Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[Magluvin]

Hey Rose

Here is a link location of 3 posts in a row that you may want to see.

I show that I start with a 10uf cap at 1000v, and only make 2 conversions and end up with a 10uf cap at 1001.25v  !!!

Its very simple. And Im tired.   ;]

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8841.msg280380#msg280380

Mags loop+

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi all.  So nice to get back here.  I couldn't get any connectivity since Saturday.  Don't ask why.  It's an endless - endless battle all of which simply adds more 'scope' to my general complaint against whoever it is that wants this technology silenced.  But we're battling on.  And right now we're connected. 

I'll answer your posts individually.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary,

I see good applications with this technology in heating of air and water do you have any plans to use this technology for those applications? Or is there a better way to apply this technology I know you have stated led lighting. Do you have any circuits prefabbed up for sale in lighting or heating I would like to test the tech in real world situations not do math or theories if it lights up a light or heats whatever for the average life of the battery we have a real life application sounds simple enough to me ...

What is the real challenge of putting this device into a real life application other then yourself holding yourself back you are not seeking a patent this circuit is open and free as you said. If you build it people will buy it if it works as promised.

Hi infringer.  Not sure of the question.  There is indeed no patent - and the entire impossibility of ever applying a patent - is the first point.  Even if it were a 'novel' appliction of using the heat produced from parastic oscillations - the fact is that the knowledge of this potential use is now PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE.  It's published in the public domain - on my blog.  So.  Unfortunately, it seems that I've shot myself in the foot - if my intention was EVER to patent any part of this technology.

Then. I most certainly want to get this to APPLICATION phase.  It would be nice if we all worked towards this.  It's no good knowing of an economical means of generating electricity without also exploring all possible ways of applying it.  Specifically what's holding me back is that I want to advance the 'concepts' related to the thesis.  I am of the opinion that when the 'thinking' is better understood then the applications will be less 'haphazard' based, as they are at present - on a mishmash of thinking and mainstream concepts.  I will take the liberty of again pointing to my blog post related to this.  But I also see, from the lack of comments related to my explanation that it's still as clear as mud.  LOL.   I'm going to work on a series of diagrams that I hope will make that explanation clearer.  In fact - I've started on this already.  As they say.  A picture is worth a thousand words.

I've also been given to understand that it's possible to generate motorised energy from heat.  That's another string to this bow.  It's also feasible to generate steam from this application.  Either way - presumably those type of applicaions can also be considered. 

But to get back to my point.  We also need to get some kind of academic evaluation of these anomalies.  Because without this any applications may be considered fraudulent - or intended to fraudulently misrepresent the benefits in this technology.  That's an ongoing battle.  Right now I need to change out my functions generator because it's simply not working.  Not corrupted - as nul-point thinks - as it was brand new out the box and has simply NEVER worked.  That's a quick exercise and should be completed before the day is finished.  But when I've got the circuit operational then I intend doing some more demos - this time with our EXPERTS in attendance - as no single Electrical Engineering expert attended our previous public demo.  But I shall be taking the precaution of insisting on approval of the measurement protocols prior to that meeting.  That way - the argument will be settled in advance and the evidence evaluated on the merits of that argument.  This is one way of avoiding the advantage that our detractors enjoy - by raising an endless stream of objections - regardless of the evidence - but always AFTER the event.  An example is that we now USE a functions generator as previously required by Poynty et al.  But we are now told that we MUST RATHER USE A 555.  Or, another example - measurements must be AVERAGED - and that it is incorrect to apply integrated power analysis.  Which diametrically opposes all previous advises and, indeed, some lengthy debates on the subject.  Or as another example until we eliminate ALL INDUCTANCE on the circuit ALL OUR MEASUREMENTS ARE ERRONEOUS - as Humbugger tries to imply.  All nonsense.  But they'll use those excuses forever.    We need EXPERTS.  Not these amateurish excusions by some dedicated detractors.

Which does not imply that we've got sufficient proof of infinite COP.  But we certainly have unequivocal proof of COP>1. 

GOOD LUCK infringer - if you're going to test this and if you find an application.  There's nothing to stop you - legally - or in any way at all.

Kindest regards
Rosemary

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/101-repost-of-8-inconvenient-truth.html
And lest any readers of this think that I"m entirely impartial - here's my apologia
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2010/11/belated-tribute-to-our-scientists.html

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Actually Guys, that's it.  I certainly won't comment on Humbugger's input until it becomes appropriate.  And nor will I  reply to Poynty's points until he re-establishes my right to read his forum.  Not that I want to be registered please note.  He has denied me the right to READ his forum by the simple  expediency of blocking my IP address.  And he knew of this ONLY because I had previously registered and then de-registered from OUR.com.  Which I still maintain is an abuse of that knowledge.  I joined the forum and gave that address in good faith.  One must wonder at that need to refuse me access to my work or rights to see where and if this technology is still being discussed.  And IF IT IS NOT being discussed then  WHY BLOCK ACCESS AT ALL?  What level of small minded spite is coming into play here?  Very strange.  One could almost think that he doesn't like me.  Golly.  Not sure that presonal preferences matter.  And not sure that he should be allowed to continue with his comments here - unless this is resolved.

Right now I can't even read all the work that I've done there.  It's all barred to me.  I don't think I've ever come across this level of pettiness.  The only good news is that he's 'locked' that thread.  But they're free to discuss me as they do - all over the place.  And apparently it's vitally important that I NEVER SEE THOSE COMMENTS.  Actually there's NO justification for this.  Just excessive spite and petty mindedness.  Hopefully Poynty will see this for himself and LOSE THAT BLOCK.

Just to let you all know about this malice and - just to let you know that clearly I must be some kind of a threat to his forum bias.  Strange.  When they also state that I'm rather presumptuous to even consider myself an idiot.  LOL.  I would almost be inclined to think that they're trying to equate this technology with Lawrence's.  Clearly the two have NOTHING IN COMMON.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Mags - I've only just got my connectivity back.  I'll try and go through your argument later today and by tomorrow morning at the latest.  Thanks for the added info.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary