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 669937 times)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1455 on: June 12, 2011, 04:48:02 AM »
Guys,
I keep hoping this thread will close - at least until I get the paper published.  All that's happening is that Poynty is delaying this closure by his endless and utterly unscientific analyses.  I think that either he or I should get to the gullet of the argument. 

There has, for some time on these forums - been the evidence of a 'voltage spike' that is widely known to result from counter electromotive force, or back electromotive force.  This is the energy that is traditionally understood to be stored on circuit components as a result of current flow from a supply source.  And our claim has been, from the beginning, that the voltage 'spike' represents - not stored but - 'regenerated' energy.  Here's why.

Inductive laws state that a changing magnetic field induces an electric field and vice versa.  When the energy supply from the source is prevented - in open circuit conditions - and as provided for by a switched period, then this is what happens. The stored potential difference on the circuit material collapses.  In collapsing it is also a 'changing magnetic field'.  By changing it is inducing a reversed voltage.  That reversed voltage induces a current flow.  That current flow is able to move in anti phase to the initialised voltage from the source.  The proposal is that the level of voltage is equal to the voltage first applied.  Therefore the amount of current flow generated from that 'changed' or regenerated potential difference is equal to the amount of energy that was first applied from the source. Therefore - theoretically - as much can be returned as was first applied.

But here's the thing.  That 'spike' is invariably contested.  It's full value can never be seen on standard oscilloscopes because they don't have the bandwidth required to pick it up at the speed at which it manifests.  More sophisticated oscilloscopes do have this - but their accessibility is limited which also makes the full value of the results of those spike,  less accessible.

So.  We've circumvented that problem.  Here's what the circuit does.  Instead of just 'spiking' there is a path that is now available to the circuit to allow the current that it generates, to flow UNOBSTRUCTED.  Now we can see the full 'current' potential of that spike and get to the actual questions as to what is happening.

Instead of getting there - Poynty is tying himself into knots and then throwing that knotted mess into the air in the hopes that it'll stand there  - like a Fakir's rope trick.  He's arguing that a battery can only deliver a steady dc current flow.  This is right.  But by the same token it can ONLY be recharged by a reversed current flow.  We see a reversed current flow.  The question then is 'does this recharge the battery?  That's the ONLY question that still remains to be resolved.  Because, according to classical protocols it is REQUIRED that this is recharged.  And our evidence is that the battery only 'retains' its charge.  Now we get to the actual questions.  What then makes current flow - because if the battery always ends up at it's initial voltage value - then why?  According to the measured returning current - it should also have INCREASED - substantially. 

And that goes to the heart of the thesis which is the ONLY thing that no-one is inclined to get their minds around.  But hopefully it will be addressed if that paper is published.  So.  It's absolutely futile to speculate on whether or not there is a gain to potential difference.  That's conclusively evident.  There is none.  And it's futile to speculate on whether or not the battery is outperforming its watt hour rating.  That's conclusively evident.  It does.  The circuit is able to dissipate SUBSTANTIAL wattage without any reduction in battery voltage - over significant time periods.  But the questions remain.  Why does the battery voltage not climb to greater than it's starting voltage.  And by the same token - why does it not fall in line with its measured capacity?  Both are highly problematic because there are no scientific precedents to explain either question.

Regards,
Rosemary       

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1456 on: June 15, 2011, 05:15:14 AM »
From the last installment in this detailed analysis, it was established that for INPUT power measurements involving DC sources, the source voltage can be measured with either an oscilloscope (using the MEAN computation) or DMM. It was shown that the DC source voltage measurement could be taken directly across the battery terminals, or at the far end of a considerable length of battery feed wiring, with essentially the same resulting average voltage reading.

This DC source voltage measurement is a DC value with essentially no ripple associated with it. With heavy enough averaging in the DMM (with the aid of an RC low-pass filter if necessary), the resulting measurement will be a smooth DC value. This DC value becomes a “constant” multiplicand that is multiplied with the instantaneous current to produce instantaneous power. As there is zero phase angle between a DC voltage and any current, phase considerations need not be taken into account for this INPUT power measurement.

At this point, the equation for average INPUT power (Pin) is as follows:

Pin(avg) = AVG[VBAT(DC) x VCSR/CSR(t)], and in words;

The average input power is equal to the average of the product of the DC battery voltage (in DC) and the scaled (by the CSR value) instantaneous CSR voltage (which is battery current).

As the AVG and DC values of a DC quantity are equal, the DC battery voltage in the above equation can be moved outside the square brackets as follows:

Pin(avg) = VBAT(AVG) x AVG[VCSR/CSR(t)], where VBAT(AVG) is readily obtained (as previously described) by using a DMM or scope, and is a constant, eg. “71V”.

In summary, we have established that the voltage of a voltage source is essentially a constant, and that in order to obtain the average INPUT power figure, this constant is multiplied with the average of the source’s instantaneous current.

What is “the average of the source’s instantaneous current”?

Before we answer that question, let’s briefly look at an important aspect of the DC source INPUT power measurement. What this measurement strictly entails, is the net average power from or to the source. Although pulsed alternating currents may be involved, there will always be a net average power either being supplied by the DC source to the circuit, or vice-versa.

So the average of the DC source’s current is obtained simply by applying an averaging function to the instantaneous voltage wave form across the CSR. As you may have already surmised, this averaging function can readily be accomplished with the use of a DMM, with or without the implementation of an optional non-loading RC low-pass filter.

What this measurement results in, is a constant and stable net DC voltage across the CSR. Once this DC voltage is divided by the value of the CSR, we are left with the net average current from or to the DC source (battery) (and this value of current is DC).

Important Note: The DMM or oscilloscope probe positioning across the CSR is far more critical than is the case for the battery voltage measurement. This is due to the fact that the true battery voltage is a constant (permitting us to heavily filter out any ripple caused by parasitic inductance), whereas the battery’s current is not. In order to obtain an accurate average current reading from the DC source (battery), it is imperative that a non-inductive CSR be used, and that the probes be placed as close as possible to its body. In the simulation, there is 200nH of parasitic inductance associated with the CSR. I found that the resulting added ripple caused an error of only a few percent, but folks should be aware of this potential pitfall nonetheless.

As we are permitted to heavily filter (average) the battery voltage measurement (because in reality it is a constant voltage when measured directly across its terminals), for a similar reason (i.e. a fixed CSR) we are also permitted to heavily “filter” the value of the CSR resistor. In the simulation, when we apply averaging to both the voltage across and current through (using the PSpice current probe) the CSR, then divide this average voltage by the average current (Ohm’s law), the result is in fact the resistive value as marked on the CSR.

In the case as applied to the oscillator circuit, this has been verified as shown in a previous installment of the analysis, i.e. the CSR value used for computing average current is 0.25 Ohms.

So finally, we are left with an extremely simple, accurate, and accessible method for obtaining the average INPUT power measurement Pin(avg) for any DC source;

Pin(avg) = VBAT(avg) x VCSR(avg)/CSR, which reads;

The average (DC source) input power is equal to the average battery voltage, times the average CSR voltage, divided by the CSR value (as marked or measured).

A special note for anyone wishing to verify the proper orientation of the measurement probes placed across the battery and the CSR:

Remove any switching or oscillating circuitry such that your inductive/resistive load is powered directly and only by the DC source. Leave the CSR in the circuit, and measure the voltage across both the battery and CSR. Note the polarity of the voltage and orientation of the probes for each.

Re-introduce your switching/oscillating circuitry and be sure to connect the measurement probes EXACTLY the same way as the previous test. Make the same notes and compare the polarities noted in each test case.

If you wish to prove that your DC source is acquiring energy or charge, this simple comparison test will without a doubt, reveal the truth.

.99

EDIT: Changed "device" to "DC source" in last paragraph.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2011, 06:53:22 AM by poynt99 »

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1457 on: June 15, 2011, 07:39:45 AM »
Dear Poynt.  Are you presuming to advise our members on a new way to determine power that has no bearing on standard protocols?  Because if so, you're doing a good job of it.  Some time back you proposed the application of the terms Pin and Pout.  But that use is decidedly NOT standard and it is also DECIDEDLY FLAWED.  If you are trying to get these measurements established on readily accessible ammeters and voltmeters - then I'm afraid that it's an exercise in futility.  The resonating frequency of these oscillations exceeds your average DMM's capabilities.  This is PRECISELY why these benefits have been so entirely hidden and for so long.

The fact is that the oscillations that are evident over the battery are that extreme that they can take the battery from almost zero to upwards of twice it's input voltage.  Indeed, there are some settings where it is possible to take the battery voltage to a negative voltage for really brief moments in that switching cycle.  And no amount of suggestion, or proposal or argument to AVERAGE that value will cut it.  And this is PRECISELY because you are EXCLUDING the 'recharge' cycle that results AFTER the 'discharge' cycle.  Current discharged from the battery will DISCHARGE potential difference.  Current returned to the battery will RECHARGE potential difference.  It's that simple.

Now.  To get back to your obsessive determination to average your battery voltage.  We are using a SWITCHED CYCLE.  Regardless of the voltage potential that is evident - regardless of the waveforms - just consider this.  The standard 'switched' cycle implies that for some period of each switching cycle the battery is DISCONNECTED.  It is not able to discharge anything at all.  That Pin - if it means anything at all then becomes Pin x ONLY the period while the battery has a circuit path that is also closed - that it can discharge any energy at all.  Now.  Just for a moment - look at the oscillation across the current sensing resistor.  It is sometimes recharging and it is sometimes discharging. Therefore during that period - REGARDLESS - 50% of the time MAY be considered as coming from the battery.  And 50% of the time it most certainly cannot be considered to be coming from the battery.  So.  If you are still relying on Pin as a measure of the energy delivered by the battery - then CORRECTLY time comes into the equation.  And it needs to be divided - at its least - by 2.  AND if there's also an applied switching period from an applied duty cycle - then it also CORRECTLY needs to factor in that ON time AS WELL.  So.  Time is no longer an 'appendage' to that equation.  It requires some much needed qualifications.

THEN.  Look if you will to the path that is made available for the battery to discharge any energy at all.  Let's start with our own Test 2 of the report.  There is a switching period - but the offset has been set that only a limited current can discharge from the battery during this 'on' time.  This means, effectively, that notwithstanding the closed circuit conditions that allow a discharge from the battery supply - we've 'choked' off the most of that potential that we're getting in the region of 0.175 amps for about 18% of each switching period.  Then look at that oscillation that is triggered during the period when the battery CANNOT DISCHARGE ANY CURRENT AT ALL.  There is very real evidence of both a positive and a negative part of each cycle in that subsequent oscillation.  Where does that energy come from if the battery cannot supply any current?  And how can you ASSUME that it's discharging when - SELF EVIDENTLY - it is also recharging during the time that it's oscillating.

The proposal is that the added energy to the system, comes from a current generated in the material of the circuit itself.  Let's speculate that this is a possibility and ASSUME - for purposes of this argument that indeed the circuit components have GENERATED a current flow from those collapsing fields.  And in line with this - presume also that that material has become an energy supply source.  How then would it perform?  It would discharge a counterclockwise current flow that would recharge the battery and that current would then return to its own terminal supply source - being the circuit material itself. So.  Also for the purposes of this argument let's assume that this in fact happens.  Effectively the circuit presents two terminals - in the same way that the battery has two terminals.  But UNLIKE THE BATTERY - the circuit path for the flow of that current flow - HAS NO RESTRICTIONS. 

And the availability of the path?  This is now established at the body diodes of Q2.  It's polarity can most certainly accommodate a reverse current flow.  BUT.  What flows is now greater than was initially discharged as it has the added benefit of that extra voltage at the battery.  It now has all that extra oomph.  That's the proposed SOURCE of those extreme oscillations.  Then the cycle repeats itself - because in discharging it represents changing magnetic fields.  Changing magnetic fields induce electric fields - and so it goes.

So.  To your equations and your post.  Your last installment established NOTHING.  It was a parade of poor equations and excessively flawed argument.  Input power - as you put it - refers, presumably, to power delivered by the battery.  Since half the time in each oscillation power is being returned to the battery you need to divide your Pin by 2 - for starters.  Alternatively you need to factor in both Pin and Pout.  Better still, just stick to standard protocols.  Watts delivered minus watts returned x time = Joules = measure of Power delivered by the battery supply.

Regarding where your voltage should be read?  I would have thought that this should be as close to the supply source as possible.  And regarding what voltage should be read over that battery - then it may be fair to 'average' this but THEN - you will also need to divide this average by the time period as - for 50% of the oscillation period it is absolutely NOT delivering any energy at all.  The average of the recharge and the average of the discharge may leave one with a stable voltage.  But there is STILL THAT PERIOD WHERE IT IS NOT DELIVERING ENERGY.  And again.  That MUST be factored in.

And my comments regarding the correct computation of amperage.  This pertains.  It is ABSOLUTELY required that this is the SUM of that oscillation.  And to determine this true value you need to get some good measuring instruments.  Regarding the need to factor in 0.25 Ohms - I'm not sure why you stress this.  In the first instance - it does NOTHING to change the evident polarities of that current flow.  The oscillations persist - regardless.  And unless any of those who replicate this test - actually apply that PURE NON-INDUCTIVE resistor - then it's irrelevant.  If it's a pure resistor take the Ohms as read.  If it's not - then don't.  Don't assume that REGARDLESS of it's induction - you can still apply the 'as read' ohmage.  Because that's quite simply WRONG.  All of which makes your equations as wrong as they ever were. 

Pin(avg) = AVG[VBAT(DC) x VCSR/CSR(t)], and in words;

The average input power is equal to the average of the product of the DC battery voltage (in DC) and the scaled (by the CSR value) instantaneous CSR voltage (which is battery current).
This is, therefore, and most decidedly WRONG.  When you've addressed this then only will we be back on track.

Regards,
Rosemary

ADDED Here's my own proposal for the correct equation as the basis of your power computation.  Vi dt.  It's simpler and it has the added merit of being CORRECT in all aspects.  the downside is that you need some sophisticated measuring instruments.  Alternatively, if you must average everything - then multiply your average battery voltage by current determined as the sum of voltages across that CSR divided by its Ohms value.  That value, at least, incorporates the period when the battery is recharging. 

Sorry.  I had to delete a paragraph.  It was wrong.  I'll try it again later when I've got time.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2011, 08:12:07 AM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1458 on: June 15, 2011, 11:48:40 AM »
Guys - this is important.  It's back to the ACTUAL conditions and the ACTUAL questions that standard protocols don't strictly apply.  This too may show WHY all this needs a fuller investigation.

Standard protocols are this.  A battery's potential difference is measured to be greater than zero.  And when it discharges this potential difference, as current, then the current moves clockwise through a circuit. And when, correspondingly, we recharge a battery - then, the applied voltage relative to that supply is NEGATIVE.  And the current flow that is applied to the supply is also negative - shown as an counter clockwise current flow through that circuit.  So far so good.

Now we get to our circuit.  The clockwise flow of current is prevented when the circuit opens. Then the negative or anticlockwise current flow kicks in.  This HOWEVER - results in a REDUCTION in that battery voltage.  And when this, again REVERSES at the end of the first oscillation - it then results in a clockwise flow of current that INCREASES the battery voltage.  Which puts paid to the EXPECTED results of the flow of current.

So.  One can then ask why?  Why, notwithstanding a recharge or a counter clockwise current flow - is there a resulting discharge to the supply?  And notwithstanding a discharge or a clockwise current flow - is there a resulting recharge to the supply? 

Again. Traditionally amperage is seen to result in a DISCHARGE of energy from the supply.  Effectively it's at the cost of the energy from the supply.  But HERE - on this circuit, when there's an APPARENT DISCHARGE - when the current flow is greater than zero - when the current flow is moving in a clockwise direction through the circuit the result is an INCREASE - a HUGE increase - in the battery voltage. 

And correspondingly when the amperage is seen to result in a RECHARGE of energy from the supply then we expect it to be to the benefit of the supply.  HERE AGAIN.  When there's an APPARENT RECHARGE - when the current flow is less than zero - when the current flow is moving in an counter clockwise direction through the circuit then the actual result is a  DECREASE - a HUGE decrease in the battery voltage.

So.  The question.  What price vi dt as per classical protocols?  Because vi dt in either cycle is going to result in the potential difference being retained at the supply rather than otherwise.  It's either a reduction to voltage as a result of negative current flow - or it's an increase to voltage with a positive current flow.  The ONLY way this can be resolved is if one assumes that there is a second supply source.  Then one can take it as read that the second supply source is working in anti phase to the first or primary supply source.  And apparently the two together to establish a retention of the potential difference at both sources.  And that much is evident.  But it's only evident during the negatively triggered oscillation phase.

Then one can also ask this.  How come the current from the supply can only be discharged during the ON period of the switching cycle when the circuit is, effectively, closed?  Why is it that there is no oscillation evident then?  This too can only be answered by applying a property to current flow that is different when it comes from the supply than when it comes from the source.  But you will rightly argue - current is current.  Indeed.  However, if you attribute a polarised property to its actual material then there would be that to restrict it's flow through the body diodes in one direction which would NOT be afforded in an opposite direction.  Effectively - if current has an inherent polarisation then it would determine it's potential passage - or not - through those diodes.  Therefore, perhaps current has a polarised property.  And possibly it is, indeed coming from an alternate source than the supply.

Then you may ask - so what?  We all know that current can be seen as 'positively biased' or 'negatively biased' precisely because it can present either above or below zero - moving either in one direction or the other through a circuit.  BUT.  The point is this.  If indeed that bias is that fundamental that it also presents EITHER a POSITIVE or a NEGATIVE - then the material that it comprises cannot be an electron - as this ALWAYS HAS A NEGATIVE CHARGE.  Therefore - the next question is this.  IF the current does not comprises electrons - then what is it?  And that comes back to the thesis which proposes a dipole and that the fields that are structured from this dipole always have EITHER a positive justification or a NEGATIVE justification.

In any event the equation vi dt is no longer applied in terms of averaging anything at all as Poynty is trying to infer.  Because, quite simply, the anti phase angles of that oscillation also require some factoring in of that anomalous relationship where the clockwise current flow evidently CHARGES the battery when it should be discharging.  And where the counter clockwise current flow evidently DISCHARGES the battery when it should, in fact be recharging. 

And until the implications of this are taken on board - then we are not doing any kind of justice to what is clearly an anomalous result - evident experimentally and on simulations.  It's simply inappropriate to apply standard averaging values - as they, in turn, are based on assumptions that have NO relevance to this circuit result.

I hope that makes the position clearer.  I'm tired of Poynt's endless attempts to fudge and minimise these results.  They're extraordinary.  Fortunately there are those who are also able to think the problem through more deeply - and who are also more committed to finding the actual answer to the actual questions

Regards,
Rosemary

CORRECTED
« Last Edit: June 15, 2011, 09:31:46 PM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Offline MrMag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 754
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1459 on: June 16, 2011, 01:48:49 AM »
To be completely honest, most of this is over my head. What I really don't understand is why you haven't run this setup continuous for the last 6 or 7 months. If after this time the batteries are still at full charge, I would have to agree with you as many others would. But until then, there is always some doubt.

Something also doesn't seem right to me. Here you have Poynt99 trying to explain the measuring procedure and points and instead of indicating or discussing why you are doing it the way you are, you try to discredit him.

To me, there are more credible people telling me that you are wrong then there are agreeing with you.

Why haven't you run the circuit continuously for the last 6 months? Don't you think that it would be a way to prove your claim?

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1460 on: June 16, 2011, 07:36:33 AM »
Something also doesn't seem right to me. Here you have Poynt99 trying to explain the measuring procedure and points and instead of indicating or discussing why you are doing it the way you are, you try to discredit him.
Are you serious?  Do you really propose that it's me trying to discredit Poynt.99? That's got to be a joke.  Here's a man who has actively encouraged and advanced whole THREADS on his forum to his members to let rip on my reputation.  NO HOLDS BARRED.  On record is a solemn undertaking not to moderate anything at all.  To this day they hold record of post after post after post where I am accused of FRAUD - LUNACY - DUPLICITY - DELUSIONAL CONFUSIONS - IDIOCY.  Actually that last was qualified. Apparently it's presumptuous to even consider myself an IDIOT.  I'm in fact - MORONIC.  He has gone on record to say that he will DEBUNK our claim and has advised all and sundry that I have ABSOLUTELY NO KNOWLEDGE OF ANYTHING SCIENTIFIC.  He has written spiteful emails to me to tell me that it's laughably absurd for me to comment on anything at all - least of all matters scientific.  He has INVITED people to join his forums for the sole purpose of - let me emphasise this - with NO OTHER AGENDA THAN TO DISCREDIT ME IN ANY WAY THEY SEE FIT.  And while all this was going on he BLOCKED MY VIEW OF THESE COMMENTS through the simple expediency of accessing my IP ADDRESS.  And if you think - like he claims - that I am LYING - then I suggest you take a stroll there and look at this for yourself.  Nor does it end there.  He contributed to and actively supported a BLOGSPOT dedicated to maligning my reputation.  He has allowed publication and links to private videos that I rather recklessly trusted to certain replicators who then attempted to claim our technology as their PERSONAL DISCOVERY.   And if you want proof of all that - then it's also all there.  Loud and clear and unambiguous.  Not only that - but this is the REAL JOKE.  All those members ONLY JOINED his forum to INDULGE THAT ATTACK ON MY GOOD NAME.  Never joined before.  Never seen since.  That little pack of dogs, the Pickles, and Mookies and Fuzzies.

SO MR MAG.  I suspect that your pointing your finger at the wrong person.  All you can accuse me of is that I tried to stay motivated NOTWITHSTANDING.  What I'm now trying to do, rather urgently - is to try and point out that POYNTY POINT seems to have a disproportionate need to discredit these results.  And you can put any spin on that which you prefer.  Personally I'm satisfied that there's an agenda.  But that's just my opinion.  It's rather born out though in that, somewhat against the traditions of good science - he now refuses to acknowledge the very results that his own simulations show.  Which is a joke.  Or it would be - if it were actually funny.  And meanwhile he - like so many of you - is also ACTIVELY encouraging REALLY expensive builds of Romero's device.  Probably because they all know that results here - unlike on our own device - will probably remain inconclusive - unhappily.  Another successful distraction.  So.  That way the members here will move away from working and proven technology and waste their time on yet more replications.

To me, there are more credible people telling me that you are wrong then there are agreeing with you.
Which only goes to show how successful is that agenda.   :'(  More's the pity.

The simple fact is this.  We - that is - the ENTIRE OU COMMUNITY - all those MANY who have worked - for countless hours - at untold expense - to generate and puzzle out the significance of that SPIKE - that ETERNAL EVIDENCE OF SOMETHING BACK FOR WHAT APPEARS TO BE AT NO COST FROM A SUPPLY  - when we, our small team of dedicated researchers here in SA - FINALLY - determine that that SPIKE IS TRULY MEANINGFUL - TRULY AMAZING - TRULY PROOF OF THE GENERATION OF ENERGY rather than the result of STORED ENERGY - THAT IT IS TRULY GREATER THAN UNITY - IN FACT THAT ALSO NOW MEASURES COP INFINITY - THAT IT CAN BE APPLIED IN JUST ABOUT ANY WAY AT ALL - AND THAT IT WILL ALWAYS ADVANCE CLEAN GREEN - when FINALLY - we manage to UNFOLD the ACTUAL PROOF - then you would, nonetheless - prefer to believe Poynty Point and his utterly pointless, utterly absurd, utterly unscientific equations?  Like I say.  More's the pity.  And JUST CONSIDER.  That's a tragedy in the making for Over Unity.  And how COMFORTABLY this falls in with that REQUIRED AGENDA.  May I suggest, with the utmost respect - that you too are DUPED.

Why haven't you run the circuit continuously for the last 6 months? Don't you think that it would be a way to prove your claim?
This is why.  We use a functions generator.  The setting on ALL THOSE GENERATORS are brittle. Either that or something in the experiment factors in.  The settings CHANGE.  For whatever reason - it then it develops SO MUCH ENERGY over the circuit apparatus that EVERYTHING COOKS and we've even had an occasion where the battery caught alight.  THEREFORE IT NEEDS CONSTANT MONITORING.  If it's run continuously - it would need to be monitored DAY AND NIGHT.  I do not have the energy to manage this.  I do not have the funds to pay for this continual monitoring.  BUT I AM ON RECORD.  IF THERE IS ANY SOLEMN UNDERTAKING BY THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY THAT SUCH A RESULT WILL BE CONSIDERED UNEQUIVOCAL - THEN I WILL HAPPILY RUN THIS TO THE EXTENT OF THE BATTERIES'  WATT HOUR RATING.  But I'm NOT about to embark on that test UNLESS there's that undertaking.  Because my experience is that NOTHING - NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER - is going to cut it.  Unhappily.

 :'( ???
Rosemary

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1461 on: June 16, 2011, 02:19:06 PM »
- he now refuses to acknowledge the very results that his own simulations show. 

Those that have followed my posts and the recent analysis I gave, know that the truth is quite the opposite.

In actual fact Rose, it is you that is refusing to acknowledge what the simulations show.

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1462 on: June 16, 2011, 02:56:31 PM »
Those that have followed my posts and the recent analysis I gave, know that the truth is quite the opposite.

In actual fact Rose, it is you that is refusing to acknowledge what the simulations show.

.99

Truth or otherwise has nothing to do with this. Experiments can't lie.  Nor - for that matter can they 'tell the truth'.  It simply 'is what it is'.  What you've done is to so profoundly alter the bases of that experiment that it's no longer experimentally relevant.  And your subsequent analysis of that experiment has nothing to do with the evidence put forward either by ourselves or by you.  It has even less to do with standard measurement protocols and good scientific practice.  And it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with acceptable mathematical practices and protocols.  It's a romp in misinformation, muddled mathematics and sundry confusions. 

The 'lie' comes in when you try to pass yourself of as having sufficient knowledge to comment.  Because you clearly need a refresher course in power computations.  The only other thing that I can barely accept is that the members here are that ill informed that they also cannot see it for the nonsense that it is.  But I still depend on the caliber of those many readers of this thread Poynt.  I think the saying is that you can fool some of the people some of the time - something like that.  But that's when TRUTH really has the edge.  It survives abuse and it survives all that nonsense. And experimental evidence survives EVERYTHING.  That's always the final arbiter.

Rosemary 

Offline MrMag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 754
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1463 on: June 16, 2011, 03:01:40 PM »
Rosemary, your first statement does sound a little delusional and idiotic. Just because threads are not moderated it doesn't mean he is out to get you. I think it is more of a " freedom of speech" thing. Do you know for a fact that he invited people there "only to discredit you"? I know there was a couple of guys there that might of got a little carried away but you have to understand that this is expected. As strong as you are for your thoughts of this circuit, you are going to have others who are far more against it. I do check into Poynt's forum 3 or 4 times a week and right now there is very little discussion of your circuit. I'm still trying to figure out if this is a good thing or not.

This forum and Poynt's forum are overunity forums. If you really think they are against a system that shows a COP of infinity, there is definitely something wrong. I really think he is only trying to point things out to you not discredit you but I can see from your point of view that it would look that way.

As far as your second statement goes, I am not a product of his agenda or duped. The only "Actual proof" that would convince me that your circuit has a COP of infinity is a continuous run to the watt hour rating. It's really too bad that you will not do the continuous run unless the "Scientific community" will accept it. You know this will never happen. Who is the scientific community and do you think that they would actually make a decision? They are comfortable in their little boxes and don't want anything to shake it up. Who I would want to prove this to is other OU researchers. If you did this test and there was no drop in the batteries watt hour rating, I wouldn't care what anyone said against the circuit. To me, and I'm sure a lot of others, that is the proof I'm looking for.

If you really want acceptance from the OU community, the only way you are going to get it is with a continuous run of the circuit. If I were you, I would find a way to do this because if you don't, I feel it will never be accepted.

I honestly do hope you are right and I give you credit for sticking with it so long. This does show your faith and belief in the circuits capabilities. Your next step is to convince us and you know what it will take. You just need to do it.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1464 on: June 16, 2011, 03:20:46 PM »
No Mr Mag.  I am absolutely NOT interested in convincing you or, indeed, ANY members on the overunity forums.  I only post here because I can depend on those adverse and usually absurd objections and arguments to strengthen our own.  If I write for anyone at all it's for those silent and noncontributing readers. It's like all democracies.  We only ever hear from the noisy minority.   I would have to be delusional indeed to think that there's an ounce of courtesy, loyalty or integrity in the most of the members here - let alone the forum owners.  They, like you, are fickle and self-serving and pretend to authority that is absolutely not yours or theirs to own.  Very few exceptions to this.  Poynty knows NOTHING about power analysis - much less equations.  Stefan knows NOTHING about our circuit that he presumes to comment on.  Both ACTIVELY work against our evidence.  And why?  If, indeed, they want to promote clean green?  Because there's nothing cleaner or greener than the circuit that we've now reported on.

And DO NOT TELL ME TO DO THAT BATTERY TEST UNLESS YOU CAN ALSO TELL ME WHAT THE ADVANTAGES ARE.  Convincing you is certainly of NO advantage to me.  You'll endorse it today and then deny it tomorrow.  THAT'S how the members here work.

Rosemary


Offline happyfunball

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 405
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1465 on: June 16, 2011, 04:03:51 PM »
Your technology will need to be able to self sustain to prove it's validity and viability. Refusing to just let it run makes no logical sense if it actually works.

Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1466 on: June 16, 2011, 04:26:58 PM »
Your technology will need to be able to self sustain to prove it's validity and viability. Refusing to just let it run makes no logical sense if it actually works.
your comment makes no logical sense. heat pumps are often cop>3-5... do they self sustain or self run? does their failure to do so make them invalid and nonviable? ::)

Offline MrMag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 754
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1467 on: June 16, 2011, 06:00:27 PM »
No Mr Mag.  I am absolutely NOT interested in convincing you or, indeed, ANY members on the overunity forums.  I only post here because I can depend on those adverse and usually absurd objections and arguments to strengthen our own.  If I write for anyone at all it's for those silent and noncontributing readers. It's like all democracies.  We only ever hear from the noisy minority.   I would have to be delusional indeed to think that there's an ounce of courtesy, loyalty or integrity in the most of the members here - let alone the forum owners.  They, like you, are fickle and self-serving and pretend to authority that is absolutely not yours or theirs to own.  Very few exceptions to this.  Poynty knows NOTHING about power analysis - much less equations.  Stefan knows NOTHING about our circuit that he presumes to comment on.  Both ACTIVELY work against our evidence.  And why?  If, indeed, they want to promote clean green?  Because there's nothing cleaner or greener than the circuit that we've now reported on.

And DO NOT TELL ME TO DO THAT BATTERY TEST UNLESS YOU CAN ALSO TELL ME WHAT THE ADVANTAGES ARE.  Convincing you is certainly of NO advantage to me.  You'll endorse it today and then deny it tomorrow.  THAT'S how the members here work.

Rosemary

I understand where you stand now. You just want to post with no questions or comments from others. It is nice to know that you think that most of us have no integrity, courtesy or loyalty. If you really think this way of us and don't care what we think why do you even bother posting at all?

I guess if you don't know what the advantage of running the battery test is, don't bother.

Why do people who make claims of huge discoveries start to attack people when they are questioned or have recommendations?

And you think that you know more about power measurement then Stefan or Poynt? Who is delusional?

The only recommendation I had was to do a continuous circuit run test to prove that the batteries wouldn't drain down. I thought that it would help you get more people on your side.  But since most of us lack integrity and you don't really care what we think, I won't bother questioning the almighty any further. What a bitch.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1468 on: June 16, 2011, 06:34:34 PM »
I understand where you stand now. You just want to post with no questions or comments from others. It is nice to know that you think that most of us have no integrity, courtesy or loyalty. If you really think this way of us and don't care what we think why do you even bother posting at all?
I've already explained this.

I guess if you don't know what the advantage of running the battery test is, don't bother.
Not sure where you got that from?  I never said anything about there not being an advantage to running the test.  I only said that I could not AFFORD to run it as required.  I explained this?  Did you even bother to read it?

Why do people who make claims of huge discoveries start to attack people when they are questioned or have recommendations?
No idea.  As we have NEVER CLAIMED A DISCOVERY let alone a HUGE discovery - then I suppose this question has nothing to do with me.

And you think that you know more about power measurement then Stefan or Poynt? Who is delusional?
Who indeed?  I have NO IDEA whether or not Stefan understand power measurements or not.  What I DO know is that he has NO IDEA what's happening on our circuit.  Poynty has NO IDEA on power measurements.  His efforts are absurd.

The only recommendation I had was to do a continuous circuit run test to prove that the batteries wouldn't drain down. I thought that it would help you get more people on your side.  But since most of us lack integrity and you don't really care what we think, I won't bother questioning the almighty any further. What a bitch.
I explained this.  How often do you need me to spell it out?  To run that test comprehensively and with the correct controls and with the required supervision would cost me of upwards of R10 000.00.  Are you seriously proposing that I run this to satisfy your curiosity?  And am I therefore a bitch - because I decline?  That's tough.  That I claim a certain want of integrity in contributing members such as yourself - is PRECISELY because you see fit to DEMAND whatever evidence you whimsically require - and when I CANNOT comply - you then claim that the  test would FAIL.  That's the level of integrity that I've been obliged to deal with here.  How typical.

Rosemary.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1469 on: June 16, 2011, 06:38:52 PM »
Your technology will need to be able to self sustain to prove it's validity and viability. Refusing to just let it run makes no logical sense if it actually works.

WHAT A JOKE.  Can you read?  If so then KINDLY READ MY REPLY AND ANSWER IN THE CONTEXT OF THAT REPLY.  Unless you wish to donate the cost of running that test.  Then - by all means.  I'll oblige. 

R

Added
And what's more we will GUARANTEE A SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME.  So?  How deep are your pockets HAPPYFUNBALL?  I'm more than game to do this PROVIDED I do not carry that expense of monitoring.


Changed 'poked' to pockets.  Poked was probably more apt. 
« Last Edit: June 16, 2011, 07:39:35 PM by Rosemary Ainslie »