Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

WilbyInebriated · May 23, 2011, 06:03:35 AM

full circle again...

why is there a claim of cop>4 from the team you were a part of? a claim that YOUR replication was cop>4...

i am not harassing you. i am trying to get to the bottom of the contradictions posited by yourself and other members of your "team"...

fuzzytomcat · May 23, 2011, 06:30:53 AM

Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 23, 2011, 06:03:35 AM
full circle again...

why is there a claim of cop>4 from the team you were a part of? a claim that YOUR replication was cop>4...

i am not harassing you. i am trying to get to the bottom of the contradictions posited by yourself and other members of your "team"...

There was oscilloscope measurement errors happening during the circuit waveform spikes any data dump timing used still had skewed results because of the inconsistent oscillations ... a better method of recording the results happening was needed in my opinion to verify any results especially by someone else.

As of today no one has reproduced "MY" actual working results that I know of, unless you or some one else in the Open Source Community is withholding a working Rosemary Ainslie COP> 17 device replication.

I was not the author or involve in the context of the op-ed article other than a short statement and some images of the inductors used, what others say or said ask them not me .... what was .... changed to what is .... in my eight months of recorded results, simple.

Fuzzy

WilbyInebriated · May 23, 2011, 06:46:45 AM

Quote from: fuzzytomcat on May 23, 2011, 06:30:53 AM
There was oscilloscope measurement errors happening during the circuit waveform spikes any data dump timing used still had skewed results because of the inconsistent oscillations ... a better method of recording the results happening was needed in my opinion to verify any results especially by someone else.

As of today no one has reproduced "MY" actual working results that I know of, unless you or some one else in the Open Source Community is withholding a working Rosemary Ainslie COP> 17 device replication.

I was not the author or involve in the context of the op-ed article other than a short statement and some images of the inductors used, what others say or said ask them not me .... what was .... changed to what is .... in my eight months of recorded results, simple.

Fuzzy

ok so let me make sure i understand you correctly glen. the cop>4 claim was due to measurement errors on your part?

it's funny to me that:
you obsess about rosemary claiming a cop>17, but steve's claim of a cop>4 from your replication does not bother you at all...

you obsess about rosemary removing or amending her claims, yet claims of cop>4 from your replication remain online, not amended, for all to read...

you claim "I am in total agreement with you that something "good" is happening in the Mosfet Heating Circuit and can be plainly seen in the recorded videos." and then when asked to elucidate on your meaning of "good" you say good means good...

let me try again counselor, since you want to play word games... does good mean cop<1? or cop>1?

things are becoming clearer.

fuzzytomcat · May 23, 2011, 07:29:47 AM

Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 23, 2011, 06:46:45 AM
ok so let me make sure i understand you correctly glen. the cop>4 claim was due to measurement errors on your part?

it's funny to me that:
you obsess about rosemary claiming a cop>17, but steve's claim of a cop>4 from your replication does not bother you at all...

you obsess about rosemary removing or amending her claims, yet claims of cop>4 from your replication remain online, not amended, for all to read...

you claim "I am in total agreement with you that something "good" is happening in the Mosfet Heating Circuit and can be plainly seen in the recorded videos." and then when asked to elucidate on your meaning of "good" you say good means good... let me try again counselor, since you want to play word games... does good mean cop<1? or cop>1?

things are becoming clearer.

There was measurement errors because of what the circuit was doing, if you would just take a few minutes and look at the "LIVE" recording on January 9, 2010
http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment/video?clipId=pla_6d255c76-9e9a-42ae-a565-fbc698e0b6df

In the first hour you can plainly see what happens it's totally explained in this FORUM link -
http://www.energeticforum.com/93710-post70.html

And if you want to see the last 3 hours and 14 minutes or end of the test ( 15 + start to finish continuous hours ) see -
http://livestre.am/f8x

This is when the circuit waveform basically dies from "LOSS OF VOLTAGE"

And if you really want to get into the nity-gritty in the op-ed article there's also many other issues stated by others that are big problems ... I have no control over any of them that's their problem not mine for fixing any errors.

Good night I'm done it's 4:30 am here ....

Fuzzy

WilbyInebriated · May 23, 2011, 07:36:54 AM

Quote from: fuzzytomcat on May 23, 2011, 07:29:47 AM
There was measurement errors because of what the circuit was doing, if you would just take a few minutes and look at the "LIVE" recording on January 9, 2010

alright then. according to you, there were measurement errors... thus the actual COP could not be attained ( i'm still left wondering how your team came to the cop>4 conclusion then...

) because, according to you, the spikes were 'messing with you' and any data dump timing used still had skewed results because of the inconsistent oscillations. again, i'm left wondering how your team came to the cop>4 conclusion that was posted...