COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie | Part 2

[b4FreeEnergy]

Finally some silence ...

It’s awfully quiet here; even that silly cat is quiet!

[witsend]

Bart - I'm knee deep in organising a conference call for tomorrow. Am also still trying to raise an answer from Fairchild. My phone bill this month will be ASTRONOMICAL.

But I do need to post. I want to answer jpentp in more detail. But may have to do that later tonight.

Meanwhile? What can I say. Delighted to see that we've lost Harvey? LOL. I wish.

[Jbignes5]

Aaron Please don't misunderstand me.

What I said applies for the most part to most forums.

There are some forums where membership is automated for anyone that
signs up. They're usually not moderated. These heater threads are a
special case and I want my personal involvement limited to the bare
minimum. If anyone has an issue, send a PM to the admin account.

At Energetic Forum, we manually do it. We do not selectively pick who gets
in and who doesn't. We approve EVERYONE. Sometimes it takes a bit but
that is because it is time consuming and there is usually a backlog.
Obviously we don't approve bots and members from known spammer IP
lists.

It is a private membership forum that is viewable by the public and any of
the public (listed as guests) that are not members are free to
apply for membership and they'll get granted. Guests cannot make posts
or see attachments until they are in.

It is public only in that sense that this is a building with glass walls and
outside observers can see everything going on. But you can walk by a
private golf club and watch the members play but it is definitely a private
club. This is definitely a private forum even though the info is publicly
available.

This is an archive that will exist even if this forum is no longer active. I
think we'll be around a long time.

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.energeticforum.com

I'm not sure why the archive stops at that date indicated but in any case,
the wayback machine records quite a bit.

I never meant that as a bash on you my friend. It was merely my attempt to tell her she in fact lied when she said that this forum could support the Public domain in giving legal consent. She said that not me and my only reference to your comment was to counter her obviously not well thought out conclusions. Like my Linux explanation to serving the Public domain it is in the start of the install that states clearly that it is Public Domain and is legally binding for such to be included with the program to insure no control could be re-enforced.

It is an acceptable way to do the Public domain assertion.

Sorry about that Aaron.

[Harvey]

I think its clear Harvey has lost faith, Glen along with him. OK we get that don't you think you should refocus your considerable skills on another project you feel as passionately for as you once did this project?

Rosemary is fully capable of advancing this circuit and theory all on her own.

Jumping in and bringing up the same points over and over again seems to look like you have a vested interest in killing this setup, I don't know it might be personal? Whatever it is it seems played out. Harvey and Glen no longer support this project we got that.
Rose still believes in it (as do I) and she in fully capable of promoting this endeavor on her own. The civilized thing to do is you go your way and let Rose go he on way.
Rose I don't say much but I do support you and I just wish you could spend more time working on and promoting the circuit and much less time defending yourself form the same allegations over and over again.

Good Luck Rose Now let the flaming commence

"Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld" (Hebrews 11:1)

In order to hope for something and put faith in it, there must be an evident demonstration of the reality even though we ourselves have not seen the reality.

I have little or no faith in Rosemary's claims because I have seen no evidence to support them. The evidence must exist beyond the persons words themselves just as creation itself exists beyond the written words of the creator. Likewise, I have faith that wind does exist because I see the evident demonstration of the power it has. Therefore, I can put faith in the fact that it can topple trains even though I cannot see the wind itself, I have seen it blow a train off the tracks.

I do however have faith in Glen's works. They are truthful and open for all to see. They are evidence, and they are demonstrable in that a net DC current in the CSR can be reduced to nanoamps in his modified circuit. However, they do raise new questions that need to be addressed in further research. Questions that require test equipment beyond our present temporary ability to procure. If the proposed technology does exist, then it must be correctly identified and its safety must be ensured.

I cannot put faith in Rosemary because I know first hand that she has lied about myself, Glen and others. If she will lie about us and mislead the readers with false information, then she will do the same with her proposed technology. It is written, "he that is faithful in what is least, will be faithful also in what is much". Naturally the inverse is true as well. If a person hides the truth and even states "I WISH" that it leave their presence, then you can be sure that person will hide much greater secrets even from their own close relatives. The child that is practicing wrong demands that their authority 'go away' that they may not be exposed. But I tell you truthfully, that in due time all things hidden will be openly exposed. (Mark 4:22).

I would venture a guess that if the technology exists, it will not come to fruition by Rosemary's hand. But rather by the humble experimenter that seeks the truth in all things.

[witsend]

jpentp

Here's the thing. The membership of this forum is mostly engineers or 'technoboffins' or those who simply want to advance clean green energy. Dr Stiffler, Peter Lindemann, Aaron, Ash, GoToLuc, Alcanadian - many others - have done much, much more to advance the 'clean green' than I have or could ever do. But the circuit that I advanced is unique in that it is measurable. Caloric values are not arguable. Given a certain heat you have clear evidence of the wattage dissipated. And the protocol to measure energy delivered is well established within mainstream science. This circuit has no moving parts. It is not reliant on motors which are traditionally a 'hell' to measure. And therefore the 'proof' of efficacy can be reasonably established. That's it.

But that strength - for what it's worth - is also its weakness or 'achilles heel'. For some reason the 'switch' that introduces that 'voltage imbalance' or 'spike' which seems to be widely used, has been applied to motors, to the recharge of batteries, and NOT for purposes of generating heat. So. It's a new'ish concept. That puts it in the nature of a 'discovery'. And those more ambitious members of this and other forums resent that status. I was warned by one member that I must be prepared for the 'attack'. He was right. I was warned by another member not to trust Harvey. He was right. Both advisors are also highly respected members of this forum. The attack that I was and still am subjected to is probably the most persistent that any contributor has had to face. And the need to be wary of Harvey's motives are increasingly apparent.

[witsend]

But then one also needs to take on board the advices that I've been given - somewhat belatedly. It appears that with a new 'discovery' if such it is, comes the clamourous, rather jealous claims that the 'discovery' is not the discoverer's but variously belongs to new claimants or to the world at large and is then widely attributed to anyone - everyone - who is not actually the 'discoverer'. In this particular case - whatever the truth here - it's irrelevant. If its a new discovery - then it's been patented. And lest its a new discovery the patent was never registered. Therefore, regardless of whether or not it's a discovery - it certainly can never be exploited as such.

Effectively that means that regardless of who made the discovery and regardless of the reasoning behind the discovery - the technology is available and immediately so. I do hope you get this. Loud and clear. I really do not care what tribute or otherwise may come my way. I have absolutely NO INTERESTS in capitalising on this. I have no interest in any recognition - or otherwise - of this my work. BUT. I do have a very real concern. Nor may anyone else try and usurp ownership. Because I do NOT know to what extent their interest may be to claim ownership and then capitalise on that pretended ownership. If it's to advance appliances - then that's a really good thing. If it's to advance patents - then what on earth have I achieved by forfeiting my own potential rights here.

[witsend]

Now. To effectively position themselves to 'claim' patent rights it would be critically important to claim that their replication is based on a 'modified' version of my circuit. That way the discovery becomes theirs and not mine. Does this 'ring a bell? Then it would be very important to deny the 'logic' that initiated the circuit design. Again. Does this 'ring a bell'? Then it would be useful to discredit my intellect, my ethics, my abilities and every strength that I may rely on to advance this technology. At the risk of being really repetitive 'Does this ring a bell'? Then - most importantly - they would need to take away any public reference to proof of either my claim or their own. DOES THIS RING A BELL?

Otherwise, I put it to you, that any attack is entirely inappropriate. Why would it be necessary? Surely if I want to be so misguided as to claim that the circuit works, or so misguided that I claim the thesis to support that the circuit works - either option would be of absolutely no interest to them. Why not let me 'rabbit on' in this thread and any other thread? Dr Stiffler does, Aaron does, - all the others do. So why not me? Therein is my concern. It is precisely because there is a patent potential here. All they need to do is to 'change' the claim by some small variation - then claim the discovery and patent it as required. And all they need to do is to change the thesis by some small variation - then claim the thesis as their own. Or so they hope!!!

So when there are allegations made against myself or against the technology I tend to see some real justification in addressing those allegations lest the technology is separated from its protection - being that - right now - it is truly in the public domain. And regardless of what anyone advances regarding my character or my ethics or anything at all. It's entirely irrelevant and entirely inappropriate if, indeed, the attackers' actual concerns are simply to advance the technology, or even if their concerns are that the technology is useless. That is why it is really important that Harvey does not become the 'spokesperson' for this technology - which he is trying to pretend. And that is why I need to ensure that he never does. He is NOT AN AUTHORITY ON THIS TECHNOLOGY. He never could be. He is not expert enough. And he is not - himself - talented at experimentation. And he is absolutely not honest.

This is why it alarms me. It's the actual motive behind the attack. I do hope you see this for what it is. He has absolutely NOT lost faith in the circuit. If he had he would not be so anxious to keep posting here.

[witsend]

Guys, on another subject that has been intriguing me. I'd be glad of feedback here. All those motors, where magnets are positioned against other magnets - its strikes me that they ALL need to have positional changes to induce a rotation. In other words they do not seem to work unless some variation is introduced in the position of the applied magnetic field. One sees this being done manually or being proposed with the introduction of extraneous circuitry. I suggest that the actual question is how much energy is needed to introduce that positional variation?

YouTube - magnet generator free energy

I think that's the link.

[Harvey]

jpentp

Here's the thing. The membership of this forum is mostly engineers or 'technoboffins' or those who simply want to advance clean green energy. Dr Stiffler, Peter Lindemann, Aaron, Ash, GoToLuc, Alcanadian - many others - have done much, much more to advance the 'clean green' than I have or could ever do. But the circuit that I advanced is unique in that it is measurable. Caloric values are not arguable. Given a certain heat you have clear evidence of the wattage dissipated. And the protocol to measure energy delivered is well established within mainstream science. This circuit has no moving parts. It is not reliant on motors which are traditionally a 'hell' to measure. And therefore the 'proof' of efficacy can be reasonably established. That's it.

But that strength - for what it's worth - is also its weakness or 'achilles heel'. For some reason the 'switch' that introduces that 'voltage imbalance' or 'spike' which seems to be widely used, has been applied to motors, to the recharge of batteries, and NOT for purposes of generating heat. So. It's a new'ish concept. That puts it in the nature of a 'discovery'. And those more ambitious members of this and other forums resent that status. I was warned by one member that I must be prepared for the 'attack'. He was right. I was warned by another member not to trust Harvey. He was right. Both advisors are also highly respected members of this forum. The attack that I was and still am subjected to is probably the most persistent that any contributor has had to face. And the need to be wary of Harvey's motives are increasingly apparent.

Sorry Rosemary, but you are quite wrong about this.

Engineers evaluated MOSFET heating controllers back in 1994 for NASA Space craft implementation http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1995104744.pdf and had the entire thing packaged by Argo Transdata Corp

An excerpt from that PDF reads as follows:

Four heaters can be controlled from this hybrid. There are two external lines provided for each heater. The load voltage brought in on the "28 V" external pin is connected to one of these lines. The other line is connected to the drain of an International Rectifier IRFF130. This metal oxide semiconductor field-effect transistor (MOSFET) is rated at 100 V and has an "on" resistance of less than 0.2 ohms. The MOSFET's are controlled by outputs from the microcontroller that are optically isolated from the MOSFET by an HP2200 optical insulator.

[Schpankme]

I know more...You simply don't have the intellect to grasp that electrons flow in wires.

Holy Cow I'll just use more wires and get more electrons; and here I thought "the conducting materials serve as the walls of a container holding magnetic pressure. If the conducting material is in the so-called superconducting state and the ends of the circuit are shorted the electric circuit will hold this magneto-motive pressure indefinitely, in analogy with compressed air stored in a tank. In order for this to be the result of electron flow (in the wire) requires that this flow be in perpetual motion, an unlikely proposition." - Eric Dollard

- Schpankme

[CaptainScat]

Holy Cow I'll just use more wires and get more electrons; and here I thought "the conducting materials serve as the walls of a container holding magnetic pressure. If the conducting material is in the so-called superconducting state and the ends of the circuit are shorted the electric circuit will hold this magneto-motive pressure indefinitely, in analogy with compressed air stored in a tank. In order for this to be the result of electron flow (in the wire) requires that this flow be in perpetual motion, an unlikely proposition." - Eric Dollard

- Schpankme

well said...

[witsend]

Sorry Rosemary, but you are quite wrong about this.

Engineers evaluated MOSFET heating controllers back in 1994 for NASA Space craft implementation http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1995104744.pdf and had the entire thing packaged by Argo Transdata Corp

An excerpt from that PDF reads as follows:

Where do those engineers claim that more energy is dissipated as heat that is supplied by the energy supply source?

[witsend]

Guys, for the record I have had a long session with someone who has had personal experience of patents and knows just about everything that can be known. It seems that once something is in the public domain - regardless or how briefly it is referenced then that CANNOT EVER BE PATENTED. ALSO the potential to patent even the resistors is not an option. In effect, there is ABSOLUTELY NO POSSIBLE BASIS OF A PATENT ON ANY SWITCHING CIRCUITRY FOR APPLICATIONS ON THIS TECHNOLOGY.

This is very good news indeed.

[EgmQC]

Guys, for the record I have had a long session with someone who has had personal experience of patents and knows just about everything that can be known. It seems that once something is in the public domain - regardless or how briefly it is referenced then that CANNOT EVER BE PATENTED. ALSO the potential to patent even the resistors is not an option. In effect, there is ABSOLUTELY NO POSSIBLE BASIS OF A PATENT ON ANY SWITCHING CIRCUITRY FOR APPLICATIONS ON THIS TECHNOLOGY.

This is very good news indeed.

I'm maybe wrong but what you said don't seem to apply to you. If you release a invention in the public domain BEFORE applying for a patent, what you said is true, its public so can not be patented but in your case you applied for a patent before going public no ?

Best Regards,
EgmQC

[witsend]

I'm maybe wrong but what you said don't seem to apply to you. If you release a invention in the public domain BEFORE applying for a patent, what you said is true, its public so can not be patented but in your case you applied for a patent before going public no ?

Best Regards,
EgmQC

Indeed I did EgmQC. But I NEVER REGISTERED the patent. That's about the same status - as an unsigned document- so to speak. In order for a patent to be 'approved' it is first 'put in the public domain' or advertised - by the patenting office. I'm not sure how long this 'advertising' process is. I think it may be 6 months or a year. Just not sure. That means they've done their own search for prior art. In as much as it 'reached' this stage it also means that they did not themselves find prior art to justify their denial of the patent. Then - the reason they advertise is to allow the public to 'counter claim'. They, the public, must then show proof of their own 'published work'. In the absense of a counterclaim they then invite the applicant to REGISTER the patent. I used that 'advertising process' to PUT THE ART INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. Then I refused their invitation to 'register' the patent. That way I achieved my objects.

I simply did not realise that either I could publish myself or that I could publish it on forums such as this. I had no idea that such forums existed. You must remember that before Energetic Forum took interest in this device there was absolutely NO INTEREST in this circuit. I could not even get academics to LOOK AT A DEMONSTRATION. And then, as now, my only interest is to get academic endorsement. I see this as the 'final barrier' to wide acceptance that those themodynamic laws need some radical amendment.