Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

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.

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

Hi Poynty.  Your objections are duly noted.  I take it that in your opinion the range of DC average across the shunt on the source is too wide to represent meaningful results.  I think Harvey has covered this sufficiently.

I have an ongoing concern in this aspect of our discussion.  It appears that even if we were to log results continuously over - let us say an hour - or alternatively and if possible - the entire test duration - then your objections here will persisit if that variation persists.  Unfortunately that is the point where you need to evaluate any real reasons for your continuing involvement.  It appears to be required condition of this circuit.  In effect this opinion means that regardless of the probe refinement or any apparatus that you apply - this range is unlikely to lessen significantly.  In effect, even if you scale 15 meters you will regard the results it as meaningless.

And regarding the 'extended run'.  I'm satisfied that during your running of the proposed that you will possibly reach random moments where the DC average across the source shunt will show negative.  What conclusions do you then draw if that also co-incides with the only moment that you capture your data as you do not see any point in that extended run?  You will then erroneously propose a power analysis based on something that is essentially false.  Not good Poynty.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

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

Hoppy 
Not sure why you conclude that no replications have shown overunity?  or COP>17?

I think all test objects are to see if the efficiency barrier can exceed 1. And in some instances this has been proven.

Love your last paragraph.  LOL.  At least we can't accuse you of being open minded. 

[poynt99]

Hi All,

What I'm reading here in the last couple pages has caused me to reflect on the question of whether I'm going to carry on with any further testing on this circuit.

I think I've already done my part, and anything more, regardless of how exact or convincing, would simply be dismissed as "not good enough".

I'll think about it, and hopefully the answer will come within a day or two.

Cheers,
.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi All,

What I'm reading here in the last couple pages has caused me to reflect on the question of whether I'm going to carry on with any further testing on this circuit.

I think I've already done my part, and anything more, regardless of how exact or convincing, would simply be dismissed as "not good enough".

I'll think about it, and hopefully the answer will come within a day or two.

Cheers,
.99

I think Harvey would be sorry to see this result Poynt.  My disappointment is a given.  I trust that you will, at its least, comment on the protocols applied.  The only point of departure - albeit critical - is that you will not acknoweldge the effective transfer of energy in an aperiodic waveform.  Not sure that that's strictly justifiable under any reasonable criteria of evaluation.  But it's your choice Poynty Poynt - and we are all entitled to our opinions.   

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Incorrect, AC threw some sentences together but none of what he said answered my questions and I'm not expecting a reply from Glen. 

Also like Poynt I went back to look at the #5 test and saw nothing of significance.  I don't know why you are focused on that test.  I am now reading your more recent comments and I can see that you want to be selective and cherry pick the results that appeal to you.  That is totally unscientific, don't lose your grip Rosemary.  Ironically also there is noting to cherry pick.  Poynt has produced valid data and Glen's DSO recordings for test #5 look out of kilter, he doesn't even have positive battery power delivered to the load based on Harvey's crunching.

MileHigh

I see much of significance in Fuzzy's #5.  I am certainly not cherry picking unless it's to chose the unripe over the ripe.  Poynt's data is valid.  No contesting this.  I've admitted this on this forum.  Fuzzy's data equally so.  Strange thing about that evident negative zero discharge from the battery?