Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Solid States Devices => solid state devices => Topic started by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 18, 2010, 04:42:04 PM

Title: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 18, 2010, 04:42:04 PM
Guys.  This thread will be devoted to the development of our first application designed around exploiting the principles of our COP>17 circuit variously also known as a Mosfet Heating Circuit.  Full details of the circuit will be posted together with the proposed tests all of which will be conducted on a local university campus.  We've finally got this to an academic forum and will have the real benefit of some critical academic evaluations.  There are a great number of posts to be transferred and this will take me some time.  But watch this space.  Harti has kindly allowed his forum for the systematic disclosure of all information related to this in the interests of keeping this fully available to Open Source.  I will be dealing with all aspects related to this both on early tests, test replications and future tests.

Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: vonwolf on July 19, 2010, 05:43:14 AM
 Great to see you back Rosemary, I've been watching the other threads here and on the Energetic Forum. It's always a good fight and you hold your own.
   I hope there will be a Little more cooperation now and some head way made. Heat some water, spin some turbines generate electricity and change he world, we need it!
  I know that you've got the drive and with this "fringe" tech. getting a serious looks from academia eyes will be opened.
   Best of luck Pete
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: ramset on July 19, 2010, 05:50:41 AM
Thank you Rosemary!
Chet
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 19, 2010, 08:48:24 AM
Great to see you back Rosemary, I've been watching the other threads here and on the Energetic Forum. It's always a good fight and you hold your own.
   I hope there will be a Little more cooperation now and some head way made. Heat some water, spin some turbines generate electricity and change he world, we need it!
  I know that you've got the drive and with this "fringe" tech. getting a serious looks from academia eyes will be opened.
   Best of luck Pete

Hello Pete and thanks for the good wishes.  LOL.  I'd love to create that 'generator' and certainly the potential is there.  But we're still crawling.  The object of the hot water cylinder is twofold.  It holds 8 litres and - although modest - would make a material contribution to those disadvantaged who are off grid in South Africa.  They still, unfortunately, number in the millions.  And any water that is heated without burning the wood which is their usual resource - has got to be a good thing.  Then - if we can retain that COP advantage evident in our tests - we should, at it's least, be able to reduce the number of solar panels that need to be used in conjunction with this.  But you're right.  Water has the real potential of energy generation in some sort of turbine arrangement.  Hopefully that will be stage 2 of these tests.

The history of this development has been fraught.  Traditionally one has assumed that Open Source is the best and only way to take these OU technologies.  I will be making some significant disclosures that will alert all our members and readers here on the real threat to development of free energy.  It 'lurks' not so much 'out there' but 'in here'.  Right inside the forums themselves.  But for now, those that are interested may want to look at my link to a scribd exercise.  It's a faithful but amusing account of some of my own actual experiences.  I'll be adding a couple of chapters to that exercise in due course.  But there is much 'intimated' rather than otherwise.  A full 'red alert expose' will be written in due course.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/33937867/IF-I-WAS-A-TROLL

That we now have academics on board is a good thing.  It not only speaks to a more questing attitude amongst our academics but it may be the first step to getting our OU technologies onto a more respectable campus forum.  The one thing that was ostensibly missing from everyone's efforts in this and many such forums has been this need for 'recognition'.  Strangely, I think that while those of us who go public - need a bit of courage, the more so in view of those MIB's  LOL - BUT to stick one's neck out in academic circles is really to open oneself to potential academic suicide.  But here it seems that there is enough departmental consensus to investigate this phenomenon. Nonetheless - commendably brave, and truly in the spirit of science.  As we know, science can only be progressed by empirical evidence.

But another thank you to Stefan for allowing this.  We needed a 'voice' and now that I have been banned from energetic forum - that voice is ever more critical.  There are those players who are anxious to silence me and to diminish the significance of this technology.  I will find some means of explaining the circumstance to that banning - but I get it that you guys want to MOVE ON.  And with good reason.  I'll find some way of making due record where it can be accessed without boring those of you who are only interested in the technology itself. 

Meanwhile I have much to do and much info to marshall.  I'll add it in 'drips and drabs' as and when I can access my work on that forum.  Tricky - now that I've been banned.  I question the right of any forum administrator to deny access to one's work.  Especially when it is as significant as ours.

Regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: FatBird on July 19, 2010, 02:27:45 PM
Thank you Rosemary for wanting to help the world by sharing your findings.

Please POST A SCHEMATIC & List of Materials ASAP so some of us can GET STARTED.

There are a bunch of us that are "chomping at the bit" to get going on it.

.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 19, 2010, 03:19:32 PM
Thank you Rosemary for wanting to help the world by sharing your findings.

Please POST A SCHEMATIC & List of Materials ASAP so some of us can GET STARTED.

There are a bunch of us that are "chomping at the bit" to get going on it.

.

Hello FatBird.  Nice to see such enthusiasm.  I didn't expect replicators here - and was just assuming I'd be posting 'for the record' purposes.  As it is I'm afraid you've caught me off guard.  I'll need to post over the appropriate schematics.  For the time being just take whatever info you can get off our Open Source paper.  You'll need to 'dig'.  I should have some time tonight and will then see what I can put together to make the task simpler.  Else, if this is enough then let me know.  I'm a bit busy at present.  But I'll rally if required. 

Thanks very much for the interest and the kind thoughts.  Always welcome.   :)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: nievesoliveras on July 19, 2010, 03:23:54 PM
@rosemary

I will be glad to try your circuit.

Jesus
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 19, 2010, 03:33:14 PM
@rosemary

I will be glad to try your circuit.

Jesus

:) Thanks Jesus.  Golly.  This is really so nice. 

Regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: nievesoliveras on July 19, 2010, 04:00:36 PM
@rosemary

Is it this schematic the one that we wll try?

Found at page 9 and 10 of:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS

Jesus
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 19, 2010, 04:10:17 PM
Hi Jesus.  Yes I think so.  Eyes not that good.  But it looks like the one from our paper.  If so I wonder if I could ask you to reference this somewhere?  Else we'll all be accused of plagiarism.  I think there's a minor variation to the switch between this and our first version posted in Quantum.  Not sure where the difference is though.

Jesus - can I impose on you to do a list of component parts?  If you've got the time.  It would help me enormously.  It should be easily transferable from the same paper. And guys - any reference to schematics and/or circuit diagrams or, for that matter any text - feel free to post it across.  Just always reference the paper's source.  It's a technicality and I don't want Harti bombarded with a whole lot of spurious objections. As it is I'm more or less prepared for this.   

Thanks again Jesus. 
Kindest regards,
Rosemary

http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising

BTW.  For any 'builders' - just try and source that same FET if you can - from memory an IRFPG50.  Otherwise look for something that is robust enough to take some punishment from high current flow resulting from those spikes.  Also.  On rebuilds.  Try and get reasonably good Potentiometers.  There's some tricky 'tuning' required to get those waveforms.  And the final - important tip.  Your resistor does not need to be 10 Ohm duplicate.  Just look for anything that is wound on a hollow core (as wide as possible) with wiring at anything upwards of about 0.8 gauge.  The wider the better - but not yet sure of the upper limit - especially as one needs to keep current flow to what the MOSFET can handle. 

Thanks again Jesus.
 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: nievesoliveras on July 19, 2010, 04:22:00 PM
...
Jesus - can I impose on you to do a list of component parts?  If you've got the time.  It would help me enormously.  It should be easily transferable from the same paper. And guys - any reference to schematics and/or circuit diagrams or, for that matter any text - feel free to post it across.  Just always reference the paper's source. 
...
Thanks again Jesus.
 

It is not my circuit I found it on page 9 and 10 of:

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

But I can make a list of components if you post a higher resolution copy.

Jesus
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 19, 2010, 04:24:42 PM
It is not my circuit I found it on page 9 and 10 of:

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

Jesus

That's the one then.   :)  Thanks again. 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Pirate88179 on July 19, 2010, 05:52:05 PM
Rosemary:

Good to see this work continuing over here.  I wish you the best.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: conradelektro on July 19, 2010, 08:08:55 PM
I am talking about the circuit found on page 9 and 10 of
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS, which was identified as the circuit in question by nievesoliveras and Rosemary Ainslie in Replies 9 and 10 of this thread:

- As illustrated in the attached drawing, it is obvious that the NE555N part of the circuit provides a square wave signal to the gate potentiometer R1 of the IRFPG50.

- The only interesting part of the circuit is the one shown in the attached drawing, where the alleged overunity effect should manifest itself over the 10 Ohm LOAD RESISTOR R3.

- The square wave signal can be produced in much better ways than via the NE555N which is prone to temperature fluctuations because there is no frequency and duty cycle stabilisation by help of a quartz.

- A better way of providing the square wave signal would be a good signal generator or a microprocessor based circuit where the clock of the microprocessor is quartz stabilised.

Much speculation and a lot of useless work could be avoided if Rosemary Ainslie (or some other person in the know) would provide an exact specification of the required square wave signal as indicated in the drawing (time T or frequency and duty cycle D).

Once the required square wave signal on the gate of the IRFPG50 is known (without ambiguity), serious replication is possible.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 19, 2010, 10:00:19 PM
Hello Conrad.  You are absolutely right - provided only that the object here is to get a 'stabilised' waveform.  In point of fact, the efficacy of this circuit relies on what industry are most closely aware of as a parastic Hartley Effect but which only partially describes this.

What will become evident is that, with fine tuning, you will enable a resonance which is apparently chaotic but which carries within it, a signature harmonic.  When this occurs there is as much or more energy being returned to the battery than was first delivered.  Our early view of this was to describe it as a 'ghost wave' - but our subsequent work on this with Open source replicators - and the term was supplemented.  But this is the desired optimum resonating frequency.  I cannot tell you where or at what duty cycle you need to set this because it's a subtle moment when the inductive components in the cicuit reach a self-resonating fequency.  That moment is NOT frequency dependant.  But it is something that is subtly established within the system itself.  And one cannot safely 'predict' that moment because it varies with each minor variation in the components used.  While this 'ghost wave' may be achieved with a signal generator - my own experience is that the 555 switching system is preferred.  If you need to view this you will again have to refer to FuzzyTomCat's videos.  And I am never sure if he is making his data available or not.  What we will do in our tests is to show this on video.  But our own tests are still some weeks away from final set up.  It is never a 'quick fix' through campus as there are certain procedures and test set ups that are critically required to conform to their exacting test standards.

But you're right.  The effect is over the resistor.  Because of the frequencies involved it is nigh impossible to determine the instantaneous resistance - which is why we confined our tests to a measure of the heat dissipated.  Provided you reach this 'self-resonance' or this oscillation - then you will see that the amount of energy delivered by the battery is virtually zero while the load dissipates wattage - way in excess of that energy delivered.

I would recommend that you look at the 'introduction' to that paper - as this will explain the proposed 'source' of that energy.  But I know you guys are not that into the thesis and simply want to get a 'hands on' experience of the apparatus itself. 

Very grateful for this careful analysis Conrad.  You are right in every particular except that we are looking for that 'chaotic' number as a prelude to the ghost wave or 'shadow cycle' or call it what you will.  When you see it you'll understand. 

Btw.  The last thing that any usual application requires is that parasitic Hartley Effect.  Reference to this is usually confined to how to get rid of it.  And it's easily 'got rid of'.  One simply needs to apply some pressure to the wire.   I am of the opinion that this is one of those many reasons that the advantage here has not been fully explored.

Regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 19, 2010, 10:53:48 PM
It is not my circuit I found it on page 9 and 10 of:

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

But I can make a list of components if you post a higher resolution copy.

Jesus

Jesus,  I missed this.  Many thanks for this offer.  I'll message you and see how to send the file across.

THANK YOU - very much.  :D
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: nievesoliveras on July 20, 2010, 12:00:16 AM
This component parts list was shared by @fuzzytomcat on a public experimentation he made of the @ainslie circuit at Crudd website.

Jesus
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: ramset on July 20, 2010, 12:29:46 AM
@ Chet

Please do not post on this thread again. 

Rosemary




Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: vonwolf on July 20, 2010, 03:54:42 AM
  Wow I didn't know you were banned from the Energetic Forum, I was wondering why the posts seem to end on 7-06? I didn't see any problems going on with the thread so I guess it must of been a behind the scene kind of thing? There's lots of strange things going on over there and I have a hard time keeping up, I hope you get things strained out.
   I saw your Coil and it kind of looks like a element in a water heater so I know where you are going with it. If you can heat water thats the beginning of everything, steam can do it all at least thats what I've been thinking from the first I saw you collaboration. The more efficiently you boil water the better, to achieve over unity and still get the job done is what we all need.
   The infrastructure is already there in much of the world and where its lacking it will be much simpler setting it up if a cheap means of electrical generation is discovered. Its only part of the energy solution but its a start and I hope you and people like you can keep this moving in the right direction.
  good luck Pete

PS for some reason (no good reason I can think of)I use a different name at EF but I have been following both thread for quite some time
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 20, 2010, 06:57:18 AM
  Wow I didn't know you were banned from the Energetic Forum, I was wondering why the posts seem to end on 7-06? I didn't see any problems going on with the thread so I guess it must of been a behind the scene kind of thing? There's lots of strange things going on over there and I have a hard time keeping up, I hope you get things strained out.

Hello Pete.  Yes indeed.  Ostensibly I was banned for saying the following.  "Guys.  Anyone who claims to understand everything about Leedskalnin must first be able to duplicate his miracle engineering feats' - words to that effect.  I think that was it as the post was deleted.  LOL.  I think it will go down in history as the flimsiest excluse ever used for banning a member. 

   I saw your Coil and it kind of looks like a element in a water heater so I know where you are going with it. If you can heat water thats the beginning of everything, steam can do it all at least thats what I've been thinking from the first I saw you collaboration. The more efficiently you boil water the better, to achieve over unity and still get the job done is what we all need.

The use of that 'standard type' element is only motivated in the hopes that it may be able to achieve that same effect under resonance.  But while the design is 'standard' there is nothing standard in the resistive wire.  Those of you who get to replicate and want to take this further will need to PM me to get details here.

  The infrastructure is already there in much of the world and where its lacking it will be much simpler setting it up if a cheap means of electrical generation is discovered. Its only part of the energy solution but its a start and I hope you and people like you can keep this moving in the right direction.
  good luck Pete

Indeed.  Many thanks Pete.  All good wishes much appreciated.

PS for some reason (no good reason I can think of)I use a different name at EF but I have been following both thread for quite some time

I was wondering about this.  Something 'familiar' in your turn of phrase?  or signature?  LOL.  I hope so anyway.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie
http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 20, 2010, 07:13:20 AM
This component parts list was shared by fuzzytomcat.

Jesus
Thanks for this Jesus.  The component parts list here is marginally different to that posted on the previous schematic as it applies to the publication in Quantum magazine.  But it's fine.  For replicators - don't get too involved with the precise component parts related to the switch.  We've built and used 3 different switches over the years and they all work.  The critical aspects to this are simply that you tend to 'thick' inductive wire.  I have noticed over this year that I've now been on these forums - that there is an almost obsessive need to do a precise duplication.  Guys - we're not talking marginal values of COP's.  There's plenty of room to introduce variations in the component parts, especially as these relate to the switch.  And they ALL result in efficiencies.  It's just some are greater than others.  The secret is simply to ensure that you use 'thick' wire or wire with 'more mass' - and that you keep the 'hollow' in the resistor as ample as you can find and afford.  It allows for a pure return in the collapsing fields from Counter EMF. 

I would recommend that - for those who are interested that you read up on the thesis.  Once you've got your head around the thinking I'm satisfied you'll all come up with better ways to achieve this test object.  What flies in the face of mainstream thinking is that the amount of energy returned to the battery is roughly equal to the energy first delivered.  That much has been empirically evident throughout.

Regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising
Edited the quote
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: conradelektro on July 20, 2010, 01:17:16 PM
I would like to clear up the NE555-issue. This is not criticism; it is an attempt to establish facts.

Rosemary filed several patents (see below), and in these patents one finds a “signal generator”, a “pulse generator” and in general “means being appliable to interrupt the electric current”, but the NE555 is not mentioned.

WO03007657 http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20030123&CC=WO&NR=03007657A2&KC=A2
The switching pulses come from a “signal generator”, the NE555 is not mentioned.

WO9938247
http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19990729&CC=WO&NR=9938247A1&KC=A1
The switching pulses come from a “pulse generator”, the NE555 is not mentioned.

EP0932248
http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19990728&CC=EP&NR=0932248A1&KC=A1
The switching pulses come from “means being appliable to interrupt the electric current” or from a “pulse generator”, the NE555 is not mentioned.

ZA990385
http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=ZA&NR=9900385A&KC=A&FT=D&date=19990720&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP
ZA990385 is essentially EP932248.


In contrast to the patents the discussion in the energeticforum (see
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/5250-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-part-2-a-21.html  COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie | Part 2) was completely focused on the NE555 circuit. And this very thread turns again into a discussion of a NE555 circuit.


According to my humble opinion, the concentration on the NE555 circuit is unfortunate because it complicates matters enormously. On does not want to investigate the NE555. The whole theory should not depend on the NE555.

The issue is an effect over a resistor, which is wound like an air coil (in order to create back EMF).


To resolve the NE555 issue I want to ask Rosemary a simple question:

Did you personally (or any other researcher) ever observe the effect in a circuit where the NE555 was not used?

In case you (or some one else) did, please specify the circuit or describe it in some other way.

Remarks:

I understand that the NE555 circuit allows in an apparently easy way changing frequency and duty cycle by fiddling with two potentiometers. But one can never reproduce a successful setting because it depends on too many parameters (temperature of all components involved, material peculiarities of the potentiometers and capacitors).

To make progress one needs a circuit that allows exact replication of successful frequencies and duty cycles. Adjustments should happen in a narrow range (e.g. 0.1%).

The patents suggest rather low frequencies (60 to 200.000 Hz), which would make it very easy to drive the “switching element” (e.g. the IRFPG50) with a microprocessor where a program changes frequency and duty cycle in a systematic way.

May be some feedback from the "load resistor" or some sensor on the "load resistor" should change frequency and duty cycle according to an algorithm.

I understand the difficulty with finding the "right frequency and duty cycle", but this has to be brought from the subjective to the objective. Otherwise there will be no recognition of the effect.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: ramset on July 20, 2010, 02:16:48 PM
Conrad,
This observation of yours, I'm quite sure is not unique!

As efficient as Glen and others around him are THEY MUST HAVE DONE THIS!

NO??

A micro processor? We have a member here "groundloop", he builds these in his sleep!
most of us can't!

I'ts been over a year since I asked/begged TK to go over to Energetic and look at this,
Nobody has gone solid state processor yet?

You know they "MUST" have!!

Chet
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: nievesoliveras on July 20, 2010, 03:36:08 PM
There is another alternative.

We can buy an already made oscillator as the switch.
A motor driver used for hho production.

I think that it is called  a pwm.

The question is will it work?

Jesus
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: nievesoliveras on July 20, 2010, 03:37:42 PM
Duplicated post.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: FatBird on July 20, 2010, 03:40:49 PM
Besides myself, does anyone else see a CONNECTION between Rosemary's Pulsed Wire Wound resistor AND the PULSED COIL DEVICES in:

Plaustin, Don Smith, Floyd Sweet, Morey, Hubbard, SM's TPU, Magnacoaster, etc, etc, etc.


The answer is that they are all using Different Methods to Harness the Back EMF from a Pulsed Coil.  The trouble is that almost None of us can duplicate any of them.

.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: conradelektro on July 20, 2010, 04:38:03 PM
I like to use the “eZ430 MSP430F2012 Target Board” from Texas Instruments
http://www.ti-estore.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Product_Code=EZ430-T2012&Screen=PROD

together with the „MSP430 USB Stick Development Tool”
http://www.ti-estore.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=EZ430-F2013

Some time ago I built exactly what is needed to drive the IRFPG50 and its “coil like load resistor” with a “12 Volt square wave signal”. I used this hook-up to drive four ignition coils (with four BUZ11 transistors).

This thing can push out four different 12 Volt pulse trains (interrupt driven pulse width modulation) with every frequency and duty cycle from 1 to 1 MHz. One only has to add the three 12 Volt batteries, an IRFPG50 (instead of the BUZ11), the shunt (for measurements) and the ominous “Load Resister wound like an air coil” in order to test the Ainslie theory.

I show this to underline the fact, that creating a square wave signal according to any specification is a straight forward task, which should not be the issue.

There are many good solutions and I think that a state of the art signal generator like the Fluke Fluke 6080A  http://www.teknetelectronics.com/Search.asp?p_ID=5946&pDo=DETAIL would bet he best choice.

I post all this in order to resolve the NE555 issue. As long as we are messing with the NE555, there will be no way forward, just endless fumbling with potentiometers.

Assume that any pulse train with any duty cycle can be created easily (as long as you stay below 100 MHz).

Now concentrate on what frequency and what duty cycles you want and according to which criteria you want to “adjust” the frequency and the duty cycle. Once this is specified in a logical and objective way, you can have it.


@FatBird

Yes, we are talking about the idea (or dream) that back EMF gives you back more than you invested in its EMF.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 20, 2010, 09:41:51 PM
Rosemary:

Good to see this work continuing over here.  I wish you the best.

Bill

Another post that I missed.  Thank you Bill.  Much appreciated.    :)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 20, 2010, 10:37:33 PM
Guys.  This thread will be devoted to the development of our first application designed around exploiting the principles of our COP>17 circuit variously also known as a Mosfet Heating Circuit.  Full details of the circuit will be posted together with the proposed tests all of which will be conducted on a local university campus.  We've finally got this to an academic forum and will have the real benefit of some critical academic evaluations.  There are a great number of posts to be transferred and this will take me some time.  But watch this space.  Harti has kindly allowed his forum for the systematic disclosure of all information related to this in the interests of keeping this fully available to Open
Source.  I will be dealing with all aspects related to this both on early tests, test replications and future tests.

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

Hi Guys.  I've posted this as a reminder of the objects of this thread.  My time is getting constrained and the problem is likely to increase as I'll be spending more and more time on campus.  If I miss any significant posts then just pm me and I'll get back there.  It's a really good thing that you are going to do replications.  And I'll rally where and as I can.  Correctly I think we should have another thread for replications.  But that's something you guys must decide on.  I'll fall in. 

I'll answer your questions as best I can from a quick read.  Conrad - you referenced patents.  Here's the thing.  The circuit is one example of many potential circuits.  The UNREGISTERED patent could never cover all those potentials.  But it was intended as a broad sweep of the object being to use Back EMF or Counter EMF to replenish a supply source.  I think it was FatBird mentioned that all such 'claims' seem to be related to pulsed coils.  Indeed you're right.  It actually goes to the throat of the argument.  I need you to understand this fully.

Mainstream have no clear explanation for current flow.  There are those who attribute this to an electron flow - and our physicists who claim it cannot be electrons as they cannot 'share a path' - per Pauli's exclusion principle.  The argument rages but most engineers use the model of electrons and it's pretty well standard.  And - more to the point - quantum electrodynamics is the single most tried and tested and successful branch of quantum engineering.  So whatever model is used - clearly it's worked as it's outperformed all the rest.  So the weight of argument falls to the engineers who use the concept - widely. 

But.  If current flow is the 'flow of electrons' that pass from the supply through the circuit - then there is also the inevitable argument that the circuit could NEVER exceed unity - as all energy is transferred via those electrons that move from the supply through the circuit components and back to the source.  Any energy stored on the circuit in inductive components is a measure of this passage of electron flow.  Maximum efficiency is therefore 1 or something less than equivalence. 

However, in terms of this thesis - if current flow is the result of something else, perhaps we can here simply call it 'charge' - some material property that is extraneous to the atoms in the supply source - then 'charge' may also be a potential material property in circuit components in the same way as they may have a material property in the supply.  Then.  If this charge can be induced to have a measurable potential difference - that 'charge' belonging to the material of the circuit components - is another potential energy source. 

Effectively that's the claim.  The energy that is returned to the supply source to 'replenish' or 'recharge' it - comes from the material of - in this particular circuit -  the resistor itself.  The minute you introduce an alternative 'supply' then one would expect the energy available to that circuit to be equal to the mass of the material in the the supply AND the mass of the material that is in the path of the supply.  It does not breach the laws of energy conservation.  On the contrary.  To expect 'equivalence' is somewhat in conflict with Einstein's E=MC^2

Please read my comments regarding the required 'waveform'.  It will point you to the self-oscillation that is a feature of this 'effect'. 

But all that is needed - effectively - is to generate that counter electromotive force and route the energy back through the battery.  This can be done with the use of diodes - it can be returned to the same or an alternative supply - it can be used with inductive resistive loads or with pure inductors in series or parallel to resistive loads.  There are many ways to skin this cat.  The only requirement is to use a switched current and to return the energy back to the supply.  It's really that simple.

Regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 20, 2010, 10:53:32 PM
Hi Conrad.  Regarding your question related to the 555.  Theoretically there is absolutely NO requirement for any particular switch.  The only proviso is that the tuning enables that self-oscillating frequency.  I'm an amateur - and I have never owned a functions generator - so I can only - personally - answer to this over unity result from a standard type switching circuit.  But I know that this effect has been tested by others using various other means.

Your comments regarding the need to establish the required parameters to enable this frequency are valid.  It is scheduled for testing on these new tests that we'll be conducting on campus.  I've been running a race here Conrad.  I need to ask for your patience.  We do NOT have all the answers.  At this stage all we have is a thesis that predicted the results, the experimental evidence of those results, the wide accreditation by registered laboratories on those results - and latterly the replication of those results from reliable measuring instruments.  But the technology is still in its infancy.  I need to impose on your patience here.   :)

Kind regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: conradelektro on July 21, 2010, 10:49:35 PM
I went through “Rosemary’s threads” in the energetic forum and also there through “5359-mosfet-heating-circuits”.
This provided a hint concerning “frequencies and duty cycles”.

------------------
A person called Harvey wrote:

I see that there are still some experimenting with the RA (Rosemary Ainslie) circuit and the questions regarding energy gains persist. The test of choice used to demonstrate energy gains was Test #13.

What is the frequency? That depends on what part of the circuit we look at. But generally we use the gate pulse frequency:

426.0 kHz
Rise 768.4ns
Fall 513.0ns
High 13.61V
Low -4.800V
-------------------

All tests and documents can be found here:
http://cid-6b7817c40bb20460.office.live.com/browse.aspx/.Public/Mosfet%20Heater

The ominous test 13 is here (copy the whole link, ^ truncates it):
http://cid-6b7817c40bb20460.office.live.com/self.aspx/.Public/Mosfet%20Heater/Test%20^313^_11-26-09.zip

I am too dumb to understand the data; the only thing I see in Test 13 is a temperature increase from about 130 F to 138 F of the load resistor.

Test 13 was obviously conducted with the NE555 circuit shown is this thread.

May be Rosemary can enlighten us on the significance of Test 13.

For me the 426 KHz (and the duty cycle) of Test 13 represent a starting point for further tests.

Although I would not use an NE555 circuit but a signal generator or a microprocessor to generate the 426 KHz pulses (on the gate of the IRFPG50). Starting with 426 KHz one would vary the duty cycle from 1% to 99% and later also the frequency slightly up and down.

I know that this is a childish and optimistic approach, but one should start with very simple circuits as depicted in Rosemary’s patent applications in order to test the alleged effect and not the components of a rather complicated circuit.

In case the effect gives for instance 10 Watt heat surplus, I would not worry about a few Milliwatt introduced by a signal generator (or microprocessor based circuit) via the gate of the IRFPG50.

In case the best temperature increase achievable in the load resistor with the alleged effect is only about 10 F (10 degrees Farenheit), we are in trouble. This is much too little for simple temperature measurements and will convince no one (especially not me).

On the positive side, 426 KHz is easy. It can be handled with the most basic components and equipment. This encourages me to give it a try.


A remark on the tests done by Fuzzy Tom Cat (Glen):

If the effect is real, it most probably can not be "seen" by a scope, because it will be outside conventional electronics. One can only hope to "feel" it via an unexpected temperature rise in the "coil like load resistor". The scope can only serve to document the necessary square wave on the gate of the switch. The "waves" happening over the "load resistor" will be "random noise" in terms of todays electronic equipment. To "see" the effect Rosemary is talking about, one would need equipment which has not been invented yet.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: nul-points on July 22, 2010, 09:30:13 AM
hi Rosemary

thanks for starting this thread so we can all try to understand the phenomena you've seen with this circuit - i hope you'll be able to stand aside from the distractions and get on with the business at hand


@Conrad
i appreciate that your intention is to clarify details, leading on to close replication of the circuit and testing of such

if i understand the context of the effect correctly, i believe that there is a subtle element of the necessary pre-conditions for this phenomena to occur - and this subtlety is not captured in the usual inputs to a circuit replication, ie. the circuit schematic & the signal timing diagrams


let me share an example of this: i've worked with both analogue and digital circuits for approx 40 years as a hobby (i have an EE degree, but work in software side of engineering) and on occasions, when using potentiometers to adjust the frequency (or even level, sometimes) of a signal, i've found that a certain (very critical) position of the potentiometer can sometimes cause a spontaneous 'oscillation' to occur

for many years i attributed this behaviour to the resistance of that particular setting of the pot causing the circuit to become unstable

however, in the last few years i'm beginning to wonder if, instead, the effect is some physical interaction between the metal wiper and the carbon track in the pot itself (eg. the junction characteristics of the materials? - or the physical dimensions/wavelength involved at that wiper position? who knows?)

the point of my illustration is this - if i now wish to share this effect for replication by others, then
- firstly, my circuit schematics and 'intended' drive signal diagrams are not going to show anything 'unusual'
- secondly, there is no 'correct' input signal level or frequency to suggest that people replicate

to try and replicate my example by using an embedded processor or a signal generator to 'recreate' the input drive signal would bypass the effect altogether!


it's possible that the whole trigger to the effect which Rosemary has observed, may be traced back eventually to the 'hand-tuned' input signal provided by the combination of the 555 timer and its setting potentimeters

Rosemary has stated the conditions under which she observed the effect - we should start the investigation from there

only if & when we find that the effect turns out to be entirely 'signal-dependent', not 'component-dependent' (or even 'user-action-dependent'?), can we move on to generate that signal by some other means (such as PICs, or sig-gens)

i agree that the process is labour-intensive, vaguely-defined and uncertain - but, in my experience, if we need to look for something like a 'needle in a haystack', then it's usually a good idea to start with with the right haystack!  :)

ok, that's my 2-cents worth, i'll shut up now!

good luck with the investigations everybody
sandy
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 22, 2010, 09:48:55 AM
Hello Sandy,

I suspect that what you saw was that aperiodic Hartley oscillation.  Indeed that is a required pre-cursor to this effect.  But it is NOT difficult to get.  It simply requires a fine tuning.  If you read up on the Quantum and the Open Source papers this is clearly referenced.

The thesis is that the energy - wherever it is from - is returned to the source.  Notwithstanding which heat is dissipated at the load.  While I appreciate your summation as valid - it is only valid from within your experience.  When I embarked on this info through the internet number - I was roundly advised that a supply could not regenerate itself.  Therefore would this system never work.  That much is evidently and empircally disproved.  I would strongly recommend that you read the paper published in scribd.  But the balance of your comments are indeed valid.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: nul-points on July 22, 2010, 11:18:56 AM
hi Rosemary

thanks for the feedback

perhaps my example was too close to the actual characteristics seen here - i wasn't intending it as being related directly to the effect you've seen

my post was intended to encourage Conrad to start with the initial conditions as you've provided, rather than possibly 'bypassing' a potentially important element of the effect in the name of efficiency


i'm interested to learn that there is a name for such an effect and i'll try & do some background reading

i don't know if it's the same Hartley but i did some 'tinkering' with Hartley oscillators as a lad, over 40 years ago - although that was just a cursory interest in 'less-than-legal' RF applications  ;)


getting back to the present, i've seen something similar with trimmer-tuned oscillator frequency on a switched-charge capacitor to capacitor experiment i've been 'playing' with over the last couple of years - in fact, when i first saw details of your work a year or so back, your mention of the aperiodic aspect of the drive signal immediately struck a chord!


thanks for the link to Scribd - i've tried a couple of times to access the pages but i've been prevented, by either the PCs or networks in use, from seeing anything in the Scribd script windows

my main PC is tied up 24/7 with a datalogging exercise in a rather constricted space at the moment, so it's not easy to use it to browse sites but i do intend to take a look at the files you've uploaded for us all


i have another long-term experiment running at present which, like yours, appears to be sustaining the source-supply

in fact, in just the last couple of days i've physically (but not electrically, of course) isolated & insulated the battery in its own aluminium case within an outer metal enclosure and the first informal indications are that the battery (8.4V NiCad) is experiencing an approx 0.5*C drop compared to a similar battery (disconnected) in a control setup of similar enclosures

this is interesting because i believe that NiCad charging behaviour is endothermic, whilst discharging is exothermic - so this suggests that my battery is tending more towards 'charging' than 'discharging'


i hope i've corrected any impression that my previous post was in any way a criticism or an attempted explanantion of any aspect of your work


all the best
sandy
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: conradelektro on July 22, 2010, 11:27:03 AM
Quote
Rosemary wrote:

WE HAVE EXPERIMENTAL PROOF OF A THESIS THAT REQUIRES ENERGY EFFICIENCIES GREATER THAN 1
WE HAVE WIDE AND COMPREHENSIVE ACCREDITATION OF THAT EXPERIMENTAL PROOF
WE HAVE FULL AND COMPREHENSIVE DATA ON A REPLICATION OF THAT EXPERIMENT AVAILABLE TO OPEN SOURCE

What I asked for with my "simple questions" was:

Please present the "EXPERIMENTAL PROOF".

Please present the " WIDE AND COMPREHENSIVE ACCREDITATION OF THAT EXPERIMENTAL PROOF".

Please point us to the "OPEN SOURCE" where the "FULL AND COMPREHENSIVE DATA ON A REPLICATION OF THAT EXPERIMENT" is visible.

For many reasons (may be it is my own stupidity) it does not happen like a simple and straight forward person like me hopes.

Sorry, I thought that this forum was intended to clarify the above questions and to establish a solid basis for further experiments.

Please excuse my questions, it will not happen again.

Conrad
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: nul-points on July 22, 2010, 11:33:17 AM
hi Conrad

if i understand Rosemary correctly, then this proof - and other supporting information - has been supplied at the Scribd site using the link which Rosemary gave above

all the best
sandy
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 22, 2010, 07:04:07 PM
This is the best link I can find to my quantum paper.
http://www.free-energy.ws/rosemary-ainslie.html

This is the link to the Scribd Open Source paper.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS

Both papers give a comprehensive account of results that exceed unity.  Both rely on classical measurement protocols and both indicate that battery draw down is consistent with the measured rate of current flow discharged from the battery.  There is UNEQUIVOCAL proof in both papers of results that fly in the face of the unity barrier and with it of thermodynamic laws.

For those measurement purists that read here - I need to point out that the there was an intrinsic error in the computation of the energy measured to be delivered by the battery in the second paper.  But the text qualifies this as a deliberate attempt to give a conservative value. The actual value of energy delivered is nearer to COP>7 and not COP> 4.  This is because Tektronix equipment only guarantee a multiple samples in any given data dump as a representative average over a more extended time.  I'm still searching for that post.  When I get it I'll copy it and bring it across.

I think that's all that's needed for record of the papers written up on these tests.  Experimental apparatus, component parts and method of data analysis is reasonably comprehensive.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 23, 2010, 05:40:49 AM
Guys what follows on from here will be the re-posting of those pertinent numbers that were included in the COP17 Rosemary Ainslie Circuit at Energetic Forum.  They're only included for 'record purposes'.  Please do not bother to plough through them unless you're interested to do so.

I'll append dates and titles as required.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 23, 2010, 05:42:49 AM
 Another Hot Potato Dropped
Here's a copy of the letter that went out to Cecati with our paper.

Dear Professor Cecati,

I refer you to our brief phone call made last week. You requested that I explain everything in writing.

I have been in touch with Professor Chow to give us some much needed guidance relating to the document standards for a first submission prior to review. This advice was required as our paper was not done under the stewardship of a mentor and, of necessity, we referred to a variety of experts in different aspects of this paper, as and where required. They will be generally acknowledged in the final document after the review process is completed.

The subject of this paper is fraught. In the first instance it deals with evident anomalies in the heat signatures of the resistor. However, the paper argues that this is not an anomaly as it was a required result of a magnetic field model and was, therefore, predicted. This prediction can be verified by two academic Professors in physics who I can refer you to if required. It was in relation to a discussion on the field model some 11 years ago, and they both agreed that this predicted evidence would, indeed support the thesis. They further suggested that their Lab Technician set up that initial test apparatus. Their technician, unfortunately, flatly declined to do so claiming, correctly, that it it was designed to challenge Thermodynamic constraints. The experiment therefore was established away from academic supervision.

The magnetic field model argues that energy is not confined to the supply source except as tradition has identified it. In fact, the proposal is that energy is also available in gross bound material. In electric circuitry this is readily generated in conductive and inductive material which, under proper circuit configuration, can be used to add to the energy coefficient. This requires a radical departure from conventional understandings related to Thermodynamic Laws and current flow. Yet neither the paper nor the data contradict those laws as both maintain a conservation of charge with the only departure being the identification of an alternate energy source. The paper refers.

The first publication of the experiment did not gain acceptance. It was submitted for review in 2002 and was rejected notwithstanding some considerable accreditation of those results. No academic, at that time, would associate with the claims and, to a man, refused to attend a demonstration of the effect. This was puzzling, the more so as it is widely understood that all science needs to be established by empirical evidence. It was thereafter modified for publication in Quantum Magazine, October edition 2002 as this was the only alternate avenue available for publication. It generated no interest being, as it was, without proper academic scrutiny.

Some 7 years after this, my son published that Quantum paper and the field model, on the internet. Here it generated some considerable interest as is evident. I was subsequently invited to join a forum and thread where there was some interest in replicating the effect. The experimentalist that was eventually able to replicate this was Glen Lettenmaier and he was ably and gratuitously assisted with sophisticated measuring instruments, as required, with the generous use of a TDS3054C Tektronix DPO. The gradual unfolding of the 'effect' was achieved within weeks where the previous efforts spanned some years. All these tests are duly and properly recorded in links that are scheduled in the appendix to the document. Because they relate to the author they are in conflict with TIE requirements for review and will be added as required or only fully established after the review process. There is a unique waveform associated with this effect referred to in the paper as a Preferred Mode of Oscillation. This also has been put on live broadcast on the internet and can be accessed or repeated, subject again, to the reviewer's requirement.

What is evident, however, is that there are no prior publications of this - as, self evidently, the proposal is based on unique criteria that have not, heretofore, been considered by academia. We, the authors, have been in lengthy discussions on this and while it is possible to cite papers that relate to different aspects of the effect they are not, in truth, appropriate. We are aware that this may mitigate against our best interests, especially as this relates to TIE's requirement for citations. However, in the light of the exceptional nature of this claim it is hoped that the reasons for non-compliance are understood, notwithstanding our wishes to do so.

Therefore we ask you to indulge us this exception and that this omission will not compromise this paper's chances of publication. We modestly suggest that it is enough that the reviewer understand that there is an alternate supply of current flow and that the merits of the evidence therefore be established on their own. We will be able to append the model only after review. We are also satisfied that the proper avenue to make this knowledge available would be through your good offices and through your own prestigious publications - proposing the journal on renewable energies as being appropriate. While the paper itself has no citations, we modestly suggest that it may be citable. Certainly it is possible that it may evoke some considerable interest in results that contradict classical expectation. The data that has now been amassed to prove this evidence is considerable. And as mentioned in the paper, we hope the subject here may provoke further investigations into the model. The claims are contentious. Properly this needs a wide academic forum for discussion. A critical investigation therefore can only be achieved with a wide dissemination of this claim through a publication such as yours.

Finally this is an Open Source publication and that title will be amended to include this reference and the institutions and structures associated with this will be added to the paper's identification subject to completion of the review process. There are many interested readers of the progress of this paper on the internet. They will be updated and informed of this application and, I believe, would be most interested to hear of its progress. The authors of the paper are drawn from different countries that span the globe. All this work was done without any material advantage and, indeed at considerable personal cost to us all, both in time and money spent in progressing this knowledge.

Kindest regards,
ROSEMARY AINSLIE

POSTED 02.02.2010
COPY OF A LETTER TO PROFESSOR CECATI EDITOR OF TIE/IEEE
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 23, 2010, 05:48:06 AM
Dear Ainslie,

thank you very much for your phone and letter. You reached me on mobile,
while I was driving, a mail is much better than discussing by phone in
such a situation.
I have read your letter with attention. Even if our guidelines require
the citation of recent journal papers, particularly TIE papers, this is
only a strong suggestion and not a rejection motivation, supported by a
clear reason: if other papers on a similar topics where published on our
Transactions, this does mean that its topic is of general interest for
our readers.
I have read your letter and given a short reading to your paper: in my
opinion the main problem for your paper is that probably it doesn't fit
with journal scope and topics. In fact, our transactions are mainly
addressed to industrial electronics applications, your paper seems to my
very short analysis more addressed to physics phenomena, even if with
potential industrial applications and experiments.
If you like, I'll forward this paper to a qualified associate editor
for reviewers' assignment. But in case the review process, which will
take some weeks will result negative, you have delayed its possible
publication on a more specific journal.
I understand that you have chosen our transactions for his high impact
factor, on the other hand our policy is to publish papers of general
interest.

Thank you again for you submission, I am waiting for your early reply.
Best regards
Carlo Cecati

Reply from Professor Cecati.  02.02.2010.
Note his concern that their policyt is to publish papers of general interst?  Perhaps breaches in the unity barrier would not qualify. 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 23, 2010, 06:09:55 AM
    
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Guys, I've lost a post. No idea if I deleted it or what? I've not heard from Admin yet - so can't explain it. In any event I need to redo this post. I'm trying to show that the 'effect' - that extra energy - is actually REQUIRED by mainstream science based, as it is, on e=mc^2. Here's the argument.

All energy is traditionally seen as being, or based on, the mass of a material be it particulate or gross. In other words - and at the risk of being fatuously simplistic - take your material be it photons, electrons, protons, neutrons, your average pebble, rocks and the rest. If it's made of matter - and if it's measurable - then it's got energy. And the amount of energy available depends on the amount of that matter or that mass.

Traditionally our electric energy is generated from potential difference. Potential difference is measured as a voltage. This 'difference' is ascribed to various properties but it essentially measures a magnetic imbalance that also relates to the valence condition of an applied energy source. So - very broadly, one can say that electric energy is generated by a 'valence imbalance' that is then conducted through circuit material or any medium that allows a path for current flow. This enables a discharge of that imbalanced valence condition. But it is yet and quite simply - an energy supply source based on the material of that supply. In other words it still conforms to Einstein's famous equation. It is still the sum of the mass of that supply source. Therefore the amount of energy that is discharged cannot exceed the amount of energy or mass available from that supply. That's the basis of the 'elusive' energy barrier. This is still the agument used by Newton and Farraday and Maxwell. Our Giants.

However. If the discharge of that energy from the supply source then generates another imbalance in material that is in the 'path of' that discharge - then it is evident that we get ANOTHER measurable voltage imbalance, a kind of transferred potential difference. Classically this is regarded as STORED ENERGY. And when it too finds a path - it too will discharge that energy. In other words, the amount of material in that 'path' determines the rate at which energy is transferred through that path, or the rate of discharge from the energy supply source. BUT, interrupt that path and - depending on the material used and the amount of imbalance that energy flow generated or 'stored' or 'transferred' then that material itself can generate it's own flow of current depending only on an available path for discharge and on the 'break' or 'chance' or opportunity - afforded by interrupting that first flow from the primary energy supply source.

So. Let's look at the actual condition on this or any switching circuitry. The rate of energy discharged from the supply was determined by the resistance in the path of that primary energy supply source. If it discharged or delivered - for example - 1 Joule of energy in current flow, then classically the circuit can only dissipate 1 Joule of energy or it can store and dissipate some value that is precisely proportionate to that 1 Joule that was first delivered. The primary energy supply source has now 'transferred' it's own potential difference to the material of the resistor - in the process of establishing it's own balanced valence condition or potential difference.

But here's the thing. In point of fact, when one actually interrupts that current flow from the source, and provided one allows a path to discharge that energy - it can be routed back through the supply source to re-energise it. AND it has dissipated energy in the form of 'heat' over that resistor. Not only that - but the amount of energy that is returned to the supply can equal, (And as Aaron and others have shown) even exceed the amount of energy that was first delivered. The question then is this. Have we defied Einstein's equation that determines the limit in the amount of energy that is available in the mass of our supply source. The answer is emphatically NO.

The fact is that the material in the resistor - now comes into the equation. It's mass has been energised. It has adopted the same but opposite valence condition of the supply source. And it has generated heat. Therefore the proposal is that the heat is a measure of the resistance of the material to the applied potential difference from the supply source. And the measured voltage across the resistor is also now a measure of it's own potential difference which precisely matches or depending on the mass of the resistor can even exceed the potential difference at the supply.

The point is this. The mass of the battery or the supply source has been determined by Maxwell as the primary energy supply source. But Einstein's equation incorporates the mass of the resistor as well as the supply source. Therefore the resistive mass is also a potential energy supply souce dependent only on its mass, the inductive and conductive components in that mass and it's ability to 'find' a path to discharge that energy. But it FIRST needs its 'own' moment to become an energy supply source. A switching circuit affords it that moment. Therefore there is no real conflict between this result and the result required in terms of mainstream thinking.

That the thesis attributes current flow to anything at all - is immaterial to this argument. But for the record, the proposal is that current flow itself is the transfer of magnetic fields and not electrons as required by mainstream argument. But in all other respects, this proposal conforms to the quintessentially proven requirement that E=mc^2.

Perhaps those who are testing this circuit can use this argument in support of the proven gains on a switching circuit of this kind. It's certainly the basis of the thesis.

posted by me 02.05.2010
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 23, 2010, 07:32:56 AM
Guys, could someone help me.  I've been trying to post over pictures from my photobucket and I can only get links.  What's required here?  I'd be glad of assistance.

Here are the links for now. 
(http://i758.photobucket.com/albums/xx223/aetherevarising/DSC00032.jpg)
(http://i758.photobucket.com/albums/xx223/aetherevarising/DSC00036.jpg)
(http://i758.photobucket.com/albums/xx223/aetherevarising/DSC00037.jpg)
(http://i758.photobucket.com/albums/xx223/aetherevarising/DSC00038.jpg)

Jesus?  Could you open these for direct view?  Be most obliged.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: WilbyInebriated on July 23, 2010, 08:16:06 AM
hi rosemary, to post pictures use the 'attach' field(s) at the bottom of the reply form.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 23, 2010, 08:24:31 AM
WILBY.   ;D  HOW NICE IS THIS.  I had an idea you'd been banished?  Obviously not.  You have NO IDEA how much I've missed your critical input.  They're badly in need of a Captain across at EF.  He's needed to steady that ship.  Right now it's been appropriated by MIB's who are pretending to all kinds of accreditation and goodness knows what.  If it weren't so ominious it would be laughable.

WELCOME INDEED.    ;D

BTW  Many thanks for that posting.  I'll try it later.  Many more to post across.
I'M SMILING FOR THE FIRST TIME IN DAYS.  Seems like we've got a 'shared tenure' at last.  LOL 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: rensseak on July 23, 2010, 08:45:56 AM
This are the pictures of Rosi  ;D
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 23, 2010, 08:51:30 AM
This are the pictures of Rosi  ;D

many thanks for this rensseak.  Seems like it's been duplicated.  But I'll leave it as is.  A tribute to Donovan Martin's design skills. 

 ;D 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: rensseak on July 23, 2010, 09:06:18 AM
Hello Rosemary

1. click on search (for me "Durchsuchen") a new window opens where you can select the file.
2. click on "more attachments" and a new line appears and then go to 1.

Norbert
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 23, 2010, 09:09:42 AM
Hello Rosemary

1. click on search (for me "Durchsuchen") a new window opens where you can select the file.
2. click on "more attachments" and a new line appears and then go to 1.

Norbert

 ;D GOT IT.  Many thanks indeed Norbert.  Much obliged.

Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: nievesoliveras on July 23, 2010, 03:25:47 PM
About the photo posting

What I usually do is to click the link and when it shows the picture I save it on my harddisk, then I can post it from there.

Just hit reply on the thread page and after writing what you want to say, look for the word "attach" on the reply page, press browse and look for the saved picture and press ok to upload it to the attach box.

Then just press post as normal and you got the picture posted.

If you want to post more than one, look at the attach box and hit more attachments and repeat the more attachments with each picture you want posted.

Jesus

PS
If Links like this wont work: (http://i758.photobucket.com/albums/xx223/aetherevarising/DSC00032.jpg)
They work like this: http://i758.photobucket.com/albums/xx223/aetherevarising/DSC00032.jpg
Eliminate the ()s
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 23, 2010, 05:09:25 PM
Nope - thanks anyway - but it absolutely does not work for me.  Could be that it's because I'm using an Apple.  I'll try it on my standard computer later on tonight.  AAAAAAh.  I'm the ultimate dinosaur on these computers. >:(

But thanks for all the advices - Jesus et al.  I'll get there eventually.  For now I'd be very grateful if someone could just post this final picture of the finished product.  I need to post some direct copies of the paper as well and some waveforms.  But I'll see what I can do later this evening.

(http://i758.photobucket.com/albums/xx223/aetherevarising/DSC00083-1.jpg)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 23, 2010, 05:23:18 PM
Guys,  I just need to interrupt the 'topic' marginally to explain something that MUST remain OPEN SOURCE.

Here it is.  We're restricted in 'scaling up' on this system because of restrictions to the transistor.  The MOSFET system is ideal because it has an internal body diode that can channel a path for the current flow during the 'off period' of the duty cycle.  But MOSFETs are NOT built to take the kind of wattage that's required for a realistic application.  We're hoping to get around this by varying the component parts of the resistor to reduce the Ohm's value - yet somehow keep the actual current flow to a level it can withstand.  Tricky.

HOWEVER.  I've been thinking of varying the arrangement while still using the 'concepts' that are forged through our thesis.  If indeed current flow comprises, let us for these purposes call it 'charge' rather than the 'flow of electrons' then theoretically we should be able to use a lead acid battery 'in the loop' with an alkaline battery.  The discharge of the one would recharge the other and vice versa.  For those chemists reading here - remember that the anode of the alkaline is the negative terminal. 

This 'principle' has been variously endorsed by sundry chemists whom I've spoken to but still requires a detailed analysis of the chemistry involved.  And the actual problem is to find an alkaline with the same capacity as a lead acid. 

This may assist us in increasing the actual wattage delivered without necessarily routing it through the MOSFET.  But we're working on the required circuits.  And I'm only posting this to ensure that this development is IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN - lest anyone try and patent it!!!

In any event.  We need to explore this option more thoroughly and will incorporate these tests as well.  For anyone - any chemists - who see the significance - feel free to test this.  But know that I have not done so myself and cannot therefore assure you that you won't be wasting your time.  It is however, theoretically seductive - as it points to a possible 'closed system'.  We need this.  We really do need this.  LOL.  But the details of that required circuit - I'll have to work on it.  I did post this on EF.com - but it was really too sketchy.  It'll be my weekend homework.

Regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: otto on July 23, 2010, 06:08:52 PM
Hello all,

@Rosemary

show us, if possible, the waves you get from your system. Dont say you have only square waves!!

Otto
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: ramset on July 23, 2010, 06:28:20 PM
Rosemary
Just for the record,
Otto is a very good guy that shares much at this forum!
Any info you can give him will benefit all!

Chet
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 23, 2010, 06:34:08 PM
Hello all,

@Rosemary

show us, if possible, the waves you get from your system. Dont say you have only square waves!!

Otto

@Otto
Check out the waveforms on the paper. 
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 23, 2010, 06:43:26 PM
Rosemary
Just for the record,
Otto is a very good guy that shares much at this forum!
Any info you can give him will benefit all!

Chet
It's perhaps an unfortunate that you ever make a recommendation Chet - with respect.  I remember how you advanced TK's contributions which a parade of exaggerated praise that proceded or preceded his every post.  TK is NOT intending to promote this or any OU technology.  Had I and others not resisted those interventions I'm satisfied this technology would be thoroughly buried by now.  In fact - if my memory serves - Wilby managed a rather skilfull dialectic that finally silenced him. 

My hope is that unlike TK - Otto is earnestly attempting to advance Over Unity type technologies. 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: nievesoliveras on July 23, 2010, 06:50:43 PM
Nope - thanks anyway - but it absolutely does not work for me.  Could be that it's because I'm using an Apple.  I'll try it on my standard computer later on tonight.  AAAAAAh.  I'm the ultimate dinosaur on these computers. >:(

But thanks for all the advices - Jesus et al.  I'll get there eventually.  For now I'd be very grateful if someone could just post this final picture of the finished product.  I need to post some direct copies of the paper as well and some waveforms.  But I'll see what I can do later this evening.

(http://i758.photobucket.com/albums/xx223/aetherevarising/DSC00083-1.jpg)

Again for the link you posted to work you should not put () on it.

Jesus
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: ramset on July 23, 2010, 06:57:14 PM
Rosemary
I originally brought /invited TK to your thread with the best of intentions!

I believe he is sincere in the pursuit of OU

I do not fancy him an MIB

I did remove myself from the thread when things got out of hand.[very nasty]

A lesson learned!!

You are a very sincere woman with a most definite goal,I apologize for any stress
caused by TK or myself, my original intentions where good [still are].


Chet


PS
While we may all be experts in our fields,
which I believe TK to be at the top of his field,
no one can lay claim to this field [opensource OU]
You are a pioneer  and your zeal is infectious
Hopefully these moments will be historic
Thankyou for all you do

And yes "Wilby" never left your side!
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 23, 2010, 07:02:03 PM
Again for the link you posted to work you should not put () on it.

Jesus

Thank you Jesus.  I did remove brackets.  THEY JUST KEEP COMING BACK.  LOL.  I need to get off the Apple - I think is the problem.  But thanks again.  Much appreciated.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 23, 2010, 07:21:31 PM
Rosemary
I originally brought /invited TK to your thread with the best of intentions!

I believe he is sincere in the pursuit of OU

I do not fancy him an MIB
I would happily fall in with this gross misconception if I EVER saw any evidence of this.  I only see him anxiously disproving whatever he can with rather less authority than he pretends.  And his SKILL at power analysis is clearly wanting.  One woud expect some expertise here before presuming to comment on the experimental evidence.  But having said that - he gave me some much needed training in Open Source 'dangers' and it was as well to learn this.  A necessary but unhappy requirement. 

But thank you for the kind wishes.  For now I'll take them at face value and pretend to forget the continual endorsements you provided so gratuitously that so mitigated against the best interest of this and - indeed - all OU technology. 

And I need to disabuse you of something.  THIS IS NOT A FIRST.  It is only that we are able to substantiate our claim which is more difficult with motors and other technologies.  So we are not making history except in so far as we're working off campus.  That indeed may very well be a first.  Hopefully it'll be a precursor to more such.  Never hurts to hope. 

So Chet.  For now we'll bury the hatchet.   :D
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: rensseak on July 23, 2010, 08:50:13 PM
. ;D
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: otto on July 23, 2010, 10:47:54 PM
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

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 24, 2010, 05:51:48 PM
@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.
 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 24, 2010, 06:50:02 PM
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


Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: rensseak on July 24, 2010, 07:00:56 PM
@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
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 24, 2010, 07:05:00 PM
 :D Hi Norbert,

I guessed as much.  Now I just need clarification about those 'misleadings'.  LOL
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: mscoffman on July 24, 2010, 10:13:31 PM
@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
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: powercat on July 24, 2010, 11:40:33 PM
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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw)

cat
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 25, 2010, 05:50:53 AM
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 (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
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 25, 2010, 06:01:23 AM

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 

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 25, 2010, 03:21:26 PM
Apologies.  I've just seen an error.  I need to redraw the schematic.  BRB
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 26, 2010, 03:27:55 AM
(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
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 26, 2010, 04:33:18 AM
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
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: rensseak on July 26, 2010, 06:01:03 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 26, 2010, 06:14:02 AM
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
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: rensseak on July 26, 2010, 06:27:41 AM
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
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 26, 2010, 06:35:37 AM
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
:) thanks again.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: otto on July 26, 2010, 01:01:20 PM
Hello all,

@Rosemary

lets forget my last post. It was a long time ago.....lets concentrate on your setup. I have reeded finally your papers.

As Im curious like a little child I would have some questions, if you allow:

1. have you ever tried 2 or 3 different frequencies  in your setup?
2. ever tried to use a 470pF cap on pin 5 of the 555?
3. ever tried to use some MOSFET drivers?

As said, Im only curious nothing else.

Forgot it:

@G

thanks!! My PMs doesnt work.

Otto

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 26, 2010, 04:16:34 PM
Hello

As Im curious like a little child I would have some questions, if you allow:

1. have you ever tried 2 or 3 different frequencies  in your setup?
2. ever tried to use a 470pF cap on pin 5 of the 555?
3. ever tried to use some MOSFET drivers?


Hi Otto.  I've tried many different frequencies.  The circuit is not 'frequency dependent'.  In other words - that 'preferred mode of oscillation' is evident over a fairly broad range of frequencies.  What I used as a guide to the measure of efficiency was to watch the scope's DC average on the display.  When this stays relatively steady in a net negative value then I know that the frequency is working.  But each resistor has different optimal 'preferred' numbers.  It's a trial and error thing at the moment.

Your last two questions the simple answer is I'm not sure.  If by a 'different' mosfet driver you mean a functions generator - then yes.  It has been tested.  But not by me.  And I don't know if there's been a cap tried at the pin 5 of the 555.  But it's possible.  Again.  The significance of this would be entirely lost on me.

I hope that helps.  Sorry I can't answer this in more detail.  I only have a very generalised understanding of switches and invariably had technicians build these for me.  All I know is that a good quality pot is invaluable as I could do better 'fine tuning'. 

If you - or anyone - can put a switch design to the proposed schematic I've offered - that may be a very good thing.  If you're up for it.  I'ts required, and probably best managed with a 'reed type' switch or some such.  We'll be building our own - in due course - and will post the full schematic when it's to hand. 

The switch for the MOSFET is another story.  That design is likely to be complex as the object is to have absolute control on the waveform generated through that inductance.  But again.  I'm relying on the input of experts.  I am NOT an expert.  I hardly even qualify as a novice.  LOL.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 26, 2010, 04:45:20 PM
Guys, just to bring your attention to the 'edit' in Norbert's post on the schematic.  We're proposing to use Nickle Metal Hydride batteries.  This should be doable.

Regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: nul-points on July 26, 2010, 05:47:26 PM
hi Rosemary

if i understand your suggested battery-load-battery disposition correctly, i think this configuration can often be seen in a number of existing circuits (eg. Bedini & Joule Thief battery-charge applications) so i don't think you should have any problem finding battery combinations which work together

the same principle also crops up in the notoriously misnomered 'Tesla Switch' cct - only in this latter example there are usually 4 batteries which get connected in pairs via the load

hope this provides some useful context for you


i've managed to read a lot of your posts on Scribd now and found them very interesting, especially about the concepts of the innate energy in the cct components being released in opposition to the applied source dipole energy (eg. Counter EMF) and also that of the Universal magnetic dipole

...the 'zipon' - what a wonderful name for a particle which travels at 2c !...

i need to do some more reading & thinking on your ideas


all the best
sandy

[EDIT]...
PS   i think Otto's reference to 'MOSFET drivers' was asking if you'd tried using the task-specific chips which are often used as an interface between a pulse source (such as function generator or 555, etc) and the final MOSFET switch - they are specifically designed to match the drive-characteristics of MOSFET type devices, whereas the 555, for example, is a general-purpose signal source chip

(i suspect that the use of such a device might interfere with the 'spontaneous' nature of the drive waveform which your effect requires)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: fritz on July 26, 2010, 06:22:45 PM
There is a battery reconditioner:

       novitec megapulse

It contains a mosfet, a small coil and a cmos 4538(?!) (or similar) oscillator + shut off logic.
Operates at some kHz.

You can find case studies at their homepage -  http://www.megapulser.de/   + some experimental data from austrian technical university.

Its reported that this device decreases the amount of sulfur-crystalisation on lead acid battery plates - which reduces  /restores / lowers the internal resistance of the battery - as well as re-establishes the worn down ampere-hours to useful amounts.

I bought the stuff (pretty expensive for what I found inside) - and could verify the effect with some aged lead acid batteries.

I saw increase of battery voltage, reduction of internal resistance, increase in amphours - or lets call it re-activation of prior not accessible zombie-energy - trapped by sulphur crystals.

As seen on other experiments as well as reported from battery manufactorers - the amount harvestable energy from a primary cell can be a multiple of the nominal energy if extracted using short DC pulses.
This is why I never trust chemistry.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: fritz on July 26, 2010, 06:43:12 PM
In some claims they state that this effect is caused by a treatment with some precise MHz fluctuating current which targets the problem on molecular level. If there is some truth with that- this would be achieved by overtones of that audible kHz operation.

The circuit is active / oscillator running - if the battery voltage is >12.8V - then the coil is loaded with some khz pulses and discharges on top of that actual battery voltage.
The used coil has few uH and a ferrite core, the height of discharge pulse depends on the battery condition.

There are lots of circuits on the net for that purpose:

http://www.alton-moore.net/graphics/desulfator.pdf

Even ones with quite fascinating mosfet-cascades reaching nearly 100A spikes - but dont remember that url.
 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 26, 2010, 10:35:38 PM
Hello Sandy,

So nice to read supportive posts.  It's rather rare in my history.  LOL. Thanks for the kind comments.

Very interesting to see your comments on the battery arrangement.  I didn't realise that this was simply a battery recharge system.  I see it more as a discharge/recharge number that should go some way to giving us a significant conservation of charge.  I've run the idea through some battery chemists/experts - alkaline and lead acid - and there seems to be some consensus on the theory.  I'm waiting for a detailed analysis from a boffin.  But on the face of it - it may very well work.  The more so in the light of Fritz's comments on how the batteries seem to prefer those heavy duty spikes.  I kept to that unconventional schematic simply to stress the 'mirror image' which is the kind of symmetry that fascinates me.  But GUYS.  If that works - then we've put paid to our dependancy on the average utility supplier.  Theoretically it would take a bank of batteries and we could all hook off grid.  Got to be a good thing.  And I see it being somewhat usable for our electric motors.  I'm anticipating marginal losses - at best - as shown in our 'proof of concept' experiments.  The principle is just an extension of that field model - as you've pointed out.   Frankly the only barrier to this is 'prejudice'.  And I see those hide bound attitudes falling to their knees - all over the place.  What a pleasure.  ;D

Glad you like my zipons.  They've been rather abused - but I think they're beginning to hold their heads up at last.  Certainly it's seductively logical.  But - again, I'm no expert.  Just very much into patterns and symmetries.  It's obsessively interesting once you get into this.

Thank you for explaining Otto's questions.  You're right.  It's better to let the system find it's own resonating frequency and I don't know that one can impose this.  Not without first having some extraordinarlly exact values on the inductance and how this effects the ohmic values.  Not easy given various alloys and materials and the vagaries from different manufacturers.  But it would be nice to establish the math to better predict the results.  I think this is one of the goals of the academics involved here.

So Sandy.  Thanks again and delighted to see your interest.  I'd be glad of any input you may want re the thesis.  Just let me know. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary


Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 26, 2010, 10:59:16 PM
Hello Fritz. 

Very intrigued to learn that this is a standard 'recharge system' as already advanced.  That's a really good thing.  But I would suggest that if this works on our cylinder - then it should obviate the need for that MOSFET - or the entire dependancy on it.  Perhaps some shared function between the two. 

But, as mentioned, that also puts paid to our need for a utility supplier.  Frankly I only used the acid/alkaline number to get the logic across to our chemists.  I think the system would work just as well between two acid batteries.  But whichever is required - the fact is that we're looking at a potentially 'closed' system.  It's been hitting our mainstream representatives between the eyes - because it's consistent with their own knowledge of what to expect - yet resulting in something that is totally unexpected.  One comment - explosive - was 'that's perpetual motion'.  LOL.  I immediately disabused him and pointed out that SOME losses were inevitable.  I'm sort of learning how to be diplomatic in my old age.

But the solution as presented is way too simplistic.  We may very well need to supplement those cycles with some hefty spikes from inductive components.  And that calls for ever more complex switches.  But.  There's enough interest to try - whatever's needed.  That's a healthy baseline for the experiments.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: fritz on July 27, 2010, 09:06:45 AM
Hi Rosemary,

BTW: One of the first "suppressed" technologies I remember were recharging alkaline batteries. This was probably 25 yrs ago. In the end they sold special alkaline batteries - which could be recharged up to 5 times or so (with rapidly decreasing amphours).
From my experiments with batteries / accumulators - there is a certain charge (depending on battery and size) - which is immediatly available at the electrodes. If you consume more than that - some chemical transfer is involved which has a time constant, adds internal resistance an generates losses ;D ;D.
So if you load the battery with a well defined pulse - and let it chill until the ion exchange replaces that immediatly consumable charge - until you load the next pulse - you avoid the intrinsic losses you have on normal DC discharge. If you discharge with DC - a fraction of the (theoretical) available amphours is consumed by losses which warm up the battery. The complementary principle is used with pulse reflex chargers - where you charge the battery with high and short current pulses - in sequence with as short "skimming" pulse which shortens the battery leads - and a chill out phase. Length of current and skimming pulse is done adaptive with a microcontroller with the aim to just transfer the maximum possible charge to the electrodes (which can be done with minimum internal resistance) - and avoid DC charging where internal resistance goes up.
That megapulse/battery recycle thing just interacts with that immediatly consumable charge - loads the coil and feeds the energy back to the battery.
Well, kind of regular training which keeps the lazy sulfur crystals off the electrodes. ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 27, 2010, 09:27:16 AM
Hi Fritz - I must say I'm getting really intrigued with the extent of your knowledge.  I take it you're a chemist.  I was told - by one of the battery manufacturers that those early alkaline batteries have actually never 'proved' recharge efficiencies.  Not sure of the chemistry involved.  Could you enlighten me?  Apparently that's why he recommended the nickle metal hydride number.

What I do know is that there's been a surprising lack of objection to the 'thinking' in using batteries like this.  And, as mentioned I'm captivated by the symmetry.  But I'm certainly not satisfied that we couldn't just use lead acids together to achieve the same effect.  I get it that you're advising some critical speed to the current delivery to reach that optimised recharge rate.  Frankly - on this kind of arrangement the switch can be designed to be as slow or fast as required to get to this value.  The only proviso is that energy is continually applied to the load - as required.

But what gets me is the simplicity.  If this works - as I see it - then what price utility suppliers?  They'll be 'dead in the water' - surely?  I see a possible requirement for some panels - greatly reduced from what is conventionally seen as needed - and one can operate a household with nothing but rechargeable batteries.  That's got to be cheaper than a grid supply. 

In any event.  We've still got to get some tests up.  But this circuit will definitely be a part of that.  The more so as the design is so much more elegant than those noisy switches.  Here's hoping.  But it may not need so much 'hope'.  Certainly the logic is clear enough to mainstream.  Not that obscure.  Why has this not been progressed if the knowledge has been out there?  Am I missing something?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: fritz on July 27, 2010, 09:37:10 AM
Limiting the consumed / transfered charge to what is immediatly available is an interesting concept. I would assume that this charge is transfered in almost cap-a-like manner. fascinating.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: otto on July 27, 2010, 09:44:19 AM
Hello all

@Rosemary

thanks for your answers.

Otto
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 27, 2010, 09:59:45 AM
Hello Otto - not sure that my answers were much help.  But always a pleasure.   :D  Hopefully you'll come up with some much needed solutions to those switches in both circuit configurations.  The one thing that needs full exploration is the optimised amount of induction on the circuit.  At this stage - for simplicity - the idea is to keep the inductance on the resistor.

And Fritz - not sure what you're seeing there.  But I'm glad you're getting into this.  I'm reasonably certain you've seen this already - but there's an ac current on the load in that schematic of mine.  That should be enough to turn a motor reasonably efficiently.  I see this as something that may have uses on electric vehicles.  I hope so anyway. While SA boast electric car manufacturers they don't have the resources for the kind of experimentation that could exploit this.  I'd love to get this across to some manufacturer that does.  It would be SO nice to see it exploited.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: fritz on July 27, 2010, 10:34:48 AM
Hi Fritz - I must say I'm getting really intrigued with the extent of your knowledge.  I take it you're a chemist.  I was told - by one of the battery manufacturers that those early alkaline batteries have actually never 'proved' recharge efficiencies.  Not sure of the chemistry involved.  Could you enlighten me?  Apparently that's why he recommended the nickle metal hydride number.

In those early days - battery manufactors were pretty scared about the possibility to recharge their batteries. This is why I think they invested lots of money to produce unrechargeable alkalines. (Everything else would have been commercial nonsense)
The available NiCds (AA) had 250mAh and had a high leakage current - no competitor to traditional alkalines.

What I do know is that there's been a surprising lack of objection to the 'thinking' in using batteries like this.  And, as mentioned I'm captivated by the symmetry.  But I'm certainly not satisfied that we couldn't just use lead acids together to achieve the same effect.  I get it that you're advising some critical speed to the current delivery to reach that optimised recharge rate.  Frankly - on this kind of arrangement the switch can be designed to be as slow or fast as required to get to this value.  The only proviso is that energy is continually applied to the load - as required.

If you use batteries like this - you have to think about composite devices. There is an energy conversion part which has special DC/AC characteristics - as well as an energy storage part. On experimental accumulators for storing huge amounts of energy - they use an electrolyte reservoir (for storage) and an extra converter part with electrolyte plates.

The energy conversion part maybe thought of electrolyte condensor with huge capacity in parallel with tight coupled voltage source(with restricted charge)
As long as you operate that with well defined pulses for discharge/charge - the storage part remains almost untouched - which boost the efficiency to a pretty high degree.

Another point is that I think the properties of this conversion part  stay almost the same until the battery is completly empty.

Both effects in combination increase the harvestable energy to a level somewhat completly different as with DC.

But what gets me is the simplicity.  If this works - as I see it - then what price utility suppliers?  They'll be 'dead in the water' - surely?  I see a possible requirement for some panels - greatly reduced from what is conventionally seen as needed - and one can operate a household with nothing but rechargeable batteries.  That's got to be cheaper than a grid supply. 

In any event.  We've still got to get some tests up.  But this circuit will definitely be a part of that.  The more so as the design is so much more elegant than those noisy switches.  Here's hoping.  But it may not need so much 'hope'.  Certainly the logic is clear enough to mainstream.  Not that obscure.  Why has this not been progressed if the knowledge has been out there?  Am I missing something?

At least I would see a huge increase in lifetime and capacity. Everything else is ouf of my scope at the moment.
The major problem I see is that you need tight inter-disciplinary research for that. The electrical guys are not interested in batteries - as long there is no chip which does it all - and the chemistry guys are interested in selling batteries as long as they can. So (my opinion)commercially - no go - until there is a major change.


Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 27, 2010, 10:52:06 AM
Thanks Fritz.  That's a really comprehensive reply.  You're last para ?  That's depressing.  But I'm not sure that things aren't changing.  I'm already onto some electric car manufacturers and they just want to 'lighten' the battery load.  So there's some interest. But I get it that the 'art' of this is going to be related to the optimised 'rate of recharge'.  But that's a learning curve.  I still see zero emissions if this works - possibly again in conjunction with some solar cells to supply a trickle charge as required. 

And if we can get our hot water cylinder to cook by applying energy this way - then... the sky's the limit - or rather - it's NOT the limit.  LOL. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: fritz on July 27, 2010, 11:31:37 AM
Hi Rosemary,

Traditional batteries are like smiling buddha;-)))
They perform perfect if they are full of charge and without load.  ;D ;D ;D ;D

This is why they don´t perform in electrical vehicle.
In my opinion - a well defined "compound" battery which fits the needs of an electrical verhicle has not been invented so far.
Its just adding up lots of general purpose cells. By having an electrolyte reservoir - it would be easy to have the proper trade off in terms of conversion capability and storage density. But this would not work with dry cells prefered for laptops and mobile use....
A tesla roadster is a nice bomb if it comes to the amount of spontaneus convertible energy available. Even the roadster would operate with only a fraction of that available conversion performance.
But there is a change and it will happen ;-)))


rgds.

Fritz
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinde
Post by: nul-points on July 27, 2010, 09:14:02 PM
hi Rosemary

thanks for the feedback

have i understood correctly your thesis to predict that the heat generated by your 'RA Heater Circuit' will be anomalous compared to the 'conventional'  (I^2 x R x time) value as measured across the load, using standard equipment (eg. scopes, voltmeters, current probes, etc)?

if so, then presumably any testing for COP>1 needs to be done using calorimetry?

your own original accredited results showing  COP >> 1  appear to have been successfully done this way

the flip side of this requirement would be that conventional measurements are only going to show conventional energy conversion and gradual depletion of source battery

so in any future testing, there is little point in measuring volts and amps on the output side - although obviously it is still necessary (and fairly straightforward) to obtain the energy supplied from volts & amps input

we can then compare total (V*I*t Joules In) with total (Heat Joules Out)


(ASIDE - all this makes me wonder: why did the previous replicators use such 'heavy-duty' scopes and collect so much electrical data, if the excess output energy is thermal rather than conventional volts & amps?)


i hope these ramblings makes sense!

thanks
sandy
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 28, 2010, 01:24:16 AM
Hello Sandy.  I saw your readcasts on Scribd.  Many thanks  ;D

The measure of energy dissipated at the load is impossibly complex.  We're inducing a large CEMF on an inductive/resistive load.  Energy measured here is traditionally computed as v^2/r - except on these switching circuits.  But v is changing and changing at a really fast rate.  I know Harvey attempted an analysis based on the resonance - but it was laughably inadequate and in any event intended to prove a zero gain.  I'm sure there are ways of doing this.  But - in as much as we're dissipating heat - then analysis according to temperature is empirical.  No one will argue the results. 

We needed that 'heavy duty' scope TDS3054C (my thanks to Tektronix) because we need to 'find' the required waveform across the resistor.  It holds the characteristic signature harmonic which is referred to as a 'shadow cycle' or 'preferred oscillation mode'.  Once this is evident we can confidently say that the system is in a kind of 'self resonating' frequency that invariably gives those gains.

Also, the assessment of current flow across the shunt needs to be acurately gauged.  Unlike the resistor, the shunt is non-inductive and therefore any measurements here are also correctly evaluated based on the ohmic values of the shunt.  The better the machine the less arguable the results.  So.  In short it's needed for the evaluation of the waveform across the load to determine the required resonance - and then for the voltage measurements acorss the shunt to evaluate the energy delivered by the battery.  Hope that makes it clearer.

But you're right that thesis predicts the level of 'heat' that is evident on the load.  The thinking is that when those 'binding' magnetic fields are broken - when they can no longer orbit - then they unravel.  They cascade out of the fast orbit and slow down to become apparent in our own measurable dimensions.  We see this as fire or we measure it as heat.  Effectively those little one dimensional fields lose velocity and gain mass (and temperature rise) in an inverse proportional relationship.  Effectively in the field orbit they're cold.  Outside of that orbit they're hot.  Which effectively means that the magnetic fields themselves hold a calorific value.  And that also means that 'fire' 'heat' 'light' are all a form of 'plasma'.  Not popular thinking as it is widely dismissed by mainstream.  My justification for this proposal is two fold.  In the first we know that fire does nothing to change the properties of the atoms that are associated with a fire (nuclear fire excepted).  It simply unbinds previously bound amalgams.  In the second - this would account for the total conservation of energy - which the thesis requires.  It has the added merit of explaining how fire can 'spread' accessing as it would - those binding fields in adjacent flammable materials.  In essense I'm proposing that fire is a 'plasma' - not just that 'chemical reaction which is well understood by mainstream'.  That's how this is usually dismissed.  LOL.

Hope that clarifies things.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33988924/DARK-MATTER-MFM

edited.  'except on these switching circuits'
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 28, 2010, 01:29:39 AM
Hi Rosemary,

Traditional batteries are like smiling buddha;-)))
They perform perfect if they are full of charge and without load.  ;D ;D ;D ;D

A tesla roadster is a nice bomb if it comes to the amount of spontaneus convertible energy available. Even the roadster would operate with only a fraction of that available conversion performance.
But there is a change and it will happen ;-)))
rgds.

Fritz

 ;D
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: SkyWatcher123 on July 28, 2010, 01:37:47 AM
Hi folks, these videos by gotoluc still have merit in my opinion and I think is similar in effect to Rosemary's circuit. All I can say is that I think gotoluc was convinced he had nothing special, when there is something special going on here.
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=gotoluc#p/u/70/WsmPyUzZtgQ (http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=gotoluc#p/u/70/WsmPyUzZtgQ)
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=gotoluc#p/u/66/xvE7IGCra14 (http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=gotoluc#p/u/66/xvE7IGCra14)
peace love light
Tyson
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 28, 2010, 01:48:37 AM
Hi folks, these videos by gotoluc still have merit in my opinion and I think is similar in effect to Rosemary's circuit. All I can say is that I think gotoluc was convinced he had nothing special, when there is something special going on here.
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=gotoluc#p/u/70/WsmPyUzZtgQ (http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=gotoluc#p/u/70/WsmPyUzZtgQ)
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=gotoluc#p/u/66/xvE7IGCra14 (http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=gotoluc#p/u/66/xvE7IGCra14)
peace love light

Hello Tyson.  I love goto's work.  But that's work that was done over a year ago and we're not discussing apples and apples in this test.  He has not got inductive resistors - or not highly inductive ones as we require - and there's no self oscillating resonance - which is very much required.  But I do NOT want to detract from gotoluc's work.  I'm a very big fan of his.  Just not sure that this reference is in any way appropriate.  Not sure why you favour this over those videos that show this very clearly. ??

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 28, 2010, 08:08:08 AM
Hi Guys,

I need to point out a quandary that I've been battling with.  I was rather hoping that someone would point it out.  Another question.  In that battery confirguration (post 75).  Take away the resistor and assume that during the 'on' period of any cycle the discharge battery is 24 volt to the recharge battery 12.  No impedance in the circuit other than a nominal voltage drop across the diodes.  All things being equal then the 24V source will discharge plus minus 2 amps = vi 48 watts.

Here's the kicker.  2 amps is supplied to a 12 volt battery.  Two amps * 12 volts (recharging battery) = vi 24 watts.  Net loss to the system is therefore 24 watts and in terms of conventional measurement protocols there's no useful point to this circuit or this excercise.  Every time that the 24 volt supply discharges it recharges the supply with 24 watts - it marginally heats up two diodes - and the remaining plus/minus 24 watts are lost?  Where?  It's not in heat at the supply batteries - because discharging batteries are NOT known to heat up.  The only impedance/resistance in the circuit is the recharge battery and IT only has 12 volts.  The assumption is that this will restrict the supply current to plus/minus 2 amps.  SO.  Where does that surplus wattage get wasted?  Technically it never reaches the recharge battery.  And the only thing connecting the two of them are some circuit wires. 

Hopefully someone can enlighten me.  At this stage I'm wondering if this circuit is simply pointing to a measurement paradox.  Either that or - as is more likely - I've made a blunder.  The one thing I would point out is that the 24 watts is not in the wires.  Those batteries are effectively in parallel.  And the maximum current flow discharge from the source batteries would be 2 amps. 

regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: gyulasun on July 28, 2010, 09:43:39 AM
Hi Rosemary,

Perhaps the first thing to examine is the 2A current (true RMS, average, peak) value and how dependable the measurement was.

It may start from the switch's duty cycle that eventually controls the current value able to flow due to the 12V voltage difference between the batteries. Pulsed current measurements are not easy you surely know.

And in case it turns out the true current is maybe less than the 2A value, then it can only warm up slowly the inside body volumes of the batteries, making it hardly noticeable, especially in case the measurements lasted for only say 10-15 minutes. (I guess this time duration of course.)

rgds,  Gyula

PS:  Sorry for 'chiming' in.  I am convinced that your switched heating circuit with the inductive resistor can only be evaluated by calorofic measurements (Sandy nicely described this above.)

So this means an enclosure of the inductive resistor into an isolated oil volume, (into a thermos bottle filled with vegetable oil you use for cooking) and using a thermometer inside to note the temperature changes etc then compare the input DC energy consumption to the calculated heat energy.

This was already suggested by Dr Stiffler too last year, Peter Lindemann agreed with him then, but still nobody did it from the energetic forum decent team, instead they dealt with day long scope measurements and you know what.
Yes, I know that measurements, evaluating the waveforms are also important but where is a down to earth proof, a practical 'gadget' that utilizes the extra heat coming from somewhere?
I mean I put on the table two heat sources, I run both simultenously, I measure both input power, suppose they are about the same and then I find one of the heat sources gives out a definitely more, well sensible heat 'stream' than the other.  (Of course, the the heatsource performing better than the other would include your circuit.)
Sorry if such tests have already been done, I surely have missed them.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: fritz on July 28, 2010, 12:08:40 PM
Take away the resistor and assume that during the 'on' period of any cycle the discharge battery is 24 volt to the recharge battery 12.  No impedance in the circuit other than a nominal voltage drop across the diodes.  All things being equal then the 24V source will discharge plus minus 2 amps = vi 48 watts.

If we assume 3 identical 12V batteries  20Ah capacity, 25mOhm internal Resistance, identical charge condition (1+1 == 24V, 1 == 12V), I would expect the following:
Battery Voltage each 12.6V, 3times internal resistance = 75mOhm, Voltage loss diode+switch 2V-> voltage difference==10.6V, resistance 75mOhm
Well, that would give a theoretical value of 140Amps. The major impact will be the wiring and contacts involved (which is missing but would play the dominant role). I would expect something around 30 Amps.
The problem with 140Amps diodes is that they are not the fastest ones.

I would expect the transfered charge as u(diff)(10.6)*i(==u(diff)/(internal resistances+wiring)) *t(on)
->@ 320W (@30Amps) - adding some losses, heating up - we transfer maybe @250W

The diodes would heat up (@30Amps, 1V drop) with 30W each.

So I would assume that you blow any diodes and switches using 20Ah lead-acid with fast diodes at the first pulse.


Here's the kicker.  2 amps is supplied to a 12 volt battery.  Two amps * 12 volts (recharging battery) = vi 24 watts.  Net loss to the system is therefore 24 watts and in terms of conventional measurement protocols there's no useful point to this circuit or this excercise.  Every time that the 24 volt supply discharges it recharges the supply with 24 watts - it marginally heats up two diodes - and the remaining plus/minus 24 watts are lost?  Where?  It's not in heat at the supply batteries - because discharging batteries are NOT known to heat up.  The only impedance/resistance in the circuit is the recharge battery and IT only has 12 volts.  The assumption is that this will restrict the supply current to plus/minus 2 amps.  SO.  Where does that surplus wattage get wasted?  Technically it never reaches the recharge battery.  And the only thing connecting the two of them are some circuit wires. 

Do you use batteries with 2Amps short circuit current ?
I would expect that the heating up of batteries is the same on charging and discharging - only dependent from the current. On top of that you would have extra heating if the battery is full and you try to overcharge it - than heating up will increase dramatically. Same if you charge with too much current.

rgds, fritz.

BTW: You would achieve the maximum transfer if the internal resistance of the battery which is derived from the charge condition is identical. If a full battery charges an empty one - the current would be limited by the internal resistance of the empty one which would be definitely higher. If you charge the full battery with the empty one - again the high internal resistance of the empty one will limit the maximum current.


Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: gyulasun on July 28, 2010, 12:21:30 PM
Hi Fritz,

You wrote a very good post, I agree with it in every respect and unfortunately I surely misunderstood Rosemary's earlier post by assuming the batteries are connected by a controlled switch. This is why I answered that way in my previous post.

Thanks,  Gyula
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: fritz on July 28, 2010, 12:32:52 PM
a controlled switch would make sense  ;D
especially with an inductive load.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 28, 2010, 11:20:28 PM
Gyula and Fritz,  yet again thanks for the explanations.  I see where I was wrong.  There's far less resistance in the battery than I realised.  And however hard one switches - it's going to be increasingly difficult to keep that potential difference between the batteries as those switching cycles develop.  Therefore we would need to use that inductance on the resistor as per the usual circuit.  I've also had it on good authority that the two battery arrangement may not necessarily be any better than one.

That leaves us with the same problem.  How do we use a MOSFET which is known to be brittle at higher wattages.  One can put them in series - as explained by just about everyone.  But my own experience of this is disasterous.  One blown and the others follow in an expensive cascading series where we're left with nothing but that acrid smell of burnt metal (very distinctive). 

By the way Gyula - the preferred 'oil bath' calorimetric test is acknowledged as preferred.  It just was not really required as we were not measuring 'marginal' over unity results.  Had we been doing so then - of course - it would have been required to immerse the resistor in some sort of oil or somesuch liquid.  Those protocols that we applied to all our tests were designed by academics and considered as sufficient - albeit not one academic was prepared to attend a demonstration to accredit those results.  But their objections in those days - were largely based on the 'understanding' or, dare I say it, 'belief' that the circuit - however it was configured - would not be able to 'recharge' itself.  Our measurements and battery performance put paid to that 'belief'.  Indeed - as shown by Bedini et al - the battery rather prefers to be recharged with that heavy duty spike.  It's just that we didn't even bother with the a diode to take that energy back.  It seems that the only path required was supplied by the internal body diode of the MOSFET itself.  In any event.  Our learned and revered were entirely satisfied that a battery could not recharge itself - however it was configured.  They were wrong.  LOL

I was told by sundry transistor manufacturers that the cost of developing a MOSFET at the tolerances we require - would cost in the region of 500 000 Euros.  That's a little outside our budget.

I'm going to see if I can improve that 'give and take' battery configuration to see if I can find some solution.  I still feel that it's a means to get that extra energy.  But it will, undoubtedly, need to be more closely defined and designed.  Perhaps one can use it in conjunction with MOSFET - somehow - to get the benefit of both.  Anyway.  I see more sleepless nights ahead.  LOL

Thanks for your input.  Much appreciated.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 28, 2010, 11:35:54 PM
Guys - this is a big appeal to you all.  I've been approached by a broadcaster to do a documentary on this 'over unity' movement that's gaining momentum all over the place.  I only really know my own circuit. It's a little off topic but I'd be very grateful if you could give me some names of all those 'inventions' that have been proven to give over unity.  Especially as it relates to motors.  Steorn is the one that springs to mind.  Are there others?  I'd quite like to forward this so that he can do the required investigation.

Thanks,
Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: fritz on July 28, 2010, 11:37:24 PM
If we assume 3 identical 12V batteries  20Ah capacity, 25mOhm internal Resistance, identical charge condition (1+1 == 24V, 1 == 12V), I would expect the following:
Battery Voltage each 12.6V, 3times internal resistance = 75mOhm, Voltage loss diode+switch 2V-> voltage difference==10.6V, resistance 75mOhm
Well, that would give a theoretical value of 140Amps. The major impact will be the wiring and contacts involved (which is missing but would play the dominant role). I would expect something around 30 Amps.
The problem with 140Amps diodes is that they are not the fastest ones.

I would expect the transfered charge as u(diff)(10.6)*i(==u(diff)/(internal resistances+wiring)) *t(on)
->@ 320W (@30Amps) - adding some losses, heating up - we transfer maybe @250W

The diodes would heat up (@30Amps, 1V drop) with 30W each.

So I would assume that you blow any diodes and switches using 20Ah lead-acid with fast diodes at the first pulse.

To be correct - I would estimate these figures for current pulses >5ms.
In your circuit you have pulsed DC with  500us pulse duration.

I don´t know your batteries - nor do I have my own data or data from a battery manufactorer at hand so - nothing we can base on.

If we reach down to 1us - I would estimate the internal resistance in the area of few ohms. For 500us - a current from 2-5Amps would sound reasonable.

This is why I heavily suggest to determine the AC input/output resistance of batteries used with such setup.

How to determine AC impedance of a battery ?
Use 80´ties DC coupled HIFI-AMP+sinus generator+output capacitor.
(or industrial servo amp or similar)
Determine the internal resistance as function of frequency using low inductive precise test load (1Ohm).
Measure damping as function of frequency if feeding to battery terminal.
The battery impedance can then be calculated from that damping function corrected with the values from the 1Ohm test.

rgds.

fritz
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 28, 2010, 11:43:48 PM
To be correct - I would estimate these figures for current pulses >5ms.
In your circuit you have pulsed DC with  500us pulse duration.

I don´t know your batteries - nor do I have my own data or data from a battery manufactorer at hand so - nothing we can base on.

If we reach down to 1us - I would estimate the internal resistance in the area of few ohms. For 500us - a current from 2-5Amps would sound reasonable.

This is why I heavily suggest to determine the AC input/output resistance of batteries used with such setup.

How to determine AC impedance of a battery ?
Use 80´ties DC coupled HIFI-AMP+sinus generator+output capacitor.
(or industrial servo amp or similar)
Determine the internal resistance as function of frequency using low inductive precise test load (1Ohm).
Measure damping as function of frequency if feeding to battery terminal.
The battery impedance can then be calculated from that damping function corrected with the values from the 1Ohm test.

rgds.

fritz
Fritz  - thanks for this.  It actually gives me a little renewed hope.  If the current can be restricted to 2 amps we're still in business.  I get it we just need to look to the timing of the switch.  I'll look to doing that battery impedance test.  We're getting delivery of our first bank - acid - in the near future.  I'll photograph them when they're to hand.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinde
Post by: fritz on July 28, 2010, 11:49:34 PM
(ASIDE - all this makes me wonder: why did the previous replicators use such 'heavy-duty' scopes and collect so much electrical data, if the excess output energy is thermal rather than conventional volts & amps?)

"heavy-duty" scopes have the formfactor of a microwave, a DVD burner 1Gb of memory and a 15inch display. ;D
Saw one today. Is used to analyze the IF of our WLAN tranceiver. But too big to steal. ;)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: fritz on July 29, 2010, 12:00:25 AM
If the current can be restricted to 2 amps we're still in business. 

A similar setup as used with stepper motor chopper could be useful.
For high performance stepper motor applications - you use for example stepper motors rated for 3Volts with 24Volt excitation.
With i=L*du/dt you can get fast more current into that ugly coil using 24Volts.
To protect the 3Volt motors from burning down - you have a shunt resistor for sensing the current. If the current exceeds whats rated - its turned  off using slow or fast decay.


For you circuit this could mean - turn the mosfet on by timer - and turn it off if target current is reached using flipflop to drive the motor - set on timer - reset if shunt voltage comparator reaches nominal amps ....

rgds.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 29, 2010, 12:05:00 AM
A similar setup as used with stepper motor chopper could be useful.
For high performance stepper motor applications - you use for example stepper motors rated for 3Volts with 24Volt excitation.
With i=L*du/dt you can get fast more current into that ugly coil using 24Volts.
To protect the 3Volt motors from burning down - you have a shunt resistor for sensing the current. If the current exceeds whats rated - its turned  off using slow or fast decay.


For you circuit this could mean - turn the mosfet on by timer - and turn it off if target current is reached using flipflop to drive the motor - set on timer - reset if shunt voltage comparator reaches nominal amps ....

rgds.
Golly Fritz.  I think we need to enlist you on the team.  I'll run your suggestions through with them.  I'm afraid my knowledge of these motors is zero.  But the others will know how to apply all this.  Thanks again.  I LOVE OPEN SOURCE.   ;D

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: fritz on July 29, 2010, 12:10:49 AM
(...) using acid density/concentration meter meter as found in automotive shops with -non-service-free lead acid batteries - would be another option to get more grip on the "smiling buddha".
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 29, 2010, 12:19:45 AM
(...) using acid density/concentration meter meter as found in automotive shops with -non-service-free lead acid batteries - would be another option to get more grip on the "smiling buddha".

I know these.  They've got the added merit of being inexpensive.   ;D I'd quite like to see less smile in that buddha - if that also means he'll do more work.  LOL

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinde
Post by: nul-points on July 29, 2010, 12:58:27 AM
hi Rosemary

here's a few names to get you started...

Thane Heins
Ed Gray
Robert Adams
The Correa team
Doug Smith
Bruce de Palma

not exhaustive, but high-profile

hope this helps

all the best
sandy
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinde
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 29, 2010, 01:02:52 AM
hi Rosemary

here's a few names to get you started...

Thane Heins
Ed Gray
Robert Adams
The Correa team
Doug Smith
Bruce de Palma

not exhaustive, but high-profile

hope this helps

all the best
sandy

many thanks sandy.  That's a good start. 

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 29, 2010, 10:54:02 AM
Hi everyone. 

Just to let you know that there's a definite shift in those paradigms.  It's tangible.  The more I read in these threads the more I see how CLOSE we are to getting something FINALLY UP AND RUNNING AND USABLE.

On our side - what's such a pleasure is to see the interest that all this hard work is beginning to generate in our mainstream institutions.  Clearly we're still stumbling and there's still the occasional barrier - BUT.  It's clear that this is not time lost.  I can now report that every single aspect of our applications test is partially funded by those parts manufacturers.  And I do not think we'd have been such happy recipients of their generosity if that interest were at question.

And the fact that it's even on a campus is a miracle on it's own.  Hopefully this is more and more evidence that things are changing.  Feeling absurdly optimistic at the moment.  Hope it lasts.

 ;D
Regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24975402/Crashing-Through-the-Energy-Barrier-Final-for-DS-2

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: powercat on July 29, 2010, 11:15:38 AM
Hi Rosie
Re documentary,Stefan is the best source of information on the history of OU research.
I would love to replicate one that works but i am still waiting to see one that has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.(self runner)

After all it's not brain surgery  :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THNPmhBl-8I (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THNPmhBl-8I)
cat
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 29, 2010, 11:28:29 AM
Hi Rosie
Re documentary,Stefan is the best source of information on the history of OU research.
I would love to replicate one that works but i am still waiting to see one that has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.(self runner)

After all it's not brain surgery  :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THNPmhBl-8I (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THNPmhBl-8I)


Hi Cat.  Always a pleasure to see you around.  Re the proof beyond reasonable doubt!  It's a new benchmark to demand a 'self runner'.  That's PERPETUAL MOTION!  LOL.  Still somewhat politically incorrect mention the term in polite company.  I see Mitchell and Webb pipped "I research energy.  Not exactly rocket science is it? "  ;D

But the proof is there Cat.  Just confined to rather small values.  But do give us that over unity number.  It's a good start.   :)

Kindest as ever,
Rosie
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: otto on July 29, 2010, 12:07:54 PM
Hello all,

@Rosemary

nice docu.

So, zipons are the particles. I suppose the positive particles.

Whats with the NEGATIVE particles?

Otto
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 29, 2010, 12:38:29 PM
Hello all,

@Rosemary

nice docu.

So, zipons are the particles. I suppose the positive particles.

Whats with the NEGATIVE particles?

Otto

Hello Otto.  The zipons are neither postive nor negative.  They're dipoles.  So the proposal is that they've got both - very much like a bar magnet.  If they were entirely positive or negative they would not be able to assemble in that orderly 'field' arrangement.

What's being addressed here is a problem with the concept of current flow being based on the flow of electrons.  This is widely used as model but actually has an intrinisic problem.  Electrons are 'like charged' which, according to Pauli's exclusion principle - means that they cannot share a path.  And current flow is based on the concept of a shared path of 'something'.

Here the idea is that atoms are 'held bound' in some kind of solid or liquid amalgams - usually three dimensional.  And the actual molecular and atomic structures are arranged - not so much through a self ordered system - into their crystaline structures - but are arranged by these one dimensional magnetic fields of zipons that bind those atoms into that identifiable amalgam.  When and if they are moved - through voltage imbalances - then they simply change their 'abodes' or positions or spins - to accommodate that imbalance.  So the thing that moves through space as current flow are these fields of zipons.  And they can move in either direction - being both positive and negative.  And they can share a path precisely because they do not have only one monopolar property.  In effect the ENERGY that we measure - is the result of these fields moving towards a state of balance. 

The thing is this.  It's proposed that they are invisible - dark - because they exceed light speed.  We can only measure this as voltage imbalance - or see it when an innate imabalance takes them out of that hidden field condition.  And when this happens - when the resistors get hot - then that results in a degradation of the bound state of that resistor.  It effectively compromises the structure itself.  And the recharge/discharge cycle is simply determined by the direction of that current flow through the circuit.  One way will recharge the battery.  The other way will discharge it.

Hope that makes it clearer.  If not ask away.  I'd be very glad to get these points understood.  Not to say that they're right.  But thus far it seems to be consistent with the evidence.

Regards,
Rosemary   
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33988924/DARK-MATTER-MFM
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: otto on July 29, 2010, 12:59:05 PM
Rosemary,

yes, sounds good for me, thanks.

Im not good in theory I think) but Im very good in blowing all kind of electronics, wires,big batteries......and all the stuff around my TPU.

Otto

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 29, 2010, 01:03:59 PM
Rosemary,

yes, sounds good for me, thanks.

Im not good in theory I think) but Im very good in blowing all kind of electronics, wires,big batteries......and all the stuff around my TPU.

Otto

 ;D LOL Otto.  Nor am I.  But what I lack in ability I make up for in interest.   ;D But to make good use of this is all that's needed.  Indeed.  And I think you guys have a far better handle on the applications than I do.  Hopefully we'll see all this being put to some good uses.  MUCH NEEDED.  Personally I'm tired of being confined to 'small applications'.  The latest idea is to use IGBT's.  I think it was mentioned here by someone?  Maybe Fritz.  In any event they can take more power.  And we can possibly compensate for that lack of a body diode by simply putting a diode across it.  Hopefully it'll work.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: otto on July 29, 2010, 01:46:47 PM
Rosemary,

MOSFETs are just fine!! Im using IRFP 450 MOSFETs and this are the only one I almost cant blow.
A lot of times I have connected them in wrong ways and they all "survived" my "out of mind" connections. They are good and fast enough.

It seems that I have to throw my TPU into water to see how fast the water would get hot and not to forget, how highly energized particles would "love" a water bath.

Yes, Im a little bit crazy because I want to SEE!!

You said you want more power?? Something like this. Hmmmm. you also said that your setup is not frequency depend. Of course your setup depends on the used frequency because this frequency is pulsating the battery. And from the battery you get the voltage!
So, use 2 oscillators - carefully. Because in 1 moment we have a oridinary battery and in another moment we have an electrolyser!! A very powerfull one.

Otto
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 29, 2010, 03:04:08 PM
Hi Otto, 

I think we used IRFPG50's  - I could try that 450 number.  But here's the actual problem.  In our experiments we used a R10 Ohm resistor - (inductive number) and the best we could get is between 28 and 34 watts of heat from the circuit using it.  Notwithstanding which the actual measured voltage in the CEMF exceeds 1100 which is very nearly at the FET's limit.  So - that's the problem.  I think you guys refer to it as 'rise time'.  We need to switch it to get the required resonance - and in switching it we restrict the current flow required to get enough power into the system.  The good thing is that the high voltage gives a huge punch to return that voltage through the battery.  And it definitely recharges the battery which means that the energy delivered is almost zero.  And there's still that 28 odd watts of heat at the load which is way in excess of the energy delivered by the source.  But ITS NOT ENOUGH.  We now have to heat 8 litres of water.  It calls for way more energy.  Which also means that we need a transistor with a voltage tolerance in the 10's of thousands.  The hope is that maybe an IGBT can cut it.  But then the next problem is to establish the return path for the current flow from the CEMF to recharge the batteries.  So... We're thinking a diode across the switch may do it?  It could take the place of that internal body diode that we depend on in the FET? 

Not sure how it will pan.  The hope is rather focused on using that circuit design on that 'back to front' battery system with a return path of both cycles for the CEMF.  Maybe it will add to the heat and - provided we can return this to the battery to recharge - then this may compensate for the losses we're expecting from switching the IGBT.  I'm in unchartered territory here Otto.  I just don't know.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

edited irfpg50
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: nul-points on July 29, 2010, 06:01:40 PM
hi all

ok, now there is the beginning of a specification taking shape: 8L water!

the requirement list will need to grow from there


is it required to boil the water?  or just reach a certain temp?

is the next device just for testing or will it also eventually have to be practical (eg. for domestic use?)


let's consider a domestic kettle (just an example);

  - in a 220V consumer supply region, a 2KW kettle would handle approx 9A

  - the heating element would be need to be approx 24 ohms

  (max. volume of water is likely around 2L; heats water to 100*C in, say, up to 3 mins)


if the development of the circuit being proposed here (in this thread) is to continue using batteries then its likely that the supply volts will be much lower and the current much higher than the kettle example

we can see already that a heater impedance near 10 ohms is unlikely to be close to target - if we used a 24V battery supply for the kettle application  then we've divided the supply voltage by approx. 10 so we'd need to multiply the current by a similar factor (to around 90A in this example!)

we'd need a heating element with an impedance of around 0.25 ohm


so, one approach might be to 'divide-and-conquer' - have multiple 'inductive resistor' elements which can be safely handled by available MOSFETS; each sharing a fraction of the total current


are there other switching devices which might be considered?
 (eg. the SCR - or a related device)

  - supply voltage (and current also?) might be less of a constraint

  - but would an alternative switch - an SCR, say - have the required switching-speed characteristics?


so - some more requirements needed:-

 - target temp. for the 8L water
 - preferred supply voltage
 - practical constraints on the circuit
   (eg. would 10 elements + 10 switch devices, say, be acceptable just for tests, etc)

more (or tighter) requirements will help achieve a closer-bounded solution space

...sorry, i'm starting to sound like Prof. 'Lead Out'!   my meds must be starting to wear off!!  ;)

'nuff from me for now, regards
sandy
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 29, 2010, 07:59:59 PM
ok, now there is the beginning of a specification taking shape: 8L water!
is it required to boil the water?  or just reach a certain temp?
Hi Sandy.  The water does not need to boil - but I'd like to test it to boiling point.  We'll be fitting the cylinder with pressure valves so it probably won't get much over 80 degrees centigrade.

is the next device just for testing or will it also eventually have to be practical (eg. for domestic use?)
It's intended for use - as is.  There may be a market for this as our rural communities are off grid and their only access to hot water is by lighting fires.  Modified versions of this would be ideal to cook with - but that's definitely phase 2 - down the line.

let's consider a domestic kettle (just an example);

  - in a 220V consumer supply region, a 2KW kettle would handle approx 9A
  - the heating element would be need to be approx 24 ohms
  (max. volume of water is likely around 2L; heats water to 100*C in, say, up to 3 mins)


if the development of the circuit being proposed here (in this thread) is to continue using batteries then its likely that the supply volts will be much lower and the current much higher than the kettle example
At this stage we're aiming for not less than 100 volts dc (battery supply) and possibly as high as 200 depending on whether or not we use the nickle metal hydride in conjunction with the lead acids.

we can see already that a heater impedance near 10 ohms is unlikely to be close to target - if we used a 24V battery supply for the kettle application  then we've divided the supply voltage by approx. 10 so we'd need to multiply the current by a similar factor (to around 90A in this example!)

we'd need a heating element with an impedance of around 0.25 ohm
I agree.  We need low resistance and high inductance in the resistor.  But we're planning to test a variety of these resistors to see which work best.  Again.  The problem is to determine the 'switching speeds' to generate the required 'preferred oscillation' and yet retain enough power to ensure that there is some realistic level of efficiency in getting that water hot.

so, one approach might be to 'divide-and-conquer' - have multiple 'inductive resistor' elements which can be safely handled by available MOSFETS; each sharing a fraction of the total current
We considered this option.  The down side here is that multiple units is possibly clumsy and expensive.  Hopefully we'll get around this option.

are there other switching devices which might be considered?
 (eg. the SCR - or a related device)

  - supply voltage (and current also?) might be less of a constraint
  - but would an alternative switch - an SCR, say - have the required switching-speed characteristics?
 
I have no idea.  You guys would know the answer.  One proposal made is that we use an IGBT as mentioned.  But then we'd need to introduce that diode across the switch to get a path for the CEMF induced current flow.  Still to be tested.

So that's where we're at.  But we still need to get some thermostat's and pressure gauges installed in the cylinder.  It's only just been plumbed in.  I'll take a photo of the set up either over the weekend or on Monday.  And we're still debating the best switch - and we've still got one more resistor to build before we can actually start those tests.  But I think it's a week away - at the most.  Can't wait.  I'll keep you posted.  And I'd be very glad of any advices that anyone can offer regarding switches.  Sandy?  Perhaps you can explain that SCR number.  I'm afraid I've never even heard of them.  I also want to explore a reed type switch but have been advised that it may be too 'sticky' and that there's a problem with arcing.  It seems we'll be obliged to use a transistor of some sort.  But not such a bad thing as we can at least retain that switching speed.

Thanks for the focus you've given us with these questions Sandy. 
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinde
Post by: nul-points on July 30, 2010, 01:13:05 AM
hi Rosemary

apologies, i didn't mean for you to have to field all those questions

obviously you need to provide the requirement-related answers, but the more implementation-oriented ones are thrown out for consideration by members with power-application experience

your application sounds intriguing and very worthy - could this type of development herald the start of a new-technology steam age?

SCR is 'silicon-controlled rectifier'  - like a switchable diode - usually found controlling power devices on the mains supply - hence they can have pretty good voltage and current rating

however, i'm not so sure their switch-off behaviour would be suitable for initiating the inductive 'kick' of field collapse - but i'm sure folks with power-switching knowledge will advise

as you say, IGBTs have been suggested - but was there still a current-drive issue with them?  over to the heavy-current gurus!

i would expect reed switches to be discounted on two scores: 

 - they're not at all suited to any kind of current drive, especially with inductive loads (arcing issues, as you say)

 - they have very limited upper switching frequency - low hundreds Hz at best - i think your basic waveform is around a few kHz - and i don't think they'd be able to cope with your aperiodic or parasitic oscillation drive

a regular power relay would be better at the current drive - but equally dismal with the frequency response i feel

SSR - solid-state relay - might be a runner, again need input from those with power experience


more than enough** from me!

all the best
sandy


**oops... not quite...

  Rosemary, you *have* to see this:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOv0AkphLhE&feature=pyv&ad=4232609694&kw=magnet&gclid=CNefjon5kaMCFYeY2Aodini3nA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOv0AkphLhE&feature=pyv&ad=4232609694&kw=magnet&gclid=CNefjon5kaMCFYeY2Aodini3nA)

...zipons, or what?!?  :)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinde
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 30, 2010, 05:49:19 AM
  Rosemary, you *have* to see this:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOv0AkphLhE&feature=pyv&ad=4232609694&kw=magnet&gclid=CNefjon5kaMCFYeY2Aodini3nA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOv0AkphLhE&feature=pyv&ad=4232609694&kw=magnet&gclid=CNefjon5kaMCFYeY2Aodini3nA)

...zipons, or what?!?  :)
Hello Sandy,
I've seen this before.  How fascinating is that?  Just to rabbit on a little about physics - you probably know this.  Bell's theorems.  Let me assure you I have no idea what they are - but I do understand their conclusion.  From memory he says something to the effect 'The statistical predictions of quantum theories ....cannot be upheld by local hidden variables'.  I think this points to the fact that on a very profound level there has to be PERFECT symmetry - else our manifest universe would need to be utterly chaotic.  And it does seem as if that magnetised spherical shape very easily forms into symmetrical arrangements.  I am SO into patterns.  I'll have to try and get hold of some of those magnets.  Where does one buy them?

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: otto on July 30, 2010, 08:13:42 AM
Hello all,

@Rosemary

so you want to warm up 8 liters of water.

You know about cold fusion??

Otto
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 30, 2010, 08:39:10 AM
Hello all,

@Rosemary

so you want to warm up 8 liters of water.

You know about cold fusion??

Otto
hello all.

@Otto.
Interesting question.  Do you?
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: otto on July 30, 2010, 12:20:03 PM
Finally a clever person named Rosemary.

About heating water and the cold fusion stuff I know almost everything. I worked for years on the cold fusion "problem". I also heated my house with the  cold fusion principle. The problem was that is was summer and outside hot and not to mention inside my house. HOT!!

I used cold fusion only to heat up water in a very fast way. It was really not a problem but in that time I didnt know about pulsed coils and all the stuff.

In short why dont you heat up 0,2 liters of water and this water is feeded into a heat exchanger ......bla,bla, bla.... old boring stuff.

Otto
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: fritz on July 30, 2010, 01:12:27 PM
I would upscale & verify the original setup in a very careful way:

1.) Optimize the wiring to shortest possible connections with perfect contacts avoiding loops using   upscaled     diameters.
     (we don´t want to be fooled by EMF or contact issues)
2.) Analyse the effect with an entire lot of batteries observing chemistry
3.) Identify the feedback mechanism which is causes that jittering oscillation.
     This could be EMF, power spikes - but probably its the load spike coupled via drain-gate capacity via R1      pot - NE555 output - NE555 internal protection diodes - finally shifting NE555 comparator levels causing jittering oscillation.
4.) Try to galvanically isolate pulse generator from power circuit using opto-coupler.
     Maybe its possible to get the effect on feeding _ANY_ jittering oscillation with similar frequency.
5.) Identify the role of R1 as consequence of the 3.) - 4.)
     Is the role of R1 just to maintain that jittering oscillation using parasitic feedback from backEMF coupled via DS-cap ?. Is the role of R1 to limit the slope of charging the gate - or both. Would it work with outside jittering control signal - or is the feedback from the physical  load needed ?

6.) Based on 5.) it should be possible to design a robust system with properly driven mosfet (eliminate R1), operating independent from mosfet type and "instant on" operation. (maybe adaptive controller needed)

7.) Now it would be the right time to upscale batteries, currents, mosfets.
     Is this effect upscalable ? is there a maximum current depending on battery type ?

... and so on.
find the apropriate questions - and get your answers.

just replacing that mosfet with igbt, scr, ss-relay would change the way how this operates by 5 dimensions, with the only outcome that it doesnt work. Even if you could achieve same operation- you would restart at 3) seeing 5 other effects to explain.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinde
Post by: nul-points on July 30, 2010, 03:00:02 PM
  I'll have to try and get hold of some of those magnets.  Where does one buy them?

i expect Google and eBay will be your friends here!  ;)


i haven't seen anything like this before - but when i stumbled on this video yesterday it reminded me immediately of the zipon models in your Scribd paper

i thought you might interested to have some to make physical illustration of different stable configurations


all the best
sandy


PS.  in the video the presenter uses a credit-card to separate the magnets: ...probably not a good idea to use a card whose magnetic stripe contains important information!
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 30, 2010, 06:30:14 PM
Hello again Fritz,

I get it that you're recommending that we redo all those tests?  And check the measurements?  Interesting.  And your recommendation is that we go back to the 'third para to check or 'identify the feedback mechanism which is causes that jittering oscillation...' !  This simply indicates that, like so many others, you are assuming either an incorrect measurement or attributing a measurement to an incorrect cause. 

This actually goes to the heart of the problem with all OU claims.  Frankly I'm tired of answering these questions - but see that it's required.  And I'm not sure that anything I write here will make a blind bit of difference.  The simple truth is that this OU claim, as with so many others - is met with rank - and, probably, very appropriate scepticism.

It must be reasonably obvious to all readers here that my knowledge of circuitry is somewhat scant.  I really cannot stress how little I know.  But the learning curve associated with the design and type of switches is not that steep.  I'm reasonably sure that with a bit of application I could probably wrap my mind around it.  I'm not sure one first has to be Einstein to understand them or apply them.  I deliberately keep my knowledge vague - for a variety of reasons.  If this post doesn't stress everyone's attention by being a bit lengthy then I'll explain it better.  I'm rather anxious to demystify physics generally.  I really need to keep it simple.

But to begin with I'll try and point out where I started.  I developed a magnetic field model - without ever picking up a book that explained current flow or any applied electrical engineering.  I simply read the Dancing Wu Li Masters.  A really brilliant book that tackles the explanation of physics from purely conceptual terms.  Had this not been my introduction then I very much doubt that I'd have had a handle on the subject at all.  The point is this.  I had an edge that qualified physicists don't yet understand.  Physics is perfectly advanced from a conceptual standpoint.  Possibly better understood like this than through the abstractions of mathematics.  It must be remembered that Pauli - as an example - defied that the atom could ever be conceptualised and recommended that it remain in pure pure abstract mathematical terms.  Our quantum mechanics rather depend on this.  The second advantage I had was that the only text book on physics that I could ever understand was written by Paul Dyson.  Another marvel of clarity.  In effect these two writers managed what most physicists don't.  They wrote the subject in simple concept.  They did not lapse into those dry and bewildering abstractions that generate a slew of unanswerable questions where the 'general picture' is lost in ever deepening cycles of obscurity.  To follow an argument in physics as rendered by your average physicists it to first require a romp into equations and symbols that are as meaningful to the average layman as those symbols of magic must have been to the layman in Medieval times.  Think of the authority that must have given the Merlins of that time.  It's the same authority that our mainstream academic have wrested from us, the lay public.  I wonder to what extent they would be 'laughed out of court' should physics ever become SO simple - that your average 6 year old can follow the most of it and your average teenager the whole of it.  And what then if not one single part of it requires a mathematical equation.  THAT would be to commit a kind of heresy.  It would be deemed to be sacrilege.  It would need some skilled witch hunting.  A burning at the stake.  It would need to be addressed in terms of utter contempt and dismissal.  Else, all that nonsense associated with the 'abstractions' and 'deep imponderables' would be seen as a kind of wild pretension aimed at controlling all that knowledge or - God forbid - hiding a lack of it.

Actually.  That's what I propose is the case.  Really profound questions have still to be answered by mainstream.  I am firmly convinced that the actual essense of physics is that simple that your first lessons should be advanced at your early grades and your final lessons in your first year of high school.  Everything after that is FUN.

Which is - at the risk of sounding somewhat ridiculous - my mission here and on these experiments.  And which is why I am anxious to keep my explanations simple and unpretentious.  No-one told me that the flow of current was the flow of electrons.  I had to work it out from the term 'charge' as referenced by both Dyson and Zukov.  But when I finally understood that mainstream considered current flow to be the flow of electrons - then I had a real PROBLEM.  How is this possible in the light of Pauli's exclusion principle?  And anyway.  By now I was knee deep in my experiments and I had already determined that current flow comprised the flow of magnetic fields.  Then - because I KNEW this - then I also KNEW that I could return this to the battery to recharge the battery.  That was my early test.  I used inductors with diodes and routed current flow back to the battery to recharge it.  But the problem with those early tests was this.  The result was not extreme enough to be conclusive enough.  I needed a more dramatic result.  That's when I discovered the property of the mosfet with it's strategically placed body diode.  There was my path.  Once I found this I could switch at speed and then... finally, the result was dramatically and clearly evident.

The circuit was first presented to some physicists at UCT - Professor Violie and Professor Klaymans (apologies if I've spelled their names wrongly) - in and around the year 2000.  That was just to express the logic.  In other words the objective was to return inductance back to the battery to recharge the battery.  In effect - I was proposing that the equivalence principle would be challenged if - indeed - a battery could recharge itself.  They both acknowledged that the test would be conclusive - one way or the other and even suggested that their own lab technician do the test.  The technician declined.  He said he was not prepared to get involved with 'over unity' tests.  The downside was that nor were they prepared to evaluate the circuit when I finally achieved that effect.  I was told that they were theoreticians.  They would NOT evaluate experimental apparatus as it was outside their field of expertise.  LOL

But the reaction form our academic engineers - where the measurement of energy IS indeed in their expertise - was that they roundly assured me that the battery COULD NOT RECHARGE ITSELF.  Simple.  Period.  They would not waste their time.  That started a kind of 'dialogue' if such it could be called - where the entire engineering fraternity on three local campuses - effectively learned to put the phone down on me if and when I called.  At this stage my argument was simply - 'just take a look at the experiment'.  I eventually gave up and took the experiment to industry.  There - obviously in view of a more pragmatic interest in applied energies - there was enough curiosity to at least attend a demonstration and apply their own measurements or test parameters.  Whatever new 'angle' they required - I tested it.  If they told me to jump a foot - I jumped 2 feet.  BP wanted battery duration tested with carefully established controls.  Sasol were happy with a demonstration.  ABB Research (North Carolina) wanted the entire apparatus and then to do the tests as they chose.  Spescom used ever more specialised measuring instruments.  The more specialised the instruments the better the result.  And whichever test was required it was performed.  I say this everywhere.  Sasol even offered UCT a bursary award to take the study further which offer was politely declined due to an overarching lack of interest. 

What I'm trying to show you here Fritz is this.  Every test that could possibly be required to prove this result has been performed.  I absolutely WILL NOT be persuaded to redo proof of concept.  It's been done to death.  I've mentioned 4 companies here only because they're all quoted on our local bourse.  But there were many other engineers.  Many, many both as individuals and as companies.  2 solid years of my life was devoted to promoting this proof.  My final push was to get a paper published in an academic reviewed journal.  Needless to say I failed.  So I did the next best thing.  I published in a technical journal.  I also put the apparatus on display for a week at MTN Sciencentre in continuous demonstration mode in the hopes of interesting physicists at a conference being held there.  This at the request of the admin at that Centre.  Needless to say not one person attended a demo nothwithstanding it's being well publicised.  And then I just gave up.  My son - bless him, saw this as a cause of my deepening depression and, knowing something of the internet he put up my blogspot 8 years after these sorry events.  Then the subject took fire and the rest is history.

But it's history repeating itself in many ways.  I would remind you of my article 'IF I WAS A TROLL' which I'll append for those of you who may not yet have read it.  It's my experience on open sourcing this.  Some of my experience in any event.  I've yet to write chapter 2. What I'm trying to tell you is this - and I cannot stress it enough.  Yet I'm committed to Open Source.  I keep hoping that those with insight and with the ability to understand that simple, simple model - will be able to develop it as required.

The RESULTS are REQUIRED in terms of a magnetic field model.  The results have been MEASURED according to exacting measurements protocols established by those very same academic engineers who for all these years would NOT LOOK at the principles.  The battery depletes at the rate that is measured across the shunt resistor.  And the resistor cooks at a level of wattage dissipation WELL IN EXCESSS of the energy seen and measured to be delivered by the battery.  NOW.  I really do need to move on.  We all do.   

Regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33937867/IF-I-WAS-A-TROLL
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: fritz on July 30, 2010, 08:48:25 PM
I get it that you're recommending that we redo all those tests?

I´dont know what tests you have done. If there is some more data needed (for the process to scale it up) which cant be derived from the already performed tests - its probably necessary to do further tests. I remember that I suggested to check the wiring - because we want to have more amps .....

And check the measurements?

why not. Everytime I exchange a component or modify something I make my measurements. piece by piece.
Because I want to improve or even maintain the already achieved performance - if some change degrades the perfomance I want to know and identify that as early as possible.

  Interesting.  And your recommendation is that we go back to the 'third para to check or 'identify the feedback mechanism which is causes that jittering oscillation...' !

What is the feedback mechanism ? special anti-matter phenomenon within NE555? no.
If you have to replace NE555 and mosfet with different circuit to scale up the amps - you probably don´t want to break the already working feedback.
So you have to investigate it - and replace it by something workable with the scaled up version.

  This simply indicates that, like so many others, you are assuming either an incorrect measurement or attributing a measurement to an incorrect cause. 

paranoia ?

I trust your measurements and the effect. If it comes to your theory - well I don´t understand it - why should I comment it - or question it ?
Do I need to believe it if I cannot understand it ? no.  I think thats a fair approach.


peace.

rgds.

fritz

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 31, 2010, 12:26:43 AM

I trust your measurements and the effect. If it comes to your theory - well I don´t understand it - why should I comment it - or question it ?
Do I need to believe it if I cannot understand it ? no.  I think thats a fair approach.

I agree.  I've defined the first phase of this procedure to test until we get the required waveform.  Thereafter - phase 2 - optimising it.  All measurements confined to energy delivered by the supply compared to energy dissipated at the load.  There is NO need to rerun proof of concept.  And there is no need to redefine the measurement parameters.

I'm not paranoid Fritz.  I'm tired.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: fritz on July 31, 2010, 12:45:03 AM
There is NO need to rerun proof of concept.  And there is no need to redefine the measurement parameters.

somhow you don´t understand me.



Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 31, 2010, 01:27:07 AM
I would upscale & verify the original setup in a very careful way:

1.) Optimize the wiring to shortest possible connections with perfect contacts avoiding loops using   upscaled     diameters.
     (we don´t want to be fooled by EMF or contact issues)
This would determine if the 'effect' is the result of vagaries associated with the wiring.

2.) Analyse the effect with an entire lot of batteries observing chemistry
This would determine if the 'effect' of a recharge may not be consistent with actual recharge.

3.) Identify the feedback mechanism which is causes that jittering oscillation.
     This could be EMF, power spikes - but probably its the load spike coupled via drain-gate capacity via R1      pot - NE555 output - NE555 internal protection diodes - finally shifting NE555 comparator levels causing jittering oscillation.
This would determine if the switch is responsible for what we claim is 'self resonance' or 'preferred oscillation.

4.) Try to galvanically isolate pulse generator from power circuit using opto-coupler.
     Maybe its possible to get the effect on feeding _ANY_ jittering oscillation with similar frequency.
This would determine if the resonance can be 'imposed' on the circuit

5.) Identify the role of R1 as consequence of the 3.) - 4.)

     Is the role of R1 just to maintain that jittering oscillation using parasitic feedback from backEMF coupled via DS-cap ?. Is the role of R1 to limit the slope of charging the gate - or both. Would it work with outside jittering control signal - or is the feedback from the physical  load needed ?
Not sure what a DS-cap is.  I take it that R1 is the load resistor.  The control signal DOES NOT jitter. I take it - nonetheless - that would determine whether the load inductance was responsible for the oscillation.

6.) Based on 5.) it should be possible to design a robust system with properly driven mosfet (eliminate R1), operating independent from mosfet type and "instant on" operation. (maybe adaptive controller needed)
Not sure what you're recommending here.  Presumably whether or not it could be determined if the switching circuit alone could generate the 'effect'.

7.) Now it would be the right time to upscale batteries, currents, mosfets.
     Is this effect upscalable ? is there a maximum current depending on battery type ?

... and so on.
find the apropriate questions - and get your answers.
This would not work for the reasons that I've explained.  We've 'scaled it' as far as it can go with the MOSFET.  We've tried MOSFETS in series.  It's too brittle.

just replacing that mosfet with igbt, scr, ss-relay would change the way how this operates by 5 dimensions, with the only outcome that it doesnt work. Even if you could achieve same operation- you would restart at 3) seeing 5 other effects to explain.
a predicted change in '5 dimensions'.  'Go back to 3'. 'the only outcome that it doesnt work'.  What part of this is experimentally relevant and how much of this is determined as required precisely because of that predicted outcome 'it doesn't work'? 

What you have listed here Fritz are the very questions that were addressed by our accreditors.  The experimental evidence was required in terms of the thesis.  The experimental results speak to the thesis.  There is NO other interpretation.  Else we would not have got that accreditation.  This is precisely why I do not want to waste more time on this thread with more experiments related to proof of concept.  And exactly what is it that I still do not understand?  What is as clear as daylight is that you doubt the results related to proof of concept.  I could spend another year researching this to your satisfaction and still you would have doubts.  It's the nature of the claim that causes this.  Those results.  They do NOT make sense in the context of known physics.  The ONLY time that these results will be accepted is when we have our appliance up and running.  Proof then will be both demonstrable AND commercially exploitable.  Everyone understands their bank balance and how this may impact on their bank balance.  Or alternatively - it may be accepted when and if the model that predicted these results is accepted as an explanation.  Those are the only two remaining hopes to getting this and possibly all OU technologies accepted. 

Regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 31, 2010, 02:18:18 AM
And guys,  apologies for consecutive posts - but there's another point I should highlight.

I have discovered NOTHING.  The explanation for this energy is already well argued within mainstream science.  It's Dark Energy - related to Dark mass.  It simply means that our string theorists are RIGHT.  So are all theses related to the God particle.  So are all those who anxiously promote aether energy.  It's the same thing as dark energy.  The only difference is this.  I've presumed to locate all that energy in a magnetic field.  I saw no reason to go any further.  It provides a perfect reconciliation of all the forces which include - the strong and weak nuclear force, the electromagnetic force and gravity.  The fields separate into three distinct divisions - based in the varying field manifestations.  One dimensional and they bind matter.  Two dimensional they are isolated into atomic structures associated with the atoms' energy levels.  Three dimensional and they belong to toroidal fields.  Small scale are magnets.  Large scale - it is proposed to shape the entire universe.  In effect I've presumed to define energy itself.  HUGELY presumptuous.  But someone had to do it.  And better it comes from an ignoramus than a learned.  I have no reputation to lose.  LOL
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: fritz on July 31, 2010, 01:17:32 PM
This would determine if the 'effect' is the result of vagaries associated with the wiring.

No !
You definitely need wires to connect your parts.
If you want to upscale your device for higher currents and load - you will need more diameter for the wire.
20Ah batteries have an internal resistance of 15mOhms. Thats almost in the range of the wiring.
For an upscaled device - you probably want to choose 100Ah or 400Ah batteries.
Whats the resistance of the wires in the demo device ? Do you know ?
Maybe there is a minimum resistance needed for save operation ? Do you know ?
Wires are inductors - what inductivity have the wires in the demo setup ? Do you know ?

If you´re engineering something - you have to deal with all that stuff.
Whats wrong with it ?

This would determine if the 'effect' of a recharge may not be consistent with actual recharge.

No !

As already mentioned different batteries have different internal resistance, depending on temperature, charge condition and pulse durations involved.
Actual batteries are not rated for that purpose - means you have no data nor guarantee that values will be different - for the same lot - or the same battery model. So you have to collect the data on your own. Even if the effect is proven - it is of no value if it works just with a single battery.
So if you want to build lots of things like that - you have to get a grip on your key components. The battery is a key component.
You may add overvoltage and deep discharge circuits and so on...


This would determine if the switch is responsible for what we claim is 'self resonance' or 'preferred oscillation.

What I have seen on your scope traces is a sporadic 50MHz glitch introducing a "short" cycle.
All "normal" cycles don´t have this glitch. This glitch comes initially from the NE555 power supply rail.
But how does it come there ? inductive coupling ? On experimenting - you can find out.

This would determine if the resonance can be 'imposed' on the circuit

This would be prefered, because you cannot solder 10 NE555 on top of each other to increase the drive level to drive more mosfets with increased gate charge.
So you probably want to replace that NE555 with something that automatically adjusts and seeks the right properties for that oscillation.

Not sure what a DS-cap is.  I take it that R1 is the load resistor.  The control signal DOES NOT jitter. I take it - nonetheless - that would determine whether the load inductance was responsible for the oscillation.

The gate of a mosfet has almost infinite resistance against source and drain.
But the gate forms mutual capacitors with source and drain.
This capacitor ranges from 100pF up to 100dreds of nF depending on the used part, how much in parallel and so on.
This capacity is somewhat determined in the datasheet - but has significant tolerances.
In a "professional" design - you want to get rid of those uncertain conditions.
In your demo circuit - the gate capacity plays an important role - because it forms an RC low-pass with R1.
This is why you would have to match R1 every time you change the mosfet.
In first order - the gate capacity against source (in combination with R1) limits the amount of time needed to charge up the gate and to discharge it - which finally controls the figure of the output resistance varying with time on switching on and off.

Otherwise we  have that mutual drain-gate capacity (DS was a typo). If you discharge the gate capacity (turning off) - the back-emf of the inductive load will lift off together with the drain voltage. Because of the DG capacity - we have a flow of charge from drain to gate on switching off.
In a normal circuit you overcome that by having a low resistor from gate to ground - and an extra protection diode to protect the gate.
You can break the mosfet by having a higher gs voltage than rated - typical 15 volts.
If you would switch an inductive load with a mosfet - and would disconnect the gate immediatley on turning off - the back emf on the drain will lift the gate via drain-gate capacity - and the mosfet would be dead.;-(((

But this means that the DG capacity can operate as a feedback path.



Not sure what you're recommending here.  Presumably whether or not it could be determined if the switching circuit alone could generate the 'effect'.
This would not work for the reasons that I've explained.  We've 'scaled it' as far as it can go with the MOSFET.  We've tried MOSFETS in series.  It's too brittle.
a predicted change in '5 dimensions'.  'Go back to 3'. 'the only outcome that it doesnt work'.  What part of this is experimentally relevant and how much of this is determined as required precisely because of that predicted outcome 'it doesn't work'? 

The only proof would be to try it out. (using tunable external pseudo-random oscillator).
Getting rid of that 555 and the mosfet and the tuning of R1 is essential for scaling up.
If the mosfet (dg-capacity)+ R1 + coupling spike back into 555 is the feedback path - then you will run into problems changing that configuration.
(because that path is broken then)
If the outcome of further investigation is that you have to insert a short cycle if there is a special signature in the load current (already mentioned 50MHz glitch) - then we can design a circuit for that triggering as huge mosfets banks as needed.
But right now the chicken and egg thing isn´t clear.
If this glitched is caused by an intermittant NE555 output stage overload effect - well a pseudo random oscillator would do the same job.

What you have listed here Fritz are the very questions that were addressed by our accreditors.  The experimental evidence was required in terms of the thesis.  The experimental results speak to the thesis.  There is NO other interpretation.  Else we would not have got that accreditation.  This is precisely why I do not want to waste more time on this thread with more experiments related to proof of concept.

And exactly what is it that I still do not understand?

That there is a different point of view.
You found something, invented something, there is a proof of concept.

But transforming that to an easy replicable and scalable "technology" is a job on its own.
If I use my oscilloscope to find an intermittant glitch crashing my controller - this doesn´t mean that I dont´t trust proof of concept.

  What is as clear as daylight is that you doubt the results related to proof of concept.  I could spend another year researching this to your satisfaction and still you would have doubts.

Is it necessary to wipe away my doubts if I just want to help you with the driver stage ?
A hands-on experience would wipe away doubts anyway if they really exist.

  It's the nature of the claim that causes this.  Those results.  They do NOT make sense in the context of known physics.

OK there is something, a battery, a load, a switch, excess energy. A miracle happens.
But BTW: I don´t think that there is a bubble in spacetime which surrouds your circuit causing everything to work completly different.


In that case I cant help you anyway because I dont know how electronic components in a spacetime bubble operate.
 


Regards,
Fritz
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on July 31, 2010, 09:39:33 PM
Hello Fritz,

I've struggled through various attempts at answering your post.  I think I need to cut through to the chase.  In the first instance - if we are dealing with a 'glitch' as you call it then that 'glitch' was required and predicted.  Here's the logic.  I've written this before.  I'd be glad if you could read this again, or for the first time.  Whichever.

It is a little known truth that no person - not even amongst our greats - has ever been able to state unequivocally what comprises electric current.  They've seen arcing, sparking, lights burning, heating, and God knows what all.  But NO-ONE has ever been able to definitively state what makes electic current.  It is attributed to 'the flow of charge' - per our purists.  It's widely ascribed to the flow of 'electrons' by our electrical engineers.  BUT.  IF it was the flow of electrons then that's the REAL miracle.  Far, far greater than the 'miracle bubble' that you so contemptuously refer to in our experiment.  Here's why.  Electrons simply cannot 'share a path'.  They cannot go down the same road - together.  They have a 'like' charge.  The inherent repulsion between these particles is such that they would 'part company'.  It's an acknowledged truth and entirely explained in Pauli's Exclusion Principle.  Simply put.  Current flow CANNOT be the flow of electrons.

NOW.  There are those electrical engineers who also know this.  So.  They get around this by suggesting that there is an interaction in the outer boundaries of the atom's energy levels where the electrons perform a kind of adjustment akin to a domino effect.  The one adjusts - then the neighbour adjusts - and so on.  Down the line.  Until the final electron is 'transferred' to the supply terminal - effectively creating a kind of path - albeit they have not 'shared' a path and therefore have not 'defied' Pauli's exclusion principle.  This would be a really good explanation.  But the downside is this.  That 'domino' effect - that graduated series of adjustments requires more time than is known to be required for current to flow through a circuit - known to be at light speed.  The domino effect simply takes up too much time.  Therefore current flow cannot be attributed to that domino effect.

That puts paid to the only reasonable explanation available to our engineers.  But there are other problems related to the 'flow of electrons'.  Think of it.  If we recharge a battery from a utility supply source - in other words we've got a battery recharger supplied by a plug - feeding what? electrons? into a flat battery?  That means that there's the physical transfer of electrons from the supply grid through the battery recharger and into the battery.  In the same way, presumably, when we turn on our lights we get the transfer of electrons from the supply grid through the wire and into the filament of the lights to light those lights.  And when we turn on our stove we transfer more electrons through our stove - and so on.  This means that there must be an inexhaustible amount of electrons being supplied from your average supply grid to cater to the continuous requirement of multiple appliances from multiple users on that single supply grid.  There are not that number of electrons available from any generator known to be built by man.  Again.  This would require a logistics miracle that nature is simply unable to supply.  To get around THIS problem - the proposal is that there are 'free electrons' that are extrapolated from the air and then somehow incorporated into the conductive components of that wire and those component parts that allow for the HUGE number of electrons required.

Both these proposals are incorporated into WIKI in their definitions and explanations of current flow.  Both concepts are mutually exclusive and both concepts are horribly flawed.  The question is why these concepts persists - NOTWITHSTANDING.  The answer is simple.  It's because it's a CONVENIENT concept.  That's all.  I have spoken to many mainstream physicists and electrical engineers in my life.  The purists amongst the physicists acknowledge that it's a concept.  I've yet to meet an electrical engineer who acknowledges this.  Somehow - notwithstanding the obvious fact that it is NOT their field of expertise - they speak with some authority when they state - unequivocally - that current flow is the flow of electrons.  I know why the engineering fraternity is not challenged on this.  There is - thus far - and to the best of my knowledge - no alternate explanation.  And I also know that quantum electrodynamics is a field of science that is head and shoulders above any other in terms of the effectiveness of their applied technologies.  It would be grossly presumptuous to advise them of these intrinsic flaws in the light of these - their achievements. But the fact remains.  Current flow cannot be the flow of electrons.  It's that simple.

NOW.  If one proposes - as I've presumed to do - that all mass has energy related - not to the intrinsic mass itself - but to a hidden field that 'binds' that mass - then, with a small adjustment in perspective - one can still adhere to all known properties of energy - of conservation of charge - of conservation of mass.  BUT one would then be able to account for the flow of current in a shared path and at light speed.  That's not a miracle.  It does not require 'operation' in a miracle bubble.  It simply accounts for current flow.  BUT.  Once one goes down this road - then one's talking 'dark' energies.  Mass is now not confined to the supply but to all circuit components in the path of that supply.  Indeed E still equals mc^2.  But the mass of all parts of the circuit come into the equation.  Then one is actually talking about something that no longer is bound to the equivalence principles that 'electron current flow' requires.   

So.  I put it to you that the only thing that actually requires a 'miracle' as an explanation - is conventional concepts of current flow comprising the flow of electrons.  What I'm proposing, on the other hand, actually conforms to all known requirements in the transfer of energy. And in the conservation of charge.

I do hope you read this and understand it. 
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33988924/DARK-MATTER-MFM

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Elisha on August 01, 2010, 04:55:16 AM
Hi Rosemary

Leedskalnin - Also discover that dont exist electron current, he make some very interestin and simple experiemnts, he call the current, Magnetic Current, and also have a similar theroy like you, this was like 70 years ago ¡¡¡

Leedskalnin also make the first and only until know, monopole, yes only one pole, you can do it !!, the monopole of leedskalnin is very easy to duplicate.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/242432/Ed-Leedskalnin-Magnetic-Current-Illustrated (http://www.scribd.com/doc/242432/Ed-Leedskalnin-Magnetic-Current-Illustrated)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wItXxuEf2zo&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wItXxuEf2zo&feature=related)
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In another works, this men in canada allready have a product that give a long life to Pb-acid battery, also use pulsed battery

“Pay to the order of Chris Hunter,” the oversize novelty check reads. The amount? $10,000.

 Inventor Chris Hunter sits inside the empty engine compartment of a 1993 Geo Storm he is converting to an electric vehicle of his own design. Hunter won $10,000 in the Arctic Innovations Competition last year.

Hunter won that prize during last year’s first Arctic Innovations Competition. The winning idea was designed for people who live off the electrical grid and rely on batteries to store electricity.

“It extends the life of lead-acid batteries 10-fold,” he said.

How it does that is kind of technical and complex. Perhaps it’s best just to listen to how Hunter came up with the idea one night at home in Wasilla.

“It all started in a power outage during our nice springtime hurricanes,” Hunter said.

When the power went out, Hunter went out to the garage and started grabbing batteries and testing them. One he tested was perfect when switched on but died soon after. He started flipping the tester on and off and noticed that spike of electricity kept coming back.

He figured if an essentially dead battery can put out that much juice, a device to “spike-discharge” a charged-up battery while keeping current to appliances constant could be very useful to off-grid power users.

Hunter said he’s gone through a number of iterations of the device. It took more than a dozen before he got one that worked. Size-wise, that first working prototype was somewhere between a pack of cigarettes and a paperback novel. His latest, Hunter said, is smaller than a credit card.

http://frontiersman.com/articles/2010/06/20/local_news/doc4c1d99946d200627727825.txt (http://frontiersman.com/articles/2010/06/20/local_news/doc4c1d99946d200627727825.txt)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 01, 2010, 11:50:10 AM
Hello Elisha.  Thanks for your post and that reminder.  Indeed Leedskalnin was a phenomenon.  I couldn't open that link.  Can I impose on you to give us something else?  I'd love to get more familiar with his thinking.  What we all know about him is that miracle at coral castle which he carved and assembled single handedly and mostly at night.  That he worked in secret inclines me to think that he was onto something which he was determined to KEEP secret.  But I rather regret that he died without giving us a 'blue print'.  Seems unfriendly - somehow.  Perhaps he was afraid of the kind of 'back lash' that's been our own unhappy lot.  The simple truth is that there are those - on these and all forums - who wittingly or unwittingly assist in 'frustrating' the progress of this kind of knowledge.  But I do think we're seeing the closing chapters of our confrontation with mainstream.  The simple fact is that they need that 'dark energy'.  They're looking for it in a largish neutral particle.  But they cannot predict what its properties are precisely because it needs to be NOTHING like the standard model.  I'm with Leedskalnin here.  I think it's in a magnetic field.  But I believe Ed saw it as a monopole.  I'm afraid I need a dipole. 

Notwithstanding which, I absolutely agree that - either way - the magnetic field IS the source of gravity.  I see gravity being evident in a toroidal field (like a magnet or like our earth).  Matter is simply moved at 90 degrees to the centre of that field.  But I also propose that the field can only interact with other fields.  Matter needs to be of an equivalent size and velocity in order to allow any kind of interaction.  In effect the magnetic fields around matter can only interact with the magnetic fields around atoms.  Effectively it interacts with the atoms' energy levels - the proposal being that these are simply magnetic fields.

If I had the money - this is how I'd test this.  I'd carve individual magnets into a crystalline shape with a broad north surface graduated to a point at the far end.  These would be assembled into a ball so that the broad north was only on the surface and the south hidden point was in the centre of that sphere.  We'd need to hold those opposing fields together... somehow?   ::)

Then I'd put the ball inside a toroidal magnetic field - like a magnetised pipe.  I'm reasonably certain that the monopole would not then be able to find a 'rest position'.  Not sure if it would need to be held in some kind of pin bearing arrangement or if it would simply need to be 'let loose' so to speak.  Any readers with the time and the money to try this - may be of interest.  I do intend getting the first magnets cut.  Apparently it's doable with 'wire cutting' which is a kind of 'spark erosion' principle.  But I'm waiting for the design specs from a friend.  The actual specs for the design is way outside my competence.  In any event.  If we can get that monopole to 'spin' then we've definitely got changing magnetic fields.  And we all know that changing magnetic fields induce changing electric fields.  Got to be in the general interests of 'free energy' and - dare I say it?  PERPETUAL MOTION!!!  LOL.  Still not politically correct to bandy such terms around - even on forums such as this.  :o

Anyway.  That's all a bit off topic.  But how interesting.  And welcome to the discussion Elisha.  I see you've been a member for some years already.   :)

Kindest regards,
Rosemary




 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Elisha on August 01, 2010, 04:27:18 PM
Rosemay

Please try again to read the link, that work for me in google chrome browser.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/242432/Ed-Leedskalnin-Magnetic-Current-Illustrated (http://www.scribd.com/doc/242432/Ed-Leedskalnin-Magnetic-Current-Illustrated)

This is a complete book of experiments and theory of leedskalnin, he believe in a dipole magnetic theory is very like your theory.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: nievesoliveras on August 01, 2010, 04:55:07 PM
Rosemay

Please try again to read the link, that work for me in google chrome browser.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/242432/Ed-Leedskalnin-Magnetic-Current-Illustrated (http://www.scribd.com/doc/242432/Ed-Leedskalnin-Magnetic-Current-Illustrated)

This is a complete book of experiments and theory of leedskalnin, he believe in a dipole magnetic theory is very like your theory.

The problem with this now is that scribb wants a fee for the download.
I thought that the download was free.

Jesus
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 01, 2010, 05:22:02 PM
Hello Jesus - and Elisha,  I've tried again.  Definitely can't open nor download.  But I'll see if my friends can do this for me tomorrow.  Thanks Elisha.
 :)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 01, 2010, 06:49:06 PM
Hi Guys,  I've found a scribd link that opens.  Feeling quite smug.  Also read through this.  Strange writing - but I do see similarities.  Anyway.  Enjoy.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13977332/Mineral-Vegetable-and-Animal-Life
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Qwert on August 01, 2010, 08:39:41 PM
Here is free access. I don't know if the document is complete; it's only 51 pages pdf.
http://nwolibrary.com/nwolibrary/item/721-mag-current
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: nievesoliveras on August 02, 2010, 12:31:28 AM
Thank you @rosemary
Thank you @elisha
Thank you @qwert

Jesus
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 02, 2010, 08:10:10 AM
Hi everyone.  I just want to alert you all to the thread in this forum

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9479.msg250797#new

It's brilliant.  Clear - well illustrated - very articulate.  Well worth the read.  I think we should leave these riddles to Mark.  It's looking very promising.  Let's hope he solves this.

What I would like to say though is that I've had more time now to study his writing.  I think he's trying to show us how he influenced the weight of those stones.  I still want to study it in more depth.  He definitely draws a distinction between the two poles - which effectively means that the saw the 'north' 'south' acting independently of each other.  In all other aspects I absolutely concur with his ideas here.  Amazing.  Tishatang told me about Leedskalnin - in the early chapters of my joining these forums.  I should have paid better attention.  I also think he transferred the energy through the air or possibly through the ground.  Very interesting.  But worrisome that he contracted cancer.  I'm concerned that there may be some connection.  In any event.  I am satisfied that he understood exactly how to release matter from a gravitational grip.  Antigravity?  Probably.  Certainly that's what I'm beginning to realise.

Regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 02, 2010, 08:23:06 AM
Hello Fritz,

I have just read through your posts and I think I've been unduly 'sensitive'.  Your suggestions are, in fact, aimed at proposing that we check and double check where the effect actually emanates.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with this - and in the light of good scientific practice - it's actually to be commended. 

I must apologise for the rather irrelevant departure and trust you'll understand it.  You are right in every particular.  I rather took exception to your declared doubt on the 'miracle' effect which I repeatedly claim is NO miracle.  But that aside.  I am actually downloading your suggestions and using the most of them as a guide to our own testing procedures.  The difference being that it will be tested on the appliance as opposed to the smaller experimental apparatus that really has very little practical use.

Kindest regards
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 02, 2010, 09:30:45 AM
And Guys,  Just a new development that I thought I'd alert you to.

Our circuit thread was the fastest growing thread on EF.Com ever.  Aaron was under some pressure to advertise this popularity.  He eventually compromised by referencing it in the 20 most 'read' threads with it's own link.  A sort of means to both hide it and yet appear to give it the distinction of being a 'sticky'.  Now he's lost that reference.  Effectively there is NO FURTHER REFERENCE TO THAT COP>17 AINSLIE CIRCUIT thread.  LOL.  It's been tumbled into extinction through the happy excuse of banning me for making the following statement. 

"If anyone assumes to understand Leedskalnin's work - he must first be capable of duplicating the miracle of Coral Castle"   This in reference to Harvey Gramm's post where he implied that he understood EVERYTHING that Leedskalnin had written.

The position now is this.  My name as associated with that circuit technology is buried.  And the only reference to that circuit is called 'the mosfet heating circuit'.  It's in pride of place on every page of that thread - and it HAS ABSOLUTELY NO REFERENCE TO MY PART IN THAT CIRCUIT.  Not only that but it's purpose is to DENY the very benefits that BOTH HARVEY GRAMM AND GLEN LETTENMAIER earlier attested to.   

Work it out for yourselves.  EF.COM is definitely NOT promoting clean green.  It's become a sort of incestuous gathering of the clans where unwitting experimentalists and theorists are seduced into sharing their knowledge to then simply have it stolen from them.  I'm still awaiting word from Scribd regarding my rights to publish emails.  This shocking series of communications will show the character of those 'so called' clean green energy enthusiasts.  I see it as morally imperative that their true nature be fully and publicly disclosed.   As soon as I know the legal status I'll either publish those emails there - or if stefan will allow it - somewhere on his forum.  And while there is absolutely no point in suing either Harvey or Glen as they are both pretty impoverished - it would be very much in my interests to sue Microsoft and the owners of EF.COM - Microsoft for allowing Glen the space to publish his files where the technology is again recorded without any reference to its source.  And EF.COM for appropriating ownership of my technology in conjunction with two of what, in my opinion, are the biggest scoundrels that have ever stalked these forums.  Again it is my opinion that they are ALL self-serving - and are appropriating to themselves the knowledge that I have ONLY intended as free for Open Source.  And DOUBLY worisome - is the fact that they are PUBLICLY DENYING the benefits.  Yet they appear to be forging ahead with experiments.  WHY? 

I hope you all see what's happening there.  ???

Regards
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33937867/IF-I-WAS-A-TROLL
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: nievesoliveras on August 02, 2010, 02:31:26 PM
@rosemary

Forgive, forget and keep up living.

Jesus
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 02, 2010, 04:15:24 PM
You're right Jesus.  I waste way too much time on this subject probably.  But it scares me that this work will all just eventually get buried. I'll write this out to better explain things - in due course.  Right now I'm still smarting. 

It's not a question of forgiving.  It's the rank connning of the general public that gets me.  If their readers knew one half of what goes on behind the scenes there they'd be rather surprised.  And that sanctimous facade!  That needs to be shown for what it is.  Both by the forum administrators and by both Glen and Harvey.  But I get it that our members and readers are actually not that easily fooled.  Certainly I'm beginning to see a 'sea change' here and there in the attitudes of their posters.  EDIT.  The downside here is that they're then banned and no reference to their banning.  Very strange.  It's the ultimate censorship.  Say what we want to hear and NOTHING else - else we won't let you post.  LOL.  If they made an open admission to banning me or - indeed - anyone - then that would be some kind of guide.   

Kindest regards
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 02, 2010, 09:29:36 PM
Hi Rosemary,

I don't know if I should do this because I don't want to give you the feeling that I'm some kind of adversary (notwithstanding the fact that I only recently learned of your interesting experiments). On the contrary, I know we're on the same side of the barricade in this conceptual revolution in physics and that makes me still the more convinced that I should have the obligation to correct my fellow fighters where I think they err.

I feel that I have to correct you on these statements:

Quote
No-one told me that the flow of current was the flow of electrons.  I had to work it out from the term 'charge' as referenced by both Dyson and Zukov.  But when I finally understood that mainstream considered current flow to be the flow of electrons - then I had a real PROBLEM.  How is this possible in the light of Pauli's exclusion principle?  And anyway.  By now I was knee deep in my experiments and I had already determined that current flow comprised the flow of magnetic fields.

Forgive me for the strong words (I mean no offense) but this is a gross misunderstanding of the nature of electric current and that's very easy to demonstrate. You only need to consider, say, copper deposition from CuSO4 solution to find out your understanding is incorrect. You can carry out an experiment and you will inevitably determine (provided you do the experiment correctly) that Faraday's first law of electrolysis holds without a doubt. You will always have one mole of Cu deposited by passing of two moles of electrons. That's a law of Nature, written in stone, testable anytime and anywhere.

Notice, the above proof that electricity is due to flow of electrons is an experimental fact and has nothing to do with Pauli's exclusion principle. If it had anything to do with that Principle then the principle in question (not the experiment) would be overthrown. The experiment above, however, like I said, has nothing to do with the Pauli's exclusion principle because that principle is only applicable for bound electrons, that is, electrons in an atom. The electrons lowing in a conductor are not bound electrons and current is certainly due to flow of these electrons.

I should mention also, that there had been extensive legitimate attempts to reduce the electromagnetic field to just one type of phenomenon -- electric. That's the attempt by Weber as opposed to Maxwell. To put it simply, Weber denied the existence of magnetism altogether and attributed all the electromagnetic phenomena solely to electricity. There may be something rational in Weber's theory but I don't think we should get into that esoteric fine print at this point. Much more important is to see as to whether or not there really is a basis to claim experimental evidence for OU. Never mind scaling it up. Never mind its practical application. This will come later and it's inevitable once the reality of OU is established.

You probably would like to know what my answer to that is. I do think I have definitive proof that there is OU in electrical systems and that OU is inherent in these phenomena under certain circumstances. This can be proved purely theoretically and has been missed so far. As for the experiments, I've determined that the accuracy of determination of the current-voltage phase shift is of dramatic importance and it is very likely that some of the OU seen experimentally is only seeming, due to subtle errors in measuring the said phase shift. That notwithstanding, I reconfirm that OU is inherent in the electric phenomena under certain circumstances and that can be determined also experimentally provided one uses not only high-end (14 bit) scopes but also the current ans especially voltage probes are of high-end quality.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 02, 2010, 11:02:58 PM
Hello Omnibus.  Rather intimidated by such a veteran poster.  Crowding 4000 posts.  That's hefty. 

Forgive me for the strong words (I mean no offense) but this is a gross misunderstanding of the nature of electric current and that's very easy to demonstrate. You only need to consider, say, copper deposition from CuSO4 solution to find out your understanding is incorrect. You can carry out an experiment and you will inevitably determine (provided you do the experiment correctly) that Faraday's first law of electrolysis holds without a doubt. You will always have one mole of Cu deposited by passing of two moles of electrons. That's a law of Nature, written in stone, testable anytime and anywhere.
I'm not sure that electrolysis has anything at all to do with this argument.  Take your average motorised generator and - with absolutely NO chemical interactions one can generate the flow of current. 

Notice, the above proof that electricity is due to flow of electrons is an experimental fact and has nothing to do with Pauli's exclusion principle.
I suggest - with the utmost respect, that you have only proved that electrolysis results in a variation of molecular and atomic arrangement in a chemical mix.  Therefore, indeed it has nothing to do with Pauli's exclusion principle. 

If it had anything to do with that Principle then the principle in question (not the experiment) would be overthrown.
Not sure what you mean by this.  Pauli's exclusion principle determines that NO TWO ELECTRONS CAN SHARE THE SAME ORBIT.  It refers to the atomic arrangement of electrons in their different energy levels.  It was one of those miraculous insights that eventually enabled the unfolding of the periodic table.  But the principle holds true.  Electrons have a 'like charge' and they are therefore inherently repulsive.

The experiment above, however, like I said, has nothing to do with the Pauli's exclusion principle because that principle is only applicable for bound electrons, that is, electrons in an atom. The electrons flowing in a conductor are not bound electrons and current is certainly due to flow of these electrons.
I'd be happier with this assertion if you could also prove this.  There are two classical explanations for current flow - as determined by WIKI which are mutually exclusive.  I've referenced them both. If it's the 'domino effect' of transfer - then it would take about 10 minutes for the average current to reach your average light bulb to light it.  That's assuming a distance of about 1 meter between the plug source and the light itself.  If it were the result of 'free electrons' extrapolated from the 'air' around the circuit - then there's a problem of ingress and egress through the wire's insulation.  And if it were the transfer of electrons from the source - then there are not enough electrons from your average generator to fire up all the appliances in your average household from your average supply grid.  Just statistically impossible.  It is simply impossible.  Which is why the purist will only refer to current as the flow of charge.  Definitely avoids reference to electrons.

I should mention also, that there had been extensive legitimate attempts to reduce the electromagnetic field to just one type of phenomenon -- electric. That's the attempt by Weber as opposed to Maxwell. To put it simply, Weber denied the existence of magnetism altogether and attributed all the electromagnetic phenomena solely to electricity. There may be something rational in Weber's theory but I don't think we should get into that esoteric fine print at this point.
I'm aware of this development especially as it relates to EU theories.  But THAT is definitely unproven.

Much more important is to see as to whether or not there really is a basis to claim experimental evidence for OU. Never mind scaling it up. Never mind its practical application. This will come later and it's inevitable once the reality of OU is established.
Again, with the utmost respect, may I impose on you to read the link hereunder and advise me where you still require that OU still needs to be established?  I rather suggest that we'll need establish our own time lines here for the practical applications of this technology - lest we be held up for any time at all while you familiarise yourself with these results. 

You probably would like to know what my answer to that is. I do think I have definitive proof that there is OU in electrical systems and that OU is inherent in these phenomena under certain circumstances. This can be proved purely theoretically and has been missed so far. As for the experiments, I've determined that the accuracy of determination of the current-voltage phase shift is of dramatic importance and it is very likely that some of the OU seen experimentally is only seeming, due to subtle errors in measuring the said phase shift. That notwithstanding, I reconfirm that OU is inherent in the electric phenomena under certain circumstances and that can be determined also experimentally provided one uses not only high-end (14 bit) scopes but also the current and especially voltage probes are of high-end quality.
Again - while I'm delighted to see you intend to verify this - we are. nonetheless, satisfied with our own verification - again with the utmost respect.   Our proof is based on the accurate measure of energy delivered by a battery compared to the amount of energy dissipated at the load.  The dissipated energy far exceeds the energy delivered.  And indeed there's a theoretical reason for this.  It's explained in my own magnetic field model and is required.

Regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33988924/DARK-MATTER-MFM
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 02, 2010, 11:39:09 PM
Hi Rosemary,

As you've probably sensed from my earlier post I'm not one bit interested in the practical application of discoveries. There is science and there is application of science called technology. The latter is outside of my interest.

As for the flow of electrons, the example from electrochemistry is a simple but a very telling and appropriate example regarding whether or not current is indeed flow of electrons. Notice, you yourself are using a battery, that is, an electrochemical system. The example I gave you should leave you with no doubt that the electricity in the leads from your electrochemical source is indeed a flow of electrons and nothing else. Try to understand that no matter what, the anode of the battery you're using will lose exactly the amount of gram moles which will correspond to the current you measure to have flown through the leads for the given time. That's exact. It's an experimental fact and can't be denied due to Pauli's exclusion principle which pertains to something completely different, having nothing to do with flow of current along a conductor. Once you get comfortable with that aspect (your electrochemical source losing the exact amount of moles corresponding to the measured current for a given time) you'll be able to understand why the current in an average motorized generator also amounts to flow of charges per unit time. No need to repeat, you can test that by, for instance, carrying out an electrochemical reaction among other ways.

Regarding Pauli's exclusion principle, notice you yourself are mentioning sharing "the same orbit" or "periodic table". Pauli's exclusion principle indeed pertains to these notions and does not pertain to flowing of free electrons in a conductor. As to why repelling electrons in a conductor keep going in one preferred direction, that's a matter of a mechanism of that flow. I think there may be more research needed to understand how this really happens but the fact remains (experimental fact at that) that the electric current is indeed flow of electrons. Think about of the flow of electrons (they are electrically charged particles indeed because they can be diverted in a magnetic field) in a Crooke's tube. No electrochemistry there, right?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 03, 2010, 12:03:37 AM
Regarding the experimental proof, I see you're insisting you have such but my experience shows that experiments with even the high end Tektronix 7000 scopes and up may still not be enough to guarantee that what is being measured is the true voltage and current through the studied circuit even with a simple sine wave let alone a complex wave form. Thus, purely experimental evidence isn't enough at this stage. No one would believe it, the least the honest critics would. You probably know of the superb replication of eOrbo of Steorn by @Omega_0. He is the first to have replicated Steorn's claims. Unfortunately both in his results and in the results of the originators from Steorn the tricky question of accurately measuring the I-V phase shift may be the culprit and that's very difficult to sort out even with the best equipment there is nowadays. I'm, of course, talking about purely electrical measurements which should be sufficient to resolve the problem if done right. Calorimetry brings in incredible additional mess and should be avoided altogether. So, something additional is needed, alongside the electrical measurements but calorimetry isn't it. What one can do is analyze the situation purely theoretically, based on the nature of the phenomena, and demonstrate that OU is inherent in the very essence of these phenomena under certain circu7mstances. Those who have followed the Steorn thread know my argument to that effect.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 03, 2010, 12:08:56 AM
Hi again Omnibus.


As you've probably sensed from my earlier post I'm not one bit interested in the practical application of discoveries. There is science and there is application of science called technology. The latter is outside of my interest.
Even if you don't have interest in the practicalities you SURELY rely on experimental evidence.  We base all these claims on experimental evidence.  Notwithstanding your prediction that there will inevitably be a loss - we have a battery undergoing a 'recharge' cycle that is absolutely empirically evident.  This rather flies in the face of the assumption that we are losing an electron on a continual basis.

And I assure you the ONLY reasonable explanation for an electron current flow is the continual displacement of the outer valence electrons in a kind of 'domino effect'.  The speed required for this would leave the most of us in the dark for about 10 minutes to half an hour while those electrons nudged themselves towards the light bulbs.  Just does not happen.  Current flow is known to be at or close to light speed.

As you say, electrochemistry is indeed capable of generating a current flow - but if that flow were the result of a transfer of electrons from the one terminal to another - then again - it would take a significant amount of time before it impacted on the resistors in series with that flow.  And far from satisfying me that the current is therefore a flow of electrons - I assure you - it is better answered as a flow of charge.  What comprises that 'charge' is still at question.

So Omnibus - we need to agree to disagree - unless you can explain how the electrons are transferred from one terminal to another.  It is ABSOLUTELY NOT scientifically proven that current flow comprises electrons.  It's only assumed.  It's a MODEL or a CONCEPT - albeit widely held.  But it would be as well to remember that it was also once a widely held concept that the Earth was flat.   And I'm afraid that your example does NOTHING to explain the electron  current flow from a motorised generator.

And Pauli established his principle based on a simple truth.  Like charge cannot share a path - anywhere.  Current flow relies on the concept of a shared path as that much is empirically evident.  It flows in a consistent direction.  It can reverse direction.  But always flows distinctly from or towards the cathode - the one to discharge it the other to recharge it.

regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 03, 2010, 12:21:36 AM
Regarding the experimental proof, I see you're insisting you have such but my experience shows that experiments with even the high end Tektronix 7000 scopes and up may still not be enough to guarantee that what is being measured is the true voltage and current through the studied circuit even with a simple sine wave let alone a complex wave form. Thus, purely experimental evidence isn't enough at this stage.
Golly Omnibus.  Experimental evidence NOT ENOUGH?  Then what?  You're now arguing that experimental evidence is irrelevant.  I have NO argument against that - any more than Sir Walter Raleigh would have been able to argue with the flat earthers.  This is getting absurd - with respect.

No one would believe it, the least the honest critics would. You probably know of the superb replication of eOrbo of Steorn by @Omega_0. He is the first to have replicated Steorn's claims. Unfortunately both in his results and in the results of the originators from Steorn the tricky question of accurately measuring the I-V phase shift may be the culprit and that's very difficult to sort out even with the best equipment there is nowadays.
I have never presumed to comment on the Steorn devices.  All I can comment on is my own experiments.  We measure a heat dissipation that is up to 17 times greater than the energy delivered by the battery.  The results are conclusive.

I'm, of course, talking about purely electrical measurements which should be sufficient to resolve the problem if done right. Calorimetry brings in incredible additional mess and should be avoided altogether.
Actually this is lapsing into a bit of nonsense - with respect.  Calorimetric measurements are absolutely UNARGUABLE.  And our protocol was determined by academics with a far more strongly vested interest in disproving these results than your own.  And possibly a little more authority.

So, something additional is needed, alongside the electrical measurements but calorimetry isn't it. What one can do is analyze the situation purely theoretically, based on the nature of the phenomena, and demonstrate that OU is inherent in the very essence of these phenomena under certain circumstances. Those who have followed the Steorn thread know my argument to that effect.
I absolutely agree.  It is a result that calls for a re-evaluation of the properties of current flow.  This argument is definitely getting circular.  Like I say, Omnibus - I would recommend that you read our experimental evidence - or that you read my thesis - or you provide some explanation for these results that are somehow justified as the flow of electrons.  I'd be happy with any of these options.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 03, 2010, 01:50:50 AM
Hi Rosemary,

I guess, by reading your arguments, that we can agree on current being the directed flow of charge rather than concretely of electrons. That picture is quite plausible -- recall (again electrochemistry, sorry) current in an electrochemical cell is in fact directed flow of ions, not electrons. However, how are you going to explain away your concern that like charges repel and therefore, as far as I understand you, such like charges can't flow together in one direction?

As for the experimental results, I expressed my concerns and I do hope they are without basis although my own experience tells me they more likely are legitimate. I'd like to test your device so that I can have some concrete things to say but I don't know how this can be done. I have a Tektronix DPO 2014, Hall effect based current probe Tektronix TCP 0030 and the standard passive 1X and 10X probes. Also, I have a Hewlett Packard pulse generator and a Keithley 2000 DMM.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 03, 2010, 09:18:00 AM
Hi Omnibus,

I absolutely agree with you.  Current flow is best described as the 'flow of charge'.  In fact those purists among our mainstream theorists actually do use this term.  My own grounding in physics was based on the writing of Dyson and Zukov - and they neither of them mentioned the flow of electrons as the cause.  So, two years down the line and already knee deep in experiments it came as a shock to see that anyone at all thought of current flow in terms of the flow of electrons. Then the second suprise was that electrical engineers rather relied on this concept.  Since my experiments were really designed to prove the thesis - then I was hoping to speak to theoretical physicists.  So I never really addressed this concern with our engineering fraternity.  There was quite enough contention in claiming the numbers that we were claiming without also confronting them with an explanation.  That is, until I came to these forums.   ::)  Again.  Anyone who holds to the flow of electrons as a cause is in REALLY good company.  Those of us who confront this are in a really small minority.  Fortunately that number is rising.  People, regardless of their training, are thankfully, very much open to logical argument and evidence.

You ask how I explain that 'charge' is not the same thing?  You're right - again.  Charge specifically speaks to some polar property.  But if one proposes a 'bipolar' charged particle - as opposed to a neutral particle - then it would enable the 'shared path' as it would not defy Pauli's exclusion principle.  My own proposal is that we are dealing here with a magnetic dipole that 'binds' amalgams.  This broad definition of the term 'amalgams' includes liquid amalgams. In other words the atoms themselves have a field of magnetic dipoles that are extraneous to the atom and that that binds them together.   But the 'field' is proposed to be extraneous to the atoms that they bind.  The 'holding together' of those amalgams is then easily determined based on the valence condition of those atoms in the amalgam.  Effectively the field can spin to the left or to the right - north or south - on or off - whatever is required to 'balance' that amalgam.  And where they can't find a preferred balance, such as in a strong acid or alkaline mix, then they remain 'restive' or 'energetic' until they can find some medium - some circuit path - to forge a 'realignment' of the atoms.  Then they move to reach that preferred 'balance'.  In the process of electrolysis - I'm proposing that the re-arrangement of those molecules and atoms are determined by these fields that move the atom.  And in an electric circuit - I'm proposing that these same fields literally detatch from the atomic structure - congregate at the terminals - and, at a critical density - they then forge through the circuit material to re-enter the amalgam with an alternate spin or charge - or bias.  That way they can re-establish the required balance.  And that way they also adjust the electrolytic mix to a condition of neutrality.  In effect, current flow may then be seen as the flow of charge and this current flow is then accessed in ALL material.  But electric current flow through standard circuitry relies on the mass or the material from inductive circuit components.  In other words the mass of the resistor comes into the equation as does the mass from the battery or any supply source.

To introduce the concept of these fields is also perhaps justified as an explanation of the Casimir effect.  Here it is known that on a really small scale - material is able to bond.  If these fields simply conjoin atoms then they would - indeed - promote that bonding.

You see.  The explanation is actually not that bizaar.  Our theoreticians are looking for a 'dark' or 'invisible' particle to explain certain anomalies that are apparent related to gravity.  Such a field of 'binding' particles would indeed be 'invisible' provided only that they exceeded light speed and provided that they were smaller than known tachyons.  And we know that in the process of 'current flow' the only thing that is 'stressed' is the bound condition of resistive loads.  They tend to degrade.  So.  The proposal is that they degrade to the extent that these fields are able to move through space thereby compromising that bound condition.  Our filaments break.  Our resistive loads get hot.  And so on. 

That may help in understanding the proposals of the thesis.  I do hope so.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 03, 2010, 12:21:24 PM
Hi Rosemary,

I still don't get it. What does a picture, right or wrong, as to what electric current is have anything to do with experiments supposedly showing energy disbalance? The problems regarding the reality of the experimental results are of different character than the problems to examine the nature of electric current. In the experiments we measure the values of the current independent of what we think its nature is as we do in measuring voltage. These measurements allow us to judge for the energy spent as well as the energy obtained and the only problem we have is whether or not the values we get are indeed the true values of these parameters for the system at hand. If correct, these measurements leading to finding out what the energy balance is will be unaffected by our ruminations on the nature of current even if these ruminations are wrong.These are two separate sets of activities and I don't see why you seem to think they are interdependent.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 03, 2010, 02:23:38 PM
Hi Rosemary,

I still don't get it. What does a picture, right or wrong, as to what electric current is have anything to do with experiments supposedly showing energy disbalance? The problems regarding the reality of the experimental results are of different character than the problems to examine the nature of electric current. In the experiments we measure the values of the current independent of what we think its nature is as we do in measuring voltage. These measurements allow us to judge for the energy spent as well as the energy obtained and the only problem we have is whether or not the values we get are indeed the true values of these parameters for the system at hand. If correct, these measurements leading to finding out what the energy balance is will be unaffected by our ruminations on the nature of current even if these ruminations are wrong.These are two separate sets of activities and I don't see why you seem to think they are interdependent.

Omnibus,  What this entire thread topic is about - whether the thesis or its application - is the simple fact that there is an apparent anomaly in the measurements indicated, precisely because more energy is dissipated than delivered.  The simple art of measuring energy is of very little interest outside it's context of efficiency related to any particular application.  And when there's an equivalence between what is delivered and dissipated, then it simply falls within classical prediction.  If there is an overunity result - one needs an explanation.  We do indeed measure over unity.  I'm going to some lengths to explain that this is NOT an anomaly.  But there is very little point in devoting a thread to the methods and protocols associated with that measurement when it's already been exhaustively referenced in our paper and widely applied in all standard measurement protocols.  What is not so widely understood is that thinking that required for what you euphemistically term energy 'imbalance'.  I see a need to explain this.  You are under no obligation to read that explanation. 

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 03, 2010, 03:55:36 PM
Rosemary, I beg to differ regarding the importance of the measurements. The reality of the energy imbalance measured is the pivotal question. This is exactly what isn't accepted by the conventional science. Explaining it, practically applying it etc. are secondary to that main, central problem. What needs to be done, I think, is to concentrate all our efforts in convincing the scientific community in the reality of the effect itself prior to any attempts to explain or apply it. It is exactly the experimental results in question which the scientific community is vehemently opposing to accept. That's the Gordian knot which we have to solve with a bold stroke. Unlike your impression, however, I don't think this has yet occurred.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 03, 2010, 04:16:01 PM
Now, again, I still don't understand why do you need experiments in overunity in order to promote your idea of what the nature of current is. One may consider your idea of current in conductors such as copper as being controversial enough to be supplemented by another controversial idea such as the claim for OU. It seems you can choose some well accepted system where current flows and work out your thesis there. Why do you need OU at all for sustaining your thesis?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 03, 2010, 05:08:20 PM
Rosemary, I beg to differ regarding the importance of the measurements. The reality of the energy imbalance measured is the pivotal question. This is exactly what isn't accepted by the conventional science. Explaining it, practically applying it etc. are secondary to that main, central problem. What needs to be done, I think, is to concentrate all our efforts in convincing the scientific community in the reality of the effect itself prior to any attempts to explain or apply it. It is exactly the experimental results in question which the scientific community is vehemently opposing to accept. That's the Gordian knot which we have to solve with a bold stroke. Unlike your impression, however, I don't think this has yet occurred.

I was with you through this whole post until your final sentence.  "Unlike your impression, however, I don't think this as yet occurred."  What exactly?  Are you saying that we have NOT achieved OU?  Or are you saying the scientific community are not yet on board to evaluating this?  In any event, both options are simply wrong.  We HAVE CONCLUSIVELY measured OU.  And we are getting this assessed on campus so the scientific community will certainly be 'on board' - if only to evaluate those measurements really, really carefully.  That 'bold stroke' - is the courage of an academy that has finally - if somewhat belatedely, decided to determine these claims from the experimental evidence.  No small achievement I might add. That's a really, really bold move.  And the courage not mine - but theirs. 

And Omnibus - if I left it to the scientific community to explain it then they would first have to dismantle the entire structure of physics.  It may be quicker if I simply suggest my own proposals that required this result - is all.  Golly.  In any event - my explanations conform to ALL KNOWN PHYSICS.  No exceptions there.  Nothing NEW.  The only thing that is new is that I've presumed to locate that 'dark energy'.  And it's long overdue that the engineering fraternities, everywhere, revisit that delusion related to the 'flow of electrons' as representing current flow.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 03, 2010, 05:20:32 PM
Now, again, I still don't understand why do you need experiments in overunity in order to promote your idea of what the nature of current is. One may consider your idea of current in conductors such as copper as being controversial enough to be supplemented by another controversial idea such as the claim for OU. It seems you can choose some well accepted system where current flows and work out your thesis there. Why do you need OU at all for sustaining your thesis?

Ominibus - I hope I don't have to repeat this.  We need the thesis to explain the measurement.  We can debate the measurement - if you choose to - for as long as you like.  But the measurements are NOWHERE at question outside your persistent desire to revisit these.  No expert has challenged our protocols.  There is an IMPLICIT acceptance based on the measuring instruments as being adequate and the protocols being sufficient.  NONE of our papers have been submitted for review and then rejected.  Don't you realise how anxious the academics are to disprove this result?  And can't you see that they would enjoy nothing better than an excuse to reject the paper as it's based on erroneous measurements?  If they saw such they would have submitted the paper and had it duly and permanently discredited.  They can't do this.  Therefore they do not even submit the paper for review.  SO.  The ONLY thing at question is why these measurements should be ever be possible. I've said it before - and will do so as often as is required.  The ONLY advantage of our little circuit is that the measurements are NO LONGER OPEN TO QUESTION.  That's not yet been managed elsewhere - to the best of my knowledge.  But I'm open to correction.  In any event this experiment and associated artifacts have been correctly and duly measured and recorded.  That's done and dusted.  We now need to develop it to application phase - include the academics in accreditation - and then?  Hopefully we'll get the kind of attention that all OU technology is looking for.  In any event.  Every bit helps.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 03, 2010, 08:04:25 PM
Rosemary, as far as I understand, you take the fact that your papers are not even being submitted for review as showing that these journals know they are really true but they don't want to accept it and they don't want your studies to become known. Sadly, there's another option and unfortunately it may be the more likely option--by not even submitting the papers for review these journals are not only rejecting them but are simply ignoring them. They simply "know" this is incorrect and don't even give it the time of day. Sad, indeed. It's not even preventing them from publication. Plain and simple ignoring.

This attitude of the journals has to be fought somehow and I'm willing to help in this respect as difficult as it is.

In the meantime, could you please tell me names of academics who have independently verified your experimental results so that I can contact them and even visit them -- here in the US or in Europe where I'm going to be in September. 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 03, 2010, 08:09:06 PM
Rosemary, you sayL

Quote
And Omnibus - if I left it to the scientific community to explain it then they would first have to dismantle the entire structure of physics.

Not really. I have shown that the possibility to produce more energy out than in is inherent in the electrical phenomena but has been overlooked until now. So, it's not a matter of dismantling but adding to the existing physics.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: TheCell on August 03, 2010, 10:09:42 PM
@Rosemary : Will you transfer your knowledge to us, so that an average experienced electronic guy will be able to replicate your device, or will you simply bring it to market?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 04, 2010, 01:19:03 AM
@Rosemary : Will you transfer your knowledge to us, so that an average experienced electronic guy will be able to replicate your device, or will you simply bring it to market?

Hi TC.  Welcome to the discussion.  All that has been tested to proof of concept is best written up in our paper.  And certainly that is easily understood.  I'll add a link - gladly.

Regarding the appliance - there are some major concerns here.  I believe that our own developments are simply being duplicated by Harvey and Glenn on EF.com.  Then they predate their post to make it seem as if we're duplicating them.  Proof of that is with the element we designed for our first test.  This was put together by our resistor manufacturer - the only thing that was non-standard was the wiring inside it.  I had not yet got to the detailed explanations when I discovered Glen's picture of a totally standard element and some fatuous comments from CatLady (Harvey's wife) congratulating them on this development.  It's laughable.  So.  I actually think we need to keep some aspects of our tests entirely off forum until the appliance is ready to market.  But there is NOTHING to stop us posting those results as they develop.  It will be an interesting learning curve.  We've had long and arduous discussions regarding the switching required to retain that high voltage but also allow more current flow.  And, of course, endless discussions related to the control of the switch to generate the CEMF without swamping out the self-oscillation required.  It's very challenging.

Hope that helps. 
Kind regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 04, 2010, 01:35:43 AM

Not really. I have shown that the possibility to produce more energy out than in is inherent in the electrical phenomena but has been overlooked until now. So, it's not a matter of dismantling but adding to the existing physics.

Golly Omnibus.  I actually recall you mentioning this in one of your posts.  I'm reasonably certain that your own ideas here are not the same as mine.  But I assure you.  While I've no confidence in the theories advanced on the basis of electron current flow - I'm absolutely satisfied that mainstream will endorse the 'right' answer - whatever it is.  When a theory is finally published on this - then it will have been entirely vetted.  And my own poor efforts here are only conceptually valid.  Needs the expertise of the dreaded 'academic'.  LOL.  And in the unlikely event that there's any merit to these my efforts - then it's simply in as much as I have tried to make the concepts easily understandable.  I'm somewhat anxious to assure all that the 'logic' is very much within our average reach.  Physics is fun.  It really is.  It's just discussion of this has been entirely appropriated by so called experts.  It needs to be put out there if it's ever going to be freed from that jealous grasp.  LOL
 :D
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 04, 2010, 02:00:17 AM
Rosemary, as far as I understand, you take the fact that your papers are not even being submitted for review as showing that these journals know they are really true but they don't want to accept it and they don't want your studies to become known. Sadly, there's another option and unfortunately it may be the more likely option--by not even submitting the papers for review these journals are not only rejecting them but are simply ignoring them. They simply "know" this is incorrect and don't even give it the time of day. Sad, indeed. It's not even preventing them from publication. Plain and simple ignoring.

This attitude of the journals has to be fought somehow and I'm willing to help in this respect as difficult as it is.

In the meantime, could you please tell me names of academics who have independently verified your experimental results so that I can contact them and even visit them -- here in the US or in Europe where I'm going to be in September.

I've highlighted the comment that I take extreme exception to Omnibus.  It shows me how little you understand about the publication of an academic paper.  In the first instance a paper is submitted to an editor.  The editor then submits the paper to an appropriate reviewer.  That is the standard process.  The reviewer then vets the paper to determine any errors.  If they are minor the author is offered an opportunity to amend.  If they are major the paper is rejected on the following basis - "REJECTED MAY NOT BE RE-SUBMITTED"

The prelude to our own paper included a discussion with two sub editors and the IEEE's main editor.  They had ample opportunity to read every aspect of that paper prior to its formal submission process.  They invited us, notwithstanding the unusual nature of the claim - to formally submit the paper.  We did so.  Then there was obviously some discussions.  They came back to us - literally within 5 minutes of formal submission - to ask us to submit it to a physics reviewed journal as they felt unable to comment on the results.  I have copies of all that correspondence and have made the most of it available on EF.com.  I can do the same here if required.  Our paper still bears the dubious distinction of NOT BEING REJECTED AFTER REVIEW.  That would have put paid to these our efforts - forever, as it would have required a discreditation of the measurents or the measurement protocols.  I am satisfied that this would have been the preferred course.  As it is they dropped the paper like the proverbial 'hot potato'.  They simply did not have the 'balls' to tackle it.

It concerns me that you rather refer to your own suspicions here than first seek clarification of the facts.  I hope I've now disabused you of these suspicions.

And regarding your requirement to speak to those academics that have accredited these results?  Exactly who are you referring to?  I have NEVER claimed academic accreditation.  That is precisely what has been lacking in this exercise.  And, btw I am in South Africa and accreditation by sundry industrial laboratories - was done here, with the entire exception of ABB.  If you ever do get to our country then advise me and I'll gladly introduce you to those who are now dealing with the subject.  But their names and the institution is DEFINITELY not available for public knowledge unless and until that application is up and running and proven.  This for obvious reasons. 

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 04, 2010, 02:41:03 AM
Rosemary, I have vast experience in academia and academic research since I myself belong to the academic world and I have ample experience in submitting and publishing papers in academic peer-reviewed journals (tens of publications in various areas of chemistry and physics). Therefore, I know something about the submission and publication process and what rejection and especially ignoring of a submission means. I do believe they might have invited you to submit but I assure you the minute they learned what this is all about they have resorted, as far as I can see from your explanation, to the usual excuses when they want to ignore you and be polite at the same time. They just don't want to publish it. I'm only too familiar with this situation. So that state of affairs is sad, as I noted earlier, it's unacceptable though not at all unusual and something has to be done about it. In this respect it is very important that those of us who are trying to accomplish something in these worthwhile and very important pursuits should support each other. This is the only way to make a difference.

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 04, 2010, 03:08:02 AM
Omnibus - this is exhausting me.  The Editor in Chief and the two editors of both journals under the IEEE banner were ENTIRELY familiar with the claim.  Every aspect of it.  There was a serious proposal to get the journal to review.  But it was quashed - at the last minute - obviously after some considerable discussion amongst themselves.

I'll dig up the email correspondence that preceded our submission.  It addressed the thesis and the required result.  It was CERTAINLY well understood as the theme of that paper.  There is one aspect that I've not written - which may be at a level of interest that exceeds the readers here.  But I may as well put it on record.  Harvey did the data analysis based on a rather eccentric 'averaging' of the results from different waveforms.  Tektronix only guarantee results that are from a certain required minimum sample range.  From memory I think it's about 120 or thereby.  In other words they need multiple samples to get the required mean average.  What Harvey Gramm did was to take a further average of these multiple samples and from graduated lesser sample ranges and then make a kind of bulk average.  I was very aware of this.  He would not allow this to be amended and I suspect he realised that this would have put paid to acceptance for publication. 

Just prior to review their admin asked me to correct a small error where we had submitted the illustrations without appending a number for reference.  Because I was first author they returned the paper to me to correct this.  I used that opportunity to add the following sentence.  "The data has been deliberately averaged to give a conservative value".  This  therefore gave justification to that 'average' which otherwise would have seemed an unintentional error.  In retrospect I'm inclined to believe that they were aware of that error and would have submitted it to get that 'reject may not be resubmitted' number.  By adding that qualification effectively lost them that excuse.  But that is purely speculative.  I will never know for certain.  What I do know is that all seemed 'safe' to submit.  And then - notwithstanding - it was almost immediately rejected.

But that's enough about this Omnibus.  I did not realise that you were an academic.  Very interesting.  You would know - more than most - how politically incorrect are all these endeavours.  Yes I think one needs to pull together.  I have found Open Source to be a very flawed medium - rendered all the more insecure by the rampant self-serving egos of many contributors.  My own experience here was almost terminal to this technology.  Had I not faught back I think this entire endeavour of mine would have been buried by now.  That - and, latterly, Stefan' kind indulgence in allowing this thread.  But I realise now how tenuous these posts are.  I am very aware of many readers here who don't post on the threads.  They've given me continual background support.  Without this I think I may very well have folded.  Thanks to them all.  But I would earnestly advise readers that there is no guarantee to the continuation of this topic.  I just hope that this one will survive until the outcome of those application tests.

Many competing interests here guys.  ::)
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: TheCell on August 04, 2010, 10:32:56 AM
<This was put together by our resistor manufacturer - the only thing that was non-standard was the wiring inside it.>

So this non-standard wiring is described in this document?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS
I think not.
If anyone convinced that following this link will lead to replication success, he /she should confirm this.
This thread is a promotion thread ,nothing else.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 04, 2010, 11:27:17 AM
<This was put together by our resistor manufacturer - the only thing that was non-standard was the wiring inside it.>

So this non-standard wiring is described in this document?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS
I think not.
If anyone convinced that following this link will lead to replication success, he /she should confirm this.
This thread is a promotion thread ,nothing else.

This post is so disappointing on so many levels.  In the first instance, someone  who signs himself Bob Potchen also uses the avatar 'The Cell'.  I assume it's the same poster here.  In which case I am rather a fan of yours and enjoy the acuity of your posts and the rap you had going with Farrah.  I admire Farrah - very much and have much to thank you, Farrah and HairBear for the high standard of posting and for the little I managed to learn about electrolysis.  Farrah also seems to have disappeared from EF.com.  But I think that was rather by choice.

One aspect of my disappointment is based on the fact that you discount the results of that replication.  I take it that you're familiar with the earlier paper and the history here?  In which case why is it that you doubt those results?  I am indeed using this thread to post results on the scaled up version of this 'proof of concept'.  But that's intended to be very much public - whether it fails or succeeds.  Hopefully the latter.  But proof of  concept is widely acknowledged.  I simply do not understand why I should try and promote this.  It's easily promoted on its own merits.  I'm only trying to keep public record of the results in the hopes of furthering OU.  And by keeping the results public - then that's very much in the interests of Open Source - surely?  If there's a learning curve associated with this - which is inevitable, given that we're trying to scale up the effect - then rather let the facts fall where they will.  It's better to be put on record than otherwise.  And I cannot be accused of holding back on disappointing results.  Nor will I.  Ever.

Then the second aspect of my disappointment is that I know you research your topics - if your posts at EF.com are your standard.  In which case - what gives?  Clearly there's some want of familiarity with the subject here.  The element in question has nothing to do with the proof of concept tests referred to.  These are designed for the scaled up version on the application.  And it's NOT standard - albeit that the element itself is.  There is absolutely NOTHING standard about the wire used inside that resistor.  But nor is it anything like the resistor we used in our proof of concept.  And NOR is it likely to be anything like the resistor we'll end up using in our application.  It was simply intended to see how the standard element effects the resonance that we require.  If it works then it'll take it to application phase that much more quickly.  If it does not work then we'll find that out too.

Finally - I'm 61 years old.  It would be absurdly ridiculous for me to waste what little time I have left to try and advance something - some technology - if I did not, at least, know that it works.  I am many things, from absurdly optimistic to absurdly pessimistic and all shades in between.  But Bob Potchen, if that's whom I'm actually addressing here - this thread is intended to advance my thesis - the concepts - and the proof of concept to application phase.  I suppose - in that way - it is, indeed, a promotion exercise.  In which case then I'm guilty.  But I take it that's not the sense in which you intended the term.  And please read this thread as it relates to that element.  Indeed it has ABSOLUTELY NO relevance to the paper published on Scribd.  But nor did I ever claim as much.  Not anywhere.

I think what's really disappointing here is that I rather admired your own efforts and am really sorry to discover the contempt you feel for mine.  But there you go.  One never really knows how one comes across.  This post of yours has certainly been a slap in the face.

Rosemary (aka witsend)

 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: nievesoliveras on August 04, 2010, 12:09:07 PM
I dont know why people try to disappoint you all the time.
To this moment you seem a good person.

Follow your dream. Criticism means that you are going in the right direction.

Jesus
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 04, 2010, 12:35:37 PM

Follow your dream. Criticism means that you are going in the right direction.

Jesus
I certainly hope so Jesus.  MANY THANKS for this.  It's always nice to know that not everyone thinks that negatively about these my efforts.  But there's that about my claim, my postings - perhaps about the general threat to known paradigms - that seems to generate an enormous amount of confrontation.  It's followed me everywhere.  And by now I should be well used to it.  But the strange thing is this.  I'm always knocked for a six.  I have simply not learned to 'grow that thick skin'.  Maybe I'll get there - one day.   ;D  Bob W?  Are you reading here?  LOL.

kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 05, 2010, 05:54:18 AM
Guys,  I've been approached by someone who has proposed that we do a 3D movie on the concepts of the thesis.  This may be a really good thing because I know that some people find that writing a bit complex.

In any event, some good news at last.  Watch this space.   ;D  I wonder if this is what TC refers to as promotion?  LOL.  If so, then I guess he's right.   ;D

Regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33988924/DARK-MATTER-MFM
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 05, 2010, 08:17:18 PM
Hi Guys,  I decided to publish this as I think it gets to the heart of the problem we all share.  This as part of an ongoing dialogue.

Dear Doctor xxxxx,

The thesis that required this result is based on a concept of current flow from magnetic fields and not from the flow of electrons as it taught today.  I'll explain my thinking regarding the flow of electrons.  You must forgive the elementary nature of my argument.  But I think you may see the logic.

To begin with electrons have a 'like charge'.  Effectively therefore - and according to Pauli's exclusion principle - no electrons can 'share a path'.  Current flow, in its essence requires a 'shared path'.  If current flow comprised electrons then they would repel each other and this would not allow that 'shared' path.  The argument to qualify this concept is then advanced that valence electrons are 'nudged' one against the other in a kind of graduated adjustment of those electrons in the outer energy levels of atoms.  This allows for the systematic transfer of those particles.  But they also know the rate of that 'required' adjustment.  Effectively if one turned on a light switch and if the light was, say 1 meter away from the switch - then it would take about 10 minutes for this 'nudged' process of current flow to reach the light filament to make it shine.

Then there's another problem with the concept of electrons flowing anywhere at all.  Say one charges a flat battery from a wall plug.  Then the idea is that the battery will be replenished with electrons to reconstitute the charged property of the electrolytes.  But any chemist will assure you that there has been no loss of electrons in the mix.  They have just been re-ordered in the molecular arrangement through that electrolytic process.  Then, if indeed the plug replenished the electrons then the question is do electrons replenish the supply to produce light, motorised energy, heat from our stoves, our appliances, and on and on?  Clearly if your average utility supply grid had to supply all those electrons then there are simply not enough electrons from the source to enable that very big demand.  It would be quantifiably impossible for any average generator regardless of whether it's a nuclear or coal burning source to supply whole cities with that many electrons.  So the supporting theory is that there are 'free electrons' that are floating in the air and these are somehow 'borrowed' from the environment and these come into play.  Which is absurd - given that most wiring is insulated which would prevent electrons from entering the material.  And there are not - to the best of my knowledge - free floating electrons anywhere.  Nature is not that chaotic nor that liberal. 

Wiki incorporates both explanations as a definition of current flow.  But both options are mutually exclusive.

My own grounding in physics was based entirely on conceptual physics advanced by Gary Zukov in the 'dancing wu li masters' and by Paul Dyson in 'conceptual physics'.  Both authors assert that current flow cannot be based on the flow of electrons.  Dyson references the term 'charge'.  So - when I entered this field with my experiment I simply did not realise that most electrical engineers used the concept of 'electron' current flow.  But the simple fact remains.  Our electrical engineers still continue to use the concept of electron current flow.  And it must be acknowledged that our electrical engineers have developed the art of electromagnetic interactions more ably than any other field of physics.  So the 'electron' flow concept seems to work.  And it is only amongst the theoretical physicists that this is challenged - and apparently, not very loudly.

My thesis simply proposes that current flow comprises the movement of magnetic fields that are extraneous to the atoms.  They are invisible and I also propose that this is the dark energy that our astrophysicists require.  These bind atoms but their spin depends on the charge of the atoms.  If they are imbalanced - as would be the case in a predominantly acid or alkaline mix - then they too have an imbalanced spin.  Like all magnetic fields they move to a state of balance.  Therefore they order the electrolytic process by moving through the circuit components as current flow.  This allows them to change that spin.  This then neutralises the imbalance in the 'mix'.  It's more fully explained in the thesis that I sent you.  I see these fields as being responsible for the Casimir Effect.  And I also see these fields as being responsible for imparting 'weight' to an object - being a magnetic pull.

I would be very interested to hear your view of this.  I must say the reason I wrote to you at all is because I could see the rare ability to challenge conventional thought. 

.....that is most earnestly required to introduce these so called 'anomalous' results that are evident in our experiment.  You will see, I trust, that if the energy is then based on these fields - then the same fields are in our circuit's inductive components.  They too are 'bound' into a solid three dimensional amalgam.  Effectively they then also become an energy supply source - precisely because their own 'binding fields' are influenced by an applied voltage - and that influence is then in proportion to the applied current flow from the supply in the first instance.  Therefore it challenges the equivalence principle.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: nievesoliveras on August 05, 2010, 09:28:03 PM
I was busy doing some community work.

Jesus
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 05, 2010, 09:41:23 PM
many thanks indeed Jesus.  You're so well named.   ;D  I was hoping you'd be around. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 07, 2010, 10:01:51 AM
Hi Guys,

I'm doing a lot of work off forum and some of it needs record.  This is just a conceptual explanation of current flow and only for those that may be interested.

Dear ******

Here's how I see current flow.

For now, I assume that matter forms and accretes from nebulae - and I propose that the nebulae themselves are 'broken strings of zipons that have manifested out of the 'universal field' through some disruption to their balanced string formation to become chaotic truants.  Then the simple particles form from out of those truants  become the photons, and the electrons.  Then the 'accretion' of that matter progresses and they form the proton and with it the first hydrogen atom.  Here's the thing.  For every atom that gradually forms in that nebulae - with it comes a 'necklace' or a one dimensional 'string' of zipons.  This belongs to that atom.  I don't know the ratio of these fields - these 'necklaces'  to atoms.  By which I mean that I don't know if there are 10 zipons per string or 10 000 per string.  But I need these fields.  That way, when two or more hydrogen atoms (the most simple atom) share the same space, so to speak,  then, albeit that they're mutually repulsive - they are bound by these hidden fields that can adjust their orbit to balance the opposing charge in those hydrogen atoms.   So.  In the very beginning - when matter first manifests as atoms, then we get these subtle fields.  They resist the bigger universal field - which means that they're 'self supporting'.  And yet they belong to the material of the atom without ever becoming a part of the atom.  Like a hidden police force that keeps order in the neighbourhood. If they were not there then the structure of a sun would not be able to 'hold together'.  The sun is possibly not the best example of these fields as - at a critical mass, the most of them move to a  chaotic distribution of truants.  But in even in this chaotic state they remain 'localised' looking for some boundary interaction where they can peel away from the structure as radiant energy.

The proposal is that these fields remain with the atom - even as some of the atoms develop into more complex structures.  It's proposed that the complexity in the growth of the atom is at the expense of the zipons in the atoms' energy levels.  But those 'binding fields' stay with that atom - but outside that atom however complex or simple is that atom.   Therefore at whatever stage of development - of those developing atoms - and provided only that there are two or more such atoms - then those hidden 'necklaces' stay within that structure and bind it into a three dimensional object.  That's where they started. And, forever after, when planets are formed from those parts of the original sun that maybe escaped or exploded away from the sun - they stay with those atoms and - forever - organise them and sort out their crystalline structures - and hold them together in a condition of 'best balance'.  They are NOT a part of the atoms' energy levels.  But they are still just magnetic fields - exactly as I propose are the atoms' energy levels.  The difference is that the atom's energy levels are 2 dimensional whereas these little fields are 1 dimensional.

So.  This means - that on every level, whether we're looking at a TV screen or a computer or an electric kettle or anything at all that is a visible representation of multiple atoms - then what we do not see are these little fields that bind those atoms into that amalgam.

Now this holds for liquids and solids and it holds for suns.  But it does not apply to all gases.  However, anything with a 3 dimensional structure - then these strings determine their shape and the distribution of the atoms within that shape.  And they always move to a condition of balance or 'best balance'.  They obit at 2C and are thereby too small and too fast for even light to find them.   And they only interact with the atoms' energy levels, NOT with the particles in those energy levels.  Break those strings - introduce chaos - prevent that orbit - then the field of zipons becomes the hot, slow visible state where it is otherwise the cold, fast invisible state.

A battery mix is either alkaline or acid.  It has an innate imbalance.  The fields that bind the material in that mix - offer an alternate charge to the atoms in the mix.  But if the net charge of the atoms and therefore the molecules in that mix is predominantly negative then these binding fields would spin to present a positive charge - and vice versa.  If these binding fields were all therefore predominantly positive - then these fields themselves would be mutually repulsive.  Therefore the mix would be inherently 'chaotic' lacking the balance that is required to allow the fields their best 'rest' position.   It's just the other face of the same coin.  Given a critical imbalance then these binding fields would also 'catch fire'  in the same way that the sun 'catches fire'.

Now the one thing that magnets can't do is change their justification.  If a north of one magnet is presented to another north - then they repel.  Left to their own devices and within a required proximity the one magnet may readjust it's alignment by physically moving in space and then through space to attach the appropriate pole to the juxtaposed magnet.  These binding magnetic fields have that same problem inside that battery mix.  They can't just realign their spins to get that balance.  Somehow the 'charge' of the atoms and molecules determines their own charge.  And that's inviolate.  However.  Just as a permanent magnet can present an alternate pole it if can first adjust through space, so can these zipons adjust their polar property if they can move through space to alter that 'spin'.  This 'chance' or opportunity is offered by the conductive property in the material of circuit components.  Effectively if they leave the mix as a north - then they can re-enter the mix as a south.  They then present the required charge to enable an alternate spin.  When this is managed then they can re-align the atoms into different molecular structures until that elusive 'balance' is obtained.  It's subtle *****.  Its the difference between exiting the north pole - say, of our earth and re-entering the south pole.  The re-entry is the absolute opposite charge to the exit.  From that point of the orbit - back to the north pole from inside the earth - there is an entirely different and opposite charge of that field.  The same with the re-entry of these fields through the negative or positive terminal.  It's the precise opposite of the previous charge. Effectively they've managed to change the presentation of that spin to achieve that required charge balance inside that mix in the same way that permanent magnets can present the required charge when it aligns with another magnet.  The visible evidence is the re-arrangement of the molecules in that mix.  They systematically 'lose' that imbalanced molecular charged condition to become neutral.  A quiet best balance 'rest' position.   But the proposal is that this rearrangement was managed by these binding zipons - not by the atoms themselves as is proposed by mainstream.

Now.  Back to that movement through the circuit components as current flow.  Here's the thing.  With copper - we know that it has balanced valence electrons in their outer energy levels.  This means that those binding fields are really comfortable.  Perfect symmetry.  Pauli's exclusion principle determines that no two electrons can have the same path.  Remember that the proposal is that electrons are 'trapped' between energy levels.  Therefore two outer energy levels would clearly be presenting two alternate spins. Two alternate charges.  The one energy level would be clockwise say, while the other would be anti clockwise.  Perfect symmetry.  Therefore we may assume that this balanced condition would also somehow be reflected in their binding zipon fields.  The proposal is that zipons only interact with other zipons.  Therefore it is proposed that they're interacting only with those two energy levels.   Which also means that for every north binding field there would be a south binding field to accommodate both 'exterior' justifications of those energy levels.  Not exactly two binding fields - just one binding field describing a figure '8' perhaps,  to accommodate both charge properties in those energy levels.

Then from 'left field' so to speak that copper structure is exposed to a magnetic force that is coming from the discharge of current flow - the discharge of magnetic fields - from the supply source.  It has a justification.  Let's call it a North.  Therefore it repels ALL the norths in its path.  This means that one half of all those binding fields in the copper - are 'repelled'.  They literally move outside the structure and 'hang around' orbiting and waiting for a chance to get back in - go home - so to speak.  And their position is replaced by the north from the current flow.  A graduated series of interactions within that structure as they move at 2C through that structure.  In effect, the balance in that wire allows the easy passage of that current flow because the north field was already there.  It takes the place of the repelled field.  No resistance.  In a way the wire has simply 'opened it's throat' to allow the flow of this Northward bound zipon field.  And - in doing so, it's forced out the north field that it previously held those atoms bound.

When it comes to a resistive element we have a problem.  Here there is no balanced valence condition.  Too many atoms with a like charge - bound by too many zipon fields with a like charge.  Effectively the crystalline structure of that resistive wire has been chaotically managed to get to the required rest state.  Just too many norths or too many souths - and the structure verges on chaotic.  But here's what's proposed.  By a random distribution of those repulsive fields throughout the structure then the best balance - albeit tenuous - is managed.  If, for instance, one arranged a series of inherently repulsive atoms into a circle - then - in the mind's eye one can see that an artificial 'balance' could be maintained the one half of that circle presenting the polar opposite of the other.  The quantum result would be an arrangement of those atoms and molecules that are positioned such that there are as many norths as souths.  Many such circles would still remain chaotic.  The crystalline structure would still be random. But their their quantum value would present an apparent 'rest condition' with an apparent 'balance' in that charge distribution.

Now.  This material is also presented with a flow of moving zipons that are still Northward bound.  Then those fields of  zipons holding the atoms in their 'northerly' justification are all expelled - exactly as they were in the copper.  And these expelled fields still extrude the structure itself and orbit - also waiting for their 'chance' to re-enter their 'abode'.   But this time there's a problem.  By 'kicking out' those binding fields has imbalanced that tenuous positioning of charge distribution of those fields remaining inside that material of the resistor.  This imbalances the remaining zipons.  And they all start unravelling.  As they unravel they change from their previous cold fast hidden condition to a hot slow visible condition.  In effect it is like a spark that grows into a fire but it's held bound within the material of the resistor itself.  A graduated process.

I think I must stop here.  There's more to explain regarding the quantity of expelled zipons that enable that 'resonance'.  But for now, I think this is enough.  I've only used pictures here *****.  But I need to explain where the quantity of the expelled zipons as a result of this 'flow of charge' actually enables the benefit that we require.  Effectively 'thin' wire does not allow sufficient 'expelled' zipons.  And we need sufficiency to ensure a high enough voltage.  I'm glad you called for this exercise.  It was long overdue.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary.

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 08, 2010, 09:28:40 AM
Guys, these emails I hope are self explanatory.  And Glen - if you post here again - just know I'll delete it.

Dear Bob.

Hi again.  If you don't mind I'll be posting the whole of this series emails on the thread.  It will vindicate the comments and show justification for my intention to delete any further posts from TheCell AKA FuzzyTomCat AKA Glen Lettenmaier.  I'll alert Stefan to this but he's away for a few weeks.  It seems that this is an example of while the mouse is away the cat plays.  LOL.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Begin forwarded message:

From: Rosemary Ainslie <ainslie@mweb.co.za>
Date: 08 August 2010 9:17:27 AM
To: Bob Potchen <bob@TheCell.com>
Subject: Your message

Dear Bob,

Was surprised that I can still be reached on the message system through EF.Com.  They disabled this long before they actually banned me.

Also delighted to lean that this is not you.  I realise now that it's Glen - exactly as he always writes - and I should have realised as much.  Where has Farrah gone?  Miss her posts very much.

Kindest regards,
Rosie
This is a message from TheCell at Energetic Forum ( http://www.energeticforum.com/ ). The Energetic Forum owners cannot accept any responsibility for the contents of the email.

To email TheCell, you can use this online form:
http://www.energeticforum.com/sendmessage.php?do=mailmember&u=72235

OR, by email:
mailto:bob@TheCell.com

This is the message:

Dear Rosemary,

Thank you for identifying the differences in writing style between the Overunity THECELL (no space) and myself.....If you are able, can that name be withdrawn or required to be changed....

All my best,

Bob Potchen

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 08, 2010, 04:39:45 PM
Hi guys, in the face of this latest intervention by Glen - I'm now utterly disgusted and rather determined to 'fight' for my rights and for open source best interests.  What's happening now on EF.com is nothing short of fraud - conducted under the full knowledge and co-operation of their admin.  To which end I've written to them - and - as required - will implement action againt the owners of the forum if required. 

Dear Jillian,

I'm calling on you to advise you that the MOSFET heating circuit thread bears no reference to my own work in this subject as the initiator.  Added to which, now that Aaron has got rid of that the top 20 list - he's also managed to bury my own work - obviously this in close co-operation with yourselves.

I must insist that you either lose that MOSFET heating circuit thread or re-instate my own COP 17 Thread back in that top 20 list and then give it front page prominence - as it was previously referenced. Else, I must conclude that you are co-operating with your members to 'lose' reference to my being the 'discoverer' and the 'initiator' of this circuit technology.  I believe that this is fraud and as such is actionable and I will explore my rights accordingly.

Regards,
Rosemary Ainslie
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: TheCell on August 08, 2010, 07:14:54 PM
@Rosemary Ainslie

Myself TheCell is located in Germany and has nothing to do with
FuzzyTomCat / Glen Lettenmaier. I switched my attendance mode from believing to critic observer lately , because of being fooled again (Kapagen).
The purpose of this thread is now clear to me. I know offensive Thread's and persons (specially in German automobile forums ) who argue with everyone, that do not share their opinion. Compared to them it was a little critic level that I have chosen, with the attempt to get the desired information in a short efficient way.
This attempt has failed. Nevertheless there is no need to apologize.

Greetings BK
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 08, 2010, 07:22:54 PM
@Rosemary Ainslie

Myself TheCell is located in Germany and has nothing to do with
FuzzyTomCat / Glen Lettenmaier. I switched my attendance mode from believing to critic observer lately , because of being fooled again (Kapagen).
The purpose of this thread is now clear to me. I know offensive Thread's and persons (specially in German automobile forums ) who argue with everyone, that do not share their opinion. Compared to them it was a little critic level that I have chosen, with the attempt to get the desired information in a short efficient way.
This attempt has failed. Nevertheless there is no need to apologize.

Greetings BK
Greetings BK.  I indeed do need to apologise.  My immediate assumption was that Glen Lettenmaier was that poster - so abject apologies to Glen.  It seems that I was entirely wrong and too quick to jump to conclusions.

I need to ask you to reconsider your 'name' as TheCell as it is already used and rather widely.  I wonder if you could - perhaps - think of a variation.  TheCell is a chemist who has worked extensively on HHO and his work is immediately identifiable with some considerable history associated with it.  It would be considered an enormous favour.  If you look at the email you'll understand this better.  I believe that neither of you would want to be confused the one with the other and TheCell's work has an extensive history going back some many years.

It would be very much appreciated.

Meanwhile I'm delighted to hear from you and the more so as it seems you've retracted those rather harsh criticisms.  There is much scope for improvement in our work.  But we're doing our best and certainly we have absolutely resolved the experiment to proof of concept.  As I say.  Every bit helps.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 08, 2010, 08:16:47 PM
Hi guys,

Just a final post before I sign off for the night.  This is a follow up on the previous correspondence related to current flow.  Again.  It's only for those who are interested in the thesis. 

'...Regarding the extra energy.  You see ***** - the potential difference is the sum of the 'charge imbalance' from the source.  But in transferring that energy from one terminal to another that charge imbalance is 'transferred' to the copper wire - and then to the resistive wire.  The copper wire does not 'mind' that imbalance - as it does not dislodge those binding fields.  The north's 'say' are extruded from the copper wire.  But the 'norths' from the battery supply source simply take over their function.  In moving through the circuit wire it simply maintains that bound condition which remains 'mostly' satisfied. But in the resistive wire there is no required balance available to that material structure. We're here dealing with imbalanced fields.  Imbalanced valence electrons.  This, in turn, indicates imbalanced energy levels.   Here the binding fields, those 'string's, are actually BROKEN when the 'north' current flows through it.  This unravels the atoms that they WERE holding together.  And that bound condition becomes compromised.  It results in a gradual and continual weakening of the resistive structure as these binding zipons systematically leave the structure in the form of radiant energy.  The break in the light filament.  The gradual weakening of your toaster wires.  The slower but ultimate 'break' in the wire in your heating elements.  And so on.  The atoms have NOT changed.  Nor has their number changed.  All that's CHANGED is the condition or integrity of their BOUND state.  They've lost their bonding - their glue - because the binding fields have systematically 'left the building' so to speak.

But in transferring that voltage  - when the north (say) current runs through the wire - then it extrudes ALL the norths or, depending on the direction of current flow - ALL the souths in all the wires.  Two norths just cannot share any kind of immediate proximity.  The current flowing through the wire  does not discriminate in terms of quantity.  Therefore - provided more norths are extruded than are replaced by current flow - then the voltage across the resistor will be greater.  It may therefore result in MORE fields extruded than supplied by current flow depending on the quantity of material available - or to put in simply - it depends on the thickness  or the mass of the wire.   The force of voltage times amperage in the returning cycle can then equal or EXCEED the energy that was first applied.  The transferred imbalance first allows the material to become a potential supply source for current flow because it's innate balance has been disturbed (as in the battery) but the amount of that imbalance can equal or exceed the energy first delivered - provided only that there's enough mass.  The excess is slight.  But it's enough.  My own prediction is that - subject to a better organisation of the switching cycle - to better control - we should be able to retain the voltage level at the supply to precisely it's pre-discharge value.  But we are nowhere near that yet as the default oscillation is still rather costly to each cycle.

In effect E still = MC^2.  But the mass of resistor itself now also comes into the equation.  But the mass relates to the measure of its newly acquired voltage potential.  Effectively the resistor itself becomes an energy supply source.  This has been discounted by mainstream.  Indeed - when I first presented the circuit design I was WIDELY advised both on forum and by our academics - that it is IMPOSSIBLE to generate enough energy away from the supply to recharge the supply.  Our experimental evidence has put paid to that assumption.  And I see now that this concept of recharging a discharging battery is more readily accepted - especially amongst us OU enthusiasts.

I am SO looking forward to you understanding these things *****.  They're simple.  Really, really simple.  But like all maps - one must first get familiar with the geography.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 10, 2010, 07:44:45 AM
Hi guys,  I debated whether or not to include this email - but have decided to do so in the interests of full record.  At least it will keep those interested in step with developments.

Dear *****,

There are only about 10 people who fully understand the concepts in the thesis.  I find it SO simple.  But that's because I'm seeing in in the mind's eye and I'm obviously not communicating clearly.  I am entirely satisfied that this can be explained in simple 3d representation of concept.  Really it will not be difficult.  It would make the 10 dimensional aspect so immediately clear. In this I'm speaking exactly the same language as the string theorists.   I've been working on the 'script' and provided these can be shown as I envisage it then it will make much more sense when it's represented pictorially or visually. Indeed we can reference the impossibility of electron current flow.  I'd love to do that.  Perhaps 3 to 5 minutes of brief reference.  But that production depends on our chat tomorrow afternoon.  I've been doing a bit of homework here and it's coming together - at least enough to find out what *****'s constraints are in what he'll need to do.

Regarding the extra energy.  You see ***** - the potential difference is the sum of the 'charge imbalance' from the source.  But in transferring that energy from one terminal to another that charge imbalance is 'transferred' to the copper wire - and then to the resistive wire.  The copper wire does not 'mind' that imbalance - as it does not dislodge those binding fields.  The north's 'say' are extruded from the copper wire.  But the 'norths' from the battery supply source simply take over their function.  In moving through the circuit wire it simply maintains that bound condition which remains 'mostly' satisfied. But in the resistive wire there is no required balance available to that material structure. We're here dealing with imbalanced fields.  Imbalanced valence electrons.  This, in turn, indicates imbalanced energy levels.   Here the binding fields, those 'string's, are actually BROKEN when the 'north' current flows through it.  This unravels the atoms that they WERE holding together.  And that bound condition becomes compromised.  It results in a gradual and continual weakening of the resistive structure as these binding zipons systematically leave the structure in the form of radiant energy.  The break in the light filament.  The gradual weakening of your toaster wires.  The slower but ultimate 'break' in the wire in your heating elements.  And so on.  The atoms have NOT changed.  Nor has their number changed.  All that's CHANGED is the condition or integrity of their BOUND state.  They've lost their bonding - their glue - because the binding fields have systematically 'left the building' so to speak.

But in transferring that voltage  - when the north (say) current runs through the wire - then it extrudes ALL the norths or, depending on the direction of current flow - ALL the souths in all the wires.  Two norths just cannot share any kind of immediate proximity.  The current flowing through the wire  does not discriminate in terms of quantity.  Therefore - provided more norths are extruded than are replaced by current flow - then the voltage across the resistor will be greater.  It may therefore result in MORE fields extruded than supplied by current flow depending on the quantity of material available - or to put in simply - it depends on the thickness  or the mass of the wire.   The force of voltage times amperage in the returning cycle can then equal or EXCEED the energy that was first applied.  The transferred imbalance first allows the material to become a potential supply source for current flow because it's innate balance has been disturbed (as in the battery) but the amount of that imbalance can equal or exceed the energy first delivered - provided only that there's enough mass.  The excess is slight.  But it's enough.  My own prediction is that - subject to a better organisation of the switching cycle - to better control - we should be able to retain the voltage level at the supply to precisely it's pre-discharge value.  But we are nowhere near that yet as the default oscillation is still rather costly to each cycle.

In effect E still = MC^2.  But the mass of resistor itself now also comes into the equation.  But the mass relates to the measure of its newly acquired voltage potential.  Effectively the resistor itself becomes an energy supply source.  This has been discounted by mainstream.  Indeed - when I first presented the circuit design I was WIDELY advised both on forum and by our academics - that it is IMPOSSIBLE to generate enough energy away from the supply to recharge the supply.  Our experimental evidence has put paid to that assumption.  And I see now that this concept of recharging a discharging battery is more readily accepted - especially amongst us OU enthusiasts.

I am SO looking forward to you understanding these things *****.  They're simple.  Really, really simple.  But like all maps - one must first get familiar with the geography.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 10, 2010, 07:46:31 AM
Sorry - just btw.  This thread dropped off the front page and I could not find it.  Had to go back to a previous link.  How does one find the other pages on the forum?  Can someone help me here?

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Pirate88179 on August 10, 2010, 08:01:48 AM
Rosemary:

Just look on the top of the page next to your avatar, select the second one down that says "show replies to your posts" and it will show every topic you posted in and take you to the last post you have viewed in that topic.

I hope this helps.

Bill           

PS IF you do not see that selection, then you need to open the header by clicking on the + sign on the top right hand side of the page. (Just to the right of the date and time) It will drop down the header so you can see your avatar and the choices on the left I mentioned above.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 10, 2010, 08:04:38 AM
Rosemary:

Just look on the top of the page next to your avatar, select the second one down that says "show replies to your posts" and it will show every topic you posted in and take you to the last post you have viewed in that topic.

I hope this helps.

Thanks Bill - very much. 
Kindest regards,
Rosie

BTW it seems complicated.  Can't Stefan modify this to give us a page number access?  I'll ask  him when he gets back. 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 11, 2010, 02:49:47 AM
Hi guys,

Finally I'm getting a time line.  I had a long conversation with the guys on campus today.  The switches will be designed and built and ready for testing by this time next week.  It's been REALLY slow on campus - but I think this is now about to change.

I'll post those switching circuit designs as soon as I have receipt of them, hopefully before the weekend.

Regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Bubba1 on August 11, 2010, 03:10:11 AM
...Then, if indeed the plug replenished the electrons then the question is do electrons replenish the supply to produce light, motorised energy, heat from our stoves, our appliances, and on and on?  Clearly if your average utility supply grid had to supply all those electrons then there are simply not enough electrons from the source to enable that very big demand.  It would be quantifiably impossible for any average generator regardless of whether it's a nuclear or coal burning source to supply whole cities with that many electrons....
 

Do you mean to say that it is your understanding of conventional theory that a battery or a power company supplies electrons to a light bulb through one wire, without getting any in return through the other wire?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 11, 2010, 03:32:29 AM
Do you mean to say that it is your understanding of conventional theory that a battery or a power company supplies electrons to a light bulb through one wire, without getting any in return through the other wire?
Hello Bubba.  NO is the short answer.  What I'm pointing to is the logical fallacies of assuming electron flow in any context of current flow at all.  If you take a supply grid applying current to recharge a battery - then the current is first rectified to DC and the circuit is then connected to the battery.  We understand that the current first flows to the battery as it's in series with the plug switch.  Then - having flowed to the battery it then flows through the battery back to the plug.  The point is this.  The battery never sees an extra electron - EVER.  So what is it that flowed from the one point of the plug back to the other point of the plug?  Electrons?  Then if so - did the electrons somehow skip past the battery and forge a path through what?  The air - to return to their own plug source terminal?  Given always that the battery is directly in the path of that current flow. 

The only thing that is measured across the battery is a voltage potential.  And the only thing measured across the plug point is a voltage potential.  The assumption is made that electrons are flowing from the plug through the battery and back to the plug.  This have NEVER been quantifiably proven.  It has only been assumed.

I use this example as there is a need here for a continual path of current flow through the battery as this is now in the path of the grid supply. 

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Bubba1 on August 11, 2010, 03:51:33 AM
I don't get your point.  Why can't the electrons be flowing through the battery like they flow through a light bulb filament?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 11, 2010, 04:06:28 AM
I don't get your point.  Why can't the electrons be flowing through the battery like they flow through a light bulb filament?

Hi again.  Simply because if the battery mix were assailed with a supply of electrons it would interfere with the electrolytic process which is required to exactly account for ALL the transactions associated with that process.

The concept of electron current flow is partially supported with the the AC supply source as there's the general impression given that what comes out then goes back. 

The only reasonable explanation for electron current flow is the displacement of valence electrons in the outer energy levels of atoms.  This is indeed feasible and acceptable.  However, the rate of that displacement is so slow that one would have to wait between 10 minutes to an hour for the current to then reach the lights dispersed around the average household.  Effectively you switch on.  Then wait.  And over a long period of time you will see the one light turn on and then the other and then the other - as the current reaches those lights.

It is theoretically flawed to assume electron current flow.  It is merely a 'convention' or 'concept' used by electrical engineers and very efficiently used, I might add.  Quantum electromagnetic dynamics is the most efficient and progressive of all branches of physics.  Yet it is profoundly and fundamentally flawed where it is based on the concept of electron current flow.

I, today, had a conversation with academic engineers and there is - in fact - a consensus that the use of the 'electron' current flow is a convention rather than a correct interpretation of the fact.  But it's the first time I've had this admission.

Purists among theoretical physicists refer to 'charge' as they are well aware of the impossibility of electrons forming the basis of current flow. Electrons are negatively charged.  They can no more share a path than can two north poles of a permanent magnet share a path.  The Laws of Charge require two like charged particles to move away from each other at an angle of 180 degrees.  How then can two like charged electrons move together?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: fritznien on August 11, 2010, 04:22:01 AM
lets see electrons in a vacuum tube, cathod ray tube, X-ray tube......
electricity is the flow of electric charge, electrons protons or ions.
in a wire its electrons in a batterry its ions.
to discharge a batterry undergoes chemical reactions that move positive ions to one electrode and negative to the other.
to charge a voltage is applied which moves charge in the opposite direction and reverses the process.
all this is only 200 years old.
google it electrons have been measured for charge mass and size for many decades.
fritznien
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 11, 2010, 04:40:00 AM
lets see electrons in a vacuum tube, cathod ray tube, X-ray tube......
Hello  fritznien.  Electrons can indeed be dispersed as you mention here.  But this has nothing to do with the flow of current.  We're talking the actual transfer of energy through a circuit for purposes of work at a load.

electricity is the flow of electric charge, electrons protons or ions. in a wire its electrons in a batterry its ions.
to discharge a batterry undergoes chemical reactions that move positive ions to one electrode and negative to the other.
If you could generate current flow with protons then you will indeed have performed a miracle.  You would need to strip your inductive atoms down to a level that has not be managed under any process devised thus far.  No-one, not even those more adventurous electrical engineers has ever proposed that ions can be the material of current flow.  And electrons simply cannot share a path - not under any circumstances at all.  They can be energised to disperse and that dispersion has uses.  But they simply cannot 'share' any path, anywhere at all in the sense that current flow requires this.  Current flow effectively implies the transfer of a 'field'.  Electrons cannot generate the smoothness required by a field. 

to charge a voltage is applied which moves charge in the opposite direction and reverses the process.
all this is only 200 years old.
Not even.  Farraday was only born in 1860's or thereby.  But the age of the science is certainly not proof of the science.  But you are certainly correct in referring to the current flow as a flow of charge.  I don't think anyone can argue that.

google it electrons have been measured for charge mass and size for many decades.

Again.  Not sure what argument you are using here fritznien.  The actual mass and charge of the electron is precisely what precludes it from being a canditate to generate a 'field' effect. 

Regards,
Rosemary
EDITED
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 11, 2010, 05:05:30 AM
Rosemary, I guess this is at the basis of your misunderstanding:

Quote
No-one, not even those more adventurous electrical engineers has ever proposed that ions can be the cause of current flow.

On the contrary. It is exactly the formation of the ions due to the negative value of the change in Gibbs free energy of the chemical reaction leading to the formation of these ions that is the very cause for the follow-up directed flow of electrons along the solid conductors connecting the anode and the cathode. While in a redox reaction taking place in the bulk of a vessel the direction of the electron flow is random, the separation of the anodic from the cathodic compartment in an electrolytic cell causes the electrons to flow in concert in a given direction which is exactly what electric current is. That's the basis of electrochemistry. I don't know what these electrical engineers are that you're talking to but that's basic stuff well recognized by anyone versed in the subject.

Also, as I said before, it is not true that:

Quote
And electrons simply cannot share a path - not under any circumstances at all.

They in fact can. There's no theoretical reason preventing them from flowing in concert and that can very easily be demonstrated experimentally. Electrons can and do share a path, despite being of the same charge, as do the like-charged cations on the one hand and the anions on the other in an electrolytic cell.

Many of us here are quite open minded, some even to the extreme, but there are limits especially when the question concerns well established experimental facts.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 11, 2010, 08:34:46 AM
Rosemary, I guess this is at the basis of your misunderstanding:

On the contrary. It is exactly the formation of the ions due to the negative value of the change in Gibbs free energy of the chemical reaction leading to the formation of these ions that is the very cause for the follow-up directed flow of electrons along the solid conductors connecting the anode and the cathode.
LOL Omnibus - you were too quick.  I modified my post within 10 minutes of posting to address this very point and you posted your reply about an hour after that.  Check it out.  I changed the wording from 'cause' to the 'material of'.  So indeed you are right and indeed I know this.   ;D

Also, as I said before, it is not true that:

They in fact can. There's no theoretical reason preventing them from flowing in concert and that can very easily be demonstrated experimentally. Electrons can and do share a path, despite being of the same charge, as do the like-charged cations on the one hand and the anions on the other in an electrolytic cell.
The little electrolysis that I understand is courtesy the explanations offered by Farrah.  And unless I'm doing her teaching a gross injustice - I understand that the cation and anion separation is into atomic and/or molecular structures that 'divide' the burden of charge equally into localised areas of the cell mix - wherever that locality is required.  Therefore, in a lead/acid battery example, one gets the lead surfaces sulphated, for instance as the liquid itself turns into pure water.   After all - the negative current flow - during the recharge of the battery - does not result in a redistribution of those sulphates.  It actually just recongregates the previous sulphuric mix.  So.  There is no proof of electron current flow here - only of 'charged' current flow.  I'm still being obtuse.  What I'm trying to point to is that the number of electrons in that mix is 'fixed' and relates to the cation and anion state of the atoms and molecules.  No surplus is ever evident.  For your concept of current flow to be valid would REQUIRE the introduction of a stream of electrons - thereby representing a surplus to the mix - which would then move through that cell - somehow - to come out the other side.  When there is ever experimental evidence of this then, indeed, I will be happy to be convinced. 

Many of us here are quite open minded, some even to the extreme, but there are limits especially when the question concerns well established experimental facts.

 ;D  Omnibut - far be it from me to disturb the thinking of you chemists.  The fact is that those of you who are 'open minded' are asking us who also 'open minded' to buy into two mutually exclusive definitions of current flow as per WIKI when both rely on the flow of electrons.  Electrons would unequivocally first need to defy the Laws of Charge to shape themselves into a field - and they would need to be remarkably versatile to introduce both a positive and a negative property into any element in a circuit to manage all that you assume.  The electrons in an atom are indeed a measure of the atomic charge which is reflected in the condition of those valence electrons.  The fact is that Pauli's exclusion principle relies on the fact that particles obey the laws of charge.  His conclusion being that no two elctrons can share the same path in an atom.  This observation was the genius insight that resulted in the systematic unfolding of the atom.  Particles unequivocally obey the Laws of Charge.  Why do you all suppose that - under circumstances of current flow - they suddenly get a mind of their own and then move in a way that it entirely impossible under all circumstances?  Those Laws of Charge - they're not a 'rule' - they're a LAW. 

This argument is not an eccentric philosophy as you here imply.  It is a deeply held conviction on the part of all theoretical purists.  The problem is that there is nothing 'known' or 'accepted' to substitute the concept of a flow of electrons.  Hopefully when this is uncovered then the broad 'misconception' of electron current flow can be put right.

 ;D
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 11, 2010, 09:21:17 AM
Omnibus - if my argument is still not clear - let me try this.  Let us say that for the electrolytic process in a battery to be initiated it first requires the accumulation of electrons at one terminal of the battery.  This way one can keep to the concept of a 'fixed number' of electrons.  So.  They charge through the circuit from one terminal to the other.  Then a switching process comes into play and the current flow is reversed.  Then those same electrons charge through the wire in the opposite direction and do what?  Do they then undo what they previously did?  Do they restructure the electrolytic mix back to its original state?  And if so, then how do they do this?  Surely - under such circumstances they would simply continue their work and sulphate more of the lead while they neutralised more of the liquid?  They presumably are still negatively charged?  They cannot now introduce a positive charge.  They're negative particles.  How do they now undo what you have assumed that they first did. 

One can then get obscurely technical and say that when they accumulate at one or other surface of the terminal then the other is postively charged by comparision.  But that would first require that all are either at one or other terminal.  The entire concept of current flow is that it is a continuous stream through that circuit material.  If electrons are streaming through and as electrons are negatively charged then both terminals would need to be negatively charged.  I can see it argued that eventually the charge distribution may be more apparent as the plates become sulphated.  But that positive and negative condition is actually only apparent through our voltmeters when the process is initiated.  At it's conclusion the voltmeter shows little if any voltage imbalance.

Or presumably one can say that charge is determined by the direction of movement - which is correct.  But that would attribute a variable charge to an electron - assuming first that it indeed can flow in a path.  Because, what is also known is that current flow can vary it's directional flow depending on voltage potential.  It seems to possess the properties of both a negative and positive charge.  Electrons do not have this advantage.  The only thing that is known to be bipolar is a magnetic field and that's it.  All else is charged or neutral.   

Again, with utmost repect to your own thinking.  I must admit you're in very good company.  I've said it often.  Purists may argue electron current flow  - but never very loudly.  There are no accepted alternative concepts - as yet.

Best regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 11, 2010, 01:59:09 PM
Rsemary,

Quote
For your concept of current flow to be valid would REQUIRE the introduction of a stream of electrons - thereby representing a surplus to the mix - which would then move through that cell - somehow - to come out the other side.  When there is ever experimental evidence of this then, indeed, I will be happy to be convinced.


In fact, this is exactly what happens in an electrolytic cell. There is surplus of electrons and that surplus is contained in the electrode which has the tendency to produce the electrons. There are ample sources in the net explaining how this happens. For instance, in a Cu-Zn galvanic cell the Zn electrode is the supplier of the electrons due to the reaction Zn - 2e -> Zn2+ The Zn electrode will be the source of these electeons flowing through the wire shorting the anode and cathode until its (of the Zn) complete diappearance. So, yes, there is a surplus of electrons in an electrolytic cell if you want to call this way the supply of the electrons and that's the very essence of what an electrolytic cell is. That surplus of electrons is contained in the Zn piece and it only waits to be connected in a proper system so that is can be delivered. The delivery will continue until the full disappearance of the Zn piece.

Once you understand the above which is an experimental fact also, there will be no need to imagine that electrons cannot chare the same path because they, as experiment shows, actually do. Let alone that the Pauli exclusion principle, the basis of a speculation they don't, does not pertain to electrons that aren't bound as is the case at hand. Not to say that the electrons in a galvanic cell do obey the law of charge because all the generated electrons originating from the Zn electrode in our example do end up converting the equivalent amount of Cu2+ ions at the cathode into Cu. All of them. Charge balance is obeyed in full and it is indeed eccentric to deny it.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 11, 2010, 02:53:44 PM
Rsemary,
 
In fact, this is exactly what happens in an electrolytic cell. There is surplus of electrons and that surplus is contained in the electrode which has the tendency to produce the electrons.
  Omnibus.  From WHERE does the electrode produce electrons? This 'tendancy' as you put it...how do you explain this?  Are you talking about the electrons within the anode itself? Those electrons that belong to the material of the anode or the cathode?  Or are you talking about electrons that have been moved there as a function of the electrolytic process from within the electrolytic mix of the cell?

If the former then there are no 'free electrons' in that material.  They only belong to the atoms and molecules of either the anode or the cathode.  No free electrons there that I know you're all looking for.  If the latter - then those electrons belonging to the cell go nowhere other than in the reconstitution of the electrolytic mix.  So far there are NO extra electrons.

There are ample sources in the net explaining how this happens. For instance, in a Cu-Zn galvanic cell the Zn electrode is the supplier of the electrons due to the reaction Zn - 2e -> Zn2+ The Zn electrode will be the source of these electrons flowing through the wire shorting the anode and cathode until its (of the Zn) complete diappearance.
I'm well aware that the zinc will be oxidised as a direct transfer of its electron to the copper.  But that says nothing about current flow.  It only explains the electrolytic process.  But current can be generated without any chemical process.  It can be generated from a motor where there is NO EVIDENCE of change in the material either of circuit components nor the material of the motor generating that current.  NO galvanic - voltaic involvement - anywhere.  Where then do those 'electrons' come from if electric current flow is the flow of electrons?  And in the simple copper/zinc example that you gave - you show NO extra electrons.  The zinc sheds its electron - the copper gains it.  Both occur within the battery cell through the salt bridge.  How does that constitute electron current flow?  Now.  Reverse the current flow through that battery.  What happens now?  Do those electrons suddenly become positive that they reverse that process so that the copper then loses its electron back to the zinc?

On the question of recharging a battery.  We KNOW that the battery can be recharged.  We KNOW that this can be done by hooking the battery to a utility supply source.  The assumption you reference is that the supply source is delivering electrons - God alone knows where they would come from. But - if so, if there's this unknown source of 'free floating' electrons - then we also KNOW that the supply source has a battery hooked up in series that current MUST be routed through that recharging battery.  NOW. How does it go from anode back to the cathode?  Through the battery?  That's NEVER been experimentally evident - never been verified.

So, yes, there is a surplus of electrons in an electrolytic cell if you want to call this way the supply of the electrons and that's the very essence of what an electrolytic cell is. That surplus of electrons is contained in the Zn piece and it only waits to be connected in a proper system so that is can be delivered. The delivery will continue until the full disappearance of the Zn piece. 
I am NOT arguing extra electrons.  My advise is that there are NO FREE FLOATING ELECTRONS.  If there were we would be very aware of them. 

Once you understand the above which is an experimental fact
If any of your claims were experimentally verifiable I would not have an argument.  I have spent many years trying to find evidence of this 'electron' current flow.  It is neither logically nor experimentally evident.  Yes they can be transferred from one atom to another, from one molecule to another.  But they CANNOT become a field.  The CANNOT flow as current.

also, there will be no need to imagine that electrons cannot chare the same path because they, as experiment shows, actually do.
  Where do they share the same path?  Are you talking about the fact that there's a consistency in their drift as they reconstitute in a mix?  That is NOT an electric current path.  That is a chemical or an electrolytic process. 

Let alone that the Pauli exclusion principle, the basis of a speculation they don't, does not pertain to electrons that aren't bound as is the case at hand. Not to say that the electrons in a galvanic cell do obey the law of charge because all the generated electrons originating from the Zn electrode in our example do end up converting the equivalent amount of Cu2+ ions at the cathode into Cu. All of them. Charge balance is obeyed in full and it is indeed eccentric to deny it.
I agree.  Finally.  Charge balance is obeyed in full as it's based on the laws of charge.  But you are not arguing electron current flow here.  It would indeed be eccentric to deny the validity of chemical experiments that can prove the reconstitution of a mix from an acid or alkaline base to a neutral condition of charge.  What I'm arguing here is that current flow has NOTHING to do with the flow of electrons - free floating or otherwise.  They simply CANNOT share a path.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 11, 2010, 03:08:15 PM
Rosemary, I don't know what that mix you're referring to is. The turning of Zn into Zn2+ and 2e-, however, is undeniable. That's the first thing you have to understand. Second, it is undeniable that the thus produced electrons share the same path along the solid conductor connecting the Zn with the Cu. This can be measured, it is demonstrable.

The mentioned flow of e- along the common path is driven by a potential difference. It is immaterial how you create this potential difference as long as the electrons sense it forcing them to share the undeniable, experimentally observable, common path. It can be due, as I said, to the natural chemical tendency, expressed by the negative change of the Gibbs free energy (a natural property) or it can be due to some other source of energy (say, spending energy when turning the crank of a dynamo). In any event, electrons are available and one only needs to spend energy in order to force them along an observable common path. Simple as that.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 11, 2010, 03:15:58 PM
Rosemary, if you're interested in my opinion the only thing worth pursuing in your project is the experiment because the ruminations about the nature of electric current are obviously untenable. Insisting on such view may harm an otherwise probably very promising pursuit.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: spinn_MP on August 11, 2010, 04:04:32 PM
Hi, Rosemary!
Either bozons, zipons,  or fuckons.... OOops, sorry.
Why don't you read at least a basic books about "whatever" you're preaching here?
Is this charade really necessary?
Of course, Stefan made you an Admin (lol)...  Why do you insist to spread all this nonsence of yours, without any kind of a proof?

BTW, why did you abandoned the knitting?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Bubba1 on August 12, 2010, 02:53:03 AM
Just for the record:  Michael Faraday  22 September 1791 – 25 August 1867
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: fritznien on August 12, 2010, 05:03:46 AM
"a battery is a collection of multiple electrochemical cells, but in popular usage battery often refers to a single cell.[1] The first electrochemical cell was developed by by the Italian physicist Alessandro Volta in 1792,"
i stand corrected 218 years
 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_(electricity)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: shruggedatlas on August 12, 2010, 06:27:59 AM
That's NEVER been experimentally evident - never been verified.
I am NOT arguing extra electrons.  My advise is that there are NO FREE FLOATING ELECTRONS.  If there were we would be very aware of them. 
If any of your claims were experimentally verifiable I would not have an argument.  I have spent many years trying to find evidence of this 'electron' current flow.  It is neither logically nor experimentally evident.  Yes they can be transferred from one atom to another, from one molecule to another.  But they CANNOT become a field.  The CANNOT flow as current.

First of all, electrons share shell paths in atoms, so there is an example of sharing a path.  Second, why can't they flow as current?  Since electrons do not want to be near other electrons, they can push each other forward?

Furthermore, there has been a ton of science about this.  Think about microelectronics, like the microprocessor. These are designed to conduct the flow of electrons through many very tiny paths, and with as much science and progress as has been done here, and as complex as microelectronics are, do you really think microchip manufacturers got it wrong, and their devices work for reasons completely unknown to them?

Lastly, if electricity is not the flow of electrons, what is it?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: fritznien on August 12, 2010, 07:05:32 AM
ms shruggedatlas how nice to see you back. loved your old pic huba huba. :-)
fritznien
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Pirate88179 on August 12, 2010, 09:48:04 AM
Shrugged Atlas is a guy....trust me on this.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Paul-R on August 12, 2010, 03:13:23 PM

Lastly, if electricity is not the flow of electrons, what is it?
Don't forget that current (allegedly electron flow) and magnetism are
opposite sides of the same coin.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 12, 2010, 06:44:32 PM
Hi, Rosemary!
Either bozons, zipons,  or fuckons.... OOops, sorry.
Why don't you read at least a basic books about "whatever" you're preaching here?
Is this charade really necessary?
Of course, Stefan made you an Admin (lol)...  Why do you insist to spread all this nonsence of yours, without any kind of a proof?

BTW, why did you abandoned the knitting?

For some reason I'm not getting email notification from OU.com.  I'll need to find out why.  Which is why I haven't been back here for a while.

Spinn - I've always enjoyed the occassional troll - but they must - at the very least - be witty.  Try and up the level of your contributions and I'll tolerate them.  But at this level they'll bore both me and the readers here. 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 12, 2010, 06:47:37 PM
Just for the record:  Michael Faraday  22 September 1791 – 25 August 1867

Just checked this.  I stand corrected Bubba.  Apologies.
 ;D

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 12, 2010, 06:49:48 PM
"a battery is a collection of multiple electrochemical cells, but in popular usage battery often refers to a single cell.[1] The first electrochemical cell was developed by by the Italian physicist Alessandro Volta in 1792,"
i stand corrected 218 years
 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_(electricity)

You were quite right fritznien.  Referenced above.  Apologies. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 12, 2010, 07:06:39 PM
First of all, electrons share shell paths in atoms, so there is an example of sharing a path.  Second, why can't they flow as current?  Since electrons do not want to be near other electrons, they can push each other forward?

Furthermore, there has been a ton of science about this.  Think about microelectronics, like the microprocessor. These are designed to conduct the flow of electrons through many very tiny paths, and with as much science and progress as has been done here, and as complex as microelectronics are, do you really think microchip manufacturers got it wrong, and their devices work for reasons completely unknown to them?

Lastly, if electricity is not the flow of electrons, what is it?

Hi shruggedatlas.  Yes.  I do think they work on principles that have NOTHING to do with a flow of electrons.  But I am absolutely not that anxious to convert anyone at all to my thinking.  I've simply explained why I think what I do.  No-one's under any pressure or obligation to 'buy in'.  And you're right.  I reference it everywhere.  No single branch of physics is better developed or advanced than that related to quantum electromagnetics.  And - to date - there is no substitute for the electron as the 'carrier' of this energy.  It's just a badly flawed concept that is nonetheless - very effective as a concept.  It works - and it's used.  It's just wrong - is all. 

You must remember that dark energy and dark matter are now entirely proven - yet there are renowned academics who absolutely reject that proof.  Michio Kaku is on record.  He says words to the effect "All the text books that have ever been written.  They're all wrong."  It's just that the 'change over' to new concepts is having a harder time of it than ever before precisely because so many really clever people have bought into ideas that will be entirely outdated within the very near future. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 12, 2010, 07:13:25 PM
Rosemary, just for the record, Michio Kaku is not a renowned academic. He's just a writer of books written to amuse readers at large who think science is that kind of amusement. Not that there are no renowned academics writing stupid things too.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 12, 2010, 07:18:04 PM
Don't forget that current (allegedly electron flow) and magnetism are
opposite sides of the same coin.

Hi Paul.  One must bear in mind that changing electric fields induce magnetic fields and changing magnetic fields induce electric fields.  That concept was proved by Farraday and mathematically refined by Maxwell.  An electric field cannot be measured without a magnetic field associated with it.  But there is NO electric field that has EVER been measured in a magnet on magnet interaction.  It is ASSUMED to be extant within the material structure of those magnets.  It has NEVER been empirically proved.

This means, effectively, that electromagnetic force has been proved.  What has not been disproved is the existence of an independent magnetic force.  But it is not identified as an independent force in any definition of the forces.  There is only recognition of the electromagnetic force.  To my way of thinking - our greats - notwithstanding their extraordinary achievements - have missed out on at least 50% of the eletromagnetic interaction.  And, that they called it 'electricity' at all is based on their early understanding that it was due to electron flow.  That early concept is flawed. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary 

EDITED
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 12, 2010, 07:21:16 PM
Rosemary, just for the record, Michio Kaku is not a renowned academic. He's just a writer of books written to amuse readers at large who think science is that kind of amusement. Not that there are no renowned academics writing stupid things too.

Hi Omnibus.  I can't comment on how well renowned is Michio Kaku.  I do know he enjoys his publicity.  But he's indeed highly respected amongst academics.  Very much so in fact.  Personally I think he's just so brave.  He speaks things exactly as he sees them.  I don't think he depends on an academic salary though.  Else perhaps he'd be less outspoken. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: WilbyInebriated on August 12, 2010, 07:23:48 PM
just for the record, Michio Kaku is not a renowned academic.
ohhh!! so that is why he holds the henry semat chair... and that is why he published research articles on string theory for 30 years... and that is why he is the author of several doctoral textbooks (are those doctoral students the readers at large who think science is that kind of amusement?) on string theory and quantum field theory...  and that is why has published 170 articles in journals covering topics such as superstring theory, supergravity, supersymmetry, and hadronic physics... because he is not a renowned academic.

i would argue he is.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 12, 2010, 07:28:22 PM
ohhh!! so that is why he holds the henry semat chair... and that is why he published research articles on string theory for 30 years... and that is why he is the author of several doctoral textbooks (are those doctoral students the readers at large who think science is that kind of amusement?) on string theory and quantum field theory...  and that is why has published 170 articles in journals covering topics such as superstring theory, supergravity, supersymmetry, and hadronic physics... because he is not a renowned academic.

i would argue he is.

Hi Wilby.  LOL.  I, for one, would not want to argue that much evidence.  Golly.

Kindest regards as ever,
R
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 12, 2010, 07:31:56 PM
ohhh!! so that is why he holds the henry semat chair... and that is why he published research articles on string theory for 30 years... and that is why he is the author of several doctoral textbooks (are those doctoral students the readers at large who think science is that kind of amusement?) on string theory and quantum field theory...  and that is why has published 170 articles in journals covering topics such as superstring theory, supergravity, supersymmetry, and hadronic physics... because he is not a renowned academic.

i would argue he is.

He is known for his amusement books and not for his string theory papers. There are others with string theory papers who aren't nearly as popular as that unfortunate person. Speaking of string theory, all that can be ignored out of hand because it is an outgrowth of another misconception, based on obvious internal contradictions. This isn't the place to discuss it, though.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 12, 2010, 07:35:28 PM
Notice also that the

Quote
the henry semat chair...

is not in a university where renowned academics  are known to hold chairs.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: WilbyInebriated on August 12, 2010, 07:35:34 PM
Hi Wilby.  LOL.  I, for one, would not want to argue that much evidence.  Golly.

Kindest regards as ever,
R
hi rosemary. :D and who could forget he (kaku) is listed in who's who in science and engineering, AND american men and women of science... but they don't list people of renown now do they? ::)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: WilbyInebriated on August 12, 2010, 07:37:49 PM
He is known for his amusement books and not for his string theory papers. There are others with string theory papers who aren't nearly as popular as that unfortunate person. Speaking of string theory, all that can be ignored out of hand because it is an outgrowth of another misconception, based on obvious internal contradictions. This isn't the place to discuss it, though.
what this isn't the place for... this isn't the place for you to denigrate a far brighter mind and personality (kaku) than yours in a vain and flawed attempt to discredit...

maybe you know him for his "amusement books"... but that's just you isn't it? to suggest he is not a person of renown is asinine omnibus.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 12, 2010, 07:41:12 PM
hi rosemary. :D and who could forget he (kaku) is listed in who's who in science and engineering, AND american men and women of science... but they don't list people of renown now do they? ::)

No, they don't always. Many times you can find names of modest achievements listed there because those who's who's are mostly business and they'll gladly list you if you pay them, never mind you're in the City University of NY. Even more prestigious may sound to be the member of the NY Academy of Science but it actually isn't for the same reason.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 12, 2010, 07:42:50 PM
what this isn't the place for... this isn't the place for you to denigrate a far brighter mind and personality (kaku) than yours in a vain and flawed attempt to discredit...

This isn't the place to discuss string theories and where they arrive from. Michio Kaku denigrates himself, without external help, by writing complete nonsense.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: WilbyInebriated on August 12, 2010, 07:46:58 PM
No, they don't always. Many times you can find names of modest achievements listed there because those who's who's are mostly business and they'll gladly list you if you pay them, never mind you're in the City University of NY. Even more prestigious may sound to be the member of the NY Academy of Science but it actually isn't for the same reason.
do those publications EVER list people of renown omni? a simple yes or no answer will suffice...
then,
do those publications NEVER list people of renown omni? a simple yes or no answer will suffice...
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 12, 2010, 07:49:02 PM
Rosemary, again, this is not true:

Quote
And, that they called it 'electricity' at all is based on their early understanding that it was due to electron flow.  That early concept is flawed.

because directed electron flow comprising electricity can be demonstrated at once. Now, because you want an example with a generator, take a Faraday generator. You can easily convince yourself that what flows in the wires are electrons in concert by feeding an electrolysis cell where Cu can be deposited. You can measure the weight of the cathode prior to the experiment and after you have fed the cell with the generator. The net increase of Cu weight can only be due to directed flow of electrons which is what electrical current is.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 12, 2010, 07:50:08 PM
do those publications EVER list people of renown omni? a simple yes or no answer will suffice...
then,
do those publications NEVER list people of renown omni? a simple yes or no answer will suffice...

Anything connected with string theories is to be ignored. It is non-scientific no matter who's listed in the reference section.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: WilbyInebriated on August 12, 2010, 07:53:29 PM
Anything connected with string theories is to be ignored. It is non-scientific no matter who's listed in the reference section.
nice sidestep by refusing to answer with a yes or no. i will take that as a tacit admission that they do list people of renown...

i don't know what your fetish is with string theory that you keep trying to use it as a strawman...
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 12, 2010, 07:54:05 PM
The likes of Michio Kaku are more dangerous as nonsense-writers than many others that also do that because Kaku's of the world have gained popularity among people who don't quite know what science really is and some, as we see, are falling for the attractive fantasies passed as science.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 12, 2010, 07:55:03 PM
nice sidestep by refusing to answer with a yes or no. i will take that as a tacit admission that they do list people of renown...

Take it for what I said and not for what I didn't say.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: WilbyInebriated on August 12, 2010, 07:56:31 PM
Take it for what I said and not for what I didn't say.
i asked you two simple yes or no questions and you DID NOT address either, you went off on some strawman fallacy about string theory...

i will repeat them since you seem confused.

do those publications  EVER list people of renown omni? a simple yes or no answer will suffice...
then,
do those publications NEVER list people of renown omni? a simple yes or no answer will suffice...
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 12, 2010, 07:59:53 PM
Michio Kaku's activity is as untenable as to claim electric current is not a flow of electrons. He is an opportunist, however, and is cashing in on it big tome while our friend here is only suffering from her honest belief, being even banned from forums for it.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: WilbyInebriated on August 12, 2010, 08:01:23 PM
Michio Kaku's activity is as untenable as to claim electric current is not a flow of electrons. He is an opportunist, however, and is cashing in on it big tome while our friend here is only suffering from her honest belief, being even banned from forums for it.
that wasn't the claim. if i recall his name was brought up in reference to 'dark matter'...

suffers from honest belief... like you and the proof of ou inherent/steorn discussion? but let us get back to the two simple questions you refused to answer.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 12, 2010, 08:05:40 PM
As a matter of fact, admission in the mainstream of nonsense such as the string theories and what CERN is trying to "prove" with its Hadron collider as opposed to complete rejection of overunity is a tragegy in the current state of affairs. One however, shouldn't entertain even the slightest hope that this situation can change by using the current governing nonsense to justify somehow the viability of OU. OU is justifiable by other, truly scientific methods, and not by trying to please the present crooks who have occupied the mainstream.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: WilbyInebriated on August 12, 2010, 08:07:30 PM
As a matter of fact, admission in the mainstream of nonsense such as the string theories and what CERN is trying to "prove" with its Hadron collider as opposed to complete rejection of overunity is a tragegy in the current state of affairs. One however, shouldn't entertain even the slightest hope that this situation can change by using the current governing nonsense to justify somehow the viability of OU. OU is justifiable by other, truly scientific methods, and not by trying to please the present crooks who have occupied the mainstream.
so was that a yes or a no on the first question?
and was that a yes or a no on the second question?

aren't you getting tired of using strawman and red herrings as your arguments?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 12, 2010, 08:07:34 PM
This is unjustified:

Quote
suffers from honest belief... like you and the proof of ou inherent/steorn discussion?

I have shown firm evidence for the inherent OU in electrical phenomena.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: WilbyInebriated on August 12, 2010, 08:09:45 PM
This is unjustified:

I have shown firm evidence for the inherent OU in electrical phenomena.
LOL! kaku has shown more firm evidence of dark matter than you have shown firm evidence for the inherent OU in electrical phenomena... ::)

but back to what you keep avoiding with your strawman arguments...
so was that a yes or a no on the first question?
and was that a yes or a no on the second question?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 12, 2010, 08:09:51 PM
I would be the first to accept Rosemary's claim for the electric current not being the directed flow of electrons but, unfortunately, it is flying in the face of easily demonstrable facts.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 12, 2010, 08:11:31 PM
LOL! kaku has shown more firm evidence of dark matter than you have shown firm evidence for the inherent OU in electrical phenomena... ::)

This is again an assertion without evidence. On the other hand, I can produce evidence for what I claim at once.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: WilbyInebriated on August 12, 2010, 08:12:29 PM
I would be the first to accept Rosemary's claim for the electric current not being the directed flow of electrons but, unfortunately, it is flying in the face of easily demonstrable facts.
so was that a yes or a no on the first question?
and was that a yes or a no on the second question?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: WilbyInebriated on August 12, 2010, 08:13:34 PM
This is again an assertion without evidence. On the other hand, I can produce evidence for what I claim at once.
this is again a strawman fallacy being used by you...

so was that a yes or a no on the first question?
and was that a yes or a no on the second question?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 12, 2010, 08:14:16 PM
Just imagining that someone proved something is just that, imagination. No science there.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: shruggedatlas on August 12, 2010, 08:14:34 PM
Hi shruggedatlas.  Yes.  I do think they work on principles that have NOTHING to do with a flow of electrons.  But I am absolutely not that anxious to convert anyone at all to my thinking.  I've simply explained why I think what I do.  No-one's under any pressure or obligation to 'buy in'.  And you're right.  I reference it everywhere.  No single branch of physics is better developed or advanced than that related to quantum electromagnetics.  And - to date - there is no substitute for the electron as the 'carrier' of this energy.  It's just a badly flawed concept that is nonetheless - very effective as a concept.  It works - and it's used.  It's just wrong - is all. 

You must remember that dark energy and dark matter are now entirely proven - yet there are renowned academics who absolutely reject that proof.  Michio Kaku is on record.  He says words to the effect "All the text books that have ever been written.  They're all wrong."  It's just that the 'change over' to new concepts is having a harder time of it than ever before precisely because so many really clever people have bought into ideas that will be entirely outdated within the very near future. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Just because something else in science may or may not be correct does not mean that something as well known as electric current is misrepresented.

You say that your view is just your way of thinking, but anyone can say that.  I could say that electric current is black magic from Jesus.  So just saying it without evidence is not helpful.  And just saying you have not observed anything that would prove to you that electrical current is the flow of electrons means nothing.

What would mean something is if you were to put forth evidence that would contradict current theory, but as you say, you are not anxious to do that, but then, why even say anything.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: WilbyInebriated on August 12, 2010, 08:15:48 PM
Just imagining that someone proved something is just that, imagination. No science there.
this is again a strawman fallacy being used by you...

so was that a yes or a no on the first question?
and was that a yes or a no on the second question?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 12, 2010, 08:19:21 PM
@shruggedatlas.

If you go back in the thread you'll see that Rosemary gave certain explanations but, like I said, they fly in the face of well established and easily demonstrable facts. One, indeed, may have his or her own beliefs but broadcasting them as the rejection of well understood facts isn't acceptable.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 12, 2010, 08:35:28 PM
Just because something else in science may or may not be correct does not mean that something as well known as electric current is misrepresented.
Hello again shruggedatlas.  That is hardly an argument.  How many hundreds - if not thousands of years was it well known that the stars in the night sky orbited our planet together with our sun.  Science has an unfortunate history of being shown to be wrong - both in general and in particular.  It's the nature of the beast. 

You say that your view is just your way of thinking, but anyone can say that.  I could say that electric current is black magic from Jesus.  So just saying it without evidence is not helpful.  And just saying you have not observed anything that would prove to you that electrical current is the flow of electrons means nothing.
I have explained my argument - repeatedly through these many posts shruggedatlas.  I can defintely say that electrons do not constitute the 'carrier' of electric energy as I have the thesis and the experimental evidence in support of that thesis.  If electrons constituted the material of current then we would never have achieved OU results.  The concept of electron current flow requires total conformity to equivalence principles. 

What would mean something is if you were to put forth evidence that would contradict current theory, but as you say, you are not anxious to do that, but then, why even say anything.
On the contrary.  I most certainly do have the required evidence.  Lots of it.  Very comprehensively documented.

Regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 12, 2010, 09:00:50 PM
@shruggedatlas.

If you go back in the thread you'll see that Rosemary gave certain explanations but, like I said, they fly in the face of well established and easily demonstrable facts. One, indeed, may have his or her own beliefs but broadcasting them as the rejection of well understood facts isn't acceptable.
Omnibus - I think we need to get down to some issues here.  Your entire rejection of string theory is based on something that I think our readers would find very interesting.  They propose the theoretical requirement for a force that has - thus far - not been acknowledged by mainstream science.  Sometime in the early 1920's (dates are not my strongest point so I may be out here) a guy called Zwicky (an astronomer) saw that galaxies should be 'unravelling' if - as had been understood - gravity was the predominant force in the universe.  There was not enough evident matter in all those stars to 'hold together'.  This was independently verified in or around the late 1930's.  At the time quantum mechanics was getting a life of its own - being forged by Bohr and Heisenberg.  Then came Einstein and concepts of relativity - that 'took over' the academic and public interest.  Then came the Michelson Morely proof or 'disproof' of aether energies.  And all the while there was little if any focus on that little known fact that what Zwicky first called 'missing energy' and what others subsequently termed 'dark energy' was an extant FORCE heretofore unscheduled within classical or quantum thinking. 

The simple truth is that string theorists propose the structure of the force that astrophysicists require to explain the fact that galaxies do not 'unravel' as would be required in the context of their mass and in the context of our knowledge of how gravity works.  But astrophysicists - Ellis, from Caltech, being the leading proponent, took the trouble to measure that energy which was achieved through the art of gravitational lensing.  Their conclusions - the results of those experiments - the measured evidence is that about 10 times more mass is actually measured in these galaxies than can be seen. 

Now.  If indeed that mass can be accounted for in dark energy - which it can, then the truth is that our string theorists have already given us the mathematical proof of this.  It's a NEW force. And if this force is alive and kicking and just needs to come into the light of our general knowledge - then it will UPEND conventional thinking regarding equivalence principles.  It will prove the existence of an energy field that permeates our universe as MATTER - as a particle - and that it constitutes approximately 90% - if not more - of our entire universe.  This means that the greatest part of the universe is INVISIBLE and - like all matter - it has an energy potential that is so abundant that it will knock our thermodynamic constraints into the dark ages. 

I suggest to you that as you already deny the existence of OU which we and others have proved experimentally - then you will REALLY need to work hard to deny the evidence of dark energy and it's mathematical justifications in STRING theory.  Our string theorists have experienced various levels of unpopularity.  But what is UNARGUABLE is that they have given mathematical proof of what they see.  It is just very confusing conceptually - as they work in multidimensions.  And indeed, my own modest little excursion into theoretical physics - is also based on string theory.  In other words - I most definitely subscribe to the thinking.

Regards,
Rosemary
edited
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33988924/DARK-MATTER-MFM
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: WilbyInebriated on August 12, 2010, 09:13:55 PM
ahh good ol' crazy fritz (zwicky)...

why do theorists continue to favour the e-m field, the photon, and maxwell's equations for 70 years in spite of the well-known flagrant failure of the mathematical description to agree with observation? why were alternative descriptions of nature not sought? i think the answer is because it worked once the errors were removed with a bit of 'hocus pocus' mathematics (ala renormalization) and the aid of empirical data...
it is really a tragedy, this erroneous insistence to retain the point particle and vector force fields has been the root cause of the many paradoxes and mysteries surrounding quantum theory. the resulting confusion has been increasingly exploited in the popular press and so instead of searching for the simple behaviour of nature, the physics community found that 'wave-particle duality' was an exciting launching pad for more crazy paradoxical proposals that found support from government funding agencies. the search for truth was put into limbo and wave-particle duality reigned. and so, now, they all hail cern...

illegitimi non carborundum rosemary.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 12, 2010, 09:27:58 PM
Rosemary,

Quote
I suggest to you that as you already deny the existence of OU which we and others have proved experimentally - then you will REALLY need to work hard to deny the evidence of dark energy and it's mathematical justifications in STRING theory.

There are two different issues here (maybe even three). First, I don't deny the existence of OU. Moreover I have myself proved it definitively -- recall the magnetic propulsor argument, the RC filter with with voltage offset argument and in the argument regarding the so-called 'cold fusion'. What I have not seen experimental evidence of is the OU in the circuit proposed by you. There may or may not be OU in it. That remains to be seen. As for the idea that the electric current in a solid conductor is not a directed flow of electrons, that I deny altogether because such idea goes against well established and understood experimental facts.

So, these are the three points I'm focusing on in this discussion, leaving dark matter, string theories and what not, which is outside of the discussion at hand where it belongs -- outside this discussion.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 12, 2010, 09:41:10 PM
ahh good ol' crazy fritz (zwicky)...

why do theorists continue to favour the e-m field, the photon, and maxwell's equations for 70 years in spite of the well-known flagrant failure of the mathematical description to agree with observation? why were alternative descriptions of nature not sought? i think the answer is because it worked once the errors were removed with a bit of 'hocus pocus' mathematics (ala renormalization) and the aid of empirical data...
it is really a tragedy, this erroneous insistence to retain the point particle and vector force fields has been the root cause of the many paradoxes and mysteries surrounding quantum theory. the resulting confusion has been increasingly exploited in the popular press and so instead of searching for the simple behaviour of nature, the physics community found that 'wave-particle duality' was an exciting launching pad for more crazy paradoxical proposals that found support from government funding agencies. the search for truth was put into limbo and wave-particle duality reigned. and so, now, they all hail cern...

illegitimi non carborundum rosemary.


Hi again.  I really need to get this email system fixed.  I didn't get here until now.  This is very well put indeed Wilby.  There is this a strange preference for the confusing, improbable, highly complicated explanation rather than the simple.  Personally I find it morally offensive as it gives a kind of respectability to those who can REALLY confuse the pants off the public.  Technobabble.  Personally I welcome these knew concepts as it will be a kind of renaissance in physics.  AND it will have the very real benefit of simple logic where our lay public will again be able to get involved.  While string theories ague pure math it still is still confusing - certainly to me.  But when the logic is  explained in simple conceptual terms then the thinking is as evident as daylight. 

Kindest as ever,
Rosie

EDITED LOL.  I'm going blind here.  I posted the most of this inside your own reference.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 12, 2010, 09:51:58 PM
Rosemary,

There are two different issues here (maybe even three). First, I don't deny the existence of OU. Moreover I have myself proved it definitively -- recall the magnetic propulsor argument, the RC filter with with voltage offset argument and in the argument regarding the so-called 'cold fusion'. What I have not seen experimental evidence of is the OU in the circuit proposed by you. There may or may not be OU in it. That remains to be seen. As for the idea that the electric current in a solid conductor is not a directed flow of electrons, that I deny altogether because such idea goes against well established and understood experimental facts.

So, these are the three points I'm focusing on in this discussion, leaving dark matter, string theories and what not, which is outside of the discussion at hand where it belongs -- outside this discussion.

Omnibus.  I'm delighted to read that you subscribe to experimental evidence.  In which case please read the paper that is appended to this and to the previous post to you.  The evidence of OU was required and predicted in terms of my thesis, was experimentally demonstrated, was accredited by some really reputable companies, was replicated and all aspects extensively documented. That should take care of the first two points that you want to concentrate on.

The third point relates to electron current flow.  You claim that the reconstitution of copper in a zinc/copper battery is proof of the electron current flow.  What I propose is that it proves that electrons can be induced to move in the reconstitution of the atomic and molecular structure determined by the process of electrolysis.  That everyone thinks that electric current flow relies on electrons is entirely their right - and yours.  I personally do not subscribe.  I think we must just agree to differ.

Regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS
EDITED
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 12, 2010, 10:14:36 PM
Rosemary, what I claim is not what you have understood:

Quote
You claim that the reconstitution of copper in a zinc/copper battery is proof of the electron current flow.

When I used the Faraday generator as the source (you required a generator, right) that generator was applied to an electrolysis cell, not to a zinc/copper battery. Hope you understand the difference. If you do you'll convince yourself that such an experiment, among many others, is a conclusive proof that electric current is indeed a directed flow of electrons.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 12, 2010, 10:25:39 PM
Rosemary, regarding the experimental issue, no new experiments let alone such based on transients taken with oscilloscopes which can be questioned on so many levels as was discussed in the Steorn thread, can serve to overthrow the conclusive fact that electric current is due to directed flow of electrons demonstrable in so many quite simple unquestionable experiments. It isn't even worth to argue about that. What would be interesting is whether or not your experiment indeed shows OU but, like I said, that still remains to be seen in view of the so many levels of problems in such experiment.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 12, 2010, 10:33:48 PM
Rosemary, what I claim is not what you have understood:

When I inferred the Faraday generator as the source (you required a generator, right) which I applied to an electrolysis cell, not to a zinc/copper battery. Hope you understand the difference. If you do you'll convince yourself that such an experiment, among many others, is a conclusive proof that electric current is indeed a directed flow of electrons.

Omnibus  - As it is I had to read up on the zinc copper batteries to argue your previous example for 'proof'.  I have NO idea what a Farraday generator is.  If - as you say - this proves the flow of electrons in that current - then I'll take it that's what you believe.  But I cannot subscribe to current as the flow of electrons.  It's physically impossible.  If electrons are responsible for the current then I would NOT be able to exceed unity even once, let alone 17 times.  NO surplus electrons have ever been found inside a copper wire - EVER.  Neither with nor without the applied potential difference.  Just NOT EVER.  It has NEVER been quantifiably evidenced.  But I don't mind if you dispute this.  Let's take it as read.  You understand that it's experimentally demonstrated.  I refute that evidence.  How's that?  Otherwise this argument is going to get really repetitive.

I know one thing.  My arguments have NEVER resonated with chemists.  Clearly the argument therefore is not sufficient.  And to correct this I'd need to learn a lot more about chemistry.  What I do know however, is the physical properties of electric circuitry.  And I also know enough about the atom to know that if it 'gives up' an electron - then it needs to 'find a home' so to speak somewhere and at speed.  There is no 'home' for it inside the wire of conductive and inductive circuitry.  And in using your average motorised generator - you only have 'metal' for it to find a new home.  Then to compound the evidence, your atoms in your average resitor wire ALSO never change.  The only thing that may change in copper is the bound condition of that wire - and that bound condition can be heavily compromised in your average resistive wire.  But the atomic structure of these materials remains exactly as they were first forged and manufactured.  It is only their bound condition that varies.

In any event.  That's just my take.

Kindest as ever, Omnibus.
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 12, 2010, 10:40:11 PM
Rosemary, regarding the experimental issue, no new experiments let alone such based on transients taken with oscilloscopes which can be questioned on so many levels as was discussed in the Steorn thread, can serve to overthrow the conclusive fact that electric current is due to directed flow of electrons demonstrable in so many quite simple unquestionable experiments. It isn't even worth to argue about that. What would be interesting is whether or not your experiment indeed shows OU but, like I said, that still remains to be seen in view of the so many levels of problems in such experiment.
This is a different issue.  If I based my measurements of proof on transients then I would not have sufficient proof.  Our measurements were empirical and the protocols stipulated by experts in the art.  The problem was that those same experts would NOT attend a demonstration - lest they were then required to accredit those results.  I really don't AGAIN want to detail that protocol.  It's all clearly defined in two papers.  This is EXHAUSTING me Omnibus.  Have pity.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 12, 2010, 10:42:37 PM
Rosemary,

Quote
Our measurements were empirical and the protocols stipulated by experts in the art.

I'd like to talk to these experts in the art. Name some.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 12, 2010, 10:45:28 PM
Rosemary,

Quote
As it is I had to read up on the zinc copper batteries to argue your previous example for 'proof'.

I'm telling you once again, what I referred to was not zinc copper batteries but was electrolysis of copper. Once you understand the difference it will become clear to you, I hope, that your denial that electric current is flow of electrons is unfounded.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 12, 2010, 10:45:30 PM
Rosemary,

I'd like to talk to these experts in the art. Name some.

Professor Gaunt and Professor Tapsen (UCT)  - start with them.  I have a whole lot more.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 12, 2010, 10:48:01 PM
It is absolutely impossible to ignore simple experimental facts proving that the electric current is due to flow of electrons in favor of any further experiments let alone experiments questionable on so many grounds.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 12, 2010, 10:48:43 PM
Professor Gaunt and Professor Tapsen (UCT)  - start with them.  I have a whole lot more.

What's UCT?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 12, 2010, 10:50:43 PM
What's UCT?
University of CapeTown
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 12, 2010, 10:53:33 PM
OK. Thanks.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: WilbyInebriated on August 12, 2010, 10:53:45 PM
What's UCT?
holy buckets of ineptitude batman!
omni, i typed 'professor gaunt' into google and found this in the top 5... http://www.eleceng.uct.ac.za/people/ctg.php

come on man, do you need your hand held?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 12, 2010, 10:55:25 PM
Is there a way to somehow download the pdf of your experimental paper? Scribd is really inconvenient.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 12, 2010, 10:58:23 PM
Is there a way to somehow download the pdf of your experimental paper? Scribd is really inconvenient.

Omnibus email me and I'll send you the file.
ainslie@mweb.co.za

Regards,
Rosemary

BTW my email isn't working at the moment - but it's usually just a glitch.  Part of our 3rd world realities notwithstanding our 1st world pretensions.   :D  Hopefully it'll be fixed soon.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 12, 2010, 11:16:22 PM
Rosemary, I just sent an e-mail to prof Gaunt asking him as to whether or not he has confirmed your experimental claim for obtaining more energy out than in. I'm rejecting the idea that electric current isn't due to flow of electrons entirely, in view of the simple experimental facts which definitively prove that it is, and I have no further interest in that part.

Couldn't find Professor Tapsen's e-mail address. Maybe @WilbyInebriated can help. He's good at that.


P.S. My e-mail address is koooyyy@hotmail.com
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: WilbyInebriated on August 12, 2010, 11:22:00 PM
Rosemary, I just sent an e-mail to prof Gaunt asking him as to whether or not he has confirmed your experimental claim for obtaining more energy out than in. I'm rejecting the idea that electric current isn't due to flow of electrons entirely, in view of the simple experimental facts which definitively prove that it is, and I have no further interest in that part.

Couldn't find Professor Tapsen's e-mail address. Maybe @WilbyInebriated can help. He's good at that.


P.S. My e-mail address is koooyyy@hotmail.com
holy buckets of no comprehension batman!
omni, rosemary already told you that none of them confirmed anything, they didn't even witness the experiment. you can read can't you? go read what she EXPLICITLY said, they stipulated the protocols... ::)

yeah i can help you... can you help yourself? the email is in the link i posted previously. ::)

edit: my bad, i didn't post the other link. funny though, it was about as hard to find as gaunt's...
http://www.eleceng.uct.ac.za/people/jct.php
are you going to ask him if he has confirmed rosemary's experimental claim even though she has already told you he has not?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 12, 2010, 11:25:12 PM
Rosemary, I just sent an e-mail to prof Gaunt asking him as to whether or not he has confirmed your experimental claim for obtaining more energy out than in. I'm rejecting the idea that electric current isn't due to flow of electrons entirely, in view of the simple experimental facts which definitively prove that it is, and I have no further interest in that part.

Couldn't find Professor Tapsen's e-mail address. Maybe @WilbyInebriated can help. He's good at that.


P.S. My e-mail address is koooyyy@hotmail.com

This is a different issue.  If I based my measurements of proof on transients then I would not have sufficient proof.  Our measurements were empirical and the protocols stipulated by experts in the art. The problem was that those same experts would NOT attend a demonstration - lest they were then required to accredit those results. I really don't AGAIN want to detail that protocol.  It's all clearly defined in two papers.  This is EXHAUSTING me Omnibus.  Have pity.

Regards,
Rosemary

In the light of the above - may I impose on you to explain why it is that you're asking Professor Gaunt to confirm whether he's attended a demonstration or not?  And by the way Omnibus - if you signed yourself Omnibus in that email it is unlikely that Professor Gaunt will answer you.

In the first instance I only disclosed his name that you could verify that he was aware of the applied protocols as being sufficient.  And in the second instance I expected a certain amount of circumspection in the manner of your address to him.  It seems that you do indeed have as little restraint and decency as I suspected from the tenor of your posts.

Rosemary

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: WilbyInebriated on August 12, 2010, 11:30:36 PM
In the light of the above - may I impose on you to explain why it is that you're asking Professor Gaunt to confirm whether he's attended a demonstration or not?
i can rosemary. it is part of an orchestrated use of logical fallacy, he will do something similar to what he tried to do to mr. kaku. that is to say, attempt to undermine credibility with logical fallacy...
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 12, 2010, 11:37:11 PM
i can rosemary. it is part of an orchestrated use of logical fallacy, he will do something similar to what he tried to do to mr. kaku. that is to say, attempt to undermine credibility with logical fallacy...
Hi Wilby.  I will be entirely embarrassed by that communication from Omnibus as it will imply that I've been making public announcement of academic accreditation when I've gone to some considerable efforts to state the exact opposite.  And there is nothing can be done to correct this general impression unless Omnibus is man enough to apologise to Professor Gaunt and redress the focus of his question.  My concern is that this much character is lacking - precisely in as much as he impetuously demands verification as he has explained.  Fortunately - right now - Professor Gaunt is probably asleep.  And I will certainly be able to reach him to warn him of this letter and route him to this thread.  But it's been a salutary reminder to me to treat members with much more circumspection.  Omnibus has here shown himself to be irresponsible and entirely unreliable.  I at least know more of the nature of the beast - so to speak.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: WilbyInebriated on August 12, 2010, 11:39:59 PM
Hi Wilby.  I will be entirely embarrassed by that communication from Omnibus as it will imply that I've been making public announcement of academic accreditation when I've gone to some considerable efforts to state the exact opposite.  And there is nothing can be done to correct this general impression unless Omnibus is man enough to apologise to Professor Gaunt and redress the focus of his question.  My concern is that this much character is lacking - precisely in as much as he impetuously demands verification as he has explained.  Fortunately - right now - Professor Gaunt is probably asleep.  And I will certainly be able to reach him to warn him of this letter and route him to this thread.  But it's been a salutary reminder to me to treat members with much more circumspection.  Omnibus has here shown himself to be irresponsible and entirely unreliable.  I at least know more of the nature of the beast - so to speak.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
indeed. my apologies for sussing out the links.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 12, 2010, 11:49:47 PM
indeed. my apologies for sussing out the links.

LOL  It's not a problem.  I have easy access to him and can get this matter resolved.  But I see now that I may also have to warn Tapsen.  I'll simply suggest that they ignore the email unless Ominibus sends a follow up with the appropriate questions. 

In any event, unless Omnibus has disclosed his actual name then they will ignore the emails as 'noise'.  They're well used to such.  It's also more than likely that the university will filter out the email entirely unless he's got a full signature there.

Take care of yourself Wilby. 
Kindest regards,
Rosie

EDITED. And frankly I think that it's highly unlikely that our learned and revered will answer an email addressed to koooyyy@hotmail.com.  It seems somewhat irreverend.  LOL.  Omnibus advises us widely that he's an academic.  I'd quite like to see his credentials - quite frankly.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 13, 2010, 12:01:32 AM

P.S. My e-mail address is koooyyy@hotmail.com
Send me an email to my address with your name attached to that email and I may yet take the trouble to forward you the pdf.  I would also first require you to correct that mishmash of misinformation you managed to convey to Professor Gaunt and also, possibly to Professor Tapsen.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 13, 2010, 12:04:03 AM
No, no. I'm not asking him whether he attended a demonstration or not. Neither did I ask him as to whether he approved of protocols, whatever that means. I'm asking him if he did confirm independently the claims for the energy disbalance. That's the only thing I'm interested in -- independent confirmation of the discussed energy disbalance. Nothing short of it.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 13, 2010, 12:04:45 AM
Send me an email to my address with your name attached to that email and I may yet take the trouble to forward you the pdf.  I would also first require you to correct that mishmash of misinformation you managed to convey to Professor Gaunt and also, possibly to Professor Tapsen.

What mishmash that might be?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: WilbyInebriated on August 13, 2010, 12:11:41 AM
No, no. I'm not asking him whether he attended a demonstration or not. Neither did I ask him as to whether he approved of protocols, whatever that means. I'm asking him if he did confirm independently the claims for the energy disbalance. That's the only thing I'm interested in -- independent confirmation of the discussed energy disbalance. Nothing short of it.
holy tu stultus es batman!
rosemary has previously indicated neither gault nor tapson confirmed any claim. see below.
This is a different issue.  If I based my measurements of proof on transients then I would not have sufficient proof.  Our measurements were empirical and the protocols stipulated by experts in the art.  The problem was that those same experts would NOT attend a demonstration - lest they were then required to accredit those results.  I really don't AGAIN want to detail that protocol.  It's all clearly defined in two papers.  This is EXHAUSTING me Omnibus.  Have pity.

Regards,
Rosemary

i bolded the relevant parts for you so they don't elude you again omni. ::)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 13, 2010, 12:13:42 AM
No, no. I'm not asking him whether he attended a demonstration or not. Neither did I ask him as to whether he approved of protocols, whatever that means. I'm asking him if he did confirm independently the claims for the energy disbalance. That's the only thing I'm interested in -- independent confirmation of the discussed energy disbalance. Nothing short of it.
Omnibus - am I dreaming.  Didn't you advise us that you're widely connected to academics - all over the place?  How then, with that much education - can you refer to energy disbalance?  It's termed 'imbalance'.  Unless of course English is not your natural tongue.  In which case I can understand it.  And how does ANYONE independently confirm energy IMbalance without reference to an experiment?  In order to see that evidence requires that there is some apparatus that is able to demonstrate this.  And I have NEVER discussed energy imbalance - nor have I experimented with any concepts related to ENERGY IMBALANCE.  Now you have entirely lost me.  I think what you need to do here in the interests of transparency - is actually disclose your email right here - on open source.  Because, right now the semantics that you are trying to use to disguise the damage you've done is actually patently obvious.  And I need re-assurance that the damage is NOT too extreme.  Right now you are stating to two learned and respected Professors that I have claimed that they accredited my results.  THIS IS FALSE.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 13, 2010, 12:15:15 AM
The e-mail to prof. Tapson is also sent. Thanks @WilbyInebrated for the help. You're good at it.

Before reading the manuscript I'd like to hear what these two colleagues have to say regarding the experiment.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: WilbyInebriated on August 13, 2010, 12:19:14 AM
The e-mail to prof. Tapson is also sent. Thanks @WilbyInebrated for the help. You're good at it.

Before reading the manuscript I'd like to hear what these two colleagues have to say regarding the experiment.
tu stultus es... qed.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 13, 2010, 12:19:19 AM
Energy disbalance is what's of the primary interest in this forum, that is, the dibalance between the energy input compared to the output energy, in favor of the latter. Here in this forum it is agreed that the said disbalance be called "overunity" and therefore in the future in this exchange the disbalance in question may be referred to simply as "overunity" or OU.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 13, 2010, 12:19:25 AM
The e-mail to prof. Tapson is also sent. Thanks @WilbyInebrated for the help. You're good at it.

Before reading the manuscript I'd like to hear what these two colleagues have to say regarding the experiment.
And I intend finding out - from them - your actual name and a little bit more about that 'colleague' status.  LOL  Until this last intervention I rather gave you the benefit of the doubt. 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 13, 2010, 12:28:55 AM
Energy disbalance is what's of the primary interest in this forum, that is, the dibalance between the energy input compared to the output energy, in favor of the latter. Here in this forum it is agreed that the said disbalance be called "overunity" and therefore in the future in this exchange the disbalance in question may be referred to simply as "overunity" or OU.
If, at any stage, I was claiming an energy imbalance then - indeed - I would have no argument.  We show more energy dissipated than delivered.  But there is an entire conservation of energy - perfect energy balance - else we would be defying the very laws of physics.  I have NEVER claimed this.  It seems that I have been posting all those links to no purpose whatsoever.  For a while there I assumed that you actually took the trouble to read them.  It seems like I am only to be disappointed by you.  LOL. 

Stultus est sicut stultus facit (for Wilby's amusement)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 13, 2010, 12:33:15 AM
How does this work and how is it to be discussed in a forum devoted to overunity:

Quote
We show more energy dissipated than delivered.  But there is an entire conservation of energy - perfect energy balance - else we would be defying the very laws of physics.  I have NEVER claimed this.

So, more energy dissipated than delivered and yet no CoE violation. How can this be?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 13, 2010, 12:37:45 AM
How does this work and how is it to be discussed in forum devoted to overunity:

So, more energy dissipated than delivered and yet no CoE violation. How can this be?
Well may you ask.  You need to read my scribd file links.  Omnibus - unless it's absolutely required I never delete posts.  But from here on I'm afraid I'll not be answering you.  It's pointless.


Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 13, 2010, 12:57:04 AM
Well may you ask.  You need to read my scribd file links.  Omnibus - unless it's absolutely required I never delete posts.  But from here on I'm afraid I'll not be answering you.  It's pointless.

On the contrary. If you have a point I will be your most adamant defender, as I've demonstrated here and in other forums more than once, regarding even more controversial ideas. This will happen only if you have a point, though. If not, I'll say it very frankly, independent of whether you like it or not. Why lose supporters that easily if you're so convinced in the reality of what you claim?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: nul-points on August 13, 2010, 02:54:28 PM
hi all

...dayyum - if i'd known there was going to be fisticuffs, i'd have set out the bleachers and started selling tickets!  ;)


i think there is actually a common understanding of system activity here, hidden behind different terms of expression


would 'Coefficient of Performance > 1' be a another way of labelling the same situation which both Rosemary & Omnibus are describing?


i believe, from reading the documents, that the accredited results are based on a greater amount (~1700% ?) of heat energy dissipated in calorimetric tests than was supplied from the source batteries


from Omni's PoV, this would be 'greater energy out than in' ie., when the system boundary is drawn around the battery-circuit-heater system

from Rosemary's PoV, this would be 'additional energy supplied by the energetic vacuum, not created from nothing', ie. COP ~= 17, but no violation of CoE


is this a fair summary - & resolution of apparent contradictions?

or should i still get the bleachers out?   :)


all the best
sandy
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 13, 2010, 03:13:58 PM
hi all

...dayyum - if i'd known there was going to be fisticuffs, i'd have set out the bleachers and started selling tickets!  ;)


i think there is actually a common understanding of system activity here, hidden behind different terms of expression


would 'Coefficient of Performance > 1' be a another way of labelling the same situation which both Rosemary & Omnibus are describing?


i believe, from reading the documents, that the accredited results are based on a greater amount (~1700% ?) of heat energy dissipated in calorimetric tests than was supplied from the source batteries


from Omni's PoV, this would be 'greater energy out than in' ie., when the system boundary is drawn around the battery-circuit-heater system

from Rosemary's PoV, this would be 'additional energy supplied by the energetic vacuum, not created from nothing', ie. COP ~= 17, but no violation of CoE


is this a fair summary - & resolution of apparent contradictions?

or should i still get the bleachers out?   :)


all the best
sandy

LOL  Hello Sandy.  It's an extremely fair summation.  Very well done.  Unfortunately the 'cause' is still at question - related as it is the flow of current.  But dear God.  I think we can drop that question.  More important is that we get this onto some sensible level so that we can use all this energy.

I have not managed to raise either Professors to warn them about Omnibus' emails.  It will now have to wait for Monday. 

Kindest regards
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 13, 2010, 04:54:54 PM
@nul-points,

Quote
from Rosemary's PoV, this would be 'additional energy supplied by the energetic vacuum, not created from nothing', ie. COP ~= 17, but no violation of CoE

No such thing as "energetic vacuum" is recognized as an energy reservoir in thermodynamics let alone that Rosemary doesn't even claim that to be the cause:

Quote
Unfortunately the 'cause' is still at question - related as it is the flow of current.

The latter is, however, even less likely to be the cause (if we tend to think that there the idea for the "energy from the vacuum" is viable) if she means, as she does, the nature of that flow because the nature of current flow is well established. The production of more energy out than in cannot be related to the nature of that flow. It may be related to current flow but not to the nature of that flow.

In other words, I would agree with Rosemary if she stays within the exact above quotation but I disagree with her when she further qualifies that by insisting that the nature of that flow in solid conductors isn't the directed flow of electrons.

Of course, the above makes sense only provided the experiment (her experiment in particular) really shows more energy out than in. This hasn't been proven yet conclusively.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 13, 2010, 05:19:42 PM
I received the replies to my e-mails. Unfortunately, none of them confirms that Rosemary's experiment demonstrates the production of more energy than the energy spent.

So, not only do we have an obviously untenable proposal for the nature of electric current but also the experiment that claims overunity is inconclusive. Therefore, the main focus should be the experiment and whether or not it really shows more energy out than in. I know Rosemary is reluctant to do that but that's inevitable if she really cares about acceptance.

Of course, the ultimate proof for overunity would be for her to demonstrate a self-sustaining device. That's a difficult engineering task, however, and we should try to find out how else can the experts in the field be convinced in the reality of the claimed experimental excess energy.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: nul-points on August 13, 2010, 07:38:21 PM
No such thing as "energetic vacuum" is recognized as an energy reservoir in thermodynamics

LOL

in that case, 'thermodynamics' is still in the ice-age!  :)


i can see that you know a great deal, Omnibus

in fact, i can see from your name that you know a lot more than a great deal


you can see from my name, however, that i know nothing  ;)


i'll get the bleachers out


cheers
sandy
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Tenbatsu on August 13, 2010, 08:11:25 PM
Omnibus, I believe it has been stated previously that these professors did not attend the demonstration of this device.  Therefore I doubt they have any knowledge of the device or its supposed intricacies. 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 13, 2010, 10:12:11 PM
Omnibus, I believe it has been stated previously that these professors did not attend the demonstration of this device.  Therefore I doubt they have any knowledge of the device or its supposed intricacies.

Actually one of them wrote to me that he has witnessed some experiments but he was not convinced that the experimental protocol and the measuring instruments were adequate to provide a verification of the claimed behavior. The other one wrote to me that he has asked her not to expect him to back up these claims. I think the case is pretty clear. If she wants to be taken seriously she has to come up with better experiments which will also stimulate others to replicate them. At this point, unfortunately, she is simply ignored by the mainstream. I can understand fully how she feels and I feel for her but she is the only one who can help to change this situation..
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 13, 2010, 10:14:13 PM
Hi guys.  Thanks Tenbatsu for trying to state the obvious.  The simple truth is that I should know - more than most - the dangers of Open Source.  One is somehow seduced into thinking that one's dealing with reasonable honest people, when in point of fact one is actually in a death struggle with ego's as large as Africa.  My history on EF.com will always be up there as a benchmark of the actual dangers.  But the loudest most vociferous self-appointed judges come from these forums - NOT from academia.

But here's why I press on - pressing on.  There are many readers to these threads and our readers are not fools.  My entire objective is to assure as many people who can read and as many people who can manage power analysis - that proof of OU is out there.  And I speak with authority as I was personally involved in some of this progress.  And proud of the contribution. 

What irritates me though is the assumption that one can ever achieve OU within the confines of known classical thinking.  Unfortunately we're all going to have to adjust to profoundly changing paradigms that will - quite literally - upend our known physical paradigms.  And there are those who are just not equal to the challenge on an emotional level.  And there are others who are not equal to the challenge because they simply cannot grasp the concepts.  And there are even those who resist it to protect vested financial interests.  And there are those who are just plain scared.

The other point about these public records is that they're GOLD.  Inevitably there will be many players who will try and get patents on OU devices.  Not a bad thing in itself - but it'll leave us exactly where we are at the moment - which is pretty well at the mercy of monopolists who keep a stranglehold on the price of energy.  This because the 'big players' will eventually hold ALL those rights.  And public interest is not something that keeps our monopolists awake at nights.  As I see it every record of every device that is made public will challenge every attempt that is subsequently made to secure patents.  And if the science that justifies these OU results is widely understood, then the patenting of any such intellectual rights will be so easily breached that it will render any attempt at securing patents, patently absurd. LOL

I know, better than most, the difficulty in getting any kind of academic comment.  But off the record there is considerably more interest amongst our academics than is publicly evident.  And that's entirely due to the efforts of everyone on these forums.  It's courtesy the drive and interests of people like - actually the list is just so long it's silly to try and cover it all.  So I'll try that again.  It's courtesy the efforts of everyone here that they are now 'coming to the party' so to speak. 

So.  Roll on 'dark energy' or 'aether energy' or call it what you will.  There's plenty of it around.  We're just still in kindergarden - getting it up and running. 

Regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33937867/IF-I-WAS-A-TROLL
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 13, 2010, 10:43:38 PM
And another thing.  Professor Tapsen - then Dr Tapsen attended a public demonstration of the device held at the conference rooms of Coopers and Lybrand - in Cape Town in 2001.  He attended that demonstration with a Professor Green.  The evidence on display was the clear measure of a battery recharging - zero loss - with heat being dissipated at a load.  He deferred to the opinion of Professor Green who was the expert on energy and Professor Green stated - unequivocally - that, notwithstanding the evidence, THERE MUST BE A MEASUREMENT'S ERROR.  Subsequent attempts by me to include Professor Green in a dialogue was ENTIRELY FRUITLESS.  He would not discuss the matter - under any circumstances AT ALL.  Then Dr Tapsen kindly read my field model and stated that it was a 'self consistent argument'.  In as much as his disciplines cover both electrical engineering and physics that comment was appreciated.  The downside to those early tests was that the wattage measured was insignificant.  But the level of COP was far, far greater than 17 as there was a negative loss to the battery.

Professor  Gaunt on the other hand was intimately associated with many tests.  We were called on to vary the protocols to ever increasing levels of proof and proficiency all of which was funded entirely by myself - culminating in the final requirement to perform electroplating on some metal that had to be managed through a utility supply source.  We did at least 4 carefully stipulated tests using the required measuring apparatus applied strictly in line with the protocols he required.  and he did not EVEN ONCE bother to attend a single test demonstration which we anxiously solicited so that we could show these our results.  When I finally challenged him on this point he drove out to the house, gave a cursory inspection to our apartus and - NOTWITHSTANDING - was absolutely NOT prepared to make a public comment. It seems that this attitude persists.

I have, until these last posts of mine - protected that rather shameful history of their involvement - and am glad to see some acknowledgement of their attendance - which, frankly, I did not expect.  The actual method of anlaysis, the measuring instruments used - the presentation of the data - the ENTIRE CATASTROPHE was done precisely in accordance with the methods stipulated by Professor Gaunt and by a slew of academics whose name I will keep OFF RECORD - lest anyone - again try and misrepresent my own representations here.

Having said all that I am now MOST DEFINITELY on campus.  And the tests are going to be conducted by a very rare breed.  Academics who are interested in experimental evidence.  The start of these tests should be conducted very soon - hopefully within a week.  The finer details of the apparatus will NOT be made public as EF.com are duplicating every step that we take - predating their posts - and thereby evidently intending to 'claim' the rights.  Our own intention is to make all aspects of the tests public that nothing can be patented - when those tests are completed.  And the name of the campus will also be kept off record lest anyone again try and disrupt the process.  Glen Lettenmaier attempted this in May of this year where he insinuated that the work we were doing was plagiaring his own efforts  - for goodness sake.  I did nothing to defend myself against this allegation and fortunately those same academics did their own investigation into the matter.  They then approached me to continue with the tests.

Regards,
Rosemary   
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 13, 2010, 10:54:23 PM
That's good to hear. More thorough tests are indeed needed. Also, every effort should be made to publish these results in the peer-reviewed literature. In this way not only the priority will be ensured but that will stimulate others to reproduce these findings. Good luck.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: b4FreeEnergy on August 15, 2010, 04:40:54 PM
Hi Rosemary,

I finally made it to this forum and I'm glad to see that you’re still continuing your work, resulting in some serious over-unity soon I hope! ;-)

Cheers,
B
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 15, 2010, 05:37:23 PM
Hi Rosemary,

I finally made it to this forum and I'm glad to see that you’re still continuing your work, resulting in some serious over-unity soon I hope! ;-)

Cheers,
B

HI 'B'
THIS IS JUST SO NICE.  Welcome indeed.  Yes I'm pressing on pressing on.  But it's taking forever to get the tests up on the appliance.  It seems the more people involved the slower the progress  LOL.  I think there may just be some natural principle involved here.  If it takes one person one day to sweep a street - it'll take 10 people ten days to do the same work.  Mostly because of the conferencing required to discuss the method of sweeping.  ;D  But I'm not actually complaining.  There's a thoroughness that is going into the protocols here that I rather appreciate.  I won't be able to post the particulars as they're copying us on EF.com and predating their posts.

So.  Bart.  I'm still fending off the occassional troll and still rabbiting on about my thesis.  I'll send you some info on that on email.  Some interesting developments.  And I'm still experimenting with my magnets.  I'll post you the link.

WELCOME.  Now I'd like to see Gad, Jet and Farrah here and I've lost NOTHING.  Dave has just moved over here but - hopefully - he's sorting out a dedicated thread.

 ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: skcusitrah on August 15, 2010, 07:42:55 PM
  I won't be able to post the particulars as they're copying us on EF.com and predating their posts.

Could we see some evidence of this? There is a private thread there that does not show up. The part about "predating" a post is practically impossible, if not difficult. Are you reading too much into all this?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 15, 2010, 08:06:42 PM
Could we see some evidence of this? There is a private thread there that does not show up. The part about "predating" a post is practically impossible, if not difficult. Are you reading too much into all this?
hello skcusitrah.  Our first test is using a standard element resistor - typical immersion type - which we posted.  The difference obviously is that we could not use the standard wiring that comes with the element as it's simply not inductive enough.  I posted a photograph of the the element.  Then two days later they showed their own post of the exact same element with CatLady (Harvey's wife) making some kind of congratulatory comment regarding their choice of this.   

The point is this.  They do not necessarily show their posts.  I know that Michael John Nunnerley had a thread there that was entirely obscured to public view.  It may be that they can 'show' selective posts.  I can't comment.  But what I do know is that it is unlikely that they could justify using a standard element as it simply won't work.  So their choice of this was, as I see it, an attempt at pre-empting our own picture of this on the assumption that we had made no changes to that wiring.  I cannot comment on the 'date' which you say is 'impossible' to change.  I can only state that their posting of an identical element two days after I had posted mine and then showing a date two days previous to mine - somehow challenges my credibility.  Added to which, it would be nonsensical to try and use standard element wiring - and, clearly, they did not realise this.

But you're right.  I can prove nothing.  It is only suspicions based on some rather improbable co-incidences.  What we now do, on a daily basis, is take a full download of the postings when any more are added - so that we can, at least, attest to what is on public record and when. 

But this will not, in anyway prevent us from posting details of the test results.  Our intention here is to submit data for anyone to do their own analysis as well to report on own analysis.  What we anticipate is three or four resistors being tested at various levels of input power all with the objective of getting that required resonance.  I should imagine that this 'process' will have some inevitable disappointments.  When we get  there - God willing - then will be a process of 'fine tuning' to get an optimised result. 

But I don't feel comfortable in making full disclosure of the resistor types as this may be claimed as their own 'prior art'.  And there is nothing that can persuade me that they weren't attempting to claim that element design.  It was NOT on their thread when we posted ours.  And it WAS on their thread two days later when I checked it.  And that is one thread that I cannot afford to ignore.  Trust me I dip in regularly to see if there are new posts. 

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 15, 2010, 08:50:27 PM
And while I'm on the subject I'd remind you that Admin at EF.com - or specifically Aaron - is more than co-operating with their intentions as he has buried my own thread which had some marginal prominence being in a 'top 20' reference.  He ditched this top 20 reference the minute they banned me.  Now the only mention is to a MOSFET HEATING circuit which is precisely my own circuit but with absolutely no reference to me as the initiator.  The implication being that this is now Harvey's and Glen's discovery.

Also.  Harvey went to some lengths to explain that Glen never replicated our earlier experiment, this based on the fact that Glen only achieved COP>4 where we reached COP >17.  But his reasoning here is difficult to follow - quite apart from which  the actual COP on that replication measured COP>7. 

Then too, Harvey has littered that thread with some intensely partial refences to the 'dangers' in the technology - coupled with some exotic calculations of energy that are laughably inaccurate and others that are entirely incorrect - or non-classical - or 'flawed' is probably a better way to describe them.  All of them now claiming to a zero benefit in the technology.  And while he posts these concerns and these calculations, liberally,  it seems that, nonetheless, they are continuing to explore the technology and keep that thread in full view in the opening chapters of the forum - so to speak - highlighted for all to study with full frontal focus.  Just too many contradictions to incline one to any sense of credibility.  And all that coupled with the inevitable 'private messaging' that they both indulge - where they advise the general public that I'm intellectually bereft and compulsively unable to tell the truth.

So.  Yes.  I'm inclined to believe that with the combined force of Aaron's skills on the internet and with their own vested interests in this technology - that there would certainly be the motivation to 'alter' the facts - and even the wherewithall.  But I have no PROOF.  It's not a mistake that I'll make again.

Regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33937867/IF-I-WAS-A-TROLL
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: WilbyInebriated on August 17, 2010, 12:19:39 AM
The part about "predating" a post is practically impossible, if not difficult. Are you reading too much into all this?
skcusitrah/hartisucks, you really don't know much about forum code and how it stores information in a database do you? 'predating' is as simple as you... you simply edit the timestamp in the database.  ::) sql is NOT difficult, nor impossible.
ie: 'UPDATE table_name SET column1=value, column2=value2,...WHERE some_column=some_value'
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: skcusitrah on August 17, 2010, 01:46:17 AM
skcusitrah/hartisucks, you really don't know much about forum code and how it stores information in a database do you? 'predating' is as simple as you... you simply edit the timestamp in the database.  ::) sql is NOT difficult, nor impossible.
ie: 'UPDATE table_name SET column1=value, column2=value2,...WHERE some_column=some_value'

A hack such as wilbyinebriated may be able to edit the date on a post, but it's not likely the EF admin went to such trouble. For what? Speculating that they did is almost laughable. And your layman poster would not have this access.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Pirate88179 on August 17, 2010, 06:19:44 AM
Anyone who knows what they are doing can get access.  It is really not all that hard as Wilby has said.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 17, 2010, 07:50:06 AM
A hack such as wilbyinebriated may be able to edit the date on a post, but it's not likely the EF admin went to such trouble. For what? Speculating that they did is almost laughable. And your layman poster would not have this access.

We'll never know skcusitrah.  You may very well be as right as wrong.  But don't accuse either Harvey or Glen of being 'laymen' posters.  In any event, the simple point is that the question is irrelevant provided I keep the details of the resistor and the housing to ourselves - as required.  I really don't think that there's any aspect of this simple technology that can still be 'claimed' or 'patented'.  But I also think it's as well to exercise a little caution.  It's not happy experience to firstly disclose my technology to the public - then have it replicated  - and then hear that the replicators now consider it their discovery.  Why?  Why do they want this ownership?  Unless they intend some kind of intellectual property rights. 

But DO NOT assume that EF.Com Admin are not actively assisting in this effort to lose association of my name with that technology.  They most CERTAINLY are.  That worries me more than Glen or Harvey.  The more so as the evidence is that they've rather co-operated in 'losing' ALL the work that I've done, or 'burying' it.  But - there could possibly be a motive.  Aaron subscribes to the electron currrent flow and I suspect his books are based on this.  I know he presumes to teach the public on matters scientific.  In any event I think I was too much in the face of Bedini followers and such like and there's no question the theses are diametrically opposed.  I've got emails on record where Aaron has advised me that I 'had no right' to reference the thesis in our 'paper'.  Why he should see fit to comment is beyond me.  But that seemed to be a privotal complaint. 

But Guys, doesn't all this strike you as odd?  We have two forums - apparently dedicated to OU technology.  And we have at least one over unity technology that stands up to the most stringent scrutiny based, as it is, on equally stringent measurment protocols.  But I read on both threads the fact that notwithstanding this, the vast majority of the members here consider that OU has NEVER been breached.  I read things like 'show me proof'.  Or.  'There is absolutely no evidence'.  Whole threads dedicated to discussions on 'whether it can be achieved' - or others with partial explanations why perpetual motion can NEVER allow more energy into a system.  It's everywhere.  It's as if this entire dedicated year of disclosure and replication on this technology was also entirely a waste of time.  It would have been so nice if there had - at least - been some 'public' acknowledgement on these forums.  The joke of it is that the interest has now spread to the public and mainstream that there is more tangible evidence of interest there than here.  Has this over unity drive now served its purpose and spent it's own energy?  A spent force?  I certainly hope not.  It's still much needed - on so many levels.  But it would be as well to 'lead' the acknowledgement of evidence - rather than otherwise.  Else - these forums will become a 'bigger' joke than mainstream's early refusal to look at the evidence.

Kind regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 17, 2010, 08:10:59 AM
Guys,  I also need to add this.  I thought - some time back - that the resistors themselves could, indeed, still be patented.  Apparently not - unless they incorporate heretofore unknown methods of construction and winding.  But, having said that, it may yet be possible to 'copyright' or claim some kind of uniquenes if such is possible.  But - frankly - I cannot see enough variation here to ever warrant a patent. 

Effectively therefore, there's absolutely NO reason to keep the resistor details from the public.  Yet I will do so - just in case either Glen or Harvey claim 'prior art' knowledge - for whatever nefarious purpose.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: nievesoliveras on August 17, 2010, 02:50:46 PM
Most people die trying to get a patent, other people just sell their products adding the words "Patent Pending".

Jesus
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: skcusitrah on August 17, 2010, 04:09:35 PM
Anyone who knows what they are doing can get access.  It is really not all that hard as Wilby has said.

Bill

Change the date of this post by a month then.

Until this happens, these two are only blowing hot air like usual.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 17, 2010, 04:12:21 PM
Most people die trying to get a patent, other people just sell their products adding the words "Patent Pending".

Jesus

I don't think you can add just like that 'Patent Pending' without actually filing for a patent.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 17, 2010, 04:25:47 PM
Change the date of this post by a month then.

Until this happens, these two are only blowing hot air like usual.

I don't see how a regular participant can do that unless the owner of the forum is cooperating. Even then it is unclear how this can be done.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: WilbyInebriated on August 17, 2010, 05:43:10 PM
Change the date of this post by a month then.

Until this happens, these two are only blowing hot air like usual.
i love it when people who have no clue about a technology (php code and sql databases) presume to tell those of us who have a clue, about how said tech works... ::)

your second sentence is a logical fallacy.

edit: i can set up a forum, you can create yourself an account, then make a post and i will change the post date...
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 17, 2010, 05:44:53 PM
i love it when people who have no clue about a technology (php code and sql databases) presume to tell those of us who have a clue about how said tech works... ::)

your second sentence is a logical fallacy.

OK, change it then, since you have so much clue.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: WilbyInebriated on August 17, 2010, 05:48:28 PM
OK, change it then, since you have so much clue.
just because it is unclear to you how it could be done, does NOT mean that it cannot be done... ::)

i'll toss you a bone omni, here is one way of many... google 'sql injection' and then please shut up. that goes for you too skcusitrah/hartisucks.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 17, 2010, 06:32:09 PM
just because it is unclear to you how it could be done, does NOT mean that it cannot be done... ::)

i'll toss you a bone omni, here is one way of many... google 'sql injection' and then please shut up. that goes for you too skcusitrah/hartisucks.

Go ahead, change it then.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 17, 2010, 08:02:49 PM
To change it you have to know the address of the MySQL or whatever sql it is, the exact position of the cell containing this message and, more importantly, you have to know the password to get into the database. That cannot be done (provided password is well protected) without the cooperation of the admin and even then I think there will be traces proving that someone has tampered with the database no matter what high level hacker you might be.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: WilbyInebriated on August 17, 2010, 08:43:09 PM
To change it you have to know the address of the MySQL or whatever sql it is, the exact position of the cell containing this message and, more importantly, you have to know the password to get into the database. That cannot be done (provided password is well protected) without the cooperation of the admin and even then I think there will be traces proving that someone has tampered with the database no matter what high level hacker you might be.
no you don't need to know any of those things to use sql injection, the script you are 'injecting' into already has the address of the sql server, the database to connect to, and the password... again go google 'sql injection' and educate yourself before you go talking about things you have no clue about, it makes you look ignorant. if a person is the admin of a forum, it is a trivial thing to change a timestamp in the database. one does not even need to terminal into the server anymore, coders like myself have made pretty little gui's so ignorant people (like you...) can edit a database with a few simple clicks...

why don't you get off your ego pedastal and practice what you preach? ie:
You should know your deficiencies and should not bother experts with your irrelevant banter
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 17, 2010, 08:53:52 PM
no you don't need to know any of those things to use sql injection, the script you are 'injecting' into already has the address of the sql server, the database to connect to, and the password... again go google 'sql injection' and educate yourself before you go talking about things you have no clue about, it makes you look ignorant. if a person is the admin of a forum, it is a trivial thing to change a timestamp in the database. one does not even need to terminal into the server anymore, coders like myself have made pretty little gui's so ignorant people (like you...) can edit a database with a few simple clicks...

why don't you get off your ego pedastal and practice what you preach? ie:

Why don't you demonstrate directly what you preach. Change the time stamp of this post, for instance.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 17, 2010, 08:57:42 PM
I think Stefan would be really thrilled to see there's such a vulnerability. Demonstrate there is. If not just go away with your funny claim.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: WilbyInebriated on August 17, 2010, 09:24:18 PM
Why don't you demonstrate directly what you preach. Change the time stamp of this post, for instance.
because, and i will take the liberty to use your own words here,
One only has that much time on Earth to waste it with straightening out confused people who don't even want to listen.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: WilbyInebriated on August 17, 2010, 09:26:17 PM
I think Stefan would be really thrilled to see there's such a vulnerability. Demonstrate there is. If not just go away with your funny claim.
there may or may not be an injection vulnerability with this specific forum, however, i am not the admin so it is really not my concern. if you would like to pay me my standard rate ($125 per hour) to test server security, i might consider it.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 17, 2010, 09:30:27 PM
there may or may not be an injection vulnerability with this specific forum, however, i am not the admin so it is really not my concern. if you would like to pay me my standard rate to test server security, i might consider it.

Go away. You proved you can't do what you're preaching. Just a bunch of self-aggrandized ego and phoney baloney. And you want me to pay you for that. You gotta be kiddin' me.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: WilbyInebriated on August 17, 2010, 11:03:25 PM
Go away. You proved you can't do what you're preaching. Just a bunch of self-aggrandized ego and phoney baloney. And you want me to pay you for that. You gotta be kiddin' me.
that's your idea of a proof? ::) keep demonstrating your ignorance. i will, if you desire, set up a forum where you can make a post and i will change the post timestamp to demonstrate how simple it is with admin access. i will spend no more of my time to educate your ignorant person than that. as far as hacking stefan's forum to prove a point to you about access without admin privs, that is ludicrous. any rational, reasonable person can and would recognize this.

ANY database can be easily edited by the admin, to think otherwise simply demonstrates your extreme ignorance on the subject. but enough of your irrelevant banter, you are wrong and you don't have a clue of what you are talking about relative to scripts, databases and how scripts access databases. on this subject, i will humor you no longer.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 17, 2010, 11:12:12 PM
that's your idea of a proof? ::) keep demonstrating your ignorance. i will, if you desire, set up a forum where you can make a post and i will change the post timestamp to demonstrate how simple it is with admin access. i will spend no more of my time to educate your ignorant person than that. as far as hacking stefan's forum to prove a point to you about access without admin privs, that is ludicrous. any rational, reasonable person can and would recognize this.

ANY database can be easily edited by the admin, to think otherwise simply demonstrates your extreme ignorance on the subject.

Correct, that's my idea of proof -- show me the evidence. You haven't shown it so at least shut up and go back into the hole you crawled out from.

Like I said, an admin is likely to be able to change the time stamp. You, however, without the cooperation of an admin are not able to do that and you proved my point. Period.

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: WilbyInebriated on August 17, 2010, 11:17:07 PM
Correct, that's my idea of proof -- show me the evidence. You haven't shown it so at least shut up and go back into the hole you crawled out from.

Like I said, an admin is likely to be able to change the time stamp. You, however, without the cooperation of an admin are not able to do that and you proved my point. Period.
your idea of a proof is laughable... ::)

you said no such thing, want me to quote you? i will regardless.
I don't see how a regular participant can do that unless the owner of the forum is cooperating. Even then it is unclear how this can be done.
so you admit it is unclear to you and then go on to tell us all about what is and isn't possible. even more ludicrous is your assumption that because i will not, i cannot. ::) simply because i refuse to waste my time to demonstrate something to someone positing a worthless argument (you) does not mean i am not able to. period. your use of 'logic', and i use that word loosely here, is also laughable...

just because you cannot, does not mean others cannot. ::)
i have refuted your red herring argument, accept it and stop using logical fallacy in a lame attempt to subvert this topic.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 17, 2010, 11:24:20 PM
your idea of a proof is laughable... ::)

you said no such thing, want me to quote you? i will regardless.so you admit it is unclear to you and then go on to tell us all about what is and isn't possible. simply because i refuse to waste my time to demonstrate something to someone positing a worthless argument (you) does not mean i am not able to. period. your use of 'logic', and i use that word loosely here, is also laughable...

Hey, buddy, don't waste my time. You cannot change the time stamp of this post but are trying to present yourself as an expert. You proved you're nothing in this area and it's better for you to stop clogging the thread right now to avoid embarrassing yourself even further.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: WilbyInebriated on August 17, 2010, 11:25:48 PM
Hey, buddy, don't waste my time. You cannot change the time stamp of this post but are trying to present yourself as an expert. You proved you're nothing in this area and it's better for you to stop clogging the thread right now to avoid embarrassing yourself even further.
why do you continue with your logical fallacies? now you are engaging in the use of strawman. LOL. please... ::)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: WilbyInebriated on August 18, 2010, 12:47:32 AM
The part about "predating" a post is practically impossible, if not difficult. Are you reading too much into all this?
this was the original point of contention before omnibus went off on a two page rant filled with nothing but logical fallacy...

see this page for a demonstration of how it IS NOT "practically impossible, if not difficult."
http://swirl.awardspace.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?4.0
it took me less than 20 minutes to set up the forum, and less than a minute to change the timestamp so it is obviously not THAT difficult and NOT EVEN CLOSE TO "practically impossible". ::)

and i repeat, i WILL NOT NOW, OR EVER, be so unethical as to hack stefan's forum to prove a point to ignorant fools.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 18, 2010, 12:58:05 AM
this was the original point of contention before omnibus went off on a two page rant filled with nothing but logical fallacy...

see this page for a demonstration of how it IS NOT "practically impossible, if not difficult."
http://swirl.awardspace.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?4.0
it took me less than 20 minutes to set up the forum, and less than a minute to change the timestamp so it is obviously not THAT difficult and NOT EVEN CLOSE TO "practically impossible". ::)

and i repeat, i WILL NOT NOW, OR EVER, be so unethical as to hack stefan's forum to prove a point to ignorant fools.

I will go on as many pages as needed to expose self-righteous nothings like you. Don't finagle. Change the time stamp of this post or shut up.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 18, 2010, 12:59:58 AM
To claim you can change the time stamps in a forum like this is an absurdity and you know it. Just silently go away, don't continue to embarrass yourself and that episode will soon be forgotten.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: WilbyInebriated on August 18, 2010, 01:00:36 AM
I will go on as many pages as needed to expose self-righteous nothings like you. Don't finagle. Change the time stamp of this post or shut up.
you are back to your logical fallacies again. you are engaging in the use of strawman... is that one your favorite?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: WilbyInebriated on August 18, 2010, 01:03:36 AM
To claim you can change the time stamps in a forum like this is an absurdity and you know it. Just silently go away, don't continue to embarrass yourself and that episode will soon be forgotten.
you are so ignorant it makes me laugh... sql injection is one way, i tried to educate you about that vulnerability (and in all likelihood this forum IS NOT vulnerable, but that is irrelevant because you and skcusitrah WERE NOT implying that. in point of fact, you both were unaware of sql insertion until i told you about it. however, IT WAS EXPLICITLY DECLARED that it was difficult if not practically impossible.) previously to no avail. i could also simply brute force hack the admin password... you would be amazed at the simplistic passwords that are so often used. then again, as simple as you are, maybe you wouldn't. i could care less.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: skcusitrah on August 18, 2010, 01:08:47 AM
So wilbyinebriated has now proven that he resorts to mis-direction when his argument is weak or failing [how does a layman poster change the time stamp?, as an admin, that would be obvious, even to the uninitiated  ::) ]

and that he is a spineless showoff-off with no follow-through

Add these to the previous list I made.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: WilbyInebriated on August 18, 2010, 01:12:32 AM
So wilbyinebriated has now proven that he resorts to mis-direction when his argument is weak or failing [how does a layman poster change the time stamp?, as an admin, that would be obvious, even to the uninitiated  ::) ]

and that he is a spineless showoff-off with no follow-through

Add these to the previous list I made.
i have misdirected nothing, please cite where i have with a quote. aaron and the admin crew over at energetic are NOT "layman posters". it most certainly WAS NOT OBVIOUS to you, nor to the great omnibus... as evidence by your prior posts on that subject. ::)

i am not saying they did change the timestamp, i am refuting your ludicrous statement that it would be "practically impossible, if not difficult". please try and follow along... ::)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: skcusitrah on August 18, 2010, 01:17:37 AM
i have misdirected nothing, please cite where i have with a quote. aaron and the admin crew over at energetic are NOT "layman posters". i am not saying they did change the timestamp, i am refuting your ludicrous statement that it would be "practically impossible, if not difficult". please try and follow along... ::)

wilbyinebriated is a dumbass for thinking that the EF admin would even bother with such nonsense. Sure, they could do it, but for what? Give me a break!

And the "laymen posters" means anyone without admin access, such as the members mentioned by Rosemary. wilbyinebriated needed that spelled out for him so there it is.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: WilbyInebriated on August 18, 2010, 01:19:58 AM
skcusitrah/hartisucks... your first paragraph is a logical fallacy, ad hominem.

And the "laymen posters" means anyone without admin access, such as the members mentioned by Rosemary. wilbyinebriated needed that spelled out for him so there it is.
i think you need to go back and review what was said by rosemary and your response. you are now contradicting your previous statements. furthermore, are you so certain those said members do not have admin access? you think aaron does not have admin access? or access to the admin's ear? ::) you think harvey can't cry for a post to be censored and have it censored  shortly thereafter? ::) give ME a break.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: skcusitrah on August 18, 2010, 01:25:16 AM
are you so certain those said members do not have admin access? you think aaron does not have admin access? or access to the admin's ear? ::) you think harvey can't cry for a post to be censored and have it censored  shortly thereafter? ::) give ME a break.

 ::) wilbyinebriated is ludicrous and not all that quick catching on. He should give up, his ship is sunk.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: WilbyInebriated on August 18, 2010, 01:27:59 AM
wilbyinebriated is ludicrous. He should give up, his ship is sunk.
LOL, your ship is sunk. i demonstrated how, contrary to your claim, which was:
The part about "predating" a post is practically impossible, if not difficult.
it IS NOT "difficult or practically impossible".


once again for the cheap seats...
see this page for a demonstration of how it IS NOT "practically impossible, if not difficult."
http://swirl.awardspace.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?4.0
it took me less than 20 minutes to set up the forum, and less than a minute to change the timestamp so it is obviously not THAT difficult and NOT EVEN CLOSE TO "practically impossible". ::)

your ship is sunk, quod erat demonstratum.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 18, 2010, 02:01:26 AM
LOL, your ship is sunk. i demonstrated how, contrary to your claim, which was: it IS NOT "difficult or practically impossible".


once again for the cheap seats...
see this page for a demonstration of how it IS NOT "practically impossible, if not difficult."
http://swirl.awardspace.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?4.0
it took me less than 20 minutes to set up the forum, and less than a minute to change the timestamp so it is obviously not THAT difficult and NOT EVEN CLOSE TO "practically impossible". ::)

your ship is sunk, quod erat demonstratum.

Keep going. Embarrass yourself further. You'll get even deeper disrespect than you already earned. How silly people like @WilbyInebriated are. Really boggles the mind.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: WilbyInebriated on August 18, 2010, 02:13:57 AM
Keep going. Embarrass yourself further.
i'm not embarrassed, you are the one repeatedly engaging in logical fallacy.
You'll get even deeper disrespect than you already earned.
i could care less about respect, it is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
How silly people like @WilbyInebriated are. Really boggles the mind.
boggles your mind like php code and sql does?

you have been rebutted numerous times, and again you have no response other than logical fallacy... imagine that. ::)

once again for the cheap seats...
see this page for a demonstration of how it IS NOT "practically impossible, if not difficult" to change the timestamp of a post.
http://swirl.awardspace.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?4.0
it took me less than 20 minutes to set up the forum, and less than a minute to change the timestamp so it is obviously not THAT difficult and NOT EVEN CLOSE TO "practically impossible". ::)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 18, 2010, 02:24:17 AM
i'm not embarrassed, you are the one repeatedly engaging in logical fallacy. i could care less about respect, it is irrelevant to the topic at hand.boggles your mind like php code and sql does?

you have been rebutted numerous times, and again you have no response other than logical fallacy... imagine that. ::)

once again for the cheap seats...
see this page for a demonstration of how it IS NOT "practically impossible, if not difficult" to change the timestamp of a post.
http://swirl.awardspace.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?4.0
it took me less than 20 minutes to set up the forum, and less than a minute to change the timestamp so it is obviously not THAT difficult and NOT EVEN CLOSE TO "practically impossible". ::)

How pathetic.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Pirate88179 on August 18, 2010, 09:55:34 AM
wilbyinebriated is a dumbass for thinking that the EF admin would even bother with such nonsense. Sure, they could do it, but for what? Give me a break!

And the "laymen posters" means anyone without admin access, such as the members mentioned by Rosemary. wilbyinebriated needed that spelled out for him so there it is.

Look.  This is pretty simple.  I am a licensed Investigator and I do covert stuff for a living.  I am excellent with computers but I am not an expert.  Guess what?  I hire experts.  The experts I hire can hack into ANYTHING!  Get that?  ANYTHING.  Government, foreign government, you name it, they can, and have, done it.

So, now you are saying that even though guys like that can do what I said they HAVE done, and many times, there is NO WAY to change a date on an sql forum?  Is this your point?  Are you really going to stand by this?

Disclaimer:  I never hire anyone to break the law.  Anyone hired by me, or any of my many associates, never breaks any of the laws in the jurisdictions in which we are employed to operate.  This includes the domestic US and any foreign countries or provinces or districts.

Google hacking if you want to get educated about this subject.  Sheeeeze.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 18, 2010, 10:13:43 AM
Hi Wilby

There is a greater harm being done in answering Omnibus than in ignoring him.  I - unfortunately - have my days cut out as I've got this project to do on the thesis and it's taking much more time than I can afford here.

@Omnibus - there is no substitute for learning.  Clearly you consider that you've learned all that you can.  It is unfortunate.  But it is your life and your free will.  Your judgements are utterly clouded as your opinion is formed outside of the facts.  This is evident to anyone who reads your posts.  And that you rush to judgement at all shows that you want to teach rather than learn - that you want to be understood rather than understand - that you want to be heard rather than 'hear'.  That's more or less the recipe of a bigot but it's comforting, nonetheless that bigots are also tolerated here on Open Source.

It is becoming apparent to me that in the interests of furthering this bigotry that you're happy to sacrifice the standard of this thread.  I'm having difficulty tolerating your contributions at all.  I am absolutely NOT sure how to deal with this.  Perhaps Wilby or Bob could advise me what to do - on or off forum.  Right now I would be happier if I could see some evidence of discussion.  I see none.  I only see a parade of opinion and I've already advised you on the merits of this.  It would carry relevance only if that opinion also carried the courage and conviction of a disclosure of your identity.  Otherwise - for all I know - your objects here may simply be to diminish this technology and I'm not sure if I'm prepared to forgo something that is of benefit to Open Source simply to satisfy your substantial ego and pride or - God forbid - some hidden agenda.

What I would suggest is that you stop posting here until you've had the decency and courtesy to learn about the subject that we're dealing with - specifically the thesis that requires the evidence of an apparent technology that enables COP>1.  Then argue it's merits - not spout your opinion on those merits.

Wilby - let me know what to do.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary   
edited.  Spelling
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: skcusitrah on August 18, 2010, 02:31:15 PM
Look.  This is pretty simple.  I am a licensed Investigator and I do covert stuff for a living.  I am excellent with computers but I am not an expert.

So, now you are saying that even though guys like that can do what I said they HAVE done, and many times, there is NO WAY to change a date on an sql forum?  Is this your point?

Bill

If pirate88179 is a PI, why is he even asking this question when it has already been spelled out what the point is? He even quoted it in his response

wilbyinebriated and pirate88179 should just forget it. It's obviously beyond them. The point being, the EF admin has no interest in changing dates on anyone's posts, and the EF said members do not have the capability to change it themselves, so in conclusion they were not changed, and thinking that they were is ridiculous.

(edited)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 18, 2010, 02:48:00 PM

wilbyinebriated and pirate88179 should just forget it. It's obviously beyond them. The point being, the EF admin has no interest in changing dates on anyone's posts, and the EF said members do not have the capability to change it themselves, so in conclusion they were not changed, and thinking that they were is ridiculous.

(edited)

skcusitrah - I take it that EF admin have advised you that they're not interested in changing dates on anyone's posts?  Hopefully this satisfies you that they can.  This puts paid to both your and Omnibus' denial that they CAN do so at all.   I am inclined to ignore their denials as I know the extent to which they are co-operating with Harvey and Glen to bury my association with this technology.  That is something I cannot understand.  I could have accepted it while Aaron kept my link in that top 20 thread reference.  But he needed to lose the entire reference in order to lose my association with the forum and the COP 17 Rosemary Ainslie thread.  LOL.  Truth is never that easily buried. 

Meanwhile I take it that you have your opinion of the matter and I have mine.  I think we can leave it at that.

Rosemary

I hope this is the last we'll hear about this. 

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 18, 2010, 02:57:28 PM
Look.  This is pretty simple.  I am a licensed Investigator and I do covert stuff for a living.  I am excellent with computers but I am not an expert.  Guess what?  I hire experts.  The experts I hire can hack into ANYTHING!  Get that?  ANYTHING.  Government, foreign government, you name it, they can, and have, done it.

So, now you are saying that even though guys like that can do what I said they HAVE done, and many times, there is NO WAY to change a date on an sql forum?  Is this your point?  Are you really going to stand by this?

Disclaimer:  I never hire anyone to break the law.  Anyone hired by me, or any of my many associates, never breaks any of the laws in the jurisdictions in which we are employed to operate.  This includes the domestic US and any foreign countries or provinces or districts.

Google hacking if you want to get educated about this subject.  Sheeeeze.

Bill

Hello Bill.  I missed this post entirely.  I really need to check things out better.  Thanks for the information.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: shruggedatlas on August 18, 2010, 03:49:25 PM
The experts I hire can hack into ANYTHING!  Get that?  ANYTHING.  Government, foreign government, you name it, they can, and have, done it.

Disclaimer:  I never hire anyone to break the law.  Anyone hired by me, or any of my many associates, never breaks any of the laws in the jurisdictions in which we are employed to operate.  This includes the domestic US and any foreign countries or provinces or districts.

How can hacking into government systems be legal in any jurisdiction?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 18, 2010, 03:56:39 PM
@Pirate88179,

You know me. I need to see the evidence. Hope you're convinced that even regarding my own studies I'm my own worst enemy with regard to rigorousness of research and arguments. @WilbyInebriated has shown no evidence that he can change the time stamps in this forum and he should be ashamed of himself for embarrassing himself in so much insisting that he can. I'm not certain that even in general this can be done even if it would appear so and even if the admins are cooperating because there are always traces remaining in the google cache and so on. Your experts know these thing better. As far as this forum goes there's no evidence that changing time stamps can be done.

It is important for the above to be understood because otherwise it encourages the paranoia of some who claim someone is going to steal technology which they not only do not possess but it isn't even a technology to begin with. That's a misrepresentation we need the least. Encouraging such behavior harms everybody who does research  in the overunity field. This research has to be accepted as legitimate by the Academia because, like I said, nothing can compare in terms of resources and impact with Academia. It is mandatory to get Academia convinced in the legitimacy of the OU claims. For that to occur association with nut cases who don't have the elementary background needed or have put no time and effort in acquiring systematic knowledge but are very aggressively contacting academics can only cause harm. It leads to a state whereby an academic doesn't even want to look at the arguments the minute he or she senses association with such people considering it as just another nut case. I thought I had to tell you this because I feel you're missing that aspect.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: shruggedatlas on August 18, 2010, 06:55:48 PM
@Pirate88179,

You know me. I need to see the evidence. Hope you're convinced that even regarding my own studies I'm my own worst enemy with regard to rigorousness of research and arguments. @WilbyInebriated has shown no evidence that he can change the time stamps in this forum and he should be ashamed of himself for embarrassing himself in so much insisting that he can.

I think Omnibus is right here.  But all you guys are getting sidetracked with this time stamp thing.  The important thing is to get Academia and mainstream science involved, because there is so much talent and labor there, that we could really advance overunity research greatly once we do that.

Omnibus has played an important role with overunity research already.  He has established the theoretical violations of the law of conservation of energy on several occasions.  NO ONE ELSE HAS EVER DONE THAT, THAT I HAVE SEEN. 

He has taken the Orbo and studied it and performed tests that showed overunity, where other people were not able to do so.  And where he has been critical of technologies, he has always been correct.

People like Wilby, it seems, like to engage in word games,and like to think they are more clever than other people, but where is your overunity, Wilby?  Omnibus has taken research and advanced it and established beyond doubt that the law of conservation of energy does not hold.  What have you done?  Running SQL scripts will not get you any energy!
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 18, 2010, 07:17:52 PM
I think Omnibus is right here.  But all you guys are getting sidetracked with this time stamp thing.  The important thing is to get Academia and mainstream science involved, because there is so much talent and labor there, that we could really advance overunity research greatly once we do that.
Then I would recommend that both you and Omnibus get these subjects to academia.  Let's see how well you do.

Omnibus has played an important role with overunity research already.  He has established the theoretical violations of the law of conservation of energy on several occasions.  NO ONE ELSE HAS EVER DONE THAT, THAT I HAVE SEEN. 
Unfortunately NOR has Omnibus.  By his own admission.  He may have had a stab at it but what's required is a paper - and, in terms of his own recommendations - that this get published in a peer reviewed journal.  LOL.  At this stage all he can point to - and that rather vaguely - is at a thread.  It is highly unlikely that academics will take his thread contributions seriously.

He has taken the Orbo and studied it and performed tests that showed overunity, where other people were not able to do so.  And where he has been critical of technologies, he has always been correct.
The jury is still out there on Orbo technology.  And if he was correct then why is ORBO not on the academic table.  I believe it did get there and then got knocked off.

People like Wilby, it seems, like to engage in word games,and like to think they are more clever than other people, but where is your overunity, Wilby? 
People like Wilby protect the intellectual integrity of these threads precisely from the fatuous opinions of those such as Omnibus.  He makes a real contribution to the required standards of posting.  I hope you're not seriously suggesting that there's anything constructive in Ominbus's wild unsubstantiated opinions and allegations. 

Omnibus has taken research and advanced it and established beyond doubt that the law of conservation of energy does not hold.
I'm afraid you're sadly deluded if you really buy into this.  And frankly for all that Omnibus is somewhat arrogant I don't think even his arrogance would manage such a wild statement.  You really need to check your terms better shruggedatlas.  If the Laws of Conservation of Energy did not hold then we'd have an exotic form of physics that would possibly be adventurous - but it would also need to be entirely illogical.

What have you done?  Running SQL scripts will not get you any energy!
And by the same token - may I ask you what you've done?  At least Wilby knows whereof his speaks and he does it with some considerable skill.  What you show here is a rather absurd dependancy on Omnibus' 'Science based on Opinion' and regard him as somewhat of a mentor.  It's charmingly naive - but hopelessly misguided.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: shruggedatlas on August 18, 2010, 08:41:16 PM
Unfortunately NOR has Omnibus.  By his own admission.  He may have had a stab at it but what's required is a paper - and, in terms of his own recommendations - that this get published in a peer reviewed journal. 

Peer reviews are nice but not necessary.  Omnibus has already shown the math many times, and the math holds up.  Soon enough, peer reviews will come.

It is true I have not done much of my own experimentation lately, but I can still distinguish information from disinformation on this board.  And wilby is no doubt a paid disinformation agent.  He incessantly harps on about his logical fallacies, but the biggest logical fallacy is why he is here.  Surely someone of his intellect has better things to do that find logical fallacies on some obscure corner of the Internet.

He is likely paid to discredit probably the only guy here who has accomplished real overunity - Omnibus.  Though he can never do that - the truth speaks louder than his nitpicking.  There is a great saying that people who say it cannot be done should not get in the way of those doing it, and Wilby should take that to heart.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Pirate88179 on August 18, 2010, 09:41:10 PM
How can hacking into government systems be legal in any jurisdiction?


It isn't.  I said the folks available to me for contract work have been able to do that.  I do not hire them to do that, hence my disclaimer at the end of my post.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: WilbyInebriated on August 19, 2010, 01:19:06 AM
Hi Wilby

There is a greater harm being done in answering Omnibus than in ignoring him.  I - unfortunately - have my days cut out as I've got this project to do on the thesis and it's taking much more time than I can afford here.

Wilby - let me know what to do.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary   
edited.  Spelling
indeed. both he and skcusitrah/hartisucks have a tenuous (at best) grasp on logic and have demonstrated that over and over. shrugged is close to the same mold, her post to bill was simply an effort to engage in another red herring argument for a couple pages per her usual modus operandi. look at the lack of logic used by her as evidenced by this quote "Running SQL scripts will not get you any energy!" in her defense of omnibus... no one ever claimed running sql scripts would net energy, it is just another pathetic attempt at engaging in another red herring argument... it makes me roll my eyes. ::)

look at the false logic posited below by skcusitrah/hartisucks. the first premise about the EF admin is based upon unsubstantiated assumption, the second premise is based upon a complete falsehood. then came the conclusion, to which a good dose of hyperbole was added to finish it off with idiot flair. a false antecedent will give the appearance of leading to any conclusion... but such arguments are never sound. it seems that maybe a dozen people on this forum understand this concept. sadly, omnibus, skcusitrah/hartisucks and shrugged are not amongst them.
the EF admin has no interest in changing dates on anyone's posts, and the EF said members do not have the capability to change it themselves, so in conclusion they were not changed, and thinking that they were is ridiculous.
the repeated and continuous use of false logic by these characters does leave you in a bit of a conundrum, as i understand your desire to not have to resort to censorship or banning. however, if you don't call their fallacious logic out, they will fill your thread with irrelevant banter as sure as a bear shits in the woods. on the other hand, if you do call their false logic out, they will repeat it (fallacious logic) till blue in the face while dragging you down to their level (stupidity) and beating you with experience, as evidenced by the last few pages.

personally, i would remove it (anything that isn't relevant to your topic, including my responses) all.


@shrugged, they are not 'my' logical fallacies, they are yours, your words, now you own them. when you (and the others who engage in them) stop engaging in logical fallacies, i will stop harping on you (and the others who engage in them) about engaging in logical fallacy. if you think "the biggest logical fallacy is why he is here" then i suggest you go refresh yourself on just exactly what a logical fallacy is. i expect you shall post another logical fallacy as a response. ::)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: shruggedatlas on August 19, 2010, 01:27:44 AM
indeed. both he and skcusitrah/hartisucks have a tenous (at best) grasp on logic and have demonstrated that over and over.

Fine, you have your grasp on logic, while Omnibus plows ahead and changes the laws of physics before our eyes.  Please, just get out of his way and let him do his thing. If you want logic exercises, there are classes you can take for that, and you can discuss logic all day long.

This is a science forum, not a logic games forum.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 19, 2010, 04:48:55 AM
Hi Wilby

Thanks for your reply.  Here's what I've decided.  I think our reading public are nowhere near being the fools that Omnibus seems to hope for.  He is welcome to post.  I can - as required - use his unsubstantiated opinion to remind our readers on the status of these tests and the thesis.

Let me start with this.  We are conducting tests in a university laboratory under the close co-operation and supervision of some really brave academics.  In the event that the tests are successful and in the event that we manage to achieve higher wattages than evident in our 'proof of concept' experiements - then this will be made known.  In the same way - if we do not manage these results - then this will also be known.  Our academics are not committed to an opinion outside of the test results.  Which is precisely as it should be.

Meanwhile in the light of the 'proof of concept' widely and accurately recorded - my thesis is getting some attention.  And right now we are attempting to represent the concepts in the thesis in a 3D animation series in order to advance its understanding.  I am immensely grateful for the help and assistance I am getting here.

And shruggedatlas - if, as I suspect, your actual mentor is Ayn Rand - then perhaps you should revisit her ideals.  Muddy thinking is not one of them.

@Omnibus.  It is very likely I'm a nut case as you put it.  These thankless efforts on these forums would certainly put my sanity to question.  But thankfully, our academics seem to tolerate this. 

Kindest regards Wilby and thanks to both you and Bob for your attempts to disabuse Omnibus of his manifold delusions.  But it really is not required.  I'm essentially pragmatic.  I now think I may be able to make good use of his posts and certainly intend giving it my best shot.

Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 20, 2010, 03:49:48 PM
Hi all.  This is a copy of a previous post which I needed to edit and the system does not allow me to.  It's now out of sequence but relates to the date highlighted.  There will will be a further 4 such en route.  Don't bother to read.  I just need it to keep record.  Maybe when Stefan get's back he can put it back in the appropriate place.

Sorry about this.

   
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #15 on: July 19, 2010, 10:30:23 PM »


Guys,  I need to say this - reluctantly but required.

It appears that many potential replicators of this technology were systematically discouraged from researching this effect through the simple expediency of Glen or Harvey 'messaging' those posters and advising them against the technology.  This was variously achieved by a slew of unsubstantiated allegations made against me - my history - or the technology itself.  I would ask you all.  Please - in the event that you are contacted could I impose on you to demand that they either make those allegations public or that they substantiate those allegations with proof.  Either way they will then desist as all such allegations are actionable.  I am only now being made more fully cogniscant of this 'action in the background' which - before now - I could not understand.  Replicators came forward and then ... just disappeared.

Indeed - they were effective.  I have had to keep the name of the university involved off public forum at their request.  Glen discovered the campus involved by doing an unsolicited search through my photobucket.  I had a photo of that academic there.  He then matched the face with a name.  It must have been a pretty deep internet search - and then wrote to that academic implying he was an Energetic Forum Adminstrator - needing assurance that I was posting our work and not theirs.  He then advised the academic that I was PLAGIARISING his work - this based on the fact that the TIE publication does not hold authors' names.  In any event this set the project back 4 months or so while those academics established the facts for themselves.  A really spiteful piece of intervention that speaks to his interests either for open source technologies or for his interest in claiming this discovery.  Either way - sad motivation - and entirely irrelevant to our objects here.  We need to spread the word and the work and as far as possible - get some applications up and running.

What is troubling is that Energetic Forum Adminstrators were aware of this intervention and forbad my referencing it - else I'd be banned.  For some reason it seems that they rather preferred that their members not be told of this.  I'm not satisfied that this is in public interests.  But that's just my opinion.

Also.  Both Glen and Harvey are insinuating that I have patent rights on this technology.  I assure you I do not.  When I first developed - tested and published on this circuit I had no idea of the internet.  I'm that old.  In any event - I needed to ensure that no-one would be in a position to patent.  To this end I applied for a patent as the best way to 'publish' and get it into the public domain.  That application is still referenced as required - in the international patenting offices in Geneva.  But IT IS NOT REGISTERED.  This puts it in the public domain - the object being that no-one can ever patent it.  Now that I know about open source publication - I now publish everything I can.  It's the best safegaurd albeit that the 'attack' does not seem to diminish.  But it IS protected for open source.  We need to keep it that way.

Regards,osemary
http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 20, 2010, 03:56:59 PM
ANOTHER EDIT


Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #31 on: July 22, 2010, 07:11:46 AM »

Guys - Conrad - all,

I'm afraid this is simply not working.  Nor do I have the time to continually answer the trivia and misinformation in that last post of yours - Conrad.   I wonder if I can impose on you to read my own posts.  As it may be that you simply cannot understand what I have written then let me try and put things more simply.

Glen was the experimentalist who replicated our experiment published in Quantum October edition 2002.  To enable this I solicited the use of some sophisticated Tektronix equipment with the promise to them that the tests would be well publicised and that all such would feature their TDS3054C DPO.  In most aspects Glen was a supreme experimentalist.  One looks for detailed and multiple data records, multiple test parameters, clear photographs and untainted presentation of data.  He is a photographer of some considerable skill.  His knowledge of how to present data - impeccable.  And his crowning qualification is that he could not, himself, do the data analysis from his dumps - which made him supremely impartial.  Our analysis of the results therefore, of necessity and invariably followed on from his tests.

The actual appropriate tests relating to this successful replication were Test 3 (from memory) which was then repeated with the use of a calibrated shunt in Test 13.  Both tests relied on measurement of current draw down from the supply based on analysis of the voltage across the shunt.  Both tests also showed that circuit potential to entirely conserve charge - with the mean DC average voltage levels swinging evenly between small positive and negative voltage indicating a nominal to zero discharge from the battery.  Yet there was a measurable dissipation of energy at the load evident in the temperature rise across the load and related to ambient.  The level of wattage dissiapted was gauged by a control that measured the amount of power required to generate the equivalent temperature rise.

The Mosfet Heating Circuit thread at Energetic Forum was initiated by Glen and Harvey and was intended to refute my invention of this circuit.  Indeed it is not an invention.  There is very little that is not known about switching circuits.  But what is NOT on public record, prior to our exposure of this, is the simple fact that the circuit can be tuned to a self-resonating frequency at which point there is no significant loss of energy from the supply.  I was not allowed to post on that thread but there was no restriction to Glen posting on mine.  He systematically 'flamed' my own thread and then - when Admin finally managed to bring this to a halt - he continued to message anyone who posted on my thread - with a slew of misinformation - much as he is now doing here.

I cannot say what his objectives are.  All I can assure you is that he relies on Harvey's analysis of the results and Harvey has now posted a slew of exercises in this where not only is the analysis hopelessly flawed - but is aimed at discounting the very results he earlier attested to in our Open Source paper.  I also can attest to the fact they are both emailing all and sundry with an an avalanche of unsupported allegations against my character, my history, my skills and - finally my part in this discovery.  I would, again, refer you my scribd reference to all this which I'll append.  Latterly are they both denying the evidence - but, unfortunately for them both, the evidence is on public record. Right now they both rely on the inabilities of the readers here to understand or analyse the data.  And Harvey is skilled in the use of a kind of technobabble that appears learned and yet is utterly flawed.  Academics involved in the evaluation of these tests are well aware of the flaws in those analyses but, unfortunately, it is not immediately evident to those who are less skilled in power analysis.

So.  There is patently some agenda afoot - which is apparent to the more discerning.  My own assessment is this.  Energetic Forum now effectively belongs to them both.  They are free to say and do as they please and the level of readership and general engagement is such that their members - for the most part - are entirely unaware of that agenda and are therefore duped.  This even includes some of thos authors to that first paper.  Fortunately this is changing and changing fast.  But while they are there or, for that matter here - there is clear indication that they are attempting to sabotage all evidence of Over Unity.  The sad truth is this.  Our own experiment is 'small' evidence.  But it has the real merit of being conclusive.  Subject only to our ability to scale it - then it may, God willing, prove feasible on applications - and a wide range of such if this potential is fully realised.  And all I KNOW is that there is an overwhelming need for both of them to prevent this.

My reading of your emphasis on their thread and the liberal references to their quotes reminds me of the danger that they pose to this development.  Fortunately there is nothing that they can now do to prevent our work on campus.  Nor can they prevent the publicity that will result on successful conclusion to those tests.  It will no longer be a 'fringe science' but should - at it's least - become respectable for other campuses and other academics to research the effect more thoroughly.  This is a first and, in my mind, has posed the single most effective barrier to the promotion of free energy.  It needs both the courageous and the enquiring academic in order to bring these much needed benefits to mainstream and to public awareness.

BUT Conrad.  I cannot forever interrupt my work to answer to the irrelevancies in their postings nor their communications.  I need to press on. Therefore I must ask you to please transfer your work to a second thread and do your work on replications there.  I need the time and the space here to give accurate account of the work associated with this appliance.  It was the purpose of this thread.  While I have been 'bitten' by those MIB's I am very aware of the safety in ensuring that all knowledge related to this effect be put on public record.  This is no longer negotiable.  The time taken to address your post reminds me of the distractions and the effective distractions that can hamper that object.

Let me put this as succinctly as I can.
WE HAVE EXPERIMENTAL PROOF OF A THESIS THAT REQUIRES ENERGY EFFICIENCIES GREATER THAN 1
WE HAVE WIDE AND COMPREHENSIVE ACCREDITATION OF THAT EXPERIMENTAL PROOF
WE HAVE FULL AND COMPREHENSIVE DATA ON A REPLICATION OF THAT EXPERIMENT AVAILABLE TO OPEN SOURCE

What is now required is that appliance to be fully developed and, hopefully, manufactured.  And right now this thread is needed to ensure that all the information related to that appliance is made available to Open Source.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33937867/IF-I-WAS-A-TROLL

 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 20, 2010, 04:02:29 PM
Another edit.

Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #36 on: July 22, 2010, 04:55:41 PM »

Hi Sandy,  I called that name wrong.  I think it's the 'parasitic hartley effect'.  Apologies.

And Conrad.  You seem to have taken offense?  Not intended.  I'm simply telling it like it is.  Regarding your required 'proof' - not sure what 'proof' you're looking for beyond the papers that Sandy correctly identified.  Are you looking for 'sworn affidavit's' as demanded by Glen and Harvey?  Regarding accreditation of the experiments those companies' names wwere listed in the Quantum publication.  Fairly widely publicised at the time - here in SA.  I'm reasonably certain that if I had misrepresented them then I would have been served papers calling for a retraction.  The proof of experimental results are never required beyond the simple account in a paper.  Else the simple principle of publication anywhere at all would be rendered meaningless.  So I'm not at all sure what else I can do here either.  Unless, again you wish us all to sign affidavits.  This is rather more than is expected of any scientist who is usually understood to be telling the truth.  And if you do, indeed, doubt that I'm telling the truth then I'm not sure that an affidavit will cut it - quite frankly.  I'm also reasonably certain that Harvey et al would have tried to get some kind of disclaimer.  In the absense of such perhaps you can allow me the benefit of the doubt ???

What is sad is the effectiveness of Harvey and Glen.  By now the truth of this over unity proof should be bouncing around the globe.  Instead of which it now seems that the two of them are actually denying the evidence.  And they do this on a full time basis.  I'm inclined to wonder who finances them.  My actual concern is that they're looking to some variation in order to patent it.

But I was pretty well silenced at Energetic Forum - as I was not allowed to reference their multi-level interventions.  They did me a favour by getting me banned.  And Harti an even bigger favour be allowing this thread.  But I must admit the thought of getting banned was more than enough to silence me as I was frantic that I not be separated from my work.  I am still exploring the legalities of anyone removing a member from this. That's the effect of banning.  I find it morally disgusting.

Anyway Sandy - thanks for the interest.  And Conrad, again.  I had no intention of upsetting you.  Abject apologies if that's what I managed.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 20, 2010, 04:08:53 PM
Aother edit.

Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #84 on: July 27, 2010, 08:50:31 AM »

Guys, just to remind you all.  If you post - then as day follows night - you are also, inevitably, going to hear from Glen and/or Harvey through your PM systems.  The procedure here is to 'twitter' off forum with a barrage of unsubstantiated allegations that will either embarrass you away from the thread or away from support of the technology - or both.  And it will have less to do with facts than with a rumour mongering and witch hunting that is unprecedented against any one person and against any given technology.

Only two of the many people that they have contacted - alerted me to their system of discreditation.  But I am very aware of it's effectiveness.  It may mean that I will have to advise on this development exclusively through my Scribd file.  It's a covert system of attack that actually leaves me entirely defenseless.  I only ask that you ask for 'substantiation' if they allege anything at all.  Or better still - require that they come out of hiding and make their comments public - as is required by Open Source disciplines.

Just know that they are both working very hard to deny the experimental evidence they previously proved.  I think the reach - right now - is to claim that this is their discovery and deny my part in it - in any way they can manage.  Strangely paradoxical is that they have a dedicated thread designed and used to deny the very benefits that they first made public.  Glen has removed most of that data from public view.  I think it's now hidden in a small folder somewhere and he is now shamelessly claiming this as his own work.  If he actively advanced applications I'd be inclined to ignore it.  But he can't advance this precisely because he cannot wrap his mind around the thinking that requires this advantage.  Neither of them can.  If they could then I would have been very happy to leave this in their capable hands to progress.  But it's the urgent need to 'diminish' any contribution that I may have that worries me.  There must be some motive here.  And I find that such huge efforts expended on this objective to kill my association - rather undermines my own need to ensure that this technology remain open source.  They're trying to bury the technology and my reputation along with it.  Please bear this in mind when and as they reach you.  We really do need this technology.  And albeit small - these my contributions may be usable - especially as it relates to the thesis and the justification for results that exceed COP>1.

Regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33937867/IF-I-WAS-A-TROLL
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 20, 2010, 04:22:57 PM
Another edit

Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #149 on: August 02, 2010, 09:30:45 AM »

 And Guys,  Just a new development that I thought I'd alert you to.

Our circuit thread was the fastest growing thread on EF.Com ever.  Aaron was under some pressure to advertise this popularity.  He eventually compromised by referencing it in the 20 most 'read' threads with it's own link.  A sort of means to both hide it and yet appear to give it the distinction of being a 'sticky'.  Now he's lost that reference.  Effectively there is NO FURTHER REFERENCE TO THAT COP>17 AINSLIE CIRCUIT thread.  LOL.  It's been tumbled into extinction through the happy excuse of banning me for making the following statement.

"If anyone assumes to understand Leedskalnin's work - he must first be capable of duplicating the miracle of Coral Castle"   This in reference to Harvey's post where he implied that he understood EVERYTHING that Leedskalnin had written.

The position now is this.  My name as associated with that circuit technology is buried.  And the only reference to that circuit is called 'the mosfet heating circuit'.  It's in pride of place on every page of that thread - and it HAS ABSOLUTELY NO REFERENCE TO MY PART IN THAT CIRCUIT.  Not only that but it's purpose is to DENY the very benefits that BOTH HARVEY AND GLEN earlier attested to.   

Work it out for yourselves.  EF.COM is definitely NOT promoting clean green.  It's become a sort of incestuous gathering of the clans where unwitting experimentalists and theorists are seduced into sharing their knowledge to then simply have it stolen from them.  I'm still awaiting word from Scribd regarding my rights to publish emails.  This shocking series of communications will show the character of those 'so called' clean green energy
enthusiasts.  I see it as morally imperative that their true nature be fully and publicly disclosed.   As soon as I know the legal status I'll either publish those emails there - or if stefan will allow it - somewhere on his forum.  And while there is absolutely no point in suing either Harvey or Glen as they are both pretty impoverished - it would be very much in my interests to sue Microsoft and the owners of EF.COM - Microsoft for allowing Glen the space to publish his files where the technology is again recorded without any reference to its source.  And EF.COM for appropriating ownership of my technology in conjunction with two of what, in my opinion, are the biggest scoundrels that have ever stalked these forums.  Again it is my opinion that they are ALL self-serving - and are appropriating to themselves the knowledge that I have ONLY intended as free for Open Source.  And DOUBLY worisome - is the fact that they are PUBLICLY DENYING the benefits.  Yet they appear to be forging ahead with experiments.  WHY?

I hope you all see what's happening there.  ???

Regards
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33937867/IF-I-WAS-A-TROLL
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 20, 2010, 04:27:55 PM
Guys, sorry about all those post repeats.  They needed editing.  Hopefully when Stefan gets back he can put them back in sequence.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: WilbyInebriated on August 20, 2010, 08:02:39 PM
hi rose, on aug.18th i got the inevitable PM from glen you said would be coming sure as day follows night. i thought you would like to know. it was mostly just a link to his skydrive.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 20, 2010, 08:39:01 PM
hi rose, on aug.18th i got the inevitable PM from glen you said would be coming sure as day follows night. i thought you would like to know. it was mostly just a link to his skydrive.

Hi Wilby.  He spends more time on this forum than his own thread at EF.com.  I feel sorry for the guy - in a way.  I think he's anxiously trying to draw attention to a second series of tests that they did on more sophisticated equipment - which test was designed to fail.  It's easy to fail a test.  You just need to keep adjusting the pot until the sum of the voltage over the shunt resistor moves into postiive.  It's that need to alert everyone to the failure that is so sad.  But you can't get that genii back in the bottle.  Ever.  LOL

Anyway - he's basically committed intellectual suicide by hiding his data as he does and claiming the work as his own.  That's the ultimate Open Source NO NO.  It's why he needs to do this at all, that's troubling.  I'm rather inclined to think that's he's just really badly advised.  But it seems that opportunism still rules.  Lots of it.  He's still trying to get me banned here.  Truth is I'm just too busy at the moment to give it all much attention.  I still need to follow up on the information to the FBI on that x rated link - that Chet posted.  That's on Fuzzy Tom Cat's adult site which, apparently has nothing to do with Glen.  To compound the coincidence is that the link features something disgusting about ainslie.  There you go.  Extraordinary evidence of randomness.  Beggars belief I'd have thought.  LOL.   It is my opinion, as I've said, that he's a scoundrel.  I'm just so sorry that I didn't realise this really early.  But one lives and learns.  I'm just a really slow learner.

Kindest regards,
Rosie
EDITED
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: sm0ky2 on August 21, 2010, 03:56:46 AM

@ GLEN


For some reason my PM's dont work on this site anymore, so i cannot reply to you that way, and i was unable to locate the thread you found me on, but since i KNOW you're reading this one, i'll respond to you here......

I really dont care about your "legal" battles, i have no intention of assisting you when it concerns a device freely discussed on an OPEN SOURCE FORUM.
I have absolutely no sympathy for you and your partners in this situation.
Yes, from all outside appearance, it seems to be great work you have done to advance this technology. And perhaps, in some esoteric fashion, you should be given "credit" for lending a helping hand. But i dont think that makes this tech. "yours".

And in either case, there should be no claims to proprietorship on anything that is posed here by its respective inventor.
The act of posting such information on this OPEN SOURCE FORUM comes with the explicit and implicit knowledge that the technology is to be deemed OPEN SOURCE. Period.

I will have nothing to do with what you are trying to accomplish.
  If it is my advice you seek, i would suggest that you post the information you have HERE, in its appropriate location.
and continue your efforts to further this technology.
What you ultimately decide to do is entirely up to you.

But i dont appreciate you attempting to persuade myself or other members of this forum to conspire against one another.
We are here to unify and share our knowledge. not keep secrets and divide us apart.

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 21, 2010, 06:01:50 AM
@ GLEN


For some reason my PM's dont work on this site anymore, so i cannot reply to you that way, and i was unable to locate the thread you found me on, but since i KNOW you're reading this one, i'll respond to you here......

I really dont care about your "legal" battles, i have no intention of assisting you when it concerns a device freely discussed on an OPEN SOURCE FORUM.
I have absolutely no sympathy for you and your partners in this situation.
Yes, from all outside appearance, it seems to be great work you have done to advance this technology. And perhaps, in some esoteric fashion, you should be given "credit" for lending a helping hand. But i dont think that makes this tech. "yours".

And in either case, there should be no claims to proprietorship on anything that is posed here by its respective inventor.
The act of posting such information on this OPEN SOURCE FORUM comes with the explicit and implicit knowledge that the technology is to be deemed OPEN SOURCE. Period.

I will have nothing to do with what you are trying to accomplish.
  If it is my advice you seek, i would suggest that you post the information you have HERE, in its appropriate location.
and continue your efforts to further this technology.
What you ultimately decide to do is entirely up to you.

But i dont appreciate you attempting to persuade myself or other members of this forum to conspire against one another.
We are here to unify and share our knowledge. not keep secrets and divide us apart.

 ;D  Sm0ky.  Truly a STAR.  I'm always ridiculously emotional - but this post has actually left me feeling choked.  I keep hoping for this kind of response and HERE IT IS.  Open source is PRECISELY that - it's open and open to INSPECTION.  There is nothing that can ever be achieved by nefarious, cloak and dagger murmurings and whisperings.  Truth needs to stand up to the light of day.  And it's not promoted in shameful little dark corners.

I have no idea what it is that Glen has advised you all.  Nor do I want to know.  It'll involve me in more counterclaims and such is tedious - in the extreme.  But I know enough about the caliber of the members here to also know that they ALL want progress in clean green.  And KEEP IT OPEN.  Otherwise it stinks of conspiracy. 

Thank God for OU.com and Stefan.  I'm entirely satisfied that without this thread this technology would, today, be forgotten on the internet.  Then sadly - it's progress will never be seen here on these forums.  And the truth is that it's these forums that are the real catalyst to some profoundly changing paradigms.  And the attendant benefits need to be jealously guarded.  We're not there yet.  But it's around the corner.

And just as an update.  We've FINALLY located the appropriate IGBT and the appropriate MOSFETS.  Two switches intended for design.  The IGBT due for delivery early next week.  Hopefully that will put paid to any further delays. 

THANK YOU AGAIN SMOKY.  Thank you for being a true blue open source member.  And thank you for being brave enough to post as you have.  I'm well aware of the courage required.

 ;D :-* 

Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on August 21, 2010, 09:56:57 AM
Glen has done nothing wrong and his data has been available  for the public on the uni site ever since day 1. What a thread this is. I have been a neutral observer in the situation, the beef between people was escalated and not provoked by Glen. Those who dont focus on the technology will be kicked on the Ef.com, simple as that. Unless you were there and saw it all there is no way for you to judge.

If Stefan does not do it here, then good luck reading useless posts. Harvey, Aaron and Glen have done more to get the technology this  far  then any one. So far i dont see any practicality of not working independent with an open source circuit with this scenario. Glen is merely trying to warn what happened to him that's all. It back to the technology for us, no more needed to be said.

Ash
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Pirate88179 on August 21, 2010, 10:43:51 AM
Glen has done nothing wrong and his data has been available  for the public on the uni site ever since day 1. What a thread this is. I have been a neutral observer in the situation, the beef between people was escalated and not provoked by Glen. Those who dont focus on the technology will be kicked on the Ef.com, simple as that. Unless you were there and saw it all there is no way for you to judge.

If Stefan does not do it here, then good luck reading useless posts. Harvey, Aaron and Glen have done more to get the technology this  far  then any one. So far i dont see any practicality of not working independent with an open source circuit with this scenario. Glen is merely trying to warn what happened to him that's all. It back to the technology for us, no more needed to be said.

Ash

Then why all of the pm's to everyone?

Bill
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on August 21, 2010, 10:52:56 AM
Then why all of the pm's to everyone?

Bill

Hi Bill there was a reason why the energetic forum had to make a Mosfet heating circuit, there is a reason why Rose got banned. Catch my drift? There is a reason why Glen is warning people that's all it is. Dont hold it against him he was provoked. So was Aaron.

If the direction is focused on what went down THERE and not the technology (as are these posts)  it takes Glen's focus and hard work away (who by the way with out that you would not be reading about this technology, same as Harvey and Aaron's work) and it changes the direction the biggest interference of all.

Whit  this interference, i have watched glen and Harvey be  distracted, and with out this the technology would be further ahead , so this is why i am taking the time to tell you my friends to say the Energetic forum , Glen , Aaron and Harvey have done nothing wrong, i am afraid, i will testify to this as i was there in all of it.

Any one focusing on attacking Glen, Aaron or Harvey and not addressing the  technology is pure interference, its as simple as that, and ill be watching. Forget the feuds and focus on the technology guys, do not accuse Glen or the energetic forum, they have the only progress with this technology and it all open to the public. No other posts on the subject  are needed, i will say no more on the matter and hope you guys get on with the job.

Ashtweth

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 21, 2010, 11:05:28 AM
Glen has done nothing wrong and his data has been available  for the public on the uni site ever since day 1.
Where is the data that was posted on the Ainslie COP 17 thread?  Where is the data that was posted on the links here on OU.com?  Where is the data that was available on photobucket?  Where is the replacement data on EF.com Mostfet Heating circuit thread?  Why has that been removed?  Where is the reference to all that data taken from the TDS3054C Tektronix - which was kindly loaned in return for 'HIGH EXPOSURE' of the equipment?  Why has it been replaced with irrelevant or insufficient data references - varied daily as Glen's whims change?  Where Ashtweth?  If what you are telling us all is the simple truth - then where is all this information?  And WHY does Glen see fit to play 'peek a boo' with something as important as this?  I know why.  He's trying to disassociate those results from the ROSEMARY AINSLIE COP 17 CIRCUIT THREAD.  That's why.  And he's trying to pretend that this, his work, was the only way to progress this technology.  I need to disabuse you both of these delusions.  There is NO FURTHER WORK being done on that MOSFET HEATING CIRCUIT - and if there were then it makes no sense.  That entire thread is devoted to denying any benefit in the technology.

What a thread this is. I have been a neutral observer in the situation, the beef between people was escalated and not provoked by Glen.
Ashtweth - I think your emails to me are proof of an entire want of impartiality.  I take it on trust that you want to advance clean green and your history speaks to this.  But the simple fact is that you have endorsed that MOSFET HEATING CIRCUIT which was tailored and designed to avoid any reference to me.  And ON RECORD is Glen's statement that ANYONE CAN POST THERE BUT ME.  How do you justify the advancement of a technology without reference to its SOURCE?  Is that not the minimum requirement on these forums.  Or are you endorsing Glen and Harvey's claim that this technology is their discovery?

Those who dont focus on the technology will be kicked on the Ef.com, simple as that. Unless you were there and saw it all there is no way for you to judge.
I was focusing on the work of the thesis - a dedicated thread - work on magnets - a dedicated thread - work on the technology - a dedicated thread?  WHAT TECHNOLOGY WAS I NOT FOCUSING ON?  I even initiated a thread on Leedskalnin's work.  I then posted - IF YOU WERE FOLLOWING SO CLOSELY - the following comment. Here it is again

"IF ANYONE CLAIMS TO UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING ABOUT LEEDSKALNIN THEN ONE WOULD EXPECT THEM TO BE ABLE TO DUPLICATE THE MIRACLE OF CORAL CASTLE'  That was when my post was deleted and I was BANNED.

What is being addressed here is the FACT that Glen sees fit to message everyone as he did at EF.com with a slew of secret little murmurings against me.  Do you rather demand that I do NOTHING?  PROOF of these slanderous efforts are right here on this thread.  NOW tell me how much that is in the interests of Open Source, Over unity, clean green - name it?  It is entirely COUNTER PRODUCTIVE.

If Stefan does not do it here, then good luck reading useless posts. Harvey, Aaron and Glen have done more to get the technology this  far  then any one.
Really?  Exactly WHAT is it that they've done?  Even Omnibus has done more than either of them.  At least he tries to get the standards up to what is academically acceptable.  If the MOSFET HEATING CIRCUIT is a guide to their contribution then they've done nothing but try to deny the very benefits that they earlier proved and attested.  Don't give me this Ash.  Your not making sense.

So far i dont see any practicality of not working independent with an open source circuit with this scenario. Glen is merely trying to warn what happened to him that's all. It back to the technology for us, no more needed to be said.
  If the email you sent me is a sample of Glen's efforts to 'warn people' then I would urgently propose that he is only warning people AGAINST a viable provable clean green and it can only be considered self-serving.

When Glen freely and widely acknowledges that he did not - himself - fortuitiously and accidentally put that circuit together and that he did not - himself - motivate the Tektronix to measure that effect - and when he acknowledges the fact that there was a thesis that predicted this effect - then, indeed - one may see MUCH to justify his complaints.  But right now that IS the complaint.  It's a viable technology and it needs to be progressed.  And ALL rights to claiming a 'discovery' must be forfeit.  This is a technology that belongs to EVERYONE.  He has no prior art claims here.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on August 21, 2010, 11:21:25 AM
All of Glen's data has been public since day 1 on the university site, i have said that already. The reason he took it off  and away from other areas  is because of you provoking him despite me warning you not to do it and desist. You know this yourself.

The reason you got banned is because of provoking people. un provoked, i have seen you do it to Aaron and myself and Jib 5 people can testify.
Even Admin from energetic forum.

So Rose  It can happen here too :) , dont distract from the technology and accuse people   i have had enough of asking you to leave Glen alone and others also. What you do now will reflect what happens. Experimenters can still view ALL of GLEN'S work, and the energetic forum is still open source.

SO ROSE, like i have asked you months ago before all of this went down, dont distract OR PROVOKE experimenters especially ones like Glen, Aaron or Harvey who all have contributed to the open source community, Jib also knows what i am talking about, Glen's work would of been far ahead if you didn't distract him and force admin to ban you. Your COP 17 circuit is NON EXISTENT in the open source world..

Aaron's AND GLEN'S IS, so lets not fool our selves. Do not accuse Glen of any thing , he has done nothing but try to warn people of your behavior which 5 people can testify, ME ONE BEING ONE OF THEM..

If you did not create  these posts, he would be working for the open source community. All data is there on the forum and the uni site with out your interference Rose.
I suggest others follow this path not this one your posting.

Stefan will get a copy of my request, if you can stay on topic then things will be better.
ill ask glen to desist also. He should be focusing on his talents , which are commendable .

thanks

Ash
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 21, 2010, 11:26:00 AM
Ashtweth, kindly answer my questions.  I provoked Glen?  Exactly how?  Be specific. 

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on August 21, 2010, 11:27:21 AM
if you can stay on topic then things will get better.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 21, 2010, 11:37:59 AM
if you can stay on topic then things will get better.

The day WILL come Ashtweth when you and Glen and Harvey and, for that matter Aaron, will be accountable for your anxious desire to get rid of my name as it is associated with this technology.  Just know this.  The eternal comfort of Open Source is precisely because it is OPEN. 

I am still waiting for the answers to my questions.  Where exactly did I PROVOKE Glen?  Was it because I contended his rights to all information related to the REPLICATION?  If so - that's shaky grounds for an excuse.  If he doesn't like me that's fine.  It's mutual.  But more important than his likes or dislikes is the NEED to progress this technology.  What he is doing is FRUSTRATE it.  And thereby he loses ALL credibility with me.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: sm0ky2 on August 21, 2010, 11:40:08 AM
In all of this "who's whos'" nonsense, you people are completely missing the point of open source technology.

its not yours, its EVERYONES!!!
the purpose for open sourcing is so that many people can add their input and work to advance the technology.
If Glen did that, great! good for him, he gets a pat on the back "att-a-boy!" good job.

If he did that with humble dignity, and shared his results for all to see, he would be a truly outstanding individual.

Alas, here we are having THIS discussion, when we SHOULD be talking about the technology, instead of who claims ownership over it.
Theres no need for you to come to Glens rescue, and argue over who did what when and where. and try to sugar-coat the situation by pretending there was anything socially commendable in the way he is acting. HE knows what hes sending out in his PM's, and when he reads what i wrote, he will know exactly what i meant by that.

Welcome to OverUnity.com
The International Open Source Free Energy Research Forum

perhaps we can agree to decide that all parties involved can equally share ownership with me, him, her, and the rest of the world??
Thats the only way any of what we do can help mankind.
All this other nonsense is just repeating the same mistakes that got us into this mess in the first place.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on August 21, 2010, 11:51:01 AM
Rose As Admin and myself explained to you, no one is interested in your beef with Harvey or Glen,myself or Jib/Aaron neither are they, the more you push the issue the more we separate you from their work as you distract it, no one wishes to remove your name, you are doing a good job of that your self. Read my posts carefully they apply to you, dont force admin to kick you cause you distract experimenters.

I have set the record straight with Glen , Harvey and Aaron. So please let them get on with the job.
And i suggest you finally after on months of me trying to help take my advice.

Thanks
Ash
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 21, 2010, 11:59:04 AM
Sm0ky - you're right.  I entirely agree that the technology belongs to ALL.  And I agree that it is immaterial whether Glen and Harvey advance it or not - PROVIDED ONLY that they also realise that it belongs to ALL.  What concerns me is that this is NOT acknowledged - and I'm doubly alarmed that they are also trashing the technology along with my good name.  Yet here they are - Ashtweth amongst them - claiming that Glen has any intentions of furthering this.

They would first need to change the posts in that thread to justify any interest in advancing the technology at all.  It's all those contradictions that have my warning lights lit.  Why disassociate my name?  And why then trash the technology? And YET - why then insist that they are doing work on it and require lack of distractions to do so. 

'Something smells in the state of Denmark' is my take.
edited
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 21, 2010, 12:07:40 PM
Rose As Admin and myself explained to you, no one is interested in your beef with Harvey or Glen,myself or Jib/Aaron neither are they, the more you push the issue the more we separate you from their work as you distract it, no one wishes to remove your name, you are doing a good job of that your self. Read my posts carefully they apply to you, dont force admin to kick you cause you distract experimenters.

I have set the record straight with Glen , Harvey and Aaron. So please let them get on with the job.
And i suggest you finally after on months of me trying to help take my advice.

Thanks
Ash
Ashtweth - as I've said - Glen and Harvey have a lot to answer to.  To start with is the URGENT need to disassociate my name with the technology?  WHY?  Is it because they plan to substitute this with their own?  If so that would establish a dangerous precedent where they afford themselves a potential license to claim intellectual property rights.  If they bury the technology off these forums - by getting rid of this thread - and by advancing their own (dedicated as it is to denying benefit in these applications)  - then the technology WILL be buried. Then - in the fullness of time - they will be in the happy position of making a MINOR variation and CLAIMING IT FOR THEMSELVES with FULL ON INTELLECTUAL OWNERSHIP.  I can't afford to let that happen.  None of us can.

Which is why I am happy to DEFEND this position as often as is required.  I assure you that I would have had NO need to post these warnings to our members if Glen did NOT persist in trying to trash both the technology and my good name.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on August 21, 2010, 12:11:48 PM
>they are also trashing the technology along with my good name.

Rose this is my last off topic post and sure it will count towards yours too. Aaron, Glen and Harvey never claimed any thing but open source, ridiculous, you even accused me at one stage, from a non profit org, i have never read so much bullshit in all my years,  What a waste of time it has been working with you for the last 5 months. The 5 people who have done the most with the technology will not testify to your "good name", especially when you repeatably distracted them from their experiments, if you can match their work then go ahead, we are all waiting, but until then your far from having a good name. Please stay on topic and leave your distractions out of the open source community thanks

Ash

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 21, 2010, 12:17:48 PM
>they are also trashing the technology along with my good name.

Rose this is my last off topic post and sure it will count towards yours too. The 5 people who have done the most with the technology will not testify to your "good name", especially when you repeatably distracted them from their experiments, if you can match their work then go ahead, we are all waiting, but until then your far from having a good name. Please stay on topic and leave your distractions out of the open source community thanks

Ash

If you are inferring that there is that in my character that counts against my good name then you OWE it to all the readers here to make that information FREELY AVAILABLE.  Just make sure that it's based on PROOF else I most certainly will need to do ALL that's required to protect it.

Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on August 21, 2010, 12:25:07 PM
If you are inferring that there is that in my character that counts against my good name then you OWE it to all the readers here to make that information FREELY AVAILABLE.  Just make sure that it's based on PROOF else I most certainly will need to do ALL that's required to protect it.

Rosemary

I have already provided that, i have told all that there is a reason why glen warned others of your behavior, why 5 people who worked with you can testify to you provoking things and why Admin banned you, plus why they had to create the mosfet heater thread (as you distracted/provoked  every one for months).

And why i have asked you to let it go and not distract people in the open source community, do not accuse them or distract them, you did that for 5 months with genuine experimenters, i sat back and watched it and even experienced how you misbehave - You directed some of it at my self, So Rose we are being nice tolerating you and trying to help you do the right thing, stay on topic there is nothing more needed to be posted on the issue.

Dont provoke Glen, he needs no more of your influences. I wasted weeks trying to help you Rose, you did not listen  now you have been banned from forums due to  this same behavior - False accusations and holding up the open source communities work, it can happen here, so i hope you find some time to reflect on your behavior.

no one is against you.

Ash
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 21, 2010, 01:58:49 PM
I have already provided that, i have told all that there is a reason why glen warned others of your behavior, why 5 people who worked with you can testify to you provoking things and why Admin banned you, plus why they had to create the mosfet heater thread (as you distracted/provoked  every one for months).
Ashtweth - this is absurd.  Glen posts that his circuit is different - based on a minor variation to the switch and the resistor.  I deny it's different and quote academic advices that it's a 'FULL ON REPLICATION.  You tell me to 'be quiet'.  LOL Then  Harvey then posts that I've got a hidden patent.  That flops so he then insinuates that my children have got a patent.  That flops.  Then he claims that the technology does not work.  Alternatively it may work but it is also somewhat hazardous.   I protest - repeatedly - at every unsubstantiated allegation.  You chime in and tell me to be quiet.  Then Glen chimes in again and advises me that I'm lying.  He's circuit is OBVIOUSLY entirely different to mine.  I then protest.  You chime in to tell me to be quiet.  Harvey tells the 6 of you that I've got NO right to impose my thesis on Glen's work.  Aaron joins in and echoes this.  So does Glen.  A new excuse to attack me.  I protest.  You chime in to tell me to be quiet.  Then Harvey posts a slew of entirely erroneous power analysis on previous tests.  I protest.  You tell me to be quiet.  Harvey by now has also posted that I never made the discovery and it was courtesy my helper - Brian Buckley.  I protest.  You tell me to be quiet.  Steve chimes in to say - INDEED - what earthly right have I got to insist that the result is required in terms of a thesis.  I really protest.  You tell me to be quiet.  And so it goes.  And THIS?  Is this what you seem to think speaks to some fault in my character?  I see it as a desparate attempt to fight my corner against 5 shameless self serving  bullies.

And why i have asked you to let it go and not distract people in the open source community,
  As I see it it is you who are distracting us.  And for reasons that you are unable to explain.

do not accuse them or distract them,
Do NOT tell me how to defend this technology Ashtweth.  You're a child and really do not know whereof you speak.  You're duped and absurdly loyal to some idea that Glen and Harvey have the good intentions of OPEN SOURCE at heart.  You are deluded.  Their behaviour here is all the evidence that's required.

you did that for 5 months with genuine experimenters,
Indeed I fought my corner for 5 months alone - without so much as a whispered support from the five of you.  Plenty of support from our readers.  NONE from amongst yourselves.  And you kept trying to silence me.  Strange requirement there Ashtweth.  It puts you FIRMLY in synch with whatever their agenda is. 

i sat back and watched it and even experienced how you misbehave .
Only you could put such an absurd slant to the obvious attempt at IP appropriation.  It's REALLY worrisome.

You directed some of it at my self,
I STILL DO.  I am ALARMED at your need to justify the unjustifiable - to ignore the unacceptable.  And MORE TO THE POINT - you apparently have this need to attack the defenseless on entirely indefensable grounds - when the defenseless are simply trying to defend themselves.  That not only speaks to an agenda but also to an appetite for bully tactics that REALLY have no place in decent society.

So Rose we are being nice tolerating you and trying to help you do the right thing, stay on topic there is nothing more needed to be posted on the issue.
Good heavens.  Nice?  LOL.  I'd hate to find out what you're like when your nasty.  At least I've had a chance to laugh.

Dont provoke Glen, he needs no more of your influences.
Rather advise Glen here.  He must rather not provoke me - or for that matter - the members here. 

I wasted weeks trying to help you,
  Golly Ash.  Like your 'niceness'  I would hate to find out what you'd do it you were ever trying to harm me. 

its now you have been banned from forums due t this same behavior s
Not quite Ash.  I was banned for saying "If anyone presumes to know everything about Leedskalnin - he would first be able to duplicate the miracle at coral castle."  That's why I was banned.

False accusations and holding up the open source communities work, it can happen here, so i hope you find some time to reflect on your behavior.
  Really Ashtweth.  I'm actually more than a little amused.  You need to rethink your arguments.  I am reasonably satisified that this will all come back and bite you.  LOL.  Meanwhile - a little circumspection may help.  Find out where I have NOT been obliged to fight my corner and I'll then bow to that assumed wisdom which at this stage you can only pretend.

Hopefully this will be the last of this.  If you again allege anything without actual proof then I'll delete your post.  I think we've all heard enough.

Regards,
Rosemary

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on August 21, 2010, 02:20:45 PM
Ashtweth.  I've told you the condition required to post here.  You've not qualified.

Guys, I've again deleted Ash's post.

Just remember this is my thread and I simply will not accept your spurious statements - unless, of course, there was SOME small evidence of progess of this technology on EF.Com.  All I see there is deliberate attempts to hold a funeral.  But you are all too precipitous. 

This thread is NOT designed to promote replications.  It's designed to discuss the thesis and the results of the application of that thesis.  Watch this space Ashtweth.  And then - in the fullness of time - your comments may be more appropriate.

Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 21, 2010, 02:36:16 PM
I have deleted another post and will continue to do so as long as it's required.  I will not be THREATENED.  Dear God if I'd be persuaded by threats then I really have failed in this mission.

Ashtweth I will continue to delete your posts until you can show substaniated allegations.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 21, 2010, 04:04:48 PM
Guys, the following is an email response to Ashtweth who is appealing to Stefan to ban me.  I realise now that this is all going on while Stefan's on holiday.  Presumably the intention here is to exasperate him. 

Ashtweth

I cannot accuse you of clarity.  What a mishmash of nonsense.  In the first instance you DON'T post on OU.com.  Your forum of preference is EF.com.  And you have NEVER had good things to say about Stefan's forum.  In the second instance IT IS A FACT that Glen emailed or messaged Chet on the link to an adult site under Fuzzy Tom Cat - that featured something gross - apparently - on Ainslie.  It is a FACT that Aaron Murakami has buried my thread and that he has allowed an alternate thread that bears NO REFERENCE to my authorship of that circuit.  That is technically plagiarism.  It is a FACT that the FBI require it that forum abuses are reported because they are trying to formulate early legislation to cover such abuses.

It is a FACT that Glen denies doing a replication - which by implication means that his work is a discovery.  It is an ALARMING FACT that he withholds the data from easy access and forces any reference to it to his own site as the implications of this is that it's his work.  It is a FACT that you all objected to reference of the thesis in that paper - and it is a FACT that the inclusion of that thesis was the basis of that early 'breach' in our association.  It is a FACT that I would NEVER have referenced Glen if he had not FIRST messaged the members at OU.Com with the slew of allegations against me which he INVARIABLY indulges.  It is a FACT that Harvey and Glen tried to communicate both publicly and privately to the members that I was VARIOUSLY - NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CIRCUIT - THAT THE CIRCUIT IS HAZARDOUS - THAT THERE IS NOT VALUE TO THE TECHNOLOGY - THAT THE EXPERIMENTAL PROOF WAS NOT THERE - THAT I HELD A PATENT - THAT I HELD A PATENT SECRETLY - THAT I WAS INTENDING TO CAPITALISE ON OTHER PEOPLE'S WORK - THAT THE THESIS DID NOT REQUIRE THAT EXPERIMENTAL RESULT - THAT LIED - THAT I FOISTED THE THESIS ON THE WORK.  Name it.  They accused me.  And you objected - at every turn - that I defended myself against those allegations.  It is a FACT that Harvey and Glen tried to get me banned from EF.com and, for that matter from Overunity Research.com.  It is a FACT that they succeeded at EF.Com.  It is a FACT that you are trying to get me off this forum at OU.com - where, surprisingly, my readership is greater and my off forum support more than I could have ever expected.  It is a FACT that Glen wrote to our university to advise them I was plagiaring HIS WORK???   These are some of the facts.  Now show me yours.

The simple fact is, Ashtweth - that I am still under attack.  And I will continue to fight my corner as long as it is required.  And unless I'm dead - I'm afraid this will be my mission.  My intention is to bring the application to full fruition - it may not be that commercially viable at the level we're working on because the material costs are looking to be prohibitive - but that may change in the light of a bigger market.  I will advance my thesis that the concepts can be understood.  And then, only - God willing - I'll have done my part in this thankless work.

Your work meanwhile is much appreciated.  But your need to take out license also implies that Panacea is looking to capitalise on OU.  That is troubling.  And it troubles more than me.  I see too that there are many members at EF.Com who are still brave enough to speak out about this.  My concern is this.  If you were actually intending to progress OU and in as much as you know that I am too, then WHY WOULD YOU NEED TO SILENCE ME.  Are you hoping to enter into some kind of covenous cartel with EF.com et al and capitalise on this invention of mine? 

I hope - regardless of what Stefan decides in the light of your newest interventions here - is that I still have a voice on Open Source.  Because, as I see it, there is a hidden requirement by you all to take over from those monopolists to hold the advancement of free energy in your own hands exclusively.  That would be a sad day.  Hopefully it can be prevented.

Meanwhile Ashtweth - do your damndest.  It all helps - in a strange way.  Your own spite and pettiness comes to the fore where 5 bully boys are trying to lose me my voice.  I might lose the fight - but I'll do my best to retain that voice.  And I know our readers rely on my courage in the face of these attacks.   Since I"m working for OU - you should be encouraging it.  Strangely you don't.  I do not hold out any hopes that any of you are decent and I am entirely satisfied that you will all pull whatever punches you can manage to finally silence me.  Trust me - it's all grist for the mill.  And our public LOVE to see the fight.  I am reasonably satisfied that I would have this strong support from the public even if I only posted on Scribd.  Unfortunately that would be a monologue.

Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on August 21, 2010, 04:23:11 PM
Censoring Me, in front of the open source community, of all my years, good luck with what your doing here Rose, you can read about the open source communities progress in the news section of this site where i post.

Mean time, good luck with what you have done and are trying to do. Stefan, i have sent you my recommendations, its was not banning, if need be clarify this for your members. The rest has been censored for no reason, if any one wishes for the contents (advice on how to progress with Glen's help and Harvy's) email me.

NO ONE likes to read feuds, or cares for any of your bullshit Rose, you have been banned once for a reason dont forget that.
iF YOU CANT TALK ABOUT THE TECHNOLOGY, THEN YOU WILL BE REMOVED FROM FORUMS, ITS AS SIMPLE AS THAT,

@ our community i hope you time is not wasted here.
Be cautious

regards
Ashtweth

Ps if this post does not get through, it will have accountability.
And It will be made public like the other posts , censored for no reason.

Ash

Guys,
This one I'll allow as it has some apparent good wishes albeit the sincerity is questionable LOL. And it certainly was that you were trying to get me banned.  You stated this specifically.  Your threat was that if he didn't then you'd stop posting here.  LOL. 
Rosemary

EDITED
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: happyfunball on August 21, 2010, 04:48:46 PM
Rosemary - I've been following your story for several years, no one here doubts this is your circuit. Let us know how the testing goes.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 21, 2010, 04:51:53 PM
Rosemary - I've been following your story for several years, no one here doubts this is your circuit. Let us know how the testing goes.

Thanks very much happyfunball.  It could only have been 2 years because I've only been on these forums since early last year.  But I'm glad your following things.  I was feeling rather lonely there.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Btw - God willing, we'll have early reports of that first 'standard element' hopefully by next week.  But we're none of us expecting extraordinary results here.  It's just an early 'easy' option that needs to be tested.  My concern is that we won't get enough resonance.  But if we do - then getting this to production will be easy.  We've got a bank of batteries that I need to show and haven't as yet been able to upload.  But we'll be getting some significant wattage - I think.
Rosemary   ;D
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on August 21, 2010, 05:05:31 PM
@ Rose, if you talk about the technology no one will bother to intervene, Stefan can clarify this for OU members, do not deviate this will get you removed from forums, as can be seen in the energetic forum. Discuss technology this is what this forum is about. Censoring me wont get you any where either.

sincerely
Ash
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 21, 2010, 05:08:13 PM
@ Rose, if you talk about the technology no one will bother to intervene, Stefan can clarify this for OU members, do not deviate this will get you removed from forums, as can be seen in the energetic forum. Discuss technology this is what this forum is about. Censoring me wont get you any where either.

sincerely
Ash

@Ashtweth
When I want advice from a scoundrel I'll ask for it. 
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on August 21, 2010, 05:20:03 PM
Censoring me and calling me a scoundrel  after me asking you to let experimenters get on with the job and with out interference.
OK Rose, i think WE are done here.

Ashtweth Palise
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 21, 2010, 05:38:00 PM
Censoring me and calling me a scoundrel  after me asking you to let experimenters get on with the job and with out interference.
OK Rose, i think WE are done here.

Ashtweth Palise

Think nothing Ashtweth.  KNOW IT.  We are so, so done.  I have NEVER been so abused - not only on this forum but in the hideous text that you sent to Stefan.  We have NOTHING further to discuss ever.  I trust that you will now hold to your word - FOR ONCE - and stay off this thread.  Do your damage where you will.  I no longer care.  You will ultimately have to explain why it was so urgently required that you SILENCE ME against my attackers.  It is suspect.  I assure you.  Immoderate, self opinionated barrage of counter productive lies and misinformation in a sad attempt to justify the most appalling piece of forum trolling to get me silenced.

Over my dead body will anyone patent anything to do with a simple resonating circuit that is able to dissipate more energy than is measured to be delivered.  And over my dead body will Glen or Harvey or, for that matter Aaron or anyone at EF.com do so without my fighting against it.  And meanwhile I'll refer to Sm0ky's reminder.  The technology belongs to Open Source.  It belongs to no-one person.  And a reminder.  Whether I am on these forums or whether I'm banned - I will post all results on my scribd file.  That - at least - will not be 'claimed'.  And the details of that technology will be easily fabricated - on a DIY basis if need be.  And if we have anything to do with the manufacture of any saleable units then they will be obliged to compete with prices in the open market.

That's also a promise - or I'll die trying for it.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on August 21, 2010, 05:48:46 PM
No one has ever tried to patent jack shit.
What are you on drugs?

Like i said ROSE if you talk about the technology  no one will bother to intervene, Stefan can clarify this for OU members, do not deviate this will get you removed from forums, as can be seen in the energetic forum. Discuss technology this is what this forum is about. Censoring me wont get you any where either.

no one cares for your patent or any patent, do not try and deviate from what 5 people and admin have reported by your past behavior, ROSE we could remove you at a drop of a hat, we would rather focus on MIB's, dis info agents and any one else we feel like punishing who tries to suppress our human spirit for freedom, you deviated A LOT attacked members of the open source community, ask Aaron , glen, Steve and Harvey, they have been here longer then you ROSE.

 keep on topic Rose, there is only so much you can post which reflects this.

You have serious problems Rose. sort them out dont drag others into it.
I am posting this cause i do not want you to distract yourself or others.
you did this for 6 months, enough is enough, get on with the job Rose and let others too.
Dont attack Glen any more, its pissed me off for the last time

this fantasy world of yours that people are patenting or against you is in YOUR mind, not ours.
Dont get banned for here too, stay on topic. ROSE.

Lastly
Ash
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 21, 2010, 05:58:30 PM
Is is my imagination that Glen posted those hideous emails to Gad?  That he's messaged the members here on this forum?  Is it my imagination that CatLady - Harvey's wife - messaged Bart?  Am I dreaming it that Harvey went to such lengths to deny the efficiency of the circuit?  And this all was why?  Because any one of them was advancing OU?  When did my warnings precede the evidence of these 'whisperings' that Glen needs to do?  Is it my imagination that you earnestly required that Stefan ban me?  Is it my imagination that inferred some knowledge about me that justified this?  What about that programme of report that you're planning?  Where you insinuate that I'm mad and deluded. 

The serious problem here is that you all seem to think that both I and the reading public are fools.  Wise up Ashtweth.  It's long overdue.  There's ONE fact that I need to remind you about Ashtweth.  I'm articulate and I'm logical.  When I lose either of those qualities - then only can you infer that I'm mad.

NOW.  PLEASE GET OFF THIS FORUM.  It is exhausting me to deal with this matter and I'm reasonably satisified that we've COVERED ALL ASPECTS.  Just go away Ashtweth.  Forever.  And stay out of my life and out of this technology.

Go and do all those things that you state in your email DWARF my efforts.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on August 21, 2010, 06:08:00 PM
Glen did not post any of those things, WTF Rose ,

Rose your a senior citizen do you think we take any pleasure in stressing you, what the hell is wrong with you, i have stayed up till 2am to make sure you are getting the message and dont stress your self and others.

Will you stop trying to silence those who have been behind you since the start and CEASE attacking them?, attack the corptocracy, Glen is a good man and so is Harvey and AARON, if you leave them alone they will get on with with  the job. Howe many times have i told you that your concerns are monitored by me And there is noting to worry about. They are still helping others with the circuit. Exactly like i am.

If you dont agree then leave them alone, they are helping others.
The last thing we need is Glen stressed out, he is a valuable brother to us.
ALREADY PROVED HIMSELF. He went the way he did AS YOU PROVOKED HIM.

Is it too much to ask for you to stop putting stress on your self Rose?, is it too much to ask?
ALL THIS BULLSHITTER'S ideas IS IN YOUR HEAD NO ONE IS AGAINST YOU.

APPARENTLY A SCOUNDREL THAT DOES NOT CARE.
Ash
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 21, 2010, 06:23:10 PM
Glen did not post any of those things, WTF Rose ,

Rose your a senior citizen do you think we take any pleasure in stressing you, what the hell is wrong with you, i have stayed up till 2am to make sure you are getting the message and dont stress your self and others.

Will you stop trying to silence those who have been behind you since the start and CEASE attacking them?, attack the corptocracy, Glen is a good man and so is Harvey and AARON, if you leave them alone they will get on with with  the job. Howe many times have i told you that your concerns are monitored by me And there is noting to worry about. They are still helping others with the circuit. Exactly like i am.

If you dont agree then leave them alone, they are helping others.
The last thing we need is Glen stressed out, he is a valuable brother to us.
ALREADY PROVED HIMSELF. He went the way he did AS YOU PROVOKED HIM.

Is it too much to ask for you to stop putting stress on your self Rose?, is it too much to ask?
ALL THIS BULLSHITTER'S ideas IS IN YOUR HEAD NO ONE IS AGAINST YOU.

APPARENTLY A SCOUNDREL THAT DOES NOT CARE.
Ash

In all references that I've given in my previous post I have COPIES of those emails.  Do NOT tell me what I know is not true.  If I ever get permission from Stefan I'll post them in the Censorship thread on this forum.  DO NOT keep telling me what to do.  When your efforts towards the cause has cost you the years and the money that it has cost me then ONLY will you be qualified to comment.  You are either horribly deluded - or knee deep in that conspiracy.  What work has Glen done?  Where does he 'HELP' anyone.  He anxiously advised Gad that there was no point in trying to do a replication.  There is no-one on this thread or even this forum who is doing replications.  Yet he keeps messaging?  Why?  So secret?  And you now deny this?  Wake up.  Smell the coffee.  We're so done - so over done here.  Why do you keep posting when you promised to get off this thread?  Go do your damage somewhere else.  I'd like to somehow find a decent thread left after this facile attempt to leave me with nothing but road kill.

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on August 21, 2010, 06:42:39 PM
Rose there will be more collaboration and replications  if you let every one work with out these "concerns" of yours that you have which get blown out of proportion, there has to be some good left in that lady we all fell in love with and helped. So Aaron, Glen and Harvey will bounce back and more will replicate if you stop trying to cause diversion and ,for F's sake, i heard about Aaron, what can be possibly gained  from fighting amongst our selves?

Rose for F's sake, ! it was more sad for me that you got banned Rose, how much of a toll do you think your having on us all?, guess you never thought of this.?  Fine, ill leave you push every one away Unbelievable. Rose. Just make sure those that the message should remain that those who ask Glen Q's talk about the technology not this bullshitter's paranoia. That is got to go ROSE.


Ash




Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 21, 2010, 07:27:09 PM
Ashtweth.  Paranoia is based on an imagined confrontation.  I imagine nothing.  I have absolutely no interest in continuing any further discussion on this matter.  If you post again I shall either delete it or ignore it.

Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: WilbyInebriated on August 21, 2010, 10:22:57 PM
ALL THIS BULLSHITTER'S ideas IS IN YOUR HEAD NO ONE IS AGAINST YOU.

so why then, is glen sending these messages to me?
Quote
COP>17 ???
« Sent to: WilbyInebriated on: August 18, 2010, 12:59:43 PM »
« You have forwarded or responded to this message. »
   Reply with quoteQuote ReplyReply Save PMSave PM Remove this messageRemove
Hi,

Here is a folder in my SkyDrive public file on what happened through the association with Rosemary Ainslie.

http://cid-6b7817c40bb20460.office.live.com/browse.aspx/.Public/Mosfet%20Heater/Legal%20-%20Notes

Start with the Tektronix file and then go to the Lab ..... any suppression is being done by RA ..... starting in October 2002 not by me.

Glen

notice the frustrated triple question mark smiley right after COP>17... what do you think he is trying to infer ash? and i think he is being more than explicit with this statement he made: "any suppression is being done by RA"

ash, instead of ranting on about what you, harvey, glen and aaron, etc. have done, why don't you get back to talking about the technology? or better yet, demonstrating it? you haven't done that once since you started posting here in this thread, all the while repeating that demand to rosemary...

if anyone has a problem with me posting a message glen sent to me, i have three words for you... OPEN SOURCE FORUM... if you don't want it in the open, keep it to yourself.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on August 22, 2010, 01:50:12 AM
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.

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. So as long as every one takes this in  and takes this advice, we can ALL get on with the job. Rose wont discuss all this if you stick to her circuit, some how she is not all bad. If Rose mentions the incident , just try and get her talking about the circuit, Rose eventually gets back on track. It was impossible for us to do at the other forum, so i hope we can do better over here.

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

Ash

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: nievesoliveras on August 22, 2010, 01:58:20 AM
@rosemary

I think that a good idea would be to prepare a kit of your overunity circuit and advertise it to sell lots of them if it happens to be easy to assemble.

I dont mean the heater assembly, just the circuit parts, pc board and instructions.

Jesus
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on August 22, 2010, 02:02:04 AM
Hi Jesus, good idea, all those with a good scope are missing out if they don't try the circuit, It was hard for us to get the scope you need a good one (200mhz at least) to tune the circuit and if any one here has a good scope they could tune boards and get them out.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Pirate88179 on August 22, 2010, 02:06:57 AM
Why did I get a PM from Glen asking me why I didn't read his other pm's?  I mean, this was the first and only pm I have received from him.  So, how could I have read and responded to his other pm's if I did not receive them?

Something is indeed very fishy when someone feels the need to pm everyone on any topic telling tales about another individual on that topic.  I find that very immature and underhanded.  A very poor tactic that speaks volumes about that person's weak position.  If one has to be so desperate to attack others behind their back then this tells me all I need to know about the situation.

Glen, please do not ever pm me again or I will block you from doing so.  I am seriously considering posting your pm here for all to see.  I do not condone such childish, foolish and boorish behavior.

Thank you,

Bill
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on August 22, 2010, 02:19:58 AM
Hi Bill, whether its a mistake or not, it doesn't matter, if people want to be distracted then read about it all on the sky drive account, Glen has done his part, after that we all still have to come back to try and find a person with a good scope who can tune boards and we all can test them. Please dont do that to Glen he certainty does not deserve that, he is under some stress  so lets all try and remember who's side we are on.

Back on Topic

You should have no trouble with this circuit, if you have a 200mhz scope or better, if some one on OU.com has that, boards could be tuned  AND tested with a walk through from us and the  biggest independent dissemination of the open work could commence, who ever has a scope , i am willing to donate a board and resistor to you to tune it, must not work for BP .

The advantage of having open source engineers ALL displaying replications from this one scope tuning out let is the Academia wont be able to ignore that, they can ignore one engineer , ask Tom Valone about focus Fusion, no one is policing the academia  i would like a better plan then a thesis and ONE little replication (Rose wants the paper submitted to academia)

A whole bunch of boards and independent results is impossible for them to ignore, i have always said this, so i hope we can find some people, il donate a board and resistor, there are many here who would also get boards and do tests. Mean time it will be a while till i can tune this board here sadly. If i find an out let you are all welcome to send me your boards to tune

Ash
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 22, 2010, 03:39:52 AM
@ashtweth_nihilisti,

I wonder why are you so much emphasizing on the scope? Scope should be the least of your worries once you have proper probes and once you understand the intricacies of the data processing. So, let's start with the probes -- what are they and what are you actually measuring? Here in this forum there are some pretty sophisticated participants and it will be a good idea to post the schematics under study and the details as to how you actually do the measurements so that we can hear some competent input. I have already expressed this opinion, and I'll say it again, measurements are the only part of this project worth considering and they have to be done right.

I, for one, would be willing to do some study on the board you said you can donate. I have a Tektronix DPO 2024, a Hall effect based current probe and four passive voltage probes that come with the scope. On the side of equipment the voltage probes are the weakest link. I've discussed that extensively in the Steorn thread and I'll keep discussing it. However, there's another problem which I found to be of even greater significance -- the data processing -- which seems to be overlooked. No wonder, as I already said in the Steorn thread, it is highly uncommon, if not absent altogether, for academics to carry out the power measurements we're talking about. I found out that academics in prestigious universities will not touch such measurements with a ten foot pole. So, the expectations that academics will embrace these studies does not seem realistic. These studies have to be carried out, however, and, like I said, we should give them some more thought here.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Pirate88179 on August 22, 2010, 03:43:44 AM

Please dont do that to Glen he certainty does not deserve that, he is under some stress  so lets all try and remember who's side we are on.



Ash

First, I am not on anyone's "side". 

Second, don't do what to Glen?  He is the one pm'ing everyone about another forum member behind their backs saying terrible things and as a PI, I do recognize underhanded tactics when I see them.  As I said before, this does not help his case at all, whatever his case may or may not be.

Also, no offense intended, but what part of "Glen please do not pm me ever again" has anything to do with you?

This is supposed to be open source and if pm'ing behind some member's back is part of the open source creed, I would like to see where that is written.

Again, no offense intended but I was not directing any of my posted comments at you.

Bill

***EDIT***

I read Omni's simultaneous post above mine and what he is saying here makes a lot of sense to me.  For whatever that is worth.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on August 22, 2010, 03:50:10 AM
Hi Bill i spoke to Glen, and saw the PM's its valid tuning advice for what its worth, drop me a mail or read Glen's Pm it wil help.
glad to be back on topic.,

Ash
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on August 22, 2010, 03:57:00 AM
@ashtweth_nihilisti,

I wonder why are you so much emphasizing on the scope? Scope should be the least of your worries once you have proper probes and once you understand the intricacies of the data processing. So, let's start with the probes -- what are they and what are you actually measuring? Here in this forum there are some pretty sophisticated participants and it will be a good idea to post the schematics under study and the details as to how you actually do the measurements so that we can hear some competent input. I have already expressed this opinion, and I'll say it again, measurements are the only part of this project worth considering and they have to be done right.

I, for one, would be willing to do some study on the board you said you can donate. I have a Tektronix DPO 2024, a Hall effect based current probe and four passive voltage probes that come with the scope. On the side of equipment the voltage probes are the weakest link. I've discussed that extensively in the Steorn thread and I'll keep discussing it. However, there's another problem which I found to be of even greater significance -- the data processing -- which seems to be overlooked. No wonder, as I already said in the Steorn thread, it is highly uncommon, if not absent altogether, for academics to carry out the power measurements we're talking about. I found out that academics in prestigious universities will not touch such measurements with a ten foot pole. So, the expectations that academics will embrace these studies does not seem realistic. These studies have to be carried out, however, and, like I said, we should give them some more thought here.

Hi Omnibus , yes i forgot to add probes and Data logging capacity, its been a long night :). Rose has the IEEE paper in her scribid site with scope shots/schemo's and measurements or its in Glen's sky drive or the Panacea university document (archived a lot of post there). Its a very simple and easy circuit to put together, if you cannot put it together and check out let me know the board is yours for research reports. Glad to be making some progress.

Ash
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 22, 2010, 04:33:10 AM
Do you have a link where the paper can be downloaded from as a pdf document? Reading from Skribd is not the most convenient occupation.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on August 22, 2010, 04:48:18 AM
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.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: sm0ky2 on August 22, 2010, 05:46:19 AM
@ Omni

Before you get to testing this, reading glens notes is going to help you out a lot.
i wouldn't worry too much about his "tests", just read what he writes about it, you'll see what hes completely overlooking..

dont focus so much on the heat just yet. heat is just the bi-product....

Think about this load resistor.
does it look familiar? it should.

imagine Thomas Edison and Faraday at an old oak table, having Tea.


Now think about how we measure power conversion through a load like that...

E = P + [BTU/s] + [(cd/m^2)/s]
now consider this, we're not using A/C, but DC, where the collapse of the field is (relatively) without cost. as in things like, TPU, JT, where 1/2 of the oscilation is provided, and the other half is from the collapsing field.  its usually represented as an "L"

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/indcur.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/indcur.html)


what do we know about L/C vs frequency?
its another little toy from an ancient time before you were born.
you probably have one in your car, it plays music and stuff.....
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: sm0ky2 on August 22, 2010, 05:56:53 AM
science treats this as a curse. electronics prohibits it inately.

Tesla thought this was one of natures most amazing curiosities, with infinite potential.....

i guess its all in how its used.
you could blow the seal on a few capacitors, burn out a few wires in your circuit, and be cursing to the high hell, for having "accidently" timed your phase transition incorrectly, when combining your signals.

or
you could think outside the box, and realize that theres a lot things that could be done with it.

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 22, 2010, 06:27:00 AM
science treats this as a curse. electronics prohibits it inately.

Tesla thought this was one of natures most amazing curiosities, with infinite potential.....

i guess its all in how its used.
you could blow the seal on a few capacitors, burn out a few wires in your circuit, and be cursing to the high hell, for having "accidently" timed your phase transition incorrectly, when combining your signals.

or
you could think outside the box, and realize that theres a lot things that could be done with it.

AGAIN.  Very well said Sm0ky.  In two clear and unambiguous posts you've hit the nail on the head.  That is exactly the point.  The WHOLE of the argument.  The thesis proposed - WAY BACK - that the coil itself becomes an energy supply source the MINUTE it has a measurable voltage imbalance.  But this CANNOT happen unless it is, itself, accessing it's own material - it's own 'mass'.  But that energy needs to be in sufficient quantity to exceed the energy at the supply in order to return it to prove that this is an independent supply source.  Using a standard inductor confuses that measurement.  But use an inductive  resistive load then the energy is returned AND the resistor heats.  The circuit value is only in as much as it takes the argument to this issue.  There are many more effective ways of using that energy than is shown in the circuit.  But they all work.  And the optimised results occur when the load and the source start resonating. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 22, 2010, 06:47:44 AM
so why then, is glen sending these messages to me?
notice the frustrated triple question mark smiley right after COP>17... what do you think he is trying to infer ash? and i think he is being more than explicit with this statement he made: "any suppression is being done by RA"

ash, instead of ranting on about what you, harvey, glen and aaron, etc. have done, why don't you get back to talking about the technology? or better yet, demonstrating it? you haven't done that once since you started posting here in this thread, all the while repeating that demand to rosemary...

if anyone has a problem with me posting a message glen sent to me, i have three words for you... OPEN SOURCE FORUM... if you don't want it in the open, keep it to yourself.

Thank you Wilby.  As always - exactly to the point. This is precisely why I take comfort in Open Source.  There is more to propagandising and politicing in this little exercise of Ash's than there is in any attempt at furthering this technology.  And more to the point - the following is just so 'right'.

>ash, instead of ranting on about what you, harvey, glen and aaron, etc. have done, why don't you get back to talking about the technology? or better yet, demonstrating it? you haven't done that once since you started posting here in this thread, all the while repeating that demand to rosemary

What is evident now to me is that Ash seems to think that he can get me banned by a simple application to Stefan.  If my tenure here is that brittle then frankly I would NOT be able to speak my mind and I've had a belly full of being 'muzzled' - as I was at EF.com.  I was advised, for instance, that if I mentioned that the fact that Glen had written to those academics to claim that I was 'plagiarising his work' then they would have immediately evicted me.   ::)  LOL. 

Wilby - from the heart - you are a rare, highly courageous, highly intelligent and highly articulate person.  I have seen your fight for standards throughout all your posts.  We would all do well to emulate your uncompromising spirit.  And thank you so much for everything.  Undeserved but much appreciated.  Just know that you've got a very big admirer in this very old, old lady. (How's that for tautology?)

Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Pirate88179 on August 22, 2010, 06:49:59 AM
Rose:

Not to confuse and muddle your topic any more than it is but.....

Your above post sounds so familiar to the stuff we have been working on dealing with the JT circuit and the Stubblefield coil.  There have been many arguments where the energy is coming from...I should say discussions because that is what they were, but the consensus is that the coil is the energy source and the dipole is created within.

I just wanted to mention this in case folks here have not been following our work on the other topics.

As I have said over 2 years ago....most of these topics here on OU are related in some way or another. (In my humble, uneducated opinion)

Bill
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: sm0ky2 on August 22, 2010, 06:59:58 AM
filiments are not biased.
they generate heat regardless of which direction the current is flowing.
which is why they work in both A/C and DC

by increasing or decreasing the diameter and number of turns,
while keeping the resistance constant. (10 ohm?)
you can adjust the inductance of your circuit to fit the application.
wether you want it to produce a slow steady heat,
a red hot heat,
or place it in a vacuum tube and create radant light AND  heat.

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 22, 2010, 07:00:32 AM
Rose:

Not to confuse and muddle your topic any more than it is but.....

Your above post sounds so familiar to the stuff we have been working on dealing with the JT circuit and the Stubblefield coil.  There have been many arguments where the energy is coming from...I should say discussions because that is what they were, but the consensus is that the coil is the energy source and the dipole is created within.

I just wanted to mention this in case folks here have not been following our work on the other topics.

As I have said over 2 years ago....most of these topics here on OU are related in some way or another. (In my humble, uneducated opinion)

Bill
Bill - Hi.  Indeed.  There is NO QUESTION that we are all on the same page - provided only that the the current is not considered to comprise electrons.  That's where the confusion starts and where the contradictions start seeping in.  I have said it repeatedly.  I have discovered NOTHING.  I've only 'tied in' just about all the remaining questions and paradoxes in known theory - by proposing the nature and properties of that dipole.  I am in the unhappy position of knowing this - seeing it - yet not being able to make that argument clear. 

And Bill, thank you too for speaking out.  This 'drive' is still really wobbly - and still with subtle and not so subtle claimants to these insights.  Personally I couldn't give a damn.  Provided only that the concepts are understood.  That's evidently lacking - thus far.  But when I see posts like Sm0ky's and yours - then hope still springs eternal.  And I've always been ridiculously optimistic.

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 22, 2010, 07:02:20 AM
filiments are not biased.
they generate heat regardless of which direction the current is flowing.
which is why they work in both A/C and DC

by increasing or decreasing the diameter and number of turns,
while keeping the resistance constant. (10 ohm?)
you can adjust the inductance of your circuit to fit the application.
wether you want it to produce a slow steady heat,
a red hot heat,
or place it in a vacuum tube and create radant light AND  heat.

Who's arguing?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 22, 2010, 07:08:40 AM
Do you have a link where the paper can be downloaded from as a pdf document? Reading from Skribd is not the most convenient occupation.

Omnibus - post your email address again and I'll send you the pdf.

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 22, 2010, 07:52:05 AM
@ashtweth_nihilisti,

I wonder why are you so much emphasizing on the scope? Scope should be the least of your worries once you have proper probes and once you understand the intricacies of the data processing. So, let's start with the probes -- what are they and what are you actually measuring? Here in this forum there are some pretty sophisticated participants and it will be a good idea to post the schematics under study and the details as to how you actually do the measurements so that we can hear some competent input. I have already expressed this opinion, and I'll say it again, measurements are the only part of this project worth considering and they have to be done right.

I, for one, would be willing to do some study on the board you said you can donate. I have a Tektronix DPO 2024, a Hall effect based current probe and four passive voltage probes that come with the scope. On the side of equipment the voltage probes are the weakest link. I've discussed that extensively in the Steorn thread and I'll keep discussing it. However, there's another problem which I found to be of even greater significance -- the data processing -- which seems to be overlooked. No wonder, as I already said in the Steorn thread, it is highly uncommon, if not absent altogether, for academics to carry out the power measurements we're talking about. I found out that academics in prestigious universities will not touch such measurements with a ten foot pole. So, the expectations that academics will embrace these studies does not seem realistic. These studies have to be carried out, however, and, like I said, we should give them some more thought here.

Omnibus I've read this post more carefully.  I take it you want to measure the actual resonance over the load.  This would be ambitious.  I do know that this is precisely the measurement that ABB concentrated on and where they could NOT get a resolution as the apprarent energy on the load was in excess of the energy evidenced as heat.  But as both exceeded the supply the anomaly remained.  But it's a very difficult sum you're attempting.  And as heat is an empirical proof of the energy dissipated - it serves its purpose. 

But indeed.  If you're up for this - I think there would be many of us who would like to see that measurement.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 22, 2010, 09:44:59 AM
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.   :o  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.  :o  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
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 22, 2010, 01:10:58 PM
Hi Bill, whether its a mistake or not, it doesn't matter, if people want to be distracted then read about it all on the sky drive account, Glen has done his part, after that we all still have to come back to try and find a person with a good scope who can tune boards and we all can test them. Please dont do that to Glen he certainty does not deserve that, he is under some stress  so lets all try and remember who's side we are on.
Exactly WHAT is being said here?  In the first instance the information should be on the COP>17 Rosemary Ainslie thread where it was first posted.  In the second instance there's a perfectly good scope made available for furthering this technology which Aaron should have forwarded to anyone who requires it.  I know this because I donated it.  Instead of which he has appropriated this scopemeter after just two months of work on the circuit.  And what exactly is being done to Glen?  I believe it is Glen who is frantically trying to get involved in these experiments as he's blown it on the Mosfet Heating circuit where he claims NO ADVANTAGE.  And he is now in a panic lest people discover he was lying.  So he's on a confusing errand to somehow pretend that he's actually all for this technology and he's referring rather belatedly - to the evidence?  Curioser and curioser.   

You should have no trouble with this circuit, if you have a 200mhz scope or better, if some one on OU.com has that, boards could be tuned
Again.  I made that scope available - it cost me plus/minus 3 500 us dollars.  This has now be snaffled and my work buried and until very lately indeed - no further interest in this technology. 

AND tested with a walk through from us and the  biggest independent dissemination of the open work could commence.
I hear the familiar echoes of Harvey's vocabulary here.  Were you on line with him Ashtweth.  Was he advising you on Skype?  The downside of this suggestion is that - while it may be interesting for those members who wish to partake in this - it is absolutely NOT required.  If you wish to do this then start your own thread - ideally on your own forum.  Oh wait.  You've got a thread there.  Pity is that no-one's interested.  Then ask Stefan if you can start your own thread here dedicated to replications.  This thread is NOT about replications.  Nor will I ever again rely on replications in this.  It has shown itself too seductive and the replicators then try and claim sole discovery.  And this will open a can of worms as it relates to threats of independent IP claims. I've learned my lesson.


The advantage of having open source engineers ALL displaying replications from this one scope tuning out let is the Academia wont be able to ignore that, they can ignore one engineer , ask Tom Valone about focus Fusion, no one is policing the academia  i would like a better plan then a thesis and ONE little replication (Rose wants the paper submitted to academia)
Let me disabuse you IMMEDIATELY on this score.  I have NO interest in submitting a paper on this experiment.  And sleep easy here Ashtweth.  The subject is now VERY MUCH with our academia.

A whole bunch of boards and independent results is impossible for them to ignore, i have always said this,
Pity you didn't come up with this suggestion before Ashtweth.  It may have carried some plausible evidence of your actual interest. 

so i hope we can find some people, il donate a board and resistor, there are many here who would also get boards and do tests. Mean time it will be a while till i can tune this board here sadly. If i find an out let you are all welcome to send me your boards to tune.
I suggest you work this one out first.  The skills here are more than sufficient to get the right tuning. 

Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 22, 2010, 01:17:46 PM
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
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 22, 2010, 02:08:35 PM
Rose:

Not to confuse and muddle your topic any more than it is but.....

Your above post sounds so familiar to the stuff we have been working on dealing with the JT circuit and the Stubblefield coil.  There have been many arguments where the energy is coming from...I should say discussions because that is what they were, but the consensus is that the coil is the energy source and the dipole is created within.

I just wanted to mention this in case folks here have not been following our work on the other topics.

As I have said over 2 years ago....most of these topics here on OU are related in some way or another. (In my humble, uneducated opinion)

Bill

Can't agree more. If real, all this has the same origin. Unfortunately, most of it is a result of measurement errors or cannot be sustained there are no such.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 22, 2010, 02:12:54 PM
@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.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 22, 2010, 02:13:57 PM
Can't agree more. If real, all this has the same origin. Unfortunately, most of it is a result of measurement errors or cannot be sustained there are no such.
Well then Omnibus?  Are you going to test this application or have you decided that it doesn't work?  Not phased either way.  Perhaps, at it's least you could just advise replicators on how to do the data analysis as required.  I think Ashtweth assumes you wanted a board and that he's going to post this.  If you don't need it then let him know.

Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 22, 2010, 02:19:12 PM
@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
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 22, 2010, 02:31:59 PM
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
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 22, 2010, 02:48:43 PM
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:

Quote
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?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 22, 2010, 02:50:19 PM
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

The experimental evidence you're referring to is not irrefutable.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 22, 2010, 02:52:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 22, 2010, 03:02:22 PM
The experimental evidence you're referring to is not irrefutable.

LOL Omnibus.  Then refute it. 

regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 22, 2010, 03:03:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 22, 2010, 03:06:03 PM
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.
Why?  We're trying to prove that the battery is not discharging.  Why should I use a capacitor?  The whole of this test is simply to prove that as much energy is delivered as is returned.  It's easiest proof is at the wattage delivered.  And measurements here are indeed irrefutable.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Omnibus on August 22, 2010, 03:08:20 PM
Why?  We're trying to prove that the battery is not discharging.  Why should I use a capacitor?  The whole of this test is simply to prove that as much energy is delivered as is returned.  It's easiest proof is at the wattage delivered.  And measurements here are indeed irrefutable.

Replace the battery with a capacitor and prove that it's being charged by the negative current. No need for expensive scopes to do that.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 22, 2010, 06:57:51 PM
Hello Jesus, I know that you're anxious to do a build.  I know that Gotoluc at OUR.com received a whole lot of boards that were made for us.  I'll see if there are any that are still available.  And then I'll get back to you. But the trade off is that the work is then done on another thread.

I'll see what I can do. I don't think any of the replicators achieved anything significant but I also think the problem comes with the tuning.   There is absolutely no way this can be managed without a storage scope with a really broad bandwidth.  Can you access this?  Also, I think that Fritz will be back soon and I also think he wants to test this. 

It does look as if Omnibus has made up his mind here which means that you guys will need some active guidance on that tuning and those data dumps.  I'll rally - as required. 

kindest regards,
Rosemary

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 22, 2010, 07:20:09 PM
Omnibus - I take it you're out of the equation for now?  And it seems you don't want a copy of that paper.  It was an interesting reference that you posted.  I seldom go to that site and was intrigued to see Glen's comment.  Again the evidence is that he DOES NOT THINK there's any point in this technology.  And again my question is why does he continually attempt to elbow in with any potential replicators.  I simply can't get my head around the question.  Surely.  If he thinks there's no advantage wouldn't his time be better spent in persuading people not to bother?  Rather than invite them to entertain the trouble and expense of a cicuit build?  Strangely contradictory.  But his motives are dark.  And my eyesight is not good.  Very poor night vision.  LOL

Rosemary

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 22, 2010, 08:14:33 PM
Guys, also, while I'm on the subject.  It seems that Ashtweth has got some considerable clout with both the EF.com Admin and with OU.com.  I get the distinct impression - actually because he claimed as much - that he need only say the word and anyone that he nominates will then be banned.  Personally I find this troubling - in the extreme.  I always thought that both forums were independently owned.  It means that I will indeed need to get his approval to post and his approval on what I post.  If this is true - then I wonder if Stefan could perhaps advise us - in due course - and when he returns from holiday.  I think that if Ash is some kind of authoritative administrator or perhaps even a shareholder on both forums - then that should be more openly acknowledged by Stefan.  At least then we'll all know.

I also get it that he feels free to advise you that I'm deluded, delusional, paranoid, troublesome, but somehow 'not ALL bad' and for that matter that there may even be some residual 'good' in me.  Not only is this in rather bad taste but I very much doubt that he's a qualified practising psychologist or psychiatrist.  Which means that his diagnosis is possibly flawed and may first require some professional support before I or anyone need get unduly alarmed.  Quite apart from the excessive bad taste of his comments and his manner of relaying them - is the added indignity that I was obliged to endure while he determined the manner in which this thread needed to be conducted and the subject to be imposed on it.  And all this under the imminent threat that I do not underestimate his power.  He also advised Stefan - on an email copied to me - that his work has DWARFED my own contributions to OU.  Here he's right.  Everyone has dwarfed my own contribution.  I have nothing to offer other than a reasonably clear insight into electric current flow.  How that is eventually used is entirely not in my expertise.  Truth is I'm expert at nothing. 

But here's the point of this post.  If he is right - and if indeed, he succeeds in getting me banned - then I have this to say in my defense.  I am concerned that you are all fully alerted to the actual history of this technology and it's multiple and changing fortunes.  It's been grossly abused.  On and off these forums.  Personally I see it as a measure of how desirable the technology is - in a kind of perverse and obscure way.  But, in the event that I do disappear again -  for those who I know follow these fortunes - then look for me on Scribd.   Here too Glen posted that I had 'plagiarised' his work.  Unhappily for Glen, they also investigated the allegation, as did our academics.  And they too decided to ignore his complaints and then reposted our paper.  It's unlikely he'll be able to intervene there again.  They've got his number - so to speak.

I am not sure to what extent I've managed my warnings regarding Harvey and Glen but hope, that at it's least you all see some need to deal with their advances with a bit of circumspection.  But it is already evident that the most of you already realise this.   The truth here is that I am not qualified to tell you what they think or even what their intentions are.  I only know that they lied to and about me, that they're lying about this technoly.  Some of those lies I can prove.  Others - based as they are on pure allegation - I can do absolutely nothing about.

But having said all that I think this subject can now be dropped.  I feel better for airing my views on this subject.  Unless I get another 'attack' from any of them I think this matter is entirely closed.  And apologies for this diversion.  I just felt that the 8 hour attack that I endured yesterday still needed a summation.

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

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: bolt on August 22, 2010, 09:19:02 PM
Holy crap what a mess this thing has turned out to be! A million man hours and still arguing. Look the only way any of these systems are valuable is if they are built up to a size to make it useful and viable as a heater. If that cant be done then the entire excise is worthless.

No need to prove anything to anyone till a practical demonstration of the technology can be created and put to use then if others see the benefits they will copy if not then move along nothing to see here.

Why can't someone scale this up to say 4 fets and 1000 watt electric bar heater and something useful may come of it? Its the ONLY way to prove its worth.

Power this and show some savings then its a winner!
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: WilbyInebriated on August 22, 2010, 10:14:17 PM
Holy crap what a mess this thing has turned out to be! A million man hours and still arguing. Look the only way any of these systems are valuable is if they are built up to a size to make it useful and viable as a heater. If that cant be done then the entire excise is worthless.
this is merely your opinion and opinions are like arsholes... everyone has one, and everyone thinks everybody else's stinks.

No need to prove anything to anyone till a practical demonstration of the technology can be created and put to use then if others see the benefits they will copy if not then move along nothing to see here.
i hope you won't mind then when i apply this ideal to all of the things you have talked about but never practically demonstrated...

Why can't someone scale this up to say 4 fets and 1000 watt electric bar heater and something useful may come of it? Its the ONLY way to prove its worth.
why don't you step up? and as far as the ONLY WAY... do i even need to go into how fallacious this kind of wording is? enough with the NEVER and ALWAYS and ONLY hyperbole... ::)

Power this and show some savings then its a winner!
have at it.


rosemary, i wouldn't worry too much about ashtweth. he thinks he holds more sway then he really does, and i doubt he holds any over stefan. even if he does, i can and will set you up with a forum that is most definitely not under the sway of anyone.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 22, 2010, 11:10:47 PM
rosemary, i wouldn't worry too much about ashtweth. he thinks he holds more sway then he really does, and i doubt he holds any over stefan. even if he does, i can and will set you up with a forum that is most definitely not under the sway of anyone.

Wilby - thanks.  I hope it won't get to this but it's good to know there are such forums.  I must say - I rather agree with you.  I can't see Stefan just 'doing as he's told' unless it IS the case that Ash is an owner here - somehow.

Take good care Wilby.  You have always made me feel safe - somehow.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: nievesoliveras on August 23, 2010, 02:46:59 AM

Hello Jesus, I know that you're anxious to do a build.  ... a storage scope with a really broad bandwidth.  Can you access this? 

kindest regards,
Rosemary

At this time I cannot afford to buy such a scope.
I will see what happens.

Jesus
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on August 23, 2010, 04:21:41 AM
Guys i dont read Rose's post, its a waste of time,  so wont be here at all, Ominbus, if you need what we discussed or any one needs info email my self .again those who have a scope and the probes should tune boards for members to replicate.


regards
Ash
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on August 23, 2010, 04:33:06 AM
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

Rosemary Anslie.

Do not encourage division between open source forums, this is a formal warning by myself and my recommendations will be enforced if you again try and cause arguments or division between open source engineers and the energetic forum.

This is a formal and last warning.,
Ashtweth Palise
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: vonwolf on August 23, 2010, 04:46:58 AM
Rosemary Anslie.

Do not encourage division between open source forums, this is a formal warning by myself and my recommendations will be enforced if you again try and cause arguments or division between open source engineers and the energetic forum.

This is a formal and last warning.,
Ashtweth Palise


   She's only defending herself you should be proud of your self you got her kicked off EF, now you want to follow her over here and threaten her. I guess all your talk of open source and freedom of speech don't apply to those that don't agree with you. It's very sad
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on August 23, 2010, 04:51:06 AM
   She's only defending herself you should be proud of your self you got her kicked off EF, now you want to follow her over here and threaten her. I guess all your talk of open source and freedom of speech don't apply to those that don't agree with you. It's very sad

Excuse me Mate, i dont know you, i did not get  any one kicked from any where , Rose did because of her behavior, if you cant read  and cannot contribute to the technology then dont post. Simple as that.  Dont pretend to be high and mighty over me or any one, do some reading and contribute you have a lot of catching up to do now vonwolf

Ash
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: vonwolf on August 23, 2010, 05:36:57 AM
Excuse me Mate, i don't know you, i did not get  any one kicked from any where , Rose did because of her behavior, if you cant read  and cannot contribute to the technology then don't post. Simple as that.  Dont pretend to be high and mighty over me or any one, do some reading and contribute you have a lot of catching up to do now vonwolf Ash


  Oh ya I'm high and mighty, your right you don't know me but that doesn't stop you from discounting anything I have to say.But ya I'm "high and mighty"

  Pete
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 23, 2010, 09:10:44 AM
Rosemary Anslie.

Do not encourage division between open source forums, this is a formal warning by myself and my recommendations will be enforced if you again try and cause arguments or division between open source engineers and the energetic forum.

This is a formal and last warning.,
Ashtweth Palise


Guys - this post is absolutely intolerable.

> this is a formal warning by myself and my recommendations will be enforced


Apart from the explicit statement of his power to enforce his requirement is the objection to my post to you all where I simply state that you must do as you think fit.  It seems that it is enough to simply address you all generally - regardless of the context - to then be deemed guilty and to then face the consequences of being banned.  This frankly - is tyranny.

I reserve the right to object to secret conspiritorial efforts by Glen to address members off forum in a barrage of miscommunications where he attempts to assassinate both my work and my character and I will do so publicly and as often as required and as long as that effort continues.  I also reserve my rights to give a full account of both his and Harvey's efforts to silence me, to diminish this technology and to diminish my talents or my character.  When and if it can be proved that any such account is untrue or entirely wrong THEN ONLY will they have a RIGHT to complain.  Until Glen openly acknowledges that he did not initiate the technology related to that MOSFET HEATING CIRCUIT - then only will I have no further CAUSE for complaint.  Until then I am MOST anxious that they are attempting to appropriate some kind of authority and ownership over this technology which is NOT theirs to appropriate.

In the words of Sm0ky - IT BELONGS TO US ALL
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

EDITED.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 23, 2010, 11:06:29 AM
At this time I cannot afford to buy such a scope.
I will see what happens.

Jesus
Hello Jesus.  I realise these scopes are expensive.  But you'll usually find that they're available at universities and technical colleges.  Maybe take your rig there and ask if you can borrow their equipment?  Most university colleges are happy to 'assist'  if the interest is to further science.  Just a thought. 

But let me know if I can help in any way. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 23, 2010, 11:08:18 AM
   She's only defending herself you should be proud of your self you got her kicked off EF, now you want to follow her over here and threaten her. I guess all your talk of open source and freedom of speech don't apply to those that don't agree with you. It's very sad

Thanks for this Pete.  All support much appreciated. 
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 23, 2010, 11:12:44 AM


  Oh ya I'm high and mighty, your right you don't know me but that doesn't stop you from discounting anything I have to say.But ya I'm "high and mighty"

  Pete

LOL.  I think we're being assured here that the highest and mightiest is not about to brook competition.   ;D

Pete - it's a tough world out there and right now there's a battle of representative authority on some rather desirable technology.  And standing between that representative authority is myself and some earnest need to keep it open source.  The more that rally the better.  But I get it now that OU.com has some discerning readers and discerning members.  It's a comfort. 

Kindest again
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Pirate88179 on August 23, 2010, 11:35:49 AM
>I reserve the right to object to secret conspiritorial efforts by Glen

One more LIE or post like that Jib, energetic forum Admin , Arron ,Glen Harvey and my self  Ashtweth will make a case yo remove you from the forums. Stefan can choose what he wants, it will effect what  a lot of people who have witnessed you spread this disinformation feel

You got removed for a reason Rose  and i dont want to hear your lies any more , and its not just me more thin 5 people can testify to your behavior   you are giving us grounds to remove you TRY ME. Post one more thing insinuating that. We need it for our public records

Ashtweth Palise

I can't believe that your threats and disinformation are welcome here on OU dot com.

There were threats...call them what they are really.   Have the guts to say what your posts really mean.

IF, as you say, there is nothing to see here, then why are you here?  Why are you making these threats?  If there is nothing to see here then just go away and let it be what it is.

I really do have to question your motives now....after reading your posts.  This is getting beyond ridiculous.  If everyone is wrong, and you are correct, then let it go and post somewhere else.

Why did you have to follow her over here to make your point?  Was it not enough that you got her banned from the EF ?

What is your purpose here?  Is it to suppress really good info?  Is that what you are doing?

Or, is it something else that we do not know about?

If you do not agree with what Rose posts....move on and let it go.  The fact that you CAN'T seem to do that speaks volumes to me...and many others.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 23, 2010, 12:25:41 PM
Guys, I unfortunately have to go out - but have seen these last posts.  Frankly the only one that alarms me is the one from Ashtweth.

But I'll get back here.  Meanwhile hopefully I can leave this thread in the capable hands of our members here.  I am going to earnestly request that they open a 'Bash Rosemary Ainslie' thread.  I can then post all their horrible insinuations over there and they can continue with their duologue.  I was rather hoping to keep this one as a pristine account of some - what I hope will be - historical experimental results relating to an accentric thesis.  LOL

In any event - it seems I cannot shake off my attackers.  Certainly not yet.  But I need to attend a meeting and should have more to post on progress.  Meanwhile - perhaps Wilby or someone with the required skill - can open that thread that I can transfer some of these posts.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Pirate88179 on August 23, 2010, 12:30:36 PM
Wow:

What a self important post that was.  Are you done?

Again, you did not answer my original question of why are you here?  Can you not answer this?  Will you not?  If Rose is insane and posting gibberish than, what do you care?

I do not expect any rational answers from you...I do not think you capable of that.  Just continue on with your "nothing to see here" and keep posting which will tell others that here may be indeed something to see here.

What are you afraid of?  Who do you work for really?  The rest of us want to know.

And please stop your threats with Stefan.  This got old before you even posted it.  If you have this much power over all energy research forums, you would not have to make any threats.....right?

Thought so.

Bill

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: spinn_MP on August 23, 2010, 12:35:52 PM
Will you people, please, stop fighting with each other?

There's no point when it comes to the "OU (COP17) FET heating".
Without a doubt, Miss "MosFet" Ainslie is the originator of the idea (& concept). So others (who may not admitting the fact) can, simply, piss off with their unfavorable research & falsifications. Damn all those wannabes, eh?

The main problem here is, in fact, that there isn't actually anything to steal/copy....

So far, the "technology" is still - NON-EXISTENT....

Sorry.
And even the fact that mr. OmniBot is interested in all of this, should tell you a lot...



Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Pirate88179 on August 23, 2010, 12:38:43 PM
Your not getting out of your behavior that easy ROSE

there are more then 5 members +Admin now that can testify to that.
I just found out From Aaron what you have been up too behind the scenes.

post open source info, do not push the slanderous disinfo button, you will have to answer for what you have done, if your still around even by then.

Glen, this one was for you

Ash

Gee, I may be stupid BUT this sounds a little like a threat to me.  Is this not contrary to the OU TOS?  I believe that it is.  I will take the appropriate measures to deal with this.

Thanks for showing who you really are and why you are here.  It made things that much more simple.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Pirate88179 on August 23, 2010, 12:41:40 PM
Ash:

I am glad you are done with me...I was getting bored from your first lying post.  Wow your name is really on a paper?  I guess I should be really impressed, but I am not.  So sorry Charlie.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Pirate88179 on August 23, 2010, 12:46:24 PM
Glen:

Congratulations, you are finally posting in the open instead of "secret" pms.  You are actually maybe making some progress.  This is much less underhanded than your previous attempts.  I salute you for this giant step forward.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Pirate88179 on August 23, 2010, 12:52:40 PM
I hope you evaluate what you just did Bill, rejected 5 peoples requests and admin's request to progress with out interference, i certainly am discarding you from being any one with a sound mind or trust worthy

go read the IEEE paper, do the same then come and talk about me and others dont call me lier  BUDDY you, you look even stupider then your contribution here

Sorry Bill, you screw it your self


Ash

Quite possibly not the first time, IF you are correct.  But, I seriously doubt that you are.  Look at your behavior here, and on EF.  Again, I ask what is your motivation?  you have never answered this and I doubt that you will. Too bad.  I can see pretty clearly what it is though.  Too bad for you that so can most other folks as well.

Please correct me IF I am wrong.  You probably can't but, it would be fun to see you try.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Tenbatsu on August 23, 2010, 03:46:02 PM
Asthweth, you might want to hold your guns before you call someone stupid.  Especially when you do not the know difference between too and to as well as your and you're as has been proven with several of your previous posts.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: shruggedatlas on August 23, 2010, 04:50:15 PM
Asthweth, you might want to hold your guns before you call someone stupid.  Especially when you do not the know difference between too and to as well as your and you're as has been proven with several of your previous posts.

Do not be too hard on him, it is obvious he is not a native English speaker.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: spinn_MP on August 23, 2010, 05:05:43 PM
Do not be too hard on him, it is obvious he is not a native English speaker.

Hmm...
Since when the language spoken has anything in common with the possibility of "OU" claims?
You're one of the "innebriated" guy bots?
Jeeeez....
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Hope on August 23, 2010, 05:30:59 PM
You have put a lot of time into this theory and your earnest is evidence of your intent Rosemary.   Thank you for your efforts.   Is this theory able to model an "electric cavity" created by your switching circuit?  It will be much easier to work with radiant wavelengths once we can convert them into something we can sense.   
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: shruggedatlas on August 23, 2010, 05:31:32 PM
Hmm...
Since when the language spoken has anything in common with the possibility of "OU" claims?
You're one of the "innebriated" guy bots?
Jeeeez....

Nothing, I am just saying, if someone is not a native Engrish speaker, there is no sense in nitpicking spelling.  You are right, OU is the main thing here.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: nievesoliveras on August 23, 2010, 05:31:48 PM
@all

With the fight you have on this topic, you are not helping the OU community absolutely.

Nobody wants to see you fighting. Everybody want a solution to the energy crisis.

I am out of here!!!

Jesus
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: fritz on August 23, 2010, 06:06:32 PM
I would accept COP < 1 if I could power a machine with stupidity.
rgds.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 23, 2010, 06:38:29 PM
Right now Rosemary your fate on the free energy forums is in question, Energetic forum adim , 5 individuals who have never seen your COP 17 replicated
Just that.  This is the first open acknowledgement that Glen, Harvey, Ashtweth, Jibguy and possibly Aaron - do NOT consider that they have a replication of my COP>17.  This is the actual issue at hand.  This means that they are satisfied that Glen's replication was actually the result of accidental and fortuitious and chance assembly of some electrical apparatus that resulted in their own result of COP>4? as Harvey erroneously assessed it?  Strange things afoot guys.  Now you see why I need to confront this sad effort to flame these threads and to insist that this is NOT their work?

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: gmeast on August 23, 2010, 07:03:30 PM
Hi all.  I'm not sure that it will serve any purpose but I'm going back to this post with specific reference to the following.

>One more LIE or post like that Jib, energetic forum Admin , Arron ,Glen Harvey and my self  Ashtweth will make a case yo remove you from the forums.

And this with specific reference to my right to defend myself in the face of an attack.
.......................................................
Rosemary

Hi all,

I am saddened that there is venom here !  I view this topic and the work already done as very significant.  I compare it to CF, Cold Fusion, CANR or whatever name you give it ... not the same mechanism I admit, but the same 'flavor' of initial observation(s).

....an anomalous amount of heat (energy over time = power) evolving from a physical set up of components ... the observed and measured cumulative power output unquestionably exceeding the input power. 

The important term here is "POWER".  In TOO many experiments, people get all excited over a spike in energy, or temperature.  For a brief moment, something displays OU chacteristics ... for example, a pulse ... which is where most errors or misinterpretation occurs ... beautiful ignorance and arrogance blind experimenters much too often.

In the case of this COP>17 Circuit, there is none of this "misinterpretation" the same as there is NONE with CF.

It seems Aaron from Energetic has been the only one to post a replication ... it appeared inconclusive because of some technical roadblocks, but still something was demonstrated.

If there have been other replications I have not seen, sorry, and please steer me toward them.   This is too important to just argue and criticize over.

Greg
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: WilbyInebriated on August 23, 2010, 07:04:15 PM
----- Original Message -----
From: <info@esmhome.org>
To: <ainslie@xxxx.co.za>; <hwgramm@xxxxx.com>; <fuzzytomcat@xxxxxxx.net>
Cc: <ashtweth@xxxxx.com>; <totl@xxxx.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 11:11 AM
Subject: Forum


Greetings,

Unfortunately, there are still numerous posts occurring on the forum 
that contain unnecessary disagreements between certain members.

It is obvious that there are conflicts that are not going to be 
resolved any time in the near future.

The forum is a place to share and learn.  Questioning is fine if it is 
done with respect, but we have seen that this is not what is happening 
here.

It is possible to share your work without speaking of each other?s.

We ask from now forward that you do not reference or question the work 
of each other (Rosemary, Harvey, FuzzyTomCat) in any posts on 
Energetic Forum or via Energetic Forums Private Messaging.

To be quite clear, you are welcome to share your work, your ideas, 
your results.  Just do NOT reference each others work, ideas, results.

Each one of you is valued on the Forum, however, the Peace and good 
nature of the Forum have been interrupted and this cannot continue.

There are four admins to the forum, Aaron is one of them, however he 
has wisely recused himself on this matter.  The three others admins 
have made this decision.

To repeat, it is our place to make sure the good nature of the Forum 
is maintained.  We believe that is possible by simply posting about 
your own work and in no way referencing (directly or indirectly) 
anyone else with which you have a conflict.

If you do (reference anyone that you have a conflict with), you will 
be banned.

Admin
hi glen, you omitted this part, which was at the bottom of the pm you sent to me, and to the rest i assume...

Quote
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

also ..... a question .......

How can anyone or a inventor design a electronic circuit if they can not read a schematic or circuit diagram ?

http://www.energeticforum.com/59369-post262.html
TinselKoala - THE ONLY APPROPRIATE CIRCUIT DIAGRAM that I can assure you is correct is the diagram in the paper. And the flyback diode is a critical part of the system.

The circuit diagram in the Quantum article was prepared by Brian Buckley. I cannot comment on whether it is right or not as I simply cannot read it. I am hoping that Donovan will be able to comment in due course. I don't think he has even seen that article - as published.

But it is definitely required as without it we cannot 're-route' the collapsing fields back to the battery to recharge it.

so why are you attempting character assassination of rosemary and then having your little minion ashtweth run around accusing rose of what you are doing?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: WilbyInebriated on August 23, 2010, 07:06:38 PM
Hmm...
Since when the language spoken has anything in common with the possibility of "OU" claims?
You're one of the "innebriated" guy bots?
Jeeeez....
it's inebriated... jeeeez ::)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: gmeast on August 23, 2010, 07:08:02 PM
AGAIN !

Hi all,

I am saddened that there is venom here !  I view this topic and the work already done as very significant.  I compare it to CF, Cold Fusion, CANR or whatever name you give it ... not the same mechanism I admit, but the same 'flavor' of initial observation(s).

....an anomalous amount of heat (energy over time = power) evolving from a physical set up of components ... the observed and measured cumulative power output unquestionably exceeding the input power.

The important term here is "POWER".  In TOO many experiments, people get all excited over a spike in energy, or temperature.  For a brief moment, something displays OU chacteristics ... for example, a pulse ... which is where most errors or misinterpretation occurs ... beautiful ignorance and arrogance blind experimenters much too often.

In the case of this COP>17 Circuit, there is none of this "misinterpretation" the same as there is NONE with CF.

It seems Aaron from Energetic has been the only one to post a replication ... it appeared inconclusive because of some technical roadblocks, but still something was demonstrated.

If there have been other replications I have not seen, sorry, and please steer me toward them.   This is too important to just argue and criticize over.

Greg
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 23, 2010, 07:12:21 PM
AGAIN !

Hi all,

I am saddened that there is venom here !  I view this topic and the work already done as very significant.  I compare it to CF, Cold Fusion, CANR or whatever name you give it ... not the same mechanism I admit, but the same 'flavor' of initial observation(s).

....an anomalous amount of heat (energy over time = power) evolving from a physical set up of components ... the observed and measured cumulative power output unquestionably exceeding the input power.

The important term here is "POWER".  In TOO many experiments, people get all excited over a spike in energy, or temperature.  For a brief moment, something displays OU chacteristics ... for example, a pulse ... which is where most errors or misinterpretation occurs ... beautiful ignorance and arrogance blind experimenters much too often.

In the case of this COP>17 Circuit, there is none of this "misinterpretation" the same as there is NONE with CF.

It seems Aaron from Energetic has been the only one to post a replication ... it appeared inconclusive because of some technical roadblocks, but still something was demonstrated.

If there have been other replications I have not seen, sorry, and please steer me toward them.   This is too important to just argue and criticize over.

Greg
Greg - indeed it's important.  Which is precisely why I am fighting this corner.  But for now - here's the paper.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 23, 2010, 07:26:15 PM
You have put a lot of time into this theory and your earnest is evidence of your intent Rosemary.   Thank you for your efforts.   Is this theory able to model an "electric cavity" created by your switching circuit?  It will be much easier to work with radiant wavelengths once we can convert them into something we can sense.
Hope - welcome to the discussion.  I'm afraid the circuit was only ever designed to prove that COP>1 is possible.  But that, in itself, is important.  I know nothing about 'electric cavity' but will look it up.  Unless you can provide a link which would be much appreciated.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

BTW I'm afraid you've joined here where I'm in a kind of insurgency warfare with 5 Free Energy players who are trying to appropriate this technology or - to divorce it from my input.  Not serious in itself but it will rather put paid to our attempts to keep this technology open source.

Again.  Kindest as ever,
R
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 23, 2010, 08:51:12 PM
Guys, not sure if I've done the right thing.  But effectively Ash and Glen can post to their heart's content on the new thread. 

I agree that there needs to be complete halt to this flaming.  It is ruining this thread which is the actual intention.  I should have followed my off forum advices and simply not tolerated their posts at all.  I apologise.  I do not intend allowing any further posts from either of them and they are free to spam, or do what they want there - or elsewhere.

Out of respect to our members here I've not deleted anything other than a post by shruggedatlas - in error.  Apologies.

Kindest regards, and abject apologies that I let this go on as I did.

Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: powercat on August 23, 2010, 09:02:26 PM
Hi Rosie
Now your running two threads,what a busy bee you are
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rpBAZEVHmI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rpBAZEVHmI)
Good luck with the rocket surgery  ;)
cat
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 23, 2010, 09:07:05 PM
Hi Rosie
Now your running two threads,what a busy bee you are
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rpBAZEVHmI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rpBAZEVHmI)
Good luck with the rocket surgery  ;)
cat

 ;D Hello cat.  Where have you been for goodness sake?  Much in need of some distractions. You see the blood bath I had to clean.   LOL.  Yes I've been busy.

Take good care of yourself there cat.  And thanks for the link - as ever.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie
btw - I'm not running that thread.  It's given - gratis to Glen and Ash.  At least they can't accuse me of censorship.  And they can enjoy their freedoms of expression there.   
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 23, 2010, 09:25:53 PM
Hi all,

I am saddened that there is venom here !  I view this topic and the work already done as very significant.  I compare it to CF, Cold Fusion, CANR or whatever name you give it ... not the same mechanism I admit, but the same 'flavor' of initial observation(s).

....an anomalous amount of heat (energy over time = power) evolving from a physical set up of components ... the observed and measured cumulative power output unquestionably exceeding the input power. 

The important term here is "POWER".  In TOO many experiments, people get all excited over a spike in energy, or temperature.  For a brief moment, something displays OU chacteristics ... for example, a pulse ... which is where most errors or misinterpretation occurs ... beautiful ignorance and arrogance blind experimenters much too often.

In the case of this COP>17 Circuit, there is none of this "misinterpretation" the same as there is NONE with CF.

It seems Aaron from Energetic has been the only one to post a replication ... it appeared inconclusive because of some technical roadblocks, but still something was demonstrated.

If there have been other replications I have not seen, sorry, and please steer me toward them.   This is too important to just argue and criticize over.

Greg

I've now been able to give this post of yours more attention Greg. The thing is this.  There is clear evidence of 'over unity' in as much as the circuit shows that more energy is being dissipated at a load than is being delivered by the supply source - in this case using a battery.

But there are downsides.  The most energy we could get on the resistor in any reliable way was between 25 to 30 watts.  And even at this level we stress the MOSFET with voltage spikes that it can barely tolerate.  We're trying different variations of the transistor - by using and IGBT but have had difficulty sourcing this.  We've now been informed that it's delivered and hopefully it'll be to hand before Wednesday.

But we've got a long way to go to get this onto a usable scale.  If the IGBT works with a diode across it to replace the body diode of the FET then we may be able to get something more in the region of 100 watts.  It's still not much but it's in the right direction.  Still plenty of testing to do.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: powercat on August 23, 2010, 09:27:30 PM
Ok Rosie
Music and comedy,the videos keep rolling,stay tuned
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfTy2gPZT_k&feature=PlayList&p=903757D3FEA6B5E6&index=0&playnext=1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfTy2gPZT_k&feature=PlayList&p=903757D3FEA6B5E6&index=0&playnext=1)
enjoy
cat
Title: The Commedy Channel
Post by: bolt on August 23, 2010, 09:53:11 PM
Always great entertainment posted here! Heheheheh! ;D
Title: Re: The Commedy Channel
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 23, 2010, 10:00:03 PM
Always great entertainment posted here! Heheheheh! ;D
Indeed.  Thanks cat.  I just looked through them all.  Nice laugh

Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: WilbyInebriated on August 23, 2010, 10:22:00 PM
.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: gmeast on August 24, 2010, 01:32:31 AM
I've now been able to give this post of yours more attention Greg. The thing is this.  There is clear evidence of 'over unity' in as much as the circuit shows that more energy is being dissipated at a load than is being delivered by the supply source - in this case using a battery.

But there are downsides.  The most energy we could get on the resistor in any reliable way was between 25 to 30 watts.  And even at this level we stress the MOSFET with voltage spikes that it can barely tolerate.  We're trying different variations of the transistor - by using and IGBT but have had difficulty sourcing this.  We've now been informed that it's delivered and hopefully it'll be to hand before Wednesday.
.....................................................................
Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Hi Rosemary,

Thanks for the comprehensive response/update.  This experiment is about as practical as they come from the standpoint of being within the reach of almost every open-source researcher navigating these forums.

Whether it is 1Watt or 1MegaWatt, COP>1 is just that!  I had been in the process of relocating because of the economy in my native state so I have not been set up to experiment.  That may have changed for me. 

Other than the sophisticated analytical equipment required to 'PROVE' the merits to the arrogant academics, only an 'adequate scope' should be required to tune the switch to the 'sweet spot'.  This equipment is already owned by most researchers.  As a consequence, we should be able to have literally hundreds of 20Watt to 30Watt replications running reliably, world-wide and in short order.  All we would need in order to accomplish this is for EVERYONE to be operating EXACTLY the SAME circuit using EXACTLY the SAME components ... and WITHOUT any little personal modifications or 'inspired' changes to ANY of the circuit.  Such little changes just tend to muddy things up and do the overall effort a gross injustice.

If we can say "...oh lookie here, today I charge this battery with my little 2 Watt solar panel with 10 Watt-Hrs of power and tonight I'll keep my hut a little warmer with 200 Watt-Hrs of heat from my little electric floor heater ... "

Now if enough people did this, what do you think it would say to the detractors.

No, I don't live in a hut ... but you get my point.  Do we need a standardized 'kit' of your gizmo that definitely works?  That would seem to be workable.

Well, there it is.  Just a thought (or two),

Greg
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: gmeast on August 24, 2010, 02:33:25 AM
Hi Greg /ALL

Some one like Omnibus with the needed scope, (a person who does not have 13 post behind him) could do well, we offer to send him a board as an independent and tune other boards for others, just a reminder that those who discuss the technology only and want to take us upon this offer will get results sooner, we are here to help tuning and Glen has the best experience so far. Mean time i am still trying to source a 200hmz scope to tune boards for others to test, its a very cheap circuit.

Ash

Hi Ash,

not sure what's meant by "(a person who does not have 13 post behind him)" but anyhow, is there a board layout of Rosemary's circuit available?  Has the precise design of the resistive heater/inductor been pinned down (diameter, wire size, turns, etc)?  Also, there are several 'grades' of 555 timers available as well as the other parts.  I know the circuit is simple, but I have seen (and so have you) what's supposed to be identical replications of other devices wherein one works and the other does not.  Then someone finds (for example) that if they use a Fairchild part instead of a Texas Instruments part, it suddenly works.

I'm just trying to identify an inarguable methodology to further Rosemary's cause (in fact everyone's cause).

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Hope on August 24, 2010, 04:16:20 AM
How did Tesla tune his circuits,  I know he made a focusing device that could detect movement very well.  Can this device maybe be made adjustable so we can detect the coils oscillations without detuning them? Dr T didn't have a scope that is for certain.   Can anyone think of a way to place ANY material (gas,water,mercury,light) in proximity to the circuit and sense some change when at resonance?  Also an electric cavity is one cause by two separate but potentially different pulses meeting the materials changed to ions within the plasma/arc/spark the vacuum create at the moment closes at least light speed and of course the partials these lines of force create heat and I believe other radiant energy.  Many cavities exist in nature and also seem to each react to there exposure to radiant energy differently.  I will be looking forward to my 10 lb toroidal build (it is a whopper),  your circuit and the gangs jewel thief are sure efficient and when we R&D new products we may find by building on these circuits fundamentals we shall see further down the road toward higher percentages of  < COP until we either stumble upon causing > COP or just line upon line trial and error solves radiant collection and conversion.  But whatever is the solution the ultimate formula is likely to be X amount of mind power=solution so the more we all collaborate the quicker we can get on to using radiant energy.   This may just be the largest group mind ever together working on solution,  who is the 100th monkey? If it is one of us lucky ones here we will be able to give man another piece of harmony with this world and their lives.  This would make a difference, so we are moving toward something monumental and WE all are part of this a can smile when we see peoples lives better for it.   Also a link for a software scope a nice member sent me http://www.sillanumsoft.org/download.htm   (I understand it is not normally as sensitive as a real 500MHz Quad Scope )...     but coupled with a detector circuit it may be a great tool.   

Another question about high frequency,  doesn't the earth make do with 11.8 Hz (was 7.8 in 1992)  can't we use these baselines as known working models instead of new R&D projects of different frequencies?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Hope on August 24, 2010, 04:41:04 AM
I got a disconnect   so I must continue with a new reply.   I believe the larger the physical size of the cavity created and the quicker the collapse the more radiant energy will get disturbed and will exhibit imbalance in the form of many types of radiant energy seeking harmony again with its surrounding.   So when we collapse a coil, spark,.... whatever  we are starting the generator and driving all the matter into a void.  Since different radiant energy travels through different materials at different rates can we not impede (by making our LOAD easier to go through than the normal replenishment line used by nature and make the "must balance LAW"  work in our favor?  I certainly hope this is understandable to you good people,   I am not so good at communication as is needed.  Therefore if we use smaller sparks then we will have to use higher frequency: than if we make bigger sparks in vacuums (faster decay).  I am for the low frequency thinking.   And figuring out how to make other radiant energy partials  decay (collapse)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 24, 2010, 06:39:11 AM
I got a disconnect   so I must continue with a new reply.   I believe the larger the physical size of the cavity created and the quicker the collapse the more radiant energy will get disturbed and will exhibit imbalance in the form of many types of radiant energy seeking harmony again with its surrounding.   So when we collapse a coil, spark,.... whatever  we are starting the generator and driving all the matter into a void.  Since different radiant energy travels through different materials at different rates can we not impede (by making our LOAD easier to go through than the normal replenishment line used by nature and make the "must balance LAW"  work in our favor?  I certainly hope this is understandable to you good people,   I am not so good at communication as is needed.  Therefore if we use smaller sparks then we will have to use higher frequency: than if we make bigger sparks in vacuums (faster decay).  I am for the low frequency thinking.   And figuring out how to make other radiant energy partials  decay (collapse)

Dear Hope,  ;D

I can't say that I understood all that you've written, but may I say that how much I enjoy your post and how much I applaud your sentiments.  You have a unique turn of phrase. 

I think you're pointing to the advantage in those collapsing fields.  I'm sure you're right about this being of benefit even at a lower frequency.  And it also seems that you're right about Tesla.  I think it was either Omnibus or Sm0ky who pointed out that he had been experimenting with this. But, like you, I have no idea what instruments were available for measurement. 

Delighted to have you with us Hope.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 24, 2010, 07:09:17 AM
Hi Ash,

not sure what's meant by "(a person who does not have 13 post behind him)" but anyhow, is there a board layout of Rosemary's circuit available?  Has the precise design of the resistive heater/inductor been pinned down (diameter, wire size, turns, etc)?  Also, there are several 'grades' of 555 timers available as well as the other parts.  I know the circuit is simple, but I have seen (and so have you) what's supposed to be identical replications of other devices wherein one works and the other does not.  Then someone finds (for example) that if they use a Fairchild part instead of a Texas Instruments part, it suddenly works.

I'm just trying to identify an inarguable methodology to further Rosemary's cause (in fact everyone's cause).

Hello again Greg,

I wonder if I can impose on you to address Ash with your questions in his own thread that I created.  I'm afraid it's not very readable - but I'm sure he'd be happy to answer you on this.

Meanwhile let me see if I can address this question.  I know that a board was indeed put together - very kindly - by a member of the EF.com team.  But I'm not sure that they're still available.  Your idea of getting multiple 'builds' and 'replicas' is good one.  Unfortunately this simply doesn't seem to satisfy either the curiosity or the individuality of our experimentalists.  The eternal quest is to 'add' - and frankly, I'm not sure that isn't a good thing.  Each variation results in something new to be considered or eliminated.  The circuit that is tested here is simple and relies on a standard 555 switch - driving a MOSFET.

I'm still not sure if you realise this.  We're trying to take this circuit to a full on 'application' and this is being done on a university campus with hands on contributions from some weighty experts.  They would not be doing this if they did not respect the results that were evident in our 'proof of concept' which, effectively, means that they're prepared - at least - to consider it's viability and indeed it's effectiveness.  This thread will be dedicated to full record of those test results.  My personal hope is that this will generate some more data that other institutions will be hard pressed to ignore.  It has been a question that long needed to get to their table.  And I am entirely satisfied that this is now there.

The danger with 'replications' is that it is technically and - in truth - impossible to duplicate every aspect of a test in any replication.  Even with a standardised board.  My experience here is that the 'replicator' finds a 'variation' however slight - and then claims the experiment for himself.  This would not matter - but that it then 'endagers' the status of the 'ownership' of the entire technology.  I think we're all committed to keeping this Open Source.  The minute one starts associating developments with 'copyright' and 'rights to data' and challenging the facts that are actually put in the public domain - then one is also flirting with prospects of 'IP OWNERSHIP'.  And that is absolutely NOT in the public interest.  And I'm satisfied that all of us need to resist that.

The other truth is that it is a really desirable technology.  Even if it is still very much in its infancy.  And there are those who already are putting their claims to it and those that will do so.  It would be as well, therefore, to remember that it was Open Source who first explored these principles and a tribute to the multi talented contributors here and on all Free Energy forums - that this technology was both explored and exposed.  Rightfully, therefore, no-one should EVER assume the rights to claim this technology.

I do hope that helps.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 24, 2010, 07:24:52 AM
OPEN LETTER TO ASHTWETH

May I remind you that EF.Com have a dedicated thread to the development of a MOSFET HEATING CIRCUIT.  Please use it.  This thread has NOTHING to do with replications. 

I have also started a thread for you where you are free to 'bash' me or the technology or anything you want.  I will not EDIT that thread. 

I require that you do NOT POST on this thread.  Your opinion of me has been paraded both on and off forum and there are many contributors here who have requested that I do not allow your posts.

Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: gmeast on August 24, 2010, 08:29:11 AM
Hello again Greg,

I wonder if I can impose on you to address Ash with your questions in his own thread that I created.  I'm afraid it's not very readable - but I'm sure he'd be happy to answer you on this.

Meanwhile let me see if I can address this question.  I know that a board was indeed put together - very kindly - by a member of the EF.com team.  But I'm not sure that they're still available.  Your idea of getting multiple 'builds' and 'replicas' is good one.  Unfortunately this simply doesn't seem to satisfy either the curiosity or the individuality of our experimentalists.  The eternal quest is to 'add' - and frankly, I'm not sure that isn't a good thing.  Each variation results in something new to be considered or eliminated.  The circuit that is tested here is simple and relies on a standard 555 switch - driving a MOSFET.

I'm still not sure if you realise this.  We're trying to take this circuit to a full on 'application' and this is being done on a university campus with hands on contributions from some weighty experts.  They would not be doing this if they did not respect the results that were evident in our 'proof of concept' which, effectively, means that they're prepared - at least - to consider it's viability and indeed it's effectiveness.  This thread will be dedicated to full record of those test results.  My personal hope is that this will generate some more data that other institutions will be hard pressed to ignore.  It has been a question that long needed to get to their table.  And I am entirely satisfied that this is now there.

The danger with 'replications' is that it is technically and - in truth - impossible to duplicate every aspect of a test in any replication.  Even with a standardised board.  My experience here is that the 'replicator' finds a 'variation' however slight - and then claims the experiment for himself.  This would not matter - but that it then 'endagers' the status of the 'ownership' of the entire technology.  I think we're all committed to keeping this Open Source.  The minute one starts associating developments with 'copyright' and 'rights to data' and challenging the facts that are actually put in the public domain - then one is also flirting with prospects of 'IP OWNERSHIP'.  And that is absolutely NOT in the public interest.  And I'm satisfied that all of us need to resist that.

The other truth is that it is a really desirable technology.  Even if it is still very much in its infancy.  And there are those who already are putting their claims to it and those that will do so.  It would be as well, therefore, to remember that it was Open Source who first explored these principles and a tribute to the multi talented contributors here and on all Free Energy forums - that this technology was both explored and exposed.  Rightfully, therefore, no-one should EVER assume the rights to claim this technology.

I do hope that helps.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Well OH SHIT!

Fucking politics.  This makes it very god damned hard to be interested in anything,.  Piss on this crap ... ALL OF IT!!!

SO LONG ... GOOD LUCK EVERYONE.  THIS ALL SUCKS THE BIG ONE.

I'M DONE WITH THIS SHIT!!

THIS DOES NOT DESERVE MY ATTENTION NOR MY VALUABLE TIME !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Pirate88179 on August 24, 2010, 08:44:22 AM
Ash:

Open source does not include bashing, which evidently you seem pretty good at doing.  Please read the Overunitydotcom terms of service before posting again.  If you Google your name, all that appears is material where you are bashing one person or another.  Try it sometime.  Perhaps you will learn from it....perhaps not.

Thank you,

Bill

PS  I believe you have been warned 3 times now about posting here again.  You were instructed to post at the other topic made especially for you.  So, please do not act surprised when your post is removed from here.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Pirate88179 on August 24, 2010, 08:52:05 AM
Ash:

First, please learn to spell and type correctly so folks can understand you.  Second, did you Google your name?  Did you see what comes up?  Is that not bashing?

I have been correct 3 times not wrong as you are trying to pretend.  You telling me to wake up is like like a drunk telling a sober person to quit drinking.  Please do try to get over yourself.  Probably not possible but do give it an effort for the benefit of the rest of the serious researchers here.

Thank you,

Bill

PS  Here is the topic area where you will be allowed to post.  It was created just for you and your crazy rants and insults and bashing:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9645.0 (http://index.php?topic=9645.0)

Please try to remember to use it.  Write yourself a note so you don't forget.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 24, 2010, 08:54:33 AM
cheers all.  I'm out of this until I get some kind advice, ruling or whatever happens when Steve gets back.  What is clear to me is that this thread is intended to be hijacked one way or another and I cannot do anything to prevent this.

kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Pirate88179 on August 24, 2010, 09:00:07 AM
Bill Greg was given the information and can testify to no bashing.
Glen has validated you were wrong about his PM.

This information that was censored was related to the circuit.
You sure have a way of making a fool out of your self.
I said i was done with you mate, and its for a very good reason.

Ashtweth

Did you read Glen's pm to me?  I don't think so.  It was, after all, a pm.  I do not lie and I do not like your suggestion that this is what I am doing.  I read his pm.  This prompted me to demand that he pm me no more.

So, with you having not read his pm, how is he vindicated?  I said he was bashing Rose and he was.  Plain and simple.

Glen has hung himself with this one, as have you.

Good night sir.  (and I use the term loosely)

Bill
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Pirate88179 on August 24, 2010, 09:48:55 AM
Sorry Bill

6 people plus the energetic forum Admin can testify to what your saying is WRONG
Greg can testify that only open source info was censored.
You my friend, can stay the king of OU.com.Your not to be trusted. Enjoy Mate

Go ahead and report results of what ever in this thread, but when people request information to the related circuit, and they get answered  it has a place to be known, also I dont See Bill's name on the paper, i see 5 people's name Including Glen's and mine who have enough experience and trustworthiness in this genre to KNOW,. Until some one has the same thing, ask your self what have you contributed.? No bashing on Glen and open source info is to be known, thats why we stepped in. Simple as that.

Carry on.
Ash

So, 6 people, the admin of EF and you can all testify to what was in the pm Glen sent to me that no one but me has read?  This is a really cool trick you have going there.  Forget free energy, you guys are mind readers and sooth sayers now I guess.

I have a copy of that pm.  I have not posted it as of yet, but keep it up and I will and you, Glen, and all your other "witnesses" will not be too happy about that.  Better check with Glen so he can tell you what he really pm'd to me first.

I said it was bashing, and I stand by that.  Why don't you get another 50 witnesses who also have not read my pm to help you? 

So now this is the 3rd time you have told me your name is on a paper.  I have read your Google files and I don't care how many "papers" your name is on.  From what I see, you have contributed nothing but disinformation and bashing to the FE community.  Maybe you should sue Google for publishing the truth about you?  Let me know how that works out for you.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Pirate88179 on August 24, 2010, 09:55:28 AM
                ElectricGoose (http://index.php?action=profile;u=22665)                
Newbie
(http://Themes/Basic_Theme/images/star.gif)
Posts: 38
(http://Themes/Basic_Theme/images/icons/profile_sm.gif) (http://index.php?action=profile;u=22665)
(http://Themes/Basic_Theme/images/im_off.gif) (http://index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=22665)
                  
                                                            (http://Themes/Basic_Theme/images/post/xx.gif)                                         Re: Bash Rosemary Ainslie (http://index.php?topic=9645.msg253922#msg253922)                                      Â« Reply #30 on: Today at 01:03:15 AM »                                                   
(http://Themes/Basic_Theme/images/buttons/quote.gif)Quote (http://index.php?action=post;quote=253922;topic=9645.30;num_replies=31;cee4ae732e=2b14038c10d5897766b53acfcb4aef5d)
                                  Is this the same Ashtweth Palaise that is over  at Energetic Forum spouting crap constantly and supposedly runs the  Panacea site?  If so, I have to say that this guy is a total wanker and  such a hypocrite who gets absolutely nothing done.

He spouts on  about every woeful cause under the sun and how HE is going to be the  saviour of the planet (talk about narcissim on a grand scale!).  If he  garners any critic for 'his' projects (which have been too many to count  that have disappeared into the aether over the years  (http://Smileys/default/grin.gif) ), he will go off on a rant like a little child.

He does nothing of his own originality and when he finds something hoards it all to himself, acting all high and mighty LOL.

I have no time for wieners like that.

Peace all.

Electric Goose                                
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Pirate88179 on August 24, 2010, 10:08:33 AM
A newbie that obviously has you pegged.  I found that very funny.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Pirate88179 on August 24, 2010, 10:16:35 AM
Bash Glen?  I have never bashed Glen.  That is your department, remember?  I called him out for sending hate pm's behind other members backs but, that was the truth and not bashing.  Look it up.

And, it will be addressed?  By who?  You?  Don't make me laugh any more than you already have.  Is this supposed to be a threat to somehow scare me?  Really?  You obviously have no idea who you are typing to then. 

You may try to threaten and intimidate Rose but that kind of crap does not work with me.  Hopefully you will figure that out before you go too far.  Wilby was right about you, one logical fallacy after another.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Pirate88179 on August 24, 2010, 10:24:24 AM
Sorry dood, i worked 7 days a week non profit for 5 years, and i neither trust you or believe you.
Leave Glen alone and stay on topic,I am sure more will be asking you soon ;)

Ashtweth Palise

Is that your way of saying that you don't know how to run a business?  I mean, no profit after 5 years, that has to be some kind of record there.


Bill
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 24, 2010, 12:55:50 PM
I will dip in from time to time to delete Ash's posts.  Meanwhile Bill my advice is to ignore him.  He has his own thread at EF.com.  My opinion is that they should stay there. 

As mentioned - I'll wait until Stefan gets back to tell us what he wants to do about all this.  Meanwhile I may be able to get a new thread on another forum.  I'll get the link when I can.  It's a given Ashtweth and Glen - you will neither of you be allowed to post there.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

BTW check your pm's
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinde
Post by: Omnibus on August 24, 2010, 05:16:21 PM
Backstabbing is a pretty bad thing to do and I applaud @Pirate88179 for taking a clear stance about it and telling it like it is. It's easy to attack Rosemary as it's easy to attack anyone doing research in OU for that matter. It's easy to side with the powers that be and defend the status quo even if you don't quite know what you're talking about as that unfortunate @exnihiloest does prolifically in this forum. On the other hand, what really matters is the reality of the claims and, unfortunately, the things don't look too good in that department. As far as I understand, @Ashtweth_nihilisti is the main doer of the experiments discussed in this thread and his input cannot be neglected just like that. Still the more that the experiments in question are inherently problematic, as I mentioned earlier. So, some middle ground should be found to have something really productive come out of this discussion.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinde
Post by: WilbyInebriated on August 24, 2010, 10:56:47 PM
As far as I understand, @Ashtweth_nihilisti is the main doer of the experiments discussed in this thread and his input cannot be neglected just like that. Still the more that the experiments in question are inherently problematic, as I mentioned earlier. So, some middle ground should be found to have something really productive come out of this discussion.
your understanding is severely lacking if you think ashtweth has been the main "doer"... poynty99 did more with his sims of the circuit than ashtweth has done with it. why don't you go read the other thread, the one that is locked, and catch up a bit so you don't continue to make such asinine comments.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinde
Post by: Omnibus on August 24, 2010, 11:08:43 PM
Wait a second, sims are not actual experiments. Who was carrying out the experiments themselves?

Having said that, I think sims have their own place and are extremely important. @poynt99 impressed me with his sims of eOrbo. He's really good at that. Has he shown OU in his simulations? I'd be most interested to see them if so. Do you have a link?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinde
Post by: WilbyInebriated on August 25, 2010, 12:09:37 AM
.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 25, 2010, 05:47:44 AM
Hi all.  The good news is that if I am banned then I have already got another thread.  We'll post a link as required.  This time - at least - I won't be running around trying to find somewhere to speak.  LOL.  But frankly I think that the level of Ash's importance and clout is rather less than he assumes.  And I'm satisfied that Steve can think for himself.  My only concern is that Ash does not somehow secretely own this forum.  He parades his poverty and it's my experience that such are usually excessively rich. 

In any event.  It seems that Bill may have finally silenced him.  We'll wait a day or so to see.

Kindest regards and thanks to all for speaking out on this. 
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 25, 2010, 11:36:49 AM
You guys certainly dont have any thing to worry about from me here, this thread/forum is a dead end for us. Carry on doing what you are doing good luck.There is no reason to post here for us any more.

Ash

Hi all.  I'm copying Ash's commitment - for good order.  Hopefully now he's given us permission to 'continue'. 

I'll get back here later.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 26, 2010, 04:27:25 AM
Hi Guys,

I've woken up to a clean thread.  And yet more off forum support.  Many thanks to those who've written in.  Subject to your approval and - as required - I'll use these messages and emails to let Harti see the level of support I actually have - if no-one minds - and if 'banning' is actually Harti's solution here.  I think I'm beginning to 'breath easy' - the more so as I KNOW that Ash has been innundating Steve with emails about me and - thus far - he hasn't contacted me or banned me.  Frankly - from where I sit - Ash's support base of '5 AND EF.COM ADMIN' LOL - is still in a ridiculous minority.  But - even if I am banned - I've got another thread.  Seems like there's a widening level of interest and what could be nicer.  But I must say I'm happy here.  Not only can I navigate this site - more or less - but I've discovered a whole lot of posters who are NOT at the mercy of Admin to speak only 'as required' about 'what's required'.  I wonder if Ash et al - were simply elbowing in here as interest in their efforts is waning somewhat.  Certainly that seems feasible.  It just still strikes me as EXTRAORDINARY that they can come to THIS forum and tell me what to work on.  Anyway.  Enough said.

One member has pointed out to me that it is the nature of people to be polarised.  And frankly, it's probably a good thing. 

Kindest regards and many thanks to all - especially our Pirate.  That was an extended fight and I - for one - was blown away at the that skilled use of that cutlass.

Rosemary

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinde
Post by: CompuTutor on August 26, 2010, 11:43:17 AM
poynty99 did more with his sims of the circuit than ashtweth has done with it.

It was my understanding that things like this crap
were the very reason he started his own forum, wasnt it?

Anyway, Rosemary Ainslie, I can't find much fault with you.

I for one left EF for quite a while
when I couldn't even carry a topic
and follow peoples responses because of
a pissing contest littering up the thread
and causing all people to have to scroll past
several "He said / She said" space waster's
by the very people supposed to moderate the forum.

I feel ya' on that one, you have my support.

I did note your response in one of those twenty
"Click-dick" threads, but I didn't reply because
I just wanted them to all fall of the daily list.

Thank you for your support on that one,
and all others that refrained from posting in them too.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Pirate88179 on August 26, 2010, 11:45:46 AM
No, he violated the Terms Of Service for this website multiple times and was warned multiple times and was banned, that is why he started his own forum. Just for the record.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinde
Post by: CompuTutor on August 26, 2010, 11:52:45 AM
Heheh, OK, thank you for clarification sir.  ;)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinde
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 26, 2010, 04:42:55 PM
Thanks for the vote of confidence CompuTutor.  And sorry I posted on the thread when you said I shouldn't.  I didn't get your point - but I realised afterwards.  And I couldn't delete.  So there you go.  I was stuck.  Clearly too trigger happy with the post button.  :D

Guys I'll get back on topic in the morning.  I've still got much to point out on our tests.  But right now I'm exhausted. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 28, 2010, 12:14:08 AM
Hi guys,

I've promised an update.  In fact it's keeping me from sleep - so I really need to attend to this.

To begin with are our tests.  Procedures are painfully slow.  Our IGB's arrived and were delivered on Wednesday this week.  Our Mosfets arrived yesterday and will be delivered on Monday.  The switching circuits have, apparently, been built and - with these latest deliveries - I'm reasonably sure that we can begin some actual tests on Tuesday at the latest.

I'm still to sort out the battery clamps and leads - a small excursion into some basic soldering which I trust I'll be equal to - and then - who knows.  We may finally be able to give some test numbers.  Our first tests are on the standard element which I'll post hereafter as a reminder.  We do not expect much benefit here but need to test this as a 'base' - although it is unlikely that it'll give us the required resonance.  When those tests are finished then the flashing on the cylinder will need to be cut out and replaced with wider flashing to take the new resistors which also need testings.  So.  Extended test periods expected. 

We have got a school - dedicated to teaching 3D computer animations - to help with the illustrations of the model - which, hopefully, will make my thesis a little clearer.  These should be completed by the end of next week - at least enough to get some youtube numbers up - but it won't be the finished article.  My intention here is to post on youtube and to add more illustrations to the thesis. 

We are also building a rig to test some more magnetic fields.  Here the inspiration is from Dave and I've already posted a rough schematic on this but have lost the thread where I posted it.  If any of you know where I can find it again I'd be glad of help.  But as it's to do with the thesis I may just post links here as well.

So, God willing next week should be busy.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35909676/REVISION-OF-DARK-MATTER-MFM

Btw.  Nice to see that I've got my thread back.  Hopefully I'll be able to keep it.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 28, 2010, 08:36:20 PM
Just trying to do a download.  sorry guys.  Bear with me
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: powercat on August 29, 2010, 10:06:08 PM
Before going any further please check your mathematical skills
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drE5cHe6c3s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drE5cHe6c3s)
cat
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 30, 2010, 05:50:43 PM
Before going any further please check your mathematical skills
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drE5cHe6c3s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drE5cHe6c3s)
cat

Hello Cat.  I saw this briefly this morning.  Have been innundated.

 ;D  I see you're taking the trouble to educate me in mathematics.  You must give up here Cat.  I'm way too old.  Nor can I comment on the protocols he's using - but I'll tell you what.  The questions are really mind bending while I thought the answers disappointingly trivial.   ::) And I guessed 8 on the one question.  He seemed rather hooked on that number.  LOL.

 ;D
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on August 31, 2010, 06:36:36 AM
Hi guys,
Just a quick update.  I've soldered some battery clamps and have delivered the MOSFETS.  Our academics have written software for our record purposes and today I'll be taking one of my computers to be the happy recipient of all that data to come.

Progress - AT LAST and looking forward to giving you all some updates.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Here's what we'll be testing.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: twinbeard on September 01, 2010, 05:37:12 AM
Hi Rosemary,

Its nice to be here, and I hope I can be of assistance with your endeavors.  Give me a bit to read the previous 35 pages or so to catch up:)

Cheers,
Twinbeard
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on September 01, 2010, 06:09:23 AM
Hi TwinBeard and welcome.  I'm a bit slow on this thread - but I'll get back here soon.  Morning has now dawned and I'm about to turn in for some sleep.  LOL

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Hope on September 01, 2010, 07:05:38 AM
Out of Africa comes this excellent friend to the world,  thank you all!   (AND an apology to CompuTutor mistaken id, I thought you were a troll, NOT!)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on September 01, 2010, 07:45:01 PM
Hi Hope,  many thanks for the kind thoughts. 

Guys ...and girls?

I've actually done an 'allnighter' - last night - followed by an 'all dayer' today and if I don't try and get some sleep I think I'll be buzzing into a total decline. 

But just a quick little 'dream' I need to articulate.  I have a thesis or a 'partial theory' that needs endless refinements.  I've been working all day on it with my friend.  I see SO much scope for the improvements from all you experts out there.  Maybe like that open source software system that my son tells me about.  Apparently it's there for refinement and improvements.  I want to get this thesis out there on the same basis - and allow those that can - to just keep adding.  Just in the little we've finished today shows me how many questions are 'left behind'.  And where the potentials need to be better exploited.  I LOVE the idea.  But I need to get it to a kind of forum that all can do the required - as required.  Maybe Wilby or Steve can advise?  In any event.  The idea is sort of crystalising.  In the meantime - hopefully by the weekend - I'll be able to start introducing some early concepts related to this on YouTube.  I see how much more articulate are designs than words.  It's really exciting stuff.

Kindest and best to all participants here.  I regard myself as both fortunate and privileged to be among so many friends.

Rosemary

EDITED
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: twinbeard on September 01, 2010, 08:22:02 PM
Hi Rosemary,

I have been working with and on open source software for a little more than a decade, and have been involved in internet organized globally distributed development projects for longer than that.  We essentially have a formula or protocol for this type of thing, involving some basic digital infrastructure.

A "parts list" if you will:

*A email mailing list, such as provided by the GNU Mailman Suite.
*A realtime, logged multiparty chat... we generally use an IRC (Internet Relay Chat) channel, such as those provided by freenode.net.
*A method of document control, also known as a versioning system, which allows those with the proper credentials to make proposed edits, which are then approved or disapproved by a moderator.  Old revisions are archived and datestamped.  CVS, SVN, and GIT are popular applications for this purpose.
*A wiki style website module, embedded in a static website.  I tend to prefer the OddMuse wiki.  This is for publication to the general public, and should link to the resources described above.
*A message board like this one can be useful, but we have found it less than optimal for such purposes, due to network overhead as opposed to the methods described above.  If one is to enable the participation of those on slow or saturated network connections, keeping the byte count down is very handy.

This formula has proven effective time and time again across countless projects, and is the model I most recently used for the open development of my solar powered computer network products.  It is based on the model the internet itself  and the protocols thereto were and continue to be developed under.  You can see the aforementioned example at http://gnuveau.net/cgi-bin/wiki.cgi

Get some sleep, new friend.  I can easily set most of this up for you, if you like, on resources I already am in control of.

Cheers,
Twinbeard

Hi Hope,  many thanks for the kind thoughts. 

Guys ...and girls?

I've actually done an 'allnighter' - last night - followed by an 'all dayer' today and if I don't try and get some sleep I think I'll be buzzing into a total decline. 

But just a quick little 'dream' I need to articulate.  I have a thesis or a 'partial theory' that needs endless refinements.  I've been working all day on it with my friend.  I see SO much scope for the improvements from all you experts out there.  Maybe like that open source software system that my son tells me about.  Apparently it's there for refinement and improvements.  I want to get this thesis out there on the same basis - and allow those that can - to just keep adding.  Just in the little we've finished today shows me how many questions are 'left behind'.  And where the potentials need to be better exploited.  I LOVE the idea.  But I need to get it to a kind of forum that all can do the required - as required.  Maybe Wilby or Steve can advise?  In any event.  The idea is sort of crystalising.  In the meantime - hopefully by the weekend - I'll be able to start introducing some early concepts related to this on YouTube.  I see how much more articulate are designs than words.  It's really exciting stuff.

Kindest and best to all participants here.  I regard myself as both fortunate and privileged to be among so many friends.

Rosemary

EDITED
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on September 02, 2010, 04:17:07 PM
Guys I just need to make reference to these batteries - kindly donated and MUCH APPRECIATED.  I couldn't upload the previous as the photos were blurred.  Hopefully this is clearer.

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on September 02, 2010, 04:18:52 PM
Hi again.  I still can't seem to get two pictures onto the one post. Sorry about that.  Here's the second.

LOL  I've found out what's need - and that by accident.  But since I'd like to give this max exposure I'll just leave both pictures. 

MANY THANKS INDEED FOR THESE BATTERIES.  MUCH APPRECIATED.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on September 02, 2010, 04:24:51 PM
Guys I'm also waiting for some shots from our 3D animations.  When I get them I'll start posting.  These will be early shots - just to show the sequential logic in the thesis. 

Regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35909676/REVISION-OF-DARK-MATTER-MFM
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on September 02, 2010, 05:04:13 PM
Hi Rosemary,

I have been working with and on open source software for a little more than a decade, and have been involved in internet organized globally distributed development projects for longer than that.  We essentially have a formula or protocol for this type of thing, involving some basic digital infrastructure.

A "parts list" if you will:

*A email mailing list, such as provided by the GNU Mailman Suite.
*A realtime, logged multiparty chat... we generally use an IRC (Internet Relay Chat) channel, such as those provided by freenode.net.
*A method of document control, also known as a versioning system, which allows those with the proper credentials to make proposed edits, which are then approved or disapproved by a moderator.  Old revisions are archived and datestamped.  CVS, SVN, and GIT are popular applications for this purpose.
*A wiki style website module, embedded in a static website.  I tend to prefer the OddMuse wiki.  This is for publication to the general public, and should link to the resources described above.
*A message board like this one can be useful, but we have found it less than optimal for such purposes, due to network overhead as opposed to the methods described above.  If one is to enable the participation of those on slow or saturated network connections, keeping the byte count down is very handy.

This formula has proven effective time and time again across countless projects, and is the model I most recently used for the open development of my solar powered computer network products.  It is based on the model the internet itself  and the protocols thereto were and continue to be developed under.  You can see the aforementioned example at http://gnuveau.net/cgi-bin/wiki.cgi

Get some sleep, new friend.  I can easily set most of this up for you, if you like, on resources I already am in control of.

Cheers,
Twinbeard

Golly Twinbeard.  Seems there's not much you can't do here.  I need to give all this more thought.  But I really like the option and would be very glad to explore its implications more closely.  Perhaps an early documentary type movie with a supporting explanatory text - and then - onwards and upwards. 

I do have the thesis written but have learned - to my cost - that it's as clear as mud.  I need to make it simple.  It IS simple.  It's just difficult to put concept into words.  But, as I've seen now, a picture really is worth a thousand words.

But the thesis needs refinement.  If one can get the actual mapping of fields on a bipolar sphere then one would have some kind of an early start of those algorithms.  At this stage the fields are speculated - or evaluated from empirical evidence.  Not ideal - if we're to break new ground.  But I'm reasonably certain all this is doable.  Certainly it will need much more talent than I can bring to the table. 

But I can certainly justify the composite state of particles - in terms of their interaction with a 'field'.  In other words, there appears to be a consistency with what is known when I simply 'grow' the stable particles from those dipoles.  And while we don't yet know the constituent of the particles themselves - if it conforms then there's a least some supporting logic. 

Delighted to have you on board Twinbeard.  I'll be in touch.  I just need to get these videos behind me.  And I'm delighted to learn that all this is doable.  I see it as essential to tap in those with the talent and the interest in this field.  And it's potentially SO vast.  There's no one contributor can do it justice - is my humble opinion. 

 ;D

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

ADDED Just as a reminder to all.  If the aether IS magnetic in its fundamentals - then this will be time very well spent. 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: twinbeard on September 02, 2010, 06:13:13 PM
Golly Twinbeard.  Seems there's not much you can't do here.  I need to give all this more thought.  But I really like the option and would be very glad to explore its implications more closely.  Perhaps an early documentary type movie with a supporting explanatory text - and then - onwards and upwards. 

You are too kind, Rosemary... I am but a humble hacker who has been in the business for a while and made some friends.  Video does seem to do very well as a medium to attract people to a project.  The linux.com video article on the SolarNetOne drew more emails than I could reasonably handle.

I do have the thesis written but have learned - to my cost - that it's as clear as mud.  I need to make it simple.  It IS simple.  It's just difficult to put concept into words.  But, as I've seen now, a picture really is worth a thousand words.

But the thesis needs refinement.  If one can get the actual mapping of fields on a bipolar sphere then one would have some kind of an early start of those algorithms.

Here you go:

http://www.kjmagnetics.com/magfieldsphere.asp?pName=SY0

At this stage the fields are speculated - or evaluated from empirical evidence.  Not ideal - if we're to break new ground.  But I'm reasonably certain all this is doable.  Certainly it will need much more talent than I can bring to the table. 

What was the line from the film 'Field of Dreams'... "Build it and they will come."  :)

But I can certainly justify the composite state of particles - in terms of their interaction with a 'field'.  In other words, there appears to be a consistency with what is known when I simply 'grow' the stable particles from those dipoles.  And while we don't yet know the constituent of the particles themselves - if it conforms then there's a least some supporting logic. 

It might be less a case of growing them and more of polarizing in space the free particles that already exist everywhere, even in the "void" between recognized sub atomic particles, then harvesting them as they depolarize and seek equilibrium again. 

Delighted to have you on board Twinbeard.  I'll be in touch.  I just need to get these videos behind me.  And I'm delighted to learn that all this is doable.  I see it as essential to tap in those with the talent and the interest in this field.  And it's potentially SO vast.  There's no one contributor can do it justice - is my humble opinion. 
 ;D


It took the efforts of tens of thousands of people in concert to put a man on the moon;)



Kindest regards,
Rosemary

ADDED Just as a reminder to all.  If the aether IS magnetic in its fundamentals - then this will be time very well spent. 

Agreed.  And if they are magnetic, they are also electric.  I found the filamentary structures I was referring to in the other thread as appearing similar to Leedskalnins representation of north and south "individual magnets."  I had forgotten they were named after Birkeland.

There are short videos (10-15 seconds) showing Leedskalnins ideas on "individual magnets" here:
http://www.leedskalnin.com/

And a few images and background info on Birkeland currents:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cygnus-loop.gif
http://www.lucistrust.org/en/arcane_school/the_electric_bridge/sundry/the_electric_gods
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/birkeland.gif

'In 2007, NASA's THEMIS (Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms) project "found evidence of magnetic ropes connecting Earth's upper atmosphere directly to the sun," noting "that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms and auroras," thus reconfirming Birkeland's model of solar-terrestrial electrical interaction. NASA also likened the interaction to a "30 kiloVolt battery in space," noting the "flux rope pumps 650,000 Amp current into the Arctic!"'

Cheers,
Twinbeard
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on September 03, 2010, 07:54:19 AM

It might be less a case of growing them and more of polarizing in space the free particles that already exist everywhere, even in the "void" between recognized sub atomic particles, then harvesting them as they depolarize and seek equilibrium again.
I can't comment on this.  All I've proposed is that the structure of all particles can be resolved in terms of a proposed composite of that fundamental magnetic dipole.  You must remember that Bell's theorems conclude the ABSOLUTE requirement for consistency on a very fundamental level.  And I wonder if particles can simply be 'depolorised' at all.  I think what we need to find is that underlying 'pattern' if that describes anything.  It's a really big subject Twinbeard.  I'm sure you appreciate this. 

Agreed.  And if they are magnetic, they are also electric.
Again.  I acknowledge that there's an electromagnetic interaction.  Who could argue this?  But I don't know that a magnetic field requires an electric field.  I'm actually proposing that the magnetic field may be the fundamental source of all matter and all energy in matter.  I absolutely DO NOT argue the function of electrons within an atomic structure.  How could I?  It's well researched and evidence is empirical.   But I certainly argue that the magnetic force is dependent on an electric force.

... There are short videos (10-15 seconds) showing Leedskalnins ideas on "individual magnets" here:
http://www.leedskalnin.com/
I'm a great fan of Leedskalnin.  I buy into his 'little magnets' entirely.  But I CANNOT see the possibility of magnetic monopoles holding a 'field structure'.  It is my opinion that 'like charges' will always repel.  But the thing is that the resolution of the AC force does NOT need monopoles.  It only needs a 'field effect' with orbiting 'dipolar strings'.  If the AC was as depicted in those opposing coils - then the net force from them would be zero.  But that's just my opinion.   :D

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on September 03, 2010, 07:57:09 AM
Sorry Twinbeard - I'm losing posts all over the place.  I meant to have this one precede the previous and it seems I can't do this.

In any event - I'll just write this again.  Regarding that 'shared' development of the thesis - it's going to be tricky but certainly preferred.  And any assistance you can give here would be much appreciated.  But I'll get back to you on this.  I first need to get some draft where the concepts can be better understood.  I keep stating that the concepts are simple.  They are.  But they're not easy to explain in language. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: twinbeard on September 03, 2010, 09:52:37 AM
I can't comment on this.  All I've proposed is that the structure of all particles can be resolved in terms of a proposed composite of that fundamental magnetic dipole.  You must remember that Bell's theorems conclude the ABSOLUTE requirement for consistency on a very fundamental level.  And I wonder if particles can simply be 'depolorised' at all.  I think what we need to find is that underlying 'pattern' if that describes anything at all.  It's a really big subject Twinbeard.  I'm sure you appreciate this. 

Perhaps my choice of words was not as discriminatory as required... but please, let me know if my logic or operational assumptions are incorrect, in your opinion.  I further understand that perhaps you truly cannot comment, although likely not through unwillingness or lack of ability to do so.  I, however, am not in a position whereby I could potentially encounter any problems by making such statements, so here goes:

When we energize a coil, we create a magnetic dipole.  This much, I'm sure you will agree, is fundamental.  Any charged particle, or particle capable of developing such a charge inductively, which has mobility within the b field of that magnetic dipole will be repelled by one pole and attracted by the other, depending on charge state.  Also relatively fundamental, and what I was referring to with the term polarization.  Without the coil (or other influencing force) present, these particles naturally exist together in a state of equilibrium... a net zero charge when considering a decent sized sample.  That equilibrium is disrupted by the creation of the magnetic dipole.  When the disruption ceases; in this case when the coil is de-energized, nature seeks to restore its equilibrium.  When the disruption/cessation of disruption cycle happens above a critical frequency, and particularly with sharp gradients (absolute value of slope close to 1 in the graph described as voltage level on the y axis and time on x axis), __equilibrium__ thermodynamics is violated, and we can extract more energy from our open loop system than it takes to create the condition that is resonating our particles.  I making an assumption that you are well aware of this property of hard on and off switching... hence the IGBT's instead of MOSFETS;)  Nice choice on the wirewound resistor, also.  I have a few Ohmite variable models of similar construction that my father gave me.  What a great place to hide an aircore inductor.. in a heatsink!  At high frequency... wowie, look at that.  That resistor went negative on us!

An interesting panel on the 2nd law as applied above:
http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/520

An interesting article concerning your reference to Bell:
http://news.discovery.com/tech/teleportation-quantum-mechanics.html

I came across the latter (actually the original Chinese announcement) while conducting ongoing research concerning the possibility of using quantum entanglement as a Layer 1 for TCP/IP transmissions, and the possibility of this method having the quality of superluminal propogation for the purpose of latency free communication with devices orbiting nearby celestial bodies.  My hopes on that are to create a better backbone for our "Interplanetary Internet" than the present hertzian wave
store and forward method we are presently using.

Per the "underlying pattern,"  you may find this interesting:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/08/superconductor-fractals/


Yes, I am borderline autistic, and yes, I am pulling the majority of this out of my memory., and yes, I do tend to be very verbose!

Again.  I acknowledge that there's an electromagnetic interaction.  Who could argue this?  But I don't know that a magnetic field requires an electric field.  I'm actually proposing that the magnetic field may be the fundamental source of all matter and all energy in matter.  I absolutely DO NOT argue the function of electrons within an atomic structure.  How could I?  It's well researched and evidence is empirical.   
 

I am not sure that I am arguing its function either... just its structure.


But I certainly argue that the magnetic force is dependent on an electric force.

You will get no argument from me there!

I'm a great fan of Leedskalnin.  I buy into his 'little magnets' entirely. 

Me too, actually.  So much so that I am arranging a "field trip" for my girls to his home.
You are aware of the ruins off Yonaguni? 

http://www.google.com/images?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=yonaguni&oe=utf-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=-qOATNnuIIKKlwemqrCcDg&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CD8QsAQwAw&biw=1440&bih=627

Particularly:
http://www.city.ishigaki.okinawa.jp/en/engnews/ishigakitimes/yonaguni.jpg
Notice the star shaped raised dias on the right. 

Does it look familiar:
http://here4now.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341d171f53ef010536451be7970b-450wi

I just look for patterns...  ;)

But I CANNOT see the possibility of magnetic monopoles holding a 'field structure'.  It is my opinion that 'like charges' will always repel.  But the thing is that the resolution of the AC force does NOT need monopoles.  It only needs a 'field effect' with orbiting 'dipolar strings'.  If the AC was as depicted in those opposing coils - then the net force from them would be zero.  But that's just my opinion.   :D

Regards,
Rosemary

:)

Cheers,
Twinbeard
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: twinbeard on September 03, 2010, 09:56:49 AM
Sorry Twinbeard - I'm losing posts all over the place.  I meant to have this one precede the previous and it seems I can't do this.

In any event - I'll just write this again.  Regarding that 'shared' development of the thesis - it's going to be tricky but certainly preferred.  And any assistance you can give here would be much appreciated.  But I'll get back to you on this.  I first need to get some draft where the concepts can be better understood.  I keep stating that the concepts are simple.  They are.  But they're not easy to explain in language. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

No problem Rosemary.  Just let me know and I will turn on a mailing list for you, and we can sort out
the other pieces and parts, at your convenience and discretion, of course.

Cheers,
Twinbeard
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on September 03, 2010, 04:32:13 PM
Sorry guys, I started to download diagrams and found that the pictures were WAY too big.  I'll try and get some more off photobucket. Bear with me.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on September 03, 2010, 04:43:19 PM
Hopefully this one will work.  here goes. ???
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on September 03, 2010, 04:47:53 PM
I still need to download the electron but have not got the required size.  The proton and neutron both resolved from composites of the electron.  I'll do a brief summary of the thinking when I finally upload the electron.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on September 03, 2010, 06:12:24 PM
Hi again Twinbeard.  I saw that interminable discussion on Thermodynamic Laws and wondered if it wouldn't be as well to just email them this link - from our own forum.  LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbaub2kkkpA

From what I see it's a variation of the Nathan Stubblefield Earth Battery arrangement.  It really should be on the front page of every forum.  It's ground breaking results.  Perpetual Motion - and it's unarguable.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on September 03, 2010, 06:21:58 PM
Guys, the following is the justification of the size of the proton vs the electron - which is a consequence of this construct - for those who follow the thesis. 

If the photon comprises two zipons then the zipon would be half the size of the photon.  Velocity and mass have an inverse proportionate relationship.  So, if the photon moves at the speed of light (C) then the velocity of the zipon would be 2C.  Velocity and mass are inversely proportionate so, if the mass of the photon were given as 1, then the zipon would be 0.5.  If the electron comprises 3 truants then its mass would be 0.5 x 3 = 1.5.  And, if the proton comprises three electrons then, each electron would comprise 0.5 for the quark.  3 quarks having no volume is 0.5 x 3 = 1.5.  Four times bigger for the orbital zenith of the second truant is 1.5 x 4 = 6.  And four times bigger for the orbital zenith of the third truant is 6 x 4 = 24.   The second and third truant only have two dimensions of volume as they manifest within a prescribed space, that merry-go-round referred to in the field description.  Therefore, 3 second truants, having length and breadth is 6 x 6 x 3 = 108.  3 third truants having length and breadth is 24 x 24 x 3 = 1728.  This gives a mass of 1837.5, minus 1.5 for the quarks that have neither volume or mass, giving a total of 1836.  Some variation of this number is, no doubt, required to accommodate the spherical shape of the truants, but it’s complex – a 2 dimensional sphere.

Copied from the thesis.

Regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35909676/REVISION-OF-DARK-MATTER-MFM

Added  - And the neutron/proton arrangement - the neutron would then be precisely 1836 + 1.5 for the externalised 'quark' or electron arrangement.  It sort of conforms to actual known values so may be a fair construct.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on September 04, 2010, 09:02:33 AM
Guys, a couple of isolated bits of information that I'm proud to add to this thread.  The one is the most elegant variation of a Nathan Stubblefield battery - done by lasersaber that has blown certain thermodynamic constraints to blazes.  I'm just AMAZED that it's not drawing more attention.  I'll append the link.

The other thing is this.  Take your first given circle - any arbitrary size.  Six circles fit around that first circle.  Add 6 - same size - and 12 fit around the second circle.  Add 6 - and 18 fit around the 3rd circle.  Add 6 - and 24 fit around the 4th circle.  Add 6 - and 30 fit around the 5th circle.  FOREVER.  I've got an illustration of this but it's too big to upload here.  I'll try and get a smaller version.

This relationship was found by Riaan Theron.   ;D

And here's the link to lasersaber's video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbaub2kkkpA
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on September 05, 2010, 12:57:21 PM
Guys - just for the record.

Aaron has now officially locked all my threads and buried them on a subforum.  Meanwhile he displays the mosfet heating circuit thread on the front page of every forum.  That thread denies that I was the author of the circuit and it further denies benefit in the circuit.  Effectively the propagandising related to this technology is still rife. 

I seriously doubt that EF.com can be accused of 'advancing' ou technologies while these evident propagandising tools are required.

Regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33937867/IF-I-WAS-A-TROLL
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on September 07, 2010, 07:57:52 PM
I'm only posting here so that I don't lose this thread again.  I found it FINALLY in the 'whose on the forum link.  Someone patient - please help me learn my way around these forum topics.  There's still another thread I'm looking for.  The minute it drops off the first page it seems forever lost. 

Anyway - hopefully this one will survive until tomorrow when I have to do an update on our campus tests.

Sorry about this post's irrelevance.  Just scared of losing it again.

Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: mscoffman on September 07, 2010, 08:41:38 PM
I'm only posting here so that I don't lose this thread again.  I found it FINALLY in the 'whose on the forum link.  Someone patient - please help me learn my way around these forum topics.  There's still another thread I'm looking for.  The minute it drops off the first page it seems forever lost. 

Anyway - hopefully this one will survive until tomorrow when I have to do an update on our campus tests.

Sorry about this post's irrelevance.  Just scared of losing it again.

Rosemary

Dear Rosemary;

On the left side of the screen there is something called
the User Menu. If you click on *Show my posts* you'll get
your posts listed latest first and they have their link chain
headers available for clicking. Going into the "Forum" *is*
rather daunting.

:S:MarkSCoffman
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on September 07, 2010, 08:57:42 PM
THANK YOU Mark,

Much appreciated.  I've just done this and I see it now.  Wilby tried to explain this earlier and - to my shame - I forgot what he said and lost the link to where he said it.  I'm aging - AT SPEED.  LOL

The very best to you Mark and many thanks indeed.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Pirate88179 on September 08, 2010, 03:47:24 AM
Rose:

It is even easier than that.  At the top of the home page on the left where it says (in my case) Hello Pirate88179.  Directly under that is my avatar and to the right of my avatar are several links as follows:

Show unread posts since last visit
Show new replies to your posts (This is the only one I use all of the time)
Total time logged in

Now, if you do not see those choices there, that is easy to fix.  If all you see over there are:

Free Energy
Hello Rosemary
Home Forum Help Search Moderate Profile My messages members downloads logout

Then you need to open up your header.  This is done by going over to the top right of the homepage and, just after the date (Under the photos of those famous folks) you will see a little box with a "+" inside it.  Click on the + and it will open the header.

I leave mine open all the time and the "Show new replies to your posts" is the best tool and is not available on the menu on the left where Mark suggested you go.  This allows you to follow and read any new post to any topic you have ever posted in here.  That is how I can keep up with all of my moderator duties and remember what topics i have been following.

I believe I tried to point this all out to you before but, possibly it was someone else.

Let me know if you have any questions,

Bill
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on September 08, 2010, 06:51:29 AM
Rose:

It is even easier than that.  At the top of the home page on the left where it says (in my case) Hello Pirate88179.  Directly under that is my avatar and to the right of my avatar are several links as follows:

Show unread posts since last visit
Show new replies to your posts (This is the only one I use all of the time)
Total time logged in

Now, if you do not see those choices there, that is easy to fix.  If all you see over there are:

Free Energy
Hello Rosemary
Home Forum Help Search Moderate Profile My messages members downloads logout

Then you need to open up your header.  This is done by going over to the top right of the homepage and, just after the date (Under the photos of those famous folks) you will see a little box with a "+" inside it.  Click on the + and it will open the header.

I leave mine open all the time and the "Show new replies to your posts" is the best tool and is not available on the menu on the left where Mark suggested you go.  This allows you to follow and read any new post to any topic you have ever posted in here.  That is how I can keep up with all of my moderator duties and remember what topics i have been following.

I believe I tried to point this all out to you before but, possibly it was someone else.

Let me know if you have any questions,

Bill

DONE IT.  many thanks again Bill.  You really are kind.  I know someone told me what to do but I don't always pay due heed.  Apologies if that was you.

I wonder if Harti couldn't revise the software a bit and make all this more user friendly?  The other thing that would be nice is 'colour'.  And I'd love to see that trick of putting 'viewers' at the bottom of the thread page as they do at EF.com.  Just a thought.  Maybe you and he could sort something out?  It would be nice.

Kindest regards as ever,
Rosie
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Pirate88179 on September 08, 2010, 07:48:33 AM
Rose:

Thank you for your thanks, I am glad it helped.

Color?  There are many choices here for color and background, etc.  I keep mine as plain as possible for faster page loading but, if you really want it, I will look into finding out how to do that.  There are a lot of things the users can adjust here, for example, I am running Firefox with adblock and no script.  I do not see any ads at all and this makes the pages load very fast.

I am not all that familiar with the software Stefan is using but, over the years, I have learned how to tweak a few things here and there.  PM me if you want me to look into how to change something for you.

Bill   PS I am a moderator on certain topic areas and many topics, but not on the site itself.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Pirate88179 on September 08, 2010, 02:48:13 PM
Rose:

I looked it up. (colors)

Go to your profile.

Select "Look and Layout" from the tab marked modify profile. (its a drop down menu)

3 lines down from those tabs now select "change" next to Current Theme.  Choose the theme that you want.  I use the basic, less distracting.

Hope this helps.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: twinbeard on September 08, 2010, 05:49:55 PM
Hi Rosemary,

A picture is indeed worth a thousand words...  those renders are very telling.  I have put together similar 3d models as a result, and time permitting, will attempt to make visuals representing what I am talking about with multitudes of tiny particles as opposed to spheres.  To be clear, that is a lithium nucleus you have modeled?  I am reviewing your other documents... my time is short at the moment with customers and my little ones, so pardon my delay in responding.  Also, I am not sure what 3d modeling package you are using, but I have experience with the concepts involved in modeling from similar work some time ago.  NURBS curves and surfaces might be quite handy for you in this process... they allow control over movement/placement of single or multiple vertices
as opposed to the entire piece of geometry.


Hi Bill,
Nice to meet you.  Great work on the EB and Joule Thief... good to see another Jolly Roger on the horizon;)

Cheers,
Twinbeard
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on September 09, 2010, 09:48:48 AM
Hi Rosemary,

A picture is indeed worth a thousand words...  those renders are very telling.  I have put together similar 3d models as a result, and time permitting, will attempt to make visuals representing what I am talking about with multitudes of tiny particles as opposed to spheres.  To be clear, that is a lithium nucleus you have modeled?  I am reviewing your other documents... my time is short at the moment with customers and my little ones, so pardon my delay in responding.  Also, I am not sure what 3d modeling package you are using, but I have experience with the concepts involved in modeling from similar work some time ago.  NURBS curves and surfaces might be quite handy for you in this process... they allow control over movement/placement of single or multiple vertices
as opposed to the entire piece of geometry.


Hi Bill,
Nice to meet you.  Great work on the EB and Joule Thief... good to see another Jolly Roger on the horizon;)

Cheers,
Twinbeard

Hi Twinbeard - thanks for this.  I need to disabuse you of any idea that it's my software that I'm working with here.  It's the skilled work of a friend of mine who's trying to help me with the model.  We've actually designed a proton which has the required Gluon/Pion/quark mix that our classicists have identified and in the right ratios.  So it conforms.  But it was never an 'imposed' design.  It's a natural progression of the structure from composites of that elusive dipole.   ;D

He's finally structued the electron - but I need to upload it and I want to try and upload it - in motion - if possible.  It's blow away stuff.  Very careful symmetries and - since the proposal is that the proton = 3 electrons then we've hopefully resolved the proton's interactions as well.

In any event - I'll try and upload this later or impose on a friend to do it for me.

Guys - apologies for not being able to upload more on the switches for the application test.  We're still working against holidays on campus and those of us that are still plodding - we're in need of some guidance that is not quite there yet.  One needs huge helpings of patience and it's not something that the Good Lord gave me in any significant quantities. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

ADDED  And Bill - my manners are appalling.  I missed all these posts because I was down last night.  Thank you - as ever.  I'm truly indebted.  If you're not a full on moderator it's my opinion that you should be.  Your contributions are GOLD.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: twinbeard on September 09, 2010, 05:52:46 PM
Hi Twinbeard - thanks for this.  I need to disabuse you of any idea that it's my software that I'm working with here.  It's the skilled work of a friend of mine who's trying to help me with the model.  We've actually designed a proton which has the required Gluon/Pion/quark mix that our classicists have identified and in the right ratios.  So it conforms.  But it was never an 'imposed' design.  It's a natural progression of the structure from composites of that elusive dipole.   ;D

He's finally structued the electron - but I need to upload it and I want to try and upload it - in motion - if possible.  It's blow away stuff.  Very careful symmetries and - since the proposal is that the proton = 3 electrons then we've hopefully resolved the proton's interactions as well.

Well, whomever is responsible, it is telling.  I like the field overlapping showing the distribution of charge.  It was this that I was referring to concerning the NURBS.  One could match those field representations to the actual shapes of those interacting fields... much like a Flux Transfer Event between the Sun and Earth: 

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/30oct_ftes/
http://techtransfer.gsfc.nasa.gov/newsletter/images/SDO09-fluxrope-590px.jpg
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/203795main_FluxPower_400.jpg

once every 8 minutes... approximately 2.083 x 10^-3 hertz.
 at we get hit with a DC pulse of 650kA @ 30kV.


I concur that animating any interaction would be most advantageous.

I spent a few hours playing with a fractal explorer last night, and found some patterns that may interest you, appearing similar to your renderings in some instances, and complex interactions of magnetic fields in others: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqPlzsXvScs

I have yet to texture the models I made appropriately to show my concept of "another fractal iteration" in sub atomic particles... hopefully I can get to that soon.  I look forward to your electron animations/renders!

Cheers,
Twinbeard

In any event - I'll try and upload this later or impose on a friend to do it for me.

Guys - apologies for not being able to upload more on the switches for the application test.  We're still working against holidays on campus and those of us that are still plodding - we're in need of some guidance that is not quite there yet.  One needs huge helpings of patience and it's not something that the Good Lord gave me in any significant quantities. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

ADDED  And Bill - my manners are appalling.  I missed all these posts because I was down last night.  Thank you - as ever.  I'm truly indebted.  If you're not a full on moderator it's my opinion that you should be.  Your contributions are GOLD.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Pirate88179 on September 09, 2010, 06:03:44 PM
Twinbeard:

Avast!  Nice to me you too and thank you.

Rose:

Thank you too.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on September 10, 2010, 07:51:55 PM
Hi guys,

I need to acknowledge something which I reported on wrongly.  It appears my 'locked threads' at EF.com do, indeed, have the equivalent exposure to the Mosfet Heating circuits.  It's nice to know.  What's not so 'happy' is that I cannot comment on the spurious nonsense related to that interminable debate regarding the battery draw downs, nor the claims by Aaron that he put in 'thousands of hours' of testing.  Rather overstated and I think intended to justify his appropriation of my Fluke that should have been more generally available.

But I am grateful that those threads haven't also been buried.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on September 11, 2010, 09:37:51 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2a3uTU0fgc&feature=related

I can't find the appropriate thread and I don't want to lose this again.  So for now I'm just holding this video here

Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on September 14, 2010, 10:12:19 AM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aG_DtkoV8Wo?hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aG_DtkoV8Wo?hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: nievesoliveras on September 14, 2010, 02:48:04 PM
For clarity of the last @rosemary post

A magnetic field of a stationary magnet or Faraday lines of force

http://www.youtube.com/v/aG_DtkoV8Wo?hl=en&fs=1
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on September 17, 2010, 08:15:30 AM
Hi Loner...and Jesus.  I had NO idea you'd sorted out that link for me Jesus.  MANY THANKS INDEED.  And Loner, you're right.  The lines are better expressed with more of them.  I think there is another description of the lines - we're still working on the narrative.  This one is meant to 'highlight' the 'invisiblity'?  Maybe?  Not quite sure.

I'm still working on that narrative.  It's been a nightmare trying to find the right register.  The object here is to 'clarify' the thesis - but right now the simplicity of presentation is somewhat insultingly simplistic.  Never struggled so much over anything.  But I've rather shelved this for a week or so.  I need to get back on track.  Thanks loner.  Your interest has re-motivated me.

Kindest regards to you both
Rosie
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on September 21, 2010, 08:11:31 PM
Hi Guys.  We've FINALLY got our switching apparatus switching.  Very nice negative numbers and a nice wobbly waveform.  But nothing in the way of heat on the resistor.  We should have a computer up to record numbers - hopefully as soon as tomorrow. 

And hopefully - tomorrow - we'll be able to test it at higher voltages.  We're still establishing the base line with the standard - not so standard resistor.  So.  The start of spring and we're finally getting to do our tests.  It's been a LONG haul.

As soon as we get the data capture number up I'll start feeding through numbers here.  May be boring presentations but hopefully interesting reading.

Spring is sprung,
The grass is riz
I wonder where the boidie is?
The boid is on the wing
Which is absoid.  The wing is on the boid.

Just a tribute to the worst poem ever penned - and possibly one of the most widely quoted.  LOL.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on September 22, 2010, 12:53:42 PM
Hi again.  I was hoping to get some data down for this morning - but the delays have set in again.  Our computer needs to be installed and a cable link established.  Hopefully this will be done tomorrow or soon thereafter.

I'll definitely be in a position to take some photographs tomorrow with the switches both IGBT and MOSFET up and running - and - at its least - a picture off the scope we're using.  Another - en route - but we're using Tektronix here - albeit not of the same 'class' as our open source experiments. 

We've also had some extra lighting installed in the lab.  It's coming on.  Really nicely.   ;D

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on September 22, 2010, 04:09:28 PM
Hopefully this time I'll get it right.  A tribute to the skills at scale modelling - by Theo - and a tribute to our students who are helping build the real thing in conjuction with the French Institute of Technology.

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: helicalred on September 23, 2010, 12:37:20 PM
Hello Rosemary,

Reply #556: What is it a picture of?

- Bill
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on September 23, 2010, 12:48:04 PM
Hi - another Bill?  It's a satellite.  SA have only ever sent one up into orbit.  This is a new one proposed - and being built in conjunction with a couple of campuses here in the Western Cape.  We're all very proud of the efforts - and I think with good reason.  Actually there are two being built.  I just thought I need pay some small tribute to these HUGE inroads our academic scientists are covering.  And I happened to know the maker of the scale model.

It's entirely OFF topic - but I'm sort of associated with one of these campuses - and just wanted to point out how PROGRESSIVE and EXCELLENT are  the general academic standards.  We're third world in many, many ways.  But when one looks at this standard of expertise - education - skills - and so on - then I know we're certainly NOT third world in educational standards.  It's a source of endless pride.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: helicalred on September 23, 2010, 02:39:40 PM
Thanks Rosemary, Now I understand.

Keep up the good work,
- Bill (Yup. Another one. Ubiquitous aren't we?)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on September 23, 2010, 04:33:22 PM

- Bill (Yup. Another one. Ubiquitous aren't we?)

 ;D  I'm not complaining.  It's a nice name - and seems to belong to some really nice people.  Thanks for the good wishes. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on September 25, 2010, 02:25:47 AM
Guys - this is an extract from an essay I'm working on.  It's probably very contentious - but it's where I come in on some aspects of mainstream science.

If we could see gravitons we’d know everything about gravity.  If we could see electrons we’d know everything about electricity.  If we could see the interaction of particles with each other then we’d know everything about the strong and weak nuclear forces.  We can’t see them.  We can’t even see an atom.  And we certainly can’t see the forces to explain them.  We can only speculate.  And when and if we do speculate then we’re no longer being scientific.  We’re being philosophical. 

The confusions that have been visited on this noble art of science is based on the philosophical reach that science is now trying to usurp.  A scientist does not have the disciplines of logic that are required for philosophy any more than a philosopher has the required acuities of observation and measurement that a scientist has.  The difference is only in this.  A philosopher does not, as a rule, dabble in science.  But our scientists are shamelessly dabbling in philosophies.  And it is all being done with such disgraceful parade of poor logic that, in the fullness of time, these last pages of its history are likely to remain as a source of more than a little embarrassment.   Whole chapters of scientific progress – based on nothing but pure speculation and the accidental use of concepts that partially work and partially don’t work.  And all of it presented with a kind of intellectual flourish – a parade of self aggrandisement that would rival the pride of Lucifer himself. 

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.  Terms are presented as acronyms and all is justified in the language of algebra.  Complex equations drift into ever greater complexities that would confuse God himself.  And all is intended simply to hide the manifold confusions that actually bedevil science itself.

It is possibly understandable that our experts feel required to explain ‘all’.  But these explanations are drifting into realms of obscurity  that have nothing to do with reason or logic or common sense or indeed science or philosophy.   It has simply become pretension.  What’s euphemistically referenced as theory is actually just  obscure jibberish masquerading as deep intellectual knowledge.  It makes the toes curl.   One must be ‘trained’ in science – of necessity.  It is not meant to be understood - certainly not as propounded by our experts.  Their intention is to flaunt a familiarity with complex abstractions.  And to own up to a lack of understanding would be to let the side down – to somehow admit to the disgrace of not actually being able to see the emperor’s new clothes. 

Let’s explore some of the confusions – let’s actually focus on the bare facts - on some of those manifold contradictions which our mainstream experts defend.  Starting with current flow.  Now.  We all know that electrical engineering is the applied knowledge of the electromagnetic force – so ably unfolded by Faraday and quantified by Maxwell.  And so widely applied in today’s technological revolution.  Our satellites, our trips to distant planets and more to come.  Our internet – our computers – our – cars – our measuring instruments, and on an on.  Examples of their skills are evident everywhere.

And yet.  Amongst all those able, those skilled engineers – the vast majority will insist that electricity is the result of electrons moving through their circuits in the form of current flow.  No matter that Pauli’s insights depended on the simple fact that electrons do not share a path. No matter that we have never been able to get electrons to move in the same direction without forcing them by the application of some very real energy.  No matter that electrons have a like charge and we could not get them to co-operate with each other in a shared environment any more than we can get to souths of two magnets to co-operate.  No matter that no-one has ever found ‘spare’ electrons inside circuit wiring.

Then there’s the pesky problem of charge balance.  The chemical analysis that is so ably applied by our chemistry experts determines  that every single electron inside a cell is fully accounted for in the formula relating to an electrolytic interaction. This chemical process will systematically move to neutralise the electrolyte without losing a single electron from the original molecules within the cell or any of the atoms which form the electrodes to that cell.  Yet the puzzle then is this.  When we recharge that flat battery we are told that electrons from a utility or any supply source replenishes that cell with electrons.  And this restores that condition where potential difference is again evident.  Where are our chemists pointing out the impossibility of this?   

And if the glove still doesn’t fit – then try another explanation.  We are now told that the actual current flow is the result of one valence electron somehow influencing a neighbouring electron – in a kind of domino effect.  Here the proposal is that the electrons do not actually move towards each other but in the same general direction.  Now we’ve got over the ‘shared path’ problem and that ‘no loss of electrons’ number.  This would certainly account for current flow.  But the problem is this.  Our scientists know the speed at which one valence electron would influence another valence electron.  And it would take up to half an hour for it to travel through the average two meters of circuit wire before it would reach the light to light it or to reach the kettle to heat it.  There would be a required delay between the switching of the switch and the lighting of the light to get that process started.  But, in all other respects it could – otherwise – have been a reasonable explanation.  But it’s self-evidently spurious.   

There's another problem.  We all know that if electrons were the actual ‘thing’ that was transferred from our generators by our utility supply sources, then those generators would need to supply an almost inexhaustible amount of electrons that somehow turn into photons that also somehow light whole cities – all of them linked, as is often the case, to a single supply grid.  The truth is that no utility supply source would be able to access that many electrons.

So.  Again.  Another glove.  Another qualification.   We are then told that actually the electrons themselves are ‘free floating’ and they intrude into the material of the conductive wiring.  They do not come from the supply source itself.  Which also means that these electrons that are somehow detached from any particular ‘home’ – are floating about in the air belonging to no atoms – just free for the taking.  And we must now get our heads around the problem that not only is our atmosphere saturated with these previously undetected little numbers but that they can move into the circuitry – all over the place, straight through the heavy barriers of insulation which was first applied to prevent this from happening, precisely because it’s impossible for electrons to breach this insulating material.

Challenge any scientist, any chemist, on any of these points and, in the unlikely event that they continue to the conversation, they will do so in a loud voice and with more than a hint of exasperation.  What gets me every time is their usual defence based as it is on the statement that I should not question ‘what has been known and used for centuries now ’.  Somehow this is sufficient justification.  And God alone knows why because it certainly it’s not logical.

I would modestly propose that in the light of so much improbability – it may be proposed that – whatever else it is - current flow is NOT the flow of electrons, nor, as I’ve seen it suggested even on these forums, the flow of protons, or ions or anything at all that belongs to the atom.  Else it would be logically evident.  And it is not.   

Then to attend to other confusions...

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on September 25, 2010, 09:44:01 AM
This is some more problems - this time relating to gravity.

Then to attend to other confusions especially as it relates to gravity.  Gravity – a weak force – apparently permeates the universe and acts as a kind of ‘glue’ on matter.  It only attracts.  It never repels.  If, indeed, all began as a Big Bang – then all that energy will systematically deplete until there is a kind of Big Crunch – where all disappears into the void that proceeded that bang.  Just as the electron is the ‘carrier’ of electrical energy – the graviton is philosophised to carry the gravitational energy.  But the graviton has NOT been seen.  Yet all is explained as if such a particle were extant.  Millions of dollars, euros, rupees, whatever, have been spent on trying to find the smallest ripple in the vast space time continuum around us and beyond us -  in those seemingly infinite reaches of space.

Where is the  evidence of this little particle?  Not even the faintest of faintest of these ripples has been found.  Not a whisper.  Not a shadow.  Notwithstanding which we’re assured that this lack of evidence is actually not a problem.  It is not considered to be sufficient reason to preclude the particle nor to discontinue the experiments.  We are told to ignore the ‘absence of evidence’.  A trivial requirement, a small stepping stone.  Step aside from this point.  Look the other way -  until, again and in the fullness of time, this required evidence must surely come to hand.  And until then – and in its absence  – it is to be regarded and referenced as a FACT.  This because our philosophical scientists are no longer requiring evidence to support a theory.  It’s enough to just balance those interminable equations – those  indecipherable and incomprehensible sums.

Now.  While it is understood that gravity is attractive – and ONLY attractive to all matter – for some reason our universe is not drifting towards a Big Crunch.  On the contrary.  Space is EXPANDING. And this is now also referenced as  FACT.  It seems that it’s enough for two schools to have reached the identical conclusion to establish a new scientific reality.  No-one questions the logic that supported this conclusion.  But there’s a small caveat.  The galaxies and stars and planets are not expanding.  It’s the actual space between them that – like poor little Alice stuck inside a rabbit hole – that is actually growing ever bigger and bigger.  And all this space is expanding at a predictable rate and is responsible for systematically propelling great clumps of matter apart from other great clumps of matter – all at a consistent and quantifiable velocity. 

Those that subscribe to this new evidence are careful NOT to reference the evidence of galaxies colliding – as this would put paid to their sums.  And those that do not subscribe – carefully do not reference these same galaxial collisions – for the same but opposite reasons.  I’ll get back to this point.  But for now the point is this.  If space is expanding, and yet galaxies collide – then that expansion is either not smooth or the galaxies themselves drift through space with varying velocities that would introduce a marvel of chaos to the otherwise and seemingly ordered and structured condition of our universe.   

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on September 26, 2010, 12:24:28 PM
Guys - for those that are still reading here.  Just a little more on that same essay.  When this exercise is finally finished I solemnly promise not to 'rant' against this again.   ;D  Judging from the lack of readers here I suspect the subject is not that compelling.  Which is a pity.  Because IMHO it's quite important.  Anyway.

Then more confusions.  We are told that nothing can exceed light speed unless it also had infinite mass.  Really?  In which case does that explain why photons that have no mass are able to travel at light speed?  And then what does one do with this famous equation where E = mc^2?  If the photon’s mass is zero then zero times any value greater or smaller than 1 – remains ZERO.  Where then is all this energy that moves at photon at light speed?  The truth of the matter is that science took a wrong turn somewhere and is reluctant to ‘go back’ so to speak.  Somewhere – somehow – the answers that were given as an explanation for all the forces were also somehow based on some erroneous foundation – a flaw in its structure.  And I would humbly suggest that this may have everything to do with the need to speculate on the properties of forces that remain invisible and particles that can only be studied by inference.

Herein lies the actual problem.   
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Hope on September 26, 2010, 08:30:23 PM
If there is no effect on mass perhaps we are working with a -1 charge, what some call anti matter.  It may very well be that the neutral point can coexist wilth both matters.   Seeing this as not incidental you may recognize its similarity in loosely bound electrons, giving matter/anti matter a working exchange path.  (AND of course this is only my thoughts toward the non gravity effect)  Thank you Rosie

edited on spelling
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: fritz on September 26, 2010, 09:58:08 PM
Hi Rose,

(just for reference)
===============
There is a debate about the usage of the term "mass" in relativity theory. If inertial mass is defined in terms of momentum then it does indeed vary as M = γm0  for a single particle that has rest mass, furthermore, as will be shown below the energy of a particle that has a rest mass is given by E = Mc2. Prior to the debate about nomenclature the function m(u), or the relation M = γm0, used to be called 'relativistic mass', and its value in the frame of the particle was referred to as the 'rest mass' or 'invariant mass'. The relativistic mass, M = γm0, would increase with velocity. Both terms are now largely obsolete: the 'rest mass' is today simply called the mass, and the 'relativistic mass' is often no longer used since, it is identical to the energy but for the units.
===============

So this would mean that mass of the particle will be constant, whatever velocity,


rgds.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on September 27, 2010, 09:48:47 AM
Hi Rose,

(just for reference)
===============
There is a debate about the usage of the term "mass" in relativity theory. If inertial mass is defined in terms of momentum then it does indeed vary as M = γm0  for a single particle that has rest mass, furthermore, as will be shown below the energy of a particle that has a rest mass is given by E = Mc2. Prior to the debate about nomenclature the function m(u), or the relation M = γm0, used to be called 'relativistic mass', and its value in the frame of the particle was referred to as the 'rest mass' or 'invariant mass'. The relativistic mass, M = γm0, would increase with velocity. Both terms are now largely obsolete: the 'rest mass' is today simply called the mass, and the 'relativistic mass' is often no longer used since, it is identical to the energy but for the units.
===============

So this would mean that mass of the particle will be constant, whatever velocity,


rgds.

Hi Friz,  I googled the same reference.  I hope you realise that what is actually being said here is that E does not equal mc^2?  My point, in any event, is that the photon needs to have mass - else it has no energy - not even in the unlikely event that it also ever had a rest state. 

Some time back you reference the need for a 'miracle' to explain our results.  I put it to you that it would be a 'miracle' to avoid our results.  But be that as it may.  What I feel would be required by our mainstream scientists is to achieve some kind of 'uniformity' in their basic theories that would explain known measurements in line with those theories. 

But I'll get back to this later tonight.  I need to get some 'shunts' and 'keys' for our campus project.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on September 27, 2010, 06:01:29 PM
If there is no effect on mass perhaps we are working with a -1 charge, what some call anti matter.  It may very well be that the neutral point can coexist wilth both matters.   Seeing this as not incidental you may recognize its similarity in loosely bound electrons, giving matter/anti matter a working exchange path.  (AND of course this is only my thoughts toward the non gravity effect)  Thank you Rosie

edited on spelling

Hello Hope.  I think anti-matter is simply the opposite of matter - provided only that the particles have charge.  In other words there would be no anti photon.  But an anti electron is a positron and an anti proton is just called that - an antiproton.  The thing is that it is understood that at the 'creation' of matter - then as many anti particles must have happened as particles.  But we can't find any 'antis' and when we manufacture them then thy annihilate each other.  The life span of an anti particle in our predominately 'particle' area of the universe - would be neglible to nothing.  I believe they've managed to create positrons and hold them locked in magnetic fields that enable their duration - partially.  But on the whole they're far too unstable to be useable.  Otherwise they'd be a remarkably efficient energy source.  Positron and electron interaction results in 3 photons - I think.

It's an interesting subject.  My own proposal is that when matter was first initiated / created - then matter gravitated to the inner boundaries of our universe and anti matter - proposed as being anti gravitational - gravitated to the outer boundaries.  But that first requires that the universe itself has a boundary.  LOL.  I think I'm now really confronting our classicists.  Of interest - the mainstream proposal is that this antimatter simply annihilated with matter and there was a happy surplus of matter that now predominates.  Not sure how they reconcile this with the symmetries that are also required.  But there you go.  It's not the first time that our mainstream have been able to contradict their own postulates.  The thing is that they keep getting away with it.   ;D

Kindest as ever,
Rosie
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on September 27, 2010, 07:40:46 PM
Guys - I'm nearly at the end - for those who may be finding this exercise of mine a bit tedious.   ;D 

One of the more intriguing obsessions of our mainstream scientists is their interest in particle manifestations.  The neutrinos are the smallest and they're also considered to be stable.  But these little numbers could just as easily been seen as a really small photon or a really small electron - and the electron neutrinos - like the electron - theoretically also has it's anti particle – its twin.  These are the only stable particles together with the photon, the electron and the proton.  And they’re considered to be infinitely stable which is a really long time.

But the thing is this.  All other particles  – whatever their frequency, their mass, their lack of it, their charge, whatever - they all last for really small fractions of time.  Their duration can be measured in terms of quadrillionths of a second - or quintillionths - and so on - getting progressively smaller and progressively more improbable.   Here's the puzzle.  For some reason when one slams one particle into another - inside a bubble chamber - then from the interaction of two stable particles comes this 'particle zoo'.  It's been described as the creation of a really complex fruit salad from a chance meeting of two fruits.   Those myriad particles that manifest for such a brief moment of time - simply decay.  They disappear back into the vacuum of space.  And the proposal is that somehow these manifest particles are the product of that interaction.  It's so energetic that it would be absurd to balance out the energies in terms of thermodynamic laws.

Matter here has multiplied -  inexplicably and exponentially.  Strawberries, plums, apricots, pineapples, grapes, quinces, oranges, apples, and on and on - from the chance interaction of a banana with a small tomato.  So our scientists put paid to that energy equivalence - that all important sum that dominates science in every other respect - and they simply look at the conclusion of that experiment – to what happens after the manifest miracle of so much coming from so little.  And in as much as the final product of that interaction is less than the manifest particles that decay - then what is left is precisely the right combination of particles which then evidence a perfect conservation of charge.  One can almost hear the sigh of relief.

No-one, notwithstanding the evidence of this manifest matter in all it's varieties and that variety is widely considered to be potentially infinite - not one of them have suggested that, just perhaps, they are disturbing some kind of matter in the field that holds these particles.  Why is this not considered?  Could it not be that in the moment of interaction all that becomes manifest may be those particles in the field that were first invisible - and after impact, become visible - and then they decay?  That way - and only in that way - would they be able to argue conservation of anything at all.

This is the blind spot, the weak spot - the Achilles heel of our scientists.  There is an evident need or a compulsion to uphold to one inviolate truth regardless of how well it fits with the evidence.  According to mainstream -  energy cannot be created.  And NOTHING can exceed light speed.  My own question is this.  How would we be able to measure anything at all that exceeded light speed?  In our visible dimensions light is the limit to our measuring abilities.  It's the gold standard.  Actually it’s all we’ve got.  We’ve nothing smaller and nothing faster to compare it against.&nbs