Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder

[nul-points]

hi Conrad

if i understand Rosemary correctly, then this proof - and other supporting information - has been supplied at the Scribd site using the link which Rosemary gave above

all the best
sandy

[Rosemary Ainslie]

This is the best link I can find to my quantum paper.
http://www.free-energy.ws/rosemary-ainslie.html

This is the link to the Scribd Open Source paper.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS

Both papers give a comprehensive account of results that exceed unity.  Both rely on classical measurement protocols and both indicate that battery draw down is consistent with the measured rate of current flow discharged from the battery.  There is UNEQUIVOCAL proof in both papers of results that fly in the face of the unity barrier and with it of thermodynamic laws.

For those measurement purists that read here - I need to point out that the there was an intrinsic error in the computation of the energy measured to be delivered by the battery in the second paper.  But the text qualifies this as a deliberate attempt to give a conservative value. The actual value of energy delivered is nearer to COP>7 and not COP> 4.  This is because Tektronix equipment only guarantee a multiple samples in any given data dump as a representative average over a more extended time.  I'm still searching for that post.  When I get it I'll copy it and bring it across.

I think that's all that's needed for record of the papers written up on these tests.  Experimental apparatus, component parts and method of data analysis is reasonably comprehensive.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys what follows on from here will be the re-posting of those pertinent numbers that were included in the COP17 Rosemary Ainslie Circuit at Energetic Forum.  They're only included for 'record purposes'.  Please do not bother to plough through them unless you're interested to do so.

I'll append dates and titles as required.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising

[Rosemary Ainslie]

 Another Hot Potato Dropped
Here's a copy of the letter that went out to Cecati with our paper.

Dear Professor Cecati,

I refer you to our brief phone call made last week. You requested that I explain everything in writing.

I have been in touch with Professor Chow to give us some much needed guidance relating to the document standards for a first submission prior to review. This advice was required as our paper was not done under the stewardship of a mentor and, of necessity, we referred to a variety of experts in different aspects of this paper, as and where required. They will be generally acknowledged in the final document after the review process is completed.

The subject of this paper is fraught. In the first instance it deals with evident anomalies in the heat signatures of the resistor. However, the paper argues that this is not an anomaly as it was a required result of a magnetic field model and was, therefore, predicted. This prediction can be verified by two academic Professors in physics who I can refer you to if required. It was in relation to a discussion on the field model some 11 years ago, and they both agreed that this predicted evidence would, indeed support the thesis. They further suggested that their Lab Technician set up that initial test apparatus. Their technician, unfortunately, flatly declined to do so claiming, correctly, that it it was designed to challenge Thermodynamic constraints. The experiment therefore was established away from academic supervision.

The magnetic field model argues that energy is not confined to the supply source except as tradition has identified it. In fact, the proposal is that energy is also available in gross bound material. In electric circuitry this is readily generated in conductive and inductive material which, under proper circuit configuration, can be used to add to the energy coefficient. This requires a radical departure from conventional understandings related to Thermodynamic Laws and current flow. Yet neither the paper nor the data contradict those laws as both maintain a conservation of charge with the only departure being the identification of an alternate energy source. The paper refers.

The first publication of the experiment did not gain acceptance. It was submitted for review in 2002 and was rejected notwithstanding some considerable accreditation of those results. No academic, at that time, would associate with the claims and, to a man, refused to attend a demonstration of the effect. This was puzzling, the more so as it is widely understood that all science needs to be established by empirical evidence. It was thereafter modified for publication in Quantum Magazine, October edition 2002 as this was the only alternate avenue available for publication. It generated no interest being, as it was, without proper academic scrutiny.

Some 7 years after this, my son published that Quantum paper and the field model, on the internet. Here it generated some considerable interest as is evident. I was subsequently invited to join a forum and thread where there was some interest in replicating the effect. The experimentalist that was eventually able to replicate this was Glen Lettenmaier and he was ably and gratuitously assisted with sophisticated measuring instruments, as required, with the generous use of a TDS3054C Tektronix DPO. The gradual unfolding of the 'effect' was achieved within weeks where the previous efforts spanned some years. All these tests are duly and properly recorded in links that are scheduled in the appendix to the document. Because they relate to the author they are in conflict with TIE requirements for review and will be added as required or only fully established after the review process. There is a unique waveform associated with this effect referred to in the paper as a Preferred Mode of Oscillation. This also has been put on live broadcast on the internet and can be accessed or repeated, subject again, to the reviewer's requirement.

What is evident, however, is that there are no prior publications of this - as, self evidently, the proposal is based on unique criteria that have not, heretofore, been considered by academia. We, the authors, have been in lengthy discussions on this and while it is possible to cite papers that relate to different aspects of the effect they are not, in truth, appropriate. We are aware that this may mitigate against our best interests, especially as this relates to TIE's requirement for citations. However, in the light of the exceptional nature of this claim it is hoped that the reasons for non-compliance are understood, notwithstanding our wishes to do so.

Therefore we ask you to indulge us this exception and that this omission will not compromise this paper's chances of publication. We modestly suggest that it is enough that the reviewer understand that there is an alternate supply of current flow and that the merits of the evidence therefore be established on their own. We will be able to append the model only after review. We are also satisfied that the proper avenue to make this knowledge available would be through your good offices and through your own prestigious publications - proposing the journal on renewable energies as being appropriate. While the paper itself has no citations, we modestly suggest that it may be citable. Certainly it is possible that it may evoke some considerable interest in results that contradict classical expectation. The data that has now been amassed to prove this evidence is considerable. And as mentioned in the paper, we hope the subject here may provoke further investigations into the model. The claims are contentious. Properly this needs a wide academic forum for discussion. A critical investigation therefore can only be achieved with a wide dissemination of this claim through a publication such as yours.

Finally this is an Open Source publication and that title will be amended to include this reference and the institutions and structures associated with this will be added to the paper's identification subject to completion of the review process. There are many interested readers of the progress of this paper on the internet. They will be updated and informed of this application and, I believe, would be most interested to hear of its progress. The authors of the paper are drawn from different countries that span the globe. All this work was done without any material advantage and, indeed at considerable personal cost to us all, both in time and money spent in progressing this knowledge.

Kindest regards,
ROSEMARY AINSLIE

POSTED 02.02.2010
COPY OF A LETTER TO PROFESSOR CECATI EDITOR OF TIE/IEEE

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Dear Ainslie,

thank you very much for your phone and letter. You reached me on mobile,
while I was driving, a mail is much better than discussing by phone in
such a situation.
I have read your letter with attention. Even if our guidelines require
the citation of recent journal papers, particularly TIE papers, this is
only a strong suggestion and not a rejection motivation, supported by a
clear reason: if other papers on a similar topics where published on our
Transactions, this does mean that its topic is of general interest for
our readers.
I have read your letter and given a short reading to your paper: in my
opinion the main problem for your paper is that probably it doesn't fit
with journal scope and topics. In fact, our transactions are mainly
addressed to industrial electronics applications, your paper seems to my
very short analysis more addressed to physics phenomena, even if with
potential industrial applications and experiments.
If you like, I'll forward this paper to a qualified associate editor
for reviewers' assignment. But in case the review process, which will
take some weeks will result negative, you have delayed its possible
publication on a more specific journal.
I understand that you have chosen our transactions for his high impact
factor, on the other hand our policy is to publish papers of general
interest.

Thank you again for you submission, I am waiting for your early reply.
Best regards
Carlo Cecati

Reply from Professor Cecati.  02.02.2010.
Note his concern that their policyt is to publish papers of general interst?  Perhaps breaches in the unity barrier would not qualify.