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 670071 times)

Offline cHeeseburger

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #555 on: April 11, 2011, 02:42:00 AM »
And may I remind you that the whole purpose of that exercise was to PROVE that the voltage across the battery retains that same really robust oscillation that Poynty and you and Humbugger and just about all the detractors ASSURED the readers here - would - IN FACT - FLATLINE??  I think Poynty's term was 'ripple' which was, at best, a rather inadequate euphemism.   It most certainly DOES NOT FLATLINE and there is NO EVIDENT RIPPLE. 

I'm rather looking forward to an acknowledgement of this fact.  And I'm rather disappointed that it's not been forthcoming.  I've always claimed a real danger in posting on these forums.  One hopes for an impartial evaluation.  What I see is anxious denial wherever you so called experts can manage it and then - based statements that are really easy to disprove.  This claim of a 'ripple' is just one example.

May I again draw your attention to the phase angles of those voltages.  If you dig deep you'll resolve that 'zero crossing' at that point.

Rosemary


Please go back and read my posts again.  It has been acknowledged and your tests clearly show it, that the AC voltage you see on your battery measurement is a direct function of how much total wiring length is included in the loop.  When you removed 1/2 of the wiring, the AC voltage reduced in half.  I have suggested two ways to prove to yourself that essentially all of the AC voltage you see is across the wires and not across the batteries themselves.

You have not tried those tests or have not reported on them if you have.  Nor have you answered any of the straightforward questions I have asked.  Stefan and I have simply noticed that your multiply trace is showing negative results when both inputs are positive samples.  Does this not seem wrong to you?

Doesn't that fact that you get entirely different input power results when you move the scope probes around cause you to wonder which set of results, if either, is correct?  None of these observations is "vapid".  On the contrary, they are key observations that any scientist would need to address satisfactorily before basing conclusions thereon.

Humbugger

Offline kEhYo77

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 241
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #556 on: April 11, 2011, 06:40:15 AM »
Yes, looks like the scope is set wrongly or is broken.

The red line should also go symmetrically around the zero line as the
orange shunt voltage line.

So the Multiplication channel is displaying wrong values.

IMHO the scope shots and measurement values seem fine. What is happening here is that there is limited display area reserved for each trace and what we see here is just clipping of the graphics. If you look at it closely, there is this boundary clipping line present in other traces as well not just the red one...

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #557 on: April 11, 2011, 08:26:51 AM »
Well - I've not lost sleep over it - but I'm wondering if I'll ever get an answer to that challenge.  If I don't then WHAT can we conclude?  I would have thought that it's a relatively easy thing to determine whether or not our claim is valid - whether or not the measurements are consistent with that claim - and whether or not those measurements are an accurate reflection of what is happening.  And in the light of all this INTEREST in over unity - I would have thought that Harti would be most anxious to confirm this - one way or another.  Surely it's not every day that experimenters can show COP infinity? 

So Harti.  How about it?  Surely the ONLY way forward now would be to see this for yourself.  That way you can put paid to our evidence - OR NOT.  Whichever becomes evident.  Just know that you will not be allowed to impose non classical assumptions.  We're depending on standard protocols for measurement.  Else like Poynty et al - you're just moving the goal posts.

And guys - Poynty has, indeed, done some tests.  What a joke.  Still not sure if it's a simulated test or a real bench test - but he's showing NOTHING.  Just claiming preliminary results which, predictably - are based on AVERAGING.  I wonder if anyone is ever going to advise him that NO self-respecting scientist would be prepared to base his reputation on averaging results from a switching circuit.  GROSSLY erroneous and yet drawing endless applause from his acolytes.  What's new?

Rosemary

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #558 on: April 11, 2011, 08:57:14 AM »
And may I add - I'm now becoming seriously concerned that these forums are NOT intended to promote but rather to frustrate over unity claims - under the banner excuse of 'extraordinary proof' required for 'extraordinary claim's.  I am entirely satisfied that Poynty's mission in life is to deny this on any and every basis that he wants and that MileHigh and Humbugger are equally well motivated.

Also Harti - you stated that our MEASUREMENTS ARE WRONG.  Kindly advise me WHERE they're wrong. That's a strong statement.  I just wonder that you can make it without some kind of ligitimate REASON.  One hopes that all this hard work of ours is not DIMINISHED on these forums by the careless or reckless assessment of respected members - without first ensuring some reasonable level of due diligence.  I hope that your intention is not to do this.  We who are honestly sharing our knowledge through open source - would be ill advised to publish any results here if we thought, for ONE MINUTE, that you were oblivious to the harm you could do us by such unprofessional and unsubstantiated statements.  One could almost think that you WANTED the math trace to remain below zero.  That you were looking for a reason to dismiss these results.  Surely not?  You always seem to want to explore all possible solutions to resolve our energy crisis.

ALSO - you seem to dispense with any attempt at politeness when you answer my posts.  I would have to first be entirely insensitive not to notice the RUDENESS of your address.  And it certinly is NOT just you manner - as I see you bend over backwards to extend a polite address to others.  Is there some justification to this?  I would have thought that my efforts would - at it's least - deserve something more thorough than that supeficial assessment followed by that complete dismissal?

So.  Let me - for now - assume that you're just inclined to be rather blunt - and let me see if I can emulate you.  If you think I'm lying then COME AND CHECK OUT THE FACTS FOR YOURSELF.  It'll cost you a plane ticket.  If you're wrong then you can make up the cost of that air ticket in promoting applications.  If you're right I'll refund you that cost.  I can't be fairer than that.

Rosemary     

Offline cHeeseburger

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #559 on: April 11, 2011, 09:59:37 AM »
I don't see any rudeness at all, not from Stefan, not from me, not from anyone.  All of us are just being factual and pointing out things that don't add up or make sense.  Everyone who has made comments critical of the measurements has given their reasoning and asked you to address specific questions, which you have ignored.

I have repeatedly suggested that you consult with a LeCroy or Tektronix Applications Engineer regarding your use of the scopes.  You ignore that advice.  What has been shown here lately is that the numbers you are getting for input power are hugely dependent on where you place your probes.  This should be a big red flag to you that tells you the measurements and results are not trustworthy.

Now you seem to be exploding into a tirade of rage and insults against Stefan just because he agreed with my observation that the scope math trace is clearly producing negative numbers when multiplying two positive samples.  That obviously is impossible and represents a gross error.  We don't know why that is happening but anyone who took second grade arithmetic knows that two positive numbers multiplied together cannot produce a negative product.

It would behoove you to talk to your oscilloscope manufacturer until the solution to this gross and obvious error is found and corrected.

Regarding using averages, you keep screaming that no scientist uses averages in switching circuits, yet every one of your scope traces is set up to report an average or "mean" of some type.  They always have been.  Your extensive spreadsheet math is also entirely intended to obtain an average value.

The only legitimate question is whether the averaging should be done before or after the multiplying.  In the case where the supply voltage is a fixed steady DC number as in your case using batteries, the question is moot.  You have just witnessed the fact that the AC voltage you are seeing "on the batteries" is directly proportional to the length of the battery wiring you include in the measurement.  That AC voltage is not part of the battery voltage and is entirely due to di/dt in the battery wiring itself.  It has no bearing on input power.

Don't keep killing the messengers, Rosemary.  The messages are what's important and they are real and true and quite valid.  Your measurements and results are not representing the actual power input of your setup.  Period.  You need to correct that if you are to attain any valid test results.

Humbugger

Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #560 on: April 11, 2011, 12:43:12 PM »
Dear Rosemary,

Do not get frustrated.  You are working on resonance circuits which are difficult to understand and reproduce.  There will be unfamiliar waveforms.  Poynt99 and MileHigh totally dismissed my FLEET waveforms also - claiming that those are wrong and worthless.  They are NOT qualified and WRONG. 

Posting on the Internet is different from submitting to established academic journals.  In established academic journals, they have qualified reviewers.  Just ignore the comments on the Internet and continue your good work with your team.

The TRUTH cannot be suppressed forever.  You can check the Lee-Tseung Lead-out/bring-in energy theory thread at energetic forum for the detailed theory on LCR circuit resonance.  There is no mystery in your resonance circuit bringing-in electron motion energy.

Lawrence

Quote from: ltseung888;136963
Quick Summary of the three Divine Revelations

Revelation 1 – Bringing-in kinetic energy of air molecules.  This is the simplest of all the experiments and such experiments have been done thousands of times already.  Strike one tuning fork.  One or more identical tuning forks nearby will go into sympathetic vibrations.  The resulting sound is louder and last longer.  The extra sound energy comes from the kinetic energy of air molecules.  Resonance condition is required.  At present, this Revelation is used for theoretical understanding.  No product based on this Revelation is planned.

Revelation 2 – Bringing-in gravitational or magnetic energy.  A horizontally pulse-pushed pendulum can bring-in gravitation energy.  The COP for small angles is approximately 1.5.  So long as there is tension in the string, gravitational energy can be brought-in.  If we replace the pendulum bob with a magnet and place other magnets around, we can bring-in magnetic energy.  Magnetic energy is better because it can be greater, have different directions and can be turned on or off.  The oscillation can be replaced by pulsed rotation (resonance pulsing).  The secret is in the exact turning on and off of the pulsing that depends on the load.  Precision engineering and computer programming is needed for best results.  Examples include Tong, Newman, Bedini, Adams, Wang, Liang, 225 HP wheels, etc.

Revelation 3 – Bringing-in Electron Motion Energy.  We can use LCR circuits to produce resonance or oscillation circuits.  A LCR circuit can be thought of as a tuning fork.  We can have multiple LCR circuits in resonance and electron motion energy can be brought-in.  The use of two oscilloscopes to display Input and Output waveforms and Power simultaneously is best.  Examples include FLEET, Joule Ringer, Steven Mark Device, Stan Meyer HHO generator, Rosemary Circuit etc.  This line of products is expected to mushroom quickly as it has no moving parts and the size can be much smaller.:cheers:

With the three Divine Revelations, the mystery of Bring-in Energy devices is clarified.  The water has been turned into wine.  We just need more servers to interpret and produce products for the Masses.  Amen.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #561 on: April 11, 2011, 01:41:51 PM »
Lawrence.  Thank you for your encouragement - but please do NOT assume that there is any similarity between your thinking and the thinking behind this circuit of ours.  They are diametrically opposed.  And I do not have the benefit of God's personal endorsement as you seem to enjoy.  For now the thesis is based on logical argument and NONE OF IT MINE.  I have just introduced some minor variations to a 'field' - that can, perhaps be considered non classical.

So.  I'm genuinely delighted to have your words of encouragement.  By the same token I am alarmed to think that you assume this is all intended  show whatever it is that you think is responsible for whatever over untiy your own circuit may have shown.  I absolutely do not agree that electrons have anything whatsoever to do with current flow.  For you to promote your own thinking here shows an entire disrespect for the work that I've done and the circuit that we've used to prove this.

Nor am I about to get into a dialogue with you on this.  It is entirely irrelevant to the interests of our forum members and - right now - I am trying to promote results that defy classical restraints.  That's hard enough to do - all on its own.  I've told you all this before.  Perhaps you could take the trouble to get more familiar with my own thinking here - starting with the attached.

Thank you
Rosemary

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/101-repost-of-8-inconvenient-truth.html

and here's another that may be more to the point

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/01/33-in-general-and-in-particular.html

And lest any of you read these links and think that I'm not a classicist - here's yet another.

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2010/11/belated-tribute-to-our-scientists.html
« Last Edit: April 11, 2011, 02:08:08 PM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #562 on: April 11, 2011, 03:53:15 PM »
From Rose's blog:

"2 - I will not filter anything. It will interfere with that required oscillation. I realise that's what you and Poynty et al - require. I'm not about to oblige you."

Once again, solid technical advice is misinterpreted. Inserting a simple RC filtering circuit either off the battery voltage or CSR voltage measuring points will have very little effect, if any, on the circuit's oscillations.

To prove the point while monitoring with the scope probe, insert a RC network, and begin with a 10M resistor value. Incrementally decrease the value of the resistor say from 10M, 1M, 100k, 10k, 1k. Do the oscillations change at all?

.99

Offline utilitarian

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 816
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #563 on: April 11, 2011, 04:41:34 PM »
I absolutely do not agree that electrons have anything whatsoever to do with current flow. 

This part blows my mind a little bit.  I sort of figure that the entire reason we can even have this discussion on the Internet is that scientists have figured out how to properly control electrons in integrated circuits.  They are making circuits about 10 atoms wide and so I think they must have a pretty good idea of what's going on, since CPUs and other micro circuits work pretty much as expected.

If electricity is not the flow of electrons, what do you propose it is?  This really does blow my mind and if you could point to some research you have done establishing this I would greatly appreciate it.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #564 on: April 11, 2011, 04:58:05 PM »
This part blows my mind a little bit.  I sort of figure that the entire reason we can even have this discussion on the Internet is that scientists have figured out how to properly control electrons in integrated circuits.  They are making circuits about 10 atoms wide and so I think they must have a pretty good idea of what's going on, since CPUs and other micro circuits work pretty much as expected.

If electricity is not the flow of electrons, what do you propose it is?  This really does blow my mind and if you could point to some research you have done establishing this I would greatly appreciate it.

Utilitarian - AT LAST A GOOD QUESTION.  Thank you.  I keep pointing to my links and to my blog.  If you're really interested then it's all there.  I'll take the liberty of reposting those links.  I assure you that there's nothing wrong with what scientists know and measure as electrons.  I am NOT disputing their existence - as has been widely assumed.  I am just disputing that they're the carrier particle of electromagnetic forces.  Believe it or not - there's a respectable school of theoreticians that deny that electrons can be the material property of current flow.  It's just that they do not, as a rule, speak up that loudly - and they're very much in a minority.  I can give you two names - at least - where it's acknowledged that the use of this is simply to assist in conceptual grasps of the general concepts related to current flow.

Here's my own discourse on this - again
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/101-repost-of-8-inconvenient-truth.html

And if you're up for it - here's the thesis - or possibly better described as the concepts related to the field model.
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/03/98-model.html

I might add that Poynty et al rely on this refutation to remind all and sundry that I must be both deluded and dimwitted.  Little do they realise that to support the concept of electron current flow is to support something that has absolutely NO logical foundation.  It's just one of those many aspects of physics that have been brushed under the carpet - not by our theoreticians so much - but by our electrical engineers.  And I am not sure that their skills are theoretical - as a rule.  The fact is that no-one has ever been able to determine what material is responsible for current flow.  It's possibly best referred to as 'charge'.  Or safest to refer to it as charge.  My own take is that it's magnetic dipolar tachyons.  But I'm in a minority of possible 6 at the most. 

It's a comfort to think that most new ideas were considered mad - together with their proponents.  And not all new ideas were defeated by the then 'popular opinion'.  So there's hope.  And I think that the field model at least proposes a solution that is both self consistent and logical.  But no-one's under any obligations to 'buy in'.  I just offer it for consideration.  Just - once you wrap your mind around this - then it's likely to point to some abundant energy sources that - thus far - have been studiously ignored.  LOL

Kindest regards,
Rosemary


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #565 on: April 11, 2011, 05:34:14 PM »
Yes, looks like the scope is set wrongly or is broken.

The red line should also go symmetrically around the zero line as the
orange shunt voltage line.

So the Multiplication channel is displaying wrong values.

And the following is to answer Harti's points here which are quite simply wrong.  The fault was mine in that I did not 'extend' the math trace waveform.  But it is always some compromise between the voltages of the battery and the shunt. The results here are different as they've been better tuned.

NOTE.  The setting still at 50 sec's per graticule (I hope that's the term) - to show the extended duration of that parasitic oscillation in each cycle.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

A = CHANNEL 1 - CSR CYCLE MEAN
B = CHANNEL 2 - BATTERY (DIRECTLY ACROSS THE TWO TERMINALS)
C = CHANNEL 1 - CSR MEAN AVERAGE (the question was asked)
D = MATH TRACE - PRODUCT OF VOLTAGES CSR AND BATTERY

Offline chrisC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1414
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #566 on: April 11, 2011, 05:38:36 PM »
Dear Rosemary,

Do not get frustrated.  You are working on resonance circuits which are difficult to understand and reproduce.  There will be unfamiliar waveforms.  Poynt99 and MileHigh totally dismissed my FLEET waveforms also - claiming that those are wrong and worthless.  They are NOT qualified and WRONG. 

....
Lawrence

@ Lawrence Tseung
You are not just wrong but DELUSION-ALLY WRONG. Don't try to take credit from Rosie's 'discovery', even that is not yet conclusive.  Is that why that professor of physics you so quickly vouched he will prove your COP > 200 is shying away from associating with you? He's still learning to use a DSO and  to understand some electronics! His knowledge is definitely superior to your delusional talk.

@ Rosie
You've been through hundreds of posts and hitting a brick wall. Surely if you are a 100% sure, why not invite some EE department heads of good reputation universities in Cape Town to verify your results? Surely, if it was O.U by this large amount, you would have thought reputable magazines like New Scientist or Scientific American would be contacting you by now? Why not try to contact them.

cheers
chrisC

Offline cHeeseburger

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #567 on: April 11, 2011, 08:37:09 PM »
Suddenly the battery voltage has dropped by 10 Volts, the shunt trace averages are all negative now where they used to be positive and the red trace now looks somewhat more believable.  Such vastly changing results...remarkable!  Never the same twice...hmmm.

This shows what kinds of cherry-picked numbers can be obtained with a little tweaking when YOU ARE UNDERSAMPLING YOUR 1.5MHz BASIC WAVEFORM BY 1500x.

Notice the sampling rate is 1000 samples per second, with 500 seconds being the screen extent.  500,000 samples being taken.  So ONE SINGLE SAMPLE IS BEING TAKEN ONCE EVERY 1500 CYCLES OF THE PRIMARY WAVEFORM!

You cannot measure a signal consisting of 1.5MHz oscillations by sampling at a 1kHz rate and expect an accurate measurement.  Unless you are Rosemary, that is.   ;D

Humbugger
« Last Edit: April 11, 2011, 09:01:27 PM by cHeeseburger »

Offline hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8012
    • free energy research OverUnity.com
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #568 on: April 12, 2011, 01:21:22 AM »
Hi Rose,
I didn´t say that your system does not work.

I only said, that your multiplication scope  trace seems to be wrongly
set or is set differently than we think it is set.

As I don´t know, what the scope exactly does there,
just from multiplying, it should look different.

But maybe it is also integrating any samples,  so does it
do any additions over time of the sample values ?

P.S. I don´t like to fly nowadays...so  I will probably don´t visit you.

P-P-S Undersampling gives wrong results.

Regards, Stefan.

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #569 on: April 12, 2011, 01:38:11 AM »
Good Grief!

You're right Hum, and I've had this under-sampling go-around with Rose many moons ago. She didn't grasp the concept of the problem then, and I have my doubts she will now. The numbers are all over the place, and the poor scope doesn't have a chance at those settings. What the heck is with the perceived need to slow the PRR to 100's of seconds. ???

Here's an offer for Rose:

I will pay for you to ship your apparatus (minus the batteries and function generator) to me, at which time I will conduct proper testing of the apparatus with the proper equipment, the proper settings, and the proper change of probes if necessary.

If the apparatus proves to be OU, then I will also pay to ship it back to you. If it proves to be UU however, then you can pick up the tab for return shipment.

.99