Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[Rosemary Ainslie]

So there it is folks, in classic form:

We are being asked to forget about the actual issues at hand, bury our heads in the sand along with Rose, and "move on". Move on and ignore the meat of the matter?

It's time to remove the rose-colored glasses and opt for a lens that allows for the true determination as to the validity of the claims.

Do the continuous test. Failing to do so will never get you beyond the "beyond a reasonable doubt" stage, and this nonsense will go on forever. 

.99

WHEN YOU HAVE THE WRITTEN GUARANTEE BY 5 OR MORE EXPERTS THAT IF WE OUTPERFORM THE BATTERY'S WATT HOUR RATING BY MORE THAN DOUBLE - THEN I WILL MOST CERTAINLY DO THOSE TESTS. 

THAT GUARANTEE MUST BE UNEQUIVOCAL AND REPRESENT ABSOLUTE ACCEPTANCE OF THE EVIDENCE AND BE SUFFICIENT TO THEN ALSO CARRY THE ENDORSEMENT OF THE ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.  WHEN YOU HAVE THAT GUARANTEE THEN I WILL CERTAINLY FIND THE TIME TO DO THOSE TESTS.  INDEED IT WILL BE MY ENTIRE FOCUS.

ROSEMARY

ADDED

So Poynty Point.  The onus is now on you.  Prove to me that I won't be wasting my time.  Under these circumstances I would LOVE to do those tests.  See if you can find 5 or more experts who have Doctorate accreditation - who  are expert at power analysis - and who are prepared to endorse ANY BATTERY RESULTS EVER - then I'm certainly game.  But you wont find this.  EVER.  NO EXPERT WILL DEPEND ON ANY BATTERY RESULTS AT ALL UNLESS THEY ARE FIRST EXPERTS AT CHEMISTRY - is the first point.  And then variables are such that multiple battery types would need to be tested.  Then the actual chemical changes will need to be fully analysed over the duration.  Then - at the end of this waste of time - they will find yet another required parameter to test.  At least our power engineering experts still rely on measurement.  That's because the WHOLE OF THE ARGUMENT IS IN THE MEASUREMENTS.  You are SO hoping to steer us away from this. 

God what an enormous waste of time you manage to engage us all in.  Clearly an expert at your mandate of propaganda and denial.

Rosemary

[poynt99]

You are engaging in logical fallacies. Clearly WilbyInebriated would have a field day with you if he so desired.

No experts of any kind are necessary to ably determine when and if a battery is clearly "dying" and losing it's charge. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to observe when a power source is clearly diminishing, and given a reasonable amount of time, say 1 month or 2 months, the evidence will be undeniable

Here is what's required (since you can't seem to muster a logical argument towards your fallacious detraction):

1) Set up the experiment to produce what you deem is the state where the load resistor is clearly heating substantially above T(ambient). In addition, ensure to your own satisfaction that the circuit is operating in a state where the battery is supplying no net energy to the production of heat in the load.

2) Turn off the system and take a baseline state of charge (SOC) check of the batteries using a hydrometer. As an added measure if you wish, take the temperature of the electrolyte.

3) Run the circuit continuously and perform this SOC check every 12 or 24 hours. Keep track of the day, hour, and hydrometer reading for each measurement.

4) Continue for 2 weeks or 1 month or 2 if necessary, at which time it is very likely the SOC trend will be clearly established. Most likely the trend will be evident within 72 hours so long as the heat being produced by the load is significant.

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

You are engaging in logical fallacies. Clearly WilbyInebriated would have a field day with you if he so desired.

No experts of any kind are necessary to ably determine when and if a battery is clearly "dying" and losing it's charge. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to observe when a power source is clearly diminishing, and given a reasonable amount of time, say 1 month or 2 months, the evidence will be undeniable

Here is what's required (since you can't seem to muster a logical argument towards your fallacious detraction):

1) Set up the experiment to produce what you deem is the state where the load resistor is clearly heating substantially above T(ambient). In addition, ensure to your own satisfaction that the circuit is operating in a state where the battery is supplying no net energy to the production of heat in the load.

2) Turn off the system and take a baseline state of charge (SOC) check of the batteries using a hydrometer. As an added measure if you wish, take the temperature of the electrolyte.

3) Run the circuit continuously and perform this SOC check every 12 or 24 hours. Keep track of the day, hour, and hydrometer reading for each measurement.

4) Continue for 2 weeks or 1 month or 2 if necessary, at which time it is very likely the SOC trend will be clearly established. Most likely the trend will be evident within 72 hours so long as the heat being produced by the load is significant.

.99

My dear Poynty Point. 

Right now I don't even have the time to read this.  But from a quick scan - I see you're still on about criteria for proof.  Here's the thing.  I'll do whatever it is that is required PROVIDED ONLY THAT THIS IS FIRST ENDORSED BY AT LEAST 5 EXPERTS AS BEING SUFFICIENT PROOF OF THE CLAIM.  AND THEN THAT CLAIM MUST THEN BE SUFFICIENT TO BE ENDORSED BY THE ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.  Otherwise, with respect - you're wasting my time.  I have NO interest in satisfying your own arbitrary criteria.  They're irrelevant and designed to confuse the facts with extraneous parameters that have NOTHING to do with the measurements.

Rosemary

[poynt99]

Otherwise, with respect - you're wasting my time.  I have NO interest in satisfying your own arbitrary criteria.  They're irrelevant and designed to confuse the facts with extraneous parameters that have NOTHING to do with the measurements.

Rosemary

I think most of the readers would agree that it is quite the contrary, and that running a continuous test gets directly to the heart of the matter in terms of the claims.

Not running the continuous test and instead muttering on about irrelevant things is what wastes people's time.

Stefan should demand no less than a properly conducted continuous test before allowing more of the nonsense that appears in this thread.

.99

[powercat]

I totally agree .99 if there is more energy then why can't it run continuously 
how about a comparison test heating the same amount of water with a fixed power supply and see if it runs any longer than a conventional circuit, or something like that.
It seems the arguments about measurements will continue on and on and on four ever
and at some point in the future this thread will be replaced with a new one maybe on another forum,
and the needle returns to the start of the song and we all sing along like we did before


http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=videos&search_query=Rosemary+Ainslie+circuit&search_sort=video_date_uploaded&suggested_categories=28&uni=3