Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[forest]

I imagine a swing. Nice robust , solid and steady swing attached to the concrete in the ground so you almost do not feel any force created by Newton third law.
Oh, I see also that Mr M.Osfet was hired to keep swing in good shape by limiting amplitude of action and that way he prevents any damage to swing. Good job! Nobody will be hurt...

[Hoppy]

Rose, you and yours will also have to grapple with the fact that without 2 differential oscilloscope probes and a current probe (or alternatively 3 differential probes and a non-inductive shunt), the measurements obtained from the tests of this circuit are not usable.

Should you choose to submit your experiment to a qualified testing agency, such as aethertech's, this is precisely how they will perform them. There is no way around it.

Glen, Aaron, and myself are floundering around in a sea of noise and invisible ground loops with no hope of obtaining correct measurements the way we are currently attempting to make them with 3 single-ended scope probes.

I hope you will obtain the needed current and differential probes from Lisa at Tektronix, otherwise, the only other recourse is to submit the test to someone who can do it properly with the proper equipment, such as aethertech.

Rest assured, I will do a test run at Glen's 450kHz just to prove that I can achieve similar numbers. This will also put to rest the notion that there is something special about a hand-wound resistor compared to a commercial OTS unit. Also btw, all the data obtained so far is irrelevant (your term), not just my own.

Doing this exercise in SPICE is a worthless, time-wasting effort imo. Not to mention the fact that aside from adding in a small inductance for the shunt resistor, it is somewhat complicated. The actual results we've all obtained so far are wrong and are skewed, and I see no value in investing loads of time with SPICE in an effort to duplicate this irrelevant effect anyway...and to what end?

.99

Poynt99

The use of differential probes is probably the best route forward as it will also eliminate the possibility of 'ground bounce' which could also cause problems even with a ground loop free setup. However, we must not loose sight of the original challenge and that is to validate the COP17 claim, not to have to battle with proving if the system is actually running overunity.

The COP 17 claim has well and truly been disproved just by studying the present data (even with its quirks) and more importantly, the stark observation that the supply battery simply will not hold the system running over and above a time period that is realistically be expected when taking into consideration, circuit power drawn and capacity of the battery, even when running at extremely low power levels with a 'cold' load resistor. This fact alone should be ample evidence that the system is far from unity let alone OU and IMO really does not justify the time and effort in taking this experiment much further at this level.

Hoppy

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I imagine a swing. Nice robust , solid and steady swing attached to the concrete in the ground so you almost do not feel any force created by Newton third law.
Oh, I see also that Mr M.Osfet was hired to keep swing in good shape by limiting amplitude of action and that way he prevents any damage to swing. Good job! Nobody will be hurt...

Neat analogy here forest.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Poynt99

The use of differential probes is probably the best route forward as it will also eliminate the possibility of 'ground bounce' which could also cause problems even with a ground loop free setup. However, we must not loose sight of the original challenge and that is to validate the COP17 claim, not to have to battle with proving if the system is actually running overunity.

The COP 17 claim has well and truly been disproved just by studying the present data (even with its quirks) and more importantly, the stark observation that the supply battery simply will not hold the system running over and above a time period that is realistically be expected when taking into consideration, circuit power drawn and capacity of the battery, even when running at extremely low power levels with a 'cold' load resistor. This fact alone should be ample evidence that the system is far from unity let alone OU and IMO really does not justify the time and effort in taking this experiment much further at this level.

Hoppy

Hoppy you guys are something else.  Fuzzy lost 0.36 volts over a 7 hour run.  His wattage dissipation was in the region of 4.5 watts. If you're referring to the 'negative' number - the battery voltage climbed.  But if you and MileHigh believe so strongly that this is a waste of time, why then do you keep on keeping on?  With respect.  You all seem most anxious to have your arguments endorsed without the data required to endorse it.  At least Poynt is concentrating on what is pertinent.  For that he definitely warrants my enduring respect.

[PaulLowrance]

Over time the "free energy" community will be forced to deal with those who continually make fake claims year after year under different names to waste a lot of legit researcher time. Even if you call the inventor, that's not proof of anything. "Hey, my name is Sandy L. Cabe. Call me on the phone." So there are how many billion women in the world? No proof. The only last remaining interest with this case is someone claimed she had articles in magazines, but I received no response when asked to show references to these articles. Even the patent is not real. People are wiser after the mylow case.

Don't replicate anything until the inventor can provide *all* of the part #'s and/or *exact* instructions to make everything. Better yet, if possible, the inventor could just save everyone time by mailing the device to testers.

Regards,
Paul