Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[ramset]

AC
In the context of TK's findings [replicating the published circuit]
He has valid questions ,his replication did not produce the published result,
And the lack of interest in" THAT"fact was curious ,and I felt the basis of his remark[at least thats how I took it after reading all his posts ]
In no way has he intimated he has shot this down ,on the contrary he's looking for answers [joining the forum]
hopefully they [the answers ]will come
Chet

[allcanadian]

@ramset
What I found offensive was his statement "that her claims of excess energy are completely invalidated", I don't think he has a clue what the term validation means. I spent two months on a simple circuit (Teslas ozone patent 568177) before I could validate Tesla's claims and this circuit is hardly more complex than the Ainslie circuit. Validation is making every effort to prove a device using the exact same materials and components in exactly the same manner, validation is not throwing whatever crap you may have on hand together in a few hours, this is not replication nor validation of anything.
My validations start with reading all know literature by the author in question, next I study all known devices in detail to establish a timeline of technology. This research could take weeks or months alone, then based on these endless hours of research I build the device to exact specifications if they are available. If specs are not available then the device "CANNOT" be validated---period, you can only make an effort to validate it based on incomplete information, based on nothing more than opinion.
Regards
AC

[ramset]

AC
Your point is well made [and taken],Rosemary seems to be begging for replication and challenge from the status quo.
I take TK's comment as a shot across the bow[permission to ask questions about your findings Rosemary?] Bought on by his initial findings in his attempt at replication
He asked Her to comment in this thread ,perhaps she will in the other.

AC ,I just sweep the floors around here ,but I have admired your posts and work for quite some time.

Chet

[TinselKoala]

@TinselKoala Completely Invalidated you say,LOL, I do not think one minor attempt qualifies as "completely invalidated" in any sense of the word. You should understand that many real inventors can spend months or years to perfect a device, then some yahoo throws together a bunch of crap in a single day and yells "Ah-ha it's all a lie" and the cycle of ignorance continues. I would suggest you actually try to understand the circuit process before you go off judging anyone.
Regards
AC

Who am I judging? Who are you judging? Who are you calling names?

I suggest that you actually try to understand the English sentences in my post, before you go off judging someone.

Perhaps you, in all your vaunted wisdom, can tell us just what it means to her claims of overunity, IF (there, I even capitalized it AGAIN so that you might notice it) her duty cycle, as generated by the circuit SHE PUBLISHED, is actually making a 3.7 percent OFF cycle instead of the 3.7 percent ON cycle she claimed.

Did you build the circuit yourself? I am waiting eagerly for your report of your results.

[allcanadian]

@TK
It is settled then, both of us agree my comments were out of line and I apologize for my behavior. Regarding Rosmary Ainslie's claims, as far as I can tell a printing error in the published circuit diagrams would have no bearing on her claims or her technology. Unless of course this mischievous printing error could somehow stop all of her circuits from working as stated and erase her patents from history by some divine intervention in which case I would be mistaken.
Regards
AC