Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[Rosemary Ainslie]

THE LAST PART - YOU'LL BE PLEASED TO KNOW. 

THEN.  Now comes the problematic part of that cycle.  Here's what happens.  When all that potential difference has effectively been transferred back to the circuit material - at the end of that discharge cycle - where the battery gets charged and the circuit has finally discharged all it's negative voltage  then what happens?  Well.  Inductive Laws ALWAYS apply.  The circuit components have now discharged all their negative potential.  This voltage needs must collapse to back to zero.  When it collapses - as ever,  those voltages - which are simply magnetic fields - also simply change over time.  Changing magnetic fields induce electric fields.  And just as happened before in that first initialising cycle from the battery discharge - we now have a collapsing fields that are moving from negative to zero - then from zero through to some positive voltage.  In effect we have ANOTHER INDUCED CYCLE OF VOLTAGE AND CURRENT from a previously INDUCED CYCLE OF VOLTAGE AND CURRENT.  Two induced cycles at the price of one.

THEN.  We also need to establish the path for that second positive current flow.  That's the tricky part.  The signal at Q1 is still negative.  So.  Clearly the positive current flow can't move through that gate.  And nor is there the required positive signal at Q2.  So.  It also can't move through there?  Nor can it breach the body diodes as they're also in anti phase to that flow of current.  So back to that question that I asked Poynty.  HOW DOES THAT POSITIVE CURRENT FLOW FIND ANY PATH AT ALL IN THAT CIRCUIT TO DISCHARGE ANYTHING AT ALL?  Because what is clearly evident is that, notwithstanding these barriers and restrictions -  the current INDEED flowed and wrt - or rather with respect to  all appropriate references that flow was POSITIVE and GREATER THAN ZERO.  And we absolutely KNOW that it also impacted on the battery supply because the voltage across the battery DROPS - FALLS - COLLAPSES - WELL BELOW IT'S RATING.

That guys is the point of departure.  That's when the ONLY explanation relies on a re-evaluation of the properties of current flow.  OR POYNTY ET AL need to give us an EXPLANATION.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

   

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And here's the kicker - Guys,

PROVIDED THAT THE PROPERTIES OF CURRENT FLOW COMPRISE A MAGNETIC DIPOLE and ONLY if they comprise that dipole - then there are NO RESTRICTIONS OFFERED BY THAT CIRCUIT FOR THE CHARGE AND DISCHARGE OF NEGATIVE ENERGY IN BOTH INDUCED CYCLES. Therefore, my hope.  That this oscillation PROVES that property - is the first point.

And IF IT DOES - then it also proves that the POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE can vary on a circuit without the MATERIAL LOSS OF ANY OF THOSE MAGNETIC DIPOLES.  WHICH BEGS A TOTAL CONSERVATION OF ENERGY.

And IF IT DOES - then it also proves that the circuit material itself is a viable source of INDUCED POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE - to become an energy supply source all on its own.

AND it proves that therefore there are NO CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN THIS RESULT AND THE LAWS OF THE CONSERVATION OF ENERGY.

And it proves that the amount of INDUCED ENERGY can EQUAL AND/OR EXCEED the amount of energy first applied WITHOUT contradicting the KNOWN LAWS OF PHYSICS.

and it proves that in as much as ALL CYCLES - the initlal applied current and the current resulting from both INDUCED CYCLES is able to dissipate energy at the circuit's workstations without any material reduction to that energy supply - then it is also FEASIBLE to generate work without a commensurate reduction to that potential difference.  And that's easy to prove.  JUST MEASURE THE HEAT AT THAT WORKSTATION.  IF IT'S ABOVE AMBIENT THEN THERE'S ENERGY DISSIPATED.

Which has ALL GOT TO BE - A VERY GOOD THING.


Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

@ Mags
As a rule I quite like those trolls that tend to follow me around.  Very few exceptions.  But Fuzzy's one such.  And you're another.  I absolutely did NOT make any disclosures on my life for your edification.  I believe I was answering TK. 

And MR MAGS - I'm not sure you're right in advising me on anything at all.  You're grossly under qualified.  You do not have the required intelligence nor training.  If I spent the rest of my life making marmalade - as you suggest - then how would I be able to indulge my love of and talents for and interest in logic and language and physics and art.  I realise that you can't share this.  But that speaks to your own limitations.  Not mine.  I express myself very clearly.

What shows me an extreme want of decency in your character is that you KNOW that my threads are not moderated.  So you indulge in this off topic excursion with relative freedom from harm.  Which effectively makes you an opportunistic, unprincipled bully.  You are to the forum what hyenas are to the wild.  No bigger coward when the top predator comes to the party.  And nothing braver than when those top predators aren't there.  And no-one noiser. 

So.  Magsy - I propose you take your fatuous observations and your rather limited intellect elsewhere.  You're incapable of contributing to anything constructively, if your advices regarding my interests are anything to go by.  And you're utterly unequal to contributing to the science if your experimental proposals are anything to go by.  And I'm not sure that you can contribute anything at all to the general health of the planet or it's population as you're also afflicted with a certain want of principle and morality.  But I would MUCH prefer it if you would stay off this thread.

Rosemary

[TinselKoala]

Golly.  I'm not sure that the English education system is correctly described as 'alternative'.  I think that anyone qualifying for the O levels and GCE's and M levels would be inclined to protest.  I was held back for a year as it was considered that I was just too emotionally immature to cut it so I wrote my M levels 'university entrance to SA universities' when I was 15. 

I'm glad you have finally figured out how to intersperse comments and quotes. Since you had such a traditional English education, perhaps you could list some of the courses you took. Algebra? Geometry? Chemistry? Trigonometry? Physics? Anything like that at all in your O levels or M levels or GCEs? There certainly were in mine, and I'll wager that there were in the pre-university educations of most of our readers.

I then went to university - only because I was too young to get a job. BUT when I was old enough to make my OWN decisions I LEFT UNIVERSITY.  That was after 2 years when I FINALLY turned 18.  And 1 year before my finals.

Congratulations on making the right decision there. It's difficult to cut it at University if one doesn't have the maturity, discipline, or.... educational prerequisites required for success.

And from then until now I worked for myself - first in catering then in property development and finally in trading.  Since NONE of these endeavors included science they are also ENTIRELY irrelevant.

On that much we are in complete agreement. NONE of your prior work gives you any qualification to be writing "theories" or doing "experiments".

And since all of them require some measure of a functioning intelligence I think you can largely discount Poynt's assessment of me being an outright moron.  But since I still post here then even I'm inclined to doubt this.

No, Rosemary, you are clearly a very clever person. Your problem is that you have a huge chip on your shoulder and you cannot accept that you just might be wrong in your conception of the scientific process in general and the peer review process in particular.

(referring to being an autodidact)
This is also a lot of baloney.  I was VERY CAPABLY TAUGHT by the writings of Gary Zukov, Murray Gell Mann - and a list too long and too boring to include here.  AND most specifically - I was also taught by Dyson in that IMPECCABLE STUDY OF CONCEPTUAL PHYSICS.  SO.  I was taught DIRECTLY by the masters

So you sat in class with Gell-Mann, sat exams for him, worked as a grad student of his, or Dyson's.... I laugh at your "taught DIRECTLY" because you have no conception of what it's really like to be a student of a great teacher.

or by brilliant writers ABOUT the master - not through the fractured muddles of those who teach the MASTERS.  And my lack of knowledge as it pertains to ELECTRONICS PERSISTS.  I only USE circuit components in a VERY LIMITED APPLICATION to prove my thesis.  I STILL do not know how a capacitor works.  AND I wont know until I've finally taken one apart and worked it out for myself.  I cannot be accused EVER to taking anyone's word for it on any issue at all - unless I've also UNDERSTOOD the issues.  That's the downside in being me.

You defend your ignorance with more vigor than anyone I have ever encountered.

FAR from NOT making a single numerical prediction it RELIES on a close analysis of mass/size ratios and a close analysis of the properties of charge.  It is ALL OF IT NUMERICAL.

Please give an example of a mathematical calculation that comes from your theory. I'm sure we would all like to see it. Perhaps you can explain Maxwell's Equations or even just Faraday's Law in the context of your "theory", Mathematically.

And the most glaring prediction is that in the transfer of electric energy UNITY CAN MOST CERTAINLY BE EXCEEDED.  That you cannot understand it is also understandable.  At it's least you'll need a facility with concept.  And I certainly HOPE that the thesis will not REPLACE QED.  What a thought!  That would be a travesty of the highest order.  It REPLACES NOTHING.  Nor does it DISCOVER ANYTHING.  It simply resolves some very real anomalies - which is the broadly applied euphemism when our mainstream scientists can't answer questions.  lol. 

LOL is right. You do not even understand how absurd that last bit is.

(referring to the "paper")
ALSO NOT TRUE. 

Did you or did you not allow the paper to appear on ScribD with the heading "IEEE" on the top of every page, AFTER you knew the paper had been rejected by all their journals to which it was submitted, giving the impression to the casual reader that it was "an IEEE paper"? Sort of like your "patent"?

The paper was pubished on SCRIBD and withdrawn because FUZZY claimed it was his WORK.  And he's not capable of writing an articulate paragraph let alone that paper.  Nor can he dream up the parameters required for the tests he replicated and then CLAIMED was his own work.  lol.   Right now that paper is PUBLISHED on my blogspot and has enjoyed a VERY WIDE readership.

Methinks you do protest too much. Glen is a competent and careful researcher; he certainly did a lot more real work than you personally ever did on the project, and he --- like Err-on and some others-- was strongly on your side, until he realized --- like Err-on and Harvey and some others --- how full of ignorance you really are.

For 'many years' read 3 years - and during the most of 1 of those 3 years I was pretty effectively SILENCED. 
And this is also true - provided that you exclude Glen's replications, sundry tests that Aaron has done - The tests designed and accredited by BP (SA), ABB Research, SASOL (SA) SPESCOM - CISR - POWER ENGINEERS (part of the Alstom group)

We've been here before. You can't produce any documentation of any of these "tests" and people have actually contacted some of these companies and asked about you... nobody's heard of you.

the directors of MTN SCIENCENTRE where it was demonstrated for a couple of weeks and a veritable HOST of independent engineers.  And latterly by 3 replicators here in CAPE TOWN. 

Really? So it should be all over the news then. But it's not even being reported on PESWiki... that should tell you something.

But otherwise TK is SPOT ON.  Just read that  'Nobody but nobody' - as a double negative - which we all know - makes a positive.

I thought English was your native language. I guess not. "Nobody but nobody" is not a double negative, it's a hyperbolic emphasis, and still very true. Nobody, but nobody, has shown any free energy, much less COP infinite or even COP>17 from your circuits.

  More of those euphemisms TK.

Euphemism? What? Test my TinselKoil using your protocols and analysis. You'll get massive, truly massive, overunity results. Before you removed your comments from my videos, you were very impressed with my TinselKoil, remember. After all, it uses essentially the same switched mosfets driving a low inductance, low resistance load, the same ideas of resonant oscillation and self-excitation, and can even potentiate vodka into something drinkable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gSXi3BkkNA

It's true.  I make a very good marmalade.  I LOVE cooking.
I don't think anyone cares enough about anything you claim TK. We all know you as a propagandist.  And once propaganda is seen for what it is - then it rather loses its edge. 

Rosie

Added a link to what TK refers to as my 'ZIPON' theory.  ENJOY.  lol.

LOL is right. I'm no propagandist; I just hate to see intelligent and creative people wasting their time on non-productive BS when there's so much other, really interesting, stuff out there. And I am personally interested in your case particularly, Rosie, from a psychological aspect.
And I really don't give a hoot about what people think of me, but I will not put up with your lies and distortions. Stop lying, and I'll stop responding.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello TK

- Like I said, it's a huge comfort when people are predictable.  Eat your heart out TK.  This circuit's a winner.

Rosie