Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[Hoppy]

Aaron:

I have a very succinct answer to that one:  You don't know what you are doing.

Hook up the capacitor to see if my statement is true or not, I dare you!

MileHigh

MH

He won't do that because the battery is his protection. Remember, for new agers, the magic is in the battery!

Hoppy

[MileHigh]

Hoppy,

All of the measurements on the current draw through the shunt resistors using the digital storage oscilloscope were made external to the battery itself.  The voltage measurement was made external to the battery itself.  Therefore it should not matter if the battery is "magic" or not because all of the measurements were made external to the battery.

If Aaron is measuring a negative power consumption with his Ainsley setup then if he swaps the battery for a large capacitor then he should still measure the same negative power consumption.

"Negative power consumption" means that the Ainsley circuit is supplying power to the battery or the big capacitor, depending on the setup.  Normally you would expect the power to flow the other way, from the battery or the big capacitor into the Ainsley circuit.

Negative power consumption when you use the large capacitor (power being put into the capacitor from the Ainsley circuit) will result in the capacitor voltage going up because that's how capacitors work.

Positive power consumption when you use the large capacitor (power being put into the Ainsley circuit from the capacitor) will result in the capacitor voltage going down because that's how capacitors work.

I know that you know all of this but I am just stating it in simple terms for those readers that are beginners in electronics.

I encourage anyone that is interested in the Ainsley circuit to ask Aaron to perform this simple test.  It will tell us right away if the Ainsley setup is receiving power from the power source, or supplying power back to the power source.  It will also tell us if Arron was making his measurements correctly or not.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

Aaron:

I just heard that some people that are convinced they are qualified to analyze this circuit is calling for a retest on the negative wattage test to be done on a capacitor because it should never go down?

I have 2 responses:

1. Do you own tests, I'm nobody's surrogate.

2. This shows complete and total ignorance - what in a capacitor is going to resonate with the spikes in order to stress the local active vacuum to draw in free radiant potential? Nothing. The ELECTROLYTES in the battery are needed and suggesting otherwise is not simply evidence, it is proof that there is zero understanding of anything at all regarding these circuits - give it up! Bedini spelled this out for over 25 years - take a hint. The end.

Let me translate that for the audience:  You are chickening out because you know that the voltage on the capacitor will go down, proving that your measurements were incorrect.

In addition, you said this TODAY:

The negative wattage net draw test shows any work that is done under those circumstances is all free. This is simply an example of the circuit out of equilibrium with it's environment so that work can be done from free environmental potential that enters the circuit. Is it from RF, vacuum energy, zipons, etc...? Irrelevant in the point that the system is getting energy from somewhere and if it isn't from the battery, then that is very clear evidence that there is energy entering from the outside - it is NOT a closed system, therefore, conventional closed system equilibrium thermodynamics do not even apply.

So between your first quote and your second quote you are basically contradicting yourself, all in the same day!  What a creepy Orwellian world you live in.

You are afraid to do the capacitor test, as simple as that.

Hoppy was right, you fell back to the "magic battery" argument.  I will remind you that your theories about the electrolytes and radiant potential and the whole gamut are all unproven wild speculations made up as part of a pseudoscientific word view that you espouse.  None of what you stated above has been proven to be true.  Bedini has proven absolutely nothing and anybody that does any serious searching can find this out for themselves.

I will also take this opportunity to remind you that John Bedini sells a FOUR HUNDRED DOLLAR (USD) "Deluxe Dual-Beam CD Clarifier" that is supposed to "make your audio CDs sound better."

Anyone that knows how an audio CD works would tell you that the "Deluxe CD Clarifier" is NONSENSE, pure ELECTRONIC QUACKERY, that will have zero effect on the sound quality of your audio CDs.

Your buddy John Bedini sells a small project box that probably has about $15 worth of parts in it for FOUR HUNDRED DOLLARS and it does NOTHING, it is useless junk, ELECTRONIC QUACKERY.  It's a rip-off, plain and simple.

So here we are Arron.  You had a $15,000 digital storage oscilloscope for almost two weeks, and apparently you never once made a serious attempt to do a COP measurement on the Ainsley circuit that was in line with her white paper, where you are supposed to compare electrical power in as compared to heat power out.  About one month ago I even wrote up a procedure for you to make that exact measurement with the DSO to comfirm or deny the claims in Rosemary's paper and you didn't even do it.  Instead you farted around with solid state Bedini setups to get the warm and fuzzies seeing a second battery charging.  You started to realize how good the DSO really is and decided to try to make an oscillation measurement.  Much to your surprise there was no big COP to be found, and you decided instead to focus on another dead end, the nonsensical notion that the Ainsley circuit is now returning power to the battery because you are not smart enough to take a critical look at your own data and question it's validity.  I gave you a simple, tried and proven way to check for the net current flow using a large capacitor, and you chickened out and played the old unproven "It won't work without a battery" card.  It's pretty pathetic if you ask me.

You seemed to be hinting that you have about two days with the DSO before you have to return it.  Why don't you simply try to verify the standard claim made in Rosemary's white paper?  You are now familiar enough with the DSO to dig up my posting and actually do it.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

Aaron:

I can't resist a little followup comment:

I just heard that some people that are convinced they are qualified to analyze this circuit is calling for a retest on the negative wattage test to be done on a capacitor because it should never go down?

I think that is just another example of Orwellian speakuntruth from you.  I am unperson had thoughtcrime dared turn thoughtcrime into speakcrime on your web site.  You have been reading this site for years, and you have been reading this thread every single day for months now.  It doesn't take an Internet rocket scientist to assume that one of your two computers does not have the OU.com cookie enabled and you come here as an anonymous guest.

Why should anybody believe anything you say if you can't even admit that you read this thread?

Ministry of Truth (Newspeak: Minitrue)

The propaganda arm of Eastasia's regime, controlling information: news, entertainment, education, and the fine arts. Winston Smith works for the Records Department (RecDep) of Minitrue, "rectifying" historical records and newspaper articles to make them conform to Big Brother's most recent pronouncements, thus making everything that the Party says 'true'.

Doublethink

The keyword here is blackwhite. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink. Doublethink is basically the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.

MileHigh

[WilbyInebriated]

I will also take this opportunity to remind you that John Bedini sells a FOUR HUNDRED DOLLAR (USD) "Deluxe Dual-Beam CD Clarifier" that is supposed to "make your audio CDs sound better."

Anyone that knows how an audio CD works would tell you that the "Deluxe CD Clarifier" is NONSENSE, pure ELECTRONIC QUACKERY, that will have zero effect on the sound quality of your audio CDs.

Your buddy John Bedini sells a small project box that probably has about $15 worth of parts in it for FOUR HUNDRED DOLLARS and it does NOTHING, it is useless junk, ELECTRONIC QUACKERY.  It's a rip-off, plain and simple.

so here we are with mh posting his opinions, assumptions and conjecture, again.
http://amasci.com/freenrg/bedini.html
you can build one and do the experiment (gasp!) yourself or you can continue to talk out your anus as usual. i got my money on you talking out your anus... like ac noted, if you had ever stop talking long enough to build something you would know it works. a little due diligence wouldn't hurt either, it's pathetic i had to post that for you. more of your meticulous attention to detail i imagine. well, at least now you know how it is done so you can set about debunking it without doing the experiment.

how come you are avoiding the questions i posed to you about the ra circuit? i asked you several questions along with a poke about your gross comment, and the only thing you responded on was the gross comment. you danced around for a couple posts and then said if you want to talk about the ra circuit fine otherwise go away. i reminded you that i had asked you questions about the ra circuit that you then ignored and you went off on some multi post soliloquy which did not address any of my questions regarding the ra circuit. you do see the contradiction there that the rest of us see don't you?