Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[markdansie]

@evolvingape
If Rosemary must use a battery the other simple way to go is to use the smallest capacity battery to meet the specs and since it is claimed to be closed loop let the device run over several days or weeks. A simple heat exchanger could be deviced to measure and extract the heat as it is generated. So if heat persists and the battery maintains its charge...strong evidence.
Just a thought anyway
mark

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi guys.  Golly - we're moving all over the place here.  I keep trying to explain the point about batteries and - for some reason - keep missing you all.  At the risk of stating the obvious, battery discharge/recharge is a chemical event.  What it does is produce an electric current that is then used in whatever application required.  The other way to produce current flow is through a generator which is used by our grid suppliers - and generators - and so on.  Typically the grid supplies ac and the battery dc.  If this question was purely about the recharge condition of batteries - then I'd have lost interest way back.  I am only interested in that current flow and having a stab at determining the properties of that current flow.  This because I believe we are dealing - not with electrons which are tangible particles with known mass and charge - but with an entirely different particle that is here proposed to make up a magnetic field.

Now.  Why this is possibily significant - is because, IF this particle is the 'thing' that makes up the material of current - as we measure it and know it - then we are also grossly underusing it's potentials.  It is proposed to have a bipolar charge.  That way it can move it two directions - subject to a path through any given circuit.  It is proposed to belong to the material 'from whence it came' and that it will get back there if circuit conditions allow.  It is also proposed that in moving through the circuit and subject to it's returning to its source, then its potential differences are equalised and its charge perfectly conserved.  It is also proposed that the heat that is dissipated at sundry components is as transitory as those voltage imbalances.  Once those discrete packages get back to their source they combine with 'broken fields' of these same particles and all that heat then resolves itself in the rebinding of that material.

But I won't bore you with the thesis.  I know that you guys are only interested in the applications.  So again.  Let me try and stress where this points.  To my way of seeing it there are two entirely different sources of current flow.  The first is from the battery and that - being a dc supply - moves exclusively in a clockwise direction.  The second is from the material of the circuit components themselves - which becomes a second source of energy and this moves in an anticlockwise direction.  But what they are both trying to do is to get back to their respective sources being either the battery or that circuit material.  That oscillating or resonating condition is sustained precisely because, no sooner has the battery had a return of all it's voltage - discharged as current flow, than the circuit has extruded its own voltage.  And no sooner has the circuit had a return of all that voltage discharged as current flow, than the battery has extruded its own.  And so on.  In effect the clockwise current flow is the trigger for the anticlockwise current flow.  And the paths for both these flows is enabled on that circuit.  They never settle. 

So.  In effect the first radical departure from mainstream is this proposal.  There is a second energy supply source in that circuit material.  The next point is this.  I expected a greater benefit.  I did not expect this wild oscillation.  But what the thesis does claim is that the heat that is dissipated at the work station of a circuit, results - not from any transfer of energy as such - but from the transfer of a voltage imbalance into the circuit material itself.  The proposal is that the current flow has a charge bias - being either positive or negative.  The sum of those discrete orbits of binding fields in that circuit material is precisely balanced in an orbit.  An orbit is made up of two moments.  It first moves in one direction with a charge justification and then it moves in an opposite direction with an opposite justification.  Therefore, if these binding fields are orbiting - then one half opposes the other half.  So, if the current flow that is imposed through that material is say, positive - then it will extrude all those positive fields in its path.  And if it is negative then it will extrude all those negative fields in its path.  Essentially that orbit is broken and one half of the fields then move outside of the material and congregate again in a long string that orbits that material component which we then measure as voltage.  It leaves behind the other half.  And while the one extruded half can still congregate as a 'field' what is remaining - that other half - cannot.  It then loses it's 'grip' so to speak on all those atoms that it was holding in a fixed pattern.  And in a cascading sequence of breaks it then becomes as hot and slow and big as it was first fast and cold and small.  It literally grows.  It also then comes out of the field condition and can be seen and experienced in our own dimenstions.  It is no longer orbiting at velocities that exceed light speed.  We see that glow.  Photons can now interact with that material.  It is very much in our tangible dimensions. 

The point is this.  That imbalanced - that broken condition of those discrete packages that remain in the circuit material - it is a CONSEQUENCE of the current flow in the first instance.  Energy has NOT been transferred to it from the supply.  All that has been transferred is a voltage imbalance. 

THAT is the point.  Sustain that imbalance and, what is evident, is that this heat is also sustained.  If you can get your minds around this - then I've finally succeeded.  You see, there are many out there who actually do understand the thesis.  It's no accident that wherever I post I am trailed and trolled by a stream of highly competent individuals who are most anxious to silence me and discredit this thinking.  And the reason for this is that the thesis is showing us free energy and the tests are proving this.  Just think about it.  The lastest from our Poynty is that I'm an Idiot savant - for God's sake.  And Humbugger's mandate is unquestionably to throw as much dirt in this trail as he possibly can.  And under usual circumstances it's enough to flame these threads of mine and kill the subject.  I hope, this time round - and after the last spate of efforts that we've managed - that this will survive these attacks.  And guys.  It would be a good point to try and grasp this thinking.  Because we are not talking batteries.  We're actually talking free and abundant energy and thanks to the 'team' we've found it - pretty conclusively - in that extraordinary oscillation.  I think.

Rosemary

[evolvingape]

Hi Mark,

Yes I completely agree with you but there will be problems implementing this approach.

A quote from Reply #75 by Rosemary:

“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.”

So Rosemary is saying that it will be valid to test with smaller batteries but she herself will not be doing this. The circuit is also going to have to be scaled differently which will mean that components will change.

Full specifications of the circuit are still outstanding despite in Reply #1 harti stating that they would be forthcoming after the demonstration. I do not believe harti goes around telling untruths, so I am forced to believe that he was led to believe that full specifications would be provided.

Operating procedures for the tuning of the circuit are not available, and the only ones capable of performing said tuning is Rosemary and her team.

So yes, while your points about smaller batteries and also caps are perfectly reasonable, they are also going to be completely ignored by the originator of the technology and the claims based on said technology will only come from the circuit as it currently stands.

So in light of the difficulties I have changed my approach. I am now asking Rosemary to provide evidence and proof with the circuit unchanged, using a method that we can all agree would show some indication of whether the circuit is drawing power or not.

We do not need exact measurements, we only need to show a difference or not to provide strong evidence one way or another. Without performing these tests Rosemary has no basis whatsoever to claim that she has found a source of infinite energy.

As Rosemary has not published her thesis in a legible format, she is the only one that understands it. Please Rosemary, do not presume to know what are my interests. I would be most interested in a full and complete report of your thesis, with evidence and results to back your claims. So far we only have speculation on your part about what you think is happening!

She claims the thesis is showing us free energy (what thesis ? Please provide a link to where it is published) and the tests are proving this (what tests ? You have not provided any results or evidence at all, only conclusions).



RM

[neptune]

Am I right in thinking that a full technical report will be issued on the demo which occurred on March 12th ? If so , this will hopefully settle all arguments on testing protocols . Meanwhile , let us all keep cool and let not our differences blind us to what we have in common . Rosemary is a strong woman and does not need me or anyone else to defend her . She does things her way , and she owes us NOTHING .She has already given us the gift of the century . I do not pretend to understand her thesis , as what knowledge I have is based on classical theory . I do not doubt that someone will try caps as a power supply , and a lot of other ideas . I look forward to the official report . I believe that when the effect is confirmed and isolated , circuits will be possible without a pulse input , and will be self oscillating .

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Am I right in thinking that a full technical report will be issued on the demo which occurred on March 12th ? If so , this will hopefully settle all arguments on testing protocols . Meanwhile , let us all keep cool and let not our differences blind us to what we have in common . Rosemary is a strong woman and does not need me or anyone else to defend her . She does things her way , and she owes us NOTHING .She has already given us the gift of the century . I do not pretend to understand her thesis , as what knowledge I have is based on classical theory . I do not doubt that someone will try caps as a power supply , and a lot of other ideas . I look forward to the official report . I believe that when the effect is confirmed and isolated , circuits will be possible without a pulse input , and will be self oscillating .

Neptune, I'm afraid the only report there is the one on the blog.  I presume you've read it.  There won't be another but we may yet try and publish a paper - yet again.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

here's the link - in case you missed it. 
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/03/report.html