COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[witsend]

.99 regarding Parasitic Hartley Effect, I'm not at liberty to disclose the expert's name who brought it to our attention. But if you google this it should give some academic papers on the subject.

Regarding your support of gotoluc's experiment - would you mind re-posting this? I can't seem to find it and my eyesight may be to blame.

Many thanks,
Rosemary

[Hoppy]

@ all

Taking up this comment from Poynt99: It looks like no one was aware that the circuit cannot recharge the source battery., It is clear insofar as EE principles are concerned, that the circuit cannot charge the source battery in Rosemary's circuit configuration. However, table 1 in Rosemary's report shows some very strange battery terminal volt readings which I commented on earlier. If we rule out measuring error and battery failure etc., then this could possibly be as a result of some 'potentialisation' effect on the battery. This is where I keep an open mind that a battery may be able to receive a 'signal' in the form of a potential to invoke a degree of self-charging as claimed by John Bedini and others. This is the reason I suggested to Rosemary that a test be carried out using a battery capacity meter to establish if there is any 'hard' charge being put into the battery to offset the discharge.

Hoppy

[witsend]

@ all

Taking up this comment from Poynt99: It looks like no one was aware that the circuit cannot recharge the source battery.,

Hoppy - I cannot get my mind around this sentence. Please explain it. What is being said? I sincerely cannot work out that double negative. To me it reads 'everyone was aware that it can?' Surely that's not the intention of the statement. The more so as you then seem to argue that classical physics does not allow this. Help me out here. I'm struggling.

[Hoppy]

Hoppy - I cannot get my mind around this sentence. Please explain it. What is being said? I sincerely cannot work out that double negative. To me it reads 'everyone was aware that it can?' Surely that's not the intention of the statement. The more so as you then seem to argue that classical physics does not allow this. Help me out here. I'm struggling.

Rosemary,

I have stated my opinion and do not feel the need to explain Poynt99's statement.

Hoppy

[witsend]

Ok Hoppy. Fair comment. The point is probably irrelevant. And you DO go on to say that battery draw down is a good way to measure the gain - if any. I agree.

[Aaron]

sentence and battery charging

"It looks like no one was aware that the circuit cannot recharge the source battery."

I believe he is saying that 1) The circuit cannot recharge the source battery and 2) No one was aware of that.

This part, "no one was aware", subconsciously implies it as a truth that should be assumed by the reader - followed by what is supposed to be believed as that truth.

The sentence could manipulate someone that doesn't know anything about this into automatically thinking that it is a fact by stating, "no one was aware."

The reality until PROVEN otherwise about this sentence is that it only reflects 99's internal belief that the source battery can't be recharged by the circuit.

Anyway, I know when I see the spike on the circuit with the charging batteries disconnected, the spike is there until I connect the battery, then it goes down because the battery is sucking it up and is evidenced by the fact that the battery gets charged. Basically, now that I think about it, I don't think off hand that the spike should be visible when going to a battery to charge. Not because it isn't there, but because the battery takes it all in without leaving that spike at high pressure. The battery is a low impedance path that drops the voltage quick.

Like spraying 10 psi pressurized water out of a 1" diameter hose. The 1" hose is connected to a 2" diameter hose. The pressure/voltage will instantly drop.

This picture are spikes off of a Bedini oscillator.



That is from a while back. It is INVERTED. The bottom little bumps are actually the 12v input and the top spikes are the collapsed spikes of hundreds of volts.

By the way, is that AC since it has the voltage swinging on both sides? lol

Anyway, the spikes are what are at the collector of the transistor when the transistor goes off...that is the negative voltage of the inductive spike.

If I take a diode from the collector and put that spike to the positive of a battery and the negative of that battery back to the POSITIVE of the input battery, this battery will charge from the spikes. It isn't going directly back to ground of the source where the transistors emitter is...the transistor is OPEN and the source of "current" does NOT come from the source battery negative since it is disconnected from the circuit right? lol

Anyway, when I put that diode to the battery, I don't see the spikes anymore because the battery sucks them up.

So if any simulation picks up that with a battery there, it doesn't see spikes, that is probably why - nothing to do with them not being there.

The only time I have seen STRONG HARD spikes on a battery with the battery receiving charge is on my Gray circuits but that is a much stronger punch for any battery.

[witsend]

@ all

It is clear insofar as EE principles are concerned, that the circuit cannot charge the source battery in Rosemary's circuit configuration. However, table 1 in Rosemary's report shows some very strange battery terminal volt readings which I commented on earlier. If we rule out measuring error and battery failure etc., then this could possibly be as a result of some 'potentialisation' effect on the battery. This is where I keep an open mind that a battery may be able to receive a 'signal' in the form of a potential to invoke a degree of self-charging as claimed by John Bedini and others. This is the reason I suggested to Rosemary that a test be carried out using a battery capacity meter to establish if there is any 'hard' charge being put into the battery to offset the discharge.

Hoppy

Ok - so let me at least give this comment the attention it deserves. Sorry Hoppy I'm half asleep here. The following point is crucial. Energy delivered by the battery needs to be established. It can certainly be shown in battery life extension. But it is also measurable subject to the use of those storage scope meters that can give the sum of the two waveforms.

As I've mentioned before, using the battery draw down rate run with controls is a long long argument. You've got to run the one test, swap batteries, recharge and then re-run the test. If you just check the sum of the voltage across a non-inductive shunt resistor - then it's a short test but needs specialised equipment. Either way, the gain should be evident.

[witsend]

Hi Aaron. Did you use the cap as per Peter's circuit? Just try without the cap to see the difference. You'll be intrigued.

Am blown away by that picture. WOW. That's back emf with a vengence.

[poynt99]

@ all

Taking up this comment from Poynt99: It looks like no one was aware that the circuit cannot recharge the source battery.,
Hoppy

Hoppy, all.

That was not my statement.

Look back at MileHigh's posts. I'm pretty sure he wrote that.

.99

[Hoppy]

Ok - so let me at least give this comment the attention it deserves. Sorry Hoppy I'm half asleep here. The following point is crucial. Energy delivered by the battery needs to be established. It can certainly be shown in battery life extension. But it is also measurable subject to the use of those storage scope meters that can give the sum of the two waveforms.

As I've mentioned before, using the battery draw down rate run with controls is a long long argument. You've got to run the one test, swap batteries, recharge and then re-run the test. If you just check the sum of the voltage across a non-inductive shunt resistor - then it's a short test but needs specialised equipment. Either way, the gain should be evident.

Rosemary,

It is not for others to dictate any particular detailed method and procedure for establishing OU in your setup. You sought the opinions of others and have been well rewarded. What is important, is that you are satisfied that the test method and procedure you have adopted, is as flawless as possible, taking into consideration your understanding and opinion of the many comments that have been expressed in this thread.

Hoppy

[Hoppy]

Hoppy, all.

That was not my statement.

Look back at MileHigh's posts. I'm pretty sure he wrote that.

.99

Apologies, my bad

Hoppy

[witsend]

Rosemary,

It is not for others to dictate any particular detailed method and procedure for establishing OU in your setup. You sought the opinions of others and have been well rewarded. What is important, is that you are satisfied that the test method and procedure you have adopted, is as flawless as possible, taking into consideration your understanding and opinion of the many comments that have been expressed in this thread.

Hoppy

Thanks Hoppy. That's about right. Am delighted that this will be tested. But guys, PLEASE, no more simulator results. We need to check this experimentally. I'm hoping to find out if there is an easily accessed software that doesn't empty the pocket but that also is not tailored to obviate the effect that's experimentally evident.

I believe .99 will set up the test in a couple of weeks. That'll be welcome.

By the way - regarding 'fluffy charge' - I can't comment. But the swapping of batteries more or less answers this point. I hope so, in any event.

[poynt99]

Thanks Hoppy. That's about right. Am delighted that this will be tested. But guys, PLEASE, no more simulator results. We need to check this experimentally. I'm hoping to find out if there is an easily accessed software that doesn't empty the pocket but that also is not tailored to obviate the effect that's experimentally evident.

I believe .99 will set up the test in a couple of weeks. That'll be welcome.

By the way - regarding 'fluffy charge' - I can't comment. But the swapping of batteries more or less answers this point. I hope so, in any event.

All SPICE programs are based on similar mathematical models, so it is unreasonable and illogical to assume that using one vs. another "is not tailored to obviate the effect that's experimentally evident". The results (if used properly) will be substantially the same for all flavours of SPICE.

LT Spice is a free download from:
Linear Technology - Design Simulation and Device Models

I'm not sure where the "test in a couple weeks" came from, but so far my sim results compared to Zoltan's sim results are quite different. Looking forward to getting more direct insight from the author himself, if indeed he joins the forum.

.99

[witsend]

.99
I've copied this quote in its entirety. Could you please comment on this as it relates to the scope waveform. We have 220 volt utility supply sources. Could USA's stepped up 120 volt possibly account for this phenomenon?

Hi everyone,

There has been something that I have noticed looking at many older documents and illustrations of the term "Ground" as in Earth or "Terra firma" Terra firma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . As you all know common voltages from countries vary, the UK, Europe, Africa parts of Asia many more not to be named for example use 240 volt ..... but the United States and other North and South America countries use 120/240 volt ..... the big difference is how the "Ground" is connected and referenced.

Where 240 volt is and the only voltage available meaning "NO" 120 volt, a ground conductor is actually Grounded to "Ground", Earth or "Terra firma".

Where 120/240 volt is a ground conductor is bonded to the Neutral wire in a Electrical Service Panel (circuit breaker or fuse) whether in a residence, commercial or industrial application. This would also include "Bonding" of any ground rods, water pipes ( if metal ) and natural gas lines all bonded to the Service neutral conductor. SO A GROUND WIRE AND EVERYTHING CONNECTED TO IT ( neutral wire, pipes ) IS NOT A TRUE GROUND and anything connected to it can be subject to unwanted frequency's or harmonics induced into the grounding system through the neutral conductor.

How To Fix -

A separate "Ground" Earth or "Terra firma" connection must be used generally called a "Isolated Grounding System" using one 8'-0" ground rod a minimum of 6 (six) feet from any other ground rod system or underground water and gas lines. It must be totally isolated using a minimum of a #8 AWG insulated green conductor and must not be connected in any way to you existing grounding system ..... any questions you should contact a qualified person (disclaimer).

Testing equipment causing harmonics can be somewhat isolated during operation using a "UPS" power battery back up supply ( AC to DC to AC ) but that does not solve the ground reference problem.

An electronic circuit to free energy



Best Regards,
Glen

[Michael John Nunnerley]

Not 100% topic

Hi all

this is not 100% topic but I feel that I need to show this. How many people have seen over unity? how many people believe that over unity does not exist? how many people are undecided? Well I can answer all of this as:- we have ALL seen over unity but have not realised that it is in fact over unity!

Let me explain, it is very simple, this is the experiment:- take several mirrors and position them so that they reflect one to the other and to the other untill you have no more mirrors, place an object in between the first two mirrors, what do you see? yes you see a multiplication of the image as it oscillates between the mirrors. Over unity, yes because you started with one image and ended up with a lot of the same, but each time they are inverted. Now can we extract one of those images? yes, by positioning a mirror carefully in between the others we can extract an image of the original. Now have we degraded the original image? no, have we more than the original image? yes. Now what has this all to do with frequecies and duty cycle and power etc. well the experiment was made at the frequency of light, the duty cycle was the distance between each mirror and I can go on and on but I think I have just proved a point that over unity does exist and is all around us.

Now give me an argument that over unity does not exist and I will start a thread just for this, I am waiting

Mike