COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[FuzzyTomCat]

Hi Rosemary,

Guess what ..................... a e-mail from from "Zoltan SZILI" in my morning box ....

Hello Glen xxxxxxxxxxxx


Thank You for your e-mail.


My name is Zoltan SZILI. ( born in Hungary )
My english is not to good, but I understend and I can write it
a little bit.


I am a canadian private researcher. ( Near Montreal, Qc. )
My work is 99% simulation, using a computer program ( MICROCAP ).
This program include the Giles-Atherton physical model of electro-magnetism.


I have some experimental results in the electronic laboratory.


Actually, I have more than a thousend simulated electronic circuit of ZPE or
free energy. After 12 years of simulation, I have a good idea, what is the physical
processus of zero point energy extraction ( from vacuum energy fluctuations ).


I can also calculate the value of extracted energy using a simple formula.
E extr. = F * L * ( I max. * I max )/2
E extr. is the extracted ZPE energy.
F is frequency.
L is inductance.
I max. is the maximum current.


This formula is a degenerated formula.
The original physical formula is more complicated.


Can You communicate me the e-mail address of Rosemary Ainslie ?
Thank You for all.


Best regards, Zoltan SZILI.

I think he wants to talk to "you" and wants me to forward your e-mail address which I will gladly do

Best Wishes,
Glen

[witsend]

Here it is.
The following quote was posted on OU.Com by .99.


"I'm not saying this is going to push the RA circuit. I have no trouble with PSpice behaving itself, in fact I'm confident it can't show ou. It's the users that can mess things up and obtain incorrect results.

For now it's an observation, and I feel it is the parasitic capacitances around the MOSFET that is providing the path.

I'll be doing an analysis of the RMS power in them there spikes to see what gives."

.99

This is the post at issue. I've highlighted the points that require some explanation. Why are you using PSpice and using it as an absolute frame of reference when you also know that it will defeat the experimental evidence that we claim?

I'd be glad of an explanation and - until it is to hand - must assume that you and .99 are only anxious to discount our experiment on any basis at all rather than look to the effects that the paper points to. As Aaron has pointed out - experimentation, validation, all are good. But it requires, at its least, the required intellectual integrity to explore these effects.1

[witsend]

Fuzzy - YOU ARE A STAR. Thank you, thank you, thank you. I shall certainly correspond and - maybe we can get him on the forum. I'll tell you what. I'm going to try and brush up my french.

How fantastic.

How do I get my email to you? Not sure how to use the PM System. So far have only answered post. Can you send me a message - I'll repy?

[Hoppy]

Hoppy - I would rather you do not dictate the terms and conditions for authentication. I have already stipulated what is required. I would also thank you and .99 to explain your dependence on simulator software that you are also confident will not allow for any overunity result.

I am awaiting the details of a post that apparently went to OU.COM - written by -.99 that speaks to this. When I have it I will address the issue again.

With respect Rosemary, I did say 'suggest' and I do not depend on simulator software. Furthermore, I am not ruling out OU!

Hoppy

[FuzzyTomCat]

Hi Rosemary,

You can use one of my e-mail accounts ( FuzzyTomCat at aol.com ) I will do what ever you request under my power just ask

Best Wishes
Glen

[poynt99]

Here it is.

"I'm not saying this is going to push the RA circuit. I have no trouble with PSpice behaving itself, in fact I'm confident it can't show ou. It's the users that can mess things up and obtain incorrect results.

For now it's an observation, and I feel it is the parasitic capacitances around the MOSFET that is providing the path.

I'll be doing an analysis of the RMS power in them there spikes to see what gives."

.99

This is the post at issue. I've highlighted the points that require some explanation. Why are you using PSpice and using it as an absolute frame of reference when you also know that it will defeat the experimental evidence that we claim?

I'd be glad of an explanation and - until it is to hand - must assume that you and .99 are only anxious to discount our experiment on any basis at all rather than look to the effects that the paper points to. As Aaron has pointed out - experimentation, validation, all are good. But it requires, at its least, the required intellectual integrity to explore these effects.

Rosemary,

SPICE will not allow for overunity as far as I know.

I began using PSpice with Luc's circuit because I figured it could explain the "WHY" of the effects he has so eloquently demonstrated in his series of videos. This I feel I HAVE achieved in the document I posted over in his thread. No one as of yet has questioned it's validity.

My rationale is this: IF the results of a real experiment can be duplicated and verified using SPICE, then one must come to the conclusion that the real experiment is exhibiting "normal" behaviour according to known electrical theory.

That is and was my only goal in doing the exercise with PSpice and the various circuits appearing here and at ou.com.

I have an open mind for FE research, that should be evident. Although I have spent much valuable time here and at ou recently offering some advice and helpful analyses, this is not my main occupation in research.

I am going to try Zoltan's simulation next because he has made claims that it is achieving overunity. This will be interesting to see, and of course I will report the results as output by the simulation. PSpice itself, and other SPICE programs do have some idiosyncrasies that can catch the unaware. I know because I have been using PSpice quite extensively for over 17 years, and I still only consider myself to be at an intermediate level with it.

Please don't read more into my posts than what is there. I am not here to debunk anyone's work. I'm here to seek facts as best I can obtain them, and if along the way I can help out a few individuals with the basics of electronics, that will be a bonus for me.

Regards,
.99

[poynt99]

Parasitic Hartley Effect

Rosemary,

Could you please provide some references to the "Parasitic Hartley Effect"?

I have not been able to find any myself on the net.

Thanks,
.99

[retrod]

EgmQC - I need to endorse Armagdn03 here. Our paper shows what is well known as a Parastic Hartley Effect. It's a random oscillation that needs to be taken out of signal circuitry. It's well known and problematic. What has not been known is that it gives a remarkable overunity result as it applies to applications for heat.

The point is this. No-one seems to be able to duplicate that resonance. It is characterised by spikes that are entirely aperiodic - and it is, therefore, very tricky to compute. Hence the need for specialised measuring equipment.

Be that s it may - the overunity is defintely measurable at all frequencies and all duty cycles. Having said that there are some really fast frequencies where the benefit is lost. However I've referred to possible variations in that paper. Nor do you need the precise circuit diagram. The experiment was only chosen because of the extreme values shown. Not critical to repeat it. Let's at least familiarise ourselves with overunity and the methodologies we're using to prove this. That in itself is a huge learning curve. Then we can move on from there.

I have been following this thread although I do not have the spare time to build and test the circuit. I came across a paper about parasitic oscillation and MOSFETs. It would appear (according to the paper) the parasitic operation can be enhanced by using two MOSFETs in parallel.
The papers purpose was to eliminate this oscillation, however there is good info if one simply 'reverse engineers' the info to enhance the effect. I thought it might be useful / helpful. I am attaching the link to the paper written by Jonathan Dodge P.E.
I hope it is of value.

Dave

http://www.microsemi.com/micnotes/APT0402.pdf

[witsend]

My rationale is this: IF the results of a real experiment can be duplicated and verified using SPICE, then one must come to the conclusion that the real experiment is exhibiting "normal" behaviour according to known electrical theory. .99

Sorry. This makes no sense. Your early assistance to gotoluc I am sure is appreciated. But thus far, as it relates to his test, it seems that you have only thrown doubt on his experimental evidence by subjecting it to PSpice analysis. Nor did you point out that PSpice could not, under any circumstances, simulate anomalous conditions. That is less than intellectually honest - by its kindest assessment.

[witsend]

retrod - thanks for the suggestion. I'm happy if anyone wants to try it. It certainly makes sense.

Rosemary

[DrStiffler]

My rationale is this: IF the results of a real experiment can be duplicated and verified using SPICE, then one must come to the conclusion that the real experiment is exhibiting "normal" behaviour according to known electrical theory. .99

Sorry. This makes no sense. Your early assistance to gotoluc I am sure is appreciated. But thus far, as it relates to his test, it seems that you have only thrown doubt on his experimental evidence by subjecting it to PSpice analysis. Nor did you point out that PSpice could not, under any circumstances, simulate anomalous conditions. That is less than intellectually honest - by its kindest assessment.

@All

IMHO I have used MicroCap now for 8 years cost many thousands of dollars, along with PSpice and LTSpice. You can not get them to show OU unless you use them improperly. The only models I know of are models created from the underlying theory, where the theory equations are used in place of the classical equations. If you use a simulation that understands your theory (hypothesis) you can see OU, but of course what does this prove?. Its not using classical understanding.

I assure you that I can with ease show OU in a few simulators that is not real, why, well I feed it incorrect information or I run the simulation with incorrect parameters.

[witsend]

Hi DrStiffler - thanks for the info. I had no idea that the software was so expensive.

[Mark]

With my superman simulator I can jump into the air and fly at the speed of sound but when I try it with out the simulator guess what?

A simulator with an unconventional circuit wont tell us much.

[DrStiffler]

Hi DrStiffler - thanks for the info. I had no idea that the software was so expensive.

@witsend
MicroCap is the big boy. PSpice is not expensive (relative) and LTSpice (which is a good modeler) is Free.

Please check you PM.

[Aaron]

NerzhDishual membership

NerzhDishual
posts: 398

Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie « Reply #470 on: Today at 15:18:23 »

Personal message fot FuzzyTomcat,

He's all set. Please let him know.