Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

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

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie  (Read 585337 times)

Offline guruji

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 470
    • http://andyborg.tripod.com
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2775 on: January 15, 2010, 01:44:49 PM »
Ken this is not for water heating this is a heater filament. I told Fuzzy to try to experiment on water filaments. Maybe you got me wrong. ;D
Ok I have build this circuit and still testing.
Thanks to all inventors.

Offline Ken the Great

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 85
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2776 on: January 15, 2010, 02:17:40 PM »
guru,

It is quite evident that these people aren't all they claim to be. Willy posted to a thread I started and wanted me to prove it. I told him flat out he would never see the work.

Its funny how now I want one of his friends to prove their claim, Willy says no need to do that. HAHAHAHAHA

Hell these people can't even tell the difference between useful work and random heat generated.  I see nothing special about this at all, in its current state.

I keep saying I hope it works. But then I see the emotional instability appear in their posts. I do not need to see anything else. If it truly worked, why get emotional? Why would you attack someone who said I hope it works? Why would one repeat his ignorance about the difference between useful work verses random heat?

I have read through the paper on the link he provided, and am not impressed. I could explain what they fail to realize at this point, but I will let them try to upscale this and fail on their own.

I also had a suggestion for the FET oscillation.  You could look at it like this, if you had a flashlight and shined it in a mirror in a very dark room, the room appears brighter than it would if you shined in on a black wall. Even though you have no more light than you started with.

But hey who would want to increase or lengthen the oscillation? MUAHAHAHA. That would be to damn logical. It is quite obvious that this group is an emotionally based group. Logic doesn't apply. Nor can they even accept anyone who says they doubt. They sureley would reject any suggestions, so I will refrain.

Like I said before.

" Don't be mad if others do not feel obligated to believe what you believe, simply prove it, or go back to church alone."

In other words your "FAITH" is non-transferable.

Make it closed loop. If it is truly OU it will continue to function. I think they have tried and it has failed already. This is the reason for the emotional outbursts.

Have Fun    8)




Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2777 on: January 15, 2010, 02:32:58 PM »
It is quite evident that these people aren't all they claim to be. Willy posted to a thread I started and wanted me to prove it. I told him flat out he would never see the work.
actually, i told you flat out it wouldn't work. therefore, it stands to reason i would never see 'the work'... but now we can all understand why you are posting here, it's an emotional outburst.

Its funny how now I want one of his friends to prove their claim, Willy says no need to do that. HAHAHAHAHA
exactly where did i say 'no need to do that'? i didn't. i didn't say anything even remotely close to what you are trying to represent that i have said, even with a gratuitous helping of that hyperbole you seem to be so gifted in using.

you sir, are a liar.


edit: ken, or do you prefer to be addressed as 'super genius'? you should take your gravity wheel idea over to http://www.overunityresearch.com/  there are some really smart guys over there that just love to chat and chat and chat and chat and could probably help you out...
« Last Edit: January 15, 2010, 02:54:53 PM by WilbyInebriated »

Offline Ken the Great

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 85
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2778 on: January 15, 2010, 02:48:42 PM »
Make it closed loop. It will fail.

Nuff said

Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2779 on: January 15, 2010, 02:52:45 PM »
Make it closed loop. It will fail.

Nuff said
so that's a no then, you can't show where i said 'no need to do that'... i'll accept that as a tacit addmission of you lying.

good luck with your gravity wheel... about 300 some odd years worth. keep us posted.

Offline Ken the Great

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 85
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2780 on: January 15, 2010, 03:01:42 PM »
Sorry willy yer in the box, your posts mean nothing. 8)

Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2781 on: January 15, 2010, 03:05:23 PM »
Sorry willy yer in the box, your posts mean nothing. 8)

so that's a no then, you can't show where i said 'no need to do that'...

what's with the emotional responses and making claims you won't/can't backup? all i am asking for is for you to show where i said 'no need to do that'. it's a simple thing, even for a 'super genius' like you, you just find the post where i said 'no need to do that' and then clicky on the quote button like a big boy...


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2782 on: January 15, 2010, 03:14:11 PM »
... you should take your gravity wheel idea over to http://www.overunityresearch.com/  there are some really smart guys over there that just love to chat and chat and chat and chat and could probably help you out...

I had to withdraw there Wilby.  I had no-one to fight my corner with me.  Very lonely. And the arguments were more repitious than I could handle.  I also rather suspect that Poynty Poynt will never allow you on board. Can't think why?  LOL.

Offline Vortex1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 518
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2783 on: January 15, 2010, 03:45:01 PM »
Hello Rosemary

your quote


Quote
Hello Vortex1

That test you describe.?  Its done and fully accounted in that paper where we offered the link.  We don't however use that styrofoam box.  But nor do we need to as the degree of heat dissipated at the resistive load is high enough to prove the point.

It intrigues me that this information is freely available and yet none of you have actually studied it.  In any event, I must hand it to you that you explained the required parameters very clearly.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems

Here it is again, for good measure.

I respectfully must disagree with your statement that the test I offered was performed . I read your paper many times and find no such simplified test procedure.

I find a lot of links to the Energetic Forum, endless and mostly meaningless scope shots with aliasing and other artifacts, pictures of test setups that speak volumes about the lack of experience of it's planners regarding transient effects, lots of backslapping and kudos (totally inappropriate for a supposedly scientific paper) but nowhere is there hard scientific data presented.

A good scientific paper is self contained, clearly written, and will have all the data contained in it, all charts, graphs etc., not by using links to free energy forums.

When someone tells you the object you are measuring is 17 feet long (COP>17) you do not need a specially constructed large micrometer to tell that it is less than one foot long(COP<1).....even an inaccurate  cloth tape measure will reveal the truth.

Kind regards.....V



Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2784 on: January 15, 2010, 04:10:18 PM »
Hello Rosemary


I respectfully must disagree with your statement that the test I offered was performed . I read your paper many times and find no such simplified test procedure.
It's all there Vortex.  Maybe not described with the simplicity that you may require.  The register of the writing is not designed to suit you and frankly we need to keep it that way.  But I assure you it's there. 

I find a lot of links to the Energetic Forum, endless and mostly meaningless scope shots with aliasing and other artifacts, pictures of test setups that speak volumes about the lack of experience of it's planners regarding transient effects, lots of backslapping and kudos (totally inappropriate for a supposedly scientific paper) but nowhere is there hard scientific data presented.
If you find the scope shots meaningles, and photos inadequate then that speaks to your inability to see their significance and not to their presentations.  It's all a matter of opinion - as you rightly pointed out.  But we're rather anxious to cater to academic opinion in this matter.  And they will definitely see the significance.   

A good scientific paper is self contained and will have all the data contained in it, all charts, graphs etc., not by using links to free energy forums.
These are exceptional claims and require exceptional proof.  The inclusion of the links is intended to address this.  If they require that we append these at the end of the paper we will oblige.  But, with respect, I'd prefer to get this advice from our reviewers.

When someone tells you the object you are measuring is 17 feet long (COP>17) you do not need a specially constructed large micrometer to tell that it is less than one foot long(COP<1).....even an inaccurate  cloth tape measure will reveal the truth.
This mishmash of example and nonsense rather puts paid to my earlier respect for an evident clarity of thought. 

Vortex we none of us have entered into a collaboration of this nature before and there are no blue prints on how to submit a paper that has no citable presentations for comparison.  I'm satisfied that if there are proposed changes to the presentation then we will be advised accordingly by the reviewers. 

Offline Hoppy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4324
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2785 on: January 15, 2010, 05:30:57 PM »
@ Vortex & Ken the Great

This thread died out along thime back with the very same arguments that you are now both raising and Willy came on before at various times for a bit of sport and stayed on until he had had his fill. Its all a waste of time on the keyboard trying to convince the 'A' team that the device is not OU, or anywhere close.

Having said this, I respect Rosemary's drive to have her teams work examined by professionals and wish her the best of luck in this endeavour, as she has put a lot of faith in her teams ability to interpret the data collected from the various tests.

Hoppy

Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2786 on: January 15, 2010, 05:39:43 PM »
@ Vortex & Ken the Great

This thread died out along thime back with the very same arguments that you are now both raising and Willy came on before at various times for a bit of sport and stayed on until he had had his fill. Its all a waste of time on the keyboard trying to convince the 'A' team that the device is not OU, or anywhere close.

Having said this, I respect Rosemary's drive to have her teams work examined by professionals and wish her the best of luck in this endeavour, as she has put a lot of faith in her teams ability to interpret the data collected from the various tests.

Hoppy
come on now hoppy at least try and disguise your bias a little... for those with bad memories (or a bias...) a reminder from page one of this very thread. you know, the beginning, the part you johnny come lately's never read... and you should know from experience that trolls never get their 'fill'.

any plan on doing it right? meaning getting proper components for the ones that you have that are not spec.
do you plan to use a calorimeter if/when you make the circuit to spec?

i am assuming you have a diode on the genny output? could you confirm?

a test the late great tinselkoala/alsetalokin/kate allison never did... do you remember why not hoppy? i do.


edit: hi rose!
« Last Edit: January 15, 2010, 10:12:41 PM by WilbyInebriated »

Offline jibbguy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 352
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2787 on: January 15, 2010, 08:49:53 PM »
Complaint: "It can't be Looped".

> The circuit in present configuration cannot run a motor, to then run an alternator / generator. It was never designed to. What it WAS designed to do, is show anomalous heat and battery re-charge energy output that challenges "classical" convention. It does this, and the collected data backs this claim. If the "entertainment value" is then considered "low", understand it was never a major criteria ;)

> The energy losses to run a steam or Sterling engine to in turn run a generator would be horrific, require a huge amount of engineering and building (that some detractors would have little idea of how to actually do themselves if pressed), and in the end prove... what? That there is a lot of heat?

Then the question would still be:

"How much electricity was required to generate the heat?"

So we would be right back to the beginning. Legitimate questions on the validity of this circuit would logically be directly related to the electrical energy needed to generate the heat, and the efficiency therein. And this is exactly the point of the present experiments: How much electricity for heat. What the experimenters are doing here is presenting carefully collected data, using proper means and protocols widely accepted by commercial electronics and academia.

... Which has then in turn has been interpreted to be worthy of note and much greater study.

Please note that if the heat energy seen here could be DIRECTLY and easily translated in large amounts into some other measurable form without significant losses in efficiency; that in itself would be worthy of MANY more Scientific Papers, and would probably turn out to be of much greater importance than this discovery ;)

The folks here who seriously study these topics already understand this.

Simply quoting from a "skeptics handbook" without bothering to gain an understanding of the technology in question first, is hardly worthy of serious consideration. Yet the "Looping" issue should perhaps be addressed anyway for those who "expect" such things from what they have read about other technologies.

People are free to reject what is proposed here all they like, however the burden of proof to publicly deny it is on them to show actual Cause; simply parroting something they once heard which has no plausible bearing on the presently considered technology, and insisting on willfull ignorance regarding the published data, is not "Cause" in anyone's "Book". Nor is simply denying it, because "they don't like it".

It is important to note, that none of us here "owe" such people anything at all. No one is being paid here, nothing is being offered for sale.

On the other hand, serious potential Replicators, and those trying to honestly understand what is actually going on with this circuit deserve our attention and help, and when the questions are phrased reasonably politely, will receive replies and answers as best we can... We do not pretend to understand everything going on here either; this is why it needs much more study by our scientific mainstream who have the funds and abilities to see it realized. What we DO understand is that the data clearly shows anomalous energy efficiencies that requires serious attention.

... So eventually it can possibly "loop": Perhaps someday as a Boiler, an all-new design of "Heat Engine", an highly efficient RF Generator for Dr. John Kanzius effect disassociation of salt water at "13.56 Mhz", a pulse driver for "capacitive"-type Hydroxy Generators, or even as a pulse magnet motor drive circuit. There are many possibilities for future applications besides "heating"; which all need to be thought out, designed, tried, tested, and studied. During these studies, it is quite possible OTHER important discoveries will be made... That is how Science often works; this "serendipitous effect" for unexpected discovery has been seen over and over... and such discoveries often eclipse anything that preceded them. 

And frankly, the Physicists can climb into a "Cage Ring" and have a "Tag-Team Battle-Royal To The Death" over the "Theory" behind it all later.. We are interested in verifying the empirical data here. Lol, now THAT would be "entertaining" to see ;)

It is not our "fault" that we do not have the means to do all these studies, invent cool  devices, and simply hand them out. This is not how the world works. We cannot create a "Time Traveling DeLorean" from stuff lying around the garage, for around $120 in cost, and take you on an adventure to the future. That is the "Movies", not real life. What the Ainslie Circuit team CAN do, and HAVE done, and will CONTINUE to do, is provide solid data for others to consider and take further. Yet there are some who have argued hard here that we should have just "stayed home" and done nothing at all about it then. Taking risks is what real scientific discovery is all about: And those who "stay home", never succeed. 

We don't know if these other applications mentioned above are possible using the basic concepts behind the Ainslie Circuit yet... But isn't that the point of these forums? And isn't it important enough, even if the possibilities for these applications are still in question, to see this effect studied properly?... Even if it turns out in the end, that it can "only" save money on our heating bills.

Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2788 on: January 15, 2010, 10:07:33 PM »
Speaking of putting things in boxes, here's one test the Ainslie group or Sean will never do. They prefer to hide behind obfuscation.

Total power measurement and proof of overunity for the ORBO, Ainslie or any device that requires some electrical input is really rather simple, no complex instrumentation or number crunching of noisy "data". This is especially valid when you are claiming COP's in excess of 17.

Obtain a styrofoam cooler and a cheap Radio Shack or equivalent indoor/outdoor thermometer.

Place the device to be tested into the styrofoam box and attach the "outdoor" probe to the inside of the lid.

Note the ambient temperature and the container temperature.

Start the device to be tested and let it run, logging temperature at several intervals. Also record power input to the device.

When the temperature inside the container has stabilized at some higher value record this and the external ambient temperature.

Now replace the device previously tested with a resistor and supply just enough power to the resistor until the same temperature rise above ambient is obtained.

Note the power required to obtain the same temperature rise above ambient. Compare the two power inputs.

Since all of the heating power to the devices (in the first test with the device and second test with the resistor) is captured and measured at the top inside of the container (less that lost through the thermal resistance of the styrofoam box, which is a constant in each test), we thus have a rather reasonable assesment of any overunity developed.

All of the heating power includes: ohmic, frictional (bearings and air friction), switching device losses etc. It does not include electromagnetic radiation losses, but the container can be modified to include this if necessary with a Faraday shield. EM losses however should be very small. If necessary, a small frictional load can be attached to the rotor, it's heat will also be collected inside the container.

For those claiming it is too difficult to measure input power to the device because of complex waveforms involved, use a wall power supply and plug it into a Kil-O-Watt meter ($30). Note the unloaded power drain (power disconnected from the DUT). Then note power with the DUT connected. The Kil-O-Watt meter also includes power factor corrected readings, VA, and true Watts. The wall power supply can also easily be characterized for its contribution to the loss chain.

Kind regards...V

Hi Vortex1,

Is there something about the heat profiling that has already been done your objecting to .....

http://www.energeticforum.com/71387-post2974.html

You might also check the "LIVE" 5 Hour non stop broadcast that was taped on January 9, 2010 showing a voltage increase for the first hour and a total of .10 ( 1/10 ) of a volt loss in 5 Hours with the 5 to 6 watt continuous load for the entire duration on two very small 12 aH liquid lead acid batteries.

http://bit.ly/4XVsAj ( link - time base search-able )

Regards,
Fuzzy
 ;)

Offline Pirate88179

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8366
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2789 on: January 16, 2010, 05:26:43 AM »
Ken is way off base here.  He needs to read a lot, and then do his own experiments AND publish his results.

Bill