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 643710 times)

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2685 on: November 17, 2009, 06:58:00 AM »
WELL.  This is interesting.  Wilby - I trust you're reading here.  Grumpy - Poynty - MileHigh - TK - ALL GONE?  Golly.

Congrats Rose, fine job.

.99

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2686 on: November 17, 2009, 07:05:20 AM »
thanks Poynty -  ;D :-*

jibbguy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 352
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2687 on: November 17, 2009, 05:26:25 PM »
The paper can't succeed because it doesn't have a "controlled verification" done by professionals? It should GET one by publishing the Paper, that is the egg being laid by the chicken. If wider interest is the goal, then this will likely help get it.

And let's be honest here: The science and analysis being done on this circuit by the Open Source community at the two forums surpasses anything i've seen here in the TPU threads to date (or anywhere else in the F-E genre); that's not a cut on the great replicators working on that problem, just an observation, and perhaps should be a directional signpost for future endeavors for many subjects studied here. So let's be sure we are not getting caught up in the "NIH syndrome" ; many of the professional engineers i have known have a Patent on it anyway and get jealous even of  their rights to dis other people's stuff on general principals alone ;)

The goals are being met, the work going forward, and a Paper is a logical step to gain academic interest which is what is required to enter the mainstream. Some people here don't "like" the results that have been VERY SKILLFULLY recorded and documented in a professional manner so far, using test and measurement equipment and procedures that are accepted around the world (...and are used to make Billion-Dollar business decisions, or base Peer-reviewed Papers on every day)... Too bad: The "fools" are the ones who scoff at the results and refuse to consider all the implications of what is being germinated here.

Is not about "you" (any of us), or what we've put ourselves forward to support or not support. and it is not even about whether the circuit proves "useful" or not in the end: It is about furthering scientific knowledge and understanding, it's about moving the community closer to gaining credibility and acceptance; it is about becoming what our enemies fear most: A genuine & plausible alternative scientific community that is not controllable by purse string Grant Requests, corporate pressure, or the jealousy of government secrecy based on corrupt economic, and not "national security" concerns. 

PaulLowrance

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
    • Global Free Energy
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2688 on: November 19, 2009, 03:18:46 PM »
I just took a quick look at the recent scope shots from FuzzyTomCat. I sure hope you guys still aren't counting those high frequency oscillations as part of the power equations. No offense to anyone, but that's not the professional method. If experimenters here want to continue ignoring the thermal testing method, then my advice is to at least take some fundamental line transmission theory courses.

Last time I was in this thread, the only valid experiments done on the Ainslie circuit was by poynt99, but incomplete. Although, the work he did complete sure looked like the Ainslie device was not over COP 1.

Regards,
Paul

fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2689 on: November 19, 2009, 07:26:03 PM »
I just took a quick look at the recent scope shots from FuzzyTomCat. I sure hope you guys still aren't counting those high frequency oscillations as part of the power equations. No offense to anyone, but that's not the professional method. If experimenters here want to continue ignoring the thermal testing method, then my advice is to at least take some fundamental line transmission theory courses.

Last time I was in this thread, the only valid experiments done on the Ainslie circuit was by poynt99, but incomplete. Although, the work he did complete sure looked like the Ainslie device was not over COP 1.

Regards,
Paul

@ Paul

I'll ask again the method of testing you are proposing is it a approved testing method that has been used by some university, government or accredited testing agency on a method of measuring where there is reference material, a document, PDF or text showing the procedure in detail that was used and which has been published.

If so please produce these documents now for consideration of these testing methods, if the testing method is one of your own creation please indicate in complete details why it should be considered on this circuit ...... if you cannot or are unwilling to produce what has been requested now several times ..... postings of the same comments over and over will be considered "SPAM" and dealt with accordingly ......

Fuzzy

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2690 on: November 19, 2009, 10:36:41 PM »
Guys - I wont be posting here again.  Not until our paper is submitted.  It's taking way too much time.  And I really am not interested in anyone's opinion on required measurements unless it's backed by some evidence of talent or credentialed expertise.  We've already wasted way too much time on answering concerns - most of it nonsense and a lot of it simply counter productive.  We have our own expert advises and will simply stick to that. 

I only really enjoyed this thread for its amusement value and that has now entirely disappeared with the more intelligent contributors.  All we have left are poseurs pretending to an authority that is patently lacking in the quality of their observations.  And a handful of detractors that prefer to knock our hard efforts than encourage it.  So strange.  Don't know where the malice comes from.  Is it the NIH syndrome?  Or is it just that natural spite that comes from mediocrities?     

So it's my turn to say goodbye for now.   ;D

0c

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 278
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2691 on: November 20, 2009, 12:00:13 AM »
@TK, MH, .99, Grumpy, Hoppy, et al.

Not all of us agree with Rosie's last statements. Your well considered comments and suggestions have been appreciated by many. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and expertise.

Best of luck to you all, and to you too Rosemary.

0c

powercat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091

Gobaga

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2693 on: November 20, 2009, 01:58:16 AM »
Earth Tech may test your device for free.  They have tested a few others.  Apparently the Farnsworth Fusor actually works (under "experiments").

http://www.earthtech.org/about/index.html

WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2694 on: November 20, 2009, 02:24:40 AM »
Looks like we are moving to a new thread
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8322.msg209576#new

LOL, i just checked out the new 'digs'. at first i thought grumpy's link was the "unhindered detailed analysis and exposé", then i thought milehigh's post was... when i read his second post i thought, 'maybe this post will have some substance'... that's when it hit me, it's just more of the same game. yup, that's some real 'science' going on over there. ;)

fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2695 on: November 29, 2009, 09:27:50 PM »
Hi everyone,

The testing and evaluation of the Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 circuit continues .... and we are getting results now that hasn't been seen before .... as always fully documented and released for comments and review for the FE community .....


TEST #12
http://www.energeticforum.com/75770-post3172.html
TEST #12 Complete Original Image & Data .Zip File Set w/ Key (link)

TEST #13  (BEST RESULTS)
http://www.energeticforum.com/75803-post3177.html
TEST #13 Complete Original Image & Data .Zip File Set w/ Key (link)


Also the "open source" IEEE paper is being worked on as I speak and appears to be released on time as scheduled for everyone to see prior to submission.

Fuzzy
 ;D

MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2696 on: November 30, 2009, 03:18:58 AM »
Glen:

Do you or the Ainsley team have any new measurements of electrical power into the circuit compared to thermal power output in the load resistor?

MileHigh

fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2697 on: November 30, 2009, 04:01:55 AM »
Glen:

Do you or the Ainsley team have any new measurements of electrical power into the circuit compared to thermal power output in the load resistor?

MileHigh

Hi MH,

Yep .... Harvey is working on this from the Data and Image files from best TEST #13 ...... this will be in the "open source" document posted on the Forum's in the next day for review that everyone ( Rosie, Harvey, Ashtweth , Andrew, Steve and myself ) is working on right now prior to our submission to the IEEE.

There has also been some testing done adding another Caddock #MP930 - 0.25 Ohm "non inductive" 1% shunt to see what if any additional effects the 12Volt battery for the 555 timer board has on the circuit through the Mosfet gate from the 100 Ohm potentiometer it's all documented as a net negative not a net zero and will be included to.

Thanks for your help .... your name and others ( real or screen names ) have been added in the paper "Acknowledgments" for any and all contributions made.
 
Fuzzy
 ;D

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2698 on: November 30, 2009, 05:10:55 AM »
Fuzzy, thanks for reminding me.

MH if you or anyone want your names down as 'disputers' please send me iniials and surname.  If you strongly object to any mention then let me know.  I've got TK and Poynty Point down in this category. 

You can pm me or skype me. 

LOL   ;D

BTW I've put Wilby down in the other camp.  Same applies here Wilby. If you don't want mention let me know.  Or if you want the full name - then also - let me know.  Are you on Skype?

Rosie

MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2699 on: November 30, 2009, 05:50:57 AM »
Rosemary:

I will pass on any mention but I look forward to seeing the paper.

MileHigh