PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-11-27, 22:50:15
News: A feature is available which provides a place all members can chat, either publicly or privately.
There is also a "Shout" feature on each page. Only available to members.

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 26 27 28 29
Author Topic: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit  (Read 477240 times)
Group: Guest
AC:

I agree with you about your last point. 500 years is a long way out for sure and I probably was being too conservative.

I believe that I read that they estimate "empty space" has about one molecule of matter per cubic meter.  I assume that it's typically a molecule of hydrogen or an alpha particle.  And yes that interstellar dust is a plasma and there are amazing things out there if you go to a website with Hubble images.  They have even made time-lapse movies of stellar objects spitting out gas into the Cosmos.  Just say "Billions ad billions."  lol

I almost wish that I had become an astronomer.  Such an exciting time we live in for that branch of science.  I can cite an example where your theme rings true.  If you are above a certain age you grew up in a world thinking that it was going to be impossible to ever detect extra-solar planets because that's what you were told.  It seemed to make sense also, because the stars are light-years away.  So I believed that they were right and we would never detect extra-solar planets.  And then in the mid Nineties they confirmed the positive detection of the first planets.  I think the count is now somewhere in the 500-600 range.  Can you imagine in 25 years how many planets they will have detected?

Apparently they will soon be able to gather information about the composition of the atmospheres of certain extra-solar planets with a new satellite or something.  That's mind-boggling.

Please never make Avatar II!  lol

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
Well Rosie... Poynt has now simulated your measurement errors and then shown you three separate ways to simulate the measurement of the true power consumption of your circuit.

The inductive resistor gets hot because the batteries are supplying power to the circuit.  Just like what happens in the rest of the real world.

All that you have to do is power your real-life circuit with a very large capacitor and you will observe that the capacitor voltage will decrease over time.  The capacitor voltage decreasing over time is proof that the direction of the net current flow is into your circuit, and not the other way around as you believe.

Poynt's qualifications are excellent, and the spaghetti is not sticking!

Will the fat lady please sing!?

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
This one is for Rosemary:



Quoting you Rosemary:

Quote
When a negative signal is applied to the gate of Q1 - and if those transistors are working - then what has happened is that the batteries are disconnected.  That's not speculative.  That's FACT. That's what that switch does.  It's either 'on' or 'off'.  Think of it as a light switch.  But an amazing switch that can turn on really, really quickly.  The question is ONLY this.  If Q1 is 'off' is Q2 then 'on'?  In other words are we simply allowing the current to flow through another switch?  We can certainly claim that the batteries are NOT connected at Q1.  But?  Are they still perhaps connected at Q2?  Definitely doable BUT ONLY PROVIDED that the switch at Q2 has a full path to conduct that current back to the battery.  But.  It doesn't.  It's also OFF.  To take the analogy further - its connection to that battery is BROKEN.  Technically it CANNOT enable a flow of current from that battery.  There is no connection of Q2 source to the Source rail or battery negative - during this period.  That's as good as leaving the switch 'off'.

Take a look again Rosemary, there IS a connection of Q2 source to the Source rail or battery negative.

Take a second look at the function generator.  You are obviously thinking that somehow current can't flow through the function generator but you are dead wrong.

A simple thought experiment:  You have have a set of six 12-volt batteries in series to make a 72-volt voltage source.  The positive rail is connected to a 100 ohm resistor.  The other side of the resistor is connected to the output of a function generator.  The ground of the function generator is connected to the negative rail of the battery set.

Do you think current will flow in the above setup when you turn on the function generator?  The answer is YES, current will flow from the positive rail, through the resistor, then through the function generator, and then back to the negative rail.

Are you waking up yet, Rosemary?

So look above at the simplified diagram of your setup one more time.  Current flows out of the positive rail, through RL1, then through Q2, and then it flows through the function generator, then through the current sensing resistor, and then to the negative rail.

So your battery set IS POWERING THE OSCILLATIONS AND CURRENT IS FLOWING.

So your whole "instructional treatise" that you have been giving over the past day is WRONG.  You have been a victim of your own INCORRECT PRECONCEPTIONS.  You have been staring at that circuit diagram for more than a year and you have had a preconception that current supplied by your set of batteries cannot flow through the function generator itself, when in fact your preconceptions are WRONG and current can flow through the function generator itself.

And that is the essence of your "circuit."  You miswired the Q2 MOSFETS so that they only switch on when you put a negative offset on the function generator output.  When you do that, the main set of batteries can start to drive the load and heat up the inductive resistor.  Q1 is a "wallflower" MOSFET and is never on.  Then you made lousy measurements and tricked yourself into believing that you have "COP infinity."  Then when Poynt99 tried to explain this to you, you went from praising him to turning on him and attacking him like a vicious animal.

When is this farce going TO END???

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
Rosemary,

When I read between the lines in your prose below, it looks like it never even occurred to you that current can actually flow through the two terminals of the function generator.  That could either be into the signal terminal and out of the ground terminal, or out of the signal terminal and into the ground terminal.  Well the short answer is that IT CAN, and so everything you have been saying recently is all wrong.

Quote
Poynt, if you're still there.  I wonder if you could ask MileHigh to get his head out of those clouds and his feet on the ground.  He's seriously proposing that upwards of 5 amps can flow into the ground rail of the probe - through all the circuitry of the signal supply source, nuke the most of those rectifiers, fry the delicate potentiometers, burn up most of that circuitry of that really sensitive instrument, that is decidedly NOT designed to take high amperage.  And he then proposes that it can come out on the other side at the probe of the signal generator - to confront an applied negative signal at the Gate of Q1.  It needs to reach Q1's source rail.  So it IGNORES that signal?  It simply overrides the applied charge and slips onto the source leg of Q1S.  And then it flows unobstructed to the supply source or negative rail of the battery.  That's unlikely.

If he's suggesting that the current from the battery can simply flow through the Q2 transistor at Q2's Drain through to Q2 Gate - AND THEN DIRECTLY ONTO THE CIRCUIT at it's  source rail (or the negative battery terminal thing) then it would need to bypass it's own Source Q2S leg.  Which means that we'd see a very visible arcing sparking flow of current in mid air, as it tries to find safe landing on a really slim landing site all of which is to managed while the current is in a kind of free fall.  That's also unlikely. But both options are interesting on a speculative level.  Especially as it would introduce some utterly exotic, if somewhat improbable, physics.  And show him the schematic again.  Here it is.

Q2s or the source leg of Q2 has NO CONNECTION AT ALL with the circuit battery negative.  IT FLOATS.  I really need a shot of this to show you guys.  Hopefully soon. 

As per normal for you, your technical discussion is all mangled up and your switch terminology on the fly.  It doesn't matter, I understand what you are trying to say.

For starters, I am going to follow the naming convention for standard current flow.

Quote
He's seriously proposing that upwards of 5 amps can flow into the ground rail of the probe - through all the circuitry of the signal supply source, nuke the most of those rectifiers, fry the delicate potentiometers, burn up most of that circuitry of that really sensitive instrument, that is decidedly NOT designed to take high amperage.

By "probe" you mean the function generator signal and ground terminals, not to be confused with the scope probe.  Beyond that I an not stating how much current can flow, all that I am stating is that current can and will flow through the function generator.  The talk about "burning up circuitry" is just you revealing how little you know about electronics, which you freely admit, but then go onto draw erroneous conclusions anyways.

The only thing I can say right now is that since your function generator has an offset control, that means that it can both source and sink current when it is normally driving a load.  The only thing that will be affected by having an external power source put current through the function generator is it's output stage.  I am assuming that the output impedance is 50 ohms, and that is only a clue as to how the output stage will react to an external source of current flow.  However, no matter what you think or say, current does flow through the function generator and that completes the circuit when Q2 is switched on.

Quote
And he then proposes that it can come out on the other side at the probe of the signal generator - to confront an applied negative signal at the Gate of Q1.  It needs to reach Q1's source rail.  So it IGNORES that signal?  It simply overrides the applied charge and slips onto the source leg of Q1S.  And then it flows unobstructed to the supply source or negative rail of the battery.  That's unlikely.

I have no idea why you are talking about Q1 because it was established more than a year ago that Q1 is always off, which I also stated in my previous posting.

LET ME REPEAT IT AGAIN:  CURRENT FROM THE BATTERY DRAIN RAIL (POSITIVE) FLOWS THROUGH RL1 THEN INTO THE DRAIN PIN OF Q2, THEN OUT OF THE SOURCE PIN OF Q2 THEN INTO THE SIGNAL TERMINAL OF THE FUNCTION GENERATOR, THEN OUT OF THE GROUND TERMINAL OF THE FUNCTION GENERATOR, THEN THROUGH THE CURRENT SENSING RESISTOR THEN BACK TO THE BATTERY SOURCE RAIL (NEGATIVE).

I hope that you get that Rosemary.

Quote
If he's suggesting that the current from the battery can simply flow through the Q2 transistor at Q2's Drain through to Q2 Gate - AND THEN DIRECTLY ONTO THE CIRCUIT at it's  source rail (or the negative battery terminal thing) then it would need to bypass it's own Source Q2S leg.

The above quote from you is more mangled nonsensical talk.  Everybody is supposed to know that the gate of a MOSFET transistor does not pass DC current.  See the all-capitals description of the current flow in my prose above.

Quote
Which means that we'd see a very visible arcing sparking flow of current in mid air, as it tries to find safe landing on a really slim landing site all of which is to managed while the current is in a kind of free fall.  That's also unlikely. But both options are interesting on a speculative level.  Especially as it would introduce some utterly exotic, if somewhat improbable, physics.  And show him the schematic again.  Here it is.

The above quote from you is more mangled nonsensical talk.  Even I can't figure out what you are trying to say there.

Quote
Q2s or the source leg of Q2 has NO CONNECTION AT ALL with the circuit battery negative.  IT FLOATS.  I really need a shot of this to show you guys.  Hopefully soon.

Here you are starting to make some sense but you are dead wrong.  You are alleging that "it floats" because it never occurred to you that the signal generator itself completes the circuit and allows current to flow.  The bulk of the voltage that creates that current flow is from the battery set, and therefore the battery set is providing power that gets burned off in the RL1 inductive resistor.

Current flows through the function generator itself to complete the loop.  Now that you know, perhaps you will manage to understand how your circuit actually works.  All of your talk about "current flowing when the batteries are disconnected" is dead wrong.  So your theory about the material itself that makes up the physical mass of the inductive resistor supplies the "extra" power or that "Dark Energy" is responsible for the "extra" power is completely and utterly wrong.

Your circuit is 100% conventional and no over unity barriers have been breached.  The dam still holds firm.

MileHigh
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
@Milehigh
Quote
The dam still holds firm

That damn dam, I would agree that electronics and the energy flow in even simple circuits can be very misleading even at the best of times. That is why I think it is so very important to understand the basics and to test, test , test our circuits. I use modern equipment to test my circuits however most of what I use is old school because old school just works, it works every time and I know what I'm seeing is real. For example I like to use hall effect current measurement, no shunts, because first I can completely isolate the measuring device from the circuit and there is no conductive path and second I can measure real current. If there is no magnetic field present at my sensing inductor then there is no AC or DC it's that simple. As well in this day and age IC's are cheap, accurate and so damn sensitive it's almost scary.

Another is electrometers, I love electrometers because they tell me the state of charge present at any given point, not two points, at each singular point. This relates to the voltage in a relative sense and the state of charge present as well as the current because a changing state of charge must represent a current by definition. Electrometers are also nice because they are old school and they seldom if ever give a false indication of what is happening. They also tell us what is happening in the space surrounding each conductor or element in our circuits which adds another dimension to what we call measurement.

To be honest I like the new equipment with all it's bells and whistles but I have always been an old school getter done kind of guy, new ain't always better and old doesn't mean something is lacking in quality.

Regards
AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Group: Guest
Rosemary:

That long treatise you gave was totally bizarre and I am not going to comment on it.  Nor am I going to comment on your shorter attempt at a technical discussion.  I'll just say a few words.

Firstly, no electronics designer in their right mind would ever design a circuit that has the output from a MOSFET, the source pin, connected to the signal terminal of a function generator.  It makes no sense at all, it means you are trying to put current through the function generator.   The signal terminal of a function generator is supposed to connect to the gate input of a MOSFET.

So lo and behold that's what your circuit does, it has current flowing through the function generator itself, which is totally bizarre and makes no sense.

Notwithstanding what you did, let's say the signal generator swings between 0 volts and -5 volts.   That's of course because you add the negative offset to the signal generator output.

When the signal generator outputs 0 volts, Q1 is off and Q2 is off - no oscillation.

When the signal generator outputs -5 volts then Q1 is still off and Q2 switches on - the circuit oscillates

The reason Q2 switches on is that the Q2 gate voltage is at 0 volts and the Q2 source pin is at - 5 volts.   Therefore the gate pin is at a higher potential than the source pin and the MOSFET switches on.   In other words, the gate pin is at +5 volts relative to the source pin and that makes the MOSFET switch on.

In reality, the MOSFET switches on for just a fraction of a second and then it switches off because the circuit conditions are such that it goes into spontaneous oscillation.

So, when the output of the signal generator goes low, the circuit oscillates, and current flows through the signal generator itself to complete the circuit.  It's a totally bizarre nonsensical design.  Nobody would ever design a circuit where current flows through the signal generator itself like your circuit does.  Your circuit is just an accidental miswiring of a MOSFET that results in oscillation.  The fact that it oscillates is not surprising at all.

And then you arrive at the "garbage-in garbage-out" part of the story.  The circuit is bizarre but still operates like any conventional circuit with respect to the energy dynamics.  You make "garbage in"  measurements and are fooled by what you see, and thus you arrive at a "garbage out" conclusion.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
Rosemary:

Today was quite a day.

I can assure you that current can and does flow through your function generator, not withstanding what you said.  Your cockamamie circuit actually puts the function generator in series with the rest of the batteries such that it is in the "main power loop" that dissipates power in the inductive resistor.

With respect to power measurements, the moment you change from doing basic DC or low-frequency power measurements to power measurements on waveforms that are very spiky and have a lot of high-frequency content, it's like you have entered another realm of measurement altogether.  Here you need an experienced person that knows their stuff and understands the advantages and limitations of the equipment that they are working with.  You need to have someone that knows through experience and/or instinct when their instruments are giving them false readings.  Likewise, you need a very experienced person that knows precisely how to use their measuring instruments under very high frequency conditions.

You clearly never had a person of this caliber to work with when you did these very difficult measurements.  And you are left doing nothing more than repeating over and over that the instruments don't lie.  But the fact is that the instruments can lie if you don't have the experience, instinct, or wisdom to use them properly under very trying and difficult to measure conditions.

So my advice to you is to stop repeating over and over that your measurements are correct.  You have to understand that the measurements are not correct because your measuring instruments weren't used properly.

I will say it again and one last time:  Substitute your batteries for a large capacitor and you will see the voltage on the capacitor decrease as the circuit runs -> GAME OVER.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
Rosemary:

You always want it both ways, you try to speak authoritatively about electronics and other times you admit that you know next to nothing about electronics.

You want to believe that the function generator can't pass current from an external source because it upsets the apple cart for you.  I can only guess that you never really thought about it and just presumed that it couldn't pass any current.  So your defense is to feign talking authoritatively.  That's like the famous scene in Citizen Kane where the mistress tries to force the wrong piece into her jigsaw puzzle.  You only end up cheating yourself.

Suppose the signal generator were to output a square wave that varied between +10 volts and -10 volts and you connected a 50-ohm resistor as the load.  What do you think the current flow would be through the function generator is in this case?  It would be 200 milliamperes going back and forth in each direction.  And you think no current can flow through the function generator?

If you look at a voltage source, say we take a simple 1.5 volt alkaline battery.  You can imagine current flowing out of the positive terminal (and into the negative terminal), or just as easily you can imagine current flowing into the positive terminal (and out of the negative terminal).  In either case the voltage across the two terminals of the battery will still remain the same, approximately 1.5 volts.  That's the way voltage sources work and that's approximately how the signal generator works.

Poynt pointed out an inconsistency in your paper about the actual level output by the function generator so who knows what you were really doing.

Sorry there is nothing for me to concede.  I see a big bank of batteries generating voltage that wants to push current through an inductive resistor with a strange accidental arrangement of MOSFETs acting as a switch to regulate the current flow.  The famous oscillation that you see is something that is seen in electronics all the time and means nothing.  That's the reality.  You are on a flight of fancy when you dream that this could be an over unity phenomenon.

Poynt simulated your bizarre circuit and it jumped into oscillation mode just fine.  Just like a million other circuits can be simulated that will also oscillate.  There is a whole branch of electronics and engineering devoted to those kinds of things and they are pretty much understood inside-out.

Since I have your attention, I will also repeat that there would be no point in ever inviting Stefan to S.A. for a demonstration.  He is clearly not knowledgeable enough to pass judgement on your setup, not by a long shot.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
Rosemary:

Just to comment on this:

Quote
And the need of so many that our grid supplies would never be able to supply the required amount to keep our cities lit - our houses warmed.  The question is - WHERE ARE ALL THOSE ELECTRONS?  Because the concept of current flow being the flow of electrons NEEDS ALL THOSE ELECTRONS.

Dear God, and here you are stating that (to paraphrase) "scientists and engineers don't understand electric current" and you are wondering were are all the electrons coming from?  You repeatedly state that the concept of electric current is all wrong and you write that?  Not to mention your "valence electrons rubbing shoulders" theory which should make it take 30 minutes for a light switch to turn on a light.

I think that you were stating this stuff 2 1/2 years ago so you haven't been studying much.  The answer to the missing electrons is blowing in the wind.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
Rosemary:

Myself, and many others are gasping at your multiple attempts to answer Poynt's very simple question with the 50-volt battery and the 10-ohm resistor.  Electronics is clearly not your "thing."  You clearly will not be able to understand what's going on if a serious test was to be done on your setup with Poynt doing the testing and you observing.  You can't punch your way out of a wet electronics paper bag.

Let me ask you this:  If you still have a working setup, imagine if you replaced just one of the 12-volt batteries with a quite large capacitor charged to 12 volts.  Do you understand how monitoring the capacitor voltage will tell you if your circuit is over unity or under unity?

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest


Let me ask you this:  If you still have a working setup, imagine if you replaced just one of the 12-volt batteries with a quite large capacitor charged to 12 volts.  Do you understand how monitoring the capacitor voltage will tell you if your circuit is over unity or under unity?

MileHigh

So you are saying if the voltage of the capacitor goes down, it's under unity? 

   
Group: Guest
Yes the voltage goes down if it's under unity.

Meanwhile, I need a straitjacket.   :D
   
Group: Guest
Yes the voltage goes down if it's under unity.

Meanwhile, I need a straitjacket.   :D

 ;D I hope you're not in trouble or anything. 

I'm just curious by your interesting thinking because OU is determine by output/input. lol
   
Group: Guest
Gibbs:

Thank you for pointing that out because I should correct my error.  The capacitor replacing one of the 6 batteries in Rosemary's setup will determine what the direction of the net current flow is when the circuit is running.  Rosemary argues that the batteries are being recharged while her circuit runs.  That has overshadowed any power in vs. power out discussion because if the batteries are being recharged that's "COP infinity" according to Rosie.

If the batteries are being recharged, the voltage on the capacitor would increase.  If the batteries are discharging, then the voltage on the capacitor will decrease.  With metaphysical certitude, you can state that the voltage on the capacitor will decrease when the circuit is powering the load.  This simple method is a different way to determine the net direction of the current flow and it is more accurate than using a high-end DSO.  That's because the capacitor acts like a perfect integrator of the current flow and has essentially infinite resolution.  The output of the "capacitor current integrator" is a voltage reading.

With careful measurements of the capacitance, the time, and the amount of voltage drop when the capacitor is in the loop powering Rosemary's circuit, you could make a very accurate measurement of the power the battery bank is supplying to the load.  The convention for that measurement dictates that you express that power in negative watts.  It's negative watts when power is being exported from a device and positive watts when power is being dissipated in or supplied to a device.

So the real question of over unity for Rosemary's latest circuit has never really been discussed like it was for her previous circuit.  Tons of mental energy has been expended on trying to figure out the direction of the net current flow.  Rosemary believes that her bank of batteries is being recharged while they pump real power into her inductive resistor because she is an amateur trying to make very difficult-to-measure measurements.

MileHigh

   
Group: Guest
Gibbs:

Thank you for pointing that out because I should correct my error.  The capacitor replacing one of the 6 batteries in Rosemary's setup will determine what the direction of the net current flow is when the circuit is running.  Rosemary argues that the batteries are being recharged while her circuit runs.  That has overshadowed any power in vs. power out discussion because if the batteries are being recharged that's "COP infinity" according to Rosie.

If the batteries are being recharged, the voltage on the capacitor would increase.  If the batteries are discharging, then the voltage on the capacitor will decrease.  With metaphysical certitude, you can state that the voltage on the capacitor will decrease when the circuit is powering the load.  This simple method is a different way to determine the net direction of the current flow and it is more accurate than using a high-end DSO.  That's because the capacitor acts like a perfect integrator of the current flow and has essentially infinite resolution.  The output of the "capacitor current integrator" is a voltage reading.

With careful measurements of the capacitance, the time, and the amount of voltage drop when the capacitor is in the loop powering Rosemary's circuit, you could make a very accurate measurement of the power the battery bank is supplying to the load.  The convention for that measurement dictates that you express that power in negative watts.  It's negative watts when power is being exported from a device and positive watts when power is being dissipated in or supplied to a device.

So the real question of over unity for Rosemary's latest circuit has never really been discussed like it was for her previous circuit.  Tons of mental energy has been expended on trying to figure out the direction of the net current flow.  Rosemary believes that her bank of batteries is being recharged while they pump real power into her inductive resistor because she is an amateur trying to make very difficult-to-measure measurements.

MileHigh



MileHigh,

I've also think the same thing you do but I don't think the capacitor would have enough capacitance.  The current is no doubt an AC one, so the battery get charged each cycle alright.  Right now I'm trying to think if the net radiation would equals I rms x V rms and the real energy is I instantaneous x V instaneous.  But overall, I do understand your concern. 

G

   
Group: Guest
Rosemary:

It appears that you have made your points in a blaze of glory and will soon stop posting?  Just a few comments for you to ponder.  No one will ever know the truth about the infamous "COP 17" claim from more than 10 years ago.  I would not be surprised if it was due to your pulse train being inverted.  Your pulse train was keeping the MOSFET on 95% of the time instead of 5% of the time.  I remember the mass confusion related to that issue when that circuit was discussed two years ago.  It took about a month to resolve it.  So it's perfectly reasonable to assume that you did those measurements 10 years ago thinking that the MOSFET was on 5% of the time when it fact is was on 95% of the time.  You simply wouldn't have had a clue either way.

You make me laugh when you allege psyops and that people are paid to obstruct what you are doing.  Those are just paranoid delusions.  Anybody that has read you over the past week that is reasonably informed about electronics can plainly see that you barely know what you are talking about.  And the truth of the matter is that you have to know what you are talking about, you can't just "wing it" when it comes to electronics.  It's not about intelligence, it's about education and experience.  By the same token when they read Poynt it is abundantly clear that he does know what he is talking about.  You are clearly your own best enemy Rosemary, nobody is out to "get you."

So, in a nutshell, it appears that you have been deluded into thinking you have had over unity twice, the first time because of an inverted signal controlling the MOSFET, and the second time by an accidental nonsensical arrangement of MOSFETs.  That turned into two vortexes of mass confusion that sucked a lot of people in and then spat them back out.

MileHigh
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3017
I've not followed this thread, but now Rose is asking for comment on .99's comment quoted below.  
To further complicate matters, OU.com (where she posted that) is SLOW.  I've been waiting about 45 minutes for a response.  I'm guessing Stefan is having trouble with his server.  (Does anyone have this problem with ou.com?)

So I'm here -- asking, where is this thread that you are responding to MH? URL please.  I'd like to see both sides of the discussion!

Also, where is .99's comment posted?  (quoted below)  URL, please.    


I've seen problems in Rose's analysis before, guess I'll try to understand what she's up to now.
   
Group: Guest
Poynt,

I would have to agree somewhat with MH on his take on Rosemary. You would think after 3 years and over 7,000 posts on numerous forums that a single person, engineer or academic would step forward on her claims and verify something .... anything at all from the South Africa team so called experts. As you and all else can see by Rosemary's forum reply's and uneducated comments that shes 100% on her own, not even knowledgeable forum members come and rally to help the continued mistakes she makes.

The postings on OU you did were all text book and as good as the posts were they got buried quick in the thread from the five (5) part reply and several I told you so BS posts from Rosemary, so now the credible and verifiable information you posted is one (1) page back as per her all so predictable methods go from the experienced forum warrior battles by the willing to set the record straight or with verifiable correct information

The bottom line is anything that disputes Rosemary's turd model and it's physic prediction of zippties or zipnots will be fought by Rosemary to the bitter end .... the "THESIS" of the unproven model is whats important to Rosemary "NOT" the device she or her South Africa team created in question that produces the claimed results which has never been reproduced in any scientific method accepted in the scientific community.

Shes nothing but a smart "TROLL" in high heals that's fooled countless of good honest individuals for the past three (3) years .....  >:(

Best Regards,
Fuzzy
 ;)

Hi all,

I still stand by my words  C.C  because after this quote posted above on January 16th what movement has Rosemary taken in her intellect and demeanor on the claim of her device having a COP = INFINITY and standard measurement protocols used to determine the claim .... her claim ??

This individual cares nothing of a device any person place or thing only a cobbled thesis of her "standard model" device and measurements protocols to justify her thesis and thinking.

She will respond to 99.9999% of all postings and comments in BLOVIATING enthusiasm to everyone and even those with valid arguments being framed as crushing new technology buried with the countless others in post after post of her ridicule and demonetization of the individual.

All any competent experimentalist after Rosemary's involvement in the open source community, should check out all the information on anyone's claims of "OVERUNIY or LARGE COP" gains .... for those that believe in the Rosemary Ainslie ability's, devices, documentation and claims "BEWARE" many have fallen into her trap of deception and misrepresentation of countless facts.

I personally am done with this subject anyone following Rosemary Ainslie after warnings from many educated and knowledgeable experimentalists in the field of electronics about her  ...... It's your fault and know one else's if the outcome you believe isn't there, any congratulations when not aware of the technology only shows the un-experience in electronic circuitry, component operation, device construction and excepted standard testing protocols with verification of the claim by a separate individual or organization in a excepted scientific method.

SHUNNING her with never responding to her continuing comical forum posts possibly she will self destroy herself and the NERD or RATS team of never seen engineering and scientific experts in field of SA bogus and fraudulent claims.   ???


Good Day,
Fuzzy
 :)
   
Group: Guest
PhysicsProf:

I believe that you have found the thread.  Sometimes people converse "across fenceposts" because of a kind of virtual Cold War.

MileHigh
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
I've not followed this thread, but now Rose is asking for comment on .99's comment quoted below.  
To further complicate matters, OU.com (where she posted that) is SLOW.  I've been waiting about 45 minutes for a response.  I'm guessing Stefan is having trouble with his server.  (Does anyone have this problem with ou.com?)

So I'm here -- asking, where is this thread that you are responding to MH? URL please.  I'd like to see both sides of the discussion!

Also, where is .99's comment posted?  (quoted below)  URL, please.    


I've seen problems in Rose's analysis before, guess I'll try to understand what she's up to now.

The beginning of the thread is here:
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg304941/#msg304941

and here is where I recommend you start regarding the simple problem I gave Rosemary:
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg311338/#msg311338

Let me know if you require any further explanation about the problem (and why it was necessary to ask) and the correct answers I later provided.

Regards,
.99


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
Group: Guest
I don't understand why there's so much hoopla at all about this and any other circuit said to be like it.

If it's real, it will do work. If not, it won't. What real work, observable work is her circuit doing, or said to be doing?

Above and beyond what one would think it should? Do not any of the people promoting these things think they need to be implemented in real world devices outside the land of 'measurements' and theory? Why else make them in the first place?

It's like the Bearden MEG...and other things. If these things 'work', why the heck aren't they out there working?

It's not suppression causing the lack of working devices in these lands. I think it's that they mostly don't work.

Points to Ainslie for 'Rosie Posie'. Sense of humor at least.

rc
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...

Points to Ainslie for 'Rosie Posie'. Sense of humor at least.

rc

I coined "Rosie Posie" for her some time ago. ;)

Her circuit creates heat in an element, but it gets its power from the batteries, and that is the issue of contention.


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
Group: Guest
I coined "Rosie Posie" for her some time ago. ;)

Her circuit creates heat in an element, but it gets its power from the batteries, and that is the issue of contention.

Ha. : )

So, they never run down, or what? Or is it, as the post I read indicates, they never let it run long enough to actually find out?

Sounds like solid state Rossi, along with the shenanigans. : ( Bah.

I read The Dancing Wu Li Masters too, but I never made a contentious circuit and published papers. I did take apart a TV and make a 3 color light organ inside it, and It Was Good. But I was like 13.

What did I miss? :)

 
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...

What did I miss? :)

Nothin' to see here folks...move along...


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
Group: Guest
Well, I can't believe that I am chiming in here but what the hey...

For starters Rosie I gave you a little treatise on all the negative wattage business on the "other" blog out of sheer frustration.  Read it if you haven't already.  This negative wattage issue is a tempest in a teapot and you are missing the point by a thousand miles.  You are ranting for nothing and digging yourself deeper and deeper and deeper into a hole.

PhysicsProf and Posie Rosie:

I am pretty sure that Rose has called many times for PhysicsProf's presence in person to validate her claim.

To quote PhysicsProf:

Quote
For the output energy (measurement), I like either charging a capacitor and using the above equation, OR using calorimetry.  Here, heating water in a well-insulated container is perhaps the easiest method, unless you have a calorimeter available to you

PhysicsProf, by the statement above you are revealing (again) that you are not qualified to verify anyone's electrical circuit for over unity.  Sorry but I have to speak the truth.

Therefore Rosemary take note:  Neither Stefan, nor PhysicsProf, nor Aaron for that matter, are qualified to verify your setup for any possible over unity.  That's just the way it is.

And just out of sheer frustration again, quoting the prose of a Rose and a Pose:

Quote
bla bla bla In order for P-Spice to accurately compute the loss of potential difference at the supply it represents the SUM of the discharged current as a LOSS against the SUM of the energy dissipated at the load GAIN.  bla bla bla

What's in a name?

Well Posey, that is all sheer pseudo techno-nonsense-babble talk, and there is a lot of it.  PSpice has nothing to do with batteries, at least I have never seen a PSpice model for a battery ever used on the forums.  That mangled nonsense talk is just you digging yourself deeper and deeper and deeper and deeper into a hole.  Nobody wants to bother.

Sheesh...

MileHigh

P.S.:  A Rosie cameo, a "Poseo:"
Quote
And I only know rather pedantic and simple terms that are recommended for those whose understanding is heavily compromised by lack of standard training.
   
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 26 27 28 29
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-11-27, 22:50:15