You're viewing the old website

Free Energy is all about freedom:
Power to the people -- literally and figuratively

 "Free Energy" 

News XML
- PESN Specials
- About
- Pure Energy Blog
- Daily FE News
- Features
- Free Energy Now
- This Week in FE
- Newsletter
- How you can help
- Submit  
- Subscribe


Energy Topics

• Alt Fuels
• Anti-Gravity
• Batteries
• Betavoltaic
• Biofuels
 - BioDiesel
 - BioElectricity
 - Biomass
• Body Electric
• Brown's Gas
• Cold Fusion
• Conservation
• Electrolysis
• Electromagnetic OU
• Fuel Cells
• Fuel Efficiency
 - Electric Vehicles
 - Engines
 - Hydroxy
• Fusion
• Geothermal
• Gravity Motors
• Human Powered
• Hydro
• Hydrogen
• Joe Cells
• Lighting
• Magnet Motors
• Nanotechnology
• Nuclear
• Nucl. Remediation
• Oil
• Piezoelectric
• Plasma
• River
• Salt Water Mix
• Solar
• Solid State Gen.
• Tesla Turbines
• Thermal Electric
• Tidal
• Vortex
• Waste to Energy
• Water
 - Water as Fuel
• Wave
• Wind
• Wireless Electricity
• Zero Point Energy
• MORE . . .

Open Source
• Freddy's Cell
• Bedini SG
• Safe Haven Villages
• MORE . . .

• Awards
• Conservation
• Conspiracy
• Directories
• Investment
• Kudos
• Legal
• Organizations
• Plastic and Energy
• Recycling
• Suppression
• Tools
• Trends
• MORE . . .

• OverUnity Forum
• Employment
• Events
• Humor
• Magazines
• Movies
• Newsletters
• Discuss. Groups

• Store
• Buyer Beware
- - - - - - - - - -
- Donate
- Contact




You are here: > News > May 22, 2013

Rosemary Ainslie Planning Public Demo of her Free Energy Circuit June 1

An inventor from Cape Town, South Africa, has a solid state circuit that powers a few tens of watts while pulling much less than that from a battery, which she will be demonstrating on June 1. The circuit is based on a principle she has been developing openly for 13 years, which she says is nothing new but merely a rehashing of already-developed principles of science.

Since Rosemary was unable to find a qualified academic willing to attend her demo, she has postponed the demo. Remember, she had stipulated that before she would agree to do the demo, she required that at least one qualified academic expert be present. There is a possibility that she may be able to find a university that will host the test. She's working on that.

click images for enlargement

'Sterling - I simply sent you a copy of our apparatus - and it specifically did NOT relate to the tests that we have or will be demonstrating. I apologize if your readers were not aware of this.' -- Rosemary; May 27, 2013

by Sterling D. Allan
Pure Energy Systems News

For years now, Rosemary Ainslie has been promoting an alternative model to how electromagnetic phenomenon works. It's a solid state switching circuit that hasn't been named yet. (Below is a correction/clarification from her on this. We'll keep it simple here, for now.)

She says that she has prototype evidence to support her model, which shows her circuit drawing far less energy from a battery than a control draws from a similar battery, both systems powering the same load. Then, after recharging both batteries, she switches the control and her circuit to repeat the effect.

She wants to see this technology validated, developed and propagated. She is tired of being ignored, marginalized, and rejected, for something she is sure can make a big difference in the energy landscape.

She is begging for validation. She is fully confident that it works, and she wants science and industry to take her seriously.

I suggested that she run a live, webcam demonstration with qualified witnesses on hand to vindicate the technology. She is more than happy to do that; and selected June 1 in Cape Town, S. Africa, as the target date and location for the demonstration. 

However, she has one firm stipulation. She requires that there be at least one "expert" in attendance whose witness will be taken seriously by scientists, or she will not do the event. This can be someone either from academia or from industry who is considered a professional electrical engineer.

She has one expert presently lined up, but would prefer at least two, for both redundancy as well as additional credibility.

She publishes her schematic openly, inviting replication and implementation. She wants it copied and spread all over the world.

She doesn't care if she doesn't get a cent for it.

I was in touch recently with Yaaqov Avisar who lives in Cape Town, and he was glad to stop in and visit Rosemary.

He was very impressed with her, and felt that she was a genuine person.

He said his first impression was that she is a credible, well-off woman, who lives in an affluent area, in a nice house. "She has done a few things with her life. She has been a successful woman, able to retire at 50 in a nice way."

She doesn't have any background in physics, but comes from a commercial real estate background.

She thinks the reason she was able to come to these theories is because she doesn't have the limitations on thinking that a traditional background in the sciences would give her.

Yaaqov suggested to Rosemary that her planned 17 hour demonstration is too long, and that she should try and reduce it to 5 hours at most, if possible. She said she would try to do that, and she has been making some good progress in that direction. 

She has filming equipment, but doesn't know how to use it. She is looking for someone who could do the documenting of the event, both the filming as well as someone to run a web cam.

Yaaqov said that Rosemary invested a lot of money in way the prototype is constructed. She has an oscilloscope, a way to measure heat. "She's got everything."

"She doesn't want any money or fame; she just wants people to have it."

"She's the first one I've met like this."

"She's been working on this for 13 years."

She said, "What would be my best reward ever would be to have a 3-D presentation made to help people understand the process and make it more believable for someone who has no clue about electricity."

"She gave me more motivation to go again and watch her videos and understand them."

"One of Rosemary's weak points is that she has a hard time thinking of applications of this technology. She's not the person who can take this to the next level. She doesn't want to. She would just like to have this theoretical conversation with people; that's it."

She's willing to share everything, explain, teach.



Rosemary Ainslie

Corrections/Clarifications from Rosemary

I'm happy for your announcements but concerned that some of your facts are wrong.

para 1
The model that we're promoting is NOT alternative.  It is strictly in line with the standard model.  The reason that the circuit has not been named is because it's ALREADY known of and referred to a solid state switching circuit.  It has been erroneously referred to EVERYWHERE as the 'Rosemary Ainslie' circuit.  Just check this on Google.  Therefore - correctly - the opening para should be amended along these lines...

Para 1 - amended
Rosemary Ainslie is engaged with a team of researchers to promote the experimental evidence of a unity breach that is easily demonstrated in a solid state switching circuit. Their experimental evidence may prove a magnetic field model that conforms to the properties required by the Higgs Field theory - and with small modification - to String theory and to the dark energy required by our Astrophysicists.   Therefore she claims that this is not in the nature of a discovery - but of the experimental proof of the particle required by those theorists.  

para 2 - is FINE
She says that she has prototype evidence to support her model, which shows her circuit drawing far less energy from a battery than a control draws from a similar battery, both systems powering the same load. Then, after recharging both batteries, she switches the control and her circuit to repeat the effect.
para 3 - feel free to print any of these facts - as you see fit.
Sadly I am not 'ignored, marginalized and rejected...' If only.  I have been the centre of a 'storm' of disclaimants on Open Source and have been the unhappy recipient of far more negative attention than is warranted.  Industry has taken these claims VERY seriously - including ABB Research (North Carolina) - in a team headed by Colin Barlow.  By BP South Africa - who designed the protocols required to compare battery performance.  By SASOL South Africa - who even tried to motivate a bursary award to further this science - offered by a Mr Mariot their CEO.  That offer was rejected.  These and others allowed their names to be included in PAPER 1 published in Quantum magazine in order to motivate the required academic research.  In 13 years we have FAILED in getting those academic experts to the table. 

para 3 amended.
She and her team want to see this technology validated, developed and propagated.  But before industry can come on board, academics need to validate these numbers.  Else industry itself will be accused on 'dabbling' in 'exotic' energy research - which is also considered to be a 'pathological science'. She says that 'sadly not a single academic expert in all of South Africa has been prepared to come to the table to evaluate that evidence first hand.  The claim has been roundly rejected on basis of an 'assumption of error'.  Assumption, however - plays no part in science.  Not since the days of Galileo, where the clergy refused to look through that telescope to check the facts for themselves.' 

Those are the major amendments.  Not sure how you'll want to get it across.  The most important point is this.  If we're ever to succeed in getting over unity research away from the 'pathological' stigmas that it's been given, then we need to engage with academics.  Therefore, the only criterion for this demonstration is that academics come to the table and look at the evidence for themselves.  That would be appropriate.

And Sterling - we don't have megawatts of energy output - which also means that we're nowhere near as effective as LENR - but we fondly believe that our contribution is still very important - precisely because it proves WELL KNOWN THEORY.  That's the surprise.  Nothing else.  Had we been claiming something that contradicted our Greats and our known standard model - then INDEED - there should be an outcry.  But we're not.  We conform to ALL aspects - and have simply introduced the concept of a material structure to the magnetic field.  In other words, we're proposing that the field itself comprises particles.  



On May 23, 2013 7:38 AM, D. wrote:

Subject: RE: Rosemary Ainslie is correct. Magnetic fields are comprises of particles.


I agree with Rosemary Ainslie that magnetic fields are most likely comprised of particles. She stated that in the last sentence, in the last paragraph of the corrections/ additions in the colored box near the end of your posting about her just today.

The reason I feel that I can say she is correct with some conviction is that Howard Johnson also claimed the same thing. He devoted the latter years of his life to the study of the behavior and structure of superconducting materials. He listed cryogenic ferro-conductors, electromagnets, and permanent magnets among those structures possessing properties having a magnetic-flux field surrounding them -- made up of some yet unidentified particle.

He wrote about this phenomenon in the beginning of his patent description in order to explain how his all magnet motor could be possible. And he had prototypes to back up his patent. He also mentioned these particles extensively in his book 'The Secret World of Magnets'. This book was the culmination of his life's work. Sadly he died without being able to give the world the motor. He apparently wasn't able to convince those who rule the realms of conventional science of his particle theory of magnetic-flux fields. 

Toward the very end of his life, Howard stated with remorse the the world was not ready for the thing he had to offer it. I know you have stated on more than one occasion that the world is not ready for certain modalities of exotic energy. His hope was that when the world was ready, someone would replicate his motor for humanity to use. It is toward that end that I strive to prove him (and Rosemary Ainslie) correct about the particle nature of magnetic fields. Then we would have all sorts of applications for the theory. And that is essentially why magnet motors are possible according to Howard Johnson!!!

Demo Postponed

We received the following from Rosemary on May 31, 2013; 8:16 pm MDT

Dear Sterling,

Thank you for your contribution to our cause in publishing our demonstration for academic experts, intended for today, being June 1. Sadly our learned and revered have expressed no interest in attending it. However, as the 'mountain won't go to Mahomet' we've proposed that 'Mahomet go to the mountain'. To this end I made a proposal - yet to be agreed to - that we take our experimental apparatus to campus. I've also been explicit in that proposal that we do not require the attendance of all, or indeed of any of those staff members - in the science faculties. While attendance would be preferred, it is enough that we do that demonstration at the appropriate address to show the following anomalies.

1 - We have incontrovertible measured proof that there is more energy being returned to a battery supply source than was first delivered. 

2 - We generate an alternating current over a circuit during a switching period when the battery is disconnected.

3 - We generate anomalous heat signatures over a resistor element 

4 - We propose that we are exposing a hitherto overlooked benefit in counter electromotive force where one half of each cycle is generated from the circuit material itself. This conforms to Einstein's mass/energy equivalence.

5 - We further propose that we are exposing the locality of the Higgs Boson being in a magnetic field - that we further propose comprises this material structure. 

6 - Our model predicted the exposure of these measurement anomalies and our experimental apparatus was designed to prove this material structure to both a magnetic field and electric current.

Our quest to bring this to the attention of academics is required, because the burden of proof on all exotic claims has been placed on open source to promote this evidence. And Open Source is grossly infected with with a rash of disclaimants who are not personally accountable for their comments nor for the scientific merit of their proposed arguments against the evidence. This has resulted in noise that has dogged the heels of all such claims and has greatly contributed to the general impression that over unity research is related to 'pathological science'. Over unity research cannot ever be managed while all claims are accompanied by freely expressed denials that have little if any scientific merit.

Further. The argument that Open Source will identify a proposed application and then simply bring this to market - is flawed. Without serious academic endorsement and consequent research, then any such claim is likely to be accompanied by counterclaims including though not limited to the serious allegations of fraud.

Which is why we see it as required that we take our own modest evidence to our academic expert for evaluation and comment. The checks and balances related to proof - are traditionally and in fact - entirely resolved through the critical contributions of those scientists who, unlike our open source engagement, do not hide behind anonymous internet identities to avoid accountability in their work.

To this end I would be glad if you could publish this letter in the hopes that it will remind our academics that we, the public, rely on their input in the proof or disproof related to these exotic claims. Without this scholarly evaluations - we are inclined to doubt their authority related to science. The more so, as their own mandate is to determine science based on experimental evidence. And because our evidence confronts standard prediction - is precisely the justification for engagement.

Kind regards

The following links relate,2313.msg4163.html#msg4163,2313.msg4164.html#msg4164,2313.msg4165.html#msg4165,2313.msg4172.html#msg4172,2313.msg4180.html#msg4180,2313.msg4182.html#msg4182,2313.msg4189.html#msg4189,2313.msg4191.html#msg4191,2313.160.html,2313.msg4219.html#msg4219,2313.msg4225.html#msg4225

On June 4, 2013, Rosemary requested that I post the following:

Hi Sterling,

I've written the following letter to Mark Dansie.  I'd be very glad if you could somehow put this up on your site.  Else he's likely to ignore it.

here's the link...

And here's the text...
Dear Mark,

I'm sorry to hear that you've been 'flamed' by me.  If you could let me know where then I'll most certainly correct the problem.  To the best of my knowledge I only made public a letter that I sent to you in December 2012.  In fact I've freely expressed admiration for your sense of humour and your charm which, I think, I described as 'charismatic'.  You see this I trust?  Far from being antagonistic - I'm a great fan of yours.  Just not that keen on your handle of some irrefutable facts.

You CLAIM - in that post - that the following was the rather thin excuse on which your based your refusal to view a   private demonstration offered for your exclusive benefit. I even offered to pay for your trip should our claim be disproved.  'I was approached and realized quickly after getting some technical advice from my science and engineering friends that there was nothing there or worth the risk to even go and test.'  I'm sorry that your advices were so patently unscientific.  There is NO way that any experimental evidence can be assessed on the opinion of anyone at all.  No matter how learned.  You must bear in mind that Einstein himself refuted QED and QED has led in the field of engineering for almost half a century.  Sadly though - its time has now come to an end.  It's been replaced by our string theorists who have identified the need for a Higgs field - and by our astrophysicists who have proved the existence of this field.  And all you engineers, who have been schooled in that now ANTIQUATED model - need to go on a refresher course and re-learn your basic physics.

Meanwhile - to my relief - it seems that Tinsel Koala - or 'ickle pickle' and who I've been given to understand is actually Bryan Little - has THROWN DOWN THE GAUNTLET.  Here's the link...

Where he states..Here is the deal. Ainslie's papers rely heavily on this scopeshot and the conclusions drawn from it. It is IMPORTANT because it is the cornerstone of her entire "thesis" and experimental program. She is claiming that she can attain high heat in the load with NO current "measured" because the Q1 mosfet shows no current and the Q2 mosfets are "disconnected". This is a result of seeing this scopeshot, shortly after high heat had indeed been attained, but the mosfet blew out and stopped conducting. The load was still hot! So Ainslie convinced herself that the load was heating up with no current thru the Q1 and the Q2 mosfets "disconnected" to use her term.
If she is incorrect, and the scope shot is the result of a blown mosfet and the load heat is only residual, this means her papers are so severely flawed and her experiment is so contaminated with error and malfunction that they must be retracted and withdrawn and some kind of errata notice issued.... along with more than one apology.
Several knowledgeable people, other than myself, have also said that this scopeshot is impossible to obtain under the conditions Ainslie claims. It is a fundamental and important issue at the crux of Ainslie's claims. IT IS IMPORTANT. If the scopeshot is bogus in any way, such as being made with an inoperative transistor, her papers and her "thesis" are out the window and into the garbage pile, it is just that simple.

So will somebody either reproduce this "simple enough" scopeshot under Ainslie's direction, or have her show it herself ... OR IF YOU CANNOT, then say so. Ainslie must then begin the process of retraction.

I would be MORE than happy to give you a viewing on SKYPE - if that'll help things along.  We will not only can generate that waveform at EASE but we'll scroll the camera around the equipment - under and over - behind and in front.  We'll show that the MOSFETS are in tact.  And we'll show the precise settings on the oscilloscope and the function generator.  We could even expand that demonstration - subject to your time constraints - and show you far more dramatic results from slight variations to that same waveform.  Let me know - and I'll get someone in to organise that private viewing for you.  And if you can make it a public viewing - so much the better.  Perhaps something on Hendershot's channel? 

So.  Over to you.  I'll ask Sterling if he'll make this letter public on Peswiki - in case you miss this communique.  And I look forward to your engagement.  I KNOW how anxious you are to find us all free energy.  And I'm happy to assist in that quest of yours.

Kindest regards

Here's the link to your comment
and here's the text...
I guess many did not step up to the plate as you did such a good job. I was approached and realized quickly after getting some technical advice from my science and engineering friends that there was nothing there or worth the risk to even go and test. As a result I started receiving the usual flaming anyone gets if they do not agree or will not test.
The silent majority is 100% behind you TK and always have been.
Getting flamed (I was after my last Smartscarecrow for calling a Stan Myer replication BS without data) is really a way of enhancing ones reputation. You even flamed me once (with good reason).
So please understand...there is a silent majority and they agree with you

# # #

What You Can Do

  1. See Suggestions for How to Get Involved with the Roll-out of Exotic Free Energy 
  2. Pass this on to your friends and favorite news sources.
  3. Click to Tweet: 
  4. Donate to PES Network to help us keep this news and directory and networking service going.
  5. Subscribe to our newsletter to stay abreast of the latest, greatest developments in the free energy sector.
  6. Let professionals in the renewable energy sector know about the promise of this technology. 

See also

Resources at

Page composed by Sterling D. Allan
Last updated July 14, 2013




"It is harder to crack a prejudice than an atom." // "I'd rather be an optimist and a fool than a pessimist and right." -- Albert Einstein

ADVISORY: With any technology, you take a high risk to invest significant time or money unless (1) independent testing has thoroughly corroborated the technology, (2) the group involved has intellectual rights to the technology, and (3) the group has the ability to make a success of the endeavor.
All truth passes through three stages:
   First, it is ridiculed;
   Second, it is violently opposed; and
   Third, it is accepted as self-evident.

-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

    "When you're one step ahead
of the crowd you're a genius.
When you're two steps ahead,
you're a crackpot."

-- Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, (Feb. 1998)

Submit • Privacy • About • Contact

PESWiki Departments:
Latest • News •XMLFeed • Directory • Congress • Top 5 • Open Sourcing
Copyright © 2002-2015, PES Network Inc.