Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys - my circuit is STILL down.  We've changed the functions generator and we've bought and replaced 2 FETS.  I've had no less than 3 people trouble shoot and - right now - no-one has resolved the problem.  We hopefully, have a really competent guy coming on Friday afternoon to look at what gives.   We are absolutely not able to get any energy onto the element.  Everything's flatlined except for the switch.  That's now working like an angel.  Which is why I'm STILL not able to report here.  Apologies.  There's a gremlin in the works.  We worked on this for 4 hours - again - last night - and still nothing.   Very odd and very frustrating.  The circuit is so simple.  The connections easily tested.  Everything seems as usual.  Yet we can't get anything to work - except now we can get that switch at full volume.  Definitely something was wrong with the previous functions generator as we could not get any significant voltage across the switch.

meanwhile all I can do is wait. 

Rosemary   

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Magsy - which is why I'm looking forward to - at least - getting some upbeat news from you.  I get it that the 'real life' applications of that circuit do not perform as expected by the sim.  Stefan's been saying this since the start of this thread.  All I know is that if you apply 'x' and then end up with 'x' plus anything at all - then that's unequivocally - from the system and not from the supply.  The argument is elegant.  And I'm not sure that anyone can contradict it.

What intrigues me is that your claim was immediately followed by a disclaimer.  Never missed a heartbeat.  And - predictably - it was from Poynty.  I'm of the opinion that there's a certain urgency creeping into this subject as OU evidence is becoming rather commonplace.  It's still being argued that the evidence is always based on poor measurement - and incompetent experimenters.  But in your case you can show the gain with a simple mulitmeter.  And I may be rightly described as an experimental clutz - but those that built and demonstrated this circuit - certainly are not.

But what really intrigues me is this.  Poynty denies that there is any oscillation through the battery.  This is why I'm committed to showing a waveform with the probes directly across those terminals.  Yet his own simulations show this exact waveform.  How can it be that my own waveforms are wrong yet the sim waveforms are right?  I just can't get my head around this.  In fact, from what I can see - the sim and real life experiment can both duplicate that wild and extended parasitic oscillation.  And that, really, was the object of that demonstration.  There is no question we showed a gain - even based on Poynt's need for AVERAGING - and even on really high wattage dissipation at the load.  But that oscillation results in two diametrically opposed waveforms - and when that is evident then the advantage is always to a level of energy efficiency that at it's least - exceeds classical allowance.

Anyway.  I'll need to get my setup set up.  Then I'll get back here.  And Magsy - yet again - I do not think that anyone will be able to contradict YOUR evidence.  At least we've got that.  I think we'd all enjoy seeing a video on this - but I know that it's time consuming and I also know that you guys fit in these experiments when and as you can.  So.  Again.  Very well done.  And, as ever, I'd be awfully grateful if you'd keep us posted here. 

Kindest,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi guys,

Just had a brief excursion into OUR.com where sundry members are rollicking through post after post with the characteristic wild and ever urgent denial of any evidence of overunity on our circuit.  I see that the audience applaud all that really bad, psuedo scientific, argument.  And there's a general sense of hysteria as one after the other try one argument after another - to deny all our evidence.

At the moment they're rather pinning their hopes on the Poynt's call to average.  You can certainly average the results if you did not also switch that current.  And to refer to it as 'reflected' voltage - or anything at all - does not lessen the energy in that voltage.  But.  I keep advising them and they keep ignoring that advice.  GUYS - EVEN IF WE APPLY AND AVERAGE we get INFINITE COP. 

In any event.  They're unquestionably right.

IF we had used less sophisticated DSO's - then there would have been strong argument against the evidence.  As it is we use very sophisticated DSO's and that's now the basis of their denial.

IF we had averaged - then there would have been strong argument against the evidence.  As it is we did not use averages and yet that's the basis of their denial.

IF we had factored in inductance and reactance - then there would have been an even stronger basis for their denial as the numbers become even more beneficial.  And as we did not factor this in then that's become the basis of their denial. 

If we had only got a benefit from low wattage dissipation then that would have been the basis of their denial.  As it is we get benefit - infinite COP at both high and low wattage dissipation and yet this is the basis of that denial.

This result will only ever be considered valid IF - we eliminate all inductive/conductive material on the circuit - IF we do away with a battery supply source and ONLY use capacitors - and then ONLY AND IF we then measure something that conforms to classical prediction.

I suppose that's fair.  Or maybe not so much 'fair'.  Just COMPREHENSIVE.  Golly.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Don^t worry meine liebe Rose.

I'm a bit of a socialist myself.  LOL.

[Doctor No]

How do You think, when people come to the mind: 1. 10y. after last drop of oil will be pumped out 2. Barrel oil 》300 USD (next year) 3. After we drop 1 MT device on Fukushit (October).     Yours Dr Adolf