Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[poynt99]

Meanwhile, I think I may have had a breakthrough to explain the negative MOSFET power, and most likely other apparent net energy gains.

.99

I've done another run identical to my last, with a slight modification to the setup, and it appears I have confirmed my theory as to the cause of the negative MOSFET power dissipation. It's so "simple" (well depends on your depth of perspective) yet so far-reaching when doing these measurements on these types of circuits.

Now, to resolve this completely 
More soon.   

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I've measured the MOSFET power; not sure if anyone else has.

Here's something to ponder:

What does it mean to have a negative power dissipation in the MOSFET, while the shunt, load resistor, and supply are all positive values?

.99

Poynt  - i first want to get back to this.  It's critical.  In fact, this is the whole of the question.  The only time that voltage can be measured when it's not related to current is when it's stored - as in a battery.  Could this be stored energy?  In which case why does the shunt at the source then indicate a negative voltage within the same time frame?  Here's another possibility.  Could it be that the voltage over the resistor is actually sinosoidal.  The negative has already discharged - as evidenced by the shunt at the source.  The positive cannot breach the switch and 'stays put' as stored?  If so, then we are perhaps looking at an event that exceeds our measuring capability being light speed.  Could this then, in turn - be some evidence of a non-local event?  I'm not sure of all the arguments for or against - and hope that this question could be more extensively explored - here on these forums.  MILEHIGH WHERE ARE YOU?  Needless to say, this latter option would be just so neat -  as it relates to the thesis here.

Regarding the computations.  I've got a problem.  We - in SA can't open the software unless we've paid for it - so I only get the dumps through Skype.  I have no idea how to store these so look at each one as it comes up - do my analysis - hope it's right - roughly relate it to the evident waveform from the scope - still hope I've referenced the right one - then hope that the sample range is representative - then look at the numbers - buzz for a bit - get confused - and start on another.  I would gladly give you the final figures - but you'd need to find out for yourself which ones I'm referring to.  I personally lose track just about everywhere.  Hopefully the day will come when I'll be able to download those files with a little more competence.  And hopefully Tektronix will give us some software reference that we, in this wild and dark continent - can use.   Lisa - I do hope you read this.  Meanwhile I simply use Harvey's analysis and he's good enough to post these up on most of the available data.

But the data is available to you in America and Canada.  Since the actual computations will vary marginally - depending on preference or point of reference - then any posted results would possibly be contended.  Better that each do their own.  What is evident is that the sweet spot is within a very tight range related to the resistance at the pot.  Fuzzy has gone to some trouble to point out the range here. But the second factor that needs to be acknowledged is the diameter of the resistor.  This also appears to be critical.  So.  It requires a specific harmonic and a specific diameter - and we have no idea yet if and where is the upper limit of that diameter.  This also needs to be explored.

I saw reference to a 3% duty cycle at an equivalent frequency to our published.  Please give us your data here.  It's very relevant.  And please also give us a full description of the resistor. 

And Poynt - please advise.  Is this not possibly replicable on your spice?  If not, why not?  It seems to be able to duplicate so much and so accurately.  Is there a cut off to what it can do?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I disagree that "batteries must go". But First you will need
"perpetual motion" device which implies COP=1 or greater

Then you have the unit charge a battery...use an standard
auto battery charger if you want. But the have a microcontroller
switch in a "user load resistor" (prefer a LED bulb, do not use an
incandescent bulb) into battery dcreasing it from vmax to vmin.
The microcontroller turns the user load resistor off when vmin is reached.
Then have the microcontroller keep track of how many watt-seconds
total were pulled from the battery via user load resistor.

Then show that the the number of watt-seconds dissipated
by the load is greater than the watt-seconds that could be stored in the
battery. Then show ten times the number of watt-seconds in the
battery. then show one hundered time it...ect. Thats overunity,
but you will have to have perpetual motion first.

:S:MarkSCoffman

I'm copying the whole of your post here Mark - for ease of reference.  I want to put on record that I do not subscribe to perpetual motion machines related to the delivery of electric energy.  In terms of my thesis - losses are inevitable - either during work - or during the discharge of the supply source.  COP is measured against the amount of energy dissipated related to the amount of energy supplied.  Our claim is that more energy can be dissipated than supplied.  In order to achieve overunity - then one would need to prove that no energy is delivered against energy measured to be dissipated.  That would indicate the possibility of perpetual motion.  But - thus far - we have only found this on really small wattage which makes it an interesting argument but not easly proven.  It is, nonetheless, highly relevant and would consider that it needs reference in any paper that may be submitted for publication.

Hoppy.  I trust this answers your concerns here that I do not know the difference?  If you want to test my lack of knowledge then you'd be well advised to check my computer skills.  I think I'm in kindergarden here.

EDIT Changed delivered to dissipated.  Lucky this system still allows editing and that I caught tht window 

[poynt99]

In SPICE, the big Drain voltage spike is not aligned with the negative spike on the shunt, as you can see from the SPICE scope shot.

In the real world, they can be, and when this happens there is a huge negative power spike (3000W in my setup) that amounts to a significant power when averaged over the entire cycle. In my case about -1.2W. It so happens that in my test, I ended up with -1.26W measured in the MOSFET.

So if they are aligned, does this huge power spike amount to real power? Even though it can be seen on the scope, I don't believe it does. I changed the grounding (which shifted the phase of the spike and ringing on the shunt) slightly in my circuit and the MOSFET power went down significantly. Here is a summary of the two test runs, only difference was grounding:

Test run #1:
POS = 1.1727W
PIL = 2.3818W
PIM = -1.2635W
PIS = 0.0544W

Test Run #2
POS = 1.4678W
PIL = 1.8703W
PIM = -0.4488W
PIS = 0.0463W

Note:
1) in each case POS-(PIL+PIM+PIS) = 0 which in theory is correct.
2) in Test Run #2 PIM is much less negative, and POS is approaching PIL.
3) the TRAA in both cases was equal.

In test #1 the temp rise above ambient TRAA was about 7ºC. In the CONTROL test, the pure DC power required to achieve the same TRAA was 1.302W. As a check, the load resistor was powered with 2.3818W as was measured to be its power in this test, and the TRAA settled to about 13ºC.

Clearly the measured 2.3818W in the load resistor is incorrect, and in reality is probably much closer to the CONTROL value of 1.3W. In fact the measured POS was not too far off at 1.1718W, but this is obviously measuring low.

Wiring, grounding, and electrostatic effects seem to be influencing the measured results (not the actual results as TRAA was equal in both tests), so it should be noted by all those testing and/or number-crunching, that the results may be skewed due to the aforementioned effects.

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Ok Poynt.  Just seen your post.  Bit disappointed here because you're not giving the full picture.  Waveforms - spreadsheet data - details of the load resistor?  But it's interesting to see the simulation.  And you changed the ground reference how?

Unfortunately you're basing your argument on less than definitive results from your data.  I think Aaron et al have covered this and also concluded marginal gains.  But just go over Fuzzy's TEST 3.  Nothing marginal in those temperature measurements.  Nor in the voltage measurements.  And I'm reasonably satisfied that - with Fuzzy's expertise here - ground is correctly referenced.

Indeed - in this test #3 -  the negative wattage delivered  - your term POS - is significant.  The evidence points to OU, belied only by the evidence of some measurable loss of voltage from the battery.  Loss may be explained by some means of data capture over a much longer run - say, continuous data for an hour or so - if this could be enabled? 

But the benefit here is certainly not marginal. 

And please give us some details on the size and shape of  your load resistor - at least.  I've been holding my breath here for so long I'm now in danger of passing out.  Ta Poynty.

EDIT      Rose.