Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[MrMag]

more logical fallacy... non sequitur.
how am i involved in the questions you posed to rose? look, mags, i asked YOU a couple of simple questions, which you have continued to avoid answering for several posts now. and because you feel rose has not answered your questions (which she actually has) that is justification to not answer mine?  dude, are you mental? 

yup, my mistake mr.mag, my mistake indeed.

edit: i give up on you mr.mag. one cannot use reason to reason someone out of a position they have not used reason to get themselves into...
you are a waste of my time. i'm going fishing.

I don't understand the reason why you can't use reason to reason with me when I was reasonable.
Your always fishing 

[WilbyInebriated]

you weren't reasonable. engaging in logical fallacies is not reasonable... TU STULTUS ES!

I'm not sure if this is what you are DEMANDING me to answer but I will. Then you won't be able to whine about "why should she answer you when you don't answer me".

The reason I posted this is because Aaron is/was at one time, part of the team, correct?
His comment was, "it isn't worth the time". So, I guess HE thinks the circuit isn't worth pursuing.
I never mentioned my thoughts either way so I don't know where you got the idea that I don't think it's worth investigating. Gee, I think this calls for one of your classic red herring or logical fallacy lines but I'm not sure which to use.

read the quote again mr.mag, take note of the highlighted part

The Ainslie circuits - I spent thousands of hours on countless experiments
on all kinds of variations with that and Glen did even more. We were NOT
given all the information in the beginning and that was a complete farce.
However the circuit does have merit. I got cop 2.0 as a fairly standard
result - but of course the skeptics will blame it on the peukert effect or
something. But the peukert effect in the battery on a low draw does NOT
explain the same heat for less measurable energy going in.
Glen got better I believe. But the most interesting to me
is that while the timer circuit was dissipating energy (warming up),
with my own mods, that I disclosed 100%, the mosfet and resistor side
of the circuit cooled up to 2 degrees Celsius below the ambient temperature
of the room, which is a different thing altogether and is serious reverse
entropy.
Anyway, both Glen and I did replicate over 1.0 with a lot of data to back
it - we didn't come close to cop 17.0 like Ainslie claimed but over 1.0
is over 1.0.

so the circuit has merit, but isn't worth pursuing... 
of course you are not sure which one to use, that would require an understanding of what a cogent argument is and knowledge of the various logical fallacies...

The only people who are not credible are rosy and possibly Steve. I'm still undecided with him. He has written some interesting articles but I think he is still backing rosy which makes him a little questionable. As for the rest of them, Yes they are credible. They were just being misled at the time so I don't hold them responsible for any of it.

The  "strange rosemary" document not the people is what I'm referring to. When the team members interview each other and post the comment, "Rosemary graciously agreed to be interviewed for this article from her home in South Africa, and answer a few brief questions". it sounds a little fishy to me. We know exactly how this "interview" went. It makes me question the whole document. She was misleading and deceiving people by making it look as if it was an independent interview. That statement would be made from someone outside of the club suggesting they were lucky to get the interview. It would NOT be made from someone on the same team. It just goes to show what kind of a deceitful person she is.

and yourself, since you have 35 years of electronic experience (is that selling vcr's at best buy? cause that doesn't really count you know... ) but think that a single lemon can light a large filament bulb... and i seem to recall you telling omnibus that it was voltage in and out that mattered and that was the only thing that mattered. here it is:

I'm sorry but I disagree with you on that. Who cares what science says. If I can run my house off the grid with new technology, why would I care what science has to say about it. If I have to wait for the scientist to come up with something, I'll be waiting a very long time.

You give scientist to much credit. They live in a little bubble. If OU is discovered, it will probably come from some new type of energy conversion. It won't fit in their little formulas so it won't be accepted. They are the most closed minded people of all.

So, what is the gain of your circuit. How many volts in and how many out. I am asking for the actual real numbers not the simulated ones.

you are free to assume and speculate what you wish...

edit: my bad, it wasn't a lemon, it was a potato...
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8387.msg215247#msg215247

[Rosemary Ainslie]

guys -  here it is again.

I'm beginning to sound like a prophet of doom.  But I'm also going to risk saying all this again.  We have no more options.  Our clocks are ticking.  We have no ALTERNATE ENERGY SUPPLY SOURCES.  Most of our Governments are already looking to ways to limiting their energy supplies to us - poor end users.  We're being encouraged to limit our consumption.  Either by punitive pricing on those resources - or by actively advancing the our use of solar or wind energies.  Both are expensive to implement and not that efficient.  Not much reward ratio - not much 'buck' for all that 'bang'.  We have NOTHING ELSE GOING FOR US - UNLESS we find something new.

Well.  Here's the thing.  We HAVE found something new.  Thanks to Zwicky - who one day I hope will be acknowledged as a scientific GREAT - we apparently have bags and bags of DARK ENERGY.  This is a new force.  Never before been known of.  NOT even acknowledged by our BRILLIANT QED developers.  Nor by our BRILLIANT classicists.  The hell was to LOCATE IT.  Still is.  No-one can find the particle needed for this new force.  And it's been a frantic search.  The guys at MIT have been overseeing deep mine experiments for over 10 years.  Still nothing.  BUT.  Nor have the ever found the graviton that is ASSUMED to be needed for gravity.  And NOR has anyone actually even PROVED that the electron is the particle required for the electromagnetic interaction.  SO?  Why is this different?  Why do they first NEED this particle when a 'particle' proof was never required before?   Here's why.  Because WITHOUT that particle the logic or the justifications for all that unity requirement thing - that Kirchhoff's Rule - thing - will simply unravel.  And that logic has been the lode star that has taken us to the extraordinary heights (or depths) that we enjoy today.  Clearly the fundamentals that are responsible for all our progress - HAS NOT BEEN FOR NAUGHT.  It has worked.  Really rather remarkably well.  So?  What are they meant to do with YET ANOTHER FORCE - which has NOT been factored in - and which seems to DEFY, at its least, Kirchhoff's unity requirements?  Is it a particle?  And if so WHERE IS IT?  And WHAT IS IT?

This is where I modestly propose that we may have found an answer.  And I don't need to go into what that answer is but I ASSURE YOU ALL that it is NOT a DISCOVERY.  It's a line of reasoning that was FORGED and DEVELOPED in all its pristine elegance by FARADAY.  Faraday worked with lines of force.  IF those lines of force comprise particles then what he did not actually SAY but what is IMPLICIT is that there must thereby be some kind of magnetic 'coherence' in those fields to retain any line at all.  And nothing 'coheres' better than two magnets aligned north to south.  So.  Taking that thought to it's logical conclusions - then one can actually describe the magnetic field with an exactitude that is breathtakingly consistent with what is evident.  NOT ONLY THAT - but we only need a single magnetic dipole to prove that ALL particles are composites of this same thing.  And not only that - but we can describe ALL THE KNOWN FORCES, including the DARK FORCE - as varying dimensions and fields of JUST THIS ONE PARTICLE.

And to prove all this - one only needs to apply FARADAY's Inductive Laws and then all this excess is immediately apparent.  Not only THAT - but our simulation software SHOWS THE SAME THING.  And here's what it shows.  It shows that every time we induce COUNTER ELECTROMOTIVE FORCE or BACK ELECTROMOTIVE FORCE or CEMF or BEMF - then we, and that simulation software - is simply adding IN another cycle of energy.  So.  Why then is this all so different? 

Here's why.  KIRCHHOFF told us that counter electromotive energy was STORED energy.  And the amount of energy that was stored was FIRST REDUCED by the amount of energy DISSIPATED on the circuit.  In other words he ONLY paid heed to a SINGLE SUPPLY SOURCE.  Which means we can NEVER get more out than in.  FARADAY, on the other hand claimed this.  The amount of energy or potential difference STORED = the amount of energy or potential RETURNED.  Because changing electric fields induce magnetic fields and changing magnetic fields induce electric fields.  NO QUALIFICATIONS TO THE VALUE.  And HIS argument, ie FARADAY's argument, by comparison, requires an IMPLICIT equivalence in the amount IN to the amount OUT - or as Poynty refers to it Pin=Pout.   

That's what our circuit proves.  IT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT OUR DISCOVERY.  IT ISN'T TECHNICALLY EVEN A DISCOVERY.  IT IS A VALIDATION OF FARADAY'S INDUCTIVE LAWS and it has the dubious merit of also ENDORSING the findings that our DARK ENERGY DISCOVERERS have already PROVED. 

And back to the point of this post.  We can continue to ignore this evidence but we do so at our peril.  And if the general reluctance to acknowledge all this is simply because there are posters here who do not like me, or that there are members who prefer to find COMPLETELY irrelevant reasons for all this - then so be it.  It doesn't change the facts.  Physics is NOT based on opinion.  Nor is it based on popularity.  And science - as we ALL KNOW is ONLY PROGRESSED BY REPEATABLE EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE.  We've done that bit to death.  It's yet to be seen how well our mainstream scientists evaluate all this.  Right now they've still got the excuse that it's not published.  I shall try and get this published or die trying.  But that's as far as I can reasonably be expected to take it.

Regards,
Rosemary

[WilbyInebriated]

guys -  here it is again.

I'm beginning to sound like a prophet of doom.  But I'm also going to risk saying all this again.  We have no more options.  Our clocks are ticking.  We have no ALTERNATE ENERGY SUPPLY SOURCES.  Most of our Governments are already looking to ways to limiting their energy supplies to us - poor end users.  We're being encouraged to limit our consumption.  Either by punitive pricing on those resources - or by actively advancing the our use of solar or wind energies.  Both are expensive to implement and not that efficient.  Not much reward ratio - not much 'buck' for all that 'bang'.  We have NOTHING ELSE GOING FOR US - UNLESS we find something new.

Well.  Here's the thing.  We HAVE found something new.  Thanks to Zwicky - who one day I hope will be acknowledged as a scientific GREAT - we apparently have bags and bags of DARK ENERGY.  This is a new force.  Never before been known of.  NOT even acknowledged by our BRILLIANT QED developers.  Nor by our BRILLIANT classicists.  The hell was to LOCATE IT.  Still is.  No-one can find the particle needed for this new force.  And it's been a frantic search.  The guys at MIT have been overseeing deep mine experiments for over 10 years.  Still nothing.  BUT.  Nor have the ever found the graviton that is ASSUMED to be needed for gravity.  And NOR has anyone actually even PROVED that the electron is the particle required for the electromagnetic interaction.  SO?  Why is this different?  Why do they first NEED this particle when a 'particle' proof was never required before?   Here's why.  Because WITHOUT that particle the logic or the justifications for all that unity requirement thing - that Kirchhoff's Rule - thing - will simply unravel.  And that logic has been the lode star that has taken us to the extraordinary heights (or depths) that we enjoy today.  Clearly the fundamentals that are responsible for all our progress - HAS NOT BEEN FOR NAUGHT.  It has worked.  Really rather remarkably well.  So?  What are they meant to do with YET ANOTHER FORCE - which has NOT been factored in - and which seems to DEFY, at its least, Kirchhoff's unity requirements?  Is it a particle?  And if so WHERE IS IT?  And WHAT IS IT?

This is where I modestly propose that we may have found an answer.  And I don't need to go into what that answer is but I ASSURE YOU ALL that it is NOT a DISCOVERY.  It's a line of reasoning that was FORGED and DEVELOPED in all its pristine elegance by FARADAY.  Faraday worked with lines of force.  IF those lines of force comprise particles then what he did not actually SAY but what is IMPLICIT is that there must thereby be some kind of magnetic 'coherence' in those fields to retain any line at all.  And nothing 'coheres' better than two magnets aligned north to south.  So.  Taking that thought to it's logical conclusions - then one can actually describe the magnetic field with an exactitude that is breathtakingly consistent with what is evident.  NOT ONLY THAT - but we only need a single magnetic dipole to prove that ALL particles are composites of this same thing.  And not only that - but we can describe ALL THE KNOWN FORCES, including the DARK FORCE - as varying dimensions and fields of JUST THIS ONE PARTICLE.

And to prove all this - one only needs to apply FARADAY's Inductive Laws and then all this excess is immediately apparent.  Not only THAT - but our simulation software SHOWS THE SAME THING.  And here's what it shows.  It shows that every time we induce COUNTER ELECTROMOTIVE FORCE or BACK ELECTROMOTIVE FORCE or CEMF or BEMF - then we, and that simulation software - is simply adding IN another cycle of energy.  So.  Why then is this all so different? 

Here's why.  KIRCHHOFF told us that counter electromotive energy was STORED energy.  And the amount of energy that was stored was FIRST REDUCED by the amount of energy DISSIPATED on the circuit.  In other words he ONLY paid heed to a SINGLE SUPPLY SOURCE.  Which means we can NEVER get more out than in.  FARADAY, on the other hand claimed this.  The amount of energy or potential difference STORED = the amount of energy or potential RETURNED.  Because changing electric fields induce magnetic fields and changing magnetic fields induce electric fields.  NO QUALIFICATIONS TO THE VALUE.  And HIS argument, ie FARADAY's argument, by comparison, requires an IMPLICIT equivalence in the amount IN to the amount OUT - or as Poynty refers to it Pin=Pout.   

That's what our circuit proves.  IT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT OUR DISCOVERY.  IT ISN'T TECHNICALLY EVEN A DISCOVERY.  IT IS A VALIDATION OF FARADAY'S INDUCTIVE LAWS and it has the dubious merit of also ENDORSING the findings that our DARK ENERGY DISCOVERERS have already PROVED. 

And back to the point of this post.  We can continue to ignore this evidence but we do so at our peril.  And if the general reluctance to acknowledge all this is simply because there are posters here who do not like me, or that there are members who prefer to find COMPLETELY irrelevant reasons for all this - then so be it.  It doesn't change the facts.  Physics is NOT based on opinion.  Nor is it based on popularity.  And science - as we ALL KNOW is ONLY PROGRESSED BY REPEATABLE EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE.  We've done that bit to death.  It's yet to be seen how well our mainstream scientists evaluate all this.  Right now they've still got the excuse that it's not published.  I shall try and get this published or die trying.  But that's as far as I can reasonably be expected to take it.

Regards,
Rosemary

well said rose. i think you are wasting your breath on these two. i know i am... that's why they both just made my ignore list. neither of them have the knowledge to recognize the flaws at the most fundamental levels of 'popular science'. nor do they have the breadth of knowledge to see the paradoxes and contradictions between the various genres of popular science.

good luck. i'm gonna go catch some dinner and fill the icebox with fillets.

[MrMag]

TU STULTUS ES!

Wow, you can use fancy words too! rosy must be paying you the big bucks.

read the quote again mr.mag, take note of the highlighted partso the circuit has merit, but isn't worth pursuing... 
of course you are not sure which one to use, that would require an understanding of what a cogent argument is and knowledge of the various logical fallacies...

I think you need to read my reply again. I thought it was straight forward but you may need further clarification. I just wanted to point out that Aaron said "it isn't worth the time". If he also mentioned that the circuit has merit, you will need to take it up with him. I'm not sure but isn't it a logical fallacy for you to argue with me about something that someone else said?

and yourself, since you have 35 years of electronic experience (is that selling vcr's at best buy? cause that doesn't really count you know... ) but think that a single lemon can light a large filament bulb... and i seem to recall you telling omnibus that it was voltage in and out that mattered and that was the only thing that mattered.
you are free to assume and speculate what you wish...

No, thank God I never had to deal with the public. But now that you mention it, it would still give me more qualifications then rosys waiting on tables.

I never said anything about a lemon lighting a LARGE filament bulb. Like how large, are you talking the whole bulb or just a large filament? Yes, I did say that to Omni but didn't I correct myself and say wattage. Do you carry notes on everyone? You need to get a life. You should take up fishing or something