PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-05-23, 06:59:05
News: A feature is available which provides a place all members can chat, either publicly or privately.
There is also a "Shout" feature on each page. Only available to members.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ... 29
Author Topic: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit  (Read 460727 times)

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
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


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
Group: Guest


Well said poynt99!

   
Group: Guest
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.
   
Group: Guest
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
   
Group: Guest
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.

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.  

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.

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.
   
Group: Guest
@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.
« Last Edit: 2010-02-14, 04:43:39 by aetherevarising »
   
Group: Guest
@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
   
Group: Guest

 "And Now for Something Completely Different"




   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Indeed, time to let folks cool down and lock this thread for a bit.


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
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


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
Group: Guest
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.
« Last Edit: 2011-02-13, 04:34:14 by humbugger »
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
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


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
Group: Guest
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
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
 ;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


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
Group: Guest
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
   
Group: Guest
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?



   
Group: Guest
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
   
Group: Guest
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!

   
Group: Guest
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.
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3537
It's turtles all the way down
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?


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3881


Buy me some coffee
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
   
Group: Guest
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.
   
Group: Guest
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).
   
Group: Guest
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
   
Group: Guest
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.
« Last Edit: 2011-02-13, 18:36:15 by humbugger »
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ... 29
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-05-23, 06:59:05