Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[ddmdragon]

I'm not saying this is going to push the RA circuit ou I have no trouble with PSpice behaving itself, in fact I'm confident it can't show ou. It's the users that can mess things up and obtain incorrect results.

For now it's an observation, and I feel it is the parasitic capacitances around the MOSFET that is providing the path.

I'll be doing an analysis of the RMS power in them there spikes to see what gives.

.99

Dear All, I've been viewing this thread any many like it for some time now with great interest. It would seem that we have become so blinkered on the goal post, we forgot all about the goal
As EE's I'm sure we are all familiar with the lectures of Dr Lewin as a starting point in highlighting Kirchoff's Mesh Law violations, as most of our simulation tools uses this matrix models. This link to one still works. He makes a typo in the beginning though
http://www.whatsontv.co.uk/youtube/search/lewin/video/eqjl-qRy71w/1
Furthermore I'm sure that we are in agreement that any controlled sharp gradient into a system most likely causes an interaction within itself and it's local environment or resonance(for visualization clarity). As for me I do think that we are emersed in a stressed mechanical universe which responds to these sharp impulses.
Also if you have the time, investigate "Negative luminescence  "(Not the wikipedia definition ) as used in many of the designs, when doing caloric measurements.

My Two cents worth (not forgetting the recession of course). I wish I had the time to explore as many of you are able to, however still involved and audited ever so often by certain organizations.

[fuzzytomcat]

>>> Personal message fot FuzzyTomcat,

I have received your personal message.
I cannot answer it as the forum 'send message' function
is not working for me

BTW the 'Spell Check'  is no working too. 

So, here is my answer:
I'm a member of the Energetic Forum since a while and
aware of the Rosemary Ainslie's thread. Infortunately,
I'm not allowed to see the attached pictures and to post anything...

I had 'stolen', the wed page about the Zoltan Szili's FE circuit in
this famous (French) site : http://quanthomme.free.fr/
And more precisely here:
http://quanthomme.free.fr/qhsuite/circuitzolt.htm

I very rarely 'steal' web pages and if I do it, I, at least, give the
URL of the initial page. That was not the case about the Zoltan FE CCT page.
Shame on me...

However, as I'm sometimes at phone with the Quanthomme site webmaster,
I guess that I could be forgiven )

Very Best

Hi NerzhDishual,

I sorry your having trouble and Aaron is aware of the problem and I'm sure he's working on it to get you in on the project.

As far as you stealing I would never say that, any web page not having "copyright" or "All Rights Reserved" is pretty much fair game to copy excerpts or parts of the page as long as you "Quote" it as is and refer where it came from with a link.

I wouldn't worry so much as I heard from the author of the paper today in a e-mail I recieved

Hello Glen xxxxxxxxxxxx.


Thank You for your e-mail.


My name is Zoltan SZILI. ( born in Hungary )
My english is not to good, but I understend and I can write it
a little bit.


I am a canadian private researcher. ( Near Montreal, Qc. )
My work is 99% simulation, using a computer program ( MICROCAP ).
This program include the Giles-Atherton physical model of electro-magnetism.


I have some experimental results in the electronic laboratory.


Actually, I have more than a thousend simulated electronic circuit of ZPE or
free energy. After 12 years of simulation, I have a good idea, what is the physical
processus of zero point energy extraction ( from vacuum energy fluctuations ).


I can also calculate the value of extracted energy using a simple formula.
E extr. = F * L * ( I max. * I max )/2
E extr. is the extracted ZPE energy.
F is frequency.
L is inductance.
I max. is the maximum current.


This formula is a degenerated formula.
The original physical formula is more complicated.


Can You communicate me the e-mail address of Rosemary Ainslie ?
Thank You for all.


Best regards,                       Zoltan SZILI.

Hopefully we can be enlightened by this fine academic and scholar .....

Best Regards,
Fuzzy
 

[fritznien]

Dear All, I've been viewing this thread any many like it for some time now with great interest. It would seem that we have become so blinkered on the goal post, we forgot all about the goal
As EE's I'm sure we are all familiar with the lectures of Dr Lewin as a starting point in highlighting Kirchoff's Mesh Law violations, as most of our simulation tools uses this matrix models. This link to one still works. He makes a typo in the beginning though
http://www.whatsontv.co.uk/youtube/search/lewin/video/eqjl-qRy71w/1
Furthermore I'm sure that we are in agreement that any controlled sharp gradient into a system most likely causes an interaction within itself and it's local environment or resonance(for visualization clarity). As for me I do think that we are emersed in a stressed mechanical universe which responds to these sharp impulses.
Also if you have the time, investigate "Negative luminescence  "(Not the wikipedia definition ) as used in many of the designs, when doing caloric measurements.

My Two cents worth (not forgetting the recession of course). I wish I had the time to explore as many of you are able to, however still involved and audited ever so often by certain organizations.

huh? the only thing i understood was typo.
fritznien just an EET

[TinselKoala]

@ddm dragon
I applaud efforts to achieve the "goal" to which you refer.

I am not an EE (although I sometimes play one on YT    ); I see myself in the position of a qualified anonymous reviewer of a submitted scientific article. Rosemary pleaded for someone to examine her papers, her patent applications, and her theories. I am dealing with the published reports of one claimed experiment only--the one described (rather differently) in both the Quantum article and the "EIT" paper (which for some reason she calls the IET paper--but the .pdf file is as I call it, so who knows.)

Since you've been reading this thread for a while, you know that I have found and unambiguously demonstrated several severe problems with the design and execution of the experiment and its interpretation.

Regardless of the "goal", this particular "play" needs to be severely penalized, as it is a classic example of "pathological science" and cannot be trusted to be an accurate report or analysis of even a poorly performed experiment.

We are dealing with someone who likely would not understand a single word of any of Professor Lewin's excellent lectures (many of which are available on YT.) After all, she does not have the basic math background demanded of even a freshman EE guppy, so Lewin might as well be speaking Basque for all the good it would do.

When I think of the struggles I went through, in the RLM building at UT Austin in the 1980s, trying to get through the Differential Equations and Boundary Value Problems course...and then to have a high-school dropout who thinks in "patterns" tell me that my analysis is wrong or faked or misinfo or disinfo without providing any evidence, it makes me rather irate. It is indeed ironic that most of what is actually known about the Ainslie circuit's behaviour (other than what is found in the basic Circuits, Devices, and Systems texts, that is) was found out IN SPITE OF Rosemary's "cooperation" and was found and posted by the most educated, experienced, and skeptical workers.

The goal is fine, but with players like these, you really don't need to wonder why the field is considered "amateur" by the pros.

[TinselKoala]

As far as Zoltan Szili is concerned, I am aware of his work and have been for some time.

Let's let him speak for himself:

"My work is 99% simulation, using a computer program ( MICROCAP )."

I believe this is quite enough information to evaluate his claims, at least until we see that remaining 1 percent.