Energetic Forum  
Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Delicious Digg Reddit WordPress StumbleUpon Tumblr Translate Addthis Aaron Murakami YouTube ONLY 13% OF SEATS AVAILABLE!!!*** 2017 ENERGY CONFERENCE ***


* NEW * BEDINI RPX BOOK & DVD SET: BEDINI RPX


Go Back   Energetic Forum > > >
   

Inductive Resistor Open source development of highly efficient inductive resistor circuits.

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #31  
Old 02-02-2010, 10:26 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,563
@Rosemary

Rosemary,

Here is my perspective.

I learned of your circuit from Peter.

I started the thread.

It took off and there were "skeptics".

I jumped in to see what the deal was and built a circuit.

My personal goal was always to get the heat gains in the circuit
as claimed by the Quantum article. I wasn't trying to prove any
model by doing that. When I got the Textronix, I was using it
for my purpose of documenting the results of the circuit experiment
and not to prove your model.

You obviously can see that some of the results support your model,
that is a side benefit of the result. I'm glad that some of my experiments
and Glens and anyone else's help lend support to your model, but that
isn't the intention behind those experiments. AND it is important to see
that just because that isn't the experimenter's intention, it doesn't give
any less support to your model!

Your own circuit build was to support your model, but that is because the
purpose of you doing your circuit was to prove your model.

I told you long ago that most people in this forum wants to see a circuit
and build it and why it works isn't priority. It is a practical thing to be
able to have a heater circuit with gains and it can be developed more
thoroughly I'm sure.

It still supports your model anyway even if that isn't the circuit builder's
intention. You have a lot going for you and congratulations are in order
for inspiring such an incredible journey that has taken place here.

There is more to do and learn and having a paper to document the
results that references the inspiration as being the Quantum circuit,
which in turn was inspired by your model, then all the better!
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Download SOLAR SECRETS by Peter Lindemann
Free - Get it now: Solar Secrets

  #32  
Old 02-02-2010, 01:47 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Until I was in receipt of Harvey's email - referenced above - I had no idea that you, Glen or anyone was actually seriously proposing that because you did not get the COP>17 that you did not actually replicate. I'm only sorry you did not bring this to my attention before. I would have departed from this collaboration much sooner.

An experimentalist usually attempts to evaluate the truth of a thesis. As a rule they do not claim ownership of the thesis but of the eloquence to which they test the thesis. In other words - how close to the argument does the experiment go? Is is substantially proven in one way or in another way? Or is it proven at all? Their interests therefore are academic. And, correctly, the only reward is academic recognition.

Far be it from me to attribute motives here. But I would have to be particularly naive not ignore some obvious facts. If this is not a replication but an independent discovery then truly the invention is yours. But why this need to claim ownership? Ownership of discoveries are usually only advanced to protect intellectual property rights. And intellectual property rights, in turn, lead to some serious considerations relating to patenting options. Now. Would it therefore work in your best interests to claim that it's a replication? Indeed not. In fact your best interests would then be to ensure that you never reach the dizzy heights of COP>17. In effect your own best interests would thereby be better served if you, in fact, did not investigate the effect more thoroughly. Which puts paid to your objectivity as an experimentalist.

But then I also need to ask myself this. Why this late need to deny that there is any association with the Rosemary Ainslie Circuit? It is plastered on your schematics. It is everywhere on your posts. It's even referenced off this forum. All over the place. I stress that I do not know your motive. I am not in your head. But you'd have to be more than mere mortal not to consider some of this. Are you becoming increasingly aware that without a handle on the intellectual property rights you can't secure some potential benefit in the technology. The original COP>17 claim proved entirely due to your abilities - your skills at experimenting and yet no personal enrichment? you've released it to the world courtesy your replication, but you still have to compete with the rest of the world to sell the technology? That hardly seems fair? And indeed it's not.

So here's hoping that you're still reading. The thesis suggests that the hidden energy source on electric circuitry is in conductive and inductive components. Counter intuitively - it requires thick wire as opposed to thin. But that's all it says. It does not say how thick, it does not say what materials to use at the core, it does not stipulate the best shape, size or material of any of these components. It does not identify which element to use and where and with what material. it does not say what is the best way to apply it to lighting, to fridges, to stoves, to hot water cylinders or to household heating systems. It does not say how it could be applied to motors, to cars, or lawn mowers or anything at all. Or even the circuit arrangement that would most promote it. It actually does not even touch on motors. And to the best of my knowledge those detailed components need to be determined and registered and patented. What is in the public domain is simply the knowledge that this switching circuit is able to reduce the consumption from the supply. So. No authority can apply a blanket surcharge for using the energy that Nature gives us freely, in the material of circuit components. And the knowledge of this is in the public domain. But, by all means, patent those parts. That's got to be good to encourage investors and investment. And that's good cause for research. But don't ever try and patent the use of the system. That's been out there for nearly 8 years and climbing.

So if all this this contention is based on the requirement to enjoy some fruits for your skills the opportunities here are boundless. And it is entirely yours to exploit and enjoy. I have NO claim to such knowledge. God forbid. As it relates to the thesis, I've said my say. There is no way on God's earth that I will allow anyone to zap some sort of preclusion to the use of a simple system to reduce the consumption of electricity if I have breath in my body and fight in my soul. Just will not. I'll fight it with all that I've got. And I absolutely therefore refute that you've stumbled on a discovery. What I suspect you have not yet realised is the patent potential still associated with this discovery. What I find strangely comforting is that you might want this ownership at all. It speaks volumes to the credibility of the claim which would, otherwise, have been lacking. And it is just so easily within your grasp as you evidently have more than enough talent to discover these things. And no-one can deny you the fruits of that intellectual knowledge. Just can't be done. It's yours to patent or to give. Just as you please.
__________________
 
  #33  
Old 02-02-2010, 02:42 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
Rosemary,

Here is my perspective.

I learned of your circuit from Peter.

I started the thread.

It took off and there were "skeptics".

I jumped in to see what the deal was and built a circuit.

My personal goal was always to get the heat gains in the circuit as claimed by the Quantum article. I wasn't trying to prove any model by doing that. When I got the Textronix, I was using it for my purpose of documenting the results of the circuit experiment and not to prove your model.

You obviously can see that some of the results support your model, that is a side benefit of the result. I'm glad that some of my experiments and Glens and anyone else's help lend support to your model, but that isn't the intention behind those experiments. AND it is important to see that just because that isn't the experimenter's intention, it doesn't give any less support to your model!

Your own circuit build was to support your model, but that is because the purpose of you doing your circuit was to prove your model. I told you long ago that most people in this forum wants to see a circuit and build it and why it works isn't priority. It is a practical thing to be able to have a heater circuit with gains and it can be developed more thoroughly I'm sure.

It still supports your model anyway even if that isn't the circuit builder's intention. You have a lot going for you and congratulations are in order for inspiring such an incredible journey that has taken place here.

There is more to do and learn and having a paper to document the results that references the inspiration as being the Quantum circuit, which in turn was inspired by your model, then all the better!
Aaron, I go on record, even in this thread - I have no quarrel with anyone doing a paper on a replication of the Quantum circuit and leave me out of it. I really dont mind. But don't try and publish this as an anomalous, unexpected, strange and unpredicted phenomenon. It would be less than the truth.

I have never intended to impose a thesis on the unwary. The fact is that if I include my name to the paper without the thesis - it would make no sense. That's actually my only contribution. That's why I joined. If required to then let replication simply prove the quantum claim. A nice package deal. The thesis wins by default.

But that's not the issue. What is being questioned is the need to reference the thesis at all. If Glen publishes this as an anomaly - quite apart from the difficulty that would possibly ensue to publishing it at all - would be that it would establish this as a discovery. I do not know how that will fall in with my patent. I should rather state - with my LAPSED PATENT. I went to some considerable lengths to ensure that this was established and in the public domain that no-one could ever take ownership of what I consider to be a boundless source of energy from Mother Nature herself. It's absurd. The days of exploiting such natural knowledge needs to be put into our history books and the chapter closed.

If Glen can contend this, and he's Glen, known to be a charitable open source team player what happens when the next person does this. Now let's say that someone else sees this advantage - God forbid an exploitive capitalist, (all over the place) or a mere entrepreneur (most of the aspiring world) and they see that Glen can claim this discovery. How small a variation to Glen's circuit would it need for them to also claim a discovery. And how much money will it take to establish that this is a more final claim to a 'DISCOVERY' than Glen's? And which patent will win out in the end? And will ownership go to the United Arab Emirates or to China?

All such claims and counter claims may very well be seen to be absurd. But it's scarey. What if one or any such claims work? I have been trying, as a matter of principle, to establish that the 'discovery part' is over and done. Don't go there. It's not my discovery. It belongs to the world. It's just a source of energy that I believe is in all bound material. If anyone is the discoverer then it's whoever discovered dark matter. That's all it is. I just happen to have located it. I think. I'm reasonably certain that others will come up with their explanations for it. But the discovery part? That's done and dusted. And by many more people than me and more comprehensively and experimentally than I have done.

Regarding any chance of the author's publishing. If they publish as an anomalous independent discovery I'll get all over the place if I can and if I'm not locked out here. If they publish as a replication of the quantum circuit - I would have absolutely no objection. How could I. That's the basis of the experiment described in this thread. More than free to do so or not. But the actual conflict was that I was writing a paper with them. My thesis was always referred to in all prior attempts at writing this. Suddenly I could not do so. I had to explain the thesis in an introduction to a paper. Probably for the first time ever, the authors saw that there was some obscure and incomprehensible explanation of this effect that they had never even considered. I dont want to go into the correspondence. Just know that the attack was merciless and long winded and even now I am still discovering new aspects of their complaints. And all this time I thought that COP>17 was natually linked to my thesis which is linked to my patent. It's been extraordinary. I'm more than happy to withdraw as collaborating author. In fact I have already done so.
__________________
 

Last edited by witsend; 02-02-2010 at 02:55 PM.
  #34  
Old 02-02-2010, 06:18 PM
boguslaw's Avatar
boguslaw boguslaw is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,403
the best is cadmium
__________________
 
  #35  
Old 02-02-2010, 06:20 PM
boguslaw's Avatar
boguslaw boguslaw is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,403
sorry,I'm bored reading long discuss and quarrels becaue English is not my native language.

did you eliminated possibility that circuit become parametric oscillator accumulating energy in time ?
__________________
 
  #36  
Old 02-03-2010, 03:01 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Rosemary, I think perhaps you may have possibly misread both Glen's post above and Cecati's letter. I say this because I did not get the same impression from these that you have gotten. HARVEY
This is not ambiguous. Cecati has advised me personally and now in writing. This is not suitable for his publication. If you do not withdraw that paper it will be Rejected - may not resubmit. Your choice. I put you all on notice. I HAVE WITHDRAWN FROM THIS COLLABORATION OF AUTHORS
__________________
 

Last edited by witsend; 02-03-2010 at 03:29 AM. Reason: edited
  #37  
Old 02-03-2010, 09:59 AM
ashtweth's Avatar
ashtweth ashtweth is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,493
Send a message via Skype™ to ashtweth
Cleaning up the mess

If we could at least get back to the particulars and leave the bickering for emails please. What journal is suitable, PHYSICS ONLY Cause of THE WAY ITS WRITTEN, dont forget your dealing with particulars which alienate it from CONVENTIONAL categories (Even the physics, dark matter and others are never used in energy transformation etc).

I dont see the point of all that is going on, i would like to know th what and how it could be in TIE if WRITTEN IN A RENEWABLE ENERGY CATEGORY WAY. If not then all the bickering is just going to be that and no one learns any thing. That's only to get the technology known and not only Rose's exclusive model if that's the main aim now, i think we should try and find a balance, if it got into TIE then at least the positive interest is there for the physics of it. Rose can win also.

Cant adapt it for TIE?

Okay If its only going to be physics cause of all the magnetic model and zippons? etc, and / OR also Harvey's additions?, Then we are stuck with conflicting physics which will also conflict with CONVENTIONAL understanding just like Steorn do. Dark matter etc, well i will state with all my experience and study that if that is the case and direction now then Replications will have to support the model more.

That's why i wanted to wait till may, to get more replications WHICH FORCE THE ACADEMIA TO COME TO YOU. I know as i have talked to them. MORE HARD DATA FROM REPLICATIONS.

Wait till you see the developers licenses go out in Feb from Steorn, and wait for the OPEN SOURCE WRATH...the same thing will happen. Watch your non profit org do it.

ROSE -Aaron and Glen, replicated due to their own aptitude and theories, not taking any thing away from you, it was the same with Harvey came up with his views etc, in this Genre it helps replications which is the only thing that can move open source FREE energy forward, REPLICATIONS, Academia can be forced to take notice this way.

please consider this. We need some positive interests, with HARD DATA, theories can be delayed but not HARD DATA.

Black like power had to do it that way, i am only saying that the likely hood of this model of yours being done to perfection still needs collaboration Rose, PLEASE DON'T WASTE IT, just think of the paper, we are here to help, but now Glen has no scope , Harvey is ready to jump off a bridge and you are getting your self very worked up.

I think we could do both , but with out replications the open source FREE energy model cannot move forward.

TIE should be more supportive given the nature and magnitude of this technology, i have seen today another case file where the mainstream shunned a proven device, and you wonder why every second post of mine is about us getting our own non profit R and D center.

Lets all find a way to get back on track, i am sorry readers here have had to endure this.

Sincerely
Ash
__________________
 

Last edited by ashtweth; 02-03-2010 at 10:04 AM.
  #38  
Old 02-03-2010, 02:03 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
I would remind you all, readers, experimentalists, contributing members all. The initial tests was designed to evaluate a thesis. Not COP>17. Nothing but a thesis. The thread was designed to invite members and readers to test COP>17. COP>17 referred to a paper published in Quantum magazine October 2002. it may not be a wonderfully clear copy. But the fact is that the printed article does, indeed, refer to my magnetic field model. That's the thesis. And that thesis was explicitly referenced in the early chapters of this thread and throughout. And the understanding was that all tests would be made freely available to the public.

May I ask you therefore, Glen, if there is any variation to this agreement. I am satisfied that it was Aaron's understanding that nothing was to be withheld from the public. And I am certain that he would not do so. Are you, on the contrary, withholding access to your data? Are you now uncovering information that you are withholding not only from the public but from the authors in this collaboration? And do you consider that this is your right to do so? It hardly seems to be in support of Open Source interests. And is Harvey and Ashtweth aware of this? And both on record to secure open source interests?

While I grant you that the 'unfolding' of that cop>1 was due to your skills at experimenting, it has much, much more to do with the equipment made available to you to realise that advantage. And I would remind you that I was in constant contact with you in evaluating those waveforms, trying to find the correspondence to our own findings. My findings took years to perfect. With that equipment that I negotiated, and with my guidance, you found the required waveform in a matter of weeks. That equipment and that 'unfolding' are, to use Harvey's term 'intertwined'. You could not have done it without the right equipment. The equipment could not have done it without you. And neither you nor the equipment would have managed it without my first disclosing its existence. And that 'reverse engineering'? To the best of my knowledge it took one first attempt to get a resistor that romped home with COP>1. I am not here trying to belittle your capabilities. I am simply pointing out that we are all - yet again to use Harvey's words, 'intertwined'. Credit perhaps could be a little more generously shared and acknowledged.
__________________
 

Last edited by witsend; 02-03-2010 at 11:14 PM.
  #39  
Old 02-03-2010, 03:56 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
And one last point to our readers and members.

Get it that Harvey and Glen are trying to imply some vanity that I have associated with my model. The idea is to let you think that there is some pique at not emphasising my model. It's easy to 'suggest' and 'attribute motives'. But nothing here could be further from the truth. The insights in my model may eventually be pretty far reaching. I do hope so. But I want the thesis to be advanced by mainstream. it belongs to academics and it's best protection is with academics. They don't have interest in intellectual property rights as a rule.

In any event, I've discovered nothing. At best I've found a link to two known established theories being String theories and their unifying principle and dark energy which everyone's looking for. And that's what's unique. This test of mine proves that link. That's it's first value. The second value is that it has been put into the public domain by virtue of my lapse in registering a patent. Which means that it belongs to the general public and no-one can patent it ever. Which may be a good thing. I hope so. I'd be sorry if some opportunistic attempt at patenting this simple switching circuit also left us with the obligation to fund a new monopolist. God forbid. I'm sure we've all had enough of them.

So rest assured. I do not want the test to be acknowedged as a replication for any purposes of vanity. I'm way too old and way too past caring. What I want is to ensure that no-one tries to muscle in here. Just not on. And certainly not in the spirit of open source. Golly.
__________________
 

Last edited by witsend; 02-03-2010 at 11:58 PM.
  #40  
Old 02-03-2010, 09:56 PM
area46241 area46241 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 46
so what you are saying is....?

I thought the whole idea here was that resonance and back emf was producing heat and some energy excitement and not the other way around?
Didn't somebody replicate the effect?
__________________
 
  #41  
Old 02-03-2010, 11:50 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by area46241 View Post
I thought the whole idea here was that resonance and back emf was producing heat and some energy excitement and not the other way around?
Didn't somebody replicate the effect?
Hi area. Sorry I didn't answer you. There WAS a replication of the effect. But Glen is claiming this as his own 'discovery'. Sadly. The implications are alarming. What we're now looking at is a mad grab at ownership of the intellectual property.

I'm sort of relying on open source to protect their rights here. The effect belongs to the world. It does not belong to Glen. Nor does it belong to Glen and Harvey. And they want it. But so do others. And more to the point, so WILL others. It's that 'mad up for grabs' bit that's good and bad. With that much interest is also that much endorsement.

THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT CLEARLY WE HAVE FINALLY BROKEN THROUGH THE ENERGY BARRIERS. Because this is what happens when there's radically new technology emerging. Look at how Telsa had to fight. Just seems to be an historical necessity. Not even Open Source seem to be able to resist the lure. Kindly people turn into monsters when that lure gets too strong. Golly.
__________________
 

Last edited by witsend; 02-04-2010 at 12:00 AM.
  #42  
Old 02-04-2010, 12:27 AM
jibbguy jibbguy is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 987
Fuzzy deserves a great deal of credit for all he has done. He has helped this genre immensely.

Open Source means ANYONE, and i mean anyone, can commercialize it. But considering that this will also raise public awareness off it, and inspire others to further study it, i cannot see a "down side" to this.

There is a strong possibility, that the effect will eventually gain greater public awareness while the Model is ignored. It may not be "fair", but that's the way it is.

For a new model of physics to be accepted or even seriously considered, it must come from a fairly-well respected member of the mainstream scientific community... as Einstein and Issac Newton were. That is just the way it is.

In the words of the immortal George Carlin:

"It's a big club, and WE AREN'T IN IT!"

Empirical findings and inventions are a different story...

Thomas Edison was not a member of the mainstream when he started out, nor were the Wright Brothers nor was Tesla.

And in fact, although Tesla's AC system is the most widely accepted means of generation and transmission of energy ever seen in History... his ideas on physics were totally ignored and still are to this day.
__________________
 
  #43  
Old 02-04-2010, 10:22 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by jibbguy View Post
Fuzzy deserves a great deal of credit for all he has done. He has helped this genre immensely.
I do not argue this. I only question why it is considered entirely Glen's work. I suspect that I was too liberal in my tributes as none were returned. I see now that this was intentional. It seems to show a certain want of generosity to put it mildly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jibbguy View Post
Open Source means ANYONE, and i mean anyone, can commercialize it. But considering that this will also raise public awareness off it, and inspire others to further study it, i cannot see a "down side" to this.
Who's arguing here Jibbs? It will, no doubt be further replicated and developed. That's not the issue. The question is this. Who gets to own that technology for the 10 years of a patent's life? I'd like to propose an inevitable outcome here if this is seen as a 'discovery' as Glen and Harvey claim. New replications will be funded by rich energy cartels through universities. They'll find yet more variations. Then those variations will be the intellectual property of those rich cartels. And those patents? More than justified. And why? because the very first replicator - himself - denied the underlying thesis. Because one of the authors to a joint paper secretely entertained that the experiment was never a replication. And both parties - until some days ago now, were debating this behind closed doors.

If they advance this as a discovery they ensure that these opportunities are left wide open for grabs. Open Source is about to let go the only claim they will ever be able to make that this 'discovery' belongs to the world and not to interested parties. This in defiance of the evidence. If you are a proponent of energy remaing 'free' then you are possibly doing this movement serious and irrevocable damage.
__________________
 
  #44  
Old 02-04-2010, 10:31 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by jibbguy View Post
There is a strong possibility, that the effect will eventually gain greater public awareness while the Model is ignored. It may not be "fair", but that's the way it is.
This is impossible. And the issue of fairness or otherwise is irrelevant. New technology either emerges from outside mainstream or from within. But no technology ever remains without incoporation into mainstream. And mainstream do not always get it right. And we've been paying for some critical oversights by mainstream with the health of our planet and the future of our civilisations. And I'm not even overstating it. I wish I were.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jibbguy View Post
For a new model of physics to be accepted or even seriously considered, it must come from a fairly-well respected member of the mainstream scientific community... as Einstein and Issac Newton were. That is just the way it is.
With the utmost respect Jibbs, this is JUST NOT TRUE. There is no requirement whatsoever that a thesis is required to come from mainstream. Einstein himself wrote his paper on Brownian Motion when he was a patent's clerk and he was, at that time, entirely unqualified in physics. Those observations alone rocked the world of science and were immediately recognised on publication. He came from nowhere and was unqualified. His qualifications followed after.
__________________
 
  #45  
Old 02-04-2010, 10:32 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by jibbguy View Post
Thomas Edison was not a member of the mainstream when he started out, nor were the Wright Brothers nor was Tesla.
Exactly. And nor was Einstein. Good heavens. You have bought into the conviction that this model of mine is irrelevant. I've yet to hear of any model this radically different from classical concepts that has ever been accepted at inception. Between Brownian Motion and the General Theory of Relativity lapsed many, many years. Just don't knock the model unless you also understand it. And please don't impose extraneous standards required for its promotion. I know perfectly well what is needed to promote it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jibbguy View Post
And in fact, although Tesla's AC system is the most widely accepted means of generation and transmission of energy ever seen in History... his ideas on physics were totally ignored and still are to this day.
Telsa patented his ideas. They enriched him and his investors. A patent at that time was considered in the same way as a paper published in a reviewed journal is considered today. He had great academic respect. He fought for commercial support. This is not a valid parallel. His only attack came from those with conflicting and vested commercial interests.
__________________
 
  #46  
Old 02-04-2010, 10:58 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Glen. Your response here is unfortunate.

I again put it to you - my intentions and involvement with this experiment were for purposes of replicating the COP 17 claim that Aaron brought under discussion. I had no ulterior motives, nor do I entertain ulterior motives. I am very sorry indeed that you presume this. I am entirely innocent of all that you are claiming.

I am very sorry it has come to this. I still do not understand why this issue is of any material importance to the paper. I have advised you that you are free to write the paper without my authorship if that is what you require. I put it on record that your involvement here was as a replication. I reserve the right to argue this in public as you made this an issue of public notice. That is all I wish to state.

I also put on record that your skills in exposing this effect are exemplary and that your presentation of the data equally so. I am very glad for your help and your assistance whether it was intended or not. And I wish you no ill will. Frankly, I still do not understand what it is you are objecting to. Clearly you are angered. Clearly I do not know why. And clearly I do not deserve this abuse.
__________________
 
  #47  
Old 02-04-2010, 11:54 AM
downunder downunder is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 13
A neutral opinion

I would just like to say that I have been following this thread and the earlier one, and while I don't know much about the thesis or the circuit involved, I have been a neutral observer to all that has transpired.

The earlier thread was largely co-operative and friendly in nature, and seemed to achieve great things. Then the writing of this "paper" and attempt to get it published appeared to cause some friction, culminating in the current sad state of this thread.

From all that I have read, there appears to be at least two main causes for this conflict.

1. Email communications were disrupted, possibly intentionally by someone wanting to cause harm to your work.

2. Misunderstandings caused conflict, possibly due to the disrupted communications.

I do not see anything to suggest that anyone involved in this excellent work has or had ulterior motives at any time, and it seems clear to me that the personal attacks in this thread are due to misunderstandings.

For example, the definition of "replication" seems to vary from one person to another. To some people a replication must be an exact copy of the original in every way or they consider it to be something completely different. Other people consider an attempt to replicate (even if the end result is different in some ways) to be near enough to consider it a replication.

As a completely neutral observer with no personal agenda, I ask everyone participating in this thread to please think carefully about what others say/type. Don't assume that your first interpretation is the correct one, especially if it seems insulting or otherwise negative. The english language is full of ambiguities, especially in written form when a person's tone of voice and body language can not help to indicate the true meaning of their message. This problem can be made even worse when english is not the primary language for someone participating in a conversation.

Rather than assuming the worst of each other, pointing fingers and flinging insults, why not take a deep breath, calm down, and try to work everything out like the mature adults that I am sure you are in every day life.

The survival of your work, paper, and possibly human lives could depend on your ability to forgive, forget, and work well together again. Go on, kiss, hug and make up.

__________________
 
  #48  
Old 02-04-2010, 12:19 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by downunder View Post
I would just like to say that I have been following this thread and the earlier one, and while I don't know much about the thesis or the circuit involved, I have been a neutral observer to all that has transpired.

The earlier thread was largely co-operative and friendly in nature, and seemed to achieve great things. Then the writing of this "paper" and attempt to get it published appeared to cause some friction, culminating in the current sad state of this thread.

From all that I have read, there appears to be at least two main causes for this conflict.

1. Email communications were disrupted, possibly intentionally by someone wanting to cause harm to your work.

2. Misunderstandings caused conflict, possibly due to the disrupted communications.

I do not see anything to suggest that anyone involved in this excellent work has or had ulterior motives at any time, and it seems clear to me that the personal attacks in this thread are due to misunderstandings.

For example, the definition of "replication" seems to vary from one person to another. To some people a replication must be an exact copy of the original in every way or they consider it to be something completely different. Other people consider an attempt to replicate (even if the end result is different in some ways) to be near enough to consider it a replication.

As a completely neutral observer with no personal agenda, I ask everyone participating in this thread to please think carefully about what others say/type. Don't assume that your first interpretation is the correct one, especially if it seems insulting or otherwise negative. The english language is full of ambiguities, especially in written form when a person's tone of voice and body language can not help to indicate the true meaning of their message. This problem can be made even worse when english is not the primary language for someone participating in a conversation.

Rather than assuming the worst of each other, pointing fingers and flinging insults, why not take a deep breath, calm down, and try to work everything out like the mature adults that I am sure you are in every day life.

The survival of your work, paper, and possibly human lives could depend on your ability to forgive, forget, and work well together again. Go on, kiss, hug and make up.

downunder. I've seen you on the thread often. You have given very good advice to us all here and I must say. Very well put. I have no way of showing my body language at this side of the keyboard. But believe me I am MORE THAN WILLING to stretch across the proverbial pond and shake hands with Glen and, for that matter with Harvey. There is no need to quarrel. But unless it is accepted that there is a replication - in every sense, then my input here is meaningless. I am not angry. I trust the reasoned arguments I've put forward will attest to this. I am still working on the exercise as to why this is a full replication. At last I have Harvey's reasons why it is not that I know how to argue this. But I first need clearance of my argument with an expert. When that is to hand I will post it. Until then - please know this. It is as painful for me to work here as it is for you all to read this. But I am fighting a corner here - or a principle. And this one I am more than happy to die for. As they say, 'over my dead body'. Not a euphemism. A promise. And I am using the very best of what little energy I have from sleeplessness and anxiety, to argue this as best I can.
__________________
 
  #49  
Old 02-04-2010, 05:19 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Regarding The Fequency

Harvey has argued that the distinctions in the waveforms, being the inductance(8.64uH) conflicting with the turns ratio and geometry quoted - and variations in the applied frequencies and duty cycles constitute sufficient cause to represent a material departure from the original circuit for Glen's test to constitute an independent discovery. The possible circuit variations and frequency tests were further listed in the PCT application which from memory, was sent to everyone sometime in October 2009.

These arguments are spurius. In the first instance it must be remembered that my own familiarity with the appropriate waveform was only ever evident through the Fluke oscilloscope at my disposal. My personal reference to the appropriate tuning was to look for what I also referred to as a 'shadow cycle'. This collaboration elected to refer to this as a 'preferred mode of oscillation'. It is a unique waveform and however it is described it has - associated with it - a unique series of harmonics that take the shape of a 'picket fence' with the regularity of the 'fence' structure dependent on the frequency at which it resonates. The details of the 'fence' are not as evident within the constraints of the Fluke display. Donovan Martin, however, was involved with replicating the experiment briefly, before helping me with the submission of our paper to the IET in January of 2009. Unlike me he had access to a Tektronix TDS3054B DPO and himself studied the appropriate waveforms and harmonics on the same type of instrument as was made available to Glen. The waveform pattern, however it is described, is exactly the same as that which is evident on the equipment made available to Glen. Indeed my application to Tektronix was for precisely this instrument so that Donovan would be able to assist in identifying the required pattern if required. Also, the pattern itself was very much more evident on the Tektronix than on the Fluke due to its increased bandwidth capacity.
__________________
 
  #50  
Old 02-04-2010, 05:24 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Regarding the tuning.

In tuning this device to 'find' that harmonic I adjusted the pots to the point that it fell into what I referred to as 'flop mode'. At this stage the 'predetermined duty cycle' is overridden as it's described in the Quantum paper. And also at this point the waveform becomes aperiodic. Thereafter I looked for the 'picket fence' which best describes the harmonic. When this is also evident, I then made reference to the DC average voltage across the shunt and the RMS voltage across the load, with multiple waveforms for reference on the Fluke screen. In initiating a test I also collected data from a data dump and analysed this in exel. Then, when I had established the required parameters I would then run the experiment to gauge the level of heat on the resistor and the rate at which the battery was measured to lose its charge. I would do periodic data dumps of the voltage across the shunt to establish that the gains persisted. But I learned, as time went by, that provided the required waveform was evident I really did not need to do those regular data dumps.

Over the years I also used a variety of resistors and found that the coefficient of performance, the resonating frequency which it developes and the 'preferred mode of oscillation' as we have now elected to call it, varies greatly with the resistor that is being used on the circuit. There are those that require a higher initial duty cycle, and those that require a smaller duty cycle. There are resistors that do not seem to give a gain at any frequency and those that always give a gain at any frequency. The very best result was the result published in the Quantum Magazine that I referred to being a technical journal and available in South Africa.

This variation in perfomance is extreme - notwithstanding the often apparent slight differences between any two resistors. I can only conclude that this is because the of the variation in the inductance and self capacitance of that resistor and the manner in which this interacts with the other circuit components. It is to be stressed that the required waveform cannot be imposed on the apparatus. The circuit finds its preferred mode by careful tuning of the adjustment potentiometers. It then - when it is close to the required duty cycle, goes into 'flop mode'. You remember this is when the duty cycle is overridden. Then some more fine adjustments and one seeks out the 'picket fence' pattern in the waveform. You will all recall that Glen's first evidence of gain was his Test 3. The 'picket fence' was evident. Test 4 - albeit having the required parameters failed. And there was no evidence of that 'harmonic'. I never even did the data dumps related to that test. I did not need to. It was immediately evident that the test had failed. At the time I did not know how to explain what was required. I simply did not see the 'shadow' which was evident in Test 3. I advised Glen directly that this was missing that harmonic. It's posted in the thread.
__________________
 

Last edited by witsend; 02-04-2010 at 06:07 PM.
  #51  
Old 02-04-2010, 05:27 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Regarding COP>2

The fact that the results exceed a coefficient of performance greater than two is entirely explained in the model. The proposal is that charge moves at 2C. It is a non-local event. Our measurements occur in the 'wake' of the actual event. And this event will recurr many times before we are able to record it. Therefore if energy is delivered and returned once in each switching cycle one can expect a cop >1. If it is delivered and returned many times during each switching cycle - it will EXCEED cop >1. Therefore the model itself requires a greater than cop 1.

So again. The coefficient of performance is dependent on subtle variations between resistors and the coefficient of performance is expected to exceed COP>1.
__________________
 

Last edited by witsend; 02-04-2010 at 05:46 PM.
  #52  
Old 02-04-2010, 05:41 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Regarding the test apparatus.

I have never been called on to produce the circuit apparatus until members of this forum required it. It would have helped them no doubt. But I dismantled my apparatus when I sent the fluke, the multimeter and the digitial display devices to Aaron. I said then that I would not again be doing any further experiments. It had dominated many years of life. My eyesight was deteriorating. And I had lost all appetite for this, having done it so extensively for so many years preceding. Also I no longer had the optimised resistor as one of our team had taken this for independant testing. I do not, however, have to apologise for this. It is just a matter of fact. I believe that the other circuit component parts are readily available. And there is nothing to prevent a replication. What is required is a patience in searching for the optimised settings on any particular resistor. I found very few that did not exceed COP>2. Nor did I take photographs because it did not occur to me that this would be required. There is a second 'box' or apparatus set up that was sent to ABB Research. I also don't know what has happened to that apparatus. Glen and Harvey are aware of this. They know the circumstances intimately. This argument is being used to discredit the claim. The truth is I have never undertaken to produce any circuitry. And I no longer had the apparatus nor the tools to measure. this put paid to any further attempts at replication. And frankly, I was rather anxious that a wide variety of resistors would be used and tested. That's the only way the more precise inductance values will ever be established.

Between the actual Quantum publication and the new paper prepared for the IET was a total of 7 years. It was a miracle that the apparatus survived the 3 changes of address that I had. It was substantially degraded and there was evident rust on the switch. The switch - in any event - had to be rebuilt and at the end of Donovan's final replication done for the IET paper - I effectively gave the resistor and some inductors to a friend - involved in those same tests under Donny's supervision. The box was banged up and he wanted to 'start again'. Thereafter I willingly dismantled for Aaron. That's the history of the apparatus. Frankly I was glad to see the last of it. Do testing yourselves, obsessively for years on end and see if you would not share that sentiment. And I am not an experimenter. My interests are in the theory.
__________________
 

Last edited by witsend; 02-04-2010 at 05:43 PM.
  #53  
Old 02-04-2010, 05:52 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
In conclusion.

Therefore there is no material difference between the results that Glen has obtained and my own. It is varied - but that is due to the resistor. All this time arguing would have been better spent finding out how much inductance is required to actually improve the results.

I have already argued that if Glen is anxious to disclaim a replication he would not be well served to produce COP> 17. His argument would fail. But in the light of this, then his impartiality as an experimenter also fails. He would no longer be well served to find that value.

My final point is this. My negative wave form relates not to the voltage across the resistor. I only referenced that my negative waveform across the shunt was greater. Obviously. It explains the improved performance of my results.
__________________
 
  #54  
Old 02-04-2010, 08:01 PM
FuzzyTomCat's Avatar
FuzzyTomCat FuzzyTomCat is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 620
Send a message via Skype™ to FuzzyTomCat
Rosemary

In order to claim verification of your thesis you would have to have the original device and a independent model not connected in any way to the original as proof of a verification of your findings.

In order to claim verification of your thesis you would have to have the original data and a independent set of data not connected in any way to the original as proof of a verification of your findings.

If there is no original device or data but only a set of a differing independent set of data and a device how can you claim anything without the originals?

Your's and Donovan's device used in a patent application, museum exhibit and submittal to EIT and you retained nothing as proof of your partner Donovan or your work?

You claim not to even have ever taken a photograph even Donovan hasn't of the device but there is a public newspaper article in South Africa with them and in the referenced Quantum article as public record?

You claim intellectual property rights to the device but you been on the four Open Source forums ( Naked Scientist, OverUnity, OverUnity Research and Energetic ) looking for a independent verification of your findings?

I stand on record that this was only a preplanned exercise by you for a independent verification of your claim, by giving no construction information to any experimenter, only moral support as not to have "ANY" pier review bias on new findings on the independent model verification for a private Academic thesis on the "Magnetic Field Model" to be filed with your name attached to it.



__________________
 
  #55  
Old 02-04-2010, 10:23 PM
Joit Joit is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,992
Hi,
Sorry, i didnt read all the latest Posts too,
but hows about, to put a note, Glens enhanced or improved Heater Circuit.
Anyhow i think, that sounds like a compromise.
__________________
Theorizer are like High Voltage. A lot hot Air with no Power behind but they are the dead of applied Work and Ideas.
  #56  
Old 02-05-2010, 03:23 AM
downunder downunder is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by witsend View Post
LOL THIS one I'm simply copying again. Guys. We really don't need the MIB. We've got Harvey. I'll deal with this one later. Just read this and re-read it. I hope downunder is also looking at this. Golly.
Yes, I am still reading this thread. It still seems apparent to me that:

1. Rosemary was under the impression from the start that any attempted replications would ultimately support her thesis if successful.

2. The people trying to replicate Rosemary's circuit were either unaware of the thesis, or simply more interested in trying to replicate the high COP effect.

Rosemary, when you make comments like the one quoted above, it is like throwing fuel on a fire. It serves only to sustain the highly emotional argument that I am sure is upsetting to all involved. This applies to everyone that has made personal attacks throughout this argument.

I believe that everyone involved in this argument is really on the same side... the side that wants to give the world better energy alternatives. This argument is not about dark motives or big egos... it is about misunderstandings that snowball until the argument is a huge avalanche of destruction that is crushing all your hard work.

Everyone involved simply needs to calmly, clearly and politely present what they want to come out of this collaboration. Make a concise list in point form and avoid ambiguous language and personal attacks. If this can be done without throwing fuel on the fire of the argument, then I believe you will find a lot of common ground.

Try to treat each other as you would close friends, family members or spouses. If you can't get past arguments and misunderstandings in every day life then you lose friends, families are dysfunctional, and divorces eventuate.

Those involved in this argument need to stop looking at each other as the enemy, and remember that you are all on the same side, fighting for a brighter future for our planet and the human race.
__________________
 
  #57  
Old 02-05-2010, 03:58 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by downunder View Post
Yes, I am still reading this thread. It still seems apparent to me that:

1. Rosemary was under the impression from the start that any attempted replications would ultimately support her thesis if successful.

2. The people trying to replicate Rosemary's circuit were either unaware of the thesis, or simply more interested in trying to replicate the high COP effect.

Rosemary, when you make comments like the one quoted above, it is like throwing fuel on a fire. It serves only to sustain the highly emotional argument that I am sure is upsetting to all involved. This applies to everyone that has made personal attacks throughout this argument.

I believe that everyone involved in this argument is really on the same side... the side that wants to give the world better energy alternatives. This argument is not about dark motives or big egos... it is about misunderstandings that snowball until the argument is a huge avalanche of destruction that is crushing all your hard work.

Everyone involved simply needs to calmly, clearly and politely present what they want to come out of this collaboration. Make a concise list in point form and avoid ambiguous language and personal attacks. If this can be done without throwing fuel on the fire of the argument, then I believe you will find a lot of common ground.

Try to treat each other as you would close friends, family members or spouses. If you can't get past arguments and misunderstandings in every day life then you lose friends, families are dysfunctional, and divorces eventuate.

Those involved in this argument need to stop looking at each other as the enemy, and remember that you are all on the same side, fighting for a brighter future for our planet and the human race.
Ok downunder. Again impeccable advice. Here's my list.

Acknowledgement that this was a replication.
Publication of the experiment as a replication.
I cannot be associated with the paper if it is published in TIE as a replication therefore I withdraw as author
If it is published in any other journal I may be able to be author. I reserve my rights.
I will forge ahead and publish my own paper in a physics journal.
All collaborators already invited but with constrained collaboration rights. And this to ensure that I never go through this fandango again.
__________________
 
  #58  
Old 02-05-2010, 09:59 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
I'm going to try this again.

The discovery of dark matter belongs to someone? One day I'll look it up. The development of string theorists is the only branch of physics that can reach a unifying principle. But they do not know where those strings are or even how they're shaped. I have a strange proposal that links these two fields of study. NO BIGGIE as I've mentioned before. And as the sun sets in the west - this will be attacked and modified and conditioned - as required - in the painful process of academic argument. Fortunately I do not need to be party to the argument. I only need to explain where the link is. My name will never be associated with this except in some bazaar way - at best. Far better minds than mine will do what is required here.

Then if this is published - does not mean it's right - it means it will be discussed. But if there is any kind of consensus ever reached and it's in favour of the thesis, then no-one will be able to patent this. Because the technology to advance this is already in the public domain. That is why I am so anxious to keep this tenuous link with the Quantum paper which links to the patent which links to the thesis. It's a package deal.

I think what is happening here is the assumption that my thesis will be established. It will NOT. But it sure as hell will be a contender. And that will be a good thing for Open Source. On so many levels. I am not sure why this general concern to be disassociated. If the concern is that I will be famous - and I am promoting myself. I have no idea if I will be famous. But I do know that I'm in for a gruelling attack if this is published and that I do not relish the attention. And more to the point I will need to - at it's least - know that there is some shelter here on these forums. I never expected this experiment of mine to garner so much publicity or attention. I swear to you all that I only discovered this interest in challenging the energy barriers at the beginning of last year - 13 months ago. I thought my blog spot would simply lie forgotten in the dusty pages of the internet archives.

Glen's replication will be linked to every reference of that thesis if it is promoted as a replication. If it is advanced as a 'discovery' it will be up for grabs and lost forever as competing interests claim some variation of this dicovery. And I will be left fighting a rear guard action trying to advise the world that we've already found this and that it's already patented - I'VE DONE IT AGAIN. It's already been published in the patent archives and is now in the public domain - is what I mean.

That is why I insist that this is a replication. Else, believe me I would have moved on.
__________________
 

Last edited by witsend; 02-05-2010 at 10:14 AM. Reason: EDITED The archive thing
  #59  
Old 02-05-2010, 10:33 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Here's my offer and I'd be happy to lean across the Atlantic, the Indian and even the Pacific Oceans to shake hands on it.

Any excercise such as we've been involved in also involves gruelling hours of testing and counter testing, proving and retesting. That work was done - exhaustively - by Glen. The data was perfectly collated that it can be referenced in any context required. To get it to that high standard of completion we need to thank a variety of players. Topping that list is Poynty and MileHigh. Between them they systematically showed where the arguments' weaknesses lay and we duly addressed them. Harvey's contribution here was big. He knew his way around the required probe positioning and how to expose what was required and its significance. In the absence of Donovan's earlier active input - this was both welcome and required. He also knew the needed parameters to establish these facts conclusively.

But that side of the work is now done. What is now required is the careful collation of that data that the evidence can be put forward for the reviewers. Let me remind you. The reviewers DO NOT establish the veracity of the claims. Publication allows the broad field of mainstream academia to establish this. The reviewer states if the argument is contradictory, or weak, or if there needs to be more data included, or if there needs to be some emphasis enhanced or not, as required. That is part of the discussion process.

What needs to be established is 'which journal' to present this to. I think IEEE are quite frankly too scared to take this on. It's claims are profoundly disturbing to mainstream and the thesis is barely tested. But I have reason to believe that there are physics journals that may be more interested. Then the same argument needs to be presented but with an entirely different emphasis. I believe I may be able to solicit assistance here. Then we can restructure the paper and resubmit it and that will be that. Again, the input need not come from the collaborators. Any one of us can do it. But as I know the argument best, it is possibly better that I attend to this exercise.

Alternatively there are other journals that may consider the 'replication' without the support of a thesis. That's also doable, but it is possible that the respectability of such a journal may not be as high as the IEEE or the TIE division within it. I am happy to look into such for you and will be just as happy to write the paper with my name omitted. Just know that this offer is conditional to its being considered a replication.

Or I could do both papers the one for the electrical side and the one for the physics side. You choice.

I would add - there is nothing I can do about it if you promote this as a discovery. I will need to challenge it after the event which first presupposes that it is published. I can only record my intention to fight such a claim with every means at my disposal and will be sorry to have to do so. Notwithstanding which, I would earnestly remind you to find out which is preferable from a publishing preference. Anomalies are not, usually, published. That's how they've managed to discount the extraordinary progress of so many experimentalists throughout this forum. I suspect your advises in this regard are not what they should be.
__________________
 

Last edited by witsend; 02-05-2010 at 10:49 AM.
  #60  
Old 02-05-2010, 10:44 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Just seen Glen's last post. I've now tried my best. You guys do your thing. I'll get on with my own paper. I'll contact anyone of the collaborators privately if they wish to add their names when my paper is completed and accepted for publication.

I'm really sorry that this has all come to pass.
__________________
 
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Please consider supporting Energetic Forum with a voluntary monthly subscription.

For One-Time Donations, use admin@ this domain > energeticforum.com

Choose your voluntary subscription

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v1.4.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
2007-2015 Copyright - Energetic Forum - All Rights Reserved

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator

Tesla Chargers