Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[MileHigh]

Rosemary:

I am not strong with respect to cutting-edge theoretical physics, I just read the occasional article or watch a PBS Nova like anybody else.  With that said, as far as I am concerned ZPE does not even exist, it is just a theoretical concept, and in the context of the believers, it is 'out there' and you just have to figure out a way to get at it.  A Bedini motor rates high on the enthusiasm scale for a "ZPE 'generator'" from what I gather, and tons of people playing with coils are convinced that they are "tapping into" ZPE.

As far as "dark energy" goes, if I recall it is more of a theoretical concept, related to "dark matter" that attempts to explain the enigma of the fact that we cannot see or account for something like 90% of the matter in the Universe.  It's just a concept with no facts or details or anything behind it.  We just know that there is a lot of "extra" gravity out there.  Then when the shocker came in about the expansion of the Universe accelerating, people used the "dark energy" concept as a possible mechanism for "explaining" the acceleration.

Finally, on our size scale, 10^1 meters, the stuff we play with, our circuits, motors, Tesla switches, whatever, single-wire energy transmission, etc,  - all that stuff that is allegedly "an open system" or "unconventional" or "over unity" or "free energy" is all real and understandable and explainable upside-down and inside-out and backwards and forwards.  That's where people like Aaron and Harvey and a whole host of others are not the "clued-in" that they think they are, they are in fact the clueless.  I have never seen a YouTube clip that showed something unusual.  Then there are the fraudulent money sucking vampires trolling the idea marketplace for free money - but I won't go there.

MileHigh

[Rosemary Ainslie]

MileHigh
I know nothing about the 'fraudulent money suckng vampires' so can't comment.  But I do know that Dark energy and Dark matter are now fully accepted - mainstream thinking.  And it's not entirely based on the need to explain 'extra gravity' as you put it.  There are plenty paradoxes that would be accounted for provided this force is extant.  To say that you don't 'buy in' is also then counter mainstream.  Where would that put you?  On an historical scale you'd be holding hands with the Spanish Inquisition. 

You know that my thesis revolves around the fact that energy delivered by a supply will return to the supply.  Zero loss?  Well that 'negative' number that Aaron has?  That's my comfort for the thesis.  So I see it as significant.  But you already know this. 

My point is this.  What would actually convince you that this number is real?  It's been shown by Aaron and by Fuzzy.  That it's small is irrelevant.  The casimir effect is small.  But its implications are huge.  Small isn't to be ignored.  It's to be explored, surely.  And classical has NOT explained currrent flow - there are many contradictions between this and known physical laws. 

Anyway.  All I'd like is to know that - notwithstanding the prejudice - there's a small part of your that wants to be convinced?  Am I wrong?     

[poynt99]

You know that my thesis revolves around the fact that energy delivered by a supply will return to the supply.  Zero loss?  Well that 'negative' number that Aaron has?  That's my comfort for the thesis.  So I see it as significant.

Well, that explains a few things. Now I know why the obsession with protecting the notion of this so-called negative number. 

My point is this.  What would actually convince you that this number is real?  It's been shown by Aaron and by Fuzzy.  That it's small is irrelevant.

Aaron has shown zilch. A measly -5.4mV average on the shunt, and this on a scope that was most likely not calibrated beforehand, and a setup with sloppy wiring. On top of that, this represents -5.4 mA on a 1 Ohm shunt, and over 20mA on a 0.25 Ohm shunt, yet Aaron was not able to measure any current with his meter Why not? It's clear there was next to no voltage across that shunt, and the net -5.4 mV in the data was most likely a result of DC offset in the scope.

My tests will likely show a net positive voltage, but we'll have to wait for the test run to see the actuals.

I did not see negative net voltage from Fuzzy's results. Could someone please post a link, thanks.

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Poynt - I get it that you know nothing of the thesis?  More's the pity. 

And Fuzzy's 'numbers' did not show a net negative.  Only his waveforms did. 

and I realise that your demo will show a net gain.  Would expect nothing less.

BTW - the measly -5.4 mV.  I want it to be even more measly at 0.00 mV's.  And why aren't you speaking to me? 

[Mk1]

http://www.disclose.tv/viewvideo/29990/Dr__Steven_Greer_The_Promise_of_New_Energy/