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: 130
  • *Spiders: 0
  • *Total: 148

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 41926 times)

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
Hi Guys.  I'm able to report on some preliminary tests related to inducing current flow in an independent circuit off a spinning rotor.

As I understand it classical physics requires that the amount of energy that is extracted from a system should equal the amount of energy first supplied.  Donny has a unique prototype on a motor that I'm sure will be fully described - in due course - but it depends on a rotor that comprises some hefty magnets arranged that they have a shared north/south justification effectively inducing a spin from a monopolar field.

My earlier statement was that if we threaded copper through the armature it would generate a current flow.  In point of fact this is wrong.  It appears that absolutely NO current is induced - where I anticipated a DC type current.  It may be that we need to rearrange those magnets - and, in due course - will test this.

However, what is of interst is that he has 3 x trifilar windings on coils arranged around that rotor and he only requires the one to generate that rotor spin.  Our preliminary tests indicated that the other two are able to generate a significant voltage without any compromise to that rmp.  What we will test in two weeks time is putting a bridge rectifier on the other two coils and route this back two flat batteries to measure the rate of current flow and recharge.  The object being to get some conclusive measurements of that motor's efficiency which is otherwise snarled in debates.  The point is that if the amount of energy that is routed back to the batteries to recharge them is equal to or greater than the amount of energy delivered by the battery to spin that rotor - then we'll have CONCLUSIVE evidence of some rather controversial facts.

Hold thumbs and we'll be reporting as soon as we've got answers.  Unfortunately we're both knee deep until Sunday fortnight.

Regards,
Rosemary
« Last Edit: October 31, 2010, 05:19:28 PM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Free Energy

  • Reply with quoteQuote
Sponsored links:

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #766 on: November 01, 2010, 08:46:03 AM »
Guys,  it seems our first magnet will be cut today.  Can't wait.  I'll let you know.  We have to do that first bit to see if the 'gunk' is manageable. 

I should be able to report back by 4'ish this afternoon.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Free Energy

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #767 on: November 03, 2010, 04:26:47 AM »
Truthbeknown, the reason I have been given moderator status is because my history on these forums have been plagued with posters who variously attempt to defame, abuse, harass, stalk and threaten me.  The idea is that I can then delete their posts that they do NOT clutter this thread with their irrelevancies.  Far from abusing this right I have NEVER deleted a single post without first ensuring that there was a COPY somewhere on this forum.  I note with some amusement that Glen claims that I have deleted 8 of his posts.  What he forgets is that the record of deletions are available to Harti - and this lie will be very quickly apparent.  There is, indeed, one post that I deleted by Ramset - as it was in rather bad taste relating as it did to X rated material.  And there was another that I deleted by accident which was submitted by Shruggedatlas.  My deletions of my own posts are no more nor less than any member's rights and there are those times where I've hit the delete button by accident and those times when it was intended.

You will need to make a copy of your own post above, as I have every intention of deleting it when I've concluded this post.  But - indeed.  Your reminder is timely.  I should have come back with the report on the cutting of those magnets.  I trust I can be forgiven - in the light of those multiple distractions that have occupied my attention on another thread and for far too long. 

Guys,

The news here - sadly - is that ferrite magnets CANNOT BE WIRE CUT.  The fields seem to repel the wire - that it simply cannot make the required contact to generate a spark.  I have, however, now taken the magnets to a privately owned firm, Remlaw - who are going to apply precision grinding to get those shapes resolved.  It may take a while but what is good news is that the material responds well to grinding.  And the down side is that we will probably NOT be able to construct the sphere out of those complex pentagrams.  There is also a required modification to the design as the grinding process needs a base to hold the structure - and cannot grip on the sharp angles of the pyramid - without possibly first building a jig of some sort.  In any event - it's doable even if there's a marginal asymmetry involved.  We should have something to work with within a week or so.

What we're doing in conjunction with this is building those same shapes in plastic to increase the 'range' of options in assembling the structure.  And the whole construct will be encased in a plastic box.  The plastics will be cut after the six pyramids have been completed. 

Regards,
Rosemary

BTW Truthbeknown - you will need to ensure that you make your own copies of your posts as, in future, I intend deleting them.  Your harassment is now entirely untenable.

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #768 on: November 03, 2010, 04:36:59 AM »
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 that construct 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

Free Energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #768 on: November 03, 2010, 04:36:59 AM »
  • Reply with quoteQuote

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #769 on: November 03, 2010, 04:00:15 PM »
Poynty,  I think I'm understanding your question better from your last question in that thread.

First off, refer to the thesis.  Everyone assumes that the energy that is delivered by a battery is stored energy.  Conversely, the thesis proposes that the energy that is delivered by the battery simply goes back to the battery.  I'll explain this more fully hereafter - but the idea is that current flow comprises not electrons - but strings of magnetic dipoles.  They are extraneous to the atomic structure and simply BIND atoms together in a liquid or solid amalgam.  When they're in an environment with an intrinsic imbalance - such as in a battery - then they 'share' that imbalance.  And they can only move to establish a required balance IF there is some kind of inductive or conductive material in a circuit path that they can use.  Then they use this material to  forge a path through the circuit in order to alter their spin.  Think of it like a magnet.  One magnet can only attach to another magnet by moving through space to present the appropriate 'charge' to the second magnet.  It can't just change it's predetermined innate magnetic justification.  In the same way, these fields of particles can only alter their spin if they first describe an orbit that they re-enter the material from a 'different side' so to speak - or with a different justification.  Then they can look to 'rebind' or 'rehouse' those atoms into different molecular structures - thereby re-establishing a balance. 

That proposes therefore that current flow simply comprises these invisible particles that move through a circuit as a field - with a shared path.  And they they simply 'go back home' - through the back door, so to speak, through whatever path is made available.  Thus far there is NO  transfer of any mass from it's own material source anywhere at all.  NOTHING therefore has been transferred.   However - in it's passage through that circuit they interact with other little fields that are also binding the atoms of the circuit material.  This initial current flow (fields of magnetic dipoles) - which comprise what is referred to as current - then generate a corresponding imbalance in those very same fields that hold the circuit material bound.  And depending on the valence condition of that circuit material - and on its inductive or conductive condition - then these same binding fields that hold the circuit material bound do exactly the same thing.  It adjusts against an experienced imbalance - measured as voltage - and then returns it's own fields back to it's own source - through that same circuit material.  But it needs must send this the 'other way' because it's initial imbalance is precisely opposite to the first cycle of experienced imblance.  This effectively routes it through the supply and in doing so, recharges what was previously 'discharged'.  All that is required - is an interruption to allow this energy a 'chance' to return to its source - be it the battery in the first instance - or the inductor or resistor in the second instance.  And strictly in line with conventional requirement - the amount of energy delivered - is also then returned.

It's that simple. 

Now.  You tell me how many ways it's possible to configure a circuit to return that energy.  I'm not sure of the number but it would be pretty jolly big - given the variety of switches, the variety of resistors - the variety of component parts and the huge variety of people who are capable of assembling a circuit.  In any event - that much will secure some value greater than 1 provided that there are not too many potential 'losses' through that material.  You see the resistive element is likely to 'heat up' as a consequence of it's 'broken fields' and they can then move into different 'abodes' different 'housings' away from the iron or copper or whatever it is where they were first housed.  This degrades that circuit material.  It can literally lose - not mass from the atom - but mass from the binding of those atoms. 

I certainly have NEVER scorned those who vary the circuit.  On the contrary I've gone to some considerable lengths to advise all and sundry to try all and every possible configuration.  But there's a small caveat.  To MAXIMISE the return - one must find that 'resonating' potential between the supply and the resistor/inductor in its path.  Thus far - that 'resonating' condition is managed at low levels of 'heat dissipation'.  Not ideal if we're to up our wattages.  But certainly ideal if we're to conserve charge.  Therefore, of necessity, we need to explore a variety of resistors that will generate the required 'voltage' AND heat.  The 'standard type' resistor is simply our 'starting block' or 'kick off' STANDARD - and from here we will need to explore many many more.  But this is something that will only be established empirically.  Hence the need for further tests.

The patents that were applied for but were NEVER registered - were only done to ensure that the knowledge remained in the public domain.  And the circuits were broadly chosen to cover the most of the means to generate this 'effect' that 'replicators' do not then give themselves the right to claims of independent discovery with it's attendant rights to patent.   ???

So.  In truth, replication is a broad requirement - needing nothing more than a switch and some means to return the energy to its source - through both cycles of a switching circuit.

I do hope that clarifies things.  And please Poynty.  I do hope you realise that there are NO PATENT RESTRICTIONS - NO CHANCE OF RETROSPECTIVELY CLAIMING ROYALTIES.  Unlike EF.com - posters here are contractually precluded from patenting original work.  Therefore do I SO MUCH PREFER OVERUNITY.COM.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

ADDED



Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #770 on: November 04, 2010, 03:13:12 AM »
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

Free Energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #770 on: November 04, 2010, 03:13:12 AM »
  • Reply with quoteQuote
Sponsored links:

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #771 on: November 04, 2010, 03:16:45 AM »
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

Free Energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #771 on: November 04, 2010, 03:16:45 AM »
  • Reply with quoteQuote

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #772 on: November 04, 2010, 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 

Free Energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #772 on: November 04, 2010, 04:07:52 AM »
  • Reply with quoteQuote

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #773 on: November 04, 2010, 04:51:54 AM »
The reasons that I am now exploring other ways of 'showing' this energy is because I realise now that the whole CONCEPT of current flow relating to electrons and stored energy - is SO entrenched - that it would need a bulldozer to move it.  The slim hope is that the campus test results will be that bulldozer.  But even if it isn't - what we will have, and it WILL, I think, be a first, is the unequivocal proof of that COP>1 from a forum that is entirely respectable.  This much has been lacking.  But I also foresee the kind of debate that goes on here - obviously with more articulation and relevance as the debate will be amongst experts.

My overriding interest however is in the thesis.  All I'm actually doing - at this stage of this exercise is to try and get you all to understand that there's this field - all over the place - that simply keeps outside our eyeshot.  Can't be seen.  Can't be measured.  But it's there - in 3 different forms.  1 dimensional fields are those active little numbers that held the early hydrogen atoms together in those early suns.  This is the source of the electromagnetic force.  2 dimensional fields that hold the nucleus and the electrons together as energy levels.  This is the source of strong nuclear force.  They also hold solar systems together and - writ large - whole galaxies together.  Then there are those 3 dimensional fields that describe the magic of the torus.  Here is the SOURCE of our gravitational force.  The torus moves the atoms.  It is the magnetic field construct that generates our gravitational field.  But all three are simply different magnetic fields - or different sizes of magnetic fields.  Sort of like BUBBLES WITHIN BUBBLES.     

I'm now trying to find those experiments that can prove the WHOLE of that thesis rather than only the first.  That first is just WAY TOO CONTENTIOUS.  If I can find the right configurations of magnetic fields - then their proof will, I hope, be more readily understood.

Regards,
Rosemary

ADDED

Free Energy

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #774 on: November 04, 2010, 06:36:45 AM »
LOL  I see that Glen is posting the whole of these comments on his own thread.  This because he does not have that innate originality to vary his own posts.  Else all you'd be seeing is more and more of those repetitive highly coloured shouts that point to blocked links or deleted posts. 

I need to discuss something here which has only really hit me since I've been banned from Energetic Forum.  I've logged in there under the name Gabriel.  That way I can - at least - access my own earlier work to read it and - probably to copy it but not from the message text.  In any event.  Here's the thing.  As a registered user I can access the work - but I CANNOT access any links.  This means that readers there are also not able to access those links.  Now. I have always written for the benefit, not so much of the members - but for the benefit of the readers.  It's apparent that not only are there many more such.  But they don't comment.  They just read.  And I've always seen this very much in line with our 'silent majority' who - unlike the NOISY MINORITY who simply shout the odds - they are in fact the representative majority with a democratic authority.  In effect - that readership is the real value of these forums.  That's where there's always a chance that the 'message' can be spread - or understood. 

Now.  Let's put speculations out of the equation as to what Glen's motives are - for the time being.  Let's just look at the facts.  IF indeed that silent majority cannot access the 'links' as I cannot access the links - then there's an enormous percentage of the reading public who are ALSO now entirely removed from that data.  Effectively by removing all those posts as Glen did -  he's effectively also removed ALL SIGHT OF THAT DATA from the majority of the reading public there.  Whatever the motive - he's INDEED been able to HIDE all that good news from the vast majority of readers there - and yet he can PRETEND that he has not done so.  LOL

I also know that he's REALLY good on the internet.  He has admitted as much to me.  So again.  Without speculating let's again look at the 'facts' of his refusing to post his work here.  Original work posted on OU.com cannot be patented.  That's the fact.  Therefore - if he were to post his work on these forums then he would not be able to patent it.  Therefore, I put it to you that he is refusing to post this because he is witholding to himself - the right to patent that as original work.  I can't think of ANY other reason for him witholding that data.

There was a time when we were best of friends.  I often asked him to post the data on OU.com as this was as required a vehicle of promoting that work as was EF.Com, OUR.com or indeed any dot com that could advance this.  He would lapse into muttering about bandwidth and space availabiltiy and explained that it was IMPOSSIBLE.  Being a confirmed ignoramus on the internet I believed him.  That is - I believed him until Wilby showed - with such impeccable skill - what a load of unsubstantiated BS Glen was indulging.  But Wilby's comments here were immediately followed by some entirely irrelevant graphics intended to throw the comments off the page and out of focus.  It's not that Glen does not know how to format.  He simply pretends that he cannot when it he needs to hide the argument - very much as he does with my posts.

In any event - back to the argument.  My considered opinion is that Glen knows EXACTLY what he's doing by not posting original work here.  He DARE NOT.  Else he'd need to put paid to it as open source property.  I think, what I need to do - is to post it for him.  As he claims that it IS open source - then I don't think he'd have any valid objections to my doing so.  Certainly I would need to acknowledge it as his own work.  But that's it.  And IF he HOWLS with objections - then here's my question.  Why would he?  Is he not interested in advancing these desirable technologies?  Or is it because he thinks it does not work after all?  Certainly he's not coming out clearly on either side of that heavily loaded argument.  And he really needs to.

Regards,
Rosemary
BTW I've now written to Harti to find out what our rights are here.  My personal opinion is that there's actually NOTHING to prevent that posting of original work - as Glen insists that his interests regarding this are to benefit OPEN SOURCE.

ADDED

Free Energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #774 on: November 04, 2010, 06:36:45 AM »
  • Reply with quoteQuote
Sponsored links:

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #775 on: November 04, 2010, 07:07:23 AM »
What I need to add here is this.  Glen achieved what I never did.  He knew how essential it was to publish waveforms.  I, unfortunately, did not realise this.  I think, in retrospect, had I also included waveforms in that paper of mine it may have been more readily advanced to review.  But I am - unfortunately - an amateur, or as I prefer to think of it - a dilletante - in matters scientific.  Therefore I did not know better.

And while I'm at it - he had heavenly instrumentation to do just this.  But by the same token - I rather suspect that he actually never knew how to use it to maximise the required results.  He tuned it to a certain required level of voltage over the load resistor - where he knew that the resonance was then in line with a required gain.  But he should have tuned it to the DC coupled value of the voltage over the shunt.  He also seemed to labour under the delusion that it required LONG leads to the battery.  This is entirely NOT required - but it does - allow more material in the circuit to afford a resonance.

And I also need to pay tribute to his skills at a build.  They are impeccable.  Indeed - they're the finest builds I've seen on the forum - with the possible exception of one other member at EF.com who unfortunately does not post here that often.  Which is none of it intended to detract from the manifold skills of those many, many talented members here. 

Regards,
Rosemary

BTW It is my considered opinion that this is the reason he was not able to duplicate the same level of efficiencies that we were.

ADDED
« Last Edit: November 04, 2010, 08:00:54 AM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Free Energy

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #776 on: November 04, 2010, 07:57:53 AM »
And Truthbeknown - I do not THINK that academics are reading here.

Rosemary.

Free Energy

fuzzytomcat

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 350
  • Open Source Experimentalist
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #777 on: November 04, 2010, 08:14:28 PM »
Howdy reading members and guests,

Rosemary has referenced the time line for my testing and evaluation of the "Mosfet Heater Circuit" and here it is available for you ......

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

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 IEEE submittal authors will be adding to this time line found above ...............


Regards,
Glen
.

truthbeknown

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 92
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #778 on: November 04, 2010, 08:42:03 PM »
And Truthbeknown - I do not THINK that academics are reading here.

Rosemary.

But WHY not? Surely since you are working with some at the Trade School on campus you have told them about all of your documentation on your thread on OU.com? Oh pufft..thats right..you have not posted any of the work going on there..

 ;)
Truthbeknown

Free Energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #778 on: November 04, 2010, 08:42:03 PM »
  • Reply with quoteQuote

fuzzytomcat

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 350
  • Open Source Experimentalist
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #779 on: November 05, 2010, 08:59:46 AM »
Howdy reading members and guests,

It's just a misperception or misrepresentation not sure of Rosemary's url link or file access facts .....

This is one of the unfortunate truths that happens when a forum member gets banned ..... the denial of your IP address and/or username by default done through the forums administrators access software options. This means any web url's or file links to click on in the site your banned from won't work .... like being locked outside your home and not being able to get in, unless alternative methods are used which do not violate a site or forums "Terms of Service" policy.

One example is using a web url or link proxy server  http://www.proxy4free.com/  it will give you limited access to a site or forum your banned from by giving you a temporary or proxy IP address that hasen't been banned, then entering the site with a user name shown only as a guest.


LOL  I see that Glen is posting the whole of these comments on his own thread.  This because he does not have that innate originality to vary his own posts.  Else all you'd be seeing is more and more of those repetitive highly coloured shouts that point to blocked links or deleted posts. 

I need to discuss something here which has only really hit me since I've been banned from Energetic Forum.  I've logged in there under the name Gabriel.  That way I can - at least - access my own earlier work to read it and - probably to copy it but not from the message text.  In any event.  Here's the thing. As a registered user I can access the work - but I CANNOT access any links.  This means that readers there are also not able to access those links.  Now. I have always written for the benefit, not so much of the members - but for the benefit of the readers.  It's apparent that not only are there many more such.  But they don't comment.  They just read.  And I've always seen this very much in line with our 'silent majority' who - unlike the NOISY MINORITY who simply shout the odds - they are in fact the representative majority with a democratic authority.  In effect - that readership is the real value of these forums.  That's where there's always a chance that the 'message' can be spread - or understood. 

Now.  Let's put speculations out of the equation as to what Glen's motives are - for the time being.  Let's just look at the facts.  IF indeed that silent majority cannot access the 'links' as I cannot access the links - then there's an enormous percentage of the reading public who are ALSO now entirely removed from that data.  Effectively by removing all those posts as Glen did -  he's effectively also removed ALL SIGHT OF THAT DATA from the majority of the reading public there.  Whatever the motive - he's INDEED been able to HIDE all that good news from the vast majority of readers there - and yet he can PRETEND that he has not done so.  LOL

I also know that he's REALLY good on the internet.  He has admitted as much to me.  So again.  Without speculating let's again look at the 'facts' of his refusing to post his work here.  Original work posted on OU.com cannot be patented.  That's the fact.  Therefore - if he were to post his work on these forums then he would not be able to patent it.  Therefore, I put it to you that he is refusing to post this because he is witholding to himself - the right to patent that as original work.  I can't think of ANY other reason for him witholding that data.

There was a time when we were best of friends.  I often asked him to post the data on OU.com as this was as required a vehicle of promoting that work as was EF.Com, OUR.com or indeed any dot com that could advance this.  He would lapse into muttering about bandwidth and space availabiltiy and explained that it was IMPOSSIBLE.  Being a confirmed ignoramus on the internet I believed him.  That is - I believed him until Wilby showed - with such impeccable skill - what a load of unsubstantiated BS Glen was indulging.  But Wilby's comments here were immediately followed by some entirely irrelevant graphics intended to throw the comments off the page and out of focus.  It's not that Glen does not know how to format.  He simply pretends that he cannot when it he needs to hide the argument - very much as he does with my posts.

In any event - back to the argument.  My considered opinion is that Glen knows EXACTLY what he's doing by not posting original work here.  He DARE NOT.  Else he'd need to put paid to it as open source property.  I think, what I need to do - is to post it for him.  As he claims that it IS open source - then I don't think he'd have any valid objections to my doing so.  Certainly I would need to acknowledge it as his own work.  But that's it.  And IF he HOWLS with objections - then here's my question.  Why would he?  Is he not interested in advancing these desirable technologies?  Or is it because he thinks it does not work after all?  Certainly he's not coming out clearly on either side of that heavily loaded argument.  And he really needs to.

Regards,
Rosemary
BTW I've now written to Harti to find out what our rights are here.  My personal opinion is that there's actually NOTHING to prevent that posting of original work - as Glen insists that his interests regarding this are to benefit OPEN SOURCE.

ADDED


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


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


Regards,
Glen

.
 

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 0.285 seconds with 28 queries.