Bash Rosemary Ainslie

fuzzytomcat · August 28, 2010, 04:32:01 PM

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on August 28, 2010, 04:08:56 PM
Hi guys,

LOL More propaganda. If indeed any of this reminds Glen of Mylow - then we're in deep water. We're working with Glen's experimental data from Glen's tests. If this is based on the same type of fraudulent representations that Mylow gave then we've really got problems. Fortunately I don't know that it's possible to distort the data from that Tektronix DPO 3054C. And that's what we based our evidence on.

It would be such a pleasure to start dealing with facts rather than these endless innuendos. They get more absurd by the day.

Regards,
Rosemary

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9645.msg254309#msg254309

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on August 26, 2010, 11:48:34 PM
Hi Guys, I'd copy Glen's post but it's just too long.

In any event. I think he's trying to refer to my open admission to not being able to build or read or design the switching side of a 555 switching circuit. He's quoting the early chapters of my admission of this and - unfortunately - I still can't.

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9645.msg254252#msg254252

I've deleted the answered quotes on Rosemary's ability to build, read or design a electronic circuit ...... why were these items not addressed and said in her own words ??

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/59119-post205.html

I was never given the results of any of the tests conducted by those accreditors. It was not from want of trying. But I was given their permission to use their names as accreditors in the Quantum article. The reason we simply used that precise experiment for the paper submitted to the IET was to reference their names. I do have the report for BP because we had to conduct those experiments on battey duration. But the context of that report is just on the effect as it relates to battery delivery - and it has got to be the single most boring exercise in all of history. It's object impeccable - but the testing exhausting.

I think the truth is that these companies allocate a certain amount of funding to research. And having found their answers they do not make it public. Presumbaly having paid for their own lab time they rightly regard the results as being their property - or their company's property. We did try and get the results - but failed - miserably.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/59163-post220.html

The good news is that Donovan has agreed to join this forum. He can answer those really technical issues that are way over my head. And better still he'll be able to advise how to take the frequency into oscillation - or resonance - not sure which is the right term.

So. I'll leave the question until then. But I believe it does have something to do with the MOSFET with an applied frequency that is too fast? I better leave it to him to explain. It's entirely beyond me.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/59233-post232.html

I'm hoping Donovan will be able to help regarding the sheer volume of questions. Not only is he highly qualified but he's an absolute authority on alternative energy. If I'm a scholar he's my professor.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/59541-post322.html

I think the need to at least display our waveform is taken on board. I have no idea how to do this and will have to impose on my co-author's time which is already massively constrained. So don't hold your breath but I will try and get this.

I will also, subject to my son's return - try and get some video information our on our own circuit. It is the same as the box that was sent to ABB for their replication purposes. Some years after their tests, they contacted me and asked what they were to do with that box. I was in correspondence with someone - can't remember who - and asked them to ship it to him. But it is feasible to replicate the circuitry. I'm just not sure who will do this. I certainly can't. But I could, at least, ask around. It's just that the guys who worked on the circuit are now drowning in other work and one of them has left for Durban - so is not easily reached.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/59596-post341.html

But I do know that my co-author has wired up a house in our Town - that uses some small part of this system to help recharge batteries. That house is entirely 'grid free'.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/60279-post511.html

Joit - is your waveform proving TinselKoala's point? Is that 555 switch wrongly presented? To me it looks like it is. In which case, I must apologise to all concerned. Clearly the Quantum article was wrong.

So, to all concerned - to everyone who built the circuit as presented in that article, and if, indeed, it is wrong, my abject apologies. I had a shrewd idea it may have been wrong because, thinking back, a university professor kindly edited the quantum paper prior to presenting it to the IET. And his first recommendation was that we omitted a detailed circuit of the 555 switch as being irrelevant to the claim. Which is why I was reluctant to endorse the Quantum article as being a correct presentation. I just wish, in retrospect, that he had pointed out the error if he had seen such. In any event, it seems that I have been entirely at fault. My own objection to it was due to the lack of the feedback diode - which was the entire subject of the exercise. I knew it was in the apparatus. It certainly was not in diagram.

I would point out though, that my reluctance to admit this prior to ascertaining the fact was due to the person who presented that diagram and assisted me in that first article. He is a good friend and he, like all of us, was 'giving' his time. I was not keen therefore to expose the problem unless I also knew it was a problem. So, if you're reading this, don't even worry. In any event, the blame was not his. I should, at least, have had the circuit vetted - considering my own inability to read such.

So. Many apologies, even to TinselKoala and anyone in the entire world who duplicated that circuit. It is wrongly presented. I am sincerely sorry that I have wasted so much of your time. And Joit - you've put the question to bed. I would be very glad to refund you for your time and trouble - if required - and if I can get the money to you with our exchange control. Just send me an account on the PM system. You've done a very good thing here.

What I do assure you all is this. The switch may have been wrongly drawn. Our own duty cycle application is NOT. I have the experimental apparatus available and it has been checked by EE's even at universities. We have also, over the years, built many different 555 switches and by different people. And there are replicated experiments by others using nothing but a functions generator. And all this prior to publication. More to the point is that the battery duration is consistent with measurements based on the duty cycle. But, in point of fact, after publication I never experimented again for a period of 7 years and I certainly never even looked at the article again. The only reason I could scan a copy for the blog when I eventually did this, was because my children kept a copy of the original publication. I was just so dejected at the entire lack of interest it seemed to generate. I had no idea that the test would really ever be duplicated.

Therefore, please take this admission as a sincere apology to all those who have tried to build the switch according to the quantum article. I see that the Quantum article was the primary reference point as the IET paper was only posted to the blog after July. It seems that Ramset and TinselKoala started their thread on OU.COM in mid June. Unfortunate. But there you are. Sorry guys - It's all I can say.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/60282-post512.html

TinselKoala - I see you still read posts on this forum - failing which I am sure that Ramset will copy and post for you if you no longer have access - I would like to re-iterate that I am sincerely sorry for blaming your interpretation of the inverted waveform if, as it seems, the switch was incorrect.

Abject apologies - for what it's worth. It is thanks to Joit that this matter has been cleared up. If you continue to do the experiment - I suggest you build your own 555 switch.

And for the record - the claim relates to a frequency that is variously described but best known as a Parasitic Hartley Effect. I have this information from experts. The point is that it is an oscillating frequency that is damped down or clamped out, not sure of the correct term - as it interferes with signals which is when it's manifest. We show that that effect adds to the efficiency when it is NOT clamped out.

BUT the flyback principle, whether with inductive resistors or resistors in series with inductors - always give evidence of a gain. It can be at any frequency tested between 60Hz all the way to and beyond 600kHz. All work - some with more efficiency than others - and at extreme frequencies - with losses rather than gains. It can use just about any variation of the flyback principles as described by gotoluc as a reticulated current. And it does not need the induced Hartley Effect to realise a gain. In other words you can get the over unity performance on periodic waveforms.

Nor do you need specialised MOSFETS. And you will always see a gain if you run batteries on control tests.

The misrepresentation of the 555 in the Quantum Article I think has been proved by Joit. I sincerely apologise for the error. Hopefully with this admission you'll at least continue with the testing. You see now how wide is my claim. You can then disprove it on many bases.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/60610-post664.html

the need for the flyback diode is to prove the returning energy - not to exploit it. The WHOLE intention of that paper is for purposes of proof.

And your measurements are WAY OUT. I was rather hoping for an unbiased report.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/60640-post682.html

We're in the happy position of being invited to give a demo of 'proof of concept' - I think - or else a working model (both easily accommodated) for a group here who may have found a market for the devices.

It seems such a ready made solution. I have been concentrating entirely on getting academics to approve this. How utterly stupid. We can go straight to the market. Why look for that endorsement. As and when we've got the actual 'application' or 'proof' or, indeed both, I will keep you fully updated. Hopefully we'll be able to post on youtube - but don't hold your breath. For me - that's a HUGE learning curve.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/60647-post688.html

Be that s it may - the overunity is defintely measurable at all frequencies and all duty cycles. Having said that there are some really fast frequencies where the benefit is lost. However I've referred to possible variations in that paper. Nor do you need the precise circuit diagram.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

/www.energeticforum.com/60943-post774.html

And could it also be because, notwithstanding the modesty of the effect - it is also measurable in terms of classical analysis? And could it be because - not only is the gain claimed - these effects have been thoroughly analysed and accredited by experts in the art. Let me name it's most authoritative accreditor. ABB Research in North Carolina.

Now, let me continue with that list of accreditors. It also includes, Sasol (SA) Spescom (SA) BP (SA) and others. They are all either public companies or they are individuals associated with public companies.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/61057-post802.html

But the first and most important point is to prove that the battery is being recharged. The quickest proof is through the flyback diode to the battery.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/61081-post812.html

Anyway - I forgot to add. Take the flyback to the positive of the second battery.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.feelthevibe.com/free_energy/rosemary_ainslie/ainslieheater.pdf ( Aaron's replication with flyback diode )

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/61441-post912.html

Have just watched the video. What a pleasure. That self-oscillation - AT LAST. There's something wrong with my Fluke. I'm going to get it fixed and will then post it to you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/61453-post920.html

I am an AMATEUR. I cannot put a circuit together. And I can only draw very simple circuits. You guys - all - have forgotten what I know. Not only that - but nor am I into conventional power applications. So - not only do I not know - but nor am I ever likely to learn.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/61506-post942.html

Its the detractors on other forums that are worrying. The lengths they go to to discredit the person and the claim - both.

Have you ever looked through the OU.Com thread on this? It beggars belief. Malice hardly describes it.

What is frightening is that anyone who questions a result is actually verbally menaced.

TK only needs to make a post for immediate endorsement by other contributors who also then mock my apparent lack of sanity, judgement, intelligence, schooling, beliefs, ideas, lack of expertise - name it's all there. All for public consumption. All unchallenged. And all such detractors always out of reach, always carefully hiding behind their assumed identities. They flirt with their rights to freedom of expression that under normal circumstances, and under ordinary civil law would be actionable. And all this, clearly with Stephan's endorsement.

To compound my concerns is the fact that the entire forum was promoted by Stephan, with, one would assume, the intention of promoting the study of free energy. I can no longer access OU.Com. Was he responsible for my not gaining access? And if so, at whose asking and why? Public - to everyone but me? Then too it seems that my emails are being read. How does that happen? Are my phone calls also being monitored?
[/quote]

Rosemary Ainslie · August 28, 2010, 04:34:30 PM

Since Glen is simply flaming the thread with repeat posts I thought I'd answer him by repeating my own.

Hi Guys, I'd copy Glen's post but it's just too long.

In any event. I think he's trying to refer to my open admission to not being able to build or read or design the switching side of a 555 switching circuit. He's quoting the early chapters of my admission of this and - unfortunately - I still can't. But I'm perfectly capable of putting that switching circuit in series with my own to drive a MOSFET. And I'm perfectly capable of designing a circuit for its use - precisely because it's that's simple. I think a high school science student could have designed our circuit. And I also think the actual intention here is to imply that I cannot read or design ANY circuit. But the design for the switching part of that circuit? There are many examples of this all over the internet. One just needs to google it. And I'm entirely satisfied that just about everyone copies those designs and modifies around them. So what?

This is precisely the 'genius' of their propagandising methods. They select isolated comments and use them as they please. That endless reference to diodes is another example of 'quotes out of context'. The discussion was the outright denial - also in the early chapters - that one COULD NOT get energy back to the battery. I recommended that they simply need to put a diode to return current back to one or even two batteries in parallel and they would immediately see that - INDEED - one could return that energy. At the early stages everyone wanted to include capacitors and inductors and God knows what. I was anxiously trying to show them that it was not needed. The energy WILL recharge the battery. And so have our experiments shown.

For the rest of those comments. It's was an interesting stroll down memory lane. You will notice - AS EVER - a desparate need NOT to refer to my actual skills which is in the thesis. If there is any value to any of my work it probably is this. And the circuit - in all it's simplicity - was simply intended to prove that thesis.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35909676/REVISION-OF-DARK-MATTER-MFM

@glen. I wish you'd just give up. There are very few readers here and you're achieving nothing. Just showing up that spiteful, vindictive nature that seems to be your unhappy lot.

fuzzytomcat · August 28, 2010, 04:47:39 PM

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on August 28, 2010, 04:34:30 PM
Since Glen is simply flaming the thread with repeat posts I thought I'd answer him by repeating my own.

Hi Guys, I'd copy Glen's post but it's just too long.

In any event. I think he's trying to refer to my open admission to not being able to build or read or design the switching side of a 555 switching circuit. He's quoting the early chapters of my admission of this and - unfortunately - I still can't. But I'm perfectly capable of putting that switching circuit in series with my own to drive a MOSFET. And I'm perfectly capable of designing a circuit for its use - precisely because it's that's simple. I think a high school science student could have designed our circuit. And I also think the actual intention here is to imply that I cannot read or design ANY circuit. But the design for the switching part of that circuit? There are many examples of this all over the internet. One just needs to google it. And I'm entirely satisfied that just about everyone copies those designs and modifies around them. So what?

This is precisely the 'genius' of their propagandising methods. They select isolated comments and use them as they please. That endless reference to diodes is another example of 'quotes out of context'. The discussion was the outright denial - also in the early chapters - that one COULD NOT get energy back to the battery. I recommended that they simply need to put a diode to return current back to one or even two batteries in parallel and they would immediately see that - INDEED - one could return that energy. At the early stages everyone wanted to include capacitors and inductors and God knows what. I was anxiously trying to show them that it was not needed. The energy WILL recharge the battery. And so have our experiments shown.

For the rest of those comments. It's was an interesting stroll down memory lane. You will notice - AS EVER - a desparate need NOT to refer to my actual skills which is in the thesis. If there is any value to any of my work it probably is this. And the circuit - in all it's simplicity - was simply intended to prove that thesis.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35909676/REVISION-OF-DARK-MATTER-MFM

@glen. I wish you'd just give up. There are very few readers here and you're achieving nothing. Just showing up that spiteful, vindictive nature that seems to be your unhappy lot.

Lets start with this one here .......

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/60279-post511.html

Joit - is your waveform proving TinselKoala's point? Is that 555 switch wrongly presented? To me it looks like it is. In which case, I must apologise to all concerned. Clearly the Quantum article was wrong.

So, to all concerned - to everyone who built the circuit as presented in that article, and if, indeed, it is wrong, my abject apologies. I had a shrewd idea it may have been wrong because, thinking back, a university professor kindly edited the quantum paper prior to presenting it to the IET. And his first recommendation was that we omitted a detailed circuit of the 555 switch as being irrelevant to the claim. Which is why I was reluctant to endorse the Quantum article as being a correct presentation. I just wish, in retrospect, that he had pointed out the error if he had seen such. In any event, it seems that I have been entirely at fault. My own objection to it was due to the lack of the feedback diode - which was the entire subject of the exercise. I knew it was in the apparatus. It certainly was not in diagram.

I would point out though, that my reluctance to admit this prior to ascertaining the fact was due to the person who presented that diagram and assisted me in that first article. He is a good friend and he, like all of us, was 'giving' his time. I was not keen therefore to expose the problem unless I also knew it was a problem. So, if you're reading this, don't even worry. In any event, the blame was not his. I should, at least, have had the circuit vetted - considering my own inability to read such.

So. Many apologies, even to TinselKoala and anyone in the entire world who duplicated that circuit. It is wrongly presented. I am sincerely sorry that I have wasted so much of your time. And Joit - you've put the question to bed. I would be very glad to refund you for your time and trouble - if required - and if I can get the money to you with our exchange control. Just send me an account on the PM system. You've done a very good thing here.

What I do assure you all is this. The switch may have been wrongly drawn. Our own duty cycle application is NOT. I have the experimental apparatus available and it has been checked by EE's even at universities. We have also, over the years, built many different 555 switches and by different people. And there are replicated experiments by others using nothing but a functions generator. And all this prior to publication. More to the point is that the battery duration is consistent with measurements based on the duty cycle. But, in point of fact, after publication I never experimented again for a period of 7 years and I certainly never even looked at the article again. The only reason I could scan a copy for the blog when I eventually did this, was because my children kept a copy of the original publication. I was just so dejected at the entire lack of interest it seemed to generate. I had no idea that the test would really ever be duplicated.

Therefore, please take this admission as a sincere apology to all those who have tried to build the switch according to the quantum article. I see that the Quantum article was the primary reference point as the IET paper was only posted to the blog after July. It seems that Ramset and TinselKoala started their thread on OU.COM in mid June. Unfortunate. But there you are. Sorry guys - It's all I can say.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LETS SEE YOUR COP>17 EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS DEVICE YOU HAVE IN YOU POSSESSION STATED IN THE ABOVE POST !!

Rosemary Ainslie · August 28, 2010, 05:19:08 PM

Quote from: fuzzytomcat on August 28, 2010, 04:47:39 PM
Lets start with this one here .......

http://www.energeticforum.com/60279-post511.html

LETS SEE YOUR COP>17 EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS DEVICE YOU HAVE IN YOU POSSESSION STATED IN THE ABOVE POST !!

LOL. There is absolutely no end of Glen's duplicity. I see that he posted a link where ONLY one post can be viewed. Not the whole thread - and not the 'follow up comment' from Joit. When he actually starts giving the 'full picture' then I'll feel obliged to answer him.

Meanwhile guys, here's the full link. I'll see if I can search out the actual post so that this too can be seen in context.

You will notice that I actually posted that I'd dismantled my apparatus. Everyone knew this and no-one screamed at me to make photographs. It never occurred to me to do so This was when I also forwarded my Fluke to Aaron Murakami. That long ago - now 2 years. At that stage I was still naive enough as to think that Aaron would forward it to everyone who wanted to advance our circuit testing. Nor did I realise how lack of photos would become a critical criteria for Glen who now needed to see that apparatus. Never an issue until he also tried to appropriate the technology. And he knew perfectly well that it would be impossible to show photographs. He uses this as his excuse to claim - as he now does - that we never did those experiments. But there are photos. They're just not very good. They're in the Quantum magazine article - December issue 2002 (I think)

In any event here's the link to the ENTIRE thread.
Rosemary
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-115.html

fuzzytomcat · August 28, 2010, 05:37:48 PM

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on August 28, 2010, 05:19:08 PM
LOL. There is absolutely no end of Glen's duplicity. I see that he posted a link where ONLY one post can be viewed. Not the whole thread - and not the 'follow up comment' from Joit. When he actually starts giving the 'full picture' then I'll feel obliged to answer him.

Meanwhile guys, here's the full link. I'll see if I can search out the actual post so that this too can be seen in context.

You will notice that I actually posted that I'd dismantled my apparatus. Everyone knew this and no-one screamed at me to make photographs. It never occurred to me to do so This was when I also forwarded my Fluke to Aaron Murakami. That long ago - now 2 years. At that stage I was still naive enough as to think that Aaron would forward it to everyone who wanted to advance our circuit testing. Nor did I realise how lack of photos would become a critical criteria for Glen who now needed to see that apparatus. Never an issue until he also tried to appropriate the technology. And he knew perfectly well that it would be impossible to show photographs. He uses this as his excuse to claim - as he now does - that we never did those experiments. But there are photos. They're just not very good. They're in the Quantum magazine article - December issue 2002 (I think)

In any event here's the link to the ENTIRE thread.
Rosemary
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-115.html

Pleas see the prior posting of Rosemary Ainslie ..... anyone in their right mind whom worked on a project so long would dismantle a COP>17 device ?? In the time frame specified you have specified after the fact ?? This will be addressed further in detail .....

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/59541-post322.html

I think the need to at least display our waveform is taken on board. I have no idea how to do this and will have to impose on my co-author's time which is already massively constrained. So don't hold your breath but I will try and get this.

I will also, subject to my son's return - try and get some video information our on our own circuit. It is the same as the box that was sent to ABB for their replication purposes. Some years after their tests, they contacted me and asked what they were to do with that box. I was in correspondence with someone - can't remember who - and asked them to ship it to him. But it is feasible to replicate the circuitry. I'm just not sure who will do this. I certainly can't. But I could, at least, ask around. It's just that the guys who worked on the circuit are now drowning in other work and one of them has left for Durban - so is not easily reached.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PLEASE SHOW THE MEMBERS AND GUESTS YOUR COP>17 EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS DEVICE YOU STATED YOU HAVE ......