Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[poynt99]

From your blog "121 - simulations":
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/05/121-simulations.html

Surprisingly - this oscillation is allowed for in standard simulation software. This fact is hugely significant. It means that, in effect, one can explore and develop this technology as a primary tool and use apparatus to simply verify those results. This - indeed - is why that software was ever developed. The surprise is this. The software itself has no 'restrictions' to showing results that exceed Kirchhoff's rules. In effect there is an implicit requirement in the computation of power delivered and dissipated that relies on Faraday's Inductive Laws to the exclusion of any Thermodynamic restrictions at all. It is tailored, in effect, to show Over Unity - should this be a consequence of a circuit design.

That fact is EXTRAORDINARY. I have been ASSURED that if this proves correct - then one can move away from the experimental apparatus and simply explore the applications as designed on this software. Subsequent testing would be secondary. It frees up the potentials for design - exponentially. WHICH IS A VERY GOOD THING.

I am in receipt of some excellent work done by Tivon Rivers confined to the use of a 555 switching circuit. What he found is that the voltage and subsequent current flow - actually varies over time that the power on the circuit gradually increases. But his results do not, yet appear to show Over Unity. I am also aware of some other work that is being done here but have not yet been given those results. Meanwhile, however, here's Poynty's results as they relate to our own circuit.

Is this not somewhat of an endorsement of not only my sim results, but of sim results in general as it relates to your circuit?

Moreover, you posted the P(t) and MEAN(Pt) scope shots that went along with that simulation, showing the -112W INPUT power figure. You certainly did not seem to have any objection to that negative power figure.

You gladly posted all that, now you say this:

The numbers are interesting but they're subject to the gross approximations of PSpice

That certainly seems contradictory to your blog post.

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Golly - such a clamour.  I'm going to answer you Poynty and hope against hope that you'll actually take the time to digest these next two posts and that you also have the wherewithall to understand them.  But if you don't - it's no matter.  Because I suspect the the most of our readers here will.

Let's start with the Mean average as shown by the MATH TRACE.  How exactly do you propose that we use that - 44.1 VV? when we calculate our volts x current x time?  That number is the product of the battery voltage and the shunt voltage x time.  So? How do you propose that we UNTANGLE that product to find out what belongs to the battery and what belongs to the shunt?  Because UNLESS WE CAN DO THIS we also cannot MAKE ANY USE OF THAT NUMBER to calculate ANYTHING AT ALL.  So?  Poynty Point?  What EXACTLY is your point?  We have NEVER applied that mean average or a cycle mean average math trace VV's - or ANY kind of AVERAGE to any of our circuit analyses.  EVER. What a thought!

What we have done is this.  In the event that the math trace indicates a NEGATIVE product then it means that WHEN the LeCroy software multiplied the voltage of the battery with the voltage of the shunt - over time, then that PRODUCT was NEGATIVE.  Which indicates - CONCLUSIVELY - that OVER TIME the value of either the battery voltage or the shunt was NEGATIVE.  A NEGATIVE product implies a REVERSAL of the direction of current flow.  And the ONLY way to get a negative product would be if there was also MORE NEGATIVE voltage than positive.  Ergo - more energy returned to the battery than discharging the battery.  Now.  As we're only trying to work out whether or not the battery is discharging more energy then is being recharged in each cycle - then, technically, we need go no further.  The proof is in that negative trace. 

However.  There's another way to find proof that more energy is being returned than delivered.We can ALSO take a sum of the voltage across the shunt.  IF this is negative then TOO we can also conclude that more energy is being returned to the battery than delivered by the battery. BUT if we want to determine the actual voltage x amperage x time measure of each cycle then there's ONLY one way.  Take a sample spread and do that spreadsheet analysis.  That's the only way to determine the ACTUAL AMOUNT of all that surplus energy that is available to the circuit.  We've more or less completed our paper.  And NOWHERE DO WE GIVE THAT VALUE.  YET WE CLAIM THAT THERE IS INFINITELY MORE ENERGY BEING RETURNED THAN DELIVERED.  Can you work out why yet Poynty Point?  Here's why.  We're left with a negative WATTAGE value.  And a negative wattage has absolutely NO relevance within classical paradigms.  It's an UTTERLY meaningless number. 

So.  Again.  Here's when we KNOW we've got a NEGATIVE WATTAGE value.  If the cycle mean average across the shunt is negative - and/or if the math trace gives a negative product.  Then we check that this is consistent with our spread sheet analysis.  And if and when it IS - which is invariably the case - then we also know we've got another one of those wattage values that make absolutely NO SENSE within classical paradigms.  It's an ANOMALY. That thing that you keep referencing as a negative value.  Unlike you - we don't make ANY assumptions.  We FIRST need to explain how this is possible.

Then.  What you do - with 'FRIGHTENING' regularity - is to take the mean average of the battery voltage and then multiply by the current over time.  Now what you've actually done is impose an ARTIFICIAL condition on that result.  You've REDUCED the actual value of both the discharge and recharge part of each cycle and then you've PRESUMED to give that product any kind of representational value at all.  It has NONE.  You've mixed up your 'in time' and average time with a kind of gay abandon because you ARGUED that the battery voltage is neither climbing nor falling. "How can it?" you ask.  And indeed.  We're also asking the same thing.  Because - you see - this is the whole point - Poynty point.  It most certainly does climb and fall - exactly as your own simulated waveforms show. If you do a real time analysis of the actual measured voltage x the actual measured current - then REGARDLESS.  No matter.  Whether or not the sum of the voltage across the shunt is positive OR negative - MORE OFTEN THAN NOT the actual MEASURED WATTAGE is STILL NEGATIVE.  And this will also be consistent with the product of voltage shown in that MATH TRACE.  Go figger. Now I'll give you some time to digest this and then I'll get to the fallacies associated with your own  calculations.

Regards,
Rosemary

[poynt99]

You're still utterly confused about this circuit and the measurements Rose. That's crystal clear every time you post something about it.   

A most unfortunate situation.

Regards,
.99

[powercat]

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

If I was new to this forum and reading your above post I would think great this person has found the solution to free energy, if you are one of those people befor you get too excited please read all the previous post and all the posts on the other thread, There is a serious doubt that Rosie has measured incorrectly, there for any measurements that she states might well be incorrect.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.0

As for trying to convince people that there is a big conspiracy, it would appear that anyone that says your circut doesn't workor or indicate's measuring error, is then part of that conspiracy.
If there was a conspiracy no one would be to view your videos no one would see your blog no one would see posts of people supporting your work, the fact is, nothing is hidden

It would be wonderful if I could believe in your circuit enough to reproduce it,but with every single person on this forum (on this forum) who attempted this did not match your results, as most of them are much more capable than me and they all failed then I have no chance.

I personally think you should stay on this forum posting but you should do something new, and changed the deadlock that after two years nobody can reproduce your results (on this forum)

Here are few videos for members on the forum, they are other members that didn't make videos who also failed in their attempts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrwgEb5ac_w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZM8BBa7_Zpc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x0wQJrc9To
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GBS3sKcB8g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trip8gjoxMQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpaP__5Kd38

As for RomeroUK's members attempting to replicate his work have only been at it for two months
and most of them have not give up, so maybe more time is required. Lol,  Forum has given you over 2 years and still no on here can replicate your claim of excess energy.
Lol, over two years and you think there's a conspiracy 

Mr Mag has made you a very good suggestion that might go a long way to help you. That's right help you. Most people on here like to help you, but you are so stubborn and insist on repeating your claims and argue about measurements over and over again. (please do something new to prove your case)

If the members fail in the next six months or so to replicate RomeroUK's Do you think in one year's time let alone two years time anyone would be interested in making that device, apart from doing it for research or fun. Mr Mag made reasonable request,instead of treating the forum like your blog why not try something different,you might get some support, and somebody might be able to match your claim.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Well Cat.  I think if you want to follow RomeroUK there's nothing stopping you.  I, personally, no longer have high hopes there. And if you're satisfied that we have nothing - then that's fine.  No-one is holding a gun to your head.  To me it seems that you're rather anxiously looking for a consensus opinion - on the efficacy of our system.  I'm afraid that science is NOT determined by consensus.  All one needs are the the measurements and some reasonable account of the apparatus that produces those measurements.

Poynty.  I am not confused.  You are.  I have now asked more than one expert for some indication of the 'path' for the positive flow of current during each half of the oscillating cycle.  You see - until this is explained - then there is absolutely NO way - within classical paradigms - that the battery voltage can oscillate as it does.  I've even asked you to explain it.  You can't.  Let me put it simply.  How does a positive half cycle get discharged from the battery supply when there's no path?  And we're not looking at a little bit of energy being discharged.  You'll have to explain some really hefty current flows. 

Get your head around this first and let's see your answer.  We need to acknowledge that PSpice replicates that EXACT waveform.  Which means that there really IS an answer. 

Regards
Rosemary