Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

Rosemary Ainslie · March 24, 2011, 01:23:07 AM

Quote from: poynt99 on March 24, 2011, 01:09:46 AM
Thank you for that confirmation regarding the DMM battery voltage measurement being valid. Now, do the same with another such meter, but this time use it as a current meter.

It is perfectly valid to heavily average both the battery voltage and battery current measurements for INPUT power only. Multiply the two averaged values together to obtain the average input power from the batteries.

It's that simple Rose.

I confirm that the DMM can do an AVERAGE. Now. Tell me, if you can, how an analysis of those averages accommodates the advantage of the phase angles - that 180 degree phase angle? Or is it that this will be entirely obscured? And is this - perhaps - why you so URGENTLY require this?

Again,
Rosemary

Rosemary Ainslie · March 24, 2011, 03:16:18 AM

Guys - Stefan - all - I really need to make this clear. There are readers on this forum that are not that used to the spreadsheet analysis and the significance of this. Many of you are - like me - amateurs. And the most of you interested in experimenting on the claims in these threads. But this point needs saying and I hope you can bend your mind around it. For those who already know this - apologies for stating the obvious.

Power measurements are based on wattage which is determined by vi dt. The more samples to determine that voltage the more exact is that value likely to be. Now. What surprised me is how accurate is this. One example is that one can take a voltage sample across the battery and it never defaults past zero - and one can take the voltage average of the drain - and nor does this cross zero. And yet - when you do an instantaneous analysis of this - being a product of the battery voltage and the drain voltage - then that voltage can CERTAINLY show a repeated zero crossing. And that also, PERFECTLY reflects the shape of the waveform across the load resistor as evidenced. Perhaps Humbybumble can check this out. He seems to think that two postives can NEVER result in a negative. Little does he know.

I'm entirely unschooled. So this was REALLY interesting to me. The more so as this gave an exact depiction of the waveform across that resistor as shown in the scope shots that we managed off our Fluke (borrowed for a VERY short time).

The same principle is evident in the actual wattage delivered to and from the battery. Here we have evidence that the shunt is recharging the battery when the battery voltage is at its highest - and that it's discharging the battery when the battery voltage is at it's lowest. Therefore the battery recharge always trumps the discharge. I'll try and download some spread sheet shots. God knows how this is done - but it must, surely be possible.

Meanwhile - just to recap the principle. The 'clockwise' flow of current is multiplied by the battery battery voltage - multiple samples through that entire period. Then the the 'anti clockwise flow of current is multiplied by the battery voltage - multiple samples through that entire period. That way, and ONLY in that way - can one take the actual phase of the two voltages into account. Stefan I do hope you get this. The ONLY way to determine the energy delivered from those batteries is, as Poynty et al first claimed and are now ANXIOUSLY denying - is to take INSTANTANEOUS WATTAGE ANALYSIS. If you rely on mean average voltages then - by all means - feel free. But it is absolutely NOT correct power analysis. I HOPE THIS IS CLEAR. I seem to keep having to say it.

AND this is for ALLCANADIAN. It is ABSURD to claim that collapsing fields - in whichever direction - can exceed the resistance of an opposing diode. Just rethink this please. If the current flow is negative - then - in relation to the drain it will show POSITIVE. That absolutely DOES NOT MEAN that current has continued to flow in the same direction. What a load of nonsense.

If you think about this in terms of an AC current flow through a rectifier - then here's what happens. Above zero - the current flows clockwise. Below zero the current flows anti clockwise. with reference to the drain - BOTH will appear to be above zero. BUT that is absolutely NOT a relfection of the paths they have taken through that circuitry.

Regards,
Rosemary

ADDED. Btw. What worries me is that I have to explain this. I'm the amateur guys. What gives? Is there an agenda here? Or is it that you really don't know these things? Golly.

Rosemary Ainslie · March 24, 2011, 04:32:24 AM

And Guys, in this repeated effort to cast aspersions - as freely as confetti at a wedding - is the new claim that the VV math trace is, confused by us all, as a reflection of wattage. I challenge ANY ONE OF THOSE MISINFORMANTS ON POYNTY'S FORUM to show any SINGLE reference by any one of us - either in the demonstration or on any posts here - or on my blog that we have referred to that math trace representing a WATTAGE VALUE.

This, again, is in the hopes of spreading the general impression that none of us know whereof we speak. As it is, right now, I'm rather concerned that they really do NOT know. Because if they do - then why are they going to such extraordinary lengths to misinform everyone. What we reference is that the math trace represents the product of two voltages. That's the limit of the math capability on those DSO's - as it does not offer us a formula option. Or if it does, then the fault is mine. I do not know how to apply it. But the product of two voltages is an accurate guide because, if it is negative - then that will reflect in the wattage analysis. And if it is positive then that too will reflect in the analysis. It is a GUIDE. And we only ever reference it as a GUIDE.

I'm heartily sick of having to refer to these things. And if I don't, then - as has happened before - there is the chance that those who are interested in this - will simply assume that all is based on ERROR. And that is the one thing that I cannot allow to happen again. There is always risk associated with posting on these forums. There are many who are actively engaged in refuting all. When the claims are small and the evidence weak - then those poor experimentalists get some kind of license to continue. But when they're strong - then - as sure day follows night - we/they will be dogged by attacks that are personal, inappropriate or entirely erroneous. In my case I've been accused of every possible criminal motive coupled with every possible psychotic afflication, coupled with every possible lack of ability, training or intelligence. Makes one think. To the best of my knowledge I don't think that there has ever been this scale of attack on any other technology as has been mounted against us here. And - frankly - therein is my comfort. Why would they bother if they weren't somehow deeply concerned? It doesn't help that there are also those who are sincerely blinded to this reach and march alongside and trumpet all that denial. And this, simply because they don't have the intellectual acumen required to analyse the facts for themselves.

And what's doubly frightening is that they manage to discourage - not only us the poor ou promotors - who are already confronting mainstream and classical school - but those that dare replicate or take these claims seriously. Everyone has been calling for careful measurement. I think we've obliged. Certainly to extent of my pocket and our combined skills. yet is seems that there's still an ongoing need, apparently, is to devote huge chapters of my time - trying to rescue the evidence from a concerted attempt at diminishing it. If it's within my capability - I will not let that happen again.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary Ainslie · March 24, 2011, 11:13:07 AM

Guys, I can't get the test up again until Saturday. Meanwhile this is for Harti. It will be a whole wack of screen shots - and I'll give comments against each one. So. Apologies for this but there'll be multiple posts following.

This one.
Channel 1 = Rshunt
Channel 2 = Vbatt
Channel 3 = Gate
Channel 4 = Drain

These settings never vary.

a - cycle mean rshunt
b - math trace a x c
c - mean average vbatt
d - mean average rshunt

Typically an example of very high wattage disssipation at the load. In this case > 44 watts
Note that the cycle mean is negative - the mean average is positive.
Math trace - as in all examples stays negative.

Included here to remind you all that high wattage dissipation does not automatically result in a postive cycle mean average. AGAIN. That example used in the demonstration was intended to highlight the concern related to the phase condition of those voltages that result in an infinite COP.

Added

Rosemary Ainslie · March 24, 2011, 11:19:55 AM

2nd example.

Settings the same as previous. This an example of a 'runaway' heat rise that required quick disconnection. No idea of the actual wattage output. Certainly in excess of 44 watts. Shown here to again highlght the point that we do not ALWAYS get a positive mean average voltage across the shunt. And again. It was simply used in the demonstration to highlight the advantage of the phase angles that result in an infinite COP.

Note that the cycle mean and the mean average voltages are negative.
Note also that the spikes are no longer periodic. They're all over the place.

Also. The spikes on the mosfet are VERY HIGH. This was always our guide that we were stressing the system. When I saw this we disconnected - at speed. Max temperature measured was to 220 degrees centigrade. Didn't risk taking it higher.