another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I duly noted "REFUSAL" of request.

Thank You

Indeed Glen.  It's not so much that I'm REFUSING - but that I COULD NOT DO SO even if I wanted to.  Not under any jurisprudence anywhere in the world.  It is UNDERSTOOD that the claimant must find his own representation.  With the best will in the world - I cannot oblige you.  You really need to let that team of attorneys of yours advise you better.

Regards nonetheless
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Actually guys this is all rather easier than I thought.  I feel rather shy of Glen's inabilities here and equally rather ashamed of my ability to exploit them.

In fairness - here's the thing.  Glen most certainly replicated our experiment.  However, he feels that this is his own discovery and not ours.  I am absolutely NOT qualified to argue.  And frankly I don't care.  Ownership is not my thing.  However.  It's true that he assembled a resistor in the face of some rather shaky descriptions of this in our Quantum paper.  BUT.  Unfortunately he, Harvey and Ashtweth saw fit to divorce that experiment - not from our claim - but from the prediction of that result in our thesis on this.  Since it not only was always the basis of our evidence this move was absolutely NOT something that I could handle.  This thesis is considerably more important than the associated evidence of that thesis.  Certainly to over unity research. Then to compound the folly he also started a thread at energetic forum - where Harvey and he variously insinuated or stated that the claims in that paper were fallacious.  Again.  This caused a total rift.

Here's the thing Glen.  I am most appreciative of your replication.  You have drawn great deal of attention to the reality of over unity.  But by the same token you are profoundly contradictory when you deny that evidence and yet allow that paper to be published under your name on your Scribd account.  If you wish to leave that paper there - then come out and say it.  That you 'stand' by those numbers.  Unless you do this then you do not have a leg to stand on.  And you've wasted some many years in denying this when you could have been capitalising on its use and on the certain publicity that is associated with a valid replication.  Quite apart from which I think you had some plans to apply the technology.  Surely you see it now.  You absolutely CANNOT exploit or advance anything at all while you also deny the benefits. 

I am more than happy to bury the hatchet - provided only that you do not disclaim that hard work related to those papers.  Then I would be more than happy to allow the 'filming' of our test on your own channels - possibly in conjunction with our own - as I it would be foolhardy to trust to your intentions at this early stage.  And you would need to accede to my rights and all the collaborators' rights to publish that paper and use iit in any context that they choose. 

In any event.  It is clear to me that you want to engage.  And this is the ONLY way that it would be possible.  Just think about it.  This engagement that you're offering is getting rather absurd.  And I get it that you actually DO want to be involved.  That's my best offer.

Regards
Rosemary

[TinselKoala]

Below you can see the famous scope trace from the Ainslie demo video. The presenter should be made to attend oscilloscope management classes for his egregious violation of quantitative scoposcopy... but I know that's not going to happen.

Let me try to explain what's happening on this screen.

On the left side in the blue margin are four little numbers whose color corresponds to a trace color. 1, 3, 2, and 4, from the top.

These markers indicate the "zero" level or baseline for that corresponding scope channel. Note that, except for the oscillations, the only trace that actually indicates SWITCHING is the gate or FG signal, the blue trace 3. Its volts per division setting can be read down below, and it's 2 volts per division. It would be nice to have some graticle illumination so we could see the scale divisions themselves. This trace is going from ZERO volts at the marker on the left, down to minus something, lost in the blur, but the scope's parameter function tells us (the box on the middle right) that this noise averages to -1.52 volts.
(EDIT: Actually this box is telling us that the trigger is on Ch 2 and is set at 1. 52 volts. Sorry, I need new glasses. The true value of the midpoint of the oscillations on the blue trace seems to be about 6 scale tics or a bit over 2 volts, not 1.52 volts.)
This indicates that the circuit IS drawing down the FG's output, just as I have shown... because the mosfets won't even begin to switch at an ACTUAL gate input that's so small.

The purple trace is the battery voltage. Note it is set at 50 volts per division, and the "noise" and the normal battery voltage between the noise is at about 6 little ticks above its zero marker, as it should be since there are 5 little ticks PER division.
The other two traces are more problematic. Note that they do NOT show the up-and-down deviations of the gate signal, but rather are flat across through the noise oscillations just like the battery traces.
Now...these mosfets switch ON when the gate receives a POSITIVE charge of enough magnitude. So the only way a NEGATIVE gate drive pulse could switch a mosfet ON is if... something is screwy somewhere. It could be a result of the combination of the FG's offset setting and the voltage draw-down caused by the low impedance of the circuit connected to the FG.
The number 1 trace, yellow, the voltage drop across the shunt, is set at 1 volt per division and is oscillating around the ZERO value, and the scope is trying to compute a mean and other statistics on the noise band... and is coming up with a small negative number. This is not unusual, surprising, nor does it represent what is actually happening. In other words... it's an artefact caused by improper use of the oscilloscope, and tells us nothing about the current flowing across the shunt except that it's too noisy for the scope to resolve during the oscillations.
The green trace is set at 100 volts per division and is AC coupled in order to display on the screen and not shoot up above it. Since this is the drain signal, it should be HIGH when the mosfets are off... and it should be LOW when they are on... so one should see the same kind of up and down jump, with oscillations on the on portion, as we see in the gate drive signal, I think. Only this jump's magnitude should be near the battery's voltage. I don't know if the scope's AC coupling is flattening this out or not. The scope is telling us that the oscillations have a 44 volt p-p amplitude. No surprise there.
In the cursor information box at the upper right, there is much useless info displayed, but the delta-t--- the duration of a single cycle--- appears to be 100 milliseconds. (The timebase is set at 40 milliseconds per horizontal major division). That's the horizontal distance (time) between the A cursor and the B cursor, the vertical white lines on the left part of the shot. Twelve minor ticks at 40 ms per 5 ticks... that's 100 ms.
Er... um...... cough cough..... that's 10 cycles PER second. I thought the FG was set to 10 kHz or something realistic like that. But the scope is telling us that sure enough, we are operating at 10 Hz. And they are showing you four or five cycles at 10 Hz when the interesting stuff is happening at the start and finish of the oscillations, at 1 MHz or more. No wonder it just looks like a blur across the trace.

So we have a circuit made of a true rat's nest of wires, using mosfets wired together in the most casual and naive manner possible, with lots of stray capacitance and inductances all over the place, with manifest evidence of massive feedback oscillations and a presenter who thinks an oscilloscope is for making pretty wiggley lines with. And this scope trace is the evidence of massive overunity.

They have TWO digital scopes, 4 channels each, connected to the circuit in exact parallel. And they can't even get a stable trigger on the LeCroy, and its lack of bandwidth becomes evident. They have these fancy scopes and don't use them properly. I would have used the Tek to take voltage across the shunt on one channel, drain voltage on a second one, used the math to multiply them together for an instantaneous power trace on the third trace, and then integrated that over time on the fourth displayed trace. Then the LECroy could monitor battery voltage and the FG and the other raw parameters just like it is, and there would actually be some DATA coming out of the demonstration instead of pretty colored wiggly lines.

[powercat]

TK
Well done on the new testing,  I feel it doesn't matter how well you do it Rosemary will never be satisfied with the result,
even if you could get your hands on her own circuit the one that she claims produces excess energy and fully tested it with witnesses and web cams and everything else, she would still deny reality,
the sad truth is that delusional people believe their own lies.

Fuzzy
Good to see you are taking direct action, this ridiculous situation has gone on long enough, Her continuously saying you support her claim when it's obvious to anyone that you don't, and the fact that you don't would normally make you a bad example, how strange that in all this time she has no one else to support her claim of excess energy.

[fuzzytomcat]

Howdy members and guests,

This will be interesting to have a comparison with the Quantum 2002 COP>17 device of Rosemary's and the modified Device I made with my custom hand made borosilicate glass 10 ohm inductor ....

Although this is only a "libel" lawsuit, but ........ it would be absolutely fantastic to see what has been hidden for years, never to be seen by any Open Source experimentalist and for Rosemary to admit she still has the device people will pay money to see the infamous COP>17 thingamabob device in operation and actually working.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg316302/#msg316302      Reply #1379 on: March 21, 2012, 11:08:59 PM

Guys - all that's happening here is that Glen is well aware of Harti's reluctance to engage when litigation is being threatened.  It usually results in 'locking' of the thread which is what Glen is actually doing.  And Glen is trying to imply to Harti that this 'class action' of his is likely to engage forum members.  Rest assured.  This action is between him and me.  He has roundly advised us all of his intention to sue me based on the evaluation of the claim that was being assessed as he posted.  I've provided him a service address so that he can manage this rather easily.

This is getting a little bit farcical.  I was at least hoping for some kind of genuine claim to defend.  Else how can I get my apparatus to Court for some kind of evaluation?  That's my ONLY motivation here.  I intend to rather opportunistically produce all that evidence of COP INFINITY.  And hang the consequences of any court rulings against me.

Golly
In any event - as ever
Rosemary

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-18.html#post60279             07-13-2009, 07:52 AM


witsend              ( aka Rosemary Ainslie )  Senior Member

Joit - is your waveform proving TinselKoala's point? Is that 555 switch wrongly presented? To me it looks like it is. In which case, I must apologise to all concerned.

Clearly the Quantum article was wrong.


So, to all concerned - to everyone who built the circuit as presented in that article, and if, indeed, it is wrong, my abject apologies. I had a shrewd idea it may have

been wrong because, thinking back, a university professor kindly edited the quantum paper prior to presenting it to the IET. And his first recommendation was that

we omitted a detailed circuit of the 555 switch as being irrelevant to the claim. Which is why I was reluctant to endorse the Quantum article as being a correct presentation.

I just wish, in retrospect, that he had pointed out the error if he had seen such. In any event, it seems that I have been entirely at fault. My own objection to it was

due to the lack of the feedback diode - which was the entire subject of the exercise. I knew it was in the apparatus. It certainly was not in diagram.


I would point out though, that my reluctance to admit this prior to ascertaining the fact was due to the person who presented that diagram and assisted me in

that first article. He is a good friend and he, like all of us, was 'giving' his time. I was not keen therefore to expose the problem unless I also knew it was a

problem. So, if you're reading this, don't even worry. In any event, the blame was not his. I should, at least, have had the circuit vetted - considering my

own inability to read such.


So. Many apologies, even to TinselKoala and anyone in the entire world who duplicated that circuit. It is wrongly presented.

I am sincerely sorry that I have wasted so much of your time. And Joit - you've put the question to bed. I would be very glad to refund

you for your time and trouble - if required - and if I can get the money to you with our exchange control. Just send me an account on

the PM system. You've done a very good thing here.


What I do assure you all is this. The switch may have been wrongly drawn. Our own duty cycle application is NOT.  I have the

experimental apparatus available and it has been checked by EE's even at universities. We have also, over the years, built many

different 555 switches and by different people. And there are replicated experiments by others using nothing but a functions generator. And all this

prior to publication. More to the point is that the battery duration is consistent with measurements based on the duty cycle. But, in point of fact, after

publication I never experimented again for a period of 7 years and I certainly never even looked at the article again. The only reason I could scan a

copy for the blog when I eventually did this, was because my children kept a copy of the original publication. I was just so dejected at the entire lack

of interest it seemed to generate. I had no idea that the test would really ever be duplicated.


Therefore, please take this admission as a sincere apology to all those who have tried to build the switch according to the quantum article. I see that the Quantum

article was the primary reference point as the IET paper was only posted to the blog after July. It seems that Ramset and TinselKoala started their thread on OU.COM

in mid June. Unfortunate. But there you are. Sorry guys - It's all I can say.