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 679939 times)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #630 on: April 17, 2011, 06:26:18 PM »
Yes, excess heat is so terribly boring. It's not as if it can be used to heat water.

 ;D LOL.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #631 on: April 17, 2011, 06:37:54 PM »

It is a heater circuit indeed, and part of the claim is that no net energy whatsoever is required of the source batteries. This is quite simple to prove, i.e. optimize the circuit for high power output (or whatever power is deemed optimum by the claimant) and allow it to run for several months or years if necessary to see if the batteries run down. [Wait to see what the excuse is on this one. ;)]

.99


We've done this Poynty Point.  We've run this for plus/minus 5 hours a day over a 5 month period - on a variety of waveforms all indicating a net gain to the system and without any measurable loss of voltage to the batteries at all.  How long would you need?  Years? 

It is no longer that cliched maxim that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  What's now required is that extraordinary claims require DISPROOF under any conditions at the whim of any person at all - and based on any required premise up to and including the removal of all inductive components on the circuit - as well as a deliberate avoidance of any oscillation at all.  LOL.  That would, indeed, work to defeat our claim.  But I'm not about to indulge you.

Rosemary

« Last Edit: April 17, 2011, 07:19:32 PM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #632 on: April 17, 2011, 07:02:56 PM »
We've done this Poynty Point.  We've run this for plus/minus 5 hours a day over a 5 month period - on a variety of waveforms all indicating a net gain to the system and without any measurable loss of voltage to the batteries at all.  How long would you need?  Years? 

It is no longer that cliched maxim that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  What's now required is that extraordinary claims require DISPROOF under any conditions at the whim of any person at all - and based on any required premise up to and including the removal of all inductive components on the circuit - as well as a deliberate avoidance of any oscillation at all.  LOL.  That would, indeed, work to defeat our claim.  But I'm not about to indulge you.

Rosemary

All the readers here are fully aware that you are not about to indulge anyone or any notion that may threaten your claims.

First of all, 5 hours a day is not 24/7, which is what is required.

Second, "without any measurable loss of voltage to the batteries" does not cut it in terms of knowing what the batteries' state of charge is over time.

Present something with "substance" please. These airy arguments of yours are becoming quite tedious and boring.  ::)

.99

Offline gauschor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 529
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #633 on: April 17, 2011, 07:04:18 PM »
Oh I can also think of hot water and the use of steam turbines to produce electricity. But this obviously isn't it The Ainsle circuit was announced back in 2002 and 9 years have passed since then with "blabla", without practical demonstration nor use. I can guess why. Good luck, I'm out of here.

Offline TheCell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 285
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #634 on: April 17, 2011, 07:05:38 PM »
A net gain by applying pulses to dead battery make inverters work, that previously could not provide the working voltage to the connected various loads.
This (well known ) individual has proven it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqDS8QQ_9Z0&feature=related

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #635 on: April 17, 2011, 07:07:56 PM »
A net gain by applying pulses to dead battery make inverters work, that previously could not provide the working voltage to the connected various loads.
This (well known ) individual has proven it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqDS8QQ_9Z0&feature=related

Please prove that he has proven it.

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #636 on: April 17, 2011, 07:21:07 PM »
All the readers here are fully aware that you are not about to indulge anyone or any notion that may threaten your claims.

First of all, 5 hours a day is not 24/7, which is what is required.

Second, "without any measurable loss of voltage to the batteries" does not cut it in terms of knowing what the batteries' state of charge is over time.

Present something with "substance" please. These airy arguments of yours are becoming quite tedious and boring.  ::)

.99

It seems Poynty Point that you are - indeed - prepared to hit below the belt.  Gauschor may not have read my post related to this but you most certainly have.  Do you really expect me to let you get away with this comment AGAIN?

Here's the thing.  We can get VERY HIGH wattage dissipated at the load.  It works like a 'booster converter' - delivering even more energy that is allowable in terms of resistance placed in series with a standard supply without an applied switching cycle.  But - under those circumstances - there is just so much energy that the 'offset' setting slips ever higher and - the circuit then becomes hazardous.  Therefore one needs to monitor that circuit on a full time basis.  I do not have the time to do this monitoring - even if I could manage to stay awake for 24 hours of every day over an extended period of time.  Nor can any other member of the team whose days are spent in trying to earn a living.  So.  Who do you propose will do the required monitoring? 

But you know this.  Why are you repeating the same old complaint?  Is it in the hopes that I won't remind you of this?  Perhaps?  Surely you know me better.

Rosemary

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #637 on: April 17, 2011, 07:28:25 PM »
Where there is a will, there is a way, and most certainly there is a way in this case. The will is what is sorely lacking.

You and your "experts" just need to put your thinking caps on for a moment and develop a simple scheme to prove this out by letting the circuit run continuously until it becomes exceedingly obvious and beyond a doubt (which you have not yet achieved) one way or the other if the batteries' capacity is declining.

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #638 on: April 17, 2011, 07:42:00 PM »
Please prove that he has proven it.

.99

And here, guys, in a nutshell - is the final defense of the defenseless.  Accurate reports - detailed screen downloads - repeated public demonstrations - youtube demonstrations - predicted results - proven theses - NOTHING will work.  How much more PROOF is required.  This right to denial is now getting to a level of absurdity that actually makes a mockery or a parody of science. 

I have long been aware of the many evidences of overunity - even by those who don't even claim it.  The Joule Thief is a case in point.  It is stated that the energy comes from ground.  Dear God - it doesn't matter WHERE the energy comes from provided that it's non pollutant.  And what really gets me down is how Mags is browbeaten into submission with a really elegant arrangement.  And even if they don't all work.  SO WHAT?  Isn't it a far, far better thing that we have done than we have ever done?  - which is possibly hopelessly misquoted.  Why must we feel ashamed of working towards such excellent goals?  If we don't then - as sure as day follows night - we're dead in the water.    We can kiss the human race - 'good bye'.  Because that's where we're heading.  And mainstream are not going to dip into this dialogue until they've been given a strong and concerted argument - not this fractured nonsense that comes from these threads.  And Poynty et al - they KNOW this.  And they make sure that it stays fractured.

And I sincerely believe that we have actually finally given the measurement proof that's required.  And guess what?  They're denying the measurements.  They STILL want proof.  I actually think that this clamorous denial has now had it's day.  Let's move on.  I think we need to be way more pro-active in our thinking.  And all we're managing here is to go round and round in a circular argument that defeats our best efforts and fits in very comfortably with their agendas.  Let's move on.  I dream of the day when these threads are just wholly and completely dedicated to discovery and not to this hideous need to defend our interests our claims or even our evidence.  Proof is proof.  And right now there's a surfeit of it.

Most sincerely
Rosemary

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #639 on: April 17, 2011, 07:53:38 PM »
So there it is folks, in classic form:

We are being asked to forget about the actual issues at hand, bury our heads in the sand along with Rose, and "move on". Move on and ignore the meat of the matter?

It's time to remove the rose-colored glasses and opt for a lens that allows for the true determination as to the validity of the claims.

Do the continuous test. Failing to do so will never get you beyond the "beyond a reasonable doubt" stage, and this nonsense will go on forever.  ::)

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #640 on: April 17, 2011, 08:13:43 PM »
So there it is folks, in classic form:

We are being asked to forget about the actual issues at hand, bury our heads in the sand along with Rose, and "move on". Move on and ignore the meat of the matter?

It's time to remove the rose-colored glasses and opt for a lens that allows for the true determination as to the validity of the claims.

Do the continuous test. Failing to do so will never get you beyond the "beyond a reasonable doubt" stage, and this nonsense will go on forever.  ::)

.99

WHEN YOU HAVE THE WRITTEN GUARANTEE BY 5 OR MORE EXPERTS THAT IF WE OUTPERFORM THE BATTERY'S WATT HOUR RATING BY MORE THAN DOUBLE - THEN I WILL MOST CERTAINLY DO THOSE TESTS. 

THAT GUARANTEE MUST BE UNEQUIVOCAL AND REPRESENT ABSOLUTE ACCEPTANCE OF THE EVIDENCE AND BE SUFFICIENT TO THEN ALSO CARRY THE ENDORSEMENT OF THE ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.  WHEN YOU HAVE THAT GUARANTEE THEN I WILL CERTAINLY FIND THE TIME TO DO THOSE TESTS.  INDEED IT WILL BE MY ENTIRE FOCUS.

ROSEMARY

ADDED

So Poynty Point.  The onus is now on you.  Prove to me that I won't be wasting my time.  Under these circumstances I would LOVE to do those tests.  See if you can find 5 or more experts who have Doctorate accreditation - who  are expert at power analysis - and who are prepared to endorse ANY BATTERY RESULTS EVER - then I'm certainly game.  But you wont find this.  EVER.  NO EXPERT WILL DEPEND ON ANY BATTERY RESULTS AT ALL UNLESS THEY ARE FIRST EXPERTS AT CHEMISTRY - is the first point.  And then variables are such that multiple battery types would need to be tested.  Then the actual chemical changes will need to be fully analysed over the duration.  Then - at the end of this waste of time - they will find yet another required parameter to test.  At least our power engineering experts still rely on measurement.  That's because the WHOLE OF THE ARGUMENT IS IN THE MEASUREMENTS.  You are SO hoping to steer us away from this. 

God what an enormous waste of time you manage to engage us all in.  Clearly an expert at your mandate of propaganda and denial.

Rosemary

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #641 on: April 17, 2011, 08:49:30 PM »
You are engaging in logical fallacies. Clearly WilbyInebriated would have a field day with you if he so desired.

No experts of any kind are necessary to ably determine when and if a battery is clearly "dying" and losing it's charge. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to observe when a power source is clearly diminishing, and given a reasonable amount of time, say 1 month or 2 months, the evidence will be undeniable

Here is what's required (since you can't seem to muster a logical argument towards your fallacious detraction):

1) Set up the experiment to produce what you deem is the state where the load resistor is clearly heating substantially above T(ambient). In addition, ensure to your own satisfaction that the circuit is operating in a state where the battery is supplying no net energy to the production of heat in the load.

2) Turn off the system and take a baseline state of charge (SOC) check of the batteries using a hydrometer. As an added measure if you wish, take the temperature of the electrolyte.

3) Run the circuit continuously and perform this SOC check every 12 or 24 hours. Keep track of the day, hour, and hydrometer reading for each measurement.

4) Continue for 2 weeks or 1 month or 2 if necessary, at which time it is very likely the SOC trend will be clearly established. Most likely the trend will be evident within 72 hours so long as the heat being produced by the load is significant.

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #642 on: April 17, 2011, 09:00:15 PM »
You are engaging in logical fallacies. Clearly WilbyInebriated would have a field day with you if he so desired.

No experts of any kind are necessary to ably determine when and if a battery is clearly "dying" and losing it's charge. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to observe when a power source is clearly diminishing, and given a reasonable amount of time, say 1 month or 2 months, the evidence will be undeniable

Here is what's required (since you can't seem to muster a logical argument towards your fallacious detraction):

1) Set up the experiment to produce what you deem is the state where the load resistor is clearly heating substantially above T(ambient). In addition, ensure to your own satisfaction that the circuit is operating in a state where the battery is supplying no net energy to the production of heat in the load.

2) Turn off the system and take a baseline state of charge (SOC) check of the batteries using a hydrometer. As an added measure if you wish, take the temperature of the electrolyte.

3) Run the circuit continuously and perform this SOC check every 12 or 24 hours. Keep track of the day, hour, and hydrometer reading for each measurement.

4) Continue for 2 weeks or 1 month or 2 if necessary, at which time it is very likely the SOC trend will be clearly established. Most likely the trend will be evident within 72 hours so long as the heat being produced by the load is significant.

.99

My dear Poynty Point. 

Right now I don't even have the time to read this.  But from a quick scan - I see you're still on about criteria for proof.  Here's the thing.  I'll do whatever it is that is required PROVIDED ONLY THAT THIS IS FIRST ENDORSED BY AT LEAST 5 EXPERTS AS BEING SUFFICIENT PROOF OF THE CLAIM.  AND THEN THAT CLAIM MUST THEN BE SUFFICIENT TO BE ENDORSED BY THE ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.  Otherwise, with respect - you're wasting my time.  I have NO interest in satisfying your own arbitrary criteria.  They're irrelevant and designed to confuse the facts with extraneous parameters that have NOTHING to do with the measurements.

Rosemary

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #643 on: April 17, 2011, 09:18:30 PM »
Otherwise, with respect - you're wasting my time.  I have NO interest in satisfying your own arbitrary criteria.  They're irrelevant and designed to confuse the facts with extraneous parameters that have NOTHING to do with the measurements.

Rosemary

I think most of the readers would agree that it is quite the contrary, and that running a continuous test gets directly to the heart of the matter in terms of the claims.

Not running the continuous test and instead muttering on about irrelevant things is what wastes people's time.

Stefan should demand no less than a properly conducted continuous test before allowing more of the nonsense that appears in this thread.

.99

Offline powercat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #644 on: April 17, 2011, 10:57:01 PM »
I totally agree .99 if there is more energy then why can't it run continuously  ???
how about a comparison test heating the same amount of water with a fixed power supply and see if it runs any longer than a conventional circuit, or something like that.
It seems the arguments about measurements will continue on and on and on four ever >:(
and at some point in the future this thread will be replaced with a new one maybe on another forum,
and the needle returns to the start of the song and we all sing along like we did before
 ::)

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=videos&search_query=Rosemary+Ainslie+circuit&search_sort=video_date_uploaded&suggested_categories=28&uni=3