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 643566 times)

ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #585 on: July 20, 2009, 03:56:45 PM »
just left this post

 A scientist searching for OU [rare as hens teath]
MIB ? bad oil guy?

Can't use equipment?[every day of his life]

wonder what the COP is of this device.

YouTube - Dirod 1

Or this one.

YouTube - Bonetti Machine clip #3
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron is on the right page" heat some water" If your COP is that high

then your BTU will be obvious

You go Aaron make it so boil some water make steam Forget all these tests
HOT WATER HEAT is what where after COP 17 and higher

Chet
PS you don't need a lab for that

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #586 on: July 20, 2009, 04:07:58 PM »
Heh. Thanks for posting that, Chet. I was just reminiscing...
But they might like the Resonance Effects for Everyone vids better, since they are so impressed by charging a cap thru a diode, and might like to see what a real resonance from a mosfet driving an inductive ringing system is like.

And every time I look over there I am more amazed. Joit has finally admitted that even his 555 circuit can't make short duty cycles. Now if we can just get people to follow that thought all the way through her energy balance calcs...

And in practically the same sentence where she gripes about me calling her a mendacious prevaricator, she proceeds to post yet another canard saying that neither I nor anybody else has done power measurements...I beg your pardon, Rosemary, but that's a lie too. Or, rather, another statement of your willful ignorance.

Quote
Have you ever looked through the OU.Com thread on this? It beggars belief. Malice hardly describes it. And the amount of money that is spent on displaying tests and parading brand new state of the art equipment that is never effectively used.
Money? When a COP>17 claim is being made? What is money when the world is at stake?
Brand new state of the art equipment? Where?
Never effectively used? You mean MISUSED like Aaron and Joit's scope work? I laugh in your face, liar.

Quote

 Weeks go by without a single test result - just promises of this. Yet we are constantly advised that the claim is wrong. Has it ever occurred to anyone that - to this day - no single power measurement has been made on the circuitry?
More lies. I have been reporting test results for a month or more, sometimes several a day. And I have made MANY measurements, published my raw data and ALL test parameters including scope shots and photos of the apparatus and videos of it being operated and tested. And I have even made so far 3 full experimental runs comparing heat profiles.
Quote
No test has been run to duration of a battery capacity.
And no test has been run under water. There is no need. The heat results are far more more conclusive.
Quote
Brand new state of the art equipment is constantly on display but never are its full functions referenced. Small irrelevant points become critical evidence of a lack of proof and are championed with an unabashed repetitiveness that is boringly persistent but brutally destructive. But no actual proof is offered.
There's that brand new state of the art equipment again. You must be talking about someone else, because all my stuff is obsolete junk. But it still works fine, and more importantly, I know how to use it.
And the significance of the points I keep stressing is fatal to your claims. If you used the wrong duty cycle, as it is increasingly obvious that you did, your energy calculations are wrong wrong wrong.

Where's the circuit, Rosemary? It's been over a month now. You have shown us NOTHING except words. And many of those words are, well, as I have shown, untrue.

And everything that I have said about the circuit and its performance and testing is TRUE and VISIBLE and REPEATABLE by anyone who can read a circuit diagram and an oscilloscope manual.
But who is repeating ANY of the Ainslie effects, and how?
Just Aaron, by screwing a mosfet to his workbench and violating every rule of good circuit construction to make a feedback circuit. But even he can''t get much heating at short duty cycles.



http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-32.html#post61506

jibbguy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 352
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #587 on: July 20, 2009, 04:13:17 PM »
What Aaron is seeing there in his vid is not "false triggering" / being "off trigger"... Or anything to do with a friggin' scope trigger! 

I'm not sure why this particular avenue of denial seen here infuriates me so much (we should all be used to it by now), but it does. I will try to be "civil" nonetheless (lol but it's difficult).

When a scope drifts off-trigger but the waveform's Frequency doesn't change, the signal representation ROLLS across the screen. With the scope's time base set the same as before; the waveform will still be visible and mainly recognizable, just looking like an old TV with "Horizontal Hold" problems.

The "Triggering" circuitry by itself CANNOT CHANGE THE SCOPE'S TIME BASE SETTING!! ... Thus, when previously set to see 2 or 3 cycles spaced across the screen, you can't suddenly get it to display 400 cycles squeezed together (showing the unmistakable "all white" solid envelope that denotes a way-too-slow time base setting)... By simply screwing around with the Trigger Level. You good folks out there try it yourselves and see what i mean. It will take a significant change in the signal's actual Frequency for this to be seen.

Frankly, i am finding it hard to believe that these peeps claiming the contrary don't know this. On one hand they are accusing Aaron of making a very "noob" mistake, yet we find it is THEY who are claiming an utterly NOOB and COMPLETELY MISTAKEN point in denial... Which is certainly doing their credibility no favors. And so they deserve to be lambasted for it (as turnabout is fair play), and perhaps their actual motives here QUESTIONED.... They certainly are not acting here as those who are seeking Truth, by putting forth weak justifications for previously stated strong opinions.

Aaron is also getting a small increase at the batt charge voltage on the DMM at the exact same time as the oscillation effect is seen on the scope... Verses when the scope is showing the "normal" waveform. Explain that one by "poor scope triggering".

And for the benefit of the folks out there who will now be SUCCESSFULLY building this circuit, and who also happen to have a storage scope (or a PC-based one that can "freeze" the screen): This talk about triggering is a total distraction, and give it no heed: Just take a "snap shot" (screen "sample and hold") of the signal.... Whatever is shown on the screen is the actual and accurate representation of the signal at that particular moment, and all this B-S about "scope triggering" be damned.  And please, if possible, post the "screenies" of that much higher F oscillation waveform for us all to look at, as it is of interest to many of us ;)

So Aaron has gotten his MOSFET to go into astable oscillation (...just as Rosemary said it would). Congrats to him, and may many more folks out there now follow his fine example!!

ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #588 on: July 20, 2009, 04:26:31 PM »
left at EF

 A scientist[FE scientist] works the resonance
Groundloop gutoluc and An FE scientist

YouTube - resonance effects for everyone
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tW2g4KinuA

And from another scientist[TRON]

tank circuit video: resonance and harmonics
a great video on resonance and oscilloscope signals in a tank circuit
Make: Online : Short Circuit #2: Frequency multiplication with tank circuits

http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2009/04/short_circuit_2_frequency_multiplic.html?CMP=OTC-0D6B48984890

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #589 on: July 20, 2009, 04:36:26 PM »
What Aaron is seeing there in his vid is not "false triggering" / being "off trigger"... Or anything to do with a friggin' scope trigger! 

I'm not sure why this particular avenue of denial seen here infuriates me so much (we should all be used to it by now), but it does. I will try to be "civil" nonetheless (lol but it's difficult).

When a scope drifts off-trigger but the waveform's Frequency doesn't change, the signal representation ROLLS across the screen. With the scope's time base set the same as before; the waveform will still be visible and mainly recognizable, just looking like an old TV with "Horizontal Hold" problems.

The "Triggering" circuitry by itself CANNOT CHANGE THE SCOPE'S TIME BASE SETTING!! ... Thus, when previously set to see 2 or 3 cycles spaced across the screen, you can't suddenly get it to display 400 cycles squeezed together (showing the unmistakable "all white" solid envelope that denotes a way-too-slow time base setting)... By simply screwing around with the Trigger Level. You good folks out there try it yourselves and see what i mean. It will take a significant change in the signal's actual Frequency for this to be seen.

Frankly, i am finding it hard to believe that these peeps claiming the contrary don't know this. On one hand they are accusing Aaron of making a very "noob" mistake, yet we find it is THEY who are claiming an utterly NOOB and COMPLETELY MISTAKEN point in denial... Which is certainly doing their credibility no favors. And so they deserve to be lambasted for it (as turnabout is fair play), and perhaps their actual motives here QUESTIONED.... They certainly are not acting here as those who are seeking Truth, by putting forth weak justifications for previously stated strong opinions.

Aaron is also getting a small increase at the batt charge voltage on the DMM at the exact same time as the oscillation effect is seen on the scope... Verses when the scope is showing the "normal" waveform. Explain that one by "poor scope triggering".

And for the benefit of the folks out there who will now be SUCCESSFULLY building this circuit, and who also happen to have a storage scope (or a PC-based one that can "freeze" the screen): This talk about triggering is a total distraction, and give it no heed: Just take a "snap shot" (screen "sample and hold") of the signal.... Whatever is shown on the screen is the actual and accurate representation of the signal at that particular moment, and all this B-S about "scope triggering" be damned.  And please, if possible, post the "screenies" of that much higher F oscillation waveform for us all to look at, as it is of interest to many of us ;)

So Aaron has gotten his MOSFET to go into astable oscillation (...just as Rosemary said it would). Congrats to him, and may many more folks out there now follow his fine example!!

It was MileHigh who first said that Aaron's scope shot might be false triggering, and then later he saw the rest of the vid and agrees that Aaron's circuit is feeding back and oscillating, and so do I. There is some false triggering, but definitely his circuit is blasting away. And it is also true that I have not been able so readily to make my circuit do that.
It is also true that adjusting the scope's trigger and timebase would have allowed the feedback oscillation to be resolved into a regular periodic waveform...but that would have been anti-OU, so we won't see that being shown.
It is also clear that Aaron's "success" is a result of poor construction practices.
And it is very very clear that his resistor isn't heating much at short duty cycles.
And it's very difficult to say what the duty cycle is during the feedback--because if the signal were only resolved properly, it will no longer be seen to be a pulse, but rather a more sinusoidal wave, and it would sound like a very loud screech.
Is it surprising that the mosfet passes more power when screeching than it does at a short duty cycle?
Not to me.
And if you really trust that DMM to read correctly under the conditions in Aaron's vid, you must be on someone else's payroll...because even the MiBs are not that naiive.

ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #590 on: July 20, 2009, 04:49:32 PM »
TK
perhaps a few moments here

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7679.510

The spot Stephan was talking about [coils and Don Smith easy stuff]

Perhaps a brief interlude [from church]
Chet
And your take on this

tank circuit video: resonance and harmonics
a great video on resonance and oscilloscope signals in a tank circuit
Make: Online : Short Circuit #2: Frequency multiplication with tank circuits

http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2009/04/short_circuit_2_frequency_multiplic.html?CMP=OTC-0D6B48984890
it has girls in it

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #591 on: July 20, 2009, 05:51:39 PM »
I need to go to church, myself. I'll take a look later on. Thanks for the heads up.
I see that you are beginning to fall from grace--better watch out, the Free Speech Police might be sending you a warning soon...



ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #592 on: July 20, 2009, 06:02:28 PM »
Free speech police
Yah mean the Church of peace love  light and show me the PATH to money Freedom of speech police??

Nahh

Chet

jibbguy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 352
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #593 on: July 20, 2009, 06:40:01 PM »
I don't believe in going around quoting, i personally think it's kinda lame for the most part in these cases. But peeps saw above that you accused Aaron of not being able to read a scope: They can come to their own conclusions what you meant there.

I gotta say, once the one bogus explanation is exploded, moving on to the next one like nothing happened will garner diminishing returns (just as it was 3 days ago with the last red herring, the "ground loop" stuff based on "Single Ended to Ground" input circuit oddities which were totally MOOT in this case; nearly as much as the "triggering" claims).
 
Although now i think we have gone through all possible obfuscations regarding the instrumentation (although i could be wrong about that, hehehe ;) ).

I guess it's your bad luck you ran across someone who knows WTF they are talking about when it comes to test & measurement instrumentation. Those 18 years in the field, traveling all over the world to over 24 countries, visiting over 450 mostly high-profile Customers on-site (such as every NASA center, Edwards AFB, Fort Meade, several nuc power plants and plenty of coal-fired ones, a dozen other important military bases, N.I.H. in Bethesda, hundreds of major hospitals including Johns Hopkins and Mayo Clinic, and virtually every major University in the U.S. doing medical research and many doing physical science research as well)... Wasn't totally wasted time after all. That resume is not to brag: Just to show that if you make a claim about instrumentation, you had better have your ducks in a row next time... I used to feed my family on what i know about it. 

Sure the DMM is not accurate in reading transients it only proves SOMETHING OF INTEREST HAPPENED (...which i will remind peeps, was in denial for weeks in the above thread).

And i will say again (as i did several pages ago), the only accurate way of amplitude measurement in these cases is to capture them on a digital storage scope or data acquisition system with a proper high sample rate, and let either the on-board calc functions or PC-based analysis software do the averaging... These are pretty much infallible (i've done months of Beta Testing on these in the past and i know for fact they can be relied upon... They ARE the industry standard and multi-million dollar corporate decisions, or important medical Studies, are based on their results every day).

I would personally very much like to see us all move in this direction (digital storage and PC analysis): It will gain us credibility and professionalism that will utterly shut up critics, and allow our positive results to make it into the mainstream much faster. Of course the problem there is "cost"... They ain't cheap (even to rent). And the faster the max per-channel Sample Rate, the more expensive the devices get. You can get a "Dataq" 4 channel DAQ system, with analysis software thrown in for free, for about $300.. But what use is "280 samples per second" here?? NONE at all of course (well except for reading "Temp" which can be very slow). The per-channel Sample Rate should be at least 10 times the fastest F you want to record, for real accuracy. That would mean that we need to capture this with AT LEAST "2.4 Megasamples / sec" sample rate PER CHANNEL. 

As for Aaron's vid, he showed what he set out to do. And at the time, it was enough to totally refute the claims of "no oscillation"... Which are now sunk. 

If he couldn't get it to trigger at the higher time bases, it is because it is "astable" and not "STABLE", get it? It must be a REPEATABLE cycle at a measurable repeatable period for the scope's triggering circuit to work properly.

That is why a storage scope, PC-based scope, or PC-based Data Acquisition system with "sample & hold" (such as the Fluke 199) WILL show that signal in all it's glory via a "snap shot".  And that is important, as it really does need to be captured, measured, and analyzed... And of course it would be even better if an "FFT" could be done on it in PC-based analysis software so we could see the most common beat freq's verses amplitude (which could ultimately give us some important clues to making it more reproducible, and useful). THAT'S how it would be done in the "real world".   

But i believe that will come too eventually as the good folks out there reproduce this effect (...since they won't be listening to all the nay-saying anymore) ;)
« Last Edit: July 20, 2009, 07:19:07 PM by jibbguy »

0c

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 278
Ainslie OU Measurements?
« Reply #594 on: July 20, 2009, 08:39:48 PM »
I'm going to try one more time in this thread to see if I can make a difference. I'm not on either side, but I have a vested interest in freeing up one of the participants so he can focus on something else. If there is good response to this post, then maybe I'll try and move on to the next object of contention.

This is a 2-part question and there are potentially as many answers as there are builders. If there are a lot of proposals, we should attempt to reduce the list to a small number of accepable solutions that can best suit the diverse capabilities and resources of the experimentors involved.

1) What is the best means of measuring the total input and output energy to determine the ratio between them?

2) Will you provide a detailed step-by step test procedure document which also includes a list of all required equipment and materials required to complete the test, and sources for any equipment or materials most hobbiests are not likely to have in their garage?


Those of you having accounts on EnergeticForum, please ask them to participate in this exercise. Hopefully we can come to some sort of consensus on this part at least.

ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #595 on: July 20, 2009, 08:59:22 PM »
OC
you selfish Bastid !![only kidding I've been trying to do the same]
Freeing up TK !!

This needs closier
These guys should  MAKE SOME HEAT already!!
COP up the Kazzooo enough back slapping
Where not talking COP .oooooooo1


   COP 17    +1700% and rising   lotsa f**kin power  BURNS the fingers stuff
not 2 degrees over ambient [my farts are OU then]

Aaron boil water, count the time, no voodoo just BTU 1700% SMOKINNNN..

6 weeks 2 degrees
1700%???

No criticism just facts if Rosemaries circuit has legs let that dog run[circuit]
define the"" effect""and make it grow!!
Thats the reason TK is here
a published paper that claimed COP 17

So far 2 dgrees above ambient [ something stapled to Aarons desk?? not Rosemary's}

DEFINE THE EFFECT, PRODUCE THE EFFECT!!ENHANCE THE EFFECT!!

BOIL some water  1700 % you better have a fire extinguisher

Chet



TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #596 on: July 20, 2009, 08:59:24 PM »
I don't believe in going around quoting, i personally think it's kinda lame for the most part in these cases. But peeps saw above that you accused Aaron of not being able to read a scope: They can come to their own conclusions what you meant there.

I gotta say, once the one bogus explanation is exploded, moving on to the next one like nothing happened will garner diminishing returns (just as it was 3 days ago with the last red herring, the "ground loop" stuff based on "Single Ended to Ground" input circuit oddities which were totally MOOT in this case; nearly as much as the "triggering" claims).
 
Although now i think we have gone through all possible obfuscations regarding the instrumentation (although i could be wrong about that, hehehe ;) ).

I guess it's your bad luck you ran across someone who knows WTF they are talking about when it comes to test & measurement instrumentation. Those 18 years in the field, traveling all over the world to over 24 countries, visiting over 450 mostly high-profile Customers on-site (such as every NASA center, Edwards AFB, Fort Meade, several nuc power plants and plenty of coal-fired ones, a dozen other important military bases, N.I.H. in Bethesda, hundreds of major hospitals including Johns Hopkins and Mayo Clinic, and virtually every major University in the U.S. doing medical research and many doing physical science research as well)... Wasn't totally wasted time after all. That resume is not to brag: Just to show that if you make a claim about instrumentation, you had better have your ducks in a row next time... I used to feed my family on what i know about it. 

Sure the DMM is not accurate in reading transients it only proves SOMETHING OF INTEREST HAPPENED (...which i will remind peeps, was in denial for weeks in the above thread).

And i will say again (as i did several pages ago), the only accurate way of amplitude measurement in these cases is to capture them on a digital storage scope or data acquisition system with a proper high sample rate, and let either the on-board calc functions or PC-based analysis software do the averaging... These are pretty much infallible (i've done months of Beta Testing on these in the past and i know for fact they can be relied upon... They ARE the industry standard and multi-million dollar corporate decisions, or important medical Studies, are based on their results every day).

I would personally very much like to see us all move in this direction (digital storage and PC analysis): It will gain us credibility and professionalism that will utterly shut up critics, and allow our positive results to make it into the mainstream much faster. Of course the problem there is "cost"... They ain't cheap (even to rent). And the faster the max per-channel Sample Rate, the more expensive the devices get. You can get a "Dataq" 4 channel DAQ system, with analysis software thrown in for free, for about $300.. But what use is "280 samples per second" here?? NONE at all of course (well except for reading "Temp" which can be very slow). The per-channel Sample Rate should be at least 10 times the fastest F you want to record, for real accuracy. That would mean that we need to capture this with AT LEAST "2.4 Megasamples / sec" sample rate PER CHANNEL. 

As for Aaron's vid, he showed what he set out to do. And at the time, it was enough to totally refute the claims of "no oscillation"... Which are now sunk. 

If he couldn't get it to trigger at the higher time bases, it is because it is "astable" and not "STABLE", get it? It must be a REPEATABLE cycle at a measurable repeatable period for the scope's triggering circuit to work properly.

That is why a storage scope, PC-based scope, or PC-based Data Acquisition system with "sample & hold" (such as the Fluke 199) WILL show that signal in all it's glory via a "snap shot".  And that is important, as it really does need to be captured, measured, and analyzed... And of course it would be even better if an "FFT" could be done on it in PC-based analysis software so we could see the most common beat freq's verses amplitude (which could ultimately give us some important clues to making it more reproducible, and useful). THAT'S how it would be done in the "real world".   

But i believe that will come too eventually as the good folks out there reproduce this effect (...since they won't be listening to all the nay-saying anymore) ;)

Jib, your remarks are better addressed to Rosemary than to me. In the VERY FIRST videos in the series, I demonstrated the DMM crazy effect and pointed it out as evidence that spikes were making it back to the battery. And I have shown cap charging thru a diode many times before with inductors pulsed by mosfets.
So you once again are burning a straw man.

The purpose of my investigation has been to check the specific claims of a specific circuit. Aaron's circuit is NOT the circuit I am examining; it is NOT the circuit used in the Ainslie papers, and it oscillates the way it does because of poor construction, and you know that perfectly well. Nobody who has built the ACTUAL circuit using proper construction has seen that oscillation--or at least has not reported it.

The Fluke 199 cannot do on-board integration.
The Fluke 199 cannot resolve very short or very long duty cycles.

The LeCroy that I have sitting here, can, however. Is the 9370M an acceptable instrument, Jib? I know it's old, and only has 1 GHz bandwidth with a sample rate of 500Ms/sec...oh, well, it's the best I can do, right off the shelf.
And as soon as I am able to reproduce AINSLIE's oscillatons, not Aaron's, you can bet your bippy that I will be analyzing them.

Ainslie has yet to provide any real information regarding the oscillations in HER circuit, which Aaron's is not.

There are several ways to test properly this circuit, 0c. Unfortunately,  all these ways are rejected by Rosemary. Only ways that show the circuit to be OU will be allowed.

Perhaps the easiest and fastest way, without the DAQ bs that Jibguy favors (but will not conduct himself) would be to rent a Clarke-Hess 2335, and measure the input and output power directly with no BS in between.

http://www.clarke-hess.com/2335.html

Earthtech International has one of these and I'm sure that I could arrange for them to test Rosemary's actual circuit, if I asked them nicely. I would even go so far as to pay for the test myself--with Rosemary's actual COP>17 circuit, of course.

And if we only had Rosemary's actual circuit to test.

Perhaps Jibbguy will tell us why the Clarke-Hess won't work, after he's read up on the instrument.



TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #597 on: July 20, 2009, 09:02:38 PM »
Oh, and #2: For the folks that do not have access to the Clarke-Hess (like me right now) should read and use MileHigh's test protocol that he outlined on energetic forum.

But first, of course, you need to know just what circuit to use. Rosemary's (Which one)? Aaron's? Joit's? 

If you've got anything over unity, that test method will show it easily. And if you have COP>17...well, then, I suppose I'll be buying the beer _and_ the pizza.

ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #598 on: July 20, 2009, 09:28:24 PM »
TK
A request from the Boss

Ramset - I wonder if I could impose on you to desist from giving us links to TK's videos until he is in a position of show us the actual wattage measurements using the instruments to hand.

All videos - to date - have been somewhat misleading and utterly confusing.

Thank you
Rosemary

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #599 on: July 20, 2009, 09:48:28 PM »
TK
A request from the Boss

Ramset - I wonder if I could impose on you to desist from giving us links to TK's videos until he is in a position of show us the actual wattage measurements using the instruments to hand.

All videos - to date - have been somewhat misleading and utterly confusing.

Thank you
Rosemary

Heh. I saw that.

In other words:

Please don't distract me with facts. My mind is made up, and besides, I can't understand them anyway.

Misleading?
How about the Quantum paper's circuit diagram? How about the patent, which isn't a patent at all? How about the duty cycle, which is now utterly confirmed to be wrong? How about the waveform descriptions...verbal, with no scope shots? How about the Labs and Academics--who we only know about second-and third-hand. Where are these reports? Why can't we see them?

TK misleading?

Sorry, wrong again. The misleading information is coming from Rosemary.

Everything I post is understandable, verifiable, repeatable, and documented.