Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[Hoppy]

Hoppy - if you want to argue battery draw down as a corollary to the proof of efficiency then take up your cudgels with our academics.  We are following good advices on all such matters.  I have no idea whether or not you're an academic?  If so, you belong to 50% of the argument against this.  Which leaves opinion divided.

And regarding your conclusions - it's like I've said repeatedly.  For some reason you and MileHigh and others are anxious to close the argument before any further testing is done.  Why is this?  If you're trying to justify it against Poynt's findings then Poynt himself is still looking.  If you're judging it against your own findings - then we've actually never had full access to all your data which assisted your determination here.  Perhaps you could make your spreadsheets available for analysis?  This is, after all, open source.

What I find extraordinary is that the free energy enthusiasts are usually accused of the bigotry now only evidenced in the rampant certainties expressed by you Paul and MileHigh.  Somehow - and for reasons which are not entirely evident - this is now the new brand mark.  I'm glad of it.  It shows up as an unreasonable bias - not unlike TK's premature attack on this system.

Rosemary,

I have no need or desire to take up the battery issue with your academics whoever they are because I'm 100% confident that batteries should not have been used in your performance testing. Furthermore, I am not trying to close this matter and fully understand your need to continue in the hope of reaching the conclusion you desire.

I admire MH, Poynt's and Fuzzy's hard work in taking the experiments this far and am grateful to you for pushing this thread along, as I think it has been informative and very interesting, especially Aaron's testing and conclusions. My opinion now in regards to your overunity claim is no different to when I first studied your circuit at your invitation.

EDIT: Rosemary, here's a suggestion. Package up all of the test data and results so far collected and send it to your academics for perusal, together with all the criticisms received about your original test report and let them comment.


Hoppy

[poynt99]

.99:

Not being a component expert either, but I am under the impression that a super low inductance wire-wound resistor is noting more than a resistor half-wound clockwise and half-wound counter-clockwise.  Hence I was suggesting that you try to approximate the same thing.

That's perhaps one way to make a non-inductive resistor, but there are others as well. However, the inductance is inherent inside the resistive component itself, so I'm still not sure how using two in series would cancel it. I can see it adding.

I admire you for your tenacity, that's for sure!  If you had a really good electrical Spice model for the load resistor and threw in some stray capacitance and inductance for the wire interconnects (based on serious modeling), don't you think that would nail it on the simulation side?

Yeah, I'm fairly sure I could in time get a fairly good approximation to the actual circuit with all its parasitics, but I'd rather spend the time working on the real circuit measurements and the design of my differential probe.

Anyway, you have me "convinced" with what you did in the analog and thermal domain.  Are you sure that it is worth all the effort on the DSO side?
MileHigh

You are quite right about that. 2W POS, 1.3W for the CONTROL, therefore about 0.7W total lost in the wiring, MOSFET, and shunt (and if you ask Paul, some RF as well). That is convincing in itself indeed.

It is worth it from the technical challenge perspective though A nice set of differential probes will be a real boon to my measurement capabilities.

.99

[PaulLowrance]

I agree that people who've working on the Rosie claim have learned about circuit testing, but IMO there are legit "free energy" claims out there where you could learn even more.

The data presented in this thread is intriguing, even though I do *not* like the method of testing the circuit because as stated it's very easy to miss something or not do it correctly.

IMO it's very easy to see if the inventor is sincere. A bit of probing and digging for details is what it takes.

Regards,
Paul

[Hoppy]

I agree that people who've working on the Rosie claim have learned about circuit testing, but IMO there are legit "free energy" claims out there where you could learn even more.

The data presented in this thread is intriguing, even though I do *not* like the method of testing the circuit because as stated it's very easy to miss something or not do it correctly.

IMO it's very easy to see if the inventor is sincere. A bit of probing and digging for details is what it takes.

Regards,
Paul

Which legit 'free energy' claims are these Paul?

Hoppy

[PaulLowrance]

Which legit 'free energy' claims are these Paul?

Hoppy

Well my research for one!     It does not provide much power, flashes an LED a few times per day, but often big claims start out small. Every detail is provided, part #'s to everything. Cost ~ $10 in parts purchased at common large online stores such as mouser.com and digikey.com

Besides that, recent the Cold Fusion claims for sure! -->

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

I've seen a youtube video (can't find it right now) that show cases a lot of top Universities around world that are now working on Cold Fusion. Cold Fusion is alive & well, and legit.

The only issue they have with Cold Fusion right now is instability, which is the same issue I fought with in my diode research for years, and only solved it about a year ago. Maybe the same source of energy found in my diodes is found in Cold Fusion experiments as well.


Also Dr. Linnard Griffin low voltage hydrogen generation seems interesting, but I can't say with much certainty yet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7CMT4BA5Og


Regards,
Paul