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

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder  (Read 317800 times)

twinbeard

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
Hi Rosemary,

Not really looking for following... IBM Developerworks and Linux.com have done articles on my work in the past.  Just looking for good, progressive science;)

Thank you so much for your kind compliments.  I am not so sure I am that deserving.  I hack.  That is what I do.  Its my vocation for almost 15 years now... I hack away on things until they work the way I want.  The tougher the problem, the more enjoyable it is to finally finally solve it.

I am reviewing all your info in depth, and will begin a replication as my work schedule, life, and lovely wife allow.  As well as you have documented your work, I'm sure I will find good results.  I wish I had the patience to write such documentation.

Cheers,
Twinbeard


Scott?  I wondered if we'd get closer to an identity here.  Nice to put a name to an avatar - so to speak.  Hi again.

If you download the attached link - it's got everything that opens and shuts on the circuit.  Delighted to hear you're up for this Twinbeard.  Very nice indeed - the more so as I'm really blown away by your general experimental talents.  Feel free to open a thread.  I think there are many who may want to follow it.  I know in the early stages there were a few takers.  But I saw it dominating my own interests here and rather discouraged it.  But I suspect you'll get a good following.

Kindest regards
Rosie
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS

I think you may need to sign up to Scribd to get their download facilities.  Not sure.

GREAT STUFF SCOTT.   ;D

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS


Well, I see that that preprint bears the page heading of the IEEE Journal of Transactions of Industrial Electronics.

Congratulations on getting your paper published, Rosemary.
The last I heard it had been summarily rejected by the journal. Twice.

 ;D Hi TK.  I wondered whether you're still in the land of the living.    Delighted to see you around.  I drew a revised sketch of you - much better likeness.  If you send me your email address I'll forward it.  Meanwhile I see you're revitalised - in direct proportion to the demise of your colleague - which is an awful lot of corpulence to demise - so to speak.   In fact it was a double whammy husband and wife team both of them with the fighting weight that a sumo wrestler would envy.  ;D

But I'm afraid you need to defer your congratulations.  LOL.  The paper was indeed rejected - twice - and both times prior to review.  Sadly. 

Regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS

BTW TK did you read this?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33937867/IF-I-WAS-A-TROLL
You may want to use it to brush up on your techniques.   ;D
« Last Edit: October 07, 2010, 05:58:06 AM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Guys, some REALLY good news.  We've been promised the loan of an oscilloscope with a bandwidth from heaven.  We're to take possession NEXT WEEK.

Wonderful news.  I'll defer details until this is to hand.

Regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Hi Rosemary,

Not really looking for following... IBM Developerworks and Linux.com have done articles on my work in the past.  Just looking for good, progressive science;)

Thank you so much for your kind compliments.  I am not so sure I am that deserving.  I hack.  That is what I do.  Its my vocation for almost 15 years now... I hack away on things until they work the way I want.  The tougher the problem, the more enjoyable it is to finally finally solve it.

I am reviewing all your info in depth, and will begin a replication as my work schedule, life, and lovely wife allow.  As well as you have documented your work, I'm sure I will find good results.  I wish I had the patience to write such documentation.

Cheers,
Twinbeard

Great stuff Twinbeard.  Just a special ask.  Could you PLEASE post results here.  I've got a really tenuous link at EF.com because I was banned from there.  Please open your thread here else I won't be able to follow it.

Kindest and best,
Rosie

twinbeard

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
Hi Rosemary,

Umm...  OK.  I started posting on EF mainly because it still had an active One Magnet No Bearing Bedini thread.  I will open a similar thread for the FlowerPower here as I have there, as well as posting a thread concerning replication of your work.  Its worth noting that I have always understood the possibility of someone getting a wild hair in the wrong place, political pressure, economic pressure, or other reasons causing censorship of publication of my work.  This is the reason that I have had all the video and other documentation of my work on this project to date posted not only on public forums and youtube, but on my own servers also, as well as arranging that the files themselves be multiply redundantly mirrored in quite a few countries worldwide.  Censorship is a nasty thing, but there are those out there who play dirty.  I have been playing the game long enough to know how to NOT get silenced;)

Cheers,
Twinbeard


Great stuff Twinbeard.  Just a special ask.  Could you PLEASE post results here.  I've got a really tenuous link at EF.com because I was banned from there.  Please open your thread here else I won't be able to follow it.

Kindest and best,
Rosie

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Hello again Twinbeard,

The difference between the two forums is chalk and cheese.  This forum seems to be dominated by a more critical input from our members which the other forum tends to disallow.  As a result the input here is more creative and less inclined to be 'tuned' to some kind of moral requirement - determined by the forum owners.  This has the real advantage of making the posts more interesting - is my humble opinion.  The talent here is considerable.  And the standard of articulation exceptional.  And so nice to have one's 'freedom of speech' permitted - if not encouraged - obviously within the bounds of decency.  LOL.

But I know something about the 'attack' and the general desire to 'silence one'.  That's scarey.  One must never underestimate the 'effectiveness' of those who actively oppose clean green.  Delighted to read that you'll be actively engaged here Scott.  I don't think you'll regret it.  If I can lend a helping hand here and there I'll do so.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie   

exnihiloest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 715
I'm afraid I not only DO NOT understand but would ask you WHY you are imposing your demand on this thread?  If you wish to engage with replicators...

My question, simple and perfectly understandable, was:

"I'm interested in third party replications.
Did someone replicate the Rosemary Ainslie Circuit and confirm a COP>1?"

If it was unclear, here is what I'm searching for: an experimenter here whom I can speak with. Am I wrong to think that there are here experimenters of the "Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit" as titled? Is this thread not allowed for such a question?

I'm not interested in web stuff in matter of experimental evidence, the past has shown that 100% of OU claims are not duplicable (scam or mistake is not the question).

The only positive post I saw here, related to my question, is from twinbeard who plans to make a replication, so I will be waiting for his results (I am now working on other projects and before keeping this one for the future, I'm just wanting to know its level of credibility).



twinbeard

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
I am willing to replicate this device over others because I understand its workings, its method of extracting energy from the environment, and can likely tell you the results before building it... my hypothesis is that Rosemary's results will be completely verified, as they have been by others. This device has all the necessary components exploiting all the necessary principles to produce COP > 1.  These type of system MUST be tuned properly by the operator to show these results.  Further, it is almost a given that the builder, and often the operator understand the principles behind the operations of these devices in order to achieve the proper optimizations and arrangement of the tunable variables required for these performance levels.  That requires an open mind, and a willingness to venture into technology not entirely explainable by classical physics.

This thought that some of these technologies cannot be replicated is erroneous, IMHO.  Many technologies have their underlying operations obfuscated, even when patented, as the inventor wants to protect their invention more often than not.  Other times there are critical details not present in replications.

I suggest you employ Rosemary's finely detailed documentation to make a replication.  She has made it as easy as it gets, as far as that goes.  I liken it to a non-programmer trying to install and use Gentoo Linux.  If you do not know what a compiler is, how can you build an application from source?

Cheers,
Twinbeard

My question, simple and perfectly understandable, was:

"I'm interested in third party replications.
Did someone replicate the Rosemary Ainslie Circuit and confirm a COP>1?"

If it was unclear, here is what I'm searching for: an experimenter here whom I can speak with. Am I wrong to think that there are here experimenters of the "Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit" as titled? Is this thread not allowed for such a question?

I'm not interested in web stuff in matter of experimental evidence, the past has shown that 100% of OU claims are not duplicable (scam or mistake is not the question).

The only positive post I saw here, related to my question, is from twinbeard who plans to make a replication, so I will be waiting for his results (I am now working on other projects and before keeping this one for the future, I'm just wanting to know its level of credibility).

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
My question, simple and perfectly understandable, was:

"I'm interested in third party replications.
Did someone replicate the Rosemary Ainslie Circuit and confirm a COP>1?"

Your question is did anyone replicate the circuit?  I answered it ad nauseum.  Here is the answer again.  The details of the REPLICATION are in this OPEN SOURCE PAPER.  If the question had been - 'have any of the members here tried to replicate? - then I could have answered you appropriately.  If you had asked 'can I engage with anyone who has replicated ' then again - someone, no doubt, would have answered you.  Your phrasing of the question is what is at issue. 

If it was unclear, here is what I'm searching for: an experimenter here whom I can speak with. Am I wrong to think that there are here experimenters of the "Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit" as titled? Is this thread not allowed for such a question?
Yes.  Just phrase your question correctly.  Else - don't go off into a tirade about the answer you get.

I'm not interested in web stuff in matter of experimental evidence, the past has shown that 100% of OU claims are not duplicable (scam or mistake is not the question).
Wrong again.  We have given you ALL THE PROOF THAT YOU COULD POSSIBLY REQUIRE THAT THE CLAIM IS INDEED DUPLICABLE.

The only positive post I saw here, related to my question, is from twinbeard who plans to make a replication, so I will be waiting for his results (I am now working on other projects and before keeping this one for the future, I'm just wanting to know its level of credibility).
You do NOT need to evaluate it's level of credibility.  IT HAS BEEN REPLICATED.  Is there any way I can make this plainer?  You write in English.  I understand therefore you speak English.  If so, then - here it is again.  There was an early test.  That test was replicated.  Details of the work that went into the REPLICATION are in that paper.   ???  May I give you the link - yet again.  HERE IT IS.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS

It occurs to me - exnihiloest - that you are determined to IGNORE the fact that this paper references a full on replication and that you will only repeatedly 'STRESS' the claim that the experiment has NOT BEEN REPLICATED.  That you cannot read the fact - notwithstanding repeated corrections of this misconception - speaks to some kind of mind set or bias or preconception that is rather less than scientifically competent. 

exnihiloest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 715
...
Wrong again.  We have given you ALL THE PROOF THAT YOU COULD POSSIBLY REQUIRE THAT THE CLAIM IS INDEED DUPLICABLE.
You do NOT need to evaluate it's level of credibility. 
...

Well, in this case, please consider that I want to do what I don't need.   :)



exnihiloest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 715
I am willing to replicate this device ...

Hi Twinbeard,

Thank you for your reply. You are very optimistic. I wish you the success for your project and hope you will inform the group about your results, even if they were negative (yes I'm skeptic, due to so many OU claims in the past, which have been proved to be scams or errors). The truth comes only through the doubts of the open minds :).


Hope

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 701
Lambrights device worked for me, Geet device 90% ready when my tired arske gets it done. I have need to use one (or more) in a food dehydrator we here are building  to donate to the local food bank/farm.  So I have decided to use Rosie's heating circuits,  I find it funny that when seeking working solutions so hard that people find themselves the greatest block to finding answers.

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Well, in this case, please consider that I want to do what I don't need.   :)

Hi guys,

I've been seething about this post since I saw it this morning.  My reaction is definitely disproportionate.  But here's the thing.  The evidence for overunity requires much, much more than evidential proof. 

Fortunately, unlike the most of the members here - when I started out on this quest I actually never knew that it was impossible to breach what I subsequently learned was 'the energy barrier'.  I knew nothing about thermodynamic laws and simply could not understand why it is that people were not recycling an electric current.  My analysis of the magnetic field showed this as a possibility.  But - by the same token - nor had my own reading of the subject EVER suggested that current flow comprised electrons.  In fact, on the contrary - the reading, at this early stage, was restricted to Dyson and to Zukov.  And both simply advised that it was the flow of 'charge' and that electron current flow was simply a 'conceptual' guide to this.  My assumption was that everyone realised this.  Since the properties of that 'charge' had not been identified - and as the analysis seemed to show that it could easily be magnetic flux - then it seemed a logical development to that argument.

Since then - I've learned how very wrong I was.  Not only is there a broad based assumption that current flow is the flow of electrons - against all kinds of evidence to the contrary - but the conviction seems to carry a kind of moral imperative that is as entrenched as it is illogical.  There are clearly a small minority of theoretical physicists who realise that it is not the flow of electrons.  But this fact is not even whispered in most text books.  What has happened to science that it is now determined by majority consensus?  Like a kind of approval of the majority by the majority?  Science is not based on democratic principles.  It's based on experimental evidence - for goodness sake.  And there is NO evidence of electrons being the cause of current flow.

But be that as it may.  IF current flow comprises any kind of matter - at all - then it would be theoretically IMPOSSIBLE not to exceed those energy barriers.  Is this why our theorists won't openly subscribe to dark energy from dark matter?  Is it because - at the heart of the problem - is the need to CONFORM to thermodynamic contraints?  Seems strange.  Thermodynamic Laws are forever being altered.  Yet - on this one issue - an overwhelming percentage of our trained scientists - absolutely WILL not concede to the possibility that the forces are determined by invisible 'matter'.  It's an issue that is absolutely at the forefront of astrophysics - having been proven by the most careful of measurements.  And yet.  Almost the entire global school of scientists manage to close their eyes to this evidence.  It's EXTRAORDINARY. 

Then.  When one presents proof of these breaches - of 'crashing through' those energy barriers - then that proof is NEVER considered sufficient.  Not even when its replicated.  And there's a sense of moral or intellectual superiority in those idiots who will NOT look at contradictory evidence - will NOT give credence to carefully measured test results - will NOT listen to objective evaluations of disproof - and will do so with the smug superiority of an alpha male in a troop of baboons.  They will brook no dispute. 

When science cannot be evaluated by the evidence - then we're really in trouble guys.  That makes science a religion.  But of the worst kind.  And the worst of it is that the only way to try and swim against this tide of unscientific assumption - is to confront it and confront it and confront it.  It's emotionally draining and intellectually offensive - whichever way one turns.  Not a happy situation.  It would be nice if science could again be simply evaluated by the experimental evidence.  It's the only hope we have to advance anything at all.  God alone knows how long we're to wait until the general attitude eventually changes. 

Regards
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38315399/MORE-INCONVENIENT-TRUTHS

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Lambrights device worked for me, Geet device 90% ready when my tired arske gets it done. I have need to use one (or more) in a food dehydrator we here are building  to donate to the local food bank/farm.  So I have decided to use Rosie's heating circuits,  I find it funny that when seeking working solutions so hard that people find themselves the greatest block to finding answers.

Hi Hope.  Our posts crossed.  LOL.  DELIGHTED you'll be doing some current 'recyling'.  It's GOT to be an improvement. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie

markdansie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1471
@TK
my daughter wants more penguin videos from you , she loves them
Mark