The decision to write this story in many ways was difficult. What is claimed is against my own belief systems. If we are to report on break through energy we have to often embrace ideas that challenge our own belief systems, but ultimately it will come down to simple testing and scientific methodology. If any practical applications are to manifest then replications and peer reviewed results are essential.. My other motivation for proceeding to write was to hope to bring this topic to some sort of conclusion. Having said that, I welcome all comments and we will not be censoring anyone other than abusive or slanderous posts.
One of the most controversial figures over the last decade in Over-unity and Free Energy Circles is Rosemary Ainslie from South Africa. There has been heated debates in many forums about her theories and claims. Many of these discussion have become explosive and in some cases forum threads shut down.
Last week I received an email from Rosemary appealing for the academic community to at least consider looking at here theories and assist in testing her device she has built to test her claims. The full content of that letter is posted latter in this article. Rosemary has also agreed to do a live demonstration later this month our readers can view (hopefully it will be interactive). In the past many of these promised demonstrations have not taken place. Most of you know me as pragmatic and data driven, but the arguments and debates are way above my pay scale and education.
Her claim centers around a switching circuit that dissipates more energy than can be supplied from the. energy source in this case a battery bank. My problem with this is it can not be repeated with a capacitor bank. I have seen many claims using batteries before that can be explained away by the battery effect. It may be better to perhaps have Rosemary Describe in her own words. The following is an introduction from one of her papers”
This First part of a two-part paper deals with results from a switching circuit that was designed to determine whether the amount of energy dissipated could exceed the amount of energy delivered from a battery supply. If so, then this result would prove the basis of a magnetic field model that predicts an exploitable non-conservative field condition. The model is the subject of the Second part, where the distinction is drawn that energy that is dissipated in a circuit is also sourced from induced potential difference in the circuit material itself. Correspondingly then, the proposal is that the circuit material may be used as a supplementary and secondary energy supply source that has not, typically, been factored into standard analysis of power conversion. These results indicate that Faradays Laws of Induction exceed Kirchhoffs Unity requirements. This, in turn, results in measurements that prove a conservation of potential difference at a supply that may be exploited to enhance energy efficiencies. These measurements indicate that inductive and conductive components of circuit material may be factored in as a potential energy supply source depending on the circuit design and intention.
The rest of this paper may be found at :
Follow on papers:
Rosemary also has her own forum.
For those interested in hearing her theories explained then visit her YouTube channel, the following is an introduction.
The live demonstration is to take place on the 29th of June at 4 PM South African time In Cape Town. If you are not a member of Google Plus you will need to get go to her forum to view instructions how to receive and invite and log in. Rosemary has requested that any qualified electrical engineers, scientists who would like to assist with the demonstration would be welcome. Given the number of cancelled demonstration it is in her best interest to proceed with this one to maintain credibility and to assist in her plea to the science community.
The link to the live demonstration is :
The controversy surrounding the technology is around testing methodology, assumptions made and measuring equipment. These arguments have been going on for many years. An example of these can be found at overunity.com
Perhaps her biggest Nemesis has been a poster who goes under the name of TinselKoala. He has challenged both the testing methodology and technical aspects of her circuit design. Many others over the years have failed to successfully replicate he design and results. I would welcome those who have had successful replications to come forward and share their results.
I am not yet convinced as I do not feel many of the questions asked by those more qualified than myself have been addressed. This is a great opportunity to swing opinion back in her favor should the demonstration be successful.
The following is an appeal that Rosemary asked me to publish. I do so without comment or prejudice.
To all our academicians in Science
In much the same way that our Clergy represent themselves as authorities on ‘faith’ – you, our esteemed and revered, represent our authority on matters of science. But unlike religion, science is subjected to rigorous review and analysis of experimental evidence. So that ‘faith’ in matters of science is thereby rendered redundant. However, it seems of late, that science too is heavily reliant on the bedrock of Thermodynamic Laws – that may not be amended beyond its incorporation of the Strong Nuclear Force. Which teaching has taken on the properties of a creed. And like our clergy you demand a ‘belief’ in the constraints of energy transfer – regardless of the evidence against this. To this end you appear to be setting the example. You will not see, hear nor speak of evidence that breaches this ‘belief’. To which end you have relegated all claims of a breach in the unity barriers to be the result of exotic claims based on pathologies of the claimant or of the science that preceded that claim. Which ‘opinion’ is then used to justify ignoring any evidence that comes forward that also contradicts that ‘creed’.
A small team of us, here in South Africa, have attempted to alert you to the experimental evidence that contradicts this creed, this belief, that is loosely based on QED which, itself is only a partial theory. These efforts have spanned a dozen years and have been systematically resisted. Your own representatives, Professor Gaunt (UCT) and Deon Kallis (CPUT) have allowed a peripheral engagement and both established certain target results which, having been reached, they both claimed would represent ‘conclusive’ proof. We have reached and indeed, exceeded those targets. Therefore is the proof incontrovertible, based as it is on experimental evidence and carefully measured results. It has been widely replicated on open source. And it is certainly repeatable and demonstrably so. Therefore, also, does it fall within the required parameters of ‘science’. The results raise profound questions related to the material structure of current flow – which is widely, but erroneously, assumed to be the flow of electrons. And it points to the promise of an energy supply source that, potentially, could rid us all of our grid dependencies.
It is acknowledged that it is profoundly difficult to persuade anyone at all to upend their ‘belief’ structures. But the need to do so is most certainly now and it is critically required within your science departments. We have an emergent technology related to LENR that is actively being marketed at this time. This too has not reached your ivory towers, insulated as you all are from exposure to any science that is not heavily patronised by research grants from our energy monopolists. And sadly LENR is further subjected to patent rights that will likely encourage even further monopolies and their consequent and vested profit interests. Thankfully our own technology has no patent restrictions. And – subject to some small research and development – also promises as much benefit. But it is in what our technology exposes that we believe lies the greatest promise. Because of a certainty it speaks to the real potential of harnessing all the forces. Nor does any of this contradict known Laws of Thermodynamics nor of the principles of science that has been forged and promulgated by our Greats.
This critical need for attention to this cause is based on the escalating divisions between our first and third world market conditions that are exacerbated by imbalances in their access to energy. It results in social unease that generates a near state of anarchy and criminality that is barely contained. And the tensions between the ‘haves and have nots’ is evident globally. Of a certainty – this promise of relatively free energy will be a source of abiding hope in many who have been socially and politically deprived of their rights to an equal share of opportunity. Because, with an abundance of energy – it is likely that everyone will thereby, be able to live their lives to their full potential, not as wage slaves, but as proactive members of our global community – each one sharing equally in their access to the energy required to realise that potential.
To which end we appeal to you all to evaluate the claims that are written in the papers with the attached links and to then attend a demonstration that we can show these results for your evaluation. Should the claim be based on erroneous measurement – then we are confident that there are enough skills within your large and esteemed fraternity – to identify those errors. In which case our claims will be considered null and void and you will be able to go about the business of teaching your principles of science – untrammeled by these outrageous claims. But we ask for a wide participation – lest the results be evaluated as cold fusion was first evaluated – where the objective is now widely acknowledged to have been simply to deny the evidence regardless of the facts. A wide engagement will establish the checks and balances required to thoroughly satisfy the argument.
Therefore we ask you, yet again, to engage in evaluating the evidence that is detailed in the attached papers. And thereafter we would be very glad to give you a demonstration of this that you can evaluate the evidence itself. We trust to the integrity of yourselves and the scientific principles that you uphold to merit this evaluation. The more so as you yourselves have taught us that science can ONLY be progressed by experimental evidence. We have that evidence.
With respect and fond hopes for engagement,