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 741447 times)

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #990 on: April 30, 2011, 02:23:41 PM »
I think I'm up and running and ready to go.  The only problem - right now - appears to be with my back up computer.  I'll need to use yet another. And I still get kicked out of the system here when I reference a second internet link.  Can't do the two simultaneously. 

I also need to advise you all that this little 'repartee' with Poynty Point is going nowhere.  I'm afraid I'll not be answering any more of his posts.  I'll try and give a summation if I'm able to stay logged in here.

I am certain many here would not agree. It is most unfortunate that just as we were about to make some small progress, that your computer somehow has become "unusable".  ::)

.99

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #991 on: April 30, 2011, 02:39:05 PM »
Ok everyone.  It seems that this is going nowhere.
We could make some real progress if you'd kindly answer some of the important questions put forward.

Quote
Groundloop your positioning of the ground from the functions generator is how we configured it at the demo.  This was simply because we ran out of space at link in series with the shunt.  It already had 2 probes there to accommodate the two oscilloscopes we were using.  But it can be put in either position.  As mentioned it doesn't make a material difference to the results.
In terms of the schematic, ground is ground. The question was clear, it deserves a clear response.

Quote
I had a long conversation with one of the guys last night.  Apparently we're positioning the transistors as if the second Q2 is being used as a P FET.  But that is NOT to say it can be replaced with a P FET.  It may be possible.  I just don't know.  What I do know is that it's being triggered with a negative current and that the flow is then returning to the battery.
It is encouraging to see that my posts are apparently of some benefit to your team. They are "getting" the hints I've been offering in the schematics. The last "simplification" was intended to point out the use of Q2 as a pseudo-P-channel.

Quote
Poynt's schematic shows the Q2 being linked directly to the shared ground.
Could you please explain this?

Quote
This is wrong.  Also. the Source and Gate of Q2 needs to be transposed.
What is wrong exactly? The S and G of Q2 are connected as per the demonstration circuit, and as per GL's rendition of the same circuit.

Quote
The diode at the drain remains the same.  I'll post the revised schematic but PLEASE NOTE.  The diode at the drain does not change.  Only the diode at the gate.  I can't even give you my own 'scribble' here because the second computer is pretty well 'fried' now and that holds my photobucket and sundry software. 
You are using unconventional terminology here. Also: There is only ONE diode in the MOSFET Rose, and that is positioned from the MOSFET S-D pins, anode to cathode.

.99

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #992 on: April 30, 2011, 02:44:00 PM »
Hi Grounloop.  Yes.  It's the one used in our test video.  But I'm saying that on the understanding that the source and gate have been transposed.  Which also means that the drain has it's bias in the opposite direction to Q2.  I would prefer it if you could just try and make sense of the attached circuit - because that's what's required and this is the only schematic that I can read.  Sorry guys.  But that's the best I can do.

Kindest regards Groundloop.  I wish I could just leave all circuit commentary to you.  I have not got the required skills and - with or without respect - I don't trust Poynt's representations of anything at all.

Regards,
Rosemary

Rose,

The circuit as you have depicted it will not work. Not only is it incomplete, but you have flipped the fixed DC source so that it is providing a +5VDC voltage at the Source of Q2.

May I ask who advised you to alter this circuit in such a way?

I doubt very much that anyone will be able to make sense of your strange and erroneous edits to my diagram Rose. You should have left it as is, because that IS precisely what your circuit is that was used for the demonstration.

.99

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #993 on: April 30, 2011, 03:05:26 PM »
For the record, I do not endorse any of the edits that Rose has erroneously made to any drawing I originated.

For the correct circuit connections of the apparatus used in the video demonstration, please refer to the "video_as-built_circuit_connections.png" circuit above, or any of several other drawings I have posted in this thread.

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg283640#msg283640

.99

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #994 on: April 30, 2011, 03:42:39 PM »
Let's finally shed all doubt as to what the circuit connections are/were for the apparatus used in video demonstration Rose and her team gave. This is also presumably the same apparatus that has been used to acquire all the scope shots and "data" Rose has been posting over the last couple of months.

Compare this underside view of the perf-board connections they used to build the apparatus, to the circuit diagrams I have posted, in particular to the one attached here.

Are there any significant discrepancies between the two?

Note: M1 in my diagram = Q1, and M2 = Q2-Q5. The "CSR" in my diagram is lumped into one CSR, as all 4 resistors are in parallel.

.99

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #995 on: April 30, 2011, 04:47:20 PM »
So Guys,  it seems that this thread is also about to be derailed.  I am not sure that it will matter much what I write.  And it seems that Harti has given Poynt license to do his worst.  I've often wondered exactly how committed this forum is to genuine advancement of this new age science.  Here we have something of a conundrum. We have a forum that calls itself overunity.com - where the readers are interested in clean green and a group of self elected spokespersons are actively encouraged to derail each and every claim. 

The truly extraordinary aspect of this is that the most outspoken of these spokespersons has not only simulated the results that 'defy belief' - that exceed that allowable limit in the transfer of electric energy - but has also openly acknowledged that result.  Yet, far from being intrigued or even - in advancing this knowledge for everyone's benefit - he is now actively engaged in flaming these threads that he can 'get me out the picture'.

If you will recall - excactly the same thing happened before.  We had a full on replication - and no sooner was it ready to go to 'print' so to speak - no sooner had we marshalled the argument and the evidence - than two key players joined forces and actively tried to separate me from the invention.  Those players were Fuzzy and Harvey.  They locked the threads here - then locked me out of EF.com - and then started their own thread where I was not allowed to comment.  Their pretext was that I was generally too 'thick' to have managed the evidence in the first instance.  That I was imposing a spurious thesis on their independent discovery - and that there was a real physical risk to generating those frequencies and that it could be construed a danger.  They also implied that I had hidden patent interests and that my representations were not to be believed - in any context at all.  And surprise - surprise - far from promoting the technology - they then set about removing the most of that data from easy public access.

And nor have their efforts waned.  Take a look at the threads in Poynty's forum.  Fuzzy screams abuse as loudly as ever and they have even made public a private video that they pestered me to give them to let them see what I look like.  They had three threads running concurrently criticising either me or the claim - under various themes.  Utterly unscrupulous and utterly immoral. Harvey or his wife Laurel only use this forum to access any posters who are supportive of me - to advise them not to be.  And the real joke is this. Poynty complains that I don't respect him.  Somehow he feels that he can advance whatever disrespect he chooses at a wanton disregard of his moderation requirements - and not have that disrespect returned? 

It leaves me wondering if they're rather overly anxious to put a stopper on all this good news.  LOL.  Soon their efforts will be seen to be ridiculous. Not sure what they'll do then.   I'm ENTIRELY satisfied that this will still reach those academic forums.  And then I'll be able to relax.  Right now it's uphill.  But not for much longer.

I'll post later on what I see is actually going on in that circuit.  Right now I'm still licking my wounds after that last slew of posts that Poynty et al have managed.  He's got a team of at least 5 contributors helping him there.  And the worst of it is that they're also crashing into this computer which makes my link here rather tenuous. But it seems they can't yet do lasting damage to my APPLE.  What a brilliant thing.  My other computer has now been entirely dysfunctioned and I'll have to get it 'cured' if that's the term - on Monday. 

Meanwhile - I assure you.  Nothing makes me quite as determined as this on going attack.  I see it as the death rattle of old age physics.  And in with the new.  My job now is to convince you all of this.  I'll do my best.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #996 on: April 30, 2011, 05:24:25 PM »
So Guys,  it seems that this thread is also about to be derailed.  I am not sure that it will matter much what I write.  And it seems that Harti has given Poynt license to do his worst. 
What Stefan has done by not interfering here, is to allow for a voice whose only concern is to promote the facts, the truth, and provide some important insights from the conventional circuit theory perspective. Surely, these should not be denied.

Quote
The truly extraordinary aspect of this is that the most outspoken of these spokespersons has not only simulated the results that 'defy belief' - that exceed that allowable limit in the transfer of electric energy - but has also openly acknowledged that result.
The true fact is this: I have performed a simulation based on your exact circuit that produces the same results (wave forms) as yours when measured precisely the same way, at the same circuit nodes. However, I have at no time stated that current or power IS going back to the battery (the "-192W" post was "tongue-in-cheek" and preceded by a post stating that -9.94W appeared going back to the battery. The "-192W" was obviously meant to be taken in the same context).

Quote
And nor have their efforts waned.  Take a look at the threads in Poynty's forum.  Fuzzy screams abuse as loudly as ever and they have even made public a private video that they pestered me to give them to let them see what I look like.
The true fact is that this video is not posted on the OUR forum.

Quote
And the real joke is this. Poynty complains that I don't respect him.
I don't recall ever complaining to you about any such thing. Your disrespect for anyone that questions your claims is obvious but irrelevant. What IS relevant and ONLY relevant, is whether your claims have any credible evidence to support them, and thus far there has been none.

Quote
Right now I'm still licking my wounds after that last slew of posts that Poynty et al have managed.  He's got a team of at least 5 contributors helping him there.
Do you have any proof to support that bogus claim?  ::) I assure you, I have absolutely no one helping me here.

Quote
And the worst of it is that they're also crashing into this computer which makes my link here rather tenuous. But it seems they can't yet do lasting damage to my APPLE.  What a brilliant thing.  My other computer has now been entirely dysfunctioned and I'll have to get it 'cured' if that's the term - on Monday. 
Again, do you have any proof to support that ridiculous and totally bogus claim? Good grief Rose, how far will this nonsense go?

.99

powercat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #997 on: April 30, 2011, 06:27:01 PM »
Rosie you're beginning to sound delusional  :o
your accusations and assumptions are sounding childish not what one would expect from a woman of science.  STOP IT


poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #999 on: April 30, 2011, 06:57:35 PM »
Rose, could you please provide a response to this post? The readers here deserve to know the answers.

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg283609#msg283609

Thank you.

.99

i_ron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1170
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1000 on: April 30, 2011, 08:17:12 PM »
Rosie you're beginning to sound delusional  :o
your accusations and assumptions are sounding childish not what one would expect from a woman of science.  STOP IT

How old are you... five?

Ron

i_ron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1170
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1001 on: April 30, 2011, 08:24:11 PM »
Rose, could you please provide a response to this post? The readers here deserve to know the answers.

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg283609#msg283609

Thank you.

.99

I am sure there is no need for your arrogant demanding queries.

Why don't you mock up the circuit in real hardware and report your actual findings here?

I am sure you could manage this in one post rather than the endless stream of drivel you post?

Ron


powercat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1002 on: April 30, 2011, 09:47:08 PM »
How old are you... five?

Ron

Have you read any of the last six pages,you seem to understand nothing about what is going on ???
of course you can show us your successful replication of this circuit and all that free energy you have ???

The Boss

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 52
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1003 on: April 30, 2011, 09:52:03 PM »
.

Stefan requested a final diagram of Rosemary over a month ago.

Why is there still no diagram from her, so that we may replicate her circuit ?

The Boss

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1004 on: April 30, 2011, 10:06:28 PM »
- but there's one thing I'm curious about.  How did you get that oscillation if you indeed did a copy of our circuit.  Just that.  How did you manage that early oscillation 'first off' as you put it?

Rosemary

All the circuit diagrams were posted for this first simulation circuit that oscillated. What is it that you still don't understand about that version? I'd be glad to explain it. In fact, I am going to see about getting it also to work without the function generator.

.99