PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2022-08-16, 15:19:48
News: Check out the Benches; a place for people to moderate their own thread and document their builds and data.
If you would like your own Bench, please PM an Admin.
Most Benches are visible only to members.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Author Topic: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit  (Read 429834 times)
Group: Guest
@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
   
Group: Guest
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
 :)


   
Group: Guest
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
   
Group: Guest
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
   
Group: Guest
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/

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
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3856


Buy me some coffee
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
   
Group: Guest
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
   
Group: Guest


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 .



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.


 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.







LTC6904 Datasheet
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.
   
Group: Guest


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.
   
Group: Guest
@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

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
   
Group: Guest
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
   
Group: Guest
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. :)
« Last Edit: 2011-03-25, 20:46:01 by catlady »
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3180
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
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
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3180
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
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
   
Group: Guest
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
   
Group: Guest
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  
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3180
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
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
   
Group: Guest
Quote
So.  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:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWDfrzBIxoQ[/youtube]

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
   
Group: Guest
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
   
Group: Guest
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
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3180
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
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
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2224
@Milehigh
Quote
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.
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


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” George Bernard Shaw
   
Group: Guest
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
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2224
@Humbugger
Quote
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.
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


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” George Bernard Shaw
   
Group: Guest
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
 :)
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2022-08-16, 15:19:48