Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[Cloxxki]

This is all so damaging for the OU community. OU exist, in theory, but probably even the inventor makes her tea with a normal water heater from the store, using 1000W+.

Why not settle this in a simple contest.
- An impartial jury determines the capacity of standard big-brand batteries.
- Contestents get to boil a substantial amount of water off said batteries. Standardized water container, hang heating elements over the side.
- (S)he who gets the most water boiled with the least battery capacity, wins.

I'll be impressed when someone makes us all a good cup of tea from one AA battery.
Duty cycles, voltage readings, coils, loops, etc, it says so little. Take a fresh battery from the supermarket, hook it to your circuit, and boil some water.

[TinselKoala]

TK,

That's actually a scope shot of power, not voltage, which may explain the big numbers.

.99

Good job on the videos

Thks, got that. I meant the bigger spikes that you mentioned earlier, talking about the Vdss of the transistors.

(Edit: I made a guess at your puzzler, but I don't know if it was a hallucination or not so I removed it.)

I'm glad you liked the demos. You know when I  have to move to the living room floor the situation is serious.

[TinselKoala]

Today Rosemary gave the speech so it felt like in church again. “The measurements on our circuit, notwithstanding .99's attestations to the contrary - prove that efficiency or overunity is only constrained to the limit of one's courage to find new levels of such efficiency. It is, indeed an infinite supply source.”

She is 60 â€" so most probably she is going to pass away in paranoid state thinking that everybody has mental blockage, has suspicious motives, or that the other personalities on the forum are anonymous so they can hide the same TinsenKoalas’s, heniecks and other returning debunkers behind it.


Why nobody is doing the easy battery tests like I did and she did as well??? Are you holding back because of the fact that it is not the most exact method available? But it is fool proof instead, and very easy to implement. A little laborious perhaps but very reliable just to get the whole picture. Even if in the worst case this method allows for few % disparity (which I doubt and can be narrowed by running multiple tests) â€" it should be enough to see instead of COP=17 â€" just COP=16 or 18, or COP=0.95 or something…

beware! - behind Nerzdishual may be somebody else hiding She needs fresh members and get rid of the skeptic ones to keep her illusion going.

I believe that in this case psychological close up of this entire story is equally important as the electro-engineering one.

Hi henieck
I'm not holding back on battery testing at all. I'm just dealing with one issue at a time. Believe me, I can obtain excellent measurements of battery capacity, discharge rate, and whatever other parameters are necessary to monitor performance in real time. But look how much trouble and pain it's been just to explain how to read an oscilloscope or integrate a power curve.  Once there is recognition that the duty cycle issue, itself, calls into question the validity and reliability of the original energy calculation itself--that is, the input error...Then I am fully prepared to address the output error: the measurement of output energy (NOT power ffs) versus the true input energy, properly calculated from accurate measurements.

One big psychological problem has to do with the difference between inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning. I believe Rosemary is a brilliant but sadly undereducated inductive reasoner, and it is this that has led her astray. Inductive reasoning is fine, as far as it goes, and in fact leads to great creativity and advancement. But it must be properly applied, and applied to good data, and even then it is fallible. Deductive reasoning also must be correctly applied to good data, but it is much more reliable.

(EDIT I forgot to mention that next on my schedule is dealing with the "random chaotic resonance" issue, that I think was probably false triggering of the Fluke-O-Scope 199. Because, after all, there is no such thing as random chaotic resonance, and this circuit at these low frequencies (Why does she keep calling 2.4 kHz a high freq? It's audio...) is very well behaved. I haven't even seen anything "bad" after I sprinkled in some trimmer caps randomly between leads in the circuit.)

[TinselKoala]

Hi All,

I try to follow this thread, but it gets too technical for my electronically challenged mind.  Is it or is it not OU?  I found a post by user bolt that seemed elegant in its simplicity  here:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=455.0

" Another way is find a value resistor on the input that just gets hot then take that out and put the same value in the output. If the output one goes up in smoke you have OU "

Can this simple test end this argument once and for all?

tishatang

Is it OU? A resounding NO. Or at least, the work being discussed is so full of holes that it is very questionable, and most certainly the main claims, of perpetual battery recharging and vastly greater energy out than in, have not been replicated, not even close. Does the load get warm? Sure. Anomalously so? No.

Can your test tell us what we want to know? NO. Unfortunately with electronics, it's not that simple. If we were concerned about power, your test would work. But we are concerned about energy, which is power over a period of time. Consider the fuse in your computer's power supply. That's only rated a couple amps at most. So that fuse is like a little low-resistance resistor sitting in series with the input power. Now take a fuse of that same rating and put it across the 12 volt output leads of the same power supply. Which fuse blows?

[Yucca]

When people are insecure in their assertions then they will not allow their mind to entertain logical thoughts that contradict their beliefs, in effect their minds are closed in order to protect the ego boosting charade that allows them to feel bigger.

It is so simple, if you scope the drain of an N channel FET, as specified in Ainslees papers then you WILL observe this:

When the FET switches OFF then Rload pulls the probe UP to the positive rail.

When the FET switches ON then the low Rds (relative to Rload) will pull the probe DOWN to ground.

It´s an inverted version of the gate signal. And you can´t ever switch an inductive load by placing it between ground and source, to get correct duty cycle readings, because backspikes will kill the FET. Anyone who has any experience with N channel FETs knows this, you can only scope inverted, interestingly many forget this because they´re interested in inductive backspikes which appear positive and are much taller (of course they are really neg).

This coupled with the fact that the specified 555 circuit gives 97% on duty tells us that this whole COP17 heater idea is just so much poppycock! Anyone who "believes" and argues against these facts is (in my opinion) a complete moron!