Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[powercat]

Golly.  Whatever next?
Rosemary

A new Chronophage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PeG2HsXbpw
The most beautiful clock I have seen 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

A new Chronophage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PeG2HsXbpw
The most beautiful clock I have seen 

WOW.  That's really, really nice.  Thanks for that Cat.

Rosie

[utilitarian]

Utiliarian - I am not about to try and impress anyone about anything at all.  And as delectable as a million dollars may be - nor do I believe there is any sincere intention of proving anything at all.  If it's perpetual motion that he wants to see - then properly it should have been paid out by now.  There is at LEAST one working device on show that has been working perpetually for some many years now.  I just, for the life of me, can't remember the man's name.  If I do I'll append it here.

Well what you do is up to you, but as far as Finsrud, the problem with submitting his device is that (1) he himself claims that it is just art, and not a "real" perpetual motion device, and (2) he will not reveal the inner workings of his device, specifically what is hidden in the center column.

So given that disqualification, that leaves the number of working perpetual motion devices at exactly zero.  Given that your device clearly shows a COP of infinity, and I have no doubt that this is true, it should be child's play to convert this into perpetual motion.

The Randi prize would also instantly make worldwide news and give you the credibility you seek to get into academic circles.

I have read extensively about this prize and it seems to be completely on the level.  There have numerous preliminary tests conducted by the Randi Foundation, and these have been conducted very fairly, to the satisfaction of both the the foundation and the applicant.  No applicant has passed the preliminary test required to show paranormal activity, but the foundation given many people full chances.

Here is an example of test done:  http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=118952

The fact that no one has claimed the prize says something important - no one motivated enough to seek $1 Million has been able to back up his or her claims.  But you can be the first, and it would make quite a worldwide splash.  I cannot conceive of why you would not want to.  If not for the money, think of advancing your work to mainstream.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Well what you do is up to you, but as far as Finsrud, the problem with submitting his device is that (1) he himself claims that it is just art, and not a "real" perpetual motion device, and (2) he will not reveal the inner workings of his device, specifically what is hidden in the center column.

So given that disqualification, that leaves the number of working perpetual motion devices at exactly zero.  Given that your device clearly shows a COP of infinity, and I have no doubt that this is true, it should be child's play to convert this into perpetual motion.

The Randi prize would also instantly make worldwide news and give you the credibility you seek to get into academic circles.

Hi again utilitarian.  I believe that Watkin and Hill and our Mr Finsrud are all dead - unfortunately.  The Cavendish Pile - I think - is meant to be chemical.  Finsrud's is purely mechanical.  And they all three - really HAVE produced perpetual motion.  I most CERTAINLY have not.  What I have, I think, is conservation of charge - and THAT as a required principle in physics - is already widely accepted.  Just that it's not - typically - applied to electric energy.

But there's no question that I can run these batteries that they outperform their watt hour ratings.  And I would be glad to do so - provided ONLY - that that result is then considered sufficient proof of the thesis.   

What I am attempting is to draw attention to some much needed revision in the measure of electric energy.  Thus far it's been 'grouped' under the 2nd Law.  My thinking is that it should, properly be under the 3rd Law.  Then.  All that excess in efficiency will be very easily explained.  And then too we'll all be given the required license to exploit it.  Which would be very nice.

But to evaluate this as a perpetual motion machine would be WRONG.  Possibly there are ways to configure it that it can better exploit that excess.  But I'm very aware of my limitations utilitarian.  All I can do is point at this particular build and hope, eventually, that I'll get some experts to the table.  Not an entirely lost cause.  Right now there are two who are considering the applied protocols.  If it passes then I think they're both courageous enough to endorse the 'anomaly'.  And once that's in the bag then - it'll be much, much closer to getting all this better known.

Again.  Thanks for the input.  I think you should seriously consider representing two deceased estates and looking to benefits for their heirs.  It may prove lucrative.  LOL

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[poynt99]

Poynty Point.  Do you EVER read what I write?  OF COURSE I'LL DO THIS.  But first get me 5 or so EXPERTS to advise me in writing that this will constitute ABSOLUTE PROOF - and I'll gladly run all the required tests and their controls.  Then - when those tests are concluded I will require those same experts to acknowledge those results in writing.  GOOD HEAVENS.  Historically we haven't got a single expert to even acknowledge perpetual motion - notwithstanding the evidence.  Not a good thing Poynty.  You must admit.  I sort of imagine myself beetling around until the day I die and then hearing you all say - 'NOT GOOD ENOUGH.  Until it's run for 1000 years - it's just hearsay'.  You see for yourself what our poor Mr Reider Finsrud managed. 

As ever,
Rosie

Do you need proof from 5 auto mechanics to assure you that your car engine has stopped running or that the petrol is decreasing?

You seemed to have completely missed the point of the analogy. You have your assertion that the batteries supply no net energy to the circuit, yet you have provided no credible proof of that assertion. That means that there remains enough doubt about your assertion to require further or different testing. Obviously most if not all the readers here embrace this doubt as well, otherwise there would be widespread attempts to replicate, of which I see none.

So, to put the issue to bed, there is one definitive test that can produce undeniable results, and that is the continuous operation test I have already proposed and laid out for you. The results will be clear, certain, and undeniably correct. All doubt about whether the batteries' state of charge declines or not will be put to rest.

You do not require the endorsement from any "experts" in order to see the logic and clarity in this method. Your denial of this fact is obviously a ploy being used to skirt around the real issue at hand. It's quite apparent the proposed test makes you very nervous. You really should afford the readers here more credit. Your denial of this test based on some nonsensical notion that it first requires the endorsement of 5 experts is an insult to the readership here. Your insecurity about this test and the potential results are more than obvious.

Perform the test, and put the issue to rest. Do the right thing.

.99