Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys,

Here are those waveforms on the repeat tests using a standard 9 Ohm automotive solder iron.  Temperature stabilised at around 85 degrees, 64 degrees over ambient.  But the control was different as it was not held inside a vacuum flask.  We didn't up the battery voltage to increase the energy as we ran out of time.

Also a second test done on a bank of LED's.  But I'll leave that to my friend to describe.  Here we had evidence of a battery voltage climbing but it may have been because the current was that low.  Video made of this as well.  Both will be uploaded here when I get my PC back.  Hopefully soon.

Just as a comment.  Those crocodile clips and thin wires not ideal.  We had precarious results to begin with because of loose connections.  All the leads were soldered and we then found that the results stabilised.  Personally I think the results would have improved with thicker copper wire.  But that's purely speculative.

We'll get a schematic downloaded soon - but in essence, the same circuit as groundloop showed but with a different load - obviously, and with the use of only two 'hand to hand' MOSFET's.

From what we're seeing this is relatively easy to apply to just about any appliance that's used for heat.  But obviously - much research required to sort out that switching software and sundry controls.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[Pirate88179]

"Efficiency" and "COP" are not the same thing Bill, and I would have expected you to know this.

Really?  Then you had better tell all of those fellows over there on your OUR forum this news.  All of the ones that claimed that the JT circuit could never be COP>1 because it is only 40% efficient.  They seem to think these terms are related.  You should correct them as well. Come on man, you are much more intelligent than this.

Bill 

[fuzzytomcat]

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/05/111-proof-positive.html   

111 - proof positive
Dear Reader,

As you know my preference is in 'dialogue' as I believe this is the best means to progress this knowledge. Where this dialogue has been progressed is at overunity.com's forum. Here's the link.

click here

Unfortunately Harti, our forum owner, has allowed Glen Lettenmaier full membership with the mandate to flame my thread to death. He's more than qualified to do this - not because he's a debater - but precisely because he is not. He lacks the language skills and the intellectual subtleties required.

I'm not here readers and members to do name calling, do IQ scores or debate and have any dialog with someone whom has a long history of doing just these things, to hide the numerous unanswered questions at hand here and sidetracking this thread Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011 and the claimed results.

This includes a claim here by Rosemary in this thread of a COP > INFINITY device not once but multiple times in her dialog of the postings, most of which are off topic here by design.

Where is the scientific proof that was given to the open source community to substantiate the validity of this claim that has never been posted in this forum before ?

There are forum rules here that apply ....

You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not  post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, adult material, or otherwise in violation of any International or United States Federal law. You also agree not to post any copyrighted material unless you own the copyright or you have written consent from the owner of the copyrighted material. Spam, flooding, advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are also forbidden on this forum.

You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not  post any material which is false, inaccurate or harassing postings

The above is a qualification to question the finding when no scientific proof or presentation of all the facts concerning the device or devices claiming a COP > INFINITY are only available to the inventor by design.



EXCEPTED FACTS -

1) All COP > INFINITY device information in one place in one post not spread out over eighty (80) pages.

2) A accurate circuit diagram of the claimed COP > INFINITY device .... there are five (5) at least that I know of .... and the one on your blog is incorrect (FALSE) http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/109-simulated-circuit.html#links

3) All sequenced oscilloscope screen shots and data dumps from the day of the test not days before or after for over a minimum of one hour at 6 minute intervals for a total of eleven (11) verified recordings of the COP > INFINITY device.

4) The complete parts list of all the components used to do a scientific replication to verify the results in a verifiable scientific manner of the COP > INFINITY device

5) All the settings of the Function Generator in Hz or Mhz .... including ....  the setting of the DC offset switch ( -10 VDC to + 10 VDC )

6) A complete photographic image set available for verification and review including the top and bottom of any circuit board of the COP > INFINITY device at the time under or during test .

7) A "LIVE streaming broadcast" of the device testing event in real time for 48 hours minimum untouched .... all that's required is a registering for a FREE LIVE streaming broadcast account and a web camera showing the claim of COP > INFINITY



This should be a minimum to claim a COP > INFINITY ......

If the above seven items cannot be done in a excepted verifiable Scientific Method .... the claims made here of a COP > INFINITY mean nothing only FALSE and INACCURATE statements being made.



Glen Lettenmaier
aka FuzzyTomCat

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys  - a little about the accuracy of the measurements.

Regarding the shunt or CSR as it's identified on our schematic.  That oscillation that the components find is always within a small range of frequeny which it finds itself.  One needs to factor in the required impedance at that frequency as it effects the shunts.  This in turn requires careful assessment of the inductance of that CSR.  This inductance was carefully measured by the staff at CPUT using their own calibrated and sophisticated equipment.  Once one factors in the required - then the CSR's resistance is factored in at 0.9 Ohms during that oscillation.  This is easily managed on the spread sheet down loads.

Then.  Notwithstanding the required adjustment to the shunt value one is still left with an excess of energy returned to the battery that still needs to be explained.

Regarding the use of the functions generator to apply the required frequency.  This is not ideal.  But it's adequate.  This because when it comes to actually making an appliance then the required signal will be transposable - if that's the word.  In other words the software will be designed around whatever it is that's required as shown by the functions generator.  But one of our members here is working on the design to do without the functions generator.  He tried this again last night but 'blew' one of the chips.  It needs to be redone.  Hopefully he'll be able to get there.  He has re-activated his account here - I believe.  And hopefully he'll be in a position to explain all this himself.

What is of interest and will be shown when we download the video is that his own shunt is non-inductive. Not one of those highly calibrated - high wattage numbers - unfortunately.  You'll notice that the waveforms are not as 'steady' as they were in our own circuit experiment.  This is probably due to the fact that his shunt was not able to tolerate those momentary high wattages.

Regarding any claims at all that there may be a measurement error on our circuit.  That would be interesting to find.  We cannot find it.  And it has been looked at by some highly competent engineers.  If any of you can find it then that would be nice. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[poynt99]

Guys  - a little about the accuracy of the measurements.

Regarding the shunt or CSR as it's identified on our schematic.  That oscillation that the components find is always within a small range of frequeny which it finds itself.  One needs to factor in the required impedance at that frequency as it effects the shunts.  This in turn requires careful assessment of the inductance of that CSR.  This inductance was carefully measured by the staff at CPUT using their own calibrated and sophisticated equipment.  Once one factors in the required - then the CSR's resistance is factored in at 0.9 Ohms during that oscillation.  This is easily managed on the spread sheet down loads.

If you have not factored in the DC resistance (and by calculation I see you haven't), then the actual value to be used is 0.9 + 0.25 = 1.15 Ohms.

But one of our members here is working on the design to do without the functions generator.  He tried this again last night but 'blew' one of the chips.  It needs to be redone.  Hopefully he'll be able to get there.  He has re-activated his account here - I believe.  And hopefully he'll be in a position to explain all this himself.

I provided a schematic (two schematics in fact) that does away with the FG long ago. You've ignored those I guess.

Regarding any claims at all that there may be a measurement error on our circuit.  That would be interesting to find.  We cannot find it.  And it has been looked at by some highly competent engineers.  If any of you can find it then that would be nice. 

This has already been done. You've ignored that I guess.

Now regarding the new circuit topology, it would be impossible to accurately determine where the measurement error is without a photo or diagram depicting precisely where the scope probes are placed. I requested this a couple of times already. You ignored those requests I guess.

.99