Guys - notwithstanding the imminent possibility of being banned for, yet again telling some uncomfortable truths, let me address yet another post from Ashtweth.

Hi WilbyInebriated, Thats the whole point of what we are saying, and your reading about the technology thanks to my efforts for 5 months plus Glens, Harvey's , Aaron's, Jib's and Andrews . Glen is merely trying to warn of his experiences nothing more.

It seems that any material contribution here by me is entirely ignored or discounted or denied.  And more to the point - had we not put up a fight and had Stefan not organised this thread - then no-one - anywhere at all, would be reading about this.  The only reference outside of this forum is in that MOSFET heating circuit thread which denies any benefit.     Go figger. 

If people email or PM Glen, talk about the technology dont worry about the feuds. Glen and Harvey are perfectly willing to help experimenters. They will just get distracted if you mention the RA incident.

Let me deal with each piece of misinformation as it comes up.  If Glen were committed to the technology I would be happy to endorse this advice that you defer to him when and if anyone does replications.  BUT.  Unless the arguments in the Mosfet Heating Circuit are entirely CONTRADICTED then he sees NO MERIT in this technology.  He is either lying off forum or on forum.  One way or another - the two stances simply do not marry.  On record is the unambiguous albeit contradictory statements that - there is no extra energy - that the technology is dangerous - that the Tektronix DPO3054C DPO was inadequate for purposes of measuring - that there is NO WAY KNOWN TO SCIENCE OR MAN to do a measurement - and on and on.   Off forum and through these PM's he seems to be assuring you all that you can defer to him or to his data - and that he'll do what?  Guide you all into the realisation that there is no benefit in this technology?  To me that seems somewhat absurd.  Wouldn't it be more to the point to just refer you to that psuedo scholarly multipurpose treatise in the thread to call a halt to further studies at inception?  I would have thought?  Unless he's now rethinking that nonsense and perhaps a little timid that you'll all prove it for the nonsense that it is.  Maybe he just needs to get back into the argument - so to speak - and try and retain some authority on a subject.  God knows his authority is entirely suspect - as of now.

So as long as every one takes this in  and takes this advice, we can ALL get on with the job.

What job?  Nothing has been done other than a copy of an element which is entirely inappropriate for the task.  Nothing has been progressed - and why should it?  Again.  That thread stands testament to Glen's and Harvey's opinion that there is no merit in the technology.  Change that thread - and perhaps there can be some reason to defer to these self-appointed authorities.  I assure you all that there is more talent and more required critical assessment here than was ever evident at EF.com.  There are NO experts there.

Rose wont discuss all this if you stick to her circuit, some how she is not all bad.

Not sure of the definition of 'BAD' but again it's wrong on both counts.  Firstly I will discuss exactly what's required - with or without Ashtweth's permission.  And indeed, if BAD is because I see a continuing need to contradict Ashtweth and set the record straight then indeed I am BAD.  But it's a matter of perspective and a matter of opinion.  LOL

If Rose mentions the incident , just try and get her talking about the circuit, Rose eventually gets back on track.

LOL.  My purpose here is dedicated to the following.  A detailed account of the trials that are to be reported on an application designed at not less than 100 watts.  A detailed account of the thesis that requires that COP>1 result.  A detailed account of the history of those members who are actively engaged in discrediting the technology and my good name along with it.  ALL of these aspects are critical - lest the truth be buried and people be duped into thinking that there are those who are apparently promoting OU technology when they're actually hiding some nefarious hidden purpose.    God alone knows what.               

It was impossible for us to do at the other forum, so i hope we can do better over here.

What a shameless parade of unsubstantiated nonsense.  I spent 5 months defending myself against allegations that were entirely unfounded.  And Ashtweth claims that I initiated this?  I had no time to do anything other than defend and defend.  And all the while I had the dubious pleasure of seeing those lies posted on that Mosfet Heating Circuit?  Dear God.  Ashtweth is a masterful propogandist if these statements actually carry any credibility at all.

If Glen does PM you take it under advisement or what ever but do not encourage this behavior it distracted us ALL for months, so i have to speak up now.

The complaint here is Glen's messaging to the members.  It is now thoroughly discouraged and I'm delighted to see this.  I think Ashtweth and Glen will be hard pressed to deny this covert technique that they both indulge.  Ashtweth's contribution is to email Stefan to get me banned or he will have no respect for Stefan.  LOL. 

My results are almost in and will be posted but not in this thread, until this forum is cleaned up.

Panacea's results have been almost in since May of this year?  I rather think they dived head first into Orbo technology and as this is not resulting in the unequivocal proof they were hoping they're now diving back into this technology of ours.   

In any event guys.  Frankly I'd be happy - on whatever basis this technology is advanced.  But I would rather prefer it that you defer to those who are not actively seeking to kill it.  Somehow I suspect they've disqualified themselves - on that very basis.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising

Guys, here's the thing.  You must yourselves decide what to do here.  I know for a fact that there are members who are interested in replication.  I really don't want to be involved.  Start your own thread?  May be a way around it.  I would assure you that you'd do better with than without assistance from the EF.com crowd - but that's your decision.  Certainly you won't go far wrong in duplicating Glen's switching circuit.  And I'll be able to give you details on the minimum requirement for those resistors.  And - with luck - we may be able to persuade Aaron Murakami to make the scope available to anyone within reasonable reach?  Not sure that this will happen without some payment towards shipping.  But I know shipping costs in US are not as onerous as here in SA.

I must say - I'm not exactly on the same page as Omnibus but I would actually prefer him to get hands on here than otherwise.  And he could certainly advise you all on the techniques to evaluate the power which is something that is entirely lacking at EF.com.  Frankly between him and Sm0ky I reckon you'll be able to find new and better and that's what's needed. 

Anyway - whatever you decide - I'll fall in.  But what is not negotiable is that this thread be used for those replications.  That's just not going to happen.  I've been burned here and burned badly.  Not really ready to go through that again.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

@sm0ky2,

The half of the wave collapsing freely as a source of free energy may sound plausible but there's no experimental evidence to prove that's the case.

@sm0ky2,

The half of the wave collapsing freely as a source of free energy may sound plausible but there's no experimental evidence to prove that's the case.

This is an interesting argument.  It means that the heat that is measured to be dissipated does not relate to wattage.  And it means that the notwithstanding the irrefutable measurements on our tests you deny the evidence?  Where's that experimental challenge Omnibus?  It seems that you are still relying on opinion.  I get glimmers of hope that you're reasonable - and then discover that there's actually nothing to hope for. We have another scientist who depends on opinion rather than evidence.  Not exactly science - in my humble opinion.   LOL

Rosemary

Certainly my friend
http://www.panaceauniversity.org/Rosemary%20Ainslie%20COP17%20Heater%20Technology.pdf

Much of Rose's work are there, plus Harvey's, Aaron's and Glens data. Glen really knows how to tune this so collaboration of his notes is essential to get started. Afterward drop me an email ashtweth@gmail.com  ill arrange for shipment. Finally some head way great to see. Will be out of the office doing a weather engineering experiment be back first thing in the morning

Omnibus/Bill  thank you for taking a look

Ash

@ASH
Modified the word 'rants' to 'work' as it's more appropriate.  If you need to see a sample of 'ranting' then I can refer you to your emails.
EDITED.

Thanks a lot for the material. Unfortunately, it's a mess and is nowhere near what one would expect from an academic account (probably because it's more of a diary of the experiments and a compilation of opinions from forums). Worse even, my expectations that there are problems in the very basis of measurement were exceeded. Case in point:

If you'll recall, I pushed to get probes that are specifically made for current but Rosemary stopped that cold by stating we had imposed on the good graces of our suppliers much too much already. I am convinced that the wire inductance is a large factor in why our battery voltage shows transitions from 24 volts down to 7 volts in the data dumps. I just don't think the batteries themselves are loading that far, it has to be a voltage drop across the wire impedance.

Now, that's the opposite of what should've been done to begin with. Further, the voltage probes are passive, I presume because I couldn't find reference. Right there, the lack of appropriate probes, makes everything presented with regard to experiments fall into question. However, even if the probes were perfect there are so many other sources of error that one shouldn't even begin counting them -- all kinds of parasitic capacitances, parasitic inductances etc. etc. And, most importantly, the data processing. Data processing is an issue in itself which should be studied very seriously.

So, for now, I'd suggest that we postpone the mailing of the device for study until more clarity is achieved regarding the above issues. I have studied much simpler systems, finally even a simple RC filter, and have found that the measurement intricacies are overwhelming. For that reason I am postponing the publishing of five experimental papers that came out from the studies this Summer. The only text which I consider conclusive so far is the theoretical study whereby I found an energy disbalance inherent in the electric phenomena which hasn't been known until now. Even that disbalance, simple as it may seem to be tackled experimentally, turned out to be quite an experimental challenge (I don't have the text right now but you may take a look in the Steorn thread). So, we're facing a firmly established discrepancy, an energy disbalance, seemingly simple to study through measurements, and yet when actually undertaking the measurements all kinds of problems of the type I mentioned above start to show their ugly head. I told you, fellow academics will not touch with a ten foot pole power balance experiments even in the simplest of cases because of the problems such as the ones I mentioned above. Such experiments, like I said, have to be done and probably we should think of doing something pretty simple first. How about doing measurements on the RC circuit I mentioned. I will try to get an active voltage probe and with the Hall effect current probe and the scope I have I'll do some more study this Fall (not in September, though, because I have to travel to Europe). You may want to upgrade your probes and do some measurements with your fine scope. Then we can compare notes and see what we can do about sorting out the measurement and the data processing problems. Does it sound acceptable?

Guys - the logic behind the measurements is simple.  One assumes that a battery does not deliver negative current flow.  One needs to measure the rate of amperage delivered by the battery.  A non-inductive - preferably calibrated shunt - is put in series with the battery terminal - either one - probably best on the negative rail.  Then put the probes across it and and tune the system until it flops into a resonating frequency.  Then fine tune it until the digital display on the scope measures a negative net value.  Then start taking data dumps.  The more the better.  Effectively once the resonance is showing as much below as above, then you're into the right range to get those benefits of a recharging cycle while the resistor is cooking.

The thing is that you need a storage oscilloscope that can manage a fairly high frequency - but it's not in the megahertz range. 

Regards,
Rosemaruy

This would be a self-sustaining device right there. Why don't you substitute the battery with a capacitor and observe how it's being charged? You don't need sophisticated scopes and equipment to demonstrate that.

LOL Omnibus.  Then refute it. 

regards,
Rosemary

I did. Read my previous post. The currents and voltages measured are compromised by parasitic capacitances and inductances. You didn't even bother to use a current probe. The voltage probes are passive with low input impedance. Data processing is an issue in itself, apart from the problems with the measurement.