COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie | Part 2

[b4FreeEnergy]

These are the oscilloscopes I used on my Videos, testing and evaluation of this circuit so far ....

WOW this is impressive material! I don't have 5GS/s available yet ...

I guess we can manage to find your work back, if not we can still ask you. I wonder what Gadh is up to, he's so quiet recently!

Cheers,
Bart

[witsend]

WOW this is impressive material! I don't have 5GS/s available yet ...

I guess we can manage to find your work back, if not we can still ask you. I wonder what Gadh is up to, he's so quiet recently!

Cheers,
Bart

Indeed and again, Gadh were you able to get that wire? If not let us know.

[witsend]

Guys, here's a picture of our LAB - after our early efforts to clear some space for our work. Lots going on there with explorations into solar and other energy efficiciencies.

We should be able to get experiments up and running within a few weeks. Still awaiting delivery of the cylinder which, we've now been informed, will be with us by or before Wednesay 12 May. Can't wait.

[gadh]

Indeed and again, Gadh were you able to get that wire? If not let us know.

Hello all. i finally got the wire exactly with the same properties as Glen posted before, and also 3 pyrex tubes 32mm diameter (specially manufactured) , and also RTV silicone glue. but yesterday i tried to assemble them all together but then 2 tubes got broken, so i decided to move to Teflon/Ocolon tubes instead. i have a friend who is a mechanical engineer who suggested to design for me the new tubes with a spiral ridges in them. hoping for it to be ready in a few days.

BTW i measured the wire resistance and it seems to be exactly 10 ohm only after 42 turns (of 32 mm diameter of course), not 48.
do you think i should stick to the original 48 turns or to the 10 ohm value ?

[ashtweth]

Guys, here's a picture of our LAB - after our early efforts to clear some space for our work. Lots going on there with explorations into solar and other energy efficiciencies.

We should be able to get experiments up and running within a few weeks. Still awaiting delivery of the cylinder which, we've now been informed, will be with us by or before Wednesay 12 May. Can't wait.

Rose when we see your results REPLICATED, then i then its time for yours and the already validated Glen's /aarons circuits (related to your ideas) to work towards a RESEARCH CENTER FOR NEW PHYSICS AND NEW CONDITIONS FOR FREE ENERGY DEVICES. NON PROFIT

Even if Steorn over takes you..we still need to resurrect past suppressed and new technology, to understand humanity and advance education, keep going WITH TECHNOLOGY POST THANKS ROSSIE

Ash

[witsend]

Hi Gad - Well done for finding that wire. Not sure of how you're winding but you must remember to leave a gap between each winding - roughly the same width as the wire itself. It may be required.

And sorry to hear about the trouble you're having with that glass. We used teflon for some of our resistors and they're fine - provided you keep them cool. In water would be good.

Well done Gad. You were quiet there for a while. I was concerned you'd given up in the light of all the difficulties.

[gadh]

thanks Rosemary for all your encouragement and support. i do not get it alot these days...
I'll contionue to push towards a successful experiment like yours and Glen's. I'll keep you all updated, don't worry

[witsend]

thanks Rosemary for all your encouragement and support. i do not get it alot these days...
I'll contionue to push towards a successful experiment like yours and Glen's. I'll keep you all updated, don't worry

So sorry to hear that you're not getting encouragement. It sounds as if your colleagues are perhaps not entirely supportive? Gad we're all well used to that 'attitude'. Just take comfort in that it's not scientific. Science is progressed ONLY by experimental evidence. If it's 'unfashionable' to experiment it's at least scientific. What is NOT science, good science, or in any way scientific - is to ASSUME something without first testing it. Thank God our own academics in South Africa adhere to such principles. It's an enduring tribute to good research. Anything less is actually contemptible. But, while the SA academics are showing commendable impartiality required for this - it is still lacking elsewhere in the world. The greatest culprits are from our First World. Only here and there does one find an 'open mind' among academia. Which says a great deal in favour of our third world attitudes. Nice to think that - in some ways - we're leading the world. LOL.

It could, however, also be a reflection on the extraordinary NEEDS of our country. It's hard to fathom - but if our far flung rurual communities could even get 1 litre of hot water without buring wood - then that would be a great improvement. Most of our country is STILL off grid. It's no wonder there's such a scale of difference beween the rich and poor here. Perhaps that need has encouraged our academics to try ANYTHING rather than nothing. But we're all very glad of it.

[FuzzyTomCat]

Hello all. i finally got the wire exactly with the same properties as Glen posted before, and also 3 pyrex tubes 32mm diameter (specially manufactured) , and also RTV silicone glue. but yesterday i tried to assemble them all together but then 2 tubes got broken, so i decided to move to Teflon/Ocolon tubes instead. i have a friend who is a mechanical engineer who suggested to design for me the new tubes with a spiral ridges in them. hoping for it to be ready in a few days.

BTW i measured the wire resistance and it seems to be exactly 10 ohm only after 42 turns (of 32 mm diameter of course), not 48.
do you think i should stick to the original 48 turns or to the 10 ohm value ?

Hi gadh,

Sorry to hear about the borosilicate glass problems, there as several brands from China, Taiwan and India that are around and should be avoided if at all possible. I don't know what kind you used but the higher quality tubing I use is from Pegasus Industrial Specialties Inc. - Simax

Simax
Code Number -246 320 280
O.D. - 32 mm
I.D. - 26.4 mm
Wall Thickness - 2.8 mm ( standard medium )

http://www.pegasus-glass.com/2006_Si..._Catalogue.pdf ( page 6 )

There also is some differences in the Ni Cr wire I found also, and it's best to use the "length" of wire that gets you 10 ohms ( + - 5 % ) the same as a standard wire wound resistor.

Regards,
Glen

[gadh]

thanks Glen for your info, but i'm not intending to use glass anymore. i used the same wall thickness as yours but it won't help.
I'll try moving on to Teflon

[witsend]

When is it a replication and when isn't it a replication?

Rose when we see your results REPLICATED, then i then its time for yours and the already validated Glen's /aarons circuits (related to your ideas) to work towards a RESEARCH CENTER FOR NEW PHYSICS AND NEW CONDITIONS FOR FREE ENERGY DEVICES. NON PROFIT

Golly Ash. There is no end to this. Just for the benefit of our readers here - this is the thing. I need to go back to some basic principles here using a variation to a well worn analogy.

'No-one historically can jump above 2 meters. That is the acknowledged barrier. But one person then comes to the party and advises that by using a rare combination of poles, diet and exercise - they could easily scale 3 meters. That person demonstrates it to a wide audience of experts. He also encourages others to try this. But the vast majority of athletes who see this refuse to try it out for themselves. They simply do not believe it. However, in the fullness of time, one or two agree to try it out and that first claimant goes to inordinate lengths to provide the information and the tools required to measure the experiment. And lo and behold they scale 2.5 meters. And they did this by using those same tools of 'poles' and diet and exercise.

NOW. What happened was this. Those that breached the barrier then proposed that - because there was some variation in the length of the pole that they used, or because they see some imagined variation to the proposed regimen of diet and exercise - and because they did not quite get to a full 3 meters, then they must have 'stumbled' onto NEW principles of success that is entirely extraneous to the conditions that were first required to SCALE THAT BARRIER. Shouldn't they rather be trying to find the 'right' pole length or the 'right' excersise or the right diet? Are they not simply 'falling short' of the 'target' - that new level - that HAS been claimed?

But remember. Prior to this - absolutely NO-ONE had managed to breach the 2 meter level. Using some combination of the pole and that diet - at least took them past that barrier. Significantly past it. A whole half meter. What concerns me and many readers here is that there is some evident anxiety to PROVE that this 2.5 meter jump was NOT based on the previous 'guide' to breach the 2 meter barrier. Why is there any need to claim independent rights to this effect? Why is it now EXCLUSIVELY their own discovery. And why this pressing and continual need to discredit both the original claim and the claimant? Tell me then. What will happen if, say the 'so called SA team' breach their own barrier by - say 40 000% - or better still. What if the SA team actually 'FLY'? Does that make it a new discovery? Or what if Bart reaches a COP>12 - does that make it his discovery? Or what if Gad gets it to FLY? Does that make it Gad's discovery? Or what if the extra energy is channelled to another supply source? Does that make it a different result?

Now. To that first 'hypothetical replicator'. If they are going to 'prove' that this replication is more in the nature of a discovery - and if such is required, then it would not be in their interests to show that they can reach or even exceed 3 meters. They would need to rename their jump from - let's call it - the Highest Jump - to 'The Next Best Thing jump'. But then they can also claim that they have the full scale film to document that event. Since that was absent in the 'first' claim then their's has the merit of being a DEPENDABLE ACCOUNT.

So. Back to the 'replication' which you here deny. Glen et al unarguably used the EXACT SAME CIRCUIT DESIGN. The switch may have been different but the switch is simply the 'peg' holding up the pole at a required height. It is extraneous to the circuit principles. But for that matter, nor does the resistor need to be exactly duplicated. The applied energy does not have to be 24 volts. You see this? The extent to which he breaches the 2 meter barrier may be dependant on those components. But the principle is this. USE THESE BASIC COMPONENTS and subject to variations - which indeed may be subtle or gross - you SHOULD AT LEAST BE ABLE TO BREACH THAT 2 METER BARRIER.

And here's the principle. You can generate enough energy away from a supply source and return this to the supply source to replenish that supply. This is NOT confined to a battery supply source. It does not depend on only one circuit configuration. The potential here is HUGE. It is just that this particular BREACH OF THE UNITY BARRIER requires circuitry to be designed to RETURN THAT ENERGY TO RE-ENERGISE THE SUPPLY.

Now. The next point is this. If one actually calculates the power that is generated or, as mainstream have traditionally seen this, 'dissipated' on that circuit - if one measures the height of that jump - one will find that in fact the actual height or the actual power is even greater than is evidenced as heat on the circuit or as height in that jump. BUT these factors are hard to calculate and difficult to harness. So for now. Let's just concentrate on the heat from the circuit and the height of that jump. Both are greater than convention allows.

And when anyone can disprove that as much or even more energy can be returned back to a supply source to recharge it than was initially delivered, then and only then - will the actual CLAIM be refuted. That is the whole of the claim. It's as simple as that. And indeed as complex.

[ashtweth]

I dont deny any thing, i will say that no one has made YOUR exact circuit work here Rose, that's not taking any thing away from it, Glen's/Aaron's have been replicated as a modified version, and that's what THIS FORUM IS ABOUT.

>Why is there any need to claim independent rights to this effect? Why is it now EXCLUSIVELY their own discovery. And why this pressing and continual need to discredit both the original claim and the claimant? Tell me then. What will happen if, say the 'so called SA team' breach their own barrier by - say 40 000% - or better still. What if the SA team actually 'FLY'? Does that make it a new discovery? Or what if Bart reaches a COP>12 - does that make it his discovery? Or what if Gad gets it to FLY? Does that make it Gad's discovery? Of what if the extra energy is channelled to another supply source? Does that make it a different result?


Please dont post this sort of stuff as it aggravates Glen and is COMPLETELY inaccurate and out of line. Rose, i expect a bit more from you.

Ash

[witsend]

I dont deny any thing, i will say that no one has made YOUR exact circuit work here Rose,

Rather say that no-one has got my circuit to work exactly as efficiently. But it is THE SAME CIRCUIT.

that's not taking any thing away from it, Glen's/Aaron's have been replicated as a modified version

Where exactly were the differences in these versions of the circuit? I think if you need to state this then it would also be as well to point out the variations.
All such circuits were based on the following design. A resitive/inductive load in series with a supply source and a switch. The circuit designed to allow current flow during both phases of the switching current. Have I missed something?

referenced to my own post.

>Why is there any need to claim independent rights to this effect? Why is it now EXCLUSIVELY their own discovery. And why this pressing and continual need to discredit both the original claim and the claimant? Tell me then. What will happen if, say the 'so called SA team' breach their own barrier by - say 40 000% - or better still. What if the SA team actually 'FLY'? Does that make it a new discovery? Or what if Bart reaches a COP>12 - does that make it his discovery? Or what if Gad gets it to FLY? Does that make it Gad's discovery? Of what if the extra energy is channelled to another supply source? Does that make it a different result?

Not sure why this could be considered offensive. Are you suggesting that I don't refer to it notwithstanding that it's the truth or because it is not true? Very confused here Ash. I cannot accuse Glen of denying that it's a replication. But you certainly do. On what grounds, may I ask?

please dont post this sort of stuff aggravates Glen. Rose, i expect a bit more from you.

May I then, by the same token, again ask you where the circuit varies from my original? Where is his test NOT a replication? You see, that upsets ME. It is negating 10 years of my hard work on the thesis that generates this effect. While I would be sorry to upset any member it may be as well to remember that my own peace of mind is hardly promoted when I find that all that hard work is simply being negated.

Aaron on the other hand found something truly unique. He was able to generate a condition of 'recharge' proving that the primary energy supply source was actually from the resistive load. I have NEVER seen this. That's in line with my thesis but is entirely his invention. This circuit that I have made available to the public has NO VARIATION to anything that Glen has tested. His test is therefore a REPLICATION in the true sense of the word.

Ash[/QUOTE]p

[gadh]

Hello all senior members of this forum (Rose/Glen/Ash).
Excuse me for being a bit rude, but i think you need to solve this "bad blood" between you on another medium (i suggest a more private one). and it would better result in uniting forces rather splitting them...
A very smart and experienced man in the R&D area once said to me that most of the failures in tech. projects are caused by human relations ! and i think you've all just going to prove that soon...
lets all focus on our main target - helping the world first !
therefore i think this forum should be dedicated to technical issues only.

[witsend]

Hello all senior members of this forum (Rose/Glen/Ash).
Excuse me for being a bit rude, but i think you need to solve this "bad blood" between you on another medium (i suggest a more private one). and it would better result in uniting forces rather splitting them...
A very smart and experienced man in the R&D area once said to me that most of the failures in tech. projects are caused by human relations ! and i think you've all just going to prove that soon...
lets all focus on our main target - helping the world first !
therefore i think this forum should be dedicated to technical issues only.

Indeed Gad. You are right. I would therefore ask Ash to PLEASE not keep drawing attention to the question as to whether this is a replication or not. I can't leave it without answering it as it would imply endorsement - and you're right. It's better left for discussion elsewhere.