Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[WilbyInebriated]

After five (5) more months of testing and evaluation including nine (9) more verified documented tests on "MY" experimental device ..... the above is my opinion and there is "NO" efficiency of any COP is mentioned or claimed other than the word "GOOD".

i almost forgot about this one...
five (5) more months of testing and eval including nine (9) more verified documented tests...  what instruments were used for measurements with these tests you refer to here? did you use the same instruments (tektronix tds 3054c and tektronix dpo 3054) that you claim any data dump timing used still skewed results because of the inconsistent oscillations? or did you get a hold of a real time spectrum analyzer? did you use one of those "other methods"?

what's the point of referring to those five (5) more months of testing and eval including nine (9) verified, documented tests if you used the same instruments (tektronix tds 3054c and tektronix dpo 3054) that according to you, "just isn't enough to totally capture what is occurring during the preferred mode of operation."?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys - I never realised this.  I now see it. Thank you Wilby.  Glen is actually denying that the results for his paper were correct.  Therefore whatever he claimed in that unpublished paper and whatever the results he first allowed - these are all incorrect.

Which only means that he needs to put out a full retraction of any benefits whatsoever in his replication.  And this, correctly should be followed by a complete withdrawal of all his publications related to this.  Scibd is the one that springs to mind.  Not sure what else he's got floating around.  Thank God I've not bothered to refer to his tests since then.  What a DISGRACE.  All this time and he's still letting everyone assume that he's made a replication - a partial replication - or even a discovery.  Take your pick.  He's certainly not letting on which is right.  It was all - in FACT -  just a non-event.  IF one publishes a paper and then finds that the data is unreliable - then the LEAST one would expect is a full retraction.  Not all this quibbling and hinting.  All this 'I still think that there's something good'.  What a load of nonsense. 

I would also caution Glen to stop criticising those instruments that were so liberally allowed for his use.  My own understanding - notwithstanding his protests to the contrary - is that they have a bandwidth that is well able to deal with those frequencies.  It seems that Harvey is not convinced. And that Glen and Harvey both detected stray inductance through their sophisticated instruments that ENTIRELY denied any benefits.  And it seems that they managed to 'run the batteries flat'!  And it also seems that all this new information was somehow, retrospectively and URGENTLY required for all that denial.  That and the continual warnings that the technology is potentially hazardous.  LOL.  If I didn't know better I'd almost be persuaded that they wanted this technology off public record and off public focus.  I do hope not.

And since poor instrumentation is now being used as the basis of his denial together with reference to tests of which I have absolutely NO knowledge - then I would assume that he will - for the record and good order - post a retraction post haste.  LOL.  It's something in the region of 14 months too late.  But at LEAST we now know the true story.  No wonder he was so anxious to get rid of both me and our claims.  It shows how badly he failed at that replication - or that 'discovery' that never actually happened.  Golly.  Now I see it all so much more clearly.  And I think Steve Windisch also needs to post a retraction.  Also for good order.  I'd forgotten about that article.  That could be a minefield of misinformation - in the light of this required retraction.

And regarding our own COP>17.  Here I'm on firm ground.  We now WAY EXCEED that value.  There's at least one replications that works.  And the best news of all is that we are able to replicate these results using standard simulation software.  Right now I know of 4 replicated simulations and CLIMBING.  And this time round I'm in the happy position of filming it and showing it and writing about it and doing everything that I omitted doing when I was entirely as green as grass.  Now.  I'm considerably older - somewhat blistered by all those fires through my threads - and - pray God - also a little bit wiser.  I would caution all posters here to think deeply before they engage the good offices of any overly anxious replicator - lest the replicators' own incompetence is then used as a means to deny ALL.  No matter the reason.  Spite - hatred - conceit - whatever.  It's tedious speculating.

Regards,
Rosemary

Added.  LOL  All this time I though Glen was trying to claim that he had an independent discovery.  And what he was actually telling us is that his replication failed.  It's cold comfort.  But it's still comforting.  Golly.  One lives and learns.

[cHeeseburger]

Regarding wilby's comments regarding me "dropping out" of all Rosemary Ainslie discussion boards, it is indeed a fact.  My comments and contributions were and still are delayed in posting to the point of being swallowed up and vanishing anyway.  Primarily, I find the whole exercise to be utterly boring at this point, even as a soap opera.  Rosemary does not deserve all this attention she incessantly demands and thrives on and her "scientific discoveries", in my humble opinion, have never merited even the slightest effort or attention from anyone serious about energy research.

I am pleased to see that my original suggestion of putting the CSR at the battery (initially vehemently attacked by Rosemary) is now thought of correctly as the only appropriate position.  That only took six months and four dozen posts.  Maybe one day, my suggestion that measuring the di/dt of the battery wiring and pretending that it's the battery voltage is blatantly wrong also will be acknowledged as truth and wisdom. 

If that comes to pass, and a true measure of the power being drained from the battery is ever made, this story will be over.  Until then, it's just a huge soap opera and comedy of errors that has become so repetitive and utterly predictable and totally boring that it fails to hold even the slightest interest for me.  I'll check back again in six months to see if anything has changed.

Cheeseburger/Humbugger (hold the pickle)

[fuzzytomcat]

Guys - I never realised this.  I now see it. Thank you Wilby.  Glen is actually denying that the results for his paper were correct.  Therefore whatever he claimed in that unpublished paper and whatever the results he first allowed - these are all incorrect.

Which only means that he needs to put out a full retraction of any benefits whatsoever in his replication.  And this, correctly should be followed by a complete withdrawal of all his publications related to this.  Scibd is the one that springs to mind.  Not sure what else he's got floating around.  Thank God I've not bothered to refer to his tests since then.  What a DISGRACE.  All this time and he's still letting everyone assume that he's made a replication - a partial replication - or even a discovery.  Take your pick.  He's certainly not letting on which is right.  It was all - in FACT -  just a non-event.  IF one publishes a paper and then finds that the data is unreliable - then the LEAST one would expect is a full retraction.  Not all this quibbling and hinting.  All this 'I still think that there's something good'.  What a load of nonsense. 

I would also caution Glen to stop criticising those instruments that were so liberally allowed for his use.  My own understanding - notwithstanding his protests to the contrary - is that they have a bandwidth that is well able to deal with those frequencies.  It seems that Harvey is not convinced. And that Glen and Harvey both detected stray inductance through their sophisticated instruments that ENTIRELY denied any benefits.  And it seems that they managed to 'run the batteries flat'!  And it also seems that all this new information was somehow, retrospectively and URGENTLY required for all that denial.  That and the continual warnings that the technology is potentially hazardous.  LOL.  If I didn't know better I'd almost be persuaded that they wanted this technology off public record and off public focus.  I do hope not.

And since poor instrumentation is now being used as the basis of his denial together with reference to tests of which I have absolutely NO knowledge - then I would assume that he will - for the record and good order - post a retraction post haste.  LOL.  It's something in the region of 14 months too late.  But at LEAST we now know the true story.  No wonder he was so anxious to get rid of both me and our claims.  It shows how badly he failed at that replication - or that 'discovery' that never actually happened.  Golly.  Now I see it all so much more clearly.  And I think Steve Windisch also needs to post a retraction.  Also for good order.  I'd forgotten about that article.  That could be a minefield of misinformation - in the light of this required retraction.

And regarding our own COP>17.  Here I'm on firm ground.  We now WAY EXCEED that value.  There's at least one replications that works.  And the best news of all is that we are able to replicate these results using standard simulation software.  Right now I know of 4 replicated simulations and CLIMBING.  And this time round I'm in the happy position of filming it and showing it and writing about it and doing everything that I omitted doing when I was entirely as green as grass.  Now.  I'm considerably older - somewhat blistered by all those fires through my threads - and - pray God - also a little bit wiser.  I would caution all posters here to think deeply before they engage the good offices of any overly anxious replicator - lest the replicators' own incompetence is then used as a means to deny ALL.  No matter the reason.  Spite - hatred - conceit - whatever.  It's tedious speculating.

Regards,
Rosemary

Added.  LOL  All this time I though Glen was trying to claim that he had an independent discovery.  And what he was actually telling us is that his replication failed.  It's cold comfort.  But it's still comforting.  Golly.  One lives and learns.

It's to bad Rosemary you read what you want to believe making thing up as you go and always misinterpreting or misrepresenting the printed facts presented ... not good not good at all.

Your loosing your credibility Rosemary day by day by not being honest on your results and skewing all the information to suit your personal needs. The claim of yours not knowing what was going on with any of my testing and evaluation is a flat out lie on information that's posted openly in a forum and including the nasty discussing e-mails from you to Harvey, Ash and Me to prove it ... how convenient of a excuse of yours one of thousands made by you.

You, Rosemary Ainslie has continually misinterpreted all the results of my testing and evaluation on the modified replication of the Quantum 2002 article as posted now and over a year ago. This was told to you Rosemary time and time again by Harvey and Myself in forum and in e-mails it is your  responsibility Rosemary to make the recommended changes as noted not mine. The burden of credible and accurate proof of a finding or a claim is the inventors "YOURS" Rosemary giving enough information for a verifiable replication not the person replicating the device.

You, Rosemary have caused thousand and thousands of dollars of wasted time and money for experimentalist trying your inaccurate COP> 17 replication.

There should and must be a retraction on the inaccurate Rosemary Ainslie Quantum 2002 article as all the information is false, incorrect and unverifiable as all results from everyone World Wide proved it, including myself and has been called for by a majority of actual experimentalist for years -
http://www.free-energy.ws/pdf/quantum_october_2002.pdf

The original Rosemary Ainslie blogspot -
http://rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com

This must be corrected and retracted where you Rosemary Ainslie on  September 8, 2008 claim having a Patent when no patent exists.


This is not my dog and pony "ZIPPNOT" thesis show it's yours Rosemary claiming a COP> 17 or a COP> INFINITY .... I am a lone experimentalist trying to get to the truth on a efficiency finding on a experimental device and failed to find it like everyone else.

Fuzzy

P.S.
Your new Blog has some great reading though - http://rosemaryainslie-publicblog.blogspot.com/

[WilbyInebriated]

hey glen, you neatly avoided my direct questions... imagine that no worries, i'll repeat them until you answer to them.

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

2: i'm still left wondering how your team came to the cop>4 conclusion then...

3: what instruments were used for measurements with these tests you refer to here? did you use the same instruments?

4: did you get a hold of a real time spectrum analyzer? did you use one of those "other methods"?

5: what's the point of referring to those five (5) more months of testing and eval including nine (9) verified, documented tests if you used the same instruments (tektronix tds 3054c and tektronix dpo 3054) that according to you, "just isn't enough to totally capture what is occurring during the preferred mode of operation."?