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 669332 times)

Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1380 on: May 23, 2011, 01:50:16 PM »
After five (5) more months of testing and evaluation including nine (9) more verified documented tests on "MY" experimental device ..... the above is my opinion and there is "NO" efficiency of any COP is mentioned or claimed other than the word "GOOD".
i almost forgot about this one...
five (5) more months of testing and eval including nine (9) more verified documented tests...  what instruments were used for measurements with these tests you refer to here? did you use the same instruments (tektronix tds 3054c and tektronix dpo 3054) that you claim any data dump timing used still skewed results because of the inconsistent oscillations? or did you get a hold of a real time spectrum analyzer? did you use one of those "other methods"?

what's the point of referring to those five (5) more months of testing and eval including nine (9) verified, documented tests if you used the same instruments (tektronix tds 3054c and tektronix dpo 3054) that according to you, "just isn't enough to totally capture what is occurring during the preferred mode of operation."?

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1381 on: May 23, 2011, 03:52:34 PM »
Guys - I never realised this.  I now see it. Thank you Wilby.  Glen is actually denying that the results for his paper were correct.  Therefore whatever he claimed in that unpublished paper and whatever the results he first allowed - these are all incorrect.

Which only means that he needs to put out a full retraction of any benefits whatsoever in his replication.  And this, correctly should be followed by a complete withdrawal of all his publications related to this.  Scibd is the one that springs to mind.  Not sure what else he's got floating around.  Thank God I've not bothered to refer to his tests since then.  What a DISGRACE.  All this time and he's still letting everyone assume that he's made a replication - a partial replication - or even a discovery.  Take your pick.  He's certainly not letting on which is right.  It was all - in FACT -  just a non-event.  IF one publishes a paper and then finds that the data is unreliable - then the LEAST one would expect is a full retraction.  Not all this quibbling and hinting.  All this 'I still think that there's something good'.  What a load of nonsense. 

I would also caution Glen to stop criticising those instruments that were so liberally allowed for his use.  My own understanding - notwithstanding his protests to the contrary - is that they have a bandwidth that is well able to deal with those frequencies.  It seems that Harvey is not convinced. And that Glen and Harvey both detected stray inductance through their sophisticated instruments that ENTIRELY denied any benefits.  And it seems that they managed to 'run the batteries flat'!  And it also seems that all this new information was somehow, retrospectively and URGENTLY required for all that denial.  That and the continual warnings that the technology is potentially hazardous.  LOL.  If I didn't know better I'd almost be persuaded that they wanted this technology off public record and off public focus.  I do hope not.

And since poor instrumentation is now being used as the basis of his denial together with reference to tests of which I have absolutely NO knowledge - then I would assume that he will - for the record and good order - post a retraction post haste.  LOL.  It's something in the region of 14 months too late.  But at LEAST we now know the true story.  No wonder he was so anxious to get rid of both me and our claims.  It shows how badly he failed at that replication - or that 'discovery' that never actually happened.  Golly.  Now I see it all so much more clearly.  And I think Steve Windisch also needs to post a retraction.  Also for good order.  I'd forgotten about that article.  That could be a minefield of misinformation - in the light of this required retraction.

And regarding our own COP>17.  Here I'm on firm ground.  We now WAY EXCEED that value.  There's at least one replications that works.  And the best news of all is that we are able to replicate these results using standard simulation software.  Right now I know of 4 replicated simulations and CLIMBING.  And this time round I'm in the happy position of filming it and showing it and writing about it and doing everything that I omitted doing when I was entirely as green as grass.  Now.  I'm considerably older - somewhat blistered by all those fires through my threads - and - pray God - also a little bit wiser.  I would caution all posters here to think deeply before they engage the good offices of any overly anxious replicator - lest the replicators' own incompetence is then used as a means to deny ALL.  No matter the reason.  Spite - hatred - conceit - whatever.  It's tedious speculating.

Regards,
Rosemary

Added.  LOL  All this time I though Glen was trying to claim that he had an independent discovery.  And what he was actually telling us is that his replication failed.  It's cold comfort.  But it's still comforting.  Golly.  One lives and learns.

 :o ;D

Offline cHeeseburger

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1382 on: May 23, 2011, 07:14:57 PM »
Regarding wilby's comments regarding me "dropping out" of all Rosemary Ainslie discussion boards, it is indeed a fact.  My comments and contributions were and still are delayed in posting to the point of being swallowed up and vanishing anyway.  Primarily, I find the whole exercise to be utterly boring at this point, even as a soap opera.  Rosemary does not deserve all this attention she incessantly demands and thrives on and her "scientific discoveries", in my humble opinion, have never merited even the slightest effort or attention from anyone serious about energy research.

I am pleased to see that my original suggestion of putting the CSR at the battery (initially vehemently attacked by Rosemary) is now thought of correctly as the only appropriate position.  That only took six months and four dozen posts.  Maybe one day, my suggestion that measuring the di/dt of the battery wiring and pretending that it's the battery voltage is blatantly wrong also will be acknowledged as truth and wisdom. 

If that comes to pass, and a true measure of the power being drained from the battery is ever made, this story will be over.  Until then, it's just a huge soap opera and comedy of errors that has become so repetitive and utterly predictable and totally boring that it fails to hold even the slightest interest for me.  I'll check back again in six months to see if anything has changed.

Cheeseburger/Humbugger (hold the pickle)

Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1383 on: May 23, 2011, 08:20:45 PM »
Guys - I never realised this.  I now see it. Thank you Wilby.  Glen is actually denying that the results for his paper were correct.  Therefore whatever he claimed in that unpublished paper and whatever the results he first allowed - these are all incorrect.

Which only means that he needs to put out a full retraction of any benefits whatsoever in his replication.  And this, correctly should be followed by a complete withdrawal of all his publications related to this.  Scibd is the one that springs to mind.  Not sure what else he's got floating around.  Thank God I've not bothered to refer to his tests since then.  What a DISGRACE.  All this time and he's still letting everyone assume that he's made a replication - a partial replication - or even a discovery.  Take your pick.  He's certainly not letting on which is right.  It was all - in FACT -  just a non-event.  IF one publishes a paper and then finds that the data is unreliable - then the LEAST one would expect is a full retraction.  Not all this quibbling and hinting.  All this 'I still think that there's something good'.  What a load of nonsense. 

I would also caution Glen to stop criticising those instruments that were so liberally allowed for his use.  My own understanding - notwithstanding his protests to the contrary - is that they have a bandwidth that is well able to deal with those frequencies.  It seems that Harvey is not convinced. And that Glen and Harvey both detected stray inductance through their sophisticated instruments that ENTIRELY denied any benefits.  And it seems that they managed to 'run the batteries flat'!  And it also seems that all this new information was somehow, retrospectively and URGENTLY required for all that denial.  That and the continual warnings that the technology is potentially hazardous.  LOL.  If I didn't know better I'd almost be persuaded that they wanted this technology off public record and off public focus.  I do hope not.

And since poor instrumentation is now being used as the basis of his denial together with reference to tests of which I have absolutely NO knowledge - then I would assume that he will - for the record and good order - post a retraction post haste.  LOL.  It's something in the region of 14 months too late.  But at LEAST we now know the true story.  No wonder he was so anxious to get rid of both me and our claims.  It shows how badly he failed at that replication - or that 'discovery' that never actually happened.  Golly.  Now I see it all so much more clearly.  And I think Steve Windisch also needs to post a retraction.  Also for good order.  I'd forgotten about that article.  That could be a minefield of misinformation - in the light of this required retraction.

And regarding our own COP>17.  Here I'm on firm ground.  We now WAY EXCEED that value.  There's at least one replications that works.  And the best news of all is that we are able to replicate these results using standard simulation software.  Right now I know of 4 replicated simulations and CLIMBING.  And this time round I'm in the happy position of filming it and showing it and writing about it and doing everything that I omitted doing when I was entirely as green as grass.  Now.  I'm considerably older - somewhat blistered by all those fires through my threads - and - pray God - also a little bit wiser.  I would caution all posters here to think deeply before they engage the good offices of any overly anxious replicator - lest the replicators' own incompetence is then used as a means to deny ALL.  No matter the reason.  Spite - hatred - conceit - whatever.  It's tedious speculating.

Regards,
Rosemary

Added.  LOL  All this time I though Glen was trying to claim that he had an independent discovery.  And what he was actually telling us is that his replication failed.  It's cold comfort.  But it's still comforting.  Golly.  One lives and learns.

 :o ;D


It's to bad Rosemary you read what you want to believe making thing up as you go and always misinterpreting or misrepresenting the printed facts presented ... not good not good at all.

Your loosing your credibility Rosemary day by day by not being honest on your results and skewing all the information to suit your personal needs. The claim of yours not knowing what was going on with any of my testing and evaluation is a flat out lie on information that's posted openly in a forum and including the nasty discussing e-mails from you to Harvey, Ash and Me to prove it ... how convenient of a excuse of yours one of thousands made by you.

You, Rosemary Ainslie has continually misinterpreted all the results of my testing and evaluation on the modified replication of the Quantum 2002 article as posted now and over a year ago. This was told to you Rosemary time and time again by Harvey and Myself in forum and in e-mails it is your  responsibility Rosemary to make the recommended changes as noted not mine. The burden of credible and accurate proof of a finding or a claim is the inventors "YOURS" Rosemary giving enough information for a verifiable replication not the person replicating the device.

You, Rosemary have caused thousand and thousands of dollars of wasted time and money for experimentalist trying your inaccurate COP> 17 replication.

There should and must be a retraction on the inaccurate Rosemary Ainslie Quantum 2002 article as all the information is false, incorrect and unverifiable as all results from everyone World Wide proved it, including myself and has been called for by a majority of actual experimentalist for years -
http://www.free-energy.ws/pdf/quantum_october_2002.pdf

The original Rosemary Ainslie blogspot -
http://rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com

This must be corrected and retracted where you Rosemary Ainslie on  September 8, 2008 claim having a Patent when no patent exists.


This is not my dog and pony "ZIPPNOT" thesis show it's yours Rosemary claiming a COP> 17 or a COP> INFINITY .... I am a lone experimentalist trying to get to the truth on a efficiency finding on a experimental device and failed to find it like everyone else.

Fuzzy

P.S.
Your new Blog has some great reading though - http://rosemaryainslie-publicblog.blogspot.com/

Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1384 on: May 23, 2011, 11:50:50 PM »
hey glen, you neatly avoided my direct questions... imagine that ::) no worries, i'll repeat them until you answer to them.

1: let me try again counselor, since you want to play word games... does good mean cop<1? or cop>1?

2: i'm still left wondering how your team came to the cop>4 conclusion then...

3: what instruments were used for measurements with these tests you refer to here? did you use the same instruments?

4: did you get a hold of a real time spectrum analyzer? did you use one of those "other methods"?

5: what's the point of referring to those five (5) more months of testing and eval including nine (9) verified, documented tests if you used the same instruments (tektronix tds 3054c and tektronix dpo 3054) that according to you, "just isn't enough to totally capture what is occurring during the preferred mode of operation."?



Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1385 on: May 24, 2011, 02:27:42 AM »
Is this forward-looking technical thread going to remain on-track, or continue to degenerate into a grandstanding theater for presenting he-said, she-said statements from the past?

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1386 on: May 24, 2011, 05:32:59 AM »
Hi all,
it seems that my pc has been hacked - again.  Still this one now works.  There was a struggle there for a bit.  lol

Poynty - regarding your question - I'm sure that the answer is obvious.  I think that while Glen is entitled to post then we're going to continue having problems.  But I tend to agree.  It's never going to advance anything at all.

So how about it?  Your forum?  Or should we just discuss this through my blog?  I'm game - either way.  Unless there's some kind of written undertaking that Glen will stay out of the debate.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1387 on: May 24, 2011, 06:56:47 AM »
Is this forward-looking technical thread going to remain on-track, or continue to degenerate into a grandstanding theater for presenting he-said, she-said statements from the past?

.99
do you have a problem with the questions posed to glen in my previous posts? and if so why?

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1388 on: May 25, 2011, 01:56:34 AM »
do you have a problem with the questions posed to glen in my previous posts? and if so why?

Wilby - whether or not Poynty has a problem with these or any other questions is no longer the issue.  The fact is that Glen has now publicly exposed the fact that he denies the results of his earlier 'replication' as it was referred to in both submitted papers.  That's is all that matters or counts - or is relevant.  So.  Let's take it that the paper was a joke.  That the replication never happened.  And that there can be NO discovery as he 'infers' or as is suggested - PRECISELY because he has now PUBLICLY declared his doubts on those measurements.  Which means that he must now WITHDRAW that publication and make a public retraction.  That, at least, would be principled.  Anything else is unacceptable.  Else he's also disgracing the high reach of Open Sourcing anything at all by allowing it to degenerate into yet another unsubstantiated claim that tarnishes our best efforts.

I don't have to reach that far back in his posts to find the appropriate post.  Here it is.


After five (5) more months of testing and evaluation including nine (9) more verified documented tests on "MY" experimental device ..... the above is my opinion and there is "NO" efficiency of any COP is mentioned or claimed other than the word "GOOD".

Good defined as

Full circle again .... there was no COP> 17 found.

Which presumably inter alia - includes his COP>4 as he DOUBTS the measurements.

The "MODIFIED" replication was because from all experimentalist working on the project  it was found the published electronic circuit in the Quantum 2002 article did not work, and using the new "MODIFIED" circuit in TEST #13 it had the problems months later that was found as quoted in my posting at Energetic Forum I failed with "NO" scientific method replication of Rosemary Ainslie's COP> 17 device verifying her finding and claim  ... I found "NO"  COP> 17 in my scientific method of testing and evaluation which if it was found would be quite obvious.

And added to which he also did NOT manage to replicate that earlier COP>4 claim which is actually ALL that's relevant.

What is as clear as daylight is that what Glen actually meant to do was throw doubt on his earlier COP>4 claim.  Tests from 13 through to 22 - were all done after his Scribd publication.  For some reason he has not yet realised that these doubts are now embedded.  He needs must WITHDRAW his association with that paper if he is to behave in as principled a manner as required.  Which is important.  Because then his comments or claims against our own work is then of no force and effect.  He's not qualified to comment except to say that in his own opinion and in the light of his own best efforts he could NOT SUBSTANTIATE ANY OVER UNITY RESULT.  That would be the level of clarity required.  And what he thinks of me - although of great interest to himself - is of no relevance to the issue. 

However, the actual dilemma - as we all know - is that he wants to 'infer' COP>4 is possible but that COP>17 is not.  Which is a joke.  Because if you can manage COP greater as little as 1 - then one is entertaining the real potential of COP infinity.  It's the same thing.  All of which speaks to 'agenda'.  And I'm sick of agendas.  What we're meant to be doing is debating science.  Nothing else.  So.  In the interests of getting back on topic can I assume that Glen will stay out of the debate?  If not - then Poynty Point - I'm very anxious to 'move on'.  How about using your forum or my blogspot.  I'm happy with either.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Added some emphasis.  lol
 ;D
« Last Edit: May 25, 2011, 02:25:53 AM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1389 on: May 25, 2011, 02:32:32 AM »
So.  In the interests of getting back on topic can I assume that Glen will stay out of the debate?  If not - then Poynty Point - I'm very anxious to 'move on'.  How about using your forum or my blogspot.  I'm happy with either.

Although my preference has always been to continue here with what I wish to present, it is a shame recent posts have indicated that this may not be possible. I do not wish to carry on this discussion at OUR.

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1390 on: May 25, 2011, 02:35:09 AM »
Although my preference has always been to continue here with what I wish to present, it is a shame recent posts have indicated that this may not be possible. I do not wish to carry on this discussion at OUR.

.99

Well Poynty?  That leaves my blog?  I'll post your emails across.  Are you game?

Rosie

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1391 on: May 25, 2011, 03:06:15 AM »
Rose,

As carrying this discussion on in your blog and/or via emails is not only cumbersome, but not widely read, I am exploring another possibility that will allow us to continue on here at OU.

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1392 on: May 25, 2011, 03:37:24 AM »
Rose,

As carrying this discussion on in your blog and/or via emails is not only cumbersome, but not widely read, I am exploring another possibility that will allow us to continue on here at OU.

.99

Poynty?  My blog is most certainly widely read.  I have an average of over 100 reads per post and when the topics are hot it spikes up to 400 plus.  Surely that's enough?  If it's public attention that you're looking for.

Rosie


Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1394 on: May 25, 2011, 05:07:11 AM »
A question for you Rose on the battery wiring:

The 3.3uH value you provided for each side of the battery, does that include the inductance of the 4 or 5 wire jumpers (depending on a 5 or 6 battery setup) between the batteries, or is that the value only for the long wire (x2) leading from the battery terminal to the perf board?

.99