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

Custom Search
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 26 27 28 ... 189   Go Down

Author Topic: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie  (Read 652040 times)

ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #330 on: July 12, 2009, 05:15:00 PM »
 witsend  [Rosemary ]
Quote

Ramset - I looked at the video and simply can't comment because it's impossible to say what the circuit is. And it seems that he's got a resistive load and a motor in parallel - but I have no idea where the diode is?

I wish people would make their circuit references clearer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the vid she is referring to

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x0wQJrc9To
Logged

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #331 on: July 12, 2009, 05:56:20 PM »
Quote from: ramset on July 12, 2009, 05:15:00 PM
witsend  [Rosemary ]
Quote

Ramset - I looked at the video and simply can't comment because it's impossible to say what the circuit is. And it seems that he's got a resistive load and a motor in parallel - but I have no idea where the diode is?

I wish people would make their circuit references clearer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the vid she is referring to

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x0wQJrc9To

ROLLING On THE FLOOR LAUGHING MY bleeping ASS OFF!

On the second-to-the last post of  mine on "her" thread, which was REMOVED by the "moderator", I photographed the circuit, and the diagram from HER OWN PAPERS, to show her just what circuit I am using--so far the only one to do so that I can see--in a direct response to her query there. No flames, no comments, just "here is the circuit I am using" with a photograph--this photograph--and the post was removed.

Perhaps, Chet, you could get her to look at this photo here, since it has been censored over there.

(Since this photo, and before the video above, I took out the hardwired diode, put in a SPDT center off toggle switch and a terminal block, so that I could mount several diodes and switch between them easily to see their effects on the circuit. This modification is clearly visible in this video, and in the previous one I show it specifically and explain its slight effect on the waveform (although with my low bandwidth analog scopes it is hard to see, so I did not show it.) This is why I am so surprised that it made such a "macroscopic" effect with the motor and bulb.)
Logged

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #332 on: July 12, 2009, 06:04:09 PM »
Now, anyone with eyes to see can see what circuit I am using--it is the published circuit of Rosemary Ainslie.

BUT--can anyone tell me just what circuit Rosemary Ainslie used to generate the data in the Quantim article and the EIT.pdf paper? And how it was clocked?

Anyone?
Logged

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claim no OU of Rosemary's circuit
« Reply #333 on: July 12, 2009, 06:14:51 PM »
Quote from: henieck on July 12, 2009, 03:46:13 PM
Hello TinselKoala (and others as well),

You seem to be very reasonable guy. I know you from the other forum and I am happy I have found you here because I would like to ask you a question. You are well seasoned member of wide interest of this community while I am just a fresh one, and my little request to you is if you could express what is your perspective on “free energy” field in terms of what seems to be bull s. or what has been successfully replicated by some people. So far I have proved just to myself that Rosemary’s circuit is a joke. I hope others will be able to make it working – but I really doubt it.

The worst is that years later there will be people who will be trying out this stupid circuit and be puzzled by the surface effect of the flyback loop – what a waste of time. So after my first encounter in this field it seems to me that designer is uneducated- but made a virtue from this fact and reframed it into open-mind-ness, emotional about the outcome, childish about criticism, not capable of objective, down to the point thinking, not being able to detect her own errors in judgments and trace her own mind deceit. I was shocked to discover that the “inventor” did not know basic operational facts about electric current, energy or even her very simple circuit.

This woman was not even aware of the fact that it takes energy to make magnetic field exist, and that a coil can store some energy in the form of magnetic field, until it is disconnected form the current! This is just most shocking of all. The woman who was gong to energetically save the world had no most basic understanding about energy. It wasn’t somebody who knew it, saw a flaw in it and proposed different, better theory– it was somebody who had an amazing informational “hole” in this region and in few others (the battery example). There was no model about this piece of reality in her mind at all– so instead of getting educated she was forced to make a new zipon theory.

Even when I pointed out how energy is stored in a coil - nothing helped, like there was total blockage for any new input. Just her littlie world of sick hallucinations and zero capability to processing any new information – just deletion. She had no other choice - she had to delete all the contradictory information because otherwise she would be forced to rebuild her entire pitiful world and all the past experiences about this circuit. Infinitely pitiful. I didn’t want to put new convictions through throat – I just wanted her to process new information somehow. She must have had sensed, that asking questions expose to herself her inconsistencies – so she insisted on deletion of those who asked inconvenient questions.

Some other users of forum disappointed equally – evidently they want to live in entirely other semi scientific, semi religious world and don’t want to be disturbed by any sober, they call “debunkers”. I think that first of all she was trying to debunk widely accepted point of view – and the fact that they call me debunker confirms that they had readily swallowed her infantile, yet complicated zipon theory like Lindemann swallowed gravity wheel idea. Seeing this great “nothingness” compared to her great claims I have to admit I have got carried away a bit – so they blocked me entirely that I can’t even read what is next there. Does it happen very often here as well?

Scientifically, playing with this idiotic circuit for few days was a pure waste of time, although one learns all the time something new. Conversely, from psychological point of view – it was fascinating to have first hand experience in this field how psychology of one such “inventor” really operates. Priceless experience – and I am wondering – do you think that other pseudo-scientific “inventors” in this field are equally contaminated by this sort of psychological problems as well? But most of all, like I wrote above – I would love to hear your opinion about other things potentially worth of at least looking at. Are there any preliminarily promising things in this “free energy” field? I consider this Rosemary’s idiotic thing finished for me and need new inspiration. What is yours now?

Best regards, henieck.

Hi Henieck and well met.
I am glad to hear from you here. You bring up a lot of important points.
First, let me say that this forum is in general more tolerant of skepticism and positive "debunking" efforts. The owner, Stefan, is, I believe, a real seeker of truth, and is also highly experienced in working with many of the types of designs you might see discussed here. Sometimes he allows individuals to moderate specific threads, and these moderators may be more, or less, forgiving of skepticism.
However, this openness also tends to let people make the kinds of posts that would be considered blatant trolling on many other forums. That can get annoying--if you read back through this thread you will see some good examples.
In fact, as you can see, I am now very leery of posting here, because of the trolling problem. I do not mind reasoned criticisms and rational arguments, I even can take and dish out the occasional drunken insult with equanimity, but the useless harping on an already-conceded minor point is quite ridiculous, especially when combined with lies and distortions about what I actually do and post.
As far as the other questions you have re my general take on the OU field I will send you a PM here later this afternoon. I really need to get out of the basement for a while.
Thanks again, and welcome to the forum.
--TK
Logged

0c

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 278
Re: Claim no OU of Rosemary's circuit
« Reply #334 on: July 12, 2009, 07:10:01 PM »
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 12, 2009, 06:14:51 PM
As far as the other questions you have re my general take on the OU field I will send you a PM here later this afternoon.

Awww, c'mon TK. Post it publicly. Lotsa folks would like to know what really goes on in that head of yours.  ;)
Logged

ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #335 on: July 12, 2009, 07:14:42 PM »
Logged

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claim no OU of Rosemary's circuit
« Reply #336 on: July 12, 2009, 07:18:22 PM »
Quote from: 0c on July 12, 2009, 07:10:01 PM
Awww, c'mon TK. Post it publicly. Lotsa folks would like to know what really goes on in that head of yours.  ;)

Including me.
 ::)
Logged

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claim no OU of Rosemary's circuit
« Reply #337 on: July 12, 2009, 07:37:36 PM »
Quote from: 0c on July 12, 2009, 07:10:01 PM
Awww, c'mon TK. Post it publicly. Lotsa folks would like to know what really goes on in that head of yours.  ;)

Some of my own whacky ideas have been discussed, but it always brings out the trolls so I don't do it very much.

But let's just say that I "have faith" in the Standard Model and in Quantum Electrodynamics (QCD I'm not so sure about). And in the usual suspects: the conservation laws, the utility of mathematical modelling (with Korzybski's caveat that "the map is not the territory". Unless you're a cartographer.)
I have faith in these things--because I don't have the ability to understand them fully, so I cannot say that I know them (cf. Feynman)-- but everytime I've tested them I find them to be correct, to within measurement accuracy. And I test them quite frequently--like with every step, breath, and eyeblink I take.

Now, within that context obviously I do not believe energy can be obtained "for free". Do I believe that one may obtain useful energy without economic cost? Yes, absolutely. But one must find a source, a flux, and a sink, and one must position oneself in the flux in such a manner and with such technology that some of the flux may be diverted to be wasted in driving your pitiful Earth machinery. Er, I mean put to good use in our society.

What's the flux? I dunno. I still think the main flux is going to turn out to be electrodynamic; I believe there is a tremendous energy reservoir made up by the capacitor of the earth and its atmosphere and ionosphere; I think that this reservoir, which ultimately powers lightning discharges, is continually recharged by the sun; I hope that someday someone might be able to position some apparatus that would be able to exploit this reservoir in two main ways: First of course as a power "source", and second, as a means of global power transmission, perhaps from some central plant that down-converted the Schumann cavity's energy store to a form that is perhaps more useful to puny Earthlings, er, I mean to us...and then re-inject it by "ringing" the cavity at harmonics of its fundamental resonant frequency.

Do I perhaps think that Nikola Tesla was on the right track? Sure. Plus he made a bunch of really neat apparatus that sparks and makes ozone--and I love that stuff.

There, that should feed the trolls for a while.

--TK

(Edit to add, no, I do not consider 0c to be a troll. )
Logged

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #338 on: July 12, 2009, 07:39:20 PM »
Logged

ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #339 on: July 12, 2009, 07:41:02 PM »
 H ,

Some Nasa and other FE stuff

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3809-interesting-articles-free-energy-etc.html#post46942

Chet


For banned folks http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20030033916_2003038530.pdf
                       http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20050170447_2005172301.pdf
complete post
 lamare 
NASA: Advanced Energetics for Aeronautical Applications
NASA publishes 2 interesting volumes "Advanced Energetics for Aeronautical Applications":

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...2003038530.pdf
Volume 2: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...2005172301.pdf


Volume 2 contains some very interesting chapters on ZPE:

Chapter 3: ADVANCED ELECTRIC CONCEPTS
Chapter 4: BREAKTHROUGH ENERGETICS—ZERO POINT ENERGY


Chapter 4 handles specifically about free energy:

Zero Point Energy Principles in the Similar Technologies of Nikola Tesla and E.V. Gray
4.3.1 Dr. Peter Lindemann
4.3.2 ZPE Principles Suggested in E.V. Gray's Technology
4.3.3 The Energy Science of Dr. Nikola Tesla
4.3.4 Dr. Lindemann's Definition of "The Electro-Radiant Event"
4.3.5 Comparing E.V. Gray's Technology with that of Tesla
4.3.6 Summary of Principles for Accessing ZPE
Logged

ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #340 on: July 12, 2009, 08:10:07 PM »
Logged

0c

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 278
Re: Claim no OU of Rosemary's circuit
« Reply #341 on: July 12, 2009, 08:15:26 PM »
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 12, 2009, 07:37:36 PM
(Edit to add, no, I do not consider 0c to be a troll. )

(a stalker maybe?  ;) ) Thanks for being so candid.
Logged

ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #342 on: July 12, 2009, 08:28:31 PM »
TK
Yes thanks for sharing [and all the doing!!!]
Chet
Logged

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claim no OU of Rosemary's circuit
« Reply #343 on: July 12, 2009, 08:28:59 PM »
Quote from: 0c on July 12, 2009, 08:15:26 PM
(a stalker maybe?  ;) ) Thanks for being so candid.

Let's say, "A fellow traveller." I think that would be most accurate.
 8)
Logged

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #344 on: July 12, 2009, 08:41:05 PM »
OK, back to "work". (EEK, I scared myself.)

I would really like to know the make and model of the function generator used, if one was used, to drive the Ainslie circuit for her reported experiment. She's not telling me, but it's an important question.
I need to know its adjustment capability and characteristics: Peak output voltage into 50 ohms; pulse width range; DC offset capability; sweep functionality or not; and so forth.

In the Quantum report of the experiment, of course, the FG is not mentioned AT ALL and the clocking is assumed to be from the accompanying circuit diagram--the infamous 555. There is also NO MENTION of the flyback diode and it does not appear on the diagram.

Yet in the EIT.pdf report of the same experiment:
In the EIT.pdf paper, the only mention of a FG is the little symbol on the diagram in that paper, and this phrase in the text:
"The oscillator is adjusted to output a frequency of 2.4KHz at a 3.7% duty
cycle on time. Adjusting the variable resistor in series with the gate of the
MOSFET reduces the gate current and results in random oscillation that
overrides the predetermined frequency and duty cycle."

The oscillator. And in the equipment list she makes much of the fact that her Fluke 199C is calibrated, and other equipment parameters are noted with calibration information. Yet the FG is not mentioned.
And now the flyback diode has mysteriously appeared and is a critical component of the experiment.

So, you have to see how this makes me think that the 555 circuit WAS in fact used in the reported experiment.
But if it wasn't, the information about what WAS used to clock the circuit is necessary, to make sure that what has been called a "typical first year EE mistake" (in reference to ME in the second video!!??!!) has not been made all through Ainslie's work.

I am coming to the opinion that we are being Mylowed, yet again.

(I note that in the NakedScientists thread she several times refers to the Fluke 123 scope she used. OOPS, in the papers I have it's a 199C. It's an easy mistake to make--the 199C is only twice the physical size of the 123, and when you google them quickly for a picture of a scopemeter you might get confused, especially if your eyesight is even worse than your memory...
No matter, as I have shown, I have BOTH a 199C and a 123 at my fingertips, and as soon as she gets her story straight I can use whatever she used in my replication attempt.)


Oh, and another question: with so many people building her circuit, with her right there giving instructions, and the circuit is supposed to be making COP>17, and the all the sophisticated measurements being made, many of which according to her are showing OU...

Why hasn't anyone reported burning their fingers!!??!!???
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 26 27 28 ... 189   Go Up
« previous next »