Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello TK.

Always nice to hear from you.  But you're getting tediously repetitive and I'm not sure that I'm prepared to let these spurious comments of yours dominate this thread - as much as you may require this.  I am very well aware how your particular brand of 'trollmanship' requires the monopoly of my time by answering these entirely false allegations.  The intention is to distract me and to take the attention away from the theme of this thread.  If I'm obliged to keep answering you then you will indeed be wasting my time.  Clearly your objective.

I'm of the opinion that you,  like Harvey, would prefer it that I do not elaborate on the thesis which is why you are both now 'elbowing in' - so to speak.  Self-evidently you also see the need to repeat this complaint of yours on no less than two threads - twice on this and once on that - and God alone knows how many times on the COP>17 thread at EF.com and your own thread here.  But this, like ALL your allegations are pure fabrication.  We both know that Joit in fact reported that he'd DISPROVED YOUR POINT.  Unfortunately his post was not clear. Here's the link.

http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-17.html#post60251
Neither I nor Donovan could work out what he was trying to say so I simply gave you the benefit of the doubt.  Here's that link.
http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-18.html
Whereupon Joit answered me here
http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-18.html
where his opening statement in that post is as follows

it only prooves, that you are RIGHT and Tinselkoala is WRONG, and all his discreding and debunking Post here and at OU.com.

He never DID support your findings.  I notice that Glen very carefully prevents anyone actually reading his links in context.  He relies on this as he could not otherwise continue with his allegations any more than you could.  But where you take this to dizzy new dimensions is that your own allegations are ENTIRELY UNTRUE.  The proverbial 'bald faced lie'.  Where Glen 'alleges' you simply go for the gullet and FABRICATE.  LOL.

And it is not only a lie but it is NONSENSICAL to state that the basis of our claim depends on the duty cycle.  Our claim is based on close analysis of the voltages measured across the shunt resistor.  Go read our Quantum paper.  It'll may help.  That would NEVER have been published without the editor being fully au fait with the data required - albeit it was too cumbersome to publish.

And TK if you persist in dominating this subject with historical irrelevancies then I'm afraid I will need to delete your posts.  So.  If you like Truthbeknown - want to preserve them for prosterity  LOL I'd advise you to copy them and post them where they belong - which is on Glen's thread.  For God's sake discuss something new.  I am happy with discussions.  I am absolutely NOT happy to have you rake up those sad little tests that you performed - NOT ONCE getting the required resonance - NOT ONCE doing a detailed wattage analysis.  I'm not sure that you even knew how to.  Neither I nor anyone was EVER in a position to access the data and do an independent analysis.  Notwithstanding your access to enough instrumentation to bury us all in actual experimental results.  I have never in my life seen such a parody of attempt at a replication.  Frankly  my own opinion is that either you did not know how to to those dumps or you did not dare.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[happyfunball]

The woman is going through the trouble of University testing her circuit and publishing the results, yet has relentless detractors. Delete all the negative garbage Rosemary and carry on.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

The woman is going through the trouble of University testing her circuit and publishing the results, yet has relentless detractors. Delete all the negative garbage Rosemary and carry on.

Hi Happy.     So nice to be reminded that there are those who actually do tolerate me.  In any event I've taken your advice and deleted Glen's garbage.  These guys know full well that academics read here and I suspect they rather rely on it.  The truth is that it's those very academics who often advise me as to the spurious nature of their arguments.  LOL.  But I must admit that I tend to feel rather embarrassed at all these interventions.  I guess - whatever else is my lot - popularity is NOT one of them.  More's the pity.

LOL

Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi Guys.  I'm able to report on some preliminary tests related to inducing current flow in an independent circuit off a spinning rotor.

As I understand it classical physics requires that the amount of energy that is extracted from a system should equal the amount of energy first supplied.  Donny has a unique prototype on a motor that I'm sure will be fully described - in due course - but it depends on a rotor that comprises some hefty magnets arranged that they have a shared north/south justification effectively inducing a spin from a monopolar field.

My earlier statement was that if we threaded copper through the armature it would generate a current flow.  In point of fact this is wrong.  It appears that absolutely NO current is induced - where I anticipated a DC type current.  It may be that we need to rearrange those magnets - and, in due course - will test this.

However, what is of interst is that he has 3 x trifilar windings on coils arranged around that rotor and he only requires the one to generate that rotor spin.  Our preliminary tests indicated that the other two are able to generate a significant voltage without any compromise to that rmp.  What we will test in two weeks time is putting a bridge rectifier on the other two coils and route this back two flat batteries to measure the rate of current flow and recharge.  The object being to get some conclusive measurements of that motor's efficiency which is otherwise snarled in debates.  The point is that if the amount of energy that is routed back to the batteries to recharge them is equal to or greater than the amount of energy delivered by the battery to spin that rotor - then we'll have CONCLUSIVE evidence of some rather controversial facts.

Hold thumbs and we'll be reporting as soon as we've got answers.  Unfortunately we're both knee deep until Sunday fortnight.

Regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys,  it seems our first magnet will be cut today.  Can't wait.  I'll let you know.  We have to do that first bit to see if the 'gunk' is manageable. 

I should be able to report back by 4'ish this afternoon.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary