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: 127
  • *Spiders: 0
  • *Total: 145

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 41922 times)

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
I agree, "verifying" would have been a better choice of word than "debunking". Consider it retracted, bye.

.99

Thanks Poynty Point.  Very much appreciated. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Free Energy

  • Reply with quoteQuote
Sponsored links:

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
Very Interesting paper, and results are even more so.

I can't offer any opinion yet, as there is a "Lot" more going on than just simple switching.  IT might be valuable to check out the information on "Switching power supply instabilities" that is available, as these two concepts have certain effects in common.

I Must re-read and study this for a while to really wrap my head around it.  Good or bad, the data does show that "Something" is going on.....

Hi Loner.  I missed this post of yours.  Glad you find it interesting.  As you're into 'theory' you may want to concentrate on the abstract and certain statements in the introduction.  And if you're still interested - I could point you to the thesis.

Let me know if you find anything 'amiss' in the that presentation.  It's never been reviewed and I think they dropped the topic like a hot potato - precisely because they could not find errors.  I actually believe they would have preferred to 'reject' the paper after review - but then they'd have to justify that rejection and I rather fondly believe that they couldn't find due reason. 

You'll note that the analysis points to a COP>4.  It's actually COP>7.  It is my opinion that one of the collaborators was trying to sabotage the paper to prevent publication.  And he depended on putting in erroneous analysis to achieve this.  But I inserted a sentence - prior to submission - which stated words to the effect that the analysis was deliberately averaged to present a conservative value.  Which put paid to that objective.  It is a truth that one of our collaborators was actually anxious to prevent publication rather than otherwise.  He managed to trick us all.  You may see now why it is that I'm wary of who post and what's posted. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

By the way - here's a faithful account of that 'sabotage effort'.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33937867/IF-I-WAS-A-TROLL

edited

Free Energy

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
And guys, for those who are in the slightest bit interested in that 'time' question - I think the argument is nailed in standard physics.  Distance is the sum of the space between two or more points.  Velocity is the measure of the amount of time taken to cross that space.  But that leaves us with the question as to what is time.  If we use it to measure velocity - then it implies that there's a 'standard time' somewhere that we're sort of depending on to make that sum valid.  And I think what Einstein was showing us is that that 'time' relates to light speed and not the rate at which we circle our axis or the sun.  But I also think that Pirate's take is right.  What about 2C or greater?  We may have a standard in light speed - but I'm not sure that it's the actual standard.  But I'm also inclined to think that we share a standard time in our axial spin and in our annual solar orbit.  So.  Maybe time is localised, never variable and potentially greater than light speed?

Then.  To take this one step further.  If the actual standard time is greater than light speed - then it implies that it precedes us - which puts us in its 'wake' so to speak.  That would imply that the future is somehow 'carved out'.  Like a road that we follow.  Anyway.  I personally find it very interesting.  But I realise that I'm probably just talking to myself.  And since it's way off topic I'll drop the subject.

Regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
Guys, I've been waiting around for news about our scope.  Apparently it's arrival at the point where I can collect it will be Monday morning.  Delighted that it's en route - a little disappointed that it's not here for the weekend - but hey.  It's just around the corner.  I'll give you all copious photos when it's to hand.

I'll post more on the progress of those numerous oscillators? that the guys are putting together - later on today.  I hope Poyny Point notices that I'm using some really appropriate terminology there?    ;D

And more on our magnets.  We've got to get a different size together - something bigger.  I'm going through to our supplier later on today.  I'll see what options are available for working on.  I think our 'designer' also needs to work of an actual size.  At this stage he's just discovered the ratios needed for that construct.  No mean feat I might add.  It's not that easy organising the 'fit' as those pentagons diminish in diameter.

Regards,
Rosemary

Free Energy

  • Reply with quoteQuote

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
Rosemary, there must be some mistake. I don't know anything about skepticism, free energy, or critical thinking, but I do know this much:

When I click on the scribd reference you frequently give that links to a paper you and some others wrote, I immediately see the IEEE banner, and I see the IEEE journal name on every page of the paper.
Yet, I have heard from others that the IEEE journal(s) have rejected this paper, as many as 5 times, and it has definitely NOT been accepted for publication.
Hence, the mistake. It seems to me that EITHER the paper HAS been accepted, and thus your continuing use of IEEE in the link and on the paper is legitimate and legal and not a violation of IEEE copyright --- OR my other informants are correct, the paper has NOT been accepted, and thus the use of the IEEE initials and so forth is ... a mistake.
But everyone who clicks through to that paper is likely to believe that IEEE has endorsed it somehow, since you are using their initials AS IF they had actually accepted it for publication.

Is that right?

TK.  If you're going to follow me around this forum with this one sad little observation - then let me answer it here - and have done. 

If and when I claim that I have had a paper PUBLISHED at IEEE then you are free to insinuate or accuse me of a gross and fraudulent misrepresentation which self-evidently, is your objective.

Meanwhile I reserve the right to reference our submission of a paper at the IEEE, at TIE and the IET as often as is practical and as often as is required.  It serves the dual function of being a faithful record of the experiment and the thesis that preceded it.

Regards,
Rosemary

Very weak TK.   ::) Have you lost your teeth?

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

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
So.  Maybe time is localised, never variable and potentially greater than light speed


Sorry to quote myself but I've just re-read this.  It's wrong.  Time is not variable when it's localised.  Which possibly means that it's variable depending on locality.  Anyway.  Something like that.

CORRECTION.  I can't modify the post so am doing it here.

Free Energy

  • Reply with quoteQuote
Sponsored links:

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
Guys, Am delighted to introduce you to our new team member.  A LeCroy wave jet 324 - 200 MHz 4 channel Oscilloscope.

I'll take some more pictures when I get this to Campus tomorrow.   Apologies for those multiple attempts at down loading this.  Even now the picture is not clear.  For some reason the transfer of this from my documents to photobucket and the photos are resized and lose their high definition.  I'll check with the agent - what gives here.  It's more than a little irritating. 

Free Energy

  • Reply with quoteQuote

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
The loan was kindly made available to us by David Davie of Coast to Coast Cape.  Here's a little about their company

Coast to Coast was established in 1994 in KwaZulu Natal, and ten years later
in the Cape Provinces.

We are test equipment specialists in the following:

Fluke Digital Multimeters, Clamp Meters, Electrical Testers, and Insulation Testers. Fluke Earth Ground Testers, Installation Testers, and Portable Appliance Testers. Fluke digital Thermometers, and Thermal Imagers. Fluke ScopeMeter Test Tools, Fluke Power Quality Tools, Fluke Field calibrators, and Intrinsic Safe Test Tools and Fluke Accessories.

We also specialise in Megger Insulation Tests, Megger Insulation Continuity Testers and Earth Ground Resistance testers. Megger Power quality Tools, Megger Time domain reflectometrers, Cable Trace and Voltage detectors. Megger Low resistance testers and Megger Loop testers. Megger Multimeters, socket testers, voltage detectors and Clampmeters.


Representing many world leading T&M Manufactures like Fluke, Megger, JDSU, Amprobe, Midtronics, BK Precision, Fluke Networks, Ametek, to name a few, and we pride ourselves of supplying the complete commitment of Sales, Support, Service and SANAS Calibration, from coast to coast.
With many years of experience, we are able to advise on the best solution for your measurement applications and requirements.



Many thanks indeed for organising this David.  Deeply grateful and an enormous help to us all in this project.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
 

Free Energy

  • Reply with quoteQuote

Loner

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 828
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Nice scope.

Not as a "Putdown", but there is one thing to watch for, on ALL digital scopes.  Remember, the display is a reproduction of what the sampler picked up and converted.  Any impulse, less than the sample duration, will not show up at all.  As this is a 200Mhz unit, you probably won't see this often, but I have had trouble with one-offs, that required an older, analog scope to detect.

So, just to keep in the back of your mind, if the signals width drops to around 5nS, AND it's very intermittent, there is a "Trick" that can be used for detection.  Use external triggering, and direct feed the signal.  Use trigger level to set wave height detection point, and watch for any trigger to occur.  (Single Shot helps here.)  You may not be able to even display such a small pulse, but you can detect one all the way down to the response of the trigger ckts, which is usually much better than the rated specs of the scope.

Just thought I should mention that, as impulse work can have a long learning curve, and little things like that can be used in other ways as well.  (Guess it's obvious that I'm real old school.  I can pick up a 1nS signal on a 10Mhz scope this way.  Just can't display it.)

If I'm sounding like a scope salesman, please accept my apologies...  I spent many weeks on a problem that my 100Mhz scope couldn't see and I thought I should pass that learned tidbit along.  Good Luck with your efforts.

Free Energy

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
Hi Loner.  Thanks for the tip.  We've actually got a whole lot of scopes to use but this has the advantage of having 4 channels.  But we'll compare - and I'll keep your tips in mind.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Free Energy

  • Reply with quoteQuote
Sponsored links:

nievesoliveras

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1708
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
@rosemary

I know you will like this link:

http://www.richieburnett.co.uk/indheat.html

Jesus

Free Energy

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1753
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Whatever, Rosemary.

But if it were me, or if I were a co-author on that paper, I wouldn't be so proud of something that's been rejected, what, 5 times now by the same sets of journals. That's got to be telling you something.

And as far as teeth go... well, time will tell which one of us is right, and about what.

Congratulations on your 200 MHz LeCroy. I can't recall if that model does integration as part of its math package or not. I know both of my LeCroy scopes do, but they are 1 GHz bandwidth, a little higher up the food chain than your borrowed scope. The on-board integration over time, to give a direct reading of the energy flow (as I illustrated long ago) is the correct way to use the capabilities of these fine instruments. Downloading data to a spreadsheet and analyzing it there is very error-prone and the results depend strongly on assumptions and choices made by the user.

But what happened to your favorite Fluke ScopeMeter? The Fluke-o-Scope has one feature that is actually almost necessary to test your circuit: the channel grounds are isolated and can be at different reference voltages. This is one reason that the Fluke ScopeMeters gave you the results you got, early on.

This is not the case for the LeCroy. All channels have the same ground reference on these scopes.

Free Energy

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
Hi TK.  I'm not proud of the fact that the paper has been rejected.  The process is that a paper is submitted - the editor then forwards it to reviewers - experts - who comb through it for obvious errors and if and when it passes a review process the editor then considers publishing.  The rule is the more radical the experiment the more newsworthy and the more inclined are the editors to publish. 

What we have achieved is the rejection of the paper prior to review on every single submission.  And our papers show experimental evidence that one can trash the unity barrier with ease.  It's very obviously newsworthy.  In fact, if this were ever published it would dominate scientific attention everywhere.  It would certainly be newsworthy.  Just not that popular.  This because it would also require the systematic deletion of most of the text in ALL of their text books and would deny the 'foundation of their faith' - so to speak.  There is a simple truth.  Science can be wrong on small issues and history can adjust their perspectives - as needed.  But it CANNOT be wrong on big issues.  And the unity barrier is definitely a BIG ISSUE.

Another BIG ISSUE is Dark matter.  The real reason that they're all hoping to find a particle to account for this apparent abundance of energy - is that if they don't - then they're nailed on some critical arguments related to relativity.  And Dark Energy has finally managed to leak past their editorial desks and into public awareness.  That took 80 years or thereby - for God's sake - just to make it to mainstream.  Our public are still not aware of the significance of it.  And there are still those dinosaurs who also STILL deny all that evidence.  And if you want to know what keeps all this back?  Why they need to MUFFLE the truth?  I'll tell you.  It points to that same need to re-think and re-write an awful lot of archaic assumption.  I suppose one could be indulgent and say that it's all very understandable as livelihoods and God knows what else is on the line.  But it says NOTHING about the integrity of science if scientific reality needs to be sacrificed to pragmatic concerns.

Science is based on experimental evidence.  If they refuse to look at the evidence then science is not about experimental evidence any more.  It's about 'creed' and 'belief' and 'philosphies' and 'religion' and 'opinion' and 'popular sentiment' and 'majority view points' and all kinds of corrosive disgusting things that I had always been assured would NEVER taint the purity of science.  So.  While I'm sorry we've not been 'reviewed' I'm not sorry that we're disassociated from today's sad state of science by 'opinion'.  It's certainly NOT science.

The good news is that this attitude is entirely exempt from some rare and special academies.  And I'm intensely proud to be associated with such.

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

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
@rosemary

I know you will like this link:

http://www.richieburnett.co.uk/indheat.html

Jesus

Hi Jesus.  Nice to hear from you.  I tried that link but those colour combinations defeat my bad eyesight.  I'll try it again later today when the light is better.  But thank you. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Free Energy

  • Reply with quoteQuote

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
Hi guys.  I've been browsing through the threads here again - and am struck by the amount of interest and time that all spend in shaping ever more complex coils.  The results appear to be haphazard - not always as expected - but the exploration is fascinating.  Especially the work that's advanced by Mark - Mk1 - I think is his internet name.  I'll look for the link.  Here it is.

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8878.0

Fascinating work - geometry in the 'round' so to speak.  It is almost as if there is some deep seated geometric shape that everyone is trying to find - that will provide the 'answer' the 'holy grail' to that elusive 'energy from nothing'.  Compelling shapes and compelling questions.  It's like one's tongue searching for an elusive flavour of something that's somehow there - but also somehow 'lost'. 

I have a recurring dream - one of those archetypal numbers that are strong enough not to be able to dismiss - even if it's significance is only in its symbolism.  I'm standing in a circle with a group of us around a monolith.  And there's a kind of holy communion between us.  It's telepathic and it's an emotional link that escalates - or grows in crescendo - or just gets stronger and stronger - until it's almost overwhelming.  Probably something close to bliss.  But at it's conclusion - this is the point - I then realise that we've LOST this knowledge.  It's an unbearably sad realisation.  And, somehow, I think that this realisation is also possibly true.  I wonder if, just perhaps, we - 'once upon a time' had a kind of telepathic sense that has been erroded out of our gene pool - or been superceded by way too much 'language'.  Our insects - bees, ants, birds - all seem to have a knowledge of geometry - certainly enough to construct what they need to construct - and they communicate very well without language.  Geometry is a kind of logic - and, whether insects access this knowledge on a subliminal or instinctive level - or whether they are conscious of the value of their work  - we'll never know.  I've seen female weaver birds destroy their partner's nests until he finally comes up with a 'safe' build.  To me that seems that there's an active critical faculty at play.  Just don't know the answer.  But I'm reasonably sure that we're all looking for that 'geometry'.  And I suspect, that when we find it - it'll be much more 'readable' and more logical - than anything we've suspected.

I'm not at all sure that this is on topic - but as it's my thread - I just thought I'd indulge in this observation and comment.

Regards,
Rosemary     
 

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 0.173 seconds with 29 queries.