Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[Goat]

@ happyfunball

Rosemary said that the batteries ran the circuit for 5 months so she did answer that question but she also mentioned that the batteries were HUGE so it remains to be seen what size the battery bank was and what heat was being generated.

Rosemary did say she brought this up before so please be patient with the rest of us while she gathers her information and answers us.

Regards,
Paul

[Rosemary Ainslie]

happyfunball.  Another gross misnomer.  LOL Your posts read like the prophets of doom. I've just trailed through a page of them.  Your denial of OU is somewhat brutal.  They're about as inspirational as as a tall glass of tepid tap water.   And you're wrong of course.   Measurements are given all over the place.  It's just when the stack up to contradict what you clearly require - then they're ignored - or considered fallacious.

Just to fill you in here I'll say this again.  When BP (SA)  evaluated these results - some decade ago - they insisted that it would ONLY be proved on batteries.  I was involved in a series of the most boring tests that I have ever been involved with.  All the more arduous as I am - absolutely not - an experimentalist.  I won't here go into the protocols.  But it required close testing of controls against the experiment and run concurrently.    The timing of those batteries was determined like this.  When either one of those supply banks depeleted their PD from 24 v's to 20 volts or when each battery depeleted from 12 to 10  - then the tests were terminated.  That constituted the 'test period'.  What was evidenced is that the controls were entirely 'flat' when the test had barely lost a fraction of a volt.  On the strength of these results PB (SA) allowed us to use their names as accreditors of that early test.  Those early tests are on record as showing a COP>17.  In effect we proved that the test batteries outlasted its watt hour rating against the control.

Now.  When it came to giving a published report on those definitive tests - the PUBLISHER refused to allow ANY REFERENCE TO THE CONTROL.  The publication was a technical journal.  The editor was advised by an electrical engineering academic.  They determined - regardless of my protests - that any reference to battery duration was entirely IRRELEVANT to the argument.  Therefore was I not allowed to reference batteries.  I ASSURE YOU - that as often as you guys state that the battery needs to be tested to it's full duration - just as often will that evidence be ignored.   Batteries vary - one from another.  Some batteries retain their charge and then collapse in moments - to nothing.  Others distribute their charge more gradually.  Others require small currents to match their ratings.  Others don't.  The electrolytes vary - one from another.  So.  If I was to test one then - for conclusive results - I'd need to test them all.

Then.  We have hooked up as many as 7 of those very large batteries in one single test -  apparently discharging nothing.  Now.  The artefact matters.  When this experiment finally gets to our academies, then equivalent and nonequivalent capacities will need to be tested.  In these tests we only used that same bank.  And we could measure absolutely zero loss over a 5 month period.  Exactly how long would it be required to run those tests?  Would it take 2 years to prove it?  10? 6 months?  What?  What exactly would satisfy you?  And how then does one run a control?  Must we SHOW that under normal operating conditions a battery will discharge?  I would have thought that that much could be relied on.  And even then.  I am ready to put money on it that while the most of you engineers require it - our learneds will, to a man, insist that the battery duration is irrelevant.    I wonder if I can state this more plainly.  They're right.  The minute you start evaluating the battery performance - then you are trying to resolve a result in line with specific commodity with a market supply that has varieties that are probably counted in their thousands if not their hundreds of thousands.  That's an awful lot of testing. 

What is intersting is this.  We have an energy returned to the supply that is far greater than the energy delivered from that supply.  Now.  Here's the thing.  If, as is widely assumed by mainstream - that energy is lost to a battery when it discharges current flow - then - by the same token one would expect the energy to be increased in line with a recharge cycle.  In point of fact the batteries voltages varied under test conditions.  The stronger the current discharge the quicker the decline.  But OF INTEREST - is that immediately thereafter it systematically climbs - within minutes - to it's previous high.  Not higher.  Perhaps there are those subsequent tests that may take it higher.  In previous tests we have certainly found a climb to a higher 'start condition'.  But in these tests we did not.  It never exceeded its 'kick off' voltage level. 

I would modestly propose  therefore, that there is a fixed amount of energy that is available from that potential difference - and that no new material - electrons or whatever classical assumption requires - has been introduced to the system.  That's interesting.  That implies that this may be a closed system. It also implies a whole lot of other things.  But for now - just consider that.  That is, if you are not 'happily' out to throw more of that tepid tap water on this research.

Rosemary

Got there.  Strangely this was in answer to Happyfunball.  Seems like he either missed the post or the sense in that post.  I will not again get embroiled in evaluating the battery draw downs.  Anyone feel strongly about this feel free to do your own tests.  Meanwhile - as a reminder - if I had to rely on battery performance then it would eliminate one half of a very strong argument.  My intention is to show that these gains apply to AC or DC supplies.

Thanks for the defense here Paul.  I'm always grateful for this.  It seems that either my personality or the facts of these experiments tends to polarise opinions. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

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.

I assume your challenge here is open to anyone.  So...please observe the presentation video starting at 8:25 in (very near the end).  The mystery presenter clearly points to the VxV math trace and says clearly that it shows 5 Watts.  So your challenge is rather easy, Rosemary.

Golly.  Humbugger.  If I didn't know better I'd think you were 'spinning'.  Actually, I'd be inclined to think that this was a HUMDINGER of a lie.  I'll post a link to the video in question.  There is NOTHING in that math trace that is referred to as watts.  Unless - that is - that you are concluding that -5VV that Donovan points to - is somehow meant to relate the the measured plus/minus 44 watts dissipated. 

Sorry.  I forgot to add the link to the video.  Here it is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc

It reminds me of the time when you related that joke to us all where you got clearance from some rather weighty Governmental laboratories - on one of TK's videos.  You pointed out that, notwithstanding evidence to the contrary - they had found a 'hidden' wire that was therefore appropriate to that junction.  Remeber that Cheesie?   For those readers that may be interested here's that link. 

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/01/36-pretender.html

I've said this before.  If I were inclined to suspicions and general paranoia - then I'd be inclined to think that you had some kind of agenda here. 

And - if you need to explain those 'spikes' as coming from the capacitance in the MOSFETs - then you'd need to explain how it is that they generate in excess of 60 amps in both directions through the circuit.  It would take a miracle of some considerable proportions to manage that argument and still sound sane.

Rosemary
EDITED

[cHeeseburger]

Yes, add some thick wires there and measure with the scope
head directly at the positive terminal
and with a thick diameter wire connected directly
connect the ground line of the scope to the neative pole of the battery.

Hmm, but it could also be, that the green area is bigger all in all.
As the scope says it is a negative nanoVolts ,
the negative area seems to be only very minuscule bigger...



Regards, Stefan.

Remember that there are long wires in between each of the batteries too, so just moving the probes to the +/- terminals of the end batteries will not get rid of the large inductive voltage swings. 

The reality is that the battery voltage as measured by the DMM seems to always exactly or very closely match the mean battery voltage as reported by the scopes.  We all know the battery voltage itself is DC and has only a very small AC ripple due to its internal impedance.  So the only problem is that the wild 100V+ AC voltage swings that Rosemary is feeding into the scope math as the battery voltage plus the current waveform due to the shunt inductance are giving bad numbers when multiplied on an instantaneous basis.

It's really simple to measure the input power.  The battery voltage is a DC quantity with negligible AC ripple.  All we need now is a good low inductance shunt placed properly to sense ONLY the battery current.  Then get the average of that either by using the mean function on the scope or by a simple low-pass filter consisting of a single resistor (10K) and a single capacitor (1uF) on the shunt with a simple DMM measurement.  Calculate the current considering the shunt value. Then multiply.  Power!  The end.

Bryan

[nul-points]

hi Rosemary

thanks for posting the finer detail scopeshots

it seems to me (an old stager, who still remembers progamming computers with punched cards, paper tape & front-panel switches!) that for some reason you're on the receiving end of an unwarranted amount of flak

i put it down to a mismatch of experimental approaches between conventional and unconventional

i believe that it's possible to ride this out with large measures of goodwill and patience on both sides (and there's no doubt that you've led the way, there)

...
My intention is to show that these gains apply to AC or DC supplies.
...

Rosemary

that sounds good!

you've done the 'DC supplies' bit

i think you'll find that you'll quickly satisfy the eager demand for data on your experiment by progressing now to the 'AC supplies' bit

there is sufficient power in the equipment to be measured on easily available wall-socket meters (eg. Kill-o-Watt, true power versions)

- plug the K-o-W type meter into the wall socket;
- plug the SigGen and a DC Power suppply (up to, say, 60V, 3A?) into the K-o-W type meter;
- switch on the 2 pieces of equipment, set to their operating levels (obtained from a pre-run);
- read the baseline power draw shown on K-o-W type meter;
- connect your experimental circuit, switch on & ensure tuning is correct
- read K-o-W type meter;
- compare and report readings;

job done (as our Chief Technician used to say "No Fuss, No Dust!")

good luck! 
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com/