Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[WilbyInebriated]

@ WI
Whatever man 

Go have another drink.

.99

LOL, nice rebuttal. i see you have nothing.

[poynt99]

You're right bud, I have nothing

Now run along please and go play with all the other inebriated ones, bless their soggy souls

.99

[WilbyInebriated]

Rosemary,

Please change tabs on your browser.  lol

You really really don't get it.  The skeptics know that there is no point in "debunking" the claim.  It never works, the believers go on the defensive and the discussion falls apart.  The reasonable thing to try to do is educate and offer some guidance so that the believers can progress through the testing and measuring phase and then FIGURE IT OUT FOR THEMSELVES.  No one is going to believe a skeptic, that's a given.  But I figure that you will believe it if you can get to the point where you look at your OWN data, data that you generated YOURSELVES, data where you truly UNDERSTAND the measuring methodology and have an understanding of the circuit yourselves.  THEN and ONLY THEN will you be convinced.

HOWEVER, you CANNOT get there if the person or persons that are trying to do the tests for themselves will not accept any outside input that he or she cannot understand or refuses to try to understand.

So just trying to get you to the point to where you could make some reasonable measurements with a reasonable understanding of what is going on has become a total failure.

It's pig-headed Aaron that is blocking your progress towards arriving at your OWN conclusions so that you can BELIEVE YOURSELVES.

The ridiculous nonesense with Aaron puffing out his chest and adamantly refusing to accept that the scope was loosing trigger in his clip from a few weeks ago is just one of many prime examples where Aaron is pigheadedly blocking progress towards reaching the final goal.

So WE are not your best enemy, you YOURSELVES are your own best enemies.  The longer all of you remain bit players in this theater of the absurd farce, the less chance you ever have of arriving at the proper conclusion ALL BY YOURSELVES.

Hence the tragicomic operatic farce continues.

This is "get real" time for you Rosemary.  You have no "technology."  You have zero chance of getting a patent.   Your alleged "technology" is the fact that you are using a MOSFET to charge a coil-resistor and then looking at the discharge.  Forget about over unity, there is a metaphysically zero chance of that ever happening with 100% certainty.  That is the truth and there nothing that you can do about it except to confirm it for yourself, because that's the only way you are going to believe it.  That is what I have been trying to help you and Aaron do.  Your "technology" in nothing more than a lab experiment in a grade-12 physics class.

I don't care about your zippons, I am telling you the metaphysical truth.  TK and Hoppy have already proved it is not COP 17.  You and Aaron got all exited about Hoppy's PRELIMINARY results and paraded them on your chat board much to the chagrin of Hoppy.  It's time to GROW UP and be scientific about these things.  If Hoppy can make better measurements he will show there is no OU.  This I am confident of with metaphysical certitude.

So simmer on those points and see of you can drag Aaron kicking and screaming all the way to the point that he can see for HIMSELF that there is no over unity in a coil discharging through a resistor and a diode.  He can take a relay and energize the coil with five volts and then put his tongue across the contacts and then disconnect the battery and feel the "compressed time potential" for HIMSELF.

You can try to go forward and accept some input from the skeptics, or fail completely and totally because Aaron doesn't know his ass from his elbow when it comes to oscilloscopes and electronics and how energy works.  As far as I am concerned Aaron and his flock are like ignorant and illiterate peasants living in the Dark Ages.  Serfs that never see more than the plot of land that their Lord has rented to them to work all their lives in an attempt to pay off their debts.  Myself and TK and .99 and others are trying to shed some light on you.

I know that my prose was harsh and not politically correct, that's life.

MileHigh

i feel so silly. i understand now. you are a wonderfully magnanimous trinity.

you said it yourself, no one believes a skeptic, take your own advice and stfu.

oh yeah, why am i picking on you guys? i know that's the burning question your type always tosses out there. perhaps i am hoping the allegedly 'erudite' crowd will get the hint. you outlined the futility fairly well in your last post, but  i am reasonably sure there will be another 50 pages of useless ladies aid chit chat and neither 'side' will have converted any from the other. but go on, you can 'save' them, i know you can

[WilbyInebriated]

You're right bud, I have nothing

Now run along please and go play with all the other inebriated ones, bless their soggy souls

.99

indeed, nothing but a simulation.

LOL i think i'll stay. it's fun, you have lots of kids games here...

[qiman]

From Rosemary:


1 -Re the 555. .."It CANNOT be adjusted to make the shorter duty cycles using the component values specified."
I cannot comment here. All I can assure you is that we used switches that could enable the required duty cycle.

2- I have NEVER discussed the MOSFET. I cannot understand your point here. Certainly this was never discussed. You simply stated it as fact. It is not true. The duty cycle applied to the switching circuit is as claimed in the publication.

3 -Evaluations of the oscillations were determined by experts - not by me. This includes a guarantee from Fluke that the numbers associated with those oscillations were correct. And Aaron has only withdrawn a video that relates to the HF sounds associated with resonance.

4 - The quantum article and the IET (Institution of Engineering and Technology) are indeed the same experiment. The difference between the two is that the paper submitted to the IET included the diode parallel to the load - as I wanted to emphasize the recharge cycle. This may possibly have been a mistake. But as the paper was not published it really does not matter. The only reason we duplicated the experimental data and apparatus associated with the Quantum publication is because I have the written consent to associate the accreditors names in relation to that publication. It may have been difficult to rally their interest again 8 years after the initial publication. This is the more so as it seemed that in many cases, personnel associated with those tests have changed.

5 - This is simply not true. Many replications were done by all those associated with accreditation - with the possible exception of one instance where the test was demonstrated rather than duplicated by the accreditors. It is precisely because of this that I was not able to get their full reports. Had I paid for the reports I may have been in the happy position of demanding them I did not know enough at the time of advancing the replications that I should also have demanded their test results. And 'vetting' certainly does not apply to calibrations of measuring instruments. What nonsense.

I would add here that - to a man, and notwithstanding the lack of their reported results - they required that the test be evaluated by academics in order to explain the results - which could hardly be considered anomalous as they were also replicable.

6 - I do not want people to think that I have a patent. On the contrary. I am most anxious to advise everyone that I do not have one. And have done so on every reference to this that there is no patent. It was in the introduction to my blog. But I also assure you that I was invited to register a patent at the expiry of the period where the patent was published for the public to lodge any prior claims. That documentation is on record. And if you doubt this too - then check with the patent authorities. Their correspondence to me is on public record.

But I've told you all this. I've proved it where possible. Why do you insist on these premises to your argument TK? When you know they are not true? It continually amazes me that you are still arguing the points that I have continually refuted. Is it because you assume that I am simply a liar? To what end? That I can enjoy this debate that rages through the internet? I will tell you that I do not 'chase' the media. I'm essentially a retiring person. That I put this forward was done after some real internal debate and dialogue between this natural inclination and the desire to discuss the model. The latter interest prevailed. Do you think that I could also enjoy reading your atrocious account of my character through every posting you put your name to? My stomach knots every time I read yet another one of your attacks. You are a dedicated bully - a kind of reckless thug who uses every possible talent - which is clearly quite considerable - to incinerate my name - my knowledge and my passionate interest in physics. To what end? Why all this time and effort?

I would have thought that if you are truly attempting to validate my experimental claims you would simply repeat the test conditions as required, and then post your results to deny them or approve them. Why does it also necessitate the absolute requirement to attack me at so many levels? Are you just naturally inclined to hurt other people. Or do you reserve this unbridled attack because I've presumed to challenge conventional knowledge regarding over unity constraints? I've said this privately to Oc and I'll say it publicly here. I think you're simply the playground bully whose taken trolling to new levels of expertise in order to entertain an audience.

But I'll hang in here. At least until Aaron either manages to prove or disprove the claim. In a strange way you represent a kind of closed minded malice that is the antithesis of everything that I hold dear. And I'm braced, of necessity - to your next attack. It will follow as day follows night.