My later simulation results are based on a battery measurement across one of the six batteries, but all six batteries are still in the circuit, powering the circuit.

Golly.  I wonder why you had to do it this way Poynty?  Did this ELIMINATE the oscillation?  Or simply reduce it?  We're left with a couple of questions here.  If it eliminated the oscillation - WHY?  And if it reduced the oscillation - WHY?

This was all painstakingly explained in the detailed analysis, which clearly you do not understand. Go read it please and kindly stop twisting the facts!

I'd read it gladly if you could just take the trouble to post it here.  NOT A LINK.  The actual report.  Otherwise we'll all be inclined to think that you've actually NOT written a report.  Personally I can't open your link.  I'm satisfied that many readers either can't or won't.  SO.  Let's ALL see this report if it's that germane to the argument.

Thanks
Rosemary

If that was the case why has no one in over two years reproduced your claim,when you make statements like that,I have to respond as you are being misleading.

Actually Cat it's you who are misleading. Plenty of replications on our previous circuit.  And even from members on this forum.  But you're right that no-one has replicated this circuit - other than on Poynty's sims.  But then you go on to say that we need to do something different?  We most certainly have something different.  This is an ENTIRELY different circuit - with ENTIRELY different results.  if you're going to object then I wonder if you couldn't just check these kind of facts first.  And like RomeroUK's circuit - ours has only been on this public forum for 3 months.

Please do something different...

Indeed.  Again.  I'm happy to report that we have done something different.  ENTIRELY different.  And EVEN BETTER RESULTS. 

Many members have made reasonable requests that you ignore including Stefan amongst others,
but you ignore them and carry on regurgitating your same old arguments.

To the best of my recollection we've answered every single concern related to every measurement - that has ever been put to us. Grounding issues - answered.  Under sampling claims - answered.  Probe positioning concerns - answered.  Standard of measuring equipment - answered.  Impedance concerns - answered.  And since we've done this last WATER TO BOIL test - we've also answered any concerns related to out performance of battery capacity.  Remember?  We dissipate over 25 million Joules from a battery capacity that is AT THE MOST can only account for 10 million Joules.

Regards,
Rosemary

added

Everything that's in that document was openly posted already. In fact, the document was compiled from all the posts, so you've already had ample opportunity to read the entire analysis.

I'm done for now, peace out.

.99

Poynty - if I didn't know better I'd guess that your report is that fragile that you dare not also make it easily accessible to our readers.  Of course you're done for now.  You have NO answers to the only questions that matter.  It would take you no time at all to simply post that report here.  I wonder why you don't?

Regards,
Rosemary

If that was the case why has no one in over two years reproduced your claim of OU,when you make statements like that,I have to respond as you are being misleading.

If no-one has replicated as you claim then explain the existence of this paper?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems

Which makes this statement ENTIRELY FALLACIOUS.

That's absolutely no one whatsoever on this forum has reproduced your claim off excess energy with your circuit, absolutely nobody has been successful, not a single member.

And as for the rest of your questions and statements they've been answered.  WE HAVE A NEW CIRCUIT.  I HAVE ANSWERED ALL QUESTIONS RELATING TO THAT CIRCUIT.  Here again is my post.

To the best of my recollection we've answered every single concern related to every measurement - that has ever been put to us. Grounding issues - answered.  Under sampling claims - answered.  Probe positioning concerns - answered.  Standard of measuring equipment - answered.  Impedance concerns - answered.  And since we've done this last WATER TO BOIL test - we've also answered any concerns related to out performance of battery capacity.  Remember?  We dissipate over 25 million Joules from a battery capacity that AT THE MOST can only account for 10 million Joules.

R.

NOW LET ME EMPHASISE THIS.  WE HAVE A NEW CIRCUIT.  WE DO NOT HAVE THE SAME CIRCUIT THAT WE USED BEFORE.  IT IS NEW.  SOMETHING DIFFERENT.  IT HAS ONLY BEEN MADE PUBLIC FOR THREE MONTHS - LESS THAN THAT.  IT IS NOT THE SAME AS THE PREVIOUS CIRCUIT. 

Not sure if there are many more ways to say the same thing.  But surely?  You must be able to understand at least one of those sentences?

Again,
R

corrected

Yet again you fail to see what is in front of you so I will say it again, no one on this fourum has reproduced your claim of OU I know members here have attempted to replicate your work but none of them whatsoever achieve any energy gain at all,  is this clear now

And yet again you fail to read the evidence.  Here's that link again.  If this does NOT constitute a replication then BY RIGHTS it needs must be withdrawn.  As of NOW it is NOT withdrawn.  This is published by Fuzzy on his own Scribd file.  EXPLAIN THAT if you can.  To the best of my knowledge Fuzzy is a forum member.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems

As for the new circuit which is pretty much based on the old circuit, I was very excited when I first saw this new thread, I even supported you through most of it, but yet again it has ended up like your last thread, no one on here can reproduce your results=OU

Now you're doing that dance of the 7 veils that Poynt's so good at.  What you ACTUALLY said is that in 3 years NO-ONE has replicated our circuit.  You're right.  No-one has replicated this NEW circuit.  It's only been PUBLIC for less than 3 months.  Which possibly explains why it was not replicated earlier. You remember you explained that this is why no-one has replicated RomeroUK's circuit?  That statement where you brushed aside certain parallels I drew?  So?  What exactly makes it understandable in Romero's case that does that not apply to ours? And may I add.  It is as much like the previous circuit as drizzle is to a thunderstorm - or as a breeze is to a tornado - or as I've mentioned before - as a gentle ripple is to a tsunami.  So DON'T give me - 'it's much the same as'...  The only point where it corresponds is that it's still a switched circuit.  And it's still powered by batteries.
 

...and despite repeated requests you just keep arguing the same measurement arguments.

And here's another example of your quintessentially reasonable requests.  Effectively I must sit here with my hands folded and my eyes closed and my mouth shut?  Is that it?  While Poynty applies a sledgehammer to the subtleties of this circuit?  Is that to what end?  To make your life more bearable?  I suppose that's fair.  Why not?  What the hell?  Who cares?  And why bother?  Definitely a good argument.  It's as reasonable as taking a stick of dynamite to Michelangelo's David to test it's durability.  And then to argue that it's durability is a measure of it's value as a work of art.  A really good litmus test. 

I really could do with an excess energy circuit in my life, so could the rest of the world but you seem unwilling to do anything different despite numerous requests.

And as for this statement.  It seems that I've not satisfied your precise requirement for excess energy so I must go away?  You don't even have the wherewithal to determine whether or not there's excess energy.  For this you depend on that consensus which, as I've pointed out has NOTHING to do with science.  But I must oblige you and just go away because you're more inclined to go with Poynty's OPINION?  And this because NO-ONE who contributes to this forum has replicated our circuit?  Despite the fact that no-one has ever tried?  Like I say.  It's fair comment.

Go on Rosie prove that 99 is wrong in his analysis and makes something that runs and run and put it on the Internet after all,

Gladly.  Any time you want.  Just make it worth my while.  Either pay for that experiment - or get 4 academics to say that that will be proof positive.  I've already got 1 who'd go on record.  So.  That's a convenient number - a handful.

(Quote from Rosemary)

"All one needs are the the measurements and some reasonable account of the apparatus that produces those measurements".

If you're going to quote me then put it in context.  I seem to recall saying something about your reliance on consensus opinion to determine science.  Let me say it again.  All one needs are the measurements and some reasonable account of the apparatus that produces those measurements.  Which by default means that consensus opinion is a really BAD way to try and determine the validity of science.  One needs MEASUREMENTS.  Not OPINION.

R
A much needed qualification to that statement as there have INDEED been replications.  But the replicators WISELY do NOT POST HERE.  They daren't.  They're very aware of the agendas that they'd be up against.  On OU.COM THEY ABOUND

rose,
If this is an "Entirely different circuit with even better results", the battery test you keep referring must have been done on the old circuit. Can you do the circuit performance test that I (and others) requested on this new and improved circuit. It won't cost any money as you already have all that is needed. You do not need to monitor it continuously, just check it every so often to make sure it is still running. You don't need it to be hooked up to a scope or anything. Just take a battery measurement before you start and after a couple of months you can take another battery reading. It's really very simple to do.

Your argument that this has been done before is wrong. This test has never been done. You may have run different tests over time but not one continuous test and not with this new circuit.

@powercat:

The Ainslie circuits - I spent thousands of hours on countless experiments on all kinds of variations with that and Glen did even more. We were NOT given all the information in the beginning and that was a complete farce.
However the circuit does have merit. I got cop 2.0 as a fairly standard result - but of course the skeptics will blame it on the peukert effect or
something. But the peukert effect in the battery on a low draw does NOT explain the same heat for less measurable energy going in.
Glen got better I believe. But the most interesting to me is that while the timer circuit was dissipating energy (warming up), with my own mods, that I disclosed 100%, the mosfet and resistor side of the circuit cooled up to 2 degrees Celsius below the ambient temperature of the room, which is a different thing altogether and is serious reverse entropy.
Anyway, both Glen and I did replicate over 1.0 with a lot of data to back
it - we didn't come close to cop 17.0 like Ainslie claimed but over 1.0 is over 1.0.

(emphasis added by me)

quote taken from http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/8247-tom-bearden-oil-3.html#post142994

"The gifted and skilled Open Source Researcher, Internet name Fuzzytomcat” (Glen Lettenmaier), one of the first to Replicate the Ainslie Circuit successfully in 2009, has built several configurations of the special inductors/resistors for test… And his fine work in building, tuning, measuring, documenting, and analyzing test results… Extremely well recorded and presented using the Tektronix Digital Phosper Oscilloscope stored data, still photos, and “You Tube” videos… Conclusivly prove using accepted industry-standard methods that this circuit has definite anamalous qualities in energy efficiency, and that the Rosemary Ainslie Circuit and effect deserves very close scrutiny from our scientific mainstream community."

(emphasis added by me)

quote taken from "the strange case of the rosemary ainslie circuit by steve windisch". full text can be found here: http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2009/12/24/the-strange-case-of-the-rosemary-ainslie-circuit-by-steve-windisch/

Wilby - thanks for trying to stem this rot.  But it really isn't needed.  Just let them rabbit on.  It does no harm and hopefully it'll take the attention off this thread until we're ready to publish.  And if we never do publish - then so what?  It just means that we'll inevitably be looking at an escalating energy crisis that will put paid to our social comforts.  And then perhaps the evidence will start speaking more loudly.  Because right now these horrors are hell bent on denying it.  And the joke is that neither of them can even manage elementary power analysis.  So it's not as if we can have a decent discussion. 

Just let it go.  It really isn't worth the effort.  They haven't got the wherewithal to know what they're doing.  And I'm not sure that I can blame them for that.  It just is what it is. 

Regards,
Rosemary