Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[MileHigh]

Rosemary:

Voltage is a relative thing.  Notice on .99's great waveform posting one voltage is the mirror image of the other voltage because they are being viewed from different relative viewpoints.

The negative vs. positive spike can be explained by an elevator analogy.  There are two elevators on the outside of a building that can see each other.

The "standard" viewpoint for the "negative" spike:  You are inside elevator A on the 12th floor.  Elevator B is on the 12th floor and never moves.  You then drop down to the 1st floor and you look up at elevator B.  Then you shoot up to the 100th floor and now you are looking down at elevator B 88 floors below.

As far as you are concerned it's elevator B that is doing the moving, and not you in elevator A.  You think that you are stationary.  Therefore it's elevator B's path looks like a big negative spike.

The "new" viewpoint for the "negative" spike:  You are standing on the ground outside the building looking at both elevators.  You notice both elevators are on the 12th floor.  You see elevator A drop down to the first floor, then it shoots up to the 100th floor.  You notice that elevator B never leaves the 12th floor.

The positive spike is the inductor discharging it's stored energy.

MileHigh

[Hoppy]

Picking up on Poyny99's post No.2585 on EF ref aethertech's message.

I emphasised the folly of Aaron using croc clips and long connecting leads many posts back. Until he tidies up his rig and gets rid of the long leads to his shunts, the minute negative power levels he is measuring cannot be taken seriously. All ground connections should be commoned directly onto the battery terminal.

Hoppy

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi Hoppy.  The croc clip usage was only pro tem to change the shunts and add more.  The measurements did not change as a result of this - nor were they enhanced - so I doubt that the croc clips were the cause of the result.  But this is never going to be accepted if the 'small' value is discounted anyway.  My question is what do we do with that value.  Just ignore it and assume that mainstream's conclusions here are right.  If you think that's fair - then there's no option from this side of the argument but to comply.

[Hoppy]

Hi Hoppy.  The croc clip usage was only pro tem to change the shunts and add more.  The measurements did not change as a result of this - nor were they enhanced - so I doubt that the croc clips were the cause of the result.  But this is never going to be accepted if the 'small' value is discounted anyway.  My question is what do we do with that value.  Just ignore it and assume that mainstream's conclusions here are right.  If you think that's fair - then there's no option from this side of the argument but to comply.

Rosemary,

I'm going on Aaron's latest series of videos, which still shows a pile of long and untidy wiring. If he has now cleaned this up and star connected the ground leads of the shunt resistors and scope probes directly onto the battery terminal and the power readings are the same, then fine.

Hoppy

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary,

I'm going on Aaron's latest series of videos, which still shows a pile of long and untidy wiring. If he has now cleaned this up and star connected the ground leads of the shunt resistors and scope probes directly onto the battery terminal and the power readings are the same, then fine.

Hoppy

Hi Hoppy - his first test was with the 1 Ohm 'shunt'.  Harvey then asked him to use a 0.25 Ohm in series and alongside the -B.  Then other calls for more shunts - and the crocodile useage became extensive.  But the first test was as neat as required and ALL subsequent measurements endorsed the first.  I suppose it could be argued that the introduction of more wiring then simply ensured the value that was not initially apparent.  But I don't think any presentation of this test will cut it - not with mainstream - and notwithstanding the evident expenditure of something under 1 watt.