Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Yes, excess heat is so terribly boring. It's not as if it can be used to heat water.

LOL.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

It is a heater circuit indeed, and part of the claim is that no net energy whatsoever is required of the source batteries. This is quite simple to prove, i.e. optimize the circuit for high power output (or whatever power is deemed optimum by the claimant) and allow it to run for several months or years if necessary to see if the batteries run down. [Wait to see what the excuse is on this one. ]

.99

We've done this Poynty Point.  We've run this for plus/minus 5 hours a day over a 5 month period - on a variety of waveforms all indicating a net gain to the system and without any measurable loss of voltage to the batteries at all.  How long would you need?  Years? 

It is no longer that cliched maxim that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  What's now required is that extraordinary claims require DISPROOF under any conditions at the whim of any person at all - and based on any required premise up to and including the removal of all inductive components on the circuit - as well as a deliberate avoidance of any oscillation at all.  LOL.  That would, indeed, work to defeat our claim.  But I'm not about to indulge you.

Rosemary

[poynt99]

We've done this Poynty Point.  We've run this for plus/minus 5 hours a day over a 5 month period - on a variety of waveforms all indicating a net gain to the system and without any measurable loss of voltage to the batteries at all.  How long would you need?  Years? 

It is no longer that cliched maxim that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  What's now required is that extraordinary claims require DISPROOF under any conditions at the whim of any person at all - and based on any required premise up to and including the removal of all inductive components on the circuit - as well as a deliberate avoidance of any oscillation at all.  LOL.  That would, indeed, work to defeat our claim.  But I'm not about to indulge you.

Rosemary

All the readers here are fully aware that you are not about to indulge anyone or any notion that may threaten your claims.

First of all, 5 hours a day is not 24/7, which is what is required.

Second, "without any measurable loss of voltage to the batteries" does not cut it in terms of knowing what the batteries' state of charge is over time.

Present something with "substance" please. These airy arguments of yours are becoming quite tedious and boring. 

.99

[gauschor]

Oh I can also think of hot water and the use of steam turbines to produce electricity. But this obviously isn't it The Ainsle circuit was announced back in 2002 and 9 years have passed since then with "blabla", without practical demonstration nor use. I can guess why. Good luck, I'm out of here.

[TheCell]

A net gain by applying pulses to dead battery make inverters work, that previously could not provide the working voltage to the connected various loads.
This (well known ) individual has proven it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqDS8QQ_9Z0&feature=related