Overunity.com Archives is Temporarily on Read Mode Only!



Free Energy will change the World - Free Energy will stop Climate Change - Free Energy will give us hope
and we will not surrender until free energy will be enabled all over the world, to power planes, cars, ships and trains.
Free energy will help the poor to become independent of needing expensive fuels.
So all in all Free energy will bring far more peace to the world than any other invention has already brought to the world.
Those beautiful words were written by Stefan Hartmann/Owner/Admin at overunity.com
Unfortunately now, Stefan Hartmann is very ill and He needs our help
Stefan wanted that I have all these massive data to get it back online
even being as ill as Stefan is, he transferred all databases and folders
that without his help, this Forum Archives would have never been published here
so, please, as the Webmaster and Creator of this Forum, I am asking that you help him
by making a donation on the Paypal Button above
Thanks to ALL for your help!!


Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

Started by TinselKoala, June 16, 2009, 09:52:52 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

WilbyInebriated

Quote from: utilitarian on November 16, 2009, 04:23:00 PM
I am getting the breach of unity claim directly from Rosemary's energetic forum postings.  Breach of unity is technically a different claim from COP.  Whether a COP claim has been made or not, I am not sure.  I am referring to the overunity claim, which is an efficiency claim.  If you have a different definition of overunity, let's have it.  I am going by the most commonly accepted definition here, meaning (total useful energy output) / (total energy input from all sources).  Do you disagree with this definition, or do you disagree that a claim as to overunity, as I have defined it, has been made?  I am sure Ms. Ainslie herself can clear this up, in any case.

And I do not see how you can say that your opinion regarding the very central question of this thread is irrelevant.  You just do not want to admit that you don't believe in the overunity of the circuit either.  Or maybe you do believe it, but cannot articulate why.  Either way, the opinion is relevant, assuming it rests on facts presented.
i disagree with your definition.

opinions are simply that, opinions. they are NOT relevant. the 'very central question of this thread' cannot be answered with opinions. well, maybe in your fantasy world they can...
There is no news. There's the truth of the signal. What I see. And, there's the puppet theater...
the Parliament jesters foist on the somnambulant public.  - Mr. Universe

utilitarian


utilitarian

Quote from: WilbyInebriated on November 16, 2009, 04:28:54 PM
opinions are simply that, opinions. they are NOT relevant. the 'very central question of this thread' cannot be answered with opinions. well, maybe in your fantasy world they can...

And yes they can.  An opinion is a synthesis of the given data.  So based on the data presented so far, do you think the circuit is overunity or not?  Surely the synthesis of the evidence presented is relevant to state in this thread?  No?

Harvey

Quote from: utilitarian on November 16, 2009, 02:18:57 PM
Those people do not care about trying to falsify their claims, which every good scientist should try to do prior to asserting something as world-shaking as "hey there is extra energy here coming from NOTHING!!!!". 

You will never demonstrate anything to their satisfaction, as they can always point to something or other and claim your tests are deficient.  If their device is green, and your replication is off-green, they are going to claim the colors are all wrong and you should do an EXACT replication before you should be so bold as to say anything negative.

I agree, just walk away.  The burden is on the inventor to demonstrate overunity, so let her and her team do that.

It would appear you are missing some information:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg207590;topicseen#msg207590

Excerpt:
QuoteTherefore, this specific replication is intended to show the source current (and therefore the source power) provided to the circuit in comparison to the work done by the circuit. We are open for suggestions and encourage other replicators to provide a falsification test to this end. This may be a good thing for Poynt to focus on as he already has much of the materials at hand.

::)

Harvey

Quote from: utilitarian on November 16, 2009, 04:23:00 PM
I am getting the breach of unity claim directly from Rosemary's energetic forum postings.  Breach of unity is technically a different claim from COP.  Whether a COP claim has been made or not, I am not sure.  I am referring to the overunity claim, which is an efficiency claim.  If you have a different definition of overunity, let's have it.  I am going by the most commonly accepted definition here, meaning (total useful energy output) / (total energy input from all sources).  Do you disagree with this definition, or do you disagree that a claim as to overunity, as I have defined it, has been made?  I am sure Ms. Ainslie herself can clear this up, in any case.

And I do not see how you can say that your opinion regarding the very central question of this thread is irrelevant.  You just do not want to admit that you don't believe in the overunity of the circuit either.  Or maybe you do believe it, but cannot articulate why.  Either way, the opinion is relevant, assuming it rests on facts presented.

You may wish to review:

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-63.html#post64112

and

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg205166;topicseen#msg205166

8)