Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[Rosemary Ainslie]

A direct measurement across the terminal pairs of each battery will produce very little ripple.

"RIPPLE" is anything other than the expected DC voltage. The ripple in the current Ainslie circuit will of course always have the same "shape" no matter where it is measured in the battery line, but the ripple amplitude will diminish in accordance with how close the measurement is taken to the battery terminals.

The difference being, 60VDC with ~200V of ripple, vs. 12VDC (each battery) with perhaps 350mV of "ripple".

.99

I must say I wondered at this Poynty.  Your first depiction of a 'ripple' is the kind of waveform that I've seen on one of those really sophisticated 'clamp amp' meters where one can do a spreadsheet dump.  This pretty well flatlines at battery averge, but has a kind of really small hiccup at the switching transitions.  Yet more evidence that one cannot apply 'AVERAGING' as that, effectively is what that ameter does.  You actually showed this from one of your sims.  At that stage of your argument, you also stated that the kind of oscillation we're seeing is ENTIRELY due to the inductance on the wire.  You see if, by 'ripple' you also meant that really robust oscillation across the battery then this is definitely NOT the classical use of the term.  I'll post a Wiki definition hereunder.  But I do concede that you subsequently posted a sim showing - more or less - what we're seeing now.  But as this is also more or less what I've always been seeing - then I'm also happy that current definitely IS going through the battery as you ALSO at first denied.  And that's the WHOLE of my point.

So.  Let's try this AGAIN.  It is NOW evident that the battery voltage is indeed both returning current to and being delivered from the battery.  What this indicates - at the risk of stating the bleeding obvious - is that the battery is also DISCHARGING and then RE-CHARGING.  This voltage is at 180 degrees anti phase to the voltage across the current sensing resistor.  It is the explicit advantage of that phase shift that INVARIABLY brings the instantaneous analysis of power delivered/dissipated - to COP something far, far, greater than 1.

I'm curious to know when you and your 'dogs' get to address this point - Poynty.  Because when you do - then, and only then, will I be inclined to believe there's some integrity left in your ENDLESS DENIAL of these results.

Rosemary

WIKI DEFINITION OF RIPPLE - somewhat at variance with your own.

The most common meaning of ripple in electrical science, is the small unwanted residual periodic variation of the direct current (dc) output of a power supply which has been derived from an alternating current (ac) source. This ripple is due to incomplete suppression of the alternating waveform within the power supply.

ADDED

another edit.  included the word 'current' or Poynty et al would accuse me, yet again, of not knowing whereof I speak.  Golly.  I need to be really, really, careful.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

The difference being, 60VDC with ~200V of ripple, vs. 12VDC (each battery) with perhaps 350mV of "ripple".

.99

NO POYNTY.  NEVER HAVE I SEEN 350mV of ripple.  Admittedly I'm restricted to measuring 2 - THEREFORE 24 volts - AT LEAST - else the probes don't span that battery width - but there's  CLEAR SCALABLE value here and there it's ALWAYS SOMETHING CONSIDERABLY MORE THAN milivolts.  Try DOUBLE the battery supply voltage with a reduction to 1/3 the battery voltage.  At 12 volts supply that would result in a range of plus/minus 24 to 8 volts.  At 24 volts it would be between 48 and 16.  And so it goes.  NO RIPPLE - NO mV OSCILLATIONS.

What's happened to all that integrity?  It's a sad day when you have to invent facts to duck an open admission of error.

Again,
Rosemary   


PS

BTW - I'm definitely getting onto a better ratio between dissipated and delivered.  DEFINITELY that probe positioning is more accurate.  BUT we're still at COP INFINITY.  That's going to be a hard one to 'crack'. 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

So Guys - to get back to this point.  You will recall that my advices were to change the probe positioning.  Neptune - I think it was - told me how to do this.  Much needed as I'm VERY SLOW on the uptake.  In any event.  I've now done this.  Recall too, how Poynty said that this result would then be 'DEFINITIVE'.  He was denying that the current flow from the shunt even REACHED the battery - let alone moved through it to recharge it.  All that energy was claimed to be the result of 'spurious' measurements of inductance on the wires.  They were right - in part.  There's a definite drop in voltage.  And frankly this is a welcome result.  I could not get near to balancing that wattage dissipated/delivered number that I was looking for.  In fact, so embarrassed was I by these results that I simply omitted them from my report.  So.  For that I am MOST grateful.  I think Harti also endorsed this requirement.  Most grateful guys.

BUT.  And this is the point.  We still have that really robust oscillation.  We also now KNOW that it is recharging the battery.  Therefore CORRECTLY the amount of energy that is delivered to the battery is still GREATER than the amount of energy first delivered BY the battery.  And that's EXACTLY what's needed to prove that we can 'recycle' a current.

This - for those of you who are still wondering - is EXACTLY THE POINT where we deviate from classical prediction.  The assumption has always been that the actual energy delivered from a supply is PRECISELY the same energy that this then DISSIPATED as heat or work.  It's expected to be LOST.  Where my thesis is at variance is RIGHT HERE.  The thesis requires that the energy delivered from a supply returns to the supply.  That energy is measured as imbalance or potential difference.  It results in a depletion of that imbalance or that potential difference.  By the same token - the energy that is then induced on the circuit components is also POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE.  That too needs to return to it's source to deplete that imbalance or that potential difference.  But they're two different energy supplies returning to their own energy supply sources.  In effect, inductive and resistive components have the material properties required to become energy supply sources - all on their own.  And this potential is actually endorsed in Einstein's mass/energy equivalences.  It's just that on inductive/conductive material that energy potential is also electromagnetic energy. 

The fact that this is right is also WHY my threads and my thesis are invariably 'attacked'.  Because once this fact is understood - widely - then you will also ALL realise how easy it is to defeat those thermodynamic laws as it relates to the transfer of electric energy.  And that is actually the object of ALL THAT CRITICISM against me, our technology here - and our hopes to getting this accepted by mainstream.  It's going to put paid to the need for all that grid power.  And God alone knows how they'll justify the use of petrol driven cars - when an electric car can also enjoy precisely this advantage.  So.  Day and night - certainly for as long as they can - the Cheeseburgers and their kind will try and silence us - or embarrass me - or whatever they can manage to avoid the general spread of these truths. 

Luckily - I'm still hanging in here.  Just wish more of you would see this.  I assure you that Hamburger et al - MOST CERTAINLY DO.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[cHeeseburger]

Why not do a science experiment Rosie?  Try measuring the voltage right across one of the interconnecting wires between your batteries.  Don't even include a single battery, just look at the voltage across the wire itself.  You'll be amazed to find that pure AC voltage (resulting from di/dt) is the same peak to peak amplitude as the AC part of the voltage you get when you look across a single pair of batteries with that very same wire between them.  Plus 24 Volts DC.

Humbugger

P.S.  You seem to think I'm against free energy, Rosemary.  You might be surprised to learn I use an electric car (100% not hybrid) that gets most of its charging from solar panels on my roof for getting around town.  I love the idea of free energy and have done lots of work to help bring free energy to remote locations in India for pumping deep-well water with solar panels.

The little beach-house I'm putting together down in Mexico will be entirely off-grid and use wind plus solar and maybe even tidal currents to produce energy.  The roof will collect warm rainwater from the daily downpour that lasts about an hour most every day.  I'm working on the details of an all-electric boat as well, for getting free nutritional energy from fish and spiny lobster...every day.

Believe me, I'm all for ditching big oil, big nuclear, big pharma, big agra...all of it.  I hate the system of slavery that takes us all away from nature and satisfying our needs as directly and self-reliantly as possible.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

golly guys.  I've just had the batteries catch fire.  Connecting leads vaporised.  How's that for proof of energy.  I was careless with one of those connections - I think.  Not actually sure what happened.  I'll test their voltage again when I've settled my nerves a bit. 

Good heavens.  I've heard about this happening.  Never actually seen it.

Regards,
Rosemary