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: 84255
  • *Latest: romeos69

  • *Total Posts: 898232
  • *Total Topics: 15838
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 2
  • *Guests: 10
  • *Total: 12

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder  (Read 272012 times)

Offline otto

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1215
Hello all,

@Chet

thanks for your kind words.

@Rosemary

to make it short because I still dont had the time to read your papers.

Your oscillator is really nice,the waves are nice, your theory is nice, in short, everything is nice but.....my feeling says me that you can get a muuuuch better COP then you have now.

I dont want to bother you and the people here but trust me, your oscillator is not the best.

As I got finally the special parts for my oscillators I will build 3 "monster" oscillators for my TPU research. Yes, a TPU needs 3 oscillators. Nice isnt it?? A mix of 3 frequencies.

I really have to read your papers befor I start to wright even more misleadings.

Otto


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
@Rosemary

to make it short because I still dont had the time to read your papers.

Your oscillator is really nice,the waves are nice, your theory is nice, in short, everything is nice but.....my feeling says me that you can get a muuuuch better COP then you have now.

I dont want to bother you and the people here but trust me, your oscillator is not the best.

As I got finally the special parts for my oscillators I will build 3 "monster" oscillators for my TPU research. Yes, a TPU needs 3 oscillators. Nice isnt it?? A mix of 3 frequencies.

I really have to read your papers befor I start to wright even more misleadings.

Otto

@Otto
I answered this - modified it and then ... deleted it.  Not intended.  And I'm frankly not that interested to try and re-iterate my points or my post.

Intrigued with your need to 'wright even more misleadings' Otto.  Not sure if you mean 'right' as in correct or write as in write.  LOL.  I feel you need to 'wright these rongs' if you mean us to understand you.  In any event, I take you that you mean 'right' as in correct?  Then the next question is do you mean to correct your own 'misleadings' or those of others?  Perhaps myself?  I'd be glad of some clarification.  In view of the fact that you have neither read the thesis nor the papers - then I assume you'll be working on generalised impressions of what either constitute and represent.  It'll be an interesting exercise in 'presumption' or 'assumption' ... whichever.

One point I WOULD STRESS.  I sincerely hope you do improve on our co-efficient of performance.  But I doubt that adding to the complexity of a circuit will cut it.  But it would be nice if it does.  In my view there's only one way forward from here and that's upwards.  OU technology is very definitely in its infancy.
 

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Guys, IN DEFENSE OF OUR MEASUREMENTS PROTOCOLS

At the heart of most 'claims' of OU is the generation of induction on circuit components that is somehow returned to the supply.  10 years ago I was roundly advised by academia that a supply source can never recharge itself.  And 1 year ago I was given this same advice by 'so called' OU enthusiasts - TK being just one such representative.  He certainly was the most vociferous.

Pivotal to this thinking is that all energy is sourced from the supply and that it is the only source of energy available on the circuit.  That's the equivalence principle that's been discussed earlier.  Only so much energy available.  Therefore whatever has not been dissipated on circuit components can be stored and returned to the source.  BUT in as much as losses in dissipated energies are inevitable - only some fraction LESS than originally delivered can now be returned.  Therefore - the only 'recharge' wattage available is something less than was first supplied.  The net result is a continual loss to the supply.

What is evident in all our tests - and subject to the generation of that 'preferred oscillation' as the authors of the Open Source Paper referred to it - then one can at times even measure the same or more energy being returned to the supply than originally delivered.  This value varies.  At moments the energy returned is greater than supplied - then it is equal to the supply - then it is less than the supply.  And so it goes.  But add up the net 'return' over multiple samples and over an extended period of time - and the results show the circuit's actual potential.  It is able to dissipate more energy in heat over the resistor and sundry component parts than the amount of energy delivered.  Therefore the amount of energy dissipated at the load and at those components exceeds the amount of energy delivered by the supply.

This is the point where mainstream predictions and this circuit result - CLASH.  And there's nothing can reconcile this result within known and expected performance of standard circuitry - within any standard model.  It represents an irreconcilable departure.  Then, because there's no other argument to support this - members on both on these forums and in mainstream - raise the point that the circuit has been INCORRECTLY MEASURED.  GROSSLY.  There are no other options.

Now.  Energy is always based on v*i - voltage times amperage.  To determine amperage - what is required is that one uses a non-inductive calibrated shunt resistor that will not materially effect the flow of amperage during the operation of the circuit - but will allow a measure of the rate of current flow through the simple ohmic assessment based on v/r=i.  We have a lead acid battery supply.  One does not expect it to deliver a negative current flow.  If any negative values are evident then this does not represent a depletion of energy but rather a 'recharge' of energy.  Therefore we can confidently determine that in the process of delivering energy the voltage will be - greater than zero.  And in a recharge cycle the voltage will be below zero.  Therefore the net discharge from the battery will be the difference between these two values.  That's the standard protocol used to measure the energy delivered by any battery supply source.  There is no other way to evaluate this.  Unless - of course, one were to relate that apparent 'rate of current flow' to the actual discharge rate of the battery itself.  That's a double check.

What we have found is that the rate at which the battery discharges its energy is consistent with the rate of current flow measured across that shunt resistor.  Controls are easy to set up.  Run a control with an equivalent rate of amperage flow - or an equivalent rate of wattage dissipated.  Either way the performance of the battery appears to be consistent with the results on the experiment.  Therefore one can conclude that - indeed - the battery is discharging at the rate determined and that notwithstanding this apparent lack of or nominal rate of discharge - the circuit then is ALSO dissipating that surplus energy as heat - all over the place in quantities that far exceed the amount of energy discharged by the supply.

That's proven.  And that's been accurately recorded in the papers that have detailed these tests.  There is nothing complicated in the calculations of energy.  Even I can do this.  But there is a tendancy to try and obfuscate the simple principles that are required to measure these results.  Power measurements are straight forward and the required measurement protocols apply on this as any other circuit.  And using the same protocols the evidence is that more energy is dissipated than delivered.  It's that simple.

Regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising



Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline rensseak

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 330
@Otto
I answered this - modified it and then ... deleted it.  Not intended.  And I'm frankly not that interested to try and re-iterate my points or my post.

Intrigued with your need to 'wright even more misleadings' Otto.  Not sure if you mean 'right' as in correct or write as in write.  LOL.  I feel you need to 'wright these rongs' if you mean us to understand you.  In any event, I take you that you mean 'right' as in correct?  Then the next question is do you mean to correct your own 'misleadings' or those of others?  Perhaps myself?  I'd be glad of some clarification.  In view of the fact that you have neither read the thesis nor the papers - then I assume you'll be working on generalised impressions of what either constitute and represent.  It'll be an interesting exercise in 'presumption' or 'assumption' ... whichever.

One point I WOULD STRESS.  I sincerely hope you do improve on our co-efficient of performance.  But I doubt that adding to the complexity of a circuit will cut it.  But it would be nice if it does.  In my view there's only one way forward from here and that's upwards.  OU technology is very definitely in its infancy.

Hello Rosemary,

that is just an error of Otto. he means "write".  :D

sincerely
Norbert

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
 :D Hi Norbert,

I guessed as much.  Now I just need clarification about those 'misleadings'.  LOL

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline mscoffman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1377
@Rosemary

Don’t listen to your critics.

High current pulses into acid/lead or liquid or gell batteries
causes cavitation bubbles in the batteries. These initiates D+D
cold fusion, which is where the extra energy is coming from.
period - end of story as far as I am concerned.

To improve your experiment make the MOSFET gate drive power
come directly from the unitary 24Volt power supply. Make the
oscillator a (data) signal rather then a power signal then use an
opto-isolator to amplify the oscillator signal for MOSFET gate
drive. Now the gate drive power all comes from the unitary
supply. Next split the special load up ½ between the source
and the other ½ on the drain of the MOSFET. Now any gate
drive power will find itself dissipated in either ½ or the other
of the special load.

---

Experiment (a): show overunity energy production just as usual.

Experiment (b): put a dual section high current LC pulse filter
between the unitary power source battery vs. the rest of the
circuit so that the pulses are fully averaged by the time they get
to the supply batteries. You should find that now, no power gain
is present in the circuit – the reason is the above. This will also
suggest to you what components will need to be present to make
the device function.

Good Luck!

:S:MarkSCoffman

Offline powercat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091
Hi Rosemary  ;D
Great work i hope you get there this time  ;)
Here's a quick one,
Moon Landing Sketch  :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw

cat

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Hi Rosemary  ;D
Great work i hope you get there this time  ;)
Here's a quick one,
Moon Landing Sketch  :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw

cat

Hello CAT.  So nice to see you around.  And thanks for the link.  Hilarious and MUCH NEEDED.  I rather missed your touch here.    ;D

I also hope to make it this time round.  When I'm not fighting MIB's I get landed with jealous replicators.  And right now EF.com is pretty well controlled by both.  I hope to be a trend setter here by switching sides.  And excessively kind of Stefan to allow this.  But there's an enormous advantage to working from an accredited laboratory.  And even more so as it's a University - which means that the knowledge is intended for general benefit.  Our universities are still very much public property. And I'm an incurable optimist.  LOL

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

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

High current pulses into acid/lead or liquid or gell batteries
causes cavitation bubbles in the batteries. These initiates D+D
cold fusion, which is where the extra energy is coming from.
period - end of story as far as I am concerned.

Hello Mark.  I'm afraid I know virtually nothing about cold fusion so can't comment.  But I see that it's coming more and more into vogue.  I do have a schematic that I'll be posting later today - on an arrangement between lead acid and alkaline batteries which I think may represent a closed system.  I'm hoping Farrah will read here.  She may be able to get it to concept phase.

Regarding your proposed experiments.  Not sure that I followed it correctly.  We did run the switch from the supply battery if that's what you're recommending.  But we've never tested a filtered waveform.  My concern here is that aperiodic or parasitic Hartley number.  It's so easily snuffed.  I'd be concerned that a filter may do just this.  I just don't know enough about it.  But I'm satisfied that we will get to test this as Donovan has already included this in our proposed test procedures.  I believe he's writing the 'software' as required.

Thanks for the good wishes.  They're much needed and, believe me, much appreciated.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary 


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Apologies.  I've just seen an error.  I need to redraw the schematic.  BRB

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
(http://i758.photobucket.com/albums/xx223/aetherevarising/DSC00166.jpg)
(http://i758.photobucket.com/albums/xx223/aetherevarising/DSC00167.jpg)

My link to OU.com keeps timing out - so I'm making good while this seems to hold.

Guys - again - Please anyone with enough patience please open these again.  I will definitely get around this learning curve tomorrow - ... later today!  Apologies for the imposition.  Explanation of the schematics follow.

Rosemary
« Last Edit: July 26, 2010, 03:57:16 AM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Still very tenuous link here. I hope it survives this post.

THE CONCEPT

The first schematic is intended to address conventional understanding of current flow.  There are two schools of thought.  The one has it that in a lead acid battery the flow is from the cathode to the anode and vice versa for the other.  I am entirely indifferent to either school.  All I'm trying to show here is that if current flow is anticlockwise then the recharge cycle would be clockwise and vice versa - regardless of the battery 'type'. 

The second schematic was tricky.  I had to illustrate that in using alkaline and acid batteries in series - effectively the anode of the alkaline would be on a shared rail with the cathode of the acid battery.  But the diode arrangements, as illustrated, effectively put the two batteries in parallel - i think... 

In any event - here's the sequence assuming that current flows from postive to negative.  Switches work in antiphase.  Alkaline is open.  Current flows from the acid through the diode to the postive of the alkaline back to the cathode of the acid.  The acid battery switch then opens.  The alkaline battery switch closes.  Now the flow goes from the cathode of the alkaline to the anode of the acid.  In both cycles the theoretical indications are that it recharges - step one the alkaline - step two the acid. 

Still to be resolved.

- It may require a doubling of the battery supply during the on phase of each cycle to ensure that there's enough voltage to overreach the resistance in the recharging battery during each cycle.  For example - during the on phase of the lead acid - 24 volts are accessed to supply 12 volts at the alkaline battery and vice versa.   

- Not sure of the ideal position of a load.  AC requirements would be satisified if the load were positioned on the shared negative rail which, as illustrated - is the acid battery's cathode in series with the Alkaline battery's anode.  Provided always that there is some equitable load distribution during both cycles then the amount of energy available to recharge would be the same in both cycles.  This would need to be establised somehow.

- Fine tuning of the circuit and switches to enable this.  One may need to establish a current flow that is optimally required to recharge.

- Fine tuning of any inductance on the circuit that may be required to assist in this effect.

- The required alkaline battery would need to be the same capacity as the lead acid and such are NOT currently available. 

All this is based on the 'proof of concept' established in the earlier tests and described in two papers.  This proves that energy dissipated can exceed the amount of energy delivered.  Effectively - energy dissipated on a circuit is not sourced from the energy supplied through current flow else there would be evidence of equivalence.

The purpose of this new circuit is to establish some means of conserving charge that is not restricted to the transistor values.  What is available on the market is insufficient for realistic applications and this circuit is intended to 'assist', supplement, or entirely replace the need for the MOSFET switch. 

It still requires some experimentation to establish proof of concept.  But, thus far, it seems to be theoretically feasible.

Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising
« Last Edit: July 26, 2010, 06:12:42 AM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Offline rensseak

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 330
For Rosi,   ;D

(http://i758.photobucket.com/albums/xx223/aetherevarising/DSC00166.jpg)
(http://i758.photobucket.com/albums/xx223/aetherevarising/DSC00167.jpg)

My link to OU.com keeps timing out - so I'm making good while this seems to hold.

Guys - again - Please anyone with enough patience please open these again.  I will definitely get around this learning curve tomorrow - ... later today!  Apologies for the imposition.  Explanation of the schematics follow.

Rosemary
I'M TAKING THE LIBERTY OF EDITING THIS NORBERT.  HOPEFULLY YOU WON'T OBJECT.  JUST TO ADD THAT THE PROPOSED BATTERY TO BE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH LEAD ACID IS NICKLE METAL HYDRIDE. 
« Last Edit: July 26, 2010, 04:42:46 PM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Still very tenuous link here. I hope it survives this post.

THE CONCEPT

The first schematic is intended to address conventional understanding of current flow.  There are two schools of thought.  The one has it that in a lead acid battery the flow is from the cathode to the anode and vice versa for the other.  I am entirely indifferent to either school.  All I'm trying to show here is that if current flow is anticlockwise then the recharge cycle would be clockwise and vice versa - regardless of the battery 'type'. 

The second schematic was tricky.  I had to illustrate that in using alkaline and acid batteries in series - effectively the anode of the alkaline would be on a shared rail with the cathode of the acid battery.  But the diode arrangements, as illustrated, effectively put the two batteries in parallel - i think... 

In any event - here's the sequence assuming that current flows from postive to negative.  Switches work in antiphase.  Alkaline is open.  Current flows from the acid through the diode to the postive of the alkaline back to the cathode of the acid.  The acid battery switch then opens.  The alkaline battery switch closes.  Now the flow goes from the cathode of the alkaline to the anode of the acid.  In both cycles the theoretical indications are that it recharges - step one the alkaline - step two the acid. 

Still to be resolved.

- It may require a doubling of the battery supply during the on phase of each cycle to ensure that there's enough voltage to overreach the resistance in the recharging battery during each cycle.  For example - during the on phase of the lead acid - 24 volts are accessed to supply 12 volts at the alkaline battery and vice versa.   

- Not sure of the ideal position of a load.  AC requirements would be satisified if the load were positioned on the shared negative rail which, as illustrated - is the acid battery's cathode in series with the Alkaline battery's anode.  Provided always that there is some equitable load distribution during both cycles then the amount of energy available to recharge would be the same in both cycles.  This would need to be establised somehow.

- Fine tuning of the circuit and switches to enable this.  One may need to establish a current flow that is optimally required to recharge.

- Fine tuning of any inductance on the circuit that may be required to assist in this effect.

- The required alkaline battery would need to be the same capacity as the lead acid and such are NOT currently available. 

All this is based on the 'proof of concept' established in the earlier tests and described in two papers.  This proves that energy dissipated can exceed the amount of energy delivered.  Effectively - energy dissipated on a circuit is not sourced from the energy supplied through current flow else there would be evidence of equivalence.

The purpose of this new circuit is to establish some means of conserving charge that is not restricted to the transistor values.  What is available on the market is insufficient for realistic applications and this circuit is intended to 'assist', supplement, or entirely replace the need for the MOSFET switch. 

It still requires some experimentation to establish proof of concept.  But, thus far, it seems to be theoretically feasible.

Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising
Just to get it onto the same page.

Norbert,  Many thanks indeed for your help here.  :D
Kindest regards,
Rosie

Offline rensseak

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 330
Just to get it onto the same page.

Norbert,  Many thanks indeed for your help here.  :D
Kindest regards,
Rosie

Hello Rosemary,
You are wellcome. And yes you are right, later i also tought it might be better together with you next post. Next time I respect that.

sincerely
Norbert

 

OneLink