Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Plug Heater

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 509647
  • *Total Topics: 15189
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 7
  • *Guests: 10
  • *Total: 17

Author Topic: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??  (Read 48021 times)

Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
« Reply #135 on: November 02, 2010, 07:30:11 PM »
Guys,

This is my last post on this thread.  It is utterly distasteful to even read here - let alone comment.

For any who need to be reminded - bear in mind that Glen has a paper published on Scribd that attests - unequivocally - to a COP>7. And Harvey, who actively tried to sabotage that paper - was personally responsible for writing two entire sections of it's total of 7 - I think it is.  Under normal circumstances one does not collaborate in the submission of a paper without first being fully conversant with the facts in that paper.  One is expected, at the very least, to stand up in support of the experimental findings and their conclusions.  That Harvey assumes the right to deny his earlier attestations - is because Harvey has absolutely no accreditation.  If he were more familiar with academic protocol he would have known this.  And, without this knowledge, he has NO IDEA of the damage that he's done to his scientific credibility - amongst those many academics and experts who are fully aware of this half-witted vacillation.  It's the ultimate scientific 'no no'.  A kind of scientific heresy.  Just MUST NOT BE DONE.  One does not, as a rule, submit a paper and then deny the context of that paper.  It's tantamount to a public declaration of deceit.

Not only did he submit the paper - thereby attesting to the accuracy of those experimental results,  but he did so 'posing' as 'first author'.  This drew the immediate attention of those editorial staff whose concerns are ALWAYS that first author submit or appoint the submission's author.  And no-one had appointed Harvey.  Therefore did they refer it back to me.   Yet more evidence of how little he understands about the protocols related to the submission of papers.  Any such efforts are seen as FRAUDULENT and, indeed, Harvey here committed fraud.

But here's the point.  There is NO WAY that those experimental results can retrospectively be denied unless the method of extrapolating the data was deliberately and fraudulently managed.  In as much as you CANNOT fake the data from that Tektronix - then you may all rest happy that the results were EXACTLY as that data showed.  The evidence that they howl for is available.  It's just no longer easily referenced due to Glen's interventions.

Niether Harvey nor Glen seem to know how to conduct themselves professionally.  And I have been advised that by even commenting on this thread I am doing myself and my good name no good at all.  The time has therefore come when I must entirely divorce myself from this sad initiative.  Let them both do their damndest.   So.  I'm out of here.  If their nonsense becomes too patently nonsense then I'll refute it on my own thread.  That, at least, is still being followed by people of discernment. 

I only ask that you keep the knowledge of that COP>7 near and close to your hearts. Just know that the EVIDENCE of breaching those unity barriers has been conclusively achieved however loudly or sadly they retrospectively deny this.  And whatever they have to say in their attempts at damaging my good name - it's irrelevant.  Only those test results matter.  Do NOT let them convince you that they are faulted.  I assure you that it is entirely due to those results that we have been able to get access to campus to develop this technology further.  For that I have Glen's efforts to thank.  But that's precisely where my thanks begin and end.  It is my considered opinion that he is a scoundrel second only to Harvey in lack of principle, manners, good taste, moderation or honesty.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary   

And just as a final reminder - you may want to read here - my faithful account of my association with a troll - or, in fact, a super troll.

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

This is my last post on this thread. ...... PROMISES ..... PROMISES ......

ANY ALLEGATIONS FROM ROSEMARY AINSLIE MUST HAVE "PROOF" FROM PM's, E-MAILS OR OPEN SOURCE FORUM POSTING "LINKS" - IF SHE DOESN'T HAVE "PROOF" THERE LIES AND FABRICATIONS AND WILL NOT BE ANSWERED


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline truthbeknown

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 99
Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
« Reply #136 on: November 02, 2010, 08:17:43 PM »
LOL.  I have NEVER heard of a cuppy?  Tried looking it up and apparently it's definition is 'shaped like a cup'.  Perhaps J. who is edging ever nearer to the truth of this identity  :o  - I think?  is also rather confused with idiomatic English.  I believe the term you are looking for is 'cuppa'.  And only you would recommend that our readers here sit down with a cup of tea or even a double gin and tonic - to consider anything as facile and vacuuous as your 'self quoted' nonsense.  But again.  Dear readers - if there are any at all who follow this appalling thread - I am delighted, flattered beyond belief, intrigued, happy to be associated with Leedskalnins work in any context at all.  And I must thank Truthbeknown for this constant association.

It seems there is some benefit after all in his inabiity to vary either his posts or his confusions.  LOL. 

Rosemary


LOL all over the place. That's okay, I never heard of the word "PROSTERITY" that you used in answer to me in your post on YOUR THREAD in reply #753. ( She will go EDIT it right now since I didn't copy it over here. ) And for POSTERITY, I meant to use the word "cuppy." Its not necessary that YOU ever heard of it.

So, discerning readers, she states in her post #135 here in this thread that she will no longer post here but she will "refute" any comments from THIS thread over into HER thread. And can you guess why? Yes, once again its because she is the MODERATOR there with a BIG DELETE finger and can EDIT and DELETE posts in her thread on a whim.

 ;)
J.

Offline truthbeknown

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 99
Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
« Reply #137 on: November 02, 2010, 09:50:35 PM »
There seems to be some confusion here.  Apparently there is now a call for NEWS - where I rather think the two of you were obsessively centred on HISTORY and, in truth - a re-write of history. 

If you want news then you must solicit that from the members here.  I have NO intention of posting any of our results on this thread - EVER.  Alternatively you will need to show us some of your own tests.  LOL.  It all seems to have come to a grinding halt.  We, on the other hand are forging ahead - delayed for these last few weeks because of Student exams.  What exactly are either you or Glen doing here?  Apart from giving Gad the BAD advice that proliferates on your own thread at EF.Com?

And Harvey - it was you and Truthbeknown aka 'J'  who lapsed into that absurd treatise on the thesis and your own particular account of the 'effects' based as they are on POSITRONS.  LOL.  And I think it was and is Glen who not only initiated this thread but has monopolised it with his tediously long list of unsubstantiated allegations in blocked links - lest the truth in fact be known.  So.  To try, retrospectively to assert another theme on this parody is somewhat unilateral and entirely off topic. Certainly it was and is NOTHING to do with NEWS.  Indeed.  It's all 'old hat' and is boring us all with its repetition.

Rosemary

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

I am looking forward to your denial of your claims and involvement in this paper - that I can prove you the liar that you are.  I believe, if you look at this text - there was NEVER ANY QUESTION AS TO THE EFFICACY OF THE TECHNOLOGY NOR THE RESULTS THAT YOU YOURSELF DETERMINED.  There is nothing you can do that will effectively rewrite this history nor alter these results - albeit that they rather conflict with your current agenda.  Your hope, like Glen's was that Scribd would believe your claims that Glen held SOLE COPYRIGHT.  What a joke.

ADDED


So, what "BAD ADVICE" do think GADH is being given off of the Mosfet Heating Thread over at EF.com? What advice would YOU be giving him?

WHY is he not coming to YOU with his many questions? Yes, this begs an answer. Why Rosemary WHY?
Oh yeah, you won't answer this. Just like YOU couldn't answer his questions. LOL...many times...

 ;)
J.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
« Reply #137 on: November 02, 2010, 09:50:35 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
« Reply #138 on: November 02, 2010, 10:50:35 PM »
Howdy reading members and guests,

Below please find the time line for my testing and evaluation of the "Mosfet Heater Circuit" ......

***************************************************************************************

TEST #1      http://www.energeticforum.com/69858-post2878.html   October 04, 2009

TEST #2      http://www.energeticforum.com/69966-post2890.html   October 05, 2009

TEST #3      http://www.energeticforum.com/70105-post2899.html   October 06, 2009

TEST #4      http://www.energeticforum.com/70432-post2942.html   October 09, 2009

TEST #5      http://www.energeticforum.com/70771-post2951.html   October 13, 2009

TEST #6      http://www.energeticforum.com/71062-post2961.html   October 15, 2009

TEST #7      http://www.energeticforum.com/71364-post2970.html   October 18, 2009

TEST #8      http://www.energeticforum.com/73814-post3108.html   November 07, 2009

TEST #9      http://www.energeticforum.com/74402-post3126.html   November 14, 2009

TEST #10      http://www.energeticforum.com/74594-post3133.html   November 16, 2009
   
TEST #11   http://www.energeticforum.com/75431-post3164.html   November 24, 2009

TEST #12   http://www.energeticforum.com/75770-post3172.html   November 26, 2009

TEST #13       http://www.energeticforum.com/75803-post3177.html   November 27, 2009   ( used in IEEE submittal )

TEST #14   http://www.energeticforum.com/76303-post3199.html   December 01, 2009

Scribid - IEEE authorised public release of "PRE PRINT" document   December 01, 2009
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems
 
TEST #15   http://www.energeticforum.com/76980-post3244.html   December 08, 2009

TEST #16   http://www.energeticforum.com/77118-post3248.html   December 12, 2009

PREFERRED MODE OF OPERATION - 5-Hour "NON STOP" video - TDS 3054C   January 09, 2010
http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment/video?clipId=pla_6d255c76-9e9a-42ae-a565-fbc698e0b6df

PREFERRED MODE OF OPERATION - 5-Hour "NON STOP" video - 2445A      January 24, 2010
http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment/video?clipId=pla_b2e705b9-bf90-4bee-8009-2b323d8bc7ae

PREFERRED MODE OF OPERATION - 5-Hour "NON STOP" video - DPO 3054   January 31, 2010
http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment/video?clipId=pla_12671fda-04e2-403e-8560-ab593683a646

IEEE      Immediate rejection of 10-0207-TIE submittal                      February 01, 2010

TEST #17     http://www.energeticforum.com/84885-post10.html      February 02, 2020

TEST #18      http://www.energeticforum.com/84888-post11.html      February 03, 2010

TEST #19     http://www.energeticforum.com/84893-post12.html      February 03, 2010

TEST #20     http://www.energeticforum.com/84896-post13.html      February 03, 2010

TEST #21   http://www.energeticforum.com/84899-post14.html      February 04, 2010

TEST #22     http://www.energeticforum.com/84906-post15.html      February 05, 2010

TEST EVALUATION "UN-CONCLUSIVE" DUE TO BETTER EQUIPMENT USED - DPO 3054   May 02, 2010
http://www.energeticforum.com/93746-post74.html

Scribid - IEEE unauthorised public release of 10-0207-TIE submittal   July 07, 2010      ( fifth rejected IEEE version )
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS

E-MAIL WITHDRAW OF TEST #13 DATA TO ROSEMARY AINSLIE / CC: all AUTHORS   July 07, 2010

PUBLIC WITHDRAW OF TEST #13 DATA               October 27, 2010  (  same withdraw context as e-mail sent to Rosemary Ainslie )
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9898.msg262086#msg262086


***********************************************************************************************************


I'm sure myself and other authors will be adding to this time line found above ...............


Regards,
Glen
.

Offline IceStorm

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 107
Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
« Reply #139 on: November 02, 2010, 11:08:51 PM »
Since you are making a timeline , include this one too http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=23243.msg255644#msg255644  .

Best Regards,
IceStorm

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
« Reply #139 on: November 02, 2010, 11:08:51 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
« Reply #140 on: November 03, 2010, 03:02:14 AM »
Since you are making a timeline , include this one too http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=23243.msg255644#msg255644  .

Best Regards,
IceStorm

Hi IceStorm,

 ;D ...... Thanks so much for the link ..... I forgot that at the Naked Science Forum http://www.thenakedscientists.com that Rosemary was a member there, named witsend posting in a thread called "a circuit that produces overunity results" ...... this was the first forum she posted in.       Some great stuff there !!  ;D             Here's a few  ;)

Quote
witsend
Link to this post 255616
02/06/2009 18:56:14 »
   
I really don't understand this.

'Because it would remove doubt that the energy actually just comes from the battery.'
From Madidus_Scientia

I have always assumed that the energy was coming from the battery.  Where else?  Except that we've also done experiments on ac utility supply sources with the same benefits.

Quote
witsend
Link to this post 255635
02/06/2009 21:15:18 »
   
Hi sophiecentaur - so glad you're still awake.  Still reeling at Madidus_Scientia's dismay that the thread survived longer than anticipated.  What a cheek.  So glad you answered my current problem.  I'm going to have to study it though.  I can't quite get my head around it.

Regarding the capacitor - I actually don't know what this is.  I only know its used in the switching circuitry - why I don't know. But would the use of the capacitor satisfy the need for a flow of magnetic fields as detailed?  I'm entirely out of my depth.  Is the idea to use this device instead of the battery?  If so - yet again you guys are asking for a perpetual motion machine.  Then I really do not see the point.  I do NOT have a perpetual motion machine.  But I'll look at your comments again.  Just remember.  I've got a standard circuit and measurement of energy delivered is also measured using classical analysis.  Why must I do more than this?

I've been trying to work out the difference between the mass required by nuclear energy compared to the mass required for a battery to see if I can answer that earlier question as to whether or not nuclear energy conforms to second law of thermodynamics.  But I'm struggling here.

Thanks for answering this.  By the way - regarding infinite energy - I think I see the relevance.  It's probably to do with that post regarding zipons in the toroid - influencing particles at faster than light speed.  I only wanted to point out that - given that velocity - it's reasonable to assume the 'effect' would appear to be simultaneous.  I don't believe in infinity.  Only because I can't get my head around it.  I need boundaries - all over the place.

Quote
witsend
Link to this post 255644
02/06/2009 21:53:49 »
   
No, I really do not know what a capacitor is.  You can safely assume that there is no limit to my lack of knowledge especially as it relates to electric circuitry.  I find all electric circuits quintessentially boring.  It was just a means to an end.  My only interest is in physics.


I'll have to figure out how to get the Naked Science Forum postings in with the others .....

Best Regards,
Glen
 :)

.

Offline Harvey

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 143
Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
« Reply #141 on: November 03, 2010, 08:01:52 AM »
Ok guys, that is a bit confusing  ???

Out of the 5 different patent applications that I know Rosemary has filed, this one clearly shows a capacitor after the bridge rectifier. There is no other Applicant or Inventor named in the application except Rosemary.

http://urad.net/forums/gallery/albums/userpics/Patent_App_2.JPG

How could she invent this in 2002 but not know what a capacitor is in 2009?

Are the patent laws different there where you can take a design from someone else and put your name on it? Here in the US the design engineer must be named in the patent.

Or was she just playing forum games when she repeatedly stated that she did not know what a capacitor was or how it worked but secretly understood it?  ???

I spent quite a bit of time working with her and discussing capacitance. I don't know if she ever understood what I was explaining but she did tell me that she is a copyist by trade and that she hired technicians and engineers to build her circuits. So I suppose it is possible she copied their schematics and filed the applications without really knowing what she was filing.

The real time line goes back before 1998 however. You will find De Beer's Intellectual Property fellow, Kevin Peter Ashby associated with this application:
http://urad.net/forums/gallery/albums/userpics/Patent_App_1.JPG

By this time, Rosemary already had time to show her drawing to the professors, get rejected by them and have the circuit built by a local engineer she got out of her phone book. I haven't really looked that deep into the matter, but I did hear that one of the technicians on that project was found dead back then right in the middle of trying to get a patent and go into production. It was deemed suicide? Rosemary will have to fill in the details on all that and provide the time line, I never took it any farther than suspecting Big Oil.

It would seem that once the IP was secure, all that was needed next would be to find a developer to create applications for the proposed technology. That's where publication comes in, Quantum of 2002, to get the word out. Please note, that this is not the NTSA Quantum Magazine many of us are familiar with, but instead it was Crown Publications Quantum local to South Africa. That whole exercise failed to produce the expected results. Rosemary was expecting to have a path beat to her door, but instead she was met with skepticism and outright avoidance. While her apparatus was singing away at the Science Center display, not one academic would come to look at it. So from 2002 onward it appeared that the world was not interested.

But there is interest, and once TK created the thread here and a thread was setup at EF that interest flourished.

But I cannot help wondering. This dynamic individual that boldly defames the names of those who work with her, who against the odds hires engineers to make a circuit she thought of, just stops and gives up? How can this be? Surely, if there was no outside interest wiling to apply the technology she could have hired engineers to do that for her as well. Why did she stop there? After all, she has the first patent application on file, her IP was secure. Why not go straight to manufacture? She has named many possible applications for the proposed technology, but none have been developed after all these years  ??? I come from a world where ideas become realities in weeks and months and consumers are putting them to use. Something is missing here and it is not money. If I can believe the emails from Rosemary she has plenty of that available to her by would be investors. No, what is missing everywhere along this time line, is definitive proof. So far I have nothing that I can take into Cal-Tech or JPL and say, "Test this, it demonstrates a COP > 17 and I would like your confirmation". Or even something I could give to the Orion Project to test and evaluate in their lab. All of us in the Open Source community are ready and willing to make immediate application of "proven" technology that meets the claims of COP > 17. And here we are, at this end of that time line asking "where's the proof?".

Is Glen's test #13 the ONLY data the open source community has to support this technology?

Will anyone else besides Gad show their results?

What does "Open Source" mean as it relates to this technology?

What part does "first to market", "first to publish" and "first to file" play in the IP associated with this?

Is it possible to get the Open Source community to design applications and then later impose royalties if they go to market? If so, what would need to be in place first? What would need to be hidden?

Obviously I have more questions than answers regarding the bigger picture, but I do know precisely how Glen's circuit works.  ;)






Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
« Reply #141 on: November 03, 2010, 08:01:52 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline exnihiloest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
« Reply #142 on: November 03, 2010, 09:33:56 AM »
...
No, what is missing everywhere along this time line, is definitive proof.
...
"where's the proof?"
...

I agree. I remember the Naudin's lifter (a conventional device that at the begining was pretended to be anti-gravity). After 2 or 3 years, there were hundreds of independent replications all over the world, and there was no doubt it worked.
Why not the same with Rosemary Ainslie's device which is simpler than the lifter, and several years after the patent? Why nobody replied "yes I did" when I asked if some one here had successfully duplicated the device? Because contrarily to the lifter, no one succeeded. To draw the conclusion is obvious.


Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3556
Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
« Reply #143 on: November 03, 2010, 01:29:18 PM »
Why not the same with Rosemary Ainslie's device which is simpler than the lifter, and several years after the patent? Why nobody replied "yes I did" when I asked if some one here had successfully duplicated the device? Because contrarily to the lifter, no one succeeded. To draw the conclusion is obvious.

The circuit is simple yes, but performing proper measurements and obtaining reliable data to work with is not so straight forward, and that is the essence of the problem.

Further adding to the problem, is what constitutes a valid replication? This has never been adequately clarified to my satisfaction, and in fact liberal amounts of scorn have been issued to those deviating slightly from published diagrams. And now, as before, there is talk that the replication does not need to be exact, and that AC power supplies are in fact valid as an example. Another is the resistor design. Surely the one being used in Rose's new heater is drastically different from the one Glen used in test #13, however it must be deemed valid if Rose and her team are currently using it.

.99

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
« Reply #143 on: November 03, 2010, 01:29:18 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
« Reply #144 on: November 03, 2010, 07:25:56 PM »
Howdy reading members and guests,

I see that Rosemary is back in her "safe haven" where shes a moderator ( with a edit & delete button ) in a dedicated thread to her ongoing nonsense, and is spouting her PATENT and PATENT APPLICATION understanding again plus the ongoing attempts of everyone on earth stealing whom ever actually designed circuits in her documents.

I would assume most would know you put your information on the web without any restrictions with copyrights, all rights reserved or trademark notices like myself does, the public can use it with no strings attached except for grouse misrepresentations it's in the public domain 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

Quote from: FuzzyTomCat;90969
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   (page 44 of 88)
Quote
35 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


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.

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 ??

Regards,
Glen

.

Offline truthbeknown

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 99
Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
« Reply #145 on: November 03, 2010, 11:34:01 PM »
Quote

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #768 on: Today at 04:36:59 AM »

    * Reply with quoteQuote

And guys, it's a condition of this forum that original work MAY NOT BE PATENTED.  This is why I have taken the trouble to ensure that the details of thatconstruct are posted here.  It puts the information firmly in the public domain.  I acknowledge that it's not exactly 'on topic' but as it relates to a method of proving my thesis there is, indeed, a relevance.

And as a reminder to you all.  The project that is being done on campus is driven by students
whose work is very heavily prescribed.  They 'fit in' when and as they can - and I am only grateful that there is any interest at all.  It does seem, however, that there will be LOTS of free time available from next week and we all hope to dedicate more time to this.  I never anticipated these many delays and I realise that it must have taxed everyone's patience.  But as there is much to cover regarding this general subject then I have tried to make good use of that time.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

So now we know your "Loophole." You cannot patent the original work but you fully intend to protect the current work. So it makes sense as to why you have not been sharing with the Open Source Community the details of your "Trade School" experiments.

If this is incorrect and you do intend to divulge ALL details of your current work, will the Open Source Community expect to be able to manufacture devices based on YOUR  current works free of any royalty attachment?

Now there is a question for Posterity.
What are the odds of this NEVER getting answered? Any Bets?

J.
Truthbeknown

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
« Reply #145 on: November 03, 2010, 11:34:01 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
« Reply #146 on: November 04, 2010, 04:17:13 AM »
Hi reading members and guests,

I just had to bring these misrepresented allegation quotes by Rosemary Ainslie over to this thread where the proof of the truth exists in one location, using Rosemary's "in your own words" quotes from Forum postings, PM's and e-mails, where the thread is not moderated by her a member that uses the edit and delete key at a whim.

Guys .  I keep close tally on the 'reads' here and have just realised that the readership on this thread is now exceptionally low.  What a pleasure.  I was about to pull out - thinking that Glen et al were entirely destroying this technology.  In fact, they can do their damndest.  What I now have is precisely that quiet little unobtrusive thread that I was always hoping for - just to keep due record.  I shall regard this as my own kind of 'diary' update.  And I know that - unless Harti bans me - I'll have my own story which will resonante in the future where their own will stand as an example of the victimisation that us poor eccentric thinkers are subjected to.  Inadvertently Glen and Harvey and Icestorm, Truthbeknown and even exnihiloest -  have done me a very real service.  So.  Let me rabbit on.  Even if I'm talking to myself.  Frankly I much prefer it.  I have MUCH that I'd like to keep on record and with this effective destruction of members' interest - then I can do so relatively unobtrusively. 

Let me start with the required 'method' of achieving resonance and please note that this can be done on just about any switching circuit provided only that you either route the energy back to the battery or to an alternate battery.  Assuming that you are following our simple circuit and that the energy is being returned to the source supply battery then the following applies.  You need to MEASURE the energy that is first delivered by the battery and the energy returned.  The required method of establishing that rate of current flow is to use a non-inductive shunt - something that is likely to reliably measure the voltage without adding any distortions.  Actually, having said that, we've only seen a marginal difference between non-inductive and inductive shunts - but for those purists - the argument is better upheld with non-inductive shunts.  The shunt must be posititioned in series either at the positive or the negative terminal of the battery.  Preferably the negative as it will NOT then interfere with the required resonating frequency.

Here's the 'not so easy' part.  You need a reliable means of measuring the DC average voltage across that shunt.  And here's the thinking.  A battery delivers a postive current flow.  Therefore any energy measured above ground will be reflect the amount of energy delivered by that battery.  Any energy returned by the system will be measured below ground.  The amount of energy actually delivered will be the difference between those two values.  So.  To get this value - then one must get a scopemeter that is able to do that sum and at speed.  Therefore - unfortunately - it can ONLY be disclosed with the use of fairly sophisticated scopemeters.  That's the only downside to this application.  In other words - for the most of you who do not have scopes that do this - then - if you DO get to the required resonance - it'll be an accident.  This is why I had to send my own scopemeter to Aaron who convinced me that he was well able to do the required.  What happened here is a story all on it's own which I'll address in due course. 

Back to the 'method.  Then.  Set your zero reference point on the scope - and just PLAY with the duty cycles those 'on off' switches.  Until you see the DC voltage readings begin to default to the 'negative'.  That's the point when the system is in the required resonating mode. At really high frequencies of resonance you will find that there's some major RF which your radios will pick up.  It's also characerised by a fairly loud 'hum'.  The thing is this.  Any one resistor will have varying moments where it falls into that resonance mode.  In other words - the resonance is NOT frequency dependent.  I am reasonably satisfied that just about any conductor/resistor is able to generate that resonance - provided only that it is not entirely overpowered by the supply.  To ensure as wide a range as possible - then it's preferred to use thick guage wiring in either the copper or the iron that you're using.  And it's required that you use sensitive pots that you can increase the 'range' to find that truly optimised resonance. Also preferred is that you test it on coils with a wide hollow girth.  But how wide that girth, and how thick that wire?  That's exactly what we're planning on testing.

The 'moment' when the reading falls below zero is a very 'quick' moment.  Too little or too much in either direction and you're back to losses. 

Regards Rosemary

So guys.  For the record.  It was of paramount importance to Glen that he refute his earlier findings.  But this can't be done - without first saying that the results from his TDS3054C scope was FAULTED.  His frequencies were WELL within the capabilities of that instrument.  What he did was this.  He first called for the use of a more sophisticated instrument.  Then he CAREFULLY tuned the circuit to AVOID that 'negative' value.  Then he rather crowed that his earlier findings were wrong.  If you note his 'time line' you will see that this all happened when his agenda changed from promotion to demotion.  Unfortunately he's caught between a rock and a hard place.  IF the subsequent findings are WRONG - then he needs must WITHDRAW his paper from SCRIBD and he must publicly advise you all that there is NO MERIT IN THE MOSFET SWITCHING CIRCUIT.  That way his work will be relegated to the historical dump yard where it would then belong.  Then in all good conscience - he must earnestly require that no-one waste their time here.  ELSE he must say that his earlier work is correct and that his subesequent tests were wrong.  He really can't have it both ways.  Right now his message is ambivilent.  It's something on the lines of 'There's something there - but hold your horses while I sit around wasting my time by attacking Rosemary. When that exercise is finished and I've buried her - then I'll pull a rabbit out of the hat and THEN.  Howdy Folks.  May I introduce you to myself.  I'm the guy who FOUND THAT RESONATING FREQUENCY and RESCUED OU from the clutches of con artist."

Fortunately, even if this post is never read it will be here as a record.  I don't think Harti will delete it.  Even if he bans me.  And the fact is that that 'negative voltage' is achievable with just about ANY resistor - even standard immersion type resistors. In other words.  THIS IS REALLY EASY TECHNOLOGY.   

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

And may I add.  Without that required measuring instruments - then the resonance must be accidentally achieved and the actual measure of the energy delivered and dissipated will only ever be a thumb suck.  It is NO WONDER it's eluded detection for so long.  I realise now that the likelihood of it EVER being shown is almost zero to nothing.

The thing is that I expected this result so went to the trouble of getting the right scopemeters that could be DC coupled precisely to show that value.   You've got to expect it to first measure it.  Else it can be happening - all over the place - without there being the slightest recognition of the fact.  In other words - it's been with us since day dot.  It's just not been seen.  Resonance is NEVER a desirable condition in the applictions that switching circuits are used for.  It's only reference that I know of is as an 'aperiodic Hartley oscillation' and that's buried in text books closely followed by advice as to how to 'get rid of it'

Harvey tries hard to befuddle you all about the complexities of measurement - Glen tries hard to keep the results from public view.  Both of them go to absurd lengths to shout obscenitites about my character, my motives, my abilities - or lack of them, but they're only following an agenda.  They're trying very hard to kill this technology - or they're trying to disassociate me from it's disclosure.  Unfortunately whether they convince you or not - the TRUTH WILL OUT.  This is not rocket science.  It's simple, really SIMPLE science - easily measured within the constraints of the correct scopemeters and easily proved against the performance of batteries against their watt hour ratings.  I see my contribution to all this as being sufficiently SIMPLE MINDED to expect precisely this result.  I am and was not clever enough to find the reasons for it NOT TO WORK.

And while I may have harboured untold doubts about the accuracy of the circuit schematic as it related to the 555 - I have NEVER doubted the efficacy of this RESONANCE.  It's been evident from nearly the very beginning of all our tests. 

Regards,
Rosemary


*HIGHLIGHTED* IN YELLOW - BAD ADVISE from one that has "NO" knowledge of electronic circuitry or electronic component operation or capability of construction of a electronic circuit



ANY ALLEGATIONS FROM ROSEMARY AINSLIE MUST HAVE "PROOF" FROM PM's, E-MAILS OR OPEN SOURCE FORUM POSTING "LINKS" - IF SHE DOESN'T HAVE "PROOF" THERE LIES AND FABRICATIONS AND WILL NOT BE ANSWERED


.

Offline truthbeknown

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 99
Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
« Reply #147 on: November 04, 2010, 04:42:53 AM »

Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #772 on: Today at 04:07:52 AM »

 

And may I add.  Without that required measuring instruments - then the resonance must be accidentally achieved and the actual measure of the energy delivered and dissipated will only ever be a thumb suck.  It is NO WONDER it's eluded detection for so long.  I realise now that the likelihood of it EVER being shown is almost zero to nothing.

The thing is that I expected this result so went to the trouble of getting the right scopemeters that could be DC coupled precisely to show that value.   You've got to expect it to first measure it.  Else it can be happening - all over the place - without there being the slightest recognition of the fact.  In other words - it's been with us since day dot.  It's just not been seen.  Resonance is NEVER a desirable condition in the applictions that switching circuits are used for.  It's only reference that I know of is as an 'aperiodic Hartley oscillation' and that's buried in text books closely followed by advice as to how to 'get rid of it'.

Harvey tries hard to befuddle you all about the complexities of measurement - Glen tries hard to keep the results from public view.  Both of them go to absurd lengths to shout obscenitites about my character, my motives, my abilities - or lack of them, but they're only following an agenda.  They're trying very hard to kill this technology - or they're trying to disassociate me from it's disclosure.  Unfortunately whether they convince you or not - the TRUTH WILL OUT.  This is not rocket science.  It's simple, really SIMPLE science - easily measured within the constraints of the correct scopemeters and easily proved against the performance of batteries against their watt hour ratings.  I see my contribution to all this as being sufficiently SIMPLE MINDED to expect precisely this result.  I am and was not clever enough to find the reasons for it NOT TO WORK.

And while I may have harboured untold doubts about the accuracy of the circuit schematic as it related to the 555 - I have NEVER doubted the efficacy of this RESONANCE.  It's been evident from nearly the very beginning of all our tests.

Regards,
Rosemary






SOUNDS PRETTY SLANDEROUS ABOUT HARVEY AND GLEN SHOUTING OBSCENITIES ABOUT YOU WITHOUT SHOWING SOME "PROOF."  :o

J.


Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
« Reply #148 on: November 04, 2010, 05:21:24 AM »
Hi reading members and guests,

Here is a quote from Rosemary on how to get into the "Preferred Mode of Operation" which is entirely incorrect .......

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9442.msg262875#msg262875
Quote
Back to the 'method.  Then.  Set your zero reference point on the scope - and just PLAY with the duty cycles those 'on off' switches.  Until you see the DC voltage readings begin to default to the 'negative'.  That's the point when the system is in the required resonating mode.

*******************************************************************************

Hi reading members and guests,

I just had to bring these misrepresented allegation quotes by Rosemary Ainslie over to this thread where the proof of the truth exists in one location, using Rosemary's "in your own words" quotes from Forum postings, PM's and e-mails, where the thread is not moderated by her a member that uses the edit and delete key at a whim.

*HIGHLIGHTED* IN YELLOW - BAD ADVISE from one that has "NO" knowledge of electronic circuitry or electronic component operation or capability of construction of a electronic circuit

ANY ALLEGATIONS FROM ROSEMARY AINSLIE MUST HAVE "PROOF" FROM PM's, E-MAILS OR OPEN SOURCE FORUM POSTING "LINKS" - IF SHE DOESN'T HAVE "PROOF" THERE LIES AND FABRICATIONS AND WILL NOT BE ANSWERED

.

BAD ADVISE from Rosemary that has "NO" knowledge of electronic circuitry or electronic component operation or capability of construction of a electronic circuit
Rosemary's Quote -
Back to the 'method.  Then.  Set your zero reference point on the scope - and just PLAY with the duty cycles those 'on off' switches.  Until you see the DC voltage readings begin to default to the 'negative'.  That's the point when the system is in the required resonating mode.


PREFERRED MODE OF OPERATION - 5-Hour "NON STOP" video - TDS 3054C   January 09, 2010
http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment/video?clipId=pla_6d255c76-9e9a-42ae-a565-fbc698e0b6df

http://www.energeticforum.com/93710-post70.html    May 01, 2010

Quote from: FuzzyTomCat;93710
Hi everyone,

This post is a recap of my "LIVE" recording at "Open Source Research and Development" which is the best recorded representation of the preferred mode of operation a 5-Hour non stop video recording on January 9, 2010 using a Tektronix TDS 3054C Oscilloscope.

This 5 hour video recording is from a dead start after the scope calibration as all testing and evaluation of the circuit. Please see Image time bars for actual recorded times in hours, minutes and seconds.

Channel 1 - Mosfet Source Pin
Channel 2 - Mosfet Drain Pin
Channel 3 - 555 Timer Pin 3
Channel 4 - 24 Volt Battery Bank


Scope Trigger - Channel 1 "FALLING" signal slope [ \ ] "IMPORTANT"

"START"

First connecting the 12 Volt battery to 555 timer circuit only, adjust the "ON" potentiometer to minimum resistance (0), adjust the "OFF" potentiometer to maximum resistance (2K), resulting duty cycle is at about 21.48 % 
http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/01_01_09.jpg

http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/01_02_09.jpg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now Connecting the 24 Volt battery bank to the device circuit not touching the "ON" or "OFF" 555 timer Potentiometer again. The circuit now defaults to a 50 - 55 % duty cycle, no further "ON" or "OFF" potentiometer adjustments needed.
http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/01_03_09.jpg
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now adjusting the "GATE" potentiometer "only" using the oscilloscopes 100ns division for minimum Mosfet source Channel -1 Mean mV from 50 to 70 and the four (4) divisions from the 555 timer "OFF" signal to the Mosfet drain or 24 Volt Battery signal "spike" combined with the Fluke 87 DMM highest voltage reading connected to the 24 volt battery bank
http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/01_04_09.jpg

http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/01_05_09.jpg
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now the double checking of the "GATE" potentiometer adjustment "only" using the oscilloscopes 100ns division for minimum Mosfet source Channel -1 Mean mV from 50 - 70 and the four (4) divisions from the 555 timer "OFF" signal to the Mosfet drain or 24 Volt Battery signal "spike" combined with the Fluke 87 DMM highest voltage reading connected to the 24 volt battery bank.
http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/01_06_09.jpg

http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/01_07_09.jpg
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Mosfet circuit is now 100 % fully functional in the preferred mode of operation and under "load" the 24 Volt Battery bank Voltage is now at 24.70 DC Volts with no further adjustment to be made on any of the circuit potentiometers.
http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/01_08_09.jpg
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A now recorded 24 Volt battery bank voltage increase seen on the Fluke 87 from the starting voltage of 24.70 to 24.72 DC volts.
http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/01_09_09.jpg
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"FINISH"

Now after approximately 5 Hours of continuous operation the 24 Volt battery bank voltage has dropped from the starting voltage of 24.70 to 24.59 Volts DC, a total decrease of .11 Volts DC , maintaining a constant 140 to 145 + degree F temperature on the "Load Resistor" which is about 5.5 watts continuous load.

http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/01_10_09.jpg
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Best Regards,
Glen
:)


EDIT - added images listed in quote
« Last Edit: November 04, 2010, 09:36:09 AM by fuzzytomcat »

Offline Harvey

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 143
Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
« Reply #149 on: November 04, 2010, 08:05:34 AM »
The circuit is simple yes, but performing proper measurements and obtaining reliable data to work with is not so straight forward, and that is the essence of the problem.

Further adding to the problem, is what constitutes a valid replication? This has never been adequately clarified to my satisfaction, and in fact liberal amounts of scorn have been issued to those deviating slightly from published diagrams. And now, as before, there is talk that the replication does not need to be exact, and that AC power supplies are in fact valid as an example. Another is the resistor design. Surely the one being used in Rose's new heater is drastically different from the one Glen used in test #13, however it must be deemed valid if Rose and her team are currently using it.

.99

Hi .99,

That is a good question regarding "Replication". I recall this subject being very deeply discussed surrounding TK's OCMPMM. My input on the matter drew attention to the distinction between a duplication and a replication. A duplication will not only match the original physical parameters with some measure of precision, but it should also function within the same parameters of the original. A replication on the other hand does not necessarily have to match both. For example, a good 'Replica' may be completely non-functional but still maintain the physical characteristics in looks, texture size etc. Alternatively, a good 'Replica' may also have absolutely no similar physical characteristics, but the function may be absolutely precise. Thus, you can purchase a quarter scale "Replica" of your favorite vehicle, but you don't expect it to function like the original. On the other hand, you can acquire a software emulator that functions as a replica of the actual hardware in the original.

So when we are using the term "Replication" we do need to define what part of the original we are "Replicating" - what exactly are we expecting our replica to do?

Without question, the thing attempting to be replicated was excess energy to the specification of the ratio 17:1. This was the original claim, for each single joule of energy taken from the batteries, 17 joules of energy were dissipated as heat. Truthfully, that is the only defining parameter in the specification of a replication of the original device and it is the minimum requirement, the "Bar" that had to be met as Rosemary once told you in the previous thread.

So, if my device has absolutely no magnetic components at all, and a purely resistive load, but still produces the 17:1 ratio would it be considered a replica? The simple answer is yes, because that is what we are trying to replicate, that energy ratio. Granted, it does nothing for Rosemary's thesis, but it would qualify as a replica.

On the other hand, a duplicate device with identical components that does not function as the original fails to qualify as a functional replication. In other words, it may qualify as a visual replication, or a physical replication, but it would fail to meet the industry requirement of "Independent Replication" which carries with it the understanding of a "Functional Replication". Failing to reach the "bar" of 17:1, would disqualify it as an Independent Replication.

But what if the device is 'similar' in physical characteristics and similar in functional characteristics but it only meets a 7:1 bar? Is it then a replication? Sadly no. At best, it is only a replication attempt that failed to meet the 17:1 bar. IIRC, if two devices are different by a minimum of 10%, they are considered to be different devices entirely.

Consider Glen's Mosfet Heating Circuit. The goal in building and testing that circuit from the beginning was to reach that 17:1 bar by what ever it would take. He tested a variety of resistors in different shapes and sizes and inductance. He experimented with various frequencies and duty cycles. The circuit has been modified a great deal from the original defunct Quantum schematic. Resistor values, capacitor values etc. And his load resistors are completely custom. In fact, the original specifications on the resistor simply are not available and those printed are in gross error. I did find a patent from Rosemary that showed a 100 ohm resistor instead of the 10 ohm that was allegedly calibrated. But the sizing, windings and values just don't add up in her documents. Add to these glaring differences the fact that his circuit functions quite differently than the original. Notice the original waveforms in the document attached. Glens waveforms are clearly different. Also the frequencies are very different. What is the same, or nearly so, is the calculated input power (not energy) in both cases being between 1 and 2 watts average. However, we discovered later that the method used did not correctly handle the AC current in the system. But this error exists in the original data as well as in Glen's data.

Therefore, at best, Glen's device is a failed attempt at  replication.

So the question is, what is required to meet the bar? How do we tell the universe to give us 17 joules back for every joule we give it? Is it thicker wire? Different coil winding capacitance? Multiphasic frequencies? What is the best method for knocking those 'little magnets' around so they give up energy to our system? And what is the cost if any?

There I go again with more questions than answers.

Cheers,

Harvey

Larger Image:http://urad.net/forums/gallery/albums/userpics/Patent_App_6.JPG

 

OneLink