Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

First:

Third: It was evidently a mistake on my part thinking I could trust this group to be professional, mindful, and respectful. It won't happen again.

.99

Just hang on here one really long moment Poynty.  It was you who stated - unequivocally - that our data was nonsense and that our tests were meaningless and that Lisa's input was irrelevant and that David would support your thesis regarding the required probes.  Do you seriously propose that we would sit back and take this - on the chin - to satisfy your argument?  And how politically correct is it to burden our objects with this avalanche of dismissive statements about the tests, the thesis, the accuracy of the probes - or anything at all.  Where was the required restraint?  Or even some moderation in your observations?  Where, in short, was your own professionalism.  Or is it just required behaviour of everyone except yourself?

My own take is that, at its least, it's required that we investigate the authority upon which you allegedly base your conclusions that also lead to your unequivocal dismissal of our experimental evidence. 

And Grumpy.  You've chosen a really appropriate name.  But we're really not here to satisfy your needs for some megawatt applications of proof of concept.  If you're up for it - then go for it.  No-one will stop you.  We've got our own thing going here - and unless it's illegal - or until we're forceably prevented - then we'll take this where we need to.  You don't like the thread?  That's fixable.  And it doesn't need any changes in our plans nor in the quality of our contributions.   

[poynt99]

One last post before I retire for the night...

The data used to compute the results in Glen's test#5 is unusable. This will become evident to you at some point in the future.

A diff probe in combination with a current probe is the best solution for these measurements, but since the only power measurement of interest for proving your thesis is the power supply (the load resistor power is already done using the control), then the following should also work:

A single-ended probe place directly on the +'ve terminal of the supply or battery, and the ground lead of that probe (as short as possible, <3") connected directly to the -'ve terminal of the battery. By "terminal", this means strictly and precisely that. Measuring the supply voltage at some point electrically distant from the actual terminal is not good enough. It must be right on the actual terminal. This probe provides the supply voltage samples.

A suitable current probe is used to provide the supply current samples. A single-ended probe and shunt will not work here. If a current probe is not available, but a diff probe is, then the diff probe across a non-inductive shunt may work ok.

.99

[bolt]

Grump said "Small amounts of what appears to be excess energy occur all the time.  Whoop-dee-doo.  Say you are hot shit and you're getting 2 watts out for every 1 watt in.  It isn't enough.  Look at your usage in your home, your car, your office, etc.  You need kilowatts!

So you can light LED's or charge batteries - move on - scale it up - do "something" with it.  Stop wasting your time trying to prove a speck of energy that doesn't amount to a wart on a toad's ass."

This sums up what also said many times. Why do tiny experiments to prove if OU is possible? Of Course its possible under the correct circumstances!! BUT don't make something where the excess is in the milliwatt range. This applies not only to Ainsley Heater but Joules theif and many other 1 milliwatt devices.

Scale it up and actually DO something with it rather then argue. Even if you believe your have COP> 17 so now you have 17 milliwatts out for your 1 mW  i/p what the heck are you going to do with it? Do you believe if you have this proof that millions of dollars will come your way for a production model? Hell NO!

Only way to  change global mindset is by action of using OU devices to do REAL work. Start with power savings, modify motors like a 7.5 HP 3 phase motor can be modified to RV mode where it will run on just 10 watts! This can be put to practical use like fans, pumps, drilling, machining etc and save $$$$'s. So rather then make OU devices to power these machines we save energy first which gives you an instant cash rebate. The same motor normally takes 700 watts to idle now i have made the equivalent of 690 watt free energy device because i have just saved this amount. Now compare this to any of the toys here and tell me how many have real practical use?

Eventually when you get power requirements down so small to do the same work it will become LOOPED by default.

While you all waste time and energy playing with Toys the elite are very happy!

[Hoppy]

One last post before I retire for the night...

The data used to compute the results in Glen's test#5 is unusable. This will become evident to you at some point in the future.

A diff probe in combination with a current probe is the best solution for these measurements, but since the only power measurement of interest for proving your thesis is the power supply (the load resistor power is already done using the control), then the following should also work:

A single-ended probe place directly on the +'ve terminal of the supply or battery, and the ground lead of that probe (as short as possible, <3") connected directly to the -'ve terminal of the battery. By "terminal", this means strictly and precisely that. Measuring the supply voltage at some point electrically distant from the actual terminal is not good enough. It must be right on the actual terminal. This probe provides the supply voltage samples.

A suitable current probe is used to provide the supply current samples. A single-ended probe and shunt will not work here. If a current probe is not available, but a diff probe is, then the diff probe across a non-inductive shunt may work ok.

.99

Totally agree Poynt that this is the requirement to satisfy those people that matter. I tried my best to bang home the importance of measuring at the right points in the circuit, about reducing lead lengths to a minimum, about good quality terminations and eliminating ground loops. We have come a long way from the very messy circuit builds that Aaron showed us but there is still need for improvement in the physical build of a test circuit from what I have seen in past photos.

This thread is once again running off the rails with enough intrigue to write a book about. It won't be long before MIB enter the scene!!

Hoppy

[Grumpy]

Just hang on here one really long moment Poynty.  It was you who stated - unequivocally - that our data was nonsense and that our tests were meaningless and that Lisa's input was irrelevant and that David would support your thesis regarding the required probes.  Do you seriously propose that we would sit back and take this - on the chin - to satisfy your argument?  And how politically correct is it to burden our objects with this avalanche of dismissive statements about the tests, the thesis, the accuracy of the probes - or anything at all.  Where was the required restraint?  Or even some moderation in your observations?  Where, in short, was your own professionalism.  Or is it just required behaviour of everyone except yourself?

My own take is that it is, at its least, required - that we investigate the authority upon which you allegedly base your conclusions that also leads to your unequivocal dismissal of our experimental evidence. 

And Grumpy.  You've chosen a really appropriate name.  But we're really not here to satisfy your needs for some megawatt applications of proof of concept.  If you're up for it - then go for it.  No-one will stop you.  We've got our own thing going here - and unless it's illegal - or until we're forceably prevented - then we'll take this where we need to.  You don't like the thread?  That's fixable.  And it doesn't need any changes in our plans nor in the quality of our contributions.   

You keep this whole circus alive to feed your ego and to satisfy your delusions.  This is no different than a religious cult - The Ainslie Faith.

Bolt is correct.  No riches will come forth.  No Nobel Prize.  Just ask John Bedini, Steve Mark, and anyone else who has gone down that road.  Do you see either of them trying to prove anything?