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

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: 513963
  • *Total Topics: 15298
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 4
  • *Guests: 11
  • *Total: 15

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims  (Read 247208 times)

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #60 on: September 04, 2013, 04:33:08 PM »
It's amazing what one finds while going through those old threads for background on the Quantum-17 fiasco.

For example, I finally found some _completely accurate_  waveform data shown by Err-on on the borrowed Tek DPSO TDS3054C.
Data that even I cannot argue with, data that is impeccably gathered and expertly displayed:

http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-79.html#post66590




Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #61 on: September 04, 2013, 09:51:43 PM »
Guys... .here's the TRUTH.

Quote
Guys - here's the TRUTH.  There are hand picked 'trolls' who move through the forums - with the sole mandate to discredit over unity claims.  Let me name some of them.  Obviously 'leading the pack' is our 'ickle pickle' aka Tinsel Koala.  He is paid per video 'seen' which is why he's so anxious to have people view his work.

That is an utter and abject LIE in the words of Rosemary Ainslie. I have never accepted or solicited a single penny from any of my videos and they are not even supported by ads. For Ainslie to assert this utter nonsense is extremely offensive to me, and the reason for that should be obvious to anyone who knows me... and many do.

Quote
  His license to 'kill' is absolute - and includes the right to destroy reputations, work, livelihoods, reputations - of ANYONE HE SEES FIT as he is ENTIRELY exempt from all accountability.  He works at this denial 24/7 and has dedicated these many years to denying our claims.  Sadly - precisely because he's rather excessively and emotionally engaged - he's also lost any reasonable judgement.

An absolute license to "kill"? Oh, really? Who issued me this absolute licence to kill? Whose reputation, livelihood, work, have I destroyed? Mylow's? YOURS?
And yet EVERY SINGLE THING I have maintained about Ainslie and her three-ring circus of circuitry has been proven to be true over and over, from the June 2009 finding of the false schematic in the Quantum paper, the fabricated data and false claims in the 5-transistor device,  on to the present. My judgement is perfectly clear on this: Ainslie has lied, insulted, misrepresented, distorted, fabricated data and gotten others to lie for her, over and over again, and the proofs are in these pages, as I have presented many times over.

Quote
  He's acted very much like Savonarola who managed to frustrate the Renaissance flowering away from the Catholic Church - through a witch hunt that effectively destroyed thousands of samples of great art works.  Including those of Botticelli who is, unquestionably - one of the greatest of that movement.  Anyway - that aside.  Like Savonarola - TK is personally driven by a deep seated hatred of women in general and me in particular.


Another utter and abject LIE, along with a characterization that is positively ACTIONABLE, to use her comical language. It is posts like this from her that absolutely immunize me from any possible threats from her imaginary lawyers. All I need do is show them the images of Ainslie's lying and insulting posts like this one.
I challenge Ainslie to provide any evidence AT ALL that I am misogynistic or any of the other claims she has just libellously made. She cannot.

Quote
And he CANNOT tolerate those who are capable of original thought - precisely because he, himself, is incapable of this.  His knowledge of physics is sadly bereft.

 My knowledge of physics can be compared to Ainslie's at any moment at any time. Let's take a high-school physics test together, shall we? I laugh at you, ignorant troll Ainslie, who says "A Joule is a Watt, the terms are interchangeable" and who has no calculus, no geometry, no math at all beyond punching calculator keys.

Quote
His talents at electronics more than compensate.  He has certainly mastered the art of spin - and uses this to good effect to frustrate any advancement in the quest for over unity.  That he is champion to the cause is endorsed by Mark Dansie who pays tribute to TK's contributions here.  They're all rather proud of his efforts - a pride that is only equaled - if not SURPASSED - by the extraordinary pride of TK himself.  Vainglorious does not cut it.  TK compliments himself with an assiduity that is unequaled and largely based on his absurd and alleged GRE count - whatever that is.

Some people do know what that is, and respect it. People who sit on graduate school admission committees, for example. People who genuinely do dispense "Bursaries" as you call them. Even silly groups like MENSA know what those letters and numbers mean, and you are damn right, I am proud of them and I have every right to be. And every time Ainslie mentions them in the derogatory fashion she does, she betrays her own disrespect and ignorance, and inability to perform up to any real standard on her own.

Furthermore, all of my work is fully documented in my YouTube "lab notes" and ALL OF IT is fully repeatable. There is no "SPIN", no "MISDIRECTION" as Harvey falsely accused me of many times-- before he even built the circuit or saw the light himself. If I make an error I admit it and correct it ASAP. Anyone can repeat my work and see for themselves that I refute you at every step of the way. You do realize, don't you, that the old Energetic Forum threads are still available.

As far as arrogant pride goes, Ainslie: you are the champion Dunning-Kruger example, with no skills, no talent, and no ability to do anything for yourself-- except sling insults. You cannot refute me, so you resort to your laughable attempts to discredit me. But you are proven wrong at every attempt.

Quote
  His rather whacky emotional instability is based on a misogyny that also inclines him to homosexuality. He is uncluttered by 'high principle' and is highly effective as is any criminal sociopath - in this his quest to deny over unity.

Preserved for the record. Ainslie has here called me several things: Emotionally unstable, whacky, misogynistic and "inclined to homosexuality". She has insulted my principles and is calling me a criminal sociopath.... because I have exposed the TRUTH behind her and her insane claims.

At this point, Ainslie, Queen of Trolls... you should be very happy that you do not use my real name. Your imaginary lawyers CERTAINLY are.



Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #62 on: September 04, 2013, 10:26:05 PM »
Meanwhile, back in "reality".....

@Poynt99: Still having trouble locating waveforms? Here's Aaron's replication of Glen's "replication" of the Quantum circuit. Of course, this means Glen's where the mosfet gets much hotter than the load....

Note that he is NOT using the Quantum 555 circuit, he is NOT using the Quantum duty cycle, he is NOT using the Quantum frequency... he is NOT even showing oscillations....
Yet everyone is crowing about Glen "he has done it!"

SO maybe THESE are the operating parameters to use.


Note the blue Drain signal: is the mosfet ON during the spike, ROSEMARY AINSLIE... or it it OFF? Just what duty cycle of the mosfet ON time is being shown here? I know the answer, poynt99 knows the answer... DO YOU, AINSLIE?

What is the mosfet ON duty cycle percentage in this scopeshot? Not the gate signal, the actual mosfet ON percentage.
What is the frequency of the blue spikes?
Can Ainslie even answer these questions, without consulting her "experts"? I doubt it seriously.

WHERE IS ANY EVIDENCE OF OSCILLATIONS, random aperiodic or otherwise? Other than the natural inductive rings visible due to the factors already amply discussed, there is no evidence of any magic oscillations. There will however be _plenty_ of heat seen in the load resistor, and the mosfet itself, using this waveform.


http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-98.html#post70225
post 2917

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #62 on: September 04, 2013, 10:26:05 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7617
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #63 on: September 05, 2013, 04:40:15 AM »
This is like the bloody Siege of Leningrad.

Look at this nonsense, "Here we have a poster who is inclined to 'self medicate' and to do so to excess."

It's like making allegations out of thin air just like you can do the "poly-Quantum" circuit, pick your variation, and observe the pulsing inductor create free energy from superluminal nothingness.

Rosie, I think that you have been eating too much wallpaper glue and it's affecting your brain.  (But we are the good guys, I just couldn't resist the line!)

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #64 on: September 05, 2013, 07:48:33 AM »
It is astounding, isn't it? On the one hand she squawks,
Quote
Can I impose on you to be SPECIFIC.  Where exactly has my behaviour NOT been SCIENTIFIC - HONEST - DEFENSIBLE - NOR ADMIRABLE... AT ALL? 
and then she posts her libels like the above.  If it weren't so comical it would be pitiable. The poor woman is clearly not in touch with reality at all. Publishing articles with false schematics and false claims, fabricating data, lying about circuits in use, refusing to correct her many manifest errors... savaging her former collaborators like Glen, who worked harder than anyone on trying to support her claims with attempts at proper measurements.... Where exactly INDEED? All over the place, for years and years, that's where.


I've been reviewing the old threads. It is very interesting. In one thread from EF I am in the late months of 2009 where Glen has completed his tests and the submission to IEEE has been made, along with some friction entering from Harvey.

Since June of 2009 when I first told them that the Quantum published circuit was wrong, that it did not make the frequency and duty cycle claimed, and that With the claimed duty cycle there will be small heat only, and that the claimed oscillations were a red herring..... it has taken them until late August, early September to realize that each of these things I told them was true. At least four builders determined that the Quantum circuit would not do as claimed (Glen, groundloop (after making circuit boards!), Astweth, Aaron, Joit, and a few others actually built the original circuit faithfully.... and immediately started changing it in various ways to try to get it to do something different than what I told them it would do.)  At least SIX different alternate circuit variations were put forth and tested, and the one that Glen finally settled on operates at over 100 times the frequency of the original, uses a much longer On percentage than originally specified, results in no actual oscillations at all, and results in high heat at the load _and_ the mosfet. And runs the batteries down. Yet they still have their "pdf" which claims that I was wrong about these things.... when it is perfectly clear that I was right and that their "replication" is of a completely different circuit operating at completely different parameters than was claimed in the original Quantum article.

The other thread is on poynt99's OUR, back in February of 2011. This is _after_ Ainslie had released some waveforms and BEFORE she honestly revealed the true schematic she was using, so .99 and others are trying to simulate some waveforms and a continuous oscillation that is coming from a circuit whose schematic is being lied about and concealed by Rosemary Ainslie!

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #64 on: September 05, 2013, 07:48:33 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #65 on: September 05, 2013, 04:53:19 PM »
Actually Guys.... the lies and insults from Ainslie continue unabated.

Quote
Actually guys - I"m duplicating this post.  It's a new departure into PURE FICTION - authored by that mediocre incompetent who cannot admit that he was ENTIRELY WRONG on his claim that we operated a 90% ON duty cycle in our Quantum Paper's experiment.

What a Liar she is!  What I "claimed", and what every body who has ever worked with the problem knows, is this:
1. The circuit published in the Quantum article CANNOT POSSIBLY make the claimed 3.7 percent ON @ 2.4 kHz frequency that the article claims. In fact it makes the exact inverse of what Ainslie claims in terms of duty cycle, and she did not realize this due to her faulty understanding of what the DRAIN trace means. Confirmed over and over by builders and simulators including Glen, Aaron, Astweth, Groundloop, Joit, poynt99, and many others whom she deceived, even GMEAST.
2. If a TRUE duty cycle of 3.7 percent ON at 2.4 kHz is applied, no substantial heat is produced in the load resistor. This has been confirmed by many of the same persons listed above, including Ashtweth and others.
3. I NEVER ONCE claimed that Ainslie operated "a 90% ON" duty cycle. I believe she operated at a 96.7 percent ON duty cycle IF SHE USED THE CIRCUIT THAT IS PUBLISHED UNDER HER NAME, and if she didn't use that circuit then she should have admitted it and corrected it well before now. Further, if one DOES use the duty cycles available, which is something like 60 to 100 percent ON, from the PUBLISHED QUANTUM CIRCUIT, then one does obtain the high heat in the load as claimed.
4. The Steve Weir decoding of the mess that Ainslie presented just recently as the "found" device used for the Quantum tests.... reveals even more mendacity and misdirection from Ainslie. The photographs of the box show that it contains a NEW, and radically different circuit than what was published in the Quantum article! It contains a NE555N timer chip that was manufactured in MAY 2007 !!!! And the circuit operates at the "Glen" range of frequencies and duty cycles, which is nowhere near that reported in the Quantum article. IT DOESN'T EVEN HAVE THE SAME MOSFET PART NUMBER, but instead uses one that I tested and referred to, the IRFP450, in Post Number 116, made on June 25, 2009 here:
http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-4.html#post58128


Far from being "ENTIRELY WRONG".... the FACTS demonstrate, with references, that I am, and always have been ENTIRELY CORRECT on this matter.

Quote
Here it is AGAIN...

Guys our 'ickle pickle' also variously known as Little TK or Little Brain - sorry, Bryan - has been lapsing into pure FICTION in his anxiety to discredit me.  Golly.  I wouldn't mind so much except that he's using appalling language.  He should at least have copied my flair for articulation.

AND HERE'S THAT NONSENSE...
Since June of 2009 when I first told them that the Quantum published circuit was wrong, that it did not make the frequency and duty cycle claimed, and that With the claimed duty cycle there will be small heat only, and that the claimed oscillations were a red herring..... it has taken them until late August, early September to realize that each of these things I told them was true. At least four builders determined that the Quantum circuit would not do as claimed (Glen, groundloop (after making circuit boards!), Astweth, Aaron, Joit, and a few others actually built the original circuit faithfully.... and immediately started changing it in various ways to try to get it to do something different than what I told them it would do.)  At least SIX different alternate circuit variations were put forth and tested, and the one that Glen finally settled on operates at over 100 times the frequency of the original, uses a much longer On percentage than originally specified, results in no actual oscillations at all, and results in high heat at the load _and_ the mosfet. And runs the batteries down. Yet they still have their "pdf" which claims that I was wrong about these things.... when it is perfectly clear that I was right and that their "replication" is of a completely different circuit operating at completely different parameters than was claimed in the original Quantum article.

Sadly he can't give us a direct link.  That would at least have given some credence to this fantasy.  Clearly his GRE has given UP trying to find enough space in that tiny little brain of his and it's just floated up, up and AWAY.  All he's left with is all that MUSTH.  And we all know how tricky it is to contain this without 'listhping'.  If he weren't entirely MEDIOCRE his latest romps into FICTION would even be amusing.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie

The DIRECT LINKS, blind lying troll queen Ainslie, are given in the posts above. Even the scopeshots from your FORMER collaborators are reproduced. These are scopeshots that YOU YOURSELF ENDORSED FULLY as PROVING YOUR CLAIMS.  It is not my responsibility to demonstrate that you are utterly wrong in your idiotic assertions above .... although I have done so. If you wish to challenge ANYTHING in the statements I have made.... provide PROOF, instead of your bloviating insults. Because I provide PROOF and CHECKABLE REFERENCES for all of my statements. But of course, as usual YOU CANNOT.

Do you really want me to list the proofs of the statements I made that you quote above? It will just make you look worse, when people start reading up in the old threads.

1. Since June of 2009 when I first told them that the Quantum published circuit was wrong, that it did not make the frequency and duty cycle claimed, and that With the claimed duty cycle there will be small heat only, and that the claimed oscillations were a red herring...
Proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18raNyVTL6g
2.  it has taken them until late August, early September to realize that each of these things I told them was true
Proof: DIRECT LINK TO THREAD WHICH CONTAINS EVIDENCE OF AINSLIE's CONTINUING DUPLICITY AND ARROGANT MENDACITY, including proofs of all my statements:
 http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie.html   
Scroll forward to find the points where each member reports their experiences, and note all the various revisions that people, mostly Aaron, post to the original circuit, finally abandoning it altogether.
3. At least four builders determined that the Quantum circuit would not do as claimed (Glen, groundloop (after making circuit boards!), Astweth, Aaron, Joit, and a few others actually built the original circuit faithfully.... and immediately started changing it in various ways to try to get it to do something different than what I told them it would do.)
Proof: Ditto, in the thread cited above. For example posts # 2680, 2899, 2917, etc.
4.  At least SIX different alternate circuit variations were put forth and tested, and the one that Glen finally settled on operates at over 100 times the frequency of the original, uses a much longer On percentage than originally specified, results in no actual oscillations at all, and results in high heat at the load _and_ the mosfet. And runs the batteries down.
Proof: The IET and IEEE submissions, which are still up on Scribd and which have been linked to many times in the past, and the many different schematics Aaron (Asea) and others posted in the thread linked above.
5. Yet they still have their "pdf" which claims that I was wrong about these things.... when it is perfectly clear that I was right and that their "replication" is of a completely different circuit operating at completely different parameters than was claimed in the original Quantum article.
Proof: Different circuit different parameters: The IET and IEEE submissions, and the reports in the DIRECTLY LINKED thread above. Astweth's statements about the contents of the .pdf that refer to me are in the thread, although the Panacea U. hosting site is no more.

I love it.... you cannot refute anything I say, troll queen Ainslie, and you still persist in your trolling, lying "Bryan Little" idiocy even though you know it's not true.

I've just given PROOFS, including references, for every statement I made that Ainslie calls NONSENSE, a FANTASY.

Yet her claims about me are complete fantasies for which she cannot provide a jot of supporting evidence at all.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #66 on: September 05, 2013, 06:04:52 PM »
  Someone asks Ainslie for help in his work on her circuit, _after_ all the work of Glen and others and _after_ she "withdrew" her authorship of the joint IEEE submissions, and she replies, among other mendacities:

Quote
The final point is that the mosfet we always used was an IRFG50.
(sic)  02-17-2010, 01:58 PM

http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5250-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-part-2-a-6.html#post85727
Post # 152


Oh, really? Then what is the IRFP450 doing in the Demo Kit 1 box, then? 

It is most certainly not an IRFPG50, it is not even an IRFG50, whatever that is.

It IS, however, a mosfet part number that I TESTED AND REPORTED ON in June of 2009.
http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-4.html#post58128
Post # 116

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #66 on: September 05, 2013, 06:04:52 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #67 on: September 05, 2013, 06:28:07 PM »
By the way, I have about a dozen of those Spectrol precision pots that Ainslie used in the box built for her by Bernard Bulak and Brian Buckley at some time before the Quantum article in 2002. (Unfortunately Bulak is no longer with us.... and nobody  knows where Buckley is.)

As you can see these are the same manufacturer, same model number 534, same resistance range, same tolerance and linearity, right down the line. Same pots.

These are wirewound 10-turn precision pots. WIREWOUND. And in my experience they are very fragile, the pressure of the wiper onto the wire is not all that great, and the power handling capability is low in spite of their size. They can be disassembled and cleaned, if you are careful and lucky.

These of course are the exact same pots that were used to control, originally, the "on" and "off" times, or duty cycle and frequency, of the original circuit, whatever it was, that was in the box. A single one controls the frequency, with a fixed non-adjustable "on" time, in the new circuit with the 555 chip manufactured in 2007.

They get dirty, are rough to begin with and of course are "highly inductive", consisting of a long "spring" of resistance wire that is itself wrapped in a helix inside the pot housing. The reason I have so many of these very expensive potentiometers is because a local manufacturer of MRI equipment decided that they were not reliable enough for their equipment, decided to use another brand, and gave their whole stock of the Spectrol parts to a friend of mine who worked there. He had no use for them so now they are mine.

What a coincidence, eh? Ainslie's old box uses a mosfet that I first described in connection with her circuit in June of 2009, and it uses, or used, the exact same pots that I understand fully to be, themselves, unreliable and capable of injecting _lots_ of noise into the application.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #68 on: September 05, 2013, 07:06:59 PM »
Here is a disassembled Spectrol pot of the same type, resistance rating and part number of the ones in Ainslie's box.

1. The exploded parts, showing the multiple sliding contacts and the helix of wrapped resistance wire on the former.

2. A close up of some of the actual resistance wire unwrapped from the helical former. Look closely! This wire is quite a bit finer than a strand of my hair. 

So it's easy to see some things: First, not high power handling. Second, massive inductance. Third, many sliding contacts which will add noise and unreliability. Fourth: Definitely high precision and fine workmanship... but not too sturdy.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #68 on: September 05, 2013, 07:06:59 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #69 on: September 05, 2013, 08:51:56 PM »
One seriously must wonder what motivates this person. A sicker soul is hard to imagine. She even resorts to gratuitous insults and defamation against poynt99, who has had nearly infinite patience and forebearance with Rosemary Ainslie the Red Queen of Trolls. Look at how she bullies him now!

Rosemary Ainslie, I have a suggestion for you: Stay away from the sherry until after breakfast, anyway. It seems to be interfering with your antipsychotic medications.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #70 on: September 05, 2013, 11:36:57 PM »
Lest anyone wonder about my statements of June and July 2009 concerning False Triggering and Aliasing of the Fluke scope and the cheap DSOs that Aaron and others were using.... Here is an excellent example showing that even a much more sophisticated instrument can be falsely triggered if it is not properly set.

Here is one of Glen's traces, with the trigger set within the noisy ringing signal of the Current trace... instead of using either the scope's external trigger input looking directly at the signal source itself, or a clean signal like the Drain pulse.

http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits.html#post84885

This is no criticism of Glen (FuzzyTomCat)... I am grateful to him for publishing these scopeshots and all the rest of his work, which is still openly available for inspection in the true Open Source tradition.

(I make the basic drive signal at about 394 kHz or "thereby". There is no sign of  any kind of aperiodic oscillation, other than the normal inductive ringing and noise in the heavily amplified Current signal. The Drain signal shows that the mosfet is OFF and spiking for about 1/2 of one minor horizontal division and the total cycle duration is around either 6 or 8 minor divisions, alternating in lock-step: meaning that the mosfet is making a duty cycle of CLOSE TO 90 PERCENT ON. Measure the traces yourself, those with eyeballs to see.)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #70 on: September 05, 2013, 11:36:57 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #71 on: September 06, 2013, 02:45:43 AM »
Are you having trouble making your overunity device work? Just can't get the numbers to work out right? Well, maybe you are simply doing it wrong. Here's how to make your device produce OU, every time.
ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5250-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-part-2-a-9.html#post88234


Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3586
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #72 on: September 06, 2013, 02:59:46 AM »
He's an absolute wizard! (or is that 'lizard'  :P )

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #73 on: September 06, 2013, 04:46:20 AM »
In all fairness... Aaron did ask for a check on his low figure, and he showed his working so that his error could be identified... he just asked the very wrongest person he could have asked. A post or two later on, another poster did the calculation properly and explained it, and Aaron demonstrated that he got it and understood, and posted his own correction.

We have never seen anything like that from "witsend" under any alias.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #74 on: September 06, 2013, 11:27:15 AM »
Just a swift Little note here: Rosemary Ainslie, the Red Queen of Trolls, has posted a couple more rants in her honeypot: Now, in addition to making rant-posts savaging me, MileHigh and Poynt99, she goes off on Magluvin and then Pirate!

I'm not going to load up the images of the insane rants here, but rest assured: they are in my database and will be sent off to the appropriate individuals when the time comes. And of course if Mags or Bill want the images they are welcome to them, in case she sobers up and tries to remove them from the record.

One wonders, doesn't one, when and IF Ainslie will ever show any real data or make any kind of substantive work furthering her latest set of claims.
In spite of Donovan Martin's statement, made during the June 29 2013 "demo" fiasco :
Quote
The objective behind the (Quantum article -- tk) test was simply not to scrutinize measurements. That's a matter of  opinion always. That's always easy to argue measurements on the scope, from one scope to another, one can argue for days and years to come. Ahm, knowing that, ahm, I think what Rose has been trying to achieve, up to, to now was ah to show some of the waveforms which at times obviously could be very difficult. Because of the simplicity of the circuit, makes it very difficult to obviously achieve (emphasis original) certain fine settings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLqM7FRMeZ4


Obviously, what she is trying to ACHIEVE is to insult and denigrate all of her critics so that they will go away, at which point she will start up again with her pestering and her annoying soapsuds "thesis" which is actually a word-salad of delusional conjecture with no contact point with reality.
She has never produced any specific waveforms of her own from this apparatus and has at first enthusiastically endorsed, then repudiated, the waveforms provided by her "replicators"-- easy to do since they all work with circuits different than what she herself claimed to use.

 

OneLink