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.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 525394
  • *Total Topics: 15644
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 5
  • *Guests: 12
  • *Total: 17

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims  (Read 280085 times)

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #720 on: March 13, 2014, 07:54:40 AM »
It's the maximum temperature that you need to limit.  Typically, resistors top out at 125C heated temperature.

Duh, of course. Brain is numb. So extrapolating from my own data with the load cell set up as for the calibration, I could not even get to the 100 Watt level... I think I'll attain 125 C at around 75-80 Watts or so. Hmm.

(Actually I just did an informal run at 60 Watts and the oil did get to 125 C but with some thermal insulation and 350 mL of water in an outer beaker surrounding the oil beaker. "The water wasn't actually boiling but there were small bubbles" and "steam was evident " blah blah. See photo below. Elapsed time 2 hours.)

Thanks for pointing this out. I may have to start all over, with better cooling or different load elements, if I'm going to be making some big heat.

But at least I'll be able to do Q2 oscillation modes and short Q1 duty cycles with 4 batteries, maybe.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #721 on: March 13, 2014, 08:16:10 AM »
Duh, of course. Brain is numb. So extrapolating from my own data with the load cell set up as for the calibration, I could not even get to the 100 Watt level... I think I'll attain 125 C at around 75-80 Watts or so. Hmm.

Thanks for pointing this out. I may have to start all over, with better cooling or different load elements, if I'm going to be making some big heat.

But at least I'll be able to do Q2 oscillation modes and short Q1 duty cycles with 4 batteries, maybe.
The basic scheme is obviously limited to what kind of heat removal scheme that you've got.  A big heater if powered going to well:  generate a lot of heat!  I don't think that you want to operate above 200C no matter what, just as a matter of safety.  In rough numbers a 6 high lead acid battery stack is going to put out ~75.6 - ~78V.  ~12 Ohms and we are talking 450W on the low end, or as Ms. Ainslie likes to say:  "copious heat".  Besides with just one Q1, 450W in the load means about 40W in Q1 which is going to require a very healthy heat sink.  So, I think that limiting the Q1 duty cycles is the way to go. 

I would do the tests with Q2 oscillations first on the existing set-up at a full battery stack.  Then I would run Q1 close to the system power dissipation limit again with a full battery stack and whatever duty cycle is required to stay below the dissipation limit.  For those tests, I would not let the function generator go below 0V.  Then I would adjust the function generator swing to drive Q1 at the short duty cycle and the Q2 oscillations at the long duty cycle.  I think that wraps a full circle around the ideas:

Efficiency and heat production with Q2 oscillations only.
Efficiency and heat production with Q1 only limited.
Efficiency and heat production with Q1 and Q2.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #722 on: March 13, 2014, 01:22:47 PM »
Thanks for the suggestions, that sounds like a pretty good plan to me.

Meanwhile, the astounding rationalizations continue. We have the Great Scientist seeing a wire connected to the battery stack, seeing and acknowledging current measured in that wire.... and yet she still manages to deny that the wire is hooked up to anything. She still believes that the battery is disconnected during the Q2 oscillations! She still believes that the high amplitudes of her spurious "current" traces are actually indicating high currents! All of this in spite of her own demonstrations, the patient explanations and illustrations from Poynt99, and my own videos which break the issue down into its elemental components. This is truly a spectacle. Generally when people are shown to be as full of nonsense as Ainslie, they go slinking off back to their hovels and aren't heard from for a while. Ainslie however has no shame at all, no apparent inkling of the laughingstock she has made, and continues to make, of herself. She defends her ignorance with vengeance, literally.

Yet of course.... she has no explanation for what happens when the battery is actually disconnected, or the SOURCE of the Q2 is actually disconnected, or the FG/Bias supply is actually disconnected from the rest of the circuit. Even though my videos cover these points in excruciating detail, and pitched at a level so basic that a bright ten-year-old child (who didn't already know everything) would grasp the issues and concepts immediately.

Nor will she-- or anyone-- deal with the issues I have raised regarding the bogus Figure 8 scopeshot. Milliseconds, or Microseconds, Ainslie? It _actually_ makes a huge difference. What was the duty cycle, what was the open-circuit voltage setting of the FG? We will never find out the answers to these basic and important questions from the Great Scientist Rosemary Ainslie .... we will have to determine the answers for ourselves.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #722 on: March 13, 2014, 01:22:47 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #723 on: March 13, 2014, 03:41:20 PM »
Thanks for the suggestions, that sounds like a pretty good plan to me.

Meanwhile, the astounding rationalizations continue. We have the Great Scientist seeing a wire connected to the battery stack, seeing and acknowledging current measured in that wire.... and yet she still manages to deny that the wire is hooked up to anything. She still believes that the battery is disconnected during the Q2 oscillations! She still believes that the high amplitudes of her spurious "current" traces are actually indicating high currents! All of this in spite of her own demonstrations, the patient explanations and illustrations from Poynt99, and my own videos which break the issue down into its elemental components. This is truly a spectacle. Generally when people are shown to be as full of nonsense as Ainslie, they go slinking off back to their hovels and aren't heard from for a while. Ainslie however has no shame at all, no apparent inkling of the laughingstock she has made, and continues to make, of herself. She defends her ignorance with vengeance, literally.

Yet of course.... she has no explanation for what happens when the battery is actually disconnected, or the SOURCE of the Q2 is actually disconnected, or the FG/Bias supply is actually disconnected from the rest of the circuit. Even though my videos cover these points in excruciating detail, and pitched at a level so basic that a bright ten-year-old child (who didn't already know everything) would grasp the issues and concepts immediately.

Nor will she-- or anyone-- deal with the issues I have raised regarding the bogus Figure 8 scopeshot. Milliseconds, or Microseconds, Ainslie? It _actually_ makes a huge difference. What was the duty cycle, what was the open-circuit voltage setting of the FG? We will never find out the answers to these basic and important questions from the Great Scientist Rosemary Ainslie .... we will have to determine the answers for ourselves.
You are welcome.  Little if anything rational has come from Ms. Ainslie in recent weeks.  Even when she is carefully spoon fed she either fails to comprehend, or chooses to ignore what is placed directly in front of her, or that she has herself demonstrated.  As someone noted yesterday, that horse has been beaten to death. 

I see value in what you are doing as it demonstrates good process, including dealing with the inconveniences and realities of real experiments.  I really like the Arduino driven camera.  It inspired me to check if my still camera has a a remote shutter capability.  Unfortunately, it does not. 

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #724 on: March 13, 2014, 07:21:01 PM »
Not even a facility for screwing a manual cable release into the shutter button? A small solenoid could be used to drive that arrangement.

The old Canon Xti. I bought it used about four years ago, it already had a lot of shutter actuations .... but then I've put nearly a thousand frames on it just in the past two days, documenting twelve one-hour experimental runs and some extras. I  managed to find some high-capacity batteries for it... on sale as discontinued items, at Radio Shack of all places. It gets a lot of use and is reliable and rugged. The only problem I've ever had with it was a slightly flaky main switch, which was fixed by some careful application of electro contact cleaner/lube.



Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #724 on: March 13, 2014, 07:21:01 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #725 on: March 13, 2014, 10:18:38 PM »
Quote
And no more abusive insults !!!

Hey nanobot, what are you, another of Ainslie's Pod People? We all know what you are and why you've been banned from here so many times under so many different aliases. Your posts show that you, too, are ignorant and full of empty claims about things you don't understand in the least. You make up things, drop names, make crazy assertions and emit spam after trolling spam. It's obvious from your posts that you don't even understand what Ainslie is claiming or what the multiple problems are with her output of verbiage and logorrhea. You probably don't even know what logorrhea is. But like any script kiddie you will google it and pretend you knew it all along.

Quote
It is sad to hear you speak of someone in that way ? insult after insult where does it stop ?

My heart bleeds purple peanut butter for your sadness. Ainslie knows exactly where "it" stops and can stop it at any time. The option is entirely hers and has been so for years.

Just to put a seriously fine point on it, nanobot: I am doing real work in an effort to understand and explain this set of problems, better work than anyone on her "team" has ever done or will do, better than any outsider (that I know of) other than Glen Lettenmeier (FuzzyTomCat).  (I'm not including the excellent simulation work of Poynt99 here, although I learned a lot from it, nor his hardware work. The latter is not yet fully reported, I think, and the former is software and of course doesn't yield heat results that can be measured.)  Ainslie and her crew of incompetents have obscured, covered up, lied about, published false data upon their "experiments", and have stalled and done their best to prevent any real work, any good examination of what they have done and claimed. Ainslie still emits what I consider deadly insults to me and to others, daily, as well as showing her profound disrespect for those who have spent years in study and professional employment in the field. She has less understanding of the circuit's operation than YOU do, I'll wager. Yet she chooses to engage in the kind of behaviours that you have seen over the past six months. Read her forum! Then if you want to complain about something, do it to HER, because all of this mess is her fault, her responsibility. Had she behaved honestly and honorably from the beginning, or had she even honored her devastating demonstration of August 11 which resulted in her left-handed "retraction".... we would be arguing about Zero Energy Devices instead of Ainslie's stupid and silly battery discharger.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #726 on: March 13, 2014, 11:22:46 PM »
The basic scheme is obviously limited to what kind of heat removal scheme that you've got.  A big heater if powered going to well:  generate a lot of heat!  I don't think that you want to operate above 200C no matter what, just as a matter of safety.  In rough numbers a 6 high lead acid battery stack is going to put out ~75.6 - ~78V.  ~12 Ohms and we are talking 450W on the low end, or as Ms. Ainslie likes to say:  "copious heat".  Besides with just one Q1, 450W in the load means about 40W in Q1 which is going to require a very healthy heat sink.  So, I think that limiting the Q1 duty cycles is the way to go. 

(snip)

It's very appropriate that you should mention that. Take a look at the schematic, FIgure 1, in the second daft manuscript in its "official publication", the posting on Rossi's "Journal of Nuclear Physics" vanity blog.

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=679

I've also attached a screenshot of the schematic from that paper, below. Notice anything interesting or significant?

Recall also that the March 2011 demonstration, which did NOT use this schematic but rather the one we are more familiar with, used only 5 batteries, not six, for the first part, and actually had to remove another battery for the "high heat" portion of the demonstration, which was performed with only 4 x 12 V batteries, 48 volts nominal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8AIRkWF55k

One wonders why I or any other "replicator" should be required to "replicate" tests that Ainslie and Martin themselves have not done and will not do. They know fully well what will happen if they use 72 volts and long Q1 ON times.... notice that the tiny fake heatsink on Q1 shown in that early demo has been replaced with a much larger one for the June and August 2013 demonstrations.

As I've said before: There are smoking guns all over the place in what Ainslie has provided. The indicia are all there. Ainslie and her co-authors have been deliberately obfuscating, covering up data, ignoring contrary data, refusing to release raw and processed data, and even resorting to outright lying about data, schematics, instruments, procedures and results, ever since the first Quantum magazine reports. Mistakes abound, certainly, but the _deliberate_ actions, like the 48 volt battery stack to reduce stress on the lone Q1 mosfet on its miserable heatsink, attempting to cover up its significant role in heating the load so that the red-herring oscillations can be emphasized.... these deliberate and conscious actions on the part of Ainslie and Martin reveal the REAL story of the Ainslie affair.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #726 on: March 13, 2014, 11:22:46 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #727 on: March 13, 2014, 11:48:31 PM »
(snip)But never under estimate the lady in question but her only error is that she cam short of the truth and to her I am SORRY . (snip)
Nanobot     

What's the matter, are you AFRAID to register on Ainslie's forum and carry on your conversation with HER, there, directly? She is the one that you need to talk to, not me. I am clearly too stupid to grasp whatever it is you are ranting on about, but I know that you will be able to reach the Great Scientist with your astounding revelations.
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #728 on: March 14, 2014, 12:22:04 AM »
The Ainslie Q1 heatsinks, then and now, Yet Another Smoking Gun:



Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #728 on: March 14, 2014, 12:22:04 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #729 on: March 14, 2014, 12:51:08 AM »
MarkE said,

Quote
I don't think that you want to operate above 200C no matter what, just as a matter of safety.

Of course... but here's a test where I took the _mosfet itself_ to over 200 C, to try to find out where it would fail. But I should have used soldered wires instead of the socket! The socket did not fail, whereas the soldered wires probably would have melted loose (at 190 C)  before the mosfet failed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygu7ljn1SqA
Skip to about 19 minutes to see the temperature of the Q1 on its heatsink -- 225 degrees C !! -- and the final failure mode.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #730 on: March 14, 2014, 02:57:18 AM »
Not even a facility for screwing a manual cable release into the shutter button? A small solenoid could be used to drive that arrangement.

The old Canon Xti. I bought it used about four years ago, it already had a lot of shutter actuations .... but then I've put nearly a thousand frames on it just in the past two days, documenting twelve one-hour experimental runs and some extras. I  managed to find some high-capacity batteries for it... on sale as discontinued items, at Radio Shack of all places. It gets a lot of use and is reliable and rugged. The only problem I've ever had with it was a slightly flaky main switch, which was fixed by some careful application of electro contact cleaner/lube.
No there is nothing like that.  It was less than $200. when it was new.  It takes nice enough pictures, but it requires my finger to press the shutter button for each one.  If I ever get the urge to do time lapse, I will need something else like a camera with a remote input contact, or IR, etc.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #730 on: March 14, 2014, 02:57:18 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #731 on: March 14, 2014, 03:07:29 AM »
It's very appropriate that you should mention that. Take a look at the schematic, FIgure 1, in the second daft manuscript in its "official publication", the posting on Rossi's "Journal of Nuclear Physics" vanity blog.

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=679

I've also attached a screenshot of the schematic from that paper, below. Notice anything interesting or significant?

Recall also that the March 2011 demonstration, which did NOT use this schematic but rather the one we are more familiar with, used only 5 batteries, not six, for the first part, and actually had to remove another battery for the "high heat" portion of the demonstration, which was performed with only 4 x 12 V batteries, 48 volts nominal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8AIRkWF55k

One wonders why I or any other "replicator" should be required to "replicate" tests that Ainslie and Martin themselves have not done and will not do. They know fully well what will happen if they use 72 volts and long Q1 ON times.... notice that the tiny fake heatsink on Q1 shown in that early demo has been replaced with a much larger one for the June and August 2013 demonstrations.

As I've said before: There are smoking guns all over the place in what Ainslie has provided. The indicia are all there. Ainslie and her co-authors have been deliberately obfuscating, covering up data, ignoring contrary data, refusing to release raw and processed data, and even resorting to outright lying about data, schematics, instruments, procedures and results, ever since the first Quantum magazine reports. Mistakes abound, certainly, but the _deliberate_ actions, like the 48 volt battery stack to reduce stress on the lone Q1 mosfet on its miserable heatsink, attempting to cover up its significant role in heating the load so that the red-herring oscillations can be emphasized.... these deliberate and conscious actions on the part of Ainslie and Martin reveal the REAL story of the Ainslie affair.
The little heat sink will be good to about 1.5W before the die will reach a safe value of 125C.  It might even handle 2W before getting to 150C.  Above that, there are no guarantees as to the IRFPG50 remaining alive.   On that heatsink, somewhere south of 5W internally the die will turn into a useless blob.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #732 on: March 14, 2014, 04:28:13 AM »
Yep, I agree. The failure temperature might be quite a bit higher though. My sample of one failed at well over 200 C.


Meanwhile, let's consider what it means to have the load cell at a stable temperature, on or near the flat part of the time-temperature curve, or just sitting there in the laboratory.

If the temperature is not changing, that means that the load cell is radiating or "leaking" just as much energy to the environment as it is receiving _from any source_. It is in thermal equilibrium. The "From any source" part is important. Whether the source is resistor material being converted to energy, extra power from the batteries, fairies blowing on tiny Tesla wind turbines, superluminal zipons from the nth dimension, or whatever, if the load temperature is not changing it is not getting any extra energy over what it is dissipating to the environment. Power at the load cell = power out to the environment, if the temperature is stable. Right so far?

Now, presumably there are no overunity processes or matter-energy conversions happening in my bench PSU driven, straight DC calibration experiments. I can accurately and precisely measure the DC power level required to get the load to a precisely and accurately measured stable equilibrium temperature.  The power efficiency and thermal leak rate here is not too important as long as I get the consistent and regular behaviour that I am seeing: a given DC power level produces a given temperature, consistently and precisely. Right so far?

So I can look at a load being powered by _anything_, even fairy breaths, and when it reaches a stable temperature, I can look on my plots and read off the precise equivalent DC power level that it would take to produce that same stable temperature. Right so far?

So. When I test a circuit that is supposed to produce some kind of excess heat in the load, and it warms the load up to a stable temperature, it doesn't matter if that extra energy comes from the resistor mass, the batteries, zipons, fairies or whatever. If the DC power level required to get the load to that same stable temperature in the calibration runs is Less Than the  DC input power to the circuit under test..... then there is no reason to believe that any extra energy is coming in from anywhere, since the supplied DC power is more than enough to do the work. Of course this neglects the heat that is "wasted" in the circuit itself; we know the mosfets in the Ainslie circuit dissipate significant power and for complete accuracy the entire circuit should go into the calorimeter. Only if the stable temperature of the load is Higher than that predicted by the DC input power alone, should any claim of possible OU be entertained. Even then it is far from proven, but this would be the very minimum evidence from an experiment of this kind that would suggest any OU activity.

Right?

ETA: The True Total input power to the DUT must be considered, so no "mistakes" in locating the current sense probe are allowed and any contribution of the FG or other bias supply must also be added to the total power supplied. Of course.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #733 on: March 14, 2014, 04:40:15 AM »
Yep, I agree. The failure temperature might be quite a bit higher though. My sample of one failed at well over 200 C.


Meanwhile, let's consider what it means to have the load cell at a stable temperature, on or near the flat part of the time-temperature curve, or just sitting there in the laboratory.

If the temperature is not changing, that means that the load cell is radiating or "leaking" just as much energy to the environment as it is receiving _from any source_. It is in thermal equilibrium. The "From any source" part is important. Whether the source is resistor material being converted to energy, extra power from the batteries, fairies blowing on tiny Tesla wind turbines, superluminal zipons from the nth dimension, or whatever, if the load temperature is not changing it is not getting any extra energy over what it is dissipating to the environment. Power at the load cell = power out to the environment, if the temperature is stable. Right so far?

Now, presumably there are no overunity processes or matter-energy conversions happening in my bench PSU driven, straight DC calibration experiments. I can accurately and precisely measure the DC power level required to get the load to a precisely and accurately measured stable equilibrium temperature.  The power efficiency and thermal leak rate here is not too important as long as I get the consistent and regular behaviour that I am seeing: a given DC power level produces a given temperature, consistently and precisely. Right so far?

So I can look at a load being powered by _anything_, even fairy breaths, and when it reaches a stable temperature, I can look on my plots and read off the precise equivalent DC power level that it would take to produce that same stable temperature. Right so far?

So. When I test a circuit that is supposed to produce some kind of excess heat in the load, and it warms the load up to a stable temperature, it doesn't matter if that extra energy comes from the resistor mass, the batteries, zipons, fairies or whatever. If the DC power level required to get the load to that same stable temperature in the calibration runs is Less Than the  DC input power to the circuit under test..... then there is no reason to believe that any extra energy is coming in from anywhere, since the supplied DC power is more than enough to do the work. Of course this neglects the heat that is "wasted" in the circuit itself; we know the mosfets in the Ainslie circuit dissipate significant power and for complete accuracy the entire circuit should go into the calorimeter. Only if the stable temperature of the load is Higher than that predicted by the DC input power alone, should any claim of possible OU be entertained. Even then it is far from proven, but this would be the very minimum evidence from an experiment of this kind that would suggest any OU activity.

Right?
That is of course what Ms. Ainslie demonstrated herself on August 11, 2013.  The temperature rise fell between previously calibrated temperature rises at power input levels of 2.4W and 3.4W, therefore the total power out of the heater resistor, independent of the energy source was ~3W.  In the meantime the battery power measurements were ~15W.  Even grade school students can understand that this means that the power coming out of the heater was only a small fraction of the power being applied to the circuit.  There was therefore no evidence  of additional power coming from anything else. 

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #734 on: March 14, 2014, 05:24:53 AM »
Right, of course, but as you can hear at the very end of the August 11 demonstration, Ainslie claims to SWeir that, before he got there, they used the exact same settings and got completely different results. Like all "free energy" devices, the NERD circuit is very shy when knowledgeable people are watching and will only produce its OU when the experiments are conducted in private, by the claimants alone.

So while _we_ believe and accept the SWeir results (which Ainslie only pretended to agree with) we know that the Great Scientist only accepts results that "prove" her claims. Any other results are invalid, because the people who obtain them are stupid Little pickle farmers who stumble over their dangling and inflated GREs and use ancient garage sale equipment, while phoning in anonymously from the other side of the planet.

 

OneLink