COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie | Part 2

[witsend]

Glen. Your response here is unfortunate.

I again put it to you - my intentions and involvement with this experiment were for purposes of replicating the COP 17 claim that Aaron brought under discussion. I had no ulterior motives, nor do I entertain ulterior motives. I am very sorry indeed that you presume this. I am entirely innocent of all that you are claiming.

I am very sorry it has come to this. I still do not understand why this issue is of any material importance to the paper. I have advised you that you are free to write the paper without my authorship if that is what you require. I put it on record that your involvement here was as a replication. I reserve the right to argue this in public as you made this an issue of public notice. That is all I wish to state.

I also put on record that your skills in exposing this effect are exemplary and that your presentation of the data equally so. I am very glad for your help and your assistance whether it was intended or not. And I wish you no ill will. Frankly, I still do not understand what it is you are objecting to. Clearly you are angered. Clearly I do not know why. And clearly I do not deserve this abuse.

[downunder]

A neutral opinion

I would just like to say that I have been following this thread and the earlier one, and while I don't know much about the thesis or the circuit involved, I have been a neutral observer to all that has transpired.

The earlier thread was largely co-operative and friendly in nature, and seemed to achieve great things. Then the writing of this "paper" and attempt to get it published appeared to cause some friction, culminating in the current sad state of this thread.

From all that I have read, there appears to be at least two main causes for this conflict.

1. Email communications were disrupted, possibly intentionally by someone wanting to cause harm to your work.

2. Misunderstandings caused conflict, possibly due to the disrupted communications.

I do not see anything to suggest that anyone involved in this excellent work has or had ulterior motives at any time, and it seems clear to me that the personal attacks in this thread are due to misunderstandings.

For example, the definition of "replication" seems to vary from one person to another. To some people a replication must be an exact copy of the original in every way or they consider it to be something completely different. Other people consider an attempt to replicate (even if the end result is different in some ways) to be near enough to consider it a replication.

As a completely neutral observer with no personal agenda, I ask everyone participating in this thread to please think carefully about what others say/type. Don't assume that your first interpretation is the correct one, especially if it seems insulting or otherwise negative. The english language is full of ambiguities, especially in written form when a person's tone of voice and body language can not help to indicate the true meaning of their message. This problem can be made even worse when english is not the primary language for someone participating in a conversation.

Rather than assuming the worst of each other, pointing fingers and flinging insults, why not take a deep breath, calm down, and try to work everything out like the mature adults that I am sure you are in every day life.

The survival of your work, paper, and possibly human lives could depend on your ability to forgive, forget, and work well together again. Go on, kiss, hug and make up.

[witsend]

I would just like to say that I have been following this thread and the earlier one, and while I don't know much about the thesis or the circuit involved, I have been a neutral observer to all that has transpired.

The earlier thread was largely co-operative and friendly in nature, and seemed to achieve great things. Then the writing of this "paper" and attempt to get it published appeared to cause some friction, culminating in the current sad state of this thread.

From all that I have read, there appears to be at least two main causes for this conflict.

1. Email communications were disrupted, possibly intentionally by someone wanting to cause harm to your work.

2. Misunderstandings caused conflict, possibly due to the disrupted communications.

I do not see anything to suggest that anyone involved in this excellent work has or had ulterior motives at any time, and it seems clear to me that the personal attacks in this thread are due to misunderstandings.

For example, the definition of "replication" seems to vary from one person to another. To some people a replication must be an exact copy of the original in every way or they consider it to be something completely different. Other people consider an attempt to replicate (even if the end result is different in some ways) to be near enough to consider it a replication.

As a completely neutral observer with no personal agenda, I ask everyone participating in this thread to please think carefully about what others say/type. Don't assume that your first interpretation is the correct one, especially if it seems insulting or otherwise negative. The english language is full of ambiguities, especially in written form when a person's tone of voice and body language can not help to indicate the true meaning of their message. This problem can be made even worse when english is not the primary language for someone participating in a conversation.

Rather than assuming the worst of each other, pointing fingers and flinging insults, why not take a deep breath, calm down, and try to work everything out like the mature adults that I am sure you are in every day life.

The survival of your work, paper, and possibly human lives could depend on your ability to forgive, forget, and work well together again. Go on, kiss, hug and make up.

downunder. I've seen you on the thread often. You have given very good advice to us all here and I must say. Very well put. I have no way of showing my body language at this side of the keyboard. But believe me I am MORE THAN WILLING to stretch across the proverbial pond and shake hands with Glen and, for that matter with Harvey. There is no need to quarrel. But unless it is accepted that there is a replication - in every sense, then my input here is meaningless. I am not angry. I trust the reasoned arguments I've put forward will attest to this. I am still working on the exercise as to why this is a full replication. At last I have Harvey's reasons why it is not that I know how to argue this. But I first need clearance of my argument with an expert. When that is to hand I will post it. Until then - please know this. It is as painful for me to work here as it is for you all to read this. But I am fighting a corner here - or a principle. And this one I am more than happy to die for. As they say, 'over my dead body'. Not a euphemism. A promise. And I am using the very best of what little energy I have from sleeplessness and anxiety, to argue this as best I can.

[witsend]

Regarding The Fequency

Harvey has argued that the distinctions in the waveforms, being the inductance(8.64uH) conflicting with the turns ratio and geometry quoted - and variations in the applied frequencies and duty cycles constitute sufficient cause to represent a material departure from the original circuit for Glen's test to constitute an independent discovery. The possible circuit variations and frequency tests were further listed in the PCT application which from memory, was sent to everyone sometime in October 2009.

These arguments are spurius. In the first instance it must be remembered that my own familiarity with the appropriate waveform was only ever evident through the Fluke oscilloscope at my disposal. My personal reference to the appropriate tuning was to look for what I also referred to as a 'shadow cycle'. This collaboration elected to refer to this as a 'preferred mode of oscillation'. It is a unique waveform and however it is described it has - associated with it - a unique series of harmonics that take the shape of a 'picket fence' with the regularity of the 'fence' structure dependent on the frequency at which it resonates. The details of the 'fence' are not as evident within the constraints of the Fluke display. Donovan Martin, however, was involved with replicating the experiment briefly, before helping me with the submission of our paper to the IET in January of 2009. Unlike me he had access to a Tektronix TDS3054B DPO and himself studied the appropriate waveforms and harmonics on the same type of instrument as was made available to Glen. The waveform pattern, however it is described, is exactly the same as that which is evident on the equipment made available to Glen. Indeed my application to Tektronix was for precisely this instrument so that Donovan would be able to assist in identifying the required pattern if required. Also, the pattern itself was very much more evident on the Tektronix than on the Fluke due to its increased bandwidth capacity.

[witsend]

Regarding the tuning.

In tuning this device to 'find' that harmonic I adjusted the pots to the point that it fell into what I referred to as 'flop mode'. At this stage the 'predetermined duty cycle' is overridden as it's described in the Quantum paper. And also at this point the waveform becomes aperiodic. Thereafter I looked for the 'picket fence' which best describes the harmonic. When this is also evident, I then made reference to the DC average voltage across the shunt and the RMS voltage across the load, with multiple waveforms for reference on the Fluke screen. In initiating a test I also collected data from a data dump and analysed this in exel. Then, when I had established the required parameters I would then run the experiment to gauge the level of heat on the resistor and the rate at which the battery was measured to lose its charge. I would do periodic data dumps of the voltage across the shunt to establish that the gains persisted. But I learned, as time went by, that provided the required waveform was evident I really did not need to do those regular data dumps.

Over the years I also used a variety of resistors and found that the coefficient of performance, the resonating frequency which it developes and the 'preferred mode of oscillation' as we have now elected to call it, varies greatly with the resistor that is being used on the circuit. There are those that require a higher initial duty cycle, and those that require a smaller duty cycle. There are resistors that do not seem to give a gain at any frequency and those that always give a gain at any frequency. The very best result was the result published in the Quantum Magazine that I referred to being a technical journal and available in South Africa.

This variation in perfomance is extreme - notwithstanding the often apparent slight differences between any two resistors. I can only conclude that this is because the of the variation in the inductance and self capacitance of that resistor and the manner in which this interacts with the other circuit components. It is to be stressed that the required waveform cannot be imposed on the apparatus. The circuit finds its preferred mode by careful tuning of the adjustment potentiometers. It then - when it is close to the required duty cycle, goes into 'flop mode'. You remember this is when the duty cycle is overridden. Then some more fine adjustments and one seeks out the 'picket fence' pattern in the waveform. You will all recall that Glen's first evidence of gain was his Test 3. The 'picket fence' was evident. Test 4 - albeit having the required parameters failed. And there was no evidence of that 'harmonic'. I never even did the data dumps related to that test. I did not need to. It was immediately evident that the test had failed. At the time I did not know how to explain what was required. I simply did not see the 'shadow' which was evident in Test 3. I advised Glen directly that this was missing that harmonic. It's posted in the thread.

[witsend]

Regarding COP>2

The fact that the results exceed a coefficient of performance greater than two is entirely explained in the model. The proposal is that charge moves at 2C. It is a non-local event. Our measurements occur in the 'wake' of the actual event. And this event will recurr many times before we are able to record it. Therefore if energy is delivered and returned once in each switching cycle one can expect a cop >1. If it is delivered and returned many times during each switching cycle - it will EXCEED cop >1. Therefore the model itself requires a greater than cop 1.

So again. The coefficient of performance is dependent on subtle variations between resistors and the coefficient of performance is expected to exceed COP>1.

[witsend]

Regarding the test apparatus.

I have never been called on to produce the circuit apparatus until members of this forum required it. It would have helped them no doubt. But I dismantled my apparatus when I sent the fluke, the multimeter and the digitial display devices to Aaron. I said then that I would not again be doing any further experiments. It had dominated many years of life. My eyesight was deteriorating. And I had lost all appetite for this, having done it so extensively for so many years preceding. Also I no longer had the optimised resistor as one of our team had taken this for independant testing. I do not, however, have to apologise for this. It is just a matter of fact. I believe that the other circuit component parts are readily available. And there is nothing to prevent a replication. What is required is a patience in searching for the optimised settings on any particular resistor. I found very few that did not exceed COP>2. Nor did I take photographs because it did not occur to me that this would be required. There is a second 'box' or apparatus set up that was sent to ABB Research. I also don't know what has happened to that apparatus. Glen and Harvey are aware of this. They know the circumstances intimately. This argument is being used to discredit the claim. The truth is I have never undertaken to produce any circuitry. And I no longer had the apparatus nor the tools to measure. this put paid to any further attempts at replication. And frankly, I was rather anxious that a wide variety of resistors would be used and tested. That's the only way the more precise inductance values will ever be established.

Between the actual Quantum publication and the new paper prepared for the IET was a total of 7 years. It was a miracle that the apparatus survived the 3 changes of address that I had. It was substantially degraded and there was evident rust on the switch. The switch - in any event - had to be rebuilt and at the end of Donovan's final replication done for the IET paper - I effectively gave the resistor and some inductors to a friend - involved in those same tests under Donny's supervision. The box was banged up and he wanted to 'start again'. Thereafter I willingly dismantled for Aaron. That's the history of the apparatus. Frankly I was glad to see the last of it. Do testing yourselves, obsessively for years on end and see if you would not share that sentiment. And I am not an experimenter. My interests are in the theory.

[witsend]

In conclusion.

Therefore there is no material difference between the results that Glen has obtained and my own. It is varied - but that is due to the resistor. All this time arguing would have been better spent finding out how much inductance is required to actually improve the results.

I have already argued that if Glen is anxious to disclaim a replication he would not be well served to produce COP> 17. His argument would fail. But in the light of this, then his impartiality as an experimenter also fails. He would no longer be well served to find that value.

My final point is this. My negative wave form relates not to the voltage across the resistor. I only referenced that my negative waveform across the shunt was greater. Obviously. It explains the improved performance of my results.

[FuzzyTomCat]

Rosemary

In order to claim verification of your thesis you would have to have the original device and a independent model not connected in any way to the original as proof of a verification of your findings.

In order to claim verification of your thesis you would have to have the original data and a independent set of data not connected in any way to the original as proof of a verification of your findings.

If there is no original device or data but only a set of a differing independent set of data and a device how can you claim anything without the originals?

Your's and Donovan's device used in a patent application, museum exhibit and submittal to EIT and you retained nothing as proof of your partner Donovan or your work?

You claim not to even have ever taken a photograph even Donovan hasn't of the device but there is a public newspaper article in South Africa with them and in the referenced Quantum article as public record?

You claim intellectual property rights to the device but you been on the four Open Source forums ( Naked Scientist, OverUnity, OverUnity Research and Energetic ) looking for a independent verification of your findings?

I stand on record that this was only a preplanned exercise by you for a independent verification of your claim, by giving no construction information to any experimenter, only moral support as not to have "ANY" pier review bias on new findings on the independent model verification for a private Academic thesis on the "Magnetic Field Model" to be filed with your name attached to it.

[Joit]

Hi,
Sorry, i didnt read all the latest Posts too,
but hows about, to put a note, Glens enhanced or improved Heater Circuit.
Anyhow i think, that sounds like a compromise.

[downunder]

LOL THIS one I'm simply copying again. Guys. We really don't need the MIB. We've got Harvey. I'll deal with this one later. Just read this and re-read it. I hope downunder is also looking at this. Golly.

Yes, I am still reading this thread. It still seems apparent to me that:

1. Rosemary was under the impression from the start that any attempted replications would ultimately support her thesis if successful.

2. The people trying to replicate Rosemary's circuit were either unaware of the thesis, or simply more interested in trying to replicate the high COP effect.

Rosemary, when you make comments like the one quoted above, it is like throwing fuel on a fire. It serves only to sustain the highly emotional argument that I am sure is upsetting to all involved. This applies to everyone that has made personal attacks throughout this argument.

I believe that everyone involved in this argument is really on the same side... the side that wants to give the world better energy alternatives. This argument is not about dark motives or big egos... it is about misunderstandings that snowball until the argument is a huge avalanche of destruction that is crushing all your hard work.

Everyone involved simply needs to calmly, clearly and politely present what they want to come out of this collaboration. Make a concise list in point form and avoid ambiguous language and personal attacks. If this can be done without throwing fuel on the fire of the argument, then I believe you will find a lot of common ground.

Try to treat each other as you would close friends, family members or spouses. If you can't get past arguments and misunderstandings in every day life then you lose friends, families are dysfunctional, and divorces eventuate.

Those involved in this argument need to stop looking at each other as the enemy, and remember that you are all on the same side, fighting for a brighter future for our planet and the human race.

[witsend]

Yes, I am still reading this thread. It still seems apparent to me that:

1. Rosemary was under the impression from the start that any attempted replications would ultimately support her thesis if successful.

2. The people trying to replicate Rosemary's circuit were either unaware of the thesis, or simply more interested in trying to replicate the high COP effect.

Rosemary, when you make comments like the one quoted above, it is like throwing fuel on a fire. It serves only to sustain the highly emotional argument that I am sure is upsetting to all involved. This applies to everyone that has made personal attacks throughout this argument.

I believe that everyone involved in this argument is really on the same side... the side that wants to give the world better energy alternatives. This argument is not about dark motives or big egos... it is about misunderstandings that snowball until the argument is a huge avalanche of destruction that is crushing all your hard work.

Everyone involved simply needs to calmly, clearly and politely present what they want to come out of this collaboration. Make a concise list in point form and avoid ambiguous language and personal attacks. If this can be done without throwing fuel on the fire of the argument, then I believe you will find a lot of common ground.

Try to treat each other as you would close friends, family members or spouses. If you can't get past arguments and misunderstandings in every day life then you lose friends, families are dysfunctional, and divorces eventuate.

Those involved in this argument need to stop looking at each other as the enemy, and remember that you are all on the same side, fighting for a brighter future for our planet and the human race.

Ok downunder. Again impeccable advice. Here's my list.

Acknowledgement that this was a replication.
Publication of the experiment as a replication.
I cannot be associated with the paper if it is published in TIE as a replication therefore I withdraw as author
If it is published in any other journal I may be able to be author. I reserve my rights.
I will forge ahead and publish my own paper in a physics journal.
All collaborators already invited but with constrained collaboration rights. And this to ensure that I never go through this fandango again.

[witsend]

I'm going to try this again.

The discovery of dark matter belongs to someone? One day I'll look it up. The development of string theorists is the only branch of physics that can reach a unifying principle. But they do not know where those strings are or even how they're shaped. I have a strange proposal that links these two fields of study. NO BIGGIE as I've mentioned before. And as the sun sets in the west - this will be attacked and modified and conditioned - as required - in the painful process of academic argument. Fortunately I do not need to be party to the argument. I only need to explain where the link is. My name will never be associated with this except in some bazaar way - at best. Far better minds than mine will do what is required here.

Then if this is published - does not mean it's right - it means it will be discussed. But if there is any kind of consensus ever reached and it's in favour of the thesis, then no-one will be able to patent this. Because the technology to advance this is already in the public domain. That is why I am so anxious to keep this tenuous link with the Quantum paper which links to the patent which links to the thesis. It's a package deal.

I think what is happening here is the assumption that my thesis will be established. It will NOT. But it sure as hell will be a contender. And that will be a good thing for Open Source. On so many levels. I am not sure why this general concern to be disassociated. If the concern is that I will be famous - and I am promoting myself. I have no idea if I will be famous. But I do know that I'm in for a gruelling attack if this is published and that I do not relish the attention. And more to the point I will need to - at it's least - know that there is some shelter here on these forums. I never expected this experiment of mine to garner so much publicity or attention. I swear to you all that I only discovered this interest in challenging the energy barriers at the beginning of last year - 13 months ago. I thought my blog spot would simply lie forgotten in the dusty pages of the internet archives.

Glen's replication will be linked to every reference of that thesis if it is promoted as a replication. If it is advanced as a 'discovery' it will be up for grabs and lost forever as competing interests claim some variation of this dicovery. And I will be left fighting a rear guard action trying to advise the world that we've already found this and that it's already patented - I'VE DONE IT AGAIN. It's already been published in the patent archives and is now in the public domain - is what I mean.

That is why I insist that this is a replication. Else, believe me I would have moved on.

[witsend]

Here's my offer and I'd be happy to lean across the Atlantic, the Indian and even the Pacific Oceans to shake hands on it.

Any excercise such as we've been involved in also involves gruelling hours of testing and counter testing, proving and retesting. That work was done - exhaustively - by Glen. The data was perfectly collated that it can be referenced in any context required. To get it to that high standard of completion we need to thank a variety of players. Topping that list is Poynty and MileHigh. Between them they systematically showed where the arguments' weaknesses lay and we duly addressed them. Harvey's contribution here was big. He knew his way around the required probe positioning and how to expose what was required and its significance. In the absence of Donovan's earlier active input - this was both welcome and required. He also knew the needed parameters to establish these facts conclusively.

But that side of the work is now done. What is now required is the careful collation of that data that the evidence can be put forward for the reviewers. Let me remind you. The reviewers DO NOT establish the veracity of the claims. Publication allows the broad field of mainstream academia to establish this. The reviewer states if the argument is contradictory, or weak, or if there needs to be more data included, or if there needs to be some emphasis enhanced or not, as required. That is part of the discussion process.

What needs to be established is 'which journal' to present this to. I think IEEE are quite frankly too scared to take this on. It's claims are profoundly disturbing to mainstream and the thesis is barely tested. But I have reason to believe that there are physics journals that may be more interested. Then the same argument needs to be presented but with an entirely different emphasis. I believe I may be able to solicit assistance here. Then we can restructure the paper and resubmit it and that will be that. Again, the input need not come from the collaborators. Any one of us can do it. But as I know the argument best, it is possibly better that I attend to this exercise.

Alternatively there are other journals that may consider the 'replication' without the support of a thesis. That's also doable, but it is possible that the respectability of such a journal may not be as high as the IEEE or the TIE division within it. I am happy to look into such for you and will be just as happy to write the paper with my name omitted. Just know that this offer is conditional to its being considered a replication.

Or I could do both papers the one for the electrical side and the one for the physics side. You choice.

I would add - there is nothing I can do about it if you promote this as a discovery. I will need to challenge it after the event which first presupposes that it is published. I can only record my intention to fight such a claim with every means at my disposal and will be sorry to have to do so. Notwithstanding which, I would earnestly remind you to find out which is preferable from a publishing preference. Anomalies are not, usually, published. That's how they've managed to discount the extraordinary progress of so many experimentalists throughout this forum. I suspect your advises in this regard are not what they should be.

[witsend]

Just seen Glen's last post. I've now tried my best. You guys do your thing. I'll get on with my own paper. I'll contact anyone of the collaborators privately if they wish to add their names when my paper is completed and accepted for publication.

I'm really sorry that this has all come to pass.