Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder

[shruggedatlas]

indeed. both he and skcusitrah/hartisucks have a tenous (at best) grasp on logic and have demonstrated that over and over.

Fine, you have your grasp on logic, while Omnibus plows ahead and changes the laws of physics before our eyes.  Please, just get out of his way and let him do his thing. If you want logic exercises, there are classes you can take for that, and you can discuss logic all day long.

This is a science forum, not a logic games forum.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi Wilby

Thanks for your reply.  Here's what I've decided.  I think our reading public are nowhere near being the fools that Omnibus seems to hope for.  He is welcome to post.  I can - as required - use his unsubstantiated opinion to remind our readers on the status of these tests and the thesis.

Let me start with this.  We are conducting tests in a university laboratory under the close co-operation and supervision of some really brave academics.  In the event that the tests are successful and in the event that we manage to achieve higher wattages than evident in our 'proof of concept' experiements - then this will be made known.  In the same way - if we do not manage these results - then this will also be known.  Our academics are not committed to an opinion outside of the test results.  Which is precisely as it should be.

Meanwhile in the light of the 'proof of concept' widely and accurately recorded - my thesis is getting some attention.  And right now we are attempting to represent the concepts in the thesis in a 3D animation series in order to advance its understanding.  I am immensely grateful for the help and assistance I am getting here.

And shruggedatlas - if, as I suspect, your actual mentor is Ayn Rand - then perhaps you should revisit her ideals.  Muddy thinking is not one of them.

@Omnibus.  It is very likely I'm a nut case as you put it.  These thankless efforts on these forums would certainly put my sanity to question.  But thankfully, our academics seem to tolerate this. 

Kindest regards Wilby and thanks to both you and Bob for your attempts to disabuse Omnibus of his manifold delusions.  But it really is not required.  I'm essentially pragmatic.  I now think I may be able to make good use of his posts and certainly intend giving it my best shot.

Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi all.  This is a copy of a previous post which I needed to edit and the system does not allow me to.  It's now out of sequence but relates to the date highlighted.  There will will be a further 4 such en route.  Don't bother to read.  I just need it to keep record.  Maybe when Stefan get's back he can put it back in the appropriate place.

Sorry about this.

   
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #15 on: July 19, 2010, 10:30:23 PM »


Guys,  I need to say this - reluctantly but required.

It appears that many potential replicators of this technology were systematically discouraged from researching this effect through the simple expediency of Glen or Harvey 'messaging' those posters and advising them against the technology.  This was variously achieved by a slew of unsubstantiated allegations made against me - my history - or the technology itself.  I would ask you all.  Please - in the event that you are contacted could I impose on you to demand that they either make those allegations public or that they substantiate those allegations with proof.  Either way they will then desist as all such allegations are actionable.  I am only now being made more fully cogniscant of this 'action in the background' which - before now - I could not understand.  Replicators came forward and then ... just disappeared.

Indeed - they were effective.  I have had to keep the name of the university involved off public forum at their request.  Glen discovered the campus involved by doing an unsolicited search through my photobucket.  I had a photo of that academic there.  He then matched the face with a name.  It must have been a pretty deep internet search - and then wrote to that academic implying he was an Energetic Forum Adminstrator - needing assurance that I was posting our work and not theirs.  He then advised the academic that I was PLAGIARISING his work - this based on the fact that the TIE publication does not hold authors' names.  In any event this set the project back 4 months or so while those academics established the facts for themselves.  A really spiteful piece of intervention that speaks to his interests either for open source technologies or for his interest in claiming this discovery.  Either way - sad motivation - and entirely irrelevant to our objects here.  We need to spread the word and the work and as far as possible - get some applications up and running.

What is troubling is that Energetic Forum Adminstrators were aware of this intervention and forbad my referencing it - else I'd be banned.  For some reason it seems that they rather preferred that their members not be told of this.  I'm not satisfied that this is in public interests.  But that's just my opinion.

Also.  Both Glen and Harvey are insinuating that I have patent rights on this technology.  I assure you I do not.  When I first developed - tested and published on this circuit I had no idea of the internet.  I'm that old.  In any event - I needed to ensure that no-one would be in a position to patent.  To this end I applied for a patent as the best way to 'publish' and get it into the public domain.  That application is still referenced as required - in the international patenting offices in Geneva.  But IT IS NOT REGISTERED.  This puts it in the public domain - the object being that no-one can ever patent it.  Now that I know about open source publication - I now publish everything I can.  It's the best safegaurd albeit that the 'attack' does not seem to diminish.  But it IS protected for open source.  We need to keep it that way.

Regards,osemary
http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising

[Rosemary Ainslie]

ANOTHER EDIT


Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #31 on: July 22, 2010, 07:11:46 AM »

Guys - Conrad - all,

I'm afraid this is simply not working.  Nor do I have the time to continually answer the trivia and misinformation in that last post of yours - Conrad.   I wonder if I can impose on you to read my own posts.  As it may be that you simply cannot understand what I have written then let me try and put things more simply.

Glen was the experimentalist who replicated our experiment published in Quantum October edition 2002.  To enable this I solicited the use of some sophisticated Tektronix equipment with the promise to them that the tests would be well publicised and that all such would feature their TDS3054C DPO.  In most aspects Glen was a supreme experimentalist.  One looks for detailed and multiple data records, multiple test parameters, clear photographs and untainted presentation of data.  He is a photographer of some considerable skill.  His knowledge of how to present data - impeccable.  And his crowning qualification is that he could not, himself, do the data analysis from his dumps - which made him supremely impartial.  Our analysis of the results therefore, of necessity and invariably followed on from his tests.

The actual appropriate tests relating to this successful replication were Test 3 (from memory) which was then repeated with the use of a calibrated shunt in Test 13.  Both tests relied on measurement of current draw down from the supply based on analysis of the voltage across the shunt.  Both tests also showed that circuit potential to entirely conserve charge - with the mean DC average voltage levels swinging evenly between small positive and negative voltage indicating a nominal to zero discharge from the battery.  Yet there was a measurable dissipation of energy at the load evident in the temperature rise across the load and related to ambient.  The level of wattage dissiapted was gauged by a control that measured the amount of power required to generate the equivalent temperature rise.

The Mosfet Heating Circuit thread at Energetic Forum was initiated by Glen and Harvey and was intended to refute my invention of this circuit.  Indeed it is not an invention.  There is very little that is not known about switching circuits.  But what is NOT on public record, prior to our exposure of this, is the simple fact that the circuit can be tuned to a self-resonating frequency at which point there is no significant loss of energy from the supply.  I was not allowed to post on that thread but there was no restriction to Glen posting on mine.  He systematically 'flamed' my own thread and then - when Admin finally managed to bring this to a halt - he continued to message anyone who posted on my thread - with a slew of misinformation - much as he is now doing here.

I cannot say what his objectives are.  All I can assure you is that he relies on Harvey's analysis of the results and Harvey has now posted a slew of exercises in this where not only is the analysis hopelessly flawed - but is aimed at discounting the very results he earlier attested to in our Open Source paper.  I also can attest to the fact they are both emailing all and sundry with an an avalanche of unsupported allegations against my character, my history, my skills and - finally my part in this discovery.  I would, again, refer you my scribd reference to all this which I'll append.  Latterly are they both denying the evidence - but, unfortunately for them both, the evidence is on public record. Right now they both rely on the inabilities of the readers here to understand or analyse the data.  And Harvey is skilled in the use of a kind of technobabble that appears learned and yet is utterly flawed.  Academics involved in the evaluation of these tests are well aware of the flaws in those analyses but, unfortunately, it is not immediately evident to those who are less skilled in power analysis.

So.  There is patently some agenda afoot - which is apparent to the more discerning.  My own assessment is this.  Energetic Forum now effectively belongs to them both.  They are free to say and do as they please and the level of readership and general engagement is such that their members - for the most part - are entirely unaware of that agenda and are therefore duped.  This even includes some of thos authors to that first paper.  Fortunately this is changing and changing fast.  But while they are there or, for that matter here - there is clear indication that they are attempting to sabotage all evidence of Over Unity.  The sad truth is this.  Our own experiment is 'small' evidence.  But it has the real merit of being conclusive.  Subject only to our ability to scale it - then it may, God willing, prove feasible on applications - and a wide range of such if this potential is fully realised.  And all I KNOW is that there is an overwhelming need for both of them to prevent this.

My reading of your emphasis on their thread and the liberal references to their quotes reminds me of the danger that they pose to this development.  Fortunately there is nothing that they can now do to prevent our work on campus.  Nor can they prevent the publicity that will result on successful conclusion to those tests.  It will no longer be a 'fringe science' but should - at it's least - become respectable for other campuses and other academics to research the effect more thoroughly.  This is a first and, in my mind, has posed the single most effective barrier to the promotion of free energy.  It needs both the courageous and the enquiring academic in order to bring these much needed benefits to mainstream and to public awareness.

BUT Conrad.  I cannot forever interrupt my work to answer to the irrelevancies in their postings nor their communications.  I need to press on. Therefore I must ask you to please transfer your work to a second thread and do your work on replications there.  I need the time and the space here to give accurate account of the work associated with this appliance.  It was the purpose of this thread.  While I have been 'bitten' by those MIB's I am very aware of the safety in ensuring that all knowledge related to this effect be put on public record.  This is no longer negotiable.  The time taken to address your post reminds me of the distractions and the effective distractions that can hamper that object.

Let me put this as succinctly as I can.
WE HAVE EXPERIMENTAL PROOF OF A THESIS THAT REQUIRES ENERGY EFFICIENCIES GREATER THAN 1
WE HAVE WIDE AND COMPREHENSIVE ACCREDITATION OF THAT EXPERIMENTAL PROOF
WE HAVE FULL AND COMPREHENSIVE DATA ON A REPLICATION OF THAT EXPERIMENT AVAILABLE TO OPEN SOURCE

What is now required is that appliance to be fully developed and, hopefully, manufactured.  And right now this thread is needed to ensure that all the information related to that appliance is made available to Open Source.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33937867/IF-I-WAS-A-TROLL

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Another edit.

Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #36 on: July 22, 2010, 04:55:41 PM »

Hi Sandy,  I called that name wrong.  I think it's the 'parasitic hartley effect'.  Apologies.

And Conrad.  You seem to have taken offense?  Not intended.  I'm simply telling it like it is.  Regarding your required 'proof' - not sure what 'proof' you're looking for beyond the papers that Sandy correctly identified.  Are you looking for 'sworn affidavit's' as demanded by Glen and Harvey?  Regarding accreditation of the experiments those companies' names wwere listed in the Quantum publication.  Fairly widely publicised at the time - here in SA.  I'm reasonably certain that if I had misrepresented them then I would have been served papers calling for a retraction.  The proof of experimental results are never required beyond the simple account in a paper.  Else the simple principle of publication anywhere at all would be rendered meaningless.  So I'm not at all sure what else I can do here either.  Unless, again you wish us all to sign affidavits.  This is rather more than is expected of any scientist who is usually understood to be telling the truth.  And if you do, indeed, doubt that I'm telling the truth then I'm not sure that an affidavit will cut it - quite frankly.  I'm also reasonably certain that Harvey et al would have tried to get some kind of disclaimer.  In the absense of such perhaps you can allow me the benefit of the doubt

What is sad is the effectiveness of Harvey and Glen.  By now the truth of this over unity proof should be bouncing around the globe.  Instead of which it now seems that the two of them are actually denying the evidence.  And they do this on a full time basis.  I'm inclined to wonder who finances them.  My actual concern is that they're looking to some variation in order to patent it.

But I was pretty well silenced at Energetic Forum - as I was not allowed to reference their multi-level interventions.  They did me a favour by getting me banned.  And Harti an even bigger favour be allowing this thread.  But I must admit the thought of getting banned was more than enough to silence me as I was frantic that I not be separated from my work.  I am still exploring the legalities of anyone removing a member from this. That's the effect of banning.  I find it morally disgusting.

Anyway Sandy - thanks for the interest.  And Conrad, again.  I had no intention of upsetting you.  Abject apologies if that's what I managed.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising