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

[Rosemary Ainslie]

hi all

...dayyum - if i'd known there was going to be fisticuffs, i'd have set out the bleachers and started selling tickets! 


i think there is actually a common understanding of system activity here, hidden behind different terms of expression


would 'Coefficient of Performance > 1' be a another way of labelling the same situation which both Rosemary & Omnibus are describing?


i believe, from reading the documents, that the accredited results are based on a greater amount (~1700% ?) of heat energy dissipated in calorimetric tests than was supplied from the source batteries


from Omni's PoV, this would be 'greater energy out than in' ie., when the system boundary is drawn around the battery-circuit-heater system

from Rosemary's PoV, this would be 'additional energy supplied by the energetic vacuum, not created from nothing', ie. COP ~= 17, but no violation of CoE


is this a fair summary - & resolution of apparent contradictions?

or should i still get the bleachers out?   


all the best
sandy

LOL  Hello Sandy.  It's an extremely fair summation.  Very well done.  Unfortunately the 'cause' is still at question - related as it is the flow of current.  But dear God.  I think we can drop that question.  More important is that we get this onto some sensible level so that we can use all this energy.

I have not managed to raise either Professors to warn them about Omnibus' emails.  It will now have to wait for Monday. 

Kindest regards
Rosemary

[Omnibus]

@nul-points,

from Rosemary's PoV, this would be 'additional energy supplied by the energetic vacuum, not created from nothing', ie. COP ~= 17, but no violation of CoE

No such thing as "energetic vacuum" is recognized as an energy reservoir in thermodynamics let alone that Rosemary doesn't even claim that to be the cause:

Unfortunately the 'cause' is still at question - related as it is the flow of current.

The latter is, however, even less likely to be the cause (if we tend to think that there the idea for the "energy from the vacuum" is viable) if she means, as she does, the nature of that flow because the nature of current flow is well established. The production of more energy out than in cannot be related to the nature of that flow. It may be related to current flow but not to the nature of that flow.

In other words, I would agree with Rosemary if she stays within the exact above quotation but I disagree with her when she further qualifies that by insisting that the nature of that flow in solid conductors isn't the directed flow of electrons.

Of course, the above makes sense only provided the experiment (her experiment in particular) really shows more energy out than in. This hasn't been proven yet conclusively.

[Omnibus]

I received the replies to my e-mails. Unfortunately, none of them confirms that Rosemary's experiment demonstrates the production of more energy than the energy spent.

So, not only do we have an obviously untenable proposal for the nature of electric current but also the experiment that claims overunity is inconclusive. Therefore, the main focus should be the experiment and whether or not it really shows more energy out than in. I know Rosemary is reluctant to do that but that's inevitable if she really cares about acceptance.

Of course, the ultimate proof for overunity would be for her to demonstrate a self-sustaining device. That's a difficult engineering task, however, and we should try to find out how else can the experts in the field be convinced in the reality of the claimed experimental excess energy.

[nul-points]

No such thing as "energetic vacuum" is recognized as an energy reservoir in thermodynamics

LOL

in that case, 'thermodynamics' is still in the ice-age! 


i can see that you know a great deal, Omnibus

in fact, i can see from your name that you know a lot more than a great deal


you can see from my name, however, that i know nothing 


i'll get the bleachers out


cheers
sandy

[Tenbatsu]

Omnibus, I believe it has been stated previously that these professors did not attend the demonstration of this device.  Therefore I doubt they have any knowledge of the device or its supposed intricacies.