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

[Rosemary Ainslie]

@ashtweth_nihilisti,

I wonder why are you so much emphasizing on the scope? Scope should be the least of your worries once you have proper probes and once you understand the intricacies of the data processing. So, let's start with the probes -- what are they and what are you actually measuring? Here in this forum there are some pretty sophisticated participants and it will be a good idea to post the schematics under study and the details as to how you actually do the measurements so that we can hear some competent input. I have already expressed this opinion, and I'll say it again, measurements are the only part of this project worth considering and they have to be done right.

I, for one, would be willing to do some study on the board you said you can donate. I have a Tektronix DPO 2024, a Hall effect based current probe and four passive voltage probes that come with the scope. On the side of equipment the voltage probes are the weakest link. I've discussed that extensively in the Steorn thread and I'll keep discussing it. However, there's another problem which I found to be of even greater significance -- the data processing -- which seems to be overlooked. No wonder, as I already said in the Steorn thread, it is highly uncommon, if not absent altogether, for academics to carry out the power measurements we're talking about. I found out that academics in prestigious universities will not touch such measurements with a ten foot pole. So, the expectations that academics will embrace these studies does not seem realistic. These studies have to be carried out, however, and, like I said, we should give them some more thought here.

Omnibus I've read this post more carefully.  I take it you want to measure the actual resonance over the load.  This would be ambitious.  I do know that this is precisely the measurement that ABB concentrated on and where they could NOT get a resolution as the apprarent energy on the load was in excess of the energy evidenced as heat.  But as both exceeded the supply the anomaly remained.  But it's a very difficult sum you're attempting.  And as heat is an empirical proof of the energy dissipated - it serves its purpose. 

But indeed.  If you're up for this - I think there would be many of us who would like to see that measurement.

Regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys - notwithstanding the imminent possibility of being banned for, yet again telling some uncomfortable truths, let me address yet another post from Ashtweth.

Hi WilbyInebriated, Thats the whole point of what we are saying, and your reading about the technology thanks to my efforts for 5 months plus Glens, Harvey's , Aaron's, Jib's and Andrews . Glen is merely trying to warn of his experiences nothing more.

It seems that any material contribution here by me is entirely ignored or discounted or denied.  And more to the point - had we not put up a fight and had Stefan not organised this thread - then no-one - anywhere at all, would be reading about this.  The only reference outside of this forum is in that MOSFET heating circuit thread which denies any benefit.     Go figger. 

If people email or PM Glen, talk about the technology dont worry about the feuds. Glen and Harvey are perfectly willing to help experimenters. They will just get distracted if you mention the RA incident.

Let me deal with each piece of misinformation as it comes up.  If Glen were committed to the technology I would be happy to endorse this advice that you defer to him when and if anyone does replications.  BUT.  Unless the arguments in the Mosfet Heating Circuit are entirely CONTRADICTED then he sees NO MERIT in this technology.  He is either lying off forum or on forum.  One way or another - the two stances simply do not marry.  On record is the unambiguous albeit contradictory statements that - there is no extra energy - that the technology is dangerous - that the Tektronix DPO3054C DPO was inadequate for purposes of measuring - that there is NO WAY KNOWN TO SCIENCE OR MAN to do a measurement - and on and on.   Off forum and through these PM's he seems to be assuring you all that you can defer to him or to his data - and that he'll do what?  Guide you all into the realisation that there is no benefit in this technology?  To me that seems somewhat absurd.  Wouldn't it be more to the point to just refer you to that psuedo scholarly multipurpose treatise in the thread to call a halt to further studies at inception?  I would have thought?  Unless he's now rethinking that nonsense and perhaps a little timid that you'll all prove it for the nonsense that it is.  Maybe he just needs to get back into the argument - so to speak - and try and retain some authority on a subject.  God knows his authority is entirely suspect - as of now.

So as long as every one takes this in  and takes this advice, we can ALL get on with the job.

What job?  Nothing has been done other than a copy of an element which is entirely inappropriate for the task.  Nothing has been progressed - and why should it?  Again.  That thread stands testament to Glen's and Harvey's opinion that there is no merit in the technology.  Change that thread - and perhaps there can be some reason to defer to these self-appointed authorities.  I assure you all that there is more talent and more required critical assessment here than was ever evident at EF.com.  There are NO experts there.

Rose wont discuss all this if you stick to her circuit, some how she is not all bad.

Not sure of the definition of 'BAD' but again it's wrong on both counts.  Firstly I will discuss exactly what's required - with or without Ashtweth's permission.  And indeed, if BAD is because I see a continuing need to contradict Ashtweth and set the record straight then indeed I am BAD.  But it's a matter of perspective and a matter of opinion.  LOL

If Rose mentions the incident , just try and get her talking about the circuit, Rose eventually gets back on track.

LOL.  My purpose here is dedicated to the following.  A detailed account of the trials that are to be reported on an application designed at not less than 100 watts.  A detailed account of the thesis that requires that COP>1 result.  A detailed account of the history of those members who are actively engaged in discrediting the technology and my good name along with it.  ALL of these aspects are critical - lest the truth be buried and people be duped into thinking that there are those who are apparently promoting OU technology when they're actually hiding some nefarious hidden purpose.    God alone knows what.               

It was impossible for us to do at the other forum, so i hope we can do better over here.

What a shameless parade of unsubstantiated nonsense.  I spent 5 months defending myself against allegations that were entirely unfounded.  And Ashtweth claims that I initiated this?  I had no time to do anything other than defend and defend.  And all the while I had the dubious pleasure of seeing those lies posted on that Mosfet Heating Circuit?  Dear God.  Ashtweth is a masterful propogandist if these statements actually carry any credibility at all.

If Glen does PM you take it under advisement or what ever but do not encourage this behavior it distracted us ALL for months, so i have to speak up now.

The complaint here is Glen's messaging to the members.  It is now thoroughly discouraged and I'm delighted to see this.  I think Ashtweth and Glen will be hard pressed to deny this covert technique that they both indulge.  Ashtweth's contribution is to email Stefan to get me banned or he will have no respect for Stefan.  LOL. 

My results are almost in and will be posted but not in this thread, until this forum is cleaned up.

Panacea's results have been almost in since May of this year?  I rather think they dived head first into Orbo technology and as this is not resulting in the unequivocal proof they were hoping they're now diving back into this technology of ours.   

In any event guys.  Frankly I'd be happy - on whatever basis this technology is advanced.  But I would rather prefer it that you defer to those who are not actively seeking to kill it.  Somehow I suspect they've disqualified themselves - on that very basis.

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

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi Bill, whether its a mistake or not, it doesn't matter, if people want to be distracted then read about it all on the sky drive account, Glen has done his part, after that we all still have to come back to try and find a person with a good scope who can tune boards and we all can test them. Please dont do that to Glen he certainty does not deserve that, he is under some stress  so lets all try and remember who's side we are on.

Exactly WHAT is being said here?  In the first instance the information should be on the COP>17 Rosemary Ainslie thread where it was first posted.  In the second instance there's a perfectly good scope made available for furthering this technology which Aaron should have forwarded to anyone who requires it.  I know this because I donated it.  Instead of which he has appropriated this scopemeter after just two months of work on the circuit.  And what exactly is being done to Glen?  I believe it is Glen who is frantically trying to get involved in these experiments as he's blown it on the Mosfet Heating circuit where he claims NO ADVANTAGE.  And he is now in a panic lest people discover he was lying.  So he's on a confusing errand to somehow pretend that he's actually all for this technology and he's referring rather belatedly - to the evidence?  Curioser and curioser.   

You should have no trouble with this circuit, if you have a 200mhz scope or better, if some one on OU.com has that, boards could be tuned

Again.  I made that scope available - it cost me plus/minus 3 500 us dollars.  This has now be snaffled and my work buried and until very lately indeed - no further interest in this technology. 

AND tested with a walk through from us and the  biggest independent dissemination of the open work could commence.

I hear the familiar echoes of Harvey's vocabulary here.  Were you on line with him Ashtweth.  Was he advising you on Skype?  The downside of this suggestion is that - while it may be interesting for those members who wish to partake in this - it is absolutely NOT required.  If you wish to do this then start your own thread - ideally on your own forum.  Oh wait.  You've got a thread there.  Pity is that no-one's interested.  Then ask Stefan if you can start your own thread here dedicated to replications.  This thread is NOT about replications.  Nor will I ever again rely on replications in this.  It has shown itself too seductive and the replicators then try and claim sole discovery.  And this will open a can of worms as it relates to threats of independent IP claims. I've learned my lesson.

The advantage of having open source engineers ALL displaying replications from this one scope tuning out let is the Academia wont be able to ignore that, they can ignore one engineer , ask Tom Valone about focus Fusion, no one is policing the academia  i would like a better plan then a thesis and ONE little replication (Rose wants the paper submitted to academia)

Let me disabuse you IMMEDIATELY on this score.  I have NO interest in submitting a paper on this experiment.  And sleep easy here Ashtweth.  The subject is now VERY MUCH with our academia.

A whole bunch of boards and independent results is impossible for them to ignore, i have always said this,

Pity you didn't come up with this suggestion before Ashtweth.  It may have carried some plausible evidence of your actual interest. 

so i hope we can find some people, il donate a board and resistor, there are many here who would also get boards and do tests. Mean time it will be a while till i can tune this board here sadly. If i find an out let you are all welcome to send me your boards to tune.

I suggest you work this one out first.  The skills here are more than sufficient to get the right tuning. 

Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys, here's the thing.  You must yourselves decide what to do here.  I know for a fact that there are members who are interested in replication.  I really don't want to be involved.  Start your own thread?  May be a way around it.  I would assure you that you'd do better with than without assistance from the EF.com crowd - but that's your decision.  Certainly you won't go far wrong in duplicating Glen's switching circuit.  And I'll be able to give you details on the minimum requirement for those resistors.  And - with luck - we may be able to persuade Aaron Murakami to make the scope available to anyone within reasonable reach?  Not sure that this will happen without some payment towards shipping.  But I know shipping costs in US are not as onerous as here in SA.

I must say - I'm not exactly on the same page as Omnibus but I would actually prefer him to get hands on here than otherwise.  And he could certainly advise you all on the techniques to evaluate the power which is something that is entirely lacking at EF.com.  Frankly between him and Sm0ky I reckon you'll be able to find new and better and that's what's needed. 

Anyway - whatever you decide - I'll fall in.  But what is not negotiable is that this thread be used for those replications.  That's just not going to happen.  I've been burned here and burned badly.  Not really ready to go through that again.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[Omnibus]

Rose:

Not to confuse and muddle your topic any more than it is but.....

Your above post sounds so familiar to the stuff we have been working on dealing with the JT circuit and the Stubblefield coil.  There have been many arguments where the energy is coming from...I should say discussions because that is what they were, but the consensus is that the coil is the energy source and the dipole is created within.

I just wanted to mention this in case folks here have not been following our work on the other topics.

As I have said over 2 years ago....most of these topics here on OU are related in some way or another. (In my humble, uneducated opinion)

Bill

Can't agree more. If real, all this has the same origin. Unfortunately, most of it is a result of measurement errors or cannot be sustained there are no such.