COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie | Part 2

[Aaron]

@Rosemary

Rosemary,

Here is my perspective.

I learned of your circuit from Peter.

I started the thread.

It took off and there were "skeptics".

I jumped in to see what the deal was and built a circuit.

My personal goal was always to get the heat gains in the circuit
as claimed by the Quantum article. I wasn't trying to prove any
model by doing that. When I got the Textronix, I was using it
for my purpose of documenting the results of the circuit experiment
and not to prove your model.

You obviously can see that some of the results support your model,
that is a side benefit of the result. I'm glad that some of my experiments
and Glens and anyone else's help lend support to your model, but that
isn't the intention behind those experiments. AND it is important to see
that just because that isn't the experimenter's intention, it doesn't give
any less support to your model!

Your own circuit build was to support your model, but that is because the
purpose of you doing your circuit was to prove your model.

I told you long ago that most people in this forum wants to see a circuit
and build it and why it works isn't priority. It is a practical thing to be
able to have a heater circuit with gains and it can be developed more
thoroughly I'm sure.

It still supports your model anyway even if that isn't the circuit builder's
intention. You have a lot going for you and congratulations are in order
for inspiring such an incredible journey that has taken place here.

There is more to do and learn and having a paper to document the
results that references the inspiration as being the Quantum circuit,
which in turn was inspired by your model, then all the better!

[witsend]

Until I was in receipt of Harvey's email - referenced above - I had no idea that you, Glen or anyone was actually seriously proposing that because you did not get the COP>17 that you did not actually replicate. I'm only sorry you did not bring this to my attention before. I would have departed from this collaboration much sooner.

An experimentalist usually attempts to evaluate the truth of a thesis. As a rule they do not claim ownership of the thesis but of the eloquence to which they test the thesis. In other words - how close to the argument does the experiment go? Is is substantially proven in one way or in another way? Or is it proven at all? Their interests therefore are academic. And, correctly, the only reward is academic recognition.

Far be it from me to attribute motives here. But I would have to be particularly naive not ignore some obvious facts. If this is not a replication but an independent discovery then truly the invention is yours. But why this need to claim ownership? Ownership of discoveries are usually only advanced to protect intellectual property rights. And intellectual property rights, in turn, lead to some serious considerations relating to patenting options. Now. Would it therefore work in your best interests to claim that it's a replication? Indeed not. In fact your best interests would then be to ensure that you never reach the dizzy heights of COP>17. In effect your own best interests would thereby be better served if you, in fact, did not investigate the effect more thoroughly. Which puts paid to your objectivity as an experimentalist.

But then I also need to ask myself this. Why this late need to deny that there is any association with the Rosemary Ainslie Circuit? It is plastered on your schematics. It is everywhere on your posts. It's even referenced off this forum. All over the place. I stress that I do not know your motive. I am not in your head. But you'd have to be more than mere mortal not to consider some of this. Are you becoming increasingly aware that without a handle on the intellectual property rights you can't secure some potential benefit in the technology. The original COP>17 claim proved entirely due to your abilities - your skills at experimenting and yet no personal enrichment? you've released it to the world courtesy your replication, but you still have to compete with the rest of the world to sell the technology? That hardly seems fair? And indeed it's not.

So here's hoping that you're still reading. The thesis suggests that the hidden energy source on electric circuitry is in conductive and inductive components. Counter intuitively - it requires thick wire as opposed to thin. But that's all it says. It does not say how thick, it does not say what materials to use at the core, it does not stipulate the best shape, size or material of any of these components. It does not identify which element to use and where and with what material. it does not say what is the best way to apply it to lighting, to fridges, to stoves, to hot water cylinders or to household heating systems. It does not say how it could be applied to motors, to cars, or lawn mowers or anything at all. Or even the circuit arrangement that would most promote it. It actually does not even touch on motors. And to the best of my knowledge those detailed components need to be determined and registered and patented. What is in the public domain is simply the knowledge that this switching circuit is able to reduce the consumption from the supply. So. No authority can apply a blanket surcharge for using the energy that Nature gives us freely, in the material of circuit components. And the knowledge of this is in the public domain. But, by all means, patent those parts. That's got to be good to encourage investors and investment. And that's good cause for research. But don't ever try and patent the use of the system. That's been out there for nearly 8 years and climbing.

So if all this this contention is based on the requirement to enjoy some fruits for your skills the opportunities here are boundless. And it is entirely yours to exploit and enjoy. I have NO claim to such knowledge. God forbid. As it relates to the thesis, I've said my say. There is no way on God's earth that I will allow anyone to zap some sort of preclusion to the use of a simple system to reduce the consumption of electricity if I have breath in my body and fight in my soul. Just will not. I'll fight it with all that I've got. And I absolutely therefore refute that you've stumbled on a discovery. What I suspect you have not yet realised is the patent potential still associated with this discovery. What I find strangely comforting is that you might want this ownership at all. It speaks volumes to the credibility of the claim which would, otherwise, have been lacking. And it is just so easily within your grasp as you evidently have more than enough talent to discover these things. And no-one can deny you the fruits of that intellectual knowledge. Just can't be done. It's yours to patent or to give. Just as you please.

[witsend]

Rosemary,

Here is my perspective.

I learned of your circuit from Peter.

I started the thread.

It took off and there were "skeptics".

I jumped in to see what the deal was and built a circuit.

My personal goal was always to get the heat gains in the circuit as claimed by the Quantum article. I wasn't trying to prove any model by doing that. When I got the Textronix, I was using it for my purpose of documenting the results of the circuit experiment and not to prove your model.

You obviously can see that some of the results support your model, that is a side benefit of the result. I'm glad that some of my experiments and Glens and anyone else's help lend support to your model, but that isn't the intention behind those experiments. AND it is important to see that just because that isn't the experimenter's intention, it doesn't give any less support to your model!

Your own circuit build was to support your model, but that is because the purpose of you doing your circuit was to prove your model. I told you long ago that most people in this forum wants to see a circuit and build it and why it works isn't priority. It is a practical thing to be able to have a heater circuit with gains and it can be developed more thoroughly I'm sure.

It still supports your model anyway even if that isn't the circuit builder's intention. You have a lot going for you and congratulations are in order for inspiring such an incredible journey that has taken place here.

There is more to do and learn and having a paper to document the results that references the inspiration as being the Quantum circuit, which in turn was inspired by your model, then all the better!

Aaron, I go on record, even in this thread - I have no quarrel with anyone doing a paper on a replication of the Quantum circuit and leave me out of it. I really dont mind. But don't try and publish this as an anomalous, unexpected, strange and unpredicted phenomenon. It would be less than the truth.

I have never intended to impose a thesis on the unwary. The fact is that if I include my name to the paper without the thesis - it would make no sense. That's actually my only contribution. That's why I joined. If required to then let replication simply prove the quantum claim. A nice package deal. The thesis wins by default.

But that's not the issue. What is being questioned is the need to reference the thesis at all. If Glen publishes this as an anomaly - quite apart from the difficulty that would possibly ensue to publishing it at all - would be that it would establish this as a discovery. I do not know how that will fall in with my patent. I should rather state - with my LAPSED PATENT. I went to some considerable lengths to ensure that this was established and in the public domain that no-one could ever take ownership of what I consider to be a boundless source of energy from Mother Nature herself. It's absurd. The days of exploiting such natural knowledge needs to be put into our history books and the chapter closed.

If Glen can contend this, and he's Glen, known to be a charitable open source team player what happens when the next person does this. Now let's say that someone else sees this advantage - God forbid an exploitive capitalist, (all over the place) or a mere entrepreneur (most of the aspiring world) and they see that Glen can claim this discovery. How small a variation to Glen's circuit would it need for them to also claim a discovery. And how much money will it take to establish that this is a more final claim to a 'DISCOVERY' than Glen's? And which patent will win out in the end? And will ownership go to the United Arab Emirates or to China?

All such claims and counter claims may very well be seen to be absurd. But it's scarey. What if one or any such claims work? I have been trying, as a matter of principle, to establish that the 'discovery part' is over and done. Don't go there. It's not my discovery. It belongs to the world. It's just a source of energy that I believe is in all bound material. If anyone is the discoverer then it's whoever discovered dark matter. That's all it is. I just happen to have located it. I think. I'm reasonably certain that others will come up with their explanations for it. But the discovery part? That's done and dusted. And by many more people than me and more comprehensively and experimentally than I have done.

Regarding any chance of the author's publishing. If they publish as an anomalous independent discovery I'll get all over the place if I can and if I'm not locked out here. If they publish as a replication of the quantum circuit - I would have absolutely no objection. How could I. That's the basis of the experiment described in this thread. More than free to do so or not. But the actual conflict was that I was writing a paper with them. My thesis was always referred to in all prior attempts at writing this. Suddenly I could not do so. I had to explain the thesis in an introduction to a paper. Probably for the first time ever, the authors saw that there was some obscure and incomprehensible explanation of this effect that they had never even considered. I dont want to go into the correspondence. Just know that the attack was merciless and long winded and even now I am still discovering new aspects of their complaints. And all this time I thought that COP>17 was natually linked to my thesis which is linked to my patent. It's been extraordinary. I'm more than happy to withdraw as collaborating author. In fact I have already done so.

[boguslaw]

the best is cadmium

[boguslaw]

sorry,I'm bored reading long discuss and quarrels becaue English is not my native language.

did you eliminated possibility that circuit become parametric oscillator accumulating energy in time ?

[witsend]

Rosemary, I think perhaps you may have possibly misread both Glen's post above and Cecati's letter. I say this because I did not get the same impression from these that you have gotten. HARVEY
This is not ambiguous. Cecati has advised me personally and now in writing. This is not suitable for his publication. If you do not withdraw that paper it will be Rejected - may not resubmit. Your choice. I put you all on notice. I HAVE WITHDRAWN FROM THIS COLLABORATION OF AUTHORS

[ashtweth]

Cleaning up the mess

If we could at least get back to the particulars and leave the bickering for emails please. What journal is suitable, PHYSICS ONLY Cause of THE WAY ITS WRITTEN, dont forget your dealing with particulars which alienate it from CONVENTIONAL categories (Even the physics, dark matter and others are never used in energy transformation etc).

I dont see the point of all that is going on, i would like to know th what and how it could be in TIE if WRITTEN IN A RENEWABLE ENERGY CATEGORY WAY. If not then all the bickering is just going to be that and no one learns any thing. That's only to get the technology known and not only Rose's exclusive model if that's the main aim now, i think we should try and find a balance, if it got into TIE then at least the positive interest is there for the physics of it. Rose can win also.

Cant adapt it for TIE?

Okay If its only going to be physics cause of all the magnetic model and zippons? etc, and / OR also Harvey's additions?, Then we are stuck with conflicting physics which will also conflict with CONVENTIONAL understanding just like Steorn do. Dark matter etc, well i will state with all my experience and study that if that is the case and direction now then Replications will have to support the model more.

That's why i wanted to wait till may, to get more replications WHICH FORCE THE ACADEMIA TO COME TO YOU. I know as i have talked to them. MORE HARD DATA FROM REPLICATIONS.

Wait till you see the developers licenses go out in Feb from Steorn, and wait for the OPEN SOURCE WRATH...the same thing will happen. Watch your non profit org do it.

ROSE -Aaron and Glen, replicated due to their own aptitude and theories, not taking any thing away from you, it was the same with Harvey came up with his views etc, in this Genre it helps replications which is the only thing that can move open source FREE energy forward, REPLICATIONS, Academia can be forced to take notice this way.

please consider this. We need some positive interests, with HARD DATA, theories can be delayed but not HARD DATA.

Black like power had to do it that way, i am only saying that the likely hood of this model of yours being done to perfection still needs collaboration Rose, PLEASE DON'T WASTE IT, just think of the paper, we are here to help, but now Glen has no scope , Harvey is ready to jump off a bridge and you are getting your self very worked up.

I think we could do both , but with out replications the open source FREE energy model cannot move forward.

TIE should be more supportive given the nature and magnitude of this technology, i have seen today another case file where the mainstream shunned a proven device, and you wonder why every second post of mine is about us getting our own non profit R and D center.

Lets all find a way to get back on track, i am sorry readers here have had to endure this.

Sincerely
Ash

[witsend]

I would remind you all, readers, experimentalists, contributing members all. The initial tests was designed to evaluate a thesis. Not COP>17. Nothing but a thesis. The thread was designed to invite members and readers to test COP>17. COP>17 referred to a paper published in Quantum magazine October 2002. it may not be a wonderfully clear copy. But the fact is that the printed article does, indeed, refer to my magnetic field model. That's the thesis. And that thesis was explicitly referenced in the early chapters of this thread and throughout. And the understanding was that all tests would be made freely available to the public.

May I ask you therefore, Glen, if there is any variation to this agreement. I am satisfied that it was Aaron's understanding that nothing was to be withheld from the public. And I am certain that he would not do so. Are you, on the contrary, withholding access to your data? Are you now uncovering information that you are withholding not only from the public but from the authors in this collaboration? And do you consider that this is your right to do so? It hardly seems to be in support of Open Source interests. And is Harvey and Ashtweth aware of this? And both on record to secure open source interests?

While I grant you that the 'unfolding' of that cop>1 was due to your skills at experimenting, it has much, much more to do with the equipment made available to you to realise that advantage. And I would remind you that I was in constant contact with you in evaluating those waveforms, trying to find the correspondence to our own findings. My findings took years to perfect. With that equipment that I negotiated, and with my guidance, you found the required waveform in a matter of weeks. That equipment and that 'unfolding' are, to use Harvey's term 'intertwined'. You could not have done it without the right equipment. The equipment could not have done it without you. And neither you nor the equipment would have managed it without my first disclosing its existence. And that 'reverse engineering'? To the best of my knowledge it took one first attempt to get a resistor that romped home with COP>1. I am not here trying to belittle your capabilities. I am simply pointing out that we are all - yet again to use Harvey's words, 'intertwined'. Credit perhaps could be a little more generously shared and acknowledged.

[witsend]

And one last point to our readers and members.

Get it that Harvey and Glen are trying to imply some vanity that I have associated with my model. The idea is to let you think that there is some pique at not emphasising my model. It's easy to 'suggest' and 'attribute motives'. But nothing here could be further from the truth. The insights in my model may eventually be pretty far reaching. I do hope so. But I want the thesis to be advanced by mainstream. it belongs to academics and it's best protection is with academics. They don't have interest in intellectual property rights as a rule.

In any event, I've discovered nothing. At best I've found a link to two known established theories being String theories and their unifying principle and dark energy which everyone's looking for. And that's what's unique. This test of mine proves that link. That's it's first value. The second value is that it has been put into the public domain by virtue of my lapse in registering a patent. Which means that it belongs to the general public and no-one can patent it ever. Which may be a good thing. I hope so. I'd be sorry if some opportunistic attempt at patenting this simple switching circuit also left us with the obligation to fund a new monopolist. God forbid. I'm sure we've all had enough of them.

So rest assured. I do not want the test to be acknowedged as a replication for any purposes of vanity. I'm way too old and way too past caring. What I want is to ensure that no-one tries to muscle in here. Just not on. And certainly not in the spirit of open source. Golly.

[area46241]

so what you are saying is....?

I thought the whole idea here was that resonance and back emf was producing heat and some energy excitement and not the other way around?
Didn't somebody replicate the effect?

[witsend]

I thought the whole idea here was that resonance and back emf was producing heat and some energy excitement and not the other way around?
Didn't somebody replicate the effect?

Hi area. Sorry I didn't answer you. There WAS a replication of the effect. But Glen is claiming this as his own 'discovery'. Sadly. The implications are alarming. What we're now looking at is a mad grab at ownership of the intellectual property.

I'm sort of relying on open source to protect their rights here. The effect belongs to the world. It does not belong to Glen. Nor does it belong to Glen and Harvey. And they want it. But so do others. And more to the point, so WILL others. It's that 'mad up for grabs' bit that's good and bad. With that much interest is also that much endorsement.

THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT CLEARLY WE HAVE FINALLY BROKEN THROUGH THE ENERGY BARRIERS. Because this is what happens when there's radically new technology emerging. Look at how Telsa had to fight. Just seems to be an historical necessity. Not even Open Source seem to be able to resist the lure. Kindly people turn into monsters when that lure gets too strong. Golly.

[jibbguy]

Fuzzy deserves a great deal of credit for all he has done. He has helped this genre immensely.

Open Source means ANYONE, and i mean anyone, can commercialize it. But considering that this will also raise public awareness off it, and inspire others to further study it, i cannot see a "down side" to this.

There is a strong possibility, that the effect will eventually gain greater public awareness while the Model is ignored. It may not be "fair", but that's the way it is.

For a new model of physics to be accepted or even seriously considered, it must come from a fairly-well respected member of the mainstream scientific community... as Einstein and Issac Newton were. That is just the way it is.

In the words of the immortal George Carlin:

"It's a big club, and WE AREN'T IN IT!"

Empirical findings and inventions are a different story...

Thomas Edison was not a member of the mainstream when he started out, nor were the Wright Brothers nor was Tesla.

And in fact, although Tesla's AC system is the most widely accepted means of generation and transmission of energy ever seen in History... his ideas on physics were totally ignored and still are to this day.

[witsend]

Fuzzy deserves a great deal of credit for all he has done. He has helped this genre immensely.

I do not argue this. I only question why it is considered entirely Glen's work. I suspect that I was too liberal in my tributes as none were returned. I see now that this was intentional. It seems to show a certain want of generosity to put it mildly.

Open Source means ANYONE, and i mean anyone, can commercialize it. But considering that this will also raise public awareness off it, and inspire others to further study it, i cannot see a "down side" to this.

Who's arguing here Jibbs? It will, no doubt be further replicated and developed. That's not the issue. The question is this. Who gets to own that technology for the 10 years of a patent's life? I'd like to propose an inevitable outcome here if this is seen as a 'discovery' as Glen and Harvey claim. New replications will be funded by rich energy cartels through universities. They'll find yet more variations. Then those variations will be the intellectual property of those rich cartels. And those patents? More than justified. And why? because the very first replicator - himself - denied the underlying thesis. Because one of the authors to a joint paper secretely entertained that the experiment was never a replication. And both parties - until some days ago now, were debating this behind closed doors.

If they advance this as a discovery they ensure that these opportunities are left wide open for grabs. Open Source is about to let go the only claim they will ever be able to make that this 'discovery' belongs to the world and not to interested parties. This in defiance of the evidence. If you are a proponent of energy remaing 'free' then you are possibly doing this movement serious and irrevocable damage.

[witsend]

There is a strong possibility, that the effect will eventually gain greater public awareness while the Model is ignored. It may not be "fair", but that's the way it is.

This is impossible. And the issue of fairness or otherwise is irrelevant. New technology either emerges from outside mainstream or from within. But no technology ever remains without incoporation into mainstream. And mainstream do not always get it right. And we've been paying for some critical oversights by mainstream with the health of our planet and the future of our civilisations. And I'm not even overstating it. I wish I were.

For a new model of physics to be accepted or even seriously considered, it must come from a fairly-well respected member of the mainstream scientific community... as Einstein and Issac Newton were. That is just the way it is.

With the utmost respect Jibbs, this is JUST NOT TRUE. There is no requirement whatsoever that a thesis is required to come from mainstream. Einstein himself wrote his paper on Brownian Motion when he was a patent's clerk and he was, at that time, entirely unqualified in physics. Those observations alone rocked the world of science and were immediately recognised on publication. He came from nowhere and was unqualified. His qualifications followed after.

[witsend]

Thomas Edison was not a member of the mainstream when he started out, nor were the Wright Brothers nor was Tesla.

Exactly. And nor was Einstein. Good heavens. You have bought into the conviction that this model of mine is irrelevant. I've yet to hear of any model this radically different from classical concepts that has ever been accepted at inception. Between Brownian Motion and the General Theory of Relativity lapsed many, many years. Just don't knock the model unless you also understand it. And please don't impose extraneous standards required for its promotion. I know perfectly well what is needed to promote it.

And in fact, although Tesla's AC system is the most widely accepted means of generation and transmission of energy ever seen in History... his ideas on physics were totally ignored and still are to this day.

Telsa patented his ideas. They enriched him and his investors. A patent at that time was considered in the same way as a paper published in a reviewed journal is considered today. He had great academic respect. He fought for commercial support. This is not a valid parallel. His only attack came from those with conflicting and vested commercial interests.