Solid State Switching Devices and Over Unity

[TinselKoala]

For those of you... you know who.... who are "eyesight deficient".... all you have to do is to click on the image and it will be enlarged in-line for you. Further, if you click on the little link below each image, you can download it to your own computer and magnify it all you like. Even further, your browser has the built-in ability to magnify anything it is displaying with a couple of mouse clicks or keystrokes.

Now..... fancy this. Rosemary Ainslie has THREE separate accounts on YouTube. The famous Video Demonstration of March 12, 2011 was posted by her on her "dooziedont" channel on March 22, 2011...... and she lied about the schematic used until .99 discovered the real arrangement of the components on April 18th. And then she admitted that she actually wanted to continue the coverup and was disappoynted in .99 for revealing the truth. And now.... she has removed that video from You Tube. It's gone. Gone from her channel, gone from the links that she posted to it in her old blog and on this forum. Fancy that.
The video which contains those misrepresentations about the schematic used, the outright lie that there were 5 mosfets in parallel,  that mysteriously removes one battery so the mosfets don't overheat in the second half, that has scopeshots that refute the claims made...... that video is now vanished. Removed from human ken, hidden away so that no one can see it and criticise it.

Or is it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8AIRkWF55k

[fritz]

Solid State Switching Devices and Electrochemistry
.....
is a wide field. Charging efficiency might vary up to 100%, desulfation effects can give another 30% boost, measuring even with modest equipment  - needs probably more than an academic degre - e.....
RA is definitly haunted by these setups - in  every consequence - whatever that means.
She had her audience here - and thats it.
Is there a way to stop these endless discussions ?

[TinselKoala]

I didn't start this thread. Stop the endless discussions? Sure.... get Ainslie and her sock puppets to stop making false claims.

I have just found Yet Another active YouTube account that Ainslie maintains.

http://www.youtube.com/user/aetherevarising
http://www.youtube.com/user/dooziedont
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCl_CaI0BzcLgmW7aFWM29WQ
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAbOZ4AUgzJBbit6Yu_ee-g

Who needs four separate active YouTube accounts, and why?

[TinselKoala]

Hah..... Ainslie digs herself in even deeper. She has chosen to respond to some of the above in her honey-pot forum where nobody can question her or criticize her.

Another love letter to Bryan Little - aka TK

My sweet little pickle,

I see that your talents at equivocation are keeping pace with the growth of your Greatly Reduced Empathy - or - as you refer it - your 'GRE'.  I'm given to understand that this is the actual measure of your sociopathy.  Great INDEED.  In general - these efforts of yours may also add a few pickles to your general stature.  Much needed.  So I commend you.  And I've always enjoyed the mental machinations (MM) of the severely challenged. 

"Per", as in "miles per hour" or "Joules per second" NEVER indicates division.
Quite right.  'per' simply indicates the 'unit' that is applied to the measure of anything at all - that the sum or the product can then be divided, multiplied, added, subtracted, compounded - fractured... and on and on.  DELIGHTED that you see this.  Strictly speaking PER implies 'for each'.   It most certainly is NOT confined to 'divisions'.  NOR does it mean 'divide'. 

Can you believe this? She still tries to maintain her mathematically completely illiterate position, in spite of all the reference material available.

There is no such thing as Inductive Reactance.
Not actually.  Inductive reactance is the EXCUSE that our Poynty Point uses to discount our measured gains.  What you need to understand is that this CANNOT be applied to a battery's measurements because a battery does not have INDUCTANCE.  And Poynty Point can't use this excuse on our numbers any more because we use NON INDUCTIVE CURRENT SENSING RESITORS in series with the battery - is my point.

What you need to understand is that YOU HAVE BEEN QUOTED HERE, with references, showing that you have said that there is "no such animal" as inductive reactance, and your very own words show, and continue to show, that you have no idea what you are talking about, you merely parrot big fancy words that you read somewhere. And any physical conductor, INCLUDING ANY BATTERY, has inductance, and therefore inductive reactance.

In South Africa, the Solstice (or is it the Equinox) comes in July.
Quite right - my little pickle.  I was a month behind the times.  Not too shabby considering that I have GREAT difficulty even remembering which day it is. 

Quite right. And I am not your pickle, little or otherwise, although we know how you yearn for your pickles.

One Watt is one Joule, the terms are interchangeable.
One Joule is one Watt per Second.
Quite right.  They are INDEED interchangeable values.  Just their terms are applied separately.

Keep it up, you are doing fine. On a roll, typical Ainslie-speak. Showing that you still do not grasp the difference between a QUANTITY and a RATE, two entirely different and definitely NOT INTERCHANGEABLE items. Is a Mile the same thing as a Mile Per Second? Apparently in Ainslie-speak they are.

"0.8" and "one-eighth" are the same quantity, and 800 microFarads is more than one-third of a Farad.
LOL.  I was NEARLY right.  Out by a factor of 10?  Again.  Not bad considering my advanced years and all the associated difficulties.   (http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/Smileys/default/smiley.gif)

Nearly? A factor of 10? Guess again, or use your calculator. If you know how to use a calculator, that is. I have never encountered anyone so very proud of, and indeed protectful of, her ignorance.

80 + 20 = 104.
I'm ROLLING here.  I think this is CERTAINLY an adventurous attempt at mathematics.  Either that or a simple misprint.  Either way - it proves that I'm not controlled by convention.  And it also proves how deep you need to reach into that pickle barrel.

Actually, I think you are right, it's a misprint on my part. What you ACTUALLY "calculated", istr was 82+20=104. (Yes, that was it, I've attached the image of the post below.)
And this is not a deep reach at all--- it is from the very calculation that you use to make your claim of overunity performance. The one that I have reproduced in a post further up above, so everyone can see what you do when you THINK you are performing an energy calculation. The one you have admitted was wrong, but that you have NEVER REDONE CORRECTLY. The one that you draw your conclusions from, which you have never revised in spite of the tremendous errors in the original calculation.

Again, I invite all interested parties to perform the calculation for themselves, and then decide whether Ainslie's conclusions are justified or supported in the least by their result.

Water can exist as a liquid in South Africa in an open container at 104 degrees C.
Not actually - my sweet little pickle.  Here you equivocate - YET AGAIN.  The probe was connected to the HEATER ELEMENT.  It was measuring some combination between that and the water.  Again... the link
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2311.msg4055.html#msg4055

That's right.... YOU NEVER MEASURED THE TEMPERATURE OF THE WATER, yet you claimed in many places to have "taken water to boil" and you mentioned the quantity, variously "about a liter", 700 ml, 800 ml. So did you "take water to boil", or not? What does that phrase mean in South Africa? Around here, it means the water is boiling, but I guess YMMV.

I Took water to boil... but really, the water wasn't actually boiling... there were tiny bubbles.
No.  NOT what is claimed.  read this link...
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php?action=paper1

Read the link. The "paper" claims you "took water to boil" .... and your blog post says "the water wasn't actually boiling... there were small bubbles." These are direct quotes from YOU, Ainslie. Would you like to retract them now? I at first said that you had written "tiny" instead of "small" .... my bad. Does that invalidate my argument? I laugh at you.

From your link:

VI. Test 3: To Determine the Practicality of the Circuit Potential by Taking Water to Boil A. Test 3 Setup  The schematic in Fig. 1 refers with the following settings: 5 batteries x 12 volts each were applied in series. The offset of the functions generator is increased by a fraction to 0.186 volts applied across R_SHUNT during the ON period of the switching cycle (Fig. 6 and Fig. 7). The switching period was set to approximately 120 milliseconds.

B. Test 3 Results  The cycle mean and mean average voltage across the shunt measured a negative voltage as did the math trace being a product of the battery and R_SHUNT voltages. These negative values remained throughout the 1.6 hour test period. The temperature at the R_L1 rose steadily to 248°C. The element resistor (R_L1) was then immersed in about 0.85 liters of water and the water temperature then steadied at approximately 82°C. The switching period was then increased and set to approximately 1.25 milliseconds as evident in Fig. 7. The temperature of the water then rose to 104°C in less than 10 minutes. The battery voltage both rose and fell marginally, throughout this entire test period and measured 62.1 volts prior to concluding that test period.

The temperature OF THE WATER rose to 104 degrees, you claim in the paper. But now you tell us that you did not measure the temperature of the water. Your paper claims that you "took water to boil". But in your blog post you said "The water wasn't actually boiling but it had small bubbles."

A Function Generator cannot pass current between its "probe" and its "terminal" output leads.
Not actually.  A Function generator cannot pass current between its 'probe' and its 'terminal' output leads FROM A BATTERY.  In this case the battery is the energy supply source to a circuit.  You've left out the ACTUAL point.  Again this link refers...
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php?action=paper1

Once again, I have provided the DIRECT QUOTE where you make your absurd claim, and I have proven you to be wrong FROM A BATTERY, in several YouTube Video demonstrations, and also anyone who knows FGs, like fritz in his post above, knows what a crock your statement is, and how it demonstrates your ignorance and arrogance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuBWVmRmUtc

Her batteries do not discharge.
Not actually.  Not even close.  AGAIN.  Here's the LINK...
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php?action=paper1

You have indeed made the claim that your batteries do not discharge, many times. COP INFINITY, remember? But your batteries DO discharge, as anyone can demonstrate for themselves by making the circuit and testing it, as I and many others have done.

TK and MrSean2k have hacked into her computers several times.
INDEED.  And UNLESS you show the LINK where you obtained some waveforms that you've put on public record - then this is NOT an allegation.  It is a PROVEN FACT.

And here you make that ridiculous, paranoid and libellous accusation yet again, without a shred of evidence in support. PROVEN FACT? Where is your proof? You have none, because there is none, and EVERY BIT OF INFORMATION that I posted concerning YOU, your data, and your contacts was originally posted publicly BY YOU on the internet. And I have the screenshot images -- which YOU cannot edit the way you edit your posts, months after you've made them -- to prove it.

TK is someone called "Brian Little" (or Bryan).
INDEED.  And unless I become the recipient of some papers initiating action against this - then I MUST conclude that my information is SPOT ON. 

Rather logically challenged there, aren't you? Unless I receive some papers initiating action against my determination that "Rosemary Ainslie" is in fact Maria Krebs, formerly of Johannesburg, then I MUST conclude that my information is SPOT ON.
Idiot.

Anyway my sweet 'ickle pickle'.  Far be it from me to take you altogether seriously.  I know the severe intellectual constraints you are forced to endure coupled with that demanding mandate you have from 'the boss' - to DENY all measured proof of over unity.  Yours is an IMPOSSIBLE task - as you have to either deny the evidence or refute it.  And INCREASINGLY it's apparent that you're failing - hopelessly.  if it's any comfort I'm still in AWE of those 62 pickles that you use to bolster your self-esteem.  MOST impressive.  But possibly in need of PROOF?  Your only lack is in your understanding of physics.  But you more than compensate in you total lack of decency.

As ever,
Rosie Pose

I am in awe of this amazing display of ignorance, arrogance, insult and libel that Ainslie has emitted.

[e2matrix]

You are mistaken.

It is RA that said there is no such thing as Inductive Reactance.

I guess if you had read along more carefully, you may have already realized that.

Yep I missed that by a mile      Must of been very late and blurry eyed....