PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
OverUnity Research > Electrical / Electronic Devices > Inductive Kickback Circuits > The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit
2024-05-19, 04:12:12
News: Registration with the OUR forum is by admin approval.

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29
Author Topic: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit  (Read 460534 times)
Topic Options img
img  poynt99
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #600 on: 2012-02-11, 15:32:10 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3213
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2012-02-11, 15:19:20
When the FG gives a negative signal, it turns on Q2 array.  This would also turn on Q1 .

You need to explain how both Q1 and Q2 can be ON at the same time. Once you realize they can't, you'll have a better understanding of how the circuit operates.

.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
   
img  GibbsHelmholtz
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #601 on: 2012-02-11, 15:53:50 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: poynt99 on 2012-02-11, 15:32:10
You need to explain how both Q1 and Q2 can be ON at the same time. Once you realize they can't, you'll have a better understanding of how the circuit operates.

.99

I don't think they are on at the same time.  It'll oscillate. 
   
img  poynt99
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #602 on: 2012-02-11, 15:56:17 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3213
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
They could alternately be ON (if that's what you mean) if the FG was set to go both positive and negative, but the RATS have never indicated they do this. And if they did do this, we would see quite a different scope trace than what they show.

I believe the FG is set for either a positive pulse train, or a negative one.

.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
   
img  MileHigh
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #603 on: 2012-02-12, 02:57:49 »
Group: Guest
Rosie Posie:

You have done an Orwellian flip-flop on the issue of whether current can flow through the function generator, haven't you?  Before you said it was impossible and now you accept it as fact.  It's a real shame that as a grown woman you don't have enough character to admit that you learned something and that your previous statements were wrong.

Quoting you:

Quote
Here - I hope - is the typical waveform detail.  Note the blue trace during the period when the oscillation occurs.  THAT is absolutely ALL the voltage that is evident during this period.  It is NOT reflecting the flow of high current from anywhere at all.  And ignore the file name.  It was first intended for MileHigh.  But he cannot understand the significance. Sadly.



One more time, an attempt by you at more Orwellian disinformation.

Quote
The encouragement of "doublethink", whereby the population must learn to embrace inconsistent concepts without dissent, e.g. giving up liberty for freedom. Similar terms used, are "doublespeak", and "newspeak".

Quote
The revision of history in the favour of the State's interpretation of it.

Finally, I am going to quote myself:

Quote
As far as you posting waveforms goes in general, without any simplified schematic showing what the different coloured waveforms represent, your waveforms are meaningless and nobody can understand them.  You get a giant FAIL when you post those DSO screen captures without any simplified reference schematic and some sort of label for each different coloured waveform.

You can contemplate that.  You are simply too lazy to annotate and explain your DSO screen captures and as a result everybody looks at them and their eyes glaze over.  No over unity prizes for you Rose Poser.

MileHigh
   
img  GibbsHelmholtz
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #604 on: 2012-02-12, 03:39:29 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: poynt99 on 2012-02-11, 15:56:17

They could alternately be ON (if that's what you mean) if the FG was set to go both positive and negative,


Hm... my original thinking was that the FG does not need to go both polarities.  If we consider the FG go positive, then Q2 arrays would just be off. The whole duration current would go through Q1 without any oscillation. 

So my thought was that negative pulse only and it only go into oscillation with just negative pulse. 
   
img  MileHigh
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #605 on: 2012-02-12, 16:09:58 »
Group: Guest
Rosemary:

Now that your treatise is over, I can somewhat amusingly quote you yourself as my own response:

Quoting Rosemary Ainslie to respond to her explanation about how her circuit works:

Quote
Nope.  There's absolutely no logical sequence or sense to anything you've written here.  :o I've given it my best shot.  It lacks clarity - sense - and reason.  On the whole it reads like a shoddy piece of propagandising - rendered ineffective as it leaves the reader confused.  You need to do better.

Quote
More of the same.  Just a confused mishmash of illogical nonsense.  No idea what you're referring to.  No idea what your complaint is.  No idea what you're on about.  Try using sense when you use the English language.  It's meant to be a tool to advance understanding.  Not to diminish it.

The fat lady has sung.

MileHigh
   
img  poynt99
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #606 on: 2012-02-12, 16:15:40 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3213
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
 ;D
I thought the very same thing MH.

It's a classic irony, isn't it?


---------------------------
"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
   
img  MileHigh
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #607 on: 2012-02-12, 16:21:24 »
Group: Guest
Indeed!

A really big shew!   O0
   
img  poynt99
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #608 on: 2012-02-14, 23:57:17 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3213
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Quote
Dear Poynty Point,
 I most certainly will NOT present this in video form - until I can be satisfied that a mere video has ever answered anyone's concerns related to over unity anywhere on these forums - or even anywhere on the INTERNET.  HOWEVER.  IF a video will satisfy you that we qualify for your PRIZE - then I'll undertake to do this WITH PLEASURE.  But I am NOT about to apply that to our circuit.  The positioning of another load in series with a diode - will most certainly block that oscillation - which is what you're relying on.  But it can be managed on a simple 12 volt battery supply with diodes in place of the load.  All else being equal.  Therefore the principle stands.  And you would most certainly NOT be able to explain the one rail that is continually alight.  Certainly not within the context of standard predictions.
 
 As ever,
 Rosie Pose

I would be interested in seeing this test of yours Rosemary, even if it isn't on your actual test apparatus.

Post a diagram of the setup, then we'll see if you need to demonstrate it with a video or not.

 ;)

.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
   
img  poynt99
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #609 on: 2012-02-15, 13:27:32 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3213
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Quote
I think it took about 40 pages of discussion between myself and Poynty Point for Poynty to finally realise that a current discharge from a battery REQUIRES a path through its source gate - when using transistors. The joke is that he had the unequivocal support of MileHigh, The Boss, Bubba Gravock, Gyula, Tinsel Koala, - and the unspoken support of all those members who didn't complain. Which support was for the ASSUMPTION that the battery could pass directly onto the Gate signal - across about 4 inches of space - and land on the signal terminal at the other side of the circuit.

Rosemary,

You're going to have to do a lot better than that; nobody with a right mind would know what the hell you are talking about.

For instance, there is no such thing as a "source gate". Where the hell did you dig that up from? And you continually accuse me of using bad terminology?


---------------------------
"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
   
img  MileHigh
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #610 on: 2012-02-29, 05:31:08 »
Group: Guest
Well I'll take one more crack at this.  The rationale for doing this is that Rosemary doesn't understand capacitors, and therefore can't understand how a capacitor could prove or disprove that her circuit is consuming energy.

We will do this with a concrete real-world example but make up some timings for illustrative purposes.

Rosemary, what we want to do is temporarily substitute one of your six batteries in series for a large capacitor.  I think that a 25-volt 25,000 uF electrolytic capacitor is about the size of a 350 ml coke can.  So lets put four of these in parallel to make a 100,000 uF capacitor.

Here is the procedure:

With the power off, connect the large capacitor across the third battery of the six batteries in series.   Let's assume the cap charges to 12.6 volts and you keep a hand-held multimeter connected to the capacitor measuring the voltage across the cap for the duration of the experiment.  Then simply disconnect one of the leads to the third battery so that you have the large capacitor temporally taking the place of the third battery.  You can say that the large capacitor is emulating the third battery in the series of six batteries.  The circuit will run just fine like this.  Have your scope hooked up so you can see your famous oscillations.

Now, switch the power on and see the oscillations on your scope.  Switch the power off after 10 seconds.  Time it with a stopwatch if you can or use the second hand on a watch.  Check the voltage on the big cap after 10 seconds.  Let's suppose that after 10 seconds that you see the voltage on the big capacitor is now 10.0 volts.  That's the end of the experiment.

Continued in part two.....
   
img  MileHigh
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #611 on: 2012-02-29, 05:31:42 »
Group: Guest
So, what just happened?

The answer is as follows:  The big capacitor was emulating one of the batteries.  You can see that the amount of energy in the capacitor went down, it output some energy and that energy went into the circuit, a.k.a.; the MOSFETs and the inductive resistor.

Here is the key point:  The capacitor was just one of six power sources in the chain, the other five were batteries.  If the capacitor output a certain amount of energy over 10 seconds, then you know that the other five batteries also output approximately the same amount of energy over 10 seconds.  You know this because they are all working together in series.

So, how much energy did the capacitor output over 10 seconds:

E = ((0.5 * 100,000^-6 * 12.6^2) - (0.5 * 100,000^-6 * 10.0^2)) = (7.938 - 5.000) = 2.938 Joules.

So, that means, when you factor in all six batteries that's approximately (6 * 2.938) = 17.628 Joules of energy that were transferred into the circuit over 10 seconds.

So, that means that the average power output from the five batteries and the large capacitor while the circuit was running was (17.628/10) = 1.7628 watts.

That also means that the MOSFETs and the inductive resistor together were dissipating dissipating about 1.7628 watts as heat while the circuit was running.

The fact that the voltage on the big capacitor goes down while the circuit is running shows that the circuit is acting conventionally and there is no "COP infnity" taking place.

So Rosemary, the challenge that has been put to you is to measure the power consumption in a different way to back up your claim.  If your claim is true then the capacitor that is acting as the substitute for one of the batteries will not go down in voltage.

I submit to you that this is an easy test to do.  The numbers have even been crunched for you, all that you have to do is punch in your own values.

As far as I am concerned you will be morally bankrupt if you dismiss this proposed alternative test as you have for so many other proposed alternative tests in the past.

The simple fact is you can't cling to your one measurement method done with the DSO as the "absolute truth."  You have now been told literally hundreds of times that you have made measurement errors.

I would be shocked if you actually undertook to get some help and actually do the test as outlined above.

MileHigh
   
img  MileHigh
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #612 on: 2012-02-29, 17:29:12 »
Group: Guest
Rosemary:

Quote
I'm rather tired of the spurious tests that you all propose as being 'definitive' - when they're nothing of the sort.  If I put an AC capacitor in series arranged as follows - bat x 12 volts - to battery x 12 volts - to cap - to battery by 12 volts - to battery by 12 volts.  THEN.  IF and when I disconnect those batteries from the circuit I ASSURE YOU that the voltage on that cap will MOST CERTAINLY equalise to the voltages of the batteries on either side of it.  And that equalisation will apply whether or not the cap is first charged before it's put in series.

Therefore the test that you propose is MEANINGLESS.  Why should the voltage over the cap be considered to be more or less significant than the voltage across the batteries?  Am I missing something?  Let me know.

You don't know what you are talking about with respect to capacitors and you are making the wrong assumptions.  If you disconnect the series-connected batteries and capacitor from the circuit then the voltage across the capacitor will most certainly not equalize to the voltages of the batteries on either side of it.  No current will flow and the voltage across the capacitor will remain fixed.

You have already been told why the voltage change across the capacitor is significant.  If the capacitor outputs energy during the 10-second test, then you know with 100% certainty that the remaining five batteries in the series array also output energy.   The total energy output from the six devices in series goes into the MOSFET array and the inductive resistor making them hot.

The test I am proposing for you is 100% MEANINGFUL and if you refuse to do this simple test I allege that you are morally bankrupt.

Quote
And MileHigh - while I'm at it.  I'm glad to see you've dropped that argument related to the delivery of energy from the battery through the MOSFET source at Q2 to the Gate at Q1.  I get it you now see that it would need to breach the positive signal at the gate at Q1 or simply bypass it's own source to jump from Q2's gate to the Source leg of Q1.  NOT POSSIBLE.  Perhaps now you'll see the relevance of my explanations.  LOL  I just tried to dress it up and make it all a tad more interesting.

You are talking gibberish Rosemary and the current flows through the Q2 array and then through the function generator when the voltage bias from the function generator is negatively offset.  It has absolutely nothing to do with Q1.  You have been told this over and over and over.

Please do the capacitor test as proposed Rosemary.  There is nothing stopping you and you have nothing to lose.  All that you need is for one of your "experts" to assist you.

MileHigh
   
img  MileHigh
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #613 on: 2012-03-01, 03:19:12 »
Group: Guest
Rosemary:

Quote
MileHigh - I have been assured that there's always a marginal drop in voltage across a capacitor when it's disconnected from its charge source.  Is that what you're relying on?  Which makes which of the two us 'morally bankrupt'?

The answer is no there is no marginal voltage drop across a capacitor when it's disconnected from a source.  You saw the calculations yourself in the previous postings so stop trying to beat around the bush.

You are morally bankrupt because you refuse all suggestions for making alternative measurements on your setup.  I can only guess that you are afraid of what those measurements may say - that the batteries are discharging energy while the setup runs.  That will bring down your "COP infinity" fantasy like a house of cards.

You are also morally bankrupt because you turned on Poynt and others when it came to his guidance about how to do serious power measurements.  You turned on him like an animal.  You praised him while you learned about your circuit from him but the moment it appeared that doing serious measurements were going to ruin your "COP infinity" fantasy you turned on him like an animal.

Quote
And you need to substantiate your claim that a battery can discharge current through any transistor at all without passing through its source leg.  Alternatively IF the discharge is through the source leg of Q2 to the Gate of Q1 - then you also need to argue how it IGNORES the negative charge applied to the Gate of Q1. 

Don't repeat your claim.  Argue it.  Otherwise you have NO credibility with this claim of yours that the battery is discharging through it's Q2's source leg to the gate of Q1.  And it really doesn't matter how indignant you pretend to be when you 'claim' that this happens - IT SIMPLY DOES NOT.  It CANNOT.  Unless it can bypass Q1 which is where the signal probe is sitting.  And that applied signal is NEGATIVE.

The above is more complete and utter nonsense talk from you and you make attempts to put words in my mouth, things that I never said.  That is yet again more moral bankruptcy from you.

Forget about the MOSFETs, I am not even talking about them.

The test I am proposing is identical to your standard setup with the one exception where we substitute one of your 12.6 volt batteries for a large capacitor charged to 12.6 volts.  GO READ THE TEST PROCEDURE AGAIN.  There is a clear example showing all of the calculations for determining the output power from the set of batteries while your circuit runs.

You apparently cannot stomach the thought that a different test will show that the batteries are actually discharging and pumping power into the load.  In other words, there is no "COP infinity" fantasy.

No distractions, no deflections, no crap from you Rosemary.  The most important thing is the TRUTH.  The truth is more important than me, more important than you, and more important than your fantasies.

Do you want to try and discover the truth Rosemary?  If you do, then DO THE CAPACITOR TEST AND PUNCH IN THE NUMBERS.  Stop all of this monkeying around and making a fool of yourself.

MileHigh
   
img  MileHigh
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #614 on: 2012-03-02, 03:10:08 »
Group: Guest
This one goes out to my friend Poynty Poynt!

In lieu of recent events I can feel your frustration!   :'(

And since you are a guitar player and since I am a long-time fan of the Rolling Stones, I have something amazing for you to check out!

Tonight was the very fist time I saw this clip and I was shocked and blown away!  Just in heaven, overwhelmed!  Something I have been fantasizing about for 3/4 of my life and I saw it for the first time tonight!  (And I think you will be able to relate!)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RCgHRRDTI4&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Was that amazing or WHAT???

I can't get no satisfaction so I am walking away!  Free as a bird!  Perhaps you will want to fly away also!!!

MileHigh
   
img  muDped
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #615 on: 2012-03-02, 04:23:13 »

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3055
 ???

Trying too hard?

 :o

Chosen partner is non-responsive?

 :P

Failure to communicate?

 :'(

Things could be (and probably will be) worse...

 :-\


---------------------------
For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.
   
img  MileHigh
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #616 on: 2012-03-02, 22:59:26 »
Group: Guest
Rosemary:

I suppose a little denouement is in order.

The test I proposed is not designed to "suggest under unity."  That's ridiculous, it's designed to simply show the truth:

1) If the capacitor decreases in voltage, the batteries are outputting a measurable amount of net energy going into the load after ten seconds.

2) If the capacitor does not change in voltage, the batteries are showing no measurable amount of net energy going into the load after ten seconds.

3) If the capacitor increases in voltage, the batteries are receiving a measurable amount of net energy from the rest of the circuit after ten seconds, i.e.; they are being recharged.

Now, the simple fact is that I know for certain that the voltage on the capacitor will decrease after ten seconds.  If your "COP infinity" fantasy is true, then the voltage on the capacitor will increase after ten seconds.

So what are you afraid of Rosemary?  In theory, my proposed test will either confirm or deny that your fantasy is true and it will only take 10 seconds to do so.

Don't bother mentioning that you would have to double-check this first with "academic experts."  The test is real so don't try some amateur deflection nonsensical foolishness.  Don't hide under that.

My test will take 10 seconds.  The comparative battery draw-down test is a complicated and difficult to do affair that will take days and days to do properly and will not necessarily be conclusive.  The battery draw-down test will easily generate another 50 pages worth of debate.  I have no confidence that you or anyone on your team could do the tests properly and document the tests properly.  It's just another quagmire waiting to happen.  It's so easy to see that coming.

All that you need to do is double check your power measurements that were done with the DSO.  The scientific method calls for double-checking measurements with an alternative method, especially when the first round of measurements are suspicious, as yours clearly are.  The capacitor test will do that for you in 10 seconds and it has millions of times more resolution than the DSO.  This is a simple fact.

Bat after seeing your postings yesterday, one thing is abundantly clear:  Because you have no background in electronics and you still can barely express yourself when it comes to electronics and energy, you have almost no capacity whatsoever to learn and retain material that has been taught to you multiple times.  Knowledge rolls off your back and out of your brain like water rolls off the clean and oiled feathers of a duck.  So there is just no point, you are a blank slate that repeatedly blanks itself out over time.

Hence it's time to throw the towel in and listen to music instead.

MileHigh
   
img  poynt99
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #617 on: 2012-03-03, 00:52:29 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3213
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Hey MH,

Thanks for that.

I enjoyed the ladies  ;)

Nice also to see Janis young and vibrant.

Cheers.


---------------------------
"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
   
img  FuzzyTomCat
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #618 on: 2012-03-09, 12:17:24 »
Group: Guest
Hi everyone,

I found the secret paper of the fictitious COP>INFINITY circuit and device, it was published in December 2011 months ago at "SCRIBID" ......

http://www.scribd.com/doc/74884882/2nd-Paper-for-Download :o

It was uploaded by a " stevex2 " whom owns the copyright on the document and now that it's been published as some may know that has tried this route it can't appear at all in a technical or academic journal in its present context and has to be totally rewritten, personally I don't know what Rosemary was thinking but then again, I realized it was crazy Rosemary.

I couldn't believe what my eyes were seeing reading this zippernot rant it was .....  :D

Fuzzy
 :)

added - Please note there is no "Copyright" shown on this document
« Last Edit: 2012-03-09, 21:29:20 by FuzzyTomCat »
   
img  MileHigh
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #619 on: 2012-03-10, 06:33:28 »
Group: Guest
What the hey....

Quote
Some mention must be made of those aspects of the tests that have not been thoroughly explored. The first relates to the batteries’ rated capacity. The batteries used in these experiments have been used on a regular basis now, for over 18 months. They have been dissipating an average wattage conservatively assessed at 12 watts for five hours of each working day, during that period, continually subjected as they were, to both light and heavy use. Notwithstanding this extensive use, they have never shown any evidence of any loss of voltage at all. Nor have they been recharged except for two batteries that caught fire. Bearing in mind that the batteries’ rating is is not more than 60AH, there is evidence of out performance related to that rating.  However there has not been a close analysis of the electrolytic condition of the batteries, before, during or even after their use. This would require a detailed analysis of the supply’s electrolytic properties that is outside the scope of this presentation and expertise. Results therefore were confined to classical measurement protocols with the distinction that the energy dissipated at the resistor element was established empirically and as it related to the heat dissipated on that resistor.

This is an example of unscientific anecdotal commentary from Rosemary where she tries to pitch it as being the basis for some kind of scientific analysis.  Poor Rosie pretends that she is scientific sometimes with fancy DSOs and other times she tries to pass of unscientific anecdotal information as being scientific.

Rosemary has no idea what the energy capacity of the batteries is or what their state of charge was when they were delivered to her.  She has no idea what the power consumption of he circuit is because she believes that the batteries are actually being recharged while the power the circuit, her infamous "COP infinity."  She has never actually measured he power consumption of her setup.  She doesn't say how many "working days" there were over an 18 month period.  She is intentionally being vague.  I would seriously doubt that the batteries were being used five hours a day five days a week, but Rosie Posie wants to at least implicitly suggest that to you.  Then of course she has been told at least 10 times that battery voltage means absolutely nothing, yet she still makes reference to it like the greenest beginning free energy experimenter with no technical education.

Any reasonably astute person, scientific background or not, would realize that you can't do anything at all with Rosie's purely anecdotal recounting of how the batteries have been used over the 18 months that she worked with them.  Yet she is asking TinselKoala to crunch some numbers to try to determine if there is any indication of over unity with respect to he batteries.  It's just so utterly ridiculous sometimes.

A big part of being a scientist or a researcher is knowing when to throw out data because you simply can't use it.  If you can't make that call or you refuse to make that call than you are being dishonest or dumb or both.  Everybody has to govern themselves according to sound scientific principles and if you can't reject your own junk data then you have no credibility.

MileHigh
   
img  MileHigh
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #620 on: 2012-03-11, 21:37:05 »
Group: Guest
Mags:

Look at this Rosie quote:

Quote
There is NO measurable loss of energy from the battery supply.

That's why I proposed the 10-second capacitor test.  I showed all of the calculations.  And what happened?  Poor old Rosie both dismissed it as "a measurement of capacitor leakage" and could not understand it.  However, in my first of several postings on the matter, I explained that the capacitor was emulating one of the batteries.  So Rosie refuses to do this simple unbiased test.

Look at this Rosie quote:

Quote
Not only this - but we cannot measure any loss of current from the battery supply using absolutely standard measurement protocols.

So Poynt proposed a simple test with the two diodes pointed in opposite directions and a small incandescent light bulb in series with each diode.  That will show you which way the dominant current flow is in less than 10 seconds.  One more time Rosie refused to do the test.  This time she tried to feign that she had to "check it with her academics."

Another Rosie quote:

Quote
Nor in any loss of battery voltage notwithstanding extensive use over a 26 month period.

As I recently posted, Rosie has zero data to support this claim.  She just has anecdotal evidence that she used the batteries.  Plus she has no idea what the power consumption of the circuit is because she has never measured it.  Plus battery voltage means nothing.  Plus again, she says this, "There is NO measurable loss of energy from the battery supply."  Therefore if you follow her argument there is no need for any kind of a comparative battery run-down test because in the Rosie Universe the batteries will never run down.  So the simple test would just be to have the circuit run permanently, for months on end, to see what happens.

MileHigh
« Last Edit: 2012-03-11, 22:10:25 by MileHigh »
   
img  MileHigh
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #621 on: 2012-03-11, 22:03:22 »
Group: Guest
Mags:

Part of the farcical joke related to this whole farce is that Rosie panics when it's suggested that the circuit run continuously, stating that it has to monitored continuously lest some amazing thermal runaway condition happen.  This is more complete nonsense.  Just go to the local building supplies store if you are worried and get some bricks or tiles to put the setup on and let that baby run.  If the batteries die after three weeks or three months, it's game over.

Rosie's 'trip' is somewhat analogous to the the free energy con artists from the perspective of the enthusiasts like you.  In both cases you are either uncomfortable with asking critical questions or you are afraid to ask critical questions.  The result from all of that is stagnation.  It's really unfortunate, people spinning their wheels going nowhere.

The truth is what counts, and it looks like Rosie will be in free energy purgatory forever if she does not cooperate with her peers and do some supplementary tests.  The absolute truth is that this whole circuit is a nonsensical miswiring of some MOSFETs that is so badly miswired that the current flowing through the circuit also flows through the function generator itself and as a result the function generator is helping to power the circuit.  There is nothing there, it's simply ridiculous.  Note that Poynt has also explained the mechanism behind the erroneous DSO "garbage in" measurements that Rosie got.  But Rosie is blatantly ignoring Poynt's explanation.  Poynt's explanation included simulation runs showing the "garbage in" measurements.

That is the truth and if you want to get to the bottom of this people like you and your peers have to encourage Rosie and encourage each other to do more tests and also get up the learning curve.

On pure principle, it's time to say enough is enough.  Rosemary Ainslie just drags down the free energy community and denigrates it.  Her obstinate behaviour is an insult to the community and an insult to the people that work in science and engineering.

This is a pervasive problem in the community, the same thing applies to the whole RomeroUK fiasco.  No critical questions were asked.  Right now as we speak Konehead is still pitching this concept of charging capacitors with 'special' timing such that "you don't have to pay for it," and then you can discharge the cap back into the source battery.  The truth Mags is that you DO have to pay for the charging of the capacitors.  But I am not aware of a single person challenging Konehead about that.  It's like a bunch of lemmings sometimes.  Somebody needs to get creative and devise a test to see if what Konehead is saying is true or not.  It's time to get out of this eternal stagnation.

Here is a quote hot off the presses for Rosie:  "Liar Rossi Tells Florida Bureau He Has No U.S. Factory, No Nuclear Reactions."

Rosie is also guilty of the same attitude that creates stagnation.  She has been championing Rossi from the beginning, without a single shred of independent third-party testing to confirm that what Rossi was saying is true.  Why do people promote others in the free energy community with no unbiased proof?  It's so aggravating after a while.  It's the same story for Green Power SA.  Rosie was convinced that something exiting was going on, when all the signals are pointing to a con job and there is not one iota of evidence that Green Power SA has anything.

MileHigh
   
img  MileHigh
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #622 on: 2012-03-13, 07:26:22 »
Group: Guest
Well Rosie Posie.....

I think those are the Light Emitting Diodes of Doom.

It sure looks like it from here.

MileHigh
   
img  MileHigh
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #623 on: 2012-03-13, 07:40:01 »
Group: Guest
A Rosie Posieo:

Quote
But the 'off set' is simply a means by which the signal is applied in conjunction with a potentiometer that can - thereby - add to the resistance.

It would appear that you believe when TK adjusts the offset on his function generator by turning a potentiometer that it affects the 'resistance' of the function generator.

Joe is an Old Salt.
Salt dissolves in water.
Therefore Joe dissolves in water.

And something to channel your paranoia from Mr. Zimmerman!

Maggie comes fleet foot
Face full of black soot
Talkin’ that the heat put
Plants in the bed but
The phone’s tapped anyway
Maggie says that many say
They must bust in early May
Orders from the D.A.

Look out kid
Don’t matter what you did
Walk on your tiptoes
Don’t try “No-Doz”
Better stay away from those
That carry around a fire hose
Keep a clean nose
Watch the plain clothes
You don’t need a weatherman
To know which way the wind blows

Ha ha Rosie....  I think the weather will be changing before too long.

MileHigh
   
img  MileHigh
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #624 on: 2012-03-14, 04:30:05 »
Group: Guest
Rosemary:

Quote
We take the trouble to MEASURE the output from the function generator.  The voltage is nominal and in any event below zero - during the oscillation phase.  At best it means that energy is being 'returned' to that generator rather than 'delivered by'.

You are wrong.  In your circuit the function generator acts like one more battery in series with your set of batteries.  So the function generator acts like a 5-volt battery that is added to the bank of five (or is it six?) 12-volt batteries.  There is no energy 'returned' to the function generator, the function generator is contributing to the powering of the circuit.  The function generator also adds a 50-ohm resistor in series with the (function generator voltage source + battery array).

The above is another example of how you do not understand how your own circuit works.  This does not bode well for your conclusions about how it works, they are erroneous.

My capacitor test still sticks out like a sore thumb relative to your bullet point:  "There is NO measurable loss of energy from the battery supply."  The capacitor test will conclusively prove to everyone that there is a measurable loss of energy from the battery supply.  Clearly you are afraid to do this simple test.

Finally, I already made reference to your two banks of LEDs in opposite directions after Poynt raised the issue with you.  If the wiring of the LEDs is as we suspect, then the LEDs are also proving that there is a loss of energy from the battery supply.  The LEDs are clearly indicating that current is flowing from the battery into the load.

Rosemary, some of the points above have made you so uncomfortable that you won't acknowledge them on the OU thread.

Repeat, the LEDs are the Light Emitting Diodes of Doom for you.

Things are going to change a lot for you in the not too distant future.  Poynt is going to build your circuit and he will be able to make all of the measurements discussed so far and many more on top of that, if he so chooses.  All of the measurements will clearly and unambiguously show that your circuit is 100% conventional and the batteries are discharging energy while they power the circuit and burn off power in the inductive resistor.   The simulations done by Poynt that you make reference to also clearly show that the batteries are discharging energy while they power the circuit.  That fact seems to have eluded you.

This is all as it should be, sanity and the truth must prevail.  Things have gotten out of control and some important principles are at stake.

It's all going to come crashing down and when it does let's just turn the page and move forward.  Your core motivations are not bad at all, but we need to break the spell and move on.  It will be a healthy clearing of the air for all parties concerned.  The truth must prevail and this will be a good lesson for all people no matter what their opinion.

MileHigh
   
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-05-19, 04:12:12