Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Evolvingape,

Always intrigues me how people choose their avatars.  I think the term is nominative determinism.  Something like that.  I wish you well in this reach.

You keep on and on about batteries.  Perhaps you could take the trouble to read the para under discussion.  What was meant here is that while we have evidence of 'retained' potential difference over an extended period - I have NEVER seen a charge beyond it's starting point.  Yet the instantaneous wattage analysis indicates that the batteries should have been cooking.  I have no idea how to resolve this.  We STRESS that in the report.  HOWEVER.  Nor is it something that can be evaluated by any of us.  It needs a chemist to do a proper analysis.  All I know is that if you take any current from any plug - rectify it that the negative moves to one application and the positive to another - then one could apply a signal at the gate to each half of the input sinewave in antiphase - and we could, theoretically, bill our utility suppliers.  That's the point.  Either there is some measurements error - or there's an anomaly that also requires some resolution.  With the utmost respect to your own expertise - I think we need the expert advice of chemists to establish the recharged condition of the batteries.  I have not tested the batteries over an extended period - because, frankly, it is NOT the object of the demonstration nor of the report.  I have been seduced - in the past - to doing battery draw down comparisons to prove out performance over rated capacities.  And it made not a blind bit of difference.  Quite apart from which it's a tedious series of tests and controls to prove it.  And even proven - it is regardless NOT considered conclusive - or certainly NOT by mainstream.  And their opinion matters rather more than your own.   

Your comments regarding the parasitic oscillation are noted - but are also spurious.  Parasitic oscillation is NOT associated with a resonance that so perfectly reinforces itself.  Usually one expects enough variation to have the one phase cancel out the other - in some kind of waveform pattern that also generates a variation to the amplitudes.  Nor does one expect oscillation to be sustained with such high levels of current flow.  The intention - in using more FETs was to test whether the full potentials in that spike were, perhaps, being blocked by some resistance in the Zener diode.  Clearly it was.  And clearly there is some exploitable advantage to sustaining this oscillation.  And it is easily managed.  But it does appear that it requires the body diode of the MOSFETS because this condition is not managed with diodes simply placed across a single transistor.  Again.  We are only pointing to an anomaly.

The report was prepared in order to show the repeatable evidence of previously recorded effects.  I'm not sure how you can possibly object to this.  It's the most honest means we have of duplicating an experiment in line with the claims.

Finally - as mentioned in the report.  We have two options.  Either there is something wrong with the established measurements protocols applied to this kind of circuit.  Or we've got an alternate energy supply.  My hope is that the second alternative will be considered because - as far as I can tell - it's the only way to generate a similar waveform. 

Rosemary



BTW - and for the record.  The report was printed prior to the demo and then distributed at the demo. 

[ltseung888]

Yes, notice how Lawrence never assigns a velocity value to the moving pistons but yet extrapolates numbers from the different collisions?  This reminds me of the initial problems I had with his pendulum experiments.  he never accounted for the initial input energy to the moving pendulum but gave all sorts of output numbers to its movement.

I like Lawrence and I am not making fun but, I am no scientists and yet with my engineering background I can usually spot some major flaws in this theory.  The JT circuits he is using for OU experiments on OUR and other places, are no where near the level of the art that we in the JT topic developed and yet, even though ours are far more efficient, he says his shows OU.  Then ours must be really good then.

I am just a fan of reality and not against anything that shows promise.  I have always admired Lawrence's tenacity and he has my respect for that.  But, you can't leave out one side of an equation and then use the figures as being real.

Bill

Dear Bill,

Please check the spreadsheets.  The piston velocity was assigned to be 100 units for the model.  With spreadsheets, you can change and play with the initial value.

Rosie can now do the following:

1.   Inform the South African Academics that her circuit is an OPEN system in non-equilibrium thermodynamics (Aaron’s terminology).  Let the Academics wonder what is non-equilibrium thermodynamics. Or

2.   Inform the South African Academics that her circuit is an OPEN system that brings-in electron motion energy at resonance.  Ask the Academics to examine the tuning fork example.  That example uses Newtonian Mechanics to conclusively demonstrate that a pulsing order of molecular motion can be produced by the vibrating piston.  That pulsing order can do useful work such as pulse-push other identical tuning forks.  The energy comes from the kinetic energy of the air molecules.  The Academics will hotly discuss the issue (behind closed doors usually.)

3.   Smile and wait for the “Official Report” from the Academics.  Let the Academics fight Newtonian Mechanics with Newtonian Mechanics.  That may take time.  She can (and we shall help) promote it to other Academics.  But Rosie and team have already put a flag on this new territory of Bring-in Energy.  God bless her and team.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello Lawrence,

I need to put on record that your 'tuning fork' experiment does not - in any way - resolve the resonance that is evident on our circuit.  Perhaps you see a difference?  I think I may have pointed this out in the previous post.

However.  Your good wishes are much appreciated and I'll inform the team.  I would be happier if you would acknowledge, more freely, your reliance on the hard work that preceded your own variation of the Joule Thief circuits.  It seems to be lacking in your posts.  I'm not sure that there is sufficient tribute paid to this.  And I'm not sure that your thesis is strictly as comprehensive as you seem to imply.  Resonance is a very interesting phenomenon.  And it is clearly under exploited.  But this has been mentioned - and even shown - in a huge variety of tests - even on this forum.  In fact, I think the true precursor to this knowledge is Tesla.  I'm not sure that you've got a monopoly here.  And I'm not sure that your thesis is sufficient explanation.  I'm being blunt because I feel this needs saying.

But having said that - I think your efforts towards promotion of your circuit are deserving of every respect.  It's hard work.  I know that only too well.  And your dedication to OU causes is exemplary.

I personally, was absolutely surprised by this resonance.  I expected an improvement.  I never expected it to show itself in this way. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[ltseung888]

Hello Lawrence,

I need to put on record that your 'tuning fork' experiment does not - in any way - resolve the resonance that is evident on our circuit.  Perhaps you see a difference?  I think I may have pointed this out in the previous post.

However.  Your good wishes are much appreciated and I'll inform the team.  I would be happier if you would acknowledge, more freely, your reliance on the hard work that preceded your own variation of the Joule Thief circuits.  It seems to be lacking in your posts.  I'm not sure that there is sufficient tribute paid to this.  And I'm not sure that your thesis is strictly as comprehensive as you seem to imply.  Resonance is a very interesting phenomenon.  And it is clearly under exploited.  But this has been mentioned - and even shown - in a huge variety of tests - even on this forum.  In fact, I think the true precursor to this knowledge is Tesla.  I'm not sure that you've got a monopoly here.  And I'm not sure that your thesis is sufficient explanation.  I'm being blunt because I feel this needs saying.

But having said that - I think your efforts towards promotion of your circuit are deserving of every respect.  It's hard work.  I know that only too well.  And your dedication to OU causes is exemplary.

I personally, was absolutely surprised by this resonance.  I expected an improvement.  I never expected it to show itself in this way. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Dear Rosemary,

Thank you for your speedy reply.  Congratulations to you and team. 

As I mentioned multiple times, I do not regard myself as an inventor.  I regard myself as an instrument in the Divine Revelations.  I may not have acknowledged openly and sufficiently the hard work and achievement of other inventors.  There are far too many to quote and they all labored towards a worthy cause.  Most of them struggled with insufficient resources.  I hereby thank them openly for their gallant efforts.

The first Divine Revelation is that the tuning fork setup is an OPEN system bringing in kinetic energy of air molecules at resonance.

The first key phrase is OPEN â€" meaning that energy can flow in and out.  In the case of the tuning fork setup, this is obvious.  The second key phrase is bringing-in â€" meaning that we are using existing, available energy.  The last key phrase is resonance â€" this is where all our hard work comes in.  The hunting for resonance is still somewhat an art than a science. 

It is a matter of applying the concept to electrical resonance (LCR) circuits.  My gut feel is that your circuit has the elements of LCR resonance â€" almost all circuits do.  It requires much tuning to get to the sweet spot or resonance condition.  The effort is not easy and I salute you and team for doing such a wonderful job and openly demonstrating it to the Academics and the World.  Just think resonance and I shall provide the full Newtonian Theoretical backup.

The real debate is not in the Open Forums.  The real debate is behind closed doors at the top Academic Institutions.  Your efforts will not be in vain.

May God bless you and team.  Amen.

[markdansie]

Hi Rosemary
Congradulations with your efforts.
I have to agree with TK re the assumptions made with the battery measurements.
Also enguaging with the resident villiage idiot or clown does not do your credability anygood.. he is a harmless, self deluded enthusiest.
Mark