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: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie  (Read 585126 times)

Offline hoptoad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1009
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2730 on: December 19, 2009, 11:34:55 AM »
;D Hello MileHigh ;D

Back in attack mode?  I was determined to ignore your earlier one but can't seem to sit on hands while this attack persists.  I was heartened to see you concede that you're 'wrong wrong wong' and that it's pure spinning.  And that gaining scientific knowledge through open source will possibly happen with a required shift in paradigms.  But I'm constitutionally a plodder and I then realised you were being sarcastic.  I had a giddy hope for a wild and fleeting moment - that you'd reformed.

I trust that our paper will eventually get reviewed and published.  The circuit definitely produces extra heat.  And if you have 'jumped off' the roller coaster ride - it's not apparent - else why are you still posting?  I wish this thread would collapse under it's own weight of negative energy.

MileHigh there's a difference with this claim.  We're asking academics to check it out.  On the evidence available we have heat signatures that do not conform to expected parameters.  But my actual question is why do you keep posting here.  Aaron, Harvey et al have given up on this thread.  I only lurk to keep reminding - what I'm sure is a dwindling reading public - that these type of posts are misleading and counterproductive.  And like Jibbs, I wonder why you persist?  It gains nothing.  And I think readership has dwindled to just the two of us

I'm glad Poynty concurs with you.  At least you're not entirely on your own.  Poynty's also frantically attempting to ignore the implications here.  But this new 'break through' is history now - reasonably and unequivocally proven on tests that are also available for inspection.  My own first claim could be questioned as our proof was not as available for public consumption as is Fuzzy's.  Now - to continue to deny the evidence with a burgeoning flush of replications - is, frankly, rather absurd. 

My own take is that you don't 'dare to hope'.  I can't believe that you're simply that negative.  And - for Goodness Sake - read up on Dark matter - dark energy.  It's possibly the 'theoretical' justification for this new energy source. 

And more to the point - when is that new blog going to get launched?  I keep hoping.

Rosie
Dark energy and dark matter are just another theory. The theory/s for them existing were developed in order to help explain why gravity is not working as expected.

Instead of first acknowledging that the known rules of gravity are probably incomplete (in our understanding of them), and therefore our basic formula's may be wrong or in need of refining, it is sexier and more interesting, to claim that the observed variance/s in gravity at large scales (observed by hubble telescope) is due to some whole new type of matter and energy.

A whole new range of matter and energy may require a whole new branch of science and scientists - at least that's what many funded scientists might claim as they scramble for more research dollars.

The jury of scientific consensus is still deliberating on the existence of dark matter and dark energy. Much more data is required.

The anomoly of gravity shown in our own solar system (which is miniscule in cosmic terms), by deep space exploration satellites, shows good reason to further examine our formula's, and perhaps search for more answers at the atomic level to better explain gravity at the macro level.

In any event, accepting one particular theory while ignoring other possible theories seems to be typical human behaviour. We are all guilty of "information filtering" to varying degrees.

Cheers


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2731 on: December 19, 2009, 12:07:25 PM »
Hi hoptoad.  No.  Dark matter - dark energy definitely mathematically required.  And yes, I'm not sure that gravity is anything but a partial theory.  But it's nice to live in such times.  I'm interested to see that MileHigh is genuinely expecting a paradigm shift.  Not sure why when he discounts the reality of dark energy. 

My model is something on the lines of dark matter.  In the same way as it is seen to 'bind the galaxies' I see this 'something' as binding all amalgams or identifiable material.  In effect the atom is at it's lowest energy state when it is also unbound.  Bind it in an amalgam or in molecules and it has a higher energy state.  The energy added is not to the atoms but to the material or zipons, binding the atoms.  Unbind that material - friction, fire - whatever and you degrade the material through various levels of fatigue that eventually bring it back to its unbound state.  That's the release of the energy - zipons - that held them bound.  And that's also what I claim are fields of zipons.  Easy really.  But the argument to get there seems to be elusive.  Can't think why.  It seems quite logical to me.

It certainly gives a more coherent explanation for the flow of current than anything classical physicists have dreamed up.  And it is also experimentally evident - now that Fuzzy's done his trick with replicating.  In any event - it explains the extra energy and it was required in terms of that model.  So if it's wrong it's not that far wrong - is my take.

Offline jibbguy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 352
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2732 on: December 19, 2009, 02:06:14 PM »
Milehigh, usually i just ignore your comments, they are only about taking this technology, and this entire forum, DOWN any way you can think of: That is apparently the totality of "you", from everything you have shown us.  Apparently that is your "job". It was only your latest sneering ad hominem attack on Aaron, for at least the 40th time, quoting him out of context and FROM ANOTHER FORUM, that prompted my post.

Regarding your personal question about me: I had a long career in electronics & Test and Measurement Instrumentation, from which i learned a great deal about hundreds of applications and industries... I traveled all over the world, met onsite with several hundred Customers in Industry, aerospace, and medical research. From time to time, the problems my Customers faced, and were using our equipment to troubleshoot, were quite strange and did not fit with any textbook description of what electricity "should be". I also had a few Customers that used their instruments to study anomalies somewhat similar to what we see in this thread. Those were "eye-openers" to the reality that what i learned in school about electronics/electricity was not always so... And it prompted me to begin researching WHY.

What i found was that we have been blatantly lied to about electricity for over a hundred years now.

But that is all you get out me until you tell us YOUR name. You think you can just sneer and piss on everything that comes long... and you and people like you bank on the fact that most folks won't even bother to challenge you, because they just don't want the hassle and spilkus of getting into endless arguments with jerks who DO NOTHING but spew venom at anything that challenges their world view, and who think nothing of slinging ad hominem's at those who simply disagree with them... As a method of bullying others to keep their mouths shut and so manipulate these important discussions. That disgusts me, and if it was my choice, you would have been banned out here months ago... This is not a playground to show off your "superior intelligence" to others... at the cost of doing proper science and research. 

The fact is, you have been WRONG so many times here (proved over and over by reading the posts on this very thread), that it is a PATHETIC EMBARRASSMENT. And the reason you so have been so wrong, over and over, is because of your motives: You are NOT looking to do good science, you are simply looking to attack this any way you can get away with. But unfortunately for you, and fortunately for the rest of us; using the arcana and obscure technical terms of electronics to bamboozle the readers here in a cynical attempt to dissuade us from studying this effect... HAS FAILED.

So frankly, we find it hard to seriously listen to anything you have to say now.

Fuzzytomcat's and Aaron's data captured by the Tektronix DPO's clearly shows anomalous energy; and were extremely well recorded and presented. This is clear to those who can read it; and to those who haven't wrapped-up their entire self-worth and ego into a crusade to tear it down.

To those that may be new here, please note that because of the unwarranted and constant ad hominem attacks from the people like this "Milehigh", most of the reported data can be seen only at the Energetics Forum, which has a little stricter rules for that sort of thing; yet still allows and invites HONEST skepticism. It's not Stefan's fault that these shills use the sacred tenets of Free Speech against the rest of us in their attempts to stop the Open Source movement by the only real method they have left: Convincing us to stop study ourselves.

I am calling it for what it is, Milehigh: You are hopelessly biased here, and cannot give an objective opinion. This has been shown over and over by your own words. To be honest, i find this situation highly suspicious and think you are probably a Paid Shill deliberately attempting to disrupt and poison this research any way that presents itself, as i cannot imagine ANYONE spending this much time on the negative position "for free" (..especially after being proved wrong so many times). But that's just my opinion ;)
 
"You Damned Dirty Ape!"

There's some "Charlton Heston" for you, hehehe (just kidding).


Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2733 on: December 19, 2009, 02:24:54 PM »
Jibbguy:

You are a fool as far as I am concerned.  Your characterization of me is way off and what you say about me is in fact not backed up by what I have posted.  I have tried to help people understand what their experiments are really doing.

You can rant all that you want and try to portray me as your skewed mind sees me, I don't care.  What I post is the truth, and sometimes I can be a bit harsh, but very selectively.

"Ad hominem?"  I don't think so.  I talked about the content of Aaron's posting, not Aaron.  When you exaggerate and spin you just dig yourself into a hole.

What Aaron said in his little "electronics" treatise was absolute nonsense, sentences that simply don't exist in the real world when people discuss electronics.  Aaron wouldn't last more than five minutes in an electronics lab in the real world.  You should have enough brains in your head to realize this.

MileHigh

Offline ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7823
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2734 on: December 19, 2009, 02:29:05 PM »
I gotta say
I would love to hear TK's take on this

Chet
[Oh well off to the Blizzard]

Offline Hoppy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4324
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2735 on: December 19, 2009, 03:21:47 PM »
Lighten up lads! Remember anyone can be anyone they wish on a forum and opinions are just opinions. I learnt this lesson when Aaron dumped me off the Energetic forum and I was not even rude, just pushing my point a bit hard and because it made Aaron annoyed, he prevented me from posting. I'm not crying over this, far from it. It has clearly shown unlike this forum, the Energetic forum is not a place for healthy debate between sceptics and believers of 'free energy'. Aaron has the right to dis anyone he chooses, as does Stephan and on a forum, explanations for taking such action is not mandatory. We are all free to believe what we wish and if some people decide to believe that EE principles are for whatever reason fundamentally flawed or the world is flat, then so be it.

We can all draw useful snippets of information from the various FE forums whatever our beliefs and we all learn from this and this can alter our opinions when we use this information in our own experiments. With regards to the Ainslie test results, even if they are rejected by academia, I'm sure that some of the AT will simply shrug this off by saying that its a plot to discredit the FE community.

Hoppy

Offline jibbguy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 352
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2736 on: December 19, 2009, 03:25:26 PM »
Hehehe, keep it up Milehigh. You are proving my points for me ;)

I would respectfully suggest to the Admin, that this forum thread now be CLOSED, so no one can go back and delete their old posts... So it stands as a "monument" to show what went on here.

That way folks can decide for themselves, without the "help" that people like Milehigh provide (or me for that matter, come to think of it lol), once the news about this circuit creates a higher level of Public Awareness and is viewed by several thousand more people (as it may soon be).

Frankly, the poor level of "skepticism" we have seen here has sometimes  been a bit of an embarrassment for the genre (.. but not always; there have been some excellent suggestions from others that were appreciated and heeded). We can't help that, we must work with what we are given. "Eric Krieg" (an ACTUAL Skeptic of free energy concepts, who operates the "Philadelphia Skeptics" page and others) must be squirming and swearing at the blows in prestige his Cause has taken here... Which is not his fault either. Worthy and fairly open-minded opponents are rare around here, and i truly respect him and his intellect, although we obviously disagree over nearly everything regarding this subject, lol.

But since neither of us are teenagers posting in gaming forums shouting "STFU!" when we lose, there are no flames and unsubstantiated claims thrown like mud to cover over the facts and obscure them.   

On the other hand, this person in question: Well.... Let's just say he doesn't deserve any "Christmas Bonus" this year, that's for sure ;)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2737 on: December 19, 2009, 04:40:08 PM »
The jury of scientific consensus is still deliberating on the existence of dark matter and dark energy. Much more data is required. Hoptoad

Hi again.  I kept thinking back to this post and finally re-read it and now I know what was bothering me.  Jury definitely reached consensus that dark matter is there.  It's visible through gravitational lensing and is seen to be concentrated at the centre of galaxies.  It's loosely described as a halo around the galaxies but looks more like an upside down plate.  And it's mathematically required to exceed visible mass in galaxies by a factor of 10.  There's also some evidence of isolated concentrations of this matter in space that is not directly related to galaxial mass.  I think it's described as 'clumping'.

So what I find really exciting is that our 21st Century has also ushered in a new  and heretofore unidentified force.  That's really extraordinary when you consider that all text books still only refer to 4 known forces.  And on the subject of text books - Michio Kaku states that ´every text book on the planet says that the universe is made out of atoms and sub atomic particles.  Well, all those text books are wrong'.  And he's an expert.

I'ts all really jolly interesting.

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2738 on: December 20, 2009, 10:38:29 AM »
Gotoluc:

I don't know if you are reading here, but you said:

Quote
@Rosemary, I also just received the Five 650 Farad @ 2.7vdc Ultracapacitors. Connecting them in series will give me 130 Farad @ 13.5vdc. I Hopping to test these on your circuit while collecting the flyback of the resistor to see if they can more efficently store the resistor flyback energy then a lead acid battery. It should also make energy calculations much easier since we are dealing with capacitive values.

That actually scares the crap out of me because it could be so dangerous if it accidentally gets short-circuited.  Please take my advice to never under any circumstances discharge your caps with a screwdriver blade.

You may not realize this but five ultracaps in series could probably instantly melt your watchband before you could react and give you third degree burns.  A wire could literally explode in the form of super-hot vaporized metal if it was shorted across the ultracaps.  I am making intelligent guesses here.

I suggest that you always discharge your ultracaps with an appropriate resistor, even if it takes 20 minutes to do it.

And yes Alex (below) is absolutely right about adding a fuse and I feel so stoopid for forgetting to mention something so basic.

Jibbguy:

You are off in your own world.

MileHigh
« Last Edit: December 20, 2009, 11:32:45 AM by MileHigh »

Offline Groundloop

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1736
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2739 on: December 20, 2009, 10:56:32 AM »
@MileHigh,

I agree with that statement. The same goes for big lead acid batteries.
Never over charge and never short circuit ANY high current devices.

One way of protecting the operator is to use a fuse in series with the
battery capacitor. The battery capacitors should be mounted on a
metal buss bar(s) inside a plastic box. The box should have a fuse and
also a switch with a series resistor (big wattage) for discharging the
capacitors before handling them.

Alex.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2740 on: December 20, 2009, 06:30:43 PM »
Hi Hoppy

you're remarkably sanguine and philosophical about being evicted - I must say.  I'm not sure that it's always justified but I do think that on Energetic forum it seems to keep the posts constructive and that's always a good thing.  Also makes for pleasant reading. 

But I agree with Jibbs here.  You guys served us well in the critical input that filtered through every now and again - mostly from Poynty - often by MileHigh but never from TK.  That's the thing.  It's alternatively constructive and destructive.  But if that's how the checks and balances need to be established I think we can all live with it.  It seems to make the Open Source movement quite workable. 

Personally I quite like the occasional excess - either way.  Else it would be rather boring.  But there's a level of criticism that actually is entirely counterproductive.  I know this only too well.  But this arrangement worked out to eveyone's advantage.  You guys kept us in check and really forced us to look at all questions.  I would have loved to have Poynty Point as co-author - or at least as an acknowledged and able adviser.  Harvey has often mentioned this.  So.  You kept us on our toes.  Much appreciated.  Could have done with less brutality here and there - and more questions in the general quest.  But it all helped.  Thanks guys.  I forgive you your need to parade an assumed superiority.  LOL.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2741 on: December 23, 2009, 07:30:32 AM »
Hi guys,

Tomorrow is Xmas eve.  May I wish all those who celebrate the season - the very merriest of times.  Considering this harsh economic climate - a measure of good will may very well lighten the load. 

Being High C of E - I get ridiculously cheery around this time of year - the more so as I'm innundated with children and grandchildren.  And I'm not averse to the excesses of a high cholesterol diet that are a traditional part of the season.

To those of you who don't celebrate - Good wishes notwithstanding. 

I've had an extraordinary year - not one that I'll forget - and a large chapter of it is invested in this thread.  To all those who contributed - many, many thanks.  Poynty, MileHigh, Hoppy, Pauly, everyone -even TK - the list is long. All the best over the festive season.  I hope you're all with family, loved ones or friends.  I shall definitely toast you all.   And Harti - may I extend this to you as well. 

with love and best wishes
Rosie

Offline Hoppy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4324
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2742 on: December 23, 2009, 09:11:44 AM »
Hi guys,

Tomorrow is Xmas eve.  May I wish all those who celebrate the season - the very merriest of times.  Considering this harsh economic climate - a measure of good will may very well lighten the load. 

Being High C of E - I get ridiculously cheery around this time of year - the more so as I'm innundated with children and grandchildren.  And I'm not averse to the excesses of a high cholesterol diet that are a traditional part of the season.

To those of you who don't celebrate - Good wishes notwithstanding. 

I've had an extraordinary year - not one that I'll forget - and a large chapter of it is invested in this thread.  To all those who contributed - many, many thanks.  Poynty, MileHigh, Hoppy, Pauly, everyone -even TK - the list is long. All the best over the festive season.  I hope you're all with family, loved ones or friends.  I shall definitely toast you all.   And Harti - may I extend this to you as well. 

with love and best wishes
Rosie

And a merry Xmas and happy New Year to you Rosemary and the team. Hoping that you and the team get a thumbs up from the 'experts' in the New Year.

Best wishes
Hoppy

Offline jibbguy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 352
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2743 on: December 23, 2009, 09:25:08 PM »
May you ALL have a very joyous Holiday Season; with lots of love, lots of smiles, and for many of you, not so much snow lol.

Here was my meager contribution to the Ainslie Circuit Open Source Project.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Strange-Case-of-the-Ro-by-Steve-Windisch-ji-091219-425.html
 
May 2010 prove to be a wonderful year. I raise a glass of "Gluug" to you all (a strong Swedish mull wine, an old Holiday tradition in my family), and salute our Community. Skol! :)
 

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2744 on: December 24, 2009, 04:17:51 AM »
Thanks for the good wishes Jibbs and Hoppy. 

 ;D

Wilby - please check your PM or Skype - both.  Can't let the season come to a close without some seriously good wishes from me to you.  Eternally indebted here Captain and goodwill abounds.  Have missed your contributions lately - but there's a possible absense of trolls for target practice.  LOL.  I'm back on Boxing Day and would be glad to reach you.