COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[FuzzyTomCat]

Hi everyone,

I found some more web sites that reference (John) Jean Zoltan Szili research on the "An Electronic Circuit to Free Energy" that was posted earlier in this thread http://www.energeticforum.com/60495-post611.html the only difference is a "Part 4"

Jean Szili -- Zero Point Energy extraction circuit
An Electronic Circuit to Free Energy

--4--

The Electronic Circuit with Free Energy of Mr Zoltan Szili

by

J.L. Naudin

I don't know if there is much more than this ....

Glen

[Hoppy]

Hi All,

I have just uploaded a new video for your evaluation and opinions.

Please post your comments.

Link to Video: YouTube - Effect of Recirculating BEMF to Coil test 9

Luc

Hi Luc

Don't forget that you only have a very short duty cycle ('on' period) with the bulb connected into the pulsed circuit. Could it be that the overal power consumption of the circuit changes, causing the battery drain to be slower when the supply is pulsed? Try increasing the duty cycle (lengthen the 'on' pulse) progressively whilst observing the drain rate of the battery and bulb brightness to answer this question.

Hoppy

[witsend]

Guys - I need to make something abundantly clear. While our learned and not so learned detractors are waffling on about applied duty cycles and actual levels of returning energy and God knows what else - Don Smith and people like Szili are walking around the facts of zero point energy and its applied uses, or its measurable effects, with the ease of good neighbours in a well known neighbourhood - well acquainted with all its features and all its residents.

One thing stands out. Our little circuit seems to warrant even more attention than a study of their extraordinary minds and their extraordinary insights? Why do you think that is? I can tell you. The circuit has the unique feature of being able to defeat unity using classical measurements protocol. Unlike Gototluc who has to point at measurable - visible advantages - no-one can say that we are applying the wrong measurements.
I'll get back to this point.

Then too, you will notice that Don Smith has patented his devices and is selling the uses thereof. And you'd need to entertain a degree of prejudice on the scale of our early Catholic Church to refute his claims. For some reason there is an apparent and critical need to refute our claim in its entirety. And here is my take.

It has do with the unfortunate fact that the knowledge of this 'reticulated current' - as described by gotoluc, is in the public domain. It is unarguably available to the public on all applications that relate to the potential generation of heat from back or counter electromotive force for the purposes of producing electric energy . And this technology is available to the entire world - free of charge - and courtesy the unfortunate oversight to register a patent application as and when it became due for registration. It therefore is now to be construed as knowledge that is in the public domain and it therefore belongs to everybody. If any other patents are therefore to be considered valid that are subsequent to this - and if they use these priniples, in whole or in part, then it may, indeed threaten the validity of that claim. Therefore the only way to ensure a 'free ride' to the total exploitation of this new energy source - is to first 'blacken my name or denigrade the patent or both.

The measurements on our circuit, notwithstanding .99's attestations to the contrary - prove that efficiency or overunity is only constrained to the limit of one's courage to find new levels of such efficiency. It is, indeed an infinite supply source. And it is not locked in the dusty archives of some patent office, or in the safe keeping of monopolists. It is already being marketed - by General Electric no less. Nor are its best applications available on our circuitry. This application is ridiculously modest. Even on this forum and this thread are those that have far better potential applications. The advantage, therefore, of this circuit apparatus is only in that it modestly, begs the need to address the definition of unity as applied to electric energy using the well known measurements apparatus of mainstream science. When our sad academics eventually attend to this, by then I am reasonably certain that the evidence of their various conservation laws will have been blown into the forgotten pages of history as being somewhat outdated, milldewed and irrelevant. Then only will their academic champions be vindicated for their association with this. The Dr Stiffler's of this world will need to outlast this struggle to enjoy that moment.

Be that as it may. I am now 60 years old. I have an arrhythmic heart condition. The women in our family usually die in their mid fifties. I've outlasted them - but not sure for how long. I'm also a heavy smoker. It is unlikely that I'll be around to fight the good fight, so to speak. But if we simply give up our rights to free energy by replacing one monopolist with another - then our efforts are absurdly inadequate and history will point to that want.

But it is my comfort that the small efforts from such modest little forums actually hold our hope. It may not be widely and publicly read. But it is, as Peter has pointed out - for public record. And it's readers are very often also our supporters. And as this zero point energy becomes mainstream, then maybe our readership will not be so anxious to hide behind assumed identities.

One would have to accuse TK, .99, Hoppy and others of being utterly insane to spend the time and money required to refute the paper's claim. Especially TK who apparently has had his intelligence affronted by the possible misrepresentation of a circuit device. Clearly there is some reason to all this time wasted but considered to be so necessary, and all such efforts applied with such urgency. Every point is critical. You know why it matters so much? Because it really does.

[witsend]

.99 - the need for the flyback diode is to prove the returning energy - not to exploit it. The WHOLE intention of that paper is for purposes of proof.

And your measurements are WAY OUT. I was rather hoping for an unbiased report.

[Joit]

Well said Rosemary
And i hope, everone can bring Argumments in, and everone can read AND understand them and act in a normal Manner,
and dont get angry or upset, to point with the Finger to others, to tell him, hes wrong, just for a Win.

Question comes up then, when at the Q-Article they did allready know, it works better with the flyback Diode, did they cheat us with the Timer Circuit?

I would still prefer, to have the right Timer Circuit here, because not all have a Signalgenerator at the Kitchen, with what they can play with.

For now, i wont be able to play around alot with it for a while, RL comes first :/

[Joit]

And well, another Thing comes up to Mind, when you look at reversed Current Direction(phys/technical), it would make more Sense in this Way at all?
I know it hard, to turn the Logic this Way, and even, that noone maybe can find the proper Answer for that, because we are untrained for that.
The Right way is probatly to uncharge the Plus and charge the Minus with negative? Energie?

[witsend]

Thanks Joit. As always a supporter. It's thanks to the likes of you that monopolists may yet be defeated.

You must do your tests in your own time. There is nothing wrong with the 555 circuit you've got. That point is made abundantly clear in the video that TK has given the world. I could tell you the general reaction to this - but it will only prolong the argument. What is a great help is that .99 has seen fit to defend the video. It goes to the question of his motives here.

[witsend]

Gotoluc - have just seen your latest videa. Always a pleasure. I'm glad you're using batteries. As soon as you do so - you are allowed to acknowledge that gain. Someone, hopefully, will one day explain why.

Well done go to luc

NOW WE'RE ON TRACK.

[witsend]

For MileHigh and .99

Could you both please attend to the comments written here by Nerzdishual. I think you are both hobbling the objects of the test by applying it to simulators that DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE the very effect that is experimentally evident.


"First, this circuit has been developed on a computer simulation. This allows for the simulation, the Jiles-Atherton model of electromagnetism. This model was designed to meet the reality test and not the law of conservation of energy. I can not give guarantees regarding the functioning of this circuit, but until proven otherwise, have confidence in the simulation. This program is used across the world in electronic and physical laboratories. It is very close to reality, although in experimental 99.999% of 100 cases energy is conserved. "

[witsend]

I've been advised by one of our members that Nerzdishual (sorry if the spelling is wrong) was viewing our site as a MEMBER for the greater part of all of yesterday.

AARON - Please. If he's applied for membership could you check this out and expedite? Obviously your call. But I think it may be some considerable benefit.

[Aaron]

@Rosemary & @All - long post

Rosemary, it was tough but at least I finally got an admittance that ON really means the mosfet is ON. lol And when it's on, current is flowing.

@all

MileHigh mentions that the coil/resistor discharge cannot go to the battery because when the mosfet is off, the circuit is open. I immediately show 2 videos where I can charge caps/batteries with one single wire and in one demo, the battery and cap was almost 10' away from the source - definitely more open than the distance of the open switch inside a mosfet but I get no comment.

@ MileHigh - does the no comment mean you retract your claim that the discharge can't go to the battery based on your argument that the mosfet is open? I've shown you that a battery or cap can actually charge with one single terminal connected to a circuit? Closed circuit electron current model doesn't totally apply across the board on high speed pulsed circuits - and when getting to serious impulse technology using true longitudinal impulses - it doesn't even apply.

Besides the electron current model in classical explanations is a fairy tale that just keeps hanging on and it is only a matter of time until it can't be denied anymore.

99 mentions about the possibility of "bending" the rules but if the rule is really considered a law by classically trained EE's or physicists, one single bend in that "rule" completely and totally destroys the law, period, end of story.

For any scientific integrity at all for the entire science community, they must change the law back into nothing more than a conditional description that only applies if you are operating within the parameters described by the "law." If it can be bent, it isn't a law and if it isn't a law, applying conventional analysis from that conventional "frame of reference" based on that law to an unconventional circuit is like using a German dictionary to translate a book written in Spanish. A fishing net holds more water than that logic.

Not only is the law not a law but a conditional description, there is a scientific obligation to specifically spell out all the conditions that are necessary to be met when the law doesn't apply. Where is that list? Please provide me with the textbook from your schools that teaches us this. If it is not there, then there is zero integrity in any of the foundations that everyone wants to regurgitate from their training.

ANYTHING with a magnetic field (coil - straight coil or inductive coil) is ALREADY an open circuit even when the loop is closed because that magnetic field is open to time, gravity and space, cosmic rays, etc... Really, there is no such thing as a closed circuit since it all is open to time and space, etc... and any other source of input potential from the environment. But for simple practical applications and demonstrations a closed circuit is for the most part closed but if there is a magnetic field (which is about everywhere on a circuit anyway) it is open.

When a coil is discharged, the fast rate of change (universe pushing back fast to equalize what has been displaced) and the high voltage potential spike from it is a very sharp gradient (high voltage potential difference) and very sharp gradients have been proven to violate thermodynamics. Anyone wanting references needs to do their own work in researching it as I've done mine.

The concept of getting the spike back to begin with is profound. It is considered a nuisance according to classical teaching and I have seen so many references online by ACADEMICS describing that this transient spike is unable to perform work. What kind of micky mouse thinking is that and to promote that idea as actually being scientific is profoundly ridiculous!?

It doesn't take much to think about the concept. You pay x amount of potential over time to perform work in charging a coil - you get heat, a magnet pushed, etc... whatever your coil is intended to do. AFTER you perform that work, you get that spike compressed in time - taking that work and turning it back into POTENTIAL. The very fact that coil gives the spike back is a SELF-ORDERING concept, which is the OPPOSITE of entropy. Taking something that has been expended and putting it back into a form that is organized and that can be used again - well it speaks for itself and whether or not there are losses is irrelevant - it is still self-ordering. Work is expended and the universe takes it and gives it back in a form that can be used over and over...of course with x% of it diminishing each cycle but if all that work that it did is added up, it can be MORE than what is supposed to be extracted from the initial input to begin with.

I find it very interesting that when a simple point is made that clearly demonstrates that one single point in a classical view is made here, it is ignored and the person refuting it carries on as if it never happened. Example - my one wire charging vids and I'm not the only one that has done this. How does this affect the opinion that the discharge can't make it to the battery if the mosfet is off (not conducting)? Well, it appears that the belief is locked in no matter what is shown to prove otherwise as I have shown otherwise and everything carries on like it didn't happen. I'm not talking about a simulation program, what the textbook says, etc... I'm talking about facts based on experimentation. I know that the fastest way to have something die or dissapear is to ignore it - not give it even any argument because it simply validates its existance. However, this forum is not the place to play games or act like a valid point hasn't been made - especially when it comes to real people truly working hard to replicate something that has profound implications if it can be done.

Choosing which points to argue and which ones to not argue is in itself deceptive plain and simple.

If the counterview is to nitpick the concepts of this circuit, then have the courtesy and integrity to be honest enough to answer something that clearly gives evidence that a certain classical viewpoint MAY be wrong. Automatically assuming the classical learned foundations are already proven to be correct is not within the definition of THINKING.

Staging the argument to discuss capacitance of the circuit itself as being something that will gobble up the puny little spikes downplaying it making it look like there are only microjoules, etc... is really nothing but misleading.

Maybe one of my videos was missed where a little inductive spike made it over 10 feet of a single wire to charge a cap that gets discharged every 90~120 volts into a battery. I wonder why all the capacitance of 10 feet of wire didn't gobble up that puny spike if that is all that it is?

99's example of the spike giving less than 2% back to the battery - well what % is returning to the inductive resistor to generate more heat? The under 2% is based on a simulation program and not real life.

I'm not making efficiency claims right now but I hooked the inductive resistor to one of my Gray motor circuits and without drawing ANY extra power from the source, it was at 97F in less than 5 minutes with no slowing of the motor.

It is VERY clear to me why it has taken so long for progress to be made in this field and it has nothing to do with the technologies.

Please forgive me if I sound like I'm ranting - well I am sort of - I'm simply extremely passionate about anything that I'm involved in. Otherwise, what's the point? But sitting back and letting counterview run rampant and unchecked simply isn't going to happen here.

I can't argue against 99's explanation of the voltage issue on measuring the mosfet because it makes sense but there is no proof from TK that he is doing what he claims to be doing though.

MileHigh - I question your motive of picking apart what the spike does especially when you ignore a direct example that counters your claim. It wasn't evidence provided, it is proof that a single wire can transmit a spike to a battery. If you want to pick this circuit apart, expect to be confronted when you propose a counteview that is an opinion not based on fact.

There are a few supporters of TK but is there any consistancy in TK's method of operation? There is not and therefore everything he says or does is questionable. For any supporters of TK, why not contact him and ask him to remove the lies from his youtube comments that I am censoring him. I removed his posts because I said I would if he posted again after I asked him not to - not because of what he was posting but because of the attitude and disrespect that came with it. If I were to censor him, I would have deleted all his posts and removed all references to his videos and to the thread on overunity.com. Did I do that? No and it is common sense that he can post anything on youtube he wants and in ou AND with links already here to his stuff. So am I censoring him? He has PROVEN himself to not have the integrity claiming to be all for the truth while making false accusations against me. If TK is supported, his lack of integrity and honesty is also supported since all of that is TK - until (if and when) he retracts his censorship accusation. Until then, 100% of everything he says or does concerning this circuit is absolutely questionable.

[Aaron]

p.s.

For the real truth seekers and you know who you are - lets not forget that at a 95% duty cycle, you can still get gains. Please stay focused on the topic and the truth will prevail.

[Aaron]

registration

Rosemary, I couldn't find that name in the members list. If you can email me the exact user name and/or email, I can find it.

Also, if anyone has trouble posting after registering, you can speed up approval by emailing info @ esmhome.org - just give your user name and mention that you registered but still are not approved.

[witsend]

Hi Aaron, That was a remarkably articulate summation of our detractors. I applaud the emphasis on a need for intellectual honesty to keep credibility. And delighted to see that you've proved the duty cycle.

I feel we're in good hands here.

I'm going to ask FuzzyTomCat to sort out ND's application. It seems to keep getting skewed. He was, apparently watching our thread with his name listed as a member. But the advice may not have been right.

Aaron - thanks for everything.

[Tishatang]

Simple OU Test?

Hi All,

Here is a copy of a post I made on the other forum. I thought I would post it here.
***************
Hi All,

I try to follow this thread, but it gets too technical for my electronically challenged mind. Is it or is it not OU? I found a post by user bolt that seemed elegant in its simplicity here:

How to get right values from an non-50Hz signal using a DMM?

" Another way is find a value resistor on the input that just gets hot then take that out and put the same value in the output. If the output one goes up in smoke you have OU "

Can this simple test end this argument once and for all?

tishatang