Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[henieck]

TinselKoala â€" judging by the extension of your last posts you have really huge mental block installed. Most apparently now, not only you don’t know how to use oscilloscope the right way â€" but also you don’t even know how to spell “meteorologist” correctly. Besides- why would meteorologist think he is in the right position to judge the most scientifically advanced heater made of piece of wire formed into spiral and transistor? You have no idea how advanced it is, I guarantee that you haven’t even heard about zipons before â€" so you better don’t thing you know better. You don’t know how to think "out of the box" to see the OBVIOUS. On contrary â€" I had such an open mind that couldn’t take any more school knowledge at the age 16 somewhere deep in Africa. Thanks to that fact I could discovered all this. For hundreds of years, millions of others miserably failed - but finally, ten years ago I was chosen to discover how it REALLY is. Yes, I don’t have a clue about electronics but I make up for that by my very strong feeling of mission

That was for your entertainment, TK. It is amazing story. Paradoxically she has thrown away one of the best member, most dedicated and qualified one of the team â€" but unfortunately you didn’t fit to what she was going to achieve. The obvious is already proven, we don’t wonder whether it works or not â€" it is obvious that it does

[BEP]

Most apparently now, not only you don’t know how to use oscilloscope the right way â€" but also you don’t even know how to spell “meteorologist” correctly.

OMG!

@TK,

Hold onto your chest. This may be the big one!  It just took me a full minute to pick myself up off the floor.

BTW: Is 'PDC' a common metrological term? I hear it in my metrology lab, as well  (No, I'm not talking about the weather)

[ramset]

TK
I think you need some time off
I am personaly getting I'LL over seeing The "Don't confuse me with the FACTS my mind is made up" attitude
Let some time pass a couple days see what energetic members do to replicate

COP 17  there should be results pretty quick for that
Make them work for it ,instead of this armchair crap thats going on over there
Take a trip somewhere breathe some fresh air think about your theory ,whatever ,Jazz it up Dude

Chet
OR you could look at this?
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7679.msg191820#new

Make some thunder!

[fuzzytomcat]

What does a person have to do to get a answer around here .... light my fir on fire and run around this room yelling and screaming like a fool ??

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg191649#msg191649

Can anyone here read ?

So Tk you have no problem mixing a "DC" ground on a United States "AC" 120 volt grounded system with a bonded neutral that is susceptible to stray voltages, frequency's and harmonics ??

In fucking credible.

Time and time again, I have said and SHOWN that my probes are positioned and GROUNDED just as she has them in the EIT paper. The Channel B probe is positioned directly across the shunt resistor just as she "suggests" above. With its ground lead, as anyone (except, apparently, Rosemary)  can see, on the battery side (neg terminal) of the shunt resistor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trip8gjoxMQ&feature=related

Posted JUNE 17th.

Can you see this video? What are those two black things, hooked up to either side of the shunt resistor? Gee, I wonder...

OK, I'll tell you. The one on the right is the probe, and the one on the left is the probe's ground lead alligator clip.
It is connected to the terminal where I connect the negative battery terminal and also an Earth ground ( a wire to a cold water pipe under my kitchen sink which I always use in electrostatic experiments--which, by the way, show far far more "free" energy that any mosfet circuit can.

What is the matter with the reading and viewing comprehension here? I actually thought we were all speaking English, more or less. It is clear from her comments that she has some strange ideas about oscilloscopes--like the AC versus DC coupling issue, which I was apparently unsuccessful at explaining in the new vids. She apparently thinks that "ac coupling" is for measuring AC, and DC coupling is for DC. Uh-huh...

Is it really possible for anyone to watch my oscilloscope videos, and then seriously tell me that I do not know how to use an oscilloscope? Especially someone who manifestly does not know how to use one?
I would wager that the way she would use the Fluke-O-Scope would be to hook it up and press the "auto" button, and then believe everything it tells her, as gospel. After all, it's DIGITAL. So how could it be wrong?

And I can just see her reading this and saying to herself, "What is he talking about? How else could you use a scope? What's the "AUTO" button for if not to make the operator's task easier? And my scopemeter is Calibrated!! So it cannot be wrong."

Not only is she not paying attention, she apparently is either incapable of seeing what I am showing, or she is remaining willfully ignorant. I believe it is the latter, which is also the "worser".

Will someone please inform this woman that:

1) I am attaching the probes to her circuit just as she specifies in the EIT paper; and

2) I am and have been for many years a professional metrologist (no, not meteorologist); that is, I actually get paid lots of money--much more than I truly deserve-- to do what I am doing here for nothing;

3) The FLUKE 199 is FAR from a "state of the art" oscilloscope. It's more like a child's toy compared to most of the equipment I use daily. The only reason we even keep it around the lab is because it is reasonably portable. The main reason I used it at all in the videos is to show some of its problems when viewing spiky signals. The Fluke 123 hasn't even been out of its suitcase in months, it's so "sophisticated state of the art." The LeCroy was state of the art--ten years ago. When we get its second channel DC offset issue fixed, it will be able to do all the necessary measurements of electrical parameters in the Ainslie circuit simultaneously in real time including current x voltage trace multiplication, integration of the resulting instantaneous power trace to give energy, and so forth.

4) I didn't drop out of school at age 16 and decide I could understand the world thru "patterns." I have a solid university grounding in pure and applied mathematics, physics, engineering, chemistry, and psychology. My advanced degrees are in experimental cognitive psychology, specifically in the area of mathematical formal models of human perception and cognition. I have real, actual peer-reviewd publications in major scientific journals.

Please, Rosemary, do not presume to "teach" me how to use an oscilloscope. And don't pretend to understand things you do not, especially about me.

You can impugn my personal abilities, that's fine...but you, Rosemary, have no respect for education, which in my case was the best that money can buy, and I have had some truly world-class teachers. Maybe I even was able to learn something from them--because I continued to come to class.

5) My papers went through a fine-tooth shredder before they saw publication, and my thesis defense would have probably killed a sensitive individual like yourself. You should be able, IF your ideas are correct, to defend them against attacks from the Devil himself, and do it without begging moderators to ban critics or close threads. The people who are criticising your work are doing it because that is the way science works, and that is the only way to assure that what we "know" is really the way the world is.
If there is ANY POSSIBILITY AT ALL that a claim like COP>17 with the world's most basic mosfet circuit that will work more than once, is WRONG, then we have a DUTY to find out. Because if we, as scientists, let a WRONG result like that to be published, it sets back everyone's efforts who do any work in the area. You, as the originator of the work, have an OBLIGATION yourself to seek out any possible error and correct it. That is one reason that I am so upset about your continued lack of correction or retraction of the Quantum paper, and your failure to specify EXACTLY what circuit was used to make the experiment and the data. [bold]You , Rosemary, are not cooperating. [/bold] In fact you are obfuscating efforts to reproduce your results--because nobody has seen YOUR complete circuit diagram, nobody has seen YOUR scope shots, raw data, reports from all those vetting labs, statements from your "academics", NONE OF IT has been made public, beyond your mere words.


6) The most real and accurate information about this circuit and how it behaves has come from the people you have rejected or will soon reject: TK, Henieck, Hoppy, point99, DrStiffler, and one or two others. (apologies if I left any major contributor out.)

7) Again, your statements about what you think you see in my videos reveal that you are either not paying attention to what I am saying and writing, and/or you simply do not have the educational background to absorb and contemplate what I am showing. They are clear enough for a seven year old child to understand (my landlord's daughter gets them just fine). But since your world-view is already established, you see everything from a single perspective, behind your own blinders. That's fine for you, you are in your second Saturn, and will not change before you die. But do not go around trying to educate people who have more learning and experience than you do.
I suggest you sit down and use your computer to look at Professor Lewin's MIT lectures on YT. And also, if you can watch objectively instead of through your paranoid blinders, you should watch and read the descriptions for my YT videos. There are a lot to choose from, but you will of course be most interested in the Electric OU series, in progress.

Now, if you really want to make progress in TESTING your claims as opposed to PROVING them, you should learn to cooperate with your reviewers. Because they aren't attacking you, they are defending the delicate body of known things from being corrupted by POSSIBLY bad data and bad conclusions.

IF your data is good, nobody will be able to knock it down, so you should help them try.

IF, on the other hand, there are theoretical holes and bad procedures and misunderstandings of test equipment and improper and incomplete and contradictory documentation and calculations, then it is no wonder that you get very defensive and try to save matters by killing off the bringers of bad news.

But the bad news won't go away. It's still bad.

And that, dear one, is what is going on here.

What kind of "junk" science is this ....

It is connected to the terminal where I connect the negative battery terminal and also an Earth ground ( a wire to a cold water pipe under my kitchen sink which I always use in electrostatic experiments--which, by the way, show far far more "free" energy that any mosfet circuit can.

Nice paragraph I really like this part .......

which, by the way, show far far more "free" energy that any mosfet circuit can.

Even admitting problems with stray voltages, frequency's and harmonics ......

You may know a lot about scopes, semi conductors and electronic schematics ...... for god sake open you eyes to your testing technique and grounding reference when the circuit needs it to operate properly without ground loops and other factors you right off as "OK".

I see re-testing is in order, your facts are now skewed by your own admission, I can't believe you would try to pull a fast one on us all not disclosing your "COMPLETE" connections you made. I just hope you didn't do this on purpose ?

[TinselKoala]

I didn't mention the Sola isolation transformers? OOPS, sorry.