@tk meantime heres a hint on how to largely eliminate most of the effort and crap that one has to go through to build an entire circuit just to be disapointed at the end: take one small cap of known total power fully charged eg.3v/25uF,discharge it in ONE shot-pulse into the inductor coil direct,then measure totality of kickback power on that one pulse.if its overunity then proceed to build circuit to adapt to that.useful to cut back on time and expenses i imagine.

bingo!.to all electromaniacs out there,shove a variable oscillator machine onto one side of a sample test-inductor core and a measure machine on the other side for kickbacks,then you can play with variables around the most important thing,the fucking core! Ideas are flowing...

Meantime..... Ainslie the bloviating idiot has apparently decided to NOT EVEN READ the posts she criticises. Of course that is standard Ains-lie behaviour these days.

Quote
WELL.  He's right of course.  But ONLY and PROVIDED that you don't ALSO apply our standard measurement protocols.  In point of fact he's OUT by a small factor of 90% because he's forgotten to factor in the duty cycle. 

Oh REALLY? Well, I don't expect someone who dropped out of school at age 12 to be able to follow where I FACTOR IN THE DUTY CYCLE in the post. Keep it up, AINS-LIE, you are on a roll. Go ahead.... step through the calculation for me, show me how to do it "correctly" according to you. I need a good laugh this morning.

It is true that in my Fig 5 analysis I slightly overestimated the peak current during Q1 ON time. I had the CVR voltage drop indication as 750mV but it is really closer to 650 mV. None of my conclusions change from this: it is still near the maximum current possible under the battery voltage _actually supplied_ rather than that which is mendaciously claimed in Ainslie's description.

QuoteBut that's TYPICAL.  And it's DELIBERATE.

That's right: it's typical and DELIBERATE for me to be correct in a calculation and for AINS-LIE to be absurdly wrong.

Quote
And NOTA BENE - NONE OF HIS COLLEAGUES?  FELLOW CONSPIRATORS?  TROLLS?  have drawn attention to this LATEST DISTORTION.

Distortion? No, it's not a distortion, AINSLIE, unless YOU CAN CORRECT IT AND SHOW YOUR CORRECTION IS PROPER. But you cannot. Your scope trace description claims six batteries in parallel. The trace itself shows that's a lie. Your description says other things that are shown to be lies by the trace itself. You cannot counter these "distortions" because they are not distortions: they are FACTS that anyone can see just by looking at the page in your "paper".

QuoteAnd here's the kicker.  He also ASSUMES that we, on this side of the argument, will none of us notice this?  Clearly he entirely believes his spin that we're all of us IDIOTS.  Not that I, personally, mind this description - one little bit.  He's right.

You said it, Ainslie, you are "all of you " IDIOTS, because you STILL CANNOT SUPPORT YOUR ABSURD CLAIMS with facts and demonstrations and CORRECT CALCULATIONS of your own, yet you have no qualms whatsoever about insulting your critics without meeting their criticisms with substance. BECAUSE YOU CANNOT.

Quote
It's rather idiotic to STILL depend on the benefits of reporting on open source.  But I have my reasons - which are to keep this technology alive and well - until we can turn it over to competent authorities to validate.

You had better get busy then because you have NOTHING TO "VALIDATE" at all and anyone who examines the issue discovers the same thing. And Saturday is only two days away.

Quote
Meanwhile it would be as well to remember something that they're DESPERATELY trying to TRIVIALISE.  Here's the thing.  Under all known standard protocols of energy measurement it is ENTIRELY impossible to reach a NEGATIVE PRODUCT in the supply of energy.  It SIMPLY CANNOT HAPPEN. 

Yet it is MODELLED EXACTLY IN SIMULATION SOFTWARE. Which makes your claim that "it cannot happen" a bad joke and another baldfaced AINS-
LIE, since entirely conventional circuit theory SHOWS HOW AND WHEN IT DOES HAPPEN and fully explains it...... as a measurement artefact that Ainslie simply doesn't understand.

Quote
And yet even our 'little gherkin' REPEATEDLY gives us this value and says words to the effect ....'SO WHAT'? 

Someday, AINSLIE, your lies and insults will catch up to you and you will suffer consequences. I will continue to do all I can to make that day come as soon as possible, and every time you insult me in this manner.... you strengthen my resolve and you display your true nature.

Quote
THAT attitude.  That question - is itself  PURE SPIN.  Because whichever way you want to cut this argument - THAT NUMBER POINTS TO ANOMALIES.  It's that simple.  And our PRIMARY MISSION is to show PRECISELY THAT ANOMALY - which is REPEATABLE - REPLICABLE - AND HAS BEEN SHOWN EVERYWHERE ON OPEN SOURCE.  It's HUGE.  It categorically DEFEATS Kirchoff's UNITY PRINCIPLE - UNLESS it can be shown to be a measurement error. 

Which, of course, it has been. Over and over, repeatably, in hardware, in circuit analysis and in simulation, and the error is tracked down precisely to the poor circuit layout and the bad scoposcopy and misinterpretations and misrepresentations that Ainslie performs.

QuoteIt speaks to the FACT of an alternate energy supply source.  And it speaks to the INEVITABLE consequence of an energy potential that has also been GROSSLY overlooked. 

No it doesn't, it speaks to the FACT that ignorant people will get wrong answers when they try to do something that they don't understand. You are crazy. Your "anomaly" is nothing more than a bunch of amateurish errors and bogus calculations and this has been demonstrated to you OVER AND OVER and nobody, NOBODY, has found otherwise. NOT EVEN YOU! Your own data show how idiotic you are.

Quote
MEANWHILE all that they can do is to DENY the authority of our evidence by systematically plugging further irrelevant criticisms of our presentation of that evidence.  It's been done to death.  And I think we're all a little tired of it.  We ALWAYS show a negative wattage.  Correctly they should be arguing JUST THIS.  NOTHING ELSE. 

On the contrary, AINS-LIE: we have done much more than you say. We have PROVEN that you are completely bogus, a bloviating liar, who will even get other people to lie for you, and your "negative wattage" is meaningless! Correctly "we" are arguing that your entire "thesis" is crap, your "data" is largely made up and totally misrepresented, and you STILL DON'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE between a Watt and a Joule.

Where's your demonstration of the Figure 3 scopeshot? YOU CANNOT PRODUCE IT. Where is the promised "firm schedule" for your demonstration that is supposed to take place THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW? YOU HAVE NOT POSTED IT AS PROMISED.

Quote from: profitis on June 27, 2013, 09:03:03 AM
bingo!.to all electromaniacs out there,shove a variable oscillator machine onto one side of a sample test-inductor core and a measure machine on the other side for kickbacks,then you can play with variables around the most important thing,the fucking core! Ideas are flowing...

Your "ideas" might be flowing, but your "demonstrations" are all clogged up. I would rather see you support some of your words with deeds, than to hear more of your "ideas" which are irrelevant to the present discussion. Can YOU make the Ainslie Figure 3 scopeshot traces, with YOUR apparatus?

Of course you cannot.

Kirchoff's UNITY PRINCIPLE? What's that?

Nothing, just more ignorant parroting of big words from Polly Parrot Ains-lie.