Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[ramset]

Aaron said
For the record, TK is knowingly posting false information.

In the video description, "And finally, the thread where Ainslie is currently posting, from which most of my relevant posts have been removed by "moderation":"

Take note that nothing has been removed.
__________________
With Gratitude, Aaron

Aaron again    commenting    
:
Originally Posted by witsend View Post
Hoppy - to yet again involve you, if you don't mind. Here's the thing. Regardless of the level of efficiency I do see a recharge value in that returning energy from the collapsing fields. Does this fall in line with classical thinking?

In other words, is it acknowledged that a battery supply source can be recharged from energy supplied by the circuit? This sort of goes to the heart of the thesis? Academics have only commented that the measurement of the energy is correct. But if so, then their own measurements protocol allows for this benefit. And logic therefore points to a gain over the energy dissipated? I'd be very glad to have a discussion on this point. If not Hoppy someone? Allcanadian, Aaron? anyone?
Rosemary, there is an extreme psychological collective block on all of these concepts.

"I do see a recharge value in that returning energy from the collapsing fields. Does this fall in line with classical thinking?" - This concept is self-evident in many natural events I believe.

"is it acknowledged that a battery supply source can be recharged from energy supplied by the circuit?" - I'm not sure if it is acknowledged in any honest way, but it IS being applied in many instances. One example is Solar powered yard lights that have small rechargeable batteries are ALL charged very efficiently by the inductive spike coming off of a coil AFTER the transistor is turned off. It is the only way they can get those batteries to charge like they do instead of putting the solar cell straight to the battery. Solar cell charges primary then power turns off and the collapsing spike charges the battery. Again, the battery is charged AFTER input power is disconnected from the circuit.

Another example is every photoflash unit in cameras. Those caps are charged many times above the voltage of the battery powering it. The caps are all charge with the inductive spikes coming back AFTER input power is disconnected from the circuit.

These aren't the "source" battery but they do demonstrate utilizing energy AFTER source energy is taken away.
__________________
With Gratitude, Aaron



witsend
Thanks very much for answering the question Aaron. So then it's significant. In other words - if this can be generally proved that a battery can, in fact, recharge itself, then that will represent some unequivocal proof of over unity?

I say this because this is definitely measurable on our circuit. It's so quick. No fancy measuring instruments required. Surely then, all that is needed is to have everyone replicate the circuit to prove this. Thereafter we can play with that resonating frequency? That extreme overunity effect is not difficult - but for some reason is not happening. I'm sure that Donovan can help in this regard.

I'm trying to assist in the problem that Dr Stiffler pointed to where the thread will go on into infinity without standard parameters. Just a thought.EDIT in other words let's knock the OU claim on the head and then we can move on? Classicists won't argue the measurement of this. The real boffins gave me the required parameters to measure it. And other experts - the accreditors - could not argue this point.

[TinselKoala]

Aaron said
For the record, TK is knowingly posting false information.

In the video description, "And finally, the thread where Ainslie is currently posting, from which most of my relevant posts have been removed by "moderation":"

Take note that nothing has been removed.
__________________
With Gratitude, Aaron

        
:
Originally Posted by witsend View Post
Hoppy - to yet again involve you, if you don't mind. Here's the thing. Regardless of the level of efficiency I do see a recharge value in that returning energy from the collapsing fields. Does this fall in line with classical thinking?

In other words, is it acknowledged that a battery supply source can be recharged from energy supplied by the circuit? This sort of goes to the heart of the thesis? Academics have only commented that the measurement of the energy is correct. But if so, then their own measurements protocol allows for this benefit. And logic therefore points to a gain over the energy dissipated? I'd be very glad to have a discussion on this point. If not Hoppy someone? Allcanadian, Aaron? anyone?
Rosemary, there is an extreme psychological collective block on all of these concepts.

"I do see a recharge value in that returning energy from the collapsing fields. Does this fall in line with classical thinking?" - This concept is self-evident in many natural events I believe.

"is it acknowledged that a battery supply source can be recharged from energy supplied by the circuit?" - I'm not sure if it is acknowledged in any honest way, but it IS being applied in many instances. One example is Solar powered yard lights that have small rechargeable batteries are ALL charged very efficiently by the inductive spike coming off of a coil AFTER the transistor is turned off. It is the only way they can get those batteries to charge like they do instead of putting the solar cell straight to the battery. Solar cell charges primary then power turns off and the collapsing spike charges the battery. Again, the battery is charged AFTER input power is disconnected from the circuit.

Another example is every photoflash unit in cameras. Those caps are charged many times above the voltage of the battery powering it. The caps are all charge with the inductive spikes coming back AFTER input power is disconnected from the circuit.

These aren't the "source" battery but they do demonstrate utilizing energy AFTER source energy is taken away.
__________________
With Gratitude, Aaron



witsend
Thanks very much for answering the question Aaron. So then it's significant. In other words - if this can be generally proved that a battery can, in fact, recharge itself, then that will represent some unequivocal proof of over unity?

I say this because this is definitely measurable on our circuit. It's so quick. No fancy measuring instruments required. Surely then, all that is needed is to have everyone replicate the circuit to prove this. Thereafter we can play with that resonating frequency? That extreme overunity effect is not difficult - but for some reason is not happening. I'm sure that Donovan can help in this regard.

I'm trying to assist in the problem that Dr Stiffler pointed to where the thread will go on into infinity without standard parameters. Just a thought.EDIT in other words let's knock the OU claim on the head and then we can move on? Classicists won't argue the measurement of this. The real boffins gave me the required parameters to measure it. And other experts - the accreditors - could not argue this point.

Then where's my post with the photograph? Why didn't Ainslie see it?

It is Aaron  who is lying--or mistaken. The photo was posted between posts 455 and 470--in which post Aaron chides me for posting again after he "asked" me not to. But where's that post? It is gone, and I sure as flmp did not remove it.

[TinselKoala]

AARON, for the record, your slur is actionable, because there have indeed been relevant posts of mine removed from your thread. You will either retract your slur or I will pursue it, to the ends of the earth.

And if we want to talk about "knowingly posting false information"...there is that whole Ainslie thread of yours. Most of the "information" in there is false, Rosemary knows it, and many other people do too.

The Quantum article is a good example. Clearly false information that has not been retracted in the SEVEN years since its publication.

AARON's post # 479:
"Anyone that wants the publicly available gripe sessions in this thread, please copy them now within 12-24 hours from this post. I have decided to delete a certain amount of them so that we do not a lot of irrelevant information that will not help replication attempts."

He (or somebody) just started early with mine, I guess. And I can't seem to find some of Henieck's posts either.

[Cloxxki]

Just checking... is the http://www.energeticforum.com/ site also unreachable for you guys? It has been for some time. I got a misunderstanding email from one member there, and soon after I could not even see the site anymore. Probably coincidence. Thanks!

[TinselKoala]

Just checking... is the http://www.energeticforum.com/ site also unreachable for you guys? It has been for some time. I got a misunderstanding email from one member there, and soon after I could not even see the site anymore. Probably coincidence. Thanks!

Oddly enough, I can still see it. They sometimes will block people from even reading the site, by IP number, I have been told. Try a proxy server or a hardware firewall with NAT translation. If you use a different IP number you might be able to see it. Let us know if this is actually their policy.

I have not used any such subterfuge; I'm just on a Rogers system, behind the usual router. Perhaps they've forgotten to block my read access (although I cannot even PM anyone or post there at all).