Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Actually - I've just seen that there are something in the order of a million plus hits on my name in Google. Golly. There's way more interest than I realised. Thanks for pointing this out to me Fuzzy. It's AMAZING.  At least everyone's talking.

Gosh.  I had no idea.   

Regards,
Rosemary.

[powercat]

WHY?  Fuzzy's insults don't constitute proof of anything.  And I'm MORE than happy to do long
term tests.

Hey Mr Mag, Rosemary Ainslie is more than happy to long-term tests, can you repost that simple low-cost test of yours.

what a politician you truly are, you use fuzzy to support your arguments when he's not around,
but when he is around you tell people not to listen to him.  You're great at contradiction.

You attack anyone who disagrees with you, anyone that says your circut doesn't workor or indicate's measuring error, is then part of a conspiracy.

You can't tell me of any member on this forum that has produced excess energy with your circuit, because nobody has after two and half years of you being on this forum.

Guys remember it's that claim off excess energy that I have a problem with, if you are a supporter of Rosemary's claims and you don't believe the evidence against, then you can help her by showing us all your working circuit producing excess energy.

Interesting how none of the people here that support your claims have never shown their version of your circuit, they must be relying on blind faith,  some people really do believe anything politicians tell them.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Groundloop - the caps were 2 x 40 volt 150 000 ? micro farad in parallel.  I hope I've got that right. 

Apparently the circuit leads were directly across the caps.  So, I guess the caps must have been in parallel to the batteries.

Which means that the test was a definite FAIL.  The caps DO NOT WORK.  What stuck me is that the waveform just COLLAPSES.  Unless we should have been using different caps?  Not at all sure.  Frankly I never thought that a cap would work.  I just don't know why it should.  Anyway.  That test, at least, is put to bed.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[Groundloop]

Groundloop - the caps were 2 x 40 volt 150 000 ? micro farad in parallel.  I hope I've got that right. 

Apparently the circuit leads were directly across the caps.  So, I guess the caps must have been in parallel to the batteries.

Which means that the test was a definite FAIL.  The caps DO NOT WORK.  What stuck me is that the waveform just COLLAPSES.  Unless we should have been using different caps?  Not at all sure.  Frankly I never thought that a cap would work.  I just don't know why it should.  Anyway.  That test, at least, is put to bed.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary,

Thanks for the information regarding the capacitors.

GL.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hey Mr Mag, Rosemary Ainslie is more than happy to long-term tests, can you repost that simple low-cost test of yours.

lol.  INDEED.  Let's see your proposals here.  If it's doable and it constitutes unequivocal proof - then I'm in.

...you use fuzzy to support your arguments when he's not around,...

Golly.  STILL wrong Cat. Fuzzy HIMSELF supports our claim.  Nothing to do with me.  He's got it all down on his Scribd file.  Here it is again.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems

but when he is around you tell people not to listen to him.

And again.  I am happy that he references our work.  EVERYWHERE.  It all contributes to that escalating interest in our technology.  It's not MEANT to.  But it DOES.

You're great at contradiction.

So?  Where's the contradiction? 

You attack anyone who disagrees with you, anyone that says your circuit doesn't work or or indicates measuring error, is then part of a conspiracy.

NOT AT ALL.  I welcome discussion.  What I tend to attack is 'opinion' when it's as ill founded as your own.

You can't tell me of any member on this forum that has produced excess energy with your circuit, because nobody has after two and half years of you being on this forum.

STILL WRONG.  Here's that link AGAIN. 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems

This is a document on Fuzzy's SCRIBD FILE.  In it he CLAIMS TO HAVE REPLICATED OUR EARLIER NOW, RATHER OBSOLETE, CIRCUIT. 

Guys remember it's that claim off excess energy that I have a problem with, if you are a supporter of Rosemary's claims and you don't believe the evidence against, then you can help her by showing us all your working circuit producing excess energy.

This is redundant.  WE HAVE FUZZY'S OWN CLAIM TO HAVE REPLICATED.  IT'S ON HIS SCRIBD FILE.  Two links given above.  And guys.  PLEASE.  Don't waste your time on that circuit.  This new one is WAY, WAY better. 

Interesting how none of the people here that support your claims have never shown their version of your circuit, they must be relying on blind faith,  some people really do believe anything politicians tell them.

I know of NO-ONE who supports our claim.  How UTTERLY ABSURD!  It's NOT a matter of belief of disbelief.  It's a question of weighing the scientific evidence.  I am NOT out to win a popularity contest.  I would HATE to have 'followers' who 'support me' or NOT.  That doesn't feature.  It simply isn't the issue.  We have MEASUREMENTS that are unequivocal.  THAT'S what needs to be discussed.  That's it.  What you're implying is that we're lying about these measurements.  Frankly I'm not clever enough to lie about those measurements.  I'd have to know a lot more about the workings of a LeCroy before I could manage to fudge its results.  I'm not sure that anyone could manage that.  I'm reasonably sure it's tamper proof.  But NOTA BENE.  I am NOT ALONE in making the claim.  Just check out the report.  Then we must all be collaborating in promoting some kind of elaborate hoax?  Golly.  I'm not clever enough to manage that either.

Rosemary