince me that my life's technical education has been in vain!!
Come on Rosemary, smell the coffee! You need to acquire a lot more 'conventional' technical knowledge and experience under you belt to have a right to tell us that we are deluded. I admire your guts to attempt this but before you continue with your campaign, just ask yourself, why you are putting so much faith in Aaron's conclusions when even your friend Harvey shows much caution in openly stating that Aaron is running OU with his setup.
Hoppy
Hoppy - one either believes the presented evidence or not. Clearly you do not. Since all these tests rely on the instrument's data capture and on video demos - then there's nothing that will be shown that will convince you. You will have to do your own experiments and if you draw a blank then you must also draw your own conclusions.
If you're hoping to corroborate what you've been taught at school and believed all your life - then I must ask you what I asked MH. What are you doing on this forum? And Harvey's value to this exercise is precisely because he's cautious and critical. If there are glaring errors or incorrect conclusions or misrepresentation of data then he'll find it. We all need that level of critique. Perhaps you could take a leaf out of his book and apply some degree of anlysis to the findings instead of the balnket refusal to acknowledge the data.
Quote from: witsend on September 02, 2009, 02:59:49 PM
Hoppy - one either believes the presented evidence or not. Clearly you do not. Since all these tests rely on the instrument's data capture and on video demos - then there's nothing that will be shown that will convince you. You will have to do your own experiments and if you draw a blank then you must also draw your own conclusions.
If you're hoping to corroborate what you've been taught at school and believed all your life - then I must ask you what I asked MH. What are you doing on this forum? And Harvey's value to this exercise is precisely because he's cautious and critical. If there are glaring errors or incorrect conclusions or misrepresentation of data then he'll find it. We all need that level of critique. Perhaps you could take a leaf out of his book and apply some degree of anlysis to the findings instead of the balnket refusal to acknowledge the data.
Rosemary,
I'm confident that Aaron is reaching incorrect conclusions about the data being presented. I have the circuit working on my bench, and although it is obviously not electrically identical to Aaron's (but a lot neater!), I do have a bit more than just a visual picture from video footage.
I think you are in good hands with Harvey and I will be interested to see his conclusions with this circuit. I'm now signing off for good from posting to this thread.
Hoppy
Hoppy I would appeal to you not to stop posting here. I'm just so sorry that I proposed it as an alternative. I should, at least, have pointed out that you're a rare objector - precisely becuase you do your own experiments. I apologise if I have offended you and I would ask you to please reconsider. So, so sorry Hoppy. I shouold at least have highlighted that I respect your conclusions - regardless of their co-incidence with my own.
Please? Indulge a really old lady here. I'm truly sorry I prescribed a right. I have no justification for this.
Quote from: witsend on September 02, 2009, 04:17:32 PM
Hoppy I would appeal to you not to stop posting here. I'm just so sorry that I proposed it as an alternative. I should, at least, have pointed out that you're a rare objector - precisely because you do your own experiments. I apologise if I have offended you and I would ask you to please reconsider. So, so sorry Hoppy. I shouold at least have highlighted that I respect your conclusions - regardless of their co-incidence with my own.
Rosemary,
You certainly have not offended me, to the contrary, I respect your tenacity in debating your side which you are doing with all sincerity. I'm ceasing posting because I've said all that I wish to say and we must all remember that a forum is for polite expression of opinions and we should not expect to win the 'other side' over with a constant barrage of opinionated posts, which I've become guilty of. I'm more than happy to continue listening to the opinions of others and I really do hope that Harvey and others can prove to the satisfaction of at least a few of 'the sceptics' that your original circuit or Aaron's variations can perform as originally claimed.
Hoppy
Rosemary:
I am here because I want to be here and it is fun. I am no angel and have said a few nasty things but so have you and so has just about everybody else. Emotions can run high. You also know that a typical believer has a very limited technical background and they simply observe and offer encouragement from time to time. Without the skeptics then nothing really happens on these threads. The pattern is very familiar, the same thing is happening on the "IST! NEO ZAP! TECK Breakthrough" thread. Somebody is sparking a wire by connecting it to a coil and battery in series and there are believers taking it all in like it is real. It the same old story: The believers don't understand that the coil is storing energy from the battery and the spark is in fact a demonstration of the conservation of energy, not over unity.
Nor do I like seeing my education and the 400+ years of science that forms its foundation trashed by people that barely understand energy or electronics. I am not picking on you or Aaron here, I am making a generic statement.
Without the skeptics everyone would have been convinced a long time ago that the circuit works. It's funny I saw Jibbguy's comment that the skeptics are being "used" to test the wider waters when the "discoveries" associated with your circuit "go global." lol It will be on CNN 24/7 - the most important story of the 21st century - not.
I made a mistake on the scope grounding and admitted it right away, but I did not make a mistake on the cap test. The other components in the circuit are heating up because they are burning off battery power. That in and of itself is telling you that the battery is providing power to the circuit.
The battery voltage going up by 0.02 volts means nothing. Take the same type of battery and connect an appropriate resistor across it so you know the battery is definitely putting power into the load and it would not be surprising to see the battery voltage going up also. A few times you have mentioned the vagaries of battery chemistry and that is correct.
The fantasy ending for this story is for you and Aaron to look at your data and say, "We were wrong and we learnt something," but I kind of doubt that we will be hearing that from Aaron.
The same two questions are still there: Cap test? Standard setup test for COP 17?
MileHigh
MileHigh - I am intrigued at what you find fun? I hope I've never found it fun to 'scoff' at people as you seem to enjoy. Still - if it floats your boat - there's nothing to stop you. Just reflects rather sadly on your needs here.
Regarding the certainties of your 'power stored'. Take a look at Tom Valone's work. He IS an expert and he is pointing to precisely the 'small' evidence that I believe is apparent on a switching circuit. The 400 odd years of scientific development has not now been concluded. It is only now beginning to reach into the energy field that has also know been been acknowledged by mainstream quantum and classical theorists. That will NEVER fit into the learning you were taught. What do you do with this? Deny it because your teachers never told you about it?
I have NEVER known any battery voltage climb when subjected to any kind of load - with the entire exception of loads applied to a switching circuit. If you know of exceptions here then you should take heed. It flies in the face of - and CANNOT be explained in terms of battery vagaries. One battery may differ in performance from another. But show me please, where classicists predict that a battery can recharge under load.
While I'd hate to deny you your 'fun' I wonder if you could perhaps find a way to enjoy this without costing others their fair share of this. I appreciate that alternate opinions are vital. But they do not need paraded with the full force of opinionated bigotry.
Hey Rosemary,
You get a lot of nasty digs in about me in that posting. Looking at Aaron trying to make a big deal about a digital multimeter displaying "- 00.00" and considering that he has been playing and tinkering with electronics for 10 years is worth scoffing at.
The battery voltage climbing by a measly 0.02 volts could just be related to the temperature, as has been stated before. Your claim that the battery is "recharging under load" is based on the observation that it's voltage climbed a fraction of a volt over time and is incorrect. Common sense is telling you that the battery is discharging because components are heating up. Aaron tried the "magic battery" argument and I made a whole posting to debunk that argument because it simply does not apply here. The DSO and meter readings are inconclusive by any reasonable standard of measurement, and you and Aaron are effectively hiding behind those inconclusive measurements.
With respect to batteries, I have mentioned to Aaron multiple times that he should start making output impedance measurements but that comment is simply not acknowledged. I have to assume that for 10 years Aaron has been erroneously working with battery voltage increases and decreases and it is too much for him to accept that this is in fact basically nonsense data. I also assume that Aaron does not understand the concept of the output impedance for a battery.
Don't you dare call me a bigot. You know where the worst hate speech is on the two forums? It's coming from pixie faerie Joit. Go after him if you want to fight bigotry.
MileHigh
Something from Wikipedia that relates to "Doc" Tom Valone:
>>>
Warren National University was a post-secondary, distance learning, unaccredited private university offering undergraduate and graduate degrees in the United States, based in Cheyenne, Wyoming. Until December 14, 2007, its administrative offices were located in Agoura Hills, California. [3] The institution was established in California in 1984 under the name Kennedy-Western University, and adopted its new name in 2007. The university had reportedly been economically successful[4] targeting mid-career professionals. It has also been the subject of controversy and criticism due in part to involvement in a U.S. federal government investigation. The Chronicle of Higher Education said, "The university was notable for its slick marketing and for doling out credit for 'life experience.'
>>>
Very similar to the "Doc" Peter Lindemann experience.
Sorry MileHigh. I probably overreached here. Let me rather stick to the point.
In order to prove that a battery is not discharging one needs to evaluate the energy delivered by a battery by taking some sort of reliable voltage measurement across the shunt to determine the polarity of the current flow and the amount. That's obvious. Now. If the battery is, in fact not discharging - then the value is likely to be zero volts indicating zero current. That's also obvious. Then how do we prove this if, having discovered a zero voltage it is then denied precisely because that value is zero. You've taken away the very grounds we need to prove the argument. Therefore you've proved your argument and we will never be able to prove ours. Is that fair?
But to add further force to your argument and to continue to deny any to ours - you then state that the battery voltage climb is co-incident with some heating? somewhere? evidently not in the room as ambient stayed pretty constant. And while a recharge is indicated in our measurements - the fact of it is still considered co-incident with something other than returning energy? Come on MileHigh. Give us a much needed break here.
There is one thing that one gets a feel for - having been on these forums for a while now, and that is the muscle of the different contributors. You've got so much of it MileHigh. Try and use it more impartially - is all I'm asking. And valone also talks about battery charge. It's got properties that seem to be consistent with the casimir effect - precisely because of the polarity of current flow. Please look him up. He's an acknowledged expert in the art. Not a rank presumptuous amateur which is the kindest thing that could be said about my own efforts here. I'm not excited at Aaron's results. I'm excited if they can be replicated. At least Fuzzy's close to this. A few more efforts from different contributors and who knows? Maybe we'll get enough replication to actually have even this effect considered. The theoretical implications here are far more mind bending than our own published experiment. Surely you see this?
I apologise - wholeheartedly for suggesting that you're opinions are bigotted. I had no right. Golly. I really did over step. Sorry.
The results can be replicated.
The results are pointless, meaningless, and not worth replicating.
The meter reads 0.000 not because the net positive and negative currents are equal, but because the circuit has been so severely choked back in operation that virtually no current at all is being consumed, hence the difficulty the meters are having in registering and displaying any kind of measurement.
.99
DR TOM VALONE
EDUCATION:
Ph.D. in General Engineering, Kennedy-Western University, California, 2003
Concentrations: Physics, Engineering R & D, Trend Forecasting
Dissertation: Feasibility Study of Zero-Point Energy from the Quantum
Vacuum for the Performance of Useful Work
Thesis Advisor: Dr. Kimberly Farah, Associate Professor and Department
Chair, Lasell College, Massachusetts
M.A. in Physics, State University of New York at Buffalo (SUNY), 1999
B.S. in Physics, State University of New York at Buffalo, (SUNY), 1974
B.S. in Electrical Engineering, State University of New York at Buffalo,
(SUNY), 1974
Taken from his CV. I call that an impressive certification.
MileHigh (or whoever or whatever you really are):
Where is your PHd from?
Where have you taught at?
What books have you published?
What magazines have you edited?
How many years did you work at the Patent Office?
What devices and instruments have you successfully invented?
What symposiums and lectures have you given in front of thousands?
Answer ANY of those questions, and we may consider giving your words about Tom Valone any weight at all.
Although considering how completely wrong you have been here ... Over and over again... i cant imagine why anyone should.
Rosemary:
Apology accepted.
To see which way the power is going in the case of Aaron's setup where the energy level is very very low, I would take a battery with a known amount of energy in it (I made a long posting a while back on how to do this) and connect it to the setup for a week or more. Then I would run a discharge cycle on the battery and measure the amount of energy left in the battery and compare that with the original energy.
With respect to tiny changes in battery voltage, I am not a chemist or chemical engineer. I am willing to bet you that if you sampled the voltage of an unused battery sitting on your shelf every day you would notice tiny fluctuations. Inside the battery there are molecules constantly in motion and that may introduce a natural variability in the voltage. Just guessing. The fact is that battery voltage has almost no coorelation with the amount of energy in the battery and for a large portion of the discharge cycle the voltage is nearly constant. At least the output impedance gives you a concrete sense of when the battery is close to depletion of it's stored energy and/or the overall condition of the battery.
As far as "Doc" Tom Valone goes, why would he slap a phony "doctorate" degree on top of his legitimate undergraduate degrees? It doesn't smell right.
Note this:
>>>
Thesis
Advisor: Dr. Kimberly Farah, Associate Professor and Department
Chair, Lasell College, Massachusetts
>>>
Especially note this:
>>>
Lasell College offers bachelor's degrees in professional disciplines such as Athletic Training, Fashion and Retail Merchandising, Communications, and Hospitality and Event Management. It also offers a graduate program in management studies. The most prominent academic major at Lasell is professional fashion design. "Connected Learning", via which students work on offsite projects and assignments, is a major emphasis.
>>>
Whaaaaaaa?????
Jibbguy:
It's not about me.
QuoteAlthough considering how completely wrong you have been here ... Over and over again..
You spin me right round, baby Right round like a record, baby Right round, round, round....
MileHigh
MileHigh - There is absolutely nothing suspect about the source of accreditation for the good Doctor. I don't care where he found his 'advisor' the degreed source is impeccable. I'm sure he had to look long and hard to find another academic to associate their good name with ZPE. It's existence is only officially required to explain paradoxes that our astrophysicists point to.
Regarding battery vagaries - yet again. It is to be expected that a charged battery - standing idle - may yet lose its charge. It is entirely unexpected that a charged battery, standing idle - increases its charge - unless it's a 'bounce' due to a previously heavy run. It is certainly not expected that a battery running at 0.8 watts of dissipated energy also recharges. That is not expected in any classical frame of reference. But I grant you. The recharge could be tested over an extended period.
By the way - thanks for accepting the apology.
And a quick question - what time zone are you in?
Rosemary:
You can't equate the state of charge of the battery with the battery voltage. How are you so sure that the ambient temperature in your reference didn't change? Do you think that Aaron ever ran tests of unloaded battery voltage vs. battery voltage at various loads vs. electrolyte temperature? Do you thing Aaron ever ran tests of unloaded battery voltage vs. battery voltage at various loads vs. different states of charge of the battery vs. differtent electrolyte temperatures? Do you think that Aaron ever took a fresh battery and gave it enough of a load so that over several hours the internal energy dissipation due to the internal output impedance would slowly raise the temperature of the electrolyte? What if it was a not so fresh battery? That way he could measure the unloaded vs loaded battery voltage during a moderate discharge cycle to see if the increasing electrolyte temperature could cause the loaded or unloaded battery output voltage to increase over time. These tests would have to be run for different sizes of batteries and for different battery technologies.
I somehow doubt that he did any of these tests. You know what they say, you have to do the experiments before you can make any assumptions about a battery's voltage creeping up by two one-hundredths of a volt over nine hours. It could be nothing but "background noise."
MileHigh
Eastern Standard Time - what's that, GMT - 5 hours?
No. He has not yet run an extended battery test. I'm sure it will eventually be included. But the time needed to do such tests conflicts with the short time that the Tektronix instrument is available. So - my guess is that he'll use this time to capture data.
Eastern standard is GMT - 7. I must say I assumed you were European. Anyway it's my time 3.21 and long past my bedtime. Seem to have spent the day/night apologising all over the place. Perhaps one day I'll be given an opportunity to accept an apology. Have no idea what that feels like. ;D
Rosemary:
I was talking generically about batteries, not specific to this current project. I am just trying to make the point that batteries are complicated animals. I assume that you are familiar with the term "background noise." There are times when you want to intelligently ignore the data that you are measuring. Again, not necessarily specific to this battery testing or to battery testing in general. I am just making just a global general comment about test and measurement and "background noise."
A simple example with respect to electrical circuits is that resistors generate real "background noise", white noise with a measurable power output that comes from the thermal energy soup that we are all living in. If your signal drops to the level of the noise, then you don't necessarily know if the tiny spike you see is your signal or if it is the noise.
Rosemary, I will apologize to you because I know that I am guilty of being hard on you. I honestly regretted that last jab I gave you because it was gratuitous and it did not contribute anything. So I am sorry for that and please accept my apology. I will try to reign in that tendency.
Honestly as a general comment I get the real sense that the contributors to these forums are good people and have good motives and want to make the world a better place. That is very encouraging about the human condition. Part of the disconnect or the "gap" or whatever you want to call it is that it may be hard to see that people like myself, .99, Hoppy, TK and others also want to make the world a better place. When I heard about "cold fusion" in 1989 I almost cried.
The gap is quite wide and deep and I don't see it ever being closed because of the natural variability in the human condition. Just about everything in Nature falls on a Bell curve with a mean and standard deviation, including people. A "believer" sees Tom Bearden (for example) as a "good guy." I see Tom Bearden as a "bad guy." That's the gap.
MileHigh
Quote from: poynt99 on September 02, 2009, 07:25:48 PM
The results can be replicated.
The results are pointless, meaningless, and not worth replicating.
The meter reads 0.000 not because the net positive and negative currents are equal, but because the circuit has been so severely choked back in operation that virtually no current at all is being consumed, hence the difficulty the meters are having in registering and displaying any kind of measurement.
.99
Poynt - just another quick point - you're talking nonsense. Justify the loss of 0.8 watts on the entire circuit and I'll believe that you're looking at the whole picture. Until then your selective perspective is clearly defective.
Quote from: MileHigh on September 02, 2009, 09:34:09 PM
Rosemary:
I was talking generically about batteries, not specific to this current project. I am just trying to make the point that batteries are complicated animals. I assume that you are familiar with the term "background noise." There are times when you want to intelligently ignore the data that you are measuring. Again, not necessarily specific to this battery testing or to battery testing in general. I am just making just a global general comment about test and measurement and "background noise."
A simple example with respect to electrical circuits is that resistors generate real "background noise", white noise with a measurable power output that comes from the thermal energy soup that we are all living in. If your signal drops to the level of the noise, then you don't necessarily know if the tiny spike you see is your signal or if it is the noise.
MileHigh
I got it MH - first time. Like I say - Aaron will probably do detailed tests when he doesn't also have the 'machine'. And may I add - on this forum as well - our enduring gratitude to the good people at Tektronix who allowed the loan. Thanks again Lisa. It's now officially my time for bed.
Quote from: witsend on September 02, 2009, 09:35:38 PM
Poynt - just another quick point - you're talking nonsense. Justify the loss of 0.8 watts on the entire circuit and I'll believe that you're looking at the whole picture. Until then your selective perspective is clearly defective.
I'm talking plain and simple truth, and the truth will prevail. Until someone presents even a smidgen of evidence that these pulsed coils produce OU, cold current, and/or negative net current, these experiments are interesting, but mostly unremarkable.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on September 02, 2009, 09:58:48 PM
I'm talking plain and simple truth, and the truth will prevail. Until someone presents even a smidgen of evidence that these pulsed coils produce OU, cold current, and/or negative net current, these experiments are interesting, but mostly unremarkable.
.99
Can you kindly quantify 'smidgen'.
MileHigh - I read through your opening para in your last post and expected more of the same. Today I had the necessary focus and re-read this. I have finally experienced the rare and real pleasure of seeing an apology embedded - appropriately I might add, in the very heart of the post. I'm DELIGHTED to accept this. ;D That's the best I can do because Stefan doesn't give us enough variety with his emoticons. I'd prefer to see a kiss as an option. Anyway consider it blown and posted across the pond together with my admiration - unbounded.
Regarding the 'gap' - I see it that we're just mirror images of the same cause. We just look at the chasm from different sides - but it's the same obsession. Anyway - I've lots more to say about batteries but it seems somewhat prosaic with all this good will for the taking. I'll deal with it later. So nice MileHigh. You're definitely growing on me.
Quote from: witsend on September 03, 2009, 04:13:51 AM
Can you kindly quantify 'smidgen'.
smidgen:
QuoteA very small quantity or portion; a bit or mite
evidence:
Quotesomething that makes plain or clear
As my post says, "smidgen of evidence", meaning BOTH must be met.
Of course the believers will argue that both have been met, but those familiar in the art know that -5.4mV in a sea of noise hardly qualifies as either in this particular setup.
.99
"+/- 2% error"
Is the published spec for the 3054C's "Vertical Accuracy" meaning the DC voltage accuracy.... meaning at a setting of "25mV full scale", the error would be: .02 x .025 = .0005 ( "+/- 0.5mV" ) plus or minus half a millivolt.
For "50 mV full scale" : +/- 1 mV error.
For "100mV full scale" : +/- 2 mV error.
There are 8 vertical div's on that scope's screen.... At "20mV per division" (what i read from the screen notation for Channel 2 of Aaron's video when the "negative" readings were taken) this comes out to "160 mV full scale" total.
8 x .020 = .160 ("160 mV's Full Scale" .... meaning all 8 divisions of the screen added together).
.160 x .02 = .0032 ( " +/- 3.2 mV error".. meaning 2% of the current full scale value) .
So the claim that reading 5mV's is beyond the point of accurate measurement of the instrument at this setting, is not correct...
As the vertical accuracy is wholly dependent on the sensitivity/range setting of the channel at the time.
Aaron could also expand out the voltage sensitivity setting; and expect to get better accuracy readings, as seen above.... As the "2%" figure is a "worst-case" meant to cover the manufacturer's butt against litigation; and you can realistically expect a DC accuracy of more around " +/- 0.5% " for nearly all applications.
__________________
Under the category of "providing more info than is really needed" lol:
The other factor besides "Vertical Accuracy" , is rarely published any more in modern instruments, because "Auto-Calibration" solves the issue anyway... That is of "DC Offset" (and Tek apparently has no published spec for this on that model).
The procedure is to check for this Offset with shorted inputs at the most sensitive setting. If there is a small offset (after performing an "Auto Cal" if available of course), this DC offset must be factored in to the future results...
But if this DC Offset is, say, "+0.1" of a division, at the most sensitive "1 mV per div." range... then at the "10mV per div." range... This same DC offset is only ".01 division"... Not practically measurable (considering that the pot to tweak for baseline position is much less sensitive than that, lol).
But with old scopes without "auto-cal", and that havn't been calibrated in years, this DC Offset can get considerable at the most sensitive ranges... So folks looking for the most accuracy possible should check for it with shorted inputs... Or, simply check it with the sensitivity setting that will be used.
Rosemary,
I have returned because I have just noticed that the circuit schematic in Fig.1 of the Quantum article does not tie up with the schematic in Fig.4. In Fig.1 the two batteries are linked at 0V. In Fig.4, the 0V from the 555 switch is shown connected to the mosfet source, which is the opposite side of the 0.25R shunt resistor to the 24V neg battery terminal. This may have been raised before and I missed it but just in case it has not, I thought I should point this out, as it does beg the question, which configuration was used to obtain the data? It would be interesting if Aaron could repeat the data collection with the Fig.4 config for comparison.
Hoppy
Thanks for this Hoppy. I'll alert Aaron to it. Am not sure that it'll make much difference but it's certainly worth looking into.
Quote from: witsend on September 02, 2009, 09:14:40 PM
Eastern standard is GMT - 7.
Eastern Standard is GMT - 5. It is now 17:03 GMT (UTC), which would be 12:03 Eastern Standard Time (3 minutes after 12 noon).
Quote from: Bubba1 on September 03, 2009, 01:03:12 PM
Eastern Standard is GMT - 5. It is now 17:03 GMT (UTC), which would be 12:03 Eastern Standard Time (3 minutes after 12 noon).
Golly Bubba1 - I stand corrected. Then my time is GMT + 2 unless GMT has been adjusted for daylight saving. It's all very confusing.
Quote from: witsend on September 03, 2009, 01:07:38 PM
Golly Bubba1 - I stand corrected. Then my time is GMT + 2 unless GMT has been adjusted for daylight saving. It's all very confusing.
No, GMT does not change for daylight savings.
Quote from: witsend on September 03, 2009, 12:43:08 PM
Thanks for this Hoppy. I'll alert Aaron to it. Am not sure that it'll make much difference but it's certainly worth looking into.
Rosemary,
I have attached scope shots taken across the 0.25R mosfet circuit shunt resistor. The first is with the batteries commoned to ground (Fig.1). The second is as connected in Fig. 4. Both waveforms are at 20mV / 0.2uS per div & x10 probe.
EDIT: Both waveforms DC coupled.
Hoppy
Hoppy - I know you're trying to help here and I'm grateful from a really profound level. But I simply can't deal with it at the moment. I'll try again later. Just so glad to see you're still posting.
Glen and Joit:
QuoteI think ........ I want the best results between the Battery and Wire Wound Resistor looking towards the Mosfet drain ...... CCW or CW ..... right now mine is CCW I think it should be CW ..... whats your thoughts ?
Not trying to be nasty here but this is a "nonsense" issue that is very revealing about your knowledge level and clearly shows that you need to learn Electricity and Magnetism 101.
For a single standalone inductor with no other inductors in the immediate vicinity the direction the coil is wound is totally irrelevant. For any coil that is not coupled to any other coils the direction of the winding is irrelevant. In addition, how neatly and evenly spaced the windings are done around your glass cylinder and other related minutia are basically irrelevant for this experiment.
This reminds me of experimenters that build Bedini motors and wonder if the motor will work better with all North poles facing outwards on the rotor as compared to all South poles facing outwards on the motor. There is no difference.
Just a reality check for the two of you, you need to learn the basics to give yourselves a foundation to keep growing on. Without a foundation you are toast.
MileHigh
Quote from: Hoppy on September 03, 2009, 01:21:13 PM
Rosemary,
I have attached scope shots taken across the 0.25R mosfet circuit shunt resistor. The first is with the batteries commoned to ground (Fig.1). The second is as connected in Fig. 4. Both waveforms are at 20mV / 0.2uS per div & x10 probe.
EDIT: Both waveforms DC coupled.
Hoppy
Hoppy:
Good Pics. Where is zero volts, the line in the middle with hash marks, or where the signal settles down at the right side?
Quote from: MileHigh on September 03, 2009, 10:42:30 PM
Glen and Joit:
Not trying to be nasty here but this is a "nonsense" issue that is very revealing about your knowledge level and clearly shows that you need to learn Electricity and Magnetism 101.
For a single standalone inductor with no other inductors in the immediate vicinity the direction the coil is wound is totally irrelevant. For any coil that is not coupled to any other coils the direction of the winding is irrelevant. In addition, how neatly and evenly spaced the windings are done around your glass cylinder and other related minutia are basically irrelevant for this experiment.
This reminds me of experimenters that build Bedini motors and wonder if the motor will work better with all North poles facing outwards on the rotor as compared to all South poles facing outwards on the motor. There is no difference.
Just a reality check for the two of you, you need to learn the basics to give yourselves a foundation to keep growing on. Without a foundation you are toast.
MileHigh
Just goes to show you can't please everyone ....... before anything is even done ...... but just ask you have "ALL" the answers ...... Huh !!!!
I am building a Vacuum Tube Tesla Coil also .......
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4087-vacuum-tube-tesla-coil-toy.html
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7238.0
If you would ever bother to read "any" other of my threads, but that would be asking to much and a 800 turn coil you must have extra ordinary ability's most humans don't have, to wind one by hand ...... go fish ...... and don't forget your tin foil hat >:(
Quote from: Bubba1 on September 03, 2009, 10:49:58 PM
Hoppy:
Good Pics. Where is zero volts, the line in the middle with hash marks, or where the signal settles down at the right side?
Hi Bubba1
At the RHS on the flat signal line.
Hoppy
This gets to heart of the problem of what we see here: Assumption that the "foundation" and "101" classes we were taught in the first place were correct in all ways.
...They were not.
Once that gets through your skull, then the reasons for these endeavors here that you constantly attack might become apparent.
And there is much evidence to the contrary regarding differences in magnetic poles. Anisotropic magnets are a fact (U.S. Patent No. 6,787,083 ). Gauss meters can even detect differences in ordinary magnets as well. Researchers have reported that a North pole of a magnet can indeed be "different" than the South in both behavior and intensity.
A few days ago, a Paper describing the empirical discovery of magnetic monopoles released from researchers in Germany.
http://www.physorg.com/news171209923.html
They didn't cover that in freshman science either ;)
To be so smug and sure in what you know about science, must be psychologically comforting. But it is not logical.
Quote from: poynt99 on September 03, 2009, 08:42:53 AM
Of course the believers will argue that both have been met, but those familiar in the art know that -5.4mV in a sea of noise hardly qualifies as either in this particular setup.
.99
If there is a net zero current flow from the delivery of a battery supply source - then what measurement would prove this? Zero? Greater zero? Less zero? Where are your brains? How can a zero net loss be proven if any measurement at zero is considered NOISE?I'm posting this answer here to accommodate any readers who do not read both forums and both threads. Else your conclusions here will be the only one on record. You'll note the edit but this is, in any event, for the record together with this second post reference and a second marginal edit.
And with reference to 'faulty meter' read uncalibrated, insensitive, whatever you want. I'm simply stating that it may not be equal to the required voltage measurement. Let me remind you - it was required by you. And - let me stress, the Tektronix is well able to deal with this measurement. It entirely eludes me why you should have wanted an alternative instrument unless you were looking for inferior data. I also do not understand why Aaron ever obliged you here. The real joke is that having done the measurement which you called for - you then discount it on the basis of the the instrument not giving a correct value. So, so strange. You really do treat us like idiots.
Quote from: Hoppy on September 03, 2009, 01:21:13 PM
Rosemary,
I have attached scope shots taken across the 0.25R mosfet circuit shunt resistor. The first is with the batteries commoned to ground (Fig.1). The second is as connected in Fig. 4. Both waveforms are at 20mV / 0.2uS per div & x10 probe.
EDIT: Both waveforms DC coupled.
Hoppy
Am I missing something here Hoppy? The two waveforms look so much the same with possibly a marginal improvement over the first? Would you mind explaining this?
Quote from: witsend on September 04, 2009, 11:50:23 AM
Am I missing something here Hoppy? The two waveforms look so much the same with possibly a marginal improvement over the first? Would you mind explaining this?
Rosemary,
Only that the waveforms are different and could affect the result at the extremely low power levels that Aaron was measuring in his circuit. As Aaron needs to re-test in line with Harvey's recommendation, he could try the other shunt configuration in his next series of tests.
Hoppy
thanks Hoppy. Got it. I think the only questionably 'low' values were at the shunt. But I hear you. It would be good to check on this.
Thank you Hoppy. :D
Wow look at TK's new work :o :o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFHNY38GQsI
More Description Will Be Inserted Soon_
I will make the circuit available as soon as I can make a nice drawing of it. That is, "soon."
If you are interested, please be patient and don't flood me with requests; I will post it somewhere as soon as the drawing is done.
Unlike many circuits you might find in this particular area of research, this one does not use any components made of unobtainum or that must be ordered in from Alpha Ophiuchi 8. You can just about still get everything at RatShack.
well done TK
cat
Quote from: witsend on September 04, 2009, 11:41:02 AM
If there is a net zero current flow from the delivery of a battery supply source - then what measurement would prove this? Zero? Greater zero? Less zero? Where are your brains? How can a zero net loss be proven if any measurement at zero is considered NOISE?
I'm posting this answer here to accommodate any readers who do not read both forums and both threads. Else your conclusions here will be the only one on record. You'll note the edit but this is, in any event, for the record together with this second post reference and a second marginal edit.
And with reference to 'faulty meter' read uncalibrated, insensitive, whatever you want. I'm simply stating that it may not be equal to the required voltage measurement. Let me remind you - it was required by you. And - let me stress, the Tektronix is well able to deal with this measurement. It entirely eludes me why you should have wanted an alternative instrument unless you were looking for inferior data. I also do not understand why Aaron ever obliged you here. The real joke is that having done the measurement which you called for - you then discount it on the basis of the the instrument not giving a correct value. So, so strange. You really do treat us like idiots.
Then in all fairness you should have also posted my responses subsequent to yours. You answered my post here based on a different post elsewhere.
The meter is not capable of measuring the levels of voltage in the circuit, so it is NOT a reliable indicator of net direction. The -5.4mV was taken right from the scope samples, and this is buried in a sea of noise, and can not be reliably taken as a solid indicator of net direction, particularly with the large number of "spiky" samples that are "out of trend" with adjacent data.
.99
Poynt - which meter? The voltmeter you required or the tektronix which recorded the original samples? Which of these two meters cannot record the 'spikes'?
And what is it about the voltage over the load resistor that is too insignificant to constitute anything but noise.
The switch was being run off the same battery as the test. It's nominal wattage is plus/minus 0.4. The Fet was hot - the battery recharged and the two load resistors 100 watt each - both recorded a loss of over 1 degree below ambient. And both voltmeters recorded a negative voltage across the shunt indicating a zero loss to the battery and a possible recharge. the battery did recharge and over an extended run period. Since when has a switch run and yet recharged a battery? And where has a switching circuit run a load cool?
And if there was zero energy being lost at the battery - again, what number must the voltmeters or the tektronix give to prove this if not zero or less than zero? And while it is valid to suggest that the voltmeter may not have managed the data it is entirely invalid to suggest that the Tektronix could not handle the frequency or the number.
Quote from: powercat on September 04, 2009, 02:03:09 PM
Wow look at TK's new work :o :o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFHNY38GQsI
More Description Will Be Inserted Soon_
I will make the circuit available as soon as I can make a nice drawing of it. That is, "soon."
If you are interested, please be patient and don't flood me with requests; I will post it somewhere as soon as the drawing is done.
Unlike many circuits you might find in this particular area of research, this one does not use any components made of unobtainum or that must be ordered in from Alpha Ophiuchi 8. You can just about still get everything at RatShack.
well done TK
cat
thanks cat. It would be nice if you could post it here or post a link here if you put it elsewhere.
I only ever post here, it is the best OU research forum in the world ;)
More information from TK on his unit
TinselKoil 02c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDvRTNhrmBo&feature=channel_page
cat
Quote from: witsend on September 04, 2009, 03:04:29 PM
Poynt - which meter? The voltmeter you required or the tektronix which recorded the original samples? Which of these two meters cannot record the 'spikes'?
And what is it about the voltage over the load resistor that is too insignificant to constitute anything but noise.
The switch was being run off the same battery as the test. It's nominal wattage is plus/minus 0.4. The Fet was hot - the battery recharged and the two load resistors 100 watt each - both recorded a loss of over 1 degree below ambient. And both voltmeters recorded a negative voltage across the shunt indicating a zero loss to the battery and a possible recharge. the battery did recharge and over an extended run period. Since when has a switch run and yet recharged a battery? And where has a switching circuit run a load cool?
And if there was zero energy being lost at the battery - again, what number must the voltmeters or the tektronix give to prove this if not zero or less than zero? And while it is valid to suggest that the voltmeter may not have managed the data it is entirely invalid to suggest that the Tektronix could not handle the frequency or the number.
Good Grief Rosemary ??? ::)
I think I've already sufficiently addressed all these points, and quite frankly I'm having trouble making heads or tails of the quoted anyway.
.99
You have addressed these points. But not on this thread. Like I said. I'm posting to have it for the record and for those that do not also read our own thread. I agree the reference has now been exhaustively covered.
Well,
This was a kind of a bummer of a week, like WWI in the trenches, very little movement, lots of posting energy expended. I still say this is all being approached cart before the horse or ass backwards, and the basic 2.4 KHz 3.7% duty cycle waveform should be investigated. But that's just me. You almost get a headache from reading the postings, it hertz!
For what it's worth, to repeat, the direction that you wind coils does not matter if they are stand-alone devices. No clue what "Angel control" is, but.... Poor Farrah.. and Michael! North and South poles are indeed the same. Beat me with a rubber spoon if you disagree.
I am hoping for some real movement this coming week, perhaps Aaron will emerge.
Love on all of you fabulous furry free energy freak brothers and sisters!
Well there's gonna be a freakers ball
Tonight at the freakers hall
And you know, you're invited one and all
Come on babies grease your lips
Grab your hats and swing your hips
Don't forget to bring your whips
We're going to the freakers ball
Blow your whistle and bang your gong
Roll up something to take along
It feels so good it must be wrong
We're freakin at the freakers ball
Where all the fags and the dykes they're boogyin' together
The leather freaks are dressed in all kinds of leather
The greatest of the sadists and the masochists too
Screaming "Please hit me, and I'll hit you"
That last verse was dedicated to Jumpin' Jack Joi(n)t!!! lol
MileHigh
Oops! I almost forgot to say the first picture of the populated PCB from Groundloop is truly great and I hope some good research is done by the enthusiasts using this setup. Get yours now because they should go like hotcakes!
An old school of arthritic mind
Creaked into a New Age to find
That original thought
Was now being taught
But they missed it because they were blind.
To add to the stresses of sight
And the incontinent brotherhood's plight
Was the fact that Mile High
Was quite low in the sky
With no Joules to get through the night
And the point of this tedious refrain
Is to remind you all once again
That the forum you mention
Has no intention
To amuse you. That's hardly our aim.
Rosemary and all,
I'll dedicate this one to "The Cause."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVbK1ODWxcA
Read the lyrics in the comments section and do some deep thinking.
Old School idealism being respun for the New Generation looking for new energy solutions while fighting against the Powers That Be. But, there is an ironic twist - the New Generation also wears the mask of the Powers That Be. The lyrics don't touch on that.
"For the chains of the sea
Will have busted in the night
And will be buried at the bottom of the ocean."
I am in chains.
It's never simple, is it? Will the New Generation World Order be monitoring our energy consumption, and determining if it is "energetically politically correct" or not?
Will I be able to have two large hot coffees at a lunch counter, or will I be forced away from the lunch counter because you are not allowed to have two large hot coffees?
MileHigh
MileHigh - Dylan is my all time favourite. I know every word of every lyric. I listened through for the pleasure of it but know it well. He's the genius voice of the 60's. No one even close to him.
'New Generation wears the mask of the Powers That Be.' That's way too obtuse to get my head around. I think New Generation have no authority at all. The only comfort is that there's a drift of the intelligencia away from mainstream. But it's small movements. The loudest call is still from us 'furry freaky' brothers and sisters.
You should read Jibbguy on the subject. My own take is that if energy can be generated at the domicile level then the war is won. No Order - new or old - will get authority over that. But so much independence? Not sure if that's a recipe for wholesale mayhem. But I'd like to find out - experientially.
by the way - 2 large hot coffees won't touch sides with me. I need much much more
Sing it with me! "Everybody must get stoned!"
HeairBear - consider me in there - in the chorus line up. But I'm high on hopes. Can do without the medication. The trouble with getting this high is the downer when one actually takes stock. So. I vacillate. It's bipolar state of mind.
I guess that time will tell about the New Generation. It is getting pretty scary just the same when they pass laws that you can't smoke in a car with children in it. No, I am not advocating smoking in cars with children in them.
Yes Dylan said it all! :) The Chimes of Freedom were flashing in Iran for a while.
Re: Energy at the domicile level. Panacea.org's dream.
There is a fun calculation that anybody can do. Look up a recent total annual energy consumption for your country then get the per capita energy consumption. Then work the numbers all the way down to the equivalent horsepower engine running 24/7 to sustain your existence. You will be shocked. So it is not as simple as that. Your slice of the energy pie is much larger than you think and there is a roaring engine running all the time. Think a family of four.
Any takers?
I am willing to bet that in the US or Canada, every single person is backed up by something like a 1000+ horsepower engine running 24/7. It's a wildish guess. It puts the whole domicile-level energy calculation in perspective.
MileHigh
P.S.: There is a law against irradiating chicken embryo brains with high frequency electromagnetic radiation. :p
Quote from: witsend on September 04, 2009, 03:15:42 PM
thanks cat. It would be nice if you could post an updated link here.
Rosemary
TK will put information on the Internet when he's good and ready.
Provided nobody else has already posted it, yes I will post it for you and others
cat
Harvey:
How about a real-time power measurement for all of your induced oscillation modes? A variation on .99's circuit for Luc. Do you have a nice bench variable power supply? Just connect it through a 20 Watt 10 ohm resistor to a big fat cap and a small cap in parallel and then use that node to power your setup. (I am giving you a ball park guess for the resistor value, just something appropriate relative to your typical current consumption.)
Then as you tweak your setup you monitor the DC voltage drop across the big resistor and you can just raise or lower your variable power supply voltage to get a voltage drop across the power supply shunt resistor so that the big cap powers the circuit with your chosen voltage, 12 volts, 12.6 volts, etc. You just need two meters on DC voltage measurement, one across the power supply output, and one across the big cap output.
If you choose the right big fat cap value, then every time you do a tweak it would take about 10 seconds to get to 99% of the final voltage. You tweak the oscillations and see that the big cap voltage drops so you raise your power supply voltage so that everything stabilizes back to 12 volts on the big cap.
This gives you a real time power consumption for the circut as you try different oscillation modes. You can derive the DC current and you are measuring the big cap voltage in real time. A measly spreadsheet cell! lol
On the Classical side: From the battery's perspective the tweaks simply are changing the perceived impedance of this buzzing coil-resistor/MOSFET/555 buzzing beehive of switching activity. How aggressively the buzzing is taking place and at what frequencies things are bouncing around in the beehive ultimately result in a change in the impedance of the beehive. The real time current consumption/power consumption is telling you how bustling a beehive of activity you are dealing with.
Did that give you a buzz? lol
I give all credit to Poynt99 for borrowing his design and modifying it into the ULPFBSRTRCPA (Universal Low Pass Filter Based Super Real Time Reactive Circuit Power Analyzer). We like to call it the "RTPA" ("ritt-pah") for short. I pledge that this RTPA s officially declared Open Source and anybody can use it and modify it in anyway they want.
:D
MileHigh
STOP THE PRESSES!!!!!
Revision 1.1 (It's about time you guys start talking like the "real engineers" talk. )
Ummm... I would put one multimeter measuring the big cap voltage and the other multimeter measuring the voltage drop across the resistor. Chances are the you will get a more accurate voltage drop reading like this. :)
Just an update on my Ainslie circuit testing. I have managed to get the 555 running hot with the mosfet running cool and the load resistor running quite hot as reported by Harvey. I can only do this with an NE type 555. Increasing the shunt resistor from 0.25R 1R helped to get into this 555 'hot' mode. The waveforms are very spiky with no sign of sinusoid's. Other 555's gave me a much less spiky and more sinusoidal waveform across the mosfet shunt resistor when the load resistor is running quite hot. The 555 circuit was powered from a seperate 12V battery as per the original Ainslie circuit.
The 555 gets very hot and is clearly working outside its recommended parameters here and therefore this mode of operation will not be easy to replicate, even if there was a point in so doing. The circuit is still pulling plenty of current from the battery in this mode and is no way OU, although I must admit, I did get confused at one point and think that it might be when I saw the battery volts climbing. However, this was because I had previously been in a heavy discharge condition and forgot this after I had readjusted the pot settings. Its all too easy to confuse oneself after an hour or so of tweaking all them pots!
My power calculations showed a total consumption of approx. 2.7W when running in this spiky mode. The equivalent power consumed in the same load resistor from a DC bench supply gave a very similar temperature.
EDIT: Varying the voltage on the 555 when powered from a variable bench supply, drastically alters the waveform shape across the mosfet shunt resistor. Best spiky signal was with 7.5V.
Hoppy
Two really cool links for the daring:
http://www.arduino.cc/
http://www.sparkfun.com/commerce/categories.php?c=103
If you can write C code or assembler, and would love to start doing things under full digital control with analog and digital I/O, you could go nuts here and it is all so cheap to do. Plus there are pre-written routines to do cool stuff.
If you are smart you will follow the links for the distributors, because it looks like there is a gold mine's worth of stuff out there for enthusiasts.
If I was 19 again I would go crazy with this stuff.
MileHigh
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeScmRwzQho
We now take you back to your regularly scheduled programming...
MileHigh - I'd love to know what you make of TK's latest excursion on youtube? Have you watched this?
.99:
QuoteEDIT2: A side note here is that if a flyback diode is added to the simulation, most of the power we see being returned to the battery during the clipped negative excursion at the Drain is dissipated in the load resistor rather than returned to the battery. So in reality, the flyback diode does not return energy back to the source, it recirculates the current in the load and increases the power dissipation therein. Just an FYI. Note however that a small spike of current will go back into the battery due to capacitances in the circuit components, but this is miniscule in comparison to the current recirculating in the load.
I don't believe it that when you add the flyback diode then most of the power is dissipated in the load resistor...... >:( >:( >:( Your stupid pSpice program was hard coded from the beginning to rule out over unity effects. It was written by stupid programmed engineers that don't know that all the electrical knowledge from after 1937 was corrupted by J.P. Morgan and the oil companies and the United Fruit Company.
MileVeryHigh (That was my nickname when I sang backing vocals with the Side Lane Bucks. We were constantly ravished by screaming teenage girls AND their mothers on the "Bucks for Bucks" tour.)
Quote from: witsend on September 06, 2009, 12:56:46 PM
MileHigh - I'd love to know what you make of TK's latest excursion on youtube? Have you watched this?
Here's my take on it:
Rosemary, I sincerely hope you're still not fixated on the notion that TK was claiming OU with his SSTC circuit ???
I watched all 3 videos, and although fascinating and nice to see his great workmanship and design skills, I did not hear him make any claims or innuendo towards the notion of a OU device.
What he DID say/imply however, is that this is the sort of thing you can do with properly-designed switching circuits, in regards to efficiency etc.
Did anyone else here get the impression that TK was making any fantastic claims?
.99
Poynt - the title claims that the mosfets produce MORE POWER GAINS THAN THE AINSLIE CIRCUIT. Am I misreading this? But I'm not expecting COP anything at all. Just want confirmation. I'm tired of wading through his implications.
I would also love to know MH's take. I think I'm on his ignore list.
By the way - I saw the work done for Harvey. How about that exercise you proposed? Has that been shelved? I'd be sorry as I wanted to see this.
Rose,
Yes, his statement is correct from his point of view, but would not be from your point of view.
TK is saying that your circuit is maybe 60% efficient, while his circuits are maybe 85% efficient.
.99
Truly he's a brat. Thanks Poynt.
Which exercise Rose?
There are a few things going on at the moment, so it would be helpful to be more specific.
.99
The one with the bridge rectifier and an inductor in parallel. Harvey pointed out something regarding the bridge. If you've already done this I've missed it.
Quote from: witsend on September 06, 2009, 01:31:59 PM
The one with the bridge rectifier and an inductor in parallel. Harvey pointed out something regarding the bridge. If you've already done this I've missed it.
This test is best left up to experiment. This one and the second one I suggested where a secondary is wound over the inductive resistor and used to feed the same rectifier bridge.
A simulation is not going to produce any OU effects, but I think you already know this. What would be the point?
Wait for Harvey or someone else to try one or both of my suggestions. He already mentioned that he has an isolation transformer he might try. Winding a secondary on the load resistor is also very easy to do.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on September 06, 2009, 01:41:46 PM
This test is best left up to experiment. This one and the second one I suggested where a secondary is wound over the inductive resistor and used to feed the same rectifier bridge.
A simulation is not going to produce any OU effects, but I think you already know this. What would be the point?
Wait for Harvey or someone else to try one or both of my suggestions. He already mentioned that he has an isolation transformer he might try. Winding a secondary on the load resistor is also very easy to do.
.99
I get it. The real reason I want to see your program results is to gauge the expected classically predicted shortfall in efficiencies. It's a gauge. How about doing the published? I gather that the inductance isn't easily replicated - but maybe a way around this? Anyway. I know you're busy and it's not critical.
Thanks poynt. By the way, when are you going to let us know your real name? :D :-X
And a quick note for Stefan. We need more emoticons.
EDIT Sorry. By published - I mean Quantum publication.
Quote from: witsend on September 06, 2009, 01:51:29 PM
I get it. The real reason I want to see your program results is to gauge the expected classically predicted shortfall in efficiencies. It's a gauge. How about doing the published? I gather that the inductance isn't easily replicated - but maybe a way around this?
EDIT Sorry. By published - I mean Quantum publication.
It's easy enough to do the Quantum article circuit, provided you don't mean the published 555 circuit as well? That one won't achieve the desired 3.7% duty cycle Gate drive, so I have been using a pulse generator set accordingly in the simulations. The Quantum article does not have the flyback diode, just to be clear.
I'll see about posting some similar scope shots as I made for the exaggerated 864uH simulation, i.e. go back to the published 8.64uH setting.
.99
Many many thanks Poynt. Much obliged.
Rosemary:
I saw the fist clip a few days ago. Very nice breadboard work, it looks like a futuristic miniature city - like Kandor. He seems to have constructed a nice looking device that delivers the goods - high voltage high frequency AC. Beyond that I don't recall him making any special claims. The last two clips were eye candy for Tesla nerds.
So the pop quiz question is what's special about the tips of the wires?
Glen:
In your waveforms you can see the 555 is oscillating at about 500 KHz, and every fifth cycle the 555 croaks as part of its fibrillation. I have to assume your timing components are not set for 500 KHz indicating that something not right is going on, but in the context of this circuit that is considered right.
For fun, you might want to just make a nice robust good old astable multivibrator circut running at 500 KHz and hook that to the MOSFET to see if you get essentially the same shunt resistor waveform at the main load resistor, minus the croaking that you see for every fifth cycle. If you try this of course get rid of the trimpot that connects to the 555's supply pin (shudder).
As far as the shunt resistor waveform goes, let's just ignore the ringing spikes for a second. You can see that when the MOSFET switches on you can see the beginning on an exponentially rising current waveform where the scope voltage rises to about 10 millivolts, which translates into about 40 milliamps of load current. You know the maximum load current is about one amp, so you never even come close to charging the inductive part of the load resistor with real energy. In fact, you only store about (0.04 x 0.04 X 100) = 0.16% of the maximum storeable "kick back" energy before the MOSFET switches off again.
This is an example of the very high excitation frequency on the MOSFET gate input preventing any real current from flowing through the coil-resistor, the inductive component is preventing that from happening. The current flow is being "choked" by the high switching frequency in combination with the inductance.
As far as the 0.02 volt increase on the battery goes look at it like this: If the battery stores 500 kilojoules of energy and the circuit is dissipating 1 Watt of power (for example), then the very simplified run time calculation is 500 thousand seconds, or 139 hours. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that your battery will not decrease in voltage after 7 1/2 hours. Also, like I mentioned before, observing a 0.02 volt increase or decrease on your battery voltage after 10 hours of usage means nothing and the wisest course of action would be to treat that data like background noise.
MileHigh
.99:
I looked at your PSpice plots in #2547. I think that you hit the nail on the head when you say at these high frequencies, about 190 KHz, that the coil-resistor + MOSFET capacitance become a series RLC resonant tank circuit that is made to oscillate at the pulse excitation frequency. The phase difference between the drain voltage and the shunt voltage is close to 90 degrees, which is probably indicating that you are close to, but not quite on, the resonant frequency. There is no need to get excited about being on the resonant frequency, it just means that you would get a higher amplitude shunt resistor waveform.
In engineering terms, when you are operating at these higher frequencies, something akin to a "small signal" analysis is going on here, and the series RLC circuit is acting like a "filter" and responding to the given excitation frequency with a measurable amplitude and phase shift on the shunt resistor waveform. It is not "resonating" per se, it is a filter that has it's own inherent resonant frequency that is responding to the excitation frequency. If the excitation frequency is the same as the filter's resonant frequency then you will get a maximum amplitude waveform across the load resistor.
About 95% of the power being returned to the battery: I have a sneaking suspicion that the the "black box" known as the battery is not very amenable to being charged when the charging waveform is 1/2 of a 190 KHz low amplitude current sine wave. I would not be surprised if the battery "can't react" to this stimulus and in fact acts much more like a resistor dissipating the return energy. So if you assume that when you conventionally charge a battery (including the Bedini way) that 70% of the charging energy becomes energy stored in the battery, then for this case I would not be surprised if only 5% or less of the charging energy becomes energy stored in the battery.
Anyway, this is all very interesting stuff with one caveat: Here were are discussing how when a MOSFET is switched at a very high frequency (relative to the "normal" setup) then you are reduced to looking at small-signal quasi sine waves at a very low power levels as the capacitive effects associated with the MOSFET become significant. One more time we are far far away from the Ainsley white paper and are basically spinning our wheels looking at effects that will not likely advance the quest to investigate the claim of COP > 17. Nor do I think that the effects themselves are particularly interesting and there is nothing associated with any potential over unity to be found here. We are in milliwatt territory here and I don't see this line of investigation helping the cause at all. I view it as a dead end, and I thank you Poynt because I think that you just showed us where the dead end stops.
For a general message to the replicators including the Panacea duo and Glen: Don't take your eyes off of the ball. If you are going to try to work with a flavour of a "conventional" Ainsley circuit then you have to try to measure the electrical power in and the thermal power out. That is what the goal for this whole experiment is, providing those two pieces of data. It is great to see scope shots, and pictures of your setup, but you have to provide measurements to go along with your scope shots.
Also for the Panacea duo: The 500-ohm trimpot that the gate signal goes through should be as close to the 555/MOSFET as possible. You should not have it connected by long yellow wires because the square wave signal will be corrupted as it travels up and down the yellow wires.
MileHigh
Hey MH.
Not sure where Harvey is going with this, but I capitulated for the benefit of all to hopefully gain a better understanding of what's going on with this circuit, both in the conventional 2.4kHz/3.7% drive mode, and in the aperiodic mode of operation.
I personally feel that the 555's part in all this is only unique in that it is able to cause this secondary trigger 800ns or so after each primary one. Aside from that, I believe that the same "effects" Harvey and Aaron et al have seen working down in these low levels can also be achieved simply by purposefully driving the MOSFET at these higher frequencies, i.e. in the 450kHz range. I have suggested they try this a couple times, and even done it myself in the sim, but who knows if anyone else will try it.
Regarding the phase issue, yeah I noticed that too. I could play with the period and PW to get things aligned, but as you say not sure if there would be anything to gain. It is interesting, and who'da thunk that the MOSFET and resistor would have formed a tank circuit LOL. We'll see what Harvey wants to do next.
Thanks for the comments, always welcome.
.99
Aaron:
About "negative resistance":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_resistance
QuoteI don't know if in the mosfet there is the same type
of negative resistance effect that violates ohms law
but there are non-linear zones exactly like this on
the irfpg50 depending on the settings. I'll show what
I mean in a video.
To clarify, they don't "violate" Ohm's Law. They are non-linear devices that have a "dynamic resistance" that will vary according to the applied voltage or current, that's why they use the term "negative differential resistor."
In other words, you apply a voltage and measure the current and calculate the value of the resistance at that particular voltage. Then if you apply a different voltage and measure the current then calculate the resistance and you will find that it yields a different value. In both cases Ohm's Law applies and power is dissipated in the device. The fact that the resistance changes with applied voltage is telling you that you are dealing with a non-linear device.
The same thing applies to diodes, if you look at a typical V-I plot for a diode you can see how it is another type of negative differential resistor where the higher the applied forward voltage, the less the resistance calculation for the diode.
"Violating" Ohm's Law sounds very cutting-edge and can be made to look like a "challenge" to "Classical" theory. Ohm's Law is not violated and as the Wikipedia article shows, there are standard applications were the the property of negative differential resistance in certain devices is used to advantage.
MileHigh
TK update
TinselKoil 05c: Ring of Fire
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHms7tiIrrI&feature=channel_page
TinselKoil 04c: Full Power Sparks and Arcs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RDvylw7cBU&feature=channel
Quote from TK
The gap shown is 55 mm.
I finally seem to have stopped blowing mosfets, and I've installed some fans and buzzers to help me keep it that way.
I had several bad incidents over the weekend: One overheat under power that exploded a irf640 like a small gunshot, and another failure of an expensive irfpgsomething or other that wound up blowing all four of them as well as a couple sets of gate voltage regulating zeners. But I understand a lot more about troubleshooting the unit now!
I also got a nasty RF burn on my left index finger yesterday. Just a tad more and I'd probably lose the finger. As it is I've cooked a couple cc's of meat in my finger, and my body is just starting to realize it. It's a small wound but an ugly one, and I'm not sure just how bad it really is.
THIS IS NOT A TOY.
(Well, it is, really, but not one for the kiddies.)
There are several "screw the pooch" modes available for the careless or inexperienced. I at least know now not to touch the secondary while it's running, even down low. And the blue-white electric flame that I show here is HOT. I'm quite certain I could roast a weenie above it, no problem. And if the secondary isn't grounded or provided with a return, you can get the same flame at the BOTTOM of the resonator, and that can ruin your whole day.
Especially if the fire department turns your basement apartment into a swimming pool.
You can also get weird arcs and sparks from other, unconnected stuff, especially coils and whatnot. I'm continually checking for smoke and smells.
Fr=~820 kHz (sorry George Noory, and thanks); mosfets IRFP252 x 4 ; input 70 VDC at 2.5 amps (power arc) to 8+ amps (corona) so let's call it a half-kegger; that's quite a bit of power for a tabletop unit. I hope I don't get any visits from the MIBs. The gap shown is 55 mm.
========================
cat
Who needs fireworks :o ;D
TinselKoil 07c: All Your Zeppelin Blong Us Now
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XG2iEnWRRtA&feature=channel
TinselKoil 06c: Staccato Mode
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw5XhiNdTCs&feature=channel_page
cat
Powercat:
TK is simply ripping the fabric of space-time apart, all in a day's work. :o
MileHigh
.99:
That integration curve is pretty neato. That brute force integration must do a much better job than just eyeballing it! The MOSFET resistive modeling and the 10-ohm resistor have to be coming into play here. The MOSFET model is very impressive, and I assume that with a slow rise-time gate voltage waveform, you can measure the energy burned off in the MOSFET itself during the switching transitions.
I am pretty sure that all of this has been going on at the ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit) level for many years now. Same thing for PC motherboards and similar things. For the ASICs they model the actual signals running on the die itself, to check for race conditions and impedance matches, spikes and reflections, etc. In the 1980s, my time, ASICs where just designed graphically or with VHDL (had to pull that one from my memory, VHSIC (Very High Speed Integrated Circuits) hardware description language) where only limited attention was paid to the transmission line effects. If the timing diagram checked out then chances are you were fine. The clocks were 25-50 MHz in those days, and now they are in the GHz range.
That PSpice thing is just magic I tell you! lol
Mama-mia, did you see the new Zune HD? Those hardware and software engineers are totally amazing in what they can design these days, don't you think? Absolutely unbelievably amazing. The Zune HD is science fiction come true in real life.
We also now have these new LED billboards on the highways now that are finally "real." They look fine on sunny days, not washed out. The colour range and contrast allow them to put up pretty respectable looking photographs. It is Blade Runner technology that has officially arrived. One more time, all credit goes to those amazing semiconductor engineers at work on continually advancing the state of the art for LED technology.
MileHigh
Cat - thanks for the links.
Poynt - why the magic a 400kHz? Does spice give better numbers here? I thought your first set of results looked better than this last set.
Rosemary,
The magic ~455kHz frequency comes form Aaron's more recent scope shots where he is running the circuit on minuscule power levels. I am proposing that this frequency can be used directly in place of the 555 when it is in it's aperiodic mode.
The results are all over the map as I am trying different scenarios and also trying to accommodate Harvey's requirements he is asking for in the simulation. I am not sure we can have equal ON-time and clipped excursion time, but we'll see. I'm partly just acting as his hands at the moment regarding what he wants in the simulation, so the more info he can provide, the sooner we'll get to the final settings if at all possible.
.99
Poynt - thanks for the patience. Regarding the frequency - I see now that you're just going by Aaron's result. I saw your comment to Harvey stating that saturation can only be achieved by a longer on time. What about reducing the Ohm's value and thickening the wire? Would that help?
We can reduce the Ohms value by going with an appropriate inductive resistor, but this could mean fewer turns which means less inductance.
Making a "resistor" with our own heavy magnet wire is an option, but we are drifting further away from your original circuit. Harvey's direction is also drifting substantially away from your circuit.
Seems like there is no clear direction at the moment. No one but Ash and Andrew seem to be interested in just building your original circuit as per the Quantum article (with a corrected 555 circuit). Aperiodic oscillation is not necessary for COP>1 per your statement, so why not prove this simple repeatable circuit out first?
.99
Rosemary,
For your circuit it would seem that the goal was to generate more heat with less input energy, and that's the reason an inductive resistor was chosen for the experiment. Am I right?
Really, if one wanted to extract free energy in the form of electricity, using an inductive resistor is surely NOT the way to go. Winding an inductor with heavy magnet wire until the DC series resistance equals 10 Ohms will produce an inductor with a relatively high inductance to resistance ratio, and will then have much less losses in heat. This would be much more suitable for attempting to extract free electricity as opposed to free heat I would think.
So, I think everyone needs to pause for a moment and first decide what form of energy they are trying to produce, heat or electricity (or in another form magnetism)?
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on September 08, 2009, 11:00:59 AM
Rosemary,
For your circuit it would seem that the goal was to generate more heat with less input energy, and that's the reason an inductive resistor was chosen for the experiment. Am I right?
Really, if one wanted to extract free energy in the form of electricity, using an inductive resistor is surely NOT the way to go. Winding an inductor with heavy magnet wire until the DC series resistance equals 10 Ohms will produce an inductor with a relatively high inductance to resistance ratio, and will then have much less losses in heat. This would be much more suitable for attempting to extract free electricity as opposed to free heat I would think.
So, I think everyone needs to pause for a moment and first decide what form of energy they are trying to produce, heat or electricity (or in another form magnetism)?
.99
Poynt - this is my understanding.
I take it that the quantum paper experiment cannot be duplicated on Spice. Before now I never realised this. Presumably this is because of some constraint related to evaluating the performance of inductance from a load resistor? I simply wanted to see what difference in performance between Spice and the actual quantum experiment. Then I wanted to see the performance of Spice on Aaron's published test at low wattage and at a net negative discharge from the battery. That way we could discover if this scenario is classically predictable(edit) and how far off the actual experimentally measured values. It seems both are fraught.
But it also seems that Harvey's requirement is also difficult on spice. He wants to see the load at full saturation? You can't get to saturation without an increase in the duty cycle? I can't advise you regarding Harvey's requirement. I thought a reduction to the Ohm's value might get you there. Apparently not. But I think Harvey is, indeed, trying to evaluate the quantum published experiment. And frankly I'd prefer you to do what he requires.
I must say I thought it was as simple as putting in the required parameters of the circuit and then hitting an instruction to 'run' - or something like that. I never realised that it all took so long. Sorry Poynt. Ignore my own requests here. But it would be nice if you could be proactive in settling Harvey's question.
And again, thanks for the time spent on this.
Rosemary,
I have done everything asked thus far, including the Quantum article setup. SPICE is doing everything correctly as per conventional analysis. Unless I am mis-interpreting Harvey's requirements, he's off on a bit of a tangent, or not quite understanding how the circuit works. Clearly as I've shown at EF, pulsing the inductance to full saturation is not going to give him equal negative excursion time.
I await his further instruction. And if there's something I've missed that you would like to see from any of the plots and circuits I've shown, just let me know.
.99
Golly Poynt. I've missed all if you've already done this. Where do I look. or better still how difficult to repost? Choose either option. I'm quite excited. Do your presentations come with some sort of power analysis? I have difficulty interpreting this from waveforms. Data on vbatt - vload and vshunt would be perfect.
Many thanks Poynty - much obliged.
At EF, there are 2 posts:
#2527 (Actually labeled "Load, Drain, and Battery Power with Quantum Circuit")
#2537 (Driving the Quantum circuit at 454.5kHz)
Monitoring the battery voltage in a simulation is not useful as it is steady unless a small series resistance is inserted, which I have done. Still, I don't think it will give you much useful information.
Vload and Vshunt is no problem. I will give you VDrain as well, because Vload would be across the load.
I'll make another post to cover this off.
.99
Many thanks indeed Poynt. EDIT Just add VBatt. Ta muchly
OK,
Posting at EF is here:
http://www.energeticforum.com/67427-post2560.html
.99
Thanks Poynt very, very much. Have just seen the posts. How about also giving us the numbers? Bearing in mind that I have certain age and intellectual constraints.
The numbers are there Rose, just look to the left hand scale. Most of them line up with a nice even and labeled number, except the MOSFET power, which I labeled, and the Drain voltage. The load voltage again is pretty clear just by looking to the left hand scale, and this applies to each separate plot.
.99
Got it. To add to the constraints is systematic escallation of myopia. Thanks Poynt yet again.
Edit
Poynt It will take me forever to work it out from the scale. doesn't spice give an computation here?
8) Took me 2 minutes.
Already transposed the numbers for you there.
.99
Thanks. What a relief. I am definitely not equal to such efforts.
.99:
THANK YOU for the PSpice plots in #2560, they are like gold.
I think that we learned a few things here. The plot for the power dissipated in the MOSFET says a lot. We know that the coil is on an unstoppable mission to discharge it's energy when the MOSFET starts switching off. Hence we see the first big spike when the switch-off occurs. That's the coil forcing it's energy through the closing door of the MOSFET switch. This shows the MOSFET being "smacked" by the inductor, something that I have been mentioning all along. After that you are probably just looking at a simple RLC resonator discharging through the 10-ohm resistor, where the capacitance is associated with the drain structure inside the MOSFET. It's like a little bit of "backwash" because the drain capacitance finds itself at a certain voltage potential after the shut-off and is then staring down that nice spring of an inductive resistor sitting in a pool of chocolate pudding. Of course in real life there is also stray capacitance at play here, and I assume the stray capacitance and the drain capacitance are comparable in size.
This happens in real life: You are in the basement of a house shutting off the cold water valve and you notice the valve is at the end of a 50-foot straight length of pipe. The water is running upstairs and if you shut the valve off too quickly you get the watter hammer effect, a big bang followed by the decaying sound of oscillations in the pipes. The 50-foot straight length of pipe with water moving through it is the charged inductor, and the water pressure is the voltage. The valve itself goes up in temperature a touch because it dissipates the energy associated with the moving mass of water. Just seeing if anybody is capable of switching dimensions and having a Eureka! moment. lol
When you think of it, if you could shut off the water valve fast enough the water pipe would simply explode. It sounds like there may be a Darwin Award in there somewhere.
Also, adding the fly-back diode would stop the smacking of the MOSFET and instead the coil-resistor would discharge through the flyback diode and then back into itself. Here is your famous "recirculating current" but with a sober reality: There is no "resuse" of energy, rather, you start with a certain fixed amount of inductive energy, and it burns off and becomes heat with a time constant of L/R. Even if R is very small and L is very large so that it takes 20 minutes such that you can imagine the same current goes around in circles thousands of time, there is no "extra energy" associated with every new loop around the loopy-loop. You are starting with a FIXED amount of inductive energy, and that slowly is "burned off" and becomes heat energy. There is no way to "cheat COP" here and "gain COP" out of thin air.
Also thanks for showing the drain voltage. The "right side up" version of what happens when the coil does it's big POSITIVE spike! lol
MileHigh
.99 and Harvey:
QuoteAlso, an integration of those for a 1 minute run. I doubt that it is long enough for any thermal modeling to become active, but it is a start to where I am going with this.
Quote1 minute is an eternity in SPICE when dealing with these frequencies. Usually it's not necessary to run that long anyway, which we'll get into when/if we get to that point.
Not wanting to jump the gun here but the thermal modelling issue can be covered fairly quickly. There is no thermal model in PSpice that I am aware of, but it's pretty trivial.
Just look at the rising exponential curve for the shunt voltage in post #2559. That could just as easily be a temperature versus time graph for the MOSFET package temperature or the load resistor temperature. The time constant is longer for more massive objects (thermal capacitance) and longer the more isolated the object is from paths of thermal conduction to the outside world (thermal resistance).
So a thermos is just a thermal capacitor that has a long time constant because the thermal resistance to the outside world is very high. The temperature inside the thermos follows the same exponential decay curve. Another Eureka! momment!!!
MileHigh
Harvey:
It's Boris the Spider from the Gulag in Siberia.
Как Ð'аши дела?
QuoteI don't think we need common grounds for this test as we are checking the current flow in each path at the same time. As long as your probe references are each isolated we should be ok. Otherwise the test becomes meaningless.
It's not really a problem if the grounds are all common as .99 plucked from the manual. You have four channels, you are in oscilloscope heaven. Let's use the battery ground as the channel ground, shall we? Connect Channel 1 across the main load shunt resistor. Connect Channel 2 to the battery supply voltage near the positive shunt resistor. Connect Channel 3 to the other side of the positive shunt resistor. You have all the information that you need to crunch your currents, plus you have a bonus channel!
Connect the bonus channel to check what happens to the potential difference between the two grounds of your two quasi-isolated nodes, or whatever else you want to do. Perhaps that tempting gate signal?
Suppose Aaron exports that data and you whip up the Excel spreadsheet to plot it. It would be really cool if both files were hosted on the same freebie hosting web site.
MileHigh
P.S.: .99: Can you run an FFT on some of the signals in PSpice? it woudl be fun, and educational for some of the audience. We have the technology, we can transform the description of time-based signals into frequency-based signals and go back and forth through these two dimensions or domains and actually see the harmonics!!!
Quote from: MileHigh on September 08, 2009, 10:15:42 PM
P.S.: .99: Can you run an FFT on some of the signals in PSpice? it woudl be fun, and educational for some of the audience. We have the technology, we can transform the description of time-based signals into frequency-based signals and go back and forth through these two dimensions or domains and actually see the harmonics!!!
Of course! ;D
.99
Quote from: MileHigh on September 08, 2009, 10:15:42 PM
Harvey:
It's Boris the Spider from the Gulag in Siberia.
Как Ð'аши дела?
It's not really a problem if the grounds are all common as .99 plucked from the manual. You have four channels, you are in oscilloscope heaven. Let's use the battery ground as the channel ground, shall we? Connect Channel 1 across the main load shunt resistor. Connect Channel 2 to the battery supply voltage near the positive shunt resistor. Connect Channel 3 to the other side of the positive shunt resistor. You have all the information that you need to crunch your currents, plus you have a bonus channel!
Connect the bonus channel to check what happens to the potential difference between the two grounds of your two quasi-isolated nodes, or whatever else you want to do. Perhaps that tempting gate signal?
Suppose Aaron exports that data and you whip up the Excel spreadsheet to plot it. It would be really cool if both files were hosted on the same freebie hosting web site.
MileHigh
P.S.: .99: Can you run an FFT on some of the signals in PSpice? it woudl be fun, and educational for some of the audience. We have the technology, we can transform the description of time-based signals into frequency-based signals and go back and forth through these two dimensions or domains and actually see the harmonics!!!
Я очень, очень уÑÑ,ал прÑмо ÑейчаÑ.
I had already provided Aaron with this arrangement yesterday in a PM. I suggested he use the channel 3 & 4 differential setting to provide a single trace of the difference. Good to see you reading there and offering the help ;)
Cheers,
8)
TK update
TinselKoil 10c: Lightning
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHPmJ8D0hno&feature=channel_page
Awesome. Even if I do say so myself.
I have seen SS Tesla coils with higher voltage, of course, but this is the first small one I've seen with this kind of power transfer capability. I must have done something right.
TinselKoil 11c: Baby Poppa Mosfet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcR74o-QVwg&feature=channel_page
More awesome lightning, clearly at the limit of the device. I hope.
Demonstration terminated in fine fashion: overheat under power, a blown seven-dollar mosfet, probable cascading failures in the x-bridge.
Diagnosis and repair will take an hour or so, and I think I've used the last of the IRFP252 power mosfets and will have to load a set of IRFP264s
================================
cat
Quote from: Harvey on September 09, 2009, 04:36:33 AM
I had already provided Aaron with this arrangement yesterday in a PM. I suggested he use the channel 3 & 4 differential setting to provide a single trace of the difference.
8)
I was going to suggest the differential measurement. Especially handy when 4 channels are available. Glad we worked out the probe grounding issue, that could have been detrimental to the health of the scope. ;)
.99
Poynt - please help me out here. What is the heat of the white hot centre in TK's plasma number? I've looked this up and can only find the heat as it relates to star structures?
And what does classical physics say is this plasma? If they're ions then from where? I'm not talking about plasmas generally - just these sparks. I'm trying, belatedely to get my head around this 'electric fire' thing. If you know a link for the terminally dull-witted it would help.
I answered MH here and lost my post. I'm having difficulty reading the instructions because they're in German. How do I get this changed to English - or is that not an option?
Rose,
I would query TK on those questions.
Go to your "PROFILE", then "Modify Profile" tab, then choose "Account Settings" and make sure that by "Preferred language" "English" is set. If it is already English, then I'm not sure what the problem or solution might be other than to PM Stefan.
.99
Rose,
Any idea what's up with Harvey?
I am trying my best to understand his request. Rather than attempt to provide the information I need and asked for in order to obtain the simulation results he wants to see, he shuns my efforts so far and says he'll do it himself.
Good luck to him with that if he's so inclined.
.99
I'm intrigued with something. Why does the voltage at the gate of the MOSFET swing high and above zero when the inductor is dumping a below zero spike? And MH then uses this evidence that the gate is getting a 'punch' from the voltage in the inductor. What does the voltage at the 'drain' indicate when the MOSFET is off?
I was trying to ask MH this. Can you explain?
Regarding Harvey - I don't know enough about the problem to comment but clearly you're missing each other. My take was that you were meant to stress the paramaters of Spice to see if it would register anomalies precisely by adding to the inductance on the resistor. But I really don't know. I think his expertise is in a different league to yours so it's way beyond my own.
I'd love to see that demo MH proposed.
that's another thing I can't do is amend my posts. Have no idea which 'german' word applies.
Have just re-read the post. By different 'league' I don't mean to diminish your own knowledge. On the contrary. It's just that his is even greater - but that's just my impression.
I'll try and contact Stephan when he gets on line. I can alter everything in my profile bar 'start date' preferred language and something else that I forget.
EDIT Have found the edit instruction. Poynt - I'm still not doing you justice regarding your knowledge. Trust me, I'm blown away. It's just with H I feel I'm in the grip of a tornedo.
Quote from: witsend on September 09, 2009, 04:41:30 PM
I'm intrigued with something. Why does the voltage at the gate of the MOSFET swing high and above zero when the inductor is dumping a below zero spike? And MH then uses this evidence that the gate is getting a 'punch' from the voltage in the inductor. What does the voltage at the 'drain' indicate when the MOSFET is off?
Rose, the first high voltage spike (after the MOSFET turns OFF) on the Drain is actually in the positive direction (relative to Ground), and it is this spike that poses the "stress" on the unprotected MOSFET. This is the danger MH has warned of and it is there, especially when fast switching speeds are attained.
If the MOSFET Gate is driven through a series resistance (such as how everyone on this experiment seems to be doing), then there will be feed-through of this spike from the Drain to Gate via the G-D capacitance. In all my tests I'm using a 100 Ohm resistance in the Gate and I see the biggest spike at the Gate pin is in the negative direction and it is about -2V.
.99
Rosemary:
Voltage is a relative thing. Notice on .99's great waveform posting one voltage is the mirror image of the other voltage because they are being viewed from different relative viewpoints.
The negative vs. positive spike can be explained by an elevator analogy. There are two elevators on the outside of a building that can see each other.
The "standard" viewpoint for the "negative" spike: You are inside elevator A on the 12th floor. Elevator B is on the 12th floor and never moves. You then drop down to the 1st floor and you look up at elevator B. Then you shoot up to the 100th floor and now you are looking down at elevator B 88 floors below.
As far as you are concerned it's elevator B that is doing the moving, and not you in elevator A. You think that you are stationary. Therefore it's elevator B's path looks like a big negative spike.
The "new" viewpoint for the "negative" spike: You are standing on the ground outside the building looking at both elevators. You notice both elevators are on the 12th floor. You see elevator A drop down to the first floor, then it shoots up to the 100th floor. You notice that elevator B never leaves the 12th floor.
The positive spike is the inductor discharging it's stored energy.
MileHigh
Picking up on Poyny99's post No.2585 on EF ref aethertech's message.
I emphasised the folly of Aaron using croc clips and long connecting leads many posts back. Until he tidies up his rig and gets rid of the long leads to his shunts, the minute negative power levels he is measuring cannot be taken seriously. All ground connections should be commoned directly onto the battery terminal.
Hoppy
Hi Hoppy. The croc clip usage was only pro tem to change the shunts and add more. The measurements did not change as a result of this - nor were they enhanced - so I doubt that the croc clips were the cause of the result. But this is never going to be accepted if the 'small' value is discounted anyway. My question is what do we do with that value. Just ignore it and assume that mainstream's conclusions here are right. If you think that's fair - then there's no option from this side of the argument but to comply.
Quote from: witsend on September 10, 2009, 03:41:00 AM
Hi Hoppy. The croc clip usage was only pro tem to change the shunts and add more. The measurements did not change as a result of this - nor were they enhanced - so I doubt that the croc clips were the cause of the result. But this is never going to be accepted if the 'small' value is discounted anyway. My question is what do we do with that value. Just ignore it and assume that mainstream's conclusions here are right. If you think that's fair - then there's no option from this side of the argument but to comply.
Rosemary,
I'm going on Aaron's latest series of videos, which still shows a pile of long and untidy wiring. If he has now cleaned this up and star connected the ground leads of the shunt resistors and scope probes directly onto the battery terminal and the power readings are the same, then fine.
Hoppy
Quote from: Hoppy on September 10, 2009, 04:38:15 AM
Rosemary,
I'm going on Aaron's latest series of videos, which still shows a pile of long and untidy wiring. If he has now cleaned this up and star connected the ground leads of the shunt resistors and scope probes directly onto the battery terminal and the power readings are the same, then fine.
Hoppy
Hi Hoppy - his first test was with the 1 Ohm 'shunt'. Harvey then asked him to use a 0.25 Ohm in series and alongside the -B. Then other calls for more shunts - and the crocodile useage became extensive. But the first test was as neat as required and ALL subsequent measurements endorsed the first. I suppose it could be argued that the introduction of more wiring then simply ensured the value that was not initially apparent. But I don't think any presentation of this test will cut it - not with mainstream - and notwithstanding the evident expenditure of something under 1 watt.
Quote from: witsend on September 10, 2009, 05:38:43 AM
Hi Hoppy - his first test was with the 1 Ohm 'shunt'. Harvey then asked him to use a 0.25 Ohm in series and alongside the -B. Then other calls for more shunts - and the crocodile useage became extensive. But the first test was as neat as required and ALL subsequent measurements endorsed the first. I suppose it could be argued that the introduction of more wiring then simply ensured the value that was not initially apparent. But I don't think any presentation of this test will cut it - not with mainstream - and notwithstanding the evident expenditure of something under 1 watt.
It is the very fact that the power levels being measured are so low that the interconnections are so important. Unless Aaron repeats the original tests with much improved interconnections, we will never know if his untidy rig affected the result.
Hoppy
Poynt - thanks for the explanation re the waveforms. I was looking at 'power dissipated in MOSFET - post 2560 - at EForum. I see now that it wasn't voltage at all. Thanks.
And MileHigh - I'm so intrigued with the analogies. But it was just the confusion regarding a wattage presentation that I thought was voltage. I've been rolling - yet again - at your 'relativity related to elevators.' Do you know how much IQ is needed to follow your descriptions? It's way more than I've got. It's those sticky chocolate coated fingers all over again - Just so difficult for me to get into your mind.
Quote from: Hoppy on September 10, 2009, 06:17:06 AM
It is the very fact that the power levels being measured are so low that the interconnections are so important. Unless Aaron repeats the original tests with much improved interconnections, we will never know if his untidy rig affected the result.
Hoppy
Got it. I agree. I think he'll probably redo this when he's finished a really boring exercise on controls. It would be nice if there were also an undertaking to then explore the effect rather than to discount it. I get it you're game. But what about our other dedicated disbelivers, decriers and general debunkers? It'll be interesting.
Quote from: witsend on September 10, 2009, 06:22:37 AM
Got it. I agree. I think he'll probably redo this when he's finished a really boring exercise on controls. It would be nice if there were also an undertaking to then explore the effect rather than to discount it. I get it you're game. But what about our other dedicated disbelivers, decriers and general debunkers? It'll be interesting.
Its not a game! Lets get the test rig set up correctly first before we start seriously measuring and studying the results from the DSO. There has been enough expert advice given about this, none of which appears to have been followed so far!
Hoppy
I could not understand your post Hoppy. Now I know what the problem is. The term 'you're game' or 'you're not game' means the same thing as 'you're prepared to 'fall in' or not. In other words - I take it that you're prepared to acknowledge a result if the test is redone. It's colloquial. So. I'm suggesting that - subject to a re-run you'll revise your opinion. But will the others? That's all I meant to communicate. Now I realise that you're not English? Certainly I don't need to be told that this isn't a game. On the contrary. I've never been so serious about anything in my life.
Quote from: witsend on September 10, 2009, 08:00:44 AM
I could not understand your post Hoppy. Now I know what the problem is. The term 'you're game' or 'you're not game' means the same thing as 'you're prepared to 'fall in' or not. In other words - I take it that you're prepared to acknowledge a result if the test is redone. It's colloquial. So. I'm suggesting that - subject to a re-run you'll revise your opinion. But will the others? That's all I meant to communicate. Now I realise that you're not English? Certainly I don't need to be told that this isn't a game. On the contrary. I've never been so serious about anything in my life.
Rosemary,
I misunderstood your "I get it you're game" statement. I would certainly reconsider if the data is collected with the DSO from a neat and properly setup test rig. I'm very much English by the way.
EDIT: Its probably because I'm a Londoner and I don't talk 'proper' English.
Hoppy
Quotes from MileHigh
We know that the coil is on an unstoppable mission to discharge it's energy when the MOSFET starts switching off. Hence we see the first big spike when the switch-off occurs. That's the coil forcing it's energy through the closing door of the MOSFET switch.
With reference to the Gate voltage on Poynt's post 1619 there's evidence of a relatively clean 'cut off'.
This shows the MOSFET being "smacked" by the inductor, something that I have been mentioning all along.
So I would not consider this a 'smack'. Barely 16% of the input fading to a weakening ringing.
Also, adding the fly-back diode would stop the smacking of the MOSFET and instead the coil-resistor would discharge through the flyback diode and then back into itself.
If this were correct then you would not see the 'spike' on the negative rail across the shunt.
Here is your famous "recirculating current" but with a sober reality: There is no "resuse" of energy, rather, you start with a certain fixed amount of inductive energy, and it burns off and becomes heat with a time constant of L/R.
This may be correct - but it is not proven by the 'smack' as you claim. The question as to whether it is a recycled or a regenerated current is still out there. The 'spike' generated during the 'off' period of the switch may yet generate a current that can travel anti-clockwise through the system - from the inductor, through the battery, through the shunt, through the FET's body diode and back to the load resistor. Then the result could be repeated in ever smaller increments as the voltage can no longer breach the resistance in the battery. And with the battery now disconnected during this period there's no 'extra energy' applied.
However, when it gets into oscillation mode, then each cycle is nearly 'faithfully' replicated as it finds the sweet spot to resonate and then the path could, indeed be repeated - first clockwise and then anticlockwise.
You are starting with a FIXED amount of inductive energy, and that slowly is "burned off" and becomes heat energy. There is no way to "cheat COP" here and "gain COP" out of thin air.
Possibly - but it's not proven by these waveforms. It's only your opinion.
I don't think you've proved anything here MileHigh. All you've done is repeat your argument. But this time you were grabbing at straws.
Quote from: Hoppy on September 10, 2009, 08:28:55 AM
Rosemary,
I misunderstood your "I get it you're game" statement. I would certainly reconsider if the data is collected with the DSO from a neat and properly setup test rig. I'm very much English by the way.
EDIT: Its probably because I'm a Londoner and I don't talk 'proper' English.
Hoppy
I'm jealous. I LOVE London. Of course you talk 'proper'. You guys invented the language - the most dynamic and brilliant language in the world. I'm an anglophile or - strictly - an anglolanguagephile - a holic. Hooked on the 'spoken and written'.
Quote from: witsend on September 10, 2009, 09:04:45 AM
I'm jealous. I LOVE London. Of course you talk 'proper'. You guys invented the language - the most dynamic and brilliant language in the world. I'm an anglophile or - strictly - an anglolanguagephile - a holic. Hooked on the 'spoken and written'.
You certainly write 'proper' Rosemary. My first ever boss was a South African and he spoke and wrote real proper 'Kings English'.
Hoppy
Rosemary:
QuoteWith reference to the Gate voltage on Poynt's post 1619 there's evidence of a relatively clean 'cut off'.
It's the positive spike on the Drain voltage that shows the inductor discharge. The voltage spike is a manifestation of the current discharge from the inductor, i.e.; the current flow results in the voltage spike.
QuoteSo I would not consider this a 'smack'. Barely 16% of the input fading to a weakening ringing.
I am not sure what you mean by that. The "smack" energy is the integral of the spike at the end of the power waveform across the MOSFET in EF #2560. .99 doesn't have to crunch it in PSpice though, the formula is 1/2*L*i-squared.
QuoteIf this were correct then you would not see the 'spike' on the negative rail across the shunt.
Let's not mix up the spikes associated with the main discharge of energy from the inductor and any small insignificant "cheater" spikes due to the very small capacitive effects associated with MOSFETs and diodes and the like.
QuoteThis may be correct - but it is not proven by the 'smack' as you claim.
Without the fly-back diode you "smack" the MOSFET with the inductor's stored energy and the current flows through the full clockwise loop of the circuit. With the fly-back diode, the inductor, the 10-ohm resistor, and the fly-back diode form a loop for the current to flow through, and the inductor's stored energy discharges through this loop.
QuoteThe 'spike' generated during the 'off' period of the switch may yet generate a current that can travel anti-clockwise through the system
- from the inductor, through the battery, through the shunt, through the FET's body diode and back to the load resistor.
From what we have learned so far any anti-clockwise current travel through the circuit is akin to a minuscule "cheater" type of spike as referenced above.
QuoteThen the result could be repeated in ever smaller increments as the voltage can no longer breach the resistance in the battery.
The voltage is actually not an issue here. This one is hard for beginners to understand with respect to coils. A coil will discharge no matter what the battery voltage is. A higher battery voltage can reduce the amount of time it takes for a coil to discharge, but it will still discharge all it's stored energy.
QuoteYou are starting with a FIXED amount of inductive energy, and that slowly is "burned off" and becomes heat energy. There is no way to "cheat COP" here and "gain COP" out of thin air.
>>> Possibly - but it's not proven by these waveforms. It's only your opinion.
I don't think that any waveforms have been recently posted with a fly-back diode in place but .99 at least mentioned he ran the simulation like this and commented on the self-discharge. It's not my opinion, it is fact.
QuoteBut this time you were grabbing at straws.
I beg to differ, I am as solid as the Rock of Gibraltar.
Indeed, these waveforms are showing stuff that I mentioned a few months back and it's fun to see them in "real life." lol
Oops! I should comment on the news of the day. Yes I suppose that you could use two extra diodes to effectively bypass the body diode in the MOSFET and support better anti-clockwise current flow in the circuit including a very fast diode shut-off time. The question is why? What will that give you? The battery and the no-flyback-version inductor both want the current to flow clockwise. You are doing nothing more than making a better path for anti-clockwise current flow, which the minuscule "cheater" spike will like very much but that's it! There will be no "magic", just a happy pee-fart "cheater" spike! You also reduce your maximum "on" current.
MileHigh
MileHigh,
QuoteFrom what we have learned so far any anti-clockwise current travel through the circuit is akin to a minuscule "cheater" type of spike as referenced above.
I think Rose may be referring to the reverse current back through the circuit if and when the body diode ever forward-conducts, which as shown in the sims with an 864uH inductance, can occur after the initial positive spike.
.99
;D Hello MileVeryHigh
I have no idea how to extract the quote with the limited editing tools of ou.com. So. Here's a hard copy.
"Without the fly-back diode you "smack" the MOSFET with the inductor's stored energy and the current flows through the full clockwise loop of the circuit. With the fly-back dode, the inductor, the 10-ohm resistor, and the fly-back diode form a loop for the currrent to flow through, and the inductor's stored energy discharges through this loop." MH post1636
Now you have a situation where you classicists state that - notwithstanding an inherent repulsion due to their 'like charge' electrons now move together in lock step but in the same direction as the previous cycle. And this, apparently is because they prefer to retain their directional path. And all this notwithstanding the reversal of applied voltage which, in all other events determines the directional flow of current. And in so doing it 'smacks' against the body diode of the mosfet and partially breaches its resistance?
How complicated. Why not just say - the 'stored' or 'recycled' voltage generates a current flow that moves through the loop that I described earlier? And better still, why not just say that whatever is moving can't be electrons because they can't share a path. And if it traces a path - anti-clockwise back through the battery then all the circuit's polarities allow for this path? Surely that's simpler?
Poynt thanks for explaining my reference. You're spot on.
TK update
TinselKoil 13c: Comparison of Duty Cycles in the Gate Modulation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqx0sHFSfl0&feature=channel_page
Continuous corona mode vs. staccato mode, with duty cycle variations in staccato mode.
The main oscillator, a LM494 pwm chip, should be set to a clean 50-50 duty cycle so that the mosfets switch cleanly. Minor adjustments can be made while scoping the final output, primary disconnected, to get a symmetrical set of zero-crossings to keep the mosfets happy. Some special effects might require slight tweaking, but watch the mosfet temps if you depart from a 50-50 symmetrical cycle for the main coil drive oscillations.
The variations in duty cycle here are taking place in the gate modulation. This is simply a transistor (2n7000, a tiny little mosfet, so cute) in series with the main pulse from the pwm chip, which is being driven by an external oscillator, coupled through a 1.0 mF tantalum cap. I usually have been using the little Elenco kit oscillator, but its duty cycle is fixed at 50 percent. In this video I hook up the Interstate F34 and use its pulse width function to explore the effects of duty cycle in the gate modulation.
This is also one place that a decent audio signal might be injected into the system.
TinselKoil 17c: A 40 Watt Incandescent Light Bulb With One Wire Connected to Coil
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BMRJoqdy6E&feature=channel_page
Here I show an incandescent filament light bulb lighting to full brilliance on the output of the TKSSTC. The base of the bulb is connected with one wire to the top of the resonator and the other wire to a bit of aluminum foil suspended up in the air. It's amazing that the circuit, capacitatively coupled to the ground through the air and empty space, can carry that much power.
Even more amazing is that the coil could probably light up quite a few of these bulbs like this. I'll have to get some more and see.
================================
TK if you are reading my post I think it would be nice if he came back and started a new thread
on your fantastic work with the TinselKoil
cat
.99:
QuoteI think Rose may be referring to the reverse current back through the circuit if and when the body diode ever forward-conducts, which as shown in the sims with an 864uH inductance, can occur after the initial positive spike.
Yes and I forgot about the diode arrangement possibly helping any oscillation mode also in the context of what Rosemary and Aaron are investigating. Just being dopey.
Rosemary:
The Classicist view of current flow is that you can think of current flowing like water through pipes, it is a very accurate analogy as long as you are looking at the amount of flow at any point in the circuit. The engineering-ese for that is "The sum of all currents entering any node is zero." So when the shunt resistor shows a negative voltage spike, all the current changes direction everywhere in lockstep. The current can "overcome" voltages. You can go up and down and back up and back down in voltage as you flow through a loop and the current all flows in lockstep.
QuoteAnd better still, why not just say that whatever is moving can't be electrons because they can't share a path.
I am not sure what you mean by "can't share a path." As far as the way the current actually flows you might try a search "curvilinear squares." I took a peek and I am not sure how friendly the links came up are. Anyway, if you digest that, the real way that current flows in a wire is via "curvilinear cubes." In a nutshell the current flows everywhere inside a wire and varies in current density.
It may sound complicated, but if you take some Spice... You never know.
Aaron:
QuoteWhen I used a 6A100 blocking diode (very slow) and a 1n914 parallel diode, I was able to get a few degrees hotter at the inductive resistor while the current leaving the battery dropped 1.3 watts.
That showed me that bypassing the body diode with a better quality diode significantly increases efficiency.
ha ha I have good news for you here. If we ignore EM emanation you are always 100% efficient. Do anything you want with the circuit and you are 100% efficient!!! ;D
MileHigh
;D MileHigh - The only thing more complicated than the classical explanation of current flow is 'curvilinear cubes'. And the only way that one could get the head around this concept is with the liberal application of some exotic medication or, alternatively, a facility to bend logic out of shape. Actually there are other options but they all involve varying levels of induced, permanent, or temporary lunacy. This, unfortunately is the weird and happy hunting ground of our quantum physicists who grapple with counter intuitive evidence and of our electrical engineers who - if they think at all - ;D - they assume logic where none exists.
If anyone out there is looking to find an explanation for current flow that does not require this creative. mental. acrobatic and wild distortion then how about this? Current comprises magnetic fields that simply twist and turn in relation to other fields. And - if you put a particle inside that magnetic field then it is a magnetic dipole with perfect polar synchronicities. That way we defy nothing - including Pauli's exclusion principle. Electrons react but don't 'move home' so to speak. Ion and molecules in the material behave as they should. :o
No chocolote puddings - no strange distortions to cubic volumes - no 'holes' no 'directional' and whimsical preferences. No toffee on train rails. ;D All just so much more simple. Surely there comes a point where a simple proposal is preferable, provided always it conforms to the observed. Magnetic dipoles as current flow actually provide this comfort.
By the way I want Dune spice. Anything less than this and I'll pass.
The gang:
So we have a bit of a rumble going on on the other tab? lol
Cookie-free Aaron:
QuoteIf there is ANY post that anyone finds offensive that is insulting to anyone here and appears to violate the terms and conditions and purpose of this forum, please click the icon at the top right of the message that looks like this: and report it to the moderators.
Ah!, but who is moderating the moderator? The sixty-four thousand dollar question. How many times have you alleged that posters were stupid or idiots yourself in this thread? That is offensive and insulting. How about the day when you licked your chops and plotted my ass kicking after I persisted that you back up some of your statements with logical arguments? Statements that you still haven't backed up to this day. Where is my Acme bullhorn?
I am not going to try to pretend that I am without sin myself but I was kicked out for my ideas and for challenging you, and not for gratuitous offensive and insulting behaviour. And THAT FACT is something that you should feel deep deep shame about. Especially since it is starting to look more and more like "Team Classical" is going to win.
Try to pretend that you never read the above two paragraphs.
.99:
Putting the 555 ground on the same shunt resistor node as the MOSFET Source pin might not be all that bad, in fact it is arguably good. Aaron was likely unaware of this when he did it. With the 555 riding up and down on the same bouncing ground as the MOSFET, then you are effectively getting rid of the undesirable "wiggle" between the 555 output voltage and the MOSFET Gate input since the 555 ground reference and the MOSFET ground reference are now wiggling in tandem.
[EDIT] I just realized that the 555 output will still wiggle with respect to the MOSGET gate input. When the 555 ground bounces up, that means whatever is supplying the 555 with power (I'm feeling queasy) will bounce down - a complimentary wiggle in the opposite direction. Dammit!!! lol <<< I love to hate the postion of the main shunt resistor. >>>
I have never been a fan of the shunt resistor location from Day One though, I don't like the fact that the MOSFET source is not at a true ground. However, it is arguably all semantics if your Gate "high" drive voltage is always in the saturation region.
However, there is a potential down side here: Even though the 555 is a very robust design and a true War Horse, there is the possibility to set up an undesirable feedback mechanism. The 555 output goes high, and that switches on the MOSFET which starts to raise the ground of the 555, which then changes the comparator voltages, which could affect the 555 output timing. Therefore the 555 output is potentially feeding back to itself, and this could cause undesirable effects.
It is worth repeating that the series trimpot for the 555's supply is enough to make a grown man cry and a dead man do something else. Enough to make me *puke*. I think poor Aaron has been assaulted on all sides for this one and continues to ignore it. Big Brother in Singapore on Drugs! - Not Spice though!
MileHigh
I feel a little sorry for Rosemary who with virtually no electronics background, is putting her faith in the likes of Aaron and Harvey to demonstrate that her circuit can operate at COP>1. Its a complete non starter and I think Rosemary now realises this. There is little left to say about this circuit but it is fascinating and entertaining to read various ideas about how electronic components can be badly interfaced in 'rats nest' wired circuits to produce copius amounts of 'free energy'.
Hoppy
Quote from: Hoppy on September 13, 2009, 05:02:12 AM
I feel a little sorry for Rosemary who with virtually no electronics background, is putting her faith in the likes of Aaron and Harvey to demonstrate that her circuit can operate at COP>1. Its a complete non starter and I think Rosemary now realises this. There is little left to say about this circuit but it is fascinating and entertaining to read various ideas about how electronic components can be badly interfaced in 'rats nest' wired circuits to produce copius amounts of 'free energy'.
Hoppy
Hoppy - when we get to the point that COP>17 is clearly not replicable - I assure you I will be the first to admit defeat. And regarding Aaron's talents - they are amazing. May I remind you. He romped home with oscillation spikes at 1000 volts when TK could not even get oscillation. He switched at 3% where TK could not switch at 90% on. He then rebuilt the quantum switch and found the same 'switching facility'. So did others on this forum. He then experimented with waveforms and managed a DC to AC converter where classicists could barely manage a spike. And from what I've learned Harvey is definitely mainstream. He just lends the project the kind of honest evaluation that you and MileHigh resist by prejudging the outcomes.
Rosemary
Why is it that experienced members on this forum have not been able to replicate and reproduce the same results as Aaron ???
1 is something being kept a secret ?
2 is this magic to gain publicity ?
Clearly something is going on here, and if TK can't do it I have got no chance
cat
Quote from: powercat on September 13, 2009, 11:48:48 AM
Rosemary
Why is it that experienced members on this forum have not been able to replicate and reproduce the same results as Aaron ???
1 is something being kept a secret ?
2 is this magic to gain publicity ?
Clearly something is going on here, and if TK can't do it I have got no chance
cat
I have no idea Cat. Fuzzy's reproduced Aaron's negative wave and, as far as I know is the only one who's tried. TK set out with an agenda and, I think was trying to show me up as a Mylow? whoever he was. I know of no-one else here who's tried except Hoppy. And Hoppy doesn't access the measuring instruments that are needed for definitive evaluation.
EDIT Nothing is being kept secret. I think there's a difference in the resistors being tested. And if I wanted publicity I wouldn't be talking on these threads.
TK's object was to prove that there was NO GAIN. He never actually gave a definitive measurement in any of his 'debunk' videos so am still not sure of the actual results.
2ND EDIT. But having said that - it is also apparent that COP>17 is entirely elusive. Hopefully it'll be evident with the equivalent resistors to the published.
Hey Rosemary,
Not wanting to pour gasoline on the fire let me give you my spin on Harvey. He seems like a nice guy and is very intelligent. A couple of weeks ago I was reading through a long posting of his where he was working with .99 on their simulation (I think) and what he said was getting way too convoluted. At the same time I was loosing steam myself for following this thread and was deciding that I wasn't going to follow every new angle in nitty-gritty detail.
I have mentioned many times before that you can qualify someone's electronics knowledge by their statements or questions. Harvey is reasonably knowledgeale but he has made some very revealing "techno babble" statements that clearly show that he has his limits as .99 stated. So because of my fatigue with the thread and the "babble" I gave up on trying to follow Harvey's detailed tests, my brain went to mush when reading his stuff. I give Harvey credit for firmly believing that "something's out there" and wanting to investigate it. His prose bashing the "Classicists" was elegantly worded also.
Have you heard of the "Turing test?" I will assume that you have or will look it up. Imagine a "Turing test" for electronics and physics knowledge. Aaron answers the first question successfully and then fails the test on the second question. This happens repeatedly. Harvey manages to answer a dozen or so questions and then fails the test. I will back up Hoppy and .99 in their qualification of Harvey.
It almost sounds like you are in denial about Aaron and his "talents." I gave Aaron a good bashing when he kicked my ass off of his site and that was just me acting on my emotions and he pretends that I am a nonperson now. Nonetheless, everything I said about him being clueless about electronics and physics is true. I squirm inside when I read Aaron's technical postings or watch his clips.
MileHigh
Rosemary
There is an easy way to clear up this situation
Aaron reproduces 5 of the working circuits and then he posts them to members like TK, Hoppy, Fuzzy, MileHigh, 99
Okay there is a cost but this can be sorted out once the principle is established.
Can you ask Aaron if he is willing to do this ?
cat
Cat - Fuzzy's already on board with a full on replication of Aaron's negative waveform. But the expense of duplicating the test isn't the issue. Let the results speak for themselves and let replicators try it. TK will never admit a gain and nor will MileHigh.
Quote from: witsend on September 13, 2009, 12:25:31 PM
Cat - Fuzzy's already on board with a full on replication of Aaron's negative waveform. But the expense of duplicating the test isn't the issue. Let the results speak for themselves and let replicators try it. TK will never admit a gain and nor will MileHigh.
You have got to be joking
"TK will never admit a gain and nor will MileHigh"
This is the OU forum they would scream about a gain, that is why we are all here
cat
Golly MileHigh - four whole paragraphs and none of your analogies? I can't speak for Harvey - but so far I see that he's the only classicist who is debunking as a debunk should be done. He's investigating all options and assuming that the reported test results were honestly accredited. I think he's also shown remarkable tolerance considering the 'dearth' of data available after these 10 long years.
Regarding the level of his expertise - come on MH. It's not open for discussion. ??? ???
Regarding the Turing test? I get it that this is a series of questions that get to the heart of a thesis? I'm not that interested in looking it up. But here's the thing. The only pertinent question is this. Is there any evidence of some co-efficiency of performance that is repeatably evident and in any way signficant? Indeed. But the evaluation of those measurements and the level of its significance is actually outside the competence of these forums. Not because of lack of skill but because of a lack of impartiality. The best we can hope for is to present the data - credibily obtained - and then presented to acknowledged experts to evaluate. Hopefully we'll get there.
On a personal note - I hardly recognise you in this last post. Is that really you? :)
Rosemary:
I am already "on record" that I would admit a gain if there was one but by the same token I stated that I am 100% certain that there will not be any gain.
QuoteI think there's a difference in the resistors being tested.
Be very careful here Rosemary because you are entering Bedini/Bearden/Newman territory here. As you know the inductive resistor has properties of resistance, inductance, and a minuscule stray capacitance. You have learnt enough by now to know that changing the resistance or inductance paramaters slightly will only change the timing characteristics of the circuit slightly, and nothing more than that. There is no logical reason for a specific South-African-manufactured inductive resistor to have some "unique" characteristic such that only this specific combination of resistance and inductace will give you the results that you are looking for. That is truly clutching at straws and is the same argument that John Bedini, Tom Bearden, Joe Newman and others of their ilk use when nobody can replicate the results shown in the "Energy from the Vacuum" DVD series.
For example, there is a "Kromrey Converter" thread on the EF and nobody can get the results shown in the EFTV DVD #10 and the argument is that the builders are not building "exact" replications. It is all very offensive to me, since I believe that the DVD is faked (I stress that I haven't seen it) and it is just an excuse to keep the "believers" spending money on a regular basis buying up more and more DVDs in the series as they come out. It hurts me to see decent good people get suckered into spending hundreds of dollars or more to replicate Bedini's Funky Alternator when it is all a waste of time for something that will never work. The whole point of the DVD is to make cash selling it and nothing more. John and his buddies couldn't care less about the time and expense the "suckers" are incurring because of the DVD. The "Kromrey Converter" pitch could easily be ripped to shreds. As far as I am concerned it's all a lost battle anyways, John Bedini is a rock star as far as the believers think and can do no wrong. In the beginning of the thread there is a link to a 1984 document put together by Bedini and Bearden about the "Kromrey Converter." It's only about 15 pages long and technically it is such complete junk as to make me puke, and it's credibility is questioned by none of the believers, they just read it and believe it. Finally, good old John is the person that wants to sell you a piece of electronics quackery, his $400 deluxe "CD Clarifier."
Another interesting observation about the "Kromrey Converter" thread when I was reading it was that when people expressed doubts, other people that were not really contributing to the thread went in and bulllied and intimidated the people that were expressing doubts to shut them up.
The moral of the story is to not deceive yourself into believing that nobody can get results because nobody has the "unique and special" inductive resistor that is made in South Africa only. This does not make sense and is simply not true.
MileHigh
Rosemary
I notice you didn't answer my question so here it is again
There is an easy way to clear up this situation
Aaron reproduces 5 of the working circuits and then he posts them to members like TK, Hoppy, Fuzzy, MileHigh, 99
Okay there is a cost but this can be sorted out once the principle is established.
Can you ask Aaron if he is willing to do this ?
At the very least one working circuit could be posted to Stefan but maybe you think he would not admit to gain either
cat
MileHigh - I've stated unambiguously - I will admit defeat if we do not reach COP>17 on Fuzzy's resistors that he's making. I'm just not mentally equipped to leave questions outstanding. I need to get to finality.
But that still leaves the negative voltage to be evaluated together with the clear evidence of COP>1.5. Both need duplication and proper data capture. That will - hopefully - go to some academic for evaluation. Who knows, maybe even another paper to be written and probably also rejected for publication. But I think they merit consideration - surely?
No-one is being bullied 'not' to express doubts here. I'm happy to express them freely and on low values will front the queue. But, with the utmost respect to all believers, non-believers - whoever - our opinion here counts for naught. It is only mainstream's opinion that matters and hopefully the time will come when they'll at least look to the question. It's most compelling argument is on high wattages and higher co-efficiencies. I still harbour the hope that we'll get there.
Quote from: powercat on September 13, 2009, 01:06:09 PM
Rosemary
I notice you didn't answer my question so here it is again
There is an easy way to clear up this situation
Aaron reproduces 5 of the working circuits and then he posts them to members like TK, Hoppy, Fuzzy, MileHigh, 99
Okay there is a cost but this can be sorted out once the principle is established.
Can you ask Aaron if he is willing to do this ?
At the very least one working circuit could be posted to Stefan but maybe you think he would not admit to gain either
cat
Cat - can you advance one reason why Aaron should oblige you on this matter? I'd sooner recommend that he send the circuits to different universities for evaluation. I think Aaron's interest in persuading contributors here is long over and gone.
Quote from: witsend on September 13, 2009, 10:40:23 AM
Hoppy - when we get to the point that COP>17 is clearly not replicable - I assure you I will be the first to admit defeat. And regarding Aaron's talents - they are amazing. May I remind you. He romped home with oscillation spikes at 1000 volts when TK could not even get oscillation. He switched at 3% where TK could not switch at 90% on. He then rebuilt the quantum switch and found the same 'switching facility'. So did others on this forum. He then experimented with waveforms and managed a DC to AC converter where classicists could barely manage a spike. And from what I've learned Harvey is definitely mainstream. He just lends the project the kind of honest evaluation that you and MileHigh resist by prejudging the outcomes.
Rosemary,
Let me assure you that my test equipment is quite aduquate to see a COP>1 let alone one of COP17. I have seen nothing in Aaron's video's that remotely suggests that he his getting anywhere near COP17. As has been said repeatedly, he is working at ridiculously low power levels with a very untidy and 'iffy' setup. This is just not going to impress any EE.
Aaron needs to do the following things before I will take any further interest in his claims: -
1) Tidy up his setup by shortening interconnecting leads as much as possible.
2) Use soldered joints, not croc clips.
3) terminate all shunts to one common point close to, or directly onto the neg battery terminal (star earthing).
4) Ensure that the load resistor is running 'hot' before taking measurements with a properly calibrated DSO. The purpose of this test is to demonstrate a high COP with a hot resistor, not a cold one!
Hoppy
Hoppy - on Aaon's negative voltage he is getting considerably more than COP>17
And as for tidying up his circuit - I'm sure he'll attend to the necessary not to impress you but to satisfy himself. You will recall that the circuit was partially dismantled in order to place shunts all over the place. Under test conditions this would not be necessary.
BTW - I think we should leave the objects of the test to the experimenters. I don't think you're in a position to dictate the direction these tests should run - with the utmost respect. Nor do I think it in anyone's interest to disregard interesting data because it does not 'fit' with your requirements here.
Quote from: witsend on September 13, 2009, 01:39:29 PM
Hoppy - on Aaon's negative voltage he is getting considerably more than COP>17
And as for tidying up his circuit - I'm sure he'll attend to the necessary not to impress you but to satisfy himself. You will recall that the circuit was partially dismantled in order to place shunts all over the place. Under test conditions this would not be necessary.
BTW - I think we should leave the objects of the test to the experimenters. I don't think you're in a position to dictate the direction these tests should run - with the utmost respect. Nor do I think it in anyone's interest to disregard interesting data because it does not 'fit' with your requirements here.
Rosemary,
The data is not reliable because his setup is poor. I'm not trying to dictate the direction the tests should be run, just suggest good practice, so that EE's may take notice and show a genuine interest, rather than simply criticise and laugh as has been happening up to now.
Hoppy
Rosemary:
I give you credit for your tenacity. I intend to see more results come in and see what happens. Aaron has been laying low with the DSO, let's hope that he produces some new data. The reality is that what he produces will be scrutinized honestly, as it should be. The honest scrutinization can get nasty depending on the merits of the data and how the debate ensues. It's all very existentialist and the human condition. I remember seeing this documentary about Northern Ireland, and how kids on the rooftops on opposite sides of the wall would throw stones at each other.
Speaking of the Turing test: The Turing test is fascinating, it is to determine if you are having a conversation with a real person or a computer running artificial intelligence software that mimics a human being's interactions. So you start up a conversation about any subject and go from there.
.99 and all qualifiers:
I mentioned qualifying people and it seems to me that there are some "fissures" in Lighty's armor. I half read his efficiency and power analysis posting and it all looked legit, and I came to the same conclusion as you about him jumping into the thread late.
But this:
QuoteYou are quite right in the sense that it would be wise to first reproduce the original experiment. However that also means that same resistors should be used (same types and manufacturers- not just same inductance and resistance values)
I don't buy that, and I just posted about that issue. Hmmmm.... Now I am suspicious.
Quoteor drives it into self oscillation resistive and reactive losses must be addressed.
I am going to be a little bit picky here and take issue with someone with his knowledge level using the term "reactive losses" but at the same time I am willing to cut him some slack.
So I am not so sure about Lighty now. That's just the way I think and I thought that I would state it here.
Plus he beat you up and spanked your ass!! lol
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on September 13, 2009, 03:30:29 PM
I don't buy that, and I just posted about that issue. Hmmmm.... Now I am suspicious.
I am going to be a little bit picky here and take issue with someone with his knowledge level using the term "reactive losses" but at the same time I am willing to cut him some slack.
So I am not so sure about Lighty now. That's just the way I think and I thought that I would state it here.
Plus he beat you up and spanked your ass!! lol
MileHigh
Did he? Well, I just got back from buying my active microphone for the new camera, so I haven't looked back at EF to see the licking I've been taking after my last posts, but thanks for looking out for me MH and Hoppy. ;) Video coming shortly I hope ;D
@ powercat ;)
.99
Regarding lighty...
Looks like a No-Go. My current impression is that he's from the same line of cookie cutters Harvey came from. Not that it matters anyway. Results will speak for themselves.
.99
@Fuzzytomcat, Luc, etc.
Who was it that had some extra IRFPG50's they could sell?
Rose has agreed to consider my test results even though my resistor has an inductance of 29uH, as opposed to the specified 8.64uH. For goodness sake though, Aaron's is a whopping 96uH which is more than 10x the amount, and she seems quite happy with Aaron's results so far, whatever those results may in fact be ???
Anyway, I'll be building and testing the circuit myself, after my first video is completed. Just an interesting note regarding scope calibration, and in particular the Tek SPC calibration on my scope--before and after the calibration, the DC offset changed a whopping 22mV and it started at the negative side! ;D
.99
.99:
>>>
All Danotherm Resistors can be equiped with a thermal model, which
makes it possible to calculate the TEMPERATURE RISE during a
specified load. Particularly by pulse loads it is possible to simulate the
temperature rise by using a programme as Pspice. You can either ask
DANOTHERM to do a simulation or ask for the thermal model of your
resistor to do the simulation yourself.
>>>
I learn something new every day!
MileHigh
Hi MH,
Yes I saw that in the spec. There's very little you can't do in SPICE ;D
I wonder if they would provide the thermal model just for asking? Here is the complete part number GL used btw:
GRF20/100L 10R. They are about $30 from their website.
.99
Quote from: witsend on September 13, 2009, 01:24:09 PM
Cat - can you advance one reason why Aaron should oblige you on this matter? I'd sooner recommend that he send the circuits to different universities for evaluation. I think Aaron's interest in persuading contributors here is long over and gone.
Rosemary Rosemary
One reason= if the claim is true, why not, to prove it really is OU.
It seems so obvious there is no OU if their was, it would be the biggest news story in the world.
This information has been on the Internet for long enough now ::)
Yes Aaron should send the circuits to universities, as the circuit made by his hand's and his hand's only
produce OU, or so it would seem
All I am asking at the very least is send one working circuit to OU.com
I know your answer will be NO however you go round the houses to get their, it will be NO
it is the same as does the circuit produced OU NNNNNOOOOO
prove me wrong with action not words
cat
Hi Cat, Your comment that if it were OU it would be the biggest story in the world. Indeed. So you explain it. Going back to the quantum article while it was still hot off the press - we were asked to demonstrate it at MTN Sciencentre. At the time there was an international conference for physicists being held at the centre. We were there for at least 5 days. It may have been 7. The existence of the apparatus and its accessibility was well published. Not ONE person came up to see a demo.
So. Have we got OU? Possibly on Aaron's negative current. On the published test - definitely NOT. And to determine the level of efficiency that is realised on our published circuit - here's the thing. We're flirting on either side of 1. On the crude apparatus that is being used - that's extraordinary. One would expect hefty losses in all the wiring required for appartus that is subjected to testing for proof of concept. Spice suggests maximum efficiency at a projected best of 86% I think it is. But no-one - thus far - has factored in the energy expended on RF. That will take it way over COP>1. That, in itself, is of interest. So. You tell me why everyone is so entirely 'underwhelmed'.
And for the record - no-one, so far, has evaluated the energy expended in RF - nor even referenced it. Why?
Rosemary:
QuoteAnd for the record - no-one, so far, has evaluated the energy expended in RF - nor even referenced it. Why?
That's because the RF power emanated is probably on the order of microwatts or less. The energy pie from the battery is sliced into heat and RF, and the RF slice is paper-thin.
The reason for this is that only the very very high frequency components in the circuit waveforms are able to get transformed into RF radiation. You model the circuit as a microwave antenna. At this level the lengths of the wires and the overall layout of the circuit comes into play. We also know from Fourier transform analysis that the amplitudes of the very very high frequency components in the waveforms are minuscule.
QuoteThat will take it way over COP>1.
You are being somewhat optimistic there! lol The battery power becomes heat power and a minuscule amount of RF power when it drives the "load" which is your circuit. The energy in the inductive spike comes from the battery, and nowhere else. That's the simplified energy audit.
Hefty losses in the wiring? The wires dissipate very little power. All that power becomes heat, as accounted for in the simplified energy audit.
QuoteSpice suggests maximum efficiency at a projected best of 86%
I am not sure what efficiency you are talking about here. Is it the amount of heat burned off in the inductive resistor vs. the total heat being burned off?
I say that the circuit is 99.9999% efficient at producing heat. :)
MileHigh
Aaron:
Great job on the thermal profiling. You should post a picture of the setup you had when you ran the tests, that would be sweet.
If you can post the precise measured value of the resistor also, that would do it.
Perhaps one last thing. There is the issue of the ambient temperature in the room vs. the ambient temperature of the body of the inductive resistor itself. I am going to assume that you had a thermocouple on the inductive resistor from the start, so everything should be fine.
MileHigh
MileHigh - how does one measure RF? And if it's only the 'very high frequencies' I assure you that most applied to our test produced interference on the radio enough to entirely drown out reception.
And yes the circuit is 'lossy' as I've heard it expressed. It is surely the fact that crocodile clips - multiple junctions for measurements - wires longer than required - shunt resistors all over the place - all contribute to the losses in the tranfer of energy and in wasteage of heat dissipated needlessly over sundry extraneous component parts.
And Poynt ran an experiment on spice that indicated the expected effeciency of the circuit would be at about 86%. MileHigh why are you 'nit picking'? The fact is that we run our Quantum circuit on an an efficiency factor at either side of 1. In fact, on the only duplicated test it was in excess of 1. I'm inclined to think that this is significant provided it can be replicated. Unfortunately it's not a strong argument - is all.
Rosemary:
Measuring RF is beyond the scope of this experiment. Every piece of electronics equipment is tested to ensure that it does not emit too much RF energy. They do it in large rooms with antennas and frequency spectrum analyzers and RF meters and stuff like that.
So you say the setup can drown out radios. So what? You have to put your scientific hat on and ask yourself the following questions: How much RF energy does it take to drown out a radio that's one meter away from the circuit? Another question to ask yourself: If I am 10 kilometers away from the radio station transmission tower, and I know their broadcast power, how much RF energy per square meter is hitting me? You can't make wild guesses based on observed phenomena without some kind of handle on the numbers.
If your new thoughts are to investigate COP allegedly just above or below unity, then you will be back in nit-pick territory. Hence my question to Aaron about the precise value of the 10-ohm resistor. Without that value, assume the data has a +/-5% fudge factor. With that measurement, and the accuracy spec for the multimeter, you might be working with a +/-1% fudge factor.
MileHigh
MileHigh - This is exhausting me. I joined this forum because I wanted to enjoy the real pleasure of actually answering the points made here. In the past you guys enjoyed the uninterrupted and uncontested pleasure of a long range missile attack without the danger of a return fire.
You made the point that losses on the experimental apparatus were insignificant. I suggested they were signficant. The point was not referenced. You made the point that I must not tie my hopes to 'small values'. I replied I do not tie my hopes to small values. Now this is also not referenced. Instead you are re-iterating - to the point of absurdity - the need not to 'tie one's hope to small values'. What do you propose? We ignore all further tests because of your conviction that there is no point to it? Must I ignore Aaron's sine wave number? Must I just give up because the evidence is not as I'd expected or managed in prior testing? And do you seriously suggest that I have no handle on the 'error margins' of the measuring equipment?
And where are you? Since I've been a member of this forum I actually found your contributions fun. They're now getting pedantic and boring - with respect.
I intend to take the data from these tests wherever they take me. If there is anything that challenges conventional efficiency margins I will use it - with or without your sanction. And it is not for your benefit but for my own. If the challenge in the evidence is not strong - then my argument will not be strong. If the evidence is strong - then my argument will be stronger. But my interest here is to evaluate the evidence. It is certainly not to convince you of that evidence. The more so as your convictions here are on record coupled with your evident inability to digest my answers.
Take a chill pill Rosemary, you asked me a question and I answered it. If you are worried about the power "lost" in the wires then make measurements of the wire resistances if you are able. I didn't reference your points because I was satisfied with my original statements.
If you want to get a little aggressive, go after Arron for forgetting to measure or state the resistor value or quote it's tolerance! I don't think it was a 10.000-ohm resistor he was working with.
Forget about the RF, it's irrelevant.
MileHigh
I don't need a 'chill pill'. I'm good thank you. I'm not worried about the power 'lost' in the wires or anywhere at all. I'm simply suggesting they be factored in.
But just get it that I'm disappointed. You're not. But I'm not prepared to give up my hopes here. Not yet anyway. It's just that I'm realistic enough to know that it's not looking good - except for small 'windows'.
And MileHigh we all know which resistor Aaron was testing.
We've got dawn breaking here - on a blue Monday. I wish I could get some sleep before first light. Not a happy lot. So. Make allowances.
To Rosemary and all other negative entropy entities scanning this photon flux: ???
This posting is to stop this thread from falling off the edge of the Earth! lol
Actually, for what it's worth, that last posting by Harvey sounds like he is "talking the talk" but the overall thrust of it is mumbo-jumbo talk. He forgot the radioactive decay energy heat contribution in his treatise as well as cosmic particle crashes into nuclei.
So Harvey and Lighty don't cut it for some of us, with all due respect to them otherwise.
We shall continue on blazing new trails as the investigation continues. Aaron has generated some great data as long as we know the resistor value and what the setup looked like and some new stuff should be coming out soon. Poynt99 is going to replicate it in real life! Woo! Hoo! There are those PCBs in circulation, more excitement in the air! Other replicators are also joining in, the quality of their data is too be determined. Panacea's two contributions so far have not generated any meaningful data, let's hope they are three times lucky. We are all rooting for the scope surfers but they gotta be number number crunchers too, man. Like dude...
It's all about the neutrinos, baby! (Imagine if Al Yankovic did a "Free Energy" video.)
MileHigh
Indeed MH.
And the parts that weren't techno-babble, were simply review (and regurgitation of some of my own comments recently) of normal circuit operation and points that have already been succinctly covered.
It appears Harvey is learning about how SPICE works. I wonder if he'll ever admit his error with the requested "measurements" he was asking me for when I was expending my own time on his experiment? It's interesting that those "measurements" have somehow fallen by the wayside now that he has had a glimpse of aperiodic oscillation in SPICE. Damn those convergence errors eh Harvey? :P
"How are those inverted V
LOAD and inverted V
DS measurements coming Harv?" "Get those battery terminal power traces nailed down?" "Also interested in seeing how you got to full inductor saturation with an equal ON and neg excursion time." ;)
QuoteThe scope shots I am looking for: B(-) Mosfet Drain as Reference, B(+) Mosfet Drain as reference. Desired traces for each, Voltage, Current, Power.
:D
I think most would agree that Harvey and Aaron have "danced" around the COP=17 (or even COP>1) issue long enough, and they've certainly had ample time to test the basic circuit with full data, but have chosen instead to squander valuable scope time on other tangential endeavors.
I've been given the "go-ahead" with my 29uH resistor, and the IRFPG50's and PCB are on their way. ;)
.99
;D Hi MileVeryHigh - glad to see you're back. I was intrigued with your reference to Al Yankovic. Just spent a REALLY entertaining half hour on youtube. Thanks for that. I've been rolling.
Why are you putting Harvey with Lighty? Lighty is definitely team classical and Harvey just doesn't belong to a team. Unless there's a 'team keep an open mind and explore the actual issue at hand' team.
As for you, TK et al - not even 'team mainstream' Just 'team troll'. But you, at least, have entertainment value when you bother to show up.
@witsend
Nice to see you posting here. ;)
DonL
Hi DonL. I felt I aught to infiltrate. Aaron's given up here and unless we're duly and fairly represented the trolls get a free hand. It runs the real danger of killing the thread off. I'd be sorry. All this gratuitous and counterproductive analysis would otherwise go to waste for want of interest.
Poynt - what can I say? ::) You're PM's are getting boring. Nothing quite so tedious as self-justification especially when the argument is illogical.
And Harvey's talents - let me remind you - they're amazing. You wont manage to detract from this until you outperform him. I'm holding my breath here.
At this point I am more or less in a holding pattern. I wave my Troll Flag high! lol
Everybody is welcome here to step up on the soapbox. It all goes back to the Magna Carta. lol
Talents...
Somebody once said, "It's going to be a really big sheww."
Does the perfectly harmonious and beautiful symphony of the way energy is exchanged in the universe hold true, or is this device making tiny pinpricks in the fabric of space-time ITSELF?
.99, "Tangential Endeavors" - I listen to them when I am in my orgone energy accumulator.
MileHigh
Quote from: witsend on September 16, 2009, 12:06:15 AM
And Harvey's talents - let me remind you - they're amazing. You wont manage to detract from this until you outperform him. I'm holding my breath here.
Outperform him, and amazing? LOL. Give us a break Rose. I assure you that won't be difficult since Harv has "performed" little to nothing thus far.
Prepare to
really be "amazed".... :P
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on September 16, 2009, 01:07:53 AM
Prepare to really be "amazed".... :P
.99
Am waiting. Bated breath and all. I'm expecting you to make more than a 'pinprick' into the 'fabric of space-time' as MH so eloquently explains it
And MH - there is nothing elegant in the harmonious and beautiful symphony of energy exchange as per team classical. ;D It's flawed. Badly ::) :o
BTW I also listened to some Tangential Endeavours - Black bottom boogie and impossible dream. Good stuff. You keep hinting and I think we all want to know about your contribution to the music field? Where do we find this?
Quote from: witsend on September 16, 2009, 01:18:40 AM
Am waiting. Bated breath and all. I'm expecting you to make more than a 'pinprick' into the 'fabric of space-time' as MH so eloquently explains it
I can't advise you what or what not to expect, you are free to do so as you wish, however what you will see are the unbiased results produced by the circuit and measured by test equipment.
Quote
And MH - there is nothing elegant in the harmonious and beautiful symphony of energy exchange as per team classical. ;D It's flawed. Badly ::) :o
As are some of Aaron's measurements, and the assumptions being made about them by yourself and Aaron.
.99
I'm not musical but there is no reason that I can't breakout into song!
Some people call me the space cowboy,yeah
Some call me the gangster of love
Some people call me Maurice
Cause I speak of the pompitus of love.
People talk about me, baby
Say I got it all wrong, got it all wrong
Well, don't you worry baby
Don't worry cause I'm right here, right here, right here,
right here at home
Cause I'm a stumbler
I'm a fumbler
I'm a lover
And I'm a bumbler
I play my music in the sun.
I'm a joker
I'm a smoker
I'm a midnight toker
I get my loving on the run WoOoOO WoOOooo
Free energy is the strangest thing I ever did see
Newman and Bearden, and John Bedini-e-e-ee
Lovey-dovey, lovey-dovey, lovey-dovey all the time
Come on hey baby can you spare me your dime?
- Homage to Steve Miller and Joit
“You see things; and you say, ‘Why?’ But I dream things that never were; and I say, ‘Why not?’".
- George Bernard Shaw
LETS'S GO BOYS AND GIRLS!!!! lol
MileHigh
::) Good gracious MileHigh. Remind me not to ask you about your musical career again. That 'song'? Well. Your version defnitely an improvement on the original - because it's shorter. And - yet again - ;D an appealing variation at the heart. Otherwise it will go down as my single most painful excursion on youtube with the entire exception of TK's Koil videos. Actually. With the entire exception of TK's videos.
But I appreciate the tribute to free energy. Just not sure that you did it justice.
It's so bad it's good.
yes.
edit. I assume you're talking about the song. Not TK's videos
Finally we agree on something.
edit. The song.
MileVeryHigh ;D We're both great fans of yours??? Nothing like a narcissist to grace the pages of this sad thread
edit. That's surely a basis of agreement? A pivotal correspondence? A meeting of the minds?
It was a virtual 'happening.'
One man tuning into himself.
One man in resonance,
Many men in resonance.
Booiing! :D
(That's the 'old school' 'men' here, that includes women) lol
Who are you kidding? that's an applause. MH - at the risk of going off topic ;D - will you tell me how you deal with ZPE? How do you reconcile all this 'dark energy' number with classical?
Do you see a 'window' for OU here?
Rosemary:
I am not strong with respect to cutting-edge theoretical physics, I just read the occasional article or watch a PBS Nova like anybody else. With that said, as far as I am concerned ZPE does not even exist, it is just a theoretical concept, and in the context of the believers, it is 'out there' and you just have to figure out a way to get at it. A Bedini motor rates high on the enthusiasm scale for a "ZPE 'generator'" from what I gather, and tons of people playing with coils are convinced that they are "tapping into" ZPE.
As far as "dark energy" goes, if I recall it is more of a theoretical concept, related to "dark matter" that attempts to explain the enigma of the fact that we cannot see or account for something like 90% of the matter in the Universe. It's just a concept with no facts or details or anything behind it. We just know that there is a lot of "extra" gravity out there. Then when the shocker came in about the expansion of the Universe accelerating, people used the "dark energy" concept as a possible mechanism for "explaining" the acceleration.
Finally, on our size scale, 10^1 meters, the stuff we play with, our circuits, motors, Tesla switches, whatever, single-wire energy transmission, etc, - all that stuff that is allegedly "an open system" or "unconventional" or "over unity" or "free energy" is all real and understandable and explainable upside-down and inside-out and backwards and forwards. That's where people like Aaron and Harvey and a whole host of others are not the "clued-in" that they think they are, they are in fact the clueless. I have never seen a YouTube clip that showed something unusual. Then there are the fraudulent money sucking vampires trolling the idea marketplace for free money - but I won't go there.
MileHigh
MileHigh
I know nothing about the 'fraudulent money suckng vampires' so can't comment. But I do know that Dark energy and Dark matter are now fully accepted - mainstream thinking. And it's not entirely based on the need to explain 'extra gravity' as you put it. There are plenty paradoxes that would be accounted for provided this force is extant. To say that you don't 'buy in' is also then counter mainstream. Where would that put you? On an historical scale you'd be holding hands with the Spanish Inquisition.
You know that my thesis revolves around the fact that energy delivered by a supply will return to the supply. Zero loss? Well that 'negative' number that Aaron has? That's my comfort for the thesis. So I see it as significant. But you already know this.
My point is this. What would actually convince you that this number is real? It's been shown by Aaron and by Fuzzy. That it's small is irrelevant. The casimir effect is small. But its implications are huge. Small isn't to be ignored. It's to be explored, surely. And classical has NOT explained currrent flow - there are many contradictions between this and known physical laws.
Anyway. All I'd like is to know that - notwithstanding the prejudice - there's a small part of your that wants to be convinced? Am I wrong?
Quote from: witsend on September 16, 2009, 11:02:42 PM
You know that my thesis revolves around the fact that energy delivered by a supply will return to the supply. Zero loss? Well that 'negative' number that Aaron has? That's my comfort for the thesis. So I see it as significant.
Well, that explains a few things. Now I know why the obsession with protecting the notion of this so-called negative number.
Quote
My point is this. What would actually convince you that this number is real? It's been shown by Aaron and by Fuzzy. That it's small is irrelevant.
Aaron has shown zilch. A measly -5.4mV average on the shunt, and this on a scope that was most likely not calibrated beforehand, and a setup with sloppy wiring. On top of that, this represents -5.4 mA on a 1 Ohm shunt, and over 20mA on a 0.25 Ohm shunt, yet Aaron was not able to measure any current with his meter ??? Why not? It's clear there was next to no voltage across that shunt, and the net -5.4 mV in the data was most likely a result of DC offset in the scope.
My tests will likely show a net positive voltage, but we'll have to wait for the test run to see the actuals.
I did not see negative net voltage from Fuzzy's results. Could someone please post a link, thanks.
.99
Poynt - I get it that you know nothing of the thesis? More's the pity.
And Fuzzy's 'numbers' did not show a net negative. Only his waveforms did.
and I realise that your demo will show a net gain. Would expect nothing less.
BTW - the measly -5.4 mV. I want it to be even more measly at 0.00 mV's. And why aren't you speaking to me?
http://www.disclose.tv/viewvideo/29990/Dr__Steven_Greer_The_Promise_of_New_Energy/
Mk1 - thanks for the link. It's actually the first time I've seen Dr Greer. Have only heard about him. Found the talk inspiring. I get it that Poynt needs to watch this - and for that matter MileHigh. So guys. How about finding out a little about how 'team hopeful' think? :D
Guys - here's something that will knock your socks off - or to quote MH quoting the imortal words of Steve Miller WoOoOO WoOOooo. Definitely the Michelson-Morley experiment no longer 'definitive' and Aether theory possibly on the rise.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E
Quote from: witsend on September 17, 2009, 11:06:37 AM
Guys - here's something that will knock your socks off - or to quote MH quoting the imortal words of Steve Miller WoOoOO WoOOooo. Definitely the Michelson-Morley experiment no longer 'definitive' and Aether theory possibly on the rise.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E
Maurice Allais see wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Allais
since 2004 , he is saying that "Michelson-Morley experiment" was succesfull !!
Quote
2004
Sur l'interprétation des expériences de Michelson. Aucun vent
d'Ether de 30 km/sec, mais un vent d'Ether de 8 km/sec.
Avril 2004, 19 p.
sorry this is in french :
http://allais.maurice.free.fr/Genese.htm
Hello Tagor, Many thanks for the interesting info on Allais. I'm just so sorry he insists on writing in French. I've tried to do the Google 'translate' number but failed. But I know someone who can possibly do it for me at EF.com.
I'd be interested to know more about his gravity experiments and his arguments against relativity. But I'm not sure I respect that criticism of Einstein. He's my absolute hero - in all things - notwithstanding his lost argument with the quantum theorists.
EDIT - unless MH can oblige. I know he's got a facility with the Russian to English number. :)
Quote from: witsend on September 17, 2009, 02:06:36 AM
Poynt - I get it that you know nothing of the thesis? More's the pity.
What interests me at the moment is the experimental setup and the test results from it.
If any results obtained go against what would normally be expected in terms of classical theory, then this may warrant a look at yours and other theories in order to explain the unknown. But the task at hand before this is to see if indeed anything unusual or unexplainable by conventional theory appears in the results in the first place.
Quote
And Fuzzy's 'numbers' did not show a net negative. Only his waveforms did.
I will have to look again.
Quote
and I realise that your demo will show a net gain. Would expect nothing less.
??? Hmm, so why am I going through the trouble of doing the experiment if you already expect nothing "unusual" in my results? And I think you meant "net loss", not "net gain"?
Quote
BTW - the measly -5.4 mV. I want it to be even more measly at 0.00 mV's. And why aren't you speaking to me?
From a COP>1 perspective, I would think that you would want as negative as possible while still achieving heating or cooling above/below ambient.
.99
Hi Poynt. :D
I get it you're not into theory. And regarding your question as to why you're doing the experiment? I would hope this is not entirely for my benefit. And I did mean net loss and not net gain. And I'd be able to explain zero loss - but am into theoretical melt down at cooling below ambient. And why did you ignore my last question?
I'm very much into new theories and have a few of my own TPU theories that are in continual development.
However, unless something new is discovered with these switched-inductor circuits in particular, I see no need to develop any new theories for them. So far I have not seen anything from the posted experimental results that appears new, novel, or that can't be explained in classical terms.
I am doing the experiment mainly for your benefit and the benefit of all others that are interested in these circuits and their potential as OU devices. I and others have commented extensively about the poor quality of the test apparatus and methods, and doing this test is also a means to live up to those comments and hopefully enable others to do better testing in the future once they see how it can be done.
You lost me on the net loss thing.
Regarding your question, I take comments such as "your PM's are getting boring" etc. as a pretty solid indicator for me to cease and desist in that regard, so of course I've limited any dialog to the posts only. I'd hate to bore you further. If you are referring to Skype, I assumed the comment pertained to that as well, and the answer is the same.
.99
I'm not sure what TPU stands for? Is this related to development in simulators? You've mentioned this before. If not - then I'm in the dark here.
You've got it back to front. The initial experiment was to prove a thesis. The standard is this - Develop a model - thesis stage - prove it and it's elevated to theory. But the thesis must always precede the experimental evidence if the thesis is of any value. And thus far there are a dearth of replications in the initial experiment. Hopefully this will change. Meanwhile a new - unpredicted - but required effect is showing some 'small evidence' of proof - and some considerable interest in terms of its effect.
It's brave of you to take on the standards required. A new bench mark? I wonder if you can improve on Fuzzy's and Aaron's efforts. But it would be nice to be surprised. The point is that all waveforms generated require some considerable patience to allow them to manifest. Is your interest in proving it equal to the effort required? We'll see.
My question stands. I was hoping for resolution. You clearly don't share that hope.
Hey Rosemary:
QuoteGuys - here's something that will knock your socks off - or to quote MH quoting the imortal words of Steve Miller WoOoOO WoOOooo. Definitely the Michelson-Morley experiment no longer 'definitive' and Aether theory possibly on the rise.
I looked at the clip and it is pure crap. So, just for fun, let me put the ball in your court. What is wrong with the clip?
MileHigh
Experimenters:
QuoteWith identical voltages on liquid and gel at all same settings on circuit, the liquid lead acid battery gave more heat on the resistor. Rosemary might remember more details. We were talking while I was doing that test. I'll try to find the notes on it.
This is ostensibly impossible. So, what would be the logical next step in the investigation? Put your thinking caps on...
QuoteI can charge a battery with this charger and when it is "drained", I can charge it back up with a standard charger and the standard charger immediately starts to charge it so it is like the normal charger doesn't have to fill up the "holes" first until it actually starts to charge it. If the Bearden idea is right about that.
Looks like Thomas Bearden stole a buzzword from semiconductor physics! How crafty! lol
MileHigh
Quote from: witsend on September 17, 2009, 02:12:39 PM
Hello Tagor, Many thanks for the interesting info on Allais. I'm just so sorry he insists on writing in French. I've tried to do the Google 'translate' number but failed. But I know someone who can possibly do it for me at EF.com.
I'd be interested to know more about his gravity experiments and his arguments against relativity. But I'm not sure I respect that criticism of Einstein. He's my absolute hero - in all things - notwithstanding his lost argument with the quantum theorists.
EDIT - unless MH can oblige. I know he's got a facility with the Russian to English number. :)
Try This:
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://allais.maurice.free.fr/Paradoxe.htm&ei=EqqySuDiAZOOlQeFy6nzDg&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://allais.maurice.free.fr/Genese.htm%26hl%3Den%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox%26rlz%3D1I7SUNA (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://allais.maurice.free.fr/Paradoxe.htm&ei=EqqySuDiAZOOlQeFy6nzDg&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://allais.maurice.free.fr/Genese.htm%26hl%3Den%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox%26rlz%3D1I7SUNA)
DonL
Hello MileHigh. ;D You're on the forum so early?
First question - can't answer. Second question - saw it for myself through Skype. Battery difference negligible but marginally higher on the gell cell. You will note that no mention was made of it in the published data on the forum. No significance given to this other than an interesting anomalous event that was mentioned in passing as an 'aside' to Harvey, Broadly attributed to battery vagary.
But nice to see you there whipping away general optimism of us poor hopefuls. Don't you get tired? And tell me you don't wish you were'nt so entrenched in a mindset? So Old MH. Try flirting with some new ideas in science. It's an amazing trip.
Rosemary:
The battery next step question is just for fun. Good old nerdy fun.
What about that YouTube clip with the LASER interferometer, no comment?
MileHigh
Rosemary:
Perhaps you did answer my question about the YouTube clip, please don't take offence for my potential misunderstanding. I will try to answer your other questions another day, too tired for now.
Let's stroll through the YouTube comments:
Ashtweth:
QuoteThank you Von Martin. I can tell you that the FREE energy community will be thanking you and posting this video EVERYWHERE. With out your thinking out side the box, the faculties would have people still conditioned to the non ether. You sir are a bloody hero!! Thank you very much your work is appreciated my friend.
Good Ash, a young altruistic dude. His box just needs to get a lot bigger so that it holds more stuff.
Jburnam:
QuoteThis is a very special discovery!!!
Since the E fields vectors are 180 degrees phase inverted, you are creating longitudinal standing waves of stress potential energy. THIS IS A PUMPING ACTION IN GRAVITY!!! By changing the the wave position in a local gravitational field, we see fluctuation in the scalar field display.
Gravitational waves are stronger at night time...this is why you see the intensity change. Notice light intensity with respect to the moon's position at night.
Aah! Free energy fantasy mode! "Longitudinal", "scalar", he forgot "resonance." This is typical free energy techno-babble mumbo-jumbo talk that means absolutely nothing. Totally clueless nonsense. I know that I am being "bad" but it is true.
My hero Shubus:
QuoteNot what you think is going on here. This is just torsional stress on the apparatus. A more rigid apparatus would not display this supposed "anomaly".
Sheesh... We all feel frustration. My frustration is how so many people cannot see stuff like this staring them in the face. It can be argued that some people should be unconsciously competent about stuff like this. I am analytical, so this kind of stuff "leaps off the page" when I watch a YouTube clip like this one.
I could easily deconstruct the actual setup seen in the clip in a paragraph. I encourage those interested to take a second look at the clip!!
And to make matters worse, I think I saw the researcher was born in 1911. So a whole life's worth of wisdom under his belt and he makes a stupid mistake that any second-week physics student in an optical laboratory would not make.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on September 17, 2009, 06:36:44 PM
Perhaps you did answer my question about the YouTube clip, please don't take offence for my potential misunderstanding. I will try to answer your other questions another day, too tired for now.
MileHigh
Who is this MileHigh who apologises for a potential misunderstanding? ;D Is this the same fellow that I normally chat to? Golly MileHigh. I am blown away. Just so impressed. And where have you been hiding? :D
lol. I'm also too tired. I've been up since 3.00 am. And I'm very happy to accept whatever error it is that you've noticed. Just know that your 'quest' here will probably leave me feeling blue again. Just put me out of my misery and then - out of consideration for this fragile psyche - give me a youtube link to some really fun music. How's that for a trade off? :-*
I need something to wake me up.
Here you go!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZExfu7K-A3I
that was perfect. Thanks Mile High. I'm now going to bed. :) :-*
'some day we'll look back on this and it will all seem like fun'
Hi tagor and DonL-
Finally read the link The man s a francophile. He's trying to promote a countryman and I think he does it on rather tenuous grounds. He suggests that Einstein 'plagiarised' Poincarre - simply because they came up with similar ideas? How often in the history of scientific developent has this been apparent? Plenty. And to suggest he was too young to formulate this? Most of our giants did their best work young.
And Einstein himself was quintessentially honest. He was the first to point out the impossibility of reconciling gravity with the General Theory. But his special theory held and still does. And then too Poincarre needed aether. Einstein didn't. That is easy to criticise because the need for aether is contemporary. Allais has the advantage of hindsight here. But I must admit that it's interesting that Poincarre may have been right in the particular.
I also think that it's somewhat disrespectful to dismiss the entire body of quantum theorists on the grounds that they overlooked aether. These theorists opened up the atom to general view. That was a miracle of progress and much needed. I have my own quarrels with science - and scientists. But our Giants are still giants. In my book - anyway.
But a very interesting reference. Perhaps this is the age to vindicate Poincarre. Have no idea about his work. But I believe that the vinidication does not need to go hand in hand with the calumny this guy's proposing regarding Einstein's work. What a cheek. :o Nobel Prize winner and all. I'd say he's team troll. ;D ???
Hey Rosie and all ......
Every generation there are those that stand above the rest, and to think he's only 16 ........... turn it up and enjoy !!
Never forget the foot steps that follow our examples !!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsV0Mvy4no4
Fuzzy
;D
P.S. I'm going to post some stuff today that will knock some socks off ....... and it's not going to be any music ...... ;)
Fuzzy - that music was FANTASTIC. What a pleasure.
And can't wait for the posting. Such fun.
Here is an old classic with some great images, I recommend BIG screen on this one :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oRKvpZ7PjE&feature=related
I think MileHigh will enjoy ;)
cat
Quote from: powercat on September 18, 2009, 04:30:59 PM
Here is an old classic with some great images, I recommend BIG screen on this one :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oRKvpZ7PjE&feature=related
I think MileHigh will enjoy ;)
cat
Cat it was great. Indeed MileHigh needs to check it out. Are we still on topic? Not sure anymore. Can't work out if this is progress or regress. At least we're finding common denominators? That's got to be a good thing.
is there a test to show how off topic we are ;D :D
anyway it is free entertainment and maybe we'll get some free energy later :P
cat ;)
Indeed. Lol. ;D
.99:
I don't know what the deal was all about on that plot Harvey posted. I have never seen anything like that before, still scratching my head. The big disclaimer is that I am mostly in skimming mode for those types of discussions these days.
I read this though!:
QuoteNow go look at your bench power supply. Is it voltage regulated? How does it regulate that voltage? By changing the impedance of the regulating medium.
First time I ever read that in my life. There is a lot to learn! lol I like old sensing analog power supplies with nice big heavy transformers and big fat metal can transistors on big gleaming aluminum heat sinks. You can't forget the big fat capacitors - can you say "zero output impedance?" lol I hate hissing buzzing "fake out" switching power supplies. Give me some real juice! lol
Thanks Powercat and Rosemary for keeping the musical tradition going. White Rabbit... I had the hots for Grace Slick when I was a kid. Now she's white-haired and 70! OMG
Now for some entertainment, a real goodie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6F2qExLsic
1967 was the last good year.... lol
MileHigh
MH,
Indeed the fundamentals, and it boggles the mind. ::)
No need to scratch your head over that plot...read what I posted there. I'll post a similar "impedance" plot if you like from the ideal VDC? (but I'd rather not) LOL.
"Skim" mode is probably a wise decision. I think I'm about to enter that as well, and focus on my videos. Apparently no one is seeing my posts anyway...hahahaha. :P
.99
Quote from: witsend on September 18, 2009, 02:29:16 AM
Hi tagor and DonL-
see this link
"Fundamental Physics: High precision tests of Special and General Relativity"
http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de/ResearchInst/WelcomeFP.html
tagor - I went through that link. Really interesting. I think there's a proposal that because GR is not reconcilable that it thereby negates SR? I simply am not qualified to comment. But I would suggest that if special relativity at least works for some applications then that's also, at least something. But it does mean that the final 'reconciliation' is still begging answers. Not even the string theorists have got the answer because they need something that finds matter invisible. At the moment they're looking at a 'big black paricle'. Cannot understand how any such could ever move through matter with the ease required. But - again - I'm not qualified to comment.
Personally I'm still inclined to think that the solution is 'classical' - requires a velocity constant - but that it can yet exceed light speed. So. I think Einstein shot himself in the foot when he proposed that nothing could exceed light speed. But I stress that it's only my opinion. And let me add. Again. I'm not qualified to comment.
MileHigh - I went over and over that video on the von Grusenick experiment - modified Michelson-Morley interferometer number. I can't find the fault. What IS wrong with it? I give up. To me it seems like he has proven that oribiting the apparatus at a vertical plane he gets proof of something like 11 to 11.5 changes? twice through an angle of 360 degrees.
I am not sure if he is picking up magnetic fields because there's a clear correspondence here? Is that your point? But there are those of us who argue that magnetic fields and aether are one and the same.
(edit: grammer)
Rosemary:
The problem is that he has the support arms for the setup bolted directly to the slab of aluminum that is his mini optical table. When the setup rotates horizontally, this is a direction that is orthogonal to the gravity field and therefore the setup is stable and the stresses on it due to gravity are constant and unchanging. When the setup rotates vertically, now the setup is experiencing constantly changing mechanical stresses because the gravity field is in constant motion relative to the device itself. For example, the two long metal struts will experience alternating longitudinal compression and tension as the device makes one full turn.
All of these stresses are making the mini optical table deform like a piece of rubber as the device rotates vertically. What's been bolted down to the mini optical table? An interferometer that can measure distance changes that are a fraction of a wavelength of light.
Feel free to copy/paste this into the thread on EF started by Aaron about this subject.
The "craziness" is this man bolting the metal struts to the optical table itself, instead of bolting the struts to some sort of base, and then mounting the optical table to the base via Styrofoam or something in order to stop any deformation of the base being coupled to the optical table. On top of that, I still am not sure if that would be perfect. He may need to use a piece of real optical table material for this sensitive experiment - a honeycombed aluminum structure that is super rigid and very light that would be guaranteed to deform much much less than a single wavelength of light as it rotated through the gravity field.
These kinds of glaring errors freak me out sometimes. They are so outrageous that they turn the experimenter into a peddler of junk science. It all goes back to the qualification process. If this guy could make such a humongous and stupid mistake, then he is either a con artist, or you should discount everything that he states because he has absolutely zero credibility.
How come seemingly "nobody" saw this?
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on September 19, 2009, 08:57:45 PM
Rosemary:
How come seemingly "nobody" saw this?
MileHigh
because we don't have your IQ.
But here's my take. Find out the value of those 'stresses'? Maybe he accounted for the distortion? And it doesn't entirely negate the verdict surely. Just that he possibly needs to check the stability of the equipment at the vertical angle. And who knows MileHigh - maybe he's done this. I'm going to write to him in any event and I'll send him your comments. It'll be interesting to see if he'll answer
I've been looking out for you all night. A long wait - it's now 3 am here - at the back end of this dark continent. And I see you're off line again. How exasperating.
edit. Actually I may have the answer. It's in the evident consistency of the overall interference pattern at all angles. If the apparatus was subject to distortion there would be compelementary distortions rather than variations as it turns through 360 degrees. It would reflect in some distortion of the actual pattern - surely?
BTW - I referenced your objections and posted my counter on EF.com. ;D
Quote from: MileHigh on September 19, 2009, 08:57:45 PM
How come seemingly "nobody" saw this?
MileHigh
Yes !!
in this experiment :
Fundamental Physics: High precision tests of Special and General Relativity
the table is 1 tonne granit !! ( 1000kg )
Quote from: MileHigh on September 19, 2009, 08:57:45 PM
Rosemary:
The problem is that he has the support arms for the setup bolted directly to the slab of aluminum that is his mini optical table. When the setup rotates horizontally, this is a direction that is orthogonal to the gravity field and therefore the setup is stable and the stresses on it due to gravity are constant and unchanging. When the setup rotates vertically, now the setup is experiencing constantly changing mechanical stresses because the gravity field is in constant motion relative to the device itself. For example, the two long metal struts will experience alternating longitudinal compression and tension as the device makes one full turn.
All of these stresses are making the mini optical table deform like a piece of rubber as the device rotates vertically. What's been bolted down to the mini optical table? An interferometer that can measure distance changes that are a fraction of a wavelength of light.
Feel free to copy/paste this into the thread on EF started by Aaron about this subject.
The "craziness" is this man bolting the metal struts to the optical table itself, instead of bolting the struts to some sort of base, and then mounting the optical table to the base via Styrofoam or something in order to stop any deformation of the base being coupled to the optical table. On top of that, I still am not sure if that would be perfect. He may need to use a piece of real optical table material for this sensitive experiment - a honeycombed aluminum structure that is super rigid and very light that would be guaranteed to deform much much less than a single wavelength of light as it rotated through the gravity field.
These kinds of glaring errors freak me out sometimes. They are so outrageous that they turn the experimenter into a peddler of junk science. It all goes back to the qualification process. If this guy could make such a humongous and stupid mistake, then he is either a con artist, or you should discount everything that he states because he has absolutely zero credibility.
How come seemingly "nobody" saw this?
MileHigh
If this had anything to do with the interference propagation then it would maximize when the arms are at 90° increments to the earths surface. But instead the maximum is when the arms are 45° to the earths surface. But at least your thinking ;)
Quote from: Harvey on September 20, 2009, 07:59:40 AM
If this had anything to do with the interference propagation then it would maximize when the arms are at 90° increments to the earths surface. But instead the maximum is when the arms are 45° to the earths surface. But at least your thinking ;)
Yes, the 45 degrees rather than 90 degrees does create an intrigue. Enough for me to wish for another replication of the experiment with utmost importance placed upon material rigidity and thus optical fidelity through all angles of motion.
If the same/similar results were obtained, many far reaching questions will follow.
Rosemary,
Thanks for the compliment but I think that my science education and decent analytical abilities helped me arrive at my conclusion more than any other factors.
QuoteBut here's my take. Find out the value of those 'stresses'? Maybe he accounted for the distortion? And it doesn't entirely negate the verdict surely. Just that he possibly needs to check the stability of the equipment at the vertical angle. And who knows MileHigh - maybe he's done this. I'm going to write to him in any event and I'll send him your comments. It'll be interesting to see if he'll answer
He can't account for the distortion. The interferometer itself is recording the distortion of the rectangular piece of aluminum.
This is is pretty useful link:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/permot3.html
His results are completely negated because his apparatus is incorrectly designed.
QuoteActually I may have the answer. It's in the evident consistency of the overall interference pattern at all angles. If the apparatus was subject to distortion there would be compelementary distortions rather than variations as it turns through 360 degrees. It would reflect in some distortion of the actual pattern - surely?
I am not sure exactly what you mean here but when I looked at the clip the interferometer pattern's movement suggested that the distortion of the block of aluminium roughly followed a sinusoidal pattern, which is a reasonable expectation considering the apparatus is being rotated in a circle.
Harvey suggested that the maximum displacement in the interferometer pattern was at 45 degrees instead of where it "should" be, at 90 degrees. I am not going to look at the clip again but I did not see any clear indication that the device was at 45 degrees for the maximum displacement. Was Harvey extrapolating the 45 degrees from looking at the background when the camera was rotating?
On top of that, how do you know the stress will be at a maximum at 90 degrees? I am not knowledgeable enough to make that call. The only thing that I know with 100% certainty is that the block of aluminum is deforming while the apparatus turns vertically and that's what the interferometer has to be measuring. In my opinion it is a huge mistake to assume that the maximum distortion would occur at 90 degrees, I don't think anybody here reading this has enough mechanical engineering knowledge to make that call.
QuoteIt is easy to measure any warping of the platform at any angle to see if this is the case but I doubt it.
Not to pick on Aaron but that statement is completely wrong. It's impossible to measure the warping of the platform at the scale we are talking about here unless you use an interferometer. To me this says that Aaron's understanding of mechanically related issues is limited. I am qualifying again.
Here is my frustration in a nutshell: We all know that metal is flexible. We know that bridges and buildings and airplanes bend and flex in the wind. We have all seen train track rails flex as a train passes over them. Therefore we should all intuitively know that a small block of aluminium will also flex under stress, but only a very small amount on a microscopic scale. It is simple deductive reasoning.
Just for fun, a somewhat related example: Imagine you have a piece of wire attached to two points that are one meter apart horizontally. You want the wire to be perfectly straight so you start to pull on one of the attachment points (the other attachment point is fixed) to put tension in the wire to make it perfectly straight and horizontal.
How much tension do you have put in the wire to make it perfectly straight?
The answer is that you simply can't make the wire perfectly straight. The wire will always break before you can get it perfectly straight.
The only way for the wire to become perfectly straight would be for the wire to be infinitely strong and to put infinite tension on it.
Some people may be consciously or unconsciously competent with respect to the above question and give the correct answer. Some people may have taken Physics 101 and can give you the correct answer.
MileHigh
Rosemary:
I just caught this:
QuoteIt would reflect in some distortion of the actual pattern - surely?
I take it that you mean the actual banding pattern of the interferometer as seen on the small "screen" that forms part of the rotating apparatus would be changed or distorted due to the flexing of the block of aluminum.
The interferometer pattern will always be an alternating pattern of light and dark bands. That will not change. You would see the bands move as per the clip if the aluminum block was deforming or if any hypothetical "ether" affects were somehow affecting the speed of the propagation of light in a certain direction. You may want to read up some more on interferometers.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on September 20, 2009, 06:14:16 PM
Rosemary:
I just caught this:
I take it that you mean the actual banding pattern of the interferometer as seen on the small "screen" that forms part of the rotating apparatus would be changed or distorted due to the flexing of the block of aluminum.
The interferometer pattern will always be an alternating pattern of light and dark bands. That will not change. You would see the bands move as per the clip if the aluminum block was deforming or if any hypothetical "ether" affects were somehow affecting the speed of the propagation of light in a certain direction. You may want to read up some more on interferometers.
MileHigh
Hello MileHigh - I barely know what I mean. Let me try again. if the results of this experiment were distorted due to the 'flexing' of the frame holding the apparatus - then - the lenses, laser, mirrors and so forth - fixed to the frame - would experience different tensions due to the different weights attached. Therefore would there be 'greater' or 'smaller' momentary separations of the equipment. This, in turn, would influence the focus of the lens reflected off the screen. In point of fact this focus does not change. Therefore whatever fractional variation is involved - does not effect the results. Something like that?
But. Here's my point. Why are you not commenting on Harvey's last video? Did you miss this. ???
edit : And Poynt? What do you say now?
2nd edit : MH ;D I know the argument I've used here is weak. But Harvey's isn't. If that is theoretically possible then - WOW. Come on MileVeryHigh. ;D How far is up? ;D
Interesting arguments.
Does no one understand this shift? Anyone ever heard of the laser alignment anomaly? Where results are badly skewed if the laser source is place on the rotating surface to be checked... the axle being horizontal. In this case good measurement can only be obtained if the mirror is centered on the measured surface and the laser source external to that measured surface.
I've read some complaints the distortion is thought to be affected by the time of day, month and year - along with latitude.
I think mechanical deflection could be a problem but don't you think the pattern shift would be the other direction?
Even if folks reproduce this.... is there anyone who will understand what this implies?
I have the devices needed to reproduce this experiment with no time, now. In a few months I will try it. I hope it isn't proven to be just an effect of Coriolis force producing helical polarity from perpendicular polarized sources of light >:(
Bendable light beams? Why not? We have radar that can look around a corner ;)
Quote from: BEP on September 20, 2009, 10:40:18 PM
Interesting arguments.
Even if folks reproduce this.... is there anyone who will understand what this implies?
I have the devices needed to reproduce this experiment with no time, now. In a few months I will try it. I hope it isn't proven to be just an effect of Coriolis force producing helical polarity from perpendicular polarized sources of light >:(
Bendable light beams? Why not? We have radar that can look around a corner ;)
BEP - I take it that you're able to vary the apparatus so that the laser is external to the 'measured surface'? How then does one keep it focused on a rotating mirror? Does it also move somehow? in synch? Sorry if the question is elementary. I just can't get my head around it.
EDIT - actually - maybe this could be done with a mirrored sphere?
The other point is this. I understand the implications as it relates to aether - being that the original Michelson-Morley experiment could not prove the existence of this based on analysis of these interferometer measurements. Correspondingly, if there are variations to the interference patterns then this would - conversely - prove the existence? Is this wrong? If, in turn, this aether 'field' is proven - then my assumption is that this - in turn - may be the source of a field that allows the propogation of light through space. Is this also wrong?
If proven - my own assumption would be that this could be the 'dark' fields that are identified as 'extant' by our astrophysicists. But that may, indeed, be a personal bias and not based on the actual conclusions to this test. Please enlighten us.
Quote from: BEP on September 20, 2009, 10:40:18 PM
Interesting arguments.
Does no one understand this shift? Anyone ever heard of the laser alignment anomaly? Where results are badly skewed if the laser source is place on the rotating surface to be checked... the axle being horizontal. In this case good measurement can only be obtained if the mirror is centered on the measured surface and the laser source external to that measured surface.
I've read some complaints the distortion is thought to be affected by the time of day, month and year - along with latitude.
I think mechanical deflection could be a problem but don't you think the pattern shift would be the other direction?
Even if folks reproduce this.... is there anyone who will understand what this implies?
I have the devices needed to reproduce this experiment with no time, now. In a few months I will try it. I hope it isn't proven to be just an effect of Coriolis force producing helical polarity from perpendicular polarized sources of light >:(
Bendable light beams? Why not? We have radar that can look around a corner ;)
I might know just a little bit about it. Using BOINC and the Einstein@home (http://einstein.phys.uwm.edu/server_status.php) interface (which you can join here:http://einstein.phys.uwm.edu/ (http://einstein.phys.uwm.edu/), I have been involved in in the MPP number crunching necessary for proper analysis of the retrieved data for the Ligo Project (http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/). But I really think the Lisa Project (http://lisa.nasa.gov/) will be a much better test because of local frame dragging here on the surface and the way it will distort these waves even when they are presented by strong pulsars. I am (or actually my computer is) currently crunching the data for h1_0932.60_S5R4_S5R5a_0.
Q. How do you suppose the vernier adjustments on the mirrors move the mirrors, and what observation do you make as to the interference pattern as they are being adjusted? ;)
8)
The Challenge:
To accurately measure the net mean or average voltage value of a high frequency wave form using a common and inexpensive digital voltmeter set on "DC Volts".
Many would not believe it could be done, and they would not try it.
For their benefit and for all others that enjoy learning new ways to make measurements, this is for you.
The attached supplement to the video is nothing fancy but hopefully it help explain why this works. The "why the video" file contains material some may have regrets about saying after viewing this video.
Regards,
.99
A "MEAN" Meter, Parts 1 & 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2KhGpmXPjc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2KhGpmXPjc)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXTbcToC5T4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXTbcToC5T4)
:)Hi Poynt - very nice - professional presentations. Thanks for both videos. Most impressed. ;D
Gravity is talking. LISA will listen.
The Cosmos sings with many strong gravitational voices, causing ripples in the fabric of space and time that carry the message of tremendous astronomical events: the rapid dances of closely orbiting stellar remnants, the mergers of massive black holes millions of times heavier than the Sun, the aftermath of the Big Bang. These ripples are the gravitational waves predicted by Albert Einstein's 1915 general relativity; nearly one century later, it is now possible to detect them. Gravitational waves will give us an entirely new way to observe and understand the Universe, enhancing and complementing the insights of conventional astronomy.
LISA, the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, is a joint NASAâ€"ESA mission to observe astrophysical and cosmological sources of gravitational waves of low frequencies (0.03 mHz to 0.1 Hz, corresponding to oscillation periods of about 10 hours to 10 seconds). This frequency band contains the emission from massive black-hole binaries that form after galactic mergers; the song of compact stellar remnants as they slowly spiral to their final fate in the black holes at the centers of galaxies; the chorus of millions of compact binaries in our own Galaxy; and possibly the faint whispers of waves generated shortly after the Big Bang.
LISA consists of three identical spacecraft flying in a triangular constellation, with equal arms of 5 million kilometers each. As gravitational waves from distant sources reach LISA, they warp space-time, stretching and compressing the triangle. Thus, by precisely monitoring the separation between the spacecraft, we can measure the waves; and by studying the shape and timing of the waves we can learn about the nature and evolution of the systems that emitted them.
Took me forever to post this. I've never heard of Project Lisa and was blown away by the prose. Thought it deserved full mention - for anyone interested.
Hey Poynt
Nice to see you still kicking butt ;D
Nice setup, very clear video must be a good camera.
Cheers,
Peter
Hi replicators,
Here is the links to the latest testing done on the "Ainslie - Murakami Negitive Dominant Waveform Generator" circuit using the "Tektronix TDS 3054C" Oscilloscope ....
TEST #1
http://www.energeticforum.com/68569-post2764.html
TEST #2
http://www.energeticforum.com/68575-post2766.html
I'd post the data here but the photos are HD and the quality would be greatly affected .....
Fuzzy
;D
Hi Glen.
A synopsis of your results and conclusions would be helpful in supplementing the posted scope shots etc.
Would you mind?
Much appreciated.
.99
A "MEAN" Meter - Part 3
This time we push the scope and meter a little, and see how they handle a FM signal modulating between 250kHz and 1MHz, at a rate of between 100 to 200 Hz.
You may be surprised at the outcome (jibbguy may even be starting to get the picture :P )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70sPnpG2JO4
.99
Rosemary and Harvey:
I enjoyed the YouTube clip but I confess that it was somewhat hard to follow with all of the traces being shown. It looked to me like the MOSFET was on by a very short time followed by a reverse current time through the body diode. It was interesting how the reverse current was of a higher magnitude than the forward current. Of course you can't really draw any conclusions from the YouTube clip, it is not apparent what kind of load the current is flowing through and the resulting energy dissipation, etc. I am also intrigued as to why the circuit did not stabilize into a regular repeating pattern. There was not enough information there for me about the whole alleged "negative dominant waveform" business. None the less, it is really cool to see Spice crunch down the modeling and solve for the time-based formulas.
Rosemary:
For the interferometer experiment, the deforming aluminum block changes the distances between the different optical components bolted to it over the course of one revolution resulting in the moving interference pattern that you see. It is as simple as that: The setup is supposed to have each component in the optical path of the LASER beam at fixed unmoving points, and that is not happening, they are in fact moving. Anyone that understands interferometry will expect the type of interference pattern that you see in this case. The whole thing is a mistake.
,99:
Thanks for the refresher course on dual-slope integration. The second slope is when you "negatively" integrate with the voltage reference and then time how long it takes for the output to "zero cross", correct?
With a high quality op amp operating at unity gain (for example) the bandwidth of the op amp must be very very wide, giving you super-duper integration. (I love scientific lingo lol)
For Rosemary and Aaron and others: As .99 said (I think) the multimeter operating in this mode is basically a super high bandwidth analog computer supplemented with a digital timing device. An analog computer has a quasi-infinite voltage resolution, far surpassing the 10-bit quantization of the DSO. By the same token the time resolution during the integration itself is also quasi-infinite, far surpassing the sampling rate of the DSO.
Also, I assume that the same process applies when averaging voltage across a shunt resistor to measure the average current. Again, this would be extremely accurate. You can't measure RMS current unless you have an analog multiplier squaring the input waveform.
What some people may not be aware of is before the era of digital computers reigned, there were analog computers. A Moog synthesizer is a form of analog computer. But there were and are real analog computers that can simulate differential and integral equation functions and actually compute useful results. Again, all of this is with quasi-infinite resolution.
MileHigh
Quote from: poynt99 on September 22, 2009, 12:49:27 AM
Hi Glen.
A synopsis of your results and conclusions would be helpful in supplementing the posted scope shots etc.
Would you mind?
Much appreciated.
.99
Hi .99
Well .... going into a testing situation using a circuit and equipment your familiar with but knowing that basically your going to be doing new blind testing with highly accurate measuring equipment and ...
1) a load resistor used a the basis of this replicated circuit but one that I had never used
2) a second test with a untested prototype of a replication of the original Quantum resistor
The part that to me was very surprising was normally the 555 "Power Adjustment Potentiometer" would stall out using the 10 ohm load resistor between 900 to 1,000 ohms, this would include both "made" resistors used, my (20-22 uH) and Aaron's (64.7 uH) original.
The prototype 10 ohm ( 8.64 uH ? ) Quantum resistor "replication" was very odd surprising both Aaron and myself because we couldn't stall the 555 we added first 1000 ohms than another 1000 ohms removed that and added the 4,000 ohm resistor between the 555 pot and the 1N914 diode positive rail and ended up stalling around 4,800 + - ohms and running fine at 4,688 ohms ??
Why the big difference in only changing the 10 ohm "load resistor" and having to add so much series resistance to the circuit at the 555 pot ?? I'm still thinking about that one ....
There are still some things I never saw before using the Tektronix TDS 3054C that my Tektronix 2445A scope sampling rate was just to slow including doing any fine adjustments, a high sampeling rate Oscilliscope must be used for this particular "Ainslie - Murakami Negitive Dominant Waveform Generator" circuit for any end results worth recording.
The Rosemary Anislie COP>17 Heater Circuit is a totally different circuit and I'm sure most any Oscilloscope can do the job, thats the next circuit for me to work on so I can get to my other projects.
Fuzzy
;D
Quote from: witsend on September 20, 2009, 11:10:12 PM
BEP - I take it that you're able to vary the apparatus so that the laser is external to the 'measured surface'? How then does one keep it focused on a rotating mirror? Does it also move somehow? in synch? Sorry if the question is elementary. I just can't get my head around it.
EDIT - actually - maybe this could be done with a mirrored sphere?
A mirror is placed at the center of a rotating table. This mirror/prism splits the laser. One beam is returned to the transmitting head (built-in receiver on the head). The other beam is sent to the edge of the table and returned with a mirror to the center mirror/prism and back to the transmitting head. Any shift between the first and returned beam is displayed as X micron displacement.
The fun part is this only works if the table rotates on the horizontal plane - like the M&M experiment.
If the table is rotated so the table shaft is horizontal the measurements are useless unless you calculate the center of the variation range.
Quote
The other point is this. I understand the implications as it relates to aether - being that the original Michelson-Morley experiment could not prove the existence of this based on analysis of these interferometer measurements. Correspondingly, if there are variations to the interference patterns then this would - conversely - prove the existence? Is this wrong? If, in turn, this aether 'field' is proven - then my assumption is that this - in turn - may be the source of a field that allows the propogation of light through space. Is this also wrong?
If proven - my own assumption would be that this could be the 'dark' fields that are identified as 'extant' by our astrophysicists. But that may, indeed, be a personal bias and not based on the actual conclusions to this test. Please enlighten us.
I can't say if you are wrong or not. I suspect more experiments will prove NASA's triple threat satellite system will be found out as a waste unless they perform measurements with the triad directly in-line with the Earth, Moon and Sun then at right angles to that line and all angles in between.
The thought of measuring ripples of distortion with the satellites and their communications part of that distortion is absurd. The net effect should be nothing. Gravity waves or particles? Gimme a break...
The only thing distorting is time and with that 'c'.
Quote from: Harvey on September 21, 2009, 01:08:06 AM
I might know just a little bit about it. Using BOINC and the Einstein@home (http://einstein.phys.uwm.edu/server_status.php) interface (which you can join here:http://einstein.phys.uwm.edu/ (http://einstein.phys.uwm.edu/), I have been involved in in the MPP number crunching necessary for proper analysis of the retrieved data for the Ligo Project (http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/). But I really think the Lisa Project (http://lisa.nasa.gov/) will be a much better test because of local frame dragging here on the surface and the way it will distort these waves even when they are presented by strong pulsars. I am (or actually my computer is) currently crunching the data for h1_0932.60_S5R4_S5R5a_0.
Q. How do you suppose the vernier adjustments on the mirrors move the mirrors, and what observation do you make as to the interference pattern as they are being adjusted? ;)
8)
Quite the geek aren't you. Do you do anything useful ;D
Sorry, that is rude. It took me a while to shed my pocket protector ;)
As far as his vernier adjustments they look like mechanical ones, like mine. Simply fine mechanical mirror angle thumb wheels. Mine are encased with the mirrors (old HP equipment). His equipment doesn't look any more complex, like electronic phase control, RF excitement or others.
The effects of the adjustments, as I see them?
I suspect I saw some shift from destructive to constructive. When the device rotated horizontally the left spot was 'con' and the right 'des'. When vertical both were constructive. That is the most important point I noted. I suspected the phase shift when rotated vertical and not because of mechanical deflection. More likely due to gravity lensing and Coriolis.
I'll bet the greatest shift is when he is on the dawn/dusk side during a lunar eclipse! How's that for nuts?
Personally, I have always considered LISA/LIGO a mass diversion and a waste of resources. Nothing personal about your choices :)
Hello MileHigh. I barely recognise you. A whole post and no insults? ;D No slaps and side swipes? :o Am daring a little optimism here. Not to mention a certain dizzy well being in the general mind set. At the moment things are looking rosy. Keep it up and we'll have to apply to the powers that be to re-instate an honorary troll.
I'll have to answer your post later though as half the day has gone and I've got a thousand things to do still. But a pleasure to read you of late.
Off topic but by the way, my son has introduced me to George Carlin - bit irreverand but awfully funny. I've tried to find a clip that is relatively innocuous - but you may enjoy it. Strange man! Have been dying to share it but you all probably know his work backwards. I'm usually a century or so behind the times. For what it's worth, herewith http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgps85scy1g&feature=related
Hi BEP - thanks for the explanation. However. Your post 1732 suggests something to the effect that 'the laser source must be external to that measured surface'. I assumed that the results were thereby skewed because von Grusenick has the laser attached to the 'measured surface'. So. What are you proposing to vary in order to obviate this? My own question - therefore - if the laser is suspended away from the measured surface how will it 'track' a revolving mirror? And my question holds. And I'm not sure what is meant by calcuating the centre of the variation range? If the mirror is to be put in the centre - as you proposed, and then needs the laser to reflected and 'bounced off' it then - how? The mirror is shown as having a flat surface. On a rotating axis therefore it will not always present a reflective surface to the laser. Again. Apologies for the elemenatary questions.
Regarding the Lisa project, quite apart from the pretty prose used here the project surely bends the mind? I can hardly envisage a distance of 5 million kilometers let alone three craft - in space - perfectly separated by such precise distances. It beggars the mind. As to the positioning of the craft as it relates to the Earth, Moon and Sun - I understood that the gravitational forces were weak but evident between all celestial bodies. Therefore any ripple detected anywhere - would at least prove the exitence of gravity regardless as to what actually causes it.
Gravity waves - particles, dark energy, aether - all are seriously postulated by some really profound thinkers in the field. If there's any way to resolve these questions then I'd give it my vote. After all - there's no better way to prove a thesis then subjecting it to some experimental tests. The LISA project would possibly be expensive - but - again, if I had a vote I'd vote yes to it. And I imagine that our early church answered Galileo roughly on a par with your answer to the existence of 'Gravity waves or particles? or rather 'The earth moves around the Sun? Come on. Gimme a break'...' That would definitely be an accurate synopsis of their reaction.
EDIT Sorry I missed out on your last point 'c'. If you know that this is the only thing distorting time - then can you prove it? And by what experiment?
Hi MileHigh. I get it that regarding the interferometer experiment it may, indeed, be flawed. BEP has proposed that the laser needs to be in a fixed position. Would that resolve the problem?
:) :( ??? ??? :( ;D :( ??? ??? >:( :) this is an example of an emotional oscillation with a strong negative bias. ;D
Hi Fuzzy - Can't understand why Stefan doesn't allow the avatar. I could barely recognise you. Shouldn't someone complain? And while they're at it, mention that we need more emoticons. It's a serious restriction on our freedom of expressions. :o edit - maybe freedoms of expression. 2nd edit - or maybe freedoms of expressions?
I get it that the 10 Ohm resistor gave somewhat different results to Aaron's tested, notwithstanding only small variations to the actual inductance. So strange. And I hope Poynt takes due note of the difference between the two Tektronix instruments.
And Fuzzy, may I say, I am eternally grateful that you took all this time out just to test that 'negative' number. Awfully appreciative, if that helps at all. It was a marathon journey and above and beyond. The irony is the more acute when one thinks of your proximity to their offices? >:( But the journey - I hope was worth it. I know that Aaron et al were delighted to meet you. And Aaron is boring me to tears with your accounts of grounding - and what not. I think he's elevated you to the dizzy height of mentor. So... Whatever your geographical positioning - just know your general standing is now giving me vertigo.
Thanks for everything Fuzzy. The coolest of cool cats. ;D :-*
I'm not saying he should place the light source my way. I'm saying my way is how I've done it while checking a large (not much deflection due to gravity) rotating metal disc.
For him to match my method he would need to place a mirror in the exact center. The laser would then be on a separate stand pointing at that centered mirror. My experience mentioned is with rotating table aligment and deflection tests.
When doing so the same +/- shift is seen when little to none is expected. Therefore, when the table rotates about a vertical plane nothing special must be done. When the table rotates about a horizontal plane the results must be averaged for multple radial positions.
Then you repeat the tests later in the day and the average is the same but every reading is different.
Makes me wonder about gravity lensing and Coriolis for small scales. Wouldn't it you?
It makes me wonder if there will be any expected results from the spaceborn tests - at least not what they expect to confirm, without rotating that huge triad.
In other words, if gravity is a wave it is a spin wave.
As far as the inquistion goes - I am normally a victim of one rather than a participant.
BTW:
Before I go back to more laser work - the shitfts seen as described above indicate that disc elongates into an ellipse when the opposite beams are almost 45 deg. To the horizon.
Quote from: witsend on September 22, 2009, 11:18:02 AM
And I hope Poynt takes due note of the difference between the two Tektronix instruments.
Naturally, there are differences. Specifically, what are you referring to?
.99
Hi Poynt. It seems we're going to keep you on this side of the argument? ;D I'll answer your last question if you'll first answer mine? I think that's fair.
Hi BEP. :D Thanks for the reply. I am intrigued that you are so familiar with this test. We're discussing von Grusenick on Energetic Forum and I took the liberty of quoting you. I do hope this is in order.
Now that I'm more familiar with the coriolis effect - indeed I think there may be some relationship. But I'm not sure why the 'spaceborn tests' need to rotate. Surely the fact that gravity is a spin wave is an assumption? My own take is that the gravitational fields are smooth until they bend/ flex around gross mass.
And, frankly, I'm rather comforted that you're the victim of the inquisition. It puts you on 'team hopeful' which is definitely my side of the argument. I'm also heartened to find that there's an ellipse at 45 degrees. It's sort of grist to the mill for my own eccentric viewpoints.
I would love to know how you manage to spend your time on such interesting work. And I would really like to see you do your own version of this test. Actually I'm in awe that anyone can put such apparatus together. Such skill. It blows me away. :)
Quote from: witsend on September 22, 2009, 04:25:33 PM
Hi Poynt. It seems we're going to keep you on this side of the argument? ;D I'll answer your last question if you'll first answer mine? I think that's fair.
Are you referring to Harvey's simulation?
If so, please be specific. In general, it has shown nothing I have not already shown in my own simulation exercises I did at yours and Harv's requests.
.99
:D Hi Poynt. I did want you to tell us about Harvey's simulation. But actually I'll retract my question because I realise it may be painful to refer to his scoop. So I won't ask you to mention the fact that he found an aperiodic waveform :D or that he tested all options to find the rquired capacitance for the timer circuit. :D Nor will I ask you to reference the fact that he managed the even timing effect between the charge and the discharge of the inductor. And, while I'm on the subject, I would also then spare you the need to refer to his actively exploring the 'negative cycle'. So. It's official, I'll retract my question.
Notwithstanding which - let me answer your own. I was pointing out that the Tektronix TDS 3054C is vastly superior to other oscilloscopes and, while I'm at it, it is ideally suited to the required measurements of Fuzzy's tests. And again, thank you Lisa for the loan. ;D
Wow! :o
Is that really you Rose? It sure doesn't sound like you. Sounds more like something Aaron would banter on about....quite a disappointment I must say, to see you stoop to this new low. It's quite out of character?
I (and I suspect MH and a few others may too) detect an air of insecurity about that post. Discounting my oscilloscope and the results it will show already, and I haven't even got started yet ??? LOL.
Pretty low indeed Rose, if in fact that is you. I expect such nonsense from your followers, but I thought you were above this? :-\
I would gladly indulge you in explaining all your misconceptions and drivel being fed to you by your followers about the simulation and the scope, but I think we both know that would be a waste of my time.
Please do try to do better "Rose"...we have codes of conduct here too you know. :P
.99
Hi Poynt. You're making me feel guilty. >:( Allow me a little smug gloating - it's so, so rare that I get a turn at this. And I know you're strong enough to take it.
Since we're sharing the same territory here - maybe we could really communicate. :)
EDIT ?
OK, I hope it feels better now that you've taken the plunge. Although it's not becoming imo.
I welcome open and meaningful communication Rose. If you want to "really communicate" try me I may capitulate.
.99
Poynt - what is unbecoming about open communication on a forum looking to open source technologies for free energy? I'm puzzled. I think the stumbling block is in the level of communication. We on the front lines of free energy technologies take it to appropriate levels - as a rule and as required. It is you lot - the side troll - that hide everything including your identities, I might add. 8) :D
@Glen:
The MOSFET's (IRFPG50 x 2) arrived today...Thanks!
Rating POSITIVE: Well packed (almost too well :P ), A1,A+++, seller, will buy again.
:P ;)
Now just need to round up some parts for the PCB, batteries etc, and get this circuit together.
So, regarding your latest results and posts, what was the conclusion you came to regarding energy/heat levels in the circuit etc? Sorry if I missed this, but I can't recall reading about it.
Cheers,
.99
.99:
That third clip was great. I suspect that the FM kind of throws the digital sampling for a loop because the "expected" sampling point has "moved forward" by delta-t if you are increasing in frequency for example. Your summation of all of the rectangles gets thrown off because of an FM-induced "bunching/unbunching effect." That's my pet theory. Nice number crunching scope!
This of course is not a problem with analog integration, there is no sampling clock anymore, you have real time "infinite" sampling going on.
Some people might not realize that a capacitor is a near-perfect integrator, that's simply what it does: The voltage across a capacitor is the integral of i(t) dt for t = t1 to t = t2. The operational amplifier converts the input voltage into current which charges or discharges the capacitor, performing a near-perfect analog integration resulting in an output voltage. You measure that output voltage and that's the DC voltage reading on the digital multimeter.
It certainly is applicable for investigating the "Negative Dominant Waveform" concept. Never heard of that one myself! You learn something wrong every day! lol
Great that you got your MOSETs, onwards and upwards!
Rosemary:
I am done with the interferometer. It's amazing how the pie-in-the-sky theories have been percolating up about that. It's all a road to nowhere.
So I was a bit naughty about the "wrong learning." Unfortunately it is true. I shudder thinking about the young impressionable 13-year-olds reading this stuff. lol
MileHigh
Quote from: poynt99 on September 22, 2009, 08:54:09 PM
@Glen:
The MOSFET's (IRFPG50 x 2) arrived today...Thanks!
Rating POSITIVE: Well packed (almost too well :P ), A1,A+++, seller, will buy again.
:P ;)
Now just need to round up some parts for the PCB, batteries etc, and get this circuit together.
So, regarding your latest results and posts, what was the conclusion you came to regarding energy/heat levels in the circuit etc? Sorry if I missed this, but I can't recall reading about it.
Cheers,
.99
Hi .99
I glad to see you got your Mosfets .... I started to worry there :D
As for the "Ainslie - Murakami Negitive Dominant Waveform Generator" the only slight heating I saw was using my 10 ohm 100 watt "Memcor" resistor and only minor increases. The fine tuning of the circuit using the Tektronix TDS 3054C there was no actual heat increase worth really recording. I wish possibly having more time using the Tektronix TDS that better results could have been made but only having a total of about twelve hours I was limited to what is posted, but better results could have been made "I'm Positive" given some more time. I also left my prototype 10 ohm resistor ( I'll make another for myself) with Aaron and hopefully he might have the time to try some replications of the replication using this "odd acting" component to see what the results are prior to the oscilloscope being returned to Tektronix, but there again
hopefully Aaron and Energetic Forum may be fortunate again to be allowed to keep it for another 30 days .....
The "Rosemary Anislie COP>17 Heater Circuit" that uses the 24 volt two (2) 12 volt "Liquid" lead acid 10-12 Ah batteries with the 555 circuit component value changes, that's where the heat is on components and I'm still pondering on how to record all the data accurately making or starting some kind of standard (Aaron has made a .xlm chart) so it can be repeated by other replicators with little real $$$ cost.
Fuzzy
;D
Hi Fuzzy - I think that heat measurements here are critical. Surely Aaron's IR type number would cut it? It only needs to be compared to ambient. What worries me is the method to assess battery energy delivered. But if Poynt is right then the average multmeter should also do the trick. But this will never satisfy the purists. That's a given. Unless the heat values aren't replicated - in which case it will more than satisfy them.
Quote from: MileHigh on September 22, 2009, 11:48:57 PM
.99:
You learn something wrong every day! lol
MileHigh
I often wondered why you sign every post. I think it's because you need to remind yourself. I see that brief excursion into 'MileHigh the Mild Mannered' - has come to an end? It was nice while it lasted. Strange - but nice.
I don't think you were naughty with the 'wrong learning' thing. You were naughty with the 'pie-in-the-sky' thing. Anyway. It's altogether too much day for me and I've got to get through it somehow. So. I'll ignore your post and plod on.
Quote from: MileHigh on September 22, 2009, 11:48:57 PM
.99:
That third clip was great. I suspect that the FM kind of throws the digital sampling for a loop because the "expected" sampling point has "moved forward" by delta-t if you are increasing in frequency for example. Your summation of all of the rectangles gets thrown off because of an FM-induced "bunching/unbunching effect." That's my pet theory. Nice number crunching scope!
This of course is not a problem with analog integration, there is no sampling clock anymore, you have real time "infinite" sampling going on.
Some people might not realize that a capacitor is a near-perfect integrator, that's simply what it does: The voltage across a capacitor is the integral of i(t) dt for t = t1 to t = t2. The operational amplifier converts the input voltage into current which charges or discharges the capacitor, performing a near-perfect analog integration resulting in an output voltage. You measure that output voltage and that's the DC voltage reading on the digital multimeter.
It certainly is applicable for investigating the "Negative Dominant Waveform" concept. Never heard of that one myself! You learn something wrong every day! lol
Great that you got your MOSETs, onwards and upwards!
MileHigh
MH,
As always, thanks for the positive feedback. It seems so rare these days coming my way. ;)
By all means, please suggest a wave form you'd like to see tested with the meter and scope. I currently have another idea that will bring us much closer to the oscillation Aaron had and I commented on a little while back. I'll run this through the two "computers" and see what comes out.
Incidentally, and this is sure to stir up the quarries again, I'll go on record stating that all the wave forms that Aaron has managed to conjure up from the annals of his contraption, are indeed periodic. If it repeats (and they do), then by definition it can not be categorized as aperiodic.
.99
Quote from: Harvey;68687Because he doesn't understand source impedance of a regulated voltage source. ::)
8)
This was in reference to Harv's battery impedance plot, and his mistaken statement above.
Here's one folly in his thinking; the constant voltage source he is using in his SPICE simulation IS NOT A REGULATED VOLTAGE SOURCE. It is a pure and simple ideal source, nothing more.
For some reason he is not grasping this concept and is confusing real life voltage regulators with an ideal SPICE source. They are not the same.
.99
For some reason Ou.com doesn't allow deletions. So strange. Sorry Stefan. This one was submitted in error.
Quote from: witsend on September 23, 2009, 10:12:56 AM
For some reason Ou.com doesn't allow deletions. So strange. Sorry Stefan. This one was submitted in error.
True, witsend. The spellchecker doesn't check the spelling of posted title bars, either. Only the main text. It's likely in how the software is written.
--Lee
Hey Four-Twenties-Ten-Nine,
Seems someone pushed a "report abuse" button on you or something at the EF. AaronBot sent you a message. Watch out for the windup fanny whacker! lol
QuoteBecause he doesn't understand source impedance of a regulated voltage source.
It's a "control system" with a servo feedback mechanism that effectively gives you zero output impedance until you ask it for too much. Indeed the Spice voltage source is a zero output impedance voltage source. I seem to recall you adding a little output resistor once to simulate a battery in one of your Spice simulations.
An ideal current source has an infinite output impedance. I wonder if some of the big thinkers can wrap their heads around that one.
I have no waveforms to suggest to you. I trust that you know what you are doing, and you really seem to know your instrumentation.
In Harvey's simulation that looked "negative dominant" he never plotted any power integration curves to try to get a handle on the alleged negative dominance.
All of this oscillation mode stuff is based on the flimsy and incorrect argument that oscillation is the "secret sauce" with nothing to back it up. Exactly the same thing applies to the resonance argument. Nobody challenge Aaron on that one because you will get your ass booted off the forum because he can't answer the question himself! lol
Let's hope that Tektronix still doesn't have a customer lined up for the DSO and Aaron can continue using it. The old clock on the wall is ticking. We might get results in five weeks!
Rosemary:
"Coriolis effect" and other elements of that interferometer discussion, I wanna hurl! lol I wonder what percentage of the people in the discussion even know how "classical" vanilla gravity works. Just gravity, forget about zipons and unified field theories and gravity waves. How many posters really know how basic gravity works? (Apparently not the people working on gravity wheels! lol)
If you dig an imaginary tunnel that goes right to the center of the Earth, and then take an elevator ride down to the center, what happens with respect to gravity? (I bet you my BFF Aaron would not have a clue. Are you up to the challenge bud? It's raining ether particles pushing down on us dude that are fighting against the mass displacing the ether particles dude, I saw it on TV so it must be true! Two stationary 1Kg masses one meter apart in empty interstellar space, what's happens there dude?)
All experimenters working with "cold electricity":
I have to burst your bubble, there is no such thing as cold electricity.
This is just a "fun bad" as I wait for results. And curse Sir Walter Raleigh, he was such a stupid git! lol (no singing)
MileHigh
Hi MH.
Yes a control system. Some sophisticated (integrated types) and some not so sophisticated (zener with emitter-follower). But they all have "essentially" a fixed output impedance. The controlling mechanism is voltage (which becomes a current after it's passed through the internal resistance), not impedance (the impedance is fixed). I know Harv will argue this, but with a fixed finite output resistance, to get more current, the feedback mechanism ups the Base voltage on the series-pass transistor, to compensate for the voltage drop.
Anyway, it's a moot point because he is arguing a totally different issue with the SPICE sources. They are ideal and have zero output resistance for the voltage source, and as you said, infinite output resistance for the current source.
In Harv's simulation, he did not do an integral of the current as I did when I showed 86% returned to the battery. I am certain that if he did, it would show less than 100% also.
Harvey suggested a wave form to try with the MEAN meter, but I was not wanting to build a whole slew of 555's etc. I wanted something relatively easy to set up on a few generators. Also, not only is the Ainslie oscillation most likely NOT aperiodic, but it is far less complex than what Harv is suggesting. Moreover, my tests with FM square waves seems to pose little challenge for the meter, and I highly doubt 9 555's all creating this random pulse output will either. Why not just run some white noise into a comparator if you want random jitter? Perhaps he had something in mind with all the harmonics, but most likely he won't say anyway.
Well, we'll see how I make out with this wave form I have in mind ;) I hope to have Aaron's wave form duplicated, or close to it tonight. Then I'll post a video.
Cheers,
.99
Hello MileVeryVeryHigh
Back - with a vengeance? I see - when you reach those upper limits - you don't grow wings - you grow teeth. But they're getting blunt MH. You'll need to file them.
I'll pass on the gravity quiz thing. It's too elementary. And as for digging imaginary tunnels - who would know better than you what goes on down there?
And cold electricity? I agree. There's no such thing. But nor is there hot electricity. There's just electricity. It's a subject that has confused mainstream for a really long time. Look up your explanation of this in wiki and still tell me that you can keep your dinner down.
But - I do see why you should extend your quarrel to Sir Walter Raleigh. Way too much enterprise - and courage. ??? ??? ???
Anyway. I'll try to make allowances. A mile is still a limited distance and you can barely go that far.
Quote from: the_big_m_in_ok on September 23, 2009, 06:25:22 PM
True, witsend. The spellchecker doesn't check the spelling of posted title bars, either. Only the main text. It's likely in how the software is written.
--Lee
Hello to you too Lee. See if you can get Stefan to add more emoticons and allow signatures. That would make this site nearly perfect. Just a little more control over the trolls and it would be perfect. I've added my vote to this but my applications are ignored.
Quote from: MileHigh on September 23, 2009, 07:38:22 PM
"Coriolis effect" and other elements of that interferometer discussion, I wanna hurl! lol I wonder what percentage of the people in the discussion even know how "classical" vanilla gravity works. Just gravity, forget about zipons and unified field theories and gravity waves. How many posters really know how basic gravity works?
@MH
I'm curious. Do you know someone with a complete and unfalsifiable theory on vanilla gravity? I don't. I do know many claiming to know.
'Gravity waves' is a very poor name but recognized by most.
As far as your tunnel.... Your mass will be attracted to the greatest and closest mass with respect to your mass. In other words... if you found yourself in a small bubble in the center of the Earth's mass there is a pretty good chance you could wind up as paint on the inside walls of that bubble. If your body held up and you maintained exact center you would float in the middle while be pulled from all directions.
From some of your posts I could guess you've been there?
No matter... If I find something that is hurl-peutic I'll give you fair warning so you can prepare with a large meal ;)
Quote from: BEP on September 23, 2009, 11:26:51 PM
@MH
I'm curious. Do you know someone with a complete and unfalsifiable theory on vanilla gravity? I don't. I do know many claiming to know.
'Gravity waves' is a very poor name but recognized by most.
As far as your tunnel.... Your mass will be attracted to the greatest and closest mass with respect to your mass. In other words... if you found yourself in a small bubble in the center of the Earth's mass there is a pretty good chance you could wind up as paint on the inside walls of that bubble. If your body held up and you maintained exact center you would float in the middle while be pulled from all directions.
From some of your posts I could guess you've been there?
No matter... If I find something that is hurl-peutic I'll give you fair warning so you can prepare with a large meal ;)
Just felt this needs re-iteration. Lol.
Quote from: witsend on September 23, 2009, 09:21:31 PM
Hello to you too Lee. See if you can get Stefan to add more emoticons and allow signatures. That would make this site nearly perfect.
Hey witsend,
I used to be a computer technician and programmer. I don't know how much control the Moderators have over the software, but if they don't, a software rewrite is in order. Expensive.
Quote
Just a little more control over the trolls and it would be perfect. I've added my vote to this but my applications are ignored.
Well, hartiberlin is running the show. I don't used the specialized feature much, anyway.
--Lee
.99:
Looking forward to any new videos from you. When everyone does clips with the new PCB setup it should be really interesting.
I am burned out on oscillations, periodic or aperiodic. Do you remember how the "straight" test was supposed to give you COP 17 and the oscillations were supposed to produce an even higher COP? A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. No birds, just bushes fluttering in all the hot air.
No comments from Jibbguy about how accurate pure analog integration can be without the sampling and quantization issues? I'm stumped.
Rosemary:
I sense that you are still emotionally involved with this project, but I'm not. I am just having some fun and you have to cut me some slack. Just go with the flow...
I'm a troll, you're a troll, everybody is a troll, what the hell is a troll? Are they second-class citizens and you are the judge of who is acceptable or not? Should trolls be put into designated fenced off areas?
BEP:
Forget about gravity theory for a second, and how about just understanding how it acts for starters? If you understand how it acts you have a lot of insight into how it works.
QuoteAs far as your tunnel.... Your mass will be attracted to the greatest and closest mass with respect to your mass. In other words... if you found yourself in a small bubble in the center of the Earth's mass there is a pretty good chance you could wind up as paint on the inside walls of that bubble. If your body held up and you maintained exact center you would float in the middle while be pulled from all directions.
MileHigh says that you are a MillionMiles off base with that statement. Super wrong. It's a pie-in-the-sky statement.
My God, the resistor can light up a CFL.
I plucked this comment out of the ether:
QuoteOut of curiosity, has anyone tried a plain inductor on this circuit in place of the resistor? Resistance slows down the charging of an inductor, so if you increase the inductance - you would need less resistance for the same operating frequency.
Funny, I thought that resistance speeds up the charging of an inductor. Hmmm... I also thought that we wanted a resistance to produce heat.... Hmmm..... My Spidey Qualifying Senses are tingling...
Enter Harvey into the picture:
QuoteA series resistance limits the maximum current the inductor can pass thereby limiting its maximum charge value - this will cause the inductor to charge faster, but never reaching saturation.
Harvey gets five Brownie Points and eight Demerit Points. Shucks! (I am assuming that "never reaching saturation" is a "Harvey concept" and not the theoretical concept which is correct. If Harvey meant the theoretical concept then he is awarded eight Negative Demerit Points to correct for the eight Demerit Points for a net five Brownie Points.)
Somebody said this:
Quoteuses a small amount of battery power maybe .01 volts every 4 to 5 hours
Sacrilege!!!
Quotehad bad results because it calls for two (2) 12 Volt "Liquid" lead acid 10AH batteries and needs them for the circuit to work better I think it has something to do with resonance.
My batteries have a five octave range and can compete with still way hot Mariah and way too cool screaming bitch Adam Lambert.
QuoteEveryone - MORE GOOD NEWS. Lisa has extended the loan of the TEKTRONIX TDS 3054C DIGITAL PHOSPHOR OSCILLOSCOPE until the end of November.
I GET 100 BROWNIE POINTS!!!!!! Results in 5 weeks! (Oops! 9 weeks!)
QuoteCrazy idea : maybe resonance poll electrons from 12V battery which is connected through ground wire...
Actually it's a bogus idea... The notion that if you connect up to earth ground you somehow get power from the ground itself. That idea took off last year when people started playing with ignition coils and CFL lights and ground wires.
Still waiting for those magic heat pies to be materializing out of thin air from the inductive heat pipe.
Stream of consciousness meets the ether streams.
MileHigh
Hello MileHigh. You've excelled yourself. Let me tell you about the troll. He's an ugly little subhuman that lives under the bridge. And when people try to cross this he jumps up and eats them. I take it you've been sharpening your teeth. But I must admit. I think you're more brat than troll. And don't lecture me about judging anything. I'm a poor second to your talents here.
As for the rest of your post - a stunning mix of innuendo and poorly quoted nonsense. Don't you get tired? And you ask to be cut some slack? Good heavens. Who then can criticise the critic?
Sorry I should have added 'innuendo, nonsense and BAD SCIENCE. :o ::) If you were an authority here I'd be interested in your opinion.
Been working on Fuzzy's wave forms. Here is the load wave form (with his for comparison).
Average of the wave form is about 0.218mV. That is somewhat strange. It should be 0V ???
Glen, I noticed for all the other scope shots with the 3054C, the drive interval seems to have been about one half (i.e. double the frequency) to about 4us. Did you change the settings for the two shots, i.e the one on the Fluke and those on the Tek?
Also, those are across the shunt? I feel you must have changed the settings because the voltage is quite high in comparison to the previous load voltage shot on the Fluke. With only 250mV across the load, we shouldn't be seeing 100-150mV on the shunt. But then maybe you're into some strange mode.
****For the sim I included the output section of the 555 (4 resistors, and 4 transistors according to the National LM555 spec sheet), to confirm something about the series supply resistance. This greatly affects the drive capability of the 555 and is what is partially responsible for the "choked" drive to the MOSFET. In fact the MOSFET isn't conducting at all in this mode. All the excitation seen in the inductive resistor is supplied by the 555 itself.****
.99
And by the way MH - let me point something out to you. If you were half way as good as you think you are you would have picked up that there's serious misrepresentations in the quantum article and the IET paper relating to the R10 Ohm. Either the gauge is wrong or the inductance is wrong. If you and TK were half way as astute as you think you are you would have seen this way back. The truth is that Fuzzy, Aaron et al - picked up on this at the opening chapters and have been politely skirting reference to this fact - I think to spare me the humiliation. But I'm more than ready to own up to it. So you see, MilesOfftheMark - you're out of line unless you direct your license to criticise - at me.
And I'm sorry everyone that I have made this obvious error. It makes replication difficult - to say the least.
And Poynt, your work here is stunning.
.99:
Could it be something like the choked 555 manages to output a feeble pulse feeding off the charged 100 uF capacitor. Each time it manages a pulse it sucks the life out of the cap and goes back to sleep until enough juice is available for the next choke cycle. This gives the MOSFET a bit of a tickle and excites a ring down across the coil-resistor? You indicated that MOSFET is never even switched on, so are you implying a capacitively coupled energy transfer across a capacitive junction? I don't have the fire in my belly to truly follow what's going on here.
You know the old Monty Python cheese shop skit? I just want cheddar cheese. Cheddar cheese! A test on the original original original setup with the new PCB. Hang the coil-resistor vertically in mid air, trust me! Anybody listening?
Rosemary:
Flowers are wilting everywhere.
Rosemary II:
I have no clue what you are talking about. If you are trying to imply that I should be able to tell you that the specs for the inductive resistor don't make sense just by eyeballing it that is totally ridiculous. Nor am I a coil nerd. Plus that question should be self-posed, don't you think? You own the paper, you merit the bold typeface. How come there was no precise measurement of the 10-ohm inductive resistor for your thermal profiling if we assume that it was a +/-5% resistor? Say cheese.
MileHigh
;D MileReallyReallyLow - if the flowers are dying it's because they're bearing fruit.
;D I realise this. But we all have some limitations. Yours is in the distance you can go.
No. I'm not saying that. You don't need to 'eyeball' it. You need to apply some math and some basic knowledge of resistive wire. I assure you Aaron, Fuzzy and Harvey spotted it immediately. What is wrong with you that you never saw this? Good Heavens.
edit WITSEND
Quote from: poynt99 on September 24, 2009, 08:32:48 PM
Been working on Fuzzy's wave forms. Here is the load wave form (with his for comparison).
Average of the wave form is about 0.218mV. That is somewhat strange. It should be 0V ???
Glen, I noticed for all the other scope shots with the 3054C, the drive interval seems to have been about one half (i.e. double the frequency) to about 4us. Did you change the settings for the two shots, i.e the one on the Fluke and those on the Tek?
Also, those are across the shunt? I feel you must have changed the settings because the voltage is quite high in comparison to the previous load voltage shot on the Fluke. With only 250mV across the load, we shouldn't be seeing 100-150mV on the shunt. But then maybe you're into some strange mode.
****For the sim I included the output section of the 555 (4 resistors, and 4 transistors according to the National LM555 spec sheet), to confirm something about the series supply resistance. This greatly affects the drive capability of the 555 and is what is partially responsible for the "choked" drive to the MOSFET. In fact the MOSFET isn't conducting at all in this mode. All the excitation seen in the inductive resistor is supplied by the 555 itself.****
.99
Hi .99
I remember not messing at all with the Fluke 123 ScopeMeter once it was hooked to the load resistor during any testing, it was left connected we just watched it, the figures jumping up and down a lot with that oscillation wave form the same. We were both surprised of the overall difference just using the 10 Ohm prototype "Quantum" resistor (a short time for checking, verifying connections and settings) wondering why. You can actually see in the overall layout photo a resistor (4K) sticking streight up in the positive rail bread board connected to a wire with a red end and a yellow alligator clip holding the both together ..... I feel something was going on with the circuit because of the 10 Ohm "load resistor" each one ( 10, 100, 225 watt and the prototype ) makes the circuit react different it seems.
Fuzzy
:)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT- I just noticed ......... your simulation goes positive first not negative first like in the Fluke 123 ScopeMeter shot ..... the wave form is reversed from mine a "negative dominate"
Quote from: MileHigh on September 24, 2009, 09:12:33 PM
I have no clue what you are talking about. If you are trying to imply that I should be able to tell you that the specs for the inductive resistor don't make sense just by eyeballing it that is totally ridiculous. Nor am I a coil nerd. Plus that question should be self-posed, don't you think? You own the paper, you merit the bold typeface. How come there was no precise measurement of the 10-ohm inductive resistor for your thermal profiling if we assume that it was a +/-5% resistor? Say cheese.
MileHigh
"cheese" ;D :-[ and sorry.
Quote from: the_big_m_in_ok on September 24, 2009, 01:03:36 PM
Hey witsend,
I used to be a computer technician and programmer. I don't know how much control the Moderators have over the software, but if they don't, a software rewrite is in order. Expensive.
Well, hartiberlin is running the show. I don't used the specialized feature much, anyway.
--Lee
Sorry Lee. I missed this entirely. I just sort of hoped that the more petitions the more likely that there'd be some action.
Quote from: MileHigh on September 24, 2009, 06:48:27 PM
BEP:
Forget about gravity theory for a second, and how about just understanding how it acts for starters? If you understand how it acts you have a lot of insight into how it works.
Wrong.
Quote
MileHigh says that you are a MillionMiles off base with that statement. Super wrong. It's a pie-in-the-sky statement.
The format of the above statement tells me a discussion with you is pointless. So my interference with your 'thought process?' ends with this:
Clearly I mistyped when I said I also knew people who think they know. It should have also included many who think they know and are not known by me, like you.
Another mistake I made was using the word 'attraction'. I use such like 'gravity waves' and 'attraction' because those are words most will understand. In fact, gravity has absolutely nothing to do with attraction or waves like ocean waves AND certainly nothing to do with particles of gravity.
Oh, I give up.
It does appear you've done some reading. Maybe it is time for some thinking?
Quote from: BEP on September 24, 2009, 11:53:34 PM
Wrong.
The format of the above statement tells me a discussion with you is pointless. So my interference with your 'thought process?' ends with this:
Clearly I mistyped when I said I also knew people who think they know. It should have also included many who think they know and are not known by me, like you.
Another mistake I made was using the word 'attraction'. I use such like 'gravity waves' and 'attraction' because those are words most will understand. In fact, gravity has absolutely nothing to do with attraction or waves like ocean waves AND certainly nothing to do with particles of gravity.
Oh, I give up.
It does appear you've done some reading. Maybe it is time for some thinking?
BEP Truth is that MileHi's comfort is only on circuitry. He knows very little physics by his own admission. It's just he thinks he has a nose for insecurities and piles in with a rather reckless abandon. But there's certainly charm in all that confidence. ;D
BEP:
Take a second stab at the answer if you want to.
There is a generic issue with places like these forums. People speculate and espouse theories, and what is normally implicit is that you have at least some level of mastery of the subject at hand to draw upon to formulate your theories.
So if people want to speculate about gravity and hypothetical interactions with an interferometer, or whatever the case may be, then they should at least have a sound understanding of how gravity works don't you think? They should know how an interferometer works, don't you think? The same principle applies to electronics or physics or chemistry or just about any branch of knowledge you care to mention.
It's about a measure of intellectual honesty, and effective and honest communication with your fellow man. It's about being real or just being a poseur or poseuse.
I don't know if you talk about gravity a lot around here or on the EF, but if you do, can you answer the question?
Rosemary:
I know a lot about physics, but not much about the most esoteric branches of physics. What that means in the context of this forum is that there is a good chance that I know more about physics than the average contributor here. I just don't talk the esoteric mumbo-jumbo physics talk, I leave that to the people that know relatively little about physics to do that. However, I can smell the bullshit from a mile away. I am knowledgeable enough to know when I am reading junk and seeing physics buzzwords being bandied about in a meaningless junk science manner.
For what it's worth, I have gone through the derivations and learned all about Schrodinger's equation and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and I know about electron shells and covalent bonds and relativity and bouncing balls and levers and why the sky is blue and stuff like that. I know about semiconductor physics and nuclear physics and optics. But I can't rattle the hard stuff off from the top of my head, I am not a physicist and I don't pretend to be a physicist.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on September 25, 2009, 01:03:51 AM
Rosemary:
I know a lot about physics, but not much about the most esoteric branches of physics. What that means in the context of this forum is that there is a good chance that I know more about physics than the average contributor here. I just don't talk the esoteric mumbo-jumbo physics talk, I leave that to the people that know relatively little about physics to do that. However, I can smell the bullshit from a mile away. I am knowledgeable enough to know when I am reading junk and seeing physics buzzwords being bandied about in a meaningless junk science manner.
For what it's worth, I have gone through the derivations and learned all about Schrodinger's equation and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and I know about electron shells and covalent bonds and relativity and bouncing balls and levers and why the sky is blue and stuff like that. I know about semiconductor physics and nuclear physics and optics. But I can't rattle the hard stuff off from the top of my head, I am not a physicist and I don't pretend to be a physicist.
MileHigh
:o ::) If you know all that you know much more than I do. MileHigh - you're very clever. In the deep dark recesses I actually quite admire you. We need your sauce to lend flavour to what would otherwise be a boring thread. But you do tend to get rampant. And ruthless. It's destructive. No-one could be less qualified than me to comment on just about anything but I refuse to let you imply that I do not know whereof I speak. Just because one does not know something to your level of expertise is not to imply that they know nothing. And very often I get it that you don't understand things - conceptually. You have your weakness there Mr MileHigh and Climbing. Even if you deny it. And the likes of you and TK have caused more pain than warranted.
:) But some of your posts excel. I actually print them out when they're that good. And admitedly, those are also usually the 'bad' numbers. EDIT ;D
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on September 24, 2009, 09:31:35 PM
Hi .99
EDIT- I just noticed ......... your simulation goes positive first not negative first like in the Fluke 123 ScopeMeter shot ..... the wave form is reversed from mine a "negative dominate"
Indeed Glen,
I'm working on that...and the second wave form across the shunt also. btw, It looks as though the settings must have changed quite a bit going from the load shot to the shunt shot. The frequency appears to be about double.
.99
EDIT: Actually, the frequency is about 1/2, not double. The drive interval on the shunt scope shots is about 16us spacing.
Quote from: MileHigh on September 24, 2009, 09:12:33 PM
.99:
Could it be something like the choked 555 manages to output a feeble pulse feeding off the charged 100 uF capacitor. Each time it manages a pulse it sucks the life out of the cap and goes back to sleep until enough juice is available for the next choke cycle. This gives the MOSFET a bit of a tickle and excites a ring down across the coil-resistor? You indicated that MOSFET is never even switched on, so are you implying a capacitively coupled energy transfer across a capacitive junction? I don't have the fire in my belly to truly follow what's going on here.
MileHigh
MH,
No 100uF required. I did not use one (is there one there Glen?). Yes the "drive" is coupling through the MOSFET capacitance to the load resistor. With only a few hundred millivolts G-S the MOSFET is OFF.
@Glen et al. Please if you can remember for the future, it would be quite beneficial when posting scope shots (such as your shunt voltage) to include in the shot another trace such as the G-S voltage as a reference. Thanks.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on September 25, 2009, 08:43:41 AM
MH,
No 100uF required. I did not use one (is there one there Glen?). Yes the "drive" is coupling through the MOSFET capacitance to the load resistor. With only a few hundred millivolts G-S the MOSFET is OFF.
@Glen et al. Please if you can remember for the future, it would be quite beneficial when posting scope shots (such as your shunt voltage) to include in the shot another trace such as the G-S voltage as a reference. Thanks.
.99
Hi .99
I really do understand what your talking about and tried to be thorough enough in my posting to add information for the replication, and to start some kind of a standard for future testing posts that others replicators and observers could use as a example ..... and did miss information that would have been helpful as your suggestion indicates ....
I'm sure there will be more testing coming available in the very near future, and it's very helpful to have as much information and references as possible to back up each finding.
Thanks,
Fuzzy
;D
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit- I didn't remove any components in the 555 circuit .... the 100uf capacitor in the current setup photo can be seen the big fat green one ........ the 100uf capacitor can also be seen in the photo posted in the prior test using my Tektronix 2445A scope as location reference ;)
http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/Picture007.jpg
http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/Picture078.jpg
2nd Edit - You will also notice in the first photo that the scope probe is not connected to the Mosfet shunt .... this was the short time for checking, verifying connections and settings I mentioned earlier also when we disconnected my Tektronix 2445A Oscilloscope (mute device) and reconnected the probe lead to the Mosfet shunt
Rosemary:
I probably said this before, but to put my knowledge and experience in context, all that stuff was stuff I leaned in school between 25 and 30 years ago. Then I stopped working in a true technical domain as a designer of digital circuits about 18 years ago. When I started looking into websites like this and EF and YouTube I was really rusty. I am not a scientist in the truest sense of the word. None the less, I have soaked up a lot of technical knowledge in one form or another over the years. When I actually worked on a bench debugging designs I was very good at it. I think that I am good at reverse-engineering stuff that is shown in various clips, take the interferometer stuff as an example.
I used to play with lasers on a real optical bench, but not for any scientific reasons, but to do far-out laser light shows. It is amazing to stand inside a cone of a colour modulated Krypton laser beam and switch the smoke machine on. lol Although on the scientific side I remember doing the classic double-slit interferometer experiment in a physics class in junior college more than 30 years ago. You make a few tape measure measurements and if you know your slit separation you can easily calculate the wavelength of the coherent light going through the pair of slits.
The high water mark for funny and slapstick postings was the "Barb Wire" posting. Now that feeling has subsided, so I will wait with anticipation for new stuff to happen. It's just some fun. I never claimed to be a full-time crazy.
.99:
Yes, my words of wisdom are, "Two traces on your scope display give you 10 times as much information as a single trace."
The pet peeve is, "Please clearly state what points your scope probes are measuring across because I don't take it for granted that they are in the 'usual' place(s)."
Fuzzy:
I looked at your pictures and for your standard Ainsley circuit project you should try suspending your new load resistor in mid air vertically. I know that I am repeating myself here but there are sound reasons for doing that. If you ask I will tell you why.
Finally, here is a YouTube clip that is a complete break from the subject at hand. A poem, a fireside chat, a lament for White boys that can't dance like me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ghtvYTdtJA
MileHigh
OK Glen.
Here are some close scope shots.
Vload again, this time with closer resonance frequency. Also notice at the end of each cycle how the last half cycle increases in amplitude slightly, then the big negative half cycle, just as your Fluke scope shot.
Vshunt, showing negative spike before positive. Negative is not larger than positive, but with more adjusting and tweaking I am sure I can achieve this also. I suspect though that even if I did, the net average would come out to a positive, just as it does with Vload as shown.
Again, the MOSFET is not conducting here, and is really only being used for its parasitic inter-electrode capacitances as the signal paths.
.99
Rose asked about the resistor I'll be using:
Length=165mm, Diameter=20mm
No. of turns=64 (2mm spacing)
R=10.1 Ohms, Inductance=29uH (will confirm with a better meter)
.99
http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af166/poynt99/Resistor/resistor001.jpg
http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af166/poynt99/Resistor/resistor002.jpg
btw all,
Has Aaron asked for (or been sent) one of GroundLoops's PCB's?
.99
.99:
Thank you for your amazing effort in observing a real life phenomenon and then working with your PSpice modelling tools to replicate that phenomenon. It demonstrates how sophisticated the models are but more importantly how you can go from mathematically modelling something to a numerical analysis of that modelling so that you can visualize the actual operation of the circuit with respect to time. The voltage at every node and the current through every loop is modeled by a set of differential equations that can be converted into series of time-based functions.
Some people may not realize that all PSpice is doing is what scientists and physicists and engineers have been doing for hundreds of years on paper. The understanding of how a mechanical or electrical circuit operates was solved and perfectly understood by keen minds hundreds of years before PSpice came around. PSpice is simply a luxury that does the calculus for you and gives you a pretty display on your computer monitor. The brains "under the hood" for PSpice is the real "magic", and the "magic" is just good sound science. The real scientist or engineer *must* understand what is under the hood, that's where the real knowledge is. PSpice itself is just a "glorified pile of wires, vacuum tubes, and relays."
It is important to also state that you successfully modeled a "spurious" or "undesirable" operating mode of the MOSFET that you normally would not ever expect to see in a normally operating MOSFET switching circuit. It clearly demonstrates how the modelling is just as good at modelling non-standard observable effects as compared to standard observable effects.
A long time ago you were asked if PSpice would "allow for over unity" but that is a misnomer. The mathematical modeling is "over unity neutral" - the only thing it does is show us a perfect analogy for the way the universe operates based on understood principles.
PSpice can electrically and thermally model the Ainsley circuit and show exactly how it operates in the real world. If you have an understanding of what is under the hood (even if it is from a foggy 25-year-old memory) then you know with certainty that COP 17 is not achievable.
The real conclusion, the one that is upsetting to free energy enthusiasts is this: Any combination of passive components (resistors, capacitors, inductors, diodes, transformers, magnets, etc) and active components (transistors, MOSFETS, TRIACs, etc) cannot produce free energy. It is simply impossible.
There is always someone posting yet another coil kickback circuit or magnet motor configuration and they start threads that are short or long, but they all fall into the same boat described above.
I know that it is frustrating for some people because they firmly believe that you have to experiment with every new configuration in the hope that they will find over unity. The intellectual leap that they either can't take or refuse to take is to be able to accept the generalized statement about passive and active components not being able to be put into a configuration that gives you free energy.
With respect to batteries, they are peculiar for sure, and sometimes appear to be "absorbing" energy from "somewhere." This is all a false hope, batteries are simply a complex bunch of chemical and physical reactions that can release electrical energy or store electrical energy. It is easy to be misled by observing a battery and circuit over a short period of time. You can't hook up any kind of circuit consisting of active and passive components to a battery and expect that somehow the battery + circuit system will manifest over unity or COP > 1.
This PSpice simulation by Poynt99 carries a message. The message is that the scientists and engineers really got it right, they weren't fooling around. They GOT IT - the conclusions are right.
Rosemary, this little treatise is not an attack on you in any way, it deals with the issue in a generic sense. This is a "step back" moment for those that want to see. If people reading this don't see or don't want to see, keep doing your thing, nobody is stopping you. Watch for the data to come in on the Ainsley replications and draw your own conclusions.
For all those people that will point to other threads here or on the EF as proof of over unity, realize that doing this stuff properly does require that you have a solid knowledge base and a good skill set and can apply yourself. If you don't posses those attributes and you want to believe then you can easily mislead yourself and others. The classic story to illustrate that is the horsetrainer that was convinced that his horse could do simple additions and subtractions. That's not a cliche, it really happened. It is a fun read if you want to look it up.
Thank you again .99, we are not worthy!!
MileHigh
Quote from: poynt99 on September 25, 2009, 09:45:18 PM
Rose asked about the resistor I'll be using:
Length=165mm, Diameter=20mm
No. of turns=64 (2mm spacing)
R=10.1 Ohms, Inductance=29uH (will confirm with a better meter)
.99
http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af166/poynt99/Resistor/resistor001.jpg
http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af166/poynt99/Resistor/resistor002.jpg
Hi .99
Those simulated wave forms across the 10 ohm prototype "Quantum" resistor are fairly close to the Fluke 123 ScopeMeter wave form. I didn't have a uH meter and left the resistor with Aaron to possibly do a replication of the replication using my prototype, as of now I'm in the process of making myself a new resistor just like the first for new testing with my Tektronix 2445A oscilloscope. Maybe I can or Aaron find out what the resistor uH is actually. We are also planning to make some other resistors possibly depending on if the original documentation on the resistor is all valid, there has been some question on a slight possibly of larger AWG wire being actually used ....
I see you have Groundloops PCB which circuit are you planning to do first the "Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Heater Circuit"
http://www.energeticforum.com/67700-post2625.html
or the "Ainslie - Murakami Negitive Dominant Waveform Generator Circuit"
which is not the same http://www.energeticforum.com/67702-post2627.html ?
Are you going to use the PCB mounted 10-turn Potentiometer's or use some "Vishay Spectrol" - SP534 Percision Potentiometer/ 10-turn 2-Watt
http://www.vishay.com/docs/57065/533534.pdf
Which I would highly recommend, the screw driver adjustments type will be at times really hard to deal with for fine combination pot adjustments there are several different frequency bandwidths groups that the circuits operate better on depending where all the pots are adjusted, it's just not adjust and your there, some stabilization is always happening ..... not like a sweep function generator with semi static "mean" numbers .....
Fuzzy :)
;D Hi MileHigh. You're definitely my favourite troll. :-*
EDIT - I've now read on. I really need to remember not to read you first thing in the morning. You're definitely NOT my favourite troll. I'm going to have to answer you at length because I just won't let you get away with all those generalisations. You have no idea what you do to my peace of mind MH. 'blue' doesn't cut it. If you ever get into preach mode give some light relief in MUSIC!!!! There you know everything.
Frankly I prefer your x rated technobabble.
2ND EDIT. censored.
Poynt. You're amazing. I need to know how Spice managed that initial reversal? Is it graduated during oscillation? Or does it just do what you tell it?
Please post on Energetic forum. I want Harvey to see it and he never takes his excursions here. If I can swallow my pride surely you can???
EDIT Here's a post preface. "On urgent application - I'm showing Fuzzy's waveforms."
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on September 25, 2009, 10:53:00 PM
Hi .99
I see you have Groundloops PCB which circuit are you planning to do first the "Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Heater Circuit"
http://www.energeticforum.com/67700-post2625.html
or the "Ainslie - Murakami Negitive Dominant Waveform Generator Circuit" which is not the same
http://www.energeticforum.com/67702-post2627.html ?
Fuzzy :)
Glen,
I'm most likely going to start with the vanilla Ainslie circuit, i.e. 2.4kHz, 3.7% duty cycle, "standard" oscillation mode, and will be looking for anything COP>1. Rose would like me to pay particular attention to any negatives going back into the battery, and with the MEAN meter measurement, this will be a snap (of course once validated with the scope).
Then I may see about achieving the wild 555 oscillation, and if I succeed, I'll try to emulate it with a pulse generator. If I can do that, I will have proven my theory that the wild oscillation is indeed periodic. This will likely segue into a closer analysis of all the "net negative" stuff that's the buzz at the moment.
.99
Rosemary:
I'll take technobabble over psychobabble any day.
I am just going to keep my hands in my pockets, sit back, and watch the blinking lights.
MileHigh
Some music:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_euKhE7rw0
I love this guy..he's a phenom:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lbvSBNLLoo
Plenty of other videos out there too...search "Tommy Emmanuel".
.99
;D ;D Poynt and MileHigh. Definitely a mood swing here. Thanks guys. Both were great
EDIT. POYNT if you're still there - PLEASE??? We need you to post those pictures. And you're ignoring me again
???
Quote from: witsend on September 25, 2009, 11:52:11 PM
Poynt. You're amazing. I need to know how Spice managed that initial reversal? Is it graduated during oscillation? Or does it just do what you tell it?
Rose, it requires some insight, but it was not that difficult. I simulated the output section of the 555 timer chip and used that to drive the "MOSFET". I included the heavy current limiting resistance that Fuzzy and Aaron used on the 555 VCC pin. The 555 output section is what is responsible for that "reversal", when heavily "limited" with that series resistance in VCC. If the guys had scoped the MOSFET gate, they would have seen this.
Quote
Please post on Energetic forum. I want Harvey to see it and he never takes his excursions here. If I can swallow my pride surely you can???
EDIT Here's a post preface. "On urgent application - I'm showing Fuzzy's waveforms."
Thanks for the positive feedback Rose. The hostility I'm receiving at EF is becoming a bit too much.
You can post a link there to the post I made with the scope shots. Copy and paste this in:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg202337#msg202337
.99
Ok MileHigh. My thesis, for what it's worth claims that energy delivered by a supply source returns to the supply source. In tact. Energy dissipated at a resistive load comes from the structure of the load resistor itself and can result in the degradation of the material of the load resistor. The proposal is that the bound state of any amalgam is the result - not only of the atomic or molecular structure of the atoms, but of fields of magnetic dipoles that 'belong' to the atom. But they are extraneous to the atom. They are too small and too fast and too cold and too balanced to be detected. These dipoles arrange the atomic and/or molecular structures in a position of zero net charge. If they cannot get to that 'rest' state - then they look to extraneous fields to move through. They can't just 're-arrange' their spin. They need to re-arrange their position in space to change that spin. Just like a magnet has to move the entire body to change it's spin. Circuit components allow this 'passage'. We know of it as electric current flow.
If these imbalanced fields reach the negative terminal they present an alternate charge. Then they can slot back in - do their stuff - but having an alternate spin they introduce the balance required to reach that 'rest state'. That's when the potential difference changes to neutral. By doing this they change the position of the atomic/molecular bonding that also changes the 'charge' of that source amalgam. That early imbalance is measured as potential difference or voltage. This then changes from a positive or a negative to a neutral. That's the 'immutable imperative' that these dipoles move to. A position of zero net charge.
Here's an easier example. Take a log of wood. The assumption is that, like all amalgams, the wood is bound by these fields. They orbit the molecules and atoms of the wood. Then apply friction to form a 'spark'. Now you've broken the symmetry of that orbit. The dipoles lose their small, fast, cold state and manifest into a big, slow, hot state. That's the spark. This first 'break' sets off a chain reaction so that more and more fields unravel. The dipoles still retain their magnetic nature. They move together. The spark becomes a flame and the flame burns until - all things being equal - no binding fields are left. All that remains are the atoms that originally comprised the log of wood.
The question then is where did the flames go? They expended their energy - precisely equal to the energy required in the first instance to generate that wood. Some decay back into the magnetic fields of the earth, by slotting in. Some peel off as photons. Some find gaseous atoms, such as oxygen and bond them together with carbon. Some carbon atoms simply blow away. Other gases may escape from the wood. But all the dipoles are dispersed away from the inital amalgam. That wood, that amalgam has now lost it's bound condition.
Now. Put the flame under a cauldron containing - let us say - iron filings. Some of these particles disperse into that cauldron - passing through the body of the cauldron itself and disperse into the filings. And being magnetic they move through the filings, and then around the filings until their heat disperses the iron atoms. Then when no more dipoles are available the fire goes out. The dipoles interact with each other and with the atoms until the dispersion of 'charge' is equal - or best as can be achieved with imbalanced valence condition of iron - and then they systematically lose their hot, slow, visible state to become cold, fast and invisible. And because they are magnetic fields - they remain undetected. Yet they bind the loose filings into an indetifiable amalgam.
That's a painfully inadequate description to some of the background or the 'thesis' - if such it is. ;D
So. My model does very well when battery voltage stays the same or increases. And it is substantially proven with a 'negative' net loss from the battery. This woud not be COP greater than anything at all. It is actually over unity. So indeed. I do not subscribe to your 'classical' viewpoint. And - I'm a little bit excited at the results that have been shown by Fuzzy and by Aaron. Actually that's not true. I'm more than a little excited. In fact I'm stratospheric . ::) I'm up there with you. But with a different 'anticipation'. :o So you see where you put me when you give yet another rendition of physics according to mainstream.
EDIT And since you explained yours I think I should also have a shot at trying to explain mine. ;D
Rosemary:
I read through it once, an sort of caught your drift, I will try reading it a few more times. Let me just make a few general comments.
You can think in terms of electrical energy and heat energy and chemical energy. There are some fairly simple analogies that some to mind.
For the heat energy, you can imagine the amalgam of the ceramic in the resistor like a bunch of billiard balls in a three dimensional random matrix. They all stay in their respective "courts" and continuously smash into each other in a random fashion, and this goes on forever as long as you are above zero degrees Kelvin. How rapid and violent the continuous smashing is is a function of the temperature. The key thing is that these are "ideal" billiard balls that undergo what are known as "perfectly elastic collisions" with their neighbours where no energy is lost when there is a collision. That's basically what heat is.
For chemical energy, now you start to think of the individual billiard balls as having their own innate stored energy, that is normally kept stored but has a potential to be released. You know the little triangular thing that you made with five Popsicle sticks as a kid? You started off with a triangular shaped arrangement of three Popsicle sticks and then slipped two Popsicle sticks across them to make an arrangement of sticks that held together under it's own stress. When you threw it and it broke apart on landing, it "exploded" releasing the stored up energy.
The burning wood is just molecular "triangles" breaking apart and adding more energy to the heat billiard ball game described above. When a chemical reaction takes place, two molecules might eventually become two new molecules that fly away from each other at high speed - and they crash into the billiard ball matrix and add more bouncing energy into the mix, raising the temperature.
The electrical energy being converted into heat energy is simply moving electrons converting their electron-volts of energy into heat energy by smashing into the random matrix of the continuously colliding billiard balls.
That's a simplified view of what I see going on at a microscopic level. All of the energy action is mostly mechanical in nature - that's what heat really is. Burning wood is just the billiard ball game going completely haywire, the amalgam, a.k.a. the random matrix gets broken apart by the extra shaking going on and the "triangles" start exploding everywere. Some of the solid amalgam changes in "phase" from solid to liquid, and from liquid to gas.
Oops, I should also mention that photons are swimming around in this billiard ball game matrix soup also, and when the triangles start popping, photons start getting emitted like crazy, sometimes smashing into billiard balls and "disappearing" or sometimes making their way out of the amalgam. This is the EM energy radiated away from the amalgam.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on September 26, 2009, 01:37:17 PM
Rosemary:
I read through it once, an sort of caught your drift, I will try reading it a few more times. Let me just make a few general comments.
You can think in terms of electrical energy and heat energy and chemical energy. There are some fairly simple analogies that some to mind.
For the heat energy, you can imagine the amalgam of the ceramic in the resistor like a bunch of billiard balls in a three dimensional random matrix. They all stay in their respective "courts" and continuously smash into each other in a random fashion, and this goes on forever as long as you are above zero degrees Kelvin. How rapid and violent the continuous smashing is is a function of the temperature. The key thing is that these are "ideal" billiard balls that undergo what are known as "perfectly elastic collisions" with their neighbours where no energy is lost when there is a collision. That's basically what heat is.
For chemical energy, now you start to think of the individual billiard balls as having their own innate stored energy, that is normally kept stored but has a potential to be released. You know the little triangular thing that you made with five Popsicle sticks as a kid? You started off with a triangular shaped arrangement of three Popsicle sticks and then slipped two Popsicle sticks across them to make an arrangement of sticks that held together under it's own stress. When you threw it and it broke apart on landing, it "exploded" releasing the stored up energy.
The burning wood is just molecular "triangles" breaking apart and adding more energy to the heat billiard ball game described above. When a chemical reaction takes place, two molecules might eventually become two new molecules that fly away from each other at high speed - and they crash into the billiard ball matrix and add more bouncing energy into the mix, raising the temperature.
The electrical energy being converted into heat energy is simply moving electrons converting their electron-volts of energy into heat energy by smashing into the random matrix of the continuously colliding billiard balls.
That's a simplified view of what I see going on at a microscopic level. All of the energy action is mostly mechanical in nature - that's what heat really is. Burning wood is just the billiard ball game going completely haywire, the amalgam, a.k.a. the random matrix gets broken apart by the extra shaking going on and the "triangles" start exploding everywere. Some of the solid amalgam changes in "phase" from solid to liquid, and from liquid to gas.
Oops, I should also mention that photons are swimming around in this billiard ball game matrix soup also, and when the triangles start popping, photons start getting emitted like crazy, sometimes smashing into billiard balls and "disappearing" or sometimes making their way out of the amalgam. This is the EM energy radiated away from the amalgam.
MileHigh
;D
witsend
edit ::) ??? :)
Quote from: poynt99 on September 26, 2009, 10:50:09 AM
Rose, it requires some insight, but it was not that difficult. I simulated the output section of the 555 timer chip and used that to drive the "MOSFET". I included the heavy current limiting resistance that Fuzzy and Aaron used on the 555 VCC pin. The 555 output section is what is responsible for that "reversal", when heavily "limited" with that series resistance in VCC. If the guys had scoped the MOSFET gate, they would have seen this.
Thanks for the positive feedback Rose. The hostility I'm receiving at EF is becoming a bit too much.
You can post a link there to the post I made with the scope shots. Copy and paste this in:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg202337#msg202337
.99
Poynt - I can't do the bended knees thing again. I'm waaaaay too old. We need your post IN FULL. Say you were pressured by persistent admirer - and then add a disclaimer. Just say you'd gone off on a tangent and that you never meant to leave us after all. Don't worry. Only Harvey and I read you at the moment. ;D ;D ;D
EDIT and a really cool kitty cat
2nd EDIT - and some monitors
3rd EDIT - ;D
I'm only just now realising that after a certain time one can't even modify a posting. I'm so sorry I was flippant Poynt. If I could have I would have done some major editing there - and for that matter on MileHigh's posts. Sorry guys. Especially to Poynt. Your skills deserve better treatment.
Just know that I was only teasing. I think your work here is excellent. I just wish - in all sincerity - that you'd post it all on Energetic forum. Perhaps someone can oblige. It's beyond my skills and I'd prefer to see the raw data than the link. Maybe Fuzzy?
Quote from: witsend on September 27, 2009, 01:39:39 AM
Perhaps someone can oblige. It's beyond my skills and I'd prefer to see the raw data than the link. Maybe Fuzzy?
Hi Rosemary,
I updated the posting of mine ( http://www.energeticforum.com/69091-post2810.html ) and modified it show now all of .99 documentation from his posting here at Over Unity ( http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg202337#msg202337 )
Thanks again .99 ..... great work !
Fuzzy :)
MileHigh - I hope I've posted this correctly because I'm hard copying it from my other computer. ON MARKO RODIN
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz_4ePRHT9U
FINALLY GOT IT. Marko Rodin - Nassim Haramein and Jamie Buturff at Tesla Tech
You may want to see where cutting edge thinking is at the moment. You need to work backwards because I've only got one clip here in the middle. What's interesting is that Nassim Haramein has actually found the unifying principle and his friend Marko Rodin claims to had found the 'super particle'. Anyway - it's a proposed reconciliation of quantum and classical theories.
EDIT THANKS FUZZY VERY MUCH. Just seen your post. :-*
2ND EDIT. Sorry - you did this some time back. I missed it. Just know I'm half blind half idiot. Anyway. Yet again. Thanks very, very much Fuzzy.
Hi Rosemary,
Unfortunately the link is not working - I just realized you mentioned the person's name, I will search later.
For my amalgam, the "billiard balls" are the whole molecules including the electron shells banging into each other, in case that was not obvious. I read your stuff two more times, it looks to me like you are "hiding" the zipons. I think that you are too magnetic field obsessed, for lack of a better word. Most molecules do not have a magnetic dipole and you seem to be indicating that there is a kind of magnetic field based overlaying fabric on top of everything, like a sticky fishnet. Things like some stuff "slipping back into the Earth's magnetic field" goes back to the long chains of zipons realigning themselves or something like that? I am not sure what you really mean, just trying a few straws.
I think that all of the action is really in the electric fields associated with the outer shells of molecules. That's how things are glued together and that's where the energy interactions take place for the most part.
You asked me about current, I will go classical on you - electrons hopping and skipping across the outermost electron shells of molecules. Some molecules are very conducive to this, like metals. A moving electron creates a magnetic filed.
I can't tell you precisely why it creates a magnetic field, I can't tell you what an electron really really is, I can't tell you what a magnetic field really is. I can to point to the building blocks of matter as we understand them in terms of quantum physics and atom smashing research and all of that good stuff. They tell me they dig huge underground caverns deep deep in the Earth and fill them with water and wait for things to happen to find out about stuff like that. There is a neutrino flux coming from the sun as well as from all directions, and so on. I try to pay some attention.
On the macro scale, physicists and engineers do things like answering the question: "What is the magnetic field like from an infinitely long wire with a radius of r?" What is the force between two infinitely long wires with a one amp current flow in each wire?
It's about understanding how current works in the real, macro or micro world. That applies to these types of experiments.
I know that you are looking at a model for a deeper understanding, and think that the model holds a key to take advantage of certain properties of matter and current and voltage to produce extra energy and it is somehow tied into broken symmetries and stuff like that.
You are up against the classical models, where all that you have to do is throw some calculus at the modeling as you understand it to get results that are accurately reflected in the real word. The assumption is that an awareness of the way the Universe works in terms of energy and matter has come to humankind in a series of intellectual milestones. Milestones that have added to each other over the past 400 years or so, increasing the level of understanding and the knowledge base.
Classical thinking can be rethought or reworked or added to. A classic example is radio astronomy. It didn't even exist 60 years ago. Dark matter (and by that I mean it's just an unknown in a "black box" for now from what I have read) and the acceleration of the expansion of the universe are the biggies now - what's going on?? lol
What's really cool is that there are something like 250+ known extrasolar planets now. We grew up where that was a total unknown, and many legit scientists stated that it was possible that there was only a single solar system in the Universe. Sound's crazy now because we have enough data to conclude that there are "billions and billions" of planets out there.
I am rambling, but that was my "current treatise" for you.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on September 25, 2009, 05:38:27 PM
Fuzzy:
I looked at your pictures and for your standard Ainsley circuit project you should try suspending your new load resistor in mid air vertically. I know that I am repeating myself here but there are sound reasons for doing that. If you ask I will tell you why.
MileHigh
Hi MH,
I'm up for your suggestion but in all fairness ..... these forums are "open source" and all the information posted is for the members and "GUESTS" that come and go. It's very difficult for me when members post on a subject and withhold data or information that can further a project such as what TK did ...... a replication is "exactly" that a replication (whether or not the data provided is 100% accurate) ...... substituting battery types, load resistor, Mosfet, omitting information on a insulator between the Mosfet and heat sink to eliminate RF ........ then indicating that the device doesn't work and disappears ..... because of "Williby" ......
My point is ..... if knowing something pertinent to the thread that may further the knowledge and quest of the task at hand, maybe I do know the answer, but does that mean everyone reading or participating in this thread does .... certainly not. You have proved to many that your ability's are worthy of making comments that relate to the subject at hand .... but I would appreciate a explanation that anyone reading this thread young or old, member or guest with the meaning behind your posting and a explanation to "all" what your talking about ...... just remember
"open source" and the real meaning and idea behind that statement, the inventors and replicators that believe in it ....
Fuzzy ;)
Hello MileHigh - I finally found the right link. I think you can check it out now. You'll find it interesting - especially the rodin coil that only has one apparent pole? Not fully explored yet but the indications are there.
Regarding the model. All I'm trying to suggest is that neither classical nor quantum have got the answers yet. When you appreciate that you'll see that even my zipon nonsense is better. Whether or not all is magnetism? I hope so. If it is it resolves quite a lot of outstanding questions in physics. But I must admit - on a probability scale - it's highly unlikely that it'll cut it. Sadly I know it's right. But then - I'm happy to point out that I'm in a minority of one - who knows this. :)
Regarding the electron current flow theory. Don't go there. It's an embarrassment. The electrons move too slowly - and communicate even more slowly to account for the speed of current flow. Trust me on this. I've checked it out.
Are we now talking to a MileWithinReach? ;D Quite a nice guy. Hopefully he'll hang around for a bit?
Glen:
It can be hard to write so that it works for "all" readers "all" of the time, but the point is well taken.
For the resistor, if you leave it sitting on your bench while you test, some of the heat generated is obviously going to go into the bench. That is like a "heat leak" that could ultimately disturb your measurements over a time span of a few hours. If the bench itself heats up by five degrees over two hours, then the "heat leak" will be slower then as compared to when you started. This will screw up your measurements.
If you suspend the resistor vertically by one of the wires or perhaps a string, then you will have no heat leaks. The second benefit is that you get a chimney effect, that draws the heat away from the resistor in a very consistent manner. This will give you a stable repeatable measurement system.
Any time you want to deviate from the original replication you have to be able to argue that there is a rational reason for doing so. As long as you can do that you should be fine. There is a rational argument for stating that as long as the resistor is about the same resistance and inductance you should be fine. Making it out of different materials should not really matter. Setting up your own stable thermal test environment (hanging the resistor or whatever you want to do) is also fine, there is no rational reason for this affecting the results.
Obviously the less you deviate from the original setup the better but the resistor that you made should be absolutely fine. I suggest that you follow .99's strategy and do the 3% duty cycle test first.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on September 27, 2009, 03:01:49 PM
Glen:
It can be hard to write so that it works for "all" readers "all" of the time, but the point is well taken.
For the resistor, if you leave it sitting on your bench while you test, some of the heat generated is obviously going to go into the bench. That is like a "heat leak" that could ultimately disturb your measurements over a time span of a few hours. If the bench itself heats up by five degrees over two hours, then the "heat leak" will be slower then as compared to when you started. This will screw up your measurements.
If you suspend the resistor vertically by one of the wires or perhaps a string, then you will have no heat leaks. The second benefit is that you get a chimney effect, that draws the heat away from the resistor in a very consistent manner. This will give you a stable repeatable measurement system.
Any time you want to deviate from the original replication you have to be able to argue that there is a rational reason for doing so. As long as you can do that you should be fine. There is a rational argument for stating that as long as the resistor is about the same resistance and inductance you should be fine. Making it out of different materials should not really matter. Setting up your own stable thermal test environment (hanging the resistor or whatever you want to do) is also fine, there is no rational reason for this affecting the results.
Obviously the less you deviate from the original setup the better but the resistor that you made should be absolutely fine. I suggest that you follow .99's strategy and do the 3% duty cycle test first.
MileHigh
Hi MH,
Thanks for your understanding plus explanation and will try your suggestion as soon as my new "Borosilicate Glass Tube" ( Pyrex ) prototype "Quantum" resistors are ready. I'm also going to use my Frequency Counter and the method of looking at mV - uV "mean" measurements that .99 mentioned with my older Tektronix 2445A oscilloscope, to help with the next go around of testing prior to collecting data dumps again.
Fuzzy ;D
Glen:
If I can offer you some advice:
QuoteI was only going to make a resistor like the one I left with you ..... but your suggestion of making one wound in the opposite direction is a "great" idea I'll just have to make two now
There is no need to do this. It is a common theme that comes up regularly on the forums, to try winding your coils in the "opposite" direction. It's simply a myth.
If you take a coil and reverse the wires connected to it, you reverse the direction of its magnetic field.
If you make a new coil that is wound in the opposite direction then you reverse the direction of its magnetic field.
Conclusion: Going to the trouble of making a coil that is wound in the opposite direction is identical to just keeping your original coil and reversing the wire connections.
Plus, and it is a big plus: The direction of the magnetic field itself in this experiment has no bearing on anything. Some people on the forums have a belief that there is a "difference between North and South." This is NOT TRUE, they are essentially the same when it comes to this experiment, building a Bedini motor, etc. This is a metaphysically true and indisputable fact.
That is your rational reason for not making a second coil. It gives you absolutely nothing. Spread the word!!! lol
MileHigh
MileHigh said:
Quote
Conclusion: Going to the trouble of making a coil that is wound in the opposite direction is identical to just keeping your original coil and reversing the wire connections.
I agree in principal with MileHigh. Older patents regularly did this as a matter peculiar to the electronic design.
It would then be easier to reconfigure an experiment, right?
--Lee
Rosemary:
For Marko Rodin - that's a complete no go. My words could get very harsh. For some reason, I have watched his clips and I know about the Rodin Coil.
The Rodin coil is just a coil, it has properties of inductance and parasitic capacitance. That's it - it's much ado about nothing. At one point Marko says, "The mathematical fingerprint of God" - omg.
Some people demonstrate it's loudspeaker-like effects, without being able to explain why.
Marko Rodin looks like he teaches Yoga to Southern Californian housewives and eats lots of rice out of a bowl. In another clip he casually claims that the "Rodin Coil" is going to start an energy revolution.
I get a similar vibe from the other two guys.
It's all off the deep end. Sorry if that was upsetting to you but that's the deal as I see it...
MileHigh
MileHigh:
Marko Rodin has some compelling number relationships around 9. He's a strange character - talks really big money - all over the place which is something probably better left unsaid. But clearly he is now getting funding for stuff that he couldn't get funded before? And I doubt it that investors would put that much into anything without some reason for some real interest.
Secondly, his side kick - Jamie Buturff is easy on the eye and ear. Unfortunately - as pointed out by Nassim Haramein - his measurements analysis leaves room for improvement. But he does indeed illustrate some neat arrangements. Let me tell you since you wont watch it. He uses the Rodin Coil to run a frictionless brushless motor - which is neat. Then. He is able to run a large number of motors concurrently by juxtaposing them to that live coil. And then he proceeds to demonstrate that the current drawn is reduced. Apparently this happens with each new load. Then - to compound confusion - he shows that the more 'load' applied to each motor - reduces the drawdown further. And you're not impressed?
Regarding the 'philosophy' of Marko Rodin? It's strangely compelling. He apparently has no 'college' eduction? Is that the same thing as university education in the States? Just don't know. But his knowledge base is pretty impressive and he's been studied by mathematicians all over the place. I'm satisfied that he's found a new number sequence - at it's least. And I'm impressed with his evident sensitivity and tact. Rather resent his claim to have discovered the God Particle. And I don't entirely buy into Nassim Haramein's claim to have done that final resolution of all things - thing. I can't see how he has got the answer without including new dimensions - yet acknowledges that the electron 'disappears' into the 'void' - I think he called it. String theorists give the 'void' some dimensions. And I think appropriately. But he's trying to do what Einstein tried to do. And Einstein is definitely my hero among giants.
So you see MH. By simply not looking you lose out. And that's the nub of my quarrel with you. You never really get to grips with altrnate arguments and just stick to your own. But I must admit that you also give your own enough variation and interest to keep me reading you. Endlessly inventive. But the chocolate thingy thing? That was your best. Have it printed and filed. Really it deserves to be framed.
;D
Quote from: MileHigh on September 27, 2009, 03:48:28 PM
Glen:
If I can offer you some advice:
There is no need to do this. It is a common theme that comes up regularly on the forums, to try winding your coils in the "opposite" direction. It's simply a myth.
If you take a coil and reverse the wires connected to it, you reverse the direction of its magnetic field.
If you make a new coil that is wound in the opposite direction then you reverse the direction of its magnetic field.
Conclusion: Going to the trouble of making a coil that is wound in the opposite direction is identical to just keeping your original coil and reversing the wire connections.
Plus, and it is a big plus: The direction of the magnetic field itself in this experiment has no bearing on anything. Some people on the forums have a belief that there is a "difference between North and South." This is NOT TRUE, they are essentially the same when it comes to this experiment, building a Bedini motor, etc. This is a metaphysically true and indisputable fact.
That is your rational reason for not making a second coil. It gives you absolutely nothing. Spread the word!!! lol
MileHigh
Hi MH,
I think we were discussing at one time that if one end of the load resistor was pointed only at the mosfet within it seemed 30 degrees , the circuit went a little wacky ...... thus the CW CCW winding direction question thing .....
I'll take your advice under consideration on making a second prototype with a different winding direction .... I've never had a opportunity to make these kinds of devices and being I have enough "Ni Cr A" 80% nickel, 20% chromium wire to do four (4) more resistors and It takes 30 minutes to wind and 24 hours to dry it's not that big of deal to make.
What is you thoughts on the resistor wire spacing ....... the article states a 1mm spacing with AWG 20 [.032 dia] ( .6348 ohms ft )a diameter of 32 mm ( 100.5308 mm / 3.9579 in circumference ) 48 turns of resistance wire (4825.4784 mm / 189.9795 in / 15.8316 ft long) = 10.0499 ohms this makes the coil about + -
3.416" long on a tube with a length of 150 mm (5.9055 in long)
It just seems strange to me and could be a article misprint or error, could the spacing be wider to accommodate a tube of the specified length and do you think it could possibly make any difference in any way ?
Fuzzy :)
Rosemary:
Yes college is the same as university. You are correct about my attitude, it is a double-edged sword. I may indeed miss out on some new knowledge. All that I can do is hope that I am right most of the time.
Glen:
QuoteI think we were discussing at one time that if one end of the load resistor was pointed only at the mosfet within it seemed 30 degrees , the circuit went a little wacky ...... thus the CW CCW winding direction question thing .....
Well, if you "bathe" the MOSFET in an AC magnetic field coming from the end of the load resistor and the gate input resistance is at a very high setting, you will start to induce an AC voltage on the MOSFET gate input which could create a feedback mechanism that will indeed affect the operation of the circuit. If you were to rotate the resistor around and go back to bathing the MOSFET in an AC magnetic field then the induced AC voltage will now be 180 degrees out of phase as compared to the first case, and this could also affect the operation of the circuit. So this has nothing to do with the winding of the coil. It would just be good practice to try to have the magnetic field generated by the coil not get too close to the MOSFET because it can have a very sensitive input.
As far as the winding of the coil goes to make your load resistor, you may be aware that there are web sites with "coil calculators" on them that have formulas that will compute the inductance accurately enough as long as your coil dimensions fall within certain proportions. Getting the 10 ohms total resistance is easy, but then getting your inductance to be a certain target value is tied up in the coil dimensions. You didn't mention that and I don't think you have to worry about it anyways. One thing for sure is the more closely spaced the windings are the higher your inductance. I don't know if you measured the inductance of the first glass load resistor you made.
Keeping it simple, my thoughts are the first one you made looked fine, so just do the same thing again. If you know for a fact that your inductance is higher than what Rosemary specified, then spacing the windings further apart will lower the inductance a small amount.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on September 27, 2009, 06:52:04 PM
Rosemary:
You are correct about my attitude, it is a double-edged sword. I may indeed miss out on some new knowledge. All that I can do is hope that I am right most of the time.
MileHigh
How can it be double-edged? It's single bladed. I want you to get it double-edged. That way there's more 'cut and thrust'. Could make for an interesting discussion. I get it that you hate pretension. But most of the pretension is actually from mainstream - believe it or not. They decide on 'acceptable physics' by popular vote and blow the consequences. Fortunately there's a drift of the really exceptional adherents towards 'fringe science'. It's just such a SLOW drift.
But come on MH. Look at facts. Gravity cannot explain how galaxies stay together. No-one has found a particle needed to account for dark matter. And no-one knows what 'force' makes 'dark energy'. Add to that the paradoxes and conundrums related to superluminal communication - the inability to find the 'unifying principle' and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle - to name just a few. Then try and resolve current flow with Pauli's exclusion principle - let alone with the weird mishmash of nonsense in Wiki. God alone knows what's taught in colleges. And while both quantum and classical physics are extraordinary - they are hardly in synch. All you trained fellows bend your mind around the most illogical of arguments and far from simplicity and clarity - the more complicated an explanation the more likely it is that it'll be used. And then you complain that it's us eccentric free energy enthusiasts who are dealing with 'pie in the sky'.
The simple truth is that there is a force out there - accepted by most thinking scientists - that is clearly in defiance of known forces. That it is useable is not at question. How to access it is. And it's widely accepted that it may be apparent in the 'small effects' such as the casimir effect. My own take is that it's simplest exposure would be to resolve, for once and for all, whether the inductive load is returning stored or generated energy from a switched cycle. But anomalies abound. The trio I referenced are just one example. This forum offers many others. So does energetic forum. Classicists still refute it on the basis of bad measurement. But check out Harvey's, Fuzzy's and Aaron's latest posts - to name just three on one thread. And I defy you to claim that that's bad measurement or bad analysis. So you see. We're doing our bit to shift the paradigms that you seem to want to enshrine in cement.
But I suspect I'm getting way too earnest. I just keep wishing MH. What a challenge you are. ???
Quote from: witsend on September 27, 2009, 08:15:14 PM
snip...
But come on MH. Look at facts. Gravity cannot explain how galaxies stay together. No-one has found a particle needed to account for dark matter. And no-one knows what 'force' makes 'dark energy'.
snip....
All you trained fellows bend your mind around the most illogical of arguments and far from simplicity and clarity - the more complicated an explanation the more likely it is that it'll be used. And then you complain that it's us eccentric free energy enthusiasts who are dealing with 'pie in the sky'.
Sorry to continue off topic, but....
Simplicity underscores the Electric (Plasma) Universe theory. No need for mysterious forces and strange matter, when you accept that the electrostatic force plays a much greater role than gravity, in the binding and motion of the galaxies and universe as a whole.
In spite of recent numerous experiments showing that charged bodies will rotate in synch (orbit) around a common axis point when exposed to "static" high voltage fields, (even in a complete vacuum) the Electric Universe theory is still relegated to the fringe, even though it can easily (and more convincingly) explain the motion of Galaxies and the orbits of stars, planets etc.
Cheers.. P.S. I love the civility of debate occurring in this thread.
Hoptoad - Hi. There's a definite problem with Electric (Plasma) Universe theory. It does not explain the interactive medium. Herein lies the possibility of some chaos. And we can't have chaos if we have a stable universe - as evident. It's indeed and elegant solution. It's just not quite enough. Close but not quite.
So nice to find that that this isn't a monologue. I think MH has bowed out. ;D
EDIT And are we off topic?
Quote from: witsend on September 28, 2009, 04:05:09 AM
snip...
And we can't have chaos if we have a stable universe - as evident. It's indeed and elegant solution. It's just not quite enough. Close but not quite.
So nice to find that that this isn't a monologue. I think MH has bowed out. ;D
EDIT And are we off topic?
Stability as a whole does not exclude localized chaos. It is an assumption that chaos cannot exist in a stable environment, or that a stable environment cannot exist with chaos. It is also an assumption that the universe is stable in the first place ... LOL
Ironically, the big bang theory (religious fantasy) requires chaotic scaled fractal behaviour to occur in the first few picoseconds of creation to create the extremely unevenly distributed matter that fills the skys today. If the big bang had been a perfect explosion, then the order of condensed matter we now see would be a completely different order. The stars and galaxies might never have formed at all, if the gravity distribution between quanta was perfectly even and stable throughout the expanding event.
After applying Occam's razor, The Electric Universe theory seems to need the least number of assumptions.
I agree, it probably needs more .. though I suspect any theory will always be one answer short for curious people LOL.
More information please ! LOL
And I think I'm definitely off topic LOL. Sorry.
Cheers
Quote from: MileHigh on September 27, 2009, 06:52:04 PM
Glen:
Well, if you "bathe" the MOSFET in an AC magnetic field coming from the end of the load resistor and the gate input resistance is at a very high setting, you will start to induce an AC voltage on the MOSFET gate input which could create a feedback mechanism that will indeed affect the operation of the circuit. If you were to rotate the resistor around and go back to bathing the MOSFET in an AC magnetic field then the induced AC voltage will now be 180 degrees out of phase as compared to the first case, and this could also affect the operation of the circuit. So this has nothing to do with the winding of the coil. It would just be good practice to try to have the magnetic field generated by the coil not get too close to the MOSFET because it can have a very sensitive input.
As far as the winding of the coil goes to make your load resistor, you may be aware that there are web sites with "coil calculators" on them that have formulas that will compute the inductance accurately enough as long as your coil dimensions fall within certain proportions. Getting the 10 ohms total resistance is easy, but then getting your inductance to be a certain target value is tied up in the coil dimensions. You didn't mention that and I don't think you have to worry about it anyways. One thing for sure is the more closely spaced the windings are the higher your inductance. I don't know if you measured the inductance of the first glass load resistor you made.
Keeping it simple, my thoughts are the first one you made looked fine, so just do the same thing again. If you know for a fact that your inductance is higher than what Rosemary specified, then spacing the windings further apart will lower the inductance a small amount.
MileHigh
Hi MH,
Thanks for explaining the problems faced with using the load resister near the Mosfet this is something that all replicators, members and guests should be aware of because what your is saying is very true ..... seen it first hand.
I also have not been able to find a uH meter to measure the impedance of my prototype resistor .... I guess its off to the electronics store to see if there uH meters they sell work properly (with my resistor in my pocket for a test sample) testing resistors ..... LOL
Fuzzy ;D
Hi hoptoad. May I say that you've chosen an unusual identity. We live in the Western Cape and have a particularly rare species - the leopard toad. It's been classified as a protected species and is - happily - one of the principle reasons that our Council authorities have not been able to build roads around some of our suburbs. But they're usually hunted by and fall casualty to dogs. They fight back with some noxious juices from their skin. The dogs gag for a while but usually survive the poison. The only other association is Toad of Toad Hall. He's got to be one of my favourite literary characters.
Just thought I'd mention it - just to get really off topic. ::)
I can buy into the 'big bang' in the sense that I can't imagine something without a beginning. But I'm sure it's established now that star systems and galaxies in fact seem to be initiated in those amazing plasmas/ nebulas that have become the 'star' attraction of our night skies. I find them fascinating. So. If they are known to be initiated here - then what need for that first explosion? Still. That's just my own view of things. I'm sure our physicists have plenty reasons to subscribe to both. And I don't know enough to argue.
Regarding the 'chaos'. I must first tell you that I know nothing of math so have no idea of Bell's equations. However, I fully identify with his statement that 'the statistical predictions of quantum theories ... cannot be upheld by local hidden variables.' Something like that. Apparently - without some essential order and symmetry then all the mathematical predictions fall apart. In as much as quantum theory is really effective, and on the assumption that Bell really proved these equations - then I'm prepared to buy into his requirements for order. But on a more profound level - I also love working with symmetry. Not that I can relate it to much other than some scribbled patterns that I use to advance my own eccentric understandings. But I LOVE symmetry.
That brings me to the first issue with all extant theories. The need for symmetry also requires some explanation for the antiparticles and their consequent manifestation into antimatter. There's a dearth of evidence for this. And the lack of it is dismissed as 'possibly being annihillated in the early phases of the big bang? I find that a cop out. This means that the universe is arbitrary and 'randomly' created more matter than antimatter? Hardly the 'consistency' required for quantum mechanics. So why are our theorists not rather advancing a proposal that there's a universe where antimatter exists as the opposite of matter. Somewhere? Like a mirror image of our own universe?
But that's not my only objection to an electric universe. Not only do we have an evident lack of positrons but electrons themselves repel. As such they cannot create the 'field effect' that would enhance the symmetries that Bell seems to require. Then too electron's are stable - into infinity. They are only thought to decay in certain unstable elements such as uranium - but it's never been proven. Only that radioactive decay seems to generate some really aggressive little numbers that may be the result of electron decay? So. Where in that electric universe do you manifest photons and protons let alone their antiparticles?
And I cannot see how an electric universe can explain gravity - the more so as it's effectively a monopole? To my way of thinking that would result in antigravity at best. And the universe seems to need some form of gravity to explain the 'distribution' of matter - however unevenly.
In any event - that's my best shot. But know that I'm struggling here. :o ??? ::)
edit (spelling)
An update on the observed "negative before the positive" output:
Note 1:
The "negative before the positive" output appears to be the result of an extreme duty cycle within the 555. Evidently, the timing circuitry is able to be coaxed into generating pulse widths on the order of 100ns, but the output section of the 555 is not sufficiently fast to fully turn ON (or OFF) for this short duration. As such, most of the output seen at pin 3 of the 555 is due to capacitive feedthrough from the timing section across (bypassing) the output section. The reason a LO is output before a HI, is because the output section of the 555 is inverting, therefore the wave form driving it has a very long ON time for short ON times at the output. Scoping the 555 output when in this funky mode of operation should confirm the negative before the positive. The simulation does show this. As a side note, in playing with a full simulated 555 set up as an astable, inserting a series resistance into the VCC line does affect the timing. For the circuit I used, it decreased the frequency and shortened the pulse width.
Note 2:
As a confirmation of my statement that while in this mode of operation, the MOSFET is not conducting, I replaced the MOSFET with its 3 equivalent inter-electrode parasitic capacitances as per the datasheet, and the resulting simulation wave forms on all three "MOSFET" pins were identical to when the MOSFET was actually present in the circuit.
Conclusion:
Not only is the 555 output largely the result of capacitive feedthrough, but the signals observed on the MOSFET Drain and Source are as well, while operating it in this extreme duty cycle mode of operation.
Those that may wish to try this on the real circuit for themselves, can replace the MOSFET with the following 3 capacitors:
Cgd=500p
Cds=300p
Cgs=1500p
(Values are approximate and were chosen based on a Vds of 20V. For a Vds of 12V the values could be 60% higher. Scope shots of the simulation are available.)
Unless some strong evidence emerges indicating that there is something further of interest here, this concludes my investigation of the observed "negative before the positive" output.
.99
PS. I hope to have an interesting video coming soon.
Rosemary:
I am not the person that would be suitable for the kind of debate that you are looking for about forces and particles, etc. Sorry, it's just not my thing. I was "programmed" to say that there are four known forces in the Universe as far as we understand right now; Strong, Weak, electromagnetic, and gravitational.
With respect to some basic stuff you said this:
QuoteLook at facts. Gravity cannot explain how galaxies stay together.
I wonder if you could briefly elaborate on that. I am up to that one at least.
.99:
Fantastic work! I get a few Brownie Points because at one point I said that adding the dreaded power limiting resistor to the 555 would affect the timing. It has to!
Some people reading this thread may sense the difference between people doing real circuit analysis and either self-admitted newbies or people pretending that they know what they are doing when they attempt to do circuit analysis. It should not be too hard to notice the difference in most cases because there is a huge gulf between the two types.
No flames please, I am just framing the upcoming debate. You never know, we may have stormy weather ahead!
Meanwhile, what's up with Aaron and generating some real data? We saw some imperfect but easily correctable thermal profiling data and I couldn't even bring myself to watch more than a snippet of his "Let's light a CFL with a cigar-shaped resistor" clip. The weeks have been slipping by. I am truly tired of waiting at this point.
Hopefully the dry spell will be over soon, I am counting on the recipients of the PCB to do their thing!
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on September 28, 2009, 09:57:12 PM
.99:
Fantastic work! I get a few Brownie Points because at one point I said that adding the dreaded power limiting resistor to the 555 would affect the timing. It has to!
MileHigh
Indeed you did MH. Sorry for not mentioning that. I added that bit with you in mind ;)
.99
Hello MileHigh. What a relief to wake up to such a mild post. You see how significantly you feature in my life? Mr MilesMoreImportantThanYouRealise. :)
The extra gravity thing is actually simple. It was discovered near the turn of the century by - forget who - who saw that the galaxial mass and spin was such that the star systems should peel off and away. Instead of which they stay bound. The fact contradicted the mathematical prediction - apparently. But I don't know the math.
But I'm in full agreement with you that there are only 4 forces. It's my proposal that magnetic underpins all. I work on the hypothesis that all the other forces - including the 'strong', 'weak', 'gravitational' and 'electromagnetic' are just varying manifestations of a magnetic force. I could prove it as explained, because my only other proof is the reconciliation of the mass/size ratio of the proton to the electron. Widely considered to be a 'non event'. Still. It's the best I can do within the constraints of my limited abilities.
Looks like an auspicious start to a really nice day. And don't get too relaxed with Poynt's analysis on the 'negative before positive' number. It still needs to be answered. If you really need brownie points - MH - I'll give you loads. ;D
Poynt. Please check your skype messages :) and answer me. And I'm really, really sorry for the momentary lapse into 'tease mode'. :'(
I thought you'd laugh. Clearly lacking in insight here.
EDIT - The need for extra gravity was discovered by Hubble. The genius.
Rosemary:
I watched a PBS documentary about dark matter about five years ago. I assume that you know what the US Public Broadcasting System is all about. My retention for facts is much different nowadays and I can't soak up everything like a sponge like I used to.
Yes, Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe is expanding in the 1920's with the red Doppler shift he observed with his spectrographs. They probably could not resolve galaxies to the point of looking at the delta Doppler shift from either side of the galaxy's axis at that time. It seems to me that the discovery that galaxies are rotating faster than they should be is relatively recent, perhaps in the last 20 years, but I am really not sure. They look at edge-on galaxies and look at the red and "blue" shifts on either side and crunch the numbers and find that they are rotating faster than their estimated mass by observing the "light matter." Therefore they assume that there is unobservable mass - the "dark matter" that accounts for the increased spin rate.
Then there is a relatively new theory about super-massive Black Holes at the centers of galaxies accounting for all the extra mass. It truly is an ultra exciting time to be in the field of astronomy.
I can't remember the discovery date for the "missing mass" even though I watched a documentary on the whole matter in deep fascination not too long ago. What the hey! I could Google it and forget it again. lol
Anyway, just content to be waiting...
MileHigh
Hello MileHigh. The need for 'more gravity' than evident predates the 2nd world war and maybe even the first. But I'm too tired to look it up. It's just that it filtered through to general knowledge REALLY SLOWLY. It's still an embarrassment to mainstream.
And the problem - the actual mathematical discrepancies - between apparent and expected - was, I think, pointed out by Hubble. Not sure if he was the first but suspect this as he had the best means to 'look'.
QuoteWhen the magnetic field collapses on the load and has the strong negative spike, that sharp gradient breaks the symmetry of the vacuum and acts as a sink that pulls in more potential with it, more than what was put into the coil to charge it to begin with. Strong gradients show effects that are known to violate thermodynamics. It may be debatable as to why, but it is not debatable as to whether or not it happens, in my opinion.
Don't we all wish. Aaron has the technology to prove this for himself one way or the other, who needs to debate. There is no breaking of the symmetry of anything. v = L di/dt explains the voltage. The equivalent current spike from a capacitor, i = C dv/dt gets the short end of the stick and gets no attention. Look up "derivatives" to learn more. That's where you don't add or multiply variables together, rather, you add or multiply rates of change of variables together.
QuoteAnd the magic is in the material that the resistive load is made of. I deduced that from my early tests and mentioned to Peter that it appears that if the spike is directed only back into the coil - without it going to the battery, it converts the voltage to current.
Do you think that Aaron can back that statement up with a reasonable explanation and some paramaters or variables? I don't.
I actually don't even understand what he is saying - how can the spike be directed back into the coil if the coil itself is generating the spike?
There is no "conversion of voltage into current" - the discharge from an inductor will start at a initial current and then slowly or rapidly decrease down to zero. How fast it depletes down to zero is dependent on the load. The higher the load resistance the faster the discharge and the higher the voltage. In that sense it is more appropriate to consider it like current being "converted" into voltage, but I wince at using that language.
It is all about a discharge of stored energy, where the current starts at an initial current and drops to zero, and the voltage can vary from near-zero to a very high voltage, enough to breakdown the dielectric strength of air.
Anyone that wants to play with coils has to understand this. There are a million web pages in the Naked City.
I thought that was worth repeating, what the heck!
MileHigh
Another from Aaron's latest post:
QuoteActually, I can even remove ALL 4 CAPS and the timer circuit still runs, the load still goes negative and the load waveform is still mirrored on top and bottom with periods of remaining a net negative dc on the load.
What he's just admitted is similar to what I explained about the 555's operation in this funky mode. It's using the internal and stray breadboard capacitance for its timing capacitors, while almost completely bypassing the internal output section. The 555 was not designed to operate this "fast" nor in this mode, and I'm surprised that it can get into oscillation at all.
Also, note the statement of "periods of net negative DC on the load". I'll have something to add to this in an upcoming video.
.99
I know you guys enjoy these intervals. hope you like this one ;)
Spock Tribute --The Logical Song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NoM9y9kVFI
cat
Poynt:
Yeah, what's the point in torturing the poor old 555? Are you up on your YouTube pop culture history?
Leave the 555 alone!!! sob Leave the 555 ALONE!!!! SOB!!! lol
When I hear "negative dominant" my brain goes to mush, no offense to anybody.
Powercat:
Star Trek TOS United forever!!! I got half of the episodes from the aether and I am desperate for the other half. Gimme a smoke bomb any day over a CGI exercise in particle dynamics man.
I decided to try to play the link game.... but what?? Whaaat?
Ahem...
This guy repairs old radios and is brilliant. He throws in the occasional educational clip about electronics. Plus there is something about his voice and slow delivery that is trance-like for me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ep0jAeq1kzM&feature=channel_page
He is the "real thing" and if anybody is fascinated by looking at radio tech history and seeing this stuff get beautifully repaired and restored, you will really enjoy his other clips.
It's funny when you look at these old radios, they all have to have stories behind them. Sort of like the movie "Tucker." The 1920s and 30s must have been exciting and heady days for that small slice of technological culture - the designers and producers of commercial radios. You have to use your imagination and visualize the stories behind the objects. Some of them are works of art. A whole world that has simply vanished into thin air.
Hi Cat. The link was excellent. Had no idea there were these tributes to cool Doc. Learn something new every day.
And MileHigh - I now know so much more about Ground loops than I ever want to know. I'll give the rest of his links a miss if you don't mind. I have way too much respect for my frustration tolerance. ;D
MH - I'm going to take a stab at answering your question to Aaron. I think you ask how the spike gets back to the coil - if the coil is also generating the spike?
So. Let me bore you. If the current flow resulting from that spike moves anticlockwise it goes through the battery through the shunt through the body diode and back to the source. And vice versa. Why not? It fits.
Hi,
Although I have no read the 185 pages in this thread, after searching the net for awhile, and unable to find any confirmation, can someone post a link to someone that has confirmed the total energy output in the form of heat is greater than the input supply?
Thanks,
Paul
Rose,
Based on your last few posts (here and at EF) pertaining to the "negative before positive" stuff, and the capacitors, and Aaron's latest video, I'd say you have both misunderstood what I have been saying about the circuit and internal capacitance and the parts they are playing.
In short, I was not trying to convey that the capacitors used in the 555 circuit are responsible for this effect.
The observed effect of the negative excursion before the positive is due to differentiation of the pulse entering the output section of the 555 chip. I mentioned that this stage is "inverting", and as such needs a "HI to LO" transition to equate to a "LO to HI" transition on pin 3. This HI to LO transition appears at the output as a "below ground" transition due to differentiation of the drive pulse to the output stage.
Once this differentiated pulse exits the 555, it enters the MOSFET Gate pin and is differentiated once more through the MOSFET parasitic capacitance as I outlined in a previous post. The MOSFET is not active in this mode of operation with only hundreds of mV drive on its Gate.
I have not studied Aaron's latest wave forms completely yet, but wanted to mention the misunderstanding before things get too carried away. I'll comment more later once I've had a chance to review the video further.
.99
Quote from: PaulLowrance on October 01, 2009, 10:37:40 AM
Hi,
Although I have no read the 185 pages in this thread, after searching the net for awhile, and unable to find any confirmation, can someone post a link to someone that has confirmed the total energy output in the form of heat is greater than the input supply?
Thanks,
Paul
Paul, I am not aware of anyone confirming this experimentally yet.
.99
Okay thanks. We've seen the patent via Ainslie's blog site. What country is that patent at because it's not found in a google patent search. Out of curiousity has anyone even verified that this Ainslie Rosemary Ann exists? I can't find a domain she owns, or anyway to verify her, ... or even to verify she's a female. Anything?
How I would test it is by placing the hot components in a small *thermal insulated* oil bath. Mineral oil is commonly used, purchased at local stores. Time how long it takes to heat the insulated oil bath to a certain temperature. Also, data log the battery *DC* current & voltage to calculate the total energy input from battery. Then do the control by placing a load in the oil bath, apply DC voltage, measure DC current, and time how long it takes to heat the oil to the same temperature. And there you go. You know energy output & input.
That would take 1 to 2 days, tops, to verify it.
Regards,
Paul
Would you agree that's a valid test?
Hi PaulLowrance. You ask for a link to confirm the total energy output of the circuit. Look up the opening page of this. I think there's more links there. http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-95.html.
(Hope I've done that right. If not - PLEASE OBLIGE someone, Poynt?)
You'll find reference to an article published on this. It includes a list of accreditors to the claim. None of the accreditors have allowed us access to their own reports on the experiment. All did their own variations of the test on this circuitry. Thus far none of the contributors to this or to the energetic forum have replicated the results. But there have been further evidence of gains that, interestingly, point to over unity as opposed to a co-efficiency of performance in excess of anything at all.
Ainslie Rosemary Ann indeed exists. I can vouch for the fact. She has a blog spot? Does that help. And I'm definitely female.
Your thermal insulated 'bath' would only confirm the dissipated heat. You'll need to relate this to the energy delivered by the supply source. It's a complicated waveform and probably needs some sophisticated instrumentation to prove values here.
I do hope you'll do the test. If you do, then you and Poynt will be the only ones on this thread. TK did take a stab at it but it proved too difficult and he gave up without reaching a conclusion. ;D
Anyway. You'll notice that I post under the name witsend. But most everyone knows me as Rosemary - or Rosie or 'Rose'. I answer to anything unless it's insulting.
Quote from: poynt99 on October 01, 2009, 11:14:58 AM
Rose,
Based on your last few posts (here and at EF) pertaining to the "negative before positive" stuff, and the capacitors, and Aaron's latest video, I'd say you have both misunderstood what I have been saying about the circuit and internal capacitance and the parts they are playing.
In short, I was not trying to convey that the capacitors used in the 555 circuit are responsible for this effect.
The observed effect of the negative excursion before the positive is due to differentiation of the pulse entering the output section of the 555 chip. I mentioned that this stage is "inverting", and as such needs a "HI to LO" transition to equate to a "LO to HI" transition on pin 3. This HI to LO transition appears at the output as a "below ground" transition due to differentiation of the drive pulse to the output stage.
Once this differentiated pulse exits the 555, it enters the MOSFET Gate pin and is differentiated once more through the MOSFET parasitic capacitance as I outlined in a previous post. The MOSFET is not active in this mode of operation with only hundreds of mV drive on its Gate.
I have not studied Aaron's latest wave forms completely yet, but wanted to mention the misunderstanding before things get too carried away. I'll comment more later once I've had a chance to review the video further.
.99
Thanks Poynt. :) I'm holding my breath here
Paul, BTW - the patent was only applied for. It was never granted. This put the technology into the public domain and it appears that no-one owns it. This probably means that while you can't patent the circuit you could probably develop it - if you wanted to.
Rosie,
Your reply is appreciated. So would you say that total input power from the batteries is greater than the dissipated heat? If so, then what else would I need to test for, electromagnetic radiation?
Regards,
Paul
Ok. Paul - I really think you need to read the last few pages on the energetic forum thread. Again. I hope I've posted the link correctly. You'll see the tests that relate to this and the level at which they are. MH claims that EM is irrelevant as it's too small. But I'm not qualified to comment.
Poynt would actually give you the best advice here. If he'll oblige? ???
Glad you'll give this a stab. We would love more replications on this side of the thread. Traditionally OU.com sort of tries to disprove and energetic forum tries to prove. I think both attitudes have value.
That link only took me to the homepage. I don't take sides, but it's a fact there are truckloads of fake claims over the years that only serve the purpose to distract people. So indeed, people should look for signs of sincerity in the claims before spending time replicating!!!
Here's all I have so far. 1) I can't find any verifiable info on anyone that's claiming success. 2) It appears you shot down the only legit way I see to test your claim-- measuring total heat production. Years working in antenna design & theory I would agree there would be no appreciable EM radiation emission from such wire wound resistive inductors given your circuit.
So if most of it's not IR, and not EM radiation, then how is one to collect this unknown energy? Something's missing here.
Regards,
Paul
Quote from: PaulLowrance on October 01, 2009, 01:48:50 PM
That link only took me to the homepage. I don't take sides, but it's a fact there are truckloads of fake claims over the years that only serve the purpose to distract people. So indeed, people should look for signs of sincerity in the claims before spending time replicating!!!
Here's all I have so far. 1) I can't find any verifiable info on anyone that's claiming success. 2) It appears you shot down the only legit way I see to test your claim-- measuring total heat production. Years working in antenna design & theory I would agree there would be no appreciable EM radiation emission from such wire wound resistive inductors given your circuit.
So if most of it's not IR, and not EM radiation, then how is one to collect this unknown energy? Something's missing here.
Regards,
Paul
Paul - I caught this on the way out. I've asked Poynt to deal with this. otherwise I'll try and put something together tomorrow or later tonight. Your point are valid. But I can't deal with it right now.
Quote from: PaulLowrance on October 01, 2009, 12:02:39 PM
Would you agree that's a valid test?
I would agree this is a valid test Paul. It would also be valid to monitor the resistor (or all hot components) with a small thermistor in both cases rather than use an oil bath. This is the approach I will be taking unless it is arguably not an acceptable approach.
I would also agree that the amount of RF energy emitted will be minimal in comparison to the amount of thermal energy. RF energy was not accounted for nor even mentioned (AFAIK) in the two published reports on the experiment.
.99
Quote from: PaulLowrance on October 01, 2009, 01:48:50 PM
That link only took me to the homepage. I don't take sides, but it's a fact there are truckloads of fake claims over the years that only serve the purpose to distract people. So indeed, people should look for signs of sincerity in the claims before spending time replicating!!!
Here's all I have so far. 1) I can't find any verifiable info on anyone that's claiming success. 2) It appears you shot down the only legit way I see to test your claim-- measuring total heat production. Years working in antenna design & theory I would agree there would be no appreciable EM radiation emission from such wire wound resistive inductors given your circuit.
So if most of it's not IR, and not EM radiation, then how is one to collect this unknown energy? Something's missing here.
Regards,
Paul
Paul
The experiment has up to now been progressing at macro level using ridiculously low levels of power that hardly 'tickle' the resistor above ambient. Aaron and Harvey are working towards COP17 - I think??
Nobody to my knowledge has replicated the original claim using the original Ainslie circuit, or any variant of it. I've built both the original Ainslie circuit and Aeron's replication and can see nothing special about either circuit.
Some excellent investigation work has been done by Poynt99, TK, MileHigh, Harvey and a few others.
I don't post much on this thread now but do follow 'progress'.
Hoppy
I hear people are having trouble replicating the effect. Then it seems good idea for Rosemary to replicate it, or maybe she's already done that.
It seems poynt99 is on a good test, using thermistors sounds good enough. People can buy 402 SMD thermistors for ~ $0.15 each at places such as digikey.com-- I have part #'s if people need. Then a simple current source (guaranteed fixed current) circuit will work great for the thermistors. There are other ways to use thermistors.
Regards,
Paul
Well at least we are seeing some action.
Rosemary:
Don't forget the coil-resistor discharge creates a clockwise current flow. Any counterclockwise current flow is minuscule. We don't have to debate Aaron's statement, my question was more rhetorical than real. I view his statement as an awkward juxtaposition of words that one would normally associate with the types of conversational English mistakes that everybody makes. Aaron is not too much of a details person, he is more of a "driver" personality type so his written prose is very much conversational in flow, mistakes and all.
Aaron's latest clip is based on a misunderstanding, no surprise there. The "logic" behind removing the caps from the 555 circuit is positively Bizarro. This quote sums up the feeling, "Calibrated 5% carbon resistors, point two-five ohms."
I remember looking through the manual for the DSO and there is a display mode that makes fat traces that show the total noise envelope for a repetitive signal. I am assuming that Aaron has been using that scope trace display setting the whole time and it is starting to drive me crazy. I wish he would just display the normal unprocessed signals.
Sorry to pick on Aaron, but it is hard to believe that he has been working with electronics and scopes for 10 years. Behind all of the bravado he is really struggling and the chances of him producing good sound data are a longshot.
Paul:
Yes an oil bath will work but as Poynt and others have said, just measuring the temperature of the coil-resistor (a.k.a "the resistor" or the "inductive resistor") will give you the same data with much less hassle. You should hang the coil-resistor vertically in midair by a string to get the fastest and most repeatable results. Allowing the air to flow upwards through the hollow resistor body gives you a "smokestack" effect that effectively lowers the coil-resistor's thermal resistance to the outside world. Lowering your thermal resistance will shorten your thermal RC time constant, and thus the temperature of the coil-resistor will stabilize sooner.
Hoppy: Great to see you around. Sit back and watch the blinking lights.
MileHigh
Thanks Groundloop for confirming the emitted RF levels. As expected, they are insignificant compared to the thermal energy from the resistor.
.99
PS. I obtained another power resistor today....a whopper!
10 Ohm
225 Watt
64uH
about 10" in length, and about 1" in diameter.
Fuzzy,
Regarding your post #2834 at EF:
First Shot: F=38.4kHz, PW=7us, Duty=27%
A relatively clean 555 output at 12V.
The remaining shots: F=588kHz, PW=900ns, Duty = 55%
The 555 output is struggling. HOWEVER, notice with every transition (especially the sharp but only partial HI to LO transition) in the 555's wave form the corresponding "spike" and resonance on the load shunt. This is the differentiation I am talking about. The ringing resonance is indeed about 8.3MHz as you mentioned. If you look closely, you'll notice yet another resonance much higher in frequency on the sharp negative spikes (see last scope shot).
This is indeed a complex wave form due to the interaction of the 555's output and the resonance of the load, but by definition it is periodic.
Thanks for the great reporting ;)
.99
Glen,
This may sound like a strange proposition, but indulge me here if you would.
What I would like to see is what happens if you disconnect the load from the 12V source, and tie the load end to GND. Leave power to the 555 as before, but ground the High end of the load resistor and run the same scope shots.
I will not be surprised if you see exactly the same wave forms as before when the load was tied to +12V. I could be wrong, but I think you'll see something similar at least.
.99
Quote from: MileHigh on October 01, 2009, 08:38:40 PM
Well at least we are seeing some action.
Rosemary:
Don't forget the coil-resistor discharge creates a clockwise current flow. Any counterclockwise current flow is minuscule. We don't have to debate Aaron's statement, my question was more rhetorical than real. I view his statement as an awkward juxtaposition of words that one would normally associate with the types of conversational English mistakes that everybody makes. Aaron is not too much of a details person, he is more of a "driver" personality type so his written prose is very much conversational in flow, mistakes and all.
Aaron's latest clip is based on a misunderstanding, no surprise there. The "logic" behind removing the caps from the 555 circuit is positively Bizarro. This quote sums up the feeling, "Calibrated 5% carbon resistors, point two-five ohms."
Sorry to pick on Aaron, but it is hard to believe that he has been working with electronics and scopes for 10 years. Behind all of the bravado he is really struggling and the chances of him producing good sound data are a longshot.
MileHigh - this is why Aaron gave up reading you. Give the guy a break. I've yet to meet anyone with that much IQ - Unless it's you. And we all have our styles. Personally I'm into the 'coversational' number. He's a pleasure to listen to.
Quote from: poynt99 on October 01, 2009, 11:05:00 PM
Glen,
This may sound like a strange proposition, but indulge me here if you would.
What I would like to see is what happens if you disconnect the load from the 12V source, and tie the load end to GND. Leave power to the 555 as before, but ground the High end of the load resistor and run the same scope shots.
I will not be surprised if you see exactly the same wave forms as before when the load was tied to +12V. I could be wrong, but I think you'll see something similar at least.
.99
Hi .99
I'm a bit confused here are you talking about the "Ainslie - Murakami Negitive Dominant Waveform Generator Circuit" here ......
http://www.energeticforum.com/67702-post2627.html because if you are Harvey has also asked for the source waveform superimposed with the drain waveform for timing comparisons .... I could try to accommodate both requests yours and his given the time with the loaned Tektronix Scope I'll have this weekend, and I can duplicate the "Tektronix TDS 3054C Testing - Part #2 Post" that was done several weeks ago
http://www.energeticforum.com/68575-post2766.html Aaron does have the first made prototype 10 ohm Quantum replication resister, but I now have a new same configuration untested one that will be used for testing.
If your talking about the "Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Heater Circuit" which was the last posting of mine at Energetic
http://www.energeticforum.com/69546-post2834.html the 10 ohm load resister is on a 24 VDC battery bank no 12 VDC on the "Source" only the 555 circuit ....
Did you notice the flat line amplitude of Channel 1 (A1) went up 34 mV (x10) when the 24 volt battery bank was connected from the first photo showing the 555 pin #3 output
At any rate I'm going to make the best of the kind gift of the use of the Tektronix Scope that Lisa from Tektronix has arranged to further the data, understanding and the verification of some findings of both circuits.
Fuzzy
;D
;D Hi MileHigh ;D yet again. I left out a critical point in your post.
Your reference to 'counterclockwise current flow being miniscule? I thought we'd disproved that one. We've found it to be equal to if not greater than the clockwise - under certain test parameters.
Poynt - Hi. I'm referring to your post 1845 on the previous page.
Regarding sundry explanations for the 'negative before positive' waveform. I can't comment. All I know is that the battery apparently gets energy delivered to it rather than from it. And I cannot believe that this is conventionally acceptable. But I'm open to correction. All I know is that the wattage required to be returned to the battery - at whatever stage - must be at least great enough to breach the resistance of the battery - wherever that energy originated. I just very much doubt that there's enough energy stored in the capacitor - the mosfet - at any of the legs of the 555 or anywhere at all. Unless it comes from the resistor itself. There - at least - there'd be enough energy stored - if indeed it was first stored.
But I get it that this is not a conclusion that you share or are ever likely to.
This bright auspicious day is defintely clouding over. More's the pity. ??? ???
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on October 02, 2009, 02:03:24 AM
Hi .99
I'm a bit confused here are you talking about the "Ainslie - Murakami Negitive Dominant Waveform Generator Circuit" here ...... http://www.energeticforum.com/67702-post2627.html because if you are Harvey has also asked for the source waveform superimposed with the drain waveform for timing comparisons .... I could try to accommodate both requests yours and his given the time with the loaned Tektronix Scope I'll have this weekend, and I can duplicate the "Tektronix TDS 3054C Testing - Part #2 Post" that was done several weeks ago http://www.energeticforum.com/68575-post2766.html
Aaron does have the first made prototype 10 ohm Quantum replication resister, but I now have a new same configuration untested one that will be used for testing.
If your talking about the "Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Heater Circuit" which was the last posting of mine at Energetic http://www.energeticforum.com/69546-post2834.html the 10 ohm load resister is on a 24 VDC battery bank no 12 VDC on the "Source" only the 555 circuit ....
Did you notice the flat line amplitude of Channel 1 (A1) went up 34 mV (x10) when the 24 volt battery bank was connected from the first photo showing the 555 pin #3 output
At any rate I'm going to make the best of the kind gift of the use of the Tektronix Scope that Lisa from Tektronix has arranged to further the data, understanding and the verification of some findings of both circuits.
Fuzzy
;D
Glen. I am referring to your post #2834, which is the COP>17 post I guess. What I'm asking for is simply to take the load resistor off the +24V battery (or supply) and tie the load resistor to circuit ground. The end of the load resistor that used to be connected to +24V will now be connected to circuit ground.
That's the only circuit modification I was asking for. Then re-run your tests and observe
the same points again on the scope, i.e. the 555-3, and the load shunt voltages as before.
If there is a significant difference between these new scope shots and those in your post #2834, then this would indicate to me possible resonance in the battery. If the wave forms are quite similar to those in your post #2834, then this would be further evidence that a) the MOSFET is not conducting when connected to a supply, and b) that the MOSFET is only acting as a "capacitive" component in the circuit while in this mode of operation. In fact regardless of how the wave forms look (i.e the same or different) between the two scenarios, I still maintain that a) and b) are true.
Regarding the 34mV increase you mention, do you mean from 28mV to 66mV (38mV increase)? Isn't that A1 number referring to the trigger setting?
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on October 02, 2009, 08:29:31 AM
Glen. I am referring to your post #2834, which is the COP>17 post I guess. What I'm asking for is simply to take the load resistor off the +24V battery (or supply) and tie the load resistor to circuit ground. The end of the load resistor that used to be connected to +24V will now be connected to circuit ground.
That's the only circuit modification I was asking for. Then re-run your tests and observe the same points again on the scope, i.e. the 555-3, and the load shunt voltages as before.
If there is a significant difference between these new scope shots and those in your post #2834, then this would indicate to me possible resonance in the battery. If the wave forms are quite similar to those in your post #2834, then this would be further evidence that a) the MOSFET is not conducting when connected to a supply, and b) that the MOSFET is only acting as a "capacitive" component in the circuit while in this mode of operation. In fact regardless of how the wave forms look (i.e the same or different) between the two scenarios, I still maintain that a) and b) are true.
Regarding the 34mV increase you mention, do you mean from 28mV to 66mV (38mV increase)? Isn't that A1 number referring to the trigger setting?
.99
Hi .99
Ok no problem .... I'll see what I can do on your reasonable request ... you just had me confused with the 12V reference.
As for the Channel 1 (A1) the first photo with both scope probes connected ( Channel 1 & Channel 2 ) only power was connected for the 555 #3 pin wire lifted from Pin #3 to Mosfet and Channel 1 (A1)
auto tripped at 28 mV with no power trace centered on line shown.
The 24 V power connected now auto trips at 66mV count down from top of wave form ..... new trace centerline, up from scope photo #1 amplitude change +34 mV ..... new trace 0 point.
I also got the TDS 3054C from Lisa at Tektronix she made arrangements for me not just to have the oscilloscope for the weekend but for a entire week :o .... with all my gratitude for the loan and extended time from Tektronix. :) There is a difference between my 2445A and the TDS 3054C and today I'm just getting acquainted with the new features available this exceptional unit has, and will start actual testing tomorrow for both 10 ohm 100watt (standard store bought) and my prototype quantum replication load resistors
Glen ;D
Wouldn't it be funny if Lisa of Tektronix quit her job and by some miracle her emails were ignored and the office got caught up in some big diversions and only realize six months from now that they don't know where their older-generation DSO's went to? lol One can always dream.
A few hot tempers today. Rosie, I think there is some room for strong debating, after all we are all adults. Some people were hot under the collar across the Great Divide. So in the spirit of debate, Aaron's recent comment about "AC and "DC" capacitors is one of those drop-dead knockout comments. It's a startling moment where you do a double-take if you are a newcomer to the thread and you have a decent knowledge of electronics. It hits you. This guy ain't real.
Very briefly about Glen's waveforms, you can see when the gate pulse drops halfway on the only real sharp edge the coil-resistor does a discharge then the negative spike rounds the corner and it goes back into a holding pattern. At this point the MOSFET is partially conducting like a resistor and dissipating power and the coil-resistor still has some kick left in it. The the gate waveform continues dropping, and the coil-resistor does another discharge-relax cycle, but much more irregularly. On top of the whole thing you can clearly see a higher frequency sinusoidal oscillation, not sure where that is coming from. It looks like a small-signal feedback oscillator is happening being driven by the MOSFET. It is definitely not decaying, or at least you can't see if it is decaying in the time slice of the middle scope shot. Then there are a few outposts of a much higher frequency oscillation.
It's all very interesting - and yet at the same time from another point of view it is all very uninteresting. If you investigate the standard setup first - great. Then as opposed to dropping some components in and turning some trimpots and looking for unusual waveforms, what you really should be doing is a controlled increase in the 555 oscillation frequency. You play with RC time constants that get smaller and smaller where as you go up in frequency you make sure that the 555 keeps operating "normally." You wan to see a clean square wave start to make a transition to a sine wave, clean and stable. When it really starts to look like a sine wave you have gone too far. You back off on the frequency so that the waveform gets rounded falling and rising edges but still has short flat tops and bottoms. That's it, you have pushed the 555 as far as it can go and you make measurements here. Perhaps you make measurements at 60% of the "maximum" frequency and 20%, just to see if there is any interesting COP action going on.
I am going to assume that the MOSFET has more bandwidth than the 555, but I am too lazy to check. That means that whatever square or squarish waveform the 555 presents to the gate input, the MOSFET itself will not round that off and turn it into a sine wave itself as far as the coil-resistor goes.
The whole point being to push the 555 but not have it go nuts like people here seem to like to do. The reason for this is the following: There is arguably nothing to gain with a crazy waveform - no matter how crazy it is it is really just a series of sine waves at different frequencies all blended together. There is no needle in a haystack search for a "special" waveform that will give you COP > 1. With that in mind, why not just do an orderly increase of 555 gate excitation frequency until you reach the limit of the 555's ability? When you do this it's basically the frequency spectrum of a square wave with a fundamental frequency of "f" exciting the MOSFET. The higher the fundamental frequency of the square wave, the more the harmonics start to drop off and it starts to get rounded edges.
In other words, as you increase your square wave frequency, you have an idea of what the excitation looks like in the frequency spectrum, and that is interesting when you look at the response from the coil-resistor.
That's how I would do it. I would want to have control over the 555 no matter how fast it switches.
MileHigh
OK Glen.
That's good news about the scope ;)
Looking forward to your results.
.99
Quote from: MileHigh on October 02, 2009, 10:28:54 PM
A few hot tempers today. Rosie, I think there is some room for strong debating, after all we are all adults. Some people were hot under the collar across the Great Divide.
MileHigh
edit - Forget what I wanted to say here? Getting way too old.
Quote from: PaulLowrance on October 01, 2009, 01:48:50 PM
That link only took me to the homepage. I don't take sides, but it's a fact there are truckloads of fake claims over the years that only serve the purpose to distract people. So indeed, people should look for signs of sincerity in the claims before spending time replicating!!!
Here's all I have so far. 1) I can't find any verifiable info on anyone that's claiming success. 2) It appears you shot down the only legit way I see to test your claim-- measuring total heat production. Years working in antenna design & theory I would agree there would be no appreciable EM radiation emission from such wire wound resistive inductors given your circuit.
So if most of it's not IR, and not EM radiation, then how is one to collect this unknown energy? Something's missing here.
Regards,
Paul
Hi Paul. If I left this to Hoppy to answer you may be left with the wrong impression.
Here's the thing. 10 years ago the circuit was tested by some hefty authorities on measurement - all of which are listed in the Quantum article as accreditors. But the paper itself is riddled with error. The inductance or the gauge or the Ohms value of the resistor is clearly misrepresented. The Quantum article does not show a 'feedback' diode while the papers, submitted subsequently, do. There were no photographs taken of the experimental apparatus and nor were there representations of the waveforms across the shunt - nor some reference to a pdf of sorts showing the dump from the Fluke Scopemeter. Added to this is the fact that there are two references to the measuring equipment used, the one being a Fluke 123 and the other a Fluke 199C. The former is the correct reference. I'm not sure if the article refers to a 'patented' technology - but there is liberal reference to the existence of a 'patent' which in fact is also erroneous. A patent was never registered.
The excuse for all of the above was simply that I didn't know better. Which is no excuse at all. Truth is that after we published the Quantum article there was a flurry of media interest which led to an approach by the MTN Sciencentre to demonstrate the apparatus during an international conference being held there for physicists. No-one attended the demonstration. This was over a 5 or 7 day period - forget which. That's when I simply gave up and for the next 8 years or thereby I simply shelved the project as being a non-starter. My son then put my 'model' onto the internet - in that blogspot - and added the information that he had. I really assumed that the entire thing would now simply die but that it would be there for the record. Then - to cut a long story short - my children again bullied me to join a forum (The Naked Scientists) and thereafter I learned that the information had somehow also got onto this forum and energetic forum.
The 'sincerity' of the claim is only in the list of accreditors. But to compound the lack of good reporting - was the fact that none of them disclosed their reports to me. All they were prepared to accredit was the existence of anomalies and that they recommended and, in one instance, actively supported academic investigation into the claim.
Regarding correct test procedures - there is nothing wrong with your proposal to determine the heat that is dissipated around the circuit. But to determine the amount of energy required to dissipate that heat - or to determine the co-efficiency of performance - also requires a detailed measurement of the energy delivered by the power supply. For accuracy here it is necessary to access good measuring instruments. Hence our gratitude to Tektronix for making their own accessible. But replication has not, thus far, been successful. I am satisfied that it is some vagary associated with the resistor and hope that - as in the theme of 'The Medicine Man' this will eventually get exposed. I think that there is a unique property related to frequency and inductance on the resistor itself. In any event that's what is currently being considered and investigated.
Meanwhile to Aaron's credit - he has found a waveform at very low wattage - where there is an evidence of Over Unity - based on the fact that there is an apparent zero loss to the supply source. As this is in line with my model I find it intriguing. This test has been replicated with even more extraordinary evidence that the negative waveform appears to precede the positive - which is somewhat counter intuitive. This has been variously explained and dismissed. But my own opinion here is that it merits further investigation.
Which I think will give you a better overview of the situation. All attempts at replication would be welcome. It's a difficult circuit to analyse as there are so many variables related to the switching device, the resistors, and the frequencies. But if you're up for it - we would be glad. If you're not it would be understandable.
Poynt - please check your Skype messages
Hi Rosie,
Actually measuring the input power is easy. Just measure the *DC* current & voltage. It's a DC source, so one would measure the DC.
Are you able to replicate your own setup and get the same results that the output is greater than the input?
Paul
Hi Paul. Actually it's not quite that easy to caculate the output from the supply. The point is that some energy seems to be either stored or regenerated from the supply. You need a dc coupling to determine this - and at the frequencies required - and with the complexities of the waveform - it really needs to be fairly carefully established.
But Poynt has some pointers here. Perhaps he'll oblige and explain his system.
Do I take it you're up for testing? That would be just so nice. ;D
Hi MileHigh. I feel it's grossly inappropriate to indulge in shameless flirting through the aethernet. :o To which end I was obliged to withdraw some comments I made.
Rosie. :D
I can't comment on the rest of your post because - frankly - it's too highbrow for me. But I was largely encouraged by your recommendation that COP > 1 be explored. So nice MH. I'm almost inclined to think that you're keeping an open mind.
But it's Saturday Night and here I am - in front of the computer. Clearly I need to get a life. Perhaps you can give us a link to some decent entertainment MH. It would be much appreciated. In any event this thread is regressing into something way too earnest to be taken seriously. It needs some light relief.
Quote from: witsend on October 03, 2009, 04:11:22 PM
Do I take it you're up for testing? That would be just so nice.
Again, first I would need to know if you have replicated your own claim.
Paul
Sorry Paul. Yes indeed. We replicated the test over and over. All kinds of tests. All gave extraordinary COP results. I've now stopped all testing - mainly because my own representations here seemed to bear no fruit. I feel the whole exercise is better dealt with by open source. Not only the talent to do the required but also the interest.
The replications included the accreditations by those companies. They included BP, SASOL, ABB and Spescom - among others. It made no difference to the advancement of the knowledge.
Hi,
Just curious, am I missing something about measuring input power from the battery? According to conventional physics, the amount of power produced by the battery is the batteries _internal_ DC voltage * DC current.
The internal voltage is determined after the battery has been sitting unloaded for awhile. Measuring the DC current is done by means of a simple low pass filter.
But I'm sure you're more interested in ignoring internal battery losses. So simply measure the DC voltage across the battery, and the DC current, both with a low pass filter.
So that's the DC current flowing through the battery. That's how you obtain the input power, and it's extremely easy.
I'll see about replicating your claim after poynt99 replication results.
poynt99, how close are you to completing your replication?
Regards,
Paul
Actually, after thinking about it a few more seconds, why not use a good voltage source instead of a battery, such as a voltage regulator. That's a good fixed DC voltage, and then measuring the *DC* current gives the DC power.
BTW, the reason for using an oil bath is to know the total output from the load & the mosfet. One would time how long it takes to heat the insulated oil to a certain temperature.
Quote from: witsend on October 03, 2009, 04:48:09 PM
Sorry Paul. Yes indeed. We replicated the test over and over. All kinds of tests. All gave extraordinary COP results. I've now stopped all testing - mainly because my own representations here seemed to bear no fruit. I feel the whole exercise is better dealt with by open source. Not only the talent to do the required but also the interest.
The replications included the accreditations by those companies. They included BP, SASOL, ABB and Spescom - among others. It made no difference to the advancement of the knowledge.
Rosie,
Just to be certain, can you post a link to the exact circuit you used, that you successfully replicated?
Are there any *iffy* areas in the replication, such as hand made inductors, or do you have a part # for the inductive load?
Thanks,
Paul
Paul,
I'm finishing up the PCB right now. Need to mount a heat sink, then I can start testing.
.99
Guys - Sorry to get off topic but just for the record. TK aka Alsetalokin - has been banned from the Steorn forum and claims that this is the result of confronting McCarthy et al - with some difficult questions. He then rabbits on about the rights to freedom of speech and somewhat surprisingly and even amusingly, then claims that his own record in terms of compliance to thread protocols are unblemished. :o Extraordinary. ::)
I notice with regret that TK himself has banned aetherevarising. What price free speech? And what a hypocrite. Unless you're a fan - you will not be published there. He needs his audience biased. So. Unless you're clapping your hands - don't go there.
TK proved that Mylow was a fake, despite most people believing this was a working magnet motor.
This was the biggest story on this forum this year and the main thread had nearly 5000 posts.
TK did a great job of getting to the truth and we all now know Mylow was faking it.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?board=117.0
Steorn forum, there are even threads about this forum here, and a lot of people say it's not a good place to be at.
Anyway good to see Paul is back.
Let's hope you guys can get to the bottom of this mysterious circuit that is supposed to produce OU
cat
Edit from YouTube
me
Missing you at OU.com
great work geting to the truth as always
TK
Thanks for the positive comment.
Well, I think I made a few friends there, and some enemies, but the friends are much more important to me. But I have found that the actual work I accomplish is in inverse proportion to the time I spent on that forum. The Ainslie affair kind of burned me out, tttt, coming so soon after the Mylow fiasco.
And I admit it, I'm starting to lose whatever tolerance I once may have had for the personality problems that tend to arise.
Rosie,
Your are good at avoiding simply questions. Yet one more time, do you provide part numbers to all components to replicate your claim?
Paul
Quote from: witsend on October 04, 2009, 01:49:15 AM
TK aka Alsetalokin - has been banned from the Steorn forum and claims that this is the result of confronting McCarthy
In Alsetalokin's dreams. I challenged Al to exchange his fake machine with my diode array, he agreed, but he refused to finalize the deal by stating his machine will run as described. Alsetalokin is one who spends time trying to distract legitimate researchers.
And I now suspect the claim made in this thread is the same. Notice how Rosie has asked me numerous times to make her device. It's as if these people get compensated for the number of people that replicate the fake.I'll wait and see poynt99 results before wasting further time on this claim, which I am now over 99% certain is a fake.Paul
Golly PaulLowrance. Duress? And so early into the exercise? I'm sensing a certain antipathy. ::)
Let me attend to your clamorous demands here. I have explained that the parts are all evident in the circuit published by Aaron. But there's another circuit going and I don't have the skills to tell you which is the current preferred or where it differs from my own variously published and unpublished circuitry. I understand that most variations are to do with the components in the switch. I've gone to some considerable lengths to explain the downside of any replication attempts. And I'd strongly advise you to wait for Poynt's results. In fact wait long after that as well. Replication has finally been achieved by Fuzzy. But more to come. We've got a small 'hold up' on the 'negative to positive' number that should be more fully reported on during the coming week. Certainly I hope so.
And regarding your suspicions that the claim is simply to distract from legitimate researchers - it's your right to suppose anything you wish. Freedom of thought can never be prescribed. I wish I had the wherewithall to refund those who manage a replication. But if I did I'd be even more impoverished than I am. So. No. I don't compensate.
How interesting is this? It's a long time since I met a troll 'face to face' so to speak. Usually one or other of us are talking across an unbreachable chasm.
Hi Cat. I know I'm treading on toes when I refer to TK. He possibly did good with Mylow. But I'm beginning to suspect that he withdrew from this thread because he had - indeed - seen the gains that he was denying. And I am NOT MYLOW.
Frankly I'm not sure that he managed the damage on my claim that he clearly intended. And - in a strange way - it taught me that the contributors on these forums are actually more discerning than our academia. None of them picked up on the errors. So. It's a tribute to the talents here. Or to be more precise - a tribute to TK's talents. But errors are errors. They are not necessarily attempts at factual distortion. I hope - by now - my credentials in this regard are accepted. If not - then they never will be.
I just wish someone would post some music. This is getting really sad.
I don't know how many ways I can ask this. Can you please be specific and clear:
Can you provide a circuit that contains either *all* of the exact part #'s, or the exact method of making such parts? You say you can replicate it, and get success. Why not tell us the *exact* details to accomplish your claim so we can get on with it? I will not and should not start until you can be clear.
After looking at the circuits that claim successes, which so far is only Ainslie's, I do *not* see sufficient information to replicate it. There's to much gray area, and this almost always leads to a lot of wasted time.
Thanks!
Paul
Quote from: PaulLowrance on October 04, 2009, 09:55:34 AM
And I now suspect the claim made in this thread is the same. Notice how Rosie has asked me numerous times to make her device. It's as if these people get compensated for the number of people that replicate the fake.
I'll wait and see poynt99 results before wasting further time on this claim, which I am now over 99% certain is a fake.
Paul
Paul,
Regardless of the outcome of my results (which are on their way), I would not categorize Rose's claims as fake. "Fake" implies intent, and I am 100% certain that this is not and never was Rose's intent.
Her claim of COP>17 is based on measured and calculated results, not on fakery. The most unfortunate part is that none of the results or original test components are available for further 3rd party verification.
So here we stand...
.99
Paul - to answer your private message - I have no interest in proving to you whether or not I am who I say I am. Certainly I will not do a pay pal exchange. And I think it's a matter of extreme irrelevance as to whether I am female or male.
And no I cannot answer your previous post beyond what I've already said. But feel free to keep asking if it helps you at all. I'm sure the contributors here rather expect this thread to regress rather than otherwise.
Quote from: witsend on October 04, 2009, 12:18:52 PM
Hi Cat. I know I'm treading on toes when I refer to TK. He possibly did good with Mylow. But I'm beginning to suspect that he withdrew from this thread because he had - indeed - seen the gains that he was denying. And I am NOT MYLOW.
Frankly I'm not sure that he managed the damage on my claim that he clearly intended. And - in a strange way - it taught me that the contributors on these forums are actually more discerning than our academia. None of them picked up on the errors. So. It's a tribute to the talents here. Or to be more precise - a tribute to TK's talents. But errors are errors. They are not necessarily attempts at factual distortion. I hope - by now - my credentials in this regard are accepted. If not - then they never will be.
I just wish someone would post some music. This is getting really sad.
Hi Rosie
I don't think anyone should doubts your credentials the circuit is where the problem lies.
As you seem unable to provide anyone with an actual working circuit I think this problem will continue.
We are all hoping that .99 will be successful.
I was going to post "always look on the Bright side of life" too obvious
so now something comple different
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVOdX8ZzYuU
cat
Hi All,
The First testing results on the Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Heater Circuit http://www.energeticforum.com/67700-post2625.html on the Quantum October 2002 article http://www.feelthevibe.com/free_energy/rosemary_ainslie/transient_energy.pdf using the Tektronix TDS 3054C on loan from the Tektronix Corporation is available.
This test is using store bought "off the shelf items" for these results -
http://www.energeticforum.com/69858-post2878.html
Further testing to follow with my prototype "Borosilicate Glass Tube" ( Pyrex ) 10 Ohm wire wound Quantum "load" resister http://www.energeticforum.com/68032-post2684.html .... and further testing after that ....
Fuzzy ;D
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT-
Additional Information on timing of the Mosfet "Source - Drain - 555 timer"
NOTICE THE 220 VOLT SPIKE ON THE MOSFET DRAIN !!!
http://www.energeticforum.com/69850-post2875.html
"Shunt Resistor" Dale RS-2B .25 ohm 3 watt 3 %
http://www.diyparadiso.com/componenten%20passief/dale%20rs5.pdf
Cat That was really cute. Thanks. How do you guys find these things? I'm going to have to try and develop my skills on the search engine. Definitely a lack of talent.
Thanks Fuzzy.
What's the plan to analyse the data? Is the MOSFET power significant that it needs to be subtracted out? A control test with the same load for comparison?
.99
FUZZY - THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE MOST ASTONISHINGLY EXCELLENT DATA CAPTURE. It's going to be difficult to improve on that one.
As far as I'm concerned you are quite simply the ace arch experimentalist anywhere. And gratitude abounds. Definitely the coolest cat on the block.
Cant wait for the follow up. This is just so much fun.
From the heart - Fuzzy - truly the very very best. You know more than most just why it really, really mattered. And you definitely went that extra mile. :-* My very favourite kitty cat.
Wow FUZZY top cat
very impressive that sure is thorough testing.
From what I could make your results it didn't look like you had OU
cat
Quote from: powercat on October 04, 2009, 02:08:05 PM
Wow FUZZY top cat
very impressive that sure is thorough testing.
From what I could make your results it didn't look like you had OU
cat
Just quick reply here. You're right Cat. He didn't have OU. But he's definitely got COP > something to be determined with detailed analysis. That's a really good thing.
Quote from: poynt99 on October 04, 2009, 01:30:50 PM
Thanks Fuzzy.
What's the plan to analyse the data? Is the MOSFET power significant that it needs to be subtracted out? A control test with the same load for comparison?
.99
Hi .99
Right now I'm in testing mode to get as much data as possible .... if data is missing or needed I'm leaving it up to other members to comment on if its reasonable request it will be done in time. Possibly ... some members at Energetic or OverUnity can crunch some data until testing is completed and I have some time prior to returning the TDS 3054C on loan to me from Lisa at Tektronix Corporation.
I hope you may have seen the earlyer postiing of the Mosfet timing of the source - drain - 555 timing for comparison "with" the great
220 volt spike from the Mosfet drain ..... and also the 555 duty cycle - frequency
http://www.energeticforum.com/69850-post2875.html
Fuzzy ;D
Glen:
Congratulations! You did a great job with your setup and your data logging. Thanks for hanging the big resistor in mid air, now I can say that I helped contribute something and I am not a troll. lol
I just spent the past 1 1/2 hours contemplating the waveforms for the switch-off ringdown. Thank's to Harvey for asking for this. Those are the most interesting waveforms seen so far in this experiment.
I think that I figured it out, I will probably make a posting later today. The explanation that I worked out in my poor taxed brain is not trivial.
Rosemary:
Keep hoping for that COP! My eighth impression is that everything looks normal. In other words, it was startling to see the big reverse current spike lined up with the big positive voltage spike in Glen's waveforms, it looks like that should not be happening. So I had to iterate over and over in my head to finally figure it out. That's all part of the fun!
Paul:
I ask you to contemplate the oil bath method some more. Have you ever actually done it? I can see oodles of issues that would turn anyone into a frustrated oily mess trying to pull it off. Did you see Glen's amazing hanging "gallows" coil-resistor setup? KISS!
MileHigh
Well, about Glen's first waveform posting:
http://www.energeticforum.com/69850-post2875.html
I read Harvey's explanation, and I think that he is more or less on the right track at the beginning, but then I loose him in his last five or six sentences. I can't quite understand what he is saying, so I can't say I necessarily agree or disagree with him.
Let me just share my thoughts, I am reasonably confident I am on track.
In the second scope capture, you can clearly see a more or less exponential decay envelope for the switch-off. Just ignore all the ringing for a second and you can clearly see it. The coil is nearly fully charged after four microseconds, it's a dumb resistor for two microseconds, and then it has a wild-ride discharge over the next four microseconds. Note that you can see the little positive and negative "dv/dt" glitches, which are due to the gate-souce capacitance transferring small current spikes through the SHUNT resistor when the 555 signal switches.
By seeing these current spikes I can make an inference about the affect the gate resistor had on the 555 output rise-time. It looks like it has essentially no affect on the 555 signal (or you could say that it did it's job and preserved the integrity of the 555 signal) such that the MOSFET gate input saw a nice clean square wave.
If what I said above is true than you can see that the MOSFET has about a one microsecond delay before it really starts to switch off. I am not up on my MOSFET timing stats, but I am surprised a bit, it sounds really slow to me, with the caveat that I am not familiar with typical MOSFET switch-off times in general. I can say that gate-level logic nowadays has switching delay times on the order of a few nanoseconds or less! (I think! lol)
So the "big picture" is as follows: When the MOSFET switches off the coil-resistor smacks the MOSFET, and then the MOSFET source-drain and related stray capacitance forms an LC tank circuit with the coil where the initial conditions find the total capacitance charged to a very high voltage. It is very important to state that the "ground" for this LC tank circuit is the MOSFET source pin, and not the battery ground. This rings down right through the MOSFET in both directions. In the counterclockwise direction (initial conditions) the body diode of the MOSFET conducts. In the clockwise direction, it is the really slow switch-off time of the body diode that acts more or less like an ordinary resistance.
The ringdown is happening too fast for the body diode to shut off after the counterclockwise current has stopped and the current goes to reverse direction. So the clockwise current just plows through the body diode in a "reverse-biased" sense, the body diode simply being too slow on the draw.
What does this all mean: It means the MOSFET does actually switch off, but then gets shaken like a rag doll by the LC tank circuit that is initially charged to about 230 volts. The LC tank circuit (a.k.a. LC resonator (Hey! I said "resonance!" lol)) simply plows through the MOSFET, and the MOSFET is unable to effectively switch off. The ringdown is not pretty in this case, because depending on which direction the current is flowing in, that determines which one of two nonlinear loads is acting as a resistive element dissipating energy.
Another way of putting it is that after the initial shut off of current done buy the MOSFET, it is all body diode action after this. The body diode alternates between being forward-biased and conductng, and being reverse-biased and failing to not conduct, letting the current pass through it in the "wrong" direction.
How about them apples! We just did some MOSFET switching transient analysis! I could be wrong or missing something here, but that is what I think we are seeing.
This posting was not about investigating the COP claim, just understanding what is going on during the wild-ride ringdown. However, it clearly explains what the source is for the big negaitve (a.k.a. counterclockwise) current spike that we are seeing across the current sensing resistor.
The source is... the battery bone connects to the coil bone, and then the coil bone connects to the drain-source capacitance bone. The battery bone is the souce for the big negative current spike.
MileHigh
Glen,
Just playin' around a bit. I wanted to see if I could replicate your first group of scope shots (post #EF2875) with the 37kHz, 22% duty cycle drive. Think I got pretty close.
;)
.99
Nice analysis MH.
;)
.99
Poynt and Glen:
It is highly significant that your two sample waveforms are nearly identical. Glen is using a breadboard and Poynt is using the Groundloop PCB. The fact that your two sets of data are a very close match, and from an engineering perspective are essentially identical, merits a flood of positive emoticons and beer mugs clicking and all that good stuff. Let the bells ring!
It's actually pretty amazing that your waveforms match and you have different layouts. You are in a position to replicate each other's data if you choose to. It's.... un-beelleeebbibble... I am choked up! lol
Glen you get a gross of Brownie Points for doing a clean build that looks as good as a real PCB.
MileHigh
The test setup.
I will be getting a power supply tomorrow that will allow me to test with 24V.
.99
Poynt:
Thank ya v'ry much.
Glen:
Let me try to help you and others with the thermal analysis. In looking at your data, you could see that the temp was nearly always about the same. Let me explain the nuts and bolts of it and give you some suggestions.
Firstly, let's just eyeball your load resistor and make a guesstimate as to how long it would take the temperature to stabilize. Just from real life experience, a life of experiencing hot coffee cups and turkeys and pots on the stove, and looking at the material it is made of, it's shape, and how it is designed to conduct heat away from itself by being vertically oriented, I will guess that it would take about 10 minutes for the temperature to stabilize.
Going back to your posting on EF, #2875, you see the increasing exponential waveform for the blue Channel 1 trace? That's a standard exponential curve. The temperature of the resistor follows that same curve, but just stretched out over about 10 minutes (we guess).
So the trick is to know how long it takes for the temperature to stabilize. More precisely, we make a compromise and say when it is at 99% of it's maximum temperature because the last 1% takes a very long time.
Do you have a variable power supply? I hope so. You make a precise measurement of the load resistor with your best multimeter, and then connect it across the variable power supply and dial the voltage so that it dissipates say, 30 watts. The wattage does not matter at all, but 30 watts sounds good. Measure the temp of the body of the resistor in the center of the shaft and always measure in the same place. You don't need to look for the hottest spot on the resistor, just use the same spot. You make an initial temp measurement on the center of the body of the resistor before you apply the power. This is your true "ambient" temperature. All of the temperature increases are relative to this temperature. Recording the room ambient temperature would not hurt also, but the true reference temperature is on the body of the resistor before any power is applied.
Then apply the 30 watts of power and note the temperature every minute or so. You only objective is to get a handle on when you are at 99% of the max temp. Here is a scenario: You apply the power and see it start leveling off after around 8 minutes. At 9 minutes you are at 130 F. At 10 minutes you are at 130.3 F. At 25 minutes you are at 131 F. So you look at that and decide that after 9 minutes you are close enough to the final temperature to use that data.
So, now that you are armed with this information, for the rest of your testing, all that you have to do is two things to be in good stead, 1) record the resistor body "ambient" temperature, and 2) just wait 9 minutes and record your final temperature and you are done and can move on!
The big caveat that is easy to abide by is that all of this is based on keeping the resistor suspended in air, you can't change your setup.
Now it is easy to do the thermal profiling. Aaron did his as temperature vs. DC voltage, and you could see a slight curve in his trend line which makes sense because power is proportional to the square of the voltage. Personally, I would do a temperature vs. power graph, and it looks like it should be a nearly straight line.
So, knowing your precise resistance of your inductive resistor, you can easily calculate what the precise power supply voltage should be for 10 watts, 20 watts, 30 watts, etc. Every time you change the power supply voltage, you know that you only have to wait 9 minutes to get a very accurate final temperature. If my guesstimate of 9 minutes is right, then in a few hours you will have a deadly accurate thermal power dissipation profile graph for the rest of the testing. Every time you try a new waveform to heat up the load resistor, just wait 9 minutes and get the final temp to get the thermal power dissipation. In the mean time you could be dumping your DSO waveforms into your spreadsheet and crunching the power levels there also.
Once you have that "delta temperature relative to initial body temperature" vs. power dissipation graph loaded into Excel and then printed out on a paper for you, you would be able to go gangbusters. You don't always have to record the initial resistor body temperature for the start of each experiment, you could simply record it at the start and then use that as the reference point for a series of runs, one after the other. The assumption is that you have normal air circulation in the room where you are doing your testing so the ambient temperature of the air in the room itself is not going to be affected by your presence (60 watts) and the lighting and the action that you have going on with the coil resistor.
If you became a well oiled machine, you could start a test and then get the waveform dump during the 9 minutes that you are waiting for the temperature to stabilize. Once you get the data, start another test right away, change the waveform, supply voltage, whatever you want to do and fire it up and wait 9 minutes again and record the temp.
Now to relax a bit, in the real world you should be able to make two or three measurements per hour where you can crank out a real-world COP measurement, the real thing. The key is to have your temperature vs. power graph first, and then you can go completely crazy.
MileHigh
Just a few more comments for the sake of completeness.
I am also assuming that the weather is stable while the testing is done, no big warm or cold fronts changing the air temperature too much.
Also, the Holy Grail is the suspended load resistor and the ambient air currents around the load resistor. You want these to always be nominal and normal. That means you can't decide to switch on a fan by your bench because you are getting hot, etc.
The thermal resistance is modeled by the load resistor floating in a sea of air that is slowly sauntering by with a certain average velocity. This velocity should stay the same because it directly affects the "heat peel" off of the body of the resistor. Changing the "heat peel" changes the effective thermal resistance to the outside world. You don't want the thermal resistance to change at all. This might affect the final temp by plus or minus a few degrees.
A more drastic and obvious change would be to block the lower opening of the "smokestack" preventing air funneling up and through the resistor tube. This would change the effective thermal resistance drastically and the final temp would probably be 20 or more degrees higher as compared to the standard setup.
This may all sound like I am splitting hairs, but it should in fact be easy to keep the ambient conditions very stable for everybody. The important thing is to be aware of the issues.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on October 04, 2009, 02:28:47 PM
Rosemary:
Keep hoping for that COP! My eighth impression is that everything looks normal. In other words, it was startling to see the big reverse current spike lined up with the big positive voltage spike in Glen's waveforms, it looks like that should not be happening. So I had to iterate over and over in my head to finally figure it out. That's all part of the fun!
MileHigh
Hello MileHigh. ;D 5 almost consecutive posts and climbing? :) There are those of us on both sides of this aetheric pond who speculated that you'd be turned on by that resistor arrangement. ::) :o Personally I was only disappointed in one relatively small aspect of your reaction.
Rosie ;D
EDIT BTW I read through your advice to Fuzzy on thermal analysis. I think Fuzzy is looking to the battery draw down rate as part of the required analysis.
Hi Poynt. Neat photo - neat set up. And well done for that waveform replication. I forgot you also use Tektronix. For a while there I thought I was just looking at a repost of Fuzzy's waveform. Well done. Clearly there's not much you can't do with that programme.
Anyway. I'll leave you to deal with the double negative. Just know I'm getting an increasing respect for your skills here.
Hi Rosemary:
It was fun looking at the waveforms and revisiting the thermal analysis.
Just to be a nerd and comment on the DSO dumps: You can't forget to do the two probe compensation steps first before you record. For the DSO waveform dumps you could copy that into the "raw data dump" tab in your spreadsheet. Then on another tab on your spreadsheet you could make a generic 5000 row number cruncher. All that you would have to do is copy/paste a range of data that represents one or two or more complete cycles of the 555 timer period. This just requires attention be paid to the waveform on the display and it's period and relating that back to your raw data dump to copy/paste 'N' complete cycles.
One cell would hold the precise measurement for the shunt resistor value. The output from the spreadsheet would be the average battery power being consumed by the circuit. Then compare that to the thermal power and calculate the COP. YOU only need basic spreadsheet skills to do this.
I probably missed some other stuff along the way. Also, by the way I was watching a few more Marko Rodin clips. Not looking good at all. He and Jamie do some clips that are feigning creating a magnetic monopole with a Rodin coil and a drill bit using a North/South hand-held indicator gizmo as "proof." This is not true and it has been rebutted in the comments everywhere, yet Jamie's and Marko's clips remain up. Marko says he needs funds to do his own "open-ended" research without being answerable to anybody. I am not aware of his "mathematics" solving any existing mathematical problems that are either in the "Top 10" list or still remain unsolved. Marko says he needs money to "build a space ship" and in a daring moment of sheer balsyness says, "I can make a black hole."
Translation: He is looking for a meal ticket now that he has built up an "aura" about himself and is a lot older, and he got lucky and stumbled upon Jamie. He wants to milk his schtick and make a career out of the "Rodin coil fantasy." A "Bearden" in the making.
Poor Jamie knows next to nothing about electronics and physics but he is smelling something green himself.
What a downer, eh! lol
Oh yeah, personally if i was doing the testing I would put off any battery rundown testing until after Glen's DSO was returned. As I said before, to do run-down testing properly would be real work. Measuring voltages only is simply wrong, it's nonsense data.
MileHigh
Hello MileHigh - I see you're regressing into a MilesMoreObjectionableThanYouEverThoughtPossible. ;D The truth is probably that you're trying to pretend that you're not still over the moon with that resistor arrangement. So. I'll indulge you. :-*
I'm still waiting to hear from Fuzzy or someone on how to do the data dump from the available on Fuzzy's number. Hopefully I'll hear this from Harvey.
Regarding Marko Rodin. I'm satisfied he's definitely discovered a number sequence. Personally I'm not that interested. But I'm hooked on his friend - Jamie Buturff. I keep trying to find an email address that may actually reach him. Many, many such have been sent out. But I've not yet struck gold. Can you help here? You've got certain skills on the search engine? And I'll ignore your criticisms about him. He's OK in my book.
That 'hole' is very possibly a monopole. I would not expect it to interest you. It's way too promising and definitely only catnip to us 'free energy' eccentrics.
Oh MileHigh. So glad you're not your common run of the mill typical troll. You just mess with the mood - not the mind. And I've been awake for a few hours now - so I can take it on the chin. Still your biggest fan.
With love from
Rosie ;D
I WISH STEFAN WOULD GIVE US MORE EMOTICONS!!!!!
MileHigh - I really need to answer your post in more detail - lest everyone gets the wrong impression here.
I think that - in truth - you're simply a frustrated teacher. You don't think you perhaps missed your vocation? Regarding the data dump number and analysis. We're all pretty good at this. Surprisingly. There's not much I can't do with data provided I've got a calculator. Without it I can do nothing. And exel is simply a really fine calculator. But thank you anyway for the 'step by step'.
Regarding Fuzzy's tests and data and general approach to testing - you really need to take stock here. You're sitting in the relative comfort of your armchair liberally bestowing your unwanted advice to all and sundry. What you're not doing is getting familiar with the hands on requirements of complex data capture - careful observation of results - careful recording of such - and the final disciplines required to relay the facts without any interpretive distortion. That, in my book, is the perfect experimentalist. But notwithstanding the arduous and taxing exactitudes required to do this properly - is the compounded stress of having to master and use a complex instrument to best advantage in as short a space of time as is humanly possible. Fortunately Fuzzy is no intellectual lightweight and is well equal to the task. But if I were him I'd be more than a little irritated at having to comply to your requirements and unsolicited advices when his primary object here is to master all aspects of this as quickly as possible while applying his own criteria to determine his own questions rather than yours. And while I get it that you are compulsively unable to withhold this flow of guidance - perhaps, for a week, you could just hold back and 'watch the lights' as you keep promising to do but never seem to quite manage.
I have not discussed this - and I apologise to Fuzzy if I've got this wrong. Perhaps I'm overly concermed and where no harm was intended - none was felt. But if I were to put myself in his shoes I would probably want to bite you. Comment on the data. Analyse the waveforms. Draw conclusions. All such welcome. Just don't try and control the testing as well, unless you first want to set us an example as to how this is done. We've got Harvey to guide us. It's all we need.
When it comes to a discussion of Marko Rodin or Jamie Buturff - that's different. I personally think they're both really brave. The more so as your reaction to their intersts and findings is typical of mainstream and mainstream are still the majorty. Which puts them in a minorty against the masses. That's usually where the winds of change start blowing. Anyway - that's my tuppence worth. I don't expect too much will come from this post but I can, at least, try.
Rosie ;D
(edit: Included my signature which I nearly overlooked - God forbid)
I'm a big believer in "free energy" research, but IMO the "Rosemary Ainslie" case is a fake. Contact me for details.
Hi All,
The second testing results on the Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Heater Circuit http://www.energeticforum.com/67700-post2625.html on the Quantum October 2002 article http://www.feelthevibe.com/free_energy/rosemary_ainslie/transient_energy.pdf using the Tektronix TDS 3054C on loan from the Tektronix Corporation is available.
http://www.energeticforum.com/69966-post2890.html
This test is using my prototype "Borosilicate Glass Tube" ( Pyrex ) 10 Ohm wire wound Quantum "load" resister http://www.energeticforum.com/68032-post2684.html
Additional oscilloscope images and .CSV (spread sheet) data information on timing of the Mosfet "Source - Drain" 555 timer and 24 volt battery bank, showing a 360 Volt spike during circuit operation is also included
Fuzzy ;D
@ .99
Great work !!! .... you were able to reproduce the wave form on the first test of the Tektronix TDS 3054C I did this is a good day for all replicators because it can be done
@ MileHigh
Thanks for the kind words and encouragement on the project .... it may be baby steps but we are getting somewhere on a real circuit replication with results that weren't expected. Your idea on hanging the "load resister" for temperature measurements worked for ball park figures, now its how to get a real COP value if one is obtainable. I'm sure it is with more testing and tweaking the circuit some more after looking at the data I have now posted we'll just have to see.
@ Paul
It tough going into the movie all the time for the last 15 minutes to see the "ending" plus the "credits" and then form a opinion .... I haven't seen any replication data from you ...... where's your photos ?? Data Sheets ?? Do you have anything to share with us actual replicators on your findings of your replication ??
I've posted testing results seven times now ...... I cant seem to find yours, where are they ???
Fuzzy ;D
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on October 05, 2009, 02:08:16 PM
I haven't seen any replication data from you ...... where's your photos ?? Data Sheets ?? Do you have anything to share with us actual replicators on your findings of your replication ??
Why people & Rosie keep asking to replicate this when you know I've asked Rosie countless times to simply describe fine details how to make the components that don't have part #'s?
I already said if she can be clear, then I'll spend my time replicating it. I gave Mylow same chance, but he too was dodgy. Same thing here. I will not support the destruction of "free energy" community. People should know by now people are trying to destroy this community. Gee, go figure, why would any wealthy group want to prevent/stall global free energy. I told everyone this years ago.
Paul
Quote from: PaulLowrance on October 05, 2009, 02:44:10 PM
Why people & Rosie keep asking to replicate this when you know I've asked Rosie countless times to simply describe fine details how to make the components that don't have part #'s?
I already said if she can be clear, then I'll spend my time replicating it. I gave Mylow same chance, but he too was dodgy. Same thing here. I will not support the destruction of "free energy" community. People should know by now people are trying to destroy this community. Gee, go figure, why would any wealthy group want to prevent/stall global free energy. I told everyone this years ago.
Paul
Paul - what's the matter with you? If you had MH's abilities we could at least laugh. But your posts are boring, repetitiive, pedantic and dull witted. A troll with no teeth. Nothing sadder. ??? :o
Quote from: PaulLowrance on October 05, 2009, 02:44:10 PM
Why people & Rosie keep asking to replicate this when you know I've asked Rosie countless times to simply describe fine details how to make the components that don't have part #'s?
I already said if she can be clear, then I'll spend my time replicating it. I gave Mylow same chance, but he too was dodgy. Same thing here. I will not support the destruction of "free energy" community. People should know by now people are trying to destroy this community. Gee, go figure, why would any wealthy group want to prevent/stall global free energy. I told everyone this years ago.
Paul
Hi Fuzzy. Golly. :o
I've been rolling. Clearly our kitty has claws. And so little said???? That's true eloquence. ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: witsend on October 05, 2009, 02:58:54 PM
Paul - what's the matter with you? If you had MH's abilities we could at least laugh. But your posts are boring, repetitiive, pedantic and dull witted. A troll with no teeth. Nothing sadder. ??? :o
Rosemary:
In my opinion the most significant thing that happened recently is that I reverse engineered the ringdown and explained the current spike back to the battery, and .99 indicated that he agrees with the analysis. If Aaron had only generated that data 2 1/2 months ago.
That is giving you and others insight into all of the oscillation effects that you are observing. It is the kernel of knowledge that gives you a clue to all of the energy returned to the battery with all of the random or repetitive waveforms we have seen. I don't expect it to be acknowledged on the other side though by the big cheese himself or any cheesettes. Harvey might.
Just the fact that Marko and Jamie will leave up their clips where they feign creating a magnetic monopole stinks. I just can't understand the selective nature of the "believers." For me they are nothing more than sleazy carneys running a ring-toss concession. The stupid coil does nothing that I am aware of. The "look it can act as a speaker" trick is laughable nonsense. Nothing will ever come out of this except one or two people will be able to eak out a living in the free energy cottage industry like barnacles casting their money nets into the stream filled with "believer fishies" carrying dollar bills. It's that bad and I won't say any more about those scammers.
Please back off on the "Deanna Troi" daily barometer readings directed at me and then at yourself. Just be cool.
The believer gang on EF love to hurl insults at myself and .99 and others. Have you noticed? It's pure cognitive dissonance in action. We are so stupid that we get everything wrong and we are too stupid to even understand how a flashlight works. We are "slow thinkers" that can't understand harnessing back-EMF. Did you see all that? What a joke. Nobody is without sin, but in my case I try to be selective and only do it to call out the sheer utter nonsense coming from the mouths of people that are positioning themselves as some kind of authority figures. In other words, I don't initiate it gratuitously, I only fire when the target presents itself. Call me an entartiste. On your side I fully understand that you are in a delicate position.
Glen:
You are welcome. I am going to pose some "solid" questions your way: What is your next step? What about those two data logs that you did with the various temperature readings and battery voltages and all that stuff, what is supposed to be done with that data? What do you have to say about it yourself?
Do you know what to do with the DSO to give you your power readings? If not do you want some advice on that? I am being PC since I got spanked by Rosemary and so I am asking you first.
MileHigh
MH,
I agree with some of your analysis, however I have another explanation for the negative spike, post Gate-OFF.
First off, I did not read Harvey's post, but after you mentioned it, I took a look. He's not even close to the mark with his induction theory. In fact he mentions then all together dismisses the correct answer.
Here's what's causing that negative pulse on the shunt that is coincident with the positive inductive spike on the Drain:
When the MOSFET finally does switch OFF (it is a slow one indeed), the Drain voltage spikes positive relative to ground, but the inductor energizing current not only begins decreasing, it eventually passes through 0 Amps and begins increasing in the negative or opposite direction. It is this current inversion in concert with the positive voltage spike that creates this negative spike, and all the subsequent negative excursions on the shunt during ringdown.
I am confident this can be experimentally verified with the present setup.
.99
Hey Poynt,
You had me thinking there again, and there is a funny tag line that somebody has, "I'll see your theory, and raise you mine!" lol
For starters, I agree with you about Harvey's induction theory being wrong. Any induction would me minuscule relative to the LC shakedown. After that I was lost. I just didn't go into details.
Now for the breakdown. Joit, Aaron, Jibbguy pay attention! lol
Let's reference the third plot in Glen's posting:
http://www.energeticforum.com/69850-post2875.html
Also, to discuss the action in the upper-right quadrant of the graph, let's say T=0 ten small divisions to the right of the center line. This means the main spike centers on T=5.2. Everybody get that?
At T=4.5 the MOSFET has switched off, the current is zero. So why does the current keep shooting down after T=4.5, which of course means that it just changed direction.
A very significant and subtle thing happens at T=4.5. Let's put aside the reversing current and the apparent continuity in the current waveform through the reversal for a second.
The significant thing that happens is that the MOSFET has switched off, which implies that the coil has switched off, but the voltage at the drain keeps increasing. The only explanation for this is that the current in the coil has not yet switched off completely and is continuing to charge the stray capacitance right up until T=5.2.
So we are in a strange state where the inductor has finally discharged fully into the stray capacitance. The discharge for the coil goes through two phases, the first phase is when the coil burns through the switching-off MOSFET. Then the MOSFET "disappears" because it is fully switched off, and the second phase of the discharge is the coil charging up the stray capacitance.
There is "smoking gun" proof of this. The first part of the drain waveform (light blue trace) is more or less exponential in form as the coil discharges through the MOSFET. (This waveform is actually quite complicated. It is the intersection of the coil discharging with the MOSFET absolute resistance increasing as it switches off.) The second part of the waveform after T=4.5 is sinusoidal. The MOSFET is gone and you switch over to a sinusoidal waveform as the coil charges the stray capacitance. Just have a look at some of Glen's later waveforms and you can see it as clear as a bell. (First plot in post #2893.)
It's all quite unusual, the coil is only fully switched off at T=5.2. This is the point when there is no current flowing through the coil, and there is no voltage drop across the coil. So both sides of the coil are at 230 volts, the same voltage as the stray capacitance between the source pin (the "ground") and the drain pin.
And the problem is if there is no current flowing through the coil, and yet we are at maximum reverse current through the body diode. How do you explain this?
That's it for now, too late to continue.
MileHigh
P.S.: Now I have switched over to the fisrt graph in Glen's posting #2893. it shows a discontinuity in the current waveform that wasn't apparent in the other graph. I am seeing more now and am still in contemplation. The big revelation is that it is only a half sine wave after the MOSFET switches off.
I am now shaky for explaining the exact mechanism for the reverse current but the wheels are turning. More tomorrow.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on October 06, 2009, 02:05:43 AM
P.S.: Now I have switched over to the fisrt graph in Glen's posting #2893. it shows a discontinuity in the current waveform that wasn't apparent in the other graph. I am seeing more now and am still in contemplation. The big revelation is that it is only a half sine wave after the MOSFET switches off.
I am now shaky for explaining the exact mechanism for the reverse current but the wheels are turning. More tomorrow.
MileHigh
Can't wait. I'm happy with all these questions. More later.
Hi MileHigh. I take it that my little lapse into lecture mode did not wash that well. I tend to excess. It's my only fault. :D
I'm looking forward to giving my own interpretation of the waveform. Diametrically opposed to mainstream. But I'll wait and see if Fuzzy or someone ever manages a clear gain in COP.
Regarding the invincible trio of Rodin, Buturff and Harieman - we've now got Buturff as a fully qualified member at the forum. Am hoping for answers to many, many questions.
ROSIE ? ;D
edit. You play bridge? What convention?
Quote from: poynt99 on October 05, 2009, 10:46:53 PM
MH,
I agree with some of your analysis, however I have another explanation for the negative spike, post Gate-OFF.
First off, I did not read Harvey's post, but after you mentioned it, I took a look. He's not even close to the mark with his induction theory. In fact he mentions then all together dismisses the correct answer.
Here's what's causing that negative pulse on the shunt that is coincident with the positive inductive spike on the Drain:
When the MOSFET finally does switch OFF (it is a slow one indeed), the Drain voltage spikes positive relative to ground, but the inductor energizing current not only begins decreasing, it eventually passes through 0 Amps and begins increasing in the negative or opposite direction. It is this current inversion in concert with the positive voltage spike that creates this negative spike, and all the subsequent negative excursions on the shunt during ringdown.
I am confident this can be experimentally verified with the present setup.
.99
Poynt99
IMO this is the correct explanation. The discharge from the inductive element of the load is a reverse current through the mosfet body diode and shunt. We see a rise in drain potential coupled with a negative going current. As MH says, there should be an instant of time where a potential difference does not exist across the load at the point immediately prior to the inductor discharging in the opposite direction to which it was charged. If a 'freewheel' diode were to placed across the load then the inductor discharge would be in the same direction as the direction of its charging current and no negative excursions would be seen on the shunt waveform.
Hoppy
Quote from: Hoppy on October 06, 2009, 03:43:45 AM
Poynt99
IMO this is the correct explanation. The discharge from the inductive element of the load is a reverse current through the mosfet body diode and shunt. We see a rise in drain potential coupled with a negative going current. As MH says, there should be an instant of time where a potential difference does not exist across the load at the point immediately prior to the inductor discharging in the opposite direction to which it was charged. If a 'freewheel' diode were to placed across the load then the inductor discharge would be in the same direction as the direction of its charging current and no negative excursions would be seen on the shunt waveform.
Hoppy
Yep, sounds right. A "freewheel" diode across the load in opposite polarity to the coil supply will create a unidirectional circulation path for the current produced by the collapsing field of the coil during off mode.
It will change the waveform and should introduce a longer dissipation rundown time on the coil's current and its magnetic field.. That is, it will cause the 'on' portion of the duty cycle of the coil to be longer than the actual signal switching 'on' portion of the duty cycle.
cheers
Indeed, the flyback diode does do this.
It's the "rectified current" that I've mentioned several times in past posts, both here and in Luc's threads.
.99
Hi everyone,
Here is the data for test #3 .... this one is the best yet with Mosfet drain spikes of over 500 volts and 70 volt being returned to the 24 Volt battery bank.
http://www.energeticforum.com/70105-post2899.html
Glen ;D
FUZZY TOM CAT - YOU ARE THE BEST ;D ;D
TK EAT YOUR HEART OUT
NOT COP>17 INDEED. only OVER UNITY THANK YOU AGAIN FUZZY THE VERY VERY BEST
:-* ;D :D :D
MileHigh You need to get your mind around this one. I'm hoping for a renewal of the optimism you felt yonks back when you were disappointed with cold fusion. You see? I remember everything.
Just spend whatever time you need disproving this one. Then feel that paradigm shift. It's got to be better than where you were?
Just so happy MH. Hope you get to share it.
OK this is all beginning to look very promising
But do we really have the holy Grail or is this the world's most energy-efficient heater ?
A question that is always coming up on this forum, can you close the loop ?
Maybe it is too early to ask these questions while the data is still being analysed, and we are waitingl for .99 test results ;D
cat
Hi Cat. I think every little helps is my take. Just think of the household savings?
Yes Rosie I agree it would be a great step forward.
If this circuit is proving to be one of the most energy efficient in the world,
what would it take to make it self run ? If you do have OU this must be possible ?
cat
I have no idea. I have never included a perpetual motion machine in the predictions. Personally I don't subscribe - not from an electric current flow. I'll leave that to others. I just wanted to prove that energy from a supply is returned to the supply. I'm just so happy with this. It's MORE THAN ENOUGH for now. I think?
Not sure if it's the most efficient in the world. I'm hoping it will be improved on all over the place. Surely? All that Fuzzy has shown is that the energy delivered is definitely not proportional to the energy dissipated. And that's just wonderful. Because if it's true then there may be a revision on sundry applications and hopefully less drawn from the supply.
Plenty of problems still. We've got to find a way of getting spikes back to the supply grid. It may require batteries in series with the supply. Not ideal. But doable. But so many many questions. At least here's an interesting proof of concept.
YES point taken/ one step at a time.
If the OU is proven beyond any doubt, more people will work on developing the circuit and
hopefully one day we get a self runner ;D
Cat
Deleted.
Hoppy
Rosemary:
I am glad that you are all excited! It looks like Glen recorded and made available data for two out of his three trials that can be crunched down into power consumption data.
Harvey's preliminary data is indicating positive average battery consumption, but I am just a teenie weenie uncomfortable with the data sample he used to crunch on. I am not sure how fast the actual data is being sampled, the display capture is showing Moire patterns but that means nothing about the sampling of the actual data. Personally I would crunch on the data associated with one of the scope captures that shows three or four cycles.
I just looked at a data file and see the DSO dump is 10000 points. I can just guess that the sampling for Harvey's crunching is pretty darn good. That's in contrast to sampling only three cycles with 10000 points which would be pretty awesome.
Assuming that Glen does the thermal profiling sometime soon, you will be in a position to calculate some COP values. I am not sure if he indicated the precise value of the shunt resistor, which of course is extremely important.
Also, I don't play Bridge! El Cluelesso there. There is a whole on line card/Backgammon/Hearts/etc culture out there.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on October 06, 2009, 08:15:15 PM
Assuming that Glen does the thermal profiling sometime soon, you will be in a position to calculate some COP values. I am not sure if he indicated the precise value of the shunt resistor, which of course is extremely important.
MileHigh
Hi MH,
I'm still in the getting data mode process before Tektronix's will want there TDS 3054C back ...... maybe they will give me more time now ...... and thankfully other members are stepping up and helping out with the data recovered ..
The shunt resistor is a -
Dale RS-2B .25 ohm 3 watt 3 %
http://www.diyparadiso.com/componenten%20passief/dale%20rs5.pdf
I'm still stewing on the thermo data and how possibly to get a hard copy for a record that can be reproduced by others for verification purposes inexpensively ...... the "open source" code ;)
Fuzzy ;D
.99:
I am going to briefly try to finish off the ringdown if you and others will indulge me.
Referencing the third graph in the original post:
http://www.energeticforum.com/69850-post2875.html
And the first graph in this post:
http://www.energeticforum.com/70025-post2893.html
Do you notice how the big drain spike actually has two parts? The first part being a sinusoidal stray capacitance charging phase, and then a regular RC exponential decay curve through the 10-ohm resistor and the body diode for the second phase.
There is a glitch during the discharge and I assume that is the body diode shutting off then the inductor spikes some current through it again.
I am not sure what you guys/gals mean by a "freewheeling diode?" I am trying to pin down the mechanism for initiating the reverse current flow. Certainly you can see that when the current is at zero, the fight with the switching off MOSFET has already pumped the potential to 100 volts.
It looks to me that at that point in time, you have a cap charged to 100 volts that is capable of discharging through the coil + 10-ohm resistor + battery + shunt resistor + body diode. At the same time the coil has another 100 nanoseconds worth of discharge power charging the capacitance. The coil has current going through it in two different directions for a certain net current. Or am I missing something about the "freewheeling diode?"
Whatever is going on, it looks like once the MOSFET switched off completely there is already high potential associated with the LCR circuit ready to push current in a counterclockwise direction and it is directly proportional to the potential of the drain node. If I put an imaginary "phantom (freewheeling?) diode" across the coil, then indeed there is a parallel path for the capacitance to start pumping current in a counterclockwise direction.
MileHiigh
Hey Mr. Fuzzy man,
I mean measure the resistor with your best multimeter. The resistor spec is +/-3%, a 6% total possible variation in the value. Your best multimeter might measure resistance with a +/-0.5% margin of error.
If you share your thermal data, it should be useful for people using the identical components that also replicate your suspended in air setup. Otherwise it will serve as a guidline so that others have a sense for what their own data should look like. Excel can plot it for you, and probably can even do curve fitting. Harvey seems to be the spreadsheet guru, perhaps he can help you out. Plan B is easy and very good - plot it yourself on graph paper and snap a jpeg pic of it.
MileHigh
Glen.
May I ask where your scope probe that's monitoring the battery voltage is located exactly?
i.e. is the scope probe clipped on to the resistor or is it clipped on to the battery + terminal?
Where are the probe grounds connected?
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on October 06, 2009, 11:17:07 PM
Glen.
May I ask where your scope probe that's monitoring the battery voltage is located exactly?
i.e. is the scope probe clipped on to the resistor or is it clipped on to the battery + terminal?
Where are the probe grounds connected?
.99
Hi .99,
Here is a photo for you showing the Tektronix TDS 3054C probe locations .... the 24 Volt battery bank probe (blue band) is 6" from the "red" connector, the red and white AWG 14 wire go directly to the battery's.
Fuzzy ;D
Quote from: MileHigh on October 06, 2009, 09:06:47 PM
.99:
I am going to briefly try to finish off the ringdown if you and others will indulge me.
Referencing the third graph in the original post:
http://www.energeticforum.com/69850-post2875.html
And the first graph in this post:
http://www.energeticforum.com/70025-post2893.html
Whatever is going on, it looks like once the MOSFET switched off completely there is already high potential associated with the LCR circuit ready to push current in a counterclockwise direction and it is directly proportional to the potential of the drain node. If I put an imaginary "phantom (freewheeling?) diode" across the coil, then indeed there is a parallel path for the capacitance to start pumping current in a counterclockwise direction.
MileHiigh
Hello MileHigh. This is the only part of the anlaysis that I like. BUT WHAT FUN. Have just woken up and am still hopelessly up there. In fact I think I see you at eye level. Quite rare for me especially this early into the day.
EDIT. Sorry. This was another 'barometer'. I promise. Never again - if I can help it.
Quote from: MileHigh on October 06, 2009, 09:06:47 PM
.99:
I am going to briefly try to finish off the ringdown if you and others will indulge me.
Referencing the third graph in the original post:
http://www.energeticforum.com/69850-post2875.html
And the first graph in this post:
http://www.energeticforum.com/70025-post2893.html
Do you notice how the big drain spike actually has two parts? The first part being a sinusoidal stray capacitance charging phase, and then a regular RC exponential decay curve through the 10-ohm resistor and the body diode for the second phase.
There is a glitch during the discharge and I assume that is the body diode shutting off then the inductor spikes some current through it again.
I am not sure what you guys/gals mean by a "freewheeling diode?" I am trying to pin down the mechanism for initiating the reverse current flow. Certainly you can see that when the current is at zero, the fight with the switching off MOSFET has already pumped the potential to 100 volts.
It looks to me that at that point in time, you have a cap charged to 100 volts that is capable of discharging through the coil + 10-ohm resistor + battery + shunt resistor + body diode. At the same time the coil has another 100 nanoseconds worth of discharge power charging the capacitance. The coil has current going through it in two different directions for a certain net current. Or am I missing something about the "freewheeling diode?"
Whatever is going on, it looks like once the MOSFET switched off completely there is already high potential associated with the LCR circuit ready to push current in a counterclockwise direction and it is directly proportional to the potential of the drain node. If I put an imaginary "phantom (freewheeling?) diode" across the coil, then indeed there is a parallel path for the capacitance to start pumping current in a counterclockwise direction.
MileHiigh
MH
The condition needed to invoke a reverse discharge current flow through the battery and mosfet body diode is the lack of a diode ('freewheel diode'). across the inductor. If the 555 were to powered from the same supply, then this would clearly present a nice path for the discharging current, very likely resulting in a smoked 555 at some point if the inductance / spike amplitude was high enough, or at least erratic operation as we observe. The higher the coil inductance is, the more likely the 555 will be 'spiked', or at least display erratic operation. The inductor will discharge its stored energy in any which way it can, when its source of power is abruptly disconnected.
The folly of powering the 555 switch from the same supply, or even a seperate supply with a common earth (star earth) is that it makes analysis of the resulting complex waveforms very difficult. It makes much more sense to me if the switching is opto isolated, so that the discharge can be studied without the added complication of the effects that the 555 common power connection present.
Hoppy
I see that OU is now being claimed on EF for the Ainslie circuit on the strength of Fuzzy's new data. I'm surprised to see absolutely no mention of energy consumption in his results - Energy= Power (Watts) * Time (seconds). A serious OU claim cannot be made without energy levels being computated.
Hoppy
Quote from: Hoppy on October 07, 2009, 08:01:13 AM
I see that OU is now being claimed on EF for the Ainslie circuit on the strength of Fuzzy's new data. I'm surprised to see absolutely no mention of energy consumption in his results - Energy= Power (Watts) * Time (seconds). A serious OU claim cannot be made without energy levels being computated.
Hoppy
I agree and have mentioned it to Rose. Apparently they have done some number crunching, but I have not seen it.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on October 07, 2009, 08:22:37 AM
I agree and have mentioned it to Rose. Apparently they have done some number crunching, but I have not seen it.
.99
You can crunch this very easily yourselves the file is available to all. The time is in the left column. If you do not have excel you can download a viewer from Microsoft or use the open source Sun Microsystems version "Open Office".
Cheers,
8)
Quote from: Hoppy on October 07, 2009, 03:32:39 AM
The folly of powering the 555 switch from the same supply, or even a seperate supply with a common earth (star earth) is that it makes analysis of the resulting complex waveforms very difficult. It makes much more sense to me if the switching is opto isolated, so that the discharge can be studied without the added complication of the effects that the 555 common power connection present.
Hoppy
The 555's direct connection to the MOSFET is what makes the "magic" appear. Without the 555, this circuit would never go into funky oscillation mode. It has nothing to do with Hartley oscillation, nor the MOSFET itself, it's the feedback from the MOSFET Drain that causes the 555 to retrigger. It's interesting that some have had difficulty getting this mode of operation, where with my setup it is almost the contrary.
The good news is that I can easily obtain a stable/clean or retriggering-type oscillation from my build, so I am confident I can test all scenarios. While in the "one" funky mode (there are a few), the retriggering is indeed aperiodic, but the overall oscillation is periodic. Therefore, I would call this mode a "quasi-aperiodic" oscillation.
Anyway, I'll have wave forms later on to show clearly what I'm saying here ;)
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on October 07, 2009, 08:43:54 AM
The 555's direct connection to the MOSFET is what makes the "magic" appear. Without the 555, this circuit would never go into funky oscillation mode. It has nothing to do with Hartley oscillation, nor the MOSFET itself, it's the feedback from the MOSFET Drain that causes the 555 to retrigger. It's interesting that some have had difficulty getting this mode of operation, where with my setup it is almost the contrary.
The good news is that I can easily obtain a stable/clean or retriggering-type oscillation from my build, so I am confident I can test all scenarios. While in the "one" funky mode (there are a few), the retriggering is indeed aperiodic, but the overall oscillation is periodic. Therefore, I would call this mode a "quasi-aperiodic" oscillation.
Anyway, I'll have wave forms later on to show clearly what I'm saying here ;)
.99
I must admit having read back my post, it does come over nonsensical given that as you say its obvious that without the 555 direct connection the various 'funky' effects would not show. I think my brain is starting to go a bit funky at the moment thinking about the various test results posted, so I'll take a rest and recharge my own batteries!
Lets hope that Rosemary was right all along and can claim that elusive OU prize.
Hoppy
Hoppy - I understand the prize comes with the requirement for perpetual motion. I am reasonably sure that this circuit has nothing to do with perpetual motion. So. No. I will not be applying for a prize. Frankly the only prize here would be if the claim made some more effective inroads into mainstream than I've managed to date. And if so, it's entirely due to Fuzzy's impeccable testing standards.
Rose,
Could you or anyone please indicate how the power calculation is being performed from the posted data from Glen?
Could someone explain what the "strong negative average on the battery power" statement is based on?
All the average numbers posted are "positive" so what's missing? I have not seen anything illustrating how exactly the numbers are being crunched, so we are left to speculate.
If one were to multiply the average shunt current times the average battery voltage (not sure this is what they are doing), then this comes to an average power of 6 Watts from the battery.
???
.99
Poynt - not sure what you're doing there. Take the shunt voltage / 0.25 * vbat. That will give you vi. Golly. Strange me telling anyone how to do this? Hope that's clear - else skype me. Maybe I can talk you through this. But you need to open the file. I have difficulty there.
OK, I've spoken with Rose and been informed of the calculation method they used. It is as follows:
Take each sample and multiply the instantaneous battery voltage with the instantaneous shunt current (instantaneous shunt voltage/0.25 Ohms). Then take the average of all these instantaneous power calculations.
This does not equate to the same number when calculated as I did above. In fact it comes to about -0.26W average.
The assumption I made is that the average shunt current is an accurate representation of the average battery current. In my tests they are quite close.
If I am correct, then the average numbers should be computed together (for the battery power only) as I did above to arrive at the average power consumption.
Install a power meter as Luc has built for himself, and I am confident that the average power will be quite different. This power meter consists of two large capacitors and a current sense resistor in-between. Accurate average power is easily obtained by this method, and is the method I intend to use for my tests.
.99
Poynt. Thanks for this. Just remember that you need to eliminate some of the samples to accommodate the full cycle. Else the average will be coloured by some imbalance with the inclusion of some waveforms that are not representative of a full cycle.
I can't comment on your proposed method of measurement. The only one that is accepted by academics is the differential equations related to the data as detailed. But I would be very interested to see if the waveform can be replicated on Spice.
Quote from: witsend on October 07, 2009, 08:14:50 PM
Poynt. Thanks for this. Just remember that you need to eliminate some of the samples to accommodate the full cycle. Else the average will be coloured by some imbalance with the inclusion of some waveforms that are not representative of a full cycle.
I can't comment on your proposed method of measurement. The only one that is accepted by academics is the differential equations related to the data as detailed. But I would be very interested to see if the waveform can be replicated on Spice.
:D Rose, you should know me better by now. I did the same calculation earlier after we spoke using the 400ns data sample Glen posted. I trimmed it to exactly one cycle. The results were within a few percent. The 40us sample range gave about 17 cycles, with 57 samples per cycle. A half cycle out of 17 would not throw the results off substantially, but I wanted to do the single cycle computation anyway. So I did.
The wave form can be created in SPICE. I have already done this. It is not an exact match, but it shows the negative spike, just slightly after the big spike on the drain. With some tweaking and time, it could be improved I'm sure. The question is, what is to be gained by doing this?
.99
;D Hi Poynty. Dare I tell you this? One cycle is not representative unless it's periodic. You need a range? But it's all good. Very little difference.
And you know why I want that waveform!!!! Why do you ask?
Rose.
All Glen's wave forms ARE periodic so far, that's why it IS possible to use one cycle. Come on Rose, give me a little credit :-\
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on October 07, 2009, 09:04:56 PM
Rose.
All Glen's wave forms ARE periodic so far, that's why it IS possible to use one cycle. Come on Rose, give me a little credit :-\
.99
ok
:)
Everyone / MH,
We have a slight issue.
I just noticed that with the resistor being mounted vertical, the temperature varies drastically depending on where the measurement is taken. For example, at the top of my resistor I've got 59 degrees C and at the bottom about 32 degrees C.
Is this really the best way to mount this resistor for this test, or where do we make the measurement?
This does make a lot of sense because heat rises. Even if the resistor is mounted horizontal, the top is most likely to be hotter than the sides or bottom. Again, this could really have an effect on the results, so it needs to be sorted out as to exactly what point is to be used for the temp probe or IR meter.
.99
Doing some rough measurements with my source power meter adapter (two 10,000uF caps and a 1% 1 Ohm resistor), I've got 54 degrees C at the hottest point (about 130 degrees F) using about 8.4W from the supply.
At present time my circuit goes into a funky oscillation mode if I try reducing the Gate resistance too much to bring up the spikes with this setting. Currently, this is only with 110V spikes. If I can reduce the Gate resistance, I'm certain the spike voltage can be brought up close to 500V as per Glen's.
Having this slow turn-on time is wasting power in the MOSFET, hence the 8.4W vs. Glen's 6W power draw for the same temperature rise. I'll try tomorrow to get this cleaned up so my results will be closer to Glen's.
.99
.99:
I would just measure at the center of the shaft. I think that it is reasonable to assume that every point on the resistor could be used as a reference for the delta-temp measurements. The center of the resistor is the center of the thermal mass which would imply that that point acts as the smoothest low pass filter for the power dissipation, but that is really splitting hairs. Every point on the resistor body still smooths out the varying heat power into a constant temperature, as long as you keep measuring at the same point. You could also lower the angle of the shaft if you wanted to slow down the moving column of air which should even out the temperature more.
MileHigh
Hi everyone,
Here is a video link for the posting at Energetic Forum by Harvey http://www.energeticforum.com/70123-post2902.html on exactly how the data was compiled from the 40µs_520V_10_05_09_.xlr excel spread sheet file
http://rapidshare.com/files/289473647/40us_520V_10_05_09_.xlr
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xy3R2q7pNcM
Thanks Harvey !!
Fuzzy ;D
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on October 08, 2009, 03:51:03 AM
Hi everyone,
Here is a video link for the posting at Energetic Forum by Harvey http://www.energeticforum.com/70123-post2902.html on exactly how the data was compiled from the 40µs_520V_10_05_09_.xlr excel spread sheet file
http://rapidshare.com/files/289473647/40us_520V_10_05_09_.xlr
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xy3R2q7pNcM
Thanks Harvey !!
Fuzzy ;D
Something to be aware of when inductive discharge current is fed back to a LA battery in this type of circuit setup is that even light battery loading can cause the terminal voltage to drop very slowly, stay steady, or even rise for a period of time whilst the internal resistance of the battery adjusts to the load, depending on the state of charge. The computated supplied power / energy measurements could therefore be misleading when based on battery voltage readings.
The problems in using battery voltage measurements for calculating very accurate power / energy consumption was well discussed in the early days of this project, where I think it was generally acknowleged that battery terminal voltage changes is a poor indicator of energy removed from a battery.
Hoppy
MH,
I guess we will have to wait and see if/how Rose and Fuzzy weigh in on this. Obviously it will substantially affect their results too.
I think mounting the resistor horizontal still may be an option worth looking at. That way we should be able to take a measurement anywhere along the top and it should not vary much.
.99
The inductor current changes direction every half cycle as part of the natural ringdown process.
The positive and negative excursions of ringdown current largely cancel each other. Even so, the net mean current should still fall out of the sampled data, so it would seem there is something amiss.
Taking the mean value of the source's current provides a true picture of power draw from the source when combined with the source voltage.
.99
Quote from: MileHigh on October 08, 2009, 01:53:55 AM
.99:
I would just measure at the center of the shaft. I think that it is reasonable to assume that every point on the resistor could be used as a reference for the delta-temp measurements. The center of the resistor is the center of the thermal mass which would imply that that point acts as the smoothest low pass filter for the power dissipation, but that is really splitting hairs. Every point on the resistor body still smooths out the varying heat power into a constant temperature, as long as you keep measuring at the same point. You could also lower the angle of the shaft if you wanted to slow down the moving column of air which should even out the temperature more.
MileHigh
Hi MileHigh. Words fail me. ;D Would love to hear more on your waveform analysis. Not so keen on the apparatus positioning advices anymore. :) ::)
Hi Rosemary,
I am not sure where all of the exuberance is coming from exactly, I will assume it is from Harvey's analysis showing negative average battery energy. Thus the conclusion that the battery is being charged while it runs the circuit.
Everyone should realize that more data will be recorded and reported. Any approach to science should be conservative, taking things one step at a time. So celebrate if you wish but be aware that you have to gather much more data before you can arrive at a conclusion with a high degree of confidence.
In Poynt's power measurement setup, he will effectively be doing what we asked Aaron to do with the "negative dominant waveform" setup, power the device with a capacitor.
Current will flow out of the second capacitor into the Ainsley circuit load, the second capacitor effectively acting as a power supply. Powering the circuit will lower the voltage on the second capacitor. When the circuit kicks power back into the capacitor, you will not see any voltage spikes like you would see with a battery, but the second capacitor voltage will go up a tiny smidgen. The second capacitor will soak up any return energy with no losses at all, in contrast to a battery where there are losses.
In Poynt's setup, if the second capacitor starts to drop in voltage indicating more energy out than in, then current will start to seep into the second capacitor from the first capacitor (which will be connected to his power supply). Poynt's multimeter will be placed across this resistor to measure any possible DC voltage drop. If he measures a voltage drop then he will have both critical numbers, the average current and the voltage that is powering the Ainsley circuit load.
This technique is simply a trick that allows you to convert a very difficult to measure complex current consumption/return waveform into a simple DC value that even the cheapest multimeter can read. Let's see what happens!
MileHigh
Hello MileHigh
So glad to see you're still fighting your corner. I was afraid we'd have nothing left to talk about.
The exuberance is simply because there's been a replication. Frankly I was beginning to feel like the fraud that TK accused me of being. And 10 years is a long time. I also started assuming errors in our analysis. Not a nice place to be. So. Make allowances.
Your point regarding the need for extra data collation. It's unarguable. But at least there's a replication to start from. With the skills here - one assumes the counter arguments will get addressed and that's always a good thing. But the 'cherry' is the opportunity to work towards a paper - and the 'checks and counter checks' will, presumably, be thoroughly evaluated. At its least we've got you and Poynt to argue where required and probably also where it's not required. But again. That's also all good.
I'm not sure of the relevance of Poynt's test. To me if you bury the spike in a capacitor you're also denying the very effect that the circuit requires - which is that spike. If you're trying to evaluate the energy in the spike then put it to work in recharging a supply source or running a load. Cannot see any sense in the arrangement. But I'm open to correction. Frankly - I've never got my head around the 'capacitors' and it's simply because I've never seen inside one. What material? Why does it hold charge? Things I don't know and really don't want to know. The test objects are to determine the value of energy returned in the 'off period' of the duty cycle. I need to see that this nearly equals - equals - or betters the energy delivered. That sort of helps my thesis.
But if Poynt's test is in fact relevant then I'm sure we'll need to take cognisance. And I shall be happy to do so.
.99:
QuoteI think mounting the resistor horizontal still may be an option worth looking at. That way we should be able to take a measurement anywhere along the top and it should not vary much.
I think that keeping the tube thermally isolated is the most important factor, as you clearly have done in your setup.
If the tube is horizontal then the heated air inside the tube is subject to any random wafting air in the area. If the heated air gets blown out then the tube has to heat the new air again, introducing a wobble in the temp. This is in contrast to the tube in a vertical position or at an angle where the tube itself becomes it own "heat pump" with the rising column of air. This makes it a bit more stable and self-regulating in terms of temperature.
Ash:
QuoteI HOPE OU FORUM HAS SOUR GRAPES!!! Yep its about time some one said it.
Bring it on baby! lol
Let's just see what happens. My mouth is not watering yet. :D
MH
Quote from: MileHigh on October 08, 2009, 06:57:47 PM
Everyone should realize that more data will be recorded and reported. Any approach to science should be conservative, taking things one step at a time. So celebrate if you wish but be aware that you have to gather much more data before you can arrive at a conclusion with a high degree of confidence.
In Poynt's power measurement setup, he will effectively be doing what we asked Aaron to do with the "negative dominant waveform" setup, power the device with a capacitor.
Current will flow out of the second capacitor into the Ainsley circuit load, the second capacitor effectively acting as a power supply. Powering the circuit will lower the voltage on the second capacitor. When the circuit kicks power back into the capacitor, you will not see any voltage spikes like you would see with a battery, but the second capacitor voltage will go up a tiny smidgen. The second capacitor will soak up any return energy with no losses at all, in contrast to a battery where there are losses.
In Poynt's setup, if the second capacitor starts to drop in voltage indicating more energy out than in, then current will start to seep into the second capacitor from the first capacitor (which will be connected to his power supply). Poynt's multimeter will be placed across this resistor to measure any possible DC voltage drop. If he measures a voltage drop then he will have both critical numbers, the average current and the voltage that is powering the Ainsley circuit load.
This technique is simply a trick that allows you to convert a very difficult to measure complex current consumption/return waveform into a simple DC value that even the cheapest multimeter can read. Let's see what happens!
MileHigh
I didn't realize that there was a approve testing method that is used by some university, government or accredited testing agency on the method of measuring current return to battery's. Could you please reference the material a document, PDF or where the text is located so that all members, guests and replicators can use this published information on there replication it appears you know right where it is, and for the life of me I just can't find those documents to share with the "open source" community.
Fuzzy :)
OK - MileHigh. Here's the thing. Fuzzy has a glass base. All that's needed is to plug both ends and the resistor will have no 'wafting' air currents. I'm sure he's attended to this. That way - its position is largly immaterial. Your chimney introduces too many variables. But I agree that it's better to keep it off surfaces. Your point here is taken.
And I tend to agree with Ash - on all things.
Fuzzy:
It is just applied knowledge, simple as that. There is nothing to reference. I wouldn't be supprised if Poynt would graciously "open source" the setup - Gotoluc has one of his own already.
Rosemary:
Just about any resistor setup is valid as long as you keep it thermally isolated from the rest of the environment. If both ends of the tube are blocked then your recorded temperatures will be higher. That does not matter, blocked or unblocked holes can generate valid data sets.
All that you want is for the thermal resistance to remain stable for any setup, and to keep your thermal capacitance constant.
Anyway, I am happy that you are happy about Glen's testing and his replication. You may recall that two months ago I was arguing that this was the way to go.
MileHigh
;D Hi MileHigh. No I don't recall you arguing this. But my memory is not what it was. I sort of remember a suggestion to hang the resistor vertically in the air? Was I dreaming?
edit - sorry I misread you here. Yes I do remember you asking for a full replication. But why does this not also delight you MileHigh? I cannot tell you how disappointed I am. I thought you'd be over the moon.
Ha ha! Don't be coy now, you know I was talking about running the standard test - the real 3% (or greater) duty cycle setup witout going crazy with the oscillations first.
MileHigh
Ok I will reply here to conserve the "Internet trees." (lousy joke but at least no singing) Yes I am happy that Glen did a straight replication, absolutely. More interesting buzz has been generated in the past week than the previous six weeks.
MileHigh - in case you missed this.
edit - sorry I misread you here. Yes I do remember you asking for a full replication. But why does this not also delight you MileHigh? I cannot tell you how disappointed I am. I thought you'd be over the moon. (from 1977)
;D Rosie
Quote from: MileHigh on October 08, 2009, 08:09:44 PM
Fuzzy:
It is just applied knowledge, simple as that. There is nothing to reference. I wouldn't be supprised if Poynt would graciously "open source" the setup - Gotoluc has one of his own already.
MileHigh
Your telling me the applied knowledge your refering to .... no one ever in history has documented this measurement process ??
Fuzzy :o
Quote from: MileHigh on October 08, 2009, 08:19:18 PM
Ok I will reply here to conserve the "Internet trees." (lousy joke but at least no singing) Yes I am happy that Glen did a straight replication, absolutely. More interesting buzz has been generated in the past week than the previous six weeks.
So nice MH. ;D But I really do need you to explain this - if possible. Just concentrate on that ridiculously long spike that Fuzzy gets on the drain. And then - why does the switch lose it's duty cycle setting? This latter seems to be a critical condition to getting this effect. Come on MH. This is where you're really good. And I really need to know before I can possibly work out a counter argument. Truth is that I'm still getting my mind around conventional analysis - and your summations here are my text books.
And I'm so sorry you don't play bridge. You use the contract terms so freely. It's probably in everyday parlance. I didn't realise.
BTW - I added you to my tribute list. It's posted over in 'furry land' - where all the best people live.
I'm sure I already posted this at OU some time ago. It is posted at EF here:
http://www.energeticforum.com/61265-post140.html
So it has been "open-source" for a while.
In the one I just built, the input and output caps are 10,000uF, 63V, and the current sense resistor is a non-inductive ceramic 1 Ohm, 1%, 12W resistor, P/N: MRA12-1.0-1%. Digikey P/N: MRA12-1.0.
MH,
I've already used this yesterday when I posted a quick measurement of 8.4W power output from my supply. The measurement technique works extremely well, and should work equally well with both battery and lab supply sources. Again I give aethertech credit for suggesting this to me. As a side note, the current measured with the current sense resistor in this little power supply add-on, correlates very well with the supply's own built-in current meter. The outboard filtering provided by this add-on helps the supply's own internal regulating circuit perform better and read more accurately on it's meters with transient-type loads such as this is.
.99
Fuzzy Glen:
V = Q/C - the voltage across a capacitor is directly proportional to the charge and inversely proportional to the capacitance. Charge is current times time. So when current is going out of and into the capacitor, the voltage will go up and down. However, if you make the capacitance very large, the voltage will only have a barely perceptible ripple. So the current flowing between the first capacitor, across the resistor into the second capacitor will have a barely perceptible ripple, it will be almost pure DC. If Poynt measures a DC voltage, that is telling you that current at 12 (or 24?) volt potential will be flowing into the second capacitor to compensate for the net current that is flowing into the circuit at the same potential. You know the voltage and you know the current, therefore you know the power that is being consumed by the circuit. The second cap powering the circuit will look for all practical intents and purposes like the battery powering the circuit, with the added bonus that you know the current. It will not be identical - the output impedance of the cap will be much lower than the already low output impedance of the battery. The low output impedance of the cap simulating the battery is what makes the spikes disappear and just become the barely perceptible ripples that I already referred to.
Rosemary:
I think your question was answered by Hoppy (I think). I think he said the high drain spike gets coupled into the 555 output through the MOSFET. So that disturbs the pretty robust 555 and causes false triggering of the 555's voltage comparators, or something to that effect. The voltage comparators then freak out the output flip-flop. It sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Sorry, I know that might be too techie but I am out of steam.
Also thank you for putting me on your tribute list. If there is ever a gathering I will wear my Groucho Marx glasses. lol
By the way, there is going to be a big mechanical capacitor discharge in a few hours when that probe smashes into the moon at high velocity. E = 1/2 M v-squared. Woo hoo! lol Let's hope they find water in mass quantities. If they do then in 30 years they might have a moon colony. (Jeeze a PC bot - I'll try Spanish "sexo") in one-sixth 'g' would be amazing! lol
Poynt: Blast that baby into action!
MileHigh
Here is Glen's setup with the "Quantum" resistor he made.
His temperature measurements were taken of highest reading on the components. Both resistor ends are partially blocked, the upper one by a stopper, and the lower by having it nearly sitting on the bench surface.
My resistor is suspended about 8" above the bench surface, and both ends are completely open, as shown in a previous post.
.99
Quote from: MileHigh on October 08, 2009, 10:15:13 PM
Rosemary:
I think your question was answered by Hoppy (I think). I think he said the high drain spike gets coupled into the 555 output through the MOSFET. So that disturbs the pretty robust 555 and causes false triggering of the 555's voltage comparators, or something to that effect. The voltage comparators then freak out the output flip-flop. It sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Sorry, I know that might be too techie but I am out of steam.
Poynt: Blast that baby into action!
MileHigh
That was a post I made a few pages back: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg203780#msg203780
It's into action, since yesterday ;) Will try plugging the ends and see if the temperature measures differently.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on October 08, 2009, 10:39:06 PM
Here is Glen's setup with the "Quantum" resistor he made.
His temperature measurements were taken of highest reading on the components. Both resistor ends are partially blocked, the upper one by a stopper, and the lower by having it nearly sitting on the bench surface.
My resistor is suspended about 8" above the bench surface, and both ends are completely open, as shown in a previous post.
.99
The resistor is above the table 2" you can see glass tube behind it and that is not a stopper there is a plastic ring on the end of the stick as a example to support the 1" diameter opening in the center of the resistor to hold it more upright
High Definition Imagehttp://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/Picture041.jpgFuzzy ;D
Quote from: MileHigh on October 08, 2009, 10:15:13 PM
Fuzzy Glen:
V = Q/C - the voltage across a capacitor is directly proportional to the charge and inversely proportional to the capacitance. Charge is current times time. So when current is going out of and into the capacitor, the voltage will go up and down. However, if you make the capacitance very large, the voltage will only have a barely perceptible ripple. So the current flowing between the first capacitor, across the resistor into the second capacitor will have a barely perceptible ripple, it will be almost pure DC. If Poynt measures a DC voltage, that is telling you that current at 12 (or 24?) volt potential will be flowing into the second capacitor to compensate for the net current that is flowing into the circuit at the same potential. You know the voltage and you know the current, therefore you know the power that is being consumed by the circuit. The second cap powering the circuit will look for all practical intents and purposes like the battery powering the circuit, with the added bonus that you know the current. It will not be identical - the output impedance of the cap will be much lower than the already low output impedance of the battery. The low output impedance of the cap simulating the battery is what makes the spikes disappear and just become the barely perceptible ripples that I already referred to.
MileHigh
So this is a experimental method of measuring current to a battery that has never been used or documented ...... this is hard to believe ..... is there some documentation to back this method never before used up ??
Fuzzy :)
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on October 08, 2009, 10:58:43 PM
The resistor is above the table 2" you can see glass tube behind it and that is not a stopper there is a plastic ring on the end of the stick as a example to support the 1" diameter opening in the center of the resistor to hold it more upright
High Definition Image
http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/Picture041.jpg
Fuzzy ;D
Is the upper end completely open or partially blocked by the plastic ring?
It appears there is something inside the upper end of the tube.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on October 08, 2009, 11:17:13 PM
Is the upper end completely open or partially blocked by the plastic ring?
It appears there is something inside the upper end of the tube.
.99
There is a plastic ring just like the one on the end of the stick above the resistor and it has a 1/2" diameter hole in it and 1" in diameter. I am not using this method now .... but am hanging the resistor on the same stick horizontally on a string 3" above the surface with #5-1/2 rubber stoppers in the ends and will be using this method from now on and will be posting photos of the set up in a future post
Glen :)
Right, so it was partial blockage ;)
Why the change to horizontal positioning?
Was the position "vertical" for the latest group of posted scope shots and data?
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on October 08, 2009, 11:33:19 PM
Right, so it was partial blockage ;)
Why the change to horizontal positioning?
Was the position "vertical" for the latest group of scope shots and data?
.99
Yep it was partially blocked and didn't quite like the air movement through the pyrex glass causing a definite cooling effect ...... and measuring the outside only using a IR Thermometer and it was partially blocked anyway made a executive decision to change it and it does work much better using this method of temperature measurements. I will be testing it also this way for wattage measurement with a 24VCD power supply for the COP figures when it's time
Glen ;D
A quick test on my setup has showed that partially blocking the upper end of the resistor caused the temperature at the hottest spot to rise about 2 degrees C.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on October 08, 2009, 11:44:22 PM
A quick test on my setup has showed that partially blocking the upper end of the resistor caused the temperature at the hottest spot to rise about 2 degrees C.
.99
You might also notice that when "Horizontal" the mosfet end is warmer ;)
Fuzzy :)
Well,
Got some 450V spikes, using roughly the same period and PW as Fuzzy's, but it's not a great setting for my setup. The poor 555 draws excessive current and rises to 70 degrees C (it draws about 2.4W from its 12V supply). That's about what the resistor temperature got to as well. Power draw from the load's source was 9.5W. Source voltage feeding the load resistor was 17VDC.
The shunt wave form lost most of its spikyness, while the Drain wave form looked identical to Glen's.
.99
Taken from Fuzzy's "Hour 2" data file "2_40us_520V-01_10_08_09.xlr" after the temperature stabilized and before the battery voltage began falling:
Shunt Voltage Average: 0.140904V
Shunt Current Average: 0.563616A
Battery Voltage Average: 29.0548V
Final Resistor Temperature: 145 degrees F, 62.8 degrees C.
Average Power Draw from Battery: 16.37575016 W
This appears to be quite inline with my results so far, although I had about 70 degrees C using 9.5W from the supply (as posted above).
Fuzzy, please post the 555's temperature and try a test using the supply add-on I posted to obtain a battery power measurement for comparison. I think you will find your power draw calculation might even go down this way. 16W seems high for 63 degrees C compared to my results.
.99
Glen,
One other thing that might be reducing your final temperature are the rubber stoppers. Most likely they are acting like heat sinks drawing some heat away from the bulk of the resistor where you are taking your measurements.
I would suggest you try the test again with the stoppers removed for comparison (if you haven't already done so). I can see the temperature increasing a number of degrees with the same setting (same power draw) as you had previously. Please post what you find ;)
.99 :)
Hello MileHigh. Harvey keeps asking you to resolve that inductance number. Why are you holding back. We're all holding our breath over here? Have you given up on us?
:)
Hmmm it's all very quiet here
1 you are all shocked :o at how good this circuit really is ?
OR
2 the results are so marginal :-\ you cannot make up your mind ?
.99 any news ?
Anyway here is an old classic / new classic / what ever classic / hope you enjoy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hG8NRPPQOrk
cat
Hi Cat. yet again. That was FANTASTIC.
I don't know why all has gone quiet here. MH lost interest possibly? Fuzzy's due to post later this morning - your tonight - but numbers are hardly marginal. Still many puzzles to resolve especially related to inductance which h is working on. We're hoping that MileHigh will do his bit. But it either defeats him, or it doesn't interest him or he's away on holiday. Just not that sure. Miss his input though. I would have thought if he'd nothing to say he could at least entertain us with some links - like you did. :D
Rosemary - I am just taking a break. Something we all need. I will be back later in the week.
The Metropolis transformation scene from an android to a human is absolutely amazing. I have two versions of the film.
Too pooped to even do a link.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on October 12, 2009, 08:43:00 PM
Rosemary - I am just taking a break. Something we all need. I will be back later in the week.
The Metropolis transformation scene from an android to a human is absolutely amazing. I have two versions of the film.
Too pooped to even do a link.
MileHigh
Thanks MH I was only joking. But sorry you're exhausted. And will wait patiently for the emergent recharging whatever. Hopefully you'll still be identifiable. Just remember to sign your posts. I'll recognise it's you. :-*'
EDIT Rosie :D
Quote from: powercat on October 12, 2009, 08:03:28 PM
Hmmm it's all very quiet here
1 you are all shocked :o at how good this circuit really is ?
OR
2 the results are so marginal :-\ you cannot make up your mind ?
.99 any news ?
cat
Been at it for most of the weekend, including Thanksgiving Monday. There's plenty of preparation involved in doing this properly ;)
Be patient please, the data is on it's way. :)
.99
Hi everyone,
The Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Heater Circuit - TEST #5 ..... Has been posted @ Energetic Forum .....
http://www.energeticforum.com/70771-post2951.html
Fuzzy
;D
Quote from: hartiberlin on July 19, 2009, 02:35:30 PM
Hi TK,
yes, after seeing all your trials and experiments with all
your scope setups, etc..I believe, that Ainslie
has made some errors in her measurements or her
components might have already been damaged or
she had a amateur-radio neighbour broadcasting into her
circuit or some other weird things...
Or she has a much lower ringdown frequency in the Khz range
and she just excited it with the same frequency, so she had
stable oscillations..
Anyway, just better quit the Ainslie circuit and try to see, if you
can get some energy output from this groundloop setup and
better try the Kapanadze circuit to resonante on this groundloop
oscillation via some LC tank circuits and a transformer.
Hi Stefan,
Do you have any new comments on any of the new results ....... you had everyone believe at a earlier time that this circuit "Doesn't Work At All" ....... or is there something here with all the images and data I have presented that is incorrect.
I noticed you have been 100% silent on this subject and thread .....
Any response at all would be much appreciated ......
Fuzzy
???
For those that may be curious how my testing has been going...
It's always good practice to verify measurements more than one way if at all possible, especially when the measurement is critical. This usually means comparing one piece of test equipment with another of similar or different type (i.e another scope or meter), or by using some other indirect means (such as current clamp).
In my case so far I have not been able to sufficiently validate my data, and not for lack of trying. For example Supply current measured 4 different ways produces 3 different values:
Scoped (data dump) Vshunt (ave)/0.25 = 60mA
Fluke DC ammeter used directly with internal shunt = 60mA
Fluke DC voltmeter across 1 Ohm shunt in supply "add-on" = 76mA
Scoped mean differential volts across 1 Ohm shunt in supply "add-on" = 120mA
SPICE is very close to 60mA supply current with the same settings.
So that's 3 measurements at 60mA, but I can not explain at the moment why the scope differential measurement is double. Nor can I explain why the DC volts across the 1 Ohm shunt (with two 10000uF caps) reads 76mV (and hence 76mA). I have verified that the meter reading is not being influenced by induced switching noise.
I have a TDS3012B oscilloscope I will try also to see how the differential measurement comes out.
Once I am able to overcome this challenge, I will be confident in my numbers.
Regards,
.99
Yet one more way of measuring the supply current seems to confirm the 60mA number.
Two voltmeters, one before the add-on, and one after yield 25.06V and 25.00V respectively. A 60mV difference.
It's very odd that measuring directly across the 1 Ohm yields 76mV with these same meters.
Tried the TDS3012B oscilloscope, and the results were worse. It's becoming apparent that these two TEK scopes don't do simple math (A-B) and averaging (on these wave forms at least) very well in real time.
Don't fret, I think I have the solution at hand. Good results should be coming up soon.
;)
.99
Dipping my toes in the water!
Glen:
How many samples are you recording per cycle? I am wondering if you are getting too granular in your sampling per full cycle because your scope captures look like you are recording 80+ cycles. I think that there is an issue there with undersampling exaggerating the energy in any thin spikes (positive and negative) in your waveform.
If you are a real keener you can look up "Nyquist sampling theorem." - actually, I'll take the plunge:
QuoteThe Nyquist frequency, named after the Swedish-American engineer Harry Nyquist or the Nyquistâ€"Shannon sampling theorem, is half the sampling frequency of a discrete signal processing system.[1][2] It is sometimes called the folding frequency, or the cut-off frequency of a sampling system.[3]
The sampling theorem shows that aliasing can be avoided if the Nyquist frequency is greater than the bandwidth, or maximum component frequency, of the signal being sampled.
The Nyquist frequency should not be confused with the Nyquist rate, which is the lower bound of the sampling frequency that satisfies the Nyquist sampling criterion for a given signal or family of signals. This lower bound is twice the bandwidth or maximum component frequency of the signal. Nyquist rate, as commonly used with respect to sampling, is a property of a continuous-time signal, not of a system, whereas Nyquist frequency is a property of a discrete-time system, not of a signal.
This is the biggie:
QuoteNyquist rate, which is the lower bound of the sampling frequency that satisfies the Nyquist sampling criterion for a given signal or family of signals.
Now for a simple example:
To sample a 10 Hz "pure" sine wave you need to sample at 20 Hz. The reason for this is:
QuoteThis lower bound is twice the bandwidth or maximum component frequency of the signal
However, this is for the "ideal" case. In the real world you need to sample at about five times the Nyquist rate, which is 100 Hz. This will give you a good description of the signal for calculating the energy in it. (This assumes the "signal" is the highest frequency component of the overall signal which consists of "slow" and "fast" signals mixed together.)
Going back to what you are really doing in your experiment, in theory you need to know the waveform's frequency spectrum to know the maximum bandwidth of your signal.
That's the theoretical and practical background to all of this. Since you are trying to make precise energy measurements it is actually very important.
Now forget the theory and how do you really do this with your DSO? You look at your thinnest spikes and you want to have at least say... seven or eight samples minimum to properly record the energy in the thin spike. You can just look at your Excel data dump to confirm this.
Alternatively, of you set up the DSO time base so that you only see a few complete waveforms on the display and record a data dump. Then you find a thin spike in your data dump and see how many samples were recorded to see if you are sampling the data fast enough.
There is another way to do this. You look for the sharpest rising or falling edge in your waveform and measure how much time it takes to go from 20% to 80% of the rise (or fall). Then you look at your data dump and see what the time step is. If your time step is such that you make about five samples during the fastest rise time in your waveform, then you should be fine also.
As you can imagine, the more and more complete waveforms you record per data dump, your sampling per each full cycle becomes grainier and grainier.
Well, I didn't expect to do all that, but for anyone with a DSO-type digital waveform recording device, you can apply this Nyquist sampling concept to any measurement you are doing.
MileHigh
Problem solved. ;)
I have restored faith in the Tek scopes, just not so much in the manual's recommendation for NOT calibrating your passive probe. I did anyway, and it made a significant difference. I now have the expected 60mV across the 1 Ohm add-on resistor as confirmed by 3 other measurements. Apparently, the scope can do the math in real time, provided some settings are set just right.
So onward and forward.
Indeed Glen, MH's post is excellent. I have had no problems with this as I am very aware of the issues. I would recommend you increase your sample rate quite a lot; 10MS/s minimum.
.99 :D
Quote from: MileHigh on October 14, 2009, 12:49:24 AM
Dipping my toes in the water!
Glen:
How many samples are you recording per cycle? I am wondering if you are getting too granular in your sampling per full cycle because your scope captures look like you are recording 80+ cycles. I think that there is an issue there with undersampling exaggerating the energy in any thin spikes (positive and negative) in your waveform.
If you are a real keener you can look up "Nyquist sampling theorem." - actually, I'll take the plunge:
This is the biggie:
Now for a simple example:
To sample a 10 Hz "pure" sine wave you need to sample at 20 Hz. The reason for this is:
However, this is for the "ideal" case. In the real world you need to sample at about five times the Nyquist rate, which is 100 Hz. This will give you a good description of the signal for calculating the energy in it. (This assumes the "signal" is the highest frequency component of the overall signal which consists of "slow" and "fast" signals mixed together.)
Going back to what you are really doing in your experiment, in theory you need to know the waveform's frequency spectrum to know the maximum bandwidth of your signal.
That's the theoretical and practical background to all of this. Since you are trying to make precise energy measurements it is actually very important.
Now forget the theory and how do you really do this with your DSO? You look at your thinnest spikes and you want to have at least say... seven or eight samples minimum to properly record the energy in the thin spike. You can just look at your Excel data dump to confirm this.
Alternatively, of you set up the DSO time base so that you only see a few complete waveforms on the display and record a data dump. Then you find a thin spike in your data dump and see how many samples were recorded to see if you are sampling the data fast enough.
There is another way to do this. You look for the sharpest rising or falling edge in your waveform and measure how much time it takes to go from 20% to 80% of the rise (or fall). Then you look at your data dump and see what the time step is. If your time step is such that you make about five samples during the fastest rise time in your waveform, then you should be fine also.
As you can imagine, the more and more complete waveforms you record per data dump, your sampling per each full cycle becomes grainier and grainier.
Well, I didn't expect to do all that, but for anyone with a DSO-type digital waveform recording device, you can apply this Nyquist sampling concept to any measurement you are doing.
MileHigh
Hi MH,
Thanks for your comments I do really appreciate them ..... first I rehung the load resistor vertically as you originally suggested because of what appears to be stray RF or some type of magnetic interference that I was able to see on my TV set next to the RA COP>17 circuit when it was horizontal ..... it made my TV have weird radial lines in it about 1 1/2" apart so I turned it back again vertical and it solved the problem :D ..... second the wave form data acquisition method sounds interesting and it seems that .99 is in some agreement there, so I will look into it further and see what I can come up with, as you indicated earlier this is a "complex wave form" ..... not your every day sine wave by any means ..... ;)
Fuzzy
:)
Hi everyone,
Here are a few videos of the recording of data on TEST #5 on the Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Heater Circuit using a Tektronix TDS 3054C for Image and Data acquisition part of the "Finish" on 6 hours of operation ...
The second video is a complete version of the "Finish" with set up and additional wave forms ....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBIpSBjYDsQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZM8BBa7_Zpc
Fuzzy
;D
From EF:
QuoteIt should be noted, that the average battery voltage seems to decline over the seven hour period by a small amount. It is noteworthy that if the events were truly negative throughout the entire period 90.5% of the time, the battery should recharge instead of discharging. I am willing to accept that there may be extenuating circumstances in this circuit that prevent this from happening in some way. I am encouraged by the repeatability of this effect in 3 different locations.
It should be noted that in my tests so far net power is leaving the battery. The fact that Glen's battery voltage declines with time is clear evidence of that also.
In my preliminary measurements with a 2.5kHz/3.7% duty setting, the net draw from the 25V supply is about 1.5W (60mA * 25V). This was verified by taking the mean of shunt voltage and supply voltage from a data dump.
.99
forget what I was trying to say. Getting old here. Sorry guys
hi ALL. I will have a look. Was the last days in Spain with no INTERNET access and now in France with low access only. WILL BE HOME next week in Berlin and then I can fully follow the threads again. Thanks for your hard work.FUZZY and all who verified this REGARDS. STEFAN.
Quote from: hartiberlin on October 14, 2009, 03:55:18 PM
hi ALL. I will have a look. Was the last days in Spain with no INTERNET access and now in France with low access only. WILL BE HOME next week in Berlin and then I can fully follow the threads again. Thanks for your hard work.FUZZY and all who verified this REGARDS. STEFAN.
Hi Stefan,
Thanks for the reply .... and looking at the thread !!!
Fuzzy
;)
Hi everyone,
I did a short test on the Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Heater Circuit with a standard store bought 10 ohm 100 watt ( "MEMCOR" # FR100 ) load resistor, and after a short time the results were not as expected. The best arrangement for added gains in this circuit is to have the Mosfet source or Channel 1 to be the lowest mV as possible 30 to 70 is ideal but anything over 100 mV gains in circuit efficiency lowers.
The "load resistor" temperature was higher but so was the consumption of battery energy loosing .3 Volts every hour on my Fluke 87 DMM connection.
http://www.energeticforum.com/71062-post2961.html
Fuzzy
:)
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on October 15, 2009, 01:27:12 PM
Hi everyone,
I did a short test on the Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Heater Circuit with a standard store bought 10 ohm 100 watt ( "MEMCOR" # FR100 ) load resistor, and after a short time the results were not as expected. The best arrangement for added gains in this circuit is to have the Mosfet source or Channel 1 to be the lowest mV as possible 30 to 70 is ideal but anything over 100 mV gains in circuit efficiency lowers.
The "load resistor" temperature was higher but so was the consumption of battery energy loosing .3 Volts every hour on my Fluke 87 DMM connection.
http://www.energeticforum.com/71062-post2961.html
Fuzzy
:)
Large gains in battery capacity will be realised when discharge is well under the typical C20 discharge rate of a lead acid battery. Its the reverse of the 'Peukert Effect' where discharges above C20 have a non-linear impact on available capacity from a battery to cause rapid capacity loss when discharged at rates considerably above C20. Conversely, sub C20 very low discharges of a few tens of milliamps can increase the virtual capacity of a battery considerably, which is why some experimenters have been convinced that their systems are running close to OU when their batteries never seem to discharge to any extent over long periods of time. I have found that this effect is enhanced further when a battery is powering a pulsed inductive circuit such as the Ainslie one.
Hoppy
Rosemary and Harvey:
I apologize because you posed a few questions my way over the past week or two and I did not respond. I was simply tired and taking a break. From this perspective it feels like too much work to go back and plow through the old posts and respond. If there is anything that is still a burning question please feel free to post again and I will try to reply this time round.
Hoppy:
Right on, brother! lol If you use the basic resistive output impedance model for the battery then you can do a thought experiment: There is a basic property with respect to the energy lost in the battery vs. the load: The higher the effective resistance of the load, the relative amount of energy lost in the battery compared to the energy dissipated in the load decreases. When you have an impedance match between the battery and the load, then the maximum possible energy/power is transferred into the load, with exactly the same amount of power being dissipated inside the battery itself. If the load keeps on going lower than that, then you reach a point where there is no power being dissipated in the load at zero ohms and all of the power gets dissipated in the battery.
So like you said, if you power a load with a very high impedance load like a watch or a tiny tiny motor, then the battery transfers almost all of its energy into the load.
You pay a price for a C20 discharge, you can extract less energy from the battery as compared to a much higher impedance load.
That is one more complication with running battery charge-discharge cycles when playing with your Bedini motor or whatever when it comes to COP tests. This important factor related to how much useful energy you can extract from the battery vs. the load is normally not considered. I have said before that I love to hate batteries.
This is a segway into a big downer comment related to the very high voltage (75 volts) one microsecond spikes we are seeing going back into the battery in this experiment. Without ever having made any measurements, just based on experience and gut feel and logical deduction, I think that 99.9% of the energy in these spikes is just dissipated resistively in the battery. I assume the battery chemistry is not supposed to work with that high an EMF plus the pulse is too short for some molecules to dance together and exchange any energy kisses - so the big voltage gradient through the battery itself is just a resistive burn and almost nothing else.
This is in contrast where we see people get excited about the high potential across the battery, thinking it must be good. It is not logical to just assume "more voltage is better" in this case. This comment is not specific to "the gang" here because I know that the vast majority of people on the other threads would be excited too if they peeked in to see what was going on around here.
So, I don't want to spoil the 75-volt spike party, just give my honest opinion, here is what is happening more or less: The MOSFET switches on and the inductive resistor burns off some energy and also stores some energy. Then the MOSFET switches off and the stored energy smacks into the MOSFET and also charges the stray and drain-source capacitance. The "invisible" capacitor then discharges through the battery and the shunt resistor and the body diode of the MOSFET. Most of the energy in this discharge is dissipated in the battery as heat, it does not recharge the battery. Sprinkle in a bit of ringing for seasoning that that's your gameplay.
When you switch over to "resonance" or "oscillation" mode, you start to scramble the brains of the 555. The "resonance mode excitation" induces exactly the same type of response in the circuit as described above, but now it is not a nice even pulse stream any more, the 555 is croaking and/or the timing is random or quasi-random. It doesn't really matter, the key is that the response of the circuit is always as described above, but now it is chopped up and abbreviated, restarted, etc, etc.
The important thing to understand is that the "response envelope" is as described above and is always fundamentally the same, but now the "MOSFET excitation" has gone slightly screwy. When I say "MOSFET excitation" here I am not talking about the input signal at the gate, I am talking about the actual MOSFET drain-source switch itself - that is the agent that is "exciting" the circuit and the whole circuit slaves to what the MOSFET switch "decides to do."
I am sure that I am wrong in some of the specifics, but I believe the overall explanation of the operating principle for the regular mode and the (random) oscillation mode is sound.
Any takers? lol
MileHigh
MileHigh
Firstly I have no idea how power gets dissipated in a battery. Then I take it that you're saying that 'up' the amperage or 'reduce' it below certain values then you get battery vagaries kicking in that change the battery ratings? I'm sure no-one will argue with this. But your deduction that the 'spike' does nothing for the battery other than to result in a 'resistive burn' may very well be due to your own vagaries of logic. This goes back to the first question here. And the '75-volt spike party'? - that is the first time i've seen a number represented as a euphemism.
But that aside, experience and 'gut feel' have very little to do with the logic that you claim to apply here. In fact I think the terms are mutually exclusive. How does your 'gut feel' react to an evident increase in battery voltage? Or an evident reduction in 'draw down'? Is that the point at which your logic kicks in - and you decide that the facts are somehow belied by the evidence? A sort of reverse logic that sits better with your gut feel?
And then the 'sprinkle in a bit of ringing for seasoning'. Again. This is exactly the point where the voltage can no longer benefit the battery. Surely? But you add it? I would have thought that this may account for the fact that one side of the resistor can be hotter than another even when it's positioned parallel to the ground.
And the MOSFET slave switch? That's extraordinary. If it is capable of returning energy to the batery then it has to have enough wattage to breach the impedance of the battery. Can you somehow logically explain this?
And finally when can you be both wrong and right in any explanation? Frankly, I preferred you when you were tired. You were way more articulate then.
??? ??? ::) ::)
Edit. Witsend
Mh. Actually ignore the previous. Definitely inpsired by a case of the blues. And still there. Glad at least you're up and about and fighting fit. Wish I was.
rosie :)
and why are we not getting Poynt's data? It looms.
Quote from: witsend on October 15, 2009, 10:59:31 PM
MileHigh
Firstly I have no idea how power gets dissipated in a battery. Then I take it that you're saying that 'up' the amperage or 'reduce' it below certain values then you get battery vagaries kicking in that change the battery ratings? I'm sure no-one will argue with this. But your deduction that the 'spike' does nothing for the battery other than to result in a 'resistive burn' may very well be due to your own vagaries of logic. This goes back to the first question here. And the '75-volt spike party'? - that is the first time i've seen a number represented as a euphemism.
But that aside, experience and 'gut feel' have very little to do with the logic that you claim to apply here. In fact I think the terms are mutually exclusive. How does your 'gut feel' react to an evident increase in battery voltage? Or an evident reduction in 'draw down'? Is that the point at which your logic kicks in - and you decide that the facts are somehow belied by the evidence? A sort of reverse logic that sits better with your gut feel?
And then the 'sprinkle in a bit of ringing for seasoning'. Again. This is exactly the point where the voltage can no longer benefit the battery. Surely? But you add it? I would have thought that this may account for the fact that one side of the resistor can be hotter than another even when it's positioned parallel to the ground.
And the MOSFET slave switch? That's extraordinary. If it is capable of returning energy to the batery then it has to have enough wattage to breach the impedance of the battery. Can you somehow logically explain this?
And finally when can you be both wrong and right in any explanation? Frankly, I preferred you when you were tired. You were way more articulate then.
??? ??? ::) ::)
Edit. Witsend
Rosemary,
The effectiveness of the spikes to charge a battery depends on the power they can deliver to the battery. We need current to charge a battery and when a spike 'hits' the battery, the peak voltage of the spike drops and the current increases. Accumatively the spikes are able to charge a battery at a rate proportional to the power used to generate them. It is widely acknowledged that the initial high voltage of the spikes does have the effect of desulfating (conditioning) a battery by lowering its internal resistance so that it is able to store more energy / increase its capacity.
The problem with this type of charging approach is that although the spikes may have a conditioning effect, the efficiency of the conversion process from low voltage to high voltage using an inductive switching circuit using an 'open' inductor such as used in the Ainslie circuit, is very low, typically around 50%, so there is absolutely no hope of getting an electrical gain in the circuit itself. The only hope is that as John Bedini and others claim, the battery can over a long period of time, be conditioned sufficiently to show a gain in capacity that can be shown to represent more energy gained than drawn from the supply used to charge and condition the battery over a controlled load test. My extensive load testing of Bedini SSG charged batteries has not conclusively shown that a true gain is possible.
Using battery terminal voltage depletion or gain as a measurement criteria for testing the Ainslie type circuit, is futile and will lead to results that will never be taken seriously by academics.
Hoppy
Quote from: Hoppy on October 16, 2009, 04:39:36 AM
Rosemary,
The effectiveness of the spikes to charge a battery depends on the power they can deliver to the battery. We need current to charge a battery and when a spike 'hits' the battery, the peak voltage of the spike drops and the current increases. Accumatively the spikes are able to charge a battery at a rate proportional to the power used to generate them. It is widely acknowledged that the initial high voltage of the spikes does have the effect of desulfating (conditioning) a battery by lowering its internal resistance so that it is able to store more energy / increase its capacity.
The problem with this type of charging approach is that although the spikes may have a conditioning effect, the efficiency of the conversion process from low voltage to high voltage using an inductive switching circuit using an 'open' inductor such as used in the Ainslie circuit, is very low, typically around 50%, so there is absolutely no hope of getting an electrical gain in the circuit itself. The only hope is that as John Bedini and others claim, the battery can over a long period of time, be conditioned sufficiently to show a gain in capacity that can be shown to represent more energy gained than drawn from the supply used to charge and condition the battery over a controlled load test. My extensive load testing of Bedini SSG charged batteries has not conclusively shown that a true gain is possible.
Using battery terminal voltage depletion or gain as a measurement criteria for testing the Ainslie type circuit, is futile and will lead to results that will never be taken seriously by academics.
Hoppy
Having performed many experiments with high voltages produced by collapsing induction fields (circuit driven by battery sources), I concur : terminal voltage gain or depletion is a futile measurement criteria, without other corroborating data such as hydrometer (SG) and battery temperature readings, to name just two (of my cents worth LOL).
Cheers
Hi Hoppy and Hoptoad
To answer Hoppy first. All science is based on measurement. Regardless of the effectiveness of the spike to recharge - the evidence is that energy is being returned. Assume an AC supply - the theoretical evidence is that the energy can still be returned. Then it's benefit would be unquestionable.
And Hoptoad - I agree. We need to check the actual recharge of the battery - but our findings are that the discharge of the battery is consistent with the mean average voltage determined by the voltage across the shunt. And this does indeed indicate that the battery can exceed its watt hour rating. Better should I say that controls run in conjunction with the test and dissipating equivalent heat - indicate that the experimental apparatus out performs by a long shot.
Hope that's clear. By my quarrel in the quoted post was really one of semantics. And I rather regretted it. :D Not strictly that relevant.
EDIT And a quick point. The only advantage to this experimental set up is precisely because we can measure the results.
I've measured the MOSFET power; not sure if anyone else has.
Here's something to ponder:
What does it mean to have a negative power dissipation in the MOSFET, while the shunt, load resistor, and supply are all positive values?
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on October 17, 2009, 12:09:00 AM
I've measured the MOSFET power; not sure if anyone else has.
Here's something to ponder:
What does it mean to have a negative power dissipation in the MOSFET, while the shunt, load resistor, and supply are all positive values?
.99
good poynt
;D Can I talk zipons?
Quote from: poynt99 on October 17, 2009, 12:09:00 AM
I've measured the MOSFET power; not sure if anyone else has.
Here's something to ponder:
What does it mean to have a negative power dissipation in the MOSFET, while the shunt, load resistor, and supply are all positive values?
.99
It probably means you've inverted your voltage inadvertently. A negative voltage times a negative current is a positive power dissipation ;)
Quote from: witsend on October 16, 2009, 09:37:14 PM
Hi Hoppy and Hoptoad
To answer Hoppy first. All science is based on measurement. Regardless of the effectiveness of the spike to recharge - the evidence is that energy is being returned. Assume an AC supply - the theoretical evidence is that the energy can still be returned. Then it's benefit would be unquestionable.
Hi Rosemary,
With respect you appear to be missing my point which is; that taking battery voltage measurements and using them
in any way for an attempt to validate your OU claim for your circuit or its variations, is futile for the reasons I gave.
Hoppy
Quote from: Harvey on October 17, 2009, 02:02:40 AM
It probably means you've inverted your voltage inadvertently. A negative voltage times a negative current is a positive power dissipation ;)
Nope.....do it.
Glen's data dump "2_40us_520V-01_10_08_09.xlr" from a while back yields -87.43W in the MOSFET, if I have done the calculation correctly.
.99
Hoppy - with respect - I get it. Your decision to ignore the battery recharge is possibly valid. I said as much. My counter argument is this. How would you refute returning energy if it was not returned to a battery but to a utility supply source? Assume an ac supply source - and then accommodate the 'spike' being returned. Your watt meter would factor it in. Now? What does mainstream say? That they 'dont like the shape of the waveform?' That's correctible. What is unarguable is the theoretical potential to return energy.
And, like I say, ignore the recharge potential of the spike at your peril. It appears to give a draw down rate that is more efficient than a control run concurrently and run until the control is flat. And the control battery is depleted long before the experimental battery. So. As the Americans say - 'go figger'.
By the same token from Glen's same data, the power in the load yields a result of +95.9W. Power from the battery 9.38W.
Overunity or not, that much real power in that resistor would yield a much higher temperature than the reported 140ºF or so, so the two numbers are not believable imo.
Both numbers, i.e. the -87.43W (MOSFET) and the +95.6W (load resistor) can not be true indicators of the real power in the circuit.
Some may already see this leading to something: indeed, if the load, MOSFET and shunt powers are added together, the result yields precisely the power from the supply.
My results are similar, although using a much higher sample rate in my results has yielded more realistic values.
.99
Quote from: witsend on October 17, 2009, 11:55:49 AM
Hoppy - with respect - I get it. Your decision to ignore the battery recharge is possibly valid. I said as much. My counter argument is this. How would you refute returning energy if it was not returned to a battery but to a utility supply source? Assume an ac supply source - and then accommodate the 'spike' being returned. Your watt meter would factor it in. Now? What does mainstream say? That they 'dont like the shape of the waveform?' That's correctible. What is unarguable is the theoretical potential to return energy.
And, like I say, ignore the recharge potential of the spike at your peril. It appears to give a draw down rate that is more efficient than a control run concurrently and run until the control is flat. And the control battery is depleted long before the experimental battery. So. As the Americans say - 'go figger'.
Rosemary,
Your control battery depleting before the experimental battery is quite likely because of the effect that the inductive circuit is having on the battery. A pulsing inductive circuit can cause the battery internal resistance to lower, which results in the terminal voltage rising, giving the impression that the battery is either charging, staying constant or reducing very slowly compared with the control battery. The true power taken from the battery cannot therefore be determined from the terminal voltage changes, unless this is monitored over the full discharge curve of the battery, down to the manufacturers fully discharged voltage level and this is not really a practical proposition with your setup where heat output would also need to be monitored accurately over the same period of time. Added to that, this would still not be an acceptable procedure to validate your claim of overunity.
I have seen what many people would consider OU over considerable periods of time, where my battery terminal voltage continued to climb under quite heavy loads. However, in all cases the voltage eventually came crashing down with a net under unity result in terms of the ratio of energy in to out.
The batteries must go if you have any chance of convincing the academic world!
Hoppy
Quote from: Hoppy on October 17, 2009, 01:13:51 PM
The batteries must go if you have any chance of convincing the academic world!
Hoppy
Golly Hoppy. Yet again. We do not need to do controls. But we need to factor in the math as per classical requirement. This is exhausting. The way to measure the energy delivered is across the shunt on the source with DC coupling. If it were from an AC supply source - it would necessitate the same procedure. THAT IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO POINT TO. In other words - ignore whatever you like - but the academics themselves have stipulated the required protocols here.
If you are denying us the measurements and denying us the evidence of gains on battery duration - then you are also denying us any means to prove the claim. I take it that this is not what you're trying to do.
And there are those academics who indeed prefer the evidence to be on battery duration as added proof. But I grant you - the majority will not take battery duration as proof of anything.
Hope I've now explained where we stand on this.
Quote from: Hoppy on October 17, 2009, 01:13:51 PM
Rosemary,
Your control battery depleting before the experimental battery is quite likely because of the effect that the inductive circuit is having on the battery. A pulsing inductive circuit can cause the battery internal resistance to lower, which results in the terminal voltage rising, giving the impression that the battery is either charging, staying constant or reducing very slowly compared with the control battery. The true power taken from the battery cannot therefore be determined from the terminal voltage changes, unless this is monitored over the full discharge curve of the battery, down to the manufacturers fully discharged voltage level and this is not really a practical proposition with your setup where heat output would also need to be monitored accurately over the same period of time. Added to that, this would still not be an acceptable procedure to validate your claim of overunity.
I have seen what many people would consider OU over considerable periods of time, where my battery terminal voltage continued to climb under quite heavy loads. However, in all cases the voltage eventually came crashing down with a net under unity result in terms of the ratio of energy in to out.
The batteries must go if you have any chance of convincing the academic world!
Hoppy
I disagree that "batteries must go". But First you will need
"perpetual motion" device which implies COP=1 or greater
Then you have the unit charge a battery...use an standard
auto battery charger if you want. But the have a microcontroller
switch in a "user load resistor" (prefer a LED bulb, do not use an
incandescent bulb) into battery dcreasing it from vmax to vmin.
The microcontroller turns the user load resistor off when vmin is reached.
Then have the microcontroller keep track of how many watt-seconds
total were pulled from the battery via user load resistor.
Then show that the the number of watt-seconds dissipated
by the load is greater than the watt-seconds that could be stored in the
battery. Then show ten times the number of watt-seconds in the
battery. then show one hundered time it...ect. Thats overunity,
but you will have to have perpetual motion first.
:S:MarkSCoffman
I think what Hoppy is saying is that the tests should be performed with a DC lab supply and the circuit tested for power in vs. power (heat) out.
The effects and influence on battery stamina (if they truly exist aside from de-sulfation effects) should be dealt with by a separate test all together.
.99
Quote from: witsend on October 17, 2009, 01:24:42 PM
Golly Hoppy. Yet again. We do not need to do controls. But we need to factor in the math as per classical requirement. This is exhausting. The way to measure the energy delivered is across the shunt on the source with DC coupling. If it were from an AC supply source - it would necessitate the same procedure. THAT IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO POINT TO. In other words - ignore whatever you like - but the academics themselves have stipulated the required protocols here.
If you are denying us the measurements and denying us the evidence of gains on battery duration - then you are also denying us any means to prove the claim. I take it that this is not what you're trying to do.
And there are those academics who indeed prefer the evidence to be on battery duration as added proof. But I grant you - the majority will not take battery duration as proof of anything.
Hope I've now explained where we stand on this.
Rosemary,
I'm not trying to deny you anything, just highlighting that using batteries is futile as a means to validate your claim. I would like to ask you a loaded question: What is your understanding of COP17 and do you expect that your circuit should self-run electrically from the 'spikes' returned from the battery and if so why and if not why not?
Hoppy
Quote from: poynt99 on October 17, 2009, 12:18:35 PM
By the same token from Glen's same data, the power in the load yields a result of +95.9W. Power from the battery 9.38W.
Overunity or not, that much real power in that resistor would yield a much higher temperature than the reported 140ºF or so, so the two numbers are not believable imo.
Both numbers, i.e. the -87.43W (MOSFET) and the +95.6W (load resistor) can not be true indicators of the real power in the circuit.
Some may already see this leading to something: indeed, if the load, MOSFET and shunt powers are added together, the result yields precisely the power from the supply.
My results are similar, although using a much higher sample rate in my results has yielded more realistic values.
.99
Hi .99
I'm curious why having in your possession a
Tektronix TDS 784A and a
Tektronix TDS 3012B both if not mistaken have the capability of acquiring and recording images plus data but you haven't posted anything at all ??
The only other person to post any results besides myself was TK which he has now been completely debunked and has for some reason fell totally silent on the forum ....
I have posted six (6) complete tests with images and extensive data in just two weeks including replication information .... what ever the test results were, not altered in any way, for the world to see and discuss openly and freely.
At this point in time it would be helpful to the whole "open source" community for you not to withhold valuable information that could further our understanding of this circuit ....
PLEASE POST SOME DATA FROM YOUR TESTINGThanks in Advance ....
Fuzzy
;)
Fuzzy,
I would very much like to post my results. I have been obtaining results for a week now, but I have no confidence in any of it as of yet. As such, I have not posted them.
I am getting much closer as you may be able to tell from my last few posts here.
I have posed a thought-provoking question as a result of my tests, for which no one has yet to provide an answer. Why have there been no similar observations to mine by anyone else??? Where are all the power calculations? If they were performed completely and correctly, there would be others asking the same questions. I have used your own data to crunch the numbers and no one but myself has made the negative MOSFET dissipation observation ???
Do the number crunching and explain the results.
Obtaining some results is one thing, but validating them is quite another. I am in the process of the latter.
.99
Harvey, Fuzzy, Rose...anyone?
Please post a simple summary of your results from Glen's test run "2_40us_520V-01_10_08_09.xlr". (I have already done this number crunching as I mentioned, has anyone else?)
Indicate:
POS = power output from supply
PIL = power in to load resistor
PIM = Power in to MOSFET
PIS = power in to shunt resistor
...and pose a conclusion based on this summary of results.
Thanks.
.99
poynt is correct, obtaining results is one thing, validating it is another.
fuzzy is correct in stating "At this point in time it would be helpful to the whole "open source" community for you not to withhold valuable information that could further our understanding of this circuit..." and is to be commended for posting six (6) complete tests with images and extensive data in just two weeks including replication information, regardless of the results and not altered in any way, for the world to see and discuss openly and freely.
to maintain credibility, i think you should man up and do the same poynt. the only thing you have shown so far is a sim. how about some quid pro quo? data is data, are you scared to let people see it? let us crunch your numbers, peer review and all. ;)
thanks.
edit:
"Peer review requires a community of experts in a given (and often narrowly defined) field, who are qualified and able to perform impartial review. Impartial review, especially of work in less narrowly defined or inter-disciplinary fields, may be difficult to accomplish; and the significance (good or bad) of an idea may never be widely appreciated among its contemporaries." - from the wiki, emphasis mine.
the only contributor to this thread at OU that has met this definition is fuzzy.
that is what tk, yourself and the rest of the merry band were/are attempting here isn't poynt? peer review? and the shoe doesn't fit the other foot... imagine that.
I'll post my present results (despite the glaring inconsistencies) after I see someone respond with a summary as I requested above in post # 2037.
Meanwhile, I'm still in data validation mode.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on October 17, 2009, 04:29:41 PM
I'll post my present results (despite the glaring inconsistencies) after I see someone respond with a summary as I requested above in post # 2037.
...unless I come up with an explanation prior to.
.99
refusing to allow your data and experimental setup to undergo immediate open peer review unless your irrelevant condition is met, is likely to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals...
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on October 17, 2009, 04:39:43 PM
refusing to allow your data and experimental setup to undergo immediate open peer review unless your irrelevant condition is met, is likely to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals...
Hello Willby. Just so nice to see you back. :D You will note I was allowed admission to this side of things after TK's belated departure. I think he needed a monologue which I was obliged to provide but you weren't.
Have some mercy on our poor Fuzzy the Inimitable. Do you know how long it takes to collate and present data? Each post takes upwards of three hours. And I suspect that we're the happy recipients of a large chapter of his life here. Perhaps he's telling us that he wants to see some reciprocity of effort before he tackles a new submission? Personally I'm delighted to see we'll still be getting more. Thanks for this FuzzyTomCat. Much appreciated.
And MileHigh - my other favourite troll - I'm so, so sorry I got shirty. Make allowances. I'm really, really old and way too crabby. We need you to work through some of Fuzzy's data - if you're up for it. Relying on that partiality which invariably puts mainstream logic into full critical focus. ::) ;D :-*
Rose,
I don't think MH is up to it. I already offered him my data and he graciously passed. Besides, I already crunched Fuzzy's data.
In regards to Fuzzy, I am not asking him for a new data run if that is what you meant.
I provided reference to the data run already posted some time ago, namely the "2_40us_520V-01_10_08_09.xlr" set.
All that I am asking for (if it hasn't been done already) is for someone to post the calculations in a quick summary post as I suggested. Surely this has already been done ???
I have my numbers for Fuzzy's data run (and I have already posted most of them), and I would like to see someone else's computation of the same power dissipations I listed in that post.
I am putting in my fair share of time, rest assured. I used almost my entire long weekend (last weekend) and I took an additional day off from work (without pay of course) strictly to work on this, not to mention all evening of every day this week. What was I doing last night and all of today (and still going)? You guessed right if you said working on this. My laptop is here right on my bench.
Still waiting for a reply/summary.
Meanwhile, I think I may have had a breakthrough to explain the negative MOSFET power, and most likely other apparent net energy gains.
.99
Which other data set of Glen's would you like looked at Rose?
I have done several data dumps (so yes I know how long these take, esp. when saving to old 3.5" floppy), and also have a good spreadsheet going. I may also mention that I am using 5 times the number of samples for my tests (that's right, 50,000 samples) as Glen, so it is taking even longer to dump the data.
Let me know which specific file you want crunched. Why is no one over there doing these?
.99
Hi Poynt. I'm knee deep here. I'll get back if I may.
Quote from: poynt99 on October 17, 2009, 06:17:21 PM
Meanwhile, I think I may have had a breakthrough to explain the negative MOSFET power, and most likely other apparent net energy gains.
.99
I've done another run identical to my last, with a slight modification to the setup, and it appears I have confirmed my theory as to the cause of the negative MOSFET power dissipation. It's so "simple" (well depends on your depth of perspective) yet so far-reaching when doing these measurements on these types of circuits.
Now, to resolve this completely ::)
More soon. 8)
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on October 17, 2009, 12:09:00 AM
I've measured the MOSFET power; not sure if anyone else has.
Here's something to ponder:
What does it mean to have a negative power dissipation in the MOSFET, while the shunt, load resistor, and supply are all positive values?
.99
Poynt - i first want to get back to this. It's critical. In fact, this is the whole of the question. The only time that voltage can be measured when it's not related to current is when it's stored - as in a battery. Could this be stored energy? In which case why does the shunt at the source then indicate a negative voltage within the same time frame? Here's another possibility. Could it be that the voltage over the resistor is actually sinosoidal. The negative has already discharged - as evidenced by the shunt at the source. The positive cannot breach the switch and 'stays put' as stored? If so, then we are perhaps looking at an event that exceeds our measuring capability being light speed. Could this then, in turn - be some evidence of a non-local event? I'm not sure of all the arguments for or against - and hope that this question could be more extensively explored - here on these forums. MILEHIGH WHERE ARE YOU? Needless to say, this latter option would be just so neat - as it relates to the thesis here.
Regarding the computations. I've got a problem. We - in SA can't open the software unless we've paid for it - so I only get the dumps through Skype. I have no idea how to store these so look at each one as it comes up - do my analysis - hope it's right - roughly relate it to the evident waveform from the scope - still hope I've referenced the right one - then hope that the sample range is representative - then look at the numbers - buzz for a bit - get confused - and start on another. I would gladly give you the final figures - but you'd need to find out for yourself which ones I'm referring to. I personally lose track just about everywhere. Hopefully the day will come when I'll be able to download those files with a little more competence. And hopefully Tektronix will give us some software reference that we, in this wild and dark continent - can use. Lisa - I do hope you read this. Meanwhile I simply use Harvey's analysis and he's good enough to post these up on most of the available data.
But the data is available to you in America and Canada. Since the actual computations will vary marginally - depending on preference or point of reference - then any posted results would possibly be contended. Better that each do their own. What is evident is that the sweet spot is within a very tight range related to the resistance at the pot. Fuzzy has gone to some trouble to point out the range here. But the second factor that needs to be acknowledged is the diameter of the resistor. This also appears to be critical. So. It requires a specific harmonic and a specific diameter - and we have no idea yet if and where is the upper limit of that diameter. This also needs to be explored.
I saw reference to a 3% duty cycle at an equivalent frequency to our published. Please give us your data here. It's very relevant. And please also give us a full description of the resistor.
And Poynt - please advise. Is this not possibly replicable on your spice? If not, why not? It seems to be able to duplicate so much and so accurately. Is there a cut off to what it can do?
Quote from: mscoffman on October 17, 2009, 01:32:12 PM
I disagree that "batteries must go". But First you will need
"perpetual motion" device which implies COP=1 or greater
Then you have the unit charge a battery...use an standard
auto battery charger if you want. But the have a microcontroller
switch in a "user load resistor" (prefer a LED bulb, do not use an
incandescent bulb) into battery dcreasing it from vmax to vmin.
The microcontroller turns the user load resistor off when vmin is reached.
Then have the microcontroller keep track of how many watt-seconds
total were pulled from the battery via user load resistor.
Then show that the the number of watt-seconds dissipated
by the load is greater than the watt-seconds that could be stored in the
battery. Then show ten times the number of watt-seconds in the
battery. then show one hundered time it...ect. Thats overunity,
but you will have to have perpetual motion first.
:S:MarkSCoffman
I'm copying the whole of your post here Mark - for ease of reference. I want to put on record that I do not subscribe to perpetual motion machines related to the delivery of electric energy. In terms of my thesis - losses are inevitable - either during work - or during the discharge of the supply source. COP is measured against the amount of energy dissipated related to the amount of energy supplied. Our claim is that more energy can be dissipated than supplied. In order to achieve overunity - then one would need to prove that no energy is delivered against energy measured to be dissipated. That would indicate the possibility of perpetual motion. But - thus far - we have only found this on really small wattage which makes it an interesting argument but not easly proven. It is, nonetheless, highly relevant and would consider that it needs reference in any paper that may be submitted for publication.
Hoppy. I trust this answers your concerns here that I do not know the difference? If you want to test my lack of knowledge then you'd be well advised to check my computer skills. I think I'm in kindergarden here.
EDIT Changed delivered to dissipated. Lucky this system still allows editing and that I caught tht window ???
In SPICE, the big Drain voltage spike is not aligned with the negative spike on the shunt, as you can see from the SPICE scope shot.
In the real world, they can be, and when this happens there is a huge negative power spike (3000W in my setup) that amounts to a significant power when averaged over the entire cycle. In my case about -1.2W. It so happens that in my test, I ended up with -1.26W measured in the MOSFET.
So if they are aligned, does this huge power spike amount to real power? Even though it can be seen on the scope, I don't believe it does. I changed the grounding (which shifted the phase of the spike and ringing on the shunt) slightly in my circuit and the MOSFET power went down significantly. Here is a summary of the two test runs, only difference was grounding:
Test run #1:
POS = 1.1727W
PIL = 2.3818W
PIM = -1.2635W
PIS = 0.0544W
Test Run #2
POS = 1.4678W
PIL = 1.8703W
PIM = -0.4488W
PIS = 0.0463W
Note:
1) in each case POS-(PIL+PIM+PIS) = 0 which in theory is correct.
2) in Test Run #2 PIM is much less negative, and POS is approaching PIL.
3) the TRAA in both cases was equal.
In test #1 the temp rise above ambient TRAA was about 7ºC. In the CONTROL test, the pure DC power required to achieve the same TRAA was 1.302W. As a check, the load resistor was powered with 2.3818W as was measured to be its power in this test, and the TRAA settled to about 13ºC.
Clearly the measured 2.3818W in the load resistor is incorrect, and in reality is probably much closer to the CONTROL value of 1.3W. In fact the measured POS was not too far off at 1.1718W, but this is obviously measuring low.
Wiring, grounding, and electrostatic effects seem to be influencing the measured results (not the actual results as TRAA was equal in both tests), so it should be noted by all those testing and/or number-crunching, that the results may be skewed due to the aforementioned effects.
.99
Ok Poynt. Just seen your post. Bit disappointed here because you're not giving the full picture. Waveforms - spreadsheet data - details of the load resistor? But it's interesting to see the simulation. And you changed the ground reference how?
Unfortunately you're basing your argument on less than definitive results from your data. I think Aaron et al have covered this and also concluded marginal gains. But just go over Fuzzy's TEST 3. Nothing marginal in those temperature measurements. Nor in the voltage measurements. And I'm reasonably satisfied that - with Fuzzy's expertise here - ground is correctly referenced.
Indeed - in this test #3 - the negative wattage delivered - your term POS - is significant. The evidence points to OU, belied only by the evidence of some measurable loss of voltage from the battery. Loss may be explained by some means of data capture over a much longer run - say, continuous data for an hour or so - if this could be enabled?
But the benefit here is certainly not marginal.
And please give us some details on the size and shape of your load resistor - at least. I've been holding my breath here for so long I'm now in danger of passing out. Ta Poynty.
EDIT ??? :D ;D Rose.
Quote from: poynt99 on October 17, 2009, 11:17:14 PM
In SPICE, the big Drain voltage spike is not aligned with the negative spike on the shunt, as you can see from the SPICE scope shot.
In the real world, they can be, and when this happens there is a huge negative power spike (3000W in my setup) that amounts to a significant power when averaged over the entire cycle. In my case about -1.2W. It so happens that in my test, I ended up with -1.26W measured in the MOSFET.
So if they are aligned, does this huge power spike amount to real power? Even though it can be seen on the scope, I don't believe it does. I changed the grounding (which shifted the phase of the spike and ringing on the shunt) slightly in my circuit and the MOSFET power went down significantly. Here is a summary of the two test runs, only difference was grounding:
Test run #1:
POS = 1.1727W
PIL = 2.3818W
PIM = -1.2635W
PIS = 0.0544W
Test Run #2
POS = 1.4678W
PIL = 1.8703W
PIM = -0.4488W
PIS = 0.0463W
Note:
1) in each case POS-(PIL+PIM+PIS) = 0 which in theory is correct.
2) in Test Run #2 PIM is much less negative, and POS is approaching PIL.
3) the TRAA in both cases was equal.
In test #1 the temp rise above ambient TRAA was about 7ºC. In the CONTROL test, the pure DC power required to achieve the same TRAA was 1.302W. As a check, the load resistor was powered with 2.3818W as was measured to be its power in this test, and the TRAA settled to about 13ºC.
Clearly the measured 2.3818W in the load resistor is incorrect, and in reality is probably much closer to the CONTROL value of 1.3W. In fact the measured POS was not too far off at 1.1718W, but this is obviously measuring low.
Wiring, grounding, and electrostatic effects seem to be influencing the measured results (not the actual results as TRAA was equal in both tests), so it should be noted by all those testing and/or number-crunching, that the results may be skewed due to the aforementioned effects.
.99
.99
I'm getting really confused here all my testing devices are plugged into a UPS power supply as I stated earlier several times in this thread and at Energetic and have no problems with grounding and have a common ground point for my oscilloscope probes as photos of the circuit setup show. I would think having all the fine test equipment you wouldn't have any grounding problems at all or have taken care of them eons ago.
You have not provided us with any photos of a running set up as of yet.
You are using a PCB from groundloop and have little to no wiring as I do using a bread board as shown in my images of my running set ups.
You provide us with no data that can in any way be verified by anyone and I have continued to provide any and all data for complete review.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PROVIDE US WITH SOMETHING ....... I JUST POSTED RESULTS FROM MY TEST #7 ( http://www.energeticforum.com/71364-post2970.html ) ...... I'M REALLY STARTING TO WORRY HERE ?????
Fuzzy
???
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on October 18, 2009, 02:16:01 AM
.99
I'm getting really confused here all my testing devices are plugged into a UPS power supply as I stated earlier several times in this thread and at Energetic and have no problems with grounding and have a common ground point for my oscilloscope probes as photos of the circuit setup show. I would think having all the fine test equipment you wouldn't have any grounding problems at all or have taken care of them eons ago.
You have not provided us with any photos of a running set up as of yet.
You are using a PCB from groundloop and have little to no wiring as I do using a bread board as shown in my images of my running set ups.
You provide us with no data that can in any way be verified by anyone and I have continued to provide any and all data for complete review.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PROVIDE US WITH SOMETHING ....... I JUST POSTED RESULTS FROM MY TEST #7 ( http://www.energeticforum.com/71364-post2970.html ) ...... I'M REALLY STARTING TO WORRY HERE ?????
Fuzzy
???
DITTO ::) Rose
Quote from: poynt99 on October 17, 2009, 06:39:03 PM
Which other data set of Glen's would you like looked at Rose?
I have done several data dumps (so yes I know how long these take, esp. when saving to old 3.5" floppy), and also have a good spreadsheet going. I may also mention that I am using 5 times the number of samples for my tests (that's right, 50,000 samples) as Glen, so it is taking even longer to dump the data.
Let me know which specific file you want crunched. Why is no one over there doing these?
.99
Poynt - you may well ask. You're a fully subscribed member. ??? But I'm good with the crunching. And I get the details from Harvey when I can't do it myself. I tend to exaggerate my problems.
So gallant Poynty. Much appreciated.
.99:
That MOSFET question is interesting. I think that some of the issues include the fact that the MOSFET both dissipates energy like a variable resistor and stores energy in it's capacitance and the capacitance is relevant as we look at the microsecond order transients that are happening. Could it be that the fact that through one cycle the MOSFET stores and then discharges more energy than it dissipates, giving it a net negative power? It starts to get hard to visualize these things.
The circuit is actually two different circuts depending on the direction the current is flowing. That may come into play as you interpret your data. You dropped a big hint that you made a breakthrough, looking forward to hearing more as things solidify.
The load resistor dissipative energy per cycle could be done just by looking at the current as I mentioned before. The squared current = (0.0544/0.25) = 0.2176 amps squared. Therefore the power dissipated in the load resistor is about (0.2176 x 10) = 2.176 watts. This is not in accord at all with the DC control test showing 1.302 watts. I am not trying to prove anything here, just crunch some numbers. I can't remember if you are using a 0.25 ohm resistor and I don't think that you posted the precise measurements for the load and shunt resistor values either.
What about any 555 switching power being coupled into the MOSFET also?
QuoteTest run #1:
POS = 1.1727W
PIL = 2.3818W
PIM = -1.2635W
PIS = 0.0544W
Test Run #2
POS = 1.4678W
PIL = 1.8703W
PIM = -0.4488W
PIS = 0.0463W
Note:
1) in each case POS-(PIL+PIM+PIS) = 0 which in theory is correct.
2) in Test Run #2 PIM is much less negative, and POS is approaching PIL.
3) the TRAA in both cases was equal.
In test #1 the temp rise above ambient TRAA was about 7ºC. In the CONTROL test, the pure DC power required to achieve the same TRAA was 1.302W. As a check, the load resistor was powered with 2.3818W as was measured to be its power in this test, and the TRAA settled to about 13ºC.
Now I am going to shift gears and recrunch some numbers. These numbers will not be in accord with what I just stated above.
The 1.302 watts pure DC power compared to the POS power of 1.173 watts seems to be showing something unusual in the DSO measurements again. The fact that both runs generate the same real world heat power is also indicating that the DSO measurements are having a hard time.
Working back from 1.302 watts and knowing in fact that the MOSFET is dissipating power and not strictly a source of energy like the numbers indicate I will go out on a limb.
I am going to make some speculative tweaks based on your first test run. You assume the POS power has to be the load power of about 1.3 watts plus the shunt power of about 0.05 watts plus the power dissipated in the MOSFET. Let's say for example that the MOSFT dissipated power is 0.15 watts. Then the speculative POS = 1.3 + 0.05 + 0.15 = 1.6 watts. That's the best I can do, ballpark you true actual power consumption from the battery or power supply to be about 1.6 watts.
I feel confused and I am a bit surprised that the data is not falling nicely into place. However, I sense that you are iterating on the analysis and will converge on the real solution. That's the hard part that newbies, and free energy enthusiasts and believers seem to always skip, they see numbers that look good and think that they have cracked it. It is wise to not be too hasty in cases like these.
Anyway, because I am confused here, what I would personally do would be to do a full energy audit trail through time for this circuit based on DSO measurements an whatever other tricks that I have at my disposal to help me.
From a bird's eye view in the first part of the cycle you have battery energy that gets burned off as heat and also stored. In the second part of the cycle you have the stored energy becoming a second wave of heat and also going back to "recharge" the battery.
For the first heat wave, heat energy is dissipated in the load resistor, in the MOSFET switching, and in the shunt resistor.
For the second heat wave, heat energy is dissipated in the load resistor, the battery (assume some of this energy also charges the battery) , the shunt resistor, and the MOSFET body diode. The source of this heat energy is the charged MOSFET capacitance and charged stray capacitance.
Anyway these were just some thoughts for pondering, not to be taken as definitive statements.
MileHigh
MileHigh
Good idea about MOSFET capacitance. I very like it ! :)
Could it be charged by voltage spike while mosfet is in falling slope of signal (shut off) ? If so then maybe it's possible to replace it with external capacitor charged at the same time ?
Hmm... conversion of negative HV spike into current ?
Glen,
I'm trying to download a file from your test #3 but Rapidshare seems to be quite overloaded these days. I don't remember ever having to try several dozen times to obtain a download slot in order to download something before. What gives?
http://rapidshare.com/files/289473645/2us_520V_10_05_09_.xlr
It might be an idea to switch to one of the other free upload/download sites?
I'm doing this number crunch for Rose. Still the question remains, why is no one doing this over there? Why are the results from the number crunching not being posted? ??? ??? ??? ???
.99
Quote from: witsend on October 18, 2009, 01:58:35 AM
Indeed - in this test #3 - the negative wattage delivered - your term POS - is significant. The evidence points to OU,
I am trying to download some data from that test but Rapidshare is too busy it would seem :'( Quite frustrating indeed.
POS is "power output from supply". IMO the evidence of OU is not conclusive.
How do you explain the measured 2.3818W vs. actual 1.3W discrepancy in my results I posted? (see a few posts back or so). The real 2.3818W produced a TRAA of about 13ºC, whereas the actual TRAA was only about 7ºC ??? ???
Quote
And please give us some details on the size and shape of your load resistor - at least. I've been holding my breath here for so long I'm now in danger of passing out. Ta Poynty.
Rose I posted the load resistor data a long time ago after you had asked:
Quote from: poynt99 on September 25, 2009, 09:45:18 PM
Rose asked about the resistor I'll be using:
Length=165mm, Diameter=20mm
No. of turns=64 (2mm spacing)
R=10.1 Ohms, Inductance=29uH (will confirm with a better meter)
.99
http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af166/poynt99/Resistor/resistor001.jpg
http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af166/poynt99/Resistor/resistor002.jpg
.99
OK, downloaded (finally) Fuzzy's data from Test #3: "2us_520V_10_05_09_.xlr"
and crunched the data in my format:
POS = -1.2897W (power output from supply)
PIL = 96.6282W (power in to load resistor)
PIM = -98.7811W (power in to MOSFET)
PIS = 0.8632W (power in to shunt resistor)
Final load resistor temperature: 130ºF
Glen, Rose, all, please pay close attention to this one point:
Apply 97W (the measured PIL) of pure DC power to your Quantum resistor and measure the resistor's final temperature. If it is higher than 130ºF (and I am 100% certain it will be), then this 97W PIL measurement is erroneous.
And that is the point I have been stressing here; the data is not valid. Nor is my own, as my results are the same.
But don't take my word for it, do the 97W DC power test and prove it to yourself. As a check, input about 1.3W (or in your case about 4.5W) pure DC to the resistor and note the final temperature. Then ask yourselves, "How can the empirical results be argued?"
.99
MH, thanks for the post. You bring up some valid points:
QuoteThe load resistor dissipative energy per cycle could be done just by looking at the current as I mentioned before. The squared current = (0.0544/0.25) = 0.2176 amps squared. Therefore the power dissipated in the load resistor is about (0.2176 x 10) = 2.176 watts.
The theoretical maximum power that can be dissipated in the resistor with a 3.7% duty cycle and 25V supply (with about a 4V drop across the MOSFET) is about 1.63W.
QuoteI can't remember if you are using a 0.25 ohm resistor and I don't think that you posted the precise measurements for the load and shunt resistor values either.
What about any 555 switching power being coupled into the MOSFET also?
I am using a 1% precision current sense 0.25 Ohm 5W resistor for the shunt.
Indeed power coupling from the 555 was my very first suspicion, but I double-checked the current draw with and without drive to the MOSFET and there was a negligible difference. So it appears there is no significant power being sourced by the 555 circuit into the load or MOSFET.
QuoteThe 1.302 watts pure DC power compared to the POS power of 1.173 watts seems to be showing something unusual in the DSO measurements again. The fact that both runs generate the same real world heat power is also indicating that the DSO measurements are having a hard time.
I would agree, and would suggest that the results from the scope data acquisition not necessarily be taken as gospel. When someone can prove that the measured PIL is equivalent to the empirical PIL, then I will retract that statement. I have described how to check the two against each other in the last few postings.
QuoteI am going to make some speculative tweaks based on your first test run. You assume the POS power has to be the load power of about 1.3 watts plus the shunt power of about 0.05 watts plus the power dissipated in the MOSFET. Let's say for example that the MOSFT dissipated power is 0.15 watts. Then the speculative POS = 1.3 + 0.05 + 0.15 = 1.6 watts. That's the best I can do, ballpark you true actual power consumption from the battery or power supply to be about 1.6 watts.
Indeed I would agree that this is probably well in the ballpark.
QuoteI feel confused and I am a bit surprised that the data is not falling nicely into place. However, I sense that you are iterating on the analysis and will converge on the real solution. That's the hard part that newbies, and free energy enthusiasts and believers seem to always skip, they see numbers that look good and think that they have cracked it. It is wise to not be too hasty in cases like these.
I am disappointed as well. It just goes to illustrate that switching circuits can be quite tricky to measure, especially when the inductance is so relatively low in comparison to the stray and parasitic inductance from the wires themselves. Remember, SPICE does not allot any inductance in the connecting wires, they are ideal, i.e without impedance, and I am sure this is why the results are different. The load resistor being inductively wound acts simultaneously as a transmission line and delay line. In fact, with switching circuits such as this, all connecting wires should be treated as such. It is these real world artifacts that is causing the data (and hence results) to be skewed (i.e negative net power and erroneous power data). I agree 100% with the rest of that quote.
.99
My Ainslie Circuit Test Plan. This is essentially what I am following.
It may not be perfect, but at least I wrote and posted one. ;D
Notice in the photo on page 4 the wave forms on the scope. This is what is responsible for the skewed negative power in the MOSFET when we multiply those two wave forms together. That represents a -2250W (~150ns) power spike and over one cycle amounts to about -0.84W.
The investigation continues...
.99
Edit: We are multiplying those two values together in Excel, not the scope.
.99 and others:
A recurring theme for me recently due to the questionable data from the DSO has been "Back up! Back up! Back up!" By that I mean that you go back to basics and use very simple measurement techniques or do some other related experiments to get your feet on a solid foundation first. You have to make some measurements that all check out fine, something to give you confidence to move forwards.
Well I just had a great idea for doing a related experiment to find that solid foundation that would be common ground for everyone.
Let's start with the 3.7% duty cycle 2.4 KHz waveform. That "sort of looks like" the following: A square wave that is 3.7% ON and 3.7% OFF, covering 7.4% of the 2.4 KHz available time slot. (100/7.4) = 13.5. Therefore a 50% duty cycle square wave of about (2.4 KHz x 13.5) = 32.4 KHz would sort of resemble the 3.7% duty cycle 2.4 KHz waveform.
We are now going to make an assumption: Measuring the power consumption for the components in the circuit would also be difficult for the DSO if the 555 output was a 32.4 KHz 50% duty cycle square wave.
Now here is the interesting part: We can vary the frequency of the 50% duty cycle square wave, and we know that the power measurements should always be essentially the same. We also know that the lower the square wave frequency, the less and less the load resistor inductive component, and the stray capacitive and inductive effects, should have on the circuit. In other words, the spikes become less and less of an issue as the square wave frequency lowers.
So here is the test: Make measurements where the 555 output is a 50% duty cycle square wave at say.... 50 Hz. Yes, a lousy 50 cycles per second. At this frequency the load resistor will look much more like an ordinary resistor with no inductance at all. The spikes will still be there, but they will be negligible in comparison to the resistive burn energy that will be happening every time the MOSFET is switched on. I think .99 just mentioned that when the MOSFET is on you sustain about a 4-volt drop across it. So the load resistor voltage is about 20 volts less the shunt voltage. You can easily calculate what the power in the load resistor for a 50% duty cycle should be on paper, it's a no brainer. You just have to switch the MOSFET on for a few seconds and measure the voltage drops and calculate the current and you are ready to go.
So you do a run with a 50 Hz 50% duty cycle square wave and make all of your DSO recordings and crunch the data. The DSO will be sampling at a much lower rate because of your much slower time base but of course you will still be able to get thousands of samples per cycle.
We are going to assume that the DSO data crunching and the on-paper calculations and the real world thermal profiling are all going to be in accord here. They simply have to be in accord at this very low frequency. If they aren't then something has to be very very wrong somewhere.
Now the next step is to start to up your square wave frequency. 100 Hz, 200 Hz, 500 Hz, 2KHz, etc, etc. We know that as the frequency increases, the MOSFET switch starts to see more high frequency "smack" spikes as well as more body diode conduction cycles. Therefore you should start to see a trend in the data that shows slightly less power dissipated in the load resistor and slightly more power in the MOSFET.
At a certain point as you keep upping the square wave frequency you should start to see anomalies in the trending of the power data for each component. I am making this assumption based on the multiple instances of strange load resistor power data that we have seen so far. This is telling you that something somewhere is causing something to go awry with your measurements. .99 speculated as to some of the possible causes in a previous posting.
For example if you start to see your load resistor power start to shoot way up (as evidenced in the data seen so far) but you measure the temperature of the load resistor but nothing special is happening - then you are 100% certain that you have pushed the DSO past it's limits - or - (and this one is much more likely) you have to be very highly skilled in understanding how to use your equipment properly under these conditions and have to have a really deep understanding of transient responses in circuits, and how the geometry of the wires and the layout comes into play.
Anyway, supposing that someone does this investigation and finds out that the results start to go awry when the square wave frequency is above 10 KHz. Since the real 3.7% 2.4 KHz excitation frequency is akin to a 32.4 KHz square wave, that explains why the DSO measurements seem to be out of whack.
You can see the "Back up!" mentality at play here. You are trying to answer a basic question: How accurate are my DSO readings for the Ainsley circuit as I sweep my excitation frequency higher and higher?
We all jumped into the DSO measurements assuming that it would be a piece of cake to make the measurements on this circuit. We have seen strange data, so it is time to take a step back.
MileHigh
Glen and Rosemary:
I am going to put on my "fuzz" hat - like a cop handing out speeding tickets, sorry. I am going to hunt down and rebut some of your points as a reality check for both of you and for the readers.
Glen:
QuoteHere is some data from a test run using a new 10 ohm Mosfet gate potentiometer to try to bring a better percentage accuracy to the required 5.8 to 5.3 ohms that seems to make this circuit run much more efficient
More efficient than what? It is a serious question, what are you implying?
The word "efficiency" is bandied about by everyone in the forums in the same vein as "resonance." Think about this: Any variation of the Ainsley circuit you build is essentially 100% efficient at producing heat, but the wattage draw from the battery will be different from circuit to circuit.
QuoteAnd the results were interesting to say the least ..... and the final Image and Data dump on the 100ns had gains that hasn't ever been seen before, and if possible to maintain these values would be incredible ......
I see very high drain spikes in the last image for sure, but what do you mean by "gains?" Again, that is a serious question for you. This is typical for the forums, make a statement like that and everyone agrees with you but what are you really talking about, gains relative to what?
I am assuming that you are implying energy gains somehow, and not a voltage gain in the spike. Simply because there is nothing "incredible" about the voltage spike. If you are talking about the voltage gain in the spike and are not implying energy gains, then I will ask you the same question, what is so amazing about this? What is this information telling you?
I am giving you a hard time here because I can imagine the chorus of cheers if you record an even higher voltage spike. The chorus of cheers would imply that everyone thinks that this is "near proof" that the circuit is showing some kind of energy gain. The problem is that right now there is no proof at all that a higher voltage spike on the MOSFET drain pin equates to energy gains at all. I feel compelled to say this, to being everyone back to reality.
I also have a challenge for you: Now that you have posted the thermal profiling, you are in a position to analyze your data. Perhaps .99 could give you the spreadsheet that he used to crunch your data and you could play with it and try loading in other data captures that you have done in the past. You can plot your thermal profile data on a piece of graph paper with a pencil and ruler, or you could plot it in Excel, which really shouldn't be too hard.
You have generated a lot of good data and posted it, but the real issue and the real challenge at hand is to analyze it. I hope that you take the plunge and don't be shy and post some questions if you need help getting up the learning curve.
Rosemary:
QuoteJust noted the harmonics in that last posting of yours.
Well I saw those postings myself and I didn't see any harmonics. Is it possible that what you are calling "harmonics" are something else? You should be very careful with that word. Normally harmonics are much lower in amplitude than the fundamental frequency of the waveform and are nearly invisible to the naked eye. You simply can't see them.
For example, a sine wave of 100 Hz added with a 200 Hz first harmonic that's at -20 dB will still look pretty much like an ordinary sine wave to the naked eye, you simply can't see the harmonic.
Sorry for being a bad boy but there is good food for thought here.
MileHigh
Quote from: poynt99 on October 18, 2009, 03:15:20 PM
My Ainslie Circuit Test Plan. This is essentially what I am following.
It may not be perfect, but at least I wrote and posted one. ;D
Notice in the photo on page 4 the wave forms on the scope. This is what is responsible for the skewed negative power in the MOSFET when the scope multiplies those two wave forms together. That represents a -2250W (~150ns) power spike and over one cycle amounts to about -0.84W.
The investigation continues...
.99
Hi .99
Nice PDF ........ it's to bad your not using a replication of a "Quantum" 10 ohm "load resistor" thats outlined in the original October 2002 issue
http://www.feelthevibe.com/free_energy/rosemary_ainslie/transient_energy.pdf
My prototype is similar to it's size and configuration with much better results because of the obvious differences in micro Henri's .....
I see your also not using any battery's at all for your testing and data collection ..... not much of a "replication" ......
I also noticed in your set-up photograph included in the PDF you have the "load resistor" pointed directly at your "groundloop" PCB circuit ....... this could be possibly the worse place in the world for it to be, with getting strange and outright weird effects that come from the ends of the 10 ohm load resistor during operation ( point it at a compass or play with some magnets ) ..... just a observation ;)
Fuzzy :)
Edit - added battery note
Those aren't harmonics in the posted multi-cycle wave forms.
What you are seeing there Rose (and Harvey) is the difference between what is really there and the scope's ability to display and acquire what is really there. You may think of it as a beat frequency of sorts.
There are no harmonics there. Reduce the time base. It is unnecessary (and undesirable) to use such a long time base here; all those missing spikes etc., really are missing from the data.
It's as MH mentioned. You really need to have a good handle on the use of these scopes and techniques because the quality of the acquired data depends on it. Grounding is also a huge factor, as I hope to illustrate shortly.
.99
Quote from: MileHigh on October 18, 2009, 03:34:01 PM
.99 and others:
A recurring theme for me recently due to the questionable data from the DSO has been "Back up! Back up! Back up!" By that I mean that you go back to basics and use very simple measurement techniques or do some other related experiments to get your feet on a solid foundation first. You have to make some measurements that all check out fine, something to give you confidence to move forwards.
Well I just had a great idea for doing a related experiment to find that solid foundation that would be common ground for everyone.
Let's start with the 3.7% duty cycle 2.4 KHz waveform. That "sort of looks like" the following: A square wave that is 3.7% ON and 3.7% OFF, covering 7.4% of the 2.4 KHz available time slot. (100/7.4) = 13.5. Therefore a 50% duty cycle square wave of about (2.4 KHz x 13.5) = 32.4 KHz would sort of resemble the 3.7% duty cycle 2.4 KHz waveform.
We are now going to make an assumption: Measuring the power consumption for the components in the circuit would also be difficult for the DSO if the 555 output was a 32.4 KHz 50% duty cycle square wave.
Now here is the interesting part: We can vary the frequency of the 50% duty cycle square wave, and we know that the power measurements should always be essentially the same. We also know that the lower the square wave frequency, the less and less the load resistor inductive component, and the stray capacitive and inductive effects, should have on the circuit. In other words, the spikes become less and less of an issue as the square wave frequency lowers.
So here is the test: Make measurements where the 555 output is a 50% duty cycle square wave at say.... 50 Hz. Yes, a lousy 50 cycles per second. At this frequency the load resistor will look much more like an ordinary resistor with no inductance at all. The spikes will still be there, but they will be negligible in comparison to the resistive burn energy that will be happening every time the MOSFET is switched on. I think .99 just mentioned that when the MOSFET is on you sustain about a 4-volt drop across it. So the load resistor voltage is about 20 volts less the shunt voltage. You can easily calculate what the power in the load resistor for a 50% duty cycle should be on paper, it's a no brainer. You just have to switch the MOSFET on for a few seconds and measure the voltage drops and calculate the current and you are ready to go.
So you do a run with a 50 Hz 50% duty cycle square wave and make all of your DSO recordings and crunch the data. The DSO will be sampling at a much lower rate because of your much slower time base but of course you will still be able to get thousands of samples per cycle.
We are going to assume that the DSO data crunching and the on-paper calculations and the real world thermal profiling are all going to be in accord here. They simply have to be in accord at this very low frequency. If they aren't then something has to be very very wrong somewhere.
Now the next step is to start to up your square wave frequency. 100 Hz, 200 Hz, 500 Hz, 2KHz, etc, etc. We know that as the frequency increases, the MOSFET switch starts to see more high frequency "smack" spikes as well as more body diode conduction cycles. Therefore you should start to see a trend in the data that shows slightly less power dissipated in the load resistor and slightly more power in the MOSFET.
At a certain point as you keep upping the square wave frequency you should start to see anomalies in the trending of the power data for each component. I am making this assumption based on the multiple instances of strange load resistor power data that we have seen so far. This is telling you that something somewhere is causing something to go awry with your measurements. .99 speculated as to some of the possible causes in a previous posting.
For example if you start to see your load resistor power start to shoot way up (as evidenced in the data seen so far) but you measure the temperature of the load resistor but nothing special is happening - then you are 100% certain that you have pushed the DSO past it's limits - or - (and this one is much more likely) you have to be very highly skilled in understanding how to use your equipment properly under these conditions and have to have a really deep understanding of transient responses in circuits, and how the geometry of the wires and the layout comes into play.
Anyway, supposing that someone does this investigation and finds out that the results start to go awry when the square wave frequency is above 10 KHz. Since the real 3.7% 2.4 KHz excitation frequency is akin to a 32.4 KHz square wave, that explains why the DSO measurements seem to be out of whack.
You can see the "Back up!" mentality at play here. You are trying to answer a basic question: How accurate are my DSO readings for the Ainsley circuit as I sweep my excitation frequency higher and higher?
We all jumped into the DSO measurements assuming that it would be a piece of cake to make the measurements on this circuit. We have seen strange data, so it is time to take a step back.
MileHigh
I'm not able to pin down the cause of these anomalous readings but bearing in mind we have a current switching direction, I think MH may have touched on the cause because I think its possible that we have a 'standing wave' developing on the mosfet drain / source conductors, which is giving rise to a varying voltage along the length of the conductors which would result in various results depending on the positioning of the DSO probes. Kirchoff's laws are reputed to be non-applicable to pulsed inductive circuits.
Hoppy
Quote from: poynt99 on October 18, 2009, 04:53:47 PM
It's as MH mentioned. You really need to have a good handle on the use of these scopes and techniques because the quality of the acquired data depends on it. Grounding is also a huge factor, as I hope to illustrate shortly.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
It's done. New measurements which have proved my theory:
POS = 0.9745W
PIL = 0.6390W = POSTL(D)
PIM = 0.2766W
PIS = 0.0588W
POSTL(C) = 1.3W
Final TRAA = 7ºC as in all tests.
"Cleaned up" the grounding and results are as noted. No net negative power at all.
According to my test plan, this would clearly indicate a COP = 2.034
Do I have any confidence that these measurements are correct? I believe they are the most accurate so far, but based on the last 4 measurements resulting in negative power in the MOSFET and simple grounding changes making this much difference, I'd have to say "no" at this point.
I also know, and it is quite clear, that the measurements overall are low because a PIL of only 0.639W will not result in a TRAA of 7ºC. This based on my control test indicating that 1.3W was required in the load resistor for a TRAA of 7ºC.
It should be noted that if one examines the last few posts of mine where I did the number crunching on both mine and Glen's data, that if one were only to do the calculations for POS and PIL, and the grounding in the circuit is such that the values become skewed (as I have clearly shown they can be), that this would lead one to conclude the circuit is COP>1.
To illustrate, looking at Glen's data from the "2_40us_520V-01_10_08_09.xlr", we have:
POS = 9.3813W
PIL = 95.90W
and from his data "2us_520V_10_05_09_.xlr", we have:
POS = -1.289W
PIL = 96.63W
Both cases appear to show a COP >>1, and in the second case even a net power going back into the battery supply.
I think the DC tests need to be done by Glen to confirm for himself that 96WDC into his resistor will not only cause it to exceed 130ºF, but might get things red-hot.
This IMO is the first thing he needs to do before moving ahead with more data dumps.It is either going to validate or invalidate his data, and if it ends up invalidating it, then it is time to start over and look at the grounding etc., because clearly the measurements coming from the scope would not be correct in this case.
.99
Jibbguy:
I read your rant and can make a few rebuttals. First of all, why the "Aaronspeak?" Everything that I have ever posted is all wrong? I don't understand how how a flashlight works? You have got to be kidding. I am just having fun, and learning and trying to teach something when I can. And I am willing to make some firm points sometimes. That's it! It would be fun to see this arrive at a complete and full conclusion that everyone can agree on, that's the dream.
And you have got to be kidding with the alleged MIB ties. Anybody that is reasonably astute can just read my postings and decide that for themselves. Don't put yourself in the class of people that look at clips of the Space Shuttle in orbit where every piece of frozen tumling feces is thought to be a UFO. Especially the ones that are so close to the camera that they look like giant circular space ships hundreds of kilometers in diameter.
Then there is your cheer for the promised land of the New World Energy Order. Well I would like to see that too. There is an argument that there is no god, no angels, any ETs would have to be light years away and can't get here just like so far it looks like we can't get there either, there is no free lunch, and you and I are just matter that has become aware of its own existence and we can't win against the law of increasing entropy. We are both going to die and the world will go on.
QuoteIn the year 9595
I'm kinda wonderin' if man is gonna be alive
He's taken everything this old earth can give
And he ain't put back nothing
Now it's been ten thousand years, man has cried a billion tears
For what, he never knew, now man's reign is through
But through eternal night, the twinkling of starlight
So very far away, maybe it's only yesterday
- Zager & Evans
So perhaps in the year 9595 humans will have extinguished themselves out, a very common theme that you used to hear when I was growing up because of Mutual Assured Destruction.
Some alien archaeologists will find a server hard drive buried under 70 feet of rock and dirt and extract this very posting off of the disk. The data will be eagerly read by the free energy researchers on the planet Zelda. Go figure! lol
MileHigh
I forgot that Glen has already performed some temperature profiling on his load resistor. So let's use his highest tested input power to illustrate:
DCV = 8.8V
DCA = 0.9A
PIL(C) = 7.92W
Final resistor temperature = 164ºF
Clearly, 96W into that same resistor (apparently only able to raise the resistor temperature to 130ºF in his test) is going to heat things up tremendously beyond 164ºF, and so unfortunately we have to conclude that the scope measurements are in error.
.99
Are you guys still messing around with false voltage spikes on loads due to scope & probe parallel capacitance?
Please send me a message when someone measures the load & mosfet power production by means of heat generation, and measures the battery power output by measuring DC current & voltage. It would take about 1 day to that simple experiment.
Paul
Hey! The balloon deal was a hoax! I told you so! :D ;D
.99:
QuotePOS = 0.9745W
PIL = 0.6390W = POSTL(D)
PIM = 0.2766W
PIS = 0.0588W
POSTL(C) = 1.3W
Those numbers are at least looking like they add up which is great. Now I have to go back to your test spec to read up on some acronyms! lol
Still haven't gotten there yet though!
All:
Yes 95 watts would make for a too hot to touch load resistor for sure. It is worth it to put a resistor between thumb and forfinger and actually feel what 1/2 watt, 1 watt, two watts feels like. Then wrap your hand around a big white ceramic 10-watt resistor and feel what 10 watts feels like. Then check the heat produced by your blow drier. Just to get a sense of what heat wattage is all about. That gives you a "nose" for heat wattage. Be careful because this is NOT temperature at all - it is the continuous "shovelling" of heat into your hand. That is a completely separate deal from just feeling what the temperature of something is.
MileHigh
Paul,
I'm using high-end 500MHz passive probes (model:5905-1RA) with only 8pF capacitance. I doubt they are having much influence on the circuit, at least to the degree I'm seeing.
All,
I will make my data available shortly so that others may compare the two tests that have only a slight grounding difference.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on October 18, 2009, 07:37:37 PM
I'm using high-end 500MHz passive probes (model:5905-1RA) with only 8pF capacitance. I doubt they are having much influence on the circuit, at least to the degree I'm seeing.
Also the load has capacitance. Mosfets generally have a lot of capacitance. Don't forget that the scope itself has capacitance.
And lets not even get into inductance, which will cause resonance, thereby giving the false impression of high current through the resistive element.
Those are some of the reasons I suggested from the start a very simple method that would take 1 to 2 days to do.
Anyhow, if you're going to measure the power with a scope, then short duration voltage spikes should be ignored. Maybe you could show the power figures that does not take spikes into consideration.
Paul
Here's the only recent photo in this thread I see, posted by poynt99:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7620.0;attach=38285;image (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7620.0;attach=38285;image)
The green graph of voltage on the load shows a lot of oscillations. This kind of measuring techniques always requires tons of work digging deep to the find the actual voltage across the *resistance*. The photos & descriptions of loads I've seen for the Rosie device seem large, and would be prone to ring and resonate.
Without measuring the heat production, it's easy to chase voltage ghosts.
Paul
Quote from: poynt99 on October 18, 2009, 01:02:47 PM
OK, downloaded (finally) Fuzzy's data from Test #3: "2us_520V_10_05_09_.xlr"
and crunched the data in my format:
POS = -1.2897W (power output from supply)
PIL = 96.6282W (power in to load resistor)
PIM = -98.7811W (power in to MOSFET)
PIS = 0.8632W (power in to shunt resistor)
Final load resistor temperature: 130ºF
Glen, Rose, all, please pay close attention to this one point:
Apply 97W (the measured PIL) of pure DC power to your Quantum resistor and measure the resistor's final temperature. If it is higher than 130ºF (and I am 100% certain it will be), then this 97W PIL measurement is erroneous.
And that is the point I have been stressing here; the data is not valid. Nor is my own, as my results are the same.
But don't take my word for it, do the 97W DC power test and prove it to yourself. As a check, input about 1.3W (or in your case about 4.5W) pure DC to the resistor and note the final temperature. Then ask yourselves, "How can the empirical results be argued?"
.99
Golly guys. So many posts. I'm not sure yet that I've backed up enough with this one. But I do notice a marked difference in volume on this thread. Such fun.
In any event I'm going to answer this first. Poynt - That 97 watts on the resistor? That's where we're all asking the question. The data is not 'invalid' unless you want to confront some really hefty expertise. It's the interpretation that needs to be done. And from memory - I stand to be corrected here - that 4 odd watts was dissipated at no measurable loss from the supply.
Which makes it COP - OU - take your pick - but somewhere up there. At least? :D
Quote from: witsend on October 18, 2009, 08:15:31 PM
Golly guys. So many posts. I'm not sure yet that I've backed up enough with this one. But I do notice a marked difference in volume on this thread. Such fun.
This is nothing compared to the attention that the mylow case received. Maybe that's your goal.
Quote from: MileHigh on October 18, 2009, 04:10:59 AM
.99:
From a bird's eye view in the first part of the cycle you have battery energy that gets burned off as heat and also stored. In the second part of the cycle you have the stored energy becoming a second wave of heat and also going back to "recharge" the battery.
Anyway these were just some thoughts for pondering, not to be taken as definitive statements.
MileHigh
Hi MileHigh. :D Just need to drraw your attention to the 'second part of the cycle'. If there is enough energy to both dissipate heat and recharge the battery then it must - theoretically - be more energy stored than was first delivered? Surely?
Quote from: poynt99 on October 18, 2009, 12:17:11 PM
Rose I posted the load resistor data a long time ago after you had asked:
.99
Sorry Pointy. You did indeed. I've said it before. I'm just way, way too old.
Hi all,
Just a few quick points to help keep everyone 'grounded' here:
1. On average, we only have about 434µs of total data for any one 7 hour run.
2. This is a simple circuit operating in a complex mode. We have absolutely no way of knowing precisely what the current is at any given node at any given time within the circuit.
3. All power calculations on the Data are dependent on point #2.
4. Actual accurate integration of the complex waveforms documented is beyond the scope of this endeavor (unless we have some enterprising young minds willing to process it), so only approximate values are possible.
5. Collapsing magnetic fields like those produced by Glen's inductive resistor will definitely induce voltage in all inductive circuit components, including the leads of the carbon 'shunt' resistor and MOSFET
6. When a resistor exhibits a voltage across its leads and no current is flowing, it can be viewed as a single cell battery
7. A 100W resistor, will dissipate 100W of energy continuously without damage. It is unlikely that a single 100W 400ns spike every 3µs (~13% duty cycle) would heat it up all that much. And that would need the the current were 100% in phase (which we are certain is is not).
8. Power measurements relating to heat must include a time dimension. It may be better to convert the power per time to Joules and relate the Joules to heat.
9. When calculating power dissipation for a MOSFET, the instantaneous resistance (or specifically, the transconductance) of the device must be known.
All that being said, this research is ongoing and necessitates further data when the tools become available again. I would also like to add, that a human element exists in the data collection. This will need to be removed for rock solid numbers necessary for most scientists to accept. The data demonstrates a relatively wide range of output averages for this circuit, both positive and negative. The deviation needs to be identified and documented.
So, while the initial observations show a strong inclination toward a negative mode of operation, we cannot deny that the battery energy is still being expended. I believe that when Glen gets a few extra moments in his already over packed schedule, he may post the results of an endurance run that was done just as a matter of curiosity, but possibly valuable as well.
I would also like to address the matter of over unity, perpetual 'motion', and coefficient of performance. First, over unity (OU) is simply a term which indicates that we can get more out of something than we put in. It is always matter of reference. If I put a 1 gram coin into a vending machine and get a 10gram product, its OU by weight - if that is my only reference. When we attempt to close a system to factor all possibilities, we learn that OU simply does not exist in reality, and we have to include more than our universe to accurately close the system. Therefore, we approach the OU term with very relative measure applicable to the system and the desired results. We generally do not apply the term 'perpetual motion' to charge related phenomena, otherwise all electrons orbiting a nucleus could be viewed as perpetual motion, as can be the planets etc. So, we often will see the term 'self running' instead. Taking the output of a system and re-routing it back to the input in an effort to 'self run' would be an obvious test of getting more out than we put in, OU. However, the failure of such a device would not be conclusive evidence that OU was absent. For example, it was suggested that a battery charger be used as the feedback device. One must consider the efficiency of the charger, which is often less than 60%. If the circuit under test were at 17% gain and the feedback were at 40% loss it is easy to see it could not self run. Finally, I would like to address the difference between over unity and a COP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_performance%5B/url) > 1. Like a heat pump running at 350% efficiency, the RA circuit may run at 1700% efficiency. This does not mean that it is an over unity device. It only means that it is able to produce heat much more effectively than a standard electric heater (100%). So trying to take the heat it produces and push it back into the circuit as a self runner would be an achievement in itself as most thermoelectric generators are not very efficient (the reverse process needed for the feedback).
So, if we are seeing negative power dissipation (i.e. cooling from a thermal perspective) then we can almost be certain we have interfaced with a power conversion process external to our circuit. Like a magnetic field perhaps. ;)
Cheers,
8)
MileHigh - with reference to your post 2060 - your point is taken. But the only question here is the actual energy delivered by the supply. And the measurements here comply to the apparent battery draw down. That we need to account for some extraordinary wattage measured across the resistor without any apparent work - is a given. But even in measured heat dissipated over the resistor - there is clear evidence of excess energy over the supplied.
But it is also a phenomenon that is frequency related. And within a very narrow band - as related, apparently, to the properties of the load resistor. At a lower frequency - according to Fuzzy's results - the benefits disappear. Surely the actual question is whether the measurements across the shunt at the source are correct and within the measuring capabilities of that Tektronix scope? I'm not sure how this can be determined - conclusively?
Quote from: witsend on October 18, 2009, 08:15:31 PM
Poynt - That 97 watts on the resistor? That's where we're all asking the question. The data is not 'invalid' unless you want to confront some really hefty expertise. It's the interpretation that needs to be done.
PIL ~97W... did you read my test plan? Yes that is power in to the load resistor.
If anyone can explain or better yet prove that there is indeed 97W of real power in the load resistor for Glen's test, then the data can be validated. Until then, the data is extremely questionable at best.
The litmus test Rose has been described, and indeed already been performed by Glen himself. The measurement data clearly indicates about 97W in the load with a final load temperature of about 130ºF, yet Glen's own profile data clearly shows that only 7.92W of real DC power is required to yield a final load temperature of 164ºF, which is 34ºF higher than the test results with 89W less power.
That pretty much says it all.
QuoteAt a lower frequency - according to Fuzzy's results - the benefits disappear. Surely the actual question is whether the measurements across the shunt at the source are correct and within the measuring capabilities of that Tektronix scope? I'm not sure how this can be determined - conclusively?
For the moment we are only seeing "apparent" benefits. In light of what I've clearly brought into view, that's as far as we can go imo.
Regarding the scopes, I can assure you they are working 100% fine. It is not the scopes that are fooling us, it is what we are presenting to the scope that is. "Garbage in garbage out" as the saying goes. What I mean by that is we need to take extra precautions when doing these measurements. Unfortunately there are practical and monetary limits to what can be done here.
I can see that no one from your side is taking anything I've presented here seriously, and I guess that was to be expected considering what I uncovered and the impact it has on your claim. However, with some creative tweaking tomorrow, if I am lucky, I may be able to achieve the "pulse alignment" in SPICE, and perhaps then this would convince you that what I am saying is true.
I can tell you in terms of the real circuit that is on my bench, I can at will, rearrange the grounding ever so slightly and can either
augment the apparent negative power dissipation as Glen's data is showing, OR I can
diminish it, all simply by grounding.
That in itself should be alarming to anyone seriously interested in getting to the truth about this circuit! ::)
.99
Poynt - I'm seriously alarmed if you think that your explanation here is definitive of anything at all. Your own tests indicate a circuit that is uncomfortably close to inductance impact from the resistor itself. Then there is the on going problem of an entire lack of data for us to establish the veracity of your claim - rather than yourself. May I remind you of Wilby's call for presentation of data. It requires the facts rather than a selective analysis of a situation. Rather like reading a Judge's public summation of a case that had been held 'in camera'. Not a good thing Poynt.
And we are open source???? If there are questions that need answering then let's address those questions. Why this undue haste to conclusion? While it is acknowledged that various parties to this claim may be inclined to present the data that most appeals, there is NOTHING in Fuzzy's #5 that can be distorted. The 2 minute videos show continuous results over each period of testing. That cannot be 'fudged'. And the only positive was evident during the early stages of the battery discharge? Dare I say 'fluffy charge'?
So. Poynt. Lets get some data. Hot off the press. It should greatly enhance your argument here. Else I think you'll fall victim to the very doubts about impartiality that you and MileHigh accuse us 'free energy' 'furry' 'fanatic' enthusiasts. ;D
For anyone interested in the data, a link for both runs. Should make Glen happy anyway. ;D
The only difference between the two is an alteration in the grounding, otherwise the TRAA was equal in both at 7ºC, so both had the same actual PIL value.
The crunching has already been done for you.
http://www.easy-share.com/1908176317/Ainslie_2.5_3.7.zip
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on October 18, 2009, 11:25:31 PM
For anyone interested in the data, a link for both runs. Should make Glen happy anyway. ;D
The only difference between the two is an alteration in the grounding, otherwise the TRAA was equal in both at 7ºC, so both had the same actual PIL value.
The crunching has already been done for you.
http://www.easy-share.com/1908176317/Ainslie_2.5_3.7.zip
.99
First go - second go - message 'EASY SHARE msg_server+unavailable. Third go. Same message. Can't you send this through Skype Pointy? I sort of manage to open it there. Would you mind?
And I think we all like to do our own crunching - but it'll be good to see your data.
And while I'm at it - how can you hope to claim replication when the very benefit appears to be related to the resistor's diameter that is somewhat wanting in your own resistor. In short - why Poynt - are you trying to close this door? With the utmost respect I detect undue and rather anxious haste. I was really rather hoping for impartiality.
Rose,
You ought to be checking your data and calculations at this point.
Can we see a post of your data with power values for Glen's data as I have?
I've done it for Glen's data and my own, now is that too much to ask?
.99
http://www.energeticforum.com/71500-post2993.html
:(
Glen,
If you like I will upload a second picture of my setup. One thing that changed when I altered the grounding was that the top probe is now hanging off the top resistor terminal. So it is now parallel to the resistor.
That is the setup I have now and which was used to produce the last set of data. The "induction theory" does not pose a problem in my setup so far
Instead of trying to invalidate my entire effort, you ought to be trying to validate your own data. I've given you several things to check and think about in that regard.
.99
Grounding update for setup. Current configuration used to acquire last data set #5.
.99
Thanks for posting the photos, poynt99. I see a lot of capacitance there, especially in the resistive wire *wound* long load. Also, long wires = capacitance, for anyone who's studied antenna theory.
When you get a chance, can post a scope shot of these spikes you are considering as part of power across the *resistance* aspect of that load, including the time domain?
Such details could save a lot of people a lot of time. This kind of analysis of considering spikes on the components you have shown in the photo is difficult because most of the spikes consist of current traveling in the *parallel* capacitance, not the resistive component.
Thanks,
Paul
@ Poynt99
Good move on the star grounding but as Paul says, the interconnecting leads are too long . If you've got crimped croc clip leads as many of them are, then they need to be soldered. Better not to use croc clips at all IMO.
Hoppy
Another improvement.
I only had one 6" croc lead there Hoppy, but have now eliminated that as well. I noticed a marked improvement by doubling up on the croc lead back to the shunt, so I've soldered a 3" piece of 12 AWG to the shunt -'ve and brought it out for connection to all 3 scope probe gnd leads.
As a side note, I believe Glen is using long croc leads all over the place, not to mention the long leads to his pots...nice for noise coupling indeed. :-\
See the attached photo. Also see the Drain and Shunt wave forms, both for mine (now with better grounding) and Glen's. It should be noted that my test frequency is 2.5kHz (close to original Ainslie test), while Glen is still working in the 500kHz range, at least in that photo.
.99
Thanks for the nice scope shots. Is there an explanation what we're looking at? In the green trace, it shows a 100ns pulse that goes to nearly 800V, correct?
Paul
That's the Drain voltage, point P2 in my test plan (green trace). The Red trace is point P3, the Source/shunt voltage. Yep, about 750V peak. ;D Very odd that my power supply or filter caps haven't blown up yet, LOL. ::)
Varying the grounding by length and position etc., alters the shunt wave form a great deal, and hence can have a huge effect on the power calculation, even though that spike only lasts for 150ns. Overall for the frequency (T=400us) I am using, that represents an average power over one cycle of about -1W.
In Glen's case at 500kHz, it is a completely different story. We go down from about 400us period to about a 2us period, yet the power spike is approximately the same width. In glen's case it represents about -100W over one cycle, and accounts for the highly skewed results once crunched in Excel.
.99
Would it be over COP 1 if you ignored the pulses/spikes that are less than 200 ns?
Regards,
Paul
I quite doubt it would indicate COP>1 by ignoring the spikes. I'm not sure how one would go about doing that anyway?
If we replace all the spikes with the value it would be as a pure resistance, then most likely we would be left only with Ohmic calculations, and they should come out as per theory.
The premise of Rose's theory is that the spike itself generates (or re-generates) excess power in the return portion of the cycle. Killing the spikes from the data dump would preclude this theory entirely.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on October 19, 2009, 12:35:48 PM
Another improvement.
I only had one 6" croc lead there Hoppy, but have now eliminated that as well. I noticed a marked improvement by doubling up on the croc lead back to the shunt, so I've soldered a 3" piece of 12 AWG to the shunt -'ve and brought it out for connection to all 3 scope probe gnd leads.
As a side note, I believe Glen is using long croc leads all over the place, not to mention the long leads to his pots...nice for noise coupling indeed. :-\
See the attached photo. Also see the Drain and Shunt wave forms, both for mine (now with better grounding) and Glen's. It should be noted that my test frequency is 2.5kHz (close to original Ainslie test), while Glen is still working in the 500kHz range, at least in that photo.
.99
The Image and test data that is being referenced from the TDS 3054C was from
Test #6 using a standard off the shelf 10 ohm wire wound load resistor ......
some of the worse test results I ever recorded ......
http://www.energeticforum.com/71062-post2961.htmlQuoteI did a short test on the Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Heater Circuit with a standard store bought 10 ohm 100 watt ( "MEMCOR" # FR100 ) load resistor, and after a short time the results were not as expected. The best arrangement for added gains in this circuit is to have the Mosfet source or Channel 1 to be the lowest mV as possible 30 to 70 is ideal but anything over 100 mV gains in circuit efficiency lowers.
The "load resistor" temperature was higher but so was the consumption of battery energy loosing .3 Volts every hour on my Fluke 87 DMM connection.
The "Tests" that had the high gains was
Test #3 ...... Image Date 5 Oct 2009 23:01:09
http://www.energeticforum.com/70105-post2899.htmlThe "Test" that had the highest gains was
Test #5 ...... Image Date 12 Oct 2009 02:05:22
http://www.energeticforum.com/70771-post2951.htmlAs shown in the PDF documentation
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7620.0;attach=38290 "EARTH" grounding of the negative portion of the Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Heater Circuit and using a bench top dual power supply with capacitors instead of battery's you will see nothing but ground loops and no gains from the circuit .....
Quote from: poynt99 on October 19, 2009, 12:56:38 PM
That's the Drain voltage, point P2 in my test plan (green trace). The Red trace is point P3, the Source/shunt voltage. Yep, about 750V peak. ;D Very odd that my power supply or filter caps haven't blown up yet, LOL. ::)
Varying the grounding by length and position etc., alters the shunt wave form a great deal, and hence can have a huge effect on the power calculation, even though that spike only lasts for 150ns. Overall for the frequency (T=400us) I am using, that represents an average power over once cycle of about -1W.
In Glen's case at 500kHz, it is a completely different story. We go down from about 400us period to about a 2us period, yet the power spike is approximately the same width. In glen's case it represents about -100W over one cycle, and accounts for the highly skewed results once crunched in Excel.
.99
Your improved star earthing should give more reliable results now. As you have found, the grounding length makes a big difference to results. I had been trying in vain to get the importance of this earthing across to Aaron before I was ejected from his forum for making critical remarks. As you say Glen's results will be even more crazy running at 500KHz!
A good way I have found to 'star earth' is to use a strip of thin copper and solder all earth leads onto this strip as closely as possible. The earth leads to different parts of the circuit should be as short as possible and preferably all the same length. The copper strip is then conected directly to the neg battery terminal or connected to a PSU ground using a very short and thick lead, again soldered close to the other leads. Another way is to use ring crimps on the ground leads and solder as well as crimp the rings to the leads. These can then be tightly bolted together, first ensuring the the crimp surfaces are very clean.
Hoppy
Quote from: poynt99 on October 19, 2009, 01:20:22 PM
I quite doubt it would indicate COP>1 by ignoring the spikes. I'm not sure how one would go about doing that anyway?
If we replace all the spikes with the value it would be as a pure resistance, then most likely we would be left only with Ohmic calculations, and they should come out as per theory.
The premise of Rose's theory is that the spike itself generates (or re-generates) excess power in the return portion of the cycle. Killing the spikes from the data dump would preclude this theory entirely.
.99
That makes sense if that's her theory, but it's very easy to be fooled by spikes, thinking it's current flowing through the resistive component, when it's usually the current pulses through the reactive components.
That's why from the start I suggested the sure method of measuring how fast each component will heat up in a given time period, and then compare that to the control experiment. That's very easy to do that.
Paul
Glen,
Take your pick, all the photos look substantially the same. Here are two of yours, one from the OTS resistor, and one from test #5. You apparently missed my point anyway. Yes the peak voltage is higher in the second shot and will result in a higher skewed power. I have 750V peaks, so I guess I'm obtaining even more "gains" then you with my lowly OTS resistor ??? ::)
The focus of my post was and has been on the shunt voltage. ;)
.99
Rosemary:
QuoteJust need to draw your attention to the 'second part of the cycle'. If there is enough energy to both dissipate heat and recharge the battery then it must - theoretically - be more energy stored than was first delivered? Surely?
I don't know how you see that. Suppose 100 units of energy are delivered by the battery in the short ON pulse. 50 of those units become heat in the load resistor, MOSFET and shunt resistor. The other 50 units end up sitting in the MOSFET drain-source capacitance and stray capacitance. This very small capacitance is at a very high voltage. The current flow then reverses direction and 25 of these units become heat in the various resistive elements and the other 25 units go back into the battery.
Just to touch on how the battery handles these 25 units of return energy again: The safest statement is that there is an unknown split between this energy becoming heat and recharging the battery. Some will argue that most of the energy recharges the battery and my argument is that most of the energy is lost as heat.
You seem to be having trouble with current flowing back into the battery becoming heat. For starters any time you charge a battery in whatever charge state it may initially be in some of the charging energy becomes heat. It's simply impossible for 100% of the electrical energy that you put into the battery to become chemical energy. Supposing that you have a fully charged battery and you start putting current spikes into it. What do you think happens in this case? There is only one thing that can happen, the battery gets hot. There are no more available molecules in the battery for the chemical reactions to take place, so the supplied electrical energy has to become heat energy. I am simplifying things a bit here because there are some molecues available, but very few. Some molecules will eventually "come out of hiding" and "swim onto the playing field," so to speak.
QuoteAnd the measurements here comply to the apparent battery draw down. That we need to account for some extraordinary wattage measured across the resistor without any apparent work - is a given. But even in measured heat dissipated over the resistor - there is clear evidence of excess energy over the supplied.
Well .99 has highlighted the fact that the "extraordinary wattage" measured across the load resistor is in fact an illusion because the wattage derived from the thermal measurements is at least an order of magnitude smaller than the DSO data (excluding .99's recent measurements, but they are suspect also). Your paper indicates that you measured real thermal heat showing a COP of 17, it was based on real world measurements. The real world measurements are not showing that for Glen or .99's setups. If the load resistor measurements done with the DSO are suspect, then we have to conclude that the battery or power supply and MOSFET DSO measurements are suspect. It is really unfortunate that this is the case, I was not execting that to happen. However, .99 stated that it is not the equipment, and I agree with him.
Just to briefly touch on measuring the average power for the load resistor. When the current in it is increasing, you are charging the inductor. When the current is decreasing the inductor is discharging. That implies that if you monitor the load resistor for power you may be doubling the measurement for the stored inductive energy because of the charge-discharge cycle. Then there may be transmission line/delay line/stray capacitive effects also. At any instant in time the load resistor is dissipating energy proportional to the current through it and it also has a baseline amount of stored energy, and the stored energy is either increasing or decreasing. Then on top of all that the voltage across it is a combination of the voltage drop due to the resistive element and the rate of change of current with respect to time times the inductive element.
Even with all of those dynamics going on, I think that you can make a good clean measurement of the energy being dissipated in the load resistor with the DSO if you are an expert at doing these kinds of things.
I think that the reason for the very high wattages measured across the load resistor have to do with the reactive power creating high voltages across the load resistor when the current through it is in fact decreasing down to zero. The key is that the voltage you are measuring is always two voltages added together, the reactive inductive voltage and the dissipative resistive voltage. The real power being dissipated in the load resistor is the product of the dissipative resistive voltage and the current only.
I still must make note that .99 showed much better and more realistic load resistor power measurements recently. I suppose that with a proper set up the DSO can record the dissipative + reactive power flowing into the resistor and then as things turn around you are recording the dissipative power less the reactive power as the reactive energy leaves the load resistor and charges the MOSFET capacitor.
I am going to be totally honest and qualify everything that I am saying above. My confidence in what I am saying is only fair to good, I am not speaking authoritatively. I really am not an analog design engineer that specializes in this kind of stuff by any means. However, if I was given a few days with the DSO and a setup and just focused on understanding the dynamics of the load resistor power measurement then I would stand a decent chance of figuring it all out.
Another way to think of the "waveform" across the load resistor is to give it a few extra energy waveforms to get a clearer picture of what it going on. There is a resistive power dissipation waveform vs. time and a stored reactive energy waveforms vs. time and a reactive power out/in waveform vs. time along with the voltage and current waveforms. You simply have to average the the resistive power dissipation waveform over one cycle to get the true load resistor dissipative power.
MileHigh
Quote from: poynt99 on October 19, 2009, 12:35:48 PM
Another improvement.
I only had one 6" croc lead there Hoppy, but have now eliminated that as well. I noticed a marked improvement by doubling up on the croc lead back to the shunt, so I've soldered a 3" piece of 12 AWG to the shunt -'ve and brought it out for connection to all 3 scope probe gnd leads.
As a side note, I believe Glen is using long croc leads all over the place, not to mention the long leads to his pots...nice for noise coupling indeed. :-\
.99
Here is a photo of The TDS 3054C oscilloscope probe connections .... as you can see there is "NO" long croc leads all over the place ..... false allegation or misdirection ???
Don't you think people will wonder why everyone here will not do this the correct way, by measuring how fast the components heat up?
I'm in this thread every once in a great while for one reason, to save legit researchers time & money. Given by how few people are replicating this, I'm glad legit people are finally getting it: Wait for sincerity before spending time & money replicating.
Examine this one.
1) You have two long croc-type leads to your resistor that run to a connector. I would guess around 24" each. Solder those leads to your resistor mate and get rid of the croc ends. Also, those leads appear under-gauged and are too long. Use multi-strand #12 throughout.
2) You have from this connector another long run to your battery bank, I would guess about 36" to the floor. The "battery" voltage is being taken from some point in the middle of this long run as shown on the butt connector. Incorrect. To properly measure the voltage across the load your two probes need to be right on the resistor ends as I show in my setup. The high side is your "battery" voltage, the low side the Drain voltage (reduce those lengths). See my test plan. That is how the wiring and measurement points should be set up.
3) You have two different probe ground points; one on the butt connector from the battery, and one star point ground going to your shunt (and you say I have ground loops ??? ). This is a no-no, as I have found and emphasized here. One good ground point, and this should be at the -'ve side of the shunt with a heavy multi-strand wire. That little white ground wire going to your shunt is not adequate as I have noted.
You want to know why your results are skewed, this is most likely it. Clean up your grounding as I have and as I've just suggested, then see if your results are the same.
There is more I could suggest, but that will keep you busy for a bit should you choose to clean up your setup. I will also be trying a few more things to clean mine up as well.
.99
Glen:
I don't agree with your comments on .99's setup. It looks pretty good to me overall. The one point that you make that I think has some merit is about the load resistor being directly over the circuit. However, the magnetic field generated by the load resistor is synchronous with the operation of the circuit. In that sense it is not like an unrelated magnetic filed that would induce an asynchronous disturbance into the circuit. Since the varying magnetic field is synchronous with the operation of the circuit, whatever possible effects it could induce will seamlessly blend in with the operation of the circuit. This is also the distinct possibility that any effects would be minimal one way or the other. There are no big wire loops in .99's setup to "catch" the changing magnetic flux from the load resistor. None the less, it would not hurt matters to displace the load resistor so it is not directly over the PCB.
.99 and Hoppy:
I am surprised the grounding improvements had much of an effect. There are essentially no currents in the ground connections associated with the probes, so you would assume that the probe grounds can't induce any ripple effects in the ground voltage. There are a few pretty sharp edges though starting with the 555 waveform on down. Perhaps there are some localized very high harmonic frequency effects associated with the sharp edges that were reduced in amplitude with the improved grounding arrangement.
This is starting to make me think of my two microwaves courses, where the professor reminded us that all general circuit analysis is just a generalization of microwave theory where the frequencies are normally low enough so you could ignore the microwave transmission line effects. I should never have taken Microwaves II, big mistake! lol
Paul:
QuoteDon't you think people will wonder why everyone here will not do this the correct way, by measuring how fast the components heat up?
Just measuring the temperature of the load resistor at thermal equilibrium is essentially the same thing with the added benefit that it is much easier to do. Measuring how fast the components heat up is just the thermal power integrated over time. Most people are just measuring the thermal power.
MileHigh
MH,
Indeed I have "directed" the resistor end away from the pcb with no effect. I've moved all the wires around also with no effect on the wave forms. The biggest effects due to proximity to objects is electrostatic.
Regarding the grounding, yes a huge difference when reading "in between the lines". From a bird's-eye-view, you may not see much difference, but zoom in to the spike and you see a world of difference.
It has nothing to do with the probe ground affecting the circuit grounds, it is the other way around. As you just mentioned, high frequency effects must be considered in this case. Where is ground really ground ??? All these leads are TL's at these frequencies. They have their own inductance and capacitance to earth ground. Arbitrarily attaching your scope ground in the middle of a 36" piece of wire that is carrying pulsed currents, isn't exactly going to act as a good ground any more. Since the probe ground is the reference point the scope uses, this greatly affects the "voltage" measured between the probe tip and its own probe ground. This "voltage" can not be representative of the real voltage being measured, unless all the inductance and TL effects can be eliminated. Well, we can't eliminate the effects entirely, but we can minimize them by keeping all wires as short as possible (including probe ground leads) and utilizing good grounding practices, which I somewhat failed to do from the start, but have since cleaned up my act.
Glen has some work ahead of him as well in this regard if he wants to improve the integrity of his data.
.99
Quote from: MileHigh on October 19, 2009, 03:03:20 PMPaul:
Just measuring the temperature of the load resistor at thermal equilibrium is essentially the same thing with the added benefit that it is much easier to do.
Huge difference. One is accurate & easy to perform. The other is prone to great errors giving false readings.
Quote from: MileHigh on October 19, 2009, 03:03:20 PMMeasuring how fast the components heat up is just the thermal power integrated over time. Most people are just measuring the thermal power.
And that's what you want to measure, but so far I don't see anyone doing it.
Paul
Luc,
If you're looking for a 0.25 Ohm resistor, I used this:
http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?lang=en&site=US&WT.z_homepage_link=hp_go_button&KeyWords=15fr250e&x=0&y=0
P/N: 15FR250E. It is a 1%, 5W.
Inductance measures to 1uH.
.99
Quote from: MileHigh on October 19, 2009, 03:03:20 PM
Glen:
I don't agree with your comments on .99's setup. It looks pretty good to me overall. The one point that you make that I think has some merit is about the load resistor being directly over the circuit. However, the magnetic field generated by the load resistor is synchronous with the operation of the circuit. In that sense it is not like an unrelated magnetic filed that would induce an asynchronous disturbance into the circuit. Since the varying magnetic field is synchronous with the operation of the circuit, whatever possible effects it could induce will seamlessly blend in with the operation of the circuit. This is also the distinct possibility that any effects would be minimal one way or the other. There are no big wire loops in .99's setup to "catch" the changing magnetic flux from the load resistor. None the less, it would not hurt matters to displace the load resistor so it is not directly over the PCB.
.99 and Hoppy:
I am surprised the grounding improvements had much of an effect. There are essentially no currents in the ground connections associated with the probes, so you would assume that the probe grounds can't induce any ripple effects in the ground voltage. There are a few pretty sharp edges though starting with the 555 waveform on down. Perhaps there are some localized very high harmonic frequency effects associated with the sharp edges that were reduced in amplitude with the improved grounding arrangement.
This is starting to make me think of my two microwaves courses, where the professor reminded us that all general circuit analysis is just a generalization of microwave theory where the frequencies are normally low enough so you could ignore the microwave transmission line effects. I should never have taken Microwaves II, big mistake! lol
Paul:
Just measuring the temperature of the load resistor at thermal equilibrium is essentially the same thing with the added benefit that it is much easier to do. Measuring how fast the components heat up is just the thermal power integrated over time. Most people are just measuring the thermal power.
MileHigh
MH
As a retired Telecomms Engineer and I've learnt a few things about the problems poor grounding arrangements can cause even at relatively low frequencies. I really whince when I see setups like Aaron displayed on the energetic forum. Its not just a case of common point starred ground connections being needed, equalisation of ground conductor lengths is also important as is conductor size, which should be as heavy as is practical to use. All components leads on the power side such as mosfet pins and shunt resistor leads need to be clipped short before termination. Poynt99 also points out the importance of probe placement. Its no good scoping any component with the probes anywhere but at the closest possible point to the body of the component if very accurate measurements are needed for detailed analysis. Until all setups are carefully built taking all this into consideration, test results will be contentious to say the least.
Hoppy
A confirmation of the results from Glen's test #5. I crunched only Hour 2 for the 2us and 20us runs. All powers calculated (for a complete perspective), not just POS.
2_2us_520V-02_10_11_09.xlr
POS = -3.206W
PIL = 112.3W
PIM = -116.5W
PIS = 0.95W
Final resistor temperature = 135ºF
2_20us_520V-02_10_11_09.xlr
POS = -4.046W
PIL = 100.8W
PIM = -105.7W
PIS = 0.87W
Final resistor temperature = 136ºF
Again, I ask Glen, Harvey, and Rose to explain the 100W PIL when clearly the load resistor is not dissipating this much power ???
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on October 19, 2009, 02:57:42 PM
Examine this one.
1) You have two long croc-type leads to your resistor that run to a connector. I would guess around 24" each. Solder those leads to your resistor mate and get rid of the croc ends. Also, those leads appear under-gauged and are too long. Use multi-strand #12 throughout.
2) You have from this connector another long run to your battery bank, I would guess about 36" to the floor. The "battery" voltage is being taken from some point in the middle of this long run as shown on the butt connector. Incorrect. To properly measure the voltage across the load your two probes need to be right on the resistor ends as I show in my setup. The high side is your "battery" voltage, the low side the Drain voltage (reduce those lengths). See my test plan. That is how the wiring and measurement points should be set up.
3) You have two different probe ground points; one on the butt connector from the battery, and one star point ground going to your shunt (and you say I have ground loops ??? ). This is a no-no, as I have found and emphasized here. One good ground point, and this should be at the -'ve side of the shunt with a heavy multi-strand wire. That little white ground wire going to your shunt is not adequate as I have noted.
You want to know why your results are skewed, this is most likely it. Clean up your grounding as I have and as I've just suggested, then see if your results are the same.
There is more I could suggest, but that will keep you busy for a bit should you choose to clean up your setup. I will also be trying a few more things to clean mine up as well.
.99
As your aware there was a video tape taken some of which has been posted "showing" relevent details of the test.
THE FIRST -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBIpSBjYDsQThis shows the data collection "ONLY" 2 minutes before and through the process in HQ YouTube video with the file names ,time stamp and file size of all data collected - 21 images and 21 data dumps for verification purposes on the 6 hour run with 7 image and data collections
THE SECOND -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZM8BBa7_ZpcThe same content of the first video but with extra set-up footage and final extra image collection prior to stopping the test after 7 image and data collections.
THIS HAS BEEN POSTED HERE ALREADY AND THE BATTERY IS NOT ON THE FLOOR !!!!!! >:(
There is a video I'm working on approx 40 minutes long in
HQ (5 GB) from beginning to end when fully edited it will be posted on a P2P torrent site. This has 2 minutes prior to image and data dumps and 2 minutes after hour 1 through hour 4, hour 5 through the final 7th finish data and image collection has the exact same thing with added set-up footage and return to tri pod for several minutes ...... Fully Documented .... lower quality footage will be posted on YouTube when completed.
And for ground loops ...... your scope probes are connected to the wall outlet 120 volt plug ground and going to a AC grounded system ...... you have a separate earth grounding point at the dual power supply connected to the Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Heater 24 volt circuit grounding it to what a AC grounding system ..... talk about ground loops and potential differences
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on October 19, 2009, 04:48:29 PM
And for ground loops ...... your scope probes are connected to the wall outlet 120 volt plug ground and going to a AC grounded system ...... you have a separate earth grounding point at the dual power supply connected to the Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Heater 24 volt circuit grounding it to what a AC grounding system ..... talk about ground loops and potential differences
My circuit is connected to the Grid ground through the oscilloscope. I agree with you on that.
However, check the power supply photo again, you are incorrect about it being tied back to Grid ground there. The green banana jacks are earth ground, the black ones are isolated grounds, even from each side of the supply. I have tied both sides (the 12V 555 supply and the 25V load supply) together right at the supply as you can see by the heavy black wire connecting the two black banana jacks. I have no connection to the green ones at all.
Before I built Groundloop's PCB, I severed a ground connection on the PCB between the load and 555 side as this would have caused a ground loop (ironically) in itself.
I have no groundloops mate, but with your double probe grounding I pointed out, indeed you do.
.99
.99, Glen, All:
Quote2_2us_520V-02_10_11_09.xlr
POS = -3.206W
PIL = 112.3W
PIM = -116.5W
PIS = 0.95W
Final resistor temperature = 135ºF
2_20us_520V-02_10_11_09.xlr
POS = -4.046W
PIL = 100.8W
PIM = -105.7W
PIS = 0.87W
Final resistor temperature = 136ºF
What is "spooky" about these readings is that it looks like the MOSFET is a source of power, and that power is going into the load resistor, the shunt resistor, and the battery. I double checked the readings with a calculator and they are almost dead on.
PIM(output) = PIL + PIS + POS(input)
I think that .99 also got some results like this that add up like this also. It seems to suggest that the DSO is doing it's job properly but there is something else going on. I speculated before that the reactive energy associated with the inductance and capacitance is making it look like this. This reactive energy would also be conserved also implying that the numbers should balance, which they do.
Certainly we know that the real power dissipated in the load resistor is just a few watts. That fact can't be ignored. We also know that the MOSFET is not a source of energy, it dissipates energy. We also know that the power supply is supplying net positive power and not net negative power. Anybody who doubts this can replace the battery or power supply with a big fat capacitor and watch the voltage in the capacitor drop as the circuit runs.
It is an interesting mystery for sure.
MileHigh
Hello MileHigh ;D
Loved those little molecules that pile in on the end game. Reminds me of Paul - in a way.
I get it regarding the battery heating. Finally. I learned from this from Harvey. After 4 years at this I should have known better. I have also learned that one can cook a battery with an excessive recharge. So. I guess that the 'heating' can indeed result from that spike without necessarily resulting in a recharge. All of which is relevant. But not sure that's what's happening here.
In the middle of writing this and saw your last post. That was more or less going to be the theme here - but handled with much more competence than I could have managed. Thanks for this MH. Definitely an honorary troll. Lol.
:-* Rosie :D
I have been thinking a bit more about it while looking a .99's test specification. What if the power analysis was broken up into separate slices, just to get some better insight into what is going on.
For example, let me discuss the simplest slice, the first slice from the time the MOSFET first switches on to just before the 555 signal goes low and starts the switch-off process.
For the following discussion I am referencing the diagram in .99's test spec.
The DSO will record the voltage across the load resistor (P1 - P2). This will always be about 20 volts. The DSO also records the current while this happens based on the shunt resistor voltage (P3 - P4). This will have a standard exponentially rising curve leveling off at the maximum current.
If you look at the simple analysis of the DSO crunching here, ((volts x current x time)/period), the result of that is an average power in the load resistor during this slice. However, it is really more complicated than that, because the DSO recorded two things at the same time. It recorded the resistive power dissipation plus a certain amount of energy stored in the inductive component of the resistor.
Therefore the "average power" during the first time slice is really something like 80% true dissipative power and 20% stored reactive power. The stored reactive power times the length of the time slice is the stored reactive energy in Joules.
We know that the stored reactive power is just 1/2 L i-squared. However, we actually can measure this power with the DSO recordings by doing a few manipulations.
When the MOSFET switches on we know that even though we are recording 20 volts across the load resistor, the current starts at zero and starts to climb. Based on the current waveform, we can deduce the "phantom voltage" due to the resistive dissipation in the load resistor. By the same token, we know the "phantom voltage compliment" during this time, which is the voltage across the inductance that is part of the load resistor.
That means the DSO, with the help of a few tricks, can actually calculate the energy being accumulated in the inductive component of the resistor. It is simply the instantaneous "inductor phantom voltage" times the current times the time. At the end of this first time slice, the integrated energy accumulated in the inductor should be equal to 1/2 L i-squared. If .99 or Glen know the inductance values in their load resistors the number crunching should check out.
Anyway, the whole point here is to illustrate that the "brute force" DSO recording of the power in the load resistor ((volts x amps x time)/period)) is not the true power dissipated in the load resistor. The average power calculation would be too high because you have to factor in the fact that the average stored power in the inductive component is added to the true dissipated power.
That's just the first slice, and we know that all hell breaks loose when the MOSFET switches off and the MOSFET capacitance gets charged and the current then reverses direction.
MileHigh
Indeed MH.
It's a phase shift phenomenon. Remember the SPICE plot I posted showing that the Drain and Shunt spikes should not line up? In theory they shouldn't, and in reality they most likely don't, even though we see it plain and clear in the scope shots.
Referring to the attached SPICE plot of a close-up-view of the switch-OFF part of the cycle, we see clearly in an ideal case what happens. I've set a white vertical cursor right about center of the Drain spike.
Notice how the cursor lines up with 0V on the shunt voltage? That means 0W of power at this instant in time, even though the drain voltage is at it's peak.
You'll also notice that the supply power is not only falling off, but is beginning its recharge phase at this point of 0W from the supply.
The real power in the load resistor RL actually DROPS during this period of time. In our measurements, this is where the load and MOSFET powers are skewed high; the load positive, and the MOSFET negative.
Take a look at the second plot. Interesting that the power trace for the MOSFET is leading the Drain spike by about 90º. Notice at the Drain voltage peak that the MOSFET power is 0W. I wonder what happens when we sample with our probes at a point in the circuit that is OFF the correct phase?
.99
And finally, just an overall view of the complete pulse...
.99
Hey .99:
Thanks for the great work with PSpice yet again. I am going to have a good look at the plots in detail another day. The old brain wants a break! But I am having FUN, I hope everybody else is too!
MileHigh
You bet MH ;)
Just doing what I can to help find the complete answer to this little, yet intriguing mystery.
Will we get an admission at least that the data captured so far is not a true representation of actual values? I'm not sure, but it would be quite difficult to refute what has been brought to light.
Will Glen go over his setup and make the improvements I've suggested and implemented myself? Not sure, but again there are a few things that simply can't be refuted. Should he decide to go on without making the necessary improvements, he will likely never obtain a positive power dissipation figure for the MOSFET, nor an accurate POS calculation.
I have gotten close, but I still have yet to do a run with my latest grounding improvements. Stay tuned...
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on October 19, 2009, 08:21:58 PM
You bet MH ;)
Will we get an admission at least that the data captured so far is not a true representation of actual values? I'm not sure, but it would be quite difficult to refute what has been brought to light.
.99
I take it that you're referring to your work here? Poynty?
It would be so nice to see Fuzzy's work replicated - or for that matter, soemthing that is more like the Quantum circuit. But if you want to continue a discussion and draw conclusions from your own variation of this there's no-one to stop you. Personally I'm enjoying the debate. But it would be nice to get back on topic.
Latest run with the current star point grounding:
POS = 1.588W
PIM = -0.435W
PIL = 1.977W
PIS = 0.046W
TRAA = 7ºC
The POS is almost right where it should be, but there's still that pesky negative power in the MOSFET. It's clearly a trade-off between the load resistor power and MOSFET power that is the issue. Not there yet it would seem. :-\
.99
Based on my theory of what's happening in the real world circuit to skew the alignment of the Drain and Source voltage wave forms, I tried a simulation.
There is sufficient trace to begin to see the effects I'm seeing in my wave forms.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on October 20, 2009, 12:38:35 AM
Based on my theory of what's happening in the real world circuit to skew the alignment of the Drain and Source voltage wave forms, I tried a simulation.
There is sufficient trace to begin to see the effects I'm seeing in my wave forms.
.99
Poynt - not sure where you're going with this. Are you suggesting that the measurements are out of line and should match the sim? Or does the sim expose measurement errors - somehow? Or are you simply trying to replicate the experiment on Spice.
I would be very interested to see if Spice could reproduce Fuzzy's #5 data - or close. And thanks for the hard work Poynty.
Poynt99
You say in post 2113: "Notice how the cursor lines up with 0V on the shunt voltage? That means 0W of power at this instant in time, even though the drain voltage is at it's peak."
If the drain voltage is at its peak, this means that the mosfet has switched-off and no current is passing through the shunt.
Hoppy
Quote from: Hoppy on October 20, 2009, 03:17:11 AM
Poynt99
You say in post 2113: "Notice how the cursor lines up with 0V on the shunt voltage? That means 0W of power at this instant in time, even though the drain voltage is at it's peak."
If the drain voltage is at its peak, this means that the mosfet has switched-off and no current is passing through the shunt.
Hoppy
Correct Hoppy. However, if you examine the wave forms from the actual tests (mine and Glen's) I posted, you'll notice that current is present in the shunt at the instant the Drain voltage peaks. In fact it's there for the entire duration of that peak. This amounts to a significant skew in the power calculation when averaged over one cycle.
The last sim was a trial to see if I can reproduce this effect. It was only a first run and needs more work. I also forgot to change my reference point in the measurement.
.99
Quote from: PaulLowrance on October 18, 2009, 07:50:45 PM
Also the load has capacitance. ... And lets not even get into inductance.
Quote from: PaulLowrance on October 19, 2009, 01:41:33 PM
That's why from the start I suggested the sure method of measuring how fast each component will heat up in a given time period, and then compare that to the control experiment. That's very easy to do that.
402 SMD Thermistor: $0.15 each. x2 = $0.30 ;D
Quote from: witsend on October 20, 2009, 01:33:54 AM
Poynt - not sure where you're going with this. Are you suggesting that the measurements are out of line and should match the sim? Or does the sim expose measurement errors - somehow? Or are you simply trying to replicate the experiment on Spice.
All of the above.
Quote
I would be very interested to see if Spice could reproduce Fuzzy's #5 data - or close. And thanks for the hard work Poynty.
If I can reproduce the effect in SPICE, I am very sure I can reproduce Glen's results in SPICE. In fact I am very sure I can reproduce Glen's results right now on the real test.
When you say "results" Rose, I am assuming you mean this:
Quote from: poynt99 on October 19, 2009, 04:42:27 PM
A confirmation of the results from Glen's test #5. I crunched only Hour 2 for the 2us and 20us runs. All powers calculated (for a complete perspective), not just POS.
2_2us_520V-02_10_11_09.xlr
POS = -3.206W
PIL = 112.3W
PIM = -116.5W
PIS = 0.95W
Final resistor temperature = 135ºF
2_20us_520V-02_10_11_09.xlr
POS = -4.046W
PIL = 100.8W
PIM = -105.7W
PIS = 0.87W
Final resistor temperature = 136ºF
Again, I ask Glen, Harvey, and Rose to explain the 100W PIL when clearly the load resistor is not dissipating this much power ???
.99
If that is the case, then I have already reproduced the "results", just not to the same magnitude. If I move my test frequency up to the 500kHz range that Glen is working at, my results will be on the same order of magnitude as Glen's, as I already posted here:
Quote from: poynt99 on October 19, 2009, 12:56:38 PM
Varying the grounding by length and position etc., alters the shunt wave form a great deal, and hence can have a huge effect on the power calculation, even though that spike only lasts for 150ns. Overall for the frequency (T=400us) I am using, that represents an average power over one cycle of about -1W.
In Glen's case at 500kHz, it is a completely different story. We go down from about 400us period to about a 2us period, yet the power spike is approximately the same width. In glen's case it represents about -100W over one cycle, and accounts for the highly skewed results once crunched in Excel.
.99
If Glen moved his test frequency down to the Ainslie frequency of 2.4kHz, he will see his "results" much more in line with mine. Either way it's an "effect", but not real power.
.99
Hi Poynt - I answered your post over at Energetic forum. Just needed to make due record.
Quote from: poynt99 on October 20, 2009, 09:38:08 AM
All of the above.
If I can reproduce the effect in SPICE, I am very sure I can reproduce Glen's results in SPICE. In fact I am very sure I can reproduce Glen's results right now on the real test.
When you say "results" Rose, I am assuming you mean this:
If that is the case, then I have already reproduced the "results", just not to the same magnitude. If I move my test frequency up to the 500kHz range that Glen is working at, my results will be on the same order of magnitude as Glen's, as I already posted here:
If Glen moved his test frequency down to the Ainslie frequency of 2.4kHz, he will see his "results" much more in line with mine. Either way it's an "effect", but not real power.
.99
Well pound in ten (10) 8'-0" ground rods six (6) feet apart .... attach a 3/0 cu wire to them and then attach the wire end to the Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Heater Circuit negative .... this will match the exact effect of the sim program your using. Then turn to page 911 in the manual ( not sure don't use this junk software stuff ) and then you can do the sim illustrated testing showing
theres nothing there at all ....... just like you originally wanted and the sim program should verify your results ....
Of course I believe there is voltage there so I would
never attempt such a thing ...... or modify the circuit to eliminate all the effects to match a "SIM" software program.
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on October 20, 2009, 11:36:32 AM
Well pound in ten (10) 8'-0" ground rods six (6) feet apart .... attach a 3/0 cu wire to them and then attach the wire end to the Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Heater Circuit negative .... this will match the exact effect of the sim program your using. Then turn to page 911 in the manual ( not sure don't use this junk software stuff ) and then you can do the sim illustrated testing showing theres nothing there at all ....... just like you originally wanted and the sim program should verify your results ....
Of course I believe there is voltage there so I would never attempt such a thing ...... or modify the circuit to eliminate all the effects to match a "SIM" software program.
lol, that was gold. where did you get the picture of poynty?
Quote from: witsend;71679Poynt - I'm answering your last post here as I think we need due record. Hope you don't mind.
Fuzzy's first 2 tests were the first that showed heat. Thereafter, #3 he found that extraordinary 'moment' that also gave us the first evidence of something profoundly interesting. Then #4 - which was slightly off the frequency and did not have that tell tale harmonic. Then #5. This was the first test that comprehensively recorded all relevant data including the video'd 2 minutes of each new hour - had evidence of the required harmonic - and showed, categorically that significant gains were evident. The 2 minute video also provided some evidence of consistency in the waveform over that period. This last point should be of interest. But it is acknowledged that 2 minutes is not long enough to firmly establish the variable in the voltage range.
His heat profiling also indicates the evident wattage dissipated as heat during this test.
So. If you need to replicate - test - whatever involvement you see required - then it is, indeed, the results of test 5 that need to be looked to. I'm only concerned that this also requires a resistor with the wider diameter. This is the more so as he could not get the same effect on standard shop bought resistors with the smaller diameter. This I think was #6.
Are you up for this? My personal preference would be to see a replication of this last test on Spice as it is likely that this test will be used for any paper that is written and the anomalies, if such they are, may be evidenced - better. But it's your choice Poynty. Take your pick.
Just noticed. This is the 3000'th post. You've got a mamoth task here Ash.
Rose, I can only assume you are interested in similar results. Does it matter which resistor is used if the same results can be obtained? I would think not.
So, I think I've done about all I can with the original test (which Glen is yet to do btw), and I can move on to the higher frequency/QAM testing. Since Glen is reluctant to perform the test as per the Quantum article frequency, I will move up to his. I'm confident I'll obtain similar results at 450kHz or so.
Again, it should be noted that at the present time all we are seeing is an effect. Thus far no one has been able to prove that the measured results are correct. However, I've proved that they are not.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on October 20, 2009, 12:41:31 PM
Again, it should be noted that at the present time all we are seeing is an effect. Thus far no one has been able to prove that the measured results are correct. However, I've proved that they are not.
.99
Golly. Did I miss something here? Rather thought that our kitty had everything wrapped and ready to go? Indeed I'm keen to see similar results and if these can be realised on a dissimilar resistor - then so much the better. Pointy Point, do your thing. But I also think you've been obsessing here. Perhaps a short recovery break? It may be as well to follow in the footsteps of our immortal MH. Personally I'm hoping it will give you the same benefit that the Signal Path Compensation Run does for our DSO. Gets the analogue system in synch with it's ground reference.
Quote from: poynt99 on October 20, 2009, 09:27:13 AM
Correct Hoppy. However, if you examine the wave forms from the actual tests (mine and Glen's) I posted, you'll notice that current is present in the shunt at the instant the Drain voltage peaks. In fact it's there for the entire duration of that peak. This amounts to a significant skew in the power calculation when averaged over one cycle.
The last sim was a trial to see if I can reproduce this effect. It was only a first run and needs more work. I also forgot to change my reference point in the measurement.
.99
The traces look about right to me. As I see it, the current is lagging the voltage and the inductive discharge at the point of peak drain voltage results in a continuous current flow through the shunt resistor. An appropriate power factor correction therefore needs to be applied to correct the 'skew' to obtain real power dissipation.
Hoppy
Quote from: witsend on October 20, 2009, 01:24:54 PM
Golly. Did I miss something here? Rather thought that our kitty had everything wrapped and ready to go?
I'm willing to concede this if/when I see proof Rose. Did I miss something? So far I have seen no proof.
The "proof" is: prove that the resistor really is dissipating the 100+W of real power as being computed from Glen's data in test #5.
Waiting patiently... :)
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on October 20, 2009, 02:14:23 PM
I'm willing to concede this if/when I see proof Rose. Did I miss something? So far I have seen no proof.
The "proof" is: prove that the resistor really is dissipating the 100+W of real power as being computed from Glen's data in test #5.
Waiting patiently... :)
.99
Quite right. This is exactly the puzzle that we need to resolve. But there are other ways to determine power dissipated. And no-one has problems on determining the power delivered.
Quote from: Hoppy on October 20, 2009, 01:42:59 PM
The traces look about right to me. As I see it, the current is lagging the voltage and the inductive discharge at the point of peak drain voltage results in a continuous current flow through the shunt resistor. An appropriate power factor correction therefore needs to be applied to correct the 'skew' to obtain real power dissipation.
Hoppy
Hoppy,
I do not believe this is correct, for 2 reasons:
1) SPICE does not require that any PFC be done to obtain the correct results. Simply measuring the voltage across the load resistor and multiplying it by the current in the shunt produces the correct result.
2) REAL power is determined by the exact method we are using, which is measuring the instantaneous voltage across the load resistor, and current through the shunt. The multiplication of the two values and averaging is performed in Excel and produces the correct results. PFC is automatic if you will, since it is purely dependent on the phase between the two.
W (real power)/VA (apparent power) = PF
We are already measuring REAL power directly. PFC needs to be applied only if we are measuring apparent power.
.99
Quote from: witsend on October 20, 2009, 02:25:36 PM
Quite right. This is exactly the puzzle that we need to resolve. But there are other ways to determine power dissipated. And no-one has problems on determining the power delivered.
Rose, that is a contradiction if you are using only the data from the dumps.
Sounds like you finally admitted that the PIL and PIM values are not correct, is that right?. If these are not correct, then very likely the POS is not correct either. These numbers were generated from the same data set.
.99
Poynt. There are empirical measurements of both power dissipated and power delivered. Did you even read Harvey's post written almost exclusively for your benefit? post no 2077 page 208.
In any event. Here's the thing. There is no confusion with the computation of power delivered and power dissipated provided that the former is done in line with some dc coupled evaluation of energy delivered and the latter is done with reference to the rate of temperature rise. Both are impirical measurements but they fall short of MH's need for some balanced reconciliation of all power measurements. The fact is that there is a hugely complex sum in the computation of the inductive reactance across the load resistor and this is possibly required. I'm actually not sure that this will resolve all the questions though. Still outstanding is the fact that the positive voltage at the drain is in synch with the energy evidently returned to the system and as measured in the shunt on the source. And they are 'out of step'.
My own suggestion - for what it's worth - is that the circuit is pointing to some phenomenon that may have been overlooked by mainstream. I'm well aware how offensive this will read to all those who feel that there are no outstanding questions in electromagnetic interactions. But there are. There are many questions. I've covered these - ad nauseum - in my complaints against conventional explanations of current flow. And it's definitely out of context to enter into a discussion of that here. But what is is appropriate is to point to the waveform and acknowledge the discrepancy.
I'm afraid you cannot logically dismiss all the numbers simply because you cannot do a full power integration of the energy over the load resistor. With respect. This number may yet be resolved if someone can bend their mind around that complex math. But the fact remains that the voltage over the source and drain are diametrically opposed to each other. I sincerely believe that the discrepancey or, as you and MH have termed it, the puzzle, or the mystery needs to be unravelled at this very point. And I'm not sure that it will be a conventional explanation. But I'm open to correction.
Quote from: poynt99 on October 20, 2009, 02:26:24 PM
Hoppy,
I do not believe this is correct, for 2 reasons:
1) SPICE does not require that any PFC be done to obtain the correct results. Simply measuring the voltage across the load resistor and multiplying it by the current in the shunt produces the correct result.
2) REAL power is determined by the exact method we are using, which is measuring the instantaneous voltage across the load resistor, and current through the shunt. The multiplication of the two values and averaging is performed in Excel and produces the correct results. PFC is automatic if you will, since it is purely dependent on the phase between the two.
W (real power)/VA (apparent power) = PF
We are already measuring REAL power directly. PFC needs to be applied only if we are measuring apparent power.
.99
Poynt99
I do appreciate that SPICE calculate real power but given the anomalies, could the PF correction be in error, possibly due to the mosfet modelling being used? I used the word 'appropriate' PF correction because I think this could be the root of the problem.
Hoppy
I don't think PFC comes into play at all Hoppy, even in the real world measurement we are performing.
We are already measuring real power directly, so if the numbers do not come out correctly, it is not because of a missing fudge factor, it is because the measurement points used do not accurately portray the true phase of the voltage and current being measured.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on October 20, 2009, 03:46:00 PM
I don't think PFC comes into play at all Hoppy, even in the real world measurement we are performing.
We are already measuring real power directly, so if the numbers do not come out correctly, it is not because of a missing fudge factor, it is because the measurement points used do not accurately portray the true phase of the voltage and current being measured.
.99
How can this be the case if all scope probe grounds are point connected at the power supply source?
Hoppy
Quote from: Hoppy on October 20, 2009, 04:26:20 PM
How can this be the case if all scope probe grounds are point connected at the power supply source?
Hoppy
Are they?
;)
.99
.99:
I think that you are really close and your comments about the load resistor acting like a delay line and/or transmission line got me thinking last night and I hope what I say here is going to advance the cause.
One thing that I was forgetting is that there is a fairly long piece of wire required to make the load resistor, whether home made or commercial. Let's keep it simple and say that there is three meters of wire in the load resistor.
We know that a signal propagates 30 centimeters per nanosecond in free space. But inside the load resistor the permittivity is much higher, and we are going to take a wild guess and assume that a signal inside the load resistor will travel one-fifth as fast, or 6 centimeters per nanosecond.
Therefore we are guessing that it will take (300/6) = 50 nanoseconds for a signal to cross the load resistor. It could be more, it could be less...
Now I am going to be bold and also throw in the fact that this is an inductor, and the distributed capacitance and inductance act as a passive delay line also, further slowing down the signal by let's say... one half. So now we are going to assume that it takes 100 nanoseconds for a signal to cross the length of the load resistor.
Now comes the fun part. The big high voltage spike is about 100 nanoseconds wide, and it takes about 100 nanoseconds to cross the load resistor, so we are in transmission line territory. The equivalent-time length of the conductor in the load resistor is comaparable to the time width of the big spike. This makes all the difference in the world.
Let's simply say that relative to the MOSFT drain pin, the closer end of the load resistor is a bit "upstream" and the farther end of the load resistor is much further upstream, about 100 nanoseconds further upstream.
So, when the MOSFET shuts off, is does not get whacked right away by the voltage spike generated by the inductor at all. We see this in the DSO captures.
Here is the key: when the MOSFET switches off, the inductor has to discharge its stored energy, there is no two ways about it. So, let's make a very very simple model. Let's say that the tangible energy in the inductor has to start from somewhere, and it has to go somewhere, those are givens.
It starts upstream from the MOSFET inside the load resistor itself. The inductive energy gets pumped into the distributed capacitance inside the body of the load resistor. Then it travels downstream out of the load resistor at 1/10th of "c" - the speed of light in a vacuum.
Lets turn this into a very simple visualization: At the instant of time that the MOSFET shuts off, the bulk of the spike is sitting in the load resistor itself. The part of the load resistor closest to the MOSFET is already at about 100 volts. However, the center of the load resistor is at about 500-600 volts, the peak of the spike.
In other words, the main peak of the voltage spike is upstream from the MOSFET and barrelling down the coiled wire transmission line at 1/10th "c" on a collision course with the MOSFET drain pin like a bat out of hell.
When the peak voltage spike hits the the MOSFET, the MOSFET has already been shut off for about 70 nanoseconds.
I want to emphasize also that this is not a "voltage spike", it is really an energy spike. You can't forget this, the inductor that is embedded in the load resistor stores energy through moving current. If you stop the current flow, this stored energy becomes an energy spike - high voltage across the distributed capacitance inside the load resistor.
Back to the action, when the MOSFET switches off, the load resistor generates an energy spike that starts upstream and travels downstream, and about 70 nanoseconds after the switch-off the MOSFET is being hit by the peak of the spike.
Now back to transmission lines - the spike slams into the already-switched-off MOSFET so it is modeled as an open circuit at the end of the transmission line. We know that when a voltage spike travelling down a transmission line hits an open circuit termination it is reflected back without being inverted in polarity (that happens for a short-circuit termination). That is part of what we see that explains the reversing current.
If we look at it in terms of the MOSFET drain-source capacitance, then of course it gets charged to a very high potential because of the energy spike that hits it at one tenth the speed of light. This capacitance at very high voltage then contributes to the reverse current pulse as it discharges.
We do not see a propagation delay between the high voltage spike and the reverse current that we observe through the shunt resistor. There are a few reasons for this. In contrast to the energy spike travelling downstream through the transmission line to smash into the MOSFET, the reverse current does not necessarily travel through the load resistor transmission line. Note the voltage of the spike goes up about 400 volts in 20 nanoseconds, for a slew rate of 20 volts per nanosecond. That sounds pretty fast to me.
This high slew rate is probably fast enough to completely bypass the load resistor transmission line in the reverse direction through capacitive coupling - effectively giving the high voltage spike a "short circuit" around the load resistor so that the reverse current can start instantly.
When you add up the capacitive bypass of the load resistor plus the reflection from the end of the open-circuit transmission line and the drain-source capacitive discharge you get a reverse current that is proportional to the spike voltage. I am a bit shaky here and my modelling may not be perfect. The bottom line is we know that we have a reverse-current spike.
Note that the various timing diagrams on the 100 nanoseconds per division time scale that clearly show the big positive spike are showing you the delayed voltage spike coming out of the load resistor where the delay is around 70 nanoseconds. To repeat the simple analogy: The MOSFET switches off but the big energy discharge from the inductor happens upstream. 70 nanoseconds later the spike has finally traveled downstream and hits the MOSFET.
These 100 nanosecond per division timing diagrams clearly show that the MOSFET drain pin is at a very high potential and current is flowing out of the pin. (i.e.; current is flowing out of the MOSFET drain-source capacitor) This explains why the DSO records the MOSFET power as being negative, which indicates that power is flowing out of the MOSFET. The DSO data shows negative MOSFET power because that's what is really happening. However - we now know that the source of that power is a delayed energy spike that travels along the roughly three meters worth of load resistor wire at about 1/10th "c."
Again, I am probably not completely correct in every statement that I am making, but I really think that this is on the right track. Perhaps .99 and Hoppy can add their corrections/additions/deletions if I messed up somewhere.
Assuming this mini treatise is correct, it gives us insight into the energy flow vs. time.
Finally, for the COP > 17 or COP > 1 people, we are converging on getting a good handle of what's happening, and this will help us make accurate battery or power supply power output measurements. We have already noted for a few trials that the 3.7% 2.4 KHz waveform is not showing any special heat production in the load resistor. Honestly, it does not look too good but the jury is not completely out yet.
Double finally, I hark back to Aaron doing one of his first rat's nest "oscillation" demos and then good old Peter Lindemann chimed in with a victory jig. This was about three months ago. I posted right away in response saying, "Hold your horses, Aaron would have to do a full transient analysis of the circuit and account for all signal timings on a nanosecond by nanosecond basis and account for any potentail excess energy before you can make any definitive statements." Well, we are seemingly here, getting a lot closer to the conclusion. How about them apples!
MileHigh
Hey MH.
I think you may have nailed it ;). Now, IF this is indeed what is happening, how do we compensate for this to obtain accurate measurements ???
And just to complicate things a wee bit more (not that we need it any more complicated), model the shunt resistor itself as an inductive resistor having an inductance somewhere between 0.2uH and 1uH. ::) I've modeled this in SPICE and it does exactly what we're seeing (it shifts the shunt voltage negative, in a square-like fashion during the pulse), with the exception of some added ringing.
btw, my shunt resistor measured to 1uH. I'll bet Glen's is the same or even higher as he did not use the non-inductive version according to his posted part number. ;)
And just one more... ;D Now add in a strong electrostatic coupling from the Drain (including all the wire leading from it) to the surrounding earth ground paths >:( You touch the Drain with your finger and the wave forms change quite a bit, including, and most importantly, the shunt wave form. Same goes for the load resistor itself, as of course it is going through a large fast voltage swing as well.
Cheers,
.99
We have assumed that the shunt resistor is ideal, i.e. no inductance.
Well, the ones I and Glen are using, DO have significant inductance, relative to the load resistor inductance.
This could be the "correction" needed that Hoppy mentioned. I'd rather get rid of the shunt's inductance all together by buying one that is guaranteed not to have any inductance (or as little as practical). Also, I'm going to try the 0.25 Ohm shunt installed just before the load resistor on the high side. The Source shunt will be removed and replaced with a "short".
For that matter, the shunt could be inserted between the load resistor and the Drain too. If it works, I'm not going to complain.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on October 20, 2009, 10:59:20 PM
We have assumed that the shunt resistor is ideal, i.e. no inductance.
Well, the ones I and Glen are using, DO have significant inductance, relative to the load resistor inductance.
This could be the "correction" needed that Hoppy mentioned. I'd rather get rid of the shunt's inductance all together by buying one that is guaranteed not to have any inductance (or as little as practical). Also, I'm going to try the 0.25 Ohm shunt installed just before the load resistor on the high side. The Source shunt will be removed and replaced with a "short".
For that matter, the shunt could be inserted between the load resistor and the Drain too. If it works, I'm not going to complain.
.99
I too think that MH has nailed it. I favour the shunt (yes definately non inductive!)being placed between the drain and load resistor with all interconnections kept as short as possible. This would physically be the mosfet drain pin connected directly to one side of the shunt resistor, with the other side connected directly to the load resistor.
Hoppy
Quote from: Hoppy on October 21, 2009, 03:51:25 AM
I too think that MH has nailed it. I favour the shunt (yes definately non inductive!)being placed between the drain and load resistor with all interconnections kept as short as possible. This would physically be the mosfet drain pin connected directly to one side of the shunt resistor, with the other side connected directly to the load resistor.
Hoppy
The purpose of the shunt was to determine the current flowing in to or out of the B(-) post.
It would be better to use an actual current probe at the nodes required.
Also, just to throw this in as food for thought... If a gorilla grabs a man by his suspenders, stretches them really really really fast just below their breaking point...will the mans shoes stay flat on the floor?
It helps us to visualize what may be happening to the battery's 'shoes'. The question then arises as to the differential between the source and the B(-) and how much energy can be made to flow there in 200ns. It becomes even more interesting when we realize that our point of reference is the bottom of the mans shoes ;D
8)
The purpose of the shunt is to allow sampling of the instantaneous current in the circuit, period. It has nothing to do with the current specific to any one node. The current should be equal at all points in the loop, therefore it matters not where the shunt is placed. The high side is just as valid as the low side, where it presently is. Most likely the reason it was placed at the Source was for convenience, i.e. it makes the measurement easier by only having to use one scope channel.
A current probe is the obvious choice, but I can't afford the $2k to buy one, and the one other downside to them is most are limited to a 50MHz bandwidth.
Some seasoning for your food: Now, what happens if prior to the gorilla coming along, the man installs a very stiff shock absorber between his shoes and his suspenders?
I know where you're going with that and it has been eliminated in my setup. There was no difference, other than the little "bump" on my "battery" voltage looks more like Glen's now. ;D
.99
Note that an current "wave" traversing through a wire wound resistor is traveling almost entirely through the parallel capacitance-- again, antenna theory.
"REAL" power across a load is disipated as heat. ;)
Regards,
Paul
FYI, such current waves do not travel at c in a straight *unshielded* wire because of Inductance.
Quote from: poynt99 on October 21, 2009, 08:50:09 AM
Some seasoning for your food: Now, what happens if prior to the gorilla coming along, the man installs a very stiff shock absorber between his shoes and his suspenders?
.99
A damped shock to the crotch I should imagine!
Hoppy
Did a test tonight with the shunt resistor at the high side of the load instead of at the source. Still got wonky results:
POS = -6.72W
PIL = 1.31W
PIM = -8.09W
PIS = 0.068W
A run I did last night with the shunt still in the source was as follows:
POS =1.56W
PIL = 1.99W
PIM = -0.46W
PIS = 0.52W
The true POS (as measured with the add-on filtered shunt) is exactly 2.0W in each case.
Looking back at all 8 prior runs I've done so far, it would appear as though the POS and PIL values are swapped, just as they do for the second set of results above. Also, all PIL values were very close to 2W, and POS close to 1.5W.
.99
Hey Poynt,
It is late now and I wanted to look at some DSO scope captures again but instead let me just wing it here. You asked about getting better results with the DSO and I think that it can be done.
I made reference to this before but let me try fleshing out the concept. I think that you want to be selective about what parts of the waveform that you want to look at and how you process different parts. I hark back to my posting the other day that showed the first part of the cycle before the MOSFET switches off actually records the dissipative and reactive power, which may imply that you are recording more power than you really should be recording.
Let's split the waveform up into two parts, and use the point where the current makes the zero cross and starts reversing as the division point. It's probably a bit more complicated than that, but if you can account for the energy +/-10% that would be very convincing, much better than what you are seeing now.
So from the MOSFET switch-on to the current making the zero cross is what we will discuss first.
At the end of this phase you can get the total energy dissipated in resistive part of the load resistor, a no brainer. Just please make a real measurement of the actual resistance to make the calculations more accurate. Then the stored reactive energy would simply be the total measured energy less the dissipated energy.
It would be "fun" to use a spreadsheet column to show the "phantom voltage" for the resistive component of the load resistor and another column to show the "phantom voltage" for the inductive component in the load resistor. You could do the energy integration on the inductor current times the phantom inductor voltage to get the stored reactive energy, which should be the same as calculated above.
The MOSFET dissipative energy during this part of the cycle is a no brainer also, just voltage times current times time. I just checked a timing diagram - IMPORTANT - For the MOSFET dissipative energy, stop integrating about 150 nanoseconds before the zero cross event. The reason is that you don't want to record any of the rising potential associated with the big delayed spike.
The shunt resistor dissipated energy is also a no brainer.
So, at this point we have three rock solid dissipative energy recordings, and we know how much reactive energy is stored up in the system.
Now here come the magic (I hope!).... You can ignore the massive delayed spike for your energy calculations, ignore it!
There is a rational reason for this. First, we know how much reactive energy is available to create that delayed spike, we just recorded it with the DSO. We also know that the MOSFET is switched off and is just acting like a small capacitor and there is no power dissipation in the forward current direction.
So, the trick is to simply switch back to dissipative energy recording mode, but this time for the reverse current.
You record the total energy dissipated through the load resistor and the shunt resistor, and you completely ignore the MOSFET "output energy." However, you do record the energy dissipated through the MOSFET body diode. You also record the energy pumped back into the power supply (or battery).
Again, the rational is to completely ignore the high voltage spike, and only record the dissipative events that are the result of that high voltage spike. Does that make sense to you? The key factor being that we previously recorded the reactive energy in the first part of the cycle. The spike is just the very same reactive energy creating a reverse current flow, and we can simply record the energy events that result of that reverse current flow.
Before the zero cross you have recorded the dissipative energy and the reactive energy. This should be extremely accurate, there are no funnies going on.
Then, for the second part of the cycle, all that you want to do is a reality check: Does my recorded reactive energy from the first part of the cycle equal all of the dissipative events in the second part of the cycle?
i.e.: Reactive energy(first cycle) = (load resistor + shunt + MOSFET body diode dissipative energy in second cycle) + Power supply returned energy second cycle + "other energy."
If you do a good job recording the data with the DSO you should be able to get real numbers with no kooky stuff going on.
For example: What is the power dissipated in the MOSFET? It's just the dissipative energy associated with the switching process in the first cycle plus the dissipative energy associated with the body diode in the second cycle. That's it! No crazy spike to deal with - you simply ignored it because you understand the energy flow and have decided to do a "work around" - only look at the resulting events associated with the expenditure of the stored reactive energy. There is no need to factor the reactive energy in your power calculations because you know that you only want to look at the "burn off" of the reactive energy, and not the reactive energy itself.
This may all look like a ton of work, but there is a trick for that also. In your spreadsheet you want to make a "super tab" with all of the columns of recorded DSO data, derived variables (like the phantom voltages), your relevant averaging functions and summation functions, and columns that give you the "real time" power dissipation, etc, etc.
Then you just copy/paste your original super tab over to a few clone super tabs. Then you go into your clone supertabs and start deleting ranges of rows of data that you know that you want to "chop out" because you want to selectively ignore the spike or whatever, etc.
Going back to the MOSFET average power calculation again, you could chop up the data on one of the cloned supertabs and trim it down so that you only are left with the total dissipative power for the MOSFET.
It is a bit of work for sure, but it's the real deal. There is no way you should get negative power for the MOSFET in this scenario. You don't even look at the high voltage discharge of the MOSFET capacitor, you ignore it because you actually are only interested in the body diode energy dissipation in this case!
I apologize because I know that I am making my points two or three times. I am tired and will not do a clean up. Plus I think it helps to drill the concepts in sometimes.
I hope this makes sense!
MileHigh
It makes sense to me MH.
Hoppy
Could a split parallel connected shunt be used with one half being diode blocked for forward current and the other for negative? This would show an accurate timing representation between the load charging and discharging current at a particular point in the circuit.
Hoppy
MH,
Yes I like the whole idea and I do agree with it. However, it is based on the premise that there is no possibility for COP>1, and that the spike dos not need to be recorded. This would be a valid test perhaps in a mainstream forum, but you and I both know that this idea is not going to fly with Rose and the crew.
In fact it seems to fly in the face of her very claim. We could do the measurement that way, but it would only validate what mainstream expects, so what is the point really? It's not going to wash with the new-age.
I'm afraid the only thing that will wash, is if we measure and compute the entire cycle, with no manipulation of the data except for cycle trimming. The whole point of dong this exercise, is to prove things out one way or another, to their satisfaction, within reason of course. I know that chopping up the data and eliminating chunks of it will be quite unsatisfactory to Rose et al.
Hoppy, an interesting idea with the two unidirectional shunts. I fear that may add some complexity to the computations and wave forms however. I think we need to simplify if possible.
I've come to the conclusion that measuring this apparatus correctly is not possible with the equipment I presently have. To measure this circuit properly, two differential probes (one for the load resistor and one for the MOSFET) and one current probe is required.
Grounding must be eliminated completely, and even though I have no electrical ground loops, I believe there exists an electrostatic one, which may only be eliminated if we can eliminate ground all together. The differential probes do this nicely.
So, it's time for me to design a four channel differential probe, good to at least 25MHz. The current probe is a more difficult one to tackle however, so it may not happen. But with a differential probe on a shunt, this should work just as well I hope. ;)
.99
Quote from: MileHigh on October 22, 2009, 02:16:57 AMand we know how much reactive energy is stored up in the system.
In terms of current spikes, you may also be forgetting radiation resistance. Again, fundamental antenna theory & facts.
Regards,
Paul
MILES OFF THE MARK AND STILL DRIFTING
Hello Poynty. I see you're not about to take that much needed break. :D
While I appreciate your refusal to fall in with MH's latest proposals - I'm alarmed to see that you seriously propose that Mainstream might endorse this recommended and blantant manipulation of data. Personally I am still inclined to believe that mainstream is more 'open minded' than you give credit. By which I'm suggesting that mainstream want the truth. Not the biased analysis dependent on totally discarding huge rafts of relevant data. What a thought. I think MH is due for another break if this is the best he can come up with.
On a personal note, I'm just so sorry. What are you thinking MileHigh? I thought we were dealing with an honest effort to evaluate the evidence. It seems that once a troll always a troll. And there I was thinking that you actually wanted to unravel the truth. You've shown your hand here, rather. Not a good thing at all.
And Poynty - I'm on bended knees here. Please, if you are going to design all these complicated tools to measure - make sure that you also test the appropriate waveform. You've still got to duplicate that #5. And there's no getting around this requirement. Surely you see this? Else all you are doing is entering into extraneous dialogue on irrelevant data. Your challenge is is considerable. I wish you'd just do that Spice analysis and see where is the discrepancy. That would surely help guide us into a fuller insight into this event?
Quote from: witsend on October 22, 2009, 11:28:07 AM
And Poynty - I'm on bended knees here. Please, if you are going to design all these complicated tools to measure - make sure that you also test the appropriate waveform. You've still got to duplicate that #5. And there's no getting around this requirement. Surely you see this? Else all you are doing is entering into extraneous dialogue on irrelevant data. Your challenge is is considerable. I wish you'd just do that Spice analysis and see where is the discrepancy. That would surely help guide us into a fuller insight into this event?
Rose, you and yours will also have to grapple with the fact that without 2 differential oscilloscope probes and a current probe (or alternatively 3 differential probes and a non-inductive shunt), the measurements obtained from the tests of this circuit are not usable.
Should you choose to submit your experiment to a qualified testing agency, such as aethertech's, this is precisely how they will perform them. There is no way around it.
Glen, Aaron, and myself are floundering around in a sea of noise and invisible ground loops with no hope of obtaining correct measurements the way we are currently attempting to make them with 3 single-ended scope probes.
I hope you will obtain the needed current and differential probes from Lisa at Tektronix, otherwise, the only other recourse is to submit the test to someone who can do it properly with the proper equipment, such as aethertech.
Rest assured, I will do a test run at Glen's 450kHz just to prove that I can achieve similar numbers. This will also put to rest the notion that there is something special about a hand-wound resistor compared to a commercial OTS unit. Also btw, all the data obtained so far is irrelevant (your term), not just my own.
Doing this exercise in SPICE is a worthless, time-wasting effort imo. Not to mention the fact that aside from adding in a small inductance for the shunt resistor, it is somewhat complicated. The actual results we've all obtained so far are wrong and are skewed, and I see no value in investing loads of time with SPICE in an effort to duplicate this irrelevant effect anyway...and to what end?
.99
Hi Poynty.
Your suggestion that we use differential probes is excellent. I have no quarrel here. In fact I shall be making application for this myself.
You must remember that we never had a problem with ground loops because we used a battery operated scope for our tests. And our tests had wide accreditation. Glad to know that you'll be able to duplicate Fuzzy's waveform and test results. I would point out that the need for a wider diameter resistor has all kinds of classical validations and has now been endorsed with academic opinion. So I would not be so quick to dismiss this requirement. It seems that fatter is better. And questions regarding the inductance on the shunt resistor are noted. But remember that Aaron uses a carbon shunt and Fuzzy duplicated Aaron's negative number. But I think a brief video reference when the DSO is to hand - should put your concerns here, to bed.
I get it that a simulation on Spice is not going to happen. And I take some exception to the reference of an 'irrelevant effect' but will make allowances. Clearly this subject is exhausting you.
Rose,
You need not make any allowances on my behalf, I am fine ;) But thank you for the consideration. Instead, if I might suggest, you reserve some allowance for the distinct possibility that what I have been saying all along about the measurements and the data is true.
Oscilloscope "isolation" or not, the very fact that a scope ground probe is used is the problem. And the very fact that Glen's numbers are producing similar wonky results to mine, clearly indicates that the grounding or groundloop problem has not been resolved by running the scope etc., on an isolated battery-powered AC supply.
Regarding the resistor diameter/construction etc., if you will allow, may we let the numbers and results determine the validity of these claims?
It would be very prudent to measure the inductance of Aaron's shunt and not assume that it is inductance-free, despite it's carbon composition.
.99
I imagine a swing. Nice robust , solid and steady swing attached to the concrete in the ground so you almost do not feel any force created by Newton third law.
Oh, I see also that Mr M.Osfet was hired to keep swing in good shape by limiting amplitude of action and that way he prevents any damage to swing. Good job! Nobody will be hurt...
Quote from: poynt99 on October 22, 2009, 11:59:32 AM
Rose, you and yours will also have to grapple with the fact that without 2 differential oscilloscope probes and a current probe (or alternatively 3 differential probes and a non-inductive shunt), the measurements obtained from the tests of this circuit are not usable.
Should you choose to submit your experiment to a qualified testing agency, such as aethertech's, this is precisely how they will perform them. There is no way around it.
Glen, Aaron, and myself are floundering around in a sea of noise and invisible ground loops with no hope of obtaining correct measurements the way we are currently attempting to make them with 3 single-ended scope probes.
I hope you will obtain the needed current and differential probes from Lisa at Tektronix, otherwise, the only other recourse is to submit the test to someone who can do it properly with the proper equipment, such as aethertech.
Rest assured, I will do a test run at Glen's 450kHz just to prove that I can achieve similar numbers. This will also put to rest the notion that there is something special about a hand-wound resistor compared to a commercial OTS unit. Also btw, all the data obtained so far is irrelevant (your term), not just my own.
Doing this exercise in SPICE is a worthless, time-wasting effort imo. Not to mention the fact that aside from adding in a small inductance for the shunt resistor, it is somewhat complicated. The actual results we've all obtained so far are wrong and are skewed, and I see no value in investing loads of time with SPICE in an effort to duplicate this irrelevant effect anyway...and to what end?
.99
Poynt99
The use of differential probes is probably the best route forward as it will also eliminate the possibility of 'ground bounce' which could also cause problems even with a ground loop free setup. However, we must not loose sight of the original challenge and that is to validate the COP17 claim, not to have to battle with proving if the system is actually running overunity.
The COP 17 claim has well and truly been disproved just by studying the present data (even with its quirks) and more importantly, the stark observation that the supply battery simply will not hold the system running over and above a time period that is realistically be expected when taking into consideration, circuit power drawn and capacity of the battery, even when running at extremely low power levels with a 'cold' load resistor. This fact alone should be ample evidence that the system is far from unity let alone OU and IMO really does not justify the time and effort in taking this experiment much further at this level.
Hoppy
Quote from: forest on October 22, 2009, 02:46:27 PM
I imagine a swing. Nice robust , solid and steady swing attached to the concrete in the ground so you almost do not feel any force created by Newton third law.
Oh, I see also that Mr M.Osfet was hired to keep swing in good shape by limiting amplitude of action and that way he prevents any damage to swing. Good job! Nobody will be hurt...
Neat analogy here forest.
Quote from: Hoppy on October 22, 2009, 03:06:42 PM
Poynt99
The use of differential probes is probably the best route forward as it will also eliminate the possibility of 'ground bounce' which could also cause problems even with a ground loop free setup. However, we must not loose sight of the original challenge and that is to validate the COP17 claim, not to have to battle with proving if the system is actually running overunity.
The COP 17 claim has well and truly been disproved just by studying the present data (even with its quirks) and more importantly, the stark observation that the supply battery simply will not hold the system running over and above a time period that is realistically be expected when taking into consideration, circuit power drawn and capacity of the battery, even when running at extremely low power levels with a 'cold' load resistor. This fact alone should be ample evidence that the system is far from unity let alone OU and IMO really does not justify the time and effort in taking this experiment much further at this level.
Hoppy
Hoppy you guys are something else. Fuzzy lost 0.36 volts over a 7 hour run. His wattage dissipation was in the region of 4.5 watts. If you're referring to the 'negative' number - the battery voltage climbed. But if you and MileHigh believe so strongly that this is a waste of time, why then do you keep on keeping on? With respect. You all seem most anxious to have your arguments endorsed without the data required to endorse it. At least Poynt is concentrating on what is pertinent. For that he definitely warrants my enduring respect.
Over time the "free energy" community will be forced to deal with those who continually make fake claims year after year under different names to waste a lot of legit researcher time. Even if you call the inventor, that's not proof of anything. "Hey, my name is Sandy L. Cabe. Call me on the phone." So there are how many billion women in the world? No proof. The only last remaining interest with this case is someone claimed she had articles in magazines, but I received no response when asked to show references to these articles. Even the patent is not real. People are wiser after the mylow case.
Don't replicate anything until the inventor can provide *all* of the part #'s and/or *exact* instructions to make everything. Better yet, if possible, the inventor could just save everyone time by mailing the device to testers.
Regards,
Paul
Quote from: poynt99 on October 22, 2009, 11:59:32 AM
Doing this exercise in SPICE is a worthless, time-wasting effort imo. Not to mention the fact that aside from adding in a small inductance for the shunt resistor, it is somewhat complicated. ?
.99
i tried to tell you that a long time ago, i guess you weren't in the grappling mood back then that you are now ;)
is this where i give myself some brownie points like MH always does?
i should go back and drag up all the inane suggestions tk, you, MH and the rest of the crew came up with along the way. i recall both of you telling rose et al. what the definitive test was 100 pages ago, and how easy it would be to do... ::)
it might be fun and enlightening to go back over some of those posts. ;)
Hmmmm is this the beginning off the end of this thread ???
we have seen it all before, when extensive testing by reputable and experienced members
shows poor efficiency of a device, the thread will slowly fade away.
unless the testing gives a positive new direction
cat
Quote from: powercat on October 22, 2009, 05:32:09 PM
Hmmmm is this the beginning off the end of this thread ???
we have seen it all before, when extensive testing by reputable and experienced members
shows poor efficiency of a device, the thread will slowly fade away.
unless the testing gives a positive new direction
cat
I fear that is the case cat. Neither of Rosemary's team 'experts' Fuzzy and Harvey are able to say with any conviction that her circuit is running OU let alone COP17. However, so far it has been far from a wasted exercise and has highlighted how difficult it is to accurately quantify power and energy levels in reactive circuits producing complex waveforms. I think we have all learnt from this thread.
Hoppy
@PaulLowrance
QuoteOver time the "free energy" community will be forced to deal with those who continually make fake claims year after year under different names to waste a lot of legit researcher time.
I wonder who would judge these claims and what qualifications they would have to make this judgement?. Nobody here or elsewhere I know of can seem to tell me what electricity, magnetism and gravity are fundamentally --- the three primary forces, so who is qualified to judge anything or anyone?
If you look at history you will find most of the Nobel prize winners were told they were consuming valuable resources and time which could be better spent, LOL, everybody has an opinion but few have all the facts.
@powercat
QuoteHmmmm is this the beginning off the end of this thread ???
we have seen it all before, when extensive testing by reputable and experienced members shows poor efficiency of a device, the thread will slowly fade away.
unless the testing gives a positive new direction
I would ask the same question as above, reputable and experienced in what exactly?---- building OU machines? If they have yet to build an OU machine or at least seen the effect even once then they are neither experienced nor have knowledge of anything that matters. The only person to have shown any new insight in any way recently in my opinion has been Milehigh in post #2141, but he has only scratched the surface. He and others have assumed the capacitance is distributed but he essentially stated why it cannot be in his post.
AC
Hoppy
I agree if nothing else there has been some wonderful research done :) and hopefully more to come.
Allcanadian
I'm sorry I don't remember seeing your postings in this thread, are you saying that you are seeing something here that others have missed... I hope so
I believe the work I have seen so far on testing this circuit has been thorough and professional,
anyway we are all entitled to our opinions
cat
Allcanadian, sorry, I look back through the previous post and have now seen your postings
@powercat
QuoteI believe the work I have seen so far on testing this circuit has been thorough and professional,anyway we are all entitled to our opinions
I would agree, there are thorough and professional people here and while some may seem a little stuffy at times, not unlike myself, I think their heart is in the right place. One issue however is that we can only be thorough in the context of what we know, for example why would you look for something you are oblivious to? Why would you attempt to measure something you do not believe exists? A person can be a professional of the highest calibre and be knowledgeable but if they do not have an open mind or lack creativity they will always be limited to what they have read or been taught. I believe that is why many of the greatest minds in history were the first ones to admit they do not know everything, yet I have read statements in this thread in which people proclaim this is a waste of time, that there is nothing here without justification. I just find that a little odd, I believe we can never stop learning and we can never know enough and irregardless of a persons background or training all of us have the ability to do great things if we are determined.
Regards
AC
Well, we seem to be in moderately high drama mode over the past 24 hours or so.
Key facts that stand out for me include the fact that .99 has measured the power consumption at 2 watts with his big capacitor + power supply shunt resistor setup and thermally profiled the power through the load resistor at 1.5 watts. There is some balking at the big cap + shunt resistor setup because it doesn't fit in with the desired outcome. The measurements are real and not a surprise at all. The "free energy" spin doctors in all shapes and sizes are charging their flywheels for the big spin-off.
My speculations about the delayed pulse and the selective measurement techniques are on the mark and were endorsed by .99 and Hoppy. The comments seem to have incited some panic in the ranks. The whole point is to look for convergence in the data - make intelligent measurements with the DSO and see if they fall in line with .99's analog and thermal measurements. You could even set up a thermal profile for the MOSFET and check for convergence between the DSO-derived MOSFET dissipation and the thermally derived MOSFET dissipation. The assumption is that this will all converge.
Rosemary you think that you have a good thing to cling onto, the fact that I want to chop up the data intelligently seems blasphemous. This is me making use of my applied knowledge, and it does make perfect sense. If you measure the reactive energy to charge the inductor, and then measure the same reactive energy in the spike, and then measure the same reactive energy as it gets dissipated resistively, that's cheating - and the thermal data will bear that out.
The bottom line is that the ship is sinking, and every new round of data gathering punches another hole in the hull. Nobody has shown anything remotely looking like COP > 1 or COP > 17. Anybody that thinks they have usually ends up making a big mistake or they barely know what they are doing. That's part of the fun actually, watching the daily drama unfold. The comments from the "pro free energy" onlookers are truly laughable sometimes.
Some people are even going back to the "battery" argument - which is a joke because the claim says that the thermal output is greater than the electrical input. The discussion about "magic spikes going into the battery" is not even on the table. Nor are battery draw-down tests on the table. The reference is the Ainsley paper, there is no hiding under the battery umbrella here.
For .99: Why not just take two shunt resistors and cut one lead very short on each one and then solder the short leads together such that the two inductances cancel themselves out? Also, you mentioned that your bench supply is isolated, so you could move one scope probe around on the circuit and make a series of differential measurements, couldn't you? It's not ideal but should work, no? I am really not sure but could you make a "poor man's" differential probe setup by using a small high-frequency 1:1 isolation transformer? I don't know what a "current probe" precisely is but the shunt resistor seems to be doing the job. I am also not sure if the shunt resistor's inductance is significant relative to the wires in the rest of the circuit. The bottom line is that I acknowledge that you are the resident expert on test and measurement issues.
Going back to your rebut of my selective data analysis because Rosemary and Co. would shriek, you were right. I believe that this would converge on the solution, but there is one thing bugging me. How can the power output from the source be wrong? It doesn't seem to make sense, you have to assume that he return energy spike is much smaller in energy content as compared to the "output spike" and I can't figure out why this measurement is nutsoid. I suggest that you try a simple setup - voltage measurement across battery posts and shunt resistor soldered to negative terminal. Whoops! I mean power supply!
Rosemary, please stop calling me a troll.
I may comment more later but too tired to now.
MileHigh
MileHigh.
I started answering your post in one way. Have deleted it and am now trying another.
Your earlier post - copied over to EF.COM was insightful and challenging. I had rather come to expect an ongoing high standard. I really am not clinging to anything. The term implies a tenuous grasp. My grasp here is firm - strengthened by the experimental evidence available. That the measurements need to be tested and firmed up - is not at question. I trust you realise that there's a 2 week delay in the transfer of another DSO? We're all waiting.
Regarding the measurement of the spike as proof of a gain - again you've missed the mark. We effectively have done what you advised. We ignore the measured wattage over the load resistor except as it relates to thermal measurements. There's no cheating here MH. And if you see the ship sinking - then you need to adjust your sights. Not sure who's going back to the battery argument - except that it would be a preferred corollary to measured data.
I will indeed stop calling you a troll if you would also stop referring to us as 'free energy spin doctors' and all suchlike, and if you could return to the creative analysis that was evident in your post copied over to ef.com. My difficulty with you is that you vacillate between extremes - and I'm never sure what to expect. Some suggestions are gold. Others are not.
Rosemary
MH,
Thanks for your comments. Always appreciated.
I don't think there is a way to cancel the inductance in the shunt resistor, and indeed I did measure 1uH in mine, as I mentioned. In SPICE it has a real marked effect on the shunt wave form. It's important imo, to obtain a shunt resistor that is guaranteed to have 0.1uH or less. They do exist, and I am in the process of getting some. The wire inductance has mostly been eliminated with a large capacitor directly across the load and shunt. The remaining parasitics from the wiring to the load resistor can be "eliminated" by including its inductance and resistance as part of the load resistor itself, and the probes placed accordingly. The resistor is to be measured from end to end, wiring included, and considered to be "the component" as a whole.
Current probes are non-intrusive (for the most part) devices (Hall effect and inductive combos) used for sensing the mag field near the wire. Read up on them if you're curious. They are quite expensive.
.99
Quote from: powercat on October 22, 2009, 05:32:09 PM
Hmmmm is this the beginning off the end of this thread ???
we have seen it all before, when extensive testing by reputable and experienced members
shows poor efficiency of a device, the thread will slowly fade away.
unless the testing gives a positive new direction
cat
Hi Cat. I am sure that if, indeed, test results show that there is nothing of interest here, then the thread will die. But that would also need actual test replication. What we're getting is test approximation with the added creative inclusions of apparatus to obviate effects. This is then followed by a telltale round of mutual congratulation. I am learning to depend on Poynt's objectivity here albeit that I do not buy into his current or intended schematics.
But if this thread were to die - then I'd like to put this comment on record. I was not around for the Mylow case. I heard a lot about it. But apart from that I wonder if any claim has ever had such an orchestrated attack as has this. The thread topic here has an unprecedented opposition with little or any support anywhere from its contributors. That, in a curious way, shows the urgency required to deny the claims. If I did not know better I would have assumed that Poynt has his own unification thesis - judging from his commitment to disprove. It seems to be almost - if not absolutely - a required condition. Which begs many questions. Are we competing here Poynty?
Rosemary:
I do my own thing and I am not answerable to anybody. Again, please stop calling me a troll. If I make use of colourful language, it is typically generic and not directed at anybody specifically. I have made it a point to not throw the first stone and you I am sure have noticed stones being thrown at me recently. Stop it now please.
.99:
Not being a component expert either, but I am under the impression that a super low inductance wire-wound resistor is noting more than a resistor half-wound clockwise and half-wound counter-clockwise. Hence I was suggesting that you try to approximate the same thing.
I admire you for your tenacity, that's for sure! If you had a really good electrical Spice model for the load resistor and threw in some stray capacitance and inductance for the wire interconnects (based on serious modeling), don't you think that would nail it on the simulation side?
Anyway, you have me "convinced" with what you did in the analog and thermal domain. Are you sure that it is worth all the effort on the DSO side? Why not just nail the power consumption/reflection with your DSO and not worry about the rest of the ringing in the circuit? After all, the "black box" approach is definitive and can't be argued against: Electrical power goes into a black box and thermal power comes out of the load resistor on the other side of the black box. That's all that counts. We already have a pretty damn good idea about what is going on inside the black box. If you could nail the power consumption and then check the thermal power it's a done deal and then we can watch some of the "big players" that reside mostly on the other side of the continental divide go totally mute. That would be sweet! lol
Rosemary:
I think that this is the premature victory jig:
QuoteThe Cat's Out of the Bag!!
Aaron,
Great work! OK folks, now you can see what you are trying to replicate. By placing one probe of the scope on the BATTERY, you can clearly see when the FET is ON, because the battery voltage drops. When you see the oscillations on top of the battery voltage in the HIGH POSITION, you know that the FET is OFF and the battery is charging. This is the mode of circuit operation that can produce the high COPs that Rosemary has reported since 2002.
The Naysayers are now shown to be the real amateurs who have no insight into this circuit. Sorry Poynt99, but SPICE just isn't going to show this level of complexity. Aaron has now published a circuit that has all of the flexibility necessary to produce all of the necessary effects. And, by placing the scope probe directly on the battery, you can see when the oscillations are happening, both when the FET is ON or OFF.
Another big thanks to Lisa at Tektronix for making these measurements possible!!
Peter
What happened to Aaron? I don't think he could hack it because his audience was not his typical audience and it was too stressful for him.
Shake your bootie Peter!!!
MileHigh
@milehigh
QuoteAfter all, the "black box" approach is definitive and can't be argued against: Electrical power goes into a black box and thermal power comes out of the load resistor on the other side of the black box. That's all that counts.
What happened to Aaron? I don't think he could hack it because his audience was not his typical audience and it was too stressful for him.
Shake your bootie Peter!!!
I would agree you will have proven your point and then you can do your victory jig and rub this in everyone's face without a second thought. To me however you will have proven that you would go to any length to satisfy your ego. This is just a silly game to prove someone else wrong, there has been little if no debate on "how" or "where" excess energy could develop, you have done nothing of substance. Your intent was to flaunt your education and training as superior and everyone else inferior. As well, where will you go from this thread when you are finished?, you have gained no insight from this circuit as to how it could possible operate as claimed, from your posts it would seem your only goal is to kill this thread. I would suggest a site called Randi.org(the skeptic website) I think you may like it, they rant and rave all day long about how stupid everyone else is and every now and then they turn on their own which is quite a spectacle.
Regards
AC
@allcanadian,
I think you've got MileHigh all wrong. He wouldn't be spending this much time and effort if he wasn't intrigued with the idea. I don't think his goal is to "debunk" the circuit. He's merely doing the best he can to analyze and understand things using accepted knowledge and techniques. So far he's done a pretty good job and he's been willing to share his thoughts with the world. I give him a lot of credit.
@MH,
When you feel like you have taken enough abuse here, I'd love to hear your thoughts on a more magnetic device.
0c
Quote from: witsend on October 22, 2009, 10:01:43 PM
MileHigh.
I started answering your post in one way. Have deleted it and am now trying another.
Your earlier post - copied over to EF.COM was insightful and challenging. I had rather come to expect an ongoing high standard. I really am not clinging to anything. The term implies a tenuous grasp. My grasp here is firm - strengthened by the experimental evidence available. That the measurements need to be tested and firmed up - is not at question. I trust you realise that there's a 2 week delay in the transfer of another DSO? We're all waiting.
Regarding the measurement of the spike as proof of a gain - again you've missed the mark. We effectively have done what you advised. We ignore the measured wattage over the load resistor except as it relates to thermal measurements. There's no cheating here MH. And if you see the ship sinking - then you need to adjust your sights. Not sure who's going back to the battery argument - except that it would be a preferred corollary to measured data.
I will indeed stop calling you a troll if you would also stop referring to us as 'free energy spin doctors' and all suchlike, and if you could return to the creative analysis that was evident in your post copied over to ef.com. My difficulty with you is that you vacillate between extremes - and I'm never sure what to expect. Some suggestions are gold. Others are not.
Rosemary
Rosemary,
A battery should not be used as a power supply in an attempt to validate a claim of this nature, control or no control - period! I thought this had already been acknowledged. The original data set for your circuit was badly flawed because of this.
Improving the accuracy of the measurements will only delay the inevitable conclusion that this circuit is running nowhere near unity. The evidence for this has already been acquired.
Hoppy
Quote from: Hoppy on October 23, 2009, 04:04:36 AM
Rosemary,
A battery should not be used as a power supply in an attempt to validate a claim of this nature, control or no control - period! I thought this had already been acknowledged. The original data set for your circuit was badly flawed because of this.
Improving the accuracy of the measurements will only delay the inevitable conclusion that this circuit is running nowhere near unity. The evidence for this has already been acquired.
Hoppy
Hoppy - if you want to argue battery draw down as a corollary to the proof of efficiency then take up your cudgels with our academics. We are following good advices on all such matters. I have no idea whether or not you're an academic? If so, you belong to 50% of the argument against this. Which leaves opinion divided.
And regarding your conclusions - it's like I've said repeatedly. For some reason you and MileHigh and others are anxious to close the argument before any further testing is done. Why is this? If you're trying to justify it against Poynt's findings then Poynt himself is still looking. If you're judging it against your own findings - then we've actually never had full access to all your data which assisted your determination here. Perhaps you could make your spreadsheets available for analysis? This is, after all, open source.
What I find extraordinary is that the free energy enthusiasts are usually accused of the bigotry now only evidenced in the rampant certainties expressed by you Paul and MileHigh. Somehow - and for reasons which are not entirely evident - this is now the new brand mark. I'm glad of it. It shows up as an unreasonable bias - not unlike TK's premature attack on this system.
Quote from: witsend on October 23, 2009, 06:04:19 AM
Hoppy - if you want to argue battery draw down as a corollary to the proof of efficiency then take up your cudgels with our academics. We are following good advices on all such matters. I have no idea whether or not you're an academic? If so, you belong to 50% of the argument against this. Which leaves opinion divided.
And regarding your conclusions - it's like I've said repeatedly. For some reason you and MileHigh and others are anxious to close the argument before any further testing is done. Why is this? If you're trying to justify it against Poynt's findings then Poynt himself is still looking. If you're judging it against your own findings - then we've actually never had full access to all your data which assisted your determination here. Perhaps you could make your spreadsheets available for analysis? This is, after all, open source.
What I find extraordinary is that the free energy enthusiasts are usually accused of the bigotry now only evidenced in the rampant certainties expressed by you Paul and MileHigh. Somehow - and for reasons which are not entirely evident - this is now the new brand mark. I'm glad of it. It shows up as an unreasonable bias - not unlike TK's premature attack on this system.
Rosemary,
I have no need or desire to take up the battery issue with your academics whoever they are because I'm 100% confident that batteries should not have been used in your performance testing. Furthermore, I am not trying to close this matter and fully understand your need to continue in the hope of reaching the conclusion you desire.
I admire MH, Poynt's and Fuzzy's hard work in taking the experiments this far and am grateful to you for pushing this thread along, as I think it has been informative and very interesting, especially Aaron's testing and conclusions. My opinion now in regards to your overunity claim is no different to when I first studied your circuit at your invitation.
EDIT: Rosemary, here's a suggestion. Package up all of the test data and results so far collected and send it to your academics for perusal, together with all the criticisms received about your original test report and let them comment.
Hoppy
Quote from: MileHigh on October 22, 2009, 10:48:01 PM
.99:
Not being a component expert either, but I am under the impression that a super low inductance wire-wound resistor is noting more than a resistor half-wound clockwise and half-wound counter-clockwise. Hence I was suggesting that you try to approximate the same thing.
That's perhaps one way to make a non-inductive resistor, but there are others as well. However, the inductance is inherent inside the resistive component itself, so I'm still not sure how using two in series would cancel it. I can see it adding.
Quote
I admire you for your tenacity, that's for sure! If you had a really good electrical Spice model for the load resistor and threw in some stray capacitance and inductance for the wire interconnects (based on serious modeling), don't you think that would nail it on the simulation side?
Yeah, I'm fairly sure I could in time get a fairly good approximation to the actual circuit with all its parasitics, but I'd rather spend the time working on the real circuit measurements and the design of my differential probe.
Quote
Anyway, you have me "convinced" with what you did in the analog and thermal domain. Are you sure that it is worth all the effort on the DSO side?
MileHigh
You are quite right about that. 2W POS, 1.3W for the CONTROL, therefore about 0.7W total lost in the wiring, MOSFET, and shunt (and if you ask Paul, some RF as well). That is convincing in itself indeed.
It is worth it from the technical challenge perspective though ;) A nice set of differential probes will be a real boon to my measurement capabilities.
.99
I agree that people who've working on the Rosie claim have learned about circuit testing, but IMO there are legit "free energy" claims out there where you could learn even more.
The data presented in this thread is intriguing, even though I do *not* like the method of testing the circuit because as stated it's very easy to miss something or not do it correctly.
IMO it's very easy to see if the inventor is sincere. A bit of probing and digging for details is what it takes.
Regards,
Paul
Quote from: PaulLowrance on October 23, 2009, 10:04:45 AM
I agree that people who've working on the Rosie claim have learned about circuit testing, but IMO there are legit "free energy" claims out there where you could learn even more.
The data presented in this thread is intriguing, even though I do *not* like the method of testing the circuit because as stated it's very easy to miss something or not do it correctly.
IMO it's very easy to see if the inventor is sincere. A bit of probing and digging for details is what it takes.
Regards,
Paul
Which legit 'free energy' claims are these Paul?
Hoppy
Quote from: Hoppy on October 23, 2009, 10:11:51 AM
Which legit 'free energy' claims are these Paul?
Hoppy
Well my research for one! ;D It does not provide much power, flashes an LED a few times per day, but often big claims start out small. Every detail is provided, part #'s to everything. Cost ~ $10 in parts purchased at common large online stores such as mouser.com and digikey.com
Besides that, recent the Cold Fusion claims for sure! -->
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKeSuaoubjY
I've seen a youtube video (can't find it right now) that show cases a lot of top Universities around world that are now working on Cold Fusion. Cold Fusion is alive & well, and legit.
The only issue they have with Cold Fusion right now is instability, which is the same issue I fought with in my diode research for years, and only solved it about a year ago. Maybe the same source of energy found in my diodes is found in Cold Fusion experiments as well.
Also Dr. Linnard Griffin low voltage hydrogen generation seems interesting, but I can't say with much certainty yet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7CMT4BA5Og
Regards,
Paul
Thanks Paul. Do you have a link to your research?
Hoppy
I think this makes a fitting tribute song for this circuit.
"Hot'n'cold" Ukrainian Polka band
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_TIOfUEudo
cat ;)
deleted.
Hoppy
@Oc
Quote:
"I think you've got MileHigh all wrong. He wouldn't be spending this much time and effort if he wasn't intrigued with the idea. I don't think his goal is to "debunk" the circuit. He's merely doing the best he can to analyze and understand things using accepted knowledge and techniques. So far he's done a pretty good job and he's been willing to share his thoughts with the world. I give him a lot of credit."
I must be getting cranky in my old age or maybe senile, probably both:) I get really tired of this nonsense going on here, they throw components together without understanding or intuition -- without question. Then they test and declare they must be correct because they have followed all the rules they have been taught from a textbook. Did you know Albert Einstein once stated " As punishment for my contempt for authority, Fate has made me an authority myself", the people who succeed have never followed the rules, they create them.
Concerning MH and others the only point I would make it that testing any circuit within the narrow confines of one operating state proves little. It proves the circuit may not produce the desired results under those exact conditions, if anything changes so will the results. It should be obvious that an intimate understanding of every component, it's properties and qualities and how everything relates to one another in every detail is needed. We cannot test every operating state, it is impossible thus the task is nearly impossible. Knowledge, understanding and intuition are required to succeed, the only question I would ask is "why does it work" if in fact it works as claimed, if you do not believe it can work then why bother building or testing--you have tainted the results before you have started.
In any case I fail to see the point of all this testing and speculation without a solid premise to work from, the circuit must embody the premise in every detail.
Regards
AC
http://home.att.net/~quotations/alberteinstein.html
AC:
I'll repeat it again I am just here for some fun. In the truest sense, there is nothing to debunk, the only issue is to let the truth percolate up to the top all by itself. There is merit in challenging people though, all part of a spirited debate. Once I read a poster on this site that loudly proclaimed that all wind instruments by definition were over unity devices. There is nothing wrong with setting the record straight from time to time. In this thread the equivalent is when people say that there are "better gains" with a certain trimpot setting because the recorded spike is higher in amplitude. That's a false statement without any evidence to back it up. Or the "even more gains with oscillation" argument is another example. Now if somebody could produce some numbers that bear close scrutiny - but that would have to overcome the truth percolating up to the top.
For me there is a touch of mysticism in how you discuss this type of research. I am not comfortable with that train of thought. A broad statement that covers all of what is going on here is that we are looking at a "filter" and trying to discern all of its properties.
.99:
You are right about the two resistors in series, even if the windings are opposite, the magnetic coupling cancellation effect would be limited. Mah brain was not quite in gear. An integral resistor with opposite windings would fit the bill for most applications I assume. I am wondering what these big resistors are used for in the real world. In radio transmitters? Some sort of high power application that needs a big dumb resistor is all I know! lol Good luck with your differential measurements.
All energy philosophers:
I still have faith in this nifty fact: The total solar power striking the Earth is 1.75 x 10^17 watts. That's a lotta juice. It is fair to say that the percentage of the energy we use that's derived from solar power will slowly increase year over year so that 20 or 40 years from now it will really start to make a difference. There is no reason that a moderately sized city could not get the vast majority of its power from solar collectors and giant flywheels in the surrounding countryside. I do not call this "free energy" and I hate when people try to broaden the definition of the term to include solar energy. It's actually nuclear fusion energy. The bottom line is that the glass is more than half full.
MileHigh
Hi allcanadian. Just to let you know how much I appreciate your input here. I get it that you feel the intrinsic components on the circuit are somewhat unstable or possibly better described as variable? You are right. But the intrigue is that the 'window' to show any kind of anomaly at all, is aslo so very small. So. Superficially we have a really standard set up which is also well known and well tried. And yet, given certain frequencies? resonances? then really sophisticated measurements point at waveforms and values that seem to fly in the face of...
I have been in some really lengthy conversations in trying to resolve the coincidence of the source voltage across the shunt and the drain voltage across the load. We can nearly resolve this provided only that the current flow instantaneously adjusts to applied voltage and if the load resistor presents an alternate path for that current flow. At present our thinking is that it may be through the hollow of the resistor itself. That way there is an explanation for the spike as being entirely stored energy from the level of the source battery potential difference and greater. Then too, the current flow back through the battery would always be enabled through a circuit path enabled by the body diode.
At its least, this would explain the need for the wider diameter of the load resistor which seems to be required to allow this anomaly at all. The thinking then being that the narrower the diameter the greater the magnetic resistance? (sorry about the term) would not allow the full benefit of returning current. But the question remains. What then happens to the stored energy on the load resistor? Does this dissipate? And if so, as what?
The alternative to this could be that the returning energy - be it stored or regenerated - actually behaves in some way that conflicts with standard electric current flow - resulting in some delivery of energy that also does not relate to heat dissipation. I can still argue this in terms of zipons - but it would need more comprehensive experimental proof. There may be hints of this in Aaron's early experiments where he discovered a distinct cooling over the resistor. But it can only be considered as a possibility at this stage. It needs more substantial proof.
What continues to intrigue me is that our early choice of the appropriate load resistors was - through some miracle of coincidence and good timing - able to satisfy the precise requirement to show this anomaly. Which also explains why the early replicators of that circuit were not able to show those same anomalous values. I must confess that until my foray into these forums - I assumed that replicators were simply pretending not to see the benefits. I now know that the effect may very well have required that precise property. The actual question remains as to what is the upper limit required to show full benefit. I believe Fuzzy is making an even wider resistor and I look forward to seeing these results.
But it is just so nice to be reminded that we can engage with the more open minded. There are a dearth of such on this thread - albeit many on this forum. For some reason this thread is monopolised by a kind of mainstream scepticism which is appropriate to good science provided it is also open to the questions posed by these evident anomalies.
Yet again - thank you for the objectivity and the input in general. It is much appreciated. :D
Quote from: allcanadian on October 23, 2009, 08:17:53 PM
In any case I fail to see the point of all this testing and speculation without a solid premise to work from, the circuit must embody the premise in every detail.
Regards
AC
Care to expand on that?
Also, what would you suggest as a way to determine when the correct mode of operation has been reached? I sense that the message here from you and Rose is that I have not "hit" on the correct mode yet, or I'm using the wrong resistor, and that is why my results are COP<1. Is this correct?
How is your replication going btw? Since I've done nothing right, perhaps you could post your setup and results and show me the error of my ways?
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on October 24, 2009, 12:40:40 AM
Care to expand on that?
Also, what would you suggest as a way to determine when the correct mode of operation has been reached? I sense that the message here from you and Rose is that I have not "hit" on the correct mode yet, or I'm using the wrong resistor, and that is why my results are COP<1. Is this correct?
How is your replication going btw? Since I've done nothing right, perhaps you could post your setup and results and show me the error of my ways?
.99
Poynty - what gives? Do I detect a certain irritation ? anger ? Golly. ::)
I have hardly commented on your set up and allcanadian has gone to some pains to request the 'object' of all tests, not just yours. I simply tried to expand on my objects - is all? You are unduly sensitive. But may I remind you about an earlier question. Are we in competition on a thesis? ;)
Still a great admirer of your work Poynty Poynt. ;D :-* Just not sure of it's relevance and would prefer to see it in context
Hi Rose.
I'm not in any sort of thesis competition with you. Doubt I would win if I was 8)
.99
I should have some results for you in about 12 to 14 hours. Must sleep now ;)
.99
Jeeez...
This topic is still alive.. And, kicking?
What a surprise.
"OU Fet Heater"!
(never mind, just a personal file search identifier...)
Cheers!
Quote from: allcanadian on October 23, 2009, 08:17:53 PM
@Oc
Quote:
"I think you've got MileHigh all wrong. He wouldn't be spending this much time and effort if he wasn't intrigued with the idea. I don't think his goal is to "debunk" the circuit. He's merely doing the best he can to analyze and understand things using accepted knowledge and techniques. So far he's done a pretty good job and he's been willing to share his thoughts with the world. I give him a lot of credit."
I must be getting cranky in my old age or maybe senile, probably both:) I get really tired of this nonsense going on here, they throw components together without understanding or intuition -- without question. Then they test and declare they must be correct because they have followed all the rules they have been taught from a textbook. Did you know Albert Einstein once stated " As punishment for my contempt for authority, Fate has made me an authority myself", the people who succeed have never followed the rules, they create them.
Concerning MH and others the only point I would make it that testing any circuit within the narrow confines of one operating state proves little. It proves the circuit may not produce the desired results under those exact conditions, if anything changes so will the results. It should be obvious that an intimate understanding of every component, it's properties and qualities and how everything relates to one another in every detail is needed. We cannot test every operating state, it is impossible thus the task is nearly impossible. Knowledge, understanding and intuition are required to succeed, the only question I would ask is "why does it work" if in fact it works as claimed, if you do not believe it can work then why bother building or testing--you have tainted the results before you have started.
In any case I fail to see the point of all this testing and speculation without a solid premise to work from, the circuit must embody the premise in every detail.
Regards
AC
http://home.att.net/~quotations/alberteinstein.html
The interpretation of results will always be subject to argument within a forum group having different perspectives and beliefs, irrespective of the quality of test equipment or experimental method / procedure. It can be argued that belief taints results as you suggest but even those experimenters who believe that this circuit is capable of running OU have so far not openly stated on the fora that their test results indicate this.
The Ainslie test report is lacking in a lot of detail which makes it impossible to replicate accurately. This is a lesson to all experimenters who make overunity claims for their circuits, that full and accurate documentation is extremely important. I personally do not believe that the people who tested Rosemary's circuit were true professionals, as the quality of the documentation is very poor.
Hoppy
Quote from: poynt99 on October 24, 2009, 01:02:52 AM
Hi Rose.
I'm not in any sort of thesis competition with you. Doubt I would win if I was 8)
.99
If I win here it's because I'm not unduly constrained by the demands of logic. LOL
Quote from: Hoppy on October 24, 2009, 05:29:56 AMThe Ainslie test report is lacking in a lot of detail which makes it impossible to replicate accurately.
Ah, but you're supposed be "Intuitive," you know. ;) Did you forget the mylow case? You have to just "feel" for the correct spot. ... That way they can waste more of your valuable research time to delay global free energy that much longer. :'(
Quote from: Hoppy on October 24, 2009, 05:29:56 AMThis is a lesson to all experimenters who make overunity claims for their circuits, that full and accurate documentation is extremely important.
Indeed! Intuition is great for doing research, but having people spend valuable time & $ replicate ones claim should be exact, especially in this community where we know the mylows are out there working hard to distract us.
Quote from: Hoppy on October 24, 2009, 05:29:56 AMI personally do not believe that the people who tested Rosemary's circuit were true professionals, as the quality of the documentation is very poor.
I agree. All of the signs were there that is a deliberate distraction / fake.
Regards,
Paul
Quote from: PaulLowrance on October 24, 2009, 12:09:17 PM
I agree. All of the signs were there that is a deliberate distraction / fake.
Regards,
Paul
Come on Paul. This was not an intended or deliberate fake. It does not classify as a fake at all. Please get over that notion and give it a break!
.99
Quote from: Hoppy on October 23, 2009, 12:25:48 PM
Thanks Paul. Do you have a link to your research?
Hoppy
Hi Hoppy,
Sure, my blog site: http://globalfreeenergy.info (http://globalfreeenergy.info)
BTW, this morning I just made another discovery, umm, actually it's just a replication taken from memory of a youtube video. So I made it, and it works as the guy claimed. I'll be making a blog post about this very simple & inexpensive magnetic device on my blog site in about 10 minutes.
Regards,
Paul
[edit: actually, this same simple magnetic device (battery) is claimed by the inventor of the
Testatika]
Quote from: poynt99 on October 24, 2009, 12:58:53 PM
Come on Paul. This was not an intended or deliberate fake. It does not classify as a fake at all. Please get over that notion and give it a break!
That's what they said about mylow as well, :D but I kept telling them that mylow failed my tests of being sincere.
Quote from: PaulLowrance on October 24, 2009, 01:08:36 PM
Sure, my blog site: http://globalfreeenergy.info (http://globalfreeenergy.info)
BTW, this morning I just made another discovery, umm, actually it's just a replication taken from memory of a youtube video. So I made it, and it works as the guy claimed.
Regards,
Paul
WOW ..... a replication of your free energy device ..... where is complete parts list ??? ..... who did the testing ???( OMG I wouldn't touch that one ) explain the full fundamentals of operation ??? ( you look confused )..... your COP value ??? .....
DO YOU NEED A MATCH FOR FURTHER TESTING ??? ( I will gladly give you one )
Actually your off topic here with your new FE device and should start your own thread ( your friend Mylow will help you ... he promised )
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on October 24, 2009, 01:39:24 PM
WOW ..... a replication of your free energy device ..... where is complete parts list ??? ..... who did the testing ??? ( OMG I wouldn't touch that one ) explain the full fundamentals of operation ??? ( you look confused )..... your COP value ??? ..... DO YOU NEED A MATCH FOR FURTHER TESTING ??? ( I will gladly give you one )
Actually your off topic here with your new FE device and should start your own thread ( your friend Mylow will help you ... he promised )
Yes, I've provided
*all* of the part numbers and details to make it. It's a whopping $2 part, $0.70 for the switch, and ~ $7 for the thick Hammond metal chassis. Takes me a few minutes to put it together. It's been replicated by EE's, by profession. Now go get yourself a happy meal.
Paul
OK,
Did two runs today. First run was as a baseline after going back to the MOSFET Source shunt, and with slightly different probe points, i.e all close to the MOSFET on the pcb. For example, the load resistor voltage and supply voltage is being measured from the point where the large filter capacitor is installed (about half way between the supply and the resistor terminal) and right at the MOSFET Drain. Frequency was still 2.5kHz and 3.7% duty.
The second run was done with the same setup, but the frequency was moved to about 375kHz, with a duty cycle of about 70%.
2.5k_3.7_10_24_01.xls
POS = 1.99W
PIL = 2.12W
PIM = -0.17W
PIS = 0.04W
TRAA = 8ºC
Actual POS = 2W (also verified with DC voltmeter across the 0.25 Ohm shunt).
375_70_10_24_01.xls
POS = 20.28W
PIL = 64.09W
PIM = -44.27W
PIS = 0.47W
TRAA = 67ºC
Ambient = 22ºC
Actual POS = 20W (also verified with DC voltmeter across the 0.25 Ohm shunt). Supply Voltage = 25VDC (add to wave form).
Notice in both cases the scope-measured POS is equal in value to the manual voltage meter method of measurement for the POS.
See attached scope shot of this test.
I'll do a CONTROL test for a TRAA of 67ºC and see what we get for the POS.
.99
EDIT: Corrected TRAA. Sufficient time not given with previous test run.
Performed a second DUT test to get more accurate TRAA (67ºC), and measured real average power as before. Performed CONTROL test to get the power required for a TRAA of 67ºC (corrected value).
Corrected real power input POS = 22.72W as per DC measurements.
CONTROL POS for equal TRAA of 67ºC = 13.5W
The circuit with these settings is losing 9.22W to the MOSFET, shunt, etc., and about 13.5W is being dissipated in the load resistor.
Also see a revised scope shot where the supply probe was placed right at the load resistor. This now shows a 20V bump vs. the 2V bump in the previous shot. The further the probe is place away from the supply (or battery), the larger this bump will appear.
Also, the shunt wave form is more "fuzzy" just like fuzzy's ;)
.99
Hey Poynt,
Great data gathering again, one more time the numbers all add up in the known strange way. I'm not holding my breath on your thermal equivalent power on the second run, it should come in at 20 watts less a smidgen. (EDIT: Ha! Ha! Gag me with a spoon, I just saw your results and it was 20 watts less a lot - and I can see the error in my ways, I was forgetting about the big duty cycle change, I am such an idiot. lol)
Therefore, you have valid POS measurements with the DSO and with the analog method that check out. We have a pretty good understanding for why the MOSFET and load resistor DSO power measurements are strange. And you mentioned that you are using a real thermocouple, which I would consider the best way to do the thermal profiling. It stays in a fixed position on the load resistor and has almost no thermal capacitance itself. Therefore you DC thermal profiling will be very accurate.
The funny MOSFET and load resistor DSO power measurements are strange, but they are consistent and they do add up properly. Plus they are inside the "black box" and we don't need to obsess on them. As I said before, we are really concerned with the electrial power put into the black box and the thermal power coming out of the black box.
Rosemary is mentioning things like the load resistor diameter, and I am sure others will throw a few toothpick spears at your results - but your armor is very thick, and all will bounce off of it.
You could in theory try all sorts of weird oscillation modes by playing with the 555 components and the gate input resistor - and you electrical in-thermal out measurements will all check out and show that there is in fact no excess energy no matter what you do.
This marks the beginning of the end for this project. Perhaps the only "surprise" was that the inductive discharge does not in fact smash it's way through the closing switch of the MOSFET. The propagation delays through the long length of wire in the load resistor result in the inductive discharge bouncing off an already closed MOSFET switch and creating a brief pulse of current in the reverse direction. In a way even that doesn't matter, the basic facts remain the same - the inductive component in the load resistor generates an energy spike that dissipates, and the energy for that spike came from the battery. The energy spike does not come from the vacuum, or the Dirac sea, or from zero point potential, or from compressed time potential, or from zipons, or from any other theory of the day - the energy spike got its energy from the battery. For those that refuse to believe this, there are dozens of experiments that you could do that would all tell you the same thing; the energy in the inductive discharge comes from the battery.
Congratulations again! You are the man of the hour!
On a different note, today I went to my very first (and probably last) ham radio flea market. It was fun looking around, I had previously seen clips of these types of events on YouTube and thought that it would be fun to check it out.
I did a crazy impulse buy, something to put up on a wall one day perhaps. I bought a beautiful analog voltage meter and a beautiful analog current meter. They look they could be from the Forties through Sixties, hard to tell. They are both about 5" x 5" x 2 1/2". Please see the pics below. The camera picks up all of the dirt, so they will have to be carefully cleaned. They are just cool conversation pieces I suppose. A little piece of Dr. Frankenstein's lab for a keepsake.
MileHigh
Quote from: poynt99 on October 24, 2009, 05:32:58 PM
Performed a second DUT test to get more accurate TRAA (67ºC), and measured real average power as before. Performed CONTROL test to get the power required for a TRAA of 67ºC (corrected value).
Corrected real power input POS = 22.72W as per DC measurements.
CONTROL POS for equal TRAA of 67ºC = 13.5W
The circuit with these settings is losing 9.22W to the MOSFET, shunt, etc., and about 13.5W is being dissipated in the load resistor.
Also see a revised scope shot where the supply probe was placed right at the load resistor. This now shows a 20V bump vs. the 2V bump in the previous shot. The further the probe is place away from the supply (or battery), the larger this bump will appear.
Also, the shunt wave form is more "fuzzy" just like fuzzy's ;)
.99
Hi Poynty. Some really good work here. Well done. ;D
As MH says, this latest helping from Poynt99 marks the beginning of the end for this project, showing very clearly that the battery supplies all energy to the circuit and there is no overunity here. I doubt that the New Age team will accept this conclusion but that is to be expected.
Hoppy
Quote from: Hoppy on October 24, 2009, 06:12:30 PM
As MH says, this latest helping from Poynt99 marks the beginning of the end for this project, showing very clearly that the battery supplies all energy to the circuit and there is no overunity here. I doubt that the New Age team will accept this conclusion but that is to be expected.
Hoppy
I for one am entirely satisfied that Poynt's conclusions here are correct. :( ??? ::)
:D Rosemary
A few closing thoughts:
A few quotes from the other side of the Great Internet Packet Divide:
Ash:
QuoteYes the threads can get up there, but at least here un like OU.com they have some relevance LOL.
The OU thread on this topic has blown the EF thread out of the water. Eat your heart out. I know that you are a good guy but "Panacea University" and it's .pdf documents have to have TRUTH and SUBSTANCE in them. Contemplate that one for a long long time.
QuoteThe PDF's make it easier and quicker for the new engineers on board.
Engineers? Don't use that word loosely. If you are a medical groupie and you hang out on a hospital's chat board do the participants go around calling each other doctors? Get real and be responsible with your choice of words.
Joit:
QuoteHe should stop posting as he would do, after his very first Post there,
and stop stealing other Peoples Time with his screwed Theories,
but i dont think, he has the Balls for that.
The Circuit will spread anyway, if this bunch of Whiners at OU.com now agree with it or not.
"The Circuit" is going nowhere.
It's time for you to morph from Bad Grumpy, Snow White's Dungeon Master, back into a Pixie Faerie and go back to dancing on the head of a pin with the other Pixie Faeries.
The lesson here for all the experimenters is to ACTUALLY GENERATE THE DATA THAT THE EXPERIMENT CALLS FOR - electrical power in and thermal power out. I shudder thinking of the two months worth of "Aaron Agony," with one useless "experiment" after another, with no tangible data whosoever. Does anybody remember the big fight over the scope loosing trigger and Aaron was convinced it was "oscillation mode" and the three day nuthouse crisis over avalanche mode?
Anyway, Poynt Ninety-Nine - you are the man!!!!
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on October 24, 2009, 06:36:43 PM
A few closing thoughts:
A few quotes from the other side of the Great Internet Packet Divide:
Ash:
The OU thread on this topic has blown the EF thread out of the water. Eat your heart out. I know that you are a good guy but "Panacea University" and it's .pdf documents have to have TRUTH and SUBSTANCE in them. Contemplate that one for a long long time.
Engineers? Don't use that word loosely. If you are a medical groupie and you hang out on a hospital's chat board do the participants go around calling each other doctors? Get real and be responsible with your choice of words.
Joit:
"The Circuit" is going nowhere.
It's time for you to morph from Bad Grumpy, Snow White's Dungeon Master, back into a Pixie Faerie and go back to dancing on the head or a pin with the other Pixie Faeries.
The lesson here for all the experimenters is to ACTUALLY GENERATE THE DATA THAT THE EXPERIMENT CALLS FOR - electrical power in and thermal power out. I shudder thinking of the two months worth of "Aaron Agony," with one useless "experiment" after another, with no tangible data whosoever. Does anybody remember the big fight over the scope loosing trigger and Aaron was convinced it was "oscillation mode" and the three day nuthouse crisis over avalanche mode?
Anyway, Poynt Nineyy-Nine - you are the man!!!!
MileHigh
Golly MileHigh. Is this your victory jig? LOL. I think you'r being hopelessly optimistic and somewhat premature. But go for it. Nice to see so much misplaced delight. I solemnly undertake never to call you a troll again. Your terms are clearly generic.
;D
Quote from: witsend on October 24, 2009, 06:18:35 PM
I for one am entirely satisfied that Poynt's conclusions here are correct. :( ??? ::)
:D Rosemary
Good on you Rosemary. :( ??? ::)
Hoppy
QuoteGood on you Rosemary. :( ??? ::)
I second that! Double-good on you Rosemary!
MileHigh
Rosemary,
Yes it was a victory jig of sorts!
Peter Lindemann, would you care to dance with me? lol
MileHigh
Guys, I've had the best laugh in ages. So nice to see that this thread is back on topic. I think we drifted back there, for a bit.
Witsend. ;D
What I'm curious about Rose, is if the results I just posted are up to par, better, or worse than Fuzzy's #5 results?
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on October 24, 2009, 08:09:16 PM
What I'm curious about Rose, is if the results I just posted are up to par, better, or worse than Fuzzy's #5 results?
.99
Hi Poynty. I don't actually think we can compare the two circuits without having approximate experimental apparatus. But what your test shows is the need to check all waveforms and measurements to co-incide with your definition of POS. You've honed in on the variables that allcanadian pointed to. And we really need to check them all. You're our best barometer of good measurement protocols - Poynty. Most appreciated. Not sure you've proved any excessive departures here - but they definitely need to be checked.
If this was all based on Rosie theoretical work, where can one find all of the math?
Also, why not have Rosie mail her device to someone to be tested? Why have everyone in the world make something when the details are obviously lacking?
Maybe she'll allow someone out in Africa go out there to test it.
Regards,
Paul
Quote from: witsend on October 24, 2009, 08:16:55 PM
Hi Poynty. I don't actually think we can compare the two circuits without having approximate experimental apparatus.
I'm not sure what you mean Rose. What am I missing? I thought we were in agreement that it was all about results. So what about the results are not up to par?
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on October 24, 2009, 09:02:05 PM
I'm not sure what you mean Rose. What am I missing?
.99
Poynty - don't ask me to go into the details. You know as well as I do where your circuit varies from the original. And it's now 3.05 am here and I simply can't concentrate. But if you want to talk about it I'm game. It'll be a nice distraction from the emails I have to get through.
:D
Fundamentally, the circuits are the same.
The only physical differences are: Fuzzy has a hand-wound resistor, he is using a battery supply, and a breadboard circuit.
For purposes of power in vs. thermal heat out measurements, it does not matter if the supply is a battery or lab supply type. The COP>17 claim is based on more energy dissipated in the load compared to the energy supplied by the source. If required, I do have two 12V batteries lined up. I will need to assess their "health" beforehand though, as this is an unknown at the moment.
The notion of the hand-wound resistor having special properties is still up for debate.
The breadboard circuit I am willing to except some small differences.
So that leaves really only the resistor construction as the major difference for the tests we are doing. We agreed (I thought) that I would obtain some results using my resistor and you would rate my results compared to Fuzzy's #5.
I am having to leave this "rating" up to you Rose, because frankly I do not know what you are using as a basis for these ratings. All I can do is go by what Fuzzy has posted and your comments with each new test run, and the only difference I see between the several tests he has done, is the amplitude of the Drain spike, and also the amplitude of the bump on the battery voltage. If this is not it, I'd very much like to know the metric you are actually using for comparing one test result to another.
Incidentally, are you aware that this battery voltage bump on his commercial OTS resistor test was actually 30% higher than he got with his hand-wound resistor? The Drain voltage was lower though, and that would be expected imo.
.99
Hi Poynty. I take it you're not about to discuss anything. And I'm way too tired to type anything more. I'll try and deal with your points later. But glad of the points. Just sorry we can't actually talk it over.
QuoteQuote from: poynt99 on Today at 02:02:05 AM
I'm not sure what you mean Rose. What am I missing?
.99
Quote from: witsend on October 24, 2009, 09:07:36 PM
Poynty - don't ask me to go into the details. You know as well as I do where your circuit varies from the original. And it's now 3.05 am here and I simply can't concentrate. But if you want to talk about it I'm game. It'll be a nice distraction from the emails I have to get through.
:D
The problem is the "Rosemary Ainslie COP> 17 Heater Circuit" has some distinct differences I would think any amateur that can read a schematic can tell .... and the modifications plus total refusal to use the correct items illustrated in the original or now modified "Quantum" October 2002 article and submit test result from a apparatus that is in no way like the original circuit as shown in
"FIGURE 1 - DUT CIRCUIT" with even going so far to the earth grounding on the negative rail to eliminate any and all circuit effects using power supplies instead of batteries the incorrect 10 ohm load resistor ....etc. ..... etc. .....
Of course there are only 3 actual oscilloscope wave form images and only 2 modified data sheets not even the originals have been shown here by "poynt99" ...... to the 80 or more unmodified original images and data sheets that has been posted by myself at "Energetic Forum" for complete transparency of my testing
"NOTHING HIDDEN" using all components as close as possible to original circuit.
I do at least have respect for poynt99 as he is the only member here at Over Unity to even have the
"BALLS" to attempt a replication while others are only loud mouthed couch potatoes that don't know and have any clue the difference between the two schematics and test set ups .... giving there 2 cents and claiming some type of
"FAKE" victory when the battle is just about to start.
Also the lack of my response for any additional testing is because as it is well known even by the nay sayers that I do not have in my possession none of the testing equipment that I had previously ...... but this will be resolved with the 100% full capabilities again in 1 to 2 weeks time.
@fuzzytomcat
Thank you for the clarification on the circuit diagrams, I just stepped back into the fray, I mean thread--again and was not aware of the circuit discrepancies. In a perfect world we could say they achieve the same effects but this is not the case here. Consider the fact that if you attach two wires to a battery and these wires remain separated or open circuit that the opposite charges will extend to the ends of the wires, they are always present. What you have is a capacitor, the wires are the plates with a small surface area and a very wide spacing thus the capacitance or electric field between the two is small. When dealing with an inductive discharge having fast rise/fall times and higher voltages this capacitive effect increases drastically. Take a NE2 neon and touch a single lead to the circuit to see why Poynt99's circuit cannot be grounded and there can be no capacitors. Again, these discharge currents do not need conductors or closed circuits to transfer energy, they will discharge to the (-) or (+) terminal of a battery through a single wire, they will discharge completely to any ground connection, they are not conventional currents and they do not act like them. Consider why in the quantum circuit the source is in a closed loop with the resistive inductor and other than the isolated gate conductor on the mosfet there is only one external conductor leading from the working circuit--- and where this conductor goes? this is a discharge path because discharge currents seek greater surface area to find equilibrium by lowering it's potential. You can consider a discharge current (the spike) as a unidirectional impolar current in a sense(it will discharge to any source polarity (+) or (-)or ground). This is why when you approach the circuit with your hand the operating frequency charges, the discharge has created a large electric field around the whole circuit to extend it's surface area and find equilibrium. In this case the circuit as a whole is one plate of a capacitor and the space surrounding the circuit is induced with an opposite polarity--the other plate of the capacitor. To conclude you cannot treat this circuit as having conventional current, the same rules simply do not apply.
Regards
AC
Glen:
QuoteI do at least have respect for poynt99 as he is the only member here at Over Unity to even have the "BALLS" to attempt a replication while others are only loud mouthed couch potatoes that don't know and have any clue the difference between the two schematics and test set ups .... giving there 2 cents and claiming some type of "FAKE" victory when the battle is just about to start.
Really? Is that so? How come you have never had anything significant to say when it comes to discussing the actual operation of the circuit? How come you have been basically mute when you have been asked questions about your setup and your data? I can't recall reading a single relevant thought from you about this whole experiment, no theories, no questions, no musings about it's operation. The answer to that is that you are a beginner, and are not in a position to really say much right now. Therefore you prefer to not say much and are more focused on generating the data. Is that a fair assessment?
QuoteThe problem is the "Rosemary Ainslie COP> 17 Heater Circuit" has some distinct differences I would think any amateur that can read a schematic can tell .... and the modifications plus total refusal to use the correct items.....
Exactly, you hit it right on the nose Glen but not in the way you are thinking. You are an amateur with very little experience and look at the two schematics and cry "Not the same!!!"
The simple truth is that the two circuits are nearly identical. The real circuit is a 24-volt voltage source going through an inductive resistor to a MOSFET to a shunt resistor to ground, and the MOSGET gate is being fed by a 555 source. THAT'S IT. Everything else is just window dressing. You have to have experience to see that and understand that, which you don't have. You are just "following the numbers" when you build the circuit.
The only difference is the fact that .99 is using a power supply and you are using a battery. Experienced people know that for all practical intents and purposes that makes absolutely no difference. Don't forget, we are NOT playing the "mystical battery game" for this test, it is nothing more than electrical power in vs. thermal power out and the battery has noting to do with it. However, .99 knows all about the "cult of batteries" and is willing to do some measurements using batteries, to make that argument go away. There is no true logical reason to do this, it is just being done to demonstrate that it will make no difference for those that need to see this done like yourself.
Battery or power supply notwithstanding - the circuits are IDENTICAL - go look again - 24 volts to a load resistor to a MOSFET to a shunt resistor to ground. It's the same deal for both circuits.
Beyond that Glen - enlighten us, how would the "differences" you allege make a difference in the power in vs. power out measurements? Step up to the plate! You are alleging these differences, how are they going to affect the measurements? Following your thought process further, alleged "differences" imply that you think COP > 1 or COP > 17 may be achievable if the circut is "built correctly." How and why should you see COP > 1? Or, if you can't answer that with specifics, what is your theory for achieving COP > 1 if the circuit is "done correctly?"
Glen - I don't think that you are going to be able to answer any of the questions posed to you in the above paragraph. If you refuse to even acknowledge them like you have done in the past, then that leaves you without much to stand on - just the blind belief that .99 "got it wrong" and if he only built it "correctly" then the magic free heat pies would appear like Manna from Heaven. In other words, behind your thought process, you don't have any real technical legs to stand on, just "free energy fantasy mode" - if you close your eyes and hope it just might happen.
QuoteOf course there are only 3 actual oscilloscope wave form images and only 2 modified data sheets not even the originals have been shown here by "poynt99" ...... to the 80 or more unmodified original images and data sheets that has been posted by myself at "Energetic Forum" for complete transparency of my testing "NOTHING HIDDEN" using all components as close as possible to original circuit.
When you finally do "close the loop" and compare your thermal control test data with your device under test data you will find that your results will be very very similar to .99's - everything will be under unity. I think that you have a problem there though because you changed your load resistor setup between tests. You are going to have to corelate the right control setups to match with your various tests.
QuoteI do at least have respect for poynt99 as he is the only member here at Over Unity to even have the "BALLS" to attempt a replication while others are only loud mouthed couch potatoes that don't know and have any clue the difference between the two schematics and test set ups .... giving there 2 cents and claiming some type of "FAKE" victory when the battle is just about to start.
The simple truth is with respect to electronics I could spin circles around you with my eyes closed. Not because I am any smarter than you, but because I have been involved in electronics for 30 years both in terms of my hobbies when I was younger, then my education, and then my working career. How long have you been playing with electronics?
I of course can't tell .99 what to do, but as far as I am concerned the game is over. When he does the battery test, the results will be the same. When you do your thermal control tests and crunch your data the results will be similar to .99's.
Your argument that the circuits are not the same is false.
MileHigh
AC:
QuoteThank you for the clarification on the circuit diagrams, I just stepped back into the fray, I mean thread--again and was not aware of the circuit discrepancies. In a perfect world we could say they achieve the same effects but this is not the case here. Consider the fact that if you attach two wires to a battery and these wires remain separated that the opposite charges extend to the ends of the wires, they are always present. What you have is a capacitor, the wires are the plates with a small surface area and a very wide spacing thus the capacitance or electric field between the two is small. When dealing with an inductive discharge having fast rise/fall times and higher voltages this capacitive effect increases drastically. Take a NE2 neon and touch a single lead to the circuit to see why Poynt99 circuit cannot be grounded and there can be no capacitors. Again, these discharge currents do not need conductors or closed circuits to transfer energy, they will discharge to the (-) or (+) terminal of a battery through a single wire, they will discharge completely to any ground connection, they are not conventional currents and they do not act like them. Consider why in the quantum circuit the source is in a closed loop with the resistive inductor and the besides the gate conductor on the mosfet there is only one external conductor leading from the working circuit--- and where this conductor goes. You can consider a discharge current (the spike) as a unidirectional impolar current(it will discharge to any source polarity (+) or (-)or ground). This is why when you approach the circuit with your hand the operating frequency charges, the discharge has created a large electric field around the whole circuit. To conclude you cannot treat this circuit as having conventional current, the same rules simply do not apply.
I am going to be the "bad guy" and play a bit of hard ball again. The truth is that most of what you are saying above is nonsensical mumbo-jumbo and clearly indicates that you have no idea what you are talking about. I am not going to bother to argue each statement point by point.
I can't resist this one:
QuoteAgain, these discharge currents do not need conductors or closed circuits to transfer energy, they will discharge to the (-) or (+) terminal of a battery through a single wire, they will discharge completely to any ground connection, they are not conventional currents and they do not act like them.
So, you think when people make a little neon lamp light up by holding it in their hands and touching a battery terminal with the free lead that they are demonstrating "non conventional currents?" That's simply wrong and it clearly shows that you have no idea.
I suggest that you read my clarification on the circuit diagrams.
MileHigh
@milehigh
QuoteSo, you think when people make a little neon lamp light up by holding it in their hands and touching a battery terminal with the free lead that they are demonstrating "non conventional currents?" That's simply wrong and it clearly shows that you have no idea.
If you consider conventional currents as 60Hz domestic current having a wavelength of 3100 miles and lethargic rise/fall times or Direct current from a 12v battery, all conventional . Then yes I would say High frequency high voltage currents with fast rise/fall times are non-conventional in that few people understand them as demonstrated by potynt99's circuit diagram. When was the last time you saw someone light a neon in there hand with no wires from a small circuit six feet away?
Definition: Conventional
Based on or in accordance with general agreement, use, or practice
QuoteI am going to be the "bad guy" and play a bit of hard ball again. The truth is that most of what you are saying above is nonsensical mumbo-jumbo and clearly indicates that you have no idea what you are talking about. I am not going to bother to argue each statement point by point.
Could you be a little more specific?
Regards
AC
Are you implying that I have no understanding of high frequency high voltage currents ???
.99
@poynt99
QuoteAre you implying that I have no understanding of high frequency high voltage currents
No, I am saying the circuit fuzzytomcat posted called "Ainsley circuit test plan-Poynt99", has made no allowances for transient effects. In that circuit what effects do you think the capacitors and ground will have on the circuit when the inductive resistor discharges?
AC
@ MH
QuoteI do at least have respect for poynt99 as he is the only member here at Over Unity to even have the "BALLS" to attempt a replication while others are only loud mouthed couch potatoes that don't know and have any clue the difference between the two schematics and test set ups .... giving there 2 cents and claiming some type of "FAKE" victory when the battle is just about to start.
MH
QuoteReally?
YES MH
QuoteIs that so?
YESMH
QuoteHow come you have never had anything significant to say when it comes to discussing the actual operation of the circuit?
NO REASON, ALREADY PUBLISHED IN QUANTUM ARTICLE CAN"T YOU READ ?? MH
QuoteHow come you have been basically mute when you have been asked questions about your setup and your data?
WHAT QUESTIONS FROM REPLICATORS ANSWERED ALL OF .99'sMH
QuoteI can't recall reading a single relevant thought from you about this whole experiment, no theories, no questions, no musings about it's operation. The answer to that is that you are a beginner, and are not in a position to really say much right now. Therefore you prefer to not say much and are more focused on generating the data. Is that a fair assessment?
NO, NOT DONE YET YOU KNOW THAT, YOU JUST HAVE ALTERNATIVE MOTIVES BEHIND YOUMH
QuoteYou are an amateur with very little experience and look at the two schematics and cry "Not the same!!!"
HOW RUDE .... AT LEAST I'M DOING A REPLICATION OF THE ORIGINAL CIRCUIT, WHATS YOUR PROBLEM MH
QuoteThe simple truth is that the two circuits are nearly identical. The real circuit is a 24-volt voltage source going through an inductive resistor to a MOSFET to a shunt resistor to ground, and the MOSGET gate is being fed by a 555 source. THAT'S IT. Everything else is just window dressing. You have to have experience to see that and understand that, which you don't have. You are just "following the numbers" when you build the circuit.
NEARLY IDENTICAL ?? WHERES THE BATTERIES ?? MH
QuoteThe only difference is the fact that .99 is using a power supply and you are using a battery. Experienced people know that for all practical intents and purposes that makes absolutely no difference. Don't forget, we are NOT playing the "mystical battery game" for this test, it is nothing more than electrical power in vs. thermal power out and the battery has noting to do with it. However, .99 knows all about the "cult of batteries" and is willing to do some measurements using batteries, to make that argument go away. There is no true logical reason to do this, it is just being done to demonstrate that it will make no difference for those that need to see this done like yourself.
EARTH GROUNDING THE NEGATIVE RAIL FROM A POWER SUPPLY .... SAME 32mm DIA. 10 OHM LOAD RESISTOR ??MH
QuoteBattery or power supply notwithstanding - the circuits are IDENTICAL - go look again - 24 volts to a load resistor to a MOSFET to a shunt resistor to ground. It's the same deal for both circuits.
FIRST THEY WERE NEARLY IDENTICAL NOW THERE IDENTICAL ..... INTENTIONAL EARTH GROUNDING ?? WRONG LOAD RESISTOR ?? NO BATTERIES ??MH
QuoteBeyond that Glen - enlighten us, how would the "differences" you allege make a difference in the power in vs. power out measurements? Step up to the plate! You are alleging these differences, how are they going to affect the measurements? Following your thought process further, alleged "differences" imply that you think COP > 1 or COP > 17 may be achievable if the circut is "built correctly." How and why should you see COP > 1? Or, if you can't answer that with specifics, what is your theory for achieving COP > 1 if the circuit is "done correctly?"
Glen - I don't think that you are going to be able to answer any of the questions posed to you in the above paragraph. If you refuse to even acknowledge them like you have done in the past, then that leaves you without much to stand on - just the blind belief that .99 "got it wrong" and if he only built it "correctly" then the magic free heat pies would appear like Manna from Heaven. In other words, behind your thought process, you don't have any real technical legs to stand on, just "free energy fantasy mode" - if you close your eyes and hope it just might happen.
LIKE I'VE SAID OVER AND OVER I"M NOT DONE TESTING YET AND HAVE PUBLISHED "ALL" INFORMATION GOOD OR BAD NOT WITHHOLDING ANYTHING .... WHERE DOES IT SAY I HAVE A REQUIREMENT TO COMMENT ON ANYTHING .... ESPECIALLY WITH THE SYSTEMATIC TEARING DOWN OF ANYONE HERE WHO DOESN'T AGREE WITH THE FEW AND MAKES JUDGEMENT ON FACTS BACKED UP BY SIMULATED AND UNPUBLISHED DATA ..... NO DATA FROM YOU CONVENIENTLY BECAUSE YOU KNOW "ALL" THE ANSWERS QuoteOf course there are only 3 actual oscilloscope wave form images and only 2 modified data sheets not even the originals have been shown here by "poynt99" ...... to the 80 or more unmodified original images and data sheets that has been posted by myself at "Energetic Forum" for complete transparency of my testing "NOTHING HIDDEN" using all components as close as possible to original circuit.
MH
QuoteWhen you finally do "close the loop" and compare your thermal control test data with your device under test data you will find that your results will be very very similar to .99's - everything will be under unity. I think that you have a problem there though because you changed your load resistor setup between tests. You are going to have to corelate the right control setups to match with your various tests.
NOW YOU ADMIT I"M NOT DONE TESTING ... WOW ... IF YOU BOTHER TO CHECK THE CONTROL SETUPS DO MATCH MH
QuoteThe simple truth is with respect to electronics I could spin circles around you with my eyes closed. Not because I am any smarter than you, but because I have been involved in electronics for 30 years both in terms of my hobbies when I was younger, then my education, and then my working career. How long have you been playing with electronics?
SO NOW WE ARE COMPARING UNDER WARE RACING STRIPES ?? .... SORRY DUDE NOT INTO IT .... NOT A BRAGGER UNLIKE YOU MH
QuoteI of course can't tell .99 what to do, but as far as I am concerned the game is over. When he does the battery test, the results will be the same. When you do your thermal control tests and crunch your data the results will be similar to .99's.
Your argument that the circuits are not the same is false.
YOU CAN"T EVEN MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND .... IDENTICAL .... NEARLY IDENTICAL .... AND JUST WHAT ABOUT THE COMPONENT SUBSTITUTIONS ?? .... INTENTIONAL EARTH GROUNDING A CIRCUIT DESIGNED FOR BATTERIES ??
I"M DONE WITH YOU AND WILL ONLY RESPOND TO REPLICATORS ...... THAT BE ONE PERSON AND IT AIN'T YOU !!Fuzzy
>:(
Quote from: allcanadian on October 25, 2009, 12:44:35 AM
@poynt99No, I am saying the circuit fuzzytomcat posted called "Ainsley circuit test plan-Poynt99", has made no allowances for transient effects. In that circuit what effects do you think the capacitors and ground will have on the circuit when the inductive resistor discharges?
AC
Indeed allcanadian. Here's the question! So Poynty. You forced this issue. I was hoping to side step this as - in the immoratal words of the Bard, 'comparisons are odious' (Donne).
So again - and since you've highlighted the issue. Where does the spike go to? back to your power supply? back to ground to be snaffled by RG54? back to those sad little capacitors in the vague hopes that they, in turn, discharge into the power supply? or back onto the circuit? fingers crossed that no-one will notice. I was really happy with your points Poynty. Just never saw the relevance to our tested. But to test an approximation of our circuit - then not achieve the same results - and then to conclude that as your test did not confirm our test then our test is wrong? Something very wrong there Poynty. Again, in the immortal words of the most revered of bards 'Something is rotten in the state of Denmark'. (Marcellus)
And Fuzzy - just a quick point - we appreciated your presentation of data without any comment - precisely because it allows EVERYBODY to draw their own conclusions. Such extraordinary respect for everyone's intelligence. For MH to see this as a weakness is simply MH's perspective. Your own contribution has been impeccably professional precisely because of your determined and continuing lack of comment. Don't be lured by MH to corrupt that standard. I've solemnly undertaken not to call him a troll - so I cannot comment on his objects here. LOL
Little Miss MOSFET
Sat on a tuffet,
Eating her curds and whey;
Along came an engineer,
Who sat down beside her
And frightened Miss MOSFET away.
I said "the beginning of the end" for a reason. When not a single credible result comes in for COP >1 or COP > 17 it will be time for Little Miss MOSFET to run away.
Little Mack Horner
Sat in his corner
Complaining that Circuits were cruel
He stuck in his thumb
And pulled out a really, really bad argument
And claimed that his findings were cool.
I said the beginning of the end because 'dawn breaks on aether rising'.
What interests me and also what is most relevant, is how my results are different than Glen's.
Please rate my results, or at least explain the metric used to do so. If you can not rate them, I would appreciate an explanation as to why not.
Would a battery supply, isolated scope, and 32mm resistor satisfy the deficient requirements? If I obtained these and tested with them, would you then rate my results Rose? Please identify anything else I have missed, as I will assume that is all if I hear no objections.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on October 25, 2009, 02:08:42 AM
What interests me and also what is most relevant, is how my results are different than Glen's.
Please rate my results, or at least explain the metric used to do so. If you can not rate them, I would appreciate an explanation as to why not.
Would a battery supply, isolated scope, and 32mm resistor satisfy the deficient requirements? If I obtained these and tested with them, would you then rate my results Rose? Please identify anything else I have missed, as I will assume that is all if I hear no objections.
.99
Poynty - I'll get back to you here. I have to go to a gathering of the clans. The dreaded Sunday meet. I'll answer this, I promise, before tomorrow.
Glen:
The thrust of your argument about .99's results have no logical basis.
You are saying, "Things are different so Poynt's data must be false" without confronting the basic facts that are staring you in the face: A reasonably accurate replication was done and it fell flat as far as demonstrating over unity goes. This was done by the most skilled and astute person on this thread who is the most capable and has the right equipment and he has clearly demonstrated his understanding of electronics and energy. Poynt's results are something you should be trying to understand instead of putting on blinders and running away.
What you are saying simply does not fly. Watch what happens when I put the burden of explanation on you:
Why should it make a difference between using a battery and a power supply and why should you get better results with the battery?
Your resistor is most likely not as close to the original resistor because Poynt is using a COTS ceramic resistor and Rosemary's original testing was based on a COTS ceramic resistor. Why should your home-made resistor be any better than Poynt's COTS resistor? Why should the diameter of the resistor make any difference? How is the resistor related to the COP performance?
Why should grounding vs. not grounding make a difference? How does grounding potentially influence the COP of the circuit?
Do you have any answers to these questions besides saying "They're different!?"
Your circuit is also different from the original Ainsley circuit, so what's up with that? That gives you a built-in FAIL when you don't get COP > 1. You can say "It's not identical to the original Ainsley setup from 2002." Then why are you even bothering to do a replication?
These threads always descend into these Monty Python Theater of the Absurd farces when some real data starts rolling in from skilled people that know what they are doing. Splitting hairs over "identical" and "nearly identical?" Do you have any cheddar cheese for my dead parrot?
Kiss my ass with respect to the MIB bullshit and the fake two classes of contributors and if you want to see RUDE, look back at your own comments.
I don't believe that you will have anything relevant to say by the time you have finished your "data collection." Don't worry though you will get an easy out because the thread will almost be dead by then. Twelve months from now this thread will be gone and the whole thing will have been completely forgotten.
Do you have the "BALLS" to reply? I don't think so because you already set up your "Escape! Escape!" modus operandum in your last posting.
Milehigh
MH,
Are you truly going to hang your hat on Poynt's last results? Is that your final position here? It sounds as though you have already came to some conclusions based on that data. I would never presume to be so hasty with such a small data set, especially when there are two variants included in the second that render it useless. I can't tell if it was the increase in frequency or the increase in duty cycle that gave the high wattage differences. Honestly, I just finished reading the posts here, and was going to politely suggest to poynt to redo the last test by changing only one thing at a time so we could see the results, hopefully in a file sampled each hour over a seven hour period. But you have clearly closed the book on any further testing by Poynt? Was this your intention? We have so much more to do here, I was hoping for his continued input. :-\
8)
Quote from: MileHigh on October 25, 2009, 05:29:54 AM
Glen:
These threads always descend into these Monty Python Theater of the Absurd farces when some real data starts rolling in from skilled people that know what they are doing. Splitting hairs over "identical" and "nearly identical?" Do you have any cheddar cheese for my dead parrot?
I don't believe that you will have anything relevant to say by the time you have finished your "data collection." Don't worry though you will get an easy out because the thread will almost be dead by then. Twelve months from now this thread will be gone and the whole thing will have been completely forgotten.
Milehigh
Now that this thread is winding-up, here is a classic bit of humour: -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78b67l_yxUc&feature=SeriesPlayList&p=CA0C205FE6CE14B4
I would like to thank Rosemary for making this thread one of the most interesting and enjoyable I have so far locked into.
Further serious input to this thread is a waste of time and effort.
Let the bun fight continue and enjoy the video.
Hoppy
Rosie it's been great to have you here and I hope you will stick around,
the forum needs all the help it can get to discover OU
BTW don't forget your password
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOJrmTF3TCs&feature=related
cat
could someone turn up the volume, and pass the popcorn?
Quote from: Hoppy on October 25, 2009, 06:25:55 AM
Now that this thread is winding-up, here is a classic bit of humour: -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78b67l_yxUc&feature=SeriesPlayList&p=CA0C205FE6CE14B4
I would like to thank Rosemary for making this thread one of the most interesting and enjoyable I have so far locked into.
Further serious input to this thread is a waste of time and effort.
Let the bun fight continue and enjoy the video.
Hoppy
Thanks Hoppy but the tribute definitely does not go to me. First Poynty - then MH and then the rest and I've still to mention mention TK the proud initiater. But we've had our fair share of fun. I've actually drawn a carricature of the three of them dancing a vcitory jig. Will have to work out how to upload it.
But I'm not sure that we're at the end yet. I think this is just the lull before the storm. So MileHigh needs to keep his pencil sharp and at the ready. And Poynt also, for that matter.
Loved the video by the way. Another series I actually know by heart. Fell in love with Manuel way back.
@milehigh
Quote
"Why should it make a difference between using a battery and a power supply and why should you get better results with the battery?"
A battery has plates and in between them an electrolyte(dielectric) thus the battery in the right context is a large surface area capacitor, you can measure the capacitance. If a transient hits a battery the electrolyte resistance can force the energy as a surface charge on the plates, phantom charge as you call it, thus a potential difference can arise between the first plate of the battery and conductors opposite the discharging inductance. A power supply almost always has multiple capacitors for ripple smoothing, resistors which transients flow over as a surface effect(skin effect) in the right context(HV), they have printed circuit boards with small spacing on the traces(capacitance and inductance) and the list goes on and on. I will post a picture of each and let everyone here decide if they are in fact the same thing, LOL.
Quote:
"Your resistor is most likely not as close to the original resistor because Poynt is using a COTS ceramic resistor and Rosemary's original testing was based on a COTS ceramic resistor. Why should your home-made resistor be any better than Poynt's COTS resistor? Why should the diameter of the resistor make any difference? How is the resistor related to the COP performance?"
Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, not in replicating a specific effect which appears during a narrow operating process. The length determines resonant frequency, the wire guage and length surface area, the spacing of the conductors self-induction/cemf and transient capacitance.
Quote:
"Why should grounding vs. not grounding make a difference? How does grounding potentially influence the COP of the circuit?"
A ground is like a big capacitor plate, parasitic capacitance an electric field or surface charge will distribute over any extended surface area to lower it's potential, I could dig out my high school physics textbook if you like?. Would it matter if you ground an antenna? of course it does, you cannot apply simplistic rules that apply to 60Hz AC or DC to high frequency transients.
I am not sure what else to say, you seem to believe details do not matter in any way, that we can just throw any components together and they will always act the same. This is in direct contradiction to any literature I have ever read by people who seem to succeed in this technology as well as the field of electrical engineering. As well this does not sound very scientific, I am not sure how we can substitute almost every component in the quantum circuit with another different one then change the circuit itself and call it a replication by the very definition of the word.
Replication:
--A copy or reproduction.
--The act or process of duplicating or reproducing something.
--In scientific research, the repetition of an experiment to confirm findings or to ensure accuracy.
And now a Battery:)
I may not be the sharpest crayon in the box, but I can see many differences.
Quote from: PaulLowrance on October 25, 2009, 10:31:23 AM
could someone turn up the volume, and pass the popcorn?
How about this: http://pulppopcorn.com/
Hoppy
Hi Poynty ;D
Here's the thing. Our early test needed replication. We've actually discussed this. It really only needs one test that shows the same or similar results using the same or similar components on the same or similar schematic to prove the claim. Everything that falls short of replication is just that. A failed test.
If you check out Fuzzy's test #5 he shows approximately 4.5 watts dissipated at the load at the cost of max 1.3 watts. In point of fact that's an overstatement because after the first hour the results showed a zero net loss from the battery and the voltage drop was neglible enough to discount against random off load discharge. But ideally the measurements need to be collated over a longer time span to establish the variability range in the DC average voltage across the source shunt. There's still another month to collect more data and hopefully this number can be honed upwards - especially with the possible use of a resistor with an even wider diameter.
But note too that his test 2 and 4 did not show the advantage. There may have been moments where a gain was evident - but the overall results were definitely not able to show any significant efficiencies. In effect you've duplicated something like these two test and not our claimed test. To do a full replication will also require the similar results. Else you are simply proving that you cannot get the required harmonics and the required results with or without the use of approximate apparatus. Had Fuzzy not managed to get this data then indeed your results would have endorsed his and possibly cast doubts on my own claim. Why can't you see this? Failing to produce the results only means that. You failed. Produce the results and it will mean you've succeeded. The claim stands with or without your endorsement.
However, if Fuzzy had not made all the data available for inspection - and had he not faithfully recorded everything has he has done, then the data itself may be questioned and the results still point to a fail. Luckily for us his test data was faithfully and perfectly recorded on instruments which - as I've mentioned before - are accurate enough to render that data unquesionable. Notwithstanding which - thanks to your own input - we now see certain parameters that need to be firmed up and honed down. This will definitely become part of the data included in the tests still to be conducted. And I'm enternally grateful to your input here.
Regarding a 'rating' of your tests. Poynty. Your testing is impeccable - your apparatus very well assembled and your division of power measurements not classical but individualistic and - in view of the complexity of the circuit - really appropriate. Not sure that it was wise to position the load resistor so near the switching apparatus. But I believe that was subsequently corrected. If I had to give a mark out of 10 it would be about 15.5. If I had to award brownie points as per MH's grading system - then I'd give you a shoe box full.
And regarding your general professionalism, your contributions to the question from an experimental point of view and your general comportment throughout this thread - definitely a HERO MEMBER. Just so way up there it's ridiculous. Personally I feel privileged to have known you. I see you as passionately interested and I have come to entirely depend on your integrity. That makes me just so much richer because I've also learned to see you as a friend. On a personal level I'm sorry you desisted posting over at our energetic forum - but sense that the feeling there was not so tolerant. And I get it that this thread is the anti - that the pro - and between both extremes sits the truth that we're still trying to unravel.
Meanwhile, regardless of the results both you and Fuzzy, and for that matter, Aaron - have been able to pinpoint the anomaly in the circuit that possibly requires more thorough academic investigation. That's huge. Something is going on that defeats classical prediction - in a study of the waveform alone. I'm hoping that this will be more fully explored. And I'm hoping to publish a paper on the forum after submission of such to the IEEE. And that, in turn, will be preceded by further testing which we needs must leave in Fuzzy's capable hands. Your own input on all such data would be gratefully accepted. And if you can see yourself contributing to the questions in the paper I think we would all be honoured to include your input.
But the paper is a given, the experimental evidence is a given and the results are - at its least - anomalous. No amount of denial from anyone will change these facts and this intention.
Hello allcanadian. ;D
I have just seen your post and am blown away by the efficiency of the argument. :D Thanks for the input - yet again.
Quote from: allcanadian on October 25, 2009, 10:44:34 AM
"Why should grounding vs. not grounding make a difference? How does grounding potentially influence the COP of the circuit?"
A ground is like a big capacitor plate, parasitic capacitance an electric field or surface charge will distribute over any extended surface area to lower it's potential, I could dig out my high school physics textbook if you like?. Would it matter if you ground an antenna? of course it does, you cannot apply simplistic rules that apply to 60Hz AC or DC to high frequency transients.
The grounding issue will be put to bed, one way or the other with my new setup.
I do not believe we can completely detach ourselves from ground, no matter how well we think we are isolated when working with transients of this nature.
But I am willing to capitulate and test out the theory.
There are obvious differences in the makeup of a battery and lab supply, but the real question is "does it make a difference in our results?"
We shall see.
.99
Quote from: witsend on October 25, 2009, 11:14:16 AM
Hi Poynty ;D
Here's the thing. Our early test needed replication. We've actually discussed this. It really only needs one test that shows the same or similar results using the same or similar components on the same or similar schematic to prove the claim. Everything that falls short of replication is just that. A failed test.
I'm not quite certain what the message is here, but I do believe I've done several tests using similar components and settings to the original.
Quote
If you check out Fuzzy's test #5 he shows approximately 4.5 watts dissipated at the load at the cost of max 1.3 watts.
??? Where was this posted? I saw only Harvey's number crunching of the POS values at the various hours. Please indicate how those two values were arrived at. I did my own number crunching on two of the data sets here:
Quote from: poynt99 on October 19, 2009, 04:42:27 PM
A confirmation of the results from Glen's test #5. I crunched only Hour 2 for the 2us and 20us runs. All powers calculated (for a complete perspective), not just POS.
2_2us_520V-02_10_11_09.xlr
POS = -3.206W
PIL = 112.3W
PIM = -116.5W
PIS = 0.95W
Final resistor temperature = 135ºF
2_20us_520V-02_10_11_09.xlr
POS = -4.046W
PIL = 100.8W
PIM = -105.7W
PIS = 0.87W
Final resistor temperature = 136ºF
Again, I ask Glen, Harvey, and Rose to explain the 100W PIL when clearly the load resistor is not dissipating this much power ???
.99
There is no indication of a positive value for POS, nor the values you quoted. Again, where can one find this data? If I've missed it, I would appreciate a link. I already have the table that Harvey posted, but that does not indicate these values either.
Quote
But note too that his test 2 and 4 did not show the advantage. There may have been moments where a gain was evident - but the overall results were definitely not able to show any significant efficiencies. In effect you've duplicated something like these two test and not our claimed test. To do a full replication will also require the similar results. Else you are simply proving that you cannot get the required harmonics and the required results with or without the use of approximate apparatus. Had Fuzzy not managed to get this data then indeed your results would have endorsed his and possibly cast doubts on my own claim. Why can't you see this? Failing to produce the results only means that. You failed. Produce the results and it will mean you've succeeded. The claim stands with or without your endorsement.
The message I get from this, is that so far my results are a failure, useless and are meaningless. I would have to agree if the goal was to prove COP>1 and to achieve accurate measurements. However, I do believe that Fuzzy's results are as much of a failure as my own, and by that account should be equally discounted.
It should be noted however, that my measured POS values all check against one another, and that is by three methods, including the oscilloscope.
Again Rose, I am sincerely asking for your metric used for rating how good the results are in each case. How are the "gains" measured/computed?
.99
Poynt99
Can't you see that Rosemary is just playing a game with you and Fuzzy. You have already clearly shown that the circuit is under unity as was quite clear from the beginning!
Hoppy
Quote from: poynt99 on October 25, 2009, 12:00:57 PM
The message I get from this, is that so far my results are a failure, useless and are meaningless. I would have to agree if the goal was to prove COP>1 and to achieve accurate measurements. However, I do believe that Fuzzy's results are as much of a failure as my own, and by that account should be equally discounted.
It should be noted however, that my measured POS values all check against one another, and that is by three methods, including the oscilloscope.
Again Rose, I am sincerely asking for your metric used for rating how good the results are in each case. How are the "gains" measured/computed?
.99
Poynt - I will not give the analysis you are looking for here. I can refer to the results from the data and that is it. You can do this, Harvey, MileHigh - anyone else. But not me. Surely you see this?
And your results are a failure - except in that they are accurate results of the test you conducted. It would be nice to see more data. But I trust your presentations. You can redo the test a million ways and still come up with the same results. So what? That only gives us your results. Your results are definitive according to your test. We're hitting a blind spot here Poynt. Here's an analogy. The record for high jump is set at - let us say 8 meters. Someone then scales 15 meters. Many try to break that record. Some claim it's impossible and the 15 meter mark was never breached. Some claim to try for 15 meters and fail. One or two people manage the 15 meters AND scale the new level AND their efforts were video'd. Does the fact that the majority failed that level then discount the two that breached it?
Quote from: Hoppy on October 25, 2009, 12:24:19 PM
Poynt99
Can't you see that Rosemary is just playing a game with you and Fuzzy. You have already clearly shown that the circuit is under unity as was quite clear from the beginning!
Hoppy
Hoppy. I am certainly NOT playing games. This thing matters way too much.
Incidentally - I watched and thoroughly enjoyed that link. Thanks for that.
Quote from: witsend on October 25, 2009, 12:27:40 PM
Poynt - I will not give the analysis you are looking for here. I can refer to the results from the data and that is it. You can do this, Harvey, MileHigh - anyone else. But not me. Surely you see this?
And your results are a failure - except in that they are accurate results of the test you conducted. It would be nice to see more data. But I trust your presentations. You can redo the test a million ways and still come up with the same results. So what? That only gives us your results. Your results are definitive according to your test. We're hitting a blind spot here Poynt. Here's an analogy. The record for high jump is set at - let us say 8 meters. Someone then scales 15 meters. Many try to break that record. Some claim it's impossible and the 15 meter mark was never breached. Some claim to try for 15 meters and fail. One or two people manage the 15 meters AND scale the new level AND their efforts were video'd. Does the fact that the majority failed that level then discount the two that breached it?
Rosemary,
Question: Where is the evidence for the original 8 metres (COP 17 as I recall).
Hoppy
Harvey:
No I am not calling it quits based on Poynt's latest results. But to see them discounted for unjustified reasons after all this time is totally wrong. I think that his recent results coorelating the electrical power in and thermal power out are the first real results we have seen after all this time.
No one will have an identical replication and the argument that the replication has to be identical is false. It seems to me that the "reference" schematic is the one that Aaron tweaked to give the proper duty cycle just two months ago. Why should that modified schematic be the "reference" schematic? At least he did not put his "added value" current limiting trimpot to the 555 supply in the schematic itself.
You are asking for Poynt to generate a sample each hour over a seven hour period. There is no valid reason to do this Harvey. I even made a posting a while back to Glen explaining to him why he was wasting his time doing his own six or seven hour tests only to generate redundant data.
Poynt's data is perfectly valid and it simply can't be discounted. The ball is now in Glen's court. He has all of his DSO recordings and his thermal profiling. Unfortunately some or all of his DSO recordings are suspect showing negative battery power. I distinctly remember him changing the orientation of his load resistor between tests though and he has to account for that with at least two sets of thermal profiling. I don't think that he ever picked up on the fact that he needed to measure the temperature of the load resistor itself at the start of the test as the "ambient" temperature but that can be overcome by plotting his thermal profile data.
So the jury is still not out in the sense that we should all be willing to see more data. In another sense the jury was out before this thread ever started and Poynt's data confirms this.
AC:
You have done a great job in answering the questions without really answering the questions. Your battery treatise is just a bunch of verbage that does not answer the question. Batteries and power supplies have a simple mission, to maintain the correct voltage across the load. Same deal on your resistor treatise and if you are talking about the self-resonant frequency that is irrelevant for this circuit. Ditto on the ground issue, you are way off. Whether you are grounded or not, the only issue is the voltage difference across the two power input terminals of the circuit which is supplied by the power supply or battery. It will make no difference if you are grounded or not, the load resistor will still see the same potential difference supplying energy to the circuit. For a battery or an isolated power supply, you could have no earth ground connection, or connect the earth ground to the supply ground, or connect the earth ground to the supply +24 volts, it will make absolutely no difference and the circuit will operate in exactly the same way.
Rosemary:
QuoteI have just seen your post and am blown away by the efficiency of the argument.
Incorrect, AC threw some sentences together but none of what he said answered my questions and I'm not expecting a reply from Glen.
Also like Poynt I went back to look at the #5 test and saw nothing of significance. I don't know why you are focused on that test. I am now reading your more recent comments and I can see that you want to be selective and cherry pick the results that appeal to you. That is totally unscientific, don't lose your grip Rosemary. Ironically also there is noting to cherry pick. Poynt has produced valid data and Glen's DSO recordings for test #5 look out of kilter, he doesn't even have positive battery power delivered to the load based on Harvey's crunching.
MileHigh
@Milehigh
Quote:
"Whether you are grounded or not, the only issue is the voltage difference across the two power input terminals of the circuit which is supplied by the power supply or battery. It will make no difference if you are grounded or not, the load resistor will still see the same potential difference supplying energy to the circuit. For a battery or an isolated power supply, you could have no earth ground connection, or connect the earth ground to the supply ground, or connect the earth ground to the supply +24 volts, it will make absolutely no difference and the circuit will operate in exactly the same way."
Ok I see the problem here, you are confused about the topic of discussion. The "INPUT" - I N P U T - was never in question, we know and can say for certain that the resistive inductor is charged by the source as shown in every circuit. When the circuit is disrupted,stopped,opened,current flow ceases then the resistive inductor will discharge. The inductive discharge IS the topic of discussion for the last few pages of posts. Here is a simple experiment I am sure you can handle:
1)Take a coil of wire and attach an NE2 or suitable neon bulb to either side of the coil then to ground, next quickly connect and disconnect the coil (both wires) to even a low voltage battery--does the neon flash?
Yes it does, we know and can say for certain that a neon bulb will not light for no apparent reason therefore we can assume energy has discharged through the neon to ground through a single conductor.
2)Do the same experiment only this time replace the ground with either terminal (+) or (-) of a second battery, power supply or scrap of metal.--Does the neon flash?
Yes it does, we know and can say for certain that a neon bulb will not light for no apparent reason therefore we can assume energy has discharged through the neon to something else through a single conductor.
As a electronics wizard with 30 years experience I am sure you can find a battery of some sort, a small neon and a simple coil of wire from somewhere. It will take less than a few minutes of your time and then we can chat about why you think the components and circuit connections do not matter.
P.S.-- It should be noted that my son in grade one recently built a small PM motor for show and tell which utilizes this hoky-poky,mystic new age weirdo effect found in any physics textbook. A 3v battery charges the inductance turning the rotor, a reed switch disrupts the current flow and two 10mm LED's are lit to full brightness through a single wire attached to the coil, if he can do it I am confident that you can.
Regards
AC
OK,
After a lengthy chat about friendly disagreements and such, I see we had a misunderstanding as to what I was asking for regarding the "metric" being used by Rose to obtain a "gains" rating on each of Glen's (and possibly my own) test results.
Here is what was done to obtain the "gains" rating on Glen's #5 results:
With reference to the following tabulated
POS results from Glen's #5 test run:
QuoteBattery Power AVG (POS)
Hour 2µs 20µs 40µs
1 1.514827571 -2.479456000 1.500064000
2 -3.205999153 -4.045888000 -5.239488000
3 -5.533148312 -5.207520000 -1.636576000
4 -2.350759808 -1.969696000 -3.160768000
5 -2.070294717 -3.493984000 -4.054848000
6 -1.257904431 -4.098176000 -2.052608000
7 -2.550643907 -4.765152000 -3.565344000
AVG -2.207703251 -3.722838857 -2.601366857
Rose took the TRAA value from Glen's thermal profile table and found the corresponding PIL, which is
4.5W. Then she took the worst-case value in the above table of
1.5W and computed a
COP = 3.
I have no problems with Glen's profile data, but I strongly disagree that picking
any value from this table of POS results is valid.
It is my opinion that all of these values are erroneous and can not be relied upon for use in any calculations. There is no consistency, there is a large swing, and there are both positive and negative values.
I also believe that most if not all academics (and non-academics alike) would agree with me here. Rose has stated that no less than 4 academics have seen this table and condone its use, although they would prefer the average value be used. Rose has also advised that she has nothing in writing from any one of these academics stating as such.
I have a very difficult time with this and would very much like to either talk directly to any one of them or have them post something here to defend their opinion. It is my opinion that Rose possibly mis-interpreted what they said, but of course I could be wrong, it is just my opinion. At any rate, it is abundantly clear to me at least that using the 1.5W value from that table is about as reliable as choosing a value from a random number generator. Again it is my opinion that there is no correlation between any of those values and the true POS in the circuit. To me this table is clearly an indication of gross measurement error, and only serves to indicate that some improvements need to be made in order to obtain correct measurements. I have suggested several.
Rose has asked me to go on record with this.
.99
AC:
Just say what you have to say, you are loosing me with your neon light story. There are dozens and dozens of YouTube clips where people play with gutted compact fluorescent lights connected to automotive ignition coils that are driven by a 555-transistor or MOSFET setup. There are also dozens of Dr. Stiffler "spacial energy converter" clips also. In these clips people hold a neon light lead between thumb and forfinger and place the opposite lead next to the components and marvel at how it lights up thinking that there is something extraordinary going on when in fact nothing special is going on at all.
Poynt:
Thanks for closing the loop with Rosemary and I agree 100% with everything that you say. That table of battery power measurements is basically meaningless. Other replicators should learn from you, you got similar results at first and then "worked the issue" until you resolved it. When you started moving your probes along the wires you noticed that the pulse amplitudes changed, an example of your keen intellect at work. A 100 nanosecond wide pulse is a fragile delicate thing.
Doing electronics experiments is not about just blindly recording your data, especially when you are operating in the "frequency stratosphere."
MileHigh
@milehigh
Quote:
"When you started moving your probes along the wires you noticed that the pulse amplitudes changed, an example of your keen intellect at work. A 100 nanosecond wide pulse is a fragile delicate thing."
OMG, this is starting to sound like a romance novel. LOL, "Oh baby, I could hardly control myself as you moved your big shiny probes slowly along the wires, Oh my pulse amplitudes changed an example of your keen intellect, your fast wide pulses are such a fragile delicate thing",LOL.
This thread is starting to get just a "little" too weird for me, as well it is obvious you have made up your mind irregardless of anything I or anyone else could offer.
I really don't get you or poynt99, you contradict everything anyone says without justification, cutting people down with spurious rants and namecalling then to add insult to injury you try to pass off a ridiculous replication off as proof of a non-working concept, LOL. To be honest I cannot understand "why" you are here or why rosemary endures this almost comical nonsense.
In any case carry on with your show, if nothing else it is amusing.
Regards
AC
The feeling is mutual AC.
I don't "get" you either.
Glad you're enjoying the thread though. Truth is I don't pay much attention to your posts anyway.
8)
.99
Quote from: allcanadian on October 25, 2009, 05:02:46 PM
@milehigh
Quote:
"When you started moving your probes along the wires you noticed that the pulse amplitudes changed, an example of your keen intellect at work. A 100 nanosecond wide pulse is a fragile delicate thing."
OMG, this is starting to sound like a romance novel. LOL, "Oh baby, I could hardly control myself as you moved your big shiny probes slowly along the wires, Oh my pulse amplitudes changed an example of your keen intellect, your fast wide pulses are such a fragile delicate thing",LOL.
This thread is starting to get just a "little" too weird for me, as well it is obvious you have made up your mind irregardless of anything I or anyone else could offer.
I really don't get you or poynt99, you contradict everything anyone says without justification, cutting people down with spurious rants and namecalling then to add insult to injury you try to pass off a ridiculous replication off as proof of a non-working concept, LOL. To be honest I cannot understand "why" you are here or why rosemary endures this almost comical nonsense.
In any case carry on with your show, if nothing else it is amusing.
Regards
AC
AC
The whole exercise was doomed from the start because even Rosemary could not be certain of the exact details of the circuit due to poor documentation, so a true replication of whatever circuit the 'academics' tested has not been possible. Various circuit configurations based on the published circuit diagrams were tested and none of these have shown overunity, let alone COP17.
Both Fuzzy and Poynt99 have done good experiemental work in trying to validate Rosemary's COP17 claim and both MH & Harvey have assisted by interpreting the data collected and giving their opinion on what is happening in the variant circuits being tested. There is nothing to prove or disprove in respect of the claimed COP, only further expression of opinion in regards to test measurements and COP for variants of the 'true' Ainslie circuit.
I am more than satisfied that nothing I've seen so far remotely approaches unity and I certainly do not expect this situation to change, irrespective of how much further work is carried out or how many further opinions are expressed in this thread.
Hoppy
Quote from: poynt99 on October 25, 2009, 02:36:32 PM
OK,
After a lengthy chat about friendly disagreements and such, I see we had a misunderstanding as to what I was asking for regarding the "metric" being used by Rose to obtain a "gains" rating on each of Glen's (and possibly my own) test results.
Here is what was done to obtain the "gains" rating on Glen's #5 results:
With reference to the following tabulated POS results from Glen's #5 test run:
Rose took the TRAA value from Glen's thermal profile table and found the corresponding PIL, which is 4.5W. Then she took the worst-case value in the above table of 1.5W and computed a COP = 3.
I have no problems with Glen's profile data, but I strongly disagree that picking any value from this table of POS results is valid.
It is my opinion that all of these values are erroneous and can not be relied upon for use in any calculations. There is no consistency, there is a large swing, and there are both positive and negative values.
I also believe that most if not all academics (and non-academics alike) would agree with me here. Rose has stated that no less than 4 academics have seen this table and condone its use, although they would prefer the average value be used. Rose has also advised that she has nothing in writing from any one of these academics stating as such.
I have a very difficult time with this and would very much like to either talk directly to any one of them or have them post something here to defend their opinion. It is my opinion that Rose possibly mis-interpreted what they said, but of course I could be wrong, it is just my opinion. At any rate, it is abundantly clear to me at least that using the 1.5W value from that table is about as reliable as choosing a value from a random number generator. Again it is my opinion that there is no correlation between any of those values and the true POS in the circuit. To me this table is clearly an indication of gross measurement error, and only serves to indicate that some improvements need to be made in order to obtain correct measurements. I have suggested several.
Rose has asked me to go on record with this.
.99
Hi Poynt,
We have to start somewhere using a scientific method if we ever expect to obtain credibility in our data gathering. Glens efforts have been above bar in this respect and no institution can fault his due diligence in this matter. That being said, we all realize that the required data is incomplete. It is hoped that this matter will be resolved soon.
The above table is perfectly valid for the use in which is intended. At a specific time each hour (as can be noted by the documented time stamp on the written record) several data dumps were provided - each being of a different time base thereby increasing the accuracy of the samples. This gives us 10,000 individual samples for each screen of data (3 ea) for each hour of the continuous test. For us, the continuous test is extremely important because it helps diagnose the impact that battery charge has on the desired mode of operation. It is noteworthy that this sometimes did not fully develop until 2 hours into the runs. This data alludes to the concept that a fully charged battery is resistant to the desired effect. If this proves to be the case, then it is doubtful that you will ever produce these effects using your power supply unless you can tune its charge/impedance characteristics to accurately mimic that of the partially discharged battery. Therefore, MH's claims regarding the lack of need for extended runs is grossly misplaced here.
There should be absolutely no doubt that the data retrieved from the equipment is up to industry and academic standards. The quantity and quality of the samples far exceeds those often used for mainstream scientific studies. If you don't believe that, just have a look at any prescription pills you may have in your medicine cabinet and compare the records of their sample numbers to ours.
You have made a serious error in your power calculations which I have tried to tactfully bring to everyone's attention. You cannot determine with any accuracy what power dissipation is occurring in your circuit components unless you understand accurately the precise phasing between the voltage and current. This is the reason that you cannot resolve enormous calculations presented by the data and is the reason that I have not computed them in my latter tables. If we were to believe the instantaneous values as dictated by KCL, we would have power of 21KW present across the load at certain instances. We know this is not the case because current lags voltage in inductors. We also know that we cannot accurately determine the resistance of the load because of its triple impedance characteristics during these rapidly changing frequencies present and observable by the secondary and tertiary images presented in the 'Digital Phosphor' technology of this superb testing instrument provided by Tektronix. The inductive reactance and capacitive reactance inherent in the load resistor, drastically alter the actual current present in the device at specific times in the cycles. It cannot be calculated and the current tests do not provide a means to measure it. Without it, you cannot even begin to reach for reasonable values of power dissipation in the FET or Load. Therefore, we must use the thermal profile as the indicator of the power dissipated and we must use the shunt current as the indicator of battery power delivered as the basis for our results.
It is hoped, that in the future we can get a more accurate method of determining the true current in the circuit as a reference of battery delivery. This is especially true when we consider that the conventional expectation with regards to where in time, what polarity and what value the shunt was to produce, has in fact failed to occur. We all find ourselves looking for a reason as to why 8A of current is indicated in a shunt that is isolated from the power side of the circuit by a high impedance switch while at that exact moment the other side of that switch is indicating an inverse polarity entirely prohibitive of any body diode conduction ... or any conduction through the FET for that matter. This occurrence is clearly not conventional and I am looking forward to having it explained to us by any accredited persons reading this post able to do so. I am sorry to say that MH's attempt just did not come even close to explaining it.
The only problem I see with the chart above, is that it represents 21 independent samples over a 7 hour period for a total sample period of less than 1 second. If you were correct in your earlier comments, that Glen's waveforms were periodic, then this would be rock solid data as 40µs of data at any time during the 7 hour run should be exactly the same as any other 40µs data dump. And, even though the law of averages are on our side here, showing the predominant numbers (19 out of 21) to be favorable to our cause, we cannot ignore the 2 out of 21. This begs for a continuous unbroken data dump for which we currently do not have the means to provide. However, we can narrow the sample times so as to determine conclusively the amount of deviation present. I have suggested 2µs samples be taken every 6 minutes during an hour of stable operation.
Glen has outlined his technique for getting his circuit into a favorable stable operation. I use the term 'stable' rather loosely here as it is a mode where deviations seem to be at a minimum. He determines this by setting the shunt probe to readout the 'mean' for that channel and then adjusting the gate pot so as to produce the lowest mean which is usually between 50mV and 80mV. If you can get it in the negative, then all the better. I really doubt that you can achieve this with your power supply driven circuit, but it is certainly worth a try and if you succeed in producing the same negative average results then we will have confirmed MH's claim that the power supply and battery can be used interchangeably. From years of experience with this, I can state conclusively that power supplies always inject noise into a circuit that batteries simply do not. Whether or not that plays any valid role here is yet to be determined.
I for one am looking forward to, and value, your future presentation of tests performed. Please help us here by including the pristine data dumps for evaluation along with the time stamps and any other pertinent variables such as ambient temp, resistor temp, etc.
Best Regards,
8)
OK,
The new Power Lineup :)
The two 6V will be in series to supply the 555 PCB, and the two 12V wet AGM (absorbent glass mat) batteries in series for about 26VDC to the load resistor.
The oscilloscope will be isolated through the Sencore PR570, so as to appease those that feel it is required.
The resistor is 30mm in diameter.
If this is all not close enough then please let me know ahead of time, as I'd rather not waste my time changing the setup.
.99
Harvey,
You say: "We all find ourselves looking for a reason as to why 8A of current is indicated in a shunt that is isolated from the power side of the circuit by a high impedance switch while at that exact moment the other side of that switch is indicating an inverse polarity entirely prohibitive of any body diode conduction ... or any conduction through the FET for that matter."
Is it at the exact moment?? Think very carefully about this.
Hoppy
Folks,
See this link for a possible explanation for the coincident spikes observed in the Drain and Source. It seems to support the notion I put forward regarding inductance in the Source as the cause.
Sadly, the SPICE model for the IRFPG50 does not include the parasitic pin inductance, nor voltage dependent capacitance, and probably explains why this effect is not seen in the simulation.
Pay particular attention to "Effects of parasitic components" beginning at the end of page 9.
A very good article in general for explaining various concerns for driving MOSFETs properly. Seems to address a number of issues, some of which may also be plaguing us.
http://focus.ti.com/lit/ml/slup169/slup169.pdf
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on October 25, 2009, 06:28:30 PM
OK,
The new Power Lineup :)
The two 6V will be in series to supply the 555 PCB, and the two 12V wet AGM (absorbent glass mat) batteries in series for about 26VDC to the load resistor.
The oscilloscope will be isolated through the Sencore PR570, so as to appease those that feel it is required.
The resistor is 30mm in diameter.
If this is all not close enough then please let me know ahead of time, as I'd rather not waste my time changing the setup.
.99
Not close enough Poynt. The problem is with the resistor. You will notice that Fuzzy's tests indicate the need for a wider diameter to the core. BUT - if you are simply trying for an '8 meter bench mark' the apparatus is fine.
Quote from: poynt99 on October 25, 2009, 02:36:32 PM
I have no problems with Glen's profile data, but I strongly disagree that picking any value from this table of POS results is valid.
It is my opinion that all of these values are erroneous and can not be relied upon for use in any calculations. There is no consistency, there is a large swing, and there are both positive and negative values.
At any rate, it is abundantly clear to me at least that using the 1.5W value from that table is about as reliable as choosing a value from a random number generator. Again it is my opinion that there is no correlation between any of those values and the true POS in the circuit. To me this table is clearly an indication of gross measurement error, and only serves to indicate that some improvements need to be made in order to obtain correct measurements. I have suggested several.
Rose has asked me to go on record with this.
.99
Hi Poynty. Your objections are duly noted. I take it that in your opinion the range of DC average across the shunt on the source is too wide to represent meaningful results. I think Harvey has covered this sufficiently.
I have an ongoing concern in this aspect of our discussion. It appears that even if we were to log results continuously over - let us say an hour - or alternatively and if possible - the entire test duration - then your objections here will persisit if that variation persists. Unfortunately that is the point where you need to evaluate any real reasons for your continuing involvement. It appears to be required condition of this circuit. In effect this opinion means that regardless of the probe refinement or any apparatus that you apply - this range is unlikely to lessen significantly. In effect, even if you scale 15 meters you will regard the results it as meaningless.
And regarding the 'extended run'. I'm satisfied that during your running of the proposed that you will possibly reach random moments where the DC average across the source shunt will show negative. What conclusions do you then draw if that also co-incides with the only moment that you capture your data as you do not see any point in that extended run? You will then erroneously propose a power analysis based on something that is essentially false. Not good Poynty.
Quote from: Hoppy on October 25, 2009, 05:58:52 PM
AC
The whole exercise was doomed from the start because even Rosemary could not be certain of the exact details of the circuit due to poor documentation, so a true replication of whatever circuit the 'academics' tested has not been possible. Various circuit configurations based on the published circuit diagrams were tested and none of these have shown overunity, let alone COP17.
Both Fuzzy and Poynt99 have done good experiemental work in trying to validate Rosemary's COP17 claim and both MH & Harvey have assisted by interpreting the data collected and giving their opinion on what is happening in the variant circuits being tested. There is nothing to prove or disprove in respect of the claimed COP, only further expression of opinion in regards to test measurements and COP for variants of the 'true' Ainslie circuit.
I am more than satisfied that nothing I've seen so far remotely approaches unity and I certainly do not expect this situation to change, irrespective of how much further work is carried out or how many further opinions are expressed in this thread.
Hoppy
Hoppy ;D
Not sure why you conclude that no replications have shown overunity? or COP>17?
I think all test objects are to see if the efficiency barrier can exceed 1. And in some instances this has been proven.
Love your last paragraph. LOL. At least we can't accuse you of being open minded. ;D
Hi All,
What I'm reading here in the last couple pages has caused me to reflect on the question of whether I'm going to carry on with any further testing on this circuit.
I think I've already done my part, and anything more, regardless of how exact or convincing, would simply be dismissed as "not good enough".
I'll think about it, and hopefully the answer will come within a day or two.
Cheers,
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on October 25, 2009, 11:27:08 PM
Hi All,
What I'm reading here in the last couple pages has caused me to reflect on the question of whether I'm going to carry on with any further testing on this circuit.
I think I've already done my part, and anything more, regardless of how exact or convincing, would simply be dismissed as "not good enough".
I'll think about it, and hopefully the answer will come within a day or two.
Cheers,
.99
I think Harvey would be sorry to see this result Poynt. My disappointment is a given. I trust that you will, at its least, comment on the protocols applied. The only point of departure - albeit critical - is that you will not acknoweldge the effective transfer of energy in an aperiodic waveform. Not sure that that's strictly justifiable under any reasonable criteria of evaluation. But it's your choice Poynty Poynt - and we are all entitled to our opinions. :)
Quote from: MileHigh on October 25, 2009, 01:15:10 PM
Incorrect, AC threw some sentences together but none of what he said answered my questions and I'm not expecting a reply from Glen.
Also like Poynt I went back to look at the #5 test and saw nothing of significance. I don't know why you are focused on that test. I am now reading your more recent comments and I can see that you want to be selective and cherry pick the results that appeal to you. That is totally unscientific, don't lose your grip Rosemary. Ironically also there is noting to cherry pick. Poynt has produced valid data and Glen's DSO recordings for test #5 look out of kilter, he doesn't even have positive battery power delivered to the load based on Harvey's crunching.
MileHigh
I see much of significance in Fuzzy's #5. I am certainly not cherry picking unless it's to chose the unripe over the ripe. Poynt's data is valid. No contesting this. I've admitted this on this forum. Fuzzy's data equally so. Strange thing about that evident negative zero discharge from the battery?
I think that I am ready to throw in the towel myself. I know that I said it before but I can't see this going on much longer. When you start talking about the "right" diameter for the load resistor it starts becoming pure La-La land. Plus the objections to Poynt's superb testing were just nuts. It stops being fun when you start battling over nonsensical issues and you start playing the "exact replication" game.
And where does that leave the group? Glen's DSO data is unworkable because of the negative battery power and wild variability, and Aaron gave up a long time ago and he clearly did not have the skill set to do the job anyways. In my opinion Glen doesn't have the skill set either. Going back a month or two there were others that stated that they would do replications but that did not materialize. Ash's partner (can't remember his name) is not capable of generating any valid data based on his two or three contributions so far.
Ultimately it is all just a bunch of B.S. agonizing over what happens to the stored energy in the inductive component of the load resistor. Everything seen so far indicates COP < 1. Sorry for the non-PC trash talk but it's true.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on October 25, 2009, 11:57:48 PM
I think that I am ready to throw in the towel myself. I know that I said it before but I can't see this going on much longer. When you start talking about the "right" diameter for the load resistor it starts becoming pure La-La land. Plus the objections to Poynt's superb testing were just nuts. It stops being fun when you start battling over nonsensical issues and you start playing the "exact replication" game.
And where does that leave the group? Glen's DSO data is unworkable because of the negative battery power and wild variability, and Aaron gave up a long time ago and he clearly did not have the skill set to do the job anyways. In my opinion Glen doesn't have the skill set either. Going back a month or two there were others that stated that they would do replications but that did not materialize. Ash's partner (can't remember his name) is not capable of generating any valid data based on his two or three contributions so far.
Ultimately it is all just a bunch of B.S. agonizing over what happens to the stored energy in the inductive component of the load resistor. Everything seen so far indicates COP < 1. Sorry for the non-PC trash talk but it's true.
MileHigh
Sorry to hear this MH. For the record your contributions have been much appreciated especially as they relate to waveform analysis. But you always said your involvement was for the 'fun' it gave. Without being fun - then why bother? I get it. I for one shall miss you.
By the way, and a word in for a contact of mine - I think that OC would be very glad of your skills in analysis and reverse engineering generally. I believe he can be PM'd off this thread. You may find some fun there. I'm also reasonably certain that if and as this circuit analysis unfolds that you will - no doubt - reserve your rights to comment. I get the distinct impression that you are irrepressible.
I shall, in due course be posting a small portrait of some you dancing a victory jig. Not sure how to characterise your features from your writing. Hope I've done you justice. 'watch this space'. LOL
EDIT. Rosemary. (I've capitulated - finally)
Quote from: poynt99 on October 25, 2009, 09:09:23 PM
Folks,
See this link for a possible explanation for the coincident spikes observed in the Drain and Source. It seems to support the notion I put forward regarding inductance in the Source as the cause.
Sadly, the SPICE model for the IRFPG50 does not include the parasitic pin inductance, nor voltage dependent capacitance, and probably explains why this effect is not seen in the simulation.
Pay particular attention to "Effects of parasitic components" beginning at the end of page 9.
A very good article in general for explaining various concerns for driving MOSFETs properly. Seems to address a number of issues, some of which may also be plaguing us.
http://focus.ti.com/lit/ml/slup169/slup169.pdf
.99
I raised this modelling issue some time back. Add-ons are required to model specific mosfets more accurately. However, none of this alters the fact that the circuit is running well under unity.
Hoppy
Quote from: witsend on October 25, 2009, 11:13:26 PM
Hoppy ;D
Not sure why you conclude that no replications have shown overunity? or COP>17?
I think all test objects are to see if the efficiency barrier can exceed 1. And in some instances this has been proven.
Love your last paragraph. LOL. At least we can't accuse you of being open minded. ;D
Rosemary,
I'm certainly not open minded about OU with your circuit or any other variants presented here! I detect that others are at last seeing that this is just a big game that keeps you occupied and in a position of control. As far as I'm concerned the game is over.
Hoppy
Quote from: Hoppy on October 25, 2009, 06:33:06 PM
Harvey,
You say: "We all find ourselves looking for a reason as to why 8A of current is indicated in a shunt that is isolated from the power side of the circuit by a high impedance switch while at that exact moment the other side of that switch is indicating an inverse polarity entirely prohibitive of any body diode conduction ... or any conduction through the FET for that matter."
Is it at the exact moment?? Think very carefully about this.
Hoppy
Yes. This particular scope has 4 independent A/D converters and the processor is fast enough to collate the registered values such that there is no doubt that these two are in phase with each other. The relationship has been documented on 3 different scopes: Glen's 'green screen', Glen's TDS3054C, And Poynt's scope as well. I haven't confirmed it, but I do believe Aaron has witnessed this on his scope also.
So we see 3 particular events occurring at the same time. (1) Inductive collapse and subsequent Positive Spike on the Load Resistor - MOSFET Drain Junction. (2) Increase in voltage on the B(+) Terminal - Load resistor Junction (3) NEGATIVE voltage appearing across the shunt at the shunt-MOSFET Source junction. All values referenced to B(-). The negative voltage has been logged as bottoming out around -4V at the same instant that the positive spike is peaking at around 520V. According to classical treatment of these events, the load current should be zero at this point and ready to reverse direction and the shunt should be at zero during the entire inductive collapse. The shunt should not be showing a current until after the body diode begins conducting according to classical treatment.
I have arrived at two possible classical explanations and have requested a small test to determine which of the two may be in play here. It would be nice to see others arrive at the same answers without being influenced by my POV directly. Therefore I have kept the specifics between myself and Rosemary for the moment although I have offered clues hoping to get others thinking on the matter.
Simply put, by classical approach, the negative current in the shunt should not precede the negative spike on the drain in time, especially by 180°. This is an unexpected event and begs an answer. -4V / 0.25 ohms is -16A and would be +64W at the shunt during that 100ns period. If I say anymore, I think I would give away what I think it is, and I really would like others to come to the same conclusion without me telling them what it is.
8)
Poynt, I think perhaps you stand a much better chance at reproducing Rosemary's original results as well as Glen's test #5 results by using the batteries as you have shown. Definitely a step in the right direction. I'm puzzled by the cross section of that resistor though - it looks metallic in the picture - is it? If so, that is a very large inductive core and the side effects of it could be more trouble than its worth. Do you have any ceramics of that diameter it this is the case?
Apart from that, if you have the wherewithal demonstrated by Glen to take the time and dial in the lowest mean on the shunt reading and then let it run for several hours while taking periodic data dumps, I would say you are very much in the running here to help corroborate the original claims.
One of two things is certain from the data we have collected thus far:
1) We have COP > 1
OR
2) We have exposed a flaw in classical current measurement techniques
Either way, the matter deserves a careful and methodical analysis.
Thank you for your time and energy toward this endeavor.
8)
Quote from: poynt99 on October 25, 2009, 11:27:08 PM
Hi All,
What I'm reading here in the last couple pages has caused me to reflect on the question of whether I'm going to carry on with any further testing on this circuit.
I think I've already done my part, and anything more, regardless of how exact or convincing, would simply be dismissed as "not good enough".
I'll think about it, and hopefully the answer will come within a day or two.
Cheers,
.99
Poynt, any tests you provide have value even if they simply show us what doesn't work. Take my rig for example, it simply did not produce the desired results. I didn't quit because of it, and I may do some future experiments to try and extract power out instead of heat. But for now, with Glen's success in this area, I have been spending time on that.
Even if you could get the negatives that Glen did in #5 using your power supply, that would be monumental in showing that the battery is not needed. So far, our results indicate that it is though. Perhaps once you get your circuit performing by using the batteries, you could go back to the power supply and give us the comparisons.
Really, there is so much you can add to this research with the tools and skills that you have.
Cheers,
8)
Quote from: Harvey on October 26, 2009, 06:37:48 AM
Yes. This particular scope has 4 independent A/D converters and the processor is fast enough to collate the registered values such that there is no doubt that these two are in phase with each other. The relationship has been documented on 3 different scopes: Glen's 'green screen', Glen's TDS3054C, And Poynt's scope as well. I haven't confirmed it, but I do believe Aaron has witnessed this on his scope also.
So we see 3 particular events occurring at the same time. (1) Inductive collapse and subsequent Positive Spike on the Load Resistor - MOSFET Drain Junction. (2) Increase in voltage on the B(+) Terminal - Load resistor Junction (3) NEGATIVE voltage appearing across the shunt at the shunt-MOSFET Source junction. All values referenced to B(-). The negative voltage has been logged as bottoming out around -4V at the same instant that the positive spike is peaking at around 520V. According to classical treatment of these events, the load current should be zero at this point and ready to reverse direction and the shunt should be at zero during the entire inductive collapse. The shunt should not be showing a current until after the body diode begins conducting according to classical treatment.
I have arrived at two possible classical explanations and have requested a small test to determine which of the two may be in play here. It would be nice to see others arrive at the same answers without being influenced by my POV directly. Therefore I have kept the specifics between myself and Rosemary for the moment although I have offered clues hoping to get others thinking on the matter.
Simply put, by classical approach, the negative current in the shunt should not precede the negative spike on the drain in time, especially by 180°. This is an unexpected event and begs an answer. -4V / 0.25 ohms is -16A and would be +64W at the shunt during that 100ns period. If I say anymore, I think I would give away what I think it is, and I really would like others to come to the same conclusion without me telling them what it is.
8)
Harvey,
Good answer. Yes it is the same moment in time from the scope's perspective but the switch takes time to fully open, so the waveform 'stands' at points in time to the timing perspective of the scope. This is why Poynt's supply 'bump' moves depending on the position of the scope probes. This is an illusion as far as the scopes 'eyes' are concerned. Of course, I may be and probably am wrong here but I hope that you can show proof that we really do have something special going on here. This is a lot more interesting than the futile task of trying to convince Rosemary that her circuit is not running OU.
Hoppy
While everyone ponders the timing and 'Reuben's Tube' effect of moving a sensor along a wire, I offer this as a bit of recreation:
Demonstration of OU in an Open System (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-MQvzOCNSI)
Cheers,
8)
Guys,
The bump on the Vsupply line has absolutely nothing to do with standing waves and Rueben's Tube effects.
It's due to the impedance (resistance and inductance) in the connecting wire between the Voltage Supply terminal and the load resistor terminal.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on October 26, 2009, 06:49:31 PM
Guys,
The bump on the Vsupply line has absolutely nothing to do with standing waves and Rueben's Tube effects.
It's due to the impedance (resistance and inductance) in the connecting wire between the Voltage Supply terminal and the load resistor terminal.
.99
Ta Poynty. Needed to clear up that one. ::)
When one compares the Drain vs. Shunt voltage wave forms without and with a 1uH inductance in the MOSFET Source, there doesn't seem to be much of a mystery as to what is causing the coincidental spikes...
.99
Now let's see if there is any real Joule energy added to the Load Resistor during this apparent 1000W spike....
Nope, apparently not.
.99
Or is there? ::)
Indeed, a stop in energy flow would be indicated by a flat line starting just before the 815us mark, but in fact the energy trace begins "decreasing" at this point. The negative energy slope really only means power is flowing in the opposite direction (it doesn't indicate cooling or a decrease), but it is present.
Over one complete cycle (2.5kHz, 3.7% duty) the Load Resistor dissipates a total of 591uJ of energy, of which 38uJ (with a negative slope) is contributed by the spike. So 6.4% of the total Load Resistor energy is added in during the spike.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on October 26, 2009, 06:49:31 PM
Guys,
The bump on the Vsupply line has absolutely nothing to do with standing waves and Rueben's Tube effects.
It's due to the impedance (resistance and inductance) in the connecting wire between the Voltage Supply terminal and the load resistor terminal.
.99
There is a tiny amount of impedance in all interwiring but this is not causing the bump you show on your waveform. If the interwiring is short, properly terminated and of a suitable guage, then any effects the wiring has can be ignored in this particular circuit.
Hoppy
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree Hoppy :D
It not only makes the most sense, but I've proven it two ways. Also, keep in mind that all wiring impedance must be taken into consideration with this type of pulsed current.
In the real scope shots, the rise time of the Drain spike is about 50ns, which represents a bandwidth of about 7MHz. At this frequency, the reactance of a 1uH wire is about 44 Ohms, which is more than enough to allow a significant voltage bump when measuring at the Load Resistor. The same goes for oddities being observed on the shunt resistor (which is why it is critical to use one that is non-inductive).
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on October 27, 2009, 08:48:23 AM
In the real scope shots, the rise time of the Drain spike is about 50ns, which represents a bandwidth of about 7MHz.
Sorry to jump in, and this is the 1st post to read in past day, but unless it's a perfect sine wave, then there are harmonics. There would easily be considerable harmonics in the hundreds of MHz.
Don't forget that inductors have parallel capacitance, and usually a good amount.
Paul
Quote from: powercat on October 25, 2009, 10:05:27 AM
Rosie it's been great to have you here and I hope you will stick around,
the forum needs all the help it can get to discover OU
BTW don't forget your password
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOJrmTF3TCs&feature=related
cat
Hi Cat. I rescued this post from 5 pages back? Somehow I entirely missed it. The link, as always - PRICELESS. LOL. Nice to know that some appreciate my input. But you're an ever increasing minority. It seems that MH has bowed out and Poynt's departure looms. Personally I think that they will both stay around long enough to discover if our data meets the stringent demands of this claim of ours. And irrepressibility of the former is only matched by the obsessive denial of the latter.
But the 'fun' part is getting seriously compromised. Thankfully we can always rely on your own input. The password here is 'open mindedness'. Easily forgotten.
Hi Rosie
open minds need feeding, feed them OU and they will be back with a vengeance. ;)
I hope you take the opportunity to look round the forum.
As I know you enjoy British comedy, here is a modern classic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9jICORkw1k&feature=PlayList&p=6470AE08F85D94EE&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=43
cat
Hi Cat. I might tell you that you're a genius at finding good links. I got lost on the trail of the last one and now - almost 1.5 hours later I'm back on the thread.
Ta muchly. I think the need for laughter is a really serious requirement. LOL
Hi Poynt,
I've been looking at the spice subcircuit for the IRFPG50 to see what the internal inductance is relative to the specs:
.SUBCKT IRFPG50 10 20 40 40
* TERMINALS: D G S
M1 1 2 3 3 DMOS L=1U W=1U
RD 10 1 92.4M
RS 40 3 5.92M
RG 20 2 211
CGS 2 3 176P
EGD 12 0 2 1 1
VFB 14 0 0
FFB 2 1 VFB 1
CGD 13 14 223P
R1 13 0 1
D1 12 13 DLIM
DDG 15 14 DCGD
R2 12 15 1
D2 15 0 DLIM
DSD 3 10 DSUB
LS 30 40 7.5N
.MODEL DMOS NMOS (LEVEL=1 LAMBDA=2M VTO=3.1 KP=1.37)
.MODEL DCGD D (CJO=223P VJ=0.6 M=0.68)
.MODEL DSUB D (IS=25.3N N=1.5 RS=0.139 BV=1K CJO=341P VJ=0.8 M=0.42 TT=243N)
.MODEL DLIM D (IS=100U)
.ENDS IRFPG50
Quite frankly, I need to rely on your expertise here to tell us which of those acronyms is related to the inductance of the device. The specifications call out nanohenries - specifically 5.0 on the Drain and 13 on the source. I see an LS up there, with 7.5N which may be for the Source - but I am uncertain.
You really are our resident expert on all things Spice and we could use your input here.
I have looked at your possible explanation for the pulse shift and find it intriguing. You surely do show a change in the voltage at the shunt by adding the inductance in there. Is that before, either side, or after the shunt? Is it included as part of the shunt? - IOW is the voltage across the entire value of impedance, or is it just the effective result on the resistive section?
I am asking, because I see some large differences between the simulation and the reality. The gate spike is not present, or is early in the sim by comparison. Also, the small single ring on the shunt falling slope seems drastically modified by added inductance. And symmetry seen in the reality appears greatly skewed in the sim. I am trying to re-evaluate my own perspective and see it from your point of view here, but I am having a bit of trouble aligning the sim with the reality and could use your input to get a grasp of it.
Also, I would like to know where the probe was placed in the reality shots for your system. I need to check with Glen, but I imagined that he had put it right on the shunt lead as close to the body as possible. Wouldn't this preclude the inductive forbearance present in the leads between the source pin and resistor?
I like that your at least posting the possible solution to our question, and really hope if we have any readers with qualified degrees that they can weigh in on this as well.
Cheers!
8)
I checked both models for the IRFPG50 that come with PSpice (one in the IRF and one in the pwrMOS libraries), and neither include any inductance at all, even though there are differences between the two models in general.
I see the Protel model is different yet again, and does at least include a value for the Source (LS) inductance.
However, the purpose of including a small inductance (in series with the shunt resistor), was to account for that which is added due to the presence of the shunt resistor only. This inductance is magnitudes higher in value than the parasitic Source inductance, and running an analysis with a LS of 13nH resulted in little change in the wave form with a LShunt of 1uH present.
The shunt probe was placed on the MOSFET Source pin, just as it was in reality.
Added comments: Analyzing down to this detail to see what is happening in and around the major events, it is not surprising that the sim results are not exactly as the real ones. A much higher degree of modeling (MOSFET and wiring) would be necessary I think to encompass all the subtle effects seen in the real scope shots. The shunt inductance was added (from a real measured value) and shown to be a possible cause of the significant shift observed in the shunt wave form, which is fairly evident in the simulation results, even with as little as 0.3uH for LShunt. Granted the simulation wave form does not look exact, but it does possibly demonstrate how and why the negative shunt voltage pulse coincides perfectly with the Drain spike. For an instant, that 0.25 Ohm shunt becomes about a 5.5 Ohm shunt.
.99
Hi Harvey
I get it that you and Poynt are exploring whether this effect is due to phase shift - and that the waveform captured by the TDS3054C is somehow misrepresenting the true value of the current flow from the battery?
I would buy into this but it does appear that the battery depletes at the rate of current measured at this shunt. Curious?
Also. I am not sure that Poynt is quite as necessary to the cause as you seem to require. No offense Poynt. It's just that I need some open admission that the DC average measured across the shunt at source - has some relevance to the exercise. And more to the Poynt - that it is within the measuring capabalities of the DSO. Personally I prefer to work with the more open minded.
Quote from: poynt99 on October 28, 2009, 10:23:39 PM
Added comments: Analyzing down to this detail to see what is happening in and around the major events, it is not surprising that the sim results are not exactly as the real ones. A much higher degree of modeling (MOSFET and wiring) would be necessary I think to encompass all the subtle effects seen in the real scope shots.
i told you this a long time ago over at energeticforum... it took a page of you dancing around my increasingly specific questions to finally admit it. then you put me on your ignore list ::)
we would have to get our resident 'brownie point' expert milehigh here to weigh in on what the amounts are, but i think that's 15 brownie points for me and 50 demerits for you. ;)
edit: speaking of milehigh,
Quote from: MileHigh on October 25, 2009, 05:29:54 AM
I don't think so because you already set up your "Escape! Escape!" modus operandum in your last posting.
it's modus operandi not modus operandum. ie: 'being stupid and pompous is milehigh's modus operandi'. operandum... lol dum indeed.
Here is the overall picture.
First, the VDrain and Vshunt wave forms with Rshunt = 0.25 Ohm + 1uH
Second, a plot of VDrain again, but this time against the instantaneous shunt impedance.
In the center of the Drain spike, we see that the shunt is actually at a value of 5.4 Ohms, and spikes quite high on the falling edge of the Drain spike.
Clearly from this, we can see that using a constant value of 0.25 Ohms throughout to calculate the shunt current in the spreadsheet (as I and others have been doing) will lead to a significant error in the power calculations, in particular during the transients.
The solution is to use only a pure resistive shunt, or a current probe, otherwise the power calculation results will be quite skewed as we've seen. This is most likely only one of the problems being encountered in making these power calculations, as I still recommend differential probes for the voltage measurements.
.99
Good Grief,
Can we all just set aside our personal feelings for a moment and focus on the real question? We have two 12Ah batteries in series for a total of 24V, that ran for a period of 7 hours and only dropped 0.23V http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-97.html#post70105 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-97.html#post70105) and produced enough thermal energy in the MOSFET and Load resistor so as to call into question how 24Ah of battery capacity could perform such a feat. At the end of that run, the system was left running (Test #3b - unpublished) for another 14 hours, during which time the aperiodic harmonic mode was apparently lost and battery drain quickly escalated draining both batteries down to ~6V each while still producing heat above the expected values.
Then we have another 7 hour run, a duplicate on #3 http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-99.html#post70771 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-99.html#post70771), which again, according to the 2µs data dump, started with an average of 24.3646V at the end of the first hour, and ended with an average of 23.989V at the end of the 7th hour for a difference of 0.3756V. And here again, we have a record of heat being dissipated that cannot be explained by that energy drain.
Add to this, that the shunt, the only return path between the circuit and the battery that is the only way for the energy to complete its path, has a voltage measured across it during 3 separate data dumps each hour with 10,000 samples in each dump for a total of 21 different data dumps and 210,000 individual samples which when all averaged together yields a negative average.
Then add to that, in an effort to find a classical reason for this phenomenon, we observe an unexpected shift in the current sensing timing relative to the inductive pulse which calls into question whether or not the current in the load resistor has been shifted as indicated, or if the use of the shunt is questionable altogether.
Then add to that, the especially powerful fact that this type of result was experienced years ago and evaluated by credible persons at that time who offered no explanation for the events they had witnessed and who even went to the painstaking effort of careful battery draw down tests to ensure that the heat performed was not coming entirely from the batteries.
When we sum these events, surely anyone with intelligence will recognize that this begs for an accredited answer as to how this is even possible not to mention why.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could work together to find the answer?
8)
Thank you for that analysis Poynt,
Hopefully this will help us to arrive at the truth regarding the timing and how it is possible to produce 100,800 Joules of heat with so little power.
Cheers,
8)
Quote from: Harvey on October 29, 2009, 12:50:33 AM
When we sum these events, surely anyone with intelligence will recognize that this begs for an accredited answer as to how this is even possible not to mention why.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could work together to find the answer?
8)
I agree it would be nice. My question is whether Poynt shows the required impartiality to tackle the question? He is on record as stating that under no circumstances will he acknowledge that there is any evidence of anomalous heat signatures. Does that make him a 'team player'? My own experience of this mindset is that it's characterised by abject denial at all points. I've only recently learned this and I see very little scope for dialogue.
But that's only my opinion Harvey. Unlike Poynt I'm open to persuasion. ;D
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on October 28, 2009, 11:51:04 PM
i told you this a long time ago over at energeticforum... it took a page of you dancing around my increasingly specific questions to finally admit it. then you put me on your ignore list ::)
we would have to get our resident 'brownie point' expert milehigh here to weigh in on what the amounts are, but i think that's 15 brownie points for me and 50 demerits for you. ;)
edit: speaking of milehigh,it's modus operandi not modus operandum. ie: 'being stupid and pompous is milehigh's modus operandi'. operandum... lol dum indeed.
Hi Willby. Always nice to see you around. I've copied this in case you're on Poynt's ignore list here as well. But I think I may soon be joining you there. ??? ;D
Quote from: Harvey on October 29, 2009, 12:50:33 AM
Good Grief,
Can we all just set aside our personal feelings for a moment and focus on the real question? We have two 12Ah batteries in series for a total of 24V, that ran for a period of 7 hours and only dropped 0.23V http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-97.html#post70105 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-97.html#post70105) and produced enough thermal energy in the MOSFET and Load resistor so as to call into question how 24Ah of battery capacity could perform such a feat. At the end of that run, the system was left running (Test #3b - unpublished) for another 14 hours, during which time the aperiodic harmonic mode was apparently lost and battery drain quickly escalated draining both batteries down to ~6V each while still producing heat above the expected values.
Then we have another 7 hour run, a duplicate on #3 http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-99.html#post70771 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-99.html#post70771), which again, according to the 2µs data dump, started with an average of 24.3646V at the end of the first hour, and ended with an average of 23.989V at the end of the 7th hour for a difference of 0.3756V. And here again, we have a record of heat being dissipated that cannot be explained by that energy drain.
Add to this, that the shunt, the only return path between the circuit and the battery that is the only way for the energy to complete its path, has a voltage measured across it during 3 separate data dumps each hour with 10,000 samples in each dump for a total of 21 different data dumps and 210,000 individual samples which when all averaged together yields a negative average.
Then add to that, in an effort to find a classical reason for this phenomenon, we observe an unexpected shift in the current sensing timing relative to the inductive pulse which calls into question whether or not the current in the load resistor has been shifted as indicated, or if the use of the shunt is questionable altogether.
Then add to that, the especially powerful fact that this type of result was experienced years ago and evaluated by credible persons at that time who offered no explanation for the events they had witnessed and who even went to the painstaking effort of careful battery draw down tests to ensure that the heat performed was not coming entirely from the batteries.
When we sum these events, surely anyone with intelligence will recognize that this begs for an accredited answer as to how this is even possible not to mention why.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could work together to find the answer?
8)
well said harvey. anyone with intelligence
will recognize that this begs for an accredited answer as to how.
regarding being able to work together, i agree that it would be nice, but that's a utopian dream.
it is similar to bringing a theist (tk, poynt, mk, hoppy and the rest that believe all their answers are contained in a book written by man) and an atheist to the same table to work together to find the answer to 'is there a god?'. there will be no agreed upon consensus. ever.
look back to how this thread started, a totally biased hack of a replication by tk. when i asked when he was going to do it right, they called me a troll and produced a shit storm of obfuscation. when i told poynt his sim was nothing more than an incomplete simulation i got called a troll. of course, no one called hoppy a troll when he said the same thing a hundred pages later... the poynt is, to paraphrase aldous huxley, if the history of this thread is any indication of the future of this thread, and it usually is, the future of this thread is more of the same. don't be disappointed.
Quote from: witsend on October 29, 2009, 01:10:15 AM
Hi Willby. Always nice to see you around. I've copied this in case you're on Poynt's ignore list here as well. But I think I may soon be joining you there. ??? ;D
thanks. i'm sure i am on his ignore list here also. you might be, but i wouldn't lose sleep over it.
it's so cute how he gets around to admitting it so much further on down the road though isn't it? with no mea culpa... poynt in fact, that's why i don't care if he ignores me or not, it's no skin off my back and doesn't change the fact that i was correct.
i do wonder why it is taking them so long though, i'd guess it
is more complicated than it may seem, at least for them, regardless of what motto poynt chooses.
@Harvey
Quote:
"When we sum these events, surely anyone with intelligence will recognize that this begs for an accredited answer as to how this is even possible not to mention why"
If poynt99 or anyone else ever hits the correct frequency they should understand the how and why, the question is will they disclose it. I think good intentions tend to fall by the wayside once people actually succeed.
Regards
AC
Pumping balloon ;D impulses accumulate but they like to flow out using any hole
It would seem that my account at EF has been deleted :'(
Luc et al, any PM's please send here.
.99
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on October 29, 2009, 01:41:56 AM
thanks. i'm sure i am on his ignore list here also. you might be, but i wouldn't lose sleep over it.
it's so cute how he gets around to admitting it so much further on down the road though isn't it? with no mea culpa... poynt in fact, that's why i don't care if he ignores me or not, it's no skin off my back and doesn't change the fact that i was correct.
i do wonder why it is taking them so long though, i'd guess it is more complicated than it may seem, at least for them, regardless of what motto poynt chooses.
Wilby - Hi again. ;D
I"m not at all worried. There first has to be some level of intellectual honesty before I invest any real interest in anyone's opinion. The circuit is really simple. But like most things that are that elementary - it also seems to go to the heart of the question and this question seems to be rather profound. But measurement is everything. What Poynt is telling us - I think - is that we can ignore the measurements applied to this circuit because all such measurements are suspect. His argument would have been valid if he had ever also submitted unedited raw data for inspection and analysis. Can't accuse him of this. Ever.
At its least - one needs to trust the representations of an experimentalist. He's stressed this to breaking point. And having now been broken - then - it's a bit like humpty dumpty. Not easy to put things together again.
But I do hope you'll continue to engage in this discussion. We're hoping to develop this more fully during November and - all things being equal - we may, finally, then be able to get this to the academic table for consideration. We'll need critical input and I suspect that your own skills here could be invaluable. As would allcanadian's. Do hope you're also reading this. And, for that matter - Cat. Guys - all of you - we need to cover all reasonable obections as we romp in to the finish line. If this is going to be an open source first - let's also make it a respectable effort. I would be sorry to find that we've presented the argument without considering all aspects. Please do engage in this - as critically as possible. I think we've more or less covered those points that still need clarification. But if any of you think of anything at all - it will be much appreciated.
Rosie :)
EDIT And by the way Poynty - just to remind you. The dog with the really long tail can rub out his tracks. But he thereby adds to the scent trail. Or rather I should say 'stench trail'. LOL.
Quote from: Harvey on October 29, 2009, 12:50:33 AM
Good Grief,
Can we all just set aside our personal feelings for a moment and focus on the real question? We have two 12Ah batteries in series for a total of 24V, that ran for a period of 7 hours and only dropped 0.23V http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-97.html#post70105 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-97.html#post70105) and produced enough thermal energy in the MOSFET and Load resistor so as to call into question how 24Ah of battery capacity could perform such a feat. At the end of that run, the system was left running (Test #3b - unpublished) for another 14 hours, during which time the aperiodic harmonic mode was apparently lost and battery drain quickly escalated draining both batteries down to ~6V each while still producing heat above the expected values.
Then we have another 7 hour run, a duplicate on #3 http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-99.html#post70771 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-99.html#post70771), which again, according to the 2µs data dump, started with an average of 24.3646V at the end of the first hour, and ended with an average of 23.989V at the end of the 7th hour for a difference of 0.3756V. And here again, we have a record of heat being dissipated that cannot be explained by that energy drain.
Add to this, that the shunt, the only return path between the circuit and the battery that is the only way for the energy to complete its path, has a voltage measured across it during 3 separate data dumps each hour with 10,000 samples in each dump for a total of 21 different data dumps and 210,000 individual samples which when all averaged together yields a negative average.
Then add to that, in an effort to find a classical reason for this phenomenon, we observe an unexpected shift in the current sensing timing relative to the inductive pulse which calls into question whether or not the current in the load resistor has been shifted as indicated, or if the use of the shunt is questionable altogether.
Then add to that, the especially powerful fact that this type of result was experienced years ago and evaluated by credible persons at that time who offered no explanation for the events they had witnessed and who even went to the painstaking effort of careful battery draw down tests to ensure that the heat performed was not coming entirely from the batteries.
When we sum these events, surely anyone with intelligence will recognize that this begs for an accredited answer as to how this is even possible not to mention why.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could work together to find the answer?
I read maybe three posts in this thread in past few days, and saw yours. Measuring battery voltage drop is absolutely meaningless.
You people were told how to test the "Ainslie" claim. It should take you two days at most to do it the correct way. So far nobody has done it.
PL
Quote from: PaulLowrance on October 29, 2009, 11:51:27 AM
I read maybe three posts in this thread in past few days, and saw yours. Measuring battery voltage drop is absolutely meaningless.
You people were told how to test the "Ainslie" claim. It should take you two days at most to do it the correct way. So far nobody has done it.
PL
Edit. Sorry Paul. I started saying something and lost the plot. I think Harvey's answered you here.
Quote from: PaulLowrance on October 29, 2009, 11:51:27 AM
I read maybe three posts in this thread in past few days, and saw yours. Measuring battery voltage drop is absolutely meaningless.
You people were told how to test the "Ainslie" claim. It should take you two days at most to do it the correct way. So far nobody has done it.
PL
I'll keep that in mind the next time my car won't start. Seriously though, I have noticed that you have a lot of catching up to do here before your comments will have any true merit. This is probably the reason you have not been engaged in any real technical dialog here. Your initial attacks on Rosemary definitely put you off on a bad foot here - I for one would really like an explanation regarding your requests of her which I personally found offensive and intrusive with absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the study under way.
If you want to be taken seriously, then you need to establish your purpose here and be specific. I know you have had enough time on forums to understand that no reader likes to backtrack through pages of drivel trying to find the meaning behind some compound referential statement.
Nevertheless, I will address your concern here with an attempt at civility. Let's blackbox the circuit. We have 3 power sources, a blackbox, and a heating element - aka inductive resistor. Two of the power sources are put in series and go directly to, and only to the heating element. The third source goes directly to, and only to, the control circuit. The parameters are such, that the frequency, current and voltage in the heating circuit are all variable and for most intents and purposes random within certain bounds. The heating circuit and the control circuit share a common connection which in the future we may choose to isolate, but for now they are connected at the B(-). (See http://www.energeticforum.com/72259-post3037.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/72259-post3037.html) )
Now, using the above information, how specifically did you expect to determine the power in vs. the power out again? And if your qualifications are in order, what prohibits you from performing the 'two day' test yourself?
8)
Quote from: PaulLowrance on October 29, 2009, 11:51:27 AM
I read maybe three posts in this thread in past few days, and saw yours. Measuring battery voltage drop is absolutely meaningless.
You people were told how to test the "Ainslie" claim. It should take you two days at most to do it the correct way. So far nobody has done it.
PL
meh, you're just pissy paul because this thread is getting the attention you 'think' your diode array should be. that's the only reason you're here with your negative comments, to pimp your diode array.
i agree with harvey, if it should only take 2 days, then have at it. if you do that, and that's a big if, i think you will find yourself mistaken... ask poynt, he thought something similar a hundred pages ago and did he 'get er done' in 2 days? nope. so if you're going to tell us all how it should be done, why don't you get on it and do it your own way, or go back to your mental masturbation with your diodes that don't make any useful power.
Just a little thought :
if you have mechanical resonant circuit you can leave it oscillating but soon friction will stop it
you can force oscillation but that would be always a loose in input power
or you can "push" it in correct moment , not disturbing natural oscillations
also the start moment is important - imagine a pendulum started with a fast strong kick instead of slow smooth push
Quote from: forest on October 29, 2009, 07:21:51 PM
Just a little thought :
if you have mechanical resonant circuit you can leave it oscillating but soon friction will stop it
you can force oscillation but that would be always a loose in input power
or you can "push" it in correct moment , not disturbing natural oscillations
also the start moment is important - imagine a pendulum started with a fast strong kick instead of slow smooth push
You mean something like this?:
http://www.rexresearch.com/milkovic/milkovic.htm (http://www.rexresearch.com/milkovic/milkovic.htm)
8)
Yes.Let it oscillate and inject power at correct moments. Eliminate friction. Find natural frequency and try to adjust mosfet to it.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on October 29, 2009, 06:12:07 PM
meh, you're just pissy paul because this thread is getting the attention you 'think' your diode array should be. that's the only reason you're here with your negative comments, to pimp your diode array.
No, you're wrong. I don't seek attention. If I wanted attention I would make a fake design that sounds terrific, not provide exact details, and string people on for months. Hmmm, sounds like the so-called "Rosemary Ainslie" claim. I've given everyone a chance to prove that so-called "so-called" is sincere, and they've failed miserably. Show these magazine articles show wrote. Show anything. You people who work with here dodge all testing methods that would have ended this entire case weeks ago. You continue with ridiculous testing procedures that would only guarantee that this case continue on.
She can't provide the exact method of replicating it even though she claims to have done it numerous times. Have her mail you one of her devices.
You & your group get pissed because every once in awhile I come into this thread posting info that would get *legit* researchers to wait for so-called "Rosemary Ainslie" to be sincere.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on October 29, 2009, 06:12:07 PMi agree with harvey, if it should only take 2 days, then have at it. if you do that, and that's a big if, i think you will find yourself mistaken...
Nice try, but no thanks. I'll wait till so-called "Rosemary Ainslie" can show one sign of sincerity.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on October 29, 2009, 06:12:07 PMask poynt, he thought something similar a hundred pages ago and did he 'get er done' in 2 days? nope. so if you're going to tell us all how it should be done, why don't you get on it and do it your own way, or go back to your mental masturbation with your diodes that don't make any useful power.
poynt did it wrong. I tried to warn him. He entered into a nightmare task. The correct method of verifying this case is very simple.
Paul
Quote from: Harvey on October 29, 2009, 03:49:46 PM
I'll keep that in mind the next time my car won't start. Seriously though, I have noticed that you have a lot of catching up to do here before your comments will have any true merit. This is probably the reason you have not been engaged in any real technical dialog here. Your initial attacks on Rosemary definitely put you off on a bad foot here - I for one would really like an explanation regarding your requests of her which I personally found offensive and intrusive with absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the study under way.
If you want to be taken seriously, then you need to establish your purpose here and be specific. I know you have had enough time on forums to understand that no reader likes to backtrack through pages of drivel trying to find the meaning behind some compound referential statement.
Nevertheless, I will address your concern here with an attempt at civility. Let's blackbox the circuit. We have 3 power sources, a blackbox, and a heating element - aka inductive resistor. Two of the power sources are put in series and go directly to, and only to the heating element. The third source goes directly to, and only to, the control circuit. The parameters are such, that the frequency, current and voltage in the heating circuit are all variable and for most intents and purposes random within certain bounds. The heating circuit and the control circuit share a common connection which in the future we may choose to isolate, but for now they are connected at the B(-). (See http://www.energeticforum.com/72259-post3037.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/72259-post3037.html) )
Now, using the above information, how specifically did you expect to determine the power in vs. the power out again? And if your qualifications are in order, what prohibits you from performing the 'two day' test yourself?
8)
I already went over this. You measure the
*DC* current & voltage of the batteries. A simple low pass filter using a single op-amp will suffice. That's gives the power in. To measure the power out you measure how fast the components heat up, and then compare that to a control experiment. Very simple.
Paul
Quote from: PaulLowrance on October 30, 2009, 11:28:09 AM
She can't provide the exact method of replicating it even though she claims to have done it numerous times. Have her mail you one of her devices.
You & your group get pissed because every once in awhile I come into this thread posting info that would get *legit* researchers to wait for so-called "Rosemary Ainslie" to be sincere.
Nice try, but no thanks. I'll wait till so-called "Rosemary Ainslie" can show one sign of sincerity.
Paul
Being your not a *legit* researcher and never have been I can see why you have all the problems you do .... when a untrained monkey could possibly build this very small and well documented circuit ..... what actually is you problem ?? Jealousy, Ignorance or Stupidity ??
http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/RA-COP17HeaterCircuit_01.jpg
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on October 30, 2009, 12:18:08 PM
Being your not a *legit* researcher and never have been I can see why you have all the problems you do .... when a untrained monkey could possibly build this very small and well documented circuit ..... what actually is you problem ?? Jealousy, Ignorance or Stupidity ??
http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/RA-COP17HeaterCircuit_01.jpg (http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/RA-COP17HeaterCircuit_01.jpg)
LOL, why do you hurt yourself with such filth? I don't have problems with my measurements, which BTW are far more difficult than the measurements you people need for this Ainslie device.
Jealous of what? You people are killing yourselves with your ridiculous measuring techniques?
Paul
Rosemary A. Ainslie gives her full name and the country she lives in, yet she refused to do a simple paypal exchange. It could be for 1 penny. Why not? Supposedly she's already provided her real name. If true, then anyone could find her without too much trouble. So why not add some credibility by doing a paypal exchange for $0.01? I seriously doubt "she's" even a female.
If so-called Rosemary A. Ainslie can prove her name then I would test the device. I would love to test it, but first I need some sincerity from "Rosemary Ainslie" because she's has not provide exact details to build her device. So lets get this over with. Just do the 1 cent paypal exchange, you get my name as well, and I'll spend 1 to 2 days testing this the correct way.
Paul
BTW, the above assumes that paypal is a legit way to prove ones identity. If not, then we'll need to use another method.
Paul
Quote from: PaulLowrance on October 30, 2009, 11:37:46 AM
I already went over this. You measure the *DC* current & voltage of the batteries. A simple low pass filter using a single op-amp will suffice. That's gives the power in. To measure the power out you measure how fast the components heat up, and then compare that to a control experiment. Very simple.
Paul
Paul,
I did essentially this. The only difference being; rather than measure the rate of temperature rise, I did a temperature rise above ambient measurement, which takes longer.
The power consumed was measured 3 different methods, including the DC one you specified in your post.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on October 30, 2009, 06:29:52 PMPaul,
I did essentially this. The only difference being; rather than measure the rate of temperature rise, I did a temperature rise above ambient measurement, which takes longer.
The power consumed was measured 3 different methods, including the DC one you specified in your post.
.99
Is this what you're referring to -->
Quote from: poynt99 on October 19, 2009, 04:42:27 PMA confirmation of the results from Glen's test #5. I crunched only Hour 2 for the 2us and 20us runs. All powers calculated (for a complete perspective), not just POS.
2_2us_520V-02_10_11_09.xlr
POS = -3.206W
PIL = 112.3W
PIM = -116.5W
PIS = 0.95W
Final resistor temperature = 135ºF
2_20us_520V-02_10_11_09.xlr
POS = -4.046W
PIL = 100.8W
PIM = -105.7W
PIS = 0.87W
Final resistor temperature = 136ºF
Again, I ask Glen, Harvey, and Rose to explain the 100W PIL when clearly the load resistor is not dissipating this much power ???
It so, then where is the control experiment where you apply DC current through this load to see how much DC current is required to change the temperature to 136F? The control experiment will tell you how much power the load was producing.
Paul
Paul.
Those results were calculated from Glen's own data that he posted. I took his raw data for the tests noted and did the number crunching on them since all four power calculations were not yet posted by anyone. This also confirmed two of the POS calculations that were posted.
Regarding the DC control tests for Glen's resistor, he also did that and posted the results at EF. I believe it is about 4.5W for that temperature.
I performed DC control tests for the two tests/settings I used, namely the 2.5kHz and 375 kHz settings, which resulted in 1.3W and 13.5W respectively.
The measured POS with the circuit running was 2.0W and 22.72w respectively.
.99
poynt99,
I did not see the control experiment. Do I have to read this entire thread to find it? I would appreciate it if you could post the temperature increase from Ainslie's device, and then the required power to heat the same component from the control experiment.
Let me know if you find it.
Paul
To be honest it should be clear what I'm asking for. If someone has done the experiment, then why not post it. In looking through the thread I saw the temperatures produced by the Ainslie device, but I did not see the control experiment where it showed how much power was required to heat the same component to the same temperature.
Paul
Hi Paul,
please slow down,
I have spoken with Rosemary via Skype
and she lives in South Africa.
Maybe you should do it to ?
She wants to publish in a peer review soon.
I really have to catch up with all these postings here, but
am much stuck in my other work and
with my new battery I am working on.
Regards, Stefan.
Yes, I spoke with Donald Duck on the phone when I was a child. ;) That proves nothing except that you spoke with a female on the phone. So if you want to call me, I can get my friend to play the role of Einstein. Does that mean you'll speak with Einstein? Sterling spoke with mylow. Sterling visited mylow. So what? We all know mylow was a faker who's intent was to waste research time.
This is ridiculous. I asked her to show me some of her math. She showed nothing. I asked her to prove her claim of being Rosemary A. Ainslie. She refused. I asked her to post the details about her device how to make the resistive inductive load. No details. How many turns? What's the spacing between turns. How long. What's the diameter. What's type of wire? Etc. etc. This is exactly what happens a few times per year. Vague descriptions, and when it does not perform as claim then you didn't do it correct. They get all defensive when you ask for details or try to get them to show some sign of sincerity. Every time they waste massive amounts of time. Is that the goal of your website Stefan? Do you support fakes?
Paul
Quantum - October 2002 "Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Heater Circuit"
http://www.free-energy.ws/pdf/quantum_october_2002.pdf
Replication Prototype "Quantum" 10 Ohm Load Resistor
http://www.energeticforum.com/68032-post2684.html
Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Heater Circuit - "TEST #5" ("Seven" Total Tests using a Tektronix TDS 3054C)
http://www.energeticforum.com/70771-post2951.html
"YouTube" HQ Hour 6 - "Finish" - ( 7th Reading - Hour 6 End )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBIpSBjYDsQ
"YouTube" Hour 6 - "Finish" - ( 7th Reading - Hour 6 End "PLUS" Set Up View and Additional Tektronix TDS 3054C Scope Shots )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZM8BBa7_Zpc
"Quantum" Prototype 10 Ohm Load Resistor - Thermo Profiling
http://www.energeticforum.com/71387-post2974.html
"Quantum" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Heater Circuit "Revised Circuit 10-25-2009"
http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/RA-COP17HeaterCircuit_01.jpg
Fuzzy
;D
Fuzzy, Hi. You kindly gave Paul links? Personally I would'nt have bothered.
Paul has that unique 'one tracked mind' that characterises those that can only manage one thought at a time. But it's the degree and quality of that affliction that's unique. He can hold that thought over a really extended period of time. And he clutches on for dear life. Lose the thought and there's the real risk of becoming comotose. Or worse still, it may leave a vacuum in his cranium that may then become the unhappy recipient of a 'replacement thought'. At least he can still articulate that first opinion. And - right or wrong - he's clearly proud of this ability.
But I don't think the opinion really needs changing. It has the rare distinction of being entirely irrelevant and substantially disproved. Had it been nearer the mark it may have been of some concern. As it is - it has a certain comic value. I must admit I first thought he was a troll. I see now he's simply one of our 'mentally challenged' - and as such - I find his contributions rather endearing. Personally I would recommend that Stefan give him all the space he needs to air that sad little thought. It will be a novel way of allowing this thread to get cluttered with more irrelvancies - which speaks to TK's initial objects here. It adds a certain symmetry to the start of the thread that is then precisely echoed in its conclusions. And I've said it before. I LOVE SYMMETRY.
The links solved nothing.
poynt99 was unable to show anyone doing the measurements correctly.
Unfortunately nothing's changed.
Quote from: PaulLowrance on October 31, 2009, 01:39:39 PM
The links solved nothing.
poynt99 was unable to show anyone doing the measurements correctly.
Nothing's changed.
Paul. Try reading the links. It may help. ;D
I gave Paul a simple Black Box scenario of your circuit, Rosemary - he showed that he was unable to follow it by responding with a generic untruth. Everything he asks for is already openly available with the exception of his offensive attempts at personal discovery of your gender and bank account information, neither of which have any bearing whatsoever on this project. He has nothing to offer this group from what I can tell, and it appears is motives are ulterior.
FuzzyTomCat, I think you should stop doing his legwork for him - he is a grown man and should be able to do this for himself as the rest of us have. His last comments clearly show that he unappreciative and has no desire to participate even from the level 'reading up' on all of the tests that were done in the past. How could he possibly offer any instruction on the proper methodology required to accurately test this system? He doesn't even understand the HF A/C dynamics presented to the source as is borne out by his insistence on a simple DC analysis. Had he even paid attention to my post, he should have recognized immediately why that was an error on his part. Let him be - I for one have no intentions of having any dialog with him until he shows that he understands the system, or is attempting to test it himself.
8)
You people seem to be working together, each playing a different role. If these endless fakes continues, then don't think for a second that eventually someone will one day investigate such people? Have you ever heard of a PI, Private Investigator? One can be imprisoned for being paid to mislead a lot of people, thus wasting a lot of their life away and their resources? All you can do so far is be dodgy and play games with people.
If you think for a second that you people have shown an experiment that measures the temperature produced by the heated component and then you did the control experiment to see how much power was required to produce that heat then show it. Stop playing games. I looked at the links. It does not exist. Stop playing games and show it.
If you think for a second that you've shown "Rosemary Ainslie" mathematics to prove her theory, then show it. Stop playing games and show it.
I'm glad that people are finally catching on this attempt at destroying the "free energy" community.
Paul
Paul,
Please describe what criteria you use to determine if a claim or claimant is a fake or not.
For me, it's quite simple: If the claimant states that their device works a certain way with a certain benefit, knowing full well that it does no such thing in reality, then this person and their claim is indeed a fake.
Otherwise, if it turns out that they are sincere in their beliefs, but adequate replications prove the claims are not valid, then it is simply a matter of the claimant being mistaken due to poor/inadequate measurements and/or mis-interpretation of the measurements and the results, and/or poor understanding of the device's operation.
.99
Hi Poynt. I also have a critical standard to evaluate sincerity. And I think you've disqualified yourself from comment.
Aether ever rising and getting ever more technical.
??? :-X
Quote from: poynt99 on November 01, 2009, 11:21:36 AMPlease describe what criteria you use to determine if a claim or claimant is a fake or not.
From one of my favorite studies occurring over the past few decades, Human behavioral studies. It's not difficult to test for sincerity, or how dodgy they are. Rosemary Ainslie failed miserably. I also gave mylow a chance. He failed miserably. Everyone ganged up on me. Look what happened. And before that I gave Al a chance. He failed miserably, and everyone ganged up on me as well. Look what happened. ... Hello???
--Derren Brown, Criss Angel, David Blaine
Paul,
I'd have to say you're the one being dodgy here. I asked you specifically what criteria you use and that's the best you can do?
If you can't do that, then explain why you don't agree with my criteria posted above.
Please abide by your own "rules", or kindly buzz off.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on November 02, 2009, 11:01:36 AM
Paul,
I'd have to say you're the one being dodgy here. I asked you specifically what criteria you use and that's the best you can do?
If you can't do that, then explain why you don't agree with my criteria posted above.
Please abide by your own "rules", or kindly buzz off.
.99
I've already described it countless time, and recently. You are the one that's dodgy. I recently asked you to show the control experiment. Where is it? Huh? I'll retype my answer, yet one more time, as to criteria that makes a person insincere, when you can answer my question that was asked days ago.
I'll be waiting for you post the link to where you or someone measured the temperature of the component, and then did the control experiment that measured how much electrical power is required to heat that same component to the same temperature. What's the matter .99. Why are you & your group so dodgy? Something to hide?
Paul
Good grief Paul... ::)
Look ONE PAGE BACK! I posted the darn numbers.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg206751#msg206751
And just to be clear here, I am in no "group" as you call it, in particular the Rose Ainslie group. I am pretty much on my own here except for occasional help and support from Hoppy and MileHigh.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on November 02, 2009, 11:18:32 AM
Good grief Paul... ::)
Look ONE PAGE BACK! I posted the darn numbers.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg206751#msg206751 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg206751#msg206751)
And just to be clear here, I am in no "group" as you call it, in particular the Rose Ainslie group. I am pretty much on my own here except for occasional help and support from Hoppy and MileHigh.
.99
.99, you think you're fooling people? I've seen those numbers, and I even replied to that post. That's one sign of insincerity, *pretending* to answer the question. Where in your post do you show the temperature that the component produced, and then applied electrical power in a control experiment to reproduce that ***same*** temperature?
If you or someone did it, then why beat around the bush being dodgy. Just show the numbers.
Paul
After asking for the numbers over the past week, it appears nobody is going to do it. If you do, then great! And if everything looks fine, then I'd be more than happy to replicate it.
If anyone ever decides to correctly measure the Rosemary Ainslie device, then here are numbers one would expect,
Example, again, this is only an example:
The component in the Rosemary Ainslie device heated up 30 degrees Celsius. The power consumed by the battery (or batteries) was 20 watts. I then immediately connected the component to a DC power supply, and began increasing the voltage till the component produced the same temperature, which required 21 watts.
Paul
Alright Paul,
Since you can't be bothered to read through a few pages of my posts, I'll do this for you this time.
First, Glen's results:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg206035#msg206035
Final temperature was about 136ºF. You have already been given the link and seen the control tests Glen performed for this resistor.
Second, data from my 375kHz run:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg205855#msg205855
Ambient was about 22ºC, so final temperature is 22+67 = 89ºC
Third, data from my last 2.5kHz run:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg205850#msg205850
"Actual POS" means control test power output from supply
"TRAA" means temp rise above ambient, so 22+8 = 30ºC final temperature
Now, had you been following the thread along, you wouldn't have to be pestering anyone to offset your laziness to go back a little and read what has already been posted.
I've got nothing to hide, and I've hidden nothing. My goal is to illustrate with good data what this circuit is actually producing in terms of power in and heat out. Why would I be hiding anything Paul?--I certainly am not a proponent of the claims being made about this circuit.
And since you probably missed this too, here it is again, my test plan:
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on November 02, 2009, 11:44:46 AM
Alright Paul,
Since you can't be bothered to read through a few pages of my posts, I'll do this for you this time.
First, Glen's results:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg206035#msg206035 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg206035#msg206035)
Final temperature was about 136ºF. You have already been given the link and seen the control tests Glen performed for this resistor.
Second, data from my 375kHz run:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg205855#msg205855 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg205855#msg205855)
Ambient was about 22ºC, so final temperature is 22+67 = 89ºC
Third, data from my last 2.5kHz run:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg205850#msg205850 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg205850#msg205850)
"Actual POS" means control test power output from supply
"TRAA" means temp rise above ambient, so 22+8 = 30ºC final temperature
Now, had you been following the thread along, you wouldn't have to be pestering anyone to offset your laziness to go back a little and read what has already been posted.
I've got nothing to hide, and I've hidden nothing. My goal is to illustrate with good data what this circuit is actually producing in terms of power in and heat out. Why would I be hiding anything Paul?--I certainly am not a proponent of the claims being made about this circuit.
And since you probably missed this too, here it is again, my test plan:
.99
Thanks for the links, but unless you compiling all of the control measurements into to one result, it's unclear. Also there are a lot of your abbreviations that scientists are not going to know what you're talking about. Should they read 234 pages to learn the abbreviations. I'll go over each of your links,
1st link:
No reference to temperature at all. In your post you mention 136F, which lacks detail.
2nd link:
Numbers are all over the place, so it's unclear what exactly you're talking about. So you have numerous components that are heating up. Are you saying that *all* of the components were at 67F?? Are you sure all of the components heated up to the same temperature? ... There's no way all of the data is there. You need to show the temperature of every component, and show the control experiment power required to heat *each* component. Where's the data?
3rd and final link:
Lots of power from various components, but no descriptions. Is that power measured from a thermistor or your calculations from voltage & current? Also you show just one temperature rise, but you have numerous components heating up. Are you saying all of the components heated up to the same temperature?
Paul
Read the test plan, it's all there.
Temperature of all components is not necessary, only power is. The only temperature that is relevant, is the resistor temperature.
Read the test plan!
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on November 02, 2009, 12:13:10 PM
Read the test plan, it's all there.
Temperature of all components is not necessary, only power is. The only temperature that is relevant, is the resistor temperature.
Read the test plan!
.99
Ah, the test plan. Okay, so I'll go out on a hunt for one "test plan!"
PL
Also Paul,
If you'd been paying attention, you would know that not only is my testing not complete (it is more preliminary), but the results obtained so far are unreliable due to measurement errors. That goes for both my measurements, and Glen's as well.
.99
It was added to the post after you read it. It is mentioned in your quote.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg207049#msg207049
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on November 02, 2009, 12:22:59 PM
It was added to the post after you read it. It is mentioned in your quote.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg207049#msg207049 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg207049#msg207049)
.99
Great, at least it contains the abbreviations.
Paul
hunt for one "test plan!" ended one page back. here is the easy button paul...
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7620.0;attach=38645
It was posted on the 18th of October...here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg205130#msg205130
.99
.99
After looking through all the links, including the attached "Test plan," one can make sense of the forum data, but there seems to be an issue in that you did not do the control measurements for the mosfet and shunt. Not so much the shunt, but the mosfet seems to produce significant power, according to the scope, but then again such scope calculations can be tossed out the door.
To clarify your measurements, the DC power from the battery was 22.72 watts, and the load produced 13.5 watts worth of *heat.*
Will you finish the control experiments by at least measuring the mosfet heat production? If it's over 9.22 watts, then there's something interesting here.
Paul
Quote from: Hoppy on October 25, 2009, 05:58:52 PM
The whole exercise was doomed from the start because even Rosemary could not be certain of the exact details of the circuit due to poor documentation, so a true replication of whatever circuit the 'academics' tested has not been possible. Various circuit configurations based on the published circuit diagrams were tested and none of these have shown overunity, let alone COP17.
That's true, but I have not seen any completed experiments yet. Closest so far goes to .99, but he needs to at least measure the mosfet. IMO it's likely to produce less than 9.2 watts of power. The final question is to do a quick analysis on the load to see if it's radiating much RF energy.
Paul
Yes,
Measuring the MOSFET heat and hence getting a CONTROL "PIM" would pretty much indicate if there is any excess energy entering the circuit.
But alas, this would not be good enough for the Ainslie team as they want to see everything measured by the oscilloscope. In fact, they don't agree that the filtered-DC POS measurement is even valid.
.99
PS.
I'm on vacation for the next month so will not be doing any further testing on this circuit (if at all) for at least this amount of time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUzsCVNXaGs
MileHigh and TK - another tribute to all your efforts.
Rosie
Hey Rosemary,
You have excellent drawing skills, thank you for the caricatures. For what it's worth I have a full head of hair and look a touch like the actor Jeff Bridges. In your drawing I sort of look like one of the characters in The Simpson's.
MileHigh
if you and TK could post a photo I could try and do you justice. LOL I'm sorry about the hair. Rather liked the pate. Hope the paisely was in line and thanks for not taking offense. Wasn't all that sure. But I'm now overdue for sleep. Missed you MH but the thread is dying - dying - dead. Possibly overdue.
You didn't ask Rose, but just in case, here's a recent one of yours truly...
.99
Golly Poynt. I'm weak at the knees here
Lol
Rose :-*
Quote from: MileHigh on November 02, 2009, 08:02:43 PM
Hey Rosemary,
You have excellent drawing skills, thank you for the caricatures. For what it's worth I have a full head of hair [snip]
Sorry, but this is so hilarious! Not you, but her portrait of you. One would think that she had a description of you before drawing.
Regards,
Paul
speaking of hilarious... this is an old quote from the mythbusters new protoge, poynt99. it is kind of a blast from the past but i think it deserves to be remembered. the quote was one of his responses to my informing him that his sim (pspice) was incomplete and in no way could be construed as a valid substitute for a real world test. notice how he dances around avoiding the obvious with semantics and irrelevant questions
"The simulator accounts for and processes the input parameters according to well-known and accepted laws of math and physics. This is conventional analysis, and has stood the test of time. Not to say there may be new discoveries yet to be made, but this circuit in particular requires no exotic analysis to understand it or design with it.
I would rather entrust my life to a defibulator that was designed using SPICE as a design aid rather than some unknown, unproven theory of EM and its associated "math". Would you trust your life to a defibulator circuit with de-rated input power because the manufacturer was convinced they only needed 1/17th the power to operate it and get full charge ???
Do you really think it's possible that "something was missed" in the 40 or so years this circuit has been in use?
.99"
nothing but irrelevance, misdirection, obfuscation and logical fallacy from our poynt.
ahhh, the memories... the full, hilarious dialogue can be viewed here.
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-66.html#post64487
i found a pic of tk and poynt. that's poynt on the right.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on November 05, 2009, 02:29:03 AM
speaking of hilarious... this is an old quote from the mythbusters new protoge, poynt99. it is kind of a blast from the past but i think it deserves to be remembered. the quote was one of his responses to my informing him that his sim (pspice) was incomplete and in no way could be construed as a valid substitute for a real world test. notice how he dances around avoiding the obvious with semantics and irrelevant questions
"The simulator accounts for and processes the input parameters according to well-known and accepted laws of math and physics. This is conventional analysis, and has stood the test of time. Not to say there may be new discoveries yet to be made, but this circuit in particular requires no exotic analysis to understand it or design with it.
I would rather entrust my life to a defibulator that was designed using SPICE as a design aid rather than some unknown, unproven theory of EM and its associated "math". Would you trust your life to a defibulator circuit with de-rated input power because the manufacturer was convinced they only needed 1/17th the power to operate it and get full charge ???
Do you really think it's possible that "something was missed" in the 40 or so years this circuit has been in use?
.99"
nothing but irrelevance, misdirection, obfuscation and logical fallacy from our poynt.
ahhh, the memories... the full, hilarious dialogue can be viewed here.
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-66.html#post64487
i found a pic of tk and poynt. that's poynt on the right.
Well said Wilby. We all suspect you're actually our best archivist. But Poynt's not around for a bit - apparently? I think I need to do a new study of the two of you? I get it you lurk in forests - live in log cabins? or is under bridges? LOL ::) ;D
Quote from: witsend on November 05, 2009, 02:47:27 AM
Well said Wilby. We all suspect you're actually our best archivist. But Poynt's not around for a bit - apparently? I think I need to do a new study of the two of you? I get it you lurk in forests - live in log cabins? or is under bridges? LOL ::) ;D
thanks rose. just a good memory is all. yeah, where is poynt and the rest of the merry gang? they all left? and after all their prophecies from a hundred or so pages back of how you and your gang would slip off into nowhere... too funny. ahh the memories :) forests, cabins or bridges? good question, i love the wildness of the forests, the homeyness of cabins and the wonderful acoustics under bridges. i wonder if we could get poynt to simulate it and come up with an answer? ;) i suspect he won't go the distance but instead posit an assumption.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on November 05, 2009, 03:04:25 AM
thanks rose. just a good memory is all. yeah, where is poynt and the rest of the merry gang? they all left? after all their prophecies from a hundred or so pages back of how you and your gang would slip off into nowhere... too funny. ahh the memories :) forests, cabins or bridges? good question, i love the wildness of the forests, the homeyness of cabins and the wonderful acoustics of bridges. i wonder if we could get poynt to simulate it and come up with an answer? i suspect he won't go the distance but instead posit an assumption ;)
LOL I get it you're reclusive? Will have to give this some thought. I do see real potential between all that rampant individuality and Poynty Poynt charging in from mainstream. I'll have to work on this. It's getting complex. ;D
Howdy
Nice to see the topic still going
Chet
Nice to see you around Chet...
...but the thread is hardly "going", unless you mean south...
.99
ahh, there is the merry gang of debunkers. hiding in the woods like ticks... it's cute how you guys feed, off each other even.
what's up ramset? still in touch with tk? do you think you could talk him into leaving his little pity party and coming back for some more debate? i have some bones to pick with him.
what's up hoppy? ever going to share your data from your 'experiment' with this circuit?
what's up poynty? did you toss in the towel or have you not decided yet? turns out it was more complicated for you than it seems, so we won't be surprised if you head south.
I have no idea why there are over 230 pages in this thread. It should take .99 less than 30 minutes to complete his experiment. All of the scope stuff is meaningless unless .99 can convince me he's a senior EE or has extensive experience with such measurements.
Less than 30 minutes: stick thermistor on top part of mosfet heat sink. Fire up the Ainslie circuit. Measure temp above ambient. Then do the control exp. Remove mosfet. Place battery across mosfet drain/source. Place enough voltage on mosfet gate to get enough DC current to heat it up to the same temp. Calculate power from the control exp. Done! :)
Paul
Quote from: PaulLowrance on November 05, 2009, 01:00:20 PM
All of the scope stuff is meaningless unless .99 can convince me he's a senior EE or has extensive experience with such measurements.
what kind of nonsense is this? it's meaningless unless? ::) good grief.
"calculate" the power... for the love of zeus are you serious? CALCULATE? you might as well simulate it too. ::)
sorry i forgot about you in my last post, not very polite of me to leave out the pauly come lately.
“A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.†-edward r. murrow
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on November 05, 2009, 01:06:50 PM
what kind of nonsense is this? it's meaningless unless? ::) good grief.
I'm overwhelmed by your evidence. You must love the word "ambiguous." By all means continue your handwaving.
When your mind wakes up, post the procedure for measuring real power across a reactive & resistive element. When you fail miserably to explain the procedure, then maybe you will understand why .99 scope power measurements greatly differ from the temperature measurements.
Paul
Quote from: PaulLowrance on November 05, 2009, 01:19:13 PM
I'm overwhelmed by your evidence. You must love the word "ambiguous." By all means continue your handwaving.
When your mind wakes up, post the prodecure for measuring real power across a reactive & resistive element.
Paul
please explain how it is meaningless unless... instead of avoiding the point i raised with your strawman argument and logical fallacy.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on November 05, 2009, 01:21:55 PM
please explain how it is meaningless unless... instead of avoiding the point i raised with strawmen and logical fallacy.
Yawn, more of your ambiguous claims-- handwaving. I did. Answer, again: because it is extremely difficult. Try reading, or wake up.
Now lets see you explain how to conduct such measurements, LOL. I'm betting you will not explain it because you don't know how.
Paul
Quote from: PaulLowrance on November 05, 2009, 01:00:20 PM
I have no idea why there are over 230 pages in this thread. It should take .99 less than 30 minutes to complete his experiment. All of the scope stuff is meaningless unless .99 can convince me he's a senior EE or has extensive experience with such measurements.
Less than 30 minutes: stick thermistor on top part of mosfet heat sink. Fire up the Ainslie circuit. Measure temp above ambient. Then do the control exp. Remove mosfet. Place battery across mosfet drain/source. Place enough voltage on mosfet gate to get enough DC current to heat it up to the same temp. Calculate power from the control exp. Done! :)
Paul
I didn't realize that there was a approve testing method that is used by some university, government or accredited testing agency on the method of measuring current return to battery's. Could you please reference the material a document, PDF or where the text is located so that all members, guests and replicators can use this published information on there replication it appears you know right where it is, and for the life of me I just can't find those documents to share with the "open source" community.The reason there is 230 pages because of the comments that have no academic reference or value such as your comments ..... If you cant help with documented testing procedures ..... please keep your comments to yourself .....
Quote from: PaulLowrance on November 05, 2009, 01:23:38 PM
Yawn, more of your ambiguous claims-- handwaving. I did. Answer, again: because it is extremely difficult. Try reading, or wake up.
Now lets see you explain how to conduct such measurements, LOL. I'm betting you will not explain it because you don't know how.
Paul
ambiguous claims? i think you are making shit up now pauly, care to back it up with a quote of my claim?
so let me make sure i understand you here pauly. the scope stuff is meaningless because it is extremely difficult, UNLESS poynt can prove to you he is a senior EE, in which case the scope stuff then has meaning? ::)
wow, this is better than some of tk's garbage. let me grab a chair pauly, you have my rapt attention. i'm sure this will be classic 'science'.
i think i'll let you keep talking since you are so sure of yourself. perhaps, for the benefit of the open source community, you could accomodate fuzzy's request?
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on November 05, 2009, 01:30:37 PM
ambiguous claims? i think you are making shit up now pauly, care to back it up with a quote of my claim?
so let me make sure i understand you here pauly. the scope stuff is meaningless because it is difficult, UNLESS poynt can prove to you he is a senior EE, in which case the scope stuff then has meaning? ::)
wow, this is better than some of tk's garbage. let me grab a chair pauly, i'm sure this will be classic 'science'.
i think i'll let you keep talking since you are so sure of yourself. perhaps, for the benefit of the open source community, you could accomodate fuzzy's request?
LOL, you're not worth my time. Still gibberish replies. Take a look at the difference between our posts. I outlined the method to complete .99 posts. All you do is attempt to crap on people, but you only crap on yourself.
fuzzy is a little mind IMO, and rarely deserves responding to. He wants to talk about battery measurements when we're talking about taking complex scope measurements consisting of pulses.
So, you could not answer the question. As expected. So far .99 is the only person who's come close to completing correct measurements. You people have no clue how to conduct pulse measurements across such components. The inductance is non-linear. The capacitance is non-linear. It's a complex problem that is not taken lightly. That's why the temperature method is the way to go here.
Paul
Quote from: PaulLowrance on November 05, 2009, 01:36:21 PM
LOL, you're not worth my time. Still giberish replies. Take a look at the difference between our posts. I outlined the method to complete .99 posts. All you do is attempt to crap on people, but you only crap on yourself.
fuzzy is a little mind IMO, and rarely deserves responding to. He wants to take about battery measurements when we're talking about taking complex scope measurements consisting of pulses.
So, you could not answer the question. As expected. So far .99 is the only person who's come close to completing correct measurements. You people have no clue how to conduct pulse measurements across such components. The inductance is non-linear. The capacitance is non-linear. It's a complex problem that is not taken lightly. That's why the temperature method is the way to go here.
Paul
gibberish? which word did you have trouble understanding pauly?
so you ARE making shit up then. where is my ambiguous claim(s)? i asked you a simple question(s) and you respond with strawmen and ad hom...
one more time then.
so let me make sure i understand you here pauly. the scope stuff is meaningless because it is extremely difficult, UNLESS poynt can prove to you he is a senior EE, in which case the scope stuff then has meaning?
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on November 05, 2009, 01:38:27 PM
so you ARE making shit up then. where is my ambiguous claim(s)? i asked you a simple question and you respond with strawmen and ad hom...
Once again you are blind. I quoted you. Try reading. In our short little discussion you've said nothing, but ambigous statements such as, "what kind of nonsense is this?" You can't prove it's nonsense. Where's your math, or measurement techniques? Show something so real EE's can get a real laugh.
Still no answer about how to take such measurements, huh. IMO you're a child next to .99, and I say that in all seriousness.
Paul
Quote from: PaulLowrance on November 05, 2009, 01:42:47 PM
Once again you are blind. I quoted you. Try reading. In our short little discussion you've said nothing, but ambigous statements such as, "what kind of nonsense is this?" You can't prove it's nonsense. Where's your math, or measurement techniques? Show something so real EE's can get a real laugh.
Still no answer about how to take such measurements, huh. IMO you're a child next to .99, and I say that in all seriousness.
Paul
no i'm not blind. i don't see ANY claims from me, just questions NOT STATEMENTS ::) directed towards you and the merry gang. why do you keep avoiding answering this simple question? it requires a yes or no answer, nothing more pauly...
so let me make sure i understand you here pauly. the scope stuff is meaningless because it is extremely difficult, UNLESS poynt can prove to you he is a senior EE, in which case the scope stuff then has meaning?
Quote from: PaulLowrance on November 05, 2009, 01:36:21 PM
LOL, you're not worth my time. Still gibberish replies. Take a look at the difference between our posts. I outlined the method to complete .99 posts. All you do is attempt to crap on people, but you only crap on yourself.
fuzzy is a little mind IMO, and rarely deserves responding to. He wants to talk about battery measurements when we're talking about taking complex scope measurements consisting of pulses.
So, you could not answer the question. As expected. So far .99 is the only person who's come close to completing correct measurements. You people have no clue how to conduct pulse measurements across such components. The inductance is non-linear. The capacitance is non-linear. It's a complex problem that is not taken lightly. That's why the temperature method is the way to go here.
Paul
Just as I thought .....
"NO" documentation .....
"NO" references .....
"NO" intelligence
Sorry but I have to go to Tektronix today and pick up the TDS 3054C for several weeks of further testing and documentation .... and will be making a formal complaint to Stefan on the "SPAMMING" of this thread
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on November 05, 2009, 01:38:27 PM
gibberish? which word did you have trouble understanding pauly?
so you ARE making shit up then. where is my ambiguous claim(s)? i asked you a simple question(s) and you respond with strawmen and ad hom...
one more time then.
so let me make sure i understand you here pauly. the scope stuff is meaningless because it is extremely difficult, UNLESS poynt can prove to you he is a senior EE, in which case the scope stuff then has meaning?
LOL, "ad hom..." You don't know how to spell it? It's Ad hominem, and it's exactly what you started. Want a few examples? You wrote, "ahh, there is the merry gang of debunkers. hiding in the woods like ticks.." How about this nice little line from you, "it's cute how you guys feed, off each other even." Or how about, "what's up ramset? still in touch with tk? do you think you could talk him into leaving his little pity party and coming back for some more debate?"
Paul
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on November 05, 2009, 01:45:49 PM
Just as I thought ..... "NO" documentation ..... "NO" references ..... "NO" intelligence
Sorry but I have to go to Tektronix today and pick up the TDS 3054C for several weeks of further testing and documentation .... and will be making a formal complaint to Stefan on the "SPAMMING" of this thread
You're such a ding dong. You prove my point, that such measurements are difficult. I am the one asking you people to show the methods. You can't.
Paul
Quote from: PaulLowrance on November 05, 2009, 01:46:26 PM
LOL, "ad hom..." You don't know how to spell it? It's Ad hominem, and it's exactly what you started. Want a few examples? You wrote, "ahh, there is the merry gang of debunkers. hiding in the woods like ticks.." How about this nice little line from you, "it's cute how you guys feed, off each other even." Or how about, "what's up ramset? still in touch with tk? do you think you could talk him into leaving his little pity party and coming back for some more debate?"
Paul
paul of course i know how to spell it. if you could read and had followed this thread at all you would have seen me spell it out entirely. but you haven't ::) you are a pauly come lately that thinks they know it all... we have seen more than one of you come and go in this thread.
so i am a bad guy, whaa cry. and then what does that make you? kinda of puts you down on what you consider to be my 'kid' level now doesn't it?
and yet you still have NOT answered this...
so let me make sure i understand you here pauly. the scope stuff is meaningless because it is extremely difficult, UNLESS poynt can prove to you he is a senior EE, in which case the scope stuff then has meaning?
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on November 05, 2009, 01:45:36 PM
so let me make sure i understand you here pauly. the scope stuff is meaningless because it is extremely difficult, UNLESS poynt can prove to you he is a senior EE, in which case the scope stuff then has meaning?
You can't read? In case you have the comprehension of an ape, try this: His measurements are meaningless to people unless he can prove he's capable of making such complex measurements.
I'm still waiting for your answer. What's the matter, you can't answer? As expected.
Paul
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on November 05, 2009, 01:51:01 PM
paul of course i know how to spell it. if you could read and had followed this thread at all you would have seen me spell it out entirely. but you haven't ::) you are a pauly come lately that thinks they know it all... we have seen more than one of you come and go in this thread.
so i am a bad guy, whaa cry. and then what does that make you? kinda of puts you down on what you consider to be my 'kid' level now doesn't it?
and yet you still have NOT answered this...
so let me make sure i understand you here pauly. the scope stuff is meaningless because it is extremely difficult, UNLESS poynt can prove to you he is a senior EE, in which case the scope stuff then has meaning?
More handwaving, huh? What scientist would want to hang out in this thread for very long. And if you think you know more about taking measurements then me, then bring it on little boy.
Paul
You two handwavers are a waste of time. I've answered your silly questions. Now I'll sit back and wait for you to show us how to properly measure the correct real power from current pulses through a wire wound resistive element.
We'll all see that you are incapable of showing the correct method. IMO .99 posts are the only ones worthy of reading. The rest of you are spammers trying to destroy a thread with kindergarten measurements.
Paul
Quote from: PaulLowrance on November 05, 2009, 01:54:32 PM
More handwaving, huh? What scientist would want to hang out in this thread for very long. And if you think you know more about taking measurements then me, then bring it on little boy.
Paul
paul i would suggest you look up what it (ad hom) means. then you can try and explain how i was subverting or misdirecting or rejecting an argument by saying the things you quoted. ::)
here, i will help you out since you are so damn lazy.
"An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.
"
and yet you still have NOT answered this...
so let me make sure i understand you here pauly. the scope stuff is meaningless because it is extremely difficult, UNLESS poynt can prove to you he is a senior EE, in which case the scope stuff then has meaning?yes or no pauly
Quote from: PaulLowrance on November 05, 2009, 01:36:21 PM
fuzzy is a little mind IMO, and rarely deserves responding to. He wants to talk about battery measurements when we're talking about taking complex scope measurements consisting of pulses.
Paul
Paulycomelately - to borrow Wilby's description - I LOVE THIS. Fuzzy is a 'little mind'? And the "we're talking about taking complex scope measurements? LOL You're talking to yourself and about yourself. So sweet - such huge presumptions.
Pauly arose one dark night
In a sweat - in a horrible fright
For a thought that he thunk
had horribly sunk
To the dark - from a previous light.
He cried out in pain as he said
'Dear Heaven that thunk thought has fled'
And he clutched in the dark
But was way off the mark
Saying 'Maybe it's under my bed'.
But the search through the night was in vain
As his stomach was knotted in pain
And in a state of alarm
That did bodily harm
Knew the vacuum that now filled his brain.
Quote from: PaulLowrance on November 05, 2009, 01:51:09 PM
You can't read? In case you have the comprehension of an ape, try this: His measurements are meaningless to people unless he can prove he's capable of making such complex measurements.
I'm still waiting for your answer. What's the matter, you can't answer? As expected.
Paul
don't go changing your tune now pauly, it looks suspicious. you said, and i quote,
Quote from: PaulLowrance on November 05, 2009, 01:00:20 PM
All of the scope stuff is meaningless unless .99 can convince me he's a senior EE or has extensive experience with such measurements.
convince YOU, not people, YOU.
measurements are measurements. whether poynt is a senior EE or not has no bearing on their meaning.
i answered you if you can read. i said, and i quote, "i think i'll let you keep talking since you are so sure of yourself. "
can't answer and choosing not to are different, i don't expect you to see the difference. go ahead and assume what you wish.
Stefan,
These fakers are sinking your forum. Do you want to attract tinkerers, or scientists that actually have a chance at succeeding? From the start I've outlined the best method of taking the measurments, which it turns out that .99 has almost completed. These other people are childish idiots.
It's your choice. Both can't exist here. No good scientist would hang out at this forum with these kids.
Paul
Quote from: PaulLowrance on November 05, 2009, 02:09:27 PM
No good scientist would hang out at this forum with these people.
Paul
I get it that's why you hang out here? ::) ;D A 'no good scientist'? LOL
Quote from: witsend on November 05, 2009, 02:13:03 PM
I get it that's why you hang out here? ::) ;D
Delusional. Scan through the thread to discover how often I post.
Quote from: PaulLowrance on November 05, 2009, 02:09:27 PM
Stefan,
These fakers are sinking your forum. Do you want to attract tinkerers, or scientists that actually have a chance at succeeding? From the start I've outlined the best method of taking the measurments, which it turns out that .99 has almost completed. These other people are childish idiots.
It's your choice. Both can't exist here. No good scientist would hang out at this forum with these kids.
Paul
from the start? where were you when this thread started? i don't recall you offering advice to tk on how to measure... and now you are calling it the best method, i thought you were calling it the correct method. are you suggesting there is more than one correct way? ie: some better than others.
so you're not a good scientist then defined by your own actions...
still waiting for you to explain how those quotes you posted of mine are ad hominem. ::) that should be a doozy.
i just checked the first 25 pages of this thread for a post from our pauly come lately. NOT A ONE.
i did find this gem from ramset re: me riding tk to use proper scientific method.
Quote from: ramset on July 07, 2009, 05:46:01 PM
It will probably make as big a difference as the kind of scotch you drink
remember that one chety? and surprise surprise, no mea culpa from you either.
WilbyInebriated,
I don't want to spend more time on you. Recently in this thread I already detailed several of your quotes that are Ad hominem. I've answered your questions. You have not answered my question, and to be honest I don't really care if you do at this point.
Paul
FYI, I never said that I posted in this thread from the start. I said from the start I offered the best method. And yes, the best method would be the correct method. In case you can't see beyond your nose, my statement is in reference to the start of *my* posts. Hello? Wow! WilbyInebriated, my man, get a life! Adios.
Quote from: PaulLowrance on November 05, 2009, 02:33:09 PM
WilbyInebriated,
I don't want to spend more time on you. Recently in this thread I already detailed several of your quotes that are Ad hominem. I've answered your questions. You have not answered my question, and to be honest I don't really care if you do at this point.
Paul
FYI, I never said that I posted in this thread from the start. I said from the start I offered the best method. And yes, the best method would be the correct method. In case you can't see beyond your nose, my statement is in reference to the start of *my* posts. Hello? Wow! WilbyInebriated, my man, get a life!
you are wrong pauly, what you detailed IS NOT ad hominem. if you think it is, then please explain how i was rejecting an argument by saying the things you quoted. an explanation will require you to define the argument i was rejecting. have at it and good luck, you will need it.
here is the definition for your lazy pleasure, AGAIN.
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false. i answered your question. here it is again. FOR THE THIRD TIME...
i said, and i quote, "i think i'll let you keep talking since you are so sure of yourself."
can't answer and choosing not to are different. go ahead and assume what you wish.
LOL pauly, maybe you shouldn't be so ambiguous ::)
Because you use name calling as a distraction to make up for your lack of knowledge & expertise. You still have not answered the technical question, yet you carry on & on with childish questions. By all means, continue on with your pointless handwaving ambiguous chit chat. I'm only interested in a technical discussion about the measurements.
So far only .99 has done correct measurements, to my surprise, even though he did not complete them, yet. My hats off to .99!
Poynt - I've got a tribute to you too. See if it matches. LOL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23qcXbxKcWc
Quote from: PaulLowrance on November 05, 2009, 04:44:46 PM
Because you use name calling as a distraction to make up for your lack of knowledge & expertise. You still have not answered the technical question, yet you carry on & on with childish questions. By all means, continue on with your pointless handwaving ambiguous chit chat. I'm only interested in a technical discussion about the measurements.
So far only .99 has done correct measurements, to my surprise, even though he did not complete them, yet. My hats off to .99!
what name calling are you referring to? i suppose you think the tick analogy is name calling... ::)
what argument was i distracting ramset, hoppy or poynt from with those quotes? can you show that? no you can't. ergo there was no ad hominem from me...
furthermore, i can call anyone any name i choose and as long as i am not rejecting their argument it IS NOT an ad hominem. i gave you the definiton TWICE and yet you still cannot comprehend it. no surprise i guess, since you have demonstrated you don't know the difference between a question, a statement and a claim... ::)
look pauly come lately, here is a simple way for you understand it.
fill in the person A's name, fill in the claim person A made where the X is. fill in the person B. show where person B asserts that claim X is false.
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.
THAT is what an ad hominem is, ERGO i commited no ad hominem. you should however look to your own posts.
i did answer your question several times now... so three pages of asinine evasions from you is your interest in discussing the measurements? LOL
which measurements by poynt were the correct ones? can you clarify?
you keep using that word ambiguous incorrectly, i have not been ambiguous at all, point in fact i have addressed most, if not all of your posts point by point.
My how this thread has digressed :(
Rose, thanks for the nice drawing ;)
Brought a smile to my face :)
Not sure I look that good in a dress and high-heels though :o
.99
Quote from: PaulLowrance on November 05, 2009, 04:44:46 PM
So far only .99 has done correct measurements, to my surprise, even though he did not complete them, yet. My hats off to .99!
I may take some time in the next few days to complete the MOSFET dissipation test with a control, for what it may be worth.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on November 05, 2009, 05:18:54 PM
I may take some time in the next few days to complete the MOSFET dissipation test with a control, for what it may be worth.
.99
The results will be interesting. It's hard to believe that the scope calculations will be off by that much, but my prediction is that the mosfet temperature measurements will be less than 10 watts. If it's over say 13 watts, then I'll be interested in replicating it.
BTW, my advice is to place the thermistor as far away from the mosfet as possible, somewhere near the top of the heat sink.
Paul
Correct me if I'm wrong, but after looking it up again, the mosfet produced 44.27 watts according to your scope calculations. If the temperature measurements show ~ 9 watts, then that's a massive error.
Paul
Rosie you truly are an artist :-*
Argument Clinic anyone interested ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
cat
LOL three pages ago i wasn't worth his time... several posts back he was 'done with me'...
now it's PM's...
Quote from: PaulLowrance on November 05, 2009, 05:48:09 PM
Dude, I done with arguing with ding dongs. I used to carry on lengthy conversations with people to the point of where they either left or finally admitted their errors.
You are so delusional that you can't even see your errors. I showed your quotes of name calling where you made ambiguous statements, nothing more. Do you even know what ambiguous means? You know what a point of view is. You can't prove such childish statements. You provide no technical discussion in those posts. You called .99 & others names, and your entire post was pointless, ambiguous.
I have no interest in talking to you. IMO you are so screwed up mentally.
Bye.
don't dude me dude. yeah i do that too, ask tk. doing it now as a matter of fact.
you didn't show me call anyone names, and they weren't statements, they were questions... all you showed was me making an analogy to ticks, which is valid, because they jump out of the woodwork feeding with pejorative responses anytime someone posts. similar to what you did. ambiguous: vague, indistinct or having two meanings. you can't prove ad hominem. yes, i do know what a point of view is, an opinion of sorts. i do provide technical discussion, if you read the thread you would have seen that demonstrated (requesting tk to adhere to decent scientific method, etc.) as well as the fact that i know how to spell ad hom as demonstrated here.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg189007#msg189007 ::)
i didn't call 99 & others names. do you understand what an analogy is? the point of my first post to you was to defend poynt99's hard work.
fine, don't reply. assume what you wish, it appears to be your modus operandi.
@rose
brilliant!
@poynt
i think your work has meaning regardless of whether or not you are a senior EE.
Quote from: powercat on November 05, 2009, 06:04:57 PM
Rosie you truly are an artist :-*
Argument Clinic anyone interested ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
cat
LOL i love that skit.
i'm thinking it's starting to look like i'm up against another tk... had pauly come lately actually read the thread he would know i've chosen not to answer (not because i can't but because it's funnier to let it play out) before but instead let someone talk themselves into a hole. a strategy that has served me well.
here it is in short form, that would be me in black.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUee1WvtQZU
Poynt - Cat and WILBY - glad you liked the scribbles. Anyone want a carricature - then post me a picture!!! Wilby? Would love to know what face to put here. LOL
and Cat - I watched that video with Harvey. Great fun.
and Wilby the link was good second time around as well
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on November 05, 2009, 06:16:46 PM
LOL three pages ago i wasn't worth his time... several posts back he was 'done with me'...
now it's PM's...
don't dude me dude. yeah i do that too, ask tk. doing it now as a matter of fact.
you didn't show me call anyone names, and they weren't statements, they were questions... all you showed was me making an analogy to ticks, which is valid, because they jump out of the woodwork feeding with pejorative responses anytime someone posts. similar to what you did. ambiguous: vague, indistinct or having two meanings. you can't prove ad hominem. yes, i do know what a point of view is, an opinion of sorts. i do provide technical discussion, if you read the thread you would have seen that demonstrated (requesting tk to adhere to decent scientific method, etc.) as well as the fact that i know how to spell ad hom as demonstrated here.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg189007#msg189007 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg189007#msg189007) ::)
i didn't call 99 & others names. do you understand what an analogy is? the point of my first post to you was to defend poynt99's hard work.
fine, don't reply. assume what you wish, it appears to be your modus operandi.
@rose
brilliant!
@poynt
i think your work has meaning regardless of whether or not you are a senior EE.
Oh, you again with your pointless, ambiguous, emotional, illogical arguments. Dude, you define FUBAR,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fubar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fubar)
Quote from: PaulLowrance on November 05, 2009, 06:28:53 PM
Oh, you again with your pointless, ambiguous, emotional, illogical arguments. Dude, you define FUBAR,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fubar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fubar)
dude, don't dude me.
why are you making up definitions for words? i respond to your posts point by point, pointing out your logical fallacies and errors and that's the best rebuttal you can come up with? come on pauly, try a little harder.
i thought i wasn't worth your time? i thought you said 'i don't want to spend more time on you'? have you no integrity?
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on November 05, 2009, 06:32:57 PMi respond to your posts point by point, pointing out your logical fallacies and errors
LOL, in your dreams. I keep offering other interpretations that you miss. Are you drunk?
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on November 05, 2009, 06:32:57 PMand that's the best rebuttal you can come up with? come on pauly, try a little harder.
i thought i wasn't worth your time? i thought you said 'i don't want to spend more time on you'? have you no integrity?
That goes to show how delusional you are. You confuse, "I don't want to" with "I am not going to"
BTW, I've answered your questions, which btw were childish non-technical questions for the sake of arguing. You have not answered my single technical question, LOL. You're a mess guy. Get some help.
So listen blockhead, if you want to continue to argue about nothing, then start another thread. I might reply from time to time. I don't mind a heated debate on technical topics, but you argue about the dumbest things. You must be drunk.
Paul
Rosie this is the avatar picture I have been using since I became Powercat
Quote from: PaulLowrance on November 05, 2009, 06:41:30 PM
LOL, in your dreams. I keep offering other interpretations that you miss. Are you drunk?
That goes to show how delusional you are. You confuse, "I don't want to" with "I am not going to"
BTW, I've answered your questions, which btw were childish non-technical questions for the sake of arguing. You have not answered my single technical question, LOL. You're a mess guy. Get some help.
So listen block head, if you want to continue to argue about nothing, then start another thread. I might reply from time to time.
Paul
i think it has been demonstrated pauly, anyone is free to look at the posts and come to what conclusion they may. i don't drink, had you read the thread you would know that.
no i don't, but assume what you wish.
you haven't answered to your claim of ad hom by me. it is simple. i showed you the formula and even told you where to put the names, the claim and the assertion, but you can't fill it in because...
who's calling names now? and where is your integrity?
.99,
Did you do the temperature control for the 2.5KHz experiment,
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg205850#msg205850
Paul
Quote from: PaulLowrance on November 05, 2009, 06:53:20 PM
.99,
Did you do the temperature control for the 2.5KHz experiment,
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg205850#msg205850
Paul
I would be more interested in knowing if the shunt resistor used was inductive as this would affect the data values at the core of its interest.
8)
Quote from: Harvey on November 05, 2009, 07:09:32 PM
I would be more interested in knowing if the shunt resistor used was inductive as this would affect the data values at the core of its interest.
8)
That's true, which is one of many reasons to not mess with trying to calculate the power produced from the pulses, but there's no concern with inductance with the temperature measurements. Right?
Paul
Quote from: powercat on November 05, 2009, 06:48:20 PM
Rosie this is the avatar picture I have been using since I became Powercat
Cat - pretty little kitty there - but was hoping for a real life number? LOL
Quote from: PaulLowrance on November 05, 2009, 07:14:22 PM
That's true, which is one of many reasons to not mess with trying to calculate the power produced from the pulses, but there's no concern with inductance with the temperature measurements. Right?
Paul
The sole purpose of the 'shunt' (current sensing resistor) is to determine the current supplied by the battery to the circuit. If this is inductive, as Poynt has clearly stated, it will skew the calculated current significantly during certain periods of the operation. Therefore, even though we have extremely accurate data of a voltage nature, any calculations used off of that data must be in reference to a solid and known resistance at that exact instance in time. What Poynt has called into question, is whether an inductance as low as 1µh can shift the negative 'shunt' readings by 180° into the future. Since his tests clearly show the same time shift, I am curious as to what his shunt values are inductively for comparison purposes.
8)
Since the first hurdle here has been to provide a replication that actually produces similar results to the original test done by Ainslie and Buckley which was then submitted to Quantum has now been achieved by Glen L., the next hurdle is to provide a falsification test. This is of course a separate aspect from the tests done by Ainslie and Martin that were submitted to IET and IEEE. Additionally, the plethora of tests that were done by Ainslie and Buckley for submission to specific Academics who shall remain in confidence, did in fact include specific water related temperature tests all of which are not being attempted under the current replication.
Therefore, this specific replication is intended to show the source current (and therefore the source power) provided to the circuit in comparison to the work done by the circuit. We are open for suggestions and encourage other replicators to provide a falsification test to this end. This may be a good thing for Poynt to focus on as he already has much of the materials at hand.
An example of a falsification test, would be to run the system for an extended period on a supply incapable of producing that quantity of work for the period observed.
8)
Quote from: PaulLowrance on November 05, 2009, 06:53:20 PM
.99,
Did you do the temperature control for the 2.5KHz experiment,
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg205850#msg205850
Paul
Paul,
The CONTROL POS is 1.3W for the same TRAA. DUT POS is 2.0W.
My new Kelvin-style LCR meter has arrived, and I shall be picking it up tomorrow. I'll now be able to get precise inductance and resistance measurements. As I mentioned a couple of times, my 0.25 Ohm shunt measured to 1uH with my "cheap" inductance meter, but the lowest range is only 2mH. Will be interesting to see what the new meter measures.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on November 05, 2009, 09:29:40 PM
Paul,
The CONTROL POS is 1.3W for the same TRAA. DUT POS is 2.0W.
My new Kelvin-style LCR meter has arrived, and I shall be picking it up tomorrow. I'll now be able to get precise inductance and resistance measurements. As I mentioned a couple of times, my 0.25 Ohm shunt measured to 1uH with my "cheap" inductance meter, but the lowest range is only 2mH. Will be interesting to see what the new meter measures.
.99
Poynty - I thought you were on holiday???????
I'm on vacation away from my job, but on no holiday, that's for sure (house fixin') :P
;)
.99
.99,
Quote from: poynt99 on November 05, 2009, 09:29:40 PM
Paul,
The CONTROL POS is 1.3W for the same TRAA. DUT POS is 2.0W.
So you're saying only the load produced 1.3 watts worth of heat, but the scope load calculations came to 2.0 watts, right? That's one thing that seems unclear in your previous data. Example, for the 375KHz experiments you wrote "CONTROL POS for equal TRAA of 67ºC = 13.5W". When you write "POS", are you referring to the power supply used in the control temperature measurements, not the POS in the Ainslie circuit, right? Wouldn't it be clearer to write "CONTROL PIL TRAA of 67ºC = 13.5W"?
Quote from: poynt99 on November 05, 2009, 09:29:40 PMMy new Kelvin-style LCR meter has arrived, and I shall be picking it up tomorrow. I'll now be able to get precise inductance and resistance measurements. As I mentioned a couple of times, my 0.25 Ohm shunt measured to 1uH with my "cheap" inductance meter, but the lowest range is only 2mH. Will be interesting to see what the new meter measures.
That could help increase the accuracy of the pulse measurements, but that should have no influence on the POS (power from the batteries), or the load temperature measurements.
Paul
Yesterday I made the following post, but removed it because of the uncertainty of what you meant by "CONTROL POS for equal TRAA of 67ºC = 13.5W" If that means the "load" in Ainslie circuit produced 13.5 watts worth of heat, then -->
"According to the scope calculations, the load produced 64.09 watts, but the temperature measurements showed 13.5 watts. That's 4.75 times off. If we take that same error for the mosfet, we get 44.27 watts / 4.75 = 9.32 watts. That is in close agreement with the predicted value of ~ 9.2 watts."
Paul
So you guys are still talking about trying to improve the accuracy of the scope pulse calculations? I did not study any of that data, but off the top of my head, one big issue people often have is if you, .99, used a DMM to measure the DC current across the battery shunt. The issue would be that a lot of DMM's have issues with measuring DC when there is an appreciable amount of AC. The large capacitors have a good amount of resistance, and therefore might not be a sufficient short for the AC. To see the correct DC on your setup, I would use the scope. You can tell the DC on the scope by switching from AC to DC mode, and the DC is equal to the amount that any part of the AC signal drops.
Paul
Quote from: PaulLowrance on November 06, 2009, 09:18:34 AM
.99,
So you're saying only the load produced 1.3 watts worth of heat, but the scope load calculations came to 2.0 watts, right? That's one thing that seems unclear in your previous data. Example, for the 375KHz experiments you wrote "CONTROL POS for equal TRAA of 67ºC = 13.5W". When you write "POS", are you referring to the power supply used in the control temperature measurements, not the POS in the Ainslie circuit, right? Wouldn't it be clearer to write "CONTROL PIL TRAA of 67ºC = 13.5W"?
Paul
In the 2.5kHz tests, the POSD (power output from supply DUT) was measured using 3 different methods: oscilloscope, VDC on filtered shunt, and VDC on 0.25 Ohm shunt. All 3 measurements were
2.0W.
The POSC (power output from supply CONTROL) was measured as
1.3W.
The POSD of 2.0W and POSC of 1.3W produced the same TRAA in the load resistor of 7 or 8ºC.
Therefore, we can conclude that a minimum of
0.7W of power is being dissipated in the MOSFET and 0.25 Ohm shunt.
Similarly for the 375kHz test:
POSD is
22.7WPOSC is
13.5W (for the same TRAA of 67ºC in the load resistor)
Therefore, we can conclude that a minimum of
9.2W is being dissipated in the MOSFET and shunt resistor.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on November 06, 2009, 11:02:14 AM
In the 2.5kHz tests, the POSD (power output from supply DUT) was measured using 3 different methods: oscilloscope, VDC on filtered shunt, and VDC on 0.25 Ohm shunt. All 3 measurements were 2.0W.
The POSC (power output from supply CONTROL) was measured as 1.3W.
The POSD of 2.0W and POSC of 1.3W produced the same TRAA in the load resistor of 7 or 8ºC.
Therefore, we can conclude that a minimum of 0.7W of power is being dissipated in the MOSFET and 0.25 Ohm shunt.
Similarly for the 375kHz test:
POSD is 22.7W
POSC is 13.5W (for the same TRAA of 67ºC in the load resistor)
Therefore, we can conclude that a minimum of 9.2W is being dissipated in the MOSFET and shunt resistor.
Okay, let me try to clarify that,
* Above you do not mention any scope power measurements for the load in the Ainslie circuit.
* The 2 watts is the total power produced by the power source (batteries?).
* You conclude (or assume) that the mosfet & shunt produces 2 watts - 1.3 watts = 0.7 watts.
BTW, if you and the others are not concerned about the scope power measurements from the pulses, then what's the concern about the shunts inductance? If you're using the scope to calculate the DC current across the shunt, then the shunt inductance is not going to cause any measurement errors.
Paul
Hey Paul,
I am not really contributing to the thread anymore but let me give you a bit of background information. .99 really knows his stuff. I mean he really *really* knows his stuff. His background knowledge and his measurement and analytical skills are truly great.
He already proved that the setup is not OU with his analog measurement system using his big filtering capacitor setup and the thermal profiling. However, a lot of the participants in the thread refuse to acknowledge these results and want to see it proven without the filtering capacitor setup and using the DSO. So there is a fun challenge to get bulletproof data using the DSO but it is tricky because when you look at a minuscule 100 nanosecond pulse and other timings the tiny parasitic capacitances and inductances come into play and become significant.
There was a Spice simulation that Poynt posted quite a few pages back that was really significant but I never commented on. It shows the impedance of the load resistor. In the simulation you see the impedance switch from positive to negative around the peak of the drain voltage pulse. (Something like that, I am a bit foggy and am not going to dig it up.) That is showing you the inductance switch over from being charged to discharging into the drain-source capacitance of the MOSFET. So it is something that is tricky to measure, a few nanoseconds of skew in your measurements can affect the power calculations.
The bottom line is that there hasn't been the slightest whiff of over unity shown at all, which means the universe is unfolding as it should. Others seem convinced that some overunity has been demonstrated.
Glen has another go round with a DSO, so we will see what happens. On the EF, someone, I think it was Ash, posted that the group of "engineers" was poised to do bigger and greater things with this circuit, but the members of this elite group all only have basic to fair electronics and measurement skills. The people that an outside observer might claim are the most knowledgeable in this field were not mentioned. It's a classic example of people having opposite polarized views and operating in a group with their own frame of reference. Some people might argue that that frame of reference is skewed and there is a "Moonie factor" at play. Naturally, from within their frame of reference, it is the "unmentionables" that have the skewed frame of reference.
So some people think that the DC measurements for the power supplied to the circuit using the low pass filter capacitor setup are "skewed" because in their frame of reference it "has to be done with a straight battery connection" or they may begrudgingly concede that it can be done with a straight bench power supply connection. Using a capacitor low pass filter to measure the DC current consumption "takes away" the over unity effect although they can't explain why that is, they just "feel" it and that's all there is to it.
It's like the Cold War - when I was a kid in Seventies I picked up an English shortwave radio broadcast from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. You could feel the "skew" in every single world news item they read over the air.
MileHigh
It has not yet been possible to calculate the POSTL(D) (power output from supply total to load DUT) because the PIM and PIS numbers are erroneous due to the skewed oscilloscope measurements, i.e. negative, and unusually high numbers.
.99
Hi MileHigh,
Thanks for the outline. If they're concerned about the large caps taking away the effect, then maybe .99 can use the method that I suggested from the start, a simple op-amp that has a filter stage-- very simple, quick, and easy to build, maybe 5 minutes top. The op-amp has ultra high impedance and will not intefer with the battery or Ainslie circuit.
What do you think?
Paul
.99,
I appreciate the replies, but ... I don't know, there's some communication problems here. ;)
All I want to know is very simple,
1. We have the Ainslie circuit. You placed a shunt resistor just after the battery. With the scope, measure the DC current through the shunt resistor. That along with the DC voltage provides the total power produced by the battery (less shunt), which I'll call POS.
2. You have a thermistor on the load (you know,the wire wrapped inductive resistive thing). Measure the temperature above ambient.
3. Remove the load from the Ainslie circuit. Place the output of a variable power supply across the load. Increase the power supply until the load temperature is the same as the in step 2 above. We'll call this PIL.
4. Repeat step 3, above, except replace the load with the mosfet. We'll call this PIM.
5. Repeat step 4, above, except replace the mosfet with the shunt. We'll call this PIS.
That's all that should be required to verify if it's "over unity." Is that what you're doing?
Paul
Quote from: PaulLowrance on November 06, 2009, 11:22:08 AM
Okay, let me try to clarify that,
* Above you do not mention any scope power measurements for the load in the Ainslie circuit.
That is correct. I do not trust the scope measurements, even though the scope POS measurement agreed with the two meter measurement methods.
Quote
* The 2 watts is the total power produced by the power source (batteries?).
I prefer to call it power sourced or supplied by the "battery" or lab supply, but yes.
Quote
* You conclude (or assume) that the mosfet & shunt produces 2 watts - 1.3 watts = 0.7 watts.
I prefer to call it "dissipates" 0.7W, but yes. If the circuit is running OU, then it may be more than 0.7W. Until we can get a reliable PIM and PIS measurement, we don't know for certain. If the circuit is running UU, then yes this would be a sensible conclusion.
Quote
BTW, if you and the others are not concerned about the scope power measurements from the pulses, then what's the concern about the shunts inductance? If you're using the scope to calculate the DC current across the shunt, then the shunt inductance is not going to cause any measurement errors.
I am greatly concerned about the integrity of the scope measurements. I thought my position on this was quite clear? The shunt inductance is a great concern, and may not be the only one, but it is a major one for sure. Now, give me half an hour, and I'll go measure the 0.25 Ohm shunt resistor inductance with my new meter.
.99
Hi Paul,
I have read a few of your references to op-amp circuits but I am not really sure exactly what you mean with respect to the low pass filter and all that. The old cliche is a picture is worth a thousand words. If you put up a simple sketch with a description then I am sure that .99 would have some comments and perhaps others including myself.
MileHigh
Quote from: PaulLowrance on November 06, 2009, 11:31:05 AM
Hi MileHigh,
Thanks for the outline. If they're concerned about the large caps taking away the effect, then maybe .99 can use the method that I suggested from the start, a simple op-amp that has a filter stage-- very simple, quick, and easy to build, maybe 5 minutes top. The op-amp has ultra high impedance and will not intefer with the battery or Ainslie circuit.
What do you think?
BTW, I'll add to my above post that if they do not even like placing an ultra high impedance op-amp, then we can place a thermistor on this battery shunt to measure the temperature, and calculate the current from a control experiment. Although the battery shunt temperature might not go to high above ambient, so .99 might need a sensitive circuit to measure the temperature. Years ago I made a circuit that used two 402 SMD thermistors to measure temperature changes as low as 1/100000 of a Celsius. That should be good enough. ;)
Paul
Quote from: MileHigh on November 06, 2009, 11:45:40 AM
Hi Paul,
I have read a few of your references to op-amp circuits but I am not really sure exactly what you mean with respect to the low pass filter and all that. The old cliche is a picture is worth a thousand words. If you put up a simple sketch with a description then I am sure that .99 would have some comments and perhaps others including myself.
MileHigh
There are a lot of ways of doing it. Here I just did a quick google image search & grabbed a few images,
First stage, ultra high input impedance,
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Electronic/opampvar.html#c3 (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Electronic/opampvar.html#c3)
Second stage, low pass filter,
http://freecircuitdiagram.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/1st_order_active_lpf.gif (http://freecircuitdiagram.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/1st_order_active_lpf.gif)
And of course you can add a 3rd stage filter. Or you can get wild & crazy with more advance filters. No big deal here. Just enough filtering to get a good shot at this on the scope to determine the DC voltage across the battery shunt to calculate the DC current. Personally, I seriously doubt that we need any filters, as the scope could probably do it without the filters. Scopes with probes are typically 10Mohms, with 10 or so pF. If the gang thinks that's taking away the "free energy" effect, then use the ultra high impedance op-amp. I have one that has 2e+15 ohms with not that much capacitance.
Paul
Also, if the gang thinks the inductance from the battery shunts resistor interferes with the effect, then why not take about 4 cheap carbon 1ohm resistors, at least 1/4 watt, and parallel them. Obviously you don't want the resistor getting hot, otherwise the resistance changes too much. Heck, take a dozen. Whatever.
Paul
MileHigh - I had an idea you'd be contributing again. More's the pity as I can see it's going to keep me busy.
Your background information to our Pauly is a little misleading. Poynt does indeed know his stuff. Unfortunately he keeps his data under wraps. We're all waiting to get an unedited version of this. Had this ever come to hand we would be in the happy position of being able to establish his point. As it is we only ever know his conclusions - based on rough approximations of the tested circuit. The fact that data is continually being removed, hidden or modified - tends to errode his credibility or his dependability as an experimentalist. I'd settle for his analytical contribution as an alternative - if this were also UNBIASED. Thus far we see partiality leaking out everywhere with more persistence that our own overunity claims.
The filtering capacity setup will probably obviate the benefit of the 'returning energy' that you, Poynt et al - denied was extant. Where, by the way, is your retraction? I must hand it to Wilby. He's the only one who still calls you guys to question on those early sharp and strident claims that the voltage returned to the battery was 'neglible' or 'non-existent'. Both terms or variations thereof were voiced with an assurance that, in retrospect, must surely echo in your ears with a certain amount of embarrassment? And you of all people MileHigh? I thought you were more or less ready to admit the occasional error?
The spice simulation does indeed highlight some questions. But these relate to the waveform over the shunt at the source. The questions were in hand - long before Poynty pointed at them. And Fuzzy will return with answers here - hopefully in the near future.
There indeed has not been the 'slightest whiff of over unity shown'. It comes in great dollops. And our universe is definitely unfolding as it should - dark energy - dark matter AND ALL.
I might point out that I've now been made a moderator? Certainly looks that way. Take heed MH. If it gives me more power I intend to abuse it. LOL.
btw, MileHigh...
I appreciate the vote of confidence. Thanks.
.99
Hi all,
I just wanted to thank all the participants in this thread and inform everyone that I have obtained the TDS 3054C from the Tektronix Corporation again until the end of the month. I will possibly be cleaning up some of the problem areas indicated by some members here at Over Unity and Energetic Forum changing the 0.25 ohm 'shunt' to a non inductive "film" resistor from "Caddock" a #MP821-0.25-1% or #MP930-0.25-1% http://www.caddock.com/ for comparison tests.
If there are any other items please indicate them ASAP so that it can be addressed and possibly placed in the now busy DSO testing schedule to get this all done in a timely manner.
Fuzzy
;D
Quote from: PaulLowrance on November 06, 2009, 11:55:17 AM
And of course you can add a 3rd stage filter. Or you can get wild & crazy with more advance filters. No big deal here. Just enough filtering to get a good shot at this on the scope to determine the DC voltage across the battery shunt to calculate the DC current. Personally, I seriously doubt that we need any filters, as the scope could probably do it without the filters. Scopes with probes are typically 10Mohms, with 10 or so pF. If the gang thinks that's taking away the "free energy" effect, then use the ultra high impedance op-amp. I have one that has 2e+15 ohms with not that much capacitance.
Paul
The filtered shunt does a good job as is shown in the test plan. The only thing I added and would recommend, is some good quality film capacitors across the big electrolytics, from 0.22u to 2.2u or so.
You can measure the voltage across each capacitor as I show in the test plan, or measure the voltage across the shunt directly, either works well, as I have verified this with my own measurements.
.99
Quote from: PaulLowrance on November 06, 2009, 11:31:05 AM
Hi MileHigh,
Thanks for the outline. If they're concerned about the large caps taking away the effect, then maybe .99 can use the method that I suggested from the start, a simple op-amp that has a filter stage-- very simple, quick, and easy to build, maybe 5 minutes top. The op-amp has ultra high impedance and will not intefer with the battery or Ainslie circuit.
What do you think?
Paul
I see what you are getting at Paul. Yes this would work with some active filtering etc. There is no reason however that this could not be done on the low-side 0.25 Ohm shunt--it shouldn't matter, and it is already there. In fact it would be easier here as the common mode voltage is very low.
But, both have a common problem, and that is the shunt inductance. The filtered high-side shunt effectively eliminates this problem, and is one reason it was chosen.
.99
Paul:
Interestingly enough, .99 pointed out to us how even a cheap multimeter can make very accurate DC voltage measurements of a (DC + AC) voltage signal because of the dual-slope integration measurement technique employed. Very briefly, the voltage signal is integrated by using a capacitor as part of the A/D circuit, which in essence is a low-pass filter. You can also be very accurate with the DSO if you are doing enough samples per cycle, which is the case with the Tektronix DSO's being used. So I doubt that an op-amp filter will get you any better measurements than a decent multimeter or the DSO.
Rosemary:
I think that Poynt is holding back on uploading data because he finds it suspect. If I recall correctly he did upload some runs of DSO data for his last round of measurements where at least the battery output power (POS) was in accord with the analog measurements. He is not being evasive, he is just avoiding "garbage in - garbage out." The only partiality I see in Poynt is his desire to generate valid data that he can stand by.
In contrast, look at all of the excitement over measuring 100 watts of power "across" the load resistor when the thermal data does not bear that out. Those data runs done by Glen and possibly Aaron are invalid and should have been retracted as soon at is was apparent that the thermal profiling was not in accord with the DSO data.
As far as the "returning energy" goes, the moment that was shown in one of Aaron's early "oscillation" videos then it was acknowledged. I think that we have a pretty decent handle on explaining it but it may not be perfect at this point. To be more precise, it's the energy being returned to the supply source per pulse and not the voltage that is significant. The pulse is 100 billionths of a second wide, and there is very little power being returned to the supply source. I'll just repeat two points that I have made several times before: If the supply source is a battery, my gut feel is that more than 99% of the energy in each return spike becomes heat, and does not charge the battery. And who really cares about the return spike? It's all about the thermal power dissipated in the load resistor compared to the net power outputted by the supply source.
Also, there is no logical reason for different supply sources making any significant differences in the thermal power dissipated in the load resistor whether it be a battery, a bench power supply, or either of the two passing through the low pass capacitor and sensing resistor setup to make a DC current measurement. I am really just going in circles here and that's why I have quit the thread. Perhaps I will comment after all of the new data is digested at the end of November.
You are very welcome Poynt! Really big sheww! lol
MileHigh
P.S.: For everybody: If all else fails there is no reason why you can't thermally profile the MOSFET and the shunt resistor. That will definitively prove that there is no excess energy anywhere. There are just a few minor setup issues for doing a proper thermal profile for the MOSFET and if somebody is not sure how to do it then just post some questions.
The mystery of the missing heat pies. lol
I'm going to state the bottom line here as things seem to be shaping up now that I've taken a few measurements with my new LCR meter.
Calculating current from a voltage probe measurement across a shunt is futile. The 4" probe ground lead itself has 0.15uH of inductance, and combined with the 0.12uH inductance of the shunt resistor, this is more than enough to skew the real current measurement in the circuit as I have shown in the simulations.
The only reliable method I can see at this moment to obtaining a valid current measurement, is by using a current probe.
I might add that my "cheap" inductance meter isn't worth much at all for low inductance measurements. The load resistor I've been using all along was measured to be about 29uH, whereas now with the new Kelvin meter, the inductance is actually 10.9uH.
Glen, send me one of your old and new shunt resistors, and I'll measure them for you if you wish, however, it's a futile proposition it would seem to expect valid results, even with a shunt of 0.001uH, because the wiring and probe ground lead itself carries enough inductance to throw off the measurements a significant amount.
My suggestion in order to get to the bottom of the power accounting (without spending $k), is to do essentially what Paul has suggested, and that is to measure the temperature of not only the load resistor, but the MOSFET and shunt resistor as well. Then treat all three as an unknown and compare them to a CONTROL just as has been done for the load resistor itself.
Then it is a simple matter of doing the power accounting to ascertain how much power each component is dissipating. That leaves only the challenge of obtaining an accurate POS measurement, and a solid methodology for that has been clearly outlined in the test plan using the DC voltage meters and the filtered shunt.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on November 06, 2009, 03:13:12 PM
The filtered shunt does a good job as is shown in the test plan. The only thing I added and would recommend, is some good quality film capacitors across the big electrolytics, from 0.22u to 2.2u or so.
You can measure the voltage across each capacitor as I show in the test plan, or measure the voltage across the shunt directly, either works well, as I have verified this with my own measurements.
They're complaining that the 10000 uF caps might be shorting out current spikes, and they have good reason to believe so. A good testing method minimizes the influence on the DUT, and those caps fail at that. No offense, but placing 2 10000 uF caps is just not that professional. :( That's why from the start I recommended using an op-amp with low pass filter.
My 2 cents. Sorry if I'm getting a bit frustrated because this is a one day test job at most. More like 1 hour. :)
Paul
Quote from: poynt99 on November 06, 2009, 03:49:22 PM
But, both have a common problem, and that is the shunt inductance. The filtered high-side shunt effectively eliminates this problem, and is one reason it was chosen.
If your shunt resistor has that much inductance, then I agree with that! Geez my man, grab a carbon resistor and get this over with. If you don't have it, then parallel higher values. :)
Paul
Quote from: poynt99 on November 06, 2009, 04:35:35 PM
I'm going to state the bottom line here as things seem to be shaping up now that I've taken a few measurements with my new LCR meter.
Calculating current from a voltage probe measurement across a shunt is futile. The 4" probe ground lead itself has 0.15uH of inductance, and combined with the 0.12uH inductance of the shunt resistor, this is more than enough to skew the real current measurement in the circuit as I have shown in the simulations.
Why not use a carbon resistor that has no appreciable inductance???
Quote from: poynt99 on November 06, 2009, 04:35:35 PMI might add that my "cheap" inductance meter isn't worth much at all for low inductance measurements. The load resistor I've been using all along was measured to be about 29uH, whereas now with the new Kelvin meter, the inductance is actually 10.9uH.
You're not talking about an air inductor are you? Both meters probably apply different levels of pp voltage. Permeability of all materials is non-linear with respect to the applied field. Exp., near saturation the permeability is low. Place a magnet near the inductor and the inductance changes, unless you're talking about an air inductor.
Regards,
Paul
Quote from: PaulLowrance on November 06, 2009, 04:54:38 PM
They're complaining that the 10000 uF caps might be shorting out current spikes, and they have good reason to believe so. A good testing method minimizes the influence on the DUT, and those caps fail at that. No offense, but placing 2 10000 uF caps is just not that professional. :( That's why from the start I recommended using an op-amp with low pass filter.
My 2 cents. Sorry if I'm getting a bit frustrated because this is a one day test job at most. More like 1 hour. :)
Paul
Paul, I disagree.
You can see in the test plan that I am using a lab power supply. As such, adding more filtering to its output is no more detrimental to the DUT than the supply's own internal filter caps which are doing much the same thing. The filtered shunt is essentially just additional output filtering.
Any energy that finds its way back to the supply will do so whether the supply is a battery or a heavily-filtered lab supply, and I have clearly shown this is possible and does occur in the PSpice simulations. In fact one simulation test I ran not too long ago and posted here showed that the pulse from the inductive collapsing field returned about 6% of the supplied energy back to the source (an ideal source with Zo=0), while at the same time contributing 6% of the total energy dissipated in the load resistor.
.99
Quote from: PaulLowrance on November 06, 2009, 05:05:53 PM
Why not use a carbon resistor that has no appreciable inductance???
You're not talking about an air inductor are you? Both meters probably apply different levels of pp voltage. Permeability of all materials is non-linear with respect to the applied field. Exp., near saturation the permeability is low. Place a magnet near the inductor and the inductance changes, unless you're talking about an air inductor.
Regards,
Paul
Paul, the problem is more than just the shunt resistor inductance. There is inductance in the probe ground lead, and it can be quite appreciable, such as 0.15uH for a 4" lead. Double that for an 8" lead, which some folks may be using in their testing.
In my PSpice simulations, as little as 0.3uH of inductance will significantly skew the voltage and hence current measurement, as the reactance becomes quite appreciable (with 50ns rise times) relative to the DC shunt resistance.
Regarding the load resistor, yes it is a ceramic air-core as shown in the test plan and photos previously posted here.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on November 06, 2009, 07:26:17 PM
Paul, I disagree.
You can see in the test plan that I am using a lab power supply. As such, adding more filtering to its output is no more detrimental to the DUT than the supply's own internal filter caps which are doing much the same thing. The filtered shunt is essentially just additional output filtering.
Well there's your problem my friend. You're not using a battery. ;) I recall Bedini saying in one of his circuits that the secret is in the battery.
Quote from: poynt99 on November 06, 2009, 07:26:17 PMAny energy that finds its way back to the supply will do so whether the supply is a battery or a heavily-filtered lab supply, and I have clearly shown this is possible and does occur in the PSpice simulations. In fact one simulation test I ran not too long ago and posted here showed that the pulse from the inductive collapsing field returned about 6% of the supplied energy back to the source (an ideal source with Zo=0), while at the same time contributing 6% of the total energy dissipated in the load resistor.
The problem is that fundamental spice does not simulate true transmission line propagation. It takes a lot of work / tinkering (lot of custom modeling) to get some true transmission line effects in spice. What you see in spice is assumed to be instantaneous transmission, but that is not the real world. In the real world there are propagation delays, line reflectivity due to impedance mismatching, phase, etc. mostly at higher frequencies of course. Conventional science knows of a lot of noticeable effects occurring in normal circuits that contain for example non-air inductors, if you have the proper equipment to measure such effects. For example significant noise produced by Barkhausen effect, which is significant at 400MHz on up into the GHz region. There are programs that model transmission line propagation, such as antenna modeling software; e.g., 4nec2 . I'm not defending the Ainslie circuit, but if we're going to be open minded, then we should at least give Ainslie the benefit of the doubt, and test her circuit. If she says we should use a battery, or do not use those large capacitors, then that's what the tester does, no?
So, if there are high frequency energetic pulses traversing the wires, the 10000 uF caps could easily absorb such energy. You will not find that effect in spice unless you specifically know about the effect and model it, but good luck with that. ;)
Paul
Quote from: poynt99 on November 06, 2009, 07:39:47 PM
Paul, the problem is more than just the shunt resistor inductance. There is inductance in the probe ground lead, and it can be quite appreciable, such as 0.15uH for a 4" lead. Double that for an 8" lead, which some folks may be using in their testing.
In my PSpice simulations, as little as 0.3uH of inductance will significantly skew the voltage and hence current measurement, as the reactance becomes quite appreciable (with 50ns rise times) relative to the DC shunt resistance.
Regarding the load resistor, yes it is a ceramic air-core as shown in the test plan and photos previously posted here.
.99,
That's true for the inductance of a single wire where the ground wire is separated, but that's not true when the two wires are next to each other. You're testing a small shunt resistor, right? So the ground wire should hug against the probe as much as possible.
Anyhow, I thought we got past this inductance issue. My advice is to forget about that type of measurement, and just do the temperature measurements on the mosfet. If you think the shunt or whatever else consumes much power, then go ahead and test them as well.
Furthermore, you can do the same temperature measurements on the battery shunt as well. Just get a low power resistor, maybe 1/4 or 1/8 watt, 0.25 ohms, that will heat up enough, and measure the temperature. Then do the control experiment to see how much current was flowing through the battery shunt. That way you don't need to place any probes or anything on the Ainslie electrical circuit. The gang is happy. We're happy. Everyone's happy! ;D
Paul
Paul,
SPICE does lossy and ideal transmission lines, and it does them well.
What do transmission lines have to do with modeling energy going back to the source anyway?
I've proven in SPICE that energy goes back to the source, and I've not used any TL's! That's a done deal. Why are you arguing that fact? Energy can go back into an ideal (or non-ideal) DC source, AND it can go back into an ideal (or non-ideal) capacitor. If it can do this in SPICE, it surely can and will do it in real life.
The writeup in Rose's article states that grid-powered sources were used as well, and I highly doubt that it makes any difference.
Furthermore, it is pointless to argue about using a battery vs. a lab supply until/unless the measurement technique can be worked out and agreed upon by all as valid. Up to now, no one imo has used a workable technique to acquire solid measurements, and it is looking as though the thermal/CONTROL method may be the best choice. However, the Ainslie team has not commented to weigh in on this issue AFAIK.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on November 06, 2009, 11:48:57 PM
Paul,
SPICE does lossy and ideal transmission lines, and it does them well.
No fundamental spice does not. Spice does not even consider propagation delays or transmission line reflectivity. You have add the models yourself, and it's complex.
Quote from: poynt99 on November 06, 2009, 11:48:57 PMWhat do transmission lines have to do with modeling energy going back to the source anyway?
I already mentioned one example, Barkhausen effect. It produces high frequency noise found in magnetic components.
Quote from: poynt99 on November 06, 2009, 11:48:57 PMI've proven in SPICE that energy goes back to the source, and I've not used any TL's! That's a done deal.
I just proved you wrong. Show your spice model here that includes propagation delays or transmission line reflectivity. I've spent way to much time doing spice models to know that there's no way you've included such complex models in your simulations. Sorry, .99, but in terms on any high frequency effect that Ainslie might have discovered, your spice simulations are worthless.
Quote from: poynt99 on November 06, 2009, 11:48:57 PMWhy are you arguing that fact? Energy can go back into an ideal (or non-ideal) DC source, AND it can go back into an ideal (or non-ideal) capacitor. If it can do this in SPICE, it surely can and will do it in real life.
No argument. What I'm telling you is a fact. If you think otherwise, then show your spice models. Show a spike as it traverses down the line. Show the reflectivity. That's antenna theory that you will not find it spice. Again, such high frequencies exist in all magnetic components. Are you actually arguing against this? It's conventional physics, .99. I have no idea what heated discussions occurred with you and others here, and maybe you convinced them that your spice sims are accurate for anything that Ainslie may have discovered, but I know better.
Paul
.99,
BTW, here's a quick intro in doing transmission lines in pspice that I recommend,
http://w2.cadence.com/appnotes/TransmissionLineApplicationsInPSpice.pdf (http://w2.cadence.com/appnotes/TransmissionLineApplicationsInPSpice.pdf)
As stated, spice can do it, but it's complex. Enjoy! ;D
Whatever you do, don't think that pspice can easily simulate real world transmission lines because it's not that simple. Pspice relies on the user knowing about the particular task at hand, and correctly modeling it into pspice.
Paul
Quote from: PaulLowrance on November 07, 2009, 12:15:11 AM
No spice does not. Spice does not even consider propagation delays or transmission line reflectivity.
PSpice does indeed model these effects. I know because I have used them.
Quote
I just proved you wrong. Show your spice model here that includes propagation delays or transmission line reflectivity. I've spent way to much time doing spice models to know that there's no way you've included such complex models in your simulations. Sorry, .99, but in terms on any high frequency effect that Ainslie might have discovered, your spice simulations are worthless.
No, I have not included TL effects in my modeling. I see no need at this point. The modeling of the circuit was not to obtain OU results, as those are not possible in SPICE. It has been used as a tool, and it has been quite useful here I might add.
Quote
No argument. It's a fact. Spice does not include propagation delays or transmission line reflectivity, etc. You have add your own complex models for a specific design if you want it. If you don't believe me, then show us a spice simulation that includes such transmission delays. Why would you even argue against that?
Again, SPICE is being used as a tool for exploring some aspects of the circuit's behaviour. No OU effects were ever expected. The theory of shunt inductance was tested and proven to adversely affect the results by using SPICE. Energy flow back to the source was proven using SPICE.
All this without having to model propagation delays and reflections using TL's. It never was my intention to model the circuit's every nuance. I've already explained the reasons for using it, and it has been a useful resource, for which I believe even Rose would agree with to a certain extent.
Anyhow Paul, you seem to be hell-bent on going off on a tangent away from the real subjects at hand, and I'm really beginning to tire of trying to bring you back into focus and up to speed on the project. I really don't think I owe you the trouble.
Cheers,
.99
Why would you say it's off topic. How odd of you.
We can end this by summing it up:
1. Fact is you used two large 10000 uF capacitors that if you did enter in correct transmission line effects you would see that the caps will absorb an appreciable amount of that energy.
2. I said from the start that you can model transmissions lines in spice, but it is complex. If you've done it, and you think it's simple, then test it because you're wrong, as one needs to cover a lot of ground to properly enter to obtain real life results. You might be in for a surprise.
Paul
I'm not saying it's totally off topic, but it is out of scope for the moment at least.
I mentioned delays and transmission lines many pages ago, and I was the first and only one, and it was before you came along.
I'm not making much sense of your 1st point. The energy DOES go back into the caps already, and without modeling using TL's.
The modeling of TL's is not complex if you use the models provided.
.99
What were we arguing about anyway? This started as only a suggestion to not use the caps because according to conventional physics there are ways for the caps to absorb energy. Why not leave the theory to the person who's pushing it, Ainslie. If she wants batteries and no large caps, or whatever, then that's her theory. That's all I wanted to say, really.
Paul
Hello MileHigh.
You're right. Poynt really wants to generate valid data. We'd all like this. In fact I'd settle for more unedited data and less commentary. Which is not to say that the commentary isn't errudite. It's just not that appropriate.
I know of no-one who's excited about 100 watts of power measured across the load resistor. Harvey has already pointed out that this is the result of inductive reactance and that's a complicated sum. We're waiting on confirmed inductance measurements on Fuzzy's load resistor and, when this is to hand we'd all appreciate your considerable skills at resolving that large discrepancy MH. Are you up for it? Or maybe Poynt can do this? But just to put you straight. Fuzzy's heat profile points to an overunity gain which is puzzling - but repeatable which means that those heat signatures need to be resolved. No need to add to the sum by including MOSFETS and sundry. We're not looking at marginal values over the load resistor.
Regarding energy returned to the battery - that voltage spike of 100 billionth's of a pulse width? It seems to add to the sum of returning energy and this seems to also recharge a flat battery when it's directed there through a flyback diode. And that recharge is quick and effective and unequivocal and in keeping with the measured plus/minus 16 amps measured across the shunt at the source during this brief period of each cycle. Strangely effective. Yet you think we should ignore this? Is this so that we can subtract from our evidence and add to your argument here? And, if the battery indeed gets hot - it also indeed recharges. I'd sooner measure it's increased voltage than go through some complicated means of determining a raise in temperature over such a massive component.
But I get it that the increased voltage may very well endorse the measurement across the source shunt resistor. Which adds to your argument that we need to ignore this. But that argument remains one sided. LOL
Regarding the substitution of a supply source for a battery - I'm inclined to agree with you. But we first need to establish that the supply can be the recipient of that returned energy - directly - to also establish the same test parameters. Since we're trying to hone in on anomalies - we're also following Harvey's good advices to limit the number of variables in each test.
Regarding your post script - this is confusing. We have done the required thermal profile and discovered anomalous heat signatures. If we include the MOSFET we also add to the anomaly. Not sure if this is what you intend.
The 'mystery of the missing heat pies'? I'm more anxious to solve the mystery of that heat profile in the absense of energy expended from the source. But we all have our preferred mysteries.
Quote from: witsend on November 07, 2009, 02:26:56 AM
Fuzzy's heat profile points to an overunity gain which is puzzling - but repeatable which means that those heat signatures need to be resolved. No need to add to the sum by including MOSFETS and sundry. We're not looking at marginal values over the load resistor.
Rose, are you referring to Glen's test #5 and the 1.5W (DUT) and 4.5W (CONTROL) figures used to get COP=3?
.99
Hi Poynty
I'm a bit concerned that your new LCR meter needs calibrating? Or is it defective? I'd complain to the supplier and check whether you've been sent some substandard stock. I'm concerned that your measured inductance over the shunt resistor is out by the same factor as your measurment across the load resistor. If you keep this up we'll have to discount your entire thesis and conclude that no instrument that you own can measure any component with any accuracy whatsoever. Or is this in fact your thesis?
Golly. I would suggest that you ask Tektronix if they've maybe got something you could use here? LOL.
Rose. :-*
Quote from: poynt99 on November 07, 2009, 02:39:58 AM
Rose, are you referring to Glen's test #5 and the 1.5W (DUT) and 4.5W (CONTROL) figures used to get COP=3?
.99
Hi Poynty. Glad to see you're still up. Yes, is the short answer. But there's also test 3 and sundry tests not yet posted.
Maybe you can put a good word in for me with the good folks at Tektronix, and have them send me 3 HV differential probes, and one current probe for a month or so :P
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on November 07, 2009, 02:51:03 AM
Maybe you can put a good word in for me with the good folks at Tektronix, and have them send me 3 HV differential probes, and one current probe for a month or so :P
.99
I wish. I'm fast running out of slack here. We're hoping Fuzzy's input will re-ignite the required exposure. We were under some strain there for a bit. So nice to see you around Poynt. Do you think I did your features justice? I over elaborated your 'feminine side' but that's because Fuzzy posted that earlier picture of you chewing on some live cables. It seems to have dominated my focus and left me feeling confused about things. Hopefully you're not. LOL
:) ::) :-*
Rose,
The caricature is cool, although I'm not certain where the distinct double-chin came from :D
I've offered to measure the inductance of Glen's original and new shunt resistors if he is so inclined, just send them to me. I'm not sure what he has now for measuring inductance, but if it's a meter anything like my cheaper one, it's not very accurate for such low readings.
I wish Glen luck with his new run of tests. I believe however, that without those HV differential probes and a good current probe, it's going to be a steep uphill battle to get good accurate measurements.
May I ask you Rose, why do you object to a purely thermal measurement of not only the load resistor, but the MOSFET and shunt as well?
It completely eliminates the need to make these difficult oscilloscope measurements, and will give true and accurate results.
The load resistor has already been done, and it is unnecessary to run a full thermal profile for each component. Simply measure the MOSFET temperature with a thermistor while it is operating at your optimum settings in the circuit, then remove the MOSFET and power it with a pure DC source to determine the DC power required to obtain the same TRAA.
After doing the MOSFET, it may not even be necessary to do the shunt resistor, depending on the result for the MOSFET. However to be complete, the shunt should be done as well.
And the bonus of this method is that it can all be done without a fancy oscilloscope/ probes, allowing other replicators to try it as well.
It's the simplest and most direct way of determining the power dissipation in each component, which is the goal of course.
So I'd like to know your thoughts as to why this route is not being seriously considered.
.99
If there are high frequencies involved here, then some other considerations is the nearby environment. That is, the type of ground plane, what objects are nearby. In antenna design such parameters makes a huge difference, mostly because of the ground type. The dielectric constant of the ground, it's resistivity, consistency. Those are more advanced transmission line parameters that will make a huge difference in open wires.
Most people ignore the effects of high frequency transmission propagation because they don't see too much of it on their scope, but that's because a lot of such signals reflect from the probe due to the sudden change of impedance.
Paul
Electrical current produces heat. So unless Ainslie is claiming it's not electrical current, then the temperature experiments will be valid, when they're completed. Actually, the temperature measurements would be far more valid than any scope measurements of signal spikes through wire wound components, LOL. Such scope calculations would be the ones that could *easily* be in error.
Paul
Hi everyone,
Here is TEST #8 "Clean Up" and "Mosfet Shunt"
http://www.energeticforum.com/73814-post3108.html
Part 1 - A short test after doing some recommended "Device Under Test" (DUT) circuit modifications ....
1) Prototype "Load Resistor" - remove circuit alligator test clips and connect with crimp-on wire ring terminals
2) Mosfet Source Pin - remove 3" wire extension wire for probe connection, probe now connected to Mosfet "source" pin
3) Battery Probe Connection - relocated to the common probe ground terminal connection point, Probe tip now twelve (12) inches from prototype "Load Resistor"
*************************************************************************
Part 2 - A test using only two oscilloscope probes with one probe tip on Channel-1 between the Mosfet and Shunt and Channel-2 between the Shunt and the Battery Negative (B-) terminal.
Both probe grounds Channel-1 and Channel-2 connected to a separate isolated AC ground point "NOT" to the battery negative (B-) terminal
Fuzzy
:)
Poynty - What double chin? I thought I was just emphasising a prominence? I shall have to look into this.
I would rather suggest that Glen hold on tight to his resistors until you've checked out the calibration of that meter of yours. Thanks anyway - but I'd strongly recommend Fuzzy pass on this kind offer. It's not you I don't trust Poynty Poynt. It's the effectiveness of your instrument. LOL
We also feel the lack of the required differential probes. But we trust the lack is temporary. But it is in no way critical for the collation and analysis of the data. I'm still trying to work out how you knew of this application and its lack. Nothing posted anywhere. Are you telepathic? ::)
Regarding your proposed thermal analysis - there's nothing wrong here. But it's limited to showing the amount of energy dissipated. It says nothing about the amount of energy delivered to compare this value. If we try and establish the energy delivered compared to the watt hour rating of the batteries - we burden our experimental replicators with long hours of tests. But hey - if you or they are up for it - then it's definitely an empirical measurement. And our own earlier tests seem to indicate that the battery watt hour ratings are exceeded by some considerable margin.
But it needs those tests run in conjunction with controls. And the detailed data extrapolations required are likely to stress the patience of any experamentalist to breaking point. And at the end of that experiment? My guess is that 50% of opinion will still claim that battery draw down rates are irrelevant being subject to the vagaries associated with their ratings. Way, way too variable.
;D
Quote from: witsend on November 07, 2009, 04:31:22 PM
Regarding your proposed thermal analysis - there's nothing wrong here. But it's limited to showing the amount of energy dissipated. It says nothing about the amount of energy delivered to compare this value.
Actually it does. That's why he measures the DC current from the battery, and the DC voltage. That's the amount of power the battery is producing.
Paul
Quote from: PaulLowrance on November 07, 2009, 04:34:55 PM
Actually it does. That's why he measures the DC current from the battery, and the DC voltage. That's the amount of power the battery is producing.
Paul
Hi Pauly. This is interesting. Tell me what method you propose to employ to measure that current from the battery?
Quote from: witsend on November 07, 2009, 04:38:41 PM
Hi Pauly. This is interesting. Tell me what method you propose to employ to measure that current from the battery?
You can measure the voltage across a very low resistance resistor (battery shunt) with something such as a low pass filter with ultra high impedance that will not have any measurable influence on your circuit. The only thing connected directly to the battery shunt resistor would be two input pins from the FET op-amp. Extremely easy task. It will measure the DC voltage, and the current is V/R.
Paul
Ok Pauly - we use a low pass filter to average a value and then check that value with oscilloscope probes placed across the shunt at source. That way everyone's scope should be able to read that averaged value? But purists will complain that it's an averaged value precisely because it's 'fudged out' the details of the waveform. But I'm happy with this protocol if it's the only one within the broader reach of our replicators.
So there's your answer Poynty. Go for it - if it's preferred. But it's still a long test. You'll need to see the rate at which the battery discharges against a control - I think?
You could look at it that way, as being "fudged out." What that means is we're getting the DC. Conventional thought is that you can apply AC to a battery till one is blue in the face, and it will not charge the battery. Rather, it is believed that DC current over time is what determines the amount of energy drained from the battery.
I'm open minded enough to consider that some possible spikes may enter a battery, cause an unknown complex effect that may add energy, etc. etc.
If the gang does not like any of these fudging methods, then my suggestion is to get a small battery, make sure the battery has been resting for at least a day, run a battery test, connect the Ainslie circuit, crank up the power, come back in awhile, disconnect the battery, ***let it rest for at least one day***, and then take another battery test when the temperature is the same as when you did the first battery test.
Paul
Hi Rose.
Quote from: witsend on November 07, 2009, 04:31:22 PM
I would rather suggest that Glen hold on tight to his resistors until you've checked out the calibration of that meter of yours. Thanks anyway - but I'd strongly recommend Fuzzy pass on this kind offer. It's not you I don't trust Poynty Poynt. It's the effectiveness of your instrument. LOL
There's nothing wrong with the new LCR meter. What leads you to believe that?
Quote
We also feel the lack of the required differential probes. But we trust the lack is temporary. But it is in no way critical for the collation and analysis of the data.
It's critical for proper data acquisition. Collation and analysis is the easy stuff.
Quote
I'm still trying to work out how you knew of this application and its lack. Nothing posted anywhere. Are you telepathic? ::)
Do you remember who suggested the need to use differential probes?
Quote
Regarding your proposed thermal analysis - there's nothing wrong here. But it's limited to showing the amount of energy dissipated. It says nothing about the amount of energy delivered to compare this value.
;D
The requirement to obtain the amount of sourced power as well was a given I assumed. I also mentioned how to obtain that POS figure, by using the filtered shunt as per my test plan.
.99
Quote from: PaulLowrance on November 07, 2009, 04:54:25 PM
You can measure the voltage across a very low resistance resistor (battery shunt) with something such as a low pass filter with ultra high impedance that will not have any measurable influence on your circuit. The only thing connected directly to the battery shunt resistor would be two input pins from the FET op-amp. Extremely easy task. It will measure the DC voltage, and the current is V/R.
Paul
Please show how easy it is and post a circuit that perhaps Glen (or anyone) can build and use.
.99
Quote from: witsend on November 07, 2009, 05:07:42 PM
Ok Pauly - we use a low pass filter to average a value and then check that value with oscilloscope probes placed across the shunt at source. That way everyone's scope should be able to read that averaged value? But purists will complain that it's an averaged value precisely because it's 'fudged out' the details of the waveform. But I'm happy with this protocol if it's the only one within the broader reach of our replicators.
It seems there are two different measurement techniques and measurements being confused here.
Paul is referring to a battery shunt that feeds a buffer and lowpass filter. This is useful for obtaining the average sourced battery power when combined with a measured battery voltage.
Actually, Paul was not entirely clear as to what he was suggesting to be measured with his circuit, the battery voltage, the voltage across the battery shunt resistor, or both?
Rose, I am not sure what you are referring to. Instantaneous or average shunt voltage?
Quote
So there's your answer Poynty. Go for it - if it's preferred. But it's still a long test. You'll need to see the rate at which the battery discharges against a control - I think?
Battery draw down tests is another category of testing period. One should not be combining this test with the power in vs. heat out tests done as per the article and paper.
Long testing is not required if done according to how I have suggested with the thermal testing, and even as per my test plan.
Note also that the question regarding the proposed thermal testing was to see if you were open to the idea. Now that you are, I would strongly suggest you and your team perform them this way (at least until, or if you can borrow or rent some HV differential and current probes to properly acquire the measurements with the scope). You can build Paul's circuit when he posts it, or you can use the simple filtered shunt as per my test plan in order to get the POS measurement. For Paul's method, it is critical to use a non-inductive shunt (otherwise there is the real possibility for skewed measurements once again). For mine it is not.
.99
Hi Poynty
Either your LCR meter is faulty or the published inductance rating of your resistor is wrong. Personally I don't trust either number. And I consequently and certainly do not trust the number you came up with for your shunt.
Kindly explain what measurements a differential probe will acquire that cannot be acquired by TDS 3054C?
My only requirment for differential probes was to evaluate the waveform across the load resistor. Harvey showed me how to do this from the data dump to hand. No further need for this. So yes. I have never discussed this off forum and I have never discussed it with you and I have never seen a reference to this in your posts. My only reference to this was either in an email - or per Skype. So. Back to my question. Are you telephathic?
Purists will not accept the averaged DC value as proposed by you and Paul. Personally I don't mind that much as I'm not a purist. But I'm entirely satisfied our academics are. And my object is to satisfy their requirements and not yours. With respect.
I suggest that you and Pauly chat amongst yourselves and find out which tests you want to do - and why and how. We know what's required here and it seems that you will never be able to wrap your mind around it. And Poynty - while I'm really a great advocate of individuality - you really should try and lose those acronyms and get back to some classical reference on your measurements. Way too much PIS and POS and TRAA la la's. LOL.
Quote from: witsend on November 07, 2009, 09:36:24 PM
Hi Poynty
Either your LCR meter is faulty or the published inductance rating of your resistor is wrong. Personally I don't trust either number. And I consequently and certainly do not trust the number you came up with for your shunt.
What leads you to believe that my LCR meter is faulty? There is no published inductance value for my shunt resistor that I am aware of. Please post what it is if you know it.
Quote
Kindly explain what measurements a differential probe will acquire that cannot be acquired by TDS 3054C?
There are a few. My assumption (based on your comments) was you knew this.
Quote
My only requirment for differential probes was to evaluate the waveform across the load resistor. Harvey showed me how to do this from the data dump to hand. No further need for this.
I'm not following what you are saying here. Are you referring to a psuedo-differential measurement using two single-ended scope probes? If so, it's not even close to the same thing as a true differential probe.
Quote
So yes. I have never discussed this off forum and I have never discussed it with you and I have never seen a reference to this in your posts. My only reference to this was either in an email - or per Skype. So. Back to my question. Are you telephathic?
I've mentioned differential probes in at least two (probably 3 or 4) of my posts starting many pages back. Subsequent to those, you and I also discussed them briefly in a Skype chat, but again that was long after I posted the suggestion. Harvey is the one that came up with the current probe idea, and although they are limited in bandwidth, I fully concur that this is the only way to properly acquire the instantaneous current measurement.
Quote
Purists will not accept the averaged DC value as proposed by you and Paul. Personally I don't mind that much as I'm not a purist. But I'm entirely satisfied our academics are. And my object is to satisfy their requirements and not yours. With respect.
The average DC voltage across a battery shunt and the average voltage of the supply voltage is 100% valid when used in combination to obtain an average POS (power output from supply) measurement, and although I find it difficult to believe any academic would argue this, I'd gladly discuss it at length with any academic that would.
Quote
I suggest that you and Pauly chat amongst yourselves and find out which tests you want to do - and why and how. We know what's required here and it seems that you will never be able to wrap your mind around it. And Poynty - while I'm really a great advocate of individuality - you really should try and lose those acronyms and get back to some classical reference on your measurements. Way too much PIS and POS and TRAA la la's. LOL.
The suggested test methodology is mainly for your team's benefit, and also for anyone else wanting to get to the truth themselves about this circuit and the claims associated with it. I would suggest that this measurement is pointless for me to do, and my results would most likely not be accepted anyway.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on November 07, 2009, 08:45:00 PM
Please show how easy it is and post a circuit that perhaps Glen (or anyone) can build and use.
I posted the 1st & 2nd stage example circuits in this thread. So far nobody has shown interest in building it, but such circuits is almost electronics 101. As you know the filters can be as elaborate as one wants, but why spend lot of time designing something that's not necessary here, especially if nobody will use it.
Paul
Poynty - apologies. Have just chatted to Fuzzy and he reminded me about your earlier reference to the need for differential probes. You were going to need to build these? Completely overlooked the fact - so clearly no need for that telepathy.
I've yet to find an ammeter that can handle the frequencies required. And I'm not sold on your average values - not that they're wrong. They're just not as accurate.
The proposed methodoloy - as mentioned - has been exhaustively evaluated by academics. I have no desire to point you to them Poynty - because I know how lengthy such debates are and also because I've no desire to give their names out. But check for yourself. Just contact the academics at your own university. They'll discuss it with you I'm sure.
Your proposed measurements protocol and general methodologis are fine - for replicators who can't get hold of the required instruments. But I would caution against assuming it would also be fine for purposes of advancing the argument in any submitted papers.
But thank you for your help here. I'm hoping that there are those who may yet do the replication on this forum. Failing which, it's not really a problem. Your own input will be much appreciated when we get the inductance over the load resistor. Then I shall get down on bended knees here Poyny and ask you to help with an evaluation of the inductive reactance - even if it's to check out Harvey's number. I'm sure he'll appreciate your assistance.
Thanks for everything
Rose :-*
.99,
I'm getting rediculous here, spending too much time posting. It would probably take less time to just build the darn thing. May I ask how much time did it take you build the Ainslie circuit?
Thanks,
Paul
Ainslie,
May I ask if there's any luck or intuitiveness involved in building the wire wound resistive inductive coil or anything else?
Paul
Pauly - I really would rather you don't try a replication. If you want it to work you'll need one of Fuzzy's resistors - or find one with the required diamter. And there are certain tricks with the switching circuit that are required to get the required resistance on the gate of the FET.
Poynty please give advice here - or Fuzzy?
Your answer just saved me a few days. That's probably a smart move on your part, as in a few days I would have shown clear measurements without using the large 10000 uF capacitors, and IMO would have been in agreement with .99 results, which is no over unity.
I'll conclude that the only correct measuring procedure to date, using temperature measurements, from .99, show no over unity. :)
Enjoy this little thing you have going on here.
Paul
Quote from: PaulLowrance on November 07, 2009, 11:07:34 PM
I'm getting rediculous here, spending too much time posting. It would probably take less time to just build the darn thing. May I ask how much time did it take you build the Ainslie circuit?
yes, you are, and it is
ridiculous not rediculous ::) yes, it would have taken less time to just build it.
i like your last post where you describe what you 'would have shown' but never will. it is a convenient 'out' for you though... ;)
Quote from: PaulLowrance on November 07, 2009, 10:35:53 PM
I posted the 1st & 2nd stage example circuits in this thread. So far nobody has shown interest in building it, but such circuits is almost electronics 101. As you know the filters can be as elaborate as one wants, but why spend lot of time designing something that's not necessary here, especially if nobody will use it.
Paul
Post something
complete please, with connection points to the circuit indicated as well. A full schematic would be very helpful for them, as opposed to kluged-together web pages.
.99
Quote from: witsend on November 07, 2009, 11:06:59 PM
I've yet to find an ammeter that can handle the frequencies required. And I'm not sold on your average values - not that they're wrong. They're just not as accurate.
An ammeter may or may not be accurate for this measurement, although my extensive work previous to starting testing of your circuit indicated that it does the job well and perhaps even better than the oscilloscope. However, I understand that most academics would scoff at the idea. They do not understand that the meter does in real time what post-analysis does in terms of averaging the measurements in Excel. So I accept that using a DC meter directly would not fly with the academics, however, the filtered shunt with its built-in heavy averaging takes out any uncertainty that would otherwise trouble those same keen academics.
Quote
The proposed methodoloy - as mentioned - has been exhaustively evaluated by academics. I have no desire to point you to them Poynty - because I know how lengthy such debates are and also because I've no desire to give their names out. But check for yourself. Just contact the academics at your own university. They'll discuss it with you I'm sure.
Your proposed measurements protocol and general methodologis are fine - for replicators who can't get hold of the required instruments. But I would caution against assuming it would also be fine for purposes of advancing the argument in any submitted papers.
I am referring to the thermal method of determining component power dissipations. Are you referring to the same above? If not, perhaps it's the DC average, and I am not certain who you would like me to talk to at my university or college about that? Instructors, professors? There are several electronics forums which are frequented by the aforementioned that would be glad to comment I am sure. What will it take? If I find 10 academics that validate the DC average method using the filtered shunt to determine POS, are you going to acknowledge and accept this or simply state that they are wrong, and your academics are right?
Is the thermal method of testing in Glen's setup in the works? All he needs to do is measure the MOSFET and shunt temperatures, then find the equivalent DC controls for each (1 test each), and you have it.
.99
Quote from: PaulLowrance on November 07, 2009, 11:07:34 PM
.99,
I'm getting rediculous here, spending too much time posting. It would probably take less time to just build the darn thing. May I ask how much time did it take you build the Ainslie circuit?
Thanks,
Paul
To do things properly, if you already have all the materials on hand, at least a day of building. I had GL's pcb for the 555 circuit, so that made this part quite easy.
.99
Poynt - with respect - this is getting a little boring. Let me try this again. The heat profile is established to determine the wattage dissipated at the load resistor. We use this. It's an empirical value. It points to some value in excess of COP>1 - by a wide margin. No need to evaluate the heat dissipated at the MOSFET. It will only add to the value. It's simply not required for the argument.
I'm entirely indifferent to the debate regarding averaged waveforms. I'm doing what's required to established detailed values of power delivered by the battery. Please feel free to debate this wherever you want and with whomsoever you want. It will not change the required protocol that we have applied and will continue to apply. Which does not negate the average. It is simply not as accurate - is all.
SO. We use the thermal profile to evaluate the wattage dissipated - and we use the detailed waveform analysis to determine the wattage delivered. Always have and always will. Both values carry the rare benefit of academic sanction. And we're not about to alter these test parameters for you or anyone - as much as I respect your input here.
Not about to change this Poynty. Ever. ::)
Quote from: poynt99 on November 08, 2009, 10:58:41 AM
Post something complete please, with connection points to the circuit indicated as well. A full schematic would be very helpful for them, as opposed to kluged-together web pages.
.99
Hi .99
Thanks for the input here .... what your proposing from Paul is a good idea because I know for a fact there are people replicating the RA COP>17 circuit that have no scope or other fancy equipment that would need other methods of testing the circuit and referencing generic diagrams without component values or no connection point locations replicators would have difficulty coming up with the correct items or even to make this possible for "ALL" open source experimental use with confidence.
This is one reason why I modified the
Revised 08-12-2009 circuit "GATE" potentiometer that went from a
100 ohm 10-turn in the original Quantum article to a
5K ohm 10-turn that made the proper adjustments for any gains to be seen almost impossible, when the proper area for gains is in the
5 to 7 ohm range as indicated in my posted adjustment procedures. This is the reason why I changed the schematic to a 10 ohm multi turn potentiometer or possibly use the original 100 ohm 10-turn to make adjustments easier for any replicator to do without the "luck" factor being involved.
Fuzzy
;D
Rose,
Unfortunately there is an incredible and fundamental flaw to this approach.
In order to properly determine the circuit COP, the power dissipated and power supplied must be measured for
ALL the components in the circuit that either source or sink a significant amount of power.
This mainly includes: 1) the power supply, 2) the load resistor, 3) the MOSFET, and 4) the low-side shunt.
Taking into consideration only the power delivered by the supply (POS) and the power measured in the load resistor (PIM) does not illustrate the overall full picture, nor allow for the complete accounting of power, especially when the power measurements for those two components is highly suspect.
The CONTROL measurements on the load resistor taken by Glen are solid and there is no concern regarding them. That is a given.
However, as per my test plan, and good testing practice, all the components as per above need to be measured and thus accounted for. In addition, when a particular measurement is clearly suspect, it is paramount to find a means of double-checking this measurement by utilizing at least one other different method.
The results for the POS in Glen's test#5 are clearly suspect, as anyone can see from the table below:
QuoteBattery Power AVG (POS) from Glen's test#5
Hour 2µs 20µs 40µs
1 1.514827571 -2.479456000 1.500064000
2 -3.205999153 -4.045888000 -5.239488000
3 -5.533148312 -5.207520000 -1.636576000
4 -2.350759808 -1.969696000 -3.160768000
5 -2.070294717 -3.493984000 -4.054848000
6 -1.257904431 -4.098176000 -2.052608000
7 -2.550643907 -4.765152000 -3.565344000
AVG -2.207703251 -3.722838857 -2.601366857
To review: the highlighted value in the table of 1.5W was chosen by the Ainslie team because it was a "worst case" measurement in terms of showing the lowest COP when compared to the 4.5W Control test for the equivalent TRAA. This results in a COP of 3.
Why not choose the -5.5W figure? That would yield a COP of more than infinity, and would indicate that not only is the COP=infinity, but that a net charge is going back into the supply with a net average current of roughly 220mA. In simple terms, this means that on average the supply is not sourcing any power at all, but is in fact gaining charge. Running the circuit at this particular setting, it ought to be quite evident that the battery is readily charging up, yet the overall profile of the battery voltage in Glen's test clearly shows the battery voltage falling off over time. Glancing once again at the above table of results, one can see that in fact 19 out of the 21 measurements for POS indicate a net charge going back into the battery, so why did the battery voltage continue to fall over the duration of the experiment?
I challenge anyone, academic or not to justify, rationalize and validate this procedure in light of the wildly varying (and particularly the negative) results shown in the table. It is difficult to believe that any academic would condone and stand by this table of results as being usable. However, this question, along with the filtered-shunt question will be asked of the academic-types I am able to find.
Getting back to the thermal method of measurements, yes it is currently being done on the load resistor. What I, Paul, and MileHigh are suggesting is that this be followed through with the MOSFET and shunt resistor as well, and compared to and used as a check against the oscilloscope measurements being obtained.
For those that want to test this circuit for its OU potential can easily do so using this method, and no high-end oscilloscope or expensive exotic probes are required to do so.
.99
Hi .99
I did do some thermo profiling in my TEST #2 when I had the improper 5K ohm 10-turn gate pot and was unable to get below 140 mv "mean" on channel-1 until I changed the potentiometer out in a later test to get into the 40 to 80 mv range.
Unfortunately there were many members that was saying that I was wasting my time with such measurements on items like the Mosfet, 555 timer and Potentiometers so I stopped publishing this information but continued to measure these for my own benefit and the temperatures still are in direct relationship with the rise and fall of the prototype "quantum" load resistor I'm using now.
Here are the links to this and attached images for those all those that may have missed my attempt of recording these values ....
TEST #2
http://www.energeticforum.com/69966-post2890.html
ORIGINAL HAND WRITTEN DATA
http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/scan0004.jpg
http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/scan0005.jpg
Fuzzy
:)
That's great Fuzzy ;)
I would encourage you to perform a formal thermal test once you have a setting you are happy with and take a measurement of the load resistor, MOSFET, and shunt resistor temperatures.
Then perform a control test on the MOSFET and shunt to establish the power required to obtain the same TRAA in each case.
Now when combined with the load resistor control Wattage you previously determined, you have the total RMS power dissipated or consumed by all 3 of these components.
What is left is to obtain the battery power being supplied when the circuit is in operation. I have provided a reliable method to easily do this using the filtered shunt. It is easy to build, and if made with suitable connectors, can be inserted or taken out of your circuit at will for comparison purposes. Use it and see if it affects your measurements and scope shots. If it does not, then why not use it? At the moment, using the oscilloscope along with the shunt wave form and probes you have is not providing a useful or accurate measurement, so I suggest the alternative.
Now with the accurate power output from supply measurement (POS) and the 3 dissipated power measurements obtained using the thermal method (PIL, PIM, and PIS), you can readily see if the POS is less than the 3 dissipation powers combined. If it is, then you have OU.
If POS < (PIL + PIM + PIS), then COP>1
If POS > (PIL + PIM + PIS), then COP<1
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on November 08, 2009, 02:49:37 PM
That's great Fuzzy ;)
I would encourage you to perform a formal thermal test once you have a setting you are happy with and take a measurement of the load resistor, MOSFET, and shunt resistor temperatures.
Then perform a control test on the MOSFET and shunt to establish the power required to obtain the same TRAA in each case.
Now when combined with the load resistor control Wattage you previously determined, you have the total RMS power dissipated or consumed by all 3 of these components.
What is left is to obtain the battery power being supplied when the circuit is in operation. I have provided a reliable method to easily do this using the filtered shunt. It is easy to build, and if made with suitable connectors, can be inserted or taken out of your circuit at will for comparison purposes. Use it and see if it affects your measurements and scope shots. If it does not, then why not use it? At the moment, using the oscilloscope along with the shunt wave form and probes you have is not providing a useful or accurate measurement, so I suggest the alternative.
Now with the accurate power output from supply measurement (POS) and the 3 dissipated power measurements obtained using the thermal method (PIL, PIM, and PIS), you can readily see if the POS is less than the 3 dissipation powers combined. If it is, then you have OU.
If POS < (PIL + PIM + PIS), then COP>1
If POS > (PIL + PIM + PIS), then COP<1
.99
Hi .99
I'm sure you as being one of the replicators agree the RA COP>17 circuit to make heat is a easy task but the hard part is to do it the most efficient way which is how I approached this project. I cannot say how important it is for anyone wanting to get results in any gains is by "fine" adjustments to the "gate" potentiometer in the
5 to 7 ohm range monitoring the battery voltage with a DMM to get the "HIGHEST" 24Volt battery bank voltage possible, watching the gate potentiometer backlash and getting the "LOWEST" mV reading from
40 to 80 mV on the oscilloscope probe tip between the Mosfet source and the shunt resistor.
I use the 100ns scope shot as my "road map" getting the Mosfet source plus 555 timer off and the "drain" spike four (4) divisions apart, getting the highest drain spike plus lowest Mosfet source mV reading as possible and the best results happen there using the 32mm prototype "Quantum" resistor. The store bought resistor is impossible to get to these low Mosfet source pin readings and I will be making a even larger diameter 10 ohm prototype resistor to see if the possible gains can be greater yet.
I have ordered a "non-inductive" 0.25 ohm 1% resistor for the shunt from "Caddock" http://www.caddock.com/ it's the same resistor that "Groundloop" is using and shown in his assembled PC board http://www.energeticforum.com/67009-post2474.html it appears to be a P/N: MP930-0.25-1% http://www.caddock.com/Online_catalog/Mrktg_Lit/MP9000_Series.pdf
It appears Groundloop may also still have the 5K gate pot installed, and I think you also mentioned there may be a actual ground loop in the PCB that may have some bearing on his test results.
There is also some problems using the PCB mounted cermet type trimmer potentiometers as the tolerance is between
10 to 20% and the "Vishay" 10-turn SP534 potentiometers that I use http://www.vishay.com/docs/57065/533534.pdf are a
5% tolerance which should minimize the readings jumping around as they do in the gate ohm ranges I've indicated.
As far as the "filter" you suggest ....... as long as it is a circuit that most members agree upon and documented properly I see no problem with me trying it after the changed "non-inductive" shunt resistor testing happens. I know that you are, but possibly other members are not aware of the possible first "open source" paper that will be submitted to academics for review so any tests that may be required that can be done and relevant, with good or bad results should be tried and posted such as I have.
In the future prolonged testing I will include if I can the temperatures of the components again as they appear to possibly be of interest and could be used in further testing if actually required.
Fuzzy
;)
Interesting that my new meter measures almost bang on to the theoretical values for both my inductive resistors (20mm used in my tests, and 30mm not yet tested) ;)
There's definitely something not right with the published Ainslie resistor specifications however.
.99
Published Ainslie resistor specs:
- 10 Ohm ceramic wire-wound
- Length 150mm
- Diameter 32mm
- No. of Turns 48
- Turns spacing 1mm
- Inductance 8.64uH
If we input the dimensional specs as published, we get an inductance of 14.12uH.
Both my resistors have a turns spacing of 2mm, so it is curious why such a long core was used for the Ainslie resistor when the spacing is apparently only 1mm?
My estimate is that only about 55mm of the 150mm core was used if in fact the 1mm spacing spec is correct. This would yield quite a different theoretical inductance of 33.46uH as shown.
Fuzzy, what are the dimensional specs for your resistor?
.99
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on November 08, 2009, 07:36:35 PM
Hi .99
I'm sure you as being one of the replicators agree the RA COP>17 circuit to make heat is a easy task but the hard part is to do it the most efficient way which is how I approached this project. I cannot say how important it is for anyone wanting to get results in any gains is by "fine" adjustments to the "gate" potentiometer in the 5 to 7 ohm range monitoring the battery voltage with a DMM to get the "HIGHEST" 24Volt battery bank voltage possible, watching the gate potentiometer backlash and getting the "LOWEST" mV reading from 40 to 80 mV on the oscilloscope probe tip between the Mosfet source and the shunt resistor.
I assume you are referring to the "mean" value as indicated for the shunt wave form?
Quote
The store bought resistor is impossible to get to these low Mosfet source pin readings and I will be making a even larger diameter 10 ohm prototype resistor to see if the possible gains can be greater yet.
If you are using the same resistive wire to make this new larger diameter resistor and you retain the same turns spacing, the inductance should decrease as you should have fewer turns.
Quote
I have ordered a "non-inductive" 0.25 ohm 1% resistor for the shunt from "Caddock" http://www.caddock.com/ it's the same resistor that "Groundloop" is using and shown in his assembled PC board http://www.energeticforum.com/67009-post2474.html it appears to be a P/N: MP930-0.25-1% http://www.caddock.com/Online_catalog/Mrktg_Lit/MP9000_Series.pdf
That's a step in the right direction :)
Quote
There is also some problems using the PCB mounted cermet type trimmer potentiometers as the tolerance is between 10 to 20% and the "Vishay" 10-turn SP534 potentiometers that I use http://www.vishay.com/docs/57065/533534.pdf are a 5% tolerance which should minimize the readings jumping around as they do in the gate ohm ranges I've indicated.
The tolerance is only a rating of how close the theoretical resistance value is to the actual production value. It has no bearing on whether the value will jump around or not. The pot's power rating will have more of an effect on that, but thermal and hence resistance changes are relatively slow.
Are you aware that this potentiometer you are using for the Gate resistance is wire-wound, and hence it will have a great deal of inductance? :o
Quote
As far as the "filter" you suggest ....... as long as it is a circuit that most members agree upon and documented properly I see no problem with me trying it after the changed "non-inductive" shunt resistor testing happens.
In the future prolonged testing I will include if I can the temperatures of the components again as they appear to possibly be of interest and could be used in further testing if actually required.
Fuzzy
;)
Glad to hear that.
.99
;D Hi Poynty
I've answered your post 2486 - on energetic forum. Herewith that copy for those who don't access Energetic Forum.
Poynt - I'm answering you - your post 2486 - on this thread as I'd like to put these points on record.
You state that there is an 'incredible and fundamental flaw' to this approach - with reference to my statement that the quantification of heat dissipated at sundry components other than the load resistor is largely irrelevant. This is perhaps because you are still unfamiliar with the thesis of that paper.
The object of the tests is to determine whether energy delivered by a supply source is dissipated at sundry components connected to the supply in line with classical assumption. Therefore - if the sum of dissipated energies measured on circuit components equals or approximates the energy delivered by the supply then that points to an equivalence in the transfer of energy - in line with classical prediction. However, if there is evidence that the amount of energy delivered is less than the amount of energy dissipated - then that points to a conflict with classical prediction which, in turn, begs the question.
I might add that the thesis referred to proposes that current flow is a primary event. Subject to the availability of circuit components providing a closed circuit path back to the supply, then current will return to the supply and diminish potential difference. During the progress of this flow through the circuit - a secondary electromagnetic imbalance is established in those circuit components. The strength of these secondary fields precisely relates to the rate of current flow that effectively transfers the potential difference from the source to potential difference across those inductive circuit components. The switched cycle applied to the supply then allows a period during which this transferred potential difference can return it's energy back to the circuit. Provided that there is a path to enable this, then the second cycle generates a secondary event where the current flow is returned to those inductive components without diminishing potential difference at the source. And if that path is enabled it is possible to route the secondary current flow back through the battery supply source, thereby recharging the supply.
The amount of energy dissipated at the load will then, theoretically, exceed the amount of energy delivered by the supply in the first instance. Then the sum of the energy dissipated at the load component will need to exceed the sum of the energy delivered by the supply. For this only one comparative measurement is required - provided only that the required excess is measurable. Any other components that may also have a measurable rise in thermal energy - is of interest - but is redundant to the argument.
The fact is that we have not established this thesis on the partial completion of tests that have been recorded thus far. We have only pointed to the possibility that the thesis may have some grounding in the evidence of these 'partially completed' tests. To evaluate the actual energy delivered still requires the need to establish a value over a more significant time period.
I trust this answers your questions.
May I remind you Poynty Poynt - that you promised us you'd be going on holdiay. ???
I suggest that your use of the term is, at its least, a misnomer???
LOL
Quote from: witsend on November 08, 2009, 09:31:58 PM
You state that there is an 'incredible and fundamental flaw' to this approach - with reference to my statement that the quantification of heat dissipated at sundry components other than the load resistor is largely irrelevant. This is perhaps because you are still unfamiliar with the thesis of that paper.
The object of the tests is to determine whether energy delivered by a supply source is dissipated at sundry components connected to the supply in line with classical assumption. Therefore - if the sum of dissipated energies measured on circuit components equals or approximates the energy delivered by the supply then that points to an equivalence in the transfer of energy - in line with classical prediction. However, if there is evidence that the amount of energy delivered is less than the amount of energy dissipated - then that points to a conflict with classical prediction which, in turn, begs the question.
Up to this point, it's mostly a repetition of what I've been saying and is common sense I believe, so no comment required.
Quote
The amount of energy dissipated at the load will then, theoretically, exceed the amount of energy delivered by the supply in the first instance. Then the sum of the energy dissipated at the load component will need to exceed the sum of the energy delivered by the supply. For this only one comparative measurement is required - provided only that the required excess is measurable. Any other components that may also have a measurable rise in thermal energy - is of interest - but is redundant to the argument.
Even if omitting necessary measurements was good scientific method, which imo it isn't, the load and supply measurements need to be accurate in order to make a valid comparison.
Quote
I trust this answers your questions.
No I'm afraid.
.99
Poynt - no-one said that the omission of data is ever good scientific method. I only pointed out that it's irrelevant to the thesis. And my need for accuracy is apparently less negotiable than your own.
Please list any outstanding questions. I thought I'd answered them.
EDIT I thought I'd answered them ALL.
If you so choose, then yes you may get by without taking the MOSFET and shunt power dissipation measurements. Although you will not get the whole picture with this approach, it will be sufficient to prove or disprove your thesis based on the load resistor power and supply power alone.
What still stands however, is the requirement for these two measurements to be reasonably accurate and without question in order for the comparison to be valid.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on November 08, 2009, 10:41:41 PM
What still stands however, is the requirement for these two measurements to be reasonably accurate and without question in order for the comparison to be valid.
.99
We've reached reasonable accuracy. We're looking for perfect accuracy - as this relates to power from the supply. We can work with up to 10% margin of error on thermal measurements - in view of the extreme comparative values but, in fact, have something like 3% accuracy. Not the best but enough for purposes of proof. But the power supplied needs to be fairly stringently evaluated.
Poynty - when we've got that inductive value measured on the load resistor will you be up for that inductive reactance exercise that Harvey wants?
Quote from: witsend on November 08, 2009, 10:49:10 PM
We've reached reasonable accuracy. We're looking for perfect accuracy - as this relates to power from the supply. We can work with up to 10% margin of error on thermal measurements - in view of the extreme comparative values but, in fact, have something like 3% accuracy. Not the best but enough for purposes of proof. But the power supplied needs to be fairly stringently evaluated.
This is where I strongly disagree. IMO no reasonable accuracy has been reached for the POS measurements. The load resistor is ok because it was determined using a CONTROL test, but the measurements for the power being supplied are unusable.
It comes down to the accuracy of the power output from supply (POS) measurement, and for that, an accurate current measurement is required. To date there has not been one.
Quote
Poynty - when we've got that inductive value measured on the load resistor will you be up for that inductive reactance exercise that Harvey wants?
I am not aware of this proposed exercise. If you explain it, I may be able to help out.
Here is a question if you'd like to answer one that was posed but not yet addressed (see last sentence):
QuoteWhy not choose the -5.5W figure? That would yield a COP of more than infinity, and would indicate that not only is the COP=infinity, but that a net charge is going back into the supply with a net average current of roughly 220mA. In simple terms, this means that on average the supply is not sourcing any power at all, but is in fact gaining charge. Running the circuit at this particular setting, it ought to be quite evident that the battery is readily charging up, yet the overall profile of the battery voltage in Glen's test clearly shows the battery voltage falling off over time. Glancing once again at the above table of results, one can see that in fact 19 out of the 21 measurements for POS indicate a net charge going back into the battery, so why did the battery voltage continue to fall over the duration of the experiment?
This was in reference to the test#5 results table.
.99
Golly Poynty. You totally disregard the classical measurements of the current from the battery - notwithstanding our use of classical protocols? ??? I grant you that the number needs to be verified. I've referenced this. The variation in the dc average voltage over the source shunt needs to be established over a longer time period. But we have not deviated from classical measurement analysis. If - over time - we then prove that the amount of current drawn is consistent with a nominal expenditure of energy from the battery - being less than the 4.7 watts or greater energy that is is being dissipated at the load - then the thesis is proven.
As it is we've not been able to establish a loss to the supply in this sum that is also evident in the partial reduction in the battery voltage. But that reduction is nominal and, in itself, relates to the delivery of wattage measured to be in a microwatt range. Let me remind you that the energy dissipated at the load is approximately 4.5 watts according to its heat signature. And may I also remind you that we are dealing with a fully charged battery that may very well have had a surplus charge quotient. It's a well known feature of battery vagaries that this surplus discharge has no real bearing on the energy expended by the supply. I think the commonly recommended practice is to run the battery off a load for 10 minutes or thereby to discharge this.
And I'll say this again and as often as is required. We have not established the gain in terms of any of the data that Fuzzy has recorded. We've only extrapolated an indication that gains may be evident even using the most compromising of values that that data managed. If and when we finally get to quantify the gain - it will be referenced accordingly.
I need Harvey to fill you in on the required inductive reactance sum. It's way over my head. But it'll only be apposite when we get the inductance value over Fuzzy's resistor/resistors. I know you'll be equal to this and would be glad if you could, perhaps, just check out Harvey's math here. I can't - and someone should - prior to submission. Not that H can't do it. Just that everything should be checked - for good order.
Thanks for this Poynty. :-*
Quote from: poynt99 on November 08, 2009, 08:50:18 PM
Published Ainslie resistor specs:
- 10 Ohm ceramic wire-wound
- Length 150mm
- Diameter 32mm
- No. of Turns 48
- Turns spacing 1mm
- Inductance 8.64uH
If we input the dimensional specs as published, we get an inductance of 14.12uH.
Both my resistors have a turns spacing of 2mm, so it is curious why such a long core was used for the Ainslie resistor when the spacing is apparently only 1mm?
My estimate is that only about 55mm of the 150mm core was used if in fact the 1mm spacing spec is correct. This would yield quite a different theoretical inductance of 33.46uH as shown.
Fuzzy, what are the dimensional specs for your resistor?
.99
Hi .99
The Load resistor was a puzzling one for me and others as the South African company that manufactured it was closed several years ago, and all the resistors made have fallen into places that didn't return the items after testing ... thus the lack of materials, that being said. I did the only things I could through some reverse engineering which as you may know isn't a perfect science but one that has the highest possibility of being close or even correct at times.
There were things of reference as being certified as 10 ohms this was a given, second the diameter of the resistor was 32mm and third the 48 turns which was as everyone knows seemed odd for the 150mm length of the wire wound resistor, but no manufactured wire wound resistor has wires going completely to the ends because of the wiring lugs for the circuit connections.
I chose Ni Cr "A" - 20 AWG wire which has a .634766 ohms per foot or 15.7538 Ft. = 189.0456 In. for 10 ohms + - 1% ..... but after measuring the wire resistance over and over with several meters the 10 ohms was 14.4829 Ft. = 173.7956 In. so thats what was used.
The 10 ohm (+ - 1%) prototype "Quantum" resistor ended up with these specifications -
Turns = 43
Borosilicate Tube OD. or Resistor Coil ID. = 32 mm
Resistor Coil OD. = 33.6256 mm
Resistor Coil Length = 85.7249 mm
Coil Winding Spacing = 1.2369 mm
Covering = Red High Temperature RTV silicone
Inductance = 20.4011 uH ( ?? )
I do realize that the inductance was stated in the "Quantum" article as being 8.64 uH but no one that I can recall could actually figure out how to get that value on a 32 mm x 150 mm tube
Fuzzy
:)
Quote from: witsend on November 08, 2009, 11:26:15 PM
Golly Poynty. You totally disregard the classical measurements of the current from the battery - notwithstanding our use of classical protocols?
The oscilloscope data itself is what is in serious question--it is not even reasonably accurate and therefore not usable to obtain an accurate POS calculation.
Conceptually, the measurement methodology is correct, but the actual implementation is what is lacking. It's analogous to attempting to lift a 1000 lb. brick using only a 10cm long lever and small fulcrum. The concept is correct, but it will just not happen with these given tools. What is needed is a 10m lever and appropriate fulcrum, then the brick can be lifted.
The two "10m levers" I am currently aware of that you can choose from are:
a) the filtered shunt as I've outlined several times, or
b) the oscilloscope current probe and one oscilloscope differential probe.
Paul's active filtered-shunt may be an alternative if designed and used properly with a non-inductive shunt.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on November 08, 2009, 11:48:38 PM
The oscilloscope data itself is what is in serious question--it is not even reasonably accurate and therefore not usable to obtain an accurate POS calculation.
.99
Poynt you are now talking absolute nonsense. I trust you can substantiate this argument with reference to your full knowledge of the capabilities of the instrument. Otherwise the statement remains wild, speculative, reckless and possibly even actionable. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?
EDIT Actually - if you are dismissing the evidence on the grounds of the chosen measuring apparatus then I suggest that the test process is outside the range of a dialogue here. Unless - as I've suggested - you can substantiate your argument that the TDS 3054C is not able to evaluate the voltage across the source shunt?
2ND EDIT May I remind you that the acronyms applied to your measurements are your own. It's a pain to have to remember what you're referring to. Please define the acronym in full and only use it when it's referenced twice in 1 post. It is not common parlance and it's confusing at best.
Thanks for the information on your resistor Fuzzy.
I would say then, based on my own measurements, that it's probably safe to say your resistor if and when measured, will come out close to the theoretical 20.4uH.
The one thing that will differ quite a bit between a commercial OTS resistor, such as the two I have, and the custom one Rose had made, and your custom one, is the inter-winding capacitance.
The relationship between capacitance and the distance between the conductors is mostly linear (first order effects), so we can conclude that Rose's custom resistor had twice the amount of inter-winding capacitance, and yours 1.66 times the amount compared to a typical OTS wire-wound resistor with 2mm turns spacing.
.99
Quote from: witsend on November 09, 2009, 12:02:24 AM
Poynt you are now talking absolute nonsense. I trust you can substantiate this argument with reference to your full knowledge of the capabilities of the instrument. Otherwise the statement remains wild, speculative, reckless and possibly even actionable. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?
EDIT Actually - if you are dismissing the evidence on the grounds of the chosen measuring apparatus then I suggest that the test process is outside the range of a dialogue here. Unless - as I've suggested - you can substantiate your argument that the TDS 3054C is not able to evaluate the voltage across the source shunt?
Sorry, I keep forgetting to make certain allowances.
Actually, the oscilloscope itself is quite capable and it is not at fault. The problem lies with the probes used that are connected between the circuit and the oscilloscope.
The type of probe currently being used is what is lacking.
To reiterate, the oscilloscope option requires the use of a current probe and a differential probe. Then the measurements have a chance of being accurate if the probes are used properly.
.99
Poynty - ONLY YOU REQUIRE A DIFFERENTIAL PROBE. IT'S AN ARBITRARY AND UNNECESSARY REQUIREMENT.
Please note that the actual probes used and the method by which they are applied to the circuit is STRICTLY IN LINE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS DETAILED BY TEKTRONIX
You need to take your argument on a different tack. This one is absolutely not acceptable. Your comments regarding the inductance over the source shunt are relevant and much appreciated.
Quote from: poynt99 on November 08, 2009, 08:31:42 PM
Interesting that my new meter measures almost bang on to the theoretical values for both my inductive resistors (20mm used in my tests, and 30mm not yet tested) ;)
There's definitely something not right with the published Ainslie resistor specifications however.
.99
That is interesting since the formula's we've been using all these years is (N²r²) / 9r + 10l or in your syntax (N*N*r*r) / ((9*r) + (10 * l))
Ok...I have just corrected this post - a usually refers to area in most equations while d is often used for diameter. I knew something wasn't right with what I saw there - but having looked at it again, I can see a=diameter ::)
Silly post this is ;D
Quote from: poynt99 on November 08, 2009, 08:50:18 PM
Published Ainslie resistor specs:
- 10 Ohm ceramic wire-wound
- Length 150mm
- Diameter 32mm
- No. of Turns 48
- Turns spacing 1mm
- Inductance 8.64uH
If we input the dimensional specs as published, we get an inductance of 14.12uH.
Both my resistors have a turns spacing of 2mm, so it is curious why such a long core was used for the Ainslie resistor when the spacing is apparently only 1mm?
My estimate is that only about 55mm of the 150mm core was used if in fact the 1mm spacing spec is correct. This would yield quite a different theoretical inductance of 33.46uH as shown.
Fuzzy, what are the dimensional specs for your resistor?
.99
I have discussed this with Rosemary exhaustively, and the problem is that the actual spacing may in fact be a misprint. Rosemary assures us that the entire surface was used for winding save a bit on the ends for the terminals. However, the exact gauge of wire and the material in that wire are unknowns. You may wish to try 48 turns spread evenly across the 130mm (leaving ~10mm on each end for the terminals) and see what the inductance works out to.
8)
EDIT: Also, I might add that the resistor used for the original apparatus that we are trying to replicate was an off the shelf item at the store Rosemary purchased it from - that particular resistor model was not custom made.
Poynt,
You seem to be hung up on the differential probes. The reality of it is this, using those probes is step in the wrong direction. The differential probes available for purchase have various voltage and bandwidth restrictions that call into question whether or not we may miss some of the actual energy signatures important to our calculations. At the moment we are not in a position to procure them either. Now, realistically, do you honestly propose that the data provided by Channel 2 and Channel 4 in our tests is anything but accurate?
Regarding the Current Probe, yes I do agree that having one would be a comfort toward validating the voltage drops we are seeing across the CSR*, but with a truly non-inductive resistor of high tolerance (say 1%) we may actually be more accurate than the current probes available. The reason for this, is that the current probes are driven by inductance and this circuit has a very unconventional inductance signature due to the aperiodicity and multi-harmonic nature of the resonant action. Using an inductive Current Probe outside of a Faraday Cage would always raise the question as to whether it was introducing its own induced values into the readings.
I have considered placing the load resistor in a cage, but we would then have to ensure that the cage itself is not interacting with the resonant nature of the resistor or absorbing the energy we would like to have converted to heat. Thus we end up with a cage several feet in diameter to be happy and that is probably outside the scope of this endeavor at this time. A small cage over the circuit may be a good test however, if the load resistor is at a moderate distance. All things considered, the 'bakers rack' behind the resistor in Glen's tests no doubt becomes involved on some level with the magnetic field traversing it. At some point during the month Glen will probably relocate the test to ensure it is consistent and environment independent.
The existing data collected is highly accurate and usable for presentation once we have the precise inductance for both the load resistor and the CSR. It is unfortunate that the manufacturer of the CSR did not include any inductance specifications for use pro tempore. If you have any resistors of that exact model, we could use your measurements pro tempore - but eventually, we will need to accurately measure (calibrate) the specific devices used.
Regarding the inductive reactance - if we know specifically the true inductance of the parts, we can then accurately extrapolate the expected current in a specific instance in time. This would also give us the ability to accurately determine the phase shift of that current relative to the voltage during charging and discharging of the magnetic field (inductors). With those two pieces of information, the instantaneous power could then be accurately calculated. To digress just a moment here, have a quick look at my post of Broken KCL Data (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-94.html#post69148) . This data was obtained from Aaron using his NDW* circuit and it clearly shows oscillation between the load resistor and battery during periods that the timer and CSR are inactive. Therefore, in that unique configuration, he is running in an open loop mode which apparently allows current to flow in and out of the B(+) while no current flows in and out of the B(-). If these particular events had resulted in small signal amplitude in the mV ranges, I may have dismissed it entirely. But those values are upwards of 8V. There are still a lot of unanswered questions surrounding this arrangement.
*CSR: Current Sensing Resistor (aka shunt)
*NDW: Negative Dominant Waveform
KCL: Kirchhoff's Current Law
Cheers,
8)
Quote from: Harvey on November 09, 2009, 02:43:40 AM
That is interesting since the formula's we've been using all these years is (N²r²) / 9r + 10l or in your syntax (N*N*r*r) / ((9*r) + (10 * l))
Ok...I have just corrected this post - a usually refers to area in most equations while d is often used for diameter. I knew something wasn't right with what I saw there - but having looked at it again, I can see a=diameter ::)
Silly post this is ;D
The formula is not my own. These are screen shots taken from:
http://www.captain.at/electronics/coils/
Quote from: Harvey on November 09, 2009, 02:54:47 AM
I have discussed this with Rosemary exhaustively, and the problem is that the actual spacing may in fact be a misprint. Rosemary assures us that the entire surface was used for winding save a bit on the ends for the terminals. However, the exact gauge of wire and the material in that wire are unknowns. You may wish to try 48 turns spread evenly across the 130mm (leaving ~10mm on each end for the terminals) and see what the inductance works out to.
Using 48 turns and 130mm length results in 16.08uH as shown.
.99
Harvey has raised some good points but the bottom line for me is that thermal measurements as advocated by Paul is probably going to give the most reliable method in terms of calculating system COP.
Surprisingly, this thread seems to have got back to an adult level and I have every confidence that Fuzzy, Poynt, Harvey & Paul will be able to reach a conclusion about OU on the Ainslie type circuit. I have held back from posting waiting for that silly inebriated PArt... troll to stop posting.
Hoppy
Quote from: poynt99 on November 08, 2009, 10:58:41 AM
Post something complete please, with connection points to the circuit indicated as well. A full schematic would be very helpful for them, as opposed to kluged-together web pages.
The webpages provide all of the math equations, so it's very detailed. I thought it was very easy to connect the output of the 1st stage to the input of the 2nd stage. Electronics 101. ;)
Paul
.99,
BTW, as stated the other day, if you can find people who are going to use the circuit, then I'll build & test a circuit in spice, then post it. That's more time than I want to spend on this case now.
Paul
Quote from: witsend on November 09, 2009, 12:45:56 AM
Poynty - ONLY YOU REQUIRE A DIFFERENTIAL PROBE. IT'S AN ARBITRARY AND UNNECESSARY REQUIREMENT.
Please note that the actual probes used and the method by which they are applied to the circuit is STRICTLY IN LINE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS DETAILED BY TEKTRONIX
You need to take your argument on a different tack. This one is absolutely not acceptable.
This makes no sense. Please indicate with references the basis of these statements.
No need to reference Harvey's post, as I will be addressing that separately.
.99
Quote from: PaulLowrance on November 09, 2009, 10:25:49 AM
The webpages provide all of the math equations, so it's very detailed. I thought it was very easy to connect the output of the 1st stage to the input of the 2nd stage. Electronics 101. ;)
Paul
It's a matter of clarity and completeness Paul. It is best for several reasons that you post a complete schematic with all circuit connections included.
Glen has indicated interest in this and also alluded to the fact that other replicators lacking certain equipment may also find it useful.
.99
Quote from: witsend on November 09, 2009, 12:45:56 AM
Poynty - ONLY YOU REQUIRE A DIFFERENTIAL PROBE. IT'S AN ARBITRARY AND UNNECESSARY REQUIREMENT.
Please note that the actual probes used and the method by which they are applied to the circuit is STRICTLY IN LINE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS DETAILED BY TEKTRONIX
You need to take your argument on a different tack. This one is absolutely not acceptable. Your comments regarding the inductance over the source shunt are relevant and much appreciated.
i wonder what tack his argument will take when he actually uses the current and differential probes...
Actually Poynty - I WILL refer you to Harvey's post. And which part of my statement here makes no sense? I thought I used clear and unambiguous terms. I see no need to repeat them. Nor will I.
Quote from: witsend on November 09, 2009, 11:16:05 AM
Actually Poynty - I WILL refer you to Harvey's post. And which part of my statement here makes no sense? I thought I used clear and unambiguous terms. I see no need to repeat them. Nor will I.
QuotePoynty - ONLY YOU REQUIRE A DIFFERENTIAL PROBE. IT'S AN ARBITRARY AND UNNECESSARY REQUIREMENT.
You need to take your argument on a different tack. This one is absolutely not acceptable.
Unsubstantiated statements. Harvey's post adds no substantiation to this whatsoever.
QuotePlease note that the actual probes used and the method by which they are applied to the circuit is STRICTLY IN LINE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS DETAILED BY TEKTRONIX
Says nothing about the issue at hand, and is an incorrect statement. Specifications are different than procedures. Using a single-ended probe even correctly has it's limitations and Tektronix will not argue with this fact. The limits of this measurement technique have been exceeded for this application, and again Tektronix would not argue with this.
.99
Days ago I offered another testing method. It's not my initial preference, and probably not .99 preference since the standard more conventional method is to measure the DC current through the battery shunt, but this method would also work, and it should make everyone happy,
This method does *not* require a scope, or the battery shunt resistor, or any shunt resistor. The ambient room temperature should be between 60F & 90F. Pick a room temperature that you can maintain relatively stable, which we will refer to as RT (short for room temperature).
* Place a small thermistor on the load, and one on the mosfet.
* Connect an appropriate thermistor circuit (a simple current current source & an op-amp circuit will due) to each thermistor to monitor the temperature.
* This testing method uses a small rechargeable battery. Never load this battery over 1/10th of its maximum load. *Slowly* recharge the battery. For 12V vehicle battery, 12.65V is good. For 6V vehicle battery, 6.3V is good. The room temperature should *not* change more than +/- a few degrees of RT during the battery recharging period.
* Very important: Let the battery rest unused for at least 24 hours.
* Bring the room temperature to RT (+/- a few degrees at most), and maintain that temperature for at least 1 hour, then take battery voltage measurement, which we will refer to as T1.
* Run the Ainslie circuit. Take a quick battery voltage measurement every so often. Never leave the voltage meter on the battery while the Ainslie circuit is running, as Ainslie might accuse this as absorbing the energy spikes or whatever. Also, try to keep the *battery* temperature near RT, +/- 8 degrees. Measure the mosfet & load temperature. Write this down, as well as the time (including the minutes) every so often, as this will be used in a control experiment to calculate the total energy. The mosfet & load temperature should remain relatively constant. Also log the room temperature as well.
* Stop the Ainslie circuit when the battery voltage has dropped by 1.6%.
* Let the battery rest for one day.
* Slowly change the room temperature to T1, and try to maintain the temperature for *at least* 1 hour.
* When you have maintained the room temperature close to T1 (+/- a few degrees at most) for at least one hour, then take a voltage measurement, and we will refer to this as V2.
* ***Slowly*** recharge the battery to the V1. Do not exceed 0.1 amps!
* Now for the battery control experiment. Disconnect the battery and let it rest for at least 12 hours, preferably 24 hours.
* Connect a load to the battery. The load resistance depends on your load power rating. Do *not* exceed 1/10th the power rating!! If the load is rated at 10 watts, then do not exceed 1 watt. Also, you should be able to hold your fingers on any part of the resistor without any discomfort from heat. If it's too hot to tightly hold your fingers on the load, then the load resistance could change by an appreciable amount. At 1 watt with a 12V battery the load resistance would be 12V^2 / 1W = 144 ohms. So the resistance must be at least 144 ohms, you can use a resistor with more resistance. Maintain the room temperature at RT, +/- a few degrees. Also, very important, take a voltage measurement every so often and write this down along with the time (including the minutes). This data will be used to create a voltage graph, which will be used to calculate the total energy.
* When the battery voltage is dropped to V2, then remove the load. Then *quickly* take an ohm meter to measure the load resistance. Write down the resistance.
* Now for the mosfet & load control experiment. Calculate the average mosfet temperature during the Ainslie experiment, which we'll refer to as Tmosfet. Calculate the average load temperature during the Ainslie experiment, which we'll refer to as Tload.
* Connect the mosfet drain & source to a battery, and connect a variable voltage source to the gate. Slowly increase the gate voltage until the mosfet temperature stabilizes to Tmosfet. Measure & write down the voltage across the mosfet drain & source.
* Connect a variable voltage source to the load. Slowly increase the voltage until the load temperature stabilizes to Tload. Measure & write down the voltage across the load.
That's it! Unless I forgot something, that's enough data to tell if the Ainslie circuit is > cop 1.
Paul
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on November 09, 2009, 11:15:54 AM
i wonder what tack his argument will take when he actually uses the current and differential probes...
Hi Wilby. I also wonder. I think this is a perfect example of ad hominem. There are always limits to measurements. Tektronix will not argue this. Therefore Tektronix, by some curious twist in a logical extension of this argument thereby concede that it's ability to measure under test conditions has its limitations. Therefore tektronix further admits that on this application too it has limitations. Which therefore and through another reckless reach into mad logic then becomes an admission that these test parameters now WHOLLY AND ENTIRELY exceed the capability of the TDS. Golly Poynty. When it comes to casting the odd aspersion - there is none to equal you. LOL
Anyway - I have NOTHING that I need to substantiate. I know the capabilities and the constraints of the DSO and its probes. I have no desire to convince you that you're wrong. Nor will I enter into an argument here. I would - however point out that you have stated this - and I quote
"The limits of this measurement technique have been EXCEEDED for this application, and again Tektronix would not argue with this".
Either you know something that is not included in the manuals - and are not telling us. Or you are relying on aspersions to discredit the instrument which we're using. If the former - you really need to tell us. If the latter you really need to retract this statement. The only thing that you now cannot do - is leave this statement hanging. You may not, under any circumstances bring Tektronix's good name nor the excellence of their equipment to question - under any circumstances whatsoever. I am left with the mouth agape at your extraordinary arrogance and presumption. Talk about 'fighting dirty'. How desperate are you?
But justify this quoted statement with reference to an acknowledged inability to measure the tested and required voltage at the tested and given frequency if you can. Else retract. Those are now the only options open to you.
Quote from: Harvey on November 09, 2009, 04:21:43 AM
Poynt,
You seem to be hung up on the differential probes. The reality of it is this, using those probes is step in the wrong direction. The differential probes available for purchase have various voltage and bandwidth restrictions that call into question whether or not we may miss some of the actual energy signatures important to our calculations.
Utilizing true differential probes is not only going in the right direction, but is critical for obtaining usable results in this application.
The Tektronix
P5205 is a 100MHz, 1300V (differential), 1000V (common-mode) active high voltage differential oscilloscope probe with TEKPROBE interface, so it will work perfectly with the TDS3054C.
The rise-time of Glen's Drain voltage spike is approximately 50ns. This represents a spectrum bandwidth of about 7MHz. It is generally accepted, and touted in many papers and articles (including Tektronix), that to adequately capture the signal bandwidth and its rise-time, the measurement instrument (oscilloscope or probe) must have a bandwidth and rise-time from 3 to 5 times that of the signal being measured. With a 7:1 ratio of instrument+probe to signal bandwidth, the measurement error is less than 1%. A 7:1 ratio requires only a 49MHz capable instrument. With the 100MHz bandwidth of the P5205 probe, this error will probably fall to the 0.2% region.
Therefore, it is quite clear that loss of data will not be an issue using one of these probes for this application.
Quote
At the moment we are not in a position to procure them either. Now, realistically, do you honestly propose that the data provided by Channel 2 and Channel 4 in our tests is anything but accurate?
These probes can be rented. Ideally, Tektronix would loan you one.
Channel 2 (VDrain) and Channel 4 (Vbat)? Do you mean Channel 1 (Vshunt) and Channel 4 (Vbat)?
Battery voltage and battery current (low-side shunt) are the two parameters in question, as they produce the average POS when all the samples are processed in Excel. This is
the pivotal measurement that makes or breaks the associated claims and thesis, therefore it is critical that it be measured absolutely correctly.
Referring again to the posted table of results of average delivered battery power from Glen's test #5, it is quite evident that the measurements used to compute those values are erroneous and therefore unusable.
Not only is the shunt voltage wave form in great question due to the shunt inductance and probe ground lead inductance (and ground point), but the battery voltage wave form on Channel 4 is also in question. Previous pictures of Glen's setup show the battery voltage being measured at some point quite distant from the actual battery + terminal. It has been shown conclusively, that this will produce a falsely-elevated representation of the actual battery voltage due to the inductance of the wire between the actual battery + terminal and the scope probe tip, not to mention the probe ground lead location issues as well.
Quote
Regarding the Current Probe, yes I do agree that having one would be a comfort toward validating the voltage drops we are seeing across the CSR*, but with a truly non-inductive resistor of high tolerance (say 1%) we may actually be more accurate than the current probes available. The reason for this, is that the current probes are driven by inductance and this circuit has a very unconventional inductance signature due to the aperiodicity and multi-harmonic nature of the resonant action. Using an inductive Current Probe outside of a Faraday Cage would always raise the question as to whether it was introducing its own induced values into the readings.
I have considered placing the load resistor in a cage, but we would then have to ensure that the cage itself is not interacting with the resonant nature of the resistor or absorbing the energy we would like to have converted to heat. Thus we end up with a cage several feet in diameter to be happy and that is probably outside the scope of this endeavor at this time. A small cage over the circuit may be a good test however, if the load resistor is at a moderate distance. All things considered, the 'bakers rack' behind the resistor in Glen's tests no doubt becomes involved on some level with the magnetic field traversing it. At some point during the month Glen will probably relocate the test to ensure it is consistent and environment independent.
There is a chance that using a non-inductive shunt may produce accurate results if implemented and measured correctly, but the limitations (and inherent challenges) of the single-ended probe with its associated inductive ground lead are still at issue here. That leads us back to the requirement for a true differential probe at the very least.
The recommended current probe is the Tektronix
TCP202: DC-50MHz, 0.1 Ohm insertion impedance at 5MHz. The bandwidth is more than adequate, as detailed above for the P5205 differential probe. These two probes have a matched propagation delay within +/- 2ns of each other.
The latter part of the quote is speculative and outside the scope of the main issue at hand, and therefore requires no comment at this time.
Quote
The existing data collected is highly accurate and usable for presentation once we have the precise inductance for both the load resistor and the CSR.
I disagree as I have already pointed out above, and I have not seen anything that would substantiate the notion that the data is accurate.
Quote
It is unfortunate that the manufacturer of the CSR did not include any inductance specifications for use pro tempore. If you have any resistors of that exact model, we could use your measurements pro tempore - but eventually, we will need to accurately measure (calibrate) the specific devices used.
Manufacturers don't offer an inductance specification for inductively wire-wound resistors, because it is assumed that they are not being used in high frequency applications, or at least those that do not require a constant impedance.
I mentioned to Glen already that I am fairly confident his resistor inductance measurement will come out very close to the theoretical value of 20.4uH as per my own measurements and comparisons. If you wish I will measure Glen's resistor and shunt with my meter. That offer was already pre-rejected by Rose, but it still stands if Glen is so inclined.
Quote
Regarding the inductive reactance - if we know specifically the true inductance of the parts, we can then accurately extrapolate the expected current in a specific instance in time. This would also give us the ability to accurately determine the phase shift of that current relative to the voltage during charging and discharging of the magnetic field (inductors). With those two pieces of information, the instantaneous power could then be accurately calculated.
I am uncertain how you would go about doing what you propose, and moreover, the quality of any data massaging performed will be limited by the quality of the raw data a priori.
The power dissipated in the load resistor is easily obtained and is accurate. This is 50% of the battle already completed. All that remains to prove or disprove the associated claims and thesis is to obtain a reasonably-accurate measurement of the supplied power. A method has been offered that is easy to build and is reliable. The question remains as to why it is not being implemented? The last 50% is easily attainable and within reach--it's just a matter of moving forward with it so the ultimate question can finally be put to bed.
.99
Poynt - get used to this. Under no circumstances will I burden the team nor Tektronix with the demand for differential probes as this is entirely UNNECESSARY. No differential probe is required.
You can talk about this to your heart's content - but you will be talking to yourself. When you show us your name and your credentials as a measurement expert we may revise this. Until then your application here will be ignored.
You need to address the point made in my previous post. Let me copy it for your convenience.
I know the capabilities and the constraints of the DSO and its probes. I have no desire to convince you that you're wrong. Nor will I enter into an argument here. I would - however point out that you have stated this - and I quote
"The limits of this measurement technique have been EXCEEDED for this application, and again Tektronix would not argue with this".
Either you know something that is not included in the manuals - and are not telling us. Or you are relying on aspersions to discredit the instrument which we're using. If the former - you really need to tell us. If the latter you really need to retract this statement. The only thing that you now cannot do - is leave this statement hanging. You may not, under any circumstances bring Tektronix's good name nor the excellence of their equipment to question - under any circumstances whatsoever. I am left with the mouth agape at your extraordinary arrogance and presumption. Talk about 'fighting dirty'. How desperate are you?
But justify this quoted statement with reference to an acknowledged inability to measure the tested and required voltage at the tested and given frequency if you can. Else retract. Those are now the only options open to you.
Harvey, Rose, Glen, et al:
I strongly urge you to do some serious reading up on oscilloscope probes, their uses, selection, limitations, aberrations, etc. Clearly you all would benefit greatly by doing so.
I would suggest the following very relevant article by our friends at Tektronix is an excellent place to begin. I've highlighted some important relevant points:
Dynamic Measurements Help Power Supply Designers Spot Problems Early
The supply and utilization of system power is a critical factor in the design of every type of electronic product. Personal computers, telecommunications and broadcast equipment, and military equipment are all pressuring the humble power supply to provide ever more current in smaller and smaller packages. Due to their compactness and lower cost, high-frequency switching supplies (switchers) have become the preferred solution for most applications. Although more complex than traditional linear supplies, switchers are without peer in delivering current all out of proportion to their size.
The behavior of any power supply must be well understood before it is designed into a product or released to the market. After all, it will be the foundation of an end product's efficiency, safety, and reliability. The prudent designer will characterize a power supply's behavior thoroughly during the design stage. Components in the supply, particularly active components, may encounter momentary conditions that far exceed their average operating levels. The engineer must be aware of these peaks and account for them when choosing components like power MOSFETs (metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistors) and IGBTs (insulated gate bipolar transistors).
A broad repertoire of accepted power supply measurement procedures exists, but several basic methodologies are essential in power supply design evaluation. Historically these approaches have relied on static current and voltage measurements taken with digital multimeters. However, meaningful data about dynamic performance is needed to detect hidden problems in switching components. Consequently, the oscilloscope has become a cornerstone of switching power supply evaluation. With switching frequencies and edge speeds on the increase, a full-featured wideband instrument is needed to capture subtle signal details.
This article will discuss some of the tools and techniques used to observe a power MOSFET's in-circuit behavior in a power supply, emphasizing the tools and preparations needed to ensure accurate measurements. The article will show how these readings can detect instantaneous power peaks that elude static measurement techniques.
The Unit Under Test
Figure 1 shows a simplified circuit for the input side of a switcher. The MOSFET power transistor configuration is typical to switching power supplies and most power conversion products-PWM motor drives, electronic ballasts, and many others. The MOSFET is floating-it has no reference to either the input AC ground or the output ground terminal. Simplistic ground-referenced measurements with a conventional oscilloscope setup are not possible here because connecting the scope probe's ground lead to any of the transistor's terminals would short-circuit that point.
Figure 1. The circuit under test, showing the converter MOSFET and the test points for the drain-to-source voltage measurement , Vds.
Defining the Measurement and the Tools
The power measurement across the MOSFET is made up of two constituent waveforms: voltage and current. The product of these two variables at any instant in time is the instantaneous power. The graph of these products over time is the power waveform. The shape, amplitude, phase, and timing of the power waveform combine to tell a story about the real-world stresses on the MOSFET.
A lab-quality DSO, the Tektronix TDS 510A, has been chosen as the measurement platform for two reasons: 1.) Its ability to display not only voltage and current waveforms, but also to compute and display power waveforms with direct readout in watts; 2.) Its fully integrated interface to precision differential voltage and current probes. Moreover, the scope's 500 MS/s sample rate can capture very fast switching transients faithfully.
True Differential Voltage Measurements Make a Difference
The solution of choice for measuring the MOSFET voltage waveforms is a differential measurement. The voltage excursion is measured between two points (for example, the voltage between source and drain, Vds in Figure 1), neither of which need be at ground potential. Depending on the range of the power supply, these voltage waveforms may be riding on top of a voltage ranging from tens of volts to hundreds of volts. There are several ways to accomplish this measurement, in ascending order of preference:
* Elevate the scope's chassis ground. This extremely unsafe method endangers the operator, instrument, and unit under test. Moreover, it yields very imprecise measurements. This approach doesn't merit further discussion.
* Use two conventional scope probes (with their ground leads connected only to each other) and the built-in channel summing capability of an oscilloscope. This is known as a quasi-differential measurement. Unfortunately, the passive scope probes in combination with the scope's amplifiers lack the CMRR (common mode rejection ratio) to block the common mode voltage adequately. This setup cannot capture the measurement with good accuracy.
* Use a commercially-available probe isolator to isolate the scope's chassis ground. Thus the probe's "ground" lead is no longer at ground potential and can be connected directly to a test point. Probe isolators are an effective solution but are very costly, on the order of 2- to 5 times the cost of good differential probes.
* Use a battery-operated scope with individually isolated inputs, for example the Tektronix THS 720 TekScopeTM. When used with carefully chosen probes, this method delivers good results, especially in field service applications.
* Use a true differential probe on a wideband oscilloscope. This is the most appropriate method for critical measurements like those used to predict power supply component reliability and performance.
A true differential voltage probe (the Tektronix P5205) was chosen for this measurement because of its high CMRR (common mode rejection ratio), low circuit loading (only 7 pF input capacitance), and 100 MHz bandwidth.
Picking Up the Current Waveform
Of course, making the voltage measurement is only half the job. Acquiring current waveforms is a discipline all its own, with specialized tools and techniques. The common digital multimeter, though suitable for static current readings, lacks the ability to display the waveform properties in an AC environment. Here again the oscilloscope is the best tool for examining amplitude, timing, and phase characteristics.
The Tektronix TCP202 current probe was chosen for this application. This is a "non-invasive" probe; that is, it doesn't require breaking into the circuit to connect the probe. Its clip-on pickup acquires the signal by induction. Like the P5205 probe, the TCP202 relies on the scope's TekProbeTM interface to provide automatic ranging, scaling, and readout of the measurement in engineering units.
Preparing for the Measurement
A little time spent setting up the scope/probe system in advance can help ensure stable, repeatable power measurements. Both the current and the voltage probes are affected:
1. There is a simple "nulling" procedure that should precede any instantaneous power measurement. Both the P5205 and the TCP202, and other probes of their type, have built-in DC offset trimmers. With the unit under test turned off and the scope and probes fully warmed up, set the oscilloscope to measure the mean of both the voltage and current waveforms. Use the sensitivity settings that will be used in the actual measurement. With no signal present, adjust the trimmers to null the mean level for each waveform to OV, or as close as possible. This step ensures that the "quiescent" voltages and currents in the measurement system are not added to the levels at the test points.
2. It is essential to use current and voltage probes with well-matched delay characteristics. Otherwise the power measurement-actually the product of instantaneous voltage and current readings-might be corrupted by delays that, for example, shift the current waveform relative to the voltage waveform. Such a shift would in turn displace the peaks in the power waveform, possibly leading to an incorrect assessment of the transistor's behavior.
The P5205 differential voltage probe and the TCP202 current probe are inherently matched to within ±2ns, close enough for most applications. In addition, some scopes itself provide an adjustment for further delay equalization (deskew) between the probes, if needed.
3. In spite of the differential voltage probe's high (80 dB) CMRR, it's wise to verify the probe's performance in the actual measurement environment. To do so, simply connect both leads to the same test point, for example the drain of the MOSFET. Both probe tips see the same signal-a "common mode" signal. Ideally, the differential probe should reject the whole signal and display a flat trace on the scope screen. In reality a small amount of the signal is passed through, and the resulting trace reveals common mode error. While this simple test isn't definitive, it will expose gross CMRR problems that might affect the measurement outcome.
If problems do arise (for example, when using a lesser-quality differential probe) the common mode error can be subtracted mathematically by the scope. While triggering on the current waveform, capture the common mode error waveform as previously explained and save it in the scope's reference memory. Then subtract this fixed quantity from each measurement using the oscilloscope's built-in math function.
The Moment of Truth
After all the preparations, the measurements themselves are relatively simple. The object is to examine the nature of the switching transitions in the 40 kHz converter circuit depicted in Figure 1. For the differential voltage reading, the probe tips are connected to MOSFET source and drain terminals. The resulting Vds waveform is shown in Figure 2 (upper trace).
Figure 2. The TDS 510A display, showing voltage, current, an power waveforms, in addition to numerical readouts.
For the current measurement, the clamp-on probe must acquire a signal from a conductor passing through its inductive pickup core. If it isn't physically possible to clamp around the conductor of interest (in this case the lead coming from the MOSFET's drain), then it will be necessary to add a loop of wire in series with the signal as a test point. In fact, this technique can be used to increase the sensitivity of the current probe if necessary. Instead of just one loop of wire, use several turns-the sensitivity of the probe will be multiplied by the number of turns. Figure 3 illustrates the technique.
Figure 3. A non-invasive current probe (the Tektronix TCP 202) attached to a multi-turn wire loop in series with the signal path. This technique increases the sensitivity of the current measurement.
The current waveform from the MOSFET measurement is shown in Figure 2 (middle trace). This particular reading did not require the increased sensitivity technique mentioned above, and therefore gives a correctly scaled current waveform and readout.
At this point we can begin to see the direction this measurement is heading. The traces are almost complements of one another: on the voltage trace, voltage is at its maximum when no current flows, and at its minimum when current is at its peak. However, a brief transient in the current waveform disturbs an otherwise smooth switching transition. This transient occurs during the time when there is still approximately 60 V Vds voltage across the MOSFET.
The bottom trace in Figure 2 is the power measurement, automatically computed by the TDS 510A oscilloscope. It reveals just what the voltage and current traces promise: a single strong peak that coincides with the current transient. This is the reading that summarizes the circuit behavior. Assume the MOSFET was chosen for an average power capacity of, say, 20 watts. Conventional DMM current and voltage readings would indicate that the transistor was operating well within safe limits. But can this MOSFET withstand a 30W peak in every switching cycle? Just as importantly, is this peak raising the average power dissipation of the circuit to unacceptable levels? Why is the trailing current transition so much cleaner than the leading edge? These questions can point to solutions for the problem, which may range from changing the switching characteristics to simply using a larger MOSFET. Conversely, the true power, as calculated by using the scopes' Mean function to determine the mean value of the instantaneous power readings, may indicate that the transistor operating within safe limits. Either way, the designer can make informed decisions about the components in the circuit.
Looking at the power measurement, it's easy to see why all the preparation before the measurement was important. For example, small DC offsets in the probing tools, when compounded by scale factors and multiplication, can lead to large numerical errors. Likewise, a delay difference between the current and voltage probes would change the relative positions of the two respective waveforms. As a result, the peak in the power waveform would be dislocated, or might disappear altogether! This could lead to a design that wouldn't be tested until it was in the marketplace-a situation that nobody likes to risk.
An accurate power measurement system using a high performance oscilloscope, a true differential probe, and a precision current probe is the best toolset for characterizing the active components in a switching power supply. The scope-based measurement methodology helps designers evaluate the variables that produce cost-effective, yet reliable and market-worthy power supply designs.
http://www2.tek.com/cmswpt/tidetails.lotr?ct=TI&cs=afs&ci=14789&lc=EN
.99
Poynt - I have just spoken to Tektronix and have been assured that the probes being used are more than adequate for the tests. Now. Yet again I need you to retract your statement or substantiate it. I do not want a slew of information about differential probes. I want to know, from you, and specifically - why are the probes under use are inadequate for the purposes to which they're applied. You really, really need to answer this.
BTW, don't know if anyone's mentioned this, but there are inexpensive DC amp clamp meters. It does not touch the wires, and will show DC current. Not sure how much inductance they have, but probably not that much.
Paul
I'm waiting to hear back from my contact at Tektronix as well.
I'm confident he will state that the Tektronix article does apply to the circuit we are dealing with here, and that everything I have stated is valid.
.99 8)
Quote from: poynt99 on November 09, 2009, 09:42:25 AM
The formula is not my own. These are screen shots taken from:
http://www.captain.at/electronics/coils/
Using 48 turns and 130mm length results in 16.08uH as shown.
.99
I think I see a problem. That formula is for inches, not millimeters. Is there a check box somewhere that converts it for you? I haven't checked your results yet, but as I recall they are very close to what I derived also.
Quote from: poynt99 on November 09, 2009, 11:35:58 AM
Unsubstantiated statements. Harvey's post adds no substantiation to this whatsoever.
Says nothing about the issue at hand, and is an incorrect statement. Specifications are different than procedures. Using a single-ended probe even correctly has it's limitations and Tektronix will not argue with this fact. The limits of this measurement technique have been exceeded for this application, and again Tektronix would not argue with this.
.99
Ok, now you have piqued my curiosity here...what limits have been exceeded?
Quote from: PaulLowrance on November 09, 2009, 12:40:10 PM
Days ago I offered another testing method. It's not my initial preference, and probably not .99 preference since the standard more conventional method is to measure the DC current through the battery shunt, but this method would also work, and it should make everyone happy,
This method does *not* require a scope, or the battery shunt resistor, or any shunt resistor. The ambient room temperature should be between 60F & 90F. Pick a room temperature that you can maintain relatively stable, which we will refer to as RT (short for room temperature).
* Place a small thermistor on the load, and one on the mosfet.
* Connect an appropriate thermistor circuit (a simple current current source & an op-amp circuit will due) to each thermistor to monitor the temperature.
* This testing method uses a small rechargeable battery. Never load this battery over 1/10th of its maximum load. *Slowly* recharge the battery. For 12V vehicle battery, 12.65V is good. For 6V vehicle battery, 6.3V is good. The room temperature should *not* change more than +/- a few degrees of RT during the battery recharging period.
* Very important: Let the battery rest unused for at least 24 hours.
* Bring the room temperature to RT (+/- a few degrees at most), and maintain that temperature for at least 1 hour, then take battery voltage measurement, which we will refer to as T1.
* Run the Ainslie circuit. Take a quick battery voltage measurement every so often. Never leave the voltage meter on the battery while the Ainslie circuit is running, as Ainslie might accuse this as absorbing the energy spikes or whatever. Also, try to keep the *battery* temperature near RT, +/- 8 degrees. Measure the mosfet & load temperature. Write this down, as well as the time (including the minutes) every so often, as this will be used in a control experiment to calculate the total energy. The mosfet & load temperature should remain relatively constant. Also log the room temperature as well.
* Stop the Ainslie circuit when the battery voltage has dropped by 1.6%.
* Let the battery rest for one day.
* Slowly change the room temperature to T1, and try to maintain the temperature for *at least* 1 hour.
* When you have maintained the room temperature close to T1 (+/- a few degrees at most) for at least one hour, then take a voltage measurement, and we will refer to this as V2.
* ***Slowly*** recharge the battery to the V1. Do not exceed 0.1 amps!
* Now for the battery control experiment. Disconnect the battery and let it rest for at least 12 hours, preferably 24 hours.
* Connect a load to the battery. The load resistance depends on your load power rating. Do *not* exceed 1/10th the power rating!! If the load is rated at 10 watts, then do not exceed 1 watt. Also, you should be able to hold your fingers on any part of the resistor without any discomfort from heat. If it's too hot to tightly hold your fingers on the load, then the load resistance could change by an appreciable amount. At 1 watt with a 12V battery the load resistance would be 12V^2 / 1W = 144 ohms. So the resistance must be at least 144 ohms, you can use a resistor with more resistance. Maintain the room temperature at RT, +/- a few degrees. Also, very important, take a voltage measurement every so often and write this down along with the time (including the minutes). This data will be used to create a voltage graph, which will be used to calculate the total energy.
* When the battery voltage is dropped to V2, then remove the load. Then *quickly* take an ohm meter to measure the load resistance. Write down the resistance.
* Now for the mosfet & load control experiment. Calculate the average mosfet temperature during the Ainslie experiment, which we'll refer to as Tmosfet. Calculate the average load temperature during the Ainslie experiment, which we'll refer to as Tload.
* Connect the mosfet drain & source to a battery, and connect a variable voltage source to the gate. Slowly increase the gate voltage until the mosfet temperature stabilizes to Tmosfet. Measure & write down the voltage across the mosfet drain & source.
* Connect a variable voltage source to the load. Slowly increase the voltage until the load temperature stabilizes to Tload. Measure & write down the voltage across the load.
That's it! Unless I forgot something, that's enough data to tell if the Ainslie circuit is > cop 1.
Paul
Paul, I will admit here that this is the first post from you that I have carefully read so as to ascertain your approach. There are several things in your approach that need to be addressed.
1. Battery drain curve calibration for: a) Continuous DC
b) Pulsed DC
c) Oscillatory AC
d) Aperiodic Oscillatory AC
2. Thermocouple TC curve calibration reference3. Ambient dissipation characteristics (thermal resistance) for: a) Load Resistor
b) Power Transistor
c) Thermal Paste or Sil-Pad
d) Power Transistor Heat Sink
4. Allowed error margins e.g. 8°F on Battery case? Or is that a fluid measurement of the acid?
5. Is there any need to monitor the ambient during your test or just as long as it is within "a few degrees"?
As an aside here, and this is a point which Rosemary as voiced on numerous occasions, why hasn't anyone mentioned the use of a hydrometer (http://www.coleparmer.com/catalog/product_view.asp?sku=2575122) for determining the actual charge associated with the battery?
8)
Quote from: poynt99 on November 09, 2009, 05:17:26 PM
I'm waiting to hear back from my contact at Tektronix as well.
I'm confident he will state that the Tektronix article does apply to the circuit we are dealing with here, and that everything I have stated is valid.
.99 8)
Poynt, having read through your post I did not find anything new. Evidently you are mistaken as to my level of expertise in this area.
Here is my challenge to you:
Two differential tests for comparison using the MOSFET Gate rising edge as a trigger in both tests:
TEST 1:
A. Using standard probes with your scope and the reference leads secured at the battery's negative terminal, connect one lead to B(+) and the other lead to the MOSFET drain. Set your scope sweep to read one full cycle on the Mosfet gate for a complete charge/discharge cycle at maximum resolution. Record the data dump for both channels and import it to Excel. Calculate the differential between these two readings.
B. Acquire (since this is quite easy for you as you say) the differential probe of your choice. Place it at the same terminals to perform the same test. Of course here, you will only have a single value to work with, but you must record it and import it to excel. Using the Gate trigger as a synchronizing event, align your data properly for comparison.
Post the results of your analysis
Test 2:
Perform the same test as Test 1 using the CSR instead of the Load Resistor
Post the results of your analysis
Explain why the differential probes do not show any appreciable advantage in this type of research or explain why they do using your collected data as a reference.
8)
Quote from: Harvey on November 09, 2009, 05:52:31 PM
I think I see a problem. That formula is for inches, not millimeters. Is there a check box somewhere that converts it for you? I haven't checked your results yet, but as I recall they are very close to what I derived also.
Which problem?
The web page provides the option for mm or inches. I believe it defaults to mm and that is what I used.
I just tried the web page and it doesn't seem to be loading.
.99
I think I have solved the problem of the incorrect resistor printing. It is quite appropriate that I post this on this page as the length of the resistor in mm is very close to the page number here. There are two misprints according to my calculations. The length of the resistor and the spacing of the windings. However, the inductance, the number of windings, the resistance and the diameter of the coil work out so perfectly I am convinced that this is the case. The resistor was probably made to imperial measurements with a 1.25" diameter and 10" length. The number of windings results to 48.33 turns with the extra .33 turns being used to secure the wire to the end terminals (0.1674161" beyond the full turn to be exact)
Any thoughts on this?
EDIT: It is possible that the person recording the length measured roughly 250mm and then wrote 150mm
8)
Quote from: Harvey on November 09, 2009, 07:04:30 PM
Poynt, having read through your post I did not find anything new. Evidently you are mistaken as to my level of expertise in this area.
I may be mistaken, but it certainly does not appear that way. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.
Quote
Explain why the differential probes do not show any appreciable advantage in this type of research or explain why they do using your collected data as a reference.
8)
It would seem that neither of us at the moment can show actual results to prove this one way or the other (until my diff probes are designed and built), however, I have shown ample substantiation for what I have stated, and I stand by it. There are several other interesting technical quirks that play into this that I have not gone into.
The challenge is moot, the technical write-ups explaining the benefits and in some cases necessity for differential probes are abundant. I have advised what research needs to be done to get over this mental hurdle, but apparently to no avail.
The challenge goes to you to explain why the technical information on this subject is wrong, and there are plenty more that can be cited. I have confidence in what they are saying, as they are probe and oscilloscope manufacturers etc., and furthermore, I have seen the effects and limitations
first hand while testing this circuit. What hands-on have you done lately to substantiate the carte blanche dismissal of the necessity of these probes?
I encourage you all once again to do the reading and research, including you Harvey. You would not be making that moot challenge if you were indeed up to speed on the subject, and moreover, you might even be in agreement with me. Do the homework, it's the only way.
.99
Poynt,
The sole purpose of a differential probe is to provide a real time view (and subsequently a single storable value) of the differential across a given component where all the terminals under test are at a potential that cannot be referenced to ground.
You seem to have some mental hurdle here that prohibits you from seeing that the results are identical in the tests I outlined. I suppose that you have fooled yourself into thinking that the reference wire on each probe is somehow affecting the data in a single probe arrangement thinking that the coaxial shielding on the differential probes would not do the exact same thing. The fact of the matter is that the single ended coaxial shielding is more susceptible to influence and demands a very good CMRR on the two inputs to account for it.
Differential Probes have their place, but they are not needed in this analysis, nor would they offer any real advantage at the data collection level. To say that they would be more accurate is the same as saying the single probes are not accurate, and nothing could be farther from the truth.
Looking forward to the results of your home-made differential probe kit - too bad it will not be usable in any scientific paper without first having it properly calibrated and documented by NIST or the like.
8)
Poynt,
Another note that you should consider very carefully - especially considering your posts regarding it which leads me to believe you know exactly what you are doing in this case - is your use of ad hom. If you are a monkey, and you push the data button on your scope, it does not make the data anymore accurate than if you are a donkey pushing the same button. The data stands on its own merit regardless of how inept you are. Your repeated attacks against the character and qualifications of the group involved in replicating the Ainslie effect is bad form in any country and any scientific circles. I have defended you repeatedly to the group, dismissing your behavior as an immaturity on your part which I had hoped you would recognize. I will no longer do so. Either you grow up and join the rank of adult as is necessary for the success of this endeavor or not. If you choose 'or not', then I must conclude that you have never intended to be helpful but have always intended to fail. If it is the latter, then your vacation will be welcomed. If it is the former, then keep your opinions regarding the expertise of other to yourself unless you can prove your argument has validity on the data itself.
8)
Poynt - I remind you that we're waiting for a retraction or a substantiation to your claim that the probes which we use are not equal to the task. All you have given us is a slew of irrelevant information - more hand waving - further aspersions on the capabilities of the contributors to this thread - reference to 'friends' in Tektronix - presumably Aethertech - who may or may nor substantiate your requirement for differential probes - some irrelevant threats that your claims will be proven - in due course - when you've jerry rigged your own uncertified differential probe - and the DEMAND that we justify your argument in this regard.
I'm looking for a retraction or a justification to the aspersions that you've cast on the data that has been and will be extrapolated for this paper. If this is ignored then - unfortunately - I will also simply ignore your contributions here. And I strongly advise those impartial readers and or contributors to do the same. It is too, too tedious to try and extrapolate what is interesting and constructive in your posts from what is bigotted and poisonous. Unlike Harvey I don't attribute this to your immaturity but to a dedicated mindset that has been cast into rigid mould. There is little if any place for such in this endeavour - aimed as it is at stressing known paradigms to alert the public to measurable and repeatable anomalies in the performance of certain electric applications.
I get it that you're clutching at straws. Your objects are to discredit the claim on any grounds available - and you are now scraping the proverbial barrel.
A number of methods have been outlined and performed to test the so called "Ainslie" circuit.
Poynt99 has done some excellent work in this area.
Paul Lowrance has suggested an alternative test method of merit.
May I suggest that a rigorous and detailed transient testing and analysis, albeit necessary if the claimed COP was on the order of 1.01, is not required considering a claimed COP on the order of 17, and proof of COP >2 (if it exists) can be easily obtained using simple thermal analysis as suggested by Poynt99 and others.
May I also offer a "poor man's test method"?
Obtain a pair of new 12 volt batteries with proven ampere hour rating, test both using small load resistors from a fully charged to a known discharge point, say 10 volts.
At this point it should be easy to calculate the energy expended by the batteries.
Fashion a set of boxes of say one cubic foot capacity, exact size is not that important, but should be chosen such that the radiation losses are practically the same for each box, and that internal temperature stays well within the rating of the components that will be tested.
Start with batteries fully charged. In one box will be the "Ainslie" circuit with battery. In the other box will be simply a battery and adjusted load resistor.
Determine the discharge rate of battery #1 when operating the "Ainslie" circuit and adjust a load resistor on battery #2 for an equal discharge rate.
Measure the temperature rise above ambient inside and close to the top of each box using thermocouples or platinum RTD's. Use a dual pen chart recorder (or temperature data logger) to log temperatures over ambient during the span of the test.
Allow the test to run to the prior chosen discharge points. Stop the test for each box when the discharge points are met.
Since each battery will have been discharged to the same point, we can assume that the energy used will be approximately the same.
If there are any doubts, we can recharge, switch batteries, boxes, thermocouples and rerun the test.
Since all of the energy consumed, and all of the power dissipated , (including power dissipated in the internal resistance of the battery) is dissipated inside the boxes, and radiated at a comparable rate to the external ambient it should be obvious from the temperature rise above ambient if any extra energy is created in the box with the "Ainslie" circuit from the temperature profile logs. (area under the curves)
A COP of 17 should be obvious if it exists. A COP of 2 or more should be easily visible from the test results, again, if it exists.
Granted this is a simple method that does not involve complex data logging, test equipment or number crunching. It also does not address radiated EM, but can if a Faraday screen is utilized on the interior of the box. EM effects should be minimal, but will add as more internal temperature rise..
Engineers have been building power pulse circuits for decades using load resistors and topologies similar to the so called "Ainslie" circuit. Those skilled in the art know that there is nothing novel about the circuit except for the claimed COP. It is strange that no one has observed this effect before (again, if it is real).
And if it is real we should all be heating our homes for less than one cent per equivalent kilowatt hour.(cost here is about 17 cents per kWhr).
The proof of the pudding is in the (h)eating ;)
ION - that proposal is gold. But just one point. There appears to be some requirement for a wide diameter to the chosen resistor. This has been partially proven. I'm on record as stating that I could never understand why the test was not immediately replicable. For many years I assumed that people were simply pretending not to get the same results. It now seems that the result does indeed require a specific area within the diameter of the load resistor itself. Either this or the actual inductance value of the resistor is critical for the effect. Not sure yet.
But the logic of the outlined test is impeccable.
For a first post that's really encouraging. Hopefully we can use your critical input on other tests required. Welcome to the argument.
I think ION has brought things into perspective. The challenge is to validate the COP17 claim. Recent posts seem to drifting off into an argument about who is the brightest and most experienced EE! Ordinary scope probes are more than ample to validate an overunity claim let alone a claim for a huge COP of 17. In fact all of the suggestions about methodology so far are able to do this.
Let's stop wasting time and effort and get on with agreeing a method and procedure that anyone can use with readily available and innexpensive test equipment.
Hoppy
Quote from: Hoppy on November 10, 2009, 04:39:53 AM
Let's stop wasting time and effort and get on with agreeing a method and procedure that anyone can use with readily available and innexpensive test equipment.
Hoppy
sounds good hoppy. why don't you gather all the cynics, debunkers and believers together and come to a consensus on what that method and procedure is, since you can't seem to agree amongst yourselves. if/when you get that accomplished then present it before rose, harvey, fuzzy, etc. (the true skeptics) for final consensus.
i'm curious about this suggested 'time saver' of yours "using readily available and innexpensive [sic] test equipment". is it going to hold any weight with academia?
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on November 10, 2009, 08:21:41 AM
sounds good hoppy. why don't you gather all the cynics, debunkers and believers together and come to a consensus on what that method and procedure is, since you can't seem to agree amongst yourselves. if/when you get that accomplished then present it before rose, harvey, fuzzy, etc. (the true skeptics) for final consensus.
i'm curious about this suggested 'time saver' of yours "using readily available and innexpensive [sic] test equipment". is it going to hold any weight with academia?
Maybe a little perspective is in order. No one is paying anyone to do anything. A successful validation is not an easy thing, and would only serve the interests of the inventor. Hoppy is not obligated to do this, and if nothing is done, then the invention can languish in obscurity for all time. So maybe drop the condescending tone?
If you want to hire a team to do a validation to your specifications, maybe you should pony up the money and do that, and then you can criticize their approach to your heart's content and they will be obligated to listen to you. But not until then.
Quote from: ION on November 09, 2009, 11:39:41 PM
Engineers have been building power pulse circuits for decades using load resistors and topologies similar to the so called "Ainslie" circuit. Those skilled in the art know that there is nothing novel about the circuit except for the claimed COP. It is strange that no one has observed this effect before (again, if it is real).
And if it is real we should all be heating our homes for less than one cent per equivalent kilowatt hour.(cost here is about 17 cents per kWhr).
The proof of the pudding is in the (h)eating ;)
;)
Quote from: utilitarian on November 10, 2009, 09:35:35 AM
Maybe a little perspective is in order. No one is paying anyone to do anything. A successful validation is not an easy thing, and would only serve the interests of the inventor. Hoppy is not obligated to do this, and if nothing is done, then the invention can languish in obscurity for all time. So maybe drop the condescending tone?
If you want to hire a team to do a validation to your specifications, maybe you should pony up the money and do that, and then you can criticize their approach to your heart's content and they will be obligated to listen to you. But not until then.
who said anyone was paying anybody? this is just more of your irrelevance... only serve the interests of the inventor? LOL
noone said hoppy is 'obligated'... where do you get this crap from?
red herring logical fallacy and more irrelevance... ::)
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on November 10, 2009, 09:42:53 AM
who said anyone was paying anybody? this is just more of your irrelevance... only serve the interests of the inventor? LOL
noone said hoppy is 'obligated'... where do you get this crap from?
more irrelevance... ::)
I was referring to your sarcastic post. Anytime you quote someone and include "(sic)", it's pretty much a sure sign of being an ass. Yea we get it, there is a spelling error and you're aware of it. You're so smart to spot that!
So just saying, if you don't like what some of these validators are doing, organize your own team. As it is now, you have zero standing to be issuing directives.
Quote from: utilitarian on November 10, 2009, 10:02:01 AM
I was referring to your sarcastic post. Anytime you quote someone and include "(sic)", it's pretty much a sure sign of being an ass. Yea we get it, there is a spelling error and you're aware of it. You're so smart to spot that!
So just saying, if you don't like what some of these validators are doing, organize your own team. As it is now, you have zero standing to be issuing directives.
irrelevant. and again a red herring logical fallacy.
Hiya ION, welcome to the forum.
A likely reason for no one having reported this effect before, is that astable oscillation conditions like we see here are considered "undesirable"... And when seen in testing, are quickly tweaked or re-engineered out of the picture (...often by simply adding capacitance to the circuit). I've seen this done many times with finely-balanced differential instrumentation op-amp circuits like high-gain amps or bridge amps.. not MOSFET's specifically, but most "transistor" types will astable oscillate under the right conditions, as op-amp networks certainly do.
Apparently from what the successful Replicators have reported, to make this one work you have to get the MOSFET to "go crazy"...This is anathema to usual procedure, and is not studied in commercial electronics, because we always "knew" it was a "wrong" condition that must be prevented.
So perhaps the only real opportunities for study of this would be back in the early days of semiconductors. Even the device manufacturers would not likely spend much time examining effects that were "out of the published range / performance envelope" of their product... Why burn valuable time testing something that they would never support anyway? They are there to make money for their company, not do fanciful experiments ;)
So in my experience, it is less surprising that it hasn't been reported before; than that the effect it brings on when applied to the proper inductor/resistor happens at all, and was finally examined and put to use... Thanks initially to Rosemary and her South Africa team ;)
And i would like to mention, that the difficulties here in replicating these effects are not the usual disappointing "secret sauce" obscuration that we sometimes see from inventors.... They simply point out the precise requirements needed... Which is nothing unusual in analog electronics at all. So far we see several requirements apparently needed to make it work:
> The high output impedance of nearly fully-charged batteries as the source,
> The specific type of MOSFET,
> And the specific size (value) and physical shape & geometry of the inductor/resistive element.
Maybe some of these could be changed for ease of replication or measurement once a better understanding of what is really going on here comes along.. And we won't be engineering strictly empirically "in the dark" by trial and error or exact replication any more; but instead working from understanding, to expand the range of operation by exploiting the effect for practical uses.... This understanding will come directly from the knowledge gained here and at Energetics Forum so far, and in the future, by our skilled and dedicated Open Source Replicators and Researchers who are taking our genre to a new high level of professionalism and credibility... For which most of here are proud of and grateful for ;)
IMO the best solid method by far is the temperature method, but I don't know why .99 has not completed this. It seems the only argument against this is the battery current probe with the two massive 10000 uF caps and the inductive battery shunt, but those are easy to fix. Use a common carbon resistor, and measure the voltage across the resistor followed by a low pass filter to measure the DC. Or you can completely do away with the battery shunt resistor & low pass filter thing with a DC amp clamp meter, which BTW will probably have less inductance than the wire that goes through the clamp. The DC amp clamp meter does not touch any part of the circuit, and is about as passive as it gets, as it merely measures the magnetic field around the wire. The only possible issue is producing enough DC current for the clamp meter to detect. You might need a sensitive clamp meter.
Paul
ps, I just figured out why all of WilbyInebriated posts say (on my computer), "You are ignoring this user. Show me the post." I thought he'd gone coo coo, LOL
utilitarian - there's really no need for me to answer your comments to Wilby - but I would point out that we're as delighted to read his input as we are to read Hoppy's or MileHigh's or, indeed, anyone's - provided always that it's reasonably comprehensible. I don't think it's ever been required that a contributor is also a replicator. And frankly, I rather depend on Wilby's perspective. He has the rare talent of reminding us all not to take ourselves too seriously.
And Grumpy? Not seen you around before - and may I say - you show an extraordinary economy of expression. Certainly no-one can accuse you of wasting the occasional word. LOL. The same goes for Johan. And really nice to see support on both sides of this interminable argument.
And Jibbguy - many thanks for pointing out the required parameters. Indeed the open source community will have this experiment as a high bench mark for standards applied to researching this anomaly. I have it on record that the only advantage to this circuit is that the results are measurable within classical parameters and that - perhaps - there's some small advantage to having this preceded by a thesis that predicted the effect? I only propose this as this will then, hopefully, open the door to better and wider applications of this effect. My own thinking here is that the switching cycle delineates the source of the energy as being different in the two cycles. And there appears to be an anomalous waveform that lends support to the requirement for new thinking on the properties of current flow. But there are effects that are not yet explicable in terms of that thesis and frankly - I'm struggling to explain this. Also of interest, not sure if this has been widely noted - is the fact that the reduced inductance seems to enhance the effect rather than otherwise - which flies in the face of what would have been classically assumed. In truth the adage that this 'poses more questions than answers' is painfully applicable.
But while I admit that the effect is anomalous - let's face it - it's just so, so required. Personally I think that Fuzzy's efforts here are going to tip the smug equanimity of our mainstream scientists and I welcome that event. I'm sure anyone who cares about the critical consequences of our pollutant demands on energy - will feel the same. Which is the real reason that replications will be a really good thing. But - to any replicators - please check out the parameters identified in Jibbguy's posts. They're critical if you actually want to exploit this effect.
This thread has had a strange history. But I agree with Hoppy. It's gradually becoming a little more mature - if that's the right word? LOL. I think we're overdue for a bit of MH's irreverence.
Quote from: Harvey on November 09, 2009, 09:53:09 PM
Poynt,
The sole purpose of a differential probe is to provide a real time view (and subsequently a single storable value) of the differential across a given component where all the terminals under test are at a potential that cannot be referenced to ground.
That is incorrect. I suggest you do the reading and some thinking. You're missing some important and critical factors.
Quote
You seem to have some mental hurdle here that prohibits you from seeing that the results are identical in the tests I outlined.
I assure you in this case, both statements are incorrect.
Quote
I suppose that you have fooled yourself into thinking that the reference wire on each probe is somehow affecting the data in a single probe arrangement thinking that the coaxial shielding on the differential probes would not do the exact same thing.
I have certainly not been fooled into thinking anything. The technical know-how is out there and it speaks for itself. It would be wise to read and heed it's advice. You are beginning to head in the right direction. The reference lead is one major factor involved in skewing the acquired data. This is a crucial point, but there are other advantages to using the diff probes. Do some reading and thinking about them and the limitations of the single-ended probe when applied to this particular (and many other) application. This is one case where actual first-hand hands-on pays off dividends.
Quote
The fact of the matter is that the single ended coaxial shielding is more susceptible to influence and demands a very good CMRR on the two inputs to account for it.
This is incorrect. The coax shielding is equal in each case. Two problems with the single-ended probe are the reference lead, and when making quasi-differential measurements with two probes, the oscilloscope's input amplifiers CMR is not sufficient to obtain accurate measurements. Differential probes were developed for several very good reasons, and ignoring them is a poor judgment call. Did you even read the article?
QuoteUse two conventional scope probes (with their ground leads connected only to each other) and the built-in channel summing capability of an oscilloscope. This is known as a quasi-differential measurement. Unfortunately, the passive scope probes in combination with the scope's amplifiers lack the CMRR (common mode rejection ratio) to block the common mode voltage adequately. This setup cannot capture the measurement with good accuracy.
Quote
Differential Probes have their place, but they are not needed in this analysis, nor would they offer any real advantage at the data collection level. To say that they would be more accurate is the same as saying the single probes are not accurate, and nothing could be farther from the truth.
I'll emphasize again that first-hand experience with this circuit suggests otherwise. The lack of knowledge, insight, and first-hand experience with this circuit would lead one to compose such a statement. The truth is the statement is wrong, and a distortion of what I have said. The P6139 probes are fantastic probes, there is no question about that. They are accurate, but they are not the suitable choice for the type of measurements we are attempting to make here with the oscilloscope.
Quote
Looking forward to the results of your home-made differential probe kit - too bad it will not be usable in any scientific paper without first having it properly calibrated and documented by NIST or the like.
Are the P6139 probes NIST traceable? ;) Too bad for whom? I have no issue or interest regarding NIST documents, the use of my diff probe, nor the submission of a paper.
.99
ION and Grumpy.
I appreciate the contribution of much-needed objectivity, and support. Thanks.
.99
Quote from: Harvey on November 09, 2009, 10:07:07 PM
Poynt,
Another note that you should consider very carefully - especially considering your posts regarding it which leads me to believe you know exactly what you are doing in this case - is your use of ad hom.
That would be a mis-interpretation of the intent of my posts.
Quote
Your repeated attacks against the character and qualifications of the group involved in replicating the Ainslie effect is bad form in any country and any scientific circles.
If it is the former, then keep your opinions regarding the expertise of other to yourself unless you can prove your argument has validity on the data itself.
I will make something very clear, and make no mistake about it: Be careful of what you are accusing me of. I have made no such attacks against anyone in this group. What I have done is pointed out several technical issues regarding the measurement techniques being utilized, and their associated deficiencies. I've suggested sound measurement alternatives based on published technical papers and my own first-hand experience with this apparatus. I have pointed out the need for a higher level of measurement standard based on my own results and the results of the data presented by the Ainslie team, which obviously and clearly by anyone's standards, are not usable. If I have attacked anything, it is the quality of the data if you will, but that's all.
I pointed out the weakness in your arguments with real substantiation. I leave it to the audience to judge for themselves the level of your "expertise". The fact that you choose to continue touting the errors that you do is your prerogative, but expect them to be questioned if and when they are made. I have yet to see the substantiation of these erroneous statements.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on November 10, 2009, 12:19:54 PM
ION and Grumpy.
I appreciate the contribution of much-needed objectivity, and support. Thanks.
.99
You have a lot of heart, .99 - almost 300 pages and you are still sluggin'
Here is some more of that "much-needed objectivity":
Hi,
I'll answer these questions, but please note that I am trying to not spend time on the Ainslie case.
Quote from: Harvey on November 09, 2009, 06:21:18 PM
Paul, I will admit here that this is the first post from you that I have carefully read so as to ascertain your approach. There are several things in your approach that need to be addressed.
1. Battery drain curve calibration for:
a) Continuous DC
b) Pulsed DC
c) Oscillatory AC
d) Aperiodic Oscillatory AC
My experiments have shown me that battery efficiency does not change by any appreciable amount if it is connected to a static load, or if the load is turned on, off, on, off at any rate so long as the amount of current is kept low enough. Obviously battery efficiency is related to parameters such as the average current, peak current, and temperature. The tester can verify this with a simple test. Unless we're talking about a lot of current, there's no concern here. Just remember that a battery is DC, not AC.
Quote from: Harvey on November 09, 2009, 06:21:18 PM
2. Thermocouple TC curve calibration reference
That's the testers responsibility. I have no way of knowing what thermistor or temperature probe they would use. I use 402 SMD thermistors. Don't have the part # on hand, and don't want to become that involved.
Quote from: Harvey on November 09, 2009, 06:21:18 PM
3. Ambient dissipation characteristics (thermal resistance) for:
a) Load Resistor
b) Power Transistor
c) Thermal Paste or Sil-Pad
d) Power Transistor Heat Sink
Given the nature of this particle testing method, those are irrelevant since the experiment is based on *relative* measurements compared to the control experiment. The temperatures of the components in both the control and main experiment are at the same temperature.
Quote from: Harvey on November 09, 2009, 06:21:18 PM
4. Allowed error margins e.g. 8°F on Battery case? Or is that a fluid measurement of the acid?
The battery temperature is not that important in this test because after the battery is used in the Ainslie circuit the battery is then given at least 1 day to settle down. I mentioned 8°F just as a precaution to not over heat the battery, and other obvious reasons.
Quote from: Harvey on November 09, 2009, 06:21:18 PM
5. Is there any need to monitor the ambient during your test or just as long as it is within "a few degrees"?
Yes, it says in the description to log the ambient temperature during the mosfet & load temperature measurements.
Regards,
Paul
Hi everyone,
Here is a PDF published since 2002 by "Tektronix" called .... ABC's of Probes primer
http://www.afc-ingenieros.com/NotasTecn/Sondas/abc_sondas.pdf
also the "Tektronix" TDS 3000C series Digital Phosphor Oscilloscope User Manual .....
http://www.pewa.de/DATENBLATT/DBL_TEK_TDS3000C_MANUAL_ENGLISCH.pdf
Fuzzy
:)
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on November 10, 2009, 02:40:01 PM
Hi everyone,
Here is a PDF published since 2002 by "Tektronix" called .... ABC's of Probes primer
http://www.afc-ingenieros.com/NotasTecn/Sondas/abc_sondas.pdf
also the "Tektronix" TDS 3000C series Digital Phosphor Oscilloscope User Manual .....
http://www.pewa.de/DATENBLATT/DBL_TEK_TDS3000C_MANUAL_ENGLISCH.pdf
Fuzzy
:)
Good stuff Fuzzy.
I fully expected someone to find the ABC's one, it's very good. ;)
Check out Lecroy and Agilent as well.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on November 10, 2009, 02:46:22 PM
Good stuff Fuzzy.
I fully expected someone to find the ABC's one, it's very good. ;)
Check out Lecroy and Agilent as well.
.99
Hi .99
Your right about the Tektronix ABC's of Probes primer "PDF" .... I try to reference it as much as possible for those that are just learning about or getting ready to purchase an oscilloscope for the first time ....
http://www.energeticforum.com/62699-post12.htmlI'll have to check out the Lecroy and Agilent as you suggested for any additional information ....
Fuzzy
;)
Fuzzy,
One more from Tektronix that is quite good:
Making Single-ended Measurements with a Differential Probe
http://www2.tek.com/cmswpt/tidetails.lotr?ct=TI&cs=apn&ci=3033&lc=EN
.99
A rather good passage from the Agilent document here:
Oscilloscope probing for high-speed signalshttp://cp.literature.agilent.com/litweb/pdf/5989-9177EN.pdf
QuoteEven if you’re measuring a single-ended signal, a differential probe always provides superior results, especially as the bandwidth of the signal increases. Remember, all signals are differential; “ground†is a convenient fantasy. A differential probe will have lower loading (higher impedance) for high-frequency signals in addition to higher common mode rejection ratio (CMRR).
.99
In your Quantum article of October 2002 it is stated:
"Measurement of temperature rise was enabled through the use of a platinum-based temperature probe fixed to the hollow wall of the resistor as shown in fig 2 and fig 3. This instrument was chosen because it is not affected by the applied high frequency. This in turn was linked to a digital device that displayed instantaneous readings of temperature change (in degrees Celsius)."
Is the name or manufacturer of the platinum probe available?. Was it a bobbin wound or thin film probe? Who manufactured the measurement instrument and what was the model and serial number.
I have considerable experience in the manufacture of platinum RTD probes and associated amplification, signal processing, and digital display. It is not easy to filter all frequencies, provide leadwire compensation and prevent self heating effects due to capacitive reactance of the elements, even if they are non-inductively wound.
What tests were performed to insure the instrumentation was not affected by the 143kHz to 200kHz spurious oscillation mode?
Did the platinum probe use 3 wire or 4 wire lead compensation? The compensation circuits can limit CMRR and be a pickup for noise leading to erroneous measurements.
I believe this issue was addressed in an earlier post, but I would like to dig a little deeper to put this to rest in my own mind.
Thank you kindly for any of this information and if it was already covered please point me to the page.
Hi ION. Not really able to help you out here. I forwarded all the measuring tools for replicators on the Energetic Forum. This included those probes. Nor did we record the make and type in that paper. But the principle is simply that the thermocoupling positioned inside the hollow of the resistor body was the chosen reference - and was also used for establishing the heat profile of the resistor. And our assurance was that this material would be least effected by the frequencies we were measuring. But frankly - I am open to correction. I just followed the advices given us by the academics who discussed this and suggested that they were the preferred, if not required components.
I'm no expert here ION. And sorry I can't give you more information regarding this.
I would add that regardless of the cause of the 'heating' there was a decision made that the 'effect' as it relates to the caloric profiling - would be considered as empirical evidence of the energy dissipated regardless as to whether it was caused by capacitance, inductance or whatever. What we were assured is that the digital display would not be erroneous as a result of RF or magnetic interference resulting from high frequency transitions. That, as I understood it, was what we needed to guard against.
An excerpt of an on-going discussion with Dave from Tektronix. This first response received 2009-NOV-10. More to follow where he touches on the differential probes among other things:
;D
QuoteFirst of all, you should be using a current probe, not a P6139A and 0.25 Ohm resistor.
What is the amperage across the 0.25 Ohm resistor?
Is one end of the resistor at ground (the same exact ground as the scope ground)?
Is the sense of current negative and the voltage positive?
Is the sense of the current positive and the voltage negative?
Those would give negative power readings.
You probably have a ground loop involving two or more of the following:
The 2 P6139A ground clips, TDS3054C, 0.25 Ohm resistor, battery leads, load leads, load ground.
Best Regards,
Dave McDonald
Tektronix Technical Support Center
ph 503 627 1279 or 800 833 9200 press 3
e-mail david.m.mcdonald@tektronix.com
http://www.tektronix.com
I agree.
Used properly, the current probe will resolve half of the problems being encountered with these power measurements. The grounding issues he raises would be resolved with the use of some true differential voltage probes. That's the other 50% resolved.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on November 12, 2009, 12:45:04 PM
An excerpt of an on-going discussion with Dave from Tektronix. This first response received 2009-NOV-10. More to follow where he touches on the differential probes among other things:
;D
I agree.
Used properly, the current probe will resolve half of the problems being encountered with these power measurements. The grounding issues he raises would be resolved with the use of some true differential voltage probes. That's the other 50% resolved.
.99
Hi David,
I understand a XxXxXx XxXxXx from XxXx XxXxXx XxXxXx in XxXxXxX XxXxXx XxXxXx has been asking questions on a "Device Under Test" of mine using a Tektronix TDS 3054C on XxXx to me for a second time and now through November that was set up by Lisa Bieker the Product Marketing Manager at Tektronix.
There has been a posting at a alternative energy forum by XxXxXx XxXxXx with answers to some
unknown questions he submitted there .....
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg208540#msg208540
**********************************************************************
Quote
First of all, you should be using a current probe, not a P6139A and 0.25 Ohm resistor.
What is the amperage across the 0.25 Ohm resistor?
Is one end of the resistor at ground (the same exact ground as the scope ground)?
Is the sense of current negative and the voltage positive?
Is the sense of the current positive and the voltage negative?
Those would give negative power readings.
You probably have a ground loop involving two or more of the following:
The 2 P6139A ground clips, TDS3054C, 0.25 Ohm resistor, battery leads, load leads, load ground.
Best Regards,
Dave McDonald
Tektronix Technical Support Center
ph 503 627 1279 or 800 833 9200 press 3
e-mail david.m.mcdonald@tektronix.com
http://www.tektronix.com
**********************************************************************
The circuit in question has been posted at forums in numerous places ..... here is a link to a complete test (TEST #5) including test images, data, YouTube video links, set up photos and circuit schematic that has also been forwarded to Lisa Bieker for comment and review several times ..........
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg206788#msg206788
I am curious about the discrepancy between the approved use of the existing TDS 3054C probes doing what is required and as recommended by Lisa Bieker and now you recommend a different set of probes indicated and required for doing measurements on this "very" small circuit by you on my testing not XxXxXx of this device.
Please advise what is going on as this relates to my extensive testing and evaluation which all the information has been publically posted and not XxXxXx XxXxXx who has done some testing on this device but has not published any actual original data and only spice software simulations.
Thank You,
Glen XxXxXxXxXx
(aka) fuzzytomcat
Glen,
If you recall, some time ago I informed the group that I invited David to the EF topic before I was pressured into leaving, and expectantly, he did not join in. I doubt very much he would be interested in joining the discussion here either, so I have not even bothered him with this request. So addressing him here will not likely elicit a response from David.
I am curious what Lisa Bieker's background and technical know-how is in terms of being able to provide the detailed technical support and recommendations as David does on a daily basis as a technical support engineer? I am not insinuating Lisa is not qualified, but it should not be assumed either. A Product Marketing Manager is not necessarily someone that has the technical expertise of an experienced electrical engineer specializing in measurement.
You are obviously curious (and perhaps doubtful I even sent one?) what I asked David, so here are my emails to him so far:
QuoteHi again David.
I wonder if you might be able to help me out with a measurement problem we're having.
There are two groups making power measurements on a MOSFET switched-inductor circuit. I am one and am using a TDS784A oscilloscope, and the other group is using a TDS3054C oscilloscope.
The challenge we are facing right now is obtaining a usable measurement of the instantaneous and average power being delivered by the 24V battery supply to our switching circuit. We are placing one P6139 probe on the battery line, some distance away from the actual battery + terminal for reading the battery voltage, and we are using a second P6139 probe on a low-side 0.25 Ohm shunt in an attempt to get a good measurement of instantaneous current through the circuit.
With these two sampled wave forms imported into Excel, they are multiplied together, then averaged over the 10,000 samples or so. The frequency of operation is about 450kHz, and the time base used for sampling vary from 2us to 40us runs.
The problem arises when the results are examined for various runs over several hours. See the table below:
Battery Power AVG (W)
Hour 2µs 20µs 40µs
1 1.514827571 -2.479456000 1.500064000
2 -3.205999153 -4.045888000 -5.239488000
3 -5.533148312 -5.207520000 -1.636576000
4 -2.350759808 -1.969696000 -3.160768000
5 -2.070294717 -3.493984000 -4.054848000
6 -1.257904431 -4.098176000 -2.052608000
7 -2.550643907 -4.765152000 -3.565344000
AVG -2.207703251 -3.722838857 -2.601366857
Notice that 19 out of the 21 results are negative. Also the results seem to vary all over the map.
Can you make a suggestion as to what may be causing the wide variation and the negative values? Is there something wrong perhaps with the measurement method?
I reference this Tektronix article for consideration of the above:
http://www2.tek.com/cmswpt/tidetails.lotr?ct=TI&cs=afs&ci=14789&lc=EN
QuoteHi Dave.
Thank you very much for the reply.
I've attached a schematic/block diagram of the test setup in the pdf file for Figure 1. Ignore the 5k pot for the Gate resistor, it is there for experimental purposes. I've also attached a scope shot of my wave forms for VP1 (supply), VP2 ((Drain), and VP3 (Shunt). and also for the other group's tests. You can see two scope shots are very similar in that the shunt voltage goes negative during the inductive kickback of the 10 Ohm ceramic 100W wire-wound resistor.
In my tests, after importing the sampled data into Excel and doing the number crunching, I consistently get a negative power for the MOSFET, and too large a power for the load resistor. The other group as you could see from the table of results in my last email, was getting mostly negative powers for the supplied power.
I have also attached the data dump related to the scope shot dated 24 Oct 2009, but note that the data was trimmed for one complete cycle not shown in the scope shot. You see in the Excel spreadsheet that after all the number crunching, I get 64W for the power in the load resistor, 20W for the supplied power (verified ok with my filtered shunt shown near the supply), and -44W power for the MOSFET ???
There is definitely something off with the measurements.
In my own tests, I did calibrate the probes, but I did not make any skew adjustments because when I had all 3 probes connected to the same rising edge, they looked bang on in alignment.
I did notice however, that the probe ground leads were very influential in this setup, in terms of how the wave forms change by moving the leads around, or even grabbing the load resistor. Star point grounding and 2.5" ground leads were used for two probes, and a 4" for the other (VP3) (which made a huge improvement), but still the inductance form the leads seemed to be having a large effect.
The apparent voltage across the 0.25 Ohm shunt as you can see peaks negative at about -1V and goes positive to about 0.5V.
Each probe had a ground clip and they were starred to P4 on the diagram. I feel the problems we are having is a combination of wire inductance and probe ground leads which is causing a false increase in the supply voltage at the peak, and inductance in the shunt probe ground lead skewing the wave form, which when multiplied by the huge voltage spikes computes to an artificially large value.
The supply voltage should be measured right at the supply + and - terminals, but that means attaching that probe's ground lead directly to the supply. Then we have the other two probes with their grounds attached to the low side of the shunt. Now there is a ground loop.
Seems to me several if not all of these problems could be solved by a) As you say, to use a current probe, and b) to use HV differential probes such as the P5205.
Your input is greatly appreciated, thanks Dave.
So, as you can see, I gave him information on your tests and my own as well. The discussion is on-going, and he is out of the office today.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on November 12, 2009, 02:35:56 PM
Glen,
If you recall, some time ago I informed the group that I invited David to the EF topic before I was pressured into leaving, and expectantly, he did not join in. I doubt very much he would be interested in joining the discussion here either, so I have not even bothered him with this request. So addressing him here will not likely elicit a response from David.
I am curious what Lisa Bieker's background and technical know-how is in terms of being able to provide the detailed technical support and recommendations as David does on a daily basis as a technical support engineer? I am not insinuating Lisa is not qualified, but it should not be assumed either. A Product Marketing Manager is not necessarily someone that has the technical expertise of an experienced electrical engineer specializing in measurement.
You are obviously curious (and perhaps doubtful I even sent one?) what I asked David, so here are my emails to him so far:
So, as you can see, I gave him information on your tests and my own as well. The discussion is on-going, and he is out of the office today.
.99
Hi .99
The posting of mine was a
copy of a e-mail sent to David McDonald and I also sent as a
"CC" to Lisa Bieker the "Product Marketing" manager at the Beaverton, Oregon campus, whom has assured us after talking to Engineers at the USA and European Divisions of Tektronix's Corporation about this circuit or device, including the application of the TDS 3054C with the standard P6139A probes and its capabilities of measurements we require for data collection.
Fuzzy
;)
Glen,
That was not so PC :-\
David is not likely going to come here or go to EF to check out your links and test data. Please be respectful of the service folks like him provide, and keep the contact professional. Please also be respectful of the fact that he and I are having a technical discussion, and it is my choice if I decide to post any of it, and what has been posted should be appreciated, not abused.
Infringing on my contact with David and underhandedly putting him up against Lisa as you have done is also not professional. This may have seriously jeopardized his desire for any further advice or contact on the subject. Nice going.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on November 12, 2009, 04:38:22 PM
Glen,
That was not so PC :-\
David is not likely going to come here or go to EF to check out your links and test data. Please be respectful of the service folks like him provide, and keep the contact professional. Please also be respectful of the fact that he and I are having a technical discussion, and it is my choice if I decide to post any of it, and what has been posted should be appreciated, not abused.
Infringing on my contact with David and underhandedly putting him up against Lisa as you have done is also not professional. This may have also seriously jeopardized his desire for any further advice or contact on the subject. Nice going.
.99
Poynt - YOU talk about what is politically correct? And you have the added temerity of suggesting that your edited posts should be 'appreciated' and not 'abused'. Golly.
These last few posts are somewhat cryptic and, for those who are not cognisant of what has transpired both off and on forum - let me see if I can do a quick overview.
Some time back Poynt contacted Aethertech which is the technical arm of Tektronix - to solicit the participation of one of their representatives on one of our threads. The contact was made by him under a certain name and in association with a certain law enforcement group that I have solemnly undertaken not to reveal. That first contact also asked for comment on the 'negative dominant waveform' that had been recorded by Aaron at Energetic Forum. You will recall that we were accessing the information from our TDS. That he contacted Aethertech was intended to strain the relationship between Tektronix and ourselves. The negative dominant claim is associated with some anomalous results that confronted classical predictions and, traditionally mainstream will disassociate itself from any such. Poynt was expecting complete endorsement and some added muscle to his own attack against us. Dave, in turn replied.
Poynt posted Dave's replies - in two stages. Firstly he posted the considered evaluation concluding with the possible need to run a calibration programme. Then he posted Dave's conclusion saying that such data would - indeed - be intriguing in the event that it persisted. As Poynty had already disclosed his intention to invite David onto the forum and into the argument - and since this never transpired - then we also concludeded that David had declined to enter into the forum discussion.
Then Poynt saw need to delete his posts relating to this discussion with Dave. And, immediately thereafter came an elaborate attempt to advise me, by personal message - that he had never heard of Aethertech. Although I had NEVER even mentioned the matter in writing he proposed that I had possibly confused any such reference to his own discussion with aethertech - the co-incidental and arbitrary name used by one of our contributors. My suspicions were alerted precisely because I hadn't given any further thought to his posts. But, as a result of those deletions Poynt was then banned from Energetic Forum. The need to delete the posts were clearly required to 'cover his tracks' and the questions are still out there as to why he needed to cover his tracks at all?
His next attack on our team was based on the use of the probes - again as a last ditch effort to discredit the data that our team had collated. Now and again using the well worn tools of aspersion and implication - the claim was that any data collected from any probe other than a differential probe or, alternatively, a current probe - would be considered erroneous. To do this he posted a slew of technical information relating to the use of the differential probe - and to those that missed this - the use of the differential probe is to get values that are driven at frequencies that are way in excess of any that we are generating on our cicuit. That was the only point at which our circuit may - indeed - have required such a component.
As recently as post 2552 he stated 'I have pointed out the need for a higher level of measurement standard based on my own results and the results of the data presented by the Ainslie team -
which obviously and clearly by anyone's standards are not useable.' (The emphasis is my own). This then followed by the following pejorative statement
"
I pointed out the weakness in your arguments with real substantiation. I leave it to the audience to judge for themselves the level of your "expertise". The fact that you choose to continue touting the errors tht you do is your prerogative (I assume he meant perogative), but expect them to be questioned if and when they are made. I have yet to see the substantiation of these erroneous statements."
That is as good as stating that the tests results are not only defective but that we are touting them in the full knowledge of their error. This was then followed excessive gratitude offered for the typical endorsements from various contributors including Grumpy and ION. And this - in the wild hopes that 2 such references would also give the general impression of a wider representation of those in the audience who accepted all such aspersions, cast with such reckless abandon, at the integrity of our experimentalists.
But here's the hell of it. Let me remind our readers. Firstly Poynty has never posted unedited data. Secodly he has employed such extraordinary levels of deceptions that his credibility is now entirely at question. He is now flying off at three or more tangents - simultaneously losing his poynt as he does so. I have it in writing - barely 1 week old - that he has never heard of Aethertech. This is curious as we are all now aware of his having contacted them and even who he contacted and when. Does he suffer from long term memory lapse? Then we were promised a dissertation from a representative at Tektronix which would explain why our data is erroneous. We're still waiting.
Since we all know who we're referring to and why - POYNTY POYNT - get something in writing from a measurements expert to discount the validity of our data - or alternatively disclose your real name and show us whether you are qualified to comment here at all. Alternatively change your argument or get out of the argument. Personally I am satisfied that, yet again, Fuzzy has tied you up in knots.
edit spelling
Wow Rose,
I truly am impressed with your ability to spin a false story.
A sign of desperation I suppose. Pity :-\
btw, aethertech is a user here at the forum. I do not know where he works, nor do I know his real name.
HE PM'd me first here at OU as a positive gesture towards helping me out with a few suggestions, such as the filtered shunt. I think you jumped to several disconnected conclusions about him and my relationship to him. Remember the desperate PM you sent me about his contact information? I truly believe you are sadly mistaken and very confused about what's transpired over the last several weeks. Here is your PM to me in case you have misplaced it:
Quote from: witsend on October 20, 2009, 03:24:12 PM
Poynt Very URGENT. Please forward me the phone number for aethertech I've lost this and I need to reach them urgently to set up a full on 'live test' that everyone can get into 'live'. What fun
In one Skype text chat you and I had, you mentioned that you had spoke to aethertech, so next time I contacted him via PM, he responded with the following:
Quote from: aethertech on October 28, 2009, 10:15:40 AM
Poynt,
Was away for a while (some business, some "fun in the sun"). I have not been able to catch up on the whole RA thread, but it looks like it is coming to an end.
As far as discussion with RA, that never happened. No voice, no email, nada, nothing. So either a false claim was made, or someone contacted her appearing to be me. I'll have to dig thru the thread to find those claims.
I see Aaron has drifted into the background noise, and what of his equivalent heat battery run down time tests and extended use of the Tek? Did any of that happen while I was gone?
I see you have done a lot of testing, and continue to have to defend the simplest (yet complex!) of issues, such as the inductance of a straight wire...
Good to hear from you,
aethertech
When I PM'd you with a message saying aethertech had never ever been in contact with you, you replied:
Quote from: witsend on October 28, 2009, 01:14:12 PM
Don't know what or who you're referring to here. I spoke to two different people at Aethertech during 1 conversation - per telephone and subsequent to your own application to them. There's record on my phone account and there's some other reference to this conversation. I think on Email? I'll have to check. You printed the email reply you got from ? Can't recall his name off hand. Not sure if that's who I spoke to - but I definitely spoke to a guy and a woman - and in conference.
But I'm not sure that I need to establish this for your benefit. And I'm not sure why you're asking the question? Is is related to the disclosure of your name? Your work? I don't think your name was given if your name is what you told me. It was another name altogether and I'm not about to reference that either. it's likely that most of these communiques are open to inspection by our hackers.
Not sure of your concern here Poynty? As far as I'm concerned the matter's closed. But if you're checking on my representations - as always - I'm willing to give proof. I find it a bit insulting. But am happy to oblige. Also I'm just not getting to understand your concerns. Are you worried that I'll disclose your name on the forum? I would never do so. Not ever.
I expressed the following in a PM to you:
Quote from: poynt99 on October 28, 2009, 01:29:36 PM
Rose,
Perhaps I am confusing the forum user named "aethertech" with whomever your "Aethertech" is. I assumed it is one and the same person.
aethertech is someone that contacted me on the forum some time ago and suggested the power supply add-on in order to help make power measurements easier. I posted his suggestion and gave him credit for this at least twice.
Remember, it was you that was asking me for aethertech's phone number, so that is how I made the association between the aethertech I know, and the one you mentioned. If this is not the same person, then please advise.
Again, only you would know if this was the same person, but now I doubt it is. I've not heard of Aethertech. Do they have a website? What do they do?
.99
I think you're confused, and hopefully the PM's speak for themselves.
Also, you've fabricated so much in that last post of yours, I wouldn't even know where to start, nor do I even wish to. Gosh, talk about ad hom.
And for the record, I didn't delete any of my posts, neither here, nor at EF. If there are any deleted posts at EF, they were deleted by one of the administrators, not me.
.99
Wow! We sure have a delusional bunch of peeps here, don't we?
My post are merely to detract from the ridiculous rantings on this thread, which is approaching 300 pages with nothing gained. Hence the images of pissing into the wind. Which sums up this whole exercise in futility.
Small amounts of what appears to be excess energy occur all the time. Whoop-dee-doo. Say you are hot shit and you're getting 2 watts out for every 1 watt in. It isn't enough. Look at your usage in your home, your car, your office, etc. You need kilowatts!
So you can light LED's or charge batteries - move on - scale it up - do "something" with it. Stop wasting your time trying to prove a speck of energy that doesn't amount to a wart on a toad's ass.
A lot of good stuff has been posted on this site in the last year or so - A tetrahedral version of the TPU, replication of the kicks, the toroidal rings document that disappeared for years and "mysteriously" resurfaced, Tesla's work replicated by several people - and very few people have done anything with any of it. Instead you piss away your life arguing with each other.
If Aethertech was affiliated with Tektronix, I doubt it/he/she would be called "Aethertech".
So, in case anyone missed my "poynt", if you think you have "something", then just use it!
Thanks Grumpy.
Always one able to cut through the BS and get to the meat of the matter :D
Oh, and why are you holding back?..tell us how you really feel! LOL!
.99
Poynty - confusions abound. Aethertech is, as far as I know, the name of the technical arm of Tektronix in Europe and, I think in Africa. Hence the extraordinary and compounded confusions between our different references. When referencing Aethertech I assumed that the technical support division of Tektronix used the same name in the States.
Regarding the deletions of posts - definitely none apparent. Again I was looking for the wrong company name.
What can I say? I'm old and getting ever older and, apparently - at speed.
Nonetheless - my comments regarding your motives in suggesting the requirement for differential probes and the object of discrediting our data on the basis of this lack - stands. You have forced this issue and we will need to address it in full. I'll revisit this later today - your tomorrow - when I can reach Tektronix myself. When I asked you for a number? I was referring to Dave's number.
As it's doubtful my contact with David will continue due to this unfortunate occurrence with Fuzzy's email and the forced uncomfortable position he and Lisa will no doubt be in tomorrow as a result, I'll post his one last bit of advice that says it all anyway, and that is:
Quote
These are not trivial measurements and techniques.
Even with the correct current probes, and differential probes, they require the utmost of care in setup and use.
This is where the "higher standard of measurement" comes in as I have been espousing.
.99
Quote from: witsend on November 12, 2009, 09:53:49 PM
Nonetheless - my comments regarding your motives in suggesting the requirement for differential probes and the object of discrediting our data on the basis of this lack - stands. You have forced this issue and we will need to address it in full. I'll revisit this later today - your tomorrow - when I can reach Aethetech myself. When I asked you for a number? I was referring to Dave's number.
First: If you are referring to David McDonald from Tektronix as "Aethertech", please remove that notion from your thinking--he is not "Aethertech"!
Second: If you are intending on contacting David, don't you think your team has done enough damage already? I have not even had a chance to respond to his second email to me and already he is going to suffer a barrage of nonsense emails that will do nothing but worsen the now precarious situation.
Third: It was evidently a mistake on my part thinking I could trust this group to be professional, mindful, and respectful. It won't happen again.
.99
Read the first post of "ION". Also notice that the name is all-caps.
"transient analysis" - Holy Crap! How many people are even qualified to perform transient analysis? ION points out that this is not required - thank God! My point is that he is not some ignorant bystander. He is skilled in the art. If you would care to read what he says, you may even consider yourselves in the company of "greatness". You hardly even noticed his presence...
For the thick-headed:
QuoteEngineers have been building power pulse circuits for decades using load resistors and topologies similar to the so called "Ainslie" circuit. Those skilled in the art know that there is nothing novel about the circuit except for the claimed COP. It is strange that no one has observed this effect before (again, if it is real).
And if it is real we should all be heating our homes for less than one cent per equivalent kilowatt hour.(cost here is about 17 cents per kWhr).
The proof of the pudding is in the (h)eating
Probably just an electron transfer mech like in secondary avalanche mode in a transistor. Increases the goods, but is not OU.
Quote from: poynt99 on November 12, 2009, 10:40:26 PM
First:
Third: It was evidently a mistake on my part thinking I could trust this group to be professional, mindful, and respectful. It won't happen again.
.99
Just hang on here one really long moment Poynty. It was you who stated - unequivocally - that our data was nonsense and that our tests were meaningless and that Lisa's input was irrelevant and that David would support your thesis regarding the required probes. Do you seriously propose that we would sit back and take this - on the chin - to satisfy your argument? And how politically correct is it to burden our objects with this avalanche of dismissive statements about the tests, the thesis, the accuracy of the probes - or anything at all. Where was the required restraint? Or even some moderation in your observations? Where, in short, was your own professionalism. Or is it just required behaviour of everyone except yourself?
My own take is that, at its least, it's required that we investigate the authority upon which you allegedly base your conclusions that also lead to your unequivocal dismissal of our experimental evidence.
And Grumpy. You've chosen a really appropriate name. But we're really not here to satisfy your needs for some megawatt applications of proof of concept. If you're up for it - then go for it. No-one will stop you. We've got our own thing going here - and unless it's illegal - or until we're forceably prevented - then we'll take this where we need to. You don't like the thread? That's fixable. And it doesn't need any changes in our plans nor in the quality of our contributions.
One last post before I retire for the night...
The data used to compute the results in Glen's test#5 is unusable. This will become evident to you at some point in the future.
A diff probe in combination with a current probe is the best solution for these measurements, but since the only power measurement of interest for proving your thesis is the power supply (the load resistor power is already done using the control), then the following should also work:
A single-ended probe place directly on the +'ve terminal of the supply or battery, and the ground lead of that probe (as short as possible, <3") connected directly to the -'ve terminal of the battery. By "terminal", this means strictly and precisely that. Measuring the supply voltage at some point electrically distant from the actual terminal is not good enough. It must be right on the actual terminal. This probe provides the supply voltage samples.
A suitable current probe is used to provide the supply current samples. A single-ended probe and shunt will not work here. If a current probe is not available, but a diff probe is, then the diff probe across a non-inductive shunt may work ok.
.99
Grump said "Small amounts of what appears to be excess energy occur all the time. Whoop-dee-doo. Say you are hot shit and you're getting 2 watts out for every 1 watt in. It isn't enough. Look at your usage in your home, your car, your office, etc. You need kilowatts!
So you can light LED's or charge batteries - move on - scale it up - do "something" with it. Stop wasting your time trying to prove a speck of energy that doesn't amount to a wart on a toad's ass."
This sums up what also said many times. Why do tiny experiments to prove if OU is possible? Of Course its possible under the correct circumstances!! BUT don't make something where the excess is in the milliwatt range. This applies not only to Ainsley Heater but Joules theif and many other 1 milliwatt devices.
Scale it up and actually DO something with it rather then argue. Even if you believe your have COP> 17 so now you have 17 milliwatts out for your 1 mW i/p what the heck are you going to do with it? Do you believe if you have this proof that millions of dollars will come your way for a production model? Hell NO!
Only way to change global mindset is by action of using OU devices to do REAL work. Start with power savings, modify motors like a 7.5 HP 3 phase motor can be modified to RV mode where it will run on just 10 watts! This can be put to practical use like fans, pumps, drilling, machining etc and save $$$$'s. So rather then make OU devices to power these machines we save energy first which gives you an instant cash rebate. The same motor normally takes 700 watts to idle now i have made the equivalent of 690 watt free energy device because i have just saved this amount. Now compare this to any of the toys here and tell me how many have real practical use?
Eventually when you get power requirements down so small to do the same work it will become LOOPED by default.
While you all waste time and energy playing with Toys the elite are very happy!
Quote from: poynt99 on November 13, 2009, 01:53:02 AM
One last post before I retire for the night...
The data used to compute the results in Glen's test#5 is unusable. This will become evident to you at some point in the future.
A diff probe in combination with a current probe is the best solution for these measurements, but since the only power measurement of interest for proving your thesis is the power supply (the load resistor power is already done using the control), then the following should also work:
A single-ended probe place directly on the +'ve terminal of the supply or battery, and the ground lead of that probe (as short as possible, <3") connected directly to the -'ve terminal of the battery. By "terminal", this means strictly and precisely that. Measuring the supply voltage at some point electrically distant from the actual terminal is not good enough. It must be right on the actual terminal. This probe provides the supply voltage samples.
A suitable current probe is used to provide the supply current samples. A single-ended probe and shunt will not work here. If a current probe is not available, but a diff probe is, then the diff probe across a non-inductive shunt may work ok.
.99
Totally agree Poynt that this is the requirement to satisfy those people that matter. I tried my best to bang home the importance of measuring at the right points in the circuit, about reducing lead lengths to a minimum, about good quality terminations and eliminating ground loops. We have come a long way from the very messy circuit builds that Aaron showed us but there is still need for improvement in the physical build of a test circuit from what I have seen in past photos.
This thread is once again running off the rails with enough intrigue to write a book about. It won't be long before MIB enter the scene!!
Hoppy
Quote from: witsend on November 13, 2009, 01:12:53 AM
Just hang on here one really long moment Poynty. It was you who stated - unequivocally - that our data was nonsense and that our tests were meaningless and that Lisa's input was irrelevant and that David would support your thesis regarding the required probes. Do you seriously propose that we would sit back and take this - on the chin - to satisfy your argument? And how politically correct is it to burden our objects with this avalanche of dismissive statements about the tests, the thesis, the accuracy of the probes - or anything at all. Where was the required restraint? Or even some moderation in your observations? Where, in short, was your own professionalism. Or is it just required behaviour of everyone except yourself?
My own take is that it is, at its least, required - that we investigate the authority upon which you allegedly base your conclusions that also leads to your unequivocal dismissal of our experimental evidence.
And Grumpy. You've chosen a really appropriate name. But we're really not here to satisfy your needs for some megawatt applications of proof of concept. If you're up for it - then go for it. No-one will stop you. We've got our own thing going here - and unless it's illegal - or until we're forceably prevented - then we'll take this where we need to. You don't like the thread? That's fixable. And it doesn't need any changes in our plans nor in the quality of our contributions.
You keep this whole circus alive to feed your ego and to satisfy your delusions. This is no different than a religious cult - The Ainslie Faith.
Bolt is correct. No riches will come forth. No Nobel Prize. Just ask John Bedini, Steve Mark, and anyone else who has gone down that road. Do you see either of them trying to prove anything?
Quote from: Grumpy on November 13, 2009, 08:40:14 AM
You [Ainslie] keep this whole circus alive to feed your ego and to satisfy your delusions. This is no different than a religious cult - The Ainslie Faith.
Bolt is correct. No riches will come forth. No Nobel Prize. Just ask John Bedini, Steve Mark, and anyone else who has gone down that road. Do you see either of them trying to prove anything
That's good point. If Bedini has a perpetual motion machine, then why play games decade after decade giving people false hope. That just misleads people down the wrong path for decades. Gee, what a thought, why in the world would anyone want to misguide legit researchers away from real "free energy" research. ;) Just allow some highly technical people to analyze your machine.
Grumpy - golly. If I needed ego strokes I certainly would not be posting on this thread. I'd need to stay in friendly territory - or better still, entirely out of the debate.
The quest, if there is one, is to explore some means to access the abundant energy fields that are identified in dark energy. Without any over statement - the fact is that this access is critical for our survival as a species. If we've proved anything it's the simple truth that we continue to guzzle our dwindling energy resources with little if any thought for tomorrow. We've got solar, nuclear and wind energy to exploit - but not even these applications are being progressed at pace. And with burgeoning population numbers and clamorous requirements to adopt 1st World comfort levels the global pollution levels loom large and ever larger. This is now beginning to upturn the fine balance that nature herself seems to require to give us some semblance of a stable environment. So we're flirting with disaster on a scale that is possibly unprecedented since our emergence as a species on this planet.
As I see it - this quest for abundant energy is compulsively attempted by those who spend huge chapters of their lives on both forums and threads such as this. It's still a fringe interest but it's growing. But the dominant theme here is 'free energy' or 'over unity' - with good reason. Because if this can be found and then repeatedly and reliably accessed - then. 'in one fell swoop' we'd have resolved both the quantity available to us and the quality, so to speak. It would be both abundant and clean. And, that we're looking for it at all - is a really good thing. Mainstream have discounted that this can ever be accessed. The best they offer is 'small effects' - essentially unable to reach the megawatt levels that you correctly state is required.
Our hope is to address mainstream with some means to access this energy. Essentially the model proposes that this energy - evident in the vacuum - and now widely acknowledged by most thinking scientists - is also responsible for the 'bound' conditions of amalgams. It's the glue that holds matter together. And the proposal is that - given an imbalanced magnetic field - or potential difference - or measurable voltage - then what is being measured are these fields. And the thesis goes - if there is a measurable voltage then, potentially, there is also a real energy potential that can be harnessed and used. This is what we hope can be proved in this experiment. In other words in as much as inductive components can also show a measured voltage - then they too are potentially able to generate energy in the same way that batteries and utility supplies can generate energy.
But the actual challenge is far greater than this. The model is hardly likely to shake the foundations of physics. It's way too modest and way too simple. And if this test proves it - it is hardly likely to be accepted by our mainstream scientists. But it has one advantage that most other contributors lack. It is an energy that can be measured using classical tools. And it is repeatably evident. It seems to require an aperiodic frequency coupled to a distinctive harmonic - but, generate the right frequency with the right level of inductance - and, indeed, the return far exceeds the level of efficiency that mainstream consider possible. And precisely because we're not talking about COP>2 but some value that is far greater than this, then we are also producing unequivocal evidence.
Our modest hope is to at least bring this to the table at our academies. That way the hope is that we'll find the interest that, thus far, has been wanting. If we get it there it will be a first. Mainstream have never been obliged to consider these interests of ours precisely because we have never seriously brought any reliable evidence to their attention. It's been attempted - but has failed. Our efforts to convince them may be misguided. Indeed our conclusions and even our evidence may be wrong - but we see this as a critical first step to getting the interest that is required to research the effect and harness it's use through applications that I'm reasonably certain need to be more fully explored.
So Grumpy. We're on the same side ... I think? We're just approaching it from a different angle. And believe me, there are no ego strokes in this. It's been bruising on the emotional and intellectual levels and continues to be such. And it's no good saying that if the energy is there - just use it. It's benefit will be evident. Possibly. But to generate any production of any components on any meaningful level - also requires investment funds for research and development. This will be withheld until such time as mainstream say 'OK - there may be some evident benefit'. Then we can sell products without being accused of wilfully defrauding or misleading the public. And what is still a somewhat eccentric science will then, hopefully, become respectable. We need mainstream just so much more than they need us. The challenge is to convince them that the experiment is repeatable and that its results are depenable.
Which brings me back to Poynty's objects. He firstly assured us that there would never be a gain. He now states - categorically - that any evident gain is due to bad measurement or bad experimental practice. But the truth is that Fuzzy's testing standards are impeccable and well in excess of what would commonly be required to evaluate energies. It's an extraordinary claim and it requires his extraordinary skills as an experimentalist - to give the required proof. Fortunately Fuzzy is equal to the tastk. And the tools that we use to measure? They're state of the art. Poynty makes his claims from a position of apparent authority. The truth is that he hides his identity and from this cover slams the ability of the experimentalists with a lack of restraint that makes us, on this side of the argument, rather concerned about his actual motives. He's spared no-one and nothing. Why all this energy Poynty Poynt? And how deep into that barrel are you going to reach to find your next objections. We're about to put paid to your requirement for these exotic probes you reference. What will be your next tack I wonder?
In any event Grumpy. I hope this answers your concerns. We're not looking for Nobel prizes or even for riches. All we're trying to do here is bring the argument to mainstream. They'll no doubt then find the answer and claim the credit. But that's fine. Just let's address the evidence somehow. That's got to be an improvement on where we are at present.
EDIT BTW - bolt - we are not showing milliwatts. Check the data again.
Quote from: Grumpy on November 13, 2009, 08:40:14 AM
You keep this whole circus alive to feed your ego and to satisfy your delusions. This is no different than a religious cult - The Ainslie Faith.
Bolt is correct. No riches will come forth. No Nobel Prize. Just ask John Bedini, Steve Mark, and anyone else who has gone down that road. Do you see either of them trying to prove anything?
sounds like the TPU fantasy...
and what is this fallacy about NEEDING kilowatts? i think you are confusing wants and needs.
like grumpy's, bolt's argument was mostly logical fallacy seasoned with a good dose of assumption. starting off with "the only way..." is a dead giveaway. dream on about getting your riches or nobel prize from a TPU. the only people i see trying to prove it is you, poynt, IST and some others on the numerous TPU threads on this site. now that's delusional...
let's try and stay on topic here instead of interjecting your random confusions, opinions, assumptions and conjecture.
prophecies from the cynic of christmas past... 150 pages ago.
Quote from: MileHigh on August 11, 2009, 12:15:17 PM
Meanwhile it appears that Rosemary is bailing out, just like I predicted, and will watch silently from the sidelines.
who's still here and who bailed out? ::)
and from the cynic of christmas present... 170 pages ago.
Quote from: poynt99 on August 06, 2009, 09:49:13 PM
You know,
We (as in the two divided camps here) are probably never going to establish any common ground in terms of the tests, the results, how they were processed and interpreted, and the final conclusion drawn from them.
I will tell you what is likely to happen as this story continues to unfold:
Aaron and Peter will do their tests using an unpublished test procedure. If the test procedure is published, it will no doubt contain several serious flaws that by professional standards would invalidate the test.
Nonetheless, the results will be published, and in all likelihood they will appear "positive" in terms of achieving COP>1. The chances of the results appearing to support a COP=17 are slim to none, but anything is possible where the desire to believe is much stronger than the perceived need for transparency. [NOTE: Bias is going to kill any credibility here. The only way both parties could ever hope to agree on the results, is if the tests are performed by an unbiased 3rd party technically capable and willing to oblige. Does such a party exist? Unfortunately, not very likely.)
The classicists will cry "foul play!" and the new-agers will bite their thumbs at them. Debate and argument will ensue and in the end the classicists will maintain the results are "inconclusive" while the new-age zealots proclaim victory, success, and fulfillment of their grandest dream.
No agreement, and no common ground.
The RA builders thread will continue for a while, the supporting members still enchanted and enthralled by their self-proclaimed victory. All the while the classicists will discuss things a bit longer and TK will have tested the circuit in all it's fantabulous glory beyond the limits normally humanly possible before closing the book and moving on from this cantakerous debacle.
Aaron and Peter will eventually throw in the towel exclaiming that the circuit has too limited an output and is not viable, but nonetheless exhibits "copious amounts of COP" (tongue-in-cheek) or something to that effect. Meanwhile, Rosemary (peace, love, and light to you) will fade back to familiar surroundings once more and continue to develop her grand anti-thesis which by no small measure shall change our view of the very fabric of nature.
And then some time later when conditions allow, the next Rosemary Ainslie will appear and the story will repeat...
.99
"TK will have tested the circuit in all it's fantabulous glory beyond the limits normally humanly possible before closing the book and moving on from this cantakerous debacle."
i love that one... tk left in a huff after being asked to use basic scientific method and be accountable for his words.
Quote from: PaulLowrance on November 13, 2009, 09:28:09 AM
That's good point. If Bedini has a perpetual motion machine, then why play games decade after decade giving people false hope. That just misleads people down the wrong path for decades. Gee, what a thought, why in the world would anyone want to misguide legit researchers away from real "free energy" research. ;) Just allow some highly technical people to analyze your machine.
If anyone thinks that anomalous energy is created, converted, or otherwise "exist" in this circuit, then ask these kind gentlemen to evaluate it. They are well-known for their evaluation of the MRA (Magnetic Resonance Amplifier).
H. E. Puthoff & Scott Little
Institute for Advanced Studies / EarthTech International, Inc.
(4030 Braker Lane, Austin TX 78759 ~ 512-346-3848)
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on November 13, 2009, 11:57:01 AM
sounds like the TPU fantasy...
and what is this fallacy about NEEDING kilowatts? i think you are confusing wants and needs.
like grumpy's, bolt's argument was mostly logical fallacy seasoned with a good dose of assumption. starting off with "the only way..." is a dead giveaway. dream on about getting your riches or nobel prize from a TPU. the only people i see trying to prove it is you, poynt, IST and some others on the numerous TPU threads on this site. now that's delusional...
let's try and stay on topic here instead of interjecting your random confusions, opinions, assumptions and conjecture.
Have you told Rosy how infatuated you are with her? Look how it drips from evey word you type.
As for the KW's - do the math:
How many KW's to run your car with performance equivalent to an internal combustion engine?
20 kw
How many kw's to operate your home with equivalent performance to a grid connection?
5 kw
Now, this is all "subjective", but it gives you an idea of what is required to supply your energy needs. Go ahead and look into if you think I'm full of crap. Space heaters are 1500w. Typical lighting for a single room is 100w to 500w. Then there is the refrigerator: 300w to 800w. 175w for your tv. It all adds up.
As for the electric car:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car
Quote
Running costs
Electric car operating costs can be directly compared to the equivalent operating costs of a gasoline-powered vehicle. The energy generated by complete combustion of 1 liter gasoline is about 9.7 kilowatt-hours (35 MJ). Accounting for inefficiencies of gasoline vs. electric engines and transmission and battery losses, 1 liter gasoline is equivalent to 2.7 kilowatt-hours (9.7 MJ) from batteries.
The Tesla uses about 13 kW·h/100 km (0.47 MJ/km; 0.21 kW·h/mi)[citation needed], the EV1 used about 11 kW·h/100 km (0.40 MJ/km; 0.18 kW·h/mi.
Something for the home:
http://www.oksolar.com/technical/consumption.html
Read it and weep... Rather daunting isn't?
Quote from: witsend on November 13, 2009, 11:22:47 AM
Grumpy - golly. If I needed ego strokes I certainly would not be posting on this thread. I'd need to stay in friendly territory - or better still, entirely out of the debate.
The quest, if there is one, is to explore some means to access the abundant energy fields that are identified in dark energy. Without any over statement - the fact is that this access is critical for our survival as a species. If we've proved anything it's the simple truth that we continue to guzzle our dwindling energy resources with little if any thought for tomorrow. We've got solar, nuclear and wind energy to exploit - but not even these applications are being progressed at pace. And with burgeoning population numbers and clamorous requirements to adopt 1st World comfort levels the global pollution levels loom large and ever larger. This is now beginning to upturn the fine balance that nature herself seems to require to give us some semblance of a stable environment. So we're flirting with disaster on a scale that is possibly unprecedented since our emergence as a species on this planet.
As I see it - this quest for abundant energy is compulsively attempted by those who spend huge chapters of their lives on both forums and threads such as this. It's still a fringe interest but it's growing. But the dominant theme here is 'free energy' or 'over unity' - with good reason. Because if this can be found and then repeatedly and reliably accessed - then. 'in one fell swoop' we'd have resolved both the quantity available to us and the quality, so to speak. It would be both abundant and clean. And, that we're looking for it at all - is a really good thing. Mainstream have discounted that this can ever be accessed. The best they offer is 'small effects' - essentially unable to reach the megawatt levels that you correctly state is required.
Our hope is to address mainstream with some means to access this energy. Essentially the model proposes that this energy - evident in the vacuum - and now widely acknowledged by most thinking scientists - is also responsible for the 'bound' conditions of amalgams. It's the glue that holds matter together. And the proposal is that - given an imbalanced magnetic field - or potential difference - or measurable voltage - then what is being measured are these fields. And the thesis goes - if there is a measurable voltage then, potentially, there is also a real energy potential that can be harnessed and used. This is what we hope can be proved in this experiment. In other words in as much as inductive components can also show a measured voltage - then they too are potentially able to generate energy in the same way that batteries and utility supplies can generate energy.
But the actual challenge is far greater than this. The model is hardly likely to shake the foundations of physics. It's way too modest and way too simple. And if this test proves it - it is hardly likely to be accepted by our mainstream scientists. But it has one advantage that most other contributors lack. It is an energy that can be measured using classical tools. And it is repeatably evident. It seems to require an aperiodic frequency coupled to a distinctive harmonic - but, generate the right frequency with the right level of inductance - and, indeed, the return far exceeds the level of efficiency that mainstream consider possible. And precisely because we're not talking about COP>2 but some value that is far greater than this, then we are also producing unequivocal evidence.
Our modest hope is to at least bring this to the table at our academies. That way the hope is that we'll find the interest that, thus far, has been wanting. If we get it there it will be a first. Mainstream have never been obliged to consider these interests of ours precisely because we have never seriously brought any reliable evidence to their attention. It's been attempted - but has failed. Our efforts to convince them may be misguided. Indeed our conclusions and even our evidence may be wrong - but we see this as a critical first step to getting the interest that is required to research the effect and harness it's use through applications that I'm reasonably certain need to be more fully explored.
So Grumpy. We're on the same side ... I think? We're just approaching it from a different angle. And believe me, there are no ego strokes in this. It's been bruising on the emotional and intellectual levels and continues to be such. And it's no good saying that if the energy is there - just use it. It's benefit will be evident. Possibly. But to generate any production of any components on any meaningful level - also requires investment funds for research and development. This will be withheld until such time as mainstream say 'OK - there may be some evident benefit'. Then we can sell products without being accused of wilfully defrauding or misleading the public. And what is still a somewhat eccentric science will then, hopefully, become respectable. We need mainstream just so much more than they need us. The challenge is to convince them that the experiment is repeatable and that its results are depenable.
Which brings me back to Poynty's objects. He firstly assured us that there would never be a gain. He now states - categorically - that any evident gain is due to bad measurement or bad experimental practice. But the truth is that Fuzzy's testing standards are impeccable and well in excess of what would commonly be required to evaluate energies. It's an extraordinary claim and it requires his extraordinary skills as an experimentalist - to give the required proof. Fortunately Fuzzy is equal to the tastk. And the tools that we use to measure? They're state of the art. Poynty makes his claims from a position of apparent authority. The truth is that he hides his identity and from this cover slams the ability of the experimentalists with a lack of restraint that makes us, on this side of the argument, rather concerned about his actual motives. He's spared no-one and nothing. Why all this energy Poynty Poynt? And how deep into that barrel are you going to reach to find your next objections. We're about to put paid to your requirement for these exotic probes you reference. What will be your next tack I wonder?
In any event Grumpy. I hope this answers your concerns. We're not looking for Nobel prizes or even for riches. All we're trying to do here is bring the argument to mainstream. They'll no doubt then find the answer and claim the credit. But that's fine. Just let's address the evidence somehow. That's got to be an improvement on where we are at present.
EDIT BTW - bolt - we are not showing milliwatts. Check the data again.
Allow me to point out a few things of interest:
No scientist that gets funding from the "powers that be" will touch this or anything like it. No funding = no more research = no job. Why do you need to prove anything to them anyway? Let them ponder why your lights are on when the grid is down.
Besides, "they" already have it anyway, so they don't need it from you an anyone else. "They" have had it for decades. Furthermore, they are not about to let you, me, or anyone else upset the economic apple-cart by freeing the paying customers from the energy cartel.
Don't believe me? Contact Steven Greer. http://www.theorionproject.org/en/about.html
Also - again we see that kw's are necessary:
http://www.theorionproject.org/en/breakthrough.html
Quote
Significant usable power - ideally the device should deliver 5-10KW of net usable electrical power over and above what is needed to recharge its starting circuit / mechanism.
Yes, we are all on the same side - like it or not. The last thing I want to do is to put anyone or their work down. I just want to put things in perspective so you can move past this sticking point. The best tests are easy and undeniable.
Look at ION's suggestions, and pick his brain when you do. Sounds like he has a lot of experience...
If you can not prove or disprove in short order then take what you can from it and move to the next step. The output electrodes of a simple Tesla disruptive Discharge coil wil melt tungsten. Probably not OU and hard to utilize - so Tesla moved to the next step.
If it helps, you have a deadline in 2 years and you are running out of time.
For those who can't afford hi tech equipment, here is testing on a budget for the Ainslie Circuit. Have Fun.
Note: I could have put C1 and C2 to ground, but this would have given R1 a slight edge at the start, so I chose to give the benefit of doubt and the slight edge to R2 by placing the caps across R1.
<edit:excuse spelling of residual>
A very good idea ION, thanks.
Keep the great ideas, suggestions and sensible questions coming ;)
.99
Quote from: Grumpy on November 13, 2009, 02:12:03 PM
Have you told Rosy how infatuated you are with her? Look how it drips from evey word you type.
As for the KW's - do the math:
How many KW's to run your car with performance equivalent to an internal combustion engine?
20 kw
How many kw's to operate your home with equivalent performance to a grid connection?
5 kw
Now, this is all "subjective", but it gives you an idea of what is required to supply your energy needs. Go ahead and look into if you think I'm full of crap. Space heaters are 1500w. Typical lighting for a single room is 100w to 500w. Then there is the refrigerator: 300w to 800w. 175w for your tv. It all adds up.
As for the electric car:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car
Something for the home:
http://www.oksolar.com/technical/consumption.html
Read it and weep... Rather daunting isn't?
assumption. irrelevant.
as for the kilowatts, i don't NEED them. again look up the difference between wants and needs...
i don't drive a car...
much less than yours takes. i have a different relationship to my wants/needs than you do...
yes, completely subjective, that i will agree with.
blah
blah
not really, i can supply myself with all the power i need. it would seem i'm not as fat, lazy and complacent as you...
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on November 13, 2009, 05:29:35 PM
assumption. irrelevant.
as for the kilowatts, i don't NEED them. again look up the difference between wants and needs...
i don't drive a car...
much less than yours takes. i have a different relationship to my wants/needs than you do...
yes, completely subjective, that i will agree with.
blah
blah
not really, i can supply myself with all the power i need. it would seem i'm not as fat, lazy and complacent as you...
Great. Another smart-a$$ed remark from an a$$hole.
Are you totally self-sufficient or just talking $hit?
No car? Man that sucks... I'll bet that Rosie likes a nice drive once in a while. Tell the guy at the car lot that you are going "courtin'...he'll fix you right up!
I have a horse, and he likes to eat. Nobody rides for free...
Nice dodge on the infatuation thing. Proof is in your response, Sucker!
You're a puppet and I'm pulling your strings...dance little puppet...dance!
Always one of you around when a lady get's her hands dirty workin'...
-------------
See Rosie? ION is trying to help. Now you can skip all the BS and get down to business.
Grumpy.
Have you ever wondered how entertaining it might be to have two of these types going at each other?
Imagine.....omnibus vs. wilbyinebriated....and konduct can referee !
Of course this wouldn't work too well if they were indeed one and the same person. I doubt they are, but they must be related at least.
.99
Quote from: witsend on November 13, 2009, 11:22:47 AM
Which brings me back to Poynty's objects. He firstly assured us that there would never be a gain. He now states - categorically - that any evident gain is due to bad measurement or bad experimental practice.
Correct. However to clarify, I have been expressing serious concern about the integrity of both Glen's and my own raw data from at least the time I began testing. This goes back a number of weeks.
Quote
But the truth is that Fuzzy's testing standards are impeccable and well in excess of what would commonly be required to evaluate energies. It's an extraordinary claim and it requires his extraordinary skills as an experimentalist - to give the required proof. Fortunately Fuzzy is equal to the tastk.
No offense to Fuzzy, but that's a rather extraordinary disposition. On what is it based?
Quote
And the tools that we use to measure? They're state of the art.
The TDS3054C is a good and desirable scope, but it is far from "state of the art". In terms of the entire Tektronix lineup and compared to other oscilloscopes out there, it is at an intermediate level, or slightly below. One limitation I found it has is a relatively low record length of 10k, which is ok for general purpose display and data dumps, but it's a struggle for capturing extremely short events using high sample rates
at certain settings.
Quote
And how deep into that barrel are you going to reach to find your next objections.
That depends entirely on what your team comes up with next.
Quote
We're about to put paid to your requirement for these exotic probes you reference.
Looking forward to some actual substantiation. There's nothing really too exotic about them, they're just an expensive tool.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on November 13, 2009, 07:17:27 PM
Grumpy.
Have you ever wondered how entertaining it might be to have two of these types going at each other?
Imagine.....omnibus vs. wilbyinebriated....and konduct can referee !
Of course this wouldn't work too well if they were indeed one and the same person. I doubt they are, but they must be related at least.
.99
As comical as this would be, I was quite serious about the deadline. Lobbing shots gets us nowhere.
A more important question is how do I prove that a new force exists? Make the force and get the drift. (Actually it's not new, physicist are aware of it, on paper at least.)
They rotate it to build the energy levels - cross field drift effects have been the subject of exploration for some time.
Funny how the pot shakes when it starts boiling...hahaha!
Quote from: Grumpy on November 13, 2009, 06:15:38 PM
Great. Another smart-a$$ed remark from an a$$hole.
Are you totally self-sufficient or just talking $hit?
No car? Man that sucks... I'll bet that Rosie likes a nice drive once in a while. Tell the guy at the car lot that you are going "courtin'...he'll fix you right up!
I have a horse, and he likes to eat. Nobody rides for free...
Nice dodge on the infatuation thing. Proof is in your response, Sucker!
You're a puppet and I'm pulling your strings...dance little puppet...dance!
Always one of you around when a lady get's her hands dirty workin'...
-------------
See Rosie? ION is trying to help. Now you can skip all the BS and get down to business.
ad hominem. irrelevant.
not totally, but close enough.
i didn't say i don't have a car, i said i don't drive a car. ::) not really, i'm just not as attached to lazy convenience as you. red herring.
that's nice, i always imagined you as a guy that likes 1000 pounds of meat between his legs... i use the motive power nature provided me, or a bike.
more strawman/red herring irrelevance. must be a slow day in TPU land?
let's recap. a slew of logical fallacies from you and nothing on topic...
Grumpy,
Maybe it's time to pull out that mini Tokamak reactor you've been keeping in your closet?
Round up some plasma (your absent disk?) and fire that puppy up.
.99
MileHigh - we really need you back to lift the tone of this thread. Where are you? Indulge us here - please. I don't mind off topic when it's amusing. It's just tedious and down beat. Perhaps it's long overdue that I make my own exit? Poynty's lost all constraint and the new contributors are doom sayers from the Mayan Book of Hell. Our only hope is in ION.
Hi everyone,
Here is Test #9 with the new shunt installed a 0.25 Ohm resistor from "Caddock" High Performance Film Resistor, "non-inductive" 30 Watt, type MP930-0.25-1%, this is a re-test of TEST #8 ( http://www.energeticforum.com/73814-post3108.html )
http://www.energeticforum.com/74402-post3126.html
Glen
:)
Quote from: witsend on November 14, 2009, 12:53:05 AM
MileHigh - we really need you back to lift the tone of this thread. Where are you? Indulge us here - please. I don't mind off topic when it's amusing. It's just tedious and down beat. Perhaps it's long overdue that I make my own exit? Poynty's lost all constraint and the new contributors are doom sayers from the Mayan Book of Hell. Our only hope is in ION.
Rosemary,
Just ask your your contributors on this thread to post a few more funny video threads to keep you amused while the real research is carried out on the other side by Fuzzy and Harvey and anyone else that has not yet been ejected by Aaron from the Energetic forum for having the audacity to question your claims.
Hoppy
Quote from: Hoppy on November 14, 2009, 04:30:47 AM
while the real research is carried out on the other side by Fuzzy and Harvey and anyone else
wow, a grain of truth obfuscated in his words.
@rose,
ironically, milehigh has bailed out and is watching silently from the sidelines.
perhaps you should lock the thread and post updates from fuzzy, harvey, etc. as they come.
Quote from: poynt99 on November 13, 2009, 08:01:15 PM
Correct. However to clarify, I have been expressing serious concern about the integrity of both Glen's and my own raw data from at least the time I began testing. This goes back a number of weeks.
from the time you began testing? how come your pspice simulations didn't elicit these serious concerns?
i'm sure most readers are curious as to why real world testing brought about these serious concerns yet your pspice simulations didn't. ;)
Quote from: Grumpy on November 13, 2009, 06:15:38 PMGreat. Another smart-a$$ed remark from an a$$hole.
Are you totally self-sufficient or just talking $hit?
LOL, that's why wilbyInebriated has been on my ignore list for some time now. It's great. The server blocks his posts & PM's for you. :)
Thanks for the tip about Earthtech. People have recommended them, but as far as I'm aware they charge $, right?
Paul
Quote from: PaulLowrance on November 14, 2009, 09:50:04 AM
LOL, that's why wilbyInebriated has been on my ignore list for some time now. It's great. The server blocks his posts & PM's for you. :)
Thanks for the tip about Earthtech. People have recommended them, but as far as I'm aware they charge $, right?
Paul
you guys can cry all you want about me calling you out on your logical fallacies, it won't stop me.
you can bury your head in the sand when i point out your inconsistencies, it won't stop me.
you can whine for someone, anyone to ban me when i drag your hypocrisy into the light, it won't stop me.
and the point is, i don't care that you are hiding your head in the sand... everyone else can read it and see for themselves.
how's the diode array coming paul? do you have kilowatts for the grumpy yet? will you have it in two years time? better move along then...
and grumpy, how long have you been putzing about the TPU threads? two years? more than two years. why not apply that deadline you are so serious about to yourself? better move along then...
Quote from: PaulLowrance on November 14, 2009, 09:50:04 AM
LOL, that's why wilbyInebriated has been on my ignore list for some time now. It's great. The server blocks his posts & PM's for you. :)
Thanks for the tip about Earthtech. People have recommended them, but as far as I'm aware they charge $, right?
Paul
How do you put a user on ignore?
Quote from: utilitarian on November 14, 2009, 10:14:25 AM
How do you put a user on ignore?
RTFD... or use the search function you will find a post by me telling how... instead of creating a new thread like paul did.
here you go "mr. i can't do it myself"... http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7488.0
this obviates any response from you to my posts right? ;)
nice to see you back utilitarian. did you come to put those questions to rest i posed to you long ago? or did you come to withdraw those lies you posted sometime ago? if i recall you left without resolving either.
i do find it amusing that you guys put me on ignore yet still respond to me. ::)
edit: i just noticed poynt99 looking at the link i posted... i wonder how he knew about that if he has me on his ignore list? ::)
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on November 14, 2009, 09:37:48 AM
wow, a grain of truth obfuscated in his words.
@rose,
ironically, milehigh has bailed out and is watching silently from the sidelines.
perhaps you should lock the thread and post updates from fuzzy, harvey, etc. as they come.
;D Hello Wilbyinebriated - always nice to see you around and always nice to watch that sword play.
I realise MH is there now and again. Whenever I post to him his name immediately disappears off the list. Clearly he's not sympathetic to our needs here. Still. At least we've got you and Hoppy to rely on for intelligent commentary and I think we've got ION to suggest some test parameters. And Hoppy - anybody - give us some links. LONG OVERDUE. The thread is getting way too depressing.
The thread stage reminds me of a dead dinosaur - with the carrion circling to get to the carcass. They're sort of keeping their distance because the results aren't yet out. But I'm more or less committed to freedom of speech and only draw the line at pornography. In truth, I'm frightened if I drop my guard here they'll try to kill off the thread with obscenities. Grumpy's already flirting with this intention. In any event, I'm not sure if I can lock the thread. And I'm not about to find out either. I want that rare privilege of posting our paper here after submission. It's got that delicious symmetry that I referenced in my post at EF.com. At least our readers - if there are any - will see the basis on which the 'claim' was made.
Wilby - don't go far away - whatever you do. Vultures are circling and hyenas are sniffing. And that dinosaur is definitely not dead. Just really, really old. LOL.
Edit - an appeal for some much needed lighthearted references. :)
This is the post on energetic forum referred to above.
"Guys I see that Fuzzy's already advised about our moderator status across at OU.COM. thread. There's an irony here that is positively delicious and I can't resist a brief revisit. The thread was started by TK and intended as a 'debunk on any grounds available' exercise. His objects were entirely defeated by the complexities of the circuit, on the one hand, and by some skillful questions posed by Wilbyinebriated, AKA as our very own Captain Skat. Those questions were asked with such persistence that they entirely defeated TK and also threw some question on Wilby's actual state of sobriety. This is a gentleman with remarkable skills with the dialectic and with a memory from Hell. Nor does the occasional foray into the bottom of the occasional glass - seem to blunt his expertise. 'Not To Be Trifled With' - it seems - on either side of his preferred tipple. LOL
During which time and - indeed in line with TK's stated preference - I was not only barred from the forum as a contributor but very often also as a guest. it may be of interest to note that I carry the rare distinction on the internet of being the first person to be barred from a forum without ever having posted. TK's attack died - but not his thread. This struggled on with the various levels of noise and nonsense but after TK's departure not only was I allowed to join the forum and contribute to the thread - but was actually signed on by Hartiberlin himself. Another strange historical paradox.
Having got there I anchored in as I was determined that never again would the trolls run rampant without some supervision. It seems to have paid off as I am now a moderator? Golly. Happily for me Harti does not realise how anxious I am to allow that thread to 'fall off a cliff'. In any event - and as a rule - I encourage as much irrelevance as possible - from its contributors and am not averse to adding my own here and there. My reasoning is that - what it lacks in critical input - it at least benefits in comic relief.
So now, it seems that my own objects there carry endorsement from all over the place. Such absurdities crowned by the distinct honour of being nominated and elected a monitor - with absolutely no prior discussion. Since I am constitutionally incapable of editing anyone's contributions - and entirely averse to the principles of 'banning' unless it's to secure a critical survival - then I shall simply continue my own irrelevant commentaries on all irrelevant discussions there. I trust that it will, at its least - entertain some of their readers.
What can I say. Only in this strange universe of the internet can so many compounded ironies come to pass. LOL. I think TK will be turning in his grave.
EDIT - I might add that we have Fuzzy there to lend some gravitas to the thread - and some relevance to the topic. Thank goodness at least one of us is over qualified to do the necessary and keep matters in check.
Last edited by witsend : 11-07-2009 at 07:55 AM. "
Quoteanybody - give us some links. LONG OVERDUE. The thread is getting way too depressing
robotic jellyfish
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JI7jj0bk0w
cat
Cat - that was AMAZING. Such elegance. And the Festo number? WOW. Many thanks. How could I have forgotten you. Your links are always GOLD. Watched it through twice already and am about to do a repeat.
:-*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6d7WlE5D1kk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQbCMBq6MpU
a little more lighthearted...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuVgXJ55G6Y
GUYS - I stated that 'results weren't out yet'? Gross misrepresentation. Poynty needs to check the link reference posted by Fuzzy. We're nearly there Poynty Poynt. Brace yourself. I test down and 3 to go and THEN - you'll need to do some serious barrel scraping.
::) ;D :o
Hi Wilby. ;D I'm learning more about you. At last. LOL Another couple of really excellent links. Golly. That was really good. Many thanks. You see. There's still hope for this thread - thank goodness.
And just watched the Dolphin bubble show. That was really cool. THANK YOU WILBY. Definite mood lift. Feel I can smile again with a little more conviction.
;D
The oscilloscope shots appear unchanged for the most part. An indication that Fuzzy's previous shunt resistor inductance itself may not have been contributing substantially to the skewed current/voltage phasing.
However, since a single-ended probe (assumed) is still being used, there is the ground lead still at issue, and I am somewhat curious where the ground lead is being connected; to the negative side of the shunt (assumed), or some AC ground point?
The probe location for the battery voltage should be indicated. Where is the ground lead for this probe located?
A photo of the test setup would be appreciated, showing where the battery is and where the scope probes and their associated ground leads are located.
Any temperature readings, CONTROL tests etc? Or was this test simply to compare the shunt resistors?
.99
Also Fuzzy,
Could you please post the model number of the probes you have (are they in fact the P6139A's?) and also what the length of the probe's ground leads are.
Thanks,
.99
@Harvey,
It does not matter if the inductance is in the shunt resistor itself, or in the probe's ground lead, each plays it's own part in distorting the current (and hence power) measurement.
The shunt resistor can have 0uH, but unless the probe (even a diff probe) is placed directly across the resistor as close to the body as possible, it is a wasted effort to use this non-inductive resistor. Fuzzy needs to show exactly where his probe tip and ground lead are placed on this new shunt resistor.
The probe ground lead inductance has it's own set of concerns, and that is it forms a resonant tank with the probe's capacitance, causing ringing and phase shifts. This get's thrown into, and becomes part of the measurement. Once it's there, there is no distinguishing it from the true signal, and it will be the cause of an erroneous measurement of these transients.
Unless both these issues are addressed, the current measurement remains questionable.
Then there is the battery voltage probe, which I mentioned above. We need to know exactly where the probe tip and ground lead is located relative to the battery terminals.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on November 14, 2009, 01:30:24 PM
Also Fuzzy,
Could you please post the model number of the probes you have (are they in fact the P6139A's?) and also what the length of the probe's ground leads are.
Thanks,
.99
Hi .99
The TDS 3054C oscilloscope probes are a type Tektronix P6139A with the standard 6" grounding leads, these are the same type and model used on all testing I have done.
http://www2.tek.com/cmswpt/psdetails.lotr?ct=PS&ci=13513&cs=psu&lc=EN
Fuzzy
;)
My good 500MHz probes come with two ground leads. I measured both as per the following:
4" ground lead = 0.26uH
6" ground lead = 0.35uH
Need I say more?
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on November 14, 2009, 02:13:45 PM
My good 500MHz probes come with two ground leads. I measured both as per the following:
4" ground lead = 0.26uH
6" ground lead = 0.35uH
Sounds like your "good" unknown brand and model 500Mhz oscilloscope probes arn't good enough or your set-up has massive ground loops giving you problems .....
Quote
Need I say more?
Well the only thing you haven't questioned is the "solder" I use haveing some effect so here is the information on it ....
Multicore Solders
Westbury, N.Y. 11590
Type - SN 60
60/40 Tin/Lead
.028 in. dia.
Fuzzy
;)
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on November 14, 2009, 02:46:42 PM
Well the only thing you haven't questioned is the "solder" I use haveing some effect so here is the information on it ....
Multicore Solders
Westbury, N.Y. 11590
Type - SN 60
60/40 Tin/Lead
.028 in. dia.
Fuzzy
;)
LOL, you are spot on fuzzy. thanks for the laugh.
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on November 14, 2009, 02:46:42 PM
Sounds like your "good" unknown brand and model 500Mhz oscilloscope probes arn't good enough or your set-up has massive ground loops giving you problems .....
Well the only thing you haven't questioned is the "solder" I use haveing some effect so here is the information on it ....
Multicore Solders
Westbury, N.Y. 11590
Type - SN 60
60/40 Tin/Lead
.028 in. dia.
Fuzzy
;)
Fuzzy,
You can type in the model number into Google. The company is called Probemaster.
5905-1RAhttp://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=5905-1RA&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
http://www.probemaster.com/shop/index.php
The post was to comment on the inductance in the ground leads of a single-ended scope probe. I also tested a few other ground leads and they came out to read in the same range as what I posted. It's safe to say then, that these are typical values for a scope ground lead.
How about those photos and information I was hoping you would post? I'd appreciate it, as would many others I suspect. The photo you posted is of your quasi-differential measurement on the shunt. Unless you are now using this measurement for your power calculations, it is irrelevant. I believe however that you stated you are not.
Please review my posts and post the pertinent photos and information.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on November 14, 2009, 03:29:42 PM
The post was to comment on the inductance in the ground leads of a single-ended scope probe. I also tested a few other ground leads and they came out to read in the same range as what I posted. It's safe to say then, that these are typical values for a scope ground lead.
what you meant to say of course was, it's safe to say then,
using my meter, that these are typical values for a scope ground lead.
From United States patent:
Low inductance ground leadUnited States Patent 4838802
QuoteA common problem in the measurement of high frequency signals is that the self-inductance of the ground connection to the signal probe combines with the input capacitance of the signal probe to form a series resonant circuit that not only reduces the amplitude of the input signal with increasing frequency, but produces ringing. This increasingly degrades the accuracy of the measurement system with increasing signal frequency. Typically, the ground connection to a signal probe comprises a ground lead made of braided wire, and a ground probe to which the ground lead is connected, both of which have relatively high self-inductances.
The capacitance of typical signal probes in use for high frequency measurements is on the order of 10-15 picofarads. The self-inductance of the signal probe from the signal source to the point of contact with the ground lead, the inductance of the ground lead, and the self-inductance of the ground probe (which is the means of completing the circuit to ground) from the point of contact with the ground lead to ground all contribute to the inductance of the signal path. However, the inductance of the ground lead is the primary contributor to the total inductance in the signal path.
The inductance of conventional ground leads is on the order of 200-300 nanohenries.
300nH = 0.3uH
I'd say my meter is providing an accurate inductance measurement.
.99
The inductive reactance of a 0.35uH inductor (a typical 6" ground lead) at 7MHz is over 15 Ohms.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on November 14, 2009, 03:54:27 PM
From United States patent:
Low inductance ground lead
United States Patent 4838802
300nH = 0.3uH
I'd say my meter is providing an accurate inductance measurement.
.99
i didn't say it wasn't. ::) i just wanted to point out how you leave out little subtleties in what you should be saying vrs. what you say. like your argument about your simulations...
i thought you were ignoring me? but i like your circular argument... ;) can you post us a picture/video of your fancy meter actually making said measurements?
Quote from: poynt99 on November 14, 2009, 01:22:07 PM
The oscilloscope shots appear unchanged for the most part. An indication that Fuzzy's previous shunt resistor inductance itself may not have been contributing substantially to the skewed current/voltage phasing.
However, since a single-ended probe (assumed) is still being used, there is the ground lead still at issue, and I am somewhat curious where the ground lead is being connected; to the negative side of the shunt (assumed), or some AC ground point?
The probe location for the battery voltage should be indicated. Where is the ground lead for this probe located?
A photo of the test setup would be appreciated, showing where the battery is and where the scope probes and their associated ground leads are located.
Any temperature readings, CONTROL tests etc? Or was this test simply to compare the shunt resistors?
.99
Here are the photos you wanted and all I have time for at this point, Harvey is working on a illustration of the set up with all the wire sizes and lengths and possibly will appear when he has finalized it in this forum. This is getting a little old when you are always
"COMPAIRING" my publicly posted complete results with your mystery results and setup mostly only "SPICE" simulations and the obvious problems you must have using a dual channel power supply and not battery's or ground loops or a combination of both.
The last testing was the results of
TEST #8 ( old shunt resistor) and
TEST #9 ( new shunt resistor) and the comparison between images and data the different
"SHUNT" resistors may induce in the circuit as indicated in the postings.
Temperature readings during this
"SHORT" test .....
Ambient Temperature -
77.6 FLoad Resistor Temperature -
134 FShunt Temperature -
110 FMosfet Temperature -
164 F555 Temperature -
123 FFuzzy
:)
Quote from: poynt99 on November 14, 2009, 03:54:27 PM
From United States patent:
Low inductance ground lead
United States Patent 4838802
Quote
A common problem in the measurement of high frequency signals is that the self-inductance of the ground connection to the signal probe combines with the input capacitance of the signal probe to form a series resonant circuit that not only reduces the amplitude of the input signal with increasing frequency, but produces ringing. This increasingly degrades the accuracy of the measurement system with increasing signal frequency. Typically, the ground connection to a signal probe comprises a ground lead made of braided wire, and a ground probe to which the ground lead is connected, both of which have relatively high self-inductances.
The capacitance of typical signal probes in use for high frequency measurements is on the order of 10-15 picofarads. The self-inductance of the signal probe from the signal source to the point of contact with the ground lead, the inductance of the ground lead, and the self-inductance of the ground probe (which is the means of completing the circuit to ground) from the point of contact with the ground lead to ground all contribute to the inductance of the signal path. However, the inductance of the ground lead is the primary contributor to the total inductance in the signal path.
The inductance of conventional ground leads is on the order of 200-300 nanohenries.
Quote
300nH = 0.3uH
I'd say my meter is providing an accurate inductance measurement.
.99
.99
I keep seeing this "HIGH FREQUENCY" you reference all the time as a reason the
TDS 3054C oscilloscope probes that are a type Tektronix P6139A are unusable and inaccurate for this application.... members and guests should be aware that by looking at the attached chart that this circuit is in no way "HIGH FREQUENCY" and not referred as such ..... at below 50 Mhz
Fuzzy ;)
Quote from: poynt99 on November 14, 2009, 12:02:27 AM
Grumpy,
Maybe it's time to pull out that mini Tokamak reactor you've been keeping in your closet?
Round up some plasma (your absent disk?) and fire that puppy up.
.99
I have thought a great deal about that, but I fear the repercussions. Hence he search for something more palatable.
The idea with the disc is to replace it with a rotating field of force.
Fuzzy,
Thank you.
Looking forward to Harvey's diagram. This will help out a lot if it has all the info you mentioned on it.
In the mean time, I might ask a few things on the photos:
In your 89_01 photo, how long is the wire from your probe that's on that solder splice (heavy red wire) to the battery + terminal?
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on November 14, 2009, 09:03:41 PM
Fuzzy,
Thank you.
Looking forward to Harvey's diagram. This will help out a lot if it has all the info you mentioned on it.
In the mean time, I might ask a few things on the photos:
In your 89_01 photo, how long is the wire from your probe that's on that solder splice (heavy red wire) to the battery + terminal?
.99
Hi .99
I would rather wait in giving you more information until the illustration Harvey is working on is completed .... it seems as if every time I give you something ( information, data, documentation ) it is being used to attack any and all results of my testing and evaluation of this circuit. I will remind you again of the absence of "YOUR" complete results, test setup, documentation and data of actual testing .... one sided to say the least.
I can tell you any wire splices made are soldered with a protective piece of shrink tubing around it .... the area where the Channel-4 battery probe is isn't a splice at all, but a skinned back section of insulation on the wire that has been "tinned" with solder.
Fuzzy
:)
Quote from: spinner on November 15, 2009, 03:38:24 AM
Yes, could someone, please, stop this charade?
This Ainslie's FET circuit is most certainly not an OU device. And after almost a 6 months of "evaluation" here, even the most stubborn enthusiasts should realize that.
...
It's pathetic, really.
Golly spinner. And who are these stubborn enthusiasts? I only know of those of us who are still trying to evaluate the circuit's upper limits. With the data at hand COP>1 is more than evident and OU is still an option. You and Asymatrix may want to visit the Energetic Forum. The data is posted there.
Quote from: Asymatrix on November 15, 2009, 02:17:13 AM
Christ, is the frigging circuit what she claims or not???? Stop the madness
To whom is this addressed?
At any rate, if you have been following the thread, you can judge for yourself. If you have not been following the thread, surely you would have noticed some genuine excitement about. So judge for yourself. All the information required to make that call is here.
.99
Quote from: spinner on November 15, 2009, 03:38:24 AM
And after almost a 6 months of "evaluation" here
i think spinner is addressing you here poynt. i could be wrong, maybe he is addressing milehigh or tk...
being that spinner claims to be an EE with 20+ years of experience i am really surprised that yet another test protocol wasn't posited by him. he must not consider tk, poynt, milehigh and paulycomelately to be peers. it must be a slow day in the magnetmotor section of the forum...
User Spinner and Asymatrix are now banned from posting,
due to posting only negative funny comments and offtopic comments.
User Asymatric also was already banned with his other username
ncytuber.
So no matter, if he wants to try to register under a different username again
he will be banned again...
Regards, Stefan. (admin)
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on November 14, 2009, 06:31:07 PM
.99
I keep seeing this "HIGH FREQUENCY" you reference all the time as a reason the TDS 3054C oscilloscope probes that are a type Tektronix P6139A are unusable and inaccurate for this application.... members and guests should be aware that by looking at the attached chart that this circuit is in no way "HIGH FREQUENCY" and not referred as such ..... at below 50 Mhz
Fuzzy ;)
It's not only the repetition frequency that makes a signal a "HIGH FREQUENCY" signal it's also the rise time of the signal. This very fast rise time is what is responsible for the very spikes you guys seem to be interested in. A 3 or 4 ns rise time signal has components out to the gigiahertz range. I think that is what poynt99 is trying to say. 8)
Quote from: Justalabrat on November 15, 2009, 12:08:21 PM
It's not only the repetition frequency that makes a signal a "HIGH FREQUENCY" signal it's also the rise time of the signal. This very fast rise time is what is responsible for the very spikes you guys seem to be interested in. A 3 or 4 ns rise time signal has components out to the gigiahertz range. I think that is what poynt99 is trying to say. 8)
then why didn't he just say that? i think you have it backwards, the spikes are responsible for the fast rise times... ;)
Thank you Justalabrat.
You pretty much hit it right on.
The author/inventor did not mean HF as is labeled in a spectrum chart, it is more meant as a general term used for frequency content above and beyond a few megahertz.
I did not have the energy nor feel the need to explain this however. It is just common sense.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on November 15, 2009, 12:44:36 PM
Thank you Justalabrat.
You pretty much hit it right on.
The author/inventor did not mean HF as is labeled in a spectrum chart, it is more meant as a general term used for frequency content above and beyond a few megahertz.
I did not have the energy nor feel the need to explain this however. It is just common sense.
.99
WHAT? you have the energy to pester fuzzy about every detail but you can't manage to clearly make the point you were trying to make? because you don't have the energy??? come on poynt, you don't really expect anyone to buy that do you? i recall milehigh doing something similar. avoiding answering specific questions claiming he was 'too tired' only to go right back to pestering aaron in the next sentence.
we are still wondering if you can back up that claim about your new meter. no pictures from you yet, showing your said measurements. i'm starting to suspect you have no replication and are still playing with sims...
The last test circuit I submitted had a fatal flaw and only held true if the duty cycle was 100% otherwise R1 had to be sized based on the duty cycle. This offering rectifies those errors by having a slave circuit mirroring the "DUT" duty cycle in the "control" resistor.
Quote from: ION on November 15, 2009, 02:47:54 PM
The last test circuit I submitted had a fatal flaw and only held true if the duty cycle was 100% otherwise R1 had to be sized based on the duty cycle. This offering rectifies those errors by having a slave circuit mirroring the "DUT" duty cycle in the "control" resistor.
Hi ION,
Thanks for your method of testing the circuit, but unless it's a approve testing method that has been used by some university, government or accredited testing agency on the method of measuring where there is reference material, a document, PDF or text showing the procedure that was used and been published it would be difficult for it used in a paper submitted to IEEE or IOP ( Institute of Physics ) for consideration if it wasn't a approved method. I hope you can understand that we need a tried and approved method if you know of any published information it would be quite a help as it appears no one has been able to find something that has been used yet other than the method we are presently using now.
I also might mention all temperature measurements I have posted have been obtained using a "FLUKE" 62 Mini non-contact IR Thermometer and appear to be very accurate with possibly the exception of my prototype "Quantum" 10 Ohm load resistor that has a high temperature RTV silicone covering the coil windings. This has actually "INSULATED" the exterior of prototype resistor windings and lowered the surface temperature readings some, so the actual temperatures are probably much higher than my recorded measurements during testing on this component.
Fuzzy
:)
Fuzzy
Thank you for the "heads up" regarding the lack of academic worthiness of the circuit recently submitted. I was not intending that this be used to win the approval of academia, rather just an idea for a simple test that in the event they were curious, could be used by others on the forum that don't have access to expensive test equipment.
The aim was they might verify for themselves the efficacy of Rosemary Ainslie's claims in the Quantum paper, not write a paper for submission themselves using this circuit as a reference.
Of course anyone needing to win the approval of academia will have to submit to their standards.
Personally, I just want to heat my home with something other than wood or oil and COP>17 should do the trick.
Point taken...thanks again...ION
You may want to actually talk to the editorial faction of IEEE before you guess at what they may or may not accept. Dr. Stephan Marinov went to great lengths to publish his work and no "organization" would touch it. Seems they have a reputation to keep and anything psuedo shall not be touched...
By the way, a "control", even if only a sanity check, IS an accepted method of testing - at least for the last four hundred years!
As you all can see, there are other ways to get "heat":
http://www.electrotherapymuseum.com/Articles/FlamingWhiteArcCoils.htm
6000 degrees - smokin'!
There are at least two major problems associated with this setup in relation to acquiring accurate measurements. Can anyone identify them?
Hint: There are some pretty strong hints included on the diagram ;)
.99
@ Harvey
I expect you now see 8) some of the critical problems I've mentioned? And aside from using the correct probe types, do you see there is one simple addition to this setup that could provide a more accurate measurement of the battery voltage?
And that a slight change in the shunt probe positions (and rearrangement of the star ground) might (I stress "might") offer a better measurement on the shunt?
.99
Hi everyone,
Here is TEST #10 .... it's a one (1) hour test with 40us and 2us readings taken every six (6) minutes for a total of eleven (11) readings or twenty two (22) Image and Data files for one (1) hour.
http://www.energeticforum.com/74594-post3133.html
Fuzzy
:)
Proposed Improvements - First Approach
Some improvements can be made, but clearly the limitations of using two single-ended probes is more than evident here.
SPICE confirmation of both the shunt and battery measurement changes show dramatic improvements.
.99
POYNTY - It's an interesting development. First you wont show us your data -
and now you've organised it that we can't read your comments. Golly.
I can't complain that you're not inventive. Just increasingly obtuse. LOL.
I'm not sure whether your experimenting with our circuit or the upper limits of
post magnification? I'm also concerned that you've got so distracted of late
that you haven't noticed this yet.
In any event - I rather like that list to the right. I just dare not take it across
with that little arrow thingy - in case it falls out of the computer. As it is I can -
at least - read about one third of the post. Intriguing. If I read from left to right
I've got truncated words on the right. So as a fun variation I've tried reading
down and that's really amusing. " Oased ance gnd etween the ich is." It's fun
- like a mysterious coded communication. And - in a strange way - makes much
better sense than most of your other posts. Nice work Poynty Poynt. I've always
been a strong supporter of the rampant individualist.
;D
EDIT
Had to modify this to keep it in line with the extraordinary page margins you've made here.
Proposed Improvements - Second Approach
Here we have eliminated the Drain probe as it is not required to prove the thesis as per Rose's statements. Also, the shunt single-ended probe has been replaced with a true differential probe to eliminate the ground discrepancy with the battery probe, and it eliminates the ground lead resonance issue.
The single-ended battery probe can now be placed directly across the battery terminals as shown.
A marked incremental improvement over the First Approach.
.99
for the love of zeus...
hey poynt, how come with that head full of all that knowledge you can't manage to resize an image?
do us all a favor and stop posting images of such ridiculous size.
there is no reason to break the forum's tables with a 1600 pixel wide image of a line drawing...
i can understand it if you are trying to show some level of detail of your experiment, etc.
but this is a line drawing that necesitates no such thing.
try 640 x 480 and if you don't know how to do it, ask for help...
Good grief, just save the pic and reduce the size:
Another one!!! Good gracious Poynty Poynt.
Have you considered getting your eyes tested?
The signs are there. Clear onset of galloping myopia.
LOL
edit : THANKS GRUMPY.
2nd Edit : Would you mind doing that trick again on the other post? Clearly Poynty can't manage it.
3rd Edit : And I certainly can't.
Golly.
again:
Proposed Improvements - Third Approach
The shunt resistor has been eliminated in favour of a true current probe (TCP202 for eg.) in order that any remaining minute traces of inductance in the wiring and shunt itself is eliminated. Provides direct measurement of instantaneous circuit current.
.99
Thanks Grumpy. Much obliged. I'm just so sorry to see that Poynty's still scraping that barrel.
I was rather hoping he was at last trying his hand at something new.
EDIT GOOD HEAVENS. I see yet another POST??? Poynty Poynt - I've being trying to read
your posts. You should really try and read ours. Or do you need us to do that magnification
thing? This is getting alarming. I'm scared of seeing the one word one page post. It looms.
I feel I should take cover here.
EDIT - same problem of trying to get the post into some semblance of readability in the face of
rampant self-oscillating page margins.
2ND EDIT - spelling
Proposed Improvements - Fourth Approach
Here the single-ended probe on the battery measurement has been replaced in favour of a true differential probe (P5205 for eg.).
Ground lead issues/resonance is eliminated and allows for additional single-ended probes to be used for measurements of point P2 (MOSFET Drain) for example if desired.
This is the cleanest and most accurate method to obtain the measurement of power supplied by the batteries.
.99
I'm resizing with IrfanView
number 4
THANK YOU VERY MUCH GRUMPY. I think we need you take over as monitor here. Just teach Poynty your
trick of bringing the post size down a bit.
:-*
Thanks Grumpy.
There is a scroll bar at the bottom of the screen ::)
It should be noted that the Current Probe can be located at almost any point in the circuit. Close to the battery + terminal would be ideal.
.99
poynt come on man...
look, there is NO reason for your line drawing to be 1600 pixels wide. did any of the critical detail get lost when grump resized them? NO!
no one wants to scroll back and forth because you are too ignorant to post a properly sized image...
you can use a scope but you cant use paint. ::)
rose, just delete his posts containing the idiotically huge line drawings. maybe then he will figure out how to properly size his images...
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on November 16, 2009, 01:04:57 PM
poynt come on man...
look there is NO reason for your line drawing to be 1600 pixels wide.
no one wants to scroll back and forth because you are too ignorant to post a properly sized image.
you can use a scope but you cant use paint. ::)
rose, just delete his posts containing the idiotically huge line drawings. maybe then he will figure out how to properly size his images...
Actually Wilby - it's a good idea - but it's also rather amusing. If Poynty would prefer me to - I'll do it -
especially as Grumpy's done a repost. Just advise. Your choice Poynty? I'm definitely trigger happy if that's a preference.
Hi everyone,
Here is Test #9 with the new shunt installed a 0.25 Ohm resistor from "Caddock" High Performance Film Resistor, "non-inductive" 30 Watt, type MP930-0.25-1%, this is a re-test of TEST #8 ( http://www.energeticforum.com/73814-post3108.html )
http://www.energeticforum.com/74402-post3126.html
Here is TEST #10 .... it's a one (1) hour test with 40us and 2us readings taken every six (6) minutes for a total of eleven (11) readings or twenty two (22) Image and Data files for one (1) hour.
http://www.energeticforum.com/74594-post3133.html
Fuzzy
:)
Quote from: witsend on November 16, 2009, 01:11:21 PM
Actually Wilby - it's a good idea - but it's also rather amusing. If Poynty would prefer me to - I'll do it - especially as Grumpy's done a repost. Just advise. Your choice Poynty? I'm definitely trigger happy if that's a preference.
if he has any brains at all, he would just grab grumps resized versions, and replace his with those...
but he is probably tired or something... ::)
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how%20to%20resize%20images
Wilby - truth is that those posts are really quite amusing. In fact I've been rolling with laughter. Truth is I prefer them to the resized numbers. Not that I don't appreciate Grumpy's efforts. Just sorry to find out that Poynty's still going on going on. For a while there I rather hoped we'd get something interesting.
Quote from: witsend on November 16, 2009, 01:22:46 PM
Wilby - truth is that those posts are really quite amusing. In fact I've been rolling with laughter. Truth is I prefer them to the resized numbers. Not that I don't appreciate Grumpy's efforts. Just sorry to find out that Poynty's still going on going on. For a while there I rather hoped we'd get something interesting.
If the Ainslie team continues this pursuit to the end, it is inevitable they will have no choice but to implement at least one of the 4 proposed improvements I've just outlined.
At that time I would hope at least for a "thank you", since no one on that team had the insight to realize these deficiencies and improvements themselves. But alas I won't be holding my breath 8) as that's usually how it goes when pride and ego rein over gratitude.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on November 16, 2009, 01:32:07 PM
If the Ainslie team continues this pursuit to the end, it is inevitable they will have no choice but to implement at least one of the 4 proposed improvements I've just outlined.
At that time I would hope at least for a "thank you", since no one on that team had the insight to realize these deficiencies and improvements themselves. But alas I won't be holding my breath 8) as that's usually how it goes when pride and ego rein over gratitude.
.99
i'll say thanks if you resize your ridiculously sized images to something more appropriately sized...
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how%20to%20resize%20images and it's reign not rein... and you don't have to thank me. ::)
speaking of insight... how come you didn't say all of this 200 pages ago? why has "the real deal" test as proposed by the 'anti ainslie team' been changed so many times? how many times is it now that your team has moved the goalposts poynt? i've lost track. perhaps i should go back over the thread and make a post that shows all those...
edit: and fuzzy keeps showing his work while poynt keeps talking and showing none of his...
Quote from: poynt99 on November 16, 2009, 01:32:07 PM
If the Ainslie team continues this pursuit to the end, it is inevitable they will have no choice but to implement at least one of the 4 proposed improvements I've just outlined.
At that time I would hope at least for a "thank you", since no one on that team had the insight to realize these deficiencies and improvements themselves. But alas I won't be holding my breath 8) as that's usually how it goes when pride and ego rein over gratitude.
.99
walk away
Quote from: poynt99 on November 16, 2009, 01:32:07 PM
If the Ainslie team continues this pursuit to the end, it is inevitable they will have no choice but to implement at least one of the 4 proposed improvements I've just outlined.
At that time I would hope at least for a "thank you", since no one on that team had the insight to realize these deficiencies and improvements themselves. But alas I won't be holding my breath 8) as that's usually how it goes when pride and ego rein over gratitude.
.99
Those people do not care about trying to falsify their claims, which every good scientist should try to do prior to asserting something as world-shaking as "hey there is extra energy here coming from NOTHING!!!!".
You will never demonstrate anything to their satisfaction, as they can always point to something or other and claim your tests are deficient. If their device is green, and your replication is off-green, they are going to claim the colors are all wrong and you should do an EXACT replication before you should be so bold as to say anything negative.
I agree, just walk away. The burden is on the inventor to demonstrate overunity, so let her and her team do that.
Quote from: Grumpy on November 16, 2009, 02:03:02 PM
walk away
it's a little difficult for poynt to do that and save any face in the light of his earlier 'prophecies' regarding how this would all pan out...
Indeed, it's time to heed the advice from all my close associates here and go for that walk. I've done about all I can do here (and more) to bring the crucial aspects to this whole exercise to light.
Perhaps I'll see you all again some time down the road.
.99
transients produce harmonics - many many harmonics.
Ever see the harmonics of a delta fuinction (a very narrow spike)? Man, they just go on forever.
Has anyone looked at the ol' signal at the infamous inductive resistor with a spectrum analyzer?
QuoteSince harmonic voltages produce harmonic currents with frequencies considerably higher than the power system fundamental frequency, these currents encounter much higher impedances as they propagate through the power system than does the fundamental frequency current. This is due to “skin effect,†which is the tendency for higher frequency currents to flow near the surface of the conductor. Since little of the high-frequency current penetrates far beneath the surface of the conductor, less cross-sectional area is used by the current. As the effective cross section of the conductor is reduced, the effective resistance of the conductor is increased.
The higher resistance encountered by the harmonic currents will produce a significant heating of the conductor, since heat produced â€" or power lost â€" in a conductor is I2R, where I is the current flowing through the conductor.
Quote from: utilitarian on November 16, 2009, 02:18:57 PM
Those people do not care about trying to falsify their claims, which every good scientist should try to do prior to asserting something as world-shaking as "hey there is extra energy here coming from NOTHING!!!!".
i don't think anyone on the 'ainslie team' has said anything of the sort. are you making stuff up again or can you back this up with some evidence?
Quote from: utilitarian on November 16, 2009, 02:18:57 PM
You will never demonstrate anything to their satisfaction, as they can always point to something or other and claim your tests are deficient.
to be fair, this applies to both sides.
Quote from: utilitarian on November 16, 2009, 02:18:57 PM
I agree, just walk away. The burden is on the inventor to demonstrate overunity, so let her and her team do that.
that is precisely what they have been trying to do, inspite of all the 'objections' from the peanut gallery and yourself. why don't you shut up and let them? i know it's so hard for you all when it's a slow week in the ltseung thread, the latest magnet motor or TPU thread... put your money where your mouth is and do what you suggested.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on November 16, 2009, 02:37:11 PM
i don't think anyone on the 'ainslie team' has said anything of the sort. are you making stuff up again or can you back this up with some evidence?
to be fair, this applies to both sides.
that is precisely what they have been trying to do, inspite of all the 'objections' from the peanut gallery and yourself. why don't you shut up and let them? i know it's so hard for you all when it's a slow week in the ltseung thread, the latest magnet motor or TPU thread... put your money where your mouth is and do what you suggested.
In response to your first point, there is a claim of "a breach of unity," i.e. overunity, which means energy from nothing and is in contradiction with the known laws of physics.
With regard to your last point, I have barely said anything in this thread, so I do not see how my few words have stood in the way of anyone proving anything. And if they have been trying so hard, where is the peer review? If you know of any that is reputable, please share.
And lastly, I am curious, do you actually hold an opinion here? Do you believe the Ainslie circuit breaches unity as claimed?
Quote from: utilitarian on November 16, 2009, 03:35:27 PM
In response to your first point, there is a claim of "a breach of unity," i.e. overunity, which means energy from nothing and is in contradiction with the known laws of physics.
With regard to your last point, I have barely said anything in this thread, so I do not see how my few words have stood in the way of anyone proving anything. And if they have been trying so hard, where is the peer review? If you know of any that is reputable, please share.
And lastly, I am curious, do you actually hold an opinion here? Do you believe the Ainslie circuit breaches unity as claimed?
that is simply your definition, one cherrypicked to suit your argument. there are other definitions...
so you have no evidence, nothing but hyperbole... imagine that. furthermore, if i recall the claim from ainslie is one of COP not OU... but i am willing to be corrected, with evidence and not your opinion...
my opinion,
just like yours, is irrelevant.
Quote from: poynt99 on November 16, 2009, 02:24:33 PM
Indeed, it's time to heed the advice from all my close associates here and go for that walk. I've done about all I can do here (and more) to bring the crucial aspects to this whole exercise to light.
Perhaps I'll see you all again some time down the road.
.99
Well done Poynt. Join the enlightened and just sit back and watch Fuzzy and Harvey role out documented proof of OU for Rosemary. No need to do any more.
Hoppy
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on November 16, 2009, 03:40:02 PM
that is simply your definition, one cherrypicked to suit your argument. there are other definitions...
so you have no evidence, nothing but hyperbole... imagine that. furthermore, if i recall the claim from ainslie is one of COP not OU... but i am willing to be corrected, with evidence and not your opinion...
my opinion, just like yours, is irrelevant.
I am getting the breach of unity claim directly from Rosemary's energetic forum postings. Breach of unity is technically a different claim from COP. Whether a COP claim has been made or not, I am not sure. I am referring to the overunity claim, which is an efficiency claim. If you have a different definition of overunity, let's have it. I am going by the most commonly accepted definition here, meaning (total useful energy output) / (total energy input from all sources). Do you disagree with this definition, or do you disagree that a claim as to overunity, as I have defined it, has been made? I am sure Ms. Ainslie herself can clear this up, in any case.
And I do not see how you can say that your opinion regarding the very central question of this thread is irrelevant. You just do not want to admit that you don't believe in the overunity of the circuit either. Or maybe you do believe it, but cannot articulate why. Either way, the opinion is relevant, assuming it rests on facts presented.
Quote from: utilitarian on November 16, 2009, 04:23:00 PM
I am getting the breach of unity claim directly from Rosemary's energetic forum postings. Breach of unity is technically a different claim from COP. Whether a COP claim has been made or not, I am not sure. I am referring to the overunity claim, which is an efficiency claim. If you have a different definition of overunity, let's have it. I am going by the most commonly accepted definition here, meaning (total useful energy output) / (total energy input from all sources). Do you disagree with this definition, or do you disagree that a claim as to overunity, as I have defined it, has been made? I am sure Ms. Ainslie herself can clear this up, in any case.
And I do not see how you can say that your opinion regarding the very central question of this thread is irrelevant. You just do not want to admit that you don't believe in the overunity of the circuit either. Or maybe you do believe it, but cannot articulate why. Either way, the opinion is relevant, assuming it rests on facts presented.
i disagree with your definition.
opinions are simply that,
opinions. they are NOT relevant. the 'very central question of this thread'
cannot be answered with opinions. well, maybe in your fantasy world they can...
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on November 16, 2009, 04:28:54 PM
i disagree with your definition.
What is your definition of overunity, then?
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on November 16, 2009, 04:28:54 PM
opinions are simply that, opinions. they are NOT relevant. the 'very central question of this thread' cannot be answered with opinions. well, maybe in your fantasy world they can...
And yes they can. An opinion is a synthesis of the given data. So based on the data presented so far, do you think the circuit is overunity or not? Surely the synthesis of the evidence presented is relevant to state in this thread? No?
Quote from: utilitarian on November 16, 2009, 02:18:57 PM
Those people do not care about trying to falsify their claims, which every good scientist should try to do prior to asserting something as world-shaking as "hey there is extra energy here coming from NOTHING!!!!".
You will never demonstrate anything to their satisfaction, as they can always point to something or other and claim your tests are deficient. If their device is green, and your replication is off-green, they are going to claim the colors are all wrong and you should do an EXACT replication before you should be so bold as to say anything negative.
I agree, just walk away. The burden is on the inventor to demonstrate overunity, so let her and her team do that.
It would appear you are missing some information:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg207590;topicseen#msg207590 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg207590;topicseen#msg207590)
Excerpt:
QuoteTherefore, this specific replication is intended to show the source current (and therefore the source power) provided to the circuit in comparison to the work done by the circuit. We are open for suggestions and encourage other replicators to provide a falsification test to this end. This may be a good thing for Poynt to focus on as he already has much of the materials at hand.
::)
Quote from: utilitarian on November 16, 2009, 04:23:00 PM
I am getting the breach of unity claim directly from Rosemary's energetic forum postings. Breach of unity is technically a different claim from COP. Whether a COP claim has been made or not, I am not sure. I am referring to the overunity claim, which is an efficiency claim. If you have a different definition of overunity, let's have it. I am going by the most commonly accepted definition here, meaning (total useful energy output) / (total energy input from all sources). Do you disagree with this definition, or do you disagree that a claim as to overunity, as I have defined it, has been made? I am sure Ms. Ainslie herself can clear this up, in any case.
And I do not see how you can say that your opinion regarding the very central question of this thread is irrelevant. You just do not want to admit that you don't believe in the overunity of the circuit either. Or maybe you do believe it, but cannot articulate why. Either way, the opinion is relevant, assuming it rests on facts presented.
You may wish to review:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-63.html#post64112 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-63.html#post64112)
and
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg205166;topicseen#msg205166 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg205166;topicseen#msg205166)
8)
Hi guys. It seems that no-one is really following the tests done by Fuzzy. I'm going to give a brief reference to each test and its objects - from memory - so I may be out on the actual sequence. Test 1 & 2 attempted replication of heat test published in quantum. Both failed. #3 resulted in OU. #4 again failed (evident lack of harmonic else all was the same). #5 full overunity (no evident power lost from the battery other than microwatt loss from the battery possibly due to overcharged condiition) Harmonic evident. #6 intended as control. Tested alternate load resistor and could not manage the required harmonic. Failed. #7 intended to test higher temperatures - showed results that were extraordinary but was terminated due to possible damage to measuring equipment. #8 designed to remove clips - shorten leads - tidy up the circuit and then also test Harvey's bootstrapping. Results even better and both grounding and bootstrapping concerns eliminated. #9 changed the source shunt resistor with a non-inductive resistor. No difference to the waveform - but COP > 3 which was less than previous 'pass' tests. #10 designed to check the voltage deviation across the source shunt. Intensive 'dumps' every 6 minutes over 1 hour. Determined this was within the required range to allow application of the formulae developed by Harvey. Also results back to OU. Harmonic strongly evident.
This essentially means that the thesis is shown to be proven on replicated tests. Also, measurments are not the result of an inductive shunt - grounding issues - bad wiring - faulty equipment - bad probes - wrong measurement or anything that Poynty has been trying to show us. Anomalies in the waveforms persist - and COP seems to be substantially displaced with outright OU. We're busy writing that paper - and still want to test two different resistors to determine what conditions require that harmonic which is a signature that seems to be associated with these extraordinary results. The hope is to submit the paper at the end of November. We seem to be on track for this. The news is all good. It is just that until submission and review - our own excitement is relatively subdued. That acceptance is critical and we need to submit something at the required standard. But the thesis is proven. Questions persist to explain the anomalous heat signatures and waveforms - but that there are questions remaining is actually a really good thing.
And the effect - which I always assumed would be 'easy to show' proves to be a really subtle moment found when the circuit components generate a self-oscillating frequency. This, as Jibbguy has referenced - has traditionally been factored out of circuitry as undesirable.
edit. Changed microvolt to microwatt
You're submitting a paper for the ominous "peer review", without transient analysis, and without spectrum analysis...hmm...wihtout even a 'controlled' verification.
Hold it just a minute! Let me get some popcorn! I have got to see this!
Quote from: Grumpy on November 16, 2009, 09:59:17 PM
You're submitting a paper for the ominous "peer review", without transient analysis, and without spectrum analysis...hmm...wihtout even a 'controlled' verification.
Hold it just a minute! Let me get some popcorn! I have got to see this!
Golly Grumpy. So many assumptions. Love to know what you base them on. ::)
Bye
WELL. This is interesting. Wilby - I trust you're reading here. Grumpy - Poynty - MileHigh - TK - ALL GONE? Golly.
That leaves Hoppy and utilitarian. Hoppy doesn't say much and uilitarian is a late comer to the thread. What intrigues me is that they're all so DISAPPOINTED. What in heaven's name were they doing on this forum? I always thought contributors here wanted to crack the over unity barrier. So, so strange. Hopefully this thread can now fall off the front page and we can rescue it when we finally submit that paper.
Quote from: witsend on November 16, 2009, 11:40:08 PM
WELL. This is interesting. Wilby - I trust you're reading here. Grumpy - Poynty - MileHigh - TK - ALL GONE? Golly.
Congrats Rose, fine job.
.99
thanks Poynty - ;D :-*
The paper can't succeed because it doesn't have a "controlled verification" done by professionals? It should GET one by publishing the Paper, that is the egg being laid by the chicken. If wider interest is the goal, then this will likely help get it.
And let's be honest here: The science and analysis being done on this circuit by the Open Source community at the two forums surpasses anything i've seen here in the TPU threads to date (or anywhere else in the F-E genre); that's not a cut on the great replicators working on that problem, just an observation, and perhaps should be a directional signpost for future endeavors for many subjects studied here. So let's be sure we are not getting caught up in the "NIH syndrome" ; many of the professional engineers i have known have a Patent on it anyway and get jealous even of their rights to dis other people's stuff on general principals alone ;)
The goals are being met, the work going forward, and a Paper is a logical step to gain academic interest which is what is required to enter the mainstream. Some people here don't "like" the results that have been VERY SKILLFULLY recorded and documented in a professional manner so far, using test and measurement equipment and procedures that are accepted around the world (...and are used to make Billion-Dollar business decisions, or base Peer-reviewed Papers on every day)... Too bad: The "fools" are the ones who scoff at the results and refuse to consider all the implications of what is being germinated here.
Is not about "you" (any of us), or what we've put ourselves forward to support or not support. and it is not even about whether the circuit proves "useful" or not in the end: It is about furthering scientific knowledge and understanding, it's about moving the community closer to gaining credibility and acceptance; it is about becoming what our enemies fear most: A genuine & plausible alternative scientific community that is not controllable by purse string Grant Requests, corporate pressure, or the jealousy of government secrecy based on corrupt economic, and not "national security" concerns.
I just took a quick look at the recent scope shots from FuzzyTomCat. I sure hope you guys still aren't counting those high frequency oscillations as part of the power equations. No offense to anyone, but that's not the professional method. If experimenters here want to continue ignoring the thermal testing method, then my advice is to at least take some fundamental line transmission theory courses.
Last time I was in this thread, the only valid experiments done on the Ainslie circuit was by poynt99, but incomplete. Although, the work he did complete sure looked like the Ainslie device was not over COP 1.
Regards,
Paul
Quote from: PaulLowrance on November 19, 2009, 09:18:46 AM
I just took a quick look at the recent scope shots from FuzzyTomCat. I sure hope you guys still aren't counting those high frequency oscillations as part of the power equations. No offense to anyone, but that's not the professional method. If experimenters here want to continue ignoring the thermal testing method, then my advice is to at least take some fundamental line transmission theory courses.
Last time I was in this thread, the only valid experiments done on the Ainslie circuit was by poynt99, but incomplete. Although, the work he did complete sure looked like the Ainslie device was not over COP 1.
Regards,
Paul
@ Paul
I'll ask again the method of testing you are proposing is it a approved testing method that has been used by some university, government or accredited testing agency on a method of measuring where there is reference material, a document, PDF or text showing the procedure in detail that was used and which has been published.
If so please produce these documents now for consideration of these testing methods, if the testing method is one of your own creation please indicate in complete details why it should be considered on this circuit ...... if you cannot or are unwilling to produce what has been requested now several times ..... postings of the same comments over and over will be considered "SPAM" and dealt with accordingly ......
Fuzzy
Guys - I wont be posting here again. Not until our paper is submitted. It's taking way too much time. And I really am not interested in anyone's opinion on required measurements unless it's backed by some evidence of talent or credentialed expertise. We've already wasted way too much time on answering concerns - most of it nonsense and a lot of it simply counter productive. We have our own expert advises and will simply stick to that.
I only really enjoyed this thread for its amusement value and that has now entirely disappeared with the more intelligent contributors. All we have left are poseurs pretending to an authority that is patently lacking in the quality of their observations. And a handful of detractors that prefer to knock our hard efforts than encourage it. So strange. Don't know where the malice comes from. Is it the NIH syndrome? Or is it just that natural spite that comes from mediocrities?
So it's my turn to say goodbye for now. ;D
@TK, MH, .99, Grumpy, Hoppy, et al.
Not all of us agree with Rosie's last statements. Your well considered comments and suggestions have been appreciated by many. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and expertise.
Best of luck to you all, and to you too Rosemary.
0c
Good luck in the future Rosemary ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0u3NM8rd1U&feature=PlayList&p=57D6831BCAD7D89A&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=14
Looks like we are moving to a new thread
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8322.msg209576#new
cat
Earth Tech may test your device for free. They have tested a few others. Apparently the Farnsworth Fusor actually works (under "experiments").
http://www.earthtech.org/about/index.html
Quote from: powercat on November 19, 2009, 06:08:27 PM
Looks like we are moving to a new thread
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8322.msg209576#new
LOL, i just checked out the new 'digs'. at first i thought grumpy's link was the "unhindered detailed analysis and exposé", then i thought milehigh's post was... when i read his second post i thought, 'maybe this post will have some substance'... that's when it hit me, it's just more of the same game. yup, that's some real 'science' going on over there. ;)
Hi everyone,
The testing and evaluation of the Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 circuit continues .... and we are getting results now that hasn't been seen before .... as always fully documented and released for comments and review for the FE community .....
TEST #12
http://www.energeticforum.com/75770-post3172.html
TEST #12 Complete Original Image & Data .Zip File Set w/ Key (http://rapidshare.com/files/312612308/TEST__12_11-26-09.zip) (link)
TEST #13 (BEST RESULTS)
http://www.energeticforum.com/75803-post3177.html
TEST #13 Complete Original Image & Data .Zip File Set w/ Key (http://rapidshare.com/files/312731047/Original_Test__13_11-26-09.zip) (link)
Also the "open source" IEEE paper is being worked on as I speak and appears to be released on time as scheduled for everyone to see prior to submission.
Fuzzy
;D
Glen:
Do you or the Ainsley team have any new measurements of electrical power into the circuit compared to thermal power output in the load resistor?
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on November 29, 2009, 09:18:58 PM
Glen:
Do you or the Ainsley team have any new measurements of electrical power into the circuit compared to thermal power output in the load resistor?
MileHigh
Hi MH,
Yep .... Harvey is working on this from the Data and Image files from best TEST #13 ...... this will be in the "open source" document posted on the Forum's in the next day for review that everyone ( Rosie, Harvey, Ashtweth , Andrew, Steve and myself ) is working on right now prior to our submission to the IEEE.
There has also been some testing done adding another Caddock #MP930 - 0.25 Ohm "non inductive" 1% shunt to see what if any additional effects the 12Volt battery for the 555 timer board has on the circuit through the Mosfet gate from the 100 Ohm potentiometer it's all documented as a net negative not a net zero and will be included to.
Thanks for your help .... your name and others ( real or screen names ) have been added in the paper "Acknowledgments" for any and all contributions made.
Fuzzy
;D
Fuzzy, thanks for reminding me.
MH if you or anyone want your names down as 'disputers' please send me iniials and surname. If you strongly object to any mention then let me know. I've got TK and Poynty Point down in this category.
You can pm me or skype me.
LOL ;D
BTW I've put Wilby down in the other camp. Same applies here Wilby. If you don't want mention let me know. Or if you want the full name - then also - let me know. Are you on Skype?
Rosie
Rosemary:
I will pass on any mention but I look forward to seeing the paper.
MileHigh
Have been advised by Poynty Point that he does not - under any circumstances - whatsoever - want any mention of any involvement in any work associated with me or my 'affiliates'. Golly. Is our Poynty also letigious? I think I'll simply post his picture there. EDIT #
Correction. I'll post my picture of him!!!! ;D
And MileHigh? You too? I'm feeling quite hurt here.
LOL
:-*
Quote from: witsend on November 30, 2009, 12:13:37 AM
Have been advised by Poynty Point that he does not - under any circumstances - whatsoever - want any mention of any involvement in with any work associated with me or my 'affiliates'. Golly. Is our Poynty also letigious? I think I'll simply post his picture there.
And MileHigh? You too? I'm feeling quite hurt here.
LOL
:-*
well, that certainly is an interesting turn of events. after all their posts telling you how it should be done, after all that assumption, conjecture and speculation day in and day out, after all that chest pounding and ego tripping they want to remain anonymous... imagine that. i do wonder what the point of all that was if they are not willing to stand by their opinions...
if i am ever up around ritchie park in edmonton, i'll have to veer a block or two south and drop in on poynty, bring him a pint and cheer him up a bit.
Wilby, what are you trying to prove by posting information about poynt99? Have you been cyber-tracking him? Did he give you permission to post private personal information about him? That info is not public, how did you get it? Is this type of internet activity not criminal? I'd say you may have put Stefan in a precarious position by doing this. Please remove or have Stefan remove this info.
Obviously you have been going out of your way to get information aobut him. To what purpose?
Evidently, you have also sent him a fake overunity.com PM notification to his ISP email address, which very few people have. What does that say about your purpose at this forum?
Peter
Quote from: Peterae on December 01, 2009, 07:52:57 AM
Wilby, what are you trying to prove by posting information about poynt99? Have you been cyber-tracking him? Did he give you permission to post private personal information about him? That info is not public, how did you get it? Is this type of internet activity not criminal? I'd say you may have put Stefan in a precarious position by doing this. Please remove or have Stefan remove this info.
Obviously you have been going out of your way to get information aobut him. To what purpose?
Evidently, you have also sent him a fake overunity.com PM notification to his ISP email address, which very few people have. What does that say about your purpose at this forum?
Peter
what are you trying to prove with your baseless accusations? what personal information about poynty have i posted? did i post his street address? his phone number? his real name? his email addresses? you are out of line.
assumption...
this last statement of yours is a complete falsehood. i have done no such thing. prove it or withdraw your ridiculous accusation, or i may take further action.
WilbyInebriated, do you like George W Bush or do you dislike him, I'm just curious because you have his picture as your avatar? I'm not fond of him myself.
You see rosemary, pointZERO has been thrown off this forum, so he might be a little soar from it. I think if milehigh keeps his armchair too warm he might follow the same road.
Hi everyone,
Here is the release of the submitted "open source" paper to the IEEE ....
Open Source Evaluation of Power Transients Generated to Improve Performance Coefficient of Resistive Heating Systems (http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems) (link)
I must thank everyone for there patience, efforts and help in compiling this document.
Fuzzy
:)
Hi Guys
Paper's in and I'm enjoying the novel experience of a life without a deadline. Will have to find a new project somewhere.
I saw your note broli. Not happy that our Poynty Poynt has been forcibly evicted. Real decorative value there - even if he tends to pendantry. Hopefully Stefan is simply giving him a period to try and temper some of that arrogance. LOL
And Wilby - I hope you've seen the latest posts at EF.com. You need to take a read of the paper. Such excitement. Now we'll have to wait and see what our reviewers will do. Last time it was rejected by consensus and I think it was something in the order of 0 in support 5 against. At least this time we had Harvey to add the required professional touch - and Fuzzy's excellent - impeccable - uniquivocal - extraordinary - amazing - and somewhat obsessive? experimental skills. AM HOPELESSLY INDEBTED GUYS.
And TK? Eat your heart out. That goes to all those in that orchestrated attack in the early chapters of this thread. But we've got a way to go yet. Our little experiment was, of necessity, confined to 'small values' so that we could give mainstream unequivocal proof. There's a limit to what the average DSO can manage - even one in the class we were privileged to use. It's now up to you guys to find out how to get this applied with force and effect. If this is really dark matter from dark energy that we're tapping - then the sky is not the limit - the universe is. That's got to be exciting.
I see Fuzzy published my model on the internet together with our paper. So the links are there. I'm going to ask Stefan or Fuzzy to post key para's from the paper directly to the thread. But will do so when I've caught up on some sleep.
Thanks to all those who supported us. Actually and thank you to those that didn't. Through strange and mysterious paradoxes - it all seemed to help.
;D
Rosemary:
Poynt and I briefly discussed your paper and we both give it a big "thumbs down."
It's actually baffling because you make a claim of COP > 4 and provide no measurement data in the paper to back it up. It makes no sense.
Links to Glen's postings on the EF don't advance your proposition at all. We can't figure out what all the celebrating is about, it is like you are all in denial that the paper provides no substantive data.
The language in the first few paragraphs will disqualify any possible submission to an IEEE journal, not to mention again that you provide no data.
MileHigh
Hello MileHigh. Nice to see you're still posting here. It seems Poynty Poynt's got himself banned?
Always thought my language skills were good? And if you're objecting to the lack of data and that's your only complaint - well then. Neither objections amount to much. The data is in. The language is good.
But 10 out of 10 for sticking to your corner here MH. For reasons that entirely elude me I actually believed that - deep down - you wanted to be convinced on the hopes of zero point energy. Shows how naive I am.
By the way - I'd be glad if this thread could now 'fall off a cliff' as you put it. I think we've more or less concluded this topic. We can re-evaluate when and if we get comments from our reviewers. How's that for a compromise?
And what are you going to do for company? Dig up the dead trolls and mutter long into the nights? ;D I'm intrigued to see how many of you will join that unholy cabal. Incidentally I plan to redraw the victory jig and see if I can squeeze Poynty's ego onto that same page. It'll be challenging but I'm up for it. This time I'll give you some hair. LOL. I miss you both - in strange and perverse ways. Thank goodness. My real challenge at the moment is to try and get normalcy back into my sleep patterns and some semblance of a life away from this keyboard.
:-* :)
A Post from Poynt99
Rose,
After skimming the paper, I actually decided not to comment (the paper speaks volumes on it's own).
Good luck with your future tests on the circuit, Fuzzy I'm sure will make ample use of the scope once again.
.99
PS. Perhaps you've not heard, but there is a new forum site in the works. It might be ready to go live by the end of next week. You, Fuzzy, and Harvey are more than welcome to join, so consider this an invitation. Of course MileHigh, along with many others will be there as well.
Send me an email to poynt99"at"overunityresearch.com if you are interested. We'd like to have you there.
Cheers,
.99
LOL If you, Poynty - are the partial owner, administrater and monitor of a new forum - then what earthly hope for our freedoms of expression? I'm rather partial to keeping this as liberated or as uunshackled, as is humanly possible. And we already know how trigger happy you are with that delete button. ;D And what about Wilby? Who will be there to protect me from all that critical excess? Will his input be accepted?
And another concern. Mainstream argument is not only dull witted, ponderous, illogical, convoluted, obscure, tedious, fallacious and dreary - it is also really, really well known. What on earth will you guys discuss? I think there's an upper limit to the number of times you express your smug delusions relating to archaic paradigms - and yet retain a readership.
So. If it's just another medium for you and MIleHigh to 'darken' the light of new physics - then why would I want to get involved? And if it's an opportunity for TK et al to knock all experimental explorations into the Unity Frontier - then why would I want to get that depressed? And if it's yet another forum to fight the corner of ancient, and old age physics - then why would I want to get that bored?
You need to sweeten this pill Poynty Poynt. Thus far the new forum sounds like a foray into Hell - populated with trolls - and coloured by prejudices that are already all over the place. I suppose if MH is there - and you - then there's the outside hope of an intellectual challenge to convert you guys. At the moment I see it as having that 'abandon hope .... ' number that Dante saw outside the gates of Hell. Not that exciting Poynty Poynt. LOL
:-* ::) >:( ;D
EDIT
:-*
2ND EDIT
Of course I'll join. How could I resist? Just not sure how active I'll be as experimental physics is really not my thing. But who knows? Perhaps you'll get some contributors interested in theory? Definitely up for that. Thanks Darren - Poynty - Poynt99 - Poynty Poynt. So many identities. Golly. :-*
Has this paper been accepted by IEEE yet?
I found all of the links to various thing rather irritating. This makes it impossible to print it out and read it later. You have to print an entire ream of paper to get all of the supporting information. Couldn't you summarize, dissect and condense all of this into the paper presented?
Talk of a "new physics" is rather pretentious. Dozens of physicist with far more to show than hot coil won't talk of "new physics" until they have exhausted the current physics, and even then they are apprehensive.
Hi Gobaga. 17 pages is not a ream. And you're absolutely not required to print any of it. And NO. I can't summarise it. Nor will I try to. It's summarised in the abstract. And I am not talking 'new physics'. Dark matter and dark energy were identified by Hubble. That was some years ago. And fortunately I am not like 'dozen's of physicist(s)?' That would represent a minority.
It's always an enormous relief to find that the antagonists to the paper are also such stridently demanding and objectionable people. I'd hate to think that reasonable, kind hearted, decent, fair minded, considerate, polite and and thinking scientists - would also not support our hard faught efforts here. And such people would - I suspect - also take the trouble to be courteous.
If I were to indulge in your register I'd say 'go take a jump' or 'go to blazes' or something like that. Fortunately I'm in the 'reasonable, kind hearted ....' group.
EDIT - AND NO - the paper has not been accepted for publication. There's a process involved that usually takes up to three months - or longer. How can you not know this? Especially in the light of you knowing those 'dozens of physicists'? Golly.
Quote from: Gobaga on December 05, 2009, 10:03:25 PM
Has this paper been accepted by IEEE yet?
I found all of the links to various thing rather irritating. This makes it impossible to print it out and read it later. You have to print an entire ream of paper to get all of the supporting information. Couldn't you summarize, dissect and condense all of this into the paper presented?
Talk of a "new physics" is rather pretentious. Dozens of physicist with far more to show than hot coil won't talk of "new physics" until they have exhausted the current physics, and even then they are apprehensive.
Hi Gobaga,
The document "Open Source Evaluation of Power Transients Generated to Improve Performance Coefficient of Resistive Heating Systems" that is referenced at Scribd
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems Is the manuscript for
Electronic Preprints which is allowed at the IEEE
http://www.ieee.org/web/publications/rights/policies.html under
Section 8.1.9 Electronic Information Dissemination Part B. Electronic Preprints which has the same document context but using a single column width manuscript and will be withdrawn from Scribd and replace with the proper format document at the time of approval with the two column format used in magazine editorials which was submitted as per IEEE requirements .... the information in both manuscripts is basically the same now but may have some additional edits required for publication if excepted.
Normally there isn't any pre-release publication done at all, but the authors of the paper being were all "Open Source" felt the need for some type of document for the community to see prior to any possible publication using the "Electronic Preprint" exception in it's present released manuscript form.
Fuzzy
:)
Fuzzy, you are so weak-kneed that you had to delete my posting?
Quote from: MileHigh on December 06, 2009, 01:46:20 AM
Fuzzy, you are so weak-kneed that you had to delete my posting?
MH, The IEEE document is one that comes from 6 months of work from testing mostly from my replication, never have I made any claims of performance other than giving all the data available from my testing ..... and I am not being or have been arrogant in any way shape or form and have been insulted by your comments concerning the work done and Tektronix.
Also you have and never will be involved in what Tektronix is doing and need to be corrected that the DSO as you keep referring to is called a DPO and is reflected as such in our submission to IEEE for a possible publication and by Tektronix.
Please refrain from posting here again unless you have something productive to say.
Glen
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on November 19, 2009, 01:26:03 PM
@ Paul
I'll ask again the method of testing you are proposing is it a approved testing method that has been used by some university, government or accredited testing agency on a method of measuring where there is reference material, a document, PDF or text showing the procedure in detail that was used and which has been published.
If so please produce these documents now for consideration of these testing methods, if the testing method is one of your own creation please indicate in complete details why it should be considered on this circuit ...... if you cannot or are unwilling to produce what has been requested now several times ..... postings of the same comments over and over will be considered "SPAM" and dealt with accordingly ......
Fuzzy
Can such a skilled and talented consortium not come up with a proper control experiment?
Are you now going from a questioned COP<17 to a COP<4 claim, again to be published, and again without convincing evidence? What is the POINT of that? If you lose factor 4 again next time, there won't be any overunity left to be clamed!
Put the whole circuit including battery in a container that will allow submerging in water. No-where to escape for the produced heat than to warm up the water and the inner container, right?
Operate with a remote. The water will obviously be placed in a highly insulated container itself, to get better heat reading. Have critics design some basic heating circuits that have nothing to do with advanced tuned oscillations or resonations. Like, some resistors in series as well as in parallel. Some basic heating coils, and some other means of electro>thermal converters. You need to better those first, before claiming any <1, IMNSHO.
I've asked something along this line months ago : how much tea can you make with the advanced circuit, compared to an off the shelf water boiler?
This circuit has been claiming time and attention of some really great researchers (as well as armchair nitwits like yours truly). You owe it to them to do this properly. Not to come up with nice-looking scope shots and a revised claim, but to do proper testing this time. This audience all wants this to be real. Who doesn't want to make tea for 170 in stead of 10, for the same amount of input?
If the testing would be inconclusive, you could spare yourself and many other serious researchers 3 months of time, to be invested in other possible COP<1 technologies.
How hard can it be, really, to heat some water? If there is real excess heat, it WILL be transferred. If it's just heat that appears and is re-used in the circuit somehow, you have a nice anomoly going.
I really would like to learn what the point is, here. It seems from my armchair that more reputations are being destroyed than built here.
If you can get this published without proper proof, you are not part of the solution, but part of the problem, as unveiled in climate gate. Peer reviewed magazine, for now, have lost their credibility completely. You need to be part of the club to get anything published, or have a job in progressive science at all. Is publication the goal itself, or convincing others to take this to the next level?
After reading these discussions for months on end, I am left deeply disappointed. I hope I will be able to let my hopes go this time, and learn more about other constructive research on these forums. Really, use all your talents for being part of the solution. Try somehing else, rather than trying to dig up more gold on a site where there never was such a find. There is so much out there, that WILL work.
This heart-meant post will probably get me banned, for being a troll and an obstruction of the free energy prophets.
Seriously, if you can't even convince me (I'm as gullable as they come), you need to get your story shorter, and clearer. I am not properly educated in any way, but my sense of logic is highly developed, and it is itching like crazy here. Something's not right, and you'll need to set it right.
No more ego's, just giving to humanity. No unjustified taking.
Good luck.
J
Following quotes from Cloxxki
Can such a skilled and talented consortium not come up with a proper control experiment?
Why would we need a control?
Are you now going from a questioned COP<17 to a COP<4 claim, again to be published, and again without convincing evidence? What is the POINT of that? If you lose factor 4 again next time, there won't be any overunity left to be clamed!
You probably mean COP> 17 and >4? Sorry you don't find the evidence convincing. Personally I wouldn't argue with data from that DPO any more than I'd try and argue with God.
Put the whole circuit including battery in a container that will allow submerging in water. No-where to escape for the produced heat than to warm up the water and the inner container, right?
Feel free to do this Cloxxki. Boil oil would be even more encouraging. But we need to keep the data within the measurment constraints of our DPO. 6 watts from the circuit is just about all it can take on this test as the voltage spikes are already upward of 500 volts.
Operate with a remote. The water will obviously be placed in a highly insulated container itself, to get better heat reading. Have critics design some basic heating circuits that have nothing to do with advanced tuned oscillations or resonations. Like, some resistors in series as well as in parallel. Some basic heating coils, and some other means of electro>thermal converters. You need to better those first, before claiming any <1, IMNSHO.
Golly. More nonsense. We must get rid of the evidence and and we need to claim a co-efficient less than 1?
I've asked something along this line months ago : how much tea can you make with the advanced circuit, compared to an off the shelf water boiler?
LOL Feel free to ask.
This circuit has been claiming time and attention of some really great researchers (as well as armchair nitwits like yours truly).
Indeed - But only benefitted by the former.
You owe it to them to do this properly. Not to come up with nice-looking scope shots and a revised claim, but to do proper testing this time. This audience all wants this to be real.
What audience?
Who doesn't want to make tea for 170 in stead of 10, for the same amount of input?
I for one. That many for tea? I'd definitely pass. Way too much work.
If the testing would be inconclusive, you could spare yourself and many other serious researchers 3 months of time, to be invested in other possible COP<1 technologies.
Golly. This obsession to reach such modest results? We always aimed at COP>1 and even had evidence of OU.
How hard can it be, really, to heat some water? If there is real excess heat, it WILL be transferred. If it's just heat that appears and is re-used in the circuit somehow, you have a nice anomoly going.
You need to ask Glen the degree of difficulty. Cloxxki - at least from now on - I'll know not to take your opinion seriously. I used to think you knew whereof you spoke. Such a mishmash of nonsense. I'm beginning to understand why Stefan's readership is plummeting when contributors like you come up with such absurd - illogical ramblings.
This heart-meant post will probably get me banned, for being a troll and an obstruction of the free energy prophets.
Seriously, if you can't even convince me (I'm as gullable as they come), you need to get your story shorter, and clearer. I am not properly educated in any way, but my sense of logic is highly developed, and it is itching like crazy here. Something's not right, and you'll need to set it right.
You don't need explanations - for that you'd need to first understand. Just scratch your head. It may help.
No more ego's, just giving to humanity. No unjustified taking.
LOL. WHAT are you giving to humanity? ;D
Rosemary:
I bookmarked this YouTube clip that is very thought provoking:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
Poynt suggests that you and the EF crowd have a look.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on December 06, 2009, 11:52:59 AM
Rosemary:
I bookmarked this YouTube clip that is very thought provoking:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
Poynt suggests that you and the EF crowd have a look.
MileHigh
Hi MileHigh. I missed that deleted post? Thank goodness. Tell Poyny Poynt he needs to show that video to our academics. I'm looking forward to their explanations. Golly. This is the first time I've actually enjoyed all this trolling. Usually it just depresses me. But I need to get some fresh air now and then. The tone is just so stale. LOL.
Are you keeping well MH? And more to the point - are you joining Poynty's new exclusive club? I'm an honoured invited. Such prestige!!! And you'll notice that Poynt's not compromising the standards. But I'm afraid of that delete button and suspect he'll get insufferably monotorial. I'll need some written assurances before I risk posting. LOL
Quote from: witsend on December 05, 2009, 10:22:47 PM
Hi Gobaga. 17 pages is not a ream. And you're absolutely not required to print any of it. And NO. I can't summarise it. Nor will I try to. It's summarised in the abstract. And I am not talking 'new physics'. Dark matter and dark energy were identified by Hubble. That was some years ago. And fortunately I am not like 'dozen's of physicist(s)?' That would represent a minority.
It's always an enormous relief to find that the antagonists to the paper are also such stridently demanding and objectionable people. I'd hate to think that reasonable, kind hearted, decent, fair minded, considerate, polite and and thinking scientists - would also not support our hard faught efforts here. And such people would - I suspect - also take the trouble to be courteous.
If I were to indulge in your register I'd say 'go take a jump' or 'go to blazes' or something like that. Fortunately I'm in the 'reasonable, kind hearted ....' group.
EDIT - AND NO - the paper has not been accepted for publication. There's a process involved that usually takes up to three months - or longer. How can you not know this? Especially in the light of you knowing those 'dozens of physicists'? Golly.
You are really something. Trolls just "troll" for information, constantly asking for more, but you are different. I have heard that various government and special interest "factions" support "diversions" to lead people astray and keep then "busy" with dead-end research. I have never run across such a successful one. Kudos to whoever pulls the strings.
The whole "publish a paper" thing is classic. Whoever thought of that one deserves a promotion.
I am aware that it take a degree of time after a paper is submitted, and I never said that I knew "anyone", just that people with "more" have and dose of humility to go with it.
Anyway, when you rewrite the paper, do the reader a favor and condense it into one article without all of the links. Even at 17 pages, the reader does not have to go and get the rest of it.
Quote from: Gobaga on December 06, 2009, 12:19:14 PM
You are really something. Trolls just "troll" for information, constantly asking for more, but you are different. I have heard that various government and special interest "factions" support "diversions" to lead people astray and keep then "busy" with dead-end research. I have never run across such a successful one. Kudos to whoever pulls the strings.
The whole "publish a paper" thing is classic. Whoever thought of that one deserves a promotion.
Gobaga - my goodness. I've had the best laugh in ages. Are you suggesting that I'm a Government agent to divert and distract serious researchers? TK WOULD be pleased. So would MileHigh. Golly guys. It seems I'm doing a better job than you are? Poynty - you can also take a few lessons from me it seems. Just wish someone would pay me for my efforts. ???
Well Gobaga - it seems I've profoundly offended you. So we're quits.
Just a comment or two across the great divide about the EF Ainsley discussion.
Aaron said:
QuoteI tried it with this heater circuit with mixed results. There are really a lot
of possibilities of using capacitors in this circuit. But if the front side power
supply sees the recovery capacitor, then the recovery will be sabotaged.
With capacitance discharges. If you connect the positive and dump the
cap by switching the negative side and have increased resistance there
at the negative point, you will amplify the negative energy. With positive
connected, the destination ALREADY has the positive potential sitting it in
and doesn't have to get there. So it is just an extension of the diode that
the cap is acting like. The e-amp effect seems to be very real because I
always had stronger battery charging effect by switching on the negative
with the inverted circuits and having a resistor there at that point.
I see that it is completely true that a positive potential is dissipated by
resistance but a negative potential is amplified by resistance. The
experiments show this to be the most likely case every single time.
Aaron's comments above are complete nonsense. Just in case some of you weren't aware. Aaron has been playing with scopes and power supplies for ten years, but he can't utter more than six sentences about electronics without making a mistake.
If you are a real beginner to electronics, filter out crap like this.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on December 06, 2009, 11:52:59 AM
Rosemary:
I bookmarked this YouTube clip that is very thought provoking:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
Poynt suggests that you and the EF crowd have a look.
MileHigh
great link
Cheers
Listening to Milehigh is like enduring a broken record stuck on the grove playing "It will never work!" forever.. Like we were sent to Hell and that is our hideous punishment ;)
Ad hominem nonsense aimed against those who actually DO STUFF won't change the data, Milehigh. You are just pissed off because you were proved WRONG countless times here, and no one listened to you in your "holy quest" to get this technology stamped out and to burn Rosemary at the stake for even suggesting that Maxwell may not have been entirely correct 150 years ago (...lol before the advent of even Atomic Theory).
Folks, look through this thread, and wonder for yourselves why a person would literally invest HUNDREDS of man hours posting negatively here day in and day out for months.. For free (and after being proved wrong over and over)? Is he doing it for pay? We will probably never know; because he refuses to tell us his name... And only attacks others behind his comfortable mask of internet anonymity.
Those that so love to attack others here, should go to this link and Search for the term "Zero Point Energy", and tell us why all the HUNDREDS of Peer-Reviewed Scientific Papers there discussing energy sources that HAVE NO CONNECTION to the Laws of Thermodynamics are "full of it" too ;)
http://arxiv.org/
...the Los Alamos National Labs Physics Archives, hosted by Cornel University.. You know, those "nutty free energy kooks" ;).
You see, these subjects really are "mainstream" now... And the supreme primacy of the "Laws of Thermodynamics" in every case are DONE. Lol, they just "forgot" to tell the general public somehow ;)
Knowing that, attacking these concepts on "general principal" sounds rather ignorant. And really, when we study all you have wrote, all the suppositions you put up against it that were proved WRONG over and over: That is what it is. You REALLY DON'T KNOW if the Ainslie Circuit works as claimed or not. You BELIEVE it doesn't and threw up whatever you could think of against it... An article of "faith" (which is fine in issues of Spirituality, but this is "Science"). Not very "scientific" of you, is it? ;)
MY name is Steve Windisch. I am proud to be a very small part of one of the best documented and researched Open Source projects EVER regarding a free energy subject: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit and Effect. Researchers like Aaron, Glen, Harvey, Michael, Ash, Andrew, Donovan, and Gotoluc (and Stefan for hosting us all), and dozens of other good folks here working on this and many other varied projects; are doing everyone on this planet the important service of objectively investigating controversial alternative energy technologies that our mainstream scientific community consistently REFUSES to do.
It is my pleasure to help report on the fine work of others, and to help ensure the world hears about it, a task i hope all of you out there will help with: Gaining public awareness through grass roots activism... Telling our family, friends, neighbors, and co-workers.. Writing letters to academia to urge them to knock down the stone wall they have erected around these "controversial" technologies that "coincidentally" happen to seriously compete with coal and oil, to honestly study them as they SHOULD HAVE YEARS AGO.
These threads are about GAINING SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE through Open Source research. Those who cannot see that, and insist on confusing "Honest Skepticism" (...which is valuable), with the Spanish Inquisition or book-burning rallies in 1933 Germany... should consider doing us all a favor and go provide "Skeptical Analysis" to the "Sprites, Leprechauns, and Meadow Dancing Lights" forums. Maybe you might get somewhere in convincing them to accept your own private brand of "reason", and stop what they are doing.
Because you and your cohorts have failed miserably here.
The "Hundred Years' War" against energy heresy is now OVER. Those heretics and pariahs who refused to buckle under to peer intimidation and derision tactics meant to "keep us quiet" for fear of being bullied themselves, WON.... And you, Milehigh (or who ever or what ever you really are), and your "employers" (...the concept that Energy can only be obtained from the Temple Priests praying over the Properly Approved text books) ... LOST.
Jibbguy:
And you had a long career as a tech with the Navy or something like that? All of your discussions about instrumentation?
For me there is a real disconnect between your background and what you say. I am wrong wrong wrong. It's just pure spinning. The new Ainsley paper has no numbers and not a single test has shown anything. The only real tests so far show under unity.
QuoteI am proud to be a very small part of one of the best documented and researched Open Source projects EVER regarding a free energy subject: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit and Effect.
I don't know what planet you are on or what sea you are sailing but you have got to be kidding. Are you really that disconnected from the real world?
QuoteThese threads are about GAINING SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE through Open Source research.
With a paradigm shift in people's attitudes that just might happen.
QuoteThe "Hundred Years' War" against energy heresy is now OVER. Those heretics and pariahs who refused to buckle under to peer intimidation and derision tactics meant to "keep us quiet" for fear of being bullied themselves, WON.... And you, Milehigh (or who ever or what ever you really are), and your "employers" (...the concept that Energy can only be obtained from the Temple Priests praying over the Properly Approved text books) ... LOST.
Charlton Heston vibe going there Jibbguy. I have no "employers," I am just here for some fun.
All the drama, I have "LOST"
There is nothing going with the Ainsley circuit Jubbguy and the paper will never get approved in a million years. The whole experience was a fun crazy roller-coaster ride but I jumped off a few months ago.
The circuit does NOT produce any extra heat. One year from now the whole thing will have petered out and will be forgotten.
Remember the free energy "rock star couple" Imhotep and Sheeba? All the excitement with modifying a computer fan and turning it into a compact Bedini motor? The title of the thread on the EF was something like "Free energy at last step by step a most see."
Well, Jibbguy, the title of the thread was a complete lie and Imhotep and Sheeba never for a nanosecond demonstrated any kind of free energy at all. And for all the "Cult of Imhotep" he hasn't done anything in the last year and he is forgotten.
In one year the "big project" will be dead. It's not exactly an EMI-friendly way to make heat anyways, is it? I don't think the FCC or UL would look too kindly upon a "magic heater" that produces no more heat than a conventional heater.
It's too bad because somebody with your background could really help people out. Instead you are a cheerleader for stuff that's not real, seemingly you can't see.
When myself or Poynt99 look at a "remarkable" Pirate or Gadget clip we see nothing, because there is nothing. What we also see is that Pirate and Gadget are misunderstanding what they are looking at and jumping to grandiose conclusions. In trying to point that out, instead of a debate you get bashed and trashed.
Almost everybody gets excited about pulsing inductors because they don't understand how they work. They don't understand how the energy flows and are not open to discussion.
Check out where the Ainsley circuit is in Dec 2010.
MileHigh
;D Hello MileHigh ;D
Back in attack mode? I was determined to ignore your earlier one but can't seem to sit on hands while this attack persists. I was heartened to see you concede that you're 'wrong wrong wong' and that it's pure spinning. And that gaining scientific knowledge through open source will possibly happen with a required shift in paradigms. But I'm constitutionally a plodder and I then realised you were being sarcastic. I had a giddy hope for a wild and fleeting moment - that you'd reformed.
I trust that our paper will eventually get reviewed and published. The circuit definitely produces extra heat. And if you have 'jumped off' the roller coaster ride - it's not apparent - else why are you still posting? I wish this thread would collapse under it's own weight of negative energy.
MileHigh there's a difference with this claim. We're asking academics to check it out. On the evidence available we have heat signatures that do not conform to expected parameters. But my actual question is why do you keep posting here. Aaron, Harvey et al have given up on this thread. I only lurk to keep reminding - what I'm sure is a dwindling reading public - that these type of posts are misleading and counterproductive. And like Jibbs, I wonder why you persist? It gains nothing. And I think readership has dwindled to just the two of us
I'm glad Poynty concurs with you. At least you're not entirely on your own. Poynty's also frantically attempting to ignore the implications here. But this new 'break through' is history now - reasonably and unequivocally proven on tests that are also available for inspection. My own first claim could be questioned as our proof was not as available for public consumption as is Fuzzy's. Now - to continue to deny the evidence with a burgeoning flush of replications - is, frankly, rather absurd.
My own take is that you don't 'dare to hope'. I can't believe that you're simply that negative. And - for Goodness Sake - read up on Dark matter - dark energy. It's possibly the 'theoretical' justification for this new energy source.
And more to the point - when is that new blog going to get launched? I keep hoping.
Rosie
Rosemary:
You're not the first and won't be the last to get excited over a pulsing inductor.
Aaron's "electronics talk" can be offensive sometimes. It's just an insult to the profession. So I posted. Do you want to put a muzzle on me?
I am not being negative about your project, I am just being a realist and telling you the truth.
I don't see Glen generating any real data and summarizing it. He is just spewing out DSO data grabs. That is where there is such a disconnect and I don't see it getting any closer. Generate some real power in vs. power out numbers and forget about ephemeral "heat signatures."
Forget about dark matter and simply generate some real data.
MileHigh
P.S.: I was serious about a paradigm shift.
Hi MileHigh. Still there? Not often we're sharing the same time frames. Especially latterly. I've been trying to get to bed at night which is an entire departure from the last three months. The changes has shocked me into overdrive. It's quite a buzz.
No I don't want to muzzle you. I'd hate to muzzle anyone. And - as a rule - I actually enjoy what you have to say. I just wish the exceptions didn't always prove that rule - is all.
I know it's probably taxing that Glen doesn't summarise. But he's an experimental purist. He leaves that for others. And when they miss the point of his experiment then he guides them into it. It's an exceptionally respectful and courteous way of presenting data and is conventionally preferred. There are those readers who would be offended at being told what to see and what to deduce. Personally I'm with you here. I'd quite like a synopsis. And when I can I provide it. But it certainly isn't conventionally preferred or required.
And how can you tell me to forget about dark matter when that's my thesis? Do you want to put a muzzle on me? LOL
Tell me more about that new blog. I hear nothing more from Poynty Poynt and - I've said it before - I miss you all in strange and perverse ways. I think - bottom line - I'm a reformist or somesuch. I live in hopes that you'll all become adventurous amateur physicists - like me.
::) ;D :-*
edit: Rosie
Quote from: witsend on December 18, 2009, 09:54:39 PM
;D Hello MileHigh ;D
Back in attack mode? I was determined to ignore your earlier one but can't seem to sit on hands while this attack persists. I was heartened to see you concede that you're 'wrong wrong wong' and that it's pure spinning. And that gaining scientific knowledge through open source will possibly happen with a required shift in paradigms. But I'm constitutionally a plodder and I then realised you were being sarcastic. I had a giddy hope for a wild and fleeting moment - that you'd reformed.
I trust that our paper will eventually get reviewed and published. The circuit definitely produces extra heat. And if you have 'jumped off' the roller coaster ride - it's not apparent - else why are you still posting? I wish this thread would collapse under it's own weight of negative energy.
MileHigh there's a difference with this claim. We're asking academics to check it out. On the evidence available we have heat signatures that do not conform to expected parameters. But my actual question is why do you keep posting here. Aaron, Harvey et al have given up on this thread. I only lurk to keep reminding - what I'm sure is a dwindling reading public - that these type of posts are misleading and counterproductive. And like Jibbs, I wonder why you persist? It gains nothing. And I think readership has dwindled to just the two of us
I'm glad Poynty concurs with you. At least you're not entirely on your own. Poynty's also frantically attempting to ignore the implications here. But this new 'break through' is history now - reasonably and unequivocally proven on tests that are also available for inspection. My own first claim could be questioned as our proof was not as available for public consumption as is Fuzzy's. Now - to continue to deny the evidence with a burgeoning flush of replications - is, frankly, rather absurd.
My own take is that you don't 'dare to hope'. I can't believe that you're simply that negative. And - for Goodness Sake - read up on Dark matter - dark energy. It's possibly the 'theoretical' justification for this new energy source.
And more to the point - when is that new blog going to get launched? I keep hoping.
Rosie
Dark energy and dark matter are just another theory. The theory/s for them existing were developed in order to help explain why gravity is not working as expected.
Instead of first acknowledging that the known rules of gravity are probably incomplete (in our understanding of them), and therefore our basic formula's may be wrong or in need of refining, it is sexier and more interesting, to claim that the observed variance/s in gravity at large scales (observed by hubble telescope) is due to some whole new type of matter and energy.
A whole new range of matter and energy may require a whole new branch of science and scientists - at least that's what many funded scientists might claim as they scramble for more research dollars.
The jury of scientific consensus is still deliberating on the existence of dark matter and dark energy. Much more data is required.
The anomoly of gravity shown in our own solar system (which is miniscule in cosmic terms), by deep space exploration satellites, shows good reason to further examine our formula's, and perhaps search for more answers at the atomic level to better explain gravity at the macro level.
In any event, accepting one particular theory while ignoring other possible theories seems to be typical human behaviour. We are all guilty of "information filtering" to varying degrees.
Cheers
Hi hoptoad. No. Dark matter - dark energy definitely mathematically required. And yes, I'm not sure that gravity is anything but a partial theory. But it's nice to live in such times. I'm interested to see that MileHigh is genuinely expecting a paradigm shift. Not sure why when he discounts the reality of dark energy.
My model is something on the lines of dark matter. In the same way as it is seen to 'bind the galaxies' I see this 'something' as binding all amalgams or identifiable material. In effect the atom is at it's lowest energy state when it is also unbound. Bind it in an amalgam or in molecules and it has a higher energy state. The energy added is not to the atoms but to the material or zipons, binding the atoms. Unbind that material - friction, fire - whatever and you degrade the material through various levels of fatigue that eventually bring it back to its unbound state. That's the release of the energy - zipons - that held them bound. And that's also what I claim are fields of zipons. Easy really. But the argument to get there seems to be elusive. Can't think why. It seems quite logical to me.
It certainly gives a more coherent explanation for the flow of current than anything classical physicists have dreamed up. And it is also experimentally evident - now that Fuzzy's done his trick with replicating. In any event - it explains the extra energy and it was required in terms of that model. So if it's wrong it's not that far wrong - is my take.
Milehigh, usually i just ignore your comments, they are only about taking this technology, and this entire forum, DOWN any way you can think of: That is apparently the totality of "you", from everything you have shown us. Apparently that is your "job". It was only your latest sneering ad hominem attack on Aaron, for at least the 40th time, quoting him out of context and FROM ANOTHER FORUM, that prompted my post.
Regarding your personal question about me: I had a long career in electronics & Test and Measurement Instrumentation, from which i learned a great deal about hundreds of applications and industries... I traveled all over the world, met onsite with several hundred Customers in Industry, aerospace, and medical research. From time to time, the problems my Customers faced, and were using our equipment to troubleshoot, were quite strange and did not fit with any textbook description of what electricity "should be". I also had a few Customers that used their instruments to study anomalies somewhat similar to what we see in this thread. Those were "eye-openers" to the reality that what i learned in school about electronics/electricity was not always so... And it prompted me to begin researching WHY.
What i found was that we have been blatantly lied to about electricity for over a hundred years now.
But that is all you get out me until you tell us YOUR name. You think you can just sneer and piss on everything that comes long... and you and people like you bank on the fact that most folks won't even bother to challenge you, because they just don't want the hassle and spilkus of getting into endless arguments with jerks who DO NOTHING but spew venom at anything that challenges their world view, and who think nothing of slinging ad hominem's at those who simply disagree with them... As a method of bullying others to keep their mouths shut and so manipulate these important discussions. That disgusts me, and if it was my choice, you would have been banned out here months ago... This is not a playground to show off your "superior intelligence" to others... at the cost of doing proper science and research.
The fact is, you have been WRONG so many times here (proved over and over by reading the posts on this very thread), that it is a PATHETIC EMBARRASSMENT. And the reason you so have been so wrong, over and over, is because of your motives: You are NOT looking to do good science, you are simply looking to attack this any way you can get away with. But unfortunately for you, and fortunately for the rest of us; using the arcana and obscure technical terms of electronics to bamboozle the readers here in a cynical attempt to dissuade us from studying this effect... HAS FAILED.
So frankly, we find it hard to seriously listen to anything you have to say now.
Fuzzytomcat's and Aaron's data captured by the Tektronix DPO's clearly shows anomalous energy; and were extremely well recorded and presented. This is clear to those who can read it; and to those who haven't wrapped-up their entire self-worth and ego into a crusade to tear it down.
To those that may be new here, please note that because of the unwarranted and constant ad hominem attacks from the people like this "Milehigh", most of the reported data can be seen only at the Energetics Forum, which has a little stricter rules for that sort of thing; yet still allows and invites HONEST skepticism. It's not Stefan's fault that these shills use the sacred tenets of Free Speech against the rest of us in their attempts to stop the Open Source movement by the only real method they have left: Convincing us to stop study ourselves.
I am calling it for what it is, Milehigh: You are hopelessly biased here, and cannot give an objective opinion. This has been shown over and over by your own words. To be honest, i find this situation highly suspicious and think you are probably a Paid Shill deliberately attempting to disrupt and poison this research any way that presents itself, as i cannot imagine ANYONE spending this much time on the negative position "for free" (..especially after being proved wrong so many times). But that's just my opinion ;)
"You Damned Dirty Ape!"
There's some "Charlton Heston" for you, hehehe (just kidding).
Jibbguy:
You are a fool as far as I am concerned. Your characterization of me is way off and what you say about me is in fact not backed up by what I have posted. I have tried to help people understand what their experiments are really doing.
You can rant all that you want and try to portray me as your skewed mind sees me, I don't care. What I post is the truth, and sometimes I can be a bit harsh, but very selectively.
"Ad hominem?" I don't think so. I talked about the content of Aaron's posting, not Aaron. When you exaggerate and spin you just dig yourself into a hole.
What Aaron said in his little "electronics" treatise was absolute nonsense, sentences that simply don't exist in the real world when people discuss electronics. Aaron wouldn't last more than five minutes in an electronics lab in the real world. You should have enough brains in your head to realize this.
MileHigh
I gotta say
I would love to hear TK's take on this
Chet
[Oh well off to the Blizzard]
Lighten up lads! Remember anyone can be anyone they wish on a forum and opinions are just opinions. I learnt this lesson when Aaron dumped me off the Energetic forum and I was not even rude, just pushing my point a bit hard and because it made Aaron annoyed, he prevented me from posting. I'm not crying over this, far from it. It has clearly shown unlike this forum, the Energetic forum is not a place for healthy debate between sceptics and believers of 'free energy'. Aaron has the right to dis anyone he chooses, as does Stephan and on a forum, explanations for taking such action is not mandatory. We are all free to believe what we wish and if some people decide to believe that EE principles are for whatever reason fundamentally flawed or the world is flat, then so be it.
We can all draw useful snippets of information from the various FE forums whatever our beliefs and we all learn from this and this can alter our opinions when we use this information in our own experiments. With regards to the Ainslie test results, even if they are rejected by academia, I'm sure that some of the AT will simply shrug this off by saying that its a plot to discredit the FE community.
Hoppy
Hehehe, keep it up Milehigh. You are proving my points for me ;)
I would respectfully suggest to the Admin, that this forum thread now be CLOSED, so no one can go back and delete their old posts... So it stands as a "monument" to show what went on here.
That way folks can decide for themselves, without the "help" that people like Milehigh provide (or me for that matter, come to think of it lol), once the news about this circuit creates a higher level of Public Awareness and is viewed by several thousand more people (as it may soon be).
Frankly, the poor level of "skepticism" we have seen here has sometimes been a bit of an embarrassment for the genre (.. but not always; there have been some excellent suggestions from others that were appreciated and heeded). We can't help that, we must work with what we are given. "Eric Krieg" (an ACTUAL Skeptic of free energy concepts, who operates the "Philadelphia Skeptics" page and others) must be squirming and swearing at the blows in prestige his Cause has taken here... Which is not his fault either. Worthy and fairly open-minded opponents are rare around here, and i truly respect him and his intellect, although we obviously disagree over nearly everything regarding this subject, lol.
But since neither of us are teenagers posting in gaming forums shouting "STFU!" when we lose, there are no flames and unsubstantiated claims thrown like mud to cover over the facts and obscure them.
On the other hand, this person in question: Well.... Let's just say he doesn't deserve any "Christmas Bonus" this year, that's for sure ;)
The jury of scientific consensus is still deliberating on the existence of dark matter and dark energy. Much more data is required. Hoptoad
Hi again. I kept thinking back to this post and finally re-read it and now I know what was bothering me. Jury definitely reached consensus that dark matter is there. It's visible through gravitational lensing and is seen to be concentrated at the centre of galaxies. It's loosely described as a halo around the galaxies but looks more like an upside down plate. And it's mathematically required to exceed visible mass in galaxies by a factor of 10. There's also some evidence of isolated concentrations of this matter in space that is not directly related to galaxial mass. I think it's described as 'clumping'.
So what I find really exciting is that our 21st Century has also ushered in a new and heretofore unidentified force. That's really extraordinary when you consider that all text books still only refer to 4 known forces. And on the subject of text books - Michio Kaku states that ´every text book on the planet says that the universe is made out of atoms and sub atomic particles. Well, all those text books are wrong'. And he's an expert.
I'ts all really jolly interesting.
Gotoluc:
I don't know if you are reading here, but you said:
Quote@Rosemary, I also just received the Five 650 Farad @ 2.7vdc Ultracapacitors. Connecting them in series will give me 130 Farad @ 13.5vdc. I Hopping to test these on your circuit while collecting the flyback of the resistor to see if they can more efficently store the resistor flyback energy then a lead acid battery. It should also make energy calculations much easier since we are dealing with capacitive values.
That actually scares the crap out of me because it could be so dangerous if it accidentally gets short-circuited. Please take my advice to never under any circumstances discharge your caps with a screwdriver blade.
You may not realize this but five ultracaps in series could probably instantly melt your watchband before you could react and give you third degree burns. A wire could literally explode in the form of super-hot vaporized metal if it was shorted across the ultracaps. I am making intelligent guesses here.
I suggest that you always discharge your ultracaps with an appropriate resistor, even if it takes 20 minutes to do it.
And yes Alex (below) is absolutely right about adding a fuse and I feel so stoopid for forgetting to mention something so basic.
Jibbguy:
You are off in your own world.
MileHigh
@MileHigh,
I agree with that statement. The same goes for big lead acid batteries.
Never over charge and never short circuit ANY high current devices.
One way of protecting the operator is to use a fuse in series with the
battery capacitor. The battery capacitors should be mounted on a
metal buss bar(s) inside a plastic box. The box should have a fuse and
also a switch with a series resistor (big wattage) for discharging the
capacitors before handling them.
Alex.
Hi Hoppy
you're remarkably sanguine and philosophical about being evicted - I must say. I'm not sure that it's always justified but I do think that on Energetic forum it seems to keep the posts constructive and that's always a good thing. Also makes for pleasant reading.
But I agree with Jibbs here. You guys served us well in the critical input that filtered through every now and again - mostly from Poynty - often by MileHigh but never from TK. That's the thing. It's alternatively constructive and destructive. But if that's how the checks and balances need to be established I think we can all live with it. It seems to make the Open Source movement quite workable.
Personally I quite like the occasional excess - either way. Else it would be rather boring. But there's a level of criticism that actually is entirely counterproductive. I know this only too well. But this arrangement worked out to eveyone's advantage. You guys kept us in check and really forced us to look at all questions. I would have loved to have Poynty Point as co-author - or at least as an acknowledged and able adviser. Harvey has often mentioned this. So. You kept us on our toes. Much appreciated. Could have done with less brutality here and there - and more questions in the general quest. But it all helped. Thanks guys. I forgive you your need to parade an assumed superiority. LOL.
Hi guys,
Tomorrow is Xmas eve. May I wish all those who celebrate the season - the very merriest of times. Considering this harsh economic climate - a measure of good will may very well lighten the load.
Being High C of E - I get ridiculously cheery around this time of year - the more so as I'm innundated with children and grandchildren. And I'm not averse to the excesses of a high cholesterol diet that are a traditional part of the season.
To those of you who don't celebrate - Good wishes notwithstanding.
I've had an extraordinary year - not one that I'll forget - and a large chapter of it is invested in this thread. To all those who contributed - many, many thanks. Poynty, MileHigh, Hoppy, Pauly, everyone -even TK - the list is long. All the best over the festive season. I hope you're all with family, loved ones or friends. I shall definitely toast you all. And Harti - may I extend this to you as well.
with love and best wishes
Rosie
Quote from: witsend on December 23, 2009, 01:30:32 AM
Hi guys,
Tomorrow is Xmas eve. May I wish all those who celebrate the season - the very merriest of times. Considering this harsh economic climate - a measure of good will may very well lighten the load.
Being High C of E - I get ridiculously cheery around this time of year - the more so as I'm innundated with children and grandchildren. And I'm not averse to the excesses of a high cholesterol diet that are a traditional part of the season.
To those of you who don't celebrate - Good wishes notwithstanding.
I've had an extraordinary year - not one that I'll forget - and a large chapter of it is invested in this thread. To all those who contributed - many, many thanks. Poynty, MileHigh, Hoppy, Pauly, everyone -even TK - the list is long. All the best over the festive season. I hope you're all with family, loved ones or friends. I shall definitely toast you all. And Harti - may I extend this to you as well.
with love and best wishes
Rosie
And a merry Xmas and happy New Year to you Rosemary and the team. Hoping that you and the team get a thumbs up from the 'experts' in the New Year.
Best wishes
Hoppy
May you ALL have a very joyous Holiday Season; with lots of love, lots of smiles, and for many of you, not so much snow lol.
Here was my meager contribution to the Ainslie Circuit Open Source Project.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Strange-Case-of-the-Ro-by-Steve-Windisch-ji-091219-425.html
May 2010 prove to be a wonderful year. I raise a glass of "Gluug" to you all (a strong Swedish mull wine, an old Holiday tradition in my family), and salute our Community. Skol! :)
Thanks for the good wishes Jibbs and Hoppy.
;D
Wilby - please check your PM or Skype - both. Can't let the season come to a close without some seriously good wishes from me to you. Eternally indebted here Captain and goodwill abounds. Have missed your contributions lately - but there's a possible absense of trolls for target practice. LOL. I'm back on Boxing Day and would be glad to reach you.
Hi everyone,
Well I got it together and now have a "LIVE" Broadcast site to do the testing and evaluation on the Rosemary Ainslie COP heater circuit and others .... but ... in doing so I had to come up with a "CHANNEL" name and it's called .....
Open Source Research and Development
http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment
The strange thing is you must supply videos for some time to be a verified channel and somehow this was bypassed .... possibly because of the name I chose .... don't know this was in the e-mail .....
Quote
Effective immediately, you can now stream to unlimited concurrent viewers. In addition, your Livestream Free channel is now listed at livestream.com and is available via search or by browsing the Channel Guide. Plus, your channel is now eligible for promotion in throughout the Livestream Network.
I am broadcasting "RIGHT NOW" for the first time as a dry run .....
Fuzzy
:)
skol
Bill
Hi guys is it possible to run this circuit with 12v battery only doing a sort of inverter to the 24v side?
Another thing about those pots 50k/50% does 50% reffering to tolerance?
Any help please?
Thanks
guruji Hello. I apologise for not answering here but the truth is that I'm really not qualified to comment. My own recommendation would be to try and follow Fuzzy's schematic to the letter - if you're trying to replicate the effect. But I really need him to give you advice here. I do know that there have been successful variations of the circuit - but it's better left to our experimentalists to advise here. Fuzzy? Can you oblige? Someone?
Otherwise read up on the different schematics that are on offer at energeticforum.com. There may be some variation that will suit your apparatus and requirements. And good luck.
Hi Everyone,
I have another "LIVE" streaming video broadcast going on right now demonstrating the operation of the Rosemary Ainslie COP Heater Circuit Replication if anyone would like to check it out for the next 6 to 12 hours ...
Open Source Research and Development -
http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment
Best Regards,
Fuzzy
:)
Hi Fuzzy I already posted this even on your live stream chat but I'm asking again.
Can this circuit run on 12v battery only including a sort of inverter on the 24v side?
Thanks
Andrew
Hi Guruji,
I suspect that the effect may not work if you try to create a passive resistive network- based "Voltage Doubler" circuit, as all of those i've seen rely on a clear Ground reference to work, and the output would really be "-12V to +12V". However the only way to know for sure, is to build as suggested first; to get the desired effect working as a "baseline" so you can know when any circuit changes make a difference or not.
Two 12V lead-acid batts of any AH size (or a single 24V batt), or even more such as a total of "48V's" (which is planned to try in the future when High Voltage Probes for the scope become available), is the "recommended method" so far. Scaling down appears to lessen the effect considerably (perhaps even a little more than would be expected as "linear"), from the data Fuzzy once got from running on deeply discharged batts; but there's factors besides just the V's involved and those results could also have been at least partially related to the Output Impedance change in the nearly-totally-flat batts.
Regarding the "50%" figure you mentioned earlier, i could not find the reference for that, but it sounds like a typo for "5%": Which would be "Tolerance" / accuracy.
Quote from: guruji on December 28, 2009, 06:54:41 AM
Hi Fuzzy I already posted this even on your live stream chat but I'm asking again.
Can this circuit run on 12v battery only including a sort of inverter on the 24v side?
Thanks
Andrew
Hi guruji,
Sorry I didn't get back to you at the live streaming chat .... but I was tired and went to bed and let the circuit self run. I suspect that Jibbguy is correct that using a inverter the circuit effect may not be there but the only way to actually know is to try it. There are several experimenters that are trying different methods of modified Rosemary Ainslie circuits such as gotoluc and Michael John Nunnerley that are having good results ..... you never know
Best,
Fuzzy
Guys, for those that don't follow energetic forum here's our first refusal from the IEEE. Not a blanket rejection which is something - but disheartening nonetheless, the more so as I think Iravani himself was rather partial to publishing this. Anyway. Hopefully the re-run will have a better outcome.
Date: Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 5:59 AM
Subject: Paper TPWRD-00893-2009, by Mr. Ashtweth Palise, Open source evaluation of power transients generated to improve performance coefficient of resistive heating systems.
To: ashtweth@gmail.com
Cc: pesdecisions@ieee.org, iravani@ecf.utoronto.ca
Paper Title: Open source evaluation of power transients generated to improve performance coefficient of resistive heating systems.
We regret to advise you that the Reviewing Committee is unable
to accept the subject paper for publication as a PES Transactions paper even with possible revisions.
Enclosed please find the comments of the reviewers that should
serve to explain the recommendation of the reviewing committee.
I hope you will find the explanations satisfactory. Although we
could not accept this paper, we hope that you will consider
Transactions on Power Delivery for other papers in the future.
We thank you for your continued interest in the Power Engineering Society.
COMMENTS TO THE AUTHORS:
Editor's Comments:
Editor
Editor Comments for Author:
We suggest this paper to be sumitted for review to the IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics or Industry Applications. This rejection is an administrative decision and not based on the paper content.
Reviewers' Comments:
Reviewer: 1
Comments to the Author
After the initial review we concluded that the paper is more suitable for IEEE Transactions on Industrial electronics and not Power Delivery.
Yours sincerely,
Dr. Reza Iravani
Editor in Chief
Transactions on Power Delivery
iravani@ecf.utoronto.ca
To everyone who's already enjoyed it - I trust you all saw in a Happy New Year. I'm still in time to wish those members in the States the happiest New Year ever. Ã...nd I hope that 2010 will bring us all our very dearest wishes.
;D
Hi,
HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE!!!!
I'm going to have another demonstration set up and am inviting all members and guests again with hopefully those that missed last weeks "LIVE" interactive streaming broadcast of this threads Rosemary Ainslie COP Heater Circuit.
This also provides a opertunity for anyone to ask questions in real time inside the "on line" chat room and talk to myself or others that are involved with the project in some way or hope to be.
"LIVE" NEW YEARS DAY (USA) January 1, 2010
at 12:00 PM (noon) Pacific Standard Time or GMT -8
Open Source Research and Development -
http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment
Best Wishes,
Fuzzy
;D
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on December 31, 2009, 11:20:47 PM
Hi,
HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE!!!!
I'm going to have another demonstration set up and am inviting all members and guests again with hopefully those that missed last weeks "LIVE" interactive streaming broadcast of this threads Rosemary Ainslie COP Heater Circuit.
This also provides a opertunity for anyone to ask questions in real time inside the "on line" chat room and talk to myself or others that are involved with the project in some way or hope to be.
"LIVE" NEW YEARS DAY (USA) January 1, 2010
at 12:00 PM (noon) Pacific Standard Time or GMT -8
Open Source Research and Development -
http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment
Best Wishes,
Fuzzy
;D
Thanks Fuzzy - can't wait. :-*
Hi everyone,
I see that many of the members and guests here have shown up on my "Open Source Research and Development" (http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment) channel showing this threads circuit in operation in various stages of oscillation. The last show was the "Preferred Mode Of Oscillation" that includes the subharmonic modulation that we have deemed necessary for the COP> 1 results which we prefer and must be forced by careful adjustments.
The January 9, 2010 show was the best showing this "Preferred Mode Of Oscillation" in the first 2 hours of the 5 Hour long tape ..... ( search-able video timer shown with time left )
Open Source Research and Development - January 9, 2010
http://bit.ly/4XVsAj (link)
TIME
4:45 _ 24.68 to 24.69 VDC Starting Voltage
4:01 _ 24.72 VDC Highest Voltage Reading
4:00 _ 24.71 VDC
3:33 _ 24.70 VDC
3:17 _ 24.69 VDC Return to Starting Voltage
2:54 _ Temperature Readings
2:52 _ 24.68 VDC
STARTING TEMPERATURES READINGS -
139 Degrees F - 10 ohm load resistor
161 Degrees F - Mosfet
113 Degrees F - .25 ohm shunt resistor
2:54 TEMPERATURE READINGS -
138 Degrees F - 10 ohm load resistor
158 Degrees F - Mosfet
107 Degrees F - .25 ohm shunt resistor
5.27 Watt Load ( Load Resistor ) on circuit during operating throughout the time length indicated.
I hope anyone interested might check it out because non stop it's quite interesting .....
Regards,
Fuzzy
;D
Hi Fuzzy very well done. I think now you should move experiments to those water heater elements ;)
Thanks for sharing
So, do some useful work with the 5 watts.
Light a 5 watt lamp. I would be interested in seeing that video.
I do not trust measurements for proof of the input/output, and never will.
Simply use 2, 24 volt batteries, one hooked directly to one 5 watt lamp. Time that and watch for a drop in the battery voltage.
Then use the other 24 volt battery with your circuit and one 5 watt lamp.
Will the battery last longer?
Have Fun 8)
"Heat" isn't useful? Lol even down here in South Florida i wish i had an "Ainslie Heater" device lately; it has been brutally cold the last two weeks by our usual standards.
We admit there are no whirring lights, no spinning magnets here... And the "Entertainment Value" of it is kinda like the difference between watching an adventure TV show, and reading a fairly dull book, lol. But dull books can have some very important information in them.
The circuit is specifically balanced for a specific result; which it provides. A CFL or incandescent would not provide the same effect as the hand-made heating element with specifically-wound resistive wire does (although the work of ~Imhotep~ and others have shown that there can be somewhat similar effects with CFL's). We could certainly add a light in series, but all that would do is run the battery down faster, it would have to be subtracted from the total to get back to true figures, so it hardly seems worthwhile just for show. If we removed the heating element the "effect" and efficiencies would be gone too... As seen by Fuzzy's great work and by others with trying different loads.
But there are literally thousands of possible things to try yet; different materials, circuit components, frequency ranges, etc. That's why we are hoping universities takes this work on, so it CAN be tested and verified in the mainstream, and all those different things tried... So someday soon someone can go buy an "Ainslie Heater" at Kmart ;)
All are invited to invent new applications for it (that's the Open Source way after all!), and this will be an important aspect for the future of its development.
Quote from: jibbguy on January 14, 2010, 07:00:50 PM
"Heat" isn't useful? Lol even down here in South Florida i wish i had an "Ainslie Heater" device lately; it has been brutally cold the last two weeks by our usual standards.
We admit there are no whirring lights, no spinning magnets here... And the "Entertainment Value" of it is kinda like the difference between watching an adventure TV show, and reading a fairly dull book, lol. But dull books can have some very important information in them.
The circuit is specifically balanced for a specific result; which it provides. A CFL or incandescent would not provide the same effect as the hand-made heating element with specifically-wound resistive wire does (although the work of ~Imhotep~ and others have shown that there can be somewhat similar effects with CFL's). We could certainly add a light in series, but all that would do is run the battery down faster, it would have to be subtracted from the total to get back to true figures, so it hardly seems worthwhile just for show. If we removed the heating element the "effect" and efficiencies would be gone too... As seen by Fuzzy's great work and by others with trying different loads.
But there are literally thousands of possible things to try yet; different materials, circuit components, frequency ranges, etc. That's why we are hoping universities takes this work on, so it CAN be tested and verified in the mainstream, and all those different things tried... So someday soon someone can go buy an "Ainslie Heater" at Kmart ;)
All are invited to invent new applications for it (that's the Open Source way after all!), and this will be an important aspect for the future of its development.
Really well said Jibbs. Needed a second posting here. LOL. ;D
Creating heat is not useful work. No matter how many people want to join you.
How many products do we have in our society that create heat? Everything electrical creates heat. This heat has nothing to do with useful work.
If you want to use a heating element to heat water, then that would be useful work. I suggested a light because of the ease one can visually see the results. So hook up the heating element and do some useful work.
Until you do saying "heat isn't useful" is not worth addressing.
I will wait for the results of the heating element experiment.
I have seen so many devices that seem to create more energy than they use, with measuring the inputs and outputs, that are not what they seem to be. This to me is just another one.
I hope it works. I personally need more than measurements to be convinced.
I would rather see this be real than be a measurement fluke.
Too many times the results of poor measuring tools and techniques are the problem. A simple phase shift has caused many to proclaim something that was not true.
Remove the battery and make the system closed loop, THEN heat some water. That would convince me immediately.
Any credible experiment that shows work being done, not by merely measuring the inputs/outputs.
Have Fun 8)
"Don't feel bad because others do not feel obligated to believe what you believe, simply prove it, or go back to church alone."
Generating heat is certainly doing "work".
For one thing, without boilers there would be no power grid to begin with (unless you happened to live within an area served by Hydroelectric dams). That is the "work" that allows for a modern society.
Heated gas expansion is what is behind Diesel and ICE . Heat is what creates wind. Photons generate heat when they collide with matter; heat is what allows life to exist in the first place.
Heat is the ultimate "work".
Concerns and veiled accusations of "poor measurement" could possibly have some weight, if they were specific: They are not. If one is interested in detracting from the work done here, perhaps they should take the time to do more than make vague, unsubstantiated negative comments with no real meaning.
Quote from: Ken the Great on January 14, 2010, 08:17:25 PM
Creating heat is not useful work. No matter how many people want to join you.
Golly Ken the Great. There's heating of homes, heating of heaters, heating of water. Which example does not create useful work?
Quote from: Ken the Great on January 14, 2010, 08:17:25 PM
How many products do we have in our society that create heat? Everything electrical creates heat. This heat has nothing to do with useful work.
Again. This statement is just so profoundly wrong as to be laughable. On average more than 90% of the average household utility bill goes into heating things.
Quote from: Ken the Great on January 14, 2010, 08:17:25 PM
If you want to use a heating element to heat water, then that would be useful work. I suggested a light because of the ease one can visually see the results. So hook up the heating element and do some useful work.
At last. Yes we do that. We use a resistive element to heat water, oil, air, name it. All you need to do, thanks to Fuzzy's hard work here, is scale up the element and apply it to an average household hot water cylinder.
Quote from: Ken the Great on January 14, 2010, 08:17:25 PM
Until you do saying "heat isn't useful" is not worth addressing.
Not quite sure of your point here.
Quote from: Ken the Great on January 14, 2010, 08:17:25 PM
I will wait for the results of the heating element experiment.
No need to wait. The results are out there. You need to check out the link that I'll add when I've finished this post.
Quote from: Ken the Great on January 14, 2010, 08:17:25 PM
I have seen so many devices that seem to create more energy than they use, with measuring the inputs and outputs, that are not what they seem to be. This to me is just another one.
I sincerely hope not. This experiment is itself a replication of a published claim. I think the benefits here have been unequivocally proven. All that remains is to publish the paper. And as Jibbguy has mentioned, that's the hard part. But it won't be from lack of trying if this is never done.
Quote from: Ken the Great on January 14, 2010, 08:17:25 PM
I hope it works. I personally need more than measurements to be convinced.
We have so many measurements that if we printed them out on A4 size paper font size 12, they would fill tomes of books more than 6 feet high. Surely that's enough?
Quote from: Ken the Great on January 14, 2010, 08:17:25 PM
I would rather see this be real than be a measurement fluke. Too many times the results of poor measuring tools and techniques are the problem. A simple phase shift has caused many to proclaim something that was not true.
It's difficult to call something a fluke when it's been measured to the stringent standards applied and described in our paper and that when it's shown, over and over and over again with the repetition of sunrise at the equator. No fluke here.
Quote from: Ken the Great on January 14, 2010, 08:17:25 PM
Remove the battery and make the system closed loop, THEN heat some water. That would convince me immediately.
We're not that anxious to convince you - not that it wouldn't be fun. But the evidence is there if you want to check it out. We're more anxious that you design those heaters and scale it up and make use of it. That's the object of these tests.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems
Harnessing the power of heat can do useful work. However creating heat does not equate to useful work automatically.
For instance your refrigerator creates heat, but if it is the summer time that heat being pumped into the interior of your home is ANYTHING BUT USEFUL.
Now can you tell the difference? If not then that would be a problem you need to address.
Now I will say again, PROVE IT!. No measuring only experiments. Those are too easily faked or misrepresented due to ignorance.
I do not need to see a drawing or theory. Just make it closed loop and extract 1 watt of useful power.
I hope the device is real, but the comment "We're not that anxious to convince you" speaks volumes.
Have Fun 8)
clearly you are not prepared to read the paper nor follow the experiments - so I can't help you. We're showing - from memory - about 6 watts on the load, and it's costing something less than 1 watt from the battery.
The evidence is there. But to see it you may need to check the link. I get it you're more interested in posting replies than actually checking the claim. Which is fine. But then you can't seriously expect any more answers from us. Life's too too short.
So how much water was heated in the experiments?
What temperature was the water heated to?
I think you have explained all I need to hear. No closed loop, No OU.
No water actually heated.
I shall now place you in the box.
Have Fun 8)
Thank you for agreeing about Heat.
You are essentially being "lazy" here: You have no idea if this is valid or not.
This is perfectly evident for everyone reading this to see. Please go over this thread, and come up with a specific complaint if you feel that dis'ing this is so important. We will get back to you then.
But i am afraid that simply "not liking it" is not a valid complaint ;)
I did not agree with you at all.
Your claim about heat is erroneous based on assumptions which are not relative to all circumstances. I was clarifying, not agreeing. The refrigerator example proves my point.
I am not making the claim of OU. You people are. I am simply saying prove it with USEFUL WORK. The term useful seems to be escaping your grasp.
So because I asked to see some useful work being done, I get ridiculous explanations about heat which are irrelevant to what I said.
USEFUL work.
I have looked at the original design, I have seen it before. If you are as handy as you believe you are, simply make it closed loop. I HOPE IT WORKS!!! The claim is 6 watts output to one watt input. Well if that's the case and I am only requesting one watt of useful work. that would leave you with 4 extra watts!!!
That should be easy. However unless you agree to try this.
ITS ALL TALK. And will remain all talk. I take this position because of the emotional instability of those responding to me.
Every attempt to make OU devices closed loop cause imminent failure, with the exception of one device.
I was going to share an idea, but I will refrain from that at this point in time. I mean it is obvious that anyone else who might have input is not welcome here.
One of us is being lazy that is for sure, so lazy they cannot even make accurate statements or quote me accurately. However I am used to being misquoted, and the like, so that isn't a problem.
Ad hominem positions are also the lazy way out. Hmm some people seem to be taking that position also. You can have a pile of measurements 400 feet high, that doesn't impress me. However someone felt that was a milestone in their work, the amount of paper they had. HAAHAHAHA
Maybe you could light the pile of papers to heat the water? LOL
I can see jibbguy now, with the back of his TV off hovering over the transformer in the back because he is cold. Hey it can't be useless heat, Your claim is all of it is useful. LOL,
Have Fun 8)
Quote from: witsend on December 05, 2009, 10:22:47 PM
Fortunately I'm in the 'reasonable, kind hearted decent, fair minded, considerate, polite group.
All I can do is laugh.
You sir are not a truth teller. Look at your last 2 posts to me, then your self claim here in this quote. They do not line up.
Emotional instability always leads to moral instability.
I would not use any of the adjectives you lay claim to when reading your response to my post.
In fact quite the opposite.
I now have no doubts about placing you in the box.
Have Fun 8)
Quote from: Ken the Great on January 14, 2010, 11:08:58 PM
All I can do is laugh.
You sir are not a truth teller. Look at your last 2 posts to me, then your self claim here in this quote. They do not line up.
Emotional instability always leads to moral instability.
I would not use any of the adjectives you lay claim to when reading your response to my post.
In fact quite the opposite.
I now have no doubts about placing you in the box.
Have Fun 8)
what else have you put in the box (cornfield) little boy? perhaps you should put some of that talk of yours in the box? for a guy that seems to despise 'talkers' you sure do alot of it... come to think of it, i haven't seen you demonstrate anything but talking and delusions of grandeur.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on January 14, 2010, 11:33:59 PM
what else have you put in the box (cornfield) little boy? perhaps you should put some of that talk of yours in the box? for a guy that seems to despise 'talkers' you sure do alot of it... come to think of it, i haven't seen you demonstrate anything but talking and delusions of grandeur.
Willby. YOU'RE BACK ;D :-* Thank God. Hope you had the best of holiday cheer and glad to see those swords drawn. LOL. Such a happy surprise. This troll is a mental defficient. He is unable to read the paper and is drivelling on in the hopes that we don't reference this and also to drone out any evidence of clarity and logic in our answers. I'd delete his posts if it mattered.
Speaking of putting things in boxes, here's one test the Ainslie group or Sean will never do. They prefer to hide behind obfuscation.
Total power measurement and proof of overunity for the ORBO, Ainslie or any device that requires some electrical input is really rather simple, no complex instrumentation or number crunching of noisy "data". This is especially valid when you are claiming COP's in excess of 17.
Obtain a styrofoam cooler and a cheap Radio Shack or equivalent indoor/outdoor thermometer.
Place the device to be tested into the styrofoam box and attach the "outdoor" probe to the inside of the lid.
Note the ambient temperature and the container temperature.
Start the device to be tested and let it run, logging temperature at several intervals. Also record power input to the device.
When the temperature inside the container has stabilized at some higher value record this and the external ambient temperature.
Now replace the device previously tested with a resistor and supply just enough power to the resistor until the same temperature rise above ambient is obtained.
Note the power required to obtain the same temperature rise above ambient. Compare the two power inputs.
Since all of the heating power to the devices (in the first test with the device and second test with the resistor) is captured and measured at the top inside of the container (less that lost through the thermal resistance of the styrofoam box, which is a constant in each test), we thus have a rather reasonable assesment of any overunity developed.
All of the heating power includes: ohmic, frictional (bearings and air friction), switching device losses etc. It does not include electromagnetic radiation losses, but the container can be modified to include this if necessary with a Faraday shield. EM losses however should be very small. If necessary, a small frictional load can be attached to the rotor, it's heat will also be collected inside the container.
For those claiming it is too difficult to measure input power to the device because of complex waveforms involved, use a wall power supply and plug it into a Kil-O-Watt meter ($30). Note the unloaded power drain (power disconnected from the DUT). Then note power with the DUT connected. The Kil-O-Watt meter also includes power factor corrected readings, VA, and true Watts. The wall power supply can also easily be characterized for its contribution to the loss chain.
Kind regards...V
Hello Vortex1
That test you describe.? Its done and fully accounted in that paper where we offered the link. We don't however use that styrofoam box. But nor do we need to as the degree of heat dissipated at the resistive load is high enough to prove the point.
It intrigues me that this information is freely available and yet none of you have actually studied it. In any event, I must hand it to you that you explained the required parameters very clearly.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems
Here it is again, for good measure.
Ken this is not for water heating this is a heater filament. I told Fuzzy to try to experiment on water filaments. Maybe you got me wrong. ;D
Ok I have build this circuit and still testing.
Thanks to all inventors.
guru,
It is quite evident that these people aren't all they claim to be. Willy posted to a thread I started and wanted me to prove it. I told him flat out he would never see the work.
Its funny how now I want one of his friends to prove their claim, Willy says no need to do that. HAHAHAHAHA
Hell these people can't even tell the difference between useful work and random heat generated. I see nothing special about this at all, in its current state.
I keep saying I hope it works. But then I see the emotional instability appear in their posts. I do not need to see anything else. If it truly worked, why get emotional? Why would you attack someone who said I hope it works? Why would one repeat his ignorance about the difference between useful work verses random heat?
I have read through the paper on the link he provided, and am not impressed. I could explain what they fail to realize at this point, but I will let them try to upscale this and fail on their own.
I also had a suggestion for the FET oscillation. You could look at it like this, if you had a flashlight and shined it in a mirror in a very dark room, the room appears brighter than it would if you shined in on a black wall. Even though you have no more light than you started with.
But hey who would want to increase or lengthen the oscillation? MUAHAHAHA. That would be to damn logical. It is quite obvious that this group is an emotionally based group. Logic doesn't apply. Nor can they even accept anyone who says they doubt. They sureley would reject any suggestions, so I will refrain.
Like I said before.
" Don't be mad if others do not feel obligated to believe what you believe, simply prove it, or go back to church alone."
In other words your "FAITH" is non-transferable.
Make it closed loop. If it is truly OU it will continue to function. I think they have tried and it has failed already. This is the reason for the emotional outbursts.
Have Fun 8)
Quote from: Ken the Great on January 15, 2010, 08:17:40 AM
It is quite evident that these people aren't all they claim to be. Willy posted to a thread I started and wanted me to prove it. I told him flat out he would never see the work.
actually, i told you flat out it wouldn't work. therefore, it stands to reason i would never see 'the work'... but now we can all understand why you are posting here, it's an emotional outburst.
Quote from: Ken the Great on January 15, 2010, 08:17:40 AM
Its funny how now I want one of his friends to prove their claim, Willy says no need to do that. HAHAHAHAHA
exactly where did i say 'no need to do that'? i didn't. i didn't say anything even remotely close to what you are trying to represent that i have said, even with a gratuitous helping of that hyperbole you seem to be so gifted in using.
you sir, are a liar.
edit: ken, or do you prefer to be addressed as 'super genius'? you should take your gravity wheel idea over to http://www.overunityresearch.com/ there are some really smart guys over there that just love to chat and chat and chat and chat and could probably help you out...
Make it closed loop. It will fail.
Nuff said
Quote from: Ken the Great on January 15, 2010, 08:48:42 AM
Make it closed loop. It will fail.
Nuff said
so that's a no then, you can't show where i said 'no need to do that'... i'll accept that as a tacit addmission of you lying.
good luck with your gravity wheel... about 300 some odd years worth. keep us posted.
Sorry willy yer in the box, your posts mean nothing. 8)
Quote from: Ken the Great on January 15, 2010, 09:01:42 AM
Sorry willy yer in the box, your posts mean nothing. 8)
so that's a no then, you can't show where i said 'no need to do that'...
what's with the emotional responses and making claims you won't/
can't backup? all i am asking for is for you to show where i said 'no need to do that'. it's a simple thing, even for a 'super genius' like you, you just find the post where i said 'no need to do that' and then clicky on the quote button like a big boy...
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on January 15, 2010, 08:32:58 AM
... you should take your gravity wheel idea over to http://www.overunityresearch.com/ there are some really smart guys over there that just love to chat and chat and chat and chat and could probably help you out...
I had to withdraw there Wilby. I had no-one to fight my corner with me. Very lonely. And the arguments were more repitious than I could handle. I also rather suspect that Poynty Poynt will never allow you on board. Can't think why? LOL.
Hello Rosemary
your quote
QuoteHello Vortex1
That test you describe.? Its done and fully accounted in that paper where we offered the link. We don't however use that styrofoam box. But nor do we need to as the degree of heat dissipated at the resistive load is high enough to prove the point.
It intrigues me that this information is freely available and yet none of you have actually studied it. In any event, I must hand it to you that you explained the required parameters very clearly.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems
Here it is again, for good measure.
I respectfully must disagree with your statement that the test I offered was performed . I read your paper many times and find no such simplified test procedure.
I find a lot of links to the Energetic Forum, endless and mostly meaningless scope shots with aliasing and other artifacts, pictures of test setups that speak volumes about the lack of experience of it's planners regarding transient effects, lots of backslapping and kudos (totally inappropriate for a supposedly scientific paper) but nowhere is there hard scientific data presented.
A good scientific paper is self contained, clearly written, and will have all the data contained in it, all charts, graphs etc., not by using links to free energy forums.
When someone tells you the object you are measuring is 17 feet long (COP>17) you do not need a specially constructed large micrometer to tell that it is less than one foot long(COP<1).....even an inaccurate cloth tape measure will reveal the truth.
Kind regards.....V
Quote from: Vortex1 on January 15, 2010, 09:45:01 AM
Hello Rosemary
I respectfully must disagree with your statement that the test I offered was performed . I read your paper many times and find no such simplified test procedure.
It's all there Vortex. Maybe not described with the simplicity that you may require. The register of the writing is not designed to suit you and frankly we need to keep it that way. But I assure you it's there.
Quote from: Vortex1 on January 15, 2010, 09:45:01 AM
I find a lot of links to the Energetic Forum, endless and mostly meaningless scope shots with aliasing and other artifacts, pictures of test setups that speak volumes about the lack of experience of it's planners regarding transient effects, lots of backslapping and kudos (totally inappropriate for a supposedly scientific paper) but nowhere is there hard scientific data presented.
If you find the scope shots meaningles, and photos inadequate then that speaks to your inability to see their significance and not to their presentations. It's all a matter of opinion - as you rightly pointed out. But we're rather anxious to cater to academic opinion in this matter. And they will definitely see the significance.
Quote from: Vortex1 on January 15, 2010, 09:45:01 AM
A good scientific paper is self contained and will have all the data contained in it, all charts, graphs etc., not by using links to free energy forums.
These are exceptional claims and require exceptional proof. The inclusion of the links is intended to address this. If they require that we append these at the end of the paper we will oblige. But, with respect, I'd prefer to get this advice from our reviewers.
Quote from: Vortex1 on January 15, 2010, 09:45:01 AM
When someone tells you the object you are measuring is 17 feet long (COP>17) you do not need a specially constructed large micrometer to tell that it is less than one foot long(COP<1).....even an inaccurate cloth tape measure will reveal the truth.
This mishmash of example and nonsense rather puts paid to my earlier respect for an evident clarity of thought.
Vortex we none of us have entered into a collaboration of this nature before and there are no blue prints on how to submit a paper that has no citable presentations for comparison. I'm satisfied that if there are proposed changes to the presentation then we will be advised accordingly by the reviewers.
@ Vortex & Ken the Great
This thread died out along thime back with the very same arguments that you are now both raising and Willy came on before at various times for a bit of sport and stayed on until he had had his fill. Its all a waste of time on the keyboard trying to convince the 'A' team that the device is not OU, or anywhere close.
Having said this, I respect Rosemary's drive to have her teams work examined by professionals and wish her the best of luck in this endeavour, as she has put a lot of faith in her teams ability to interpret the data collected from the various tests.
Hoppy
Quote from: Hoppy on January 15, 2010, 11:30:57 AM
@ Vortex & Ken the Great
This thread died out along thime back with the very same arguments that you are now both raising and Willy came on before at various times for a bit of sport and stayed on until he had had his fill. Its all a waste of time on the keyboard trying to convince the 'A' team that the device is not OU, or anywhere close.
Having said this, I respect Rosemary's drive to have her teams work examined by professionals and wish her the best of luck in this endeavour, as she has put a lot of faith in her teams ability to interpret the data collected from the various tests.
Hoppy
come on now hoppy at least try and disguise your bias a little... for those with bad memories (or a bias...) a reminder from page one of this very thread. you know, the beginning, the part you johnny come lately's never read... and you should know from experience that trolls never get their 'fill'.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on June 17, 2009, 03:33:40 AM
any plan on doing it right? meaning getting proper components for the ones that you have that are not spec.
do you plan to use a calorimeter if/when you make the circuit to spec?
i am assuming you have a diode on the genny output? could you confirm?
a test the late great tinselkoala/alsetalokin/kate allison never did... do you remember why not hoppy? i do.
edit: hi rose!
Complaint: "It can't be Looped".
> The circuit in present configuration cannot run a motor, to then run an alternator / generator. It was never designed to. What it WAS designed to do, is show anomalous heat and battery re-charge energy output that challenges "classical" convention. It does this, and the collected data backs this claim. If the "entertainment value" is then considered "low", understand it was never a major criteria ;)
> The energy losses to run a steam or Sterling engine to in turn run a generator would be horrific, require a huge amount of engineering and building (that some detractors would have little idea of how to actually do themselves if pressed), and in the end prove... what? That there is a lot of heat?
Then the question would still be:
"How much electricity was required to generate the heat?"
So we would be right back to the beginning. Legitimate questions on the validity of this circuit would logically be directly related to the electrical energy needed to generate the heat, and the efficiency therein. And this is exactly the point of the present experiments: How much electricity for heat. What the experimenters are doing here is presenting carefully collected data, using proper means and protocols widely accepted by commercial electronics and academia.
... Which has then in turn has been interpreted to be worthy of note and much greater study.
Please note that if the heat energy seen here could be DIRECTLY and easily translated in large amounts into some other measurable form without significant losses in efficiency; that in itself would be worthy of MANY more Scientific Papers, and would probably turn out to be of much greater importance than this discovery ;)
The folks here who seriously study these topics already understand this.
Simply quoting from a "skeptics handbook" without bothering to gain an understanding of the technology in question first, is hardly worthy of serious consideration. Yet the "Looping" issue should perhaps be addressed anyway for those who "expect" such things from what they have read about other technologies.
People are free to reject what is proposed here all they like, however the burden of proof to publicly deny it is on them to show actual Cause; simply parroting something they once heard which has no plausible bearing on the presently considered technology, and insisting on willfull ignorance regarding the published data, is not "Cause" in anyone's "Book". Nor is simply denying it, because "they don't like it".
It is important to note, that none of us here "owe" such people anything at all. No one is being paid here, nothing is being offered for sale.
On the other hand, serious potential Replicators, and those trying to honestly understand what is actually going on with this circuit deserve our attention and help, and when the questions are phrased reasonably politely, will receive replies and answers as best we can... We do not pretend to understand everything going on here either; this is why it needs much more study by our scientific mainstream who have the funds and abilities to see it realized. What we DO understand is that the data clearly shows anomalous energy efficiencies that requires serious attention.
... So eventually it can possibly "loop": Perhaps someday as a Boiler, an all-new design of "Heat Engine", an highly efficient RF Generator for Dr. John Kanzius effect disassociation of salt water at "13.56 Mhz", a pulse driver for "capacitive"-type Hydroxy Generators, or even as a pulse magnet motor drive circuit. There are many possibilities for future applications besides "heating"; which all need to be thought out, designed, tried, tested, and studied. During these studies, it is quite possible OTHER important discoveries will be made... That is how Science often works; this "serendipitous effect" for unexpected discovery has been seen over and over... and such discoveries often eclipse anything that preceded them.
And frankly, the Physicists can climb into a "Cage Ring" and have a "Tag-Team Battle-Royal To The Death" over the "Theory" behind it all later.. We are interested in verifying the empirical data here. Lol, now THAT would be "entertaining" to see ;)
It is not our "fault" that we do not have the means to do all these studies, invent cool devices, and simply hand them out. This is not how the world works. We cannot create a "Time Traveling DeLorean" from stuff lying around the garage, for around $120 in cost, and take you on an adventure to the future. That is the "Movies", not real life. What the Ainslie Circuit team CAN do, and HAVE done, and will CONTINUE to do, is provide solid data for others to consider and take further. Yet there are some who have argued hard here that we should have just "stayed home" and done nothing at all about it then. Taking risks is what real scientific discovery is all about: And those who "stay home", never succeed.
We don't know if these other applications mentioned above are possible using the basic concepts behind the Ainslie Circuit yet... But isn't that the point of these forums? And isn't it important enough, even if the possibilities for these applications are still in question, to see this effect studied properly?... Even if it turns out in the end, that it can "only" save money on our heating bills.
Quote from: Vortex1 on January 15, 2010, 03:51:53 AM
Speaking of putting things in boxes, here's one test the Ainslie group or Sean will never do. They prefer to hide behind obfuscation.
Total power measurement and proof of overunity for the ORBO, Ainslie or any device that requires some electrical input is really rather simple, no complex instrumentation or number crunching of noisy "data". This is especially valid when you are claiming COP's in excess of 17.
Obtain a styrofoam cooler and a cheap Radio Shack or equivalent indoor/outdoor thermometer.
Place the device to be tested into the styrofoam box and attach the "outdoor" probe to the inside of the lid.
Note the ambient temperature and the container temperature.
Start the device to be tested and let it run, logging temperature at several intervals. Also record power input to the device.
When the temperature inside the container has stabilized at some higher value record this and the external ambient temperature.
Now replace the device previously tested with a resistor and supply just enough power to the resistor until the same temperature rise above ambient is obtained.
Note the power required to obtain the same temperature rise above ambient. Compare the two power inputs.
Since all of the heating power to the devices (in the first test with the device and second test with the resistor) is captured and measured at the top inside of the container (less that lost through the thermal resistance of the styrofoam box, which is a constant in each test), we thus have a rather reasonable assesment of any overunity developed.
All of the heating power includes: ohmic, frictional (bearings and air friction), switching device losses etc. It does not include electromagnetic radiation losses, but the container can be modified to include this if necessary with a Faraday shield. EM losses however should be very small. If necessary, a small frictional load can be attached to the rotor, it's heat will also be collected inside the container.
For those claiming it is too difficult to measure input power to the device because of complex waveforms involved, use a wall power supply and plug it into a Kil-O-Watt meter ($30). Note the unloaded power drain (power disconnected from the DUT). Then note power with the DUT connected. The Kil-O-Watt meter also includes power factor corrected readings, VA, and true Watts. The wall power supply can also easily be characterized for its contribution to the loss chain.
Kind regards...V
Hi Vortex1,
Is there something about the heat profiling that has already been done your objecting to .....
http://www.energeticforum.com/71387-post2974.html You might also check the "LIVE" 5 Hour non stop broadcast that was taped on January 9, 2010 showing a voltage increase for the first hour and a total of .10 ( 1/10 ) of a volt loss in 5 Hours with the 5 to 6 watt continuous load for the entire duration on two very small 12 aH liquid lead acid batteries.
http://bit.ly/4XVsAj ( link - time base search-able )
Regards,
Fuzzy
;)
Ken is way off base here. He needs to read a lot, and then do his own experiments AND publish his results.
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on January 15, 2010, 11:26:43 PM
He needs to read a lot, and then do his own experiments AND publish his results.
Bill
You've done all the above, and you're still off base.
Quote from: Pirate88179 on Today at 05:26:43 AM
He needs to read a lot, and then do his own experiments AND publish his results.
Bill
Quote from: skcusitrah on January 15, 2010, 11:35:37 PM
You've done all the above, and you're still off base.
skcusitrah,
I suggest you do what one of Over Unity's finest senior members "Bill" has to say .... also ..... or read the thread ..... or have all your comments removed by me ..... and possibly banned !!!!
Fuzzy
Fuzzy
Your tabular data for the temperature rise above ambient vs power input of your nicely hand wound resistor is a starting point. You used your bench power supply for this.
Now using the same power supply, run the Ainslie circuit and note the power being used on the same meters .
No need for batteries and a DSO and all that number crunching and cherry picking of "preferred data" out of the noise.
You could also do a number of control experiments using non "Ainslie" resistors, such as pure carbon tubular rods of the same size,shape, and resistance. don't forget to take into account "emissivity differences".
There are special paints you could use in an attempt to normalize the differences in resistor surfaces so that your IR thermometer gives consistent readings.
My main point is that you are using one piece of equipment (a power supply) to measure power input to the device under test, then switching to a battery and DSO, cherry picked and crunched data readings for your "proof".
This would lead to suspicion in a scientific test.
Get rid of the battery. If necessary, put a large filter cap on the output of your power supply to simulate the low impedance and high peak current capacity of a battery.
This would be convincing to me, not hours of live broadcasts of a DSO in operation.
You could also double check by putting a Kill-O-Watt meter on the line side of your power supply.
To switch instrumentation from the power supply to the DSO is a little slight of hand and suspicious.
I am not against DSO's, and have a few that I use, but a more down to earth and less noise sensitive approach would be more meaningful to me.
For Rosemary to imply that a simple test setup may be acceptable to simple people like myself but never to academia is a bit of an insult, considering I've had over 40 years of temperature and power measurement skills and would like to believe I am rather good at it.
Throughout the history of science, researchers have devised very simple and excellently crafted devices to make extremely fine measurements. This is way before DSO's were available.
Granted a DSO in the hands of a highly experienced individual can give excellent results, but that individual should also have lots of savvy in proper breadboarding techniques so that his "noisy" setup does not skew the DSO data.
I find it difficult to fathom that the "Ainslie team" believes in a COP>6 for the device. If that is so you should be scaling this up and taking over the world in the home heating industry....far better than heat pumps. I don't see anyone having enough faith to jump on this.
Kind Regards....V
Quote from: Vortex1 on January 16, 2010, 12:56:43 PM
For Rosemary to imply that a simple test setup may be acceptable to simple people like myself but never to academia is a bit of an insult, considering I've had over 40 years of temperature and power measurement skills and would like to believe I am rather good at it.
if you have a skill why don't you apply it instead of implying it? there is no one restraining you from running the experiment and publishing
your data...
Quoteif you have a skill why don't you apply it instead of implying it? there is no one restraining you from running the experiment and publishing your data...
It is being done at this time......BTW...how is your test setup coming?
What instrumentation will you be using? What will be your approach to your test method?
Regards....V
Quote from: Vortex1 on January 16, 2010, 01:23:00 PM
It is being done at this time......BTW...how is your test setup coming?
What instrumentation will you be using? What will be your approach to your test method?
Regards....V
great! look forward to the full disclosure of your data... still waiting on poynty's too, has he posted any experimental data yet on that farce of a forum he has? btw, i'm not the guy telling people what the 'proper' way to do it is... that's you, remember? you're the one that needs to put your money where your mouth is, not i.
Quotegreat! look forward to the full disclosure of your data... still waiting on poynty's too, has he posted any experimental data yet on that farce of a forum he has? btw, i'm not the guy telling people what the 'proper' way to do it is... that's you, remember? you're the one that needs to put your money where your mouth is, not i.
Sorry Wilby. but I lack the requisite low self esteem to pursue further correspondence with you. Find another more willing prey.
....V
Quote from: Vortex1 on January 16, 2010, 01:51:20 PM
Sorry Wilby. but I lack the requisite low self esteem to pursue further correspondence with you. Find another more willing prey.
....V
or is it because you have no logical ground to stand upon with your strawman request to see my 'test setup'? just walk your talk is all i'm saying.
so that's a no then? poynty hasn't posted anymore data whatsoever has he... imagine that. ::)
Hi guys today I tried this circuit but no heat came. ??? I have to say that my 24v batteries are low about 18v :-\ I am not using a shunt cause a guy told me you can eliminate that.
Any help please?
Thanks
Quote from: fuzzytomcat on January 15, 2010, 11:48:10 PM
Quote from: Pirate88179 on Today at 05:26:43 AM
He needs to read a lot, and then do his own experiments AND publish his results.
Bill
skcusitrah,
I suggest you do what one of Over Unity's finest senior members "Bill" has to say .... also ..... or read the thread ..... or have all your comments removed by me ..... and possibly banned !!!!
Fuzzy
where did that come from man? look around you you'll see the same thing everywhere. he's wrong, and anyone can see that ken and vortex1 have tons more background and experience than this guy with 3000 posts, which isn't impressive btw. vortex is right on the money and pirate man 3000 is making comments way out of his own league. relax man, he had his opinion and i had mine.
skcusitrah, ken, vortex, milehigh, poynty... not a one of you self proclaimed 'experts' is going to step up and help guruji with his question?
imagine that...
funny that milehigh and poynty still troll this thread... must be slow over at yOUR, or maybe they are looking for new topics and/or acolytes? who knows, maybe they just miss us?
Hi Guruji
QuoteHi guys today I tried this circuit but no heat came.
When you say "no heat came" do you mean
1)"no excess heat over expected heat"
or
2) "absolutely no temperature rise above ambient"
from your resistor.
If the first then you have some proof the "Ainslie" circuit may be "ordinary" and does not meet advertised claims.
You also may not be supplying the "chaotic oscillation" supposedly required.
If the second, then I suspect you have an error in your wiring. You should be getting some heat in the resistor based on the duty cycle of the FET and the voltage level. You can calculate this based on your 18 volt supply.
As for the 0.25 ohm shunt, it is for measurement purposes of instantaneous loop current and supposedly not required.
There is more but lets see what you say about this first.
Regards...V
Regarding the above ideas, as "baselines" to show "conventional" non- Ainslie Effect figures they could be useful.
But i never understood why you guys always want Fuzzy to do stuff that ruins the efficiency and kills the effect that is required for it to work in the first place ;)
No one has yet reported the effect to WORK without the battery, it appears so far, to be a required ingredient. This is not so "outrageous"; if you consider that the re-charging from the pulses appears to be a significant part of the total energy efficiency (probably the higher output impedance of a batt as well). Hell, it may prove in the future that there IS a way around it, but at present it appears there is not.
> What happens when you pump pulses back into the "minus" plug of a REGULATED calibrated DC supply?... Does the total current usage of the supply go down (as, for instance measured by a watt meter inline with the power cord), by the same amount as the pulses would provide with a batt?
> And even if it would (which i seriously doubt), can those pulses exist the same and at the same amplitude in the first place when the much lower output impedance Calibrated Supply is used instead of a battery? Would not the impedance of the circuit change dramatically, not allowing the effect to be seen (remember this takes careful tuning of pots to get it into the desired condition, it is what we used to call "balanced on the head of a pin".. something i've seen old cascaded instrumentation op amp circuits be many times in the past in conventional commercial electronics).
> What would be the effect of the "Single Ended to Ground" grounding scheme of the supply on the circuit (...they are not "Input to Output Isolated", at least not the ones i have seen)? Could this Ground, going eventually to Earth through the internal power supply components of the unit "ruin" the effect completely? I've seen this affect circuits more times than i can remember, unless the rest of the circuit is then taken to ground as well...And again, when "balanced on the head of a pin" such effects have greater possible importance.
This is not the first device to show a similar effect with lead-acid batteries; and no one ever complains that "cars" are pretty much useless without a battery, and that they are not "single ended to ground" and should require a wall plug to operate ;)
So in review,
Issue One: The battery is "needed" , at least as far as we know so far, to absorb the pulses as "charge".
Issue Two: The pulses and effect need a very specific impedance and fine tuning to exist at all.
Issue Three: Grounding this circuit through a supply could "kill" the effect altogether.
I would agree that it would be nice and very useful for verifying through a separate means of simple current calcs if the effect COULD work the same with a power supply as the Source (or a bank of capacitors too). But when it cannot, should we just walk away from it and refuse to study it then, because some folks "don't like batteries"?
That is not logical thinking. We understand the problems with battery charge calcs, Fuzzy certainly does.
But we do not have the luxury of "choosing" how it works.
So perhaps the suggestions, which are welcome when they are positively offered in the interest of seeing this studied in the best possible method, should be on measuring "battery charge" or "expended heat energy" the most effective ways using the restrictions present.
Quote from: Vortex1 on January 16, 2010, 03:04:07 PM
Hi Guruji
When you say "no heat came" do you mean
1)"no excess heat over expected heat"
or
2) "absolutely no temperature rise above ambient"
from your resistor.
If the first then you have some proof the "Ainslie" circuit may be "ordinary" and does not meet advertised claims.
You also may not be supplying the "chaotic oscillation" supposedly required.
If the second, then I suspect you have an error in your wiring. You should be getting some heat in the resistor based on the duty cycle of the FET and the voltage level. You can calculate this based on your 18 volt supply.
As for the 0.25 ohm shunt, it is for measurement purposes of instantaneous loop current and supposedly not required.
There is more but lets see what you say about this first.
A...V
Hi Vortex thanks for response it's the second one absolutetly no temperature rise
maybe something with the wiring I will recheck everything.
Thanks
jibbguy:
QuoteRegarding the above ideas, as "baselines" to show "conventional" non- Ainslie Effect figures they could be useful.
They could also be the death knell of an imaginary effect which has yet to be successfully demonstrated or replicated by other than the Ainslie team.
QuoteBut i never understood why you guys always want Fuzzy to do stuff that ruins the efficiency and kills the effect that is required for it to work in the first place ;)
If supply impedance is an issue, it is a quantifiable parameter and should be a component of the specification, and included specifically in the documentation
QuoteNo one has yet reported the effect to WORK without the battery, it appears so far, to be a required ingredient. This is not so "outrageous"; if you consider that the re-charging from the pulses appears to be a significant part of the total energy efficiency (probably the higher output impedance of a batt as well). Hell, it may prove in the future that there IS a way around it, but at present it appears there is not.
From my observations, no one succeeded in making it work with the battery.The data supplied reflects a faulty measurement technique.
Additionally, you are making generalizations about the impedance of batteries, which is dependent on plate area and electrolyte density. Further, a power supply can be higher or lower impedance than a given battery based on either's design.
Quote> What happens when you pump pulses back into the "minus" plug of a REGULATED calibrated DC supply?... Does the total current usage of the supply go down (as, for instance measured by a watt meter inline with the power cord), by the same amount as the pulses would provide with a batt?
You should not even have to ask this, but I'll give you a hint: it depends on the design of the supply...generally it will be reflected in a reduction in power supply drain, but if it is a full op-amp type output versus single ended, this may not be true. This is because full op-amp power supply will expend some energy trying to smooth the incoming pulse in order to keep the output precisely regulated. I have a few HP 6823A's that will do this.
Quote> And even if it would (which i seriously doubt), can those pulses exist the same and at the same amplitude in the first place when the much lower output impedance Calibrated Supply is used instead of a battery? Would not the impedance of the circuit change dramatically, not allowing the effect to be seen (remember this takes careful tuning of pots to get it into the desired condition, it is what we used to call "balanced on the head of a pin".. something i've seen old cascaded instrumentation op amp circuits be many times in the past in conventional commercial electronics).
Once again you have made an assumption that a regulated supply always has a lower output impedance than a battery. Which battery? Which regulated supply? All are different and you cannot make such generalizations.
Quote> What would be the effect of the "Single Ended to Ground" grounding scheme of the supply on the circuit (...they are not "Input to Output Isolated", at least not the ones i have seen)? Could this Ground, going eventually to Earth through the internal power supply components of the unit "ruin" the effect completely? I've seen this affect circuits more times than i can remember, unless the rest of the circuit is then taken to ground as well...And again, when "balanced on the head of a pin" such effects have greater possible importance.
I do not know what type of power supplies you are talking about. I own maybe ten HP supplies as well as a handful of others and they all have line isolation and the output floats with respect to "earth" ground.
Again if the "effect" is this sensitive, it should be part of the build specification.
QuoteThis is not the first device to show a similar effect with lead-acid batteries; and no one ever complains that "cars" are pretty much useless without a battery, and that they are not "single ended to ground" and should require a wall plug to operate ;)
Most portable devices such as cars require batteries. Capacitors do not yet have the kW/Hr density but they are getting close. A large capacitor as part of a power supply can mimic battery impedance and allow for the recharge effect.
QuoteSo in review,
Issue One: The battery is "needed" , at least as far as we know so far, to absorb the pulses as "charge".
A capacitor can receive and store charge and be selected to have the same impedance as a battery.
QuoteIssue Two: The pulses and effect need a very specific impedance and fine tuning to exist at all.
This is not an engineering problem
QuoteIssue Three: Grounding this circuit through a supply could "kill" the effect altogether.
If it could be positively demonstrated in the first place.
QuoteI would agree that it would be nice and very useful for verifying through a separate means of simple current calcs if the effect COULD work the same with a power supply as the Source (or a bank of capacitors too). But when it cannot, should we just walk away from it and refuse to study it then, because some folks "don't like batteries"?
There are simple calculations for power using batteries, but so far the Ainslie team is preferring noisy data crunching.
QuoteThat is not logical thinking. We understand the problems with battery charge calcs, Fuzzy certainly does.
I agree with you here, batteries can obfuscate.
QuoteBut we do not have the luxury of "choosing" how it works.
But we can exercise critical thinking before believing that "it works"
QuoteSo perhaps the suggestions, which are welcome when they are positively offered in the interest of seeing this studied in the best possible method, should be on measuring "battery charge" or "expended heat energy" the most effective ways using the restrictions present.
I outlined a very simple test which I will soon perform that will determine without a doubt if there is any excess heat. It will involve a non-inductive "control" resistor driven at the same pulse rate and duty cycle. I will look for excess heat over the "control". I will use batteries to get that red herring out of the way.
QuoteNo one has yet reported the effect to WORK without the battery, it appears so far, to be a required ingredient. This is not so "outrageous"; if you consider that the re-charging from the pulses appears to be a significant part of the total energy efficiency (probably the higher output impedance of a batt as well). Hell, it may prove in the future that there IS a way around it, but at present it appears there is not.
Again the mantra of it "working" based on a set of faulty data.
More generalizations about battery impedance.
Sorry if I sound a little blunt, but I get a little nervous when I see so many generalizations thrown around as fact.
Bear in mind that I would be very pleased if the effect is real, because I won't have to stoke my wood stove anymore!
Lets use our critical thinking to insist on a test that includes a non-inductive "control" resistor of the same physical size and rating as the "Ainslie" resistor and drive them both side by side at the same pulse rate and see if any differential heating is produced.
No need to do any power calculations in this approach.
The proof of the pudding will be in the (H)eatingThis is the direction I will take.
Kind Regards....Vortex1
Please check the specs sheet or manuals for these "10 supplies" of yours, do they specifically read "Input To Output Isolated"? And i mean those exact words; they are of very specific meaning. Also read what they are rated for in output impedance. Having resistance between Signal Low and Ground is NOT Isolated. I think you will find that the majority of calibrated DC supplies are not "Input to Output Isolated", and are in fact "Single Ended To Ground".
Regarding "design criteria" these are observations that are "likely" but not yet proved (as i DID state)... So that was disingenuous. I guess you would rip us for that too if it were specifically stated as not having proof lol ;) Actually if you did read my article most of that was stated there anyway.
Lol as for the "belief"; you are quite convinced it does not work, so i think its obvious to all here we can call that one a wash ;)
But the difference between you and me is i believe in furthering science by studying these circuits, whether the mainstream says they are "not possible" or not. Ripping us any way possible is not conductive to research or furthering science, it is usually a way of attempting to assert "superiority". I think you will find that such an attitude is counterproductive and won't matter in the end ;)
Building two circuits, with 2 more batteries, actually adds more questions than it answers. Simple substitution of the element is wiser ;)
We are willing to do what is necessary to test it properly, and have.
Sorry if you felt ripped, that was not my intention, but I see where it could have been perceived that way.
Regarding power supplies, mine are fully isolated to prevent ground loops in testing. A chassis ground is not connected in any way to the plus or minus outputs, though it is available and can be strapped either way.
QuoteBut the difference between you and me is i believe in furthering science by studying these circuits, whether the mainstream says they are "not possible" or not.
You don't know me and what circuits I have or have not studied to further science so please don't use that "old saw"
QuoteBuilding two circuits, with 2 more batteries, actually adds more questions than it answers. Simple substitution of the element is wiser
I guess you didn't even look at the circuit I supplied. Only one battery for the power and only one oscillator circuit.
Actually, you have not thought this through. It is the combination of the special "Ainslie" resistor acting upon the oscillator that creates the chaotic oscillation requirement.
The plan was to feed this special oscillation to both resistors so that they both experience the same pulse conditions.
It is not possible for the control resistor alone to produce the chaotic oscillation effect because it does not have the required inductance and stray capacitance to retrigger the 555 at the higher and chaotic rate, therefore it would not be an "identical" test.
Buffering the "chaotic oscillation" produced in the circuit and feeding it to another FET driving the control resistor would be as close as possible to identical.
Null balance techniques are very effective and were the heart of early measurement since the invention of the balance scale.
I have played with similar pulse circuits for a long time. So have scores of other engineers. No one ever noticed an anomaly where a power resistor of that size and rating suddenly burnt up or caught fire consistently and reproducibly. This would have been reflected in a study and recall of the equipment and would certainly have been noticed, documented and probably patented long before Rosie was born.
So yes, I am a little biased on the non-believing side and actually hope very much that I am wrong.
And you can publicly throw a pie in my face if I am wrong, because I will be so happy to be wrong on this one that it won't hurt a bit.
Kind regards....V
Vortex - I have no idea what your actual intentions are in this 'so called' replication to prove our test as shown in your advice to fuzzy to use a power supply. This first suggested test parameter is ridiculous and only shows how little you understand about the purpose of these tests. The battery has a resistance at plus/minus 24 volts and is thereby able to benefit from the recharge potential in those collapsing fields at the load resistor. Put a power supply in series with the resistor that, in turn, is supplied by plus/minus 220 volt from a utility supply source - and I can guarantee you that the induced collapsing fields in the inductor will not breach that level. Therefore will the returning energy NEVER be able to replenish the source. Your understanding of the experiment is lacking or your scaling efforts here are wanting. Take your pick
The first and overriding object of the Quantum test and Fuzzy's replication is to prove something about the properties of current. I am reminded, yet again, how little of our paper you actually understood. The thesis is that current flow is not some vague abstraction related to 'flow of charge' but that it has properties of mass. It is proposed that these 'things' - particles - return to their source to neutralise that imbalance.
If you want to effect a reasonably intelligent replication as a counter arguement can I impose on you to at least keep to the argument?
Quote from: Vortex1 on January 16, 2010, 12:56:43 PM
For Rosemary to imply that a simple test setup may be acceptable to simple people like myself but never to academia is a bit of an insult, considering I've had over 40 years of temperature and power measurement skills and would like to believe I am rather good at it.
I have no opinions whatsoever on your areas of expertise. Was rather amused at your private message where you state that none of us are worthy to 'sweeeeeep your floors'. Golly Vortex. Are you suffering from delusions of grandeur?
Quote from: Vortex1 on January 16, 2010, 12:56:43 PM
Throughout the history of science, researchers have devised very simple and excellently crafted devices to make extremely fine measurements. This is way before DSO's were available.
Not sure of your point here. So what? It all evolved to the Textronix and their multiple brands of impeccable instrumentation and we were proud to use such. This particular 'rolls royce' example has published specifications that are proven and carry their authority. At its least such data is unquestionable.
Quote from: guruji on January 16, 2010, 02:09:47 PM
Hi guys today I tried this circuit but no heat came. ??? I have to say that my 24v batteries are low about 18v :-\ I am not using a shunt cause a guy told me you can eliminate that.
Any help please?
Thanks
Hi gurugi. I think the problem is probably due to the voltage at the supply. If the two batteries have combined voltage at 18 volts then each battery supplying the energy is about 9 volts. A typical 12 volt battery is considered pretty well dead at 10 volts. So - at 9 volts - I don't think that there's nearly enough energy being delivered. You probably need to recharge those batteries.
But I'd be intrigued to learn if there is any evident voltage across the load resistor at this level of voltage from the supply and what that potential is? If there is, then I'd also be interested to know if the battery drops below 18 volts on an extended run? Can you let us know. I think Fuzzy saw evidence of a continued energy exchange at a really low battery voltage - and that would be really interesting to us even if the heat over the load resistor is hardly noticeable.
Another thing that's quite important is that you ensure that the switching cycle is working. We use low 'on' duty cycles but this defaults to about 50% when that resonating frequency takes over. Do you see evidence of this oscillating frequency?
QuoteVortex - I have no idea what your actual intentions are in this 'so called' replication to prove our test as shown in your advice to fuzzy to use a power supply. This first suggested test parameter is ridiculous and only shows how little you understand about the purpose of these tests. The battery has a resistance at plus/minus 24 volts and is thereby able to benefit from the recharge potential in those collapsing fields at the load resistor. Put a power supply in series with the resistor that, in turn, is supplied by plus/minus 220 volt from a utility supply source - and I can guarantee you that the induced collapsing fields in the inductor will not breach that level. Therefore will the returning energy NEVER be able to replenish the source. Your understanding of the experiment is lacking or your scaling efforts here are wanting. Take your pick
Only two possibilities? Nice setup Rose, but how about a third choice possibility, that you do not speak the language of engineering. Your text above is proof enough. With all due respect you do write a good science fiction paper though I'll give you that.
QuoteThe first and overriding object of the Quantum test and Fuzzy's replication is to prove something about the properties of current. I am reminded, yet again, how little of our paper you actually understood. The thesis is that current flow is not some vague abstraction related to 'flow of charge' but that it has properties of mass. It is proposed that these 'things' - particles - return to their source to neutralise that imbalance.
I will not argue with your thesis, it is good as far as a thesis can go.
Now the proof is to make lots of heat above that supplied by the power source as you claim. This has not been demonstrated.
QuoteIf you want to effect a reasonably intelligent replication as a counter arguement can I impose on you to at least keep to the argument?
If you can keep to your claims and not try to switch gears into your thesis abstractions (which are fine and dandy if you don't make grandiose claims)
QuoteQuote from: Vortex1 on January 16, 2010, 06:56:43 PM
For Rosemary to imply that a simple test setup may be acceptable to simple people like myself but never to academia is a bit of an insult, considering I've had over 40 years of temperature and power measurement skills and would like to believe I am rather good at it.
QuoteI have no opinions whatsoever on your areas of expertise. Was rather amused at your private message where you state that none of us are worthy to 'sweeeeeep your floors'.
Perhaps you should post the whole PM so its not taken out of context.
QuoteGolly Vortex. Are you suffering from delusions of grandeur?
I'm not the one writing papers that attempt a new explanation for the physical laws. Your serve.
[/quote]
Quote from: Vortex1 on January 16, 2010, 06:56:43 PM
Throughout the history of science, researchers have devised very simple and excellently crafted devices to make extremely fine measurements. This is way before DSO's were available.
[/quote]
QuoteNot sure of your point here. So what? It all evolved to the Textronix and their multiple brands of impeccable instrumentation and we were proud to use such. This particular 'rolls royce' example has published specifications that are proven and carry their authority. At its least such data is unquestionable.
Yes the Tektronix (spell it right) equipment is some of the finest. I have a large collection going back to some of the very early tube models, maybe 30 in all. But even a Rolls Royce can crash and burn in the hands of the unskilled. As for the data.....you know the old adage.....garbage in=garbage out.
I wish you well in your work...try putting some low pass filters on some of your scope inputs, you might be surprised.
Best of Luck...You will need it...V
Quote from: skcusitrah on January 16, 2010, 02:32:21 PM
where did that come from man? look around you you'll see the same thing everywhere. he's wrong, and anyone can see that ken and vortex1 have tons more background and experience than this guy with 3000 posts, which isn't impressive btw. vortex is right on the money and pirate man 3000 is making comments way out of his own league. relax man, he had his opinion and i had mine.
How unscientific of you to make a comparison to my background of which you know nothing at all? You obviously have not read this entire topic, (it shows) or any other topic that I have posted in so, you are basing this declaration of yours on what exactly? Obviously a very uneducated guess.
Also, not that it matters, but it is 4,027 posts. You were only off by about 25%. I can see that is close enough for you though.
Bill
Quote from: Vortex1 on January 16, 2010, 09:08:48 PM
Only two possibilities? Nice setup Rose, but how about a third choice possibility, that you do not speak the language of engineering. Your text above is proof enough. With all due respect you do write a good science fiction paper though I'll give you that.
It's been suggested before. Maybe one day I'll have a stab at it.
Quote from: Vortex1 on January 16, 2010, 09:08:48 PM
I will not argue with your thesis, it is good as far as a thesis can go. Now the proof is to make lots of heat above that supplied by the power source as you claim. This has not been demonstrated.
If you can keep to your claims and not try to switch gears into your thesis abstractions (which are fine and dandy if you don't make grandiose claims)
No switching of of anything here - except on the circuit itself. The thesis has been part of the abstract, introduction and conclusion of every paper written on this subject.
Quote from: Vortex1 on January 16, 2010, 09:08:48 PM
Perhaps you should post the whole PM so its not taken out of context.
Feel free to do this yourself. I really couldn't be that bothered.
Quote from: Vortex1 on January 16, 2010, 09:08:48 PM
I'm not the one writing papers that attempt a new explanation for the physical laws. Your serve.
I'm not sure that asking questions also requires a mind set prone to delusions of grandeur? We have only asked mainstream academics to evaluate the evidence in terms of thesis.
Quote from: Vortex1 on January 16, 2010, 09:08:48 PM
Yes the Tektronix (spell it right) equipment is some of the finest. I have a large collection going back to some of the very early tube models, maybe 30 in all.
Indeed. Abject apologies for the misprint. We have the use of a wonderful Tektronix 3054C DPO and all the equipment in the Tektronix stable is to measurement what rolls royce is to engines. Unquestionably the best.
Quote from: Vortex1 on January 16, 2010, 09:08:48 PM
I wish you well in your work.
And I wish that there was more evident sincerity as such wishes are belied by the offensive nature of your communications.
Guys, just a general observation here. It continually intrigues me that this particular thread subject seems to solicit so much anatogonism. I really would love to know why. Everyone, just about, who subscribes to this forum, is also interested in the challenging prospect of defeating the energy barriers. God knows - our own mother Nature would probably enjoy some relief from our excesses - if this were ever managed.
But always there has been the implicit or explicit challenge that we're doing nothing more than wasting our time. Here's the thing. A handful of open source subscribers have spent huge chapters of their lives in trying to show evidence of just this event - carefully recorded and detailed in a paper that modestly requests mainstream academics to check it out and comment. No-one is asking for public funding. No-one is asking Stefan for prize money. No-one is claiming unequivocal proof. We are just presenting, within the constraints of some varied talents from all corners of the planet - and to the best of our abilities, an argument that seems to conform to this general requirement.
It seems to merit nothing but a parade of competing interests from heavily weighted egos using wild and ill considered arguments to challenge not only the evidence, but our presumption in presenting that evidence. What is wrong with you all? We're doing our best to help things. Some positive comments would be appreciated - even if it's to acknowledge a first. We're taking the argument to mainstream as a collaborative open source effort and with nothing more than an earnest desire to get into an earnest dialogue with them in terms of the thesis and the evidence of that thesis that has been equally exhaustively and earnestly collated and presented.
I would so welcome a sincere dialogue in this thread. Not this absurd nonsense where the one tries to sound cleverer than the next and all parties simply managing to parade their ignorance of the test, its objects or its proof. I personally see a want of maturity which would be so much more welcome. We're not competing with anyone. We're asking questions. And we're trying to get those answers from a forum where it really does matter. Our convictions or anyones are irrelevant compared to mainstream's. Mainstream still command public respect. We don't.
My wish for this year is that this thread either dies, or that it can change its flavour to something a little more adult. And this latter cannot happen until you guys let up - grow up - or show some evidence of intellect rather than testosterone.
Quote from: witsend on January 16, 2010, 08:49:08 PM
Hi gurugi. I think the problem is probably due to the voltage at the supply. If the two batteries have combined voltage at 18 volts then each battery supplying the energy is about 9 volts. A typical 12 volt battery is considered pretty well dead at 10 volts. So - at 9 volts - I don't think that there's nearly enough energy being delivered. You probably need to recharge those batteries.
But I'd be intrigued to learn if there is any evident voltage across the load resistor at this level of voltage from the supply and what that potential is? If there is, then I'd also be interested to know if the battery drops below 18 volts on an extended run?
Hi Witsend Yes I will try to inform you the thing is that I don't have a scope :-\.
I only have a multimeter. [/quote]
Can you let us know. I think Fuzzy saw evidence of a continued energy exchange at a really low battery voltage - and that would be really interesting to us even if the heat over the load resistor is hardly noticeable.
Another thing that's quite important is that you ensure that the switching cycle is working. We use low 'on' duty cycles but this defaults to about 50% when that resonating frequency takes over. [/quote]
Is there a way to know about the switching cycle is working without a scope?
Do you see evidence of this oscillating frequency? [/quote]
Don't know what do you mean?
Thanks
[/quote]
Witsend
You and a few others seem annoyed with my some of my posts so I will pre-emptively ban myself from this thread.
I am in the process of testing your theory using thermal methods and other methods.
If I find no excess energy, I will not publish the results to this forum.
If I find excess energy of any type, indicating that your theory works I will get the information to you somehow. It will be fully documented.
You can have your cake and eat it too!!
Cheers......Bye
Vortex1
Quote from: guruji on January 17, 2010, 07:41:59 AM
Hi Witsend Yes I will try to inform you the thing is that I don't have a scope :-\.
I only have a multimeter.
Golly gurugi, you're working against the odds here. That 'oscillating frequency' is the waveform that Fuzzy showed us in his live broadcasts. One sees two patterns emerging the one overlying the other. It's something like an arrow or a stick that comes to a point at the top. it sort of looks like a picket fence. And it seems darker than the other lines because it takes place for a very short time at a very fast frequency and then fades again. Check out Fuzzy's live show videos when he next does them. But I'm not the best person to explain this perhaps Fuzzy or someone can help me out here.
I do know that Fuzzy has kindly offered to do a live broadcast on how to find the waveform from a more standard scope. But I'm afraid without that - I'm not sure that you'll find the required duty cycle, let alone waveform. If you're near a university you may be able to take your experiment there and try it out. Just phone them and see if they'll allow it. I know that the lab at our university allows senior students access - as required and under supervision.
I think that Fuzzy is going to do a live broadcast to show everyone how to find the right waveform from a more standard oscilloscope. And it may be that that's available later today. If I spot it I'll let you know and give you a link. But always, at it's least, one needs that scope to analyse that waveform.
I don't think a voltmeter will cut it at all. But that will be useful for measurements across the load. But even there - it needs a meter that can read quickly to deal with those fast frequencies.
I'm most anxious to help you here gurugi, but not sure how to. Try - first - to get access to an oscilloscope. Then I'm sure that Fuzzy or someone will advise you.
Quote from: Vortex1 on January 17, 2010, 08:49:02 AM
Witsend
You seem annoyed with my some of my posts so I will pre-emptively ban myself from this thread.
I am in the process of testing your theory using thermal methods and other methods.
If I find nothing, I will not publish the results to this forum.
If I find excess energy of any type, indicating that your theory works I will get the information to you somehow. It will be fully documented.
You can have your cake and eat it too!!
Cheers......Bye
Vortex1
Good heavens Vortex. I think both Fuzzy and I are perfectly capable of getting rid of unwanted posts should we want to. Personally I don't care what people post. Discerning readers see through bombast and unnecessary nonsense for themselves. And I try to write for the discerning reader. But I also indulge my own nonsense periodically. Far be it from me to stop others. And frankly I find some criticisms variously entertaining or constructive. But they're really only valid when they've also been fairly well considered and articulated. Then they're either amusing or challenging or, indeed both. And both are gold. It's just they've become increasingly less evident of late and this thread is groaning for its want.
I would also disabuse you of ANY interest in keeping information off this thread. I would be alarmed to think that there was any reluctance to post a result - negative or positive. Why else are we here? It's open source research and development that we're interested in. At its least that calls for transparency. And that's also what Stefan is trying to promote in starting this forum. SO PLEASE. I would far rather you post your results - positive or negative. Golly. I would feel utterly defeated if you didn't. And frankly - with your knowledge of instrumentation - I'm satisfied that you'll also be able to set the required duty cycles. Which also means that your findings will be of some considerable interest.
I notice your schematic includes batteries. I trust you'll use such. And delighted to hear that you're going to set this up and anxious for some reassurance that you'll post your findings right here and in public. That's the only way I get to eat the cake.
EDIT By the way - your proposed 'control' run simultaneously with the test - I'm not sure that it'll work as there will surely be some degradation of that harmonic with competing voltages from both resistors. It's a tricky number to get and conversely, easy to lose.
2nd EDIT - sorry. Another rather critical requirement is the diameter of the resistor. If you can't wind one like Fuzzy's then please just get a resistor with THICK INDUCTIVE WIRE and as wide a girth as possible. I know it's counter intuitive - but that's what Fuzzy has found and his test results show that this, at it's least, is required.
Hi Vortex. Just to let you know that I sent you 4 pm's and I think all 4 were lost. I HATE PM's. I don't know my way around the system and I can never find my replies and - more often than not I lose the pms themselves. I meant to give you an alternate address - but am not sure if you got that either.
Delighted you've got such a wide variety of resistors and really look forward to results - regardless which way they swing.
Feel much happier now. Thanks for the concessions here.
You want to spend your precious time on something verifiable high-COP, patented(6 patents) and no-nonsense, simple to replicate?
Here you have it from a real physics professor:
http://guns.connect.fi/innoplaza/energy/story/Kanarev/analysis/index.html
Some additional info: This is normal electrolysis with lye(ie NaOH, KOH) and 1% duty cycle. You need a water flow, circular metal plates, ie the water coming in at tangential direction and going out at the center top. Measure the running current and preferrably use a high voltage(ie 500 V).
Can it be that easy? Try for yourself! You will need a simple PWM, lye and some metal, potentially a water pump or simple self flow.
Quote from: witsend on January 17, 2010, 08:50:13 AM
Golly gurugi, you're working against the odds here. That 'oscillating frequency' is the waveform that Fuzzy showed us in his live broadcasts. One sees two patterns emerging the one overlying the other. It's something like an arrow or a stick that comes to a point at the top. it sort of looks like a picket fence. And it seems darker than the other lines because it takes place for a very short time at a very fast frequency and then fades again. Check out Fuzzy's live show videos when he next does them. But I'm not the best person to explain this perhaps Fuzzy or someone can help me out here.
I do know that Fuzzy has kindly offered to do a live broadcast on how to find the waveform from a more standard scope. But I'm afraid without that - I'm not sure that you'll find the required duty cycle, let alone waveform. If you're near a university you may be able to take your experiment there and try it out. Just phone them and see if they'll allow it. I know that the lab at our university allows senior students access - as required and under supervision.
I think that Fuzzy is going to do a live broadcast to show everyone how to find the right waveform from a more standard oscilloscope. And it may be that that's available later today. If I spot it I'll let you know and give you a link. But always, at it's least, one needs that scope to analyse that waveform.
I don't think a voltmeter will cut it at all. But that will be useful for measurements across the load. But even there - it needs a meter that can read quickly to deal with those fast frequencies.
I'm most anxious to help you here gurugi, but not sure how to. Try - first - to get access to an oscilloscope. Then I'm sure that Fuzzy or someone will advise you.
Hi Witsend thanks for your info as I was telling Jibbguy on the other forum I hooked the mosfet wrongly I am going to test again tommorow. Will let you know the results.
Thanks.
Because the waveforms cannot be interpreted accurately, calorimetry is the only
accurate method to determine the claim. It is simple: raising a known amount of
water to a certain temperature. That is simple and known for, um, since JOULE.
That no one is willing to do calorimetry points to fraud.
Really?
Bill
Quote from: powershot on January 21, 2010, 10:19:12 PM
Because the waveforms cannot be interpreted accurately, calorimetry is the only
accurate method to determine the claim. It is simple: raising a known amount of
water to a certain temperature. That is simple and known for, um, since JOULE.
That no one is willing to do calorimetry points to fraud.
So I'm a fraud ??? How nice another
troll that has no documentation or references from a accredited testing agency, university or academic journal on how it has been done with full disclosure on the process .....
Fuzzy
>:(
Hi fuzzy don't care about certain people what they think of others. It is there problem continue to do the research.
I hooked four drained batteries to get 22v :'( and still no heat came >:( cannot understand what's wrong.
I've built other circuits like a pwm;lawton circuit and more.
One of the pulse modulator that I've built gave alot of heat on the mosfet. ;D
Hope I find the fault in the rosemary circuit that I've did.
Thanks guys.
Well Rosemary it would have been nice to have the FULL story that during this whole 8 month testing and evaluation exercise of the Quantum "Mosfet Heating Circuit" device that in fact "YOU" presently have in your possession "in storage" withheld from all experimenters .....
1) Working models of the Quantum "Mosfet Heating Circuit" device
2) Components of the Quantum "Mosfet Heating Circuit" device
3) Photographs of the Quantum "Mosfet Heating Circuit" device
4) Documented information from BP
5) Documented information from ABB
And this was nothing but a Chinese Fire Drill for any and all experimenters with only moral support from you, not divulging that you have done this in a attempt of a "independent verification" of any findings on the Quantum article for your thesis "ONLY" nothing else.
This has been nothing but duping the "Open Source" community for help in creating a Academic paper to promote your thesis on your Magnetic Field Model nothing else.
Open Source has a different definition to you, in fact you have not been "OPEN" in your motives here and have used members for your own benefit nothing else.
>:(
Okay,
as Rosemary now wants to post all
their practical work stuff including pictures and videos of her setup,
please go here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9442.0
This thread is closed now.
Regards, Stefan.
Dear ALL,
due to the current flame war, that is going on here:
As I don´t have currently the time to watch this threads and
make myself up , who is telling the truth or the untruth,
I will now close the threads and let them stay online to see for all
another week and then delete them completely.
Until then you can make backup copies and fight your flame war in private
further on, if you wish to do so....
Sorry, but it is getting winter and we don´t yet have an efficient circuit to
heat our homes...it is so sad...
Regards, Stefan.
Okay, I think it is better to set all the battle people on
read only and keep the threads as they are and just lock them
now, as no new technology info is posted right here....
So, if the users who are battling about this come
again to a conclusion, that they want to share their
newest hardware findings and will post
circuit diagrams, they should just contact me via email
and I will reenable their postings right.
I think this is the best compromise for now.
Regards, Stefan.