Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[fuzzytomcat]

@ MH

I do at least have respect for poynt99 as he is the only member here at Over Unity to even have the "BALLS" to attempt a replication while others are only loud mouthed couch potatoes that don't know and have any clue the difference between the two schematics and test set ups .... giving there 2 cents and claiming some type of "FAKE" victory when the battle is just about to start.

MH

Really? 

YES

MH

Is that so?

YES

MH

How come you have never had anything significant to say when it comes to discussing the actual operation of the circuit?

NO REASON, ALREADY PUBLISHED IN QUANTUM ARTICLE CAN"T YOU READ ??

MH

How come you have been basically mute when you have been asked questions about your setup and your data?

WHAT QUESTIONS FROM REPLICATORS ANSWERED ALL OF .99's

MH

I can't recall reading a single relevant thought from you about this whole experiment, no theories, no questions, no musings about it's operation.  The answer to that is that you are a beginner, and are not in a position to really say much right now.  Therefore you prefer to not say much and are more focused on generating the data.  Is that a fair assessment?

NO, NOT DONE YET YOU KNOW THAT, YOU JUST HAVE ALTERNATIVE MOTIVES BEHIND YOU

MH

You are an amateur with very little experience and look at the two schematics and cry "Not the same!!!"

HOW RUDE .... AT LEAST I'M DOING A REPLICATION OF THE ORIGINAL CIRCUIT, WHATS YOUR PROBLEM

MH

The simple truth is that the two circuits are nearly identical.  The real circuit is a 24-volt voltage source going through an inductive resistor to a MOSFET to a shunt resistor to ground, and the MOSGET gate is being fed by a 555 source.  THAT'S IT.  Everything else is just window dressing.  You have to have experience to see that and understand that, which you don't have.  You are just "following the numbers" when you build the circuit.

NEARLY IDENTICAL ?? WHERES THE BATTERIES ??  

MH

The only difference is the fact that .99 is using a power supply and you are using a battery.  Experienced people know that for all practical intents and purposes that makes absolutely no difference.  Don't forget, we are NOT playing the "mystical battery game" for this test, it is nothing more than electrical power in vs. thermal power out and the battery has noting to do with it.  However, .99 knows all about the "cult of batteries" and is willing to do some measurements using batteries, to make that argument go away.  There is no true logical reason to do this, it is just being done to demonstrate that it will make no difference for those that need to see this done like yourself.

EARTH GROUNDING THE NEGATIVE RAIL FROM A POWER SUPPLY .... SAME 32mm DIA. 10 OHM LOAD RESISTOR ??

MH

Battery or power supply notwithstanding - the circuits are IDENTICAL - go look again - 24 volts to a load resistor to a MOSFET to a shunt resistor to ground.  It's the same deal for both circuits.

FIRST THEY WERE NEARLY IDENTICAL NOW THERE IDENTICAL ..... INTENTIONAL EARTH GROUNDING ?? WRONG LOAD RESISTOR ?? NO BATTERIES ??

MH

Beyond that Glen - enlighten us, how would the "differences" you allege make a difference in the power in vs. power out measurements?  Step up to the plate!  You are alleging these differences, how are they going to affect the measurements?  Following your thought process further, alleged "differences" imply that you think COP > 1 or COP > 17 may be achievable if the circut is "built correctly."  How and why should you see COP > 1?  Or, if you can't answer that with specifics, what is your theory for achieving COP > 1 if the circuit is "done correctly?"

Glen - I don't think that you are going to be able to answer any of the questions posed to you in the above paragraph.  If you refuse to even acknowledge them like you have done in the past, then that leaves you without much to stand on - just the blind belief that .99 "got it wrong" and if he only built it "correctly" then the magic free heat pies would appear like Manna from Heaven.  In other words, behind your thought process, you don't have any real technical legs to stand on, just "free energy fantasy mode" - if you close your eyes and hope it just might happen.

LIKE I'VE SAID OVER AND OVER I"M NOT DONE TESTING YET AND HAVE PUBLISHED "ALL" INFORMATION GOOD OR BAD NOT WITHHOLDING ANYTHING .... WHERE DOES IT SAY I HAVE A REQUIREMENT TO COMMENT ON ANYTHING .... ESPECIALLY WITH THE SYSTEMATIC TEARING DOWN OF ANYONE HERE WHO DOESN'T AGREE WITH THE FEW AND MAKES JUDGEMENT ON FACTS BACKED UP BY SIMULATED AND UNPUBLISHED DATA ..... NO DATA FROM YOU CONVENIENTLY BECAUSE YOU KNOW "ALL" THE ANSWERS

Of course there are only 3 actual oscilloscope wave form images and only 2 modified data sheets not even the originals have been shown here by "poynt99" ...... to the 80 or more unmodified original images and data sheets that has been posted by myself at "Energetic Forum" for complete transparency of my testing "NOTHING HIDDEN" using all components as close as possible to original circuit.

MH

When you finally do "close the loop" and compare your thermal control test data with your device under test data you will find that your results will be very very similar to .99's - everything will be under unity.  I think that you have a problem there though because you changed your load resistor setup between tests.  You are going to have to corelate the right control setups to match with your various tests.

NOW YOU ADMIT I"M NOT DONE TESTING ... WOW ... IF YOU BOTHER TO CHECK THE CONTROL SETUPS DO MATCH

MH

The simple truth is with respect to electronics I could spin circles around you with my eyes closed.  Not because I am any smarter than you, but because I have been involved in electronics for 30 years both in terms of my hobbies when I was younger, then my education, and then my working career.  How long have you been playing with electronics?

SO NOW WE ARE COMPARING UNDER WARE RACING STRIPES ?? .... SORRY DUDE NOT INTO IT .... NOT A BRAGGER UNLIKE YOU

MH

I of course can't tell .99 what to do, but as far as I am concerned the game is over.  When he does the battery test, the results will be the same.  When you do your thermal control tests and crunch your data the results will be similar to .99's.

Your argument that the circuits are not the same is false.

YOU CAN"T EVEN MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND .... IDENTICAL .... NEARLY IDENTICAL .... AND JUST WHAT ABOUT THE COMPONENT SUBSTITUTIONS ?? .... INTENTIONAL EARTH GROUNDING A CIRCUIT DESIGNED FOR BATTERIES ??

I"M DONE WITH YOU AND WILL ONLY RESPOND TO REPLICATORS ...... THAT BE ONE PERSON AND IT AIN'T YOU !!

Fuzzy

[Rosemary Ainslie]

@poynt99No, I am saying the circuit fuzzytomcat posted called "Ainsley circuit test plan-Poynt99", has made no allowances for transient effects. In that circuit what effects do you think the capacitors and ground will have on the circuit when the inductive resistor discharges?
AC

Indeed allcanadian.  Here's the question! So Poynty.  You forced this issue.  I was hoping to side step this as - in the immoratal words of the Bard, 'comparisons are odious' (Donne). 

So again - and since you've highlighted the issue.  Where does the spike go to?  back to your power supply?  back to ground to be snaffled by RG54?  back to those sad little capacitors in the vague hopes that they, in turn, discharge into the power supply? or back onto the circuit?  fingers crossed that no-one will notice.  I was really happy with your points Poynty.  Just never saw the relevance to our tested.  But to test an approximation of our circuit - then not achieve the same results - and then to conclude that as your test did not confirm our test then our test is wrong?  Something very wrong there Poynty.  Again, in the immortal words of the most revered of bards 'Something is rotten  in the state of Denmark'. (Marcellus) 

And Fuzzy - just a quick point - we appreciated your presentation of data without any comment - precisely because it allows EVERYBODY to draw their own conclusions.  Such extraordinary respect for everyone's intelligence.  For MH to see this as a weakness is simply MH's perspective.  Your own contribution has been impeccably professional precisely because of your determined and continuing lack of comment.  Don't be lured by MH to corrupt that standard.  I've solemnly undertaken not to call him a troll - so I cannot comment on his objects here.  LOL   

[MileHigh]

Little Miss MOSFET
Sat on a tuffet,
Eating her curds and whey;
Along came an engineer,
Who sat down beside her
And frightened Miss MOSFET away.

I said "the beginning of the end" for a reason.  When not a single credible result comes in for COP >1 or COP > 17 it will be time for Little Miss MOSFET to run away.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Little Mack Horner
Sat in his corner
Complaining that Circuits were cruel
He stuck in his thumb
And pulled out a really, really bad argument
And claimed that his findings were cool.

I said the beginning of the end because 'dawn breaks on aether rising'.

[poynt99]

What interests me and also what is most relevant, is how my results are different than Glen's.

Please rate my results, or at least explain the metric used to do so. If you can not rate them, I would appreciate an explanation as to why not.

Would a battery supply, isolated scope, and 32mm resistor satisfy the deficient requirements? If I obtained these and tested with them, would you then rate my results Rose? Please identify anything else I have missed, as I will assume that is all if I hear no objections.

.99