Dear Rosemary;

I am interested in the results of this heating experiment and find
it interesting in experimental development.

I would be especially interested if you can consider differentiating
between overunity heating in your special load, versus overunity
heating due to excess energy in the batteries occurring because
of voltage pulsation from a load. A really neat way to differentiate
would be to arrange PUSH-PULL FET output stages were one load
is always on while an identical load was off and vice versa. This
would eliminate pulsation (with a small filter capacitor) to the power
supply batteries. I suspect you will find that overunity gain goes
away in this push-pull configuration but I would like to know that
for sure. It would be reasonable test for anyone to try who is
trying to replicate this experiment. Thank You.

:S:MarkSCoffman

Guys, this is a copy of an email which will give those of you that are following this thread - a reasonable update report on where we are.  Hope it helps.

Regards,
Rosemary

Dear *****

Unfortunately the time required to do these tests is compounded by the slow rate at which students put these tests together.  But it may be as well to bear in mind we've got more than just the need to get a working device.  I can assure you that any claims to having a working, operating system - will not attract any kind of real interest.  There have been many.  One just needs to browse the internet to see them all.  And they produce absolutely no real interest whatsoever.  It is simply the fact that the device is at university - that I see any real hope of getting these breakthroughs acknowledged.

There's a kind of thoroughness that I absolutely did not anticipate - related to evaluating all this.  To begin with they've put a 555 oscillator to drive a MOSFET - an IGBT - an SG3524 - a Micro Controller AND a functions generator.  All different ways to drive the switch.  They've very nearly completed the software for the Micro Controller -  ALL in the interests of getting a comprehensive overview.  The idea - at the end of all this is to establish categorically if and what is responsible for generating that resonating frequency.  So.  The fact is that what we're sacrificing in time taken will give us an entirely comprehensive overview when it comes to evaluating it all.  Then too, I'm sure you'll appreciate this, without all this attention to detail it's very likely that we won't ourselves - be able to really and comprehensively report on the phenomenon.  I'm certainly delighted at the detail but more than a little irritated at the endless delays resulting from this.   Even the switch for the micro controller needs improvements and I have now been asked to source and buy some crystals to get a clearer signal.  But my dear *****.  I am entirely satisfied that this is the right route.  I want to produce that paper at the end of this exercise that will convince the entire academic community.  And without all this attention to detail - we simply won't get past the starting line.  The last thing we ever need is to be accused of 'scam' and without academic approval I think that will, inevitably, be the consequence.  The Steorne motors that are already out there are so heavily criticised that I suspect that technology will be buried - very soon - or remain very much fringe science.

The other good news is that we've been given the loan of a really zut oscilloscope - a LeCroy 324 - just to do the dedicated measurements that will be entirely unarguable.  It was a bit of a scoop and the loan itself will give our results a kind of authority that will be unarguable.  *****, one of the academics associated with this, is only now in a position to devote more time to the exercise.  He's been wrapped up in other projects.  Still is.  But he's now got our own tests scheduled for a daily overview of the student's progress.  I keep hoping that the test will all be up and running tomorrow - and tomorrow never seems to come.  But we'll get there.  I go through to campus daily - and gradually, but surely, feel that we're making inroads.  I have a sister in law who's an academic at Groote Schuur.  She assures me that this is absolutely par for the course on academic projects.  In fact she was amused at my exasperation.  She herself has learned to live it.

You must also remember that there's another point to getting this on campus.  While we're aiming at producing not less than 100 watts or thereby - we will, also, inevitably, be measuring lower values in that exercise.  If the tests are as comprehensive as is being done - then ALL those test results will be entirely and effectively accredited.  Which, at its least, should give us renewed 'proof of concept' which will definitely promote interest in those transistor manufacturers.  In any event - I hold this up as a beacon of hope...

Ok.  For those who opened that link - you'd have seen YET another motor YET again claiming over unity results.  Not only that - but its results have been accredited by reputable laboratories.  By rights that news should be banner headlines everywhere.  Why is it simply relegated to another dusty internet archive?  Why are our academics not looking into these results?  Why are the Chinese or the Indians or the Europeans - or ANYONE - not beating a path to their doors to get a handle on those patents?  We're in the grips of an energy crisis where the short term and long term effects are likely to leave the planet and most of it's life species gasping for breath?  What gives?  What has happened that an entire global population are comotose with fright at the prospects of crumbling natural structures when the evidence ABOUNDS that we already have the solution?

My own take is this.  We have lost confidence in heavy machinery - in patents - in energy solutions that depend on efficiency.  We're actually looking to find the answers in something that is sufficiently different and sufficiently revolutionary that we can all draw breath and say - OK - that is identifiably - off the wall - eccentric - unusual.  Perhaps we're looking for the answers to antigravity - to instant energy - something that we can float on - or something that we can toss into a teacup to make water boil.  We want something that frees us from the grid.  But it seems that something must also be more extraordinary than solar panels and articulated gears - even if those gears are simply an unusual arrangement of magnetic rotors.  SOMETHING seems to be holding us back from acceptance of the simple truth - which have now been exhaustively evidenced - that OU is with us. 

Even as I write this I realise that the most of the readers here would absolutely deny the fact.  Even on this forum - our own neighbourhood - so to speak.  There's only an endless dialogue between those who claim OU and those who deny their claims.  What I also realise is that the proof of concept in our own little test has been so comprehensively evidenced - that one would be hard pressed to continue to deny it.  But the truth is that there are clearly those who never dip into this thread and then there are those who do - but still reject the scientific FACTS.  And these have been proven time and time again, through experimental evidence that has also been collated within strict scientific protocols.  It floors me.  Every time.  I keep reading those posts from those sad posters who angrily demand the evidence that is on offer ALL OVER THE PLACE.   

Here's what I hope.  I hope that somehow - in the fullness of time, and hopefully that will be within my own life time - that the general public will be made more aware of the multiple level of inroads that have been made into accessing what I am entirely satisfied is 'dark energy' and that we start bandying the concepts about more freely.  If only to shake off that hysterical 'inaction' which seems to dominate our global mindset.  We're variously reckless - pessimistic - dejected - hopeless and angry.  I think we should now really start injecting that mindset with the actual status of our energy potentials.  It's way, way, more promising than seems to be widely understood or even widely known.

Regards
Rosemary

Hello Pete,  So nice to see you around.  Hope all goes well.  Indeed. I'm still getting the occassional comment from the occasional troll.  They lurk. LOL

But I do detect a kind of 'sea change' in the quality of input or in the quality of the experiments that are discussed here.  Not sure if it's the changing times or the change in my my address - so to speak.  Certainly there's an abundance of talent here.  But, as ever, there are those who seem to find it personally insulting to offer any kind of evidence of anything that smacks of promise.  Whole threads devoted to the discussion as to whether or not OU has ever been achieved.  It's extraordinary.   Truth will 'out' as it's said.

The set backs though are not the result of the active work of these types.  It simply helps the counter movement - in a way.  I actually think the true culprits to this 'censorship' - which is what it is - is the result of the hard work and myopic reach of our academic editors.  They've no longer got their finger on the pulse of what is happening in the real world.  Nor do they realise the vitality in this 'movement'.  I personally think it's unstoppable.  But I also think we're all hoping to progress this to that level that will force our theorists to put their glasses back on and take a look at what's happening. 

Personally I find it all very exciting and have real difficulty in understanding the justifications of those who still protest all this evidence.  But.  Also fortunately, it's a force that's fading.  One just has to see how less often I personally am put in the firing line.  It used to be a multiple daily occurance.  Now it's rare and rather more manageable.  Hope I'm not speaking to soon.  LOL.  But it's a sorry fact that there are even any questions remaining.  And there are.  Sadly.  What's needed is much more energy on real applications and hopefully more academic accreditation.  Hopefully our own efforts here will help the general cause - even if only a little.

 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

 

Hi Rosemary,
Just a few notes on reading your more recent posts.
1. just having a TUV report is not always what it is cracked up to be. I flew (from Australia) to South Africa last year along with several others from other parts of the world to witness a magnetic motor (not a perendev) We had substantial backing to move the project forward subject to our own validation. The device had a 23 page TUV report verifying it to be a self runner and many other honest and professional people did as well. Sadly we had in busted in under an hour and the inventor run of into the sunset with many hundreds of thousands of dollars and his new Mercedes.
2. There is little of no censorship, no MEN In Black etc. What there is is hundreds of claims that can never be validated or replicated.
3. You are correct that a lot of effort should be expended in finding practical applications. The good news is there are many people and companies with the resources to do just that. One catch, it needs to be able to be replicated.
4. In the case of the link you sent with the cop6 device....the real question can it be closed looped. That is the real test of any technology.
Many Thanks
Mark

Guys.  I keep hoping that one day I'll say something that finally makes it clear what I'm trying to point to. 

For the minute - just forget everything you've ever learned about electric power measurement - EXCEPT this.  The amount of current flow measured at the one terminal of a supply source - will precisely equal the amount of current flow measured at the other.  Given a measured voltage at the supply - then vi applies.  Amps times voltage and that's the value of the wattage.  NOW.  What that points to is this simple fact.  WHATEVER it is that the circuit manages with that current flow - precisely as much always goes back to the plug or the terminal as was first supplied by that plug or that terminal.  Here there is NO argument.  Classical measurement is absolutely 'on the money'.

As a rule we use AC grid supplies which, in turn, use motorised generators - to give us our electricity supply.  The assumption is that when the rotor turns 180 degrees one gets a 'forward' flow, say, of current.  Then, by the same token, when the rotor turns the next 180 degrees one gets a 'backward' flow of current, so to speak.  And energy was applied to get the rotor to turn through each of those two phases.  BUT.  No one has interrupted that 'turn' - AFTER the first 180 degrees - to see what happens when the energy supply is removed.

In our tests what is shown is that when you DO interrupt that current flow - then you get the same value of current flow BACK to the supply to recharge it.  It doesn't cost more energy to turn the motor.  It only requires an interruption to enable a second half or a 'shadow cycle'.  In other words the second half of that sinewave is actually present as a potential in the material of the circuit itself.  It just needs a 'chance' - time - to allow it to manifest. 

Theoretically the test is simple.  Just take an AC supply source.  Route the postive to one load then route the negative to a second load.  Then allow the postive to return to the negative terminal and the negative to the positive terminal - and you will get that same equivalence.  But with the added benefit of inducing all that potential energy from the circuit material itself - provided only and always that there's suitable inductive or conductive components in that circuitry. But here your results are restricted to the grid or supply frequency.  Alternatively, which we've actually tested, put an AC supply through a bridge rectifier.  And then, simply do the same thing.  Interrupt the flow of current and you'll get the benefit of that returning cycle.  And here your results are NOT restricted to the supply frequency.  You can generate something that the circuit material prefers. Our test results were unequivocal - except that our diodes were constrained to certain values that were NOT compatible with the voltage generated in those components from that supply voltage.  Therefore we used a variac.  And therefore the argument was that there was no proven evidence of OU.   

And the fact is that on a DC supply the only advantage is that the results are then unequivocal.  On an AC supply the results will be endlessly debated.  Therefore are we now simply testing DC.  But that 'equivalence'.  Power at the terminals are ALWAYS equivalent.  But the energy dissipated as heat bears ABSOLUTELY no relation to the energy delivered and returned.  It's always some value in excess. 

It's really SO, so simple. 

Regards,
Rosemary

edited- all over the place.  Sorry

Hi Rosemary, nice to see your still sharing your thoughts. Some of your latest posts sure remind me of Joseph Newmans research findings. I've been playing with the JT circuit and other solid state circuits lately. I have to chuckle at this quote from mark,

2. There is little of no censorship, no MEN In Black etc. What there is is hundreds of claims that can never be validated or replicated.

I can't wait till the day when people stand up for their fellow humanity on mass, it's getting a little embarrassing to me. Come on folks, aren't we more than that. I mean you can't live in those bodies forever, take a stand if you can and do what's in the best interest of all humanity.

Golly - I think I deleted that post.  I can't seem to find it.  And I'm too tired to look for it.  I'll check again in the morning.

Sorry if it's gone. 
Rosemary

yes.  It's gone.  I must have deleted it.  Anyway.  It's about magnets.  But I'll report in the morning.