Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Then - in the hopes that that lesson was understood - let me now presume to educate them on the real meaning of the term 'UNDER SAMPLE'.  It'll hopefully then also serve a dual benefit of highlighting the miracle of that REALLY EXTENDED 'self-reinforced' negatively triggered and much extended oscillating waveform - NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH A RIPPLE as Poynty needs to refer to it.  So two lessons in one - so to speak.

You will notice that the this first scope shot has '50 seconds' indicated in the top left hand corner.  That relates to the time in each graticule.  Therefore the LeCroy has taken 4 cycles (as shown) over a total of 500 seconds - or, 500/60 8.3 minutes.  8.3 minutes / 4 cycles = 2.08 minutes per cycle.  that is the absolute outside limit of the switching cycle offered by our functions generator. 

This means that - it takes 2.08 minutes to complete ONE CYCLE between the 'off' and the 'on' of each switching cycle.

You will notice that the cycle and the cycle mean over the SHUNT or CSR are the same values.  This because that scope shot is showing the FULL CYCLES.  If it were only one partial cycle and one full cycle then the cycle mean and the mean average would have varied one from the other.

You'll also notice that the mean average voltage across the shunt as well as the cycle mean average - indicate a NEGATIVE VOLTAGE.  This is because the machine, which is absolutely NOT trying to misrepresent the fact - has determined that the sum of all those voltages above and below zero - HAVE COME OUT NEGATIVE.  This also means that the machine has either shared the team's delusions that more energy is being returned to the battery than delivered by the battery.  Or it means that it is not deluded and that IN FACT more energy is being returned than delivered.  Poynty et 'pack' - just take your pick.  I'm rather indifferent to which option you all choose.  If the Le Croy is sharing our delusions or even if it's reflecting the facts - either way it's a small miracle.  Because it would either mean that we can telemetrically influence that machine through the function of our minds  OR - DARE I SAY IT -  THERMODYNAMIC LAWS HAVE BEEN DEFEATED.  This because, the second law of thermodynamics STIPULATES THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO RETURN MORE ENERGY TO THE SUPPLY THAN WAS FIRST DELIVERED. 

Added.  Actually there's a third option.  The machine may be calculating wrongly.  Then - IF IT IS - it has, co-incidentally INFECTED the Tektronix that CONSISTENTLY DISPLAYED THE SAME VALUES.  So.  Both may be wrong.  Which is not only unlikely - but it would exceed the error margin performance of both machines.  THEY BOTH HAVE FULL CALIBRATION CERTIFICATION.

Here's that scope shot.  It hopefully looks familiar.  And hopefully I've covered the first stage of this argument.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Now.  Poynty, your acolytes and Stefan,  Here's the second sample.  Here you'll notice that the time base has changed.  Look again at the top left hand corner showing 20 S'econds'.  And now you'll see that we have one complete cycle and one incomplete cycle.  In other words we are now beginning to verge on an UNDER SAMPLING.  Bear in mind that it takes not less than 2.08 minutes on this particular switching cycle to complete an entire cycle - this determined by the limit of the functions generator that we're now using.  I hope you can manage to keep all this in mind - and that 'Pickle' is not also rather short on memory and attention span.

So.  Here we have 20 seconds per graticule X 10 graticules = 200 seconds / 60 = 3.33 minutes.  Each cycle takes 2.08 minutes - therefore 3.33/2.08 - 1.6 complete cycles.  ONLY 1 FULL SAMPLE.  The second cycle has been truncated.  IT has been UNDERSAMPLED.  Hopefully you're beginning to get the picture.

added

I had better point this out or there will again be a HOWL OF DENIAL.  Neither sample is here, shown as being complete.  But hopefully you'll understand that the sum of both will still represent one full cycle and one partial cycle.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And so it goes - until we ONLY get partial cycles.  That will be when the sum of all the graticules in the display are anything at all short of 125 seconds or 2.08 minutes.

THAT'S UNDERSAMPLING.  FROM THERE ONWARDS THE NUMBERS IN THE DISPLAY ONLY RELATE TO THE WAVEFORM DISPLAYED.  THE FULL CYCLE MEASUREMENT IS NO LONGER RELEVANT.  I'm finding this entire argument boring in the extreme so will simply post the balance of my samples.  If there is any confusion that persists after this then I must forever give up on the expectation of any kind of expertise for these so called experts.  PLEASE BEAR IN MIND that those such as Neptune and others FULLY UNDESTAND ALL THIS.  WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU POYNTY??  Are you just pretending to not understand.  Or is it just a wild hope that you can convince our readers here that our results are faulted simply because they've been UNDERSAMPLED?  OR.  Do you even understand the term? 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

So Guys

How does one deal with this load of doggy doo?  How does one get rid of all the excrement that results from this barrage of misinformation that you all are subjected to.  How does one HIGHLIGHT the propaganda that is actually behind all this?  All they do is hope against hope that perhaps - JUST PERHAPS - sooner or later either Pickle the SHORT on IQ or Poynty the Utterly Poyntless - will stumble on the right excuse to dismiss our results. Here's how I see that thinking progress - from a feeble, unsubstantiated and ENTIRELY incorrect premise to a complete conviction - in a few easy steps.  And they - as a pack,  Poynty and his yappers - are widely on record as stating that it's I who am delusional.  Either they are - or they're hoping against hope that all the readers here are.

Good Grief!

Here's the machinations of what is loosely referred to as his mind.  You will no doubt all see the point of both surprise and delight - AT LAST - A POSSIBLE REASON TO DISMISS THIS.  'Good Grief!  or Good Heavens! or Of course!  Here's a reason.  Maybe THE reason. Maybe they're undersampled.  No.  No need to check on this.  They ARE UNDER SAMPLED.  VERY NICE.  In fact.  Let me pretend that I've stumbled on this before and SPOKEN ABOUT IT ALL OVER THE PLACE.  Good IDEA.  Really good idea.  Just hope they don't prove that I've never mentioned this before.  So  Here goes.  Onwards and upwards so to speak.  In for a penny in for pound.  Fingers crossed.

Then.  Step 2. 

You're right Hum,

At this point the question is resolved.  It's clearly the best excuse yet.  'You're right Hum, my old friend - my valiant comrade in arms against this overunity fiasco.  Humby Bumby. My  old Pickle - my short fuse, my diminutive friend - my friend in need and a friend in deed.  And INDEED.  So.  My not so humble Humby Bumby you old Humbugger of noteworthy remarkably inspirational misinformation  - YOU'RE RIGHT - ON THE MONEY.  WELL DONE.'

Here all residual doubts have been dispensed with and Poynty ploughs on with some semblance of believing his own thin argument.

and I've had this under-sampling go-around with Rose many moons ago.

THERE it is.  That attitude of exasperation.  And here's more on that thinking.  'All helps to emphasise Rose's recalcitrance.  Not only is she moronic - but she's stubborn to boot. I'll just imply that it's the SAME AGE OLD PROBLEM.  Actually I have NEVER raised this issue before with her.  But what the hell.  Who'll EVER FIND OUT?  No-one cares enough.  And just saying it will give the right impression.  And when it comes to propoganda - then the truth is NEVER the issue.  Just let me deal with generalisations.  All that's needed.  As ever.  In for a penny in for a pound.  Fingers crossed.'

And so the plot thickens.

She didn't grasp the concept of the problem then, and I have my doubts she will now.

You see the problem here?  It's not the fact that we've shown overunity results.  It's my stupidity that is getting in the way of this well orchestrated propaganda.  Clearly UNTEACHABE.

And still thickening

The numbers are all over the place, and the poor scope doesn't have a chance at those settings.

WHAT SETTINGS?  I'VE SHOWN THEM ALL.  But here Poynty is hoping that no-one reading here understands the settings.  If they did they'd KNOW that there's nothing wrong.  And what alarms me is that there are enough who really are that unfamiliar with this that they'll BELIEVE him.  It's a tragedy unfolding.

Regards guys - and just note that there's not an ounce of truth in any of Poynty's post - not this far and not ever.  I'll deal with the balance of his post hereunder.

Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

The numbers are all over the place, and the poor scope doesn't have a chance at those settings. What the heck is with the perceived need to slow the PRR to 100's of seconds.

Not sure if I'm expected to answer this or even that you'll like the answer.  But I'll give it a go.

We have a result that defies all known thermodynamic laws related to the transfer of electric energy.  We have clear evidence of heat being dissipated at a load resistor with NO evident and measurable discharge of energy from the battery supply source.  The measurements are taken from the most sophisticated measuring instruments available. There are NO INCORRECT SETTINGS.  And the instruments themselves are perfectly calibrated and operate within known error margin ratings.  Nor is there any evident undersampling as has been claimed.  Proof of there being no undersampling is evident in a slew of screen shot downloads that preceded this post and entirely support this claim of infinite COP.  And the Le Cory Wavejet 324 is well able to perform those measurements as required. And more to the point is that the circuit is shown to achieve a self oscillating waveform that is able to persist for extended periods without any evident decay or apparent tendancy to decay.  Such self-oscillation is clearly exploitable to further enhance these remarkable results.

Here's an offer for Rose:

I will pay for you to ship your apparatus (minus the batteries and function generator) to me, at which time I will conduct proper testing of the apparatus with the proper equipment, the proper settings, and the proper change of probes if necessary.

If the apparatus proves to be OU, then I will also pay to ship it back to you. If it proves to be UU however, then you can pick up the tab for return shipment.

.99

Golly.  You'd at least need to understand what is meant by undersampling.  And you'd need to know that you CANNOT average your voltages Poynty point.  That's not good measurement protocols.  LOL.  And in any event, I think I'd sooner trust Lucifer than you.  So.  I'll pass on this offer of yours.  You may have noticed that I'm rather more than a little concerned that you've got an agenda here.  When you get rid of those threads on your forum that are dedicated to 'trashing me and my work' then I might think differently.

For now I strongly suspect that there is a commitment to denial that far exceeds any required impartial assessment of anything at all.

Rosemary