Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[i_ron]

Rosie is one that is claiming OU for the last two years.
I feel I have now seen more than enough to form my own conclusion (it doesn't work as claimed)
It is indeed very interesting research but Rosie is claiming OU not me
so can you Ron substantiate that claim of OU, if you can you have done something that other members like Woopy, Gotoluc, TinselKoala  have missed in the last two years.

Good luck with this one Ron, you persevered with Thane Heins maybe you'll get lucky with Rosie

Rosie's work is very interesting and I'm learning a lot but that aside, claiming OU for the last two years 

An interesting comment PC, gotoluc worked with Thane just before I did, yet I have never heard him speak one way or another on Thane. I quite like gotoluc's channel and subscribe. I think he does a lot to further interest in this fascinating field.

If you look at my video's you will see my first love is still Veljko's pendulum, followed by Flynn/Hildendrand motors, with a wee bit of coil shorting thrown in.

BUT, I am not really interested in OU, I just like building things. It leads to all sorts of specialized knowledge, keeps the grey matter active! Yes, I am still learning things at my age, plus I get to try out some totally new chips, it is fascinating.

I have followed Rosie's device for years. I have read all the forums, I know people who have tried this... with no success, so what is it you are trying to tell me? Only experiment with known proven devices like the wheel or kleenex? Never ever venture into unknown territory? Stay inside the box, do not have any thoughts of your own that are contrary to you peers?

I do this because its fun. I will form my own conclusions when I am ready to. I enjoy meeting and working with these kind of people, who like to contribute to society with their original ideas. I learn things.

Ron

Edit: 13,000 hits on my pendulum build and 10,000 on my coil winder, I find that incredible... but notice TK was the only one to seriously question my mentality... now I will be able to add you guys to the list also

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Golly - all that I see is more and more polarised opinion.  Actually PC - there have been many replications and validations.  Let me list them.
 
BP South Africa, ABB Research (NC), SASOL (SA) (who also offered a bursary award to UCT - which was declined), Spescom (SA), CSIR (SA) (confirmed  an anomaly but confined comments to one insignificant result ONLY) And between this lot - not less than 18 qualified electrical engineers - at least.  Other smaller companies and their engineers - not less than plus/minus 60 engineers - at least.

Then. AT PUBLIC DEMONSTRATIONS - including a demonstration held at MTN Sciencentre in CT where the viewers were numbered in their hundreds.  Unfortunately no academics and no experts.  Also, an earlier demo held at the conference rooms of Price Waterhouse Coopers, at least 50 members of the public and two academics.  The one academic deferred to his colleague - Professor Green who refused to comment other than saying that there were probably measurement errors.  Professor Green absolutely refused to investigate the matter further.   

THEN on the INTERNET.  FuzzyTomCat who was guided into the required waveforms by myself over many, many, many hours of discussion via SKYPE - who then replicated, allowed his data to be referenced in a paper and then systematically withdrew his data and proceeded to deny my rights to reference the work at all - notwithstanding some earlier disclosures on open source. And that evidence was seen and made available in a detailed paper which was, in turn, seen by about 3000 people on SCRIBD. Then I had my own version of the paper at SCRIBD which was withdrawn by SCRIBD on claims of plagiarism by FuzzyTomCat. Approximately 5000 hits prior to withdrawal.

And still on the subject of publications - we also had a publication in Quantum Magazine where there was a readership in the thousands.  And the publication of that paper on the internet has drawn a readership - probably upwards of of 10 000.  All culminating in our DEMO held on the 12 March, 2011 - at CPUT - where we had 15 qualified electrical engineers view the historical event of COP INFINITY - and subsequent reports and discussions of this which is certainly upwards of 1000 a day and climbing.

I need to remind you all about this.  Because what happens is that a handful of individuals including the following, Poynty, Harvey, Ion, Pickle, MileHigh, CatLady, FuzzyTomCat, Ashtweth, Mookie, Peterae and possibly a few others here - all vociferously and unfailingly and somewhat disproportionately and certainly very, very urgently - deny all.  Which inclines me to suppose that there is possibly an agenda in all their denial.  I think I've covered it all.  Hope so anyway,

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Edited layout and emphases.  Should have added many more who've seen this and stand by these numbers but the subject is getting boring.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys - Poynty's simulations are meaningless.  He's been 'hoisted by his own petard' in as much as he's duplicated the waveforms from the 'get go'.  And he could not have done that without the transpositions of the MOSFETS.

But I grant that there are ongoing confusions.  If there are any related to how we've positioned those MOSFETs - then please just do this.  Put the one to the other  Q1 and Q2 - Gate to source, drain to drain, Source to Gate.  That way you'll have configured it as required.  When it comes to an illustration of this - then, convention mitigates against a clear presentation.  This because the 'gate' is conventionally shown as being between the source and the gate legs. 

Then - it is more than likely that I'm describing this wrongly.  I'll ask my team how I should describe it.  But here's what I mean.  There are two leads off the functions generator.  The one 'positive' goes to the gate of Q1 - the second whether it's properly described as 'ground' or 'negative' or whatever, - that one goes to the gate of Q2.  Sorry guys.  It's the best I can do.  And that's only if you use a functions generator at all.  I'm absolutely not able to assist when it comes to moving away from a functions generator - or at it's least - a 555.  But there's a way of doing this too.  And I'm rather relying on your own skills here to find out how to get some energy into the system that may at least be usable.  I think thay Groundloop may have some interesting thoughts here. 

What we need to do is move away from any more discussion with Poynty - as it relates to those simulations.  If he could oblige us here then that would be appreciated.  Unfortunately it's what he knows and what he does best.  What would be far more to the desirable is if he takes the trouble to build a replication or even a variation. I confidently predict that he will NOT find benefit because that conforms to his agenda.  But it would be nice to be proved wrong.  If he sees no value in doing this - then, as I've said, move away that we can move on.  Otherwise we'll be spending another 2 years discussing the correct diagrammatic illustration of the FETs when we should be discussing how to apply this.

And what I assure you is that there are some hefty energies available in our little circuit and there is no limit to the number of ways this can be configured.  And that's its strength.  It is only a kind of generic illustration of how that BEMF can be exploited.  And there are a lot more of generating this BEMF than is traditionally expected. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Edited.  Spelling and gramma   

[Rosemary Ainslie]

 

It seems either I or this poor little circuit of mine is again under discussion at OUR.com.  POYNTY?  Am I again denied access?  Are you AGAIN conferring behind closed doors?

Whatever next?   

Guys - it seems that Poynty is playing his cards rather close to the chest.  If any of you can see what gives there I'd be very glad if you could email me with some copies.  My best email is ainslie@mweb.co.za.  Otherwise they'll be 'plotting' and I won't be able to discover their 'next move'.  LOL

Unless, of course, OUR.com is no longer public.  That would be a really good thing. 

Regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

hi all

So far ,my small intelligence is able to think that , when people are not interested  in a subject , normally they leave it, and the sayd subject desapears from itself
.
very simple isn'it ?

But in the Rose's  subject not only it does not desapears , but the subject seems so important that it requires a POLL , to see if the members of this forum apreciate or not the discussion or the proposed and defended object. DU GENRE "good or not good "

We are going to court here. OOUUUPSS !!! I did not know that a forum could go so far !!   Simply ridiculous at my eyes sorry !!

Another time this circuit seems not so difficult or too expensive to replicate for such elevated and educated people as you P.99 and others here
.
Why don't you test it in real life ? so everything would be OK .

So we could be clear if  the circuit is in accordance with what Rose claims , or not and BASTA !

good luck at all

Laurent


Wow Rose your work is really interesting and provoque a huge interest

Thanks Laurent.