PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
OverUnity Research > Electrical / Electronic Devices > Inductive Kickback Circuits > The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit
2024-11-27, 22:43:16
News: Forum TIP:
The SHOUT BOX deletes messages after 3 hours. It is NOT meant to have lengthy conversations in. Use the Chat feature instead.

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 ... 29
Author Topic: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit  (Read 477210 times)
Topic Options img
img  poynt99
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #225 on: 2011-02-27, 01:37:52 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

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


---------------------------
"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
   
img  MileHigh
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #226 on: 2011-02-27, 01:47:03 »
Group: Guest
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):

Quote
At 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
« Last Edit: 2011-02-27, 02:43:14 by MileHigh »
   
img  poynt99
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #227 on: 2011-02-27, 01:53:00 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

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


---------------------------
"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
   
img  ion
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #228 on: 2011-02-27, 01:56:17 »
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3537
It's turtles all the way down
From MH above:

Quote
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 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.



---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
img  MileHigh
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #229 on: 2011-02-27, 02:11:20 »
Group: Guest
Thanks Ion and Poynt for the clarification.

A question for you guys:

Quote
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.

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
   
img  poynt99
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #230 on: 2011-02-27, 18:59:40 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
From blog #78:

Quote
And 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?

Quote
That 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


---------------------------
"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
   
img  humbugger
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #231 on: 2011-02-27, 19:28:45 »
Group: Guest
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
« Last Edit: 2011-02-28, 02:06:54 by humbugger »
   
img  poynt99
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #232 on: 2011-03-03, 01:00:58 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
From Rose's blog #84:
Quote
And 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


---------------------------
"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
   
img  MileHigh
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #233 on: 2011-03-03, 02:09:34 »
Group: Guest
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
   
img  humbugger
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #234 on: 2011-03-03, 02:36:22 »
Group: Guest
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
   
img  MileHigh
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #235 on: 2011-03-03, 03:27:19 »
Group: Guest
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!
   
img  humbugger
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #236 on: 2011-03-03, 03:31:37 »
Group: Guest
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
   
img  humbugger
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #237 on: 2011-03-03, 19:46:13 »
Group: Guest
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
   
img  humbugger
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #238 on: 2011-03-13, 04:00:24 »
Group: Guest
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
   
img  catlady
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #239 on: 2011-03-13, 04:21:40 »
Group: Guest
   
img  FuzzyTomCat
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #240 on: 2011-03-13, 05:03:55 »
Group: Guest
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

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 !!
   
img  poynt99
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #241 on: 2011-03-13, 05:37:16 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

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


---------------------------
"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
   
img  MileHigh
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #242 on: 2011-03-13, 18:32:20 »
Group: Guest
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.

Quote
The 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.

Quote
It 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.

Quote
On 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.

Quote
It 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.

Quote
This 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.

Quote
There 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.

Quote
Finally, 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
   
img  MileHigh
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #243 on: 2011-03-13, 18:58:43 »
Group: Guest
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!
   
img  GibbsHelmholtz
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #244 on: 2011-03-13, 22:40:12 »
Group: Guest
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
   
img  exnihiloest
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #245 on: 2011-03-14, 15:30:39 »
Group: Guest

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.
   
img  humbugger
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #246 on: 2011-03-14, 16:33:56 »
Group: Guest
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.
   
img  humbugger
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #247 on: 2011-03-14, 17:07:31 »
Group: Guest
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

Humbugger
« Last Edit: 2011-03-15, 03:57:13 by humbugger »
   
img  Mookie
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #248 on: 2011-03-15, 02:29:18 »
Group: Guest

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
   
img  humbugger
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #249 on: 2011-03-15, 03:08:46 »
Group: Guest
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
   
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 ... 29
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-11-27, 22:43:16