Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[neptune]

@poynt99 .It`s not as complicated as it may seem . Will you please answer my question ,as posed in reply number859 , with a yes or no .

[Rosemary Ainslie]

If you are saying that battery chemistry (and hence a physical "battery") is not a required element to produce this reverse-current effect in the circuit, then could some other DC voltage source be substituted for the battery and still have the circuit exhibit that reverse-current effect?

.99

I suppose so.  Yes.  Einstein's mass/energy equivalence requires energy in ALL material.  But.  What we're exploiting here is the inductive/conductive condition of circuit material.  Provided it can respond to a voltage imbalance - or provided it can allow a path for current flow - then, potentially, it is capable of inducing it's own potential difference - or its own current supply - from collapsing fields - just like the battery manages.

But the amount of imbalance in the circuit material is determined by the imposed imbalance from the battery in the first instance.  It is a passive material.  It is only activated by that imposed imbalance from the current flowing through it.  The battery is only passive when it has FINALLY manged to alter ALL the electrolytes to neutralise that mix.  In other words it can offer a continuous imbalance.  The circuit - in response - cannot.  It balances out in a heartbeat.  But this redistributes that charge that it is now 'back at the battery' and ready to discharge.

Think of the energy from the battery as a kind of air pressure that gets concentrated at the source every time the circuit discharges its potential difference.  And then when it discharges that energy again - then the concentration of that wind is back with the circuit material - and so on.  It came from the battery - then it's returned to the battery by the force of a second wind from the circuit material.  And those two winds actually never mix and marry.  They just stay separate. 

I've got a sketch of this somewhere.  I'll try and find it.  But it's represented - more correctly - as lines of magnetic dipoles.  Hang ten.

I'll have to look for this in the morning.  Can't find it in this light.

Sorry,
Regards,
Rosemary

[poynt99]

I suppose so.  Yes. 

May we conclude then that substituting a lab DC power supply for the battery should/would produce a similar, if not identical wave form and net negative MEAN CSR voltage?

.99

[twinbeard]

Hi Rosemary,

What voltage and frequency do you need to replace the function generator?  Pure sinewave or other waveform here?

Cheers,
Twinbeard

No.  What's being designed is the use of MOSFETs without a signal generator.  But I'm on such wobbly ground here.  I shouldn't have mentioned it probably.  I have NO idea what the circuit showed.  But we'll post it when we've got something more stable.  Some interesting early indications of that same oscillation.  But no benefits.  I think they're looking to modify the circuit. 

Probably shouldn't have mentioned it.  You'll need to be patient.  I'll certainly have something to post within the next ten days or so.

Regards,
Rosemary

[poynt99]

Regarding your attempt to produce similar results without the use of a signal generator, here is something I just tried, and it seems to work. You may want to pass this on to your team if they're interested to try it.

Note the polarity of Vbat2 (positive to ground), and heed the advice on the schematic. Lbias and Rbias could be a single "inductive" type resistor.

.99