Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[happyfunball]

The blog and the video proves nothing. With something substantial I mean: attach a load to your COP 17 circuit, preferably a motor and let it run a long time - while on the same time the circuit charges up the batteries which power the motor. Should be easy with COP17, ain't it? Otherwise I don't know what all the fuss here is about.

It's a heater circuit

[gauschor]

As expected nothing of interest then, thanks.

[poynt99]

The blog and the video proves nothing. With something substantial I mean: attach a load to your COP 17 circuit, preferably a motor and let it run a long time - while on the same time the circuit charges up the batteries which power the motor. Should be easy with COP17, ain't it? Otherwise I don't know what all the fuss here is about.

You ask some good questions and make the same observation made by many; there still has been no credible proof put forward to support any of the claims.

It is a heater circuit indeed, and part of the claim is that no net energy whatsoever is required of the source batteries. This is quite simple to prove, i.e. optimize the circuit for high power output (or whatever power is deemed optimum by the claimant) and allow it to run for several months or years if necessary to see if the batteries run down. [Wait to see what the excuse is on this one. ]

There have been a few other options offered as well, but all have been repeatedly dismissed out of hand by the claimant.

I would be interested in knowing what Stefan's (the site admin) opinion is on the current status of this project.

.99

[happyfunball]

As expected nothing of interest then, thanks.

Yes, excess heat is so terribly boring. It's not as if it can be used to heat water.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

The blog and the video proves nothing. With something substantial I mean: attach a load to your COP 17 circuit, preferably a motor and let it run a long time - while on the same time the circuit charges up the batteries which power the motor. Should be easy with COP17, ain't it? Otherwise I don't know what all the fuss here is about.

Hello again gauschor - The circuit only dissipates heat.  But it's no longer COP>17.  By the last count it was COP infinity.  But you're right.  The most of you want to see it on battery durations.  I'm just not up for those tests.  I've explained this often and am rather too fatigued to find my post on this. 

And Poynty - here's where I would like to take this thread.  I want to detail those questions that you and yours seem to avoid like the plague.  Then I want to post on those final demonstrations where we will be giving smaller demos to smaller audiences of experts.  Then - when and if we ever get acknowledgement of anomalies - the hope is that we will then be able to get something published in a reviewed journal.  These prior steps required - because right now - there is no acknowledged expert who has even seen these results - expert here defined as an electrical engineer with a doctorate or somesuch equivalent.  We have every reason to believe that there are, indeed, those who are prepared to acknowledge anomalies - provided only that the measurements are as we've claimed.  The protocols will be determined in advance of those demos.

And we have reason to believe that the acknowledgement of an anomaly as opposed to an outright endorsement of the claim - may encourage a wider investigation of this on academic forums.  With the utmost respect I believe that your own involvement here is to 'quash' the claim using whatever methods you can manage - as urgently as possible.  It's just that I'm not yet sure why there is all that urgency.  I also know that its ONLY hope of progress is if and when this gets to our academic work benches as there is evidently NO impartiality available from the most of those who post on your forum and who also monopolise the postings on this thread. 

Regards,
Rosemary