Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[Rosemary Ainslie]

A question for you Rose on the battery wiring:

The 3.3uH value you provided for each side of the battery, does that include the inductance of the 4 or 5 wire jumpers (depending on a 5 or 6 battery setup) between the batteries, or is that the value only for the long wire (x2) leading from the battery terminal to the perf board?

.99

The last option.  Only for the long wire (x2) leading from the battery to the perf board. 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I need to remind you Poynt.99 that this test of ours is replicated on the following variation.  I battery - used - same supply used to generate the charge for the switch - THEREFORE no functions generator - NO long wires on that test - NO grounding issues - same evident zero voltage discharge - and temperature over the iron resistor at 240 degrees which was hot enough to vaporise solder.

It is a benefit that is not CONFINED to our circuit but - self evidently - to any application required to generate heat.  ALSO.  There is no apparent RF interference despite the oscillating frequency.  And please tell Pickle that I always read his posts.  I don't bother to refer to them as a rule because his assumption of my idiocy is marginally more extreme than your own.  If that's possible.  And his comments are invariably entirely irrelevant.  What I do NOT understand is why you need to post a reference to this when and IF your intentions here are to stick to the point.  It seems that you do NOT tire of gratuitous exposure of your cronies' opinion of me.  If you EVER require a public debate then I think that NOW I will require a public retraction of those appalling comments that you've applied to my character and my abilities and my name.  SO.  I guess this debate is hardly likely to happen.

I am DISGUSTED that you saw fit - yet again - to repost one of his highly personalised unscientific comments - which also constitutes a flagrant endorsement of it.  Do you REALLY THINK that I'm about to continue a discussion with you under those circumstances?

Rosemary

[happyfunball]

Good Lord. If the circuit works, then start heating/boiling water and let it run for six months to remove all doubt. 94 pages of utter bull.

[powercat]

Good Lord. If the circuit works, then start heating/boiling water and let it run for six months to remove all doubt. 94 pages of utter bull.

I agree with everything you say, unfortunately Rosie seemed to think saying the same thing over and over again and having arguments is what the world needs.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=videos&search_query=Rosemary+Ainslie+circuit&search_sort=video_date_uploaded&suggested_categories=28&uni=3

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys, I've now had receipt of three more sims - the one without a math result - but otherwise all consistent with Poynty's findings.  I'm in the process of alerting all the academies that I can reach - in England and will then do the same to those in America.

The principle seems to make sense to our academics. There is a wide acknowledgement amongst engineers that if these advantages show up on our simulations then they are most certainly also verifiable experimentally.  The interesting thing is this.  That software is clearly NOT designed to apply Kirchhoff's Laws.  The assumption has been - quite rightly - that IF Kirchhoff's Laws are a natural consequence that also somehow constrain the transfer of energy to the amount of energy first delivered from the supply, then it would be impossible to find more energy dissipated on a circuit than delivered by that supply.

So.  Let's look at what's happening here.  In essence the circuit is designed to generate counter electromotive force.  But unlike usual applications the actual design is such that it does nothing to stop the flow of current resulting from all that negatively induced voltage.  Possibly for the first time - we've actively enabled all that counter clockwise flow of current and, by doing this, we're able to see its full force and effect.  The assumption has always been that this energy must equal the energy from the supply.  It does.  More or less.  In fact, depending on the inductive material in that circuit - rather MORE than less.  But then there should - theoretically - be NO spare energy to heat anything at all.  But it does.  Rather energetically.  In the region of hundreds of watts.  While that same software then ALSO computes the cost of energy from the battery.  And there it concludes that the supply source has lost absolutely NO charge at all.  It effectively cost the battery nothing.  Which makes it INFINITE COP.  Golly.

I may have reason to quarrel with Poynty.  But I will never tire of saying this.  It was thanks to his impeccable skills on PSpice that this was ever disclosed. And where our own demonstration elicited no interest whatsoever - he has, through these skills - 'lit a fire', to paraphrase Sir Walter Raleigh - that is very unlikely to ever go out.  Not that the questions will simply now be resolved.  But because MANY experimentalists and MANY engineers and MANY academics - can now explore the applications and variations and the 'truths' or otherwise - of all this evidence - FOR THEMSELVES.  This is the goal of publication and this is the requirement of all new and emerging technologies.  It has taken away any further need for a 'faithful' or precise replication - to transfer it to an easy powerful tool to explore these and other configurations.  And thereby it allows the actual significance of the technology to be thoroughly and widely explored.

And - in fairness - it is a remarkable tribute to his own intellectual honesty that he's owned to this result.  So.  Poynty.  I have good reason to quarrel with you.  But for this I think the whole world will end up thanking you.  And I'd like to be the first. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie 

And may I add.  The question now is this.  Either there's a 'hidden' supply of energy that has not previously been factored into our energy potentials or there's an error.  And that can only be resolved experimentally.  With a wide ranging interest in this easily tested condition - then that is where this will inevitably move.