New Rosemary Ainslie Demonstration Scheduled for Sunday, 4 August 2013

[gyulasun]

If I may surmise gent's and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think a small misunderstanding may be occurring.
I don't think SeaMonkey has stated he thinks Rosemary has shown Over Unity. Rather I think SeaMonkey
has eluded to the possibility of approaching 100% efficiency and 'possibly' a small amount more from energy release
or integration if such a "principal" is applied at it's best efficiency and with careful thought given to where
any extra energy may come from in such an "inductive heater arrangement".
..

Hi Farmhand,

I do not think there is even a small misunderstanding here, SeaMonkey just tries to play monkey with members here. Just follow his posts, his latest buzz suggestion is a question: "Is inductor saturation desirable for some length of time?" and he had these buzz generalities earlier like 'optimum ratio of external inductance to heater resistance', or using 'near perfect coil' or 'efficient switching scheme' etc IMPLYING as if these technics 'make the concept work'. And see Reply #205 what he answered when asked to define 'work': Hot Stuff.

I have shown links to devices used in switch mode power supplies (DC-DC converters) that can have 98% efficiency (COP=0.98), using state of art switching technics etc, it is explained in the devices data sheets and application notes how the 98% is achieveable.
I am not saying at all that it is impossible to go beyond the COP=1 case, however I do not tease members here by saying generalities and buzzwords on this subject.  Talk is easy. I agree with what member tinman wrote to another member: http://www.overunity.com/13700/another-self-looped-generator-claim/msg367976/#msg367976

rgds, Gyula

[Hoppy]

Hi Farmhand,

I do not think there is even a small misunderstanding here, SeaMonkey just tries to play monkey with members here. Just follow his posts, his latest buzz suggestion is a question: "Is inductor saturation desirable for some length of time?" and he had these buzz generalities earlier like 'optimum ratio of external inductance to heater resistance', or using 'near perfect coil' or 'efficient switching scheme' etc IMPLYING as if these technics 'make the concept work'. And see Reply #205 what he answered when asked to define 'work': Hot Stuff.

rgds, Gyula

I imagine that he gets issued with too many tots of rum! 

[poynt99]

Work?  In this case that may be a little hard
to nail down.

The degree to which the circuitry can be made
to accomplish what the experimenter hopes to
make manifest is directly proportional to the
abilities of the experimenter.

That's the kind of non-answer I've come to expect from you.

The bottom line is this; I'm not really interested in your hollow hints, crumbs of wisdom, opinions, speculations or philosophies. What interests me is seeing a setup and the measurements thereof, that you believe achieves something out of the ordinary or beyond what conventional science predicts.

Can you do that?

[Farmhand]

Well maybe I won't bother sharing unless I get what I see as useful unconventional Over Unity then,
would be far too much trouble to worry posting about anything less than C.O.P. = 2.0 with 100 Watts output or more.
It would be a waste of my time even if it was real. I won't ever have anything I "need" to prove to anyone
unless I'm being held by the Cops on a bum rap, but I could have stuff to share.

Maybe I'm wrong about SeaMonkey's comments.  I do know one thing though and that is.

There will always be false claimants of OU so debunkers are necessary, I've put paid to quite a few myself
as has SeaMonkey.

I've never taken much notice of Rosemary's claims because there is not enough power to be interesting.
I don't think there are any clear sides to these sagas. Many different points of view though.

The way I see it without retro proving every single thing we say, when we post we just give "opinions".

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. My opinions get taken the wrong way quite often,
it's a good way to annoy people into not sharing.

It is good to see frank discussion on the false claimants. For certain.

For instance no one needed a degree to see through UFOPolitics or Thane Heins' claims,
I picked them from the first video of theirs I watched.

Now if we want people in general to become more discerning about false OU claims then what we
want is for them to educate themselves in a positive way not be told by us what is real and what is not
and expect them to learn that way.

Truth is a lot of people don't want to learn they just want to be the one to stumble on something they can call OU.
While those people exist there will be a place for the likes of UFO, Thane and Rosemary to ply their claims.

Cheers

P.S. Just my opinion but I think it's better to take the hype out of OU by showing logically than any OU can only ever be
the collection or release of energy. No thing can ever make an output of work without at least the equivalent input from somewhere.

There is no Over Unity. There is only C.O.P. over 1.0. or the harnessing of energy that we need not pay for,
the devices to utilize the energy may have a monetary cost or not. 

Why can we not hammer that point home day and night until it sinks in ?

..

[TinselKoala]

Sea Monkeys, aka Brine Shrimp, are not what they claim to be in the adverts in the back of pulp magazines, so don't expect to see what was promised, when you finally get what you asked for.


Meanwhile... here it is, Saturday the 17th of August 2013.

And every link that Ainslie has ever posted to her papers is still active and does NOT lead to any kind of "preface" or display of her "withdrawal" statement. The papers have in NO SENSE been retracted, the fabricated Figure 3 scopeshot is still there in all its infamous glory, and Donovan Martin still has his name listed as co-author of the PROVEN FALSE manuscripts. The only way to find her statement is to delve into her honeypot forum looking for it... or to refer to my "little" posts on the matter.

No letters of retraction or apology have been sent (or at least not posted publicly if they have been sent) to Mark Dansie, or Sterling Allen. Both of their websites contain long letters full of claims by Ainslie that have been devastated by her own public demonstrations, both of them have been personally savaged by Ainslie in her comments.... yet the links to her papers are still there and no retraction statement is evident.

So... I am willing to hear further arguments as to the "honor" of the two principal authors of those papers..... but as long as the deceptions and insults continue to exist, it will be pretty hard to convince me that they are acting honorably and in good faith.