New Rosemary Ainslie Demonstration Scheduled for Sunday, 4 August 2013

[SeaMonkey]

You answered 'oranges' again when the topic is still 'apples' so thanks for completely ignoring the real meaning of my last answer to you.

Just keep it up, bravo!

The question was answered indirectly.  Whether or
not the maximum attainable efficiency with present
Buck Converters hits the wall at 98% is debatable.
The efficiency can be improved somewhat by resorting
to a lower optimized frequency of switching and where
advantageous using discontinuous pulsing.

There are trade-offs of course but for driving a heating
element the normal level of regulation is not needed.

You've shown the ability in past discussions to think
through obvious clues but, somehow, you seem baffled
in this particular conversation.

There are no easy answers;  even if I provided every little
detail about what I've done it would still require on your
part creative tinkering to see the optimum result.  If you're
seriously so inclined to pursue such that is.  I'd rather you
didn't get stuck in the rut of exact replication.  Let your
imagination be your guide with full freedom to innovate
and substitute.

If you're looking for massive quantities of "free energy"
you'll not find it with these kinds of circuits and devices.

What Dr. Stiffler is researching is far more interesting.

[gyulasun]

SeaMonkey,

Well, I am not baffled but disappointed because you still continue to talk the talk, instead of showing facts.  Reading  this from you:
"...even if I provided every little detail about what I've done it would still require on your part creative tinkering to see the optimum result" 
is strange, why do you belittle members here? Just show your optimum results, there are several competent members here to judge it.

Now you sound withdrawing from this heating element circuit:
"If you're looking for massive quantities of "free energy" you'll not find it with these kinds of circuits and devices."   
This is interesting because so far in your recent posts you did talk about 'optimum ratio of external inductance to heater resistance', about using 'near perfect coil', about 'efficient switching scheme' etc IMPLYING as if these technics 'make the concept work'. 
Remember, the concept had been on a COP > 1 performance claim with this circuit but correct measurements have ended in a COP < 1 result so you may as well demonstrate what improvements your suggestions did bring to the circuit as per your findings/talks.  Or it is easier to withdraw from this circuit, right?

[minnie]

Hi,
   gyulasun, you'll get no where with this monkey. If you want an intelligent exchange
with a monkey, try the zoo!
                                         John

[Tseak]

Thank God it's over.  My advice is for everybody to move on.  It was all just a blip, albeit a very long and time consuming blip.

MileHigh

Oops. Not quite 

In her latest post Rose is back in the saddle. Being completely humiliated twice is apparently not enough. There is no shame in trying and being proven wrong but the vitriol and the untruths that accompanied this saga are self demeaning. The latest post is as full of holes as a Swiss cheese.

Lets look at it.

Their requirement included the need to run the battery against a control test - simultaneously - in order to evaluate efficiencies.  Effectively we ran two resistors at the same level of heat and compared how the batteries performed on a standard series setting against that on the switched circuit. 

Why was this detail previously omitted? Perhaps because it didn't happen. The logic of the test is seriously flawed. If both resistors were run at the same level of heat then there had to be a current/power controller implemented in the second circuit. As has just been discussed in this thread, this will not be 100% efficient, hence another cause of energy loss - bang goes the validity of the experimental control. If there is no form of current control then the resistor would be connected directly to the battery and the experimental circuit would have to be set up to match. I don't think so. If this did happen where are the measured results. Next, why the requirement to charge all the batteries is series. All that will happen is that the batteries that were at a higher charge level will start gassing and dissipate energy whilst the remaining cells fully charge. It seems rather pointless.

Secondly we have the claim that Ian Jandrell insisted that the control data be removed before publishing and that Rose had recently confirmed this with him. I do not know whether he cut out data ( but I can find out) but he remembered Rose. He also says that he has not spoken with her for some years.

Thirdly

The fact that there may or may not be a mix up in the design of the 555 switching circuit is IMMATERIAL.  I have questioned our academics on this

Do you mean the academics whose interest you cannot attract?

Fourth

The circuit was accredited - under operating conditions, by SASOL South Africa - BP South Africa - ABB Research in North Carolina - SPESCOM - ALSTOM and MANY other smaller and unlisted companies.  They all have their own engineering experts.  And ALL of them confirmed these results.  AND they then went further by actually accrediting those results.

What is meant by "accredited - under working conditions"? What are "working conditions"? This is an experimental circuit - there are no working conditions. With the exception of Spescom none of these companies may legally accredit anything for other than for their own use. Methinks that the term as used here is BS

Rose, please prove me wrong and produce the letters of accreditation or if your have used the word in error then any letter of approval.

However, having spent close to 30 years in Engineering development and R&D in South Africa I am aquainted with a large number of the people involved in this environment. In this instance I know Satchwell (The Alstom company involved) very well. They manufacture electric elements and controllers. They do not undertake any basic R&D. Theirs is limited to product enhancement. When they need other development it is outsourced. In this case they provided Rose with facilities to work at their Paarl branch. Eventually she was asked to leave for lack of results. The equipment that they purchased for her is still gathering dust in the store in Paarl.  That is hardly an endorsement.

Spescom is listed on the original paper as having attended as supplier of the Fluke equipment. This rings true and is also not an endorsement. Spescom's development department is separate from its commercial department. The development was at that time focused on military work and was based in Midrand some 1400 kilometers from Capetown. I worked with these gentlemen. The development has been scaled down dramatically and the personnel have moved on but I am still in contact with a number of them. Rose, who from Spescom endorsed this circuit? I can get this person(s) to confirm it for you - or may that be a problem?

For those that are not familiar with Sasol it is a massive petrochemical company that pioneered oil from coal. They sponsor much R&D over a wide range of technology in South Africa but are only directly involved in the petrochemical arena. If they had done tests on this equipment it would have been at one of the universities or at Sasolburg (a two hour flight then a two hour drive from Cape town) My my Rose, you must have travelled a lot! Once again I am familiar with many people at Sasol. If you let me know who you dealt with then I can confirm your claims. I do believe that Sasol offered to set up a bursary. That has the ring of truth but nothing has come of it - why?

And finally to explain the reappearance of our test apparatus.  I lost my original test apparatus.  But we had a duplicate made for ABB research so that they could experiment on this in their own time.  We never recovered that and I assumed that I'd now lost all reference.  Which is why I was relieved to find the very first test apparatus in my son's shed.

The original apparatus which has been the source of so much attention for the last 12 or 13 years was inadvertently placed in a storage shed and immediately forgotten only to surface now. Pull the other leg please!

Finally

He is DEMANDING that we retract the claims in that Quantum Paper.  That is NOT going to happen.  Indeed, lest the public be left with the general impression that there's NO benefit to these circuits

Sadly. There is no benefit that has been demonstrated. If it exists it is well hidden.

I really don't mind these circuits being in the public domain. However, the arrogance, rudeness and falsifications that have accompanied this saga are offensive.


PS
Milehigh,
Sit back and enjoy the soap opera. It's going to be here for a while.

[TinselKoala]

@Tseak:
Thank you for chiming in. It is indeed difficult to check these stories from my seat here in San Antonio, Texas. Having some real information from "ground level" as it were is greatly appreciated.

The alphabet agencies are always mentioned by Ainslie and Martin as some kind of vetting or endorsement that they have received in the past. But they have never offered a single bit of evidence for these claims.

Starting with the "bursary": Professor Gaunt at UCT (sorry, I had CPUT here at first) conducted an Electrical Engineering class back in 2000 during which he offered several term projects to his students. One of them was to investigate the claims of Ainslie, and he listed specific requirements for the project These requirements can be seen in the image below.

(Ask yourself.... has even the team of Rosemary Ainslie and Donovan Martin actually fulfilled the simple requirements listed by Gaunt for his student project? Of course they have not. They are as children, playing with toys they don't understand, and when confronted with the requirements of a real university-level research project they fail miserably... but with lots of big words.)

Is this the reason for the "bursary" that Ainslie and Martin keep mentioning? "Interest was lost" as Martin famously says.... interest was lost in a device that allegedly makes 17 times more energy than it was provided with in the first place. Yes... interest was lost.
None of the students took the bait, evidently, even though a BURSARY was offered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bursary

There are two types of bursary awarded by institutions (such as universities). The first is a means-tested bursary which is available for all students whose parents earn under a threshold value per annum. It is often given out using a sliding scale, with people at the lowest end of the scale receiving a full bursary and the monetary award decreasing in value with proportion to the parental earnings.
The second type of bursary, also known as a "scholarship" or "prize", is one based on performance. These awards are generally given for good performance in the exams preceding university or college entrance in which the student achieves grades above the standard entry. These can be awarded by the university or, sometimes, by companies.

Next...  the contact individuals at the various companies she mentions. Some time ago, in one of the locked Ainslie threads here (there are several) I posted names and publicly available phone numbers for some of the names she has dropped over the years, immediately after she said they were "contactable". Well, when I published the contact information that I could find and that she had herself posted, she utterly freaked out, accused me of hacking into her computers (she has made this accusation several times , and of course she has no support or evidence for her libellous accusations) and threatened me with her imaginary lawyers. Nobody has successfully gotten any information about Ainslie from any of these people.

Here's one such post I made back then:

All what contactable numbers, all what referenced names? As far as I am aware, you have NEVER, but the one single time, given any contactable numbers or referenced names. If you have, and I missed it, please post a link, because the people below... either apparently don't exist or claim never to have heard of you.

Colin Bower 919 856 2416
John Tarnowski (remember that name) 919 856 2467
Eddie Petrie 919 859 2434
Viv Crone (ha!) SPESCOM  011 266 1711, cell 083 625 3988
J Wilson (John, I believe) SPESCOM 083 652 0770
J Marriot, formerly of SASOL
Eddie Tarnow... . (tarnow, tarnowski...hmm, just a coincidence, surely.) 012 841 3138
Dr Garrett, formerly of CSIR and now heading their lab in Australia
John Greene at BP 021 408 2058

All of these names and numbers have been given out by Ainslie at one time or another, claiming that they can be contacted and that they will verify the claims of Ainslie re the testing they supposedly performed.

I think it is extremely interesting, Ainslie, that you claim a contact in  North Carolina, named John Tarnowski... and another contact in  South Africa at CSIR named Eddie Tarnow.

It's a small world.. but not that small.

So, are any of those names familiar to you?



(Tarnow at CSIR, Tarnowski in North Carolina...... that really makes me laugh.)
Thanks for your comments, Tseak.... any more "LITTLE" bits of further information you can provide will be greatly appreciated.

--TK

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPOap8nwQ2A

(ETA: Re the "circuits" in the public domain.... in fact, if you look at the complete data sheet of just about any power mosfet, you will find the _identical circuit_ shown as the "unclamped inductive test" circuit. This is the same circuit used in her single-mosfet Quantum magazine article, except that she used the 555 timer instead of a FG. So please someone tell me this: Just WTF was she supposed to be "patenting" when she filed the application and then started claiming she had a patent on the circuit? See the image below, from the IRFPG50 data sheet, which I have also appended.)