Hi everyone,

Another hot off the press posting ...

Loner - I'm actually addressing your post in Glen's thread here.  I see you giving his subject the kind of gravitas that it otherwise lacks. 

That there are emotions related to this application is only because - from it's inception - these tests of mine seem to warrant an attack that has been unprecedented in any of these forums - with the possible exception of Mylow's test that TK managed to debunk - rather skillfully, I understand.  But the facts are that it's either the claim - or my nature - or both - that seem to engender a kind of protest that I have difficulty dealing with.  My own take is that I'm probably way too pedantic for my own good.  But be that as it may.  I can only do my best.  And I do. 
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. 
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.
No.  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.
 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.
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. 
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 deleated 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.
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.
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.

So.  Here's what I'm trying to tell you.  Feel free to express whatever doubts you have.  I welcome this as I can then address the issue.  Else I am not even aware of such doubts and I'd be sorry to lose out on the opportunity.  We're making some hefty inroads into some new technologies and clearly, there are such as you and Paul who were not even aware of this.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary 

This couldn't all be "Troll Arrogance", could it?  (That would be me, too...)

As a side note, anyone remember the SSG.  Did it work?  Does that
argument sound familiar?   Some things never change.......

I'll just start with these ....


1) The object being to discredit the tests - Give proof of anything anywhere where I have said this

2) were two members who were simply out to claim the entire experiment as an independent discovery - Give proof of anything anywhere where I have said this

3) The only work being done by Glen and Harvey is the ongoing attempt to deny the earlier evidence - Give proof of anything anywhere where I have said this

4) Just look again at the list of accreditors - Give proof of anything anywhere of documentation of your claim  http://cid-6b7817c40bb20460.office.live.com/browse.aspx/.Public/Ainslie/Quantum%20-%20Accreditors

5) I haven't seen any justifiable reason for his withholding prime data from the public which is what he invariably resorts to doing Give proof of anything anywhere where I have said or done this

6) And I am satisfied he is incapable of any kind of emotional constraint or sensible thinking - NO comment, members and guests judge for yourself .....

PROOF - "original" E-mail's, PM's or Forum postings

As I have seen the original data, from someone who I cannot recall the
name right now, nor would it be my place to give it, if I knew it, I can
say that there is something going on.

Loner, you may not have an opinion, that's fine.

But please elaborate on that statement.

I too have seen and analysed the data. In fact I have produced similar data myself.

.99

In fact I have produced similar data myself.

.99

more precisely, simulated data...

Well, if we are being "precise" let's have some precision from Rosemary.

What about all those contradictions in the quotes from her that Glen has listed above?

When does a 5-times rejected paper earn the right to be called an "IEEE Paper"?
When does a patent APPLICATION earn the right to be referred to as a "Patent"?
When does submission of a device to an agency -- without receiving a report back -- become "endorsement" or "vetting" by that agency?

And in case you forgot, Wilby, I used a different MOSFET in my initial tests. One that works a lot better in making heat than the IRFPG50, but no different in making free energy. I know this because I DID COMPARATIVE TESTS of many different mosfets in the Ainslie circuit. Not simulations -- although simulations can be extremely valuable.

As an aside, it's funny when people distrust simulations based on conventional physics....but will accept test data that SUPPORTS THEIR CONJECTURES when taken with conventional instrumentation...but will reject test data that does NOT support their conjectures when taken with the same instrumentation at higher resolution. Cracks me up every time.

Well, if we are being "precise" let's have some precision from Rosemary.

What about all those contradictions in the quotes from her that Glen has listed above?

When does a 5-times rejected paper earn the right to be called an "IEEE Paper"?
When does a patent APPLICATION earn the right to be referred to as a "Patent"?
When does submission of a device to an agency -- without receiving a report back -- become "endorsement" or "vetting" by that agency?

And in case you forgot, Wilby, I used a different MOSFET in my initial tests. One that works a lot better in making heat than the IRFPG50, but no different in making free energy. I know this because I DID COMPARATIVE TESTS of many different mosfets in the Ainslie circuit. Not simulations -- although simulations can be extremely valuable.

As an aside, it's funny when people distrust simulations based on conventional physics....but will accept test data that SUPPORTS THEIR CONJECTURES when taken with conventional instrumentation...but will reject test data that does NOT support their conjectures when taken with the same instrumentation at higher resolution. Cracks me up every time.

It is impossible to provide precision where this exact system is involved without very expensive data collection equipment. In addition to overlapping Real Time Analysers it would be necessary to store terabytes of data during a total battery expenditure. In the only rundown test I'm aware of, the batteries reached approximately 50% of their voltage after 13 hours (IIRC), and the discharge rate declines as the voltage declines similar to a capacitive discharge curve, so 13 hours would not even represent the first time constant in a 5t discharge cycle (the first tc is about 66% of the total capacity with each subsequent tc being 66% of the remaining charge). However, the gate to source voltage would prohibit the circuit from running below 2V as the Hexfet would cease to function at this point, and it is unlikely that the 555 would continue function below it's rated minimum operating voltage of 4.5V. Therefore the final tc would be lost for a 24V battery bank, but even then we would be sure to have at a minimum about 52 hours with Glen's configuration before the system stops working. With 52 hours of continuous data, you can imagine the data storage capacity needed.

IIRC, we provided 3 samples about every 6 minutes at 40µs, 20µs and 2µs per division. There are 10 divisions of data each, giving 400µs, 200µs and 20µs for a total of 620µs for each sample. With 10 such samples, this offers 6200µs of data for a 1 hour test. There are 1,000,000µs in each second, and there are 3600 seconds in an hour. So out of a possible three billion six hundred million microseconds, we only grabbed six thousand two hundred microseconds of data for a test that was only 1/52 of the time necessary for a full analysis. That is about than one part per 30 million or 0.03 parts per million sample size.

To make matters worse, the record clearly shows that Professor Iravani with IEEE corresponded that a reviewer in his team specifically targeted the 555 circuit as a culprit for currents flowing in the current sensing resistor thereby skewing the results. I argued with her for several hours that at the very least this had to be addressed in a post test. I later showed in the paper, that up to 6W of energy are able to flow through the gate barrier in that fashion. Under extreme protest she reluctantly agreed that this test could be performed, it involved adding a second current sensing resistor in the timer ground leg so that it's values could be subtracted from the power circuit current values. Unfortunately, we only have a grand total of a paltry 2µs of data for that test - hardly enough to hang a hat on as precise. However, that minuscule test did show the currents to be in our favor indicating that the 555 circuit was not adding to the indicated power, but instead was stealing from it by a very small margin. If I did the analysis correctly - I couldn't get anyone in the forum to review my work and post their analysis. Whatever the case, it was no where near the thermal differential observed whether we added it or subtracted it. So I ASSUMED that if we projected that 2µs over the entire series of tests that the timer circuit was not interjecting energy into the readings, but this is only a big guess - completely unproven.

But that's not all - then we have to address the serious problem of DC heating verses Aperiodic heating. To my surprise, these resistors act very different when you run DC through them as compared to running AC through them for the exact same voltage and current. To compound this problem, the closer we get to microwave (>300MHz) frequencies in the aperiodic harmonics, the worse these comparisons become. This sent me reeling as all of our tests were based on a painstaking DC baseline that Glen expertly performed, and now I discover we are comparing apples to oranges. The only way to get precision would be to do a series of collective tests on the resistor mapping it's temperature to frequency response using as close a pulse envelope as possible to that being used in the aperiodic operation. An almost impossible task even for a precision lab like you work in.

In addition to this we also have the problem with 'spot' measurements for the thermal readings. While great care was taken to keep the measurement device in the same orientation and distance, the recorded measurements were the result of several readings along the surface of the resistor in various places looking for the hottest spot and not all readings were taken on the same exact spot. Furthermore, the readings themselves are extremely subjective based on the assumption that the materials used would be radiating IR (see blackbody radiation) in agreement with what would be transferred conductively. It was assumed that since the resistor was continuously dissipating heat into the still air by convection that the IR reading would be a conservative value. However, it should be considered that IR is a form of electromagnetic radiation and this circuit has proven to be an EM transmitter at least in the RF regions. If it also proves to be an IR transmitter, the true energy output could be greatly skewed. These heaters are an example of that. Poor thermal transfer conductively, but huge thermal transfer via EM radiation.


That is why in the end I realized that the only accurate means to measure the battery power to thermal energy on such an aperiodic circuit was to use a hydrometer and calorimeter. I am very hopeful that Gad will be successful in his tests in this regard. He has a special electronic charger that will tell him how much energy is needed to recharge a battery after a test has been performed and he is making a calorimeter using a vacuum container (Thermos) and lab grade (0.5° C) glass thermometer. I really think his tests will give us the precision we are looking for. In this case, the outer coating of the Thermos is specifically designed to keep the IR band within the container. This way we get both readings, the thermally conductive AND the IR absorbed by the water. I think this is very important to be precise, don't you?

There are two scientifically plausible explanations for the 'extra' heat claimed:

1. Solar Flares. The Solar cycle is an 11 year cycle. The original tests were done at a time that we were in a Solar Maximum. No records exist to show success during the Solar Minimum following. We have just left the Solar minimum and are climbing toward the Solar Maximum. Therefore, if we have an increase of successes as we approach it's peak, and a decline of successes following - this would be a good indicator over a 2 cycle period (22 years)  that the circuit derives its extra energy from Solar activity.

2. Positrons. As far as science knows, positrons are very short lived and don't seem to exist in the same quantities as negatrons (electrons). However Paul Dirac and T.H. Moray both alluded to a Sea of particles within the vacuum that remain suspended and separate from our material universe. The possibility exists that positrons in this 'Sea' can become entangled with specific magnetic pulses (sharp, steep pulses) and then get dragged back into the inductive material as the magnetic field collapses. When a positron and an electron combine, the result is a gamma photon and the energy represented by that photon is far greater than that of just the electron itself. Gamma photons could be absorbed by the resistor material and the energy manifested as heat. Furthermore, the annihilation of the electron also creates an imbalanced current reading where electrons leave the battery but never return and depending on how you measure the 'flow', this open system could give the illusion that little or no power was being taken from the battery because Kirchhoff's law would fail in this special case.

Of course there are the usual suspects of dielectric heating, ultrasonic heating, induction heating, etc. With so many possible explanations for the observed behavior it really does beg definitive precise data showing unequivocal proof of the claims while clearly removing all doubt as to what the true source of the 'extra' energy is, if it really exists. As we all well know, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof, and using a magnetic field as a thermal energy reservoir in a COP > 17 calculation is an extraordinary claim.

I for one await her precision proof because it is grossly lacking in all of the links she provides.

Harvey

Glen,

In summary then, can it be said that it is your current opinion that the question of whether the RA circuit achieves COP>1 is inconclusive?

.99

poynt, i'm pretty sure he said... "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."

if you are going to dance around as usual making implications, then make the proper implication. that is, that your fancy instruments are not up to the task of measuring reality. which i have been saying for quite some time...

LOL guys.  This is history repeating itself.  And the readership here through the roof.  Harvey rattling on about positrons - and sun sports - TK demanding explanations that have been given ad nauseum - Glen trying to show contradictions in text that is absolutely not contradictory unless viewed in his rather skewed references.  And Everyone having a field day.  The one thing that is absolutely denied to any of you is to disclaim the existing test results.  Try as you all might to aver - infer - suggest - allege.  And frankly that's the only point that has any relevance at all.  And I'm not sure that I've got the time to spend answering these rather clamorous posts.  Only one thing is clear.  EVERYONE posting here is rather overly anxious to discredit the technology.  It must therefore be rather significant - is my take.  Certainly no other forum member is this closely criticised and no other technology this closely analysed.  LOL.  Sad really.  But like I said.  Any publicity is good publicity.  I'm rather grateful.  I just hope that this will add to the general interest.  And I trust that our readers here will see it for the last gasp desperation to either get me hounded off the forum - or to discredit the tests.  Whatever is discussed is interesting.  But it will have no relevance to our own tests.  Thank God that there is no longer that reliance.

Rosemary

Before you edit.....

I'd also find it amusing.  But here's the difference.  If the one instrument contradicted the other then neither instrument is reliable.  I'm not sure that Tektronix would uphold that finding.  Nor would anyone.  Unless of course you all need some flimsy or any excuse to INFER that the initial test data was erroneous.  It's the need to 'infer' that gets me.  What's actually the case is that the 'preferred mode of oscillation' - or to call it what it is - that 'resonating frequency' is simply adjusted to show a loss.  It's an easy adjustment to make which I'll demonstrate for you all - in due course.  Or rather, the students will. 

And TK - I am not about to be embroiled in another saga where I must defend myself against ALLEGATION.

Rosemary

@Rosemary,

               If you want to avoid another "SAGA" you should post like Harvey do , look at his last post here.Forget your theory in trying to explain how the energy is gained for now until everybody agree there a gain because its irrelevant for now since you use conventional instrument to try to demonstrate the gain and  conventional mathematics. Your best friend here are not the one who follow you blindly , its the one who try to find flaw in what you wrote , listen to them , they are the only one with a alternate explanation that can show you real flaw or misunderstanding, at least you can fight back with a post like Harvey with a good understanding and logical explanation that everyone cant refute when you know they are wrong or look back at your data/methodology and correct what is wrong on your side.Anyway , do what you want , was just a advice.

Best Regards,
IceStorm