COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[witsend]

TinselKoala - I'm delighted to read that you positioned your probes exactly as we did in our experiment as per the paper submitted to the IET. In which case the waveform of the shunt voltage will be inverted as it relates to the waveform of the resistor voltage. You are NOT working with a 90% duty cycle. Rather, it may be that you are confused by an inverted waveform which is simply a function of the scope.

I took the trouble to speak to an expert who went to the added trouble of looking at your video. His comments are not really repeatable in any respectable context but he did propose that you are mistaken in your representations as they relate to the waveform shown. The puzzle is that anyone who knows how to use a common negative rail - required when using the dual function - does not also know what he's looking at. In other words he's asking why you are deliberately perpetrating this claim when you also appear to know what you are doing? I studied the scope waveform myself. You'll see that the load resistor stays at 0.5% or thereby. The inversion on the shunt waveform is only as it relates to zero. If it did not invert then there would have been some serious damage to your scope.

I hope this puts paid to your endless insistance that the circuit diagram is wrong. There may be some trouble with your switching circuit. But if there is - it is not altering the duty cycle as you claim.

[witsend]

This is for Joit and all the Joits on this thread. Thanks for the support. It's good to know that - no matter the disruption - the goal is still out there.

Just as a word of encouragement - I think that you are all probably looking at gains already. I'll try and explain it. For those that have already 'got it' apologies for the repetition.

You need to get a scope that is able to distinguish between two values. The one is the difference between the voltage voltage values over the shunt. It requires a DC coupling. Here the voltage that results from the counter electromotive force is deducted from the voltage that was applied by the battery. That's the sum of the energy from the battery. But you will see that the wattage dissipated at the laod is consistent with both values. So there you have to add those two values. The difference between these two numbers is the gain. You'll find that it's very easy to prove this. The tricky part may be in getting access to the scope. But - as mentioned above - try phoning precision or any engineering shops. They've usually got the required and you'll be surprised how accommodating they can be. It all helps to 'spread the word' - while you're at it. Anyway. I'm sorry it needs this leg for proof - but I see no way around it unless you simply compare battery draw down rates with a control. It's tedious - but still very evident.

[TinselKoala]

TinselKoala - I'm delighted to read that you positioned your probes exactly as we did in our experiment as per the paper submitted to the IET. In which case the waveform of the shunt voltage will be inverted as it relates to the waveform of the resistor voltage. You are NOT working with a 90% duty cycle. Rather, it may be that you are confused by an inverted waveform which is simply a function of the scope.

I took the trouble to speak to an expert who went to the added trouble of looking at your video. His comments are not really repeatable in any respectable context but he did propose that you are mistaken in your representations as they relate to the waveform shown. The puzzle is that anyone who knows how to use a common negative rail - required when using the dual function - does not also know what he's looking at. In other words he's asking why you are deliberately perpetrating this claim when you also appear to know what you are doing? I studied the scope waveform myself. You'll see that the load resistor stays at 0.5% or thereby. The inversion on the shunt waveform is only as it relates to zero. If it did not invert then there would have been some serious damage to your scope.

I hope this puts paid to your endless insistance that the circuit diagram is wrong. There may be some trouble with your switching circuit. But if there is - it is not altering the duty cycle as you claim.

First, thank you for finally admitting that what you have been calling a "patent" is only a patent application.

It is really kind of disingenuous for you to keep calling it a "patent" as that's not what it is. A PATENT gives the holder certain legal rights, which are NOT conveyed by the mere application. There are real and important differences between a patent APPLICATION and a granted patent, not the least being the vetting process.

Second, please have someone build the circuit and look at the duty cycle. You are really putting your foot in your mouth here. What I have shown is factual, it is from the diagram you published, the duty cycle is inverted, this has been confirmed by others as well as by me. Build it and see! Or have your "expert" build it and show the video, just like I did.

What's the real explanation for what is shown in the second video? Your "expert" does not seem to be much of an expert at all. Just look at your EIT diagram. Do you deny that when the voltage at point "A" goes HIGH, the mosfet is OFF?

Regardless, I am not using the Quantum article's circuit any more, since Rosemary now acknowledges that it is WRONG.

DO IT! PROVE ME WRONG! Otherwise you have to accept what I'm showing. After all, you are asking us to accept some rather remarkable claims, and all you've really shown is the Quantum article and the EIT paper. Claims. No evidence. Not even a scope trace or a copy of an independent lab's report.

I have shown evidence for my claims about your duty cycle in the Quantum article, and they have been repeated independently. Where's your evidence that I am wrong?

[witsend]

Listen to me TinselKoala - I can spend the rest of my time on this forum answering your niceties that seem - for some reason - to be far more important to you than the test itself. I'm afraid I entirely disagree with you regarding the inversion of your waveform. I am not alone. There are two experts now that have now seen your video. There is consensus in their opinion. One has communicated his comments in writing. Unfortunately it is not repeatable on this forum. I am going to continue soliciting this until I find an expert who may not mind associating his name with the eccentricites of 'free energy' which, as a rule - is not a welcome association for an academic if he is inclined to protect his reputation amongs his peers.

Regarding the patent - or lack of it - I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED TO HAVE A PATENT - I have rather simply shown that there is a PUBLICATION. If I intended to claim a patent I would have needed to reference the registration number. From the get go I have insisted that the existence of the patent application is to ensure that NO-ONE can call for royalties on this application. But the truth is that I have never regretted that registration lapse more than I do at this moment to think that I have given up my rights for such as you to DEMAND some kind of irrelevant admission rather than acknowledge the generosity of refusing to register it. You have an extraordinary way of replacing acknowledgement with a self serving assumed right to my knowledge - the fruits of not less than 10 years of my life. I just need to remind myself that while there are those such as you - there are also, thank God, those such as the others on this forum and who also contribute to this thread.

EDIT And for any readers to this post - and for the record - I have made no admissions of any sort as TinselKoala claims. I would thank you to disregard any such statements. They are, to quote his own words, mendacious. I think Aaron will undestand - I have no intention of ever responding to any more of your posts.

[FuzzyTomCat]

Howdy Rosemary,
Welcome to Energetic Forum ...... You have some very interesting material that your sharing with the community here and from many of us in the background appreciate very much your efforts. I'm one of those with a lot of electrical experience but mine is for the most part a "end user" and enjoy seeing the progress to items that actually have a use that could save energy on a large scale but in small increments this research is to me totally fascinating.

(WO/1999/038247) HARNESSING A BACK EMF
WO 1999/038247

(WO/2003/007657) POWER SUPPLY FOR ELECTRICAL RESISTANCE OPERATED INSTALLATIONS AND APPLIANCES
WO 2003/007657


For the most part the members here go by a code outlined very eloquently by Peter Lindemann in http://www.energeticforum.com/28027-post7.html

1) The threads are asked to focus on a very narrow set of topics and not allowed to meander all over the place. This allows participants to follow the developments with relative ease and clarity. If new ideas are introduced, they are not censored, but simply asked to start a new thread.

2) The threads are not allowed to be a public forum for personal attacks between participants. Most forums, everywhere else, are filled with these rude and obnoxious comments, which, again, have nothing to do with the thread topic. These type of posts make the threads very difficult to follow, and reduce the intellectual environment to nothing more that an emotional garbage scow.

This "requirement" to be polite goes back to the very best tradition in science, where it used to be assumed that honest, intelligent, well-meaning experimenters could hold unique, and divergent opinions and interpretations regarding the same, observed phenomena. No one was assumed to be "wrong" or "bad" because they held a differing opinion. It created an environment for lively debate and in-depth investigation. The only requirements for this environment to flourish were intelligence and civility.

The Administrators of this forum are the gate-keepers of these standards, as best they understand them. And while they have not always done what I would have done, they have succeeded in creating one of the most "civil" and "focused" forums on the entire Internet. For this achievement, they have my unqualified support and profound admiration.

There are of course some members that are transplants from another web site many of us here tend to avoid because of the opposite handling of members and postings with defamatory and hurtful remarks used where science takes a back door approach. For Example Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie this might answer some of your questions as many members such as myself use the same screen name many places.

I'm very glad to see you here ..... sharing your thoughts

Best Regards,
Glen (aka Fuzzy)

[witsend]

Hi Glen, (aka)Fuzzy, (aka) FuzzyTomCat. Love the portrait - especially the glasses. Thanks for the aptness of your post content and for the kind advice. I am aware of the 'attack' on OU.com - but only, I must admit, through TinselKoala's links. I have no intention of reading the whole thing. I am just amazed that he is allowed to continue posting especially as his identity is hidden behind a garbled anagram of Nikola Tesla. I'm seriously considering suing OU.com to allow the slur - else they must disclose his identity to me. I'm on the back foot here as he knows who I am I don't know who he is. In any event his attack is certainly actionable and I fondly believe that tackling this through the courts will also give me an opportunity to do a very public demonstration of my circuit apparatus. That's got to constitute a public demonstration. And think of the expert witnesses required. Quite delicious really.

So far the only thing I know about him is that he lives in NY. But I shall press on with my claims and my enquiries and let's see where it takes us.

Meanwhile the common need for courtesy is usually not a contractual requisite. It's given as a natural condition of human nature. All the more reason to wonder why it is lacking in those that do mangle and block the 'free flow' of ideas as Peter mentions. Hope to see you again on this thread. I suspect you're understating your knowledge of electrical systems. And we need all the expertise we can get. Glad you like my ideas. And thanks very, very much for the encouragement.

[PulseFuelNerd]

it begins!

Hello all, This is my first post at Energetic Forum.

I have immerssed myself in HHO research and builds.
I am also finishing a Stirling Engine prototype targeting the Solar Stirling.
I am interested in this thread and outcome. I do not know enough yet to attempt a build. As time permits I will.

How very cool it is to have Rosemary on this thread!

Rosemary, Thank you for taking the required time to answer questions.

I have missed the IET paper- Is there a link?

Note: I am amazed at the lack of respect in posts- please bring it up a notch.

[Groundloop]

Expriment PCB for RA switching circuit

Hi,

I have designed a experimental PCB for the RA circuit. The component values
are as in the papers but people can change the values if they want different duty cycle or oscillator frequency. I will be building this circuit later on (I'm on vacation right now) and will report back when done. I will be having 23 extra
PCB's to give away for free, to anybody that want one. But, you must wait
until after my vacation. My hope is that this will inspire people to actually test
this circuit in their own setting.

The Eagle CAD (from Cadsoft) design files can be downloaded here:

Index of /ufoufoufoufo

Thanks to Rosemary Ainslie for providing the information for free.

Best regards,
Groundloop from Norway.

[witsend]

Hello PulseFuelNerd - this is a new experience for me. I can welcome you. I'm also relatively new to the forum.

You can find the paper on this thread? I think. Otherwise you can get a down load from Peter Lindemann's website. Perhaps someone else can help here. I'm actually not sure.

I think the 'lack of respect' is being addressed. I hope so anyway.

And hopefully you'll get the time to do some tests. What a pleasure to have yet another interersted party.

Welcome.

[witsend]

Hello Groundloop

I want to bottle this post and keep it safe. It is wonderful that you'll build the necessary. Let us know when you're back at work. I might need you to contact my co-author - if you need help. I've always known that there's an endless supply of goodwill out there. It's just so often blocked from view. A very real pleasure to hear from you. I hope we hear much more in the future.

What a pleasure. I might tell you that today was a low point in my association with this forum. Right now it's a really high point. Many many thanks Groundloop. Like they say - behind every cloud - there's the light!!! I shall now pack up - take the dogs for their walk and relax. Happy to know that there are those such as you in this world of ours.

With the very best wishes possible,
Rosemary

[henieck]

freeeeeenergetically yours...

All right, guys, I have been busy on an uninterrupted basis for two days with this project. The core I have made from an ordinary brick using diamond blade cutter and drill machine. It is 200mm long, has 35mm diameter, weights 300g and has 10mm diameter hole for temperature probe. On this I wound 111turns of unknown resistive wire I have already had somewhere. The coil of wire is 138mm long. Using coil calculator Coil Calculator - Single-layer and mutil-layer coil calculation in javascripthttp://www.datasheetcatalog.org/data...shiba/2998.pdf and BY448V diode for the flyback http://www.datasheetcatalog.org/data...shay/86006.pdfElectronics 2000 | Capacitor Charge / Energy Calculator

[TinselKoala]

Listen to me TinselKoala - I can spend the rest of my time on this forum answering your niceties that seem - for some reason - to be far more important to you than the test itself. I'm afraid I entirely disagree with you regarding the inversion of your waveform. I am not alone. There are two experts now that have now seen your video. There is consensus in their opinion. One has communicated his comments in writing. Unfortunately it is not repeatable on this forum. I am going to continue soliciting this until I find an expert who may not mind associating his name with the eccentricites of 'free energy' which, as a rule - is not a welcome association for an academic if he is inclined to protect his reputation amongs his peers.

Regarding the patent - or lack of it - I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED TO HAVE A PATENT - I have rather simply shown that there is a PUBLICATION. If I intended to claim a patent I would have needed to reference the registration number. From the get go I have insisted that the existence of the patent application is to ensure that NO-ONE can call for royalties on this application. But the truth is that I have never regretted that registration lapse more than I do at this moment to think that I have given up my rights for such as you to DEMAND some kind of irrelevant admission rather than acknowledge the generosity of refusing to register it. You have an extraordinary way of replacing acknowledgement with a self serving assumed right to my knowledge - the fruits of not less than 10 years of my life. I just need to remind myself that while there are those such as you - there are also, thank God, those such as the others on this forum and who also contribute to this thread.

EDIT And for any readers to this post - and for the record - I have made no admissions of any sort as TinselKoala claims. I would thank you to disregard any such statements. They are, to quote his own words, mendacious. I think Aaron will undestand - I have no intention of ever responding to any more of your posts.

You don't need to respond to any more of my posts--because I have everything I need from you. But others will be asking you some hard questions as well. Especially when they build or simulate the Quantum circuit and discover that I am right and you are wrong.

You never answered this one though: When the voltage at point A is high (at battery voltage) is the MOSFET on, or is it off? (EDIT: I refer of course to the EIT paper, oscilloscope channel A.)
Simple question. Do you know the answer? We do.

1) the patent claim:
A MAGNETIC FIELD MODEL
and there's this phrase from you in an earlier post:
"We have all seen to it that there are no patent restrictions - through the simple expediency of first patenting the device and then allowing registration to lapse."

Sure sounds to me like a claim of a patent. But then, I speak American. Maybe the South African English meaning of "patent" also includes "application that was not approved."

2) the Quantum article that is in error, at the very least by not including the flyback diode as anyone can see:

http://www.free-energy.ws/pdf/quantum_october_2002.pdf

3) independent confirmation of the inverted duty cycle:
Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[SkyWatcher]

Hi Rosemary, thanks for the reply and information. I think I will construct a simple styrofoam cup calorimeter to measure the heat gains. Man the debunkers are really amping it up in here, sad. Keep up the good work Rosemary.
peace love light

[TinselKoala]

[TinselKoala]

Hi Rosemary, thanks for the reply and information. I think I will construct a simple styrofoam cup calorimeter to measure the heat gains. Man the debunkers are really amping it up in here, sad. Keep up the good work Rosemary.
peace love light

Make 2 identical ones, and two identical loads.
Run the Ainslie experiment on one, use a good scope with math functions to determine the average power being dissipated by the circuit. Don't forget to monitor the MOSFET temperature as well.
Once you know the average power from the above test, use a regulated DC supply to provide your second setup with the same average power, except straight regulated DC.
(sorry, of course the mosfet won't even be in the circuit here, just the load straight to the power supply)
Now, run both the Ainslie circuit and the control, side by side, until the loads reach equilibrium temperature.

Do this several times.
Report your results here.

Please. It will be very much appreciated by everyone.