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.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

MN LiveCoach

Masternodes Live Coaching

Plug Heater

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 83423
  • *Latest: funergy

  • *Total Posts: 511296
  • *Total Topics: 15228
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 11
  • *Guests: 15
  • *Total: 26

Author Topic: Bash Rosemary Ainslie  (Read 31543 times)

Offline ElectricGoose

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
Eccentricities
« Reply #45 on: August 27, 2010, 01:59:51 AM »
;D Hi E-Goose

I've been rolling.  This thread was intended to allow Ash and Glen to 'let rip' and I'm getting a bit alarmed that it's just encouraging everyone to 'bash' THEM.  Not sure that this is 'allowable' - but I'll tell you what.  It's just so NICE to air one's views.  LOL.  And I had some idea that they aren't exactly popular when I got all those off forum communiques - and on forum for that matter.

But in the interest of 'fair play' I'll say this.  EF.com and Panacea have dedicated some many years to the promotion of free energy - and without EF.com and Glen's input - there would be no record of replication.  That they now STRIDENTLY deny this - coupled with their anxious need to hide the evidence - is just a sad consequence of a rather human need to try and snaffle some desirable technology.  Nor does it say that much about their integrity. 

It gets confusing when they publicly deny any benefit in the technology and then Ashtweth comes to this forum to try and rally replications.  It seems rather fruitless I would have thought.  And he also rather shamelessly demands respect for his work in a paper that had absolutely NO contribution from himself - whatsoever.   ::) They seem to have a rather uncommitted relationship with the simple truth.  Then he affords himself every license to damn my character to hell and demand that I DO NOT DEFEND MYSELF.  And on and on.  What's really salutory is that one expects that one is working with decent, albeit eccentric people - only to find oneself ducking some rather ugly blows from a kind of mindless inarticulate thug who works in gangs of 5.  And it seems they have a 'no holds barred' license in attacking the frail and the elderly.  Luckily - my frailty is not in my tongue.  I'm marginally more articulate than they've allowed and then.  What the hell.  They've given me all this practice.   ;D

I get it now that the contributors, members and readers here are somewhat more discerning.  I was so 'outnumbered' by that noisey 5 that I was also losing respect for their membership and, quite frankly for my own.  I expected someone to rally.  Some kind of protection even if it was just for the elderly.   ::)  LOL.  But - that no-one did rally sort of damned my cause to hell.  And eventually I found myself entirely gagged and unable even to address obvious distortions.  So I faught a lonely corner.  The good news is that they banned me.  And Poynty - to his credit advised me to come here.  And I certainly don't I feel lonely here.  Which is a HUGE comfort. 

Kindest and best,
Rosie   
 ;D

Hi Rosie

No worries at all.  Look, I am a firm believer of no hate/zero anger however I will say my piece and stand up when an injustice is being perpetrated.  EF is rife with hypocrisy and egocentric folk that talk too much and I shall now leave it at that!  I for one, do my own thing scientifically, with the odd post here and there looking into various intriguing things and speaking with certain nice folk who frequent the forums (hi Pirate! and Mk1 LOL).

Regarding your comment of "fighting the lonely corner", I can say from my view that because Ash always (even until recently) acted cosy with you in the public forum, most people would have been none the wiser that something untoward was happening in your camp.  All we know is our own personal experiences with these people (which is far from positive), therefore when your plight surfaced here, this is the reason that so many people voice their opinion in your defense or at least express their viewpoint.  Believe me, the casual observer may be quiet but he is far from unobservant or clued into what REALLY is going on.

When your beaten down and feeling all alone, its always good to remember what PT Barnum once said "You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time BUT you can't fool all of the people all of the time."

Yes, the internet and forums are full of gullable folk that can be duped by smooth talk but not all!

Kind regards

E-Goose


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Eccentricities
« Reply #45 on: August 27, 2010, 01:59:51 AM »

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Eccentricities
« Reply #46 on: August 27, 2010, 05:17:26 AM »
Hi Rosie

No worries at all.  Look, I am a firm believer of no hate/zero anger however I will say my piece and stand up when an injustice is being perpetrated.  EF is rife with hypocrisy and egocentric folk that talk too much and I shall now leave it at that!  I for one, do my own thing scientifically, with the odd post here and there looking into various intriguing things and speaking with certain nice folk who frequent the forums (hi Pirate! and Mk1 LOL).

Regarding your comment of "fighting the lonely corner", I can say from my view that because Ash always (even until recently) acted cosy with you in the public forum, most people would have been none the wiser that something untoward was happening in your camp.  All we know is our own personal experiences with these people (which is far from positive), therefore when your plight surfaced here, this is the reason that so many people voice their opinion in your defense or at least express their viewpoint.  Believe me, the casual observer may be quiet but he is far from unobservant or clued into what REALLY is going on.

When your beaten down and feeling all alone, its always good to remember what PT Barnum once said "You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time BUT you can't fool all of the people all of the time."

Yes, the internet and forums are full of gullable folk that can be duped by smooth talk but not all!

Kind regards

E-Goose

 ;D Thanks E-Goose

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Bash Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #47 on: August 27, 2010, 05:48:34 AM »
Hi Guys, I'd copy Glen's post but it's just too long. 

In any event.  I think he's trying to refer to my open admission to not being able to build or read or design the switching side of a 555 switching circuit.  He's quoting the early chapters of my admission of this and - unfortunately - I still can't.  But I'm perfectly capable of putting that switching circuit in series with my own to drive a MOSFET.  And I'm perfectly capable of designing a circuit for its use  - precisely because it's that's simple.  I think a high school science student could have designed our circuit.  And I also think the actual intention here is to imply that I cannot read or design ANY circuit.  But the design for the switching part of that circuit?  There are many examples of this all over the internet.  One just needs to google it.  And I'm entirely satisfied that just about everyone copies those designs and modifies around them.  So what?

This is precisely the 'genius' of their propagandising methods.  They select isolated comments and use them as they please.  That endless reference to diodes is another example of 'quotes out of context'.  The discussion was the outright denial - also in the early chapters - that one COULD NOT get energy back to the battery.  I recommended that they simply need to put a diode to return current back to one or even two batteries in parallel and they would immediately see that - INDEED - one could return that energy.  At the early stages everyone wanted to include capacitors and inductors and God knows what.  I was anxiously trying to show them that it was not needed.  The energy WILL recharge the battery.  And so have our experiments shown. 

For the rest of those comments.  It's was an interesting stroll down memory lane.  You will notice - AS EVER - a desparate need NOT to refer to my actual skills which is in the thesis.  If there is any value to any of my work it probably is this.  And the circuit - in all it's simplicity - was simply intended to prove that thesis.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35909676/REVISION-OF-DARK-MATTER-MFM

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Bash Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #47 on: August 27, 2010, 05:48:34 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline ashtweth_nihilisti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 727
    • Panacea-BOCAF
Re: Bash Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #48 on: August 28, 2010, 07:22:26 AM »
Just posting for others emailing me, here , that i wont be involved in this thread/forum/ incident, and for others to ignore any reference to me (never mind posting/emailing me about it) . Good luck with your experiments here.

Ashtweth Palise

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: Bash Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #49 on: August 28, 2010, 09:52:33 PM »
Just posting for others emailing me, here , that i wont be involved in this thread/forum/ incident, and for others to ignore any reference to me (never mind posting/emailing me about it) . Good luck with your experiments here.

Ashtweth Palise

Hey Ash,

This incident reminds me of the "FAMOUS" Over Unity member "MYLOW" and how he was put on a pedestal here by most all of the community, but only one or two telling members saying somethings FISHY here ....... most members fell "hook, line and sinker" for his experiments shown and referenced here.

There was one member that showed everyone the "LINE" from Mylows hook and still members didn't believe ..... sinking then at Over Unity forum the minority members up roared only then something was done.

Best Regards,
Glen

   

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Bash Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #49 on: August 28, 2010, 09:52:33 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Bash Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #50 on: August 28, 2010, 10:08:56 PM »
Hey Ash,

This incident reminds me of the "FAMOUS" Over Unity member "MYLOW" and how he was put on a pedestal here by most all of the community, but only one or two telling members saying somethings FISHY here ....... most members fell "hook, line and sinker" for his experiments shown and referenced here.

There was one member that showed everyone the "LINE" from Mylows hook and still members didn't believe ..... sinking then at Over Unity forum the minority members up roared only then something was done.

Best Regards,
Glen

 

Hi guys,

LOL  More propaganda.  If indeed any of this reminds Glen of Mylow - then we're in deep water.  We're working with Glen's experimental data from Glen's tests.  If this is based on the same type of fraudulent representations that Mylow gave then we've really got problems.  Fortunately I don't know that it's possible to distort the data from that Tektronix DPO 3054C. And that's what we based our evidence on.

It would be such a pleasure to start dealing with facts rather than these endless innuendos.  They get more absurd by the day. 

Regards,
Rosemary


Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: Bash Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #51 on: August 28, 2010, 10:32:01 PM »
Hi guys,

LOL  More propaganda.  If indeed any of this reminds Glen of Mylow - then we're in deep water.  We're working with Glen's experimental data from Glen's tests.  If this is based on the same type of fraudulent representations that Mylow gave then we've really got problems.  Fortunately I don't know that it's possible to distort the data from that Tektronix DPO 3054C. And that's what we based our evidence on.

It would be such a pleasure to start dealing with facts rather than these endless innuendos.  They get more absurd by the day. 

Regards,
Rosemary

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9645.msg254309#msg254309

Hi Guys, I'd copy Glen's post but it's just too long. 

In any event.  I think he's trying to refer to my open admission to not being able to build or read or design the switching side of a 555 switching circuit.  He's quoting the early chapters of my admission of this and - unfortunately - I still can't. 

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9645.msg254252#msg254252


I've deleted the answered quotes on Rosemary's ability to build, read or design a electronic circuit ...... why were these items not addressed and said in her own words ??

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/59119-post205.html

I was never given the results of any of the tests conducted by those accreditors. It was not from want of trying. But I was given their permission to use their names as accreditors in the Quantum article. The reason we simply used that precise experiment for the paper submitted to the IET was to reference their names. I do have the report for BP because we had to conduct those experiments on battey duration. But the context of that report is just on the effect as it relates to battery delivery - and it has got to be the single most boring exercise in all of history. It's object impeccable - but the testing exhausting.

I think the truth is that these companies allocate a certain amount of funding to research. And having found their answers they do not make it public. Presumbaly having paid for their own lab time they rightly regard the results as being their property - or their company's property. We did try and get the results - but failed - miserably.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/59163-post220.html

The good news is that Donovan has agreed to join this forum. He can answer those really technical issues that are way over my head. And better still he'll be able to advise how to take the frequency into oscillation - or resonance - not sure which is the right term.

So. I'll leave the question until then. But I believe it does have something to do with the MOSFET with an applied frequency that is too fast? I better leave it to him to explain. It's entirely beyond me.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/59233-post232.html

I'm hoping Donovan will be able to help regarding the sheer volume of questions. Not only is he highly qualified but he's an absolute authority on alternative energy. If I'm a scholar he's my professor.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/59541-post322.html

I think the need to at least display our waveform is taken on board. I have no idea how to do this and will have to impose on my co-author's time which is already massively constrained. So don't hold your breath but I will try and get this.

I will also, subject to my son's return - try and get some video information our on our own circuit. It is the same as the box that was sent to ABB for their replication purposes. Some years after their tests, they contacted me and asked what they were to do with that box. I was in correspondence with someone - can't remember who - and asked them to ship it to him. But it is feasible to replicate the circuitry. I'm just not sure who will do this. I certainly can't. But I could, at least, ask around. It's just that the guys who worked on the circuit are now drowning in other work and one of them has left for Durban - so is not easily reached.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/59596-post341.html

But I do know that my co-author has wired up a house in our Town - that uses some small part of this system to help recharge batteries. That house is entirely 'grid free'.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/60279-post511.html

Joit - is your waveform proving TinselKoala's point? Is that 555 switch wrongly presented? To me it looks like it is. In which case, I must apologise to all concerned. Clearly the Quantum article was wrong.

So, to all concerned - to everyone who built the circuit as presented in that article, and if, indeed, it is wrong, my abject apologies. I had a shrewd idea it may have been wrong because, thinking back, a university professor kindly edited the quantum paper prior to presenting it to the IET. And his first recommendation was that we omitted a detailed circuit of the 555 switch as being irrelevant to the claim. Which is why I was reluctant to endorse the Quantum article as being a correct presentation. I just wish, in retrospect, that he had pointed out the error if he had seen such. In any event, it seems that I have been entirely at fault. My own objection to it was due to the lack of the feedback diode - which was the entire subject of the exercise. I knew it was in the apparatus. It certainly was not in diagram.

I would point out though, that my reluctance to admit this prior to ascertaining the fact was due to the person who presented that diagram and assisted me in that first article. He is a good friend and he, like all of us, was 'giving' his time. I was not keen therefore to expose the problem unless I also knew it was a problem. So, if you're reading this, don't even worry. In any event, the blame was not his. I should, at least, have had the circuit vetted - considering my own inability to read such.

So. Many apologies, even to TinselKoala and anyone in the entire world who duplicated that circuit. It is wrongly presented. I am sincerely sorry that I have wasted so much of your time. And Joit - you've put the question to bed. I would be very glad to refund you for your time and trouble - if required - and if I can get the money to you with our exchange control. Just send me an account on the PM system. You've done a very good thing here.

What I do assure you all is this. The switch may have been wrongly drawn. Our own duty cycle application is NOT. I have the experimental apparatus available and it has been checked by EE's even at universities. We have also, over the years, built many different 555 switches and by different people. And there are replicated experiments by others using nothing but a functions generator. And all this prior to publication. More to the point is that the battery duration is consistent with measurements based on the duty cycle. But, in point of fact, after publication I never experimented again for a period of 7 years and I certainly never even looked at the article again. The only reason I could scan a copy for the blog when I eventually did this, was because my children kept a copy of the original publication. I was just so dejected at the entire lack of interest it seemed to generate. I had no idea that the test would really ever be duplicated.

Therefore, please take this admission as a sincere apology to all those who have tried to build the switch according to the quantum article. I see that the Quantum article was the primary reference point as the IET paper was only posted to the blog after July. It seems that Ramset and TinselKoala started their thread on OU.COM in mid June. Unfortunate. But there you are. Sorry guys - It's all I can say.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/60282-post512.html

TinselKoala - I see you still read posts on this forum - failing which I am sure that Ramset will copy and post for you if you no longer have access - I would like to re-iterate that I am sincerely sorry for blaming your interpretation of the inverted waveform if, as it seems, the switch was incorrect.

Abject apologies - for what it's worth. It is thanks to Joit that this matter has been cleared up. If you continue to do the experiment - I suggest you build your own 555 switch.

And for the record - the claim relates to a frequency that is variously described but best known as a Parasitic Hartley Effect. I have this information from experts. The point is that it is an oscillating frequency that is damped down or clamped out, not sure of the correct term - as it interferes with signals which is when it's manifest. We show that that effect adds to the efficiency when it is NOT clamped out.

BUT the flyback principle, whether with inductive resistors or resistors in series with inductors - always give evidence of a gain. It can be at any frequency tested between 60Hz all the way to and beyond 600kHz. All work - some with more efficiency than others - and at extreme frequencies - with losses rather than gains. It can use just about any variation of the flyback principles as described by gotoluc as a reticulated current. And it does not need the induced Hartley Effect to realise a gain. In other words you can get the over unity performance on periodic waveforms.

Nor do you need specialised MOSFETS. And you will always see a gain if you run batteries on control tests.

The misrepresentation of the 555 in the Quantum Article I think has been proved by Joit. I sincerely apologise for the error. Hopefully with this admission you'll at least continue with the testing. You see now how wide is my claim. You can then disprove it on many bases.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/60610-post664.html

the need for the flyback diode is to prove the returning energy - not to exploit it. The WHOLE intention of that paper is for purposes of proof.

And your measurements are WAY OUT. I was rather hoping for an unbiased report.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/60640-post682.html

We're in the happy position of being invited to give a demo of 'proof of concept' - I think - or else a working model (both easily accommodated) for a group here who may have found a market for the devices.

It seems such a ready made solution. I have been concentrating entirely on getting academics to approve this. How utterly stupid. We can go straight to the market. Why look for that endorsement. As and when we've got the actual 'application' or 'proof' or, indeed both, I will keep you fully updated. Hopefully we'll be able to post on youtube - but don't hold your breath. For me - that's a HUGE learning curve.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/60647-post688.html

Be that s it may - the overunity is defintely measurable at all frequencies and all duty cycles. Having said that there are some really fast frequencies where the benefit is lost. However I've referred to possible variations in that paper. Nor do you need the precise circuit diagram.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

/www.energeticforum.com/60943-post774.html

And could it also be because, notwithstanding the modesty of the effect - it is also measurable in terms of classical analysis? And could it be because - not only is the gain claimed - these effects have been thoroughly analysed and accredited by experts in the art. Let me name it's most authoritative accreditor. ABB Research in North Carolina.

Now, let me continue with that list of accreditors. It also includes, Sasol (SA) Spescom (SA) BP (SA) and others. They are all either public companies or they are individuals associated with public companies.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/61057-post802.html

But the first and most important point is to prove that the battery is being recharged. The quickest proof is through the flyback diode to the battery.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/61081-post812.html

Anyway - I forgot to add. Take the flyback to the positive of the second battery.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.feelthevibe.com/free_energy/rosemary_ainslie/ainslieheater.pdf  ( Aaron's replication with flyback diode )

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/61441-post912.html

Have just watched the video. What a pleasure. That self-oscillation - AT LAST. There's something wrong with my Fluke. I'm going to get it fixed and will then post it to you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/61453-post920.html

I am an AMATEUR. I cannot put a circuit together. And I can only draw very simple circuits. You guys - all - have forgotten what I know. Not only that - but nor am I into conventional power applications. So - not only do I not know - but nor am I ever likely to learn.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/61506-post942.html

Its the detractors on other forums that are worrying. The lengths they go to to discredit the person and the claim - both.

Have you ever looked through the OU.Com thread on this? It beggars belief. Malice hardly describes it.

What is frightening is that anyone who questions a result is actually verbally menaced.

TK only needs to make a post for immediate endorsement by other contributors who also then mock my apparent lack of sanity, judgement, intelligence, schooling, beliefs, ideas, lack of expertise - name it's all there. All for public consumption. All unchallenged. And all such detractors always out of reach, always carefully hiding behind their assumed identities. They flirt with their rights to freedom of expression that under normal circumstances, and under ordinary civil law would be actionable. And all this, clearly with Stephan's endorsement.

To compound my concerns is the fact that the entire forum was promoted by Stephan, with, one would assume, the intention of promoting the study of free energy. I can no longer access OU.Com. Was he responsible for my not gaining access? And if so, at whose asking and why? Public - to everyone but me? Then too it seems that my emails are being read. How does that happen? Are my phone calls also being monitored?
[/quote]

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Bash Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #51 on: August 28, 2010, 10:32:01 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Bash Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #52 on: August 28, 2010, 10:34:30 PM »
Since Glen is simply flaming the thread with repeat posts I thought I'd answer him by repeating my own. 


Hi Guys, I'd copy Glen's post but it's just too long. 

In any event.  I think he's trying to refer to my open admission to not being able to build or read or design the switching side of a 555 switching circuit.  He's quoting the early chapters of my admission of this and - unfortunately - I still can't.  But I'm perfectly capable of putting that switching circuit in series with my own to drive a MOSFET.  And I'm perfectly capable of designing a circuit for its use  - precisely because it's that's simple.  I think a high school science student could have designed our circuit.  And I also think the actual intention here is to imply that I cannot read or design ANY circuit.  But the design for the switching part of that circuit?  There are many examples of this all over the internet.  One just needs to google it.  And I'm entirely satisfied that just about everyone copies those designs and modifies around them.  So what?

This is precisely the 'genius' of their propagandising methods.  They select isolated comments and use them as they please.  That endless reference to diodes is another example of 'quotes out of context'.  The discussion was the outright denial - also in the early chapters - that one COULD NOT get energy back to the battery.  I recommended that they simply need to put a diode to return current back to one or even two batteries in parallel and they would immediately see that - INDEED - one could return that energy.  At the early stages everyone wanted to include capacitors and inductors and God knows what.  I was anxiously trying to show them that it was not needed.  The energy WILL recharge the battery.  And so have our experiments shown. 

For the rest of those comments.  It's was an interesting stroll down memory lane.  You will notice - AS EVER - a desparate need NOT to refer to my actual skills which is in the thesis.  If there is any value to any of my work it probably is this.  And the circuit - in all it's simplicity - was simply intended to prove that thesis.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35909676/REVISION-OF-DARK-MATTER-MFM

@glen.  I wish you'd just give up.  There are very few readers here and you're achieving nothing.  Just showing up that spiteful, vindictive nature that seems to be your unhappy lot.   

Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: Bash Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #53 on: August 28, 2010, 10:47:39 PM »
Since Glen is simply flaming the thread with repeat posts I thought I'd answer him by repeating my own. 


Hi Guys, I'd copy Glen's post but it's just too long. 

In any event.  I think he's trying to refer to my open admission to not being able to build or read or design the switching side of a 555 switching circuit.  He's quoting the early chapters of my admission of this and - unfortunately - I still can't.  But I'm perfectly capable of putting that switching circuit in series with my own to drive a MOSFET.  And I'm perfectly capable of designing a circuit for its use  - precisely because it's that's simple.  I think a high school science student could have designed our circuit.  And I also think the actual intention here is to imply that I cannot read or design ANY circuit.  But the design for the switching part of that circuit?  There are many examples of this all over the internet.  One just needs to google it.  And I'm entirely satisfied that just about everyone copies those designs and modifies around them.  So what?

This is precisely the 'genius' of their propagandising methods.  They select isolated comments and use them as they please.  That endless reference to diodes is another example of 'quotes out of context'.  The discussion was the outright denial - also in the early chapters - that one COULD NOT get energy back to the battery.  I recommended that they simply need to put a diode to return current back to one or even two batteries in parallel and they would immediately see that - INDEED - one could return that energy.  At the early stages everyone wanted to include capacitors and inductors and God knows what.  I was anxiously trying to show them that it was not needed.  The energy WILL recharge the battery.  And so have our experiments shown. 

For the rest of those comments.  It's was an interesting stroll down memory lane.  You will notice - AS EVER - a desparate need NOT to refer to my actual skills which is in the thesis.  If there is any value to any of my work it probably is this.  And the circuit - in all it's simplicity - was simply intended to prove that thesis.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35909676/REVISION-OF-DARK-MATTER-MFM

@glen.  I wish you'd just give up.  There are very few readers here and you're achieving nothing.  Just showing up that spiteful, vindictive nature that seems to be your unhappy lot.

Lets start with this one here .......

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/60279-post511.html

Joit - is your waveform proving TinselKoala's point? Is that 555 switch wrongly presented? To me it looks like it is. In which case, I must apologise to all concerned. Clearly the Quantum article was wrong.

So, to all concerned - to everyone who built the circuit as presented in that article, and if, indeed, it is wrong, my abject apologies. I had a shrewd idea it may have been wrong because, thinking back, a university professor kindly edited the quantum paper prior to presenting it to the IET. And his first recommendation was that we omitted a detailed circuit of the 555 switch as being irrelevant to the claim. Which is why I was reluctant to endorse the Quantum article as being a correct presentation. I just wish, in retrospect, that he had pointed out the error if he had seen such. In any event, it seems that I have been entirely at fault. My own objection to it was due to the lack of the feedback diode - which was the entire subject of the exercise. I knew it was in the apparatus. It certainly was not in diagram.

I would point out though, that my reluctance to admit this prior to ascertaining the fact was due to the person who presented that diagram and assisted me in that first article. He is a good friend and he, like all of us, was 'giving' his time. I was not keen therefore to expose the problem unless I also knew it was a problem. So, if you're reading this, don't even worry. In any event, the blame was not his. I should, at least, have had the circuit vetted - considering my own inability to read such.

So. Many apologies, even to TinselKoala and anyone in the entire world who duplicated that circuit. It is wrongly presented. I am sincerely sorry that I have wasted so much of your time. And Joit - you've put the question to bed. I would be very glad to refund you for your time and trouble - if required - and if I can get the money to you with our exchange control. Just send me an account on the PM system. You've done a very good thing here.

What I do assure you all is this. The switch may have been wrongly drawn. Our own duty cycle application is NOT. I have the experimental apparatus available and it has been checked by EE's even at universities. We have also, over the years, built many different 555 switches and by different people. And there are replicated experiments by others using nothing but a functions generator. And all this prior to publication. More to the point is that the battery duration is consistent with measurements based on the duty cycle. But, in point of fact, after publication I never experimented again for a period of 7 years and I certainly never even looked at the article again. The only reason I could scan a copy for the blog when I eventually did this, was because my children kept a copy of the original publication. I was just so dejected at the entire lack of interest it seemed to generate. I had no idea that the test would really ever be duplicated.

Therefore, please take this admission as a sincere apology to all those who have tried to build the switch according to the quantum article. I see that the Quantum article was the primary reference point as the IET paper was only posted to the blog after July. It seems that Ramset and TinselKoala started their thread on OU.COM in mid June. Unfortunate. But there you are. Sorry guys - It's all I can say.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LETS SEE YOUR COP>17 EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS DEVICE YOU HAVE IN YOU POSSESSION STATED IN THE ABOVE POST !!

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Bash Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #53 on: August 28, 2010, 10:47:39 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Bash Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #54 on: August 28, 2010, 11:19:08 PM »
Lets start with this one here .......


http://www.energeticforum.com/60279-post511.html


LETS SEE YOUR COP>17 EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS DEVICE YOU HAVE IN YOU POSSESSION STATED IN THE ABOVE POST !!

LOL.  There is absolutely no end of Glen's duplicity.  I see that he posted a link where ONLY one post can be viewed.  Not the whole thread - and not the 'follow up comment' from Joit.  When he actually starts giving the 'full picture' then I'll feel obliged to answer him.

Meanwhile guys, here's the full link.  I'll see if I can search out the actual post so that this too can be seen in context. 

You will notice that I actually posted that I'd dismantled my apparatus.  Everyone knew this and no-one screamed at me to make photographs.  It never occurred to me to do so  This was when I  also forwarded my Fluke to Aaron Murakami.  That long ago - now 2 years.  At that stage I was still  naive enough as to think that Aaron would forward it to everyone who wanted to advance our circuit testing.  Nor did I realise how lack of photos would become a critical criteria for Glen  who now needed to see that apparatus.  Never an issue until he also tried to appropriate the technology.  And he knew perfectly well that it would be impossible to show photographs.  He uses this as his excuse to claim - as he now does - that we never did those experiments.  But there are photos.  They're just not very good.  They're in the Quantum magazine article - December issue 2002 (I think)

In any event here's the link to the ENTIRE thread.
Rosemary
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-115.html

Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: Bash Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #55 on: August 28, 2010, 11:37:48 PM »
LOL.  There is absolutely no end of Glen's duplicity.  I see that he posted a link where ONLY one post can be viewed.  Not the whole thread - and not the 'follow up comment' from Joit.  When he actually starts giving the 'full picture' then I'll feel obliged to answer him.

Meanwhile guys, here's the full link.  I'll see if I can search out the actual post so that this too can be seen in context. 

You will notice that I actually posted that I'd dismantled my apparatus.  Everyone knew this and no-one screamed at me to make photographs.  It never occurred to me to do so  This was when I  also forwarded my Fluke to Aaron Murakami.  That long ago - now 2 years.  At that stage I was still  naive enough as to think that Aaron would forward it to everyone who wanted to advance our circuit testing.  Nor did I realise how lack of photos would become a critical criteria for Glen  who now needed to see that apparatus.  Never an issue until he also tried to appropriate the technology.  And he knew perfectly well that it would be impossible to show photographs.  He uses this as his excuse to claim - as he now does - that we never did those experiments.  But there are photos.  They're just not very good.  They're in the Quantum magazine article - December issue 2002 (I think)

In any event here's the link to the ENTIRE thread.
Rosemary
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-115.html

Pleas see the prior posting of Rosemary Ainslie ..... anyone in their right mind whom worked on a project so long would dismantle a COP>17 device ?? In the time frame specified you have specified after the fact ?? This will be addressed further in detail .....

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/59541-post322.html

I think the need to at least display our waveform is taken on board. I have no idea how to do this and will have to impose on my co-author's time which is already massively constrained. So don't hold your breath but I will try and get this.

I will also, subject to my son's return - try and get some video information our on our own circuit. It is the same as the box that was sent to ABB for their replication purposes. Some years after their tests, they contacted me and asked what they were to do with that box. I was in correspondence with someone - can't remember who - and asked them to ship it to him. But it is feasible to replicate the circuitry. I'm just not sure who will do this. I certainly can't. But I could, at least, ask around. It's just that the guys who worked on the circuit are now drowning in other work and one of them has left for Durban - so is not easily reached.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PLEASE SHOW THE MEMBERS AND GUESTS YOUR COP>17 EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS DEVICE YOU STATED YOU HAVE ......

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Bash Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #55 on: August 28, 2010, 11:37:48 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Bash Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #56 on: August 28, 2010, 11:41:17 PM »
And here's the actual link to Joit's reply.  And page up - you'll see adequate reference.
http://www.energeticforum.com/60292-post518.html

Glen may have the time and interest to continue this attack - but I'm under no obligation to answer him.  Else my life will be spent in this useless exercise of defending myself and getting angry because of the innuendos and lies that he promotes.  IF he requires proof of my ever having had apparatus to test - which is what he's trying to imply here - then just refer to the Quantum article - to the Newspaper articles - and to the EARLY mention of this by Professors which were posted on the internet - somewhere.  See if you can find them?  LOL

OF COURSE I had apparatus.  There are 5 public companies who attested to this and to the results.  And latterly there are even university professors who admit to having attended demonstrations.

So.  Glen.  From here on - you may ask away.  But I will NOT answer you.  It is my considered opinion that you are a liar, a perpetrator of the 'half truth' - a self serving opportunist - a scoundrel of the worst sort.  I will NOT answer your questions unless and as I please.

I see now I'll have to warn some more professors that you'll be writing to claim that I am plagiarising your work.  This time it won't work though.  They already KNOW who initiated this.  All of 11 years ago now.

AND MAY I ADD.  Our members are BORED TO TEARS with this ridiculous attack.  Wake up and smell the coffee.  Follow the example of Ashtweth.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2010, 12:08:36 AM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: Bash Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #57 on: August 29, 2010, 12:08:02 AM »
And here's the actual link to Joit's reply.  And page up - you'll see adequate reference.
http://www.energeticforum.com/60292-post518.html

Glen may have the time and interest to continue this attack - but I'm under no obligation to answer him.  Else my life will be spent in this useless exercise of defending myself and getting angry because of the innuendos and lies that he promotes.  IF he requires proof of my ever having had apparatus to test - which is what he's trying to imply here - then just refer to the Quantum article - to the Newspaper articles - and to the EARLY mention of this by Prof Gaunt which he posted on the internet - somewhere. 

OF COURSE I had apparatus.  There are 5 public companies who attested to this and to the results.  And latterly there are even university professors who admit to having attended demonstrations.

So.  Glen.  From here on - you may ask away.  But I will NOT answer you.  It is my considered opinion that you are a liar, a perpetrator of the 'half truth' - a self serving opportunist - a scoundrel of the worst sort.  I will NOT answer your questions unless and as I please.

It appears by the two (2) quotes provided to all members and guests on the statement of possession of the COP>17 experimental device that two (2) were available ......

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/59541-post322.html

I think the need to at least display our waveform is taken on board. I have no idea how to do this and will have to impose on my co-author's time which is already massively constrained. So don't hold your breath but I will try and get this.

I will also, subject to my son's return - try and get some video information our on our own circuit. It is the same as the box that was sent to ABB for their replication purposes. Some years after their tests, they contacted me and asked what they were to do with that box. I was in correspondence with someone - can't remember who - and asked them to ship it to him. But it is feasible to replicate the circuitry. I'm just not sure who will do this. I certainly can't. But I could, at least, ask around. It's just that the guys who worked on the circuit are now drowning in other work and one of them has left for Durban - so is not easily reached.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/59541-post322.html

I think the need to at least display our waveform is taken on board. I have no idea how to do this and will have to impose on my co-author's time which is already massively constrained. So don't hold your breath but I will try and get this.

I will also, subject to my son's return - try and get some video information our on our own circuit. It is the same as the box that was sent to ABB for their replication purposes. Some years after their tests, they contacted me and asked what they were to do with that box. I was in correspondence with someone - can't remember who - and asked them to ship it to him. But it is feasible to replicate the circuitry. I'm just not sure who will do this. I certainly can't. But I could, at least, ask around. It's just that the guys who worked on the circuit are now drowning in other work and one of them has left for Durban - so is not easily reached.

http://www.energeticforum.com/60279-post511.html

Joit - is your waveform proving TinselKoala's point? Is that 555 switch wrongly presented? To me it looks like it is. In which case, I must apologise to all concerned. Clearly the Quantum article was wrong.

So, to all concerned - to everyone who built the circuit as presented in that article, and if, indeed, it is wrong, my abject apologies. I had a shrewd idea it may have been wrong because, thinking back, a university professor kindly edited the quantum paper prior to presenting it to the IET. And his first recommendation was that we omitted a detailed circuit of the 555 switch as being irrelevant to the claim. Which is why I was reluctant to endorse the Quantum article as being a correct presentation. I just wish, in retrospect, that he had pointed out the error if he had seen such. In any event, it seems that I have been entirely at fault. My own objection to it was due to the lack of the feedback diode - which was the entire subject of the exercise. I knew it was in the apparatus. It certainly was not in diagram.

I would point out though, that my reluctance to admit this prior to ascertaining the fact was due to the person who presented that diagram and assisted me in that first article. He is a good friend and he, like all of us, was 'giving' his time. I was not keen therefore to expose the problem unless I also knew it was a problem. So, if you're reading this, don't even worry. In any event, the blame was not his. I should, at least, have had the circuit vetted - considering my own inability to read such.

So. Many apologies, even to TinselKoala and anyone in the entire world who duplicated that circuit. It is wrongly presented. I am sincerely sorry that I have wasted so much of your time. And Joit - you've put the question to bed. I would be very glad to refund you for your time and trouble - if required - and if I can get the money to you with our exchange control. Just send me an account on the PM system. You've done a very good thing here.

What I do assure you all is this. The switch may have been wrongly drawn. Our own duty cycle application is NOT. I have the experimental apparatus available and it has been checked by EE's even at universities. We have also, over the years, built many different 555 switches and by different people. And there are replicated experiments by others using nothing but a functions generator. And all this prior to publication. More to the point is that the battery duration is consistent with measurements based on the duty cycle. But, in point of fact, after publication I never experimented again for a period of 7 years and I certainly never even looked at the article again. The only reason I could scan a copy for the blog when I eventually did this, was because my children kept a copy of the original publication. I was just so dejected at the entire lack of interest it seemed to generate. I had no idea that the test would really ever be duplicated.

Therefore, please take this admission as a sincere apology to all those who have tried to build the switch according to the quantum article. I see that the Quantum article was the primary reference point as the IET paper was only posted to the blog after July. It seems that Ramset and TinselKoala started their thread on OU.COM in mid June. Unfortunate. But there you are. Sorry guys - It's all I can say.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PLEASE, FOR THE LAST TIME SHOW THE MEMBERS AND GUESTS THE COP>17 EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS DEVICE(S) YOU HAVE

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Bash Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #58 on: August 29, 2010, 12:17:50 AM »
Guys, until Glen starts posting threads that allow access to the entire thread - please just ignore his references.  You'll see that at the time of claiming that I had the apparatus I had not yet dismantled it. 

@Glen.  The next time you post a link without easy access to the entire thread that the posts can be read IN CONTEXT - then I'm afraid I'll be obliged to delete the entire post.  I am tired of your half truths.  You can get away with lying about me on EF.com.  But NOT HERE.

Your problem Glen is that you assume that everyone is a fool and that you can treat them as such accordingly.  You'll find that - on this forum - people are more discerning than you give them credit for.  It's insulting.

Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: Bash Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #59 on: August 29, 2010, 12:23:00 AM »
Guys, until Glen starts posting threads that allow access to the entire thread - please just ignore his references.  You'll see that at the time of claiming that I had the apparatus I had not yet dismantled it. 

@Glen.  The next time you post a link without easy access to the entire thread that the posts can be read IN CONTEXT - then I'm afraid I'll be obliged to delete the entire post.  I am tired of your half truths.  You can get away with lying about me on EF.com.  But NOT HERE.

Rosemary Ainslies "QUOTES" from http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie.html from "ONE" year ago .....

Please note "RED" highlighted postings .......

 

OneLink