another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Magluvin]

Was thinking   

If Rose sets up her circuit and is able to figure how much power(watts) is spent into heating the water, then we could come up with an equivalent load and a second set of batteries for that load.

Now run both setups together. Which battery pack drains first.     
Seems fair enough.

Mags

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Was thinking   

If Rose sets up her circuit and is able to figure how much power(watts) is spent into heating the water, then we could come up with an equivalent load and a second set of batteries for that load.

Now run both setups together. Which battery pack drains first.     
Seems fair enough.

Mags

Dear Magsy,

You're on the money.  As ever.  NOW.  That argument is PRECISELY the argument that BP used when they evaluated our circuit.  We had to do these tests over days and weeks where we tested one against the other in a series of tests that were designed to give UNEQUIVOCAL RESULTS.  We included those EXACT PARAMETERS.  We checked voltage drops against a control.  Exactly as you've suggested.  We even did that exact comparison in those tests that we published in Quantum.  Over a 17 hour test duration we found that the control was flat when our circuit batteries had barely discharged a fraction of a volt.   A Professor Jandrell at WITS university - reviewed that paper.  IN HIS WISDOM he REFUSED TO LET US PUBLISH THOSE SCHEDULES.  For the first time in HISTORY an academic required that we DECREASE the data forwarded as evidence rather than ADD to it.  Which may or may not be construed as a deliberate attempt to diminish that evidence.

NOW.  Here's the thing.  Our academics are no fools.  IF INDEED - the argument hinged on the evidence against an ACTUAL APPLICATION - and if that evidence related to an EVALUATION OF THE CHEMISTRY OF THOSE BATTERIES - which is begged by that argument - then HIS OBJECTIONS ARE VALID.  And our academics know better than pose an objection if it is NOT first VALID - ON WHATEVER GROUNDS.

SO.  The irony is this.  Since that event - then the entire THRUST of all objections to our claim is this - LET IT RUN.  Just run it for as long as required and then come back - in a year or two and represent that CLAIM.  I am on RECORD.  It is entirely UNREASONABLE TO SIMPLY RUN OUR OWN CIRCUIT AND GAUGE BATTERY DRAW DOWNS.  THERE ARE NONE.  CONVERSELY.  It is entirely REASONABLE to simply run our own circuit against a control and COMPARE THE DIFFERENCE.  That's definitely DOABLE.  But it will involve me in an ENORMOUS amount of time, and even the expenditure of some money.  Because those tests need close monitoring.  And I am NOT about to let those switches 'do their thing' without monitoring.  I've seen that off set button default - at arbitrary moments in our experiments - that it can feed enough energy though the system to NUKE that circuit apparatus.  It's too risky to leave it unattended.

HOWEVER.  I will GLADLY do this test.  PROVIDED ONLY that this then carries the written endorsement of qualified academics that this will represent unequivocal proof of our argument.  Otherwise - where I may satisfy your own criteria - or those of you who depend on this argument - we'll still be left WITHOUT ACADEMIC ENDORSEMENT.  They can still come back and say - 'SO WHAT.  You've omitted a detailed account of the chemical interaction of the batteries that chemical interaction may, indeed, fully ACCOUNT FOR THAT ANOMALY'.

I'm not about to be bitten twice.  It's NOT an easy test to set up - believe it or not.  And it is NOT easy to monitor.  And it certainly is NOT an option unless there is a WIDE ACCEPTANCE OF THE FACT THAT THIS IS THEN UNEQUIVOCAL PROOF.  I'm not about to waste my time - yet again.  Get me a couple of academics who will go on record stating that this is ALL THAT IS NEEDED FOR PROOF.  AND I'LL DO THAT TEST.  WITH PLEASURE.

But I absolutely agree with you Mags.  I KNOW that the test that you propose here is CONCLUSIVE.  It's getting our academics to acknowledge this that matters.  I would LOVE it if all our members here simply did these tests for themselves, looked at that oscillation - and puzzled out it's existence at all - in the light of a disconnected battery supply.  But I'm REALLY only interested in convincing our academics.  Because - in the final analysis - if they are NOT convinced by experimental evidence then this and any other over unity claims are dead at birth.  Still born.  Aborted. 

Kindest and best and thanks for reminding me about this argument.
Rosie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Dear Professor

I do not know what to do with that last post of yours.  I am at a loss for words.  Actually that's not quite true.  I'm BEWILDERED.  Why has my freely admitted inability to understand your equations - resulted in this APPEAL - in big bold capitals - to the entire world?  You seem to be asking all to rally and take note of your moral high ground.  And I freely confess it.  You're up there.  I'm down here.  Manacled by an entire dearth of the required acumen needed to follow your argument.  I'm reasonably satisfied that you have one.  I on the other hand have NONE.  I can ONLY follow the arguments that are advanced by the most of our power engineers as they relate to elementary power analysis.  My poor brain can manage no more and no better.

So.  Let me get back to my previous point.  We are applying standard measurement protocol to the measure of energy delivered by a battery supply source.  Actually no.  Also not quite the truth.  Again.  We are applying standard measurement protocol to the measure of energy delivered on a circuit during extended periods when the battery is ENTIRELY disconnected.  And then we measure the energy that is returned to the battery - also when that battery is entirely disconnected.  Actually - this is beginning to sound somewhat convoluted - even to myself.  So. Let me try this again.

Dear Professor.  May I simply ask you to READ OUR PAPER.  IF you are then satisfied that our applied measurements are ADEQUATE - for the purposes of evaluating the energy that is delivered and returned, then we can talk about giving you a demonstration of this.  IF you are NOT satisfied - then kindly point out where those measurements are NOT adequate and we will, IF required REWRITE that paper.

Hows that?  It will carry the distinct advantage of not buckling down to tests that clearly have already been conducted.  They've been described in terms of energy delivered vs energy returned.  And in all samples there is more energy returned to that supply source than delivered.  Then - in the final leg of this increasingly absurd thread - we can then discuss the question of the heat measured to have been dissipated.  Because the amount of heat that has been dissipated has absolutely NO bearing on the energy delivered in the first instance.  There is none.

I hope that makes it clearer.  And I'd be glad to hear your opinion. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie

[TinselKoala]

TK - Why do you go on and on and on ... about this?
I have absolutely NO idea how to answer it in any abbreviated form that would be appropriate for these posts.  WHAT energy are you talking about?  From the top of my head I know there's chemical energy - magnetic energy  - nuclear energy.  There's energy of mass.  There's radiant energy.  And I don't think I've even skimmed the surface.  And Power - as I understand it - is the rate at which any one of those various types of energy is transferred.   Now. Let's see if YOU can answer a question.  WHY DO YOU ASK?  Is it because you ASSUME that I don't have an answer?  Is this some kind of 'test' where you can gauge my competence?  Are you satisfied that you can LURK in the background - and then impose these irrelevancies on this thread?

Rosemary

Irrelevancies? I ask you if you understand the difference between power and energy.... in a thread that is about measuring the Power and Energy of your magic circuit? A thread in which you post things like this:

Here it is again.  Enjoy.  Or if this alarms you - then MOVE ON.  Because we're not able to cater to the faint hearted.

. We have a circuit that generates a ROBUST self-sustaining oscillation that persists for the duration that a battery is entirely disconnected from the circuit. 
. This oscillation results in a measurable dissipation of energy at the circuit workstation - notwithstanding the lack of energy from a supply source.
. Subject to variations at the switch it can increase the amount of energy dissipated at the load - to the point that it can boil water.
. And over more than 250 individual settings tested there is absolutely no energy measured to have been delivered by that supply source.
. All of which measurements have been 'double checked' by downloading the data to spreadsheets for analysis
. Nor have we measured any depletion of potential difference to the 6 batteries that we've used continuously over an 18 month period
. All of which flies in the face of classical prediction

Rosemary, I've put this here because I know how you like to go back and "edit" your old posts when they have been shown to be... wrong. You are making EASILY TESTABLE claims here... and they HAVE been tested..... and not verified. Just show a simple YT video of Claim 1, for example: A robust oscillation that persists for the duration that a battery is entirely disconnected from the circuit.  None of your claims here are supportable by you or any of your "collaborators". I find it especially funny that Chessnyt has quoted Err-on Murakami, your sycophant from a couple years ago.... who, when he first started working on your circuit, didn't even understand how a mosfet circuit works at all, nor how to use an oscilloscope to make actual measurements. He also lies when he claims to be the "first" to demonstrate some things about your circuit... when we all know who REALLY did the definitive demonstrations of your circuit.

Was thinking   

If Rose sets up her circuit and is able to figure how much power(watts) is spent into heating the water, then we could come up with an equivalent load and a second set of batteries for that load.

Now run both setups together. Which battery pack drains first.     
Seems fair enough.

Mags

This has been done, years ago, many times. Rosemary's circuit is less effective than heating water through an equivalent load with the same amount of DC power, and the batteries will drain faster, and I can prove this.... and so can anyone else who will ACTUALLY DO THE EXPERIMENT.

[cite]Rosemary[/cite]We are applying standard measurement protocol to the measure of energy delivered by a battery supply source.  Actually no.  Also not quite the truth.  Again.  We are applying standard measurement protocol to the measure of energy delivered on a circuit during extended periods when the battery is ENTIRELY disconnected.  And then we measure the energy that is returned to the battery - also when that battery is entirely disconnected.

Rosemary, if the past two years have proved anything, it is that you don't understand "standard measurement protocols".  For example.... please explain to me just how "probe skew" can affect measurements on pulsed power circuits.

And...when the battery is ENTIRELY DISCONNECTED...... you are able to measure "energy returned to the battery".... using "standard measurement protocols"...... but nobody else is able to do so....

Most people would have to have SOMETHING connected to the battery in order to measure it. But then we don't have your..... perspicacity.

Quote from: JouleSeeker on February 08, 2012, 04:56:48 PM

So to me the question of semantics regarding the "negative wattage" supplied by a battery in .99's simple circuit is rather an unimportant issue.  Call it what you will -- and

move on to measurements using methods that we can rely on and quantify.

For input energy, I suggest use of a capacitor, as non-leaky as possible, then the input energy can be MEASURED in a straightforward way:

Einput = 1/2 C * (Vfinal**2 - Vinitial**2).

[cite]Rosemary[/cite] Professor.  I need to alert you to the confusions that result from this kind of 'equation' if that's the right term.  Einput is what?  The energy delivered by the battery?  Or the energy that is returned to the battery from counter electromotive force?  And that 1/2 represents what?  A half? Or is it merely '1 Einput' divided by '2 Einputs'?  And 'C'?  Does that represent degrees centigrade or 'C' as in the constant related to the speed of light?  And what is Vfinal?  And why is this **2? Is that the interim final of Einput and does ** represent squared as does '^'?  In which case where does Vfinal differ from Vinitial?  You see my problem.  I'm a CLUTZ.  And I only know rather pedantic and simple terms that are recommended for those whose understanding is heavily compromised by lack of standard training.  So.  I wonder if I could impose on you to simply follow this convention that has the very real merit of complying to standard protocols - albeit somewhat more simplistically than I suspect you require.  Indulge me.

For wattage or units of power delivered by the battery - then we use volts * amps divided by delta time or vi/dt.  That way we get the accurate average of watts delivered per second and we can use that as a base unit of power to represent the energy delivered by the battery supply source.

THEN. For wattage or units of power delivered back to the battery supply - then we use volts * amps divided by delta time or vi/dt.  And here we'll get an average of the watts delivered per second and we can then use that as a base unit of power to represent the energy delivered back to the battery supply source.

Now, Professor Joule Seeker .... do you begin to see what you are up against? Rosemary doesn't understand the difference between power and energy, she doesn't understand the principle of integration, she doesn't understand what a capacitor does or how it stores and transfers energy, she doesn't understand basic conventions of algebra....... and she doesn't understand how to do power and energy measurements in pulsed spiky circuits.

[TinselKoala]

For the benefit of some of the "newcomers" to the Ainslie work, I've posted these links.

The original Quantum Magazine circuit diagram, copied directly without any editing:
http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/99a0a1d879266d1bb50a2c40c9e6cc5f0c8e30e32706364361cf95514355a1d65g.jpg
I invite anyone to build this circuit and tell us what duty cycle it produces at the load.

A scope shot showing Rosemary's "Random Aperiodic Hartley Oscillations" (RAPHOs) claimed to be essential to the effect..... or does it?
http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/f1ddc6a0bf5d36f2ece82f50c6ff02c00bf697f2ab212d386b983f6d18bec4265g.jpg

A YT video, one of many, that illustrate a test run on an Ainslie-Murakami (Aaron, Qiman, Err-on) hybrid circuit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oehuoaIhts

Another YT video, illustrating that what Rosemary claims about her circuit CAN be reproduced, measurement-wise, anyway:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDcC7bCI8EM

A graph showing a time-temperature profile of load heating, comparing an Ainslie circuit performing according to her claims as far as all electrical MEASUREMENTS are concerned at 4.5% ON duty cycle from a pulse generator, with "RAPHOs" present, against a straight DC electrical feed at the same power level:
http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/c0a9d8c2e307dd7bddd9ae2c6a16abf694b48c90ed2abb5f467e9cc0d333ef615g.jpg
The load used here is a custom-built inductive-resistive load that matched Rosemary's stated parameters in the circuit for her original COP>17 claim, immersed in oil in a test tube, heating up water in a surrounding test tube, all well-insulated -- and may I repeat again.... the circuit I built matched Rosemary's electrical measurements, so it must have been performing "correctly"... right?