COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[jibbguy]

"Test" & Construction Plans next on the agenda?

Not being able to replicate this myself presently, i am just a gadfly. However, if i could suggest some things from observation (aimed at those brave & skilled souls who have replicated despite the absurd constant and loud cries for them not to), i believe it would help get things moving a little faster... And it should help in gaining even more interest (...of the positive kind lol).

Respectfully Submitted Suggestions:

> This has become more of an argument of "for and against" this last couple weeks: Perhaps the thing to do is move ahead with the surety that the "Fors have it".... Those that don't like it can find some salt, and pound it night and day for all it's worth... And contact with naysayers should just cease and be ignored. Anyone who has ever tried to push a project from inception to Market knows, that there is a point where debate is no longer constructive; and continuing with it will only dampen progress. At some point, the new board lay-out has be sent to the Masking Machine, or there will NEVER be a product Have we reached that point?

> Define the experiment a bit better; mainly by posting a new schematic of what is known to work without too much tweaking, with all component values & part numbers. Note any construction difficulties.

> Define the astable oscillation of the MOSFET and how to achieve it a bit better. Post more and detailed scope shots of what it will look like for the Replicator to compare.

> Define the measurement regime a bit better so it can be reproduced easier as well. These things may seem "repetitious" but imo you can't be too repetitious in these cases. The instrumentation that will be required to do the measurements should be defined as well: From all indications so far it will need a storage scope to do it completely and accurately (although positive results can be seen without one, and temperature measurements can be done, the idea imo would be to document the actual pulse DC voltage and current waveforms and figures as well as the temps, which since this is not a "motor" that does visible work everyone can see, will be critical for eventual acceptance).

> A Test Plan can be posted for following. This will help greatly in gaining acceptance, as the data between replications is more uniform, can be compared, and allows for better analysis to see what varied results will occur with slight variations and "tweaks". Sometimes very interesting phenomena are found this way; though these variations of the theme. Once the above is defined fully, i would gladly help in writing this Test Plan, as i've done it many times for "Beta Testing" new products.

If we have such a "set of plans" for replication, one here who has not yet tried this circuit could then run through the "construction plans" and "test plan" as a check to see how they work in the "R-W".

> When that is successful, then we are ready for the "big-time" (verification with academic witnesses). It may take some time to find one willing to put their reputation on the line, but this can be done by "starting small", with a Community College science/electronics teacher (or a EE PHD who is not an academic), then using their signed deposition to entice a full-blown University Prof to get off their duff and do their bit for Humankind. They can be found. The one will leverage the other, on up the line... Each previous deposition being "rear-end cover" to protect the next. A few of these and we are on the way to total success.

During this time of first gaining academic acceptance, with no offense at all to Rosemary, i would suggest the entire focus be on verifying EMPIRICAL results, with little or no mention of the Theory behind it: We will be more successful with the above imo if we only attempt to foment one revolution at a time

Now i may be premature in my timing, but if we are not ready, then the focus should be on getting there: Crossing the "T's", getting all our ducks to quack at the same time (...coming to consensus and thus firming-up the circuit design), and ignoring the deliberate detractors so real progress can start.

..Or not. They are only suggestions given in the spirit of trying to help in some meager way

[witsend]

Jibbguy - your proposals are excellent. Truth is we're just one good storage scopemeter away from doing that replicated test. Everything's more or less done and dusted - just need those finely tuned numbers.

My own scope is being fixed. I was promised delivery today - but this is Africa.

That's the delay. The discussion is just to fill time. But I hear you. A detailed plan would be a good thing.

[witsend]

During this time of first gaining academic acceptance, with no offense at all to Rosemary, i would suggest the entire focus be on verifying EMPIRICAL results, with little or no mention of the Theory behind it: We will be more successful with the above imo if we only attempt to foment one revolution at a time Jibbguy

Just to point out here - we've done this. Over and over and over. Everyone looks at the results - shakes their heads - and then moves on with their lives. Look at the list of accreditors. One even went so far as to offer our local university a bursary to take the study further. The professors in their wisdom saw fit to challenge that there was any point in the exercise. And I haven't even covered the full list of accreditors in that paper. Lots and lots and lots of electrical engineers of varying caliber - and qualification - saw or replicated that experiment. It still sat dusty and ignored for 7 years.

In point of fact unless this is a stated object that the academics look at the argument and not the evidence only - we may as well be shut up shop right now. It really is not enough to cross fingers and hope that academics will be impressed. They wont. They don't even come to demonstrations. The paper was not even sent to review. Substandard or not I should have had a reviewer's recommendations for resubmission. I am most anxious that the 'spike' be evaluated on a theoretical basis. Obviously the demo will support this. And if we don't point out the significance who will?

EDIT That's why I'm so anxious to point out that the results cannot be explained in terms of stored energy. They must be seen as a regenerated cycle of energy during the off period. Everytime I get close to this (sorry was interrupted) point then the subject veers away. It's in the face of a vast number of boffins who've bought into the 'stored' theory and explained it with some really exotic science.

I am so frightened that this will again be evident and ignored. That's all that I've found so far.

[witsend]

Have just been in contact with the Fluke in Holland. They were indirectly involved with the early accreditation - related to Spescom. A gentleman there is going to see if he can open doors at Fluke in America to see if they can get us an instrument to use - may be quicker than waiting for mine.

That way Aaron will be able to go ahead with his presentation?

I'll keep you posted.

[Armagdn03]

This is so precisely as I've tried to describe current flow in my paper. Armagdn03 - here's my question? How long have you known this and is it widely understood by the guys on this forum?

Dissipated energy is a secondary phenomenon. Is that how you see it?

Cant say how long I have known, but I dont really think it is understood by almost anybody. I was watching a guy speak, who was a former "black ops" who said that the military had circuits which only "spent time". At the time I thought he was full of crap, but now I can clearly see what he is saying. This goes deeper than just heat, it goes to the heart of all energy, and the assumption that there is, was, and has been a finite amount.

A condenser charged, will share its charge with another condenser of the same properties. The energy dissipated in doing so will always be the same. If you place different loads in-between you will always end up with the same balance, how long it took will be the only difference. Bulbs, motors, resistive loads, doesn't matter, same energy is lost. Energy is apparently lost because we have spread a potential over a larger surface area (higher total capacitance). This need not be the case, for inductors themselves look like the perfect "negative resistor" sucking up every last drop of energy in the condenser. (this cannot happen if we keep sharing between caps).

Placing loads in between the cap and inductor complicates things. Anything that diminishes the flow, (resistors etc.) spreads out the TIME it takes for the interaction to take place. This means the inductor will not rise to as high an energetic state, which then also means it has less energy stored. It will return less when it becomes source, and cap becomes sink, your coefficient of restitution will suffer. This is mostly due to ohms law.

Take a motor for instance though, one like Dr. Lindemann is touting. A capacitor discharges into a motor winding. Because the motor creates no secondary current opposed to the first, energy stored in the inductor is not limited in any way, and is free to return to the capacitor. (especially if built so the reluctance does not change). You basically have a delay line tank circuit, or this one way tank. Now there is nothing in the way of collecting as much as possible back from the inductor, and you get rotation on top of it all.

Put in one pulse of energy, and it will be recirculated, over and over until it slowly runs out. The more run time you have off of a single pulse, the more judiciously you have managed your time expenditure.

I have a transformer which "rings", each ring pumps a charge in a secondary circuit. If a load is attached, the ring does not die faster, Try this with a normal transformer, and the load will kill the ring right off the bat.

Edit:

I didnt see Luc's latest video, excellent compliment to what I am trying to explain.

[witsend]

Armagdn03 - the model requires that current flow is a primary event and conserves charge. Dissipated energy is a secondary event as a result of charge moving through the material of the resistor. They are two entirely different moments.

But the charge or current is always sensitive to polarity. The higher potential difference determines the direction. When the switch is open, then the higher potential difference is on the load. This reverses, and in terms of inductive laws must then regenerate another cycle of energy. That's counter electromotive force - in my book. Nothing stored. Just another cycle of energy.

And that way you don't need those explanations that are entirely extraneous to fundamental principles of current - current generation and current flow. Just so simple.

[jibbguy]

Edit: This was the response to Rosemary's Post #1310 above.
____________________

I can understand that, it must be horribly frustrating!!

Here is what i & others i know can do once this is properly documented (all over again lol): Write articles and get them published with at least 1 million readers... With "You-Tubes" for illustration as well. If this campaign done right and is as successful as i suspect, it will be picked up very widely indeed for many times more readers/viewers by the independent internet press.

A separate e-mail campaign to academics all over the world to make them aware of it will also be done.... The circuit will be discussed at Department Meetings in a hundred Universities. Whether this will actually get Studies done in the U.S. is very questionable, but the point is to shove it in their face so it is harder to deny

There are ways to push these things. Timing is important, and everything must be well-defined and proofs apparent. When we arrive, with academic acceptance, with such an awareness campaign there can be much public clamoring for it.... Especially if this coincides with colder winter months in the Northern Hemisphere; when "short-sighted" or not, "efficient & cheap heating" issues are much more important to people... And so will help them to have their imaginations captured, and thus perhaps a popular grass roots "Letter to Government Leaders", and "Letters To The Editor" of local newspapers writing campaigns started. These may at first appear "weak" in scope but it is amazing how they can grow, and what effect they can have... Especially when easily-understood basic pocket-book issues are at stake.

There are MILLIONS of good people on this planet, who know things are wrong and who want to help, somehow. Giving them a CHANCE to do something positive is almost like doing them a favor. And it is very important to remember. we are not asking for "money", only awareness. Hehehe, this is the worst nightmare of our enemies

One VERY GOOD aspect of this technology is, no yahoo jerk can claim "danger" or "national security".. Lol for a heating element? ... What, are we afraid the terrorists in the caves will use it for staying warm, lol? The shills will be utterly destroyed if they tried it, and i relish the thought of doing so . So their favorite tactic of "Fear" is stolen from them.

So i feel confident that THIS TIME, the news can be made to reverberate around the 'web and foreign press in a very positive way... Up to a point where public interest forces the corporate-owned mainstream media to mention it as well... They cannot afford to be caught suppressing; that works when only a few know the Truth...This is because ALL WE NEED to kick the wall down the rest of the way, and finally let the light in, is a well-documented and unshakable example of corrupt, non-military suppression.... And it's all over.

However, i cannot stress enough that the Profs are not the only ones who will need their backsides covered. We must perform our do-diligence work well and completely, as it will be attempted to be picked-apart by the BEST they have... Imagine TK to the power of 3 ; with a bunch of Degrees after his name. That is what we could be up against (if any cracks in the proofs are detected at all); and only the most careful documentation will survive... But in fact, if done well enough to begin with; that will be ended before it starts: As these guys cannot afford to be seen as deliberately attacking it without "plausibly-deniable" reason

I think before, that there was no serious attempt to "wide-band" this over the 'net. I've been studying these techs for years now, and did not hear about it before Peter and Aaron pointed it out a few months ago. That is not to say i am omniscient lol, but i think others here have had the same experience. I have no quarrel here and am not trying to be demeaning in any way: But no one i know ever heard of "Quantum" magazine ... Meaning that it was deliberately ignored because of the import and because they COULD get away with it.

Technically that should not have been YOUR job You did the work to bring it forth (and have it verified), and others should have taken it from there. I am not criticizing them either, as it is certainly not easy, nor assured of success.

But perhaps a new country, and a new time of increased social awareness are what will make the difference here

At the very least, it will go down in "a blaze of glory"; and it will be a beacon for others in the future, and a very good example of suppression to point to. Every hammer blow against the wall will help eventually bring it down...

And the "Truth" can be hidden, disguised, "imprisoned" for a hundred years, and it can even be "tortured"... But it cannot be killed.
__________________________________________________ ____________

Edit #2: BTW folks all of this i wrote today is a prescription for ANY Free Energy technology to break out via Open Source... And this does not have to be "Mutually Exclusive", it can be done simultaneously for many techs

[Hoppy]

Cant say how long I have known, but I dont really think it is understood by almost anybody. I was watching a guy speak, who was a former "black ops" who said that the military had circuits which only "spent time". At the time I thought he was full of crap, but now I can clearly see what he is saying. This goes deeper than just heat, it goes to the heart of all energy, and the assumption that there is, was, and has been a finite amount.

A condenser charged, will share its charge with another condenser of the same properties. The energy dissipated in doing so will always be the same. If you place different loads in-between you will always end up with the same balance, how long it took will be the only difference. Bulbs, motors, resistive loads, doesn't matter, same energy is lost. Energy is apparently lost because we have spread a potential over a larger surface area (higher total capacitance). This need not be the case, for inductors themselves look like the perfect "negative resistor" sucking up every last drop of energy in the condenser. (this cannot happen if we keep sharing between caps).

Placing loads in between the cap and inductor complicates things. Anything that diminishes the flow, (resistors etc.) spreads out the TIME it takes for the interaction to take place. This means the inductor will not rise to as high an energetic state, which then also means it has less energy stored. It will return less when it becomes source, and cap becomes sink, your coefficient of restitution will suffer. This is mostly due to ohms law.

Take a motor for instance though, one like Dr. Lindemann is touting. A capacitor discharges into a motor winding. Because the motor creates no secondary current opposed to the first, energy stored in the inductor is not limited in any way, and is free to return to the capacitor. (especially if built so the reluctance does not change). You basically have a delay line tank circuit, or this one way tank. Now there is nothing in the way of collecting as much as possible back from the inductor, and you get rotation on top of it all.

Put in one pulse of energy, and it will be recirculated, over and over until it slowly runs out. The more run time you have off of a single pulse, the more judiciously you have managed your time expenditure.

I have a transformer which "rings", each ring pumps a charge in a secondary circuit. If a load is attached, the ring does not die faster, Try this with a normal transformer, and the load will kill the ring right off the bat.

Edit:

I didnt see Luc's latest video, excellent compliment to what I am trying to explain.

This all sounds reasonable to me and highlights the need to reduce resistive elements to get best power transfer between capacitor and inductor in the case of the motor example. However, given that the inductor and capacitor will be far from 'pure / perfect' devices, a state of unity cannot be achieved in the physical circuit and under unity efficiency optimisation is all that can be hoped for.

If there is any hope at all towards overunity, the focus should perhaps be on the battery as John Bedini has said so many times. The 'motor' might possibly generate the necessary 'trigger' to cause the battery to self-charge but I'm certainly not holding my breath on this claim ever being proved correct.

Hoppy

[witsend]

Jibbguy - I love your writing. What a rally call. I absolutely agree. For once the presentation must be impeccable. I know Aaron et al will see to it.

I'm not down. Not at all. I phone Fluke and suddenly they're rallying. I phone a previous accreditor and suddenly there's interest again. I know that this will come out as true. What excitement when it does. Whether you or I are around when it does happen also doesn't matter. Just as long as the truth comes out.

What fun.

[Armagdn03]

This all sounds reasonable to me and highlights the need to reduce resistive elements to get best power transfer between capacitor and inductor in the case of the motor example. However, given that the inductor and capacitor will be far from 'pure / perfect' devices, a state of unity cannot be achieved in the physical circuit and under unity efficiency optimisation is all that can be hoped for.

If there is any hope at all towards overunity, the focus should perhaps be on the battery as John Bedini has said so many times. The 'motor' might possibly generate the necessary 'trigger' to cause the battery to self-charge but I'm certainly not holding my breath on this claim ever being proved correct.

Hoppy

Its a parallel viewpoint.

Say the input is 10v peak to peak, then it rings down to 5v in 100 cycles. You are loosing energy on the input. But if the output is the cumulative total of all peaks together, then you have much more output than input. You want a reactive input, and a traditional output, its all in the action of carefully designed transducers. Its not about batteries. Think of an oil rig, you can pump more energy out of the ground then it takes to run the pump. Input is a energy conserving "pump" and the energy you move with it is the oil.

[Armagdn03]

This all sounds reasonable to me and highlights the need to reduce resistive elements to get best power transfer between capacitor and inductor in the case of the motor example. However, given that the inductor and capacitor will be far from 'pure / perfect' devices, a state of unity cannot be achieved in the physical circuit and under unity efficiency optimisation is all that can be hoped for.

If there is any hope at all towards overunity, the focus should perhaps be on the battery as John Bedini has said so many times. The 'motor' might possibly generate the necessary 'trigger' to cause the battery to self-charge but I'm certainly not holding my breath on this claim ever being proved correct.

Hoppy

Its a parallel viewpoint.

Say the input is 10v peak to peak, then it rings down to 5v in 100 cycles. You are loosing energy on the input. But if the output is the cumulative total of all peaks together, then you have much more output than input. You want a reactive input, and a traditional output, its all in the action of carefully designed transducers. Its not about batteries. Think of an oil rig, you can pump more energy out of the ground then it takes to run the pump. Input is a energy conserving "pump" and the energy you move with it is the oil.

[Jetijs]

Hi Rosemary and all
I was out of reach for the weekend, but now I am back I made an interesting test today. I used my Attraction motor circuit again, but this time I increased the input capacitor capacity to 40000uF, because I noticed that if I turn the power supply down, the circuit works for a wile after that till the capacitor depletes. I wanted to extend that time to the max and compare how long it would take for the circuit to drain the capacitor depending on whether or not the recovery part is used. I installed a switch on the power supply side so that I could disconnect the circuit from the power supply completely and I used a stop watch to measure the time till the spikes on my scope disappear. I tried it with and without recovery for many times to get a precise result. The thing is that without the recovery it took about 5.3 seconds for the circuit to drain the capacitor. But with the recovery it took 6.7 seconds. The current that was circulating through the circuit was about 200mA and the current used from power supply when it was connected to the circuit was 150mA. Sounds like a good proof that the recovered inductive spike can indeed charge a capacitor and no excess energy is being consumed from the power supply.

Jetijs

[witsend]

Hi Jet, Not sure I understand it all but it sounds good. Well done. I might tell you I looked at your previous post waveforms and they blew me away. There's major energy there. You must have a pretty hefty inductor.

kindest regards,
rosemary

[Hoppy]

Its a parallel viewpoint.

Say the input is 10v peak to peak, then it rings down to 5v in 100 cycles. You are loosing energy on the input. But if the output is the cumulative total of all peaks together, then you have much more output than input. You want a reactive input, and a traditional output, its all in the action of carefully designed transducers. Its not about batteries. Think of an oil rig, you can pump more energy out of the ground then it takes to run the pump. Input is a energy conserving "pump" and the energy you move with it is the oil.

Yes, more potential energy can be pumped out of the ground in the form of oil using a lesser amount of energy to run the pump but the oil needs to undergo energy consuming processing to convert its potential energy into useable fuel. Although minerals such as oil does provide more energy than is used to process it from its natural form, oil required massive energy to form in its geological context. In the same way, the heat produced from lightning travelling through a conductor does not magically manifest without a greater energy being necessary to set up the atmospheric conditions required for the conversion of electrical potential to the lightening strike that produces the subsequent current flow in the conductor.

I suggest that there will probably always be abundant potential energy available from the earths natural resources, so long as we can discover new and more efficient methods of conserving and converting these natural resources into energy forms useful to mankind. We have probably only scratched the surface in this endeavour.

Hoppy

[Jetijs]

Rosemary,
it is very simple really. You should look at Peters electric motor secrets thread:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...read.php?t=271
It is very long, but there is a lot of valuable info there, so if you have to kill some time, you can read it through
I made a simplified schematic so that it is easier to understand:



We just use a bifilar coil. One winding is the power winding and other is the recovery winding. It takes some time for the coil to develop a magnetic field around it. As the field builds up, so does also the current that is flowing through. When the magnetic field is at its max strength, current does not rise anymore and goes in a flat line. Here you can see how this looks like on a scope across a shunt resistor:


You can see that the current rises till the coil core (if there is any) is fully magnetized, after that the current does not increase anymore. There is no need to maintain the current flow any further because this is just power wasted and we can not recover it. So we adjust the duty cycle so that the ON time is only short enough for the coil core to fully magnetize. So now we have a fully charged coil. If we now cut the current flow then the field collapses and induces a new current that we can recover and send to the front side capacitor. There will be losses, but we can recover up to 90% of that energy and maybe even more. The cap charges up and thus less power is needed from the power supply. This is what the current waveform looks like across the S1 shunt resistor:



And this is the current waveform on the S2 shunt:



So you see that we can get most of the energy back and this is real current flow that indeed can charge up a capacitor. So all we need is just to adjust the duty cycle so that the on time is just enough for the coil core to fully magnetize and this will get us the best input/output ratio.
Hope this helps