Free Energy

*
User Menu
movieclipsfree
movie clips free
Emergencyunit
Emergencyhelper
Statistics

  • *Total Posts: 255792
  • *Total Topics: 9053
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 18
  • *Guests: 126
  • *Spiders: 0
  • *Total: 144

cropcircles
*
Theme Selector
*
Renewable E.
Ecofun
SunPower
10 % Off
Great Hosting
*
Google Search

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder  (Read 41925 times)

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
Hi Rosemary,
Just a few notes on reading your more recent posts.
1. just having a TUV report is not always what it is cracked up to be. I flew (from Australia) to South Africa last year along with several others from other parts of the world to witness a magnetic motor (not a perendev) We had substantial backing to move the project forward subject to our own validation. The device had a 23 page TUV report verifying it to be a self runner and many other honest and professional people did as well. Sadly we had in busted in under an hour and the inventor run of into the sunset with many hundreds of thousands of dollars and his new Mercedes.
2. There is little of no censorship, no MEN In Black etc. What there is is hundreds of claims that can never be validated or replicated.
3. You are correct that a lot of effort should be expended in finding practical applications. The good news is there are many people and companies with the resources to do just that. One catch, it needs to be able to be replicated.
4. In the case of the link you sent with the cop6 device....the real question can it be closed looped. That is the real test of any technology.
Many Thanks
Mark

Oh goodness me Mark.  It's always a relief to see a post from a well wisher - so to speak.  But here's my question.  In fact I've got lots.  You mention that you flew to South Africa to check a claim that proved to be bogus.  And it did.  Then you mention that the definitive test is whether it can be closed looped?  Is this the basis of your rejection of that alleged 'bogus' claim?  If so, then indeed our own test is also bogus.  But then, too, I absolutely have a quarrel with that criteria for validation. 

I have NEVER claimed anything more than as much energy returned by the circuit system as was first delivered by the supply source.  In other words the amount of energy delivered by current flow can be returned to the source to replenish it.  And - in terms of the thesis - the consequence of heat dissipated on any of the circuit components - is a biproduct of that interaction.  I myself, was surprised at the 'more returned' under conditions of resonance.  But it's only evident when the circuit gets into that 'preferred oscillation mode' as we referred to it.  And I'm not sure how that resonance will then be corrupted or altered by supplementary systems designed to take advantage of that 'extra' that is evident over and above the amount supplied.  I realise that, theoretically, it SHOULD be possible to 'close' the system.  But I certainly do not know how this is to be achieved.  I know there are those who are looking at various options to try this.  But surely? At this stage of the development?  Isn't it be enough to acknowledge that there's something exceeding our classical definitions of equivalence?

The MIB's - haunt me.  Who is it that got into our Skype conversations and simply moved my mouse around?  That's pretty sophisticated interference.  Someone was able to send entirely nonsense messages to sundry collaborators intended to solicit information on various aspects of our tests?  I grant you that I'm rather imaginative.  But this was not imagined.  Unless we ALL somehow got infected by a simultaneous delusion.  I still have some of that text on my Skype.  Or it was there.  I have now learned to turn my computer off when it get's 'sticky' as this seems to be a prelude to 'getting in' here.  And when I look at the methods used to break up the collaboration.  That was just so CLEVER.  Everyone's weaknesses - not only perfectly identified - but also skillfully exploited.  That was just so INTELLIGENT.  I think even you will acknowledge that if the facts of that test were not also dogged by that absurd civil war - then I would not be here - complaining about the 'lack of attention' our tests managed.

But I also know that there are those - on the wings so to speak - who will know how to progress this technology.  It's a comfort.  So I'm glad you're one of them.   

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Free Energy

  • Reply with quoteQuote
Sponsored links:

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
Guys.  I keep hoping that one day I'll say something that finally makes it clear what I'm trying to point to. 

For the minute - just forget everything you've ever learned about electric power measurement - EXCEPT this.  The amount of current flow measured at the one terminal of a supply source - will precisely equal the amount of current flow measured at the other.  Given a measured voltage at the supply - then vi applies.  Amps times voltage and that's the value of the wattage.  NOW.  What that points to is this simple fact.  WHATEVER it is that the circuit manages with that current flow - precisely as much always goes back to the plug or the terminal as was first supplied by that plug or that terminal.  Here there is NO argument.  Classical measurement is absolutely 'on the money'.

As a rule we use AC grid supplies which, in turn, use motorised generators - to give us our electricity supply.  The assumption is that when the rotor turns 180 degrees one gets a 'forward' flow, say, of current.  Then, by the same token, when the rotor turns the next 180 degrees one gets a 'backward' flow of current, so to speak.  And energy was applied to get the rotor to turn through each of those two phases.  BUT.  No one has interrupted that 'turn' - AFTER the first 180 degrees - to see what happens when the energy supply is removed.

In our tests what is shown is that when you DO interrupt that current flow - then you get the same value of current flow BACK to the supply to recharge it.  It doesn't cost more energy to turn the motor.  It only requires an interruption to enable a second half or a 'shadow cycle'.  In other words the second half of that sinewave is actually present as a potential in the material of the circuit itself.  It just needs a 'chance' - time - to allow it to manifest. 

Theoretically the test is simple.  Just take an AC supply source.  Route the postive to one load then route the negative to a second load.  Then allow the postive to return to the negative terminal and the negative to the positive terminal - and you will get that same equivalence.  But with the added benefit of inducing all that potential energy from the circuit material itself - provided only and always that there's suitable inductive or conductive components in that circuitry. But here your results are restricted to the grid or supply frequency.  Alternatively, which we've actually tested, put an AC supply through a bridge rectifier.  And then, simply do the same thing.  Interrupt the flow of current and you'll get the benefit of that returning cycle.  And here your results are NOT restricted to the supply frequency.  You can generate something that the circuit material prefers. Our test results were unequivocal - except that our diodes were constrained to certain values that were NOT compatible with the voltage generated in those components from that supply voltage.  Therefore we used a variac.  And therefore the argument was that there was no proven evidence of OU.   

And the fact is that on a DC supply the only advantage is that the results are then unequivocal.  On an AC supply the results will be endlessly debated.  Therefore are we now simply testing DC.  But that 'equivalence'.  Power at the terminals are ALWAYS equivalent.  But the energy dissipated as heat bears ABSOLUTELY no relation to the energy delivered and returned.  It's always some value in excess. 

It's really SO, so simple. 

Regards,
Rosemary

edited- all over the place.  Sorry

Free Energy

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
Effectively, what I'm claiming - right or wrong - is that the only time you can get the benefit of a second cycle from a spinning rotor is either if you can commutate the turns to allow for a break - to take advantage of appropriate circuit material.  In other words you allow for a break in the supply current and allow it a chance to generate current from the circuit material.  Or perhaps, if you can thread a wire through the centre of that rotor - so that it can take advantage of the spin.  In other words you need to 'pick up' that second cycle from within the spinning rotor itself - always obviously, assuming that the rotor has got the magnets on it.  In effect it would be a second sympathetic circuit of pure copper connected to both terminals of the battery - but with a blocking diode at the positive terminal to prevent a discharge - but enable a recharge cycle.  Otherwise it would not be connected to the main circuit anywhere.  And the copper would need to run through the centre of that spinning rotor.  That way - there's the real possibility of inducing a second cycle of current which can be used to replenish the battery supply source.  Else I just can't see any OU benefits in using a motor.  It entirely defeats me.

Added.  And by the way - I don't see a benefit in placing another solenoid around the motor - because one half of the induced current will conflict with the justification of that rotor's spin.  It needs to be a single wire - inside the armature of the rotor itself.  And it needs to be pretty jolly thick.  Lots of material.  And I'm not sure of the positioning of the magnets.  But I think - if they're placed that they oppose each other - then there's the real chance of inducing a DC current flow.  Then again.  You'd need to check that polarisation that the induced current flow is correctly biased to recharge rather than discharge.  But it should work. 
Regards,
Rosemary

Sorry.  I keep adding here.  But as no-one ever answers me I assume there's no-one will notice in any event.  The point is this.  Everyone keeps trying to prove numbers on a motor.  It's really difficult.  But if one can organise a return flow of current that replenishes a battery supply then - hopefully - one can put that question to bed.  There will be clear evidence of greater efficiencies.  And I appreciate that energy from a motor is certainly more usable than energy from a solid supply.  It's easier to exploit in our cars and what have you.  And it may go some way towards 'closing' the system which is what seems to be a critical measure of OU technologies.  I had always assumed to reach COP>1 would be enough - for goodness sake.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2010, 02:05:24 PM by Rosemary Ainslie »

SkyWatcher123

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Hi Rosemary, nice to see your still sharing your thoughts. Some of your latest posts sure remind me of Joseph Newmans research findings. I've been playing with the JT circuit and other solid state circuits lately. I have to chuckle at this quote from mark,
Quote
2. There is little of no censorship, no MEN In Black etc. What there is is hundreds of claims that can never be validated or replicated.
I can't wait till the day when people stand up for their fellow humanity on mass, it's getting a little embarrassing to me. Come on folks, aren't we more than that. I mean you can't live in those bodies forever, take a stand if you can and do what's in the best interest of all humanity.

Free Energy

  • Reply with quoteQuote

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
Hi Rosemary, nice to see your still sharing your thoughts. Some of your latest posts sure remind me of Joseph Newmans research findings. I've been playing with the JT circuit and other solid state circuits lately. I have to chuckle at this quote from mark, I can't wait till the day when people stand up for their fellow humanity on mass, it's getting a little embarrassing to me. Come on folks, aren't we more than that. I mean you can't live in those bodies forever, take a stand if you can and do what's in the best interest of all humanity.

Hello SkyWatcher.  Always a pleasure to see you around.  Yes.  I'm still rabbiting on.  I keep hoping that I'll be understood.  One day.  LOL.  But I suspect I need to make my posts more 'learned' and 'technically exact'.  It must be rather offensive for you guys to plod through these rather lame descriptions.  In any event.  If they're ever understood - then I am of the opinion that this is where that required extra energy is coming from.  It actually comes from inductive/conductive components in the circuit itself.  In other words it is NOT stored energy.  It's actually class one primary energy flow - induced according to inductive laws - and precisely in line with Einstein's genius insights which require that mass somehow relates to energy. 

I actually go out of my way to try and keep the posts simple.  It's not entirely required.  I suppose with a bit of effort I could interest those who are better versed with exact scientific vocabularies.  But there's always that hope that other ignoramus' such as myself - will be able to wrap their minds around all this.  LOL.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
Golly - I think I deleted that post.  I can't seem to find it.  And I'm too tired to look for it.  I'll check again in the morning.

Sorry if it's gone. 
Rosemary

yes.  It's gone.  I must have deleted it.  Anyway.  It's about magnets.  But I'll report in the morning. 

Free Energy

  • Reply with quoteQuote
Sponsored links:

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
Guys - I've got delivery of our magnets 6 x 1"x1"x1".  I sort of 'hung' a couple of these on a thread and noted that it developed a kind of 'jitter' that outlasted any previous construct that I'd put together.  Must have been for over a 2 hours that I was watching it.  But I left it running when I went to sleep - and this morning...IT'S GONE.  Clearly this too has found it's rest state.   

The good news is that these magents are really STRONG.  They're ferrite but I've never handled ferrite with this kind of field strength.  Hopefully it'll survive the 'cut' as we're going to be shaping this with a wire cutter.  I'll keep you posted.

Regards,
Rosemary

Free Energy

  • Reply with quoteQuote

markdansie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 464
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Hi Rosemary
Sorry about the late delays in answer to your question
1. No the crietria was not that it had to be closed looped for the tests we did however it was a complete fraud...full confession from the inventor. However in this particular case it was claimed to be a self running magnetic motor (was one of the best frauds i had ever seen he should be at Las Vagas as a magition)
2. My specialty is magnetic motors, Hydrogen but no expert in electronics so I use engineers and physists where the need arises. In many cases it is mis measurement (especially pulsed devices) and some cases people want to believe so hard they only see the data they want to see. In a few caes it just straight fraud. I am blessed to have a world wide network of people who are highly recognised in their fields of expertise.
3. When it comes to testing we follow scientific principles with an open mind. We do not alwasy need an explanation why something does what it does but we do need the data to support the claims.
5. I am well aware of what you are trying to do and have praise for the way you are going about it. Y

Free Energy

  • Reply with quoteQuote

markdansie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 464
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Hi Again
I hit send accidently
To finish of my last post I want to say your work will challenge some long held beliefs which is a good thing. I know what you are trying to achieve but my interest is in through heat disepation or other you may indeed abtain a greater than cop1. I am also interested in the results you obtain in hitting that sweet spot is laymans terms.
Please continue your fine work and professional approach. many will challenge your results but this is important and part of the process. Peer review is always healthy good or bad. It is important not to take things personally and always respect other people opinions.
I have always had an approach of surrounding myself with sceptics and people who try and shoot things down, I find them of immense value...far more than fair weather friends.
In regards to the MIB you need not worry, I even have ex spooks as some of my associates. Times have changed. There is some serious research being done involving big bucks that never hit the forums and security is never an issue. Your computer issue was proberbly a run of the mill hacker..believe me they are everywhere as I experienced when managing the IT section of a University.
Kind Regards
Mark 

Free Energy

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
Hi again Mark,

I think I may, by sheer co-incidence - have found out about that scam you referred to.  If it's the same one - then there were a few people somewhat impoverished.  But I'll check into it better.  Glad to hear that the closed loop isn't the ultimate criteria for guaging efficiency.  It would be hard.  But, in a way, I think I'm trying to explore this with my magnetic monopoles.  That gadget to 'toss into a teacup' - is actually something that I envision is possible.  But I'll first need to wait and see the outcome of those tests.    ::) LOL

Incidentally the construct is going to be wire cut - final decision.  It's doable - subject only to finding some way of taking the gunk away from the cutter as it's unlikely to 'flush'.  But a second company is also going to do those same shapes in plastic - so that we can experiment with the 'imbalance'.  It may be that we only need 4 or five of those pyramids and we'll need an appropriate or duplicate shape to hold in that 'gap'.  Hope that's clear.  Else those magnets will fall out of line and I rather think the shape and 'positional' symmetry will be required.  Golly.  I feel I'm inventing a new vocab here guys.  Sorry.  It's the best I can do.

Glad you approve our work Mark.  There's not that many who do.  And even less members who even follow this thread.  I keep logging into that 'who's on forum' option - and seldom see anyone but guests.  In any event.  I press on regardless.  I feel that unless I do - I'll again be accused of 'hidden patent interests'.  This should be paid to any such nonsense.  Then too - it should also help if those bright sparks out there can make good sense of what I'm writing.  It needs to be interpreted into language that you guys feel more au fait and comfortable with - my own being essentially layman's language - at best.

And Mark - thanks again for the encouragement.  It's always appreciated.  I must admit that I feel I'm talking to myself most of the time.  But I don't really care.  Just as long as these things can be put on record - lest any try and claim exclusive rights to it again.

Take good care.  Delighted always to find those who are advancing applications.  We're doing our bit here too.  But it's at snail's pace - which is why I'm dipping into those other designs that have haunted me for so long.  And regarding the trolls and sceptics.  When they're clever it's a pleasure.  But such are few and far between. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Free Energy

  • Reply with quoteQuote
Sponsored links:

spinn_MP

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 51
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Dear Rosemary!

Sorry for all the bad taste and troubles with my (rare) posts...

I'd really love to see your success... But, so far, i haven't see anything which would helped me to see the benefits or even understand your "invention"...?

In short, try to cut out the crap, and start to defend your "work"....  OK?
 ;)


Sorry, that wasn't nice, I know.... Sorry.

Will you, please, show at least some kind of a proof for your claims?

I mean, like the real proof? It's not so hard... If there's really something...
Cheers!



Free Energy

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
Dear Rosemary!

Sorry for all the bad taste and troubles with my (rare) posts...

I'd really love to see your success... But, so far, i haven't see anything which would helped me to see the benefits or even understand your "invention"...?

In short, try to cut out the crap, and start to defend your "work"....  OK?
 ;)


Sorry, that wasn't nice, I know.... Sorry.

Will you, please, show at least some kind of a proof for your claims?

I mean, like the real proof? It's not so hard... If there's really something...
Cheers!

I posted you a lengthy answer - but have deleted it.  Spinn - here is the paper.  If you can understand it well and good.  If you can't then I can't help you.

The first paper was published 9 years ago.  The test was replicated.  The paper above was record of that replication.  The first paper was a circuit designed to prove a thesis.

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

Here's the thesis.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33988924/DARK-MATTER-MFM

Here's a history of the collaboration
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33937867/IF-I-WAS-A-TROLL

Here's some reasons for disputing mainstream concepts.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38315399/MORE-INCONVENIENT-TRUTHS

If you can wrap your mind around that lot - then you'll know exactly where I come in. 

Rosemary

Free Energy

spinn_MP

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 51
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Ah well... Don't bother.
I asked you for a real proof, not about your fantasies...

Quote
...
What I find disgraceful, what is entirely inexcusable is that all this bad logic is hidden behind an obscure, in fact, an entirely incomprehensible techno-babble.
...

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
Ah well... Don't bother.
I asked you for a real proof, not about your fantasies...

I was reasonably sure that you'd come back with some such reply.  What's sad is if the facts were to stand up and bite you you still wouldn't notice them.  But it's not for lack of evidence - unfortunately Spinn.  It's for want of understanding that evidence.   

In any event.  You're opinion here has many who share it.  More's the pity.  The fact that the evidence conforms to mainstream protocols - and that it was all extrapolated with the finest of measuring instruments -  and the fact that it was entirely on view for the entire world to see - if they wanted to.  The fact that it was widely accredited.  None of it merits the slightest acknowledgement with those such as you.  I think it's like Paul mentioned. Those that won't see - just WON'T.  It's a psychological predispostion.  It has NOTHING to do with reality.  I'm sure - way back - Galileo must have got exasperated trying to tell us all that the world spun around the sun.  And nothing will change this opinion of yours.  Not even, as I've mentioned, if the evidence were to smack you in the face.  Something is lacking - and it's not OUR ability to assess the experimental evidence. 

Like you say.  There's no point in discussion on this kind of basis.  Either you understand what's written - or you don't.  Clearly you don't.  It's rather soul destroying to try and argue the evidence in the face of this much scepticism.  Actually.  It's impossible.

Rosemary

Free Energy

  • Reply with quoteQuote

happyfunball

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 237
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
PUBLIC NOTICE

QUOTE:  http://www.energeticforum.com/70207-post2913.html  ( can we use your data for a paper )

witsend
Senior Member
   
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,063
Guys - some more really good news.

IEEE have informed me that I can resubmit the paper with new revised information and evidence of open source duplication of the experiment provided that they are made fully cogniscant of the data available at the replication.

The implication is clearly that the first was not considered as having sufficient information. So Fuzzy. Would you please allow a collaboration on a new paper including your revised data - that we can submit this for peer review? We're game if you are. I see a comfortable collaboration between all parties here - provided you have no objections to us using your data.

In fact I think that many parties could come to the table here - all from our contributors and it would be so nice if you could pm Fuzzy, me, Aaron or Harvey with suggestions or considerations. Just think of it. The first collaborative attempt of a paper submitted by open source enthusiasts. And possibly the first proof of significant energy savings OU OR COP>17. Both are amazing.

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


I ..... Glen Lettenmaier, am withdrawing any use of my complete Test number "Thirteen" (13) data and image files for further usage, evaluation or publication, other than what has already been seen and posted at Energetic Forum, Panacea Bocaf and my "copyrighted" Scribd publication.


Sincerely,
Glen A Lettenmaier (aka FuzzyTomCat)

Are you really that intent on stealing Rosemary's research? She's obviously the original author. How about letting it go.
 

Hi All,

please add on your site a link to OverUnity.com

and get back great targeted traffic..

Please click here to go to
Link-Submit-Page

Many thanks in advance.
Regards, Stefan. (admin)

Page created in 0.193 seconds with 28 queries.