Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[hartiberlin]

Guys - I've just read through Hamburger's long awaited debunk courtesy a simulated number.  He's his own best critic.  Here's a sample.   'I love to pierce it incisively until they are naked, if not bleeding.'  Golly.   From where I sit I'm still unscathed and fully dressed. He needs to revisit some of his claims.  One proposal is that the MOSFET is fully turned on at some stages to allow for the - as he puts it - stellar - or was that solar? - increase in output.  This would mean that our little embedded Zener would have to take the full value of 60 amps, during the 'off' time and the transistor itself - something marginally less than 60 amps, during the 'on' time.  Pretty robust for something that's rated at plus/minus 6 amps. 

But that aside - of interest is this obsessive need to disprove this.  I think that what he finds most objectionable is that I am a self-confessed clutz who has no right to advance anything at all.  He's right of course.  But it's precisely because I am THAT mediocre that I have every confidence that this technology and these concepts can, eventually, be understood.  I rather rely on this fact.  Here's the thinking.  If I can get my head around them - then anyone can.  It clearly does not require brilliance.  Just a little bit of common sense.  And I'm the FIRST to admit that we've shown nothing new.  It seems that the simulators do exactly what we show.  The difference again is only in this.  Humbugger dare not show the actual values applied to the sundry components.  He tells us that he tweaks them.  And, self- evidently, he tweaks them to favour under unity.  Which is hardly surprising given that he seems to base his sense of self-worth - on an effective argument to deny all.  And he DARE not show the phase relationships between the shunt and the batteries - this because they'll cancel out and dribble to death in no time at all.  He then shows what he calls 'rosiewatts' and - far from being rosy - they're rather sick.  And they seem to cost way, way too much.   One thing that springs to mind is that he justifies increasing the measured inductance at the shunt from 110nH to 110 nH x 4.  By rights this should divided - as that's the TOTAL that is measured.  And so it goes.  An adjustment here - a oversight there - a variation everywhere.  What's new.

I'm only writing all this in the forlorn hopes that he'll one day try and do an actual pure simulation.  That would be interesting.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary   

I also had a look at his simulations.

His shunt voltages never looked like the voltages Rosemary showed here on her scopeshots.

So he might have tuned his simulation for underunity.

Especially this scopeshots:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10407.0;attach=51615

shows, that the orange colored input current at the shunt is almost everytime
negative.
Humbuger did not have this in his sim.

Rose, please post more zommed in scopehots of this scopeshot, by just showing
3 or 4 wavecycles and not the full burst please.
Thanks.

As I said, if we have a new effect here it can no be simulated by simulation software just
based on standard theory.

Maybe the nichrome wire in the heater element or the spiral shape
of the heater element also plays a role here. This could not be seen in any simulation
software...

Regards, Stefan.

[hartiberlin]

Hi Poynt,
please try again your simulation with this setup please
and show burst waveforms (many cycles) and 3 to 4 cycles
on one scopeshot.

Many thanks.

[Magluvin]

Hey Rose

Here is the circuit we last talked about that proves my point of the inductor being a flywheel of the electronics world.

In this test, we close the switch until the cap is full and current stops flowing. Then you can leave it closed or open it, at this point the cap is charged and now we can reason my theory by comparing the cap voltage vs source.

When we hold the switch down, current will flow clockwise and represents electron flow, negative to positive.

We know that if this circuit, without the inductor and diode, if we close the switch, the cap would charge to the level of the source and equal the source when all settles.

But with the inductor and diode in as shown, close the switch and we have our clockwise flow till the cap is full. when you measure the cap, it will be approximately 2 times the source. The reason for the diode is to stop the higher voltage stored in the cap from reversing, from its great height achieved, and trying to equal out with the source.

Now if the diode was eliminated, the circuit would oscillate till it dies.

Now if you understand that, you can get the feel for how higher voltages can be had with inductors. ;]

This is not a reflection of your circuit or where we get the very high voltages from inductors can produce in circuits, it just femf 101. ;]
Just to get the feel of the flyweeling( an object set in motion tends to stay in motion ) effect I speak of, and Teslas term inertia of inductors of all sorts, wires, capacitor plates, inductance everywhere, oh my!   ;]

This gives us the basis for femf and shows continued forward motion of current that is strong enough to pull more from the battery and drive it into the cap beyond what the source would normally instill into the cap without the inductors actions described.

In your circuit, you are making and breaking the flow of current delivered through the circuit due to source potential drive, emf.

Bemf, or reverse emf happens because of the break. The inductor is winding down during collapse, still wanting to push current forward. But now it has no place to get fresh electrons due to broken circuit. And all the inductor can see, electrically, other than its inertial self is its self capacitance, which is usually very small and it becomes a self contained oscillator. And the first time it reverses current flow, it will now have the mosfet diode as a way to go past the break(transistor off) and current flows in the circuit in the reverse direction, Bemf. =]

Thats what me finds.  =]

Now just the fact that we now know how bemf is really produced, and it is NOT produced while the field initially is collapsing, but only after the field goes reversal during the cycle of oscillation, there is a small time period there where something is happening that we never knew about nor heard of and we just assume what they told us that when the field is collapsing, current is reverse during this time, but its not.

Why would this be an issue, as to not teach us this as I have described. What is there to hide?  I dont know anyone that knew these things that I present other than the ones I have told. Im sure some already knew, just not most. Im not the only one to discover this I canst believe. yes canst.  ;]

So if its twisted info, there must be a sweet reason for it, sweet for us.  Just what is it?  ;]


I see you have had some flack today. But you handled it very well. ;]
Thats how you win, keep cool and they will just burn themselves up.

I looked over at our and those guys are on a mission. I joined there but I find it not my style soon after.  I like it here.


Hope this makes it clearer for you. Its good to know EXACTLY what we are working with.  ;]

Night.  I have been up since yesterday and Im going to drop. zzzz


Magzzzz

[Magluvin]

Here, LO frikin L, I have found a perfect example of where I smell a problem with all this.  I was about to get to sleep and I was thinking, I wonder if anyone else is trying to explain this the wrong way somewhere.

I went to yahoo and searched, field collapse bemf, and looky, perfecto examplo.  =]

Read this guys post and some of the reactions to it. Is this what everyone thinks?   test your friends, see if im right at least most of the time, if not all.
Some may think whats the big deal. well it is if we dont have an accurate knowledge of a device we are dealing with in a design. Or maybe there are benefits not known yet.

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9875.msg261143#msg261143

Now from the description that I have given, which way would you follow? That forward emf that happens during collapse, is a very short period of time, as its working against a small capacitance when circuit is broken, and when the field collapses past neutral phase, it is now reversing poles and the field is on the rise, not collapse when the reverse emf is being produced. So things happen sooo fast, the femf bounce off of the self capacitance may not be visible, to the naked scope. ;] Only seeing the spike.

One more example then me collapse. A good one.
If we have 2 coils face to face and we drive one with a sine wave and the other we watch on a scope, as the driver coil field rises, the voltage in the receiver rises. But as the driver field starts collapsing during ac cycle, does the output coils voltage just instantly go reverse while collapse is happening? Nope, nice comparable sine wave.

Lol  Im so tired, I almost started doubting all this at certain times while writing tonight, delusional  lol , and the I bounce back and know this is truth.

There is a great compression during the bounce and thats why we get very high voltages with breaks in the circuit. my demo circuit, where the inductor only gets as much energy through it as the capacitor will allow through the circuit in one direction. So the inductor is limited as compared to direct drive current as when your circuit is on, thus only 2 times the input voltage.

Is I Is? Or Is I Isnts?  ;]


Funny aint it?

Night

Mags

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rose, please post more zommed in scopehots of this scopeshot, by just showing 3 or 4 wavecycles and not the full burst please. Thanks.

As I said, if we have a new effect here it can no be simulated by simulation software just based on standard theory.

Maybe the nichrome wire in the heater element or the spiral shape of the heater element also plays a role here. This could not be seen in any simulation soft

I don't have another one of this Steve.  But I'll check what else I've got that approximates this.  I've got a library of samples to choose from.  I'll get back here this pm.

Re the nichrome - the shape - the whole bit - it all needs to be thoroughly explored.  Of interest is that it holds the same - in fact, IMPROVED benefits, with a very large reduction to the inductance.  Seems that this is not required at the levels that I anticipated.  But there's way more material now that there's that casing involved.

Kind regards,
Rosemary

BTW - Mags - your posts are tricky - and I need to get my head around them.  I'll give it a go later today.  Thanks for all that input.  LOL.  I see it kept you awake.  Join the club.  Insomniacs incorporated.