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

[Hope]

I got a disconnect   so I must continue with a new reply.   I believe the larger the physical size of the cavity created and the quicker the collapse the more radiant energy will get disturbed and will exhibit imbalance in the form of many types of radiant energy seeking harmony again with its surrounding.   So when we collapse a coil, spark,.... whatever  we are starting the generator and driving all the matter into a void.  Since different radiant energy travels through different materials at different rates can we not impede (by making our LOAD easier to go through than the normal replenishment line used by nature and make the "must balance LAW"  work in our favor?  I certainly hope this is understandable to you good people,   I am not so good at communication as is needed.  Therefore if we use smaller sparks then we will have to use higher frequency: than if we make bigger sparks in vacuums (faster decay).  I am for the low frequency thinking.   And figuring out how to make other radiant energy partials  decay (collapse)

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I got a disconnect   so I must continue with a new reply.   I believe the larger the physical size of the cavity created and the quicker the collapse the more radiant energy will get disturbed and will exhibit imbalance in the form of many types of radiant energy seeking harmony again with its surrounding.   So when we collapse a coil, spark,.... whatever  we are starting the generator and driving all the matter into a void.  Since different radiant energy travels through different materials at different rates can we not impede (by making our LOAD easier to go through than the normal replenishment line used by nature and make the "must balance LAW"  work in our favor?  I certainly hope this is understandable to you good people,   I am not so good at communication as is needed.  Therefore if we use smaller sparks then we will have to use higher frequency: than if we make bigger sparks in vacuums (faster decay).  I am for the low frequency thinking.   And figuring out how to make other radiant energy partials  decay (collapse)

Dear Hope, 

I can't say that I understood all that you've written, but may I say that how much I enjoy your post and how much I applaud your sentiments.  You have a unique turn of phrase. 

I think you're pointing to the advantage in those collapsing fields.  I'm sure you're right about this being of benefit even at a lower frequency.  And it also seems that you're right about Tesla.  I think it was either Omnibus or Sm0ky who pointed out that he had been experimenting with this. But, like you, I have no idea what instruments were available for measurement. 

Delighted to have you with us Hope.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi Ash,

not sure what's meant by "(a person who does not have 13 post behind him)" but anyhow, is there a board layout of Rosemary's circuit available?  Has the precise design of the resistive heater/inductor been pinned down (diameter, wire size, turns, etc)?  Also, there are several 'grades' of 555 timers available as well as the other parts.  I know the circuit is simple, but I have seen (and so have you) what's supposed to be identical replications of other devices wherein one works and the other does not.  Then someone finds (for example) that if they use a Fairchild part instead of a Texas Instruments part, it suddenly works.

I'm just trying to identify an inarguable methodology to further Rosemary's cause (in fact everyone's cause).

Hello again Greg,

I wonder if I can impose on you to address Ash with your questions in his own thread that I created.  I'm afraid it's not very readable - but I'm sure he'd be happy to answer you on this.

Meanwhile let me see if I can address this question.  I know that a board was indeed put together - very kindly - by a member of the EF.com team.  But I'm not sure that they're still available.  Your idea of getting multiple 'builds' and 'replicas' is good one.  Unfortunately this simply doesn't seem to satisfy either the curiosity or the individuality of our experimentalists.  The eternal quest is to 'add' - and frankly, I'm not sure that isn't a good thing.  Each variation results in something new to be considered or eliminated.  The circuit that is tested here is simple and relies on a standard 555 switch - driving a MOSFET.

I'm still not sure if you realise this.  We're trying to take this circuit to a full on 'application' and this is being done on a university campus with hands on contributions from some weighty experts.  They would not be doing this if they did not respect the results that were evident in our 'proof of concept' which, effectively, means that they're prepared - at least - to consider it's viability and indeed it's effectiveness.  This thread will be dedicated to full record of those test results.  My personal hope is that this will generate some more data that other institutions will be hard pressed to ignore.  It has been a question that long needed to get to their table.  And I am entirely satisfied that this is now there.

The danger with 'replications' is that it is technically and - in truth - impossible to duplicate every aspect of a test in any replication.  Even with a standardised board.  My experience here is that the 'replicator' finds a 'variation' however slight - and then claims the experiment for himself.  This would not matter - but that it then 'endagers' the status of the 'ownership' of the entire technology.  I think we're all committed to keeping this Open Source.  The minute one starts associating developments with 'copyright' and 'rights to data' and challenging the facts that are actually put in the public domain - then one is also flirting with prospects of 'IP OWNERSHIP'.  And that is absolutely NOT in the public interest.  And I'm satisfied that all of us need to resist that.

The other truth is that it is a really desirable technology.  Even if it is still very much in its infancy.  And there are those who already are putting their claims to it and those that will do so.  It would be as well, therefore, to remember that it was Open Source who first explored these principles and a tribute to the multi talented contributors here and on all Free Energy forums - that this technology was both explored and exposed.  Rightfully, therefore, no-one should EVER assume the rights to claim this technology.

I do hope that helps.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

OPEN LETTER TO ASHTWETH

May I remind you that EF.Com have a dedicated thread to the development of a MOSFET HEATING CIRCUIT.  Please use it.  This thread has NOTHING to do with replications. 

I have also started a thread for you where you are free to 'bash' me or the technology or anything you want.  I will not EDIT that thread. 

I require that you do NOT POST on this thread.  Your opinion of me has been paraded both on and off forum and there are many contributors here who have requested that I do not allow your posts.

Rosemary

[gmeast]

Hello again Greg,

I wonder if I can impose on you to address Ash with your questions in his own thread that I created.  I'm afraid it's not very readable - but I'm sure he'd be happy to answer you on this.

Meanwhile let me see if I can address this question.  I know that a board was indeed put together - very kindly - by a member of the EF.com team.  But I'm not sure that they're still available.  Your idea of getting multiple 'builds' and 'replicas' is good one.  Unfortunately this simply doesn't seem to satisfy either the curiosity or the individuality of our experimentalists.  The eternal quest is to 'add' - and frankly, I'm not sure that isn't a good thing.  Each variation results in something new to be considered or eliminated.  The circuit that is tested here is simple and relies on a standard 555 switch - driving a MOSFET.

I'm still not sure if you realise this.  We're trying to take this circuit to a full on 'application' and this is being done on a university campus with hands on contributions from some weighty experts.  They would not be doing this if they did not respect the results that were evident in our 'proof of concept' which, effectively, means that they're prepared - at least - to consider it's viability and indeed it's effectiveness.  This thread will be dedicated to full record of those test results.  My personal hope is that this will generate some more data that other institutions will be hard pressed to ignore.  It has been a question that long needed to get to their table.  And I am entirely satisfied that this is now there.

The danger with 'replications' is that it is technically and - in truth - impossible to duplicate every aspect of a test in any replication.  Even with a standardised board.  My experience here is that the 'replicator' finds a 'variation' however slight - and then claims the experiment for himself.  This would not matter - but that it then 'endagers' the status of the 'ownership' of the entire technology.  I think we're all committed to keeping this Open Source.  The minute one starts associating developments with 'copyright' and 'rights to data' and challenging the facts that are actually put in the public domain - then one is also flirting with prospects of 'IP OWNERSHIP'.  And that is absolutely NOT in the public interest.  And I'm satisfied that all of us need to resist that.

The other truth is that it is a really desirable technology.  Even if it is still very much in its infancy.  And there are those who already are putting their claims to it and those that will do so.  It would be as well, therefore, to remember that it was Open Source who first explored these principles and a tribute to the multi talented contributors here and on all Free Energy forums - that this technology was both explored and exposed.  Rightfully, therefore, no-one should EVER assume the rights to claim this technology.

I do hope that helps.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Well OH SHIT!

Fucking politics.  This makes it very god damned hard to be interested in anything,.  Piss on this crap ... ALL OF IT!!!

SO LONG ... GOOD LUCK EVERYONE.  THIS ALL SUCKS THE BIG ONE.

I'M DONE WITH THIS SHIT!!

THIS DOES NOT DESERVE MY ATTENTION NOR MY VALUABLE TIME !!!!!!!!!!!!!