COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie | Part 2

[Guruji]

555 timer

Hi Fuzzy the 555N timer is a normal timer or different from a 555 timer?
Thanks

[ewizard]

Thanks FuzzyTomCat for that verification!

Guruji, I think the 555N is just the lower power version of a 555 but it's been a while since I've been playing with IC's so that may just by my fuzzy memory

[FuzzyTomCat]

Hi Fuzzy the 555N timer is a normal timer or different from a 555 timer?
Thanks

Hi Guruji,

The NE555N timer I believe was one of the first timers on the market back in the early 1980's .... and I have tried other timers and the wave forms were different and not with the same results.

Best Regards,
Glen

[Guruji]

My circuit

Hi Guruji,

The NE555N timer I believe was one of the first timers on the market back in the early 1980's .... and I have tried other timers and the wave forms were different and not with the same results.

Best Regards,
Glen

Hi Fuzzy thanks for response. Did you look at my photo of the circuit that I posted? If you see a fault please let me know.
Thanks

[witsend]

Hi everyone. Just to answer the endless enquiries I'm getting on the hold ups. We're trying to establish a loose agreement between the collaborating authors based on accepted protocols. Needs to be done unfortunately. The good news is that the paper is just about completed - changed to fit in with TIE who can't have a reviewed submission including any reference to any authors. Required a change of direction in terms of the thesis presented.

FOR THE RECORD

Submission of the paper carries with it an acceptance that the thesis under consideration is a possible explanation for the empirical evidence demonstrated. But nor does it constitute a blind condition of faith. Just that it is here presented as the argument under consideration in this paper.

Subsequent to submission no author may write to officials of the IEEE or TIE or any subsidiaries to complain that their work has been misrepresented unless there is unequivocal evidence. I would recommend that a copy of the file/files, as appropriate, always be sent to the editor as a reference document. This is allowable.

Submission also carries with it the endorsement of ALL the representations in that paper.

Any errors in the paper are considered to be joint errors. Any success of the paper is considered to be a joint success.

Any demand for a rewrite by TIE or by any subsequent journal to which we may apply for publication, in any way at all, be it for the re-testing of the experiment or a revision of the thesis itself - will require a collaborative effort.

And all parties are entirely free to disassociate themselves from the paper in the event that the review results in a REJECTION MAY NOT BE RESUBMITTED.

However, it is possible that such a rejection may not disqualify the paper from review to other journals. I have already been approached by one who has offered full publication with a review at no cost to the author. And it is clear that the party is already conversant with the paper. I suspect that there may be other journals - and would strongly recommend that alternatives are considered. But it is an explicit condition of submission by TIE, unfortunately, that we may not solicit alternate venues. Therefore this may only be considered when and as appropriate and then be subject to consensus and written acceptance. And I would not advise an alternate submission as a kick off as there is prestige associated with TIE publication.

At all times the rules of consensus apply which allows any author the right to abide by a consensus decision or to solicit a consensus if there is any reason to object, or to withdraw from his obligations in terms of the paper if he prefers. Under such circumstances those that require it may remove their work as it is associated with the paper. Glen's would be his experimental data. Harvey's would be is analysis relating to sections II and IV, mine would be the balance in the text. But I will put it on record that I will not exercise my rights here as I have already made this a gift to be the joint ownership of the collaborating group and I only reserve my rights if REJECTION MAY NOT BE RESUBMITTED also results in the dissolution of interest in the group to resubmit. Not sure what the others want to do with tables etc. But presumably this wont be an issue.

All authors have an equal vote. Should any author step up to the plate in any function at all it will be welcome subject only to consensus that he attend to a specific function and it is not deemed an appointment with any undue vested authority or weight of vote. High handed managerial attitudes strongly discouraged. Removal from any such position - just a simple majority.

Subject only to acceptance of these terms I give the paper it's full endorsement and will copy the appropriate paper to all authors hereafter.

[ashtweth]

Hi ashtweth, Is the schematic (?) you are referring to the first circuit diagram in this Ainslie roughly 15 Meg .pdf file here: http://www.panaceauniversity.org/Ros...Technology.pdf ? New here but I've been researching (mostly reading) about 20 years on alternative energy. I've only tried building a couple things but will have a little more time soon to try some ideas and this seems very interesting. Fascinating times in alternate energy!

Hi ewizard and thanks for answering Glen, yep you can see in the document the same one its the first schematic under

Revised Circuit Diagram by Glen (FuzzyTomCat)


Back on the farm guys with David Pantone, he has a lot of energy

[witsend]

At issue therefore is the extent to which my tests can be linked to those of Glen's. Does it function in the same parameters, does it reach the same high COP values? And, in short does it in fact constituted a replication.

The question therefore is if these tests that have been done so ably and expertly by Glen, actually constitute a discovery all on their own? That they do not, technically constitute a replication of anything at all? Golly. Does this mean that Harvey is claiming that Glen's test is an independent discovery? And if so, on what grounds? If there is a material variation that makes Glen's circuit and the Quantum circuit so substantially different to each other, that there is - indeed - no actual correspondence, then this needs to be addressed poste haste. And how then does that fit with the submission of the paper? Is Glen actually being somehow forced to submit his data as evidence of my proof of thesis, when in fact it is his own invention? That hardly seems fair. Must I, in fact, withdraw and acknowledge that neither my Quantum paper nor my thesis have any relevance to all this hard work? Or have I, somehow, misunderstood this statement made by Harvey? Would be glad of some answer here.

[witsend]

@ALL

Have re sent to Rose a 3rd time, Rose let me know if you didn't get it this time.
Must be the men in black's satellite

Hi Ash. Yes I got it, and I got your earlier one. It's the wrong one. It needs to have the 'subject' added. That Renewable Energy number. Ta muchly.

[witsend]

Thanks very much Ash. I HAVE FINALLY GOT THAT COPY OF THE PAPER IN WORD.

I've sent confirmation back to you. Just post some acknowledgement on Skype that the Figures open correctly.

And sorry for yet another check. But it's to be on the safe side. The email refers.

And again. Many thanks.

[witsend]

Ok. I've now got a copy of the word file. I've also got the reference number required. I'll save it under that reference number. Is that right? ENDS IN NHFFF ?

I'll copy everyone with the letter to Cecati. We're good to go. Finally. Thanks again Ash for forwarding and Andrew for advising Ash.



EDITED

[witsend]

Another Hot Potato Dropped

Here's a copy of the letter that went out to Cecati with our paper.

Dear Professor Cecati,

I refer you to our brief phone call made last week. You requested that I explain everything in writing.

I have been in touch with Professor Chow to give us some much needed guidance relating to the document standards for a first submission prior to review. This advice was required as our paper was not done under the stewardship of a mentor and, of necessity, we referred to a variety of experts in different aspects of this paper, as and where required. They will be generally acknowledged in the final document after the review process is completed.

The subject of this paper is fraught. In the first instance it deals with evident anomalies in the heat signatures of the resistor. However, the paper argues that this is not an anomaly as it was a required result of a magnetic field model and was, therefore, predicted. This prediction can be verified by two academic Professors in physics who I can refer you to if required. It was in relation to a discussion on the field model some 11 years ago, and they both agreed that this predicted evidence would, indeed support the thesis. They further suggested that their Lab Technician set up that initial test apparatus. Their technician, unfortunately, flatly declined to do so claiming, correctly, that it it was designed to challenge Thermodynamic constraints. The experiment therefore was established away from academic supervision.

The magnetic field model argues that energy is not confined to the supply source except as tradition has identified it. In fact, the proposal is that energy is also available in gross bound material. In electric circuitry this is readily generated in conductive and inductive material which, under proper circuit configuration, can be used to add to the energy coefficient. This requires a radical departure from conventional understandings related to Thermodynamic Laws and current flow. Yet neither the paper nor the data contradict those laws as both maintain a conservation of charge with the only departure being the identification of an alternate energy source. The paper refers.

The first publication of the experiment did not gain acceptance. It was submitted for review in 2002 and was rejected notwithstanding some considerable accreditation of those results. No academic, at that time, would associate with the claims and, to a man, refused to attend a demonstration of the effect. This was puzzling, the more so as it is widely understood that all science needs to be established by empirical evidence. It was thereafter modified for publication in Quantum Magazine, October edition 2002 as this was the only alternate avenue available for publication. It generated no interest being, as it was, without proper academic scrutiny.

Some 7 years after this, my son published that Quantum paper and the field model, on the internet. Here it generated some considerable interest as is evident. I was subsequently invited to join a forum and thread where there was some interest in replicating the effect. The experimentalist that was eventually able to replicate this was Glen Lettenmaier and he was ably and gratuitously assisted with sophisticated measuring instruments, as required, with the generous use of a TDS3054C Tektronix DPO. The gradual unfolding of the 'effect' was achieved within weeks where the previous efforts spanned some years. All these tests are duly and properly recorded in links that are scheduled in the appendix to the document. Because they relate to the author they are in conflict with TIE requirements for review and will be added as required or only fully established after the review process. There is a unique waveform associated with this effect referred to in the paper as a Preferred Mode of Oscillation. This also has been put on live broadcast on the internet and can be accessed or repeated, subject again, to the reviewer's requirement.

What is evident, however, is that there are no prior publications of this - as, self evidently, the proposal is based on unique criteria that have not, heretofore, been considered by academia. We, the authors, have been in lengthy discussions on this and while it is possible to cite papers that relate to different aspects of the effect they are not, in truth, appropriate. We are aware that this may mitigate against our best interests, especially as this relates to TIE's requirement for citations. However, in the light of the exceptional nature of this claim it is hoped that the reasons for non-compliance are understood, notwithstanding our wishes to do so.

Therefore we ask you to indulge us this exception and that this omission will not compromise this paper's chances of publication. We modestly suggest that it is enough that the reviewer understand that there is an alternate supply of current flow and that the merits of the evidence therefore be established on their own. We will be able to append the model only after review. We are also satisfied that the proper avenue to make this knowledge available would be through your good offices and through your own prestigious publications - proposing the journal on renewable energies as being appropriate. While the paper itself has no citations, we modestly suggest that it may be citable. Certainly it is possible that it may evoke some considerable interest in results that contradict classical expectation. The data that has now been amassed to prove this evidence is considerable. And as mentioned in the paper, we hope the subject here may provoke further investigations into the model. The claims are contentious. Properly this needs a wide academic forum for discussion. A critical investigation therefore can only be achieved with a wide dissemination of this claim through a publication such as yours.

Finally this is an Open Source publication and that title will be amended to include this reference and the institutions and structures associated with this will be added to the paper's identification subject to completion of the review process. There are many interested readers of the progress of this paper on the internet. They will be updated and informed of this application and, I believe, would be most interested to hear of its progress. The authors of the paper are drawn from different countries that span the globe. All this work was done without any material advantage and, indeed at considerable personal cost to us all, both in time and money spent in progressing this knowledge.

Kindest regards,
ROSEMARY AINSLIE

[witsend]

More On The Hot Potato

I'm hoping this is the link to my Scribd publication. Note that all authors names have had to be removed as well as reference to all authors. TIE submission requires absolute anonymity. It's a fair criterion in my book. But it has not made it to review. I'll post the editors comments after this.

I hope the link works. I'll check it.
100130-071433-(GLEN)_01 Final Draft

Ok. It's up and running. Was rather proud of all our efforts but it seems we still can't get it past the editors. This, like Iravani's application befort this, was dropped like a hot potato. Totally discouraged. On so many levels.

EDITED

[witsend]

The Hot Potato

Dear Dr. Ainslie,

thank you very much for your phone and letter. You reached me on mobile,
while I was driving, a mail is much better than discussing by phone in
such a situation.
I have read your letter with attention. Even if our guidelines require
the citation of recent journal papers, particularly TIE papers, this is
only a strong suggestion and not a rejection motivation, supported by a
clear reason: if other papers on a similar topics where published on our
Transactions, this does mean that its topic is of general interest for
our readers.
I have read your letter and given a short reading to your paper: in my
opinion the main problem for your paper is that probably it doesn't fit
with journal scope and topics. In fact, our transactions are mainly
addressed to industrial electronics applications, your paper seems to my
very short analysis more addressed to physics phenomena, even if with
potential industrial applications and experiments.
If you like, I'll forward this paper to a qualified associate editor
for reviewers' assignment. But in case the review process, which will
take some weeks will result negative, you have delayed its possible
publication on a more specific journal.
I understand that you have chosen our transactions for his high impact
factor, on the other hand our policy is to publish papers of general
interest.

Thank you again for you submission, I am waiting for your early reply.
Best regards
Carlo Cecati

[witsend]

The broadside was just this. I never expected that this experiment would be considered the result of an anomaly. I understood ALWAYS that this would be considered the result of a prediction in terms of the thesis. This was privately challenged. I am now making it a public issue. Is this test of Glens the result of an entirely unpredicted event based on an unexpected fortutious assembly of experimental apparatus thrown together by chance - and based on no material pre-representations that justify any significant reference. Just that. Then I at least know how much I must still protect.

[FuzzyTomCat]

The broadside was just this. I never expected that this experiment would be considered the result of an anomaly. I understood ALWAYS that this would be considered the result of a prediction in terms of the thesis. This was privately challenged. I am now making it a public issue. Is this test of Glens the result of an entirely unpredicted event based on an unexpected fortutious assembly of experimental apparatus thrown together by chance - and based on no material pre-representations that justify any significant reference. Just that. Then I at least know how much I must still protect.

Your making a possible error in the thinking of the "Open Source" community seeing a published claim of a COP>17 is something huge the question is can you take the "as is" of all listed documented components with the schematic and make it work to achieve a COP>17 and in the Quantum October 2002 paper ..... I found you couldn't as many others have also found and documented.

This opinion is not based on a vision, dream or a prediction, to a experimenter it's the "results" of what was published that works and if it doesn't what happens usually it gets thrown into the round file with the rest of the high COP claims.

Some experimenters chose to pursue the published circuit that did not to operate under the specified parameters even with lacking data, oscilloscope images and no working model at all to replicate from. I had to basically reverse engineer the device using best guess techniques on some items to make a working model. But to this day still never with any modifications using the latest and greatest equipment that was and is graciously provided got the COP>17.

There are a few experimenters left that haven't given up on the circuit "concept" and with further possible modifications one of the biggest being the omission of the 555 timer battery and even a easier tuning method for the preferred mode of operation continue on.

I'm grateful to the Quantum article Rosemary was involved with, and Aaron for my interest in this circuit by publishing all the schematics including his own in "Open Forum" that assisted me to my results with my modifications plus with Harvey's help in the documentation phase on what may be required several such as the "Mesh Current" section in all of the IEEE submittals.

Engineers and Experimenters are "not" Academics we think and do totally different things.

Glen