PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-11-27, 22:51:46
News: If you have a suggestion or need for a new board title, please PM the Admins.
Please remember to keep topics and posts of the FE or casual nature. :)

Pages: 1 ... 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 477252 times)
Group: Guest
Hi everyone,

Well Rosemary has a new and updated experimental device circuit diagram ....

Odd ... all the Dark Science electronic components are connected the same wrong way ..... the only change is her "NAME" to NERD  :D

Fuzzy
 :)
   
Group: Guest
This is to Rosemary:

Poynt has been trying to get you to understand the simulations and recent events have been difficult with tempers getting hot so I am going to step in here and make a few points.

Here is part of what you posted today:

Quote
The principle seems to make sense to our academics. There is a wide acknowledgement amongst engineers that if these advantages show up on our simulations then they are most certainly also verifiable experimentally.  The interesting thing is this.  That software is clearly NOT designed to apply Kirchhoff's Laws.  The assumption has been - quite rightly - that IF Kirchhoff's Laws are a natural consequence that also somehow constrain the transfer of energy to the amount of energy first delivered from the supply, then it would be impossible to find more energy dissipated on a circuit than delivered by that supply.

So.  Let's look at what's happening here.  In essence the circuit is designed to generate counter electromotive force.  But unlike usual applications the actual design is such that it does nothing to stop the flow of current from that negatively induced voltage.  Possibly for the first time - we've actively enabled all that counter clockwise flow of current and, by doing this, we're able to see its full force and effect.  The assumption has always been that this energy must equal the energy from the supply.  It does.  More or less.  In fact, depending on the inductive material in that circuit - rather MORE than less.  But then there should - theoretically - be NO spare energy to heat anything at all.  But it does.  Rather energetically.  In the region of hundreds of watts.  While that same software then ALSO computes the cost of energy from the battery.  And there is concludes that the supply source has lost absolutely NO charge at all.  It effectively cost the battery nothing.  Which makes it INFINITE COP.  Golly.

You are wrong here Rosemary, and to be quite honest it's very frustrating and emotionally draining.

The simulations show that there is no net current being returned to the battery.  The simulations show that current flows from the battery, through the inductive resistor load, through the MOSFET arrangement and then to ground.  The simulations show that your circuit is 100% conventional where battery power is delivered to the load and the net current flows in the CLOCKWISE direction.

A negative power calculation in pSpice means that power is flowing out of the battery and into the load.  This was specifically mentioned to you in a posting by Poynt about a month ago.

So your celebrations are another mistake.  Poynt proved to you that your circuit is 100% "classical" and there is no "COP infinity."  Your circuit is under unity.

If these facts don't register in your head, then there is no hope for you.  It's over Rosemary.  If you worked on the bench with somebody that knew what they were doing this could be proved to you very easily.  Your constant denial of the facts and continual refusal to do the proper tests and your glaring misunderstanding of electronics has just gone too far.  This is beyond theater of the absurd.

I'm done.  The simulations show that your circuit is under unity.  The negative battery power measurement shows that the battery is outputting power into the load and no power is being returned to the battery.

Sorry, it's over and I don't want to ever post another word about your circuit.

MileHigh
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Here is an update to the discussion I'm having with Rose.

I have revamped the schematic to show most of the parasitic components and also I have broke out the batteries just as she has them with jumpers in-between.

So far I've only simulated the circuit to establish a baseline measurement showing power apparently going back to the battery. We will move forward from here.

@MH,

The battery power normally is negative when the CSR voltage is measured with the voltage probe polarity + to - from top to bottom in the schematic. As you will note the probes are connected in reverse, so the power calculation should come out positive. In this baseline measurement, the power is about -106W.

There will be progressive measurements illustrating how/why this is.

Attached are the PSpice files and the new schematic with the first scope shots (pdf).

.99


---------------------------
"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...
For the next installment of simulation test runs, it's necessary to establish some simple background theory:

If each of the 6 twelve-volt batteries in the battery array have approximately the same state of charge, terminal voltage, and internal resistance, it is reasonable to asssume that each of the 6 batteries will receive or supply the same amount of power in the circuit. As such, it is valid to measure and analyse the power in any one of the 6 batteries and apply a factor of 6x to obtain the total power in the circuit.

In this first test, the battery voltage probes are placed across the last jumper wire and last 12V battery. So we are measuring the voltage across a single 12V battery in series with 400nH of wire inductance in a single jumper. The power computes to -3.8W.

Next, when the battery voltage probes are placed directly across the single 12V battery and no jumper, the power changes polarity and computes to roughly +1.4W.

When the wattage probe available in PSpice is used to directly measure the instantaneous power of the single 12V battery, it computes to a net average of approximately -5.45W. If you recall the exercise on the polarity of power sources vs. power dissipators a little while back, you will know that the proper polarity for a source that is sourcing power, is negative. The reason the last computation of +1.4W turned out positive, is because the voltage probes across the CSR are reversed (as a matter of establishing common ground for both the CSR and battery probes). This has been the case throughout this exercise. It adds a bit of confusion, but that is the direction the "powers" normally go and it's important to keep this straight in one's mind.

Now back to the issue of the correct value for the CSR. As we now know the true power in any one of the six 12V batteries is about -5.45W, and that the previous measurement using a single 12V battery times the CSR voltage (battery current) came to approximately +1.4W (assuming a 1 Ohm value for the CSR), it may become obvious that assuming the CSR value to be anything other than 0.25 Ohms is incorrect. If we take the +1.4W measurement and multiply it by 4x (1/0.25), we obtain a power of about +5.6W. I have been approximating the values read off the scope, so in reality the previous measurement would actually be closer to 1.37W. It should be clear from this that the correct value for the CSR when looking at DC INPUT power, is the actual resistive value of the CSR, in this case 0.25 Ohms (regardless if the current is pulsed at a high frequency or not).

Computing the total power from all 6 batteries in the array we have:

-5.45W x 6 = -32.7W

This is the actual correct value and polarity for the total INPUT power of the battery array in this particular simulation.

Now, if we take the previous +1.37W measurement using just a single battery and no jumper wire, and multiply it by 4 (because of the 0.25 Ohm CSR), then by 6 (for 6 batteries in the array), we obtain a power of about +32.88W.

Other than the polarity difference (because the CSR probes are reversed), the two powers are almost identical in magnitude, and it is safe to say that now with the inductance eliminated in the battery voltage measurement, the VCSR(t) x VBAT(t) computation by the scope is very accurate.

All schematics and scope shots attached. More to follow.

.99


---------------------------
"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...
The complete final analysis wrapped up in a single pdf. This includes most of the relevant posts and all schematics and scope shots.

Also included at the end are explanatory excerpts from a brief private discussion with an OU member.

Regards,
.99


---------------------------
"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: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4045
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Quote
222 - we claim those prizes offered by harti, poynty and steven e jones (professor?)
Dear Reader,

I think the time has come to take the 'bull by the horns'.

I am that sick of the devious and hidden pretensions buried in that declared 'object' of our over unity forums that I am now, on behalf of all free energy enthusiasts EVERYWHERE - as well as my own collaborators - determined to CLAIM THOSE PRIZES OFFERED BY no less than two forums and by Professor Steven E Jones for measured proof of over unity.

They, the prize givers will be sent our two papers that detail the experimental evidence. They will then be invited to test this apparatus on my own premises. They will be refunded their air travel should they disprove our measurements. In order to obviate ANY attempt at fabrication - three electrical engineers will be present at all demonstrations of the device that HARTI - POYNTY and STEVEN E JONES will NOT BE ABLE TO TAMPER WITH THE APPARATUS NOR MISREPRESENT THE MEASURED EVIDENCE. They will be entitled to bring their own broadband 4 channel oscilloscopes to do that measurement - which can be used subject only to the evidence of up to date calibration certificates. We will, in any event, provide our own as a reference - as required.

I guarantee that the test will not need to last more than 2 hours at the outside most - during which time I will be able to replicate the 4 tests detailed in our paper. They can, therefore, fly back the same day that they arrive. But. Should they wish to stay over before flying back - then I will accommodate them all - in relative comfort - during their stay. We South Africans are renowned for our hospitality.

If they decline - then I MUST CONCLUDE that their prizes are simply a kind of 'lure' - to the poor unsuspecting energy enthusiast who is WASTING HIS TIME if he expects endorsement from those 'great pretenders'. Whatever is left of the prize money after they've 'defrayed' their costs - lol - will be paid to a member to be nominated and chosen by all those forum members - for the purchase of measuring equipment required for that nominated members' further testing.

Proof of over unity will be in the MEASURED EVIDENCE based on the protocols detailed in that paper. Can't wait.

HOWSZZZAT!!! I'd say it's 'clean bowled'. lol

Kindest regards
Rosemary

Rosemary,

Unfortunately for you, but fortunately for the OU community, you are not in a position to dictate the terms and conditions for claiming the overunity prizes. Each site has their own rules, and they are clear enough. Your frequent and ever-so-familiar "bulldoze over everyone" approach is transparent to most I trust, so it's a wonder you keep trying the same nonsense.

Your work is severely flawed and you've refused all offers to correction. It's utterly amazing that you feel you are in a position to preach about how others have no idea when it comes to power measurement (a previous blog post of yours), when you are one of the worst offenders of proper measurement protocol the community has ever seen.

Get real and cease with all the nonsense.  C.C

.99
« Last Edit: 2012-01-07, 17:45:07 by poynt99 »


---------------------------
"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
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 805
Poynt99,

wow, I'm impressed.  You've achieved some serious status in the OU community,   right up there with Harti and the venerable  Dr. Steven Jones.     LOL    ;D   :D

EM
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

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

Besides, I doubt Rosemary's blog is read by more than a few blind followers.  8)


---------------------------
"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...
Plenty of nonsense for your reading pleasure....if you dare. LOL.  :D

Rosemary, you're living in a fantasy world. And btw, OUR terms and conditions hold.

.99


---------------------------
"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

- The source current of Q2 must flow from the battery through the function generator to power Q2!
- The power provided by the function generator can't be neglected because the source impedence of a mosfet is much lower than the gate impedence.
- Then I read: "The offset of the function generator was set to its extreme negative limit". This means that the function generator provides continuous current and therefore extra energy that was not taken into account.
These papers make no sense, really a "fantasy world".

   
Group: Guest
You know she seems like a very nice lady.  If it's over unity to her, it's over unity to her.  You guys, let her continue her work in peace.
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
You know she seems like a very nice lady.
Sure, but she's not when it comes to her OU work. You obviously don't know her like I and several other folks do.

Quote
If it's over unity to her, it's over unity to her.  You guys, let her continue her work in peace.
She can do all the work in fantasyland she desires. It's when she makes bogus claims on forums and now demands to redeem their overunity prizes that I speak up to defend the truth.

Apparently you're not aware of the situation.

.99


---------------------------
"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
You know she seems like a very nice lady.  If it's over unity to her, it's over unity to her.  You guys, let her continue her work in peace.

A rational dialog with her is impossible. I tried on ou.com before being banned. She has paranoid reactions and refuses every objection. You don't know her, she is not nice, she is cantankerous. Nobody prevents her to continue her work in peace, but when she published obviously false statements about overunity, it is a duty to say it.

   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
@exnihiloest
Quote
A rational dialog with her is impossible. I tried on ou.com before being banned. She has paranoid reactions and refuses every objection. You don't know her, she is not nice, she is cantankerous. Nobody prevents her to continue her work in peace, but when she published obviously false statements about overunity, it is a duty to say it.

It is your duty to say it?, wow, you see personally I find statements like this very disturbing -- when people start talking about the "truth" as if it is inherent in their thoughts. Let's throw a little good old fashion logic at our little dilemma, you say it is your duty to object to her theories yet I image you believe in general relativity do you not?. Well the theory of GR has been proven to be false because the speed of light is not a constant and can be exceeded. Now we have a problem because when things exceed the speed of light these things when losing velocity can appear to appear out of nowhere and Einstein understood this funny little quirk all too well. You see Einstein and friends had issues, that is we cannot know anything for certain when nothing is certain because things can appear out of nowhere for reasons we cannot explain hence the fantasy we call GR and time dilation.

Now if things or energy can seem to appear out of nowhere for reasons we cannot understand then really what do you know concerning the facts or the truth? I would submit very little however the fact that you seem compelled to state your personal opinion as fact and consider it as your duty would suggest to me you are living in a fantasy as well. To get to the point, there is no rational debate of anything when everyone believes their personal flavor of fantasy is self-evident and beyond reproach, the word for this is delusion.

Regards
AC


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

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Group: Guest
AC,

I'm always interested in possible proof of FTL. Please post a link or reference.

AFAIK, all claims to-date haven't been verified (officially). The last claim had something to do with quantum entanglement which isn't understood. Any other examples of FTL can't transmit intelligence, so it means nothing. (Yes, FTL exists but it isn't the velocity of the propagation that is FTL. It is phase or group velocity that is FTL).

 
Thanks,

WW

   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3017
NYTimes
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/19/science/space/neutrino-finding-is-confirmed-in-second-experiment-opera-scientists-say.html

Quote
Scientists Report Second Sighting of Faster-Than-Light Neutrinos
By DENNIS OVERBYE
Published: November 18, 2011

  

Few scientists are betting against Einstein yet, but the phantom neutrinos of Opera are still eluding explanation.
Related

    *
      Tiny Neutrinos May Have Broken Cosmic Speed Limit (September 23, 2011)
    *
      News Analysis: After Report on Speed, a Rush of Scrutiny (September 24, 2011)
    *
      Particles Faster Than the Speed of Light? Not So Fast, Some Say (October 25, 2011)

Two months after scientists reported that they had clocked subatomic particles known as neutrinos going faster than the speed of light, to the astonishment and vocal disbelief of most of the world’s physicists, the same group of scientists, known as Opera, said on Friday that it had performed a second experiment that confirmed its first results and eliminated one possible explanation for how the experiment could have gone wrong.  ...
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
@Wavewatcher
Quote
I'm always interested in possible proof of FTL. Please post a link or reference.
AFAIK, all claims to-date haven't been verified (officially). The last claim had something to do with quantum entanglement which isn't understood. Any other examples of FTL can't transmit intelligence, so it means nothing. (Yes, FTL exists but it isn't the velocity of the propagation that is FTL. It is phase or group velocity that is FTL).

I choose not to take that route based on a statement made by T.H.Moray -- what is proof when proof is unacceptable?. As well in my opinion GR has not been fully verified based on various statements made by Einstein himself who said that he did not believe GR would stand the test of time. Which raises the question, can we discount one opinion just because another contradicts it even though neither have been proven beyond all doubt as fact. This is kind of like the psychologists joke -- We are all crazy to some extent it is simply a matter of the degree and the only one's who are truly crazy are the one's who believe they are not.
As such we are left with another statement, I cannot prove anything to anyone who cannot prove the matter for themselves, and there is nothing I could ever say or provide you with including verification of anything which would make you believe something you refuse to believe, so why bother?
The only fact is we will believe whatever we choose despite the facts.

Regards
AC


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

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 805
Quote
(Yes, FTL exists but it isn't the velocity of the propagation that is FTL. It is phase or group velocity that is FTL).

It's only the Phase velocity that is faster,  not the Group velocity.   The group velocity is the one we think of as the real physical velocity, or propagation velocity.


I'm trying to find an article on a special transmission line formed out of modules, and it proved to be transmitting information faster than light.  I think Sandia or some national lab wrote up that article.   It was very interesting.    Lending some credibility to the notion that near fields travel faster then light, which I refused to believe becasue how it was presented, by invoking phase arguments between the E and H fields, or something to that effect.


For those interested,  the discussion of faster than light should realy be a discussion of stiffness and elasticity and density.   The only reason information does not travel INSTANTLY is because most "mediums" of transmport are elastic and not "stiff" enough.   You might think, what about steel?   Yes, steel is very stiff but it also has a high density so the information is slowed down.   If we had a very stiff medium and of no density, then we could have instant transmission of information across the universe.   But all this discussion is only about WAVE PHENOMENA.  

If we go to particle phenomena,  you can go faster then the medium, just like a boat can go faster then the wave it produces, or a jet can break the sound burier.    So, I don't find it shoking that nutrinos can travel faster then light, because    

a nutrino is a PARTICLE, and light is a WAVE!

two different things.

EM
   
Group: Guest
Particle or wave, it doesn't matter. As long as the particle has mass it isn't supposed to go > c.

The 'group velocity'  I speak of is the difference of two or more signals. It was a Dutch paper that caused the Prof. to loose employment and his aiding students had a great deal of trouble, afterwards.

As for the denial of proof... all I asked for was a link. I didn't say I would bash anything I read on the subject. Quite the contrary. I'm just interested.

Thanks PhysicsProf. I'm wondering if those folks are just seeing QE.

   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 805
Quote
Particle or wave, it doesn't matter. As long as the particle has mass it isn't supposed to go > c

true, that's what they say.   

Years ago I presented a concept to one of my college physics profesors and he didn't know how to answer.   I said,  if I accelerate a particle in one direction to 0.8 x c,  or just close to the speed of light,  and then I accelerate another one going in the other direction at 0.8 c,   the particles are moving away from each other at 1.6 times the speed of light, is that not true?     If things are truly relative and there is no absolute frame of reference, then an observer on one of the particles will observe the other one going faster then the speed of light,  very simple and logical,  I thought.    But I'm no expert on relativity, never was.

EM
   
Group: Guest
true, that's what they say.   

Years ago I presented a concept to one of my college physics profesors and he didn't know how to answer.   I said,  if I accelerate a particle in one direction to 0.8 x c,  or just close to the speed of light,  and then I accelerate another one going in the other direction at 0.8 c,   the particles are moving away from each other at 1.6 times the speed of light, is that not true?     If things are truly relative and there is no absolute frame of reference, then an observer on one of the particles will observe the other one going faster then the speed of light,  very simple and logical,  I thought.    But I'm no expert on relativity, never was.

EM

Perhaps.

I think the tricky part is when either measures light speed between them. Each should be part of a 'relative' time dilation in their own frame of reference which would cause their velocity measurements to indicate the light traveling between them is still no greater than c.

Ol' fuzzbrain covered his tracks well  ;D

   
Group: Guest
Quote
If things are truly relative and there is no absolute frame of reference, then an observer on one of the particles will observe the other one going faster then the speed of light,  very simple and logical,  I thought.

Yes I saw that question posed to a physicist (I think) on TV years ago, it might even have been Carl Sagan.  The answer is that they are indeed not approaching each other at 1.6 c.  Their relative speed to each other is less than c.  I think it ties into the dimension that you are traveling in becomes compressed as you approach relativistic speeds, but I am no expert either.

All I know is the faster you go, the slower you pass through time relative to a stationary person.  It's a mind-muck.

MileHigh
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 805
that's right MH,  they invoke time and distance contractions, etc..   

If I remember accurately,   in my physics book they always liked to talk about an observer on the ground watching somebody on a train, in a "moving frame of reverence".      If the guy on the train trows a ball up and then it falls back down into his hand,   from his point of view, or "reference frame"  the ball traveled in only one dimention, up-down.    However,  the observer on the ground, or in a "fixed" frame of reference,   sees the ball travel in a parabola, and obviously, the parabola path is LONGER,  then the path observed by the train rider.       

Now,  let's think about this:   The ball traveled two different paths, in the same time.   How can this be?    That's when  Einstein chimed in that light speed is a constant, or should be assumed a constant, and what actually has to give is either TIME or DISTANCE.   So that's how we get the time and distance dielation or contraction.     Anyway,  that's my level of recolection.

But all relativity aside,  if we clock a ray of nutrinos passing two locations, and the "flashes" or detection events from the two locations come in closer in time then   d/c,  where 'd' is the distance between the two locations,  and 'c' is the speed of light,   than I would think we can say with a certain amount of certainty that something traveled faster then light.     It's like seeing a shooting star flash across the sky,  and if you know how far it is away from you,  and you measure the arc you see and the time that it traverses that arc, you can say with certainty what velocity it has.    Anyway,  just brainstorming here ...

EM
   
Group: Guest
...
 if I accelerate a particle in one direction to 0.8 x c,  or just close to the speed of light,  and then I accelerate another one going in the other direction at 0.8 c,   the particles are moving away from each other at 1.6 times the speed of light, is that not true?
...

It is false. Instead of relative addition of velocities, you are applying newtonian addition which has been proved false by a considerable amount of experiments confirming Einstein's relativity.
And even if you applied special relativity to the addition of velocities, it would be false in this case because there is no inertial frame of reference that can be attached to the photon. A photon has no "viewpoint" about the speed of others, it is blind, its proper time is null.
The best you can do is to suppose particles moving away from each other at "near the speed of light", as near as you want (viewed from your own referential). Then you apply Lorentz transforms and you see that each particle sees also the other at near the speed of light, not at 1.6*c. This is confirmed by many experiments, for instance by the deviation of beam of electrons at relativistic speeds.

There is neither absolute speed nor absolute time. It defies common sense but not logic, and if we want build operational machines, we must follow the experimental results rather than our psychological feel of the environment.

   
Pages: 1 ... 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 2024-11-27, 22:51:46