Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[MileHigh]

Rosemary:

I do my own thing and I am not answerable to anybody.  Again, please stop calling me a troll.  If I make use of colourful language, it is typically generic and not directed at anybody specifically.  I have made it a point to not throw the first stone and you I am sure have noticed stones being thrown at me recently.  Stop it now please.

.99:

Not being a component expert either, but I am under the impression that a super low inductance wire-wound resistor is noting more than a resistor half-wound clockwise and half-wound counter-clockwise.  Hence I was suggesting that you try to approximate the same thing.

I admire you for your tenacity, that's for sure!  If you had a really good electrical Spice model for the load resistor and threw in some stray capacitance and inductance for the wire interconnects (based on serious modeling), don't you think that would nail it on the simulation side?

Anyway, you have me "convinced" with what you did in the analog and thermal domain.  Are you sure that it is worth all the effort on the DSO side?   Why not just nail the power consumption/reflection with your DSO and not worry about the rest of the ringing in the circuit?  After all, the "black box" approach is definitive and can't be argued against:  Electrical power goes into a black box and thermal power comes out of the load resistor on the other side of the black box.  That's all that counts.  We already have a pretty damn good idea about what is going on inside the black box.  If you could nail the power consumption and then check the thermal power it's a done deal and then we can watch some of the "big players" that reside mostly on the other side of the continental divide go totally mute.  That would be sweet!  lol

Rosemary:

I think that this is the premature victory jig:

The Cat's Out of the Bag!!
Aaron,

Great work! OK folks, now you can see what you are trying to replicate. By placing one probe of the scope on the BATTERY, you can clearly see when the FET is ON, because the battery voltage drops. When you see the oscillations on top of the battery voltage in the HIGH POSITION, you know that the FET is OFF and the battery is charging. This is the mode of circuit operation that can produce the high COPs that Rosemary has reported since 2002.

The Naysayers are now shown to be the real amateurs who have no insight into this circuit. Sorry Poynt99, but SPICE just isn't going to show this level of complexity. Aaron has now published a circuit that has all of the flexibility necessary to produce all of the necessary effects. And, by placing the scope probe directly on the battery, you can see when the oscillations are happening, both when the FET is ON or OFF.

Another big thanks to Lisa at Tektronix for making these measurements possible!!

Peter

What happened to Aaron?  I don't think he could hack it because his audience was not his typical audience and it was too stressful for him.

Shake your bootie Peter!!!

MileHigh

[allcanadian]

@milehigh

After all, the "black box" approach is definitive and can't be argued against:  Electrical power goes into a black box and thermal power comes out of the load resistor on the other side of the black box.  That's all that counts.

What happened to Aaron?  I don't think he could hack it because his audience was not his typical audience and it was too stressful for him.
Shake your bootie Peter!!!

I would agree you will have proven your point and then you can do your victory jig and rub this in everyone's face without a second thought. To me however you will have proven that you would go to any length to satisfy your ego. This is just a silly game to prove someone else wrong, there has been little if no debate on "how" or "where" excess energy could develop, you have done nothing of substance. Your intent was to flaunt your education and training as superior and everyone else inferior. As well, where will you go from this thread when you are finished?, you have gained no insight from this circuit as to how it could possible operate as claimed, from your posts it would seem your only goal is to kill this thread. I would suggest a site called Randi.org(the skeptic website) I think you may like it, they rant and rave all day long about how stupid everyone else is and every now and then they turn on their own which is quite a spectacle.
Regards
AC

[0c]

@allcanadian,

I think you've got MileHigh all wrong. He wouldn't be spending this much time and effort if he wasn't intrigued with the idea. I don't think his goal is to "debunk" the circuit. He's merely doing the best he can to analyze and understand things using accepted knowledge and techniques. So far he's done a pretty good job and he's been willing to share his thoughts with the world. I give him a lot of credit.

@MH,

When you feel like you have taken enough abuse here, I'd love to hear your thoughts on a more magnetic device.

0c

[Hoppy]

MileHigh.

I started answering your post in one way.  Have deleted it and am now trying another.

Your earlier post - copied over to EF.COM was insightful and challenging.  I had rather come to expect an ongoing high standard.  I really am not clinging to anything.  The term implies a tenuous grasp.  My grasp here is firm - strengthened by the experimental evidence available.  That the measurements need to be tested and firmed up - is not at question.  I trust you realise that there's a 2 week delay in the transfer of another DSO?  We're all waiting.

Regarding the measurement of the spike as proof of a gain - again you've missed the mark.  We effectively have done what you advised.  We ignore the measured wattage over the load resistor except as it relates to thermal measurements.  There's no cheating here MH.  And if you see the ship sinking - then you need to adjust your sights.  Not sure who's going back to the battery argument - except that it would be a preferred corollary to measured data.

I will indeed stop calling you a troll if you would also stop referring to us as 'free energy spin doctors' and all suchlike, and if you could return to the creative analysis that was evident in your post copied over to ef.com.  My difficulty with you is that you vacillate between extremes - and I'm never sure what to expect.  Some suggestions are gold.  Others are not.

Rosemary

Rosemary,

A battery should not be used as a power supply in an attempt to validate a claim of this nature, control or no control - period! I thought this had already been acknowledged. The original data set for your circuit was badly flawed because of this.

Improving the accuracy of the measurements will only delay the inevitable conclusion that this circuit is running nowhere near unity. The evidence for this has already been acquired.

Hoppy

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary,

A battery should not be used as a power supply in an attempt to validate a claim of this nature, control or no control - period! I thought this had already been acknowledged. The original data set for your circuit was badly flawed because of this.

Improving the accuracy of the measurements will only delay the inevitable conclusion that this circuit is running nowhere near unity. The evidence for this has already been acquired.

Hoppy

Hoppy - if you want to argue battery draw down as a corollary to the proof of efficiency then take up your cudgels with our academics.  We are following good advices on all such matters.  I have no idea whether or not you're an academic?  If so, you belong to 50% of the argument against this.  Which leaves opinion divided.

And regarding your conclusions - it's like I've said repeatedly.  For some reason you and MileHigh and others are anxious to close the argument before any further testing is done.  Why is this?  If you're trying to justify it against Poynt's findings then Poynt himself is still looking.  If you're judging it against your own findings - then we've actually never had full access to all your data which assisted your determination here.  Perhaps you could make your spreadsheets available for analysis?  This is, after all, open source.

What I find extraordinary is that the free energy enthusiasts are usually accused of the bigotry now only evidenced in the rampant certainties expressed by you Paul and MileHigh.  Somehow - and for reasons which are not entirely evident - this is now the new brand mark.  I'm glad of it.  It shows up as an unreasonable bias - not unlike TK's premature attack on this system.