Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[powercat]

Actually Cat it's you who are misleading. Plenty of replications on our previous circuit.  And even from members on this forum.  But you're right that no-one has replicated this circuit - other than on Poynty's sims.  But then you go on to say that we need to do something different?  We most certainly have something different.  This is an ENTIRELY different circuit - with ENTIRELY different results.  if you're going to object then I wonder if you couldn't just check these kind of facts first.  And like RomeroUK's circuit - ours has only been on this public forum for 3 months.
Indeed.  Again.  I'm happy to report that we have done something different.  ENTIRELY different.  And EVEN BETTER RESULTS. 
To the best of my recollection we've answered every single concern related to every measurement - that has ever been put to us. Grounding issues - answered.  Under sampling claims - answered.  Probe positioning concerns - answered.  Standard of measuring equipment - answered.  Impedance concerns - answered.  And since we've done this last WATER TO BOIL test - we've also answered any concerns related to out performance of battery capacity.  Remember?  We dissipate over 25 million Joules from a battery capacity that is AT THE MOST can only account for 10 million Joules.

Regards,
Rosemary

added

It would appear that yet again you are twisting everything said,and now you are ignoring Mr Mags,
I'm now beginning to understand what happened to fuzzyTomCat,I remember him way back before he got involved with you and turned it bitter and twisted, and then you go and make accusations about 99 that are clearly not true. Most of us can look back through 10 Pages or more and see the evidence that he posted for you, yet you accuse him of not Posting it 

Here is my repost with small update in the hope that you might try and answer with out trying to twist everything.

Quote from Rosemary Ainslie on June 24, 2011, 04:47:03 PM

Well Cat.  I think if you want to follow RomeroUK there's nothing stopping you.  I, personally, no longer have high hopes there. And if you're satisfied that we have nothing - then that's fine.  No-one is holding a gun to your head.  To me it seems that you're rather anxiously looking for a consensus opinion - on the efficacy of our system.  I'm afraid that science is NOT determined by consensus.  All one needs are the the measurements and some reasonable account of the apparatus that produces those measurements.
    Regards
    Rosemary

Quote
All one needs are the the measurements and some reasonable account of the apparatus that produces those measurements.

If that was the case why has no one in over two years reproduced your claim of OU,when you make statements like that,I have to respond as you are being misleading.
That's absolutely no one whatsoever on this forum has reproduced your claim off excess energy with your circuit, absolutely nobody has been successful, not a single member.

Please do something different On this forum,this forum is not your personal blog.
Many members have made reasonable requests that you ignore including Stefan,Mr Mag amongst others,
but you ignore them and carry on regurgitating your same old arguments.

If you're not going to interact with the members here to change the deadlock then there is no point in your thread, you already have a blog where no one can argue with what you're saying.

You are the one making the excess energy claims, no one here after two years can match those claims.
Please please please do something different Here on This forum,and stop ignoring reasonable quests for tests. Or stop claiming OU on This OverUnity Forum

[Rosemary Ainslie]

If that was the case why has no one in over two years reproduced your claim of OU,when you make statements like that,I have to respond as you are being misleading.

If no-one has replicated as you claim then explain the existence of this paper?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems

Which makes this statement ENTIRELY FALLACIOUS.

That's absolutely no one whatsoever on this forum has reproduced your claim off excess energy with your circuit, absolutely nobody has been successful, not a single member.

And as for the rest of your questions and statements they've been answered.  WE HAVE A NEW CIRCUIT.  I HAVE ANSWERED ALL QUESTIONS RELATING TO THAT CIRCUIT.  Here again is my post.

To the best of my recollection we've answered every single concern related to every measurement - that has ever been put to us. Grounding issues - answered.  Under sampling claims - answered.  Probe positioning concerns - answered.  Standard of measuring equipment - answered.  Impedance concerns - answered.  And since we've done this last WATER TO BOIL test - we've also answered any concerns related to out performance of battery capacity.  Remember?  We dissipate over 25 million Joules from a battery capacity that AT THE MOST can only account for 10 million Joules.

R.

NOW LET ME EMPHASISE THIS.  WE HAVE A NEW CIRCUIT.  WE DO NOT HAVE THE SAME CIRCUIT THAT WE USED BEFORE.  IT IS NEW.  SOMETHING DIFFERENT.  IT HAS ONLY BEEN MADE PUBLIC FOR THREE MONTHS - LESS THAN THAT.  IT IS NOT THE SAME AS THE PREVIOUS CIRCUIT. 

Not sure if there are many more ways to say the same thing.  But surely?  You must be able to understand at least one of those sentences?

Again,
R

corrected

[powercat]

If no-one has replicated as you claim then explain the existence of this paper?

Yet again you fail to see what is in front of you so I will say it again, no one on this fourum has reproduced your claim of OU I know members here have attempted to replicate your work but none of them whatsoever achieve any energy gain at all,  is this clear now

As for the new circuit which is pretty much based on the old circuit, I was very excited when I first saw this new thread, I even supported you through most of it, but yet again it has ended up like your last thread, no one on here can reproduce your results=OU
and despite repeated requests you just keep arguing the same measurement arguments.

I really could do with an excess energy circuit in my life,so could the rest of the world
but you seem unwilling to do anything different despite numerous requests.

Go on Rosie proof that 99 is wrong in his analysis and makes something that runs and run and put it on the Internet after all,
(Quote from Rosemary)
"All one needs are the the measurements and some reasonable account of the apparatus that produces those measurements".

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Yet again you fail to see what is in front of you so I will say it again, no one on this fourum has reproduced your claim of OU I know members here have attempted to replicate your work but none of them whatsoever achieve any energy gain at all,  is this clear now

And yet again you fail to read the evidence.  Here's that link again.  If this does NOT constitute a replication then BY RIGHTS it needs must be withdrawn.  As of NOW it is NOT withdrawn.  This is published by Fuzzy on his own Scribd file.  EXPLAIN THAT if you can.  To the best of my knowledge Fuzzy is a forum member.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems

As for the new circuit which is pretty much based on the old circuit, I was very excited when I first saw this new thread, I even supported you through most of it, but yet again it has ended up like your last thread, no one on here can reproduce your results=OU

Now you're doing that dance of the 7 veils that Poynt's so good at.  What you ACTUALLY said is that in 3 years NO-ONE has replicated our circuit.  You're right.  No-one has replicated this NEW circuit.  It's only been PUBLIC for less than 3 months.  Which possibly explains why it was not replicated earlier. You remember you explained that this is why no-one has replicated RomeroUK's circuit?  That statement where you brushed aside certain parallels I drew?  So?  What exactly makes it understandable in Romero's case that does that not apply to ours? And may I add.  It is as much like the previous circuit as drizzle is to a thunderstorm - or as a breeze is to a tornado - or as I've mentioned before - as a gentle ripple is to a tsunami.  So DON'T give me - 'it's much the same as'...  The only point where it corresponds is that it's still a switched circuit.  And it's still powered by batteries.

...and despite repeated requests you just keep arguing the same measurement arguments.

And here's another example of your quintessentially reasonable requests.  Effectively I must sit here with my hands folded and my eyes closed and my mouth shut?  Is that it?  While Poynty applies a sledgehammer to the subtleties of this circuit?  Is that to what end?  To make your life more bearable?  I suppose that's fair.  Why not?  What the hell?  Who cares?  And why bother?  Definitely a good argument.  It's as reasonable as taking a stick of dynamite to Michelangelo's David to test it's durability.  And then to argue that it's durability is a measure of it's value as a work of art.  A really good litmus test. 

I really could do with an excess energy circuit in my life, so could the rest of the world but you seem unwilling to do anything different despite numerous requests.

And as for this statement.  It seems that I've not satisfied your precise requirement for excess energy so I must go away?  You don't even have the wherewithal to determine whether or not there's excess energy.  For this you depend on that consensus which, as I've pointed out has NOTHING to do with science.  But I must oblige you and just go away because you're more inclined to go with Poynty's OPINION?  And this because NO-ONE who contributes to this forum has replicated our circuit?  Despite the fact that no-one has ever tried?  Like I say.  It's fair comment.

Go on Rosie prove that 99 is wrong in his analysis and makes something that runs and run and put it on the Internet after all,

Gladly.  Any time you want.  Just make it worth my while.  Either pay for that experiment - or get 4 academics to say that that will be proof positive.  I've already got 1 who'd go on record.  So.  That's a convenient number - a handful.

(Quote from Rosemary)

"All one needs are the the measurements and some reasonable account of the apparatus that produces those measurements".

If you're going to quote me then put it in context.  I seem to recall saying something about your reliance on consensus opinion to determine science.  Let me say it again.  All one needs are the measurements and some reasonable account of the apparatus that produces those measurements.  Which by default means that consensus opinion is a really BAD way to try and determine the validity of science.  One needs MEASUREMENTS.  Not OPINION.

R
A much needed qualification to that statement as there have INDEED been replications.  But the replicators WISELY do NOT POST HERE.  They daren't.  They're very aware of the agendas that they'd be up against.  On OU.COM THEY ABOUND

[Rosemary Ainslie]

So?  CAT? What do you say now?  And guys - here's the sad and sorry truth.  You all claim that your interests are in exploring OU.  To even entertain the possibility of OU one needs to confront a HUGE chapter in science that claims that it's an impossible reach.  At it's least it needs a certain independence in the mind set.  A kind of courage in the face of majority opinion. You are all so apparently 'brave' and so 'determined'.  Pioneers of new age thinking.  But scratch the surface and all we've actually got are a lot of mediocre minds that promote science by consensus.  And your evidence is based on such a poor foundation of power analysis that you cannot recognise OU if it were to stand up and do a tap dance. 

But there's NO WANT of courage.  All you need to do is to drown out the voice of reason with as little justification as mainstream manage when they hound out the evidence that we've made available.  I am of the opinion that the RomeroUK's evidence was intended as a 'distraction' from our own claim and that Romero was co-operating with that agenda.  The sad truth is that it worked.  But as ever - truth WILL OUT.

Now back to our evidence.  Let me see if I can put this as clearly as is possible.  We have taken water to boil with a measured output of about 25 million Joules.  The battery's maximum capacity is about 10 million Joules.  That's just on ONE test.  Those same batteries have been used extensively and continually for over 10 months.  THEY ARE STILL AT THE SAME LEVEL OF CHARGE AS WHEN WE FIRST RECEIVED THEM.  THEN.  We have applied CLASSICAL MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS to some 50 or more tests - or to state this more precisely, we've applied some 50 variations to the settings.  THEY INVARIABLY show an INFINITE COP - by which it seems that MORE energy is being returned to the battery than has been dissipated.  That's using classical measurements analysis. 

I can do NO MORE than report on this evidence.  If you choose to ignore the evidence then - OBVIOUSLY - that is your right.  But the downside is this.  We're running out of time.  My own suspicion is that our Mother Nature has had a belly full.  I think she will snuff out this little experiment in humanity - without compunction.  And why not?   We're evidently nasty unprincipled characters who are cluttering her natural balances with an excess in population numbers and a critical indifference to her natural orders.  And when she takes the trouble to show us all how to avoid those excesses then there are enough of those unprincipled self-serving characters to DETRACT from those solutions - that they'll never actually see the light of day.  So.  IF we're looking at some kind of Armageddon - but this time a battle beween us and Nature Herself - then we deserve it.  And of the two - I'd put my money with Nature winning that battle.  She's got the edge.

Rosemary