Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

Rosemary Ainslie · August 31, 2009, 04:09:50 PM

Hoppy - you are something else. Do you now require Aaron to rerun the tests with the ammeter in series to satisfy you all that he is not distorting values when the ammeter itself distorts the value? This is getting tiresome in the extreme. The ammeter test was meant to be conclusive. It's now not enough? Aaron would have to be half mad to even consider re-running anything here. You are all wasting his and our time.

Here's the thing. We have a circuit which, at a rough estimate and including all the evidence of heat dissipation - measured wattages - et al (assuming one can 'add' an advantage to the negative wattage measured) that comes to something under 0.8 watts. The cost of this? Cannot be determined, but apparently close to zero if not zero. That in itself is odd and definitely needs detailed analysis. So the data is collected over the most of 21 hours straight. Then what comes to light is some more extraordinary facts. The resistor is not getting hotter. In fact it's getting cooler. More checks and cross checks. Then the post. And all you and Poynt and MH can say about it is that it's not cop >17 - it's probably incorrect - and who cares anyway? You know what really puzzles me is what you guys are doing on a forum that is dedicated to studying over unity effects. No wonder Wilby treats you guys with so much contempt. You're posting at the wrong address.

Edit - And you're right. It's not COP>17. It's now much, much higher subject only to a calibration run on the Tektronix.

Hoppy · August 31, 2009, 04:25:31 PM

Quote from: witsend on August 31, 2009, 04:09:50 PM
Hoppy - you are something else. Do you now require Aaron to rerun the tests with the ammeter in series to satisfy you all that he is not distorting values when the ammeter itself distorts the value? This is getting tiresome in the extreme. The ammeter test was meant to be conclusive. It's now not enough? Aaron would have to be half mad to even consider re-running anything here. You are all wasting his and our time.

Here's the thing. We have a circuit which, at a rough estimate and including all the evidence of heat dissipation - measured wattages - et al (assuming one can 'add' an advantage to the negative wattage measured) that comes to something under 0.8 watts. The cost of this? Cannot be determined, but apparently close to zero if not zero. That in itself is odd and definitely needs detailed analysis. So the data is collected over the most of 21 hours straight. Then what comes to light is some more extraordinary facts. The resistor is not getting hotter. In fact it's getting cooler. More checks and cross checks. Then the post. And all you and Poynt and MH can say about it is that it's not 17 Cop - it's probably incorrect - and who cares anyway? You now what realluy puzzles me is what you guys are doing on a forum that is dedicated to studying over unity effects. No woner Wilby treats you guys with so much contempt. You're posting at the wrong address.

Rosemary,

Aaron needs to decide for himself whether he wishes to carry out the meter test again with a more sensitive analogue ammeter.

I don't understand why you appear to be getting rattled about me giving you my honest opinion based on observation. The whole purpose of this thread is to discuss and try to validate your COP17 claim. If you are not interested in listening to points of view that do not fall in line with your thinking and beliefs, then carry on taking a 'head in the sand' approach. The easy way out is to believe in everything that Aaron concludes from his tests. I know that you are far too intelligent to do that and this shows clearly in your posts.

Hoppy

Rosemary Ainslie · August 31, 2009, 04:46:54 PM

Quote from: Hoppy on August 31, 2009, 04:25:31 PM
Rosemary,

Aaron needs to decide for himself whether he wishes to carry out the meter test again with a more sensitive analogue ammeter.

I don't understand why you appear to be getting rattled about me giving you my honest opinion based on observation. The whole purpose of this thread is to discuss and try to validate your COP17 claim. If you are not interested in listening to points of view that do not fall in line with your thinking and beliefs, then carry on taking a 'head in the sand' approach. The easy way out is to believe in everything that Aaron concludes from his tests. I know that you are far too intelligent to do that and this shows clearly in your posts.

Hoppy

The jury is still out on whether an ammeter gives an appropriate number. At best the consensus is that it may give the polarity bias indicating whether or not there is a net loss to the supply. Aaron ran this test - not to duplicate a number but to show that the ammeter does - indeed - show a negative result. This should have been enough. Now it appears that the number shown needs also to be proven to be correct. That will never happen. There is no ammeter made that can handle the frequencies of this switching circuit. You are resetting those goal posts and I suspect the object is to put them entirely out of reach.

To answer your question as to why I'm getting rattled. I am very happy with discussion. I am happy with data that is collected that contradicts or approves the thesis . What I find absolutely distasteful is when points are made by implication and innuendo. And I do not hide my head in the sand. I rather think that is something that you are all doing and will hold to this impression until I see a real interest in the data as is appropriate. That it may yet need proof from a calibration run on the instrument is acknowledged. But if that calibration run is completed? What then? Where will you put your next objection?

poynt99 · August 31, 2009, 05:05:37 PM

Quote from: witsend on August 31, 2009, 04:46:54 PM
Aaron ran this test - not to duplicate a number but to show that the ammeter does - indeed - show a negative result.

Please explain how a reading of "0.000" which fluctuates between + and - can or should be construed as solid evidence that the current in fact has a net negative bias?

Would you place a valuable bet on that? Would you place a bet if the meter read -0.001?

I thought so.

.99

Rosemary Ainslie · August 31, 2009, 05:09:13 PM

Quote from: poynt99 on August 31, 2009, 05:05:37 PM
Please explain how a reading of "0.000" which fluctuates between + and - can or should be construed as solid evidence that the current in fact has a net negative bias?

Would you place a valuable bet on that? Would you place a bet if the meter read -0.001?

I thought so.

.99

You thought what?

Take the trouble to read my post to Hoppy. I don't feel like repeating my argument. I would NEVER place a bet on the potential accuracy of any Ammeter reading at these frequencies. You should know better yourself.

Edit I would add that it was your requirement to use an ammeter at all. It's rather reckless to assume that it will ever do more than show a polarity bias. And to run the test with ammeters in series will seriously distort the values of the experiment as Aaron is dealing with really low current values. The small value of a series resistor in the ammeter would definitely distort the overall values in that experiment.