Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[happyfunball]

I don't get why this hasn't simply been continuously looped as proof positive of it's validity if there is so much supposedly going back to the batteries

[neptune]

Hi Rosemary , and thanks for the reply and the picture . Would you believe I had actually seen that picture before and forgotten about it ! I think they call it "having a senior moment. " @happyfunball . By feeding power back to the battery , is it not therefore looped already ?

[happyfunball]

@happyfunball . By feeding power back to the battery , is it not therefore looped already ?

Then why does it not run continuously?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Every single one of these inventions to date have produced absolutely nothing publicly. Zero, nada. They're always coming to market 'very soon' and never heard of again. Every single one of them.... None of them powering anything in the real world as far as I know. Now we have a 'cold fusion' power plant supposedly being built. Don't hold your breath. Gets tiring after a while. The only benefit I have seen in this quest is some interesting research revolving around resonance (Joule Ringer) which seem to have real world applications, although I've yet to see it being used practically by anyone. What happened to Bedini's 'ferris wheel?' Looked impressive, what is it powering? Anything, anywhere?

Happy

happyfunball.  Another gross misnomer.  LOL Your posts read like the prophets of doom. I've just trailed through a page of them.  Your denial of OU is somewhat brutal.  They're about as inspirational as as a tall glass of tepid tap water.   And you're wrong of course.   Measurements are given all over the place.  It's just when the stack up to contradict what you clearly require - then they're ignored - or considered fallacious.

Just to fill you in here I'll say this again.  When BP (SA)  evaluated these results - some decade ago - they insisted that it would ONLY be proved on batteries.  I was involved in a series of the most boring tests that I have ever been involved with.  All the more arduous as I am - absolutely not - an experimentalist.  I won't here go into the protocols.  But it required close testing of controls against the experiment and run concurrently.    The timing of those batteries was determined like this.  When either one of those supply banks depeleted their PD from 24 v's to 20 volts or when each battery depeleted from 12 to 10  - then the tests were terminated.  That constituted the 'test period'.  What was evidenced is that the controls were entirely 'flat' when the test had barely lost a fraction of a volt.  On the strength of these results PB (SA) allowed us to use their names as accreditors of that early test.  Those early tests are on record as showing a COP>17.  In effect we proved that the test batteries outlasted its watt hour rating against the control.

Now.  When it came to giving a published report on those definitive tests - the PUBLISHER refused to allow ANY REFERENCE TO THE CONTROL.  The publication was a technical journal.  The editor was advised by an electrical engineering academic.  They determined - regardless of my protests - that any reference to battery duration was entirely IRRELEVANT to the argument.  Therefore was I not allowed to reference batteries.  I ASSURE YOU - that as often as you guys state that the battery needs to be tested to it's full duration - just as often will that evidence be ignored.   Batteries vary - one from another.  Some batteries retain their charge and then collapse in moments - to nothing.  Others distribute their charge more gradually.  Others require small currents to match their ratings.  Others don't.  The electrolytes vary - one from another.  So.  If I was to test one then - for conclusive results - I'd need to test them all.

Then.  We have hooked up as many as 7 of those very large batteries in one single test -  apparently discharging nothing.  Now.  The artefact matters.  When this experiment finally gets to our academies, then equivalent and nonequivalent capacities will need to be tested.  In these tests we only used that same bank.  And we could measure absolutely zero loss over a 5 month period.  Exactly how long would it be required to run those tests?  Would it take 2 years to prove it?  10? 6 months?  What?  What exactly would satisfy you?  And how then does one run a control?  Must we SHOW that under normal operating conditions a battery will discharge?  I would have thought that that much could be relied on.  And even then.  I am ready to put money on it that while the most of you engineers require it - our learneds will, to a man, insist that the battery duration is irrelevant.    I wonder if I can state this more plainly.  They're right.  The minute you start evaluating the battery performance - then you are trying to resolve a result in line with specific commodity with a market supply that has varieties that are probably counted in their thousands if not their hundreds of thousands.  That's an awful lot of testing. 

What is intersting is this.  We have an energy returned to the supply that is far greater than the energy delivered from that supply.  Now.  Here's the thing.  If, as is widely assumed by mainstream - that energy is lost to a battery when it discharges current flow - then - by the same token one would expect the energy to be increased in line with a recharge cycle.  In point of fact the batteries voltages varied under test conditions.  The stronger the current discharge the quicker the decline.  But OF INTEREST - is that immediately thereafter it systematically climbs - within minutes - to it's previous high.  Not higher.  Perhaps there are those subsequent tests that may take it higher.  In previous tests we have certainly found a climb to a higher 'start condition'.  But in these tests we did not.  It never exceeded its 'kick off' voltage level. 

I would modestly propose  therefore, that there is a fixed amount of energy that is available from that potential difference - and that no new material - electrons or whatever classical assumption requires - has been introduced to the system.  That's interesting.  That implies that this may be a closed system. It also implies a whole lot of other things.  But for now - just consider that.  That is, if you are not 'happily' out to throw more of that tepid tap water on this research.

Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And Happy - Guys, all,

It is a complete waste of time testing those small wattage values as this does not show depletion on that large stack of batteries.  It may make sense to test those higher wattages.  But here there's a problem.  There is clear evidence that the system is trying to output more energy than is determined by the setting at the gate.  It has OFTEN defaulted that the gate setting seems to slip higher and - in moments - we're in a crisis.  I have - in the past - set fire to sundry components.  Therefore to test this to duration would take time.  Whole days and nights of it.  And someone would need to be there to monitor that accidental 'rise' in output which - most assuredly - would be hazardous.  There simply was not the personnel available on this kind of test basis.  It was simply a 'no go' criteria for testing. 

And I keep saying this.  Feel free to do your own tests.  We've made a complete disclosure of the components required.  I may be giving some small demonstrations to experts as I've got the artefact with me.  But, otherwise, I am most certainly giving experiments a rest for now.  I've been at it for a year and a bit - AGAIN.  And, just to remind you, I really have no interest in experiment.  I am interested only in where these results point.  I just wish there were others who would share that interest.  It's where these tests are pointing that is actually of far greater interst.  On the face of it - and in terms of the measurements applied - all of which conform to classical protocols - the evidence is that there is a second energy supply source on our circuits.  Isn't that the actual reach of OU research?  Aren't we all looking for this energy?  So.  Surely this is a good thing? 

Rosemary