@PW: it all depends on which schematic is "the" schematic, doesn't it? Eels in a net.

Quote from: TinselKoala on July 03, 2012, 05:28:33 PM
Heh... I see that I have a 10V tantalum in Manny instead of a 25V.

That's because I like to live dangerously. Anyone else should use a 25 volt tantalum here, just in case.

When tants go bang, they make an ugly dark black skinny trail of smoke like "stuff" that rises upwards.

Tants are VERY sensitive to overvoltage...

PW

Howdy members and guests,

There are some things that some of you might have missed here for the "FULL" picture of which schematic was used where and the ramifications of the YouTube video made ......

Quote from: fuzzytomcat on July 03, 2012, 05:15:20 AM
Howdy members and guests,

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 03, 2012, 04:21:40 AM
And Guys,

Here's yet another answer.  This time related to our 'schematic' which MOST ASSUREDLY was NOT correct.  But there is nothing in the history of these threads of mine or threads about me and our work - that requires the KIND of disclosure that TK seems to think that I am beholden to given him.  Frankly - neither he nor anyone of those who contribute so diligently here - can demand ANYTHING AT ALL  of me in the light of their multiple and legal abuses of calumny malice and slander.

..... snip rubbish .....

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Here is the posting from poynt99 with the confrontation on the claimed COP>INFINITY device operation schematic with the shown as built.


Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

Quote from: poynt99
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg282094/#msg282094      Reply #682 on: April 19, 2011, 08:01:26 AM 

Well, this is terribly embarrassing; According to their published circuit diagram, simulation diagram, and the demonstration video, Rosie-posie and her team of "experts" has not only incorrectly labeled two of the nodes on the prototype board (the F and C are incorrectly swapped), but they have connected mosfets 2-5 incorrectly as well (the Gate and Source pins are incorrectly swapped, but M1 is all correct). It is not surprising however that her "experts" didn't catch this big "OOOPS" when they were repairing the unit.

This would explain the somewhat funky wave forms, and why the simulation results look slightly different.

This sure doesn't instill much confidence in anyone following along with this travesty, especially when considering the entire project is already teetering on the brink of self-destruction. A rhetorical question or two; So what are we now to make of all those posted wave forms and so-called measurements? Are the probes even displaying the circuit nodes we have been led to believe they are displaying?

That aside, as a gesture of good faith Rosie-posie, may the world please see that properly-conducted continuous operation test? I'm afraid it's the only way you're going to prove to anyone beyond a reasonable doubt that your claims are true.

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg282102/#msg282102    Reply #685 on: April 19, 2011, 09:05:14 AM

You've got a long wait Poynty Point.  LOL.  All I concede is that there is - indeed - a modification to the positioning of the Gate and Source pins.  We made full disclosure - but I was rather hoping you'd try those replications - and then explain what was required.  It would have been a delicious opportunity to 'teach' you as I'm rather sick of being 'taught'.  But be that as it may.  The results persist.  It's an advantageous arrangement - AND - you see for yourself - it gives us an oscillation that is EXTREMELY BENEFICIAL.  That's all that matters.

I will admit that I did not expect you to pick up on this.  LOL.  I just wondered how you managed all those Spice replications.  I had an idea you must have seen this then.

Take care Poynty. I admit to being trumped.

Rosie-posie.

Rosemary's quote of "We made full disclosure"was never done and no link providing proof has been provided by Rosemary prior to the above posting by poynt99 on April 19, 2011

After the proof in the above postings what Rosemary did isn't  scientific misconduct bordering on outright fraud, in my opinion it's crossed that boundary.

FTC

Please see the attached postings of Rosemary and "NOTE" the date ....... March 18, 2011

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg278271/#msg278271   Reply #124 on: March 18, 2011, 09:56:29 AM

Quote from: neptune

Hi Rosemary , your eyesight sounds no better than mine . I have only one eye that works , and last week while mending a puncture in my bike , I managed to Glue it shut! All sorted now . There was a a couple of things you said in your last reply that I did not understand . You said "there is a whole lot of iron on that resistor ." I take it you mean the load resistor , but I thought it was nickle chromium wire on a glass or ceramic core . Are you now saying it has an iron core? Also , not sure what you meant by "try to keep a threaded rod of sorts " Please tell me if and when you have time . Looking forward to the video on Monday , or whenever .

Just a small point from the demo report on your blog .At the lowest driver frequency , you talk about the gate being Negative for 2.7 minutes . If we assume a low duty cycle of , say ,10% on , that means the actual switching frequency is one cycle every2.97 minutes .I know that you said that the effect is not frequency dependent but , boy , is that slow!

Hi Neptune.  We have a standard immersion heater type element.  I'll try and get a photo of this from my early shots.  The wire is threaded inside the rod.

Regarding the frequency.  We have some variation when we go into 'heavy duty mode' with the frequency.  But that zero discharge number from the batteries - that is as steady as a rock at just about any and every frequency.  We took it to its slowest possible to test this.  And yes - it oscillates without any evident variation for 3 minutes.  I agree.  It's wierd.

Kindest
Rosemary

http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/dlattach/attach/51552/     ( th_DSC00173-1.jpg )

And this one dated ..... April 18, 2011

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg282023/#msg282023    Reply #673 on: April 18, 2011, 10:03:06 AM

Quote from: happyfunball

What was in the canister? A powered heating element, or was it simply siphoning off heat, and was it submerged? If so, was the water temperature shown in the video? I see a fluke measuring resistor temperature, are they related? Kind of confusing.

Happy read the report.  I'll post a link again.  I'll also try and find a picture of that element resistor. It was not in water.  It was in the canister to conform to the control tests.

Regards,
Rosemary
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/03/report.html


http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/dlattach/attach/52167/      ( DSC00173-1.jpg )

Please, now look at the attached photographic images that were referenced in the two postings of Rosemary's ......
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/dlattach/attach/51552/     ( th_DSC00173-1.jpg )   March 18, 2011
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/dlattach/attach/52167/      ( DSC00173-1.jpg )        April 18, 2011

Please, now look at Rosemary's Blog site referenced in the "first" posting the day after the COP>INFINITY circuit demonstration 12 March 2011 ......
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/03/report.html     " #89 - report on the tests for the demo held today "  Sunday, March 13, 2011  at 12:50 AM

Please, now look at the YouTube video http://youtu.be/fyOmoGluMCc " of the COP>INFINITY "Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration 12 March 2011" the video device doesn't match the photographic images posted by Rosemary on March 18th or April 18th or match the description at the Blog site posted on March 13th. There is also no mention of any changes to the COP>INFINITY device in any of the postings I refer to directly from Rosemary.

I repeat my observations what Rosemary did isn't scientific misconduct bordering on outright fraud, in my opinion it's crossed way over that boundary.

FTC

Well, to be completely fair... for there to be scientific misconduct, Science has to be involved somewhere. I don't believe what Ainslie has presented quite qualifies.

Is there such a thing as pseudoscientific misconduct? If so, Ainslie has committed it.



Meanwhile, back in the DeepBunker.... I did it, I went ahead and added a 2n2222a inverter relay driver stage and swapped the relay function NC and NO leads, so now the relay is only pulled in (coil actuated) during the charge time, not the discharge time, and with the time constants I'm using that is much more efficient, as the charge portion is very short, in the "fixed" position of S1. When S1 is in the L position the pot with the knob controls both charge and discharge rates as usual.

So now Manny has a power mosfet driving an NPN transistor stage driving a relay driving the power mosfet, in a three-element feedback loop.

Quote from: TinselKoala on July 03, 2012, 09:00:28 PM
Well, to be completely fair... for there to be scientific misconduct, Science has to be involved somewhere. I don't believe what Ainslie has presented quite qualifies.

Is there such a thing as pseudoscientific misconduct? If so, Ainslie has committed it.

Yep .... your right and I had to much coffee to make a proper judgement in the applicable required mandatory terminology that suites this situation, yours is much better