Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

News announcements and other topics => News => Topic started by: fuzzytomcat on October 27, 2010, 06:12:57 AM

Title: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: fuzzytomcat on October 27, 2010, 06:12:57 AM
Hi everyone,

I have been allowed to start a "UN CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 circuit thread being all my posts are being "DELETED" as fast as they go up ....

Quote

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stefan Hartmann" <hartiberlin@xxxxxxxxxx.com>
To: "Glen Lettenmaier" <fuzzytomcat@xxxxxxxxxx.net>
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 6:46 PM
Subject: Re: Thread Moderation


Just post it in a thread, where no moderator is.
E.g. in the news thread.
Am in a hurry.
Regards, Stefan.

2010/10/24 Glen Lettenmaier <fuzzytomcat@xxxxxxxx.net>:
> Hi Stefan,
>
> I hate to keep complaining over and over but ......
>
> 1) I have had eight (8) of my postings now totally deleted in two
> author/moderated threads.
> 2) There is four (4) other Over Unity members now having there postings in
> the author/moderated threads deleted with absolutely no real good reason.
> The reason of being "OFF TOPIC" is incorrect as the author/moderator is off
> topic 80% of the time in the thread.
> 3) I have helped twelve (12) Over Unity members with circuitry and device
> technical help ( have PM proof ) when it was refused or unavailable by the
> threads author/moderator as being "OFF TOPIC".
>
> It's been four (4) months now since the start of the thread ..... where are
> the photos, diagrams and such promised by you and the author/moderator ?
>
> I'm confused here help me .... in my work on the device of eight (8) months
> the only known and documented modified replication that actually worked, I
> was able myself to do twenty two (22) fully documented device tests, which
> have been "TOTALLY" available at several places in the open source
> community.
>
> I don't know what you want from me, a thread with a "UN CENSORED"
> battlefield without the bogus author/moderation of the topic ..... I have
> more than enough "original" e-mails, Pm's and such alike the
> author/moderator cannot defend because there all undefendable, I'll post in
> open forum if you want me to I don't care.
>
> I'm a fully "documented" professional and have a thirty (30) year
> professional reputation to defend now, and I will.
>
> Thanks for your time.
>
> Best Regards,
> Glen


Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: fuzzytomcat on October 27, 2010, 06:29:13 AM
Hi everyone,

Here is the first posting today that was told to members and guests by Rosemary as me deleting the post ..... http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9442.msg262006#msg262006 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9442.msg262006#msg262006) a un-truth by Rosemary Ainslie.

referencing this posted by fuzzytomcat
Hello Happy - SO NICE TO SEE YOU THERE.  And many thanks for making due record here.  I see that - like so much - Glen tried to delete this too and lose all record.  LOL.

Interesting to see that he's signed it with full public disclosure of his identity.  I rather thought he was averse to letting the public trace this.  Certainly he wrote to Stefan to enjoin him to remove his surname from any future reference lest we discover his actual identity.  Strange developments afoot.

Regards,
Rosemary

For the "RECORD" a second time ...... ( This can't be deleted )

PUBLIC NOTICE

QUOTE:  http://www.energeticforum.com/70207-post2913.html (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)
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: fuzzytomcat on October 27, 2010, 06:53:14 AM
Hi TK,

Your quote is right on spot and has been fully detailed at Energetic Forum http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits.html  in one of my postings #74 http://www.energeticforum.com/93746-post74.html and actually starts after Test #22 completion using 100k data dumps, with the detailed data analysis done by Harvey in Post #31 http://www.energeticforum.com/87765-post31.html and the 5-hour non stop recordings of the "LIVE" device operation broadcasts at "Open Source Research and Development" http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment with special *Highlights* on January 9, 2010, January 24, 2010 and January 31, 2010 with the device preferred mode of operation shown.

Glen
 :)


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: fuzzytomcat on October 27, 2010, 07:14:47 AM
Hi everyone,

Here is a recap of a prior post of mine in a heavily moderated thread that we'll be going over "UN-CENSORED" ....

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9645.msg254252#msg254252


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rosemary Ainslies "QUOTES" from http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie.html from "ONE" year ago .....

Please note "RED" highlighted postings .......

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/59001-post169.html

I'm not sure if you are aware of it - but I'm a rank amateur. I really need to own up to this because you'll be expecting a level of technical expertise that I simply do not have. Circuit switches need to be built by others. The only aspect of testing that I'm confident with is the actual power measurements and then only as they relate to this modest little circuit. But - if I have a contribution - it's in that model, which is the thesis in support of that gain. In any event I wont bore you with the details. But if and where I state the obvious - it's only because I hardly know enough to see whether it's obvious or not. So. Please bear with me.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/59005-post170.html

I do not have a copy of that switching circuit - and if I did I would not be able to comment.

If your actual object is to disprove the circuit claim then I'm wholeheartedly in favour of it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/59020-post175.html

Else I'd be able to apply the system to my geyser - at home.

And, as a final point - if you can develop those uses - feel free. There are no requirements to pay royalties on patents. There is nothing that I'd love more than to hear that the system is in use. I believe that it is - in a small way. My co-author has just wired up a house here which uses the system as a backup charge system.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/59030-post179.html

I've tested the circuit over a 4 year period.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/59033-post182.html

My knowledge of circuitry is somewhat bereft.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/59119-post205.html

I was never given the results of any of the tests conducted by those accreditors. It was not from want of trying. But I was given their permission to use their names as accreditors in the Quantum article. The reason we simply used that precise experiment for the paper submitted to the IET was to reference their names. I do have the report for BP because we had to conduct those experiments on battey duration. But the context of that report is just on the effect as it relates to battery delivery - and it has got to be the single most boring exercise in all of history. It's object impeccable - but the testing exhausting.

I think the truth is that these companies allocate a certain amount of funding to research. And having found their answers they do not make it public. Presumbaly having paid for their own lab time they rightly regard the results as being their property - or their company's property. We did try and get the results - but failed - miserably.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/59163-post220.html

The good news is that Donovan has agreed to join this forum. He can answer those really technical issues that are way over my head. And better still he'll be able to advise how to take the frequency into oscillation - or resonance - not sure which is the right term.

So. I'll leave the question until then. But I believe it does have something to do with the MOSFET with an applied frequency that is too fast? I better leave it to him to explain. It's entirely beyond me.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/59195-post225.html

I've had many different circuits built, different 555 switches and different fets.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/59233-post232.html

I'm hoping Donovan will be able to help regarding the sheer volume of questions. Not only is he highly qualified but he's an absolute authority on alternative energy. If I'm a scholar he's my professor.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/59369-post262.html

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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/59541-post322.html

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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/59596-post341.html

But I do know that my co-author has wired up a house in our Town - that uses some small part of this system to help recharge batteries. That house is entirely 'grid free'.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/60174-post474.html

I love reading back over the various points, and will be able to do so without the need to skip through volumes of extraneous nonsense.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/60279-post511.html

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.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/60282-post512.html

TinselKoala - I see you still read posts on this forum - failing which I am sure that Ramset will copy and post for you if you no longer have access - I would like to re-iterate that I am sincerely sorry for blaming your interpretation of the inverted waveform if, as it seems, the switch was incorrect.

Abject apologies - for what it's worth. It is thanks to Joit that this matter has been cleared up. If you continue to do the experiment - I suggest you build your own 555 switch.

And for the record - the claim relates to a frequency that is variously described but best known as a Parasitic Hartley Effect. I have this information from experts. The point is that it is an oscillating frequency that is damped down or clamped out, not sure of the correct term - as it interferes with signals which is when it's manifest. We show that that effect adds to the efficiency when it is NOT clamped out.

BUT the flyback principle, whether with inductive resistors or resistors in series with inductors - always give evidence of a gain. It can be at any frequency tested between 60Hz all the way to and beyond 600kHz. All work - some with more efficiency than others - and at extreme frequencies - with losses rather than gains. It can use just about any variation of the flyback principles as described by gotoluc as a reticulated current. And it does not need the induced Hartley Effect to realise a gain. In other words you can get the over unity performance on periodic waveforms.

Nor do you need specialised MOSFETS. And you will always see a gain if you run batteries on control tests.

The misrepresentation of the 555 in the Quantum Article I think has been proved by Joit. I sincerely apologise for the error. Hopefully with this admission you'll at least continue with the testing. You see now how wide is my claim. You can then disprove it on many bases.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/60610-post664.html

the need for the flyback diode is to prove the returning energy - not to exploit it. The WHOLE intention of that paper is for purposes of proof.

And your measurements are WAY OUT. I was rather hoping for an unbiased report.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/60616-post667.html

There is nothing wrong with the 555 circuit you've got.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/60640-post682.html

We're in the happy position of being invited to give a demo of 'proof of concept' - I think - or else a working model (both easily accommodated) for a group here who may have found a market for the devices.

It seems such a ready made solution. I have been concentrating entirely on getting academics to approve this. How utterly stupid. We can go straight to the market. Why look for that endorsement. As and when we've got the actual 'application' or 'proof' or, indeed both, I will keep you fully updated. Hopefully we'll be able to post on youtube - but don't hold your breath. For me - that's a HUGE learning curve.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/60647-post688.html

Be that s it may - the overunity is defintely measurable at all frequencies and all duty cycles. Having said that there are some really fast frequencies where the benefit is lost. However I've referred to possible variations in that paper. Nor do you need the precise circuit diagram.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/60925-post768.html

Guys, I have some news. It seems that some small application of this device will be studied for commercial application. I am not involved but have asked that there be a video made for reference. In principle this has been agreed to. So, with luck we'll have a small application of this device available in the near future. I'll keep you posted.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/60943-post774.html

And could it also be because, notwithstanding the modesty of the effect - it is also measurable in terms of classical analysis? And could it be because - not only is the gain claimed - these effects have been thoroughly analysed and accredited by experts in the art. Let me name it's most authoritative accreditor. ABB Research in North Carolina.

Now, let me continue with that list of accreditors. It also includes, Sasol (SA) Spescom (SA) BP (SA) and others. They are all either public companies or they are individuals associated with public companies.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/61040-post798.html

Aaron - you're talking switching circuitry. I have no idea.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/61057-post802.html

But the first and most important point is to prove that the battery is being recharged. The quickest proof is through the flyback diode to the battery.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/61081-post812.html

Anyway - I forgot to add. Take the flyback to the positive of the second battery.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.feelthevibe.com/free_energy/rosemary_ainslie/ainslieheater.pdf  ( Aaron's replication with flyback diode )

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/61441-post912.html

Have just watched the video. What a pleasure. That self-oscillation - AT LAST. There's something wrong with my Fluke. I'm going to get it fixed and will then post it to you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/61453-post920.html

I am an AMATEUR. I cannot put a circuit together. And I can only draw very simple circuits. You guys - all - have forgotten what I know. Not only that - but nor am I into conventional power applications. So - not only do I not know - but nor am I ever likely to learn.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/61506-post942.html

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.

What is frightening is that anyone who questions a result is actually verbally menaced.

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.

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?
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: truthbeknown on October 27, 2010, 07:42:43 AM

I have been accused in every thread I post in by Rosemary that I don't let "the TruthBeKnown" She has sent me a pm telling me to not post where she does. And she made fun of my name on a thread and said that my comments are not welcome and don't mean anything and she is not the only one on this forum that feels this way about me. I have not been told by ANY other forum member that I can not post on their thread.

 ???
J.
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 27, 2010, 08:17:46 AM
Dear Truthbeknown

I find it intensely distateful to answer your posts at all.  This because I simply do not like you. But I'll give it my best shot in light of the constraints on my time.  I see you are frantically trying to revive any thread where you can take up the cudgels against me - the more so as I was obliged to lock the 'bash rosemary ainslie' thread - which you also rather sadly tried to revive. 

The actual truth of the matter is that I am vigilant at promoting some concepts related to clean green energy.  Those concepts and the experimental evidence appear to hold no interest for you.  Rather your time is devoted to carping on and on about yourself and your name - for goodness sake.  How boring.  The more so as your name seems to indicate that you prefer the truth rather than otherwise.  Somewhat contradictory.

This thread was intended - I think - to give a full disclosure on the email correspondence from the collaborators - that I could give a full disclosure of their character - otherwise hidden from public view.  Unfortunately YOUR OWN interventions here have established that I may not refer to the collaborators by 'name' in this particular context - effectively thereby PREVENTING the truth from being known.  And the collaborators themselves have insisted that their surnames may never be disclosed - which rather defeats that intention behind this exposure.

Regarding your 'carp' that I have poked 'fun' at your name.  I deny this entirely.  That would indicate that there was some kind of amusement in the exercise.  I simply exposed the need for some relevance to your choice of a name when it is clear to me - and as stated by yourself - that 'censorship' is preferred.  By your own admission you prefer it that the 'truth' is NOT known.  Not only that but you took the trouble to complain to admin about my self portrait  ::) - for some reason which I simply can't get my head around.  And then you continue to complain to Harti that I besmirched your own name - when you did that yourself.  Now.  As if that is not enough - you're trying to drag me into a further discussion about something that is entirely irrelevant to my interests.

I really have no interest whatsoever in upholding your 'truths' is the ACTUAL truth of the matter.  Mine is rather 'freer' than your own.  And truth has no price other than in its accountability.  You seem to require that it be qualified - muffled - blinded - altered - edited - organised - God knows what.  I simply don't agree.  So.  We're on a different page entirely.  I hope this will now be enough to close this matter for once and for all.

If the truth is really to be known I prefer to spend my time with those who uphold the truth.

Rosemary

golly.  I really am getting addled.  I see now that this thread has actually just been started by Glen.  LOL.  Clearly I need to check my glasses.  I also see that a previous post of mine has been re-instated - if it was ever deleted in the first instance.  Probably got that wrong too.  In any event.  Dear Glen.  You may say what you like here and DO YOUR THING.  I have always believed in the right to 'freedom of expression' - and I think it's fair that if I can have editorial control over my thread that you enjoy the same.

Like I said.  Have fun.  I won't, myself be reading here. 

Rosemary
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 27, 2010, 08:26:50 AM
this is rich.  I may not post here?
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 27, 2010, 08:27:59 AM
guys - I won't interfer with the posting here.  Glen is deleting my posts.  and frankly - the subject is too too boring.  Have fun.


Rosmary


Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: fuzzytomcat on October 27, 2010, 08:33:49 AM
I have been accused in every thread I post in by Rosemary that I don't let "the TruthBeKnown" She has sent me a pm telling me to not post where she does. And she made fun of my name on a thread and said that my comments are not welcome and don't mean anything and she is not the only one on this forum that feels this way about me. I have not been told by ANY other forum member that I can not post on their thread.

 ???
J.
Howdy J.

We both have been victims of heavily moderated threads of Rosemary Ainslie and all totally "UN JUSTIFIED" attached is a image example involving us both ..... I've even been accused by Rosemary of owning a "x rated" web site including something about photos and the Over Unity member "RAMSET" somehow posted a link of these in her COP>17 (??) thread, this was given Stefan the reason of that particular deletion of my posting. 

Let the "TRUTH be KNOWN" ....

Glen
 :)
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: fuzzytomcat on October 27, 2010, 08:39:22 AM
guys - I won't interfer with the posting here.  Glen is deleting my posts.  and frankly - the subject is too too boring.  Have fun.


Rosmary

I DO NOT HAVE MODERATOR CONTROL OF THIS THREAD !!!!

I CANNOT DELETE ANYTHING HERE !!!!

"more misdirection of the facts again"
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 27, 2010, 08:41:50 AM
golly.  I really am getting addled.  I see now that this thread has actually just been started
 by Glen.  LOL.  Clearly I need to check my glasses.  I also see that a previous post of mine
has been re-instated - if it was ever deleted in the first instance.  Probably got that wrong too.
In any event.  Dear Glen.  You may say what you like here and DO YOUR THING.  I have always
believed in the right to 'freedom of expression' - and I think it's fair that if I can have editorial
 control over my thread that you enjoy the same.

Like I said.  Have fun.  I won't, myself be reading here.

Rosemary

added.  I just reposted this because I see that the protests are already so LOUD that they're
already  falling off the page.  I'd be sorry if this post of mine is missed.    ;D

I've just desubscribed from notification.  ;D

Rosemary

AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED ANY PUBLICITY IS GOOD PUBLICITY.  IT ALL HELPS THE GENERAL
CAUSE.  AND THAT'S MY ONLY INTEREST.
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 27, 2010, 08:50:32 AM
Let the "TRUTH be KNOWN" ....

Glen
 :)

GOLLY.  This is really RICH.  I've been rolling.  How do you justify censoring data? 
If that's the kind of truth you uphold - then Glen - like Truthbeknow - you have an
EXTRAORDINARY take on the 'the truth'. 

Anyway.  Like I said.  Have fun.  I actually think I'll be enjoying these posts afterall.

Rosemary
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: exnihiloest on October 27, 2010, 09:01:58 AM
[she] said that my comments are not welcome and don't mean anything and she is not the only one on this forum that feels this way about me. I have not been told by ANY other forum member that I can not post on their thread.
...

Exactly the same for me.
She considers any doubt about her device as a blasphemy and then makes personal attacks.
I have never seen here such an attitude.

Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: fuzzytomcat on October 27, 2010, 09:27:44 AM
Rosemary,

You have known for some time where I stand http://www.energeticforum.com/94210-post542.html and myself not censoring or withholding photos and data like you ..... here's a link with everything known in existince on the Quantum October 2002 article  including your patent applications using circuit(s) mandating a fly back diode in the diagrams which were designed by ?? .....

http://cid-6b7817c40bb20460.office.live.com/browse.aspx/.Public/Ainslie

and my link for twenty two (22) tests complete with photos, images and data .....

http://cid-6b7817c40bb20460.office.live.com/browse.aspx/.Public/Mosfet%20Heater

You know these links .... the ones you kept deleting in your moderated COP>17 (??) threads ....




 

Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: truthbeknown on October 27, 2010, 09:35:37 AM
GOLLY.  This is really RICH.  I've been rolling.  How do you justify censoring data? 
If that's the kind of truth you uphold - then Glen - like Truthbeknow - you have an
EXTRAORDINARY take on the 'the truth'. 

Anyway.  Like I said.  Have fun.  I actually think I'll be enjoying these posts afterall.

Rosemary


I guess Loner missed this comment but she will read and post here just as day follows night.
And who cares that you don't like me Rosemary because nobody ever asked you to. And really, reviving a thread is what you do everyday with your COP>17 thread. If nobody comments on it then you have to say some Blah Blah to keep it on the front page just as you have done on every forum you have posted in.  So really, what some people would like to see are pictures and videos of the work you say is being conducted "on campus." So you say you can't post the parts list and so on because of "thieves" so how about some pics and videos? We have to wonder why?
I'm sure the collaborators could shed some light on things but so could you with some effort. You are so good at deleting posts that don't suit you and editing even your own posts its pretty hard to understand your agenda. I hope this thread can truly show all the truths about your whatever device.

 ???
J.
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: fuzzytomcat on October 27, 2010, 11:18:42 AM
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

Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: exnihiloest on October 27, 2010, 01:32:09 PM

"I have always believed in the right to 'freedom of expression'"
RA

but:

"I think it's fair that if I can have editorial control"
"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."
"I would strongly recommend that you 'stay away' from this thread"
RA    :-X

Find the error!     :D ;D

Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: poynt99 on October 27, 2010, 02:29:13 PM
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
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: poynt99 on October 27, 2010, 02:31:32 PM
Glen,

May I ask what your stance is on the RA circuit at this time? It is unclear whether you still support the device being COP>1 or not.

Thanks,
.99
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: WilbyInebriated on October 27, 2010, 03:07:20 PM
In fact I have produced similar data myself.

.99
more precisely, simulated data...
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: fuzzytomcat on October 27, 2010, 08:03:18 PM
Glen,

May I ask what your stance is on the RA circuit at this time? It is unclear whether you still support the device being COP>1 or not.

Thanks,
.99

Hi .99

I'm happy to answer this as your one of the members here that actually watched and participated in several "LIVE" broadcasted presentations of the experimental device in operation.

I'll have to stand with my comments posted at Energetic Forum until better data is available from more sophisticated equipment than I was able to acquire for testing and evaluation  .... http://www.energeticforum.com/93746-post74.html (May-02-2010)  ....

Quote
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 which was used in the IEEE submittal Open Source Evaluation of Power Transients Generated to Improve Performance Coefficient of Resistive Heating Systems the team including yourself did, and in Test #22 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 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.



Experimental Device "Preferred Mode of Operation" Video References -

5-Hour non stop video recording on January 9, 2010  (Tektronix TDS 3054C)
http://www.energeticforum.com/93710-post70.html
http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment/video?clipId=pla_6d255c76-9e9a-42ae-a565-fbc698e0b6df

5-hour non stop recording on January 24, 2010 (Tektronix 2445A)
http://www.energeticforum.com/93864-post76.html
http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment/video?clipId=pla_b2e705b9-bf90-4bee-8009-2b323d8bc7ae

5-hour non stop recording on January 24, 2010 (Tektronix DPO 3054)
http://www.energeticforum.com/84906-post15.html  (Test #22 - Data only, not a video broadcast)
http://livestre.am/f8c

Best Regards,
Glen
 :)

Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: TinselKoala on October 27, 2010, 08:08:48 PM
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.
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: poynt99 on October 27, 2010, 09:39:09 PM
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
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Harvey on October 27, 2010, 11:18:31 PM
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_heater) 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

Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: WilbyInebriated on October 27, 2010, 11:48:11 PM
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.
i haven't forgotten. i also recall you telling me that the mosfet choice would NOT make a bit of difference, and then much later after having proven the opposite of that, y'all got excited about avalanche mode, etc. ::) still waiting for your mea culpa on the whole mosfet choice thing, i imagine i'll be waiting indefinitely.

it IS funny... to whom are you referring? i hope you're not meaning me, as i have accepted no such data. as an aside, why is it that you choose to not reconcile YOUR OWN CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS before moving on? i have been trying for quite some time to get you to reconcile them... last time i pressed the issue, you ran off swearing and crying about how you were going to take your ball home and not play with us anymore. what happened to that? i expect you will avoid answering to those contradictions just as you and yours usually does.
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: WilbyInebriated on October 27, 2010, 11:53:08 PM
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...
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 28, 2010, 12:09:52 AM
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   ::) ;D

I might add - Glen is hopelessly conflicted.  On the on hand he wants to remind everyone about his experimental evidence.  On the other he'd rather not remind them of the significance.  LOL.  It's really all rather absurd.  And Glen.  You demand proof.  Rather spend your own time in 'disproof'.  It'll save me the bother.
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: truthbeknown on October 28, 2010, 12:21:03 AM
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.....
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 28, 2010, 01:12:56 AM

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.

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
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: IceStorm on October 28, 2010, 02:22:01 AM
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

 
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 28, 2010, 02:33:11 AM
Guys - I keep saying that I won't waste my time answering and here I'm answering.  But this post has reached such an absurd level of BS - masquerading as 'learned' technobabble - that I'm absolutely obliged to answer.  Lest anyone, for one moment - be confused by all this handwaving.

It is impossible to provide precision where this exact system is involved without very expensive data collection equipment.
What a load of nonsense.  One simply needs a broad band oscilloscope - and one that can store data.  Good heavens.  The point here is that it's IMPOSSIBLE TO DISPROVE THE RESULTS DESPITE THE USE OF SOPHISTICATED INSTRUMENTS. 

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).
More hand waving.  More nonsense.  Since when has the battery efficiency - rate of delivery - watt hour performance - or ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS - been used to substantiate any published test results?  What I CAN attest to is this.  We run our controls at an equivalent amperage - wattage - simultaneously with similar battery types - and the control discharges COMPLETELY where the test has hardly discharged a single volt.  But the required method to measure the energy delivered by the battery and the amount of energy dissipated at the load ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT NEED ANY FURTHER VALIDATION.  It is preferred that it does.  It would make the case REALLY strong.  But the truth is that battery vagaries preclude this assessment.  What is interesting is to run a simultaneous control.  And I can attest to the fact that the control depletes precisely in line with the measured amperage from that control supply source.  Everything acts as it should - and in terms of the measured wattage delivered.  No surprises there - if that's what you're hoping for.

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.
Then the operation of the 555 will be secured at FULL FUNCTION because I have NEVER seen a test - not even on a control - where the battery voltage has dipped as low as 4.5V.  What a lot of spurious nonsense - and this from the collaborator who tried to claim that the paper was EXCLUSIVELY AUTHORED by himself.  LOL.

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.
Indeed.  If you could first justify this nonsense.  Thankfully our mainstream scientists are not quite so absurdly 'picky' and nor are they about to demand impossible test criteria.  What you're actually trying to imply is that the test is impossible to measure.  It's only a switching circuit for goodness sake.  We're not dealing with your 'positron' nonsense. 

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 seconds, 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.
Are you proposing that because the actual data - taken over that period - only represented small fractions of the actual test - then one can discount that data?  Really?  Then we needs must discount all data that has ever been collected through this means which would refute the findings of just about every paper published in every journal everywhere throughout the world and throughout history.

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
Her?  Are you alleging that you argued for hours with ME?  Let me refresh your memory.  You had required yet another test from Glen.  He'd just completed yet another of your requirements.  He told me that he was tired.  I spoke to you.  I said 'If Glen does this final test - then will you promise to accept the results and we can then move forward' - or words to that effect. This because it was becoming increasingly apparent that you were loading the experiment with more and more extraneous and irrelevant objections in your desparate attempt to refute all that evidence.  You agreed.  You've subsequently broken that promise.  And that entire conversation took less than 15 minutes.  I'm reasonably certain that you will deny this.  But, unhappily, I know the rather loose arrangement you have with truth and I know that you cannot keep to your word.  That would require integrity.

and   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
Rather say - when I reluctantly agreed that this would be the last barrier I'd put in the way - which is the  truth

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.
Our favour?  You could barely hide your disappointment.

If I did the analysis correctly - I couldn't get anyone in the forum to review my work and post their analysis.
You did 2 sections of that paper exclusively.  Since we're putting these facts on record then let me again correct you.  Both Donovan and I tried to correct your work here.  You threw a hissy fit that would have better suited a prima donna.  But you accepted Donovan's correction and denied me mine - in your anxiety to present a paper with clearly flawed analysis.  Fortunately I was able to intervene prior to submission - by a miracle that was offered by the editors themselves.  They were very well aware of your attempt to pose as first author.  What a joke.  So.  Don't give us this 'we would not review your work'.  We were simply not allowed to review your work.

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.
INDEED.  Provided only that 'guessing' is a euphemism for measured experimental evidence.  Good God people.  Anyone reading here?  Is this not clear evidence of the kind of INNUENDO that is designed to cast aspersions rather than deal with the facts.  Surely if something is measured it's not guess work?  This is the kind of comment where I see AGENDA and AGENDA and AGENDA.  It has nothing to do with impartial critical sensible analysis.  I earnesly hope that this can be understood. 

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.
Now we're into the theartre of the absurd.  We're dealing here - not with science but with some strange approximation - nearly as sad as to suggest that measurement is based on 'guess work'. What is being referenced here is the evidence of  considerably more energy measured as wattage dissipated than is evidenced as heat.  What is carefully NOT being referenced is the fact that there's also considerably more energy being dissipated as heat than is being delivered by the battery.  The actual question - the real issue - is 'where does all that extra energy come from'?  But here, Harvey is trying to imply that AC current flow results are different DC?  I rather think that standard ac will measure to deliver precisely as much as standard dc.  We're NOT dealing with standard anything here.  So. Rather say - these resonating frequencies seem to give values that do not correspond to the amount of heat dissipated.  That, after all, is the truth.  And therein is the only real anomaly.  This effect is something that we hope to resolve in our own tests.

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.
WE?  You're the only one doing the analysis.  And it seems that you give yourself some considerable license in what you conclude from measurements.  What a load of nonsense.

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.
The solution to establish the actual value of heat dissipated is very easily resolved in any standard calorimetric test.  Our test were designed to prove that more energy was dissipated as heat than was being delivered by the battery.  The difference was extreme.  We did not need to deal in fractions.  Else we would have been obliged to do a more detailed test.  As it is we could discount values by considerable and sufficient error margins and STILL BE LEFT WITH A RESULT CONSIDERABLY GREATER THAN COP>1

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_heater) are an example of that. Poor thermal transfer conductively, but huge thermal transfer via EM radiation.
More hand waving.  The temperature measured was as precise as required subject to marginal adjustments to allow for error.  That - afterall - is the scientific way of doing things.

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 framing this part of the post and I will also take this to our campus experts for their comment.  I have NEVER seen such an absurd method of measuring energy.  It is entirely inadquate and so far removed from standard protocols as to be postively absurd.  I realise now how little critical input you are used to - protected as you are at EF.com.  Wake up and smell the coffee Harvey.  Your so called expertise is very much on the line here.  I can assure you that this suggestion of yours flies in the face of what is required by classical protocols.  You are looking to battery performance rather than standard measured current flow.  How would you measure current flow if the system is put on an AC supply source?  Would you use an hydrometer?  Under such circumstances then?  How convenient - when the hope is to bury the technology.  Unfortunately your arguements are facile, spurious and somewhat unscientific.

Rosemary
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 28, 2010, 03:01:44 AM
@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

 

IceStorm.  I'm not about to ignore your advice the more so as I appreciate that it's well meaning.  But kindly note my reply.  I HAVE to point out the manifold 'unreasonableness' of his proposals.  They're pure poison.  Since when does one take a measurement and then refer to it as 'guess work'?  Since when does one deny the evidence of measured heat over a resistor?  What protocols are so confusing that they cannot be employed on this simple circuit?  Why his reference to my resistance to more tests without referring to his own ENDLESS attempts to stall or prevent publication?  His motives and involvements here are both selective and suspect.  And his ability to hide this is impeccable.   I am dealing with the single most dangerous person capable of the single most damning series of comments and NOT ONE OF YOU seem to see his agenda.  More's the pity. 

Here's the best I can do to show you what gives.  I promise you this is a faithful account of what I see is going on here.  PLEASE READ IT.  AND PLEASE READ MY REPLY TO HIM posted above.  Perhaps that can go some way to show up the actual unreasonable slant he's trying to impose.  Effectively he's saying that the test CANNOT BE MEASURED.  What a load of bull - excuse the language. 

In any event.  The fact of the matter is, thankfully, I have absolutely NO RELIANCE on his pretended authorities.  He's no expert.  God knows he's anxious to hide the fact.  But he seems to hide it from the most of the contributors here.  Thankfully there are those real experts who see it for the nonsense that it is.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

http://www.scribd.com/doc/33937867/IF-I-WAS-A-TROLL
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: fuzzytomcat on October 28, 2010, 03:08:03 AM
I see your back again Rosemary with your bloviating BS taking up our time and space with your nonsense ....

You still haven't addressed the questions http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9898.msg262117#msg262117 on your favorite bogus allegations against myself and anyone connected with me and the project ... really I'm tired of you and your crap so answer the questions #1 through #6 ( if you can read )

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 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.
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 

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.
Have NO idea what SSG is - so can't comment.

edited the spelling of the word deleted.  LOL

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 on documentation of your claim "NO EXCEPTIONS"   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

ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ROSEMARY REGARDING THESE SLANDEROUS ALLEGATIONS OF YOURS .... OR RETRACT ALL THE STATEMENTS !!!!
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: WilbyInebriated on October 28, 2010, 03:13:56 AM
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)
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: fuzzytomcat on October 28, 2010, 03:20:46 AM

to be honest glen, i also really could care less on theories, rosemary's, harvey's or aaron's notwithstanding. please do not think i am on rosemary's 'side'. my ONLY concern at the present time is refuting people positing logical fallacy as arguments. i quit with posting much of anything else after i got jumped on by ist, groundloop and some others for showing how to light a fluoro with an AA battery early on in the joulethief thread. please note that i haven't accused you of the things she has accused you of, i merely refuted skcusitrah/hartisucks and omni's erroneous claims that changing timestamps was 'practically impossible'. i watch, i observe. i know you are a talented experimenter. i make note of when and why you chose to post things other than your experiments. i do that with most of the contributors here.

i have no doubt rosemary has obfuscated in the past and still hasn't shown some cards... everyone, and i do mean EVERYONE, plays that game.
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 28, 2010, 03:22:12 AM
And as for this analysis.  What a joke.

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.
If this were the case - if the sun somehow imposed it's 'flares' on Glen's test last year - then it must have done the same thing on our tests 10 years prior.  And it must have persisted for a period of nearly three years while we did our tests.  And then - it must have intruded on the accreditors when they did their tests.  And then.  Surprise suprise.  It must have withdrawn all further evidence of its interference on ALL other switching circuits throughout the world - where everything worked as normal - notwithstanding the multiple global applications of the switching circuit where evidence of gains would have been measured.  The difference - Harvey - is simply that we took the trouble to route the extra energy back to the battery to recharge it.  That's all that's needed.  And the theoretical implications are that the benefits would then be available on an AC supply source.  There's no difference.


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.
What a load of nonsense.  If there were any positrons in the circuit then it's real benefit would be that we are creating anti matter.  And the energy potential in anti matter would give considerably greater results than any we're getting here.  And the facts are that if switching circuits were also able to create anti matter - which is actually what you're talking about here - then I think that all scientists all over the world would have been very aware of the fact.  It's a highly desirable energy supply source and only not that well used precisely because of its rarity.  What gets me is that - again - the most of the readers here would buy into this rubbish.  It's all so SAD.

Rosemary

I missed this point.
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 go with extraordinary proof.  We've done this.  What I don't go for is IMPOSSIBLE PROOF.  That's absurd. 

And another.    ???

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

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

The evidence is PRECISE ENOUGH to warrant and investigation by one of our leading universities.  It is only YOU who ONLY AFTER THIS WAS SIGNED AND APPROVED BY YOURSELF - who now insists that it is IMPRECISE.  This experiment has been entirely proved to 'PROOF OF CONCEPT'.  It is now undergoing the kind of investigation that will - hopefully - explain the full range of the anomalies. The evidence is unequivocal that there is MUCH MORE energy available than that which can be measured as heat.  There is absolutely NO DOUBT as to there being extra energy.

edited
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: WilbyInebriated on October 28, 2010, 03:36:49 AM
punishment? punishment for what offence? can you talk about that?
i believe lindemann and murakami are charlatans. that is why i asked them to remove my account, i will not post at a site where friendship and monetary interest (selling ebooks and dvds) override integrity.

sorry to hear they did the same to you. i would imagine it is a regular occurrence... so much for 'peace, love and light'. ;) i invite you to post those records in the 'censorship @ energeticforums' thread here. rose is moderator, so i can understand why you may not. i can, however, ask stefan to move it to a section of the forum where she is not a moderator.

to be honest glen, i also really could care less on theories, rosemary's, harvey's or aaron's notwithstanding. please do not think i am on rosemary's 'side'. my ONLY concern at the present time is refuting people positing logical fallacy as arguments. i quit with posting much of anything else after i got jumped on by ist, groundloop and some others for showing how to light a fluoro with an AA battery early on in the joulethief thread. please note that i haven't accused you of the things she has accused you of, i merely refuted skcusitrah/hartisucks and omni's erroneous claims that changing timestamps was 'practically impossible'. i watch, i observe. i know you are a talented experimenter. i make note of when and why you chose to post things other than your experiments. i do that with most of the contributors here.

i have no doubt rosemary has obfuscated in the past and still hasn't shown some cards... everyone, and i do mean EVERYONE, plays that game.
you forgot to include the opener to that reply of mine... why is that? you don't want the whole context shown? no matter, here it is:

Hi Willy,

I didn't realize you were censored at Energetic .... don't feel alone, the so called associates aka Kevin, Peter and Aaron protected Rosemary because Peter Lindmann, invited and brought her to Energetic Forum. Aaron after the Tektronix incident stopped posting in the thread and left the punishment up to Kevin and Peter.

The day the administration deleted over two hundred (200) posts in the Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Part 2 thread .... I had forty two (42) posts "DELETED" and was told by the administration not to post there again, to post in the Mosfet Heater thread "ONLY" on my modified Quantum circuit, not to mention Rosemary's name .... this is a fact, and have e-mails to prove it from the administration, the same e-mail was also sent to Rosemary not to discuss "MY" circuit or talk about me.

As for "any" theory like Rosemary's or even Harvey's you can do a "search" at Energetic ..... never discussed the context on any of them at all ever, other than "why" Rosemary's theory got pinned onto the IEEE submittals which was the ultimate downfall for the paper, now only suited for a physics journal because of the theory addition. So sorry if I didn't help you out I do experimenting only really I could care less on theories .....

Glen


Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 28, 2010, 03:41:23 AM
I see your back again Rosemary with your bloviating BS taking up our time and space with your nonsense ....

You still haven't addressed the questions http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9898.msg262117#msg262117 on your favorite bogus allegations against myself and anyone connected with me and the project ... really I'm tired of you and your crap so answer the questions #1 through #6 ( if you can read )

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 on documentation of your claim "NO EXCEPTIONS"   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

ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ROSEMARY REGARDING THESE SLANDEROUS ALLEGATIONS OF YOURS .... OR RETRACT ALL THE STATEMENTS !!!!

I'll pass here Glen.  Rather you go to the trouble to DISPROVE this.  My time is too subscribed at the moment.  And frankly I'd be rather glad to see you prove this as SLANDER.  It's no pleasure dealing the people who hide essential public data from easy public access.

May I add.  The evidence that you demand here is EVERYWHERE.  Let's start with the post that you deleted after it had been copied.  Or?  How about the Scribd saga where you tried to deny me access to my own paper?  Or?  and so it goes.  It's actually rather difficult NOT to find the evidence.  LOL
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: fuzzytomcat on October 28, 2010, 04:20:37 AM
I'll pass here Glen.  Rather you go to the trouble to DISPROVE this.  My time is too subscribed at the moment.  And frankly I'd be rather glad to see you prove this as SLANDER.  It's no pleasure dealing the people who hide essential public data from easy public access.

So all these allegations from Rosemary Ainslie are "False", lies with nothing to back up her statements at all ..... a true fraud and troll is what she's become .... sad, just lurking around any thread she can staple her ( cough, cough )  theory to.  :P
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: WilbyInebriated on October 28, 2010, 04:21:37 AM
So all these allegations from Rosemary Ainslie are "False", lies with nothing to back up her statements at all ..... a true fraud and troll is what she's become .... sad, just lurking around any thread she can staple her ( cough, cough )  theory to.  :P
bullshit...
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
i'll be your huckleberry...

Quote from: ashtweth
>their benefits are not intended for Open Source and trying to ensure that they are directed here.

Rossie, Glen and Harvey are still doing work in the other thread and helping, Harvey and Glen are still doing R and D and sharing, i prefer if we focus on one thing at a time.

Glen would not be deleting his data now and Harvey, Aaron and others would not be in another thread if things were not getting aggravated. How about for now we focus on the area of research , you wont hear from Harvey and Glen this way.

Ash
ashtweth's quote taken from: http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5250-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-part-2-a-8.html#post87945

so glen a. lettenmaier... were you deleting data? or is ashtweth a liar now too?
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: fuzzytomcat on October 28, 2010, 04:26:14 AM
guys - I won't interfer with the posting here.  Glen is deleting my posts.  and frankly - the subject is too too boring.  Have fun.


Rosmary

LIE NUMBER ONE
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: fuzzytomcat on October 28, 2010, 04:38:19 AM
i'll be your huckleberry...
ashtweth's quote taken from: http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5250-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-part-2-a-8.html#post87945

SILLY BOY !!

All the data was moved from the COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie and COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie | Part 2 thread to the Mosfet Heating Circuits thread on 02-06-2010 @ 10:53 PM ....... it "NEVER" left Energetic Forum or Panacea BOCAF.

http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits.html
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: WilbyInebriated on October 28, 2010, 04:40:57 AM
SILLY BOY !!

All the data was moved from the COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie and COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie | Part 2 thread to the Mosfet Heating Circuits thread on 02-06-2010 @ 10:53 PM ....... it "NEVER" left Energetic Forum or Panacea BOCAF.

http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits.html

then why is ashtweth saying you deleted data SILLY GIRL?
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 28, 2010, 04:41:07 AM
SILLY BOY !!

All the data was moved from the COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie and COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie | Part 2 thread to the Mosfet Heating Circuits thread on 02-06-2010 @ 10:53 PM ....... it "NEVER" left Energetic Forum or Panacea BOCAF.

http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits.html

REALLY?  ALL that data available?  Give me a link that I can see this is true. 

Rosemary

NOPE.  Don't bother.  You've DEFINITELY REMOVED DATA FROM EASY ACCESS.  I want the scope shots - the download data - and the rest from ALL THE TESTS.  Links to obscure sites DON'T WORK.  That's only accessible by some people.  NOT by the wider public.  And certainly NOT by us in Africa.  You've DEFINITELY DELETED AND REMOVED DATA AND HAVE ONLY LEFT SELECT EDITED PARTS - BITS AND PIECES - PARTS OF THE PICTURE.  NOT THE WHOLE CATASTROPHE.  That, unfortunately, means my criticism holds.

And how you could ever remove any of it - when it was first made available to the public - entirely defeats me.  The joke was that having deleted it how could you ever expect Tektronix to lend you another machine?  Good God.  You're shameless.  And it's REALLY IMPORTANT INFORMATION.  Are you trying to prevent the reading public from learning about these results?  Do you really think it's yours to do with what you please?  EXTRAORDINARY.  WHAT are you doing on these forums.  Open source means it should be OPEN.  NOT HIDDEN.  Can you bend your mind around that? 
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: fuzzytomcat on October 28, 2010, 04:46:17 AM
then why is ashtweth saying you deleted data SILLY GIRL?

Ask him ..... I didn't say it .....
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: fuzzytomcat on October 28, 2010, 04:54:08 AM
REALLY?  ALL that data available?  Give me a link that I can see this is true. 

Rosemary

NOPE.  Don't bother.  You've DEFINITELY REMOVED DATA FROM EASY ACCESS.  I want the scope shots - the download data - and the rest from ALL THE TESTS.  Links to obscure sites DON'T WORK.  That's only accessible by some people.  NOT by the wider public.  And certainly NOT by us in Africa.  You've DEFINITELY DELETED AND REMOVED DATA AND HAVE ONLY LEFT SELECT EDITED PARTS - BITS AND PIECES - PARTS OF THE PICTURE.  NOT THE WHOLE CATASTROPHE.  That, unfortunately, means my criticism holds.

HERE IT IS AGAIN FOR THE I DON"T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES -

http://www.energeticforum.com/84766-post6.html

This is more than 1000% of any scope shots, download data - and the rest from ALL THE TESTS YOU PERFORMED

DOWNLOAD AWAY !!!!! or GO AWAY !!!!!
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 28, 2010, 05:00:05 AM
HERE IT IS AGAIN FOR THE I DON"T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES -

http://www.energeticforum.com/84766-post6.html

This is more than 1000% of any scope shots, download data - and the rest from ALL THE TESTS YOU PERFORMED

DOWNLOAD AWAY !!!!! or GO AWAY !!!!!


Like I said.  It's only available to some.  NOT TO EVERYBODY.  Can you explain the need to ZIP those files.  Why did you EVER delete the scopeshots that were so readily available on that first thread.  And KINDLY UNZIP THE FILES if you want a shred of credibility.  You simply FLIRT with the truth.  SHOW US EVERYTHING  -  AS IT WAS BEFORE YOU DELETED IF OFF THE THREAD.  YOU ARE DEFINITELY HIDING THE FACTS FROM THE READING PUBLIC. 

WHY?
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: WilbyInebriated on October 28, 2010, 05:02:43 AM
REALLY?  ALL that data available?  Give me a link that I can see this is true. 

Rosemary

NOPE.  Don't bother.  You've DEFINITELY REMOVED DATA FROM EASY ACCESS.  I want the scope shots - the download data - and the rest from ALL THE TESTS.  Links to obscure sites DON'T WORK.  That's only accessible by some people.  NOT by the wider public.  And certainly NOT by us in Africa.  You've DEFINITELY DELETED AND REMOVED DATA AND HAVE ONLY LEFT SELECT EDITED PARTS - BITS AND PIECES - PARTS OF THE PICTURE.  NOT THE WHOLE CATASTROPHE.  That, unfortunately, means my criticism holds.

And how you could ever remove any of it - when it was first made available to the public - entirely defeats me.  The joke was that having deleted it how could you ever expect Tektronix to lend you another machine?  Good God.  You're shameless.  And it's REALLY IMPORTANT INFORMATION.  Are you trying to prevent the reading public from learning about these results?  Do you really think it's yours to do with what you please?  EXTRAORDINARY.  WHAT are you doing on these forums.  Open source means it should be OPEN.  NOT HIDDEN.  Can you bend your mind around that?
indeed, go through your thread over at the energetic church and note the many images in fuzzy's posts that are no longer there. removed from photobucket.com? removed why? care to answer to that glen?
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 28, 2010, 05:11:36 AM
Actually guys, this is where the saga deteriorates into a shouting match.  And this is precisely what IceStorm was warning against.  Let me reign in the anger and try another approach.

Glen.  You took the trouble to delete all the scope shots of all your work that was a faithful account of the experimental progress from test 1 through to test 13.  That you deleted this is unarguable.  Now.  We have MANY MANY readers on these forums who simply dip in here in the outside hope that someone has again cracked through the energy barrier.  Such are invaluable.  They are silent supporters of our efforts in clean green.  There are multiple drives through multiple threads in multiple forums.  Our own experimental evidence was CRUCIAL.  It was a first - in a way - because it was experimentally evident that we could breach the energy barriers and MEASURE IT and demonstrate it. 

THEN.  I cannot presume to give you the reasons for it - but heading what you VOICED was a concern that I was going to steal your invention - that I had never even managed a test - and that I was somehow going to use YOUR OWN GENIUS INVENTION to support my thesis.  I think you also suggested that I might have hidden patent rights - and that I was simply going to ZAP the entire world with a retrospective claim that would cripple the global population and enrich myself.  And Harvey then suggested that I was actually trying to enrich my family but had hidden patent rights. 

WHATEVER.

I need to try and reign in the anger.  Back on track.  And back to the point.  You then played a kind of 'peek a boo' with the data - showing here and there - then taking it away - then reposting.  And so it went.  Clearly a certain want of  moderation and even stability.  But be that as it may.  You then claim that you've now RE-INSTATED that data?  NO.  You'll have 're-instated' it when you return it unflused and clean and easily readable by those many readers here who would prefer to access the data than be alarmed, as I am myself, in seeing it locked behind zipped files.  We are all not as competent as you are at computers.  I want the average computer user to be able to EASILY access data that is extremely encouraging and that would greatly add to the HOPES for clean green which, I fondly believe our technology manages.

Rosemary
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: fuzzytomcat on October 28, 2010, 05:15:34 AM
indeed, go through your thread over at the energetic church and note the many images in fuzzy's posts that are no longer there. removed from photobucket.com? removed why? care to answer to that glen?

Sure ....

http://www.energeticforum.com/94127-post522.html
Quote
There is a link in this thread to all my images and data .....  POST 297

I've been Quite busy lately with many other projects and because of the bandwidth usage where my off site photo storage was it got to the maximum monthly use any more and I would have to pay for image and photo access for everyone, so now all my Tests are in a zip files each complete with "Original" photos, images and data dump sheets w/ test keys & temperature data, and at this time I can only offer my Windows Live "SkyDrive" public file, that has all the information available. Plus some interesting "public" folders available on other subjects and projects.

Mosfet Heater Folder

The best I can do.

When a page opened in the thread there were "many" photos that opened each time the thread was viewed by someone .... I use this service for other venues also, all about bandwidth.
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 28, 2010, 05:26:18 AM
Sure ....

http://www.energeticforum.com/94127-post522.html
When a page opened in the thread there were "many" photos that opened each time the thread was viewed by someone .... I use this service for other venues also, all about bandwidth.

IF as you're now suggesting - the actual problem is you bandwidth capabilities?  Then how did you circumvent this in the first posting prior to that deletion?  And having posted - do you then get some kind of rebate for then deleting it? All of six months later?  If you need money to get more bandwidth - perhaps you can use the balance of the money that I sent to you to enable your purchase of?- I forget what.  I know some it should have gone to Aaron but never did.  Or are you hinting that you need more money to afford that extra bandwidth?  Let me know.  I'll pay it if I can possibly afford it.  All I am anxious to secure is that the data is returned - ALL THOSE PICTURES of ALL THOSE WAVEFORMS  EXACTLY as you verbally undertook to do when you secured the use of the Tektronix TDS3054C.  That way you'll have, AT LEAST satisfied ONE undertaking.

Rosemary
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: WilbyInebriated on October 28, 2010, 05:30:20 AM
Sure ....

http://www.energeticforum.com/94127-post522.html
When a page opened in the thread there were "many" photos that opened each time the thread was viewed by someone .... I use this service for other venues also, all about bandwidth.

i'm talking about posts like this silly girl...
Quote
Hi ewizard,

Here are the exact schematic and parts list for the 11-26-2009 revision ..... hope this helps ....

<img src="http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/RA_COP_11-26-09.jpg" border="0" alt="" />

<img src="http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/RA_COP_Components_01_11-26-09.jpg" border="0" alt="" />


Regards,
Glen

quote taken from: http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5250-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-part-2-a.html#post82355
one can click on either of the two image links in my quote of your post and see that the images have been removed by the account owner @ photobucket (you, glen a lettenmaier) or click on the hyperlink above and view your post directly @ energetic church...
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: WilbyInebriated on October 28, 2010, 05:48:48 AM
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
i can't believe you would use that hopelessly flawed argument... well, actually i can believe it, you tried to use the standard model to tell me electrons were 'particles' and conveniently forgot to mention that it (the standard model) is a THEORY and furthermore it is a theory that depends upon the existence of the higgs boson, a monstrous 'particle' that somehow eludes discovery... ::)

but back to your flawed extraordinary claim statement, what then do you have to say about the big bang theory? surely this is arguably THE MOST EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM OF ALL TIME! summed up by these 8 words... 'at first, there was nothing... then it exploded'.  tell us, oh wise jehovah, how does nothing explode? such an occurrence would 'defy gravity' and violate numerous 'laws' of physics. AND WHERE IS THE 'EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE' FOR SUCH AN 'EXTRAORDINARY' CLAIM? and after you reconcile that, we can move on to the 'extraordinary claim' of relativity...  ::)
ie: c.l. poor gave unassailable refutations of the claims of eddington in 1922, '26 & '30.

it is infinitely amusing to me that your most sacred "truths" of popular science are in reality EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS which have never required EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE. it would have been closer to the truth and far less flawed had you said, "UNPOPULAR claims require extraordinary evidence."
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: fuzzytomcat on October 28, 2010, 06:03:59 AM
IF as you're now suggesting - the actual problem is you bandwidth capabilities?  Then how did you circumvent this in the first posting prior to that deletion?  And having posted - do you then get some kind of rebate for then deleting it? All of six months later?  If you need money to get more bandwidth - perhaps you can use the balance of the money that I sent to you to enable your purchase of?- I forget what.  I know some it should have gone to Aaron but never did.  Or are you hinting that you need more money to afford that extra bandwidth?  Let me know.  I'll pay it if I can possibly afford it.  All I am anxious to secure is that the data is returned - ALL THOSE PICTURES of ALL THOSE WAVEFORMS  EXACTLY as you verbally undertook to do when you secured the use of the Tektronix TDS3054C.  That way you'll have, AT LEAST satisfied ONE undertaking.

Rosemary

I am under no obligation to do anything you request at all .... and have no intention of making another complete duplicate set of test data with the various scope settings for you, it was never a requirement by Tektronix (e-mail proof if needed) or required by any Open Source community rules or regulations, only of full device disclosure ... I have done this.

All that is required by me is the 100% complete set of photos, images and data available for anyone to download, in one place ..... I have done this, everything ever posted in the public domain.
http://cid-6b7817c40bb20460.office.live.com/browse.aspx/.Public/Mosfet%20Heater

The files available are the "ORIGINAL" downloaded Tektronix test files, each test a duplicate of the same numbers, only the time and date are different on each ...... and as you know each test with a "HAND" written key for the scope downloaded file data names, device temperature and voltage readings

EXAMPLE -
IMAGE file (Tek program) default TEK000.001, TEK000.002  to TEK000.021 ( or whatever) exists in Test Number one (1) through Test Number twenty two (22)
DATA file (Tek program)  default CSV000.001, CSV000.002  to CSV000.021 (or whatever) exists in Test Number one (1) through Test Number twenty two (22)

NOT NEGOTIABLE
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 28, 2010, 06:08:25 AM
I am under no obligation to do anything you request at all .... and have no intention of making another complete duplicate set of test data with the various scope settings for you, it was never a requirement by Tektronix (e-mail proof if needed) or required by any Open Source community rules or regulations, only of full device disclosure ... I have done this.

All that is required by me is the 100% complete set of photos, images and data available for anyone to download, in one place ..... I have done this, everything ever posted in the public domain.
http://cid-6b7817c40bb20460.office.live.com/browse.aspx/.Public/Mosfet%20Heater

The files available are the "ORIGINAL" downloaded Tektronix test files, each test a duplicate of the same numbers, only the time and date are different on each ...... and as you know each test with a "HAND" written key for the scope downloaded file data names, device temperature and voltage readings

EXAMPLE -
IMAGE file (Tek program) default TEK000.001, TEK000.002  to TEK000.021 ( or whatever) exists in Test Number one (1) through Test Number twenty two (22)
DATA file (Tek program)  default CSV000.001, CSV000.002  to CSV000.021 (or whatever) exists in Test Number one (1) through Test Number twenty two (22)

NOT NEGOTIABLE

I rest my case.  You are determined to HIDE from easy public access - data that DOES NOT BELONG TO YOU.

So.  There you have it readers.  Glen poses as an promoter of Open Source and IN FACT does not support open source at all.  I'm still not sure of the agenda.  But I would strongly recommend that you treat any intervention here on this thread and in this forum with a required circumspection.  Right now he is intending - yet again - to try and HOUND ME OUT of another forum.  That's the only purpose of this thread.   

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: fuzzytomcat on October 28, 2010, 06:16:45 AM
i'm talking about posts like this silly girl...
quote taken from: http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5250-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-part-2-a.html#post82355
one can click on either of the two image links in my quote of your post and see that the images have been removed by the account owner @ photobucket (you, glen a lettenmaier) or click on the hyperlink above and view your post directly @ energetic church...

so what ..... can't you read the responses and the links ??

EVERYTHING WAS MOVED @ ENERGETIC FORUM !!!!

NOTHING WAS HIDDEN OR IS HIDDEN !!!!

PANACEA BOCAF HAD NO INTERRUPTION OF IMAGES OR DATA IN THERE "PDF" THAT IS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN !!!

of course you would know this if you actually did a replication or my modified replication .... just a little one ....
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: truthbeknown on October 28, 2010, 06:16:59 AM

I guess Loner missed this comment but she will read and post here just as day follows night.
And who cares that you don't like me Rosemary because nobody ever asked you to. And really, reviving a thread is what you do everyday with your COP>17 thread. If nobody comments on it then you have to say some Blah Blah to keep it on the front page just as you have done on every forum you have posted in.  So really, what some people would like to see are pictures and videos of the work you say is being conducted "on campus." So you say you can't post the parts list and so on because of "thieves" so how about some pics and videos? We have to wonder why?
I'm sure the collaborators could shed some light on things but so could you with some effort. You are so good at deleting posts that don't suit you and editing even your own posts its pretty hard to understand your agenda. I hope this thread can truly show all the truths about your whatever device.

 ???
J.


Still no pictures or videos of YOUR CAMPUS ACTIVITIES? People have read the many promises of such but no delivery yet.

 :o
J.
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: fuzzytomcat on October 28, 2010, 06:23:20 AM
I rest my case.  You are determined to HIDE from easy public access - data that DOES NOT BELONG TO YOU.

So.  There you have it readers.  Glen poses as an promoter of Open Source and IN FACT does not support open source at all.  I'm still not sure of the agenda.  But I would strongly recommend that you treat any intervention here on this thread and in this forum with a required circumspection.  Right now he is intending - yet again - to try and HOUND ME OUT of another forum.  That's the only purpose of this thread.   

Regards,
Rosemary

Well it's evident you can't read at all your intentions are of complete character assassination with your vulgar allegations without a shred of proof shows the members and guests just what kind of person you are .......
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: WilbyInebriated on October 28, 2010, 06:24:09 AM
so what ..... can't you read the responses and the links ??

EVERYTHING WAS MOVED @ ENERGETIC FORUM !!!!

NOTHING WAS HIDDEN OR IS HIDDEN !!!!

PANACEA BOCAF HAD NO INTERRUPTION OF IMAGES OR DATA IN THERE "PDF" THAT IS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN !!!

of course you would know this if you actually did a replication or my modified replication .... just a little one ....
so what? so what does everything at energetic church being moved have to do with images hosted @ photobucket.com? are you trying to tell me that when reverend aaron or whatever admin moved all the posts @ energetic church that somehow it moved things from photobucket.com? get effing serious man, do you know what an absolute href is versus a relative href? the links for your deleted images i posted above are ABSOLUTE hrefs!! that means the 'path' is not relative to where your post is or where your post gets moved to... to say it another way, your photobucket images will NOT be deleted, moved or relocated just because your post was. so glen a lettenmaier, since aaron didn't remove those images from your photobucket account, who did? harvey? who?
where is this image?
http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/RA_COP_11-26-09.jpg
or this one?
http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/RA_COP_Components_01_11-26-09.jpg
that are missing from this post:
http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5250-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-part-2-a.html#post82355
why would you delete them from photobucket glen? it costs you no bandwidth, nor does it cost energetic church bandwidth when your pictures are hosted @ photobucket.com. the bandwidth used is photobucket.com's
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 28, 2010, 06:24:39 AM
so what ..... can't you read the responses and the links ??

NOTHING WAS HIDDEN OR IS HIDDEN !!!!


REALLY?  Then why the need to zip those files?  You pretend to a moral authority which is actually
 entirely bereft.  But have your say here Glen.  I very much doubt that so much malice can ever be
entirely bottled.  I think it may help to express it.  I'm not that concerned about your posts.  You
carry no authority and your language skills are somewhat wanting.  And there are very few people
who respect what you've done, are doing and probably will always continue to do.  But as you're
entirely unaware of this - then that's your problem.  You're carping on this forum will only give ever
 greater exposure to the technology - which is my only interest.  And - when and if your claims get
outrageous - I think I can more or less manage them.  I hope so anyway.  LOL

Rosemary

ADDED
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: fuzzytomcat on October 28, 2010, 06:57:35 AM
so what? so what does everything at energetic church being moved have to do with images hosted @ photobucket.com? are you trying to tell me that when reverend aaron or whatever admin moved all the posts @ energetic church that somehow it moved things from photobucket.com? get effing serious man, do you know what an absolute href is versus a relative href? the links for your deleted images i posted above are ABSOLUTE hrefs!! that means the 'path' is not relative to where your post is or where your post gets moved to... to say it another way, your photobucket images will NOT be deleted, moved or relocated just because your post was. so glen a lettenmaier, since aaron didn't remove those images from your photobucket account, who did? harvey? who?
where is this image?
http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/RA_COP_11-26-09.jpg
or this one?
http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/RA_COP_Components_01_11-26-09.jpg
that are missing from this post:
http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5250-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-part-2-a.html#post82355
why would you delete them from photobucket glen? it costs you no bandwidth, nor does it cost energetic church bandwidth when your pictures are hosted @ photobucket.com. the bandwidth used is photobucket.com's

Wrong again the standard PhotoBucket free membership allows you 500 MB of storage with a 10 GB storage bandwidth .... anything over these amounts you need a "PRO" account or have your photos unable to be seen if you go over the bandwidth until the end of the month account reset.

So all the Mosfet Heater Circuit information is stored at Microsoft SkyDrive with a 25GB storage - http://cid-6b7817c40bb20460.office.live.com/browse.aspx/.Public/Mosfet%20Heater                                               

This SkyDrive account is the second one being used for this device with a better filing system for my other projects data.
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: WilbyInebriated on October 28, 2010, 07:04:44 AM
Wrong again the standard PhotoBucket free membership allows you 500 MB of storage with a 10 GB storage bandwidth .... anything over these amounts you need a "PRO" account or have your photos unable to be seen if you go over the bandwidth until the end of the month account reset.

So all the Mosfet Heater Circuit information is stored at Microsoft SkyDrive with a 25GB storage - http://cid-6b7817c40bb20460.office.live.com/browse.aspx/.Public/Mosfet%20Heater                                               

This SkyDrive account is the second one being used for this device with a better filing system for my other projects data.
wrong again? you mental midget, i said "it costs you no bandwidth, nor does it cost energetic church bandwidth when your pictures are hosted @ photobucket.com. the bandwidth used is photobucket.com's" and you replied with "Wrong again the standard PhotoBucket free membership allows you 500 MB of storage with a 10 GB storage bandwidth". now, when that picture, that is hosted @ photobucket, is requested by a web browser, the bandwidth used is not yours, nor is it energetic's... it is photobucket's bandwidth unless you have some unique deal with photobucket where you host your own photobucket account on your personal computer... ::)

but you're not over the allotted bandwith at this current point in time and those images have been missing for months!... anyone can see this is clearly evident by simply going to your photobucket home page... ::)
http://s276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/
your attempted obfuscation is pathetic glen, have you been studying under harvey gramm?

you made the post under question on 01-24-2010, 06:36 PM are you trying to get me to believe that your 10 GIG photobucket account bandwidth is being used up each and every month for the past 10 months? please... ::)

ANSWER THE QUESTION INSTEAD OF AVOIDING IT REPEATEDLY.
who removed those two images from your photobucket account glen a. lettenmaier?
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: fuzzytomcat on October 28, 2010, 08:09:50 AM
wrong again? you mental midget, i said "it costs you no bandwidth, nor does it cost energetic church bandwidth when your pictures are hosted @ photobucket.com. the bandwidth used is photobucket.com's" and you replied with "Wrong again the standard PhotoBucket free membership allows you 500 MB of storage with a 10 GB storage bandwidth". now, when that picture, that is hosted @ photobucket, is requested by a web browser, the bandwidth used is not yours, nor is it energetic's... it is photobucket's bandwidth unless you have some unique deal with photobucket where you host your own photobucket account on your personal computer... ::)

but you're not over the allotted bandwith at this current point in time and those images have been missing for months!... anyone can see this is clearly evident by simply going to your photobucket home page... ::)
http://s276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/
your attempted obfuscation is pathetic glen, have you been studying under harvey gramm?

you made the post under question on 01-24-2010, 06:36 PM are you trying to get me to believe that your 10 GIG photobucket account bandwidth is being used up each and every month for the past 10 months? please... ::)

ANSWER THE QUESTION INSTEAD OF AVOIDING IT REPEATEDLY.
who removed those two images from your photobucket account glen a. lettenmaier?

wow .... don't get it huh ....

Well at the time all the images and photos were placed in a Skydrive file account so I could delete all of them at PhotoBucket ( with [img] codes ) for the new SkyDrive file links ( with no [img] codes) , my PhotoBucket  bandwidth at the time after Test #16 was around 8 to 9GB per month and using over 400MB of storage, I was getting warnings for several months before this on the GB usage at PhotoBucket. The reference and availability of the experimental device test images and any other image that has a deleted message always were available seamlessly, maybe not to your or Rosemary's liking but 100% available with references posted there location's in a form of a "link" some other images not related to the testing of the experimental device may not be available for various reasons.

I'm at around 60 MB of storage and my bandwidth is at 2 to 3 GB a month now at PhotoBucket and 1GB at SkyDrive with 24GB left.

I used up all my Energetic Forum membership file space posting images in the "Tesla's wireless electricity transmission" thread http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/showthread.php?t=3573 long ago ..... 

So this is the last response to this nonsense, keep it on topic, and quit burying the posts like this one http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9898.msg262086#msg262086  unless you would like to comment on the *HIGHLIGTED*  red items

Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: WilbyInebriated on October 28, 2010, 08:12:49 AM
wow .... don't get it huh ....

Well at the time all the images and photos were placed in a Skydrive file account so I could delete all of them at PhotoBucket ( with [img] codes ) for the new SkyDrive file links ( with no [img] codes) , my PhotoBucket  bandwidth at the time after Test #16 was around 8 to 9GB per month and using over 400MB of storage, I was getting warnings for several months before this on the GB usage at PhotoBucket. The reference and availability of the experimental device test images and any other image that has a deleted message always were available seamlessly, maybe not to your or Rosemary's liking but 100% available with references posted there location's in a form of a "link" some other images not related to the testing of the experimental device may not be available for various reasons.

I'm at around 60 MB of storage and my bandwidth is at 2 to 3 GB a month now at PhotoBucket and 1GB at SkyDrive with 24GB left.

I used up all my Energetic Forum membership file space posting images in the "Tesla's wireless electricity transmission" thread http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/showthread.php?t=3573 long ago ..... 

So this is the last response to this nonsense, keep it on topic, and quit burying the posts like this one http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9898.msg262086#msg262086  unless you would like to comment on the *HIGHLIGTED*  red items
no, i get it... glen, i just downloaded all pictures from your photobucket account, just for posterity. ;) 27 pages worth of images... over a dozen pages with photos relative to the ainslie circuit, 20 images per page.  are those the ones you were going to delete from photobucket? so after 10 months you still haven't deleted them all from photobucket... just specific ones.

and if you had set up this skydrive to 'seamlessly' take over from photobucket why delete them from photobucket without providing a reference to where the new images were in your post, i'm sure reverend aaron would have edited it for you...
you know when i go to energetic and read that post with deleted images it really doesn't seem that seamless. ;)

burying posts? you really aren't all there... i quoted that very post. ::)
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: fuzzytomcat on October 28, 2010, 08:34:13 AM
glen i just downloaded all pictures from your photobucket account, just for posterity. ;) 27 pages worth of images... over a dozen pages with photos relative to the ainslie circuit, 20 images per page.  are those the ones you were going to delete from photobucket?

and if you had set up this skydrive to 'seamlessly' take over from photobucket why delete them from photobucket without providing a reference to where the new images were in your post, i'm sure reverend aaron would have edited it for you...
you know when i go to energetic and read that post with deleted images it really doesn't seem that seamless. ;)

Those images are from Test #17 through Test #22 using a Tektronix DPO 3054 these files were very large (.bmp) .... for example the zip file for Test #22, for the images and data is 34.9MB just for that test http://cid-6b7817c40bb20460.office.live.com/self.aspx/.Public/Mosfet%20Heater/Test%20%5EN22%5E_02-05-10.zip


The images that were effected at PhotoBucket was the earlier Tektronix TDS 3054C (.png) oscilloscope Tests #1 through Test #16

Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: WilbyInebriated on October 28, 2010, 09:05:31 AM
Those images are from Test #17 through Test #22 using a Tektronix DPO 3054 these files were very large (.bmp) .... for example the zip file for Test #22, for the images and data is 34.9MB just for that test http://cid-6b7817c40bb20460.office.live.com/self.aspx/.Public/Mosfet%20Heater/Test%20%5EN22%5E_02-05-10.zip


The images that were effected at PhotoBucket was the earlier Tektronix TDS 3054C (.png) oscilloscope Tests #1 through Test #16
all the ainslie images that i just downloaded from your photobucket account were .jpg... and the two images you deleted from your photobucket that i have been referring to for these last few replies were .jpg also. one can tell by looking at the img src url.  the images under question are from 11-26-2009 which also in the img src url. strangely enough i found some images with that exact date that were not deleted from your photobucket account, i've included a link and attached the actual image.
third row, third column: http://s276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/?start=120

funny thing, these 522 images from your photobucket account average about 150kb each. let's see now, 10 gigs divided by 150kb... ::)
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: fuzzytomcat on October 28, 2010, 09:28:31 AM
all the ainslie images that i just downloaded from your photobucket account were .jpg... and the two images you deleted from your photobucket that i have been referring to for these last few replies were .jpg also. one can tell by looking at the img src url.  the images under question are from 11-26-2009 which also in the img src url. strangely enough i found some images with that exact date that were not deleted from your photobucket account, i've included a link and attached the actual image.
third row, third column: http://s276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/?start=120

funny thing, these 522 images from your photobucket account average about 150kb each. let's see now, 10 gigs divided by 150kb... ::)

ya so what ... I have 1000's and 1000's of photos, I collect them, some are at photobucket where you can pick and choose what you want there, I add and delete all the time ...... .jpg, .gif, .png, .tif  type files you know this, not all of my files are one kind or file type or SIZE ..... and lots of views on them all.

Give it up .... where's Rosemary's photos and images of any or all of her tests ?? Go to her thread and ask her .... she wont delete your posting ......
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 28, 2010, 09:52:11 AM
I see we're falling off the page again.  Glen rather relies on this to hide those more embarrassing
 posts.  I'm amending so that this can be read.  There were only two tests that I wanted in full
record.  Test 3 and test 13.  The rest are largely irrelevant.  I've just looked through the link
download Wilby.  Thanks for that. 

Ok.  I've paged through them all and see - as day follows night - that the sample range number that
has been 'kept' or 'recorded' are ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT.  There are a certain number of samples that
are required to give a 'fair' reflection of the actual test results.  I can't remember the exact number
but it was about 100 or thereby.  Any more or less than these multiple samples and Tektronix DO
NOT GUARANTEE the results.  What Glen has RETAINED are those tests that either give more or
less samples.  So.  He may indeed not have deleted them all.  He's only deleted those that are
referenced - or relevant.  I see too that he's been using my old Fluke.  LOL.  Aaron must have
weakened and sent it through.

Wilby.  Can I ask you a favour.  Obviously only when you have time.  Can you try and open those
links on Fuzzy's other info.  And then see if you can access tests 3 and 13.  I want to find out which
samples he actually retained here too.  I wonder if he's actually just made the irrelevant samples
available for public view and buried the significant test results elsewhere.  Thank GOD I've still got
the raw data of these early tests.  But even here I'll have to get someone to find them to down load
it for me.  And meanwhile I also have those test results from our paper.
 
Indeed.  There's an agenda here guys.  It's very disturbing.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
BTW WILBY  You may want to reformat your own posts.  It would be nice to read them more easily.
Also of interest is that Glen appears to have snaffled my fluke scopemeter which I donated to the
cause to promote FULL VIEW of all the data.  It cost me about R20 000.00 THEN.  Not sure of its value today.
Seems rather tough on me that I should have ended up providing the instrument that
Glen now uses to HIDE the data that I keep asking for.  Like I said.  Glen does NOT occupy the moral
high ground.  EVER.  LOL
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: WilbyInebriated on October 28, 2010, 10:04:59 AM
ya so what ... I have 1000's and 1000's of photos, I collect them, some are at photobucket where you can pick and choose what you want there, I add and delete all the time ...... .jpg, .gif, .png, .tif  type files you know this, not all of my files are one kind or file type or SIZE ..... and lots of views on them all.
so why did you delete the just the one's that are linked to in the RA thread at energetic and none of the other 200+ ainslie images?
interesting stats by the way, shows us that your illusion images are your biggest draw for this last week, not your ainslie images...

Give it up .... where's Rosemary's photos and images of any or all of her tests ?? Go to her thread and ask her .... she wont delete your posting ......
denied. logical fallacy, red herring.
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: exnihiloest on October 28, 2010, 10:21:50 AM
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie
...
You are determined to HIDE from easy public access
...
REALLY?  Then why the need to zip those files?
...

Zip archives would be made to hidden files ?!!!

Is Rosemary Ainslie unaware of the interest of zip files (gain in storage and download time)?
One can't believe it. Most of her posts are shamefully biased and misleading.


Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: fuzzytomcat on October 28, 2010, 10:22:12 AM
I see we're falling off the page again.  I'm amending so that this can be read.  There were only two
tests that I wanted in full record.  Test 3 and test 13.  The rest are largely irrelevant.  I've just
looked through the link download Wilby.  Thanks for that. 

Ok.  I've paged through them all and see - as day follows night - that the sample range number that
has been 'kept' or 'recorded' are ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT.  There are a certain number of samples that
 are required to give a 'fair' reflection of the actual test results.  I can't remember the exact number
but it was about 100 or thereby.  Any more or less than these multiple samples and Tektronix DO
NOT GUARANTEE the results.  What Glen has RETAINED are those tests that either give more or
less samples.  So.  He may indeed not have deleted them all.  He's only deleted those that are
referenced - or relevant.  I see too that he's been using my old Fluke.  LOL.  Aaron must have
weakened and sent it through.

Wilby.  Can I ask you a favour.  Obviously only when you have time.  Can you try and open those
links on Fuzzy's other info.  And then see if you can access tests 3 and 13.  I want to find out which
samples he actually retained here too.  I wonder if he's actually just made the irrelevant samples
 available for public view and buried the significant test results elsewhere.  Thank GOD I've still got
 the raw data of these early tests.  But even here I'll have to get someone to find them to down load
it for me.  And meanwhile I also have those test results from our paper.
 

Indeed.  There's an agenda here guys.  It's very disturbing.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

This is crazy ..... you can't even post once without something that's so false makes me wonder what kind of drugs your maid is slipping you .....

AGAIN - The link you deleted in your thread ..... one that has been posted numerous times in many forums is -

http://cid-6b7817c40bb20460.office.live.com/browse.aspx/.Public/Mosfet%20Heater

Everthing in existance on my work with the experimental device is there ...... "EVERYTHING", nothing is missing or retained ...... what nonsense is this .....

Place the little mouse pointer over the file and click on it ...... how hard can this be, do you really need Wilby for this task ??

Fluke meter what are you talking about .... the only Fluke scope I know of Aaron has and used it once over a year ago, that's it . Your confusing the test equipment you used I think it was in the Quantum October 2002 article a Fluke 199 some low quality LED unit, nothing like the Tektronix TDS 3054c or the Tektronix DPO 3054 I used to collect data with.
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Harvey on October 28, 2010, 10:25:24 AM
With Regards to ZIP files.

Skydrive has a 50MB upload limit for any single file. Some of my spreadsheets of the tests exceeded this limit and therefore needed to be compressed to allow upload.

ZIP technology is an industry standard that has been around since the early days of DOS and it is expected that this is well understood by all persons qualified to evaluate these analyses. However, if there are any who are having problems with unzipping these files and would like assistance in doing so feel free to PM me and I will step you through the extremely simple high school steps of doing so.

Additionally, the high resolution data (100,000 samples per 10 divisions) will not fit in Excel versions prior to 2007. Therefore, I took the time to create an Access Program for those with older versions of Microsoft Office that allows them to peer into this data at high resolution with zoom charts and see the many instances of high amplitude pulses that are simply missing in the much lower resolution data of 10,000 samples per screen.

All of this has been available 100% of the time with absolutely no reservations from the time of publicizing the results. Any attempts to infer otherwise should be considered subterfuge and an attempt to besmirch Glen's good name and therefore should be summarily dismissed as the rhetoric it is.

Furthermore, Glens tests and all of the data associated with Glens tests remain his property. He has graciously shared those tests and their results with the world to benefit us all in any way it can. I wish I could say the same for the South African tests. ALL of the test data from the listed testing agencies is missing, withheld, or never even happened. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the South African group to at the very least match Glen's tests and public display of data if they wish to continue boasting "OPEN SOURCE".

Otherwise the Entire OPEN SOURCE community has no choice but conclude they are protecting their Intellectual Property and the all of the claims otherwise are nothing but a ruse for publicity.

Harvey
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 28, 2010, 10:31:22 AM


DON'T PRESUME TO CLAIM THAT I AM CRAZY WHEN YOU KNOW FULL WELL THAT I DO NOT HAVE
THE EYES TO NAVIGATE THESE COMPLEX SYSTEMS.  WHY DID YOU EVER EVER EVER DELETE THOSE
FILES.  IT IS A TRAVESTY OF OPEN SOURCE  DISCIPLINES AND FLIES IN THE FACE OF OPEN
SOURCE INTERESTS.  I DEVOTED ENDLESS HOURS IN HELPING YOU GET THE DESIRED EFFECT.  I
FEEL I SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO ACCESS THE FILES EASILY AND I WOULD PREFER IT THAT OUR
READING PUBLIC CAN ALSO DO SO.  YOU HAVE AN AGENDA AND IT'S OBVIOUS.

AND KINDLY REFORMAT THIS PAGE.  YOU'RE STILL TRYING TO HIDE TEXT.
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: fuzzytomcat on October 28, 2010, 10:40:28 AM

DON'T PRESUME TO CLAIM THAT I AM CRAZY WHEN YOU KNOW FULL WELL THAT I DO NOT HAVE
THE EYES TO NAVIGATE THESE COMPLEX SYSTEMS.  WHY DID YOU EVER EVER EVER DELETE THOSE
FILES.  IT IS A TRAVESTY OF OPEN SOURCE  DISCIPLINES AND FLIES IN THE FACE OF OPEN
SOURCE INTERESTS.  I DEVOTED ENDLESS HOURS IN HELPING YOU GET THE DESIRED EFFECT.  I
FEEL I SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO ACCESS THE FILES EASILY AND I WOULD PREFER IT THAT OUR
READING PUBLIC CAN ALSO DO SO.  YOU HAVE AN AGENDA AND IT'S OBVIOUS.

AND KINDLY REFORMAT THIS PAGE.  YOU'RE STILL TRYING TO HIDE TEXT.

AND KINDLY REFORMAT THIS PAGE.  YOU'RE STILL TRYING TO HIDE TEXT.

AND KINDLY REFORMAT THIS PAGE.  YOU'RE STILL TRYING TO HIDE TEXT.

AND KINDLY REFORMAT THIS PAGE.  YOU'RE STILL TRYING TO HIDE TEXT.


wow .... I thought I was seeing things, had to print it three times ..... I'm still hiding text ..... where on this page ??

WHAT ??
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 28, 2010, 10:46:21 AM
Tell me where you got this photograph?  Is it yours?  And if so - what is it's relevance to the ainslie tests?  To me it looks like the oscillation of the waveform across the shunt taken on a typical
resonating test.  And unless I'm wildly mistaken that looks like a FLUKE?  HOW DID THIS GET INTO
YOUR PHOTOBUCKET?  is the question.

Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: fuzzytomcat on October 28, 2010, 11:00:53 AM
Tell me where you got this photograph?  Is it yours?  And if so - what is it's relevance to the ainslie tests?  To me it looks like the oscillation of the waveform across the shunt taken on a typical
resonating test.  And unless I'm wildly mistaken that looks like a FLUKE?  HOW DID THIS GET INTO
YOUR PHOTOBUCKET?  is the question.

You know fully ..... this was from Aarons Negative Dominate Wave Form Circuit testing and evaluation, when I went to his home 800 miles away to verify his results with my experimental device and took some preliminary tests with the Tektronix TDS 3054C he had in his possession using my custom made proto type 10 Ohm inductor.

Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 28, 2010, 11:01:59 AM
Now.  Let me state all this again.  I CANNOT UNZIP THOSE FILES.  IT IS NOT WITHIN MY CAPABILITY.   IT SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED.  THE PRIME DATA AND THE WAVEFORMS SHOULD HAVE BEEN LEFT  AS THEY WERE 0N THE FORUM.  THEY ARE NO LONGER AVAIALABLE.  OUR READING PUBLIC AND I WOULD PREFER TO SEE THEM WHERE THEY BELONG.  NOT IN SOME IRRELEVANT LITTLE FILE IN GLEN'S NAME WHICH CANNOT BE EASILY ACCESSED. 

And don't give me those complex excuses. Just put the data back for open source to see what gives.  Anything less and it's obviously being done with the sole intention of making that data inaccessible to me, in the first instance and to our reading public in the second instance.

I will then take the trouble to go through all those post where Glen specifically refused to allow anyone to post those waveforms on the forum.  I can't myself do this.  But I can get someone to do it for me.  In other words it would be relatively EASY for all that information to be posted for permanent record.  So this nonsense about zipped files and God knows what other excuse Harvey is bringing to the table - is spurious nonsense.  The only thing preventing the reading public from seeing the actual data and the actual facts of those tests is Glen's preference to keep you, and us - IN THE DARK.

That smacks of AGENDA and AGENDA and AGENDA.  There is NOTHING in that which can be mistakenly construed as acting in the best interests of Open Source.  Any pretense by either of them that this is a residual or any concern is therefore evidentially a whole lot of rubbish.  More hand waving.

Rosemary

EDITED
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 28, 2010, 11:15:32 AM
You know fully ..... this was from Aarons Negative Dominate Wave Form Circuit testing and evaluation, when I went to his home 800 miles away to verify his results with my experimental device and took some preliminary tests with the Tektronix TDS 3054C he had in his possession using my custom made proto type 10 Ohm inductor.

NO  I DO NOT KNOW THAT.  I KNOW NOTHING WHERE YOU ARE CONCERNED.  I FIRST NEED TO WADE THROUGH YOUR LIES AND YOUR FACILE EXCUSES.

Please advise everyone here why it is that you DO NOT wish to have the test record easily accessed.  Can you explain this?  Can you dig deep - even if it's yet more lies.  Just tell me whether this forum would be able to support that data?  Or would the quantity of information exceed Harti's bandwidth - and God knows what other nonsense you use for an excuse.  LOL As I remember it you simply REFUSED to post the original data here.  I now know why.  You'd NEVER have been able to delete it.  And you have the bald faced temerity to accuse me of DELETIONS?  WHAT A JOKE.
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: fuzzytomcat on October 28, 2010, 11:25:19 AM
Now.  Let me state all this again. I CANNOT UNZIP THOSE FILES.  IT IS NOT WITHIN MY CAPABILITY.   IT SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED.  THE PRIME DATA AND THE WAVEFORMS SHOULD HAVE BEEN LEFT  AS THEY WERE 0N THE FORUM.  THEY ARE NO LONGER AVAIALABLE.  OUR READING PUBLIC AND I WOULD PREFER TO SEE THEM WHERE THEY BELONG.  NOT IN SOME IRRELEVANT LITTLE FILE IN GLEN'S NAME WHICH CANNOT BE EASILY ACCESSED. 

And don't give me those complex excuses. Just put the data back for open source to see what gives.  Anything less and it's obviously being done with the sole intention of making that data inaccessible to me, in the first instance and to our reading public in the second instance.

I will then take the trouble to go through all those post where Glen specifically refused to allow anyone to post those waveforms on the forum.  I can't myself do this.  But I can get someone to do it for me.  In other words it would be relatively EASY for all that information to be posted for permanent record.  So this nonsense about zipped files and God knows what other excuse Harvey is bringing to the table - is spurious nonsense.  The only thing preventing the reading public from seeing the actual data and the actual facts of those tests is Glen's preference to keep you, and us - IN THE DARK.

That smacks of AGENDA and AGENDA and AGENDA.  There is NOTHING in that which can be mistakenly construed as acting in the best interests of Open Source.  Any pretense by either of them that this is a residual or any concern is therefore evidentially a whole lot of rubbish.  More hand waving.

Rosemary

EDITED

So sad .... take some electronic and some computer classes .... your rich .... maid and all .... feed your dogs fresh cooked veal everyday, get a education like us working folks.

I have no stomach for your unreasonable demands and allegations on my test results and how I document them especially from you ...... how about that COP>17 proof of claim of yours ??

Go back to your pathetic thread and talk about your magnets ..... I really want to see how you use them in your first hot water application .....
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 28, 2010, 11:40:18 AM
WELL.  It seems that we are finally getting to the meat of the issue.  Pure unadulterated spite - and that's enough for you and Harvey to justify this hiding of the truth.  You'd rather indulge your malice than allow the liberal distribution of data to the public.  You'd go to such EXTRAORDINARY lengths to keep the public in the dark?  And yet you pretend to be concerned about Open Source.  Glen you may not like me.  And for that matter I may not like you.  But it's irrelevant.  The need for Clean Green and all attendant concerns is far greater than your personal feelings or even mine.  This is information that should be broadcast as far and wide as possible.  Not hidden in a dying thread on EF.com with a dusty dialogue muttering about it's possible imprecisions.  It is the stuff of really great hopes and that's what's lacking.  If this were more widely known - who knows how much more confidently would others work on this and similar - or even develop their own more extensively?  The lasersabers, or Pirate - Goto - Berdini - EVERYONE?  You're effectively trying to silence this technology and it's implications and the thesis that required these results.  That's not well done Glen.  Not well done at all.

And for the record - just to remind everyone how hopelessly I fell into a project that you'd designed many months back.  When I asked you to post the information here on OU.com - you explained that you could not do so because you did not have the bandwidth?  or Harti did not have the bandwidth.  Since I could hardly understand either excuse I let it ride.  I was wrong.  I should have moved heaven and earth to get the data here.  Because on Harti's forum - you WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DELETE.   

And how dare you imply that I'm rich.  I am NOT rich.  What a LIE.

Rosemary
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: fuzzytomcat on October 28, 2010, 11:53:35 AM
WELL.  It seems that we are finally getting to the meat of the issue.  Pure unadulterated spite - and that's enough for you and Harvey to justify this hiding of the truth.  You'd rather indulge your malice than allow the liberal distribution of data to the public.  You'd go to such EXTRAORDINARY lengths to keep the public in the dark?  And yet you pretend to be concerned about Open Source.  Glen you may not like me.  And for that matter I may not like you.  But it's irrelevant.  The need for Clean Green and all attendant concerns is far greater than your personal feelings or even mine.  This is information that should be broadcast as far and wide as possible.  Not hidden in a dying thread on EF.com with a dusty dialogue muttering about it's possible imprecisions.  It is the stuff of really great hopes and that's what's lacking.  If this were more widely known - who knows how much more confidently would others work on this and similar - or even develop their own more extensively?  The lasersabers, or Pirate - Goto - Berdini - EVERYONE?  You're effectively trying to silence this technology and it's implications and the thesis that required these results.  That's not well done Glen.  Not well done at all.

And for the record - just to remind everyone how hopelessly I fell into a project that you'd designed many months back.  When I asked you to post the information here on OU.com - you explained that you could not do so because you did not have the bandwidth?  or Harti did not have the bandwidth.  Since I could hardly understand either excuse I let it ride.  I was wrong.  I should have moved heaven and earth to get the data here.  Because on Harti's forum - you WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DELETE.   

And how dare you imply that I'm rich.  I am NOT rich.  What a LIE.

Rosemary

http://cid-6b7817c40bb20460.office.live.com/browse.aspx/.Public/Mosfet%20Heater
http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits.html


http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: WilbyInebriated on October 28, 2010, 12:53:38 PM
With Regards to ZIP files.

Skydrive has a 50MB upload limit for any single file. Some of my spreadsheets of the tests exceeded this limit and therefore needed to be compressed to allow upload.
then don't use skydrive... put the data in a sql database (this avoids your upload limit problem @skydrive) and whip up a simple script to select the necessary data... it's a simple 'high school' solution. ;)

ZIP technology is an industry standard that has been around since the early days of DOS and it is expected that this is well understood by all persons qualified to evaluate these analyses. However, if there are any who are having problems with unzipping these files and would like assistance in doing so feel free to PM me and I will step you through the extremely simple high school steps of doing so.
or you could PM glen and step him through the extremely simple high school steps of properly sizing an image... ::)

Additionally, the high resolution data (100,000 samples per 10 divisions) will not fit in Excel versions prior to 2007. Therefore, I took the time to create an Access Program for those with older versions of Microsoft Office that allows them to peer into this data at high resolution with zoom charts and see the many instances of high amplitude pulses that are simply missing in the much lower resolution data of 10,000 samples per screen.
this is not an issue when using a sql database instead of some proprietary microcrap software (excel).

All of this has been available 100% of the time with absolutely no reservations from the time of publicizing the results. Any attempts to infer otherwise should be considered subterfuge and an attempt to besmirch Glen's good name and therefore should be summarily dismissed as the rhetoric it is.

Furthermore, Glens tests and all of the data associated with Glens tests remain his property. He has graciously shared those tests and their results with the world to benefit us all in any way it can. I wish I could say the same for the South African tests. ALL of the test data from the listed testing agencies is missing, withheld, or never even happened. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the South African group to at the very least match Glen's tests and public display of data if they wish to continue boasting "OPEN SOURCE".
what about this harv? why just test13? why not all of them?
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)

Otherwise the Entire OPEN SOURCE community has no choice but conclude they are protecting their Intellectual Property and the all of the claims otherwise are nothing but a ruse for publicity.

Harvey
denied. logical fallacy, false dilemma.
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: truthbeknown on October 28, 2010, 07:04:57 PM

I guess Loner missed this comment but she will read and post here just as day follows night.
And who cares that you don't like me Rosemary because nobody ever asked you to. And really, reviving a thread is what you do everyday with your COP>17 thread. If nobody comments on it then you have to say some Blah Blah to keep it on the front page just as you have done on every forum you have posted in.  So really, what some people would like to see are pictures and videos of the work you say is being conducted "on campus." So you say you can't post the parts list and so on because of "thieves" so how about some pics and videos? We have to wonder why?
I'm sure the collaborators could shed some light on things but so could you with some effort. You are so good at deleting posts that don't suit you and editing even your own posts its pretty hard to understand your agenda. I hope this thread can truly show all the truths about your whatever device.

 ???
J.


Still waiting for the pics and videos.....Even STEFAN wants to see some and posted results...... :o
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: fuzzytomcat on October 28, 2010, 09:51:23 PM
Tell me where you got this photograph?  Is it yours?  And if so - what is it's relevance to the ainslie tests?  To me it looks like the oscillation of the waveform across the shunt taken on a typical
resonating test.  And unless I'm wildly mistaken that looks like a FLUKE?  HOW DID THIS GET INTO
YOUR PHOTOBUCKET?  is the question.

Well ..... using the common "SEARCH" feature at Energetic Forum where your membership was banned ......

http://www.energeticforum.com/68575-post2766.html   ( September 22, 2009 )
This is where my photograph ( Picture005.jpg ) of a Fluke 123 ScopeMeter used in the Ainslie - Murakami Negitive Dominant Waveform Generator circuit test using the Tektronix TDS 3054C as shown in your COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie thread ... POST #2766

http://www.energeticforum.com/68576-post2767.html   ( September 22, 2009 )
This is your Post #2767 a response to the prior posting that I did .......
Quote
FUZZY - very well done. Many, many thanks for all that info.


Like others have said you really need to have that condition of yours professionally taken care of .... it can be quite a distraction for us all ......
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: truthbeknown on October 29, 2010, 01:54:27 AM
Rosemary Ainslie

    * Moderator
    * Hero Member
    * *****
    * Posts: 1171
    *
          o View Profile
          o Personal Message (Online)

Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #751 on: Today at 01:20:48 AM »

    * Reply with quoteQuote

Quote from: truthbeknown on October 28, 2010, 10:23:36 PM


    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




This is what she said in answering my question when I posted it in her thread. I figured it best be brought over here before she deletes my posts in her thread....a moderator with a delete finger.

My reply to her on this is that she doesn't know anything about me and what I have promoted for clean green...and I am not obligated to share anything with her about it....BUT...she is the one who keeps posting about things going on "on campus" and not showing the details in either written word or pics or videos. So the readers can decide if its all talk and no show for themselves.
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: WilbyInebriated on October 29, 2010, 02:23:34 AM
This is what she said in answering my question when I posted it in her thread. I figured it best be brought over here before she deletes my posts in her thread....a moderator with a delete finger.

My reply to her on this is that she doesn't know anything about me and what I have promoted for clean green...and I am not obligated to share anything with her about it....BUT...she is the one who keeps posting about things going on "on campus" and not showing the details in either written word or pics or videos. So the readers can decide if its all talk and no show for themselves.
so you think they should meekly ask you "how high master?" just because you said jump? ::) get a clue kid, the world does not revolve around you. it will happen when it happens... so chill out, exercise some patience and restraint, and stop behaving like an impatient child. if you're going to sit around on your hands waiting for someone to give you something, at least have the decency to stfu...
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: truthbeknown on October 29, 2010, 02:32:45 AM
so you think they should meekly ask you "how high master?" just because you said jump? ::) get a clue kid, the world does not revolve around you. it will happen when it happens... so chill out, exercise some patience and restraint, and stop behaving like an impatient child. if you're going to sit around on your hands waiting for someone to give you something, at least have the decency to stfu...



Shame on you Wilby....and you eat with those fingers you type with?  I do hope you wash first......I wonder if your mommy will read this?
 :'(
J.
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: WilbyInebriated on October 29, 2010, 02:43:10 AM


Shame on you Wilby....and you eat with those fingers you type with?  I do hope you wash first......I wonder if your mommy will read this?
 :'(
J.
shame on me? more like shame on you... ::)
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: truthbeknown on October 29, 2010, 03:49:00 AM

Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #753 on: Today at 03:05:48 AM »

    * Reply with quoteQuote

Quote from: truthbeknown on Today at 01:33:21 AM


    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?


ROSEMARYS REPLY:


If the truth is to be known - the only thing that is sad is the quality of your posts.  I'm rather amused to see that you're duplicating them in another thread?  Golly.  Do you feel they need to be preserved?  For prosterity?  LOL  But I'll tell you what.  I could well do without this mediocre effort at trying to interrupt this thread.  Unless you 'up the ante' I will certainly transfer your posts to a more appropriate thread.  It's one thing to be trolled with intelligent contributions.  But this?  Please.  I've got gold fish with more teeth.

And yes - on the whole my life is fulfilling.  Thank you for asking.

Rosemary




From Truthbeknown:

I answered her questions to me as follows:


1. YES
2. YES
3. YES
4. YES

And you are NOT welcome because that was a statement. I said she could use her big delete finger or transfer this to another thread like she says that I didn't care either way...So. she decided she didn't want anyone to read my response to her and DELETED IT! She has moderatorship and censorship all built into one thread.

Carry on.
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: fuzzytomcat on October 29, 2010, 06:36:40 AM
Hi everyone,

Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie ( Over Unity Forum Thread  )
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.0    ( 189 pages - 2825 Replys )

Reply #2824 on: February 03, 2010
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg226495#msg226495

Quote
Well Rosemary it would have been nice to have the FULL story that during this whole 8 month testing and evaluation exercise of the Quantum "Mosfet Heating Circuit" device that in fact "YOU" presently have in your possession "in storage" withheld from all experimenters .....

1) Working models of the Quantum "Mosfet Heating Circuit" device
2) Components of the Quantum "Mosfet Heating Circuit" device
3) Photographs of the Quantum "Mosfet Heating Circuit" device
4) Documented information from BP
5) Documented information from ABB


And this was nothing but a Chinese Fire Drill for any and all experimenters with only moral support from you, not divulging that you have done this in a attempt of a "independent verification" of any findings on the Quantum article for your thesis "ONLY" nothing else.

This has been nothing but duping the "Open Source" community for help in creating a Academic paper to promote your thesis on your Magnetic Field Model nothing else.


This was a post of mine on February 03, 2010 and I left it alone because of the in your own word's "Quotes" that are available in several Open Source Forums postings that verify Rosemary's comments or claims all outlined in my publicly posted claim above and thought readers would be able to find the quoted words but it appears not, there's to many posts 1000's to sift through ..... I have no pleasure repeating them again, but really need too now.

The word Rosemary uses loosely always concerning the rejected IEEE paper submittal of "WE", is not in my word's and at best misleading, I can speak for myself on my Tests.

Items 1 through 5 will be referenced one at a time to avoid the hundreds of pages and thousands of responses in the thread, many will be from Rosemary Ainslie in a attempt to bury the evidence in pages of nonsense postings hiding the truth from the members and reading guests.   
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: fuzzytomcat on October 30, 2010, 07:54:56 AM
ITEM NUMBER ONE

WORKING COMPLETE "QUANTUM" COP>17 EXPERIMENTAL DEVICES WITHHELD FROM OPEN SOURCE

http://www.energeticforum.com/60279-post511.html ( July, 13 2009 )

Quote

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.


A WORKING COMPLETE "QUANTUM" COP>17 EXPERIMENTAL DEVICE

I have the experimental apparatus available and it has been checked by EE's even at universities.

Why were the October 2002 Quantum COP>17 experimental devices knowing and willfully hidden from the Open Source Community after July, 13 2009 ??

1) It's not a COP>17
2) It's being hidden because of "errors" in the Quantum article electronic diagram, electrical calculations and recorded data
3) It's being hidden because of Intellectual Property Rights of Rosemary Ainslie, Investors or others involved in South Africa
4) It's being hidden because of a requirement for a 100% "Independent" verification of any experimental device close to the self authored October 2002 Quantum article context or content for a self serving Academic thesis paper
5) Secret hidden alternative motives
6) ??

TAKE YOUR PICK - 1 through 6 ( or all )

Some would try to lead you in belief of destroying, dismantling or even loosing a incredible device that is a COP>17 ..... who in their right mind would do something a stupid as this,  especially anytime "AFTER" the date of July 13, 2009 of the Open Source posting ....
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: TinselKoala on October 30, 2010, 06:49:50 PM
Compare the above reference to my work about the duty cycle of the Quantum article with this much more current post from Rosemary:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9442.msg262082#msg262082

And once again, just build the circuit and see for yourselves. Wilby, master of correctness and triviality, why don't you deal with this issue? Just what is the TRUTH about the Quantum circuit duty cycle? It involves what, seven dollars worth of parts and a light bulb?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSFS99SaZTA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18raNyVTL6g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXielVyBauo

Some Fluke0Scopy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU1YGaEBKwM
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Harvey on October 30, 2010, 10:09:21 PM
Compare the above reference to my work about the duty cycle of the Quantum article with this much more current post from Rosemary:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9442.msg262082#msg262082

And once again, just build the circuit and see for yourselves. Wilby, master of correctness and triviality, why don't you deal with this issue? Just what is the TRUTH about the Quantum circuit duty cycle? It involves what, seven dollars worth of parts and a light bulb?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSFS99SaZTA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18raNyVTL6g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXielVyBauo

Some Fluke0Scopy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU1YGaEBKwM

Hi TK,

You are absolutely correct in your reference to the increased duty cycle on the Hexfet. Here is a snapshot from the famous test #13 that we used as a basis for the paper that Rosemary rushed to rejection against the advices of all other authors involved.

(http://urad.net/forums/gallery/albums/userpics/normal_TEK00024%7E0.PNG) Enlarge (http://urad.net/forums/gallery/albums/userpics/TEK00024%7E0.PNG)

As you can see, in the "preferred mode of oscillation" (a phrase I specifically coined when writing that paper) the gate does adopt a duty cycle of 57.32%.

The circuit in this mode simply aborts completely any ties to a resonant action and develops a symbiotic retriggering mode solely dependent on the NE555 internal voltage references and a non-destructive zener breakdown in the output transistor emitter inside the NE555. This pass through current finds its way back upstream within the NE555 and causes the retriggering. I have confirmed this with Spice.

The TRUTH however, is that if the resistor itself actually matched that waveform we would have had considerably more heat than we did. How much more? Just look at the resistor power values in the attached spreadsheet to get a ballpark. 24V @ 50% would be similar to 12V @ 100%


In this mode, the duty cycle of the Resistor waveform (referenced to B(-)) adopts a 3.893% duty cycle as shown in this Channel 2 shot from the exact same test:
(http://urad.net/forums/gallery/albums/userpics/normal_TEK00023.PNG) Enlarge (http://urad.net/forums/gallery/albums/userpics/TEK00023.PNG)

I'm certain it is the latter Duty cycle that the original technicians (what ever happened to those guys?) referred to in their work that Rosemary later copied and passed off as her own as she is now trying to do with Glen's work.

For a mathematical treatise of these duty cycles and waveforms on this specific test see these 3 posts:
http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits-2.html#post93202 (http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits-2.html#post93202)
http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits-3.html#post93751 (http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits-3.html#post93751)
http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits-3.html#post93991 (http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits-3.html#post93991)

This mathematical work has NOT been professionally vetted and may have errors in it - so if you find any please feel free to point them out. I tried to be as accurate as possible but as mentioned before this is very difficult on an ever changing landscape of waveforms. The changing landscape is very evident in Glen's 5 hour videos of continuous operation.

So while I was able to show where the majority of the energy was, there is still about a watt unaccounted for. Because the data is discontinuous, I imagined that the extra watt was melded into the averages from oscillations that were not recorded. But then it could also be due to the projections made in my analysis. The entire methodology is messy and problematic.

Harvey

NOTE:
Because the IMG tags are not working above, I have attached the two images as well:
Channel 3 is the Gate signal, Channel 2 is the Drain Signal:

Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: truthbeknown on October 31, 2010, 12:01:58 AM
. . .

1) It's not a COP>17
2) It's being hidden because of "errors" in the Quantum article electronic diagram, electrical calculations and recorded data
3) It's being hidden because of Intellectual Property Rights of Rosemary Ainslie, Investors or others involved in South Africa
4) It's being hidden because of a requirement for a 100% "Independent" verification of any experimental device close to the self authored October 2002 Quantum article context or content for a self serving Academic thesis paper
5) Secret hidden alternative motives
6) ??

TAKE YOUR PICK - 1 through 6 ( or all )



Regarding #4 Has anyone found a difference between Her Thesis and Ed's Thesis?

(http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7929.msg262502#msg262502 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7929.msg262502#msg262502))

 ::)
Truthbeknown
J.
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 31, 2010, 02:01:29 AM
Hi TK,

You are absolutely correct in your reference to the increased duty cycle on the Hexfet. Here is a snapshot from the famous test #13 that we used as a basis for the paper that Rosemary rushed to rejection against the advices of all other authors involved.
Golly.  There was NO RUSH.  All was on schedule.  It was you who were trying to stall things to avoid publication.  This because TIE required a COMPLETE disclosure of the author's accreditation.  I knew full well that you were caught between a rock and a hard place.  No accreditation and an anxiety to prevent the general public from learning about this.  Or are you in fact accredited?  I'm sure we'd all be interested.  LOL. 

As you can see, in the "preferred mode of oscillation" (a phrase I specifically coined when writing that paper) the gate does adopt a duty cycle of 57.32%.  The circuit in this mode simply aborts completely any ties to a resonant action and develops a symbiotic retriggering mode solely dependent on the NE555 internal voltage references and a non-destructive zener breakdown in the output transistor emitter inside the NE555. This pass through current finds its way back upstream within the NE555 and causes the retriggering. I have confirmed this with Spice.
This is an example of the Harvey waffle - for any readers that may be interested.  But I rather think that this technobabble is getting somewhat absurd.  How could the NE555 be transmitting/emitting (as a transmitter emitter LOL) a signal with a current that finds it way back 'upstream' wherever that is? and then cause a 'retriggering' IF it still shows a duty cycle at either 3% or 97% - 'off' or 'on'?  If it developed a 'symbiotic' retriggering then it would reflect the 57% 'on'.  Clearly it has NOT developed a SYMBIOTIC anything at all.  Just technobabble Harvey.  I realise how anxious you are to appear accredited.  But you must remember that accredited people read here.  And clarity of terms and precision of expression is definitely preferred.  And if you have proved this on SPICE then SHOW US.   

The TRUTH however, is that if the resistor itself actually matched that waveform we would have had considerably more heat than we did.
LOL.  If the TRUTH as you put it - is in that first analysis of yours in the MOSFET HEATING CIRCUIT then it's laughable.  It was based on some kind of mishmash of nonsense and protocol that required the averaging the voltage across the load resistor while it was in full resonating frequency - for heaven's sake.  And then you rather CROWED that you now had the PROOF that you were so desperately looking for - THAT THERE WAS NO GAIN.  I was alerted to this nonsense by an expert.  But I'm still at a bit of loss because you now seem to be more concerned that there's MORE energy dissipated than is evident as heat. Presumably then you've changed tack?  In any event.   Here we concur.  But that analysis is somewhat outside the league of myself and will need to be finalised by experts.  And to compute this is clearly at a level of complexity that I rather suspect is outside your league as well.  With or without respect.  Certainly your earlier 'averaging' of these values seems to point to this.  And even then that little exercise was accompanied by the tell tale harvey waffle.  Clarity matters Harvey.  You can't forever hide behind your handwaving.

I'm certain it is the latter Duty cycle that the original technicians (what ever happened to those guys?) referred to in their work that Rosemary later copied and passed off as her own as she is now trying to do with Glen's work.
I have NEVER copied anyone's work - unless it was duly acknowledged.  The real problem here is that you find it impossible to believe that a woman let alone an untrained woman - can come up with an original thought. LOL. But the truth is that there's very little that's different in this and any other simple switching circuit.  Else I'd be flattered at all this disbelief.  And let's face it.  One doesn't need to be an Einstein to think of switching an electric current.   

For a mathematical treatise of these duty cycles and waveforms on this specific test see these 3 posts:
http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits-2.html#post93202 (http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits-2.html#post93202)
http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits-3.html#post93751 (http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits-3.html#post93751)
http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits-3.html#post93991 (http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits-3.html#post93991)

This mathematical work has NOT been professionally vetted and may have errors in it - so if you find any please feel free to point them out. I tried to be as accurate as possible but as mentioned before this is very difficult on an ever changing landscape of waveforms. The changing landscape is very evident in Glen's 5 hour videos of continuous operation.
I'll get back to you in due course on your mathematical treatise.   ::) But I'll first refer it to experts.  LOL

Rosemary
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 31, 2010, 02:04:35 AM

Regarding #4 Has anyone found a difference between Her Thesis and Ed's Thesis?

(http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7929.msg262502#msg262502 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7929.msg262502#msg262502))

 ::)
Truthbeknown

Interesting point Truthbeknown.  I'd LOVE to be associated with Leedskalnin's genius.  What a pleasure. 

BTW - where's that delightful little ditty gone?  Did you get shy?
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 31, 2010, 02:14:06 AM
Compare the above reference to my work about the duty cycle of the Quantum article with this much more current post from Rosemary:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9442.msg262082#msg262082

And once again, just build the circuit and see for yourselves. Wilby, master of correctness and triviality, why don't you deal with this issue? Just what is the TRUTH about the Quantum circuit duty cycle? It involves what, seven dollars worth of parts and a light bulb?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSFS99SaZTA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18raNyVTL6g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXielVyBauo

Some Fluke0Scopy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU1YGaEBKwM

TK I've answered this nonsense on your previous post.  You really need to do some real power analysis but you first need to find that resonating frequency.  It seems it entirely eluded you - else I rather suspect you'd be digging up the kind of analysis that Harvey is trying for. 

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: truthbeknown on October 31, 2010, 02:22:52 AM
Interesting point Truthbeknown.  I'd LOVE to be associated with Leedskalnin's genius.  What a pleasure. 

BTW - where's that delightful little ditty gone?  Did you get shy?


What are YOU talking about?
LINKS...LINKS...LINKS      LOL!
Now go back up to my reply #94 and clickety on the link. I can post it in your thread also if you would like. Then it can be there for POSTERITY.

Lets see now...Ed's thesis was written in 1945 and yours in when? You must be very proud.

 ::)
J.
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 31, 2010, 02:23:47 AM
Here it is again just for the record.

Always nice to hear from you.  But you're getting tediously repetitive and I'm not sure that I'm prepared to let these spurious comments of yours dominate this thread - as much as you may require this.  I am very well aware how your particular brand of 'trollmanship' requires the monopoly of my time by answering these entirely false allegations.  The intention is to distract me and to take the attention away from the theme of this thread.  If I'm obliged to keep answering you then you will indeed be wasting my time.  Clearly your objective.

I'm of the opinion that you,  like Harvey, would prefer it that I do not elaborate on the thesis which is why you are both now 'elbowing in' - so to speak.  Self-evidently you also see the need to repeat this complaint of yours on no less than two threads - twice on this and once on that - and God alone knows how many times on the COP>17 thread at EF.com and your own thread here.  But this, like ALL your allegations are pure fabrication.  We both know that Joit in fact reported that he'd DISPROVED YOUR POINT.  Unfortunately his post was not clear. Here's the link.

http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-17.html#post60251
Neither I nor Donovan could work out what he was trying to say so I simply gave you the benefit of the doubt.  Here's that link.
http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-18.html
Whereupon Joit answered me here
http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-18.html
where his opening statement in that post is as follows

it only prooves, that you are RIGHT and Tinselkoala is WRONG, and all his discreding and debunking Post here and at OU.com.

He never DID support your findings.  I notice that Glen very carefully prevents anyone actually reading his links in context.  He relies on this as he could not otherwise continue with his allegations any more than you could.  But where you take this to dizzy new dimensions is that your own allegations are ENTIRELY UNTRUE.  The proverbial 'bald faced lie'.  Where Glen 'alleges' you simply go for the gullet and FABRICATE.  LOL.

And it is not only a lie but it is NONSENSICAL to state that the basis of our claim depends on the duty cycle.  Our claim is based on close analysis of the voltages measured across the shunt resistor.  Go read our Quantum paper.  It'll may help.  That would NEVER have been published without the editor being fully au fait with the data required - albeit it was too cumbersome to publish.

And TK if you persist in dominating this subject with historical irrelevancies then I'm afraid I will need to delete your posts.  So.  If you like Truthbeknown - want to preserve them for prosterity  ::) LOL I'd advise you to copy them and post them where they belong - which is on Glen's thread.  For God's sake discuss something new.  I am happy with discussions.  I am absolutely NOT happy to have you rake up those sad little tests that you performed - NOT ONCE getting the required resonance - NOT ONCE doing a detailed wattage analysis.  I'm not sure that you even knew how to.  Neither I nor anyone was EVER in a position to access the data and do an independent analysis.  Notwithstanding your access to enough instrumentation to bury us all in actual experimental results.  I have never in my life seen such a parody of attempt at a replication.  Frankly  my own opinion is that either you did not know how to to those dumps or you did not dare.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 31, 2010, 02:51:07 AM

What are YOU talking about?
LINKS...LINKS...LINKS      LOL!
Now go back up to my reply #94 and clickety on the link. I can post it in your thread also if you would like. Then it can be there for POSTERITY.

Lets see now...Ed's thesis was written in 1945 and yours in when? You must be very proud.

 ::)
J.

You really are not the brightest of people Truthbeknown.  If you even understood my thesis you'd see that there's only a passing similarity in the concepts.  Leedskalnin depended on a two way flow of monopoles.  I argue that such cannot be sustained in a field condition.  I have proposed a bipolar particle - to enable a flow in one or other direction.  But this had NOTHING to do with Leedskalnin's insights.  The man is a genius but his explanations here have defeated everyone in the world - including me.  Wish that I knew one tenth of what he must have known.

My thesis was developed on the concept of current flow comprising the flow of magnetic fields.  In fact I propose that all energy is sourced from magnetic fields.  I don't think that has any similarity whatsoever to Leedskalnin's thinking.

Rosemary

Edited.  Corrected 'flow of magnetic monopoles' to 'flow of monopoles'.
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: truthbeknown on October 31, 2010, 03:16:03 AM
You really are not the brightest of people Truthbeknown.  If you even understood my thesis you'd see that there's only a passing similarity in the concepts.  Leedskalnin depended on a two way flow of monopoles.  I argue that such cannot be sustained in a field condition.  I have proposed a bipolar particle - to enable a flow in one or other direction.  But this had NOTHING to do with Leedskalnin's insights.  The man is a genius but his explanations here have defeated everyone in the world - including me.  Wish that I knew one tenth of what he must have known.

My thesis was developed on the concept of current flow comprising the flow of magnetic fields.  In fact I propose that all energy is sourced from magnetic fields.  I don't think that has any similarity whatsoever to Leedskalnin's thinking.

Rosemary

Edited.  Corrected 'flow of magnetic monopoles' to 'flow of monopoles'.


Well I won't get into who is "bright" or "brighter" or "brightest" I'll just let the readers here sit down with a cuppy and do a bit of reading for themselves.

 ;)
J.
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: WilbyInebriated on October 31, 2010, 05:05:21 AM
Wilby, master of correctness and triviality, why don't you deal with this issue?
tk, master of logical fallacies and hacks, i'm glad you're back. you avoided answering to your contradictions (AGAIN ::) )  the last time we spoke. why is it that you continue to choose to not reconcile YOUR OWN CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS before moving on? i have been trying for quite some time to get you to reconcile them... last time i pressed the issue, you ran off swearing and crying about how you were going to take your ball home and not play with us anymore. what happened to that? i expect you will avoid answering to those contradictions just as you usually do.
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 31, 2010, 08:15:55 AM

Well I won't get into who is "bright" or "brighter" or "brightest" I'll just let the readers here sit down with a cuppy and do a bit of reading for themselves.

 ;)
J.

Indeed.  LOL.   ;D

BTW  I've deleted your last post on my own thread Truthbeknown.  I trust you kept a copy.  Otherwise I'm afraid it's forever lost.    :o  Fact is that I posted on the wrong thread.  But due to the HACK was not sure if I'd even posted anything at all.  The ONLY people that I know who have already declared their ability to hack into computers is Glen - and Poynty.  BOTH by their own admission.  Frankly I don't think Poynty is that nasty let alone immoral.  And I can definitely attest to the fact that both Glen and Harvey have GOOD REASON to hack.  Else all this technology may very well get widely known, used AND UNDERSTOOD.  God forbid.   ::)

 ;D
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: truthbeknown on October 31, 2010, 09:13:04 AM
Indeed.  LOL.   ;D

BTW  I've deleted your last post on my own thread Truthbeknown.  I trust you kept a copy.  Otherwise I'm afraid it's forever lost.    :o  Fact is that I posted on the wrong thread.  But due to the HACK was not sure if I'd even posted anything at all.  The ONLY people that I know who have already declared their ability to hack into computers is Glen - and Poynty.  BOTH by their own admission.  Frankly I don't think Poynty is that nasty let alone immoral.  And I can definitely attest to the fact that both Glen and Harvey have GOOD REASON to hack.  Else all this technology may very well get widely known, used AND UNDERSTOOD.  God forbid.   ::)

 ;D


The big DELETE finger has struck once again!

Now, does it not make us wonder WHY it was so important that she delete her OWN post that I happened to see in the 1 hour or so it was there AND then delete my comment to what she said?
What are YOU trying to hide? LOL many times over.

 :o
J.

 BTW...I will give you the opportunity to re-post YOUR post where you claim to have some sort of PROOF that 3 people have compromised your computer? I won't embarrass you with my copy.
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Harvey on October 31, 2010, 09:25:56 AM

Regarding #4 Has anyone found a difference between Her Thesis and Ed's Thesis?

(http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7929.MSG262502#MSG262502 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7929.msg262502#msg262502))

 ::)
Truthbeknown
J.

I have read both theses more than once and find Ed's work to be very well thought out and presented in a concise and easy to follow manner. 

The other one, which by all rights appears to be a messy copy of Ed's work has many loose ends, poor diagrams and cannot be explained verbally by the author. I did spend hours speaking with her on Skype trying to understand what she is trying to convey, and she simply cannot explain it verbally. She kept telling me that I must read it - so I did - it took me 5 straight hours and a stiff neck and I still have my copy complete with marginal notes. She wanted my honest opinion and I gave it to her: "This is a mess and needs to be completely rewritten", I told her. I felt so bad having to tell her that, but I thought she needed to know that it really does need to be reworked and if a co-author cannot tell it like it is then who can? In one place she states that her thesis demands 11 dimensions to properly function and then she only identifies 10 in the breakdown. She has no way to quantify the energy of her "little magnets" as Ed calls them and confuses 2C with C². Also she seems to have confused spherical area with spherical volume in her math supporting the size ratio of a Proton to an Electron and then later states that electrons don't exist - a statement shared by Ed Leedskalnin (which is where I imagine she got it from) and a view even supported by forum members like Wilby.

So if electrons don't exist, then how could her crowning moment of defining the ratio be of any value? Clearly electrons must exist in her thesis but electric current does not. Therefore, her current is magnetic just as Ed's current is magnetic. This must also mean that she is switching "magnetic current" not "electric current" right? Now, that is another subject that she and I spent several hours discussing, trying to get the specifics properly organized so we could explain it to others. "Is the current inside or outside the material?" We never could get that matter concluded, but one thing was certain - the magnetic chain had to be a complete circuit in her model, there is no place for it to break apart unless you want an nebula on your workbench. Well not that bad, but in her model the principle is the same, break the chain and all those superluminal "little magnets" come crashing into our dimension and become quarks and stuff like that. And don't even try to form a correlation between the universal magnetic model that involves nebula, a toroid universe and a series of spiral chains all in motion to the structure of a molecule where every particle has it's own 'field' of 'little magnets' (of some unknown quantity) structured around them to blue print the interactions with other particles. As soon as you try, you find yourself swimming in relativistic motion problems where superluminal particles somehow pass through each other some of the time and bounce off each other at other times. These are just some of the loose ends.

Personally, I find no difference between her thesis and Ed's at the fundamental level. It should be noted that Ed's "Little Magnets" were smaller than photons and Ed knew that magnets are dipoles. But I encourage all the readers who have the time to spend, to carefully read Rosemary's work and query her on what it means. Perhaps I have a problem that prohibits me from comprehending it. You on the other hand may be able to help her get it rewritten in a way that guys like me can follow. I did tell her once, that if she could explain it to grade school children then the whole world would be able to understand it. Read it and share your thoughts, perhaps through refinement the thesis can become an open source project that eventually explains everything.

Personally I have my own TOE that does not depend on superluminal particles and perhaps that is the problem I have that prohibits me from accepting these magnetic models of our universe.

Harvey

Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: fuzzytomcat on October 31, 2010, 11:58:59 AM
Howdy reading members and guests,

As you all can see in every one of Rosemary's reply's the immediate responses to other members postings, 99% of the time quick attacks or misrepresentations and allegations of everyone else's imagined wrong doing. One of Rosemary's recent posted comments http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9898.msg262511#msg262511 even includes content from part of a unanswered "item 4)" quote originally posted by me.

Even though Rosemary has obviously read my Reply #91 on October 30, 2010 http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9898.msg262460#msg262460  even before her Posted Replys of #95, #96, #97, #99, #100 and #103 to other members, it only stands to reason without a response of any kind a quick attack, misrepresentation or allegation somehow defending her "OWN QUOTED WORDS" from a Energetic Forum post #551 http://www.energeticforum.com/60279-post511.html  on July 13, 2009



ITEM NUMBER ONE

WORKING COMPLETE "QUANTUM" COP>17 EXPERIMENTAL DEVICES WITHHELD FROM OPEN SOURCE

http://www.energeticforum.com/60279-post511.html ( July, 13 2009 )

I have the experimental apparatus available and it has been checked by EE's even at universities.

Why were the October 2002 Quantum COP>17 experimental devices knowing and willfully hidden from the Open Source Community after July, 13 2009 ??

1) It's not a COP>17
2) It's being hidden because of "errors" in the Quantum article electronic diagram, electrical calculations and recorded data
3) It's being hidden because of Intellectual Property Rights of Rosemary Ainslie, Investors or others involved in South Africa
4) It's being hidden because of a requirement for a 100% "Independent" verification of any experimental device close to the self authored October 2002 Quantum article context or content for a self serving Academic thesis paper
5) Secret hidden alternative motives

6) ??

TAKE YOUR PICK - 1 through 6 ( or all )

Some would try to lead you in belief of destroying, dismantling or even loosing a incredible device that is a COP>17 ..... who in their right mind would do something a stupid as this,  especially anytime "AFTER" the date of July 13, 2009 of the Open Source posting ....

That in fact the listed items 1) through 5) must be entirely " CORRECT ", and Rosemary Ainslie has been Withholding a "Complete WORKING "QUANTUM" COP>17 EXPERIMENTAL DEVICES" knowing and willfully has hidden it from the Open Source Community after July, 13 2009

I also will add as per Rosemary Ainslie's Quote .... it has been checked by EE's even at universities http://www.energeticforum.com/60279-post511.html   ( July, 13 2009 ) ....

And why after fourteen days or two weeks of possession of the new oscilloscope not one scope wave form image or test data file has been publicly released yet of "anything" related to the experimental device "nothing" at all ??

Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: poynt99 on October 31, 2010, 01:20:52 PM
The ONLY people that I know who have already declared their ability to hack into computers is Glen - and Poynty.  BOTH by their own admission.

Rose, evidently you have me confused with someone else. I do not have this ability, nor have I ever stated that I have.

.99
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: WilbyInebriated on October 31, 2010, 01:37:40 PM
...and a view even supported by forum members like Wilby.
harvey this is just more of your usual hyperbole and or logical fallacy. please support this with a quote of where i have said electrons don't exist. in point of fact, i have never had the audacity (although you have) to say 'what' an electron is... i have however, asked you if you have ever seen an electron, to which you replied yes. ::) i have asked if you (and others) if you were suggesting that they (electrons) were discrete particles, but i have never claimed they don't exist. this is a pure fabrication on your part and i expect you to provide evidence or withdraw your statement.
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 31, 2010, 02:04:08 PM
Wilby - Nor have I stated that electron's don't exist.   Indeed I go to some considerable trouble to prove that they do.  But you must forgive him this latest example of the harvey waffle and bear in mind that this is the same man who seriously proposes that a switching circuit generates positrons in abundance.  LOL.

Fortunately his opinion on my thesis is not shared that widely and certainly NOT by accredited and, in some cases, some really well known physicists.  So.  I can live with his sad little comments.  The truth is that he's got away with bluff and blunder - related to his 'alleged' expertise - for so long now that he also assumes that the whole world is that STUPID. 

I wonder if he'll ever get around to addressing your riposte related to the Big Bang Theory.  LOL. And, for sheer amusement - look up his comments on EF.com where he presumes to talk about electric current flow.  With that much 'mess' it's no wonder he finds my own writing a mess.  I suspect it stirred up those innate confusions that float around in what is loosely referred to as 'his mind'.  LOL.

Fortunately physics theories are not something that can be opined about.  They're either on the money or they're wrong.  So.  Let history be the judge.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

EDITED - I took out the following analogy 'like scum on my fish pond' - relating to Harvey's manifest confusions relating to my own thesis in particular and to physics theories in general.  That 'scum' is required as it all helps to add oxygen to the water.  Not strictly appropriate therefore.  The mess in his own mind hardly benefits anything at all.  I rather think that his own ideas are also better described as 'a mess'.  Which effectively means that we are enjoying a unique co-inicidence of thought - otherwise entirely lacking.  LOL.
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 31, 2010, 02:18:27 PM
Rose, evidently you have me confused with someone else. I do not have this ability, nor have I ever stated that I have.

.99
Hi Poynty Point.  I dip into OUR on occassion and saw a 'chat' reference between you and Peterae that referred to what you could or would do related to a member here.  But if I read wrong - then forgive me.  And if I did not read wrong - forgive me.  I actually don't think I had the right to reference it at all even if I simply imagined it.  Not a happy association to be compared to some dedicated scoundrels.  I should have known better.  And I certainly do NOT think you're a scoundrel. On the contrary.

Kindest regards
Rosie
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on November 01, 2010, 02:25:45 AM
To whoever is reading here - May I give you a brief reminder of my history as it relates to this drive for Clean Green energy.  Some 11 years ago - I read a book 'The Dancing Wu Li Masters' by Gary Zukov.  I was enthralled - having never studied physics.  Although not exactly emphasised in that book - but was nonetheless apparent - was the fact that there were many questions out there in physics.  Certainly there was no explanation for those questions that I found myself asking.  And when I referred to our academics it became ever more apparent that they also didn't have the answers.  So.  If I was going to find those solutions I needed to look for it myself.  I applied some simple logic tools to the questions that I personally found critical - and found a solution that was so simple it took my breath away.  I 'floated' for some 3 weeks - feeling that I now had the 'secrets of the universe'.  Very heady experience - but inappropriate unless I could also test those insights.

I 'ran' the first proposed test past two theoretical physicists at UCT.  Prof Viole and Prof Kleymans.  This first test was a very badly drawn schematic of the switching circuit which was subsequently represented more in line with convention but, in principle, has never actually varied from that first design.  Both concurred that if it did what was intended it would be conclusive proof of that thesis.  In point of fact what I intended and did was apply a switch to an electric current - so that I could induce a second cycle of current flow from the material in the resistor.  It seemed SO obvious.  But nor did I realise that convention assumed that current flow had everything to do with the flow of electrons.  In fact both Zukov and Dyson (another physicist whom I studied) claimed that the CONCEPT of current flow was only advanced as the 'flow of electrons' but in fact was not.  I assumed that this was widely accepted.

Be that as it may - the fact is that we tested that first circuit - then a second - then a third - then a fourth and every time with better and better measuring instruments - and, as day followed night - the results were EXACTLY as predicted by that thesis.  More energy was being dissipated by the circuit than was being delivered by the energy supply source.  Many people tested this.  Many companies.  The only people who would NOT get publicly involved were our academics.  Here there was ABSOLUTE resistance.

Now.  Bear in mind the circuit was only used to prove the thesis that predicted this result.  But I was well aware of the fact that the test itself was ridiculously inadequate to prove ALL the potential energy.  Not only that - it is was clumsy.  Far better configurations were evident - even to me - albeit outside the range of my affordability.  In any event.  I won't go into the bleak years that followed as I tried to advance the circuit technology - just this small sample - a mere INTRODUCTION to all this - to all that I saw as an answer to our energy problems.  I learned, to my cost, the weight of bigotry that seems to go hand in hand with science.  All questions in science should be permitted especially if they can be experimentally verified.  But for some reason my questions were NOT permitted and without academic endorsement of the experimental results there was absolutely NO possibility of advancement.

So I decided to 'publish and be damned' - and the only place I could publish was in a technical journal - being Quantum magazine.  That submitted paper was duly edited.  The thesis reference was omitted - for one.  But the editor REQUIRED the written acknowledgement of those accreditors - and even here the list was restricted to those Companies that were quoted on our local and/or international bourses.  In other words they had to be PUBLIC.  Both Glen and Harvey try to claim that there as there is no evidence of those letters then they never existed.  But I would like to remind you all that no self-respecting editor would publish the endorsement of public companies without first having proof of that endorsement.  And frankly, even then, I was too old and too hard bitten to risk mentioning their accreditation without such written evidence.  Else I would have been subjected to the kind of litigation which would certainly have impoverished me.  And frankly the only reason that I am absolutely NOT prepared to disclose the personalities involved in those tests is because it may very well impact unfavourbly on their best interests.   I was already grateful for being able to mention their companies.  It was enough.  And by now I was well aware of the unpopularity of the claim.

After this, and after yet another public demonstration of the test I put it all the apparatus into a cupboard and realised that I personally could do nothing further.  But the weight of that disappointment was most almost more than I could manage.  Some 5 years after this, that depression was extreme.  My son realised this.  Really to see if it might ignite some interest on the internet he eventually posted my blog.  And there it indeed 'took fire'.  That's when I learned, for the first time - that there was any interest at all in challenging conventional restrictions related to energy transfer. 

My involvement on these forums has been extremely turbulent.  But I am not that sorry as I also think that it served to add to the general interest.  But EVERY time a reader concludes that there is/was no benefit - then it has failed - DISMALLY.  And that is precisely what Glen and Harvey are here trying to imply.  Alternatively they are trying to imply that I am a liar and am not responsible for this circuit in the first instance.  I suspect that Harti may endorse this opinion as he even allows this thread which is clearly intended to work against all that I am trying to promote.  I just don't know. 

What I ASSURE you all is this.  It is INDEED easy to breach the so called energy barrier.  That barrier was errected MISTAKENLY and is based on entirely ERRONEOUS assumptions - which, frankly, I think Maxwell himself refuted - Tesla entirely DISPROVED on electric applications - and Leedskalnin DISPROVED on gravitational applications.  BUT.  Because the more extreme values are the result of resonance - those values are not easy to prove.  It requires sophisticated measuring intruments - always.  Unless, as we've now determined we can prove this on a specialised circuit that a colleague of mine has built.  But - on the whole - the debate that rages should really - after all this time be put to bed.

That was the intention of the test replication that I assisted Glen with.  Unfortunately - for whatever reason - he has tried to assert ownership of that data and to distance my involvement in it.  He claims that I have patent interests knowing full well that this is nonsense.  What is of concern is why he and Harvey need to claim this at all?  My interests in this technology are always - in truth - in the thesis.  I am reasonably satisfied that the thesis can resolve all the forces into a single magnetic field - with a magnetic dipole as the particle in that field.  That is my contribution.  What comes from this new perspective will, I think be a complete renaissance to physics.  And then those really clever people out there will make very good sense of it.  All I have done and can do it point at a skeleton or frame of what may well be the whole body of aether.  But do take a look.  And please do not believe the nonsense that both Harvey and Glen are promoting.  I stand to make nothing from this.  If we ever manage to up the wattage on our heating application, as we're intending - then even that will be quickly superceded by far more sophisticated and intelligent ways of applying this energy.  If I wanted a monopoly I would hardly be sharing all that I do.  And if I wanted fame and recognition I'd be doing my damndest to publish.  I simply want to share some rather interesting insights that I feel may well promote a new perspective on this problem of proving our aether energies.

Regards
Rosemary

Sorry all.  I had to apply some hefty editing here.  I have never in my life read such unadulterated bombast - in the way it had been phrased. If there's a moral here - it's this.  Don't try and write in the early hours of the morning when you're also exhausted.  LOL.

EDITED
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: fuzzytomcat on November 01, 2010, 05:48:27 AM
Howdy reading members and guests,

This is a continuation from Reply #90 on October 29, 2010 http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9898.msg262403#msg262403

Hi everyone,

Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie ( Over Unity Forum Thread  )
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.0    ( 189 pages - 2825 Replys )

Reply #2824 on: February 03, 2010
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg226495#msg226495

Quote
    Well Rosemary it would have been nice to have the FULL story that during this whole 8 month testing and evaluation exercise of the Quantum "Mosfet Heating Circuit" device that in fact "YOU" presently have in your possession "in storage" withheld from all experimenters .....

    1) Working models of the Quantum "Mosfet Heating Circuit" device
    2) Components of the Quantum "Mosfet Heating Circuit" device
    3) Photographs of the Quantum "Mosfet Heating Circuit" device
    4) Documented information from BP
    5) Documented information from ABB

     And this was nothing but a Chinese Fire Drill for any and all experimenters with only moral support from you, not divulging that you have done this in a attempt of a "independent verification" of any findings on the Quantum article for your thesis "ONLY" nothing else.

     This has been nothing but duping the "Open Source" community for help in creating a Academic paper to promote your thesis on your Magnetic Field Model nothing else.


This was a post of mine on February 03, 2010 and I left it alone because of the in your own word's "Quotes" that are available in several Open Source Forums postings that verify Rosemary's comments or claims all outlined in my publicly posted claim above and thought readers would be able to find the quoted words but it appears not, there's to many posts 1000's to sift through ..... I have no pleasure repeating them again, but really need too now.

The word Rosemary uses loosely always concerning the rejected IEEE paper submittal of "WE", is not in my word's and at best misleading, I can speak for myself on my Tests.

Items 1 through 5 will be referenced one at a time to avoid the hundreds of pages and thousands of responses in the thread, many will be from Rosemary Ainslie in a attempt to bury the evidence in pages of nonsense postings hiding the truth from the members and reading guests.

ITEM NUMBER 1 has been covered now in POST #91 http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9898.msg262460#msg262460 and POST #106 http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9898.msg262544#msg262544 on Rosemary Ainslie withholding a "Complete WORKING "QUANTUM" COP>17 EXPERIMENTAL DEVICES" knowing and willfully has hidden it from the Open Source Community after July, 13 2009

This is without a response of any kind a quick attack, misrepresentation or allegation somehow defending her "HER OWN QUOTED WORDS" from a Energetic Forum post #551 http://www.energeticforum.com/60279-post511.html  on July 13, 2009

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ITEM NUMBER 2

WORKING COMPONENTS OF A "QUANTUM" COP>17 EXPERIMENTAL DEVICES WITHHELD FROM OPEN SOURCE

http://www.energeticforum.com/59541-post322.html    POST #322  07-07-2009

Quote
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.


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.

Why were the October 2002 Quantum COP>17 experimental components knowing and willfully hidden from the Open Source Community after July 07, 2009 ??

    1) It's not a COP>17 device
    2) It's being hidden because of "errors" in the Quantum article electronic diagram, electrical calculations and recorded data
    3) It's being hidden because of Intellectual Property Rights of Rosemary Ainslie, Investors or others involved in South Africa
    4) It's being hidden because of a requirement for a 100% "Independent" verification of any experimental device close to the self authored October 2002 Quantum article context or content for a self serving Academic thesis paper
    5) Secret hidden alternative motives
    6) ??

    TAKE YOUR PICK - 1 through 6 ( or all )

Again, some would try to lead you in belief of destroying, dismantling or even loosing a incredible device components that has a COP>17 ..... who in their right mind would do something as stupid as this,  especially anytime "AFTER" the date of July 07, 2009 of the Open Source posting ....


.
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on November 01, 2010, 09:08:21 PM
I believe Glen, that you were well aware of the dismantling of that device when and as it occurred and that niether you nor any member on EF.com advised against this.  This was to secure the Fluke 123 Scopemeter for Aaron - as well as those platinum based probes, my multimeter and the rest.  NO-ONE advised on the importance of keeping that apparatus.  But there's no loss.  It's really SIMPLE apparatus to assemble, as you well know and, indeed have shown us.  If it were an 'effect' that was dependent on solar flares, or vague and eccentric attributes in exotic component material - then INDEED - it would have been CRITICAL to keep that apparatus.

And nor do I need to prove anything at all beyond what is already proven.  What you need to do is DISPROVE my claim.  Unfortunately for you I have a barrel load of evidence to hand that rather contradicts your best efforts here.  LOL.  More would have been more readily available had you not deleted your own data from EF.com.

I acknowledge that there are certain aspects of both acquiring the necessary resonance - and evaluating the output that can only be achieved with the use of good measuring instruments.  But the circuit is really just any and every SIMPLE SWITCHING CIRCUIT.  When more people test it - with the required scopemeters to expose these benefits - then MORE AND MORE people will be aware of this effect.  Nothing exotic here Glen.  Nothing at all.  It's only you who keeps trying to imply that it is.   And our circuit does not need to be EXACTLY duplicated.  There are MANY ways of skinning this cat.  It's the understanding of where that benefit comes from that's required.  But that there is a COP greater anything allowed by conventional assumption - is ABSOLUTELY NOT arguable.

I think the real reason you keep going on and on about this is because you want to establish this invention as your own.  Feel free.  But there's not a living soul who'll believe you.  Even in the unlikely event that they believe these unsubstantiated, rather absurd allegations that you keep throwing up against me.  Your credibility is ENTIRELY suspect.  Where, may I ask - is your own development of this technology?  More to the point - where is all that data that I actively assisted you in finding?  But rattle on.  Please.  Any publicity is good publicity.  And the more publicity this technology gets - the better.  And for my own part - if you do manage to convince the world and it's wife that I am anything at all as you're ALLEGING - then so what?  I don't think my reputation is the issue.  It's irrelevant.  The ONLY thing that matters is that this technology is progressed and that it's better understood and that it becomes widely applied.  For the rest I really do not care.

Rosemary
 
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on November 01, 2010, 09:45:08 PM
And guys, readers, all - to anyone who is still following this tired little thread - that started with such pomposity and now dying for want of attention - here's the thing.

Open source carries many dangers.  It is possible that jealous replicators will try, again and again, to claim their replications as a discovery.  So this little incident of Glen's will probably happen again as time goes by - and as other claims are tested.  All that's happening - as I see it - is that the aether energies are beginning to intrude on universal consciousness - and the proof of this is now getting overwhelming.  And.  As the technology is clearly desirable - then there are those who will want to own it.  But there's a simple principle supporting all this.  The technologies required to expose this energy are way too easy to copy.  And the energy itself is just way too plentiful.  It'll have no scarcity value.  No-one can effectively patent something that relies on a simple coil, a battery and a switch - whether or not it runs a motor.  And even Harvey - a prime mutterer of this retrospective denial - has had to concede that not even he can account for SO MUCH more energy available than is evident and measured in heat. 

We're at the early stages guys.  Right now it's only important to measure and measure and measure.  We're all doing our bit.  I confidently believe that we'll have all this in the bag within the next few months.  And the excitement then will make all this nonsense entirely IRRELEVANT.  And I'm not sure that our own circuit will be the focus of attention at all.  It's rather clumsy - albeit effective.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: fuzzytomcat on November 01, 2010, 09:51:08 PM
Howdy reading members and guests,

I believe Glen, that you were well aware of the dismantling of that device when and as it occurred and that niether you nor any member on EF.com advised against this.  This was to secure the Fluke 123 Scopemeter for Aaron - as well as those platinum based probes, my multimeter and the rest.  NO-ONE advised on the importance of keeping that apparatus.  But there's no loss.  It's really SIMPLE apparatus to assemble, as you well know and, indeed have shown us.  If it were an 'effect' that was dependent on solar flares, or vague and eccentric attributes in exotic component material - then INDEED - it would have been CRITICAL to keep that apparatus.

And nor do I need to prove anything at all beyond what is already proven.  What you need to do is DISPROVE my claim.  Unfortunately for you I have a barrel load of evidence to hand that rather contradicts your best efforts here.  LOL.  More would have been more readily available had you not deleted your own data from EF.com.

I acknowledge that there are certain aspects of both acquiring the necessary resonance - and evaluating the output that can only be achieved with the use of good measuring instruments.  But the circuit is really just any and every SIMPLE SWITCHING CIRCUIT.  When more people test it - with the required scopemeters to expose these benefits - then MORE AND MORE people will be aware of this effect.  Nothing exotic here Glen.  Nothing at all.  It's only you who keeps trying to imply that it is.   And our circuit does not need to be EXACTLY duplicated.  There are MANY ways of skinning this cat.  It's the understanding of where that benefit comes from that's required.  But that there is a COP greater anything allowed by conventional assumption - is ABSOLUTELY NOT arguable.

I think the real reason you keep going on and on about this is because you want to establish this invention as your own.  Feel free.  But there's not a living soul who'll believe you.  Even in the unlikely event that they believe these unsubstantiated, rather absurd allegations that you keep throwing up against me.  Your credibility is ENTIRELY suspect.  Where, may I ask - is your own development of this technology?  More to the point - where is all that data that I actively assisted you in finding?  But rattle on.  Please.  Any publicity is good publicity.  And the more publicity this technology gets - the better.  And for my own part - if you do manage to convince the world and it's wife that I am anything at all as you're ALLEGING - then so what?  I don't think my reputation is the issue.  It's irrelevant.  The ONLY thing that matters is that this technology is progressed and that it's better understood and that it becomes widely applied.  For the rest I really do not care.

Rosemary

Again, some would try to lead you in belief of destroying, dismantling or even loosing a incredible device components that has a COP>17 ..... who in their right mind would do something as stupid as this,  especially anytime "AFTER" the date of July 07, 2009 of the Open Source posting ....

Provide "PROOF" - PM's, E-mails or Forum posting locations including "LINKS"

http://www.energeticforum.com/93746-post74.html      POST #74   May 02, 2010

Quote
FuzzyTomCat   
Senior Member
        

Quote
Originally Posted by 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)

Hey Harvey,

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" channel on the January 9, 2010 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 which was used in the IEEE submittal Open Source Evaluation of Power Transients Generated to Improve Performance Coefficient of Resistive Heating Systems the team including yourself did, and in Test #22 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 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 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 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.


.
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on November 01, 2010, 10:16:01 PM
Glen.  You are labouring under a very critical misconception.  Why should ANYONE believe you when you delete CRITICAL data from open source forums.  There is NOTHING can justify it.  And by doing this you are withholding the 'advertising' which was and is the purpose of making that machinery available to you.  Not only that but you have breached an undertaking here and ASSUME that no-one within the Tektronix organisation is aware of that breach.  What you are trying to do is to establish that only YOU can disseminate this information.  You are wrong.

Indeed you have rather shot yourself in both your feet.  Because right now there is MUCH that is being progressed that will then draw the attention that YOU would otherwise have been able to enjoy.  Your behaviour has been scurrilous.  You do not own a monopoly on OU.  There is a systematic progress made by members on this forum that will ENTIRELY outshine whatever it is that you achieved.  What you omitted was due and proper acknowledgement as to where that information came from - which is  HUGE breach of Open Source commitments.  And then you proceeded to try and blacken my name to justify this obvious attempt at theft.  It is my opinion that you are a self-serving rogue who is trying usurp an authority on a technology that you do NOT EVEN UNDERSTAND.

It is all WAY TOO LATE.  Your moment to shine was LOST when you withdrew that information.  Open source requires ABSOLUTELY OPEN cards.  You have been trying to manipulate an advantage.  And that manipulation has been REALLY TRANSPARENT.  And Harvey did his part by systematically misrpresenting both my character and the thesis in the forlorn hopes of keep that understanding at as low a level as possible.  He is fully cogniscant of the thinking behind all this.  He dare not allow it to be made accessible or understandable.  No doubt because he, in turn, wants to steal the thesis. God knows how he can represent it on this thread as he has done when he authored it correctly in the addendum to that paper.  The two of you have over played your hands.  When you thought you were trumping you were playing the wrong suit.  Your objectives have been entirely DEFEATED.  I don't think either of you will EVER be able to stall or halt the progress of this technology.  Nor will either of you EVER be able to claim it as your own.  Nor will either of you be able to be the representative authority.  This circuit and everything on this forum is the property of the whole global population.  What we're dealing with is a FORCE.  No-one can patent a FORCE.  And nor can anyone OWN IT.

R

Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: poynt99 on November 01, 2010, 10:47:06 PM
I acknowledge that there are certain aspects of both acquiring the necessary resonance - and evaluating the output that can only be achieved with the use of good measuring instruments.  But the circuit is really just any and every SIMPLE SWITCHING CIRCUIT.  When more people test it - with the required scopemeters to expose these benefits - then MORE AND MORE people will be aware of this effect.  Nothing exotic here Glen.  Nothing at all.  It's only you who keeps trying to imply that it is.   And our circuit does not need to be EXACTLY duplicated.  There are MANY ways of skinning this cat.  It's the understanding of where that benefit comes from that's required.  But that there is a COP greater anything allowed by conventional assumption - is ABSOLUTELY NOT arguable.

Rosemary

The critical aspect surrounding this circuit is indeed the measurement; good and appropriate measurement equipment. Understandably, most folks don't have expensive nor the required application-specific equipment at their disposal to do this testing properly.

Regarding this statement:
Quote
And our circuit does not need to be EXACTLY duplicated.  There are MANY ways of skinning this cat.

Could you please elaborate on what this means in terms of allowed variations in the circuit components, specifically regarding the switch, the power supply (battery or lab supply) and the inductive resistor?

Thank you,
.99
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: fuzzytomcat on November 01, 2010, 10:55:40 PM
Glen.  You are labouring under a very critical misconception.  Why should ANYONE believe you when you delete CRITICAL data from open source forums.  There is NOTHING can justify it.  And by doing this you are withholding the 'advertising' which was and is the purpose of making that machinery available to you.  Not only that but you have breached an undertaking here and ASSUME that no-one within the Tektronix organisation is aware of that breach.  What you are trying to do is to establish that only YOU can disseminate this information.  You are wrong.

Indeed you have rather shot yourself in both your feet.  Because right now there is MUCH that is being progressed that will then draw the attention that YOU would otherwise have been able to enjoy.  Your behaviour has been scurrilous.  You do not own a monopoly on OU.  There is a systematic progress made by members on this forum that will ENTIRELY outshine whatever it is that you achieved.  What you omitted was due and proper acknowledgement as to where that information came from - which is  HUGE breach of Open Source commitments.  And then you proceeded to try and blacken my name to justify this obvious attempt at theft.  It is my opinion that you are a self-serving rogue who is trying usurp an authority on a technology that you do NOT EVEN UNDERSTAND.

It is all WAY TOO LATE.  Your moment to shine was LOST when you withdrew that information.  Open source requires ABSOLUTELY OPEN cards.  You have been trying to manipulate an advantage.  And that manipulation has been REALLY TRANSPARENT.  And Harvey did his part by systematically misrpresenting both my character and the thesis in the forlorn hopes of keep that understanding at as low a level as possible.  He is fully cogniscant of the thinking behind all this.  He dare not allow it to be made accessible or understandable.  No doubt because he, in turn, wants to steal the thesis. God knows how he can represent it on this thread as he has done when he authored it correctly in the addendum to that paper.  The two of you have over played your hands.  When you thought you were trumping you were playing the wrong suit.  Your objectives have been entirely DEFEATED.  I don't think either of you will EVER be able to stall or halt the progress of this technology.  Nor will either of you EVER be able to claim it as your own.  Nor will either of you be able to be the representative authority.  This circuit and everything on this forum is the property of the whole global population.  What we're dealing with is a FORCE.  No-one can patent a FORCE.  And nor can anyone OWN IT.

R

WHAT HIDDEN AND DELETED FILES ??

Panacea-BOCAF On-Line University - (complete file)
http://www.panaceauniversity.org/Rosemary%20Ainslie%20COP17%20Heater%20Technology.pdf  ( non-stop ongoing 290 page - 15.47MB PDF file )

Energetic Forum - "Mosfet Heating Circuits" (complete file)
http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits.html   ( February 06,2010 )

Open Source Reasearch and Development "LIVE" 24/7 web broadcasting (with video library)
http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment

PREFERRED MODE OF OPERATION - 5-Hour "NON STOP" video recordings of live broadcasts
http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment/video?clipId=pla_6d255c76-9e9a-42ae-a565-fbc698e0b6df  (Tektronix TDS 3054C - January 9, 2010)
http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment/video?clipId=pla_b2e705b9-bf90-4bee-8009-2b323d8bc7ae (Tektronix 2445A - January 24,2010)
http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment/video?clipId=pla_12671fda-04e2-403e-8560-ab593683a646 (Tektronix DPO 3054 - January 31, 2010)

Microsoft SkyDrive Public - ** FILE REPOSITORY ** Mosfet Heating Circuit (complete photo, image and data gallery)
http://cid-6b7817c40bb20460.office.live.com/browse.aspx/.Public/Mosfet%20Heater

Microsoft SkyDrive - ** FILE REPOSITORY ** Rosemary Ainslie (complete Quantum article data, patent applications information)
http://cid-6b7817c40bb20460.office.live.com/browse.aspx/.Public/Ainslie


Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on November 01, 2010, 11:04:56 PM
The critical aspect surrounding this circuit is indeed the measurement; good and appropriate measurement equipment. Understandably, most folks don't have expensive nor the required application-specific equipment at their disposal to do this testing properly.
Indeed.  But Poynty - the facts are that one only needs to access a scopemeter that can display the DC average voltage.  That way one can tune it to the required resonance.  Effectively you put your probes across the shunt and turn the dials until the DC value defaults to zero or negative.  That essentially is  ALWAYS needed - just to find the required resonance.  Hopefully, as this need becomes apparent to all our manufacturers of those scopes then?  Surely it doesn't take too much to add this function to your average scopemeter?  Surely?  I know nothing about the software required.  But, as I see it, it's not been made available precisely because, until now, there was no apparent requirement for this function. 

Regarding this statement:
Could you please elaborate on what this means in terms of allowed variations in the circuit components, specifically regarding the switch, the power supply (battery or lab supply) and the inductive resistor?

In terms of the circuits required - that's simple.  One can use feed back diodes to caps or to recharge other batteries - and on and on.  Golly Poynty.  It can even be applied to AC supply sources.  But that isn't the whole of the potential.  If there is this dark energy in conductive and inductive material then it's being grossly underused. 

I know I've not answered this well.  I'll try and get back here. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: spinn_MP on November 01, 2010, 11:11:19 PM
Lol...
Or, should I cry?

Somebody is joking, right?
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on November 01, 2010, 11:29:50 PM
Oh Good God.  You have NO IDEA what you've done Glen.  Not only intellectual suicide but some sad hope that it was somehow aborted.  Your name is on a paper.  One does not publish a paper if you do not wholly and entirely uphold the facts in that paper.  It's meant to be a testament to the truth.  Not something that you dance around forever after.  And that paper details a slew of links to blocked files??   That means you no longer support the information in that paper.  YET you keep that paper on your Scribd file.  Which of these two facts are a LIE?  Because they can't BOTH be true.  Your questions and denials and mutterings of the results on that circuit - your denial of my rights to association of the experiment, the paper, the thesis - your propagandising to Tektronix - your sad little contributions here - your tireless efforts to get me banned - your objections to the inclusion of the thesis.  ALL THIS - are testament to your TOTAL INABILITY TO ACT HONOURABLY OR TO KEEP YOUR WORD. 

THAT IS THE ISSUE.  You can have links all over the world - in your name or in anyone else's - the fact is that you even deny the source of this your knowledge and instead of showing the SLIGHTEST acknowledgement you CHARGE through thread after thread, forum after forum, trying to blacken my name.  Are you entirely unaware of the fact that grown men, decent men, honourable men DO NOT BEHAVE LIKE THIS?  Do you really think you're doing yourself any favour - or me any real damage?  You're so hopelessly misguided.  The worst of it is that I assumed as Harvey was supporting all this that you were acting under his advisement.  But it appears you can do all this damage to yourself, all by yourself.

Edited.  Added commas.
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on November 01, 2010, 11:48:41 PM
And while I'm at it Glen.  Just think for a bit - in the quiet lonely hours of the early morning - what If?  What IF you had controlled this appalling greedy need for SOLE DISCOVERY AND REPRESENTATIVE AUTHORITY - IF you had found enough generosity in that bedevilled character that is your soul - to acknowledge the NEED for the promotion of that thesis - IF you had supported, wholeheartedly, the evidence in those miles and miles of data - then INDEED we would, today, NOT be debating these results and the ENTIRE WORLD would have been made cogniscant of these facts.  You single handedly,  actually let me correct that - you and Harvey, together, managed to ABORT that event - and THAT was my mission in those long, long, long hours of hard work that I invested in that exercise.  I've said it before.  You have damaged yourself - which is irrelevant.  You have definitely attempted to DAMAGE some vital technology.  Go read my Scridb tribute to the super troll again.  It's all there.

R
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: scotty1 on November 01, 2010, 11:53:08 PM
Hey Rosemary, what a mess!
Certainly shows alot about people.

If you are really interested to know about Ed's work, then I will show you, but it takes time, and so far nobody has taken the time to learn.
I've spent alot of time reading your magnet theory.
--------------
It seems to me that progress has become second to personal ego in many forms.
Maybe everyone needs some philosophy along with their experiments.
I hope it all pans out for the best.
Meanwhile....I'll be in my shed...working.

Scotty.

Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: fuzzytomcat on November 02, 2010, 12:07:53 AM
Howdy reading members and guests,

@ Rosemary ...... please read again

Oh Good God.  You have NO IDEA what you've done Glen.  Not only intellectual suicide but some sad hope that it was somehow aborted.  Your name is on a paper.  One does not publish a paper if you do not wholly and entirely uphold the facts in that paper.  It's meant to be a testament to the truth.  Not something that you dance around forever after.  And that paper details a slew of links to blocked files??   That means you no longer support the information in that paper.  YET you keep that paper on your Scribd file.  Which of these two facts are a LIE?  Because they can't BOTH be true.  Your questions and denials and mutterings of the results on that circuit - your denial of my rights to association of the experiment the paper the thesis - your propagandising to Tektronix - your sad little contributions here - your tireless efforts to get me banned - your objections to the inclusion of the thesis.  ALL THIS - are testament to your TOTAL INABILITY TO ACT HONOURABLY OR TO KEEP YOUR WORD. 

THAT IS THE ISSUE.  You can have links all over the world - in your name or in anyone else's - the fact is that you even deny the source of this your knowledge and instead of showing the SLIGHTEST acknowledgement you CHARGE through thread after thread, forum after forum, trying to blacken my name.  Are you entirely unaware of the fact that grown men, decent men, honourable men DO NOT BEHAVE LIKE THIS?  Do you really think you're doing yourself any favour - or me any real damage?  You're so hopelessly misguided.  The worst of it is that I assumed as Harvey was supporting all this that you were acting under his advisement.  But it appears you can do all this damage to yourself, all by yourself.


http://www.energeticforum.com/93746-post74.html   POST #74



Quote
Originally Posted by Harvey  View Post
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)
Quote

Hey Harvey,

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
:)

NO DENIAL OF SOME KIND OF "COP" OPERATION .......... UN-CONCLUSIVE TESTS DUE TO BETTER EQUIPMENT USED IN TESTS #17 through TEST #22 ( Tektronix DPO 3054 )

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  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.

WHAT HIDDEN AND DELETED FILES ??

Panacea-BOCAF On-Line University - (complete file)
http://www.panaceauniversity.org/Rosemary%20Ainslie%20COP17%20Heater%20Technology.pdf  ( non-stop ongoing 290 page - 15.47MB PDF file )

Energetic Forum - "Mosfet Heating Circuits" (complete file)
http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits.html   ( February 06,2010 )

Open Source Reasearch and Development "LIVE" 24/7 web broadcasting (with video library)
http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment

PREFERRED MODE OF OPERATION - 5-Hour "NON STOP" video recordings of live broadcasts
http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment/video?clipId=pla_6d255c76-9e9a-42ae-a565-fbc698e0b6df  (Tektronix TDS 3054C - January 9, 2010)
http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment/video?clipId=pla_b2e705b9-bf90-4bee-8009-2b323d8bc7ae (Tektronix 2445A - January 24,2010)
http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment/video?clipId=pla_12671fda-04e2-403e-8560-ab593683a646 (Tektronix DPO 3054 - January 31, 2010)

Microsoft SkyDrive Public - ** FILE REPOSITORY ** Mosfet Heating Circuit (complete photo, image and data gallery)
http://cid-6b7817c40bb20460.office.live.com/browse.aspx/.Public/Mosfet%20Heater

Microsoft SkyDrive Public - ** FILE REPOSITORY ** Rosemary Ainslie (complete Quantum article data, patent applications information)
http://cid-6b7817c40bb20460.office.live.com/browse.aspx/.Public/Ainslie


.
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on November 02, 2010, 12:08:27 AM
Hello Scotty.  Always nice to see you around.   ;D

Ed's up there with my heros Scotty.  I'm always happy to learn more.  And I'll think of you beavering away in your shed.  For my part I'm wasting way too much time - yet again - trying to HALT the damage that Glen and Harvey are busy trying to manage.

Take good care there
Kindest regards,
Rosie.

Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on November 02, 2010, 12:10:11 AM
Since you see fit to repeat your own posts, let me also re-iterate mine.  And mine requires an answer.  Yours certainly does not.

And while I'm at it Glen.  Just think for a bit - in the quiet lonely hours of the early morning - what If?  What IF you had controlled this appalling greedy need for SOLE DISCOVERY AND REPRESENTATIVE AUTHORITY - IF you had found enough generosity in that bedevilled character that is your soul - to acknowledge the NEED for the promotion of that thesis - IF you had supported, wholeheartedly, the evidence in those miles and miles of data - then INDEED we would, today, NOT be debating these results and the ENTIRE WORLD would have been made cogniscant of these facts.  You single handedly,  actually let me correct that - you and Harvey, together, managed to ABORT that event - and THAT was my mission in those long, long, long hours of hard work that I invested in that exercise.  I've said it before.  You have damaged yourself - which is irrelevant.  You have definitely attempted to DAMAGE some vital technology.  Go read my Scridb tribute to the super troll again.  It's all there.

R

Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on November 02, 2010, 12:12:54 AM
Apologies. I should have reposted this one first.

Oh Good God.  You have NO IDEA what you've done Glen.  Not only intellectual suicide but some sad hope that it was somehow aborted.  Your name is on a paper.  One does not publish a paper if you do not wholly and entirely uphold the facts in that paper.  It's meant to be a testament to the truth.  Not something that you dance around forever after.  And that paper details a slew of links to blocked files??   That means you no longer support the information in that paper.  YET you keep that paper on your Scribd file.  Which of these two facts are a LIE?  Because they can't BOTH be true.  Your questions and denials and mutterings of the results on that circuit - your denial of my rights to association of the experiment, the paper, the thesis - your propagandising to Tektronix - your sad little contributions here - your tireless efforts to get me banned - your objections to the inclusion of the thesis.  ALL THIS - are testament to your TOTAL INABILITY TO ACT HONOURABLY OR TO KEEP YOUR WORD. 

THAT IS THE ISSUE.  You can have links all over the world - in your name or in anyone else's - the fact is that you even deny the source of this your knowledge and instead of showing the SLIGHTEST acknowledgement you CHARGE through thread after thread, forum after forum, trying to blacken my name.  Are you entirely unaware of the fact that grown men, decent men, honourable men DO NOT BEHAVE LIKE THIS?  Do you really think you're doing yourself any favour - or me any real damage?  You're so hopelessly misguided.  The worst of it is that I assumed as Harvey was supporting all this that you were acting under his advisement.  But it appears you can do all this damage to yourself, all by yourself.
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: fuzzytomcat on November 02, 2010, 12:27:39 AM


Since you see fit to repeat your own posts, let me also re-iterate mine.  And mine requires an answer.  Yours certainly does not.



http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9898.msg262593#msg262593 ( Reply #112 on: November 01, 2010)

Howdy reading members and guests,

Rosemary's comments or claims all outlined in my publicly posted claim above and thought readers would be able to find the quoted words but it appears not, there's to many posts 1000's to sift through ..... I have no pleasure repeating them again, but really need too now.

The word Rosemary uses loosely always concerning the rejected IEEE paper submittal of "WE", is not in my word's and at best misleading, I can speak for myself on my Tests.

Items 1 through 5 will be referenced one at a time to avoid the hundreds of pages and thousands of responses in the thread, many will be from Rosemary Ainslie in a attempt to bury the evidence in pages of nonsense postings hiding the truth from the members and reading guests.


ITEM NUMBER 1 has been covered now in POST #91 http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9898.msg262460#msg262460 and POST #106 http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9898.msg262544#msg262544 on Rosemary Ainslie withholding a "Complete WORKING "QUANTUM" COP>17 EXPERIMENTAL DEVICES" knowing and willfully has hidden it from the Open Source Community after July, 13 2009

This is without a response of any kind a quick attack, misrepresentation or allegation somehow defending her "HER OWN QUOTED WORDS" from a Energetic Forum post #551 http://www.energeticforum.com/60279-post511.html  on July 13, 2009

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ITEM NUMBER 2

WORKING COMPONENTS OF A "QUANTUM" COP>17 EXPERIMENTAL DEVICES WITHHELD FROM OPEN SOURCE

http://www.energeticforum.com/59541-post322.html    POST #322  07-07-2009


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.

Why were the October 2002 Quantum COP>17 experimental components knowing and willfully hidden from the Open Source Community after July 07, 2009 ??

    1) It's not a COP>17 device
    2) It's being hidden because of "errors" in the Quantum article electronic diagram, electrical calculations and recorded data
    3) It's being hidden because of Intellectual Property Rights of Rosemary Ainslie, Investors or others involved in South Africa
    4) It's being hidden because of a requirement for a 100% "Independent" verification of any experimental device close to the self authored October 2002 Quantum article context or content for a self serving Academic thesis paper
    5) Secret hidden alternative motives
    6) ??

    TAKE YOUR PICK - 1 through 6 ( or all )

Again, some would try to lead you in belief of destroying, dismantling or even loosing a incredible device components that has a COP>17 ..... who in their right mind would do something as stupid as this,  especially anytime "AFTER" the date of July 07, 2009 of the Open Source posting ....


.


And mine requires an answer.  Yours certainly does not.

.
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on November 02, 2010, 12:35:23 AM
Guys,

This is where I beg out.  What's now being attempted is done in the forlorn hope that so much repetition will force my unhappy insights off the thread - and into oblivion.  LOL.  Anyway guys.  I'll spare you all another repetition of my own.  He's still asking those same questions which answers he's now trying to hide from the page.

LOL
Rosemary.
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: truthbeknown on November 02, 2010, 02:37:52 AM

Regarding #4 Has anyone found a difference between Her Thesis and Ed's Thesis?

(http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7929.msg262502#msg262502 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7929.msg262502#msg262502))

 ::)
Truthbeknown
J.

Sit down with a cuppy and see what you think.....

J.

Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on November 02, 2010, 08:04:08 AM
Sit down with a cuppy and see what you think.....

J.

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
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Harvey on November 02, 2010, 08:18:30 AM
Hi All,

My prior posts in this thread have dealt primarily with the truthful and accurate historical events related to Glen's work and Rosemary's attempts at attaching her flavor of Leedskalnin's thesis to that work in post during the writing of the defunct and rejected paper she now passes off as "For Peer Review" illegally on Scribd by including the IEEE logo and watermark without written permission from IEEE and all authors as required.

However, this thread is a NEWS thread, not a history thread. Therefore an ALL CALL for data is issued for any and all OPEN SOURCE replicators working on this circuit to post their results and make them available for us all to benefit from, as Glen has.

I openly request that Rosemary and her team fall in line here and post their data and results along with all supporting documentation. To date, we have nothing from them even though their testing has been ongoing from before Glen's and continues after Glen's. The original claimed accreditation appears to be bogus with no substantiating documentation and my private contact with ABB said he he has worked there over 20 years in the department responsible for such testing and never heard of Rosemary Ainslie. So I don't know what to think. How can she continue to boast OPEN SOURCE when she withholds EVERYTHING? Even her original Quantum stuff was full of errors. The resistor was wrong, the circuit was wrong, the capacitors in the circuit were wrong etc. And the data collection was done by her with crude equipment and was not even charted correctly - the time frames in her chart are incorrect and it went to print that way. CLEARLY, we need NEW data and information from her team if she intends to keep boasting open source.

To that end, as of right now, the only person I am aware of that is currently active in testing this circuit is Gad. And as a point of current NEWS he has posted his preliminary results in comparing the energy of his batteries to the heat dissipated in the calorimeter. Here is the link:

http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits-5.html#post114690 (http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits-5.html#post114690)

I know Rosemary keeps letting her ego and her thesis get in the way of making progress here, but we need to set those two things aside and move forward toward trying to prove the COP>17 claim. Without that proof, the thesis is defunct. With that proof, the thesis is at best a consideration of ONE of the possible explanations for the energy, if it truly exists as claimed. I have been one of the few most intimately associated with the workings of this circuit and as of yet I still await definitive proof of anything over unity.

I don't harbor any malice toward Rosemary even in the face of all her abuse and unsubstantiated attacks. I've simply learned to accept that she is who she is and I have learned to ignore her in that regard as I would any other Super-Troll. She has one goal in this thread and that is to bury Glens requests for answers under pages of rhetoric. She certainly has mastered that art as can be seen in all of her threads. So if you see a flurry of posts from her, simply go back to the beginning of the flurry and see what's she's trying to bury there and ask yourself why.

===============

Gad, if your reading here too - keep up the good work. We are hopeful that the increased voltage will get us into the same result range that Glen has shown.

Respectfully,

Harvey
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on November 02, 2010, 10:02:47 AM
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
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: fuzzytomcat on November 02, 2010, 12:09:08 PM
Howdy reading members and guests,

As you all can see in every one of Rosemary's reply's the immediate responses to other members postings, 99% of the time quick attacks or misrepresentations and allegations of everyone else's imagined wrong doing.

Rosemary's "OWN QUOTED WORDS" from a Energetic Forum post #551 http://www.energeticforum.com/60279-post511.html  on July 13, 2009

Quote
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.

Rosemary Ainslie has been withholding "EVERYTHING" knowing and willfully has hidden it from the Open Source Community


I also will add as per Rosemary Ainslie's Quote .... it has been checked by EE's   even at universities http://www.energeticforum.com/60279-post511.html   ( July, 13 2009 ) ....


And why after fourteen days or two weeks of possession of the new oscilloscope not one scope wave form image or test data file has been publicly released yet of "anything" related to the experimental device "nothing" at all ??


and it has been checked by EE's .....Why is the Testing and evaluation being done by "STUDENTS and not EE's  ??  , or at least someone experienced in data collection and where is the testing and evaluation documentation all the EE's did ??


even at universities ....... which Universities ?? and where is there testing and evaluation documentation of the experimental device from these Universities ??


Why is the new testing and evaluation being done with a inferior "LECROY" 300 series oscilloscope and not something better than the Tektronix TDS 3054C used in Tests #1 through Test #16 and the Tektronix DPO 3054 used on Tests #17 through Tests #22 in my tests. The unit you propose to use has half the accuracy and data capturing ability's.


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

.

Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on November 02, 2010, 06:07:58 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
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: fuzzytomcat 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

Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: truthbeknown 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.
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: truthbeknown 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.

Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: fuzzytomcat 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
.
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: IceStorm 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
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: fuzzytomcat 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
 :)

.
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Harvey 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 (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 (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 (http://www.nsta.org/quantum/) many of us are familiar with, but instead it was Crown Publications Quantum (http://www.crown.co.za/quantum.htm) 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 (http://www.theorionproject.org/en/technology_form_notice.html) 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.  ;)





Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: exnihiloest 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.

Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: poynt99 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
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: fuzzytomcat 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  (http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/consolidated_laws.pdf)  (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

.
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: truthbeknown 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
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: fuzzytomcat 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


.
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: truthbeknown 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.

Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: fuzzytomcat 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"  (http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment) which is the best recorded representation of the preferred mode of operation a  5-Hour non stop video recording on January 9, 2010  (http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment/video?clipId=pla_6d255c76-9e9a-42ae-a565-fbc698e0b6df) 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
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Harvey 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 (http://urad.net/forums/gallery/albums/userpics/Patent_App_6.JPG)
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: exnihiloest on November 04, 2010, 09:04:55 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
...

When a COP is given >17, there is no problem to lead proper measurements because the effect is well over the measurement accuracy.
It is extremely easy to measure with rough means, the change of temperature of the resistance with time and to do the same using dc of equal mean value and then to compare and see a big difference as announced. Even 2 instead of 17 should present obvious experimental evidence with approximate measurement devices.

"A valid replication" (or duplication, for me it is the same) can't be exactly defined, because it will never be exactly the same as the original experiment. So we must accept a replication as valid when the key points are "reasonably" respected, according to the original description from the author and to the code of practice in the involved domain, engineering rules...

Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: poynt99 on November 04, 2010, 02:28:27 PM
Harvey,

I agree with most of what you are saying, but I have a different point of view regarding actual COP values apparently obtained.

In my view, it is much more important to determine if a circuit achieves COP>1, or if it does not. The claim of 17:1 is a target or expected value, but if I tested a close or exact replication of a circuit and achieved 7:1 rather than 17:1, I would still consider that to be a partial success. The very fact that COP>1 was apparently achieved at all indicates that no.1 it may be possible with this circuit (pending further analysis), and no.2 that my version may "do better" with some tweaking.

So again, this comes down to the measurement process. If I achieved an apparent COP of 7 (or any COP>1), my greatest concern would be if my measurements are accurate. At this point the focus of the exercise would be to determine just that.

@ exnihiloest:

Yes, resistor profiles were indeed run by Glen using a DC source. In test #13 this is the data that was compared to the measured input power to obtain their COP calculation. That is good solid data. The problem I identified long ago however, was the input power measurement.

Regarding the "valid replication" question, my concern here is determining what degree of component variation is allowed while still rendering the results as valid. By that I mean, can these results be directly compared to the results obtained from the original circuit and tests? By "component variation", I mean specifically: the MOSFET model, the inductive resistor, the power supply.

Assume that I test this circuit and my component variation includes a similar wire-wound power resistor with the same resistance, and a lab power supply (this has still not been vetted as valid or not) rather than a battery. Assume also that the wave forms I obtain are almost identical to the originals, and that my COP measurements are also along the lines of the original.

My question is this: Would my circuit and test results constitute a "valid replication"?

.99
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: truthbeknown on November 04, 2010, 09:32:07 PM

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.


Rosemary has stated that Harvey and Glen are giving Gad BAD ADVICE on the thread at EF.com. She has not responded as to what advice she would be giving Gad in answering his questions.

J.
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Harvey on November 05, 2010, 06:47:32 AM
Hi .99,

One way to determine if your device is a functional replication is to black box the process. Fortunately, the original was very simplistic so the function is very simplistic:

1. Electric Energy in
2. Black Box provides 1700% increase in energy
3. Thermal Energy out = 17 x Electrical Energy in.

With this simple model, if your 'replica' can be inserted as the Black Box, then it qualifies as a valid replica.

How do we know that 1700% is the bar? One way is to look at the thread title of every thread created to evaluate the original tests - they all include the text "COP > 17".

Granted, the term "COP" is used very loosely in this regard and is inaccurate from a scientific viewpoint. But the term is so widely used among OU enthusiasts to represent gain in an electrical system it's use is implied simply by the forums where the threads exist, namely Over Unity and Energetic Forum, both of which are well known to represent a large number of experimenters researching alternative energy, free energy and over unity. In the strictly technical sense, COP applies to two thermal reservoirs and represents the Coefficient of input energy required to move energy from one reservoir to the other. At best, the Ainslie circuit is treating a magnetic field as one of the thermal reservoirs and the ambient room as the other.

While COP is applied to thermal system within the industry and science using energy units, Efficiency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_efficiency) is applied to electrical systems using power units. If the Efficiency > 1, then the system is an Over Unity system. But a COP > 7 heat exchanger is not an Over Unity system. When a scientists sees a COP >1 she or he does worry about the the first law of thermodynamics  being broken. But when they see an Efficiency > 1 value then they know the law has been broken.

Serious inventors who wish to be published or taken seriously by academia should note these differences and ensure their systems are appropriately labeled. If you are using the term COP then you need to be able to identify the reservoirs involved and the mechanism used to migrate energy from one reservoir to the other.

Regarding the DC baseline, I agree that Glen did a great job on that as shown in the attached excel spreadsheet in one of my prior posts. However, because the circuit develops an AC current in the load resistor, we are no longer using DC to heat the resistor and therefore the energy profile becomes unusable. The resistor must be profiled against the frequency and power that exists during operation to be accurate.

Compare your resistor heat output for DC vs AC for the same voltage and current and see how different they are. Especially at the operating frequencies of this circuit. If the differences are negligible for the bandwidth you intend to operate in, then you can use the DC baseline. Otherwise, you may be able to plot a curve of the difference and use that factor for the instantaneous calculations done on the data. But of course, you would need to identify the precise frequency at the moment of data collection to know which part of the curve to apply.

One of the most serious errors in allowing AC to creep into a DC analysis is the fact that your current is being applied in both directions as an additive factor on the thermal output, but is incorrectly being subtracted on the CSR value. This gives the illusion of more out than in. The reason it fails is because the battery voltage is not properly inverted in the calculations. This is an easy mistake to make even by the most proficient in the field. When current changes direction, that is prime time to stop and think about why and what must be done with the calculations at that instant.

If we reduce the Mosfet Heating Circuit to a hydro model what would we have? The battery becomes a reservoir with a pump, the inductor becomes a water powered flywheel and the Mosfet becomes a shut off valve with a back flow relief valve. Also between the flywheel and the shutoff valve we have a stand pipe 900 feet in the air attached right there at the valve. So, we turn on the valve, and fluid flows as the pump makes it flow, and the flywheel spins up to high velocity. Then we slam the valve shut as fast as we can and as the flywheel momentum keeps turning, it pumps water into the stand pipe all the way up to 900 volts, um I mean feet (that's the BEMF) Then all that water comes flushing back down the pipe and runs through the flywheel the opposite direction and tries to force it's way back through the pump head on and because the back flow valve (diode in the Mosfet) allows flow in the other direction, after all the water has dropped in the stand pipe, the flywheel is turning in the opposite direction and keeps pumping more through that back flow valve. Then eventually, after a few small cycles back and forth the flywheel stops moving and we can do the process again.

How do we evaluate the work being done? Is it possible that we can remove water from the waste side and put it into the pump reservoir using this method? Remember, that back flow valve only works one way, and the flywheel oscillates several times, filling the stand pipe a little less each time, and sucking water from the waste side a little less each time. Can we ever get more water to go back than we took out?

Well that is the basic process involved. But now we have to add a new apparatus, a condenser. As the flywheel turns, it causes this condenser to get cold, and water from the air condenses on the cold surface and gets added to the water in the stand pipe. This is the concept of Rosemary's device. It is thought to precipitate electrical current from an extant magnetic field and add that to the existing current being manipulated. And her claim, is that she is getting 17 times more energy in the process.

Now all we need is proof.

Harvey



Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: doozy2 on November 05, 2010, 07:16:00 AM
@Harvey

I only registered because I am sick of reading all this crap from you.  From where I sit the only person who sticks to any ressemblance of honesty is Poynt99.

To start of.f  A duplication is a duplication.  A replication is a replication.  You idiot.  You can duplicate with the same artifact - you cannot duplicate wtih a different artifact.

I have been following Rosemarys work for a few years.  I put it to you that she has never needed or expected more than CoP>1.  you are lying about this and about every thing that you write. 

It is very clear to us all that you are lying cheating stealing faslifing denying.  just stfu and go away.  Or may be you could do some thing to show us that you can even replicate.   ::)

what an insult to my intelligence - to read your rubbish crap.  This topic is stupid.  And I am credentialed. You halfwit idiot cheat.

It is enough of this BS.  There is now proof of CoP>1.  We should be celabrating.
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: truthbeknown on November 05, 2010, 07:46:12 AM
@Harvey

I only registered because I am sick of reading all this crap from you.  From where I sit the only person who sticks to any ressemblance of honesty is Poynt99.

To start of.f  A duplication is a duplication.  A replication is a replication.  You idiot.  You can duplicate with the same artifact - you cannot duplicate wtih a different artifact.

I have been following Rosemarys work for a few years.  I put it to you that she has never needed or expected more than CoP>1.  you are lying about this and about every thing that you write. 

It is very clear to us all that you are lying cheating stealing faslifing denying.  just stfu and go away.  Or may be you could do some thing to show us that you can even replicate.   ::)

what an insult to my intelligence - to read your rubbish crap.  This topic is stupid.  And I am credentialed. You halfwit idiot cheat.

It is enough of this BS.  There is now proof of CoP>1.  We should be celabrating.


Wow! You have some filthy hand typing. You need some strong soap for those fingers. And you know, if you don't like this topic then don't go away mad..just go away. You wasted your time and everyone else's with your post. Laughing

 ::)
J.

BTW  Doozy. If you have been following her work for years now why haven't you tried to make one work? Makes us all wonder.
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: doozy2 on November 05, 2010, 12:56:06 PM

Wow! You have some filthy hand typing. You need some strong soap for those fingers. And you know, if you don't like this topic then don't go away mad..just go away. You wasted your time and everyone else's with your post. Laughing

 ::)
J.

BTW  Doozy. If you have been following her work for years now why haven't you tried to make one work? Makes us all wonder.

another prize idiot.  I would not be supporting her work if unless I know that it works.  What are you doing here?  Truthbeknown?  What a joke.

Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: doozy2 on November 05, 2010, 07:40:27 PM
Hi doozy2,

I feel bad that anything you have read could lead to such a strong hatred as you have displayed in your post.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9898.msg262989#msg262989 (http://index.php?topic=9898.msg262989#msg262989)

I am an honest, truthful person and I stick to facts. I don't falsify anything. If I am recounting something from memory, I generally preface it with IIRC (If I Recall Correctly) and it is up to the reader to verify the statement because in that case it is based on my best recollection. I do not steal and I do not lie.

I would be very interested in viewing the information that you are basing this erroneous conclusion on and be given the opportunity to defend against it.

Quite frankly, your style of attack has all the ear marks of Rosemary Ainslie using an alternate account. This is why I have CC'd Stephen so he can track the IP address. You should be careful in this regard, because most public libraries and such have surveillance cameras that record this type of activity and the specific PC is identifiable in the IP packet used to make the post. Additionally, the email associated with the account is traceable via the provider.

You may wish to review this document, before engaging in such defamation in the future:
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html (http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html)

Respectfully,

Harvey

Here is the half wit message.  The dude thinks I am Rosemary.  WTF.

Are you threatening me?  Is that what this is about? Un-censored!  What a joke.  What a load of bull.  If you know that much about defamation then check out how you defame Rosemary and her work.  That is way more serious than me telling you that you are a grandstanding idiot of the first order.  And you are a liar and cheat.  Now.  What are you going do about that?  I wont lose any sleep I assure you.

This thread needs to be nuked.  Stefan - why are you allowing this BS?

Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: spinn_MP on November 05, 2010, 11:41:56 PM
To the latest retard poster named Boozy - you need a help, or, maybe, something else?

Sorry, you cannot be Rosemary.. Maybe you like to dress like her, and maybe you have the same level of understanding of the "technology".

Another idiot...

PS:

Quote
This thread needs to be nuked.  Stefan - why are you allowing this BS?

ROTFL...
Idiot...
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: IceStorm on November 06, 2010, 12:04:57 AM
another prize idiot.  I would not be supporting her work if unless I know that it works.  What are you doing here?  Truthbeknown?  What a joke.

If you want to support her there no problem at all , post there http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9442.msg263039#new and stop wasting your time here.

Best Regards,
IceStorm
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: WilbyInebriated on November 06, 2010, 01:07:34 AM
I am an honest, truthful person and I stick to facts. I don't falsify anything. If I am recounting something from memory, I generally preface it with IIRC (If I Recall Correctly) and it is up to the reader to verify the statement because in that case it is based on my best recollection. I do not steal and I do not lie.
no you're not an honest and truthful person harv... and no, you don't stick to the facts. in point of fact, you avoid 'sticking to the facts' in most instances, and instead choose engage in logical fallacy and hyperbole. here is one example among many. you wrote that i have said electrons don't exist, which i have never said. when you were confronted with this and asked to prove it or withdraw it, you simply chose to ignore it, thereby continuing your falsifications.  YOU DO LIE HARVEY. and this is evident in the record, negating any hope of a defamation case you may think you have... ::)

and re: the alternate accounts harvey... did you report spinn_mp (spinner) to stephan also? did you report sigma16 (grumpy)? etc. ad infinitum...
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: truthbeknown on November 06, 2010, 11:41:24 PM
Here is the half wit message.  The dude thinks I am Rosemary.  WTF.

Are you threatening me?  Is that what this is about? Un-censored!  What a joke.  What a load of bull.  If you know that much about defamation then check out how you defame Rosemary and her work.  That is way more serious than me telling you that you are a grandstanding idiot of the first order.  And you are a liar and cheat.  Now.  What are you going do about that?  I wont lose any sleep I assure you.

This thread needs to be nuked.  Stefan - why are you allowing this BS?


More nasty typing language FROM ROSEMARY.. Don't know who you think you are fooling. Such a shame really.
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Harvey on November 08, 2010, 09:47:18 AM
Current News on recent tests:

http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits-6.html#post115366 (http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits-6.html#post115366)

It is unfortunate that connectors were fried and possibly some components. Hopefully the new diagram I posted there will help in further replications.

It is also good to see Bart may be dusting off his rig to try out the Bi-directional diode method for visual tuning of the PMOO.

 8)
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: truthbeknown on November 09, 2010, 08:13:38 PM
Current News on recent tests:

http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits-6.html#post115366 (http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits-6.html#post115366)

It is unfortunate that connectors were fried and possibly some components. Hopefully the new diagram I posted there will help in further replications.

It is also good to see Bart may be dusting off his rig to try out the Bi-directional diode method for visual tuning of the PMOO.

 8)


Work has never stopped. It was just being done through the Mosfet Heater Thread. Gad came to the thread asking for help with questions that Rosemary could not answer. B4FreeEnergy had stopped for some reason ( he hasn't told us why yet ) but he might begin more testing.


 ;D
J.
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: Pirate88179 on November 10, 2010, 08:26:44 AM
Glen:

It is very simple, well at least for most of us out here.  If you do not want your posts deleted/removed, do NOT post crap.  Pretty simple when you think about it.

In case you are wondering what the definition of crap might be?  See ALL of your previous posts.

Enough said.

Bill
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: truthbeknown on November 10, 2010, 03:06:20 PM
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


Hmmmm still no posted tests from the Trade School. How many times has b4freeEnergy asked her about seeing some? Makes us all wonder why?

 :(
J

BTW: If Rosemary is truly posting for "Open Source" then why is she still saying that some people will "steal" her work? So she must be wanting to get money for intellectual rights? Money for research? Once its posted on the internet then it is out in the open. As long as nothing is posted then it is a "private" venture.
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: fuzzytomcat on November 11, 2010, 05:19:07 AM
Howdy reading member and guests,


My son's given me a blog and I can't find it. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary


Rosemary Ainslie's -  Blog Site

http://rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com/

.
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: hartiberlin on November 11, 2010, 07:14:23 AM
Dear ALL,
due to the current flame war, that is going on here:

As I don´t have currently the time to watch this threads and
make myself up , who is telling the truth or the untruth,
I will now close the threads and let them stay online to see for all
another week and then delete them completely.

Until then you can make backup copies and fight your flame war in private
further on, if you wish to do so....

Sorry, but it is getting winter and we don´t yet have an efficient circuit to
heat our homes...it is so sad...

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
Post by: hartiberlin on November 14, 2010, 07:07:24 PM
Okay, I think it is better to set all the battle people on
read only and keep the threads as they are and just lock them
now, as no new technology info is posted right here....

So, if the users who are battling about this come
again to a conclusion, that they want to share their
newest hardware findings and will post
circuit diagrams, they should just contact me via email
and I will reenable their postings right.

I think this is the best compromise for now.

Regards, Stefan.