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

Author Topic: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie  (Read 643718 times)

ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #495 on: July 16, 2009, 03:31:41 PM »
99
please don't think your wasting time!!
Your Skills are quite obvious and you plant many seeds when you post
[and save people a lot of wasted time]

Besides Rosemary obviously doesn't know your a good guy[very smart and very skilled ] seeking the truth


Chet
« Last Edit: July 16, 2009, 03:58:41 PM by ramset »

Cloxxki

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1083
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #496 on: July 16, 2009, 03:51:01 PM »
Too bad EF has no overunity prize to collect.
With knowledge offered to us all in the RA thread, a semi-skilled researcher should be able to add some diffusing components and loops, and then use RA's unquestioned measuring methods in attaining triple digit COP.
With the present thread's members all behind the circuit, it will be hard for the RA posse to refute the even greater gains reached.

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #497 on: July 16, 2009, 05:32:09 PM »
Two new vids up, EOU9 parts 1 and 2, playing with oscilloscopes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIALHiRL4PY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTcG1dAsrdc

And I ran an experimental run this morning, comparing load heating vs. time for the 96 percent and 4 percent duty cycles from the FG, using a load of R = 3.8 ohms, L = 82 microHenrys.

Briefly, the time and temp endpoints were:

4 percent ON: about 11 degrees over ambient (target = ambient + 52 as per Ainslie) at 70 minutes.

96 percent ON: experiment terminated at 4 minutes; load temp 103.2 C and rising fast, about 80 degrees over ambient.

I'll give the full experiment parameters (voltages, currents, powers) later on today. I've got to go to work now.

As I continue the temperature testing, I will make the .csv files of the raw data available for public crunching. All comments welcome, pro and con. Of course, if you are too con, I'll send Owlsley to get you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2HHtTtfDT0

ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #498 on: July 16, 2009, 08:44:49 PM »
TK
Ramset I've just watched those videos. Strange 20 minutes of my life. Be that as it may - can someone advise TK that he needs to put his probes directly across the shunt resistor. The meter has got a dc coupling function. He needs to get a fairly wide range of sample waveforms because he's now dealing with some pretty aperiodic waveforms and some pretty hectic numbers. The scope meter will show him the voltage.

When he's found the number and measured a fair sample range, on the scope - then do a dump of those numbers and work it through a spread sheet. Then - take the sum of the voltages divided by the number of samples and it should tally with voltage value at the digital display at the scope. Then simply use that voltage number - divide it by his shunt (from memory 0.5v) will give the amperage. His shunt isn't ideal. It should be pure carbon - but it's ok.

That's the important number. He needs a temperature gauge for his energy measure dissipated at the load because of the complexity of his waveform. Then just compare those two values.

fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #499 on: July 16, 2009, 09:13:36 PM »
Hi everyone,

@TK and other interested parties ...

There is a posting of mine at Energetic Forum I'd like to share and get comments on, I feel there is some importance here because of the need for a "squeeky clean" ground so as there is no frequency's or harmonics induced into operation and measurements.

As you know I'm sure, in a residential area as many as five (5) homes can be connected  to one utility transformer supplying 120/240 volt "with a common neutral" to each home and bonded to a grounding system (if there) possibly inducing unwanted results in simulations of replications and measurements of results.

Any comment would be appreciated .......

http://www.energeticforum.com/60534-post635.html

Quote
Ground - Grounded - Grounding

Hi everyone,

There has been something that I have noticed looking at many older documents and illustrations of the term "Ground" as in Earth or "Terra firma" Terra firma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . As you all know common voltages from countries vary, the UK, Europe, Africa parts of Asia many more not to be named for example use 240 volt ..... but the United States and other North and South America countries use 120/240 volt ..... the big difference is how the "Ground" is connected and referenced.

Where 240 volt is and the only voltage available meaning "NO" 120 volt, a ground conductor is actually Grounded to "Ground", Earth or "Terra firma".

Where 120/240 volt is a ground conductor is bonded to the Neutral wire in a Electrical Service Panel (circuit breaker or fuse) whether in a residence, commercial or industrial application. This would also include "Bonding" of any ground rods, water pipes ( if metal ) and natural gas lines all bonded to the Service neutral conductor. SO A GROUND WIRE AND EVERYTHING CONNECTED TO IT ( neutral wire, pipes ) IS NOT A TRUE GROUND and anything connected to it can be subject to unwanted frequency's or harmonics induced into the grounding system through the neutral conductor.

How To Fix -

A separate "Ground" Earth or "Terra firma" connection must be used generally called a "Isolated Grounding System" using one 8'-0" ground rod a minimum of 6 (six) feet from any other ground rod system or underground water and gas lines. It must be totally isolated using a minimum of a #8 AWG insulated green conductor and must not be connected in any way to you existing grounding system ..... any questions you should contact a qualified person (disclaimer).

Testing equipment causing harmonics can be somewhat isolated during operation using a "UPS" power battery back up supply ( AC to DC to AC ) but that does not solve the ground reference problem.


http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http://freenrg.info/Misc/FR_Zoltan_ZPE_Circuit/&sl=fr&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Quote:
Not need an oscilloscope to demonstrate on the unit: it is enough to measure currents ex 2: between the earth and the resistance R2, and between the land and the resistance R1 "


Regards,
Fuzzy
 :)


ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #500 on: July 16, 2009, 09:37:32 PM »
Busy day TK
Rosemary says
Ramset - how can he gauge energy dissipated without also knowing energy delivered? And how can he know energy delivered when he hasn't got the probe and earth directly across the shunt? And why is he not using the digitial display on his scopemeters. They are both state of the art. And why has he not got more waveforms.

I hope, once he's positioned his probes as required - that he will see the problem related to ground. The only way to measure the voltage over the resistors is to put the probe across the resistor with a direct reference to ground.

And if he then objects that my paper shows the probe directly across the circuit - please explain that this is a required convention. To take voltage measurements themselves the earth needs to be adjusted to ground as I've just indicated EDIT and tell him I'm sorry I've only just picked this up now. It's the first time I could read his waveforms.

ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #501 on: July 16, 2009, 11:58:01 PM »
Man oh man
Tk you have the floor
You work to hard you should ask for a raise [unless your the boss ;D]
Chet

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #502 on: July 17, 2009, 01:34:42 AM »
In fucking credible.

Time and time again, I have said and SHOWN that my probes are positioned and GROUNDED just as she has them in the EIT paper. The Channel B probe is positioned directly across the shunt resistor just as she "suggests" above. With its ground lead, as anyone (except, apparently, Rosemary)  can see, on the battery side (neg terminal) of the shunt resistor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trip8gjoxMQ&feature=related

Posted JUNE 17th.

Can you see this video? What are those two black things, hooked up to either side of the shunt resistor? Gee, I wonder...

OK, I'll tell you. The one on the right is the probe, and the one on the left is the probe's ground lead alligator clip.
It is connected to the terminal where I connect the negative battery terminal and also an Earth ground ( a wire to a cold water pipe under my kitchen sink which I always use in electrostatic experiments--which, by the way, show far far more "free" energy that any mosfet circuit can.

What is the matter with the reading and viewing comprehension here? I actually thought we were all speaking English, more or less. It is clear from her comments that she has some strange ideas about oscilloscopes--like the AC versus DC coupling issue, which I was apparently unsuccessful at explaining in the new vids. She apparently thinks that "ac coupling" is for measuring AC, and DC coupling is for DC. Uh-huh...

Is it really possible for anyone to watch my oscilloscope videos, and then seriously tell me that I do not know how to use an oscilloscope? Especially someone who manifestly does not know how to use one?
I would wager that the way she would use the Fluke-O-Scope would be to hook it up and press the "auto" button, and then believe everything it tells her, as gospel. After all, it's DIGITAL. So how could it be wrong?

And I can just see her reading this and saying to herself, "What is he talking about? How else could you use a scope? What's the "AUTO" button for if not to make the operator's task easier? And my scopemeter is Calibrated!! So it cannot be wrong."

Not only is she not paying attention, she apparently is either incapable of seeing what I am showing, or she is remaining willfully ignorant. I believe it is the latter, which is also the "worser".

Will someone please inform this woman that:

1) I am attaching the probes to her circuit just as she specifies in the EIT paper; and

2) I am and have been for many years a professional metrologist (no, not meteorologist); that is, I actually get paid lots of money--much more than I truly deserve-- to do what I am doing here for nothing;

3) The FLUKE 199 is FAR from a "state of the art" oscilloscope. It's more like a child's toy compared to most of the equipment I use daily. The only reason we even keep it around the lab is because it is reasonably portable. The main reason I used it at all in the videos is to show some of its problems when viewing spiky signals. The Fluke 123 hasn't even been out of its suitcase in months, it's so "sophisticated state of the art." The LeCroy was state of the art--ten years ago. When we get its second channel DC offset issue fixed, it will be able to do all the necessary measurements of electrical parameters in the Ainslie circuit simultaneously in real time including current x voltage trace multiplication, integration of the resulting instantaneous power trace to give energy, and so forth.

4) I didn't drop out of school at age 16 and decide I could understand the world thru "patterns." I have a solid university grounding in pure and applied mathematics, physics, engineering, chemistry, and psychology. My advanced degrees are in experimental cognitive psychology, specifically in the area of mathematical formal models of human perception and cognition. I have real, actual peer-reviewd publications in major scientific journals.

Please, Rosemary, do not presume to "teach" me how to use an oscilloscope. And don't pretend to understand things you do not, especially about me.

You can impugn my personal abilities, that's fine...but you, Rosemary, have no respect for education, which in my case was the best that money can buy, and I have had some truly world-class teachers. Maybe I even was able to learn something from them--because I continued to come to class.

5) My papers went through a fine-tooth shredder before they saw publication, and my thesis defense would have probably killed a sensitive individual like yourself. You should be able, IF your ideas are correct, to defend them against attacks from the Devil himself, and do it without begging moderators to ban critics or close threads. The people who are criticising your work are doing it because that is the way science works, and that is the only way to assure that what we "know" is really the way the world is.
If there is ANY POSSIBILITY AT ALL that a claim like COP>17 with the world's most basic mosfet circuit that will work more than once, is WRONG, then we have a DUTY to find out. Because if we, as scientists, let a WRONG result like that to be published, it sets back everyone's efforts who do any work in the area. You, as the originator of the work, have an OBLIGATION yourself to seek out any possible error and correct it. That is one reason that I am so upset about your continued lack of correction or retraction of the Quantum paper, and your failure to specify EXACTLY what circuit was used to make the experiment and the data. [bold]You , Rosemary, are not cooperating. [/bold] In fact you are obfuscating efforts to reproduce your results--because nobody has seen YOUR complete circuit diagram, nobody has seen YOUR scope shots, raw data, reports from all those vetting labs, statements from your "academics", NONE OF IT has been made public, beyond your mere words.


6) The most real and accurate information about this circuit and how it behaves has come from the people you have rejected or will soon reject: TK, Henieck, Hoppy, point99, DrStiffler, and one or two others. (apologies if I left any major contributor out.)

7) Again, your statements about what you think you see in my videos reveal that you are either not paying attention to what I am saying and writing, and/or you simply do not have the educational background to absorb and contemplate what I am showing. They are clear enough for a seven year old child to understand (my landlord's daughter gets them just fine). But since your world-view is already established, you see everything from a single perspective, behind your own blinders. That's fine for you, you are in your second Saturn, and will not change before you die. But do not go around trying to educate people who have more learning and experience than you do.
I suggest you sit down and use your computer to look at Professor Lewin's MIT lectures on YT. And also, if you can watch objectively instead of through your paranoid blinders, you should watch and read the descriptions for my YT videos. There are a lot to choose from, but you will of course be most interested in the Electric OU series, in progress.

Now, if you really want to make progress in TESTING your claims as opposed to PROVING them, you should learn to cooperate with your reviewers. Because they aren't attacking you, they are defending the delicate body of known things from being corrupted by POSSIBLY bad data and bad conclusions.

IF your data is good, nobody will be able to knock it down, so you should help them try.

IF, on the other hand, there are theoretical holes and bad procedures and misunderstandings of test equipment and improper and incomplete and contradictory documentation and calculations, then it is no wonder that you get very defensive and try to save matters by killing off the bringers of bad news.

But the bad news won't go away. It's still bad.

And that, dear one, is what is going on here.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2009, 02:04:22 AM by TinselKoala »

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #503 on: July 17, 2009, 01:46:21 AM »
Here is the link to the post where I published here the circuit photo that was censored and removed from energeticforum by their enlightened thread moderator in love and light.

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg190832#msg190832

Anyone with eyes to see will note the point indicated as "B" is the same place that she specifies to attach the probe--the current viewing shunt. And, all the way over on the other side of that little grey resistor, where it hooks to the negative battery power connector jack, that is where I connect that probe's ground lead.
That is, the probe is connected across the current-viewing shunt. Why is that so difficult to see..since I show it in EVERY video--"here is the shunt, here is the probe, here is the ground..."

And that's where I have always connected it. Because that is how you monitor the voltage drop across a current viewing resistor.

Rosemary, in her comments on energetic forum concerning my videos, is making it very clear that she has no clue about actual circuit measurements.

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #504 on: July 17, 2009, 01:57:27 AM »
"EDIT and tell him I'm sorry I've only just picked this up now. It's the first time I could read his waveforms."

Picked what up? Some straw man that you are constructing re my waveforms or how I am obtaining them?

Take a look at the very first frames of This Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trip8gjoxMQ&feature=related

Do you see the shunt resistor? Do you see the scope probe hooked to it on the right side? Do you see the big black alligator clip hooked to the other (negative, grounded) side? That, dear one, is the ground lead of the scope probe. Just as you have specified, and just as is shown in the diagrams.
And all vids where I show an input, channel B, measurement, are taken just like this. What's wrong with this?

And yet I've been posting them for nearly a month. Did Rosemary just now get a computer? I don't think so. There's that willful ignorance again. Has anyone else had trouble viewing my waveforms? I don't think so.

And wouldn't it be nice, if we had even a SINGLE waveform from Rosemary to compare? I especially want to see these Random Chaotic Hartley Resonant NonPeriodic Oscillations.

Or even a reference (not just "go google it", which I have done...) to a scholarly paper describing the phenomenon.

0c

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 278
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #505 on: July 17, 2009, 02:19:34 AM »
5) ... your continued lack of correction or retraction of the Quantum paper, and your failure to specify EXACTLY what circuit was used to make the experiment and the data. [bold]You , Rosemary, are not cooperating. [/bold] In fact you are obfuscating efforts to reproduce your results--because nobody has seen YOUR complete circuit diagram, nobody has seen YOUR scope shots, raw data, reports from all those vetting labs, statements from your "academics", NONE OF IT has been made public, beyond your mere words.

7) ... if you can watch objectively instead of through your paranoid blinders, you should watch and read the descriptions for my YT videos. There are a lot to choose from, but you will of course be most interested in the Electric OU series, in progress.

IF your data is good, nobody will be able to knock it down, so you should help them try.

These are the things I was hoping to accomplish with the posts I asked to be forwarded to Rosemary (and nobody did).

1) I was trying to get her to review your circuits and procedures and point out anything which was not consistent with her experiments. Then these could be discussed in a rational manner.

2) I hoped she might actually share some photos, diagrams, procedures, and reports that were used to validate her experiments so these could also be discussed in a rational manner.

I think I know where all this will eventually wind up. It just seems like such a long and painful process getting there. Why can't both sides just turn all their cards face-up (most of yours already are) so they can be counted?

You are getting way too hot, TK. Chill!. Step back a bit and use that left brain of yours. Quit being so defensive and antagonistic. Same for Rosemary. This is no way to make progress.

I can relate only too well with both sides.

ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #506 on: July 17, 2009, 02:28:23 AM »
Does anyone here have the ability to pull a still off TK"S vid and highlight the meter connections in RED?
Chet

IceStorm

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 107
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #507 on: July 17, 2009, 02:53:34 AM »
"EDIT and tell him I'm sorry I've only just picked this up now. It's the first time I could read his waveforms."

Picked what up? Some straw man that you are constructing re my waveforms or how I am obtaining them?

Take a look at the very first frames of This Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trip8gjoxMQ&feature=related

Do you see the shunt resistor? Do you see the scope probe hooked to it on the right side? Do you see the big black alligator clip hooked to the other (negative, grounded) side? That, dear one, is the ground lead of the scope probe. Just as you have specified, and just as is shown in the diagrams.
And all vids where I show an input, channel B, measurement, are taken just like this. What's wrong with this?

And yet I've been posting them for nearly a month. Did Rosemary just now get a computer? I don't think so. There's that willful ignorance again. Has anyone else had trouble viewing my waveforms? I don't think so.

And wouldn't it be nice, if we had even a SINGLE waveform from Rosemary to compare? I especially want to see these Random Chaotic Hartley Resonant NonPeriodic Oscillations.

Or even a reference (not just "go google it", which I have done...) to a scholarly paper describing the phenomenon.

You know, what i find so ridiculous its there some people who are still so proud to defend Rosemary's theory beside the fact that NOTHING work as expected, we are not building a satellite here , its only a simple circuit with 5 parts and 1 battery if you dont use the 555 circuit. All the procedure are already there for the mesurement.

The only one who took the time to make the circuit and to use all the same test equipement as was wrote on the IET paper was TK and he is one who get all the @#$@#$ because the circuit dosent work like it should.

Someone should contact by email ABB to validate if they made some test on the Rosemary's device. The ABB name got used in her paper about a overunity device and if its not a overunity device i dont think they will tolerate that. We talk about a big compagny here, in Q1 of 2009 the net income was 652 million, if the ABB name got used falsely, they will sue her for sure, because there no compagny in the world who want to burn his name on someone false claim, and in the other way, if some test have been done and they know that the ABB name is used in her paper, maybe its the lack of electronic knowledge of Rosemary who make the replication difficult.

I still believe its a honest people but her arrogance against anything who is not inline in what she think make the process realy complicated.

Best Regards,
IceStorm

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #508 on: July 17, 2009, 03:08:19 AM »
These are the things I was hoping to accomplish with the posts I asked to be forwarded to Rosemary (and nobody did).

1) I was trying to get her to review your circuits and procedures and point out anything which was not consistent with her experiments. Then these could be discussed in a rational manner.

2) I hoped she might actually share some photos, diagrams, procedures, and reports that were used to validate her experiments so these could also be discussed in a rational manner.

I think I know where all this will eventually wind up. It just seems like such a long and painful process getting there. Why can't both sides just turn all their cards face-up (most of yours already are) so they can be counted?

You are getting way too hot, TK. Chill!. Step back a bit and use that left brain of yours. Quit being so defensive and antagonistic. Same for Rosemary. This is no way to make progress.

I can relate only too well with both sides.

You are quite right, of course, as usual, 0c.
Damn right.
My heart is pounding in my ears, I am so mad. She is telling me how to use an oscilloscope!!
I want to kill something.

So I'm gong to spend the rest of my evening listening to jazz and installing ubuntu linux on an off-lease ibm t41 that I just scored for cheap. It will be my metrology server: full on LabView, or as much as it will handle, all the instrument control and analysis packages for all the DSOs, maybe even a HPIB stack for the "real" stuff.  Plus the usual spreadsheet and stats and maybe even FruityLoops. But first I'm going to take out the hard drive (WinXP) and melt it down with an oxyacetylene torch.

I may take the torch to that damn Ainslie circuit too. Then you'll see some OU.

(Speaking of audio, did you know that all those big booming car stereos are OU? Yep, they use mosfets to drive low inductance loads at 2400 Hz all day long, and the car battery never becomes discharged. Unless you hook the scope probes up wrong. No wonder they sound like the driver's head's full of gravel most of the time.)


ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #509 on: July 17, 2009, 03:09:23 AM »
Icestorm I meant to call ABB last week
I will tomorrow, It doesn't cost me for the call
TK check pm
Chet