Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[hartiberlin]

Okay, back to the topic.
Thanks a lot Rose for posting the higher res scopeshots.

By looking again at the setup at the picture from:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg278553#msg278553

I can now see, why we see now also the ringing at the battery line.

As this scope head, that measures the battery voltage is put directly at the experimentation board
and not directly at the batteries, we have too much inductance of the connection cable
to have a stable battery voltage and this way we also see the oscillation frequency superimposed
on the battery voltage.

The last scope shot is pretty interesting.
WHen the ground line has not changed to the other scopeshots before, then we see here
a rising of the battery voltage inside these pulses due to almost purely negative current pulses
just flowing back to the battery.

ALso what is NOT good is, that all 3 ground lines from the scope heads
are connected to different screws there on the experimentation board.

For better measurements you need to hook them all into one point ONLY !


Also it should be exactly reported how you measured this 6 Watts and 40 Watts heat
from the heater element.
Only electrically by multiplication of Voltage x amperes or
also calorimetrically ? Just measuring the surface temperature in air with
an laser-pointer temperature measurement meter or how did you measure this ?

Regards, Stefan.

[hartiberlin]

P.S. For not having any measurement artifacts from the
scope and function generator grounds, it would be
wise to run a test, where you disconnect all the scope heads
and also the function generator and try to get it to run
via a small battery powered negative bias voltage.

Then you should be able to see again, if you would
get the same heating results.

I had run some different experiments once,
where I had an scope head connected to a cap
and I wondered, why the cap charged up.

This came somehow from a ground current loop and
some rectifier effect inside the scope.

So be carefull if you use grounded scopes.

Never trust these measurements.

Only the real heat at the heater element measured calorimetrically
can be trusted.

Also would be interesting to see, what will happen,
if you use shorter and thicker wires to your batteries.
Will the oscillation effect then disapear and will
the negative currents flowing back to the battery be different ?


Regards, Stefan.

[Magluvin]

Thanks  ;]   

One problem is charging them this way when the hub is assembled.
The circuitry involved in the front wheel separates the pack into 3 sectors so the bikes braking recharge (regen)  can just work individual sectors, 12v, I believe because the regen is more effective this way, as it switches between sectors while regen due to not enough being generated to do all at the same time. Regen may get ya an extra mile from a full charge, if there are many stops and goes, of which reduces the 20 mpc due to many acceleration periods from stops.

But if I were to just charge this way, say with a secondary pack, would it fully charge fast?   Perhaps a temp sense circuit could be instilled to the circuit for heat control, as they have I believe 4 in the wheel already for regular charging.
These bikes are sweet, and they were made in the beginning for troops in Afghanistan. Folding frame, dual batt packs, and 30mph on M750X models.  They stopped making them some years ago, but a new company restarted production, but not sure if the same for sure.

Ill keep it short here.  Ill pm you for more info, and thanks for the great info. 

Mags

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi Feynman, I've got an hour before I need to go out.  I'll see how much of this I can cover.

The possibility that the heating element is being powered exclusively by the battery needs to be excluded.  Measuring the input energy via  the four scope traces will establish some degree of confidence in this, so I look forward to a higher resolution of the scope traces to calculate AUC.

I've given some.  There are many more that I'd love to show.  I'm not sure that scopeshots are conclusive.  But they help.

These spreadsheets are important. In the interest of replication and characterization of what you are observing, it would be helpful if all the relavent source data (including raw spreadsheet data) were to be published.  The process of 'peer review' in an open-source community manner requires full disclosure, including source spreadsheets of observations.

This much is tricky.  I know there's a way of downloading those dumps on the internet.  But I'm not sure how.  Whatever's required - I'll need to ask someone to do this for me.  I'll see what I can do.  Meanwhile - nor can I email them.  The files are just way too big.  Again.  There must be a way around this.  Just let me know.   

The claim of the battery recharging needs to have the support of experimental observations, results of repeated trials, raw data etc.  Spreadsheets, experimental notes, and/or Video would help.

It is clearly evident during the test operation that the batteries either wobble around a fixed value - or they drop (when we're doing a very high current discharge) and then they steadily climb.  This could be video'd but right now the experiment is not even set up.  I have everything at home.  I could attend to this.  But not for a while yet, for many reasons.

I remember you have mentioned you don't want to bother with battery tests and load tests etc.  I understand this can be time-consuming , but this part is critical.   The batteries are still connected.   They are a possible source of the power to the heating element.  They must be excluded as the power source in order to confirm an anomaly.

Indeed.  We are only going by the measurements and have done no analysis of the charge condition of those batteries.

The voltage data of the battery and the temperature of the heating element over repeated experimental trials that forms the basis in claim 4.4 need to be published if this effect is to be analyzed and/or replicated.     This includes not just a single scope trace, but multiple experimental trials and results  (starting voltage, voltage as a function of time, and ending voltage for all anomalous experimental trials) as compared to the behaviour of the heating element.

Indeed.  We have enough experimental evidence to fill a tome.  That was not the object of the report nor the demo.  Both were only to highlight anomalies to encourage academic research. 

For example, as mentioned previously, someone pointed out that there is a chart for the 'control' results, but there is no such chart for the 'experimental/anomalous' results  (besides scope traces which are too low a resolution).  A chart measuring input voltage, input current, ambient air temp, and temp at load needs to be published for 'anomalous' operation.

Not sure of your point here.  The control chart was published.  Our results were determined against ambient room temperature and that control.  All were referenced accordingly.  If you specifically require a record of the room temperature and the measured temperature on the resistor - then I'll be glad to add this.

Further photographs and/or video of the setup would be helpful.

Definitely en route.  Hopefully tonight - if my own limited abilities allow this.  Else not later than tomorrow.  Today is a public holiday and some of the team can't access the internet except through work.

I think that covers the questions.  Feynman, on a personal note - I'm very well aware of your exceptional experimental abilities.  This is all the more evident as MileHigh seems to need to denigrade them.  There could be no greater endorsement.  And we all know his partialities.  He like the most of OUR.com are frantic to disprove this.  If you were to set up your own apparatus - then that would be a very good thing.  But if you choose not to then I can fully understand that as well.  The claim is outrageous.  If it's proved on a replication then you - like me - will be confronting mainstream interests and thinking.  It's not a happy place to be.  Personally I would suggest that this tedious process of debugging the evidence is probably a better way to go.  And I am satisfied that your skills here are more than adequate. So.  Ask me what aspects of the tests you need to look at and I'll try and present the evidence.  I don't think I need to extrapolate more evidence.  But if that's required will do so.  Just also know that my time is now more heavily constrained.  I have much to do at this end to ensure that these results are better known.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary 

[neptune]

@Magluvin .Re BEMF and forward EMF .The more I think about what you said , the more I am convinced you are right .An inductor has the attitude that what was good enough for father is good enough for me . Unlike President Obama , it does not like change .If you try to pass current into it , it resists it as long as it can , causing a slow rise time . Likewise if you try to stop passing current through it , it will try to maintain that current as long as it can by creating a voltage to keep pushing current in the same old direction .
         How did you discover this for yourself? Was it on an oscilloscope ? What I cannot understand is this . Look at the scope shots of Rosemary , and replicators . Look at the point where the pulse ends , and the "magic" oscillation starts . What we see is a big , fat NEGATIVE spike .[OK I lied about the fat bit } Surely we should expect to see a POSITVE spike here ? We need more opinions here from people who went to college less than 50 years ago , unlike me >