COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[poynt99]

But I'm not sure about Poynt. He is uncompromising in his claim that we're not pointing to anything new. Yet he posts that his own simulator - which presumably is designed with algorithms that conform to classical analysis - actually gives results that defy classical prediction. Yet, by his own admission he has said that he's 'satisfied that the programme cannot give an overunity result' or words to that effect. If so, then why is he now stating that he can run a circuit on his simulator at a 27% on (I think it was) duty cycle without any input from the battery? Self oscillation with a consistent measurable voltage across the resistor presumably also dissipating energy - but with no requirement for a supply source once the oscillation has been triggered. That's got to be strange. Especially as such an effect would go to the gullet of classical theory.

It's the 'double speak' that puzzles me. On the one hand I'm expecting him to pull a rabbit out the hat and say 'there you go - just a sleight of hand - and it signifies nothing. (That's the pessimist in me.) And then just maybe he'll say - I've been rude and objectionable because I'm actually systematically eliminating possible errors. If so then thereafter, sign me up. (And that's the optimist in me.)

So yet another question. Maybe Poynt will eventually enlighten us.

LOL.

Rosemary, you don't really believe I was saying or even implying what you have written above do you? A free energy device in SPICE

Let me try this again and write about my simulation in such a way that nothing can be "read" into this:

The MOSFET switching from the power supply is at a rate of 400kHz, and with a duty cycle of 24%. This is a continuous switching device and is delivering power to the coil 24% of the time, as long as the power source is maintained ON. This equates to a 0.6us ON time, and a 2.5us OFF time. This is not an OU device, it is simply a coil being stimulated into resonance.

.99

[Joit]

Hi witsend,
well, maybe maybe its kind of a dog turd, where we did tap in,
and actually its here like, you are interrested into a Thread, and post there,
or be polite, and stay away.
That is a Reason, why i dont join Ou.com, when you have to first debate
about every little Part of a Circuit, and you never got any Progress.
Some argue with, 'see the other Side' but mostly, they are going way to far with her Opinions and Suggestions.

/99 joined actually for give Luc some Suggestions, i guess,
hope, he didnt for debunk him, i have no clue, why he get stuck here, seems this Thread is magic

Sure, they can claim, Spikes are known for a long Time, they are,
but they did not investigate them, or tried to use them,
and they are false at her claims, that they do nothing.
That is a absolute wrong statement from them, what they cant admit, that it is.
And somehow, it shines through there, that they have no clue from working with Spikes.

And sure, 'Believers' know more then others, that it is very hard to make a OU Device,
but they do even try it, as to deny it from beginning.
That do noone helps, and when you are involved into classical Thinking,
then you never will think outside the Box, because there is clearly not the possibilty of OU there.

A Simulator is good for known Circuits, you can 'simulate' wich Parts do match there, but the pratical Test is a need for it.
Well, there are some Specialists, what can, and other think, they can simulate all,
and others (ie. in a company) just need to build it.
But its only good for known Parts, not for explore a unknown Circuit.

That is, what some dont get, that a Sim have there the obviously Limits.
And yes, this Peoples, what actually do know from beginning, that OU Circuits are not possible,
have nothing lost in Forums like OU or here,
because her mindset is clear, they should life with it, and dont bother other with her Opinions,
because noone want them, and its actually waste of Time with them.
Peoples do already know, what dont Works from the classical View of Electronic

Edit-- And well, sorry, i dont like such slippery Guys, what wind out at any possibility, when they got one.

[witsend]

Hi Mark. Indeed. It's my true genius to be forever wrong. This time I hedged my bets a bit. But still not sure that I included all options. Still - you gave me a laugh - as did Joit. Thanks guys. I'm now going to enjoy the rare pleasure of a relatively early night.

[Mark]

No No No Witsend it MUST be that you "mis-interp" what he said, again.

[witsend]

Hi Joit. Nice to see you're adding your bit here. I entirely agree with you. But on a broader issue is this. This forum is largely dedicated to altenative energy sources and full discussions thereof. So is overunity.com. But through both threads are those that dismiss evidence or claims with the arrogance and certainty of religious zealots. Do the claims or even does the subject here also perhaps just attract as many extreme sceptics as there are extreme believers? Perhaps.

But I'm not sure about Poynt. He is uncompromising in his claim that we're not pointing to anything new. Yet he posts that his own simulator - which presumably is designed with algorithms that conform to classical analysis - actually gives results that defy classical prediction. Yet, by his own admission he has said that he's 'satisfied that the programme cannot give an overunity result' or words to that effect. If so, then why is he now stating that he can run a circuit on his simulator at a 27% on (I think it was) duty cycle without any input from the battery? Self oscillation with a consistent measurable voltage across the resistor presumably also dissipating energy - but with no requirement for a supply source once the oscillation has been triggered. That's got to be strange. Especially as such an effect would go to the gullet of classical theory.

It's the 'double speak' that puzzles me. On the one hand I'm expecting him to pull a rabbit out the hat and say 'there you go - just a sleight of hand - and it signifies nothing. (That's the pessimist in me.) And then just maybe he'll say - I've been rude and objectionable because I'm actually systematically eliminating possible errors. If so then thereafter, sign me up. (And that's the optimist in me.)

So yet another question. Maybe Poynt will eventually enlighten us.

[Joit]

Very funny Claim, that a DMM is more accurate as a 10 000$ Device.
Just as it serve you, huh? and now yelling at a 3rd Person, to confess,
that a cheap DMM will be more accurate as his Device.

Lets swapt the Roles, when /99 would have a Textronic, i bet, all readings from there would be highest accurate.

Same as, when a Capacitor do drop the Voltage, that counts.
But when a Batterie gain Voltage, that doesnt count. What a Show.

Actually, when the Batterie drops, then it does it the first Minutes and climb, if...,
But not after couple of Hours running a Circuit on it.

At last, Aaron did let him a small Window open, to post with his RL Name,
but he let pass it, and now he wonder, why someone still want to see a Video, what is anyway unprobable, that he do, or even do it right.

Where do the Energy come from ?
It doesnt mean, that Energy need allways to be created, to have it.
Take the Milcovic Pendulum for Example.
It is a small Weight, what can move a bigger Load. And there is no greater Energy needed for moving it..
Edit- just the Drawing is wrong there, the Pendulum hit actually twice each Movement.


@Mark
I say they are Wrong, Just look at the Label from the Poles.
That is, where the Mess starts and goes trough anything like a red Thread.
Even, that they dont consider, that there are (possible) two currents running.

[Michael John Nunnerley]

The Words"new Free Energy"

The words new free energy are the problem, who is frightend of this? well we all know the answer to the question.

We are in a big mess now, so lets make it a bigger mess? I do not know the answer to this but science must advance for the better of all, and if there is an unexplained happening in this circuit, of which I think there is, then it should be open to all and all should help and not hinder.

@99
I have not seen one single encouragement from you, only that this is impossible, nothing is impossible. I and I think many others would like to see a little change in attitude from you, it does not take much, just a "you might have something there" or to that effect, you will find that you will not alienate people so much and maybe the posts will be a little more civil.

Maybe you have alternative reasons for the way you treat the people in this thread, some are probably more qualified than yourself, it is something to think about!

Mike

[Joit]

I have heard that it is unsafe to walk in the cherry tree grove between four and five o'clock. This is the time when elephants are hiding in the trees waiting to jump down on us. They paint their toenails red to camouflage themselves. Have you ever seen an elephant in a cherry tree? No? See, the camouflage works. But the saddest part of this story relates to the beavers. They cut the birch trees down to make their dams. But after a long day, they must travel through the forest, between four and five o'clock to get home. That's why they have flat tails.

But do you know, why the Elephants do hiding at the Cherrytrees?
Because they are scared, that a crazy Theorizer will hang them headover with her Tail tied on a Daisy into a Canyon.
I only can say poor Beavers.

[Joit]

very much the sam

6 very much same Digits at Lotto are very much the last place too.

[witsend]

The specs were given in my post that would allow you to calculate the duty cycle. In fact, this particular setting is a duty cycle of 24%. In short, yes the power is only applied 24% of the time, and the circuit once disconnected from power continues to oscillate due to resonance. Sure, call it a DC to AC converter if you wish. Aaron's circuit is very much the sam

.99

Surely this needs to be explained? At least give us that much Poynt. If Spice shows the circuit running without input from the source - what is that? Mainstream? I presume it's a standard sym programme? Please elaborte here.

[Mark]

Hello 99

I never stated that mainstream is wrong. For the most part I believe it is right, but the world was also considered to be flat until proven differently.

I have hope that mainstream has much to learn and that it IS wrong. I hope that cheap energy can be produced and devices can be installed in all of our homes and we can get rid of the grid, power wires and help the poor and less fortunate. I also believe Howard Johnson built a permanent magnetic motor capable of powering a generator. But do we have one on the market, no. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[witsend]

Hi Rosemary,
There is a post of mine in this thread Ground - Grounded - Grounding and the issue still stands, at my residence I still have not as yet resolved this issue totally ..... but this is a problem for everyone.

Glen

Hi Fuzzy. Thanks for the reminder. I shall revisit this post. Boguslaw - these posts may help? But I think the question is still out there.

edit - saw your edit here. It's a bit off topic but we had something similar here - also an old house. Subsequently painted the exterior. But we don't have your system where you step up the voltage from the supply. It's fed to us at 220 volts.

[witsend]

Hi Mark.

Respectfully, if you admittedly are not qualified to make such an assessment, what are you basing this on? It can only be quantified as an opinion if you can not technically explain or argue the point.

On the flip-side Mark, why can you not accept the possibility that mainstream is correct here?

.99

Come on Poynt. What arrogance is this? I'm reasonably certain that Mark is considerably better qualified than myself and I consider myself over qualified to detect the bias in your evaluation of Aaron's results. No need to be an Einstein to see this.

And where did he comment on 'right' or 'wrong'. I saw no evidence in his post. Just asked you to comment or consider alternative to mainstream is all - or to build your own circuit. I might add that I'm delighted to see that this is finally under consideration.

[FuzzyTomCat]

Boguslaw - a good question. This circuit was only run off batteries. The scope sometimes grounded - sometimes not - depending on the locale. But it's a good point. Perhaps Fuzzy - someone? could comment. Would this change anything?

Hi Rosemary,
There is a post of mine in this thread Ground - Grounded - Grounding and the issue still stands, at my residence I still have not as yet resolved this issue totally ..... but this is a problem for everyone.

Glen

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edit- I should explain the small unresolved problem is my home was built in 1926 and the exterior of the home is stucco meaning the original concrete with colored rock, glass and abalone shells on "wire mesh" ........ Humm ....... a big Antenna at times or Faraday cage take your pick.

[poynt99]

Hi Mark.

Every time you try to explain in your excepted theory what is happening Aaron is able to show you pretty amazing proof of the contrary.

Respectfully, if you admittedly are not qualified to make such an assessment, what are you basing this on? It can only be quantified as an opinion if you can not technically explain or argue the point.

As I stated, I've not seen any evidence, amazing or otherwise that can be categorized as proof of anything, other than the results are pointing towards a no-go.

Stealing words from my good friend Harvey, stating that "-0.000" and "-5.4mV" is proof of a negative net current is indeed making a mountain out of a mole hill.

I do not have a lot of time on my hands, but foolishly perhaps, I seem to be expending a lot of it here, apparently in vain.

I do not need to build the circuit, but I may, just to appease all the requests. I will do my other video first however.

On the flip-side Mark, why can you not accept the possibility that mainstream is correct here?

.99