Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[Rosemary Ainslie]

6 - final of the revised report

6.DISCUSSION

The results of this demonstration are consistent with the previous reported test results related to this circuitry. The difference here is that there is an extended period of self-induced oscillation following the falling edge of the gate drive signal. This appears to enhance the circuit performance to what is now measured as what appears to be an infinite co-efficient of performance. This value has been carefully evaluated, but it is preferred that the circuit and all its effects be carefully established by experts.

Therefore the intention of this demonstration is to bring these anomalies to the academic forum so that experts can research these effects more thoroughly. There are many questions here that need answers and it is considered that this is best established across a broad range of research to establish the checks and balances required for the progress of this new technology.

It is an unfortunate fact that publication of these results in academic journals will first require some accreditation. Attempts to publish in reviewed journals were denied, even prior to review of the submitted papers. Although not admitted, the indications are that this outright rejection was because the results of these experiments dramatically oppose mainstream prediction. It is earnestly proposed that open acknowledgement of the listed anomalies by experts, may therefore, be a catalyst to bridge mainstream’s scepticism that publication will be possible. And the further hope is that this demonstration will result in that required and wider acknowledgement of these anomalies. Then the technology can be progressed. This would be a desirable consequence, the more so as there may here exist some potential solutions to the global energy crisis that is growing ever more critical in the face of diminishing or pollutant energy sources coupled with our burgeoning global need for increased supplies.

Some mention must be made of those aspects of the tests that have not been thoroughly explored. The first relates to the battery recharge. It is a truth that the batteries used in these experiments have been used on a regular basis for over 5 months. During that time they have been continually subjected to both light and heavy use and they have never shown any evidence of loss of voltage. Nor have they been recharged by a conventional battery recharger. However there has not been a close analysis of the electrolytic condition of the batteries, before, during or even after their use. This will require a fuller study by our chemistry experts.

Results therefore were confined to classical measurement protocols with the distinction that the energy dissipated at the resistor element was established empirically and as it related to the heat dissipated on that resistor. Also to be noted is that there is a small but measurable inductance on the current-sensing resistor. This therefore begs some margin for error in the measurements. However, the measure of efficiency in the transfer of energy here is that extreme that a wide margin can be applied without materially altering these beneficial results.

It is, in any event, clearly evident that the circuit benefits from the inductances that are measured over the circuit components, including the wiring. As this is both inexpensive and easy to incorporate into circuit designs then the indications are that this aspect of the technology is easily established. What is needed is fuller research into the critical amounts to enable the burst oscillation mode and, indeed, into the requirements that enable this negative triggering of the oscillation, in the first instance. All prior circuits based on this simple design, have shown some indications of benefit. But this particular development has taken that earlier advantage to greater levels of energy efficiency than have been previously recorded.

There was no attempt made in these tests to precisely quantify the energy delivered by the battery. This was based on the fact that in both tests and in most variations to the frequency, and offset adjustments, the results show a zero discharge of energy from the battery supply. Therefore, any measured rise in temperature over ambient is seen as being anomalous.

It is also to be noted that the simulation of these waveforms are possible also indicating, as they do, a zero discharge of energy from the supply source. As the software for simulations are based on classical protocols then one may assume that classical measurement allows for these results. Certainly they confront Kirchhoff’s Laws albeit that they are in line with Faraday’s Inductive Laws.

Finally, the thesis that predicted these results points to the possibility that the hidden energy supply source, not factored into classical analysis, is in the material of the circuit components. This would still be in line with Einstein’s mass/energy equivalence and the thesis proposes that inductive and conductive material are able to induce their own energy as a result of applied potential differences. Effectively there is a potential in induced negative voltages that has not been fully exploited.


WITH THANKS

Our heartfelt gratitude is to the following:

To CPUT staff for the use of their facilities and for the critical input that was so freely available. Special thanks here to Deon Kallis for his patience in all aspects related to teaching and guiding us. This tribute is all the more heartfelt as he has consistently proposed that there is yet some classical explanation that has been overlooked. This may yet be proven. In general the consensus  here is that there are still some latent errors associated with this circuitry that are yet to be uncovered.  They do not, therefore endorse the results but merely the continued and thorough research of this.

Also a word of thanks to Markin Mwinga for his assistance during 2010.

To Battery Centre and RayLite batteries for the gift of 9 batteries.

To Coast to Coast for the supply of the LeCroy for such an extended period. Also for the brief use of the Fluke.

To Inala and to Pieter Rousseau for the use of the Tektronix. This was much required to confirm the results from our LeCroy.

To Specific Heat and Ikram Ebrahim for the donation of the element and his support in supplying exotic resistors as required.

To Roy Adams of Tecron who built a copper water cylinder for an earlier experiment and applied the required plumbing.

To Pick-n-Pay and Pick-n-Pay Durbanville, for providing refreshments at the demonstration

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Poynty - IS THAT IT?  Does it work with the one MOSFET on a sim but not with TWO?  I can't understand that.  And what is that resistor doing at the positive terminal?  Is it a load or a shunt?

Poynty?  Are you equivocating?  Because if you're not then this is very exciting.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

And I'm posting this again lest it's lost in that page sizing disaster.  Please answer this Poynty and please note that the sims in the report are still consistent with our own findings.

Ta muchly,
Rosie

EDITED. And for perfect clarity - here's the schematic I referrred to and the result I'm asking about

[fuzzytomcat]

FIRST TRY ...


http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg287233#msg287233   ( Reply #1310 )

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg287235#msg287235   ( Reply #1311 )

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg287239#msg287239   ( Reply #1312 )

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg287241#msg287241   ( Reply #1313 )

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg287242#msg287242   ( Reply #1314 )

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg287243#msg287243   ( Reply #1315 )

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg287244#msg287244   ( Reply #1316 )

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg287245#msg287245   ( Reply #1317 )
_______________________________________________________________________________


SECOND TRY ....

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg287251#msg287251   ( Reply #1320 )

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg287252#msg287252   ( Reply #1321 )

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg287253#msg287253   ( Reply #1322 )

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg287254#msg287254   ( Reply #1323 )

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg287255#msg287255   ( Reply #1324 )

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg287258#msg287258   ( Reply #1325 )

_______________________________________________________________________________



Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ....... I've never laughed so hard in my life ....   



This is the "RA South Africa" teams rendition of all the information, data and details of numerous claims on the inventors finding of a COP> INFINITY on various experimental devices created by Rosemary Ainslie ?

This "REPORT" by far is the most mixed up mess that has ever been seen or presented to the open source community on any experimental device claim of a finding that a independent experimentalist could never use in a possible attempt to reproduce in a scientific method the inventors finding to supply "PROOF" of the founded claim of COP> INFINITY.




1) Several Tests and simulations all with different experimental circuit diagrams "COBBLED" up together in the so called REPORT. 


2) All Dates of Oscilloscope screen shots are not on the day of the exhibit. 


3) Speculation on some stupid THESIS .... what in the world does a thesis have to do with providing information on a finding to reproduce in a scientific method the finding of a claim for PROOF of that claim ... absolutely nothing at all just more unneeded crap. 


4) The 9.9 ohm resistor/inductor now is a "CUSTOM" made part .... not something off the shelf as the open source community was told earlier by Rosemary. 




On and On and On .... what a total mess given on documentation and information and certainly way below expectations from someone whom calls themselves a 10 year veteran knowing all of what is needed and required by electronics engineer or academics and not being provided in a scientific method.


I now will and advise others posting to wait because of the unprofessional re-posting "TWICE" and will hold all my "line by line" comments until such time no modifications to the above listed postings or reply's are set in stone and cant be whimsically changed to suit ones immediate needs or wants.


LOL .... whats been shown is so pathetic but actually expected. 


Fuzzy


PS - As Joe Friday would say "Just the Facts" Madam .....

[poynt99]

Poynty - IS THAT IT?

Not sure what you mean?

Does it work with the one MOSFET on a sim but not with TWO?  I can't understand that.

It would also work with 2 MOSFETs or even 5 as you have them. Reducing the circuit down to its basic component parts however, is what I've shown.

And what is that resistor doing at the positive terminal?  Is it a load or a shunt?

I have included a 2 Ohm wire resistance in my schematic and simulation because you have included it in your simulation schematic.

Poynty?  Are you equivocating?  Because if you're not then this is very exciting.

I'm illustrating that with a simulation, I can show similar results to your actual results, and with the new CSR location and a reduced circuit configuration.

Is there possibly more to the story though, or is this an open-and-shut case proving COP>1?

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Not sure what you mean?
It would also work with 2 MOSFETs or even 5 as you have them. Reducing the circuit down to its basic component parts however, is what I've shown.
I have included a 2 Ohm wire resistance in my schematic and simulation because you have included it in your simulation schematic.
I'm illustrating that with a simulation, I can show similar results to your actual results, and with the new CSR location and a reduced circuit configuration.

Is there possibly more to the story though, or is this an open-and-shut case proving COP>1?

.99

Poynty Point.  This is very good news indeed.  I've just sent you an email.  Check it out.  And let me know what you think.

Kindest regards,
Rosie