Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011  (Read 670067 times)

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1485 on: June 18, 2011, 06:41:04 PM »
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

Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1486 on: June 18, 2011, 08:14:22 PM »
Heat pump analogy is absurd. No moving parts with rosemary's device, purely electrical/ heat. she should simply loop it.
it most certainly is NOT absurd...  ::) and your 'no moving parts' argument is wholly irrelevant... ::)
simply use the oh so well worn "black box" scenario that is pimped so often by your type...
ie: the heatpump is in a "black box".. measure input and output.
rosemary's apparatus is in a "black box".. measure input and output. 

now, if you can loop rosemary's device as you claim because it's COP is > than 1 (or whatever arbitrary number you deem viable) then a heatpump should be able to be looped as well.



from poynt's pdf.
Quote
In terms of convincing a physics professor or EE, indeed the math speaks for itself, and if they believe in math, they will see it clearly.

"Take the division 64/16. Now, canceling a 6 on top and a six on the bottom, we get that 64/16 = 4/1 = 4."
"Wait a second! You can't just cancel the six!"
"Oh, so you're telling us 64/16 is not equal to 4, are you?"

math is not infallible... ::) nor is it immune to misuse.

Offline MrMag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 754
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1487 on: June 19, 2011, 12:50:27 AM »
And it has to be constantly monitored. There could be a fire, etc.  Its not a flashlight were talking about here. ;]

Most probably think you can just check in every week for 6 months, no trouble at all.  sheesh.  ;]

Hows it going Rose?  Just keep on keepin on.  ;]

Mags

The only reason she won't do it is that I really think she knows that the batteries will drain down. It does not need to be constantly monitored, by a person anyways. It can be done very cheaply. Stick it outside in a broken down fridge. Place an IP camera inside to monitor it. Can probably be done for under $200.00. sheesh.

I was looking for Rose's blog and came across this one. Not sure if you've seen it or not Rose http://rosemaryainslie-publicblog.blogspot.com/ . Can you please post your blog address.

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1489 on: June 19, 2011, 07:16:05 AM »
The only reason she won't do it is that I really think she knows that the batteries will drain down. It does not need to be constantly monitored, by a person anyways. It can be done very cheaply. Stick it outside in a broken down fridge. Place an IP camera inside to monitor it. Can probably be done for under $200.00. sheesh.

I was looking for Rose's blog and came across this one. Not sure if you've seen it or not Rose http://rosemaryainslie-publicblog.blogspot.com/ . Can you please post your blog address.

Hello again MrMag.  Another BRILLIANT suggestion.  That way when everything goes up in smoke then I can buy another IP camera and all the parts required to assemble another test apparatus.  And then I can replace the scope probes - and probably the scope itself - for a mere R100 000.00 or thereby - which, in dollars, is roughly $14 000.00.  No problem at all.  I have NO IDEA why such a logical solution didn't occur to me.  Golly.  And if I do this then I'll advance the very real benefit of satisfying your idle curiosity.  I say idle because you either do not have the skills or the interest to test this all for yourself. 

That blog that you took the trouble to advertise is the one that I mentioned in my earlier gripe.  It was the comment that you dismissed ENTIRELY because your own search skills left you unable to find the evidence on OUR.com.  Let me repost it lest you missed this as well. 

Are you serious?  Do you really propose that it's me trying to discredit Poynt.99? That's got to be a joke.  Here's a man who has actively encouraged and advanced whole THREADS on his forum to his members to let rip on my reputation.  NO HOLDS BARRED.  On record is a solemn undertaking not to moderate anything at all.  To this day they hold record of post after post after post where I am accused of FRAUD - LUNACY - DUPLICITY - DELUSIONAL CONFUSIONS - IDIOCY.  Actually that last was qualified. Apparently it's presumptuous to even consider myself an IDIOT.  I'm in fact - MORONIC.  He has gone on record to say that he will DEBUNK our claim and has advised all and sundry that I have ABSOLUTELY NO KNOWLEDGE OF ANYTHING SCIENTIFIC.  He has written spiteful emails to me to tell me that it's laughably absurd for me to comment on anything at all - least of all matters scientific.  He has INVITED people to join his forums for the sole purpose of - let me emphasise this - with NO OTHER AGENDA THAN TO DISCREDIT ME IN ANY WAY THEY SEE FIT.  And while all this was going on he BLOCKED MY VIEW OF THESE COMMENTS through the simple expediency of accessing my IP ADDRESS.  And if you think - like he claims - that I am LYING - then I suggest you take a stroll there and look at this for yourself.  Nor does it end there.  He contributed to and actively supported a BLOGSPOT dedicated to maligning my reputation.  He has allowed publication and links to private videos that I rather recklessly trusted to certain replicators who then attempted to claim our technology as their PERSONAL DISCOVERY.   And if you want proof of all that - then it's also all there.  Loud and clear and unambiguous.  Not only that - but this is the REAL JOKE.  All those members ONLY JOINED his forum to INDULGE THAT ATTACK ON MY GOOD NAME.  Never joined before.  Never seen since.  That little pack of dogs, the Pickles, and Mookies and Fuzzies

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1490 on: June 19, 2011, 07:25:34 AM »
POYNT.  How do you explain the fact that a diode across Q1 can replace Q2 to sustain that oscillation? 

And guys, I'm ABSOLUTELY NOT ABLE TO SUBMIT THAT PAPER.  It has to be 2 papers at least - the one to qualify the other.  And I'm running out of energy.  I've tried to duck this but have had feedback from some really qualified people that the argument is NOT fully supported.  Which is a blow.

Anyway.  I'm up for it.  So.  Poynty Point.  The first thing that needs clarification is that replacement diode as it relates to current flow.  Do you have an explanation?  And do you even understand the question?  I'd be MOST interested to hear your explanation if you have one.  If you don't answer I'll assume you don't know.

Regards,
Rosemary

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1491 on: June 19, 2011, 08:28:51 AM »
Actually guys, right now I'm just feeling so angry.  Here's why.  IF we're going to ignore the evidence measured in the results then the thing to do is to close our text books and deny that ANY MEASUREMENTS TAKEN ON ANY TECHNOLOGIES TO DATE - are even roughly relevant.  All science - to date - based on a figment of the imagination.  That's the first point.

The second point is this.  According to their rating each battery is capable of delivering about 430 000.00 Joules. 8 such batteries therefore affords a capacity of 3 456 000.00 Joules. The batteries used in these experiments have been used on a regular basis for over 10 months.  They have been dissipating an average wattage conservatively assessed at 20 watts for five hours of each working day, during that period, continually subjected as they were, to both light and heavy use. This amounts to about 14 400 000.00 Joules which is more than 4 times it's rated capacity. Notwithstanding this extensive use, they have never shown any evidence of any loss of voltage at all. Nor have they been recharged except for two batteries that caught fire.

YET you all demand further proof?  At what point is the required level of evidence simply ABSURD?  I propose that we're long past the point.  And all it means is that EVEN ON THESE FORUMS - DEDICATED AS THEY ARE TO OVER UNITY CONSIDERATIONS - there's actually ONLY the requirement to DENY AND DENY AND DENY.  So sad.  Evidently you'll only consider doing more inconclusive tests and then chatter away amongst yourselves about all those inconclusive results - compounded by the EXTRAORDINARY applications of wattage analysis that has NOTHING TO DO WITH STANDARD MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS.  You're all led by the nose to believe the absurdities in Poynty's analyses with it's horribly flawed protocols.  And then - with all the satisfaction of the excessively smug - you presume to NOMINATE the required test parameters.  Dear God.  If there's to be a continued pollution of this our poor planet - then you're ACTIVELY co-operating with that agenda. 

You would not see a benefit if it stood up to introduce itself.  And you certainly won't recognise it even when it eventually reaches out to bite you - where it hurts most - which is somewhere in the region of your intellects - which are evidently unable to ask questions - let alone answer them.

This is the most of you.  Obviously it excepts those very few people who are still actively engaged in this research or who are really capable of asking the right questions.

Rosemary

Offline powercat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1492 on: June 19, 2011, 01:47:28 PM »
Hello again MrMag.  Another BRILLIANT suggestion.  That way when everything goes up in smoke then I can buy another IP camera and all the parts required to assemble another test apparatus.  And then I can replace the scope probes - and probably the scope itself - for a mere R100 000.00 or thereby - which, in dollars, is roughly $14 000.00.  No problem at all.  I have NO IDEA why such a logical solution didn't occur to me.  Golly.  And if I do this then I'll advance the very real benefit of satisfying your idle curiosity.  I say idle because you either do not have the skills or the interest to test this all for yourself

Rosie it seems that you are looking for excuses when it comes to doing a practical test, no one is suggesting that you spent $14,000 did you actually read and understand MrMag suggestion ???

I myself and I think others suggested to you some time ago that you do a comparison test.
Heats water at a set temperature using a conventional method  running from the same amount of batteries as the test using your circuit heating an identical volume of water to the same temperature,
and see which one lasts longest,  but clearly these suggestions are two simple for you, what are you afraid of, that these tests might fail ?

No doubt your response if I get one, will blame other people, and you will argue ::) Ow how you argue,  that people are misinterpreting your work.
so simple practical tests would seem the best way to gain support  But you would rather argue about measurements, if you really have got something here Then you're doing extremely good job at  discouraging people from getting involved with your circuit.
All you do is have arguments about measurements


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1493 on: June 19, 2011, 04:37:00 PM »
Rosie it seems that you are looking for excuses when it comes to doing a practical test, no one is suggesting that you spent $14,000 did you actually read and understand MrMag suggestion ???

I myself and I think others suggested to you some time ago that you do a comparison test.
Heats water at a set temperature using a conventional method  running from the same amount of batteries as the test using your circuit heating an identical volume of water to the same temperature,and see which one lasts longest,  but clearly these suggestions are two simple for you, what are you afraid of, that these tests might fail ?

No doubt your response if I get one, will blame other people, and you will argue ::) Ow how you argue,  that people are misinterpreting your work.
so simple practical tests would seem the best way to gain support  But you would rather argue about measurements, if you really have got something here Then you're doing extremely good job at  discouraging people from getting involved with your circuit.
All you do is have arguments about measurements

No Cat - I'm NOT making excuses.  I'm simply NOT interested in doing those tests.  Feel free.  Do it yourselves.  I'm only interested in getting this to an academic forum.  And they DON'T accept any draw down battery tests as evidence.  Good gracious.  If they did I'd have done the tests - GLADLY.  And I absolutely have NO INTEREST in 'encouraging' as you you put it - people to get involved in our circuit.  Frankly I prefer it that they don't.  My previous exposure to this was an outright attempt by a replicator to CLAIM it as his independent and personal 'DISCOVERY'.  Why should I want anyone to replicate? 

My ONLY interest is in the thesis and the implications of the waveform - because that's where the magic is.  I don't think there's any RULE against my sharing what I think is happening. And if you or anyone don't want to read here - so what?  I'm not holding a gun to your heads. The general reach on these forums is to demand the evidence - in any way you want.  I'm under NO obligation to cater to that demand.  Frankly if I were to run around and do what everyone wanted as I used to - then I'd be considerably poorer and have progressed no further.  What really gets me down is that one academic has actually proposed that we do that 'black box' test.  That's the test that we designed for the public demonstration.  You may remember.  Not A SINGLE EXPERT ATTENDED.  What a joke.  The academics won't look at the evidence - and the rest of you can't understand the measurements - nor their implications. And I can assure you that not one of you will believe the evidence when I've completed that test.  There'll be new criteria.  So it goes.  It's not so much extraordinary claims needing extraordinary proof - it's that an extraordinary claim will never be accepted regardless of the proof.  That's the killer.

Here's the trade off Cat.  Find some experts who will guarantee accreditation of any results that show excess energy dissipated to the rated battery capacity - ANY AT ALL - then I'll do those tests GLADLY.  I think a consensus of 5 should cut it.  See what you can do.  Me I have found precisely 1 and I very much doubt that there will be others.  And we've asked not less than 45 experts to attend a demo that shows JUST THIS.

Rosemary

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1494 on: June 19, 2011, 05:00:59 PM »
POYNT.  How do you explain the fact that a diode across Q1 can replace Q2 to sustain that oscillation? 

The first thing that needs clarification is that replacement diode as it relates to current flow.  Do you have an explanation?  And do you even understand the question?  I'd be MOST interested to hear your explanation if you have one.  If you don't answer I'll assume you don't know.

Regards,
Rosemary

If you are referring to the attached diagram, then "D1" replaces Q1, not Q2 as you have stated above.

As I have explained some time back, Q2 (M4 in the attached diagram) is the only active device in this circuit (or paralleled Q2-Q5), and it is this device that causes the oscillation.

D1, as I explained, is the internal body diode of Q1, and causes the asymmetry seen in the wave forms. The circuit oscillates just as well without D1 (Q1), but then the asymmetry vanishes.

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1495 on: June 19, 2011, 05:07:54 PM »
If you are referring to the attached diagram, then "D1" replaces Q1, not Q2 as you have stated above.

As I have explained some time back, Q2 (M4 in the attached diagram) is the only active device in this circuit (or paralleled Q2-Q5), and it is this device that causes the oscillation.
I missed that.  Thanks Poynty.  What then is the function of that diode?

Regards,
Rosemary

Added.  What I'm actually asking is does it work WITHOUT the diode?

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1496 on: June 19, 2011, 05:17:16 PM »
I missed that.  Thanks Poynty.  What then is the function of that diode?

Regards,
Rosemary

Added.  What I'm actually asking is does it work WITHOUT the diode?

D1, as I explained, is the internal body diode of Q1, and causes the asymmetry seen in the wave forms. The circuit oscillates just as well without D1 (Q1), but then the asymmetry vanishes.

D1 was added to the circuit to emulate and illustrate what function Q1 is actually serving. It is not a perfect replacement because of other parasitic components in the MOSFET, but that body diode is the fundamental component causing the asymmetry in the circuit. Just as well, the actual Q1 could be left in the circuit.

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1497 on: June 19, 2011, 05:22:41 PM »

As I have explained some time back, Q2 (M4 in the attached diagram) is the only active device in this circuit (or paralleled Q2-Q5), and it is this device that causes the oscillation.

.99

This is WRONG by the way.  Q2 is responsible for the oscillation.  I know this.  But for the total control of the required heat outputs we need Q1. I'm not sure how else to increase the heat to get the system to work.  It needs the oscillating cycle but the heat output is exponentially increased subject to some small required output from the battery during that short 18% ON time.  It only needs to be a little under a quarter of a watt to get the element to that 240 degrees centigrade.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1498 on: June 19, 2011, 05:32:41 PM »
D1 was added to the circuit to emulate and illustrate what function Q1 is actually serving. It is not a perfect replacement because of other parasitic components in the MOSFET, but that body diode is the fundamental component causing the asymmetry in the circuit. Just as well, the actual Q1 could be left in the circuit.

.99

Do you KNOW this?  Here's what I'm asking.  What happens to the oscillation when there's NO diode and NO Q1?  Have you done this?

Thanks for the answer btw
regards,
Rosie

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1499 on: June 19, 2011, 05:39:38 PM »
Do you KNOW this?  Here's what I'm asking.  What happens to the oscillation when there's NO diode and NO Q1?  Have you done this?

Thanks for the answer btw
regards,
Rosie

Yes, I have done this in the simulation, a long time ago when I reduced the circuit down to just Q2. I may not have posted a scope shot, but I believe the oscillation frequency increased slightly, and the wave forms became more symmetrical.

.99