@tk ..you have a point there.ima get off my ass and chek the diagrams now in detail and suss it out...

I am in the process of going over the 4 hour video demonstration, trying to find the absolute blank spots and edit them out. In the process I thought I would make a few "highlights" clips for those who might not want to watch four hours of .... that. Here are the first two: Scoposcopy 1, and Determining Frequency with a Digital Oscilloscope. I find the second one particularly amusing.

I have NOT edited these, beyond clipping them out of the original longer segment. This is what Ainslie presents to the public.

(Note the Camera Tripod that you can see in the background of the first video.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9IRONEArVU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6659TrVblYE

And the excuses and misinterpretations begin.

QuoteHi Guys,

I've been able to log into the forum - but have not been able to post.  Gi has just corrected the problem.  Hopefully it's the same problem you've had Chess.

The demo was fraught.  The presenter had just flown in from Namibia.  He was EXHAUSTED - not having had any sleep in the last 42 hours.  Then my camera simply WOULD NOT upload?  I'm not sure if that's the term.  To manage things Gi simply used his cell camera.  And that was hardly ideal viewing.  Then the presenter had no direct way to gauge the reception he was getting as the video was too far away - to accommodate plug points.  I thought there were only 10 or so viewers.  Which left me feeling a little more relaxed in the face of the problems we were having  - but according to Mark Dansie it was actually in the thousands.  If any readers here were watching - abject apologies.  I think we were afflicted by a marginal revision to Murphy's Law - If EVERYTHING can go wrong ... it WILL. 

That is what REHEARSALS are for, Ainslie. Isn't it funny how  everyone but you predicted that things would "go wrong"? It is a miracle you got off what you did, and without your "team" you would never have done it at all.

Quote

Our demo itself was inconclusive.

NO IT WAS NOT!! It soundly demonstrated that YOU CANNOT REPEAT YOUR OWN DATA unless you fiddle with the probe position or have a blown mosfet. 

Quote
We intended replicating Fig 3 Paper 1.  The closest we could get was at 8 volts applied from the Gate Q1 - and NOT 10. 

AND NOT 12, you mean. Tell the truth, now, child. The Fig 3 scopeshot, as everyone agrees, shows 12 volts at the gate. And you COULD IN FACT apply 12 volts... but then you showed massive current flow. Until of course Weir had you repeat MY DEMONSTRATION: moving the PROBE, not the reference, to the other side of the "shunt". Tell the truth, child.

Quote
THEN to compound the problem somewhere deeper into the demo - our Function Generator itself picked up a glitch that extended the oscillation into the ON period of the duty cycle.  Thankfully this only applied to one particular setting during the sweep of the offset but we have no way of knowing how this effected the balance of the FG operation.   

This is also simply WRONG. The oscillations in the Q1 that you saw are also perfectly repeatable and are NOT due to some "glitch" in the FG. Unless you want to argue that my old Interstate F43 has the same glitch... but I don't think even YOU are crazy enough for that.

Quote
BUT - and this is the really WONDERFUL part - a certain gentleman by the name of Weir - stepped up to the plate and did some welcome and BRILLIANT analyses of the evidence with a competence that I have never seen equaled - not even by our own academics.  What is now ABSOLUTELY clear - is that our  Fig 7 & 8 were the result of positioning the ground reference of the probe away from the common negative. 

Are you quite sure about that? I don't think so.... I think that it was the PROBE that was mispositioned. But if you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.

Quote
We have to reset the scope and rerun this to make absolutely sure.  And we also need to access a more dependable function generator.  Then subject to the availability of this gentleman - we will include him in ALL further tests.  But I'll give you more on this in due course.  My only concern is to the extent that it'll effect our paper.  But he's explained the procedure to correct this and we'll be following his advices.  Thankfully it IS correctable as our essential claim holds.

Your essential claim DOES NOT HOLD! Your data is invalid and this demonstration proved it!

Quote

Now.  That demo was intended as my swan song.  Sadly not.  Mark Dansie has persuaded me to do a rerun but with a dependable camera and under the guidance of Weir.  Weir is not keen on publicity - but he IS keen of getting to the heart of the matter.  And I'm reasonably certain that he'll be prepared to come on board for these tests.  And I see now that Mark is most CERTAINLY batting in the court of our over unity drive.  PRECISELY because he recommended this.  I MUST admit to having had considerable doubts about his commitments here.  Clearly they were baseless.  The only hold ups are this.  The equipment is to be set up in a new laboratory - that is NOT yet finished.  But it should be - in a couple of weeks time.  Thereafter we'll be in a position to do that rerun.

The questions that still need to be answered are related to the measurements which are reflected in the scope's math trace values.  We need to find out IF these are dependable or if they're result of RF or any other artifacts in the equipment.  What Weir has acknowledged - unequivocally - is that with an AC waveform as is generated from that oscillation - then one can most certainly argue for battery recharge in terms of standard analysis. 

Really? Can we have that from Weir himself, please? Because we all know how you distort and garble and even invert what people are actually telling you. So let us PLEASE hear from Weir on this matter.

After all, I have lots of devices here that "have an AC waveform as generated from that oscillation"... and I can assure you that they do not recharge their batteries... in terms of ACTUAL MEASUREMENT, not your misconceived "standard analysis".

Quote
BUT.  The anomaly may then be that there is NO recharge - notwithstanding this waveform.  THAT's likely to involve CONSIDERABLY more rather costly research and investigation than I can manage.

You make me laugh! DO A DIM BULB TEST. Get your genius team to explain to you what that is. You could do it in a day, if you knew what you were doing and actually wanted to test your claims.

ETA: If pigs had wings they could fly. The anomaly may then be that there are NO flying pigs! Notwithstanding the wings (and lipstick) on this here pig. THAT's likely to involve CONSIDERABLY more effort to explain with handwaving nonsense and parroted big words.

Quote
  Which is all the more reason to get this to campus.  But there are less costly tests which we'll certainly do - which will, at it's least give 'indications'.  And the battery draw down is one.  This based on the final argument that IF application of switches increases the battery efficiency - then this would encourage its use.  But I don't want to close this long argument on merely 'evidence of efficiency' IF I can help it.  I'd FAR rather get to conclusive evidence of unity breaches.  Because that is the ONLY thing that will help the cause.

I'll keep you informed as to our ongoing tests.  But there's likely to be a further 2 week delay before we get back to that equipment.

Kindest regards
Rosie

Yak yak. I told you so. The demonstration was Keystone Kops, the only thing it DID definitively show is that Ainslie cannot repeat her own data without fiddling with the probe positioning or having a blown mosfet, and it was done using MY suggested test, which I illustrated here days ago. And look at how she spins it!

I would say this was utterly unbelievable ... except that I predicted it.

Profits:

Quotenductors MUST remain outside the tank for thermodynamic reasons,they are supposed to suck in extra heat from the environment and spit it out on your load thus they will cancel if both are in the tank.

Inductors don't "suck in heat from the environment," that's nonsense just like Sterling Allen always muses about the "clockwork of Nature."

Inductors can store electrical energy in the form of a magnetic field.  The electrical energy comes from an external electrical power source.  It has nothing to do with heat at all.

MileHigh

@tk well i sussed out her diagram and come to the conclusion that no matter what calorimetric measurements are made with that inductive resistor it will yield underunity for the following reason: environmental heat will flow into and out of the same spot ie.the inductance resistor, cancelling out the ability to register excess heat joules in a calormetric way.thus unfortunately in this particular case we rely entirely on scopeshots and instrumental interpretations.unless my analysis is wrong.