Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi guys.  It seems that no-one is really following the tests done by Fuzzy.  I'm going to give a brief reference to each test and its objects - from memory - so I may be out on the actual sequence.  Test 1 & 2 attempted replication of heat test published in quantum.  Both failed.  #3 resulted in OU.  #4 again failed (evident lack of harmonic else all was the same).  #5 full overunity (no evident power lost from the battery other than microwatt loss from the battery possibly due to overcharged condiition)  Harmonic evident.  #6 intended as control.  Tested alternate load resistor and could not manage the required harmonic.  Failed.  #7 intended to test higher temperatures - showed results that were extraordinary but was terminated due to possible damage to measuring equipment.  #8 designed to remove clips - shorten leads - tidy up the circuit and then also test Harvey's bootstrapping.  Results even better and both grounding and bootstrapping concerns eliminated.  #9 changed the source shunt resistor with a non-inductive resistor.  No difference to the waveform - but COP > 3 which was less than previous 'pass' tests.  #10 designed to check the voltage deviation across the source shunt.  Intensive 'dumps' every 6 minutes over 1 hour.  Determined this was within the required range to allow application of the formulae developed by Harvey.  Also results back to OU.  Harmonic strongly evident.

This essentially means that the thesis is shown to be proven on replicated tests.  Also, measurments are not the result of an inductive shunt - grounding issues - bad wiring - faulty equipment - bad probes - wrong measurement or anything that Poynty has been trying to show us.  Anomalies in the waveforms persist -  and COP seems to be substantially displaced with outright OU.  We're busy writing that paper - and still want to test two different resistors to determine what conditions require that harmonic which is a signature that seems to be associated with these extraordinary results.  The hope is to submit the paper at the end of November.  We seem to be on track for this.  The news is all good.  It is just that until submission and review - our own excitement is relatively subdued.  That acceptance is critical and we need to submit something at the required standard.  But the thesis is proven.  Questions persist to explain the anomalous heat signatures and waveforms - but that there are questions remaining is actually a really good thing.

And the effect - which I always assumed would be 'easy to show' proves to be a really subtle moment found when the circuit components generate a self-oscillating frequency.  This, as Jibbguy has referenced - has traditionally been factored out of circuitry as undesirable. 

edit.  Changed microvolt to microwatt

[Grumpy]

You're submitting a paper for the ominous "peer review", without transient analysis, and without spectrum analysis...hmm...wihtout even a 'controlled' verification.

Hold it just a minute!  Let me get some popcorn!  I have got to see this! 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

You're submitting a paper for the ominous "peer review", without transient analysis, and without spectrum analysis...hmm...wihtout even a 'controlled' verification.

Hold it just a minute!  Let me get some popcorn!  I have got to see this!

Golly Grumpy.  So many assumptions.  Love to know what you base them on. 

[Grumpy]

Bye

[Rosemary Ainslie]

WELL.  This is interesting.  Wilby - I trust you're reading here.  Grumpy - Poynty - MileHigh - TK - ALL GONE?  Golly.

That leaves Hoppy and utilitarian.  Hoppy doesn't say much and uilitarian is a late comer to the thread.  What intrigues me is that they're all so DISAPPOINTED.  What in heaven's name were they doing on this forum?  I always thought contributors here wanted to crack the over unity barrier.  So, so strange.  Hopefully this thread can now fall off the front page and we can rescue it when we finally submit that paper.