Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Do you need proof from 5 auto mechanics to assure you that your car engine has stopped running or that the petrol is decreasing?

You seemed to have completely missed the point of the analogy. You have your assertion that the batteries supply no net energy to the circuit, yet you have provided no credible proof of that assertion. That means that there remains enough doubt about your assertion to require further or different testing. Obviously most if not all the readers here embrace this doubt as well, otherwise there would be widespread attempts to replicate, of which I see none.

So, to put the issue to bed, there is one definitive test that can produce undeniable results, and that is the continuous operation test I have already proposed and laid out for you. The results will be clear, certain, and undeniably correct. All doubt about whether the batteries' state of charge declines or not will be put to rest.

You do not require the endorsement from any "experts" in order to see the logic and clarity in this method. Your denial of this fact is obviously a ploy being used to skirt around the real issue at hand. It's quite apparent the proposed test makes you quite nervous. You really should afford the readers here more credit. Your denial of this test based on some nonsensical notion that it first requires the endorsement of 5 experts is an insult to the readership here. Your insecurity about this test and the potential results are more than obvious.

Perform the test, and put the issue to rest. Do the right thing.

.99

My dear Poynty Point.  This is getting really boring.  I am very happy to waste another 5 months of my life with experiments IF there is a guarantee of MOVING ON.  You are rather insulting my own intelligence here.  PROVE that I'll not be wasting my time and I will PROVE that these batteries outperform their watt hour rating.  Not a difficult thing to do.  It could all be entirely completed and in the bag possibly within a mere 48 hours.  BUT I WILL NOT DO THE TEST OTHERWISE.  THAT'S FINAL.

There is not a single test - NOT ONE - that you and yours would acknowledge.  You do not have the required integrity.  God knows.  You can't even admit you were wrong with that undersampling fiasco.  Many other examples.  So.  For you to suggest any test at all - is NOTHING.  I need others to assure me that they'll recognise it as CONCLUSIVE.  You cannot.  You are simply not man enough

Rosemary

[cHeeseburger]

...the time-eater, Chronophage, devourer of hours...
Interesting art piece there.  And now, on a completely different subject...

I'm sure I'm not the only one curious about this, Rosemary.  You keep telling us all that (despite the many arguments to the contrary) you are 100% convinced of the success of your demonstrations, the proof of your theory and the validity of your measurement protocol.

You also repeatedly emphasize your primary focus on getting the attention and interest of "mainstream academia" and dismiss outright the validity of any skeptical opinions or critical observations expressed by anyone who is not a PhD EE.

Why do you then spend so many countless hours arguing with such unqualified fools as we on these several internet forums and your blog?  Are we the only poor souls who will respond to you?  Honestly, Rosemary, why do you waste your time?  Can you really not find one single qualified PhD EE who will even listen for five minutes? 

You've talked and talked about presentations to experts and tried endlessly to make us believe you are in constant intimate dialog with an array of experts who endorse your findings and guide your methodologies, yet you equally often, of late, have openly admitted that not one single EE expert has ever once even looked at your procedures and the results.

Maybe it's time to point your efforts away from verbosely and publicly arguing matters with people whose qualifications fall far short of your requirements and stop wasting your precious time and ours. 

I, for one, have given up all hope that you will ever respond as a scientist to any earnest effort to help you understand why your measurements might be perceived as being basically flawed.  You would rather argue and throw out a barrage of snide remarks and personal insults than thoughtfully consider any critical opinion or observation.  Could this be the reason why no academic expert will give you even a brief audience?

Humbugger

[utilitarian]

I am not sure why you guys are even arguing over measurements.  Who cares about measurements?  Just make it self loop and then it will speak for itself.  At over 17 COP, or infinite now, I think, how hard can it be to loop the output back to the input?  Even allowing for loss, at over 17 times efficiency, it should be easy to make a self runner.

Then no argument will be needed over how such and such is measured.

[cHeeseburger]

I am not sure why you guys are even arguing over measurements.  Who cares about measurements?  Just make it self loop and then it will speak for itself.  At over 17 COP, or infinite now, I think, how hard can it be to loop the output back to the input?  Even allowing for loss, at over 17 times efficiency, it should be easy to make a self runner.

Then no argument will be needed over how such and such is measured.

Rosemary firmly believes that her setup already is "looped" and "self-running".  It sits there on the bench and creates three outputs with no net input.  One output is heat from the load resistor to the environment; another is copious amounts of current continuously charging the batteries.  Thirdly, she reports a full 5 Watts flowing out of the MOSFET gates into the signal generator.

It's a real puzzle why the batteries have not yet boiled out given that she has been charging them 5 hours a day for five months with never any drawdown!

What more absolute proof of looped self-running could there be?     Right Rosemary?

Humbugger

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I am not sure why you guys are even arguing over measurements.  Who cares about measurements?  Just make it self loop and then it will speak for itself.  At over 17 COP, or infinite now, I think, how hard can it be to loop the output back to the input?  Even allowing for loss, at over 17 times efficiency, it should be easy to make a self runner.

Then no argument will be needed over how such and such is measured.

utilitarian - it's actually already a closed loop.  Just not that obvious.  But there's no 'easy fix' or no 'easy  proof' in the way you're hoping.  And I'm well aware of the fact that you ONLY want that proof.  Unfortunately - you'll have to bear with me.  I can only do my best - and I believe I'm doing it right.  I would love to do a razzamataz rabbit out the hat kind of thing.  But that would simply open a new can of worms - and then everyone will be talking 'battery types' and the entire focus will be off the physics principle and back to some kind of chemistry debate.  And those debates will take more than my life time to settle.

If I can simply get back on track here.  You're trying to get me to show you a small puddle of energy.  I'm trying to get everyone to see whole oceans of the stuff.  BUT.  If there were guarantees that in showing that puddle then we could move on to those oceanic views - then I'm definitely game.  It's just that I've pointed at the puddle for many many years.  And I now know that our experts are NOT interested in that argument.  They want an invincible argument - not something that may be guaged from a disputable chemical reaction.  And for that invincible argument then they need to look at those measurements.  It's only Poynty et al - who are debating this fact.  And that's because they can't dispute the measurements.  You see for yourself.  They're trying to prove that the measurements are irrelevant.  And if this were true - then science is irrelevant - based as it is on measurement. 

But I've told you the conditions under which I'll test that 'puddle'.  I'm happy to do so.  But for now - can we perhaps move on? 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary