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

[mscoffman]

Dear Rosemary;

I am interested in the results of this heating experiment and find
it interesting in experimental development.

I would be especially interested if you can consider differentiating
between overunity heating in your special load, versus overunity
heating due to excess energy in the batteries occurring because
of voltage pulsation from a load. A really neat way to differentiate
would be to arrange PUSH-PULL FET output stages were one load
is always on while an identical load was off and vice versa. This
would eliminate pulsation (with a small filter capacitor) to the power
supply batteries. I suspect you will find that overunity gain goes
away in this push-pull configuration but I would like to know that
for sure. It would be reasonable test for anyone to try who is
trying to replicate this experiment. Thank You.

:S:MarkSCoffman

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Dear Mark.

I'm always somewhat frightened by your posts.  I'm not sure if it's in the text or if it's simply in that precision signature.  All that exactness.  Kind of titular.  I'm never quite sure if I should be calling you 'doctor' or 'your holiness'  - or even if I should be courtseying all over the place.  Very compelling.  And I'm not sure quite what you're proposing in this experiment.  But let me waffle - even if it's just a really sad effort to hide all that fright.

I've read your posts to and about me.  So I realise that you're aware of this object but let me restate it.  To begin with the idea is to prove that energy that's delivered by the battery does not get 'stored' in the inductive/conductive components of the circuit.    The theme is that energy that is returned during the off period of the switching cycle - is returned to the battery to recharge it.  And this period of the duty cycle induces its energy from the material in the coil itself.  So.  If the sum of both the energy that is dissipated as heat and the energy that is returned to the battery - is greater than the amount of energy first delivered by the source - then the thesis is proved.  Clearly the off period of the duty cycle would then have found more energy than should have been available according to classical or mainstream thinking.  This is relatively easy to prove. But because the 'gain' is not has high as would make the argument conclusive - the test really doesn't put that question to bed.

However, what we found - which was surprising - is that at certain moments the circuit components can get into a kind of self resonance where the 'gain' becomes compounded.  Then instead of having mere fractions of COP>1 or even 2 - we find that we can get just about any combination of gain up to and beyond COP>17.  In fact - there are whole periods where there is more energy being returned to the supply then was originally delivered.

So.  If you recommend that we now test the circuit without inducing that resonance - then, I agree.  It will be harder to prove that gain or that thesis - because our numbers will not be as extreme as it is when the circuit is allowed to resonate.  But I'm not sure that the test would have any value other than to show that we need it to resonate.  If you can convince me that it's required - nonetheless - then I'd be glad to reconsider.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Added.  By the way - your comments regarding my lack of understanding as it relates to electron current flow.  I'd be glad of a discussion.  Perhaps you could base it on the following which was intended to provoke this.  It seems you know where my understanding is either wrong or wanting.  I'd be glad to be educated.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/38315399/MORE-INCONVENIENT-TRUTHS

Certainly it's rather less popular than my other contributions.  LOL

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys, this is a copy of an email which will give those of you that are following this thread - a reasonable update report on where we are.  Hope it helps.

Regards,
Rosemary

Dear *****

Unfortunately the time required to do these tests is compounded by the slow rate at which students put these tests together.  But it may be as well to bear in mind we've got more than just the need to get a working device.  I can assure you that any claims to having a working, operating system - will not attract any kind of real interest.  There have been many.  One just needs to browse the internet to see them all.  And they produce absolutely no real interest whatsoever.  It is simply the fact that the device is at university - that I see any real hope of getting these breakthroughs acknowledged.

There's a kind of thoroughness that I absolutely did not anticipate - related to evaluating all this.  To begin with they've put a 555 oscillator to drive a MOSFET - an IGBT - an SG3524 - a Micro Controller AND a functions generator.  All different ways to drive the switch.  They've very nearly completed the software for the Micro Controller -  ALL in the interests of getting a comprehensive overview.  The idea - at the end of all this is to establish categorically if and what is responsible for generating that resonating frequency.  So.  The fact is that what we're sacrificing in time taken will give us an entirely comprehensive overview when it comes to evaluating it all.  Then too, I'm sure you'll appreciate this, without all this attention to detail it's very likely that we won't ourselves - be able to really and comprehensively report on the phenomenon.  I'm certainly delighted at the detail but more than a little irritated at the endless delays resulting from this.   Even the switch for the micro controller needs improvements and I have now been asked to source and buy some crystals to get a clearer signal.  But my dear *****.  I am entirely satisfied that this is the right route.  I want to produce that paper at the end of this exercise that will convince the entire academic community.  And without all this attention to detail - we simply won't get past the starting line.  The last thing we ever need is to be accused of 'scam' and without academic approval I think that will, inevitably, be the consequence.  The Steorne motors that are already out there are so heavily criticised that I suspect that technology will be buried - very soon - or remain very much fringe science.

The other good news is that we've been given the loan of a really zut oscilloscope - a LeCroy 324 - just to do the dedicated measurements that will be entirely unarguable.  It was a bit of a scoop and the loan itself will give our results a kind of authority that will be unarguable.  *****, one of the academics associated with this, is only now in a position to devote more time to the exercise.  He's been wrapped up in other projects.  Still is.  But he's now got our own tests scheduled for a daily overview of the student's progress.  I keep hoping that the test will all be up and running tomorrow - and tomorrow never seems to come.  But we'll get there.  I go through to campus daily - and gradually, but surely, feel that we're making inroads.  I have a sister in law who's an academic at Groote Schuur.  She assures me that this is absolutely par for the course on academic projects.  In fact she was amused at my exasperation.  She herself has learned to live it.

You must also remember that there's another point to getting this on campus.  While we're aiming at producing not less than 100 watts or thereby - we will, also, inevitably, be measuring lower values in that exercise.  If the tests are as comprehensive as is being done - then ALL those test results will be entirely and effectively accredited.  Which, at its least, should give us renewed 'proof of concept' which will definitely promote interest in those transistor manufacturers.  In any event - I hold this up as a beacon of hope...

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello Guys.

Just for reference here's a Company that claims COP>6 and who also have patents on this device.  It's been tested at reputable labs.

The extra energy claimed to relate to 'molecular' oscillations or 'jitter'? 

http://www.terawatt.com/ecm1/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=58

Regards,
Rosemary

BTW Spinn - I deleted your post and will continue to do so until and unless they become less destructive.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Ok.  For those who opened that link - you'd have seen YET another motor YET again claiming over unity results.  Not only that - but its results have been accredited by reputable laboratories.  By rights that news should be banner headlines everywhere.  Why is it simply relegated to another dusty internet archive?  Why are our academics not looking into these results?  Why are the Chinese or the Indians or the Europeans - or ANYONE - not beating a path to their doors to get a handle on those patents?  We're in the grips of an energy crisis where the short term and long term effects are likely to leave the planet and most of it's life species gasping for breath?  What gives?  What has happened that an entire global population are comotose with fright at the prospects of crumbling natural structures when the evidence ABOUNDS that we already have the solution?

My own take is this.  We have lost confidence in heavy machinery - in patents - in energy solutions that depend on efficiency.  We're actually looking to find the answers in something that is sufficiently different and sufficiently revolutionary that we can all draw breath and say - OK - that is identifiably - off the wall - eccentric - unusual.  Perhaps we're looking for the answers to antigravity - to instant energy - something that we can float on - or something that we can toss into a teacup to make water boil.  We want something that frees us from the grid.  But it seems that something must also be more extraordinary than solar panels and articulated gears - even if those gears are simply an unusual arrangement of magnetic rotors.  SOMETHING seems to be holding us back from acceptance of the simple truth - which have now been exhaustively evidenced - that OU is with us. 

Even as I write this I realise that the most of the readers here would absolutely deny the fact.  Even on this forum - our own neighbourhood - so to speak.  There's only an endless dialogue between those who claim OU and those who deny their claims.  What I also realise is that the proof of concept in our own little test has been so comprehensively evidenced - that one would be hard pressed to continue to deny it.  But the truth is that there are clearly those who never dip into this thread and then there are those who do - but still reject the scientific FACTS.  And these have been proven time and time again, through experimental evidence that has also been collated within strict scientific protocols.  It floors me.  Every time.  I keep reading those posts from those sad posters who angrily demand the evidence that is on offer ALL OVER THE PLACE.   

Here's what I hope.  I hope that somehow - in the fullness of time, and hopefully that will be within my own life time - that the general public will be made more aware of the multiple level of inroads that have been made into accessing what I am entirely satisfied is 'dark energy' and that we start bandying the concepts about more freely.  If only to shake off that hysterical 'inaction' which seems to dominate our global mindset.  We're variously reckless - pessimistic - dejected - hopeless and angry.  I think we should now really start injecting that mindset with the actual status of our energy potentials.  It's way, way, more promising than seems to be widely understood or even widely known.

Regards
Rosemary