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

[fuzzytomcat]

Hi everyone,

I have been allowed to start a "UN CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 circuit thread being all my posts are being "DELETED" as fast as they go up ....

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stefan Hartmann" <hartiberlin@xxxxxxxxxx.com>
To: "Glen Lettenmaier" <fuzzytomcat@xxxxxxxxxx.net>
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 6:46 PM
Subject: Re: Thread Moderation


Just post it in a thread, where no moderator is.
E.g. in the news thread.
Am in a hurry.
Regards, Stefan.

2010/10/24 Glen Lettenmaier <fuzzytomcat@xxxxxxxx.net>:
> Hi Stefan,
>
> I hate to keep complaining over and over but ......
>
> 1) I have had eight ( of my postings now totally deleted in two
> author/moderated threads.
> 2) There is four (4) other Over Unity members now having there postings in
> the author/moderated threads deleted with absolutely no real good reason.
> The reason of being "OFF TOPIC" is incorrect as the author/moderator is off
> topic 80% of the time in the thread.
> 3) I have helped twelve (12) Over Unity members with circuitry and device
> technical help ( have PM proof ) when it was refused or unavailable by the
> threads author/moderator as being "OFF TOPIC".
>
> It's been four (4) months now since the start of the thread ..... where are
> the photos, diagrams and such promised by you and the author/moderator ?
>
> I'm confused here help me .... in my work on the device of eight ( months
> the only known and documented modified replication that actually worked, I
> was able myself to do twenty two (22) fully documented device tests, which
> have been "TOTALLY" available at several places in the open source
> community.
>
> I don't know what you want from me, a thread with a "UN CENSORED"
> battlefield without the bogus author/moderation of the topic ..... I have
> more than enough "original" e-mails, Pm's and such alike the
> author/moderator cannot defend because there all undefendable, I'll post in
> open forum if you want me to I don't care.
>
> I'm a fully "documented" professional and have a thirty (30) year
> professional reputation to defend now, and I will.
>
> Thanks for your time.
>
> Best Regards,
> Glen

[fuzzytomcat]

Hi everyone,

Here is the first posting today that was told to members and guests by Rosemary as me deleting the post ..... http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9442.msg262006#msg262006 a un-truth by Rosemary Ainslie.

referencing this posted by fuzzytomcat
Hello Happy - SO NICE TO SEE YOU THERE.  And many thanks for making due record here.  I see that - like so much - Glen tried to delete this too and lose all record.  LOL.

Interesting to see that he's signed it with full public disclosure of his identity.  I rather thought he was averse to letting the public trace this.  Certainly he wrote to Stefan to enjoin him to remove his surname from any future reference lest we discover his actual identity.  Strange developments afoot.

Regards,
Rosemary

For the "RECORD" a second time ...... ( This can't be deleted )

PUBLIC NOTICE

QUOTE:  http://www.energeticforum.com/70207-post2913.html ( can we use your data for a paper )

witsend
Senior Member
   
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,063
Guys - some more really good news.

IEEE have informed me that I can resubmit the paper with new revised information and evidence of open source duplication of the experiment provided that they are made fully cogniscant of the data available at the replication.

The implication is clearly that the first was not considered as having sufficient information. So Fuzzy. Would you please allow a collaboration on a new paper including your revised data - that we can submit this for peer review? We're game if you are. I see a comfortable collaboration between all parties here - provided you have no objections to us using your data.

In fact I think that many parties could come to the table here - all from our contributors and it would be so nice if you could pm Fuzzy, me, Aaron or Harvey with suggestions or considerations. Just think of it. The first collaborative attempt of a paper submitted by open source enthusiasts. And possibly the first proof of significant energy savings OU OR COP>17. Both are amazing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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]

Hi TK,

Your quote is right on spot and has been fully detailed at Energetic Forum http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits.html  in one of my postings #74 http://www.energeticforum.com/93746-post74.html and actually starts after Test #22 completion using 100k data dumps, with the detailed data analysis done by Harvey in Post #31 http://www.energeticforum.com/87765-post31.html and the 5-hour non stop recordings of the "LIVE" device operation broadcasts at "Open Source Research and Development" http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment with special *Highlights* on January 9, 2010, January 24, 2010 and January 31, 2010 with the device preferred mode of operation shown.

Glen

You have got to be kidding. Glen did much of the actual work involved in that paper submission; he is withdrawing his work because further work on his part identified a major error, unless I am gravely mistaken.

The Quantum article published "nine years ago" has many problems, including but not limited to the fact that the circuit as shown in that article produces NOT a 3 or 4 percent ON duty cycle at the mosfet, but the EXACT INVERSE, that is, a 96 or 97 percent ON cycle at the mosfet.

Using that exact circuit and that 97 percent ON duty cycle, I was able to reproduce very closely the reported heat-vs-time profiles given in that paper --- strongly suggesting that a fundamental error was made in the original experiment of Rosemary Ainslie.

Using a 3 or 4 percent duty cycle (as claimed in the Quantum paper) nobody has been able to get anything like the published heat profiles. And using the circuit published in the Quantum article nobody has been able to get a 3 or 4 percent ON duty cycle at the mosfet.

The original Quantum experiment was performed using a Fluke Scope-Meter (the model has been stated at various times to be either a 123 or a 199, IIRC)  a 20 MHz digital oscilloscope without on-board integration capability.

I have made measurements of the Ainslie circuit using both these Fluke models, as well as fast analog scopes and a 1 GHz LeCroy digital scope that can do on-board power integration.

My replications of the Ainslie circuit, using her diagrams, "corrected" circuits as published by Peter Lindemann, Aaron Murakami, and others, as well as ordinary function generators, DO show the heat profiles she published (when a long duty cycle is used), DO NOT show these heat profiles at the 3 or 4 percent duty cycles claimed, and DO show APPARENT reversed energy flows with a properly positioned flyback diode in the circuit.

However, properly performed integrations over time of the VxI power traces show no excess energy.

My tests are mostly still available on YouTube.

[fuzzytomcat]

Hi everyone,

Here is a recap of a prior post of mine in a heavily moderated thread that we'll be going over "UN-CENSORED" ....

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9645.msg254252#msg254252

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rosemary Ainslies "QUOTES" from http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie.html from "ONE" year ago .....

Please note "RED" highlighted postings .......

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/59001-post169.html

I'm not sure if you are aware of it - but I'm a rank amateur. I really need to own up to this because you'll be expecting a level of technical expertise that I simply do not have. Circuit switches need to be built by others. The only aspect of testing that I'm confident with is the actual power measurements and then only as they relate to this modest little circuit. But - if I have a contribution - it's in that model, which is the thesis in support of that gain. In any event I wont bore you with the details. But if and where I state the obvious - it's only because I hardly know enough to see whether it's obvious or not. So. Please bear with me.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/59005-post170.html

I do not have a copy of that switching circuit - and if I did I would not be able to comment.

If your actual object is to disprove the circuit claim then I'm wholeheartedly in favour of it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/59020-post175.html

Else I'd be able to apply the system to my geyser - at home.

And, as a final point - if you can develop those uses - feel free. There are no requirements to pay royalties on patents. There is nothing that I'd love more than to hear that the system is in use. I believe that it is - in a small way. My co-author has just wired up a house here which uses the system as a backup charge system.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/59030-post179.html

I've tested the circuit over a 4 year period.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/59033-post182.html

My knowledge of circuitry is somewhat bereft.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/59119-post205.html

I was never given the results of any of the tests conducted by those accreditors. It was not from want of trying. But I was given their permission to use their names as accreditors in the Quantum article. The reason we simply used that precise experiment for the paper submitted to the IET was to reference their names. I do have the report for BP because we had to conduct those experiments on battey duration. But the context of that report is just on the effect as it relates to battery delivery - and it has got to be the single most boring exercise in all of history. It's object impeccable - but the testing exhausting.

I think the truth is that these companies allocate a certain amount of funding to research. And having found their answers they do not make it public. Presumbaly having paid for their own lab time they rightly regard the results as being their property - or their company's property. We did try and get the results - but failed - miserably.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/59163-post220.html

The good news is that Donovan has agreed to join this forum. He can answer those really technical issues that are way over my head. And better still he'll be able to advise how to take the frequency into oscillation - or resonance - not sure which is the right term.

So. I'll leave the question until then. But I believe it does have something to do with the MOSFET with an applied frequency that is too fast? I better leave it to him to explain. It's entirely beyond me.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/59195-post225.html

I've had many different circuits built, different 555 switches and different fets.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/59233-post232.html

I'm hoping Donovan will be able to help regarding the sheer volume of questions. Not only is he highly qualified but he's an absolute authority on alternative energy. If I'm a scholar he's my professor.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/59369-post262.html

THE ONLY APPROPRIATE CIRCUIT DIAGRAM that I can assure you is correct is the diagram in the paper. And the flyback diode is a critical part of the system.

The circuit diagram in the Quantum article was prepared by Brian Buckley. I cannot comment on whether it is right or not as I simply cannot read it. I am hoping that Donovan will be able to comment in due course. I don't think he has even seen that article - as published.

But it is definitely required as without it we cannot 're-route' the collapsing fields back to the battery to recharge it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/59541-post322.html

I think the need to at least display our waveform is taken on board. I have no idea how to do this and will have to impose on my co-author's time which is already massively constrained. So don't hold your breath but I will try and get this.

I will also, subject to my son's return - try and get some video information our on our own circuit. It is the same as the box that was sent to ABB for their replication purposes. Some years after their tests, they contacted me and asked what they were to do with that box. I was in correspondence with someone - can't remember who - and asked them to ship it to him. But it is feasible to replicate the circuitry. I'm just not sure who will do this. I certainly can't. But I could, at least, ask around. It's just that the guys who worked on the circuit are now drowning in other work and one of them has left for Durban - so is not easily reached.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/59596-post341.html

But I do know that my co-author has wired up a house in our Town - that uses some small part of this system to help recharge batteries. That house is entirely 'grid free'.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/60174-post474.html

I love reading back over the various points, and will be able to do so without the need to skip through volumes of extraneous nonsense.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/60279-post511.html

Joit - is your waveform proving TinselKoala's point? Is that 555 switch wrongly presented? To me it looks like it is. In which case, I must apologise to all concerned. Clearly the Quantum article was wrong.

So, to all concerned - to everyone who built the circuit as presented in that article, and if, indeed, it is wrong, my abject apologies. I had a shrewd idea it may have been wrong because, thinking back, a university professor kindly edited the quantum paper prior to presenting it to the IET. And his first recommendation was that we omitted a detailed circuit of the 555 switch as being irrelevant to the claim. Which is why I was reluctant to endorse the Quantum article as being a correct presentation. I just wish, in retrospect, that he had pointed out the error if he had seen such. In any event, it seems that I have been entirely at fault. My own objection to it was due to the lack of the feedback diode - which was the entire subject of the exercise. I knew it was in the apparatus. It certainly was not in diagram.

I would point out though, that my reluctance to admit this prior to ascertaining the fact was due to the person who presented that diagram and assisted me in that first article. He is a good friend and he, like all of us, was 'giving' his time. I was not keen therefore to expose the problem unless I also knew it was a problem. So, if you're reading this, don't even worry. In any event, the blame was not his. I should, at least, have had the circuit vetted - considering my own inability to read such.

So. Many apologies, even to TinselKoala and anyone in the entire world who duplicated that circuit. It is wrongly presented. I am sincerely sorry that I have wasted so much of your time. And Joit - you've put the question to bed. I would be very glad to refund you for your time and trouble - if required - and if I can get the money to you with our exchange control. Just send me an account on the PM system. You've done a very good thing here.

What I do assure you all is this. The switch may have been wrongly drawn. Our own duty cycle application is NOT. I have the experimental apparatus available and it has been checked by EE's even at universities. We have also, over the years, built many different 555 switches and by different people. And there are replicated experiments by others using nothing but a functions generator. And all this prior to publication. More to the point is that the battery duration is consistent with measurements based on the duty cycle. But, in point of fact, after publication I never experimented again for a period of 7 years and I certainly never even looked at the article again. The only reason I could scan a copy for the blog when I eventually did this, was because my children kept a copy of the original publication. I was just so dejected at the entire lack of interest it seemed to generate. I had no idea that the test would really ever be duplicated.

Therefore, please take this admission as a sincere apology to all those who have tried to build the switch according to the quantum article. I see that the Quantum article was the primary reference point as the IET paper was only posted to the blog after July. It seems that Ramset and TinselKoala started their thread on OU.COM in mid June. Unfortunate. But there you are. Sorry guys - It's all I can say.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/60282-post512.html

TinselKoala - I see you still read posts on this forum - failing which I am sure that Ramset will copy and post for you if you no longer have access - I would like to re-iterate that I am sincerely sorry for blaming your interpretation of the inverted waveform if, as it seems, the switch was incorrect.

Abject apologies - for what it's worth. It is thanks to Joit that this matter has been cleared up. If you continue to do the experiment - I suggest you build your own 555 switch.

And for the record - the claim relates to a frequency that is variously described but best known as a Parasitic Hartley Effect. I have this information from experts. The point is that it is an oscillating frequency that is damped down or clamped out, not sure of the correct term - as it interferes with signals which is when it's manifest. We show that that effect adds to the efficiency when it is NOT clamped out.

BUT the flyback principle, whether with inductive resistors or resistors in series with inductors - always give evidence of a gain. It can be at any frequency tested between 60Hz all the way to and beyond 600kHz. All work - some with more efficiency than others - and at extreme frequencies - with losses rather than gains. It can use just about any variation of the flyback principles as described by gotoluc as a reticulated current. And it does not need the induced Hartley Effect to realise a gain. In other words you can get the over unity performance on periodic waveforms.

Nor do you need specialised MOSFETS. And you will always see a gain if you run batteries on control tests.

The misrepresentation of the 555 in the Quantum Article I think has been proved by Joit. I sincerely apologise for the error. Hopefully with this admission you'll at least continue with the testing. You see now how wide is my claim. You can then disprove it on many bases.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/60610-post664.html

the need for the flyback diode is to prove the returning energy - not to exploit it. The WHOLE intention of that paper is for purposes of proof.

And your measurements are WAY OUT. I was rather hoping for an unbiased report.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/60616-post667.html

There is nothing wrong with the 555 circuit you've got.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/60640-post682.html

We're in the happy position of being invited to give a demo of 'proof of concept' - I think - or else a working model (both easily accommodated) for a group here who may have found a market for the devices.

It seems such a ready made solution. I have been concentrating entirely on getting academics to approve this. How utterly stupid. We can go straight to the market. Why look for that endorsement. As and when we've got the actual 'application' or 'proof' or, indeed both, I will keep you fully updated. Hopefully we'll be able to post on youtube - but don't hold your breath. For me - that's a HUGE learning curve.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/60647-post688.html

Be that s it may - the overunity is defintely measurable at all frequencies and all duty cycles. Having said that there are some really fast frequencies where the benefit is lost. However I've referred to possible variations in that paper. Nor do you need the precise circuit diagram.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/60925-post768.html

Guys, I have some news. It seems that some small application of this device will be studied for commercial application. I am not involved but have asked that there be a video made for reference. In principle this has been agreed to. So, with luck we'll have a small application of this device available in the near future. I'll keep you posted.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/60943-post774.html

And could it also be because, notwithstanding the modesty of the effect - it is also measurable in terms of classical analysis? And could it be because - not only is the gain claimed - these effects have been thoroughly analysed and accredited by experts in the art. Let me name it's most authoritative accreditor. ABB Research in North Carolina.

Now, let me continue with that list of accreditors. It also includes, Sasol (SA) Spescom (SA) BP (SA) and others. They are all either public companies or they are individuals associated with public companies.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/61040-post798.html

Aaron - you're talking switching circuitry. I have no idea.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/61057-post802.html

But the first and most important point is to prove that the battery is being recharged. The quickest proof is through the flyback diode to the battery.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/61081-post812.html

Anyway - I forgot to add. Take the flyback to the positive of the second battery.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.feelthevibe.com/free_energy/rosemary_ainslie/ainslieheater.pdf  ( Aaron's replication with flyback diode )

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/61441-post912.html

Have just watched the video. What a pleasure. That self-oscillation - AT LAST. There's something wrong with my Fluke. I'm going to get it fixed and will then post it to you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/61453-post920.html

I am an AMATEUR. I cannot put a circuit together. And I can only draw very simple circuits. You guys - all - have forgotten what I know. Not only that - but nor am I into conventional power applications. So - not only do I not know - but nor am I ever likely to learn.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/61506-post942.html

Its the detractors on other forums that are worrying. The lengths they go to to discredit the person and the claim - both.

Have you ever looked through the OU.Com thread on this? It beggars belief. Malice hardly describes it.

What is frightening is that anyone who questions a result is actually verbally menaced.

TK only needs to make a post for immediate endorsement by other contributors who also then mock my apparent lack of sanity, judgement, intelligence, schooling, beliefs, ideas, lack of expertise - name it's all there. All for public consumption. All unchallenged. And all such detractors always out of reach, always carefully hiding behind their assumed identities. They flirt with their rights to freedom of expression that under normal circumstances, and under ordinary civil law would be actionable. And all this, clearly with Stephan's endorsement.

To compound my concerns is the fact that the entire forum was promoted by Stephan, with, one would assume, the intention of promoting the study of free energy. I can no longer access OU.Com. Was he responsible for my not gaining access? And if so, at whose asking and why? Public - to everyone but me? Then too it seems that my emails are being read. How does that happen? Are my phone calls also being monitored?

[truthbeknown]

I have been accused in every thread I post in by Rosemary that I don't let "the TruthBeKnown" She has sent me a pm telling me to not post where she does. And she made fun of my name on a thread and said that my comments are not welcome and don't mean anything and she is not the only one on this forum that feels this way about me. I have not been told by ANY other forum member that I can not post on their thread.


J.