Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Seems to me you could clear up all doubt by hooking a probe to the heating element and one on the batteries and letting it just run indefinitely. Not sure why you're not doing that already. It would quickly become pretty clear if it's legit or not. Unless you are concerned about 'exploding batteries' as you mentioned. If that's the case, then what exactly is the point of any of this

I am not concerned about exploding batteries and I could, indeed, just hook it up and let it run.  I am happy to do so IF that would result in unequivocal proof of what we're claiming.  IT WOULD NOT.  There are at least two examples of perpetual motion for public view.  The one is a chemical interaction.  The other is a mechanical interaction.  Niether have made a blind bit of difference to public perceptions nor to academic denial of over unity.  And we have NEVER claimed perpetual motion. 

Do you even read these posts Happy?

Rosemary

We are well able to prove that the batteries outperform their watt hour ratings.  We've done so.  Ad nauseum.

[happyfunball]

I am not concerned about exploding batteries and I could, indeed, just hook it up and let it run.  I am happy to do so IF that would result in unequivocal proof of what we're claiming.  IT WOULD NOT.  There are at least two examples of perpetual motion for public view.  The one is a chemical interaction.  The other is a mechanical interaction.  Niether have made a blind bit of difference to public perceptions nor to academic denial of over unity.  And we have NEVER claimed perpetual motion. 

Do you even read these posts Happy?

Rosemary

We are well able to prove that the batteries outperform their watt hour ratings.  We've done so.  Ad nauseum.

Just hook it up, slap a few meters on it, and let it run on a webcam for a few months. It's not the same as some weird old chemical cap battery (whatever it is) or the ball on the track. This would be continuous generation of energy in the form of heat. Just do it, it would absolutely go a long way toward proving your claim and would cost basically nothing. It would be necessary to do this if the device is to be used in the real world. Just do it.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Just hook it up, slap a few meters on it, and let it run on a webcam for a few months. It's not the same as some weird old chemical cap battery (whatever it is) or the ball on the track. This would be continuous generation of energy in the form of heat. Just do it, it would absolutely go a long way toward proving your claim and would cost basically nothing. It would be necessary to do this if the device is to be used in the real world. Just do it.

Happy - I'll do it if all else fails.  Then I'll invest the time to do this test EXACTLY as is required. But it's nowhere near as easy as you're claiming.  If it were then I'd have it running between demonstrations.

Here's the point.  I have NO idea of the battery chemistry involved.  While I know we can exceed watt hour ratings - I'm not sure that we'll also get a full recharge.  I have only ever run that test continuously from 11.30i'sh am to 1.20 am.  I had to go out there at night and one of the security guards at the Campus came with me for protection.  During that time the battery lost 0.1 volts according to the DMM.  But the heat was steadily climbing and that setting was already slipping.  I disconnected that test - and - until now have never even referred to it.  Then.  The loss of 0.1 volts is defintely significant - given that we had the system running on 5 batteries.  But the confusion was that the scopemeter showed no loss at all. 

Then.  There is a way to measure energy - ALL ENERGY - or all electric energy.  And I'm relying on this to emphasise the anomaly.  In other words according to STANDARD MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS - there is a breach in classical prediction related to the transfer of energy.  The purists won't look at battery draw down.  They ONLY want those measurements. 

The last thing I want is to see this evidence degenerate into the kind of 'hopes' that Bearden/Bedini have - related to the advantage, for instance, of high voltage spikes to regenerate old batteries.  The results are too significant for that.  And they'll be relegated to the same level of importance if the numbers themselves don't stack.  So what?  What then will happen?  A few members here will apply these principles and then?  They'll claim that their batteries outperform their watt hour ratings?  And like the Bearden/Bedini claim - there will be the endless discussion by those that reject the evidence and those that endorse the evidence. 

This technology of ours, unlike all the others - has only been on the internet for 2.5 years.  It only got these forums - in earnest - in September 2009 - when Glen did that replication.  He then safely took me off these forums by flaming my threads and getting them locked.  That cost me a year.  And I was only able - again - to advance all this when I was re-instated here on Harti's forum.  Significantly I was not given a thread on Poynty's forum.  The only thread available to me was locked.  And I was not given the offer of my own 'abridged' version which all their other members enjoy.  You can guess why?  I had to be kept quiet so they could continue laughing at the ludicrouness of the claim.  So I effectively lost a year.  I haven't  even mention how urgently they tried to prevent this research at CPUT.  They wrote letters there, very much as they do here - actively claiming that this discovery was their own and I was usurping their hard efforts to claim it for an unrelated thesis.

But I confidently predict that 6 years from now - which is about how long Bedini et al, been trying to point at this 'spike' - this same circuit will be doing it's rounds with the same meaningless historical repetition.  It is our opinion - mine and those who are working on this with me - that we need the urgent intervention of our academics.  I cannot change my opinion on this because I see how little is achieved without them.  The good news is that they really ARE open to persuasion.  They just need that evidence.  And it's better to get it approved as an anomaly.  Then they need not stick their necks out that far which may, otherwise, jeopardise their professional reputations.  And once it's on a large number of campuses then we can all rest easy.  One after the other will be trying to outperform the next - and that's a really, really good thing.

And please note.  I keep saying this.  We have discovered NOTHING.  What we've done is UNCOVERED the benefits of counter electromotive force.  It has always been ASSUMED to be the result of 'stored' energy.  What our numbers show - and what that oscillation shows - is that it is actually NOT stored energy but REGENERATED energy.  In other words - circuit material, although passive, is able to generate it's own potential energy supply - provided that the material is inductive or conductive.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary.

edited

[ssss99]

Eya adding new members to new knowledge.






_______________________________________________________________________________________

แทงบอล-บาà¸,,าร่า-à¸,,าสิà¹,น-à¸,,าสิà¹,นออนà¹,,ลน์-sbobet

[happyfunball]

Kind of just sounds like a lot of excuses, Rose. Hook it up and let it run for a few months. At the very least you'll no doubt learn something in the process. No one seems convinced you've proven it at this point so you'd have nothing to lose.