Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[henieck]

There, that should feed the trolls for a while.

   

That is why I think people like that are reasonable - except sense of humor, strong philosophical fundaments (Korzybski -but this is just a model , valid method of cognition (senses + logic), extended knowledge base and some faith in something what worked so far but in the same time open mindedly searching if there is possibly anything else, and constantly evaluating one’s position.

Conversely, Rosemary is incapable of going to meta-position and seeing herself from a healthy perspective. She thinks that her model is the reality itself (interesting model and has very limited knowledge in the field she is trying to operate in. But her bad science and mysticism, especially mixed with this tricky circuit, is like a mind virus. Well, you can’t get rid of an informational virus if your system is already attacked. One has to go one operational level higher â€" and that is what this African, poorly educated, yet somewhat intelligent woman is entirely incapable of doing. Fascinating case to me.

Interestingly, nobody from this forum and other one, answered that there is some free E device many people were successfully replicating. So I assume, that the situation is not much different from that from few years back - everybody are searching, every second guy is trying to spin Bedini’s wheel, some claims to have something but nobody can replicate that - others make a fuss but do not disclose any details of the device, and someone is always somewhere going already into the “mass production phase”...

[Cloxxki]

Thanks TK. I'll presume a technical mishap at my end and try to remember attempting from work tomorrow.
The uptight and inconsistent posting style there does make me wonder though. I probably p'd off someone while only meaning good. Certainly the case with the member I corresponded with by email.

With plenty of due respect... Your personal attitude may also not work very well over there, but IMO they could have done better dealing with you and your wise-behind questions. Because they do warrent serious answers.
In this RA discussion, for me it's nearing the point where I think your efforts are now better used coming up (or replicating) something newer than to try and get this inventor admit oversight or incomplete documentation. Your talents and resources may bring the OU world more elsewhere. Which doesn't mean I'd love to fast forward and learn the ins and outs.

[Cloxxki]

If I did get banned there, then probably for my general commentary with regards to publishing OU inventors, for failing to get their devices out there. Rosemary's for instance, once working in a lab, can be copied quite easily, boxed, and sent off. Couple hundreds dollars worth of material, and receiving parties would only hook up their own measuring equipment. OU, after all, should be determined on the most and least reliable measuring equipment alike. An AA battery bringing a 1 litre (or 10) bowl of water from ambient temperature to bowling, that's something unmistakeble.
Recharging batteries, run times, voltage spikes, duty cycles, it's all nonsence until you get a small input to do great work. Who boils most water, from a standardized externally provided battery and water bowl?

The OU community needs stricter "rules", to avoid wasting time on Mylows and more sincere inventors on the wrong track (like recently Tommey Reed's with this BEMF circuits).
We are doing this together, so once you think you have something, replicate YOURSELF and ask an expert you respect.

[/off topic]

[TinselKoala]

Thanks TK. I'll presume a technical mishap at my end and try to remember attempting from work tomorrow.
The uptight and inconsistent posting style there does make me wonder though. I probably p'd off someone while only meaning good. Certainly the case with the member I corresponded with by email.

With plenty of due respect... Your personal attitude may also not work very well over there, but IMO they could have done better dealing with you and your wise-behind questions. Because they do warrent serious answers.
In this RA discussion, for me it's nearing the point where I think your efforts are now better used coming up (or replicating) something newer than to try and get this inventor admit oversight or incomplete documentation. Your talents and resources may bring the OU world more elsewhere. Which doesn't mean I'd love to fast forward and learn the ins and outs.

I agree mostly. I just went back and looked at the early pages of this thread. I see that I was very mild and calm, honestly trying to replicate the circuit and performance--I even put "exact" in quotes and joked about my component substitutions--which by the way are no longer substituted--. And it wasn't until the end of Page 4 or so that I discovered the duty cycle problem, and when I tried to see if I had made an error by asking the people at the energetic forum, I got dissed really badly and insulted as to my capabilities and work. Coming from someone with Ainslie's admitted qualifications, I took that as an extreme insult, in addition to being a travesty of "science" and the entire open-source concept. So yes, I am personally engaged by this one, even more than with Mylow--at least he admitted on a comment to my video that I had caught him fair and square.

Then when I realized that she wants people to believe that she has actual patents, when she really only has applications filed, I began to understand a bit more about Ainslie herself. This really is a situation with parallels to Mylow. Ainslie is telling a story that has internal inconsistencies that are so glaring it is impossible to believe that she does not see them as well. The two different reports of the same experiment, for example--different circuits, different claims, different emphasis...but the same data. The distortions about what the vetting labs and consultants found and reported. The random chaotic oscillations. The energy balance calculations.
All of it seems to add up to me to a little more than a simple mistake or two.

The patent issue is an example. She has NO patents issued, only applications filed. Anybody can file an application for a patent about anything at all. It means exactly zip, except to establish a date, and that can be done by mailing yourself a letter. Yet, on the NakedScientist thread, she engages a fully experienced EE with several actual awarded patents, who clearly is under the impression that when Ainslie refers to her "Patent" she is talking about something that has been vetted and granted.

You are right, I am trying to just walk away. And I could, if I didn't feel so personally insulted. Those people flamed me for being wrong, without trying it themselves...and now that many have tried it and find out that I was RIGHT all along, do I get un-flamed? Do I get even a hint of an apology? No--I get accused of Knowingly Posting Incorrect Information or some shit, when that itself isn't even true, as I have hopefully shown.

So I will continue testing this circuit and the experimental protocol in general, and I will continue to post my findings and rants, somewhere or another, until Rosemary retracts the Quantum article or otherwise addresses the "error", and until I can definitively fail to show excess energy in her paradigm, regardless of the "exactness" of my replication (or the damned logic of failure to reproduce results.) It's personal. I don't need a personal apology, I already know I don't want to be Rosemary's friend. I just want her misrepresentations of reality, in publication form, to be corrected or to stop.

[ramset]

 RAMSET 
just one question
Rosemary,
would you know the make and model of the function generator used, if one was used, to drive the circuit for your experiment.
I need to know its adjustment capability and characteristics: Peak output voltage into 50 ohms; pulse width range; DC offset capability; sweep functionality or not; and so forth.
If you could provide the Info that would be great
Chet

witsend
Ramset - your question as to what functions generator I used? May I ask why you are asking this? I've never used one other than for testing purposes in sundry engineering labs. I've always used a 555