@Everyone:
Below are some links that deal with this technology and a thesis to provide insight into that which the standard model can not presently explain: Here's a link to the thread that deals with the thesis.http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2322.msg3973.html#msg3973 (http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2322.msg3973.html#msg3973) Here are the specific youtube links.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnVcXAY6MSM&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnVcXAY6MSM&feature=youtu.be)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdoxrF9ipI4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdoxrF9ipI4)
The Higgs Boson - hidden in plain sight
part 1 of 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dB39T_OY1_Q (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dB39T_OY1_Q)
The Higgs Boson - hidden in plain sight
part 2 of 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaVRwBlI2LA&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaVRwBlI2LA&feature=youtu.be)
The Higgs Boson - hidden in plain sight
part 3 of 3
And this one as a supplement to the other three.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnVcXAY6MSM&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnVcXAY6MSM&feature=youtu.be) Enjoy, Chess
RM certainly has a way with words.
Is it safe to say that they don't make 'em like that anymore?
TS
We can only hope.
What a joke. Ainslie's "thesis" not only does not make any testable predictions that aren't covered by standard physics, it makes no quantitative predictions at all. In fact it doesn't even correspond to how things actually _are_, much less make any useful predictions about how new arrangements of things would behave. She had never heard of the Higgs boson before last year, and now she pretends to have found it in "pain sight" in her "thesis". Go ahead and watch the videos...... it is nearly an hour of your life that you will never regain.
Hey Chess
Do you believe what is being shown in those videos?
Mags
RM has a pretty good head on her shoulders. It seems clear that she's working with others on her ideas.
I think TK don't like her because his cluelessness is threatened by her.
After all, we are ALL pretty clueless....relatively speaking.
TS
Quote from: TechStuf on March 04, 2013, 01:02:05 AM
RM has a pretty good head on her shoulders. It seems clear that she's working with others on her ideas.
I think TK don't like her because his cluelessness is threatened by her.
After all, we are ALL pretty clueless....relatively speaking.
TS
Think so? Here are just a few of the ridiculous things Ainslie has said recently:
"Per", as in "miles per hour" or "Joules per second" NEVER indicates division.
There is no such thing as Inductive Reactance.
In South Africa, the Solstice (or is it the Equinox) comes in July.
One Watt is one Joule, the terms are interchangeable.
One Joule is one Watt per Second.
"0.8" and "one-eighth" are the same quantity, and 800 microFarads is more than one-third of a Farad.
80 + 20 = 104.
Water can exist as a liquid in South Africa in an open container at 104 degrees C.
Took water to boil... but really, the water wasn't actually boiling... there were tiny bubbles.
A Function Generator cannot pass current between its "probe" and its "terminal" output leads.
Her batteries do not discharge.
TK and MrSean2k have hacked into her computers several times.
TK is someone called "Brian Little" (or Bryan).
And there are many many more statements and claims like this, from RM's "good head on her shoulders". I can provide images of the actual posts concerned if you are interested.
You think I'm "clueless" and "threatened by her"? Well, she has threatened me, several times, that's provable. But as far as me being "clueless".... support your claims with citations. You cannot.
Perhaps, when and if you are her age, TK, you may understand. If you are there already, then please forgive my impetuous assumption. As for dialogue, I do recommend one sift through the quotes of some Nobel winners of years past. You'll find some Real Winners. Some of the greatest 'discoveries' have filtered to us through minds very much like Rosemary's. I am unfamiliar with the former interactions between yourself and her and cannot comment. For many, familiarity breeds contempt. For others, it may foster empathy and greater understanding. One's faculties need hardly be complete in order to completely change any given course of science. Or else we're all in a world of trouble.
Bad choice of words, for that is exactly what we're in.
TS
:o The minute I saw the name of Ainsley, I knew that TK would be all over it. They have a long history.
And by jove, TK didn't let me down. This has been such a show. For what its worth, TK I am in awwwwww.
It's been so much fun watching the back and forth between.
thayu
Ainslie is now crowing about Mark Dansie talking to her, and arranging for someone to "replicate" her circuit (which one? Remember.... FIVE different schematics have been claimed for the circuit she is using.) She continues to lie about the performance of her device and the tests that have actually been performed.
Don't forget..... the ENTIRE substance of her overunity claim is contained within calculations and reasoning like this:
QuoteNOW. Let's look at your 'self-runner' demands. We have never recharged those batteries - with one exception. Two caught fire and BOTH were fully recharged. We've had those batteries since January 2010. We've been running them since August 2010. I've now FINALLY checked their rated capacities. They're 40 ampere hours each. We've used 6 of them continually since that time. According to this rating they are each able, theoretically to dissipate 12 volts x 40 amps x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 1 hour x 6 batteries. That gives a work potential - a total potential output of 10 368 000 JOULES.
According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade. We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade. We ran that test for 90 minutes. Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104. We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes. Ambient was at 16. Joules = 1 watt per second. So. Do the math. 4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules. Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules. Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules. All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating. And that was just one test. Now. Over the 10 month period that those batteries have been running at various outputs - which, when added to the output on just this one test - then I think its safe to say that the evidence is conclusive. Those batteries have outperformed. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH. They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.
Yes, please do DO THE MATH. Work through the problem and find her errors and faulty reasoning.... and use the right numbers in the first place: don't forget.... the batteries she used were actually 60 A-H capacity, not 40. And she NEVER MEASURED the temperature of the water itself, and the water "wasn't actually boiling.... there were tiny bubbles". And on and on. When the problem is worked correctly..... is the conclusion affected at all? Yet Ainslie has NEVER made the correct calculation nor revised the conclusion based on the 'math' shown above.
Here's my prediction: Neither Mark Dansie, nor his colleagues, nor Ainslie's "ACADEMICS", will find anything other than what has ALREADY BEEN FOUND, by me, by .99, and by everyone else who has built and tested her circuit and her claims.
And, eventually, these newcomers will find out what we old-timers already have seen: anyone who tries to argue with or educate Ainslie will wind up being the brunt of her insults, threats, disrespect and calumny. This pattern has repeated itself over and over, for at least 12 years, through many web forums and blogs.
I would LOVE to see Mark Dansie, his electronic consultants, and Rosemary Ainslie and her "academics" fully "engaged" in testing her claims about her circuit. It will be like watching re-runs of old Sesame Street episodes -- except that the children will be speaking made-up languages and can't understand the adults and Grover at all.
Well i made it to 2m40s in part one,then i just wanted to reach into the monitor and slap her face-what is with the banging on the table and swinging arm's?
No such thing as inductive reactance?
And here i was thinking that it was used to describe resistance in an inductor when being supplied with an AC current (X)-so as not to confuse it with dc resistance within an inductor.
Note the continuing series of lies and misrepresentations that continue to come from Ainslie. Note the impatience, the attitude, the badgering.
Note particularly how she misrepresents and lies about my work, about FuzzyTomcat's work, about her "publications", about the "contactable" names she drops. Just try to contact any of those people and agencies about Ainslie! Note how she FAILS to mention Professor Khan, the person who allowed her recent experimentation to happen at the University, and someone who IS indeed contactable.
Note especially that she lies when she says that I did not do comparative battery drawdown tests.... which I did in fact do and even made and posted time-lapse videos thereof, side-by-side DimBulb tests, more and better tests than ANY Ainslie has ever shown. Note how she misrepresents the major objections to her "work". Note how she does not mention at all the many discrepancies (like the 5 different schematics claimed to have been used for the same experiment, or the tremendous math errors upon which her claims are based, or the indications of failed mosfets in her data.) Note that she claims "publications" when the only real publication she has managed is the decade-old Quantum Magazine article describing a completely different experiment -- and note that she doesn't mention the 5 rejections (and no acceptances) of her submissions to real journals. And note also that she STILL makes the absurd assertion that I am someone called Brian (or Bryan) Little.
It is hilarious how she snipes at Stefan and this forum...... when there have been only four people posting on her forum blog in the past month -- two administrators (chessnyt and Ainslie herself) and two new members.
The statement about the Negative Wattage measurement "flying in the face of standard prediction" is particularly laughable, since it has been duplicated -- and fully explained -- in standard simulation software, something that would be impossible if it were something that did not conform to "standard predictions" of electronic circuit behaviour. Of course, for the logic-challenged and deliberately ignorant Ainslie, something is so if she says it is so, and nobody can convince her otherwise. Even the existence of Altoid -- the pocket Negative Wattage measurement-generator designed by .99 using STANDARD PREDICTIONS of electronic circuit behaviour, and built and demonstrated by me, using either battery or capacitor only -- is beyond her comprehension.
Quote from: tinman on March 15, 2013, 11:43:11 AM
Well i made it to 2m40s in part one,then i just wanted to reach into the monitor and slap her face-what is with the banging on the table and swinging arm's?
No such thing as inductive reactance?
And here i was thinking that it was used to describe resistance in an inductor when being supplied with an AC current (X)-so as not to confuse it with dc resistance within an inductor.
Yeah, THAT. In quotes "Inductive Reactance" in Google yields 180,000 hits with tutorials on it, definitions of it, units its measured in (Ohms) and numerous explanations of it from universities etc.
So what do you mean TK by there is no such thing as inductive reactance. That's pretty mainstream stuff - not some off the wall theory you are opposing. BTW I could care less about the RA thing just explain why you think there is no IR.
You are mistaken.
It is RA that said there is no such thing as Inductive Reactance.
I guess if you had read along more carefully, you may have already realized that.
entropy prevention:
Reactance is the terminus for the imaginary part of a complex impedance.
It might be inductive or capacitive - which doesn´t mean that there has to be a cap or a coil inside.
A typical commercial function generator has a dc coupled output stage and can source&sink AC+DC curent - even at output voltage "0".
It generates a functional waveform with constant impedance - (thats essential different to a "pulsed dc" signal with alternating source impedance)
It´s all about casting the first stone - and I think we should apply "in good faith" if people describe proper things using fuzzy language.
From the horse's mouth, or rather Ainslie's keyboard:
For those of you... you know who.... who are "eyesight deficient".... all you have to do is to click on the image and it will be enlarged in-line for you. Further, if you click on the little link below each image, you can download it to your own computer and magnify it all you like. Even further, your browser has the built-in ability to magnify anything it is displaying with a couple of mouse clicks or keystrokes.
Now..... fancy this. Rosemary Ainslie has THREE separate accounts on YouTube. The famous Video Demonstration of March 12, 2011 was posted by her on her "dooziedont" channel on March 22, 2011...... and she lied about the schematic used until .99 discovered the real arrangement of the components on April 18th. And then she admitted that she actually wanted to continue the coverup and was disappoynted in .99 for revealing the truth. And now.... she has removed that video from You Tube. It's gone. Gone from her channel, gone from the links that she posted to it in her old blog and on this forum. Fancy that.
The video which contains those misrepresentations about the schematic used, the outright lie that there were 5 mosfets in parallel, that mysteriously removes one battery so the mosfets don't overheat in the second half, that has scopeshots that refute the claims made...... that video is now vanished. Removed from human ken, hidden away so that no one can see it and criticise it.
Or is it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8AIRkWF55k
Solid State Switching Devices and Electrochemistry
.....
is a wide field. Charging efficiency might vary up to 100%, desulfation effects can give another 30% boost, measuring even with modest equipment - needs probably more than an academic degre - e.....
RA is definitly haunted by these setups - in every consequence - whatever that means.
She had her audience here - and thats it.
Is there a way to stop these endless discussions ?
I didn't start this thread. Stop the endless discussions? Sure.... get Ainslie and her sock puppets to stop making false claims.
I have just found Yet Another active YouTube account that Ainslie maintains.
http://www.youtube.com/user/aetherevarising
http://www.youtube.com/user/dooziedont
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCl_CaI0BzcLgmW7aFWM29WQ
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAbOZ4AUgzJBbit6Yu_ee-g
Who needs four separate active YouTube accounts, and why?
Hah..... Ainslie digs herself in even deeper. She has chosen to respond to some of the above in her honey-pot forum where nobody can question her or criticize her.
QuoteAnother love letter to Bryan Little - aka TK
My sweet little pickle,
I see that your talents at equivocation are keeping pace with the growth of your Greatly Reduced Empathy - or - as you refer it - your 'GRE'. I'm given to understand that this is the actual measure of your sociopathy. Great INDEED. In general - these efforts of yours may also add a few pickles to your general stature. Much needed. So I commend you. And I've always enjoyed the mental machinations (MM) of the severely challenged.
"Per", as in "miles per hour" or "Joules per second" NEVER indicates division.
Quite right. 'per' simply indicates the 'unit' that is applied to the measure of anything at all - that the sum or the product can then be divided, multiplied, added, subtracted, compounded - fractured... and on and on. DELIGHTED that you see this. Strictly speaking PER implies 'for each'. It most certainly is NOT confined to 'divisions'. NOR does it mean 'divide'.
Can you believe this? She still tries to maintain her mathematically completely illiterate position, in spite of all the reference material available.
Quote
There is no such thing as Inductive Reactance.
Not actually. Inductive reactance is the EXCUSE that our Poynty Point uses to discount our measured gains. What you need to understand is that this CANNOT be applied to a battery's measurements because a battery does not have INDUCTANCE. And Poynty Point can't use this excuse on our numbers any more because we use NON INDUCTIVE CURRENT SENSING RESITORS in series with the battery - is my point.
What you need to understand is that YOU HAVE BEEN QUOTED HERE, with references, showing that you have said that there is "no such animal" as inductive reactance, and your very own words show, and continue to show, that you have no idea what you are talking about, you merely parrot big fancy words that you read somewhere. And any physical conductor, INCLUDING ANY BATTERY, has inductance, and therefore inductive reactance.
Quote
In South Africa, the Solstice (or is it the Equinox) comes in July.
Quite right - my little pickle. I was a month behind the times. Not too shabby considering that I have GREAT difficulty even remembering which day it is.
Quite right. And I am not your pickle, little or otherwise, although we know how you yearn for your pickles.
Quote
One Watt is one Joule, the terms are interchangeable.
One Joule is one Watt per Second.
Quite right. They are INDEED interchangeable values. Just their terms are applied separately.
Keep it up, you are doing fine. On a roll, typical Ainslie-speak. Showing that you still do not grasp the difference between a QUANTITY and a RATE, two entirely different and definitely NOT INTERCHANGEABLE items. Is a Mile the same thing as a Mile Per Second? Apparently in Ainslie-speak they are.
Quote
"0.8" and "one-eighth" are the same quantity, and 800 microFarads is more than one-third of a Farad.
LOL. I was NEARLY right. Out by a factor of 10? Again. Not bad considering my advanced years and all the associated difficulties. (http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/Smileys/default/smiley.gif (http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/Smileys/default/smiley.gif))
Nearly? A factor of 10? Guess again, or use your calculator. If you know how to use a calculator, that is. I have never encountered anyone so very proud of, and indeed protectful of, her ignorance.
Quote
80 + 20 = 104.
I'm ROLLING here. I think this is CERTAINLY an adventurous attempt at mathematics. Either that or a simple misprint. Either way - it proves that I'm not controlled by convention. And it also proves how deep you need to reach into that pickle barrel.
Actually, I think you are right, it's a misprint on my part. What you ACTUALLY "calculated", istr was 82+20=104. (Yes, that was it, I've attached the image of the post below.)
And this is not a deep reach at all--- it is from the very calculation that you use to make your claim of overunity performance. The one that I have reproduced in a post further up above, so everyone can see what you do when you THINK you are performing an energy calculation. The one you have admitted was wrong, but that you have NEVER REDONE CORRECTLY. The one that you draw your conclusions from, which you have never revised in spite of the tremendous errors in the original calculation.
Again, I invite all interested parties to perform the calculation for themselves, and then decide whether Ainslie's conclusions are justified or supported in the least by their result.
Quote
Water can exist as a liquid in South Africa in an open container at 104 degrees C.
Not actually - my sweet little pickle. Here you equivocate - YET AGAIN. The probe was connected to the HEATER ELEMENT. It was measuring some combination between that and the water. Again... the link
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2311.msg4055.html#msg4055 (http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=f0a3b6a1dc4748cd8dc58af541f3fb22&/topic,2311.msg4055.html#msg4055)
That's right.... YOU NEVER MEASURED THE TEMPERATURE OF THE WATER, yet you claimed in many places to have "taken water to boil" and you mentioned the quantity, variously "about a liter", 700 ml, 800 ml. So did you "take water to boil", or not? What does that phrase mean in South Africa? Around here, it means the water is boiling, but I guess YMMV.
Quote
I Took water to boil... but really, the water wasn't actually boiling... there were tiny bubbles.
No. NOT what is claimed. read this link...
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php?action=paper1 (http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=f0a3b6a1dc4748cd8dc58af541f3fb22&action=paper1)
Read the link. The "paper" claims you "took water to boil" .... and your blog post says "the water wasn't actually boiling... there were small bubbles." These are direct quotes from YOU, Ainslie. Would you like to retract them now? I at first said that you had written "tiny" instead of "small" .... my bad. Does that invalidate my argument? I laugh at you.
From your link:
Quote
VI. Test 3: To Determine the Practicality of the Circuit Potential by Taking Water to Boil A. Test 3 Setup The schematic in Fig. 1 refers with the following settings: 5 batteries x 12 volts each were applied in series. The offset of the functions generator is increased by a fraction to 0.186 volts applied across RSHUNT during the ON period of the switching cycle (Fig. 6 and Fig. 7). The switching period was set to approximately 120 milliseconds.
B. Test 3 Results The cycle mean and mean average voltage across the shunt measured a negative voltage as did the math trace being a product of the battery and RSHUNT voltages. These negative values remained throughout the 1.6 hour test period. The temperature at the RL1 rose steadily to 248°C. The element resistor (RL1) was then immersed in about 0.85 liters of water and the water temperature then steadied at approximately 82°C. The switching period was then increased and set to approximately 1.25 milliseconds as evident in Fig. 7. The temperature of the water then rose to 104°C in less than 10 minutes. The battery voltage both rose and fell marginally, throughout this entire test period and measured 62.1 volts prior to concluding that test period.
The temperature OF THE WATER rose to 104 degrees, you claim in the paper. But now you tell us that you did not measure the temperature of the water. Your paper claims that you "took water to boil". But in your blog post you said "The water wasn't actually boiling but it had small bubbles."
Quote
A Function Generator cannot pass current between its "probe" and its "terminal" output leads.
Not actually. A Function generator cannot pass current between its 'probe' and its 'terminal' output leads FROM A BATTERY. In this case the battery is the energy supply source to a circuit. You've left out the ACTUAL point. Again this link refers...
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php?action=paper1 (http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=f0a3b6a1dc4748cd8dc58af541f3fb22&action=paper1)
Once again, I have provided the DIRECT QUOTE where you make your absurd claim, and I have proven you to be wrong FROM A BATTERY, in several YouTube Video demonstrations, and also anyone who knows FGs, like fritz in his post above, knows what a crock your statement is, and how it demonstrates your ignorance and arrogance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuBWVmRmUtc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuBWVmRmUtc)
Quote
Her batteries do not discharge.
Not actually. Not even close. AGAIN. Here's the LINK...
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php?action=paper1 (http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=f0a3b6a1dc4748cd8dc58af541f3fb22&action=paper1)
You have indeed made the claim that your batteries do not discharge, many times. COP INFINITY, remember? But your batteries DO discharge, as anyone can demonstrate for themselves by making the circuit and testing it, as I and many others have done.
Quote
TK and MrSean2k have hacked into her computers several times.
INDEED. And UNLESS you show the LINK where you obtained some waveforms that you've put on public record - then this is NOT an allegation. It is a PROVEN FACT.
And here you make that ridiculous, paranoid and libellous accusation yet again, without a shred of evidence in support. PROVEN FACT? Where is your proof? You have none, because there is none, and EVERY BIT OF INFORMATION that I posted concerning YOU, your data, and your contacts was originally posted publicly BY YOU on the internet. And I have the screenshot images -- which YOU cannot edit the way you edit your posts, months after you've made them -- to prove it.
Quote
TK is someone called "Brian Little" (or Bryan).
INDEED. And unless I become the recipient of some papers initiating action against this - then I MUST conclude that my information is SPOT ON.
Rather logically challenged there, aren't you? Unless I receive some papers initiating action against my determination that "Rosemary Ainslie" is in fact Maria Krebs, formerly of Johannesburg, then I MUST conclude that my information is SPOT ON.
Idiot.
Quote
Anyway my sweet 'ickle pickle'. Far be it from me to take you altogether seriously. I know the severe intellectual constraints you are forced to endure coupled with that demanding mandate you have from 'the boss' - to DENY all measured proof of over unity. Yours is an IMPOSSIBLE task - as you have to either deny the evidence or refute it. And INCREASINGLY it's apparent that you're failing - hopelessly. if it's any comfort I'm still in AWE of those 62 pickles that you use to bolster your self-esteem. MOST impressive. But possibly in need of PROOF? Your only lack is in your understanding of physics. But you more than compensate in you total lack of decency.
As ever,
Rosie Pose
I am in awe of this amazing display of ignorance, arrogance, insult and libel that Ainslie has emitted.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 08, 2013, 12:01:50 AM
You are mistaken.
It is RA that said there is no such thing as Inductive Reactance.
I guess if you had read along more carefully, you may have already realized that.
Yep I missed that by a mile :-[ Must of been very late and blurry eyed....
No problemo, mate, I get that way meself.
:D
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 08, 2013, 07:38:04 PM
I didn't start this thread. Stop the endless discussions? Sure.... get Ainslie and her sock puppets to stop making false claims.
And your intention to stop RA making false claims will be definitly stronger than any contribution to something useful.
Quote from: fritz on April 09, 2013, 06:26:48 AM
And your intention to stop RA making false claims will be definitly stronger than any contribution to something useful.
Do you not think that countering false claims, and the amazingly insulting way that they are made by Ainslie, is useful at all? If there were no one to counter Ainslie's false claims, there might be a lot more people wasting their time trying to reproduce something that _doesn't even have the correct schematic_ posted anywhere by the claimant. And that's the _least_ of the problems with Ainslie's claims.
If you don't want any discussion of Ainslie and her claims here on this forum, why was this thread allowed to be opened at all? Does the original post have anything to do with solid state switching devices and Over Unity? Or is it self-promotion by Ainslie and her sock-puppet, making more false claims?