Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[MrMag]

@ Mags
What?  For property developer - READ ESTATE AGENT?  For catering industry - READ WAITRESS?  What a joke. May I assure all the readers here that I have NEVER sold a house in my life other than my own.  And I most certainly have never worked as a waitress.  Both very fine professions.  But I do not have the manual or visual dexterity to manage the latter nor the interest to manage the former.  And when it comes to 'making a fortune' as you seem to think is required I've managed to keep my head above water without selling marmalade.

It's just when you have a COP<1 and call it COP> Infinity, I just used that exaggeration to surmise your actual background.
"May I assure all the readers here", Hahahaha, now that's funny. There is nothing wrong with you being a waitress or real estate agent rosy. I just wanted to know your background to see what kind of qualifications you have. You see, it really doesn't matter. I can tell that you have no professional training because a true professional would not try to belittle someone that they don't even know. Your comments seem to be more like a response I would get from a waitress that I complained to about bringing me burnt toast or something.

What a despicable little man you are. And I wouldn't be too quick to put yourself in the same category as the other contributing members.  For starters Poynty is HIGHLY INTELLIGENT and HIGHLY COMPETENT.  He's just useless at power analysis.  And I am entirely satisfied that you're useless at most things. Your technical comments are a dead give away.

I'm not that little. Actually I'm about 5'10". I did not say that that I was in the same category did I. I am not even close to the same level as Poynt or some of the others here. I do admit that. But then neither are you, are you rose. The only reason that you say that Poynt is useless at power analysis is because his results don't back up your claims.

I may be useless at some things, but I wouldn't say most things. You must take a lot of pride in trying to belittle people. It must make you feel so big and professional. I think if more people would have left you bigger tips, you would have a better disposition. Did you also study the writings of Don Rickles? You do sound a lot like him.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

My dear Cat.  I seem to recall you posting here that everyone must now leave this thread and follow RomeroUK's work.  What happened?  Why are you back?  I hope no-one's putting pressure on you to read here. Here's some essential differences between those claims and ours.

Romero was NOT prepared to invite every academic he could reach to come and witness a demonstration.  We DO.  He was NOT prepared to invite the news media to witness that self-running device.  We ARE.  He was not even prepared to allow his 'neighbours' to come and look.  We not only DO invite neighbours but now have a whole lot more members on the team - all of whom are REPLICATING. We INVITED Stefan to come and assess the evidence and GUARANTEED that if we could not replicate the results while he was here - or if we did not IN FACT have over unity - then we would REFUND him is ticket.  Stefan declined our offer.  BUT.  Stefan offered to visit Romero to take a look at his device.  For some reason Romero DECLINED that offer.   That's just on the test evidence. I'm absolutely satisfied that no number of personal threats would persist in the light of a wide public demonstration as Romero is suggesting.  In fact, if he can show a motor turning without ANY standard supply - then the ENTIRE WORLD would rally to protect him.

NOW.  Let's look at your second beef.  The main object of this forum is to advance 'replications'.  REALLY?  The lack of restraint and the general parade of ego that goes on here rather discourages those active replicators from ever posting.  All the members on our little team - with the entire exception of me, are professionals.  And not ONE of them would sully or risk their names to public exposure here - PRECISELY because of people like you, TK, Poynty, and on and on and on.  They see how I have been treated.  They know better. 

NOW.  Let's look at your 'self-runner' demands.  We have never recharged those batteries - with one exception.  Two caught fire and BOTH were fully recharged.  We've had those batteries since January 2010.  We've been running them since August 2010.  I've now FINALLY checked their rated capacities.  They're 40 ampere hours each.  We've used 6 of them continually since that time.  According to this rating they are each able, theoretically to dissipate 12 volts x 40 amps x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 1 hour x 6 batteries.  That gives a work potential - a total potential output of 10 368 000 JOULES. 

According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade.  We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade.  We ran that test for 90 minutes.  Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104.  We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes.  Ambient was at 16.  Joules = 1 watt per second.  So.  Do the math.  4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.  Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.  Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.  All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating.  And that was just one test.  Now.  Over the 10 month period that those batteries have been running at various outputs - which, when added to the output on just this one test - then I think its safe to say that the evidence is conclusive.  Those batteries have outperformed. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH.  They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.

That was the test that was intended as a public demonstration and that was the same demo where no experts attended.  What we planned was to take the water to boil and then simply make a couple of cups of tea.

Now.  Back to your demands.  You want conclusive evidence.  It's already there.  But you also NOW want us to run those batteries to death.  I've offered to give you comparative draw down tests against a control.  But again.  I'll only do this if there is absolute consensus that this constitutes absolute proof. Otherwise I will be involved in yet more unnecessary time wasting.

And consider carefully CAT - the fact that you are ENTIRELY SATISFIED that we have NOTHING HERE.  What if you're wrong?  What if you and Poynty and TK and everyone who posts here is ACTUALLY WRONG?  Effectively - IF there's an agenda to kill all interest in this device - IF Poynty is not supporting the evidence because he's got an agenda - or even in the unlikely event that Stefan has an agenda - or any of the detractors have an agenda?  What then?  I would definitely conclude that their agenda has worked.

Which means what?  It means that I must MOST CERTAINLY, keep posting here.  Because if I don't - and if this evidence is ignored - and if all of you actual enthusiasts are DUPED - then what does that do to advance the interests of clean green?  So.  I put it to you that there are MANY different purposes of posting here than your requirement to replicate.  And from what I see, I'm not sure that you ever DO replicate.  And while these long posts of mine irritate you - rest assured.  I know - from feedback - that there are many who read here with a certain amount of relief.  So.  I"m not writing for you.  I'm writing for the readers.

Regards,
Rosemary

[poynt99]

IF Poynty is not supporting the evidence because he's got an agenda -

For the record, I don't support your evidence, simply because your evidence is erroneous.

Support of that assertion is before you in the analysis, which btw, was based on a circuit simulation that can produce similar results to your own. Evidence shown in that analysis indicated that these favorable-looking results are erroneous, and that with correct measurement, the true results are markedly different.

Clearly one can not rightly pick and choose which of the two results they wish to believe, and which they will not, when both were obtained from the very same circuit and test conditions. Only one measurement point differed between the two (i.e. a change in probe placement). Both results are correct wrt where they were measured from, but only one provides the correct answer for the true average INPUT power. And this is in reference to measurements taken via vi(t).

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

For the record, I don't support your evidence, simply because your evidence is erroneous.

Support of that assertion is before you in the analysis, which btw, was based on a circuit simulation that can produce similar results to your own. Evidence shown in that analysis indicated that these favorable-looking results are erroneous, and that with correct measurement, the true results are markedly different.

Clearly one can not rightly pick and choose which of the two results they wish to believe, and which they will not, when both were obtained from the very same circuit and test conditions. Only one measurement point differed between the two. Both results are correct wrt where they were measured from, but only one provides the correct answer for the true average INPUT power.

.99

Poynt - your need to average is the 'last bastion of your defense'.  If you want to impress me that your numbers are RIGHT then stop averaging.  You cannot do this and expect any credibility in your numbers.  Let me remind you.  The battery voltage climbs ABOVE it's rating.  Then the battery voltage drops BELOW it's rating.  EXPLAIN THAT.  If it's irrelevant then EXPLAIN THAT TOO.  Then at least we'll know whether or not you're dealing with the experimental evidence or some kind of approximation that you HOPE may be representative of the facts.

Rosemary

added.  And while you're at it.  Let us know the PATH for that positive voltage across the shunt and across the load - that it breaches Q2 OR Q1 + Q2.  You can't even do this.

[poynt99]

I realized after I posted that you would play that card, which is why I amended my post to add that last sentence. You replied faster than I could add to mine.

Here it is again for clarity:

And this is in reference to measurements taken via vi(t).

.99