COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie | Part 2

[witsend]

There is one theme that runs through all the reactions and it was only evident to me last night - in discussion. There are those among you who have advanced or have bought into the argument that that I have usurped Glen's results as proof of my thesis surreptitiously. I am open to correction but I only know of countless assertions where I pointed to these experimental results as required by the model. Further, I have advanced my own paper in this regard but unsuccessfully. I was variously advised that the results were not replicable or the data insufficient. Glen's replication put paid to both concerns. I am and was, therefore, in a position to advance my earlier paper again on my own. In which case I would have quietly set about it and done it. It would have been concluded some months ago and it would have answered any needs I required in this regard. I was free to do so and no-one would have been able to stop me.

But my hope and dream was that this become an Open Source effort and I saw it as an opportunity to show mainstream the quality of work that was available on these forums. I was hoping that 'crashing through the energy barrier' would be seen as a group effort. To which end I invited Harvey, Ash, Andrew, Steve, Glen and Donovan to join in the effort being, as I saw it, a magical distribution of the credit both globally and in terms of talent. It seemed that I was too liberal with my compliments and too generous with the level of involvement. Harvey and Glen not only took the invitation but proceded to take the entire experiment away from me. In effect, they claimed ownership. Harvey generally claimed that I was incapable of writing the paper without his input and that Glen's exercise was not a replication. They stated their grounds. I refuted them. They have not responded.

I am not sure how you all feel about this. I know I've had some very supportive sentiment from the public. Thank you for that. For those who still harbour the mistrust about my motives - know this. I will get a paper published in a reviewed journal. I will be soliciting expert advice on this. It will still be advanced as an Open Source effort but will concentrate on the model itself. It will still have the joint authorship of Donovan, who is intimately associated with the model, and of members of Panacea, should they require it. It will also be referred to a physics journal - I think. I still need to absorb the information made available on this. Publication will then put paid to Harvey's objection that I am incapable of this and that I depended on his input. This is entirely fallactious and misleading. And I trust it will put paid to any surreptitious motives which may still linger. I am looking forward to the challenge.

I leave it to you all to study the grounds of the objections that have been put forward that Glen's work was a replication. My counter points have not been argued and I must, therefore assume that they CANNOT be argued. In any event, I have been guided in all these posts by some expert and legal advices. I am grateful for their input. I will keep you posted on all developments regarding the paper, and hope that the replications of the circuit will continue as before - and as required. I will be posting daily, and will be concentrating on explaining 'current flow' as proposed by the model, compared to 'current flow' as seen by mainstream. This, I hope, will make it easier for you all to understand where the departure is - and you can all then apply the principles or not, as required. Then I will point to those areas in the paper's circuit where the thesis is answered and where questions still remain. This will be open for discussion and debate.

And guys, I thrive on being challenged. I depend on some critical evaluation and some difficult questions. All such welcomed. My objects are always to advance what little knowledge I have and to learn wherever I can. That's what still makes life worth living.

[Guruji]

Heater circuit

What happened here in this thread? Why so many conflicts guys?
Let us continue on ths circuit or we can open an other thread and post there if you like Fuzzy so that for those people who like to share can do it freely.
Thanks

[FuzzyTomCat]

What happened here in this thread? Why so many conflicts guys?
Let us continue on ths circuit or we can open an other thread and post there if you like Fuzzy so that for those people who like to share can do it freely.
Thanks

Hi Guruji,

There has been a new thread made here at Energetic

A Sub-Forum for public viewing but posting by *invitation* "ONLY" your name has already been approved for posting and we are awaiting Aaron to place your name in so you can start .... I think there are 12 total now.

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...ead.php?t=5359

Best Regards,
Glen


P.S. - *invitation* - PM to ask for posting if you can't .... most all participating members were already pre-approved

[witsend]

I am not allowed to post other's emails, for obvious reasons. But I am able to post my replies.

We, the authors, had an enquiry from an investor to explore the scalablity of the Ainslie circuit. I did a short background search on this company and then sent a copy of my response to all authors. In terms of this I encouraged the investor to contact Glen directly, thereby indicating that whatever he wanted to do, he would probably need to get into some sort of contact arrangement exclusively with Glen.

But investors look to protect their investment. This means that he might not want to develop this if he was competing with other interested parties. I do not know of any such, but I do know that some time back, posted on the thread, that we had an enquiry from within SA to explore the applications. I actually posted this on the thread because it was the first enquiry I'd ever got. This - long before we had even discussed a paper. At that time I had referred the enquirer directly to Donovan as this particular appliction required local input. Donovan knew as much as I did about the circuit. I have no idea what has happened with that enquiry.

However, back to this new enquiry. I advised this gentleman that he would be well advised to find out if there was any actual progress of applications. I don't know of any. I am not involved with applications. But if there's an investment involved, then, I needed to alert him. Anything less would have been unprofessional. I also advised him to contact and possibly work with Glen directly. Instead of thanks Glen now accuses me of of doing God knows what, behind closed doors under secret agreements. How absurd.

This was my answer to Glen's emailed allegation relating to this.

What on earth has this got to do with anything? Everyone is entitled to develop any applications of this device anywhere in the world. You have all been encouraged to do so. Unless you want to be kept out of the loop I will continue to advise you all about all such enquiries. I have many more such. I am sifting through their credentials. I am on record. I HAVE NO FINANCIAL INTERESTS IN ANY OF THESE ENQUIRIES. I am only ensuring that everyone has a chance to make some return for themselves if they wish.

Donovan's involvement here was POSTED ON THE FORUM. Check it out. And do not think Glen, that he may not because you require that he may not. Everyone in the world has been encouraged to advance applications. It is widely on record..

Closely followed by this...

OK Glen, I think I see where the problem is.

There is nothing that is withheld from open source unless it is protected in terms of an agreement. And if there is such an agreement it is to protect an investor's interests. And there is nothing you nor I nor anyone can do to insist that such an agreement is breached. Many members are constrained by such agreements. Allcandadian - and Armageddn3 just two examples that spring to mind.

I think this is a good thing if it encourages the use of the circuit. It will remind you all that there is a world out there anxious to get it's hands on applications - somehow. I am just so pleased that this is happening. In fact Donovan's involvement is only theoretical as far as I know. But it is immaterial whether it is a precise or distant approximation to the Ainslie circuit. An application may call for some considerable variation. All applications may vary from the original circuits. No work is limited to the representations of the paper.

I am personally very pleased that there are enquiries. And if you prefer not to be told, any of you, I'll desist and try and find other members who may be. God knows I did not mean to upset you all by showing this interest from the public. And I am not materially advancing any interests of my own. What now is your actual objection? Surely you knew that this was in the offing? And that there's no restrictions to the applications of this technology? I've posted the fact often enough.


Glen, I suggest you try and temper some of your posting with a little more reason and a lot more professionalism. And I assure I am not in any secret negotiations anywhere about anything at all. I have no interest in any commercialisation of this circuit. I am only looking to advance it wherever I can. I think I need to call on you to give us this proof that you claim so categorically and definitively.

[witsend]

I might add that you, yourself have indicated investor interest. And that was certainly extant while we were writing the paper. And I don't think any one of us objected. I certainly didn't. Am always delighted to hear of potential applications. What could be better? Isn't that the ultimate goal of this whole exercise?

[witsend]

Guys - Another attempt to getting this on topic. This is in the introduction to the paper that I tried to get onto Scribd. It goes to the 'difference' between classical and this model. I'll explain it more fully this evening.

The model proposes that charge has the property of mass with the material properties of velocities and thermal capacities associated with that mass. These particles do not conform to the standard model and remain hidden within three dimensional solid or liquid objects or amalgams. They are extraneous to the atom itself and only interact with the atomic energy levels that, in turn, comprise independent fields of the same fundamental particle. These extraneous fields are responsible for the bound condition of the amalgam. This interaction between the fields and the atoms’ energy levels results in a balanced distribution of charge throughout the amalgam. Measurable voltage reflects a transitional state of imbalance throughout these binding fields that, subject to circuit conditions, then move that charge through available conductive and inductive paths to reestablish a charge balance. In effect the circuit components that enable the flow of charge from a supply source are, themselves able to generate a flow of current depending on the strength of that applied potential difference and the material properties of the circuit components. Therefore both inductive and conductive circuit components have a potential to generate current flow in line with Inductive Laws.

Classical assumption requires an equivalence in the transfer of electric energy based as it is on the concept of a single supply source. Therefore voltage measured away from the supply on circuit components is seen to be stored energy delivered during closed circuit conditions of a switching cycle. The distinction is drawn that if indeed, the circuit components are themselves able to generate a current flow from potential gradients, then under open circuit conditions, that energy may, be added to the sum of the energy on the circuit thereby exceeding the limit of energy available from the supply. Therefore if more energy is measured to be dissipated at a load than is delivered by the supply, then that evidence will be consistent with this thesis. The experimental evidence does indeed, conform to this prediction.

[EgmQC]

Rosemary,

Can i make a suggestion ? You should include mathematical explanation of your model because word alone mean nothing, we can talk about zipon or noodle or paper sheet, that's only words. To make prediction you need a mathematical model and that should include comparison to the current model and the derivative to your model. I showed you in another forum what should look like a real Thesis http://www.distinti.com/docs/neThesis.pdf , this guy have a real theory and make mathematical correlation with the current system to emphasis on the difference and how its better. If you do the same , you will be able to call it a Thesis and get real attention from qualified people.Without mathematical explanation, its only a sheet of idea.

Best Regards,
EgmQC

[witsend]

Rosemary,

Can i make a suggestion ? You should include mathematical explanation of your model because word alone mean nothing, we can talk about zipon or noodle or paper sheet, that's only words. To make prediction you need a mathematical model and that should include comparison to the current model and the derivative to your model. I showed you in another forum what should look like a real Thesis http://www.distinti.com/docs/neThesis.pdf , this guy have a real theory and make mathematical correlation with the current system to emphasis on the difference and how its better. If you do the same , you will be able to call it a Thesis and get real attention from qualified people.Without mathematical explanation, its only a sheet of idea.

Best Regards,
EgmQC

Hi EgmQC - Your point is valid. But I'm not advancing anything in this thread other than an understanding of the concepts not the credibility of the thesis. That will rely on publication in a peer reviewed journal. And I am, indeed working on this. And, incidentally, if I had the mathematical formulae - I'd call it a theory. Until then it's a thesis or a model.

But conceptual understanding is always a first step. That, after all, is how all models are first developed. I sincerely believe it will help all the electrical technicians, engineers whatever, to better apply this. Our little circuit is small change compared to the potential that I see in this. It just needs cleverer people than me to know how to apply it. And that may be helped if the concepts are understood. I certainly hope so.

Just for the record. There are actually papers that have been published in reviewed journals without a single equation in them. And those concepts preceded the mathematical formulae - and are entirely acceptable. The early explanation of the wave function is a case in point. But there are many. There is NO RULE in physics. The only thing, as I understand it, is to fault the logic.

EDITED

[witsend]

Guys. The following posts are my own writing and will be used as material for a small book that I intend publishing and is extraneous to the exercise that I will be doing to publish this work in a reviewed journal. Therefore, while it is in the public domain I claim full copyright of this material. It is deliberately written to a level that will allow the engagement of young minds. I propose that it will lead to an explanation as to why this simple circuit enables an over unity results and will point to the questions related to the circuit that still need to be addressed.

I would caution you that any testing of the circuit that is done without reference to this model may very well defeat the objects of the test. I am not saying that such tests are irrelevant. But if a test is designed to obviate a benefit then clearly that test is inappropriate.

As this is properly an extension of the COP>17 claim, then I am adding it to this thread. Thus far the question has been 'is replication possible'. Now I intend explaining why replication was inevitable.

[witsend]

It is a little known truth that no-one actually knows what electric current is - let alone how or why it flows. In the same way no-one knows what causes gravity. These both, together with the strong and weak nuclear forces, are lumped together - very broadly, under the term 'forces'. And a force is known to be that something that can be used to give energy. But here's the thing. Nor does anyone actually know what energy is. You get whole divisions within universities dedicated to the study of clean energy, reusable energy, reticulated, recycled, economic, efficient, green - all in depth discussions and all about energy. Yet not one of these academic experts actually knows what energy is - the thing itself. Ask them and they will waffle on about 'change' or they will point to measurements that boggle the mind with their predictable accuracies. But energy? The thing that flows, that lights your light, that heats your stove, that gives you the will to learn, walk, wake up in the mornings, that thing? No-one actually knows what it is. All we know today is roughly where to find it, and exactly how to exploit it.

[witsend]

That having been said - also by the same token - those same expert academics also know an exhaustive amount about the measurement of that energy. And that measurement is so skilled that they can predict the outcome of a physical or chemical effect to extraordinary levels of accuracy. It is this knowledge that has led us into this technological revolution that allows us, among many other benefits, the use of our computers, our cars and the general conveniences of modern day life. I do not mean to diminish the vast wealth of knowledge available to us courtesy these experts. And they, in turn, have archived the excellent pioneering efforts of those Giants in physics who first pioneered this knowledge. All this work is a treasure of information and is an enduring and proud heritage of our civilisation. It has taken us from the confused presumptions of the dark ages to the clear light of science based, as it now is, on experimental evidence as proof of a thesis or theory.

[witsend]

All I am pointing to is the fact that physics today still has outstanding questions. And while these questions are really big questions, they all relate to our inability to actually see anything on a really minute scale. This includes everything on the scale of an atom and smaller. Beyond a certain size and at a certain given velocity our knowledge of anything is limited to that knowledge that can only be gained through inference. We have photographed electrons but know nothing of their structure. I have actually seen a photograph of the shadowy structure of atoms. An extraordinary feat in photography. But it simply looks like a nest of eggs laid out and cooling in something that also looks like a clinging morning mist. The atom's motor, its actual structure, remains hidden inside its shell. What little we know about particles is their charge or the 'direction' they take within a magnetic field and some extraordinary details related to the 'spin' of that particle when it can be held, tenuously suspended, away from it's natural environment. Scientists work with 'clues' and patterns of behaviour to gain an increasing understanding of the thing itself. And this art of inference has - notwithstanding these difficulties, enabled an extraordinary feat. We have the periodic table as tribute to the rarefied progressive logic that unravelled the atom's secrets. This and the fact that we know of a great many particles, an entire particle zoo as some call it, is all by virtue of the courtesy and the skills of expert knowledge, expert observation and expert assessment. Our progress in science is an enduring tribute to the skills of our mainstream scientists and their remarkably incisive logic. But yet our knowledge is limited, constrained as it is in any study of the very, very small.

[witsend]

And the scale which I am referring to? Think of this. There are more atoms on the head of a pin than there are stars that can be seen in the night sky. And the simplest of all atoms, our hydrogen atom? At its heart is one single proton with a positive charge - orbited by one single electron with a negative charge. And, if in your mind's eye you can imagine the proton to be the size of, say, your average Granny Smith apple, then the electron is, by comparison, the size of a green pea orbiting the apple at a radius of something in the order of 8 kilometers away from that centre. All that empty space which, as it turns out, is not that emply. What we cannot see except with the aid of some exotic photography, is that there are energy levels associated with each atom, widely referred to as 'lines'. If these energy levels comprise particles, then they would need to be on another scale of 'small'. Such particles would then constitute a remove in size that even exceeds the miniscule size of the proton and the electron themselves. I am not proposing that mainstream have ascribed any material property to these energy levels. They appear to be nothing more than a boundary of sorts that circle the nucleus of the atoms. They also seem to define the actual boundary of the atom itself. Each line is distinct one from another. We also know that we can tease the electron away from the proton or the proton away from the electron - but we can never entirely divorce the proton from those energy levels. Somehow the reconstitution of the hydrogen's proton back into some molecular partnership with another atom returns those same energy levels. It is these energy levels rather than the particles themselves that I am intrigued with. But I will get back to this point.

[b4FreeEnergy]

Hi Aaron heater is working . Last night I was tweaking with the pots and the resistor came hot . I am using that circuit of yours Aaron and mine was heating up. I noticed that there is a small window in pot adjustment when heat comes and this happens when there is a slight of voltage drop on my DMM.
It is true that is a bit difficult without a scope but with patience to the adjusting pots while being aware of the voltage drop one can do it.
Thanks
Andrew

Hi Guruji,

What resistor did you use? Is it decribed somewhere for me to duplicate?

Bets regards,
B

[b4FreeEnergy]

Dear Witsend, you state somewhere that your circuit is 'flirting' with overunity. You managed to have COP>17. Can't we speak about 'over-unity' as soon as we have COP>1 ?