Author Topic: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie (Read 652107 times)

WilbyInebriated · « **Reply #2670 on:** November 16, 2009, 08:37:11 PM »

Quote from: utilitarian on November 16, 2009, 08:18:57 PM

Those people do not care about trying to falsify their claims, which every good scientist should try to do prior to asserting something as world-shaking as "hey there is extra energy here coming from NOTHING!!!!".

i don't think anyone on the 'ainslie team' has said anything of the sort. are you making stuff up again or can you back this up with some evidence?

Quote from: utilitarian on November 16, 2009, 08:18:57 PM

You will never demonstrate anything to their satisfaction, as they can always point to something or other and claim your tests are deficient.

to be fair, this applies to both sides.

Quote from: utilitarian on November 16, 2009, 08:18:57 PM

I agree, just walk away. The burden is on the inventor to demonstrate overunity, so let her and her team do that.

that is precisely what they have been trying to do, inspite of all the 'objections' from the peanut gallery and yourself. why don't you shut up and let them? i know it's so hard for you all when it's a slow week in the ltseung thread, the latest magnet motor or TPU thread... put your money where your mouth is and do what you suggested.

utilitarian · « **Reply #2671 on:** November 16, 2009, 09:35:27 PM »

Quote from: WilbyInebriated on November 16, 2009, 08:37:11 PM

i don't think anyone on the 'ainslie team' has said anything of the sort. are you making stuff up again or can you back this up with some evidence?
to be fair, this applies to both sides.
that is precisely what they have been trying to do, inspite of all the 'objections' from the peanut gallery and yourself. why don't you shut up and let them? i know it's so hard for you all when it's a slow week in the ltseung thread, the latest magnet motor or TPU thread... put your money where your mouth is and do what you suggested.

In response to your first point, there is a claim of "a breach of unity," i.e. overunity, which means energy from nothing and is in contradiction with the known laws of physics.

With regard to your last point, I have barely said anything in this thread, so I do not see how my few words have stood in the way of anyone proving anything. And if they have been trying so hard, where is the peer review? If you know of any that is reputable, please share.

And lastly, I am curious, do you actually hold an opinion here? Do you believe the Ainslie circuit breaches unity as claimed?

WilbyInebriated · « **Reply #2672 on:** November 16, 2009, 09:40:02 PM »

Quote from: utilitarian on November 16, 2009, 09:35:27 PM

In response to your first point, there is a claim of "a breach of unity," i.e. overunity, which means energy from nothing and is in contradiction with the known laws of physics.

With regard to your last point, I have barely said anything in this thread, so I do not see how my few words have stood in the way of anyone proving anything. And if they have been trying so hard, where is the peer review? If you know of any that is reputable, please share.

And lastly, I am curious, do you actually hold an opinion here? Do you believe the Ainslie circuit breaches unity as claimed?

that is simply your definition, one cherrypicked to suit your argument. there are other definitions...
so you have no evidence, nothing but hyperbole... imagine that. furthermore, if i recall the claim from ainslie is one of COP not OU... but i am willing to be corrected, with evidence and not your opinion...

my opinion, just like yours, is irrelevant.

Hoppy · « **Reply #2673 on:** November 16, 2009, 09:52:40 PM »

Quote from: poynt99 on November 16, 2009, 08:24:33 PM

Indeed, it's time to heed the advice from all my close associates here and go for that walk. I've done about all I can do here (and more) to bring the crucial aspects to this whole exercise to light.

Perhaps I'll see you all again some time down the road.

.99

Well done Poynt. Join the enlightened and just sit back and watch Fuzzy and Harvey role out documented proof of OU for Rosemary. No need to do any more.

Hoppy

utilitarian · « **Reply #2674 on:** November 16, 2009, 10:23:00 PM »

Quote from: WilbyInebriated on November 16, 2009, 09:40:02 PM

that is simply your definition, one cherrypicked to suit your argument. there are other definitions...
so you have no evidence, nothing but hyperbole... imagine that. furthermore, if i recall the claim from ainslie is one of COP not OU... but i am willing to be corrected, with evidence and not your opinion...

my opinion, just like yours, is irrelevant.

I am getting the breach of unity claim directly from Rosemary's energetic forum postings. Breach of unity is technically a different claim from COP. Whether a COP claim has been made or not, I am not sure. I am referring to the overunity claim, which is an efficiency claim. If you have a different definition of overunity, let's have it. I am going by the most commonly accepted definition here, meaning (total useful energy output) / (total energy input from all sources). Do you disagree with this definition, or do you disagree that a claim as to overunity, as I have defined it, has been made? I am sure Ms. Ainslie herself can clear this up, in any case.

And I do not see how you can say that your opinion regarding the very central question of this thread is irrelevant. You just do not want to admit that you don't believe in the overunity of the circuit either. Or maybe you do believe it, but cannot articulate why. Either way, the opinion is relevant, assuming it rests on facts presented.

WilbyInebriated · « **Reply #2675 on:** November 16, 2009, 10:28:54 PM »

Quote from: utilitarian on November 16, 2009, 10:23:00 PM

I am getting the breach of unity claim directly from Rosemary's energetic forum postings. Breach of unity is technically a different claim from COP. Whether a COP claim has been made or not, I am not sure. I am referring to the overunity claim, which is an efficiency claim. If you have a different definition of overunity, let's have it. I am going by the most commonly accepted definition here, meaning (total useful energy output) / (total energy input from all sources). Do you disagree with this definition, or do you disagree that a claim as to overunity, as I have defined it, has been made? I am sure Ms. Ainslie herself can clear this up, in any case.

And I do not see how you can say that your opinion regarding the very central question of this thread is irrelevant. You just do not want to admit that you don't believe in the overunity of the circuit either. Or maybe you do believe it, but cannot articulate why. Either way, the opinion is relevant, assuming it rests on facts presented.

i disagree with your definition.

opinions are simply that, opinions. they are NOT relevant. the 'very central question of this thread' cannot be answered with opinions. well, maybe in your fantasy world they can...

utilitarian · « **Reply #2676 on:** November 16, 2009, 10:51:13 PM »

Quote from: WilbyInebriated on November 16, 2009, 10:28:54 PM

i disagree with your definition.

What is your definition of overunity, then?

utilitarian · « **Reply #2677 on:** November 16, 2009, 10:53:44 PM »

Quote from: WilbyInebriated on November 16, 2009, 10:28:54 PM

opinions are simply that, opinions. they are NOT relevant. the 'very central question of this thread' cannot be answered with opinions. well, maybe in your fantasy world they can...

And yes they can. An opinion is a synthesis of the given data. So based on the data presented so far, do you think the circuit is overunity or not? Surely the synthesis of the evidence presented is relevant to state in this thread? No?

Harvey · « **Reply #2678 on:** November 17, 2009, 01:36:28 AM »

Quote from: utilitarian on November 16, 2009, 08:18:57 PM

Those people do not care about trying to falsify their claims, which every good scientist should try to do prior to asserting something as world-shaking as "hey there is extra energy here coming from NOTHING!!!!".

You will never demonstrate anything to their satisfaction, as they can always point to something or other and claim your tests are deficient. If their device is green, and your replication is off-green, they are going to claim the colors are all wrong and you should do an EXACT replication before you should be so bold as to say anything negative.

I agree, just walk away. The burden is on the inventor to demonstrate overunity, so let her and her team do that.

It would appear you are missing some information:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg207590;topicseen#msg207590

Excerpt:

Quote

Therefore, this specific replication is intended to show the source current (and therefore the source power) provided to the circuit in comparison to the work done by the circuit. We are open for suggestions and encourage other replicators to provide a falsification test to this end. This may be a good thing for Poynt to focus on as he already has much of the materials at hand.

Harvey · « **Reply #2679 on:** November 17, 2009, 01:51:12 AM »

Quote from: utilitarian on November 16, 2009, 10:23:00 PM

I am getting the breach of unity claim directly from Rosemary's energetic forum postings. Breach of unity is technically a different claim from COP. Whether a COP claim has been made or not, I am not sure. I am referring to the overunity claim, which is an efficiency claim. If you have a different definition of overunity, let's have it. I am going by the most commonly accepted definition here, meaning (total useful energy output) / (total energy input from all sources). Do you disagree with this definition, or do you disagree that a claim as to overunity, as I have defined it, has been made? I am sure Ms. Ainslie herself can clear this up, in any case.

And I do not see how you can say that your opinion regarding the very central question of this thread is irrelevant. You just do not want to admit that you don't believe in the overunity of the circuit either. Or maybe you do believe it, but cannot articulate why. Either way, the opinion is relevant, assuming it rests on facts presented.

You may wish to review:

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-63.html#post64112

and

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg205166;topicseen#msg205166

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #2680 on:** November 17, 2009, 01:58:25 AM »

Hi guys. It seems that no-one is really following the tests done by Fuzzy. I'm going to give a brief reference to each test and its objects - from memory - so I may be out on the actual sequence. Test 1 & 2 attempted replication of heat test published in quantum. Both failed. #3 resulted in OU. #4 again failed (evident lack of harmonic else all was the same). #5 full overunity (no evident power lost from the battery other than microwatt loss from the battery possibly due to overcharged condiition) Harmonic evident. #6 intended as control. Tested alternate load resistor and could not manage the required harmonic. Failed. #7 intended to test higher temperatures - showed results that were extraordinary but was terminated due to possible damage to measuring equipment. #8 designed to remove clips - shorten leads - tidy up the circuit and then also test Harvey's bootstrapping. Results even better and both grounding and bootstrapping concerns eliminated. #9 changed the source shunt resistor with a non-inductive resistor. No difference to the waveform - but COP > 3 which was less than previous 'pass' tests. #10 designed to check the voltage deviation across the source shunt. Intensive 'dumps' every 6 minutes over 1 hour. Determined this was within the required range to allow application of the formulae developed by Harvey. Also results back to OU. Harmonic strongly evident.

This essentially means that the thesis is shown to be proven on replicated tests. Also, measurments are not the result of an inductive shunt - grounding issues - bad wiring - faulty equipment - bad probes - wrong measurement or anything that Poynty has been trying to show us. Anomalies in the waveforms persist - and COP seems to be substantially displaced with outright OU. We're busy writing that paper - and still want to test two different resistors to determine what conditions require that harmonic which is a signature that seems to be associated with these extraordinary results. The hope is to submit the paper at the end of November. We seem to be on track for this. The news is all good. It is just that until submission and review - our own excitement is relatively subdued. That acceptance is critical and we need to submit something at the required standard. But the thesis is proven. Questions persist to explain the anomalous heat signatures and waveforms - but that there are questions remaining is actually a really good thing.

And the effect - which I always assumed would be 'easy to show' proves to be a really subtle moment found when the circuit components generate a self-oscillating frequency. This, as Jibbguy has referenced - has traditionally been factored out of circuitry as undesirable.

edit. Changed microvolt to microwatt

Grumpy · « **Reply #2681 on:** November 17, 2009, 03:59:17 AM »

You're submitting a paper for the ominous "peer review", without transient analysis, and without spectrum analysis...hmm...wihtout even a 'controlled' verification.

Hold it just a minute! Let me get some popcorn! I have got to see this!

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #2682 on:** November 17, 2009, 04:10:20 AM »

Quote from: Grumpy on November 17, 2009, 03:59:17 AM

You're submitting a paper for the ominous "peer review", without transient analysis, and without spectrum analysis...hmm...wihtout even a 'controlled' verification.

Hold it just a minute! Let me get some popcorn! I have got to see this!

Golly Grumpy. So many assumptions. Love to know what you base them on.

Grumpy · « **Reply #2683 on:** November 17, 2009, 05:09:53 AM »

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #2684 on:** November 17, 2009, 05:40:08 AM »

WELL. This is interesting. Wilby - I trust you're reading here. Grumpy - Poynty - MileHigh - TK - ALL GONE? Golly.

That leaves Hoppy and utilitarian. Hoppy doesn't say much and uilitarian is a late comer to the thread. What intrigues me is that they're all so DISAPPOINTED. What in heaven's name were they doing on this forum? I always thought contributors here wanted to crack the over unity barrier. So, so strange. Hopefully this thread can now fall off the front page and we can rescue it when we finally submit that paper.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie (Read 652107 times)

WilbyInebriated

Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

utilitarian

Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

WilbyInebriated

Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

Hoppy

Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

utilitarian

Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

WilbyInebriated

Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

utilitarian

Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

utilitarian

Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

Harvey

Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

Harvey

Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

Grumpy

Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

Grumpy

Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie