Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 84248
  • *Latest: khniki

  • *Total Posts: 898016
  • *Total Topics: 15837
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 2
  • *Guests: 8
  • *Total: 10

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder  (Read 271410 times)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Energy disbalance is what's of the primary interest in this forum, that is, the dibalance between the energy input compared to the output energy, in favor of the latter. Here in this forum it is agreed that the said disbalance be called "overunity" and therefore in the future in this exchange the disbalance in question may be referred to simply as "overunity" or OU.
If, at any stage, I was claiming an energy imbalance then - indeed - I would have no argument.  We show more energy dissipated than delivered.  But there is an entire conservation of energy - perfect energy balance - else we would be defying the very laws of physics.  I have NEVER claimed this.  It seems that I have been posting all those links to no purpose whatsoever.  For a while there I assumed that you actually took the trouble to read them.  It seems like I am only to be disappointed by you.  LOL. 

Stultus est sicut stultus facit (for Wilby's amusement)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
How does this work and how is it to be discussed in a forum devoted to overunity:

Quote
We show more energy dissipated than delivered.  But there is an entire conservation of energy - perfect energy balance - else we would be defying the very laws of physics.  I have NEVER claimed this.

So, more energy dissipated than delivered and yet no CoE violation. How can this be?

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
How does this work and how is it to be discussed in forum devoted to overunity:

So, more energy dissipated than delivered and yet no CoE violation. How can this be?
Well may you ask.  You need to read my scribd file links.  Omnibus - unless it's absolutely required I never delete posts.  But from here on I'm afraid I'll not be answering you.  It's pointless.



Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Well may you ask.  You need to read my scribd file links.  Omnibus - unless it's absolutely required I never delete posts.  But from here on I'm afraid I'll not be answering you.  It's pointless.

On the contrary. If you have a point I will be your most adamant defender, as I've demonstrated here and in other forums more than once, regarding even more controversial ideas. This will happen only if you have a point, though. If not, I'll say it very frankly, independent of whether you like it or not. Why lose supporters that easily if you're so convinced in the reality of what you claim?

Offline nul-points

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 995
    • Doc Ringwood's Free Energy blog
hi all

...dayyum - if i'd known there was going to be fisticuffs, i'd have set out the bleachers and started selling tickets!  ;)


i think there is actually a common understanding of system activity here, hidden behind different terms of expression


would 'Coefficient of Performance > 1' be a another way of labelling the same situation which both Rosemary & Omnibus are describing?


i believe, from reading the documents, that the accredited results are based on a greater amount (~1700% ?) of heat energy dissipated in calorimetric tests than was supplied from the source batteries


from Omni's PoV, this would be 'greater energy out than in' ie., when the system boundary is drawn around the battery-circuit-heater system

from Rosemary's PoV, this would be 'additional energy supplied by the energetic vacuum, not created from nothing', ie. COP ~= 17, but no violation of CoE


is this a fair summary - & resolution of apparent contradictions?

or should i still get the bleachers out?   :)


all the best
sandy

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
hi all

...dayyum - if i'd known there was going to be fisticuffs, i'd have set out the bleachers and started selling tickets!  ;)


i think there is actually a common understanding of system activity here, hidden behind different terms of expression


would 'Coefficient of Performance > 1' be a another way of labelling the same situation which both Rosemary & Omnibus are describing?


i believe, from reading the documents, that the accredited results are based on a greater amount (~1700% ?) of heat energy dissipated in calorimetric tests than was supplied from the source batteries


from Omni's PoV, this would be 'greater energy out than in' ie., when the system boundary is drawn around the battery-circuit-heater system

from Rosemary's PoV, this would be 'additional energy supplied by the energetic vacuum, not created from nothing', ie. COP ~= 17, but no violation of CoE


is this a fair summary - & resolution of apparent contradictions?

or should i still get the bleachers out?   :)


all the best
sandy

LOL  Hello Sandy.  It's an extremely fair summation.  Very well done.  Unfortunately the 'cause' is still at question - related as it is the flow of current.  But dear God.  I think we can drop that question.  More important is that we get this onto some sensible level so that we can use all this energy.

I have not managed to raise either Professors to warn them about Omnibus' emails.  It will now have to wait for Monday. 

Kindest regards
Rosemary

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
@nul-points,

Quote
from Rosemary's PoV, this would be 'additional energy supplied by the energetic vacuum, not created from nothing', ie. COP ~= 17, but no violation of CoE

No such thing as "energetic vacuum" is recognized as an energy reservoir in thermodynamics let alone that Rosemary doesn't even claim that to be the cause:

Quote
Unfortunately the 'cause' is still at question - related as it is the flow of current.

The latter is, however, even less likely to be the cause (if we tend to think that there the idea for the "energy from the vacuum" is viable) if she means, as she does, the nature of that flow because the nature of current flow is well established. The production of more energy out than in cannot be related to the nature of that flow. It may be related to current flow but not to the nature of that flow.

In other words, I would agree with Rosemary if she stays within the exact above quotation but I disagree with her when she further qualifies that by insisting that the nature of that flow in solid conductors isn't the directed flow of electrons.

Of course, the above makes sense only provided the experiment (her experiment in particular) really shows more energy out than in. This hasn't been proven yet conclusively.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
I received the replies to my e-mails. Unfortunately, none of them confirms that Rosemary's experiment demonstrates the production of more energy than the energy spent.

So, not only do we have an obviously untenable proposal for the nature of electric current but also the experiment that claims overunity is inconclusive. Therefore, the main focus should be the experiment and whether or not it really shows more energy out than in. I know Rosemary is reluctant to do that but that's inevitable if she really cares about acceptance.

Of course, the ultimate proof for overunity would be for her to demonstrate a self-sustaining device. That's a difficult engineering task, however, and we should try to find out how else can the experts in the field be convinced in the reality of the claimed experimental excess energy.

Offline nul-points

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 995
    • Doc Ringwood's Free Energy blog
No such thing as "energetic vacuum" is recognized as an energy reservoir in thermodynamics

LOL

in that case, 'thermodynamics' is still in the ice-age!  :)


i can see that you know a great deal, Omnibus

in fact, i can see from your name that you know a lot more than a great deal


you can see from my name, however, that i know nothing  ;)


i'll get the bleachers out


cheers
sandy

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Tenbatsu

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 38
Omnibus, I believe it has been stated previously that these professors did not attend the demonstration of this device.  Therefore I doubt they have any knowledge of the device or its supposed intricacies. 

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Omnibus, I believe it has been stated previously that these professors did not attend the demonstration of this device.  Therefore I doubt they have any knowledge of the device or its supposed intricacies.

Actually one of them wrote to me that he has witnessed some experiments but he was not convinced that the experimental protocol and the measuring instruments were adequate to provide a verification of the claimed behavior. The other one wrote to me that he has asked her not to expect him to back up these claims. I think the case is pretty clear. If she wants to be taken seriously she has to come up with better experiments which will also stimulate others to replicate them. At this point, unfortunately, she is simply ignored by the mainstream. I can understand fully how she feels and I feel for her but she is the only one who can help to change this situation..

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Hi guys.  Thanks Tenbatsu for trying to state the obvious.  The simple truth is that I should know - more than most - the dangers of Open Source.  One is somehow seduced into thinking that one's dealing with reasonable honest people, when in point of fact one is actually in a death struggle with ego's as large as Africa.  My history on EF.com will always be up there as a benchmark of the actual dangers.  But the loudest most vociferous self-appointed judges come from these forums - NOT from academia.

But here's why I press on - pressing on.  There are many readers to these threads and our readers are not fools.  My entire objective is to assure as many people who can read and as many people who can manage power analysis - that proof of OU is out there.  And I speak with authority as I was personally involved in some of this progress.  And proud of the contribution. 

What irritates me though is the assumption that one can ever achieve OU within the confines of known classical thinking.  Unfortunately we're all going to have to adjust to profoundly changing paradigms that will - quite literally - upend our known physical paradigms.  And there are those who are just not equal to the challenge on an emotional level.  And there are others who are not equal to the challenge because they simply cannot grasp the concepts.  And there are even those who resist it to protect vested financial interests.  And there are those who are just plain scared.

The other point about these public records is that they're GOLD.  Inevitably there will be many players who will try and get patents on OU devices.  Not a bad thing in itself - but it'll leave us exactly where we are at the moment - which is pretty well at the mercy of monopolists who keep a stranglehold on the price of energy.  This because the 'big players' will eventually hold ALL those rights.  And public interest is not something that keeps our monopolists awake at nights.  As I see it every record of every device that is made public will challenge every attempt that is subsequently made to secure patents.  And if the science that justifies these OU results is widely understood, then the patenting of any such intellectual rights will be so easily breached that it will render any attempt at securing patents, patently absurd. LOL

I know, better than most, the difficulty in getting any kind of academic comment.  But off the record there is considerably more interest amongst our academics than is publicly evident.  And that's entirely due to the efforts of everyone on these forums.  It's courtesy the drive and interests of people like - actually the list is just so long it's silly to try and cover it all.  So I'll try that again.  It's courtesy the efforts of everyone here that they are now 'coming to the party' so to speak. 

So.  Roll on 'dark energy' or 'aether energy' or call it what you will.  There's plenty of it around.  We're just still in kindergarden - getting it up and running. 

Regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33937867/IF-I-WAS-A-TROLL

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
And another thing.  Professor Tapsen - then Dr Tapsen attended a public demonstration of the device held at the conference rooms of Coopers and Lybrand - in Cape Town in 2001.  He attended that demonstration with a Professor Green.  The evidence on display was the clear measure of a battery recharging - zero loss - with heat being dissipated at a load.  He deferred to the opinion of Professor Green who was the expert on energy and Professor Green stated - unequivocally - that, notwithstanding the evidence, THERE MUST BE A MEASUREMENT'S ERROR.  Subsequent attempts by me to include Professor Green in a dialogue was ENTIRELY FRUITLESS.  He would not discuss the matter - under any circumstances AT ALL.  Then Dr Tapsen kindly read my field model and stated that it was a 'self consistent argument'.  In as much as his disciplines cover both electrical engineering and physics that comment was appreciated.  The downside to those early tests was that the wattage measured was insignificant.  But the level of COP was far, far greater than 17 as there was a negative loss to the battery.

Professor  Gaunt on the other hand was intimately associated with many tests.  We were called on to vary the protocols to ever increasing levels of proof and proficiency all of which was funded entirely by myself - culminating in the final requirement to perform electroplating on some metal that had to be managed through a utility supply source.  We did at least 4 carefully stipulated tests using the required measuring apparatus applied strictly in line with the protocols he required.  and he did not EVEN ONCE bother to attend a single test demonstration which we anxiously solicited so that we could show these our results.  When I finally challenged him on this point he drove out to the house, gave a cursory inspection to our apartus and - NOTWITHSTANDING - was absolutely NOT prepared to make a public comment. It seems that this attitude persists.

I have, until these last posts of mine - protected that rather shameful history of their involvement - and am glad to see some acknowledgement of their attendance - which, frankly, I did not expect.  The actual method of anlaysis, the measuring instruments used - the presentation of the data - the ENTIRE CATASTROPHE was done precisely in accordance with the methods stipulated by Professor Gaunt and by a slew of academics whose name I will keep OFF RECORD - lest anyone - again try and misrepresent my own representations here.

Having said all that I am now MOST DEFINITELY on campus.  And the tests are going to be conducted by a very rare breed.  Academics who are interested in experimental evidence.  The start of these tests should be conducted very soon - hopefully within a week.  The finer details of the apparatus will NOT be made public as EF.com are duplicating every step that we take - predating their posts - and thereby evidently intending to 'claim' the rights.  Our own intention is to make all aspects of the tests public that nothing can be patented - when those tests are completed.  And the name of the campus will also be kept off record lest anyone again try and disrupt the process.  Glen Lettenmaier attempted this in May of this year where he insinuated that the work we were doing was plagiaring his own efforts  - for goodness sake.  I did nothing to defend myself against this allegation and fortunately those same academics did their own investigation into the matter.  They then approached me to continue with the tests.

Regards,
Rosemary   

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
That's good to hear. More thorough tests are indeed needed. Also, every effort should be made to publish these results in the peer-reviewed literature. In this way not only the priority will be ensured but that will stimulate others to reproduce these findings. Good luck.

Offline b4FreeEnergy

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
Hi Rosemary,

I finally made it to this forum and I'm glad to see that you’re still continuing your work, resulting in some serious over-unity soon I hope! ;-)

Cheers,
B

 

OneLink