Bash Rosemary Ainslie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

What's up with all these people getting their own "hate threads"?
i hope noone makes a "lets rip on smoky the 2 thread"........


as far as ash & crew,..   i gotta give em some credit. they do have endurance....
they each sorta fall into their own roles in their little operation.
you have the brains, who just sits back and doesnt say anything.
you have the instigator, to will cause all sorts of chaos, but never get involved directly in the conflict.
then you have the defender who stands in the front protecting their domain, and promiting their ideas.
and there are other, less obvious, but equally important roles that are played.

It has proven to be very effective, and enabled them to accomplish many things. wether or not anyone agrees with their particular tactics, or understands their true motivation, one cannot argue against their influence in the free energy community.

I can't tell you wetherto condemn or respect these people.
but i can tell you this, all you have to do is think about Chaz Campbell's Balls, and you will understand that these people have a determination that would rival the executive board of any major corporation.

Nothing we post in this or any other thread is going to make them pack up and walk away.
Their goals are much larger than you or I.
they're here for good...... (or bad)

Fair comment Sm0ky.  I think we need to 'turn in'. Certainly I've more or less said my say.  Nice while it lasted but it's probably served its purpose.   

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

[Cloxxki]

Seems I missed "something".

Would a somewhat objective observer perhaps offer the skinny of the drama at hand? Wikipedia, telegraph style would be fine.
Should get any reader well on track. Perhaps the overview could feature in the original post?

thanks!

[sm0ky2]

Seems I missed "something".

Would a somewhat objective observer perhaps offer the skinny of the drama at hand? Wikipedia, telegraph style would be fine.
Should get any reader well on track. Perhaps the overview could feature in the original post?

thanks!

I'll give you the Sportscaster synapsis......

Rose had a run-in with a group of rogue scientists, that culminated into a pointless argument of nonsense, and belittlement.

neither party could claim victory, nor would admit defeat.
thus the discussion has spawned another thread "hate thread"

im sure, this could continue perpetually, in ironic resemblence to many of the creations we chase after...

[fuzzytomcat]

This thread was intended to allow Ash and Glen to 'let rip'

Nor does it say that much about their integrity. 

They seem to have a rather uncommitted relationship with the simple truth.

Kindest and best,
Rosie   

Rosemary Ainslies "QUOTES" from http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie.html from "ONE" year ago .....

Please note "RED" highlighted postings .......

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/59001-post169.html

I'm not sure if you are aware of it - but I'm a rank amateur. I really need to own up to this because you'll be expecting a level of technical expertise that I simply do not have. Circuit switches need to be built by others. The only aspect of testing that I'm confident with is the actual power measurements and then only as they relate to this modest little circuit. But - if I have a contribution - it's in that model, which is the thesis in support of that gain. In any event I wont bore you with the details. But if and where I state the obvious - it's only because I hardly know enough to see whether it's obvious or not. So. Please bear with me.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/59005-post170.html

I do not have a copy of that switching circuit - and if I did I would not be able to comment.

If your actual object is to disprove the circuit claim then I'm wholeheartedly in favour of it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/59020-post175.html

Else I'd be able to apply the system to my geyser - at home.

And, as a final point - if you can develop those uses - feel free. There are no requirements to pay royalties on patents. There is nothing that I'd love more than to hear that the system is in use. I believe that it is - in a small way. My co-author has just wired up a house here which uses the system as a backup charge system.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/59030-post179.html

I've tested the circuit over a 4 year period.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/59033-post182.html

My knowledge of circuitry is somewhat bereft.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/59119-post205.html

I was never given the results of any of the tests conducted by those accreditors. It was not from want of trying. But I was given their permission to use their names as accreditors in the Quantum article. The reason we simply used that precise experiment for the paper submitted to the IET was to reference their names. I do have the report for BP because we had to conduct those experiments on battey duration. But the context of that report is just on the effect as it relates to battery delivery - and it has got to be the single most boring exercise in all of history. It's object impeccable - but the testing exhausting.

I think the truth is that these companies allocate a certain amount of funding to research. And having found their answers they do not make it public. Presumbaly having paid for their own lab time they rightly regard the results as being their property - or their company's property. We did try and get the results - but failed - miserably.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/59163-post220.html

The good news is that Donovan has agreed to join this forum. He can answer those really technical issues that are way over my head. And better still he'll be able to advise how to take the frequency into oscillation - or resonance - not sure which is the right term.

So. I'll leave the question until then. But I believe it does have something to do with the MOSFET with an applied frequency that is too fast? I better leave it to him to explain. It's entirely beyond me.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/59195-post225.html

I've had many different circuits built, different 555 switches and different fets.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/59233-post232.html

I'm hoping Donovan will be able to help regarding the sheer volume of questions. Not only is he highly qualified but he's an absolute authority on alternative energy. If I'm a scholar he's my professor.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/59369-post262.html

THE ONLY APPROPRIATE CIRCUIT DIAGRAM that I can assure you is correct is the diagram in the paper. And the flyback diode is a critical part of the system.

The circuit diagram in the Quantum article was prepared by Brian Buckley. I cannot comment on whether it is right or not as I simply cannot read it. I am hoping that Donovan will be able to comment in due course. I don't think he has even seen that article - as published.

But it is definitely required as without it we cannot 're-route' the collapsing fields back to the battery to recharge it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/59541-post322.html

I think the need to at least display our waveform is taken on board. I have no idea how to do this and will have to impose on my co-author's time which is already massively constrained. So don't hold your breath but I will try and get this.

I will also, subject to my son's return - try and get some video information our on our own circuit. It is the same as the box that was sent to ABB for their replication purposes. Some years after their tests, they contacted me and asked what they were to do with that box. I was in correspondence with someone - can't remember who - and asked them to ship it to him. But it is feasible to replicate the circuitry. I'm just not sure who will do this. I certainly can't. But I could, at least, ask around. It's just that the guys who worked on the circuit are now drowning in other work and one of them has left for Durban - so is not easily reached.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/59596-post341.html

But I do know that my co-author has wired up a house in our Town - that uses some small part of this system to help recharge batteries. That house is entirely 'grid free'.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/60174-post474.html

I love reading back over the various points, and will be able to do so without the need to skip through volumes of extraneous nonsense.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/60279-post511.html

Joit - is your waveform proving TinselKoala's point? Is that 555 switch wrongly presented? To me it looks like it is. In which case, I must apologise to all concerned. Clearly the Quantum article was wrong.

So, to all concerned - to everyone who built the circuit as presented in that article, and if, indeed, it is wrong, my abject apologies. I had a shrewd idea it may have been wrong because, thinking back, a university professor kindly edited the quantum paper prior to presenting it to the IET. And his first recommendation was that we omitted a detailed circuit of the 555 switch as being irrelevant to the claim. Which is why I was reluctant to endorse the Quantum article as being a correct presentation. I just wish, in retrospect, that he had pointed out the error if he had seen such. In any event, it seems that I have been entirely at fault. My own objection to it was due to the lack of the feedback diode - which was the entire subject of the exercise. I knew it was in the apparatus. It certainly was not in diagram.

I would point out though, that my reluctance to admit this prior to ascertaining the fact was due to the person who presented that diagram and assisted me in that first article. He is a good friend and he, like all of us, was 'giving' his time. I was not keen therefore to expose the problem unless I also knew it was a problem. So, if you're reading this, don't even worry. In any event, the blame was not his. I should, at least, have had the circuit vetted - considering my own inability to read such.

So. Many apologies, even to TinselKoala and anyone in the entire world who duplicated that circuit. It is wrongly presented. I am sincerely sorry that I have wasted so much of your time. And Joit - you've put the question to bed. I would be very glad to refund you for your time and trouble - if required - and if I can get the money to you with our exchange control. Just send me an account on the PM system. You've done a very good thing here.

What I do assure you all is this. The switch may have been wrongly drawn. Our own duty cycle application is NOT. I have the experimental apparatus available and it has been checked by EE's even at universities. We have also, over the years, built many different 555 switches and by different people. And there are replicated experiments by others using nothing but a functions generator. And all this prior to publication. More to the point is that the battery duration is consistent with measurements based on the duty cycle. But, in point of fact, after publication I never experimented again for a period of 7 years and I certainly never even looked at the article again. The only reason I could scan a copy for the blog when I eventually did this, was because my children kept a copy of the original publication. I was just so dejected at the entire lack of interest it seemed to generate. I had no idea that the test would really ever be duplicated.

Therefore, please take this admission as a sincere apology to all those who have tried to build the switch according to the quantum article. I see that the Quantum article was the primary reference point as the IET paper was only posted to the blog after July. It seems that Ramset and TinselKoala started their thread on OU.COM in mid June. Unfortunate. But there you are. Sorry guys - It's all I can say.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/60282-post512.html

TinselKoala - I see you still read posts on this forum - failing which I am sure that Ramset will copy and post for you if you no longer have access - I would like to re-iterate that I am sincerely sorry for blaming your interpretation of the inverted waveform if, as it seems, the switch was incorrect.

Abject apologies - for what it's worth. It is thanks to Joit that this matter has been cleared up. If you continue to do the experiment - I suggest you build your own 555 switch.

And for the record - the claim relates to a frequency that is variously described but best known as a Parasitic Hartley Effect. I have this information from experts. The point is that it is an oscillating frequency that is damped down or clamped out, not sure of the correct term - as it interferes with signals which is when it's manifest. We show that that effect adds to the efficiency when it is NOT clamped out.

BUT the flyback principle, whether with inductive resistors or resistors in series with inductors - always give evidence of a gain. It can be at any frequency tested between 60Hz all the way to and beyond 600kHz. All work - some with more efficiency than others - and at extreme frequencies - with losses rather than gains. It can use just about any variation of the flyback principles as described by gotoluc as a reticulated current. And it does not need the induced Hartley Effect to realise a gain. In other words you can get the over unity performance on periodic waveforms.

Nor do you need specialised MOSFETS. And you will always see a gain if you run batteries on control tests.

The misrepresentation of the 555 in the Quantum Article I think has been proved by Joit. I sincerely apologise for the error. Hopefully with this admission you'll at least continue with the testing. You see now how wide is my claim. You can then disprove it on many bases.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/60610-post664.html

the need for the flyback diode is to prove the returning energy - not to exploit it. The WHOLE intention of that paper is for purposes of proof.

And your measurements are WAY OUT. I was rather hoping for an unbiased report.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/60616-post667.html

There is nothing wrong with the 555 circuit you've got.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/60640-post682.html

We're in the happy position of being invited to give a demo of 'proof of concept' - I think - or else a working model (both easily accommodated) for a group here who may have found a market for the devices.

It seems such a ready made solution. I have been concentrating entirely on getting academics to approve this. How utterly stupid. We can go straight to the market. Why look for that endorsement. As and when we've got the actual 'application' or 'proof' or, indeed both, I will keep you fully updated. Hopefully we'll be able to post on youtube - but don't hold your breath. For me - that's a HUGE learning curve.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/60647-post688.html

Be that s it may - the overunity is defintely measurable at all frequencies and all duty cycles. Having said that there are some really fast frequencies where the benefit is lost. However I've referred to possible variations in that paper. Nor do you need the precise circuit diagram.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/60925-post768.html

Guys, I have some news. It seems that some small application of this device will be studied for commercial application. I am not involved but have asked that there be a video made for reference. In principle this has been agreed to. So, with luck we'll have a small application of this device available in the near future. I'll keep you posted.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/60943-post774.html

And could it also be because, notwithstanding the modesty of the effect - it is also measurable in terms of classical analysis? And could it be because - not only is the gain claimed - these effects have been thoroughly analysed and accredited by experts in the art. Let me name it's most authoritative accreditor. ABB Research in North Carolina.

Now, let me continue with that list of accreditors. It also includes, Sasol (SA) Spescom (SA) BP (SA) and others. They are all either public companies or they are individuals associated with public companies.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/61040-post798.html

Aaron - you're talking switching circuitry. I have no idea.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/61057-post802.html

But the first and most important point is to prove that the battery is being recharged. The quickest proof is through the flyback diode to the battery.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/61081-post812.html

Anyway - I forgot to add. Take the flyback to the positive of the second battery.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.feelthevibe.com/free_energy/rosemary_ainslie/ainslieheater.pdf  ( Aaron's replication with flyback diode )

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/61441-post912.html

Have just watched the video. What a pleasure. That self-oscillation - AT LAST. There's something wrong with my Fluke. I'm going to get it fixed and will then post it to you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/61453-post920.html

I am an AMATEUR. I cannot put a circuit together. And I can only draw very simple circuits. You guys - all - have forgotten what I know. Not only that - but nor am I into conventional power applications. So - not only do I not know - but nor am I ever likely to learn.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/61506-post942.html

Its the detractors on other forums that are worrying. The lengths they go to to discredit the person and the claim - both.

Have you ever looked through the OU.Com thread on this? It beggars belief. Malice hardly describes it.

What is frightening is that anyone who questions a result is actually verbally menaced.

TK only needs to make a post for immediate endorsement by other contributors who also then mock my apparent lack of sanity, judgement, intelligence, schooling, beliefs, ideas, lack of expertise - name it's all there. All for public consumption. All unchallenged. And all such detractors always out of reach, always carefully hiding behind their assumed identities. They flirt with their rights to freedom of expression that under normal circumstances, and under ordinary civil law would be actionable. And all this, clearly with Stephan's endorsement.

To compound my concerns is the fact that the entire forum was promoted by Stephan, with, one would assume, the intention of promoting the study of free energy. I can no longer access OU.Com. Was he responsible for my not gaining access? And if so, at whose asking and why? Public - to everyone but me? Then too it seems that my emails are being read. How does that happen? Are my phone calls also being monitored?

[ElectricGoose]

Hi E-Goose

I've been rolling.  This thread was intended to allow Ash and Glen to 'let rip' and I'm getting a bit alarmed that it's just encouraging everyone to 'bash' THEM.  Not sure that this is 'allowable' - but I'll tell you what.  It's just so NICE to air one's views.  LOL.  And I had some idea that they aren't exactly popular when I got all those off forum communiques - and on forum for that matter.

But in the interest of 'fair play' I'll say this.  EF.com and Panacea have dedicated some many years to the promotion of free energy - and without EF.com and Glen's input - there would be no record of replication.  That they now STRIDENTLY deny this - coupled with their anxious need to hide the evidence - is just a sad consequence of a rather human need to try and snaffle some desirable technology.  Nor does it say that much about their integrity. 

It gets confusing when they publicly deny any benefit in the technology and then Ashtweth comes to this forum to try and rally replications.  It seems rather fruitless I would have thought.  And he also rather shamelessly demands respect for his work in a paper that had absolutely NO contribution from himself - whatsoever.    They seem to have a rather uncommitted relationship with the simple truth.  Then he affords himself every license to damn my character to hell and demand that I DO NOT DEFEND MYSELF.  And on and on.  What's really salutory is that one expects that one is working with decent, albeit eccentric people - only to find oneself ducking some rather ugly blows from a kind of mindless inarticulate thug who works in gangs of 5.  And it seems they have a 'no holds barred' license in attacking the frail and the elderly.  Luckily - my frailty is not in my tongue.  I'm marginally more articulate than they've allowed and then.  What the hell.  They've given me all this practice.   

I get it now that the contributors, members and readers here are somewhat more discerning.  I was so 'outnumbered' by that noisey 5 that I was also losing respect for their membership and, quite frankly for my own.  I expected someone to rally.  Some kind of protection even if it was just for the elderly.     LOL.  But - that no-one did rally sort of damned my cause to hell.  And eventually I found myself entirely gagged and unable even to address obvious distortions.  So I faught a lonely corner.  The good news is that they banned me.  And Poynty - to his credit advised me to come here.  And I certainly don't I feel lonely here.  Which is a HUGE comfort. 

Kindest and best,
Rosie   

Hi Rosie

No worries at all.  Look, I am a firm believer of no hate/zero anger however I will say my piece and stand up when an injustice is being perpetrated.  EF is rife with hypocrisy and egocentric folk that talk too much and I shall now leave it at that!  I for one, do my own thing scientifically, with the odd post here and there looking into various intriguing things and speaking with certain nice folk who frequent the forums (hi Pirate! and Mk1 LOL).

Regarding your comment of "fighting the lonely corner", I can say from my view that because Ash always (even until recently) acted cosy with you in the public forum, most people would have been none the wiser that something untoward was happening in your camp.  All we know is our own personal experiences with these people (which is far from positive), therefore when your plight surfaced here, this is the reason that so many people voice their opinion in your defense or at least express their viewpoint.  Believe me, the casual observer may be quiet but he is far from unobservant or clued into what REALLY is going on.

When your beaten down and feeling all alone, its always good to remember what PT Barnum once said "You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time BUT you can't fool all of the people all of the time."

Yes, the internet and forums are full of gullable folk that can be duped by smooth talk but not all!

Kind regards

E-Goose