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.

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

Custom Search

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011  (Read 711558 times)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #810 on: April 24, 2011, 04:46:23 AM »
Rose,

I honestly don't have any idea how you got the idea that I am somehow pre-empting your posts or that I have moderator rights here or some such.  ???  That is absolutely false. It is also false that you are going to be banned here. That is all pure nonsense and tale-spinning.

Regarding the posts, what is it that is wrong with the results I've posted?

.99

I have absolutely NOT got the time to do this Poynty.  Not now.  Your results on those sims are nonsense.  This last at least correct in its protocols IF you've done it as required.  But this emphasises how URGENTLY you need that average.  And an AVERAGE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.  And. It's still WRONG experimentally. And it is CERTAINLY NOT consistent with the sim results that I've seen.

THEN.  Please explain how you managed to post that sim schematic 5 HOUR BEFORE I MADE IT PUBLIC?  That's a miracle Poynty Point of some considerable dimensions. 

Rosemary

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #811 on: April 24, 2011, 04:47:26 AM »

I posted my schematic on my blogspot - because I still find it relatively easy to do that there.  Within a heartbeat Poynty copied this to his post

« Reply #741 on: April 21, 2011, 02:43:47 PM
Have a closer look my dear, and also try reading the post. The two are not the same schematic.

Quote
Within 10 minutes of posting that schematic on my blogspot I posted this.

« Reply #747 on: April 21, 2011, 07:35:47 PM »

IN EFFECT what has happened here is this.  REGARDLESS of the time zones - what this shows is that Poynty was able to INSERT a post - set to a time that PRECEDED MY OWN PUBLIC POST AND MY NOTIFICATION OF THAT BLOG POST HERE - BY A COOL 5 HOURS.

Sorry, I have no idea really what you are referring to.  ???

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #812 on: April 24, 2011, 04:51:29 AM »
Have a closer look my dear, and also try reading the post. The two are not the same schematic.

Sorry, I have no idea really what you are referring to.  ???

.99

Sorry Poynty.  If it's not the same schematic then indeed I'm talking nonsense.  That's a relief.  In fact that's an ENORMOUS relief. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #813 on: April 24, 2011, 04:59:31 AM »
Sorry Poynty.  If it's not the same schematic then indeed I'm talking nonsense.  That's a relief.  In fact that's an ENORMOUS relief. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

 :D

The pic I posted at reply #741 is from your report post here:
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/03/report.html

So yes, they are two different schematics. The report schematic shows the MOSFETS in true parallel, and the one just posted recently on your blog shows them not in true parallel. ;)

.99

Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #814 on: April 24, 2011, 05:00:11 AM »
You trying to educate me about how SPICE can not simulate scalar or longitudinal waves when you can not even tell me what they are, I find quite comical, and frankly, it's pitiable.
kind of like you trying to educate us about 'lectricity' when you cannot even correctly describe the energy exchange mechanism of your hallowed "electron"???  ;)

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #815 on: April 24, 2011, 05:02:00 AM »
kind of like you trying to educate us about 'lectricity' when you cannot even correctly describe the energy exchange mechanism of your hallowed "electron"???  ;)

Could you be more specific with a reference please?

Thanks,
.99

Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #816 on: April 24, 2011, 05:08:53 AM »
Could you be more specific with a reference please?

Thanks,
.99
sure. you are razzing sprocket trying to get him to explain scalar/vector, and using that as a springboard to marginalize him (you think it's pitiable that he can't explain that to your satisfaction). and... likewise i think it's pitiable that your hallowed fundamentals on what you base your simulations, calculations, estimations, assumptions, conclusions, etc. ad infintum, ad nauseam cannot correctly describe the discrete energy exchange mechanism between one of your hallowed "electrons" and another. heck, forget correctly, you can't even describe it satisfactorily (read as 'without paradoxes'). ;)

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #817 on: April 24, 2011, 05:17:53 AM »
sure. you are razzing sprocket trying to get him to explain scalar/vector, and using that as a springboard to marginalize him (you think it's pitiable that he can't explain that to your satisfaction). and... likewise i think it's pitiable that your hallowed fundamentals on what you base your simulations, calculations, estimations, assumptions, conclusions, etc. ad infintum, ad nauseam cannot correctly describe the discrete energy exchange mechanism between one of your hallowed "electrons" and another. heck, forget correctly, you can't even describe it satisfactorily (read as 'without paradoxes'). ;)

By "specifying a reference", I was referring to one that indicates a case in point where I was trying to do what you claim I was, that is; "describe the discrete energy exchange mechanism between one of your hallowed "electrons" and another". In short, please refresh my memory where I was attempting (and apparently failing) to do what you claim I was.

.99

Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #818 on: April 24, 2011, 05:26:39 AM »
By "specifying a reference", I was referring to one that indicates a case in point where I was trying to do what you claim I was, that is; "describe the discrete energy exchange mechanism between one of your hallowed "electrons" and another". In short, please refresh my memory where I was attempting (and apparently failing) to do what you claim I was.

.99
actually i never claimed you were attempting (albeit you surely would fail) to describe such. i am saying that you cannot. yet, you (read as you and the rest of those who adhere to maxwell's equations) presume to educate the 'unwashed masses' as to just what 'lectricity' is and just how it works... yet, you cannot describe the mechanism of the simple phenomenon of just how one of your hallowed "electrons" transfers energy to another.

which reminds me, a question about spice... what equation does spice use to describe said mechanism? and if does not have such, then i think it's pretty clear that spice is not really 'modeling' reality. ;)

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #819 on: April 24, 2011, 06:07:59 AM »
actually i never claimed you were attempting (albeit you surely would fail) to describe such. i am saying that you cannot. yet, you (read as you and the rest of those who adhere to maxwell's equations) presume to educate the 'unwashed masses' as to just what 'lectricity' is and just how it works... yet, you cannot describe the mechanism of the simple phenomenon of just how one of your hallowed "electrons" transfers energy to another.

which reminds me, a question about spice... what equation does spice use to describe said mechanism? and if does not have such, then i think it's pretty clear that spice is not really 'modeling' reality. ;)

Are you yourself tonight Wilby? Is this a test of some kind  ???

You seem so sure of yourself that I would fail. That is not logical, and that is not like you to commit such a logical fallacy (or insert appropriate term here). You are presuming to know the outcome of something you can not possibly know for certain.

Why the confrontation?...and why about electron energy exchange? Where did that come from?

Give me an example of where I was trying to explain "lectricity" in terms of electrons to someone, and failing.

SPICE uses a combination of known physics and EM theory for resolving circuit node voltages and currents and component power dissipation. Just as engineers computed the necessary equations to solve complex designs before computers came along, SPICE does the same thing, but it excels at this, and produces better results. EM theory may not be complete, but it has allowed us to progress tremendously over the last 100 years. SPICE uses this same EM theory in it's algorithms, and in the right hands it can produce excellent results.

Ohm's law may have ultimately been derived from electron theory, but we rarely find it necessary to go down to the electron level when we are doing our every day electrical calculations.

So in summary, I do not see the issue you are try to present. Perhaps you could provide a direct example of where you feel current EM theory and/or a SPICE simulation has failed to produce accurate results when checked in reality.

.99

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #820 on: April 24, 2011, 06:17:41 AM »
Since you asked,

Here is a pretty good document that goes into the physics of SPICE modeling semiconductors:

http://www.allenhollister.com/allen/files/physics.pdf

.99

Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #821 on: April 24, 2011, 10:59:13 AM »
Are you yourself tonight Wilby? Is this a test of some kind  ???
i am. perhaps it is.

You seem so sure of yourself that I would fail. That is not logical, and that is not like you to commit such a logical fallacy (or insert appropriate term here). You are presuming to know the outcome of something you can not possibly know for certain.
i am sure you would fail. you know as well as i do (well i hope you do) that there is no such knowledge in the books nor does mankind possess instruments to prove anything of that kind. we can't even observe such phenomena with out altering its energy state. hell, mainstream science can't even decide what an electron is... it is still chasing after the wave-particle duality myth. ::) it is no more of a logical fallacy than your post to sprocket. ;) and speaking of logical fallacies, i noticed you are not describing the mechanism of the simple phenomenon of just how one of your hallowed "electrons" transfers energy to another. ;)

Why the confrontation?...and why about electron energy exchange? Where did that come from?
because i do unto others as they do unto others. because it's a glaring omission in em theory that goes right down to the fundamental level.

Give me an example of where I was trying to explain "lectricity" in terms of electrons to someone, and failing.
i have already addressed this. i'm not quite sure why you are still obsessing over this. you, milehigh and the pickle do seem to be a bit obsessive though. ;) have a closer look my dear, and also try reading the post. ;) as i said previously, "actually i never claimed you were attempting (albeit you surely would fail) to describe such."

SPICE uses a combination of known physics and EM theory for resolving circuit node voltages and currents and component power dissipation. Just as engineers computed the necessary equations to solve complex designs before computers came along, SPICE does the same thing, but it excels at this, and produces better results. EM theory may not be complete, but it has allowed us to progress tremendously over the last 100 years. SPICE uses this same EM theory in it's algorithms, and in the right hands it can produce excellent results.
em theory may not be complete???  ::) let us be honest here poynt, em theory is not complete. furthermore, it contains paradoxes in relation to other mainstream science theories and is most likely flawed at a fundamental level. yes, it has allowed us to progress tremendously over the past hundred years but that doesn't resolve any of its related paradoxes.

Ohm's law may have ultimately been derived from electron theory, but we rarely find it necessary to go down to the electron level when we are doing our every day electrical calculations.
i never suggested any such thing... ::)

So in summary, I do not see the issue you are try to present. Perhaps you could provide a direct example of where you feel current EM theory and/or a SPICE simulation has failed to produce accurate results when checked in reality.

.99
obviously not. you still are stuck on the misinterpretation that i was suggesting that you were trying "describe the discrete energy exchange mechanism between one of your hallowed "electrons" and another". perhaps you could describe said mechanism instead of beating around the bush?

edit: my poynt ;) is, don't denigrate and marginalize people because they can't explain something to your satisfaction or i will take that stick from you and beat you with it. ;) i'd love to register at yOUR forum and do the same to milehigh and the pickle but it wouldn't be right to come into your house and kick your dogs. ;) thanks for the pdf link.

Offline nul-points

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 995
    • Doc Ringwood's Free Energy blog
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #822 on: April 24, 2011, 11:07:08 AM »
Quote from: nul-points
[LOL @ the Pontiff
i shall continue to post whatever i believe to be most apposite at the time]


...and so shall I.

I know you're a big fan and can't help yourself, but kindly refrain from the lame 'poynt' references. I certainly have not ever made them myself using your moniker (up until your lesson that is).

Quote from: nul-points
[i'm not drawing any conclusions as to whether Rosemary's current experiment is valid or invalid until i see relevant data from her (or her team)]


You will be waiting a very long time then my friend.

Quote from: nul-points
[members of OU.com will gauge you by your treatment of her - and beating on Rosemary with a big stick is unlikely to convince her to comply with your demands]


Perhaps. The only thing that IS important however, is that one be truthful, forthcoming, and willing to learn and accept when they've made an error. IMO, we've not seen much of that from Rose.

If I'm wrong in any of my assertions, or my analysis, please clearly point it out. There is much emotional flak being thrown at it all, but no one can seem to muster any kind of technical argument one way or the other. Why don't you start nul?

I'm interested in the truth. Why aren't you?

.99


lighten up honeychile, you'll give yourself a coronary!


if i notice something which i believe to be wrong and which hasn't already been corrected, and i think that i can contribute something helpful, then i'll often try and point it out

a scan of my posts throughout this thread will show that i've usually made suggestions of a practical nature - some supportive and some counter to the suggestions being posted

so this makes me a "big fan" who "can't help [my]self"?  what impeccable logic

you'll notice that i haven't taken issue with you on any of your past statements of technical fact in this thread  - so it's pretty safe to assume that i don't disagree with those facts (as distinct from your own opinions, to which you're entitled, as much as anybody else is to theirs)

this doesn't make me any more or less of a fan of you


so - what i directed at you related to your treatment of Rosemary, not to your analyses:
Quote from: nul-points
members of OU.com will gauge you by your treatment of her - and beating on Rosemary with a big stick is unlikely to convince her to comply with your demands


you may try and imply that i'm not interested in "the truth" or that i need to "start" "to muster [some] kind of technical argument"  -  i'm happy to let the good members of this forum be the judge of my motives, interests and any technical contribution
 
 

Offline hoptoad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1009
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #823 on: April 24, 2011, 03:34:57 PM »
The great measurement conundrum  :-[

How about the simpler tools ?  You know ... KISS.

A high quality "centred zero" variable range analogue ammeter, placed directly on either positive or negative terminal, in series with the circuit in question, will give a more reliable and accurate reading of real time current amplitude and direction.

Same can be said of voltage readings. Analogue doesn't mean antiquated.

I have played with circuits using digital scopes, dmms, etc, and have found them to be mostly un-useful with respect to DC pulsing circuits.

Especially DMMs, which often show large voltage increases (at the battery), many volts above the starting voltage, while a particular circuit is running, yet the analogue meter will show just a small voltage decline during the same period.

When the circuit is turned off, the DMM voltage will show a quick drop to below the starting voltage, while the analogue meter will show a small increase to the same voltage as the DMM. (still below starting voltage).

One particular simple circuit that I played with recently, was the "thomas oscillator" which had been contributed to one of the Doc Stiffler threads. It sent my DMM's wild, with battery readings doubling when the circuit was on.

My old "annies" didn't miss a beat though - they showed the more "simple" (but more accurate) reality with their simple design.

In that instance, the large gains and drops in voltage readings on the DMM were the result of RF produced from the circuit. RF is something that analogue meters absorb readily, without major interference to their performance.

Anyhow, that's just my 2 cents worth..  regarding measurement problems ...kneedeep

Old fart going now... LOL

Cheers

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #824 on: April 24, 2011, 03:47:24 PM »
Thanks hoptoad, that is good advice. ;)

I'm not sure about the availability of analog center-zero meters, but certainly the standard ones are. The old Simpson 260 series are a good choice.

The only potential issue with the analog meters is their relatively-low input impedance, but there are applications (such as battery voltage and current measurement) where they do well nonetheless.

.99

EDIT: Corrected impedance of the analog meter...should be low vs. high.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2011, 08:18:46 PM by poynt99 »