Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[evolvingape]

Hello Rosemary,

In Reply #68 made by you today, you state:

“I think we need to apply classical protocols or we'll never cut it with mainstream. “

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/protocols

1. The plan for a course of medical treatment or for a scientific experiment.

Your absolutely right, unless you apply a logical plan via the scientific method you will never cut it with mainstream or anyone else with the ability to think for themselves.

You state:

“I do not care AT ALL what supply is being used. It's the theoretical implications of the measurements and the consequent waveform that is of interest. And this is NOT, absolutey not, restricted to a battery supply. Why do you guys keep going on about this.”

Well mainstream does care about what power supply is being used, and I think you will find a lot of people who occupy this forum will care too. Until you have accurately established the state of your power supply before, during and after the experiment you have no basis to draw any theoretical conclusions at all. That is why we keep going on about this, and I am beginning to wonder why you refuse to perform such simple and commonplace procedures. As it currently stands your results have no validity whatsoever.

You state:

“We do not measure with any ammeters at all. We infer the current flow from the voltage measured across the resistors.”

Volts x Amps = Watts

You refuse to easily measure one parameter and simply calculate it from the other(s)? Any scientist worth his salt would always check his theoretical calculations and verify them with actual measurements whenever possible. Indeed, this is actually the basis of the scientific method itself.

You state:

“Nor would the replacement of the batteries with caps change anything at all whether or not it worked. It's irrelevant. We are not discussing the electrolytic condition of the batteries. We're only talking about the applied energy to a circuit and some means of optimising the output from that supply. That's it. The numbers stack.”

Erm... no, the replacement of Batteries with Caps is not irrelevant at all. Batteries have a stored potential, Caps have an applied potential. Caps would very quickly show whether your circuit is running down or not and consuming power. 6 car Batteries would hide this extremely well even over lengthy testing periods.

Of course we are discussing the electrolytic condition of the batteries, because they are part of the system that you are making theoretical assumptions from. A chemist can only have limited options for checking a battery cell.

They will perform a hydrometer test to check the specific gravity of the electrolyte, they will visually check the plates and electrolyte for sulphation, and then they will...

perform a controlled load test...

because a load test is THE ONLY WAY to confirm the charge storing potential state of the cell!

You are using maintenance free sealed cells so a chemist will ONLY be able to perform a load test because otherwise he would have to destroy the environment of the cell to check the other parameters and therefore invalidate his own tests.

If you were using lead acid cells you could at least measure the voltage under load of each individual 2V cell of the 6off 2V (12V) battery.

This is why we keep going on about this... to constantly avoid the question and attempt misdirection is hugely suspicious and displays a huge lack of understanding of the basics of the technology that you feel you can make theoretical assumptions from and claim infinite COP.

You state:

“If they're wrong - then strangely, they seem to be giving exploitable benefits notwithstanding. And no-one has faulted the measurements nor the protocols.”

So far the only exploitable benefits that have been demonstrated are the fact that you can take 6 car batteries and heat a small wire with them, while producing a parasitic oscillation on an oscilloscope. Hopefully the demonstration video will show more than this

I feel I have to point out that your statement that no-one has faulted the measurements or the protocols is demonstrably wrong! If you doubt this obvious fact then I suggest you go back to page 1 of this thread and read it through from the beginning. If you arrive back here and still have the opinion that no-one has faulted the measurements or protocols then you are in denial.

This needed to be said, so I hope you “get this”.

RM

[neptune]

@Omnibus .Sorry I did not post feedback in other threads .This was because my questions were answered satisfactorily  , and I wanted to avoid cluttering the threads ,so thanks anyway . So we are all in this together , and , to recap , my questions are .
1 What positive voltage is needed on the gate of the Mosfet to fully switch it on ?
2 The output of the 555 timer is a square wave , what is the voltage difference between the 2 output states .
3 The 2 output states are a positive voltage and zero volts [ or is it a positive voltage and a negative voltage] ?
4 Rosemary says that the oscillation occurs when the gate is negative . If true , why not get oscillation occurring and switch in a small battery in place of the 555 circuit , and keep the oscillation going . There would be no drain on this battery due to the high gate impedance.
5 What else , other than a signal from the 555 timer could cause the gate to go negative?

[markdansie]

@evolvinggape
"Erm... no, the replacement of Batteries with Caps is not irrelevant at all. Batteries have a stored potential, Caps have an applied potential. Caps would very quickly show whether your circuit is running down or not and consuming power. 6 car Batteries would hide this extremely well even over lengthy testing periods."

So well put. This has been the failing of many experiments. I have even seen others even fool themselves when using a power supply. That's why many people I know prefer to use caps.
Mark

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Mark and evolvingape

I am reminded how destructive is membership on these forums to any emerging technology.

Here's the problem.  I have a thesis that proposes that the forces are actually magnetic fields in varying dimensions - being one, two or three dimensional.  And in the field they exist outside our own timeframe.  But that's not pertinent to the discussion.  And it's certain to be far outside your own interests.  But the whole idea of this circuit was intended to prove that thesis.  The idea is that any amalgam - any three dimensional object - comprises an atomic and/or molecular structure that is bound by discrete packages of one dimensional fields.  They're extraneous to the atom.  And they simply interact with the atomic energy levels which is here proposed to comprise two dimensional magnetic field.  So.  These small one dimensional fields simply bind those atoms and molecules into a crystalline structure. 

The proposal - as it relates to the transfer of electric energy or to the electromagnetic interaction - is that provided that material is conductive and/or inductive then it is able to induce its own potential difference which is the manifest voltage measured across circuit components.  These fields have unbound from their previous 'holding pattern'.   But this voltage - which is an imbalanced field condition - relies on the amount of mass of those fields.  And this, in turn, is determined by the number of atoms that it binds.  Effectively - the more the mass - the more the fields - the more energy is then brought into play in that electromagnetic interaction.

Now it seems that you are all satisfied that if I were to eliminate the batteries then I would also  thereby prove something? Exactly what?  I take away the source of all those magnetic fields and somehow I must then get this to operate in terms of the prediction in that thesis?  I've tried to get an analogy to this before because it's also MileHigh's favourite complaint.  My answer was something like this.  It's like saying I see you can run.  But can you run without legs?  Or I see you can fly - but can you fly without wings?  I absolutely require all that mass - both in the batteries and in the circuit material.  And if the supply was from a plug source - I would still require all that applied voltage and it would still need to be returned to the plug.  It is the value or the amount of those imbalanced voltages that, I believe, generates that oscillation - or that resonance.   What is valid is to test this on smaller batteries.  Feel free - but then you also may need to reduce the size of the resistor to get that oscillation.  I'm not sure.  But it's possible.  You'll need to scale it from all aspects.

Again.  I am absolutely indifferent to the source itself.  I only require  that voltage and the actual material property of that voltage which I propose is particulate and bipolar.  The results are non classical - for a reason.  The concepts that predicted this result are non classical.  While the measurements are standard - the thing that is actually being tested is not.  But - surprisingly - NOR does that conflict with known science.  It simply conflicts with what has been assumed is the property of current flow.   And, while there's been a great deal ASSUMED about this - there has never been definitive proof of it.  The proposal here is that current flow DOES NOT comprise the flow of electrons.

Rosemary

[nul-points]

i have to concur with the other members who say that the issue of the power source is of key importance here

*IF* there is an energy anomaly in this setup (and this has yet to be established - hopefully by inspection of suitably comprehensive test results) then it will be absolutely necessary to identify the cause and mechanism by which this occurs

one strand of investigation will be to confirm which elements of the system are necessary and sufficient to cause the effect


one possibility (as suggested by Bedini & followers) is that under certain pulsing conditions, a battery can be made to operate as a kind of 'negative resistor' and store more energy than it supplies

if *THIS* is true then Mark's suggestion of using capacitors would not be a sufficient test to confirm OU here because capacitors, as has been mentioned, operate mainly electrically, not chemically


if Rosemary were to repeat her tests using capacitors as the energy source (albeit scaled down due to smaller energy capacity of capacitors compared to the batteries), the results will show one of two things:

A) Rosemary's 'effect' still occurs - therefore the 'magic' is in the circuit/components;

(also, as a result, more people in different disciplines, will be prepared to believe that something unusual has occurred and that it's not just due to the extensive battery energy involved in the original tests)


B) the energy in the capacitors just depletes - with or without parasitic oscillation;

this would disprove Rosemary's assertion** that it doesn't matter what supplies the electrical energy
(eg "I am absolutely indifferent to the source itself"; it can be "wall-plug", "battery";... etc)

in this case, attention must therefore focus back on the batteries - are they a necessary part of an anomaly?  ...or are they just masking the eventual depletion of energy?

in this case, a new test protocol must be developed which enables Rosemary (or others) to establish EXACTLY what is the role played by the batteries in this 'effect'


so, Rosemary - people are only asking you to do the same thing we'd all need to do in the same circumstance - run additional, different tests which answer some real, nagging questions at the back of any good engineer's mind ("have i accounted for all possible conventional explanations?")

ok - said my piece - let's see what the present test results show

all the best
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com/