Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[qiman]

From Rosemary:

Hi TK - thanks for the 'off thread' science lesson. Re post 837. Can you please advise the relevance of the point in your second para 'hard copied' hereunder.

...The instantaneous power dissipated in the shunt is then (4.8 x 4.(0.25) or about 6 Watts.

I fail to see the relevance.

Then - who programmed the 4th Trace on your LeCroy?

Re the next post 838. Are you seriously proposing that the 'spike' that first reaches -1.2 volts and then returns to zero - somehow 'cancels out'? I would have thought that both moments have energy associated with it. Not so much a 'canceling out' but an addition to the energy delivered to the battery.

Kindly explain your comment that the waveform over the battery looks like it is recharging but 'may not be recharging' - 'mind' - or words to that effect. And, more to the point - why do you think the battery is showing the same waveform pattern associated with recharging batteries yet it is not recharging?

[spinner]

Please, people...
This is a page 80+, and there is still an ongoing debate if this "Ou electronical circuit" is really OU or not...

Well, it certainly isn't OU... Wanna bet???

In fact, it is well "underunity"- it's just a common, or, better,  quite useless electronic circuit. It actually doesn't have a real purpose... (except to feed all the amateur trolls at this very moment)...

People who claim it is OU, should do their best to prove it. That is a must if they want somebody would take the concept (or them) seriously.
A bunch of a common electronic components, connected with a battery? And, OU?  Yeah, sure...

"CoP" of 17??? That would be very easy to prove...

For a starter, I'd make a "self sustaining" demo circuit...
A piece of cake, never mind the source of the "extra" energy...

Why it wasn't done already? Are there any problems??

So, cut the crap with all the "could be ringing and swinging" waveforms and questionable measurements procedures....

A battery shunt-bypass measurements are not necessarily the wright thing to do.... Lol...
Jeeeeez!

Please, TK, save yourself for something more promissing....

See Ya!

[Cloxxki]

Spinner,

I whole heartedly agree.

At COP17, the very worst of sterling engines would manage to loop this circuit, and take the whole battery out, let it all run indefinately.

Especially Dr. Lindeman seems to be throwing his well-earned reputation up for grabs, to support a friend's claims. All of the EF community loes credibility with their attitude to critics, and is 2009's #1 waste of research time. I'd know much better ways to use TK's valuable time than the vast amount he much have invested in this. No need to publish in magazines to be worthy of that, I hope?

[ddmdragon]

Dear Stefan, I am posting this on behalf of Rosemary Ainslie

Quote "
There are many comments from contributors that are addressed to me that I am unable to answer.  Could you please lift the block on my access to your forum.  I would like to join and am unable to register until this is done
Kind regards
Rosemary Ainslie "

[TinselKoala]

...The instantaneous power dissipated in the shunt is then
( 4.8 x 4.8 )( 0.25 ) or about 6 Watts.

I fail to see the relevance.

Clearly. The relevance is multifold, but here are two points: First, this is an instantaneous power figure that seems absurdly high--this is a 1 Watt resistor, after all--just as the "240 Watts" figure you emphasize is an instantaneous power figure that does not reflect the average power at all. It is an instant peak value. Second, the shunt resistor does in fact dissipate a small amount of power, WHETHER THE CURRENT IS FLOWING TO OR FROM the battery. Just as do the rest of the resistances in the circuit, and just as does the battery's internal impedance.

Then - who programmed the 4th Trace on your LeCroy?

YET AGAIN, now, and for the very last time: The top two traces are stored traces, obtained about 30 seconds apart, from the Channel 1 input of the scope and stored in memory. By me.
The third trace is the scope's instantaneous power waveform computed from all 5 hundred million samples per second of the two stored traces in memory above. I set up ("programmed" if you like) the scope to do the computation and to display the trace in the third position. The scope's internal computer performed the computation.
The FOURTH TRACE displayed in the video is the TIME INTEGRATION of the THIRD TRACE. Since the third trace is an instantaneous power waveform, the fourth trace is...wait for it....the ENERGY in Joules on the vertical (and the time on the horizontal, as it is on all the traces). So you can see the energy flowing as the trace rises, and the little dips during the ringdown indicate the small REVERSE FLOW of energy. Between cycles, of course, the transistor is off and no energy flows, so this trace is flat during those times.
If the reverse energy flows approached or exceeded the forward energy flows, you would see it very clearly on this trace. As long as energy is flowing out of the battery the trace climbs. When energy flows back into the battery the trace falls, and the amounts of rise and fall measure the ENERGY involved as accurately as the instrument allows.
This is a series of correct computations, done correctly, on correctly obtained data--with two flaws: One, that the waveforms were not obtained simultaneously, and Two, obviously no "free energy" is shown. The interpretation of the trace is clear, if you understand the math and the physics involved.
Who programmed the 4th trace? I set up the scope ("programmed" if you like) to do this--by going into its math function menu and scrolling past many many other functions until I came to "integration" and then I selected that, and told the sub-menus what I wanted integrated and where I wanted it displayed. A global (that is, affecting all computations) setting that I demonstrated on the video selects the number of sample points to use in the computation--this can be turned down to improve the scope's response rate when performing realtime measurements--as you can see I selected the maximum number of points: five hundred million per second. The oscilloscope then performed the integration by using what is referred to as a "numerical method", and the result is displayed on the 4th trace. There is no "interpretation" or fudging of any kind here. The scope is doing math on data. You can see for yourself what it is reporting. Well, maybe not "you", Rosemary, but certainly those with the necessary prereqs can.

I am not going to explain this again.

Re the next post 838. Are you seriously proposing that the 'spike' that first reaches -1.2 volts and then returns to zero - somehow 'cancels out'? I would have thought that both moments have energy associated with it. Not so much a 'canceling out' but an addition to the energy delivered to the battery.

Positive current spikes are cancelled by negative current spikes. You can expand the ringdown including all spikes, trace them on paper, cut them out or count little squares, and see that the spikes above the line (positive) and the spikes below the line (negative) have almost the same area in total. This means, yes, they cancel out in the long run. The reason there is a "decay"--that nice trumpet shape--is because, with each "slosh" back and forth a little power is dissipated as heat. Or, if a spike is high enough to get past the diode and the impedance of the battery, a tiny amount can be returned to the battery in a way that "sticks". But this is a small fraction of the energy THAT CAME FROM THE BATTERY IN THE FIRST PLACE and so cannot "recharge" it, it can only slow its rate of discharge.

Kindly explain your comment that the waveform over the battery looks like it is recharging but 'may not be recharging' - 'mind' - or words to that effect. And, more to the point - why do you think the battery is showing the same waveform pattern associated with recharging batteries yet it is not recharging?

Once again you are talking nonsense. The "waveform pattern associated with recharging batteries" depends on the charger, mostly, and secondly on the particular battery chemistry. I can charge these batteries with all kinds of whacky waveforms--but I assure you, straight filtered regulated DC will give the best results in terms of energy efficiency and battery life.

Got that?


Now, I am not speaking for Stefan, but I know that he has better things to do than to look at this thread for messages. But I can certainly tell you this much: Stefan rarely blocks or bans people and does so only for really good reasons. After all, he hasn't blocked ME yet!! And I have NEVER heard of him blocking anyone pre-emptively. So I think that it is very unlikely that Stefan has anything at all to do with Rosemary's inability to access here. More likely it is her own ignorance and willingness to come to fast conclusions that is once again getting in the way. After all, how difficult is it to use a proxy server or an anonymizer, even if one's home IP address is in a banned block?