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

[otto]

Hello all,

@Chet

thanks for your kind words.

@Rosemary

to make it short because I still dont had the time to read your papers.

Your oscillator is really nice,the waves are nice, your theory is nice, in short, everything is nice but.....my feeling says me that you can get a muuuuch better COP then you have now.

I dont want to bother you and the people here but trust me, your oscillator is not the best.

As I got finally the special parts for my oscillators I will build 3 "monster" oscillators for my TPU research. Yes, a TPU needs 3 oscillators. Nice isnt it?? A mix of 3 frequencies.

I really have to read your papers befor I start to wright even more misleadings.

Otto

[Rosemary Ainslie]

@Rosemary

to make it short because I still dont had the time to read your papers.

Your oscillator is really nice,the waves are nice, your theory is nice, in short, everything is nice but.....my feeling says me that you can get a muuuuch better COP then you have now.

I dont want to bother you and the people here but trust me, your oscillator is not the best.

As I got finally the special parts for my oscillators I will build 3 "monster" oscillators for my TPU research. Yes, a TPU needs 3 oscillators. Nice isnt it?? A mix of 3 frequencies.

I really have to read your papers befor I start to wright even more misleadings.

Otto

@Otto
I answered this - modified it and then ... deleted it.  Not intended.  And I'm frankly not that interested to try and re-iterate my points or my post.

Intrigued with your need to 'wright even more misleadings' Otto.  Not sure if you mean 'right' as in correct or write as in write.  LOL.  I feel you need to 'wright these rongs' if you mean us to understand you.  In any event, I take you that you mean 'right' as in correct?  Then the next question is do you mean to correct your own 'misleadings' or those of others?  Perhaps myself?  I'd be glad of some clarification.  In view of the fact that you have neither read the thesis nor the papers - then I assume you'll be working on generalised impressions of what either constitute and represent.  It'll be an interesting exercise in 'presumption' or 'assumption' ... whichever.

One point I WOULD STRESS.  I sincerely hope you do improve on our co-efficient of performance.  But I doubt that adding to the complexity of a circuit will cut it.  But it would be nice if it does.  In my view there's only one way forward from here and that's upwards.  OU technology is very definitely in its infancy.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys, IN DEFENSE OF OUR MEASUREMENTS PROTOCOLS

At the heart of most 'claims' of OU is the generation of induction on circuit components that is somehow returned to the supply.  10 years ago I was roundly advised by academia that a supply source can never recharge itself.  And 1 year ago I was given this same advice by 'so called' OU enthusiasts - TK being just one such representative.  He certainly was the most vociferous.

Pivotal to this thinking is that all energy is sourced from the supply and that it is the only source of energy available on the circuit.  That's the equivalence principle that's been discussed earlier.  Only so much energy available.  Therefore whatever has not been dissipated on circuit components can be stored and returned to the source.  BUT in as much as losses in dissipated energies are inevitable - only some fraction LESS than originally delivered can now be returned.  Therefore - the only 'recharge' wattage available is something less than was first supplied.  The net result is a continual loss to the supply.

What is evident in all our tests - and subject to the generation of that 'preferred oscillation' as the authors of the Open Source Paper referred to it - then one can at times even measure the same or more energy being returned to the supply than originally delivered.  This value varies.  At moments the energy returned is greater than supplied - then it is equal to the supply - then it is less than the supply.  And so it goes.  But add up the net 'return' over multiple samples and over an extended period of time - and the results show the circuit's actual potential.  It is able to dissipate more energy in heat over the resistor and sundry component parts than the amount of energy delivered.  Therefore the amount of energy dissipated at the load and at those components exceeds the amount of energy delivered by the supply.

This is the point where mainstream predictions and this circuit result - CLASH.  And there's nothing can reconcile this result within known and expected performance of standard circuitry - within any standard model.  It represents an irreconcilable departure.  Then, because there's no other argument to support this - members on both on these forums and in mainstream - raise the point that the circuit has been INCORRECTLY MEASURED.  GROSSLY.  There are no other options.

Now.  Energy is always based on v*i - voltage times amperage.  To determine amperage - what is required is that one uses a non-inductive calibrated shunt resistor that will not materially effect the flow of amperage during the operation of the circuit - but will allow a measure of the rate of current flow through the simple ohmic assessment based on v/r=i.  We have a lead acid battery supply.  One does not expect it to deliver a negative current flow.  If any negative values are evident then this does not represent a depletion of energy but rather a 'recharge' of energy.  Therefore we can confidently determine that in the process of delivering energy the voltage will be - greater than zero.  And in a recharge cycle the voltage will be below zero.  Therefore the net discharge from the battery will be the difference between these two values.  That's the standard protocol used to measure the energy delivered by any battery supply source.  There is no other way to evaluate this.  Unless - of course, one were to relate that apparent 'rate of current flow' to the actual discharge rate of the battery itself.  That's a double check.

What we have found is that the rate at which the battery discharges its energy is consistent with the rate of current flow measured across that shunt resistor.  Controls are easy to set up.  Run a control with an equivalent rate of amperage flow - or an equivalent rate of wattage dissipated.  Either way the performance of the battery appears to be consistent with the results on the experiment.  Therefore one can conclude that - indeed - the battery is discharging at the rate determined and that notwithstanding this apparent lack of or nominal rate of discharge - the circuit then is ALSO dissipating that surplus energy as heat - all over the place in quantities that far exceed the amount of energy discharged by the supply.

That's proven.  And that's been accurately recorded in the papers that have detailed these tests.  There is nothing complicated in the calculations of energy.  Even I can do this.  But there is a tendancy to try and obfuscate the simple principles that are required to measure these results.  Power measurements are straight forward and the required measurement protocols apply on this as any other circuit.  And using the same protocols the evidence is that more energy is dissipated than delivered.  It's that simple.

Regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising

[rensseak]

@Otto
I answered this - modified it and then ... deleted it.  Not intended.  And I'm frankly not that interested to try and re-iterate my points or my post.

Intrigued with your need to 'wright even more misleadings' Otto.  Not sure if you mean 'right' as in correct or write as in write.  LOL.  I feel you need to 'wright these rongs' if you mean us to understand you.  In any event, I take you that you mean 'right' as in correct?  Then the next question is do you mean to correct your own 'misleadings' or those of others?  Perhaps myself?  I'd be glad of some clarification.  In view of the fact that you have neither read the thesis nor the papers - then I assume you'll be working on generalised impressions of what either constitute and represent.  It'll be an interesting exercise in 'presumption' or 'assumption' ... whichever.

One point I WOULD STRESS.  I sincerely hope you do improve on our co-efficient of performance.  But I doubt that adding to the complexity of a circuit will cut it.  But it would be nice if it does.  In my view there's only one way forward from here and that's upwards.  OU technology is very definitely in its infancy.

Hello Rosemary,

that is just an error of Otto. he means "write". 

sincerely
Norbert

[Rosemary Ainslie]

  Hi Norbert,

I guessed as much.  Now I just need clarification about those 'misleadings'.  LOL