Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[WilbyInebriated]

Please supply any FORUM posting link or number from ....

Aaron
Peter
Steve
Ash
Harvey
Myself
or anyone "World Wide"

..... of a verified replication on the Rosemary Ainslie finding or claimed efficiency of a COP> 17 device with all experimentation done in any scientific method reproducing the same or exact finding or claimed results by Rosemary that could be reproduced by anyone over and over again.

denied. logical fallacy: red herring. but i''l be your huckleberry... please post the quote of where i said any of the people you listed claimed efficiency of COP> 17...

don't attempt to misrepresent what i have said glen...

i have posted quotes of where it has been claimed that your 2009 replication of the ainslie circuit is cop>4. i have asked you to reconcile these statements by one of the "Members of the 2009 Open Source Rosemary Ainslie Circuit Project Team" (a team you were part of), namely steve windisch, with your recent statements that there is "no technology" and rosemary has 'nothing'. why do you keep dancing around this simple request with logical fallacies?


edit: more from the "strange case":

The Effect, and the Significance

When asked to reflect on this endeavor and experience of replicating and verifying the Rosemary Ainslie Circuit, Open Source Researcher and key project member Glen Lettenmaier, who has worked countless hours over the last several months building, testing, and recording his positive results with the Circuit (often through a barrage of unfounded criticism from the skeptics and naysayers), summed it up this way:

“What brings most to mind on this project are two things, the first being a movie called ‘The Medicine Man’ where an individual’s best efforts were totally lost due to varying circumstances and had to be re-found, and the second was the skepticism and refusal from so many, all seemingly knowledgeable but going by their education and not willing to do any experiments on their own…

(again, emphasis added by myself)

[fuzzytomcat]

denied. logical fallacy: red herring. but i''l be your huckleberry... please post the quote of where i said any of the people you listed claimed efficiency of COP> 17...

don't attempt to misrepresent what i have said glen...

i have posted quotes of where it has been claimed that your 2009 replication of the ainslie circuit is cop>4.

Yes, and I posted this above all your postings on page 91 here in this thread .....

http://www.energeticforum.com/93746-post74.html   ( 05-02-2010, 09:23 AM )

I said ..... on 05-02-2010 the following ....... read it very closely again .....

Quote -
_________________________________________________________________

Hey Harvey,

I'm sorry it took so long to do a detailed overview of the "LIVE" broadcast I did in the "Open Source Research and Development" channel on the January 9, 2010 5 Hour non stop video recording.

This video as you are aware is one of the best ever recorded representation of the preferred mode of operation but only in a non stop 5 Hour video. I'm sure that many members and guests don't realize the difficulty in capturing this effect for the purpose of recording the data properly and if given the time looking at the recorded video everyone can see the problems that we face in getting accurate data.

The constant 24 volt battery bank voltage fluctuations going up and down the Mosfet "drain" spike oscillating from 500 to 900 volts, battery voltage down the Mosfet spikes, battery voltage up the Mosfet voltage to normal operating range, back and forth over and over.

I have tried to get as close to this mode of operation in Test #13 which was used in the IEEE submittal Open Source Evaluation of Power Transients Generated to Improve Performance Coefficient of Resistive Heating Systems the team including yourself did, and in Test #22 but never being able to record the data scientifically correct because of the circuits complex oscillating waveforms. I don't think everyone, members and guests understands that the Test #13 was done with a Tektronix TDS 3054C which has a maximum resolution of 10K of data spread over a 10 x 10 grid or divisions so each one has 1k of data samples separately for each of the 4 channels. The data collected in Test #22 was with a Tektronix DPO 3054 which has a maximum resolution of 5M of data, but I used the 100K which is spread over the same 10 x 10 grid or divisions so each one has 10k of data samples separately for each of the 4 channels ..... ten ( 10 ) times the data of the TDS 3054C used in Test #13.

The problem being we need to find a method of capturing the data continuously in real time, there's nothing wrong with Tektronix TDS 3054C or the DPO 3054 these are the finest instruments I've ever used and are extremely accurate, but if you push the acquire button at the wrong time you can appear to get conflicting or skewed data, not the case .... were you before the spike, during the spike or after the spike when the data was collected. I had a allotted dedicated set time to record the data, It was the time frame I used with the 6 minutes or as fast as the data could be physically collected with the finest equipment I had at my disposal.

I am in total agreement with you that something "good" is happening in the Mosfet Heating Circuit and can be plainly seen in the recorded videos, we just need to somehow get a streaming real time data recording. Maybe by somehow obtaining a Real-Time Spectrum Analyzers from Tektronix or some other method to verify the data findings as you suggested, the equipment I previously used as good as it is, just isn't enough to totally capture what is occurring during the preferred mode of operation.

Best Regards,
Glen
_________________________________________________________________


After five (5) more months of testing and evaluation including nine (9) more verified documented tests on "MY" experimental device ..... the above is my opinion and there is "NO" efficiency of any COP is mentioned or claimed other than the word "GOOD".

Full circle again .... there was no COP> 17 found.

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.

[WilbyInebriated]

full circle again...

And that there are many possibilities for practical uses and parallel applications yet unexamined. “COP” efficiencies greater than “4″ have already been recorded in the recent 2009 replications;

are you saying this 2009 replication was not you?

[WilbyInebriated]

My testing was on a MODIFIED replication ... http://www.energeticforum.com/84279-post1.html "NOT" the original circuit operating at a higher frequency with a made custom inductor.


Fuzzy

according to glen his was a MODIFIED replication... and yet he continues to post this wiki quote:

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.

this 'begs the obvious question'... is his a "replication" or not? it would appear from the definition that glen keeps posting, that his is not a replication. it's all very confusing given his (and others from "the team") conflicting reports, claims and statements.

[fuzzytomcat]

full circle again...

And that there are many possibilities for practical uses and parallel applications yet unexamined. “COP” efficiencies greater than “4″ have already been recorded in the recent 2009 replications;

are you saying this 2009 replication was not you?

The "MODIFIED" replication was because from all experimentalist working on the project  it was found the published electronic circuit in the Quantum 2002 article did not work, and using the new "MODIFIED" circuit in TEST #13 it had the problems months later that was found as quoted in my posting at Energetic Forum .... again


http://www.energeticforum.com/93746-post74.html   ( 05-02-2010, 09:23 AM )

I have tried to get as close to this mode of operation in Test #13 which was used in the IEEE submittal Open Source Evaluation of Power Transients Generated to Improve Performance Coefficient of Resistive Heating Systems the team including yourself did, and in Test #22 but never being able to record the data scientifically correct because of the circuits complex oscillating waveforms. I don't think everyone, members and guests understands that the Test #13 was done with a Tektronix TDS 3054C which has a maximum resolution of 10K of data spread over a 10 x 10 grid or divisions so each one has 1k of data samples separately for each of the 4 channels. The data collected in Test #22 was with a Tektronix DPO 3054 which has a maximum resolution of 5M of data, but I used the 100K which is spread over the same 10 x 10 grid or divisions so each one has 10k of data samples separately for each of the 4 channels ..... ten ( 10 ) times the data of the TDS 3054C used in Test #13.

For the RECORD -


I failed with "NO" scientific method replication of Rosemary Ainslie's COP> 17 device verifying her finding and claim  ... I found "NO"  COP> 17 in my scientific method of testing and evaluation which if it was found would be quite obvious.

So why all the harassment and talking in circles .... never mind I already know why.