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 41923 times)

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
Back on topic, I have found a magnet to 'shape' into our pentagonal sphere.  Unfortunately it's ferrite - the only appropriate shape I could get.  But the dimensions are pretty exactly what's needed to shape the first cut.  We're only doing this first piece of what will be 12 pieces - to see if the structure of the magnet is still smooth when we carve it into that five sided diamond.  In a way it's probably as well that it's not neodymium - as I think those rare earth numbers may be too strong to assemble. 

Anyway - it's with the designer.  When the numbers are determined it'll go to another shop and may then be ground or spark erroded - or some combination of both - to see if it's got a consistent structure inside as out - and whether or not to go ahead with all 12 cuts. 

When I find the required shape I'll do the same with a pyramid construct - 6 pieces assembled in a cube with a single pole buried in the centre. 

Regards,
Rosemary

Added.  And I'll be back on campus today so will take photos of the LeCroy in operation - I hope - and also hopefully, will start exploring it's different operating functions.  Can't wait.

Free Energy

  • Reply with quoteQuote
Sponsored links:

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
And as far as teeth go... well, time will tell which one of us is right, and about what.

AND BTW TK - time has already told us which one of us is right.  Not sure why you think the question is still out there.  The replication of the experiment was all that was needed.  The fact that the replicator wanted to claim this as a discovery - does not negate the value of the replication.  In fact it rather enhances it.  All that we know is that you did not - yourself -  manage a replication.  But I'm not sure if that doesn't speak to a lack of experimental talent rather than a lack of required evidence - with respect. 

Our challenge now is to try and get all this energy to a more usable value.  But the experiment itself - to proof of concept?  That's done and dusted.

Regards,
Rosemary

Free Energy

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1753
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Rosemary, replication -- or rather repetition -- of an error does not "prove" your conjectures at all.

And a result that depends on the kinds of analyses that you have used, to manifest itself at all, is no kind of usable result at all.

You are forgetting some things about my work concerning your reported experiment. For example, I showed how you arrived at your mistaken results by improperly integrating your power waveforms, and I showed how to do it correctly within the oscilloscope's math functions, eliminating the error-prone export of data to spreadsheets.

Once you've got a working model that you are happy with and which you KNOW makes your "excess energy", I would be very happy to arrange for the device to be tested, with yourself present if you like, in the world's most sophisticated civilian-operated calorimeter, which can determine once and for all whether or not it's making more heat output than can be contained in the battery running it.


Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
Hi TK.  I'm afraid we rather depended on classical protocols to do our measurements.  And the results are unequivocal but only in terms of those protocols.  If they're wrong - then I think that there's no way anyone can measure anything at all.

 ;D

And thanks for the offer of the calorimeter - but I'll pass.  The heat output is so way in excess of the energy delivered that it's not really required.  But I wish I had your skills on the LeCroy.  Am still struggling.  Fortunately the students are getting up to pace - at light speed. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

BTW I took more photographs and somehow managed to delete them.  I'll try again later today. 

Free Energy

  • Reply with quoteQuote

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
Guys - good news.  I've actually sourced 6 magnets 1"x1"x1" - and I may have six of them delivered by as early as noon today. 

Here's hoping,

Regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
Guys - I've been to campus.  We're so on track.  The LeCroy is SUPER.  Very fast, nice triggering - easily enables those multiple data downloads.  We can get pictures downloaded - or graphs from the data - name it.  The only thing it doesn't do is make tea.  And so NEAT.

AND ANOTHER THANKS TO DAVID OF COAST TO COAST.  MUCH APPRECIATED.

WE ARE NEARLY THERE GUYS.  I realise that - for those who've been following our experiment - they've also been fraught with delays.  But we now have 4 different oscillators to test each and every resistor.  And, finally, they're all up and running. 

I"ve got some photos to download later today and then, 'tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow' - that sort of 'crept along'  in that 'petty pace'  LOL.  Seems like it's finally arriving.  Thank you God.

Regards,
Rosemary

Free Energy

  • Reply with quoteQuote
Sponsored links:

mscoffman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 775
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)

Dear Rosemary;

I am interested in the results of this heating experiment and find
it interesting in experimental development.

I would be especially interested if you can consider differentiating
between overunity heating in your special load, versus overunity
heating due to excess energy in the batteries occurring because
of voltage pulsation from a load. A really neat way to differentiate
would be to arrange PUSH-PULL FET output stages were one load
is always on while an identical load was off and vice versa. This
would eliminate pulsation (with a small filter capacitor) to the power
supply batteries. I suspect you will find that overunity gain goes
away in this push-pull configuration but I would like to know that
for sure. It would be reasonable test for anyone to try who is
trying to replicate this experiment. Thank You.

:S:MarkSCoffman

Free Energy

  • Reply with quoteQuote

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
Dear Mark.

I'm always somewhat frightened by your posts.  I'm not sure if it's in the text or if it's simply in that precision signature.  All that exactness.  Kind of titular.  I'm never quite sure if I should be calling you 'doctor' or 'your holiness'  - or even if I should be courtseying all over the place.  Very compelling.  And I'm not sure quite what you're proposing in this experiment.  But let me waffle - even if it's just a really sad effort to hide all that fright.

I've read your posts to and about me.  So I realise that you're aware of this object but let me restate it.  To begin with the idea is to prove that energy that's delivered by the battery does not get 'stored' in the inductive/conductive components of the circuit.    The theme is that energy that is returned during the off period of the switching cycle - is returned to the battery to recharge it.  And this period of the duty cycle induces its energy from the material in the coil itself.  So.  If the sum of both the energy that is dissipated as heat and the energy that is returned to the battery - is greater than the amount of energy first delivered by the source - then the thesis is proved.  Clearly the off period of the duty cycle would then have found more energy than should have been available according to classical or mainstream thinking.  This is relatively easy to prove. But because the 'gain' is not has high as would make the argument conclusive - the test really doesn't put that question to bed.

However, what we found - which was surprising - is that at certain moments the circuit components can get into a kind of self resonance where the 'gain' becomes compounded.  Then instead of having mere fractions of COP>1 or even 2 - we find that we can get just about any combination of gain up to and beyond COP>17.  In fact - there are whole periods where there is more energy being returned to the supply then was originally delivered.

So.  If you recommend that we now test the circuit without inducing that resonance - then, I agree.  It will be harder to prove that gain or that thesis - because our numbers will not be as extreme as it is when the circuit is allowed to resonate.  But I'm not sure that the test would have any value other than to show that we need it to resonate.  If you can convince me that it's required - nonetheless - then I'd be glad to reconsider.
 
Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Added.  By the way - your comments regarding my lack of understanding as it relates to electron current flow.  I'd be glad of a discussion.  Perhaps you could base it on the following which was intended to provoke this.  It seems you know where my understanding is either wrong or wanting.  I'd be glad to be educated.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/38315399/MORE-INCONVENIENT-TRUTHS

Certainly it's rather less popular than my other contributions.  LOL

Free Energy

  • Reply with quoteQuote

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
Guys, this is a copy of an email which will give those of you that are following this thread - a reasonable update report on where we are.  Hope it helps.

Regards,
Rosemary

Dear *****

Unfortunately the time required to do these tests is compounded by the slow rate at which students put these tests together.  But it may be as well to bear in mind we've got more than just the need to get a working device.  I can assure you that any claims to having a working, operating system - will not attract any kind of real interest.  There have been many.  One just needs to browse the internet to see them all.  And they produce absolutely no real interest whatsoever.  It is simply the fact that the device is at university - that I see any real hope of getting these breakthroughs acknowledged.

There's a kind of thoroughness that I absolutely did not anticipate - related to evaluating all this.  To begin with they've put a 555 oscillator to drive a MOSFET - an IGBT - an SG3524 - a Micro Controller AND a functions generator.  All different ways to drive the switch.  They've very nearly completed the software for the Micro Controller -  ALL in the interests of getting a comprehensive overview.  The idea - at the end of all this is to establish categorically if and what is responsible for generating that resonating frequency.  So.  The fact is that what we're sacrificing in time taken will give us an entirely comprehensive overview when it comes to evaluating it all.  Then too, I'm sure you'll appreciate this, without all this attention to detail it's very likely that we won't ourselves - be able to really and comprehensively report on the phenomenon.  I'm certainly delighted at the detail but more than a little irritated at the endless delays resulting from this.   Even the switch for the micro controller needs improvements and I have now been asked to source and buy some crystals to get a clearer signal.  But my dear *****.  I am entirely satisfied that this is the right route.  I want to produce that paper at the end of this exercise that will convince the entire academic community.  And without all this attention to detail - we simply won't get past the starting line.  The last thing we ever need is to be accused of 'scam' and without academic approval I think that will, inevitably, be the consequence.  The Steorne motors that are already out there are so heavily criticised that I suspect that technology will be buried - very soon - or remain very much fringe science.

The other good news is that we've been given the loan of a really zut oscilloscope - a LeCroy 324 - just to do the dedicated measurements that will be entirely unarguable.  It was a bit of a scoop and the loan itself will give our results a kind of authority that will be unarguable.  *****, one of the academics associated with this, is only now in a position to devote more time to the exercise.  He's been wrapped up in other projects.  Still is.  But he's now got our own tests scheduled for a daily overview of the student's progress.  I keep hoping that the test will all be up and running tomorrow - and tomorrow never seems to come.  But we'll get there.  I go through to campus daily - and gradually, but surely, feel that we're making inroads.  I have a sister in law who's an academic at Groote Schuur.  She assures me that this is absolutely par for the course on academic projects.  In fact she was amused at my exasperation.  She herself has learned to live it.

You must also remember that there's another point to getting this on campus.  While we're aiming at producing not less than 100 watts or thereby - we will, also, inevitably, be measuring lower values in that exercise.  If the tests are as comprehensive as is being done - then ALL those test results will be entirely and effectively accredited.  Which, at its least, should give us renewed 'proof of concept' which will definitely promote interest in those transistor manufacturers.  In any event - I hold this up as a beacon of hope..
.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2010, 03:25:27 PM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Free Energy

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
Hello Guys.

Just for reference here's a Company that claims COP>6 and who also have patents on this device.  It's been tested at reputable labs.

The extra energy claimed to relate to 'molecular' oscillations or 'jitter'? 

http://www.terawatt.com/ecm1/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=58

Regards,
Rosemary

BTW Spinn - I deleted your post and will continue to do so until and unless they become less destructive.

Free Energy

  • Reply with quoteQuote
Sponsored links:

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
Ok.  For those who opened that link - you'd have seen YET another motor YET again claiming over unity results.  Not only that - but its results have been accredited by reputable laboratories.  By rights that news should be banner headlines everywhere.  Why is it simply relegated to another dusty internet archive?  Why are our academics not looking into these results?  Why are the Chinese or the Indians or the Europeans - or ANYONE - not beating a path to their doors to get a handle on those patents?  We're in the grips of an energy crisis where the short term and long term effects are likely to leave the planet and most of it's life species gasping for breath?  What gives?  What has happened that an entire global population are comotose with fright at the prospects of crumbling natural structures when the evidence ABOUNDS that we already have the solution?

My own take is this.  We have lost confidence in heavy machinery - in patents - in energy solutions that depend on efficiency.  We're actually looking to find the answers in something that is sufficiently different and sufficiently revolutionary that we can all draw breath and say - OK - that is identifiably - off the wall - eccentric - unusual.  Perhaps we're looking for the answers to antigravity - to instant energy - something that we can float on - or something that we can toss into a teacup to make water boil.  We want something that frees us from the grid.  But it seems that something must also be more extraordinary than solar panels and articulated gears - even if those gears are simply an unusual arrangement of magnetic rotors.  SOMETHING seems to be holding us back from acceptance of the simple truth - which have now been exhaustively evidenced - that OU is with us. 

Even as I write this I realise that the most of the readers here would absolutely deny the fact.  Even on this forum - our own neighbourhood - so to speak.  There's only an endless dialogue between those who claim OU and those who deny their claims.  What I also realise is that the proof of concept in our own little test has been so comprehensively evidenced - that one would be hard pressed to continue to deny it.  But the truth is that there are clearly those who never dip into this thread and then there are those who do - but still reject the scientific FACTS.  And these have been proven time and time again, through experimental evidence that has also been collated within strict scientific protocols.  It floors me.  Every time.  I keep reading those posts from those sad posters who angrily demand the evidence that is on offer ALL OVER THE PLACE.   

Here's what I hope.  I hope that somehow - in the fullness of time, and hopefully that will be within my own life time - that the general public will be made more aware of the multiple level of inroads that have been made into accessing what I am entirely satisfied is 'dark energy' and that we start bandying the concepts about more freely.  If only to shake off that hysterical 'inaction' which seems to dominate our global mindset.  We're variously reckless - pessimistic - dejected - hopeless and angry.  I think we should now really start injecting that mindset with the actual status of our energy potentials.  It's way, way, more promising than seems to be widely understood or even widely known.

Regards
Rosemary

Free Energy

vonwolf

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Hi Rose;
  I haven't been around much so it looks like I have to get caught up a little but it looks like you've made some positive progress congratulations. I see you have some of your old Nemesis haunting you from the past I don't know how you remain so civil you have much more patients than I so please keep it up.
   I agree with you on the cold reception the link you supplied has received, I have to admit that most of the info is over my head. I don't see where they claimed COP>6 but it looks to me that the motor would run itself after around 18hz? Am I seeing this wrong? Because that would be huge although I'm sure I'm reading this wrong. It dose seem that the whole OU thing has became so jaded the only thing that could get any attention is if some one got a 747 to fly across the Atlantic on a gallon of water.
  Well hang in there and keep up the great work.
  Good Luck Pete

Free Energy

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
Hello Pete,  So nice to see you around.  Hope all goes well.  Indeed. I'm still getting the occassional comment from the occasional troll.  They lurk. LOL

But I do detect a kind of 'sea change' in the quality of input or in the quality of the experiments that are discussed here.  Not sure if it's the changing times or the change in my my address - so to speak.  Certainly there's an abundance of talent here.  But, as ever, there are those who seem to find it personally insulting to offer any kind of evidence of anything that smacks of promise.  Whole threads devoted to the discussion as to whether or not OU has ever been achieved.  It's extraordinary.   Truth will 'out' as it's said.

The set backs though are not the result of the active work of these types.  It simply helps the counter movement - in a way.  I actually think the true culprits to this 'censorship' - which is what it is - is the result of the hard work and myopic reach of our academic editors.  They've no longer got their finger on the pulse of what is happening in the real world.  Nor do they realise the vitality in this 'movement'.  I personally think it's unstoppable.  But I also think we're all hoping to progress this to that level that will force our theorists to put their glasses back on and take a look at what's happening. 

Personally I find it all very exciting and have real difficulty in understanding the justifications of those who still protest all this evidence.  But.  Also fortunately, it's a force that's fading.  One just has to see how less often I personally am put in the firing line.  It used to be a multiple daily occurance.  Now it's rare and rather more manageable.  Hope I'm not speaking to soon.  LOL.  But it's a sorry fact that there are even any questions remaining.  And there are.  Sadly.  What's needed is much more energy on real applications and hopefully more academic accreditation.  Hopefully our own efforts here will help the general cause - even if only a little.

 ;D

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

 
« Last Edit: October 25, 2010, 03:55:45 AM by hartiberlin »

spinn_MP

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

Free Energy

  • Reply with quoteQuote

markdansie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 464
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
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
 

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 0.152 seconds with 28 queries.