Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[fuzzytomcat]

And guys, I'm reasonably satisfied that there have been many proofs of exceeding unity - certainly on this forum and certainly elsewhere.  And I am also satisfied that these results have FAR exceeded unity if they have not actually achieved COP infinity. The use of the term COP INFINITY is when the measure of energy from a supply is less than the energy returned to the supply.  Then the co-efficient of performance can no longer be related to 1.  That is what is evident.  It has been publicly demonstrated which is all that is required for proof.  But it has also been video'd and has been carefully recorded in a published report.  Subsequent to that report there has been a revised schematic on a simulated program that CONFORMS IN ITS ENTIRETY to the results that we achieved on our demonstrated device.  And the circuit that is applicable to all this has been posted by Groundloop and now entirely conforms to the required.

The fact that a simulation of this conforms at all is significant.  It not only endorses our own findings but it shows that - in fact - these results are achievable within the context of proven classical measurement protocols. 

That this thread is being 'flamed' at all - is because Harti is allowing it.  He has advised me privately, that he's thinking of 'closing' this thread because he sees that our measurements may be wrong.  Which no doubt explains why Fuzzy is allowed to post here at all.  It's his speciality to kill my threads.  I have addressed every concern that Stefan has mentioned.  With conclusive argument. If, notwithstanding, this thread is locked - IF that happens - and IF I am, indeed banned, then may I impose on you all to consider his reasons for this?  On a suspicion of incorrect measurements?  It seems strange.  I would then confidently predict that when the honeymoon period is over with Romero - that he too will be disgraced or banned.  I do hope you guys will rally.  You really need to take care of him.  And I think you need to pay especial attention to the motives of these forums.  One hopes that they're intended to promote any OU technology.

Meanwhile I'll leave you with this thought.  Whenever I am banned or whenever my threads are locked - it's a consequence of Fuzzy being allowed free reign to do his worst.  Why is he given that much license? 

Kindest regards,
Rosie

ADDED
And edited spelling

I'm reasonably satisfied that there have been many proofs of exceeding unity - certainly on this forum and certainly elsewhere.  And I am also satisfied that these results have FAR exceeded unity if they have not actually achieved COP infinity.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________


There are hundreds of readers, members, engineers and academics that "DO NOT AGREE" at all with your testing and evaluation of your experimental device because it's not in any scientific method known that can be reproduced to anyone's satisfaction for a verification of a COP> INFINITY .

You Rosemary, as a boasting proxy inventor that has claimed submitting many documents for engineering and academic "PEER" review, you Rosemary of all people most certainly know all the mandated requirements for a scientific verification of FACTS.

You Rosemary, are denying everyone in existence the chance to do any verification testing and evaluation on this COP> INFINITY circuit and even have posted a 100%"FALSE", fake and inaccurate circuit http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/109-simulated-circuit.html#links  for a WILD GOOSE chase or Chinese fire drill for anyone trying to replicate your findings by design.


MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS -

1) All COP > INFINITY device information in one place in one post not spread out over ninety (90) pages.

2) A accurate circuit diagram of the claimed COP > INFINITY device .... there are five (5) at least that I know of .... and "AGAIN" the one on your blog is incorrect (FALSE) http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/109-simulated-circuit.html#links

3) All sequenced oscilloscope screen shots and data dumps from the day of the test not days before or after for over a minimum of one hour at 6 minute intervals for a total of eleven (11) verified recordings of the COP > INFINITY device.

4) The complete parts list of all the components used to do a scientific replication to verify the results in a verifiable scientific manner of the COP > INFINITY device

5) All the settings of the Function Generator in Hz or Mhz .... including ....  the setting of the DC offset switch ( -10 VDC to + 10 VDC )

6) A complete photographic image set available for verification and review including the top and bottom of any circuit board of the COP > INFINITY device at the time under or during test .

7) A "LIVE streaming broadcast" of the device testing event in real time for 48 hours minimum untouched .... all that's required is a registering for a FREE LIVE streaming broadcast account and a web camera showing the claim of COP > INFINITY




The above items 1 through 7 should be a minimum to claim a COP > INFINITY ......

If the above seven items cannot be done in a excepted verifiable Scientific Method .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_%28scientific_method%29

Replication ( Scientific Method )

Reproducibility is one of the main principles of the scientific method, and refers to the ability of a test or experiment to be accurately reproduced, or replicated, by someone else working independently. The results of an experiment performed by a particular researcher or group of researchers are generally evaluated by other independent researchers who repeat the same experiment themselves, based on the original experimental description (see independent review). Then they see if their experiment gives similar results to those reported by the original group. The result values are said to be commensurate if they are obtained (in distinct experimental
trials) according to the same reproducible experimental description and procedure.

The claims and statements made here by you Rosemary of a COP > INFINITY mean nothing only FALSE and INACCURATE and maybe subject to the notification by myself and countless others of this fact to ALL existing internet alternative energy forums and social media outlets, if you Rosemary Ainslie refuse again and again to comply to the basic minimum disclosure for a scientific method of verification of YOUR CLAIMS.


FuzzyTomCat

[poynt99]

Poynty ?  This definitely needs a thread post.  I am not sure that I understand you. You log in certain circuit parameters into PSpice.  You hit the play button and it gives results?  Something like that.  Are you saying that you had to invert your probe positions to find that negative number?

Or are you arguing that it is meaningless precisely because it gave a negative result? 

Sorry that's the best I could do with what you've written.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Thank you Rose for taking the time to more-closely examine my post.

I have not had to invert any of the probes in the simulation to obtain the negative CSR voltage. The "results" are as true as your own.

What I am trying to emphasize is that the voltage measurement across the CSR is not valid because it has been clearly shown in the demo video that the CSR is not connected in the proper location in the circuit.

Until we can "move on", you need to do one of two things, either;

1) Retract your claims of COP>1 in reference to the video demonstration, and all the test data published before that time, or

2) Explain and prove that the CSR was connected in the proper location for all those tests.

.99

[poynt99]

AN OPEN LTTER TO POYNTY POINT
And if I am lying or misrepresenting the facts,  then there are an awful lot of people who have witnessed this who are also collaborating in that lie.

I do not think you are lying. I firmly believe (and have been able to illustrate several times) that you do not understand the facts, and therefore are misrepresenting them.

And what's doubly sad is this.  You have already found those contestable values on your own simulation.  It is telling you that there's a negative sum in those voltages.  It's also telling you that you've exceeded unity.  In fact, precisely because those values are negative - it's telling you that you've actually got COP INFINITY.  But you're even inclined to dismiss the relevance of your own numbers.  What does that say?  Not only does PSpice give you the tools to make the circuit results.  It also gives you the evidence.  I have been advised by some considerable authority - that if a simulation can duplicate our numbers then there is actually no more evidence required.  In other words our apparatus is REDUNDANT.  Yet you're questioning those simulated numbers as dismissively as the test evidence.  It is simply not logical.  And I'm the first to pay tribute to your talents.  I always have.  And I'm satisfied that you're capable of better.  I believe you need to look again at the evidence that is happening everywhere now.  Golly.  We're already getting replications - alternate applications - and that with ease.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

The numbers and results in the PSpice simulation are not lying. They are representative of the real-world wave forms.

There are three major steps involved in analyzing a circuit:

1) proper measurement
2) proper post-processing
3) proper interpretation of the results

Regarding your data from the demo video, steps 1) and 2) are a bit shaky and could be improved somewhat, but the biggest error I currently see is in step 3).

Again, with the CSR connected incorrectly in those tests, you must have a good hard look at your results, and consider retracting your claims made that were based on them.

.99

PS. Regarding the new configuration, please post some updated photos of both the top and bottom side of the perf board. Also, please indicate on a complete circuit diagram where the scope probes are being placed.

[Laurel]

Rosemary

You should of stuck with your instincts darl.   
1)  It WAS long
2)  You come across VERY embittered
3)  Whilst I think that energeticforum 'personalities' like FTC, Ash and FatLady are the weasels of this planet....YOU just have to let it all go.

You will never hear what you want from them and there will be no vindication on either side.  It's all just nasty and youre looking kinda whacky to keep going so long with it.

Lets face it...these forums attract some very strange people with ludicrous theories of FBI/CIA killing folk and buying out good honest Joes that just wanna bring us a light bulb that runs forever damnit!!  LOL  OMG, you have to laff.  I mean, what makes more sense?  The CIA is running around killing HONEST folk and taking car batteries to the testicles of inventors OR the majority of people that inhabit this forum are from poorly educated, low income suburbs that thrive on conspiracy and Alien nonsense that has no basis in fact???  Yes there are some of us that do OK but many are actually chasing 'free' energy for the dreams of riches also.  Half of the 'inventors' who supposedly went to prison because the "Goverment locked them up" didnt get there because they made a free energy device!!  They were in prison because they were dirty little con men who bilked investors outta cash with promises of electric engines that "ran forever" only to be find out that the table was full of batteries.  These crooks don't help the OU cause but they were what they were...filthy LIARS.

Don't get me wrong, many will say after this post that I am a company man or Corporate troll (so funny) and whilst I may have lunch in the Pentagon cafeteria (joke) this is not true....I strive for OU like everyone else.  The difference is, that I dont indulge myself in conspiracy theory and bulldust that can't be proven.

AS YOU SO APTLY STATED IN YOUR BLOG - MOST PEOPLE ON FORUMS CANNOT EVEN CALCULATE POWER IN/POWER OUT CORRECTLY!!  (Let alone conduct their experiments in a scientific and methodical manner).  How do they ever expect to accomplish anything or garner respect from the world when this field is already so ridiculed as being full of crackpots??!!!!

Anyhoo...you have a lovely day.

Dear ElectricGoose,

                         There is no need for name calling in this thread or others. You have referred to calling me fatlady in the past and a weasel in this post. If you have a problem with me then lets take this off forum and you need to PM me for a mature discussion of this name calling.

Dear Stefan,

                         I feel this entire post of ElectricGoose does not serve any benefit to this thread. If anything it shows much immaturity and hatred.

CatLady
Laurel

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I do not think you are lying. I firmly believe (and have been able to illustrate several times) that you do not understand the facts, and therefore are misrepresenting them.
The numbers and results in the PSpice simulation are not lying. They are representative of the real-world wave forms.

There are three major steps involved in analyzing a circuit:

1) proper measurement
2) proper post-processing
3) proper interpretation of the results

Regarding your data from the demo video, steps 1) and 2) are a bit shaky and could be improved somewhat, but the biggest error I currently see is in step 3).

Again, with the CSR connected incorrectly in those tests, you must have a good hard look at your results, and consider retracting your claims made that were based on them.

.99

PS. Regarding the new configuration, please post some updated photos of both the top and bottom side of the perf board. Also, please indicate on a complete circuit diagram where the scope probes are being placed.

Ok Poynty.  I still can't post photos.  The PC's not back yet.  Hopefully soon.  Your own representation is correct except that the position of the scope probe is CHANGED.  If your results are 'for real' then I'm happy.  I assure you the CSR is now PRECISELY in line with the negative rail of the battery.   Picture it.  Negative terminal > wire > ground of the scope probe > shunt > scope probe > then ground from the signal generator > then the MOSFET's.  That's how I positioned it for the 'water to boil' test.  BUT.  The 'on' time of the duty cycle - nota bene - Poynty - the voltage is fractionally above zero for the duration.  Yet it took the temperature on the resistor element to 240 degrees centigrade.  Then I inserted the element into water.  0.7 litres.  Then also note that the final 20 degree rise in the water was managed in less than 10 minutes.  The level of voltage still the same.  The only thing that changed was the level of oscillation which increased with the frequency.  Which is consistent with the earlier series of posts I made about this.  Interestingly the battery voltage stabilised - no more 'flopping about' between a small range.  And it stabilised at the same voltage measured when I disconnected the system.

In fact - the only thing that is required in a simulation is that one can show a negative sum across the shunt voltage provided that the scope probes are as they're described here.  It should be possible on a simulation because that's consistent with our experimental results.  And so far your waveforms have been consistent with our own findings. 

I grant you that the results vary depending on where we put that ground of the functions generator.  But it only varies within a fraction and it's consistent with the shunt voltage.  The sum of the voltages still stay negative.  They're glued there.

Anyway.  I'll post those photos when I can.  But meantime they'll show exactly what I've reported here.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

edited for clarity.