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 657882 times)

Offline MrMag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 754
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1620 on: June 26, 2011, 07:25:14 AM »
Since you clearly do not have what's needed to 'think with' then your 'thoughts' on this and anything at all - are ENTIRELY irrelevant.
R

Golly rosy, you have such a way with words. You are such a kind and caring person. Just as long as nobody asks you questions or asks you to perform a test that would prove that your little circuit is a fake just like you. After 10 years you have not built a single device that uses your circuit. You have lost almost all of your team. Way to go. No "Expert" wants anything to do with you. All you are worried about is writing your paper to try to sell your circuit as a working device. You need more then a paper to prove that. You need verification that it works, and believe it or not, you don't have the qualifications to verify your own circuit. I know that I only have a little over 35 years of electronic experience so I realize that your years as a waitress and real estate agent overwhelms my credentials. I imagine that being told over and over again for the last 10 years that your circuit is nothing special would make you the sour prude that you are today. The only thing that you can do is try to belittle someone who catches you with your lies. I really think it is you that has the agenda. Your deception has lasted 10 years now and is probably a record among frauds.

The sad thing that I am sure that you don't understand, among a lot of other things, is that any professional, expert or academic will probably do some research on you before they commit to anything. When they show up on this site and read some of the comments you have written to and about people, they will stay away from you. You even cut up people on your own blog. Not to mention the blog that is dedicated to your mentality and morality. You are your worst enemy. It's really to bad that you have not had any formal training. Maybe you would be a little more professional and ethical. Your just a mean old lady that will never truly understand. I feel sorry for you.

Offline MrMag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 754
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1621 on: June 26, 2011, 07:31:38 AM »
you are absolutely correct... evidenced by his reply #1612which is absolutely pathetic. and his third time avoiding my simple, direct questions. i thought from previous conversations he was reasonable. my mistake mr.mag, my mistake...

I don't know Wilby, I ask rose a question and she doesn't have to answer which is no big deal to you. Yet you DEMAND an answer from me. And you are not her little pawn, right.

You two deserve each other.

Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1622 on: June 26, 2011, 07:55:40 AM »
I don't know Wilby, I ask rose a question and she doesn't have to answer which is no big deal to you. Yet you DEMAND an answer from me. And you are not her little pawn, right.

You two deserve each other.
more logical fallacy... non sequitur. ::)
how am i involved in the questions you posed to rose? look, mags, i asked YOU a couple of simple questions, which you have continued to avoid answering for several posts now. and because you feel rose has not answered your questions (which she actually has) that is justification to not answer mine?  dude, are you mental?  ::)

yup, my mistake mr.mag, my mistake indeed.

edit: i give up on you mr.mag. one cannot use reason to reason someone out of a position they have not used reason to get themselves into...
you are a waste of my time. i'm going fishing.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1623 on: June 26, 2011, 08:05:20 AM »
Guys I'm deleting this post and putting it after MaMag's posts.  Otherwise it may be lost in all that sad little obsession he has with himself about himself.

regards,
Rosemary

Offline MrMag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 754
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1624 on: June 26, 2011, 08:09:48 AM »
I'm not sure if this is what you are DEMANDING me to answer but I will. Then you won't be able to whine about "why should she answer you when you don't answer me".

and this is saying what? that it has been investigated fully by aaron? i think the fact that aaron only achieved a cop of 2 and "efficiencies greater than “4″ have already been recorded in the recent 2009 replications" makes that line of argument moot. are you saying that improvements cannot be made? did the first internal combustion engines have the performance your current car does? etc. etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseam. look at what he (aaron) says about heat pumps, "3.0~5 cop and overseas I have seen claims of 6-7 cop". gee, they are making improvements to an old technology even now... see where i'm going with this? probably not. furthermore, the steve windisch article states glen got cop>4 which would put it dead smack in the middle of heat pump tech cop 3-5. how does that not compete as it stands with no improvement?
heck, in the same post he says he got cooling of over 2 degrees from ambient on certain components. "serious reverse entropy" he called it... but that's not worth investigating to you is it?

The reason I posted this is because Aaron is/was at one time, part of the team, correct?
His comment was, "it isn't worth the time". So, I guess HE thinks the circuit isn't worth pursuing.
I never mentioned my thoughts either way so I don't know where you got the idea that I don't think it's worth investigating. Gee, I think this calls for one of your classic red herring or logical fallacy lines but I'm not sure which to use.

and in the same article steve interviews glen (fuzzytomcat)... so you are saying glen isn't credible now? for the record, the "team" was rosemary, aaron murakami, glen lettenmaier, harvey gramm, steve windisch, astweth. did i miss any rose?

The only people who are not credible are rosy and possibly Steve. I'm still undecided with him. He has written some interesting articles but I think he is still backing rosy which makes him a little questionable. As for the rest of them, Yes they are credible. They were just being misled at the time so I don't hold them responsible for any of it.

The  "strange rosemary" document not the people is what I'm referring to. When the team members interview each other and post the comment, "Rosemary graciously agreed to be interviewed for this article from her home in South Africa, and answer a few brief questions". it sounds a little fishy to me. We know exactly how this "interview" went. It makes me question the whole document. She was misleading and deceiving people by making it look as if it was an independent interview. That statement would be made from someone outside of the club suggesting they were lucky to get the interview. It would NOT be made from someone on the same team. It just goes to show what kind of a deceitful person she is.

Offline MrMag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 754
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1625 on: June 26, 2011, 08:19:39 AM »
more logical fallacy... non sequitur. ::)
how am i involved in the questions you posed to rose? look, mags, i asked YOU a couple of simple questions, which you have continued to avoid answering for several posts now. and because you feel rose has not answered your questions (which she actually has) that is justification to not answer mine?  dude, are you mental?  ::)

yup, my mistake mr.mag, my mistake indeed.

edit: i give up on you mr.mag. one cannot use reason to reason someone out of a position they have not used reason to get themselves into...
you are a waste of my time. i'm going fishing.

I don't understand the reason why you can't use reason to reason with me when I was reasonable.
Your always fishing  :D

Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1626 on: June 26, 2011, 08:23:16 AM »
you weren't reasonable. engaging in logical fallacies is not reasonable... ::) TU STULTUS ES!
I'm not sure if this is what you are DEMANDING me to answer but I will. Then you won't be able to whine about "why should she answer you when you don't answer me".

The reason I posted this is because Aaron is/was at one time, part of the team, correct?
His comment was, "it isn't worth the time". So, I guess HE thinks the circuit isn't worth pursuing.
I never mentioned my thoughts either way so I don't know where you got the idea that I don't think it's worth investigating. Gee, I think this calls for one of your classic red herring or logical fallacy lines but I'm not sure which to use.
read the quote again mr.mag, take note of the highlighted part
Quote from: aaron murakami
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.
so the circuit has merit, but isn't worth pursuing...  ::)
of course you are not sure which one to use, that would require an understanding of what a cogent argument is and knowledge of the various logical fallacies...

The only people who are not credible are rosy and possibly Steve. I'm still undecided with him. He has written some interesting articles but I think he is still backing rosy which makes him a little questionable. As for the rest of them, Yes they are credible. They were just being misled at the time so I don't hold them responsible for any of it.

The  "strange rosemary" document not the people is what I'm referring to. When the team members interview each other and post the comment, "Rosemary graciously agreed to be interviewed for this article from her home in South Africa, and answer a few brief questions". it sounds a little fishy to me. We know exactly how this "interview" went. It makes me question the whole document. She was misleading and deceiving people by making it look as if it was an independent interview. That statement would be made from someone outside of the club suggesting they were lucky to get the interview. It would NOT be made from someone on the same team. It just goes to show what kind of a deceitful person she is.
and yourself, since you have 35 years of electronic experience (is that selling vcr's at best buy? cause that doesn't really count you know... ;) ) but think that a single lemon can light a large filament bulb... and i seem to recall you telling omnibus that it was voltage in and out that mattered and that was the only thing that mattered. here it is:
I'm sorry but I disagree with you on that. Who cares what science says. If I can run my house off the grid with new technology, why would I care what science has to say about it. If I have to wait for the scientist to come up with something, I'll be waiting a very long time.

You give scientist to much credit. They live in a little bubble. If OU is discovered, it will probably come from some new type of energy conversion. It won't fit in their little formulas so it won't be accepted. They are the most closed minded people of all.

So, what is the gain of your circuit. How many volts in and how many out. I am asking for the actual real numbers not the simulated ones.
you are free to assume and speculate what you wish...

edit: my bad, it wasn't a lemon, it was a potato...
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8387.msg215247#msg215247
« Last Edit: June 26, 2011, 08:52:06 AM by WilbyInebriated »

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1627 on: June 26, 2011, 08:26:32 AM »
guys -  here it is again.

I'm beginning to sound like a prophet of doom.  But I'm also going to risk saying all this again.  We have no more options.  Our clocks are ticking.  We have no ALTERNATE ENERGY SUPPLY SOURCES.  Most of our Governments are already looking to ways to limiting their energy supplies to us - poor end users.  We're being encouraged to limit our consumption.  Either by punitive pricing on those resources - or by actively advancing the our use of solar or wind energies.  Both are expensive to implement and not that efficient.  Not much reward ratio - not much 'buck' for all that 'bang'.  We have NOTHING ELSE GOING FOR US - UNLESS we find something new.

Well.  Here's the thing.  We HAVE found something new.  Thanks to Zwicky - who one day I hope will be acknowledged as a scientific GREAT - we apparently have bags and bags of DARK ENERGY.  This is a new force.  Never before been known of.  NOT even acknowledged by our BRILLIANT QED developers.  Nor by our BRILLIANT classicists.  The hell was to LOCATE IT.  Still is.  No-one can find the particle needed for this new force.  And it's been a frantic search.  The guys at MIT have been overseeing deep mine experiments for over 10 years.  Still nothing.  BUT.  Nor have the ever found the graviton that is ASSUMED to be needed for gravity.  And NOR has anyone actually even PROVED that the electron is the particle required for the electromagnetic interaction.  SO?  Why is this different?  Why do they first NEED this particle when a 'particle' proof was never required before?   Here's why.  Because WITHOUT that particle the logic or the justifications for all that unity requirement thing - that Kirchhoff's Rule - thing - will simply unravel.  And that logic has been the lode star that has taken us to the extraordinary heights (or depths) that we enjoy today.  Clearly the fundamentals that are responsible for all our progress - HAS NOT BEEN FOR NAUGHT.  It has worked.  Really rather remarkably well.  So?  What are they meant to do with YET ANOTHER FORCE - which has NOT been factored in - and which seems to DEFY, at its least, Kirchhoff's unity requirements?  Is it a particle?  And if so WHERE IS IT?  And WHAT IS IT?

This is where I modestly propose that we may have found an answer.  And I don't need to go into what that answer is but I ASSURE YOU ALL that it is NOT a DISCOVERY.  It's a line of reasoning that was FORGED and DEVELOPED in all its pristine elegance by FARADAY.  Faraday worked with lines of force.  IF those lines of force comprise particles then what he did not actually SAY but what is IMPLICIT is that there must thereby be some kind of magnetic 'coherence' in those fields to retain any line at all.  And nothing 'coheres' better than two magnets aligned north to south.  So.  Taking that thought to it's logical conclusions - then one can actually describe the magnetic field with an exactitude that is breathtakingly consistent with what is evident.  NOT ONLY THAT - but we only need a single magnetic dipole to prove that ALL particles are composites of this same thing.  And not only that - but we can describe ALL THE KNOWN FORCES, including the DARK FORCE - as varying dimensions and fields of JUST THIS ONE PARTICLE.

And to prove all this - one only needs to apply FARADAY's Inductive Laws and then all this excess is immediately apparent.  Not only THAT - but our simulation software SHOWS THE SAME THING.  And here's what it shows.  It shows that every time we induce COUNTER ELECTROMOTIVE FORCE or BACK ELECTROMOTIVE FORCE or CEMF or BEMF - then we, and that simulation software - is simply adding IN another cycle of energy.  So.  Why then is this all so different? 

Here's why.  KIRCHHOFF told us that counter electromotive energy was STORED energy.  And the amount of energy that was stored was FIRST REDUCED by the amount of energy DISSIPATED on the circuit.  In other words he ONLY paid heed to a SINGLE SUPPLY SOURCE.  Which means we can NEVER get more out than in.  FARADAY, on the other hand claimed this.  The amount of energy or potential difference STORED = the amount of energy or potential RETURNED.  Because changing electric fields induce magnetic fields and changing magnetic fields induce electric fields.  NO QUALIFICATIONS TO THE VALUE.  And HIS argument, ie FARADAY's argument, by comparison, requires an IMPLICIT equivalence in the amount IN to the amount OUT - or as Poynty refers to it Pin=Pout.   

That's what our circuit proves.  IT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT OUR DISCOVERY.  IT ISN'T TECHNICALLY EVEN A DISCOVERY.  IT IS A VALIDATION OF FARADAY'S INDUCTIVE LAWS and it has the dubious merit of also ENDORSING the findings that our DARK ENERGY DISCOVERERS have already PROVED. 

And back to the point of this post.  We can continue to ignore this evidence but we do so at our peril.  And if the general reluctance to acknowledge all this is simply because there are posters here who do not like me, or that there are members who prefer to find COMPLETELY irrelevant reasons for all this - then so be it.  It doesn't change the facts.  Physics is NOT based on opinion.  Nor is it based on popularity.  And science - as we ALL KNOW is ONLY PROGRESSED BY REPEATABLE EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE.  We've done that bit to death.  It's yet to be seen how well our mainstream scientists evaluate all this.  Right now they've still got the excuse that it's not published.  I shall try and get this published or die trying.  But that's as far as I can reasonably be expected to take it.

Regards,
Rosemary

Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1628 on: June 26, 2011, 08:43:10 AM »
guys -  here it is again.

I'm beginning to sound like a prophet of doom.  But I'm also going to risk saying all this again.  We have no more options.  Our clocks are ticking.  We have no ALTERNATE ENERGY SUPPLY SOURCES.  Most of our Governments are already looking to ways to limiting their energy supplies to us - poor end users.  We're being encouraged to limit our consumption.  Either by punitive pricing on those resources - or by actively advancing the our use of solar or wind energies.  Both are expensive to implement and not that efficient.  Not much reward ratio - not much 'buck' for all that 'bang'.  We have NOTHING ELSE GOING FOR US - UNLESS we find something new.

Well.  Here's the thing.  We HAVE found something new.  Thanks to Zwicky - who one day I hope will be acknowledged as a scientific GREAT - we apparently have bags and bags of DARK ENERGY.  This is a new force.  Never before been known of.  NOT even acknowledged by our BRILLIANT QED developers.  Nor by our BRILLIANT classicists.  The hell was to LOCATE IT.  Still is.  No-one can find the particle needed for this new force.  And it's been a frantic search.  The guys at MIT have been overseeing deep mine experiments for over 10 years.  Still nothing.  BUT.  Nor have the ever found the graviton that is ASSUMED to be needed for gravity.  And NOR has anyone actually even PROVED that the electron is the particle required for the electromagnetic interaction.  SO?  Why is this different?  Why do they first NEED this particle when a 'particle' proof was never required before?   Here's why.  Because WITHOUT that particle the logic or the justifications for all that unity requirement thing - that Kirchhoff's Rule - thing - will simply unravel.  And that logic has been the lode star that has taken us to the extraordinary heights (or depths) that we enjoy today.  Clearly the fundamentals that are responsible for all our progress - HAS NOT BEEN FOR NAUGHT.  It has worked.  Really rather remarkably well.  So?  What are they meant to do with YET ANOTHER FORCE - which has NOT been factored in - and which seems to DEFY, at its least, Kirchhoff's unity requirements?  Is it a particle?  And if so WHERE IS IT?  And WHAT IS IT?

This is where I modestly propose that we may have found an answer.  And I don't need to go into what that answer is but I ASSURE YOU ALL that it is NOT a DISCOVERY.  It's a line of reasoning that was FORGED and DEVELOPED in all its pristine elegance by FARADAY.  Faraday worked with lines of force.  IF those lines of force comprise particles then what he did not actually SAY but what is IMPLICIT is that there must thereby be some kind of magnetic 'coherence' in those fields to retain any line at all.  And nothing 'coheres' better than two magnets aligned north to south.  So.  Taking that thought to it's logical conclusions - then one can actually describe the magnetic field with an exactitude that is breathtakingly consistent with what is evident.  NOT ONLY THAT - but we only need a single magnetic dipole to prove that ALL particles are composites of this same thing.  And not only that - but we can describe ALL THE KNOWN FORCES, including the DARK FORCE - as varying dimensions and fields of JUST THIS ONE PARTICLE.

And to prove all this - one only needs to apply FARADAY's Inductive Laws and then all this excess is immediately apparent.  Not only THAT - but our simulation software SHOWS THE SAME THING.  And here's what it shows.  It shows that every time we induce COUNTER ELECTROMOTIVE FORCE or BACK ELECTROMOTIVE FORCE or CEMF or BEMF - then we, and that simulation software - is simply adding IN another cycle of energy.  So.  Why then is this all so different? 

Here's why.  KIRCHHOFF told us that counter electromotive energy was STORED energy.  And the amount of energy that was stored was FIRST REDUCED by the amount of energy DISSIPATED on the circuit.  In other words he ONLY paid heed to a SINGLE SUPPLY SOURCE.  Which means we can NEVER get more out than in.  FARADAY, on the other hand claimed this.  The amount of energy or potential difference STORED = the amount of energy or potential RETURNED.  Because changing electric fields induce magnetic fields and changing magnetic fields induce electric fields.  NO QUALIFICATIONS TO THE VALUE.  And HIS argument, ie FARADAY's argument, by comparison, requires an IMPLICIT equivalence in the amount IN to the amount OUT - or as Poynty refers to it Pin=Pout.   

That's what our circuit proves.  IT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT OUR DISCOVERY.  IT ISN'T TECHNICALLY EVEN A DISCOVERY.  IT IS A VALIDATION OF FARADAY'S INDUCTIVE LAWS and it has the dubious merit of also ENDORSING the findings that our DARK ENERGY DISCOVERERS have already PROVED. 

And back to the point of this post.  We can continue to ignore this evidence but we do so at our peril.  And if the general reluctance to acknowledge all this is simply because there are posters here who do not like me, or that there are members who prefer to find COMPLETELY irrelevant reasons for all this - then so be it.  It doesn't change the facts.  Physics is NOT based on opinion.  Nor is it based on popularity.  And science - as we ALL KNOW is ONLY PROGRESSED BY REPEATABLE EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE.  We've done that bit to death.  It's yet to be seen how well our mainstream scientists evaluate all this.  Right now they've still got the excuse that it's not published.  I shall try and get this published or die trying.  But that's as far as I can reasonably be expected to take it.

Regards,
Rosemary
well said rose. i think you are wasting your breath on these two. i know i am... that's why they both just made my ignore list. neither of them have the knowledge to recognize the flaws at the most fundamental levels of 'popular science'. nor do they have the breadth of knowledge to see the paradoxes and contradictions between the various genres of popular science.

good luck. i'm gonna go catch some dinner and fill the icebox with fillets.

Offline MrMag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 754
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1629 on: June 26, 2011, 08:44:33 AM »
TU STULTUS ES!
Wow, you can use fancy words too! rosy must be paying you the big bucks.

read the quote again mr.mag, take note of the highlighted partso the circuit has merit, but isn't worth pursuing...  ::)
of course you are not sure which one to use, that would require an understanding of what a cogent argument is and knowledge of the various logical fallacies...

I think you need to read my reply again. I thought it was straight forward but you may need further clarification. I just wanted to point out that Aaron said "it isn't worth the time". If he also mentioned that the circuit has merit, you will need to take it up with him. I'm not sure but isn't it a logical fallacy for you to argue with me about something that someone else said?

and yourself, since you have 35 years of electronic experience (is that selling vcr's at best buy? cause that doesn't really count you know... ;) ) but think that a single lemon can light a large filament bulb... and i seem to recall you telling omnibus that it was voltage in and out that mattered and that was the only thing that mattered.
you are free to assume and speculate what you wish...

No, thank God I never had to deal with the public. But now that you mention it, it would still give me more qualifications then rosys waiting on tables.

I never said anything about a lemon lighting a LARGE filament bulb. Like how large, are you talking the whole bulb or just a large filament? Yes, I did say that to Omni but didn't I correct myself and say wattage. Do you carry notes on everyone? You need to get a life. You should take up fishing or something

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1630 on: June 26, 2011, 08:52:56 AM »
well said rose. i think you are wasting your breath on these two. i know i am... that's why they both just made my ignore list. neither of them have the knowledge to recognize the flaws at the most fundamental levels of 'popular science'. nor do they have the breadth of knowledge to see the paradoxes and contradictions between the various genres of popular science.

good luck. i'm gonna go catch some dinner and fill the icebox with fillets.
;D
And I'm going to do the family thing.  It's Sunday.  The good news is that the sun is shining - for once and that you're still around on these forums Captain.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie

Offline MrMag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 754
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1631 on: June 26, 2011, 09:00:17 AM »
 ;D ;D ;D

Offline powercat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1632 on: June 26, 2011, 02:15:57 PM »
And science - as we ALL KNOW is ONLY PROGRESSED BY REPEATABLE EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE.  We've done that bit to death.
Regards,
Rosemary

Oh no you have not, there have been numerous requests recently and in the past that you completely ignore or argue that it is not requiredand and that you have done more than enough.
Why is it then that all the people on this forum that have ever tried your circuit have failed to match your results.

As for the rest of your post, this forum is not your blog, please interact properly with members here making reasonable requests for new tests.

No one is doubting you can talk the talk but when it comes to walk the walk, we all fall flat on our faces, except you, it all works for you, but nobody else here, and you don't seem to want to do anything to change that, apart from regurgitate your same old arguments  ::)

Expecting any members here to give you any money for doing new tests is ludicrous,
we have all seen the other members here fail, and most of us trust those members capabilities.

If you were to do some new tests like being suggested by Mr Mag amongst others you might change the deadlock situation, after all you're the one seeking recognition, would it help if everyone on this forum started reproducing your circuit so that it did match your results of OU ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

You are the one claiming over unity, yet you expect other people to accept that it works, by belief alone, when most people see the failed attempts they know it's a con or incorrect measuring, this forum has been around long enough to recognise that something is not right.

No doubt if you answer this you will pick on small detail and not address the main point, and you will also repeat what you said before ( this is not your blog) please interact with the reasonable requests made by members here for you to do new tests,

You are really beginning to remind me of Lawrence, he would go on and on and on, about how his technology worked, yet despite repeated requests, he just go's on and on and on, that it worked
Pulsed DC Transformer with Embedded Magnets
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8825.0

You come across as so sincere with that political way of writing and ducking and diving,that most people are prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt,
the fact still remains that no one here can reproduce your claims, and you are not willing to do anything to change that deadlock, part from use this forum as your soapbox and blog

Offline evolvingape

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 478
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1633 on: June 26, 2011, 03:23:59 PM »
Hello Everyone,

I have just done a partial read of the many many pages that have appeared since I was last involved in this thread. What a surprise to find it is still in the same place it was all that time ago. No progress :(

I also noticed that Rose is claiming that there are no ALTERNATE ENERGY SUPPLY SOURCES, this is false, there are:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10708.0

Gasification Rose... Gasification. There is no longer any excuse for you to promote your unproven technology as the ONLY answer to our energy problems. It appears you have not been paying attention due to your self obsession with self publicity.

Gasification is not a new technology, it is an old technology. It requires no R&D and is a solution NOW. Tried, tested and proven to work.

It can run standard off the shelf Internal Combustion Engines and therefore provide either rotary moment drive or by hooking it to a generator unit, electricity. It is simple and cheap to make.

If your struggling to understand the implications of this then it not only solves the “energy crisis” but also the food, heating and water crisis's too. I covered all this here:

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=186038

Ignore the HHO part and substitute in the Gasifier and ICE and you have the ability to use Growbox Technology to grow food, and hot exhaust gases to provide heat and drinking water, along with ample supplies of electricity to live completely off grid and self sufficient.

If you really care about the people struggling to survive in S.Africa and all over the world as you claim to do then you will use your amazing publicity skills to inform them of this stunning development and solution to their problems. It is going to be interesting to see what choice you make.

Best Wishes,

RM :)




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1634 on: June 26, 2011, 04:31:54 PM »
Oh no you have not, there have been numerous requests recently and in the past that you completely ignore or argue that it is not required and and that you have done more than enough.
Why is it then that all the people on this forum that have ever tried your circuit have failed to match your results.
Oh yes we have.  We've replicated our own tests PUBLICLY.  We've also got two team members who have independently replicated this as well as variations of that circuit.  AND we've got a HOST of simulations.  And WHO EXACTLY are you referring to when you say 'Why is it then that ALL the people of this forum that have ever tried your circuit have failed to match your results.'? I'm not sure that there were any.  Ever.  Certainly none that have posted here.  What I DO know is that Neptune and a couple of others were going to try.  But they moved over to try and replicate RomeroUK's work.  With good reason. Remember?  It was YOU who actively advised all to stop posting here and GO THERE.  Do try and think back CAT!  It wasn't THAT long ago.  Golly.         

As for the rest of your post, this forum is not your blog, please interact properly with members here making reasonable requests for new tests.
When I get reasonable requests then I will certainly do whatever it is that is asked of me.  Right now I've been ASKED nothing.  I've had you and MaMags DEMAND that I do an entirely absurd test that will cost me in the region of R10 000.00 IF I do what you require.  And that DEMAND was laced with a clumsy, rude and heavy handed challenge that we could ever get our supply batteries to outperform a control.  Since we've ALREADY shown that it outperformed - then that challenge is void and meaningless.  And I'm not inclined to DO YOUR BIDDING unfortunately CAT because I'm not inclined to co-operate under that menace of denial.  Deny to your heart's content.  It means nothing.  Alternatively, do your own tests.  There's nothing to stop you.  I'm constantly AMAZED that you armchair enthusiasts can charge through these forums advocating one thing - denying another - always off the point - never with any ACTUAL knowledge, skill or authority - and DOING NOTHING YOURSELVES.  It's extraordinary.  And not only that but you then DEMAND that we do your BIDDING?  What are we?  Your slaves?  Do you think that your personal endorsements means that much that you can dispense with politeness and just sit back and call for whatever shots you require.  Do you really think that I care for your opinion?  I don't.  I assure you.  There was a time when I would have cared - deeply.  As it is I now know you SO MUCH better.

No one is doubting you can talk the talk but when it comes to walk the walk, we all fall flat on our faces, except you, it all works for you, but nobody else here, and you don't seem to want to do anything to change that, apart from regurgitate your same old arguments  ::)
WHO HAS FALLEN ON THEIR FACE?  NOT YOU.  You've replicated NOTHING.  NOT ANY MEMBERS ON THIS FORUM?  WHO?

Expecting any members here to give you any money for doing new tests is ludicrous, we have all seen the other members here fail, and most of us trust those members capabilities.
It is NO MORE LUDICROUS THAN TO DEMAND THAT I DO A TEST THAT WILL END UP COSTING ME R10 000.00.  Is it right that I pick up that tab?  When I KNOW that no-one will pay the slightest heed to any result that we show? 

If you were to do some new tests like being suggested by Mr Mag amongst others you might change the deadlock situation, after all you're the one seeking recognition, would it help if everyone on this forum started reproducing your circuit so that it did match your results of OU ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
You are the one claiming over unity, yet you expect other people to accept that it works, by belief alone, when most people see the failed attempts they know it's a con or incorrect measuring, this forum has been around long enough to recognise that something is not right.
Now we're getting closer to the truth.  What your ACTUAL beef is that there are no replications.   Therefore I must provide more evidence?  Exactly HOW do you expect me to co-operate with that concern?  Just go over your posts and tell me WHERE have you asked anything at all?  I've looked.  I see NOTHING.  What I see is an immature tantrum from a lazy armchair enthusiast insulting me in every way he can - in the absurd hopes of thereby encouraging me to co-operate and show YET MORE EVIDENCE.  All I can say is that I will NOT co-operate under any kind of coercion or duress.  I will not be bullied.  And I will not try and redeem your opinion EVER.  You may think what you like.

No doubt if you answer this you will pick on small detail and not address the main point, and you will also repeat what you said before ( this is not your blog) please interact with the reasonable requests made by members here for you to do new tests,
AGAIN.  WHAT REASONABLE REQUESTS ARE YOU REFERRING TO? 

You are really beginning to remind me of Lawrence, he would go on and on and on, about how his technology worked, yet despite repeated requests, he just go's on and on and on, that it worked
Pulsed DC Transformer with Embedded Magnets
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8825.0
As I say.  Your opinion related to FuzzyTomCat's work - RomeroUK's work - or anyone's work - is a matter of supreme indifference to me.  I happen to know that you're an insulting bully and that you're incapable of the intellectual rigor required to assess the truth in anything at all.

You come across as so sincere with that political way of writing and ducking and diving,that most people are prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt, the fact still remains that no one here can reproduce your claims, and you are not willing to do anything to change that deadlock, part from use this forum as your soapbox and blog
AGAIN.  No member has even TRIED to replicate our circuit.  When they do and then IF THEY FAIL - then this comment may then have some kind of historical merit. 

R