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
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.
.
@rosemary
I will be glad to try your circuit.
Jesus
...
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
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
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
This component parts list was shared by fuzzytomcat.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.
Jesus
Rosemary:
Good to see this work continuing over here. I wish you the best.
Bill
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
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
This are the pictures of Rosi ;D
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
Hello all,
@Rosemary
show us, if possible, the waves you get from your system. Dont say you have only square waves!!
Otto
RosemaryIt'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.
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
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
RosemaryI 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.
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
@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.
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
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.
(http://i758.photobucket.com/albums/xx223/aetherevarising/DSC00166.jpg)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.
(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
Still very tenuous link here. I hope it survives this post.Just to get it onto the same page.
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
Hello Rosemary,:) thanks again.
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
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 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?
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
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
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.
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.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.
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
(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?)
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.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
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.
(...) 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".
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
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)
Hello all,
@Rosemary
nice docu.
So, zipons are the particles. I suppose the positive particles.
Whats with the NEGATIVE particles?
Otto
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
ok, now there is the beginning of a specification taking shape: 8L water!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 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?)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);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.
- 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!)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.
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 currentWe 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?
Rosemary, you *have* to see this:Hello Sandy,
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 all,hello all.
@Rosemary
so you want to warm up 8 liters of water.
You know about cold fusion??
Otto
I'll have to try and get hold of some of those magnets. Where does one buy them?
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.
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.
There is NO need to rerun proof of concept. And there is no need to redefine the measurement parameters.
I would upscale & verify the original setup in a very careful way:This would determine if the 'effect' is the result of vagaries associated with the wiring.
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 chemistryThis 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 would determine if the switch is responsible for what we claim is 'self resonance' or 'preferred 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.This would determine if the resonance can be 'imposed' on the circuit
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.)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.
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)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.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.
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.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'?
This would determine if the 'effect' is the result of vagaries associated with the wiring.
This would determine if the 'effect' of a recharge may not be consistent with actual recharge.
This would determine if the switch is responsible for what we claim is 'self resonance' or 'preferred oscillation.
This would determine if the resonance can be 'imposed' on the circuit
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.
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'?
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
@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?
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.
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.
<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.
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.
Follow your dream. Criticism means that you are going in the right direction.
Jesus
@Rosemary AinslieGreetings 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.
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
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.
...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?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.
I don't get your point. Why can't the electrons be flowing through the battery like they flow through a light bulb filament?
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.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 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.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.
all this is only 200 years old.
google it electrons have been measured for charge mass and size for many decades.
No-one, not even those more adventurous electrical engineers has ever proposed that ions can be the cause of current flow.
And electrons simply cannot share a path - not under any circumstances at all.
Rosemary, I guess this is at the basis of your misunderstanding: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
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.
Also, as I said before, it is not true that: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.
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.
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.
Rsemary,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?
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 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?
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 factIf 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.
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.
Don't forget that current (allegedly electron flow) and magnetism are
Lastly, if electricity is not the flow of electrons, what is it?
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?
Just for the record: Michael Faraday 22 September 1791 – 25 August 1867
"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)
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?
Don't forget that current (allegedly electron flow) and magnetism are
opposite sides of the same coin.
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.
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.
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.
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.
the henry semat chair...
Hi Wilby. LOL. I, for one, would not want to argue that much evidence. Golly.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? ::)
Kindest regards as ever,
R
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...
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? ::)
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...
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...
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.
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.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...
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.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...
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'...
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?
suffers from honest belief... like you and the proof of ou inherent/steorn discussion?
This is unjustified:LOL! kaku has shown more firm evidence of dark matter than you have shown firm evidence for the inherent OU in electrical phenomena... ::)
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... ::)
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?
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...
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 imagining that someone proved something is just that, imagination. No science there.this is again a strawman fallacy being used by you...
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.
@shruggedatlas.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You claim that the reconstitution of copper in a zinc/copper battery is proof of the electron current flow.
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.
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.
Our measurements were empirical and the protocols stipulated by experts in the art.
As it is I had to read up on the zinc copper batteries to argue your previous example for 'proof'.
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.
What's UCT?University of CapeTown
What's UCT?holy buckets of ineptitude batman!
Is there a way to somehow download the pdf of your experimental paper? Scribd is really inconvenient.
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.holy buckets of no comprehension batman!
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
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?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...
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.
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.indeed. my apologies for sussing out the links.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
indeed. my apologies for sussing out the links.
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
The e-mail to prof. Tapson is also sent. Thanks @WilbyInebrated for the help. You're good at it.tu stultus es... qed.
Before reading the manuscript I'd like to hear what these two colleagues have to say regarding the experiment.
The e-mail to prof. Tapson is also sent. Thanks @WilbyInebrated for the help. You're good at it.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.
Before reading the manuscript I'd like to hear what these two colleagues have to say regarding the experiment.
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.
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.
How does this work and how is it to be discussed in forum devoted to overunity: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.
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.
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
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
Unfortunately the 'cause' is still at question - related as it is the flow of current.
No such thing as "energetic vacuum" is recognized as an energy reservoir in thermodynamics
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.
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
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?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 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.
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.
Anyone who knows what they are doing can get access. It is really not all that hard as Wilby has said.
Bill
Most people die trying to get a patent, other people just sell their products adding the words "Patent Pending".
Jesus
Change the date of this post by a month then.
Until this happens, these two are only blowing hot air like usual.
Change the date of this post by a month then.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... ::)
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.
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... ::)
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.
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...
You should know your deficiencies and should not bother experts with your irrelevant banter
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.your idea of a proof is laughable... ::)
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.
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...
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.why do you continue with your logical fallacies? now you are engaging in the use of strawman. LOL. please... ::)
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...
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.you are back to your logical fallacies again. you are engaging in the use of strawman... is that one your favorite?
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.
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 ::) ]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. ::)
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". 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... ::)
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.
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. 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".
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.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?
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". ::)
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.
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
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)
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
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.
@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.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.
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.
How can hacking into government systems be legal in any jurisdiction?
Hi Wilbyindeed. 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. ::)
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
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.
indeed. both he and skcusitrah/hartisucks have a tenous (at best) grasp on logic and have demonstrated that over and over.
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.
@ 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.
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
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 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.
if you can stay on topic then things will get better.
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.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.
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
>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
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 sNot 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.
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.
@ 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
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
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
ALL THIS BULLSHITTER'S ideas IS IN YOUR HEAD NO ONE IS AGAINST YOU.
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
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
@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.
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.
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.
Rose: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.
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
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.
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.
@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 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.
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 tunedAgain. 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.
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.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.
@sm0ky2,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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
The experimental evidence you're referring to is not irrefutable.
LOL Omnibus. Then refute it.
regards,
Rosemary
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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 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
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
At this time I cannot afford to buy such a scope.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.
I will see what happens.
Jesus
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
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
>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
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
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
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.
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....
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 replicatedJust 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?
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
----- Original Message -----hi glen, you omitted this part, which was at the bottom of the pm you sent to me, and to the rest i assume...
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
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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.
Hmm...it's inebriated... jeeeez ::)
Since when the language spoken has anything in common with the possibility of "OU" claims?
You're one of the "innebriated" guy bots?
Jeeeez....
AGAIN !Greg - indeed it's important. Which is precisely why I am fighting this corner. But for now - here's the paper.
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
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.
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
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
Always great entertainment posted here! Heheheheh! ;DIndeed. Thanks cat. I just looked through them all. Nice laugh
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 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
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)
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
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
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
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
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.
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
poynty99 did more with his sims of the circuit than ashtweth has done with it.
Before going any further please check your mathematical skills
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drE5cHe6c3s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drE5cHe6c3s)
cat
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
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.
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.
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.
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: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
http://www.leedskalnin.com/
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.
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.
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
Regards,
Rosemary
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
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
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
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
- Bill (Yup. Another one. Ubiquitous aren't we?)
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.
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
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. If anything moved at faster than the speed of light then light itself would NEVER be able to find it. It would, effectively be invisible.
Regards,
Rosemary
Hi Rosie
Great stuff :-* we can't get beyond a certain point, the experts say it's impossible ::)
sounds to me like history repeating itself >:( flying beyond the speed of sound was impossible, but first you had to invent the plane ;D
I guess the real question is when ??? in time all things are possible :o
cat ;)
;D Hello Cat. Always a pleasure to see you around and the more so when we're also on the same page. And very relieved to learn that at least one reader isn't getting hot under the collar. ;D
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Hi Rosemary,
You may find some interest in the featured uploads on AlienScientist's youtube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/AlienScientist#p/u
Particularly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4I5mgBKPZY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rr_s28wIOzQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJJ-4lnwrck
and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-ruFNzr7kk
This young man does his homework;)
Cheers,
Twinbeard
Hello Twinbeard. I know this man's work well. In fact I've been in correspondence and in conversation with him. He's very good. But he's way too classical. It is a fact that it would be entirely IMPOSSIBLE to reconcile over unity results within known classical paradigms - which is what he's trying to do. His presentations are very scholarly - but listen close and you'll find a great number of 'skipped' logic steps - that he uses to support his argument. What I like about him is that he's at least questing albeit within a classical framework. I sincerely believe that this compulsive reach that we all have in all these forums is to answer a deep intellectual, emotional, psychological need for a coherent explanation to those many contradictions in physics. And I sincerely believe that these needs are answered very simply indeed, in aether energies.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
I agree wholeheartedly. The "dark matter" is undoubtedly the aether, the vril, or any number of other names attributed to the same concept... that we have charged magnetic quantum particles smaller than quarks making up everything, resonating at frequencies way above what we understand as the EM spectrum. In order to reconcile our results, I think we need to rewrite most but not all of modern physics, using the original 1864 work of Maxwell, not the truncated version taught as "Maxwell's equations."
That means rewrite relativity as well. It is the only way we can account for our respective COP measurements in our circuits, and the only way we can explain other observable evidence that classical physics fails to account for. I feel the best way to do that is in a collaborative, distributed environment, which bypasses the costs associated with everyone being under one roof.
I do enjoy your posts... if you do feel the need to stop posting, please include me in your mailing list for further updates. If you do not have one, I hereby offer to host said list on my private list server,
gratis, in perpetuity.
Cheers,
Twinbeard
Mainstream? Sorry "mainstream" should we instead call them guided or mislead. I played pool to many times not to understand the simple physics of it. Two balls hit by one ball equally will distribute the force between the struck balls. AND the opposite is also true where two balls striking one ball will transfer their energies into the one ball. If the two photons traveling at the speed of light hit another photon at the correct angles ..... we must account for the transferred energies. I say BLARGH! on those can't theories. I believe physics is quantum and is proof already of how it works. This is an example of how momentary over the speed of light can happen, AND DOES.
That conclusion you realized so quickly is amazing, Rosie your wired for this stuff for sure. It enlightens me on a lot I have been studying. Heat is a byproduct of a gathering of radiant energies.... how do you feel about this statement? And when super heat is generated many forms of radiant energy can be formed, perhaps this can explain Geet Thermal dynamic properties and abilities to decompose gases. I even read where radioactive particals lost energy when tested through a simple reactor of this design. Same are true of super cold fluxes which react in their own theater of effects.Dear Hope, this is indeed an interesting question. My own thinking here is that these little particles that make up the field - are magnetic monopoles - or tiny little magnets. And they always move in the field. I can find a required velocity in a field structure to justify the 'movement'. But this is the proposal. When they're in a field they're small and fast and invisible and cold. But get them out of the field - however it's done - then they can become big and slow and visible and HOT. What we do with electromagnetic imbalances is induce them to become hot. Here's why I think this.
Twinbeard - abject apologies. I tried to amend that post size of yours and deleted it in error. Please repost this but make its size page appropriate if you can.
Sorry for the trouble. I recognised the picture as one of your youtube fractal themes. Would love to see it on the thread if it's not too much trouble. And sorry about the deletion.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Yours is much prettier - twinbeard.
But the point is this. The three arms as depicted by Riaan - are not quite in synch. If the charge had been illustrated as it should - then you'll see that there are two that are the same and one is not.
What I find intriguing is the effect if you assume each sphere to be a magnetic dipole. The inevitable result is a precisely proportionate repulsion to attraction throughout the field. That's blow away symmetries. And it all starts off with a single circle and then 6 with the precisely same diameter - then add six and so on to each new concentric circle and one can go on into infinity keeping precisely the same symmetries.
Only highlighting this because I've been rabbiting on about the construct of a magnetic field. And I do see it as having a kind of logical symmetry that would lend itself to this kind of 'build' or whatever - 'congregation'? The strings - necklaces - through the centre 'cross section' also being reflected in the 'strings' or lines around the length of the toroid. Not sure of the right vocab for this. Perhaps you can manage better what I think you realise I'm trying to point to.
Your point about the 'newton fractal' may be right. I see the division into three but I think there's optional divisions into other numbers including 2. I'm rather hooked on the field - so I actually need 6's. Lots of them. LOL
This may not have anything to do with anything here but, speaking of fractals....this photo is of a scope shot of my earth battery. The wave patterns appears to be very similar to what has been posted here. I still do not understand that.
Sorry if this is not related in any way Rose.
Bill
This may not have anything to do with anything here but, speaking of fractals....this photo is of a scope shot of my earth battery. The wave patterns appears to be very similar to what has been posted here. I still do not understand that.
Bill
Twinbeard and Rose:
There was no circuit. That was a direct measurement of my earth battery electrodes directly to my scope. Nothing in the middle. I do have a dual channel scope but this was measured on channel 2 only. There were no probes hooked to channel 1 at all.
I thought it was pretty amazing at the time, and no one could tell me what these wave forms might mean. This was over a year ago and I have not used the scope on it since. What does not show up here, that did in "real time" was some very high spikes. They went off the scale in both directions and this taught me something useful. My EB puts out about 1.9-2.0 volts and yet can charge a 2.7 volt 650 farad boost cap fully in a very short time. I have figured that it was these spikes that were doing it...had to be. The cap saved them as usable power. I have done many experiments since to prove this to myself.
This is why I love supercaps.
Bill
After considering the burning wood model. Then all elements in our periodic table are carbon based or can be made (catilized) to carbon?
Being out of our ability to currently able to read over light speed. The upper half of our known wavelengths coupled with the newest bounce measurement magnetic technologies can be used to map radar like anomalies which will yield a 3D/4D table which, when resolved, will imply proofs of over light speed properties. (Has such a device of this caliber of resolution every been made in known history) Then empowering this "Seeing" with computer modeling. We could not only see the image, but also the inner workings moving like a living wind.
Like a polaroid.
And it also explains your interest in earth batteries. Are there more of these scope shots? Would you mind posting them?
I tend to pendantry - so if there is any obvious explanation - I'm more than happy to propose it. And what I see here is two absolutely simultaneous but opposite voltages to each other. That's possibly related to the two materials that you wound on the coil? But I can't see where they're related to ground. How easy is it to take more shots Bill? Does it mean interrupting tests? I think what I'm asking is -is this repeatable? I have NEVER seen two traces on one channel. Not sure how remarkable it is ? But in as much as you're also showing this then, presumably, it's atypical. And then that strange waveform that - as you say - looks like a wing in one of twinbeard's fractals.
If it's possible can you show us more of this?
Kindest as ever
R
Magnets, all just another bag of magnets. Rosie, of course the burning house example is full of many elements. But it is a clue to us of their nature when we have so little house now and so much carbon left.
I found that obscure link on storing hho EXCITING NEWS
http://www.examiner.com/breakthrough-energy-in-national/ohmasa-gas-makes-water-as-fuel-more-feasible
Sorry this is off topic a bit but important to all.
This is what I was trying to get at describing links of chain at 180 degrees difference. Great that this links with what your saying.
Hi
I'm interested in third party replications.
Did someone duplicate the Rosemary Ainslie Circuit and confirm a COP>1?
Did someone loop the device? With a COP as large as 17, it should be rather easy.
Rose:
I know this has been bantered about in several topics on this forum and it is not my original idea but, it is one that I agree with; electrons orbit around a nucleus in every atom of everything that surrounds us and yet, they do not slow down. This said, why does conventional science have this attitude toward any perpetual motion device as being impossible?
I mean, these are the same scientists that told us about the atoms but yet, somehow, something that moves without any input energy "forever" is impossible?
This never made any sense to me. Nature always has it right.
Bill
What's happening with the lab testing?
Hi Happy. I'm afraid things are really slow. But there's no way of expediting. Right now we're looking around for a better oscilloscope and we've only just got the computer up and running to get our downloads. I dare not predict when we'll get our first results out because we're already a month behind deadline.
The point is that this is not a dedicated project. It's only one of many. And what's hopelessly constrained is the student time. And in fairness - this has to be a student driven project. That's the justification for the research. The Techy dedicated to this project is trying to get into residence so that he can work on this in the evenings. The one thing that is not on tap is affluence. But we're getting there. I believe we may yet get a really good scope on loan. And then - a supplementary signal generator - just to compare the switch with a standard functions generator. And then - the basic tests on the standard element - which we'll be using as our base. And thereafter - pray God - some significant tests on different materials and different resistors.
I just hope you guys aren't too impatient. It seems that we've got not less than six months and not more than a year's testing. But what's wonderful is that we've got our own little lab - carved out of space at the back of a lecture hall. It's got running water - it's now got a couple of computers. We've just been linked to the internet so that the Techy can download the data as it comes available. We've got a desk - chairs - extra lighting. And we're systematically getting the wherewithall to get the data captured. It's not a rich university. But it's REALLY excellent. We've even installed a kettle and a really big jar of coffee. LOL.
So. What we lack in immediately available facilities and instruments we all more than make up for in goodwill and general academic excellence. I keep promising photographs. The fact is that I've been given a high definition camera - and being the clutz that I am - my first photographs were all taken without using the HD option. But I intend making up for that tomorrow. Hopefully by tomorrow evening I'll be able to show what we've done there.
;D Kindest regards,
Rosie
Hi
I'm interested in third party replications.
Did someone duplicate the Rosemary Ainslie Circuit and confirm a COP>1?
Sorry for posting again the same question but flooded replies from Rosemary Ainslie prevented a good readability of this thread. I'm interested only in independent replications or attempts from experimenters here, not in matter from the author about his own work.
Thank you for your understanding.
HiI'm afraid I not only DO NOT understand but would ask you WHY you are imposing your demand on this thread? If you wish to engage with replicators please feel free to start an alternate thread. The sole purpose of this thread is to articulate the thesis and to record the tests on the proposed application.
I'm interested in third party replications.
Did someone duplicate the Rosemary Ainslie Circuit and confirm a COP>1?
Sorry for posting again the same question but flooded replies from Rosemary Ainslie prevented a good readability of this thread. I'm interested only in independent replications or attempts from experimenters here, not in matter from the author about his own work.
Thank you for your understanding.
I see your undertaking there Twinbeard. Please feel free - but please note that this thread is absolutely NOT for replications. My time is fully occupied as it is and this thread is meant as a dedicated record of the application ONLY - as well as the thesis in support of it.
I am very aware of your posts and the trollish nature of them. You parade a scepticism that is inappropriate to the intentions of this forum. I would prefer it that you don't post on this thread.
Surely. I was planning on reporting findings on my own host anyway;)Hi Twinbeard. I'm absolutely not qualified to state what this gentleman's intentions are. I just find a rather 'dire' theme to his posts that I personally find to be somewhat counterproductive. But feel free to engage with him.
Also, pardon my often tangental comments... I occasionally get lost in a train of thought that is somewhat related and feel a need to share with other borderline autistic minds who may be reading. I absolutely do not mean to distract anyone!
Oh. One of those. I was unaware. Thanks for the headsup.
Cheers,
Twinbeard
Rosemary,
Where can I find a parts list and schematic? I will build one, and report results.
Cheers,
Scott
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERStk, i'm glad you're back here. you left some contradictions of yours that i would like to talk to you about. you ran off crying when your hack was shown to be a hack and when your transistor 'prediction' kinda turned out the opposite as you predicted. hopefully you can be a little more grownup about it this time...
Well, I see that that preprint bears the page heading of the IEEE Journal of Transactions of Industrial Electronics.
Congratulations on getting your paper published, Rosemary.
The last I heard it had been summarily rejected by the journal. Twice.
tk, i'm glad you're back here. you left some contradictions of yours that i would like to talk to you about. you ran off crying when your hack was shown to be a hack and when your transistor 'prediction' kinda turned out the opposite as you predicted. hopefully you can be a little more grownup about it this time...
And meanwhile everything I "hacked" has been confirmed over and over by the various "teams" like Glen, Ashtweth, Aaron, Harvey, and others. And I note major .... er..... differences.... or maybe not .... in the design shown above from what I did. What transistor is being used in the circuit above?at least you finally admit yours was a hack instead of clinging to that 'replication' claim... ::)
May I remind you that I boiled water with the Ainslie circuit something like two years ago....
But why spoil things by criticising me... surely you share Rosemary's joy at being published in a major peer-reviewed professional journal.
Scott? I wondered if we'd get closer to an identity here. Nice to put a name to an avatar - so to speak. Hi again.
If you download the attached link - it's got everything that opens and shuts on the circuit. Delighted to hear you're up for this Twinbeard. Very nice indeed - the more so as I'm really blown away by your general experimental talents. Feel free to open a thread. I think there are many who may want to follow it. I know in the early stages there were a few takers. But I saw it dominating my own interests here and rather discouraged it. But I suspect you'll get a good following.
Kindest regards
Rosie
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS
I think you may need to sign up to Scribd to get their download facilities. Not sure.
GREAT STUFF SCOTT. ;D
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS
Well, I see that that preprint bears the page heading of the IEEE Journal of Transactions of Industrial Electronics.
Congratulations on getting your paper published, Rosemary.
The last I heard it had been summarily rejected by the journal. Twice.
Hi Rosemary,
Not really looking for following... IBM Developerworks and Linux.com have done articles on my work in the past. Just looking for good, progressive science;)
Thank you so much for your kind compliments. I am not so sure I am that deserving. I hack. That is what I do. Its my vocation for almost 15 years now... I hack away on things until they work the way I want. The tougher the problem, the more enjoyable it is to finally finally solve it.
I am reviewing all your info in depth, and will begin a replication as my work schedule, life, and lovely wife allow. As well as you have documented your work, I'm sure I will find good results. I wish I had the patience to write such documentation.
Cheers,
Twinbeard
Great stuff Twinbeard. Just a special ask. Could you PLEASE post results here. I've got a really tenuous link at EF.com because I was banned from there. Please open your thread here else I won't be able to follow it.
Kindest and best,
Rosie
I'm afraid I not only DO NOT understand but would ask you WHY you are imposing your demand on this thread? If you wish to engage with replicators...
My question, simple and perfectly understandable, was:
"I'm interested in third party replications.
Did someone replicate the Rosemary Ainslie Circuit and confirm a COP>1?"
If it was unclear, here is what I'm searching for: an experimenter here whom I can speak with. Am I wrong to think that there are here experimenters of the "Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit" as titled? Is this thread not allowed for such a question?
I'm not interested in web stuff in matter of experimental evidence, the past has shown that 100% of OU claims are not duplicable (scam or mistake is not the question).
The only positive post I saw here, related to my question, is from twinbeard who plans to make a replication, so I will be waiting for his results (I am now working on other projects and before keeping this one for the future, I'm just wanting to know its level of credibility).
My question, simple and perfectly understandable, was:
"I'm interested in third party replications.
Did someone replicate the Rosemary Ainslie Circuit and confirm a COP>1?"
If it was unclear, here is what I'm searching for: an experimenter here whom I can speak with. Am I wrong to think that there are here experimenters of the "Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit" as titled? Is this thread not allowed for such a question?Yes. Just phrase your question correctly. Else - don't go off into a tirade about the answer you get.
I'm not interested in web stuff in matter of experimental evidence, the past has shown that 100% of OU claims are not duplicable (scam or mistake is not the question).Wrong again. We have given you ALL THE PROOF THAT YOU COULD POSSIBLY REQUIRE THAT THE CLAIM IS INDEED DUPLICABLE.
The only positive post I saw here, related to my question, is from twinbeard who plans to make a replication, so I will be waiting for his results (I am now working on other projects and before keeping this one for the future, I'm just wanting to know its level of credibility).You do NOT need to evaluate it's level of credibility. IT HAS BEEN REPLICATED. Is there any way I can make this plainer? You write in English. I understand therefore you speak English. If so, then - here it is again. There was an early test. That test was replicated. Details of the work that went into the REPLICATION are in that paper. ??? May I give you the link - yet again. HERE IT IS.
...
Wrong again. We have given you ALL THE PROOF THAT YOU COULD POSSIBLY REQUIRE THAT THE CLAIM IS INDEED DUPLICABLE.
You do NOT need to evaluate it's level of credibility.
...
I am willing to replicate this device ...
Well, in this case, please consider that I want to do what I don't need. :)
Lambrights device worked for me, Geet device 90% ready when my tired arske gets it done. I have need to use one (or more) in a food dehydrator we here are building to donate to the local food bank/farm. So I have decided to use Rosie's heating circuits, I find it funny that when seeking working solutions so hard that people find themselves the greatest block to finding answers.
Guys, just a quick update on the tests. We're still struggling with the 555 switch. The guys are trying to get something that reliably alters frequency and duty cycle.
Rose,
The 555 is a timer or oscillator. The switch is the MOSFET or IGBT.
If what you are describing about the "altering frequency and duty cycle" is in fact the quasi-stable state the 555 can go into under the right operating conditions, and you are not able to achieve this, then I would suggest that your group try a number of different manufacturers of the 555 itself. I found the variations were quite evident, and for me, only one type produced the desired quasi-stable state.
One other factor possibly influencing this "effect" is the proximity between the 555 and the switch. Yet another, is the switch itself. Are you using the IRFPG50? If not, that might be a place to start.
.99
I thought the switch switched the transistor? How then does one refer to the 555 switching circuit?The 555 circuitry is an oscillator/timer (not a switch) that drives (turns on and off) the switch, the switch itself being the MOSFET or IGBT.
And yes we're using an IRFPG50.
Poynty - how does proximty to the MOSFET change things? And should they be further apart or nearer?
The 555 circuitry is an oscillator/timer (not a switch) that drives (turns on and off) the switch, the switch itself being the MOSFET or IGBT.Get it. The 555 drives the switch. I should have known this. I've written it in both papers. Thanks Ponty.
Proximity of the 555 circuitry and associated wiring to the MOSFET and Resistive load can have a great effect on the stability of the 555 operation. The distance not only has an effect, but the actual orientation of all relative to one another, especially the 555's orientation and distance to the load and/or switch.What is 'too close'? What's the optimal distance required between the FET and the driver? Glen had them on the same board - and Groundloop had them both on the same board. We've done the same here - twice - with very little difference, if any, in the configuration to Glen's set up.
Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) increases greatly with frequency (or rise/fall times) and current. This setup can emit large amounts of EMI, especially if running above 100kHz, but the transients alone will wreak havoc on unshielded circuitry, such as your 555 oscillator. Running at only 2.4 kHz can still cause disruptive interference to the 555 due to high dV/dt.With respect - I'm not sure what you're saying here. What 'set up'? The switch? The MOSFET? What needs shielding? There is NO WAY that our inductor is causing electromagnetic interference. It is entirely impossible - in the circuit tested - to get a stable relationship between the duty cycle and the frequency variations that we want to test. And at this stage we're testing the set up without any inductive load connected. Just testing the basic efficiency of the actual switch and it's 'driver'? In any event - the 555.
If you want to de-stabilize the 555 oscillator, try moving the load resistor closer to it, and vary it's orientation also. MOSFET proximity will probably have a lesser effect with regards to EMI and orientation, but it is still present.Again. Why would I want to destablise the oscillator? Is this required? Our concern is that it's unstable. We're trying to stabilise it.
Sounds a little like a buckyball. About the same configuration they used in the atomic bomb for implosion. Might be a little hard to construct. Got me to thinking if the magnets should be manufactured in the same latitude as the experimental sphere though it probably wouldnt matter.
Ive had a similar idea but using 2 interlocked toroid shapes with one vertical for the magnetic field and the other horizontal for the electric field. Iron would be the magnetic field toroid and a copper winding on the other toroid for the electric field. Maybe a resonant tuning on the coil. Orientation to the earths axis may come into play. Just a wild idea.
Hope You build this sphere I would like to see it.
For anyone who's following the switch saga - or the switch/driver/oscillator? whatever - the new oscillator, using the alternate transistor (GS35.24 I think) - is also not giving us the range of frequency that's optimally required. It's now been proposed that we move to using something called a micro controller unit. Apparently it runs on software and is able to operate stably - at a far higher frequency ranges - is easy to preset the required duty cycle to ever smaller fractions - and all tests will then become more reliably repeatable. Since we're waiting for the delivery of our scope meter - we're going to explore this option as well. My concern is only that I know that part of the required oscillation happens by overriding the duty cycle and all those units that we've put together before - managed this. I'm not sure if the micro processing unit will somehow prevent this. We've also ordered the new 'flange' to accommodate a wider range of resistors - for testing. This will be installed the minute we've finished our base test numbers on our 'semi' standard element.
So. We're getting there. Gradually. ;D
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
I googled the rate of our planet's spin. It's apparently 40 075 kilometers per hour - and over a twenty four hour period it completes an entire axial spin.
I think it's more like 40,075 kilometers/day. Speed of light is approximately 300,000 kilometers/second, quite a difference.
You'll most likely need the 555, which was stressed in my previous posts. The "over-riding" duty cycle occurs because of interference back to the 555.Thanks for the advice - but frankly Poynty, I'd prefer to rest on the advices of those experts that I'm working with - is my first point. And you state - unequivocally that the overriding of the duty cycle is the result of 'interference'? That's an opinion. I've already explained that the 555 is NOT subject to interference. We're doing our switch tests without a load. So. Where then is that 'interference' coming from? The 555 seems not to be efficient. Certainly not at the level we're looking for. So. While you're happy with your opinion there are those of us who simply don't agree.
But try the microcontroller, it will provide a wide range of frequency and duty cycle outputs.Again. I'm grateful for your lenience here in 'allowing' us to do the required. But I'm not sure that it's appropriate to give us advice. We'll do the tests under the advisement of experts.
I doubt the desired quasi-stable oscillation will be achieved with anything other than the right combination of chips, and the 555 seems up to the task, due to its inherent sensitivity to outside influences.Are you indulging us here Poynty Point - by 'allowing' us to do these tests but that your OPINION is that it won't work anyway? In which case would you sooner we not even try this? I'm really not sure that I care that much whether you think it may or may not work. We'll do the tests that we need to satisfy our own curiosity about this matter - if you don't mind.
Rose:
The only way to stay over a fixed point on the earth in space is to be at 22,500 miles up, known as geostationary orbit. Orbital velocity is close to 17,500 miles/hour. This was posited by Arthur Clark (of 2001 fame) and later utilized in geosyncro satellite technology.
Einstein's relativity theory was proven by sending up an atomic clock into orbit and then comparing that very accurate time to another one on earth. The time difference, although minuscule, was measurable and it proved that part of his theory.
Bill
Rose:
If you check out any article on orbital mechanics, you will see that velocity only increases your altitude above the planet. 17,500 is the minimal velocity required to achieve orbit. If you go faster, the orbit altitude increases. If you go slower, you re-enter the atmosphere. If you get to 25,000 mph, which is escape velocity, then you can leave orbit as done in the Apollo program when they traveled to the moon.
The geostationary orbit requires that you be at 22,500 miles above the earth. A little higher, or a little lower and the earth will be moving under you one way or the other. Either you are advancing, or the earth is. This is the only way to be and maintain a position above a fixed point on the planet. This is a very complex calculation taking into consideration the diameter of the earth, gravity, and all of the other physics involved. I am no scholar in this but what I am telling you is correct. The math is extremely complex.
I hope this helps.
Bill
Rose:
Ah, but you are missing one point, at least according to Albert, and that is that the speed of light is the constant. So now, if you go back and review what you said in your post above you may see where relativity fits in.
I'll try to open one of my many books in my personal library over here that has a great, but yet understandable, explanation. When I read it, it opened my eyes.
It is too late and I am too tired to even try to think about it because it is a bit mind boggling, but I will get back to you with it. Your ideas are on the correct track though, in my opinion.
Bill
Rose:
That reminds me of my first physics professor in college who said that the speed of light was the fastest thing we could imagine. To which I replied "what about twice the speed of light?"
He was not amused.
Bill
Took too long typing. Twice the speed of light. Not Amused! I like that one too!
Not to bring up "Bad" things, but anyone consider the radical concept of reverse time in wave conjugates? Beardon likes it, but that opens up too many questions for me. Anyone else subscribe to that? Just wondering....
Thanks for the advice - but frankly Poynty, I'd prefer to rest on the advices of those experts that I'm working with - is my first point. And you state - unequivocally that the overriding of the duty cycle is the result of 'interference'? That's an opinion. I've already explained that the 555 is NOT subject to interference. We're doing our switch tests without a load. So. Where then is that 'interference' coming from? The 555 seems not to be efficient. Certainly not at the level we're looking for. So. While you're happy with your opinion there are those of us who simply don't agree.
Again. I'm grateful for your lenience here in 'allowing' us to do the required. But I'm not sure that it's appropriate to give us advice. We'll do the tests under the advisement of experts.
Are you indulging us here Poynty Point - by 'allowing' us to do these tests but that your OPINION is that it won't work anyway? In which case would you sooner we not even try this? I'm really not sure that I care that much whether you think it may or may not work. We'll do the tests that we need to satisfy our own curiosity about this matter - if you don't mind.
I read that you were going to do an Ainslie Circuit debunk? May I assure you that you'll need to do this on an alternate thread and better yet - in your own forum - where you first proposed this. I do not want this thread dominated with a debate on efficacy of the device. This thread is to present the data when we do those tests. You can debate that data elsewhere. Else I suspect that you'll systematically errode the confidence of any readers here very much as Harvey and Glen have managed on their own thread at EF.com. It's hard enough as it is - bringing this kind of data to the table - without the gratuitous involvement of 'debunkers' no matter their pretended interest in the technology.
R.
Rose:
OK, one more post before bed.
If you and I were on a train, and you walked forward on the moving train traveling at say 50 mph, inside the car, I would clock you at about 2 miles/hour. This is how fast you were moving relative to my position on the same train with you.
Now, someone outside the train looking through the windows also clocks you....guess what? Their speed of you is calculated at 52 miles/hour from their position. Both answers are exactly correct. But, that can't be right? One of Albert's main points was that velocity was relative based on the frame of ref. of the observer.
I will write more when I check my books. This is all I can recall at this time.
Bill
By "over-riding" frequency and/or duty cycle, my impression was that this was the desired mode of operation and a goal to achieving the desired results. This was a constant theme throughout the threads from the beginning, and is mentioned in the Quantum paper I believe.Yes. The object is to get the coil tuned to an optimum frequency where the coil and the supply seem to move into what we called a 'preferred oscillation mode'. All it means is a self-regulated, self-induced resonance. The 555 allowed us to explore that required frequency. You will recall that I made frequent reference to the fact that the oscillation mode was not 'frequency' dependent. In other words that preferred oscillation mode could be seen at a variety of frequencies and at a variety of duty cycles. It seemed to happen when it happened. What we need to do is to determine a relationship between it happening - the materials used to enable it to happen - the duty cycles and the frequencies - in order to establish some kind of pattern. These things can only be established empirically - because at this stage there's no blue print. And if we're to take full advantage of the skills and expertise afforded us by this institution then - it's best to get an oscillator that offers the widest range possible of frequency and duty cycle to get this. If it pans out that the preferred mode of oscillation actually depends on the properties of the 555 or somesuch transistor - then we need to establish exactly what properties. If it's exploitable then it also needs to be fully understood. For this we need to make multiple comparative measurements. I'm reasonably sure that the information will be boringly and tediously dry. But it should all advance our understanding.
This quasi-stable mode of operation likely won't occur without a driven load. Without the inductive kickback there will be very little interference back to the 555 to destabilize it.We know this. But the fact is that the circuit designed and used by Glen seems to be unstable without a load. Our concern here is that this is possibly why his numbers were never as good as our own. We have copied that circuit twice. It remains unstable. Whatever we do we will need a better 555 circuit than that shown in the paper's schematics. It appears to be inherently FAULTY.
If your team's goal is to completely avoid this quasi-stable mode of operation (i.e. the varying duty cycle and/or frequency mode), then disregard what I've said.I've answered this - I think.
By the way, the original thread topic.... What page/post is the actual "Circuit" on. I haven't read from the beginning, and it's long enough that I may never get to doing that. I'd be interested in what it actually does/is. Replication of a basic 555 ckt is a 5 minute process on a breadboard, which I have a few, and I have plenty of experience with the older style. I don't use the CMOS versions much, but could, if required. Just curious, as I always am.
Poynty.
Please feel free to comment and debunk on another thread - another forum - or both. But not here. This intention of yours hangs over my head like the sword of Damocles.
Regards,
Rosemary
I've offered only help towards achieving the elusive quasi-stable mode of operation. No such notions of "debunking" nor "intentions" here in my last several posts. ???
But as you wish.
.99
Having some real bench time is going to be a treat, as I quite enjoyed it when I was testing/debunking the RA circuit...
I agree, "verifying" would have been a better choice of word than "debunking". Consider it retracted, bye.
.99
Very Interesting paper, and results are even more so.
I can't offer any opinion yet, as there is a "Lot" more going on than just simple switching. IT might be valuable to check out the information on "Switching power supply instabilities" that is available, as these two concepts have certain effects in common.
I Must re-read and study this for a while to really wrap my head around it. Good or bad, the data does show that "Something" is going on.....
Rosemary, there must be some mistake. I don't know anything about skepticism, free energy, or critical thinking, but I do know this much:
When I click on the scribd reference you frequently give that links to a paper you and some others wrote, I immediately see the IEEE banner, and I see the IEEE journal name on every page of the paper.
Yet, I have heard from others that the IEEE journal(s) have rejected this paper, as many as 5 times, and it has definitely NOT been accepted for publication.
Hence, the mistake. It seems to me that EITHER the paper HAS been accepted, and thus your continuing use of IEEE in the link and on the paper is legitimate and legal and not a violation of IEEE copyright --- OR my other informants are correct, the paper has NOT been accepted, and thus the use of the IEEE initials and so forth is ... a mistake.
But everyone who clicks through to that paper is likely to believe that IEEE has endorsed it somehow, since you are using their initials AS IF they had actually accepted it for publication.
Is that right?
So. Maybe time is localised, never variable and potentially greater than light speed
@rosemary
I know you will like this link:
http://www.richieburnett.co.uk/indheat.html
Jesus
And as far as teeth go... well, time will tell which one of us is right, and about what.
Hi Rosemary,
Just a few notes on reading your more recent posts.
1. just having a TUV report is not always what it is cracked up to be. I flew (from Australia) to South Africa last year along with several others from other parts of the world to witness a magnetic motor (not a perendev) We had substantial backing to move the project forward subject to our own validation. The device had a 23 page TUV report verifying it to be a self runner and many other honest and professional people did as well. Sadly we had in busted in under an hour and the inventor run of into the sunset with many hundreds of thousands of dollars and his new Mercedes.
2. There is little of no censorship, no MEN In Black etc. What there is is hundreds of claims that can never be validated or replicated.
3. You are correct that a lot of effort should be expended in finding practical applications. The good news is there are many people and companies with the resources to do just that. One catch, it needs to be able to be replicated.
4. In the case of the link you sent with the cop6 device....the real question can it be closed looped. That is the real test of any technology.
Many Thanks
Mark
2. There is little of no censorship, no MEN In Black etc. What there is is hundreds of claims that can never be validated or replicated.I can't wait till the day when people stand up for their fellow humanity on mass, it's getting a little embarrassing to me. Come on folks, aren't we more than that. I mean you can't live in those bodies forever, take a stand if you can and do what's in the best interest of all humanity.
Hi Rosemary, nice to see your still sharing your thoughts. Some of your latest posts sure remind me of Joseph Newmans research findings. I've been playing with the JT circuit and other solid state circuits lately. I have to chuckle at this quote from mark, I can't wait till the day when people stand up for their fellow humanity on mass, it's getting a little embarrassing to me. Come on folks, aren't we more than that. I mean you can't live in those bodies forever, take a stand if you can and do what's in the best interest of all humanity.
Dear Rosemary!
Sorry for all the bad taste and troubles with my (rare) posts...
I'd really love to see your success... But, so far, i haven't see anything which would helped me to see the benefits or even understand your "invention"...?
In short, try to cut out the crap, and start to defend your "work".... OK?
;)
Sorry, that wasn't nice, I know.... Sorry.
Will you, please, show at least some kind of a proof for your claims?
I mean, like the real proof? It's not so hard... If there's really something...
Cheers!
...
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.
...
Ah well... Don't bother.
I asked you for a real proof, not about your fantasies...
PUBLIC NOTICE
QUOTE: http://www.energeticforum.com/70207-post2913.html ( can we use your data for a paper )
witsend
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,063
Guys - some more really good news.
IEEE have informed me that I can resubmit the paper with new revised information and evidence of open source duplication of the experiment provided that they are made fully cogniscant of the data available at the replication.
The implication is clearly that the first was not considered as having sufficient information. So Fuzzy. Would you please allow a collaboration on a new paper including your revised data - that we can submit this for peer review? We're game if you are. I see a comfortable collaboration between all parties here - provided you have no objections to us using your data.
In fact I think that many parties could come to the table here - all from our contributors and it would be so nice if you could pm Fuzzy, me, Aaron or Harvey with suggestions or considerations. Just think of it. The first collaborative attempt of a paper submitted by open source enthusiasts. And possibly the first proof of significant energy savings OU OR COP>17. Both are amazing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I ..... Glen Lettenmaier, am withdrawing any use of my complete Test number "Thirteen" (13) data and image files for further usage, evaluation or publication, other than what has already been seen and posted at Energetic Forum, Panacea Bocaf and my "copyrighted" Scribd publication.
Sincerely,
Glen A Lettenmaier (aka FuzzyTomCat)
PUBLIC NOTICE
QUOTE: http://www.energeticforum.com/70207-post2913.html ( can we use your data for a paper )
witsend
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,063
Guys - some more really good news.
IEEE have informed me that I can resubmit the paper with new revised information and evidence of open source duplication of the experiment provided that they are made fully cogniscant of the data available at the replication.
The implication is clearly that the first was not considered as having sufficient information. So Fuzzy. Would you please allow a collaboration on a new paper including your revised data - that we can submit this for peer review? We're game if you are. I see a comfortable collaboration between all parties here - provided you have no objections to us using your data.
In fact I think that many parties could come to the table here - all from our contributors and it would be so nice if you could pm Fuzzy, me, Aaron or Harvey with suggestions or considerations. Just think of it. The first collaborative attempt of a paper submitted by open source enthusiasts. And possibly the first proof of significant energy savings OU OR COP>17. Both are amazing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I ..... Glen Lettenmaier, am withdrawing any use of my complete Test number "Thirteen" (13) data and image files for further usage, evaluation or publication, other than what has already been seen and posted at Energetic Forum, Panacea Bocaf and my "copyrighted" Scribd publication.
Sincerely,
Glen A Lettenmaier (aka FuzzyTomCat)
Are you really that intent on stealing Rosemary's research? She's obviously the original author. How about letting it go.
Are you really that intent on stealing Rosemary's research? She's obviously the original author. How about letting it go.
PUBLIC NOTICE
QUOTE: http://www.energeticforum.com/70207-post2913.html ( can we use your data for a paper )
witsend
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,063
Guys - some more really good news.
IEEE have informed me that I can resubmit the paper with new revised information and evidence of open source duplication of the experiment provided that they are made fully cogniscant of the data available at the replication.
The implication is clearly that the first was not considered as having sufficient information. So Fuzzy. Would you please allow a collaboration on a new paper including your revised data - that we can submit this for peer review? We're game if you are. I see a comfortable collaboration between all parties here - provided you have no objections to us using your data.
In fact I think that many parties could come to the table here - all from our contributors and it would be so nice if you could pm Fuzzy, me, Aaron or Harvey with suggestions or considerations. Just think of it. The first collaborative attempt of a paper submitted by open source enthusiasts. And possibly the first proof of significant energy savings OU OR COP>17. Both are amazing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I ..... Glen Lettenmaier, am withdrawing any use of my complete Test number "Thirteen" (13) data and image files for further usage, evaluation or publication, other than what has already been seen and posted at Energetic Forum, Panacea Bocaf and my "copyrighted" Scribd publication.
Sincerely,
Glen A Lettenmaier (aka FuzzyTomCat)
You have got to be kidding. Glen did much of the actual work involved in that paper submission; he is withdrawing his work because further work on his part identified a major error, unless I am gravely mistaken.Golly TK. One CANNOT refute the evidence unless you discount the value of the Tektronix TDS3054C that he used. LOL. What he DID do - which was sadly transparent in its motives - was use a second more sophisticated machine - he then adjusted the 'preferred oscillation' to show a loss which is REALLY easy to do - and then claimed that his earlier experiments where thereby DISPROVED. Actually. Let me correct that. He did the tests - Harvey did the analysis. LOL. What a joke.
The Quantum article published "nine years ago" has many problems, including but not limited to the fact that the circuit as shown in that article produces NOT a 3 or 4 percent ON duty cycle at the mosfet, but the EXACT INVERSE, that is, a 96 or 97 percent ON cycle at the mosfet.LOL The ONLY person who found this error is YOU. It was entirely refuted by Bob Potchen amongst others. And had it produced a 96 or 97 percent ON cycle then it would have shown a commensurate waveform on the shunt that would have supported this. The shunt values were earlier taken off our FLUKE. Nowhere near as sophisticated an instrument the Tektronix that I solicited to assist us in Glen's tests. But it was more than sufficient at the frequencies measured. So. With respect. You did something there that ONLY YOU seemed to find. But it's interesting that you, nonetheless, go on and on about this. The measurements - the primary data - is extrapolated without any reference WHATSOEVER to the required duty cycle. It just takes what's given to it and then shows the appropriate numbers. I really don't give a damn - in any event - if there was an error in the publication of that 555 circuitry. It is irrelevant. It's the data that we measured. And that does NOT lie.
Using that exact circuit and that 97 percent ON duty cycle, I was able to reproduce very closely the reported heat-vs-time profiles given in that paper --- strongly suggesting that a fundamental error was made in the original experiment of Rosemary Ainslie.TK? REALLY? I unfortunately NEVER saw evidence of a preferred oscillation mode - with respect.
Using a 3 or 4 percent duty cycle (as claimed in the Quantum paper) nobody has been able to get anything like the published heat profiles. And using the circuit published in the Quantum article nobody has been able to get a 3 or 4 percent ON duty cycle at the mosfet.This is true. Glen only got COP>7. But frankly - that only speaks to the requirement of more tess. What Glen PROVED is that there are those choice moments in that resonance where the gain EXCEEDS the energy supplied from the battery. We also saw this. What we're hoping to do is find a way of keeping it at precisely this level - if it's possible. But with or without these optimised moments - the gains are unequivocal.
The original Quantum experiment was performed using a Fluke Scope-Meter (the model has been stated at various times to be either a 123 or a 199, IIRC) a 20 MHz digital oscilloscope without on-board integration capability.This kind of reminds me of the following analogy that I used. Everyone can scale 1 meter in a high jump. Then someone scales 2 meters. Everyone says that's impossible. So others try. Then someone scales the 2 meter jump and films that effort. Then others continue to try and they still deny it's possibility. You see this? It just proves that you actually never managed that high jump. Not that the high jump is unscaleable.
I have made measurements of the Ainslie circuit using both these Fluke models, as well as fast analog scopes and a 1 GHz LeCroy digital scope that can do on-board power integration.
My replications of the Ainslie circuit, using her diagrams, "corrected" circuits as published by Peter Lindemann, Aaron Murakami, and others, as well as ordinary function generators, DO show the heat profiles she published (when a long duty cycle is used), DO NOT show these heat profiles at the 3 or 4 percent duty cycles claimed, and DO show APPARENT reversed energy flows with a properly positioned flyback diode in the circuit.
However, properly performed integrations over time of the VxI power traces show no excess energy.
My tests are mostly still available on YouTube.
Good luck Rose Pete
I can say, relating to the original thread, that there was far more data being posted relative to "Character" than to the experiment itself.This is required. The data is impeccable. The only hope is to discredit my character. The object being to discredit the tests - by hell or high water.
This leads to one of several conclusions, which I am sure will cause m grief just for listing them. 1) Good Data, Good "Discovery" (Which has probably been shown in other unrelated areas, but not explained...) and someone wants "Credit" for it. 2) Good Data, but there was some form of error in the overall processing. 3) Good Data, but later found to be the result of a process that has already been documented. 4) Bad data and it's being insured that certain parties take the blame.The answer here is partly in your 1st point. But like all things it's not the whole of the picture. There was a 'squabble' over the paper which I initiated as an open source effort. Very unfortunate decision here. It led to the inevitable squabbles as there were two members who were simply out to claim the entire experiment as an independent discovery. The confrontation was rather unbridled - the most of it confined to off forum communications - and, being 'unfettered' in their emails, they indulged in a level of communication that was entirely unprofessional - excessive in it's delivery - and abusive in it's text. Most of those statements made are actionable - and I look forward one day to finding a forum where I can make full disclosure of that - just to alert our public as to the nature of the players involved. The comfort is that not all forum members are like that. The sad news is that there are even any. I suppose the truth is that I should just forget it. But it was so PROFOUNDLY shocking. I had NO idea that I was dealing with such horrors.
I could list a few more, but all of them state one thing. More work, or further development needs to be done. I am assuming that this is in process, but if this really shows any gain, the old human nature mustNo. The only work being done by Glen and Harvey is the ongoing attempt to deny the earlier evidence. But not much of that either. They have very little interest in their own thread and even less participation. Thankfully, their denials of efficiency are largely discounted. In effect, had I not PROTESTED as strongly as I did - then I have NO DOUBT that this technology would have been buried. That was and is their intention.
come into play. Is that what's happening here?
Or are petty emotions and greed taking over the subject?I can only assure you that there's nothing PETTY in these constant requirements to ward off their attacks. And I'm not qualified to say how much is motivated by greed or pure spite. Possibly a little of both. I have every intention of capitalising on this technology when it's finally determined how to 'up the wattage'. And if it is not 'upped' then nor have I impoverished anyone in trying. By the same token I would be delighted to see others advance the technolgy where the benefits will be entirely to their own accounts. There's NO intellectual property rights here at all.
Or is there proof of error? (Real proof, not possible...)If there is proof of error then I assure you that there are MANY experts who have not been able to find it. Just look again at the list of accreditors.
and Vice-versa, is there real proof of function? (Beyond what I have seen. All I have is the original hand-written sheets, which seem fine.)The technology is entirely proven to 'PROOF OF CONCEPT' But, of course, it needs development. We're looking to try and resolve any outstanding questions here.Loner? I have never objected to thoughtful critical observations. Much required. I think the only reason that I've been given moderation of the thread is to ensure that it's not subjected to the kind of troll attack that was evident - historically. I have only deleted a single post from Ramset as he had an 'adults only' link - one from shrugged Atlas - which was done in error - and 1 from Spinn because it was just way too offensive. For the rest I've either tolerated comments or reposted them on another thread. With all that rubbish it would otherwise have buried my thead here. Also. I try, to the best of my ability to MARK any modifications that I make to my own posts. I NEVER modify others' posts.
Seeing that Rose is "No longer" reading this thread, I must assume she cannot respond to this, but I hesitate to put this into Her thread as, from what I can read here, the moderation seems to have an agenda, which this type of comment might not fit into. What that agenda is, it's not even my place to guess.
So, I guess what I am asking is, what's the real point to all of this? Or is this whole project just a Soap Opera?I actually think that Glen is 'bursting' for want of telling his story. And frankly - I think he should. It may 'clear his head' so to speak. There's always two sides to a story and - albeit that he struggles with language - he clearly feels that he has his justifications. I haven't seen any justifiable reason for his withholding prime data from the public which is what he invariably resorts to doing. The subject is way too important for his personal feelings to get in the way.
I will be listening. Clear language requested as I can read between the lines very well technically, but this social banter mystifies me..There is no way that ANYONE can remove emotions from science - not with the best will in the world. We are ALL inclined to support our own logic or even our own 'beliefs'. Nothing wrong with that. I'm entirely satisfied that even our Greats were inclined to passion. So. In my book all is just dandy. I'm intensely relieved that Glen is on another thead as I would prefer my own to stay more considered and reasonable. And I am satisfied he is incapable of any kind of emotional constraint or sensible thinking.
This couldn't all be "Troll Arrogance", could it? (That would be me, too...)Sorry I missed this. If it is arrogance - then again, I really don't think I'm culpable. I have NOTHING to be arrogant about. Nor has Glen. He's good at experimental work. But that's it.
As a side note, anyone remember the SSG. Did it work? Does that argument sound familiar? Some things never change.......Have NO idea what SSG is - so can't comment.
Rosemary, either way, thanks for the reply.
I find the "Banter" almost as interesting as the concept. I can offer no opinions myself, as I need to review much more before I could.
Maybe I can catch up with other things and really check in-depth, but right now, I must continue with other things. I shall return to this.
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
@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.
Truthbeknown. It is in the most extraordinarily bad taste that you reference a post from a member who is no longer with us.
I have reported this post of yours as I find it positively indecent. There is a world of difference between a 'tease' and a criticism. Clearly it eludes you. I think our moderators will see here why it is that I have so little respect for you and this post of yours is the evidence needed to prove how you are trying to flame my threads and ALL my posts.
Rosemary
So. Where are the results, pics, and videos?
And what exactly are your 'rights' that you can DEMAND results pictures or videos? The readers here Truthbeknown are very well aware of the fact that we have a project here that is funded by those students who GIVE THEIR TIME to this project. No-one is paid for their involvement. It is extracurricular and all are doing their best to fit in the tasks and tests as and when they can. For my part it is enough that this is on campus that the results will be both recorded and supervised under the guidance of experts.
If and when you devote YOUR life to the promotion of clean green as I am doing here - then I think you will be well qualified to DEMAND a performance to some kind of exacting standard. But I see a dearth of experimental involvement by yourself and find it rather distasteful that you should demand anything at all of me. Do you presume to think that I am working as I do - to satisfy your time table or that I am doing all this to gratify your requirements on any issue at all? I assure you you are mistaken.
Rosemary
Very sad for you......And you don't know anything about me or what I have done to promote clean green and I am not obligated to tell YOU anything about it......but you keep posting about your project with all talk and no show....so thats why it gets brought up...you must have a happy and fulfilling life so enjoy yourself.
Would you like some cough syrup for your distaste?
I want one for Christmas! :o
Here's where it get complex, for me, as long as you remain in our "Relative" standard. SOL is constant, for, say, a radio transmission. If you are moving away, at the SOL, and you transmit back from point A, and at the same time you transmit back from point A in a non-moving object, the two signals are at the same speed heading to us. Simple enough. Here's where I start to disagree. "Standard" relativity states that if "Craft" one is moving left to right at SOL and Craft two is moving Right to Left at SOL, then the two crafts approach each other at SOL. Why?
And guys, while I appreciate that a general discussion on time may appear to be irrelevant - indeed it is not. There is MUCH to be understood regarding this. I've said it over and over and I hope that sooner or later it will be understood. IF ANYTHING moved faster than light speed - and provided also that it was SMALLER than a photon - then we would NEVER BE ABLE TO FIND THAT 'THING'. Not ever. It would, effectively be entirely INVISIBLE.
We need light to discover the properties of matter. Or we need something to 'bounce' off something - to determine these proposed particles that may indeed exist. Think of it as something as slow and big as a tortoise - trying to chase something as small and elegant as a wasp or a butterfly. Both would always and easily be able to stay out of reach. And my proposal is simple. Perhaps our 'fields' comprise particles that move at velocities that EXCEED light speed. And as a consequence they are elusive, never to be found - DARK.
In any event - that's the basis of my thesis. The point being that that velocity would - in fact - introduce another dimension. Our dimensions are length, breadth and depth. And all is relative to a time frame relative to light speed. If something exceeded light speed then it may perhaps share our dimensions of length, breadth and depth - but it would NOT be evident in our time frame. It would be like the occupants of those space crafts - travelling at light speed but signalling each other when they'd passed each other. The signal depends on light speed. But the rate at which they're moving apart apart exceeds light speed. In point of fact their 'chat' would never ever reach each other unless they slowed down to light speed. Or unless they described an orbital and co-incident flight path.
In effect - we cannot and never will be able to access something that exceeds light speed. It's a boundary constraint. It would need to slow down for us to prove its existence - at all.
I keep hoping I'll say something that 'resonates' somewhere. LOL My actual proposal is that velocity relates to 'size' and therefore - these particles may indeed be smaller than photons. If velocity and size are related then the smaller the faster - the bigger the slower. So. If something is half the size of a photon? Then perhaps it moves at twice the speed of a photon. Something on those lines - in any event.
Regards,
Rosemary
The woman is going through the trouble of University testing her circuit and publishing the results, yet has relentless detractors. Delete all the negative garbage Rosemary and carry on.
And Truthbeknown - I do not THINK that academics are reading here.
Rosemary.
LOL I see that Glen is posting the whole of these comments on his own thread. This because he does not have that innate originality to vary his own posts. Else all you'd be seeing is more and more of those repetitive highly coloured shouts that point to blocked links or deleted posts.
I need to discuss something here which has only really hit me since I've been banned from Energetic Forum. I've logged in there under the name Gabriel. That way I can - at least - access my own earlier work to read it and - probably to copy it but not from the message text. In any event. Here's the thing. As a registered user I can access the work - but I CANNOT access any links. This means that readers there are also not able to access those links. Now. I have always written for the benefit, not so much of the members - but for the benefit of the readers. It's apparent that not only are there many more such. But they don't comment. They just read. And I've always seen this very much in line with our 'silent majority' who - unlike the NOISY MINORITY who simply shout the odds - they are in fact the representative majority with a democratic authority. In effect - that readership is the real value of these forums. That's where there's always a chance that the 'message' can be spread - or understood.
Now. Let's put speculations out of the equation as to what Glen's motives are - for the time being. Let's just look at the facts. IF indeed that silent majority cannot access the 'links' as I cannot access the links - then there's an enormous percentage of the reading public who are ALSO now entirely removed from that data. Effectively by removing all those posts as Glen did - he's effectively also removed ALL SIGHT OF THAT DATA from the majority of the reading public there. Whatever the motive - he's INDEED been able to HIDE all that good news from the vast majority of readers there - and yet he can PRETEND that he has not done so. LOL
I also know that he's REALLY good on the internet. He has admitted as much to me. So again. Without speculating let's again look at the 'facts' of his refusing to post his work here. Original work posted on OU.com cannot be patented. That's the fact. Therefore - if he were to post his work on these forums then he would not be able to patent it. Therefore, I put it to you that he is refusing to post this because he is witholding to himself - the right to patent that as original work. I can't think of ANY other reason for him witholding that data.
There was a time when we were best of friends. I often asked him to post the data on OU.com as this was as required a vehicle of promoting that work as was EF.Com, OUR.com or indeed any dot com that could advance this. He would lapse into muttering about bandwidth and space availabiltiy and explained that it was IMPOSSIBLE. Being a confirmed ignoramus on the internet I believed him. That is - I believed him until Wilby showed - with such impeccable skill - what a load of unsubstantiated BS Glen was indulging. But Wilby's comments here were immediately followed by some entirely irrelevant graphics intended to throw the comments off the page and out of focus. It's not that Glen does not know how to format. He simply pretends that he cannot when it he needs to hide the argument - very much as he does with my posts.
In any event - back to the argument. My considered opinion is that Glen knows EXACTLY what he's doing by not posting original work here. He DARE NOT. Else he'd need to put paid to it as open source property. I think, what I need to do - is to post it for him. As he claims that it IS open source - then I don't think he'd have any valid objections to my doing so. Certainly I would need to acknowledge it as his own work. But that's it. And IF he HOWLS with objections - then here's my question. Why would he? Is he not interested in advancing these desirable technologies? Or is it because he thinks it does not work after all? Certainly he's not coming out clearly on either side of that heavily loaded argument. And he really needs to.
Regards,
Rosemary
BTW I've now written to Harti to find out what our rights are here. My personal opinion is that there's actually NOTHING to prevent that posting of original work - as Glen insists that his interests regarding this are to benefit OPEN SOURCE.
ADDED
Hi everyone,
There is one "exclusive" draw back to having the big alternative energy device when doing a patent .... and at the present time there is some 5,000 odd that has been taken by this amendment added in the late 1950's :suprise:
United States Patent Law: Title 35, Part II, Chapter 17, Sections 181-188 (link) (http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/consolidated_laws.pdf) (page 44 of 88)Quote35 U.S.C. 181 Secrecy of certain inventions and withholding of patent.
Whenever publication or disclosure by the publication of an application or by the grant of a patent on an invention in which the Government has a property interest might, in the opinion of the head of the interested Government agency, be detrimental to the national security, the Commissioner of Patents upon being so notified shall order that the invention be kept secret and shall withhold the publication of an application or the grant of a patent therefor under the conditions set forth hereinafter.
Whenever the publication or disclosure of an invention by the publication of an application or by the granting of a patent, in which the Government does not have a property interest, might, in the opinion of the Commissioner of Patents, be detrimental to the national security, he shall make the application for patent in which such invention is disclosed available for inspection to the Atomic Energy Commission, the Secretary of Defense, and the chief officer of any other department or agency of the Government designated by the President as a defense agency of the United States.
Each individual to whom the application is disclosed shall sign a dated acknowledgment thereof, which acknowledgment shall be entered in the file of the application. If, in the opinion of the Atomic Energy Commission, the Secretary of a Defense Department, or the chief officer of another department or agency so designated, the publication or disclosure of the invention by the publication of an application or by the granting of a patent therefor would be detrimental to the national security, the Atomic Energy Commission, the Secretary of a Defense Department, or such other chief officer shall notify the Commissioner of Patents and the Commissioner of Patents shall order that the invention be kept secret and shall withhold the publication of the application or the grant of a patent for such period as the national interest requires, and notify the applicant thereof. Upon proper showing by the head of the department or agency who caused the secrecy order to be issued that the examination of the application might jeopardize the national interest, the Commissioner of Patents shall thereupon maintain the application in a sealed condition and notify the applicant thereof. The owner of an application which has been placed under a secrecy order shall have a right to appeal from the order to the Secretary of Commerce under rules prescribed by him.
An invention shall not be ordered kept secret and the publication of an application or the grant of a patent withheld for a period of more than one year. The Commissioner of Patents shall renew the order at the end thereof, or at the end of any renewal period, for additional periods of one year upon notification by the head of the department or the chief officer of the agency who caused the order to be issued that an affirmative determination has been made that the national interest continues to so require. An order in effect, or issued, during a time when the United States is at war, shall remain in effect for the duration of hostilities and one year following cessation of hostilities. An order in effect, or issued, during a national emergency declared by the President shall remain in effect for the duration of the national emergency and six months thereafter. The Commissioner of Patents may rescind any order upon notification by the heads of the departments and the chief officers of the agencies who caused the order to be issued that the publication or disclosure of the invention is no longer deemed detrimental to the national security.
(Amended Nov. 29, 1999, Public Law 106-113, sec. 1000(a)(9), 113 Stat. 1501A-566, 582 (S. 1948 secs. 4507(7) and 4732(a)(10)(B)).)
Sections 182 through 188 are really interesting !!
Good Luck !!
Best Regards,
Glen
:)
Hi Glen,
Apart from the never ending cat-fight between you and Rosemary, did you meanwhile make any progress with this circuit? I would be great to hear some positive news once in a while … We’re still burning oil, BP can pollute huge areas in the Gulf of Mexico, nobody seems to care much and everything just continues like before. Not the slightest sign there will be a change shortly! I have the feeling that if I don’t look at this forum and come back after 5 years, you and Rosemary are still bickering, nothing much changed and we’re still burning oil … ;-)
Cheers,
B
Hi Glen,
Apart from the never ending cat-fight between you and Rosemary, did you meanwhile make any progress with this circuit? I would be great to hear some positive news once in a while … We’re still burning oil, BP can pollute huge areas in the Gulf of Mexico, nobody seems to care much and everything just continues like before. Not the slightest sign there will be a change shortly! I have the feeling that if I don’t look at this forum and come back after 5 years, you and Rosemary are still bickering, nothing much changed and we’re still burning oil … ;-)
Cheers,
B
QuoteOriginally Posted by Harvey View PostHey Harvey,
Thanks Glen,
As always I am impressed by your work
I was trying to do some basic calculations on how long your two batteries can sustain a 5.5 watt load. I come up with about 104 hours, does that sound right? They are each 12Ah batteries so there is 24Ah of charge in them. A basic DC breakdown is 5.5W / 24V = 0.229A. 24Ah / 0.229A = 104 hours.
So all we need to do now is run for more than 104 hours on those batteries and we have pretty good proof that we have extra energy coming from somewhere else And that's not even counting the lost energy in MOSFET or CSR to heat. Good Stuff!
ETA: Oh, I almost forgot - if we conclude that those Gel-Cell (edit: wait, those or Liquid Acid?) batteries are discharged when they reach 10V each, then that would be a drop of 4V over the 104 hours. That would give us a 0.0385V (38.5mV) drop per hour. So for the 5 hours we would have expected a minimum of 193mV drop not counting the energy spent on the MOSFET and CSR. Our results show only 110mV drop in that time frame, 83mV short of the linear projection. So you can see why we think we are getting energy from somewhere. Either that, or our battery discharge is not linear And BTW, it only gets better for us if we conclude the battery voltage should be lower than 10V when discharged (of course we all know that the battery voltage needs to be measured under specific load conditions)
I'm sorry it took so long to do a detailed overview of the "LIVE" broadcast I did in the "Open Source Research and Development" (http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment) channel on the January 9, 2010 (http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment/video?clipId=pla_6d255c76-9e9a-42ae-a565-fbc698e0b6df) 5 Hour non stop video recording.
This video as you are aware is one of the best ever recorded representation of the preferred mode of operation but only in a non stop 5 Hour video. I'm sure that many members and guests don't realize the difficulty in capturing this effect for the purpose of recording the data properly and if given the time looking at the recorded video everyone can see the problems that we face in getting accurate data.
The constant 24 volt battery bank voltage fluctuations going up and down the Mosfet "drain" spike oscillating from 500 to 900 volts, battery voltage down the Mosfet spikes, battery voltage up the Mosfet voltage to normal operating range, back and forth over and over.
I have tried to get as close to this mode of operation in Test #13 (http://cid-6b7817c40bb20460.skydrive.live.com/self.aspx/.Public/Mosfet%20Heater/Test%20%5E313%5E_11-26-09.zip) which was used in the IEEE submittal Open Source Evaluation of Power Transients Generated to Improve Performance Coefficient of Resistive Heating Systems (http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems) the team including yourself did, and in Test #22 (http://cid-6b7817c40bb20460.skydrive.live.com/self.aspx/.Public/Mosfet%20Heater/Test%20%5E322%5E_02-05-10.zip) but never being able to record the data scientifically correct because of the circuits complex oscillating waveforms. I don't think everyone, members and guests understands that the Test #13 was done with a Tektronix TDS 3054C which has a maximum resolution of 10K of data spread over a 10 x 10 grid or divisions so each one has 1k of data samples separately for each of the 4 channels. The data collected in Test #22 was with a Tektronix DPO 3054 which has a maximum resolution of 5M of data, but I used the 100K which is spread over the same 10 x 10 grid or divisions so each one has 10k of data samples separately for each of the 4 channels ..... ten ( 10 ) times the data of the TDS 3054C used in Test #13.
The problem being we need to find a method of capturing the data continuously in real time, there's nothing wrong with Tektronix TDS 3054C or the DPO 3054 these are the finest instruments I've ever used and are extremely accurate, but if you push the acquire button at the wrong time you can appear to get conflicting or skewed data, not the case .... were you before the spike, during the spike or after the spike when the data was collected. I had a allotted dedicated set time to record the data, It was the time frame I used with the 6 minutes or as fast as the data could be physically collected with the finest equipment I had at my disposal.
I am in total agreement with you that something "good" is happening in the Mosfet Heating Circuit and can be plainly seen in the recorded videos, we just need to somehow get a streaming real time data recording. Maybe by somehow obtaining a Real-Time Spectrum Analyzers (http://www2.tek.com/cmswpt/psdetails.lotr?ct=PS&cs=psu&ci=13394&lc=EN) from Tektronix or some other method to verify the data findings as you suggested, the equipment I previously used as good as it is, just isn't enough to totally capture what is occurring during the preferred mode of operation.
Best Regards,
Glen
:)
I happen to know that Rosemary is not able to read or answer any posts here. Not at the moment. But she will. And Glen - I will make it my personal mission to see you in hell if she does not get around to deleting your crap.
And I am not threatening you. That is my promise. You are an inarticulate imbecile. b4FreeEnergy - you are way too polite. The guy is a dirty con plagiarist who is trying to kill this work so that he can steal it. Just tell it like it is. How anyone can give him the space for all that crap is beyond me. Who even reads it? What a half wit.
What do we have here ??? a reincarnated Rosemary Ainslie "TROLL" ..... good thing IP addresses are traceable ..... ever heard of "TERMS of SERVICE" ??
What a joke. If I am a troll - you imbecile - then what does that make you?
Are you surprised that Tektronix refused to lend you any more equipment? I saw it coming sure as sun up. What you need is a long session with a straight jacket.
witsend
Senior Member
Guys, I think the need to at least display our waveform is taken on board. I have no idea how to do this and will have to impose on my co-author's time which is already massively constrained. So don't hold your breath but I will try and get this.
I will also, subject to my son's return - try and get some video information our on our own circuit. It is the same as the box that was sent to ABB for their replication purposes. Some years after their tests, they contacted me and asked what they were to do with that box. I was in correspondence with someone - can't remember who - and asked them to ship it to him. But it is feasible to replicate the circuitry. I'm just not sure who will do this. I certainly can't. But I could, at least, ask around. It's just that the guys who worked on the circuit are now drowning in other work and one of them has left for Durban - so is not easily reached.
But, as I see it, all that is needed is some accurate assessment of the energy returned to the battery. Is it that difficult to get hold of the correct measuring instruments? Perhaps Aaron you could advise me here. I can't see any other way of working out the energy in that 'spike' without the meter that can tell the difference between the two current cycles.
witsend
Senior Member
Joit - is your waveform proving TinselKoala's point? Is that 555 switch wrongly presented? To me it looks like it is. In which case, I must apologise to all concerned. Clearly the Quantum article was wrong.
So, to all concerned - to everyone who built the circuit as presented in that article, and if, indeed, it is wrong, my abject apologies. I had a shrewd idea it may have been wrong because, thinking back, a university professor kindly edited the quantum paper prior to presenting it to the IET. And his first recommendation was that we omitted a detailed circuit of the 555 switch as being irrelevant to the claim. Which is why I was reluctant to endorse the Quantum article as being a correct presentation.I just wish, in retrospect, that he had pointed out the error if he had seen such. In any event, it seems that I have been entirely at fault. My own objection to it was due to the lack of the feedback diode - which was the entire subject of the exercise. I knew it was in the apparatus. It certainly was not in diagram.
I would point out though, that my reluctance to admit this prior to ascertaining the fact was due to the person who presented that diagram and assisted me in that first article. He is a good friend and he, like all of us, was 'giving' his time. I was not keen therefore to expose the problem unless I also knew it was a problem. So, if you're reading this, don't even worry. In any event, the blame was not his. I should, at least, have had the circuit vetted - considering my own inability to read such.
So. Many apologies, even to TinselKoala and anyone in the entire world who duplicated that circuit. It is wrongly presented. I am sincerely sorry that I have wasted so much of your time. And Joit - you've put the question to bed. I would be very glad to refund you for your time and trouble - if required - and if I can get the money to you with our exchange control. Just send me an account on the PM system. You've done a very good thing here.
What I do assure you all is this. The switch may have been wrongly drawn. Our own duty cycle application is NOT. I have the experimental apparatus available and it has been checked by EE's even at universities. We have also, over the years, built many different 555 switches and by different people. And there are replicated experiments by others using nothing but a functions generator. And all this prior to publication. More to the point is that the battery duration is consistent with measurements based on the duty cycle. But, in point of fact, after publication I never experimented again for a period of 7 years and I certainly never even looked at the article again. The only reason I could scan a copy for the blog when I eventually did this, was because my children kept a copy of the original publication. I was just so dejected at the entire lack of interest it seemed to generate. I had no idea that the test would really ever be duplicated.
Therefore, please take this admission as a sincere apology to all those who have tried to build the switch according to the quantum article. I see that the Quantum article was the primary reference point as the IET paper was only posted to the blog after July. It seems that Ramset and TinselKoala started their thread on OU.COM in mid June. Unfortunate. But there you are. Sorry guys - It's all I can say.
It's her circuit, Fuzzy. Cut the crap already.
It's her circuit, Fuzzy. Cut the crap already.
With all due respect happyfunball, you will find the same circuit outlined here in Fig 12a:
http://www.datasheetcatalog.org/datasheet/irf/irfpg50.pdf (http://www.datasheetcatalog.org/datasheet/irf/irfpg50.pdf)
That PDF has a date of 10/97.
However, The HEXFET Power MOSFET Designer's Manual HDM-3 of which I have in my library, has the exact same circuit and is dated September 1993. You will also find that document included in the references in my work used in the paper.
The record clearly shows the circuit to be in the public domain at least five years prior to Rosemary filing her first patent application.
No one is trying to steal anything, it is already available for everyone to use and has been for over 17 years now.
;)
With all due respect happyfunball, you will find the same circuit outlined here in Fig 12a:
http://www.datasheetcatalog.org/datasheet/irf/irfpg50.pdf (http://www.datasheetcatalog.org/datasheet/irf/irfpg50.pdf)
That PDF has a date of 10/97.
However, The HEXFET Power MOSFET Designer's Manual HDM-3 of which I have in my library, has the exact same circuit and is dated September 1993.
witsend
Senior Member
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.
aetherevarising
The Quantum article was wholly written by myself. The Figures and tables were drafted for inclusion in that paper by Brian Buckley. He is/was a technician who worked with me. He made no other material contribution to the experiments, the design of the experiments or to any other aspect of the paper. He is listed as 'author' as a courtesy only. He is/was entirely unfamiliar with the objects of those tests except as they transpired - over time.
I dont know but it seems that some people want that @rosemary be perfect.
Nobody in the whole world is perfect. Just let her be.
Jesus
The gig is LONG up Rose, dont distract people any more and leave us get on with the work we are doing.
i am sure you will be banned if you dont take this hint.
Ashtweth Palise
Panacea founder
Jesus dont try and understand the issue, if you cannot now, it has been spelled out that things she did were deliberate and made no sense, Glen has spelled it out in full color, 6 people have all testified to it, i am one of them, if you dont get it, dont comment, dont tell us to treat people normal, we do , and have tried numerous times to help Rose, thats the point of why we are pointing this all out. Every one who posted and didn't read made a fool out of themselves. Right in front of the people who contribute, at least we got that out of this time wasting mess.
Ashtweth
witsend
hi Joit. Love the comments. What scares me is not the academics - because at least they sincerely believe in their science - with good reason. Its the detractors on other forums that are worrying. The lengths they go to to discredit the person and the claim - both.
Have you ever looked through the OU.Com thread on this? It beggars belief. Malice hardly describes it. And the amount of money that is spent on displaying tests and parading brand new state of the art equipment that is never effectively used. Weeks go by without a single test result - just promises of this. Yet we are constantly advised that the claim is wrong. Has it ever occurred to anyone that - to this day - no single power measurement has been made on the circuitry? No test has been run to duration of a battery capacity. Brand new state of the art equipment is constantly on display but never are its full functions referenced. Small irrelevant points become critical evidence of a lack of proof and are championed with an unabashed repetitiveness that is boringly persistent but brutally destructive. But no actual proof is offered.
What is frightening is that anyone who questions a result is actually verbally menaced. One post we've got on record is of Ramset's answer to a challenging observation by one of their contributors. He actually wrote to the effect that 'owlsley needs to kiwl the kitty'. TK is on record as openly saying that I am a mendacious prevaricator. Apparently all aspects of our test are some sort of public con, apparently aimed at I don't know what? Surely my stated intention not to capitalise on the device must bring my motives to question. Clearly, if I am perpetuating a con - then it's not for purposes of defrauding the public. Why would I go to such lengths to expose a small little effect, possibly the smallest of any OU claim ever offered up for consideration? What is it that deserves their heavy handed attempts at wit or sarcasm, done with the orchestrated approval of other 'so called' scientists sharing that thread. TK only needs to make a post for immediate endorsement by other contributors who also then mock my apparent lack of sanity, judgement, intelligence, schooling, beliefs, ideas, lack of expertise - name it's all there. All for public consumption. All unchallenged. And all such detractors always out of reach, always carefully hiding behind their assumed identities. They flirt with their rights to freedom of expression that under normal circumstances, and under ordinary civil law would be actionable. And all this, clearly with Stephan's endorsement. Never do they give us their names. Never do they disclose their identities. Never are we in a position to find out their actual motives.
To compound my concerns is the fact that the entire forum was promoted by Stephan, with, one would assume, the intention of promoting the study of free energy. I can no longer access OU.Com. Was he responsible for my not gaining access? And if so, at whose asking and why? Public - to everyone but me? Then too it seems that my emails are being read. How does that happen? Are my phone calls also being monitored?
It's all very puzzling. All I want is an answer to the question posed in my paper - ideally from academics who can validate the result or not and comment accordingly. If they won't hear me then maybe they'll listen to you guys? It's quite important really. But its only a small question. In the light of the attack, however, I'm realising how significant it is. Certainly it seems to be sufficiently significant for them to do everything in their power to destroy my reputation and my work - both. Why is it that important? I can only propose it's because we're near the truth and this, for some reason, needs to be discredited. And again. Why?
I have been hospitalised for nearly a week.glad you are back. hope you are feeling better.
All that happened in this whole saga is people did not listen to creditable hard workers in the open source community and made a fool out of themselves. we know who you are now. I am glad this is over, we told you so, all as it did was unnecessary distract engineers from work.
now we can get on with the job with out the you know whats.
Ash
Just posting for others emailing me, here , that i wont be involved in this thread/forum/ incident, and for others to ignore any reference to me (never mind posting/emailing me about it) . Good luck with your experiments here.
Glen,no, he is posting quotes that are over a year old.
Rose was able post earlier today. Are you saying she has now been put on "read only" status?
.99
http://www.energeticforum.com/61506-post942.html July 20,2009 Post #942
no, he is posting quotes that are over a year old.
the date is what gives it away poynty... ;)
I'll let Stefan handle the last past flaming posts starting at Post #803 from Rosemary about her recent banning and moderator status here at Over Unity Forum and her unfounded unproved allagations again against everyone in the world but her. The truth hurts ......
Regards,
Glen
Hi Rosemary,Hi B. Thanks for the kind words. I know how you've been following this progress. I want you to keep and eye out for lasersaber's new work and check out the work being done on the Joule Thief threads. I'll send you a link to my own blog - when and if I get one. Just not sure where I'll go next. I'm afraid that the ego's and self-serving interests of those 'replicators' makes these forums pure poison. But as they say - any publicity is good publicity.
I don’t know every detail of what happened between you and the famous 6 or three or whatever but I guess what needed to be told is told often enough now in this thread and in the former thread(s) at Energetic Forum. It’s almost as if you killed somebody and are trying to get away with it! What did you do to have them so viciously following you? I don't get it. In any case I do admire your energy and courage to continue posting here on your new thread. I would have kissed goodbye all this long ago without ever looking back!
Are there any new results from your setup at the SA University?
Cheers,
B
Stefan is not stupid, the EF.com banned Rose cause of her behavior after being asked to take any personal crusades off the forum (which were nothing to do with us BTW) was ignored. Stefan also wants none of this nonessential blabber in this forum.
Mean time, we have all been doing open source work, at the EF.com and other things, no one needs or cares for any distractions of this kind. Stefan is not stupid Rose. Neither are Glen, Harvey, Aaron, myself and others you have dealt with who all say the same thing.
Thats the last post of this kind i am doing. I feel for Glen/Harvey and Aaron, they could of been light years ahead with their open source work if they had not had to deal with this mess, i have been watching. Those who want to work, i suggest you display this trait now. Rose wont be doing this mess for much longer. I Have a lot of work to do BTW.
Ash
Ashtweth I am well aware of how hopelessly in love you are with Glen. But the standards of Open Source require replications to be acknowledged as such. One does not expect the outright theft of the technology that is then advanced. You seem to have overlooked this. Your judgement is, therefore highly suspect. Not only that - but your general grasp of the facts seem to be lacking. Glen, Harvey and You do not add up SIX people. It is less than a majority either in a collaboration or in any context at all. And Glen's loud and rather inarticulate demands to have this technology divorced from my own poor efforts - is excessively transparent - to everyone. The difference is that there are those of you who apparently endorse that theft.
You have made an alarming judgement call. Time will show you this. And I am entirely satisfied that all three of you will be so utterly discredited that you will not be able to show your faces on any forums anywhere. I may be systematically banned - but I will NEVER tire of promoting that something that I entirely understand. And I intend progressing that understanding. And may I assure you that you will NEVER be able to license this energy as you are hoping. Steorne's application is absolutely NOT efficient - NOR patentable - no matter the weight of finance in support of it. There is MUCH out there that shows considerably more promise. And all of it ENTIRELY understandable and replicable and usable. All that is needed is an increase in the power output.
NOW. You have not answered my question. What will you do when we make public our results? Will you STILL try to advise the world and it's wife that this is Glen's work? And what will you do when the world and it's wife learn how EASY it is to generate their utility requirements away from your licensing authority? Will you howl about injustice? And tell me something Ashtweth. How can either Glen or Harvey or for that matter you - promote something that they and you don't even understand? Or if they/you understand it - then why are they/you not promoting that knowledge? Scarey stuff here Ashtweth.
And B, if you're reading here - I have killed no-one. This is the ONLY reason that these three horrors are trying to get our work out of the public eye.
@RA
So when will people who need to, be able to heat their water? Or is all this commotion part of the ingredients?
From experience, it is best to not respond to counter-productive posts. You will just be compounding the waste of time. So feeding a useless fire only wastes wood. Just let it die off and persevere in what you know is right. Then @stefan will be able to see who is overdoing it and take care of the problem in the right way. Him removing you from moderator is a good thing to protect you.
Oh, in case you are worried, I saved all the pages of this thread and put it on my ftp site here;
http://purco.qc.ca/ftp/Overunity.com%20-%20Forum%20members/rosemarie-ainslie/
I'm not saying I will do this for each additional page, but at least you have till know in case you need it.
wattsup
PS: Beware of those who write in techni-color. lol
glad you are back. hope you are feeling better.Wilby? I missed this entirely - and it would have heartened me considerably. I have paid tribute - often - to your remarkable skills on this forum. I am delighted to see that you're still with me. I also see that you posted on that joke of a thread that Glen started. Another really nice point.
Plagiarism is defined in dictionaries as "the wrongful appropriation, close imitation, or purloining and publication, of another author's language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions, and the representation of them as one's own original work."usage is not plagiarism... get a clue. ::)
PROBLEM - How can a INVENTOR without the knowledge of electronic circuitry or electronic component operation or capability of construction of a electronic circuit INVENT a electronic circuit for a PATENT ?? and how can someone claim INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS as Rosemary Ainslie does on that electronic circuit ??couldn't this same 'logic' be applied to you and your ignorance of 'peer review'?
In the Electric Motor Secrets thread, I showed how to produce mechanical energy while recycling the electricity. In the thread with Imhotep, we showed how to light fluorescent lights while recycling the electricity. Now, here, I am showing Rosemary Ainslie's method to produce heat while recycling the electricity.and then there is this...
This completes the "GENERAL CASE" of how to use electricity efficiently, first described by Nikola Tesla, and referred to by Gabriel Kron as "shuttle circuits". The real method to produce Heat, Light, and Motive Power, at efficiencies above the supposed limits described by the Laws of Thermodynamics, is now fully in the Public Domain.
God Bless you all!
This thread is about Rosemary Ainslie's astonishing contributions to Science, and related developments.
oh it's plagiarism now... ::) do you even have any idea what that word means glen? apparently not.
from the wiki:usage is not plagiarism... get a clue. ::)
and just who was it again that asked rosemary to come to energeticforum?
as an aside, this one is amusing...couldn't this same 'logic' be applied to you and your ignorance of 'peer review'?
Hi Stefan,
Your quote of .....
I will not have anymore any boards with names of inventors...
This is actually a good move if you want to document and fully evaluate testing on a submittal for possible publication in a accredited Journal or Magazine. The problem being that for a "PIER" review and to be "UN BIAS" in the review process, no personal names or identities can be used in the submittal at all. Then if excepted after pier review prior to publication the names of people or identities are added.
So, if your Forum thread or posting in the submittal process is used, "NO" names can be in the context at all during the submittal process .... problem is now with your name on the threads or postings.
Best Regards,
Glen
Hey Willy,so you are saying yes, that 'logic' could be applied to you? or are you engaging in logical fallacy and avoiding the question entirely?
"BFD"
You would think after Rosemary trying countless times at IEEE for a submittal approval she would know about a "UN BIAS" review ..... so why again did she name a thread after herself if she wanted to use the data for publication in a accredited Journal or Magazine?
Or did you think the "Mosfet Heater Circuits" a generic name was for some other reason over at Energetic Forum?
Do you just TROLL around and flap your lips in every thread on the forum ? or have you ever done any experimental device construction, testing and evaluation that's posted here at Over Unity that you would like to share? Hummm ..... http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=10837 guess not ..... lots of one liners though .....
.
your posted comments above are irrelevant and SPAMMING the board AGAIN to hide the TRUTH in pages of nonsense ! A Rosemary Ainslie trick ...... how much you get paid by her?
Guys - Glen has again managed to get Scribd to delete my posting of our paper. Over 6000 reads and at least 40 endorsements and a good forum for spreading the word. This is the second time he's done this. He will need to prove sole authorship - which will not be possible. In any event I'm in touch with them there.
The copyright is not his. He is not capable of writing a paper. God knows. He doesn't even know how to do the power analysis. He contributed NOT ONE WORD to any of it. Just his experiments. For that matter nor did Ashtweth. He would not be capable of writing a paper. He does not have the verbal skills. What a joke. Then Harvey will come into the story and CLAIM that he was sole author. And so it goes. I do hope that you ALL see what is going on here. They are DESPERATE. And just so anxious to close the doors - any doors - to me.
The good news is that I think what this is showing you all is that the NEWS is now truly breaking out of its stranglehold. AT LAST. It needed this commotion as wattsup pointed out. Meanwhile - I need to leave this to you guys to do with it what you can or must. I'm just too frantically busy. Maybe later on in the week.
Kindest as ever,
Rosie
You would think after Rosemary trying countless times at IEEE for a submittal approval she would know about a "UN BIAS" review ..... so why again did she name a thread after herself if she wanted to use the data for publication in a accredited Journal or Magazine? Or did you think the "Mosfet Heater Circuits" a generic name was for some other reason over at Energetic Forum?
Do you just TROLL around and flap your lips in every thread on the forum ? or have you ever done any experimental device construction, testing and evaluation that's posted here at Over Unity that you would like to share?More to the point - have you? You may have managed the construction of one test circuit schematic and the disclosure of those results but it was done under guidance. And that's actually all you did. I have never seen any evaluation of those tests other than by Harvey or me. It helps no-one to pretend to expertise that you simply do not have Glen. And I rather think that Wilby is well able to do what you cannot do. What I find particularly sad is that you need to pretend to know so much more than you do. Which is not intended to detract from all that you do know. But don't now try and pretend that you ever did that power analysis. Frankly, in my book it made you the prefect experimentalist. You had no idea of your test results until we had finished the analysis. This is like Ashtweth going public and claiming to have contributed to the text of the paper that we submitted. His contribution was by my appointment only and that as the submission's author. Then pompously advises our poor members that they can't comment on his abilities unless they've also written a paper. Golly. He never contributed one word - other than his name. And then he reneged on his submission's duties and tried to give this to Harvey.
Guys - Glen has again managed to get Scribd to delete my posting of our paper. Over 6000 reads and at least 40 endorsements and a good forum for spreading the word. This is the second time he's done this. He will need to prove sole authorship - which will not be possible. In any event I'm in touch with them there.
The copyright is not his. He is not capable of writing a paper. God knows. He doesn't even know how to do the power analysis. He contributed NOT ONE WORD to any of it. Just his experiments. For that matter nor did Ashtweth. He would not be capable of writing a paper. He does not have the verbal skills. What a joke. Then Harvey will come into the story and CLAIM that he was sole author. And so it goes. I do hope that you ALL see what is going on here. They are DESPERATE. And just so anxious to close the doors - any doors - to me.
The good news is that I think what this is showing you all is that the NEWS is now truly breaking out of its stranglehold. AT LAST. It needed this commotion as wattsup pointed out. Meanwhile - I need to leave this to you guys to do with it what you can or must. I'm just too frantically busy. Maybe later on in the week.
Kindest as ever,
Rosie
Guys - here is my link to Scribd.
http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising
There is absolutely NOTHING in that that indicates that 'THIS WAS REMOVED BY THE REQUEST OF THE IEEE'. Not only that but I have been in contact with the admin at the IEEE and they know absolutely nothing about this. But they're looking into it.
Glen. There appears to be absolutely no limit to your malice. Guys - until I've got to the bottom of this kindly IGNORE what Glen has written here and just check the link for yourselves. Clearly Glen is yet again - trying to stir up a hornets nest. The facts are that Glen is trying to divorce me from my access to my own work. In terms of a collaboration any of the authors may publish the work anywhere they wish. In the event that they're paid for it they are required to share that income. Scribd have not paid me anything. LOL. And IF Glen has sole copyright on this work which he simply did not author - anywhere - then he must PROVE that copyright by showing us where he's registered this? And IF he's registered then at least two of us authors will need to contest that registration. It could only have been managed fraudulently.
Regards,
Rosemary
Here's the paper.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS
Rosemary
The data's freely available - all over the place Paul. Here's the link that I gave to Loner.
Regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS
BTW here is that LINK
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS
In the first instance that is not my Scribd file.
Rosemary
In the first instance that is not my Scribd file.
Rosemary
witsend
Senior Member
More On The Hot Potato
I'm hoping this is the link to my Scribd publication. Note that all authors names have had to be removed as well as reference to all authors. TIE submission requires absolute anonymity. It's a fair criterion in my book. But it has not made it to review. I'll post the editors comments after this.
I hope the link works. I'll check it.
100130-071433-(GLEN)_01 Final Draft (http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/100130-071433-GLEN-01-Final-Draft)
Ok. It's up and running. Was rather proud of all our efforts but it seems we still can't get it past the editors. This, like Iravani's application befort this, was dropped like a hot potato. Totally discouraged. On so many levels.
Glen, quite frankly I DARE NOT open those links. I absolutely do not have any 'sworn affidavit' files anywhere at all. And if you have pdf's then it is certainly NOT my work. Just my name that you're using. And you absolutely DO NOT have access to my files. I'll get someone to check out the links in the morning.hi rosemary, the first link is is to the page that was removed by scribd, glen keeps posting screen shots of it. the second link is a copy of the letter you sent to scribd about this issue.
Fuzzy:
Have you nothing better to do in your life than to make these sad attempts to malign this woman? No wait, don't answer this, because you already have.
Very sad indeed.
Bill
Hi Glen/ALL
None of these guys get it and never will, they were not there. we have done every thing needed in My opinion to spell it out. We were honest that's all we need to do.I think we are better off not being distracted by all of this any more and getting back to work.
Ash
Hi Glen/ALL
None of these guys get it and never will, they were not there. we have done every thing needed in My opinion to spell it out. We were honest that's all we need to do.I think we are better off not being distracted by all of this any more and getting back to work.
Ash
Hi Bill,
I read your post and cant believe your a private eye .... what kind of bad advice is this your telling me ?? It's alright to LIE in a "SWORN" legal affidavit ?? One on a copyright infringement violation, a counter notification to the worlds largest publisher Scribd ??
Did you not read the complete post ?? http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9442.msg263554#msg263554 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9442.msg263554#msg263554) Reply #850
Did you not completely read the two attached PDF's that were posted ??
http://public.blu.livefilestore.com/y1pwJGOmgUob3bhb4rFH8h80a2_WqI_dPm1XtU5xR2Ukb1zMllqjn92RfCWHKoqBc7L1aRTNWF_PbXw-Z0mb_4bMw/Ainslie_Affidavit_Scribd.pdf?download&psid=1 (http://public.blu.livefilestore.com/y1pwJGOmgUob3bhb4rFH8h80a2_WqI_dPm1XtU5xR2Ukb1zMllqjn92RfCWHKoqBc7L1aRTNWF_PbXw-Z0mb_4bMw/Ainslie_Affidavit_Scribd.pdf?download&psid=1)
http://public.blu.livefilestore.com/y1p7UrJFtB9dqKeP7JRClHkMTiW-ZOiq4a-vqJCLDv6bLWbQpccxaLs0NoaRBncdtNQ7WjZ21forLZld-UWBFbXwQ/Request_for_return_due_to_misleading_intent.pdf?download&psid=1 (http://public.blu.livefilestore.com/y1p7UrJFtB9dqKeP7JRClHkMTiW-ZOiq4a-vqJCLDv6bLWbQpccxaLs0NoaRBncdtNQ7WjZ21forLZld-UWBFbXwQ/Request_for_return_due_to_misleading_intent.pdf?download&psid=1)
I can't believe you said what you did about sad attempts to malign this woman ?? Have you read from http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9442.msg262875#msg262875 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9442.msg262875#msg262875) Reply #770 to this posting ..... maybe you should .... and then post ..... No wait, don't answer this, because you already have.
Glen
Dear Ash,
Yes probably we will never get it but this intervention of yours on the other hand makes everything crystal clear ...
Maybe since it is so clear to you try to explain it again and pretend we’re all only six years old.
There is a word for what’s happening here: “Stalkingâ€
One of 'All'
Actually i have never wanted any thing to do with any of this, its a mindless distraction for people who work in the field.In fact i think thats the last i ever need to say in regards of this matter. Have fun
Ashtweth
I am sorry Rose, you should of never dragged this on and played a part in it, my posts to get people to focus back on the work is respected, you can ask Stefan. He does not want any of this here. You should desist. Thats all ill ever need to say on this matter.
Good luck wit what your doing.
I hope Glen has his last say and we can all move on
If Ignoring Rose is what it takes then so be it.
Glen - first off, advise these members how it is that you tried to get our research stopped on campus by writing to the academics and stating - unequivocally - that I had fraudulently misrepresented my efforts in that paper. Then. Tell us all how you confused everyone by trying to pretend you were Energetic Forum Admin needing to establish my rights to any research at all. You did this by inviting them to write directly to Energetic Admin and posted their email address for them to reply. Then copy us on Energetic admin's answer to you. Then tell tell us all how you delayed the research on campus while those good people were obliged to check the facts for themselves. That took nearly 4 months. And may I remind you they then dismissed your allegations out of hand.
Rosemary
Howdy reading members and guests,
Here is one that Rosemary should have stayed away from ...... I didn't bring it up ...... and now I,m only defending my position with "PROOF" from the continued unfounded unproven slanderous allegations against myself by Rosemary.
.
Glen:
Is this your reply to my post? What? Oh, I see. I guess you are busted and can't reply because you have no reply.
People like you do this sort of thing all of the time. Ignore the facts and distort what you think is the truth to fit your reality.
More is the pity.
Life will catch up with you. This is certain. Karma is everywhere.
Bill
@Glen. BTW. You need to answer Pirate and you need to answer my own posts? Not sure if you'll manage the real challenge of actual articulation - but I think we'd all be rather interested.
Howdy reading members and guests,
I would assume that most would know when you put your information on the web without any restrictions, without copyrights, all rights reserved or trademark notices like myself does, the public can use it with no strings attached except for gross misrepresentations, it's in the public domain and any patents are out of the question. The "Mosfet Heating Circuit" is not patentable !!
I have made comments at Energetic Forum on Patents ..... and how there stolen from the inventor .....
http://www.energeticforum.com/90969-post21.html
Sections 182 through 188 are really interesting !!
Good Luck !!
Best Regards,
Glen
:)
What has been avoided by Rosemary Ainslie is in any response in her "Intellectual Property Rights" as a INVENTOR of PATENT APPLICATIONS that are in her name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property
Intellectual property (IP) is a term referring to a number of distinct types of creations of the mind for which property rights are recognized—and the corresponding fields of law.[1] Under intellectual property law, owners are granted certain exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs. Common types of intellectual property include copyrights, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights and trade secrets in some jurisdictions.
My question is how can a INVENTOR without the knowledge of electronic circuitry or electronic component operation or capability of construction of a electronic circuit INVENT a electronic circuit for a PATENT ?? and how can someone claim INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS as Rosemary Ainslie does on that electronic circuit ??
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9645.msg254309#msg254309
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=23243.msg255644#msg255644
http://www.energeticforum.com/59001-post169.html
http://www.energeticforum.com/61040-post798.html
http://www.energeticforum.com/61453-post920.html
Regards,
Glen
.
Hi Rosemary,
Apart from this not so nice fight do you plan to post any new results or measurements done by your team at the university in SA or are all chances of seeing more now blown because of this fight? If I read between the lines there are new results and interesting things going on, can we see them or are you heading for front-page news in a few major newspapers immediately? Or any hints to improve my own setup here at home? I would really like to see some real over unity results and preferably in this life not in the next :D I still get those funny looks from my friends, colleagues or family if I dear bringing up something even only remotely connected with over-unity or zero-point energy or whatever you want to call it …
By the way, you don’t need a lawyer, you’re doing such a good job defending yourself he or she would only stand in the way! ;)
Cheers,
B
@ Rosemary ..... there is a question on November 05, 2010 http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9442.msg262997#msg262997 Reply #780 you haven't answered at all in my response to your continued allegations of ME stealing some technology for a patent application or patent on electronic circuits that are posted openly and freely available on the internetWhat the hell are you doing if not trying to divorce me from my own work and to what end? There is ONLY ONE CONCLUSION. And we've all reached that conclusion. Otherwise I must conclude that you waste hours of my time and your own in your desparate attempt to malign me for the fun of it. As a rule people do not indulge in such CRAZY activities at such an enormous expense of their time and trouble. What are you thinking? What other possible conclusion is there to reach? You have given us ALL the evidence required that you will do just about ANYTHING to destroy this work.
What has been avoided by Rosemary Ainslie is in any response in her "Intellectual Property Rights" as a INVENTOR of PATENT APPLICATIONS that are in her name.You ass. You unmitigated, insuferable, unprincipled, idiotic, assinine halfwit. You KNOW that there is absolutely NO REGISTERED PATENT EXTANT ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. You KNOW that this was applied for for purposes of using the public disclosure of the patenting office to put the technology into the public domain. I KNEW NOTHING OF THESE FORUMS OR OF THE INTERNET. I HAD NO OTHER MEANS OF GETTTING THIS KNOWLEDGE INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN TO RENDER IT UNPATENTABLE. But what is particularly hard on the stomache is that you DARE to assume that the readers here think - FOR EVEN ONE MOMENT - that this technology is patented. And you pretend and pretend and pretend. You insinuate. You imply. You post links. You ass. You only show yourself as a manipulating twisted horror that you are. You ENTIRELY underestimate the intelligence of either the members or the readers of this forum. It is insulting to see such transparent motives rendered with the subtleties of a sledgehammer and you assume that all an sundry cannot see what it is you are doing. It is that embarrassing that it makes the toes curl. What you need to do as a matter of extreme urgency is show a REGISTERED PATENT in my name or any member of my family's name. Then I promise you my attention will be RIVETED.
My question is how can a INVENTOR without the knowledge of electronic circuitry or electronic component operation or capability of construction of a electronic circuit INVENT a electronic circuit for a PATENT ?? and how can someone claim INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS as Rosemary Ainslie does on that electronic circuit ??I cannot tell you how an inventor can manage so much with such little knowledge and so little intelligence - but I suspect it's because the circuit's that EASY that my granddaughter could manage it. What's not so easy is the methods of driving that switch. Fortunately - there are MANY SWITCHING CIRCUITS on the internet - free and for the taking - that one does not need more than the ability to read. And it is my mission to prove that an ABSOLUTE IGNORAMUS - SUCH AS MYSELF - can manage this. That way, those others who are NOT trained in electronics - can get the confidence to put this together themselves. I am very PROUD of my inabilities. I share it with many. And unlike you and Harvey et al - I am most ANXIOUS to assure all that you do not need to be Einstein to understand electricity. IT'S ALL VERY SIMPLE AND VERY STRAIGHT FORWARD. It's been obfuscated to the point of absurdity. I hope to get rid of all that obfuscation. And BTW. While I am the first to admit to not being an expert - I have more than an adequate working knowledge - certainly for the purposes of my thesis. And frankly I probably know as much about circuitry as you do. Which may or may not being saying very much. I am happy to admit to ignorance - I flinch at claiming more knowledge than I have. I wish you'd follow this example. It would save us all from embarrassment.
Please clarify the above question posed fully Rosemary to the best of your ability ..... legal counsel for me the process of investigating the rules and regulations on what comprises the term and definition of "INVENTOR" from the respective patent application document locations.This is another one of your confusing absolutely meaningless statements - more or less as muddled as those strange links that you never tire of posting and that no-one bothers to open. THERE IS NO REGISTERED PATENT. WHY MUST I CLARIFY ANYTHING AT ALL? GO AND SPEAK TO YOUR ATTORNEY. HE COULD POSSIBLY HELP YOU.
Rosemary kicking ass and taking names
LOL Sorry Happy. I'm probably a little critical of the man. If indeed he is a man. ;D
You KNOW that this was applied for for purposes of using the public disclosure of the patenting office to put the technology into the public domain. I KNEW NOTHING OF THESE FORUMS OR OF THE INTERNET. I HAD NO OTHER MEANS OF GETTTING THIS KNOWLEDGE INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN TO RENDER IT UNPATENTABLE.
I do not know much about your invention, but I do know about patents. Applying for a patent on something is sort of the opposite of putting it in the public domain. It sends the message of "hands off."
Why didn't you just publish it? With a public disclosure, after about a year, the invention becomes unpatentable. I understand you didn't know about the Internet (was it 1985?) You do not have to publish on the Internet - it can be a journal or some other kind of periodical. But it has to be publicly available.
But anyway, why don't you guys decide whether the invention works before having this big fight over it? Also, I do not even see how it can be taken away from you. Why don't you just do your work on it, and let the other people do whatever they want?
My son's given me a blog and I can't find it. And the child is just so frantically busy at his own work that I feel guilty asking him. But even when I get there - I will need to learn how to work it.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Your comments needed repeating. And it was 1998 when the first patent submission was made.
Any whoooo, readers have been waiting for the new testing results from the Trade School but she says she will not post them because she thinks Glen and Harvey will steal them. Does she understand what OPEN SOURCE is? And really, once she came to OU.com after being banned from EF.com you would think she would just make a fresh start of it all. But no, she states her intentions in the first comment of this thread and then in reply#3 she starts in on her bad mouthing again that continued on from there.
So when will NEW results come out? Don't know. She could not answer GADH questions on the circuit when he started building one back in EF.com forum before she was banned. So he went into the Mosfet Heater Thread to get his questions answered there by the guys. He is still working on it and so far no positive results but he at least posts what results he is getting.
I believe 2 people expressed interest in the very beginning of this thread in building the circuit and I don't know why they didn't carry on through? Maybe no help from Rosemary? Her interest is only in her thesis? Maybe if they are still reading here they can tell us why?
???
J.
Dr. Darcy Babyola
???
R
???
DOOZY2?
What the hell are you doing if not trying to divorce me from my own work and to what end? There is ONLY ONE CONCLUSION. And we've all reached that conclusion. Otherwise I must conclude that you waste hours of my time and your own in your desparate attempt to malign me for the fun of it. As a rule people do not indulge in such CRAZY activities at such an enormous expense of their time and trouble. What are you thinking? What other possible conclusion is there to reach? You have given us ALL the evidence required that you will do just about ANYTHING to destroy this work.
You KNOW that there is absolutely NO REGISTERED PATENT EXTANT ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. You KNOW that this was applied for for purposes of using the public disclosure of the patenting office to put the technology into the public domain. I KNEW NOTHING OF THESE FORUMS OR OF THE INTERNET. I HAD NO OTHER MEANS OF GETTTING THIS KNOWLEDGE INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN TO RENDER IT UNPATENTABLE. But what is particularly hard on the stomache is that you DARE to assume that the readers here think - FOR EVEN ONE MOMENT - that this technology is patented. And you pretend and pretend and pretend. You insinuate. You imply. You post links. You ENTIRELY underestimate the intelligence of either the members or the readers of this forum. It is insulting to see such transparent motives rendered with the subtleties of a sledgehammer and you assume that all an sundry cannot see what it is you are doing. It is that embarrassing that it makes the toes curl. What you need to do as a matter of extreme urgency is show a REGISTERED PATENT in my name or any member of my family's name. Then I promise you my attention will be RIVETED.
No-one reading here needs to be reminded of the definition of intellectual property ownership with the possible exception of yourself. One day I trust you and Harvey will explain the niceties that you discovered in your own replication that elevated it to something that was not a replication. Something to do with the fact that you never quite reached COP>17. LOL. And then the added insult of seeing those jokes of data test 14 through God knows what - where you conveniently discovered a mistake. WHY? WHAT WAS THE DIFFERENCE? WHAT IS THE MOTIVE? I know perfectly well that the intention is to cast doubts on the result and then - no doubt - you will pull out a brand new discovery from under those two horns that protrude from your head.
I cannot tell you how an inventor can manage so much with such little knowledge and so little intelligence - but I suspect it's because the circuit's that EASY that my granddaughter could manage it. What's not so easy is the methods of driving that switch. Fortunately - there are MANY SWITCHING CIRCUITS on the internet - free and for the taking - that one does not need more than the ability to read. And it is my mission to prove that an ABSOLUTE IGNORAMUS - SUCH AS MYSELF - can manage this. That way, those others who are NOT trained in electronics - can get the confidence to put this together themselves. I am very PROUD of my inabilities. I share it with many. And unlike you and Harvey et al - I am most ANXIOUS to assure all that you do not need to be Einstein to understand electricity. IT'S ALL VERY SIMPLE AND VERY STRAIGHT FORWARD. It's been obfuscated to the point of absurdity. I hope to get rid of all that obfuscation. And BTW. While I am the first to admit to not being an expert - I have more than an adequate working knowledge - certainly for the purposes of my thesis. And frankly I probably know as much about circuitry as you do. Which may or may not being saying very much. I am happy to admit to ignorance - I flinch at claiming more knowledge than I have. I wish you'd follow this example. It would save us all from embarrassment.
This is another one of your confusing absolutely meaningless statements - more or less as muddled as those strange links that you never tire of posting and that no-one bothers to open. THERE IS NO REGISTERED PATENT. WHY MUST I CLARIFY ANYTHING AT ALL? GO AND SPEAK TO YOUR ATTORNEY. HE COULD POSSIBLY HELP YOU.
Rosemary
added
LOL. He actually proves my point. Thank you for that. It seems that I don't have to dig around to substantiate my statements. He does it for me. Indeed those applications by Glen were precisely what delayed the research on campus. It took a while but they eventually discovered the real reason behind Glen's interventions. I am entirely satisfied that Glen would not even get an acknowledgement of receipt of an email today. They've now got his number - as have Scribd. And our lab and research project is well underway - with everyone's blessings.
Fortunately I've been able to warn all interested parties as to the extent and length that Glen will go to to kill this research. We're all well prepared. In fact it's precisely this level of attack that has intrigued all and sundry. It rather speaks to a desirable technology. Here he simply tried - very hard - to kill the research project on campus. He found the address by rifling my photobucket. What a joke. I will never be able to accuse Glen of decency, moderation, upstanding high principles, kindness, or anything associated with the qualities of a professional or a gentleman.
Regards,
Rosemary
@Glen. BTW. You need to answer Pirate and you need to answer my own posts? Not sure if you'll manage the real challenge of actual articulation - but I think we'd all be rather interested.
added. And guys. Read away. It's intriguing to see a so called over unity enthusiast struggle by foul means - to zap some technology that simply doesn't belong to him. Let me remind you. It's free for the taking. Don't let anyone kid you otherwise. You will notice that there is no principle too high, nor for that matter too low that will EVER BE exploited by this man.
Rosemary
Chiming in here! Still interested in this thread Rosie. I like the building stuff better :).
Your right about not needing to defend your position. Hold the line, you'll make better progress I think.