Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[poynt99]

But one of our members here is working on the design to do without the functions generator.  He tried this again last night but 'blew' one of the chips.  It needs to be redone.  Hopefully he'll be able to get there.  He has re-activated his account here - I believe.  And hopefully he'll be in a position to explain all this himself.

Blew up a chip....you don't say? Wonder why that would be? 

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

If you have not factored in the DC resistance (and by calculation I see you haven't), then the actual value to be used is 0.9 + 0.25 = 1.15 Ohms.

No actually.  The net value is 0.9 Ohms.  And then only during the oscillation phase.

I provided a schematic (two schematics in fact) that does away with the FG long ago. You've ignored those I guess.

Not actually.  It's outside my competence to build any circuit at all.  And that's only because I don't have the eyes to manage it.  But nothing's to stop you or anyone else from building it.

And yes.  I remember your quarrel with our measurements.  it was all to do with undersampling, then the position of the ground from the signal generator - and then a general complaint about the inductance on our circuit.  I am actually in need of valid objections.

Now regarding the new circuit topology, it would be impossible to accurately determine where the measurement error is without a photo or diagram depicting precisely where the scope probes are placed. I requested this a couple of times already. You ignored those requests I guess.

Far from it.  I've got those photos.  But you'll have to wait for the download.  My PC was hacked.  It's being fixed.  I seem to remember having explained this ad nauseum.  Anyway.  There it is again.  Hopefully I'll get it back next week. Can't wait.  I'm dying to prove how the position of this before the CSR makes not the slightest difference to those results.

Regards,
Rosie-Posie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Blew up a chip....you don't say? Wonder why that would be? 

.99

Don't wonder too long Poynty.  It was blown well before he got here to measure anything. 

Regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And guys, I'm reasonably satisfied that there have been many proofs of exceeding unity - certainly on this forum and certainly elsewhere.  And I am also satisfied that these results have FAR exceeded unity if they have not actually achieved COP infinity.  The use of the term COP INFINITY is when the measure of energy from a supply is less than the energy returned to the supply.  Then the co-efficient of performance can no longer be related to 1.  That is what is evident.  It has been publicly demonstrated which is all that is required for proof.  But it has also been video'd and has been carefully recorded in a published report.  Subsequent to that report there has been a revised schematic on a simulated program that CONFORMS IN ITS ENTIRETY to the results that we achieved on our demonstrated device.  And the circuit that is applicable to all this has been posted by Groundloop and now entirely conforms to the required.

The fact that a simulation of this conforms at all is significant.  It not only endorses our own findings but it shows that - in fact - these results are achievable within the context of proven classical measurement protocols. 

That this thread is being 'flamed' at all - is because Harti is allowing it.  He has advised me privately, that he's thinking of 'closing' this thread because he sees that our measurements may be wrong.  Which no doubt explains why Fuzzy is allowed to post here at all.  It's his speciality to kill my threads.  I have addressed every concern that Stefan has mentioned.  With conclusive argument. If, notwithstanding, this thread is locked - IF that happens - and IF I am, indeed banned, then may I impose on you all to consider his reasons for this?  On a suspicion of incorrect measurements?  It seems strange.  I would then confidently predict that when the honeymoon period is over with Romero - that he too will be disgraced or banned.  I do hope you guys will rally.  You really need to take care of him.  And I think you need to pay especial attention to the motives of these forums.  One hopes that they're intended to promote any OU technology.

Meanwhile I'll leave you with this thought.  Whenever I am banned or whenever my threads are locked - it's a consequence of Fuzzy being allowed free reign to do his worst.  Why is he given that much license? 

Kindest regards,
Rosie

ADDED
And edited spelling

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And while I still have a voice here - there's another point.  When you guys start exploring the solid state version of that circuit of Romero's I suspect you'll begin by applying inductors.  Then you'll progress to more and more simplified versions of that circuit.  And then, unhappily, you'll probably end up with the simplest version of all - which is our own circuit.  Which inclines me to think that we've got a solid state version of the same thing.  Results not as clearly evident - but certainly as dramatic in their values.  And certainly usable.  It's just that Romero's is potentially a generator which should, by rights, obviate any need at all to apply our own. 

It'll be interesting to see how Poynty fares on this solid state reach.  It was an early if not first question.

Regards again
Rosemary