Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[Hoppy]

Its interesting how Peter Lindeman has not posted to support Aaron given that the testing was to be a combined effort. I reckon he must be cringing at Aaron's conclusions about the negative wattage shown on the meter in the video.

Hoppy

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hoppy - with the utmost respect - how can you conclude anything at all until the data is to hand?  And since when has science been determined without first evaluating the experimental evidence?  Or is this propensity to 'prejudge' acceptable as long as it's also endorsed by mainstream thinking and mainstream paradigms?  for some reason prejudice can be paraded as long as it's also approved by a consensus?

Personally I would recommend that you reserve your predictions here as it shows the rather desperate need to deny anything new.  So the actual question is this.  Why do you so desperately need to deny this?  If evident, then it's only a small phenomenon.  And it is, in any event, allowable in terms of known physics.  What is unusual is that this energy does not appear to come from the supply source.  Surely, if proven, that would - at its least -  be of interest?

[Hoppy]

Hoppy - with the utmost respect - how can you conclude anything at all until the data is to hand?  And since when has science been determined without first evaluating the experimental evidence?  Or is this propensity to 'prejudge' acceptable as long as it's also endorsed by mainstream thinking and mainstream paradigms?  for some reason prejudice can be paraded as long as it's also approved by a consensus?

Personally I would recommend that you reserve your predictions here as it shows the rather desperate need to deny anything new.  So the actual question is this.  Why do you so desperately need to deny this?  If evident, then it's only a small phenomenon.  And it is, in any event, allowable in terms of known physics.  What is unusual is that this energy does not appear to come from the supply source.  Surely, if proven, that would - at its least -  be of interest?

With respect Rosemary, I do not desperately need to deny anything new. I'm simply saying that I do not agree with Aaron's negative wattage conclusion for the reason that I have posted. To remind you, this reason is that his digital meter is simply not sensitive enough to see a current flow of a microamp or so. My analogue meter is sensitive enough and I can see a positive deflection of the meter needle (positive wattage).

Aaron clearly needs to repeat the tests ensuring that the DSO is calibrated as advised by Tektronics before he can conclude that he is seeing true negative energy. At the moment he is adamant that he is right and I'm adamant that he is wrong. I see nothing wrong about having opposite opinions based on personal observations.

The bottom line is that Aaron has a long way to go in convincing us all that he can demonstrate COP 17 from your circuit using the DSO.

EDIT: And remember, Aaron still needs to do the capacitor test.

Hoppy

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Poynt - the purpose of Aaron's last video was to show you that he was NOT using getting the numbers shown on his ammeter by artificially increasing its senstivity range.  You called for proof.  Aaron went to some trouble to give you the evidence.  Then you discount the evidence on the basis that it was against too broad a range of comparisons?  Some acknowledgement of his efforts to satisfy those arbitrary demands of yours would be appropriate here.  He at least has shown you that courtesy.  Where is your acknowledgement?

I must say I tend to sympathise with Aaron's assessment of your objects here.  You are not dispassionately trying to assess a phenomenon.  You're rather trying to discount it on any excuse you can find.  I could run through a pretty lengthy schedule here relating to your predictions of waveforms - efficiencies - comparative ambient references - and on and on.  Personally if I were Aaron I would not give you the time of day - let alone such time consuming efforts required to satisfy the arbitrary requirements you dream up.   And your dismissal of his best efforts is not only arrogant and rude.  It is wholly inappropriate. 

[Hoppy]

Rosemary wrote: -

"Poynt - the purpose of Aaron's last video was to show you that he was NOT using getting the numbers shown on his ammeter by artificially increasing its senstivity range."

Rosemary, you are correct about Aaron not artificially increasing his meters sensitivity but the fact is, he reduced the power in the load by adjustment of the pots until his meter could no longer register the extremely small current discharging from the battery. Please think hard about this.

Hoppy