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.pdfI'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.
Author
Topic: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit (Read 477125 times)
