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 681013 times)

Offline powercat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #660 on: April 18, 2011, 02:59:54 PM »
Golly.  Whatever next?
Rosemary

A new Chronophage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PeG2HsXbpw
The most beautiful clock I have seen  :)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #661 on: April 18, 2011, 03:13:51 PM »
A new Chronophage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PeG2HsXbpw
The most beautiful clock I have seen  :)

WOW.  That's really, really nice.  Thanks for that Cat.

Rosie

Offline utilitarian

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 816
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #662 on: April 18, 2011, 03:17:53 PM »
Utiliarian - I am not about to try and impress anyone about anything at all.  And as delectable as a million dollars may be - nor do I believe there is any sincere intention of proving anything at all.  If it's perpetual motion that he wants to see - then properly it should have been paid out by now.  There is at LEAST one working device on show that has been working perpetually for some many years now.  I just, for the life of me, can't remember the man's name.  If I do I'll append it here.

Well what you do is up to you, but as far as Finsrud, the problem with submitting his device is that (1) he himself claims that it is just art, and not a "real" perpetual motion device, and (2) he will not reveal the inner workings of his device, specifically what is hidden in the center column.

So given that disqualification, that leaves the number of working perpetual motion devices at exactly zero.  Given that your device clearly shows a COP of infinity, and I have no doubt that this is true, it should be child's play to convert this into perpetual motion.

The Randi prize would also instantly make worldwide news and give you the credibility you seek to get into academic circles.

I have read extensively about this prize and it seems to be completely on the level.  There have numerous preliminary tests conducted by the Randi Foundation, and these have been conducted very fairly, to the satisfaction of both the the foundation and the applicant.  No applicant has passed the preliminary test required to show paranormal activity, but the foundation given many people full chances.

Here is an example of test done:  http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=118952

The fact that no one has claimed the prize says something important - no one motivated enough to seek $1 Million has been able to back up his or her claims.  But you can be the first, and it would make quite a worldwide splash.  I cannot conceive of why you would not want to.  If not for the money, think of advancing your work to mainstream.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2011, 03:57:52 PM by utilitarian »

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #663 on: April 18, 2011, 03:37:15 PM »
Well what you do is up to you, but as far as Finsrud, the problem with submitting his device is that (1) he himself claims that it is just art, and not a "real" perpetual motion device, and (2) he will not reveal the inner workings of his device, specifically what is hidden in the center column.

So given that disqualification, that leaves the number of working perpetual motion devices at exactly zero.  Given that your device clearly shows a COP of infinity, and I have no doubt that this is true, it should be child's play to convert this into perpetual motion.

The Randi prize would also instantly make worldwide news and give you the credibility you seek to get into academic circles.

Hi again utilitarian.  I believe that Watkin and Hill and our Mr Finsrud are all dead - unfortunately.  The Cavendish Pile - I think - is meant to be chemical.  Finsrud's is purely mechanical.  And they all three - really HAVE produced perpetual motion.  I most CERTAINLY have not.  What I have, I think, is conservation of charge - and THAT as a required principle in physics - is already widely accepted.  Just that it's not - typically - applied to electric energy.

But there's no question that I can run these batteries that they outperform their watt hour ratings.  And I would be glad to do so - provided ONLY - that that result is then considered sufficient proof of the thesis.   

What I am attempting is to draw attention to some much needed revision in the measure of electric energy.  Thus far it's been 'grouped' under the 2nd Law.  My thinking is that it should, properly be under the 3rd Law.  Then.  All that excess in efficiency will be very easily explained.  And then too we'll all be given the required license to exploit it.  Which would be very nice.

But to evaluate this as a perpetual motion machine would be WRONG.  Possibly there are ways to configure it that it can better exploit that excess.  But I'm very aware of my limitations utilitarian.  All I can do is point at this particular build and hope, eventually, that I'll get some experts to the table.  Not an entirely lost cause.  Right now there are two who are considering the applied protocols.  If it passes then I think they're both courageous enough to endorse the 'anomaly'.  And once that's in the bag then - it'll be much, much closer to getting all this better known.

Again.  Thanks for the input.  I think you should seriously consider representing two deceased estates and looking to benefits for their heirs.  It may prove lucrative.  LOL

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #664 on: April 18, 2011, 03:44:13 PM »
Poynty Point.  Do you EVER read what I write?  OF COURSE I'LL DO THIS.  But first get me 5 or so EXPERTS to advise me in writing that this will constitute ABSOLUTE PROOF - and I'll gladly run all the required tests and their controls.  Then - when those tests are concluded I will require those same experts to acknowledge those results in writing.  GOOD HEAVENS.  Historically we haven't got a single expert to even acknowledge perpetual motion - notwithstanding the evidence.  Not a good thing Poynty.  You must admit.  I sort of imagine myself beetling around until the day I die and then hearing you all say - 'NOT GOOD ENOUGH.  Until it's run for 1000 years - it's just hearsay'.  You see for yourself what our poor Mr Reider Finsrud managed. 

As ever,
Rosie

 ::)

Do you need proof from 5 auto mechanics to assure you that your car engine has stopped running or that the petrol is decreasing?

You seemed to have completely missed the point of the analogy. You have your assertion that the batteries supply no net energy to the circuit, yet you have provided no credible proof of that assertion. That means that there remains enough doubt about your assertion to require further or different testing. Obviously most if not all the readers here embrace this doubt as well, otherwise there would be widespread attempts to replicate, of which I see none.

So, to put the issue to bed, there is one definitive test that can produce undeniable results, and that is the continuous operation test I have already proposed and laid out for you. The results will be clear, certain, and undeniably correct. All doubt about whether the batteries' state of charge declines or not will be put to rest.

You do not require the endorsement from any "experts" in order to see the logic and clarity in this method. Your denial of this fact is obviously a ploy being used to skirt around the real issue at hand. It's quite apparent the proposed test makes you very nervous. You really should afford the readers here more credit. Your denial of this test based on some nonsensical notion that it first requires the endorsement of 5 experts is an insult to the readership here. Your insecurity about this test and the potential results are more than obvious.

Perform the test, and put the issue to rest. Do the right thing.

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #665 on: April 18, 2011, 03:53:28 PM »
Do you need proof from 5 auto mechanics to assure you that your car engine has stopped running or that the petrol is decreasing?

You seemed to have completely missed the point of the analogy. You have your assertion that the batteries supply no net energy to the circuit, yet you have provided no credible proof of that assertion. That means that there remains enough doubt about your assertion to require further or different testing. Obviously most if not all the readers here embrace this doubt as well, otherwise there would be widespread attempts to replicate, of which I see none.

So, to put the issue to bed, there is one definitive test that can produce undeniable results, and that is the continuous operation test I have already proposed and laid out for you. The results will be clear, certain, and undeniably correct. All doubt about whether the batteries' state of charge declines or not will be put to rest.

You do not require the endorsement from any "experts" in order to see the logic and clarity in this method. Your denial of this fact is obviously a ploy being used to skirt around the real issue at hand. It's quite apparent the proposed test makes you quite nervous. You really should afford the readers here more credit. Your denial of this test based on some nonsensical notion that it first requires the endorsement of 5 experts is an insult to the readership here. Your insecurity about this test and the potential results are more than obvious.

Perform the test, and put the issue to rest. Do the right thing.

.99

My dear Poynty Point.  This is getting really boring.  I am very happy to waste another 5 months of my life with experiments IF there is a guarantee of MOVING ON.  You are rather insulting my own intelligence here.  PROVE that I'll not be wasting my time and I will PROVE that these batteries outperform their watt hour rating.  Not a difficult thing to do.  It could all be entirely completed and in the bag possibly within a mere 48 hours.  BUT I WILL NOT DO THE TEST OTHERWISE.  THAT'S FINAL.

There is not a single test - NOT ONE - that you and yours would acknowledge.  You do not have the required integrity.  God knows.  You can't even admit you were wrong with that undersampling fiasco.  Many other examples.  So.  For you to suggest any test at all - is NOTHING.  I need others to assure me that they'll recognise it as CONCLUSIVE.  You cannot.  You are simply not man enough

Rosemary

Offline cHeeseburger

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #666 on: April 18, 2011, 04:09:11 PM »
...the time-eater, Chronophage, devourer of hours...
Interesting art piece there.  And now, on a completely different subject... :D

I'm sure I'm not the only one curious about this, Rosemary.  You keep telling us all that (despite the many arguments to the contrary) you are 100% convinced of the success of your demonstrations, the proof of your theory and the validity of your measurement protocol.

You also repeatedly emphasize your primary focus on getting the attention and interest of "mainstream academia" and dismiss outright the validity of any skeptical opinions or critical observations expressed by anyone who is not a PhD EE.

Why do you then spend so many countless hours arguing with such unqualified fools as we on these several internet forums and your blog?  Are we the only poor souls who will respond to you?  Honestly, Rosemary, why do you waste your time?  Can you really not find one single qualified PhD EE who will even listen for five minutes? 

You've talked and talked about presentations to experts and tried endlessly to make us believe you are in constant intimate dialog with an array of experts who endorse your findings and guide your methodologies, yet you equally often, of late, have openly admitted that not one single EE expert has ever once even looked at your procedures and the results.

Maybe it's time to point your efforts away from verbosely and publicly arguing matters with people whose qualifications fall far short of your requirements and stop wasting your precious time and ours. 

I, for one, have given up all hope that you will ever respond as a scientist to any earnest effort to help you understand why your measurements might be perceived as being basically flawed.  You would rather argue and throw out a barrage of snide remarks and personal insults than thoughtfully consider any critical opinion or observation.  Could this be the reason why no academic expert will give you even a brief audience?

Humbugger
« Last Edit: April 18, 2011, 06:12:22 PM by cHeeseburger »

Offline utilitarian

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 816
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #667 on: April 18, 2011, 04:09:50 PM »
I am not sure why you guys are even arguing over measurements.  Who cares about measurements?  Just make it self loop and then it will speak for itself.  At over 17 COP, or infinite now, I think, how hard can it be to loop the output back to the input?  Even allowing for loss, at over 17 times efficiency, it should be easy to make a self runner.

Then no argument will be needed over how such and such is measured.

Offline cHeeseburger

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #668 on: April 18, 2011, 04:35:22 PM »
I am not sure why you guys are even arguing over measurements.  Who cares about measurements?  Just make it self loop and then it will speak for itself.  At over 17 COP, or infinite now, I think, how hard can it be to loop the output back to the input?  Even allowing for loss, at over 17 times efficiency, it should be easy to make a self runner.

Then no argument will be needed over how such and such is measured.

Rosemary firmly believes that her setup already is "looped" and "self-running".  It sits there on the bench and creates three outputs with no net input.  One output is heat from the load resistor to the environment; another is copious amounts of current continuously charging the batteries.  Thirdly, she reports a full 5 Watts flowing out of the MOSFET gates into the signal generator.

It's a real puzzle why the batteries have not yet boiled out given that she has been charging them 5 hours a day for five months with never any drawdown!

What more absolute proof of looped self-running could there be?   ::)  Right Rosemary?

Humbugger
« Last Edit: April 18, 2011, 06:20:09 PM by cHeeseburger »

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #669 on: April 18, 2011, 04:39:48 PM »
I am not sure why you guys are even arguing over measurements.  Who cares about measurements?  Just make it self loop and then it will speak for itself.  At over 17 COP, or infinite now, I think, how hard can it be to loop the output back to the input?  Even allowing for loss, at over 17 times efficiency, it should be easy to make a self runner.

Then no argument will be needed over how such and such is measured.

utilitarian - it's actually already a closed loop.  Just not that obvious.  But there's no 'easy fix' or no 'easy  proof' in the way you're hoping.  And I'm well aware of the fact that you ONLY want that proof.  Unfortunately - you'll have to bear with me.  I can only do my best - and I believe I'm doing it right.  I would love to do a razzamataz rabbit out the hat kind of thing.  But that would simply open a new can of worms - and then everyone will be talking 'battery types' and the entire focus will be off the physics principle and back to some kind of chemistry debate.  And those debates will take more than my life time to settle.

If I can simply get back on track here.  You're trying to get me to show you a small puddle of energy.  I'm trying to get everyone to see whole oceans of the stuff.  BUT.  If there were guarantees that in showing that puddle then we could move on to those oceanic views - then I'm definitely game.  It's just that I've pointed at the puddle for many many years.  And I now know that our experts are NOT interested in that argument.  They want an invincible argument - not something that may be guaged from a disputable chemical reaction.  And for that invincible argument then they need to look at those measurements.  It's only Poynty et al - who are debating this fact.  And that's because they can't dispute the measurements.  You see for yourself.  They're trying to prove that the measurements are irrelevant.  And if this were true - then science is irrelevant - based as it is on measurement. 

But I've told you the conditions under which I'll test that 'puddle'.  I'm happy to do so.  But for now - can we perhaps move on? 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Offline happyfunball

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 405
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #670 on: April 18, 2011, 05:02:26 PM »
utilitarian - it's actually already a closed loop.  Just not that obvious.  But there's no 'easy fix' or no 'easy  proof' in the way you're hoping.  And I'm well aware of the fact that you ONLY want that proof.  Unfortunately - you'll have to bear with me.  I can only do my best - and I believe I'm doing it right.  I would love to do a razzamataz rabbit out the hat kind of thing.  But that would simply open a new can of worms - and then everyone will be talking 'battery types' and the entire focus will be off the physics principle and back to some kind of chemistry debate.  And those debates will take more than my life time to settle.

If I can simply get back on track here.  You're trying to get me to show you a small puddle of energy.  I'm trying to get everyone to see whole oceans of the stuff.  BUT.  If there were guarantees that in showing that puddle then we could move on to those oceanic views - then I'm definitely game.  It's just that I've pointed at the puddle for many many years.  And I now know that our experts are NOT interested in that argument.  They want an invincible argument - not something that may be guaged from a disputable chemical reaction.  And for that invincible argument then they need to look at those measurements.  It's only Poynty et al - who are debating this fact.  And that's because they can't dispute the measurements.  You see for yourself.  They're trying to prove that the measurements are irrelevant.  And if this were true - then science is irrelevant - based as it is on measurement. 

But I've told you the conditions under which I'll test that 'puddle'.  I'm happy to do so.  But for now - can we perhaps move on? 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

What was in the canister? A powered heating element, or was it simply siphoning off heat, and was it submerged? If so, was the water temperature shown in the video? I see a fluke measuring resistor temperature, are they related? Kind of confusing.

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #671 on: April 18, 2011, 05:27:13 PM »
I am not sure why you guys are even arguing over measurements.  Who cares about measurements?  Just make it self loop and then it will speak for itself.  At over 17 COP, or infinite now, I think, how hard can it be to loop the output back to the input?  Even allowing for loss, at over 17 times efficiency, it should be easy to make a self runner.

Then no argument will be needed over how such and such is measured.

Your thinking has its merit, however looping is much more complicated than performing a straight-forward continuous test whereby the battery SOC is monitored over time. Even a grade-school student could see the merit in that.

The true issue is being skirted around for obvious reasons; Rose has no real confidence in her claims. What she needs to do is cut the crap and perform the test.

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #672 on: April 18, 2011, 06:51:02 PM »
Your thinking has its merit, however looping is much more complicated than performing a straight-forward continuous test whereby the battery SOC is monitored over time. Even a grade-school student could see the merit in that.

The true issue is being skirted around for obvious reasons; Rose has no real confidence in her claims. What she needs to do is cut the crap and perform the test.

.99

My dear Poynty Point,

When you repeat the same posts time out of mind then it constitutes 'flaming'.  Could you kindly desist.  I will be reporting this to Stefan.  I have no intention of allowing you to corrupt this thread which is clearly your intention. 

WHEN YOU GIVE ME REASON TO PERFORM THAT BATTERY DRAWN DOWN TEST OR SERIES OF TESTS - BY FIRST ENSURING A GUARANTEE THAT IT WILL THEN CONSISTUTE ABSOLUTE AND FINAL PROOF REQUIRED FOR THIS EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE - AND AS IT RELATES TO THE THESIS - THEN I WILL PERFORM THAT TEST.  OTHERWISE I WILL NOT WASTE MY TIME.

Rosemary

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #673 on: April 18, 2011, 07:03:06 PM »
What was in the canister? A powered heating element, or was it simply siphoning off heat, and was it submerged? If so, was the water temperature shown in the video? I see a fluke measuring resistor temperature, are they related? Kind of confusing.

Happy read the report.  I'll post a link again.  I'll also try and find a picture of that element resistor. It was not in water.  It was in the canister to conform to the control tests. 

Regards,
Rosemary
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/03/report.html


Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #674 on: April 18, 2011, 07:28:36 PM »
My dear Poynty Point,

I will be reporting this to Stefan.

WHEN YOU GIVE ME REASON TO PERFORM THAT BATTERY DRAWN DOWN TEST OR SERIES OF TESTS - BY FIRST ENSURING A GUARANTEE THAT IT WILL THEN CONSISTUTE ABSOLUTE AND FINAL PROOF REQUIRED FOR THIS EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE - AND AS IT RELATES TO THE THESIS - THEN I WILL PERFORM THAT TEST.  OTHERWISE I WILL NOT WASTE MY TIME.

Rosemary

Indeed, that would be a good thing. I think the readers would like to get Stefan's input here, as it is actually required at this point.

I have given you more than sufficient reason to perform the test. Your denial to do so is illogical and your reasons unfounded.

The desire here is for Rosemary to come clean. The goal I'm sure all the readers have here is to prevent this thread from languishing into the dog and pony show it is presently teetering on becoming. Give the readers the closure they deserve. Show some integrity and perform the test so the facts can be known once and for all.

.99