Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[poynt99]

Yeah,

It was time to get out. It's an up-hill battle with R&A and sometimes it felt as if we were playing into the hands of a collective troll. I sure hope that is not the case.

What MH said about the folks there "not knowing what they don't know" seems so applicable.

The facts will come out if they're obtained by a competent crew. My greatest fear is that the data will be swayed, manipulated, or just plain mis-treated with the same eager bias evident in every step of the debative process thus far. All "seemingly positive" results have been met with unhindered exuberance and improvidence, while the sobering heavily backed-up facts of the classicist have only been shunned, ignored, slandered and incoherently questioned.

A most basic level of technical understanding is required before true judgment can be impartially placed on any theory or accepted practice. I think it is quite evident that R&A are not quite there yet.

.99

[poynt99]

 

Rosemary,

If you are reading this, please you're taking this way too far. Trust me, nobody is reading your email, and no one is blocking your internet access, particularly from OU. It is difficult to log on to OU at the best of times! Certainly Ramset is no black ops thug spying on you and your email. Him becoming a grandfather near the same time you became a grandmother was pure coincidence, and you are quite clearly being unduly paranoid.

.99

[qiman]

TK, not interested in your foul mouth. So you claim to have posted
real results. I suppose you give up and admit that you have been
unable to get over 1.0 COP with this circuit?

Anyway, here is a 555 circuit anyone can use to get 3.7% and 2.4kHz.

This is the timer circuit I built right after the first timer circuit. The schematic is a circuit Peter came up with. I modified that picture of the schematic to reflect the actual values of components that I am using in the 555 circuit you see in my pics. I've used it over the course of the soap opera and am very happy with it since it does everything necessary. You can of course go to higher frequencies, etc... and get a feel for the circuit.

The circuit has a max of 50% duty cycle. With the 100k pots, you can have pretty wide variability. I'm only using the lower 10% or so, but you can play with it on your own scopes to see the range you have.

As Peter said, it does 3.7% duty cycle at 2.4 kHz.

Make sure to use an inductive resistor with AS MUCH INDUCTANCE AS POSSIBLE for 10 OHMS. (wire wound ceramic hollow core resistor)

http://www.feelthevibe.com/free_energy/rosemary_ainslie/heater555timer.jpg

[TinselKoala]

From Aaron:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Armagdn03 View Post
Cant say how long I have known, but I dont really think it is understood by almost anybody. I was watching a guy speak, who was a former "black ops" who said that the military had circuits which only "spent time".

This is the whole point to the voltage potential spikes. There is no real width to them because they are storing the TIME POTENTIAL. That time is what is being used to power the circuit when a load is applied. That time potential will cause current to flow when load is applied.

Literally using TIME as fuel.

It is clearly no longer possible to consider rational discussion with R&A. They can both of them just make things up out of dreams or science fiction.

In answer to a "hard question" from Gre:

Rosemary's test was already certified at COP 17 by BP, Fluke Instruments certified the results, etc...

If you're new to the thread, there have already been multiple confirmations that there is more current circulating in the system that what left the battery. There are many more to come and many more to be posted in this forum.

Which of course is full of lies.
What did "BP" certify? Where is any evidence of a report?
Even Rosemary says that Fluke only "certified" the calibration of the ScopeMeter 199 used in the experiment, NOT THE RESULTS OR CONCLUSIONS of the experiment.

And there have been no "confirmations" that there is any " more current circulating in the system that what left the battery. " There have only been conjectures and speculations about the meaning of spikes, and a lot of misunderstood descriptions of the behaviour of circuit elements.

Nobody has produced excess heat over and above what could be produced by DC at the same applied power levels. Nobody has shown the circuit to be recharging its battery or doing anything more than transferring energy from one battery to another or to a separate cap through a diode--effects which are well known, ancient, and known to be less than 100 percent efficient.

And now, to top off the comedy of lies and error even more, ramset and TK have been discovered to be the same person.

But tell us, Err-on, which one of us is the real one, and which is the disguise? Maybe you can find out by looking between the time slices on your oscilloscope.

[qiman]

I'm using one of Peter's power supplies to heat the resistor to determine the control wattage necessary at a continuous DC for a certain temperature.

The below pic has notes telling what to do. Use this method to determine what volts and amps your steady direct current supply (100% duty cycle - constant on) is needed to get the resistor to be at the temp that your Ainslie circuit runs at.

Make sure both are at the same ambient temp for accuracy.

If your resistor gives you 175 degrees on the Ainslie circuit for your particular batteries when they're charged (use good condition batteries - no junk) and you're at your preferred duty cycle and frequency...and that temp stays pretty much the same when the battery shows you that it isn't going down anymore...use that temp as your gauge for the control.

When resistor is cool, connect steady dc supply. If it gives you 175 when you are at 6 volts and 0.6 amps, then 3.6 watts is your control wattage.
(The 0.6 amps current leaving the supply shows the resistor is really 10 ohms right on the nose)

The resistance stays the same at ALL temperatures. They are designed for that so don't pay attention to misinformation that says otherwise.

These are very tuned resistors specifically made to be at their rated resistance for a wide range of temperatures in the many hundreds of degrees. The resistance will be consistent and reliable for your calculations.

If you measure your power on your shunt during the Ainslie circuit test - do so only with True RMS meter that can store the data to give you a running total of the watt hours it used for that particular temp for so many hours.

You don't have to run the control for as longas the Ainslie circuit. Once you know the temp when everything is equalized, take the power reading and it won't change over time.

The control shows that for 175F for 8 hours at 3.6 watts, that is 28.8 watt hours. 3.6 watts x 1 hour = 3.6 watt hours. 3.6 watt hours X 8 hours = 28.8 watt hours.

If your Ainslie circuit gets to 175F and stays there for 8 hours but your true RMS watt hour reading is 28.7 watt hours. Then you just went over 1.0 COP.

28.8 watt hours is what is required and 28.7 is less.

If you get 20 watt hours, then you beat it by more.

If you get 10 watt hours true rms reading, then you beat it by almost 3 times.

etc...

This is the first basic test to do to replicate the findings of Rosemary Ainslie's tests. Once doing PLENTY of these over and over and over. Then, goto putting your resistor in whatever kind of calorimeter, etc... that you want.

Do your tests with 0 resistance at the gate, increase resistance to remove the ringing and do the tests, get your mosfet in oscillation and do the tests. Change frequencies and duty cycles and see the relationship between them all.

http://www.feelthevibe.com/free_energy/rosemary_ainslie/rosemaryainsliecontrol.jpg