Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[Sprocket]

Sprocket,

Have you seen this page?:
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/03/report.html

The schematic diagram I posted came directly from her site, and it was from the "report" post. I implied nothing. That simulation diagram was included as part of the Report, which was based on the demonstration they gave. Everyone else can clearly see who was the real perpetrator of obfuscation, why can't you? Obviously that new corrected diagram was just posted today, now that the cat is out of the bag so to speak, and let's not forget who uncovered this.

Are you sure you still want to cling to that asinine accusation?

Regarding your question; what about the other 4 mosfets? You've seen how they are connected, correct?

.99

Read again what I wrote - I specifically said that the pic you posted implied, not your good self - found here;

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg282472#msg282472

So no, there is nothing asinine about my post!  This schematic has the Q2 mosfet in that weird configuration and is labelled "Q2-Q5", and that clearly implies that they are all wired that way, which made no sense to me - hence my question to you then about the other 3 mosfets.  Which you then neglected to answer!  And yes, I now know how they are connected, thanks to Rosemary's blog.

Why you provide that link to the Report page is beyond me - the source-tied-to-gate schematic you posted and I have just linked to above is not found there, just the 'original' circuit...

[poynt99]

Happy - I'll do it if all else fails.

What is that supposed to mean? If what fails, this dog and pony show and constant evasion of the real and simple issue?

Then I'll invest the time to do this test EXACTLY as is required. But it's nowhere near as easy as you're claiming.  If it were then I'd have it running between demonstrations.

That's quite a full load of BS. You could be running this test right now, either way you choose. Either keep track of the load temperature (as happyfunball suggested), or track the battery SOC as I have suggested repeatedly.

If either of these two parameters show a net decline over time, and never recover, then it is quite obvious and clear what is going on....the batteries are being depleted.

It's that simple, but Rose won't do it unless she obtains some kind of assurance from "experts" that this decline (or whatever the result) is a true and accepted indication.

I have NO idea of the battery chemistry involved.  While I know we can exceed watt hour ratings - I'm not sure that we'll also get a full recharge.

Perform the SOC tests over time and you will get a very good idea how the battery chemistry is responding to the circuit and load. No actually, you don't know that you can exceed the amp-hour ratings of the battery; you have not proven that at all yet.

As Happy suggested, do the test (either one) and stop making excuses.

And post a schematic of your circuit. If you have already, then please indicate which one is the correct one.

.99

[poynt99]

Read again what I wrote - I specifically said that the pic you posted implied, not your good self - found here;

So no, there is nothing asinine about my post!  This schematic has the Q2 mosfet in that weird configuration and is labelled "Q2-Q5", and that clearly implies that they are all wired that way, which made no sense to me - hence my question to you then about the other 3 mosfets.  Which you then neglected to answer!  And yes, I now know how they are connected, thanks to Rosemary's blog.

Why you provide that link to the Report page is beyond me - the source-tied-to-gate schematic you posted and I have just linked to above is not found there, just the 'original' circuit...

Even if I could figure out what you want or what you are trying to say, I don't think I can help you.

.99

[cHeeseburger]

I just entered in the schematic from the blog 109.  Nothing happens.  I don't believe that the waveforms she says come from that schematic sim actually did, although it's possible her expert who did the sim is using something other than a version of Pspice or he has left something out or mismarked some component values.  The schematic as shown does not produce any kind of oscillation using Pspice.

I'd love to hear about anyone else's effort to sim that schematic.  I get nothing at all...just sits there.  So here's a chance to be Rosemary's hero and show how Humbugger made an error!  Show me my mistake. 

I spent ten years designing and successfully putting into mass production a wide variety of "on purpose" MOSFET RF power oscillators.  All of them had 180 degrees phase shift between the source current and drain voltage waveforms but none ever exceeded 100% efficiency.  Of course, I made realistic measurements, so I guess that's why no infinite COP was ever seen!

At this time, Rosemary still has not presented a schematic that agrees wiith the photo of her breadboard.  As Poynt has pointed out, the breadboard has the solo FET being driven by the gate driver and the source connected to the shunt.  The other four have their gates hooked to the shunt and their source pins tied to the gate driver.

It certainly appears that Rosemary is purposely concealing or misdirecting the pathway to replication.  I feel quite sorry for anyone who earnestly tries to replicate the hardware.  The number of errors, purposely kept secrets and outrageous contradictions has become a true farce.  Almost as insane and nonsensical as the measurement scheme and the wishful conclusions it so erroneously supports. 


Humbugger

[cHeeseburger]

From da blog

"I assure you all that it is easily translated into practical applications. All that is still missing is accreditation by academic experts. And this is MUCH required - because without it we can be accused of perpetrating some kind of fraud. It is an unfortunate truth that these kind of claims proliferate our internet and our history. All the more reason to delay any development of marketable applications until this is endorsed."

I have never in my life heard such a non-progressive, non-inventive, non-productive philosophy.  Look at all the great inventions and discoveries of the past 300 years.  How many of those inventors and entrepreneurs felt they needed to wait for some kind of approval from academia before proceeding?  The notion is completely ridiculous...even moreso in the context of "Free Energy Forum Society".

All one needs to do is make a practical product that performs the advertised function and is reasonably priced.  Academia can pound sand.  What kind of silly, chickenhearted thinking is this, Rosemary?  If applications are so easily implemented and the thing is really an answer to the world's energy needs, as you claim, why, oh why would you need anyone's approval or sanction?

I know I'm not winning any popularity contests here with my sometimes scathing dismissals of the validity of Rosemary's claims and her approach to testing.  Compared to academia, my rejections are mild.  They won't even give her an audience!  At least I'm trying to point out the flaws and problems.  Academia won't even bother to try.

But let me ask those of you who are encouraging Rosemary along enthusiastically and who so casually dismiss my comments here as being part of some nasty MIB or ego-driven psychopathic conspiracy to stop free energy progress.

Do you agree with Rosemary that free energy developers should wait for academic approval before they start developing applications?  DO YOU?

To me this is absolutely antithetical to all that the free energy movement and open source inventors forums stand for.  It reeks of an excuse for the pending final failure. 

Blame the academics...they stopped my application development by not accrediting my theory.  Blame the poor fools like Poynt and Humbugger who keep trying to explain what the problems are and where the mistakes are being made...Blame the forum moderators and owners for not censoring all technical criticisms.

It's getting old.

Kindest Regards,

Humbugger