What's wrong with my replication, other than the MOSFET, and why should that make a difference, since the problem I identified has nothing to do with the mosfet?

And the circuit under discussion is fully specified in the Quantum article. All component values are provided there.

Oh, I know what's wrong with my replication: I didn't get the results you wanted. Sorry--take that up with whoever put the "wrong" circuit diagram into Rosemary's paper.

Absolutely nothing is wrong with your replication. Please do not take such comments personally. You have identified an inaccuracy in the material provided. Please realize, such progress was not made in a vacuum. Mrs. Ainsley did not come to this circuit on the first run through, the same "101" mistake has not been made by....(and here goes the geneology)...Tesla, Bob Teal, John Bedini, Peter Lindemann, and many others.

Please take a step back from the replication. Understand what it is she is trying to accomplish. How would you solve it knowing what you know?

Fact is there are more aspects to be considered, Dr Stiffler has identified one that is very obvious, yet has profound implications, and missed by most, (change in ohmic resistance due to heating), there are others. This cannot be solved trying to mimic another persons work, unless you know what they are getting at, otherwise you would be crying foul at alot more than just the duty cycle!

For instance, say you have your inductive charge from a source at 12v , it relaxes, charging the capacitor to 120v. This will raise the inductive state in the next switch open to the 12 v point very quickly, but after this, the battery is just spending charge with no more inductive rise. This means that in order to get the max out of the cycle, you would need to change the duty cycle, to where it reaches 12 MAX, then cuts off. In other words, you have the wrong cap chosen. I spoke with an knowledgeable person the other day, who knew Mr Bedini, The same problem is plaguing many would be OU motor builders for years and years. What does work here? Voltage? Amperage?

I will put my 2 penny worth in here on this arguement. I think you are both right in each others sence. As I pointed out before, the goal posts move:- one is the resistance changes as the thing heats up and two the mosfet does make a difference and three the component set up also makes a difference. Now I have experimented with this, not the exact circuit as she showed but as I showed in an earlier post I set up a tracking circuit. What did I find is this, when the circuit is tuned perfectly I had a 50% duty cycle which is to be expected but by off tuning the pickup coil I could get this down to 1% or less. Now when this is tuned down to around 4% on cycle I found that the cap was discharging into the coil and giving high amps as can be expected. I was using a 120mf 400v photo cap. Now doing this I created the low duty cycle, not the mosfet, but my idea was to see if there was a benifit in a faster temp rise of the heating coil. My results showed NO, it was the same, so on her results something else must have been happening. All I have done is exclude one avenue.

Mike

@Michael John Nunnerley

Forgive me for seeming lazy, but for reasons I do not want to touch here I can't go back in the thread to be sure, but didn't you state that you did some temperature measurement in a calorimeter? I may have you confused with someone else, I also seem to recall mention of a heat transfer fluid from someone.

Here is what its all about. I have searched for many years for the right calorimeter and it seems there is not one, at least an item that is advertised and not a special in house unit. My problem with SEC and this circuit is that it is difficult (near impossible) to take into account total heat, the mosfet in this circuit and the transistor in SEC all release heat and have a significant heat gradient. One does not want the drivers enclosed in a chamber where you have a high buildup (dynamics change so much), what is needed is a way to measure the load and the driver in separate chambers and in the case of the driver move the heat out reducing build while measuring the transfer. This would involve a unique calorimeter which I have not yet locate.

I assume such a device would run in the 10's of k$ if it does exist.

If I got it wrong and it was not you, maybe the right person will respond.

Yes there is a way and not too complicated. If you want, so as to not take up space here, give me an e-mail address in my box here so as I can explain with a diagram.

Mike

@Michael John Nunnerley

You should have the address as a local PM

Perhaps you can measure by putting your circuit into a hermetically sealed chamber (glass jug over circuit on a rubber mat) with an accurate thermometer inside and calculate it off the change.

Hello everyone. Am delighted to be made a member of the energetic forum and blown away at the interest in our circuit. I've joined in the hopes that I can answer questions. For those that have replicated the test, many, many thanks indeed. And for those that are having problems duplicating results - hopefully we'll get to the root cause. Meanwhile, just to let you known, I live in Africa. So for all American posters, I'm probably seven hours out of synch and it may take a day before I can get back to you on any particular question.

Yet again, lots of thanks. It is wonderful to be part of such an extraordinary group of open minded people. You have no idea how rare you are - or maybe you do. For me it's an entirely new experience to see such ready acceptance of some really challenging concepts. I've been out there for some time now trying to promote these ideas and it's been bruising. Am pleased to report, however, that I think we're slowly winning acceptance.

What a pleasure.
Kindest regards
Rosemary Ainslie

Welcome,

Rosemary,

Thanks for jumping through all the hoops to join the forum. So many people are trying to join the Forum these days that the moderators are overwhelmed just disapproving people.

I know there are some folks here who are eager to have a discussion with you about your discoveries. I'm really glad you are here, now.

Peter

@ShamanSaid
Thank you for the information.

As far as measuring a device that can stand and not change specific parameters from heat build up I have many different sizes and styles of calorimeters, although one does not want the solid states to get to hot as they do indeed change operational points. Ideally a fluid heat sink that could wrap around components and carry off the heat while doing a quantitative measurement is where I am at a loss.

If one can see a CEC>1 from the specified radiator then it can only be better if the 'Total' heat for the entire circuit is known.

Thanks again for the suggestion.

@witsend
Happy to see you are with us and I hope the 'Moderators' will patrol the thread closely so that you are not bruised here. There are many interested professionals waiting to replicate and substantiate your very interesting circuit.

Hello Rosemary and thank you for communicating.
As you probably know by now I have put together what I consider to be a fairly accurate build of the circuit published in the Quantum article, and which is described in lesser detail in the EIT pdf paper.
I haven't been able to get the correct IRFPG50 MOSFET that you used, so I have been using primarily a 2SK1548 which has similar parameters. I have also tried 3 other MOSFETS in the circuit with substantially similar results--except that the IRFP450, like the IRFPG50, has considerably longer turn-off time than the others. This has implications when considered together with my main finding below.
My adventures are detailed in a couple of videos on YouTube, that have been linked earlier in this thread. I have since done some more work, hardwiring (instead of breadboarding) the 555 timer portion of the circuit, and also I have obtained a Fluke 199 ScopeMeter to compare its behaviour with that of my 2 analog oscilloscopes on your circuit.

In brief, I found that the circuit published in the Quantum article does indeed produce heating of the load--but there is a problem.

In my build of the circuit, the duty cycle is in the range of 3.7 percent OFF, not 3.7 percent ON as you state in the article and paper. That is, with the oscilloscope hooked up as per your diagrams, the voltage at the load goes HIGH 3.7 percent of the time---which means the MOSFET is OFF and the load is not conducting current for 3.7 percent of the time. The Fluke 199 scopemeter reports this as an ON duty cycle because the voltage is high. But in actuality the MOSFET is OFF so there's no current through the load.
So the gist of the matter is that the circuit as published actually turns the MOSFET ON 96.3 percent of the time.

When the circuit is driven by a function generator making a true 3.7 percent ON duty cycle, there is no heating of the load evident.

There are also some problems specific to the Fluke 199 ScopeMeter that I noticed. First, at really short (or long) duty cycles, triggering is not as precise as I would like; the unit does not report frequency or duty cycle accurately below about 5 percent or above about 95 percent, at least at 2.4 kHz. (Yes, my unit is in calibration.) Second, it is sensitive to the high-frequency inductive ringdown at the end (or beginning, depending on duty cycle) of the pulses, and can falsely trigger on these pulses.

Now, some have said that the diagram in the article is in error. So that's the question from me: Is the circuit diagram as published in the Quantum article in error? If so, what is the correct circuit used? If not, well...that has further implications.

Thanks--
--TK

TinselKoala - I viewed your Utube on our circuit. It was interesting but my first point is that the waveform on both the first and the second are nothing like our own. It did not go into resonance and it is nowhere near as complex as the one's we generate across the load. Something between your circuit and ours is out of synch.

I'm so sorry I can't get a picture of our waveform. I'll ask my co-author if he can perhaps organise something but suspect that it will take a little time. Michael John Nunnerley was bang on in pointing out that we were probably using a resonating frequency. Indeed we are. We sweep the duty cycle until it first goes into oscillation. That is the point that we usually get the best results. The waveform is not periodic - which makes for some tricky calculations of power - hence the need for that Fluke scopemeter and for those calorimetric values.

The other thing I did not see was the diode return to the positive teminal of the battery? I presume this was included? But I have a real problem in watching the battery voltage collapse on the second video. The load is light - and with the best will in the world, even with a 90% on duty cycle, I cannot understand how a fully charged 24 volt lead acid battery can deplete within the first 10 minutes of running. Were you using a flat battery? Certainly one would expect that it's capacity would enable a current flow of a resistor at 10 ohms (was it?) - therefore not more than 2.4 amps for longer than 10 or even twenty minutes even without any applied switching cycle. I also noticed at one stage that the battery seemed to lose it's voltage entirely - then go into a negative voltage value and then spring back to 24 volts. I can only say that such is really strange and in the years that I've been testing our circuit have never seen the like. I am reasonably certain that your battery was nearly flat or that its rated capacity may be somewhat questionable.

I am also concerned that you used a different mosfet. Not that it needs to be identical to the one that we used - but I am just not sure of the properties of the one that you used.

Regarding the 555 switch as opposed to the function's generator. There really should be no real difference between the two. However it is easier to adjust the 555 switch to enable that resonance which is both the object of the circuit and the main object of the thesis. Why you are not able to get the circuit into oscillation I do not know. Perhaps you must vary the frequency better. Incidentally I could not make out the frequency you applied on that demo.

The niceties regarding the actual published switch and the one that you built - here I cannot comment. What I do know is that if the switch is set at 5% on and the load shows 5% on then it cannot default to 90% on. It is that simple. I could not make out the positioning of the probes in relation to the load resistor. Again. Your questions seem earnest - but your references not so easily detected on that video.

In any event, the other problem I have is with the value of that spike which your referenced in the second video - I think it was. Our spike is generally far higher, upwards on 120v but is largely dependant on the applied duty cycle. In any event the amount of energy in the on cycle is always marginally more than the amount delivered by the spike. The value to the energy gain is in that this energy is repeatedly returned to the battery and to the load. This can be seen if you use 2 x 12 volt batteries as we did. If you run the test on the one battery and connect the second to the first with a common negative rail - then feed the diode to the positive of the second battery, you will see an immediate recharge to that second battery. That test was done to prove that the returning energy does, in fact recharge the energy source.

So it is that we justify the value of the energy delivered by the battery as the sum of the on and off cycles. The energy dissipated is the product of both cycles. Therefore is there a gain. And at this fast resonating frequency the gain is really substantial.

I do hope this addresses those points that you repeatedly refer to through these threads.

Incidentally, TinselKoala - there's another point. We actually ran our tests with a control. The reason the published article and the paper deal with a test period of 10. something hours is because that is how long it takes the control battery to deplete its energy. For some reason, both in the quantum article and the paper I was specifically advised that any reference to battery duration was essentially irrelevant. Apparently battery draw down rates are subject to too many vagaries?

In any event, the actual draw down rate of the tested batteries is consistent with the energy measured to be delivered by the battery as the difference between the energy measured and calculated from the two cycles of each waveform being above and below zero. At the end of that test period the test batteries are more or less the same as at the start of the test period. The control is entirely flat.

We then recharged both battery sets (always used typical 12 volt car batteries) and swapped the control with the test. Variations of this was called for by BP to enable their accreditation of the tests. It was exhaustive and painfully repetitive.

Thanks for the reply, Rosemary.
Without going into the further points you made, let's just get back to the issue of the circuit in the Quantum article and what kind of duty cycle it generates.
For some reason, I seem to be the only one who has been willing to build the 555 portion of that circuit for testing. Could you, or your colleague, please confirm that the circuit shown in the Quantum article was, or was not, used to do the experiment described?

If it wasn't, what was the correct circuit?
If it was, what about the duty cycle?

Thanks very much.
--TK

(Edit: in the photos accompanying the Quantum article, it looks as though a regulated power supply is being used...and most automotive batteries in this hemisphere are rated hundreds of amp-hours, and the Quantum article and the EIT paper gives the battery capacities as 20 A-h....???)

(Edit 2: Here's a clear picture. See the diode? 1n4007, as specified. I also have tried some fast recovery diodes in this position.)

Attached Images

ainslie_2.jpg (113.1 KB, 30 views)

Rosemary
Thank you for taking the time to respond here ,You are in the midst of folks of like mind [and much talent]
I am quite jealous you are from Africa [the birthplace of humanity]
Perhaps you bring another birth to this planet[knowledge]

Chet

Thx to Peter and the energetic forum for brilliant researchers, thankfully Rose didn't have OU.com to deal with.

Thanks Rose for coming in here, Peter and the group here are avid passionate individuals and NON PROFIT , we all need to work together to help get your info out to humanity, you are in good hands here thanks for taking a role in the energetic forum

Sincerely with all my love
Ash

Guys, yet again - many, many thanks for the warm welcome. Peter, Aaron, Dr Stiffler, Ramset and Ash, all of you - so kind. I feel exceptionally privileged to be a part of such extraordinary talent.

I wonder if you all know what's out there? It's frightening. I think we're seeing scientific bigotry in a kind of life or death struggle. It doesn't help that we've also tossed the unity barrier into the dark ages. But replication and proof are the required steps and that's where your patience comes in. Science is progressed by experimental evidence. And theory must then give way to fact. Those two phrases have become my motto in a way. When I reference them I know I'm back to a sure footing.

I'm not sure if you are aware of it - but I'm a rank amateur. I really need to own up to this because you'll be expecting a level of technical expertise that I simply do not have. Circuit switches need to be built by others. The only aspect of testing that I'm confident with is the actual power measurements and then only as they relate to this modest little circuit. But - if I have a contribution - it's in that model, which is the thesis in support of that gain. In any event I wont bore you with the details. But if and where I state the obvious - it's only because I hardly know enough to see whether it's obvious or not. So. Please bear with me.

In effect, all we are trying to do is to generate back electromotive force. This can be done - obviously - in far better ways that is determined by the circuit. But the question out there has always been - how much energy is first required from the supply source to be stored and then used - anywhere at all, on any circuit? Well this is where the use of an inductive resistive load goes to the throat, the gullet, so to speak, of the question. You will notice that the actual voltage across the resistor always conforms to Ohms law. By this I mean to say that if you take the value of the applied voltage from the battery divided by the resistive load and times percentage of the duty cycle 'on' time - then that voltage never exceeds Mr Ohm's requirements and the wattage dissipated at the load is consistent with that sum. In other words, there is no EXTRA energy delivered by the battery during that 'on' period.

Then the switch closes and the battery can no longer deliver energy. Yet, during this 'off' period - and as required by Inductive Laws, the voltage over the resistor collapses first to zero and then through zero and then manifests as a reverse voltage spike that far exceeds the level of the applied voltage from the source. In point of fact, our measurements have always shown that if you do a v^2 / r analysis of this part of the cycle, the actual amount of energy generated during this 'off' cycle invariably equals the amount of energy first applied during the 'on' cycle but always less some small fraction which relates to the voltage drop across the diodes and sundry small losses in other circuit components.

In effect the cost of that 'spike' was zero - or it did not cost the battery any more energy. So we may conclude. While the 'on' cycle was courtesy the energy from the battery - the 'off' cycle was entirely thanks to and courtesy of the inductive components of the resistor itself. I think this fact was pointed out by Armagdn03? Not sure. I know I read it somewhere in this thread. Well - whoever - that's spot on. And therein lies the question?

So. The next question is what does one do with that spike? I'm sure that Peter and others who have studied this effect at far greater depth than myself - can answer this better than I can. But my solution to prove its value was simply to maintain the circuit integrity during this 'off' period by the path established through the intrinsic diode in the MOSFET. And then ensure that the current resulting from these collapsing fields - gets returned to the battery. That - in a nutshell - is the whole of the thesis. And as I mentioned in the previous post to TinselKoala - the cost of current flow from the battery is then almost entirely compensated by the amount of energy returned to the battery through that diode.

In effect we're using classical measurement protocol related to the delivery of energy to prove that we can give this energy back - almost, but not entirely, in tact.

I'll deal with other aspects of this in the next post as I really do not want to make this too long and too confusing.

TinselKoala - thanks for showing the diode. I'm intrigued. Are you trying to point to a fault the circuit in the quatum article or are you trying to get the switch to work? If the former then what is your point? Are you claiming that the results were erroneous based on the fact that we cannot tell a 5% on duty cycle from a 90% on. I'm doing my level best to ignore the implied if not expressed insult to my own intelligence. But to assume such extraordinarly lack of observational integrity on the part of many, many skilled accreditors is so insulting as to be actionable.

I do not have a copy of that switching circuit - and if I did I would not be able to comment. But it is substantially irrelevant. Personally I think that your probe positioning across the circuit is such that the waveform would inevitably show a reversal as it relates to zero. But what actually concerns me is that you then imply a relationship of the draw down rate of the battery by indicating that it drops so dramatically. This is, self-evidently, nonsense. Even at 90% ON the battery could not be delivering much above 2 amp. As mentioned - if your battery was charged - then that voltage drop is entirely unrealistic in any context at all.

If your actual object is to disprove the circuit claim then I'm wholeheartedly in favour of it. But the following parameters would then be required. Your battery must at least be fully charged. Your probe - as it relates to zero must be clearly defined. The frequency at which you run the switch must approximate our own. Your measurements of actual energy delivered must relate to the sum of both the on and off periods of each duty cycle regardless of their settings. And your measure of the energy dissipated can be done on any basis at all - but it is best established as it relates to change in temperature. You will then find that there is invariably a gain meaning that the amount of energy delivered by the battery supply source will be less than the amount of energy dissipated at the load.

And if you run the switch at an oscillating or resonating frequency then that gain will be exponential.

I recall some comment made by you that the members of this forum need not be concerned as you have no intention of being an 'evil sceptic' I think was your term. I am not entirely re-assured the more so as is implied by these extraordinary concerns of yours. What actually worries me is that there is no apparent earnest requirement to study the actual effects of that counter electromotive force? Instead of looking at the effects you seem hell bent on pointing out a possible error in the switch. And I strongly object to your claim that you are the only one who has built that switch. I can refer you to many - and many of those referenced are experts in the art.

I would add that if, indeed I was running the experiment at a 90% on then the gain is still evident. The difference would only be in the amount of amount of counter electromotive force which is then far, far greater. There is always a benefit. Why has this eluded you?

Guys - in order to prove the claim I also need to refer to the model's definition of current. But this would hardly be appropriate without some reference to known definitions of current flow. If I may I'm starting with a definition of current flow as per wiki's definition. It's so full of holes its laughable. I'll then follow up with a more classicallly accepted defnition. All I'm trying to point to is that current flow may not, in fact be the flow of electrons. At this stage I'm not referring to an alternative. If the tenor of this post is offensive then let me apologise in advance. But there is a real need to show those points that classical physics has not, in fact, addressed.

'Wiki definition of current flow requires 'free floating electrons'. Given that these electrons that come from - somewhere? - also somehow 'attach' to a wire or any such conductive circuit components then can someone please explain this scenario. Take your average lead acid battery as a DC power supply. If these electrons 'travel' where do they go once they've reached the opposite terminal? Through the battery courtesy the 'pump action' provided by the battery?

Now Wiki explains that batteries, fortunately, have 'free floating protons'. This gets ever more interesting. Where do these 'free floating protons come from? Then. The electrons presumably need to travel through the battery. Presumably also they do this by attaching to the protons, somehow? But, if the electrons attach to the protons during their journey through the battery - then we get simple hydrogen atoms. The battery would then, theoretically, become a repository of pure hydrogen or subtle variations of this, each state - deuterium - tritium - becoming progressively more explosive than the last.

If the quantum of electrons on the wire or in the circuitry, exceeds the number of free floating protons - then we have a problem with that 'cluster' of electrons that cannot get past the terminal.

If by some happy accident the number of 'free floating' electrons precisely equals the number of 'free floating' protons then 'attachment' would result not in a reduction in potential difference but in an increase. This is because hydrogen - apart from being highly combustible in any condition - is also a negatively ionised atom. Therefore one would think that the increased ionisation would also result in an increase in the potential difference measured across the battery. It would not result in a decrease. What then accounts for the decrease is the actual measured result of current flow?

If, on the other hand - given that these innate logical contradictions were somehow answered by some force not yet incorporated in conventional explanations of current flow - but yet requires the flow of electrons - then the speed at which the electrons again 'detach' from the structure of those protons - would in no way equal the rate at which current is measured to flow through circuitry.

Then, assuming that the potential difference is reduced, notwithstanding the increase to potential difference courtesy the ionised state of these hydrogen atoms, and over time the battery indeed becomes flat - we recharge it - how? By adding more 'free floating electrons' or 'free floating protons / or possibly both?

So I put it to you that the 'flow of electrons' is logically inconsistent with the known properties of current flow. Here's the thing. The 'flow of electrons' was proposed as an enabling image - never a fact. That it then became incorporated into classical definition as 'a fact' is a sad reflection on the reluctance of scientists to grapple with contradictory evidence. Rather do they just accept all such explanations, the more obtuse the explanation, the more likely it is to be accepted. It hearkens to the story of the king's invisible cloak. At some point someone must point out the obvious.'

Guys, I copied this from a thread that I started on the Naked Scientist Forum under 'a circuit that produces overunity' - I think it's titled. In the event that any of you want to look it up it's posted under the name Witsend. In any event, this is relevant to point at questions that relate to energy - on a broader basis than the wiki definition. I promise you I won't need to refer to current flow after this except to suggest that it is - in fact - magnetic fields, as proposed in the paper that I submitted to the IET.

Thanks for your patience. I just need to get this on record.

"I cannot understand the existing model because it makes no sense. Let me point out a little known truth. Nobody knows what energy is. It is known to be sourced from four forces, some say three. These are gravity, the strong and weak nuclear force and the electromagnetic force. Some people ascribe the weak nuclear force to the electromagnetic force. The miracle of our physicicts is that, notwithstanding this lack of knowledge, they are able to use and apply their knowledge of these forces with breathtaking and impeccable accuracy. That is the truly amazing.

But notwithstanding this no-one actually knows what energy is. The fact that current flow is ascribed to the flow of electrons is still a question that is actually also still out there. If it flows as a current - like a stream of something - then it flatly contradicts Pauli's exclusion principle. And Dyson emphatically states that it is not the flow of electrons. So does Gary Zukov in his book - the dancing wu li masters. If it is not a 'flow' but rather the interaction of 'clouds' of valence electrons with sundry ions in various structures and amalgams, then what is added to a battery when it's flat and needs to be recharged? It can't be electrons because electrons are widely considered to be stable particles, and not able to decay. So whatever property is re-introduced to the battery during the recharge process, cannot be more electrons else your average battery would eventually be chockablock full of a surplus of electrons. Nor are electrons simply able to change their charge or indeed any of their properties.

However, there is a possibility that one electron can decay into two photons in certain unstable atoms. And therefore it can be argued that electrons decay at the various work stations as photons. This is because photons are known and measured to be dissipated at resistive loads. This would be consistent with measured evidence. But an extension of this argument then requires that your average generator would need to also generate an inexhaustible supply of spare electrons in order to account for the amount of heat dissipated at your average household and the vast number of such houses connected to your average supply grid. This is somewhat unlikely. And even if this were managed, the question remains. Where do these spare electrons come from? And so it goes. Wiki explanation of current flow is so full of holes it's almost comical. Whatever comprises a current flow is defintely not consistent with classical theories of this.

What I am daring to point to is that the entire field of quantum electromagnetic dynamics is not entirely consistent. That it is the single most extraordinary field of endeavour with - among all branches of phyics - the most consistent and effective reach in its applications - does not also put it beyond the reach of further questioning and analysis. Yet there are those in the field of physics and engineering who are offended at any questions applied to its fundamentals. They say it is a complete theory. "

Welcome Rose to the forum, I hope we will not give you a rough time here. I am in Spain so a little closer than most and our time difference is little depending where you are exactly, maybe we could talk on skype if we need to.

Mike

Rosemary, welcome to this forum.
Your presence here was greatly needed.
I enjoy and admire what you write, and you seem to know much more than you care to admit. Looking forward to your contibutions.

Would you care to explain more in detail the complex waveform (and irregular frequency) that you have been able to acheive, and the probable reasons that produced these effects. Have you been able to take photos of the oscilloscope waveforms during the tests ? Did any part of your circuit ran at lower than usual temperatures ?

I'm aware of what (who) we really are against in this quest for our freedom, and believe we're close to our new beginning.

Cheers-

7) Regardless of whether the error is in the diagram itself or in the duty cycle used in the experiment, the paper is wrong and should be corrected, if the diagram is at fault, or retracted, if the duty cycle (as I believe) is at fault. TinselKoala

I've read through the thread again. You refer to the quantum article as a paper. This is incorrect. The quantum article is just that - an article. The paper, sumitted to the IET, deliberately omits any design of the 555 switching device as this need only be standard type. But whether it is right or wrong - is substantially irrelevant. We claim benefit at all duty cycles provided that counter electromotive force is returned to the battery.

But I see that no-one on this thread, and thus far, has managed to get the waveform into oscillation as per the paper. It's really not a problem. If you are getting a periodic waveform then your results will be more dependable than ours and you can do the power analysis directly off the resistor. No need to check the rate of temperature rise. The only requirement then is to run the switch at a reasonably fast frequency.

All that is then needed is to do the analysis of the power delivered by the battery. If you take measurements across your shunt as being a reasonable measure of the current flow then: The power delivered by the battery is the sum of, or in fact, THE DIFFERENCE between the positive and negative cycles of each switching cycle. This is based on the assumption that current flow is returned to the battery during the off period of that cycle. The power dissipated at the load is a product of both cycles. Self-evidently the sum, or difference will be less than the product.

And if this last point is in doubt - then disconnect one of the two 12 volt batteries - link the two at the positive terminals only - then take the diode directly to the second battery. It immediately recharges. Yet the voltage across the resistor does not change at all. This means that the power does indeed dissipate at the resistor that also generated that second cycle of current flow - and the same current also recharges the battery.

I wonder if the problem is that everyone is stuck on trying to get an exact replication of the test results. Just do the power analysis where you can get your best results. I am entirely confident that the sum of the two switching cycles will always be less than the product of the energy dissipated at the load. You're all probably already generating the required overunity result but without the oscillating frequency. There is then the possibility that the overunity result is not that extreme. But it should still be at overunity and from memory on periodic waveforms I believe that measure will be upwards of 100%.

And by the way, TinselKoala - a 90% on duty cycle would generate fantastic gains. It's just that it would also stress the intrinsic diode in the MOSFET. Unless the FET that you use has an intrinsic diode with a tolerance in excess of 2000 odd volts - it would blow at a 90% duty cyle from a 24 volt battery supply source. Therefore do I wonder how you managed to run the test at a 90% ON.

We have found that we need to limit the amount of energy precisely to accommodate that body diode. Else I'd be able to apply the system to my geyser - at home. This is the flaw in the system. We cannot get a diode with the required strength to carry household power levels. So any application at this stage can only be for small uses.

And, as a final point - if you can develop those uses - feel free. There are no requirements to pay royalties on patents. There is nothing that I'd love more than to hear that the system is in use. I believe that it is - in a small way. My co-author has just wired up a house here which uses the system as a backup charge system. But it's potentials are far, far greater. And I'm sure that with the talent on this forum you'll all find the potential uses. Or just persuade the mosfet manufacturers to increase the fet tolerances. Then the uses will indeed be far ranging.

Altair and Mike - many thanks for the greeting. It is just so, so, much my pleasure.

Delighted to see we're more or less in the same timeframe Mike. I'm not connected to Skype - but will ask my son to see what he can do. He lives thousands of miles away and I only see him infrequently. I promise to attend to this when he gets here because I've heard that the system is fantastic.

And Altair, you ask me about the waveform. I'm going to see if my Co-author can get the time to do this. But he's usually way too busy. And my own knowledge around these computer systems is way too suspect. I'm still congratulating myself that I can even post on these threads. A major learning curve.

Just know that its not periodic. In fact ours is quite complex. But it's definitely a resonating frequency and as has been pointed out in this thread - can't remember by whom - such resonance is known to get pretty energetic. But note too that this super fast number is not required to prove overunity. You should get it at just about every possible frequency. Which is why I cannot understand that it has not been spotted before. I'd love someone to give an answer to this. Perhaps the typical shunt applications simply 'threw away' that benefit in heat sinks? Just don't know the answer

Tinselkoala, the reason you get 10 members wanting to debate your disproving of the "Rose-Mary" circuit is maybe because they wish to prolong the debate instead of replicating the circuit? Peter has had many months to replicate this simple circuit but prefers talking, what is he actually DOING?

I suggest we all wait for his real results.

Has anyone ever seen "Rose-Mary", which education does she have, what is her office address, company name etc? Let´s get a member in SA checking her out. Best way to get an answer.

- can you explain what is the role of this diode from your point of view?

or probably in another setup the secondary battery could be placed just “after” the diode D1, between the diode D1 and the positive primary battery terminal – but then like in Bedini system the batteries would be connected “plus to minus”.

- sure , all we have relatively high voltage spike from the collapsing field – but what is its energy? I have high spikes in my setup as well – no problem in replicating this thing so far – but the main problem is with Amperes In my setups the higher the voltage of the collapsing field – the less amperage, tenaciously...

***
- take a closer look on what is happening on battery electrodes – on one electrode there are negatively charged ions turning into electrically neutral salt (plus some free electrons ripped of from negative ions as a byproduct) and on the other electrode at the some time positively charged ions (which are lacking electrons because of dissociation) pick up electrons coming from the other side of the circuit and turn into solid state, electrically neutral salt as well. There is no problem of “too many electrons” in the battery. Battery is just “pumping” electrons through the circuit from one electrode to another, electrons stay trapped there due to electrochemical reaction - and the quantity of electrons in a battery all the time stays the same. I don’ see any problem, nor contradiction here.

So charging a battery is “pushing electrons” indeed – but just to one electrode – and at the same time in the full context you take the same amount of electrons from the other electrode.

However, there are some phenomenon which are difficult to fully explain – for example there is widely used electrochemical phenomenon which name I don’t know in English - but translating directly from my language it would be “electrochemical key”. It is an ionic connection which connects other electrochemical components together. For example it can be connection between two “half-cells” of a battery of some sort. According of what I have heard some properties of how this simple thing works are not easily explainable by "our" theories. Another thing is that science doesn’t fully understand all the phenomena in common thunders and probably few other things. This give me littlie hope that there may be some territories of science which are not fully explored and understood.

(P.S. I use term “salt” in wide chemical meaning as a chemical product of any acid and any base).

Gauss - and which education does you has? if you'll forgive the appalling grammer. Are you entitled to menace contributors to this forum? I would be most anxious to keep my addresses away from you under ALL circumstances. You appear to have a malice that has nothing to do with the interests and intentions of this forum. How dare you recommend that you get my address.

By the way - why are you not doing your own experiments? Why do you need Tinselkoala's analysis or, for that matter Peter's. Without a scientific training of some sort - I would closely question the degree of interest that you show in this subject. And IF on the other hand, you do have that scientific knowledge why not do your own test? I can promise you a result that will fly in the face of classical prediction on an entirely repeatable basis - with or without a resonating frequency.

I believe there are many more than 10 members who refute Tinselkoala's analysis of the circuit. It's positively ridiculous to claim a 90% ON from a 24 volt battery supply source and a standard MOSFET to tolerate those voltages. Certainly I have never managed it and I've tested the circuit over a 4 year period.

So to my question. Why such avid interest - and why the menace? To me it seems that there is an agenda here that has nothing to do with good scientific research. The real question is what is that agenda?

@Gauss
Quote:
"Tinselkoala, the reason you get 10 members wanting to debate your disproving of the "Rose-Mary" circuit is maybe because they wish to prolong the debate instead of replicating the circuit? Peter has had many months to replicate this simple circuit but prefers talking, what is he actually DOING?
I suggest we all wait for his real results.
Has anyone ever seen "Rose-Mary", which education does she have, what is her office address, company name etc? Let´s get a member in SA checking her out. Best way to get an answer."

No, I think we wish to debate TK's circuit because it has no premise for showing a gain, it is inaccurate and misleading. As far as "checking out" rosemary goes I see no need, anyone skilled in the art would know she has a firm grasp of what she is doing based on the last few posts made. As well the last time I checked a persons education has little bearing on their ability to evolve their understanding of things or to innovate. Are you aware that over 80% of all patents that have benefited mankind the most were submitted by persons who had no technical training in their field of expertise, that should tell you something regarding a formal education.


@witsend
Hello Rosemary, it is nice to hear a voice of reason here, the critics were starting to sound like a broken record,lol. Im not sure if you have noticed but you are the first person in this thread to actually discuss indepth "why" or "how" your circuit could produce a gain. It seems most are completely preoccupied with circuit components and have chosen to ignore where or how any gains may occur in your circuit. I find this more than a little odd, my question to them would be--how can you build something you obviously do not understand? Understanding must come first, you must have a premise to build on. In any case, from your lasts posts I am sure you will be able to show them the error in their ways, keep up the good work.

P.S.---regarding what you refered to as a "menace", their agenda is to confuse the issues and the topic at hand, we generally just ignore their nonsensical banter as most often it is like trying to reason with a two year old.
Regards
AC