Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[MileHigh]

Rosemary:

I am here because I want to be here and it is fun.  I am no angel and have said a few nasty things but so have you and so has just about everybody else.  Emotions can run high.  You also know that a typical believer has a very limited technical background and they simply observe and offer encouragement from time to time.  Without the skeptics then nothing really happens on these threads.  The pattern is very familiar, the same thing is happening on the "IST! NEO ZAP! TECK Breakthrough" thread.   Somebody is sparking a wire by connecting it to a coil and battery in series and there are believers taking it all in like it is real.  It the same old story:  The believers don't understand that the coil is storing energy from the battery and the spark is in fact a demonstration of the conservation of energy, not over unity.

Nor do I like seeing my education and the 400+ years of science that forms its foundation trashed by people that barely understand energy or electronics.  I am not picking on you or Aaron here, I am making a generic statement.

Without the skeptics everyone would have been convinced a long time ago that the circuit works.   It's funny I saw Jibbguy's comment that the skeptics are being "used" to test the wider waters when the "discoveries" associated with your circuit "go global."  lol  It will be on CNN 24/7 - the most important story of the 21st century - not.

I made a mistake on the scope grounding and admitted it right away, but I did not make a mistake on the cap test.  The other components in the circuit are heating up because they are burning off battery power.  That in and of itself is telling you that the battery is providing power to the circuit.

The battery voltage going up by 0.02 volts means nothing.  Take the same type of battery and connect an appropriate resistor across it so you know the battery is definitely putting power into the load and it would not be surprising to see the battery voltage going up also.  A few times you have mentioned the vagaries of battery chemistry and that is correct.

The fantasy ending for this story is for you and Aaron to look at your data and say, "We were wrong and we learnt something," but I kind of doubt that we will be hearing that from Aaron.

The same two questions are still there:  Cap test?  Standard setup test for COP 17?

MileHigh

[Rosemary Ainslie]

MileHigh - I am intrigued at what you find fun?  I hope I've never found it fun to 'scoff' at people as you seem to enjoy.  Still - if it floats your boat - there's nothing to stop you.  Just reflects rather sadly on your needs here.

Regarding the certainties of your 'power stored'.  Take a look at Tom Valone's work.  He IS an expert and he is pointing to precisely the 'small' evidence that I believe is apparent on a switching circuit.  The 400 odd years of scientific development has not now been concluded.  It is only now beginning to reach into the energy field that has also know been been acknowledged by mainstream quantum and classical theorists.  That will NEVER fit into the learning you were taught.  What do you do with this?  Deny it because your teachers never told you about it?

I have NEVER known any battery voltage climb when subjected to any kind of load - with the entire exception of loads applied to a switching circuit.  If you know of exceptions here then you should take heed.  It flies in the face of - and CANNOT be explained in terms of battery vagaries.  One battery may differ in performance from another.  But show me please, where classicists predict that a battery can recharge under load.

While I'd hate to deny you your 'fun' I wonder if you could perhaps find a way to enjoy this without costing others their fair share of this.  I appreciate that alternate opinions are vital.  But they do not need paraded with the full force of opinionated bigotry.

[MileHigh]

Hey Rosemary,

You get a lot of nasty digs in about me in that posting.  Looking at Aaron trying to make a big deal about a digital multimeter displaying "- 00.00" and considering that he has been playing and tinkering with electronics for 10 years is worth scoffing at.

The battery voltage climbing by a measly 0.02 volts could just be related to the temperature, as has been stated before.  Your claim that the battery is "recharging under load" is based on the observation that it's voltage climbed a fraction of a volt over time and is incorrect.  Common sense is telling you that the battery is discharging because components are heating up.  Aaron tried the "magic battery" argument and I made a whole posting to debunk that argument because it simply does not apply here.  The DSO and meter readings are inconclusive by any reasonable standard of measurement, and you and Aaron are effectively hiding behind those inconclusive measurements.

With respect to batteries, I have mentioned to Aaron multiple times that he should start making output impedance measurements but that comment is simply not acknowledged.  I have to assume that for 10 years Aaron has been erroneously working with battery voltage increases and decreases and it is too much for him to accept that this is in fact basically nonsense data.  I also assume that Aaron does not understand the concept of the output impedance for a battery.

Don't you dare call me a bigot.  You know where the worst hate speech is on the two forums?  It's coming from pixie faerie Joit.  Go after him if you want to fight bigotry.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

Something from Wikipedia that relates to "Doc" Tom Valone:

>>>
Warren National University was a post-secondary, distance learning, unaccredited private university offering undergraduate and graduate degrees in the United States, based in Cheyenne, Wyoming. Until December 14, 2007, its administrative offices were located in Agoura Hills, California. [3] The institution was established in California in 1984 under the name Kennedy-Western University, and adopted its new name in 2007. The university had reportedly been economically successful[4] targeting mid-career professionals. It has also been the subject of controversy and criticism due in part to involvement in a U.S. federal government investigation. The Chronicle of Higher Education said, "The university was notable for its slick marketing and for doling out credit for 'life experience.'
>>>

Very similar to the "Doc" Peter Lindemann experience.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Sorry MileHigh.  I probably overreached here.  Let me rather stick to the point.

In order to prove that a battery is not discharging one needs to evaluate the energy delivered by a battery by taking some sort of reliable voltage measurement across the shunt to determine the polarity of the current flow and the amount.  That's obvious. Now.  If the battery is, in fact not discharging - then the value is likely to be zero volts indicating zero current.  That's also obvious.  Then how do we prove this if, having discovered a zero voltage it is then denied precisely because that value is zero.  You've taken away the very grounds we need to prove the argument.  Therefore you've proved your argument and we will never be able to prove ours.  Is that fair?

But to add further force to your argument and to continue to deny any to ours - you then state that the battery voltage climb is co-incident with some heating? somewhere? evidently not in the room as ambient stayed pretty constant.  And while a recharge is indicated in our measurements - the fact of it is still considered co-incident with something other than returning energy?  Come on MileHigh.  Give us a much needed break here.

There is one thing that one gets a feel for - having been on these forums for a while now, and that is the muscle of the different contributors.  You've got so much of it MileHigh.  Try and use it more impartially - is all I'm asking.  And valone also talks about battery charge.  It's got properties that seem to be consistent with the casimir effect - precisely because of the polarity of current flow.  Please look him up.  He's an acknowledged expert in the art.  Not a rank presumptuous amateur which is the kindest thing that could be said about my own efforts here.  I'm not excited at Aaron's results.  I'm excited if they can be replicated.  At least Fuzzy's close to this.  A few more efforts from different contributors and who knows?  Maybe we'll get enough replication to actually have even this effect considered.  The theoretical implications here are far more mind bending than our own published experiment.  Surely you see this?

I apologise - wholeheartedly for suggesting that you're opinions are bigotted.  I had no right.  Golly.  I really did over step.  Sorry.