Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And guys, just to get back to that COP INFINITY number.  Romerouk's device is able to keep going over extended periods without any further input of any energy at all.  And while all is turning it's also driving a light load.  In terms of classical physics the amount of energy that has been delivered must equal the amount of energy that is dissipated.  Therefore, by rights the turning of the rotar and the lighting of the light must eventually grind to a halt and die out respectively.  Clearly they do not.  the actual Joules expended over a 5.5 hour experiment is calculable.  As are the amount of Joules required to charge the caps equally so.

Let us assume that the device can run - uninterrupted - for say, - 1 hour.  So take the product of the volts of the battery and the amperage of the energy injected into the caps.  Then multiply it by the brief time it takes to charge the caps.  Possibly 80 seconds at its outside most.  That's the Joules value - and that's the power input into the system.  So.  Let's assume a 12 volt supply and a generous 4 amps current flow - vi.  Then for the 'dt' part of that equation - add in that 80 seconds to charge the cap.  That's 12 volts * 4 amps * 80 seconds = 3 840 Joules or thereby.  Now.  All that's needed is to take the product of the wattage dissipated by the lights because that's got a known value.  Then start multiplying.  60 seconds for 60 minutes for ..... what?  1 hour? 2 hours? 5 hours?  Let's assume 20 watts dissipated as light.  That's 20 * 60 * 60 * 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 ...... Now we're already at 360KW.  So.  3840 Joules input for 360 000 watts output?  That's most certainly COP INFINITY.   And we haven't even factored in the energy required to turn the rotor. 

There is no question that Romero's device is at COP INFINITY.  I am amazed that anyone would find cause to question it.  Correctly the question should be this.  IF energy delivered by a supply is depeleted anywhere at all in the circuit then how come this gadget is able to run beyond 5 seconds at best?  MH.  With the utmost respect - you're on a hiding to nowhere with your latest objections.

At its least - this evidence will need to be resolved outside the known paradigms related to the transfer of energy.  And if anyone at all accuse me of being 'off topic' - I assure you I am NOT.  It is very much on topic.  It has everything to do with our own claim.  And our own claim will not just 'go away'.  Where our device is likely to be of value - is in the ouput of higher wattage values.  At least until the rotor is able to drive a bigger load.  Which I'm reasonably satisfied will be the next step. 

What is evident in both tests is this.  Current can be induced to flow continuously provided only that the circuit is able to maintain a state of imbalance that the potential difference across a circuit can be retained.  All of which begs a revision of the actual properties of current flow.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

edited.  Revised the input numbers to tally with the video evidence.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And guys, I've also been giving this some more thought.  If Romero's device can be managed as a generator - then that would be a very good thing.  But there are many hurdles to take it there.  In the meantime there is the real possibility that our own device technology will be able to power a generator.  Which is certainly also of value. 

So.  For the Mark Dansies and others who are ready to dismiss the relevance of our own technology.  Don't be too quick.  I think that both sides of this requirement are managed between both these technolgies.  What will be of interest is if this subject can be picked up by the Bedini crowd.  They may be able to modify their own apparatus to do what Romero does.  That would be a quicker route to getting this technology to higher motorised power.  And that's essential for our motor vehicle requirements.  Anyway.  I see it all happening and happening fast.  It's like MileHigh said.  A flush of dandelions in spring.  Except they're not dandielions - they're orchids.  And if there's a seasonal relevance - then it's because it's going to make our winters tolerable.

I just can't stop smiling. 
Regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

AN OPEN LTTER TO POYNTY POINT

Dear Darren,

I've gone over your post.  I've re-read most of what you've written.  I need you to pay attention.  The ONLY way to determine the amount of energy from a supply is by determining the amperage flow from the supply times the voltage across the supply times time.  There is no other correct method known to classical science.

We have done this.  On all our tests.  And all of them show COP INFINITY.  It's that simple.  In other words - there is more energy being returned to the supply than delivered from the supply.  Now.  You can argue the relevance of our results in terms of anything that you want.  The point of departure from classical prediction is precisely when the sum of those values - those returning voltages across the shunt - EXCEED the voltages from the supply and they 'turn negative'.  Then you can calculate the shunt at any value at all.  There is still more energy being returned than being delivered.  Either that or all our measurements are wrong.  And if they're wrong then they're wrong on the most sophisticated instruments available.  Which is highly unlikely - the more so as the more sophisticated the measurement the greater the evident benefit.

Then just consider this.  We have HUGE capacity in our batteries.  But we have now been running those batteries for over 8 months.  There is absolutely NO evident loss of voltage across any of them.  Does that not speak to some kind of proof?  We recharged 2 of them after the fire - but that was it.  Then consider this.  We have taken the water to boil were there was ALSO clear evidence of an increase in battery voltage despite a clear INCREASE in the wattage output over the load.  Those events were simultaneous.  Then consider this.  Look at Romero's set up and read my conservative power analysis related to this. 

What I'm trying to tell you is that you are looking at evidence all over the place that is absolutely in defiance of known physical paradigms.  And you really need to take this on board.  What you are not asking is this.  "Could it be that Rosemary is telling the truth?  Could it be that Romero's device is proof positive?  Could I have been WRONG?'  That's the challenge.  You do not hesitate to advise us all that we're wrong.  But you need to take a good look.  You're like St Paul charging about the place to crucify claims and claimants.  But unlike him you've not yet seen the light.  You've  not taken the evidence on board.  And if I am lying or misrepresenting the facts,  then there are an awful lot of people who have witnessed this who are also collaborating in that lie.

And what's doubly sad is this.  You have already found those contestable values on your own simulation.  It is telling you that there's a negative sum in those voltages.  It's also telling you that you've exceeded unity.  In fact, precisely because those values are negative - it's telling you that you've actually got COP INFINITY.  But you're even inclined to dismiss the relevance of your own numbers.  What does that say?  Not only does PSpice give you the tools to make the circuit results.  It also gives you the evidence.  I have been advised by some considerable authority - that if a simulation can duplicate our numbers then there is actually no more evidence required.  In other words our apparatus is REDUNDANT.  Yet you're questioning those simulated numbers as dismissively as the test evidence.  It is simply not logical.  And I'm the first to pay tribute to your talents.  I always have.  And I'm satisfied that you're capable of better.  I believe you need to look again at the evidence that is happening everywhere now.  Golly.  We're already getting replications - alternate applications - and that with ease.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

[fuzzytomcat]

A wealth of data showing a great eye for all the details in this thread, a must read for everyone to receive the full benefits of this on topic discussion of information provided

http://rosemaryainslie-publicblog.blogspot.com/
Quote -
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Anonymous said...
May 9, 2011 6:22 PM

Interesting approach for Rosemary trying to "FLAME" her own thread to get it locked down.

The COP > INFINITY heat must be getting turned up on her unfounded claims or put down where they belong.

Rosemary is torn between telling the "truth" on a proper scientific method that's verifiable on her COP> INFINITY device, or something more like a unproven "THESIS" presented to the open source community.

Rosemary's history showed on a COP> 17 device presented to the open source community .... many experimentalist tried all her published documentation with the same end results "IT DIDN'T WORK" at all not even a COP> 0 proven.

Rosemary's "THESIS" now starts with a totally scientifically unproven COP> 17 and continues with the same scientifically unproven results to a COP> INFINITY.

.... and all Rosemary's device(s) Observers, Engineers and Academics are silent and never to be seen, the untrained hopfuls and her lap puppies cheer victory .... and a small few that are willing to endure Rosemary Ainslie's abuse to stop the ongoing hoax on society continue.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________



It kind of goes with what was posted by Rosemary in  Reply # 1159  here at OU .... I'll only quote part of the posting ....


http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg284643#msg284643          ( reply # 1159 )

Rosemary's Quote -
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

I really need our evidence for my thesis.  But it's nowhere near as useable as Romero's.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_%28scientific_method%29       Replication ( Scientific Method )

Reproducibility is one of the main principles of the scientific method, and refers to the ability of a test or experiment to be accurately reproduced, or replicated, by someone else working independently. The results of an experiment performed by a particular researcher or group of researchers are generally evaluated by other independent researchers who repeat the same experiment themselves, based on the original experimental description (see independent review). Then they see if their experiment gives similar results to those reported by the original group. The result values are said to be commensurate if they are obtained (in distinct experimental
trials) according to the same reproducible experimental description and procedure.

Is this about a verifiable scientific method of recorded evidence of a claimed COP > INFINITY on a experimental device ( Rosemary's ) .... or ....

just the minimum or even less of whats required for a possible "THESIS" about ZIPPONS .....  Huh?

If I was Romero .... well .... never mind that's his device .... 



FuzzyTomCat

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys, I have appealed to Harti to apply moderation to this thread.  He is allowing a level of comment that is breaching his own forum rules.  He not only is ignoring the request but has written to advise me that he's thinking of closing this thread.  He claims that we have to build the circuit to run without the functions generator and that he suspects that there may be measurement errors.

I cannot comment on the validity of this concern.  But what I can report on is this.  If it is possible to duplicate our numbers on a simulation then there are ostensibly no errors in our own measurements.  We have now got undertakings from two forum members to run their own simulations.  And I'm still to hear from some others that are not associated with this forum.  There are also some academics who are going to do this.  Some more biased against than others.  It will be interesting.  But what I do know is that if there are ANY that show results consistent with our own - even the one - and provided that the schematics comply to our own specifications - then from that time on - our own test results WILL BE CONCLUSIVE.  It's that simple.  We can, from then on, ignore the test apparatus and simply MOVE FORWARD.  And this assurance has been given me across the board.  So.  That's where I'll be concentrating.

And if these simulated results comply to our own test results - then it also means, as I've been saying all along, that Faraday TRUMPS Kirchhoff.  And that also will PUT PAID to our constraints required for the transfer of electric energy.  And I confidently predict that those simulations will be forthcoming.  Poynty has already pointed us at the evidence.   

Whether or not I am able to post those results remains to be seen.  It seems that we are invited to report on tests at our peril.  Protections that were promised are denied - and our reputations are then at the mercy of deliberate moderation neglect.  Hardly what was offered.  Anyway.  No doubt we'll find out in due course.  If I am banned - then please just go to my blog.  What is being allowed here is appalling.  My comfort is that it seems to be generate more support from you all than I realised.  And I am intensely grateful for those off forum communications. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary