Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys a quick word here.  I challenge anyone to do a simulation where the phase angles are at precisely 180 degrees.  If they are not precise then, as day follows night - they'll ring and cancel out at zero.  At 180 degrees they'll reinforce each other.

What intrigues me is this.  I've been called delinquent - ignorant - presumptuous - pretentious - deluded - self-serving - deceptive - optimistic - fanciful - manipulative.  Name it.  It's there.  In fact I've also been called an IDIOT SAVANT.  Poynty?  I have a really functional intelligence quotient.  Surely that much is evident?  And right now Hamburger is throwing a hissy fit with MileHigh as his praise singer.  So what?  What if I am all of those things?  What has it got to do with the issue at hand?  We are only showing results.  And those results are hugely promising.  But they unquestionably need research.  We're all, on our team - ONLY anxious that this get researched.  If any out there need to take the credit - FEEL FREE.  Just DON'T try and patent it.  I'll contest that to my dying breath and with my last cent.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

[Feynman]

The possibility that the heating element is being powered exclusively by the battery needs to be excluded.  Measuring the input energy via  the four scope traces will establish some degree of confidence in this, so I look forward to a higher resolution of the scope traces to calculate AUC.

Another point:

When this is applied to each sample from a spreadsheet analysis across the 500 000 to 1 million samples supplied by the digital storage oscilloscopes, then the product of this and the battery voltage represents the instantaneous wattage. The sum of these values, divided by the number of samples, represents the average wattage delivered over the entire sample range.
-Section 3.2, report on the tests for the demo held today

...This is confirmed by detailed analysis of data downloads to spreadsheets...
-Section 4.6, report on the tests for the demo held today

These spreadsheets are important. In the interest of replication and characterization of what you are observing, it would be helpful if all the relavent source data (including raw spreadsheet data) were to be published.  The process of 'peer review' in an open-source community manner requires full disclosure, including source spreadsheets of observations. 

At these slowest switching speeds, at 6.172 mHz, and during that burst oscillation mode period where the frequency is measured at close to 1.5 MHz, the battery supply source is seen to recharge.
-Section 4.4

The claim of the battery recharging needs to have the support of experimental observations, results of repeated trials, raw data etc.  Spreadsheets, experimental notes, and/or Video would help. 

I remember you have mentioned you don't want to bother with battery tests and load tests etc.  I understand this can be time-consuming , but this part is critical.   The batteries are still connected.   They are a possible source of the power to the heating element.  They must be excluded as the power source in order to confirm an anomaly.

The voltage data of the battery and the temperature of the heating element over repeated experimental trials that forms the basis in claim 4.4 need to be published if this effect is to be analyzed and/or replicated.     This include not just a single scope trace, but multiple experimental trials and results  (starting voltage, voltage as a function of time, and ending voltage for all anomalous experimental trials) as compared to the behaviour of the heating element..

For example, as mentioned previously, someone pointed out that there is a chart for the 'control' results, but there is no such chart for the 'experimental/anomalous' results  (besides scope traces which are too low a resolution).  A chart measuring input voltage, input current, ambient air temp, and temp at load needs to be published for 'anomalous' operation.

Further photographs and/or video of the setup would be helpful.

I believe overunity exists, is possible, and there are working configurations (for example , HHO can power a generator in closed-loop operation).

I would be pleased if this circuit is overunity, but we need more information to proceed. In the absense of self-running operation (closed loop) there is a higher standard of proof, and we must meet the requirements for open-sourcing of all data  in order to have a viable , replicable free-energy system.

This open-sourcing of all available experimental data (including raw data , spreadsheets, photographs, video, and lab notes) should apply to all potential methods and results. I look forward to the open-sourcing of more experimental details.

Best Wishes,
Feynman

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Feynman - I'm trying to get those scope resolutions posted.  It takes me forever.  Bear with me.  And then, indeed, I'll attend to your every comment.  It's just so nice to deal with ISSUES related to the test.  I assure you you'll have my undivided attention and where possible, co-operation.

Thanks for your inputs.  Just so nice to deal with this level of criticism.  I'll get back here during the day.  But right now I'm plodding through the files to get the right pictures so that you can reference them.  I'm absolutely not quite the quickest on the block.  I think I'm going to have to bug some of the team to sort this out for me.  But I'll first try it myself. 

Are you in SA?  Can you please email me.  I'll see what we can do to download those spreadsheets.  They're HUGE.  I know I can't sent them by email.  I've tried.  There must be some alternative.  My email address is ainslie@mweb.co.za

Thanks Feynman.  LOVE THE NAME.  He's the first guy who learned how to explain particle interactions diagrammatically.  What a genius.

Kindest regards
Rosemary

[powercat]

I took time out last night to read PESwiki.  There's a thing in there where some guys from NASA are prepared to replicate motors that claim OU results.  I sent them the following email.

Dear Michael,

It's not a motor - but we'd be glad of some replication of the attached test - by Ken and/or Mike.  Let me know if you need more information.

Regards

From the team
Rosemary Ainslie

Hi Rosie
The only place I can think where he got the motor idea is TK's video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x0wQJrc9To

Congratulations it's been a week since the demonstration and you have virtually 10,000 readers on your thread,that's a lot of people looking every day
looking forward to the video on Monday.
All the very best.
cat

[evolvingape]

@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

Yes, but sometimes these things just only work when using lead acid or NiMh batteries
as is the case with pulsed battery boosters like Bedini or Newman or Joule Thief style circuits.

Caps just don´t work here cause they don´t have the right electrons-ions in them...

Regards, Stefan.

Hi Stefan,

A simple substitution of Caps for Batteries will conclusively show whether the anomaly is reliant on the chemical properties of the Battery Cells. We cannot know this until it has been evaluated, we can only assume that Caps will not work. I believe this would be an important simple test to confirm the anomaly is present only in chemical cells.

RM