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

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Energy disbalance is what's of the primary interest in this forum, that is, the dibalance between the energy input compared to the output energy, in favor of the latter. Here in this forum it is agreed that the said disbalance be called "overunity" and therefore in the future in this exchange the disbalance in question may be referred to simply as "overunity" or OU.

If, at any stage, I was claiming an energy imbalance then - indeed - I would have no argument.  We show more energy dissipated than delivered.  But there is an entire conservation of energy - perfect energy balance - else we would be defying the very laws of physics.  I have NEVER claimed this.  It seems that I have been posting all those links to no purpose whatsoever.  For a while there I assumed that you actually took the trouble to read them.  It seems like I am only to be disappointed by you.  LOL. 

Stultus est sicut stultus facit (for Wilby's amusement)

[Omnibus]

How does this work and how is it to be discussed in a forum devoted to overunity:

We show more energy dissipated than delivered.  But there is an entire conservation of energy - perfect energy balance - else we would be defying the very laws of physics.  I have NEVER claimed this.

So, more energy dissipated than delivered and yet no CoE violation. How can this be?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

How does this work and how is it to be discussed in forum devoted to overunity:

So, more energy dissipated than delivered and yet no CoE violation. How can this be?

Well may you ask.  You need to read my scribd file links.  Omnibus - unless it's absolutely required I never delete posts.  But from here on I'm afraid I'll not be answering you.  It's pointless.

[Omnibus]

Well may you ask.  You need to read my scribd file links.  Omnibus - unless it's absolutely required I never delete posts.  But from here on I'm afraid I'll not be answering you.  It's pointless.

On the contrary. If you have a point I will be your most adamant defender, as I've demonstrated here and in other forums more than once, regarding even more controversial ideas. This will happen only if you have a point, though. If not, I'll say it very frankly, independent of whether you like it or not. Why lose supporters that easily if you're so convinced in the reality of what you claim?

[nul-points]

hi all

...dayyum - if i'd known there was going to be fisticuffs, i'd have set out the bleachers and started selling tickets! 


i think there is actually a common understanding of system activity here, hidden behind different terms of expression


would 'Coefficient of Performance > 1' be a another way of labelling the same situation which both Rosemary & Omnibus are describing?


i believe, from reading the documents, that the accredited results are based on a greater amount (~1700% ?) of heat energy dissipated in calorimetric tests than was supplied from the source batteries


from Omni's PoV, this would be 'greater energy out than in' ie., when the system boundary is drawn around the battery-circuit-heater system

from Rosemary's PoV, this would be 'additional energy supplied by the energetic vacuum, not created from nothing', ie. COP ~= 17, but no violation of CoE


is this a fair summary - & resolution of apparent contradictions?

or should i still get the bleachers out?   


all the best
sandy