Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[Asymatrix]

ohhh that's so cute. you were made to look extremely foolish by me here in this post

and now you are trying some psychological projection...
never mind, the sycophants wouldn't understand psychology.

The amazing thing, which you fail to realize, is that you are the antagonist.

To have such hostility toward someone who is doing irrefutably thorough experimentation and spends no time criticizing yours (because you don't do any) can only be explained by one of the labels you are so fond of projecting onto others. Take your pick.

[MileHigh]

Aaron:

We are going to take a second look at one of your points made today:

Showing recharge of second battery through flyback diode. It has been wondered if these high frequency spikes at any voltage with super low pulsewidth can actually cause a battery to charge. Yes it can.

I am the person that was doing the wondering.

In your statement above you are neglecting mentioning that you rewired the fly-back diode and connected it to a charging battery.  This is NOT the Ainsley circuit anymore.  This is a point that myself and others made to Rosemary over and over and she still persisted in doing what you demoed today to "demonstrate" the recharging.

Aaron and Rosemary:  You simply cannot change the topology of a circuit to one that is more favourable to support your argument and then try to claim that it applies to the original circuit also.  You just CAN'T do this.  This is cognitive dissonance reality distortion at work.

Plus, the evidence is staring you right in the face.  With the Ainsley setup the spikes remain at a very high voltage.  With the switch over to the Bedini setup the spikes are muffled down to a few volts.  You simply cannot ignore this difference.

The only reason you see high voltage spikes is because the discharging coil is acting as a temporary current source.  It encounters a high impedance "wall" and raises it's voltage proportionally in an attempt to keep the current flowing.

Also, we cannot forget that in the Ainsley case the MOSFET is SWITCHED OFF, and there is no true current path for the discharge current to flow.  I made a whole posting on that speculating on what was happening.

It looks like there would probably be no real charging current associated with the high voltage spikes that arrive at the battery positive terminal.  Instead, the spikes could be nothing more than a fleeting wave of potential associated with the stray capacitance of the coil-resistor discharging.  The stray capacitance would be initially be charged up by the discharging coil in the coil-resistor.  I am not sure, I am just speculating.  We are talking "fluffy fluffy fluffy" here.

What I am pretty sure of is that there is almost certainly negligible or unmeasurable current flow associated with the 140 nSec high voltage spikes that arrive at the battery positive terminal.  On more time, the MOSFET is OFF, and there is no "real way" for the current to flow.

You have the technology Aaron. If you want to really know what is going on, you have to add a second shunt resistor to the battery positive terminal and then measure the potential and current associated with each spike.  You can even do the multiplication in the DSO, export the spike I*V waveform, then integrate and normalize it with your Excel spreadsheet and give us the measured micro or nano-joules associated with an individual spike.  When you are spiking at 250 KHz with the full blown continuous oscillation mode, you can then multiply your spike energy times the 250 KHz per second and give us your estimate of the spike power.

It's all so easy to do if you show the initiative.  If you are not sure but want to ask some questions, then fire away, I am sure that myself or others would be pleased to take a crack at answering them.

Please forget about the solid state Bedini configuration, it has zero to do with your investigation.

MileHigh

[WilbyInebriated]

The amazing thing, which you fail to realize, is that you are the antagonist.

To have such hostility toward someone who is doing irrefutably thorough experimentation and spends no time criticizing yours (because you don't do any) can only be explained by one of the labels you are so fond of projecting onto others. Take your pick.

the amazing thing is, you fail to provide evidence for your claims every time. and when i provide evidence for mine you ignore it, or like your fellow sycophant utilitarian, outright refuse to even look. the pathetic thing is, you think that is being skeptical, even when the definition has been shown to you.

[WilbyInebriated]

WTF, you are citing yourself?  I can barely stand to read your garbage the first time.  I am not going to revisit it.

With all this bluster, one would think you have done at least one experiment to contradict TK's findings.  One would be sadly mistaken.

you have ignored repeated requests for you to back up your baseless claims with some substance. and now you admit to refusing to look at evidence because it doesn't fit your personal belief. the hypocrisy continues...

nice try at the misdirection though.

[fuzzytomcat]

Interesting how MileHigh did not list the person's name he quoted. Is that OK to do these days? It certainly isn't proper etiquette at any forum i know of.

So anyway, i wonder what he was trying to imply with it

Hey Jibbguy,

MileHigh's partial quote is from a member "NRGFromTheVacuum" in another thread here "Real OU-Effect to Share with everyone!!!" post #205 ...... http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6734.msg162050#msg162050 ...... Implications being off topic .... hummm ...... maybe he found my catnip again

Fuzzy