PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-05-03, 01:19:19
News: Registration with the OUR forum is by admin approval.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ... 29
Author Topic: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit  (Read 459795 times)
Group: Guest
By the way...all of these fatal error sources have long ago been addressed and simple, easy, clear, accurate solutions provided.  The use of a standard bulb mercury thermometer and a simple RC passive filter integrator were suggested dozens of times by yours truly.  I even made a whole thread just to discuss the best way to measure Rose's circuit performance.  All for naught.

Like so many deluded "OU inventors", Rosemary bridles and becomes sullen and bitterly argumentative (on an ad-hominem level) at any suggestion that might actually provide accurate simple measurements.

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=580.msg9334#msg9334

Humbugger

She's not the only 'deluded' O.U researcher. The other clown, Lawrence Tseung is still trying to convince others he has found O.U in his adapted JT circuit and his myraid of tuning forks! Much about nothing indeed.

cheers
chrisC
   
Group: Guest
Humbugger

This morning I received an email from my collegue at the University.

The demonstration was attended by less than a handfull of students.
There were no academics, faculty members or staff members present.

It is the absolute position of the University that they will not now, or anytime in the future,
have anything to say, or to do, with the Rosemary Ainslie circuit. I have that on good authority.

Perhaps a flea market may have been a more appropriate venue.

Mookie




Seems that Rosemary begs to differ here, Mookie (surprise, surprise):

"Dear Reader,

For those of you who want to have a full account of the demonstration - we are preparing a video of the proceedings. And I'll prepare a full account of the matters discussed at the demonstration.

It seems that it has been reported that there were no experts or academic staff at the demonstration and that it was only attended by a handful and those all students. This is an utter fabrication that will be born out in the evidence. It is comments like this that satisfy me on the agenda related to recognition of this technology. There were absolutely NO students at the venue whatsoever. And there most certainly WAS faculty representation. And with the exception of 2 of us there was no-one at the meeting who was not accredited.

What the demonstration lacked was the attendance of those experts that were specifically invited. Some with regret - some despite advising that they'd be there - and some who gave advance notice that they would not come.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary "

She does not address your bottom-line comment: "It is the absolute position of the University that they will not now, or anytime in the future, have anything to say, or to do, with the Rosemary Ainslie circuit. I have that on good authority."

Wonder why not.

Humbugger
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2637
@Humbugger
Quote
She does not address your bottom-line comment: "It is the absolute position of the University that they will not now, or anytime in the future, have anything to say, or to do, with the Rosemary Ainslie circuit. I have that on good authority."

Wonder why not.
It could be the Monkey Factor, you know those silly little monkey's who cover their eyes, ears and mouth when they get afraid. If I was a more scientifically minded person who wanted to know the facts of the matter I would probably watch the demonstration that is unless I though I knew everything there is to know about everything in which case I would already know the result because I would be a god in my own mind. Personally I would prefer the students to the experts as a matter of personal choice.
Regards
AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Group: Guest
@HumbuggerIt could be the Monkey Factor, you know those silly little monkey's who cover their eyes, ears and mouth when they get afraid. If I was a more scientifically minded person who wanted to know the facts of the matter I would probably watch the demonstration that is unless I though I knew everything there is to know about everything in which case I would already know the result because I would be a god in my own mind. Personally I would prefer the students to the experts as a matter of personal choice.
Regards
AC

And after you had "watched the demonstration" several thousand times in various transparent disguises and, each time, discovered that it was rife with insanely bad assumptions, gross technical errors and misdrawn conclusions, would it be okay then to dismiss it as garbage pseudo-science?  Or would that make you one of those self-proclaimed gods of know-it-all-ness?  If there was ever a good example of rejectable bad science, this is it.  Or are you one of those who never reject anything?

Humbugger
   
Group: Guest
Rosemary edits her blog to correct her prior ABSOLUTE denial:

"I have just been advised. There was one student. ONLY 1. And he is not a student at CPUT."

She fails to note that the one other attendee was a visiting English Literature Professor who smelled donuts and coffee and wandered into the presentation... >:-)

Humbugger

P.S.  He walked out clutching a copy of Rose's literature and muttering something about fantastic science fiction.  This will be reported as "intense mainstream interest" of course.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2637
@Humbugger
Quote
And after you had "watched the demonstration" several thousand times in various transparent disguises and, each time, discovered that it was rife with insanely bad assumptions, gross technical errors and misdrawn conclusions, would it be okay then to dismiss it as garbage pseudo-science?  Or would that make you one of those self-proclaimed gods of know-it-all-ness?  If there was ever a good example of rejectable bad science, this is it.  Or are you one of those who never reject anything?
The funny thing about science is that a device that is based on insanely bad assumptions, gross technical errors and misdrawn conclusions that "works" in the end is still better than one based on supposedly well known facts that doesn't. If the demonstration is credible and the measurements and data sound at that point in time, that is the device works, then should we reject it because we do not like the inventors explanation?. I think you may be forgetting the fundamental criteria of science and that is proven fact, if Rosemary can make this work in any way and prove it then she does not have to explain anything as the facts speak for themselves. Personally I have no idea if it works nor do have any facts which is why I find it odd that so many would seem to have made up their minds and judged this before any real facts are known. I'm no different than anyone else, show me proof which cannot be denied that I can replicate and I will believe but until that time I cannot say one way or the other what is fact--- or what is not.
Regards
AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Group: Guest

I stand by what I said.

There were no academics, faculty members or staff members of CPUT in attendance.
The lone representation by the universtity was there out of necessity to facilitate the event.
Who the others were is anyone's guess, but they were not from the university.

Let me also add that the disclaimer added at the end were not Rosemary Ainslie's words
She was required by the University to add that disclaimer word for word on her report.

And yes Rosemary ...either the whole open source and academic community is wrong
or you are indeed delusional.

Mookie
   
Group: Guest
Ainslie's Anomalies...

While your points are well made and your theory is entirely possible, Ex, I'm afraid they don't begin to explain the real problems with rosemary's test results (if you can even call them that).

The two hugely glaring problems I see are much simpler and more basic:

1.  The current shunt is made from standard wirewound (and quite long) sandbox resistors.  The inductance of the combined resistor stack is such that the impedance of the shunt is almost purely inductive at the 1.5MHz oscillation frequenciy and is an order of magnitude or two higher than the 0.25 ohms resistive part.

2.  There is clearly something terribly wrong with her measurement of the battery voltage and there always has been.  It, too, is plagued with gross errors due to her inclusion of large wiring inductances both between the series-connected batteries and between the end terminals and the bench.  No bypass caps were used.  All of her so-called battery voltage measurements have shown hundreds of volts of AC.

It is these two enormous and glaring errors that cause the instantaneous product of V*I to be completely unrelated to any sort of actual reality.  Not only are the voltages just plain wrong and obtained inaccurately, but their phase relation could be anywhere on the map (or off the map).  So multiplying these two instantaneous and completely inaccurate and phase-skewed numbers together yields results that have no relation to input power whatsoever.

There are other likely gigantic flaws in her setup and measurement scheme as well, given that she consistently claims that, during the time the MOSFETs are "ON" and not oscillating, there is zero current indicated through the shunt.

In the face of these ridiculously huge error sources, a mismeasurement of output heating due to eddy-currents in the temp-sensor pales in importance and potential magnitude.

Don't you think?

Humbugger

P.S.  For many months, several of us here have tried earnestly to help Rosemary make realistic and reasonably decent measurements.  It was long ago agreed by all that the output power would best be measured by a thermal comparison method with a DC control.  This was because there were concerns (as she staes clearly) that phase angle and "power factor" would make V*I measurements too complex at the output.  So what does she do?  Add huge inductances to the shunt and the battery cabling on the input side, creating the very same "imposssible" measurement conditions there!

Rosemary is totally lost in La La land and she likes it there.  Wild horses couldn't drag her back toward even the tiniest island of technically-sound reality.

Thanks for your reply, humbugger. Your arguments are very relevant, more than mine. I well understand that if the power is not calculated from the product of intantaneous and perfectly time correlated values of U and I, the measurement protocol becomes completely inconsistent. The situation is worse than I thought.
As I was banned from OU.com as soon as I ironically talked about a possible Rosemary's scam, I guess that she doesn't accept skeptics. She made measurement mistakes at the beginning, but perhaps she was sincere. I'm convinced that now either she prefers to lie instead of recognizing her errors, or she is victim of this psychological pathology of denying obvious truth by self-persuasion.

   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3208
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
@HumbuggerThe funny thing about science is that a device that is based on insanely bad assumptions, gross technical errors and misdrawn conclusions that "works" in the end is still better than one based on supposedly well known facts that doesn't. If the demonstration is credible and the measurements and data sound at that point in time, that is the device works, then should we reject it because we do not like the inventors explanation?. I think you may be forgetting the fundamental criteria of science and that is proven fact, if Rosemary can make this work in any way and prove it then she does not have to explain anything as the facts speak for themselves. Personally I have no idea if it works nor do have any facts which is why I find it odd that so many would seem to have made up their minds and judged this before any real facts are known. I'm no different than anyone else, show me proof which cannot be denied that I can replicate and I will believe but until that time I cannot say one way or the other what is fact--- or what is not.
Regards
AC

AC, you're "spinning your wheels" again, and it's become somewhat tiresome seeing the same rhetoric over and over.

I understand the need to have a defender of the underdogs, but wake up to reality. Rose has had over ten years to produce credible evidence of her claims, and thus far (including the latest) not a single credible measurement has been offered.

There is no need to convince us that there is a chance some idiot savant might discover the next breakthrough technology, I think we all appreciate that possibility, but this Ainslie device has long past disqualified itself of that possibility.

.99


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
Group: Guest
To respond to Rosemary's question:

Quote
And. Dear God. What harm to test this? And what harm to view that test? What harm? Anywhere?

The harm is that you are contributing to the scientific delinquency of people.  Your experiment and your views about the nature of electrical current are wrong.  You won't investigate your circuit using alternative testing strategies and that is very telling.

MileHigh
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2637
@Poynt99
Quote
AC, you're "spinning your wheels" again, and it's become somewhat tiresome seeing the same rhetoric over and over.
I think we are all spinning our wheels somewhat,lol, neither the persons we consider the smartest nor the dumbest have made any real progress, such is life.

Quote
I understand the need to have a defender of the underdogs, but wake up to reality. Rose has had over ten years to produce credible evidence of her claims, and thus far (including the latest) not a single credible measurement has been offered.
I know Im getting tired of my repetitious rhetoric as well, I need to find something new to do at work at 4am.
Regards
AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Group: Guest
Unsupported demonstration... bitterness... This reminds me of an old story...

How many ways can you disprove a gravity wheel.  An old man sitting in an adjacent room driving it?  A hamster?  Some magic material that give more energy upon collision?  Seems like history is repeating itself...There are three battles I'd like to witness.

Johann Bessler vs.  Isaac Newton
Edward Leedskalnin vs. Albert Einstein

Seems like the mainstream doesn't recognize its hero.  I can see why Bessler was bitter.  Even the mainstream heroes felt sad looking back world they created. 
   
Group: Guest
With some considerable embarrasment I must admit that we were sucked into to doing a detailed study and experiments of the Ainslie circuit several years back. We proved conclusively that her claims were false (that the Ainslie circuit exhibited any non-classical behavior). We didn't publish the results as Rosemary Anislie was clearly not willing to entertain scientific evidence of her errors.
She is certainly diverting considerable attention away from legitimate research which I am sure the conspiracy theorists will claim is intentional.
   
Group: Guest
OKAY BOYS AND GIRLS!

I have tired of the Rosemary game.  Let us put paid, as Rose would say, to the foggy bullshit and proceed to show what is really going on once and for all.  The following simulation, done in a user-friendly version of P-Spice known as Tina Pro, will clearly illustrate several very interesting facts that I have been stating for the entire time I have been posting on the subject.

Here is what the simulation shows, indicates and proves:

1.  In the present five-MOSFET circuit using the component values given by Rosemary wherever clearly and unambiguously stated and using reasonable estimates based on clues she has given, the circuit self-oscillates indefinitely at around 1.2MHz after one single sharp transition is made at the gate.  That is to say that the input signal need only be one single pulse step function lasting one microsecond or less and the cirrcuit sets into steady oscillation forever.

2.  When the scope probes are placed exactly as she has them, the waveforms obtained for Vbatt and Vshunt with the simulation are precisely the same as what Rosemary shows and DO NOT show the correct battery voltage nor shunt voltage.  They are indeed far exaggerrated in amplitude and severely skewed in phase relationship and waveform from reality.

3.  Because the simulator allows us to separate the R and L components of the load resistor and the shunt resistor, we can conveniently place our simulator scope probes directly across the true pure resistances of each and look at the real power in the load resistor and the true current in the shunt.

4.  Because the simulator allows us to separate the batteries from their associated wiring inductances, we can also observe that the battery voltage is not a large AC waveform, but, as we would expect, a steady DC voltage with only a small ripple due to finite battery impedance.

5.  Given that the simulation very closely agrees with Rosemary's presentation of waveforms and amplitudes when probed as Rosemary is probing it and given that it bursts into steady-state endless oscillation after even one single step-function stimulus to the gates and given that it does all this quite readily without any significant tweaking or fussing and over a wide range of variations in the inductances and MOSFET models used, it can be clearly learned that the drive waveform has virtually nothing to do with the circuit operation save for the one initial starting transition.  The oscillation frequency is relatively insensitive to variations in the circuit values, indicating that it is primarily a function of the MOSFET parasitics and transconductance.  This proves my and IONs theory that the circuit is operating in a well-known common-source feedback oscillator mode.

To be continued shortly with pictures!   O0

Cheeseburger Humbugger
   
Group: Guest
First, the schematic showing the circuit as given by Rosemary with the scope hooked up as she has it.  The vales for the MOSFETs, the shunt resistance and inductance and the load resistance and inductance and the small parasitic cap across the load are taken from Rosemary's presentation of her "simulation" circuit and from her stated values in her regular schematic from the presentation.

The only changes I have made are to add the approximate inductances of the battery wiring (between each battery I have assumed 15 inches of wire at 20nH per inch and going from the battery endpoints to the circuit I have assumed 7.5 feet of wire at 20nH per inch on each end, positive and negative ("ground")) and...

because Rosemary has stated (on another forum) that she has put each of the five MOSFETs on its own seperate heatsink before parallelling them, I have figured each connection to involve 5 inches of wire at 20nH per inch.  Although Rose has stated that the inductance of the shunt is 110nH, this number was taken by dividing the manufacturer's spec by four and I know that manufacturers test with zero lead length (right at the body of the resistor), so I have added the inductance of 1.5 inches of wire on each end for a total of 180nH for the shunt inductance. based on the photo of how the resistors are wired to their terminals.

The pulse generator is a single-pulse one-time only step function from -5V (at normal rest) to +15V (for one microsecond one time only with 20nS rise/fall time).

The schematic is followed by the scope traces.  The batteries are modelled at 12.6V each with 100 milli-ohms internal resistance.
   
Group: Guest
The next set of pictures feature the exact same circuit and no values have been changed whatsoever except the scope sensitivity and offsets, as shown on the scope photo.  In this instance, we are no longer looking at the so-called battery voltage but rather, the top trace shows the actual voltage on the resistive heating element excluding the inductance portion.  Happily, in sim-land, our scope has both channels completely floating so there is no internal grounding problem.

I did this for two reasons.  First, had I left the scope probe between the so-called battery voltage and ground (as in the first set of pictures), the trace would be just the same and no new information would be shown.  In the interest of brevity and in order to show the actual heating value of the voltage across the resistive portion of the load and its phase relationship to the actual current waveform.

The current waveform is now (thanks again to the magic of sims being able to separate the L and R in a model) taken directly across the pure 0.25 ohm resistance of the shunt, showing the true current waveform.  Motice two things on particular about that current waveform:


1)  It is MUCH SMALLER in reality than when polluted by the shunt's inductance.
2)  It is clearly showing a net area above zero that is greater than the area below zero.
   
Group: Guest
I am just too darn lazy to lump all the inductances associated with the battery into one or put them all in series outside the battery stack and show you that the actual battery voltage is almost pure DC centered at 75.6 Volts and with a very minimal (below 1V) ripple due to the battery internal impedances.  You only have to do that for people like you find over at OU.com who have no clue about the value of simulations and how inductances in series can be accurately modelled as distributed or lumped with identical results.  Pirate?  LOL

I'll take questions or comments at my leisure.

Goodbye Rosemary and sweet dreams!   >:-)

cHeeseburger Humbugger Bryan
   
Group: Guest
@humbugger

This seems like an awful lot of work, and I think its fascinating you've done this, but why go through so much trouble just to disprove her?

I disagree with your claim the 'simulation' is reality... it's just a useful tool, not the ultimate measure of reality.  The reality is on the bench. 

But to go along with that line of thought, did you simulate the actual heater component she used?  Or did you just insert a component with it's properties (inductance, resistance, etc)?  Couldn't this be leaving out an important property of the component material?  

I mean, I can go build this on the bench in a couple of hours... I might just do that to settle this stupid diversion...  either there is something interesting present or there is not.  I defintiely think its useful that your simulation says the MOSFET oscillation is input-independent.

What do you think of the negative biasing at the gate?
   
Group: Guest
Humbugger!

Very impressive, actually quite brilliant.  I can tell you are a seasoned pro at this stuff from the Real World.

Many people don't understand how simulators work, often saying "It's just a simulation, it's not the real thing."  They don't realize how close to the real thing it is, and that the mathematics were all figured out in the 16th century.

The simulator is a digital version of an analog computer.  There really are things called analog computers, and they were used extensively before digital computers were around.  You could also simulate Rosemary's setup with an analog computer.  And in fact Rosemary's setup itself is in essence an analog computer.

To speak more technically, the simulation programs use the differential equations that model various components that are connected together in an electrical network (i.e.; a schematic diagram).  You can model a single component with a differential equation, and by extension model the whole schematic diagram with a series of differential equations that interact with each other.

If you don't get it, just take it for granted that the simulation programs really do work.

The simulation done by Humbugger removes the curtains from Rosie the Wizard's Magic Zipon Show and exposes Rosie at the gears and levers controlling the smoke and mirrors.

The stack of batteries outputs real power to heat the resistor.  That is the reality and myself and others have been saying it all along.  This whole thing has been a tragicomic farce for years.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
Due to the enormous number of requests recived by PM ( ;D) I may break down in a while (after I eat and take a nap) and go a bit further by adding some power meters to the latter circuit and show the world some real numbers for the power being pulled from the battery (yes, the net power is coming out of the battery) and the power being dissipated as heat in the load.

Hell, I might even break down and show the battery voltage complete with ripple!

It sure will be interesting if it shows overunity!   :P

Humbugger
   
Group: Guest
@humbugger

This seems like an awful lot of work, and I think its fascinating you've done this, but why go through so much trouble just to disprove her?

I disagree with your claim the 'simulation' is reality... it's just a useful tool, not the ultimate measure of reality.  The reality is on the bench. 

But to go along with that line of thought, did you simulate the actual heater component she used?  Or did you just insert a component with it's properties (inductance, resistance, etc)?  Couldn't this be leaving out an important property of the component material?  

I mean, I can go build this on the bench in a couple of hours... I might just do that to settle this stupid diversion...  either there is something interesting present or there is not.  I defintiely think its useful that your simulation says the MOSFET oscillation is input-independent.

What do you think of the negative biasing at the gate?

Feynman:

Seriously, you would not be able to settle this thing.  Be realistic about your knowledge level and experience level.  Humbugger could spin circles around you blindfolded with the use of just one pinky.

Everybody should be real as we close out the Rosemary Ainslie saga.  If you are a keener and work hard at learning about electronics in a few years you might be able to approach the level of insight that Humbugger has.

Don't be offended, we are all sick of the Ainslie affair and this is 100% no bullshit time.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
@humbugger

This seems like an awful lot of work, and I think its fascinating you've done this, but why go through so much trouble just to disprove her?

I disagree with your claim the 'simulation' is reality... it's just a useful tool, not the ultimate measure of reality.  The reality is on the bench. 

But to go along with that line of thought, did you simulate the actual heater component she used?  Or did you just insert a component with it's properties (inductance, resistance, etc)?  Couldn't this be leaving out an important property of the component material?  

I mean, I can go build this on the bench in a couple of hours... I might just do that to settle this stupid diversion...  either there is something interesting present or there is not.  I defintiely think its useful that your simulation says the MOSFET oscillation is input-independent.

What do you think of the negative biasing at the gate?

I think that the gate voltage has nothing much to do with it once it falls below the threshold of the MOSFETS (about 3V).

I also think you will be wasting your time trying to physically model it in hardware but I strongly encourage you to do that at once regardless of cost or effort required.  It might keep you from posting rather uneducated comments based on wishful thinking and belief in zipons.   :D

Be sure you use exactly the same load resistor Rose uses.  After all, the zipon content might be different if you don't.  Also, you must use the exact same size, length and brand of wire she uses...to the atom.  As Rose proclaims, the mysterious zipons come from the conductive/inductive materials themselves...so you must replicate exactly!  Use the same batteries, too.  That's critical.  And the heatsinks and the layout and the terminals, etc.

Disregard the fact that a quick and dirty first-shot-out-of-the-barrel simulation that took me half an hour to set up exhibits exactly what Rosemary's hardware does, scope-trace-wise.  Disregard the fact that the variables within the sim can be yanked around liberally with virtually the same results.  That's probably just a lucky coincidence, right?

You do your namesake a disservice, bro.  Richard would be rolling over in his grave if he took even a small dose of Rosemary Ainslie's hokum.

Humbugger
   
Group: Guest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surely_You're_Joking,_Mr._Feynman!

I am from the "old school analog" gang.  We have always made fun of the incompetent "sim-jockeys" who pop out of college with no clue about the real world of actual hardware and can't design anything that works reliably.  I'm a ninth-grade dropout who started building shit at age 10 and had my first commercial product success contribution at age 17 (the Phase Linear Model 700 Amplifier serving as builder and bench technician and bottle-washer for Bob Carver, the famous audio guru).

In 1960, I built a high-speed motor from scratch out of wire, nails and popsicle sticks and took it to a church science fair where a little Seattle boy we all know well who was 6 or 7 at the time was so impressed and fascinated his parents literally had to drag him away.  In 1978, I turned down an offer from Rod Brock of Seattle Computer Products to buy outright the DOS that that same little boy purchased two weeks later and then resold to IBM.  Little Billy Gates.  This proves that I am not really a genius at all.

I don't at all disagree with you that sims are not the end-all be-all.  I never used sims in my actual design work for the first forty years.  Only in the last five years of my active career as a high-power RF designer did I make use of simulators to arrive at close approximations involving complex laser resonant cavities and RF matching networks.

The value of simulation is very strong, however, in checking out circuits that have already been built and run on oscilloscopes.  Just to verify and tinker with component sensitivities, etc.  When the sim agrees very closely with the hardware, you can be pretty sure that the hardware is not operating outside the realm of known physics and that there is no mysterious magic or new unknown phenomena involved.  


Humbugger

By the way, if you think I'm an arrogant sarcastic bastard, you may be right.  But my arrogance pales before that of the rank amateur who cannot even begin to design or analyze a simple circuit yet who insists and brags that he or she is about to solve the world's energy crisis by rewriting the realities of physics or based on rejection of the millions of brilliant man-hours of true scientific discovery work that have brought us the technologies we now have and the understandings we can rely upon all day every day.

Not to suggest that there is not much more to discover, by any means.  I believe in extraterrestrial intelligent beings and spacecraft (UFO's) and stuff well beyond what is generally known by the educated public.  I just don't believe that science has ignored or rejected or turned a blind eye to easily-invoked phenomena based on a collection of Radio Shack parts and popular woo-woo mythology.  I think people like Rosemary should be held in check and put feet to the fire of gruesome reality when they start spouting off about saving the world before producing even one milliwatt of "free energy".
« Last Edit: 2011-03-20, 05:41:26 by humbugger »
   
Group: Guest

@humbugger


I don't care who you are or what your accomplishments are.   You are posting straw man arguments ('zipons').    As I'm sure you are aware, this is a logical fallacy.

To bring the argument back to the topic at hand, I would like to see higher resolution versions of Rosemary's scope traces.
Wouldn't you like to see the same, given that this is so important to you as you've spend at least an hour on it on your Saturday night?

In terms of your personal concern for my wasted time, you'll be pleased to note as though I may bench out the parallel MOSFET oscillations -- it's unlikely I would bother with the heating element other than nichrome wire.

Quote
Only in the last five years of my active career as a high-power RF designer did I make use of simulators to arrive at close approximations involving complex laser resonant cavities and RF matching networks.

Richard would have hated your arrogance and psuedo-intellectual superiority. I've done my time in 'simulations' too.  Doing FFT analysis of electron micrographs in order to reconstruct viral particles in 3Dimensions from thousands of noisy images, and subsequently making predictions from computer models.  And frankly, simulations fail invariably when the 'rules of the game' do not apply.

You are familiar with Taleb, no?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Swan_(Taleb_book)

We'll see what happens with this whole Rosemary thing.  I'm withholding judgement pending further information .

As Stefan says,

Quote
[Moderation] is due to the facts that now more and more paid
"twisters" are coming onto this forum,
who want to suppress free energy
as there are now viable solutions.

I certainly hope you aren't employed in the same capacity as the 'paid skeptics' to remain unnamed, and instead are just an arrogant prick, as the former would be a terrible waste of your abilities.


-Feynman
   
Group: Guest
Feynman:

The Zipons were not Straw Man, they were just a reference to Rosie's bizarre and unproven thesis in jest.  As far as her scope traces go, let's assume the DSOs were smart enough to export the waveforms in comma-separated values at least.  So you can ask her to upload them somewhere if you really want to play with them.

Quote
In terms of your personal concern for my wasted time, you'll be pleased to note as though I may bench out the parallel MOSFET oscillations -- it's unlikely I would bother with the heating element other than nichrome wire.

This doesn't make sense.  You can't half-simulate the circuit.

Quote
And frankly, simulations fail invariably when the 'rules of the game' do not apply.

I already stated that the 'rules of the game' do apply in a general sense.  They certainly apply here in Rosemary's case.  Why would you think otherwise?  The circuit consists of wires, MOSFETs and and an inductive/resistive element and batteries.  Do you see anything particular in those components that would break the rules?

That quote from Stefan is loopy.  There are no paid "twisters" in this little cubbyhole in a back alleyway on the Internet.  It's ridiculous to even think it.  You are indicating that you think that I am one and your actions (or lack thereof) also show this.  It's false drama there Feynman.  This is not Spy vs. Spy from Mad Magazine.  I am just a real person and the more you pretend that I am not a real person the longer the fake drama goes on and the more ridiculous it gets.  Stefan also made reference to batteries being part of the "secret sauce" that allegedly works for Bedini motors and he is wrong.

Quote
I certainly hope you aren't employed in the same capacity as the 'paid skeptics' to remain unnamed, and instead are just an arrogant prick, as the former would be a terrible waste of your abilities.

The drama is just overwhelming.

On a more serious note, if you want to investigate the Ainslie circuit you have to understand how an inductor works, and how it works when it discharges.  Remember I challenged you to write up a two or three paragraph description?  I would gladly explain it to you but you have take off the "White Spy" coat and be real.

MileHigh
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ... 29
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-05-03, 01:19:19