**UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys - I keep saying that I won't waste my time answering and here I'm answering.  But this post has reached such an absurd level of BS - masquerading as 'learned' technobabble - that I'm absolutely obliged to answer.  Lest anyone, for one moment - be confused by all this handwaving.

It is impossible to provide precision where this exact system is involved without very expensive data collection equipment.

What a load of nonsense.  One simply needs a broad band oscilloscope - and one that can store data.  Good heavens.  The point here is that it's IMPOSSIBLE TO DISPROVE THE RESULTS DESPITE THE USE OF SOPHISTICATED INSTRUMENTS. 

In addition to overlapping Real Time Analysers it would be necessary to store terabytes of data during a total battery expenditure. In the only rundown test I'm aware of, the batteries reached approximately 50% of their voltage after 13 hours (IIRC), and the discharge rate declines as the voltage declines similar to a capacitive discharge curve, so 13 hours would not even represent the first time constant in a 5t discharge cycle (the first tc is about 66% of the total capacity with each subsequent tc being 66% of the remaining charge).

More hand waving.  More nonsense.  Since when has the battery efficiency - rate of delivery - watt hour performance - or ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS - been used to substantiate any published test results?  What I CAN attest to is this.  We run our controls at an equivalent amperage - wattage - simultaneously with similar battery types - and the control discharges COMPLETELY where the test has hardly discharged a single volt.  But the required method to measure the energy delivered by the battery and the amount of energy dissipated at the load ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT NEED ANY FURTHER VALIDATION.  It is preferred that it does.  It would make the case REALLY strong.  But the truth is that battery vagaries preclude this assessment.  What is interesting is to run a simultaneous control.  And I can attest to the fact that the control depletes precisely in line with the measured amperage from that control supply source.  Everything acts as it should - and in terms of the measured wattage delivered.  No surprises there - if that's what you're hoping for.

However, the gate to source voltage would prohibit the circuit from running below 2V as the Hexfet would cease to function at this point, and it is unlikely that the 555 would continue function below it's rated minimum operating voltage of 4.5V.

Then the operation of the 555 will be secured at FULL FUNCTION because I have NEVER seen a test - not even on a control - where the battery voltage has dipped as low as 4.5V.  What a lot of spurious nonsense - and this from the collaborator who tried to claim that the paper was EXCLUSIVELY AUTHORED by himself.  LOL.

Therefore the final tc would be lost for a 24V battery bank, but even then we would be sure to have at a minimum about 52 hours with Glen's configuration before the system stops working. With 52 hours of continuous data, you can imagine the data storage capacity needed.

Indeed.  If you could first justify this nonsense.  Thankfully our mainstream scientists are not quite so absurdly 'picky' and nor are they about to demand impossible test criteria.  What you're actually trying to imply is that the test is impossible to measure.  It's only a switching circuit for goodness sake.  We're not dealing with your 'positron' nonsense. 

IIRC, we provided 3 samples about every 6 minutes at 40µs, 20µs and 2µs per division. There are 10 divisions of data each, giving 400µs, 200µs and 20µs for a total of 620µs for each sample. With 10 such samples, this offers 6200µs of data for a 1 hour test. There are 1,000,000µs in each second, and there are 3600 seconds in an hour. So out of a possible three billion six hundred million microseconds seconds, we only grabbed six thousand two hundred microseconds of data for a test that was only 1/52 of the time necessary for a full analysis. That is about than one part per 30 million or 0.03 parts per million sample size.

Are you proposing that because the actual data - taken over that period - only represented small fractions of the actual test - then one can discount that data?  Really?  Then we needs must discount all data that has ever been collected through this means which would refute the findings of just about every paper published in every journal everywhere throughout the world and throughout history.

To make matters worse, the record clearly shows that Professor Iravani with IEEE corresponded that a reviewer in his team specifically targeted the 555 circuit as a culprit for currents flowing in the current sensing resistor thereby skewing the results. I argued with her for several hours

Her?  Are you alleging that you argued for hours with ME?  Let me refresh your memory.  You had required yet another test from Glen.  He'd just completed yet another of your requirements.  He told me that he was tired.  I spoke to you.  I said 'If Glen does this final test - then will you promise to accept the results and we can then move forward' - or words to that effect. This because it was becoming increasingly apparent that you were loading the experiment with more and more extraneous and irrelevant objections in your desparate attempt to refute all that evidence.  You agreed.  You've subsequently broken that promise.  And that entire conversation took less than 15 minutes.  I'm reasonably certain that you will deny this.  But, unhappily, I know the rather loose arrangement you have with truth and I know that you cannot keep to your word.  That would require integrity.

and   that at the very least this had to be addressed in a post test. I later showed in the paper, that up to 6W of energy are able to flow through the gate barrier in that fashion. Under extreme protest

Rather say - when I reluctantly agreed that this would be the last barrier I'd put in the way - which is the  truth

she reluctantly agreed that this test could be performed, it involved adding a second current sensing resistor in the timer ground leg so that it's values could be subtracted from the power circuit current values. Unfortunately, we only have a grand total of a paltry 2µs of data for that test - hardly enough to hang a hat on as precise. However, that minuscule test did show the currents to be in our favor indicating that the 555 circuit was not adding to the indicated power, but instead was stealing from it by a very small margin.

Our favour?  You could barely hide your disappointment.

If I did the analysis correctly - I couldn't get anyone in the forum to review my work and post their analysis.

You did 2 sections of that paper exclusively.  Since we're putting these facts on record then let me again correct you.  Both Donovan and I tried to correct your work here.  You threw a hissy fit that would have better suited a prima donna.  But you accepted Donovan's correction and denied me mine - in your anxiety to present a paper with clearly flawed analysis.  Fortunately I was able to intervene prior to submission - by a miracle that was offered by the editors themselves.  They were very well aware of your attempt to pose as first author.  What a joke.  So.  Don't give us this 'we would not review your work'.  We were simply not allowed to review your work.

Whatever the case, it was no where near the thermal differential observed whether we added it or subtracted it. So I ASSUMED that if we projected that 2µs over the entire series of tests that the timer circuit was not interjecting energy into the readings, but this is only a big guess - completely unproven.

INDEED.  Provided only that 'guessing' is a euphemism for measured experimental evidence.  Good God people.  Anyone reading here?  Is this not clear evidence of the kind of INNUENDO that is designed to cast aspersions rather than deal with the facts.  Surely if something is measured it's not guess work?  This is the kind of comment where I see AGENDA and AGENDA and AGENDA.  It has nothing to do with impartial critical sensible analysis.  I earnesly hope that this can be understood. 

But that's not all - then we have to address the serious problem of DC heating verses Aperiodic heating. To my surprise, these resistors act very different when you run DC through them as compared to running AC through them for the exact same voltage and current.

Now we're into the theartre of the absurd.  We're dealing here - not with science but with some strange approximation - nearly as sad as to suggest that measurement is based on 'guess work'. What is being referenced here is the evidence of  considerably more energy measured as wattage dissipated than is evidenced as heat.  What is carefully NOT being referenced is the fact that there's also considerably more energy being dissipated as heat than is being delivered by the battery.  The actual question - the real issue - is 'where does all that extra energy come from'?  But here, Harvey is trying to imply that AC current flow results are different DC?  I rather think that standard ac will measure to deliver precisely as much as standard dc.  We're NOT dealing with standard anything here.  So. Rather say - these resonating frequencies seem to give values that do not correspond to the amount of heat dissipated.  That, after all, is the truth.  And therein is the only real anomaly.  This effect is something that we hope to resolve in our own tests.

To compound this problem, the closer we get to microwave (>300MHz) frequencies in the aperiodic harmonics, the worse these comparisons become. This sent me reeling as all of our tests were based on a painstaking DC baseline that Glen expertly performed, and now I discover we are comparing apples to oranges.

WE?  You're the only one doing the analysis.  And it seems that you give yourself some considerable license in what you conclude from measurements.  What a load of nonsense.

The only way to get precision would be to do a series of collective tests on the resistor mapping it's temperature to frequency response using as close a pulse envelope as possible to that being used in the aperiodic operation. An almost impossible task even for a precision lab like you work in.

The solution to establish the actual value of heat dissipated is very easily resolved in any standard calorimetric test.  Our test were designed to prove that more energy was dissipated as heat than was being delivered by the battery.  The difference was extreme.  We did not need to deal in fractions.  Else we would have been obliged to do a more detailed test.  As it is we could discount values by considerable and sufficient error margins and STILL BE LEFT WITH A RESULT CONSIDERABLY GREATER THAN COP>1

In addition to this we also have the problem with 'spot' measurements for the thermal readings. While great care was taken to keep the measurement device in the same orientation and distance, the recorded measurements were the result of several readings along the surface of the resistor in various places looking for the hottest spot and not all readings were taken on the same exact spot. Furthermore, the readings themselves are extremely subjective based on the assumption that the materials used would be radiating IR (see blackbody radiation) in agreement with what would be transferred conductively. It was assumed that since the resistor was continuously dissipating heat into the still air by convection that the IR reading would be a conservative value. However, it should be considered that IR is a form of electromagnetic radiation and this circuit has proven to be an EM transmitter at least in the RF regions. If it also proves to be an IR transmitter, the true energy output could be greatly skewed. These heaters are an example of that. Poor thermal transfer conductively, but huge thermal transfer via EM radiation.

More hand waving.  The temperature measured was as precise as required subject to marginal adjustments to allow for error.  That - afterall - is the scientific way of doing things.

That is why in the end I realized that the only accurate means to measure the battery power to thermal energy on such an aperiodic circuit was to use a hydrometer and calorimeter.

I am framing this part of the post and I will also take this to our campus experts for their comment.  I have NEVER seen such an absurd method of measuring energy.  It is entirely inadquate and so far removed from standard protocols as to be postively absurd.  I realise now how little critical input you are used to - protected as you are at EF.com.  Wake up and smell the coffee Harvey.  Your so called expertise is very much on the line here.  I can assure you that this suggestion of yours flies in the face of what is required by classical protocols.  You are looking to battery performance rather than standard measured current flow.  How would you measure current flow if the system is put on an AC supply source?  Would you use an hydrometer?  Under such circumstances then?  How convenient - when the hope is to bury the technology.  Unfortunately your arguements are facile, spurious and somewhat unscientific.

Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

@Rosemary,

               If you want to avoid another "SAGA" you should post like Harvey do , look at his last post here.Forget your theory in trying to explain how the energy is gained for now until everybody agree there a gain because its irrelevant for now since you use conventional instrument to try to demonstrate the gain and  conventional mathematics. Your best friend here are not the one who follow you blindly , its the one who try to find flaw in what you wrote , listen to them , they are the only one with a alternate explanation that can show you real flaw or misunderstanding, at least you can fight back with a post like Harvey with a good understanding and logical explanation that everyone cant refute when you know they are wrong or look back at your data/methodology and correct what is wrong on your side.Anyway , do what you want , was just a advice.

Best Regards,
IceStorm

IceStorm.  I'm not about to ignore your advice the more so as I appreciate that it's well meaning.  But kindly note my reply.  I HAVE to point out the manifold 'unreasonableness' of his proposals.  They're pure poison.  Since when does one take a measurement and then refer to it as 'guess work'?  Since when does one deny the evidence of measured heat over a resistor?  What protocols are so confusing that they cannot be employed on this simple circuit?  Why his reference to my resistance to more tests without referring to his own ENDLESS attempts to stall or prevent publication?  His motives and involvements here are both selective and suspect.  And his ability to hide this is impeccable.   I am dealing with the single most dangerous person capable of the single most damning series of comments and NOT ONE OF YOU seem to see his agenda.  More's the pity. 

Here's the best I can do to show you what gives.  I promise you this is a faithful account of what I see is going on here.  PLEASE READ IT.  AND PLEASE READ MY REPLY TO HIM posted above.  Perhaps that can go some way to show up the actual unreasonable slant he's trying to impose.  Effectively he's saying that the test CANNOT BE MEASURED.  What a load of bull - excuse the language. 

In any event.  The fact of the matter is, thankfully, I have absolutely NO RELIANCE on his pretended authorities.  He's no expert.  God knows he's anxious to hide the fact.  But he seems to hide it from the most of the contributors here.  Thankfully there are those real experts who see it for the nonsense that it is.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

http://www.scribd.com/doc/33937867/IF-I-WAS-A-TROLL

[fuzzytomcat]

I see your back again Rosemary with your bloviating BS taking up our time and space with your nonsense ....

You still haven't addressed the questions http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9898.msg262117#msg262117 on your favorite bogus allegations against myself and anyone connected with me and the project ... really I'm tired of you and your crap so answer the questions #1 through #6 ( if you can read )

Loner - I'm actually addressing your post in Glen's thread here.  I see you giving his subject the kind of gravitas that it otherwise lacks. 

That there are emotions related to this application is only because - from it's inception - these tests of mine seem to warrant an attack that has been unprecedented in any of these forums - with the possible exception of Mylow's test that TK managed to debunk - rather skillfully, I understand.  But the facts are that it's either the claim - or my nature - or both - that seem to engender a kind of protest that I have difficulty dealing with.  My own take is that I'm probably way too pedantic for my own good.  But be that as it may.  I can only do my best.  And I do. 
This is required.  The data is impeccable.  The only hope is to discredit my character.  The object being to discredit the tests - by hell or high water. 
The answer here is partly in your 1st point.  But like all things it's not the whole of the picture.  There was a 'squabble' over the paper which I initiated as an open source effort.  Very unfortunate decision here.  It led to the inevitable squabbles as there were two members who were simply out to claim the entire experiment as an independent discovery.  The confrontation was rather unbridled - the most of it confined to off forum communications - and, being 'unfettered' in their emails, they indulged in a level of communication that was entirely unprofessional - excessive in it's delivery - and abusive in it's text.  Most of those statements made are actionable - and I look forward one day to finding a forum where I can make full disclosure of that - just to alert our public as to the nature of the players involved.  The comfort is that not all forum members are like that.  The sad news is that there are even any.  I suppose the truth is that I should just forget it.  But it was so PROFOUNDLY shocking.  I had NO idea that I was dealing with such horrors.
No.  The only work being done by Glen and Harvey is the ongoing attempt to deny the earlier evidence.  But not much of that either.  They have very little interest in their own thread and even less participation.  Thankfully, their denials of efficiency are largely discounted.  In effect, had I not PROTESTED as strongly as I did - then I have NO DOUBT that this technology would have been buried.  That was and is their intention.
I can only assure you that there's nothing PETTY in these constant requirements to ward off their attacks.  And I'm not qualified to say how much is motivated by greed or pure spite.  Possibly a little of both.  I have every intention of capitalising on this technology when it's finally determined how to 'up the wattage'.  And if it is not 'upped' then nor have I impoverished anyone in trying.  By the same token I would be delighted to see others advance the technolgy where the benefits will be entirely to their own accounts.  There's NO intellectual property rights here at all.
If there is proof of error then I assure you that there are MANY experts who have not been able to find it.  Just look again at the list of accreditors. 
Loner?  I have never objected to thoughtful critical observations.  Much required.  I think the only reason that I've been given moderation of the thread is to ensure that it's not subjected to the kind of troll attack that was evident - historically.  I have only deleted a single post from Ramset as he had an 'adults only' link - one from shrugged Atlas - which was done in error - and 1 from Spinn because it was just way too offensive.  For the rest I've either tolerated comments or reposted them on another thread.  With all that rubbish it would otherwise have buried my thead here. Also.  I try, to the best of my ability to MARK any modifications that I make to my own posts.  I NEVER modify others' posts.
I actually think that Glen is 'bursting' for want of telling his story.  And frankly - I think he should.  It may 'clear his head' so to speak.  There's always two sides to a story and - albeit that he struggles with language - he clearly feels that he has his justifications.  I haven't seen any justifiable reason for his withholding prime data from the public which is what he invariably resorts to doing.  The subject is way too important for his personal feelings to get in the way.
There is no way that ANYONE can remove emotions from science - not with the best will in the world.  We are ALL inclined to support our own logic or even our own 'beliefs'.  Nothing wrong with that.  I'm entirely satisfied that even our Greats were inclined to passion.  So.  In my book all is just dandy.  I'm intensely relieved that Glen is on another thead as I would prefer my own to stay more considered and reasonable.  And I am satisfied he is incapable of any kind of emotional constraint or sensible thinking.

So.  Here's what I'm trying to tell you.  Feel free to express whatever doubts you have.  I welcome this as I can then address the issue.  Else I am not even aware of such doubts and I'd be sorry to lose out on the opportunity.  We're making some hefty inroads into some new technologies and clearly, there are such as you and Paul who were not even aware of this.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary 

Sorry I missed this.  If it is arrogance - then again, I really don't think I'm culpable.  I have NOTHING to be arrogant about.  Nor has Glen.  He's good at experimental work.  But that's it.
Have NO idea what SSG is - so can't comment.

edited the spelling of the word deleted.  LOL

1) The object being to discredit the tests - Give proof of anything anywhere where I have said this

2) were two members who were simply out to claim the entire experiment as an independent discovery - Give proof of anything anywhere where I have said this

3) The only work being done by Glen and Harvey is the ongoing attempt to deny the earlier evidence - Give proof of anything anywhere where I have said this

4) Just look again at the list of accreditors - Give proof of anything anywhere on documentation of your claim "NO EXCEPTIONS"   http://cid-6b7817c40bb20460.office.live.com/browse.aspx/.Public/Ainslie/Quantum%20-%20Accreditors

5) I haven't seen any justifiable reason for his withholding prime data from the public which is what he invariably resorts to doing - Give proof of anything anywhere where I have said or done this

6) And I am satisfied he is incapable of any kind of emotional constraint or sensible thinking - NO comment, members and guests judge for yourself .....

PROOF - "original" E-mail's, PM's or Forum postings

ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ROSEMARY REGARDING THESE SLANDEROUS ALLEGATIONS OF YOURS .... OR RETRACT ALL THE STATEMENTS !!!!

[WilbyInebriated]

I ..... Glen Lettenmaier, am withdrawing any use of my complete Test number "Thirteen" (13) data and image files for further usage, evaluation or publication, other than what has already been seen and posted at Energetic Forum, Panacea Bocaf and my "copyrighted" Scribd publication.

Sincerely,
Glen A Lettenmaier (aka FuzzyTomCat)

[fuzzytomcat]

to be honest glen, i also really could care less on theories, rosemary's, harvey's or aaron's notwithstanding. please do not think i am on rosemary's 'side'. my ONLY concern at the present time is refuting people positing logical fallacy as arguments. i quit with posting much of anything else after i got jumped on by ist, groundloop and some others for showing how to light a fluoro with an AA battery early on in the joulethief thread. please note that i haven't accused you of the things she has accused you of, i merely refuted skcusitrah/hartisucks and omni's erroneous claims that changing timestamps was 'practically impossible'. i watch, i observe. i know you are a talented experimenter. i make note of when and why you chose to post things other than your experiments. i do that with most of the contributors here.

i have no doubt rosemary has obfuscated in the past and still hasn't shown some cards... everyone, and i do mean EVERYONE, plays that game.