Quote from: OscarMeyer on September 12, 2013, 09:11:01 PM
Hi Conrad,
I was just wondering what your circuit had to do with Rosemary's? 

Oscar

I see a common idea, namely the OU speculations around the back EMF (induced current) in a coil or inductance.

Oscillation (or at least switchin the current on and the off) fed through a coil induces a "back EMF" and many OU-gurus believe that the energy in the back EMF comes not from the power supply but from somewhere else (ether, zero point energy, from where-ever).

We have the same elements in the ill defined circuits put forward by the verbose lady from the tip of Africa:

- oscillation (NE555 and switching transistor)
- an inductance (the heating element)
- and alleged mysterious energy from somewhere but the batteries

I read these "back EMF mysteries" and wanted to measure the energy in the "back EMF" by feeding it back to the battery or capacitor driving such a circuit. I used a Joule Thief type circuit and a pulse motor circuit.

I could not find any energy in the "back EMF" which did not come from the power supply (battery, cap), But as I said, I might have done it wrongly.

Greetings, Conrad

QuoteOur 'ickle' pickle's argument against paper 1 was ALWAYS based on the CLAIM that we could not have applied a 3% ON duty cycle.  In fact he CLAIMED that we had not even applied a 10% ON - but a 90%.  This was the SOLE basis of his argument LOUDLY AND REPETITIVELY augmenting his general calumny and - as ever - ENTIRELY BASELESS.

No, Ainslie. My argument is FULLY BASED IN FACT and can be demonstrated at any time. Your insults and whining are just delusional rants from someone who has been utterly and soundly debunked... time and time again.
You are a dirty filthy LIAR ROSEMARY AINSLIE. The schematic published in the Quantum article CANNOT make the duty cycle and frequency combination you claimed to use. My argument was ALWAYS based on the SCHEMATIC you published and stood behind. This is definite and proven: the schematic published under your name cannot do what you claim, and if you used it your duty cycle was NOT the 3.6 percent ON that you claimed, and if you did NOT use it.... then the schematic is a LIE. No other alternatives are possible: either you used the schematic in the article or you did not. Either way, YOU LIE.

QuoteThrough a miracle of Divine intervention - we FOUND our early experimental apparatus - and thanks to the genius of Steve Weir - we were able to prove that INDEED our apparatus could manage the 3% duty cycle - as claimed.

Again YOU LIE. The circuit in the box, which both YOU and DONOVAN  MARTIN repeatedly claimed was LOST, DOES NOT CONTAIN THE SAME CIRCUIT THAT WAS IN IT FOR THE QUANTUM ARTICLE. The circuit in the box NOW contains a chip that wasn't even manufactured until May of 2007, and it only has ONE potentiometer connected, and it uses A DIFFERENT MOSFET, not the IRFPG50, and it DOES NOT OPERATE AT 2.4 kHz. Yes, it can make a shorter duty cycle, but it CANNOT OPERATE IN THE RANGE CITED IN THE QUANTUM ARTICLE. I am really getting sick and tired of your constant refusals to acknowledge reality, AINSLIE. The circuit in your box NOW is NOT the circuit that was used for the Quantum article, it does NOT operate in the stated frequency range and it is A LIE FOR YOU TO CLAIM OTHERWISE.

QuoteRather than acknowledge this both he and Mark Euthanasius - then prepared reports of varying levels of complexity and 'misdirection' to continue with their DENIALS.  What's new?  From where I sit - NOTHING's new.  They're now basing their denials on the fact that I made an early 'retraction' related to that duty cycle.  TK - poor sod that he is - actually recovered the text of that early retraction.  What he FAILED to mention that my very first acknowledgement of there being a possible misrepresentation of that duty cycle - was based on a misunderstanding.  An experimentalist BUILT that switch according to the schematic published - and he had NO difficulty in getting the required duty cycle.  His English NOT that clear.  I assumed that he had not achieved the required result.  I apologised to all and sundry.  He explained he DID get it.  I RETRACTED the RETRACTION.  And because our Little TK CANNOT report honestly - he conveniently omitted that FINAL retraction.  As mentioned.  Nothing's new.  Amusingly - I see that Mark Euthanasius is also depending on that early retraction.  No-one can accuse either of them of impartiality.

Kindest regards
Rosie

You are a bumbling fool and so was Joit. ANYONE CAN BUILD THE CIRCUIT, you poor slapper, and see for themselves that you are utterly and stupidly wrong.  Get your "Team" of Electrical Engineers to build the circuit AS PUBLISHED in the Quantum article and test it. Show your work, like I have done several times. This would take your "Team" perhaps half an hour to do, with about five dollars worth of components. DO IT, SHOW THE WORK AND REPORT. But of course you will not.

You accuse ME of not reporting honestly? You lie with every post you make, Rosemary Ainslie. You cannot cite a single case when I have reported something about you inaccurately. Yet I can cite instance after instance when YOU have baldly and outrageously LIED, over and over.

"I DID NOT POST THAT VIDEO"
"FIVE MOSFETS IN PARALLEL"
"THE APPARATUS WAS LOST"
Paper 1 Figure 3
etc etc etc.

Does the Demo Kit 1 box resemble the schematic published in the Quantum article? No, not in the least. It is evidently the device shown in the photograph in the Quantum article, minus the meters..... but how can it contain a chip not manufactured until 2007? Why does it only have a single potentiometer connected? Why does the schematic drawn by SWeir not resemble the published schematic AT ALL? Why does it operate at a much higher frequency range than the published schematic?

Will the September promised demonstration use the PUBLISHED QUANTUM CIRCUIT, the one that supposedly has been "accredited"? Or will it use some other circuit? Will it use this Box? This different mosfet? NOBODY KNOWS.

More pix of Demo Kit 1, the "lost" then miraculously "found" massively overunity device constructed for Rosemary Ainslie by Bernard Bulak, who later committed suicide.

 

QuoteTo the best of my knowledge absolutely NO part of that apparatus has had any parts replaced - to the best of my knowledge - since 2006 or thereby.

To the best of your knowledge? Well, we already know that isn't true at all.

Liar. The NE555N chip bears a data code indicating it was manufactured in the 18th week of 2007.

Liar. There is NO IRFPG50 in the box. Never has anyone mentioned (except me in 2009) the use of an IRFP450 OR a p-channel mosfet.

Liar. You claimed this apparatus was LOST. But it was never lost at all.

Liar. You claimed that this apparatus was used for the Quantum tests. But it has a completely different circuit in it than was PUBLISHED in the Quantum magazine and CANNOT make the duty cycle and frequency claimed in the Quantum article.