COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[Aaron]

credentials

Since Bill Gates dropped out, he doesn't have credentials to do what he did. Neither did Henry Ford since he had a 4th grade education. Ted Turner was a clown of a news anchor and even did the weather interviewing a dog with raincoat...not very credentialed. Yes, look at their results? Tesla had no "credentials" in EE, he was a mechanical engineer so why did he surpass all the EE's?

The argument of credentials lacks substance because those credentials are only as good as the parameters and systems they govern. Closed loop equilibrium thermodynamics systems and that is about it.

We're discussing open non-equilibrium thermodynamic systems here and that is really out of the expertise of 99.9999% of credentialed EE's.

TK has been defended as an apparent expert with credentials and I think he bragged about published papers, etc... but couldn't even intentionally get the mosfet into self oscillation but I could. Therefore, the argument is null and void. The argument of credentials stands or it doesn't and is not subject to "conditions."

If it requires 1000 joules to make x heat or 1000 joules is dissipated into a resistor but we get back 500 joules in potential and that 500 joules makes more heat. It doesn't matter if we "originally" paid for the 1000 joules. Absolute common sense shows that 1500+ joules of WORK was done with 1000 input meaning over 1.0 COP. This seems to be the hardest part for any classicly trained person to admit is that MORE work in measurable energy being done that was input violates thermodynamics.

[witsend]

Experimental evidence is worthless if the experimenter is not qualified to fully understand the evidence, nor the ramifications of it. It is evident that incorrect assumptions are being made about the evidence at hand and even the operation of the experiment itself. Indeed if you do not have a sufficient enough understanding of something, how can you then be qualified to properly comment on it?

Experimenting is fine and should be encouraged, but what gets me is when folks become authoritarian and downright bold about their results and conclusions when in fact they are sorely lacking the qualifications to do so, especially, disrespectfully and defiantly in the faces of those that are.

.99

Have just seen this post. .99 it is extraordinarily arrogant, with utmost respect. Since when has logic been the exclusive provenance of the trained EE. And there's no presumptive right to assume correct conclusions simply because it is also the most widely held conclusion. Scientific progress has never been in lock step with prior confirmation by popular opinion. On the contrary.

EDIT Just seen Aaron's response to this. All I would add to his comments is 'QUITE'. Popular opinion is worthless unless it is supported by both logic and evidence.

[witsend]

quote from MileHigh
Here is a clear example where you are misunderstanding the information the scope is giving you. In the clip, the "self-oscillation" is simply the scope loosing it's triggering for a fraction of a second and you are seeing the waveform being displayed free-running with no trigger. How can you make this mistake, it should have been the first thing that entered both of your minds when you saw this!
It may also be that the circuit is resonating. I think both options should be explored.

EDIT by the way - we get the same effect and our conclusions carry the guarantee - in writing - of Fluke themselves. And - thus far - not one accreditor has doubted that this is a resonating frequency. So. It has not slipped anyone's mind. It has been addressed at many levels.

[poynt99]

H Popular opinion is worthless unless it is supported by both logic and evidence.

True, and it is supported by logic and evidence in this case.

And conversely:

Un-Popular opinion is worthless unless it is supported by both logic and evidence.

Not supported in this case I'm afraid.

Aaron, Rosemary,

I've spent the better part of my weekend sitting here at my computer carefully composing what I thought were worthwhile responses. And from time to time I was encouraged as it seemed I was getting across once in a while (petersone thanks for the acknowledgment that I've been of some help to you).

But honestly, I've run out of gas going over the same points over and over in every which way imaginable (as well as MileHigh too), apparently to no avail. Not that this was ever a war, but I've got to throw in the towel folks. I'm just not making any headway here, and that is the only reason I AM here, which is to try and add some sense of careful and scientific thought. It doesn't seem to be happening. Folks have only so much patience, and I think I've shown more than could be expected. Folks have told me in private that they are amazed at the patience I have shown, and that in some ways helped me continue to try, and in some ways made me ask myself "why am I even bothering?".

Anyway I've been neglecting my own work long enough over here and I feel the effort is not paying off to any satisfaction that I could be making a positive difference. I'll continue to work with Luc as long as he "tolerates" me as he has been more receptive to input.

Also, I just can't keep up with all the rebuttals, especially when they seem to take turns for the worse and aim even farther away from the original point I was trying to make.

The last couple responses of mine is NOT where I wanted to go, but the issues were forced, and not by me. I won't stand down until I pull the plug, and that time is now.

Good luck to you guys

,99

[Aaron]

circuit replication

Just want to say I have nothing against classical viewpoint because it has served us well obviously. I have my computer, I can watch movies on a dvd player and so on.

The question is with jurisdiction. Classical training is limited to closed systems so why try to apply the constraints of classical training to non-classical circuits? The operating mechanism of normal circuits does not apply to these kind of circuits.

There are some that believe the concept of COP only applies to heat pumps. I have seen this argument but it is still a ratio of work out compared to what we had to provide. Therefore, any extra work done above our own input is a gain compared to what we put in.

It is argued that "the energy stored in a coil" coming back in a spike is the same energy we put in. If it is the same energy that we put in, then what happened to the belief that all the input energy was burned up in the resistor?

For practical application, it doesn't matter if it is the same energy we put in or if it came back from the environment for free. Let's just play the classical role and say it is the same.

If x watt hours left the battery, the conventional thinking is that it can only do that much work. If we get 50% back in inductive spikes after that much work was already done. It does not matter if the belief is that it is the same energy or new energy from the universe.

It is a fact that the 50% recovery can be used to do more work. Because this is an absolute fact of nature, that work the 50% recovered potential provides is still WORK.

A simple Bedini SSG can easily be 90% recovery in a secondary battery. Many of us have done this. There is easily 20% in the mechanical work done with the rotor spinning but the classic viewpoint continually ignores this fact that a turning wheel is work. That is COP 1.1 at minimum. I've had over 1.0 COP not counting the work with high capacitance cap dumps with a mechanical switch (more joules out of the charging battery compared to what left input battery. And the same with some oscillator experiments.

So we had x watt hours leaving the battery and it performed that much work PLUS other work done is what the 50% recovered potential will provide. Original input work + recovered potential put to work is MORE work that the x watt hours is predicted by math to be able to accomplish.

So even if we don't look at recovered POTENTIAL on each cycle and just look at what WORK it does, that work simply must be added to the work that the input amount provided. Add all the WORK, it is more than what can be calculated from the battery.

Even if zero heat can be felt on the resistor because there is a small amount of volts X current passing through, no matter how small, that wattage is supposed to be dissipated there meaning in the classical viewpoint, it is "KNOWN" that it is all dissipated. If ALL of the energy is dissipated there, where did the charge in my capacitor come from? That is potential energy and if all the energy dissipated, that means something that the classical viewpoint simply isn't willing to admit because it will pull the bottom card out of the house of cards that classical thermodynamics built - at least only to those that have surrendered jurisdiction of their reality over to classical thermodynamics.

The resistor is passing energy, without dissipating it and producing heat at the same time meaning there is no dissipation of energy in the resistor to create heat. If it was dissipated there in the resistor, we couldn't keep getting the potential back over and over and over. Conservation goes up in a puff of smoke.

This is beating a dead horse but at least we know the mosfet will self oscillate. It is easy for anyone to replicate this. I would encourage everyone to do their best in getting the exact mosfet the experiment used. They are clearly available.

Anyone that has ever built an SSG should see the similarity. Instead of a serious coil with a core, use an inductive resistor. Instead of a transistor, use a mosfet. Instead of an inductive trigger, use a 555.

And take your rhinocerous skin pills.

I have a few tests to report but don't want to do much more until I get the 3% duty cycle and lower resistance shunt.

[witsend]

.99 your last post was measured and from the heart. By contrast my own points were somewhat smug. I apologise. I would just ask you to consider that we are presuming to challenge conventional knowledge. It cannot be done without confronting known excellent disciplines.

It's bound to be at the cost of a certain amount of blood and scars - and, thus far, the wounds have been against those who presumed to challenge classical norms. But we're still challenging - still fighting - and I suspect that it will continue until real consideration is given to the evidence that we present. I would add that classical training seems to go to some lengths to forbid this evidence. They won't even discuss. Hence the gratitude to Hoppy, you and MileHigh. I would add. however, that there is an evident increase in the academic arenas of those who are at least testing some of these principles. But I am not in a position to disclose who they are or what their findings are. I just keep hoping to hear it from them, themselves. It would help if there were a public refutation of this from them. But it simply never comes and the months keep passing.

I only came into the picture because I've got a painfully literal turn of mind. I could not see why classical physics could argue against their own inductive laws - why induced fields would be one thing on one system and another thing on another system. But that's me. And we all know - I'm not qualified to comment.

I do hope we can keep you with us .99. And I am truly grateful for your help.

[tsakou]

scientific validation

Not tough at all Rosemary; this is the way claims are validated in the scientific community. Please read my post again; I did not say that you have said that anyone is wrong.

Hoppy

I don't give a damn about how the scientific community validates things. There are many inventors who where not validated at their own time and after their death, now, they are accepted.

So Rosemary, keep up the good work, make something that works, and leave the scientific community, to validate, if ever. I just want overunity. Don't need anybody to validate it.

[witsend]

tsakou - thanks. That's such a good point. Who cares? We just need to get the devices up and running. And I bet there's enough expertise in our little forum to find a way to 'trick' the meters to show that gain.

Thanks again. Always a boost when we get this encouragement. By the way - this device is SMALL. The big guns will follow and that's nothing to do with this circuit or my skills. I think I've got the best argument though because it conforms to conventional measurement protocols. So it may help to make inroads.

Rosemary

[tsakou]

tsakou - thanks. That's such a good point. Who cares? We just need to get the devices up and running. And I bet there's enough expertise in our little forum to find a way to 'trick' the meters to show that gain.

Thanks again. Always a boost when we get this encouragement. By the way - this device is SMALL. The big guns will follow and that's nothing to do with this circuit or my skills. I think I've got the best argument though because it conforms to conventional measurement protocols. So it may help to make inroads.

Rosemary

And please, please, please. Don't waste your time trying to persuade people. No need to do so. Communicate only with people who are positive, who are trying and experimenting. If somebody needs scientific validation, just tell him to wait, until it's available. Don't leave him bother all of us, who are interested.

[Joit]

About A Scientist would had archive OU, when it does exist.
There are plenty of Examples, what shows, Inventors been killed or 'died suddenly', after her Device was public.
Remember the latest case, where someone had set a Rotoverter into selfrunning Mode.
He tried to get in touch with a Company, and after a while, he lost his House, Work and access to his Bankaccount.
Another Example, someone did sell HHO Cells at EBAY, but seeems they been to good,
and the same, suddenly, his Bankaccount was locked, and after debating he was asked to accept a Cheque for equation,
and of course, not to sell the Cell anymore.
And this did happen LATELY.
Its not like, there are all open Mind outside.
And its like Rosemary says, when a Scientist state, its OU, then he is Out, of her 'Community'.
The Explanations and the Understanding is clearly made, that there is no Space, to explain extraordinary Things.
It seems more, THERE are the Holes at the general Understanding, what is clearly made, that you cannot explain extraordinary Things.

As well said, it are the Results under the Line what do counts, but True.
What does they help, when the Logic to understand them IS NOT HERE.
I only look with an half Eye into the technical Statements, what are overall done, because my Tummy says, anywhere, its quit not right,
And where you come to, when you stay into that Direction,
that you see too, under the Line. Anywhere, No OU.

Input Worth from external Links into this Thread? I would Say COP -200%


@Tsakou Teehee

[Joit]

And well, about the Timer Circuit at the Quantum Article.
I didnt like Mosfets too, been just not familar with it, but who is. Not much.

I did do a simple REAL Test, did put a 9V Batterie onto it, and a Led(+100Ohms) between D and Plus, and turn the Pot left and right.
It shows more clear, where the Batterie drains more, and from this, it shows more, like, as if the Timer has the long Duty Cycle.
But still not sure, if it is better, to have the long or short Cycles,
maybe not the Circuit is wrong, but the statements about the Duty Cycle are...?!
Who knows, what is better for the Ringdown Part, when you use other Parts at the Circuit with different Resistance.

What shows the Rest ?
How good expansive DMM's are well isolated with Caps, that they DONT show Things, what are still there?
Quit Impressive!

Thats just so Simple to test and show it with 2 Sentences, as to show it with bloaded Videos and 20 Posts.

And still as Aaron and Rosemary says, IT DOES NOT MATTER which Cycle you got,
when the Transistor is in self-oscillation, then you got the Gain.
Just the Thing to get it into it.

And think about it,
What is more worth, a lot of Comparisons or a simple crude made Thing,
what heats up to 70 Deg with a min of Input or the whole Discussion about it,
what takes more Time then anything else and
where you got more then one Possibilities, to get missleaded.

The importend things in this Thread about the Circuit for me right now are,
The Papers, the Circuit, the Parts and the fact, that you have to do some adjustments.

[witsend]

hi Joit. Love the comments. What scares me is not the academics - because at least they sincerely believe in their science - with good reason. Its the detractors on other forums that are worrying. The lengths they go to to discredit the person and the claim - both.

Have you ever looked through the OU.Com thread on this? It beggars belief. Malice hardly describes it. And the amount of money that is spent on displaying tests and parading brand new state of the art equipment that is never effectively used. Weeks go by without a single test result - just promises of this. Yet we are constantly advised that the claim is wrong. Has it ever occurred to anyone that - to this day - no single power measurement has been made on the circuitry? No test has been run to duration of a battery capacity. Brand new state of the art equipment is constantly on display but never are its full functions referenced. Small irrelevant points become critical evidence of a lack of proof and are championed with an unabashed repetitiveness that is boringly persistent but brutally destructive. But no actual proof is offered.

What is frightening is that anyone who questions a result is actually verbally menaced. One post we've got on record is of Ramset's answer to a challenging observation by one of their contributors. He actually wrote to the effect that 'owlsley needs to kiwl the kitty'. TK is on record as openly saying that I am a mendacious prevaricator. Apparently all aspects of our test are some sort of public con, apparently aimed at I don't know what? Surely my stated intention not to capitalise on the device must bring my motives to question. Clearly, if I am perpetuating a con - then it's not for purposes of defrauding the public. Why would I go to such lengths to expose a small little effect, possibly the smallest of any OU claim ever offered up for consideration? What is it that deserves their heavy handed attempts at wit or sarcasm, done with the orchestrated approval of other 'so called' scientists sharing that thread. TK only needs to make a post for immediate endorsement by other contributors who also then mock my apparent lack of sanity, judgement, intelligence, schooling, beliefs, ideas, lack of expertise - name it's all there. All for public consumption. All unchallenged. And all such detractors always out of reach, always carefully hiding behind their assumed identities. They flirt with their rights to freedom of expression that under normal circumstances, and under ordinary civil law would be actionable. And all this, clearly with Stephan's endorsement. Never do they give us their names. Never do they disclose their identities. Never are we in a position to find out their actual motives.

To compound my concerns is the fact that the entire forum was promoted by Stephan, with, one would assume, the intention of promoting the study of free energy. I can no longer access OU.Com. Was he responsible for my not gaining access? And if so, at whose asking and why? Public - to everyone but me? Then too it seems that my emails are being read. How does that happen? Are my phone calls also being monitored?

It's all very puzzling. All I want is an answer to the question posed in my paper - ideally from academics who can validate the result or not and comment accordingly. If they won't hear me then maybe they'll listen to you guys? It's quite important really. But its only a small question. In the light of the attack, however, I'm realising how significant it is. Certainly it seems to be sufficiently significant for them to do everything in their power to destroy my reputation and my work - both. Why is it that important? I can only propose it's because we're near the truth and this, for some reason, needs to be discredited. And again. Why?

[Mark]

Because it would change the whole balance of power! The power industry would be shook at its roots. One can only image all the changes that would take place with abundant low cost energy.

[tsakou]

Because it would change the whole balance of power! The power industry would be shook at its roots. One can only image all the changes that would take place with abundant low cost energy.

Can't agree more.

[RAMSET]

A scientist searching for OU [rare as hens teath]

MIB ? bad oil guy?

Can't use equipment?[every day of his life]

wonder what the COP is of this device.

YouTube - Dirod 1

Or this one.

YouTube - Bonetti Machine clip #3

Aaron is on the right page" heat some water" If your COP is that high

then your BTU will be obvious

You go Aaron make it so boil some water make steam Forget all these tests
HOT WATER HEAT is what where after COP 17 and higher

Chet
PS you don't need a lab for that