Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[neptune]

Infringer talks about applications .This is something we would all like to see . However , I personally feel that this will not happen in the immediate future , until a little bit more experimental work is done . There are two kinds of people into technology . We have the theoreticians and the practical engineers . Both are essential to the advancement of technology . But they tend to look at the world in two separate ways . I personally am more of an engineering mindset . To Rosemary , her thesis is everything , and rightly so .To me and perhaps a lot of other people , getting a predictable controllable reliable device is what matters .I would be wonderful if the Academics embrace this . But to arrange that will not be easy . The alternative as I have said before , is to follow the same path as Rossi [he of the cold Fusion device] and show some thing working , thus making the views of the academics irrelevant .

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Infringer talks about applications .This is something we would all like to see . However , I personally feel that this will not happen in the immediate future , until a little bit more experimental work is done . There are two kinds of people into technology . We have the theoreticians and the practical engineers . Both are essential to the advancement of technology . But they tend to look at the world in two separate ways . I personally am more of an engineering mindset . To Rosemary , her thesis is everything , and rightly so .To me and perhaps a lot of other people , getting a predictable controllable reliable device is what matters .I would be wonderful if the Academics embrace this . But to arrange that will not be easy . The alternative as I have said before , is to follow the same path as Rossi [he of the cold Fusion device] and show some thing working , thus making the views of the academics irrelevant .

Neptune, those are good points.  My problem is not so much that I'm not interested in applications - but that it's just WAY outside my competence.  You guys probably don't realise it.  I have never even changed a plug.  Truly a self-confessed clutz.  I say this with a certain amount of reluctance as the Our.com detractors will, no doubt, use this to deny that I have any competence at all.  But when it comes to technical - then you guys are MUCH NEEDED. But I also know that when you can wrap your minds around some REALLY SIMPLE concepts then - what I've been pointing to - you guys will be able to FULLY unfold.  Again.  Outside my competence.  I just - so badly - want those concepts to be understood. The more so as they're simple.  But by the same token - they will make a world of difference and an entirely different world. And we need that difference.

Take care Neptune.  And so grateful that we've got your moderate reasonable sensible input.  It's a required balance to my own enthusiasm.  ALSO.  Your argument also carried with the Wright bros and - many similar.  So.  Go for it. And frankly, I think the cost of developing an application won't be much different to the cost related to more testing of this circuit.  That's been done to death.  I think so - anyway.  Let's measure it in the real world.  That would be so, so nice.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

[infringer]

Rosemary,

I stand behind you in the fact that you show an anomaly. But I do think there should be a simplistic way of putting this into an application it would easily show weather results are skewed or not.

I am not sure of the scopes in general but I do know that all electronics are subject to power glitching of some sort whether it is a faster cycle or low voltage or what have you even stuff with watch dog timers, anti glitching measures and so forth has been glitched for different reasons many times it is done intentionally to defeat security measures on electronic devices but I am not hip to the hardware in a scope or a meter for that matter to know that they are not prone to these fluctuations in power causing the erratic readings its not entirely an impossibility in my mind but my mind is less educated then your own.

Oddly it appears you may be on to something your theory was interesting on why it works talking about the atom and then shortly after I read something about an test they did with the LHC showing there may be another particle due to the fact that where two particles hit the ejection direction is predictable with in an error tolerance of 0.07% which is rather stunning it made me think of your theory with slight correlation to it.

I guess I wish you the best and would like to see something running a cop>1 is free energy and could be applied to generate energy if you had made a larger unit the COE should remain the same but you should get more excess energy thus providing an application for energy generation I would assume anyways.

Forgive me for my ramblings no I really do not wish to create your device or patent any portion of your device it is not my style I guess I was looking for a silencer for you and probably talked a bit to sharply.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary,

... I guess I was looking for a silencer for you and probably talked a bit too sharply.

LOL.  I suspect there's some truth in the complaint that I 'talk' or 'write' far too much.  Just make allowances Infringer.  I am most anxious to share something.  Rightly or wrongly I feel I'm in the same kind of position as Christopher Columbus - when he pointed to the vast American continent.  He must have been pretty 'gob smacked'.  And I'm trying to point to something much, much bigger. 

I've just read another analolgy to this.  If we took all the particles out of all the atoms of everyone alive today - we'd make a brick the size of your average sugar cube.  Approximately 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/2".  That points to an awful lot of so called empty space.  I've simply proposed that all that space? -  it's 'chock-a-block' filled with magnetic fields.  And that's important - in a way.  Because IF it's right - then it also means we've rather 'under used' all that potential.  But for all that it sounds simple - it's actually mind bendingly subtle.  Bubbles within bubbles.  Anyway.  I'll spare you the details.  But in the wild hope that there are any still interested in this, and in the equally wild hope that anyone may yet read this - here's my blog link to the thesis. A work in progress - but it's getting there. Sorry if this appears to be 'off topic'.  It actually does have some residual relevance to this thread.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/03/98-model.html

edited typos

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello Magzy - I've still not managed to understand your argument.  But the fault is mine.  I don't know anything about those capacitors.  I definitely see an increase in voltage across the 2nd cap - presumably having been fed to it by the first cap.  And am I right in saying that the first cap was charged from a battery to a max of 10 volts?  So.  If the second cap is in excess of 100 volts - then, to my mind that's unequivocal proof.  But I've also read nul-point's measurement and I simply don't know enough about this to measure it. 

What i would say is this.  If you and woopy can get some work out of the second cap that exceeds the energy 'in' then no-one could complain.  Quite apart from which - what I do know is that we have to challenge all mainstream predictions if we're ever going to get through on these arguments.  And for that you get 10 out of 10.  Well done Mags.  Keep up the good work and let's see that WORK number.  I know that you two work as a neat team.

Sorry it took me so long and then I could do so little with the information.  I was absolutely locked out of internet access through the weekend.

Take care Mags.  I've written you while I was down.  I'll see if I can find that draft and send it along.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie