Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys - I'm risking my only working computer to post this.  I've finally seen that poll.  I have no objections to it.  It's just a generalised attempt at finding out what the public think of me.  And that's not really the issue here.  So.  It's of some kind of dubious relevance - and it will only help to progress the knowledge.  Strange but true.  All publicity is good publicity.  Even BAD publicity.  lol.

MrMag.  I read your comment.  I'm sorry you've not seen my argument related to battery draw downs.  Your opinion is shared by many. And - indeed you're right.  On record everyone.  I'll do those battery draw downs with PLEASURE - if I also get the outright endorsement that those results will be accepted as ABSOLUTE PROOF of breaching those infernal energy barriers.  At issue is the requirement to prove that it can exceed its watt hour rating.  And that test is most certainly DOABLE.  Expensive to monitor - but it can, indeed, be done.  But I'm not foolhardy enough to simply invest time and money in all those tests - without the certain and written assurance that our academics will then accept this as conclusive proof.  Else, yet again I'll be wasting my time.

Regards
Rosemary

[powercat]

An interesting comment PC, gotoluc worked with Thane just before I did, yet I have never heard him speak one way or another on Thane. I quite like gotoluc's channel and subscribe. I think he does a lot to further interest in this fascinating field.

If you look at my video's you will see my first love is still Veljko's pendulum, followed by Flynn/Hildendrand motors, with a wee bit of coil shorting thrown in.

BUT, I am not really interested in OU, I just like building things. It leads to all sorts of specialized knowledge, keeps the grey matter active! Yes, I am still learning things at my age, plus I get to try out some totally new chips, it is fascinating.

I have followed Rosie's device for years. I have read all the forums, I know people who have tried this... with no success, so what is it you are trying to tell me? Only experiment with known proven devices like the wheel or kleenex? Never ever venture into unknown territory? Stay inside the box, do not have any thoughts of your own that are contrary to you peers?

I do this because its fun. I will form my own conclusions when I am ready to. I enjoy meeting and working with these kind of people, who like to contribute to society with their original ideas. I learn things.

Ron

Edit: 13,000 hits on my pendulum build and 10,000 on my coil winder, I find that incredible... but notice TK was the only one to seriously question my mentality... now I will be able to add you guys to the list also

Nice post Ron
I'm trying to tell you that no one on this forum has been able to match that claim of OU,
clearly this is not a concern of yours and I wish you all the best

[poynt99]

But I grant that there are ongoing confusions.  If there are any related to how we've positioned those MOSFETs - then please just do this.  Put the one to the other  Q1 and Q2 - Gate to source, drain to drain, Source to Gate.  That way you'll have configured it as required.  When it comes to an illustration of this - then, convention mitigates against a clear presentation.  This because the 'gate' is conventionally shown as being between the source and the gate legs.

Is there anyone here that understands this para? If so, could I impose on you to kindly elucidate on it? Thank you. I believe I have connected the Source and Gate pins as described. No one yet has commented if my diagram is correct. 

Then - it is more than likely that I'm describing this wrongly.  I'll ask my team how I should describe it.  But here's what I mean.  There are two leads off the functions generator.  The one 'positive' goes to the gate of Q1 - the second whether it's properly described as 'ground' or 'negative' or whatever, - that one goes to the gate of Q2.  Sorry guys.  It's the best I can do.

Again, I believe I've shown the connections as described. Corrections?

What we need to do is move away from any more discussion with Poynty - as it relates to those simulations.  If he could oblige us here then that would be appreciated.  Unfortunately it's what he knows and what he does best.  What would be far more to the desirable is if he takes the trouble to build a replication or even a variation. I confidently predict that he will NOT find benefit because that conforms to his agenda.  But it would be nice to be proved wrong.  If he sees no value in doing this - then, as I've said, move away that we can move on.  Otherwise we'll be spending another 2 years discussing the correct diagrammatic illustration of the FETs when we should be discussing how to apply this.

Indeed, I am wanting to build it, but again, I do not have a diagram to do so. Could someone kindly provide a link to a diagram OK'd by Rose?

From the above though, any results I may offer have been pre-disqualified by Rose.

.99

[Groundloop]

Is there anyone here that understands this para? If so, could I impose on you to kindly elucidate on it? Thank you. I believe I have connected the Source and Gate pins as described. No one yet has commented if my diagram is correct. 
Again, I believe I've shown the connections as described. Corrections?
Indeed, I am wanting to build it, but again, I do not have a diagram to do so. Could someone kindly provide a link to a diagram OK'd by Rose?

From the above though, any results I may offer have been pre-disqualified by Rose.

.99

.99

Here: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.1095
Post: Reply #1101 * RAmCirc3a.gif (20.26 KB, 823x775 - viewed 84 times.)

GL.

[poynt99]

.99

Here: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.1095
Post: Reply #1101 * RAmCirc3a.gif (20.26 KB, 823x775 - viewed 84 times.)

GL.

Hi GL.

I've seen your diagram, but I've not seen Rose's "OK" of it afterward. I know it was based on a drawing she emailed you, but I think it is wise to wait for her approval first.

Moreover, if that is indeed the new circuit, I'll need to see a photo of the new setup (top and bottom) before I build that version.

I am more inclined at the moment to build the version demonstrated in the video because we know the circuit, and there is a lot of data posted about it. At present time, Rose's claims of overunity made in reference to that demonstration still stand. She has not retracted those claims reference the demo, and therefore it stands as a valid circuit to build and test.

.99