Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[MileHigh]

Glen:

I do at least have respect for poynt99 as he is the only member here at Over Unity to even have the "BALLS" to attempt a replication while others are only loud mouthed couch potatoes that don't know and have any clue the difference between the two schematics and test set ups .... giving there 2 cents and claiming some type of "FAKE" victory when the battle is just about to start.

Really?  Is that so?  How come you have never had anything significant to say when it comes to discussing the actual operation of the circuit?  How come you have been basically mute when you have been asked questions about your setup and your data?  I can't recall reading a single relevant thought from you about this whole experiment, no theories, no questions, no musings about it's operation.  The answer to that is that you are a beginner, and are not in a position to really say much right now.  Therefore you prefer to not say much and are more focused on generating the data.  Is that a fair assessment?

The problem is the "Rosemary Ainslie COP> 17 Heater Circuit" has some distinct differences I would think any amateur that can read a schematic can tell .... and the modifications plus total refusal to use the correct items.....

Exactly, you hit it right on the nose Glen but not in the way you are thinking.  You are an amateur with very little experience and look at the two schematics and cry "Not the same!!!"

The simple truth is that the two circuits are nearly identical.  The real circuit is a 24-volt voltage source going through an inductive resistor to a MOSFET to a shunt resistor to ground, and the MOSGET gate is being fed by a 555 source.  THAT'S IT.  Everything else is just window dressing.  You have to have experience to see that and understand that, which you don't have.  You are just "following the numbers" when you build the circuit.

The only difference is the fact that .99 is using a power supply and you are using a battery.  Experienced people know that for all practical intents and purposes that makes absolutely no difference.  Don't forget, we are NOT playing the "mystical battery game" for this test, it is nothing more than electrical power in vs. thermal power out and the battery has noting to do with it.  However, .99 knows all about the "cult of batteries" and is willing to do some measurements using batteries, to make that argument go away.  There is no true logical reason to do this, it is just being done to demonstrate that it will make no difference for those that need to see this done like yourself.

Battery or power supply notwithstanding - the circuits are IDENTICAL - go look again - 24 volts to a load resistor to a MOSFET to a shunt resistor to ground.  It's the same deal for both circuits.

Beyond that Glen - enlighten us, how would the "differences" you allege make a difference in the power in vs. power out measurements?  Step up to the plate!  You are alleging these differences, how are they going to affect the measurements?  Following your thought process further, alleged "differences" imply that you think COP > 1 or COP > 17 may be achievable if the circut is "built correctly."  How and why should you see COP > 1?  Or, if you can't answer that with specifics, what is your theory for achieving COP > 1 if the circuit is "done correctly?"

Glen - I don't think that you are going to be able to answer any of the questions posed to you in the above paragraph.  If you refuse to even acknowledge them like you have done in the past, then that leaves you without much to stand on - just the blind belief that .99 "got it wrong" and if he only built it "correctly" then the magic free heat pies would appear like Manna from Heaven.  In other words, behind your thought process, you don't have any real technical legs to stand on, just "free energy fantasy mode" - if you close your eyes and hope it just might happen.

Of course there are only 3 actual oscilloscope wave form images and only 2 modified data sheets not even the originals have been shown here by "poynt99" ...... to the 80 or more unmodified original images and data sheets that has been posted by myself at "Energetic Forum" for complete transparency of my testing "NOTHING HIDDEN" using all components as close as possible to original circuit.

When you finally do "close the loop" and compare your thermal control test data with your device under test data you will find that your results will be very very similar to .99's - everything will be under unity.  I think that you have a problem there though because you changed your load resistor setup between tests.  You are going to have to corelate the right control setups to match with your various tests.

I do at least have respect for poynt99 as he is the only member here at Over Unity to even have the "BALLS" to attempt a replication while others are only loud mouthed couch potatoes that don't know and have any clue the difference between the two schematics and test set ups .... giving there 2 cents and claiming some type of "FAKE" victory when the battle is just about to start.

The simple truth is with respect to electronics I could spin circles around you with my eyes closed.  Not because I am any smarter than you, but because I have been involved in electronics for 30 years both in terms of my hobbies when I was younger, then my education, and then my working career.  How long have you been playing with electronics?

I of course can't tell .99 what to do, but as far as I am concerned the game is over.  When he does the battery test, the results will be the same.  When you do your thermal control tests and crunch your data the results will be similar to .99's.

Your argument that the circuits are not the same is false.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

AC:

Thank you for the clarification on the circuit diagrams, I just stepped back into the fray, I mean thread--again and was not aware of the circuit discrepancies. In a perfect world we could say they achieve the same effects but this is not the case here. Consider the fact that if you attach two wires to a battery and these wires remain separated that the opposite charges extend to the ends of the wires, they are always present. What you have is a capacitor, the wires are the plates with a small surface area and a very wide spacing thus the capacitance or electric field between the two is small. When dealing with an inductive discharge having fast rise/fall times and higher voltages this capacitive effect increases drastically. Take a NE2 neon and touch a single lead to the circuit to see why Poynt99 circuit cannot be grounded and there can be no capacitors. Again, these discharge currents do not need conductors or closed circuits to transfer energy, they will discharge to the (-) or (+) terminal of a battery through a single wire, they will discharge completely to any ground connection, they are not conventional currents and they do not act like them. Consider why in the quantum circuit the source is in a closed loop with the resistive inductor and the besides the gate conductor on the mosfet there is only one external conductor leading from the working circuit--- and where this conductor goes. You can consider a discharge current (the spike) as a unidirectional impolar current(it will discharge to any source polarity (+) or (-)or ground). This is why when you approach the circuit with your hand the operating frequency charges, the discharge has created a large electric field around the whole circuit. To conclude you cannot treat this circuit as having conventional current, the same rules simply do not apply.

I am going to be the "bad guy" and play a bit of hard ball again.  The truth is that most of what you are saying above is nonsensical mumbo-jumbo and clearly indicates that you have no idea what you are talking about.  I am not going to bother to argue each statement point by point.

I can't resist this one:

Again, these discharge currents do not need conductors or closed circuits to transfer energy, they will discharge to the (-) or (+) terminal of a battery through a single wire, they will discharge completely to any ground connection, they are not conventional currents and they do not act like them.

So, you think when people make a little neon lamp light up by holding it in their hands and touching a battery terminal with the free lead that they are demonstrating "non conventional currents?"  That's simply wrong and it clearly shows that you have no idea.

I suggest that you read my clarification on the circuit diagrams.

MileHigh

[allcanadian]

@milehigh

So, you think when people make a little neon lamp light up by holding it in their hands and touching a battery terminal with the free lead that they are demonstrating "non conventional currents?"  That's simply wrong and it clearly shows that you have no idea.

If you consider conventional currents as 60Hz domestic current having a wavelength of 3100 miles and lethargic rise/fall times or Direct current from a 12v battery, all conventional . Then yes I would say High frequency high voltage currents with fast rise/fall times are non-conventional in that few people understand them as demonstrated by potynt99's circuit diagram. When was the last time you saw someone light a neon in there hand with no wires from a small circuit six feet away?
Definition: Conventional
Based on or in accordance with general agreement, use, or practice

I am going to be the "bad guy" and play a bit of hard ball again.  The truth is that most of what you are saying above is nonsensical mumbo-jumbo and clearly indicates that you have no idea what you are talking about.  I am not going to bother to argue each statement point by point.

Could you be a little more specific?

Regards
AC

[poynt99]

Are you implying that I have no understanding of high frequency high voltage currents

.99

[allcanadian]

@poynt99

Are you implying that I have no understanding of high frequency high voltage currents

No, I am saying the circuit fuzzytomcat posted called "Ainsley circuit test plan-Poynt99", has made no allowances for transient effects. In that circuit what effects do you think the capacitors and ground will have on the circuit when the inductive resistor discharges?
AC