Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[fuzzytomcat]

Hi Fuzzy,

I avoided the whole "grounding" debate.  As far as any type of electronic lab equipment goes it is reasonable to assume that each piece of equipment has it's own isolation transformer as part of it's power supply.  Therefore any equipment ground that you access (scope, signal generator, multimeter, etc) is almost certainly floating relative to your AC mains neutral or the third prong ground plug.

If you connect the grounds of different pieces of equipment together they are all now linked to form a common equipment ground reference, and that is all still floating and has nothing whatsoever to do with the AC mains neutral or the third prong ground.

TK made a big point about the two ground channels of a scope not necessarily being separate.  I am not sure but I would assume only the cheapest of the cheap scopes are like that.  In a normal scope, it is reasonable to assume that each channel's input amplifier is being powered by it's own separate isolation transformer.  The outputs from each input amplifier to go to the display drive electronics must also be differential.  I just think that it is reasonable to assume this is the case for almost all scopes, and it is perfectly reasonable to check this with a multimeter before you start seriously playing around with your scope lest you create a short circuit somewhere if in fact your two scope channel grounds are common.

In contrast, I get the feeling that USB scopes do not have separate and independent grounds for the two channels, they are ganged together.  This is to reduce cost.

I posted your question to emphasize the point.  Absolutely not, it makes no sense for your scope channel ground to have any relation whatsoever with your AC mains neutral or third prong plug ground.

I am talking to you from my knowledge base, I have no specifics to offer you.  Any bonding would simply be crazy.

In my 25+ years of working in the electronics industry, working in development labs on the bench, or later in just talking shop with the engineers, for all practical intents and purposes the issue of grounding and worrying about grounding has NEVER come up.

Among the enthusiasts in places like this web site there is a whole cult of mystery associated with grounds and grounding.  People connect an earth ground to their CFL or LED circuit and see the lights get brighter and they think that "power is coming from the ground."  This is all complete nonsense, what they are really doing is changing the impedance of their circuit so that they are getting more power from the BATTERY.

I urge anybody working on this circuit to simply work with their batteries or power supplies and completely forget about the grounding issue because it is a non issue.  It just another distraction that will lead you away from the task at hand.

I will repeat my suggestion:  Everybody, especially Aaron, try to test the circuit as per Rosemary's white paper and look for COP 17.  After that, do whatever oscillation mode testing you want to do.  This is the logical way to go about this project.  Start with something simple and digestable and master that, then move on to the more complicated stuff.

Turn this whole thread around from a theater of the absurd to something simple and manageable.

This whole Aaron deal where he thinks that he has discovered fee energy producing microwatts of power is just a smoke screen because you are working at the limits of your instrumentation, and that includes the DSO, especially considering Aaron's rat's nest of wires.

And for what it's worth, even though I expressed major concerns about digital multimeters, in certain cases, like this case where you are trying to get the average voltage across the shunt waveform, it may indeed be workable.  Certainly a digital multimeter has a freak-out when it tries to measure high voltage spikes and the display goes crazy.  However, even though the shunt waveform has sharp spikes, they are in a very regular stream and the amplitude is not too high.  It just might be the case that the multimeter will do a half decent case in determining the DC average - or not.  Don't forget that I said "might."  What happens is that you have regular sampling done by the multimeter passing through some kind of algorithm being run by the mircocontroller.  No one is privy to the algorithms, those are likely to be trade secrets.  However, there is a decent chance that you set up a "pseudo Monte Carlo method" sampling of the waveform.  Look it up if you are curious.  If that is indeed happening, then there is a very good chance that the DC average displayed by the multimeter is at least accurate for the average current flow direction.  This might be hit and miss - you change manufacturer or model of multimeter and you have potentially different A/D sampling technology and a different algorithm.

Going back to the current Ainsley circuit drama, several people including myself think that a simple capacitor test would resolve the issue of which way the minuscule power is flowing in Aaron's setup once and for all.  Presumably Aaron is stewing in his juices (Hi Aaron!) and will eventually come round and do this ridiculously easy and definitive test.

I can only hope and pray that after that is put to bed that everybody tries to set up and make measurements on the standard Ainsley setup as per her white paper.  Measure electrical power in and thermal power out.  At least then we can fight about something that is relevant to the claim.  Don't be surprised if everyone measures a COP less than unity, and that will put this whole project to bed for good.

The sooner that is done the better for Aaron, because then he can do new and much more interesting things with his four channel DSO for the rest of the month.

MileHigh

Textronix 2445A Oscilloscope Service Manual

http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/tektronix/scope/070-3829-00_2445svc_Jan83.pdf

Page 207

Like you said we went through this and I'm right 

Fuzzy

[MileHigh]

Hey Fuzzy and .99,

I have to concede defeat.  I will check a decent scope at work tomorrow and consult with the real engineer in charge that has a background in the telecom industry.

I get 17 demerit points and a seven minute punishment session with Barb Wire! lol

I wouldn't be surprised if Aaron's DSO has true floating independent scope channel grounds though.  With four channels you need that flexibility.  I wouldn't be surprised if I am wrong there also!  lol

MileHigh

P.S.:  A shout out to Tinsel Koala who was also right!

[Rosemary Ainslie]

MH In future when I post a serious observation I'll label it 'to be taken seriously'. 

Fortunately my interests and their expression are not prescribed by you - or, for that matter, by anyone.  And regarding the storage of energy on an inductor or otherwise - I'm satisfied that you are no expert in physics.  When you are I'll defer to your opinion.  I find it so strange that you spend so much time and energy on this subject.  Surely if you disagreed you'd simply stop reading these two threads?  Or even posting on them?  What compels you MH?  At the risk of misquoting the Bard - I think you generally 'protest too much'.  Such an interesting compulsion.  Is it because you find in this a subject that could possibly afford you an opportunity to parade an assumed superiority?  If so, then you should look closely to the grounds of that assumption.   If you see it as an urgent need to disabuse some naive free energy thinkers of their 'hopes' - then why?  We're doing no harm.  If you see it as a messianic need to protect known physical paradigms - you've lost already lost that war.  Those paradigms have shifted so far away from Newtonian and even classical physics that they're entirely irrecoverable.  If you're hanging around to see if there's any validity in the 'claims' detailed in the published paper - then why do you need to do so with such an excessive parade of equally excessive verbosity?  And I might add, an inappropriate certainty.

When do your true objects here ever filter through that aetherised mind of yours?  Such a tragedy MileHigh.  Such brilliance - with no moderation, no introspection and no direction.  What a cynic.  No wonder you attack anything that still represents hopefulness or goodwill.  What will you do with yourself when you find that you're actually wrong.  Far greater thinkers than you or Poynt know that FE is there and is for the taking.  I am almost certainly wrong on so many issues.  But these guys aren't.  They're acknowledged experts - even by mainstream.  I have always said my contribution - if anything - is very, very small.  But I sincerely believe that ZPE is available in switching circuitry.  Let's see if this is valid.  It would certainly make it more accessible than as allowed by conventional thinking which only sees it as accessible from a sub atomic level.  And - disregard Aaron's evidence all you will.  Your opinion here carries no authority. 

[Hoppy]

Aaron is tasked to demonstrate COP17 on behalf of Rosemary. That means that the circuit has to produce / capture / acquire a lot more energy than the user is putting into the circuit. If the temperature of the resistor does not rise above ambient and the meter does not climb above a zero reading because there is insufficient power available for the meter to register, then he cannot reasonably claim that the circuit is producing negative power.

As soon as Aaron tweaks the circuit to increase power consumed, the flashing minus sign on his meter disappears. If he bothers to use a  sensitive analogue ammeter with say a 50uA scale, he will see clearly that his circuit is always drawing power from the battery no matter how he adjusts the waveform.

Aaron has so far failed to demonstrate that his battery is charging with his load dissipating measurable heat above ambient and more importantly that the circuit is running at a COP above unity!

Hoppy

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Answering Hoppy here.

Aaron is tasked to demonstrate COP17 on behalf of Rosemary. That means that the circuit has to produce / capture / acquire a lot more energy than the user is putting into the circuit. If the temperature of the resistor does not rise above ambient and the meter does not climb above a zero reading because there is insufficient power available for the meter to register, then he cannot reasonably claim that the circuit is producing negative power.
There are a few conditional clauses here.  My own understanding is that any anomalous result should be recorded and, ideally replicable. 

As soon as Aaron tweaks the circuit to increase power consumed, the flashing minus sign on his meter disappears. If he bothers to use a  sensitive analogue ammeter with say a 50uA scale, he will see clearly that his circuit is always drawing power from the battery no matter how he adjusts the waveform.
He has used a more sensitive ammeter - and for that matter various voltmeters.  Indeed beyond a certain level there appears to be some 'draw down' from the battery.  Until that point there appears to be a recharge of the battery.

Aaron has so far failed to demonstrate that his battery is charging with his load dissipating measurable heat above ambient and more importantly that the circuit is running at a COP above unity!
That is merely an opinion and is not based on the evidence.