Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

.99:

From a bird's eye view in the first part of the cycle you have battery energy that gets burned off as heat and also stored.  In the second part of the cycle you have the stored energy becoming a second wave of heat and also going back to "recharge" the battery.

Anyway these were just some thoughts for pondering, not to be taken as definitive statements.

MileHigh

Hi MileHigh.     Just need to drraw your attention to the 'second part of the cycle'.  If there is enough energy to both dissipate heat and recharge the battery then it must - theoretically - be more energy stored than was first delivered?  Surely?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rose I posted the load resistor data a long time ago after you had asked:

.99

Sorry Pointy.  You did indeed.  I've said it before.  I'm just way, way too old.

[Harvey]

Hi all,

Just a few quick points to help keep everyone 'grounded' here:

1. On average, we only have about 434µs of total data for any one 7 hour run.
2. This is a simple circuit operating in a complex mode. We have absolutely no way of knowing precisely what the current is at any given node at any given time within the circuit.
3. All power calculations on the Data are dependent on point #2.
4. Actual accurate integration of the complex waveforms documented is beyond the scope of this endeavor (unless we have some enterprising young minds willing to process it), so only approximate values are possible.
5. Collapsing magnetic fields like those produced by Glen's inductive resistor will definitely induce voltage in all inductive circuit components, including the leads of the carbon 'shunt' resistor and MOSFET
6. When a resistor exhibits a voltage across its leads and no current is flowing, it can be viewed as a single cell battery
7. A 100W resistor, will dissipate 100W of energy continuously without damage. It is unlikely that a single 100W 400ns spike every 3µs (~13% duty cycle) would heat it up all that much. And that would need the the current were 100% in phase (which we are certain is is not).
8. Power measurements relating to heat must include a time dimension. It may be better to convert the power per time to Joules and relate the Joules to heat.
9. When calculating power dissipation for a MOSFET, the instantaneous resistance (or specifically, the transconductance) of the device must be known.



All that being said, this research is ongoing and necessitates further data when the tools become available again. I would also like to add, that a human element exists in the data collection. This will need to be removed for rock solid numbers necessary for most scientists to accept. The data demonstrates a relatively wide range of output averages for this circuit, both positive and negative. The deviation needs to be identified and documented.

So, while the initial observations show a strong inclination toward a negative mode of operation, we cannot deny that the battery energy is still being expended. I believe that when Glen gets a few extra moments in his already over packed schedule, he may post the results of an endurance run that was done just as a matter of curiosity, but possibly valuable as well.

I would also like to address the matter of over unity, perpetual 'motion', and coefficient of performance. First, over unity (OU) is simply a term which indicates that we can get more out of something than we put in. It is always matter of reference. If I put a 1 gram coin into a vending machine and get a 10gram product, its OU by weight - if that is my only reference. When we attempt to close a system to factor all possibilities, we learn that OU simply does not exist in reality, and we have to include more than our universe to accurately close the system. Therefore, we approach the OU term with very relative measure applicable to the system and the desired results. We generally do not apply the term 'perpetual motion' to charge related phenomena, otherwise all electrons orbiting a nucleus could be viewed as perpetual motion, as can be the planets etc. So, we often will see the term 'self running' instead. Taking the output of a system and re-routing it back to the input in an effort to 'self run' would be an obvious test of getting more out than we put in, OU. However, the failure of such a device would not be conclusive evidence that OU was absent. For example, it was suggested that a battery charger be used as the feedback device. One must consider the efficiency of the charger, which is often less than 60%. If the circuit under test were at 17% gain and the feedback were at 40% loss it is easy to see it could not self run. Finally, I would like to address the difference between over unity and a COP > 1. Like a heat pump running at 350% efficiency, the RA circuit may run at 1700% efficiency. This does not mean that it is an over unity device. It only means that it is able to produce heat much more effectively than a standard electric heater (100%). So trying to take the heat it produces and push it back into the circuit as a self runner would be an achievement in itself as most thermoelectric generators are not very efficient (the reverse process needed for the feedback).

So, if we are seeing negative power dissipation (i.e. cooling from a thermal perspective) then we can almost be certain we have interfaced with a power conversion process external to our circuit. Like a magnetic field perhaps.

Cheers,

[Rosemary Ainslie]

MileHigh - with reference to your post 2060 - your point is taken.  But the only question here is the actual energy delivered by the supply.  And the measurements here comply to the apparent battery draw down.  That we need to account for some extraordinary wattage measured across the resistor without any apparent work - is a given.  But even in measured heat dissipated over the resistor - there is clear evidence of excess energy over the supplied.

But it is also a phenomenon that is frequency related.  And within a very narrow band - as related, apparently, to the properties of the load resistor.  At a lower frequency - according to Fuzzy's results - the benefits disappear.  Surely the actual question is whether the measurements across the shunt at the source are correct and within the measuring capabilities of that Tektronix scope?  I'm not sure how this can be determined - conclusively? 

[poynt99]

Poynt - That 97 watts on the resistor?  That's where we're all asking the question.  The data is not 'invalid' unless you want to confront some really hefty expertise.  It's the interpretation that needs to be done.

PIL ~97W... did you read my test plan? Yes that is power in to the load resistor.

If anyone can explain or better yet prove that there is indeed 97W of real power in the load resistor for Glen's test, then the data can be validated. Until then, the data is extremely questionable at best.

The litmus test Rose has been described, and indeed already been performed by Glen himself. The measurement data clearly indicates about 97W in the load with a final load temperature of about 130ºF, yet Glen's own profile data clearly shows that only 7.92W of real DC power is required to yield a final load temperature of 164ºF, which is 34ºF higher than the test results with 89W less power.

That pretty much says it all.

At a lower frequency - according to Fuzzy's results - the benefits disappear.  Surely the actual question is whether the measurements across the shunt at the source are correct and within the measuring capabilities of that Tektronix scope?  I'm not sure how this can be determined - conclusively?

For the moment we are only seeing "apparent" benefits. In light of what I've clearly brought into view, that's as far as we can go imo.

Regarding the scopes, I can assure you they are working 100% fine. It is not the scopes that are fooling us, it is what we are presenting to the scope that is. "Garbage in garbage out" as the saying goes. What I mean by that is we need to take extra precautions when doing these measurements. Unfortunately there are practical and monetary limits to what can be done here.

I can see that no one from your side is taking anything I've presented here seriously, and I guess that was to be expected considering what I uncovered and the impact it has on your claim. However, with some creative tweaking tomorrow, if I am lucky, I may be able to achieve the "pulse alignment" in SPICE, and perhaps then this would convince you that what I am saying is true.

I can tell you in terms of the real circuit that is on my bench, I can at will, rearrange the grounding ever so slightly and can either augment the apparent negative power dissipation as Glen's data is showing, OR I can diminish it, all simply by grounding.

That in itself should be alarming to anyone seriously interested in getting to the truth about this circuit! 

.99