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

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello again Twinbeard,

The difference between the two forums is chalk and cheese.  This forum seems to be dominated by a more critical input from our members which the other forum tends to disallow.  As a result the input here is more creative and less inclined to be 'tuned' to some kind of moral requirement - determined by the forum owners.  This has the real advantage of making the posts more interesting - is my humble opinion.  The talent here is considerable.  And the standard of articulation exceptional.  And so nice to have one's 'freedom of speech' permitted - if not encouraged - obviously within the bounds of decency.  LOL.

But I know something about the 'attack' and the general desire to 'silence one'.  That's scarey.  One must never underestimate the 'effectiveness' of those who actively oppose clean green.  Delighted to read that you'll be actively engaged here Scott.  I don't think you'll regret it.  If I can lend a helping hand here and there I'll do so.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie   

[exnihiloest]

I'm afraid I not only DO NOT understand but would ask you WHY you are imposing your demand on this thread?  If you wish to engage with replicators...

My question, simple and perfectly understandable, was:

"I'm interested in third party replications.
Did someone replicate the Rosemary Ainslie Circuit and confirm a COP>1?"

If it was unclear, here is what I'm searching for: an experimenter here whom I can speak with. Am I wrong to think that there are here experimenters of the "Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit" as titled? Is this thread not allowed for such a question?

I'm not interested in web stuff in matter of experimental evidence, the past has shown that 100% of OU claims are not duplicable (scam or mistake is not the question).

The only positive post I saw here, related to my question, is from twinbeard who plans to make a replication, so I will be waiting for his results (I am now working on other projects and before keeping this one for the future, I'm just wanting to know its level of credibility).

[twinbeard]

I am willing to replicate this device over others because I understand its workings, its method of extracting energy from the environment, and can likely tell you the results before building it... my hypothesis is that Rosemary's results will be completely verified, as they have been by others. This device has all the necessary components exploiting all the necessary principles to produce COP > 1.  These type of system MUST be tuned properly by the operator to show these results.  Further, it is almost a given that the builder, and often the operator understand the principles behind the operations of these devices in order to achieve the proper optimizations and arrangement of the tunable variables required for these performance levels.  That requires an open mind, and a willingness to venture into technology not entirely explainable by classical physics.

This thought that some of these technologies cannot be replicated is erroneous, IMHO.  Many technologies have their underlying operations obfuscated, even when patented, as the inventor wants to protect their invention more often than not.  Other times there are critical details not present in replications.

I suggest you employ Rosemary's finely detailed documentation to make a replication.  She has made it as easy as it gets, as far as that goes.  I liken it to a non-programmer trying to install and use Gentoo Linux.  If you do not know what a compiler is, how can you build an application from source?

Cheers,
Twinbeard

My question, simple and perfectly understandable, was:

"I'm interested in third party replications.
Did someone replicate the Rosemary Ainslie Circuit and confirm a COP>1?"

If it was unclear, here is what I'm searching for: an experimenter here whom I can speak with. Am I wrong to think that there are here experimenters of the "Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit" as titled? Is this thread not allowed for such a question?

I'm not interested in web stuff in matter of experimental evidence, the past has shown that 100% of OU claims are not duplicable (scam or mistake is not the question).

The only positive post I saw here, related to my question, is from twinbeard who plans to make a replication, so I will be waiting for his results (I am now working on other projects and before keeping this one for the future, I'm just wanting to know its level of credibility).

[Rosemary Ainslie]

My question, simple and perfectly understandable, was:

"I'm interested in third party replications.
Did someone replicate the Rosemary Ainslie Circuit and confirm a COP>1?"

Your question is did anyone replicate the circuit?  I answered it ad nauseum.  Here is the answer again.  The details of the REPLICATION are in this OPEN SOURCE PAPER.  If the question had been - 'have any of the members here tried to replicate? - then I could have answered you appropriately.  If you had asked 'can I engage with anyone who has replicated ' then again - someone, no doubt, would have answered you.  Your phrasing of the question is what is at issue. 

If it was unclear, here is what I'm searching for: an experimenter here whom I can speak with. Am I wrong to think that there are here experimenters of the "Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit" as titled? Is this thread not allowed for such a question?

Yes.  Just phrase your question correctly.  Else - don't go off into a tirade about the answer you get.

I'm not interested in web stuff in matter of experimental evidence, the past has shown that 100% of OU claims are not duplicable (scam or mistake is not the question).

Wrong again.  We have given you ALL THE PROOF THAT YOU COULD POSSIBLY REQUIRE THAT THE CLAIM IS INDEED DUPLICABLE.

The only positive post I saw here, related to my question, is from twinbeard who plans to make a replication, so I will be waiting for his results (I am now working on other projects and before keeping this one for the future, I'm just wanting to know its level of credibility).

You do NOT need to evaluate it's level of credibility.  IT HAS BEEN REPLICATED.  Is there any way I can make this plainer?  You write in English.  I understand therefore you speak English.  If so, then - here it is again.  There was an early test.  That test was replicated.  Details of the work that went into the REPLICATION are in that paper.     May I give you the link - yet again.  HERE IT IS.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS

It occurs to me - exnihiloest - that you are determined to IGNORE the fact that this paper references a full on replication and that you will only repeatedly 'STRESS' the claim that the experiment has NOT BEEN REPLICATED.  That you cannot read the fact - notwithstanding repeated corrections of this misconception - speaks to some kind of mind set or bias or preconception that is rather less than scientifically competent. 

[exnihiloest]

...
Wrong again.  We have given you ALL THE PROOF THAT YOU COULD POSSIBLY REQUIRE THAT THE CLAIM IS INDEED DUPLICABLE.
You do NOT need to evaluate it's level of credibility. 
...

Well, in this case, please consider that I want to do what I don't need.