Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[Rosemary Ainslie]

POYNT.  How do you explain the fact that a diode across Q1 can replace Q2 to sustain that oscillation? 

And guys, I'm ABSOLUTELY NOT ABLE TO SUBMIT THAT PAPER.  It has to be 2 papers at least - the one to qualify the other.  And I'm running out of energy.  I've tried to duck this but have had feedback from some really qualified people that the argument is NOT fully supported.  Which is a blow.

Anyway.  I'm up for it.  So.  Poynty Point.  The first thing that needs clarification is that replacement diode as it relates to current flow.  Do you have an explanation?  And do you even understand the question?  I'd be MOST interested to hear your explanation if you have one.  If you don't answer I'll assume you don't know.

Regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Actually guys, right now I'm just feeling so angry.  Here's why.  IF we're going to ignore the evidence measured in the results then the thing to do is to close our text books and deny that ANY MEASUREMENTS TAKEN ON ANY TECHNOLOGIES TO DATE - are even roughly relevant.  All science - to date - based on a figment of the imagination.  That's the first point.

The second point is this.  According to their rating each battery is capable of delivering about 430 000.00 Joules. 8 such batteries therefore affords a capacity of 3 456 000.00 Joules. The batteries used in these experiments have been used on a regular basis for over 10 months.  They have been dissipating an average wattage conservatively assessed at 20 watts for five hours of each working day, during that period, continually subjected as they were, to both light and heavy use. This amounts to about 14 400 000.00 Joules which is more than 4 times it's rated capacity. Notwithstanding this extensive use, they have never shown any evidence of any loss of voltage at all. Nor have they been recharged except for two batteries that caught fire.

YET you all demand further proof?  At what point is the required level of evidence simply ABSURD?  I propose that we're long past the point.  And all it means is that EVEN ON THESE FORUMS - DEDICATED AS THEY ARE TO OVER UNITY CONSIDERATIONS - there's actually ONLY the requirement to DENY AND DENY AND DENY.  So sad.  Evidently you'll only consider doing more inconclusive tests and then chatter away amongst yourselves about all those inconclusive results - compounded by the EXTRAORDINARY applications of wattage analysis that has NOTHING TO DO WITH STANDARD MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS.  You're all led by the nose to believe the absurdities in Poynty's analyses with it's horribly flawed protocols.  And then - with all the satisfaction of the excessively smug - you presume to NOMINATE the required test parameters.  Dear God.  If there's to be a continued pollution of this our poor planet - then you're ACTIVELY co-operating with that agenda. 

You would not see a benefit if it stood up to introduce itself.  And you certainly won't recognise it even when it eventually reaches out to bite you - where it hurts most - which is somewhere in the region of your intellects - which are evidently unable to ask questions - let alone answer them.

This is the most of you.  Obviously it excepts those very few people who are still actively engaged in this research or who are really capable of asking the right questions.

Rosemary

[powercat]

Hello again MrMag.  Another BRILLIANT suggestion.  That way when everything goes up in smoke then I can buy another IP camera and all the parts required to assemble another test apparatus.  And then I can replace the scope probes - and probably the scope itself - for a mere R100 000.00 or thereby - which, in dollars, is roughly $14 000.00.  No problem at all.  I have NO IDEA why such a logical solution didn't occur to me.  Golly.  And if I do this then I'll advance the very real benefit of satisfying your idle curiosity.  I say idle because you either do not have the skills or the interest to test this all for yourself

Rosie it seems that you are looking for excuses when it comes to doing a practical test, no one is suggesting that you spent $14,000 did you actually read and understand MrMag suggestion

I myself and I think others suggested to you some time ago that you do a comparison test.
Heats water at a set temperature using a conventional method  running from the same amount of batteries as the test using your circuit heating an identical volume of water to the same temperature,
and see which one lasts longest,  but clearly these suggestions are two simple for you, what are you afraid of, that these tests might fail ?

No doubt your response if I get one, will blame other people, and you will argue Ow how you argue,  that people are misinterpreting your work.
so simple practical tests would seem the best way to gain support  But you would rather argue about measurements, if you really have got something here Then you're doing extremely good job at  discouraging people from getting involved with your circuit.
All you do is have arguments about measurements

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosie it seems that you are looking for excuses when it comes to doing a practical test, no one is suggesting that you spent $14,000 did you actually read and understand MrMag suggestion

I myself and I think others suggested to you some time ago that you do a comparison test.
Heats water at a set temperature using a conventional method  running from the same amount of batteries as the test using your circuit heating an identical volume of water to the same temperature,and see which one lasts longest,  but clearly these suggestions are two simple for you, what are you afraid of, that these tests might fail ?

No doubt your response if I get one, will blame other people, and you will argue Ow how you argue,  that people are misinterpreting your work.
so simple practical tests would seem the best way to gain support  But you would rather argue about measurements, if you really have got something here Then you're doing extremely good job at  discouraging people from getting involved with your circuit.
All you do is have arguments about measurements

No Cat - I'm NOT making excuses.  I'm simply NOT interested in doing those tests.  Feel free.  Do it yourselves.  I'm only interested in getting this to an academic forum.  And they DON'T accept any draw down battery tests as evidence.  Good gracious.  If they did I'd have done the tests - GLADLY.  And I absolutely have NO INTEREST in 'encouraging' as you you put it - people to get involved in our circuit.  Frankly I prefer it that they don't.  My previous exposure to this was an outright attempt by a replicator to CLAIM it as his independent and personal 'DISCOVERY'.  Why should I want anyone to replicate? 

My ONLY interest is in the thesis and the implications of the waveform - because that's where the magic is.  I don't think there's any RULE against my sharing what I think is happening. And if you or anyone don't want to read here - so what?  I'm not holding a gun to your heads. The general reach on these forums is to demand the evidence - in any way you want.  I'm under NO obligation to cater to that demand.  Frankly if I were to run around and do what everyone wanted as I used to - then I'd be considerably poorer and have progressed no further.  What really gets me down is that one academic has actually proposed that we do that 'black box' test.  That's the test that we designed for the public demonstration.  You may remember.  Not A SINGLE EXPERT ATTENDED.  What a joke.  The academics won't look at the evidence - and the rest of you can't understand the measurements - nor their implications. And I can assure you that not one of you will believe the evidence when I've completed that test.  There'll be new criteria.  So it goes.  It's not so much extraordinary claims needing extraordinary proof - it's that an extraordinary claim will never be accepted regardless of the proof.  That's the killer.

Here's the trade off Cat.  Find some experts who will guarantee accreditation of any results that show excess energy dissipated to the rated battery capacity - ANY AT ALL - then I'll do those tests GLADLY.  I think a consensus of 5 should cut it.  See what you can do.  Me I have found precisely 1 and I very much doubt that there will be others.  And we've asked not less than 45 experts to attend a demo that shows JUST THIS.

Rosemary

[poynt99]

POYNT.  How do you explain the fact that a diode across Q1 can replace Q2 to sustain that oscillation? 

The first thing that needs clarification is that replacement diode as it relates to current flow.  Do you have an explanation?  And do you even understand the question?  I'd be MOST interested to hear your explanation if you have one.  If you don't answer I'll assume you don't know.

Regards,
Rosemary

If you are referring to the attached diagram, then "D1" replaces Q1, not Q2 as you have stated above.

As I have explained some time back, Q2 (M4 in the attached diagram) is the only active device in this circuit (or paralleled Q2-Q5), and it is this device that causes the oscillation.

D1, as I explained, is the internal body diode of Q1, and causes the asymmetry seen in the wave forms. The circuit oscillates just as well without D1 (Q1), but then the asymmetry vanishes.

.99