Recently, after much work in testing, data-gathering, and writing, Rose and her team have put together a paper which encompasses the intent of this work. This was all in an effort to prove her thesis regarding the true operating nature of a switched inductive/resistive circuit in terms of the COP that can be obtained when specific variables in load resistor dimensions and drive frequencies are met.
The essence of her claims is that having met these certain parameters, the switched load resistor will exhibit more output energy in heat when compared to the total energy supplied to the circuit, and a further sub-claim that indeed this COP>1 is at least partially achieved by the active recharge of the source wet lead acid battery.
The paper has been submitted by Rose and her team to the IEEE and is here (http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems) for public review.
.99
.99:
After reading the paper the first thing that comes to mind is "Where's the beef?" The Ainsley team needs to present power-out vs. power-in numbers to validate the claim as a first step, and they are not there.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2009.12.15, 05:15:25
.99:
After reading the paper the first thing that comes to mind is "Where's the beef?" The Ainsley team needs to present power-out vs. power-in numbers to validate the claim as a first step, and they are not there.
MileHigh
Yes, the AT team have left out the most important and juicy bit. Maybe they cannot find a way to convincingly show that the system is operating OU using their test results.
Hoppy
IMHO, the paper does not contain convincing evidence to prove any claims of overunity. My own tests have shown that "conventional" testing methods are the main reason the test results appear inconsistent, and questionable.
Any response from the IEEE will be interesting, however I believe that their conclusions (if any) will not be all that different from the ones expressed here so far.
I have developed a detailed analysis of the problem areas and also provided practical solutions to overcome these problems. Although the AT implemented only a small portion of these solutions, there was a marked improvement in the accuracy of the results.
I will post my analysis within the next few days.
.99
The paper mentions that a necessary part of tuning requires putting the circuit into a chaotic state whereby crosstalk from power switching causes gate excitation and so the resulting waveform is aperiodic. This makes for a great wall of obfuscation to hide behind and makes comprehensive analysis through finite sample analysis impossible.
I won't commit myself either way at the moment, but I will need more than this paper offers to convince me 100% that COP of this system is special.
I will say though that the paper was well written and presented and makes a more convincing argument than alot of what I read in that volumous OU thread.
QuoteThe paper mentions that a necessary part of tuning requires putting the circuit into a chaotic state whereby crosstalk from power switching causes gate excitation and so the resulting waveform is aperiodic. This makes for a great wall of obfuscation to hide behind and makes comprehensive analysis through finite sample analysis impossible.
I totally agree with this and therefore have offered an alternative test method that does not require finite sample analysis. This in no way should be meant to take away anything from the noteable work Poynt has done in this area. Kudos to Poynt for his Herculean effort.
But for those who do not have access to expensive data loggers, exotic scopes and wish to play with the Ainslie circuit, I would highly recommend a simple way of testing the circuit by using the attached diagram. A simple differential thermocouple setup will show discrepancies in temperature between the DUT and the control.
Since both resistors will be pulsed identically, there is no need for absolute temperature measurement, any differences between the DUT and control will be a differential in temperature. The control resistor should be a carbon composition or other non-inductive type with about the same thermal mass and surface area as the DUT.
Also a potentiometer can be placed in the gate of the DUT firing FET and adjusted for the so called "chaotic" condition.
I will later post the circuit for the differential thermocouple technique which can be used with a cheap DVM.
Fraser,
Actually, the "aperiodic mode of oscillation" is a contentious issue, as imo use of the term is really a misnomer in this case. It would more aptly be called a "quasi-aperiodic mode" of oscillation, or QAM oscillation for short. I have obtained this QAM oscillation in my own testing of the circuit, and it is purely attributed to the non-periodic re-triggering of the 555 timer circuit used to drive the MOSFET. The resulting wave form output has a non-periodic component, but I would not classify it as chaotic.
The 555 can be configured as a crude voltage controlled oscillator (VCO) and the signals on pins 4, 5, and 6 will influence its timing parameters. Without going into a great deal of analysis, the gist of what occurs is that voltage transients on the 555-3 (output) and ground reference couple into the 555 circuitry and cause not only re-triggering of the output wave form at pin 3, but it can be adjusted to do so in such a manner that resembles the output of a swept VCO. The resulting pulse train is a pattern of between 2 to 6 pulses, each one with a decreasing pulse width and off-time between pulses, then the pattern repeats (i.e it is periodic). The very same result could be achieved by sweeping a 555 VCO circuit with a saw-tooth control voltage of appropriate amplitude and frequency
In any event, the switching wave form produced by this QAM oscillation being periodic, can easily be sampled and quantified using standard data acquisition at the appropriate sampling rate.
It should be noted however, that my observations are that the AT's data was not acquired with the circuit operating in the QAM oscillation mode. This can be easily verified by studying the wave forms as posted at EF.
.99
Here's a better drawing of the Differential Temperature Test Technique (DTTT)
Any DVM with a reliable mV scale can be used for the meter. I recommend type "T" thermocouple wire cut from the same roll. Thermocouples are cheap, rugged and low impedance devices that are relatively noise immune, or can be easily filtered.
Alternately a Fluke 52 dual thermocouple meter or equivalent testing device can be used. Thermocouples are not absolutely necessary, a simple thermistor null bridge can be easily made with a small battery and a few resistors. Thermistors have some self heating issues which can cause errors unless low currents are used in the bridge.
Thermocouple and meter connections should be made to an isothermal block (I'll expand on that next post)
Anomalous energy production will show up as a difference in temperature between the two resistors, which can be easily detected with this setup.
This will only identify existence of anomalous energy production and not meant to make quantitative measurement of the energy production.
Quantitative energy production can be determined with DC equivalence test in which R2 is fed from DC power supply and power is nulled against DUT.
I tend to prefer null balance techniques because they quickly demonstrate any results (if they exist) without needing to log or interpret reams of data.
Hi ION.
I think this is a great idea.
I would only have two suggestions/concerns, from a devil's advocate point of view:
1) Using a buffer between the 555 and the MOSFET may preclude us from obtaining the quasi-aperiodic mode (QAM) of oscillation, as it is reliant on feedback from the capacitively-coupled Drain spike to the 555 pin 3.
2) It could be argued that M1 and M2 need to be closely matched, which is not too difficult to do with the right test setup.
Cheers,
.99
what does the signal to the mosfet look like? Just curious.
Grumpy,
In "normal" mode, the 555-3 drive signal looks fairly square, with some spikiness, and sloping, but in QAM oscillation, there are extra distinct spikes on the 555-3 which couple into it's circuitry causing re-triggering of the 555.
When I get back to testing the RA circuit, I will show some nice scope shots of what I obtained for QAM oscillation.
.99
Hi Poynt, Grumpy
My last post was an elementary schematic based on similar testing I have performed in the past, but not on "Ainslie" device. The buffers are optional, I just threw them in. One or both may be removed. There are many permutations of this basic method, e.g. Q2 could be slaved off Q1.
Below is an example of how to set up a proper differential thermocouple using type "T" thermoelements (others can be used).
Also a simple R-C filter can be easily added if noise pickup is experienced.
a simple disruptive discharge coil can melt tungsten with only a few watts of energy
How is this accomplished?
Squeeze that few watts of power into a 10ps time frame.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2009.12.18, 13:20:58
Squeeze that few watts of power into a 10ps time frame.
.99
is the Rosie circuit any different?
Also, when one of you have Rosie's Circuit replicated, try putting the inductive resistor in a vacuum (like a little box around it and use a hand vacuum pump) or place it in oil as see if this effects the heat output.
They would be two different animals imo.
.99
guys - I would have thought this subject has been exhausted. In any event let me at least advise you that there's a schedule of results detailed on test 13 as being the one used for full description on the paper. It's at the end of the paper because the IEEE want their schedules and diagrams submitted that way. they then postion them as required.
the other thing is this. there is some requirement that - in the event that Poynty concludes that the test results were erroneous - presumably as a result of his own failed attempts at test replication - then I have sworn under oath that I will retract the original claim. I really can't oblige here Poynty. If this IS required then I need to bow out of this forum. My concerns are that you may not be able to replicate or worse still - may not want to.
then. I have no idea how to find the threads on this forum. I got to this one courtest Poynty's link on his email. How does one find ones way around here?
and - finally - on a personal note. I'm as blind as a bat. I can just manage the print size of energetic forum. am more comfortable with overunity.com. But this one entirely defeats me. I'm typing blind - in the hopes that this is half way readable and ask that something be done here. else I'll neither to able to read the posts with any degree of confidence - nor answer them. white against light blue is another major stress for the focus. But it's my problem not your's. It's just I won't be able to get here with ease. It now occurs to me that maybe that's why I can't find the threads. they're marked in white on blue? maybe.
golly. this typing is exhausting me. can't see a thing.
Rose,
Sorry for the troubles you are having here at the new site. I have checked our fonts against the fonts used at OU, and they are the same type and size. So I am uncertain wherein lies the problem. MileHigh has also expressed concern that the font is small. However, I do agree that our buttons are still difficult to see and read, and should be larger. I hope we will have that changed soon.
Regarding your paper and claims, they were in existence before this forum opened, and also since you have submitted your paper to the IEEE, I am confident they will come to the same conclusions that most of us here have already. Therefore, it will suffice to let the verdict fall on the IEEE, if you are in agreement with that.
I think the basic disagreement between your team and the rest of us is whether the data presented in the paper does or does not support the claim of COP>1. I have asked several individuals whom I know and respect about the paper and the test results in general, and all agree that there is nothing to substantiate a claim of COP>1, and I am in agreement with that, as I have been from the moment I realized the test results (both yours and my own) were faulty.
What will your position be if the IEEE comes back with either no comment or a simple rejection of the paper?
.99
Hi Poynty. I will not accept a 'verdict' by the IEEE. They've got the responsibility of bringing new 'discoveries' to the public academic forum via their reviewed journals. They are not expected to comment on experimental results. IF however, there are any apparent contradictions in terms of the arguments in the paper against the documented experimental evidence - then that may be addressed by the reviewers prior to publication. The onus is on the wider forum of all the journal readers to discuss the findings and either replicate, question, or refute the findings. The IEEE have never been entitled to such sweeping judgements on the contributions on behalf of an enormous body of experts available in their readers. Golly. I fondly believe that the academics themselves would be angered at such gross violation of the their rights to information. We need to advise them. All of them. ??? (Hope I've chosen an appropriate emoticon)
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2009.12.19, 20:59:03
guys - I would have thought this subject has been exhausted. In any event let me at least advise you that there's a schedule of results detailed on test 13 as being the one used for full description on the paper. It's at the end of the paper because the IEEE want their schedules and diagrams submitted that way. they then postion them as required.
Exhausted? IMO, no.
Quote
the other thing is this. there is some requirement that - in the event that Poynty concludes that the test results were erroneous - presumably as a result of his own failed attempts at test replication...
I think many, including myself are still waiting for a clear explanation of what a "successful" replication would be.
I believe I have for the most part, obtained very similar results to Fuzzy's, it terms of the wave forms.
.99
Hi Poynty. Your comments regarding the replication. I'll detail my argument again. You need to show that the energy being dissipated at the load exceeds the energy delivered by the battery. If you do this, then you definitely have a gain. The extent of the gain is open to discussion. The waveforms are pretty chaotic - but when they're dominated by that harmonic they seem to flirt with overunity numbers. Without the harmonic we seem to get values at some co-efficient of performance that varies between >4 and >9 as measured.
The reason I'd like to 'move on' is that you guys are still debating that there was any gain at all. Poynt - you cannot seriously propose that - because you couldn't replicate - the experiment is somehow wrong? Surely?
In any event - Fuzzy's 'live show' is on offer. If you have questions you just need to ask and my guess is he'll be able to give you better indications directly off the experimental apparatus. He's got it all there.
Rosemary:
I am under the impression that what you and Glen call the "harmonic" is the sweeping up and down waveforms that you see embedded in the main waveform. If that is the case then you are incorrect. All that you are seeing is what are called "aliasing effects"
The standard display that Glen shows may or may not be under-sampled by the DSO's A/D conversion system since you are asking it to look at a fairly large time span. This concern was voiced by myself and Poynt many times. Then that data is re-sampled again for purposes of displaying the data on the screen. Here is where the DSO has to make big compromises because it has to take a large amount of data and squeeze it down to a much smaller amount of data to display it on the screen at a fixed and limited pixel resolution.
The net result of all of this data manipulation to make it displayable on the DSO screen are the aliasing effects, sometimes called "aliasing" or "aliasing artifacts." So what you call "harmonics" are just pretty patterns on the screen that actually don't exist in real life.
With respect to real harmonics, every single waveform you are looking at consists of thousands and thousands of harmonics, it all depends on how precise you want to be about it. You can't "see" harmonics normally unless you are looking at very simple examples. Just the fact that the waveforms are irregular is telling you right away that the waveform is made up of thousands of harmonics all added together.
To beat an old horse to death: You have presented zero data to back up your claim of COP > 1. For myself personally, all of the discussions about the aperiodic oscillations giving you greater COP are a red herring. The is no substance to that argument.
For me, we are still back at Square One, you have not presented and credible data showing thermal power out being greater than electrical power in. I see no numbers. Yet you claim that you do have data. This is where there is a total disconnect and I simply don't get it, I feel that you are being irrational with respect to this.
MileHigh
Hello MileHigh
As I understand it aliasing is the result of waveforms that are not 'captured' by the oscilloscope - either the range setting is incorrect, meaning the voltage is too big for the full waveform to be shown on the screen, in which case the value is truncated and therefore incorrect, or the frequency is such that the scope is unable to see the required data. Neither apply in this case.
The harmonic, as I understand it - is a resonating number that 'kicks in' and holds a signature form that is repeatably evident - hence its term as an harmonic. But I'm no expert and would prefer to stay out of this discussion. It is better held with Harvey or Fuzzy.
Then - I keep saying this. We used #13 sample capture as the definitive example in our tests. This is only because the results were sufficient to prove the point. But they were, by no means, the optimal values. These are better evidenced on earlier and later tests and Fuzzy frankly did not have the time to optimise this. At the time we were anticipating the need to return the scope on completion of the paper or on the 1st of December whichever was the sooner. So there was a need for speed.
The results of test 13 were given in a schedule - and schedules and figures had to be appended at the end of the document to accommodate the editing requirements of the IEEE. I can't remember the number of that schedule - but if you look for it - it's at the end of the paper. Sorry that this is not more prominent. But I can assure you it's there. You will notice that we did not even bother with the heat measured to be dissipated from other circuit components such as the Fet or the Shunt. The heat from the fet was possibly as much as the heat dissipated at the load - but it would have required more detailed analysis and Fuzzy did not have extended use of the power supply needed to establish this. In any event there was an average of 4.5 watts or thereby dissipated (from memory) at the load and this was enough for proof of concept and it allowed for generous margins for error - required for the crude heat measurements applied.
And by the way. As I understand it, the DPO takes a digital recording of the waveforms and translates this into the waveform graphs. This is displayed but never in real time - just very nearly real time. But the representations of the waveforms on each channel co-incide with the representations so it will display any shifts if these are applicable. Best accuracy on his TDS3054C DPO is at 700 samples over a single screen shot of 10 000 samples. I have not been able to ascertain the number in the sample range Fuzzy shows on the live broadcast. The point here is that the greater the number of samples for analysis the more accurate the values. I suppose there's an upper and a lower limit to this. Just not sure what they are.
Hi Rosemary,
Thank you for the season's greetings on OU. I was going to reply to you, part of my excuse for being late is that I go through phases where getting to sleep is a problem. So for the past few days I have been very very tired and restricted myself to the forum topics. I have been kicked off of OU, so please accept my best wishes for the season and the new year from here!
Going back to your paper, I looked at the results of test 13 at the end of the document. One more time Rosemary, I have to say it: There is no thermal power out vs. electrical power in data at all to be found. There is the chart for test 13 that Glen filled out by hand with the recorded temperatures, and a few DSO screen shots, that's it. I just don't know what to say but to simply repeat that your paper shows no data supporting your claim of over unity. What is it going to take for you and the rest of the team and the supporters to acknowledge this simple fact? It truly boggles my mind that you can all be congratulating each other for a job well done when the job has not even been finished. You have to produce numbers that are backed up by your test data, it is as simple as that. You can skate around the issue all you want, but that fundamental fact is unavoidable.
I also want to give you some context for trashing Aaron's "treatise" that he posted on your thread on the EF that I then copied over to OU and bashed. It hurts my ears and brain to read stuff like that especially knowing that "young and impressionable" newcomers to electronics are reading it. In engineering parlance, it can be referred to as "obscene talk." It is analogous to two truckers talking about explicit sex and using foul language in front of a bunch of six-year-old boys and girls. So from my perspective it truly is offensive to read that kind of junk talk and once in a while I respond to it forcefully, just like I would respond forcefully to a bunch of truckers talking dirty in front of a group of young children. I don't know if you can understand that but his "witch doctor" approach to electronics almost gives me a headache sometimes. And he truly can't utter more than six sentences about electronics and energy without making a mistake. I was not exaggerating or intentionally being mean when I said that. I was watching every step of the way when he was doing his testing of your circuit and my comment stems from that experience, it was pretty awful.
MileHigh
Hello MileHigh
Thanks for the good wishes. Sorry to hear you've been laid low, especially over the holiday season. Hope all gets well.
How have you managed to be evicted - yet again? I tried to reach you on 'shout' but you're obviously not on the forum at the moment. I've written to Stephan to see if I can get some answer from him but I think he may be away? I think it's a serious mistake for people to try and keep forums altogether without their critics. But I don't know the context of your latest. LOL. Between you and Poynty you're notching up a record of some sort here. But I guess I shouldn't make too light of this. My object here would be to try and get you re-instated. Can't think what's going on? Ou was exceptional in its extraordinary tolerance of the alternative view point. Golly. Something's definitely amiss.
I took the trouble to read the Scribd paper and the schedule you reference is definitely not posted there. Have alerted Fuzzy. Must be an oversight. Apologies for this - the more so as you and Poynty mentioned it some time back. It'll be attended to in due course I'm sure.
Regarding Aaron's post - I know only too well your attitudes here. Nor do I intend getting embroiled in a defense. Just know that everyone has their strengths and Aaron's particular genius is that he is really actively and effectively able to promote knowledge of alternative energy at a layman's level. That's much more than you or I can ever do and every little bit helps. Just give people their space MH. We all have our place in the sun. And don't underestimate the guy. He's way more intelligent than you give him credit for and he's passionately involved in the general cause for cleaner greener - which has got to be a good thing. Personally I'm inclined to give my support to anyone with that much passion. It takes courage and he's dedicated the best part of his life to issues that I, personally, hold near and dear.
But I'm getting into lecture mode and I guess you'll find that offensive too. Miss the fun times a bit. But there's a mood of austerity around - probably due to the harsh economic climate - and winter in the Northern Hemisphere will definitely aggravate this. The vast majority of the global population are feeling the cold at the moment and not everyone enjoys the mood break offered by Christmas Cheer. LOL I'm getting way too prosaic for my own taste here.
Take care of yourself MH. And I hope you catch up on that sleep. I know something about feeling the lack as I'm a chronic insomniac.
Rosemary
Hi Rosemary,
I bookmarked the scribd.com link for where your paper has been posted so that I can check to see if it will be revised with measurement data to back up your COP > 4 claim.
That means you measure greater than four times the thermal power dissipated in the inductive load resistor as compared to the measured electrical power that is supplied to the circuit. The paper would have to clearly indicate how you made those measurements.
I glance at your discussion group on the EF from time to time and I see no discussion whatsoever about the fact that you don't have any measurement data to back up your claim. How you can claim that this is an "oversight" is beyond my comprehension.
I am crossing my fingers that by January 31, 2010 I will see that the scribd.com article has been updated with the missing measurement data. If not, then in my personal opinion this whole exercise has been an eight month long farce, and further ongoing discussions amongst yourself and the rest of the group on EF will be nothing more than theater of the absurd.
I know that I am being harsh and I am sorry. However, you are making a claim that challenges the laws of thermodynamics and the whole scientific and industrial infrastructure that has been developed over the past 150 years. It's that infrastructure that makes it possible for people all over the world to exchange information and collaborate in real time. Every single watt of electrical power that is expended to maintain that infrastructure and keep it running is accounted for and paid for. Like they say, "There is no free lunch."
MileHigh
A first response regarding the IEEE paper submission:
QuoteDate: Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 5:59 AM
Subject: Paper TPWRD-00893-2009, by Mr. Ashtweth Palise, Open source evaluation of power transients generated to improve performance coefficient of resistive heating systems.
To: ashtweth@gmail.com
Cc: pesdecisions@ieee.org, iravani@ecf.utoronto.ca
Paper Title: Open source evaluation of power transients generated to improve performance coefficient of resistive heating systems.
We regret to advise you that the Reviewing Committee is unable
to accept the subject paper for publication as a PES Transactions paper even with possible revisions.
Enclosed please find the comments of the reviewers that should
serve to explain the recommendation of the reviewing committee.
I hope you will find the explanations satisfactory. Although we
could not accept this paper, we hope that you will consider
Transactions on Power Delivery for other papers in the future.
We thank you for your continued interest in the Power Engineering Society.
COMMENTS TO THE AUTHORS:
Editor's Comments:
Editor
Editor Comments for Author:
We suggest this paper to be sumitted for review to the IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics or Industry Applications. This rejection is an administrative decision and not based on the paper content.
Reviewers' Comments:
Reviewer: 1
Comments to the Author
After the initial review we concluded that the paper is more suitable for IEEE Transactions on Industrial electronics and not Power Delivery.
Yours sincerely,
Dr. Reza Iravani
Editor in Chief
Transactions on Power Delivery
iravani@ecf.utoronto.ca
So we wait and see what happens if and when the paper is re-submitted to "Industrial Electronics".
.99
An article (http://www.opednews.com/author/author42945.html) submitted by Rose to OpEdNews.com. It hints at the paper submission and the thesis (and non-main stream ideas in general) in terms of main stream acceptance.
The editor's response, (it is interesting that the article does appear on their web site despite the comments):
QuoteSorry, but we're going to pass on this article. You may NOT resubmit this or post it, even with modifications, as a diary, poll or comment. See our writers guidelines for more info.
Articles are evaluated by a team of 30+ volunteer editors. We trust and highly value our editors. Any editor abuse by email, comment or diary is cause for banning from the site as a troll.
You submitted an article titled:
THERE' S A LIGHT IN THE DARKNESS - Riff Raff
This article was submitted with category General_News and tags Censorship, Energy, Energy, Energy
Op Ed News Administrator
P.S. Your opinion piece fails to prove its point. You assert that the scientific community with its tradition of peer reviewed journals discriminates against ideas that depart from the main stream.
This does not appear to be the case, in my experience. For example many articles claiming to demonstrate cold fusion, or catalytic fusion, have been published only to be invalidated by subsequent research.
Maybe the "editorial censorship" you imagine is because your attempted submissions lacked the rigor of science and logic necessary to meet minimum standards for publication, as I am sorry to say the present example does.
Your Original Submission is attached to this email
Please do NOT reply to this email; no one will see it.
If you'd like to reply to the editor, you may click the following link
to enter a message for the editor:
OpEdNews - Message Send
I agree with his last statement.
.99
Here is the brief analysis I did to sort out the measurement problems with the Ainslie circuit and how it was being tested to obtain the data used for the power calculations.
In summary, the test setup itself, in combination with the use of standard single-ended oscilloscope probes, has resulted in a set of inaccurate measurements. The circuit is much more complex than what meets the eye, and special considerations must be made in order to mitigate the measurement errors.
A more complete analysis will be posted later in the "Power Measurements (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?board=13.0)" thread, where the Ainslie circuit will be used as a case example.
.99
Hi MH AND POYNTY POINT
SORRY ABOUT THE CAPS BUT IT MAKES IT EASIER FOR ME TO READ. I'M BACK ON ANOTHER DEFAULT DISPLAY MODE AND THE TYPING IS - YET AGAIN - OBSCURE. HERE'S MY EXPLANATION OF THE NUMBERS IN THE PAPER
TO BEGIN WITH I'M ABSOLUTELY UNABLE TO READ THE PAPER IN THE FONT SIZE OFFERED IN SCRIBD. THEREFORE I HAVE ONLY EVER SEEN THE PAPER IN WORD FORMAT AND WITH BIGGER SCRIPT SIZES. BUT THE DOWNSIDE IS THAT I CANNOT LOOK AT THE PAPER AS IT IS. I WILL BE GETTING THIS PRINTED BUT THE ONLY PRINT SHOP I CAN USE IS CLOSED UNTIL MONDAY - (I HOPE`). WHEN I EXPAND THE PAPER THE TEXT TENDS TO GO HAYWIRE AND I HAVE TO MAKE A BEST GUESS AS TO WHERE EVEYRTHING IS.
THERE IS A SCHEDULE THAT DEALS WITH THE HEAT PROFILING ON THE LOAD RESISTOR
THERE IS ALSO A SCHEDULE THAT DEALS WITH THE ACTUAL MEASURED ANALYSIS FROM THE DATA DUMPS ACROSS THE SHUNT - WHICH REPRESENTS THE POWER DELIVERED BY THE BATTERY
I AM ABSOLUTELY NOT ABLE TO FIND MY WAY AROUND THIS FORUM. I NEED TO BE ABLE TO READ THE SCRIPT. I CAN BUT WITH DIFFICULTY. I LOVE STROLLING AND SCROLLING THROUGH THREADS AND I CAN'T FIND THEM HERE - OR WHEN I DO THEY NEED TO BE OPENED - SOMEHOW - VERY CONFUSING. I ASK QUESTIONS THAT AREN'T ANSWERED. AND WHEN THEY ARE I CAN'T FIND THE ANSWER. AND I'M TERRIFIED THAT THINGS ARE GETTING POSTED THAT REALLY NEED ANSWERING AND I CANT FIND THE POSTS
VERY NERVOUS - AND ALL I WAS HOPING FOR WAS SOME FUN DIALOGUE.
I'M SURE IT'LL ALL GET PUT RIGHT IN DUE COURSE. UNTIL THEN I'M OFF. LET ME KNOW IF AND WHEN YOU GUYS MANAGE CHANGES. PETERAE - IT'S NOT A CRITICISM. IT'S JUST THAT I'VE GOT VISUAL HANDICAPS THAT THIS FORUM HAS MANAGED TO DEFEAT. - BUT NOTHING WRONG WITH THE FORUM OR ITS INTENTIONS. JUST MY INTERACTION WITH IT THAT'S SOMEWHAT LIMITED
THIS IS ALL THAT IS REQUIRED FOR THE ACTUAL PRESENTATION OF RESULTS AND DONE IN THE REQUIRED FORMAT FOR THAT JOURNAL
HI ROSE, INSTALL FIREFOX ON YOUR COMPUTER THEN ZOOM IN BY SELECTING "VIEW/ZOOM" IN MENUS.
IT WILL THEN MAKE BOTH THE TEXT AND THE ICONS LARGER.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.01.01, 17:42:24
I agree with his last statement.
.99
I don't. Nor, fortunately, did the chief editor.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2009.12.31, 18:12:42
Hi Rosemary,
I glance at your discussion group on the EF from time to time and I see no discussion whatsoever about the fact that you don't have any measurement data to back up your claim. How you can claim that this is an "oversight" is beyond my comprehension.
I trust this is explained. There was no oversight. All tables duly and properly appended.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2009.12.31, 18:12:42
I am crossing my fingers that by January 31, 2010 I will see that the scribd.com article has been updated with the missing measurement data. If not, then in my personal opinion this whole exercise has been an eight month long farce, and further ongoing discussions amongst yourself and the rest of the group on EF will be nothing more than theater of the absurd.
No update requirements. You can uncross your fingers.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2009.12.31, 18:12:42
I know that I am being harsh and I am sorry. However, you are making a claim that challenges the laws of thermodynamics and the whole scientific and industrial infrastructure that has been developed over the past 150 years. It's that infrastructure that makes it possible for people all over the world to exchange information and collaborate in real time. Every single watt of electrical power that is expended to maintain that infrastructure and keep it running is accounted for and paid for. Like they say, "There is no free lunch."
MileHigh
Not harsh MH. That hardly describes your attitude. Just repetitive. And I entirely agree with you. There is no free lunch when it comes to the exchange of energy.
Rosie
EDIT BY THE WAY. Thank you Fraser for your advice on that zoom number. You've opened up a new world for me here. Am able to read all kinds of things.
Rosemary:
QuoteAll tables duly and properly appended.
Nowhere in the paper is there a table that says:
Electrical Power In - Thermal Power Out
1 watt....................4.2 watts
2 watts...................8.7 watts
The electrical power in would be based on analyzing your DSO data or with an analog low-pass-filtering system.
The thermal power out would be based on your heat profiling of the load resistor.
There is nothing like that at all. You are not presenting any data in the paper to back up your claim.
May I suggest that you forward this message to everyone on your team so they can fix this problem.
MileHigh
It is odd that no clear conclusion was given in the paper.
.99
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.01.02, 21:49:53
Rosemary:
Nowhere in the paper is there a table that says:
Electrical Power In - Thermal Power Out
1 watt....................4.2 watts
2 watts...................8.7 watts
The electrical power in would be based on analyzing your DSO data or with an analog low-pass-filtering system.
The thermal power out would be based on your heat profiling of the load resistor.
There is nothing like that at all. You are not presenting any data in the paper to back up your claim.
May I suggest that you forward this message to everyone on your team so they can fix this problem.
MileHigh
Indeed you can suggest anything you like. But no - I've no intention of forwarding this anywhere at all. I'm tired of saying this. There are multiple reasons for not detailing any one result and presentation of results are required by the IEEE as we've done it. It constantly amazes me that you entirely ignore my answers to you and drill on with the same points with the tediousness of a platitude. I was initially and only concerned that the schedules were not on the Scribd copy of the paper. But I've been assured that they're there. Golly.
ok MileHigh and Poynty - clearly I need to explain this as I'm dealing with a kind of ???? that is usually only associated with the particularly intellectually challenged. While you guys are looking for a clear and unambiguous evidence of some proof of COP anything at all - our object was to determine the range of voltage over the shunt and over an extended period - that COP anything at all could be seen as a required and dependable event in the operation of the circuit. To establish that also needed the experimental run over the 6 hours as a ample sample time span - to show repeated and ample evidence of gains. A single solitary shot at a number would be meaningless if it only happened once. We needed to show that it ALWAYS HAPPENS. To which end we gave multiple samples of multiple waveforms through 6 hour period.
The down side from your point of view is precisely that we no longer can show a single number. Well. That requirement would not have met our objects. What is evident is that the heat signatures were constant at plus/minus 4 watts and the draw down rate from the battery was constant at plus/minus 1.5 watts or thereby. As this proved the co-efficient value we did not even need to reference the heat dissipated at other points in the circuit which, conservatively would have given a total dissipation of heat over the circuit at something in the order of 9 plus watts.
I've desubscribed from this thread guys. I see now, at long last, that this was designed as an opportunity to continue a barage of criticism on our tests. I'm more than a little disappointed. It is the first time that open source have made a concerted appeal to mainstream to have an effect tested and analysed and it merits better from the two of you - unless your motives here are so determindly contrary that you will knock what is clearly an exemplary exercise - simply for the benefit of stroking your own egos and thinking yourselves excessively clever. Clearly neither you nor MH have a clue as to what the test objects are. And for you to try and pontificate only exposes your want of understanding.
Very disappointed. On so many levels.
Rosemary:
Your paper states, "Results indicate that the produced transients enable improvements of performance efficiency well over COP 4.0 in line with the predictions of an alternative field model."
You state this yet you have do data in your paper to back up this claim. Saying that the attached tables are there means nothing.
You were pretty aggressive in your comments. Let me give you some context:
You state that you spent 10 years working on your zipon/magnetic field model yet when I got into the thread you had absolutely no understanding of how an inductor works.
Glen is happy to run the DSO but when I read between the lines he would get sick to his stomach or nearly faint if anybody asked him to analyze the data generated by the DSO. Nor does Glen understand the sampling rate/aliasing issues that you absolutely have to be aware of.
Glen is your so-called "expert" but he had no clue what the tolerance datum for a resistor means. It was explained to him at least twice but I am still not sure it has sunk in. Glen is a total amateur, a newbie to electronics and energy with a very limited understanding of the issues.
Harvey managed to get his pet theories about Kirchhoff's current law not holding true all the time and something about current corkscrewing in the opposite direction down the center of a conductor into your paper. He blatantly shoehorned his pet theories into your paper.
Ash blindly believes anything he gobbles up because I am assuming that he has next to no education in sciences at all and he is the ultimate dupe.
The list goes on but I will stop there.
Your refusal to get your team to back up the COP > 4.0 claim and at the same accuse myself and Poynt of being intellectually challenged is pure theater of the absurd. I know that you are between a rock and a hard place with respect to your team because of their limited capabilities but there is no room for debate here. You have to present data to back up your claim and a few paragraphs of contorted logic defending the fact that you have not done this will not get you anywhere with the scientific community.
Your data actually shows that the law of conservation of energy applies to your circuit. It's buried there in amongst the disparate tables and DSO traces and data dumps.
The paper will never be accepted by any IEEE publication in it's current form. If the paper never gets updated I think I am done with this issue. I am the one that is disappointed, your team was unable to finish off the paper and arrive at a conclusion and have been reduced to automatons thinking that they have accomplished something. The Ainsley group is like a "dot com" company in early 1999 burning through IPO cash without a single tangible product or service to sell and we all know what happened there.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.01.03, 00:01:54
Rosemary:
I think I am done with this issue.
MileHigh
I sincerely hope so MileHigh. I'm overdone. I have no intention of answering your posts on this matter - ever again. At least not until they become constructive and interesting. And if you and Poynty want to ban me - feel free. I'll be in good company. LOL
Perhaps I may be able to shed a bit of light on the situation.
Below I have extracted Tables II and III (Source Power Averages & temperature Baselines respectively) and the Load Resistor temperature logsheet from the paper. In them I've highlighted the pertinent values I believe the Ainslie team may have used to come up with the apparent COP = 4.1.
From Table II we have 1.3W, and from Table III we have 5.33W, giving us the COP of 4.1.
It should be noted that none of these values are either referred to directly, highlighted, or stated anywhere in the paper, and that the reader is tasked to do what I have shown here in order to make a reasonable conclusion regarding the tests results and the claim of improved COP. It is hoped I assume that the reviewers will not only be inclined to perform this task, but that they will also choose the correct values.
IMO it would have been well worth the effort to include basically what I have done here in the paper's conclusion. Surely it could only help in getting one's paper reviewed beyond the conclusion, which is probably where most reviewers go right after reading the abstract anyway.
A few words about Table II. This table consists of a number of measurements or data dumps taken at time base settings of 2us and 40us, every 6 minutes for about an hour's time. From the results, one can see that the values deviate over a range of about 600%, which normally and statistically, would have to be discarded as unusable data. The Ainslie team however feels that several measurements were required in order to capture the existence of a fleeting energy signature (called "the harmonic") that only appears when viewing the scope display at a 40us time base setting, and only when the circuit adjustments are at "optimum". It is this "harmonic" the Ainslie team feels is responsible for the vast deviation in power measurements, and hence the reason for the multiple data dumps and result averaging.
Those who have had experience with a digital Tek scope can tell you that these fleeting wave patterns as observed by the Ainslie team appear all the time, no matter what wave form you are measuring. If the time base is set long enough in comparison to the period of oscillation, they will most likely appear. The resulting pattern character is dependent on the wave form shape and frequency, and the scope sampling frequency.
Also of note is the record length capability of the scope. For the TDDS3054C, the maximum record length is 10k samples. This essentially establishes the sample rate you will get with any given time base setting. As such, lengthening the time base reduces the sample rate, and eventually the scope can not capture and display the measured wave form with any reasonable fidelity. Higher-end scopes have record lengths up to 1MEG, which facilitates more accurate data dumps (and bigger files), and a more accurate real-time display of the wave form (i.e. less "patterning").
.99
@Milehigh
QuoteYou state that you spent 10 years working on your zipon/magnetic field model yet when I got into the thread you had absolutely no understanding of how an inductor works.
Glen is happy to run the DSO but when I read between the lines he would get sick to his stomach or nearly faint if anybody asked him to analyze the data generated by the DSO. Nor does Glen understand the sampling rate/aliasing issues that you absolutely have to be aware of.
Glen is your so-called "expert" but he had no clue what the tolerance datum for a resistor means. It was explained to him at least twice but I am still not sure it has sunk in. Glen is a total amateur, a newbie to electronics and energy with a very limited understanding of the issues.
Harvey managed to get his pet theories about Kirchhoff's current law not holding true all the time and something about current corkscrewing in the opposite direction down the center of a conductor into your paper. He blatantly shoehorned his pet theories into your paper.
Ash blindly believes anything he gobbles up because I am assuming that he has next to no education in sciences at all and he is the ultimate dupe.
The list goes on but I will stop there.
I have often wondered what the many farmers and other spectators at Kitty Hawk must have thought while watching the Wright brothers first experiments in powered flight. Common sense would probably tell them that it was impossible or un-natural and they could rest assured that the two bicycle repaimen would never get off the ground. As well there were all the so called experts with their calculations and hallowed "laws" which stated catagorically that this contraption would never fly and most everyone felt confident they were correct because they had no comprehension of how it could be done. It is easy to justify the thought that a fluid substance of little density such as air could never support the weight of an aicraft which would seem to be common sense only because they had no conception of how one could rigidify a gas to such an extent that is could be as hard as rock. As well they had little understanding of how one could control such a craft once it was in the air. They say on the first true flight of the wright brothers airplane there was a farmer watching and I have to wonder what was going through his mind? In one moment his little world of common sense notions and the laws of nature were intact and in the next instant all of this confidence in what he believes to be true has evaporated into thin air. I also have to wonder if this person and others had any remorse that they had judged the Wright brothers as quacks when in fact it was the other 99.99% of the people on this planet who were delusional in some sense of the word for believing it was impossible without having all the facts. Do you think you would have any remorse over judging most everyone here as uneducated bafoons if any one of them found success such as the Wright brothers did with powered flight? Would you have resentment that an uneducated person or one with little knowledge could find success where you with years of experience could not? I understand this is most likely an impossibility in your mind which may be hard to fathom but if by chance any one of these supposedly uneducated and underqualified people did succeed then what? In all my research of the history of invention the one reacurring theme that is consistent is that invention is not about education or the retention of information it is about creativity and determination and anyone can have these qualities.
Regards
AC
Hi Allcanadian, That's a really nice post. For some reason there's ample support for contributors on all the threads here - bar this. Strange how it is that this particular endeavour generates nothing but spite. But I see, to his credit that Ponty is trying to temper his usual barrage. But not enough there yet to tempt a reply from me Poynty Point. Still too many inaccuracies hidden in your usual generalisations.
Regarding MileHigh's 'take' on everyone's weaknesses - I get it that that's how he vicariously endorses his own good opinion of himself. There must be some value in whipping the whip horse. It's how small minds pretend that they're bigger than they are. They just focus their attack to make everyone around them look small. I would begrudge it if it mattered. But it doesn't, thank goodness. It would only matter if his opinion mattered. And that would only matter if he were a half way decent critic. He's indecently vitriolic - so who cares? I don't.
Yes AC the same tired old flat Earth/Wright brothers argument one more time. There is a great rebuttal to that and I will state it one more time.
In the 19th century a lot of researchers were investigating flight. They built gliders for people and made thousands of flights to get a basic understanding of aerodynamics. Many of them did calculations and they realized that if they could have a power source with a certain power to weight ratio it would be possible to have powered flight. However, at the time the only available power sources were heavy steam engines with an insufficient power to weight ratio.
Then the gasoline engine was developed and many enlightened minds realized that the goal of achieving powered flight was in theory obtainable because of the improved power to weight ratio. Enter the Wright brothers. They were very disciplined and did tons of research and broke the problem down into its discrete components. They developed all sorts of test apparatus and generated all sorts of test data to advance their cause. They were some of the first researchers to follow a strict scientific methodology to understand the problem of powered flight. They built a wind tunnel. The studied and tested propellers. The even developed an apparatus that allowed them to plot wing lift versus drag for different wing shapes at different air speeds. Finally after all of their hard work and determination and using a disciplined scientific approach to the problem they were successful in their quest, the first powered flight of an aircraft piloted by a person.
It was the enlightened people with some education and critical thinking skills that believed that powered flight was possible. They didn't say that the Wright brothers were nuts while they were working away in their bicycle shop at all.
The Wright brothers did not just make struts and build a fame and stretch some canvas over it and try to make a flying machine by trial and error. They took a scientific approach and really understood what they were doing and continually worked their way up the learning curve, step by step.
So I guess it's all a question of your point of view. Who are the ignorant farmers in the fields and who are the enlightened people?
How come your computer today as compared to your computer of 20 years ago has a processor that's thousands of times more powerful, and has thousands of times more memory, and has a hard drive that's thousands of times larger? Those stupid ignorant engineers in their ivory towers are responsible for that. They were using the laws of Nature.
There is no valid data in the Ainsley paper to back up their claim and that kind of nonsense does not advance science at all. If you cheer them on anyways, are you the ignorant farmer or are you enlightened?
MileHigh
@Milehigh
QuoteThere is no valid data in the Ainsley paper to back up their claim and that kind of nonsense does not advance science at all. If you cheer them on anyways, are you the ignorant farmer or are you enlightened?
I would like to think I am a little of both, if the truth be known I was raised on a farm and intend to retire there. As well I understand your point of view and agree with it for the most part however I would disagree with how you make your point sometimes. Regarding the Ainsley paper---"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"--Albert Einstein.
QuoteThey developed all sorts of test apparatus and generated all sorts of test data to advance their cause.They were some of the first researchers to follow a strict scientific methodology to understand the problem of powered flight. They built a wind tunnel. The studied and tested propellers. The even developed an apparatus that allowed them to plot wing lift versus drag for different wing shapes at different air speeds.
I agree with this statement but there is something else we can learn from this, a little perspective. Most of us know perfectly well how an airplane and a wing works from books-- but do we really? I have built wind tunnels and done extensive research in the field of rotary and fixed wing aerodynamics as well as wind turbines and my conclusions may disagree with yours. Did you know a wing does not produce any significant lift due to Bernoulli principle of differential pressure and that the majority of lift is produced by reactive mass alone?, air is forced downward inducing a leading pressure front and large drag forces evolve which is very inefficient. In this case Bernoulli's principle and differential pressure does not produce constructive lift forces it only prevents a reverse flow of the reactive mass upwards. Our idea of "lift" is still based on the principal of a sheet of plywood hanging in the wind pushing air downward, this is not evolution it is madness. I mention this because I personally found it very odd that even in this day and age we still do not completely understand all the forces on a simple wing, in fact we have advanced very little today from what the Wright brothers discovered. Consider that it is only in the last few years that science has actually been able to reproduce the mechanism of flight of a common bird and it is a very primitive reproduction, are we really as advanced as you presume? My point here is that we know what we know and then there is reality but they are not always the same thing.
QuoteHow come your computer today as compared to your computer of 20 years ago has a processor that's thousands of times more powerful, and has thousands of times more memory, and has a hard drive that's thousands of times larger? Those stupid ignorant engineers in their ivory towers are responsible for that. They were using the laws of Nature.
As an engineer with no ivory tower, I can tell you that what we know today was not developed by engineer's persay-- it was developed by a handfull of brilliant and creative engineer's----- for the most part the rest are just sheep following along collecting their paycheck. This is why the Ainsley circuit and many others in the forum do matter, it is not about what you know it is about what may be possible. It is about exploring new possibilities never considered, this is research and mistakes will be made. The truth is that we do not know what may be possible because it has not been done yet and if you never try you will never know.
Regards
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on 2010.01.04, 00:42:07
@Milehigh
QuoteThere is no valid data in the Ainsley paper to back up their claim and that kind of nonsense does not advance science at all. If you cheer them on anyways, are you the ignorant farmer or are you enlightened?
.... Regarding the Ainslie (name edited as MH persistently refuses to spell this correctly) paper---"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"--Albert Einstein.
Hi AC. I get it that you're defending us here and am grateful. But there's an unhappy implication in your chosen quote that leaves one with the impression that we 'don't know what we are doing.' I beg to differ as the claim here has never been entirely that these heat signatures MAY be evident - but rather - that they WILL be evident. The initial Quantum paper detailed a circuit configuration that was intended to test a magnetic field model that proposed that all identifiable three dimensional objects - or amalgams - are bound by the very thing that astrophysicists claim 'binds' our galaxies. They call this energy 'dark energy' and propose that it's from a dark particle. The magnetic field model claims that this same particle binds amalgams and that it is invisible to light precisely because it is both smaller and faster than light. In effect the particle that binds the material of conductive wire on a circuit is the particle that is able to extrude the body of that material and adjust its position in space. In other words the 'thing' or the 'energy' that has been transferred to the atoms in that wire - is simply fields of these zipons as I have presumed to call the particle.
So. The departure from classical physics is that these fields are extant, in the first instance, and that they are responsible for the apparent exchange of energy in the second instance. They are the fields that adjust to imposed imbalances - of whatever nature. And they are plastic and can and do move through space to balance their own charge. This, in turn, balances the distribution of charge of the actual atoms. But they only ever interact with the atom's energy levels. The atoms themselves are invisible to the field just as the field itself is invisible to us. We can only measure the ionised state of the amalgams. We cannot see these fields. We can only measure their effect over time. Their positional adjustment precedes our own time frame which answers both questions of locality and the apparent and instantaneous measure of voltage across a circuit that has this innate measurable imbalance. As presumptuous as it is, the proposal is that the change in the distribution and manifestation of these fields is precisely what classicists term and measure as an exchange of energy. In effect, the proposal is that energy is vested entirely in these fields and that the energy exchange actually occurs at a level that is also entirely invisible to us. And, in any event, the exchange has come and gone as we can only measure those 'changes' in its wake.
All this would simply constitute an alternative description of classical views of energy exchange - but for one difference. The proposal is that these fields have properties of mass that vary. If their orbits are broken through some applied imblance their mass changes. And their mass has innate properties of heat and velocity. They become fast and small and cold or slow and big and hot in precise and inverse proportion to each other. Small and cold and fast, they have achieved their balance and interact with atomic energy levels. Hot and big and slow, they have lost their own balance and manifest in our own dimensions as 'flame'. The proposal is that the flame is simply another manifestation of the zipon that then decays again when it has found another field which may be outside the body of the amalgam that it first bound. Which explanation confronts classical understandings.
But the simple fact is that if this is correct, as seems to be evident in this circuit's breach of classical norms in the exchange of energy - then the implications are that both thermal and kinetic energies can be far better and more efficiently exploited that is possible in terms of our Thermodynamic Laws. Which is very good news for those of us who would prefer to cater to our rampant energy requirements. That MileHigh chooses to ignore the evidence in the data that has been so carefully presented in the paper - is not a reflection on this new and emerging technology. Rather it is a sad reflection on that rigid and inflexible mind that can no longer adjust to new thinking. I am sure that there are many MileHighs in this world. Fortunately there are others who are well able to flex their intellects as required and they are also among those many credentialed readers. It does not constitute an argument to say 'you are wrong' or 'this is nonsense'. That only reflects on the incapacity of his intellect. It is usual that this stiffens with age, along with the aging body. So it is something to be pitied rather than criticised.
What is alarming is MH's revision of history where he makes some reference to a semi-scientific dialogue in the art of gliding as opposed to motorised flight. This is so exaggerated as to be entirely fantastical and would require today's level of international discussion through the internet and through forums such as this - to be enabled. Nonsense indeed. And it's malicious nonsense, to boot.
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blearlyflight2.htm
1891 Otto Lilienthal
German engineer, Otto Lilienthal, studied aerodynamics and worked to design a glider that would fly. Otto Lilienthal was the first person to design a glider that could fly a person and was able to fly long distances.
Otto Lilienthal was fascinated by the idea of flight. Based on his studies of birds and how they fly, he wrote a book on aerodynamics that was published in 1889 and this text was used by the Wright Brothers as the basis for their designs.
After more than 2500 flights, Otto Lilienthal was killed when he lost control because of a sudden strong wind and crashed into the ground.
Samuel Langley was physicist and astronomer who realized that power was needed to help man fly. Langley conducted experiments using whirling arms and steam motors. He built a model of a plane, which he called an aerodrome, that included a steam-powered engine. In 1891, his model flew for 3/4s of a mile before running out of fuel.
Samuel Langley received a $50,000 grant to build a full sized aerodrome. It was too heavy to fly and it crashed. He was very disappointed. He gave up trying to fly. His major contributions to flight involved attempts at adding a power plant to a glider. He was also well known as the director of the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, DC.
1894 Octave Chanute
Octave Chanute was a successful engineer who undertook the invention of airplanes as a hobby, after being inspired by Otto Lilienthal. Chanute designed several aircraft, the Herring - Chanute biplane was his most successful design and formed the basis of the Wright biplane design.
Octave Chanute published "Progress in Flying Machines" in 1894. It gathered and analyzed all the technical knowledge that he could find about aviation accomplishments. It included all of the world's aviation pioneers. The Wright Brothers used this book as a basis for much of their experiments. Chanute was also in contact with the Wright Brothers and often commented on their technical progress.
----
On a personal note I suppose that I "pity" people that invest their energy in places that would perhaps better be left alone. I am all for them doing exciting new things for the benefit of mankind but if they misplace their energy there is the "opportunity cost" of not being able to pursue better and more fruitful avenues of research.
MileHigh
MileHigh, you have presented a comprehensive list of those early aviators and their interests. You drew a comparison to the scientific discussion that preceded flight - or at least the Wright brothers mastery of flight. So. What was the actual credentialed authority of those early aviators? Where did this 'scientific discussion' happen prior to the event. There were no academics joining in that debate. It was books published by amateurs and read by other amateurs. And was that not the point of AC's contribution? In other words while mainstream was pontificating on the impossibility of flight - those amateurs, to a man, simply went ahead and flew? And that in defiance of mainstream's opinion on the matter. Academics certainly took no part in that discussion. And they published no findings on the matter. And I'm reasonably certain that whatever was published prior to that memorable flight - no academic would have given it his serious regard. They had already determined and continued to teach that motorised flight was impossible. Which goes to prove Allacandian's point.
We are all just pioneering here MH. And - at its least - we are producing the evidence of extra energy in the same way as the Wright brothers produced evidence of flight. My continuing objection to your opinion here is that it is not based on an evaluation of the evidence but on some bigotted appraisal of what should be happening rather than what is. And that's not even scientific - not by a long shot.
Hi Rosemary:
I am more than happy to simply agree to disagree and turn the page. My previous posting was simply done to support my statement about 19th century research into flight. I watched a good PBS "Nova" about the Wright brothers and remembered some facts.
My real thorn in my side about the realm of "free energy" is really about unscrupulous people or companies that steal money from others. I knew as soon as I started reading your thread that you and basically everyone involved in your project does not fall into that class.
For AC, you often have a different spin on things and I think that they got it right about Bernoulli's Principle. Don't forget that the finite element analysis modeling of the fluid dynamics for the air flow over a wing is very sophisticated. Number crunching is cheap and powerful nowadays and the element size can be very small. You should give the scientists and engineers more respect, I think that they know a lot more than you give them credit for.
If y'all want to get that happy shiny furry feeling, I learned something new this week. Look up "Burning Man." Now that paints a picture in my mind. The "tribes" from EF, OU, and OUR making an annual pilgrimage to Burning Man in Rotoverter-powered dune buggies covered with joule thief LED light shows. Think Tesla! I can just see Jibbguy putting his boat on wheels, decorating it up to look like a giant Bedini motor mutant vehicle and cruising around and spreading the word. Joit can go dressed as a giant coil. It can't get anymore grass-roots than Burning Man and the seeds can be planted! The quest for critical mass can start there! lol
Bring your own Orgone...
MileHigh
P.S.: I suppose that I just invented a new word: If Ash went he would have a Burning Managasm.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.01.05, 12:04:47
If y'all want to get that happy shiny furry feeling, I learned something new this week. Look up "Burning Man." Now that paints a picture in my mind. The "tribes" from EF, OU, and OUR making an annual pilgrimage to Burning Man in Rotoverter-powered dune buggies covered with joule thief LED light shows. Think Tesla! I can just see Jibbguy putting his boat on wheels, decorating it up to look like a giant Bedini motor mutant vehicle and cruising around and spreading the word. Joit can go dressed as a giant coil. It can't get anymore grass-roots than Burning Man and the seeds can be planted! The quest for critical mass can start there! lol
Bring your own Orgone...
MileHigh
P.S.: I suppose that I just invented a new word: If Ash went he would have a Burning Managasm.
;D
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2010.01.04, 04:50:30
The initial Quantum paper detailed a circuit configuration that was intended to test a magnetic field model that proposed that all identifiable three dimensional objects - or amalgams - are bound by the very thing that astrophysicists claim 'binds' our galaxies. They call this energy 'dark energy' and propose that it's from a dark particle. The magnetic field model claims that this same particle binds amalgams and that it is invisible to light precisely because it is both smaller and faster than light. In effect the particle that binds the material of conductive wire on a circuit is the particle that is able to extrude the body of that material and adjust its position in space. In other words the 'thing' or the 'energy' that has been transferred to the atoms in that wire - is simply fields of these zipons as I have presumed to call the particle.
"dark energy" is just another name for what was once called "aether".
I don't see how this circuit was supposed to prove or disprove the existance of "dark energy". Can you briefly explain?
Hi Grumpy.
Not sure how to give a quick and easy answer but I'll give it my best shot. The proposal is that an atom - in its unbound state - is also at its lowest energy level. The binding of - say - a nugget of gold is done by the addition of heat which is traditionally seen as a means to then bond the material through a chemical process that then aligns those atoms into its own unique crystalline structure. Mainstream say that there's an interaction of the valence electrons that then distribute and align and balance their charge properties to bring about the required shape of those crystals. And for the sake of clarity let's call that nugget of gold an amalgam.
This model proposes that the thing that is transferred into those loosely bound atoms were a whole lot of zipons. They enter the amalgam, interact with the atom's energy levels, move to balance the atoms which they do by establishing those crystalline structures. Then the cool down, and hold that attachment and simply dissapear from view. It holds the amalgam in its fixed shape and the atoms in that amalgam in a state of relative rest. And these fields stay there, orbiting in tightly confined areas - entirely undetectable - until another imbalance is introduced to the amalgam. Then they lose their tight bound cold state to unravel and become slow and hot and big. Extreme values of this is evident as 'flame' or fire - but not necessarily as we know of fire - buring in air. It can literally unravel within the material of the resistor itself and still become hot and slow and big.
Which essentially means that energy itself is really just these little zipons which are either slow and big and hot and evident in our own dimension - or fast and small and cold. In the fast small cold state their velocity is twice the speed of light and light itself cannot find them. Slow, big and hot, and we measure it as heat. The two states operate in an inverse but proportional ratio to each other. This is where the mass of an amalgam is able to generate energy. But not from any energy in the atoms - only the energy that was first introduced to form that amalgam. So. This little thesis depends on the absolute conservation of energy - more rigidly than our classicists. It's just that it's presumed to define energy itself and I'm well aware of that presumption.
Now. Where are these zipons? They form the earth's magnetic fields and they line up and orbit as strings. They're in these tightly bound areas of amalgams and they orbit as strings. They're in atomic energy levels where, surprise, surprise, they line up as strings. They're in the sun - chaotic and unable to line up as they cannot find a rest state. But they're also in the sun's energy levels which shapes the path of our planetary orbits. And again, like the atomic energy levels, they line up as strings. And so on - into the galaxies, and then into the universe. And in the universe, provided it's toroidal and provided it has a boundary - then this proposal is that it too comprises these strings upon strings upon strings of zipons - shoulder to shoulder. So that's how the model unfolds. Just a whole lot of magnetic fields comprising dipolar particles with a velocity at 2C and a tendancy to follow an immutable principle to establish a state of zero net charge.
For what it's worth. It's awfully simplified. But it's something like that. And I agree with you. Dark matter is definitely the same thing as earlier concepts of superluminal aether.
Sorry. I should add that our experiment does not prove that this is dark energy. It's just that I used this circuit as a means to show that conductive components are able to generate energy provided that it's exposed to some initial voltage imbalance. What the circuit is designed to prove is that the energy on the resistive load is not 'stored energy' as argued by mainstream. It's the result of its own energy quotient, those fields of zipons, and it is therefore capable of supplying its own current flow from a voltage imbalance. And it does this in the same way as a supply source. In effect the inductive resistive load becomes its own energy supply source. All it needs to kick start this - is an applied voltage imbalance from the first part of the switching cycle.
It will be easier for people to understand your explanations if you use terminology that they are familiar with. Build upon the foundation already laid rather than start a new one.
Are "zipons" any different than "photons"? "Virtual photons" can not be detected until they interact with something. Photons are the force carriers of electromagnetic fields in conventional theories.
Both comprose a dipolar medium. How did you determine they were dipolar?
It is my understanding that a continuous kicking is required as the additional energy is only transferred during the initial change. A propagation of "change" also comprises a "current", even though nothing actually travels.
It may prove easier to show a transfer of energy than anomolous heating.
Grumpy - if you're really interested I've got a blogspot rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com. I've written out the model. And it defintely conforms with observed reality if that's what you're suggesting. Delighted to expand on the subject but it's off topic and it's also way, way too long. Can't be abbreviated not without compromising its logic.
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2010.01.05, 14:56:19
Grumpy - if you're really interested I've got a blogspot rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com. I've written out the model. And it defintely conforms with observed reality if that's what you're suggesting. Delighted to expand on the subject but it's off topic and it's also way, way too long. Can't be abbreviated not without compromising its logic.
You maybe wrote a model but you didn't showed it. the only thing you showed is a paper with some idea, there no mathematical explanation in it so nothing can be predictable or derivate from it. There a big world between a Theory and a Model. Maybe i missed one of your paper who show all the Math ?
Best Regards,
IceStorm
Quote from: IceStorm on 2010.01.06, 19:03:50
You maybe wrote a model but you didn't showed it.
And hello to you too IceStorm.
Quote from: IceStorm on 2010.01.06, 19:03:50
the only thing you showed is a paper with some idea,
Indeed.
Quote from: IceStorm on 2010.01.06, 19:03:50
there no mathematical explanation in it so nothing can be predictable or derivate from it.
That's because you clearly did not understand the model.
Quote from: IceStorm on 2010.01.06, 19:03:50
There a big world between a Theory and a Model.
Indeed.
Quote from: IceStorm on 2010.01.06, 19:03:50
Maybe i missed one of your paper who show all the Math ?
Possibly.
Not sure if you expect a discussion if you're just making a comment.
IceStorm, Grumpy,
Is this what you're looking for? It's at least a long textual description of the model. A pdf version with the diagrams is available at the very bottom.
http://rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com
-Steve
http://rimstar.org http://wsminfo.org
IceStorm dispensed with good manners and asked
For the sense in a model that clearly had cast
Some doubt in a mind
Of the obdurate kind
That still clung to the logic of a time that had passed.
Quote from: stevend on 2010.01.06, 21:10:01
IceStorm, Grumpy,
Is this what you're looking for? It's at least a long textual description of the model. A pdf version with the diagrams is available at the very bottom.
http://rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com
-Steve
http://rimstar.org http://wsminfo.org
Thanks, but I avoid anything that renames accepted terminology.
Grumpy - I'm not sorry that you're avoiding that read on my model. It really is not for the weak minded and, to the best of my knowledge there are only, perhaps, 3 people who have actually ever understood it. But I strongly object to your comment that it renames accepted terminology. How do you know this without reading it? And where have I renamed anything at all?
This type of post, Poynty, is my point. I have read posts in this forum and others that are so extraordinarily fanciful and illogical and absurd - that it throws some question on the sanity of both the supporter and the supported, so to speak. I have seen claims that have been poorly substantiated, and tests that have been badly presented, and ideas that have been badly articulated and logic that has been grossly abused - and on and on. Yet nothing is offered other than kindly supportive encouragement. It is as if the general critical faculties of all are suspended in favour of some kind of overly sensitive drivel that thoroughly endorses the inevitable consequence of 'more of the same'. And yet my own thesis and the tests in support of it - are subject to nothing but continual attack. Newbies come in with their 'maiden posts' with a signature dismissal of my model or the tests results or both. And no-one jumps to my defense nor comments on the evident poor and insenstive quality of their contribution.
I might tell you that my friends asked me why I bothered with this forum unless it's because I enjoy abuse. I assure you I don't. In fact, if I don't see some kind of active restraint imposed on such contributions then I'll bow out here. I'm sick to death of my eternal need to fight a lonely corner.
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2010.01.07, 22:30:49
Grumpy - I'm not sorry that you're avoiding that read on my model. It really is not for the weak minded and, to the best of my knowledge there are only, perhaps, 3 people who have actually ever understood it. But I strongly object to your comment that it renames accepted terminology. How do you know this without reading it? And where have I renamed anything at all?
This type of post, Poynty, is my point. I have read posts in this forum and others that are so extraordinarily fanciful and illogical and absurd - that it throws some question on the sanity of both the supporter and the supported, so to speak. I have seen claims that have been poorly substantiated, and tests that have been badly presented, and ideas that have been badly articulated and logic that has been grossly abused - and on and on. Yet nothing is offered other than kindly supportive encouragement. It is as if the general critical faculties of all are suspended in favour of some kind of overly sensitive drivel that thoroughly endorses the inevitable consequence of 'more of the same'. And yet my own thesis and the tests in support of it - are subject to nothing but continual attack. Newbies come in with their 'maiden posts' with a signature dismissal of my model or the tests results or both. And no-one jumps to my defense nor comments on the evident poor and insenstive quality of their contribution.
I might tell you that my friends asked me why I bothered with this forum unless it's because I enjoy abuse. I assure you I don't. In fact, if I don't see some kind of active restraint imposed on such contributions then I'll bow out here. I'm sick to death of my eternal need to fight a lonely corner.
That was a poor choice of words. At first glance it apeared that zipons and (that other name) replaced "things" in conventional interpretations of physics. After reading it, a better summarizing statement is that your model tries to correct a flawed model that can not be corrected because it is fundamentally incorrect.
All energy in any form, is recieved from the medium - period. Tesla finally realized this before he died and he was absolutely correct.
Quote from: witsend on 2010.01.06, 22:04:40
IceStorm dispensed with good manners and asked
For the sense in a model that clearly had cast
Some doubt in a mind
Of the obdurate kind
That still clung to the logic of a time that had passed.
Look at what i talk about, a Model need to be mathematical because if you say that the current model is wrong, then you need to show HOW is wrong, not invent some new words and throwing some idea, look at this Thesis http://www.distinti.com/docs/neThesis.pdf . The guy is maybe wrong but it show mathematically and with experiment how his model is better than the current one. Its how you need to do that. You MAYBE right in your model, i don't know , but you need to correlate with the current model to show what is wrong and it can only be in one format, Mathematically.
Best Regards,
IceStorm
@All,
Rose has deleted her account here and left. I bid her adieu with the following:
QuoteHi Rose.
I've read all the posts, and I'm not sure why you are so upset. People ask questions, because they are skeptical of the works presented. The type of work submitted by you and the team is a target with a sign in big letters saying "shoot at me", and you surely are aware of this, and should expect this, after all, it is far outside of mainstream acceptance and understanding.
I have advised you in the past, and I'll suggest again, that the data presented by you to support any notion of OU or claims of COP>1 are lacking. You do not agree, but it is the truth. The paper too, is weak in it's argument and is poorly presented. I can only hope that after the IEEE rejects the paper a second time, you will see that you and the team will have to do much much better in order to garner some credibility with the academics you are so desperately soliciting for approval.
I find it puzzling also that you do not impose the same level of tolerance (i.e. thickness of skin) on yourself that you do upon those that have endured several deep assaults in turn from you. It is a two-way street Rose, and you must be willing to receive equal to what you sow. Indeed some "questions" arise that you may perceive as first assault, but you have a choice about how to respond, don't you? Think about that. A clear objective response can only promote a clear objective response, and if I saw anyone getting out of line as such, they would hear from me. But I did not see anything that required intervention, and I am sorry that you chose to depart rather than stand your ground, but that is your choice.
Good luck. I think you are missing out on a great forum, and a great opportunity to interact with an interesting, intelligent group of people.
.99
Hi IceStorm,
I face the same problem regarding the need of a model with mathematical. The usefulness of mathematics is that you can make quantitive predictions and choose components and values for experiments. Mostly I currently use the Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) model. It has a lot of mathematical support but much of it is still conceptual due only to lack of people working on it. It does clearly state what energy is and how it's transfered from particle to particle and so gives me a guide to what won't work for converting quantum vacuum energy to electrical energy, according to the model. Given that, I can sort of guess at what might work but the model isn't far enough along mathematically to tell me if I'm right, according to the model, and if so, tell me precisely what to build. So the model gives me some rough guidance, but that's all. I guess it's a little better than doing things at random, for now.
I looked at the link you provided. So far I like it and will dig deeper. Thanks for that.
-Steve
http://rimstar.org http://wsminfo.org
Ken,
For what it's worth, I am an exile from the RA circuit discussion also. Several months ago it became quite apparent that there was no solid data coming in to back up her claim. Then there was a disconnect where Rosemary and her followers pushed on as if they did have data to back up her claim. Then the paper was written and presented that included no concrete data at to back up her claim. Sorry to be repetitive but I want to emphasize the point.
It's a classic example of a reality distortion field in action. A half-dozen people are going to continue on with this nonsensical project and get absolutely nowhere with it. Some of them are beginners and have a very limited understanding of electronics and are apparently unaware that what they are doing is useless. They also actively resist all attempts to point out the error in their ways and refuse to listen to or discuss these problems with the people that are "not of the body." As Vortex1 recently pointed out, the paper is filled with links to useless DSO shots of under-sampled waveforms. The whole thing has become a complete farce but don't expect anyone on the RA team to express any doubts, that would be a thoughtcrime.
MileHigh
"Learn" is the operative word here.
Unguided "learning" quite often leads to a misguided understanding, and that's the underlying problem.
.99
I just posted this at OU in response to "Fuzzy"
Fuzzy
Your tabular data for the temperature rise above ambient vs power input of your nicely hand wound resistor is a starting point. You used your bench power supply for this.
Now using the same power supply, run the Ainslie circuit and note the power being used on the same meters .
No need for batteries and a DSO and all that number crunching and cherry picking of "preferred data" out of the noise.
You could also do a number of control experiments using non "Ainslie" resistors, such as pure carbon tubular rods of the same size,shape, and resistance. don't forget to take into account "emissivity differences".
There are special paints you could use in an attempt to normalize the differences in resistor surfaces so that your IR thermometer gives consistent readings.
My main point is that you are using one piece of equipment (a power supply) to measure power input to the device under test, then switching to a battery and DSO, cherry picked and crunched data readings for your "proof".
This would lead to suspicion in a scientific test.
Get rid of the battery. If necessary, put a large filter cap on the output of your power supply to simulate the low impedance and high peak current capacity of a battery.
This would be convincing to me, not hours of live broadcasts of a DSO in operation.
You could also double check by putting a Kill-O-Watt meter on the line side of your power supply.
To switch instrumentation from the power supply to the DSO is a little slight of hand and suspicious.
I am not against DSO's, and have a few that I use, but a more down to earth and less noise sensitive approach would be more meaningful to me.
For Rosemary to imply that a simple test setup may be acceptable to simple people like myself but never to academia is a bit of an insult, considering I've had over 40 years of temperature and power measurement skills and would like to believe I am rather good at it.
Throughout the history of science, researchers have devised very simple and excellently crafted devices to make extremely fine measurements. This is way before DSO's were available.
Granted a DSO in the hands of a highly experienced individual can give excellent results, but that individual should also have lots of savvy in proper breadboarding techniques so that his "noisy" setup does not skew the DSO data.
I find it difficult to fathom that the "Ainslie team" believes in a COP>6 for the device. If that is so you should be scaling this up and taking over the world in the home heating industry....far better than heat pumps. I don't see anyone having enough faith to jump on this.
Kind Regards....V
VION,
I can pluck the answers from the Ainslie way of thinking of you wish:
Moving the experiment away from using a battery as a power source diminishes or even kills "the effect" entirely, so unfortunately, this will not be done.
The clear compromise imo is to apply the simple input power measurement using heavy averaging on the supply side, reducing this to a very simple power measurement. Even if this measurement had a margin of error of 10% (which it doesn't), it would be more than sufficient to determine if the average input power was less than the average output power, especially with a COP claim of >3.
.99
PS. Don't let willy drag you into his ugly abyss. He'll never "get it" as long as he continues striving to be the clueless jackass he is.
Hi Poynt
Yes I agree, but I wonder what magic they see in a battery? And how does the battery apply to Rosie's theory?
Also tabulation of total power used over time is really not necessary as steady state power measurements will give data to calculate the COP.
Anyway if you should find you have a sleepless night, just watch the "live" broadcasts for a bit.
As for W, I am reminded of those nasty little burrs you pick up on your clothing when walking through a field.........sometimes difficult to be rid of.
Regards....VION
Quote from: ION on 2010.01.16, 19:34:13
Hi Poynt
Yes I agree, but I wonder what magic they see in a battery? And how does the battery apply to Rosie's theory?
Remember the "bump" shown on the battery voltage wave form? The AT believe this is charge going back into the battery. I agree there is a certain amount of recharge (and I've proven and shown it in simulations), it is not nearly enough to cause the indication of a COP>1. That voltage bump is mainly caused by the relatively massive distributed inductance in the some 130 inches of connecting wire to the battery, and where the voltage sample is being taken, i.e. at the wrong end of that wire. This so-called battery re-charge effect doesn't really figure into Rose's thesis, but is more of an "added benefit" while achieving the apparent 'effect".
Quote
Also tabulation of total power used over time is really not necessary as steady state power measurements will give data to calculate the COP.
Agreed, and I've never indicated that it was. Simply connect the heavy averaging circuit, hook up your two meters, and do the calculation. INPUT power measurement done! COP calculation--done!
Quote
Anyway if you should find you have a sleepless night, just watch the "live" broadcasts for a bit.
I've joined in on the observations, and on one occasion I walked Fuzzy through a very slight modification to his battery voltage measurement (added a sense wire) which resulted in a 20% decrease in the measured voltage "bump" I've also explained clearly to Fuzzy and the team that the patterns being observed on the scope are "normal" and are caused by artifacts in the sampling and display process.
Quote
As for W, I am reminded of those nasty little burrs you pick up on your clothing when walking through a field.........sometimes difficult to be rid of.
Regards....VION
Indeed ;D
.99
Hi Poynt
We are in agreement
QuoteRemember the "bump" shown on the battery voltage wave form? The AT believe this is charge going back into the battery.
Yes I remember that, and the little bump could also charge a large capacitor on the output of the power supply.
Most power supplies are single ended and do not have full op-amp type outputs therefore will happily accept a little transient fed-back power, which will just average into the power supplies capacitors.
So in my opinion, their argument about the magic of the battery does not hold water.
Cheers.....ION
The battery "magic" comes from Harvey's wild theory that the battery has a certain resonance that when hit can achieve a "recharge from nowhere" effect within. This is probably also happily associated with Bedini's related theory of radiant energy spikes going back into the battery, and Bearden's negative resistance in LAB's.
.99
I don't know if Rosemary is reading this thread anymore. I understand that Vortex1 (I think that he is Ion1 around here) may replicate and test the RA circuit. Vortex1 is the _real_ thing and I have no doubt that he will do an excellent job of it. It should be very interesting to see the results if they will be forthcoming. Rosie, you got a taste of the real world in your recent discussions with Vortex1.
MileHigh
MH,
Indeed, if VION (Vortex-ION) chooses to perform the measurements on the Ainslie circuit as he described, the results and conclusions will be trustworthy.
.99
Ainslie Team / Paper submission Update:
Apparently there is some dissension possibly brewing between Harvey (the main author of the paper) and at least some members of the Ainslie team over the alteration of the paper's content in preparation for the next IEEE submission. (I have my own speculations as to what the quarrel/changes is about, but I'll keep that to myself for now.)
It would also appear that the pleonastic putz "jibbguy" is inserting his nose into the matter.
Not sure where Rose stands on all this, but she mentioned previously that the paper might not be re-submitted until May.
.99
I can fully understand the importance of all parties needing to be in accord on the contents of the paper. It will be a shame if discord amongst the authors results in the paper not being able to be submitted.
Hoppy
Hi guys,
Hope all's well with the speculations .... maybe I can give some incite here,
The paper is undergoing almost a complete re-write because of the requirements of the new IEEE journal that the paper has been directed to TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS or TIE ....
REVIEW CRITERIA
http://tie.ieee-ies.org/tie/reviewCriteria.html
SUBMISSION OF A NEW MANUSCRIPT FOR REVIEW
http://tie.ieee-ies.org/tie/inital_sub.html
SUBMISSION OF THE "REVISED VERSION" OF THE MANUSCRIPT
http://tie.ieee-ies.org/tie/revised_sub.html
SUBMISSION OF "FINAL" VERSION OF THE MANUSCRIPT
http://tie.ieee-ies.org/tie/final_sub.html
GENERAL INFORMATION
http://tie.ieee-ies.org/tie/geraral%20inf%20for%20authors.html
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
http://tie.ieee-ies.org/tie/faq/index.html
TIE - POLICY
http://tie.ieee-ies.org/tie/IESpubPolicy.pdf
Scope of proposed changes for a new submittion -
A) The Magnetic Field Model or "MMRA" that was in the document had to be removed because of not being published in a accredited Journal.
B) All author information or references had to be removed to any complete sir names as not to cause any bias in the review of the document from the IEEE - TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS or TIE
c) During editing the above A & B the context of some or all work has been changed .... with a high probability of some editing using the "save" tab coming back later and seeing something not worded correctly .... making changes again using the "save" tab again ( which saves the document under the same file ID ) and doing this several times and not having a original to know what was the original document context was. This may have been avoided by using the "save as" tab each time and creating a new file ID to know what the changes and progression of changes were in a orderly fashion. Thus now possibly a massive confusion ......
My position is one of most is never to change someones work at all because I didn't create or write it and I'm sure many people whom author documents feel the same .... so it will take some time to sort out the document. I'm glad I just supplied the raw data as best I could with what equipment that was available to me.
Hope you all may have seen the "LIVE" 24/7 broadcast of the circuit on the streaming video channel I created to get alternative energy information on devices out to the public called Open Source Research and Development (http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment)
There was also a exceptional run on January 9, 2010 fully taped non-stop for 5 Hours from the Mosfet Circuit scratch start with almost the first hour the battery voltage actually going up and after 5 Hours the battery bank loosing 1/10 (.10) of a volt under a 5 + watt load the entire time ..... this is what has been previously described as the preferred mode of operation.
January 9, 2010 @ 12:00 PM PST (USA) or GMT-8 (http://bit.ly/4XVsAj)
Fuzzy
;)
Hi Fuzzy
Long periods of experimentation and observation of batteries under various load conditions and charging modes has shown me that an initial increase in voltage is not at all unusual for a period of time and that the period of time can be surprisingly long and will vary according to the initial state condition of the battery prior to discharge. When observed over extended run times, it will be seen that this apparent initial gain will not result in the battery providing any more useable capacity than specified by the manufacturer, minus that capacity that can be expected to be lost through ageing and usage of the battery.
Hoppy
Quote from: Hoppy on 2010.01.22, 09:19:07
Hi Fuzzy
Long periods of experimentation and observation of batteries under various load conditions and charging modes has shown me that an initial increase in voltage is not at all unusual for a period of time and that the period of time can be surprisingly long and will vary according to the initial state condition of the battery prior to discharge. When observed over extended run times, it will be seen that this apparent initial gain will not result in the battery providing any more useable capacity than specified by the manufacturer, minus that capacity that can be expected to be lost through ageing and usage of the battery.
Hoppy
Hi Hoppy,
I know what your saying and agree .... but I guess it's "how" the battery increased in voltage in relationship to the wave forms that were happening watching the DMM at the same time. This has only happened several times in many runs I've done getting it spot on this and when capturing data dumps and images of whats actually happening it shows these strange results that some would discount because of the wide differences of readings even between just seconds of operation, and if trying to cherry pick data around what the wave forms are doing isn't a scientific way to collect data ... the only example is really watching a video of whats going on and try to figure out how the wave forms are changing and effecting the data readings recorded and why and how to collect it.
Hopefully soon I can get a better Tektronix's unit that can give a better and higher sampling rate of data from 10K to hopefully much much higher ...... never know .....
Best Regards,
Fuzzy
:)
Hi Fuzzy.
In regards to the paper editing, why not take the original WORD document and start from scratch ???
About the apparently-changing wave forms, yes a higher sample rate scope will smooth that effect out a little, but there will always be some "patterning" when viewing with longer time-base settings.
What needs to be understood about this, is that the patterns are an artifact of the scope and that when one "zooms in" using a short enough time base, the patterns gradually disappear, logically indicating that they were never really there to begin with.
It is crucial to understand this before moving forward, as the existence of these patterns has been molded into an erroneous conclusion about what the circuit is doing, and it consequently gave license to the test group to use a widely-varying set of measurements as proof of concept.
Using an oscilloscope with a much higher record length as I have recommended is a good step forward, and I am pleased to see that advice being heeded, but that won't quite be sufficient to get accurate data. I assume Fuzzy you now realize that what I have been saying and what I laid out in the "proposed improvements" document I posted here and that you have, is valid information? We verified together during one of your live feeds, that simply using a separate sampling wire straight to the battery +'ve terminal reduced the measured battery voltage "bump" by about 20%. That is only the very beginning of what can and should be done to improve the accuracy of the measurements you are taking with the scope. The document lays out quite clearly what steps to take, and what equipment (or more specifically, what probes) to use for the measurements to ensure the best accuracy.
Your 10k record length scope is more than sufficient to make the proper measurement, providing the appropriate probes are used, and the scope is set to display about 1 1/2 cycles of the wave form, so that later it can be trimmed to be precisely one cycle.
My advice to you and the team if you are planning on re-doing the tests, is to obtain the proper differential and current probes, and stay with the TDS3054C. Then follow my improvements document and eliminate 80% of the wire lengths (particularly to the batteries) in your setup. You'll be amazed at the consistency of your measurements, from moment to moment.
.99
Here is the latest circuit schematic from Fuzzy.
If someone has the resistor build specs as per how Fuzzy made his, please post that here as well, otherwise I'll try to find it in due time.
Fuzzy, perhaps you could post it here?
Thanks,
.99
Hi .99,
Here is the Prototype 10 Ohm Resistor information you requested ....
It's made from "Borosilicate Glass Tube" ( Pyrex ) 10 Ohm Wire Wound Prototype Resistor, it's specifications are - 32 mm OD. x 6 inches long, approximately 48 turns of AWG 20 [.032 dia] ( .6348 ohms ft ) "Ni Cr A" 80% nickel, 20% chromium resistance wire @ 1mm (+ -) Spacing.
The outer covering is "Permatex" Red High Temp RTV Silicone - Continuous Operating Temperatures °C (°F) -54 to 316 (-65 to 600)
Red High Temp RTV Silicone #81409
http://www.energeticforum.com/68032-post2684.html
Regards,
Fuzzy
:)
Fuzzy,
After we chatted briefly the other night during one of your live feeds, I realized the advice I had given you about the circuit Harvey was working on, was ok, but for the most part unnecessary. I don't know if you passed along the comments to Harvey, but later I realized the solution for determining net average current from the supply is already cheap and available--your DC voltage meter.
You may recall that some time ago I performed some fairly rigorous testing of this measurement technique using a variety of voltage meters, from relatively cheap, to somewhat expensive. In each case, the meter set up to measure the small voltage across a current sensing resistor proved to be a reliable and accurate method for determining the net average current magnitude and its direction (i.e. to or from the battery or source).
So in summary, Harvey's goal of making a cheap unit for all experimenters to fine tune their RA circuits, is already out there and they're readily available almost everywhere these days. In fact, most experimenters already possess one or two digital multi-meters, and that is all that is required to make this measurement.
Regards,
.99
There are 3 parts in case you missed this...
Mean Meter series.
All is not well with Team Ainsley and it seems that people have parted ways. The postings on EF were quite brutal.
MileHigh
Hey MH.
I've been following the thread. Indeed all parties involved have been quite disappointing, and all for nothing actually.
In retrospect, the criteria for full blown oscillation were always there waiting in hiding for the right jitter input to set it off....and away it went.
.99
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.02.06, 23:58:13
All is not well with Team Ainsley and it seems that people have parted ways. The postings on EF were quite brutal.
MileHigh
Yep, I'm glad I was ejected from this EF thread, as it was looking very likely that the whole affair would end in tears. I can understand why Harvey and Glen have had enough and its probably a blessing in disguise that they have bailed out of this highly controversial project.
Hoppy
Quote from: Hoppy on 2010.02.07, 18:29:52
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.02.06, 23:58:13
All is not well with Team Ainsley and it seems that people have parted ways. The postings on EF were quite brutal.
MileHigh
Yep, I'm glad I was ejected from this EF thread, as it was looking very likely that the whole affair would end in tears. I can understand why Harvey and Glen have had enough and its probably a blessing in disguise that they have bailed out of this highly controversial project.
Hoppy
Hoppy? Where's your loyalty? Glen and Harvey are claiming this as their discovery. I'm delighted the technology is that desirable - but I do suggest that their claim is somewhat flawed.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.02.06, 23:58:13
All is not well with Team Ainsley and it seems that people have parted ways. The postings on EF were quite brutal.
MileHigh
Yep .... this be the case .... it appears the South Africa end .... witsend (Rosemary) and ddmdragon (Donovan) had a "Investment Agreement" and were doing secret testing and evaluation withholding all information from these tests and from any prior testing including data, replications and components clear back to the Quantum October 2002 article found out through various misrepresentations, e-mail correspondence and other means.
This had and was being done without the knowledge or consent of the other five authors in a "conflict of interest" between party's .... :o
The Energetic Forum .... COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie thread is now a "Sounding Board" for Rosemary or more commonly known as a blog with her theory or thesis no one quite understands, with all "Research and Development" of the device moving to a new sub-forum called "Mosfet Heating Circuits" which includes the other five authors and replicators.
There has been six (6) tests done now using a Tektronix DPO 3054 .... two having
100k data dumps all information has been posted and is available at http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/showthread.php?t=5359
Best Regards,
Fuzzy
Quote from: FuzzyTomCat on 2010.02.11, 18:46:41
Yep .... this be the case .... it appears the South Africa end .... witsend (Rosemary) and ddmdragon (Donovan) had a "Investment Agreement" and were doing secret testing and evaluation withholding all information from these tests and from any prior testing including data, replications and components clear back to the Quantum October 2002 article found out through various misrepresentations, e-mail correspondence and other means.
This had and was being done without the knowledge or consent of the other five authors in a "conflict of interest" between party's ...
LOL. I wish I could claim this as being true. I have a decided lack of interest in capitalising on this device. But I must admit. I'm now doing my best to improve on this lack - and thankfully am gaining inroads and making up for lost ground and that at speed. So, I hope, is Donovan. What you lack Glen, is credibility. This is a sad final excuse to justify your attempt at 'appropriating' the ainslie circuit as your own discovery. Good gracious. ::) First it was lack of the required resistor - then it was lack of the actual appartus related to the Quantum publication - then it was the lack of the required waveform - then it was lack of COP>17 and now this nonsense. Perhaps you'd like to advise our members and readers about your own negotiation. Not secret and widely approved by us all. Do you claim a monopoly on its development? I've alerted the American Patenting office to look out for something related to a mosfet heating circuit under the name .......??!! Be advised. LOL
Quote from: FuzzyTomCat on 2010.02.11, 18:46:41
The Energetic Forum .... COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie thread is now a "Sounding Board" for Rosemary or more commonly known as a blog with her theory or thesis no one quite understands, with all "Research and Development" of the device moving to a new sub-forum called "Mosfet Heating Circuits" which includes the other five authors and replicators.
Spamming us here Glen? With all the finesse and aplomb of a bull elephant in musk. LOL.
Quote from: FuzzyTomCat on 2010.02.11, 18:46:41
There has been six (6) tests done now using a Tektronix DPO 3054 .... two having 100k data dumps all information has been posted and is available at http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/showthread.php?t=5359
Repeated this to help you in your spamming. God knows you need all the help you can get. You're getting really loud Glen, and really, really repetitive. I think the readers here are tired of the circuit. Move on.
;D :o ::) :-*
edited
Edited to remove surname, by request.
You left out an edit there Poynty. But I've dealt with it. LOL
And not that you asked - but I modified my analogies to just one avatar. Else it gets confusing. So many avatars and I missed out the rat? ;D
Previous Applications -and- Papers
Quantum Article - October 2002
http://rapidshare.com/files/349537201/Quantum_Article_-_October_2002.pdf
Electro Information Technology (EIT) Conference IEEE Africon 2009 Submittal Paper
http://rapidshare.com/files/349537202/Electro_Information_Technology__EIT__Conference_IEEE_Africon_2009_Paper.pdf
http://www.palensky.org/africon09/
Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Published Application WO 99_38247 ( 1999 )
http://rapidshare.com/files/349537203/Patent_Cooperation_Treaty__PCT__Published_Application_WO_99_38247.pdf
1999 European Patent Application EP0932248A1
http://rapidshare.com/files/349559073/1999_European_Patent_Application__EP0932248A1.pdf
Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Published Application WO 03_007657 A2 ( 2003 )
http://rapidshare.com/files/349537204/Patent_Cooperation_Treaty__PCT__Published_Application_WO_03_007657_A2.pdf
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2010.02.12, 04:20:00
edited
Edited to remove surname, by request.
You left out an edit there Poynty. But I've dealt with it. LOL
And not that you asked - but I modified my analogies to just one avatar. Else it gets confusing. So many avatars and I missed out the rat? ;D
Hi Rosemary,
Don't you think this is more Wilby's style of post. Please dont continue posting at this level.
Hoppy
You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, adult material, or otherwise in violation of any International or United States Federal law. You also agree not to post any copyrighted material unless you own the copyright or you have written consent from the owner of the copyrighted material. Spam, flooding, advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are also forbidden on this forum.
Hoppy, I think these are the 'rules' of the forum. Glen's single post breaches 8 of those rules. If I cared to I could ask the moderators to address this. I don't care to because I believe in freedom of expression and I also think that the discerning reader is able to see through the rather inarticulate innuendos and unsubstantiated allegations for himself. In your case, however, I rather question your discernment.
Secondly - what is conspicuously evident is that Glen's new thread is rather neglected by that same discerning public. This is his second spamming attempt to alert you all to 'read' there. Let me remind you. He claims that this circuit is now his discovery. I have advised him that he is welcome to that impression. And he may claim this as loudly and as often as he wishes. I have taken legal and expert advice on this and have posted, as required - answers to all his claims. They are spurious - and clumsily so. He has not been able to answer me on any single point made. But quite apart from which his 'right of ownership' does not carry the conviction of the vast majority of forums' members or guests. He's in the minority. And like all minorities, they're usually just noisy rather than representative. But nor do I object to this noise. It draws public attention to the claim itself - and I'm only concernd that the circuit is better understood and I hope, that in the fullness of time it will also be widely applied.
Meanwhile - in order to substantiate HIS claim he needs to prove that this 'disovery' that he now states is his, was the result of a rare and extraordinary result of his own findings bearing no material relationship whatsoever to the Quantum circuit, the two rejected papers to the IET and the IEEE written by myself in collaboration with Donovan - to the numerous personal claims he himself made relating it to the 'Rosemary Ainslie circuit' and, finally, to his own written agreement whereby he acknowledges the relationship between the circuit and the thesis predicting the circuit. This prior knowledge is on record.
And by contrast I have not breached any one of the forum rules. Not anywhere. So. What exactly is your beef?
@aetherevarising
QuoteMeanwhile - in order to substantiate HIS claim he needs to prove that this 'disovery' that he now states is his, was the result of a rare and extraordinary result of his own findings bearing no material relationship whatsoever to the Quantum circuit, the two rejected papers to the IET and the IEEE written by myself in collaboration with Donovan - to the numerous personal claims he himself made relating it to the 'Rosemary Ainslie circuit' and, finally, to his own written agreement whereby he acknowledges the relationship between the circuit and the thesis predicting the circuit. This prior knowledge is on record.
You are correct, any documented and "dated" information is considered as prior art and as such no technology can infringe on this prior art nor the "spirit" of the device. I find this all rather amusing as I have had some experience with this in the past. There is always some person who feels they are deserving of things they have not earned and feel they have "invented" something new by adding additional and often meaningless components to an invention and calling it something else. Also regardless of what may transpire in this "Mosfet Heating Circuits" thread the fact will remain that all of it is based on prior art -- " The Rosemary Ainslie circuit" thus most any circuit developed will violate the spirit of the prior art if there is an application for patents. This scenario sounds so typical of this day and age where everyone feels they deserve things for no other reason than they want them, deserve things for nothing, fortunately reality seldom works this way.
Regards
AC
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2010.02.12, 20:38:48
Meanwhile - in order to substantiate [1] HIS claim he needs to prove that this 'disovery' that he now states is his, was the result of a rare and extraordinary result of his own findings bearing no material relationship whatsoever to the Quantum circuit, the two rejected papers to the [2] IET and the IEEE written by myself in collaboration with Donovan - to the numerous personal claims he himself made relating it to the 'Rosemary Ainslie circuit' and, finally, to [3] his own written agreement whereby he acknowledges the relationship between the circuit and the thesis predicting the circuit.
[1] Please describe in detail where this is stated
[2] The paper is a IEEE EIT not a IET ( there is no IET ) PDF as available as EIT from http://rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html
[3] I was no author ( you were ) to a agreement and did not sign off on one, this can be verified by four other IEEE TIE authors.
Quote from: Ken on 2010.02.09, 15:38:18
Loyalty? haha
Indeed.... one should only be loyal to objectivity and truth, things that we can all share in common.
Quote from: FuzzyTomCat on 2010.02.12, 23:34:43
[1] Please describe in detail where this is stated
[2] The paper is a IEEE EIT not a IET ( there is no IET ) PDF as available as EIT from http://rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html
[3] I was no author ( you were ) to a agreement and did not sign off on one, this can be verified by four other IEEE TIE authors.
1- Not sure what statement. There are so many.
2- My point stands. Irrespective of the name of any pdf the IET were the recipient of a paper written by Donovan and myself.
3- Again - not clear what authorship and which agreement?
You really need to make yourself clear Glen. And if you're going to claim general support from other IEEE TIE authors you must first give proof that you represent their opinions in all such matters. Else you may not refer to it at all. It is unprofessional and somewhat manipulative to infer or to allege or to imply. Their silence in such matters may indeed 'imply' support. But then again, it may simply 'imply' embarrassment. You need to show proof. Then. I am not sure if it's your general want of language skills that you omit this - or if it's the only way you can 'infer' that ownership that you so patently covet - lacking, as you do, the required evidence - but I am still awaiting that articulated evidence that this is, in fact, your discovery.
I would like to refer you to a little known fable. Once upon a time a rat pack boarded a ship that claimed to supply FREE FOOD FOR ALL - FOREVER. The rats themselves were sceptical and talked amongst each other saying 'how so?' and 'could this be true?'. To gain a full understanding of such an extraordinary truth they flattered the ship's captain saying that he was 'graciously bountiful' and 'remarkably beneficent' to make this a free gift available to deck hands, and passengers alike. And 'could the captain please show them, the rat pack the art required to liberate this 'free food for all forever' technology? The ship's captain relied on open source technology to ensure that prior knowledge of the art would not be violated. He then took the rat pack through a step by step recipe and - in the fullness of time - the rat pack learned the 'trick' required for precisely this liberal liberation of so much natural bounty. Whereupon the leader of the pack said - 'This is entirely my invention. Should any of you care to learn more then you must defer to me and refer to me and none other than me'. He went further. 'And I alone will then take this knowledge from this ship to many ships. And while I'm thus busily engaged, while I'm AT it, let me assure you - in which ever expedient way I wish it, I will fabricate lies and bend the truth that those many ships know that this ship's captain knows not whereof he speaks.'
Where upon the rats left the ship - thinking that they had now gnawed a hole in the bows of that ship that would make it sink. In this they were ill advised. In the immortal words of Conrad - 'who would have thought that there was so much float' left in that little ship?copyright registered and belonging to CAPTAIN YOURONYOUROWN
That's an example of the art of inference and implication.
EDITED ;D :-*
EIT or IET ..... the facts ......
EIT paper available for downloading at http://rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html
NEXT ......
The IEEE publishes 149 IEEE and IET journals, magazines, and transactions
IEEE Transactions, Journals, and Letters
* Advanced Packaging, IEEE Transactions on
* Aerospace and Electronic Systems, IEEE Transactions on
* Antennas and Propagation, IEEE Transactions on
* Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters
* Applied Superconductivity, IEEE Transactions on
* Audio, Speech and Language Processing, IEEE Transactions on
* Automatic Control, IEEE Transactions on
* Automation Science and Engineering, IEEE Transactions on
* Biomedical Circuits and Systems, IEEE Transactions on
* Biomedical Engineering, IEEE Transactions on
* Broadcasting, IEEE Transactions on
* Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, IEEE Transactions on
* Circuits and Systems I: Regular Papers, IEEE Transactions on
* Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs, IEEE Transactions on
* Communications Letters, IEEE
* Communications Magazine, IEEE
* Communications, IEEE Transactions on
* Components and Packaging Technologies, IEEE Transactions on
* Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, IEEE/ACM Transactions on
* Computer Architecture Letters, IEEE
* Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, IEEE Transactions on
* Computers, IEEE Transactions on
* Computing in Science & Engineering
* Consumer Electronics, IEEE Transactions on
* Control Systems Technology, IEEE Transactions on
* Dependable and Secure Computing, IEEE Transactions on
* Device and Materials Reliability, IEEE Transactions on
* Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation, IEEE Transactions on
* Display Technology, Journal of
* Education, IEEE Transactions on
* Electrical and Computer Engineering, Canadian Journal of
* Electromagnetic Compatibility, IEEE Transactions on
* Electron Device Letters, IEEE
* Electron Devices, IEEE Transactions on
* Electronic Materials, IEEE/TMS Journal of
* Electronics Packaging Manufacturing, IEEE Transactions on
* Energy Conversion, IEEE Transactions on
* Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions on
* Evolutionary Computation, IEEE Transactions on
* Fuzzy Systems, IEEE Transactions on
* Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, IEEE
* Geoscience and Remote Sensing, IEEE Transactions on
* Image Processing, IEEE Transactions on
* Industrial Electronics, IEEE Transactions on
* Industrial Informatics, IEEE Transactions on
* Industry Applications, IEEE Transactions on
* Information Forensics and Security, IEEE Transactions on
* Information Technology in Biomedicine, IEEE Transactions on
* Information Theory, IEEE Transactions on
* Instrumentation and Measurement, IEEE Transactions on
* Intelligent Transportation Systems, IEEE Transactions on
* Knowledge and Data Engineering, IEEE Transactions on
* Latin America Transactions, IEEE
* Lightwave Technology, Journal of
* Magnetics, IEEE Transactions on
* Manufacturing Technology, IEEE Transactions on
* Mechatronics, IEEE/ASME Transactions on
* Medical Imaging, IEEE Transactions on
* Microelectromechanical Systems, Journal of
* Microwave and Wireless Components Letters, IEEE
* Microwave Theory and Techniques, IEEE Transactions on
* Mobile Computing, IEEE Transactions on
* Multimedia, IEEE Transactions on
* Nanobioscience, IEEE Transactions on
* Nanotechnology, IEEE Transactions on
* Network and Service Management, IEEE Transactions on
* Networking, IEEE/ACM Transactions on
* Neural Networks, IEEE Transactions on
* Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, IEEE Transactions on
* Nuclear Science, IEEE Transactions on
* Oceanic Engineering, IEEE Journal of
* Parallel and Distributed Systems, IEEE Transactions on
* Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, IEEE Transactions on
* Photonics Journals, IEEE
* Photonics Technology Letters, IEEE
* Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on
* Power Delivery, IEEE Transactions on
* Power Electronics Letters, IEEE
* Power Electronics, IEEE Transactions on
* Power Systems, IEEE Transactions on
* Professional Communication, IEEE Transactions on
* Project Safety Engineering, IEEE Journal on
* Quantum Electronics, IEEE Journal of
* Reliability, IEEE Transactions on
* Robotics, IEEE Transactions on
* Selected Areas in Communications, IEEE Journal on
* Selected Topics in Signal Processing, IEEE Journal on
* Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics, IEEE Journal of
* Semiconductor Manufacturing, IEEE Transactions on
* Sensors Journal, IEEE
* Signal Processing Letters, IEEE
* Signal Processing, IEEE Transactions on
* Software Engineering, IEEE Transactions on
* Solid-State Circuits, IEEE Journal of
* Systems Journal, IEEE
* Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part A, IEEE Transactions on
* Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part B, IEEE Transactions on
* Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part C, IEEE Transactions on
* Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control, IEEE Transactions on
* Vehicular Technology, IEEE Transactions on
* Very Large Scale Integration (VLSI) Systems, IEEE Transactions on
* Visualization and Computer Graphics, IEEE Transactions on
* Wireless Communications, IEEE Transactions on
IEEE Magazines
* Aerospace & Electronics Systems Magazine, IEEE
* Annals of the History of Computing, IEEE
* Antennas & Propagation Magazine, IEEE
* Circuits & Devices Magazine, IEEE
* Circuits and Systems Magazine, IEEE
* Communications, IEEE
* Communications Surveys and Tutorials, IEEE
* Computer
* Computer Graphics & Applications, IEEE
* Computational Intelligence magazine IEEE
* Control Systems Magazine, IEEE
* Design & Test of Computers, IEEE
* Distributed Systems Online, IEEE
* Electrical Insulation Magazine, IEEE
* Engineering in Medicine & Biology Magazine, IEEE
* Engineering Management Review, IEEE
* Industry Applications Magazine, IEEE
* Industrial Electronics Magazine, IEEE
* Instrumentation & Measurement Magazine, IEEE
* Intelligent Systems, IEEE
* Intelligent Transportation Systems, IEEE
* Internet Computing, IEEE
* IT Professional
* Micro, IEEE
* Microwave Magazine, IEEE
* MultiMedia, IEEE
* Network, IEEE
* Pervasive Computing, IEEE
* Potentials, IEEE
* Power and Energy Magazine, IEEE
* Robotics & Automation Magazine, IEEE
* Security and Privacy Magazine, IEEE
* Signal Processing Magazine, IEEE
* Software, IEEE
* Solid-State Circuits, IEEE
* Spectrum, IEEE
* Technology & Society Magazine, IEEE
* Vehicular Technology Magazine IEEE
* Wireless Communications, IEEE
As you can see there is no IET section or division in the IEEE ......
The "Institution of Engineering and Technology" or IET is not a section or division of IEEE it is a separate organization all together. ( I'm a member )
"Institution of Engineering and Technology" or IET
http://www.theiet.org/
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/RecentIssue.jsp?punumber=4159946
Publisher
Editorial Assistant
IET Research Journals
Michael Faraday House
Six Hills Way
Stevenage, SG1 2AY United Kingdom
iet_rpg@theiet.org
The IEEE publishes more than 750 leading-edge conference proceedings every year, which are recognized by academia and industry worldwide as the most vital collection of consolidated published papers in electrical engineering, computer science and related fields.
All Electro Information Technology (EIT) Conferences sponsored by the IEEE in 2009
http://www.ourglocal.com/ourglocal/sites/resouce/IEEE2009.htm ( see AFRICON, 2009 )
http://www.palensky.org/africon09/
IEEE/IET Electronic Library (IEL) IEEE and IET Journals, Magazines, Transactions and Conferences
http://www.ieee.org/web/publications/subscriptions/prod/iel_overview.html
Rosemary never until now have you tried to correct anyone with the difference between the EIT paper and now what your calling a IET paper that was submitted for publication to the IEEE .....
It seems that the IEEE (EIT) AFRICON, 2009 conference may have needed a working model with the uncontested data for discussion in a forum for professionals, academia and industry to exchange ideas, present their newest research findings in a public venue and to verify the findings of a COP>17 ??? Did the submittal get rejected for lack of data ??? what happened to the 2009 working model you and Donovan made ???
Fuzzy
I've whittled Glen's post down to the bare essentials. He has posted a slew of extraneous information which, I suspect is simply to take the focus away from a little known fable.
I submitted 2 versions of the paper to the IET in January 2009. Both were rejected. I then approached Iravani of the IEEE. He read the paper and invited me to submit it for review. I did. Those Glen - are the facts. What you have done with these facts is indulge in yet another inappropriate attempt at implying that I know not whereof I speak. It reminds me of something that was written in that little known fable. Let me quote.
Whereupon the leader of the pack said - 'This is entirely my invention. Should any of you care to learn more then you must defer to me and refer to me and none other than me'. He went further. 'And I alone will then take this knowledge from this ship to many ships. And while I'm thus busily engaged, while I'm AT it, let me assure you - in which ever expedient way I wish it, I will fabricate lies and bend the truth that those many ships know that this ship's captain knows not whereof he speaks.'
Edit: Removed Sirname.
You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, adult material, or otherwise in violation of any International or United States Federal law. You also agree not to post any copyrighted material unless you own the copyright or you have written consent from the owner of the copyrighted material. Spam, flooding, advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are also forbidden on this forum.
Glen you have again indulged in abuse of the forum rules this time with 5 counts, as opposed to the 8 in your previous post. You clearly have not one ounce of respect for the standard of posting that is required here and you are degrading what is otherwise an impeccable forum.
Please keep things relevant and on topic guys.
If you wish to continue the slander, please do so by some means other than the posts here.
Rational and mature debate on relevant issues is acceptable, but things are getting beyond and a little out of hand here.
Thanks.
.99
Well said poynt99!
Apologies guys, Clearly I've exhausted your patience. Just don't know how to get a straight answer - is all. And I'm fighting my corner here. :-X :-[
Have deleted extraneous bumph. The argument now pared down to the essentials.
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2010.02.14, 01:21:04
I've whittled Glen's post down to the bare essentials. He has posted a slew of extraneous information which, I suspect is simply to take the focus away from a little known fable.
I submitted 2 versions of the paper to the IET in January 2009. Both were rejected. I then approached Iravani of the IEEE. He read the paper and invited me to submit it for review. I did. Those Glen Lettenmaier - are the facts. What you have done with these facts is indulge in yet another inappropriate attempt at implying that I know not whereof I speak. It reminds me of something that was written in that little known fable. Let me quote.
The so called now IET paper is dated Febrauay 2nd, 2009 so the IEEE PES paper that was submitted and rejected is the one that was withheld from the five authors out of seven the two being from South Africa.
Sooo ..... three patent application rejects ..... three now or more prior Journal submittals before "Open Source" help but all rejects .....
The patent applications all have you "Rosemary" as the inventor ..... but the Quantum article has a Brian Buckley that helped ( wonder what happened to him ?? ) put the device together which appeared is some kind of submittal to IET or IEEE or somewhere in 2009 that you had help with from even other engineers as stated in the "Pretoria News" article in November 14, 2002 .... somewhere here were missing some more documents it appears your withholding data as stated like the ABB and BP data or the document actually was a EIT IEEE submittals ..... oh well everything was a reject anyway .....
Please find attached "Quantum Article" and "Pretoria News" release ..... were these both partially written by you ??? appears so ....
Fuzzy
Quote from: FuzzyTomCat on 2010.02.14, 03:18:43
The so called now IET paper is dated Febrauay 2nd, 2009 so the IEEE PES paper that was submitted and rejected is the one that was withheld from the five authors out of seven the two being from South Africa.
'so called'? And nothing has been withheld. It is freely and often referred to in the thread.
Quote from: FuzzyTomCat on 2010.02.14, 03:18:43
Sooo ..... three patent application rejects ..... three now or more prior Journal submittals before "Open Source" help but all rejects .....
What patent rejects? The PATENT HAS NEVER BEEN REJECTED. IT WAS PUBLISHED AS REQUIRED AND I WAS INVITED TO REGISTER. I DECLINED. THEY REPEATED THEIR REQUEST FOR REGISTRATION. I REPEATED MY DECLINATION. IT IS ON RECORD. Neither the IEEE, the IET, nor any other publication outside the international patenting offices have anything whatsoever to do with patenting.
Quote from: FuzzyTomCat on 2010.02.14, 03:18:43
The patent applications all have you "Rosemary" as the inventor ..... but the Quantum article has a Brian Buckley that helped ( wonder what happened to him ?? ) put the device together which appeared is some kind of submittal to IET or IEEE or somewhere in 2009 that you had help with from even other engineers as stated in the "Pretoria News" article in November 14, 2002 .... somewhere here were missing some more documents it appears your withholding data as stated like the ABB and BP data or the document actually was a EIT IEEE submittals ..... oh well everything was a reject anyway .....
You may only show proof of a deliberate deception. You may not infer it nor imply it nor allege it. That is slanderous. You have been called on to desist from slander. I would be concerned but fortunately your allegations do not carry credibility. Else I would have applied for a Court Interdict against you. As your overriding self serving self interest has also overriden your credibility I do not need to go to such lengths. And notwithstanding your allegations - AGAIN - to the best of my knowledge there has still not been a single rejection after review of the paper written under joint open source authorship. THAT is the only rejection of concern here or anywhere.
Quote from: FuzzyTomCat on 2010.02.14, 03:18:43
Please find attached "Quantum Article" and "Pretoria News" release ..... were these both partially written by you Huh appears so ....
The Quantum article was wholly written by myself. The Figures and tables were drafted for inclusion in that paper by Brian Buckley. He is/was a technician who worked with me. He made no other material contribution to the experiments, the design of the experiments or to any other aspect of the paper. He is listed as 'author' as a courtesy only. He is/was entirely unfamiliar with the objects of those tests except as they transpired - over time.
The Pretoria News release is an article that is in the archives of the Pretoria News. It's inclusion on the internet is apparently courtesy of the staff at the Pretoria News who make such information available on significant events. This can be verified by direct application to the Pretoria News. There were other write ups, both more extensive and more flattering. My children have kept copies of all those articles.
Glen. I have to thank you. Your sad litany of allegations and innuendos gives me ample opportunity to air my credentials. I would therefore be glad if you continue in this vein. It serves me well.
@Glen
And may I remind you that you have yet to substantiate your frivolous appropriation of my hard work. Where is the departure of your circuit from the Rosemary Ainslie Circuit you refer to throughout your testing period?
And I would also remind you that I have answered all your allegations. When will you answer my simple question? Your claim relating to a 'discovery' is patently theft and appropriation of something that belongs to open source and not to you. And, that you have registered ownership of Open Source Reseach and Development - DOES NOT MAKE THIS CIRCUIT YOUR PROPERTY. Your registration of that name occurred after the event - not before. And you do not - in any event - own all open source information - as much as you'd like believe it - or try to imply it or allege it. Truth has a history of withstanding such gross abuse.
I put it to you that your name, associated with any research under the banner of Open Source is a misnomer, or a contradiction in terms. Else, as you use it, it is a euphamism for theft. Take your pick.
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2010.02.14, 04:26:13
@Glen
And may I remind you that you have yet to substantiate your frivolous appropriation of my hard work. Where is the departure of your circuit from the Rosemary Ainslie Circuit you refer to throughout your testing period?
And I would also remind you that I have answered all your allegations. When will you answer my simple question? Your claim relating to a 'discovery' is patently theft and appropriation of something that belongs to open source and not to you. And, that you have registered ownership of Open Source Reseach and Development - DOES NOT MAKE THIS CIRCUIT YOUR PROPERTY. Your registration of that name occurred after the event - not before. And you do not - in any event - own all open source information - as much as you'd like believe it - or try to imply it or allege it. Truth has a history of withstanding such gross abuse.
I put it to you that your name, associated with any research under the banner of Open Source is a misnomer, or a contradiction in terms. Else, as you use it, it is a euphamism for theft. Take your pick.
Again no proof of anything all my allegations stand just more
bloviating by you, to bad you can only type and not read. The allegations by you against me are totally unfounded and can be read at any of the three forums but as always you choose to go with the moment as if no one follows or actually reads whats been stated. I suggest you learn how to use the "
SEARCH" function and actually do some research also contacting some department heads and get some documented information prior to spouting your mouth off without hard facts only giving fiction stories as always.
It's nice to know that in fact you did write the entire "Quantum" article the only
published account of your so called find or discovery .... hahaha .... a little self serving once again a document without any data to back up the so called proof, only your allegations of the existence of such documents from BP and ABB just to mention a few that no one what so ever has seen in the Open Source world.
I also make another suggestion and take all your
rejected papers and frame them .... place them on your walls if there is enough room, to remind your self on the
failures of yours and the other people you involved in those
failed attempts .....
Fuzzy
"And Now for Something Completely Different"
(http://www.firstpartners.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/monty-python-announce.jpg)
Indeed, time to let folks cool down and lock this thread for a bit.
Some updates on what Rose and her team are measuring with the new circuit and load.
I would love to see a set of photos showing the entire test setup and scope probe points. But I have a fairly good idea already what that may be.
I am dumbfounded that these wave forms (aside from the Gate drive trace) would be considered "good".
.99
Unlocking the old Rosemary thread, eh? Maybe she'll do us the honor of popping back in once in a blue moon and subjecting her "test results" to a few critical eyeballs and comments. That would be brave and quite sportsman-like of her but probably too much to hope for. I think she prefers her present position as "Unchallenged Queen of Power Measurement and Free Energy" with none of that damn back-talk from us amateurs.
I promise I'll never tell her to "shit or get off the pot" again...honest. >:-)
Humbugger
P.S.
That battery of hers needs some Bedini work. Looks like over 100V of peak-to-peak across it. Must be one of those new special INDUCTIVE BATTERIES or something. It is actually quite a mysrtery as to how she could get that much AC induced on her scope probe/ground hookup. Is she possibly hooking up across the load or across the MOSFET and saying that's the battery voltage? God only knows...oh, and Rosemary (maybe). It looks like the E and I are 180 degrees out of phase, just like it would look if the voltage were being taken across the MOSFET D-S. Or maybe it's the first time actual Radiant Energy has been captured on a scope!
Looks like the L of her R-L load is working with MOSFET Coss, Crss and Ciss and the gate resistor to make a very regular oscillator and the 555 and gate resistor don't provide enough of a low impedance to actually turn the MOSFET solidly off...or on, for that matter. Still doesn't explain the enormous wild hair on the battery, though.
I don't believe they are using a 555 right now. Rather, my impression is they are using either a function generator or the PWM output from a microcontroller.
As far as the battery voltage measurement goes, yes I suspect it is being taken from the Drain to the low side of the CSR. I would say there is a very long length of wire going from the CSR to the battery GND terminal, and all commons are being made near the CSR. That would explain why both the battery voltage and CSR wave forms are amok with that oscillation.
.99
Dusted off my really "old" simulator program .... imputed all the device under test circuit, components and construction data available given to the open source community as a gift of knowledge from all the forums and blogs any and all the posted information from the inventor. I'm still working on what came out from my simulator program and it appears there must be some information being incorrect, withheld or maybe I may have made a mistake because the simulated oscilloscope shot is missing something .... go figure ....
Yellow - Mosfet Drain
Blue - Shunt / Mosfet Source
Green - Battery
Red - Math
;D
Clearly evidence that you're not using any energy there Glen. See the blue trace? You have equal up and down, therefore it is heating on the way up, and since gravitational forces can not be shielded, that energy must fall, heating on the way down as well; double the work with half the input energy...or something like that anyway :P
O0
Quote from: FuzzyTomCat on 2011.02.13, 04:46:14
Dusted off my really "old" simulator program .... imputed all the device under test circuit, components and construction data available given to the open source community as a gift of knowledge from all the forums and blogs any and all the posted information from the inventor. I'm still working on what came out from my simulator program and it appears there must be some information being incorrect, withheld or maybe I may have made a mistake because the simulated oscilloscope shot is missing something .... go figure ....
Yellow - Mosfet Drain
Blue - Shunt / Mosfet Source
Green - Battery
Red - Math
Isn't that the same simulator Tesla used? If I were you, Glen, I'd rush this baby down to the patent office immediately. It looks like you have found the secret to reverse-time-warp regauging lateral transverse hyperspace vector radiant energy to me. I hope it doesn't use zipons or you could have a conflict of interest with OPEN SOURCE.
Congratulations!
Humbugger
FINALLY!
Test results from a scope that can't be debunked.
It is about flippin' time ;D
I can deduce the circuit you are testing from the scope shot. The problem is..... I can't guess at what your scope settings are.....
HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO REPLICATE THIS TEST WITH NO SCOPE SETTINGS?
It might require quite a bit of tweaking and a hell of a lot of replications before the practical applications can be fleshed out. But don't worry, it will all be perfectly clear once you have completely opened your mind and forgotten all that textbook crap.
Humbugger
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.02.13, 05:15:38
It might require quite a bit of tweaking and a hell of a lot of replications before the practical applications can be fleshed out. But don't worry, it will all be perfectly clear once you have completely opened your mind and forgotten all that textbook crap.
Humbugger
Oh I don't need to wait until my mind is completely drained. I've already started a list of the laws this thing will break and the solutions to world problems.
Just think.... If we promote the idea it be all the rage at Energetic Forum within an hour!
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.02.13, 04:45:40
I don't believe they are using a 555 right now. Rather, my impression is they are using either a function generator or the PWM output from a microcontroller.
As far as the battery voltage measurement goes, yes I suspect it is being taken from the Drain to the low side of the CSR. I would say there is a very long length of wire going from the CSR to the battery GND terminal, and all commons are being made near the CSR. That would explain why both the battery voltage and CSR wave forms are amok with that oscillation.
.99
If that's being driven by a pulse gen or a well-buffered uC output, she must be using ten feet of #20 wire wrapped around the load resistor to get it to the MOSFET gate. Actually, it could be a very nice well done piece of coax that is mis-terminated and has a 470 ohm resistor at the gate end in series. Somehow, she's definitely getting an extra 180 degrees of phase shift around the loop, added to the already 180 shift of the gate vs drain waveforms. It's definitely not crosssing the unity gain line with a 6db/octave slope! Looks like a pretty fair linear oscillator rather than a true switching circuit. Somehow, that output is being phase shifted 360 and fed back to the gate. That's what it looks like to me, anyway.
Reminds me of a 45MHz single-MOSFET power oscillator I put into production 15 years ago for a big laser company.
Nice oscillator circuit humbugger, wonder if I can use that as a carrier wave for low power TV broadcast of the "Ainslie Hour". Of course it would require a little "tuning" There are some unused channels at the low band around channel 3, and lots of discarded old TV's that could be resurrected to hear the "truth" as told by one of our very own.
Glen, as for your simulator....looks like you have a "gassy" 6J5 preamp tube causing some of that noise in the waveforms. I suggest a furmicator shield or if you can't find one try placing a small magnet near the tube to deflect the "bad" electrons.
One of the problems of a really open mind is you have to be careful that your brain doesn't rattle out.
BTW has anyone solved Prof Lewin's error in part 2?
It is quiet evident to me that the scope trace shots are up side down, you are all forgetting the device being analyzed is OU therefore the battery voltage has to be higher afterwards. O0
Back on topic in a serious vein now. Here is a simple model of what I take is (or has been at last report) the Ainslie circuit, with the basic waveforms that would be expected under "classic" analysis.
I'm showing one single pulse here, at around 10% duty cycle on-time for the MOSFET gate. I used a model of the IRF740 Hexfet. The values are not particularly important. Over a monte carlo range of various values for the gate resistor and load inductance, taken in small increments, no huge deviations from this basic waveform were seen.
This proves nothing but will serve to gain a basic understanding of how the circuit would normally be expected to work (without zipons or radiant energy or a circuit layout containing large parasitic L's and C's or feedback into the driving pulse generator or incorrect probe/ground placement that could cause actual or perceived continuous oscillation).
Of significant note is the relationship between the voltage and current waveforms and the fact that the current waveform does indeed go negative for a brief time as the first tall voltage pulse falls back toward zero. The simulation clearly shows two salient facts:
1. The body diode of the MOSFET does indeed turn on. This is the period shown on the voltage trace as -1V and, during this time, the inductor energy is indeed charging the battery.
2. The mechanism that drives the body diode to turn on is quite simple and easily demonstrated. As the inductor voltage collapses after the first tall spike, the output (drain-source) capacitance of the MOSFET (Coss) is in series with the inductor and the MOSFET channel is off. As the voltage at the drain rapidly drops back toward zero, the charged Coss forces the body diode to turn on and the drain voltage goes negative limited by the forward voltage drop of the body diode.
I verified this theory by adding an extra discreet capacitor of 1nF from drain to source of the MOSFET and observed a corresponding increase in the negative-driven current spike. (not shown)
Once some of the Load Inductance and the Coss charge energy is delivered to the battery, the drain voltage falls to zero and the Coss is discharged but there is still energy left in the inductor and the drain voltage rises again, its amplitude limited now by the energy that has been taken out of the series LC resonant circuit and delived back to the battery through the body diode.
This process repeats as the series rresonant LC tank rings down. After the first couple of cycles, no further energy is returned to the battery as it can be observed that the current stops going below zero despite continued ringing.
Note that the area within the negative-going current trace is only a very small portion of the forward energy (above zero) trace area. This is because only a small portion of that energy coming from the battery is actually stored in the inductor and the Coss as compared to the energy being dissipated in the load resistance.
Here is the same waveform pair, but now the voltage trace has been gained up so you can see the details. The current trace is the same gain as before.
Note that the parts of the voltage trace I called "zero" in the previous shot are not really zero. The curves follow the current trace and represent the sum of the shunt resistance and RDSon voltage drops. But do notice that the voltage waveform does indeed get driven below zero and is stopped only by the body diode conducting hard on the first few ringing cycles. (five with this set of circuit values and conditions)
Notice also that the forward voltage drop of the body diode decreases as the negative current decreases, as per the behavior of all forward-biased diodes because of bulk resistance. This gain setting is 2V/division on the voltage trace, so you can see that the forward drop under the first (high current) pulse is about -1V peak and the lower current trailing pulses show a lesser forward drop on the body diode until, on the sixth cycle, the body diode no longer turns on at all, as shown by the lack of flat-topping (or flat-bottoming in this case).
No conclusions are drawn from the above study. I believe it is a sound and accurate basis for comparing the expected "classic" behavior and well-understood mechanisms and interactions of the circuit to any and all other behaviors.
Its purpose is to provide a baseline understanding so that any perceived and/or real anomalies in the behavior of the actual replicated or original Ainslie hardware can be discoverd and analyzed and the source and/or mechanism for any free energy developed by the Ainslie circuit can be more easily spotted and attributed either to some known logical f@#kup in measurement or to the true discovery and demonstration of a COP 17 heater circuit.
For reference, the values used in the simulation are as follows:
Battery voltage 26VDC
Load resistance 10 Ohms
Shunt resistance 0.25 Ohms
MOSFET IRF740 Spice Model
Load inductance 40uH
Pulse generator 0-5V 100ns rise/fall time
Gate resistor 36 Ohms
Thank you for reading and I hope you enjoyed my Sunday morning exercise.
Humbugger
Note that many if not all of the scope displays presented by those working with the Ainslee circuit replications have shown almost continuous oscillation during the gate drive "off-time". The reasons for this are not readily apparent to this writer and the simulation does not respond that way. I am very curious to learn whether this is genuine and, if so, what the cause is.
Despite that apparent difference, I have no reason to leap to the conclusion that even continuous undamped oscillation of the circuit would inherently produce excess energy or heat in the load without drawing commeasurate power from the battery.
I spent the last eight years of my "corporate slave" career producing continuously-oscillating pulse-width modulated high power VHF and UHF MOSFET circuits (some were class E switching types) to drive non-linear plasma loads (some exhibiting negative resistance areas and other non-linear VI relationships) within inductive and capacitive networks and resonant cavities. This was for high-power industrial lasers. I ain't seen no free energy yet! But then I wasn't really looking for any, either. :D
Humbugger
P.S. When and if a true COP 17 or thereabouts heater circuit can be convincingly documented and replicated and validated using appropriate and accurate test procedures, I will be the first to replicate the living sh!t out of it. Until then, I'll be watching and commenting from "the peanut gallery" and designing COP<1 circuitry for paying clients. I've got a beachfront off-grid solar and wind-powered home to build way down Mexico way. Then I'm goin' fishin' and raisin' chickens! For real.
Hi h
Thanks for the analysis. Maybe try a few pF of coupling from a tap on the load resistor's inductance back to the gate or power supply of the 555 to simulate the spurious mode.
Other possibility is that it was induced from a ground loop back into the 555 from lead wire inductance.
I will defer to your knowledge of power RF circuitry, tho I have experimented a bit with RF in the past.
Yep...there has to be a feedback loop there somewhere or Nyquist was as wrong as Lenz, Faraday and Maxwell. :o.
Hum
Since Rosemary apparently reads all of our posts in almost real time these days and responds via her blog, I figure we may as well post her here in her own thread. She's been complaining about not having a chance to defend herself against all us bad guys here.
Hey Rose, no one banned you! You left of your own accord. If you come back, I promise to be nice. I'd even apologize for using bad language and making pushy demands of you. I'm sure you'd be welcomed back by all, even your "antagonists" miss you (a little bit, sometimes, anyway). You can say I begged you to come back! How's that?
It would save us all this cross-posting and I, for one, really would like to see you present your latest stuff in an environment with public commentary. Or, if you aren't up to that, maybe you could get yourself "a bench" thread where you could just ignore and delete any poster you don't like or agree with. It would be almost as good as a blog taht allows no comments. Yeah...you could only let the cheerleaders and unquestioning believers talk, maybe. Sound good?
Quote
52 - the poynt of no return
Dear Readers,
Greatly amused at the even greater nonsense being referenced on our old 'erstwhile' locked thread. I see that the all the license of the 'rant room' is now liberally extended to any reference to me or my work. One would almost think that Poynty still intends to 'debunk' this circuit rather than submit it to serious analysis. I'm glad of this evidence of partiality. It reminds me that I must never actually refer to them in any serious context whatsoever.
And it also seems that the only reason that the thread was locked was because I dared defend myself against Glen - aka Fuzzy. He's that well known dyslexic that tried so hard to steal the invention by multiple unsubstantiated allegations against my good name. He struggles on - with a rather ham fisted attempt at wit. And now with the full endorsement of Poynty the Partial. And because they're all just nasty old men they all cackle away. Quite endearing in a sort of twisted way. Anyway - they may all post - apparently - in as defamatory a tone as they require. Just as long as I don't defend myself. Also just as well as it seems that this technology is progressed as much by notoriety as by serious research. And I only care that it's progressed.
And this is for that short but noisy list of toothless 3rd school 'nay sayers'. You guys have got a serious problem. You still need to explain how it is that we're getting all that 'ringing' if that's how you want to refer to it. I'm looking forward to an explanation that is not couched in such ponderous attempts at wit.
And Poynty. I think the public generally would appreciate it if you could 'debunk' the LT Joule Thief variant by showing similar waveforms - at LEAST. Anything short of that and we're all rather inclined to think that your experimental aptitudes are bereft. You've been posed some questions by Harvey the Wooly Worder - who has presented you with some uncharacteristically articulate posers. Let's see you wriggle your way around them. And PLEASE. Give us some relief in CLEAR SCHEMATICS. Where are your probes positioned and ON WHAT CIRCUIT and around what components? If you need to learn how it's done ask Harvey. Your references are somewhat confusing - compounded by your liberal use of inappropriate acronyms. Not good Poynty Point. Not good at all.
Kindest regards notwithstanding
Rosie
P.S. Don't you think that "de-bunking" is a reasonable prerequisite to serious analysis? I mean, if there is actual bunk in there, it should be weeded out prior to any serious analysis, don't you agree? Let's get rid of any detectable bunk and see what's left to analyze. Seriously. :)
Regarding that blog, it would appear the only "cackling" going on is from none other.
Seems like the art of building a good breadboard is a lost art from all the clipleads flying around in youtube videos.
For low frequency work I cut some copper clad with a dremel tool to provide power bus and ground plane.
My favorite approach of late is to tack strips of copper foil to a good dry piece of wood. The tacks are nice solid places to hang your probes, and usually there is in excess of 50 megs or more between traces.
Copper foil wets really well, and can be repeatedly soldered without degradation of the joints. The art of "tacking" has also been lost with the use of those plugboards which I would never use for circuits carrying any appreciable current.
Yep
My whole benchtop is covered with 2oz copper G4 sheet ground plane I can tack bypass and filter caps to directly and I use that sticky-backed 3M copper foil all the time. Darn stuff is expensive as hell these days. I used to wind power transformers and inductors with 1" wide 2 mil copper between mylar or that amber-brown high-voltage high-temp semi-clear stuff (can't remember the name of it). Bought a load of copper tape a few years back. Good stuff.
Time for my noon nap now...see ya'll later!
Humbugger
Rosemary's repeated taking of pot-shots at Poynt's measurement techniques and documentation are a testament to her cognitive dissonance. She endorsed Lawrence's abysmal noise-filled under-sampled nonsensical waveforms of his JT testing, which did not come with any documentation, and stated that it looked like convincing evidence. Now she bashes Poynt's clean waveforms that make sense and just got their final bit of tweaking. Poynt has also posted images of his note book pages that show where he positioned his probes.
This behaviour is typical of how bad it can get in the realm of free energy. It's like the old cliche about what happens when the free energy inventor is about to make his or her first public demo with independent reviewers to verify the claim. Invariably the device "breaks down" just before the demo. When clean and clear and unambiguous data is presented that refutes the claim, the believer can always have a cognitive dissonance breakdown.
MileHigh
Like the killer in a bad horror flick the alter ego of "Rosemary's Baby" keeps coming back to life for one more shot at killing the "good guy" which in this case is scientific truth.
Her blathering makes one weary to read it, so I don't.
build a better mousetrap and the world.........
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.02.13, 17:30:58
No conclusions are drawn from the above study. I believe it is a sound and accurate basis for comparing the expected "classic" behavior and well-understood mechanisms and interactions of the circuit to any and all other behaviors.
Its purpose is to provide a baseline understanding so that any perceived and/or real anomalies in the behavior of the actual replicated or original Ainslie hardware can be discoverd and analyzed and the source and/or mechanism for any free energy developed by the Ainslie circuit can be more easily spotted and attributed either to some known logical f@#kup in measurement or to the true discovery and demonstration of a COP 17 heater circuit.
For reference, the values used in the simulation are as follows:
Battery voltage 26VDC
Load resistance 10 Ohms
Shunt resistance 0.25 Ohms
MOSFET IRF740 Spice Model
Load inductance 40uH
Pulse generator 0-5V 100ns rise/fall time
Gate resistor 36 Ohms
Thank you for reading and I hope you enjoyed my Sunday morning exercise.
Humbugger
Good Stuff H! O0
I've been through much of that in the past, but it is good to see another who understands the nitty-gritty of this circuit.
I was just composing another simulation to work out some power stuff, and I thought I would use the Ainslie circuit as a model. I've used a SWITCH part instead of a MOSFET. With a couple added parts, it acts very similar, and it is quite readily variable. Switch specs are: 1M OFF, 15m ON.
Here is the schematic and the Drain and battery current wave forms. Nice tiny pulse of charging current going back to the battery there. ;)
.99
QuoteDear Reader,
We have been debating how to do the demonstration planned for month end. The idea is to present unequivocal proof of what classically would be seen as an anomalous result. Our options are fairly wide. We can show a very high wattage dissipated. But the values off our data dump vary from between any extreme of negative loss from the battery to 11 watts for the 44 watts dissipated. This is in line with our previous test results and more specifically in line with that well publicised replication. It's the fact that it varies at all that worries me. It will, possibly, become contended - and I would prefer it that the results are unequivocally anomalous. Surprisingly, or perhaps because the wattage dissipated is higher - there's also evidence of a quicker recharge to the batteries which, as measured drifted north - to end up about 1 volt higher after a little over a 2 hour run. But it is also a fact that the one reading varies from another and I'm not sure that I want to spend time debating the measurements.
I think what we will do is simply set the parameters to show the mean average of power delivered where all measurements relating to the delivery of the energy from the supply show negative values. This includes the mean average, the integral, and the math trace. These values are also consistently born out in the data dumps off our 200 MHz bandwidth and our 500 MHz bandwidth DSO's.
I'll be posting some preliminary updates here for that report. The down side is that we're dealing with smaller wattage levels again. But what I can do, after the demo, is show them the fuller range of benefits. I just want accreditation to be unarguable. And then - perhaps - just point at what still needs to be researched.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
So the power values are going to be cherry-picked using only the negative results, then "averaged" in a rather poor attempt at presenting credible evidence for your claim? That scheme didn't work with the replication and subsequent paper submission, and it's not likely going to work this time either Rose.
Here's an offer; send me your device and I will test it. Failing that, send me all the build specs and then I will build and test it. At least you will then have it properly tested and you won't have to go searching and cherry-picking through the data in a futile attempt to make your case. You will have solid evidence, one way or the other...completely scientific and objective.
Otherwise Rose, I predict you are setting yourself up for yet another hard fall. But what ever needs to happen, will happen I suppose.
I would strongly suggest you take me up on my offer. I will pay to ship the device back to you when I'm finished with the testing. You aren't going to get a better offer anywhere. ;)
.99
Another interesting component to this drama is that the original "preferred oscillations," a.k.a the "harmonics," looked more or less like random noise superimposed on a quasi-regular single frequency waveform that was intermittently broken up. I think we were in agreement that the cause of this was that the 555 was operating in a stressful electrical environment and the internal latches and/or comparators were hiccuping. This was supposed to be the "secret sauce."
Now, in contrast, there appears to be a rock-steady oscillation of about 1.2 MHz with no random noise at all. I can only suspect that the signal amplification associated with the MOSFET is feeding back to the gate input and creating an oscillator. A laying on of a wet fingertip all around the circuit might find the source of that oscillation.
Even though the new setup is devoid of the original "secret sauce" "preferred oscillations" this is not mentioned.
So with some issues related to probe placement and the lengths of the wires used and the 1.2 MHz oscillation, there is the distinct possibility of a phase shift between the voltage and the current measurements. This could throw the battery power measurements completely out of whack.
And of course it's worth repeating that there is an excellent chance that powering the new configuration with a capacitor/low-pass-filter setup would result in the identical oscillations and waveforms that she is seeing right now. The fact that Rosemary absolutely refuses to even consider doing that and states that it will "kill the oscillations" is very revealing about Rosemary's thinking. One can speculate that she refuses to try the alternative analog-based power measurement setup out of abject fear that the results will show no energy gain.
What a saga.
MileHigh
It would seem that Rosemary has answered ponderings as to how and why her circuit oscillates continuously when the gate is driven "off". The explanation is verbose and bereft of any reference to feedback from output to input (classical condition required for sustained oscillation). I cannot follow her explanation, personally, but she seems to have picked up on the notion of a conducting MOSFET body diode that I and others here have discussed just yesterday (but not as having anything to do with self-sustaining resonant oscillation) as being its primary determining factor.
She obviously likes that there has been acknowledgement of the body diode briefly conducting small snips of stored energy back to charge the battery and has now rationalized the body diode as being the secret sauce to explain the tendency to self-oscillate.
Once again, her explanation is so entwined with abused terminology, her zipon theory and magnetic fields having material mass and a myriad of circular logic statements that it almost appears she is saying that the circuit will self-oscillate only on the benches of those who believe in her zipon theory...or something. Like I said, I cannot make heads nor tails of any of it but I imagine it is thoroughly impressive and quite clear to her armies of loyal followers.
I paste a partial "concluding" quote from it below as well as the link to blog #53:
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/02/53-on-resonance-on-our-circuit.html
Quote[bold]
...Therefore the resonance that is evident during the period when the gate signal is negative (bidirectional current flow) is also allowed only if there is the assumption of a dual charge property in the material of both voltage and current and if there is also a prior assumption of a material property in those magnetic fields. Only on the basis of this assumption can one then explain the evidence of resonance where the voltage is seen to persistently induce a counter phase voltage and its consequent current flow to discharge that voltage.
The level of resonance would be determined by the availability and size of path that is provided by the body diode during the discharge of negative current and by the resistance provided in circuit components. The negative path through the body diode would need to be sufficiently wide to allow for the unrestricted flow of current in the negative or anti-clockwise direction to secure that resonating condition. With this proviso, then the rate at which voltage collapses and regenerates, would be determined by the material where the voltage is localised. In the samples referenced it is evident that this occurs at approximately 1 MHz...
[/bold]
And thus the saga of Rosemary Ainslie and her amazing and widely-misunderstood circuit continues...or should I say "is endlessly and needlessly prolonged".
Humbugger
P.S. By adding some inductance into the gate drive path and fiddling with the load inductance, I was able to get the same kind of steady oscillation she shows. Oddly, however, the model still had COP << 1, but my mouse got real hot!
Regarding her proposed cherry-picked testing just remember, this power measurement expert thinks you measure the battery voltage at the MOSFET drain!
@Humbugger
QuoteAnd thus the saga of Rosemary Ainslie and her amazing and widely-misunderstood circuit continues...or should I say "is endlessly and needlessly prolonged".
One question I have is what harm is the debate over this circuit doing? None that I can tell and if nothing else it has made some like myself reconsider the finer details in electronics such as material properties, circuit geometries and field interactions other than magnetic fields which so many seem overly preoccupied with. Another question is does questionable terminology, theory or measurement techniques mean the circuit in question has no validity to it? The answer is no and many of the self-proclaimed experts here would seem to be confusing personal issues with electrodynamic ones as if a persons behavior could somehow effect the validity of this circuit if there is any. I know some like to pull out the BS "conspirancy theory" agenda whenever their motives are questioned but I fail to understand why so many here have such a preoccupation with putting this issue to rest, why the rush? Is this some kind of playground pissing contest to see who can shut down the thread first? In any case I enjoyed the debate when Rosemary was here because it made me consider things in a different light, right or wrong it made me think and from this I developed some new circuits in which real improvements were made. Which is one hell of a lot more than I can say for any of the experts here who tend to sound like a broken record repeating the same old monotone BS over and over which can be found in any textbook. Progess is not made by repetition or experience it is made by doing something different and this is where the supposed experts here have failed miserably.
QuoteP.S. By adding some inductance into the gate drive path and fiddling with the load inductance, I was able to get the same kind of steady oscillation she shows. Oddly, however, the model still had COP << 1, but my mouse got real hot!
Please tell me your not using a simulator, I tend to lose all respect for people who honestly believe a simulation can replace real world data. I run Multisim 8 at home for simple digital circuits and run Solidworks CAD/simulation/flow simulation as well as Ansys CFD at work for pet projects and can tell you from experience that anyone who knows anything about simulators understands there many limitations and nobody I know would use a simulator on this type of circuit.
Regards
AC
There are some fairly damning words there AC, and I take some of them as a negative personal judgment of me.
You are entitled to your opinion about me, about Rose, and about her circuit and it's merit, but I am more interested in fact than opinion.
Simulations for example are not perfect, I agree, but they are a hell of a lot better than the erroneous eyeball assessments most people make of their measurements. Also, it should be noted that it is only your opinion that a simulator is useless or shouldn't be used for analyzing these circuits, and I hope no one here takes that opinion as a fact. Sorry if you disrespect me for using and standing by my simulations. In my opinion, that's a poor metric to use for judging someone's technical ability.
This is all about measurement. It really ALL comes down to that simple and lone FACT.
I am by no means an expert in anything, including measurement. I have never proclaimed anything of the sort. But from MY OWN EXPERIENCE, I know that Rose and her team are not measuring their circuit properly. I have worked on the same circuit, and I am aware of many of the issues plaguing anyone that is brave enough to tackle them using an oscilloscope. These issues are not being addressed.
If I am able, I will attempt to illustrate all the idiosyncrasies of Rose's circuit.
Regards,
.99
Quote from: allcanadian on 2011.02.16, 08:02:04
@HumbuggerOne question I have is what harm is the debate over this circuit doing? None that I can tell and if nothing else it has made some like myself reconsider the finer details in electronics such as material properties, circuit geometries and field interactions other than magnetic fields which so many seem overly preoccupied with. Another question is does questionable terminology, theory or measurement techniques mean the circuit in question has no validity to it? The answer is no and many of the self-proclaimed experts here would seem to be confusing personal issues with electrodynamic ones as if a persons behavior could somehow effect the validity of this circuit if there is any. I know some like to pull out the BS "conspirancy theory" agenda whenever their motives are questioned but I fail to understand why so many here have such a preoccupation with putting this issue to rest, why the rush? Is this some kind of playground pissing contest to see who can shut down the thread first? In any case I enjoyed the debate when Rosemary was here because it made me consider things in a different light, right or wrong it made me think and from this I developed some new circuits in which real improvements were made. Which is one hell of a lot more than I can say for any of the experts here who tend to sound like a broken record repeating the same old monotone BS over and over which can be found in any textbook. Progess is not made by repetition or experience it is made by doing something different and this is where the supposed experts here have failed miserably.
Please tell me your not using a simulator, I tend to lose all respect for people who honestly believe a simulation can replace real world data. I run Multisim 8 at home for simple digital circuits and run Solidworks CAD/simulation/flow simulation as well as Ansys CFD at work for pet projects and can tell you from experience that anyone who knows anything about simulators understands there many limitations and nobody I know would use a simulator on this type of circuit.
Regards
AC
@AC
Don't waste your breath.
Quote
Quote from: allcanadian on Today at 09:02:04
@HumbuggerOne question I have is what harm is the debate over this circuit doing? None that I can tell and if nothing else it has made some like myself reconsider the finer details in electronics such as material properties, circuit geometries and field interactions other than magnetic fields which so many seem overly preoccupied with. Another question is does questionable terminology, theory or measurement techniques mean the circuit in question has no validity to it? The answer is no and many of the self-proclaimed experts here would seem to be confusing personal issues with electrodynamic ones as if a persons behavior could somehow effect the validity of this circuit if there is any. I know some like to pull out the BS "conspirancy theory" agenda whenever their motives are questioned but I fail to understand why so many here have such a preoccupation with putting this issue to rest, why the rush? Is this some kind of playground pissing contest to see who can shut down the thread first? In any case I enjoyed the debate when Rosemary was here because it made me consider things in a different light, right or wrong it made me think and from this I developed some new circuits in which real improvements were made. Which is one hell of a lot more than I can say for any of the experts here who tend to sound like a broken record repeating the same old monotone BS over and over which can be found in any textbook. Progess is not made by repetition or experience it is made by doing something different and this is where the supposed experts here have failed miserably.
Please tell me your not using a simulator, I tend to lose all respect for people who honestly believe a simulation can replace real world data. I run Multisim 8 at home for simple digital circuits and run Solidworks CAD/simulation/flow simulation as well as Ansys CFD at work for pet projects and can tell you from experience that anyone who knows anything about simulators understands there many limitations and nobody I know would use a simulator on this type of circuit.
Regards
AC
@AC
Don't waste your breath.
Bravo.
The magnetic fields exist internally and externally. That is all you need to look at. The OU does not come from a transition of any thing else. I never heard Hutchison mention electrons. The TPU is a self destructing transformer made from 2 Tesla coils. The control keeps it 'Bang off'. This is why you have seen many different sizes. Any arguments? Because if you look at anything else you'll spend an inordinate amount of time tracking the nepharious, mystical flying whatever... And it won't be simple. I guarantee it.
In regards to simulators I made a light beam product for a race track. I Karnaugh mapped it, simulated it, built and it worked flawlessly. I mean tight! Until the Live run day. Come to find out that a person with a flash camera at a certain place in the room would falsely trigger the reader constituting random results. It would happen maybe twice a session. Arghhhhhhhhhhh! It was a light reflection and bouncing problem. The testing had to be done real. I fixed the problem and now the product truly does work flawlessly for 3 years. It has garnered quite a bit of attention from police and fire teams. No matter what you do 'It has to be stable!' Otherwise you don't have a product.
I think that we got a big clue from Rosemary about what's going on in her circuit and the 1.2 MHz oscillations:
QuoteJust out of interest that beautiful waveform entirely disappears at below 36 volts from the supply
So her supply voltage is quite high, it looks like it is 72 volts (6 x 12 volts). She only gets the 1.2 MHz oscillation above 36 volts. So she has to push the supply voltage way way up, and that's increasing the gain in her MOSFET-based circuit. The increased gain eventually becomes high enough to initiate the output-to-input feedback loop to start the oscillations. It's the same thing like getting feedback between speakers and a microphone if the speaker volume is loud enough.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-SBNWmojycLs/TVvu35MqkEI/AAAAAAAAAEA/S04TE800UAY/s1600/SCRN0186.BMP)
From looking at the above graphic it appears that we are seeing the types of voltage spikes associated with interconnect wire inductance that we have been discussing recently. When the current is flowing you can see that the shunt resistor voltage is bumped up a bit and the battery voltage dips low. Then when the shunt current makes a quite sudden drop down, that's when we see the battery voltage spike up. That would be consistent with a length of wire from the battery positive to the device power input terminal discharging its stored inductive energy. If the probe monitoring the battery voltage was placed on the device power input terminal and not on the battery terminal you would see these positive spikes.
The key point here is that the big positive spike in battery voltage is a fake-out. It is not representative of current flowing back into the battery and recharging it. It actually represents current sill flowing
out of the battery. The big positive spikes are due to the interconnect wire's inductance discharging and attempting to push current into the device itself when the MOSFET is switched off and resisting any attempt for current to flow. That resistance to current flow results in the wire inductance raising the potential into a high spike. It's just the "Inductive Laws" in action.
This is all just a preliminary analysis and the information available is incomplete so I cannot be sure about my comments.
MileHigh
At this point in time, the world has far less information about what Rosemary is actually playing with on the bench than ever. The 555 is gone. There is a battery of unknown voltage. There is a MOSFET of unknown type and there is a load of unknown resistance and inductance. All we are seeing is evidence that the function generator is serving only to start and stop the parasitic oscillations. It appears now to be running at 50% duty cycle and the oscillations occur when the gate drive is low (off).
The circuit and the waveforms bear no resemblance to all that went before. The oscillations are obviously caused by layout parasitics working together with the MOSFET parasitic capacitances and the load inductance. Nothing at all remarkable, quite ordinary, infact. The remarkable thing here is that the circuit and waveforms seem to change daily and radically. Anyone trying to keep up by replicating hardware would be completely lost by now, with no information forthcoming. This is the reason, @AC, that anyone trying to make educated guesses as to what she is doing would be insane to try to do it in hardware at this point.
Still, all we have is endless babble, vicious personal attacks against Poynt, Milehigh, myself, ION, etc. and an unlimited supply of meaningless scope shots. Oh, and increasingly wild performance claims.
While on the one hand, Rose goes to great length to assure us all how she is surrounded by experts of the highest credibility and acumen, I found the single sentence buried in her recent rantings against Poynt to be the most revealing thing Rosemary has probably ever uttered:
"And, God willing, they may yet have a look in and check out the facts for themselves"
"Poynty Point, I will pass on your offer to debunk - but thank you. I have infinitely more confidence in the expertise of real experts. And they abound in our own country. And God willing, they may yet have a look in and check out the facts for themselves. With respect, and unlike you, they do not offer gratuitous abuse and nor, thankfully, do they apply the level of editing that you seem to enjoy in your own data capture - ably asssisted as you are by your excessive use of a simulator. In any event I rather rely on their professionalism and very much doubt that they'd indulge in the character attack that you seem to actively encourage. You should exercise more restraint in this mission of yours to DENY THESE OUR RESULTS. That way one could still accuse you of impartiality. Do you really think that that staff memebers here do not have the required expertise to establish whether or not a result is due to a badly soldered joint - or to incorrect probe positioning - or to inadequate data capture??? What are you thinking Poynty?"
So, the plethora of experts she so highly praises and has such unquestioning confidence in, to date, haven't even shown up to have a look! I have only two questions about the whole exercise:
1. Are there any such experts or are they yet one more imaginary consruct of Rosemary's deluded ego?
2. Assuming they are real and that God is willing and they do check it out, will we hear from them or will we just hear more endless positive glowing reports from Rosemary saying that all the experts are amazed and in complete agreement with any and all of her findings?
My guess is that Rosemary will do all of the reporting herself, no names of any experts will be proffered (as always) and, despite her reports of unanimous agreement amongst all the experts that she has indeed accomplished the miracles she claims (flavor of the day), no product embodying any such breakthrougfh invention will ever materialize in any form and no details will ever be released that would allow validating replications to be accomplished. She's gotten away with this pipedream for ten years now...no reason she won't conyinue in the same vein for another ten years.
That should provide @AC and those who have learned so much useful knowledge from Rosemary with an even more wonderful and insightful education. I'll be expecting great things from you in the future, AC.
Humbugger
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.02.16, 23:34:27
...
1. Are there any such experts or are they yet one more imaginary consruct of Rosemary's deluded ego?
2. Assuming they are real and that God is willing and they do check it out, will we hear from them or will we just hear more endless positive glowing reports from Rosemary saying that all the experts are amazed and in complete agreement with any and all of her findings?
...
Humbugger
Looks like Rose and Lawrence share the same delusions. One can really be 100% sincere and yet 100% sincerely wrong! Doesn't matter how you explain things, if there is nothing there is NOTHING! Until they can prove otherwise, the result is still Nothing! It's not stray capacitance and it's certainly not bad solder joints. Plain simple.
cheers
chrisC
MH,
What spikes and dips are you referring to?
My gosh Rose C.C
Hummy, not only is the story changing, but the circuit characteristics as well. The other day it was oscillating at about 1.85kHz, and now it is at 31.25kHz.
So you have rejected my offer Rose. Ok, whatever suits you best. I wish you the best of luck, and I look forward to reading the endorsements and technical write-ups from all those experts you have retained on hand. O0
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.02.17, 01:39:18
MH,
What spikes and dips are you referring to?
My gosh Rose C.C
Hummy, not only is the story changing, but the circuit characteristics as well. The other day it was oscillating at about 1.85kHz, and now it is at 31.25kHz.
So you have rejected my offer Rose. Ok, whatever suits you best. I wish you the best of luck, and I look forward to reading the endorsements and technical write-ups from all those experts you have retained on hand. O0
.99
Perhaps the link for the scope capture didn't work when you looked at my last posting. A reload might do the trick. Amber for the current and pink for the "battery" voltage.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.02.17, 01:48:39
Perhaps the link for the scope capture didn't work when you looked at my last posting. A reload might do the trick. Amber for the current and pink for the "battery" voltage.
MileHigh
All I see is wild resonant oscillation during the OFF time...what do you see? ???
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.02.17, 02:04:20
All I see is wild resonant oscillation during the OFF time...what do you see? ???
.99
What I think I see is that during the OFF time the MOSFET is still switching fully (or nearly) ON and OFF. It looks like the OFF to ON transition (current waveform) is sharp such that you see a single-pixel-wide glitch at that time. I am assuming that there is a fast low to high transition at the MOSFET gate input that creates the glitch. That transition lines up with the shorting out of the positive voltage spike on the "battery" voltage. Note also that the "battery" voltage spikes start to increase when the ON to OFF transition is at it's fastest. If it's due to inductance in the wire from the battery positive terminal it means that the big positive spikes in the battery voltage are not actually there across the battery terminals..
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.02.17, 02:32:16
What I think I see is that during the OFF time the MOSFET is still switching fully (or nearly) ON and OFF. It looks like the OFF to ON transition (current waveform) is sharp such that you see a single-pixel-wide glitch at that time. I am assuming that there is a fast low to high transition at the MOSFET gate input that creates the glitch. That transition lines up with the shorting out of the positive voltage spike on the "battery" voltage. Note also that the "battery" voltage spikes start to increase when the ON to OFF transition is at it's fastest. If it's due to inductance in the wire from the battery positive terminal it means that the big positive spikes in the battery voltage are not actually there across the battery terminals..
MileHigh
LOL,
No way, not that slower than molasses IRFPG50!
The Drain is probably oscillating just as badly (and a lot higher in voltage), and those little spikes you see might be the differentiated leading or trailing edges of V
D getting through to the Source via the inter-lead capacitance, which is relatively high not only in MOSFETs, but in this model in particular.
Trust me, that baby ain't switchin'.
.99
I am more likely to trust you on this one than I trust myself! lol I didn't even think about the MOSFET switching speed itself. Just plum forgot.
It looks to me like you could reverse-engineer the oscillation mode if you had the goods. Funny how you almost always end up dealing with the exceptions instead of the norms with this stuff. I could never have been a hard-core analog guy.
MileHigh
I always enjoy a challenge when it comes to doing something in PSpice.
From Rose's blog, post #58:
Quote
Dear Reader
I am not sure that the waveform can be duplicated on a simulator. I'd be interested to see if this is, in fact, possible. Perhaps our Poynty can give this a go. I am delighted, in any event, to see that it's being denied on the basis of a faulty IRFPG50.
Indeed I can, and I have... for the most part. And you may want to pay keen attention to my findings. ;)
There are 3 differences in the wave forms however, which I will explain below.
osc_repl01.png is greatly representative of the "phenomenon" that Rose is seeing in her wave forms. Specifically, this is in regards to the high amplitude oscillation present on the battery line (and Drain) and shunt measurement point during the period of time in the switch cycle where the MOSFET switch is "OFF".
The
difference #1 one will observe here between this and Rose's wave forms, is that the ringing is damped (i.e. falls off in amplitude with time) with my wave forms, while in the wave forms Rose posted, the amplitude appears quite constant.
The cause for the constant amplitude ringing in the wave forms Rose posted, is that the MOSFET VGS and VD are in phase. VGS is being "modulated" by the "noisy" signal on the Source pin, caused by the high impedance path back to the battery. This has the effect of applying negative feedback, and since the MOSFET is a voltage controlled resistance, the D-S resistance is also being modulated in such a fashion to "compress" the Drain voltage. Think of an AGC type control.
osc_repl02.png is a zoomed-in portion of the ringing.
Difference #2 is that the phase shift in my wave forms is 90 degrees, while Rose's show 180 degrees. This clearly indicates that there is a second order network in the actual circuit.
I have not included all the parasitic components around the MOSFET, so this may account for the single-order phase shift, vs. second order. With more time, I am fairly confident I could recreate this effect also, however, for the purposes of this post it is not required, as will soon become evident.
The
#3 difference is simply the slow ramp-ON and ramp-OFF of oscillation shown in Rose's wave forms, vs. the sharp ON and OFF transitions seen in my simulation wave forms. For the simulation, I have used an ideal switch, and so it does not exhibit this ramp effect. It is interesting to note that Rose's wave forms clearly indicate that the circuit exhibits ringing, even when the switch is ON.
Here is where you will want to pay particular attention Rose:There are primarily two causes for your present circuit to exhibit this unusual ringing effect:
1) The presence of an excessive battery cable length. This introduces a relatively large amount of inductance into the circuit, and effectively causes the battery to "float" relative to where you are taking your measurement points, i.e. near the MOSFET (see the attached photo of Rose's setup).
2) The presence of a completely blown, or severely damaged MOSFET body diode. With the low impedance heater coil and much higher supply voltage than before (24V in previous tests, now about 48V), the MOSFET body diode is experiencing repeated high energy avalanche, to the point it has evidently caused damage internal to the MOSFET currently installed in your circuit. I am 90% certain, that if you were to replace that MOSFET with a known good IRFPG50, you would see some very different wave forms, at least until that one sustains damage as well.
So there you have it Rose. I strongly encourage you to replace your MOSFET and see for yourself. With a proper working body diode, those lengthy oscillations have no chance to persist as we see in your wave forms.
.99
Poynt:
Those are some very interesting comments. I admit my interest is slipping and I would have to see a schematic and refresh myself on things and look at your comments step by step so that I could truly follow what you are saying. I don't have the energy to do that. Such is life.
But I will address the following to Rosemary:
Quote Rosemary:
QuoteAnd you're rather keen on using your standard DMM. If you put the setting to AC it will show that negative battery voltage.
This doesn't make sense, and I am not going to try to decipher what you really mean here, if indeed there is something sensible between the lines that I am not getting.
Not wanting to be nasty but it's quotes like the one above that disqualify you from being able to analyze and make judgment calls about your circuit and Poynt's comments. And the truth is that although you try to get up the learning curve, you have disqualified yourself hundreds of times in the past with similar types of comments.
So I suggest that you pass Poynt's comments along to the hidden "experts" that you often make reference to for their consideration.
This is becoming like Steorn, it's just taking too long and nothing is happening and there is no merit to either proposition. Free energy schemes don't die, they just fade away with an exponential decay that never reaches zero and seemingly goes on forever.
MileHigh
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/02/59-close-but-no-cigar.html (http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/02/59-close-but-no-cigar.html)
In Rosemary's post #59, after parsing and ignoring all the bullstuff and idiotic statements and teasing, I do find one thing I have to agree with, Poynt. I don't think the body diode is broken. As I said in an earlier post, I was able to get continuous oscillation during the gate low time by adding some inductance in series with the gate and lowering the gate resistance and tinkering with the load inductance. I have to agree with her, though, that the drain voltage (which she keeps wrongly calling the battery voltage) doesn't go below zero by more than a volt or so. This indicates an intact body diode to me.
In general, MOSFET body diodes can hack the same levels of pulsed current that the enhanced D-S channel can hack and even with her now higher battery voltage, I think she's still inside the "safe area" of operation in both directions.
In order to model this oscillation, you must use a genuine PSpice Level III MOSFET model complete with the parasitic capacitances. I used an IRF740, since that's the closest one in my library. I got it to ring like a bell, full time with no decay.
But I have tired of playing Rosemary's teasing game of hide and seek. She seems to want desperately to carry on a dialog, reading our every post and responding almost immediately, but she also seems completely unwilling to show her latest circuit, test lashup, layout and component values. She is enjoying our guessing games immensely and, since she provides no facts, she can always say we are wrong and that we cannot model or replicate her magical circuit.
If Rosemary had any real interest in legitimate analysis or testing or replication, she would stop playing hide and seek and be more open about the particulars of the day. But that has never been her way. Rather she enjoys keeping a shroud of mystery and "dark energy" draped closely around her private fiddlings. It has gotten boring for me at this point.
Read my byline, Rosemary, one more time: REASONABLE CLARITY IS REQUIRED, AT MINIMUM. You are a master of obfuscation, partly out of ignorance of the technology and its terminology and partly out of pure girlish spite.
Forgive my sexist remark, but you are acting like a silly little girl with a silly little secret and loving every minute of it in a spiteful and deceitful emotionally-based teasing way. Scientific investigation in an open "cards on the table face up" forum is the furthest thing from your mind, it's obvious. Your secrecy reminds me of a Bob Dylan lyric: "She tries to hide what she don't know to begin with".
Humbugger
Humbugger,
If you could, please post your schematic and sim scope traces showing how you achieved the same oscillations as what Rose showed.
.99
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.02.19, 00:39:24
I was able to get continuous oscillation during the gate low time by adding some inductance in series with the gate and lowering the gate resistance and tinkering with the load inductance. I have to agree with her, though, that the drain voltage (which she keeps wrongly calling the battery voltage) doesn't go below zero by more than a volt or so. This indicates an intact body diode to me.
How much inductance are you using in the Gate, and what Rgate value? What load inductance and load R value?
Quote
In general, MOSFET body diodes can hack the same levels of pulsed current that the enhanced D-S channel can hack and even with her now higher battery voltage, I think she's still inside the "safe area" of operation in both directions.
That's ok in general, but you can not rule out the possibility with 100% confidence, I trust? I look forward to seeing your simulation, because without making some very drastic changes and/or using unrealistic component values, I was not able to get that oscillation.
Quote
In order to model this oscillation, you must use a genuine PSpice Level III MOSFET model complete with the parasitic capacitances. I used an IRF740, since that's the closest one in my library. I got it to ring like a bell, full time with no decay.
I do in fact use
Level3 MOSFET models in PSpice, AND I am using an
IRFPG50 model. It's a
nogo for me, but I haven't tried anything too drastic that would not be possible in the real circuit. I did try some inductance in the Gate, but still nothing.
As I said, looking forward to your sim schematic. I'll see how it looks in PSpice.
.99
Part One: Simulation showing full oscillation of drain voltage with MOSFET body diode fully intact
Note that this only reveals the full possibility of getting sustained MHz oscillation (real, not artifact) by adding series gate inductance to the model.
Part two, which will have to wait for tomorrow's (or next week's) episode, will show that you are likely quite correct about the large oscillations showing on the current trace and the enlargement of this oscillation to include apparent negative excursion are indeed false measurement artifacts caused by probe and probe ground (remembering the "blue wire" movie) placement errors in conjunction with wiring inductances.
Humbugger
Admittedly, I had to make L2 about 1/5 of L1 (L1=10uH) and drop R2 to around 6.5 ohms to get this and it is quite finicky until you hit it (three variables) but I suspect there are numerous combinations that will oscillate like this and also that changing the MOSFET model will greatly effect the results and requirements for oscillation. 2uH is admittedly large for a stray gate inductance but, if you consider that she is probably using a coax cable of unknown wavelength that is improperly terminated from her function generator to the MOSFET gate, it's anyone's guess what the equivalent circuit and impedance presented to the gate is.
Incidentally Humbugger,
If the body diode is working properly, Vbat should not go more than a few Volts or so below the battery voltage, not ground (0V). The fact that the Battery voltage oscillation is going down to below zero, indicates that either she is measuring the Drain voltage, or the body diode is severely damaged.
.99
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.02.19, 02:21:42
Part One: Simulation showing full oscillation of drain voltage with MOSFET body diode fully intact
Note that this only reveals the full possibility of getting sustained MHz oscillation (real, not artifact) by adding series gate inductance to the model.
Part two, which will have to wait for tomorrow's (or next week's) episode, will show that you are likely quite correct about the large oscillations showing on the current trace and the enlargement of this oscillation to include apparent negative excursion are indeed false measurement artifacts caused by probe and probe ground (remembering the "blue wire" movie) placement errors in conjunction with wiring inductances.
Humbugger
Throw me a bone here Humbuggy,
Give me some component values. ;)
.99
Also,
In your diagram, you are measuring VD, not Vbat.
The measurement is of Vbat. ;)
.99
See the edit for the changed values. Load R is 10 ohms anf Vbatt is 26VDC, shunt is 0.25 ohms.
"...either she is measuring the Drain voltage, or the body diode is severely damaged." BINGO!
I am assuming that Rosemary is measuring Vdrain and calling that Vbat, incorrectly.
There is no way in hell that the battery has that much AC on it. She even states clearly that when she puts a DMM on the battery, set for AC, she reads zero volts. Didn't she say that? Think about it: there is always at least ten ohms pure resistance in series with the battery (Rload) and the reactance of Lload adds to that, so in order to get 100V pp excursions at the battery terminals, either the battery has an enormously high impedance or the actual drain voltage excursions would have to be thousands of volts if the battery impedance is as it should be...less than an ohm or so.
So, I'm figuring her negative excursions are scope/probe/ground inductance artifacts, as you suggested originally as the second part of your analysis.
Hum
P.S. I'm not saying for sure that you're wrong about the body diode. Just saying you can get continuous oscillation without a broken body diode. The rest is so hopelessly confused by Rosemary's innane statements and terminology that only God knows what she is actually probing when she says it's the battery voltage.
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.02.19, 02:42:14
See the edit for the changed values. Load R is 10 ohms anf Vbatt is 26VDC, shunt is 0.25 ohms.
I am assuming that Rosemary is measuring Vdrain and calling that Vbat, incorrectly.
There is no way in hell that the battery has that much AC on it. She even states clearly that when she puts a DMM on the battery, set for AC, she reads zero volts. Didn't she say that?
So, I'm figuring her negative excursions are scope/probe/ground inductance artifacts, as you suggested originally as the second part of your analysis.
Hum
P.S. I'm not saying for sure that you're wrong about the body diode. Just saying you can get continuous oscillation without a broken body diode. The rest is so hopelessly confused by Rosemary's innane statements and terminology that only God knows what she is actually probing when she says it's the battery voltage.
Humbuggy, with all due respect, I can assure you that the gate inductance won't be that high, and the gate resistance not that low. You need to factor in the 50 Ohm output impedance from the FG as well. Having considered these factors, the Gate circuit will have little to no effect on creating the oscillations we are seeing in Rose's wave forms.
Also, your schematic is incomplete, which is why you are not seeing the oscillations on the BATTERY vs. the Drain. She IS measuring the "battery" voltage, not the Drain. It is plain to see on the bench shot I provided (see short red wire).
See the attached drawing for a more complete (and necessary) rendition of what she actually has there, and what should be included in the simulation.
The fact that the Battery voltage already goes well below 48V is indication that the body diode is damaged. It appears to be trying to work by evidence of the distortion present there.
.99
Well, my brain is burning out with all the guesswork here. You show 2.5uH for each battery wire. At 20nH per inch thats 125 inches or over ten feet for each battery wire. Admittedly, I see no battery in the picture, but do you really think it's ten feet away? Could be, I suppose.
I also don't see the function generator cable coming to the MOSFET. Actually, not much is very clear on that optics slab. Could be she's driving the gate with another 10 feet of plain wire, for all I know.
I didn't mean to challenge your body diode theory to the point of a heated battle here Poynt. I may be wrong. I'm definitely getting burnt out trying to second-guess in the dark here, though.
I thought for sure Rosemary claimed that the scope waveform looked exactly the same when she was directly on the battery terminals. Of course that begs all credulity, just like 95% of everything else she says.
I'll have to think about all this body diode stuff a little more before I really take a hard stance one way or the other. God, I'll bet she's just loving all of this! :D
Humbugger
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.02.19, 03:24:59
Well, my brain is burning out with all the guesswork here. You show 2.5uH for each battery wire. At 20nH per inch thats 125 inches or over ten feet for each battery wire. Admittedly, I see no battery in the picture, but do you really think it's ten feet away? Could be, I suppose.
I use 60nH/in. (20nH is for 24 GA.) and I estimate roughly 48 inches (x2 of course). So I am being conservative.
Quote
I also don't see the function generator cable coming to the MOSFET. Actually, not much is very clear on that optics slab. Could be she's driving the gate with another 10 feet of plain wire, for all I know.
The cable is there (black jacket, white and black wires), and it appears to be a twisted 18GA. or so. It doesn't appear to be shielded.
Quote
I thought for sure Rosemary claimed that the scope waveform looked exactly the same when she was directly on the battery terminals. Of course that begs all credulity, just like 95% of everything else she says.
Agreed. If she had the other scope probes in their place, then the probe was probably never placed right on the battery terminals. She did say "IF and when...". As far as the rest about the DMM, I haven't a clue what she is talking about. I hazard a guess that she is referring to my claim that using a DMM set on DC volts can provide a solid measurement for average DC voltage....despite all the transients.
Quote
I'll have to think about all this body diode stuff a little more before I really take a hard stance one way or the other. God, I'll bet she's just loving all of this! :D
Humbugger
One other thing to consider, is if the body diode was doing its job, there could be no continuous oscillation, because the first excursion below zero conducts a current pulse through the body diode into the battery, and that eats up at least 50% of the energy.
If you perform the simulation as per my diagram with an ideal switch (RON=15m, ROFF=1M), you will quickly observe and realize that the only way those oscillations can exist as shown, is if the body diode is either non-existent, or it is severely damaged. Also, almost as important, is the large inductance between the battery and the circuit. Trust me, there is a lot of wire there. ;)
These two conditions need to be met or there is no wave form like we see.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.02.19, 02:59:02
Humbuggy, with all due respect, I can assure you that the gate inductance won't be that high, and the gate resistance not that low. You need to factor in the 50 Ohm output impedance from the FG as well. Having considered these factors, the Gate circuit will have little to no effect on creating the oscillations we are seeing in Rose's wave forms.
Wait just a minute now. Undamped oscillation requires gain and positive feedback. You've emphatically stated that there is no way the MOSFET is switching at the oscillation frequency in a post to Milehigh. There are obvious Q-destroying resistances in the circuit (Rload). So, if it's not positive feedback into the gate that is causing the oscillations, where is the gain coming from? How does the circuit oscillate unless there is something causing an added 180 degrees of phase shift to form positive feedback from drain to gate?
Without use of the gain of the MOSFET, a passive circuit with low Q couldn't ring out like that. Something is causing the battery to keep pumping energy into the LC tank compriised of the various series inductances and the Coss of the MOSFET. It is my theory that the MOSFET, while the gate is driven low by the FG, and the drain-source channel is less than fully hard on, is operating in a linear mode as a feedback oscillator. Otherwise, what could explain the non-diminishing ringing in such a low-Q circuit? Energy is being added somewhere and it ain't from zipons! I say the gate has a lot to do with it.
Quote
Also, your schematic is incomplete, which is why you are not seeing the oscillations on the BATTERY vs. the Drain. She IS measuring the "battery" voltage, not the Drain. It is plain to see on the bench shot I provided (see short red wire).
See the attached drawing for a more complete (and necessary) rendition of what she actually has there, and what should be included in the simulation.
It looks to me like the point you have labelled Vbatt is suspended between two inductances and is thus neither Vbatt nor Vdrain. I understand why you drew it that way, assuming her battery wires are ten feet long and that she's got her scope hooked up near the load unit and not the battery. In the case of continuous oscillations, the volatge there is sort of floating about, isn't it? So why would you be so surprised and sure the body diode is blown if it happened to go below the battery positive terminal? I don't get that part either.
Quote
The fact that the Battery voltage already goes well below 48V is indication that the body diode is damaged. It appears to be trying to work by evidence of the distortion present there.
.99
So, there is no hurry. I can live with this confusion. I obviously need some gentle instruction and hand-holding here. I am getting lost. Throw me a lifeline, Poynt! At your leisure (I'm not actually drowning...just lazy). :P
Humbugger
P.S. This thing oscillates like a bitch from hell...150W out at 45MHz. It hasn't blown any body diodes. So what's the major difference? The voltage at the drain swings between ground and twice Vdd. The load out there at the other end of the quarter-wave line is a dynamic plasma resistor inside a laser tube. The entire trick in getting this to work involved massaging the impedances and phase angle at the gate. The quarter wave line provides 90 degrees and produces 1KV to light up the load in the first few microseconds then, as the plasma forms, its impedance drops and the quarter-wave line serves as a constant-power regulator while always giving 90 degrees phase shift. The L and C in the feedback loop plus the Ciss add the final 90 degrees of phase shift.
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.02.19, 04:11:40
Wait just a minute now. Undamped oscillation requires gain and positive feedback. You've emphatically stated that there is no way the MOSFET is switching at the oscillation frequency in a post to Milehigh. There are obvious Q-destroying resistances in the circuit (Rload). So, if it's not positive feedback into the gate that is causing the oscillations, where is the gain coming from? How does the circuit oscillate unless there is something causing an added 180 degrees of phase shift to form positive feedback from drain to gate?
Without use of the gain of the MOSFET, a passive circuit with low Q couldn't ring out like that. Something is causing the battery to keep pumping energy into the LC tank compriised of the various series inductances and the Coss of the MOSFET. It is my theory that the MOSFET, while the gate is driven low by the FG, and the drain-source channel is less than fully hard on, is operating in a linear mode as a feedback oscillator. Otherwise, what could explain the non-diminishing ringing in such a low-Q circuit? Energy is being added somewhere and it ain't from zipons! I say the gate has a lot to do with it.
It looks to me like the point you have labelled Vbatt is suspended between two inductances and is thus neither Vbatt nor Vdrain. I understand why you drew it that way, assuming her battery wires are ten feet long and that she's got her scope hooked up near the load unit and not the battery. In the case of continuous oscillations, the volatge there is sort of floating about, isn't it? So why would you be so surprised and sure the body diode is blown if it happened to go below the battery positive terminal? I don't get that part either.
So, there is no hurry. I can live with this confusion. I obviously need some gentle instruction and hand-holding here. I am getting lost. Throw me a lifeline, Poynt! At your leisure (I'm not actually drowning...just lazy). :P
Humbugger
P.S. This thing oscillates like a bitch from hell...150W out at 45MHz. It hasn't blown any body diodes. So what's the major difference? The voltage at the drain swings between ground and twice Vdd. The load out there at the other end of the quarter-wave line is a dynamic plasma resistor inside a laser tube. The entire trick in getting this to work involved massaging the impedances and phase angle at the gate. The quarter wave line provides 90 degrees and produces 1KV to light up the load in the first few microseconds then, as the plasma forms, its impedance drops and the quarter-wave line serves as a constant-power regulator while always giving 90 degrees phase shift. The L and C in the feedback loop plus the Ciss add the final 90 degrees of phase shift.
Is it possible for a body diode to fail without impairing
MOSFET integrity?
What is the nature of the vast majority of MOSFET failures?
THIS LINK (http://www.richieburnett.co.uk/mosfail.html) is a good practical discussion.
Very often, spurious oscillations are very hard to nail down
but are easily prevented.
Unless, the spurious oscillations serve a useful purpose...
It seems to me that in the real world there will be some air core coupling or transformer action between the inductance of the driven resistor and any inductance in the gate wiring. I've played with FET's with a little bit of coupling in this manner and it can oscillate very well and at considerable distance between the inductors.
I don't see any air core transformer type coupling in the sims presented but maybe I missed something. Also consider stray capacitive coupling to further muck up the works.
Quote from: Dumped on 2011.02.19, 05:18:28
Is it possible for a body diode to fail without impairing
MOSFET integrity?
What is the nature of the vast majority of MOSFET failures?
THIS LINK (http://www.richieburnett.co.uk/mosfail.html) is a good practical discussion.
Very often, spurious oscillations are very hard to nail down
but are easily prevented.
Unless, the spurious oscillations serve a useful purpose...
But then they wouldn't be spurious anymore, would they? If oscillations are desired for a purpose, then the circuit should be designed to oscillate at the desired frequency with the least amount of heating in the MOSFET. No?
Even Rosemary has given up crediting her "semi-random aperiodic oscillations" for her fabulous infinite COP demonstration unit and now has found the far preferred staedy fixed frequency oscillations! C.C
I think that link is pretty darn complete. It seems he wrote it well before the current generation of "Avalanche-rated" fifth and sixth generation parts were around. I say that because he talks about destroying the parts by even a small hit against the breakdown voltage for a brief few nanoseconds. Today's MOSFETs can handle a fair amount of abuse that way.
Tanks fer da link,
Humburger
P.S. My vote is that it is fairly unlikely to have a body diode fail open and still have good gate control of the channel and impossible to have it fail shorted and not lose all function. After all, the body diode isn't called "intrinsic" just for fun. It's not as if it were a seperate diode soldered in there on purpose, after all. I've busted a lot of MOSFETs in my day. The only ones that keep limping along have been gate-oxide punctures due to brief excesses in gate drive voltage.
Every hard failure has resulted in a D-S short, at least that I've seen. Except the ones that literally exploded, spraying shards of epoxy in my face and hair. Those ones often had no trace of a chip left on the lead frame, so we'll never know about them! I'd say they shorted first and then vaporized.
Quote from: ION on 2011.02.19, 05:20:39
It seems to me that in the real world there will be some air core coupling or transformer action between the inductance of the driven resistor and any inductance in the gate wiring. I've played with FET's with a little bit of coupling in this manner and it can oscillate very well and at considerable distance between the inductors.
I don't see any air core transformer type coupling in the sims presented but maybe I missed something. Also consider stray capacitive coupling to further muck up the works.
Trying to pin down the exact source of MOSFET oscillations without knowing the exact layout and all the parasitics and possible couplings is virtually impossible, in my opinion. It's a lot easier to just make them go away than to precisely understand why they happen, unless you are setting out to make an oscillator. Even then it can be quite tricky, that's for sure. Especially if you want high efficiency and high frequency.
That's why it's hard to converge on agreement regarding Rosemary's particular setup. Too many unknowns. Too many possibilities.
Humboogert
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/02/60-ta-muchly.html (http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/02/60-ta-muchly.html)
Blog #60 (link above)
Einstein said "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler"
I know some don't hold much truck with Einstein here, but I find this saying to be golden.
Oh, how simple it would be, Rosemary, if all sorts of little irritating realities could just be blithely ignored. If a simple theory could instantly explain all electronic and physical interactions. If endless energy could be tickled out of hiding with twelve bucks worth of Radio Shack parts.
Rosemary, if you have any real appreciation for all the effort and attention you're getting from us here...and if you are sincere about learning even a tiny bit of anything from all of it, please do us all a big favor and show us your setup. Up close and personal, with the component values, hookup details, measurement points and physical layout. Leave nothing to the imagination. Nail it down. Pick you best and favorite duty cycle and oscillation pattern so far. And make some straight-up simple measurements of equivalent DC input power and equivalent DC heating power.
You have a rapt audience, despite our poking of fun and criticisms of your bench prowess and lingo-lacks. Use us as guinea pigs for a dry run of your "hopefully unequivocal" demonstration/presentation/proof or whatever you want to call it. Lay it out here...no holds barred, cards on the table.
Sincerely,
Humbugger
Okay...couldn't get to sleep until I played a little more and updated my silly sim to agree with Poynt's as best I could (not having the exact Spice Model for the MOSFET so still using IRF740).
Here are two interesting situations that tend to show that the gate drive arrangement may have more to do with the oscillation tendency than some gave credit for. Also shows plenty of excursion above and below battery voltage with so-called "Vbatt" scoped at same mid-point of positive terminal battery lead inductance and load inductance as prescribed by Poynt as his best estimate of what Rose is doing. Body diode not broken.
Top figure shows the system driven by a source square wave gen with a 50 ohm output impedance and using a piece of 50 ohm cable to get to the gate. The cable can be any length and nothing changes.
Bottom figure shows exact same setup but now the drive cable to the gate is a twisted pair with 150 ohm characteristic impedance. Note the greatly changed duration of the ringing. Those who want to simulate this will also find now that the length of the cable has a large effect on the ringing duration and can cause some quite odd modulations of the oscillations at certain lengths.
I couldn't readily get sustained oscillation with these values and no additional couplings or parasitic L's and C's and my MOSFET parasitic C's are not the same as Rose's circuit or Poynt's sim, but I think it can be said tht it's quite clear that as small a detail as the impedance of the drive cable and its length can have a very dramatic effect on the stability and tendency to oscillate for a longer or shorter duration (i.e. the damping factor is radically changed).
So the impedance placed on the gate by the drive cable reflection is purely resistive when the cable impedance matches the generator impedance. But when those do not match, the gate end of the cable acts like an L or a C and varies as the length of the cable is adjusted. This seems to have a big effect on the damping, at least, which implies strongly that the gate impedance definitely changes the stability criteria by way of changing the phase angle of feedback into the gate.
Humbugger
Quote from: ION on 2011.02.19, 05:20:39
It seems to me that in the real world there will be some air core coupling or transformer action between the inductance of the driven resistor and any inductance in the gate wiring. I've played with FET's with a little bit of coupling in this manner and it can oscillate very well and at considerable distance between the inductors.
I don't see any air core transformer type coupling in the sims presented but maybe I missed something. Also consider stray capacitive coupling to further muck up the works.
I think that's all that is needed to get those big continuous oscillations happening. The simulator shows that its on the verge and minor tweaks of the impedance at the gat can move the feedback phase angle. add some coupling from that big old coiled up heater element to the drive cable twisted pair and off we go! Or a myriad of other possible feedback augmentation/phase shifting parasitics and couplings. Right on ION.
DaBugger
POYNT
Could you explain what we are looking at in this picture?....Looks like a steel cased immersion heater.
Quote from: ION on 2011.02.19, 12:46:49
POYNT
Could you explain what we are looking at in this picture?....Looks like a steel cased immersion heater.
Poynt seems to have the inside track on that photo. I think that's her new inductive load resistor. Sure looks kind of stock immersion to me.
It also looks like she's using a slew of real long "sandbox" style wirewound highly inductive resistors for her shunt. Bad girl! At least they look like they're in parallel...
The very best (I mean if you can't get a real Kelvin-sensing shunt purpose-designed) is a slew of 1W 2512-size chip resistors in close parallel, like stacked and soldered together.
Hum
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.02.19, 13:31:29
Poynt seems to have the inside track on that photo. I think that's her new inductive load resistor. Sure looks kind of stock immersion to me.
It also looks like she's using a slew of real long "sandbox" style wirewound highly inductive resistors for her shunt. Bad girl! At least they look like they're in parallel...
The very best (I mean if you can't get a real Kelvin-sensing shunt purpose-designed) is a slew of 1W 2512-size chip resistors in close parallel, like stacked and soldered together.
Hum
I use carbon rod strapped with copper to get any milliohm shunt I desire. I also use a center tapped arrangement so the resistance temperature drift cancels. Works very well. But I've been known to make my own resistors. Once had a job in a resistor manufacturing plant.
So how do you model all the capacitive coupling and distributed capacitance from the outer steel sheath to the swaged heating element, not to mention the heater ground back into the circuit.
And whatever happened to the special very carefully wound "Ainslie" resistor of precise dimensions?
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.02.19, 13:31:29
Poynt seems to have the inside track on that photo. I think that's her new inductive load resistor. Sure looks kind of stock immersion to me.
It also looks like she's using a slew of real long "sandbox" style wirewound highly inductive resistors for her shunt. Bad girl! At least they look like they're in parallel...
The very best (I mean if you can't get a real Kelvin-sensing shunt purpose-designed) is a slew of 1W 2512-size chip resistors in close parallel, like stacked and soldered together.
Hum
Yes, I am assuming this is the setup she is currently testing on. This was a photo she uploaded some time ago to OU or somewhere, I don't recall.
Yes, 5x 1.25 Ohm resistors in parallel would yield 0.25 Ohms for her CSR. They do look wire-wound, but there are non-inductive versions available using the Aryton-Perry winding method, so I will giver her the benefit of the doubt on that one.
The load seems to be some type of water or liquid heater. I wonder if anyone could dig up the typical specs on such an item? Being in South Africa, I suppose their line voltage is 220V, so that would help perhaps. I took a guess at 4 Ohms and about 20uH to 40uH inductance, which includes the wiring to and from the resistor. All in all, the actual values are not too critical for this discussion as I am quite confident we are in the ballpark in terms of the component values. This real issue is what is causing these apparent constant amplitude oscillations.
3 probes; one on "Vbat", one on the CSR shunt, and one on the function generator output before the gate resistor. Pretty basic.
Note that there is a considerable length of wire leading to the batteries on the floor (not seen but assumed). If she has 4 batteries wired in series, then there can
easily be 48 inches of wire in each leg. Even if we use 30nH per inch, there is a significant amount of inductance there, and this is one of the contributing factors explaining what we are seeing in her wave forms.
.99
@Dumped:
That link is poor in terms of his description of the MOSFET internal body diode and his description of a free-wheeling (flyback) diode. He claims that the MOSFET body diode is a free-wheeling diode "built-in" for free. INCORRECT. They are not the same and do not perform the same function. A MOSFET driving an inductive load without a flyback diode across the inductor, will be hit by huge voltage spikes on its Drain pin. The body diode ONLY conducts under two conditions; 1) if VD goes negative wrt the Source, and 2) if VD exceeds the body diode (really a NPN transistor) avalanche voltage. In that latter sense, it performs a similar job to what a fb diode would do, but it clamps the voltage at the avalanche voltage (very high) vs. at a few volts higher than V+ as a fb diode would.
.99
As an alternative to replacing the MOSFET Rose, you can solder in a diode with high VBr (reverse breakdown voltage) across the Source and Drain leads.
This will tell you right away if the internal body diode is faulty or not. If the wave forms change significantly, then the body diode is damaged. If there is no change, then the diode is ok, and I am wrong.
Pay attention to the diode polarity if you try this.
.99
EDIT: However, the preference is and always shall be to replace the existing MOSFET with a known good unit.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.02.19, 16:40:03
As an alternative to replacing the MOSFET Rose, you can solder in a diode with high VBr (reverse breakdown voltage) across the Source and Drain leads.
This will tell you right away if the internal body diode is faulty or not. If the wave forms change significantly, then the body diode is damaged. If there is no change, then the diode is ok, and I am wrong.
Pay attention to the diode polarity if you try this.
.99
I'm going to take the 10% bet on this, Poynt. You're 90% sure it's the body diode. I'm not at all convinced. Your challenge, above, is a tiny bit of a heads-I-win, tails-you-lose situation. If the body diode is good and she adds another diode in parallel with different recovery characteristics and added capacitance, there will surely be some change in the waveform, however small, and possibly significant change.
If it's bad, and she puts a weak little diode across there, it could pop open (rare, but your theory says highly possible) quickly and she'd see no change after the first few moments of operation.
I just finished doing your no-Mosfet sim, exactly as you showed yours, with the switch and all the latest inductance changes, etc.
With the diode gone, the oscillation still dies out rather quickly...quicker than my MOSFETwith diode intact sim with the quite reasonable and highly possible gate drive impedance mismatch. Yes, it gets absolutely whacked down with the diode in place in your switch circuit, for sure. No argument there.
Why doesn't it get equally quickly whacked down with my MOSFET-installed model? My theory is because the circuit is operating under normal Nyquist feedback common source mode. Gate and drain are already 180 degrees out of phase; add another 90 and you have the verge of instability.
The switch (non-Mosfet) model has no gate to accept feedback, no parasitic Crss or Ciss capacitances, source lead inductance, etc. That's why the ringing tank dies out pretty quick (due to Rload losses) even without the diode and really quick with it. There is no possible gain/feedback mechanism with the switch simulation.
As far as the proof being in the pudding, I don't see where you have posted any continuous oscillating circuit at any time, switch or MOSFET. I looked, but did not find. Did I miss it? At least I did post one configuration (with impractically large gate inductance added) that rang on at a non-decaying level.
Finally, I am still at a loss to understand why you say that unless the diode is open, the Vbatt (at the point you suggest probing) can't ever go below the nominal DC battery voltage. The only thing the diode clamps is when the actual drain itself tries to go south of the source. Between the actual positive battery terminal and the drain itself, there are two inductors (2.5nH and 10nH) plus the load resistance. Those nodes are relatively free to go anywhere between the peak of the first flyback spike all the way to the source voltage and a volt or two below (source "ground"). Of course they will swing below the battery positive node during the oscillations. The body diode doesn't turn on until drain is south of source. Nothing to do with battery positive voltage.
That's my position and I'm taking the 10% odds against your 90% confidence level the other way. Until I'm re-educated, which is entirely possible. ;) Unless my position is so unreasonable or poorly stated or so hopelessly stupidly flawed that it deserves to be dismissed with appropriate ridicule, I await your corrections to my thinking at your leisure, Sir! O0
Humbugger
OK, I agree, bad idea.
Scrap that suggestion Rose. Just replace the MOSFET please.
Hum,
Still, you need to show your wave forms that match those of Rose. I've not seen anything close yet.
The wave forms I posted so far are quite close, and exhibit similar characteristics. More tweaking will be required to perfect them though. I'll see what I can do.
.99
Poynt me to the post in question...I genuinely looked for a real good one that rang on and on, but didn't find it. Thanks,
Homboger
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.02.19, 14:14:35
@Dumped:
That link is poor in terms of his description of the MOSFET internal body diode and his description of a free-wheeling (flyback) diode. He claims that the MOSFET body diode is a free-wheeling diode "built-in" for free. INCORRECT. They are not the same and do not perform the same function. A MOSFET driving an inductive load without a flyback diode across the inductor, will be hit by huge voltage spikes on its Drain pin. The body diode ONLY conducts under two conditions; 1) if VD goes negative wrt the Source, and 2) if VD exceeds the body diode (really a NPN transistor) avalanche voltage. In that latter sense, it performs a similar job to what a fb diode would do, but it clamps the voltage at the avalanche voltage (very high) vs. at a few volts higher than V+ as a fb diode would.
.99
Granted, his "practical" explanations do have some
shortcomings. But, the body diode does in certain
switching applications tend to function as a "free
wheeling" diode.
This tendency has resulted in the re-engineering of
the body diode characteristics to achieve fast recovery
in order to enhance the reliability of the devices.
The low side MOSFET in the synchronous buck converter
is subjected to those conditions just before it is turned on
to divert the reverse current away from the body diode.
Your points are well taken. Both conditions (reverse
body diode current and avalanche) can cause MOSFET
failure when excessive. Particularly when the body diode
is slow recovery.
Quote from: Dumped on 2011.02.19, 21:45:00
Granted, his "practical" explanations do have some
shortcomings. But, the body diode does in certain
switching applications tend to function as a "free
wheeling" diode.
This tendency has resulted in the re-engineering of
the body diode characteristics to achieve fast recovery
in order to enhance the reliability of the devices.
The low side MOSFET in the synchronous buck converter
is subjected to those conditions just before it is turned on
to divert the reverse current away from the body diode.
Your points are well taken. Both conditions (reverse
body diode current and avalanche) can cause MOSFET
failure when excessive. Particularly when the body diode
is slow recovery.
Intelligent and well-informed points, as you well know. This is part of why I doubt Poynt's theory about the Ainslie body diode being ruptured open. There just isn't any opposing active device nipping at the heels a nanosecond away from total destruction in a single-MOSFET flyback/boost type circuit. None of the scary mechanisms that synchronous and resonant switchers have to wreak havoc on body diodes that get stuck.
By the way, Dumped, you asked they key question on this matter a few posts back: Can the body diode be thrashed yet the part still function without problems as far as gate controlling Drain-source? Or something to that effect. Ever get or offer an unequivocal answer? I'd be curious; my guess would be no.
Humbugger
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.02.19, 22:41:51
Intelligent and well-informed points, as you well know. This is part of why I doubt Poynt's theory about the Ainslie body diode being ruptured open. There just isn't any opposing active device nipping at the heels a nanosecond away from total destruction in a single-MOSFET flyback/boost type circuit. None of the scary mechanisms that synchronous and resonant switchers have to wreak havoc on body diodes that get stuck.
By the way, Dumped, you asked they key question on this matter a few posts back: Can the body diode be thrashed yet the part still function without problems as far as gate controlling Drain-source? Or something to that effect. Ever get or offer an unequivocal answer? I'd be curious; my guess would be no.
Humbugger
A question then;
Don't most if not all SMPS circuits utilize some form of flyback around the inductive element, thus protecting the MOSFET (and it's internal diode) from harm?
If the answer is YES, then the body diode never gets tested in the reverse direction, therefore it would not likely fail in this manner.
Rose's circuit does not utilize a flyback diode, and so the MOSFET body diode is being hammered continuously with HV spikes.
.99
So here is a better switch circuit. I've spent some considerable time tweaking the SWITCH-based circuit to exhibit wave forms very close when compared side-by-side to the IRFPG50-based circuit. Both schematics are below and show the same "external" component values. The ringing in the "SWITCH" circuit was not tweaked to the exact same frequency, but it is close enough for demonstration purposes. Other than that, the traces follow quite closely.
The attached pictures are pretty much self explanatory, but feel free to ask about anything.
With reference to Vbat_diodeOUT.png, it would seem that with the body diode intact, the "Vbat" trace should not go anywhere near the 0V line (as shown by the green trace, which is the IRFPG50 circuit). The red trace (SWITCH CIRCUIT) however dips even further, to below 0V when the body diode is removed.
.99
Here is a first attempt at getting the circuit to oscillate from Drain to Gate coupling.
I have tried a K up to "1" with L3 at both polarities, and the circuit will not go into a Nyquist oscillation.
.99
I've noticed that with a 4 Ohm 20uH load, the VGS max voltage is exceeded for most MOSFETs.
This can't be good for the MOSFET either.
There are too many unknowns here. I guess we will have to wait if/until Rose provides more details. It's really hard to say what is causing that constant amplitude oscillation, but I'll bet it isn't providing any excess energy.
.99
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/02/64-general-appeal.html (http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/02/64-general-appeal.html)
Desperate cries for attention from Rosemary. What I can't figure out is exactly what she wants anyone to pay attention to. Is there going to be a live broadcast? A U-tube video? A published report with comments from her experts? A cut-and-paste from a local SA newspaper article? How does the "internet audience" she is so eager to alert actually tune in to the big event?
I suspect it will be nothing more than some more blogs with a lot of claims and Ring-Around-the-Rosie explanations of the "proof" of her theory but no details of any actual testing or reproducible results.
Blogs 62 and 63 have convinced me once again that there is no hope she will ever understand the reality of her circuit or any circuit for that matter. Or what simulations are about. She seems to think that we are purposely trying to avoid showing evidence of OU from our best guess simulations of the circuit specifics (which she refuses to disclose).
It's probably time to just sit back and wait to see what the big event actually consists of and how it is presented. It's a "What will she think of next" kind of curiosity for me. Nothing more.
Humbugger
Poynt,
I got a real kick out of this one, showing the addition of Cds and Cgs to the model using the ideal switch. I'm not going to comment except to say that you must have been really really tired. ;D
Hum
63 - the circuit to test for the simulation
Dear Reader,
I suspect I'm boring you all with all this repetition. But I need to make this point as poyntedly clear as possible. To anyone who wishes to simulate that waveform - I propose that it may be achieved if you assume the following circuit.
Two rechargeable batteries are in parallel. A resistor with a small associated inductance is in series with the drain of battery one - with a switch and with a positively biased diode where the cathode is against the positive terminal of battery 2.
A second rail leads from the positive of battery 2. A resistor with a small associated inductance is also placed in series with the drain of battery 2 - with a switch and with a positively biased diode where the cathode is against the positive terminal of battery 1.
The switches work in antiphase that only one battery can deliver energy at any one time. You can use a solid state MOSFET type with a body diode driven by a 555 or by a functions generator. I think you'd need one switch for each rail - but have no idea how you determine the 'on' 'off' time of them both. Hopefully you guys will know.
A common rail links the negative of both batteries. A shunt resistor is in series with both negative rails in order to determine rate of current flow.
I am not sure what is required to ensure that both batteries sustain a different pd to each other. I'm afraid you guys will need to sort that out.
The switches work in antiphase. If the battery 1 is closed, then battery 2 is open. And when battery 2 is closed battery 1 is open.
I'm reasonably satisfied that the waveform across either battery and the shunt resistor will correspond to the this one where the two waveforms are in antiphase to each other
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OKIMojhIR7M/TWEOgHNxWgI/AAAAAAAAAEg/9o5TnrGtEKI/s1600/SCRN0148.BMP)
If so, then I'd modestly propose that our own circuit seems to indicate that there's an alternate energy supply source.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Let's see if we can pull a schematic out of this description. I have suspected that there might be other components in the circuit, and from a particular test I did yesterday of placing a diode in series with the shunt, I was able to produce the steady oscillation. However, I disqualified that because I have no way of knowing if indeed there is a diode in series with the circuit somewhere, not necessarily in series with the shunt.
This is promising, thanks for the hints Rose. It would sure be nice if you could provide an actual schematic though. Surely there is nothing proprietary about this circuit? For the most part, it's right out of the datasheet.
Oh, to address your comments about all the spurious components in the gate of my simulation, well that 50 Ohm is what would be the output impedance of your function generator. This is a built in resistance that you can not see, but is indicated beside the BNC connector, if you would trouble yourself to have a look. what size is your Gate resistor? That must be added in series with the 50 Ohm to be accurate.
What is doing the swapping of those batteries? Is that a manual process that you employ using the switches you described? Why the two batteries, one source and one charging? Are you really only using 2x 12V batteries? Why do your scope shots show a battery voltage of about 48V?
I'll try to draw something up, and feel free to correct the errors.
.99
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.02.20, 14:36:11
Poynt,
I got a real kick out of this one, showing the addition of Cds and Cgs to the model using the ideal switch. I'm not going to comment except to say that you must have been really really tired. ;D
Hum
I'm glad you liked it Hum.
If you'd like to see a comparison of any of the wave forms with the actual IRFPG50, including the "gate" or V
GS, just ask. You may be surprised at how close this comes.
Those capacitors
should be there for the switch model to represent what is there in the real circuit. As a switch, this "model" seems to work quite well actually. Of course this model is not going to work if you try using this switch model as an amplifier or anything that uses the device in any other mode other than full cutoff or saturation.
Request a wave form....any wave form of the two. ;)
.99
OK, I think I am understanding it now.
When you say 'switch" you actually mean the MOSFET.
So you are in effect running two of these circuits together? No wonder I can't properly reproduce the wave forms. C.C
That's a bit of a departure Rose. Certainly not the device in that photo.
Ok, let's try again. I'll try to put together a schematic.
.99
OK Rose.
Does this diagram properly depict your present circuit?
.99
.
With couched admiration, I have quietly followed Rosemary Ainslie's public journey for many years
both here and elsewhere, and have never chosen to comment until today
as my interest has always been cursory at best.
It should not surprise anyone here to learn that this particular forum is avidly followed
and read by many in South Africa. I have recently taken the time to privately contact
the owners of the very same newspaper that Rosemary has been corresponding with,
and as well, and by sheer good fortune, a distinguished acamedic individual
(and former colleague) whom I have persuaded to attend her presentation.
I have been assured that unless this demonstration includes a schematic
with a detailed component description, Rosemary, along with her device,
will be immediately and summarily dismissed as fraudulent.
It appears that nonsense will not be brooked.
Eternal high praise or a lifetime of ridicule,
this journey comes to its just end on March 12th.
I have done my part for Rosemary.
Mookie
.
Thank you for this notice Mookie.
Much appreciated. ;)
If the demo goes ahead, I look forward to reading about your colleague's views.
Sounds like your colleague is starting off on the right foot by asking for some device details, good show. Not so sure he will get them though, unless Rose gives the above diagram the two thumbs up perhaps. O0 O0
.99
Quote from: Mookie on 2011.02.20, 19:20:42
.
With couched admiration, I have quietly followed Rosemary Ainslie's public journey for many years
both here and elsewhere, and have never chosen to comment until today
as my interest has always been cursory at best.
It should not surprise anyone here to learn that this particular forum is avidly followed
and read by many in South Africa. I have recently taken the time to privately contact
the owners of the very same newspaper that Rosemary has been corresponding with,
and as well, and by sheer good fortune, a distinguished acamedic individual
(and former colleague) whom I have persuaded to attend her presentation.
I have been assured that unless this demonstration includes a schematic
with a detailed component description, Rosemary, along with her device,
will be immediately and summarily dismissed as fraudulent.
It appears that nonsense will not be brooked.
Eternal high praise or a lifetime of ridicule,
this journey comes to its just end on March 17th.
I have done my part for Rosemary.
Mookie
.
Mookie, I think her Blog says MARCH 12, 2011 and not March 17th as you posted. Is there some type of mix up on the dates for a reason?
This will certainly and hopefully put everything in its proper place.
O0 ;D
Catlady
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.02.20, 16:23:14
OK Rose.
Does this diagram properly depict your present circuit?
.99
Poynt,
You should be aware of the post script Rose has added to her Blog #63;
"POST SCRIPT
It seems I've confused everyone. Abject apologies. The circuit described here is only theorised. I've never built it. Our circuit is substantially the same as it's ever been. Here I've proposed that this be tested only to see if a second supply will then generate the waveforms that we're getting. I thought it would be an articulate means of proving that our resistor/element is also an energy supply source. That speaks to the 'thinking' which is my best euphemism for 'thesis'. Apologies for the mix up. Clearly my writing is worse than ever I realised.
What I'm hoping Poynty - is that the waveforms will now move in antiphase. It'll be an interesting study. "
Hum
Mookie, I think her Blog says MARCH 12, 2011 and not March 17th as you posted
My apologies for the typing error ...I have corrected my post.
Mookie
Mookie.....I thought maybe you were sending the reporter on the wrong date or you were told by Rosemary to have the reporter come on the 17th. You know she is good at postponing things and also editing her own posts hours later. I guess we will see if the demonstration really happens.....Thank you for getting someone to go look at it.
;)
Catlady
OK, thanks for the heads-up Hum.
C.C
.99
btw, You've not yet requested to see any wave forms. :-X?
I wonder if Rose would be so kind as to show us a scope shot of VD, the Drain voltage?
Thanks in advance ;).
.99
Quote
65 - some answers to some questions
Dear Reader,
This is just to asnwer some of those questions that have been put to me on forums.
Poynty - we did do a waveform directly across the load resistor - courtesy a very special little DSO. Here's the link. (Blog 54. I see I've incorrectly numbered two of them the same. In any event. You'll see which is which)
I appreciate the response, however, I am asking for a scope shot of
VD (the MOSFET Drain voltage). This is not the same as the voltage across the load resistor. So far there are no scope shots of VD. What
has been made available thus far, are scope shots across the shunt, scope shots of the battery line, and scope shots of the MOSFET Gate.
Please place the scope probe on the MOSFET Drain pin, and the gnd lead on your gnd bus. Done.
Thanks,
.99
QuoteMeanwhile - just to let you all know. I'm looking forward to that demo despite the scare that sits in the pit of my stomach and despite the sleepless nights. I've been largely reassured as the actual demo will be given by someone else. I'm reasonably satisfied I would not be equal to addressing a large group of people.
Might you inform the public about who will be conducting the demonstration, if not yourself?
.99
How about those new 40V spikes across the 0.25 ohm shunt? Seems like either those probes/grounds are down the wire a ways or those are normal inductive-wound sandbox resistors. It sure is hard to second-guess any of it without being there on the bench.
Hum
P.S. I got an email from Rose explaining why she wants to raise a lot of chatter on the forums but I dare not reveal what she said, lest I breach a budding new bit of trust. :-X
I am only half-following this thing. In Rosemary's latest post the new set of DSO captures yields the same miraculous conclusion:
QuoteThe data dump taken off the multiple waveform screen shows a mean average current flow of -0.49 amps (negative ie. back to the battery) Not as dramatic as was seen yesterday.
If you know your Superman comics and are a Seinfeld fan then this smacks of the Bizarro World. In the Bizarro World the world is shaped like a cube and not a sphere. You put your money in the bank and you expect to lose money and not gain money from the interest.
QuoteThe Bizarro World (also known as Htrae) is a fictional planet in the DC comics universe. Introduced in the early 1960s, Htrae is a cube-shaped planet, home to Bizarro and his companions, all of whom were initially Bizarro versions of Superman, Lois Lane and their children. Later, other Bizarros were created to add to the population including Wonderzarro, Bizarro Flash, "the Yellow Lantern", Bizarro-Kltpzyxm and Batzarro, the World's Worst Detective.
In the Bizarro world of "Htrae" ("Earth" spelled backwards), society is ruled by the Bizarro Code which states "Us do opposite of all Earthly things! Us hate beauty! Us love ugliness! Is big crime to make anything perfect on Bizarro World!". In one episode, for example, a salesman is doing a brisk trade selling Bizarro bonds: "Guaranteed to lose money for you". Later, the mayor appoints Bizarro No. 1 to investigate a crime, "Because you are stupider than the entire Bizarro police force put together". This is intended and taken as a great compliment.
So in the Bizarro World when you hook your battery up to a resistive load
you get current flowing into the battery and not out of the battery. Old Rosie has never once mentioned anything about double-checking this measurement because you never double-check measurements in the Bizarro World.
Also, Rosemary's possible explanation for how to explain this phenomenon is in post #67 in all its glory. That posting is right out of the Bizarro World.
It will turn out that the negative current measurement was all a big mistake! Gosh! Darn!
Rose, I am curious;
Have you ever stopped to wonder why, when the MOSFET switch is ON, your scope shot shows zero current through the shunt resistor?
This can be verified by the fact that the power trace also shows zero power when the switch is ON.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.02.22, 13:43:03
Have you ever stopped to wonder why, when the MOSFET switch is ON, your scope shot shows zero current through the shunt resistor?
That really plays into the "Bizarro" angle indeed. I had scrutinized earlier captures and I thought I saw some DC current show when the MOSFET was supposed to be switched on. In looking at some of the more recent captures it looks like there is no current flow when the MOSFET is supposed to be ON.
So what does that mean? The ON-OFF polarity is confused again just like we saw nearly two years ago? When the MOSFET is supposed to be OFF we have some positive feedback inducing an oscillation? Or, when the MOSFET is supposed to be ON, some sort of feedback mechanism is causing the chopping of the MOSFET ON cycle. The DSO is doing a polarity reversal somewhere?
The bottom line is that this this circuit consumes power from the supply battery and current flows out of the battery and into the load and the power consumption is positive. In addition, the circuit goes into an oscillation due to a combination of some sort of positive feedback and capacitive and/or inductive circuit elements.
The only question is whether or not the "experts" will be able to figure this out as well as make proper measurements. The elephant in the room is the fact that the shunt voltage and the apparent battery voltage have huge voltage oscillations associated with them and any undesirable and very small phase errors in the measurement will throw everything out of whack and make it look like the current and power consumption is negative when the truth is that both are positive.
The whole thing is a tempest in a thimble.
MileHigh
Quoting Rosemary:
QuoteWhat is particularly sad is that this is certainly NOT a new discovery. It depends on those very Laws that have been forged by our Giants in physics. All I have done is suggested that these Laws are, indeed, universally applied.
I hate this Orwellian double-speak. "My (alleged) over unity system respects the laws of conservation of energy." It's pure self-brainwashing trying to put a square peg into a round hole. It's cognitive dissonance. Yes, you also have your "Dark Energy" card to play. Whoopee.
Rosemary, the whole thing is a big mistake. If your team of "experts" can ever get to the bottom of this then I know what will happen. You will make a few postings where you profusely profess apologies to anybody that will listen. You will positively be bursting with apologies. This will transpire over a few days and you will truly be defeated and deflated. It will be a bard and bitter pill for you to swallow, but swallow it you must.
Then it will finally be over and your proposition that you can get free energy by switching the current flow off an on to an inductive resistor will fade into obscurity.
MileHigh
Milehigh,
Do you really believe she would give up that gracefully? The suspense is almost too much for me to bear. The trouble is that no genuine academic "expert" is going to want to attach his or her name to this, whether they are debunking it or "verifying" the incredible claims. Can you imagine anyone in academia taking the time to teach Rose enough so that she would truly understand that her circuit cannot and does not work as she has convinced herself it does? I can't imagine it.
We were her best bet and she rejected all of our efforts and even ended up in bitter feuds with those who went the distance and replicated and tested and were ready to "believe".
Remember the little argument Poynt and I had about the shunt and the polarity/direction issue? It's my best belief that Rose is measuring the current backward...actually an easy mistake to make. She's so hung up in finding magical waveforms on her scope that she has overlooked some super-basic details. She has still never shown the waveform on the drain of the MOSFET and her scope traces supposedly showing the battery voltage are obviously not the battery voltage.
She'll find a way to hide from any expert who tries to debunk the thing, I'm sure. I don't see a graceful (or even awkward) and conclusive end to this saga any time soon, myself. It would have happened long ago if it were going to go down that way.
Humbugger
Humbugger:
You make some good points there, and it has been a long haul for Rosemary. I base my comments on past experience with Rosemary. There have been a few times when profuse apologies burst forth from her like rain. I think of the Magic Dragon losing his green scales.
The upcoming demonstration will be a milestone of sorts, but I suppose that it will not be a definitive milestone. One question that I think about is how much substantive data will be presented to those in attendance. I think back to her first new attempt to publish a paper about a year or so ago. There was no power out vs. power in data in that paper! All that it did was point to a few dozen DSO traces that were linked to on the Energetic Forum. I was flabbergasted when I read it and have battled with Rosie about that one intermittently. She insisted that the "proof" was in that paper and I insisted that all the paper did was highlight some squiggly lines.
Then there is another issue about the upcoming demo related to the "experts." I have seen Rosemary refer to several people as "experts" or as people with "extraordinary abilities" or whatever. Some of these people were clearly beginners that barely had any experience and others were clearly not experts. Rather, they were people that were in her camp, and she was "embellishing" her descriptions of their true capabilities. I can only guess that this was a combination of her inability to properly qualify people technically and her outright spinning about them to advance her cause. So when we hear about the new generation of "experts" in South Africa I personally take those statements with a grain of salt.
I suppose that I am just frustrated with the whole thing. When I see someone say, "I connected the battery and the resistor is heating up but I assure you that the current is flowing backwards and the battery is recharging" it's just a bit too much sometimes. In a way it's no different from Steorn or Dr. StrangeSearl or poor street brawler Joe Newman pitching his giant "Newman Motor" in the back parking lot of some obscure shopping mall.
MileHigh
Here is something that has raised some concern for me for about the last week.
It is impossible to tell for certain from the angle, but one could conclude that the Drain pin is connected to the shunt, and the Source pin to B+. The shunt connection would be on the top side as shown by the dotted line, and the B+ connection on the bottom side, not visible.
The Source pin should be connected to shunt stud #1, but there is no top butt connector on that Source connection stud. It does appear however, that there is a butt connector on the top side at the Drain pin, and a butt connector on the top side at the shunt stud.
What is going on there Rose? Can you show us a better view of the shunt resistors and the MOSFET?
.99
NOTE: Save the picture and zoom in 200% to 300% for best viewing.
EDIT: Upon further contemplation, it would appear that the butt connector at the stud marked "1", was probably placed there as a convenient point for the shunt probe to clamp to. Therefore, I will also assume that the Source pin in fact goes to the stud marked "1".
The question remains however, is that row of studs at the "top" of the shunt resistors, connected to ground?
Oh, and one other question;
Is the side of the shunt resistors where I have marked "1" connected to the GND BUS?
Correct me if I am wrong Rose, but I would venture to say that your "shunt" probe is in fact measuring "ground", and not actually across the shunt resistors at all. This would also mean that the Source pin (if in fact it is connected to the Source) is connected straight to ground, rather than to ground through the 0.25 Ohm shunt.
Oooops!
.99
The above would explain why your "shunt" scope shot indicates absolutely no current when the MOSFET switch is "ON", and why oscillation appears on that same probe when the MOSFET is "OFF".
C.C
.99
See the above reply #208 for an EDIT regarding the Source and Drain pin reversal.
.99
Which studs are connected to the Ground BUS; "a", or "b" ?
.99
EDIT: Is that a Gate resistor or a butt connector with a short wire crimped to it for connection purposes? See edited picture.
OK Rose.
Thank you for confirming that point "b" is connected to ground, as it should be.
I can not explain then why your shunt current measurement indicates "zero current" when the MOSFET switch is "ON".
Would you be so kind to do so?
.99
From blog #71
Quote
...The claim is only this. We have both a negative mean and cycle mean average over our shunt that indicates that there is more energy returned to a supply than was first delivered. This is unequivocal. And it's a result that can be found at multiple frequencies and with a variety of settings from the functions generator. And this while the temperature over the resistor reaches a level indicative of 5 watts or greater being dissipated - depending on the frequency and setting at the switch."
Unequivocal? Rosemary seems to do nothing but equivocate! [Verb: Use ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth or avoid committing oneself]
If the battery supply is 48VDC and the load resistance is 4 ohms, the expected power dissipation in the load at 50% duty cycle would be (48^2/4)/2 = 288W. Even if the battery were only 36VDC and the load were 10 ohms, one would expect 65W load dissipation at 50% duty cycle.
With the 48VDC reported battery and 4 Ohm load, the duty cycle would have to be reduced to below 1% before load dissipation would be expected to be 5W.
None of this is even in the ballpark given what has been shown or discussed here lately. The complete fog of Dark Energy thickens daily... :D
Humbugger
The 4 Ohm load was just a guess on my part Hum.
As Rose has not provided any specs for that heater element (Ohms, rated Wattage, inductance, original intended use and drive voltage etc.), that is about all we can do.
.99
Quoting Rosemary:
QuotePlease note that the point at which these results move away from all classical prediction is when the mean average, the integral and the cycle mean averages of the shunt voltage shows a negative voltage. This is the moment when there is also clear evidence that the supply source is - at its least - conserving its charge. Proof is in the math trace that computes the product of the battery and shunt voltages.
Rosemary it's just your blind belief that the results move away from classical prediction. You have one instrument taking one set of measurements on your device. Since the results are not what the normal prediction would be, the next logical step to take is to double-check your measurements some other way. This would be what any scientist would do if they got unexpected results. They would do their due diligence and verify that their measurements were correct by implementing a different measurement method. If they still got the same unexpected results, then they would triple-check their measurements.
You are on such thin ice clinging to one suspect measurement. This represents a complete and total failure on your part to follow the scientific method and do your own due diligence by double-checking and triple-checking your results.
Meanwhile, Poynt has mentioned that your current waveform shows no current flow when the MOSFET is supposed to be switched on. I don't believe that you have commented on that either and it makes your measurements that much more suspect.
Personally I am 90% confident that setting up a low-pass filter with a big capacitor to measure the current flow into your circuit would result in the identical waveforms that you show on your DSO, and it will show that the net current flow is into the load, not back into the voltage source. However, you stubbornly refuse to even consider doing this and keep on referencing the "magic battery" effect. You would end up with a conflicting set of measurements. The DSO would show a net current flow back into the voltage source, and the capacitor-based test setup would show a net current flow into the load.
The capacitor-based low-pass-filter current measurement method would resolve this issue once and for all.
The other thing that is somewhat frustrating is your moving target with respect to your claims. From what I recall 10 years ago was that the claim was the current flowed into the load, but the power dissipated in the load resistor was 17 times greater than expected. Two years ago the claim was still that current flowed into the load, but you made no concrete COP claims, you just pointed to a bunch of DSO captures. And now this time you have stumbled across a measurement anomaly that appears to show net current flow back into the battery.
MileHigh
Some comments about Rosemary's first new DSO capture:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3hKcLoMUNqg/TWZvKeVz_RI/AAAAAAAAAF4/xrdcCpgZYPg/s1600/SCRN0243.BMP)
So this is roughly a 38 uS / 26 KHz gate signal. The gate signal is being being provided by a function generator and the frequency is relatively low.
So why is the gate signal so miserable and drooping with an exponential decay? I can't fathom it, it almost looks like it is a capacitively coupled signal that's too slow for the coupling. Why is there a decay at all, when the input to the MOSFET is an open circuit after you charge the gate capacitance?
A 26 KHz square wave provided by a function generator should look like a pretty clean square wave if you ignore the spurious oscillation for a second. We should be seeing a clean square wave with the spurious oscillations superimposed on it when the gate signal is low. We are barely seeing a semblance of that. I'm baffled and what about the university lab "experts?" Surely they must be concerned about the abysmal condition of the gate signal?
Then there is the "elephant in the room" question: There is apparently no current flow when the MOSFET is supposed to be ON. At least at the beginning of the distorted gate ON signal the gate voltage is high, but no current flow is seen. I also note that the drain voltage remains high when the gate voltage is high. That doesn't make sense, the drain voltage should be low when the gate voltage is high. This is in agreement with the shunt resistor showing no current flow. So what's gives here, the MOSFET only appears to be switched on when the spurious oscillation takes place?
I defer to anybody else to enlighten me here because I am stumped.
MileHigh
The second new DSO capture:
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1NZZ4sX4-VA/TWZvUP_h6LI/AAAAAAAAAGA/HUl87dx0b30/s1600/SCRN0244.BMP)
So the big revelation here is that the drain voltage is almost identical to the battery voltage. The oscillation frequency is about 1 MHz which is not particularly high in frequency at all for digital logic. I have a feeling that that's not considered super fast even for a MOSFET but I will defer to Poynt and others on that.
One more time I can't fathom the drain voltage and the battery voltage being nearly identical. The inductive resistor sits between the battery positive terminal and the MOSFET drain terminal and we are supposed to be seeing a voltage drop across it. Can the battery probe be in the wrong place? Are the batteries nearly discharged and they are super high impedance and we are operating in the "extreme fluffy" zone? Is the 1 MHz oscillation high enough in frquency to just bypass the inductive resistor because of the stray capacitance associated with it?
The high voltage spikes have to be coming from an inductive component somewhere. I assume that it's the wire between the battery positive terminal and the inductive resistor itself but I am not sure.
I also can't think of an explanation for the current apparently going negative during this time with those negative spikes.
I am not an expert on MOSFETs, but it almost looks like the MOSFET is being switched on from a small puff of charge that charges the gate capacitance for about 0.4 uSec before it dissipates and then the cycle repeats itself.
I am pretty baffled again.
Ultimately, I think that all of this is explainable and some of what we see in these DSO captures is not really what's happening. The limitations of the equipment and the people using the equipment always are factors that you have to consider. There is a form of "uncertainty principle" at play also. There is simply no way that the net current is negative. This is an absolute that could be proven with a capacitor-based low-pass-filter setup to measure the supply current.
MileHigh
Rose,
Thank you for the scope shots including the VD trace.
Yes, it is indeed strange that the Drain voltage trace would appear to be quite similar to the Vbat trace. There should be an offset of your Vbat voltage when looking at Vbat, yet there is none. There should be a measurable shunt current when the MOSFET is on, yet there is none.
May I suggest that someone from your team trace out the build while comparing it to your schematic? Something regarding the wave forms is not quite right, and leads me to believe that something is not connected as it should be, assuming that your new circuit is essentially the same as before, minus the 555 circuitry. We can not see many of the connections because they appear to run under the base of your apparatus. A photo of the top and bottom view would be quite helpful.
Just trying to help here Rose.
Thanks,
.99
Rose,
There may be something wrong with the way your present apparatus is built, and I can not comment any further on the strangeness you are seeing until I can verify with my own eyes how everything is wired together. For that, I would need to see a clear photo of the top and bottom of the apparatus. Also important is to see a picture of the wires leading down to your batteries on the floor, including a closeup of the batteries.
If you could, that would be great. Hopefully, seeing the entire layout from these photos, it will become evident as to the source of this strange circuit operation.
A close up of the shunt resistors and function generator model would also be very helpful. Thanks. ;)
.99
I did a little testing on a FETcircuit and was able to prove the possibility of a wirewound (inductive) resistor load and some gate inductance (1-2uH) as the cause of parasitic oscillation. I can get the circuit to easily oscillate in the burst mode even without a 555 or pulse generator drive. Substituting a carbon composition of equivalent value (10 Ohms) for the driven resistor kills the oscillation. Eliminating the few uH of inductance in the gate lead also kills the oscillation. It oscillates very readily with my hand wound "official Ainslie resistor" around 40 uH) and other much smaller wirewound resistors or with the carbon composition if an additional 2.2 uH is added to it.
Interestingly, the inductor position does not seem to influence oscillation, even rotating by 180 degrees, so this may rule out transformer coupling and point to capacitive shock excitation of the tuned circuit comprised of the gate capacitance and gate inductance.
I will also have to try a shielded inductor to prove the possibility of shock excitation due to FET drain-gate capacitance.
The burst mode is easier to achieve if the bias regulator circuit is eliminated, as the slight drop in battery voltage shifts the bias enough to key the oscillator off.
Adjusting R3 to the bias sweet spot creates the burst mode oscillation, above that a steady oscillation. It is clear that the pulse generator 555 circuit may be acting to "key" the inherent oscillation and not necessary to oscillation, therefore an external signal generator will act as a keying element.
Oscillation is in the 2-5 MHz region depending on inductance of L1 and L2. Off time is a function of bias setting.
With all the clip leads and long wires people use in replicating these circuits, it is easy to see how a parasitic oscillation mode may occur.
Thanks for this testing ION.
Hopefully it will help determine what is going on with Rose's circuit.
I don't see any gate bias (DC) in the gate drive wave forms, however, your test does provide a possible clue as to the cause. By chance are the Source and Drain wave forms 180º out of phase like the traces Rose showed?
.99
One thing that seems quite apparent now Rose, is that your MOSFET switch isn't "switching" at all.
Look at your SCRN0243.jpg from your blog #73. If the green trace truly is of the MOSFET Drain voltage, VD, then you can see for yourself that when the function generator is trying to go "HI" to turn on the MOSFET, the VD voltage remains at the battery voltage, which of course means that the MOSFET is either not ON, or only partially ON.
Can you explain why this is?
.99
PS. This confirms that there is indeed no shunt current when the MOSFET is supposed to be ON, as I mentioned already a couple times.
Not quite what we are seeing here, but helpful nonetheless:
Thanks TK.
.99
Rose,
I suspect that if your MOSFET is in fact oscillating, you may find that driving the MOSFET with a true MOSFET driver IC will for the most part eliminate this problem. Your function generator most likely has a 50 Ohm output impedance, and this fact along with the exceptionally long wire between the gate and function generator, is going to result in an unstable gate drive. Good gate drive is accomplished with a 10 Ohm or less gate resistance, and with the aid of a low impedance drive chip that is located very close to the MOSFET gate pin.
The method you are employing is a recipe for disaster in terms of trying to make a clean switch.
I wonder how much real power is radiating from that circuit? Being irradiated with 10 or 20 watts of 1MHz RF power wouldn't be that healthy of a situation.
.99
From the limited information we have, it would appear that there are problems. Ion also demonstrated how a MOSFET switching circuit can go into some kind of parasitic oscillation in the same frequency range that Rosemary is observing.
In her latest blog entry she is not certain how to measure her output power. This was covered in detail during the Lawrence Tseung debate. The correct way to do it is to take the average of the instantaneous wattage calculation. It is NOT the mean average of the current flow multiplied by the mean average of the applied source voltage, that is junk data.
She also states, "At higher wattage outputs the mean average of the shunt voltage defaults to positive," indicating that she is observing a net current flow OUT of the battery. She must be doing some soul-searching on that one because for so long she has been utterly convinced that her setups are recharging the battery with a net current flow into the battery while the setup drives the load.
I will give credit to Rosemary for this observation, (a more complete quote):
QuoteAt higher wattage outputs the mean average of the shunt voltage defaults to positive but not that instantaneous product - not that math's trace. This remains negative. Interestingly - possibly because of the higher voltages
Indeed the average of the math trace remains negative indicating net power flowing into the battery because when the current is apparently spiking back into the battery positive terminal, her battery voltage apparently spikes very high. The problem is that all of the measurements are suspect, although I would say that the least suspect measurement might be the shunt resistor voltage measurement.
The whole thing is mentally fatiguing and I feel sorry for Rosemary. The people that she is depending on to set up the test apparatus and make measurements on it seem to be flaky as shown by the waveforms she has put up on her blog. As a generic comment, why are neophytes to electronics unable to honestly do a self-assessment of their knowledge, skills and experience? I have seen this over and over again. It's possible and I hate to prejudge, but the people Rosemary is depending on may be incompetent.
It's possible that over the past few months Rosemary has been getting excited over waveforms that are nothing but parasitic oscillations like Ion has replicated on his bench, and these are certainly not over unity phenomena.
Unfortunately she has a demo coming up in a few weeks and it looks like things are in a shambles. And I am not saying this in a gratuitous manner. At least Rosemary deserves to work with university lab people that know what they are doing, and from what we can see in those DSO captures, that's not the case.
MileHigh
Just for the record MH, as far as I know, ION has oscillations on his bench unit, not in a simulation.
Hopefully he will post some scope shots.
.99
From MH above:
QuoteIt's possible that over the past few months Rosemary has been getting excited over waveforms that are nothing but parasitic oscillations like Ion has simulated, and these are certainly not over unity phenomena.
Actually those were real world bench test not simulations. I plan on trying to simulate it soon to verify. I will post some scope shots also as time permits but will be busy with other work the next few days. I plan on collecting some power in / heat out numbers later also.
Thanks Ion and Poynt for the clarification.
A question for you guys:
QuoteI suspect that if your MOSFET is in fact oscillating, you may find that driving the MOSFET with a true MOSFET driver IC will for the most part eliminate this problem. Your function generator most likely has a 50 Ohm output impedance, and this fact along with the exceptionally long wire between the gate and function generator, is going to result in an unstable gate drive. Good gate drive is accomplished with a 10 Ohm or less gate resistance, and with the aid of a low impedance drive chip that is located very close to the MOSFET gate pin.
Couldn't she use a PCB-mount mating BNC connector and mount that right next to the MOSFET and then put a 50-ohm termination resistor across the BNC shield and the center conductor? In other words, you have a 50-ohm output impedance from the function generator, a 50-ohm cable, and a 50-ohm termination termination resistor right next to the MOSFET. Shouldn't that give her a nice sharp square wave at the MOSFET gate? I am assuming that the gate capacitance is not going to be significant for her application with a 26 KHz pulse signal from the signal generator. I am guessing that the RC time constant will be much shorter than the high or low periods of the pulse train.
On the other hand, I'm assuming that going down to 10-ohms and using the MOSFET driver chip will reduce the RC time constant five fold and really give you sharp edges. I am just not sure that she needs it.
Standard disclaimers here because I was never a big-time analog guy!
MileHigh
From blog #78:
QuoteAnd again. The kicker. One can adjust the offset or the duty cycle - or both - and one can then get the clean 'on time' that you're all looking for.
Rose, are you stating here that you have been, and are adjusting the
DC offset control on the function generator?
QuoteThat it has not been evident before is due to a variation of the circuit. What is enabled is that there is sufficient path made available to the circuit to ensure that the full benefit of the current induced by that negative spike is able to flow. I suspect that all prior circuit configurations blocked this courtesy some resistance in that Zener diode. Access
Are you saying that there is a change in the circuit as we (those not privy) presently know it? If so, what would that change entail?
.99
I think that Rosemary has no desire to reduce any oscillations. In her world, they are not at all spurious, but prime indicators that her zipon theory is working to release energy from inside the "conductive/inductive" material.
Just like her absolute penchant for using a thousand words to express a five word idea. And her insistence that the way to measure input power is to gather a million discrete samples from indiscriminant points along ten foot wires and across inductvely-wound shunts until...voila! The battery is charging!
The fact that she now admits adjusting the DC offset of the function generator explains more readily how my (and ION's) theory that the circuit is operating in primarily a "common source linear oscillator" mode is likely correct. If the object were to create a solid switching circuit, this is easily done (although probably not by Rosemary at her present level of "understanding").
Besides, that would immediately reveal that any energy returning to the battery is miniscule in comparison to the energy being drained. And that the heating of the load resistance is very close to a pure simple function of duty cycle, battery voltage and load resistance at low-KHz switching frequencies.
It's clear to me that Rose is lost in her own smokescreen of endless complication and obfuscation. And that she fully intends to stay there, creating endless further foggy turf for her theory to take root upon. It is also clear that no "expert" is anywhere near these experiments, save for the few here who are still trying to cut through the smoke and fog.
Humbugger
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=580.msg9334#msg9334 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=580.msg9334#msg9334)
From Rose's blog #84:
QuoteAnd for Poynty et al. There is no question that - on this new setting - there is absolutely NO energy being passed from the battery to the source rail during the 'on' period of the duty cycle. I am reasonably satisfied that it's due to the resistance offered at the FET and to that variation that we have on this circuit. Just remember that all such self-resonance has been factored out of circuitry as being unwanted. Not required. Here we have a condition where the full value of that resonance is being entirely enabled. Clearly it's deserving of some interest.
I'm with Hum and ION on this one.
Rose, it seems likely that your circuit is going into a self-oscillating mode because of the slight DC offset voltage you are presenting to the MOSFET at it's Gate. Of course the MOSFET will continue to oscillate when the function generator is at a "LOW" or "OFF" voltage, because it really never does go low to zero volts when you have placed an offset there. What happens when the function generator does go high to drive the Gate harder, is this drastically changes the conditions under which oscillation was occurring, and it is only when the gate is allowed to rest at that DC offset voltage, does it begin oscillating again. What you have effectively made is a burst oscillator which is controlled by the Gate voltage.
I can assure you that while in oscillation, that circuit is drawing power from the battery. WHY your present measurements are not showing you this, is because you are measuring the battery voltage at the other end of the battery wires. You can not do this if you want a realistic scope measurement of that battery voltage. Trust me on this. Your really long battery wires exhibit a relatively high degree of inductance, and it is impossible to make an accurate measurement unless your scope probe is placed RIGHT ON THE PHYSICAL BATTERY TERMINALS.
Now, in order to do this, you need to ensure you place the probe ground lead on the BATTERY negative terminal, and the probe tip on the positive BATTERY terminal.
When you do this, make sure you disconnect all other probes and their ground leads first! Do this just to prove my point, as obviously you won't be able to make a complete measurement this way. This is just to show you what your battery voltage truly looks like while the circuit is running. It may have some small "ripple" on it, but it should be a fairly solid 48V or so. VERY much UNLIKE the battery voltage traces you have shown thus far.
.99
Poynt:
Your advice is sound. Perhaps if Rosemary verifies that the battery voltage is stable at the battery terminals she can take it one step further.
Without disturbing her setup she can try adding a new shunt resistor to the negative battery terminal. Preferably it would be soldered to the negative battery terminal and soldered to the power-carrying wire.
Then she can run her setup and see if she still gets the same oscillations, verifying that with her DSO channels in their standard setup to make sure the waveforms are the same or nearly the same.
Once that is done she can remove the two scope probes and connect them directly to the battery terminals, one channel looking at the battery voltage and the other channel looking at the voltage across the shunt. She can do this while the circuit is running live, so there are no uncertainties. As long as she still feels heat coming off of the resistor she can be sure the oscillations are still there. Perhaps using am AM transistor radio would help here, because she should be able to confirm the oscillations are still there after she removes the probes by listening to the sound from the radio tuned off-station.
She should be able to make a proper measurement of the power being output by the battery while the circuit is oscillating and heating up the inductive load resistor with the scope probes directly on the battery terminals.
I think it's possible that Rosemary (and others) are thrown off by the inductance of the long wires and how they react with high changes in current going through them with respect to time. The wires themselves act like coils and can generate back-EMF spikes under the right conditions. That is throwing a monkey-wrench into the power measurements the way they are being done by Rosemary right now. The way to fix this is to make measurements directly on the battery like you said.
Even for me this has been a learning experience over these many months. The reason being that for all the bench work I might have done in the dim dark past, the only ringing I was ever worried about was associated with a PCB signal trace that was too long. However, when you go back to basics and apply the fundamental "Inductive Laws" it all makes sense.
MileHigh
Quote
She should be able to make a proper measurement of the power being output by the battery while the circuit is oscillating and heating up the inductive load resistor with the scope probes directly on the battery terminals.
A proper power measurement? Now? With only days until the world-changing presentation? Milehigh, this is outright blasphemy! How dare you suggest such a thing! That would ruin everything, don't you see? ;)
Seriously, if she loves the long-sustained oscillations so much, she should just replace the function generator with an adjustable DC bias supply with a 50 ohm output resistor and the same cable she uses now to get over to the gate. It would then miraculously oscillate forever! Thus proving that zipons have infinite half-life! Or something, I'm sure.
Then she can add a 1K ohm resistor and 1uF cap on her battery current shunt (at the battery minus terminal) and simply read battery voltage and current with a plain old DVM. Of coirse (as Poynt almost did) she will read the polarity backward and see current flowing into the battery, but that's okay. At least she'll be able to get a good power number for once! And she can leave the scope hooked up however best to show enormous oscillations the whole time...forever.
Until the battery drains out from all that "charging current". :'(
Humbugger
Hummmmmmm... (just meditating!)
Yes indeed! Your analog current measurement at the battery terminal would be dandy! So easy.... analog! All the audiophiles are going back to tubes you know! lol
I read Rosemary's response across the wall. This has got to be something like Berlin Wall III with respect to Rosemary. She is not taking too well to the suggestions. In fact she avoids mentioning the principle suggestion about putting the probes directly on the battery and tries to deflect that by talking about making battery measurements with her multimeter. A multimeter ain't a bleedin' DSO!
I'm chuffed. lol
MileHigh
P.S.: Okay, so I finally decided to look it up after all this time. This is from the first link I followed and it's mighty interesting:
Definition 1:
–adjective British Informal .
delighted; pleased; satisfied
Definition 2:
–adjective British Informal .
annoyed; displeased; disgruntled.
I think that sums everything up quite well!
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.03.03, 01:00:58
Now, in order to do this, you need to ensure you place the probe ground lead on the BATTERY negative terminal, and the probe tip on the positive BATTERY terminal
She probably has each of her presumed four [update: make that six] 12V batteries hooked in series using another thirty-odd feet of wire... :)
I predict there will be not one single valid attempt made to actually measure and report input and output power. We will hear about amazing heretofore never-investigated zipon-induced oscillations and incredible amounts of battery charging and unbelievably hot resistors, ONLY.
We will see dozens more "intriguing" but utterly meaningless scope shots. We will hear about batteries that have close to the same voltage after ten minute runs. And then, without ever qualifying or quantifying the input and output power, Rosemary will proceed directly to her theory and offer all of what we've already endlessly seen and heard as "proof" of zipon magic.
Then there will be the pleas for "further research", of course. I just can't wait for the 12th, although I don't expect anything will actually change thereafter. The doubters will doubt and the believers will believe. And no accredited academic worth his or her salt will make any comment or independent report on anything. Not that we'll ever see, anyway.
That's my prediction. I'd truly love to be wrong.
Humbugger
From Blog #85
Quote
...You must appreciate by now, surely, that our measurements are about as precise as can be managed. Our DSO's are top of the range and - fully calibrated - they carry the manufacturers' ratings. So. When it shows a voltage reading - I think one can pretty well bank it. Otherwise one must give up on measurements altogether. I have no idea what's happening at the battery. I simply cannot tell you if it's discharging or recharging or even sustaining a charge...
Do the ideas expressed here seem contradictory to anyone else? All the prattle and hollow boasting about how precise and accurate and "bankable" her measurement are (and she's been doing them for many weeks now) yet she cannot tell us the power into or out of the battery...NO IDEA!
That Rose does not see these stark contradictions in her own writing is alarming and indicates severely disturbed thinking, in my opinion. She is convinced that if you use an expensive oscilloscope, your measurements are automatically beyond question, no matter where the probes are placed or how they are grounded. Yet she herself admits that the results she's getting are so all over the map that she still has "no idea what's happening with the battery".
The fact that she says she gets no measurable current flow through the load or shunt when the MOSFET is driven hard on indicates a gross measurement error or circuit wiring error unless the MOSFET is broken. It is all so illogical and self-contradicting that I'm beginning to wonder if she isn't just making the whole thing up sometimes. Her imagination is just as unfettered by common sense as her pen.
Humbugger
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.03.03, 03:31:37
I predict there will be not one single valid attempt made to actually measure and report input and output power. We will hear about amazing heretofore never-investigated zipon-induced oscillations and incredible amounts of battery charging and unbelievably hot resistors, ONLY.
We will see dozens more "intriguing" but utterly meaningless scope shots. We will hear about batteries that have close to the same voltage after ten minute runs. And then, without ever qualifying or quantifying the input and output power, Rosemary will proceed directly to her theory and offer all of what we've already endlessly seen and heard as "proof" of zipon magic.
Then there will be the pleas for "further research", of course. I just can't wait for the 12th, although I don't expect anything will actually change thereafter. The doubters will doubt and the believers will believe. And no accredited academic worth his or her salt will make any comment or independent report on anything. Not that we'll ever see, anyway.
That's my prediction. I'd truly love to be wrong.
Humbugger
Well...the big day has come and gone. My prediction was correct; nothing new here in Rosemary's big report:
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/03/report.html (http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/03/report.html)
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.03.13, 04:00:24
Well...the big day has come and gone. My prediction was correct; nothing new here in Rosemary's big report:
And such a sad thing is that even if anyone wanted to try and make the circuit they will be accused of stealing it from her. Its not worth the headaches. She can have her "experts" spend time researching it further for her. Did a reporter actually attend? Will we see some proof or comment from ANYBODY else besides Rosemary that the demo took place and somebody other than students from the trade school there attended? Will you be able to verify their comments are theirs and not Rosemary writing them if any ? And does anyone much care anymore ? Will Rosemary continue with her double talk? It has become too boring for many.
(http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/03/report.html)
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.03.13, 04:00:24
Well...the big day has come and gone. My prediction was correct; nothing new here in Rosemary's big report:
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/03/report.html (http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/03/report.html)
Yep .... the blob end statement says it all to me at least .... if the exhibit even happened ....
Quote
DISCLAIMER
Statements and hypotheses in respect of the 'Ainslie Circuit' demonstration and/or referenced documents and correspondence thereof does not constitute or imply endorsement or recommendation by the CPUT or any of its employees.
Academic validation ..... what a load of crap !!
Interesting about the 5 IRFPG50's in parallel. No wonder the darn thing oscillates like mad. :D
Too bad the pics posted at the blog are so small, but it appeared that the offset in the function generator driving the gate is in the Negative! ???
I'd like to see a picture of the entire setup, or video would be even better. Come on Rose, indulge us! ;D
.99
I guess that I will make a few comments from my peanut gallery.
I don't see any documentation for the physical setup with nice clear pictures. As we know, the positioning of the probes is crucial for this test because of the high-frequency transients that can be created from the inductive resistor and the wires themselves.
When the setup is in spontaneous oscillation and the function generator output is low for a long time, then I would assume that the function generator is acting like a load on the circuit; a small capacitor in series with a 50-ohm resistor. Not sure if Rosemary is accounting for this.
QuoteThe temperature over RL1 indicates that about 6 watts is being dissipated as heat. However, the instantaneous wattage analysis indicates that more energy has been returned to the battery than has been supplied resulting in a net zero loss of potential difference from the supply.
Battery voltages mean almost nothing.
QuoteIt is understood that during the ON time the applied signal at the gate will enable a current flow from the battery supply. With the application of more than 36 volts from the battery supply, the circuit can be tuned so that there is no measured voltage or consequent flow of current through to the source rail of the supply during this ON period. The precise cause of this restriction has not been identified and requires further research. Nor can this condition be simulated.
I view this as a cop-out. What about the people supposedly helping Rosemary here? They couldn't figure this out? (Was it a gaggle of pixie faerie Joit clones? lol) This has to be understood. Where is the ground reference for the function generator attached to? Is the function generator floating with respect to the rest of the circuit so you can attach its ground reference anywhere? When the drain is at 36 volts and the source is at 0 volts, what does the gate-source voltage have to be to switch the MOSFT ON? (I am rusty with my MOSFETs and don't have the drive to look it up.)
Certainly we know that when current flows in the normal direction that the drain takes a small bump up in potential but that should not really be an issue.
QuoteOn this application we have enabled that oscillation to the limit of the function generator's slowest switching speed at 2.7 minutes or 6.172mHz. No material or evident variation or decay of that resonance through that entire period, is observed (see Figure 4).
She doesn't even need the function generator at all to get the burst oscillation going. All that she would have to do would be to simulate the function generator low signal and then trigger the oscillations.
QuoteIt would be desirable to extend this period of oscillation to see whether decay in this oscillation, eventually takes place.
No, if you see the oscillations for a few minutes, then that means they are self-sustaining.
QuoteThis temperature rise corresponds to a dissipation of approximately 6 watts at RL1 (according to Figure 2). The fact that it retains this heat is not a result of any unique properties to RL1 as the temperature is seen to fall steeply over a 3 minute period, when it is disconnected from the supply.
A Twilight Zone comment.
QuoteThere is evidence of approximately 6 watts of energy dissipated at RL1, and upwards of 40 watts on Test 2, at no measurable cost of energy delivered from the supply.
I'm not sure about that.
QuoteFinally, the thesis that predicted these results points to the possibility that the hidden energy supply source, not factored into classical analysis, is in the material of the circuit components. This would still be in line with Einstein's mass/energy equivalence and the thesis proposes that inductive and conductive material are able to induce their own energy as a result of applied potential differences.
No fusion or fission going on, so then it must be zipons to the rescue. Unless Rosie has inadvertently discovered cold fusion!
Well, all that you had to do was stick a big fat capacitor on top of that battery stack, perhaps four 50,000 uF 25-volt electrolytic caps in parallel to make a 200,000 uF cap. Charge that cap bank up to 12 volts and swap out the top battery in the stack.
Then when the setup went into burst oscillation mode a multimeter monitoring the DC voltage across that big fat capacitor would clearly show the voltage dropping as the circuit ran.
That would be the end of it.
MileHigh
Interesting little comment about the Ainslie saga. Phase I (2002), Phase II (2009) and Phase III (2011) have physical setups and empirical observations that have almost nothing to do with each other, but the conclusions are the same!
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.03.13, 18:32:20
No fusion or fission going on, so then it must be zipons to the rescue. Unless Rosie has inadvertently discovered cold fusion!
MileHigh
;D
HF heating the probe as possible explanation of Ainslie's anomalies:
A temperature probe is made of a thermistor, or a "resistance thermometers" or a thermocouple. Thermistors and thermocouple are unlikely here, due to the temperature range. Resistance thermometers are temperature dependent conductors made of a layer of carbon, or platinum, or even of a coil of a resistive material.
In any case, all temperature probe are made of conductors.
A conductor inside a coil powered by a varying current is submitted to a varying magnetic field therefore to eddy currents. The higher the frequency, the higher the eddy currents. A pulsed current produce rich harmonics at high frequencies. Eddy currents heat the conductor in which they are induced, i.e. the probe itself.
Thus the temperature probe gives its own temperature, not the temperature of the coil or of the environment: the temperature of the probe is hotter than that of the coil resistor because its is directly and easily heated due to its small mass and weak thermal capacity.
When for comparison, only a cc current is used to heat the coil resistor, the temperature probe is not heated by the induced current, then a much more important energy have to be used in the coil resistor to give the same temperature at the probe position.
An induced current in the whole circuit of the probe, due to the capacitive coupling between the probe and the wire of the resistor coil at HF frequencies, and heating the temperature dependent resistance of the probe, or disturbing the electronic circuit, is also not to be dismissed.
Ainslie's Anomalies...
While your points are well made and your theory is entirely possible, Ex, I'm afraid they don't begin to explain the real problems with rosemary's test results (if you can even call them that).
The two hugely glaring problems I see are much simpler and more basic:
1. The current shunt is made from standard wirewound (and quite long) sandbox resistors. The inductance of the combined resistor stack is such that the impedance of the shunt is almost purely inductive at the 1.5MHz oscillation frequenciy and is an order of magnitude or two higher than the 0.25 ohms resistive part.
2. There is clearly something terribly wrong with her measurement of the battery voltage and there always has been. It, too, is plagued with gross errors due to her inclusion of large wiring inductances both between the series-connected batteries and between the end terminals and the bench. No bypass caps were used. All of her so-called battery voltage measurements have shown hundreds of volts of AC.
It is these two enormous and glaring errors that cause the instantaneous product of V*I to be completely unrelated to any sort of actual reality. Not only are the voltages just plain wrong and obtained inaccurately, but their phase relation could be anywhere on the map (or off the map). So multiplying these two instantaneous and completely inaccurate and phase-skewed numbers together yields results that have no relation to input power whatsoever.
There are other likely gigantic flaws in her setup and measurement scheme as well, given that she consistently claims that, during the time the MOSFETs are "ON" and not oscillating, there is zero current indicated through the shunt.
In the face of these ridiculously huge error sources, a mismeasurement of output heating due to eddy-currents in the temp-sensor pales in importance and potential magnitude.
Don't you think?
Humbugger
P.S. For many months, several of us here have tried earnestly to help Rosemary make realistic and reasonably decent measurements. It was long ago agreed by all that the output power would best be measured by a thermal comparison method with a DC control. This was because there were concerns (as she staes clearly) that phase angle and "power factor" would make V*I measurements too complex at the output. So what does she do? Add huge inductances to the shunt and the battery cabling on the input side, creating the very same "imposssible" measurement conditions there!
Rosemary is totally lost in La La land and she likes it there. Wild horses couldn't drag her back toward even the tiniest island of technically-sound reality.
By the way...all of these fatal error sources have long ago been addressed and simple, easy, clear, accurate solutions provided. The use of a standard bulb mercury thermometer and a simple RC passive filter integrator were suggested dozens of times by yours truly. I even made a whole thread just to discuss the best way to measure Rose's circuit performance. All for naught.
Like so many deluded "OU inventors", Rosemary bristles up like a porcupine and becomes sullen and bitterly argumentative (on an ad-hominem level with no technical basis) at any suggestion that might actually provide accurate simple measurements.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=580.msg9334#msg9334 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=580.msg9334#msg9334)
Humbugger
Humbugger
This morning I received an email from my collegue at the University.
The demonstration was attended by less than a handfull of students.
There were no academics, faculty members or staff members present.
It is the absolute position of the University that they will not now, or anytime in the future,
have anything to say, or to do, with the Rosemary Ainslie circuit. I have that on good authority.
Perhaps a flea market may have been a more appropriate venue.
Mookie
Mookie,
Thanks for that bit of information. I have to admit I'm not terribly surprised (I think I predicted as much).
I'll also say that I feel a little bit sad for Rosemary at this point. I hope she's not suicidally depressed. It will be interesting to see where she goes from here on this whole thing. This is what happens when one makes "Much Ado about Nothing". What is the saddest part is that I don't think she's learned very much on a technical level over these years. All that effort and the big buildup and all the heated argument and bad blood...and then not even one report of an actual number for input power! Sad.
Humbugger
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.03.14, 17:07:31
By the way...all of these fatal error sources have long ago been addressed and simple, easy, clear, accurate solutions provided. The use of a standard bulb mercury thermometer and a simple RC passive filter integrator were suggested dozens of times by yours truly. I even made a whole thread just to discuss the best way to measure Rose's circuit performance. All for naught.
Like so many deluded "OU inventors", Rosemary bridles and becomes sullen and bitterly argumentative (on an ad-hominem level) at any suggestion that might actually provide accurate simple measurements.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=580.msg9334#msg9334 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=580.msg9334#msg9334)
Humbugger
She's not the only 'deluded' O.U researcher. The other clown, Lawrence Tseung is still trying to convince others he has found O.U in his adapted JT circuit and his myraid of tuning forks! Much about nothing indeed.
cheers
chrisC
Quote from: Mookie on 2011.03.15, 02:29:18
Humbugger
This morning I received an email from my collegue at the University.
The demonstration was attended by less than a handfull of students.
There were no academics, faculty members or staff members present.
It is the absolute position of the University that they will not now, or anytime in the future,
have anything to say, or to do, with the Rosemary Ainslie circuit. I have that on good authority.
Perhaps a flea market may have been a more appropriate venue.
Mookie
Seems that Rosemary begs to differ here, Mookie (surprise, surprise):
"Dear Reader,
For those of you who want to have a full account of the demonstration - we are preparing a video of the proceedings. And I'll prepare a full account of the matters discussed at the demonstration.
It seems that it has been reported that there were no experts or academic staff at the demonstration and that it was only attended by a handful and those all students. This is an utter fabrication that will be born out in the evidence. It is comments like this that satisfy me on the agenda related to recognition of this technology. There were absolutely NO students at the venue whatsoever. And there most certainly WAS faculty representation. And with the exception of 2 of us there was no-one at the meeting who was not accredited.
What the demonstration lacked was the attendance of those experts that were specifically invited. Some with regret - some despite advising that they'd be there - and some who gave advance notice that they would not come.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary "
She does not address your bottom-line comment: "It is the absolute position of the University that they will not now, or anytime in the future, have anything to say, or to do, with the Rosemary Ainslie circuit. I have that on good authority."
Wonder why not.
Humbugger
@Humbugger
QuoteShe does not address your bottom-line comment: "It is the absolute position of the University that they will not now, or anytime in the future, have anything to say, or to do, with the Rosemary Ainslie circuit. I have that on good authority."
Wonder why not.
It could be the Monkey Factor, you know those silly little monkey's who cover their eyes, ears and mouth when they get afraid. If I was a more scientifically minded person who wanted to know the facts of the matter I would probably watch the demonstration that is unless I though I knew everything there is to know about everything in which case I would already know the result because I would be a god in my own mind. Personally I would prefer the students to the experts as a matter of personal choice.
Regards
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on 2011.03.15, 05:18:23
@HumbuggerIt could be the Monkey Factor, you know those silly little monkey's who cover their eyes, ears and mouth when they get afraid. If I was a more scientifically minded person who wanted to know the facts of the matter I would probably watch the demonstration that is unless I though I knew everything there is to know about everything in which case I would already know the result because I would be a god in my own mind. Personally I would prefer the students to the experts as a matter of personal choice.
Regards
AC
And after you had "watched the demonstration" several thousand times in various transparent disguises and, each time, discovered that it was rife with insanely bad assumptions, gross technical errors and misdrawn conclusions, would it be okay then to dismiss it as garbage pseudo-science? Or would that make you one of those self-proclaimed gods of know-it-all-ness? If there was ever a good example of rejectable bad science, this is it. Or are you one of those who never reject anything?
Humbugger
Rosemary edits her blog to correct her prior ABSOLUTE denial:
"I have just been advised. There was one student. ONLY 1. And he is not a student at CPUT."
She fails to note that the one other attendee was a visiting English Literature Professor who smelled donuts and coffee and wandered into the presentation... >:-)
Humbugger
P.S. He walked out clutching a copy of Rose's literature and muttering something about fantastic science fiction. This will be reported as "intense mainstream interest" of course.
@Humbugger
QuoteAnd after you had "watched the demonstration" several thousand times in various transparent disguises and, each time, discovered that it was rife with insanely bad assumptions, gross technical errors and misdrawn conclusions, would it be okay then to dismiss it as garbage pseudo-science? Or would that make you one of those self-proclaimed gods of know-it-all-ness? If there was ever a good example of rejectable bad science, this is it. Or are you one of those who never reject anything?
The funny thing about science is that a device that is based on insanely bad assumptions, gross technical errors and misdrawn conclusions that "works" in the end is still better than one based on supposedly well known facts that doesn't. If the demonstration is credible and the measurements and data sound at that point in time, that is the device works, then should we reject it because we do not like the inventors explanation?. I think you may be forgetting the fundamental criteria of science and that is proven fact, if Rosemary can make this work in any way and prove it then she does not have to explain anything as the facts speak for themselves. Personally I have no idea if it works nor do have any facts which is why I find it odd that so many would seem to have made up their minds and judged this before any real facts are known. I'm no different than anyone else, show me proof which cannot be denied that I can replicate and I will believe but until that time I cannot say one way or the other what is fact--- or what is not.
Regards
AC
I stand by what I said.
There were no academics, faculty members or staff members of CPUT in attendance.
The lone representation by the universtity was there out of necessity to facilitate the event.
Who the others were is anyone's guess, but they were not from the university.
Let me also add that the disclaimer added at the end were not Rosemary Ainslie's words
She was required by the University to add that disclaimer word for word on her report.
And yes Rosemary ...either the whole open source and academic community is wrong
or you are indeed delusional.
Mookie
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.03.14, 16:33:56
Ainslie's Anomalies...
While your points are well made and your theory is entirely possible, Ex, I'm afraid they don't begin to explain the real problems with rosemary's test results (if you can even call them that).
The two hugely glaring problems I see are much simpler and more basic:
1. The current shunt is made from standard wirewound (and quite long) sandbox resistors. The inductance of the combined resistor stack is such that the impedance of the shunt is almost purely inductive at the 1.5MHz oscillation frequenciy and is an order of magnitude or two higher than the 0.25 ohms resistive part.
2. There is clearly something terribly wrong with her measurement of the battery voltage and there always has been. It, too, is plagued with gross errors due to her inclusion of large wiring inductances both between the series-connected batteries and between the end terminals and the bench. No bypass caps were used. All of her so-called battery voltage measurements have shown hundreds of volts of AC.
It is these two enormous and glaring errors that cause the instantaneous product of V*I to be completely unrelated to any sort of actual reality. Not only are the voltages just plain wrong and obtained inaccurately, but their phase relation could be anywhere on the map (or off the map). So multiplying these two instantaneous and completely inaccurate and phase-skewed numbers together yields results that have no relation to input power whatsoever.
There are other likely gigantic flaws in her setup and measurement scheme as well, given that she consistently claims that, during the time the MOSFETs are "ON" and not oscillating, there is zero current indicated through the shunt.
In the face of these ridiculously huge error sources, a mismeasurement of output heating due to eddy-currents in the temp-sensor pales in importance and potential magnitude.
Don't you think?
Humbugger
P.S. For many months, several of us here have tried earnestly to help Rosemary make realistic and reasonably decent measurements. It was long ago agreed by all that the output power would best be measured by a thermal comparison method with a DC control. This was because there were concerns (as she staes clearly) that phase angle and "power factor" would make V*I measurements too complex at the output. So what does she do? Add huge inductances to the shunt and the battery cabling on the input side, creating the very same "imposssible" measurement conditions there!
Rosemary is totally lost in La La land and she likes it there. Wild horses couldn't drag her back toward even the tiniest island of technically-sound reality.
Thanks for your reply, humbugger. Your arguments are very relevant, more than mine. I well understand that if the power is not calculated from the product of intantaneous and perfectly time correlated values of U and I, the measurement protocol becomes completely inconsistent. The situation is worse than I thought.
As I was banned from OU.com as soon as I ironically talked about a possible Rosemary's scam, I guess that she doesn't accept skeptics. She made measurement mistakes at the beginning, but perhaps she was sincere. I'm convinced that now either she prefers to lie instead of recognizing her errors, or she is victim of this psychological pathology of denying obvious truth by self-persuasion.
Quote from: allcanadian on 2011.03.15, 07:14:50
@HumbuggerThe funny thing about science is that a device that is based on insanely bad assumptions, gross technical errors and misdrawn conclusions that "works" in the end is still better than one based on supposedly well known facts that doesn't. If the demonstration is credible and the measurements and data sound at that point in time, that is the device works, then should we reject it because we do not like the inventors explanation?. I think you may be forgetting the fundamental criteria of science and that is proven fact, if Rosemary can make this work in any way and prove it then she does not have to explain anything as the facts speak for themselves. Personally I have no idea if it works nor do have any facts which is why I find it odd that so many would seem to have made up their minds and judged this before any real facts are known. I'm no different than anyone else, show me proof which cannot be denied that I can replicate and I will believe but until that time I cannot say one way or the other what is fact--- or what is not.
Regards
AC
AC, you're "spinning your wheels" again, and it's become somewhat tiresome seeing the same rhetoric over and over.
I understand the need to have a defender of the underdogs, but wake up to reality. Rose has had over ten years to produce credible evidence of her claims, and thus far (including the latest) not a single credible measurement has been offered.
There is no need to convince us that there is a chance some idiot savant might discover the next breakthrough technology, I think we all appreciate that possibility, but this Ainslie device has long past disqualified itself of that possibility.
.99
To respond to Rosemary's question:
QuoteAnd. Dear God. What harm to test this? And what harm to view that test? What harm? Anywhere?
The harm is that you are contributing to the scientific delinquency of people. Your experiment and your views about the nature of electrical current are wrong. You won't investigate your circuit using alternative testing strategies and that is very telling.
MileHigh
@Poynt99
QuoteAC, you're "spinning your wheels" again, and it's become somewhat tiresome seeing the same rhetoric over and over.
I think we are all spinning our wheels somewhat,lol, neither the persons we consider the smartest nor the dumbest have made any real progress, such is life.
QuoteI understand the need to have a defender of the underdogs, but wake up to reality. Rose has had over ten years to produce credible evidence of her claims, and thus far (including the latest) not a single credible measurement has been offered.
I know Im getting tired of my repetitious rhetoric as well, I need to find something new to do at work at 4am.
Regards
AC
Unsupported demonstration... bitterness... This reminds me of an old story...
How many ways can you disprove a gravity wheel. An old man sitting in an adjacent room driving it? A hamster? Some magic material that give more energy upon collision? Seems like history is repeating itself...There are three battles I'd like to witness.
Johann Bessler vs. Isaac Newton
Edward Leedskalnin vs. Albert Einstein
Seems like the mainstream doesn't recognize its hero. I can see why Bessler was bitter. Even the mainstream heroes felt sad looking back world they created.
With some considerable embarrasment I must admit that we were sucked into to doing a detailed study and experiments of the Ainslie circuit several years back. We proved conclusively that her claims were false (that the Ainslie circuit exhibited any non-classical behavior). We didn't publish the results as Rosemary Anislie was clearly not willing to entertain scientific evidence of her errors.
She is certainly diverting considerable attention away from legitimate research which I am sure the conspiracy theorists will claim is intentional.
OKAY BOYS AND GIRLS!
I have tired of the Rosemary game. Let us put paid, as Rose would say, to the foggy bullshit and proceed to show what is really going on once and for all. The following simulation, done in a user-friendly version of P-Spice known as Tina Pro, will clearly illustrate several very interesting facts that I have been stating for the entire time I have been posting on the subject.
Here is what the simulation shows, indicates and proves:
1. In the present five-MOSFET circuit using the component values given by Rosemary wherever clearly and unambiguously stated and using reasonable estimates based on clues she has given, the circuit self-oscillates indefinitely at around 1.2MHz after one single sharp transition is made at the gate. That is to say that the input signal need only be one single pulse step function lasting one microsecond or less and the cirrcuit sets into steady oscillation forever.
2. When the scope probes are placed exactly as she has them, the waveforms obtained for Vbatt and Vshunt with the simulation are precisely the same as what Rosemary shows and DO NOT show the correct battery voltage nor shunt voltage. They are indeed far exaggerrated in amplitude and severely skewed in phase relationship and waveform from reality.
3. Because the simulator allows us to separate the R and L components of the load resistor and the shunt resistor, we can conveniently place our simulator scope probes directly across the true pure resistances of each and look at the real power in the load resistor and the true current in the shunt.
4. Because the simulator allows us to separate the batteries from their associated wiring inductances, we can also observe that the battery voltage is not a large AC waveform, but, as we would expect, a steady DC voltage with only a small ripple due to finite battery impedance.
5. Given that the simulation very closely agrees with Rosemary's presentation of waveforms and amplitudes when probed as Rosemary is probing it and given that it bursts into steady-state endless oscillation after even one single step-function stimulus to the gates and given that it does all this quite readily without any significant tweaking or fussing and over a wide range of variations in the inductances and MOSFET models used, it can be clearly learned that the drive waveform has virtually nothing to do with the circuit operation save for the one initial starting transition. The oscillation frequency is relatively insensitive to variations in the circuit values, indicating that it is primarily a function of the MOSFET parasitics and transconductance. This proves my and IONs theory that the circuit is operating in a well-known common-source feedback oscillator mode.
To be continued shortly with pictures! O0
Cheeseburger Humbugger
First, the schematic showing the circuit as given by Rosemary with the scope hooked up as she has it. The vales for the MOSFETs, the shunt resistance and inductance and the load resistance and inductance and the small parasitic cap across the load are taken from Rosemary's presentation of her "simulation" circuit and from her stated values in her regular schematic from the presentation.
The only changes I have made are to add the approximate inductances of the battery wiring (between each battery I have assumed 15 inches of wire at 20nH per inch and going from the battery endpoints to the circuit I have assumed 7.5 feet of wire at 20nH per inch on each end, positive and negative ("ground")) and...
because Rosemary has stated (on another forum) that she has put each of the five MOSFETs on its own seperate heatsink before parallelling them, I have figured each connection to involve 5 inches of wire at 20nH per inch. Although Rose has stated that the inductance of the shunt is 110nH, this number was taken by dividing the manufacturer's spec by four and I know that manufacturers test with zero lead length (right at the body of the resistor), so I have added the inductance of 1.5 inches of wire on each end for a total of 180nH for the shunt inductance. based on the photo of how the resistors are wired to their terminals.
The pulse generator is a single-pulse one-time only step function from -5V (at normal rest) to +15V (for one microsecond one time only with 20nS rise/fall time).
The schematic is followed by the scope traces. The batteries are modelled at 12.6V each with 100 milli-ohms internal resistance.
The next set of pictures feature the exact same circuit and no values have been changed whatsoever except the scope sensitivity and offsets, as shown on the scope photo. In this instance, we are no longer looking at the so-called battery voltage but rather, the top trace shows the actual voltage on the resistive heating element excluding the inductance portion. Happily, in sim-land, our scope has both channels completely floating so there is no internal grounding problem.
I did this for two reasons. First, had I left the scope probe between the so-called battery voltage and ground (as in the first set of pictures), the trace would be just the same and no new information would be shown. In the interest of brevity and in order to show the actual heating value of the voltage across the resistive portion of the load and its phase relationship to the actual current waveform.
The current waveform is now (thanks again to the magic of sims being able to separate the L and R in a model) taken directly across the pure 0.25 ohm resistance of the shunt, showing the true current waveform. Motice two things on particular about that current waveform:
1) It is MUCH SMALLER in reality than when polluted by the shunt's inductance.
2) It is clearly showing a net area above zero that is greater than the area below zero.
I am just too darn lazy to lump all the inductances associated with the battery into one or put them all in series outside the battery stack and show you that the actual battery voltage is almost pure DC centered at 75.6 Volts and with a very minimal (below 1V) ripple due to the battery internal impedances. You only have to do that for people like you find over at OU.com who have no clue about the value of simulations and how inductances in series can be accurately modelled as distributed or lumped with identical results. Pirate? LOL
I'll take questions or comments at my leisure.
Goodbye Rosemary and sweet dreams! >:-)
cHeeseburger Humbugger Bryan
@humbugger
This seems like an awful lot of work, and I think its fascinating you've done this, but why go through so much trouble just to disprove her?
I disagree with your claim the 'simulation' is reality... it's just a useful tool, not the ultimate measure of reality. The reality is on the bench.
But to go along with that line of thought, did you simulate the actual heater component she used? Or did you just insert a component with it's properties (inductance, resistance, etc)? Couldn't this be leaving out an important property of the component material?
I mean, I can go build this on the bench in a couple of hours... I might just do that to settle this stupid diversion... either there is something interesting present or there is not. I defintiely think its useful that your simulation says the MOSFET oscillation is input-independent.
What do you think of the negative biasing at the gate?
Humbugger!
Very impressive, actually quite brilliant. I can tell you are a seasoned pro at this stuff from the Real World.
Many people don't understand how simulators work, often saying "It's just a simulation, it's not the real thing." They don't realize how close to the real thing it is, and that the mathematics were all figured out in the 16th century.
The simulator is a digital version of an analog computer. There really are things called analog computers, and they were used extensively before digital computers were around. You could also simulate Rosemary's setup with an analog computer. And in fact Rosemary's setup itself is in essence an analog computer.
To speak more technically, the simulation programs use the differential equations that model various components that are connected together in an electrical network (i.e.; a schematic diagram). You can model a single component with a differential equation, and by extension model the whole schematic diagram with a series of differential equations that interact with each other.
If you don't get it, just take it for granted that the simulation programs really do work.
The simulation done by Humbugger removes the curtains from Rosie the Wizard's Magic Zipon Show and exposes Rosie at the gears and levers controlling the smoke and mirrors.
The stack of batteries outputs real power to heat the resistor. That is the reality and myself and others have been saying it all along. This whole thing has been a tragicomic farce for years.
MileHigh
Due to the enormous number of requests recived by PM ( ;D) I may break down in a while (after I eat and take a nap) and go a bit further by adding some power meters to the latter circuit and show the world some real numbers for the power being pulled from the battery (yes, the net power is coming out of the battery) and the power being dissipated as heat in the load.
Hell, I might even break down and show the battery voltage complete with ripple!
It sure will be interesting if it shows overunity! :P
Humbugger
Quote from: feynman on 2011.03.20, 04:12:23
@humbugger
This seems like an awful lot of work, and I think its fascinating you've done this, but why go through so much trouble just to disprove her?
I disagree with your claim the 'simulation' is reality... it's just a useful tool, not the ultimate measure of reality. The reality is on the bench.
But to go along with that line of thought, did you simulate the actual heater component she used? Or did you just insert a component with it's properties (inductance, resistance, etc)? Couldn't this be leaving out an important property of the component material?
I mean, I can go build this on the bench in a couple of hours... I might just do that to settle this stupid diversion... either there is something interesting present or there is not. I defintiely think its useful that your simulation says the MOSFET oscillation is input-independent.
What do you think of the negative biasing at the gate?
Feynman:
Seriously, you would not be able to settle this thing. Be realistic about your knowledge level and experience level. Humbugger could spin circles around you blindfolded with the use of just one pinky.
Everybody should be real as we close out the Rosemary Ainslie saga. If you are a keener and work hard at learning about electronics in a few years you might be able to approach the level of insight that Humbugger has.
Don't be offended, we are all sick of the Ainslie affair and this is 100% no bullshit time.
MileHigh
Quote from: feynman on 2011.03.20, 04:12:23
@humbugger
This seems like an awful lot of work, and I think its fascinating you've done this, but why go through so much trouble just to disprove her?
I disagree with your claim the 'simulation' is reality... it's just a useful tool, not the ultimate measure of reality. The reality is on the bench.
But to go along with that line of thought, did you simulate the actual heater component she used? Or did you just insert a component with it's properties (inductance, resistance, etc)? Couldn't this be leaving out an important property of the component material?
I mean, I can go build this on the bench in a couple of hours... I might just do that to settle this stupid diversion... either there is something interesting present or there is not. I defintiely think its useful that your simulation says the MOSFET oscillation is input-independent.
What do you think of the negative biasing at the gate?
I think that the gate voltage has nothing much to do with it once it falls below the threshold of the MOSFETS (about 3V).
I also think you will be wasting your time trying to physically model it in hardware but I strongly encourage you to do that at once regardless of cost or effort required. It might keep you from posting rather uneducated comments based on wishful thinking and belief in zipons. :D
Be sure you use exactly the same load resistor Rose uses. After all, the zipon content might be different if you don't. Also, you must use the exact same size, length and brand of wire she uses...to the atom. As Rose proclaims, the mysterious zipons come from the conductive/inductive materials themselves...so you must replicate exactly! Use the same batteries, too. That's critical. And the heatsinks and the layout and the terminals, etc.
Disregard the fact that a quick and dirty first-shot-out-of-the-barrel simulation that took me half an hour to set up exhibits exactly what Rosemary's hardware does, scope-trace-wise. Disregard the fact that the variables within the sim can be yanked around liberally with virtually the same results. That's probably just a lucky coincidence, right?
You do your namesake a disservice, bro. Richard would be rolling over in his grave if he took even a small dose of Rosemary Ainslie's hokum.
Humbugger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surely_You're_Joking,_Mr._Feynman! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surely_You're_Joking,_Mr._Feynman!)
I am from the "old school analog" gang. We have always made fun of the incompetent "sim-jockeys" who pop out of college with no clue about the real world of actual hardware and can't design anything that works reliably. I'm a ninth-grade dropout who started building shit at age 10 and had my first commercial product success contribution at age 17 (the Phase Linear Model 700 Amplifier serving as builder and bench technician and bottle-washer for Bob Carver, the famous audio guru).
In 1960, I built a high-speed motor from scratch out of wire, nails and popsicle sticks and took it to a church science fair where a little Seattle boy we all know well who was 6 or 7 at the time was so impressed and fascinated his parents literally had to drag him away. In 1978, I turned down an offer from Rod Brock of Seattle Computer Products to buy outright the DOS that that same little boy purchased two weeks later and then resold to IBM. Little Billy Gates. This proves that I am not really a genius at all.
I don't at all disagree with you that sims are not the end-all be-all. I never used sims in my actual design work for the first forty years. Only in the last five years of my active career as a high-power RF designer did I make use of simulators to arrive at close approximations involving complex laser resonant cavities and RF matching networks.
The value of simulation is very strong, however, in checking out circuits that have already been built and run on oscilloscopes. Just to verify and tinker with component sensitivities, etc. When the sim agrees very closely with the hardware, you can be pretty sure that the hardware is not operating outside the realm of known physics and that there is no mysterious magic or new unknown phenomena involved.
Humbugger
By the way, if you think I'm an arrogant sarcastic bastard, you may be right. But my arrogance pales before that of the rank amateur who cannot even begin to design or analyze a simple circuit yet who insists and brags that he or she is about to solve the world's energy crisis by rewriting the realities of physics or based on rejection of the millions of brilliant man-hours of true scientific discovery work that have brought us the technologies we now have and the understandings we can rely upon all day every day.
Not to suggest that there is not much more to discover, by any means. I believe in extraterrestrial intelligent beings and spacecraft (UFO's) and stuff well beyond what is generally known by the educated public. I just don't believe that science has ignored or rejected or turned a blind eye to easily-invoked phenomena based on a collection of Radio Shack parts and popular woo-woo mythology. I think people like Rosemary should be held in check and put feet to the fire of gruesome reality when they start spouting off about saving the world before producing even one milliwatt of "free energy".
@humbugger
I don't care who you are or what your accomplishments are. You are posting straw man arguments ('zipons'). As I'm sure you are aware, this is a logical fallacy.
To bring the argument back to the topic at hand, I would like to see higher resolution versions of Rosemary's scope traces.
Wouldn't you like to see the same, given that this is so important to you as you've spend at least an hour on it on your Saturday night?
In terms of your personal concern for my wasted time, you'll be pleased to note as though I may bench out the parallel MOSFET oscillations -- it's unlikely I would bother with the heating element other than nichrome wire.
QuoteOnly in the last five years of my active career as a high-power RF designer did I make use of simulators to arrive at close approximations involving complex laser resonant cavities and RF matching networks.
Richard would have hated your arrogance and psuedo-intellectual superiority. I've done my time in 'simulations' too. Doing FFT analysis of electron micrographs in order to reconstruct viral particles in 3Dimensions from thousands of noisy images, and subsequently making predictions from computer models. And frankly, simulations fail invariably when the 'rules of the game' do not apply.
You are familiar with Taleb, no?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Swan_(Taleb_book) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Swan_(Taleb_book))
We'll see what happens with this whole Rosemary thing. I'm withholding judgement pending further information .
As Stefan says,
Quote
[Moderation] is due to the facts that now more and more paid
"twisters" are coming onto this forum,
who want to suppress free energy
as there are now viable solutions.
I certainly hope you aren't employed in the same capacity as the 'paid skeptics' to remain unnamed, and instead are just an arrogant prick, as the former would be a terrible waste of your abilities.
-Feynman
Feynman:
The Zipons were not Straw Man, they were just a reference to Rosie's bizarre and unproven thesis in jest. As far as her scope traces go, let's assume the DSOs were smart enough to export the waveforms in comma-separated values at least. So you can ask her to upload them somewhere if you really want to play with them.
QuoteIn terms of your personal concern for my wasted time, you'll be pleased to note as though I may bench out the parallel MOSFET oscillations -- it's unlikely I would bother with the heating element other than nichrome wire.
This doesn't make sense. You can't half-simulate the circuit.
QuoteAnd frankly, simulations fail invariably when the 'rules of the game' do not apply.
I already stated that the 'rules of the game' do apply in a general sense. They certainly apply here in Rosemary's case. Why would you think otherwise? The circuit consists of wires, MOSFETs and and an inductive/resistive element and batteries. Do you see anything particular in those components that would break the rules?
That quote from Stefan is loopy. There are no paid "twisters" in this little cubbyhole in a back alleyway on the Internet. It's ridiculous to even think it. You are indicating that you think that I am one and your actions (or lack thereof) also show this. It's false drama there Feynman. This is not Spy vs. Spy from Mad Magazine. I am just a real person and the more you pretend that I am not a real person the longer the fake drama goes on and the more ridiculous it gets. Stefan also made reference to batteries being part of the "secret sauce" that allegedly works for Bedini motors and he is wrong.
QuoteI certainly hope you aren't employed in the same capacity as the 'paid skeptics' to remain unnamed, and instead are just an arrogant prick, as the former would be a terrible waste of your abilities.
The drama is just overwhelming.
On a more serious note, if you want to investigate the Ainslie circuit you have to understand how an inductor works, and how it works when it discharges. Remember I challenged you to write up a two or three paragraph description? I would gladly explain it to you but you have take off the "White Spy" coat and be real.
MileHigh
@feynman
For a guy that puts down my sim because I might not have included the exact molecular structure of Rose's load resistor, it's kind of odd to hear that you would replace the whole affair with an arbitrary length of nichrome without regard to precise dimensions, turns, resistance or inductance. I clearly stated that my model has the same RLC as Rosemary reports she uses. What have I left out that you consider so possibly essential for a proper model? Zipon content and dipole heat velocity factors? Doesn't seem quite consistent but what else is new around here.
I'm glad that Stefan's heavy mod act thrilled you so much. Sounds like your Saturday nights may be just as drab as you suspect mine are. You sound positively giddy over it. Personally, I was amazed that he let 7 of my posts stand and did not ban me outright (seeing as how he perma-banned me four years ago and I made no bones or pretense that I was not one and the same as Humbugger).
Incidently, I waas banned over there because I busted Ashtweth using edited quotations from a guy named David Kou who was, according to Ashtweth, successfully using his "Neon Extractor" to turn reactive power into real power and thereby get self-running operation from an RV setup. I searched out and located the actual quote from David on another board and the words were just as Ashtweth reported except that Ashtweth chopped out the last sentence where Mr. Kou happily stated that he had not yet even tried to acheive self-running and was still far from it. That was years ago and there is still no self-running RV, of course. Publishing Ashtweth's outright lies got me banned.
As for the rest of your crap and opinions about me personally, you can shove it, pal. And we can still be civil just like real scientists in any future discussions. O0 (starting after I finish this totally straw-man ad-hominem attack post, of course) >:-)
Just realize that your disrespect and loathing of me is entirely symmetrical, although I don't probably care as much as you do. I have explained my tendency toward arrogance when confronted with idiots claiming world saviourism before showing anything beyond totally ordinary lossy circuits and machines. They love to hide behind mysterious bullshit; I love to pierce it incisively until they are naked, if not bleeding. In Black Swan terms. I'd rather be the butcher than the turkey, if you catch my drift. (By the way, thanks for the tip on the book. I have not read it yet and will do so soon), Nobody pays me to do what I do here or on any forum.. I'd take the job in a New York minute, though, if the money was good.
Humbugger
For general interest regarding inter-board politics and Stefan's moderation (spelled DELETION OF 8 POSTS of mine and several of Mark Dansie's), I made one final post over there as Cheeseburger tonight and it went like this:
Quote
It is clear that Stefan has the right and the might to heavily moderate this forum and I respect that. Whether I think his judgements are fair or not is not important and I appreciate that he left intact seven of my fifteen posts. I assume that was because they were on-subject, without insult and quoted in other posts anyway. Thank you Stefan for leaving at least some of my comments and suggestions.
Apparently, at least Mark Dansie and I are on "heavy moderation" at this time and Stefan has suggested that someone (I assume he means me) is a paid detractor sent by big oil or the MIB to destroy Rosemary's progress. That is simply not true, I can assure you. However, each of us has a right to hold and express our opinion; especially Stefan, as it is his blood sweat and finances that have built this forum.
That said, I will not be posting here again because I do not feel that my comments are welcome, despite their often acute and timely relevance. As my final post here, I would ask and hope that Stefan have the sense of fairness and good sportsmanship to clear this for posting.
For anyone who is interested, I have tonight published a very revealing set of simulations under the Rosemary Ainslie thread at OUR forum. I have discovered a couple of things that may be of interest even to those of you who put no faith in simulations.
First, the Ainslie circuit with five MOSFETs models quite easily and shows exactly the same waveforms and performance that Rosemary shows in her lengthy series of 'scope shots on her blogs when all of the various wiring inductances are included. This indicates strongly that all circuit behaviors she has pointed out and shown are entirely explainable using only classical circuit models.
Second, I have shown that one single input step-function pulse of 1 microsecond duration will set the circuit into continuous oscillation. Simply setting a tuned DC bias at the gate may or may not set the circuit into oscillation, but a single sharp transition past the threshold definitely does when the gate is subsequently held at zero or negative DC.
There are no ground currents involved. The circuit oscillates continuously at between 1 and 1.4 MHz, depending on specific MOSFET types and inductance values in the range consistent with the wire lengths and load inductances as stated by Rosemary.
I think these facts and the ability in the simulation to probe inside the RL lumped components (the shunt, the load and the battery stack) to look at the waveforms as they exist across just the battery, just the resitive parts of the load and just the resistive part of the shunt to see the true current and voltages there are useful to anyone planning to replicate and or simulate the circuit for further study.
I will be doing some more sims to include actual measurements of the load heating power and the battery input power in the near future. If these tests show anything like or close to overunity, I will proceed to an actual hardware replication to verify the results. This work will be shown at OUR exclusively unless Stefan invites me to also show it here.
Thank you for your consideration of these sincere efforts to gain a fuller understanding of this circuit and its performance. So far, the model tracks and agrees very well with all of what Rosemary has reported based on her waveform analysis.
Of final and very significant interest is the fact that the waveforms representing the shunt voltage change dramatically when measured to include or exclude the omnipresent inductance of the physical shunt.
Yes, as Rose has reported. it appears that the current waveform has nearly identical areas above and below zero when the shunt inductance is allowed in the measurement and that the apparent current levels are many times higher than those measured across the purely resistive portion of the shunt impedance.
However, when we look only across the true resistive portion of the shunt (leaving the inductance in the circuit so that operation is unaffected), it becomes clear that the real area under the current waveform is quite a bit larger above zero (coming out of the battery) than the current being returned.
cHeeseburger
It will be interesting (at least to me, anyway) to see if Stefan clears it for posting. C.C
Rosemary has now posted a challenge (now that she has seen my simulation here and knows I won't probably be allowed to accept her challenge under Stefan's heavy moderation).
Here is her post at OU.com
Quote
Guys a quick word here. I challenge anyone to do a simulation where the phase angles are at precisely 180 degrees. If they are not precise then, as day follows night - they'll ring and cancel out at zero. At 180 degrees they'll reinforce each other.
What intrigues me is this. I've been called delinquent - ignorant - presumptuous - pretentious - deluded - self-serving - deceptive - optimistic - fanciful - manipulative. Name it. It's there. In fact I've also been called an IDIOT SAVANT. Poynty? I have a really functional intelligence quotient. Surely that much is evident? And right now Hamburger is throwing a hissy fit with MileHigh as his praise singer. So what? What if I am all of those things? What has it got to do with the issue at hand? We are only showing results. And those results are hugely promising. But they unquestionably need research. We're all, on our team - ONLY anxious that this get researched. If any out there need to take the credit - FEEL FREE. Just DON'T try and patent it. I'll contest that to my dying breath and with my last cent.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
First let me say that I for one have absolutely no interest in any intellectual property that has ever spawned forth from Rosemary, so she needn't worry on that account at all. Second, I dispute that Rosemary or her team of experts has shown any results other than the same very results I demonstrated in a thirty minute simulator exercise, which match her results quite closely.
Furthermore, my simulation clearly shows that her measurements "results" which consist of polluted and inaccurate representations of both the battery voltage and the shunt voltage are not worthy of basing any further investigation of input power upon unless and until they are corrected to remove the artifacts and gross waveform distrortions and exaggerated amplitudes caused by the dominant inductances in the battery wiring and the shunt.
She herself has not demonstrated any waveforms that are clearly "precisiely 180 degrees out of phase" and, despite her insistance that that would be surprising. essential or meaningful, it is not. What is important are two things:
The current flowing into and out of the battery and the DC voltage of the battery. These and only these will reveal the true input power being supplied by the battery. Rosemary's obsession with the phases of the "battery" voltage and drain current are based upon the absolute fallacy that the battery voltage is 150VAC and the shunt current waveform is accurate in both time and amplitude despite it being taken across an element that has several times the inductive reactance as it has resistance. Many times more. My simulations clearly show this in an unequivocal way.
In truth, the battery voltage is virtually a constant DC voltage with less than a volt of AC ripple and the true resistive shunt voltage is far smaller and differently-time-aligned and differently shaped and differently centered about zero than the illusionary inductive shunt waveforms indicate. So any statement regarding perfect phase opposition based on two incorrectly-represented critical variables is also bogus. Not to mention that her own waveforms do not meet that criterion.
In general, it is absolutely to be expected and totally unsurprising that the basic drain voltage and drain current waveforms are by nature 180 degrees out of phase in a MOSFET circuit, whether operating linearly or as a true switch. As the drain current goes up, the drain voltage pulls down. This is obvious to anyone half-skilled in the art and is not evidence of a magical or special or unique situation or result.
Feynman and Harti have now taken over the thread and are making a barrage of demands for much more detailed documentation, scope shots, build specs, etc. Rosemary is frantically trying to appease and accommodate these demands while at once cleaving to the false comfort of being sheltered from my revelations here by these two whose obvious agenda is to prolong the saga of Rosemary Ainslie's magical zipon technology for as long as possible and to help her continue the clouds of dark energy ink that the Octopus so loves to hide within when attacked.
The mystery, however, has been solved. But you know what? Folks like Stefan, Aaron, Lindemann, Bedini and Sterling make their livings by endlessly prolonging and convoluting and digging up new examples of these false claims of overunity inventors. They could not survive if the light of day were shone brightly into each and every corner of false "promise" for free energy such that all could quickly see through the bullshit and delusions.
Talk about paid disinformation agents! These guys do this shit for a living and have figured out how to play each episode out for as long as possible in front of the gullible believers. I am completely convinced of that, These guys know that 99% of this stuff is obvious bullshit yet they promote and prolong it on purpose to make a buck. And when anyone sharp comes along and quickly shows the obvious errors and fallacies, they turn aqs one against them, banning them and accusing them of being paid misinformation artists, Dat's da game, here folks! And this forum is probably the only exception.
Idiot Savant? Maybe...not too sure about the Savant part unless it's in regard to her near perfect ability to cloud, distract, avoid and obfuscate. All is as it should be in Heaven. The true distorters for financial gain are teamed with the idiot savant of the decade. Don't expect any free energy any tme soon, folks! Not from that motley crew of charlatans and pretenders.
Humbugger
Okay...back to simple clear reality again:
The first schematic shows the battery wiring inductances lumped into one inductor equal in resistance and inductance to the numerous (7) distributed inductances previously shown so that we can finally take a look at the real battery voltage. Nothing else has changed and you may note that the waveforms are exactly the same as the first sim where the same total inductance is distributed. The "battery voltage" is probed on the wrong side of the llumped inductance (not on the battery terminals), just as it was in the first sim and, by golly by gosh, the scope waveforms are exactly the same.
Yes Martha, you can lump or distribute series inductances in a model or in hardware and it makes zero effect on the sim or on a real circuit. It's just that it's trivial to do on a sim and a lot harder to do in real physical life, but one can come very close and then, as needed, simply use RC filters (not done here as yet due to potential whining) to produce accurate measurements in the face of real world distributed inductances that cannot all be moved into one "lumped" location wherever you want.
The sole purpose of this elementary post is to demonstrate that lumping the battery wiring inductance in the model does not change the circuit waveforms in any way. The shunt trace, as in the first set of sim shots, is hooked up to include the spurious effects of including the shunt inductance.
Now, we move the battery voltage trace probe so that it is actually and truly reporting/recording/sampling the real battery voltage. Notice that it is essentially, as completely expected and predicted, a DC voltage centered at 75.6VDC with only a small ripple. I actually increased the modelled internal resistance of the batteries here twofold and thus the ripple is a couple of volts. NOT 150Vpp AC.
Furthermore, to complete the task, I have moved the shunt probe now to measure the true current waveform appearing across the purely resistive part of the shunt while still keeping the shunt inductance in the circuit so as not to change its operating point.
Now, and only now, can we begin to think about making actual input power measurements that will provide real-world true numbers. To make it easier to study, both wavefprms have been set for zero offset. The center line is zero volts.
The DC battery voltage scale is still set at 20V/division and the current shunt voltage scale is gained up to 100mV/division. Now it is absolutely clear that the area under the positive portion of the shunt voltage is far lqarger than the negative area.
Yes, the picture is worth ten million words. A group of hungry current sharks are leaping up to bite the hell out of the battery. They got tired of eating zipons, apparently.
Stay tuned for tomorrow's episode, where we actually measure the input and output power using multiple approaches and see how it all turns out. It's already quite clear that the battery is continually giving up net energy to the circuit and load. The currents and power levels are, I expect, fairly low and so I will not be surprised at all if the circuit shows efficiencies easily upward of 95%.
For this level of power output and input (just roughly estimating from the waveforms and using head-math) the five MOSFETs in parallel are waaaay overkill and represent, with the shunt itself, the only really significant loss factors. It certainly appears that the MOSFETs are running in the linear region and not acting as hard switching devices, so my 95%+ estimate may be quite optimistic.
Tomorrow we'll peek at the voltage at the drain of the MOSFETs and see if they are hard switching (typically 90% or better efficiency) or running class A linear (50~75% efficiency typical) or somewhere in between. We'll do that first and I'll reiterate my overall "guesstimate" of efficiency before we do a few tests using true multiplying power meters and plain old voltmeters/ammeters with RC integrating low-pass filters to see how the various approaches compare.
Now I really have to go eat something, get another pack of cloves and take a nap. At last check there were 16 folks on the forum and 9 of them were reading this thread. It's 5:22 AM here on Sunday morning. West Coast Black Ops Headquarters time :o
[being sarcastic and facetious here...don't get all snippy and paranoid now].
Yours truly,
Humbugger
Good stuff Hum. ;)
Is it possible to place component values on your schematics? I know you've denoted them in your post text, but it is much easier to get the "picture" when component values are shown.
Can you limit the transient analysis step-size in Tina? I noticed in all your scope shots except the last one with the true Vbat, that the traces are showing a bit of "under-sampling" distortion.
I've been busy working on the Lewin experiment stuff, but my last try with the Ainslie sim was producing something close to Rose's wave forms. I have not included any inductance in the CSR though, and that perhaps may be the "problem". Maybe I'll try to get it going, and we can see how mine compares with yours. ;)
.99
Hum,
What is your value for R2? I noticed in my sim, that if R2 was relatively low, i.e. about 0.5 Ohms, that the self-oscillation appeared, but when changed to 50 Ohm, the oscillations became highly damped and it would not sustain. We don't know what the function generator model is, so it is impossible to say what the output impedance truly is, although it would be surprising to me if it was anything but 50 Ohms.
Just a note. ;)
.99
Hum,
So it would seem that your last post at OU (copied here) did not last, i.e. Stefan removed it.
Oh, and Rose, the "idiot savant" reference I made was not intended for or directed at you. You thinking it was is rather pretentious don't you think?
.99
Poynt,
Too tedious to label every part, doable but tedious. No control over sample rate on scope but i see no evidence of undersampling anywhere on any trace. Gate resistor was 0.5 ohms, inductance was around 1uH based on long non-50 ohm twisted pair cabling to gates. OU post to stefan from Rose has siggen at 50 ohms. Funny thing is, it started oscillating heavily on the very first turn-on of the model. I did no fiddling at all. No tweaking to cherry-pick waveforms, etc. I'm conviinced it would be hard to stop it from oscillating save by turning the MOSFETs on hard. Fooled around with a few variables and didn't see a whole big bunch of difference .
Gotta go now. I see AC and Exnihiloest are posting probably severe critiques. Have to look tomorrow...burnt out...gotta eat and sleep. :D
Cheers,
Bryan
@Feynman
QuoteThis seems like an awful lot of work, and I think its fascinating you've done this, but why go through so much trouble just to disprove her?
I disagree with your claim the 'simulation' is reality... it's just a useful tool, not the ultimate measure of reality. The reality is on the bench.
I would agree, I have always found it odd that many would seem to go to almost any length to disprove another persons work or discredit them personally to justify their own opinions. You would think they would have more constructive things to do with their time and expertise such as actually proving how a real device could work. I find it kind of comical that in the end, after all is said and done, that the critics will end up right back where they started which is nowhere, no working technology and no idea how a FE technology could work which would seem rather pointless in my opinion.
On the issue of simulators, I run a few simulators for simple standard technology circuits but it should be obvious that they are useless for anything more complicated than that. First simulators only model lumped sum inductance and capacitance which is the last thing I want, they do not accurately model external magnetic or electric field interactions between each or all of the components and the circuit as a whole, they cannot model unknown non-linear material properties, they cannot model the electric field emanating from a spark gap nor the hard UV wavelengths producing thermionic and photoelectric effects. Essentially they are completely useless for all the things I need to know, they are great for beginners but for more advanced concepts which rely on complex field interactions, radiant effects and not simple conduction they are a complete waste of time and energy in my opinion. Here is a thought, I have long solenoid coil which is induced by a two turn primary and when I disruptively close the circuit on the primary, before a measurable current flow is detected in the primary a HV spike evolves from it inducing a higher voltage in the secondary. We may as well stop here because it should be perfectly obvious that no simulator will show you this transient voltage spike from the primary simply because the programmer of the simulator has no knowledge of this effect. So you see using a simulator in effect and practise holds a person to the knowledge base of the person who designed the software which pretty much ensures anyone using a simulator will never learn anything new or anything that really matters.
I'm not saying any of this directly applies to Rosemary's device, I am simply stating that if anything out of the ordinary was happening a simulator would not show you because a simulator is only as good as the person that programmed it.
Edit: I should also say I am not against criticism nor the critics, I disagree with people who make irrational one sided arguments not based solely on logic and science, this includes not only the critics but everyonwe else as well.
Regards
AC
Quote from: feynman on 2011.03.20, 05:55:18
...
As Stefan says,
Quote
[Moderation] is due to the facts that now more and more paid "twisters" are coming onto this forum, who want to suppress free energy as there are now viable solutions.
...
Stefan is not a reference. In a totally biased attitude, he urges the skeptics to prove their affirmations against unfounded FE claims, or ban them, while authorizing gullibles and scammers to assert the worst stupidities outside of any evidence.
As there are always many more gullibles, scammers, gurus with followers and so on, than skilled and skeptics people, it is better for him and his site to favour the first ones, question of popularity and profitability of the advertisements. Therefore when he is talking about "paid "twisters"", a legitimate question arises: isn't it his own attitude that he projects onto others? Imho, likely.
AC, I must disagree with most of your post. Big surprise huh?
You are entitled to your opinion, and I am to mine. You said that SPICE has been useless to you, and that is fine. However, I must protest to your comments that SPICE is only as good as the programmer that designed it. That is just plain incorrect. That is analogous to saying that a programming language is only as good as the programmer that designed it. Yes, they both have their limits to what they can or can not do, but just as in software programming, the end result of your program or simulation model, is only as good as the programmer/SPICE user using the program.
In the case of SPICE, it is capable of more than what most people realize, including yourself. SPICE is a tool box and a simulation engine. It is not an AI program that reads your mind and enters the schematic accordingly with all the hidden effects built in. YOU, the user must know precisely what it is that you are simulating, and be aware of ALL the subtleties involved, including all the possible parasitics.
Your pre-current spike is one good example. I have seen this in my sims many times. I do not have an example at hand at the moment, but I will see if I can produce one for you.
Give it a break man. Perhaps you should consider the possibility that SPICE has been useless to you because you expect it to do all the thinking for you? Well, a reality check; that's not how it works.
.99
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.03.20, 07:56:41
...
I have explained my tendency toward arrogance when confronted with idiots claiming world saviourism before showing anything beyond totally ordinary lossy circuits and machines. They love to hide behind mysterious bullshit; I love to pierce it incisively until they are naked, if not bleeding.
...
Well there is at least one person here who is delighted in advance by the show. I'm also a bit involved in this practice :)
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.03.20, 15:51:27
...
You are entitled to your opinion, and I am to mine. You said that SPICE has been useless to you, and that is fine. However, I must protest to your comments that SPICE is only as good as the programmer that designed it. That is just plain incorrect.
...
I totally agree. I'm a user of ltspice, and if properly done, a spice model is of great help in debugging experiments with curious results.
The difficulty is to not forget all the parameters of the "real life".
For example, for realizing the spice model of the Stiffler circuit with coils and LED that is discussed elsewhere, we must add parasitic capacities along the coil, i.e. the model for this single coil must be either a line with a distributed capacity or many coils, each with a capacity.
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.03.20, 14:24:30
Poynt,
Too tedious to label every part, doable but tedious. No control over sample rate on scope but i see no evidence of undersampling anywhere on any trace. Gate resistor was 0.5 ohms, inductance was around 1uH based on long non-50 ohm twisted pair cabling to gates. OU post to stefan from Rose has siggen at 50 ohms. Funny thing is, it started oscillating heavily on the very first turn-on of the model. I did no fiddling at all. No tweaking to cherry-pick waveforms, etc. I'm conviinced it would be hard to stop it from oscillating save by turning the MOSFETs on hard. Fooled around with a few variables and didn't see a whole big bunch of difference .
Gotta go now. I see AC and Exnihiloest are posting probably severe critiques. Have to look tomorrow...burnt out...gotta eat and sleep. :D
Cheers,
Bryan
Yes, the ISOTECH GFG - 8216a. Apparently 50 Ohms. To be faithful to the actual circuit, I would suggest you change your R2 to 50 Ohms then.
I label every part on my schematics. It's part of the part placement process actually.
How or where do you enter the part values then? It is most likely a setting in your options to show the part value on the schematic, and it is currently "turned-off". You should not have to add the values again because you already have entered them. Please have a look at your options, there has to be a setting for this.
What version of Tina are you using? Here you go Hum:
QuoteTINA will automatically assign a label for each component you place
on the schematic. It will also display the numerical value of the main
component parameter (for example: R4 10k). Note that the value is
shown only if the Values option of the View menu is checked. For
files from the older versions of TINA, the Values option is turned off
by default.
Regarding the time-step, indeed it appears that Tina does not allow you to set this, how unfortunate. Anyway, it is not that critical for this circuit anyway, as there are no transients present in self-oscillation mode, and if there are, I would hope that the sim engine adjusts it's time step accordingly.
At least we got your displayed component value issue sorted out. O0
Cheers,
.99
Yes about pSpice and other simulation packages, it's all about how well you do your modeling, and to what level of detail you want to do the modeling. I think it's fair to say that lots of people on the forums can't understand the underlying issues here. Simulation is just a Black Box that they don't understand.
I can't resist quoting Feynman from OU and OUR considering that he offered to prototype the Ainslie circuit and resolve the matter:
QuoteI can go build this on the bench in a couple of hours... I might just do that to settle this stupid diversion...
QuoteThe problem I'm getting is that the output of pin 3 is completely inverted from the output as measured at the MOSFET drain.
For example, if my input is PWM with 1% duty cycle and a specific frequency, on the drain of the MOSFET I see a 99% duty cycle wave at the same frequency.
QuoteOkay , got it. Does a P-channel MOSFET have the same inverting effect when driving the low side? I know these are probably obvious questions , but I normally deal with microcontrollers and sensors. This is my first time actually doing serious benching with MOSFETs.
LOL Any long-timers in the Ainslie affair will recognize shades of Joit in that second quote!
I am sure that we would be more than happy to help you here also Feynman, just be real.
MileHigh
Quote from: allcanadian on 2011.03.20, 15:06:30
@Feynman
I would agree, I have always found it odd that many would seem to go to almost any length to disprove another persons work or discredit them personally to justify their own opinions. You would think they would have more constructive things to do with their time and expertise such as actually proving how a real device could work. I find it kind of comical that in the end, after all is said and done, that the critics will end up right back where they started which is nowhere, no working technology and no idea how a FE technology could work which would seem rather pointless in my opinion.
On the issue of simulators, I run a few simulators for simple standard technology circuits but it should be obvious that they are useless for anything more complicated than that. First simulators only model lumped sum inductance and capacitance which is the last thing I want, they do not accurately model external magnetic or electric field interactions between each or all of the components and the circuit as a whole, they cannot model unknown non-linear material properties, they cannot model the electric field emanating from a spark gap nor the hard UV wavelengths producing thermionic and photoelectric effects. Essentially they are completely useless for all the things I need to know, they are great for beginners but for more advanced concepts which rely on complex field interactions, radiant effects and not simple conduction they are a complete waste of time and energy in my opinion. Here is a thought, I have long solenoid coil which is induced by a two turn primary and when I disruptively close the circuit on the primary, before a measurable current flow is detected in the primary a HV spike evolves from it inducing a higher voltage in the secondary. We may as well stop here because it should be perfectly obvious that no simulator will show you this transient voltage spike from the primary simply because the programmer of the simulator has no knowledge of this effect. So you see using a simulator in effect and practise holds a person to the knowledge base of the person who designed the software which pretty much ensures anyone using a simulator will never learn anything new or anything that really matters.
I'm not saying any of this directly applies to Rosemary's device, I am simply stating that if anything out of the ordinary was happening a simulator would not show you because a simulator is only as good as the person that programmed it.
Edit: I should also say I am not against criticism nor the critics, I disagree with people who make irrational one sided arguments not based solely on logic and science, this includes not only the critics but everyonwe else as well.
Regards
AC
Reminds me of the old saying about March: In like a lion, out like a lamb. Ninety six lines about personality questions and simulator dissing ended with a couple of lines of timid qualifying remarks. Yahooooooo! Ever heard of a paragraph? Makes it really hard for us old stodgy farts who know nothing of creativity or open-mindedness to read your stuff there AC O0
Humbugger
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2011.03.20, 15:15:18
...
Stefan is not a reference. In a totally biased attitude, he urges the skeptics to prove their affirmations against unfounded FE claims, or ban them, while authorizing gullibles and scammers to assert the worst stupidities outside of any evidence.
As there are always many more gullibles, scammers, gurus with followers and so on, than skilled and skeptics people, it is better for him and his site to favour the first ones, question of popularity and profitability of the advertisements. Therefore when he is talking about "paid "twisters"", a legitimate question arises: isn't it his own attitude that he projects onto others? Imho, likely.
Right on the money, sonny! O0
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.03.20, 16:38:01
Yes, the ISOTECH GFG - 8216a. Apparently 50 Ohms. To be faithful to the actual circuit, I would suggest you change your R2 to 50 Ohms then.
I label every part on my schematics. It's part of the part placement process actually.
How or where do you enter the part values then? It is most likely a setting in your options to show the part value on the schematic, and it is currently "turned-off". You should not have to add the values again because you already have entered them. Please have a look at your options, there has to be a setting for this.
What version of Tina are you using? Here you go Hum:
Regarding the time-step, indeed it appears that Tina does not allow you to set this, how unfortunate. Anyway, it is not that critical for this circuit anyway, as there are no transients present in self-oscillation mode, and if there are, I would hope that the sim engine adjusts it's time step accordingly.
At least we got your displayed component value issue sorted out. O0
Cheers,
.99
Yes, thanks Poynt. I told you I almost never use sims and Tina is a real basic kind of slow dog, but I find it to be pretty close to accurate for most of what I use it for. I'' try to remember to turn on the value thing next time.
The Ainslee circuit is rather triivial except for the unknowns like exact wire lengths etc. I would take youir advice and insert the 50 ohms if I knew the exact details of the homebrew twisted pair transmission line she's using to drive the gates. The 50 ohms has to go on the generator end, of course, unless the transmission line is 50 ohms also, which it isn't. It does adjust the step and I didn't notice any sampling artifacts at all.
The real doggy thing about Tina Pro (really old version) is that it is so far from real time that it's sick. At 1MHz, the waves take about 1 second each to compute and display. No big deal until you start adding long RC time constant filters. I had to wait 20 minutes to get an averaged DC reading for the shunt current signal!
Humbugger
@Poynt99
QuoteIn the case of SPICE, it is capable of more than what most people realize, including yourself. SPICE is a tool box and a simulation engine. It is not an AI program that reads your mind and enters the schematic accordingly with all the hidden effects built in. YOU, the user must know precisely what it is that you are simulating, and be aware of ALL the subtleties involved, including all the possible parasitics.
I think you may have just agreed with me :) or not.
QuoteYOU, the user must know precisely what it is that you are simulating, and be aware of ALL the subtleties involved, including all the possible parasitics
What if you do not know precisely what it is that you are simulating or ALL the subtleties involved?, what if we missed one single subtlety?, then we are for the most part simulating something based solely on the things we know not things which are unknown to us. To me this is akin to trying to simulate a UFO when the user inputting the parameters has no knowledge of how the damn thing stays in the air, I believe this is where science and real experiments come into play.
You know I have programmed, built and interfaced with computors ever since the day I bought my first Vic 20 a "few" years ago, lol, I designed and built computor interface boards, microcontrollers, robotics, power supplies and such--nerd stuff. In all that time I have seen no magic, no computors filling in my gaps (that one comma out of place in the 6000 lines of code I had written), in fact I wrote all the code on a gas turbine simulator at one time because no simulators would work for one of my projects. In all that time I have never seen a computor do anything truely unexpected because the software does what it is supposed to following the sequence of logic available to it. Computors do not fill in the gaps nor do they tolerate mistakes, they do what they do --compute--, which raises the ultimate question, if we fully understood all aspects of what we are trying simulate then why would we simulate it?. If we know precisely what it is we are simulating and all the subtleties involved then I would think we would simply be verifying what we already know in many respects. I understand your point and it is a very good one however I do not fully agree with all aspects of it which is no surprise, lol, usually when a computor gives me an answer I did not really expect I start the debugger. :D
Regards
AC
Here is one last little presentation for those who just can't wait to hear whether the sim showed overunity or not. I'm sure the suspense is killing everyone C.C
Now, mind you, this is not intended to be in any way absolute or accurate to within 0.01% tolerance. I'll do some more methods maybe later on (still no sleep yet but I had a steak and half a bottle of Smoking Loon Merlot (not to bad for $12)).
All I am giving here is a simple close approximation based on the actual waveform and voltage across the resistive part of the load versus the RC-filtered current as measured at the resistive part of the shunt.
I finally found the actual models for the IRFPG50 MOSFETs and plugged that in and tweaked a very little bit here and there to adjust the amplitude of the load waveform to be 60Vpp. The main sensitivity I found was to the sum of the battery lead inductances. As that varied over +/- 20% or so, I could adjust the amplitude easier there than anywhere else.
That said, and having essentially left all else the same except the MOSFETs, the output wave looks quite like a sinusoid, although it certainly isn't a pure one...slightly tilted.
That said, and only trying for a close estimate, I simply used the standard sine calculations 60Vpp/2.828 to obtain RMS of 21V which, when squared over 11.11 Ohms (Rose's load resistor value sans inductance) comes out to 40Watts, the number she so often references as being the measured amount of heat in the load.
The battery voltage is 75.6VDC averaged (not shown but diligently measured over half an hour with a modest RC integrator on it and only a very mild ripple to begin with.
So, with 40Watts being pumped out as heat in the load, the RC-filtered voltage and current product was positive.
175mV average on the 250milli-Ohm shunt resistance yields 0.7A average net current drain from the batteries. Muitiply that by 75.6 Volts and you get the picture of a net input power of 53 Watts. for a net efficiency of 40/53 or 75.5%.
The circuit is operating primarily in a linear mode between class A and class C, by that figure of merit, which is just about as I expected. Here are the pictures:
Good night (morning...almost afternoon now...damn)
Humbugger
@Humbugger
QuoteReminds me of the old saying about March: In like a lion, out like a lamb. Ninety six lines about personality questions and simulator dissing ended with a couple of lines of timid qualifying remarks. Yahooooooo! Ever heard of a paragraph? Makes it really hard for us old stodgy farts who know nothing of creativity or open-mindedness to read your stuff there AC
I figured I would write everything without paragraphs to keep the old stodgy farts from reading my posts, obviously it isn't working out all that well. I don't think being a stodgy old fart means we lack creativity or open-mindedness it is more a matter of immaturity, you see I am really immature, so much that everyone including my kids are always telling me to grow up. Immaturity is like the fountain of youth ;)
Regards
AC
Oh...before I give up the ghost for that long-awaited nap, I have two speculations (purely educated guesses) to add:
1) When Rosmary talks about "that super-nova" mode that she fears entering and lingering in too long, I suspect that what is happeneing is that one or more of the MOSFETs gets turned fully on, placing the DC battery voltage of 75.6V directly on the load and shunt and RDSon path. That would be just about 500W.
2) The MOSFETS she's using probably are not matched in terms of VGS threshold and temperature and, while MOSFETs are known for a positive (non-thermal-runaway) aspect in their VGS/temp curves, this is not always the case at lower levels of current and may be backward down there. Even at 500W, each MOSFET's share of current is only (500/75)/5 Amps or 1.333Amps each.
Come to think of it, maybe it happens just once every 2.7 minutes when the funkygen goes high! >:-)
Okay..that's all for now and thanks to all for all the comments, good, bad, encouraging, critical or whatever. It's all good stuff and helpful. Cheers!
Humbugger
@AC Well...we have something in common after all! O0
AC,
Stop expecting SPICE to make allowances for your oversights. If the results are bad, it is because YOU caused them, not the SPICE program. Know the limits of the program, and don't expect it to think for you. If you can not think of all the variables, then don't use it, but stop putting the program down.
.99
Hmm ...
I just looked at the so called new RA circuit for the first time .... I'm sure I've seen this before in a PDF for testing mosfet avalanche on higher amperage loads .... I might have even posted it at Energetic Forum in the early days, I'll have to find it now.
What a Joke over at OU ..... please see attached from several months ago ...
Quote
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stefan Hartmann" <xxxxxxxx@googlemail.com>
To: "Glen Lettenmaier" <xxxxxxxx@comcast.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 3:04 PM
Subject: Re: Please Explain
I just don´t want you to have a fight again over the Rosemary circuit.
Also you hacked my forum you said...
She has shown me her new circuit already, but I pointed out
to her the grounding measurement problem.
Regards, Stefan.
P.S. You can use a different user name, but please don´t start
flamewars again !
2011/1/22 Glen Lettenmaier <xxxxxxxx@comcast.net>:
> Hi Stefan,
>
> It appears the people who aligned themselves on Rosemary Ainslie side of her
> continuous deceptions and lies are again being trashed.
>
> Rosemary Ainslie's "NEW" blog http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/
>
> Four Months have passed now ....
> 1) Where is Rosemary's published COP>17 circuit schematic or diagram of her
> project anywhere?
> 2) Where is Rosemary's published COP>17 circuit photograph or image
> anywhere?
> 3) You the "MODERATOR" unlocked a thread I locked to stop the insanity, and
> YOU the "MODERATOR" posted she had "NEW" information to share ... where is
> it, where are they ??
>
> 4) Why did you ban me for defending others plus my dignity and reputation
> against a 100% "VERIFIED" on five forums liar, cheat and a fraud also you
> totally siding with Rosemary and not believe anything from me or other
> members about our close personal experiences with her of your forum.
>
> What you have done to others and myself is unjust and unfair being there has
> been no personal response from you on WHY.
>
> Please, lift the ban to your forum on those you have with the exception of
> Rosemary ..... I will not ask again and will go on to a more productive
> environment leaving you alone with just these comments.
>
> Sincerely,
> Glen
--
Gruss, Stefan.
---
Dipl.Ing. Stefan Hartmann
Keplerstr. 11 B
10589 Berlin, Germany
Tel: +49 (0)30- 345 00 497
xxxxx@harti.com
xxxxxxxxxx@gmail.com
www.overunity.com www.overunity.de www.harti.com www.deutscheahnen.de
www.ufomovies.info www.free-energy.tv www.Ruhleben.com www.movieclipsfree.com
It's obvious that if I did have the capability of hacking his web site
why would I tell him or anyone I did or could ??
So I can come back under another name not the screen name I've used exclusively for over ten (10) years ??
Personally I won't tell you all what I think about it ..... he's not worth my time, and when I get my www.opensourceresearchanddevelopment.org web site up to use in conjunction with my http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment there will be a
special section for web sites such as his OU.com and premium web sites like here at Over Unity Research and a few others.
Best Regards,
Glen
;)
Hi Glen,
Funny thing is that Rose isn't even using her MOSFETs as switches any more. Now it's basically a linear-mode oscillator.
I sort of doubt that any of the MOSFET houses would do a test circuit that directly paralleled five parts without any source resistors or individual gate resistors as Rosemary seems to have done. After all...they are well known to break into large spurious oscillations if you do that! Anyway, there is absolutely nothing at all proprietary about Rose's circuit, especially since it seems to change weekly and she really has no clue how or why it does what it does, it seems. It's all magic and zipons to her.
Take care, fellow bannster! I really don't miss OU or Energetic Forum on little bit. There are a lot fewer total idiots over here and Poynt is really pretty competent and level-headed and without ulterior agendas or politics, as far as I can tell. O0
Humbugger (Bryan)
In the Rosie Follies Rosemary is once again trying/struggling to understand how an inductor works spurred on by a debate between Magluvin and Neptune about this matter. About two years ago myself and Poynt must have tried about 20 times each to explain this concept to Rosie. We tried and tried and tried and tried and failed.
Magluvin and Neptune are making real progress in understanding the Enigma of the Discharging Inductor. Keep at it dudes, don't give up, you are definitely on track.
Going back to the project, Rosemary still believes that there is something "special" about the oscillation. The truth is that there never was anything special about it. It casts doubt on Rosemary's "experts."
Slowly but surely we are converging on the truth as outlined by Humbugger. This is much ado about nothing and it is under unity all the way. There is nothing to "study" relative to the project but there is a lot for Rosemary and others to study if you want to have an understanding of electronics and the associated energy dynamics.
This whole deal is a big mistake that's been dragging on for about 10 years.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.03.21, 21:55:04
This whole deal is a big mistake that's been dragging on for about 10 years.
MileHigh
Never-ending story with the attention Queen ! It's all about her! I am sure she already realized and feeling inside, she is wrong, but one thing is sure, she will never admit it.
Until wide masses could use internet, she will have the necessary attention with any claim, and some fuzzy theory and bad measurement, nobody will care,hence most of the hypers/followers are incompetent in the subject.
I'm quite amazed how many hours you guys spent on her. :o
From Rosemary posted at OU.com today...
Quote
Guys - I've just read through Hamburger's long awaited debunk courtesy a simulated number. He's his own best critic. Here's a sample. 'I love to pierce it incisively until they are naked, if not bleeding.' Golly. From where I sit I'm still unscathed and fully dressed. He needs to revisit some of his claims. One proposal is that the MOSFET is fully turned on at some stages to allow for the - as he puts it - stellar - or was that solar? - increase in output. This would mean that our little embedded Zener would have to take the full value of 60 amps, during the 'off' time and the transistor itself - something marginally less than 60 amps, during the 'on' time. Pretty robust for something that's rated at plus/minus 6 amps.
The "it" that I love to pierce, which she conveniently declines to quote, is the cloud of obfuscating bullshit suurounding and concealing the truth of the way the circuits operate and the real measurements of Pin and Pout. As with almost everything she writes and publishes, there isn't much one can do except speculate and guess as to what is really going on on her bench.
The "proposal" that there may be times when the MOSFET is turned on and that maybe that was what was happening when Rosemary saw such huge heat in the load that she always quickly shut the experiment down was fully qualified by me as pure speculation and an educated guess. Where she get this 60A number from anything I wrote is a complete mystery.
Obviously to anyone with 1/10 of a brain, with a DC supply of 75V and at minimum a series resistor (the load) of 11.11 Ohms, the maximum current in the circuit would be I=E/R or 75/11.11 which ain't by my math 60A nor did I ever say anything of the kind. What I said was clear and that was that each MOSFET would only have to support 1.33A if indeed they were all fully turned on and that there would then be only about 500W in the load resistor at most.
She is obviously taking full advantage of the fact that I cannot post a reply over there to totally falsify what I said, take quotes out of context and otherwise generally further the game of obfuscation and lies. Where does she get this totally off the wall stuff? 60A? Where did I say any such thing?
Quote
But that aside - of interest is this obsessive need to disprove this. I think that what he finds most objectionable is that I am a self-confessed clutz who has no right to advance anything at all. He's right of course. But it's precisely because I am THAT mediocre that I have every confidence that this technology and these concepts can, eventually, be understood. I rather rely on this fact. Here's the thinking. If I can get my head around them - then anyone can. It clearly does not require brilliance. Just a little bit of common sense. And I'm the FIRST to admit that we've shown nothing new.
Getting huge amounts of heat without any drain from the power source is what Rosemary thinks and claims she has demonstrated. That would be something new. It defies all forms of commion sense and the basic laws of physics and all the observations of electrical engineers and physicists for the last 300 years. There is no "eventuality" involved in understanding just how Rosemary's circuit works...that is what I'm trying to clearly show. It is all very well understood and predicatble and not overunity.
Quote
It seems that the simulators do exactly what we show. The difference again is only in this. Humbugger dare not show the actual values applied to the sundry components. He tells us that he tweaks them. And, self- evidently, he tweaks them to favour under unity. Which is hardly surprising given that he seems to base his sense of self-worth - on an effective argument to deny all. And he DARE not show the phase relationships between the shunt and the batteries - this because they'll cancel out and dribble to death in no time at all. He then shows what he calls 'rosiewatts' and - far from being rosy - they're rather sick. And they seem to cost way, way too much. One thing that springs to mind is that he justifies increasing the measured inductance at the shunt from 110nH to 110 nH x 4. By rights this should divided - as that's the TOTAL that is measured. And so it goes. An adjustment here - a oversight there - a variation everywhere. What's new.
The values in the sim were taken directly from Rosie's published schematics wherever possible. Where I deviated or added best guesses it was fully explained exactly why in every instance. She does not ever show super-critical and important things like the inductance of the battery wiring, but has given some indications that allow us to estimate it from the lengths of wire she has used. Even Stefan Hartman (probably after reading my posts here) pointed out to her that the sole reason she keeps seeing hundreds of volts AC as the "battery voltage" is simply due to the long battery wiring scheme and her measuring point at the wrong end of these long wires.
Her remarks about me adding the four reported shunt inductances are totally incorrect. That would add up to 440nH and I fully explained that all I did was add a few nH to her total of 110nH to account for the wire lengths as observed in her picture of the bench setup, I think I clearly said I used 180nH, but, as it turns out, the value here makes extremely little or no visible difference to the circuit operation; only the falseness of the current measurement waveforms.
Regarding me "tweaking" any values, I'll say two things:
1) The circuit immediately ran in the very same mode as Rosemary's and with very nearly the exact same waveforms she reports, including continuous oscillations, the very first time I turned it on.
2) Where I tweaked was only to slightly adjust the amplitude of the voltage on the load resistor to closely match her reported 40W output heating power. I fully explained that, as well and it didn't take much of any tweaking. In fact, what I tweaked was simply the estimation of her battery wiring inductance which no one including her knows the true value of anyway! Her implication...make that outright statement...is that I spent a great deal of time tweaking values so that the circuit would not show overunity. That is complete bullshit. The very first and only power in/out measurement estimates were directly and honestly reported with a complete explanation of the method used. It's not as if my initial testing yielded copious amounts of overunity and I spent huge efforts trying and finally succeeding to tamp that down to 75%. Now watch her leave out the first 4 words of that last sentence and quote it in her blog and a post over at Hartmann's site. C.C
The circuit is simply operating as a linear oscillator and the output is running into a tuned network consisting of the load inductance, battery wiring inductance and MOSFET output capacitance. It is operating in what RF design engineers (of which I am one) call class C operation and the expected and measured efficiency is exactly in agreement with well-known data gathered both theoretically and emperically over a hundred years of RF power design work by many experts and academics.
Regarding daring not to show the "phase relationship between the shunt and the batteries", there is no phase relationship. The batteries are a DC voltage. In fact, the tiny AC ripple that is actually present on the batteries due to their finite internal resistance is indeed exactly 180 degrees out of phase with the current, as would always be expected, since the lowest points of the battery ripple obviously will correspond to the highest points of current draw and vice versa. This will be true no matter what circuitry is being evaluated. It's called Ohm's law.
Humbugger
Obsession
I am not in any way obsessed with Rosemary and her circus. I have made my best honest effort to "put paid" to the mystery and confusion that surrounds it. I made a straightforward simulation based on the best information available and a few completely reasonable estimates where direct information was absent. The simulation behaved precisely as her circuit does with the same approximate frequency of oscillation, very similar amplitudes (sensitive primarily to changes in the dominant output load inductance which is not that of her special load resistor but rather the battery wiring length) and shows virtually the same waveforms and shapes as the hardware circuit. All that occurred immediately upon starting the very first simulation schematic. Coincidence?
To prove that I am not obsessed, this will be my last commentary and work regarding Rosemary Ainslie. I have done what I could in the best way I know how to reveal what the circuit is doing and to explain how and why. I can move on now and simply become once again a casual and mildly-entertained observer of the ongoing follies. I suggest that others do the same and I see that many already have long since. Thanks to all for watching and hopefully learning something here and there.
Humbugger
P.S. I have spent probably 20 hours over the last six months studying, debating and commenting on this matter on various forums and in my spare time. I have a lot of spare time, I confess. Rosemary, on the other hand, has spent ten years obsessing and writing and "publishing" and arguing and avoiding doing simple tests and trying unsuccessfully to get even one single named academic to even look at and publicly comment on her insane and completely amateurish uneducated "work" and its associated millions of words of undecipherable drivel. Who is obsessed?
Don't quit now Hum.
I haven't yet posted my sim results. ^-^
.99
What a deal Hum, you get blocked and don't have a say, and the women rails on you. I feel for you pal. Sounds like she's the obsessed one.
There are so many unique circuits out there, and when the right "personality" stumbles on one of these they can make such unbearable "noise" (to the educated of course) I just look and shake my head, that way nobody sees me and can't judge me :)
EM
No...Poynt...
I am done with it. You will no doubt have trouble as you have already mentioned getting sustained oscillation unless you introduce some series L (500nH ~ 2uH) into the gate and use a low resistance there.
This is the one arguable weakness in my simulation and I'm not at all afraid to say so myself. Long ago in my earlier sims I discovered this fact. I attribute the real reasons for continued oscillation to two things that are beyond knowing at this point:
1) The impedance and length of the gate drive cable
2) The coupling between the same gate drive cable and the load, which appear to be in quite close proximity in the photo of the test setup.
As an honest person, I will just say in that regard that the circuit, in hardware on Rosemary's bench appears to oscillate freely and that that fact is well accepted by all and is not at all surprising given the layout and the countless unaccounted-for possible couplings and parasitic L's and C's.
Furthermore, the Spice models of MOSFETs fail to implement or account for the non-linear capacitance change in Coss and Crs dependent on voltage, which may well have something to do with the tendency toward oscillation in real hardware. I did what was necessary to get the circuit to run virtually exactly like Rosemary's circuit does so that I could demonstrate clearly three things:
1) The battery voltage measurements she relies upon are completely bogus due to the long battery wires. Vb is a DC quantity with only miniscule AC component due to battry internal resistance.
2) Her current measurements are completely bogus as long as the shunt contains inductive reactance that far overwhelms its resistance.
3) Properly measured, the battery current is net positive and indeed power in excess of that appearing in load dissipation is drawn from the battery in exact accordance with the behavior of a class C RF common source feedback MOSFET oscillator.
By all means carry on as you see fit, but I'm through with Rosemary and her time-wasting lies, obfuscation and wild incorrect assertions.
:)
Hum
@ EM You are a wiser man than I, obviously. ;D
THIS POST IS COPYRIGHTED AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED, QUOTED OR COPIED IN WHOLE OR IN PART TO ANY OTHER INTERNET LOCATION WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE AUTHOR :D
No problem Hum.
You've done some very good work in your circuit descriptions and getting the sim to work. Kudos. O0
.99
I see you over there at OU. Funny how your sim is accepted with kudos by Rosemary while mine is dissed as being a completely tweaked lie (despite tat they show the same behavior). Great science there, Rosemary.
Since I used only a single 1uS pulse, non-repeating, to start the oscillations, I never studied the assertion that there is zero shunt current when the MOSFETs are turned hard on. Anyone who believes that one should be buying oceanfront property in Nebraska.
Can;t wait to hear "MAG's" explanation of how this works.
Humbugger
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.03.22, 01:59:25
Can;t wait to hear "MAG's" explanation of how this works.
Humbugger
Ohhh... I am so rusty here and I only did a quickie look up....
But I believe that Rosie's magic circuit has a pair of poles on the left side of the S-plane.
(http://i.cmpnet.com/planetanalog/2008/10/C0343-Figure1.gif)
QuoteIn mathematics and engineering, the S plane is the name for the complex plane on which Laplace transforms are graphed. It is a mathematical domain where, instead of viewing processes in the time domain modelled with time-based functions, they are viewed as equations in the frequency domain. It is used as a graphical analysis tool in engineering and physics.
A real time function is translated into the 's' plane by taking the integral of the function, multiplied by e − st from -\infty to \infty, where s is a complex number.
One way to understand what this equation is doing is to remember how Fourier analysis works. In Fourier analysis, harmonic sine and cosine waves are multiplied into the signal, and the resultant integration provides indication of a signal present at that frequency (i.e. the signal's energy at a point in the frequency domain). The 's' transform does the same thing, but more generally. The e-st not only catches frequencies, but also the real e-t effects as well. 's' transforms therefore cater not only for frequency response, but decay effects as well. For instance, a damped sine wave can be modeled correctly using 's' transforms.
's' transforms are commonly known as Laplace transforms. In the 's' plane, multiplying by s has the effect of differentiating in the corresponding real time domain. Dividing by s integrates.
Analysing the complex roots of an 's' plane equation and plotting them on an Argand diagram, can reveal information about the frequency response and stability of a real time system.
So Rosie, you have been fooled by two bumps on your S-Plane.
Who woulda thought???That the way the cookies (and the Zipons) crumble!!!! :'(
MileHigh
P.S.: Some of you hot edgy free energy jockeys just learned how little you know about engineering and the Real World. Keep your hands in your pockets and marvel at the blinking lights.
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.03.22, 01:59:25
I see you over there at OU. Funny how your sim is accepted with kudos by Rosemary while mine is dissed as being a completely tweaked lie (despite tat they show the same behavior). Great science there, Rosemary.
It's probably only because your sim was not shown with a few cycles as I did.
Quote
Since I used only a single 1uS pulse, non-repeating, to start the oscillations, I never studied the assertion that there is zero shunt current when the MOSFETs are turned hard on. Anyone who believes that one should be buying oceanfront property in Nebraska.
Can;t wait to hear "MAG's" explanation of how this works.
Humbugger
Indeed, I am having difficulty figuring out why her shunt trace is at zero. Mine is showing about 1.5V or so, and hey, 0.25/11 x 72 = about 1.6V. It would seem what I'm showing is about right.
.99
Stefan, Rosemary:
QuoteSo he might have tuned his simulation for underunity.
Humbuger did not have this in his sim.
As I said, if we have a new effect here it can not be simulated by simulation software just
baded on standard theory.
To state that Humbugger "might have tuned his simulation for under unity," comments that both of you have made, are nonsensical foolishness. I'm pretty sure that neither of you even understands how the simulations work. So neither of you even have any basis for making your statements, and your statements are wrong. The is simply no such thing as "tuning a simulation for under unity." By the same token there is no such thing as the simulation software being "over unity aware" which is a question that Rosie raised many months ago.
The simulation simply runs based on the circuit and the initial conditions. That's it, there is no control over it beyond that.
Stefan, you are morally bankrupt when you talk about Humbugger's comments after you banned him from your site because he can't respond directly. Speculations about your motives have already been explored. If you had real character you would let him debate with you on your site if he was interested, but he has clearly indicated that he is not interested anymore.
Stefan, there is no "new effect that cannot be simulated." One more time this is no more than a faint-hope idea in your and Rosie's heads that has no rationale or basis in fact. It's nothing more than free energy fantasy talk about a test setup that was incorrectly measured by an incompetent team of "experts" in South Africa. They are incompetent because for months now the statement was made that the battery voltage had to be measured directly on the battery terminals and that was never done. That's just one example.
The truth will prevail and it's an important principle that must take precedence over any fantasies about zero net energy consumption from the battery bank and Zipons running around in Rosie's head.
The bottom line is that neither of you are technically competent to understand what is truly going on here and Rosie showed her moral bankruptcy by refusing to make any alternative tests or take heed of the advice about where to place her scope probes. Now, in true free energy fashion, the setup has been disassembled, the DSOs have been returned, and chances are Rosie will never again be able to get a university to come on board and allocate space, equipment, and resources to her "project." She had ample time to make proper measurements when she had the equipment but she refused to do this and now everything is gone. The opportunity to make proper measurements is lost and Rosie engineered this. She can now hide behind this and point to her squiggly-lines in her DSO captures and state that it's an "effect that should be investigated further."
I'll repeat again, this is just a whole lot of nonsense over an amplified MOSFET circuit spontaneously going into oscillation. It is a well known phenomenon associated with most amplifier circuits that means nothing at all.
The ship has sunk as far as I am concerned and the good guys and the truth won.
MileHigh
P.S.:
Stefan said:
QuoteMaybe the nichrome wire in the heater element or the spiral shape
of the heater element also plays a role here. This could not be seen in any simulation
software...
Groan.... That's you Stefan clearly showing the world that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Yes, now both Hartmann and Rosebud are off in na-na land accusing me of all kinds of dishonesty while preventing me from replying. As expected and shows their character is exactly in line with what I suggested. No surprise.
Hartmann points to the below scope shot as being clear evidence that most of the waveform on the shunt is negative in area. Rosemary points to it and screams that it's a baffling miracle that zero volts are on the shunt (no current drawn) when the MOSFETs are turned full on. It's Rosemary's own scope shot.
Just look at it. I've drawn in the 7.2V offset zero current line. First of all, one cannot see the waveform or judge in any way whether it has more area above or below zero. Rosie never shows the waveforms, just the envelopes. The second thing that's totally obvious is that there is clearly and plainly a positive voltage of exactly the expected normal magnitude for the 6 or 7 Amps that will flow from the battery when the MOSFETs are on.
How Rose and now Hartmann can look at this trace (which Hartmann selected as a great illustration of these things) and proclaim that there is zero volts on the shunt during on-time is the only mystery here. They are approaching desperate insanity and the use of pathological lies that anyone who takes a moment to check can see are lies is the last grasp of the straw here, I guess.
Humbugger
P.S.
Also note that the reported "Cycle Mean" for that trace is -3.56V when it's clear that the envelope never even peaks at -3.56 Volts, having a maximum negative excursion of about 2.2 Volts and an obvious mean that would appear to be close to zero (just as my sim showed when the inductance of the shunt was included) but in reality is a positive number. And that doesn't even count the ON time where the oscillations stop and the shunt voltage indicates positive 1.6V or so steadily. Can you look at that trace and see how the scope could claim the mean was negative and beyond the peak excursion? It is clear that the numbers being calculated in the LeCroy are completely wrong. How or why I have no idea, but clearly they are way off
Has Paint been used to cut and paste fake scope traces over scope math numbers from a totally different set of traces? The correlation (or total lack thereof) between the pictures and the captions suggests once again that purposeful deception or at least monumental incompetence is the prevailing factor here.
I MUST SHOUT THIS, SORRY. HERE IS STEFAN'S POST REGARDING MY SIM:
Quote
I also had a look at his simulations.
His shunt voltages never looked like the voltages Rosemary showed here on her scopeshots.
So he might have tuned his simulation for underunity.
Especially this scopeshots:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10407.0;attach=51615
shows, that the orange colored input current at the shunt is almost everytime
negative.
Humbuger did not have this in his sim.
Rose, please post more zommed in scopehots of this scopeshot, by just showing
3 or 4 wavecycles and not the full burst please.
THE QUITE OBVIOUS REASON THAT MY SIM SHOTS DON'T LOOK LIKE ROSEMARY'S SCOPE TRACES IS THAT I TOOK CARE TO SHOW JUST SEVERAL (FIVE) CYCLES OF THE ACTUAL OSCILLATION AND NEVER SHOWED THE ABSOLUTELY MEANINGLESS AND GROSSLY UNDERSAMPLED BURST ENVELOPES. HARTMANN EVEN SAYS HE WISHES ROSE TO ADJUST HER TIMEBASE TO SHOW CLEARLY (AND SAMPLE PROPERLY) THE ACTUAL CYCLE BY CYCLE WAVEFORM OF THE OSCILLATIONS.
ROSE RESPONDS BY SAYING SHE NEVER TOOK A SINGLE SCOPE SHOT OF JUST A FEW CYCLES OF THE OSCILATION.
HARTMANN, I HAVE LOST ANY BIT OF RESPECT I EVER MIGHT HAVE HAD FOR YOU AS AN HONEST HUMAN BEING OR A COMPETENT BENCH TECHNICIAN. JUST LIKE ROSEMARY, YOU IGNORE THE OBVIOUS AND CLEARLY-STATED DEMONSTRATED FACTS SHOWN BY MY SIM AND EVEN BY THE ROSIE SCOPE TRACE ITSELF AND CONTRADICT YOURSELF WITHIN A SINGLE POST . YOU FREELY BASH MY SIM AND SUGGEST I HAVE GONE OUT OF MY WAY TO FAKE IT TO SHOW UNDER-UNITY RESULTS WHILE YOU BLOCK ME FROM POSTING ANY REPLY OR ARGUMENT. YOU ARE THE LOWEST OF THE LOW, YOU FREAKING IDIOT.
CHEESEBURGER
Relax Hum, this will blow over. The truth will come out. ;)
The offset voltages noted on the Lecroy scope have no bearing on the measurements, and have no real meaning actually.
I am still puzzled however how or why the shunt voltage can be 0V when the FET is ON :o
It is not a case of AC coupling in the scope, that seems clear. Then what?
Must think about this...
.99
We are not looking at the same picture, obviously. The shunt trace is offset by 7.2V and that then becomes the zero line against which all the statements are made regarding being above or below zero. How you can sit there and say it is meaningless I cannot fathom. The scope shot in question shows a positive voltage above the zero line by 1.5~1.6 Vollts when the MOSFETs are turned on. Look at it again. It in no way agrees with the -3.56V Cycle mean the scope then reports. Do you not see this?
Also, do you see the two arbitrarily=placed vertical cursors? Could these be defining the extent of her math samples? Could it be that there are actually four cursors placed in pairs so close together as to be seen as single cursors? And then arbitrarily swept around until happy numbers are achieved? All I can say is I wouldn't put it past her to do that or to put a small 0805 size cap in series with her probe on the video trace of the current trace to make it appear to be DC coupled when it is actually AC coupled.
YOU AND I AND EVERYONE WITH A BRAIN KNOWS THAT THERE IS CURRENT FLOWING OUT OF THE BATTERY WHEN THE mosfetS ARE TURNED ON AND THE LOAD IS HOOKED ACROSS THE BATTERY AND THE SCOPESHOT BELOW AGREES EXACTLY WITH WHAT THAT CURRENT SHOULD BE AND IS.
Humbugger
P.S. I understand that the so-called offset is just the vertical position control and does not play into the scope math. But it is clearly crucial in looking at the trace and knowing where zero is to judge what is above or below zero volts and by how much.
By the way, why are you posting all of you sim results over on OU and ignoring those of us on your own forum here?
here is the famous video of the presentation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc)
Of interest and pertinence to the above discussion between Poynt and me (and Stefan and Rose through their one-way mirror) are the two different scope shots, one of the LeCroy and one of the Tektronix which are said to be hooked up to the same points.
Freeze the video at 3:55 and look at the top trace. It appears to be exactly symmetrical above and below zero and the non-oscillating part appears to be at exactly zero volts.
Now freeze the other scope display shown seconds later at 4:06 into the video, and look again at the top (current shunt) trace. Now it appears that the oscillations are not any longer symmetrical around the flatline of the trace of the non-oscillating part. If you notice where the zero arrow on the left is in this trace, it is once again clear that the MOSFET on time shows a strong positive current flow through the shunt...same as the picture I show in the above discussions (the one that Rose and Hartman claim shows zero volts during non-oscillation but which actually shows +1.6V).
How is it that these two scope traces of the LeCroy and the Tek do not in any way agree as to the shunt voltage and its relationship to zero? Why is the LeCroy scope view quickly panned away from and the Tek view is held in frame for many seconds?
Could it be that this important discrepancy between the two measuring devices was purposely glossed over and not mentioned? Since the two histograms do not agree one or both of them are wrong. In any case, the sweep speed is too slow to make any kind of accurate sampling possible of the actual oscillation waveforms which are never ever shown at all. And the Tek scope is indicating that there is an Unstable Histogram as well, making sampled measurements even more questionable here.
Humbugger
Forgive me for obsessing just a tiny bit more :-[
Over at the "other forum", someone (a new registrant) commented on how sad it was that there was no question/answer period from the assembled crowd of scholars and experts. Rosemary quickly accused the commenter of being Catlady and refused to answer.
So I listened once more, with the volume turned up all the way, to the video and I noticed something very strange. Here, according to Rosemary, we have a room full of academics and one student enjoying refreshments and raptly watching the great demonstration. Yet, if you listen carefully, you hear not one cough, not one stranger's background voice, not one clearing of a throat.
We hear only the unknown and unnamed presenter and we hear Rosemary quietly babbling and whispering prompts to him and muttering quietly at various times. I find it odd that we hear not one single bit of evidence that any other living soul was in the room. Rosemary's voice is distinct and easily recognized if you have ever seen her other videos where she tries awkwardly to explain zipons.
Ponder that C.C
Maybe the crowd were all required to wear gags?
Humbugger
Finally (I promise),,,and speaking of gagging...excuse me while I barf:
At 8:40 into the video, while showing 190C which is claimed to be equivalent to 44W on the load, we have a nice closeup of the LeCroy scope, shown below.
Look at the numbers. +243 mV (about +1A) on the 0.25 Ohm shunt flowing out of the battery and +50.3 VDC the battery voltage, also positive, of course. By my calculations, even without using a fancy oscilloscope or even a calculator, that comes out to 50 Watts coming out of the battery. That's 44/50 or 88% efficiency.
Recall that my measured simulator efficiency during the oscillation period was 75% and my best guess of what it would be during any time the MOSFETs were hard on was 95%+. The demo uses 50% duty cycle between the two modes, and guess what number is about half way between 75 and 95%...well...it's 85%. So the plain common sense as measured by Rosemary right in the video efficiency agrees almost exactly with my sim and my predictions. Another coincidence?
Yet look at the scope math of the supposed Vshunt x Vbatt product. It shows -5.43 VVs. And that's what is said to be the input power. Minus 5 ... the narrator hesitates and fails to say the word Watts (8:25 into the video). Now first of all, how would the scope math know the shunt value in order to calculate Watts? Then there's the real problem: Two positive numbers whose multiplied product is negative. This is an irrefutable demonstration of the fact that grossly undersampled scope traces subjected to scope math yield completely garbage numbers as output. Or that something else is horribly awry.
The -5.43 V x V math trace number is not only bogus but it is only supposed to be the product of the voltages (which it gets wrong) and couldn't possibly be Watts, since the scope knows nothing about the fact that one signal represents current nor does it know the shunt value to convert the voltage to its equivalent current. All of her reported numbers and results are fraught with this same kind of grotesque errors that show that the scope is misreporting and that she has no idea what it's even supposed to be reporting.
Sure would love to hear Rosemary and her team or anyone else explain that one! 8)
Humbugger
P.S. I know a really neat trick to boost that efficiency up to 100%. Toss out everything on the table and connect the load to the batteries directly! Told ya I was a clever monkey >:-)
@Humbugger
QuoteHow is it that these two scope traces of the LeCroy and the Tek do not in any way agree as to the shunt voltage and its relationship to zero?
Don't you know anything, the zipons have a tendency to loosen the jimson saddles in the flux capacitors causing tachyon distortions in the space-time continuum.
Regards
AC
Jimson saddles? Shit...I forgot about those...never mind then. Sorry folks, I guess I was wrong. I've heard of Jimson Weed and I must have been smoking some this morning. Please, please forgive me my sins and errors! :o
Humbugger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datura_stramonium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datura_stramonium)
Quote
Datura intoxication typically produces a complete inability to differentiate reality from fantasy (delirium, as contrasted to hallucination); hyperthermia; tachycardia; bizarre, and possibly violent behavior; and severe mydriasis with resultant painful photophobia that can last several days. Pronounced amnesia is another commonly reported effect.[8] The antidote of choice for overdose or poisoning is physostigmine.
Have another hit, Rosie!
I'm confused now ...
The batteries RA is using in the 60V DC bank in the world renowned SA demo are a "silver calcium" type, but those slippery zippieons are where the extra energy comes from using a "lead acid" battery we were told not the circuit electronic components .... so that's why a capacitor bank cant work because of no sulfuric acid ? :D
http://www.energeticforum.com/91694-post437.html
Quote
Ok. Batteries vary - one from another. Each manufacturer uses his own variety of trace elements in the electrodes to increase the plate's efficiencies. There's no hard and fast rule. But assuming that we are talking about your average lead acid battery - then the mix - very broadly, is plates of lead, lead dioxide with a mix of sulphuric acid used as an electrolyte. Now. The sulphur bonds with the lead, and systematically during discharge the electrolyte mixture turns to pure water as the sulphur is systematically leached out of the electrolyte mix.
The zipon thesis proposes that the bonding of those electrolytes - that sulphuric acid is managed by zipons. The atomic mix - the base - is acidic - indicating that it has an imbalanced valence condition in the atoms. Then those atoms have been further bonded into molecules which, in the case of sulphuric acid would be two hydrogen atoms to four sulphur atoms. The thesis proposes that the molecules are actually bonded by these extraneous fields of zipons. The acid state indicates an imbalanced valence condition. Therefore the bonding zipon fields share that same imbalance. There are too many 'like spins' in the bonding zipon fields. Just imagine this as fields all spinning clockwise. What's needed for balance is that half the fields spin anticlockwise. Zipons always move to generate a balance. That's an immutable imperative.
By separating from the molecular bond the zipons are able to move the sulphur atom towards the elctrode. This 'breaks' the symmetry of that molecular orbit. The zipons that belong to the sulphur, then attach the suphur atom to that lead. This forms another molecule - not sure what it is but may be lead sulphate or somesuch. You'll know. Now the hydrogen atoms are unbonded from the sulphur. But the hydrogen also has it's fields of binding zipons. These are released through the electrolyte in bubbles which gravitate towards the terminals of the battery. Now it needs to incorporate the hydrogen back into the mix as this is essentially trapped within the structure of the battery. Now the zipons break their symmetries - that bonding condition holding those hydrogen atoms - they line up head to toe at the postive terminal and simply move - lickety split - through the circuit - generating that current flow. They then represent at the negative terminal, re-enter the electrolyte base and rebond the hydrogen - this time with the water in the base, thereby forming hard water. Net result - a complete neutralisation of the previously acidic condition of the electrolyte.
Now reverse that current flow and the previously acidic condition is re-established. That reversal is organised by the introduction of new fields of potential energy - this time generated from the material of the resistor. Here the symmetries are broken that half the fields are routed anticlockwise through the circuit. This is reverse current flow. That reverse path also feeds through the battery. In its passage through the battery the previous condition is simply reversed and the sulphuric acid is reconstituded.
Does that make it clear. LOL.
C.C
???
All along, I thought the extra energy was supposed to be from the slow but sure breakdown of the load resistor material. :-\
I just read the last couple of pages of the OU thread and I want to curl up into a ball. You've got Magluvn who was more or less on the right track in understanding how a discharging coil works losing it and getting the over unity giddies. Rosemary looks at his comments about Woopy's little demo clip and demonstrates that she still hasn't the slightest clue herself.
This is all very Salvador Dali and I am going insane! lol :D
(http://www.tinytines.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/dali.jpg)
(http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/dali.jpg)
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.03.24, 01:02:03
All along, I thought the extra energy was supposed to be from the slow but sure breakdown of the load resistor material. :-\
Yes, but keep this key bit of Rosemary's advice in mind whenever you think about the load resistor and it's physical arrangement:
QuoteWhatever else you use - try and keep a threaded rod number of sorts.
I swear to God that is a direct quote from a post over on that other forum with her giving Neptune advice on the load resistor for his replication. There was no explanatory context. Poor Neptune...
Humbug
Has anyone yet been able to figure out how this shunt voltage measurement can be showing 0V while the FET is ON? :-\
.99
Yes, I think so. If you look closely, I think you'll see that the gate voltage is very close to zero or at least below 3~4 Volts during the so-called MOSFET "on" time. In other words, the MOSFET is not on at all. Apparently, the oscillation tendency is killed at the first hint of MOSFET enhancement.
This also clearly explains Rosemary's two "modes", the low power one (shown here) where there is no ON time really and she gets 5W in the load and the 44W high power mode where half the time the MOSFETss are on and half the time they oscilate. Both of our sims show this second higher power mode, so we see the current draw during the actual on time.
The shoe fits quite well. If you go back and look at Rose's various scope shots, you'll see that many of them show positive shunt current during the non-oscillating periods and some don't. She mixes them in randomly, giving no clues. Probably because she has no idea that's why she sees (but lies about and twists) positive battery drain during the higher power modes and nothing but noise (which she interprets as battery charging) during the "on" times of the low power mode where she has adjusted the sig-gen offset such that the high gate drive just bearly touches Vgs ON.
Hum
It does look as if the Gate voltage is slightly negative, so I would agree. Very odd gate wave form there. I think our models are incomplete, but I don't really want to spend too much more time on trying to perfect the wave forms...it could take quite a while, and I have already tried a few different things with no luck.
I suppose the Ainslie circuit topic will be quiet for a while until someone else replicates it. The scopes are returned, and my impression is there will be no further testing by Rose.
.99
Yeah, the thread over there seems to have been taken over by Magluvin with his "new" revelations about "FEMF" as MH was saying.
The MOSFET gate doesn't have to be negative, you know of course, just below the Vgs threshold, usually 3-4V positive. This stuff is what I was trying to show you in post #314 of this thread with the 7.2V offset you kept saying was meaningless. So I gave up. See also posts 316 (yours) and 317 (mine).
Hum
In that post, #314, I see that the shunt indicates current, and that the FET is definitely ON. (I still see no significance of the 7.2V offset, as I have the little tick to the left side to tell me where the zero reference is, and that is all that is important. I can count graticules from that zero ref point, and I don't need to know that it is offset 7.2V from the scope zero reference line)
Did you happen to notice the Math vertical setting? 10kW, with a 30.8kW offset! There is a mighty big but thin spike there if you look closely. The mean of the math shows 41.5W. Hmm,,,, what does Rose say about that input power?
.99
I guess she says, "yeah, but it's negative 41.5W!"
.99
Here is an observation, again referencing the scope shot in #314:
Battery mean = +73.3V
Shunt mean = +179mV
That is a positive input power of 13.12W. That means it is source power, not re-charging power.
.99
EDIT:
Correction, since the shunt is a 0.25 Ohm (not 1 Ohm), the input power actually calculates to about 52.5W.
Maybe you knew where zero was before i drew my long line through the little mark but then why did you keep saying you couldn't understand why the current was zero (and Stefan and Rose kept saying that too, regarding that picture). That's what frustrated me.
Also, please note that what looks like a big W is not a W at all and does not mean Watts. It is VV or V*V, meaning Volts times Volts...the math multiply trace. How would the scope know that one of the traces was from a current shunt and represented current? How would it know what the shunt value was to get a number in Watts?
I suspect that the LeCroy is not multiplying the averaged values of the two traces, but is multiplying the point-by-point samples and then taking the maen of that. That's why there is disagreement between the product of the mean values shown for each trace and the math mean. As far as measuring the input power, with a virtually DC voltage in this case, the old-fashioned way of just getting the mean for the shunt voltage, factoring the shunt resistance in and multiplying by battery voltage is the right way to do it, I think. When she's in the high power mode, doing this with her shunt violtage mean gives the same results I got: 50W input power for 44W output heat. That's based on 75% efficiency half the time (oscillating) and 95+% efficiency the other half, while the MOSFETs are actually turned on.
I posted all this over there at OU and I think I posted it here too...not sure. Stefan has been holding my posts for days but finally putting them up, much to Rosie's dismay. He even finally posted that long one I copied here that you said he wasn't going to put up. He just did that today, in fact. Weird guy, that Stefan.
Hum
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.03.24, 02:49:28
Here is an observation, again referencing the scope shot in #314:
Battery mean = +73.3V
Shunt mean = +179mV
That is a positive input power of 13.12W. That means it is source power, not re-charging power.
.99
Yeah..the shit is all over the map when Rosie reports it. I'm sure she would have said the load power was 40W or 400W or something if she was forced to accept a positive battery draw,
The big demo part 2 where she shows the load getting 44W clearly shows 50W being pulled from the battery if you multiply the 243mV shunt average (positive) and the 50.3V positive battery voltage but she prefers to quote the V*V number which showed -5.43.
She and her team also obviously think that VV is a W and means Watts. Common sense and reading the manual and knowing that the scope has no idea one trace represents current nor any idea of the shunt value would preclude the scope from calculating Watts.
The scope math V*V trace and reporte dnumber are just totally off base obviously. It gives a negative number when both the arguments means are positive numbers. Rosie's entire "proof" is based on this one glaring misunderstanding and gross scope math error in every case. She and her team and 99% of the readers have no basis in scope use knowledge nor common electronics sense, as you know. This has been an extreme example of what can happen when monkeys with theories get hold of instruments far beyond their ability to understand or use properly.
Thee way she displays the scope traces is the reason. If she were to have made properly-sampled measurements on a single zoomed-in and well settled typical oscillation cycle trace, the answers would be entirely different. As it is, her sampling is way undersampled and therefore, along with the wild Vbatt singing of 100V or more and the shunt inductance and all the associated phase shifts...the V*V numbers are totally meaningless.
HUm
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.03.24, 03:00:15
Maybe you knew where zero was before i drew my long line through the little mark but then why did you keep saying you couldn't understand why the current was zero (and Stefan and Rose kept saying that too, regarding that picture). That's what frustrated me.
Of course I knew where zero was, the tick shows you this. ;) Use the reported offset number if you wish, but it is not necessary, and furthermore, it will not always be there. They could have accomplished the very same thing just by moving the trace vertical with the vertical position dial.
Quote
Also, please note that what looks like a big W is not a W at all and does not mean Watts. It is VV or V*V, meaning Volts times Volts...the math multiply trace. How would the scope know that one of the traces was from a current shunt and represented current? How would it know what the shunt value was to get a number in Watts?
It does mean watts, if you take into account the value of the shunt resistor, which in this case is 0.25 Ohms. So take the reported VV and multiply by 4x.
Quote
I suspect that the LeCroy is not multiplying the averaged values of the two traces, but is multiplying the point-by-point samples and then taking the maen of that.
Yes, that is correct.
Quote
When she's in the high power mode, doing this with her shunt violtage mean gives the same results I got: 50W input power for 44W output heat. That's based on 75% efficiency half the time (oscillating) and 95+% efficiency the other half, while the MOSFETs are actually turned on.
I recalculated my input power above, as I forgot to take into account the 4x multiplier, and it comes out to 52.5W, which is close to what you said.
.99
Yes sir ee
By the way, after Stefan Hartman chalked up the -5.43VV error to the offset messing up the math (which I knew was wrong but said nothing lest I be banned again) I went and downloaded a copy of the LeCroy manual for that scope.
The "Position" control is labelled "Offset" and has no bearing on the math at all. There is no seperate means of adding offset.
Hum
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.03.24, 03:38:05
Yes sir ee
By the way, after Stefan Hartman chalked up the -5.43VV error to the offset messing up the math (which I knew was wrong but said nothing lest I be banned again) I went and downloaded a copy of the LeCroy manual for that scope.
The "Position" control is labelled "Offset" and has no bearing on the math at all. There is no seperate means of adding offset.
Hum
The Tek scopes have an entry for offset (not the same as vertical position dial) and so I assumed the LeCroy did also. Guess I assumed wrong.
.99
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.03.24, 03:14:21
The big demo part 2 where she shows the load getting 44W clearly shows 50W being pulled from the battery if you multiply the 243mV shunt average (positive) and the 50.3V positive battery voltage but she prefers to quote the V*V number which showed -5.43.
MEAN[bat] * MEAN[shunt] does not necessary means MEAN[bat * shunt]
average batter can be positive, average shunt can be positive, average power can still be negative.
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2011.03.24, 04:13:20
MEAN[bat] * MEAN[shunt] does not necessary means MEAN[bat * shunt]
average batter can be positive, average shunt can be positive, average power can still be negative.
Oh, really? Please describe or show one example of a DC battery with a positive mean current being drawn where the power is negative (net charge to the battery). I'll be waiting with bated breath. And it's a good thing too because I just ate a garlic pizza.
Humbugger
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.03.24, 04:38:58
Oh, really? Please describe or show one example of a DC battery with a positive mean current being drawn where the power is negative (net charge to the battery). I'll be waiting with bated breath. And it's a good thing too because I just ate a garlic pizza.
Humbugger
If I have the mojo to say it, then I must have a back up plan. What's in it for me? How about this. I show you, you do a sim for the prof.
@Humbugger
QuoteWhen she's in the high power mode, doing this with her shunt violtage mean gives the same results I got: 50W input power for 44W output heat. That's based on 75% efficiency half the time (oscillating) and 95+% efficiency the other half, while the MOSFETs are actually turned on.
If standard theory holds then the circuit must be 100% efficient as all the input electrical energy would be converted to heat somewhere in the circuit.
I think the single biggest issue in the forums in regards to interpreting oscilloscope traces is that people are trying to interpret an inductive discharge just as they would an AC waveform which is a mistake. When we see an AC waveform the positive voltage above the zero boundary shows the forward direction of current and the voltage below the zero boundary shows a reversal of current due to a reversal of the source voltage. The voltage indicated below the zero boundary is not negative electricity as others have supposed but simply a reversal of the source voltage.
With an inductive discharge things are a little different, when we charge an inductance the indicated voltage polarity across the coil is the same as the source voltage and the direction of current is forward. Then when we disconnect the source voltage the inductance discharges with an opposite voltage polarity but the current flow remains in the forward direction. This is where some people have made a mistake in assuming that the current has reversed just because the voltage polarity has but this is not the case, the current remains in the forward direction the same as when it started. One easy way to prove this is to place a diode in series with the inductance like we often see in boost converters , if the current has reversed then why would it flow through the output diode but it does dispite the fact that the voltage polarity across the inductance has reversed.
I know this phenomena all to well and it has led to premature balding and a compulsive need to howl at the moon because when you want to separate a forward source current from an inductive discharge current both following a singular path then diodes do not work. I have had to resort to biased mosfets to detect and switch the current however then a new problem pops up because the inductive voltage rise is way faster than the mosfet can switch and this leads to high voltage transients saturating the circuitry. I have even had cases where simply adding one single ultra-fast diode in series with an inductive discharge has led to a voltage rise of over 200v simply because the damn thing conducts about as fast as paint dries.
I guess my point here is that most of what I have seen from the "real" scope traces in the forums has led me to believe that the data is being misinterpreted in many cases by both the user and the oscilloscope, there is no negative electricity, no negative current, nor a reversal in current charging the source. This is why I switched over to fundamental physics where voltage is replaced with differential charge density and current with the motion of charges due to a differential charge density. This way a person can depict or plot the circuit parameters before testing and have at least half an idea what we are actually measuring at any given time. As usual I will end with the standard wishy washy disclaimer that I am not implying that this is happening in Rosemary's circuit but it may be a possiblity.
I just hope she doesn't get her Zipons crossed and vaporize all of us, you know what happened when the ghostbusters crossed there Proton beams -- liquifaction of the earths crust, solar flares, cats sleeping with dogs, it's all bad :D.
Regards
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on 2011.03.24, 06:37:11
...
Then when we disconnect the source voltage the inductance discharges with an opposite voltage polarity but the current flow remains in the forward direction. This is where some people have made a mistake in assuming that the current has reversed just because the voltage polarity has but this is not the case, the current remains in the forward direction the same as when it started.
...
This is perfectly correct. I would just add a comment for a better understanding.
The direction of the induced current is always in agreement with Lenz's law: it opposes the field variation, so we could think that the current is of opposite sign when the magnetic field is built than when it collapses. This is true, the current changes sign, but only when the field is an external varying magnetic field, not generated by the inductance itself.
To build the field from the inductance itself, we must use a generator whose the current overcomes the opposite current that would be generated by induction from the field variation only. So the inductance switched on leaves us with a current of same direction as when it is switched off and there is no more generator, the field collapse becoming the only current source by induction.
A field variation due to a current in an inductance opposes the current variation that creates it, but not the absolute value of the current which can be of any sign.
More simply to not forget the rule, we just have to remember that for the same current, the voltage is of opposite sign in a generator than in a load (general rule). When the inductance is switched on, it is the load, the current from the generator build the magnetic field. When the inductance is switched off, it becomes the generator due to the collapse of the magnetic field inducing the current, so the voltage reverses.
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2011.03.24, 05:17:13
If I have the mojo to say it, then I must have a back up plan. What's in it for me? How about this. I show you, you do a sim for the prof.
No deal. Why should I agree to do work in return for you showing the proof of your own assertion? It was not I who made the assertion; it will not be I who works to obtain its proof. O0
Humbugger
Hi all,
Just wanted to bring this to light ... before it gets buried as everything else from RA .....
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg279127#msg279127
Channel (1) 5.00V
Channel (2) 100V
Channel (3) 50V
Channel (4) 100mV
200K Data Dump 02/22/2011
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg279128#msg279128
Quote2nd example.
Settings the same as previous.
Channel (1) 5.00V
Channel (2) 100V
Channel (3) 20V
Channel (4) 100mV
500K Data Dump 02/22/2011
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg279129#msg279129
Quote3rd example
Settings same as previous
Channel (1) 2.00V
Channel (2) 100V
Channel (3) 10V
Channel (4) 100V
10K Data Dump 03/02/2011
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg279130#msg279130
Quote4th example
Settings same as previous
Channel (1) 1.00V
Channel (2) 50.0V
Channel (3) 10.0V
Channel (4) 100mV
500K Data Dump 02/09/2011
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
All oscilloscope settings are the same ??
All the oscilloscope screen shot dates are from the 03/12/2011 demo ??
All the oscilloscope Data Dumps are the same size ?? ( 10K to 500K ) ....
what custom spreadsheet software was used on the oscilloscope Data Dumps "above" 100K in size ??
THIS IS THE DOCUMENTED PROOF OF RESULTS EVERYONE EXCEPTS ???
This posted information at OU.com is a minimum pathetic !! Regards,
Fuzzy
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.03.24, 17:22:17
No deal. Why should I agree to do work in return for you showing the proof of your own assertion? It was not I who made the assertion; it will not be I who works to obtain its proof. O0
Humbugger
Hahaha, ;D ;D ;D
I like you Humbugger. Very nice logic. You're a perpetual motion machine. :P
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2011.03.24, 22:34:45
Hahaha, ;D ;D ;D
I like you Humbugger. Very nice logic. You're a perpetual motion machine. :P
I like you too, Gibbs, and appreciate your impeccable logic. However, my declining your offer does not alleviate your responsibility to answer my challenge to your assertion. >:-)
Humbugger
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.03.25, 03:00:23
I like you too, Gibbs, and appreciate your impeccable logic. However, my declining your offer does not alleviate your responsibility to answer my challenge to your assertion. >:-)
Humbugger
Humbugger walks by a hot dog seller.
- Selling good hotdogs
- Really? Prove it.
The seller happens to believe in perpetual motion.
-Alright, enjoy your hot dog. :)
Ahhh, yes, the old switcheroo!
First question: I know the bottom trace is supposed to represent mean power. The two upper traces are mean voltage and mean current? In the same circuit? Quite the circuit there that shows negative current flow while the voltage is positive and positive current flow when the voltage is zero. Suggest to me a real circuit that acts like that, if you would.
The other problem I have is that in the context of Rosemary's device, the voltage is a steady omnipresent DC battery voltage, as I stated in my challenge.
Humbugger
P.S. You're buying on that hot dog. O0
Quote from: allcanadian on 2011.03.24, 06:37:11
@HumbuggerIf standard theory holds then the circuit must be 100% efficient as all the input electrical energy would be converted to heat somewhere in the circuit.
Not necessarily so. In Rosemary's case, I'll bet she's transmitting at least a watt or more in the AM band. Hope the campus radio station isn't on 1.5MHz. Shades of Tesla...good thing CE and the FCC didn't exist back then.
For the most part you are right, though. But the claim is delivery to the load from the source batteries. The black box in between is always going to waste energy as heat and other radiated energy. The best black box Rosemary could use has two fat copper wires in it and nothing else.
Quote
I think the single biggest issue in the forums in regards to interpreting oscilloscope traces is that people are trying to interpret an inductive discharge just as they would an AC waveform which is a mistake. When we see an AC waveform the positive voltage above the zero boundary shows the forward direction of current and the voltage below the zero boundary shows a reversal of current due to a reversal of the source voltage. The voltage indicated below the zero boundary is not negative electricity as others have supposed but simply a reversal of the source voltage.
With an inductive discharge things are a little different, when we charge an inductance the indicated voltage polarity across the coil is the same as the source voltage and the direction of current is forward. Then when we disconnect the source voltage the inductance discharges with an opposite voltage polarity but the current flow remains in the forward direction. This is where some people have made a mistake in assuming that the current has reversed just because the voltage polarity has but this is not the case, the current remains in the forward direction the same as when it started. One easy way to prove this is to place a diode in series with the inductance like we often see in boost converters , if the current has reversed then why would it flow through the output diode but it does dispite the fact that the voltage polarity across the inductance has reversed.
I know this phenomena all to well and it has led to premature balding and a compulsive need to howl at the moon because when you want to separate a forward source current from an inductive discharge current both following a singular path then diodes do not work. I have had to resort to biased mosfets to detect and switch the current however then a new problem pops up because the inductive voltage rise is way faster than the mosfet can switch and this leads to high voltage transients saturating the circuitry. I have even had cases where simply adding one single ultra-fast diode in series with an inductive discharge has led to a voltage rise of over 200v simply because the damn thing conducts about as fast as paint dries.
I guess my point here is that most of what I have seen from the "real" scope traces in the forums has led me to believe that the data is being misinterpreted in many cases by both the user and the oscilloscope, there is no negative electricity, no negative current, nor a reversal in current charging the source. This is why I switched over to fundamental physics where voltage is replaced with differential charge density and current with the motion of charges due to a differential charge density. This way a person can depict or plot the circuit parameters before testing and have at least half an idea what we are actually measuring at any given time. As usual I will end with the standard wishy washy disclaimer that I am not implying that this is happening in Rosemary's circuit but it may be a possiblity.
I just hope she doesn't get her Zipons crossed and vaporize all of us, you know what happened when the ghostbusters crossed there Proton beams -- liquifaction of the earths crust, solar flares, cats sleeping with dogs, it's all bad :D.
Regards
AC
Right about the inductor stuff.
But there is reverse and forward power. When we talk about batteries, we talk about positive current and power and energy as that being which is draining the battery and reverse current and power and energy as that which is charging it. The problem with Rosemary is she has no idea how to accurately measure any of it.
Humbugger
Hi everyone,
I read now that it is the assumption of fact by members at OU.com and has not been corrected by RA that her new circuit has ran "CONTINUOUS" for over five months on the six (6) 12 Volt Raylite type silver calcium batteries ....
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg277819#msg277819
Quote
Some mention must be made of those aspects of the tests that have not been thoroughly explored. The first relates to the battery recharge. It is a truth that the batteries used in these experiments have been used on a regular basis for over 5 months. During that time they have been continually subjected to both light and heavy use and they have never shown any evidence of loss of voltage. Nor have they been recharged by a conventional battery recharger. However there has not been a close analysis of the electrolytic condition of the batteries, before, during or even after their use. This will require a fuller study by our chemistry experts. - from our report under 'discussion'.
I count
eight ( 8 ) batteries available for use ...... with what looks like positive and negative cables from a battery charger .... hummm ???
also .... has been asked several times what "manufacture" part number or type http://www.batterycentre.co.za/SouthDef.htm the six (6) or
eight ( 8 ) batteries are for a total amp hour or capacity is with no answer from RA ..... again .... :D
What proof this ran for 5 months .... how many continuous recorded hours has this new RA circuit ran at full capacity ?? certainly not five months continuous .... I would assume the Open Source community will need proof of the load duration and which six (6) batteries were used during the operation time period ....
Regards,
Fuzzy
:)
Yes. I'm sure when she says "pretty much continuously for five months" she means for a few hour a week and mostly at her low-level where only 5-6W are being put to the heater. A bank of batteries that size would run 5W for a very very long time.
Bryan
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.03.25, 07:25:33
Yes. I'm sure when she says "pretty much continuously for five months" she means for a few hour a week and mostly at her low-level where only 5-6W are being put to the heater. A bank of batteries that size would run 5W for a very very long time.
Bryan
Hi Bryan,
I'm sure your right there isn't a bunch of recorded one to four hour runs on this new RA circuit, or at least any organized tests with scope shots and usable spread sheet data dumps for any length of time in a row .... just the selective pick and choose stuff using the stop and run scope function to get the best wave form to record for show and tell.
Do you know why there is so much to do here and at OU.com with the scope shot "MATH" functions being used ?? I was under the assumption that it derives it's "MATH" answers from the complete 10 divisions horizontally across the oscilloscope screen and not just or only the complete wave forms present in that standard 10 divisions. That's why it is important when doing these calculations to have a recorded scope shot showing the wave form including a spread sheet data dump at the same time to find the "complete" wave forms present for that download, and throw out the dumped ends because it's incomplete wave form data from the downloaded data dump ... setting a data dump at 100k or less to be able to use standard available spread sheet software, the 200k and 500k data dumps needs special software.
Am I wrong here and the oscilloscope "Math" function can pick out just what you want for a calculation ? I never used it on the Tektronix TDS 3054C and the DPO 3054 because it seemed to give me some conflicting data information.
Regards,
Glen
Accurate sampled measurements of power using scope math are extremely tricky and plagued with potential errors. Anything that skews the phase relationship of the volts and current waveforms will destry the accuracy.
Here is a good reference from Tektronix:
http://scopecentral.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/measuring-ac-power-with-advanced-math/ (http://scopecentral.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/measuring-ac-power-with-advanced-math/)
In Rosemary's case, she has introduced two very large error sources far beyond anything involving probe delays and probe de-skewing. First, she has gigantic inductances introduced into the battery voltage making it appear to the scope math as a huge AC source when in reality is is almost purely a steady DC voltage. Second, her current measuring shunt has an inductive reactance at 1.5MHz that is five or six times larger than the 0.25 Ohm resistance.
Using scope math on an instantaneous point by point sampled basis under these circumstances will give totally garbage numbers even if there are plenty of samples taken. In her case she is also adding undersampling errors in some instances at least.
The way to measure the input power on Rosemary's circuit is the forget all about scope math and get a good low-inductance shunt and put it on the battery. Then get the average current by using a simple low-pass filter and DMM. Then just multiply that number by the battery DC voltage and you have the very best possible measurement of the input power.
Bryan
I have a suggestion.
Why not make measurement easy for everyone, design a simple filter circuit that has a 1 Ohm resistor, a filter built in, a meter and accepts the feed from the battery, that runs from a pp3 does the calculation and reads out the power on an analogue meter using say op amps to carry out the multiplication, which is a self contained box powered by say a pp3.
Everyone could build 1 or 2, each one could be used for input power and one for output power, then there would never ever be any problems getting real numbers, the DUT can be tweaked live and real time comparisons can be made.
Would this not be a handy little box for anyones bench to have O0
Peterae,
This sounds easy but would actually be rather difficult. And, it would still be plagued, in Rosemary's case, for instance, with connecting it at the right points to avoid picking up huge AC voltages caused by varying currents across large inductances in the wiring.
In situations where there is a fixed-voltage DC supply, such as a battery or bench supply, the only unkown is current. So a super-low-inductance shunt with Kelvin-sensing needs to be inserted right at the battery (not somewhere inside the circuit where non-battery currents are included) and then the voltage on the shunt can be averaged by either a scope with the mean function or, more accurately, by a simple RC low pass filter hooked to a normal DMM.
The multiplication can be done with that age-old technology: A pencil and paper.
For details on a great low-inductance Kelvin shunt, and where it should go in the circuit, see below.
Humbugger
(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=13.0;attach=4454;image)
Are those photographs of the batteries used during the actual RA tests? If so, were they all hooked up in parallel? Because if so, I agree; there's an incredible amount of energy stored in those monsters. Those look like they are at MINIMUM 10 Amp-hours apiece, probably more like 20+ Amp-hours, so that would give 80 A*h to 160 A*h, which is theoretically enough to power a pulsed heating oscillator on and off for months.
0.5 amp per hour for 10 hours a week equals 5A*h per week.
Just sayin'.
If the RA effect works, then there's no need for 8 batteries in parallel (if this is how they were configured). One battery should be sufficient ; if a battery is a necessary condition for the effect. It's getting recharged, right? So if that claim is correct, then one small battery should run continuously forever, forever heating the heating element through the MOSFET's parasitic oscillation and the zipon flux .
(http://i51.tinypic.com/2h4xrwk.png)
A good test would be just to run the thing for x hours a day, for y number of days, -- off one small 4.5Ah 12V battery -- then check the battery voltage each day up to y days. If the observed disconnected battery voltage stays exactly constant or rises at the end of each day, then perhaps further testing is warranted. But if the battery voltage drops over time, then it's doubtful we are getting 'extra' energy -- unless it is overunity in the form of heat production rather than electrical consumption, which is a different claim entirely (and requires calorimetry).
To do these sorts of experiments requires full disclosure of the source data; for example, recording in an Excel spreadsheet the battery starting voltage at the beginning and ending of each day, and the number of hours the heater was powered. This would need to be published as a big spreadsheet, including the dates and times of the observations. This wouldn't be conclusive, but it would be a quick and dirty way to exclude large battery bank capacity as the source of the energy.
I have an open-mind, and I absolutely believe overunity operation is possible (and has been deliberately suppressed for many years), but I also am deeply grounded in science. I used to have to read biological research papers for a living, and institutional science -- for all it's failings and noxious political agendas via grants -- institutional science has the benefit thoroughness and rigor. Hell, in some of these papers I used to read, they even included the batch # of reagent solution they used. I would like to see more of this scientific full-disclosure and intellectual rigor in the overunity research community.
On this device, the raw battery voltage observations are a critical component since load testing was not performed. If these observations were not performed, the device needs to be reassembled and this data must be acquired.
(http://www.gadgetrivia.com/photos/94/45308-best_oscilloscope.jpg)
That is, the scope values may not be reliable due to the large inductances and the high frequency of oscillation (here I agree with the resident 'experts', whether hobbyists or employees of Ft Meade). I've seen weird things happen my techtronix analog scope , especially at >1Mhz. And not cool overunity things... But things more like measurement artifacts, waveform deformation etc. Without the proper inductive / capacitive loading, a probe on a LTC6904 oscillator chip stops looking like a square wave, and looks more like spaghetti once you pass 1Mhz or so. I've tried this myself and I learned this by trial and error... Experimentally, not from textbooks filled with lies! The government will not suppress the truth of zipons!!
Anyway but seriously here's an example of the waveform deformation when you get into higher frequency. This is from a programmable oscillator I built using an LTC6904, an Arduino microcontroller, which talked to each other via the I2C bus. I couldn't get the damn thing to work properly past around 1Mhz, and I finally realized is was the inductive/capacitive loading of the scope probe and of the output circuit.
I had to put in a high-speed buffer between the LTC6904 and the scope to get good waveform observations. The initial readings were garbage because the scope was introducing artifacts.
(http://cds.linear.com/images/product/2412_app_1.jpg)
(http://cds.linear.com/images/product/2412_pack_1.jpg)
(http://i54.tinypic.com/9gaas1.png)
LTC6904 Datasheet
http://cds.linear.com/docs/Datasheet/69034fc.pdf (http://cds.linear.com/docs/Datasheet/69034fc.pdf)
I'm not claiming Rosemary's device can't work, just that we have to be scientifically rigorous. We need to be thorough and realistic. Calculating AUC on a scope trace hooked up with 10' of wire is not the best way to test. The simplest most EZ-mode way to exclude error is just power the heater up for LONG periods of time and keep a log of the battery voltage , and publish this log (full-text) for the community.
The next best way is probably the RC method poynt and humbugger have been mentioning, followed by a good scope with MEAN math calculations (not RMS). Even better than this though is self-running operation, which is the 'holy grail' of open-source overunity research.
---
Anyway , on another topic... I mean, if I had eight lead-acid batteries in my bedroom (this is where my lab is, don't laugh) I'd probably build a shrapnal shield for the possible hydrogen explosion that will kill myself and my girlfriend in our sleep. (I honestly considered this while surfing batterymart.com for lead-acid batteries.)
Is the danger of explosion of these things for real? Should I order lead acid batteries to power my flux capacitor, or do these lead-acid batteries actually explode IRL? Are silver-calcium less likely to explode? Thanks in advance.
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.03.25, 05:48:02
First question: I know the bottom trace is supposed to represent mean power. The two upper traces are mean voltage and mean current? In the same circuit? Quite the circuit there that shows negative current flow while the voltage is positive and positive current flow when the voltage is zero. Suggest to me a real circuit that acts like that, if you would.
The other problem I have is that in the context of Rosemary's device, the voltage is a steady omnipresent DC battery voltage, as I stated in my challenge.
Humbugger
P.S. You're buying on that hot dog. O0
I show you the general solution of the math. The real scope shot is just a unique solution. To tell you the truth, I don't know either. I thought the current represent the charge flowing. More current flowing out of the battery means the batter discharging... but why the math turns out negative. I've think of many things, but I broke it down to 3 main ones.
1/ re-evaluate the scope - does it do the math correctly
2/ re-evaluate the measurement method
3/ re-evaluate the meaning of shunt voltage
The scope might have mal malfunction, giving incorrect values. I don't think this is the case since they're not low quality and the use of overlapping scopes. It could be that the formula to derive real power by multiply current and voltage raw traces and take the mean is wrong, but that means we have to say that the electric model is wrong... that includes Poynt, Harvey... and several other dead ones that associate with the model like... Ampere, Faraday, Maxwell,... just to name a few. Since the method is derived from many overlapping accepted theory and experiments, it's unlikely that they're way off meaning. The third one is the meaning of shunt voltage. Does the battery charging/discharging always related to shunt voltage, and I'm not talking about its little inductance error. This is highly probable and I have a clue to work on right now.... Oh... I guess I can include the a 4th one where Rosemary alter her data with photoshop 34 or something like that. I know you like this one but I ruled it out... sorry. :)
yes, the hot dog is one me. I've created a short while perpetual motion... hopefully I can do a much much longer one.
@Feynman
The batteries appear to be Raylite 669P types and that would put them at 50 Ah. She puts them in series, using different numbers of batteries at different times.
http://www.raylitebatteries.co.zw/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=57&Itemid=84 (http://www.raylitebatteries.co.zw/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=57&Itemid=84)
Regardless of whether they are series or parallel connected, the stored energy is the same. It is in this case ENORMOUSLY larger than anything reasonably required.
Humbugger
Hi everyone,
I see the SA
"spear chuck-er" is taking aim again ....
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg279262#msg279262
Quote
Guys, I need to alert you all - again - to the fact that for those of you who contribute to this thread - then you are all, any one of you, likely to be the recipients of personal messages or emails - from one of three members and ex members to this forum. They will, inevitably be intended to throw doubt on these numbers and these test results and their intention is to systematically errode any credibility related to these test results.
The latest is, apparently, that I am 'skewing' the results to accommodate my thesis. I CANNOT skew results. They are carefully recorded and that record is NOT made by me but by a machine. And I am INDEED using the evidence in support of the thesis. The thesis preceded this test as can STILL be PROVED. I make NO APOLOGY for this. It is my rights to do so. But NOR have I FORCED that thesis onto this thread. Therefore no-one is obliged or even expected to familiarise themselves with it. Good heavens. Should I be apologising for this? For some reason?
Like I said earlier in a posting here ... RA's documented results are just the selective pick and choose stuff using the
stop and
run scope function to get the best wave form to record for show and tell.
I would assume everyone that has used a high end oscilloscope knows what I mean when collecting or acquiring the data ....
you push the button and make the choice not the machine.
As for me contacting anyone .... go fish .... as far as I'm concerned they all can fall flat on their face and waste time whom follow the SA "spear chuck-er", including Stefan .... they been warned a year ago and can't read or see the truth.
Regards,
Fuzzy
Maybe just maybe things are done differently in other countries ( I can't imagine why though ) but here in the United States when we have presented Demonstrations on ideas and products for company's or experts in that particular field at the end we had a question and answer session. This was VERY IMPORTANT and very useful to know what they think.
I asked about hearing what Rosemarys audience asked or said or anything and she flew off the handle and complained to Stefan and he deleted my post. But I would really think that Stefan himself would be wondering the same thing and he should ask about what her experts said. Also. Stefan should clear up for his readers what is meant by running the device CONTINUOUSLY. He needs to flat out ask if it was kept running for the 5 months WITHOUT turning things off even when they weren't there at the trade school. There has been to much "play on wording" with Rosemary like she has always done in the past and then just ignoring the questions and burying the comments with out answers.
Sorry Pointy for this post. It will be nice to get things cleared up. :)
Guys, Let's not get started on that path please. :)
Don't mind the interpretation of what "continuous use" means in her case. I did not take it to mean "continuous delivery of energy", and I would hope that others didn't either. If they did, then that is their own short-coming.
At any rate, if Rose does get around to making a proper battery voltage measurement using the oscilloscope (as Stefan, Hum, and I have asked), that will pretty much be the "end-game" measurement for anyone able to discern the correct meaning from it.
.99
Quote from: FuzzyTomCat on 2011.03.25, 08:26:20
Hi Bryan,
I'm sure your right there isn't a bunch of recorded one to four hour runs on this new RA circuit, or at least any organized tests with scope shots and usable spread sheet data dumps for any length of time in a row .... just the selective pick and choose stuff using the stop and run scope function to get the best wave form to record for show and tell.
Do you know why there is so much to do here and at OU.com with the scope shot "MATH" functions being used ?? I was under the assumption that it derives it's "MATH" answers from the complete 10 divisions horizontally across the oscilloscope screen and not just or only the complete wave forms present in that standard 10 divisions. That's why it is important when doing these calculations to have a recorded scope shot showing the wave form including a spread sheet data dump at the same time to find the "complete" wave forms present for that download, and throw out the dumped ends because it's incomplete wave form data from the downloaded data dump ... setting a data dump at 100k or less to be able to use standard available spread sheet software, the 200k and 500k data dumps needs special software.
Am I wrong here and the oscilloscope "Math" function can pick out just what you want for a calculation ? I never used it on the Tektronix TDS 3054C and the DPO 3054 because it seemed to give me some conflicting data information.
Regards,
Glen
Glen,
The idea is to let the scope measure the voltage and current wave forms as you have done before, but this time also let the scope perform the multiplication of those two quantities in real time. This gives us the red MATH trace you've seen, which is a trace of instantaneous power.
At this point we need to obtain the average or MEAN of this trace, and we do this by applying the "measurement" function of "MEAN" to this trace (at least with the Tek scopes). There are two ways to approach this:
1) We adjust the time base to display a minimum of 10 cycles (do not need to be complete) on the screen, and use the MEAN measurement function. This method needs to be weighed against the frequency of the wave form being measured, and the bandwidth, sampling rate, and record length available in the scope you are using.
2) We adjust the time base to display as close to one single cycle as possible, but it has to be at least one. In this case we use the "Cycle MEAN" measurement, but this can be tricky. If there are several zero-crossings within one complete cycle, the scope will not properly compute the cycle mean.
So with inductive circuits where we quite often have multiple zero-crossings, we have little choice but to use many displayed cycles and use the MEAN measurement function. When you have a scope with both the MATH and MEAN function capabilities, it is of no benefit really to export the raw data for processing in Excel, because the scope does this for you in real time.
.99
If the total inductance of the circuit is L, then the total voltage per inductance is V/L
V1/L1 = V2/L2
V1 = V2 * L1/L2
V1= unaccounted voltage across unaccounted inductance
V2 = Load resistor voltage
L1= unaccounted wire inductance
L2 = load resistor inductance
All phase unchanged
Poynt,
As I have said several times both here and there, the idea of putting the probes right on the battery stack end terminals will not solve the problem. As can be seen in several of the pictures, Rose is using what look like long jumper cables in between each battery. These combined have likely more inductance than the wires over to the bench.
So, if she manages to follow your and Hartman's advice (not mine, by the way), she will still show huge AC at the oscillation frequency on her "battery" voltage. Then she will rave on for weeks about this proving you wrong, etc. and will continue on in her deluded bliss and polluted measurements, all the more confident.
Hartman will cave, dropping the subject and publicly chalking it up to over-unity battery charging pulses, no doubt. :D
Humbugger
Hum, that's a possibility.
At the very least, there should be a marked difference in the amplitude of oscillation present while measuring right on the terminals, and this should produce a moment of reflection in Rose's brain. C.C :-\ If it does not and she ignores this difference, then yes we will probably never hear the end of it.
We can only hope Rose has enough integrity to take notice and ask "why is it different when I measure here compared to there?"
.99
QuoteSo. The bottom line is this. We absolutely do not need that oscillation to get the required negative mean average and cycle mean average and negative math trace. But what we have with this parasitic oscillation is something way more profound. And, I believe very much more profoundly significant. I just can't get over that I'd never even heard of this parasitic oscillation. Certainly not as it shapes itself here. And to think that all that was ever done with it was to snuff it out or throw it away. Extraordinary.
It's unfortunate that so much fuss can be made over a parasitic oscillation associated with a circuit that has gain associated with it. It's one of the first things that they teach you about amplifiers. That being that if they are not properly configured they will go into spontaneous oscillation.
Humbugger kudos to you about noticing that need to stay away from the "wrong" loop and look at the loop that has the battery current only. Your shunt resistor filtering method is certainly more elegant than putting a "nasty" capacitor in the circuit to replace one of the batteries like I was suggesting.
Poynt you have been helpful as always and between the two of you the truth is even more obvious than ever before. With some simple tests done properly you would clearly see efficiencies of 70-80% like the two of you previously mentioned. Perhaps 15% dissipated in the MOSFETs themselves and the rest in the wires and in some EM radiation.
I am just not smelling closure from Rosie at all. She won't touch any suggestions, she barely acknowledges the problems with the shunt and long battery cables, and she clings to the notion of blind acceptance of the data generated by the DSOs. Plus she has a few naive supporters which stoke her so there is no end in sight. Rosie is the Energizer Bunny of Parasitic Oscillation. She sees magic where others just see an oscillation.
I'll attempt a simple analogy for Rose that is highlighted by TK's excellent Joule Thief measurement pitfall clip:
In that clip when you see TK move the probe and get the big spike/oscillation here is some colour commentary:
So back to my simple analogy that is related to TK's clip:
Case 1: You have a voltage source, a switch, and an inductive current sensing resistor (CSR). You have a scope channel across the CSR.
In this case when you turn on the switch you will see a pretty normal looking near-instant rise in voltage across the CSR.
Case 2: You replace the voltage source with a Joule Thief output. You still have the inductive CSR and a scope channel across the CSR.
In this case the Joule Thief output will cause a "surprising" big initial voltage spike across the CSR. The spike will be very short and then the CSR voltage will be normal.
Now, here is the key: You can look at that big initial spike across the CSR and say to yourself that there must be a huge but brief inrush of very high current through the CSR! Therefore you conclude that there must be something pretty extraordinary about the Joule Thief output because it produces such high current at the start!
Exactly the opposite is happening as compared to what you are thinking. When you see what you think is a "huge high-current spike"
the current is actually very small at this time.In other words,
the voltage waveform across the CSR and the actual current through the CSR are not the same.This simple example is indicative of the root cause causing endless confusion for Rosemary, her supporters, and most of the newbies to electronics that think that Rosie just might have something after all.
There is almost no point in trying to explain the reasons why, it's not going to help to get to the truth for those that are in Rosie's camp. It's been tried many times to no avail.
So we end up with this: The truth is that Rosemary's setup is under unity and she doesn't believe it because she doesn't understand what is going on.
MileHigh
Rose has never shown any signs of taking even a nanosecond to ponder conflicting data. Her frame of reference does not include the ability or desire to deal with apparent conflicts in her own measurements. She just picks the data she likes and ignores the rest.
There is no chance this will ever change unless she learns some fundamental electronics and/or the scientific approach.
Hum
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.03.26, 03:30:28
Hum, that's a possibility.
At the very least, there should be a marked difference in the amplitude of oscillation present while measuring right on the terminals, and this should produce a moment of reflection in Rose's brain. C.C :-\ If it does not and she ignores this difference, then yes we will probably never hear the end of it.
We can only hope Rose has enough integrity to take notice and ask "why is it different when I measure here compared to there?"
.99
A better suggestion might be to look at just one batterty at a time, directly probed. But Rose would come up with some theory to reject that flat-line evidence, too, I.m sure.
Hum
Yes, I thought of that too. ;)
There are 4 jumpers connecting the batteries. I estimate each to be about 1.5 feet, for a total of about 6 feet of wire between the batteries.
I estimate there is at least 8 feet of wire between the positive and negative feeds to the prototype board, for a total of at least 16 feet of wire.
So hopefully there will be a discernible difference when viewing the battery wave form with 6 feet of wire inductance vs. 22 feet.
.99
@Milehigh
QuoteExactly the opposite is happening as compared to what you are thinking. When you see what you think is a "huge high-current spike" the current is actually very small at this time.
In other words, the voltage waveform across the CSR and the actual current through the CSR are not the same.
On this statement I think we can agree 100% and TK did an excellent job of demonstrating the pitfalls of what can happen when what we think we are measuring is not always what we are measuring. To be honest I see this happening damn near everywhere including here and I just have to shake my head, this is why we have to really think things through and use our better judgment regardless of what the "facts" are because sometimes the facts are relative. In essence common sense should always prevail regardless of any facts or laws, that's my theory anyways.
Thanks for linking to that video, I think everyone should take a look at that, I managed to figure this out around 20 years ago through experiment but TK did an excellent job of putting things in perspective.
Regards
AC
97 - the magnetic field model
Dear Reader,
I'm not sure how long any one post can be on these blogs. The following is simply to test this. The intention now is to post the magnetic field model here - just in case anyone's interested.
But it's likely to be a very long post and may need to be split up into more than one. We'll see.
Hopefully it should be finished later today.
Kind regards,
Rosemary
So it looks like rather than spending the weekend lugging batteries and settimg up for more testing as promised, Rose will be spending her weekend testing the verbosity limits of her blog site.
Hum
@Humbugger
QuoteRose has never shown any signs of taking even a nanosecond to ponder conflicting data. Her frame of reference does not include the ability or desire to deal with apparent conflicts in her own measurements. She just picks the data she likes and ignores the rest.
If you are going to imply anything is regards to Rosemary you may as well imply this same thought to almost everyone including the other 99% of the population. I think the real issue is that we as silly Hue-man's tend to justify our thoughts with whatever we see fit whether it is factual or not because facts are relative. Here is a perfect example, I have a 1M Ohm resistor in a circuit and we all know the resistance is 1M Ohm in every case-- right?. Well no it is not always 1M Ohm in every case, if the rate of change is extreme there is very little resistance, in fact in some of my experiments I could tell you whether a person touched a resistor or not. How could I know this? Well when a person touches a resistor they leave an oil residue on the resistor from their skin and when the rate of change of potential is extreme this oil conducts over the surface of the resistor and it acts as a short across it. Can you imagine that, by simply touching a resistor we have changed the facts in regards to what we think must always happen, reality can be a real bitch sometimes.
Regards
AC
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.03.25, 20:53:32
Glen,
The idea is to let the scope measure the voltage and current wave forms as you have done before, but this time also let the scope perform the multiplication of those two quantities in real time. This gives us the red MATH trace you've seen, which is a trace of instantaneous power.
At this point we need to obtain the average or MEAN of this trace, and we do this by applying the "measurement" function of "MEAN" to this trace (at least with the Tek scopes). There are two ways to approach this:
1) We adjust the time base to display a minimum of 10 cycles (do not need to be complete) on the screen, and use the MEAN measurement function. This method needs to be weighed against the frequency of the wave form being measured, and the bandwidth, sampling rate, and record length available in the scope you are using.
2) We adjust the time base to display as close to one single cycle as possible, but it has to be at least one. In this case we use the "Cycle MEAN" measurement, but this can be tricky. If there are several zero-crossings within one complete cycle, the scope will not properly compute the cycle mean.
So with inductive circuits where we quite often have multiple zero-crossings, we have little choice but to use many displayed cycles and use the MEAN measurement function. When you have a scope with both the MATH and MEAN function capabilities, it is of no benefit really to export the raw data for processing in Excel, because the scope does this for you in real time.
.99
Hey .99
Thanks for the information ... between you and the post from Hum I have a better understanding of the math function feature, it still seams that in complex wave forms as the others say can be tricky I'll need to look into it more for my future work on other projects upcoming.
It also appears with RA that the over 10 year history is repeating itself again ... she got what she feels is needed for her zippienot thesis and more than likely for another new investor and won't no way no how go the distance with the correct or recommended data recording techniques, most people will believe anything it seems just look at OU.com full of lap puppies and maybe a few sadly unaware of ... ya
I think I'm going to build something just for fun need a change .... the type of documented excepted proof of any Over Unity device as of late is actually very depressing how far "DOWN" the standards really are if even exist for some people .... whats next a little hand waving and a color crayon sketch, I can hear the applause and congratulations already.
Thanks to you and the other fine members here actual proof of concept does mean something ;)
Best Regard's
Glen
:)
One more comment about my simple example where an inductive current sensing resistor can show you false readings when it is connected to a Joule Thief output. To repeat, the false readings can lead you to believe that a much higher current is flowing through the circuit than there actually is.
I can imagine Rosemary brushing that one off because her circuit is not like a Joule Thief.
Well, Rosemary, if you are reading then you are wrong if you are brushing my example off. The output of a Joule Thief is a discharging inductor. The good old discharging inductor that creates phenomena that most beginners to electronics don't understand.
The long cables between your batteries and your test setup create the same type of Joule Thief effects resulting in false current readings across your current sensing resistor. The long cables have inductance, and as a result it's possible to have a discharging inductor effect making your current sensing resistor readings inaccurate. By the same token, inductance effects result in your recorded battery voltage showing wild fluctuations.
In the cases of the current sensing resistor and the battery voltage, you are recording "Joule Thief discharge" type effects superimposed over the actual voltages.
The wires themselves are acting like discharging inductors. Then you have the fact that you are using a high-frequency MOSFET switching device. Put those two things together and they will wreak havoc on your attempts to get proper power measurements.
You have been told this over and over in different ways and this is just another attempt to reexplain the phenomenon using somewhat simpler terminology.
MileHigh
Anyone get a answer on the "Raylite" battery size or part number ? or documented hours used in the durations of continuous testing operations on the batteries there seems to be unanswered questions all over the place from investors, students, academics, engineers, fools and replicators on this critical measurement or am I wrong this measurement is not needed for proof of Over Unity ??
The information on the load "fly back" diode is missing again which we all have been told for years this is a critical part of the system and always gives evidence of a gain .....
http://www.energeticforum.com/59369-post262.html
Quote
And the flyback diode is a critical part of the system.
http://www.energeticforum.com/60282-post512.html
Quote
BUT the flyback principle, whether with inductive resistors or resistors in series with inductors - always give evidence of a gain. It can be at any frequency tested between 60Hz all the way to and beyond 600kHz. All work - some with more efficiency than others - and at extreme frequencies - with losses rather than gains. It can use just about any variation of the flyback principles as described by gotoluc as a reticulated current. And it does not need the induced Hartley Effect to realise a gain. In other words you can get the over unity performance on periodic waveforms.
http://www.energeticforum.com/60610-post664.html
Quote
the need for the flyback diode is to prove the returning energy - not to exploit it.
Maybe this is why the SA
javelin team is getting (undocumented) massive, huge, monumental able to see with the naked eye Over Unity results all over the place, and the rest of the world isn't getting squat ??
???
The thing here guys, is for the life of me find the new "Load or Inductor" temperature profiling that was done for this new SA circuit ....
Is this another item that's not required for calculations on a device that claims massive undeniable Over Unity ? or was what I did on a project shown in the attached images a 100 % total waste of time, money and effort ..... gee, I thought it was quite important :-\
Fuzzy
Quote from: FuzzyTomCat on 2011.03.26, 19:27:52
Anyone get a answer on the "Raylite" battery size or part number ? or documented hours used in the durations of continuous testing operations on the batteries there seems to be unanswered questions all over the place from investors, students, academics, engineers, fools and replicators on this critical measurement or am I wrong this measurement is not needed for proof of Over Unity ??
The information on the load "fly back" diode is missing again which we all have been told for years this is a critical part of the system and always gives evidence of a gain .....
See post #359 here regarding a link to the batteries: Best guess based on the pictures is Raylite 669 or 669P 50aH.
Personally, I don't agree (I'm actually with Rosemary here) that a battery drawdown test is important UNLESS we simply cannot get Rosemary to make an error-free measurement of input and output power...which appears to be very difficult to convince her to do. AS long as the shunt is 8x more reactive than resistive and as long as the battery voltage is fed to the scope as if it was a 150VAC 1.5MHz quantity, the real-time multipled samples and their mean are completely worthless.
If she continues to use this deeply-flawed data she will convince a lot of folk who know too little to know better. They will have to expend the resources and time and money to discover that, just like Bedini's stuff, in the end, the batteries wear down faster overall than they would obtaining equivalent output work using wires to connect from source to load. The size of the batteries = the length of time she can fool herself and others. Ever wonder why Bedini's lab has a monster bank of cell-tower backup batteries?
Regarding the diode. No longer present or deemed of any value. Each week, Rose has a new pet pixie to credit for her amazing results. This week it's the anti-phase relationship of the drain voltage and source current, which of course is fundamental and present in every common-source (source grounded, load in drain leg) circuit whether MOSFEt, transistor ot tube. Whether amplifier or oscillator or switching circuit, too. She ignores this easily learned and readily observable fact and pretends it is some fantastic discovery that proves zipons exist. All too sad and ridiculously comical if she weren't so damn serious about it all.
Humbugger
Here is a post awaiting Stefan's approval and publication over at "the other forum" where Poynt's arduous and patient teachings are starting to get through to Stefan on some critical issues. I thought I should post it here at my "home forum" as well. It typically takes Stefan a day or two to release my posts, so Rosemary may well see it here first. She reads here fastidiously by her own admission.
I should note, to the full credit of (and my improving opinion of) Stefan's personal integrity, he has eventually cleared 100% of my posts since putting me on "censorship" status. I, in return, have avoided all personal remarks, ad hominem attacks, sarcasm and ridicule (although it has been hard at times). Years ago, Stefan "perma-banned" me for repeatedly attacking lies told by Ashtweth, so this is no trivial achievement. ;) It is no secret to him or to anyone reading that Humbugger and cHeeseburger are one and the same.
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #373 on: Today at 12:37:20 AM »Quote
Note: This message is awaiting approval by a moderator.
Now, Stefan and Poynt, we are converging on the truth finally. The battery is a fixed DC potential with millivolts of actual ripple due to its internal resistance. The battery voltage does not actually have the 150VAC 1.5MHz signal Rosemary is feeding the 'scope.
The importance is now properly focused on the shunt and the actual current flow there.
This demonstration shows the difference between the waveforms obtained across the inductive shunt and the resistive portion of same shunt. The scale factors are identical (1V per division) on both traces. Notice three super-important things:
1) The amplitude when we include the inductance is way higher and does not agree at all with the actual current measured just across the resistor. The inductance allows a much larger voltage swing, fooling us into thinking the current is much larger than it really is.
2) Look at the areas above and below zero. In the larger (inductance included) trace, by eyeball, it looks like the areas are close to even or maybe even slightly more negative. But in the real current trace it is clear that the area above zero is easily greater than that below zero.
3) There is significant phase skew between the two waveforms and this will ruin the accuracy of any multiplied samples. The true current (across just the resistive part of the shunt) does not peaqk at the same time as the false, inductor-polluted "current" trace and is in fact not always the same polarity at a given instant in time. Notice the inductive shunt trace is approximately at its peak at the zero-crossings of the real current: almost 90 degrees phase shift. Basic fundamentls when the L vastly dominates the R of shunt!
So, the amplitude, waveshape and phase angle of the "current" signal Rosemary is feeding into the scope is by no means an accurate picture of the true current flowing in the circuit. When the "battery" voltage also has an enormous misrepresentation due to series inductance inside the measuring points, and we multiply the data samples point by point, the numbers are so far from any believable reality that it boggles the mind and the results could come out anywhere and are totally meaningless, sorry to say.
Here is a challenge for Rosemary: Submit this post to your favorite Tektronix Applications Engineer. He or she is a certified oscilloscope measurement expert and is called on all the time to sort out these kinds of measurement questions. Ask him or her to write a paragraph about it, agreeing or disagreeing with what I have wriiten here, attach his or her name to it, and publish it here for us.
Cheeseburger
So the truth is laid bare and Rosemary has been challenged to take the matter to a fully qualified and very available (at no cost) expert who is a disinterested party. Let's see how she responds to this. O0
Humbugger
P.S. For those just learning about inductance, notice how the inductive trace voltage amplitude corresponds to the rate of change of the actual current through it as seen on the pure resistance. This explains why the inductive voltage trace can go negative while the actual current is still positive but rapidly declining. While the real current is rising rapidly, the inductive voltage is at peak positive. The voltage across an inductor is a pure function of the rate of change of current through the inductor. The polarity of the voltage has nothing to do with the polarity of the current, but rather whether is is rising or declining.
Quoting Rosemary:
QuoteWell Poynty. I hope this is still on the same page that we can still reference that RED ELIPSE. You forgot to add those BIG SPIKES AT THE TRANSITIONAL PHASES OF THE SWITCH. Roughly 10 volts above zero and 30 volts below zero. During THAT moment we have 10/0.25 = 40 amps from the battery and 30/0.25 = 120 volts being returned to the battery. AS WE ALL KNOW the one spike never manifests at the same time as another. THEREFORE over time 40 amps * vbatt was delivered and THEN 120 amps * vbatt was returned. Factor that in together with the amount of time that the current was flowing during the 'ON' time of the switch or we'd be inclined to think that you're only looking at one side of your argument.
Now. Assume that the battery average is applied during those spikes. P = vi dt - therefore during those two moments we have 40 amps * 73.3 volts = a staggering 2 932.00 WATTS discharged and 120 amps * 73.3 volts returned = an even more staggering 8 798 WATTS returned to the battery. And that's not all. We then also have another problem. The actual voltage during the flow of that 40 amps FROM THE BATTERY trends to less than 73.3 volts. And the actual voltage during the flow of 120 amps BACK TO THE BATTERY trends to more than 73.3 volts.
Rosemary, you have to get real. What you are saying above is in denial of what we have been trying to tell you about problems with the wire lengths and the inductance associated with your current sensing resistor. Read Humbugger's posting above as many times as it takes. Look at the two different waveforms and reference his text and follow it until it registers with you. Read my somewhat simpler postings #367 and #375. It just has to sink in.
I am not sure if you have even acknowledged these issues that have been mentioned so many times now. Hum and Poynt are the ones with the real world experience here and they have the equipment. I don't have much real world experience on the bench with respect to these issues but my qualifying skills are excellent and I can tell you that you are being told the absolute truth. You are in denial, and it's getting ridiculous. You are clinging to false data based on extremely poor measurement techniques. You have almost no capabilities and experience on an electronics bench and you are arguing against seasoned people with a lifetime of experience on the bench.
Over the past two years, and without naming any names, I have seen you heap praise on people who were helping you. I have seen you embellish their technical credentials to ridiculous extremes so that what you were saying about them was completely disconnected from reality. Considering the fact that you worked for several months with your South African "experts" it's not difficult to imagine that they weren't really "experts" at all. This is borne out by the ridiculous measurements that you have been clinging to for so long now.
If you were wise, you would admit that you weren't aware of all of the technical and measurement issues related to your setup. You were let down by the people around you, or you just chose to believe that they were "experts" and that they knew what they were doing. You know that there is a phenomenon on the free energy web sites where people sometimes refuse to discuss their educational, knowledge, and experience level with respect to electronics and physics and energy. Perhaps the same dynamic was at play with your lab "experts" in South Africa.
Again, look at the excellent information that Poynt and Hum have provided you with. They are speaking the truth. It's over, and there was never anything special or anything to learn about the spontaneous oscillations associated with your third-generation setup. For what it's worth, this phenomenon of misunderstanding what's going on happens all the time on the free energy forums. It just happened on your very own thread with Magluvin.
I give you credit for your true desire to help the world with some sort of system to make better use of energy. The simple fact is that the system you are proposing doesn't work. I am 100% confident that proper measurements would bear this out. By the same token I was 100% confident that Lawrence's Joule Thief sent to Poynt would be under unity.
Although I can't prejudge, it seems to me that the people that deserve the most negative Brownie Points are the people you worked with in the lab. They should have known better and they should have been giving you sound technical advice.
MileHigh
I tired once again to help Rose understand, but interference from Stefan blew that chance.
Seems Rose has gone off on all sorts of tangents regarding the circuit I posted and the point I tried making. Also, she seems to want to deny that the shunt voltage mean computations may be in question.
Will she still make the battery voltage measurement? Perhaps, once the unit is operating again. But alas, even if she concedes that the battery voltage measurements she has been using are completely skewed, there's the shunt trace crutch that even Stefan seems delirious about.
If the truth ever does come out from her side, let it be known that she was advised many times and by many people, to do some simple tests, and consider some simple factors detrimentally impacting the measurements. She has been reluctant to heed most if not all of that advice, even in the face of simple logic.
Perhaps it is once again, time to write this off as a lost cause and focus our energy on things that matter. ;)
.99
Poynt
You are correct. Perhaps this thread should be left as a post mortem.
After 10 years of babble Rosemary Ainslie has been described as an old, near blind, sick, delusional woman.
Most forum readers envision her as rarely getting out of her pyjamas or leaving her dark, dusty house
and doing nothing other than to sit down on her computer to addictively seek attention.
She has neither said, nor produced, anything relevant, of substance or importance.
in all these years of thousands of posts and hundreds of thousands of words.
This woman, alone in her fantasies, has worked hard to earn her reputation of putting her nonsense to words.
She is highly adept at disconnecting and deflecting from reality when forced to confront it and changes the subject .
She has already explained in her own words that she spends most all of her day in the internet.
It does not require much calculation to conclude that she lives in her own rejected world
with no time left for personal relationships. So let her be. She makes sense to herself.
You can, however, expect her hallucinations to continue for a another half-life of 10/20 years.
She will soon discontinue her deceptions about her unremarkable circuit and move on to another fantasy.
I suggest that no matter what forum you belong to, feel free to post your own impressions here.
You wont be censored ..and what she may think of your comment is irrelevant.
As I said, after 10 years she has earned her reputation.
Mookie
I got a private email from a certain someone very angry and demanding I retract my lies regarding the current shunt being able to alter the balance of area under the positive and negative sides just because it has SOME INDUCTANCE.
They obviously don't understand inductance. Here is another, even more clear example, using just a trapezoidal current generator that ramps up and down between zero and two amps. The true current as seen on the shunt is never negative. Zero area under the negative side. Always zero or positive current flow.
Yet the scope trace including the inductance shows almost as much time and area in the negative zone as it does in the positive. So indeed, an inductive shunt can make us think there is negative current flow (and plenty of it) when (as in this example) in reality there is never even one pico-amp of negative current flow.
Humbugger
@Mookie
QuoteAfter 10 years of babble Rosemary Ainslie has been described as an old, near blind, sick, delusional woman.
Most forum readers envision her as rarely getting out of her pyjamas or leaving her dark, dusty house
and doing nothing other than to sit down on her computer to addictively seek attention.
Envisioning something is not a fact in any sense of the word, do you have anything in regards to actual facts.
QuoteShe has neither said, nor produced, anything relevant, of substance or importance.
in all these years of thousands of posts and hundreds of thousands of words.
I'm not sure I would agree, I do not judge you based on the fact that you have neither said, nor produced, anything relevant, of substance or real importance in my opinion. We can say whatever we like and think we are all so wonderfully superior and intelligent but the fact remains that none of you are even remotely close to demonstrating a tangible free energy machine, in fact few have any idea where to start. ;D, it kind of gives new meaning to the word relevant doesn't it.
QuoteShe has already explained in her own words that she spends most all of her day in the internet.
It does not require much calculation to conclude that she lives in her own rejected world
with no time left for personal relationships. So let her be. She makes sense to herself.
I spend a great deal of time surfing as well, I read everything within my grasp, I research everything I find remotely curious, I seek information and knowledge on a scale most can understand --- so what?
So basically you have made this whole pointless, baseless, post because you cannot seem to handle the fact that Rosemary is different from you, does that about sum it up?.
Regards
AC
Hi everyone,
@ .99 and Humm .... being a professional myself I believe you both have done your best to enlighten us and the open sourse community of the measurement errors to the best of "any ones" abilities and a testament to your knowledge and beliefs.
@ milehigh .... always there backing the believable questioning the nonsense, and gave me at one time excellent information on placing a test inductor vertically not horizontally because of the unknown questionable wave forms emitting from the inductor under test
@ Mookie .... couldn't have said it better other than adding the hurt that has been done to countless others she's touched in any way
@ Harvey .... hope some day this will all be good somehow
@ RA the tribal cult leader .... hope your lap puppies, close friends and relatives that are members at OU.com that helped deceive the open source community find comfort
@ all the others .... good luck your going to need all you can get
@ Stephan .... now that there has been a OU device you have seen the documentation and have undeniably approved the results the Over Unity "PRIZE" that you offer at your web site will be going to Rosemary Ainslie I assume being all your required criteria has been met. I'm also glad you banned me plus others and gave RA the only soap box in the open source community to stand on "again" uncontrolled .... says volumes to me.
:D
Quote from: allcanadian on 2011.03.27, 18:20:07
@MookieEnvisioning something is not a fact in any sense of the word, do you have anything in regards to actual facts.
Mookie is entitled to his opinion, just as you are to yours.
Quote
I'm not sure I would agree, I do not judge you based on the fact that you have neither said, nor produced, anything relevant, of substance or real importance in my opinion.
Again, that is your opinion.
There is a big difference between not saying anything of significance (not saying Mookie that you haven't), and consistently making grossly unsubstantiated claims and countless errors and assumptions. Rose thinks she has conveyed useful information and that she possesses something significant with her MOSFET circuit, but I agree with Mookie, she has not, and does not.
Quote
We can say whatever we like and think we are all so wonderfully superior and intelligent but the fact remains that none of you are even remotely close to demonstrating a tangible free energy machine, in fact few have any idea where to start. ;D, it kind of gives new meaning to the word relevant doesn't it.
Are you excluding yourself from your blanket "none of you" statement?
Quote
So basically you have made this whole pointless, baseless, post because you cannot seem to handle the fact that Rosemary is different from you, does that about sum it up?.
Regards
AC
By similarity: So basically you have made several pointless, baseless, posts about how useless SPICE is because you cannot seem to handle the fact that you have had different results with it, does that about sum it up?.
C.C
.99
Can SPICE simulate this?
Meyl shows tesla longitudinal electricity transmission in 2003 (click link to see experimental demo)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4615804709108706714# (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4615804709108706714#)
Didn't think so :)
Quote from: feynman on 2011.03.27, 19:54:36
Can SPICE simulate this?
Meyl shows tesla longitudinal electricity transmission in 2003 (click link to see experimental demo)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4615804709108706714# (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4615804709108706714#)
Didn't think so :)
Can you do 3D Modeling with MS Word?
Didn't think so. :)
It would be prudent of you to compare apples to apples.
.99
@Poynt99
QuoteRose thinks she has conveyed useful information and that she possesses something significant with her MOSFET circuit, but I agree with Mookie, she has not, and does not.
I would agree that it is a matter of opinion, however in my opinion Rosemary has conveyed useful information to me. She did not hold my hand and tell me the facts of the matter but rather I read her work and considered the possibilities of it with an open mind. This led me to consider things in a different way than I may have in the past and I designed and tested new circuits based on a slightly different way of doing things. I learned that if a high resistance high inductance coil with proper turn spacing is subjected to a large potential difference having an extreme rate of change then the sum of potential differences measured per turn can be much greater than the potential difference across the inductive/resistive coil as a whole. I learned that this is when lumped sum inductance/capacitance calculations fail because it does not consider that any singular non-distributed effect could possibly occur between the two points normally considered. To be perfectly honest I learned a great deal when considering Rosemary's circuit conceptually than I have from anyone here because most are just repeating the same old textbook theory over and over. It was not so much that Rosemary taught me this directly, it was that she reminded me that I should always have an open mind and consider the other possibilities and for that I thank her, it's all about perspective --- some have it some don't.
QuoteBy similarity: So basically you have made several pointless, baseless, posts about how useless SPICE is because you cannot seem to handle the fact that you have had different results with it, does that about sum it up?.
Not really, I understand that SPICE can never model the full extent of singular non-distributed reactions occurring in any given space or circuit because all the science journals state that there is no supercomputer nor modeling software in existence that is up to the task. My area of research and interest relates directly to these non-linear, non-distributed effects which is why I think that no simulator to date can work and the literature would agree with me on this point.
Regards
AC
AC
We await your new textbook complete with the new discoveries and perspectives gained by listening to Rosemary's stunning and profound revelations. Just a sampling of her fabulous expertise in power measurement techniques and formulas would fill many chapters and probably inspire many readers like yourself to new vistas and transcendental plateaus of revelatory new knowledge.
O0
@Humbugger
QuoteWe await your new textbook complete with the new discoveries and perspectives gained by listening to Rosemary's stunning and profound revelations. Just a sampling of her fabulous expertise in power measurement techniques and formulas would fill many chapters and probably inspire many readers like yourself to new vistas and transcendental plateaus of revelatory new knowledge.
No textbooks or revelations here, my intent it to take the best of everyone I encounter regardless of who they are to better myself so I can help others, very simple concept -- you should try it.
Regards
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on 2011.03.28, 02:21:10
@HumbuggerNo textbooks or revelations here, my intent it to take the best of everyone I encounter regardless of who they are to better myself so I can help others, very simple concept -- you should try it.
Regards
AC
That is very altruistic of you and may in general serve you well. I hope it does. Just don't forget the value of discernment in your eagerness to see good wherever you look and positive value in every aspect of every person, you know? Critical thinking often appears to the blissful believer as negativity. A lack of it will always lead to delusion and a deeply flawed perception of reality.
My point is that no one can learn anything helpful or useful about electronic circuits or power measurements from Rosemary Ainslie. The only thing I have seen Rosemary teach or demonstrate well is her ability to assert nonsense repeatedly and ferociously until many of her audience accept the nonsense as if it were the truth or useful knowledge. I do not consider that to be useful in bettering myself or helping anyone, except as a clear example of what to avoid at all cost.
Humbugger
Quote from: FuzzyTomCat on 2011.03.27, 18:28:40
...
@ Stephan .... now that there has been a OU device you have seen the documentation and have undeniably approved the results the Over Unity "PRIZE" that you offer at your web site will be going to Rosemary Ainslie I assume being all your required criteria has been met.
...
:D
I'm very pleased that Stephan gives her the OU prize, even though the prize is far not enough to thank Rosemary Ainslie for her marvelous gift to humanity.
For having wrongly mocked her splendid work, I was banned from ou.com, and this was pure justice! Her majesty of free energy, pardon me! I'm full of shame and I repent!
;D
One last kick at the can for Rosemary:
QuoteYou forgot to add those BIG SPIKES AT THE TRANSITIONAL PHASES OF THE SWITCH. Roughly 10 volts above zero and 30 volts below zero. During THAT moment we have 10/0.25 = 40 amps from the battery
Rosemary, you have been told that there is unwanted inductance associated with your current sensing resistor. The inductance resists sudden changes in the flow of current. This resistance manifests itself as.... guess what, something that looks like an increased electrical resistance of the current sensing resistor itself. So apparent increased resistance will result in a real increase in voltage across the current sensing resistor for a short amount of time.
Supposing you suddenly put current through the current sensing resistor and the current goes from zero to six amps very suddenly. What will happen is that you will get a BIG SPIKE (see your quote above) in voltage across the current sensing resistor when this happens. It's the inductance in the current sensing resistor that is causing this. It's a "fake out" because the big spike is NOT indicating a huge increase in current at all, it's just a characteristic of how inductors work.
So, if I recall correctly your heating element is about 11 ohms and the battery voltage is about 72 volts. Therefore your maximum current is (72/11) = 6.55 amps. Above you are claiming (10/0.25) = 40 amps from the battery.
It's NOT 40 amps Rosemary. You are being faked out by the property of inductance in the current sensing resistor. What's happening is perfectly normal.
There are NO MASSIVE CURRENTS Rosemary. You are completely wrong. The big voltage spikes at the transitional phases of the switch are completely normal and not indicative of large amounts of current flow.
So for all of these months where you were in development and rejoicing about the results you were getting.... It was all wrong, a big mistake.
You have been looking at a normal mundane MOSFET switching circuit and thinking that it represents something special that mainstream somehow overlooked and you are completely wrong.
If you still can't fathom how an inductor can create a voltage spike and are going to carry on so be it.
Do you remember seeing this formula: v = L di/dt? "The voltage across an inductor is directly proportional to the amount of inductance and the
rate of change of current flowing through it with respect to time." That's what's causing the "BIG SPIKES AT THE TRANSITIONAL PHASES OF THE SWITCH."
Quoting Humbugger:
QuoteYet the scope trace including the inductance shows almost as much time and area in the negative zone as it does in the positive. So indeed, an inductive shunt can make us think there is negative current flow (and plenty of it) when (as in this example) in reality there is never even one pico-amp of negative current flow.
Note no negative current flow but negative voltage. When the
rate of change of the current flow is
decreasing but the current is still flowing in the clockwise direction you can get negative voltage across the current sensing resistor.
So Rosemary, negative voltage across the current sensing resistor but the current is still flowing in the normal direction and the battery is NOT BEING RECHARGED. How about that, amazing eh?
Again, there are no "massive currents," you are being faked out. The maximum current through the circuit is roughly (72/11) = 6.55 amps.
If there was "40 amps from the battery" then there would HAVE TO BE (40 x 11) = 440 volts across the heating element resistor.
Did you ever observe 440 volts across the heating element resistor? I am assuming the answer is no.
This whole thing is nonsense Rosemary.
MileHigh
I have found that the best shunt resistor to use is the TO-220 size type.
The one in the attached image is 30 Watt when on a heat sink. It is
a non inductive resistor (well almost none ≤ 0.1 μH) and you can get them
in 100 and 200 Watt also.
GL.
@Humbugger
QuoteThat is very altruistic of you and may in general serve you well. I hope it does. Just don't forget the value of discernment in your eagerness to see good wherever you look and positive value in every aspect of every person, you know? Critical thinking often appears to the blissful believer as negativity. A lack of it will always lead to delusion and a deeply flawed perception of reality.
I think I am quite open minded and learn a great deal from everyone around me however the fact remains that if anyone built Rosemary's circuit and asked me to test it I would do the following. I would throw their damn oscilloscopes and simulators from a very tall building then I would build a precision bomb calorimeter for the actual circuit in it's entirety and measure the input over time from the source batteries with a hydrometer. You see at the end of the day we can theorize and diddle around with our toys all we want but reality will always be the deciding factor, either it does what it is supposed to do or it does not -- in reality.
In regards to critical thinking that is debatable, what you may be referring to is some people with an ego much larger than their IQ who tend to twist logic to justify their own personal opinions. I think critical thinking is quite comical actually because they tend to treat logic and reason like some kind of fanatical religion beyond reproach, that is their logic is self-reinforcing. The problem is they always use prior logic to reinforce new logic in a fashion not unlike a snake chasing it's tail and if at any point one point fails then all must fail. So of course this logic can wander off into pure delusion as they make every effort to hold their house of cards in place, I have found critical thinking to be very much like Overunity. :D
Humbugger if your a critical thinker then you may like the website Randi.org, they are just a barrel of laughs over there, it all fun until someone says anything out of the ordinary at which point they all turn into assholes and go into attack mode, critical thinking in it's finest hour.
I think Milehigh and Poynt99 are moving in the right direction however I think the only common sense way to approach this is the bomb calorimeter/hydrometer, because simplicity just works.
Regards
AC
Quote from: Groundloop on 2011.03.28, 13:31:37
I have found that the best shunt resistor to use is the TO-220 size type.
The one in the attached image is 30 Watt when on a heat sink. It is
a non inductive resistor (well almost none ≤ 0.1 μH) and you can get them
in 100 and 200 Watt also.
GL.
These are fairly good shunts for low frequency work or if the shunt value is several ohms resistance. The inductance of 0.1uH is actually not very low at all, though. It represents a reactance much larger than a typical 0.1 ~ 0.25 ohm shunt resistance value at 1.5 MHz. Using a shunt like this (similar in inductance to Rosemary's reported value of 110nH (which I don't believe by the way...it is probably much larger)), will produce a voltage report which predominantly shows the di/dt rate of current change and NOT the actual magnitude of the current.
Humbugger
Quote from: allcanadian on 2011.03.28, 22:52:29
...
I think critical thinking is quite comical actually because they tend to treat logic and reason like some kind of fanatical religion beyond reproach, that is their logic is self-reinforcing. The problem is they always use prior logic to reinforce new logic in a fashion not unlike a snake chasing it's tail and if at any point one point fails then all must fail. So of course this logic can wander off into pure delusion as they make every effort to hold their house of cards in place, I have found critical thinking to be very much like Overunity. :D
...
Aye, there is a name for this tendency.
There is no perfect solution to power measurement AC, and hydrometer measurements are fraught with their own shortcomings. First of all, a specific gravity measurement only provides an approximate indication of the battery's state of charge, and the specific gravity of the electrolyte will vary with temperature, and the temperature inside the battery will vary with time due to self-heating.
How do you propose to convert SOC to an equivalent figure of output temp rise?
My point is that all methods have their challenges, and the results depend largely on how well those methods are carried out, and much less on the notion that one method may be better than another.
A better alternative to the hydrometer test, IMO, is to utilize the dual DMM/RC filter method to obtain the battery input power. An accurate Pin measurement is far more readily achievable this way than any other method, including hydrometer tests. Second, place the entire circuit into a heat chamber and use a master/slave-controlled load to match the temperature rise in a known load using DC current. ION presented this idea some time ago.
So here we have a happy marriage between an electronic method, and a thermal method, each providing a result they are well suited for.
.99
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.03.28, 23:21:03
These are fairly good shunts for low frequency work or if the shunt value is several ohms resistance. The inductance of 0.1uH is actually not very low at all, though. It represents a reactance much larger than a typical 0.1 ~ 0.25 ohm shunt resistance value at 1.5 MHz. Using a shunt like this (similar in inductance to Rosemary's reported value of 110nH (which I don't believe by the way...it is probably much larger)), will produce a voltage report which predominantly shows the di/dt rate of current change and NOT the actual magnitude of the current.
Humbugger
Hum,
I did a mistake with the inductance value.
It is less than 20 nano Henry for a typical 100 milli Ohm resistor.
Sorry for the typing error.
There is also some high Wattage types with a flat line frequency response up to approx. 100 MHz.
See attached images.
GL.
Yes, those are getting into the right ballpark now at 20nH, but still, at 1.5MHz, 20nH is 0.188 Ohms reactance...almost twice the value of the 0.1 Ohm resistance. This would cause about a 60 degree phase shift and almost a 3x false reading of the magnitude. Still HUGE errors if we are using the voltage information to feed a scope that is multiplying point by point samples with another varying voltage. Even one or two degree errors caused by scope probe delays being uneven between probes are considered too large for accurate power calculations according to Tektronix App Notes.
Those other ones, that show an absolutely flatline out to 100MHz are at minimum 10 Ohms as graphed. So a little high for shunt use. I see you are understanding the basic problem and that's excellent. It is extremely difficult to obtain accurate current information from even the best low-inductance shunt resistors in the sub-ohm range at RF frequencies.
There are three approaches I know of that work:
1) A small ultra hi Q porcelain RF capacitor like the ATC 100B or 100C types (American Technical Ceramics) series capacitor can be used to exactly cancel (series resonate to a dead short) the inductance portion. Sadly, this only works at one frequency so it is not a good general purpose solution and it's no good for waveforms that contain lots of harmonics (not pure single-frequency sine waves). It also destroys the DC path, so is only good in AC-only measurements.
2) A currrent probe costing thousands of dollars can be used instead of a shunt. To give good honest results in a point-by-point sampled multiplying situation, however, this probe not only needs to be very wide band and DC accurate, but its phase delay would need to be precisely matched to whatever probe was being used to get the voltage samples. These things are easy to say but extremely difficult to actually accomplish.
3) Forget all about using data sample muiltiplication and use a low-pass filter on the shunt to get the net DC equivalent current. The integrator nature of an RC filter will undo the differentiator nature of the shunt inductance. This only works when the other argument (voltage) is a steady DC voltage and you therefore needn't be concerned about power factor or phase shifts introduced between the voltage and current samples.
This is the technique I've been recommending for the Ainslie device and works well for measuring the input power to any black box whose power supply is a battery or fixed DC supply.
I do not know of any commercial wideband RF power meter that uses discrete sampling and multiplying techniques. The most accurate ones seem to rely on either bolometer techniques (measuring the heating power) or by using a wideband 50 ohm load(which is standard in RF work and are readily available with flat (non-reactive) resistances out to 18GHz or more). With a known resistive load, you just measure the voltage and find the power by e^2/R. These approaches are no good, however, for measuring the input power to a device.
Humbugger
Quote from: feynman on 2011.03.27, 19:54:36
Can SPICE simulate this?
Meyl shows tesla longitudinal electricity transmission in 2003 (click link to see experimental demo)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4615804709108706714# (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4615804709108706714#)
Didn't think so :)
Feyman, believe it or not, spice can simulate that Meyl circuit (and Tesla's) just fine. Thanks for posting that, I enjoyed the Meyl presentation video, similar to my experiments, but I'm using magnetic coupling not electric (or capacitive) like he is.
EM
More Trouble Brewing...from Rosemary's Blog...ULTIMATUMS AND THREATS OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTION!
"...Our Poynty is clearly not man enough to argue anything at all. I thought we were in the middle of a discussion. In fact, he was conducting a monologue and - it seems - will brook no argument. But what has now transpired is this. As you may or may not know - he owns a forum. Actually his sidekick Peter Evans owns the forum. But I think they're in partnership of sorts. Anyway. He's now given a mandate to 'Mookie' to rally contributions from anyone at all who has something nasty to say about me. Mookie assures all and sundry that nothing they contribute will be edited. Then, as if this is not enough - he has used his knowledge of my IP address to block my view. In effect, they've started their own little 'hate speech' campaign and prevented me from taking action against all that slander. I've reported this to ALL appropriate authorities. I'm not sure that he's allowed to do this legally. The question is can one undertake to publicly slander another person and then deny that person right to see that discussion. Private would be a different matter. But their's is a public forum.
I could wax eloquent about the morality of this and even the legality. But that's boring. The fact is that Poynty Point is, apparently something less of a man and something more of a big girl's blouse. When punches must be pulled that are that mean and far under the belt - then we're dealing here with something rather contemptible. For some reason they seem to think this is acceptable. Hopefully Peter and Poynty will learn otherwise. So. This is for Poynty and Peterae. Here's your choices guys. Refrain from any further mention of me or give me view of what your saying.
What sad little bullies they all are. But it reminds me how frantic they are to slur this work and my name along with it. Apparently Mookie is concerned that I wear pyjamas all day and do nothing but sit in a tiny little dusty room in front of my computer. LOL. Someone must please tell him that I have really substantial living quarters and rather an excess of space than otherwise. I play bridge. I garden. I consider myself a good cook. I read - EVERYTHING that I can. I have close family and close friends. And, indeed, I have close neighbours. So. A reasonably balanced life with a passionate interest in physics and a burning interest in promoting it's insights. What's wrong with that?
Then. Some good news for me - some REALLY bad news for Mookie et al. We're to do more demonstrations. But this time I'll hold back on details until they're in the bag. The promise is that the protocols will be evaluated prior to the test. So. All will be evaluated prior to that test and the demo will simply be the proof. That's a very good thing.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary"
I don't know what anyone else might have to say to all this dirty mudslinging childish name-calling self-important hoo ha but here's what I'll say and it's for the record so if she wants to sue me she can:
Rosemarie Ainslie is not qualified to discuss or make proper electronic circuit measurements (fact)
Rosemary Ainslie is an argumentative attention-seeking and deluded individual full of arrogance and undue self-importance (opinion)
In private, Rosemary Ainslie picks her nose and eats it. (clearly "hate speech") :P
Poynt: When Rosemary sues you or threatens real legal action, let me know. I'll give you my full name and address and you can forward it to her. I would really like to be included as another defendant.
Humbugger
Quote from: Dumped on 2011.03.29, 07:26:22
What, pray tell, has Rosemary done to reap such
fallout? Bruised some tender egos with her brilliant
intellect and skillful exposition?
Why would anyone's ego be bruised by another's brilliant intellect and skillful exposition? Rosemary has drawn flak and endless criticism solely because her "brilliant intellect" is misused and confused, her expositions are so full of illogic and misdrawn conclusions and basic glaring obvious errors and her claims are unfounded, undemonstrated, outrageous, inconsistent and presented with such ferocious arrogance and pretense of expertise.
Her incorrect yet forceful assertions beg ridicule and derision only because all logical calm serious efforts to point out the errors many of us can see in her thinking and her test procedures and to have meaningful productive discussions of the realities of her circuit's operation with her have been thwarted by her time and time again. She brings her ignorance to the forums with great fanfare and proclamations of scientific breakthroughs shattering centuries of learned knowledge and then cries foul if anyone points out the glaring errors therein. This leaves little room left for genuine meaningful discussion or debate thus all that is left is to poke fun at how ridiculous it all is.
Humbugger
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.03.29, 05:10:54
Yes, those are getting into the right ballpark now at 20nH, but still, at 1.5MHz, 20nH is 0.188 Ohms reactance...almost twice the value of the 0.1 Ohm resistance. This would cause about a 60 degree phase shift and almost a 3x false reading of the magnitude. Still HUGE errors if we are using the voltage information to feed a scope that is multiplying point by point samples with another varying voltage. Even one or two degree errors caused by scope probe delays being uneven between probes are considered too large for accurate power calculations according to Tektronix App Notes.
Those other ones, that show an absolutely flatline out to 100MHz are at minimum 10 Ohms as graphed. So a little high for shunt use. I see you are understanding the basic problem and that's excellent. It is extremely difficult to obtain accurate current information from even the best low-inductance shunt resistors in the sub-ohm range at RF frequencies.
There are three approaches I know of that work:
1) A small ultra hi Q porcelain RF capacitor like the ATC 100B or 100C types (American Technical Ceramics) series capacitor can be used to exactly cancel (series resonate to a dead short) the inductance portion. Sadly, this only works at one frequency so it is not a good general purpose solution and it's no good for waveforms that contain lots of harmonics (not pure single-frequency sine waves). It also destroys the DC path, so is only good in AC-only measurements.
2) A currrent probe costing thousands of dollars can be used instead of a shunt. To give good honest results in a point-by-point sampled multiplying situation, however, this probe not only needs to be very wide band and DC accurate, but its phase delay would need to be precisely matched to whatever probe was being used to get the voltage samples. These things are easy to say but extremely difficult to actually accomplish.
3) Forget all about using data sample muiltiplication and use a low-pass filter on the shunt to get the net DC equivalent current. The integrator nature of an RC filter will undo the differentiator nature of the shunt inductance. This only works when the other argument (voltage) is a steady DC voltage and you therefore needn't be concerned about power factor or phase shifts introduced between the voltage and current samples.
This is the technique I've been recommending for the Ainslie device and works well for measuring the input power to any black box whose power supply is a battery or fixed DC supply.
I do not know of any commercial wideband RF power meter that uses discrete sampling and multiplying techniques. The most accurate ones seem to rely on either bolometer techniques (measuring the heating power) or by using a wideband 50 ohm load(which is standard in RF work and are readily available with flat (non-reactive) resistances out to 18GHz or more). With a known resistive load, you just measure the voltage and find the power by e^2/R. These approaches are no good, however, for measuring the input power to a device.
Humbugger
Hum,
Here is the best current sense resistor I have found so far.
See attached data sheet.
GL.
This thread is now closed, indefinitely.
Well, since we are still discussing technical aspects of the oscillation, it would be more appropriate to do so here.
What is making the Rosmary circuit oscillate when the gate input is negative?
GL.
Quote from: Groundloop on 2011.04.13, 20:00:06
What is making the Rosmary circuit oscillate when the gate input is negative?
GL.
Alex,
There's still no concrete evidence imho to indicate exactly what is causing her setup to oscillate. One unknown is whether a negative offset is required at all; I don't believe it is.
From what I see, the circuit has a propensity to oscillate as long as the Gate voltage drive is 0V or below. The Gate is then being modulated by either inductive pickup or capacitive coupling from the Source and/or the Drain. It may be a Class-C type operation, or it may operate similar to the BJT Joule Thief.
I have a suspicion that the function generator impedance of 50 Ohms is not seen by the Gate and in fact the leads are acting as an "open-ended" transmission line. We've been modeling this using a 1uH inductor, but I think a TL is more appropriate. It's just a matter of getting it to work however, and this apparently is not that easy, I've tried.
Anyhow, the big question in my mind, is "why is the CSR voltage biased to the negative?"
.99
Quote from: poynt99
Anyhow, the big question in my mind, is "why is the CSR voltage biased to the negative?"
.99
One guess is that there are holes blown in the gate oxide due to overvoltage spiking. Mosfets are known to keep operating albeit with degraded performance when this happens. One of the performance degradations is, of course, significant DC current leakage occurs between gate and source.
Another puzzle is why there are now two distinct phases of oscillation...the "hammerhead effect" so to speak. For the first 30 seconds or so, the oscillations are much larger and have a huge negative peak excursion. Then, all on their own it seems, they calm down to a much lower steady state. This new burst envelope seems to have become the norm after the recent repairs and MOSFET replacements of 2 out of 5 parts.
Based on the time constant (30+ seconds), I'd guess it's something thermally-related and may also have to do with partially-perforated gate oxides and leakage currents. Just wild guesses, though. Rosemary has never commented nor answered my queries about this new burst envelope, so it's probably not something intentional or that she can explain. (Is there anything Rosemary can't explain? Ever? I take that back...I meant anything she wants to try to explain to me)
I think Chef's post after she showed a few scope traces with dead flatline noise yet still providing "negative numbers" presumed to prove battery charging said it all...
Humbugger
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.04.14, 03:28:25
One guess is that there are holes blown in the gate oxide due to overvoltage spiking. Mosfets are known to keep operating albeit with degraded performance when this happens. One of the performance degradations is, of course, significant DC current leakage occurs between gate and source.
Another puzzle is why there are now two distinct phases of oscillation...the "hammerhead effect" so to speak. For the first 30 seconds or so, the oscillations are much larger and have a huge negative peak excursion. Then, all on their own it seems, they calm down to a much lower steady state. This new burst envelope seems to have become the norm after the recent repairs and MOSFET replacements of 2 out of 5 parts.
Based on the time constant (30+ seconds), I'd guess it's something thermally-related and may also have to do with partially-perforated gate oxides and leakage currents. Just wild guesses, though. Rosemary has never commented nor answered my queries about this new burst envelope, so it's probably not something intentional or that she can explain. (Is there anything Rosemary can't explain? Ever? I take that back...I meant anything she wants to try to explain to me)
I think Chef's post after she showed a few scope traces with dead flatline noise yet still providing "negative numbers" presumed to prove battery charging said it all...
Humbugger
These are certainly possibilities Hum, thanks for bringing those ideas up.
Just to play devil's advocate a little here, regardless of what may be causing this effect where the CSR mean is negative, does this not still imply that a net current is going back into the battery?
.99
Howdy all,
Well there still is the question of the "LOAD" inductor or resistor that is being used for all the oscilloscope shots with the results all over the place that has been hand selected for our enjoyment and discussion. This images attached are the only ones that has been supplied as evidence of what is being used and can be seen in the epic YouTube video of the proposed energy made up from zippieons recharging a bank of five (5) 100Ah batteries.
We have been assuming this inductor or resistor used is 10 Ohms and from the attached images provided looking at the material used, length and diameter of the actual element would suggest to me it's about 1 Ohm or less "MAXIMUM" !!
Where is the "Temperature Profile" for this inductor or resistor under test load in all these oscilloscope shots for a start the BASICS of a proper analysis ??
Regard's
Glen
:)
Hi All,
Well I've been finally included in the evening delusion after commenting and posting ( http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=13.msg13005#msg13005 ) on the bogus information that was given on the "LOAD" inductor or resistor being around 1 Ohm because of the material, diameter and length of the element, and is no where close to 10 Ohms as stated by Rosemary.
Of course there is no thermo profiling that has ever been done and presented to the open source community she has neglected it as not being required for any proof of the circuit operational claim and her zippieon thesis.http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg281605#msg281605
Quote
Poynty - please get those fatuous and entirely erroneous comments of FuzzyTomCat off that thread. It's already been polluted out of mind.
Now she off again on more unrelated subjects having nothing to do at all with the device that the restricted to everyone but her "SOAP BOX" thread at OU.com was created for "PROOF OF CONCEPT". There is four hundred seventeen ( 417 ) posts starting February 21, 2011 ..... two (2) months of nothing again .... only unwanted lip service nonsense the same hand waving garbage now for over ten years.
It's also quite obvious that this circuit is way, way, way out of Stefans league at OU.com and has given little to no direction on the testing and evaluation results that has been posted on his "click" advertisement forum site .... at least Aaron at Energetic Forum had the balls to do some hands on work trying to do some evaluation whether it was done right or wrong and .99 involvement on three forums doing actual testing.
Fuzzy
:)
How can you be sure that load resistor is not the reported 11 Ohms Glen?
I would think that this would be an easy measurement for them to get correct, no?
.99
Fuzzy:
There was a thermal profiling supplied for the heating element in Rosemary's last presentation. However there was no official crunching of power in vs. power out. Chet, are the "shorting coil" boys making any progress on that front?
Rosemary:
I will tackle the capacitor issue since you mentioned it again.
Here is the basic test: You have six batteries in series, so what you are going to do is replace one of the batteries in the middle of the pack with a capacitor to run this test.
You need a big electrolytic capacitor, one that looks like a 300 ml coke can. The rated voltage should be 25 volts. I am not sure, but one of them is probably between 10,000 and 25,000 microfarads. If they are 10,000 you might need to wire two in parallel. The wiring should ideally be done with thick-gauge wires that terminate in eyelets that can be screwed down to the terminals.
Here is a picture of one:
(http://www.tedss.com/stock/images/1175/1175003161.jpg)
Note the cap in the picture has a rating of 450 volts, but you must get one or more with a rating of 25 volts.
I haven't calculated the expected voltage drop over time if the capacitor is driving a 15 watt load (is that the approximate wattage?) but I will leave that to someone else.
Here is what we ideally want: We want to see the capacitor voltage change by two volts or less over a time period that ranges between two and ten seconds.
As the capacitance gets larger, the voltage will change more slowly as your circuit runs.
Why do we want what we want: So that we can measure the the start voltage, the time, and the end voltage on a multimeter. That's how you run the test. You just turn your setup on and then off and record the amount of time it was on and the start and end capacitor voltage readings. Simple enough, no?
Continuing on.....
Okay, now let's discuss the mechanics of wiring the big capacitor into the setup.
You will need a 500 ohm 1/2 watt resistor, you will use this to charge up the big capacitor.
Let's say you are going to substitute the third battery in the chain to run the test.
So you disconnect the wire between the positive terminal of the third battery and the negative terminal of the second battery. The third battery has now been taken out of the circuit.
Note that electrolytic capacitors like this are polarized. It's very important that you don't charge the capacitor up with the wrong voltage polarity.
Connect the negative terminal of the capacitor to the negative terminal of the third battery.
Now, using your 500-ohm resistor, connect the third battery's positive terminal to the resistor and then to the positive terminal of the capacitor.
Watch the voltage on the capacitor slowly rise with your multimeter. Simply clip the multimeter on the capacitor and leave it connected.
When the voltage on the capacitor is nearly the third battery's voltage, remove the resistor and just make a short circuit between the two positive terminals.
Now the capacitor is ready for the test and is charged to the third battery's voltage.
Connect the capacitor's positive terminal to the negative terminal of the second battery. Now the capacitor is wired into the circuit and taking over the function of the third battery.
You are now ready to do your testing. The logical thing to do is do several runs with different time intervals recording voltage changes on the capacitor of two volts or less. The voltage data will be very accurate. If you have an iPhone or a stopwatch and can synchronize the power on-off with the stopwatch then you will be in great shape.
I just realized that you would want a time interval of five second runs or more, and hopefully the capacitor voltage will not change by more than two volts during that time period. You want longer times to increase the accuracy of your time measurement.
Every time you do a new test run you have to recharge the capacitor. Do not let the circuit run unattended at all. If it ran unattended there is a very good chance that the voltage on the capacitor would eventually reverse polarity and you could have another form of meltdown.
And that's it. The capacitor voltage change over time will tell you the direction and magnitude of the current flow through the current sensing resistor.
If the capacitor voltage increases then you are over unity and COP infinity.
If the capacitor voltage decreases then you have to compare the measured power output against the thermal profiling of your heating element to see if you are over unity or not.
All of this can be found out from this one simple test.
Of course you will want to verify that the oscillations are there when you first set up the test. You should see the identical waveforms but you might notice a slight droop or slight frequency shift over time as you watch the test run. That's nothing, it's just because the voltage of the 72-volt battery bank is changing slightly because one of the batteries is now a large capacitor.
MileHigh
One last issue, about the actual wiring.
Ideally, you would do your hookups with heavy-gauge wires that terminate in crimp-on eyelets and fasten everything in place with machine screws.
The wiring connections are not super-critical, but they should still be reasonably good.
If I had the larger-sized alligator clip leads I would make three alligator clip-lead connections between the capacitor negative terminal and the third battery's negative terminal. I would use three alligator clip-lead connections for the other connection.
Make sure the alligator clips are firmly connected to the battery and capacitor posts.
That should do it.
Caution because an alligator clip lead causing a short on one of your big batteries would turn red hot in about five seconds.
Finally a comment from the peanut gallery.
From what I understand you have no idea what the true condition of your batteries is. It's not critical but it would be nice to know that all of your batteries are reasonably healthy. You could put a battery charger on them.
But you can do a simple brute force and quick test. For your big batteries, let's see how they individually perform driving about a 5 amp load.
So R = 12.6/5 = 2.52 ohms. So if you have two one-ohm current sensing resistors put them in series.
The power dissipation will be 12.6^2/2 = 79 watts. That's way too high.
Change the load to four one-ohm current sensing resistors in series. Now the power consumption is about 40 watts.
If your current sensing resistors are 5 watts you will be fine.
So just short that four-ohm load across each individual battery for about three seconds and look at the voltage drop on the battery. If the battery voltage takes a slight dip, say less than 0.3 volts, the battery is good. If the voltage drops by more than a volt, the battery is weak and is the a weak link in your battery chain. I am flying by the seat of my pants for the numbers that I am quoting.
All experimenters should become adept at this simple battery test. You can get to know your batteries much better like this and monitor their health over time.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.04.15, 21:12:38
How can you be sure that load resistor is not the reported 11 Ohms Glen?
I would think that this would be an easy measurement for them to get correct, no?
.99
Well I'm not sure enough to say .... are you positive .... whom took the measurements .... Rosemary ? As MileHigh said there was no official crunching of power in vs. power out .... why is this ?? I've looked quite extensively for materials for elements for use in the 10 Ohm range and could never find something so large in diameter in the short length it is .... how could this be ??
The only time a temperature was shown was for a very short time with the inductor resistor connecting wires covered was the temperature rising or falling ?? What was the wattage draw for the temperature in that video demonstration at that short moment in time ??
Does it make any difference on any of the oscilloscope shots if the inductor resistor was connected or not ? Would it make any difference if the actual resistance of the inductor was 0 through 11 ohms on calculations ?
Please remember all the other experimentalist before us that used in their presentations and documentation, photos, videos and live demonstrations everything and anything to do what is necessary for real excepted proof ... has the bar been lowered so very far as just a few minor cherry picked selected oscilloscope shots form any one person to "claim" proof of concept on another new so called discovery is all that's required ? If the bar has been lowered to such a great extent now it's just a matter of time for shady inventors to modify data and oscilloscope shots with image editors changing document dates and time stamps and compile a great one off experimental device run of a life time ... fraud will abound everywhere and in some cases may have already started.
Best Regard's
Glen
:)
One thing to keep in mind Glen, is that the power in SA is probably 220V, not 110V like ours.
So 220V/11 Ohms is about 20 Amps and about 4400W. This seems quite doable.
Now, imagine a 1 Ohm value; we are looking at 220 Amps, and 48.4kW. :o
I really doubt it can be the latter case. ;)
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.04.16, 00:14:45
One thing to keep in mind Glen, is that the power in SA is probably 220V, not 110V like ours.
So 220V/11 Ohms is about 20 Amps and about 4400W. This seems quite doable.
Now, imagine a 1 Ohm value; we are looking at 220 Amps, and 48.4kW. :o
I really doubt it can be the latter case. ;)
.99
Well from what I can recall this was custom made inductor ( http://www.energeticforum.com/102109-post613.html ) she had to wait for and
not off the shelf to go into the small copper water heater that was made almost a Year ago ( http://www.energeticforum.com/94900-post563.html ) in the attached images.
I do agree on SA having 220 volt ... but ... these components were custom made as we were told to use with the 60 VDC switching mosfet circuit in mind, and 4400W would be kind of large for the volume of fluid used in the application it was intended for I would think ;)
The other odd thing is If you look very closely at the inductor resistor there is
no insulator between the two ends of the element and the threaded cap, you can even see the solder on the copper .... looks like a dead short to me.
I could be wrong but .....
:)
Quote from: FuzzyTomCat on 2011.04.16, 01:12:00
The other odd thing is If you look very closely at the inductor resistor there is no insulator between the two ends of the element and the threaded cap, you can even see the solder on the copper .... looks like a dead short to me.
I could be wrong but .....
:)
I wouldn't count on the thing being custom made.
Also, what do you mean by insulation between the two ends? I see no short anywhere. The threaded cap and the outer pipe are connected sure, but the conductive element is inside the pipe, and it is insulated.
.99
Quote from: Groundloop on 2011.04.13, 20:00:06
What is making the Rosmary circuit oscillate when the gate input is negative?
GL.
I've tested this in SPICE, and I can get indefinite oscillation by giving it a single pulse from 5V to 0V. (I think Hum did too).
What's making this thing oscillate? Here's a possibility:
Barkhausen criteria for oscillation:
1) The circuit requires gain.
2) The circuit requires a feedback mechanism, and the feedback must be in-phase.
3) The circuit forward and feedback gain product must be 1.
4) Not a requirement for oscillation, but usually some limiting mechanism is required to stabilize the amplitude.
1a) The MOSFET switch (any active switch really) is really just an amplifier with a lot of gain. In this case, a common-source amplifier.
2a) MOSFETS are notorious for exhibiting huge inter-electrode capacitance. Like any amplifier, the Common-source amp has it's bandwidth limitation, and this is largely due to the parasitic capacitance between the electrodes, in particular from Drain to Gate (whose effect is multiplied by the gain, i.e. Miller effect).
3a) If at the unity-gain frequency the phase is changed from 180º to 360º, then you now have all the ingredients required to create a self-sustained oscillation from a "simple" amplifier.
4a) In this case, I believe the limiting mechanism is either from the body diode partially conducting, or it's the quadratic V
GS to I
D relationship.
At any rate, that's my take so far from the testing I've done.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.04.16, 01:59:47
I wouldn't count on the thing being custom made.
Also, what do you mean by insulation between the two ends? I see no short anywhere. The threaded cap and the outer pipe are connected sure, but the conductive element is inside the pipe, and it is insulated.
.99
RA posted several times at Energetic and Overunity she was having it made .... and .... Yep your correct its constructed similar to any standard 2000 - 4000 watt 240 Volt AC hot water heater element and a insulated conductor
inside the tubing with the exception on the spiral twists which possibly could be effecting the oscilloscope wave form.
Is the element metallic copper threaded housing "grounded" to a earth ground as in a actual application that would be required for the proper operation of any "LOAD" short circuit protection device ( CB or Fuse ) needed in the application for personal and equipment protection ? There seems to be quite the amperage capacity in the battery bank and grounding and bonding a device that is made of a metallic material with a fluid inside like water would be a requirement anywhere installed .... and the grounding and bonding to earth of this part of the load resistor inductor housing will effect the readings taken ..... IMHO
I still would like to see a actual for real thermo inductor resistor profile .... guess I'm just old fashion.
Oh well .... just kickin the can I guess .... she's already has claimed victory .... LOL
O0
Glen,
I would say that the heater housing is not grounded nor connected to anything at all. It is probably floating wrt the battery. Normally, the grounding would be done by screwing the cap into a grounded structure.
Again, I'll be surprised if she actually had that heater coil element custom manufactured.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.04.16, 03:59:50
Glen,
I would say that the heater housing is not grounded nor connected to anything at all. It is probably floating wrt the battery. Normally, the grounding would be done by screwing the cap into a grounded structure.
Again, I'll be surprised if she actually had that heater coil element custom manufactured.
.99
Hi .99,
That's what I was thinking on the grounding issue now a days with so much plastic pipe in installations the heating vessel containing the inductor resistor element would be grounded itself though.
As for the inductor resistor element at one time I thought as you did and assumed it was off the shelf, unfortunately after many hours of looking for a example I found none just like it. The inductor resistor element I found were all in a round spiral design had the exterior circumference of the element on the same centerline as the threaded sealing nut with the end of the spiral going up the
inside diameter as shown in the image I posted at Energetic ( http://www.energeticforum.com/102149-post82.html ) ....
(http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/752237.jpg)
I never found a inductor resistor element that had the end of the spiral going up the
outside diameter of the element off centered .... it would only make sense to require equal heating around the exterior circumference for the element to be centered with the mounting threaded portion with the spiral end going up the center.
This is why I have little doubt it was custom made as RA said, and that why my curiosity on the complete details of this important component.
Glen
;)
Glen,
The heater coil you've posted may indeed be a custom job, as it appears somewhat crudely put together. However, the unit in the attached picture appears to be a manufactured COS unit. Or are they the same unit? Hard to tell.
Whether the return goes through the center of the coil or not is of little consequence if the unit is being inserted into a large vessel.
.99
From here (http://www.electronics-manufacturers.com/Electronic_components/Electric_heaters/Immersion_heaters/):
QuoteElectric immersion heaters are widely used means of heating liquids such as water, chemical solutions, oil, alkalis, mild acids, electroplating solutions, salt solutions and many others. Immersion heaters typically have a tubular metal sheath in which a heating resistor coil is disposed, the coil being electrically insulated from the sheath by compacted refractory material which also serves to conduct the heat from the coil to the sheath. Immersion heaters generally has a resistance wire with a ceramic insulator assembly disposed in a sheath of material generally resistant to the liquid medium being heated.
.99
Indeed it seems difficult to find an immersion heater element made in the "coil" form factor. Most are made similar to the attached.
(http://www.globalspec.com/NpaPics/90/147430_012320085399_ExhibitPic.jpg)
.99
I have seen that heating element or something very similar some years ago while repairing a large industrial tea urn.
They are also used in heated water hand washers, probably only a 1kw unit but maybe upto 3kW
http://www.uk-spares.com/pdfs/UK_Spares_brochure.pdf
Diagram left WS7 page 37
diagram Ws7U page 36
Ah ah eBay although i believe this is probably a dual element version.
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Heatrae-Sadia-Santon-Heating-Element-95606952-Supreme-_W0QQitemZ140532218110QQcmdZViewItem?rvr_id=225497967649&rvr_id=225497967649&cguid=c5b667a612e0a479e73533a5ffdd6620
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.04.16, 16:30:09
Indeed it seems difficult to find an immersion heater element made in the "coil" form factor. Most are made similar to the attached.
(http://www.globalspec.com/NpaPics/90/147430_012320085399_ExhibitPic.jpg)
.99
Yep, I spent some time ( days ) looking for a spiral immersion water heating element just like the one RA shown as her custom made component and couldn't find one with one end of the element going up the outside circumference of the spiral. The only ones I could find were from a very few manufactures "all" with one end of the element going up the inside center circumference as the image I posted earlier.
Here is a copy of a cut sheet from the attached PDF ......
(http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/Electricfor_spiral_water_heater_-1.jpg)
This manufacture in "Figure 1" has the spiral immersion water heating element in 240 Volt and in
1000,
1500,
2000 and
3000 watt units with a flange mounting
The image below is another type but still the one end of the element going up the inside center circumference.
(http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/Water-Tubular-Heating-Tube-Heater-Element-1.jpg)
Now if what is being used is as I have suspected a custom made spiral immersion water heating element and not a unit that is "off the shelf" that the open source community can have a
MANUFACTURES PART NUMBER for replications and to verify the resistance and wattage a "Thermo Profile" of the RA custom spiral immersion water heating element must be made for load verification purposes.
Glen
;)
Actually Glen, I don't think the type of load is critical, as long as the resistance and inductance are close. I can tell you that the simulations Hum and I ran do not take into account that the load is an immersion heater coil, and the darn thing still oscillates. ;)
It may just end up however, that to obtain a load with those values may require the use of one of these heater coils, but I don't know for certain.
.99
Yet another inexcusable blunder by the team of "experts":
Well, this is terribly embarrassing; According to their published circuit diagram, simulation diagram, and the demonstration video, Rosie-posie and her team of "experts" has not only incorrectly labeled two of the nodes on the prototype board (the F and C are incorrectly swapped), but they have connected mosfets 2-5 incorrectly as well (the Gate and Source pins are incorrectly swapped, but M1 is all correct). It is not surprising however that her "experts" didn't catch this big "OOOPS" when they were repairing the unit.
This would explain the somewhat funky wave forms, and why the simulation results look slightly different.
This sure doesn't instill much confidence in anyone following along with this travesty, especially when considering the entire project is already teetering on the brink of self-destruction. A rhetorical question or two; So what are we now to make of all those posted wave forms and so-called measurements? Are the probes even displaying the circuit nodes we have been led to believe they are displaying?
That aside, as a gesture of good faith Rosie-posie, may the world please see that properly-conducted continuous operation test? I'm afraid it's the only way you're going to prove to anyone beyond a reasonable doubt that your claims are true.
.99
And true to form, rather than checking out the facts, Rose flat out denies that there is anything wrong with the connections. I predict an apology on this any time soon. ;)
.99
Posted at OU.com and awaiting moderator release:
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #725 on: Today at 10:10:50 PM »QuoteModifyNote: This message is awaiting approval by a moderator.
I have already shown several times how a false negative voltage can appear across an inductive shunt. Now, with the revelation that at least part of any positive current is being diverted through the "upside down" group of MOSFETs and never appearing in the shunt at all and none of any negative current is thusly diverted, this further explains how a net average negative current could easily be displayed across the shunt when in fact the actual net current may well be quite positive.
Furthermore, there is a recurring theme here coming from Rosemary that it is somehow remarkable and anomalous that the drain waveform or so-called "battery voltage" is 180 degrees out of phase with the shunt waveform. This is absolutely normal and would occur in all cases and always does! This is true in MOSFET circuits, junction transistor circuits, tube circuits, switching circuits, linear amplifiers and linear oscillators of all kinds. Obviously, as the current in the D-S channel increases, the shunt voltage goes up and the drain voltage goes down! There is nothing at all surprising or anomalous there and, in fact, it would be virtually impossible to have it any other way.
This completely normal and expected behavior also easily explains why the V*V trace always shows a negative value in Rose's circuit. The so-called "battery voltage" is always positive but varies in a way that it is at its high point when the shunt voltage is at its lowest (most negative) point. So, when the two numbers are multiplied by the scope math, any negative voltage on the shunt is multiplied by a much larger number than during times when the shunt voltage is positive and the so-called "battery voltage" is at its lowest point.
Even if the negative voltage peak on the shunt was only, say, 1/4 of the positive voltage peak, as long as the so-called "battery voltage" multiplier was more than 4x larger at that moment than it is at its low point, you would see a net negative V*V product. All of this nonsense has nothing to do with the actual input power from the battery!
It is a completely normal, expected result of not actually using the real DC battery voltage (which is virtually constant) as a multiplier and instead, feeding in a huge ac voltage that actually comes from the wiring inductance and not the batteries and in truth represents only the di/dt (rate of change of current) and not the battery voltage at all.
When the wiring inductance of the battery stack was cut in half by measuring at the battery terminals and she observed an exactly corresponding reduction in half of the AC part of the waveform this instantly proved that all of the AC voltage on the battery measurement is due to the wiring inductance and that there was still about half of that inductance remaining inside the measurement path because of the long wires used to interconnect the battery stack (the inductance of which was never eliminated from the measurement loop).
Finally, the position of the shunt, being within the gate drive loop (and now also within the source path of 4/5 of the MOSFETs) is not by any means a true and exclusive measure of the battery current.
A very simple way to address all of these problems (and other problems I have pointed out before) is to place the shunt directly on the negative terminal of the battery stack instead of inside the gate/source drive loop as it now is. In addition, the actual DC battery voltage (without the AC effects of the inter-battery wiring inductance) can be easily had by placing the probe across only the most negative battery of the stack.
These simple changes will have no effect on the circuit operation itself (all the same waveforms and oscillations and phase relationships will remain exactly intact) but will provide the actual measure of power flow into/out of the battery.
Simply take the V*V mean, multiply it by 4 (for the shunt being 1/4 ohm) and then multiply that by the number of identical batteries. For absolute accuracy, the shunt inductance can easily be compensated out of the measurement (while leaving it in the circuit itself) by adding an RC time constant equal to the LR time constant of the inductive shunt; RC=L/R. The diagram below shows the existing shunt X'd out, but there is no problem with leaving it there so as to assure no effect on circuit operation. You just can't measure there and expect to see only the battery current!
If Rose is still confused about any of these observations and the necessary procedures to make true input power measurements without making any changes to the operating characteristics of the circuit itself, once again, I urge her to consult with her local Tektronix or LeCroy Applications engineer. Short of that, I will be more than happy to answer questions or give advice. Here's to proper measurements in the future!
Humbugger
QuoteAnd tuning those circuits to get those delicious resonances. That's really easy. And it's fun.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg282981#msg282981
Quote
In my simulation, going from 4 mosfets down to 1 mosfet in pseudo-parallel with Q1, the Fo changes from ~1.3MHz to ~1.8MHz, and the P-P voltages increase about 25% or so. This make sense to me.
I'm currently looking for my spare IRFPG50, but so far I can't find it. I am pretty sure I bought 2 when I was putting together GL's PCB to test the previous version of this project. If I can find it, I might try the two in psuedo-parallel and see if I can get the oscillation.
.99
Hi Poynt,
You most certainly got "two" from my recollection .... I know for a fact ;)
There has been a prerequisite demand from Stefan at OU that if I wish to post again there at OU that the only way is to have a project device and results "he would let me in".
Quote
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stefan Hartmann" <hartiberlin@xxxxxxxxxxx.com>
To: "Glen Lettenmaier" <fuzzytomcat@xxxxxxxx.net>
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2011 1:52 PM
Subject: Re: Forum Banning
Hi Glen,
have you been replicating her last circuit and can show me
a picture of your setup ?
If yes, I will let you in again.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.
I'm sure your aware that any result good or bad I was to obtain in this experimental device under scrutiny that rumors of my being bias would be the nicest thing that would be said by Rosemary plus the OU.com trolls.
It should also be noted that the five (5) or six (6) 12V Silver Calcium batteries and the "load" immersion inductor resistor would be well over $500.00 to $600.00 (US) for a accurate complete "REPLICATION" of the experimental device and told Stefan that I was not interested in his web site destroying what dignity I have left from the last go around with Rosemary or him.
I do in fact have in my hands from www.questcomp.com (http://www.questcomp.com) six (6) International Rectifier IRFPG50 Mosfets left over from the last time earmarked for another project .... but alas I have no interest to do it at this time because of the bad karma that was given me from the head SA tribal clan witchdoctor.
If you need them Poynt there yours for "FREE" how many you need just give me a PM I'll get them air shipped to you ..... your our last front of defense here with all the venomous comments at OU.com for us whom spoke up getting banned from comment and now I have nothing nice to say at the "click" advertisement rag web site.
Best Regards,
Glen
:)
EDIT -
I still think there's nothing to this circuit that hasn't been seen before by me and others first hand ..... you still need to charge the batteries there is no COP infinity
.99
Do you know if the RA team is using a insulator pad between the Mosfet body drain and the heat sink .... like a sil pad or mica ??
http://www.datasheetcatalog.org/datasheet/irf/irfpg50.pdf ( International Rectifier - IRFPG50 HEXFET® Power MOSFET )
Glen
Hi Glen.
I don't know for certain, but my guess would be they are not.
If that's the case, this could produce a Drain "loop" because all those stacked heat sinks (the 4 anyway) would be connecting together. This would make for a nice radiator of HF noise, and who knows what else?
Good point.
.99
Then again, maybe they are using an insulator.
Zoom in on this pic. It appears to be that gray "stuff".
I don't recall if contact can still be made to the heat sink with the screw, as would be possible if the proper screw insulator was not used, and there is metal around the mounting hole.
.99
Thanks for the generous offer on the MOSFETs Glen.
I will let you know if I need some.
;)
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.04.25, 20:55:22
Then again, maybe they are using an insulator.
Zoom in on this pic. It appears to be that gray "stuff".
I don't recall if contact can still be made to the heat sink with the screw, as would be possible if the proper screw insulator was not used, and there is metal around the mounting hole.
.99
Well I'm not sure but they maybe using a sil pad ...
That's the first time I saw that build image you attached to the posting .... it appears they are using four (4) mosfets not five (5) and their G S D leads are connected to screw stand offs with alligator clips or am I seeing things ??? .... those alligator clips look like they
may not be voltage and amperage rated for this particular application .... IMHO They should have used a wire ring terminal with jam nuts on the screw stand offs to make the mosfet termination resistance the same with no possibility of a loose connection.
Glen
:)
The mounting screw hole in the mosfet is insulated from the drain just the back plain is connected to the drain pin
Glen,
Thanks for that update on the PG50. They should be well isolated then I would think.
The Q1 MOSFET is behind that 4-stack, and it is mounted right on the perf board, so you don't see it in that shot. It is mounted on a much smaller U-channel heat sink, which is why it is not that prominent in the video. Yes the leads are connected to studs via alligator clips. I wouldn't worry too much about the current; I don't think there is ever more than 1A or so.
.99
I looked at the image again a little closer ... it really almost looks like semi conductor paste for "conductivity" a common mistake for FET's not for isolation which is required as I found out the hard way. :o
Glen
;)
Hi Poynt,
I see your modified circuit diagrams on your reply posting #895 (link) (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg283067#msg283067) at the other place ....
How does the body diode inside of the IRFPG50 International Rectifier Mosfet effect these circuits ? It appears to me the diode creates a direct path to the 11.11 Ohm Load inductor through Q2, Q3, Q4 and Q5 from the source to the drain from the frequency generator ? :o
Glen
;)
Quote from: FuzzyTomCat on 2011.04.26, 04:10:08
Hi Poynt,
I see your modified circuit diagrams on your reply posting #895 (link) (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg283067#msg283067) at the other place ....
How does the body diode inside of the IRFPG50 International Rectifier Mosfet effect these circuits ? It appears to me the diode creates a direct path to the 11.11 Ohm Load inductor through Q2, Q3, Q4 and Q5 from the source to the drain from the frequency generator ? :o
Glen
;)
Do not use the generic image supplied by Spice for the IRFPG50 Mosfet it does not show the internal body diode .... you can with the correct image see how the function generator is supplying power to the circuit.
Glen
;)
Poynt:
I can't see the simplifications. I feel blind!
Let me give you my take on the oscillations. This will be very simplified so it will probably be incorrect. I read your descriptions of the operation of the circuit and found I could not follow you.
So here goes...
The main driving force behind the appearance of the big negative spike is the negative voltage from the function generator, it's not due to an inductance charging or discharging.
Start with Q2 just being switched on, so we have positive gate-source voltage. The switch-on pulls the drain to -5 volts, the potential of the function generator. That also pulls the Q2 gate low because it is coupled through D3 and C13. So the instant Q2 switches on it immediately switches itself off. That explains the sharp negative spike. (Note also that current is flowing "backwards" through the CSR here and the power source is the function generator and not the batteries.)
The instant Q2 has switched off we are at the bottom of the negative spike. The high potential of the battery supply starts to charge up the potential at the Q2 drain and also Q2's gate capacitance through C13. Of course the currents are all very low here because Q1 is shut off. That means the CSR is being choked off, and it's barely measuring the current flow from the batteries.
Once Q2's gate capacitance gets pushed to a high enough potential from the current flow through C13, Q2 switches on and the whole cycle starts all over again.
The big shocker is that almost nothing is flowing through the CSR and the Q2 gate node is quasi floating. It's just a small capacitor tied to ground through the CSR and its associated inductance. So the oscillations all revolve around charging and discharging the node of the Q2 gate, a flimsy capacitor. The charge in that capacitor is being modulated by the AC current set up by the oscillation that's coupled through C13.
I know I am not factoring in the effects of the inductance in the circuit on this first go round.
You can see that there are two time constants for the charging cycle. I will take a crack at that. The first time constant is when the battery voltage is pumping current back through C13. At about -0.5 volts, the Q2 starts to go into partial conduction. That starts to pull the drain lower, and hence reduces the current flow through C13. Hence the rate of increase in the Q2 gate voltage starts to decrease. When you hit 1.7 volts the MOSFET fully switches on and the drain voltage takes the dramatic drop.
Note that what I am calling the Q2 gate voltage is also the CSR voltage. In essence, the function of the CSR has been hijacked and it's not really functioning as a CSR anymore. The CSR node is just a flimsy capacitor associated with the Q1 and Q2 MOSFETS, and that flimsy capacitor is going up and down in voltage because it is at the heart of the oscillator.
And to repeat, the main current flow through the CSR coming from an "active" source is due to the function generator signal when it is at a negative potential, and not from the batteries. The current is flowing from ground, through the body diode of Q1, though Q2, and then into the function generator.
Anyway, just my thoughts and again, I probably made many mistakes.
MileHigh
One more comment:
With Q1 always shut off you only have AC coupling to the current sensing resistor through C13 and Q2's gate capacitance when the current is flowing clockwise through the circuit. By definition, the current sensing resistor has to be in a bidirectional DC conduction path with the source batteries to properly measure the current flow.
So the current sensing resistor is not functional in that position for this circuit. It goes back to Humbugger's statement that the current sensing resistor had to be moved to make proper measurements.
The bottom line is that the CSR data is no good and is not an accurate picture of the true battery current.
Also, about the main flow of current in this circuit:
The main flow of current flows from the batteries through the heating element and then through Q2 and then into the function generator. With the batteries at 72 volts and the function generator at -5 volts the two potential sources add together and look like a 77-volt supply pushing current through the circuit.
When the current takes this path both the batteries and the function generator are supplying power to the circuit with the bulk of the power coming from the batteries. The CSR is not in this path and can't measure this current.
I am always referencing Poynt's simplified version of the circuit diagram for my comments.
MileHigh
Howdy everyone,
I'm just trying to determine exactly if the last posted circuit (link) (http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/109-simulated-circuit.html) at Rosemary's blog is the correct "AS BUILT" diagram.
I've attached the one posted there and a second a modified version adding only the existing internal Mosfet body diodes. ;)
Fuzzy
:)
Quoting Rosemary:
QuoteOr if denial has simply become a compulsive illogical habit - a kind of addiction - like MileHigh has.
My arguments in my previous two postings are logical and reasonable and are based on a technical analysis of the simplified model for the circuit that Poynt created. I am not 100% certain about my analysis of the oscillation mechanism but my comments about the problems with the positioning of the CSR and the path for the main current flow are sound.
Poynt is converging on the full understanding of exactly how your circuit works and what's becoming more and more apparent is that you and your team of "EXPERTS" have been playing with your circuit without really and truly understanding how it works.
From what I can see you "discovered" a variation on a circuit that oscillates. You are making measurements on the operation of an oscillator thinking that it represents measurements on the energy flow through the heating element when in fact they are two different things. The waveform across the CSR averages out to a negative value because of the negative five-volt bias from the function generator output and not because current is flowing back into the batteries. The simple fact is that the CSR in your setup is not measuring the true current flow through the batteries, nor is it measuring the true current flow through the heating element. You and your supposed "team of EXPERTS" simply did not get it.
I am just calling it as I see it and your attempts to characterize me as somebody with a compulsive need to deny the alleged benefits of your circuit are simply wrong. The challenge for you is to make technical arguments to rebut my points. Go ahead Rosemary, tell us why I am wrong about the CSR being in the wrong place and tell us why I am wrong when I state that the main current flow flows from the batteries through the heating element and then through Q2 and then into the function generator.
MileHigh
Hi guys,
I'm wondering about proper protocol on the discussion of the operation of the circuit ....
The thread started at OU by hartiberlin on the Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg275428#msg275428) was started on 02-21-2011 with experimentation on a one (1) mosfet device under test shown by the attached image as the done deal experimental device with documented results.
The discussion "NOW" 04-27-2011 two (2) months later is on a five (5) mosfet design under testing with the circuit diagram in my posting #448 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=13.msg13344#msg13344)
What if any does the Lecroy oscilloscope wave forms downloaded on 02-09-2011 and 02-22-2011 a one (1) mosfet circuit have to do with anything on the present five (5) mosfet circuit being discussed by Rosemary "NOW" here (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg283296#msg283296) and here (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg283299#msg283299) ?
I'm not accustom to grab anything that fits a need at the time, is this the "pasta" method of research and development .... what ever sticks "use it" on a ongoing done deal experimental device :o
Glen
???
Well no response from Rosie to my questions and she is ignoring my comments.
Interestingly enough, the requests to measure across the current sensing resistor with a low-pass filter and a multimeter set to DC volts to make a measurement of the average current flowing through the resistor are now moot. In light of the "surprise" about the wiring of the circuit that measurement now becomes invalid. It would show what appeared to be average current flowing back into the battery bank. What it would really be showing would be average current flowing into the function generator.
In other words, the DSO was indeed not lying with respect to the average voltage indicating current flowing in the counter-intuitive direction.
The root of the problem is that with the new MOSFET wiring configuration, the current sensing resistor was no longer an indication of the battery current.
Think about this example: You build some sort of a circuit with capacitors, inductors and resistors. You make your measurements on it and with your trusty scope you understand how it works. Then you take a 12-volt battery and connect it to the ground of the circuit and connect a 50-ohm resistor to the positive terminal. You connect the resistor up to some random component in your circuit. When you do this you innately know that chances are the battery is going to be injecting current into the circuit. You know that this will change your measurements because the extra battery is disturbing your circuit.
In Rosemary's case it's the function generator outputting -5 volts at up to two minutes at a time that is acting exactly like the extra battery. It's disturbing the circuit and when you throw in the miswired MOSFET "surprise" you end up with a whole new ballgame.
The sole purpose of the function generator in the original Rosemary circuit was to switch the MOSFET(S) on and off and have a negligible affect on the circuit otherwise. All of the action was supposed to be between the MOSFET acting like an ON-OFF switch and the inductive resistor.
In the new circuit you have the function generator now acting as a biasing voltage/power source for a totally unrelated oscillator that is not directly involved in starting and stopping the current flow through the heating element.
In the background the heating element is still being switched on and off by Q2, and discharging into the -5 volts of the function generator. So there is still a quasi "Ainslie" process taking place. It's not a clean ON-OFF style waveform with a very sharp square-wave waveform. With a more sloped waveform instead, the MOSFET is operating in partial conduction mode a substantial amount of time, in other words it's acting like a resistor. That's why there is a substantial amount power being dissipated in Q2, almost as much as is being dissipated in the heating element itself.
Anyway, I hope some of you are getting this. I am willing to discuss.
MileHigh
Something that maybe throwing people off, when I say "Discharging into the function generator." It sounds weird.
Of course the function generator is really acting like a -5 volt battery with a 50-ohm output impedance.
Batteries are sources of potential, and they remain fixed at that potential. In that sense they are almost like "elevated grounds." You can discharge current into a battery, or discharge current out of a battery, and it will still remain fixed at 12.6 volts. Almost like the ground remains at zero volts if you discharge current into it or discharge current out of it (to a below-ground potential.)
So yes, the current flowing through the heating element can indeed discharge into the -5 volt potential being supplied by the function generator via Q2. And the current sensing resistor does not see this discharge.
Waxing philosophical for a second, shame on Rosemary for knowingly putting up DSO captures with a mismatched schematic. Perhaps she thought that she had a "really cool surprise" for us because of some "fortunate miswiring" but what it really did was create a lot of agony and rancor for a long time. It delayed the understanding of the waveforms for months. Let this be a lesson for all. You need an accurate schematic and when I read so many "verbal schematic" discussions on the forums it makes me cringe.
MileHigh
Guys,
Just relax and be patient. Allow me some time to continue presenting the information. We are getting to the point where all your questions will be answered.
Appreciated, thanks, ;)
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.04.28, 00:04:51
Guys,
Just relax and be patient. Allow me some time to continue presenting the information. We are getting to the point where all your questions will be answered.
Appreciated, thanks, ;)
.99
Hi Poynt,
No problem ....
I did do some testing on my personal equipment and found a huge
ground loop through my Protek Function Generators 50 ohm BNC output connector shell (negative) to my Tektronix 2445A oscilloscope BNC 50 ohm test probe "ground" connection from the equipment utility line AC power (120v - 240v)
grounded cord and plug ends.
Also theres added grounding resistance in a utility power supply AC system ( 120/240volt or 240volt ) is around 10 ohms to ground, more or less grounded through rods or plates buried in the earth.
Glen
:)
Hi Poynt,
That's fine. I could sense your approach and I still indulged myself and plowed forward like a proverbial bull in a china shop. I will let you get the message through.
MileHigh
Hi everyone,
I just saw something of interest in on of the last page of thread postings ...
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg283810#msg283810
Quote
Ok guys. I really need to move on. What I've done is this. I can't take a photo of the set up as it is at the moment because my other computer has been rifled and doctored with a virus. And that holds my photobucket software. But what I have done is a whole lot of tests to see if I can explain this. NOTA BENE ALL. The ground of the signal generator is MOST CERTAINLY at the point marked B on the video. In other words it's BEFORE THE CSR. And by the way - it makes not an ounce of difference if it's there or if it's positioned as shown in our DEMO diagram. So. Right now the CSR is precisely in series with and on the same rail as the negative terminal of the battery supply which then conforms to my circuit variation of 'a poynted revision' shown earlier.
Then. I took the tests through an extreme range of duty cycle tests - most on - most off. This shows the advantage of the oscillation as it relates to the temperature rise. THEN I did a whole lot more tests to show the subtleties of the off set. I took the temperature to 240 degrees and climbing. But I started melting the plastic container - so I filled it with water. It took the water temperature to plus/minus 80 degrees and climbing. I think I'm dissipating upwards of 120 watts - but will only confirm this in the morning. The test has been running for the last 4 hours. And right now - on the highest frequency setting I'm FINALLY seeing evidence of battery voltage actually climbing. So is the water temperature rising - and I'm not sure how much longer I can sit up. I'm exhausted and there's nothing interesting on television to ease the boredom.
The point is this. There is absolutely no difference in where we position the ground of the functions generator. With the exception of a short 5 minutes where the offset started rising (it gets a mind of its own) there have been absolutely NO VALUES of the cycle mean - the mean - or the math trace showing anything other than a negative value. And that's notwithstanding the clear evidence of dissipation of wattage in excess of 100 watts. And I am FINALLY seeing a stable 'kick off' voltage over the batteries. It needs a high frequency.
I'll do the downloads in the moring and walk you through the different settings as they relate to the temperature rise.
PLEASE DO NOT PAY ANY ATTENTION TO POYNTY's ENDLESS INNUENDOS AND HINTS AND INTERRUPTIONS. He is talking a whole lot of nonsense. When I've done those downloads - I will then walk you through my own take on what is happening. You can take it on board - or not - as required. And Peter and Ron - as ever. Thanks for the interventions. It gets rather lonely in this corner of mine. And I missed your post there woopy. Thank you. It's always heartening and frankly, was much needed.
I'm reasonably sure that there will be those readers here who will be delighted at this. And by the same token there will be those who are not. lol.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Just checked. Water showing some really small bubbles. We're at sea level but the temperature reading is now 104 degrees c. Shouldn't it be boiling at this level? Anyway - the voltage on the batteries now at 60 from an early 59.7. I really need to turn it off. I'll do the screen shot downloads first thing tomorrow. I'm also not sure how much water in that container. I think it's about a litre. I'll check this tomorrow as well.
edited. Added comments and corrected the spelling - I hope.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2011, 01:01:05 AM by Rosemary Ainslie »
And that's notwithstanding the clear evidence of dissipation of wattage in excess of 100 watts.In the place "NOW" that Rosemary says the CSR shunt resistor is, could the four (4) 10 watt
wire wound resistor shunt bank work ? A 100 watt load is quite substantial for these small shunt resistors ? :o
Glen
;)
Hi Glen.
If there was a true 100W being dissipated in the load resistor, those big shunt resistors would hardly "feel it". I am certain that the load could receive 500W and they would only be warm to the touch.
At least she finally admitted that my circuit drawing was correct in reference to the demonstration video. Sure took a long time to get that simple fact out of her. C.C
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.05.02, 00:24:36
Hi Glen.
If there was a true 100W being dissipated in the load resistor, those big shunt resistors would hardly "feel it". I am certain that the load could receive 500W and they would only be warm to the touch.
At least she finally admitted that my circuit drawing was correct in reference to the demonstration video. Sure took a long time to get that simple fact out of her. C.C
.99
Hi Poynt,
Yes your right about the circuit drawing
Protoboard_schema_added2.png being the accurate schematic used in the RA demonstration in March O0
But .... the "PUBLISHED" schematic on her blog http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/109-simulated-circuit.html would be "NOW" incorrect and appears to be where she changed the
N Mosfets standard (G) Gate (S) Source and (D) Drain established nomenclature and pin positions plus omitted the important internal body diode between the (S) source and (D) Drain.
Glen
:)
Hi everyone,
I see groundloop was so kind to make a great diagram (link) (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg283960#msg283960) which appears to be the same wiring configuration published on the RA blog post #109 (link) (http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/109-simulated-circuit.html)
The odd thing is Rosemary posted ... it's wrong :o
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg283963#msg283963
Quote
Not quite Groundloop. But I've thought of something. I could sketch what's needed - scan it and then send it to you. Then you could make sense of it better.
Many thanks for your efforts nonetheless.
Kindest as ever,
Rosie
added I should be able to do this during the morning. I still have your email address. I'll get back to you here.
I hope someone tells Rosemary you can only hook up six (6) electronic components ( CSR and five mosfets ) so many ways .... IMHO she used all the combination's now ???
Yep that pesky
N Mosfet internal body diode between the (S) Source and the (D) Drain ..... what to do C.C
Glen
:)
Hi everyone,
Well ..... I knew that somewhere there was a experimental setup of 5 parallel IRFPG50 N MOSFET's (PDF) paper I've seen ... it's on a current hogging phenomenon with possibly some useful information.
Fuzzy
:)
Quote from: FuzzyTomCat on 2011.05.02, 07:01:23
Hi everyone,
I see groundloop was so kind to make a great diagram (link) (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg283960#msg283960) which appears to be the same wiring configuration published on the RA blog post #109 (link) (http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/109-simulated-circuit.html)
The odd thing is Rosemary posted ... it's wrong :o
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg283963#msg283963
I hope someone tells Rosemary you can only hook up six (6) electronic components ( CSR and five mosfets ) so many ways .... IMHO she used all the combination's now ???
Yep that pesky N Mosfet internal body diode between the (S) Source and the (D) Drain ..... what to do C.C
Glen
:)
Indeed Glen,
Rose has moved the goal posts once again, and we're trying to get confirmation of this diagram.
I predict that her "problem" with it has to do with some strange notion of hers about the Q2 connection. It is correct as shown unless she has changed that too, and withheld that information as she has been doing already.
.99
Unfortunately this saga is now two-thirds psychodrama and one-third technical discussion. When Rosemary is crying out for the readers to ignore the sensible and logical technical statements made by Poynt and attacking his technical competence then you know that things are going downhill fast. The "smokescreen effect" where Rosie tries to avoid answering questions by playing the psychodrama card are tedious and annoying and the effect doesn't work on me. There are probably about 10 important and relevant technical questions that Rosemary is trying to avoid answering.
Anyway, I have already explained what's going on in the circuit and I'll assume that most of the followers of both threads have read the comments.
It's obvious that Rosemary had no idea what really transpired with her circuit when she started playing with the function generator offset and miswired some extra MOSFETs. Poynt is very patiently trying to get Rosie and the non-technical audience to fully understand what the circuit is actually doing.
Let the drama continue...
Hi everyone,
I found some good information on the inner portion of a MOSFET and the operation of the substrate .....
(http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/IRFPG50_Mosfet_diagram.jpg)
(http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/Power_MOSFET_Circuit.jpg)
(http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/Power_MOSFET_Cross_Section.jpg)
(http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/Power_MOSFET_Cross_Section_Under_Avalanche.jpg)
Figure 6, 7 and 8 Images from the attached (PDF) International Rectifier - Application Note AN-1005 - Power MOSFET Avalanche Design Guidelines
Glen
:)
About the Ainslie circuit:
When Rosie miswired the extra MOSFETs she modified the circuit.
Let's start with the original circuit.
The current starts at the battery positive terminal and flows through the heating element and then the Q1 MOSFET and then through the shunt resistor and then into the battery negative terminal.
Let's call the end of the loop, the Q1 MOSFET to shunt resistor to the battery negative terminal "
Path A."
Now let's look at the simplified version of the circuit that adds the miswired Q2.
With the Q2 addition,
there is now a second path that the current can take.
The second path is as follows: <battery positive terminal to heating element> then the current flows through the Q2 MOSFET then into the function generator and then into the battery negative terminal.
Let's call this a second end of the loop, "
Path B."
So here is what happened:
Rosie worked with the original circuit and the end of the current loop was always following
Path A.
She then added Q2 and played with the offset of the function generator.
What happened as a result of this is that Q1 was shut off permanently, so
Path A was now closed to the flow of current.
What also happened was that Q2 switched on, and the current flow started taking
Path B, bypassing the shunt resistor.
Unfortunately, Rosie was not aware that this happened. For months she was in total ignorance of this fact and made regular postings stating that she had a circuit that was "COP infinity."
It's as simple as that. The current flow
jumped from Path A to Path B and Rosie was not aware of this and claimed COP infinity.
Poynt asked Rosie to explain how a MOSFET works and she was unable to do this. This supports the notion that for months Rosie was blissfully unaware.
As luck would have it, the circuit also started to oscillate, and Rosie saw the oscillation waveform as being an indication of the current flow but this was never the case,
the current was taking Path B the whole time.
And now, we are in a struggle to get Rosie and presumably many others to see this. I tried above to lay it out in black and white for you, I hope it gets through to some of you.
The two MOSFETS in the circuit ended up
acting like a double-pole-single-throw toggle switch for the current flow. Rosie was simply not aware of this fact.
This means that there can't be any "EXPERTS" because if I recall the experts were supposed to be in on the subterfuge about the miswired MOSFET. Anybody with basic electronics knowledge would be able to figure out this MOSFET switching business in one day, and some in five minutes.
Since Rosie is sticking to her story and won't budge, we are left with a "Who's Afraid of Virgina Wolf" psychodrama and it's just ridiculous.
I think a lot of the lurkers on the forums should speak up. You want a place where you encourage each other to do better. Look at how ridiculously Rosie has refused for months and months to do alternative tests and dismisses them as irrelevant when at the same times it's staring everybody in the face that she knows nothing about electronics. The schematics fiasco is also unacceptable. This is a form of intellectual stagnation disguised as research.
So that's another recap of the story as far as I am concerned.
Yikes!
Hi MH.
Have a look at the latest posts. It will make you go C.C
I am almost at my wits-end trying to understand her, and as such, I have open pleas to the other readers to explain it to me. I can not make heads nor tails of her babble. The latest business is something about the FG ground. Now apparently, they have moved the CSR to the place shown.
Good grief!
.99
Poynt:
Yes Rosemary is all over the map. Interesting that she acknowledged the inductive effects on the shunt resistor after many months of refusing that. I sense panic about the placement of the shunt resistor and she is really inarticulate with respect to describing how things are connected.
The "new" circuit is you faithfully implementing on paper what Rosemary posted on OU. But there is a disconnect with Rosie between her attempts to describe circuitry and what she is really thinking. So I think that diagram is invalid. I can't comment except to say that the setup is obviously not like that.
Rosie: You have to produce schematics. In the electronics realm, what you are doing is a Cardinal sin. You simply have to produce accurate schematics. These hodge-podge verbal descriptions you make about circuit connections are very difficult to decipher. For a woman who is normally very articulate how come you are a total mess when it comes to describing circuit connections? Just produce accurate schematics.
Good luck again.
MileHigh
Perhaps all this new nonsense is simply a distraction?
Maybe she really doesn't want me to replicate the circuit, and sending all of us on a wild goose chase such as it seems were are currently running, would do well in accomplishing that task.
.99
Hi everyone,
I guess it's
alright and excepted to present documentation to www.overunity.com that's
"FALSE" as the last four (4) circuit diagrams posted by Rosemary Ainslie on her
BS COP>infinity device.
In submitting a alternate ID screen name as Stefan requested, because of myself and others truthfully FLAMING the thread with existing documented material substantiating all my and others position and past history .
I was
REQUIRED to agree to this ( first paragraph shown ) at OU.com to be a thread posting member again ..... ???
Quote
You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, adult material, or otherwise in violation of any International or United States Federal law. You also agree not to post any copyrighted material unless you own the copyright or you have written consent from the owner of the copyrighted material. Spam, flooding, advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are also forbidden on this forum.
This device under test was to be a
"DONE DEAL" at the time of the beginning of posting ....
WTF is going on here ? This is not right at all no way no how !! >:(
Fuzzy
:)
That's a relatively easy one to get out of....just simply claim ignorance!
If Stefan did not tolerate a staggering amount of ignorance, he would have to dislodge a good number of the members there. I think Rose would make the top 10 list in that regard.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.05.05, 02:17:26
That's a relatively easy one to get out of....just simply claim ignorance!
If Stefan did not tolerate a staggering amount of ignorance, he would have to dislodge a good number of the members there. I think Rose would make the top 10 list in that regard.
.99
Hi Poynt,
I do see your point but being in light of the
10 year past history and the last posting at OU Reply #1121 (link) (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg284366#msg284366)
(http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/RA_going_crazy_image_RA-107-051a.jpg)
With whats underlined alone is enough to put that claim of ignorance to rest .... what a load of crap !!
Look at all the blind foolish "idiots" at OU that line up behind her day after day as if shes
gods gift to science .... maybe
Frankenstein dark science type of stuff and that even a stretch of blind faith.
Glen
:)
Yeah, I was quite alarmed and had a real good chuckle at all those so-called endorsements as well.
It's all part of the pattern we've seen before.
QuoteGuys - more good news. A friend of mine has done a full on replication. I've downloaded waveforms. I'll post it later. All negative values. Two fets attached to a common heatsink running a standard 9 Ohm 12 volt automotive soldering iron. It was cooking - but we didn't have the means to measure the heat. Actually we did. Just forgot to do this. Too hot to handle - in any event. Probably in the region of 80 degrees or more.
Anyway he did a short video on this. I'll upload it when I get my computer back. And I'll upload the screen shots tomorrow morning. Very simple config. I think it's going to be very easy for you guys to replicate this. Crocodile clips - crude connections - but everything working. And everything permanently in NEGATIVE - as with our own tests. You should also be able to see the required waveform on your standard oscilloscopes.
Anyway. That's the first FULL ON replication.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
This is great news! Hopefully some of Rosie's supporters will replicate. Hopefully they will work on making proper measurements. If that's done then we will find out the truth.
Think about putting an extra current-sensing-resistor between Q2 and the signal generator.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.05.05, 18:47:26
This is great news! Hopefully some of Rosie's supporters will replicate. Hopefully they will work on making proper measurements. If that's done then we will find out the truth.
Think about putting an extra current-sensing-resistor between Q2 and the signal generator.
MileHigh
Well this is interesting a
actual RA replication (link) (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg284435#msg284435) .....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_%28scientific_method%29
Quote
Reproducibility is one of the main principles of the scientific method, and refers to the ability of a test or experiment to be accurately reproduced, or replicated, by someone else working independently.
The results of an experiment performed by a particular researcher or group of researchers are generally evaluated by other independent researchers who repeat the same experiment themselves, based on the original experimental description (see independent review). Then they see if their experiment gives similar results to those reported by the original group. The result values are said to be commensurate if they are obtained (in distinct experimental trials) according to the same reproducible experimental description and procedure.
Ahhhh .... Does anyone know exactly which circuit in the documented RA release of every incomplete including questionable results on the now five devices being somehow
"REPLICATED" in the
COP> INFINITY arrangement ?? ???
ALSO .... in the
Scientific Method for peer review ...... :D
Glen
:)
I would venture to say that this guy's build is based on the original circuit from the demonstration video.
The funny thing about all this, is that she outright admitted twice that the CSR was in the incorrect place for proper measurement, yet she will not retract her claims that the measurements show COP>1. What boggles my mind about this, is everyone at OU simply sits by and condones this bizarre behavior, all the while I'm chastised for introducing an innocent poll that even Rose herself indicated was harmless. Imagine that?
The mass hypnosis over there is entrenched much deeper than I had ever imagined.
Will be interesting to see this so-called replication. I already know what is wrong with the so-called measurements btw. ;)
C.C
.99
Well we have gone from a special Pyrex inductive resistor of a suspected Golden Ratio to a 12-volt automotive soldering iron! lol
The CSR in the right place and some proper thermal profiling would be good. You may still need the original CSR in place for the oscillator, I think. If there are replicators let's hope that they are open minded and will take input from all sides.
No more Blue Meanies! >:(
There's certainly no indication they're taking any input from me.
I'm relatively certain I'm on most everyone's ignore list. :D All except Rose that is.....right Rose?
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.05.05, 23:26:13
I would venture to say that this guy's build is based on the original circuit from the demonstration video.
The funny thing about all this, is that she outright admitted twice that the CSR was in the incorrect place for proper measurement, yet she will not retract her claims that the measurements show COP>1. What boggles my mind about this, is everyone at OU simply sits by and condones this bizarre behavior, all the while I'm chastised for introducing an innocent poll that even Rose herself indicated was harmless. Imagine that?
The mass hypnosis over there is entrenched much deeper than I had ever imagined.
Will be interesting to see this so-called replication. I already know what is wrong with the so-called measurements btw. ;)
C.C
.99
Hey Poynt,
I just couldn't figure out why also the mass Exodus against your positive comments from the RA's clan .... and the quick burying of the postings on the N MOSFET's operation and actual build configuration illusions and misrepresentations in all the COP> INFINITY claims.
There is and was some things I found looking around ....
PESWIKI - Rosemary Ainslie (link) (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Rosemary_Ainslie)
But the best .... I knew for a fact that Rosemary has used the IRFPG50 N Mosfet for ten years and has a good knowledge of it .... well at least I thought so .... wheres the
internal body diode (link) (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=13.msg13543#msg13543)fit in ?
THE BLOG - 53 - on resonance on our circuit (link) (http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/02/53-on-resonance-on-our-circuit.html)
(http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/resonance-image-1.png)
(http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/resonance-image-2.gif)
A complete prior publishing from Rosemary Ainslie of how the mosfet works ..... :P
:D
;D
Glen
C.C
EDIT-
Anyone want's to have a go at this information at OU ... be my guest ... this type of stuff Rosemary does makes me sick
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.04.25, 20:55:22
Then again, maybe they are using an insulator.
Zoom in on this pic. It appears to be that gray "stuff".
I don't recall if contact can still be made to the heat sink with the screw, as would be possible if the proper screw insulator was not used, and there is metal around the mounting hole.
.99
Hi Poynt,
It appears I was correct about the semiconductor conducting paste being used and not a insulator to isolate the drain from the heat sink .....
Reply #1151 (link) (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=13.msg13543#msg13543)
Quote
Hello Neptune. I might have the answer here. All that's needed is as Groundloop has shown - that there's insulation between the body of the FET and the sink itself. We used an insulation paste - but possibly better as Groundloop's shown it.
regards,
Rosemary
Unfortunately all
paste products I've ever seen
conduct and sil pads or mica
insulate .... so all the heat sinks are attached to the mosfet (D) drain
"conduct" in all RA's device presentations :o
I hope that there was a review on Rosemary's understanding on how a mosfet works published in her BLOG
# 53 - on resonance on our circuit (link) (http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/02/53-on-resonance-on-our-circuit.html)
Fuzzy
:)
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.05.06, 02:54:06
There's certainly no indication they're taking any input from me.
I'm relatively certain I'm on most everyone's ignore list. :D All except Rose that is.....right Rose?
.99
This may be true but all the
"GUESTS" looking in on that thread there have no
ignore button .... when questions are not being answered people do wonder why ....
;)
Hi all,
I just was notified that Stefan "reinstated" me (FuzzyTomCat) over at OU and have been granted posting rights again.
This is going to be very interesting now .....
COP > INFINITY ...... shall we press on for the truth ? I think so ..... O0
;)
Hey, that's great news Glen.
Did anyone else get re-instated?
What happened with Stefan that he was so generous?
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.05.07, 22:21:14
Hey, that's great news Glen.
Did anyone else get re-instated?
What happened with Stefan that he was so generous?
.99
Hi Poynt,
I don't know if anyone else got reinstated but everyone whom got the boot may inquire I guess.
Well I sent him a e-mail with some wording in it from his forum ....
Quote
You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, inaccurate, harassing, or otherwise in violation of any International or United States Federal law. You also agree not to post any copyrighted material unless you own the copyright or you have written consent from the owner of the copyrighted material.
It also include my opinion on the goings on in the thread there ....
Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011Glen
:)
Good Stuff Glen!
I suppose Rose will be rather beside herself with joy! :D
.99
@All,
It's quite unusual that Rose hasn't posted any new updated photos of her supposedly altered configuration. :-\
Is she being untruthful about the matter, and there really was no alteration done to the apparatus? One would almost have to conclude "yes" based on the lack of any actual update information offered.
Chances are too, that her friend's replication was based on the current well-documented circuit, not on her most recent nonsensical diversion.
.99
Quote from: FuzzyTomCat on 2011.05.07, 22:38:23
Hi Poynt,
I don't know if anyone else got reinstated but everyone whom got the boot may inquire I guess.
Well I sent him a e-mail with some wording in it from his forum ....
It also include my opinion on the goings on in the thread there .... Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
Glen
:)
As per the above Glen, I think it's safe to say that Stefan has signaled that he has had about enough of Rose's nonsense, as has everyone else with any common sense. I suspect he's not up to the task though (and I don't blame him), especially when there is now a device in discussion (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=827.0) that
actually has some potential.
Guess you've been dropped like a hot potato Rose.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.05.08, 00:36:50
As per the above Glen, I think it's safe to say that Stefan has signaled that he has had about enough of Rose's nonsense, as has everyone else with any common sense. I suspect he's not up to the task though (and I don't blame him), especially when there is now a device in discussion (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=827.0) that actually has some potential.
Guess you've been dropped like a hot potato Rose.
.99
Hi Poynt,
It kind of goes with what was posted by Rosemary in the reply # 1159 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg284643#msg284643) at OU .... I'll only quote part of the posting ....
Quote
I really need our evidence for my thesis. But it's nowhere near as useable as Romero's.
Is this about a
verifiable scientific method of recorded evidence of a claimed
COP > INFINITY on a experimental device ( Rosemary's ) .... or .... just the minimum or even less of whats required for a possible
thesis ..... ???
If I was Romero .... well .... never mind that's his device ....
Glen
:)
Yes, that's quite a sobering and revealing admission, isn't it? C.C
One has to look no further than "the thesis" to explain the degree of desperation issuing from Rose's perpetual creak of the pen.
It's most unfortunate however that the "evidence" she vehemently clutches to and holds dear to her heart, isn't based on anything of substance, it's all arbitrary. :'(
She has been shown in very simple and understandable terms, but she refuses to acknowledge her great blunder. There is very little hope for her I'm afraid, but there is hope for those unable to see through that delirious and tenuous charm.
.99
Rosemary:
This comment of yours....
QuoteLet is assume that the device can run - uninterrupted - for say, - 1 hour. So take the product of the volts of the battery and the amperage of the energy injected into the caps. Then multiply it by the brief time it takes to charge the caps. Possibly 80 seconds at its outside most. That's the Joules value - and that's the power input into the system. So. Let's assume a 12 volt supply and a generous 4 amps current flow - vi. Then for the 'dt' part of that equation - add in that 80 seconds to charge the cap. That's 12 volts * 4 amps * 80 seconds = 3 840 Joules or thereby. Now. All that's needed is to take the product of the wattage dissipated by the lights because that's got a known value. Then start multiplying. 60 seconds for 60 minutes for ..... what? 1 hour? 2 hours? 5 hours? Let's assume 20 watts dissipated as light. That's 20 * 60 * 60 * 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 ...... Now we're already at 360KW. So. 3840 Joules input for 360 000 watts output? That's most certainly COP INFINITY. And we haven't even factored in the energy required to turn the rotor.
There is no question that Romero's device is at COP INFINITY. I am amazed that anyone would find cause to question it. Correctly the question should be this. IF energy delivered by a supply is depeleted anywhere at all in the circuit then how come this gadget is able to run beyond 5 seconds at best? MH. With the utmost respect - you're on a hiding to nowhere with your latest objections.
... is so God-awful I don't know whether to laugh or cry. It's enough to make me puke.
It's just so bad that it's badder than bad. That's all that I'll say.
MileHigh
Poynt:
I think that you have a disconnect with Rosemary here:
QuoteI assure you the CSR is now PRECISELY in line with the negative rail of the battery. Picture it. Negative terminal > wire > ground of the scope probe > shunt > scope probe > then ground from the signal generator > then the MOSFET's. That's how I positioned it for the 'water to boil' test.
What you want is for the CSR to connect to the negative terminal of the battery, and then the _far_ side of that CSR will be the "real" ground for the circuit, correct? That way it will be out the function generator current loop.
I am assuming that Rosemary sees the CSR connected to the negative terminal of the battery and thinks that all is fine. However in her case the "real" ground for the circuit remains the negative terminal of the battery, and that causes all of the problems.
So I suggest that the only way to clear up this confusion is to make up a "bad" and a "good" set of schematics so that Rosie can understand the problem.
Not now for sure!!! Enjoy your vacation!
MileHigh
Hi everyone,
Well there has been a small outcome I would like to share ....
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg285971#msg285971 Reply #1224 Today at 07:28:48 PM
Quote
hartiberlin
Administrator
Hi Rosemary,
why don´t you do this ?
1) All COP > INFINITY device information in one place in one post not spread out over ninety (90) pages.
2) A accurate circuit diagram of the claimed COP > INFINITY device .... there are five (5) at least that I know of .... and "AGAIN" the one on your blog is incorrect (FALSE) http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/109-simulated-circuit.html#links
3) All sequenced oscilloscope screen shots and data dumps from the day of the test not days before or after for over a minimum of one hour at 6 minute intervals for a total of eleven (11) verified recordings of the COP > INFINITY device.
4) The complete parts list of all the components used to do a scientific replication to verify the results in a verifiable scientific manner of the COP > INFINITY device
5) All the settings of the Function Generator in Hz or Mhz .... including .... the setting of the DC offset switch ( -10 VDC to + 10 VDC )
6) A complete photographic image set available for verification and review including the top and bottom of any circuit board of the COP > INFINITY device at the time under or during test .
To get scientific approval you NEED to do these scientific test and exact report documents.
As you have done it with mixed up circuit diagrams and mixed up scope shots
from different mixed ups testings , where one does not know,
which scopeshot belongs to what test, is not scientific.
Before I opened your account and before your demo you promised to release all
data in an open source format and well presented, but what you did present was only all mixed up
and shuffled data so nobody can really see, what it is all about or if there were
measurement errors done and then you suddenly had a wrong circuit diagramm, etc, etc....
So maybe you should quit for a while, do again some more testing and then document
it the way shown above very exactly.....?
Otherwise you will be again ridiculed and laughed at and ignored by the scientific community...
Regards, Stefan.
For those whom been following the threads ..... items number one (1) through (6) are the ones I suggested ....
word for word and commend Stefan for his effort here on getting the proper information to the open source community.
I really hope Rosemary does the required so independent testing and evaluation on the claim of a
COP> INFINITY can be verified in a scientific method. O0
Best Regard's
Glen
:)
I've been asking Rose to commit to a diagram and provide updated photos, for what seems weeks.
;)
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.05.12, 18:29:21
I've been asking Rose to commit to a diagram and provide updated photos, for what seems weeks.
;)
Hi Poynt,
It appears you maybe waiting a
LONG time for anything that's scientifically verifiable from Rosemary after the
REPLY # 1227 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg285984#msg285984)
What is happening is exactly what I feared and the open source community is left holding a empty bag of
HOPE and a thesis on
ZIPPONS nothing more and nothing less .....
Glen
???
I note on OU on post #1253 that Rosemary posted yet another schematic with the MOSFET wiring wrong. Also as Fuzzy pointed out, the schematic that she posted on her blog a few weeks ago also had the MOSFET wiring wrong, with a 2-3 split in the configuration.
However for me at least, the most telling thing about today's posting is that the shunt resistor is clearly in the wrong place yet again to make proper measurements.
My gut feel is that the shunt resistor in today's schematic is correct and corresponds to the physical reality of her circuit, and she made a mistake in the MOSFET wiring.
If my gut feel is correct, then Rosemary still has the shunt resistor in the wrong place and still doesn't understand what is going on with respect to this issue.
Then in posting #1260 Poynt posted a schematic of what the circuit "should" be like to measure the battery current properly and still support the MOSFET oscillator and the current loop associated with the function generator when it outputs a negative DC voltage. Rosemary has heartily given that her tentative endorsement.
My impression is that all of Rosemary's tests since she discovered the "delicious oscillations" with the negative offset of the function generator have had the current sensing resistor in the wrong place and it is still in the wrong place.
Rosemary is hapless when it comes to schematics and doesn't take this issue seriously. My suggestion would be to get a new set of detailed pictures and then reverse-engineer the circuit yourself because Rosemary is incapable of stating what the schematic is.
I hate to create work for anybody but that's what I think the current situation is, no pun intended.
MileHigh
MH,
Actually, the circuit Rose posted is a copy of what she posted as the simulation circuit they were using prior to modification of the build. Then there are added "instructions" how to modify the circuit diagram to reflect the present build.
The diagram I posted which followed, is what I believe she (and Donny) mean as a result of implementing the mod instructions.
So in summary, the diagram I posted is what Rose claims they currently have.
We are now awaiting confirmation that this diagram accurately represents what they have for the as-built apparatus, AND what they are using in their simulations.
.99
Poynt:
It's exhausting. Here we are two months after the "definitive" demo and she doesn't even know what her circuit is. If what she thinks her circuit is doesn't oscillate, then you are back to the circuit as demoed two months ago.
You are left with that "false negative" mean voltage across the CSR because of the current loop driven by the negative output of the function generator. None of us could explain it at the time but we all smelt that something wasn't right.
So you end up with six months or more of Rosie's heart singing about "COP infinity" when the whole time it was due to a failure on her part and the "EXPERT's" part to understand the circuit that they were working on.
I am just numb.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.05.14, 11:47:06
Poynt:
It's exhausting. Here we are two months after the "definitive" demo and she doesn't even know what her circuit is. If what she thinks her circuit is doesn't oscillate, then you are back to the circuit as demoed two months ago.
You are left with that "false negative" mean voltage across the CSR because of the current loop driven by the negative output of the function generator. None of us could explain it at the time but we all smelt that something wasn't right.
So you end up with six months or more of Rosie's heart singing about "COP infinity" when the whole time it was due to a failure on her part and the "EXPERT's" part to understand the circuit that they were working on.
I am just numb.
MileHigh
Hi MileHigh,
With all due respect .... everyone has the right to learn the basics of electronics ....
The question is .... should learning the minimum electronics basics be done
after a device with a couple of electronic components are assembled in a trial and error method .... or
before any electronic components are assembled ?
I'm totally mystified on the
Scientific Method on Rosemary's claim of
COP> INFINITY whom in the entire scientific community would even consider any of her provided data as
PROOF is beyond me. ???
Glen
;)
Glen,
I have sidelined myself now and I admire you and Poynt for trying to get to the bottom of this. When poor Rosie attempts to describe circuity it's like cooked spaghetti that has been tossed into a blender. I posted once that she should refrain from describing circuitry and post schematics instead.
Indeed about the "scientific method" being reduced to a complete farce on Rosie's thread. She doesn't even understand how a MOSFET works.
She still makes regular rallying cries about getting recognition but it's never going to happen. If you guys can get to the bottom of this and Rosie actually manages to understand that her magic negative average voltage on her CSR has nothing to do with the supply battery and everything to do with the negative bias provided by the function generator then we can all sweep this one into the dustbin of history.
MileHigh
Quoting Rosie:
QuoteI see now that your results aren't so beneficial.
That has got to be the understatement of the entire saga. The results show no net current going back into the battery.
Now that there is a semblance of a reference schematic and finally the CSR is out of the current loop that was being driven by the function generator in the old layout things are going to change.
There are going to be tough days ahead for Rosie.
I gotta hand it to you Poynt for sticking it out for this long. Let's hope and pray that the team in SA can build the physical circuit without any errors and get it to oscillate. If they can't get it to oscillate right away they can just loop some of the wire or put a small coil in the wire going to the M2 gate input.
Step 2 will be to then check the power delivered by the battery with the power dissipated in the heating element (or soldering iron element).
I am just going to watch.
MileHigh
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg286482#msg286482
Quote
Quote
Quote from: poynt99 on May 15, 2011, 06:54:08 AM
It's the inductance present in Q2's Source leg that causes the oscillation, so indeed taking the CSR out kills it in the sim.
Most likely it still works in real life because of the wire inductance still present. Of course in the sim, the inductance is zero unless we put some back in.
I will try re-inserting 200nH inductance there and see what happens.
Rose, what is the voltage swing on the FG for your tests?
.99
Golly - I nearly missed this. I assume you mean the voltage that we measure across the gate? Typically it swings 4 volts in either direction - but negative peak is difficult to determine because of the oscillation.
Hope that helps you Poynty
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Hi MileHigh,
I think this maybe a hint ....
Rosemary's Quote -
I assume you mean the voltage that we measure across the gate? Typically it swings 4 volts in either direction ???
I attached Rosemary's newest circuit diagram for her claim of the finding ......
What does this quote of Rosemary's mean to you or any other member here ? C.C
Regard's
Glen
;)
Hi everyone,
Well Rosemary has a new and updated experimental device circuit diagram ....
Odd ... all the Dark Science electronic components are connected the same wrong way ..... the only change is her "NAME" to NERD :D
Fuzzy
:)
This is to Rosemary:
Poynt has been trying to get you to understand the simulations and recent events have been difficult with tempers getting hot so I am going to step in here and make a few points.
Here is part of what you posted today:
QuoteThe principle seems to make sense to our academics. There is a wide acknowledgement amongst engineers that if these advantages show up on our simulations then they are most certainly also verifiable experimentally. The interesting thing is this. That software is clearly NOT designed to apply Kirchhoff's Laws. The assumption has been - quite rightly - that IF Kirchhoff's Laws are a natural consequence that also somehow constrain the transfer of energy to the amount of energy first delivered from the supply, then it would be impossible to find more energy dissipated on a circuit than delivered by that supply.
So. Let's look at what's happening here. In essence the circuit is designed to generate counter electromotive force. But unlike usual applications the actual design is such that it does nothing to stop the flow of current from that negatively induced voltage. Possibly for the first time - we've actively enabled all that counter clockwise flow of current and, by doing this, we're able to see its full force and effect. The assumption has always been that this energy must equal the energy from the supply. It does. More or less. In fact, depending on the inductive material in that circuit - rather MORE than less. But then there should - theoretically - be NO spare energy to heat anything at all. But it does. Rather energetically. In the region of hundreds of watts. While that same software then ALSO computes the cost of energy from the battery. And there is concludes that the supply source has lost absolutely NO charge at all. It effectively cost the battery nothing. Which makes it INFINITE COP. Golly.
You are wrong here Rosemary, and to be quite honest it's very frustrating and emotionally draining.
The simulations show that there is no net current being returned to the battery. The simulations show that current flows from the battery, through the inductive resistor load, through the MOSFET arrangement and then to ground. The simulations show that your circuit is 100% conventional where battery power is delivered to the load and the net current flows in the CLOCKWISE direction.A negative power calculation in pSpice means that power is flowing out of the battery and into the load. This was specifically mentioned to you in a posting by Poynt about a month ago.
So your celebrations are another mistake. Poynt proved to you that your circuit is 100% "classical" and there is no "COP infinity." Your circuit is
under unity.
If these facts don't register in your head, then there is no hope for you. It's over Rosemary. If you worked on the bench with somebody that knew what they were doing this could be proved to you very easily. Your constant denial of the facts and continual refusal to do the proper tests and your glaring misunderstanding of electronics has just gone too far. This is beyond theater of the absurd.
I'm done. The simulations show that your circuit is under unity. The negative battery power measurement shows that the battery is outputting power into the load and no power is being returned to the battery.
Sorry, it's over and I don't want to ever post another word about your circuit.
MileHigh
Here is an update to the discussion I'm having with Rose.
I have revamped the schematic to show most of the parasitic components and also I have broke out the batteries just as she has them with jumpers in-between.
So far I've only simulated the circuit to establish a baseline measurement showing power apparently going back to the battery. We will move forward from here.
@MH,
The battery power normally is negative when the CSR voltage is measured with the voltage probe polarity + to - from top to bottom in the schematic. As you will note the probes are connected in reverse, so the power calculation should come out positive. In this baseline measurement, the power is about -106W.
There will be progressive measurements illustrating how/why this is.
Attached are the PSpice files and the new schematic with the first scope shots (pdf).
.99
For the next installment of simulation test runs, it's necessary to establish some simple background theory:
If each of the 6 twelve-volt batteries in the battery array have approximately the same state of charge, terminal voltage, and internal resistance, it is reasonable to asssume that each of the 6 batteries will receive or supply the same amount of power in the circuit. As such, it is valid to measure and analyse the power in any one of the 6 batteries and apply a factor of 6x to obtain the total power in the circuit.
In this first test, the battery voltage probes are placed across the last jumper wire and last 12V battery. So we are measuring the voltage across a single 12V battery in series with 400nH of wire inductance in a single jumper. The power computes to -3.8W.
Next, when the battery voltage probes are placed directly across the single 12V battery and no jumper, the power changes polarity and computes to roughly +1.4W.
When the wattage probe available in PSpice is used to directly measure the instantaneous power of the single 12V battery, it computes to a net average of approximately -5.45W. If you recall the exercise on the polarity of power sources vs. power dissipators a little while back, you will know that the proper polarity for a source that is sourcing power, is negative. The reason the last computation of +1.4W turned out positive, is because the voltage probes across the CSR are reversed (as a matter of establishing common ground for both the CSR and battery probes). This has been the case throughout this exercise. It adds a bit of confusion, but that is the direction the "powers" normally go and it's important to keep this straight in one's mind.
Now back to the issue of the correct value for the CSR. As we now know the true power in any one of the six 12V batteries is about -5.45W, and that the previous measurement using a single 12V battery times the CSR voltage (battery current) came to approximately +1.4W (assuming a 1 Ohm value for the CSR), it may become obvious that assuming the CSR value to be anything other than 0.25 Ohms is incorrect. If we take the +1.4W measurement and multiply it by 4x (1/0.25), we obtain a power of about +5.6W. I have been approximating the values read off the scope, so in reality the previous measurement would actually be closer to 1.37W. It should be clear from this that the correct value for the CSR when looking at DC INPUT power, is the actual resistive value of the CSR, in this case 0.25 Ohms (regardless if the current is pulsed at a high frequency or not).
Computing the total power from all 6 batteries in the array we have:
-5.45W x 6 = -32.7W
This is the actual correct value and polarity for the total INPUT power of the battery array in this particular simulation.
Now, if we take the previous +1.37W measurement using just a single battery and no jumper wire, and multiply it by 4 (because of the 0.25 Ohm CSR), then by 6 (for 6 batteries in the array), we obtain a power of about +32.88W.
Other than the polarity difference (because the CSR probes are reversed), the two powers are almost identical in magnitude, and it is safe to say that now with the inductance eliminated in the battery voltage measurement, the VCSR(t) x VBAT(t) computation by the scope is very accurate.
All schematics and scope shots attached. More to follow.
.99
The complete final analysis wrapped up in a single pdf. This includes most of the relevant posts and all schematics and scope shots.
Also included at the end are explanatory excerpts from a brief private discussion with an OU member.
Regards,
.99
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/08/140-heres-second-paper.html
Quote222 - we claim those prizes offered by harti, poynty and steven e jones (professor?)
Dear Reader,
I think the time has come to take the 'bull by the horns'.
I am that sick of the devious and hidden pretensions buried in that declared 'object' of our over unity forums that I am now, on behalf of all free energy enthusiasts EVERYWHERE - as well as my own collaborators - determined to CLAIM THOSE PRIZES OFFERED BY no less than two forums and by Professor Steven E Jones for measured proof of over unity.
They, the prize givers will be sent our two papers that detail the experimental evidence. They will then be invited to test this apparatus on my own premises. They will be refunded their air travel should they disprove our measurements. In order to obviate ANY attempt at fabrication - three electrical engineers will be present at all demonstrations of the device that HARTI - POYNTY and STEVEN E JONES will NOT BE ABLE TO TAMPER WITH THE APPARATUS NOR MISREPRESENT THE MEASURED EVIDENCE. They will be entitled to bring their own broadband 4 channel oscilloscopes to do that measurement - which can be used subject only to the evidence of up to date calibration certificates. We will, in any event, provide our own as a reference - as required.
I guarantee that the test will not need to last more than 2 hours at the outside most - during which time I will be able to replicate the 4 tests detailed in our paper. They can, therefore, fly back the same day that they arrive. But. Should they wish to stay over before flying back - then I will accommodate them all - in relative comfort - during their stay. We South Africans are renowned for our hospitality.
If they decline - then I MUST CONCLUDE that their prizes are simply a kind of 'lure' - to the poor unsuspecting energy enthusiast who is WASTING HIS TIME if he expects endorsement from those 'great pretenders'. Whatever is left of the prize money after they've 'defrayed' their costs - lol - will be paid to a member to be nominated and chosen by all those forum members - for the purchase of measuring equipment required for that nominated members' further testing.
Proof of over unity will be in the MEASURED EVIDENCE based on the protocols detailed in that paper. Can't wait.
HOWSZZZAT!!! I'd say it's 'clean bowled'. lol
Kindest regards
Rosemary
Rosemary,
Unfortunately for you, but fortunately for the OU community, you are not in a position to dictate the terms and conditions for claiming the overunity prizes.
Each site has their own rules, and they are clear enough. Your frequent and ever-so-familiar "bulldoze over everyone" approach is transparent to most I trust, so it's a wonder you keep trying the same nonsense.
Your work is severely flawed and you've refused all offers to correction (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=13.0;attach=5403). It's utterly amazing that you feel you are in a position to preach about how others have no idea when it comes to power measurement (a previous blog post of yours), when you are one of the worst offenders of proper measurement protocol the community has ever seen.
Get real and cease with all the nonsense. C.C
.99
Poynt99,
wow, I'm impressed. You've achieved some serious status in the OU community, right up there with Harti and the venerable Dr. Steven Jones. LOL ;D :D
EM
Hardly EM. :)
Besides, I doubt Rosemary's blog is read by more than a few blind followers. 8)
Plenty of nonsense for your reading pleasure....if you dare. LOL. :D
Rosemary, you're living in a fantasy world. And btw, OUR terms and conditions hold.
.99
- The source current of Q2 must flow from the battery through the function generator to power Q2!
- The power provided by the function generator can't be neglected because the source impedence of a mosfet is much lower than the gate impedence.
- Then I read: "The offset of the function generator was set to its extreme negative limit". This means that the function generator provides continuous current and therefore extra energy that was not taken into account.
These papers make no sense, really a "fantasy world".
You know she seems like a very nice lady. If it's over unity to her, it's over unity to her. You guys, let her continue her work in peace.
Quote from: eatenbyagrue on 2012.01.08, 17:39:52
You know she seems like a very nice lady.
Sure, but she's not when it comes to her OU work. You obviously don't know her like I and several other folks do.
Quote
If it's over unity to her, it's over unity to her. You guys, let her continue her work in peace.
She can do all the work in fantasyland she desires. It's when she makes bogus claims on forums and now demands to redeem their overunity prizes that I speak up to defend the truth.
Apparently you're not aware of the situation.
.99
Quote from: eatenbyagrue on 2012.01.08, 17:39:52
You know she seems like a very nice lady. If it's over unity to her, it's over unity to her. You guys, let her continue her work in peace.
A rational dialog with her is impossible. I tried on ou.com before being banned. She has paranoid reactions and refuses every objection. You don't know her, she is not nice, she is cantankerous. Nobody prevents her to continue her work in peace, but when she published obviously false statements about overunity, it is a duty to say it.
@exnihiloest
QuoteA rational dialog with her is impossible. I tried on ou.com before being banned. She has paranoid reactions and refuses every objection. You don't know her, she is not nice, she is cantankerous. Nobody prevents her to continue her work in peace, but when she published obviously false statements about overunity, it is a duty to say it.
It is your duty to say it?, wow, you see personally I find statements like this very disturbing -- when people start talking about the "truth" as if it is inherent in their thoughts. Let's throw a little good old fashion logic at our little dilemma, you say it is your duty to object to her theories yet I image you believe in general relativity do you not?. Well the theory of GR has been proven to be false because the speed of light is not a constant and can be exceeded. Now we have a problem because when things exceed the speed of light these things when losing velocity can appear to appear out of nowhere and Einstein understood this funny little quirk all too well. You see Einstein and friends had issues, that is we cannot know anything for certain when nothing is certain because things can appear out of nowhere for reasons we cannot explain hence the fantasy we call GR and time dilation.
Now if things or energy can seem to appear out of nowhere for reasons we cannot understand then really what do you know concerning the facts or the truth? I would submit very little however the fact that you seem compelled to state your personal opinion as fact and consider it as your duty would suggest to me you are living in a fantasy as well. To get to the point, there is no rational debate of anything when everyone believes their personal flavor of fantasy is self-evident and beyond reproach, the word for this is delusion.
Regards
AC
AC,
I'm always interested in possible proof of FTL. Please post a link or reference.
AFAIK, all claims to-date haven't been verified (officially). The last claim had something to do with quantum entanglement which isn't understood. Any other examples of FTL can't transmit intelligence, so it means nothing. (Yes, FTL exists but it isn't the velocity of the propagation that is FTL. It is phase or group velocity that is FTL).
Thanks,
WW
NYTimes
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/19/science/space/neutrino-finding-is-confirmed-in-second-experiment-opera-scientists-say.html
QuoteScientists Report Second Sighting of Faster-Than-Light Neutrinos
By DENNIS OVERBYE
Published: November 18, 2011
Few scientists are betting against Einstein yet, but the phantom neutrinos of Opera are still eluding explanation.
Related
*
Tiny Neutrinos May Have Broken Cosmic Speed Limit (September 23, 2011)
*
News Analysis: After Report on Speed, a Rush of Scrutiny (September 24, 2011)
*
Particles Faster Than the Speed of Light? Not So Fast, Some Say (October 25, 2011)
Two months after scientists reported that they had clocked subatomic particles known as neutrinos going faster than the speed of light, to the astonishment and vocal disbelief of most of the world's physicists, the same group of scientists, known as Opera, said on Friday that it had performed a second experiment that confirmed its first results and eliminated one possible explanation for how the experiment could have gone wrong. ...
@Wavewatcher
QuoteI'm always interested in possible proof of FTL. Please post a link or reference.
AFAIK, all claims to-date haven't been verified (officially). The last claim had something to do with quantum entanglement which isn't understood. Any other examples of FTL can't transmit intelligence, so it means nothing. (Yes, FTL exists but it isn't the velocity of the propagation that is FTL. It is phase or group velocity that is FTL).
I choose not to take that route based on a statement made by T.H.Moray -- what is proof when proof is unacceptable?. As well in my opinion GR has not been fully verified based on various statements made by Einstein himself who said that he did not believe GR would stand the test of time. Which raises the question, can we discount one opinion just because another contradicts it even though neither have been proven beyond all doubt as fact. This is kind of like the psychologists joke -- We are all crazy to some extent it is simply a matter of the degree and the only one's who are truly crazy are the one's who believe they are not.
As such we are left with another statement, I cannot prove anything to anyone who cannot prove the matter for themselves, and there is nothing I could ever say or provide you with including verification of anything which would make you believe something you refuse to believe, so why bother?
The only fact is we will believe whatever we choose despite the facts.
Regards
AC
Quote(Yes, FTL exists but it isn't the velocity of the propagation that is FTL. It is phase or group velocity that is FTL).
It's only the Phase velocity that is faster, not the Group velocity. The group velocity is the one we think of as the real physical velocity, or propagation velocity.
I'm trying to find an article on a special transmission line formed out of modules, and it proved to be transmitting information faster than light. I think Sandia or some national lab wrote up that article. It was very interesting. Lending some credibility to the notion that near fields travel faster then light, which I refused to believe becasue how it was presented, by invoking phase arguments between the E and H fields, or something to that effect.
For those interested, the discussion of faster than light should realy be a discussion of stiffness and elasticity and density. The only reason information does not travel INSTANTLY is because most "mediums" of transmport are elastic and not "stiff" enough. You might think, what about steel? Yes, steel is very stiff but it also has a high density so the information is slowed down. If we had a very stiff medium and of no density, then we could have instant transmission of information across the universe. But all this discussion is only about
WAVE PHENOMENA. If we go to particle phenomena, you can go faster then the medium, just like a boat can go faster then the wave it produces, or a jet can break the sound burier. So, I don't find it shoking that nutrinos can travel faster then light, because
a nutrino is a PARTICLE, and light is a WAVE! two different things.
EM
Particle or wave, it doesn't matter. As long as the particle has mass it isn't supposed to go > c.
The 'group velocity' I speak of is the difference of two or more signals. It was a Dutch paper that caused the Prof. to loose employment and his aiding students had a great deal of trouble, afterwards.
As for the denial of proof... all I asked for was a link. I didn't say I would bash anything I read on the subject. Quite the contrary. I'm just interested.
Thanks PhysicsProf. I'm wondering if those folks are just seeing QE.
QuoteParticle or wave, it doesn't matter. As long as the particle has mass it isn't supposed to go > c
true, that's what they say.
Years ago I presented a concept to one of my college physics profesors and he didn't know how to answer. I said, if I accelerate a particle in one direction to 0.8 x c, or just close to the speed of light, and then I accelerate another one going in the other direction at 0.8 c, the particles are moving away from each other at 1.6 times the speed of light, is that not true? If things are truly relative and there is no absolute frame of reference, then an observer on one of the particles will observe the other one going faster then the speed of light, very simple and logical, I thought. But I'm no expert on relativity, never was.
EM
Quote from: EMdevices on 2012.01.09, 22:01:27
true, that's what they say.
Years ago I presented a concept to one of my college physics profesors and he didn't know how to answer. I said, if I accelerate a particle in one direction to 0.8 x c, or just close to the speed of light, and then I accelerate another one going in the other direction at 0.8 c, the particles are moving away from each other at 1.6 times the speed of light, is that not true? If things are truly relative and there is no absolute frame of reference, then an observer on one of the particles will observe the other one going faster then the speed of light, very simple and logical, I thought. But I'm no expert on relativity, never was.
EM
Perhaps.
I think the tricky part is when either measures light speed between them. Each should be part of a 'relative' time dilation in their own frame of reference which would cause their velocity measurements to indicate the light traveling between them is still no greater than c.
Ol' fuzzbrain covered his tracks well ;D
QuoteIf things are truly relative and there is no absolute frame of reference, then an observer on one of the particles will observe the other one going faster then the speed of light, very simple and logical, I thought.
Yes I saw that question posed to a physicist (I think) on TV years ago, it might even have been Carl Sagan. The answer is that they are indeed not approaching each other at 1.6 c. Their relative speed to each other is less than c. I think it ties into the dimension that you are traveling in becomes compressed as you approach relativistic speeds, but I am no expert either.
All I know is the faster you go, the slower you pass through time relative to a stationary person. It's a mind-muck.
MileHigh
that's right MH, they invoke time and distance contractions, etc..
If I remember accurately, in my physics book they always liked to talk about an observer on the ground watching somebody on a train, in a "moving frame of reverence". If the guy on the train trows a ball up and then it falls back down into his hand, from his point of view, or "reference frame" the ball traveled in only one dimention, up-down. However, the observer on the ground, or in a "fixed" frame of reference, sees the ball travel in a parabola, and obviously, the parabola path is LONGER, then the path observed by the train rider.
Now, let's think about this: The ball traveled two different paths, in the same time. How can this be? That's when Einstein chimed in that light speed is a constant, or should be assumed a constant, and what actually has to give is either TIME or DISTANCE. So that's how we get the time and distance dielation or contraction. Anyway, that's my level of recolection.
But all relativity aside, if we clock a ray of nutrinos passing two locations, and the "flashes" or detection events from the two locations come in closer in time then d/c, where 'd' is the distance between the two locations, and 'c' is the speed of light, than I would think we can say with a certain amount of certainty that something traveled faster then light. It's like seeing a shooting star flash across the sky, and if you know how far it is away from you, and you measure the arc you see and the time that it traverses that arc, you can say with certainty what velocity it has. Anyway, just brainstorming here ...
EM
Quote from: EMdevices on 2012.01.09, 22:01:27
...
if I accelerate a particle in one direction to 0.8 x c, or just close to the speed of light, and then I accelerate another one going in the other direction at 0.8 c, the particles are moving away from each other at 1.6 times the speed of light, is that not true?
...
It is false. Instead of relative addition of velocities, you are applying newtonian addition which has been proved false by a considerable amount of experiments confirming Einstein's relativity.
And even if you applied special relativity to the addition of velocities, it would be false in this case because there is no inertial frame of reference that can be attached to the photon. A photon has no "viewpoint" about the speed of others, it is blind, its proper time is null.
The best you can do is to suppose particles moving away from each other at "near the speed of light", as near as you want (viewed from your own referential). Then you apply Lorentz transforms and you see that each particle sees also the other at near the speed of light, not at 1.6*c. This is confirmed by many experiments, for instance by the deviation of beam of electrons at relativistic speeds.
There is neither absolute speed nor absolute time. It defies common sense but not logic, and if we want build operational machines, we must follow the experimental results rather than our psychological feel of the environment.
Quote from: EMdevices on 2012.01.09, 23:43:07
...
But all relativity aside, if we clock a ray of nutrinos passing two locations, and the "flashes" or detection events from the two locations come in closer in time then d/c, where 'd' is the distance between the two locations, and 'c' is the speed of light, than I would think we can say with a certain amount of certainty that something traveled faster then light.
...
I agree, nevertheless we must be sure of the distance and the time we measure.
For instance, a real "flash" is not instantaneous, it is spread in time, it degrades during the travel, thus when and how to trigger the start and the stop of the clock? And the same clock can't be simultaneously used at the start and end point, we need two clocks, how to synchronize them? And how to measure the distance without mistake?...
To be conclusive about a faster than light speed, which would be a science revolution, we must wait for independent confirmations of the speed of neutrinos, especially one using a different protocol.
XN:
Quoteif we want build operational machines, we must follow the experimental results
I totally agree with that!
But how about the observation of neutrinos going faster than the speed of light?
In the quantum physics entanglement model this is labeled as though it is instaneous. It has been measured of electrons vibrating when others at a distance are resonated even though they are seperated by distances.
To me this smells of GTC(>sol or greater than the speed of light). Eugene Podkletnov measured X26 SOL.
If we fire a bullet past an ant farm they embrace the shock wave but have concept of the bullet.
Those pesky Zipties or Zipnot things of Rosemary's go faster than the speed of light ??
Personally I don't think they exist at all ..... O0
Fuzzy
C.C
GK,
I'm starting to doubt that QE is the answer on these superluminal neutrinos.
They are measuring time over distance so it isn't QE. I am looking for more info. Accuracy of clocks, detection methods, etc.
Here is the real thing from the real guy. It's about an hour but if you want the straight goods on the neutrino faster than light debate have a watch.
@All
Time to stir the pot a bit, lol.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2094665,00.html
QuoteIf the Europeans are right, Einstein was not just wrong but almost clueless. The implications could be huge. Particles that move faster than light are essentially moving backwards in time, which could make the phrase cause and effect obsolete.
This is funny and shows the actual extent of the delusion out there in La La land, what if there is no time dilation, never has been and never will be because it is absurd. What if time dilation was solely due to politics, you see Einstein was an ambitious man and he knew no theory would fly which contradicted Maxwell's equations because they had already been accepted as fact, not proven beyond all doubt but accepted. The problem is that once something is accepted in the world of science it is next to impossible to reverse because that would imply people who consider themselves to be beyond reproach must be wrong in some way and they could never wrong in their funny little world so they must first grow old and die then be proven wrong. Thus Einstein's belief in some "fabric of space" or media in which energy could propagate had to be abandoned and a work around concocted hence time dilation was born. Not because there was actual time dilation which is absurd but because Maxwell's equations did not include any external influences or forces as he stated for all to see in his papers. My guess is that an ambitious patent clerk with dreams of grandeur patched together a theory, mostly borrowed from a french physicist, and figured he could correct it after the fact before anyone smart enough noticed it's flaws. It should be no surprise that one year after the release of GR only one person had the balls to state they understood it and it should also be no surprise that this nonsense continues even as we speak.
QuoteNo one is tearing up the Einsteinian rule book just yet. As physicists well know, astonishing results like this often turn out to be wrong, especially when they haven't been double-checked. Sometimes that means the group announcing the big news has done shoddy work, like the Utah chemists who announced to great fanfare back in 1989 that they'd achieved controlled nuclear fusion on a tabletop — the cold-fusion kerfuffle — trumping the physicists who'd been struggling for years to do the same thing with billion-dollar machines.
Wow, this sounds more like a pissing contest that science, more politics.
QuoteAnd sometimes, the researchers have gone about things the right way, carefully checking their equipment and their calculations to make sure they aren't being fooled by some mundane, potentially embarrassing glitch.
Like believing in unicorns, time dilation and fairy dust, that kind of glitch?. Check your premise boys.
QuoteOr maybe it won't: the history of science may be littered with claims that were ultimately proved false, but some outrageous ideas turn out to be true in the end. Take dark matter, the mysterious, invisible stuff that outweighs the visible stars and galaxies by a factor of 10 to 1. When it was first proposed in the 1930s, nobody believed it. When it reappeared in the 1960s, everyone laughed. Now it's firmly accepted as a fundamental part of the universe.
Now I think we are getting somewhere, a mysterious invisible stuff filling the universe which was discovered, dicarded, laughed at, rediscoved and again discarded, ridiculed, then finally accepted when given was no other choice.
We could ask a simple question here, have we been given any real undeniable proof that time can change? Well sure we have when a clock, atomic or not, when compared to another shows a difference, that is a change in the rate at which time passes. Hold on a second I have time dilation in every clock in my house, no wait the batteries are low in some of them and they are just plain old cheap clocks. Hmm could it be that the rate of the passage of time has not changed but the clocks themselves have in some way? Could it be that time is not effected by velocity but matter is which is the reason the clocks appear to change their rate?. Could it be possible that some mysterious invisible stuff filling the universe has effected our clocks, you see this is the problem with mysterious invisible stuff we do not understand, we do not know what it can effect or how it can effect things hence the term "mysterious". Could it be that we have never measured a change in the stuff our clocks are made of because all the things we use to measure this stuff are effected in exactly the same way giving the appearance that nothing has changed?.
@FuzzyTomCat
QuoteThose pesky Zipties or Zipnot things of Rosemary's go faster than the speed of light ??
Those damn Zipons keep making my beer warm so I have to drink it all real fast which is why I'm always drunk, I wish Rosemary would do something about them.
Regards
AC
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2012.01.10, 15:34:18
Quote
if we want build operational machines, we must follow the experimental results
XN:
I totally agree with that!
But how about the observation of neutrinos going faster than the speed of light?
About the observation of neutrinos going faster than the speed of light, either the theory or the experiment is wrong.
We must remember that only one experiment supports FTL speed of objects with mass while all others shown a speed limit c. Naturally in such a case, many precautions must be taken before deciding if there is really something wrong, and what.
The CERN's physicists published their experiment because they saw no flaw in their measurement protocol, but as it is extraordinary and contradictory with what is observed for decades until now, they want the scientific community verify it and duplicate it. I agree with their methodology. We must carefully wait for new confirmations or denials.
Quote from: allcanadian on 2012.01.11, 07:28:05
...
This is funny and shows the actual extent of the delusion out there in La La land, what if there is no time dilation, never has been and never will be because it is absurd. What if time dilation was solely due to politics...
...
Before making extravagant hypothesis of replacing "time dilatation" by "politics", you should explain us how "politics" can increase the life time of radioactive matter by moving it at near light speed...
Quote from: giantkiller on 2012.01.10, 17:10:44
In the quantum physics entanglement model this is labeled as though it is instaneous. It has been measured of electrons vibrating when others at a distance are resonated even though they are seperated by distances.
...
QM doesn't show that matter or energy is transfered instantaneously. The question is: what is "instantaneous"?
We observe only that:
- when two particles are entangled, each quantum state (for instance the photon polarization) is undetermined, the two particles appear as being only one whatever the distance between them. This is known as "superposition state", which is indefinite.
- when we measure a particle, the quantum state of the other one is also instantaneously determined, phenomenon known as "wave function collapse".
- there is no way to instantaneously communicate because it is the measurement that determines the quantum state, it does it at random, so we can't code information
Finally in QM, the instantaneousness is only that of the correlation of two quantum states from two stochastic events at a distance.
The question that this correlation could be due to hidden variables, i.e. due to unknown parameters shared by the two particles at the moment they are entangled, has been dismissed by the experiments known as "Bell's inequality", proving that the "link" between the particles didn't exist before the measurement and therefore that it is really instantaneous at the moment of the measurement. But many physicists are still challenging this point, although it is in the main stream science.
We are here at the fringe of the human knowledge. Imho the question of time is a fundamental key for the answer. The idea of instantaneousness comes to mind because we are conditioned by our habit of psychological time that endless flows. Nevertheless, where there is no clock, is there time? Not sure at all. So here is an hypothesis: if time emerges only from quantum events, which are the only possible elementary "tags" for clocks, it is not surprising that two particles in a superposition state remain in an eternal present until they react with the environment or a measurement apparatus which create the event and therefore their time. Of course in our macroscopic world, there are billions of quantum events each second, so the time seems continuous.
Poynt:
Rosemary either cannot grasp the concepts for doing proper power measurements or there is some sort of psychological pathology going on where she is compelled to argue against you to support her beliefs about her project no matter what. As a result she has put up moveable psychological barriers that always result in her arguing against you. I am sure there is a proper term for this but I don't know what it is.
Then in a related matter she still cannot master the terminology and concepts related to power and energy in order to communicate these these ideas coherently and correctly. She knows what power is, she knows what energy is, but she is unable to string two sentences together without making a mistake. There is something going on here also, it's like there is some sort of mental block.
All that being said, you gave it your 10th shot, perhaps it's time to throw in the towel?
MileHigh
MH,
I don't mind giving it a shot now and again, even though I know it won't help her. At least it has the real chance of helping others who may have fallen victim to her linguistic charm.
Thanks for your concern, and glad to see you're still reading. I'd have to agree with all you said.
Cheers,
.99
Poynt,
I would have to agree somewhat with MH on his take on Rosemary. You would think after 3 years and over 7,000 posts on numerous forums that a single person, engineer or academic would step forward on her claims and verify something .... anything at all from the South Africa team so called experts. As you and all else can see by Rosemary's forum reply's and uneducated comments that shes 100% on her own, not even knowledgeable forum members come and rally to help the continued mistakes she makes.
The postings on OU you did were all text book and as good as the posts were they got buried quick in the thread from the five (5) part reply and several I told you so BS posts from Rosemary, so now the credible and verifiable information you posted is one (1) page back as per her all so predictable methods go from the experienced forum warrior battles by the willing to set the record straight or with verifiable correct information
The bottom line is anything that disputes Rosemary's turd model and it's physic prediction of zippties or zipnots will be fought by Rosemary to the bitter end .... the "THESIS" of the unproven model is whats important to Rosemary "NOT" the device she or her South Africa team created in question that produces the claimed results which has never been reproduced in any scientific method accepted in the scientific community.
Shes nothing but a smart "TROLL" in high heals that's fooled countless of good honest individuals for the past three (3) years ..... >:(
Best Regards,
Fuzzy
;)
Indeed Glen, she is hopelessly incorrigible.
.99
Quote from: FuzzyTomCat on 2012.01.16, 09:27:31
Poynt,
You would think after 3 years and over 7,000 posts on numerous forums that a single person, engineer or academic would step forward on her claims and verify something ....
That is because whenever an engineer, academic or knowledgeable person steps forward, they end up disagreeing with her making them incompetent in her eyes
Hi all,
Is it just me, but is it different getting into the current public posts on the Rosemary "TRUTH" blog using the link http://rosemaryainslie-publicblog.blogspot.com/ being able to access the latest posts ?? :-\
I seem only able to get there from another way with a saved bookmark link http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?postID=8601966873585062014&blogID=7589344202232509327&isPopup=false&page=2 8)
Some interesting comments being posted there lately :o
Regards,
Fuzzy
:)
Poor Rosie is back in "struggling" mode where she can't even read her own schematic and understand what connects to what. She still doesn't understand the cockeyed way the function generator turns on a MOSFET and a spontaneous oscillation starts.
It's amazing really. Multiple attempts to publish papers about a miswired circuit that is then mistakenly interpreted as a source of free energy.
It's the ultimate Roseanne Roseannadanna moment.
This sort of people feed their vacuity from reactions of others. The only way is to ignore them.
I occasionally poke in there as well to check on her progress.
This appears to be a better link to the blog you're referring to:
http://rosemaryainslie-publicblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/feel-free-to-answer-poll-question-how.html
Mookie
Quote from: Mookie on 2012.01.25, 09:43:24
I occasionally poke in there as well to check on her progress.
This appears to be a better link to the blog you're referring to:
http://rosemaryainslie-publicblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/feel-free-to-answer-poll-question-how.html
Mookie
Hi Mookie,
Thank You O0 that's a much better link ....
Fuzzy
:)
OMG!
I clicked on the wrong link and just saw an exchange between .99 and RA.
How can you even contribute to a technical document or make any comment when you don't know that power and wattage are the same thing in an electrical circuit?
As in, power is spoken about using the term 'watts' or 'wattage'.
Gotta delete that link. Don't want that happening again :o
Bah!
In the old days they would say "Garbage-in garbage-out."
I found some modern highfalutin words that have the same message:
QuotePathological science is the process by which "people are tricked into false results ... by subjective effects, wishful thinking or threshold interactions". The term was first used by Irving Langmuir, Nobel Prize-winning chemist, during a 1953 colloquium at the Knolls Research Laboratory. Langmuir said a pathological science is an area of research that simply will not "go away"—long after it was given up on as 'false' by the majority of scientists in the field. He called pathological science "the science of things that aren't so."
Say it isn't so, Joe!
If you took a big fat high-voltage cap and hooked it up to the Zippon Flux Converter and let her run for a few minutes and let the superluminal effects take hold... Oscillations and heat and spikes! Spikes! Spikes!
Then to Rosie's complete shock the voltage on that big fat capacitor would slowly drop.
Now since we know that the energy stored in a capacitor is 1/2 C v-squared.... If we measured the voltage drop on a very large cap over say.... 10 seconds.... then we could make a decent estimate of the WATTAGE (or POWER) DISSIPATED BY THE MAGIC ZIPPON CIRCUIT.
Yes, THE CIRCUIT IS INDEED TRULY REPRESENTATIONAL OF THE STANDARD MODEL.
I am talking about the evidence of ENERGY STORED IN THE CAPACITOR IS BEING DISSIPATED IN (OR TRANSFERRED INTO) THE ZIPPON FLUX CONVERTER. THAT'S WATTAGE (OR POWER)
We are applying STANDARD MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS.
Watch out because the Zippon Flux Converter can BURN YOUR TOE.
@Milehigh
QuotePathological science is the process by which "people are tricked into false results ... by subjective effects, wishful thinking or threshold interactions". The term was first used by Irving Langmuir, Nobel Prize-winning chemist, during a 1953 colloquium at the Knolls Research Laboratory. Langmuir said a pathological science is an area of research that simply will not "go away"—long after it was given up on as 'false' by the majority of scientists in the field. He called pathological science "the science of things that aren't so."
I think you know I just have to comment on this, lol, I think the key phrase here is ----
Quotean area of research that simply will not "go away"—long after it was given up on as 'false' by the majority of scientists in the field
After Einstein disclosed GR I think the majority of scientists in the field would acknowledge that the "Aether" was dead, it was given up on as false and many would consider it pathological science as Irving Langmuir suggests. However we have a little problem with this strange concept in that science is not a popularity contest and more people believing something is so doesn't always mean it is and we know this as a fact when looking back through our history. That is we know as a fact that we have been completely wrong about many things much more often than we have been right, so why would a Nobel prize winner think science is the truth by consensus that is absurd.
Let's jump to the present, "The Aether is dead --- long live the Aether", now the Aether is considered as dead or pathological science however something took it's place which is in fact the very same thing only now it has a different name. Today we call it "Dark Matter" or in other fields of science they call it "Plasma", now how is it a mysterious substance pervading all supposedly empty space called the Aether is pathological science yet the very same mysterious substance when called Dark matter or Plasma is perfectly acceptable?. Have they lost their minds?, Do they have a pathological hatred of words that start with the letter "A"?, or maybe a more likely scenario was that their "Science by Consensus" was wrong yet again so they simply renamed the Aether as Dark Matter or Plasma.
Now being a big fan of history, science and psychology I'm going to go out on a limb and make a startling prediction of what to expect in the future. I predict science will find this mysterious substance we call Aether/Dark Matter/Plasma or whatever suits your fancy will be found to be responsible for the propogation of energy through supposedly empty space as well as the fundamental forces of Gravity, Electricity and Magnetism. Now why would I think somethign so obviously whacky?, well because this is exactly the same theory we had nearly 100 years ago only today all the names have changed. You see if you do the research on our history as it relates to science you would find we spend most of our time running in circles, that is something is accepted as fact then proven false and considered pathological science then reborn under a different name as something new. Which is really great when applying for research grants, just imagine an exciting new field of science which is exactly the same field we had 100 years ago only now it has an exciting new name which is much more exciting when you think about it or maybe just maybe much ado about nothing.
I guess we could consider what we call proof, If everything is supposedly understood then why has little really changed in the energy sector in the last 50 years?, why is my new car a piece of shit?( 18% efficiency -- Really?), why do our super safe and clean nuclear reactors keep exploding and spewing radioactive debris across the planet?, why is our planet such a freaking mess?, why is the cure for most major diseases always right around the corner but never the next one?. You know we had the iron age, the industrial age and now I believe we are in the age of Hype because all this supposed understanding is starting to sound like a lot of hot air to me.
Regards
AC
AC:
I will just mention a few things here, not going to do any online "refresher." I believe that you just putting two and two together to make four when the connection is not there. I think that you are making a leap of logic that many people make and it's incorrect.
The Aether was proposed as a medium to facilitate the transmission of electromagnetic waves. In the 19th century people speculated that you needed a tangible medium to propagate electromagnetic waves. We did experiments and discovered that that's not true. We proved that an absolute vacuum can transmit electromagnetic waves and the characteristic impedance of empty space is 376.73 ohms.
QuoteThe impedance of free space, Z0, is a physical constant relating the magnitudes of the electric and magnetic fields of electromagnetic radiation traveling through free space. That is, Z0 = |E|/|H|, where |E| is the electric field strength and |H| magnetic field strength. It has an exact value, given approximately as 376.73031... ohms.[1]
The impedance of free space equals the product of the vacuum permeability or magnetic constant μ0 and the speed of light in vacuum c0. Since the numerical values of the magnetic constant and of the speed of light are fixed by the definitions of the ampere and the metre respectively, the exact value of the impedance of free space is likewise fixed by definition and is not subject to experimental error.
As you are well aware, experiments were done to find out if there is an Aether and they found no evidence of one.
Then people with "alternative" viewpoints refuse to accept this. Then along comes the discovery of Dark Matter, which is simply unaccounted for mass in the Universe, and people say that they think it's the Aether. That makes no sense at all. You, and many other people are just shoehorning the discovery of Dark Matter into the concept of an Aether when they are not the same thing at all.
From what I gather they believe that Dark Energy is just a term that they are using for an unknown agent that is responsible for the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe. At this point in time it's just a name for an unknown property that they know next to nothing about.
Like I said I am not well versed in these matters, but I smell a rat. There is no Aether, and we can deduce Dark Matter exists because the galaxies are rotating at the wrong speed relative to the apparent visible masses that they have. Dark Matter "explaining" the existence of Aether is just a bandwagon as far as I can tell, and the truth is that they have nothing to do with each other.
So there is an element of pathological science in what you are stating. Hypothetical Aether in the standard 19th century definition has been proven to not exist. If you are trying to "bend" the definition of Aether to modern times and somehow make the connection to Dark Matter I don't accept that either. There is just one definition for Aether and one definition for Dark Matter and they are different. Just trying to keep it real.
And I will put in a disclaimer: YES, I realize that our understanding can evolve and get better over time and things could change. "Could" being the key thing. It's just as easy to envision that in 500 years time, 99% of we know know will still be valid, 1% will have been refuted, and there will be another 25% of new knowledge added to our understanding of the Universe.
And you can't forget 42.
MileHigh
@Milehigh
QuoteThe Aether was proposed as a medium to facilitate the transmission of electromagnetic waves. In the 19th century people speculated that you needed a tangible medium to propagate electromagnetic waves. We did experiments and discovered that that's not true. We proved that an absolute vacuum can transmit electromagnetic waves and the characteristic impedance of empty space is 376.73 ohms.
I'm not sure you understand my intent here, I'm not saying there is an Aether or pushing Aether theory persay however I think we have to be realistic. First we should understand what were dealing with---
QuoteDark Matter --- dark matter is a currently-undetermined type of matter which accounts for a large part of the mass of the universe, but neither emits nor scatters light or other electromagnetic radiation, and so cannot be directly seen with telescopes Dark matter is presumed to constitute 83% of the matter in the universe and 23% of the mass-energy
An undetermined "type" of matter which fills the universe, key word -- undetermined type -- hence we do not know what it is, that is we do not know what it is nor where it is. As well I should clarify a point, what we did prove was that we can never attain an absolute vacuum and that no matter what temperature matter is lowered to it will always contain energy. So we have a mystery, there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum as far as we know and apparently all space is full of an undetermined type of matter filling all space, that is the universe as we know it.
Perhaps you can clarify this for me because it would seem to be a contradiction in terms, how can we have an absolute vacuum defined as (Quote: Vacuum is space that is empty of matter) which is apparently full of (Quote: a currently-undetermined type of matter) ?.
Then we have another issue.
QuoteIt is estimated that as much as 99.9% of the universe is comprised of plasma.
The space between galaxies, the intergalactic medium, is a very tenuous, fully ionized plasma, that carries magnetic field and electric currents.
Now if all the space between stars not unlike our sun is full of plasma and the known universe is full of stars then how can it be an absolute vacuum defined as (Quote: Vacuum is space that is empty of matter)?
You see it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, A space that is empty of matter but also full of not only an undetermined type of matter (dark Matter) but also Plasma. I'm not saying this is the Aether but if we look at history we find that the Aether was dicarded and space was assumed to be mostly empty and now we have come full circle back to a new theory in which our universe is full again. As well if the universe is not empty but full of Plasma then it seems kind of odd that all this energy in transition from one place to another would be completely uneffected by it considering this plasma carries magnetic fields and electric currents.
QuoteYES, I realize that our understanding can evolve and get better over time and things could change. "Could" being the key thing. It's just as easy to envision that in 500 years time, 99% of we know know will still be valid, 1% will have been refuted, and there will be another 25% of new knowledge added to our understanding of the Universe.
I would disagree, look at how far we have come in the last 50 years and the rate of change in understanding and knowledge is growing exponentially. I think that in 500 years the technology will be as foreign to us as a computer is to our great great grandparents and this has been proven to be the case throughout our history. I do not believe there is any "could change" about it as every prior generation has always said exactly the same thing haven't they?, they always assumed "they" had it right and it has always been proven that they never were, lol, that's kind of strange when we think about it.
Regards
AC
AC:
I agree with you about your last point. 500 years is a long way out for sure and I probably was being too conservative.
I believe that I read that they estimate "empty space" has about one molecule of matter per cubic meter. I assume that it's typically a molecule of hydrogen or an alpha particle. And yes that interstellar dust is a plasma and there are amazing things out there if you go to a website with Hubble images. They have even made time-lapse movies of stellar objects spitting out gas into the Cosmos. Just say "Billions ad billions." lol
I almost wish that I had become an astronomer. Such an exciting time we live in for that branch of science. I can cite an example where your theme rings true. If you are above a certain age you grew up in a world thinking that it was going to be impossible to ever detect extra-solar planets because that's what you were told. It seemed to make sense also, because the stars are light-years away. So I believed that they were right and we would never detect extra-solar planets. And then in the mid Nineties they confirmed the positive detection of the first planets. I think the count is now somewhere in the 500-600 range. Can you imagine in 25 years how many planets they will have detected?
Apparently they will soon be able to gather information about the composition of the atmospheres of certain extra-solar planets with a new satellite or something. That's mind-boggling.
Please never make Avatar II! lol
MileHigh
Well Rosie... Poynt has now simulated your measurement errors and then shown you three separate ways to simulate the measurement of the true power consumption of your circuit.
The inductive resistor gets hot because the batteries are supplying power to the circuit. Just like what happens in the rest of the real world.
All that you have to do is power your real-life circuit with a very large capacitor and you will observe that the capacitor voltage will decrease over time. The capacitor voltage decreasing over time is proof that the direction of the net current flow is into your circuit, and not the other way around as you believe.
Poynt's qualifications are excellent, and the spaghetti is not sticking!
Will the fat lady please sing!?
MileHigh
This one is for Rosemary:
(http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/dlattach/attach/94214/image//)
Quoting you Rosemary:
QuoteWhen a negative signal is applied to the gate of Q1 - and if those transistors are working - then what has happened is that the batteries are disconnected. That's not speculative. That's FACT. That's what that switch does. It's either 'on' or 'off'. Think of it as a light switch. But an amazing switch that can turn on really, really quickly. The question is ONLY this. If Q1 is 'off' is Q2 then 'on'? In other words are we simply allowing the current to flow through another switch? We can certainly claim that the batteries are NOT connected at Q1. But? Are they still perhaps connected at Q2? Definitely doable BUT ONLY PROVIDED that the switch at Q2 has a full path to conduct that current back to the battery. But. It doesn't. It's also OFF. To take the analogy further - its connection to that battery is BROKEN. Technically it CANNOT enable a flow of current from that battery. There is no connection of Q2 source to the Source rail or battery negative - during this period. That's as good as leaving the switch 'off'.
Take a look again Rosemary,
there IS a connection of Q2 source to the Source rail or battery negative.Take a second look at the function generator. You are obviously thinking that somehow current can't flow through the function generator but you are dead wrong.
A simple thought experiment: You have have a set of six 12-volt batteries in series to make a 72-volt voltage source. The positive rail is connected to a 100 ohm resistor. The other side of the resistor is connected to the output of a function generator. The ground of the function generator is connected to the negative rail of the battery set.
Do you think current will flow in the above setup when you turn on the function generator? The answer is YES, current will flow from the positive rail, through the resistor,
then through the function generator, and then back to the negative rail.
Are you waking up yet, Rosemary?
So look above at the simplified diagram of your setup one more time. Current flows out of the positive rail, through RL1, then through Q2,
and then it flows through the function generator, then through the current sensing resistor, and then to the negative rail.
So your battery set IS POWERING THE OSCILLATIONS AND CURRENT IS FLOWING.
So your whole "instructional treatise" that you have been giving over the past day is WRONG. You have been a victim of your own INCORRECT PRECONCEPTIONS. You have been staring at that circuit diagram for more than a year and you have had a preconception that current supplied by your set of batteries cannot flow through the function generator itself, when in fact your preconceptions are WRONG and current can flow through the function generator itself.
And that is the essence of your "circuit." You miswired the Q2 MOSFETS so that they only switch on when you put a negative offset on the function generator output. When you do that, the main set of batteries can start to drive the load and heat up the inductive resistor. Q1 is a "wallflower" MOSFET and is never on. Then you made lousy measurements and tricked yourself into believing that you have "COP infinity." Then when Poynt99 tried to explain this to you, you went from praising him to turning on him and attacking him like a vicious animal.
When is this farce going TO END???
MileHigh
Rosemary,
When I read between the lines in your prose below, it looks like it never even occurred to you that current can actually flow through the two terminals of the function generator. That could either be into the signal terminal and out of the ground terminal, or out of the signal terminal and into the ground terminal. Well the short answer is that IT CAN, and so everything you have been saying recently is all wrong.
QuotePoynt, if you're still there. I wonder if you could ask MileHigh to get his head out of those clouds and his feet on the ground. He's seriously proposing that upwards of 5 amps can flow into the ground rail of the probe - through all the circuitry of the signal supply source, nuke the most of those rectifiers, fry the delicate potentiometers, burn up most of that circuitry of that really sensitive instrument, that is decidedly NOT designed to take high amperage. And he then proposes that it can come out on the other side at the probe of the signal generator - to confront an applied negative signal at the Gate of Q1. It needs to reach Q1's source rail. So it IGNORES that signal? It simply overrides the applied charge and slips onto the source leg of Q1S. And then it flows unobstructed to the supply source or negative rail of the battery. That's unlikely.
If he's suggesting that the current from the battery can simply flow through the Q2 transistor at Q2's Drain through to Q2 Gate - AND THEN DIRECTLY ONTO THE CIRCUIT at it's source rail (or the negative battery terminal thing) then it would need to bypass it's own Source Q2S leg. Which means that we'd see a very visible arcing sparking flow of current in mid air, as it tries to find safe landing on a really slim landing site all of which is to managed while the current is in a kind of free fall. That's also unlikely. But both options are interesting on a speculative level. Especially as it would introduce some utterly exotic, if somewhat improbable, physics. And show him the schematic again. Here it is.
Q2s or the source leg of Q2 has NO CONNECTION AT ALL with the circuit battery negative. IT FLOATS. I really need a shot of this to show you guys. Hopefully soon.
As per normal for you, your technical discussion is all mangled up and your switch terminology on the fly. It doesn't matter, I understand what you are trying to say.
For starters, I am going to follow the naming convention for standard current flow.
QuoteHe's seriously proposing that upwards of 5 amps can flow into the ground rail of the probe - through all the circuitry of the signal supply source, nuke the most of those rectifiers, fry the delicate potentiometers, burn up most of that circuitry of that really sensitive instrument, that is decidedly NOT designed to take high amperage.
By "probe" you mean the function generator signal and ground terminals, not to be confused with the scope probe. Beyond that I an not stating how much current can flow, all that I am stating is that current can and will flow through the function generator. The talk about "burning up circuitry" is just you revealing how little you know about electronics, which you freely admit, but then go onto draw erroneous conclusions anyways.
The only thing I can say right now is that since your function generator has an offset control, that means that it can both source and sink current when it is normally driving a load. The only thing that will be affected by having an external power source put current through the function generator is it's output stage. I am assuming that the output impedance is 50 ohms, and that is only a clue as to how the output stage will react to an external source of current flow. However, no matter what you think or say, current does flow through the function generator and that completes the circuit when Q2 is switched on.
QuoteAnd he then proposes that it can come out on the other side at the probe of the signal generator - to confront an applied negative signal at the Gate of Q1. It needs to reach Q1's source rail. So it IGNORES that signal? It simply overrides the applied charge and slips onto the source leg of Q1S. And then it flows unobstructed to the supply source or negative rail of the battery. That's unlikely.
I have no idea why you are talking about Q1 because it was established more than a year ago that Q1 is always off, which I also stated in my previous posting.
LET ME REPEAT IT AGAIN: CURRENT FROM THE BATTERY DRAIN RAIL (POSITIVE) FLOWS THROUGH RL1 THEN INTO THE DRAIN PIN OF Q2, THEN OUT OF THE SOURCE PIN OF Q2 THEN INTO THE SIGNAL TERMINAL OF THE FUNCTION GENERATOR, THEN OUT OF THE GROUND TERMINAL OF THE FUNCTION GENERATOR, THEN THROUGH THE CURRENT SENSING RESISTOR THEN BACK TO THE BATTERY SOURCE RAIL (NEGATIVE).
I hope that you get that Rosemary.
QuoteIf he's suggesting that the current from the battery can simply flow through the Q2 transistor at Q2's Drain through to Q2 Gate - AND THEN DIRECTLY ONTO THE CIRCUIT at it's source rail (or the negative battery terminal thing) then it would need to bypass it's own Source Q2S leg.
The above quote from you is more mangled nonsensical talk. Everybody is supposed to know that the gate of a MOSFET transistor does not pass DC current. See the all-capitals description of the current flow in my prose above.
QuoteWhich means that we'd see a very visible arcing sparking flow of current in mid air, as it tries to find safe landing on a really slim landing site all of which is to managed while the current is in a kind of free fall. That's also unlikely. But both options are interesting on a speculative level. Especially as it would introduce some utterly exotic, if somewhat improbable, physics. And show him the schematic again. Here it is.
The above quote from you is more mangled nonsensical talk. Even I can't figure out what you are trying to say there.
QuoteQ2s or the source leg of Q2 has NO CONNECTION AT ALL with the circuit battery negative. IT FLOATS. I really need a shot of this to show you guys. Hopefully soon.
Here you are starting to make some sense but you are dead wrong. You are alleging that "it floats" because it never occurred to you that the signal generator itself completes the circuit and allows current to flow. The bulk of the voltage that creates that current flow is from the battery set, and therefore the battery set is providing power that gets burned off in the RL1 inductive resistor.
Current flows through the function generator itself to complete the loop. Now that you know, perhaps you will manage to understand how your circuit actually works. All of your talk about "current flowing when the batteries are disconnected" is dead wrong. So your theory about the material itself that makes up the physical mass of the inductive resistor supplies the "extra" power or that "Dark Energy" is responsible for the "extra" power is completely and utterly wrong.
Your circuit is 100% conventional and no over unity barriers have been breached. The dam still holds firm.
MileHigh
@Milehigh
QuoteThe dam still holds firm
That damn dam, I would agree that electronics and the energy flow in even simple circuits can be very misleading even at the best of times. That is why I think it is so very important to understand the basics and to test, test , test our circuits. I use modern equipment to test my circuits however most of what I use is old school because old school just works, it works every time and I know what I'm seeing is real. For example I like to use hall effect current measurement, no shunts, because first I can completely isolate the measuring device from the circuit and there is no conductive path and second I can measure real current. If there is no magnetic field present at my sensing inductor then there is no AC or DC it's that simple. As well in this day and age IC's are cheap, accurate and so damn sensitive it's almost scary.
Another is electrometers, I love electrometers because they tell me the state of charge present at any given point, not two points, at each singular point. This relates to the voltage in a relative sense and the state of charge present as well as the current because a changing state of charge must represent a current by definition. Electrometers are also nice because they are old school and they seldom if ever give a false indication of what is happening. They also tell us what is happening in the space surrounding each conductor or element in our circuits which adds another dimension to what we call measurement.
To be honest I like the new equipment with all it's bells and whistles but I have always been an old school getter done kind of guy, new ain't always better and old doesn't mean something is lacking in quality.
Regards
AC
Rosemary:
That long treatise you gave was totally bizarre and I am not going to comment on it. Nor am I going to comment on your shorter attempt at a technical discussion. I'll just say a few words.
Firstly, no electronics designer in their right mind would ever design a circuit that has the output from a MOSFET, the source pin, connected to the signal terminal of a function generator. It makes no sense at all, it means you are trying to put current through the function generator. The signal terminal of a function generator is supposed to connect to the gate input of a MOSFET.
So lo and behold that's what your circuit does, it has current flowing through the function generator itself, which is totally bizarre and makes no sense.
Notwithstanding what you did, let's say the signal generator swings between 0 volts and -5 volts. That's of course because you add the negative offset to the signal generator output.
When the signal generator outputs 0 volts, Q1 is off and Q2 is off - no oscillation.
When the signal generator outputs -5 volts then Q1 is still off and Q2 switches on - the circuit oscillates
The reason Q2 switches on is that the Q2 gate voltage is at 0 volts and the Q2 source pin is at - 5 volts. Therefore the gate pin is at a higher potential than the source pin and the MOSFET switches on. In other words, the gate pin is at +5 volts relative to the source pin and that makes the MOSFET switch on.
In reality, the MOSFET switches on for just a fraction of a second and then it switches off because the circuit conditions are such that it goes into spontaneous oscillation.
So, when the output of the signal generator goes low, the circuit oscillates, and current flows through the signal generator itself to complete the circuit. It's a totally bizarre nonsensical design. Nobody would ever design a circuit where current flows through the signal generator itself like your circuit does. Your circuit is just an accidental miswiring of a MOSFET that results in oscillation. The fact that it oscillates is not surprising at all.
And then you arrive at the "garbage-in garbage-out" part of the story. The circuit is bizarre but still operates like any conventional circuit with respect to the energy dynamics. You make "garbage in" measurements and are fooled by what you see, and thus you arrive at a "garbage out" conclusion.
MileHigh
Rosemary:
Today was quite a day.
I can assure you that current can and does flow through your function generator, not withstanding what you said. Your cockamamie circuit actually puts the function generator in series with the rest of the batteries such that it is in the "main power loop" that dissipates power in the inductive resistor.
With respect to power measurements, the moment you change from doing basic DC or low-frequency power measurements to power measurements on waveforms that are very spiky and have a lot of high-frequency content, it's like you have entered another realm of measurement altogether. Here you need an experienced person that knows their stuff and understands the advantages and limitations of the equipment that they are working with. You need to have someone that knows through experience and/or instinct when their instruments are giving them false readings. Likewise, you need a very experienced person that knows precisely how to use their measuring instruments under very high frequency conditions.
You clearly never had a person of this caliber to work with when you did these very difficult measurements. And you are left doing nothing more than repeating over and over that the instruments don't lie. But the fact is that the instruments can lie if you don't have the experience, instinct, or wisdom to use them properly under very trying and difficult to measure conditions.
So my advice to you is to stop repeating over and over that your measurements are correct. You have to understand that the measurements are not correct because your measuring instruments weren't used properly.
I will say it again and one last time: Substitute your batteries for a large capacitor and you will see the voltage on the capacitor decrease as the circuit runs -> GAME OVER.
MileHigh
Rosemary:
You always want it both ways, you try to speak authoritatively about electronics and other times you admit that you know next to nothing about electronics.
You want to believe that the function generator can't pass current from an external source because it upsets the apple cart for you. I can only guess that you never really thought about it and just presumed that it couldn't pass any current. So your defense is to feign talking authoritatively. That's like the famous scene in Citizen Kane where the mistress tries to force the wrong piece into her jigsaw puzzle. You only end up cheating yourself.
Suppose the signal generator were to output a square wave that varied between +10 volts and -10 volts and you connected a 50-ohm resistor as the load. What do you think the current flow would be through the function generator is in this case? It would be 200 milliamperes going back and forth in each direction. And you think no current can flow through the function generator?
If you look at a voltage source, say we take a simple 1.5 volt alkaline battery. You can imagine current flowing out of the positive terminal (and into the negative terminal), or just as easily you can imagine current flowing into the positive terminal (and out of the negative terminal). In either case the voltage across the two terminals of the battery will still remain the same, approximately 1.5 volts. That's the way voltage sources work and that's approximately how the signal generator works.
Poynt pointed out an inconsistency in your paper about the actual level output by the function generator so who knows what you were really doing.
Sorry there is nothing for me to concede. I see a big bank of batteries generating voltage that wants to push current through an inductive resistor with a strange accidental arrangement of MOSFETs acting as a switch to regulate the current flow. The famous oscillation that you see is something that is seen in electronics all the time and means nothing. That's the reality. You are on a flight of fancy when you dream that this could be an over unity phenomenon.
Poynt simulated your bizarre circuit and it jumped into oscillation mode just fine. Just like a million other circuits can be simulated that will also oscillate. There is a whole branch of electronics and engineering devoted to those kinds of things and they are pretty much understood inside-out.
Since I have your attention, I will also repeat that there would be no point in ever inviting Stefan to S.A. for a demonstration. He is clearly not knowledgeable enough to pass judgement on your setup, not by a long shot.
MileHigh
Rosemary:
Just to comment on this:
QuoteAnd the need of so many that our grid supplies would never be able to supply the required amount to keep our cities lit - our houses warmed. The question is - WHERE ARE ALL THOSE ELECTRONS? Because the concept of current flow being the flow of electrons NEEDS ALL THOSE ELECTRONS.
Dear God, and here you are stating that (to paraphrase) "scientists and engineers don't understand electric current" and you are wondering were are all the electrons coming from? You repeatedly state that the concept of electric current is all wrong and you write
that? Not to mention your "valence electrons rubbing shoulders" theory which should make it take 30 minutes for a light switch to turn on a light.
I think that you were stating this stuff 2 1/2 years ago so you haven't been studying much. The answer to the missing electrons is blowing in the wind.
MileHigh
Rosemary:
Myself, and many others are gasping at your multiple attempts to answer Poynt's very simple question with the 50-volt battery and the 10-ohm resistor. Electronics is clearly not your "thing." You clearly will not be able to understand what's going on if a serious test was to be done on your setup with Poynt doing the testing and you observing. You can't punch your way out of a wet electronics paper bag.
Let me ask you this: If you still have a working setup, imagine if you replaced just one of the 12-volt batteries with a quite large capacitor charged to 12 volts. Do you understand how monitoring the capacitor voltage will tell you if your circuit is over unity or under unity?
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2012.02.02, 05:03:32
Let me ask you this: If you still have a working setup, imagine if you replaced just one of the 12-volt batteries with a quite large capacitor charged to 12 volts. Do you understand how monitoring the capacitor voltage will tell you if your circuit is over unity or under unity?
MileHigh
So you are saying if the voltage of the capacitor goes down, it's under unity?
Yes the voltage goes down if it's under unity.
Meanwhile, I need a straitjacket. :D
Quote from: MileHigh on 2012.02.02, 20:32:05
Yes the voltage goes down if it's under unity.
Meanwhile, I need a straitjacket. :D
;D I hope you're not in trouble or anything.
I'm just curious by your interesting thinking because OU is determine by output/input. lol
Gibbs:
Thank you for pointing that out because I should correct my error. The capacitor replacing one of the 6 batteries in Rosemary's setup will determine what the direction of the net current flow is when the circuit is running. Rosemary argues that the batteries are being recharged while her circuit runs. That has overshadowed any power in vs. power out discussion because if the batteries are being recharged that's "COP infinity" according to Rosie.
If the batteries are being recharged, the voltage on the capacitor would increase. If the batteries are discharging, then the voltage on the capacitor will decrease. With metaphysical certitude, you can state that the voltage on the capacitor will decrease when the circuit is powering the load. This simple method is a different way to determine the net direction of the current flow and it is more accurate than using a high-end DSO. That's because the capacitor acts like a perfect integrator of the current flow and has essentially infinite resolution. The output of the "capacitor current integrator" is a voltage reading.
With careful measurements of the capacitance, the time, and the amount of voltage drop when the capacitor is in the loop powering Rosemary's circuit, you could make a very accurate measurement of the power the battery bank is supplying to the load. The convention for that measurement dictates that you express that power in negative watts. It's negative watts when power is being exported from a device and positive watts when power is being dissipated in or supplied to a device.
So the real question of over unity for Rosemary's latest circuit has never really been discussed like it was for her previous circuit. Tons of mental energy has been expended on trying to figure out the direction of the net current flow. Rosemary believes that her bank of batteries is being recharged while they pump real power into her inductive resistor because she is an amateur trying to make very difficult-to-measure measurements.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2012.02.03, 02:06:56
Gibbs:
Thank you for pointing that out because I should correct my error. The capacitor replacing one of the 6 batteries in Rosemary's setup will determine what the direction of the net current flow is when the circuit is running. Rosemary argues that the batteries are being recharged while her circuit runs. That has overshadowed any power in vs. power out discussion because if the batteries are being recharged that's "COP infinity" according to Rosie.
If the batteries are being recharged, the voltage on the capacitor would increase. If the batteries are discharging, then the voltage on the capacitor will decrease. With metaphysical certitude, you can state that the voltage on the capacitor will decrease when the circuit is powering the load. This simple method is a different way to determine the net direction of the current flow and it is more accurate than using a high-end DSO. That's because the capacitor acts like a perfect integrator of the current flow and has essentially infinite resolution. The output of the "capacitor current integrator" is a voltage reading.
With careful measurements of the capacitance, the time, and the amount of voltage drop when the capacitor is in the loop powering Rosemary's circuit, you could make a very accurate measurement of the power the battery bank is supplying to the load. The convention for that measurement dictates that you express that power in negative watts. It's negative watts when power is being exported from a device and positive watts when power is being dissipated in or supplied to a device.
So the real question of over unity for Rosemary's latest circuit has never really been discussed like it was for her previous circuit. Tons of mental energy has been expended on trying to figure out the direction of the net current flow. Rosemary believes that her bank of batteries is being recharged while they pump real power into her inductive resistor because she is an amateur trying to make very difficult-to-measure measurements.
MileHigh
MileHigh,
I've also think the same thing you do but I don't think the capacitor would have enough capacitance. The current is no doubt an AC one, so the battery get charged each cycle alright. Right now I'm trying to think if the net radiation would equals I rms x V rms and the real energy is I instantaneous x V instaneous. But overall, I do understand your concern.
G
Rosemary:
It appears that you have made your points in a blaze of glory and will soon stop posting? Just a few comments for you to ponder. No one will ever know the truth about the infamous "COP 17" claim from more than 10 years ago. I would not be surprised if it was due to your pulse train being inverted. Your pulse train was keeping the MOSFET on 95% of the time instead of 5% of the time. I remember the mass confusion related to that issue when that circuit was discussed two years ago. It took about a month to resolve it. So it's perfectly reasonable to assume that you did those measurements 10 years ago thinking that the MOSFET was on 5% of the time when it fact is was on 95% of the time. You simply wouldn't have had a clue either way.
You make me laugh when you allege psyops and that people are paid to obstruct what you are doing. Those are just paranoid delusions. Anybody that has read you over the past week that is reasonably informed about electronics can plainly see that you barely know what you are talking about. And the truth of the matter is that you have to know what you are talking about, you can't just "wing it" when it comes to electronics. It's not about intelligence, it's about education and experience. By the same token when they read Poynt it is abundantly clear that he does know what he is talking about. You are clearly your own best enemy Rosemary, nobody is out to "get you."
So, in a nutshell, it appears that you have been deluded into thinking you have had over unity twice, the first time because of an inverted signal controlling the MOSFET, and the second time by an accidental nonsensical arrangement of MOSFETs. That turned into two vortexes of mass confusion that sucked a lot of people in and then spat them back out.
MileHigh
I've not followed this thread, but now Rose is asking for comment on .99's comment quoted below.
To further complicate matters, OU.com (where she posted that) is SLOW. I've been waiting about 45 minutes for a response. I'm guessing Stefan is having trouble with his server. (Does anyone have this problem with ou.com?)
So I'm here -- asking, where is this thread that you are responding to MH? URL please. I'd like to see both sides of the discussion!
Also, where is .99's comment posted? (quoted below) URL, please.
I've seen problems in Rose's analysis before, guess I'll try to understand what she's up to now.
Quote from: FuzzyTomCat on 2012.01.16, 09:27:31
Poynt,
I would have to agree somewhat with MH on his take on Rosemary. You would think after 3 years and over 7,000 posts on numerous forums that a single person, engineer or academic would step forward on her claims and verify something .... anything at all from the South Africa team so called experts. As you and all else can see by Rosemary's forum reply's and uneducated comments that shes 100% on her own, not even knowledgeable forum members come and rally to help the continued mistakes she makes.
The postings on OU you did were all text book and as good as the posts were they got buried quick in the thread from the five (5) part reply and several I told you so BS posts from Rosemary, so now the credible and verifiable information you posted is one (1) page back as per her all so predictable methods go from the experienced forum warrior battles by the willing to set the record straight or with verifiable correct information
The bottom line is anything that disputes Rosemary's turd model and it's physic prediction of zippties or zipnots will be fought by Rosemary to the bitter end .... the "THESIS" of the unproven model is whats important to Rosemary "NOT" the device she or her South Africa team created in question that produces the claimed results which has never been reproduced in any scientific method accepted in the scientific community.
Shes nothing but a smart "TROLL" in high heals that's fooled countless of good honest individuals for the past three (3) years ..... >:(
Best Regards,
Fuzzy
;)
Hi all,
I still stand by my words C.C because after this quote posted above on January 16th what movement has Rosemary taken in her intellect and demeanor on the claim of her device having a
COP = INFINITY and standard measurement protocols used to determine the claim .... her claim ??
This individual cares nothing of a device any person place or thing only a cobbled thesis of her "standard model" device and measurements protocols to justify her thesis and thinking.
She will respond to 99.9999% of all postings and comments in
BLOVIATING enthusiasm to everyone and even those with valid arguments being framed as crushing new technology buried with the countless others in post after post of her ridicule and demonetization of the individual.
All any competent experimentalist after Rosemary's involvement in the open source community, should check out all the information on anyone's claims of
"OVERUNIY or LARGE COP" gains .... for those that believe in the Rosemary Ainslie ability's, devices, documentation and claims "BEWARE" many have fallen into her trap of deception and misrepresentation of countless facts.
I personally am done with this subject anyone following Rosemary Ainslie after warnings from many educated and knowledgeable experimentalists in the field of electronics about her ...... It's your fault and know one else's if the outcome you believe isn't there, any congratulations when not aware of the technology only shows the un-experience in electronic circuitry, component operation, device construction and excepted standard testing protocols with verification of the claim by a separate individual or organization in a excepted scientific method.
SHUNNING her with never responding to her continuing comical forum posts possibly she will self destroy herself and the
NERD or
RATS team of never seen engineering and scientific experts in field of SA bogus and fraudulent claims. ???
Good Day,
Fuzzy
:)
PhysicsProf:
I believe that you have found the thread. Sometimes people converse "across fenceposts" because of a kind of virtual Cold War.
MileHigh
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2012.02.07, 19:08:46
I've not followed this thread, but now Rose is asking for comment on .99's comment quoted below.
To further complicate matters, OU.com (where she posted that) is SLOW. I've been waiting about 45 minutes for a response. I'm guessing Stefan is having trouble with his server. (Does anyone have this problem with ou.com?)
So I'm here -- asking, where is this thread that you are responding to MH? URL please. I'd like to see both sides of the discussion!
Also, where is .99's comment posted? (quoted below) URL, please.
I've seen problems in Rose's analysis before, guess I'll try to understand what she's up to now.
The beginning of the thread is here:
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg304941/#msg304941
and here is where I recommend you start regarding the simple problem I gave Rosemary:
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg311338/#msg311338
Let me know if you require any further explanation about the problem (and why it was necessary to ask) and the correct answers I later provided.
Regards,
.99
I don't understand why there's so much hoopla at all about this and any other circuit said to be like it.
If it's real, it will do work. If not, it won't. What real work, observable work is her circuit doing, or said to be doing?
Above and beyond what one would think it should? Do not any of the people promoting these things think they need to be implemented in real world devices outside the land of 'measurements' and theory? Why else make them in the first place?
It's like the Bearden MEG...and other things. If these things 'work', why the heck aren't they out there working?
It's not suppression causing the lack of working devices in these lands. I think it's that they mostly don't work.
Points to Ainslie for 'Rosie Posie'. Sense of humor at least.
rc
Quote from: ArtistGuy on 2012.02.08, 14:12:42
Points to Ainslie for 'Rosie Posie'. Sense of humor at least.
rc
I coined "Rosie Posie" for her some time ago. ;)
Her circuit creates heat in an element, but it gets its power from the batteries, and that is the issue of contention.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2012.02.08, 17:32:46
I coined "Rosie Posie" for her some time ago. ;)
Her circuit creates heat in an element, but it gets its power from the batteries, and that is the issue of contention.
Ha. : )
So, they never run down, or what? Or is it, as the post I read indicates, they never let it run long enough to actually find out?
Sounds like solid state Rossi, along with the shenanigans. : ( Bah.
I read The Dancing Wu Li Masters too, but I never made a contentious circuit and published papers. I did take apart a TV and make a 3 color light organ inside it, and It Was Good. But I was like 13.
What did I miss? :)
Quote from: ArtistGuy on 2012.02.08, 17:46:25
What did I miss? :)
Nothin' to see here folks...move along...
Well, I can't believe that I am chiming in here but what the hey...
For starters Rosie I gave you a little treatise on all the negative wattage business on the "other" blog out of sheer frustration. Read it if you haven't already. This negative wattage issue is a tempest in a teapot and you are missing the point by a thousand miles. You are ranting for nothing and digging yourself deeper and deeper and deeper into a hole.
PhysicsProf and Posie Rosie:
I am pretty sure that Rose has called many times for PhysicsProf's presence in person to validate her claim.
To quote PhysicsProf:
QuoteFor the output energy (measurement), I like either charging a capacitor and using the above equation, OR using calorimetry. Here, heating water in a well-insulated container is perhaps the easiest method, unless you have a calorimeter available to you
PhysicsProf, by the statement above you are revealing (again) that you are not qualified to verify anyone's electrical circuit for over unity. Sorry but I have to speak the truth.
Therefore Rosemary take note: Neither Stefan, nor PhysicsProf, nor Aaron for that matter, are qualified to verify your setup for any possible over unity. That's just the way it is.
And just out of sheer frustration again, quoting the prose of a Rose and a Pose:
Quotebla bla bla In order for P-Spice to accurately compute the loss of potential difference at the supply it represents the SUM of the discharged current as a LOSS against the SUM of the energy dissipated at the load GAIN. bla bla bla
What's in a name?
Well Posey, that is all sheer pseudo techno-nonsense-babble talk, and there is a lot of it. PSpice has nothing to do with batteries, at least I have never seen a PSpice model for a battery ever used on the forums. That mangled nonsense talk is just you digging yourself deeper and deeper and deeper and deeper into a hole. Nobody wants to bother.
Sheesh...
MileHigh
P.S.: A Rosie cameo, a "Poseo:"
QuoteAnd I only know rather pedantic and simple terms that are recommended for those whose understanding is heavily compromised by lack of standard training.
Once again, Mile High makes an unsubstantiated statement, and he fails to quote me fully:
Quote from: MileHigh on 2012.02.08, 22:29:29
To quote PhysicsProf:
QuoteFor the output energy (measurement), I like either charging a capacitor and using the above equation, OR using calorimetry. Here, heating water in a well-insulated container is perhaps the easiest method, unless you have a calorimeter available to you.
PhysicsProf, by the statement above you are revealing (again) that you are not qualified to verify anyone's electrical circuit for over unity. Sorry but I have to speak the truth.
Therefore Rosemary take note: Neither Stefan, nor PhysicsProf, nor Aaron for that matter, are qualified to verify your setup for any possible over unity. That's just the way it is.
MileHigh
Here's the rest of my recommendation, from the same post:
QuoteFor input energy, I suggest use of a capacitor, as non-leaky as possible, then the input energy can be MEASURED in a straightforward way:
Einput = 1/2 C * (Vfinal**2 - Vinitial**2).
For the output energy, I like either charging a capacitor and using the above equation, OR using calorimetry. Here, heating water in a well-insulated container is perhaps the easiest method, unless you have a calorimeter available to you. With water-heating by the load, one can use:
Q = C(H2O) * mass * (Tfinal - Tinitial),
Where C(H2o) = 4.186 J/g-DegC for liquid water.
Again, I disagree with you Mile High -- I am proposing the use of time-tested methods which I think will work just fine to determine the presence of ou (or not), when the claims are significantly more output energy than input energy as is the case with Rose's claims.
But perhaps you will explain yourself this time? I hope you were not just speaking BS out of hubris!
And
if you can really explain why you don't like my proposed methods for measuring Einput and Eoutput for Rose's device -- then what method would you propose that would be better? I look forward to your response, as I always seek the best methods possible.
PhysicsProf:
You are making a gross generalization by stating that a capacitor is a "time-tested method" for measuring output power as part of an over unity investigation. Your statement is simply not true and your statement makes no real sense. Nor did I need to quote you fully, no subterfuge was intended.
The output of some sort of hypothetical circuit will go into a corresponding hypothetical load. You are not considering any impedance matching or the fact that the instantaneous impedance and differential impedance of a capacitor is dependent on the current voltage on the capacitor and the size of the capacitor and the impedance will vary as a function of time. Who knows, you might not even want to have impedance matching.
Who says every alleged over unity circuit wants to drive a capacitor as a load? Why should a capacitor necessarily be the best load for measuring the output? What if the best load for the circuit is a 10-ohm resistor? So what is putting a 100 uF or a 20,000 uF capacitor in place of the 10-ohm resistor going to do for you? The capacitor will charge up and then look like an open circuit. When you first connect the capacitor it will look like a short circuit. And the whole time the best device to measure the output power was a 10-ohm resistor.
You know that using a capacitor to drive a circuit could potentially be a way to measure the power consumption of a circuit and then you erroneously connect the dots and think that you can use a capacitor to measure the power output from a circuit. My impression is that you are simply not thinking things through because you don't have the knowledge and experience to think things through when it comes to electronics. Hence, you are not qualified to analyze electronic circuits to determine if they manifest over unity or not.
Sorry, but just keeping it real for the people that want to learn some stuff. I am uncomfortable in seeing incorrect information put out there for general consumption. The fact is that only for some limited special cases is a capacitor a useful tool for measuring the output power of a device. In other words, if I was going to generalize myself, I would say that a capacitor is an almost useless tool for measuring the output power of an allegedly over unity device.
I had no real desire to get into it at this level. The sentence was highlighted in the hope that you and others would stop and think and perhaps do some research. It all comes back to one of my central themes that I have just about given up stating: If you are going to play with and experiment with resistors, capacitors, coils and diodes and you want to get the most out of the experience, you should want to know the fundamentals of how they actually work in the real world. Open a book or go online and teach yourself to fish.
For example, look at this clip on "Radiant Energy 101." The person presenting this "teaching" clip doesn't have the slightest idea of what is actually going on in his demo:
It's really unfortunate that he doesn't know what's going on. I used to wish and hope that the forums could be a place were people could have a synergistic learning experience together but it seems like it's not possible. However, I am still tempted at times to point out major errors.
MileHigh
Referencing that Min2oly clip in the previous posting, an interesting little challenge for the "hard core" experimenters is to really explain what is going on in that clip.
I am not going to engage in this question actively myslef, but if someone can explain it I will post "Bingo!" The usual suspects like Poynt99 and company can disqualify themselves.
If you are honest with yourself and you can't explain what's going on in that clip and you are an active experimenter them my advice would be to read some books or do some online research. Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps or work with your friends to figure it out collectively. Hopefully you will have some fun in the process.
MileHigh
Its a boost converter.
When the battery is put across the coil, current begins to flow. As it flows, a magnetic field is built in the coil, and as the field builds, more current from the battery is taken.
When he disconnects the battery from the coil, the magnetic field collapses, causing currents to continue to flow through the coil, through the diode and into the cap, as it is the only short path available once the red wire is disconnected.. Mind you the current in the coil never changes direction. ;)
Didnt I do pages of this stuff at ou?
Tuff one. O0
Mags
Mags
Quote from: MileHigh on 2012.02.09, 04:31:11
PhysicsProf:
You are making a gross generalization by stating that a capacitor is a "time-tested method" for measuring output power as part of an over unity investigation. Your statement is simply not true and your statement makes no real sense. Nor did I need to quote you fully, no subterfuge was intended.
The output of some sort of hypothetical circuit will go into a corresponding hypothetical load. You are not considering any impedance matching or the fact that the instantaneous impedance and differential impedance of a capacitor is dependent on the current voltage on the capacitor and the size of the capacitor and the impedance will vary as a function of time. Who knows, you might not even want to have impedance matching.
Who says every alleged over unity circuit wants to drive a capacitor as a load? Why should a capacitor necessarily be the best load for measuring the output? What if the best load for the circuit is a 10-ohm resistor? So what is putting a 100 uF or a 20,000 uF capacitor in place of the 10-ohm resistor going to do for you? The capacitor will charge up and then look like an open circuit. When you first connect the capacitor it will look like a short circuit. And the whole time the best device to measure the output power was a 10-ohm resistor.
You know that using a capacitor to drive a circuit could potentially be a way to measure the power consumption of a circuit and then you erroneously connect the dots and think that you can use a capacitor to measure the power output from a circuit. My impression is that you are simply not thinking things through because you don't have the knowledge and experience to think things through when it comes to electronics. Hence, you are not qualified to analyze electronic circuits to determine if they manifest over unity or not.
MileHigh
There are good and bad aspect of using capacitor as output. The bad aspect you already pointed out, basically, impedance matching. But this is why we and engineers are here for, to overcome those problem. The good thing using cap to measure output is the energy comes straight forward and not arguable. You dismissed the idea because you see the bad sides when you can use that knowledge to help overcome those problems. While did not offer a better solution, you just say how unqualify people are. However, i do recognize the genuine in you that see through the capacitor problem.
MH: I did not say that the "output-energy" cap would be used until it was charged fully or even very much, nor did I mean that.
Let's say, though, that the
output cap charges (not necessarily fully charged) and shows FIVE times the energy RISE compared to the energy DROP in the input cap (no batteries in the system, nor pre-charged caps)... Would that not demonstrate ou? or have I missed something?
Further, I ask that you take a moment to address the main method I recommended for measuring the output energy -- calorimetric:
Quote
calorimetry. Here, heating water in a well-insulated container is perhaps the easiest method, unless you have a calorimeter available to you. With water-heating by the load, one can use:
Q = C(H2O) * mass * (Tfinal - Tinitial),
Where C(H2o) = 4.186 J/g-DegC for liquid water.
What do you think about the calorimetric method which I clearly spelled out, for evaluating the output energy, for Rose's device which is claimed to be significantly ou?
Magluvin:
You are right but you are just skimming in your details. Can you add some real substance to what you are saying to spell it out with more clarity for people that don't understand this stuff?
PhysicsProf:
Going back to your full statement:
QuoteFor input energy, I suggest use of a capacitor, as non-leaky as possible, then the input energy can be MEASURED in a straightforward way:
Einput = 1/2 C * (Vfinal**2 - Vinitial**2).
For the output energy, I like either charging a capacitor and using the above equation, OR using calorimetry.
You are generalizing about using a capacitor to measure output energy and like I already stated a capacitor is a lousy device to use to measure output energy and will simply not work in the majority of cases. It will not work for either Ainsley variation.
Your question about the five times energy rise using the output cap method is silly, what do you expect me to say? It's like if I paint a bench green and then I ask you if the colour of the bench is green, how are you going to reply? I also never mentioned calorimetry as a way of determining over unity, look at my origial posting and see what I highlighted.
It's ridiculous, you are trying to "push" me to agree with your points that are self-evident and I never raised those issues in the first place. Stop the nonsensical attempts at misdirection. What you haven't discussed at all is what I am talking about, a capacitor is in the vast majority of cases is not a useful tool to measure the output power in an electrical circuit that you are trying to analyze for over unity. Will you concede that point? The fact that you tried to imply that a capacitor is a good tool to use to measure the output indicates that you are not qualified to do any serious power in vs. power out analysis of electrical circuits. Just try to be real.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2012.02.10, 01:17:53
Magluvin:
You are right but you are just skimming in your details. Can you add some real substance to what you are saying to spell it out with more clarity for people that don't understand this stuff?
Sorry, hit post before I got to say anything. Reposting
Magsnuts
Quote from: MileHigh on 2012.02.10, 01:17:53
Magluvin:
You are right but you are just skimming in your details. Can you add some real substance to what you are saying to spell it out with more clarity for people that don't understand this stuff?
Well how deep does the rabbit hole go?
More surface talk.....
Another possibility is, that I can only assume what orientation the diode is in, which determines the way current can flow through it.
Even if we reverse the diode, we still get our high voltage to the cap, but it is opposite polarity now.
When we charge a coil as shown in the vid, the field builds, and when we disconnect the source from the coil, that field collapses.
If we have a perfect switch used to connect and disconnect the source to the coil, meaning when on its on, but when off it will not allow current to flow, not even HV spark, then when we disconnect(open switch) the "forward" voltage of the collapse has only the path of the diode to charge the cap of my previous description of the vid.
What if we dont have a diode and cap? With our perfect switch, when we open it, the field collapses. And as it collapses down toward zero field, there is no place or path for the voltage potential produced by the collapsing coil to go.
Coils have capacitance. So the combination of coil with built in capacitance we have an LC. Single wire coils have very small capacitance between windings, and bifilar coils have a higher capacitance.
If you charge up an LC and disconnect, it will oscillate. So when we disconnect the source from our coil with no diode and no cap, our coil will oscillate at very high freq due to very small capacitance in our coil. The oscillation dies pretty quickly. No oscillation occurs if we have a path for that potential to the cap. The oscillation will be heavily damped
So if we reconnect our diode and cap, only we reverse the diode, when the source is disconnected from the coil, and the field collapses. But with no where for a continued forward potential current to flow, the coil goes into its oscillation mode, and the field collapses very quickly, and when the field polarity of the coil reverses during oscillation, N S to S N, that is when the potential of the coil has a path for current through the diode and to the cap for storage.
This is what I call back emf. In my original description, I call it forward emf, meaning that when we disconnect the source from the coil, the collapsing field current is in the same direction as the current produced by the source through the coil.
In this reversed diode description, once the field of the coil reverses within 1/4 wave of LC oscillation, then the output of the coils current is in the opposite direction of the original source current. Back emf.
The output to the cap in either situation will be nearly the same. Possibly a small, tiny, itiy bitty, difference due to the bemf version may have lost some due to the dying oscillation during that 1/4 wave of oscillation mode, being that the oscillation eventually dies. So there is some loss in each cycle.
There are some out there that use the term bemf when actually to be correct in some situations, should use just emf or forward emf, produced by the collapsing field of a coil.
Well, im beat. Dont really have time to edit errors.
Magsleeps soon
I'll make a new thread, that would be more appropriate.
It seems we are making progress -- however slow and tedious! and full of ad hominems which make the effort hardly worthwhile...
It appears there is general agreement that using an input-capacitor provides a reliable means of determining input energy (as I suggested to Rose). Using a cap to measure output energy is fraught with some difficulty, we agree -- yet may have a place when the output energy in this cap clearly exceeds the energy supplied by the input cap. That's what I've been saying, and I think there is some agreement on that. But again I'm hit with personal attacks which seems to be the routine with some.
I'm not sure this forum is the place to continue, since ad hominems are evidently allowed -- and abound! -- and distract from the effort to serve mankind (IMO). I note also the thread in which Sterling Allan is hit with ad hominems (as I have already delineated and objected to.) There are other examples IIRC.
Nevertheless, I will try my question regarding calorimetry one more time. Then I return to my experiments, noting that debunkers tend to NOT DO EXPERIMENTS, which I find telling.
This was directed to MH:
QuoteI ask that you take a moment to address the main method I recommended for measuring the output energy -- calorimetric:
QuoteQuote
calorimetry. Here, heating water in a well-insulated container is perhaps the easiest method, unless you have a calorimeter available to you. With water-heating by the load, one can use:
Q = C(H2O) * mass * (Tfinal - Tinitial),
Where C(H2o) = 4.186 J/g-DegC for liquid water.
What do you think about the calorimetric method which I clearly spelled out, for evaluating the output energy, for Rose's device which is claimed to be significantly ou?
And could you try to avoid personal attacks in your response this time? much appreciated.
PhysicsProf:
You are just getting the truth from me. The more honest you are about yourself and the more honest you are in your postings and the less attempts you make at deflection the better a person you will be.
QuoteUsing a cap to measure output energy is fraught with some difficulty, we agree
No, we don't "agree." The truth is that over the past few days you
learned that using a capacitor to measure the output energy is fraught with problems. You have to develop as person to get to the point where you can simply say things like that. The "professorial swagger" does not work with you because it has to be backed up with substance and you are out of your realm when it comes to electronics.
QuoteI will try my question regarding calorimetry one more time.
Really? You have followed the Peter Davey water heater thread? You are even in the process of replicating it. How may times did I post about using calorimetry and doing it right and taking it seriously in that thread? Perhaps a dozen times? So why are you even asking me? What are your real motivations for posing that question when I never even raised the issue? I have been talking about electronics the whole time.
QuoteThen I return to my experiments, noting that debunkers tend to NOT DO EXPERIMENTS, which I find telling.
That's a true observation and an ad hominem attack at the same time. I have thousands of hours working on an electronics bench under my belt. I was doing similar experiments to what are being done around here 33 years ago.
You know how you said to Rosie Posie that she should try to use a capacitor on the input to measure the power consumption of her circuit? She is reverently asking you for your guidance because she doesn't understand how a capacitor works. Over the past two and one-half years I have probably suggested that to Rosemary about 10 times. The last time I suggested it to her was about a week ago and her response was "utter nonsense." It's amazing how the same message is responded to depending on the messenger, isn't it?
Again, PhysisProf, just
be real and you will be fine.
MileHigh
@MH: IIRC, you yourself said you would not attempt to do replication experiments on the Davey or other devices currently under testing -- but I would welcome the change.
QuoteMH: You have followed the Peter Davey water heater thread? You are even in the process of replicating it. How may times did I post about using calorimetry and doing it right and taking it seriously in that thread? Perhaps a dozen times? So why are you even asking me? What are your real motivations for posing that question when I never even raised the issue?
Actually, I think this is an answer of sorts, that you agree with me that the calorimetric method of measuring the output energy is reasonable way to proceed. My motivation? to try to reach agreement on the methods, so that if ou is finally measured with agreed-upon methods, you will not simply denigrate the methods used. We may see if all this effort pans out.
But you know, this is not really for you MH. We are doing this research for the benefit of the human family -- at least, that is the motivation for me and many of us in this research field.
PhysicsProf:
Of course I agree with calorimetry testing but you already knew that so there was no point in raising the issue. But you felt some frustration that I did not reply, didn't you? I wasn't really thinking about this but I realized afterwards that you got a taste of your own medicine. What you have to do is respond to issues addressed to you even if it turns out that you are wrong, and you also have to quit pretending that you already knew something after it is taught to you. You have to have enough character to admit when you are wrong and admit when you learn something.
There is an ironic twist with respect to Rosie's second circuit and the calorimetry testing. Rosie doesn't have the slightest clue how much power her circuit actually consumes after all these months because she is fixated on her "garbage-in garbage-out" measurements. So it's impossible to do any calorimetry testing with Rosie's setup because she has no data.
If only one member of her "team" suggested that they swap out one of her batteries for a large capacitor to make an alternative power consumption measurement this whole nonsensical fiasco would never have happened. Who knows if there really was a "team." By the same token, not a single member of the "team" realized that the current making the inductive resistor heat up was also passing straight through the function generator. Rosie Posie refuses to believe that though.
MileHigh
Rosie!
You sent me off on a fun little double-naught spy Google search and I hit pay dirt.
Quoting Rosie:
QuoteWhy is it that I'm the ONLY one who is managing any kind of valid argument?
QuoteMy dear MileHigh. That 'signal terminal' as you've taught me to refer to it - from the function generator - includes a ground terminal. The TWO TERMINALS ARE NOT CONNECTED other than through 3 or 4 optional signal signal settings - including, among others, a square wave output signal. THAT's the signal we apply. Now. Follow my lead. The connection is from that ground terminal - through approximately 1000 Ohms of resistance and wiring - then BACK through about 50 Ohms of resistance in the signal terminal and then to the GATE OF Q1.
I am going to focus on the what's highlighted in the quote above. The rest of what you say is "mangled." Heaven knows where you came up with "1000 ohms," did that just parachute into the discussion?
Have you heard of Agilent Technologies Rosemary? They are probably the largest manufacturer of bench test equipment in the world.
Here is a link to an application note pdf file entitled, "
Adding DC Offsets to a Function Generator's Output."
http://cp.literature.agilent.com/litweb/pdf/5990-3466EN.pdf (http://cp.literature.agilent.com/litweb/pdf/5990-3466EN.pdf)
Here is a quote from the application note:QuoteAnother limitation of using this method is that the current available
to your load is limited to the output current of the function genera-
tor you choose, since the load current must flow through both
the power supply and the function generator. Also, most function
generators have a 50-ohm output impedance, meaning any load
current will flow through this resistance. This resistance will
form a voltage divider with your load impedance, so be sure to
adjust the DC power supply output voltage accordingly.
Did you take note of the
red highlighted text in the above paragraph?
MileHigh
P.S.: I will throw in the Rosie Poseo:
QuoteKindest regards MileHigh. Your writing style is superb. You're arguments are BASELESS.
MH, actually I raised the issue of calorimetry over on Rosie's thread at OU.com several days ago, and I was frustrated yes that neither she nor you would come right out and admit this was a good idea. But you finally did so:
QuoteMH: PhysicsProf: Of course I agree with calorimetry testing ... you felt some frustration that I did not reply, didn't you? "
Sure, that was frustrating that you only answered after several tries and I did not know that you would finally agree since you appeared so evasive.
But thanks for replying, I see we are in agreement on that also.
Now if Rosie would just reply!
PS -- I applied calorimetry some time ago (starting about a year ago) to devices I was testing. Admittedly, I've learned HOW to do this, but I have not personally SEEN ou as of yet by means of this method.... I intend to keep on it, however.
Rosemary:
It's unbelievably exasperating dealing with you so this is probably going to be my last posting for a while.
Let's start with the simplified block diagram:
(http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/dlattach/attach/94214/image//)
You said this:
QuoteMy dear MileHigh. OF COURSE the load current must flow through both the power supply and the function generator. But this little interaction between the two currents is ONLY managed when the circuit is CLOSED that the battery is able to discharge any current at all. Then INDEED the voltage at the gate of the signal generator increases. I'll post YET ANOTHER example where the increase in the voltage is clear. AS EVER. Follow the BLUE TRACE and relate that to the ORANGE trace. BUT during the period that the circuit is OPEN when the battery cannot supply any current - THEN? You will notice that the signal at the gate of Q1 defaults to below zero. THEN it is EVIDENTIAL that the load current is NOT flowing through the function generator from that battery power supply. ELSE it would be GREATER THAN ZERO. IT IS NOT.
WHY am I having to show you this? I'm meant to be the ignoramus here. Come on MileHigh. You need to do MUCH better than this. And this posted here as your rather optimistic REBUTTAL - which is not a rebuttal at all. Here's that reference for those who don't read OUR.com
The level of disconnect is unbelievable. There aren't two currents there is only one current. The signal generator has no "gate." What's wrong with you? Can't you even double-check your own prose to see if it at least makes sense? I am not talking about voltages, we are trying to discuss the current flow. I am not interested in Q1 at all, it's the "Q2 array" that we are interested when the output waveform from the function generator is negatively offset. As far as you posting waveforms goes in general, without any simplified schematic showing what the different coloured waveforms represent, your waveforms are meaningless and nobody can understand them. You get a giant FAIL when you post those DSO screen captures without any simplified reference schematic and some sort of label for each different coloured waveform.
Listen Rosemary, when your function generator outputs a negatively offset voltage, the Q2 array switches on and your circuit goes into oscillation. When the oscillation waveform is low and the Q2 array switches on then the current supplied by the batteries flows through the Q2 array DRAIN to SOURCE and then THROUGH THE FUNCTION GENERATOR. It has nothing at all to do with a GATE.
Now watch, I am going to take that quote from the application note and apply it to your circuit:
QuoteAnother limitation of using this method is that the current available
to your inductive resistor is limited to the output current of the function generator you
choose, since the inductive resistor current must flow through
the set of batteries and the Q2 array and the function generator. Also, most function
generators have a 50-ohm output impedance, meaning any inductive resistor
current will flow through the Q2 array and this 50-ohm resistance. This 50-ohm resistance will
form a voltage divider with your inductive resistor, so be sure to
adjust the DC power supply output voltage accordingly.
I hope that registers with you Rosie because I am done.
MileHigh
Mh
Have you guys actually made this experiment on the table or just on a sim?
Using the sim, has there been any power measurements through the sig gen?
I do see a possible path for current to flow in the circuit from the gen through q2 if it is on and the polarity of the gen considered at the time. Or even through q2 diode, considering the polarity of the gen at the time.
Mags
Another thing is, If I were to use 4 mosfets in parallel, I would use them where q1 is, as q2x4 is set up for high current in the circuit that would have to go through the sig gen. hmmm
Are we sure this is thee circuit rose uses? Ill have to see her other circuits to see if there is an error here.
Mags
Mags:
There is no rhyme or reason behind having the four MOSFETs in parallel. It's nothing more than a wiring mistake. The mistake caused an oscillation when the function generator output was negatively offset and then Rose thought that was a "magic oscillation." Poynt did the simulation and it oscillated just like her circuit. However, in her myriad of DSO captures, Poynt recently mentioned that some of them show oscillation with a positive offset on the function generator waveform. So there is some uncertainty as to what data set the paper is showing.
However, I am quite certain that the simulation showed an oscillation with a negative offset on the function generator.
Rosie gets into some kind of discussion about voltages that's impossible for me to follow.
It also appears, although I can't be certain, that she has done a complete about face with respect to the issue of whether current is flowing through the function generator or not. She was insisting that it was IMPOSSIBLE. I found the application note and then she said OF COURSE. Is this more misunderstanding or more mass confusion I don't care at this point. If it is a complete about face then it's pure creepy Orwellian modus operandum in action. Something that I find extremely distasteful.
Here is the last point and for all I know it will send poor Rosie into another mass confusion tizzy: When the function generator is outputting -5 volts, that makes it look like another battery in series with the main battery bank. In other words, you have a 72-volt battery bank plus 5 volts being supplied by the function generator for a total of 77 volts working to push current through the load resistor. So when the function generator output goes negative it does two things, 1) it switches on the Q2 MOSFET array, and 2) it acts like another voltage source in series with the battery bank and with a polarity to add to the voltage of the battery bank.
All of this measurement nonsense, the "garbage-in garbage-out" that Rosie clings to for dear life, could have been resolved months ago with one lousy big fat capacitor.
This whole thing is a massive debate centered around garbage measurements on a nonsensical circuit. That's the sad truth of it all and no matter how you try to get this message through to Rosie Posie you fail.
MileHigh
So why do you all spend the effort to [turn a sow's ear into a silk purse] here?
If she is whacked out there she would be here also... :-\
Mags,
With a positive FG offset, Q1 is active and there are no currents through the FG.
With a negative FG offset, Q2 is active and the current path is through the FG.
The essence of the problem guys is not how or why the thing is oscillating (a primate could get a MOSFET to oscillate), it's regarding the battery voltage measurement. A negative power measurement would indicate a net average power going back to the battery. Now despite this erroneous measurement, we know that is not really what is happening, so what is?
It's the placement of the battery voltage probes! Where they are located in the video demonstration tells us that the wild swing in voltage on the battery probe is "out to lunch". If Rosemary had done precisely what I asked her to do two years ago (or thereby), this would have been over. What she claims to have done was move the probe to one battery, but I doubt she did that properly. In addition, I very much doubt that she disconnected all the other probes attached to the circuit. If this was not done exactly as I asked, then the measurement will still be erroneous.
And that's where we are right now Mags. Rose is as stubborn and rebellious as a young mule, and deep down she knows her circuit doesn't perform as claimed. So we'll never see her perform any requested tests, including yours (which we have also requested a dozen times).
.99
Mags,
Here's a simple circuit/test that Rosemary could do that would settle the issue for good. But guess what? She refuses to do it on the actual circuit for which she claims has an infinite COP.
Go figure eh?
.99
And guys,
Here's some additional important information that adds more poop to Rosemary's soup;
Around the 3:00 mark of the RATS demonstration video (extremely damning video btw), we see them showing the battery voltage on the Fluke Multimeter while the circuit is running. The reading fluctuates a very tiny bit (a few mV), but indicates a fairly steady 62VDC.
Now, Rosemary CLAIMS that the actual battery voltage is fluctuating wildly from a few volts positive, to over 200V positive! This begs the question of how that meter can display a nice steady 62V (62V IS PERFECTLY IN LINE WITH WHAT ONE WOULD EXPECT WITH 5 BATTERIES!) if the battery voltage is supposedly fluctuating wildly as claimed? C.C
We all know the answer of course (and its relevance), but does Rosemary? Well, we all know the answer to that. (http://www.websmileys.com/sm/sad/1004.gif)
.99
(http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/dlattach/attach/94214/image//)
Hm... I still see the path of least resistance is through Q1 . When the FG gives a negative signal, it turns on Q2 array. The current from the battery have two paths: through FG and through Q1 gate to source. This would also turn on Q1 . Current would prefer to go through Q1 at this point in my opinion. Q1 could also use FG path to equalize charges and therefore oscillation occur. The question is, when in operation, Q1 gets hot or Q2 array gets hot.
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2012.02.11, 15:19:20
When the FG gives a negative signal, it turns on Q2 array. This would also turn on Q1 .
You need to explain how both Q1 and Q2 can be ON at the same time. Once you realize they can't, you'll have a better understanding of how the circuit operates.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2012.02.11, 15:32:10
You need to explain how both Q1 and Q2 can be ON at the same time. Once you realize they can't, you'll have a better understanding of how the circuit operates.
.99
I don't think they are on at the same time. It'll oscillate.
They could alternately be ON (if that's what you mean) if the FG was set to go both positive and negative, but the RATS have never indicated they do this. And if they did do this, we would see quite a different scope trace than what they show.
I believe the FG is set for either a positive pulse train, or a negative one.
.99
Rosie Posie:
You have done an Orwellian flip-flop on the issue of whether current can flow through the function generator, haven't you? Before you said it was impossible and now you accept it as fact. It's a real shame that as a grown woman you don't have enough character to admit that you
learned something and that your previous statements were wrong.
Quoting you:
QuoteHere - I hope - is the typical waveform detail. Note the blue trace during the period when the oscillation occurs. THAT is absolutely ALL the voltage that is evident during this period. It is NOT reflecting the flow of high current from anywhere at all. And ignore the file name. It was first intended for MileHigh. But he cannot understand the significance. Sadly.
(http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/dlattach/attach/95182/image//)
One more time, an attempt by you at more Orwellian disinformation.
QuoteThe encouragement of "doublethink", whereby the population must learn to embrace inconsistent concepts without dissent, e.g. giving up liberty for freedom. Similar terms used, are "doublespeak", and "newspeak".
QuoteThe revision of history in the favour of the State's interpretation of it.
Finally, I am going to quote myself:
QuoteAs far as you posting waveforms goes in general, without any simplified schematic showing what the different coloured waveforms represent, your waveforms are meaningless and nobody can understand them. You get a giant FAIL when you post those DSO screen captures without any simplified reference schematic and some sort of label for each different coloured waveform.
You can contemplate that. You are simply too lazy to annotate and explain your DSO screen captures and as a result everybody looks at them and their eyes glaze over. No over unity prizes for you Rose Poser.
MileHigh
Quote from: poynt99 on 2012.02.11, 15:56:17
They could alternately be ON (if that's what you mean) if the FG was set to go both positive and negative,
Hm... my original thinking was that the FG does not need to go both polarities. If we consider the FG go positive, then Q2 arrays would just be off. The whole duration current would go through Q1 without any oscillation.
So my thought was that negative pulse only and it only go into oscillation with just negative pulse.
Rosemary:
Now that your treatise is over, I can somewhat amusingly quote you yourself as my own response:
Quoting Rosemary Ainslie to respond to her explanation about how her circuit works:
QuoteNope. There's absolutely no logical sequence or sense to anything you've written here. :o I've given it my best shot. It lacks clarity - sense - and reason. On the whole it reads like a shoddy piece of propagandising - rendered ineffective as it leaves the reader confused. You need to do better.
QuoteMore of the same. Just a confused mishmash of illogical nonsense. No idea what you're referring to. No idea what your complaint is. No idea what you're on about. Try using sense when you use the English language. It's meant to be a tool to advance understanding. Not to diminish it.
The fat lady has sung.
MileHigh
;D
I thought the very same thing MH.
It's a classic irony, isn't it?
Indeed!
A really big shew! O0
QuoteDear Poynty Point,
I most certainly will NOT present this in video form - until I can be satisfied that a mere video has ever answered anyone's concerns related to over unity anywhere on these forums - or even anywhere on the INTERNET. HOWEVER. IF a video will satisfy you that we qualify for your PRIZE - then I'll undertake to do this WITH PLEASURE. But I am NOT about to apply that to our circuit. The positioning of another load in series with a diode - will most certainly block that oscillation - which is what you're relying on. But it can be managed on a simple 12 volt battery supply with diodes in place of the load. All else being equal. Therefore the principle stands. And you would most certainly NOT be able to explain the one rail that is continually alight. Certainly not within the context of standard predictions.
As ever,
Rosie Pose
I would be interested in seeing this test of yours Rosemary, even if it isn't on your actual test apparatus.
Post a diagram of the setup, then we'll see if you need to demonstrate it with a video or not.
;)
.99
QuoteI think it took about 40 pages of discussion between myself and Poynty Point for Poynty to finally realise that a current discharge from a battery REQUIRES a path through its source gate - when using transistors. The joke is that he had the unequivocal support of MileHigh, The Boss, Bubba Gravock, Gyula, Tinsel Koala, - and the unspoken support of all those members who didn't complain. Which support was for the ASSUMPTION that the battery could pass directly onto the Gate signal - across about 4 inches of space - and land on the signal terminal at the other side of the circuit.
Rosemary,
You're going to have to do a lot better than that; nobody with a right mind would know what the hell you are talking about.
For instance, there is no such thing as a "
source gate". Where the hell did you dig that up from? And you continually accuse
me of using bad terminology?
Well I'll take one more crack at this. The rationale for doing this is that Rosemary doesn't understand capacitors, and therefore can't understand how a capacitor could prove or disprove that her circuit is consuming energy.
We will do this with a concrete real-world example but make up some timings for illustrative purposes.
Rosemary, what we want to do is temporarily substitute one of your six batteries in series for a large capacitor. I think that a 25-volt 25,000 uF electrolytic capacitor is about the size of a 350 ml coke can. So lets put four of these in parallel to make a 100,000 uF capacitor.
Here is the procedure:
With the power off, connect the large capacitor across the third battery of the six batteries in series. Let's assume the cap charges to 12.6 volts and you keep a hand-held multimeter connected to the capacitor measuring the voltage across the cap for the duration of the experiment. Then simply disconnect one of the leads to the third battery so that you have the large capacitor temporally taking the place of the third battery. You can say that the large capacitor is emulating the third battery in the series of six batteries. The circuit will run just fine like this. Have your scope hooked up so you can see your famous oscillations.
Now, switch the power on and see the oscillations on your scope. Switch the power off after 10 seconds. Time it with a stopwatch if you can or use the second hand on a watch. Check the voltage on the big cap after 10 seconds. Let's suppose that after 10 seconds that you see the voltage on the big capacitor is now 10.0 volts. That's the end of the experiment.
Continued in part two.....
So, what just happened?
The answer is as follows: The big capacitor was emulating one of the batteries. You can see that the amount of energy in the capacitor went down, it output some energy and that energy went into the circuit, a.k.a.; the MOSFETs and the inductive resistor.
Here is the key point: The capacitor was just one of six power sources in the chain, the other five were batteries. If the capacitor output a certain amount of energy over 10 seconds, then you know that the other five batteries also output approximately the same amount of energy over 10 seconds. You know this because they are all working together in series.
So, how much energy did the capacitor output over 10 seconds:
E = ((0.5 * 100,000^-6 * 12.6^2) - (0.5 * 100,000^-6 * 10.0^2)) = (7.938 - 5.000) = 2.938 Joules.
So, that means, when you factor in all six batteries that's approximately (6 * 2.938) = 17.628 Joules of energy that were transferred into the circuit over 10 seconds.
So, that means that the average power output from the five batteries and the large capacitor while the circuit was running was (17.628/10) = 1.7628 watts.
That also means that the MOSFETs and the inductive resistor together were dissipating dissipating about 1.7628 watts as heat while the circuit was running.
The fact that the voltage on the big capacitor goes down while the circuit is running shows that the circuit is acting conventionally and there is no "COP infnity" taking place.
So Rosemary, the challenge that has been put to you is to measure the power consumption in a different way to back up your claim. If your claim is true then the capacitor that is acting as the substitute for one of the batteries will not go down in voltage.
I submit to you that this is an easy test to do. The numbers have even been crunched for you, all that you have to do is punch in your own values.
As far as I am concerned you will be morally bankrupt if you dismiss this proposed alternative test as you have for so many other proposed alternative tests in the past.
The simple fact is you can't cling to your one measurement method done with the DSO as the "absolute truth." You have now been told literally hundreds of times that you have made measurement errors.
I would be shocked if you actually undertook to get some help and actually do the test as outlined above.
MileHigh
Rosemary:
QuoteI'm rather tired of the spurious tests that you all propose as being 'definitive' - when they're nothing of the sort. If I put an AC capacitor in series arranged as follows - bat x 12 volts - to battery x 12 volts - to cap - to battery by 12 volts - to battery by 12 volts. THEN. IF and when I disconnect those batteries from the circuit I ASSURE YOU that the voltage on that cap will MOST CERTAINLY equalise to the voltages of the batteries on either side of it. And that equalisation will apply whether or not the cap is first charged before it's put in series.
Therefore the test that you propose is MEANINGLESS. Why should the voltage over the cap be considered to be more or less significant than the voltage across the batteries? Am I missing something? Let me know.
You don't know what you are talking about with respect to capacitors and you are making the wrong assumptions. If you disconnect the series-connected batteries and capacitor from the circuit then the voltage across the capacitor will most certainly not equalize to the voltages of the batteries on either side of it. No current will flow and the voltage across the capacitor will remain fixed.
You have already been told why the voltage change across the capacitor is significant. If the capacitor outputs energy during the 10-second test, then you know with 100% certainty that the remaining five batteries in the series array also output energy. The total energy output from the six devices in series goes into the MOSFET array and the inductive resistor making them hot.
The test I am proposing for you is 100% MEANINGFUL and if you refuse to do this simple test I allege that you are morally bankrupt.
QuoteAnd MileHigh - while I'm at it. I'm glad to see you've dropped that argument related to the delivery of energy from the battery through the MOSFET source at Q2 to the Gate at Q1. I get it you now see that it would need to breach the positive signal at the gate at Q1 or simply bypass it's own source to jump from Q2's gate to the Source leg of Q1. NOT POSSIBLE. Perhaps now you'll see the relevance of my explanations. LOL I just tried to dress it up and make it all a tad more interesting.
You are talking gibberish Rosemary and the current flows through the Q2 array and then through the function generator when the voltage bias from the function generator is negatively offset. It has absolutely nothing to do with Q1. You have been told this over and over and over.
Please do the capacitor test as proposed Rosemary. There is nothing stopping you and you have nothing to lose. All that you need is for one of your "experts" to assist you.
MileHigh
Rosemary:
QuoteMileHigh - I have been assured that there's always a marginal drop in voltage across a capacitor when it's disconnected from its charge source. Is that what you're relying on? Which makes which of the two us 'morally bankrupt'?
The answer is no there is no marginal voltage drop across a capacitor when it's disconnected from a source. You saw the calculations yourself in the previous postings so stop trying to beat around the bush.
You are morally bankrupt because you refuse all suggestions for making alternative measurements on your setup. I can only guess that you are afraid of what those measurements may say - that the batteries are discharging energy while the setup runs. That will bring down your "COP infinity" fantasy like a house of cards.
You are also morally bankrupt because you turned on Poynt and others when it came to his guidance about how to do serious power measurements. You turned on him like an animal. You praised him while you learned about your circuit from him but the moment it appeared that doing serious measurements were going to ruin your "COP infinity" fantasy you turned on him like an animal.
QuoteAnd you need to substantiate your claim that a battery can discharge current through any transistor at all without passing through its source leg. Alternatively IF the discharge is through the source leg of Q2 to the Gate of Q1 - then you also need to argue how it IGNORES the negative charge applied to the Gate of Q1.
Don't repeat your claim. Argue it. Otherwise you have NO credibility with this claim of yours that the battery is discharging through it's Q2's source leg to the gate of Q1. And it really doesn't matter how indignant you pretend to be when you 'claim' that this happens - IT SIMPLY DOES NOT. It CANNOT. Unless it can bypass Q1 which is where the signal probe is sitting. And that applied signal is NEGATIVE.
The above is more complete and utter nonsense talk from you and you make attempts to put words in my mouth, things that I never said. That is yet again more moral bankruptcy from you.
Forget about the MOSFETs, I am not even talking about them.
The test I am proposing is identical to your standard setup with the one exception where we substitute one of your 12.6 volt batteries for a large capacitor charged to 12.6 volts. GO READ THE TEST PROCEDURE AGAIN. There is a clear example showing all of the calculations for determining the output power from the set of batteries while your circuit runs.
You apparently cannot stomach the thought that a different test will show that the batteries are actually discharging and pumping power into the load. In other words, there is no "COP infinity" fantasy.
No distractions, no deflections, no crap from you Rosemary. The most important thing is the TRUTH. The truth is more important than me, more important than you, and more important than your fantasies.
Do you want to try and discover the truth Rosemary? If you do, then DO THE CAPACITOR TEST AND PUNCH IN THE NUMBERS. Stop all of this monkeying around and making a fool of yourself.
MileHigh
This one goes out to my friend Poynty Poynt!
In lieu of recent events I can feel your frustration! :'(
And since you are a guitar player and since I am a long-time fan of the Rolling Stones, I have something amazing for you to check out!
Tonight was the very fist time I saw this clip and I was shocked and blown away! Just in heaven, overwhelmed! Something I have been fantasizing about for 3/4 of my life and I saw it for the first time tonight! (And I think you will be able to relate!)
Was that amazing or WHAT???
I can't get no satisfaction so I am walking away! Free as a bird! Perhaps you will want to fly away also!!!
MileHigh
???
Trying too hard?
:o
Chosen partner is non-responsive?
:P
Failure to communicate?
:'(
Things could be (and probably will be) worse...
:-\
Rosemary:
I suppose a little denouement is in order.
The test I proposed is not designed to "suggest under unity." That's ridiculous, it's designed to simply show the truth:
1) If the capacitor decreases in voltage, the batteries are outputting a measurable amount of net energy going into the load after ten seconds.
2) If the capacitor does not change in voltage, the batteries are showing no measurable amount of net energy going into the load after ten seconds.
3) If the capacitor increases in voltage, the batteries are receiving a measurable amount of net energy from the rest of the circuit after ten seconds, i.e.; they are being recharged.
Now, the simple fact is that I know for certain that the voltage on the capacitor will decrease after ten seconds. If your "COP infinity" fantasy is true, then the voltage on the capacitor will increase after ten seconds.
So what are you afraid of Rosemary? In theory, my proposed test will either confirm or deny that your fantasy is true and it will only take 10 seconds to do so.
Don't bother mentioning that you would have to double-check this first with "academic experts." The test is real so don't try some amateur deflection nonsensical foolishness. Don't hide under that.
My test will take 10 seconds. The comparative battery draw-down test is a complicated and difficult to do affair that will take days and days to do properly and will not necessarily be conclusive. The battery draw-down test will easily generate another 50 pages worth of debate. I have no confidence that you or anyone on your team could do the tests properly and document the tests properly. It's just another quagmire waiting to happen. It's so easy to see that coming.
All that you need to do is double check your power measurements that were done with the DSO. The scientific method calls for double-checking measurements with an alternative method, especially when the first round of measurements are suspicious, as yours clearly are. The capacitor test will do that for you in 10 seconds and it has millions of times more resolution than the DSO. This is a simple fact.
Bat after seeing your postings yesterday, one thing is abundantly clear: Because you have no background in electronics and you still can barely express yourself when it comes to electronics and energy, you have almost no capacity whatsoever to learn and retain material that has been taught to you multiple times. Knowledge rolls off your back and out of your brain like water rolls off the clean and oiled feathers of a duck. So there is just no point, you are a blank slate that repeatedly blanks itself out over time.
Hence it's time to throw the towel in and listen to music instead.
MileHigh
Hey MH,
Thanks for that.
I enjoyed the ladies ;)
Nice also to see Janis young and vibrant.
Cheers.
Hi everyone,
I found the secret paper of the fictitious COP>INFINITY circuit and device, it was published in December 2011 months ago at "SCRIBID" ......
http://www.scribd.com/doc/74884882/2nd-Paper-for-Download :o
It was uploaded by a " stevex2 " whom owns the copyright on the document and now that it's been published as some may know that has tried this route it can't appear at all in a technical or academic journal in its present context and has to be totally rewritten, personally I don't know what Rosemary was thinking but then again, I realized it was crazy Rosemary.
I couldn't believe what my eyes were seeing reading this zippernot rant it was ..... :D
Fuzzy
:)
added - Please note there is no "Copyright" shown on this document
What the hey....
QuoteSome mention must be made of those aspects of the tests that have not been thoroughly explored. The first relates to the batteries' rated capacity. The batteries used in these experiments have been used on a regular basis now, for over 18 months. They have been dissipating an average wattage conservatively assessed at 12 watts for five hours of each working day, during that period, continually subjected as they were, to both light and heavy use. Notwithstanding this extensive use, they have never shown any evidence of any loss of voltage at all. Nor have they been recharged except for two batteries that caught fire. Bearing in mind that the batteries' rating is is not more than 60AH, there is evidence of out performance related to that rating. However there has not been a close analysis of the electrolytic condition of the batteries, before, during or even after their use. This would require a detailed analysis of the supply's electrolytic properties that is outside the scope of this presentation and expertise. Results therefore were confined to classical measurement protocols with the distinction that the energy dissipated at the resistor element was established empirically and as it related to the heat dissipated on that resistor.
This is an example of unscientific anecdotal commentary from Rosemary where she tries to pitch it as being the basis for some kind of scientific analysis. Poor Rosie pretends that she is scientific sometimes with fancy DSOs and other times she tries to pass of unscientific anecdotal information as being scientific.
Rosemary has no idea what the energy capacity of the batteries is or what their state of charge was when they were delivered to her. She has no idea what the power consumption of he circuit is because she believes that the batteries are actually being recharged while the power the circuit, her infamous "COP infinity." She has never actually measured he power consumption of her setup. She doesn't say how many "working days" there were over an 18 month period. She is intentionally being vague. I would seriously doubt that the batteries were being used five hours a day five days a week, but Rosie Posie wants to at least implicitly suggest that to you. Then of course she has been told at least 10 times that battery voltage means absolutely nothing, yet she still makes reference to it like the greenest beginning free energy experimenter with no technical education.
Any reasonably astute person, scientific background or not, would realize that you can't do anything at all with Rosie's purely anecdotal recounting of how the batteries have been used over the 18 months that she worked with them. Yet she is asking TinselKoala to crunch some numbers to try to determine if there is any indication of over unity with respect to he batteries. It's just so utterly ridiculous sometimes.
A big part of being a scientist or a researcher is knowing when to throw out data because you simply can't use it. If you can't make that call or you refuse to make that call than you are being dishonest or dumb or both. Everybody has to govern themselves according to sound scientific principles and if you can't reject your own junk data then you have no credibility.
MileHigh
Mags:
Look at this Rosie quote:
QuoteThere is NO measurable loss of energy from the battery supply.
That's why I proposed the 10-second capacitor test. I showed all of the calculations. And what happened? Poor old Rosie both dismissed it as "a measurement of capacitor leakage" and could not understand it. However, in my first of several postings on the matter, I explained that the capacitor was emulating one of the batteries. So Rosie refuses to do this simple unbiased test.
Look at this Rosie quote:
QuoteNot only this - but we cannot measure any loss of current from the battery supply using absolutely standard measurement protocols.
So Poynt proposed a simple test with the two diodes pointed in opposite directions and a small incandescent light bulb in series with each diode. That will show you which way the dominant current flow is in less than 10 seconds. One more time Rosie refused to do the test. This time she tried to feign that she had to "check it with her academics."
Another Rosie quote:
QuoteNor in any loss of battery voltage notwithstanding extensive use over a 26 month period.
As I recently posted, Rosie has zero data to support this claim. She just has anecdotal evidence that she used the batteries. Plus she has no idea what the power consumption of the circuit is because she has never measured it. Plus battery voltage means nothing. Plus again, she says this, "There is NO measurable loss of energy from the battery supply." Therefore if you follow her argument there is no need for any kind of a comparative battery run-down test because in the Rosie Universe the batteries will never run down. So the simple test would just be to have the circuit run permanently, for months on end, to see what happens.
MileHigh
Mags:
Part of the farcical joke related to this whole farce is that Rosie panics when it's suggested that the circuit run continuously, stating that it has to monitored continuously lest some amazing thermal runaway condition happen. This is more complete nonsense. Just go to the local building supplies store if you are worried and get some bricks or tiles to put the setup on and let that baby run. If the batteries die after three weeks or three months, it's game over.
Rosie's 'trip' is somewhat analogous to the the free energy con artists from the perspective of the enthusiasts like you. In both cases you are either uncomfortable with asking critical questions or you are afraid to ask critical questions. The result from all of that is stagnation. It's really unfortunate, people spinning their wheels going nowhere.
The truth is what counts, and it looks like Rosie will be in free energy purgatory forever if she does not cooperate with her peers and do some supplementary tests. The absolute truth is that this whole circuit is a nonsensical miswiring of some MOSFETs that is so badly miswired that the current flowing through the circuit also flows through the function generator itself and as a result the function generator is helping to power the circuit. There is nothing there, it's simply ridiculous. Note that Poynt has also explained the mechanism behind the erroneous DSO "garbage in" measurements that Rosie got. But Rosie is blatantly ignoring Poynt's explanation. Poynt's explanation included simulation runs showing the "garbage in" measurements.
That is the truth and if you want to get to the bottom of this people like you and your peers have to encourage Rosie and encourage each other to do more tests and also get up the learning curve.
On pure principle, it's time to say enough is enough. Rosemary Ainslie just drags down the free energy community and denigrates it. Her obstinate behaviour is an insult to the community and an insult to the people that work in science and engineering.
This is a pervasive problem in the community, the same thing applies to the whole RomeroUK fiasco. No critical questions were asked. Right now as we speak Konehead is still pitching this concept of charging capacitors with 'special' timing such that "you don't have to pay for it," and then you can discharge the cap back into the source battery. The truth Mags is that you DO have to pay for the charging of the capacitors. But I am not aware of a single person challenging Konehead about that. It's like a bunch of lemmings sometimes. Somebody needs to get creative and devise a test to see if what Konehead is saying is true or not. It's time to get out of this eternal stagnation.
Here is a quote hot off the presses for Rosie: "Liar Rossi Tells Florida Bureau He Has No U.S. Factory, No Nuclear Reactions."
Rosie is also guilty of the same attitude that creates stagnation. She has been championing Rossi from the beginning, without a single shred of independent third-party testing to confirm that what Rossi was saying is true. Why do people promote others in the free energy community with no unbiased proof? It's so aggravating after a while. It's the same story for Green Power SA. Rosie was convinced that something exiting was going on, when all the signals are pointing to a con job and there is not one iota of evidence that Green Power SA has anything.
MileHigh
Well Rosie Posie.....
I think those are the Light Emitting Diodes of Doom.
It sure looks like it from here.
MileHigh
A Rosie Posieo:
QuoteBut the 'off set' is simply a means by which the signal is applied in conjunction with a potentiometer that can - thereby - add to the resistance.
It would appear that you believe when TK adjusts the offset on his function generator by turning a potentiometer that it affects the 'resistance' of the function generator.
Joe is an Old Salt.
Salt dissolves in water.
Therefore Joe dissolves in water.
And something to channel your paranoia from Mr. Zimmerman!
Maggie comes fleet foot
Face full of black soot
Talkin' that the heat put
Plants in the bed but
The phone's tapped anyway
Maggie says that many say
They must bust in early May
Orders from the D.A.
Look out kid
Don't matter what you did
Walk on your tiptoes
Don't try "No-Doz"
Better stay away from those
That carry around a fire hose
Keep a clean nose
Watch the plain clothes
You don't need a weatherman
To know which way the wind blows
Ha ha Rosie.... I think the weather will be changing before too long.
MileHigh
Rosemary:
QuoteWe take the trouble to MEASURE the output from the function generator. The voltage is nominal and in any event below zero - during the oscillation phase. At best it means that energy is being 'returned' to that generator rather than 'delivered by'.
You are wrong. In your circuit the function generator acts like one more battery in series with your set of batteries. So the function generator acts like a 5-volt battery that is added to the bank of five (or is it six?) 12-volt batteries. There is no energy 'returned' to the function generator, the function generator is contributing to the powering of the circuit. The function generator also adds a 50-ohm resistor in series with the (function generator voltage source + battery array).
The above is another example of how you do not understand how your own circuit works. This does not bode well for your conclusions about how it works, they are erroneous.
My capacitor test still sticks out like a sore thumb relative to your bullet point: "There is NO measurable loss of energy from the battery supply." The capacitor test will conclusively prove to everyone that there is a measurable loss of energy from the battery supply. Clearly you are afraid to do this simple test.
Finally, I already made reference to your two banks of LEDs in opposite directions after Poynt raised the issue with you. If the wiring of the LEDs is as we suspect, then the LEDs are also proving that there is a loss of energy from the battery supply. The LEDs are clearly indicating that current is flowing from the battery into the load.
Rosemary, some of the points above have made you so uncomfortable that you won't acknowledge them on the OU thread.
Repeat, the LEDs are the
Light Emitting Diodes of Doom for you.
Things are going to change a lot for you in the not too distant future. Poynt is going to build your circuit and he will be able to make all of the measurements discussed so far and many more on top of that, if he so chooses. All of the measurements will clearly and unambiguously show that your circuit is 100% conventional and the batteries are discharging energy while they power the circuit and burn off power in the inductive resistor. The simulations done by Poynt that you make reference to also clearly show that the batteries are discharging energy while they power the circuit. That fact seems to have eluded you.
This is all as it should be, sanity and the truth must prevail. Things have gotten out of control and some important principles are at stake.
It's all going to come crashing down and when it does let's just turn the page and move forward. Your core motivations are not bad at all, but we need to break the spell and move on. It will be a healthy clearing of the air for all parties concerned. The truth must prevail and this will be a good lesson for all people no matter what their opinion.
MileHigh
Magluvin:
QuoteWhat happened to the oscillation? That "alternating current" through the circuit during oscillation? That alternating current would have to flow through one led at a time depending on the phase. This one lights, then that one lights with each phase of operation. No?
QuoteWe have two rails of LED's. The one takes current from the battery supply. The other takes current from CEMF. TWO OPTIONAL PATHS. Now. We've got an oscillation. Voltage moves equally - above and below zero. Therefore, correspondingly, the current flows above and below zero in each oscillation. Therefore - one would expect the current to move through either one or other of those rails - depending on that polarity. NOW. NOTA BENE. There is NO CORRUPTION OF THAT OSCILLATING WAVEFORM - ON EITHER SIDE OF THOSE LED's. YET. Only ONE RAIL STAYS LIT. And the other doesn't even turn on.
What the hey??!!! :o
A casse-tête = a head buster!
Better your head than your balls.
MileHigh
Yes, the Q2 Group is configured as
Common Gate or Grounded Gate.
When the Input to that circuit from
the Signal Generator goes sufficiently
negative the Q2 MOSFETs will be biased
ON and the Signal Generator will furnish
current (series aiding) with the batteries.
This configuration is low impedance input
so the Signal Generator current will be
equal to the MOSFET Drain current.
Signal Generators typically have considerable
internal resistance (50 to 600 Ohms) which
must also be accounted for.
When the Signal Generator output signal
goes sufficiently Positive it will cause Q1
(Common Source or Grounded Source)
to turn ON. In this case the Signal Generator
will be isolated from the circuit current
(Q2 Group is cutoff) and will work exclusively
into the High Impedance Gate Capacitance of
Q1.
Q1 current at this time will be significantly
greater than Q2 current was during its
conduction interval..
With MOSFETs, as Poynt indicated previously,
oscillations are always a possibility.
Very interesting discussion though. Reads like
a good book with a little bit of everything -
suspense, drama, good guys, bad guys,
big crowd, too much to drink and a happy ending!
OOps, forgot the most important character! The
Damsel in distress. What kind of a story would it
be without her?
Hi all,
As some of you here know I am a moderator at two forums http://convivea.com/forums/index.php and www.hhoforums.com (http://www.hhoforums.com) and know what someones responsibility is and your reputation effects your decisions on the sites "Terms of Service" (TOS) is and how members and guests view your actions including postings.
I normally when becoming a member of any web site view the TOS and sometimes even copy what ever parts that may effect what I do there, so one of these sites was "Over Unity" .com that I copied references to conduct in July of 2008.
QUOTE (#6) Specific Use -
You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, adult material, or otherwise in violation of any International or United States Federal law. You also agree not to post any copyrighted material unless you own the copyright or you have written consent from the owner of the copyrighted material. Spam, flooding, advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are also forbidden on this forum.
The Terms of Service (TOS) at "Over Unity" .com was changed shortly there after in September 2008 ..... to read
QUOTE (#6) Specific Use -
You further agree not to use the website to send or post any message or material that is unlawful, harassing, defamatory, abusive, indecent, threatening, harmful, vulgar, obscene, sexually orientated, racially offensive, profane, pornographic or violates any applicable law and you hereby indemnify the Website Owner against any loss, liability, damage or expense of whatever nature which the Website Owner or any third party may suffer which is caused by or attributable to, whether directly or indirectly, your use of the website to send or post any such message or material.
As you can see the you will not post any material which is false or inaccurate is missing.
This is a very incompetent thing not to have in a forum and by it's removal has opened the door for any fraudulent device, construction details or bogus claims on anything. It also gives a "License" for members to provide information on results or documentation to be wrong and misleading. This gives the forum administration no recourse to do anything against that member for what was posted or replied to in a thread if portrayed incorrect.
The other concern is that reading closely at the TOS at "Over Unity" .com there maybe some Data Mining going on there, with unique restrictions on posting, edits or image inserts and terms around them ..... but that's something else all together.
http://www.overunity.com/5554/terms-and-conditions/
So ..... Rosemary is well within her right to "LIE" through her teeth there, but of course that's assuming she has teeth some say she has fangs.
Fuzzy
8)
*edit* repaired - www.hhoforums.com (http://www.hhoforums.com) (link)
Quote from: FuzzyTomCatAs you can see the you will not post any material which is false or inaccurate is missing.
There may be "legal" reasons for the modification.
The "false or inaccurate" hurdle may have been
unnecessary and/or impossible. To determine if
any matter is false or inaccurate may not be within
the realm of finality.
Look at Politics in America and the Obama birth
question.
Quote from: FuzzyTomCatSo ..... Rosemary is well within her right to "LIE" through her teeth there,
but of course that's assuming she has teeth some say she has fangs.
Hmmm... Could this be "false or inaccurate?"
Quote from: Dumped on 2012.03.15, 21:42:55
There may be "legal" reasons for the modification.
The "false or inaccurate" hurdle may have been
unnecessary and/or impossible. To determine if
any matter is false or inaccurate may not be within
the realm of finality.
Look at Politics in America and the Obama birth
question.
Hmmm... Could this be "false or inaccurate?"
Well ..... how can there be a explanation for the word F**K (uc) posted at Over Unity .com ??
Do a "search" http://www.overunity.com/search/ you might find ..... eleven pages ??
Just get rid of the whole TOS because it's irrelevant ??
Fuzzy
;)
Let the PHAT Tuesday parade begin...
(Prophetically hyped and Tongued) ;D
Quote from: giantkiller on 2012.03.15, 22:02:10
Let the PHAT Tuesday parade begin...
(Prophetically Hyped And Tongued) ;D
Pathetically harrangued and tortured, too.
Quote from: Killer of GiantsLet the PHAT Tuesday parade begin...
(Prophetically Hyped And Tongued) Grin
Pathetically harangued and tortured, too.
Well said mate!
Time to knock a few back and think seriously
about all the "strangeness" in the air...
Quote from: FuzzyTomCatJust get rid of the whole TOS because it's irrelevant ??
Enforcement of Policy is always difficult. Not
every situation which arises can be dealt with
to the satisfaction of all participants.
There is much reliance on the integrity and
honesty of all registrants, among other things.
Hi Guys,
I wanted to make sure members and guest here has seen the last posting of mine at OU .com ....... the image views are incredible .... :o
Rosemary and/or the NERD RAT contributors as of the time of this posting until now has not questioned or responded to my posting or reply at OU .com ???
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
POST OVER -
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315729/#msg315729 Reply #1117 on: Today at 12:45:43 AM
Hi members and guests,
Being I've asked the question on which NERD RAT device schematic dates go where three times, and never got a response from Rosemary or a NERD RAT team member on the OU forum.
So, I and all concerned NERD RAT device verifiers and replicators will use the obvious COP>INFINITY DEMONSTRATION video of 12 MARCH 2011 as a reference to the two separate and different schematics without any exceptions.
FROM_CONCEPTION_TO_12_MARCH_2001_Q1_x5_NERD_RAT_DEVICE.JPG ( From DEVICE "Conception" to 12 MARCH 2011 Q1 x5 "NERD RAT" DEVICE SCHEMATIC ) ( * 561 views )
12_MARCH_2001_and_On_Q1_Q2-Q4_NERD_RAT_DEVICE.png ( COP>INFINITY DEMONSTRATION 12 MARCH 2011 and "ON" Q1 / Q2-Q4 "NERD RAT" DEVICE SCHEMATIC ) ( * 167 views )
THIS TAKES EFFECT AS OF MARCH 17, 2012 at 12:50 am GMT
Fuzzy
8)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
***** ( * ADDED VIEW TOTALS ) ****
.
Hi Poynt,
How are things with Rosemary's circuit. Were you able to get negative power?
Hi Gibbs.
I have not built the circuit yet. TK over at OU has been doing a number of tests on his version of the RAT circuit, and I asked him to make the "battery" power measurement to see if it was negative. It is.
We are now waiting to see what happens when he adds some caps across the batteries (to kill any remaining oscillation across them) and takes a battery voltage measurement right off them. I expect the battery power measurement to change to a positive value.
Reference the attached sim scope shot, the power computation becomes less negative as the battery p-p voltage drops. The reason? Looking at the unclipped peak, we are multiplying the VCSR peak (neg) and the VBAT peak (pos), so the higher the VBAT peak, the higher the negative product of the two. When averaged, the result is a larger negative average power.
It is not until the VBAT trace becomes almost flat that the true power computation is realized.
I think it's true that the negative comes from high battery positive peak when current reverse. Not sure if capacitor would help flattening it. We'll see. I see the high peak as resistance, higher current, higher voltage. It is also good to see if the area under positive current and negative current trace. This represent the amount of charge coming in and out of the battery.
The oscillation is due to circuit inductance, so those peaks may look impressive, but it is mostly apparent power, not real.
The average current is actually slightly positive, even though the trace itself can be perceived to be negative dominant.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2012.04.27, 14:12:16
The oscillation is due to circuit inductance, so those peaks may look impressive, but it is mostly apparent power, not real.
The average current is actually slightly positive, even though the trace itself can be perceived to be negative dominant.
The circuit inductance is what requires for oscillation, well, it is required for all oscillators. If you reduce the circuit's inductance, the peak would reduced, but power can't be apparent because the math function used is for calculating real power. If you take away all inductance...the circuit won't oscillate and it's just the same as straight DC heating.
I'm surprised sim can put out negative wattage as obtained in the real experiment. Perhaps sim has been showing extra energy the day it programmed. I know you see this negative wattage as something ordinary, but I will show you something interesting.
Assuming that the battery doesn't reverse polarity. A current going out of the battery have positive power and current flow back into the battery have negative power. The reason the math trace shown negative power because there is more power (hence energy) when current flow back into the battery even though less charges flowing back into the battery. Intuition would say more charges flowing out of the battery means more energy, right? We can see this with a simple analysis.
Let's use the VCSR energy dissipation I^2R. Now separate the current waveform into positive and negative. Integrate I^2R over that cycle. You can see that current flowing out of the battery have less energy dissipation than current flowing back. The analysis for CSR hold true for all resistance the circuit contains. The conclusion is there are more energy when current reverse and hence the negative wattage.
I'm not sure what you're trying to sat Gibbs.
You believe that the circuit is in fact OU? If not, then what are you trying to say?
The negative wattage is a measurement artifact. There is nothing wrong with SPICE. Indeed the measurement method is correct, but the measurement points are not.
You should not be surprised that the sim can also show the negative wattage. The real problem is that it is garbage in, garbage out.
The power measurement obtained using the points prescribed by the RATs is no more accurate than if we used the voltage measured between your toes times the CSR voltage.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2012.04.28, 02:53:11
I'm not sure what you're trying to sat Gibbs.
You believe that the circuit is in fact OU? If not, then what are you trying to say?
The negative wattage is a measurement artifact. There is nothing wrong with SPICE. Indeed the measurement method is correct, but the measurement points are not.
You should not be surprised that the sim can also show the negative wattage. The real problem is that it is garbage in, garbage out.
The power measurement obtained using the points prescribed by the RATs is no more accurate than if we used the voltage measured between your toes times the CSR voltage.
Aw come on, you have to ask me if I believe that circuit is OU? :)
I didn't say say there is something wrong with SPICE. How do you describe your garbage in, garbage out? What I'm saying is When the battery discharge, it gives 100 units of energy. 10 units is lost to resistance, 90 stored in inductance. Inductance then return that 90 units to the battery. 20 units produced to resistance, 80 made it back to the battery. Your turn. :)
Even the voltage comparison between your toes times CSR voltage, it would still show negative wattage man... if you zoom in enough.
It is easy to visualize power in LTspice. You just create a trace with formula U*I where U is the generator voltage and I the current. In my example not related to Ainslie's circuit, the voltage is "V(n001)-V(p001)" and the current is I(Vin), so the formula is I(Vin)*(V(n001)-V(p001)). The trace is the power.
When the trace is displayed, use crtl+click on the formula above the trace: this will open a small box giving the average power and energy during the time of observation. If they are negative, it is the generator that provides the energy.
It's a very useful tool.
Just because a trace swings up or down indicates negative or positive Watts?
Isn't 'negative' or 'positive' Watts the same mistake as RMS Watts?
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2012.04.28, 13:49:11
Just because a trace swings up or down indicates negative or positive Watts?
Isn't 'negative' or 'positive' Watts the same mistake as RMS Watts?
The display is instantaneous power, so yes + or - power is valid, although meaningless for the most part. Once obtained, you need to take the MEAN of that trace to get the true average power. Now you have something meaningful, if the measurement points were correct in the first place.
Not sure if that answered your question?
Quote from: poynt99 on 2012.04.28, 14:06:33
The display is instantaneous power, so yes + or - power is valid, although meaningless for the most part. Once obtained, you need to take the MEAN of that trace to get the true average power. Now you have something meaningful, if the measurement points were correct in the first place.
Not sure if that answered your question?
Yes. The most important part is 'the measurement points'.
I suppose it is my different take on things creating a bit of a problem for me. Watts is not a value that does any work or has any direction because it has no velocity(?)(wrong term but it isn't a value over time or distance). Having less leaving a battery than returning just means something is overlooked.
Having a 100W light means nothing on your electric bill until you start measuring the Watts and the time running together.
So, having higher Watts returning to the battery is not a problem. Such would happen with a little inductance. The mistake is that Watts means nothing unless you include time. If the measurement methods are decent and the right math is used doesn't really matter. The battery runs down anyway.
Of course, we know this.
"Time" is only required to obtain ENERGY.
IF the circuit runs consistently vs. time with no variations in voltage, current, frequency or duty cycle (like most oscillators), then measuring the average power is all that is required to see if the battery is delivering or receiving net power and energy.
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2012.04.28, 16:56:13
Yes. The most important part is 'the measurement points'.
I suppose it is my different take on things creating a bit of a problem for me. Watts is not a value that does any work or has any direction because it has no velocity(?)(wrong term but it isn't a value over time or distance). Having less leaving a battery than returning just means something is overlooked.
Having a 100W light means nothing on your electric bill until you start measuring the Watts and the time running together.
So, having higher Watts returning to the battery is not a problem. Such would happen with a little inductance. The mistake is that Watts means nothing unless you include time. If the measurement methods are decent and the right math is used doesn't really matter. The battery runs down anyway.
Of course, we know this.
To determine if the battery is recharging, simply look at the CSR current waveform. More positive area means battery running down, more negative area means battery charging up.
To determine energy time is needed in addition to watts. The CSR measurement indicated that watt x time for the discharge is less than watt x time for the charging.
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2012.04.28, 13:49:11
...
Isn't 'negative' or 'positive' Watts the same mistake as RMS Watts?
They are not a mistake. They follow from equations and show the direction of the energy. When the current flows inside a component from the positive terminal to the negative terminal, the component is a receiver, it consumes energy. When the current flows from the negative terminal to the positive terminal, the component is a generator, it provides energy.
The power being voltage times current, it is perfectly logic that the power is positive or negative, depending on the convention we took for the current direction. The power is negative for a generator providing energy, positive for a receiver consuming energy.
For instance in an oscillating LC circuit, L and C play alternatively at each signal period, the role of generator or receiver: the energy goes back and forth between them.
Not only instantaneous power but also mean power and energy can be either positive or negative, and this can be displayed in LTspice. Suppose you have a 10v generator G with an internal resistance R and a capacitor C in series. When you switch on the generator, it charges C up to 10v. The energy goes from G to C. By convention for the current direction, the power and the energy are negative because the generator provides the energy, its internal energy is depleted.
Now suppose that C was initially charged at 20v. When you switch on the circuit, C provides energy that is dissipated in the internal resistance of the generator. C provides energy to G. So the generator is receiving energy, it is now a receiver, power and energy are positive.
Too early for posting. A little caffeine and I'll be back.
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2012.04.29, 04:17:17
The CSR measurement indicated that watt x time for the discharge is less than watt x time for the charging.
It did?
Please show us where.
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.04.29, 10:50:06
When the current flows inside a component from the positive terminal to the negative terminal, the component is a receiver, it consumes energy. When the current flows from the negative terminal to the positive terminal, the component is a generator, it provides energy.
The power being voltage times current, it is perfectly logic that the power is positive or negative, depending on the convention we took for the current direction. The power is negative for a generator providing energy, positive for a receiver consuming energy.
O0
Quote from: poynt99 on 2012.04.29, 12:46:08
It did?
Please show us where.
(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=13.0;attach=7838;image)
It's probably easier to be done on the sim. You can take the blue trace (CSR waveform), squared that waveform and take the average.
Actually, you have to maintain the positive region and negative region by yourself because the squared would makes it all positive.
I did some rough calculation. Taken data at half grid time interval.
Positive curve: 1, 1.3, 1.3, 1.3, 1.3, 1.3, 1.3,1 , 1 Squared value: 1, 1.69, 1.69, 1.69, 1.69, 1.69, 1.69, 1, 1
Negative curve: 1, 1.5, 2.5, 2.3, 1.5 Squared value: 1, 2.25, 6.25, 5.29, 2.25
Positive total: 13.4
Negative total: 17
Notice I took less data point for negative to be conservative.
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2012.04.29, 14:26:41
It's probably easier to be done on the sim. You can take the blue trace (CSR waveform), squared that waveform and take the average.
Where on earth did you get that idea?
You don't square anything there mate. You simply sum and average a large number of samples within one cycle.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2012.04.29, 14:54:00
Where on earth did you get that idea?
You don't square anything there mate. You simply sum and average a large number of samples within one cycle.
That is... my idea. lol
Seems like you're not following what I'm talking about. You want to know the energy dissipate in the CRS in the discharge and charging. Can you calculate the energy dissipate in the CSR? The sim can calculate the CSR energy easily, but it cannot tell you how much dissipate when current is positive and and negative. The sim just add the two together.
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2012.04.29, 15:03:04
You want to know the energy dissipate in the CRS in the discharge and charging.
Actually no. We want to know which direction the average current is flowing.
Quote
Can you calculate the energy dissipate in the CSR?
Of course, with ease.
Quote
The sim can calculate the CSR energy easily, but it cannot tell you how much dissipate when current is positive and and negative. The sim just add the two together.
I guess you're not that familiar with simulation software? Of course the sim can tell you both positive and negative power dissipation, I plot this all the time. It is the first step in obtaining the average power dissipated.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2012.04.29, 15:18:57
Actually no. We want to know which direction the average current is flowing.
Of course, with ease.
I guess you're not that familiar with simulation software? Of course the sim can tell you both positive and negative power dissipation, I plot this all the time. It is the first step in obtaining the average power dissipated.
The direction of average current flowing indicate the amount of charge. I want to show you that the energy watt x time for the two direction of current is different and more energy is seen in the current reverse. This is what you want me to show you. Let's get our point across with a simple demonstration.
The graph below shows a current going through a resistor of 1 Ohm. Let's say the time for positive and negative is 1 second.
What is the energy for the whole cycle?
What is the energy for positive cycle?
What is the energy for the negative cycle?
Now apply how you find these value to the CRS trace.
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2012.04.29, 15:30:46
I want to show you that the energy watt x time for the two direction of current is different and more energy is seen in the current reverse.
Are you referring to the scope shot I posted? If so, you are correct in that it would
appear more energy is going to the battery than what is coming out.
But look at the CSR trace by itself. If you were to do an average on it (which you have not done, and I have not shown), you would see that the average net current is from the battery. In other words, the battery is net discharging.
The reason the power computation turns out negative using the battery voltage trace and CSR trace, is because the battery voltage trace is not correct.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2012.04.29, 17:17:49
Are you referring to the scope shot I posted? If so, you are correct in that it would appear more energy is going to the battery than what is coming out.
But look at the CSR trace by itself. If you were to do an average on it (which you have not done, and I have not shown), you would see that the average net current is from the battery. In other words, the battery is net discharging.
The reason the power computation turns out negative using the battery voltage trace and CSR trace, is because the battery voltage trace is not correct.
Yes, the battery is discharging, I never argue that.
Why do you say the voltage trace is not correct? Are you saying it's super impose AC and is not a real current? Just a guess.
I mean you don't need to compute battery to know the negative wattage, just compare the CSR out going energy and back energy.
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2012.04.29, 17:25:02
Why do you say the voltage trace is not correct?
See the attached schematic. The battery voltage trace was obtained from point "7". That is not the correct place, but that is where the RATs are measuring it from, and so I replicate this error for demonstrative purposes.
Quote
I mean you don't need to compute battery to know the negative wattage, just compare the CSR out going energy and back energy.
You still don't understand. If you compute the CSR wattage, it will indicate that the battery is discharging. However, if you compute the battery power using the CSR voltage and battery voltage from point 7 on the diagram, you obtain results that say the battery is charging, and this is not correct.
Is it clear now?
PS. Yes I know the CSR value of 0.25 Ohms has not been accounted for in the power computation.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2012.04.29, 18:26:40
See the attached schematic. The battery voltage trace was obtained from point "7". That is not the correct place, but that is where the RATs are measuring it from, and so I replicate this error for demonstrative purposes.
You still don't understand. If you compute the CSR wattage, it will indicate that the battery is discharging. However, if you compute the battery power using the CSR voltage and battery voltage from point 7 on the diagram, you obtain results that say the battery is charging, and this is not correct.
Is it clear now?
PS. Yes I know the CSR value of 0.25 Ohms has not been accounted for in the power computation.
When you move from point 7 to point 1, you only reduce the inductance and resistance, making the amplitude go down, but the measurement cannot turn positive, but we'll see in the real test.
Poynt, negative wattage doesn't mean battery is charging. It is just your assumption.
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2012.04.29, 22:14:17
When you move from point 7 to point 1, you only reduce the inductance and resistance, making the amplitude go down, but the measurement cannot turn positive, but we'll see in the real test.
It does change to positive. Why can't it?
Quote
Poynt, negative wattage doesn't mean battery is charging. It is just your assumption.
Technically in this scenario, you are correct. But those that are not familiar enough with electronics would (and are) make that assumption. If the measurement was performed correctly however and the polarity was negative, this would indicate the battery is being charged.
Sources have a negative power polarity, and anything that dissipates power (or acquires charge given a battery or capacitor) has a positive power polarity. The reason the polarities are reversed in the measurements we are doing, is because the battery voltage measurement probes are inverted.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2012.04.30, 01:11:26
Technically in this scenario, you are correct. But those that are not familiar enough with electronics would (and are) make that assumption. If the measurement was performed correctly however and the polarity was negative, this would indicate the battery is being charged.
What I mean is if the measurement was performed correctly and the polarity still negative, the battery still drain. Battery charging depends on the net amount of charge, energy depends on the rate of charge.
Nvm, what on my mind right now is a scenario that possibly going on in that circuit. Suppose if we have a charged capacitor and a resistor, when connect them, energy of 1/2CV^2 is dissipated at the resistor. If somehow we could make the cap discharge faster for the same resistance, we have more energy. Possibly with the aid of external magnetic field we could, but still brain storming.
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2012.04.29, 15:30:46
The direction of average current flowing indicate the amount of charge. I want to show you that the energy watt x time for the two direction of current is different and more energy is seen in the current reverse. This is what you want me to show you. Let's get our point across with a simple demonstration.
The graph below shows a current going through a resistor of 1 Ohm. Let's say the time for positive and negative is 1 second.
What is the energy for the whole cycle?
What is the energy for positive cycle?
What is the energy for the negative cycle?
Now apply how you find these value to the CRS trace.
(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=13.0;attach=7847)
t=1s, I=+/- 1A, V=+/- 1V because R=1 ohm so:
The energy for positive cycle is 1 * 1 = 1W
The energy for the negative cycle is -1 * -1 = 1W
The energy for the whole cycle is 1 + 1 = 2W.
It is only the integral of the instantaneous V*I product. Simulation softwares do it easily.
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2012.04.30, 01:50:18
What I mean is if the measurement was performed correctly and the polarity still negative, the battery still drain. Battery charging depends on the net amount of charge, energy depends on the rate of charge.
...
If the measurement is correctly performed and the integral over time of U * I product is positive, the battery is charging during the time of integration.
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.05.01, 10:30:34
If the measurement is correctly performed and the integral over time of U * I product is positive, the battery is charging during the time of integration.
I don't think the battery charge or discharge depends on U*I .
I think I know how to make a charged capacitor have less or more heat when discharge it through a fix resistance. Imagine a cap connecting to a coil and resistance. If we have the external magnetic field cutting through the coil while the cap discharging, we can cause more or less current flow through the resistance until the cap is empty. It's all KVL. However, energy will be spent on the external magnetic field to make this happens. You can completely discharge the cap without any heating at all. Simply makes the magnetic field cutting such that it induce a slightly less voltage than the cap, then current would be so small that I^2R is nothing during the discharge time. The time would be longer, but the energy spent on the magnetic field is also relatively nothing. Uh... where did all the energy go?
Quote from: poynt99 on 2012.04.30, 01:11:26
It does change to positive. Why can't it?
I've read TK result that this is the case. I think both you and Exn. are right that charging depends on U*I and it would change to positive in this case. Once we have a strong confirmation from TK I'll give you both the credits.
Now that I've seen TK video, I'm confident that Poynt and Exn. are right. The extra wire would act as impedance and increase the voltage proportional to the current flow. If we just measure across the battery, no matter what the rate of charge is, the voltage remains constant because the battery able to absorb large current without fluctuating its voltage.
We can also see this with math analysis. If the battery voltage remains constant, then the mean power, averaging U*I would be:
AVE [ Vbat x VCRS]
since Vbat is constant, it can be factored outside and becomes:
Vbat x AVE [VCRS]
The positive or negative mean power would then just depends on the average of the CRS waveform. Since we already discussed that CRS waveform has more positive area, it naturally be that the mean power is positive.
Having seen this, we should be able to agree that in order for battery to be recharging, the AVE[VCRS] has to be negative. If Rosemary or any replication able to achieve a negative average CRS waveform, it is OU. I think I remember Rosemary also achieved this.
From ou.com :
---------------------------------
hartiberlin
Administrator
Hero Member
Posts: 7165
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5253 on: December 09, 2012, 06:05:12 AM »
I deleted Rosemarie´s new account here after she tried to harrass me at 5:45 in the morning via a phonecall...
I told her last time, that she can read here , but no more have an account !
Also she runs her own forum, but why does she come back here ??
So she tried to circumvent the rules and got now booted again.
Regards, Stefan. (admin)
----------------------------------------
;D
Stephan Hartmann banned me from ou.com for having said that the Ainslie's circuit was a scam, and now he banned her too.
It takes him almost two years after me to understand that with Ainslie, he faced a madwoman involved in a scam (or should I suppose that it was good for his site buzz and advertisements to keep her so long?).
Nevertheless I'm still banned, and also forbidden from commenting his youtube videos. Not a problem except that I miss discussions with the little percentage of interesting contributors like Verpies whom we see here sometimes, and some others, roughly less than 5% on ou.com, emerging with their valuable works and ideas above noise, conspiracy theories and other severe delusions. I think it would be good for overunityresearch to attract more of them here.
By the way I saw some schematic from me published here and republished now on ou.com by a guy whom I don't know. If Stephan the censor knew it, he would have a stroke. ;D
I will be putting together this circuit and performing a number of tests on it shortly.
Note the actual build as per the photos vs. the schematic given. The FG ref lead connection places the FG outside the CSR loop.
Should be interesting in what may develop. O0
She is still slamming her head against that rock?
Sad :'(
Yep, and with more gusto than ever... :D
Here is the latest layout.
Damn!
I should have invested in alligator clips C.C
Well i havnt followed her work befor,but i was expecting more of a circuit?. Are we simply trying to blow up some mosfet's here,or flatten some batteries?.
@ Poynt
What is the offset and frequency of the wave?.
Do we have to use those very mosfet's or can we use similar?. I have a heap of 40 amp fet's ,if they will do.
Quote from: tinman on 2013.06.17, 22:53:34
Well i havnt followed her work befor,but i was expecting more of a circuit?. Are we simply trying to blow up some mosfet's here,or flatten some batteries?.
@ Poynt
What is the offset and frequency of the wave?.
Frequency can be anything from 1 Hz to a few kHz. Use a 5% to 10% duty cycle. Amplitude is about +/- 14V measured open circuit.
Quote from: tinman on 2013.06.18, 09:52:33
Do we have to use those very mosfet's or can we use similar?. I have a heap of 40 amp fet's ,if they will do.
These PG50's are slow and exhibit a lot of internal capacitance. They are expensive and a little hard to come by though. Try whatever you have, it should work.
@ Poynt
Is the circuit correct on post 669?. How is the source grounded on the Q2 bank?-surely not through the SG.
I must be having a dumb moment here ???
Brad,
The circuit is correct, yes. What began as an attempt to fortify the MOSFET switch by adding 4 more in parallel, ended up being a miswiring of swapping the S and G leads, and thus the circuit was born. It oscillated for one polarity of the input cycle, and switched on the load for the other polarity.
Yes, one polarity of drive causes a small current to go through the function generator (FG). Rose denies this is happening, and is one of the items I intend on demonstrating.
Have finished the build and ran a few preliminary tests. Will post results over the next several days.
Here are a few pics of the setup. It ain't pretty, but that's what makes it work so good.
-Hi Poynt
Very nice scope there-4 channel's would come in handy.
I have solved one part of the math on my scope-have found out how to select the math trace for measurement. Now all i have to do is work out were to find the result's of that trace.. C.C
Ok-my first go at this circuit resulted in a toasted Q1 in about 80 seconds. FG set to 1.5kHz,10% duty cycle with an amplitude of +/- 12 volt's.
I was also only running on 36 volt's(3 batteries the same as yours), but i don't have the coils of wire in the battery connections like yours-and the rest of the wiring is very short. Do we need all that extra wire for the inductance you would get from it?,which has an effect on the way the circuit reacts?.
Hey Brad, let me know what you found with your scope. How did you select the math trace for measurement?
Re, the RA circuit, you don't need to insert discrete inductors in there, just use excessive wiring as I have. Not sure why your FET blew. Did the load get hot too?
Quote from: poynt99 on 2013.06.21, 03:28:33
Hey Brad, let me know what you found with your scope. How did you select the math trace for measurement?
Re, the RA circuit, you don't need to insert discrete inductors in there, just use excessive wiring as I have. Not sure why your FET blew. Did the load get hot too?
Hi Darren
In regards to the math on the scope. You have to use acquire to select the math trace as the trace to be measured,not measure.You then have to select !all measurements! in the measure menu on page two. You can then select between channel A,B, math,ref A and ref B. You can then select time and voltage,and this brings up all the measurements of that trace-EG,on time,off time,voltage for on,voltage for off-all that stuff. From this i can easily work out voltage across the resistor for the % of time on per cycle.
Now as far as the circuit go's. I am using an old heater element from a small electric fan heater,and yes it got very hot-to hot to touch.But i don't think it will be in the uH you recommended in your circuit. Also,what is the purpose of the 4 Q2's?. Is there 4 of them to increase some small amount of capacitance they may have?-just like the transistors workings in the cool joule?.
That's great news about the scope Brad. Let me know if and when you want to go over that measurement procedure.
The 4 Q2's were originally to beef up Q1, but they were miswired. You only need to use 1 Q2 as I am doing.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2013.06.21, 12:16:46
That's great news about the scope Brad. Let me know if and when you want to go over that measurement procedure.
The 4 Q2's were originally to beef up Q1, but they were miswired. You only need to use 1 Q2 as I am doing.
Ok,i have found out why the fet blew,and the problem has been corrected.
And yes on the measurement procedure Poynt.I will give it a shot myself first,and see how i go. Then we will arange a time to go over my measurements together. I will ofcourse post the results -good or ordinary lol.
Here I've done an important video segment illustrating an often-encountered problem when doing power measurements on switching type circuits...GROUNDING!
A test involving a function generator and an oscilloscope is going to be troublesome, particularly when wanting to measure multiple components in the circuit. The two pieces of equipment must be isolated by some means; either by lifting the earth ground on the FG or using differential scope probes. I chose the former as will most folks attempting these measurements.
With the FG reference lead isolated from the oscilloscope's reference leads, the scope probes can be placed anywhere in the circuit in order to accurately and safely perform specific power measurements.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rtuSwfs-90
This next segment illustrates the correct location for the FG's reference lead. Previously it was connected in such a way to bypass the CSR and would therefore not capture any current the FG may be passing through the circuit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_ZK6OPJLl4
In this segment I do yet another Pbat measurement, or 3 rather.
With the FG earth ground isolated and its reference located at the proper connection point in the circuit, we explore 3 different Pbat measurements; 1) with parasitic inductance between the CSR probes (negative mean power), 2) without parasitic inductance affecting the CSR measurement (positive mean Pbat and closer to actual value), and 3) the correct measurement without parasitic inductance affecting the CSR and Vbat measurements (positive Pbat and correct value).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXdsXvq6QAs
hi Poynt,
Can you explain why the channels reference must be at the same point? For example, why can't TP1,2 for battery and TP5,4 for CSR with TP1,5 as probe reference.
Second, it seems that most parasitic inductance is avoided. Can you provide a CSR root mean squared current to compute load power.
(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=13.0;attach=10795;image)
Gibbs,
Watch the videos, I explain it there.
The reference leads of the scope and FG are tied to chassis gnd, which in turn are tied to earth ground, meaning the two reference leads are tied together. If you apply each reference lead to a different point in the circuit, you are going to essentially short out a component, or number of components.
Yes, you can take the RMS of the CSR voltage, convert it to current, square it and multiply this by the hot resistance of the load. You then have Pload.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2013.07.22, 16:57:16
Gibbs,
Watch the videos, I explain it there.
The reference leads of the scope and FG are tied to chassis gnd, which in turn are tied to earth ground, meaning the two reference leads are tied together. If you apply each reference lead to a different point in the circuit, you are going to essentially short out a component, or number of components.
Yes, you can take the RMS of the CSR voltage, convert it to current, square it and multiply this by the hot resistance of the load. You then have Pload.
I just thought you took out the ground, so it doesn't matter. But ok.
Yes, I like to know the RMS to check for OU.
Two potential sources of measurement error are examined; parasitic inductance (we've looked at previously) and induced emf in the scope probe ref leads.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQKm0qVUCkk
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2013.07.22, 21:15:07
I just thought you took out the ground, so it doesn't matter. But ok.
Yes, I like to know the RMS to check for OU.
Yes I did. So now only the scope references have to be tied to the same point.
Here we attempt to get a more accurate measurement for Pbat by using a makeshift Kelvin probe across the original CSR located close to the circuit.
Two outcomes: 1) the mean Pbat changes from negative to positive, even when the Kelvin probe is widely-spaced across the CSR, and 2) the magnitude is high but close to the actual value. The remaining discrepancy is most likely due to the parasitic inductance between the battery + terminal and the actual TP3 measurement point for Vbat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wctTbyqTj1A
Next we obtain the measurement of power from the function generator (FG).
http://youtu.be/s1ytR1uu8TM
So the function generator requires about 55 watts to operate (guessing it's for electrical components that makes the FG works as an integrated system). Running the circuit consume another 5 watts, but only .5 watts is used to turn on and off Q1, Q2. Of course this .5 watts does not go through the battery or load resistor since the circuit is off (battery disconnected). When the circuit is on, the power consumption of the FG remains almost identical. We can say that almost no power from the FG contribute to the load resistor at any time.
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2013.07.27, 05:10:44
So the function generator requires about 55 watts to operate (guessing it's for electrical components that makes the FG works as an integrated system). Running the circuit consume another 5 watts, but only .5 watts is used to turn on and off Q1, Q2. Of course this .5 watts does not go through the battery or load resistor since the circuit is off (battery disconnected). When the circuit is on, the power consumption of the FG remains almost identical. We can say that almost no power from the FG contribute to the load resistor at any time.
Not quite. When the battery is connected and q2 is on, the fg is in series with the battery.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2013.07.27, 16:02:28
Not quite. When the battery is connected and q2 is on, the fg is in series with the battery.
So how much power you think the FG enter the load resistor roughly?
0.5W max. But the fg consumes 3 watt total.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2013.07.28, 15:37:41
0.5W max. But the fg consumes 3 watt total.
The 3 watts consumption of the FG is the same category as the 55 watts consumption to just operate the FG.
The reason we can't say .5W is because turning on and off Q1, Q2 require power. If .5W of the FG enter the load resistor, then something has to provide power to turn the MOSFETs and it has to be the battery in this case. Either way, the net result is null for the FG unless it doesn't require power to turn on and off Q1 Q2 when the circuit is on.
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2013.07.28, 16:56:08
The 3 watts consumption of the FG is the same category as the 55 watts consumption to just operate the FG.
then something has to provide power to turn the MOSFETs and it has to be the battery in this case.
In this case almost zero power is required to turn both mosfets on. And for the sake of argument, if none of that 0.5W did make it to the load resistor, it is still being dissipated in the rest of the circuit, mainly the R
DS of the MOSFETS.
POYNT;
Thank you for your hard work showing proper measurement of this circuit. I have been following closely, just not commenting.
Can you summarize your investigation i.e. are there any noteworthy observable anomalies with this circuit?
Your work is appreciated!
Quote from: poynt99 on 2013.07.29, 04:37:31
In this case almost zero power is required to turn both mosfets on. And for the sake of argument, if none of that 0.5W did make it to the load resistor, it is still being dissipated in the rest of the circuit, mainly the RDS of the MOSFETS.
I would agree you are right that little power is required to turn on the FETs. I also agree you are correct that when the FG is in series with the battery, the FG 3 watts is part of the circuit because the 50 Ohms resistance is in series with the load resistor.
Now if in all the resistors are series configuration, the dissipated power would be:
Irms
2 x (R1 + R2 ...)
Since the biggest resistances are load and FG 50 Ohms, we could concentrate on it. Indeed the FG could put its .5 watts to the load resistor, but at the same time, the FG also suck power from the battery because it holds the biggest resistance in the circuit. Matter of fact, it has about 5 times more power dissipated than the load resistor.
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2013.07.29, 14:42:39
Since the biggest resistances are load and FG 50 Ohms, we could concentrate on it. Indeed the FG could put its .5 watts to the load resistor, but at the same time, the FG also suck power from the battery because it holds the biggest resistance in the circuit. Matter of fact, it has about 5 times more power dissipated than the load resistor.
Indeed, that's why very little heating occurs in the load resistor from the negative portion of the cycle.
Quote from: ION on 2013.07.29, 14:16:32
POYNT;
Thank you for your hard work showing proper measurement of this circuit. I have been following closely, just not commenting.
Can you summarize your investigation i.e. are there any noteworthy observable anomalies with this circuit?
Your work is appreciated!
Thanks ION. Nice to know you're following along.
There are definitely no unexplained or OU-related anomalies in this circuit. As I've professed right from the very beginning 6 years ago, the "results" have always been an artifact from poor measurement techniques, and a gross misinterpretation of those measurements.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2013.07.29, 17:20:47
Indeed, that's why very little heating occurs in the load resistor from the negative portion of the cycle.
So assuming all your measurement is correct. The input should be
Pbat + Pfg = 4W + .5W = 4.5W
The output should be:
(Ibat)rms
2 x Rload = 4.5W max
4W additional power is being from drawn the grid as shown on the meter. 0.5W is dissipated in the circuit.
What are you trying to point out exactly?
Quote from: poynt99 on 2013.07.29, 18:12:42
4W additional power is being from drawn the grid as shown on the meter. 0.5W is dissipated in the circuit.
What are you trying to point out exactly?
No... 4 watts is from battery measurement. 37V x 108mA or about as a few previous video ago. I'm trying to get a Pin vs Pout.
Ah, that 4W is without taking into account the CSR value (0.25). Pbat is actually about 16W.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2013.07.30, 12:31:18
Ah, that 4W is without taking into account the CSR value (0.25). Pbat is actually about 16W.
Oh okay, 108ma X 4 to get the real current. What I'm trying to establish is the way we do calculation. This should account for all energy source input that we know. Of course this output is conservative because it ignore the 1 and .25 Ohms resistance since the biggest resistance hold the biggest dissipation. And if the circuit capable of producing COP 2, then it should be man... or woman enough to cover its conservative part. lol
Do you see any problem with this method?
COP2 would be minimum I think to overcome losses. COP3 min.
From Rose's forum after the dry run testing on the 10th. She has finally conceded that conventional science prevails, and she was incorrect with her measurements and the conclusions drawn from them. It's only taken two years! They will perform similar testing today as well in a public forum for all to witness. It should be viewable on YT. I will post a link when I receive it.
QuoteGuys
We have just completed a 'dry run' required by Steve Weir in advance of the demo for tomorrow. We followed stringent protocols that are outlined in a file that has now, apparently, been put on the internet. If not I'll see what I can do to get the file link posted here.
The claim was made by Poynty that inductance on the battery was skewing our results and I refuted this. SADLY he is RIGHT. Far from being able to generate the required measurements - the advantage ENTIRELY falls away. I am satisfied with the logic that Steve proposed for this proof. And with the protocols required to prove this. And again - WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO SIGNIFICANT BENEFITS - NOTWITHSTANDING our earlier measurements. This saddens me - on one level - the more so as I now feel that I must start this quest from scratch. But on another level I'm strangely relieved. It's complex. And over time I may be able to understand it better - myself. One liberating aspect is that I will not need to devote any time trying to persuade our academics to take this research on board. Which I anticipated would take up way more time than I'd be willing to forfeit. And which I felt was an obligation on my part - as I was somehow compelled to protect the evidence against the onslaught to which it was subjected. I can now, perhaps - proceed with ONLY those tests that really do interest me.
I have never made this fact public - but I am blind as a bat - and TERRIFIED of all things electrical. I am simply NOT equipped to be an experimentalist. And my devotion to this over the years has been out of a somewhat tortured sense of obligation to protect - what appeared to me to be a truth. Whether or not the thesis is correct is irrelevant. The fact is that this test most certainly DOES NOT PROVE IT. And it is courtesy the input of our Poynty Point that I was obliged to bring the evidence to close scrutiny.
To cut a long story short - here's the thing. We'll be doing the demonstration tomorrow - simply to put it on record that there is NO aspect of that oscillation that ACTUALLY delivers a gain. This to prevent ANYONE wasting their time in trying to find it here. It is ENTIRELY due to the inductance on the circuit that this is measured. There is some evidence that inductance ADDS to the heat measured over the resistor element - which is possibly counter intuitive. But the amount added - certainly on our circuit - is NOT significant. We MAY - in due course - run the battery drawn down tests to evaluate various benefits in a switching circuit. But we will NOT be boring you all with updates - basically because I do NOT think that open source is the way to go. Unless, of course, we can first prove those values with the same standard of stringent testing protocols that Steve Weir imposed.
So guys - sadly - this is INDEED my swansong - as it relates to this circuit. We will now have to retract our claims and our papers - and admit that there are errors in measurement that have accounted for that apparent gain. I admit defeat. Notwithstanding which, I'm rather proud of the fight that I managed in the face of my many detractors. While it's kept me from gainful employment it has compensated by offering an intense level of intellectual engagement which I relish. And it's all added to my love of science which I regret that I discovered rather late in life.
Thank you to all my supporters - and, in a rather circuitous way - to my detractors. I will be continuing my work on this blog. But as it will be confined mostly to the thesis - and to work to prove that thesis - it is unlikely that I'll be engaging as many of you as before. For those who want to watch it - the demo will be aired tomorrow. But it is only going to prove what I've written here. Not good news. But very relevant. And most importantly - that those who read here - don't waste their time on this circuit. Sadly.
Kindest regards
Rosie
Please update the test results. I think it's more attractive now.
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2013.08.11, 16:06:31
Please update the test results.
A brief summary of the final demo today:
Phase 1 Pbat (at board) = -114.8W
Phase 2 (FG) power ~ 0.3W
Phase 3 Pbat (at batteries) ~ +15W
Power dissipated at RL ( ~20ºC rise from old data) ~ 2.5W
Quote
I think it's more attractive now.
What do you mean?
Steve Weir's updated version of the demonstration Outline.
Why don't they use Irms to compare calorimetry and scope measurement. They should show consistency if measurement is correct.
QuoteShe has finally conceded that conventional science prevails
That is great news.
Quote2 years
No one can accuse her of not sticking by her results :D
Better after two years than never at all. ;)