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 657880 times)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1560 on: June 22, 2011, 06:01:44 PM »
it would be a sorry thing indeed if we could not learn directly from the thinking of really capable writers or if we were separated from the works of those Greats in Philosophy or Science - simply because we first had to be TAUGHT what to think about what we read about.  Such a circuitous route?  Do we need someone to teach us the power in Shakespeare's work?  Or do we need to read an art critique before we could appreciate the works of Cezanne? Hieronymus Bosch - whoever?  So?  I still can't say I'm self taught.  If I were then I'd have to exclude my exposure to so many highly capable teachers.  And frankly, I'm inclined to give tribute where it's due. So think what you like TK.  But I assure you I am NOT self-taught.  Then I'd first need to be a genius.

And when you claim that I'm fabricating the facts about all those accreditors and test replicators then also know this.  I'm way too old to care whether or not you believe what I've written.  And I'm also too wise to make a claim of such magnitude if there was any chance at all that I misrepresented the facts.  Because then I could be  SUED for MISREPRESENTATION and LIBEL.  And I'm also too cowardly to take on that kind of risk.

And when it comes to the 'required' mathematical analysis of my thesis - then I'm afraid that one of the more salient features of what's been uncovered is that the only mathematical proof is in the work of our string theorists.  And that is so far out that most mathematicians can't follow it.  So for me - who can barely get my head around simple arithmetic - there's absolutely NO HOPE.  But what I can do is reconcile the mass / size ratio of the proton to the electron and I can then show some interesting solutions to many outstanding so called 'paradoxes' and 'anomalies' in classical and quantum physics - that is then resolved by proposing this magnetic dipole.  But you would never be able to get your head around the proposals TK.  It's not your thing.  You're an engineer.  It's a different mind set.

Rosie.   

Offline MrMag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 754
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1561 on: June 22, 2011, 10:31:00 PM »
@ Mags
As a rule I quite like those trolls that tend to follow me around.  Very few exceptions.  But Fuzzy's one such.  And you're another.  I absolutely did NOT make any disclosures on my life for your edification.  I believe I was answering TK. 

Yeah but you did didn't rosy. I want to thank TK for telling US ALL about your qualifications and for you to further clarify it

And MR MAGS - I'm not sure you're right in advising me on anything at all.  You're grossly under qualified.  You do not have the required intelligence nor training.  If I spent the rest of my life making marmalade - as you suggest - then how would I be able to indulge my love of and talents for and interest in logic and language and physics and art.  I realise that you can't share this.  But that speaks to your own limitations.  Not mine.  I express myself very clearly.

But rose, you have no idea what my qualifications or training is. If you are trying to tell me that I needed to be a waitress, real estate agent and used car salesman to have the same qualifications as you, then maybe you are right. But until you know what my background or training is, maybe you should not be to harsh with your words. You know nothing at all about me. You may have the love of them but you surely don't have the talent or logic.

What shows me an extreme want of decency in your character is that you KNOW that my threads are not moderated.  So you indulge in this off topic excursion with relative freedom from harm.  Which effectively makes you an opportunistic, unprincipled bully.  You are to the forum what hyenas are to the wild.  No bigger coward when the top predator comes to the party.  And nothing braver than when those top predators aren't there.  And no-one noiser. 

Golly rosy, I'm not the one putting people down, telling them they are not qualified or have no intelligence. I think that if this thread was moderated for decency you would have been banned a long time ago. But, this forum is open to a degree to freedom of speech. That's why you are getting away with saying the things that you do.

Pretty strong statement when all I did was ask you to do an extended run down test. You know more then the 7.5 hour to 17 hour one. I still don't think that you comprehend exactly what my request entailed. Then when I pointed out to you that it could be done very cheaply, you started your attacks on me. This just proves that you do have something to hide. After 10 years, you have gotten nowhere with your circuit. Anyone that has tried it, had the same failures. You could of made a fortune selling that marmalade for the last 10 years!

So.  Magsy - I propose you take your fatuous observations and your rather limited intellect elsewhere.  You're incapable of contributing to anything constructively, if your advices regarding my interests are anything to go by.  And you're utterly unequal to contributing to the science if your experimental proposals are anything to go by.  And I'm not sure that you can contribute anything at all to the general health of the planet or it's population as you're also afflicted with a certain want of principle and morality.  But I would MUCH prefer it if you would stay off this thread.

Well, it sounds to me that you are in the same boat. Here we are 10 years later and your circuit is still in question. Well, I shouldn't say in question. Most people who have tried your circuit say that it doesn't even show unity. You are the only one who hasn't been convinced. Which one of us has the limited intellect? If you had the required intelligence or training you might just see the truth about your circuit. You are just to grossly under qualified to comprehend it. Just think, after 10 years hardly anyone has even heard of it. After 10 years, where are all of your followers?? After 10 years, how many successful replications are out there? After 10 years, how many different applications have you used your circuit on?

Come on rosy, the only reason that you say Poynt, TK, Humburger, ... don't know what they are talking about is because they don't agree with you. Look how you got all sweet and kind to Poynt when he said he was going to help you out with some sims. As soon as he showed you your error, he became the pompous idiot again.  I would think that their knowledge, training and experience trump your waiting tables and selling houses.

Since you have a love of literature, maybe you should write some fiction novels. You could possibly be the next Orsen Wells. But please leave the electronics to the experts as we all know that you do not have the intellectual aptitude for this field of study.


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1562 on: June 23, 2011, 02:45:46 AM »
@ Mags
What?  For property developer - READ ESTATE AGENT?  For catering industry - READ WAITRESS?  What a joke. May I assure all the readers here that I have NEVER sold a house in my life other than my own.  And I most certainly have never worked as a waitress.  Both very fine professions.  But I do not have the manual or visual dexterity to manage the latter nor the interest to manage the former.  And when it comes to 'making a fortune' as you seem to think is required I've managed to keep my head above water without selling marmalade.

What a despicable little man you are. And I wouldn't be too quick to put yourself in the same category as the other contributing members.  For starters Poynty is HIGHLY INTELLIGENT and HIGHLY COMPETENT.  He's just useless at power analysis.  And I am entirely satisfied that you're useless at most things. Your technical comments are a dead give away.

R


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1563 on: June 23, 2011, 03:47:04 AM »
Anyway.  Moving on.  It seems that MileHigh's cautions on RomeroUK's motor were, indeed, valid.  I wonder if that's likely to re-instate him as a contributor at Poynty's thread.  I do hope so.  He's a really good writer.  And I'm rather sorry to see that this device has flopped - or not withstood the required proof - whatever.  I can't help thinking that the answer to this 'self runner' is to have two motors running concurrently but in anti phase - from the current generated in a third initialising motor.  But that's an expensive build and is not likely to be tested.  I personally had doubts when we didn't see more work from Lasersaber. 

Anyway guys.  We still have our own device and I assure you all that none of us are about to deny the evidence.  It's just a shame that the evidence also requires power analysis and there are no competent analysts on this forum.   ;D

Anyway, fyi and wrt our paper - I'm STUCK.  I've been advised that the argument is NOT persuasive enough.  To make it persuasive we'll need a second sort of qualifying paper - and I absolutely do not know if I can manage the argument.  Thus far I've drawn a blank.  I'm sort of hoping for inspiration.  And right now I'm feeling rather miserable that that motor number didn't hit a home run.

Regards,
Rosemary

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1564 on: June 23, 2011, 04:53:06 AM »
And I'm rather sorry to see that this device has flopped - or not withstood the required proof - whatever.
It's far from flopped or done. Inconclusive at worst at the moment.

Quote
Anyway, fyi and wrt our paper - I'm STUCK.  I've been advised that the argument is NOT persuasive enough.
You don't say? ::)  I think several, including myself have been advising you of the same for months, no, make that years.

Quote
To make it persuasive we'll need a second sort of qualifying paper...
I'm curious, a qualifying paper on what subject exactly?

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1565 on: June 23, 2011, 05:15:38 AM »
It's far from flopped or done. Inconclusive at worst at the moment.
You don't say? ::)  I think several, including myself have been advising you of the same for months, no, make that years.
I'm curious, a qualifying paper on what subject exactly?

.99

Hello Poynty Point.
You can't help me out here.  Unfortunately.  What's needed is some kind of explanation for those high voltage fluctuations across the battery and the shunt.  We can't enjoy your own liberties with the truth because - also unlike you, we can't simply close our eyes to the evidence.  Nor can anyone.  And then we have the pesky problem of explaining HOW we can get ANY POSITIVE voltage in that oscillation when there's NO PATH.  That argument entirely defeated you - remember?  That's when you resorted to bluff and bluster - and got excessively sniffy. 

And FINALLY - we're not at liberty to apply all that generous AVERAGING which you seem to manage without turning a hair.  Because that is simply NOT acceptable to any expert on power measurements.  And UNLESS we average everything in sight - we're left with that HUGE INFINITE COP. 

 ;D 
Rosie

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1566 on: June 23, 2011, 05:21:21 AM »
Hello Poynty Point.
You can't help me out here.  Unfortunately.  What's needed is some kind of explanation for those high voltage fluctuations across the battery and the shunt.  We can't enjoy your own liberties with the truth because - also unlike you, we can't simply close our eyes to the evidence.  Nor can anyone.  And then we have the pesky problem of explaining HOW we can get ANY POSITIVE voltage in that oscillation when there's NO PATH.  That argument entirely defeated you - remember?  That's when you resorted to bluff and bluster - and got excessively sniffy. 

And FINALLY - we're not at liberty to apply all that generous AVERAGING which you seem to manage without turning a hair.  Because that is simply NOT acceptable to any expert on power measurements.

 ;D 
Rosie

Oh tisk tisk Rosie-Posie. :'(

You may wish to have plenty of tissue on hand when I demonstrate these very measurements. ;)

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1567 on: June 23, 2011, 05:29:31 AM »
Oh tisk tisk Rosie-Posie. :'(

You may wish to have plenty of tissue on hand when I demonstrate these very measurements. ;)

.99

Indeed.    :'( I'll keep another box handy. 

Take care of yourself Poynty.  We've grown to rely on all that impartiality that you bring to every argument.
   
Rosie Posie

Offline powercat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1568 on: June 23, 2011, 04:34:14 PM »
Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.0
That thread finished at 189 pages,I don't know if this one will last that long without something different happening.
The fact still remains that over 2 years no one on this forum can reproduce Rosie's claims of excess energy and Rosie continually arguing about measurements is not going to change anything

If you truly have excess energy, then it should be able to power itself the fact that this has not been done indicates that the claim of excess energy is a mistake or incorrect readings.

This forum has seen many such claims over the years and when nobody here can reproduce the results then a new direction is required but instead of that we get more pages of arguments about measurements.

In the early days of the forum a number of claims of excess energy were made by people showing more volts out then in, people like myself with a basic knowledge of electronics now understand not to take these claims so seriously,(this is an example of what happens on the forum and not specifically aimed at Rosie's work)
The main test on this forum is that other people can reproduce your work and match your results.

Offline MrMag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 754
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1569 on: June 23, 2011, 08:05:40 PM »
We can't enjoy your own liberties with the truth because - also unlike you, we can't simply close our eyes to the evidence.

That's a good one, " We can't enjoy your own liberties with the truth". And I think the problem is that you are closing your eyes to the evidence.


And FINALLY - we're not at liberty to apply all that generous AVERAGING which you seem to manage without turning a hair.  Because that is simply NOT acceptable to any expert on power measurements.

Why can't you find an "Expert" on power measurements rosy. You seem to know a lot about what they would accept and not accept. Is this maybe why they don't want anything to do with you.

And UNLESS we average everything in sight - we're left with that HUGE INFINITE COP. 

In comparison to a small infinite COP ?

Offline MrMag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 754
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1570 on: June 23, 2011, 08:36:35 PM »
@ Mags
What?  For property developer - READ ESTATE AGENT?  For catering industry - READ WAITRESS?  What a joke. May I assure all the readers here that I have NEVER sold a house in my life other than my own.  And I most certainly have never worked as a waitress.  Both very fine professions.  But I do not have the manual or visual dexterity to manage the latter nor the interest to manage the former.  And when it comes to 'making a fortune' as you seem to think is required I've managed to keep my head above water without selling marmalade.

It's just when you have a COP<1 and call it COP> Infinity, I just used that exaggeration to surmise your actual background.
"May I assure all the readers here", Hahahaha, now that's funny. There is nothing wrong with you being a waitress or real estate agent rosy. I just wanted to know your background to see what kind of qualifications you have. You see, it really doesn't matter. I can tell that you have no professional training because a true professional would not try to belittle someone that they don't even know. Your comments seem to be more like a response I would get from a waitress that I complained to about bringing me burnt toast or something.


What a despicable little man you are. And I wouldn't be too quick to put yourself in the same category as the other contributing members.  For starters Poynty is HIGHLY INTELLIGENT and HIGHLY COMPETENT.  He's just useless at power analysis.  And I am entirely satisfied that you're useless at most things. Your technical comments are a dead give away.

I'm not that little. Actually I'm about 5'10". I did not say that that I was in the same category did I. I am not even close to the same level as Poynt or some of the others here. I do admit that. But then neither are you, are you rose. The only reason that you say that Poynt is useless at power analysis is because his results don't back up your claims.

I may be useless at some things, but I wouldn't say most things. You must take a lot of pride in trying to belittle people. It must make you feel so big and professional. I think if more people would have left you bigger tips, you would have a better disposition. Did you also study the writings of Don Rickles? You do sound a lot like him.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1571 on: June 24, 2011, 01:48:43 AM »
My dear Cat.  I seem to recall you posting here that everyone must now leave this thread and follow RomeroUK's work.  What happened?  Why are you back?  I hope no-one's putting pressure on you to read here. Here's some essential differences between those claims and ours.

Romero was NOT prepared to invite every academic he could reach to come and witness a demonstration.  We DO.  He was NOT prepared to invite the news media to witness that self-running device.  We ARE.  He was not even prepared to allow his 'neighbours' to come and look.  We not only DO invite neighbours but now have a whole lot more members on the team - all of whom are REPLICATING. We INVITED Stefan to come and assess the evidence and GUARANTEED that if we could not replicate the results while he was here - or if we did not IN FACT have over unity - then we would REFUND him is ticket.  Stefan declined our offer.  BUT.  Stefan offered to visit Romero to take a look at his device.  For some reason Romero DECLINED that offer.   That's just on the test evidence. I'm absolutely satisfied that no number of personal threats would persist in the light of a wide public demonstration as Romero is suggesting.  In fact, if he can show a motor turning without ANY standard supply - then the ENTIRE WORLD would rally to protect him.

NOW.  Let's look at your second beef.  The main object of this forum is to advance 'replications'.  REALLY?  The lack of restraint and the general parade of ego that goes on here rather discourages those active replicators from ever posting.  All the members on our little team - with the entire exception of me, are professionals.  And not ONE of them would sully or risk their names to public exposure here - PRECISELY because of people like you, TK, Poynty, and on and on and on.  They see how I have been treated.  They know better. 

NOW.  Let's look at your 'self-runner' demands.  We have never recharged those batteries - with one exception.  Two caught fire and BOTH were fully recharged.  We've had those batteries since January 2010.  We've been running them since August 2010.  I've now FINALLY checked their rated capacities.  They're 40 ampere hours each.  We've used 6 of them continually since that time.  According to this rating they are each able, theoretically to dissipate 12 volts x 40 amps x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 1 hour x 6 batteries.  That gives a work potential - a total potential output of 10 368 000 JOULES. 

According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade.  We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade.  We ran that test for 90 minutes.  Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104.  We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes.  Ambient was at 16.  Joules = 1 watt per second.  So.  Do the math.  4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.  Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.  Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.  All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating.  And that was just one test.  Now.  Over the 10 month period that those batteries have been running at various outputs - which, when added to the output on just this one test - then I think its safe to say that the evidence is conclusive.  Those batteries have outperformed. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH.  They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.

That was the test that was intended as a public demonstration and that was the same demo where no experts attended.  What we planned was to take the water to boil and then simply make a couple of cups of tea.

Now.  Back to your demands.  You want conclusive evidence.  It's already there.  But you also NOW want us to run those batteries to death.  I've offered to give you comparative draw down tests against a control.  But again.  I'll only do this if there is absolute consensus that this constitutes absolute proof. Otherwise I will be involved in yet more unnecessary time wasting.

And consider carefully CAT - the fact that you are ENTIRELY SATISFIED that we have NOTHING HERE.  What if you're wrong?  What if you and Poynty and TK and everyone who posts here is ACTUALLY WRONG?  Effectively - IF there's an agenda to kill all interest in this device - IF Poynty is not supporting the evidence because he's got an agenda - or even in the unlikely event that Stefan has an agenda - or any of the detractors have an agenda?  What then?  I would definitely conclude that their agenda has worked.

Which means what?  It means that I must MOST CERTAINLY, keep posting here.  Because if I don't - and if this evidence is ignored - and if all of you actual enthusiasts are DUPED - then what does that do to advance the interests of clean green?  So.  I put it to you that there are MANY different purposes of posting here than your requirement to replicate.  And from what I see, I'm not sure that you ever DO replicate.  And while these long posts of mine irritate you - rest assured.  I know - from feedback - that there are many who read here with a certain amount of relief.  So.  I"m not writing for you.  I'm writing for the readers.

Regards,
Rosemary

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1572 on: June 24, 2011, 03:00:50 AM »
IF Poynty is not supporting the evidence because he's got an agenda -

For the record, I don't support your evidence, simply because your evidence is erroneous.

Support of that assertion is before you in the analysis, which btw, was based on a circuit simulation that can produce similar results to your own. Evidence shown in that analysis indicated that these favorable-looking results are erroneous, and that with correct measurement, the true results are markedly different.

Clearly one can not rightly pick and choose which of the two results they wish to believe, and which they will not, when both were obtained from the very same circuit and test conditions. Only one measurement point differed between the two (i.e. a change in probe placement). Both results are correct wrt where they were measured from, but only one provides the correct answer for the true average INPUT power. And this is in reference to measurements taken via vi(t).

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1573 on: June 24, 2011, 03:08:01 AM »
For the record, I don't support your evidence, simply because your evidence is erroneous.

Support of that assertion is before you in the analysis, which btw, was based on a circuit simulation that can produce similar results to your own. Evidence shown in that analysis indicated that these favorable-looking results are erroneous, and that with correct measurement, the true results are markedly different.

Clearly one can not rightly pick and choose which of the two results they wish to believe, and which they will not, when both were obtained from the very same circuit and test conditions. Only one measurement point differed between the two. Both results are correct wrt where they were measured from, but only one provides the correct answer for the true average INPUT power.

.99

Poynt - your need to average is the 'last bastion of your defense'.  If you want to impress me that your numbers are RIGHT then stop averaging.  You cannot do this and expect any credibility in your numbers.  Let me remind you.  The battery voltage climbs ABOVE it's rating.  Then the battery voltage drops BELOW it's rating.  EXPLAIN THAT.  If it's irrelevant then EXPLAIN THAT TOO.  Then at least we'll know whether or not you're dealing with the experimental evidence or some kind of approximation that you HOPE may be representative of the facts.

Rosemary

added.  And while you're at it.  Let us know the PATH for that positive voltage across the shunt and across the load - that it breaches Q2 OR Q1 + Q2.  You can't even do this.

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1574 on: June 24, 2011, 03:11:42 AM »
I realized after I posted that you would play that card, which is why I amended my post to add that last sentence. You replied faster than I could add to mine.

Here it is again for clarity:

And this is in reference to measurements taken via vi(t).

.99