COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[witsend]

Tishatang, Hi. Nice to see you with us. That test - the one you described - that's the one that gotoluc does. You see for yourself the reaction. Mine does similar but I only need the input. It is far less than the actual energy from the supply source.


How's that model summation going?

Kind regards,
Rosemary

[witsend]

Guys - just to share this. We've been approached to build a working model with some nominal application to be defined and, apparently, a ready market.

Watch this space!!!!

[poynt99]

Simply Reporting

.99 - the need for the flyback diode is to prove the returning energy - not to exploit it. The WHOLE intention of that paper is for purposes of proof.

And your measurements are WAY OUT. I was rather hoping for an unbiased report.

Hi Rosemary.

I'm not sure what you're saying.

So far I have only taken a cursory look at your circuit. I made an observation about the spikes going back to the supply and surmised that you would be happy even that I was able to see them. More analysis yet to come.

In regards to biased or unbiased, I am simply reporting the results from the simulation. Not sure where I've gone astray from your perspective.

I will also be trying the other simulation circuit you mentioned and that is posted here in this thread.

.99

[tagor]

Rosemary, I couldn't find that name in the members list. If you can email me the exact user name and/or email, I can find it.

Also, if anyone has trouble posting after registering, you can speed up approval by emailing info @ esmhome.org - just give your user name and mention that you registered but still are not approved.

here is the answer

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

NerzhDishual
posts: 398

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

Personal message fot FuzzyTomcat,

I have received your personal message.
I cannot answer it as the forum 'send message' function
is not working for me

BTW the 'Spell Check' is no working too.

So, here is my answer:
I'm a member of the Energetic Forum since a while and
aware of the Rosemary Ainslie's thread. Infortunately,
I'm not allowed to see the attached pictures and to post anything...

I had 'stolen', the wed page about the Zoltan Szili's FE circuit in
this famous (French) site : QUANT'HOMME
And more precisely here:
Circuit électronique ZPE

I very rarely 'steal' web pages and if I do it, I, at least, give the
URL of the initial page. That was not the case about the Zoltan FE CCT page.
Shame on me...

However, as I'm sometimes at phone with the Quanthomme site webmaster,
I guess that I could be forgiven )

Very Best


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

[witsend]

Tagor - thanks for the post. I presume it's a copy from OU.COM. In which case - Aaron, I'm sure you'll agree - no need to expedite. We need to find Szili himself.

Golly. I guess we can't impose of Fuzzy again can we? I'll see what my own clumsy inroads into the dark recesses of the internet allow.

Else, any readers, if you can help here. We'd love to find a working email address.

[wrtner]

Tagor - thanks for the post. I presume it's a copy from OU.COM. In which case - Aaron, I'm sure you'll agree - no need to expedite. We need to find Szili himself.

I think this is it:

p_baril@sympatico.ca


Paul.

[witsend]

Guys - just to re-iterate a previous post of mine. We're in the happy position of being invited to give a demo of 'proof of concept' - I think - or else a working model (both easily accommodated) for a group here who may have found a market for the devices.

It seems such a ready made solution. I have been concentrating entirely on getting academics to approve this. How utterly stupid. We can go straight to the market. Why look for that endorsement. As and when we've got the actual 'application' or 'proof' or, indeed both, I will keep you fully updated. Hopefully we'll be able to post on youtube - but don't hold your breath. For me - that's a HUGE learning curve.

In any event. Once we've got our applications, you may be able to market and manufacture from your end. I only envisage battery operated at this stage. But it could be that we could show some financial sense in supplementing solar panels. I am just so fired up. I should have done this 8 years ago - instead of trying to convince on the logic side - just do the demos. I am definitely somewhat slow of thought. And it's all just so exciting. Glad henieck isn't with us to grade it. But if he needs a guide - I'd give it a 12 on a scale from 1 to 10.

[witsend]

wrtner - Paul - I tried that email. It comes back to me time out of mind. It's either jinxed or it's scoffing. I drew a complete blank.

[wrtner]

Do you know the webmaster at Rex Research?

Dear Rosemary,

It came from here:
Jean Szili -- Zero Point Energy extraction circuit
Maybe the webmaster could help.

[Armagdn03]

There's a fly in our soup....

1) The 555 circuit is incorrect. established.
2) The 555 circuit was not used in testing.
3) There is a huge heating difference between 97 and 3 %

Now...

We are looking to see if there is an advantage to the recirculation, therefore the aforementioned difference in #3 is irrelevant. What must be considered is whether (no matter the duty cycle) there is a difference in energy with or without the recirculation. Therefore a person looking to refute would need to have a circuit with, and without recirculation with the same duty cycle. If it takes 2 hours to heat up a couple of degrees at 3% you have refuted nothing. You must have a simple control test. If with recirculation, heating is quicker, or takes less energy, you have reasonable proof. If the time taken to reach the same temp without the recirculation is the same, or takes the same amount of energy to reach that point, you have reasonable doubt.

Are we trying to prove a concept or diagram's accurateness?

Like Allcanadian said, in order to do a replication, 1001 things need to be thought through. Instead, why don't you all go out and experiment, not replicate. Build your own tests. Use your own values. Use what you have learned, so that you know what you are building. Then maybe we can get ourselves free from this....whatever it is.

[EgmQC]

There's a fly in our soup....

1) The 555 circuit is incorrect. established.
2) The 555 circuit was not used in testing.
3) There is a huge heating difference between 97 and 3 %

Now...

We are looking to see if there is an advantage to the recirculation, therefore the aforementioned difference in #3 is irrelevant. What must be considered is whether (no matter the duty cycle) there is a difference in energy with or without the recirculation. Therefore a person looking to refute would need to have a circuit with, and without recirculation with the same duty cycle. If it takes 2 hours to heat up a couple of degrees at 3% you have refuted nothing. You must have a simple control test. If with recirculation, heating is quicker, or takes less energy, you have reasonable proof. If the time taken to reach the same temp without the recirculation is the same, or takes the same amount of energy to reach that point, you have reasonable doubt.

Are we trying to prove a concept or diagram's accurateness?

Like Allcanadian said, in order to do a replication, 1001 things need to be thought through. Instead, why don't you all go out and experiment, not replicate. Build your own tests. Use your own values. Use what you have learned, so that you know what you are building. Then maybe we can get ourselves free from this....whatever it is.

Hi Armagdn03,

I still think everybody should replicate Rosemary's circuit(the good one) first and follow everything she said carefully, else it will not be related in any way to what Rosemary is claiming.She already said that the circuit got build and tested, what she need is replication to confirme her claim. Once confirmed , now that will be the time to experiment everything to improve the circuit and explore the possibility.

Best Regards,
EgmQC

[witsend]

wrtner - hi. I've tried everything. I even got another email address to quanthomme@wanadoo.Fr - only to have it return. I'm afraid that this may be another study that has simply died from want of attention.

Not to worry. I'm sure if there were anything going on here Fuzzy would have informed us. I think the idea is simply to show that - yet again - the trick is to look at inductance - at switches - and, most critically - at software simulators that are not designed to specifically preclude an overunity result.

[witsend]

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.

[Hoppy]

We have all stated our various opinions and clearly and understandably there are still differences. My suggestion is to take Rosemary's circuit complete with 555 timer design and simply run it for sufficient hours to completely discharge the test battery at its C20 rating and take a before and after ampere hour capacity reading with a good quality battery capacity meter (BCM) on a battery with say a before test at rest voltage of 25.00V battery.

Rosemary has made it very clear to us that her circuit running at 90% plus duty cycle has been authenticated as being OU big time. If this is the case, then it will be easy enough to prove. I suggest that the test must be conducted to ensure that its duration be based on fully discharging the battery at a current based on that used for the DC control test which in Rosemary's case was 17.74W / 13.32V = 1.33A. This would require a battery of 25 - 30A/hrs. Assuming a seperate battery supply is used to run the 555 pulse circuit as was the case in Rosemary's test, then any loss of battery capacity measured after a good rest after the test, will strongly suggest under unity. Comparative 'before and after' test open circuit battery voltage measurements are not a reliable guide of capacity loss or gain.

Hoppy

[witsend]

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.