Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[Grumpy]

sounds like the TPU fantasy...
and what is this fallacy about NEEDING kilowatts? i think you are confusing wants and needs.

like grumpy's, bolt's argument was mostly logical fallacy seasoned with a good dose of assumption. starting off with "the only way..." is a dead giveaway. dream on about getting your riches or nobel prize from a TPU. the only people i see trying to prove it is you, poynt, IST and some others on the numerous TPU threads on this site. now that's delusional...
let's try and stay on topic here instead of interjecting your random confusions, opinions, assumptions and conjecture.

Have you told Rosy how infatuated you are with her?  Look how it drips from evey word you type.

As for the KW's - do the math:

How many KW's to run your car with performance equivalent to an internal combustion engine?
20 kw

How many kw's to operate your home with equivalent performance to a grid connection?
5 kw

Now, this is all "subjective", but it gives you an idea of what is required to supply your energy needs.  Go ahead and look into if you think I'm full of crap.  Space heaters are 1500w.  Typical lighting for a single room is 100w to 500w.  Then there is the refrigerator: 300w to 800w.  175w for your tv.  It all adds up.

As for the electric car:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car

Running costs
Electric car operating costs can be directly compared to the equivalent operating costs of a gasoline-powered vehicle. The energy generated by complete combustion of 1 liter gasoline is about 9.7 kilowatt-hours (35 MJ). Accounting for inefficiencies of gasoline vs. electric engines and transmission and battery losses, 1 liter gasoline is equivalent to 2.7 kilowatt-hours (9.7 MJ) from batteries.
The Tesla uses about 13 kW·h/100 km (0.47 MJ/km; 0.21 kW·h/mi)[citation needed], the EV1 used about 11 kW·h/100 km (0.40 MJ/km; 0.18 kW·h/mi.

Something for the home:
http://www.oksolar.com/technical/consumption.html

Read it and weep...  Rather daunting isn't?

[Grumpy]

Grumpy - golly.  If I needed ego strokes I certainly would not be posting on this thread.  I'd need to stay in friendly territory - or better still, entirely out of the debate.

The quest, if there is one, is to explore some means to access the abundant energy fields that are identified in dark energy.  Without any over statement - the fact is that this access is critical for our survival as a species. If we've proved anything it's the simple truth that we continue to guzzle our dwindling energy resources with little if any thought for tomorrow.  We've got solar, nuclear and wind energy to exploit - but not even these applications are being progressed at pace.  And with burgeoning population numbers and clamorous requirements to adopt 1st World comfort levels the global pollution levels loom large and ever larger.  This is now beginning to upturn the fine balance that nature herself seems to require to give us some semblance of a stable environment.  So we're flirting with disaster on a scale that is possibly unprecedented since our emergence as a species on this planet.

As I see it - this quest for abundant energy is compulsively attempted by those who spend huge chapters of their lives on both forums and threads such as this.  It's still a fringe interest but it's growing.  But the dominant theme here is 'free energy' or 'over unity' - with good reason.  Because if this can be found and then repeatedly and reliably accessed - then. 'in one fell swoop' we'd have resolved both the quantity available to us and the quality, so to speak.  It would be both abundant and clean.  And, that we're looking for it at all - is a really good thing.  Mainstream have discounted that this can ever be accessed.  The best they offer is 'small effects' - essentially unable to reach the megawatt levels that you correctly state is required.

Our hope is to address mainstream with some means to access this energy.  Essentially the model proposes that this energy - evident in the vacuum - and now widely acknowledged by most thinking scientists - is also responsible for the 'bound' conditions of amalgams.  It's the glue that holds matter together.  And the proposal is that - given an imbalanced magnetic field - or potential difference - or measurable voltage - then what is being measured are these fields.  And the thesis goes - if there is a measurable voltage then, potentially, there is also a real energy potential that can be harnessed and used.  This is what we hope can be proved in this experiment.  In other words in as much as inductive components can also show a measured voltage - then they too are potentially able to generate energy in the same way that batteries and utility supplies can generate energy.

But the actual challenge is far greater than this.  The model is hardly likely to shake the foundations of physics.  It's way too modest and way too simple.  And if this test proves it - it is hardly likely to be accepted by our mainstream scientists.  But it has one advantage that most other contributors lack.  It is an energy that can be measured using classical tools.  And it is repeatably evident.  It seems to require an aperiodic frequency coupled to a distinctive harmonic - but, generate the right frequency with the right level of inductance - and, indeed, the return far exceeds the level of efficiency that mainstream consider possible.  And precisely because we're not talking about COP>2 but some value that is far greater than this, then we are also producing unequivocal evidence.

Our modest hope is to at least bring this to the table at our academies.  That way the hope is that we'll find the interest that, thus far, has been wanting.  If we get it there it will be a first.  Mainstream have never been obliged to consider these interests of ours precisely because we have never seriously brought any reliable evidence to their attention.  It's been attempted - but has failed.  Our efforts to convince them may be misguided.  Indeed our conclusions and even our evidence may be wrong - but we see this as a critical first step to getting the interest that is required to research the effect and harness it's use through applications that I'm reasonably certain need to be more fully explored.

So Grumpy.  We're on the same side ...  I think?  We're just approaching it from a different angle.  And believe me, there are no ego strokes in this.  It's been bruising on the emotional and intellectual levels and continues to be such.  And it's no good saying that if the energy is there - just use it.  It's benefit will be evident.  Possibly.  But to generate any production of any components on any meaningful level - also requires investment funds for research and development.  This will be withheld until such time as mainstream say 'OK - there may be some evident benefit'.  Then we can sell products without being accused of wilfully defrauding or misleading the public.  And what is still a somewhat eccentric science will then, hopefully, become respectable.  We need mainstream just so much more than they need us.  The challenge is to convince them that the experiment is repeatable and that its results are depenable. 

Which brings me back to Poynty's objects.  He firstly assured us that there would never be a gain.  He now states - categorically - that any evident gain is due to bad measurement or bad experimental practice.  But the truth is that Fuzzy's testing standards are impeccable and well in excess of what would commonly be required to evaluate energies.  It's an extraordinary claim and it requires his extraordinary skills as an experimentalist - to give the required proof.  Fortunately Fuzzy is equal to the tastk.   And the tools that we use to measure?  They're state of the art.  Poynty makes his claims from a position of apparent authority.  The truth is that he hides his identity and from this cover slams the ability of the experimentalists with a lack of restraint that makes us, on this side of the argument, rather concerned about his actual motives.  He's spared no-one and nothing.  Why all this energy Poynty Poynt?  And how deep into that barrel are you going to reach to find your next objections.  We're about to put paid to your requirement for these exotic probes you reference.  What will be your next tack I wonder?

In any event Grumpy.  I hope this answers your concerns.  We're not looking for Nobel prizes or even for riches.  All we're trying to do here is bring the argument to mainstream.  They'll no doubt then find the answer and claim the credit.  But that's fine.  Just let's address the evidence somehow.  That's got to be an improvement on where we are at present. 

EDIT  BTW - bolt - we are not showing milliwatts.  Check the data again.

Allow me to point out a few things of interest:

No scientist that gets funding from the "powers that be" will touch this or anything like it.  No funding = no more research = no job.  Why do you need to prove anything to them anyway?  Let them ponder why your lights are on when the grid is down.

Besides, "they" already have it anyway, so they don't need it from you an anyone else.  "They" have had it for decades.  Furthermore, they are not about to let you, me, or anyone else upset the economic apple-cart by freeing the paying customers from the energy cartel.

Don't believe me?  Contact Steven Greer. http://www.theorionproject.org/en/about.html

Also - again we see that kw's are necessary:
http://www.theorionproject.org/en/breakthrough.html

Significant usable power - ideally the device should deliver 5-10KW of net usable electrical power over and above what is needed to recharge its starting circuit / mechanism.

Yes, we are all on the same side - like it or not.  The last thing I want to do is to put anyone or their work down.  I just want to put things in perspective so you can move past this sticking point.  The best tests are easy and undeniable.

Look at ION's suggestions, and pick his brain when you do.  Sounds like he has a lot of experience...

If you can not prove or disprove in short order then take what you can from it and move to the next step.  The output electrodes of a simple Tesla disruptive Discharge coil wil melt tungsten.  Probably not OU and hard to utilize - so Tesla moved to the next step. 

If it helps, you have a deadline in 2 years and you are running out of time.

[ION]

For those who can't afford hi tech equipment, here is testing on a budget for the Ainslie Circuit. Have Fun.

Note: I could have put C1 and C2 to ground, but this would have given R1 a slight edge at the start, so I chose to give the benefit of doubt and the slight edge to R2 by placing the caps across R1.

<edit:excuse spelling of residual>

[poynt99]

A very good idea ION, thanks.

Keep the great ideas, suggestions and sensible questions coming

.99

[WilbyInebriated]

Have you told Rosy how infatuated you are with her?  Look how it drips from evey word you type.

As for the KW's - do the math:

How many KW's to run your car with performance equivalent to an internal combustion engine?
20 kw

How many kw's to operate your home with equivalent performance to a grid connection?
5 kw

Now, this is all "subjective", but it gives you an idea of what is required to supply your energy needs.  Go ahead and look into if you think I'm full of crap.  Space heaters are 1500w.  Typical lighting for a single room is 100w to 500w.  Then there is the refrigerator: 300w to 800w.  175w for your tv.  It all adds up.

As for the electric car:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car

Something for the home:
http://www.oksolar.com/technical/consumption.html

Read it and weep...  Rather daunting isn't?

assumption. irrelevant.

as for the kilowatts, i don't NEED them. again look up the difference between wants and needs...

i don't drive a car...

much less than yours takes. i have a different relationship to my wants/needs than you do...

yes, completely subjective, that i will agree with.

blah

blah

not really, i can supply myself with all the power i need. it would seem i'm not as fat, lazy and complacent as you...