Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[poynt99]

OK,

After a lengthy chat about friendly disagreements and such, I see we had a misunderstanding as to what I was asking for regarding the "metric" being used by Rose to obtain a "gains" rating on each of Glen's (and possibly my own) test results.

Here is what was done to obtain the "gains" rating on Glen's #5 results:

With reference to the following tabulated POS results from Glen's #5 test run:

Battery Power AVG (POS)

Hour        2µs             20µs              40µs
1   1.514827571   -2.479456000    1.500064000
2   -3.205999153   -4.045888000   -5.239488000
3   -5.533148312   -5.207520000   -1.636576000
4   -2.350759808   -1.969696000   -3.160768000
5   -2.070294717   -3.493984000   -4.054848000
6   -1.257904431   -4.098176000   -2.052608000
7   -2.550643907   -4.765152000   -3.565344000

AVG   -2.207703251   -3.722838857   -2.601366857

Rose took the TRAA value from Glen's thermal profile table and found the corresponding PIL, which is 4.5W. Then she took the worst-case value in the above table of 1.5W and computed a COP = 3.

I have no problems with Glen's profile data, but I strongly disagree that picking any value from this table of POS results is valid.

It is my opinion that all of these values are erroneous and can not be relied upon for use in any calculations. There is no consistency, there is a large swing, and there are both positive and negative values.

I also believe that most if not all academics (and non-academics alike) would agree with me here. Rose has stated that no less than 4 academics have seen this table and condone its use, although they would prefer the average value be used. Rose has also advised that she has nothing in writing from any one of these academics stating as such.

I have a very difficult time with this and would very much like to either talk directly to any one of them or have them post something here to defend their opinion. It is my opinion that Rose possibly mis-interpreted what they said, but of course I could be wrong, it is just my opinion. At any rate, it is abundantly clear to me at least that using the 1.5W value from that table is about as reliable as choosing a value from a random number generator. Again it is my opinion that there is no correlation between any of those values and the true POS in the circuit. To me this table is clearly an indication of gross measurement error, and only serves to indicate that some improvements need to be made in order to obtain correct measurements. I have suggested several.

Rose has asked me to go on record with this.

.99

[MileHigh]

AC:

Just say what you have to say, you are loosing me with your neon light story.  There are dozens and dozens of YouTube clips where people play with gutted compact fluorescent lights connected to automotive ignition coils that are driven by a 555-transistor or MOSFET setup.  There are also dozens of Dr. Stiffler "spacial energy converter" clips also.  In these clips people hold a neon light lead between thumb and forfinger and place the opposite lead next to the components and marvel at how it lights up thinking that there is something extraordinary going on when in fact nothing special is going on at all.

Poynt:

Thanks for closing the loop with Rosemary and I agree 100% with everything that you say.  That table of battery power measurements is basically meaningless.  Other replicators should learn from you, you got similar results at first and then "worked the issue" until you resolved it.  When you started moving your probes along the wires you noticed that the pulse amplitudes changed, an example of your keen intellect at work.  A 100 nanosecond wide pulse is a fragile delicate thing.

Doing electronics experiments is not about just blindly recording your data, especially when you are operating in the "frequency stratosphere."

MileHigh

[allcanadian]

@milehigh
Quote:
"When you started moving your probes along the wires you noticed that the pulse amplitudes changed, an example of your keen intellect at work.  A 100 nanosecond wide pulse is a fragile delicate thing."
OMG, this is starting to sound like a romance novel. LOL, "Oh baby, I could hardly control myself as you moved your big shiny probes slowly along the wires, Oh my pulse amplitudes changed an example of your keen intellect, your fast wide pulses are such a fragile delicate thing",LOL.

This thread is starting to get just a "little" too weird for me, as well it is obvious you have made up your mind irregardless of anything I or anyone else could offer.
I really don't get you or poynt99, you contradict everything anyone says without justification, cutting people down with spurious rants and namecalling then to add insult to injury you try to pass off a ridiculous replication off as proof of a non-working concept, LOL. To be honest I cannot understand "why" you are here or why rosemary endures this almost comical nonsense.
In any case carry on with your show, if nothing else it is amusing.
Regards
AC

[poynt99]

The feeling is mutual AC.

I don't "get" you either.

Glad you're enjoying the thread though. Truth is I don't pay much attention to your posts anyway.



.99

[Hoppy]

@milehigh
Quote:
"When you started moving your probes along the wires you noticed that the pulse amplitudes changed, an example of your keen intellect at work.  A 100 nanosecond wide pulse is a fragile delicate thing."
OMG, this is starting to sound like a romance novel. LOL, "Oh baby, I could hardly control myself as you moved your big shiny probes slowly along the wires, Oh my pulse amplitudes changed an example of your keen intellect, your fast wide pulses are such a fragile delicate thing",LOL.

This thread is starting to get just a "little" too weird for me, as well it is obvious you have made up your mind irregardless of anything I or anyone else could offer.
I really don't get you or poynt99, you contradict everything anyone says without justification, cutting people down with spurious rants and namecalling then to add insult to injury you try to pass off a ridiculous replication off as proof of a non-working concept, LOL. To be honest I cannot understand "why" you are here or why rosemary endures this almost comical nonsense.
In any case carry on with your show, if nothing else it is amusing.
Regards
AC

AC

The whole exercise was doomed from the start because even Rosemary could not be certain of the exact details of the circuit due to poor documentation, so a true replication of whatever circuit the 'academics' tested has not been possible. Various circuit configurations based on the published circuit diagrams were tested and none of these have shown overunity, let alone COP17.

Both Fuzzy and Poynt99 have done good experiemental work in trying to validate Rosemary's COP17 claim and both MH & Harvey have assisted by interpreting the data collected and giving their opinion on what is happening in the variant circuits being tested. There is nothing to prove or disprove in respect of the claimed COP, only further expression of opinion in regards to test measurements and COP for variants of the 'true' Ainslie circuit.

I am more than satisfied that nothing I've seen so far remotely approaches unity and I certainly do not expect this situation to change, irrespective of how much further work is carried out or how many further opinions are expressed in this thread.

Hoppy