Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

poynt99 · April 25, 2011, 02:32:27 PM

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 25, 2011, 02:21:40 PM
Therefore - regardless of the battery chemistry - this energy keeps getting routed back to where it belongs - the one postive - back to the battery to discharge it - then the one negative - back to the circuit material that generated it.

In summary of the above, are you saying that battery chemistry IS involved and a necessary part of the process to produce the reverse-current effect?

Quote
Therefore there may or may not be time for the electrolytes to entirely reposition or whatever the term is. But the current - the actual material current flow - is compelled to return there. Which is also why I do NOT think that a capacitor would work. It would separate the current flow from the source and I'm not sure how it can then know where to return. But I'm open to correction. I know that some small test was done on this during this last week and it did seem as if the capacitor did not retain any charge. But I was not there to see the test and I am not in receipt of the full results.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

Was the capacitor connected in parallel with the battery stack or was it connected to the circuit by itself?

.99

Rosemary Ainslie · April 25, 2011, 02:34:23 PM

Quote from: poynt99 on April 25, 2011, 02:08:52 PM

Could you explain a bit more what you mean Rose? Are you saying you guys are attempting to make an oscillator with no active device at all, i.e. no MOSFET or transistors?

.99

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 · April 25, 2011, 02:36:34 PM

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 25, 2011, 02:34:23 PM
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

OK thanks.

I see it was an issue of the terminology used.

.99

Rosemary Ainslie · April 25, 2011, 03:00:57 PM

Quote from: poynt99 on April 25, 2011, 02:32:27 PM
In summary of the above, are you saying that battery chemistry IS involved and a necessary part of the process to produce the reverse-current effect?
Was the capacitor connected in parallel with the battery stack or was it connected to the circuit by itself?

.99

Poynty. What I'm actually saying is this. The current that flows from the battery is trying to get back to the negative terminal. Then it can reposition it's charge. Then it can separate from the field (the voltage and/or current) into discrete packages that then break away from the field and move to recombine the molecules. WHEN they separate from the voltage/current - then they can recombine those atoms into a molecular arrangement that is more 'balanced'. But they never actually 'break' from that voltage/current into those discrete packages - because they've no sooner reached the negative terminal than the NEGATIVE cycle kicks in. The potential difference has now changed from the one to the other - from the battery to the circuit material. And the potential difference that is now weighed in favour of this negative current wants to do exactly the same thing - just get back to the POSITIVE terminal of the circuit material to recombine those atoms. It no sooner gets there than the POSTIVE cycle kicks in. And so it goes.

So. The short answer is NO. There is no time for that chemical interaction to take place. Effectively the battery and the circuit material are both permanently imbalanced. And they both represent an energy supply source.

Golly. I wonder if this makes any kind of sense to anyone at all. I do hope so.

Regards,
Rosemary

BTW - I THINK this is what's happening. I don't know. It is, therefore, just my opinion - at this stage. This is where we need those chemistry experts.

poynt99 · April 25, 2011, 03:08:02 PM

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 25, 2011, 03:00:57 PM
So. The short answer is NO. There is no time for that chemical interaction to take place. Effectively the battery and the circuit material are both permanently imbalanced. And they both represent an energy supply source.

Golly. I wonder if this makes any kind of sense to anyone at all. I do hope so.

Regards,
Rsoemary

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