Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[Rosemary Ainslie]

My background and my history and anything at all about me is MY BUSINESS.  What you need to take cognisance of MR MAGS is that you unwittingly BOUGHT INTO the general consensus of my dependable stupidities.  And then you PRESUMED to post accordingly.  That comment 'I'm inclined to see why it is that people call you delusional' - the PATRONISING PRESUMPTION to advise me on measurement requirements when it's been the ENTIRE FOCUS of my work for over 10 years.  You like most readers here NEED that perspective - because it gives you the fleeting and much needed illusion that your opinion matters at all.

I have been the VICTIM of the single most focused attack of any member of any of these forums.  The reason for this is because I'm onto something.  That attack HAS WORKED.  It's managed to persuade you all that our contributions are VALUELESS.  And that's the TRAGEDY.  SO.  If you expect me to indulge the fact that YOU TOO HAVE BEEN DUPED - then may I caution you.  It makes my blood boil.  I rather REQUIRE those who are still able to EVALUATE things for themselves.

R

[MrMag]

My background and my history and anything at all about me is MY BUSINESS. 

That's fine, I only asked. The reason I asked is that it seems that you try to come across as being highly educated yet you talk like you have some type of phobia. I'm not sure what it's called but you have to put others down to try to make yourself seem better or smarter then them. It is a bit amusing.

What you need to take cognisance of MR MAGS is that you unwittingly BOUGHT INTO the general consensus of my dependable stupidities.  And then you PRESUMED to post accordingly.  That comment 'I'm inclined to see why it is that people call you delusional'

If you reread your past posts to me, you will see where I would of come to that conclusion.

the PATRONISING PRESUMPTION to advise me on measurement requirements when it's been the ENTIRE FOCUS of my work for over 10 years.  You like most readers here NEED that perspective - because it gives you the fleeting and much needed illusion that your opinion matters at all.

It's just hard to believe that in the last 10 years that you haven't tried to run the system continuously. (longer then 17 hours). I would also think that you are in need some type of opinions. 10 years and there is still questions on how to take measurements. Come on, something is wrong, you do need help. A few batteries, a handful of parts and still no idea if it actually works after 10 years.

I have been the VICTIM of the single most focused attack of any member of any of these forums.  The reason for this is because I'm onto something.  That attack HAS WORKED.  It's managed to persuade you all that our contributions are VALUELESS.  And that's the TRAGEDY.  SO.  If you expect me to indulge the fact that YOU TOO HAVE BEEN DUPED - then may I caution you.  It makes my blood boil.  I rather REQUIRE those who are still able to EVALUATE things for themselves.

Is it really an attack or are people just trying to explain things to you and you are taking it as an attack. It's hard for me to believe that people in an overunity forum would attack you if you were onto something. I want free energy just as much as you and everyone else here does. If we didn't, we wouldn't be here. All I did was ask you to do a simple test that most people would have done in the first month of the discovery. Here after 10 years you haven't even done that. I'm not talking about your batteries. I'm saying run the complete circuit for a couple of months or so to see if the batteries loose their charge. No scope, just run the circuit and see what happens when the test is complete. I also read one of your posts where you say there are many uses for your circuit. In the last 10 years have you tried any of these? I really think that you can get 50 experts together and if they tell you that you are wrong, you still won't agree with them.

You really need to take a break. You've been talking in circles. Earlier on you said if we wanted to do the test we should do it ourselves and then you say that you don't want us to do it. Even this last statement. You say that our opinion don't matter at all and then you say that you require those who are still able to evaluate things for themselves. So I guess that means that you only want to hear from those who agree with you. I just hope you don't take it real bad when you realize that you have wasted 10 years of your life because of a measurement error.

I wish you luck, but things don't look to promising from where I'm at.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Mr Mag.  If you were not quite such an intellectual lightweight I'd argue your last post.  But as the significance of what I write ENTIRELY eludes you - then I must needs let it pass.

And Poynty - just a reminder.  We need to see the result of that Q2 as it impacts on the waveform across the shunt.  Please oblige.  You must have it there as you show -5 volts across something.  Not sure if it's the shunt or the battery.

Regards,
Rosemary

[MrMag]

At least I know how to measure a voltage 

Regards,

_{(insert any name here)}

[poynt99]

And Poynty - just a reminder.  We need to see the result of that Q2 as it impacts on the waveform across the shunt.  Please oblige.  You must have it there as you show -5 volts across something.  Not sure if it's the shunt or the battery.

Regards,
Rosemary

I've shown the "incorrect" battery voltage trace only thus far. That is what the green trace is in the scope shots. If you followed and understood my detailed analysis, it should be obvious why this measurement point is incorrect and why it yields an erroneous power computation if sampled by the scope and used as v(t) rather than AVGv(t). The only way to obtain an accurate AVG Pin measurement using this displaced battery voltage measurement point that I've referred to as "vbat", is if it is averaged before being multiplied by the battery current.

One of the fundamental issues that was addressed in my detailed analysis was that taking the instantaneous battery voltage at that measurement point was erroneous. I showed it here again only for comparison sake to those shown throughout the analysis. Using that voltage measurement results in a negative average battery power. Using the "correct" measurement point directly across the 72V battery yields a positive average battery power, just as I illustrated before. I know this because I ran a couple of tests yesterday to confirm.

There is a huge amount of work that goes into doing these sims and producing the labeled wave form scope shots etc. Over the last month and a half I've easily put in over 140 hours of my time doing these sims, scope shots, and technical write-ups.

It would seem that you do not yet understand the schematic I posted; no, the FG is applying -5V to the MOSFET Source, not the shunt nor the battery.

The traces I showed are of the erroneous "vbat" node, at the far end of the battery wiring. I will post the CSR wave form later today if I have time.

.99