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.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 898059
  • *Total Topics: 15837
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 0
  • *Guests: 17
  • *Total: 17

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011  (Read 638752 times)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #30 on: March 14, 2011, 04:01:27 PM »
Evolvingape,

Always intrigues me how people choose their avatars.  I think the term is nominative determinism.  Something like that.  I wish you well in this reach.

You keep on and on about batteries.  Perhaps you could take the trouble to read the para under discussion.  What was meant here is that while we have evidence of 'retained' potential difference over an extended period - I have NEVER seen a charge beyond it's starting point.  Yet the instantaneous wattage analysis indicates that the batteries should have been cooking.  I have no idea how to resolve this.  We STRESS that in the report.  HOWEVER.  Nor is it something that can be evaluated by any of us.  It needs a chemist to do a proper analysis.  All I know is that if you take any current from any plug - rectify it that the negative moves to one application and the positive to another - then one could apply a signal at the gate to each half of the input sinewave in antiphase - and we could, theoretically, bill our utility suppliers.  That's the point.  Either there is some measurements error - or there's an anomaly that also requires some resolution.  With the utmost respect to your own expertise - I think we need the expert advice of chemists to establish the recharged condition of the batteries.  I have not tested the batteries over an extended period - because, frankly, it is NOT the object of the demonstration nor of the report.  I have been seduced - in the past - to doing battery draw down comparisons to prove out performance over rated capacities.  And it made not a blind bit of difference.  Quite apart from which it's a tedious series of tests and controls to prove it.  And even proven - it is regardless NOT considered conclusive - or certainly NOT by mainstream.  And their opinion matters rather more than your own.   

Your comments regarding the parasitic oscillation are noted - but are also spurious.  Parasitic oscillation is NOT associated with a resonance that so perfectly reinforces itself.  Usually one expects enough variation to have the one phase cancel out the other - in some kind of waveform pattern that also generates a variation to the amplitudes.  Nor does one expect oscillation to be sustained with such high levels of current flow.  The intention - in using more FETs was to test whether the full potentials in that spike were, perhaps, being blocked by some resistance in the Zener diode.  Clearly it was.  And clearly there is some exploitable advantage to sustaining this oscillation.  And it is easily managed.  But it does appear that it requires the body diode of the MOSFETS because this condition is not managed with diodes simply placed across a single transistor.  Again.  We are only pointing to an anomaly.

The report was prepared in order to show the repeatable evidence of previously recorded effects.  I'm not sure how you can possibly object to this.  It's the most honest means we have of duplicating an experiment in line with the claims.

Finally - as mentioned in the report.  We have two options.  Either there is something wrong with the established measurements protocols applied to this kind of circuit.  Or we've got an alternate energy supply.  My hope is that the second alternative will be considered because - as far as I can tell - it's the only way to generate a similar waveform. 

Rosemary

 :)

BTW - and for the record.  The report was printed prior to the demo and then distributed at the demo. 







Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #31 on: March 14, 2011, 04:14:37 PM »
Yes, notice how Lawrence never assigns a velocity value to the moving pistons but yet extrapolates numbers from the different collisions?  This reminds me of the initial problems I had with his pendulum experiments.  he never accounted for the initial input energy to the moving pendulum but gave all sorts of output numbers to its movement.

I like Lawrence and I am not making fun but, I am no scientists and yet with my engineering background I can usually spot some major flaws in this theory.  The JT circuits he is using for OU experiments on OUR and other places, are no where near the level of the art that we in the JT topic developed and yet, even though ours are far more efficient, he says his shows OU.  Then ours must be really good then.

I am just a fan of reality and not against anything that shows promise.  I have always admired Lawrence's tenacity and he has my respect for that.  But, you can't leave out one side of an equation and then use the figures as being real.

Bill

Dear Bill,

Please check the spreadsheets.  The piston velocity was assigned to be 100 units for the model.  With spreadsheets, you can change and play with the initial value.

Rosie can now do the following:

1.   Inform the South African Academics that her circuit is an OPEN system in non-equilibrium thermodynamics (Aaron’s terminology).  Let the Academics wonder what is non-equilibrium thermodynamics. Or

2.   Inform the South African Academics that her circuit is an OPEN system that brings-in electron motion energy at resonance.  Ask the Academics to examine the tuning fork example.  That example uses Newtonian Mechanics to conclusively demonstrate that a pulsing order of molecular motion can be produced by the vibrating piston.  That pulsing order can do useful work such as pulse-push other identical tuning forks.  The energy comes from the kinetic energy of the air molecules.  The Academics will hotly discuss the issue (behind closed doors usually.)

3.   Smile and wait for the “Official Report” from the Academics.  Let the Academics fight Newtonian Mechanics with Newtonian Mechanics.  That may take time.  She can (and we shall help) promote it to other Academics.  But Rosie and team have already put a flag on this new territory of Bring-in Energy.  God bless her and team.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #32 on: March 14, 2011, 04:34:00 PM »
Hello Lawrence,

I need to put on record that your 'tuning fork' experiment does not - in any way - resolve the resonance that is evident on our circuit.  Perhaps you see a difference?  I think I may have pointed this out in the previous post.

However.  Your good wishes are much appreciated and I'll inform the team.  I would be happier if you would acknowledge, more freely, your reliance on the hard work that preceded your own variation of the Joule Thief circuits.  It seems to be lacking in your posts.  I'm not sure that there is sufficient tribute paid to this.  And I'm not sure that your thesis is strictly as comprehensive as you seem to imply.  Resonance is a very interesting phenomenon.  And it is clearly under exploited.  But this has been mentioned - and even shown - in a huge variety of tests - even on this forum.  In fact, I think the true precursor to this knowledge is Tesla.  I'm not sure that you've got a monopoly here.  And I'm not sure that your thesis is sufficient explanation.  I'm being blunt because I feel this needs saying.

But having said that - I think your efforts towards promotion of your circuit are deserving of every respect.  It's hard work.  I know that only too well.  And your dedication to OU causes is exemplary.

I personally, was absolutely surprised by this resonance.  I expected an improvement.  I never expected it to show itself in this way. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #32 on: March 14, 2011, 04:34:00 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #33 on: March 14, 2011, 07:33:08 PM »
Hello Lawrence,

I need to put on record that your 'tuning fork' experiment does not - in any way - resolve the resonance that is evident on our circuit.  Perhaps you see a difference?  I think I may have pointed this out in the previous post.

However.  Your good wishes are much appreciated and I'll inform the team.  I would be happier if you would acknowledge, more freely, your reliance on the hard work that preceded your own variation of the Joule Thief circuits.  It seems to be lacking in your posts.  I'm not sure that there is sufficient tribute paid to this.  And I'm not sure that your thesis is strictly as comprehensive as you seem to imply.  Resonance is a very interesting phenomenon.  And it is clearly under exploited.  But this has been mentioned - and even shown - in a huge variety of tests - even on this forum.  In fact, I think the true precursor to this knowledge is Tesla.  I'm not sure that you've got a monopoly here.  And I'm not sure that your thesis is sufficient explanation.  I'm being blunt because I feel this needs saying.

But having said that - I think your efforts towards promotion of your circuit are deserving of every respect.  It's hard work.  I know that only too well.  And your dedication to OU causes is exemplary.

I personally, was absolutely surprised by this resonance.  I expected an improvement.  I never expected it to show itself in this way. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Dear Rosemary,

Thank you for your speedy reply.  Congratulations to you and team. 

As I mentioned multiple times, I do not regard myself as an inventor.  I regard myself as an instrument in the Divine Revelations.  I may not have acknowledged openly and sufficiently the hard work and achievement of other inventors.  There are far too many to quote and they all labored towards a worthy cause.  Most of them struggled with insufficient resources.  I hereby thank them openly for their gallant efforts.

The first Divine Revelation is that the tuning fork setup is an OPEN system bringing in kinetic energy of air molecules at resonance.

The first key phrase is OPEN – meaning that energy can flow in and out.  In the case of the tuning fork setup, this is obvious.  The second key phrase is bringing-in – meaning that we are using existing, available energy.  The last key phrase is resonance – this is where all our hard work comes in.  The hunting for resonance is still somewhat an art than a science. 

It is a matter of applying the concept to electrical resonance (LCR) circuits.  My gut feel is that your circuit has the elements of LCR resonance – almost all circuits do.  It requires much tuning to get to the sweet spot or resonance condition.  The effort is not easy and I salute you and team for doing such a wonderful job and openly demonstrating it to the Academics and the World.  Just think resonance and I shall provide the full Newtonian Theoretical backup.

The real debate is not in the Open Forums.  The real debate is behind closed doors at the top Academic Institutions.  Your efforts will not be in vain.

May God bless you and team.  Amen.


Offline markdansie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1471
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #34 on: March 14, 2011, 08:31:55 PM »
Hi Rosemary
Congradulations with your efforts.
I have to agree with TK re the assumptions made with the battery measurements.
Also enguaging with the resident villiage idiot or clown does not do your credability anygood.. he is a harmless, self deluded enthusiest.
Mark

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #34 on: March 14, 2011, 08:31:55 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #35 on: March 15, 2011, 12:09:47 AM »
I have to agree with TK re the assumptions made with the battery measurements.
you agree with assumptions???  wow... how scientific of you, i didn't know you went through such trouble.  ::)

Also enguaging with the resident villiage idiot or clown does not do your credability anygood.. he is a harmless, self deluded enthusiest.
Mark
engaging, village, credibility and finally enthusiast. i assume you are referring to tk with this sentence... or perhaps yourself, seeing the 3rd grade spelling in your post. :) furthermore, engaging anyone in conversation or otherwise has nothing to do with credibility, and suggesting such is a logical fallacy.

Offline evolvingape

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 478
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #36 on: March 15, 2011, 01:19:38 AM »
Hello Rosemary,

Thankyou for your reply,

I will not pay you the discourtesy that you have paid me and cherry pick the statements that I want to answer and ignore the rest. I will attempt to answer all your questions and wonderings and I will stand by what I have said.

Furthermore, reply #42 in this thread, made by yourself, says in part:

“You keep on and on about batteries. Perhaps you could take the trouble to read the para under discussion. What was meant here is that while we have evidence of 'retained' potential difference over an extended period - I have NEVER seen a charge beyond it's starting point. Yet the instantaneous wattage analysis indicates that the batteries should have been cooking. I have no idea how to resolve this. We STRESS that in the report. HOWEVER. Nor is it something that can be evaluated by any of us. It needs a chemist to do a proper analysis. All I know is that if you take any current from any plug - rectify it that the negative moves to one application and the positive to another - then one could apply a signal at the gate to each half of the input sinewave in antiphase - and we could, theoretically, bill our utility suppliers. That's the point. Either there is some measurements error - or there's an anomaly that also requires some resolution. With the utmost respect to your own expertise - I think we need the expert advice of chemists to establish the recharged condition of the batteries. I have not tested the batteries over an extended period - because, frankly, it is NOT the object of the demonstration nor of the report. I have been seduced - in the past - to doing battery draw down comparisons to prove out performance over rated capacities. And it made not a blind bit of difference. Quite apart from which it's a tedious series of tests and controls to prove it. And even proven - it is regardless NOT considered conclusive - or certainly NOT by mainstream. And their opinion matters rather more than your own. ”

The Para 4.2 under discussion actually states:

“When the offset of the function generator is adjusted (see Figure 3), the falling edge of the pulse results in a burst oscillation mode. Parasitic inductance is a well-known consequence of MOSFETs placed in parallel. It is undesirable for switching applications and is therefore, traditionally, factored out of the circuitry. On this application we have enabled that oscillation to the limit of the function generator’s slowest switching speed at 2.7 minutes or 6.172mHz. No material or evident variation or decay of that resonance through that entire period, is observed (see Figure 4). This results in a measured increase of recharge at the battery supply as well as sustaining the temperature over the resistor. It would be desirable to extend this period of oscillation to see whether decay in this oscillation, eventually takes place. These results may warrant further research, as the implications are that the current flow may be perpetuated through this self-oscillation.”

I did take the trouble to read para 4.2, I even took the trouble to reproduce it here. What it was meant to say, and what it did say are two entirely different things. To imply that my ability to read and understand the statement in question is in error, when your correction of what it is was meant to say in no way resembles what it did say is not an error on my part, I feel.

You state:

“the instantaneous wattage analysis indicates that the batteries should have been cooking. I have no idea how to resolve this.”

You have been told how to resolve this and have completely ignored the suggestions. Hook the circuit up to self run and if the batteries cook then your “analysis” was correct. If the batteries lose charge over time then the circuit is drawing power to operate. This is so very simple.

You state:

“Nor is it something that can be evaluated by any of us. It needs a chemist to do a proper analysis.”

This is complete nonsense! No chemist is ever used to establish state of charge of a battery cell. State of charge is established by doing a load test under controlled conditions. This is such a simple procedure that millions of qualified electrical engineers are capable and equipped to perform this test tomorrow.

Furthermore TK eloquently explained exactly how to do this in reply #14 in this thread:

“There are many problems with this report, but I'll just point out one serious one. The "Control Experiment" where DC power at various power levels was applied, and stable temperatures plotted, is a proper control experiment. But it wasn't used properly, unfortunately.

In an EXPERIMENT, a researcher varies one or more "independent variables" and measures the effect of this variation on "dependent variables". In the present case the Independent variable of interest is the POWER SUPPLY, whether DC or the Ainslie circuit, and one dependent variable of interest is the time-temperature curve that results from each supply. We are presented with data from the DC circuit supplying power at various levels, and we should be supplied with a graph from the Ainslie circuit supplying power at the same levels... but we aren't. Nor are we shown anything like a graph of supply voltage versus time for the Ainslie circuit, nor are we shown any evidence AT ALL that the batteries are actually being recharged.

Get two sets of batteries, use one set to heat up the load at DC power to a certain temperature and hold it. Use the second set of batteries to power the Ainslie circuit to achieve the SAME time-temp profile as in the DC case. Run both circuits for a given time. Then disconnect the batteries and run a load test... not a "Voltage" test, but a real battery load test, putting a constant load on them and timing how long it takes to run down.

These tests are easy, obvious, and are ACTUAL tests of the Ainslie conjectures. However, you don't see them being performed. At least, not since I did them, nearly two years ago now.

As a paper reporting an experiment, there are some major areas that need revision. As an experiment itself, it needs to be severely redesigned in order ACTUALLY to test any well-formed hypothesis that might be constructed from Rosemary's conjectures.”

I am not the only one saying this, and I am not the only one being ignored. More massive red flags. This test is so simple and so commonplace that I am simply staggered that you think you can deceive an educated community in this manner.

Furthermore, you state:

“I have not tested the batteries over an extended period - because, frankly, it is NOT the object of the demonstration nor of the report. I have been seduced - in the past - to doing battery draw down comparisons to prove out performance over rated capacities. And it made not a blind bit of difference. Quite apart from which it's a tedious series of tests and controls to prove it. And even proven - it is regardless NOT considered conclusive - or certainly NOT by mainstream. And their opinion matters rather more than your own. ”

If testing the batteries is not in any way important to you I am confused as to how you feel you can  confidently state in Para 6: Discussion:

“The results of this demonstration are consistent with the previous reported test results related to this circuitry. The difference here is that there is an extended period of self-induced oscillation following the falling edge of the gate drive signal. This appears to enhance the circuit performance to what is now measured with what appears to be an infinite co-efficient of performance. This value has been carefully measured, but it is preferred that the circuit and all its effects be carefully evaluated by experts.”

An infinite co-efficient of performance... no evidence whatsoever, despite claiming it has been carefully measured, and no intention of providing said evidence even though your target audience is knowledgeable that such tests in electrical circuits are not only common but easily and conclusively performed. The fact that these tests are used daily to perform COP<1 measurements is irrelevant as they will also show COP>1.

You state:

“Your comments regarding the parasitic oscillation are noted - but are also spurious. Parasitic oscillation is NOT associated with a resonance that so perfectly reinforces itself. Usually one expects enough variation to have the one phase cancel out the other - in some kind of waveform pattern that also generates a variation to the amplitudes. Nor does one expect oscillation to be sustained with such high levels of current flow. The intention - in using more FETs was to test whether the full potentials in that spike were, perhaps, being blocked by some resistance in the Zener diode. Clearly it was. And clearly there is some exploitable advantage to sustaining this oscillation. And it is easily managed. But it does appear that it requires the body diode of the MOSFETS because this condition is not managed with diodes simply placed across a single transistor. Again. We are only pointing to an anomaly.

So...

You claim my observation of parasitic oscillation (which you have previously never even mentioned) is noted but spurious. You also state that you are only pointing to an anomaly. May I suggest that it is premature of you to assume that parasitic oscillation is not the cause of your anomaly before scientifically calculating and predicting the parasitic oscillation you would expect to see in your circuit. I have provided you with the information to perform said calculations. May I also suggest that you consider a constant signal with no loss of amplitude (despite your deliberate lack of clarity on what amplitude you are actually calculating) could be a product of an overlooked component of a DC circuit signal as implied by ambiguity.

I would also like to point out that I am not attacking you, I am simply attacking your scientific method of evidence for making your assumptions. Does that make me an Academic ? :)

You seem not to care about the opinions of individuals in this community as much as you care about the opinions of the Academic community, who will not give you the time of day. I would like to point out that the people that gravitate here, on the whole, care about the Truth, the Proof and Replication, not about continuance of the paycheck and public recognition.

As a fellow OU researcher I respect you. Never forget this. Any professional disagreements we may have are purely that, they are not personal.

As for my Avatar... well that's my business... and has no place in the forefront of our scientific discussion.

Answers to all of the questions regarding component specifications currently outstanding and your intention of conforming to the scientific method in future, to present respectable evidence that can be peer reviewed would be appreciated.

On a final note I would appreciate an accurate quote of where I objected to your report in respect of your previously documented claims of repeatable evidence. I made no such objection, and was merely commenting on the fact that your report could not possibly have included results from the demonstration considering it was prepared and distributed before the event.

With Respect,

RM :)
« Last Edit: March 15, 2011, 01:55:46 AM by evolvingape »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #36 on: March 15, 2011, 01:19:38 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #37 on: March 15, 2011, 04:34:02 AM »
Dear Evolvingape,

I spent an hour answering your post and found myself halfway through and growing increasingly bored.  Please feel free to regard the draw down as a critical test criteria.  It is an aspect of the test that I will not - under any circumstances engage in - without having a chemist on the team. 

Just one quick point.  Here's the reference under discussion.  I'm not sure how you got sidetracked.
 
Some mention must be made of those aspects of the tests that have not been thoroughly explored. The first relates to the battery recharge. It is a truth that the batteries used in these experiments have been used on a regular basis for over 5 months. During that time they have been continually subjected to both light and heavy use and they have never shown any evidence of loss of voltage. Nor have they been recharged by a conventional battery recharger. However there has not been a close analysis of the electrolytic condition of the batteries, before, during or even after their use. This will require a fuller study by our chemistry experts. - from our report under 'discussion'.

Kindest
Rosemary

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #38 on: March 15, 2011, 04:47:10 AM »
Thanks Lawrence - for your well wishes.  I trust that, in time, you'll be able to explain your thesis better.  And indeed, we need reminders that ALL our efforts are needed.  It must, surely, help this drive to clean green.

Mark - thanks for your qualified tribute.  I do not share your opinion though, on who or who not, is a clown.

WILBY - NICE TO SEE YOU AROUND.
Rosemary  :)


edited

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #38 on: March 15, 2011, 04:47:10 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline markdansie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1471
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #39 on: March 15, 2011, 05:24:49 AM »
Hi Rosemary,
I respect your opinion but sugest you go read some of the persons posts over the last few years..like UFO's comming to the olympics and many of the other hundreds of claims.
As for the argument with the batteries that is a big red flag ..use a cap charged to a certain level perhaps and if that does not drop voltage then you have a winner. Until then your results do not have any validity. A chemist is not needed just someone who knows how to do a load test on a battery.
You have to remove all doubt.
All the best
Mark

Offline chrisC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1414
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #40 on: March 15, 2011, 05:45:46 AM »
Hi Rosemary
Congradulations with your efforts.
I have to agree with TK re the assumptions made with the battery measurements.
Also enguaging with the resident villiage idiot or clown does not do your credability anygood.. he is a harmless, self deluded enthusiest.
Mark

Your are correct Mark. He is indeed! From pendulums to Tong wheels to JT variant circuit and now the new hobby horse is kinetic motion in tuning forks! What a deluded clown.

Oh, who can forget about the flying saucer landing at the (2008) Beijing Olympics and the Obama White House lawn. Yawn...

cheers
chrisC

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #40 on: March 15, 2011, 05:45:46 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #41 on: March 15, 2011, 08:17:14 AM »
Hi Rosemary,
I respect your opinion but sugest you go read some of the persons posts over the last few years..like UFO's comming to the olympics and many of the other hundreds of claims.
As for the argument with the batteries that is a big red flag ..use a cap charged to a certain level perhaps and if that does not drop voltage then you have a winner. Until then your results do not have any validity. A chemist is not needed just someone who knows how to do a load test on a battery.
You have to remove all doubt.
All the best
Mark

No Mark. I could never do that.  Not me nor any member of the team.  Doubts will always persist.  Frankly I do not think that the battery 'gains' charge.  It simply retains it.  But I'm certainly NOT considering this technology ONLY as it applies to batteries.  The theoretical implications are that it can apply to a grid supply.  That's the challenge.  The battery assessments can only be competently managed by experts.  All we can do is measure that voltage.  And - as it is - even that is in doubt.  LOL.  We're using instruments that not even God would argue against - yet there are those of you who doubt it.  Doubt is the inevitable consequence of any such claims.  And history is the only way this doubt will be addressed.  So.  Let history tell us the truth.  But - at its least - let's get this researched properly.  Let history get a chance at evaluating all this.  Right now - with this much denial - there's not goingto be much chance of it.

Rosemary

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #42 on: March 15, 2011, 02:32:20 PM »
The instruments God would not argue against, have never been the issue Rose.

The perfect measuring instrument is only as good as the hands that use it.

.99

Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #43 on: March 15, 2011, 03:40:44 PM »
The instruments God would not argue against, have never been the issue Rose.

The perfect measuring instrument is only as good as the hands that use it.

.99

Doubts will be there until hundreds of similar results are demonstrated.  But….if classical Newtonian Mechanics proves that her results are possible, that will help her cause.

I never expect the simple tuning fork experiments and computer model using only Newtonian Mechanics – Conservation of momentum and Conservation of energy – can show that kinetic energy of air molecules can be brought-in at resonance.  I regard that as a Divine Revelation.

You do not believe in resonance can bring-in environmental energy.  That belief blinded you.  That belief led you to think that you are the only one in the World who can use an oscilloscope.  May God open your eyes. Amen.

Offline evolvingape

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 478
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #44 on: March 15, 2011, 03:44:19 PM »
Hello Rosemary,

A quote from Reply #42, made by yourself in this thread, March 14, 2011, 04:01:27 PM

“Your comments regarding the parasitic oscillation are noted - but are also spurious. Parasitic oscillation is NOT associated with a resonance that so perfectly reinforces itself. Usually one expects enough variation to have the one phase cancel out the other - in some kind of waveform pattern that also generates a variation to the amplitudes. Nor does one expect oscillation to be sustained with such high levels of current flow. The intention - in using more FETs was to test whether the full potentials in that spike were, perhaps, being blocked by some resistance in the Zener diode. Clearly it was. And clearly there is some exploitable advantage to sustaining this oscillation. And it is easily managed. But it does appear that it requires the body diode of the MOSFETS because this condition is not managed with diodes simply placed across a single transistor. Again. We are only pointing to an anomaly.”

So what does spurious mean ?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/spurious

“Lacking authenticity or validity in essence or origin; not genuine; false.”

Your Blog entry for March 14, 2011:

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/
91 - yet again
Dear Reader,

I am reminded, again and again, of the sad but predominant need to decry and deny any good news related to this technology of ours. My only comfort is that truth cannot - forever - be suppressed.

All I would like to draw your attention to - which is the sole reason that we held that demonstration - is that what is known of in the trade as 'parasitic oscillation' is a very exploitable event. This is very easily verified. You need to put those MOSFETS in parallel - then let the system do its thing. If nothing else comes from this - then at least, to those who experiment at all - just test this for yourselves. We have, traditionally, been throwing away a potential in back electromotive force - that actually needs to be encouraged. Parasitic oscillation is - self-evidently - the need for all that energy to manifest as current flow. And for this you need to 'widen the throat' - so to speak - the 'path' to allow it to flow. For those who've grasped the implications. The circuit now acts as a booster converter - without the attendant energy expense.

We have tested this to 30 amps. I have every reason to believe that with more FETs we could have accommodated even more current. And then, the theoretical implication is that this should obviate those extremes spikes at the transitional phases - when we go into heavy duty mode. And then too it should just comfortably osciallate. This is what requires advancement, research. Let's just look at all that potential. It will, most certainly, put paid to all those equivalence requirements applied to electromagnetic energy transfer - that has dogged our theoreticians for way too long. They're nonsense. Certainly NOT applicable to electric energy.

And. Dear God. What harm to test this? And what harm to view that test? What harm? Anywhere? Just look again at the crisis of nuclear energy. Just look at the catastrophes that result from using such dangerous technology. Look at the political crises escalating around the globe as result of abuses related to energy rights. The crisis of pollution. The crisis and risks to the continuation of our species.

At the risk of referencing something where I'm ill equipped to comment - while God may have given us supremacy over all things - I wonder if he would not prefer it that we were a little less prodigal and a little less self-serving - in our use of all that abundance. And I wonder then - that with the small inclusion of some transistors to some of our circuitry then the indications are that - at its least - we can do away with some of those toxic energy supplies. Not a bad thing at all.

I wonder at the malice that keeps dogging my best efforts. I am only trying to do my best in the interests of clean green. I'm increasingly aware of the need to silence me and to discredit the technology. It is a fact that the latest reach - that lastest entire distortion of the events at the demonstration - was by a nuclear physicist. Let him go public with his name as he is, so publicly yet so vicariously, able to distort the facts.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

So... Let me get this straight...

You are now claiming that what you are seeing in this circuit is what is known in the trade as “parasitic oscillation” ?

May I suggest that it is not only the nuclear physicist that is engaged in distortion of the facts.

Thanks Rosemary, I have not laughed that hard in ages, I almost fell off my chair!  ;D

RM :)

 

OneLink