Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[MileHigh]

Fuzzy, you are so weak-kneed that you had to delete my posting?

[fuzzytomcat]

Fuzzy, you are so weak-kneed that you had to delete my posting?

MH, The IEEE document is one that comes from 6 months of work from testing mostly from my replication, never have I made any claims of performance other than giving all the data available from my testing ..... and I am not being or have been arrogant in any way shape or form and have been insulted by your comments concerning the work done and Tektronix.

Also you have and never will be involved in what Tektronix is doing and need to be corrected that the DSO as you keep referring to is called a DPO and is reflected as such in our submission to IEEE for a possible publication and by Tektronix.

Please refrain from posting here again unless you have something productive to say.

Glen

[Cloxxki]

@ Paul

I'll ask again the method of testing you are proposing is it a approved testing method that has been used by some university, government or accredited testing agency on a method of measuring where there is reference material, a document, PDF or text showing the procedure in detail that was used and which has been published.

If so please produce these documents now for consideration of these testing methods, if the testing method is one of your own creation please indicate in complete details why it should be considered on this circuit ...... if you cannot or are unwilling to produce what has been requested now several times ..... postings of the same comments over and over will be considered "SPAM" and dealt with accordingly ......

Fuzzy

Can such a skilled and talented consortium not come up with a proper control experiment?
Are you now going from a questioned COP<17 to a COP<4 claim, again to be published, and again without convincing evidence? What is the POINT of that? If you lose factor 4 again next time, there won't be any overunity left to be clamed!
Put the whole circuit including battery in a container that will allow submerging in water. No-where to escape for the produced heat than to warm up the water and the inner container, right?
Operate with a remote. The water will obviously be placed in a highly insulated container itself, to get better heat reading. Have critics design some basic heating circuits that have nothing to do with advanced tuned oscillations or resonations. Like, some resistors in series as well as in parallel. Some basic heating coils, and some other means of electro>thermal converters. You need to better those first, before claiming any <1, IMNSHO.

I've asked something along this line months ago : how much tea can you make with the advanced circuit, compared to an off the shelf water boiler?

This circuit has been claiming time and attention of some really great researchers (as well as armchair nitwits like yours truly). You owe it to them to do this properly. Not to come up with nice-looking scope shots and a revised claim, but to do proper testing this time. This audience all wants this to be real. Who doesn't want to make tea for 170 in stead of 10, for the same amount of input?
If the testing would be inconclusive, you could spare yourself and many other serious researchers 3 months of time, to be invested in other possible COP<1 technologies.

How hard can it be, really, to heat some water? If there is real excess heat, it WILL be transferred. If it's just heat that appears and is re-used in the circuit somehow, you have a nice anomoly going.

I really would like to learn what the point is, here. It seems from my armchair that more reputations are being destroyed than built here.

If you can get this published without proper proof, you are not part of the solution, but part of the problem, as unveiled in climate gate. Peer reviewed magazine, for now, have lost their credibility completely. You need to be part of the club to get anything published, or have a job in progressive science at all. Is publication the goal itself, or convincing others to take this to the next level?

After reading these discussions for months on end, I am left deeply disappointed. I hope I will be able to let my hopes go this time, and learn more about other constructive research on these forums. Really, use all your talents for being part of the solution. Try somehing else, rather than trying to dig up more gold on a site where there never was such a find. There is so much out there, that WILL work.

This heart-meant post will probably get me banned, for being a troll and an obstruction of the free energy prophets.
Seriously, if you can't even convince me (I'm as gullable as they come), you need to get your story shorter, and clearer. I am not properly educated in any way, but my sense of logic is highly developed, and it is itching like crazy here. Something's not right, and you'll need to set it right.

No more ego's, just giving to humanity. No unjustified taking.

Good luck.

J

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Following quotes from Cloxxki

Can such a skilled and talented consortium not come up with a proper control experiment?

Why would we need a control? 

Are you now going from a questioned COP<17 to a COP<4 claim, again to be published, and again without convincing evidence? What is the POINT of that? If you lose factor 4 again next time, there won't be any overunity left to be clamed!

You probably mean COP> 17 and >4?  Sorry you don't find the evidence convincing.  Personally I wouldn't argue with data from that DPO any more than I'd try and argue with God.

Put the whole circuit including battery in a container that will allow submerging in water. No-where to escape for the produced heat than to warm up the water and the inner container, right?

Feel free to do this Cloxxki.  Boil oil would be even more encouraging.  But we need to keep the data within the measurment constraints of our DPO.  6 watts from the circuit is just about all it can take on this test as the voltage spikes are already upward of 500 volts.

Operate with a remote. The water will obviously be placed in a highly insulated container itself, to get better heat reading. Have critics design some basic heating circuits that have nothing to do with advanced tuned oscillations or resonations. Like, some resistors in series as well as in parallel. Some basic heating coils, and some other means of electro>thermal converters. You need to better those first, before claiming any <1, IMNSHO.

Golly.  More nonsense.  We must get rid of the evidence and and we need to claim a co-efficient less than 1? 

I've asked something along this line months ago : how much tea can you make with the advanced circuit, compared to an off the shelf water boiler?

LOL  Feel free to ask. 

This circuit has been claiming time and attention of some really great researchers (as well as armchair nitwits like yours truly).

Indeed - But only benefitted by the former.

You owe it to them to do this properly. Not to come up with nice-looking scope shots and a revised claim, but to do proper testing this time. This audience all wants this to be real.

What audience? 

Who doesn't want to make tea for 170 in stead of 10, for the same amount of input?

I for one.  That many for tea?  I'd definitely pass.  Way too much work.

If the testing would be inconclusive, you could spare yourself and many other serious researchers 3 months of time, to be invested in other possible COP<1 technologies.

Golly.  This obsession to reach such modest results?  We always aimed at COP>1 and even had evidence of OU. 

How hard can it be, really, to heat some water? If there is real excess heat, it WILL be transferred. If it's just heat that appears and is re-used in the circuit somehow, you have a nice anomoly going.

You need to ask Glen the degree of difficulty.  Cloxxki - at least from now on - I'll know not to take your opinion seriously.  I used to think you knew whereof you spoke.  Such a mishmash of nonsense.  I'm beginning to understand why Stefan's readership is plummeting when contributors like you come up with such absurd - illogical ramblings.

This heart-meant post will probably get me banned, for being a troll and an obstruction of the free energy prophets.
Seriously, if you can't even convince me (I'm as gullable as they come), you need to get your story shorter, and clearer. I am not properly educated in any way, but my sense of logic is highly developed, and it is itching like crazy here. Something's not right, and you'll need to set it right.

You don't need explanations - for that you'd need to first understand.  Just scratch your head.  It may help.

No more ego's, just giving to humanity. No unjustified taking.

LOL.  WHAT are you giving to humanity?   

[MileHigh]

Rosemary:

I bookmarked this YouTube clip that is very thought provoking:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

Poynt suggests that you and the EF crowd have a look.

MileHigh