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: 84215
  • *Latest: reisilva

  • *Total Posts: 897723
  • *Total Topics: 15821
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 1
  • *Guests: 12
  • *Total: 13

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder  (Read 268927 times)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Guys - I've got delivery of our magnets 6 x 1"x1"x1".  I sort of 'hung' a couple of these on a thread and noted that it developed a kind of 'jitter' that outlasted any previous construct that I'd put together.  Must have been for over a 2 hours that I was watching it.  But I left it running when I went to sleep - and this morning...IT'S GONE.  Clearly this too has found it's rest state.   

The good news is that these magents are really STRONG.  They're ferrite but I've never handled ferrite with this kind of field strength.  Hopefully it'll survive the 'cut' as we're going to be shaping this with a wire cutter.  I'll keep you posted.

Regards,
Rosemary


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline markdansie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1471
Hi Rosemary
Sorry about the late delays in answer to your question
1. No the crietria was not that it had to be closed looped for the tests we did however it was a complete fraud...full confession from the inventor. However in this particular case it was claimed to be a self running magnetic motor (was one of the best frauds i had ever seen he should be at Las Vagas as a magition)
2. My specialty is magnetic motors, Hydrogen but no expert in electronics so I use engineers and physists where the need arises. In many cases it is mis measurement (especially pulsed devices) and some cases people want to believe so hard they only see the data they want to see. In a few caes it just straight fraud. I am blessed to have a world wide network of people who are highly recognised in their fields of expertise.
3. When it comes to testing we follow scientific principles with an open mind. We do not alwasy need an explanation why something does what it does but we do need the data to support the claims.
5. I am well aware of what you are trying to do and have praise for the way you are going about it. Y

Offline markdansie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1471
Hi Again
I hit send accidently
To finish of my last post I want to say your work will challenge some long held beliefs which is a good thing. I know what you are trying to achieve but my interest is in through heat disepation or other you may indeed abtain a greater than cop1. I am also interested in the results you obtain in hitting that sweet spot is laymans terms.
Please continue your fine work and professional approach. many will challenge your results but this is important and part of the process. Peer review is always healthy good or bad. It is important not to take things personally and always respect other people opinions.
I have always had an approach of surrounding myself with sceptics and people who try and shoot things down, I find them of immense value...far more than fair weather friends.
In regards to the MIB you need not worry, I even have ex spooks as some of my associates. Times have changed. There is some serious research being done involving big bucks that never hit the forums and security is never an issue. Your computer issue was proberbly a run of the mill hacker..believe me they are everywhere as I experienced when managing the IT section of a University.
Kind Regards
Mark 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Hi again Mark,

I think I may, by sheer co-incidence - have found out about that scam you referred to.  If it's the same one - then there were a few people somewhat impoverished.  But I'll check into it better.  Glad to hear that the closed loop isn't the ultimate criteria for guaging efficiency.  It would be hard.  But, in a way, I think I'm trying to explore this with my magnetic monopoles.  That gadget to 'toss into a teacup' - is actually something that I envision is possible.  But I'll first need to wait and see the outcome of those tests.    ::) LOL

Incidentally the construct is going to be wire cut - final decision.  It's doable - subject only to finding some way of taking the gunk away from the cutter as it's unlikely to 'flush'.  But a second company is also going to do those same shapes in plastic - so that we can experiment with the 'imbalance'.  It may be that we only need 4 or five of those pyramids and we'll need an appropriate or duplicate shape to hold in that 'gap'.  Hope that's clear.  Else those magnets will fall out of line and I rather think the shape and 'positional' symmetry will be required.  Golly.  I feel I'm inventing a new vocab here guys.  Sorry.  It's the best I can do.

Glad you approve our work Mark.  There's not that many who do.  And even less members who even follow this thread.  I keep logging into that 'who's on forum' option - and seldom see anyone but guests.  In any event.  I press on regardless.  I feel that unless I do - I'll again be accused of 'hidden patent interests'.  This should be paid to any such nonsense.  Then too - it should also help if those bright sparks out there can make good sense of what I'm writing.  It needs to be interpreted into language that you guys feel more au fait and comfortable with - my own being essentially layman's language - at best.

And Mark - thanks again for the encouragement.  It's always appreciated.  I must admit that I feel I'm talking to myself most of the time.  But I don't really care.  Just as long as these things can be put on record - lest any try and claim exclusive rights to it again.

Take good care.  Delighted always to find those who are advancing applications.  We're doing our bit here too.  But it's at snail's pace - which is why I'm dipping into those other designs that have haunted me for so long.  And regarding the trolls and sceptics.  When they're clever it's a pleasure.  But such are few and far between. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Offline spinn_MP

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 224
Dear Rosemary!

Sorry for all the bad taste and troubles with my (rare) posts...

I'd really love to see your success... But, so far, i haven't see anything which would helped me to see the benefits or even understand your "invention"...?

In short, try to cut out the crap, and start to defend your "work"....  OK?
 ;)


Sorry, that wasn't nice, I know.... Sorry.

Will you, please, show at least some kind of a proof for your claims?

I mean, like the real proof? It's not so hard... If there's really something...
Cheers!




Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Dear Rosemary!

Sorry for all the bad taste and troubles with my (rare) posts...

I'd really love to see your success... But, so far, i haven't see anything which would helped me to see the benefits or even understand your "invention"...?

In short, try to cut out the crap, and start to defend your "work"....  OK?
 ;)


Sorry, that wasn't nice, I know.... Sorry.

Will you, please, show at least some kind of a proof for your claims?

I mean, like the real proof? It's not so hard... If there's really something...
Cheers!

I posted you a lengthy answer - but have deleted it.  Spinn - here is the paper.  If you can understand it well and good.  If you can't then I can't help you.

The first paper was published 9 years ago.  The test was replicated.  The paper above was record of that replication.  The first paper was a circuit designed to prove a thesis.

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

Here's the thesis.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33988924/DARK-MATTER-MFM

Here's a history of the collaboration
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33937867/IF-I-WAS-A-TROLL

Here's some reasons for disputing mainstream concepts.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38315399/MORE-INCONVENIENT-TRUTHS

If you can wrap your mind around that lot - then you'll know exactly where I come in. 

Rosemary

Offline spinn_MP

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 224
Ah well... Don't bother.
I asked you for a real proof, not about your fantasies...

Quote
...
What I find disgraceful, what is entirely inexcusable is that all this bad logic is hidden behind an obscure, in fact, an entirely incomprehensible techno-babble.
...

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Ah well... Don't bother.
I asked you for a real proof, not about your fantasies...

I was reasonably sure that you'd come back with some such reply.  What's sad is if the facts were to stand up and bite you you still wouldn't notice them.  But it's not for lack of evidence - unfortunately Spinn.  It's for want of understanding that evidence.   

In any event.  You're opinion here has many who share it.  More's the pity.  The fact that the evidence conforms to mainstream protocols - and that it was all extrapolated with the finest of measuring instruments -  and the fact that it was entirely on view for the entire world to see - if they wanted to.  The fact that it was widely accredited.  None of it merits the slightest acknowledgement with those such as you.  I think it's like Paul mentioned. Those that won't see - just WON'T.  It's a psychological predispostion.  It has NOTHING to do with reality.  I'm sure - way back - Galileo must have got exasperated trying to tell us all that the world spun around the sun.  And nothing will change this opinion of yours.  Not even, as I've mentioned, if the evidence were to smack you in the face.  Something is lacking - and it's not OUR ability to assess the experimental evidence. 

Like you say.  There's no point in discussion on this kind of basis.  Either you understand what's written - or you don't.  Clearly you don't.  It's rather soul destroying to try and argue the evidence in the face of this much scepticism.  Actually.  It's impossible.

Rosemary

Offline happyfunball

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 405
PUBLIC NOTICE

QUOTE:  http://www.energeticforum.com/70207-post2913.html  ( can we use your data for a paper )

witsend
Senior Member
   
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,063
Guys - some more really good news.

IEEE have informed me that I can resubmit the paper with new revised information and evidence of open source duplication of the experiment provided that they are made fully cogniscant of the data available at the replication.

The implication is clearly that the first was not considered as having sufficient information. So Fuzzy. Would you please allow a collaboration on a new paper including your revised data - that we can submit this for peer review? We're game if you are. I see a comfortable collaboration between all parties here - provided you have no objections to us using your data.

In fact I think that many parties could come to the table here - all from our contributors and it would be so nice if you could pm Fuzzy, me, Aaron or Harvey with suggestions or considerations. Just think of it. The first collaborative attempt of a paper submitted by open source enthusiasts. And possibly the first proof of significant energy savings OU OR COP>17. Both are amazing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I ..... Glen Lettenmaier, am withdrawing any use of my complete Test number "Thirteen" (13) data and image files for further usage, evaluation or publication, other than what has already been seen and posted at Energetic Forum, Panacea Bocaf and my "copyrighted" Scribd publication.


Sincerely,
Glen A Lettenmaier (aka FuzzyTomCat)

Are you really that intent on stealing Rosemary's research? She's obviously the original author. How about letting it go.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline vonwolf

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 144
PUBLIC NOTICE

QUOTE:  http://www.energeticforum.com/70207-post2913.html  ( can we use your data for a paper )

witsend
Senior Member
   
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,063
Guys - some more really good news.

IEEE have informed me that I can resubmit the paper with new revised information and evidence of open source duplication of the experiment provided that they are made fully cogniscant of the data available at the replication.

The implication is clearly that the first was not considered as having sufficient information. So Fuzzy. Would you please allow a collaboration on a new paper including your revised data - that we can submit this for peer review? We're game if you are. I see a comfortable collaboration between all parties here - provided you have no objections to us using your data.

In fact I think that many parties could come to the table here - all from our contributors and it would be so nice if you could pm Fuzzy, me, Aaron or Harvey with suggestions or considerations. Just think of it. The first collaborative attempt of a paper submitted by open source enthusiasts. And possibly the first proof of significant energy savings OU OR COP>17. Both are amazing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I ..... Glen Lettenmaier, am withdrawing any use of my complete Test number "Thirteen" (13) data and image files for further usage, evaluation or publication, other than what has already been seen and posted at Energetic Forum, Panacea Bocaf and my "copyrighted" Scribd publication.


Sincerely,
Glen A Lettenmaier (aka FuzzyTomCat)



  Why on Earth would you drag this up now when it's over a year old? Talk about beating a dead horse, don't get me wrong I am very disappointed that you pulled out of the collaboration you did increadable work and at the time you seemed quite proud of it.
  I just don't understand I'm pretty sure the IEEE paper is but a distant memory so why bring it up?

   @spinn_MP
  Rose has been presenting her work and "defending" it for years and she hardly needs me to do it, she's quite accomplished at defending her self.  That said she started this thread to help document her progress she makes with the University's participation in a effort to keep this technology open source, she has already gone thru the fun times of working with others to try to replicate her experiment to prove her thesis, you just have to go back and read the 100's of posts here and elsewhere.
   Good luck Rose  Pete
« Last Edit: October 27, 2010, 12:09:40 AM by vonwolf »

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Are you really that intent on stealing Rosemary's research? She's obviously the original author. How about letting it go.

You have got to be kidding. Glen did much of the actual work involved in that paper submission; he is withdrawing his work because further work on his part identified a major error, unless I am gravely mistaken.

The Quantum article published "nine years ago" has many problems, including but not limited to the fact that the circuit as shown in that article produces NOT a 3 or 4 percent ON duty cycle at the mosfet, but the EXACT INVERSE, that is, a 96 or 97 percent ON cycle at the mosfet.

Using that exact circuit and that 97 percent ON duty cycle, I was able to reproduce very closely the reported heat-vs-time profiles given in that paper --- strongly suggesting that a fundamental error was made in the original experiment of Rosemary Ainslie.

Using a 3 or 4 percent duty cycle (as claimed in the Quantum paper) nobody has been able to get anything like the published heat profiles. And using the circuit published in the Quantum article nobody has been able to get a 3 or 4 percent ON duty cycle at the mosfet.

The original Quantum experiment was performed using a Fluke Scope-Meter (the model has been stated at various times to be either a 123 or a 199, IIRC)  a 20 MHz digital oscilloscope without on-board integration capability.

I have made measurements of the Ainslie circuit using both these Fluke models, as well as fast analog scopes and a 1 GHz LeCroy digital scope that can do on-board power integration.

My replications of the Ainslie circuit, using her diagrams, "corrected" circuits as published by Peter Lindemann, Aaron Murakami, and others, as well as ordinary function generators, DO show the heat profiles she published (when a long duty cycle is used), DO NOT show these heat profiles at the 3 or 4 percent duty cycles claimed, and DO show APPARENT reversed energy flows with a properly positioned flyback diode in the circuit.

However, properly performed integrations over time of the VxI power traces show no excess energy.

My tests are mostly still available on YouTube.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Are you really that intent on stealing Rosemary's research? She's obviously the original author. How about letting it go.

referencing this posted by fuzzytomcat
Quote from: fuzzytomcat
    PUBLIC NOTICE

    QUOTE:  http://www.energeticforum.com/70207-post2913.html  ( can we use your data for a paper )

    witsend
    Senior Member
       
    Join Date: May 2009
    Posts: 1,063
    Guys - some more really good news.

    IEEE have informed me that I can resubmit the paper with new revised information and evidence of open source duplication of the experiment provided that they are made fully cogniscant of the data available at the replication.

    The implication is clearly that the first was not considered as having sufficient information. So Fuzzy. Would you please allow a collaboration on a new paper including your revised data - that we can submit this for peer review? We're game if you are. I see a comfortable collaboration between all parties here - provided you have no objections to us using your data.

    In fact I think that many parties could come to the table here - all from our contributors and it would be so nice if you could pm Fuzzy, me, Aaron or Harvey with suggestions or considerations. Just think of it. The first collaborative attempt of a paper submitted by open source enthusiasts. And possibly the first proof of significant energy savings OU OR COP>17. Both are amazing.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    I ..... Glen Lettenmaier, am withdrawing any use of my complete Test number "Thirteen" (13) data and image files for further usage, evaluation or publication, other than what has already been seen and posted at Energetic Forum, Panacea Bocaf and my "copyrighted" Scribd publication.


    Sincerely,
    Glen A Lettenmaier (aka FuzzyTomCat)

Hello Happy - SO NICE TO SEE YOU THERE.  And many thanks for making due record here.  I see that - like so much - Glen tried to delete this too and lose all record.  LOL.

It's a delicious medley of the kind and type of confusions that seem to abound here.  In the first instance it is IMPOSSIBLE to withdraw information after it's been made public.  It is impossible to claim copyright if it weren't first copyrighted on first public disclosure.  It is impossible to censure the 6000 odd reads and multiple downloads of the paper from my Scribd publications - which is very much a public forum.  It is impossible to withdraw documentation that was earlier ratified.  It is impossible to scrub the minds of those thousands of 'reads' from thousands of members and guests - that our experimental evidence refers to.  What Glen is trying to say here is that this is exclusively HIS information to impart as HE prefers.  Unfortunately it is NOT.  So.  He can withdraw all that he wants - and claim it all for himself - but he's actually just howling at the moon.  It was freely given - and it's impossible to retrospectively assert any kind of 'price' on that gift - regardless as to whether that price is exclusive distribution rights or exclusive claim to the 'discovery' if that's the reach.

I am entirely satisfied - and the record speaks to this - that the experiments that Glen conducted were under the direct advisement of myself through Skype and the precise duplication of the primary circuit that we first published - circuit materials and vagaries excepted.  But I'm sure that you and all our readers here will be intrigued at the need to withdraw this VITAL experimental evidence in the first instance.  It speaks to motive.  And the motive is all too clear.   I'm afraid that Glen has committed a kind of intellectual suicide in this reach.  It is sad more than anything.  He's an ace experimentalist.

But, unfortunately - in the words of the immortal Khalil Gibran - 'the moving finger writes and having writ moves on...nor all thy piety and wit can cancel half a line.'  The delusions of trying to reverse the effects of publication are closely married to an attempt to reverse time itself.  Just can't be done. 

Interesting to see that he's signed it with full public disclosure of his identity.  I rather thought he was averse to letting the public trace this.  Certainly he wrote to Stefan to enjoin him to remove his surname from any future reference lest we discover his actual identity.  Strange developments afoot.

Regards,
Rosemary
 

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
TK - NICE POST.  It's not often that you deal with specifics.  At least I've got something here that I can get my teeth into. 

You have got to be kidding. Glen did much of the actual work involved in that paper submission; he is withdrawing his work because further work on his part identified a major error, unless I am gravely mistaken.
Golly TK.  One CANNOT refute the evidence unless you discount the value of the Tektronix TDS3054C that he used.  LOL.  What he DID do - which was sadly transparent in its motives - was use a second more sophisticated machine - he then adjusted the 'preferred oscillation' to show a loss which is REALLY easy to do - and then claimed that his earlier experiments where thereby DISPROVED.  Actually.  Let me correct that.  He did the tests - Harvey did the analysis.  LOL.  What a joke.

The Quantum article published "nine years ago" has many problems, including but not limited to the fact that the circuit as shown in that article produces NOT a 3 or 4 percent ON duty cycle at the mosfet, but the EXACT INVERSE, that is, a 96 or 97 percent ON cycle at the mosfet.
LOL  The ONLY person who found this error is YOU.  It was entirely refuted by Bob Potchen amongst others.  And had it produced a 96 or 97 percent ON cycle then it would have shown a commensurate waveform on the shunt that would have supported this.  The shunt values were earlier taken off our FLUKE.  Nowhere near as sophisticated an instrument the Tektronix that I solicited to assist us in Glen's tests.  But it was more than sufficient at the frequencies measured.  So.  With respect.  You did something there that ONLY YOU seemed to find.  But it's interesting that you, nonetheless, go on and on about this.  The measurements - the primary data - is extrapolated without any reference WHATSOEVER to the required duty cycle.  It just takes what's given to it and then shows the appropriate numbers.  I really don't give a damn - in any event - if there was an error in the publication of that 555 circuitry.  It is irrelevant.  It's the data that we measured.  And that does NOT lie.

Using that exact circuit and that 97 percent ON duty cycle, I was able to reproduce very closely the reported heat-vs-time profiles given in that paper --- strongly suggesting that a fundamental error was made in the original experiment of Rosemary Ainslie.
TK?  REALLY?  I unfortunately NEVER saw evidence of a preferred oscillation mode - with respect.

Using a 3 or 4 percent duty cycle (as claimed in the Quantum paper) nobody has been able to get anything like the published heat profiles. And using the circuit published in the Quantum article nobody has been able to get a 3 or 4 percent ON duty cycle at the mosfet.
This is true.  Glen only got COP>7.  But frankly - that only speaks to the requirement of more tess.  What Glen PROVED is that there are those choice moments in that resonance where the gain EXCEEDS the energy supplied from the battery.  We also saw this.  What we're hoping to do is find a way of keeping it at precisely this level - if it's possible.  But with or without these optimised moments - the gains are unequivocal. 

The original Quantum experiment was performed using a Fluke Scope-Meter (the model has been stated at various times to be either a 123 or a 199, IIRC)  a 20 MHz digital oscilloscope without on-board integration capability.

I have made measurements of the Ainslie circuit using both these Fluke models, as well as fast analog scopes and a 1 GHz LeCroy digital scope that can do on-board power integration.

My replications of the Ainslie circuit, using her diagrams, "corrected" circuits as published by Peter Lindemann, Aaron Murakami, and others, as well as ordinary function generators, DO show the heat profiles she published (when a long duty cycle is used), DO NOT show these heat profiles at the 3 or 4 percent duty cycles claimed, and DO show APPARENT reversed energy flows with a properly positioned flyback diode in the circuit.

However, properly performed integrations over time of the VxI power traces show no excess energy.

My tests are mostly still available on YouTube.
This kind of reminds me of the following analogy that I used.  Everyone can scale 1 meter in a high jump.  Then someone scales 2 meters.  Everyone says that's impossible.  So others try.  Then someone scales the 2 meter jump and films that effort.  Then others continue to try and they still deny it's possibility.  You see this?  It just proves that you actually never managed that high jump.  Not that the high jump is unscaleable. 

Regards,
Rosemary
edited
« Last Edit: October 27, 2010, 06:36:33 AM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
TK - Actually I'm probably NOT being clear.  The analysis of our waveforms was NEVER deduced from the applied duty cycle.  If you look at the text of the original paper it stated words to the effect that 'the applied duty cycle is overridden'.  What happens is that in the 'preferred oscillation mode' which I think is the term that Harvey applied here - induces what is much much closer to a square wave - where the energy returned to the battery pretty nearly equals the energy first supplied.  The net value is zero.  So.  Far from there being any evident applied duty cycle - the system finds it's own. 

You never, to the best of my knowledge, even managed that oscillation.  Or if you did - then it was certainly not the REQUIRED oscillation. 

Regards
Rosemary

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968

Good luck Rose  Pete

Pete.  I missed this entirely.  Thanks.  Thank you very much.  I cannot tell you how it heartens me when other's speak up.  Otherwise this strange eccentric 'life on a forum' would be entirely unhappy. 

the very kindest and the very best of my regards,
Rosemary

 

OneLink