Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Yes, I have done this in the simulation, a long time ago when I reduced the circuit down to just Q2. I may not have posted a scope shot, but I believe the oscillation frequency increased slightly, and the wave forms became more symmetrical.

.99

Poynty - We all REALLY need that waveform.  It gets to the heart of the argument.  May I impose on you to give us a picture of this? 

By the way.  To the second part of the question.  Can do you explain this?   

Rosemary

Also - What do you mean by 'MORE SYMMETRICAL'.  Flatter waveforms?  Or cleaner?  Or just no 'cut off' at the positive peaks?  You see why we need a picture.

[poynt99]

OK, I have used a diagram that is slightly different than the previous I posted, although they are essentially equivalent.

The main difference being, and I would recommend anyone building this, change the position of D1 from Drain to Ground (shown in my previous post), to Drain to Gate as shown in these schematics here. The "effect" (i.e. higher oscillating "Vbat" voltage) D1 has is increased when connected Drain-to-Gate.

The "Vbat" wave form is almost double the peak-to-peak amplitude with the Q1 body diode in place, as shown.

What I mean by "symmetry", is the wave shape for the top and bottom excursions of the wave form. Without the body diode, the wave form is more sinusoidal and symmetrical. The oscillating frequency is also slightly higher in this case.

From briefly looking at this "effect", it appears the addition of the Drain-to-Gate (D-G) diode forces the Q2 MOSFET to turn OFF more completely during that part of the cycle, and this allows the Drain, and hence "Vbat" voltage to oscillate at a higher amplitude.

.99

[MrMag]

No Cat - I'm NOT making excuses.  I'm simply NOT interested in doing those tests.  Feel free.  Do it yourselves.  I'm only interested in getting this to an academic forum.  And they DON'T accept any draw down battery tests as evidence.  Good gracious.  If they did I'd have done the tests - GLADLY.  And I absolutely have NO INTEREST in 'encouraging' as you you put it - people to get involved in our circuit.  Frankly I prefer it that they don't.  My previous exposure to this was an outright attempt by a replicator to CLAIM it as his independent and personal 'DISCOVERY'.  Why should I want anyone to replicate? 

So, do this test ourselves but you would rather that we didn't. Is it true that you have been working on this for 10 years or more and have never done the test we are asking? Why is that? I would think that if anyone wanted to prove the device, this would be one of the first tests to accomplish. If it worked, then I would worry about scope shots to see exactly what was happening so that it could be explained. Also, my recommendation was to only place the batteries, circuit and IP camera inside the enclosure. If you want to open the door and take readings once in a while it would be fine but you don't need to connect a scope to it. You are to busy trying to think of reasons not to do the test then just reading what was posted.

My ONLY interest is in the thesis and the implications of the waveform - because that's where the magic is.  I don't think there's any RULE against my sharing what I think is happening. And if you or anyone don't want to read here - so what?  I'm not holding a gun to your heads. The general reach on these forums is to demand the evidence - in any way you want.  I'm under NO obligation to cater to that demand.  Frankly if I were to run around and do what everyone wanted as I used to - then I'd be considerably poorer and have progressed no further.  What really gets me down is that one academic has actually proposed that we do that 'black box' test.  That's the test that we designed for the public demonstration.  You may remember.  Not A SINGLE EXPERT ATTENDED.  What a joke.  The academics won't look at the evidence - and the rest of you can't understand the measurements - nor their implications. And I can assure you that not one of you will believe the evidence when I've completed that test.  There'll be new criteria.  So it goes.  It's not so much extraordinary claims needing extraordinary proof - it's that an extraordinary claim will never be accepted regardless of the proof.  That's the killer.

The rest of us can't understand the measurements? Many of us here have 20 or more years of experience in the electronics field and you think WE don't know how to take measurements. I think it may be the other way around.

Here's the trade off Cat.  Find some experts who will guarantee accreditation of any results that show excess energy dissipated to the rated battery capacity - ANY AT ALL - then I'll do those tests GLADLY.  I think a consensus of 5 should cut it.  See what you can do.  Me I have found precisely 1 and I very much doubt that there will be others.  And we've asked not less than 45 experts to attend a demo that shows JUST THIS.

I guess it depends on what you classify as an expert. I would think that there are probably 5 or more here on this forum who could be classified as experts. I could probably pop over to OUR and dig up a few more if need be.

What I don't understand is why you do not want to do this simple test. There are a lot of people here that would like to see it done. There are ways to make it safe so that the batteries don't catch fire and you know this so stop using it as an excuse. If you have nothing to hide just do the test.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Listen up Mags.  Our very first paper PUBLISHED in Quantum was a test that was run in conjunction with battery controls.  The test period determined when the control batteries voltages each dropped BELOW 10 Volts.  At the end of, from memory I think it was, a 17 hour test - the controls were at 10 when the test battery had NOT LOST EVEN A QUARTER VOLT.  Then we recharged BOTH sets of batteries.  And then we swapped them and applied the control to the test and vice versa to obviate any claims of battery vagaries.  Then we ran that test again.  The results were the same.  And then we were dealing with COP 17 NOT COP INFINITY.

NOW.  PAY ATTENTION.  We were instructed to TAKE THAT INFORMATION OUT OF THE PAPER AS ANY REFERENCE TO BATTERY PERFORMANCE WAS LIKELY TO BE UNRELIABLE DUE BATTERY VAGARIES.  That was the explanation given us by the editor.  The reviewer - who simply edits things for Quantum magazine - as it is NOT a reviewed journal - WAS A PROFESSOR JANDRELL AT WITS UNIVERSITY.  If you are that interested - then write to him and ask him for an explanation.  And here's the thing.  THE EXPERT IS NOT IN THE LEAST BIT INTERESTED IN BATTERY PERFORMANCE.  THAT'S IT. 

So.  DON'T GIVE ME THAT OVERWORKED COMPLAINT THAT IN 10 YEARS I HAVE NEVER TRIED TO DO THAT BATTERY COMPARISON TEST.  WE'VE DONE IT TO DEATH.  ALL OUR TESTS WERE DONE ON THAT BASIS IT MEANT NOTHING - RESULTED IN NOTHING.

Now you want us to repeat that test - but this time it is likely to last considerably longer as our control will need to include 6 batteries.  I'll do it.  GLADLY.  Just find me not less than 5 experts who will guarantee us FULL RECOGNITION OF THOSE RESULTS AT THE END OF THE TEST PERIOD.  And their names must be citable as expert accreditors.  ELSE WE'RE WASTING OUR TIME.

And as for your forlorn hope that there's the required expertise on Poynty's forum - disabuse yourself.  They're all trying to follow Poynt's examples of Pin and Pout measurements which are UTTERLY meaningless - as they are certainly NOT the required protocols in mainstream science. AND they're certainly NOT citable as they all shelter their reputations behind aliases - LIKE YOU.  And notwithstanding this protection they afford their own reputations - they actively work to try and destry mine.

I'm absolutely NOT prepared to answer any more of your posts.  They're a waste of my time.  Just do your own tests.  There's nothing stopping you.

Rosemary 

Added.  And while I'm at it -  may I also add that I find NOTHING quite as despicable and contemptible and cowardly as the extraordinary freedoms you all indulge in your opinion of my hard work - when you all shelter behind those 'screen names' as Fuzzy rather pathetically refers to it.  If you're going to show the courage of your convictions then post under your own name.  Else there's the very real danger that not only will you be considered a big mouthed bully - but that you're a self-serving hypocritcal coward to boot. JUST LEVEL THOSE PLAYING FIELDS. It's easy playing fast and loose with other people's reputations.  Put your own on the line and be counted.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Thanks Poynt.  Now all we need is the shunt and battery voltages per your math trace.  Can you oblige?

Ta muchly,
Rosie