Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[ramset]

Well
99 is gonna run a sim ,if it shows OU ,that will be a first for him

Some Don Smith Stuff [Tesla coils simple things VERY BIG ""RESULTS""
http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Smith.pdf

his vids showing all AMAZINGLY SIMPLE

Chet
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2820531/don_smith_free_energy/

[TinselKoala]

Oh my goodness.

Hoppy said,

"We have all stated our various opinions and clearly and understandably there are still differences. My suggestion is to take Rosemary's circuit complete with 555 timer design and simply run it for sufficient hours to completely discharge the test battery at its C20 rating and take a before and after ampere hour capacity reading with a good quality battery capacity meter (BCM) on a battery with say a before test at rest voltage of 25.00V battery.

Rosemary has made it very clear to us that her circuit running at 90% plus duty cycle has been authenticated as being OU big time. If this is the case, then it will be easy enough to prove. I suggest that the test must be conducted to ensure that its duration be based on fully discharging the battery at a current based on that used for the DC control test which in Rosemary's case was 17.74W / 13.32V = 1.33A. This would require a battery of 25 - 30A/hrs. Assuming a seperate battery supply is used to run the 555 pulse circuit as was the case in Rosemary's test, then any loss of battery capacity measured after a good rest after the test, will strongly suggest under unity. Comparative 'before and after' test open circuit battery voltage measurements are not a reliable guide of capacity loss or gain."

Which sounds to me like he's saying, build the exact Ainslie circuit as published and test it using the correct protocol for battery discharge testing.

And Rosemary replied,

Hoppy - I would rather you do not dictate the terms and conditions for authentication. I have already stipulated what is required. I would also thank you and .99 to explain your dependence on simulator software that you are also confident will not allow for any overunity result.

I am awaiting the details of a post that apparently went to OU.COM - written by -.99 that speaks to this. When I have it I will address the issue again.

Which sounds like she is saying "OU is proven; if your tests don't show OU on my circuit your tests are (or will be) wrong."

In other words, "how can I lose, with the stuff I use?"

I am literally flabbergasted by this attitude. You can take any of my work and pick it apart using any tool you like ,and if a valid tool used correctly finds an error I want to know about it--so that I can correct it. If I don't understand something, it does NOT go out the door with my name on it.
It is a big mistake to delegate understanding.

[0c]

(Somebody please post this where Rosemary can see it.)

Rosemary,

To give the rest of the replicators a definitive baseline to work from:

1) Could you please locate the device you used for your experiments and post some detailed photographs of the circuitry? This should resolve any questions about the actual circuit construction (flyback diode, etc.).

2) Could you then provide a video of the experimental procedure described in your papers, using your original device, which clearly demonstrates the gains you have reported? Please include shots of your instruments, sampling points, settings, and waveforms.

This should help clear up much of the confusion.

Regards,
overconfident

[TinselKoala]

And now she is accusing poynt99, of all people, of lacking the "required intellectual integrity" to vet her work.

And this one in particular really cracked me up:

"Nor did you point out that PSpice could not, under any circumstances, simulate anomalous conditions. That is less than intellectually honest - by its kindest assessment."

IF she knew what she was talking about, this might be sad. But since she has no clue about how to even use the "PM" feature of a web forum (don't you just click?) she probably won't be running any circuit sims any time soon.
So it's just ridiculous, not even sad.

I wonder about the "intellectual honesty" of continually referring to patent applications as "patents" when it is clear that the folks she is talking to believe they are actually granted patents. Is that intellectually honest? I wonder about the "intellectual honesty" of someone who allows an admittedly incorrect (OR WAS IT?) diagram persist in literature with her name on it, for over seven years. Is that intellectually honest? I wonder about the "intellectual honesty" of someone who praises you as long as you agree with her but as soon as you provide evidence that she MAY be wrong, she seeks to discredit you , to have you silenced,  and she starts slinging mud.

Welcome to the club, .99.

[TinselKoala]

(Somebody please post this where Rosemary can see it.)

Rosemary,

To give the rest of the replicators a definitive baseline to work from:

1) Could you please locate the device you used for your experiments and post some detailed photographs of the circuitry? This should resolve any questions about the actual circuit construction (flyback diode, etc.).

2) Could you then provide a video of the experimental procedure described in your papers, using your original device, which clearly demonstrates the gains you have reported? Please include shots of your instruments, sampling points, settings, and waveforms.

This should help clear up much of the confusion.

Regards,
overconfident

Don't hold your breath. After all, why should she do any of that? That's what a "traditional" scientist would do. But we are dealing with an enlightened being, on the intellectual order of a Robert Oppenheimer, by her own humble admission.

She don' haff to show you no stinkin badges.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsdZKCh6RsU