**UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??

[Rosemary Ainslie]

To whoever is reading here - May I give you a brief reminder of my history as it relates to this drive for Clean Green energy.  Some 11 years ago - I read a book 'The Dancing Wu Li Masters' by Gary Zukov.  I was enthralled - having never studied physics.  Although not exactly emphasised in that book - but was nonetheless apparent - was the fact that there were many questions out there in physics.  Certainly there was no explanation for those questions that I found myself asking.  And when I referred to our academics it became ever more apparent that they also didn't have the answers.  So.  If I was going to find those solutions I needed to look for it myself.  I applied some simple logic tools to the questions that I personally found critical - and found a solution that was so simple it took my breath away.  I 'floated' for some 3 weeks - feeling that I now had the 'secrets of the universe'.  Very heady experience - but inappropriate unless I could also test those insights.

I 'ran' the first proposed test past two theoretical physicists at UCT.  Prof Viole and Prof Kleymans.  This first test was a very badly drawn schematic of the switching circuit which was subsequently represented more in line with convention but, in principle, has never actually varied from that first design.  Both concurred that if it did what was intended it would be conclusive proof of that thesis.  In point of fact what I intended and did was apply a switch to an electric current - so that I could induce a second cycle of current flow from the material in the resistor.  It seemed SO obvious.  But nor did I realise that convention assumed that current flow had everything to do with the flow of electrons.  In fact both Zukov and Dyson (another physicist whom I studied) claimed that the CONCEPT of current flow was only advanced as the 'flow of electrons' but in fact was not.  I assumed that this was widely accepted.

Be that as it may - the fact is that we tested that first circuit - then a second - then a third - then a fourth and every time with better and better measuring instruments - and, as day followed night - the results were EXACTLY as predicted by that thesis.  More energy was being dissipated by the circuit than was being delivered by the energy supply source.  Many people tested this.  Many companies.  The only people who would NOT get publicly involved were our academics.  Here there was ABSOLUTE resistance.

Now.  Bear in mind the circuit was only used to prove the thesis that predicted this result.  But I was well aware of the fact that the test itself was ridiculously inadequate to prove ALL the potential energy.  Not only that - it is was clumsy.  Far better configurations were evident - even to me - albeit outside the range of my affordability.  In any event.  I won't go into the bleak years that followed as I tried to advance the circuit technology - just this small sample - a mere INTRODUCTION to all this - to all that I saw as an answer to our energy problems.  I learned, to my cost, the weight of bigotry that seems to go hand in hand with science.  All questions in science should be permitted especially if they can be experimentally verified.  But for some reason my questions were NOT permitted and without academic endorsement of the experimental results there was absolutely NO possibility of advancement.

So I decided to 'publish and be damned' - and the only place I could publish was in a technical journal - being Quantum magazine.  That submitted paper was duly edited.  The thesis reference was omitted - for one.  But the editor REQUIRED the written acknowledgement of those accreditors - and even here the list was restricted to those Companies that were quoted on our local and/or international bourses.  In other words they had to be PUBLIC.  Both Glen and Harvey try to claim that there as there is no evidence of those letters then they never existed.  But I would like to remind you all that no self-respecting editor would publish the endorsement of public companies without first having proof of that endorsement.  And frankly, even then, I was too old and too hard bitten to risk mentioning their accreditation without such written evidence.  Else I would have been subjected to the kind of litigation which would certainly have impoverished me.  And frankly the only reason that I am absolutely NOT prepared to disclose the personalities involved in those tests is because it may very well impact unfavourbly on their best interests.   I was already grateful for being able to mention their companies.  It was enough.  And by now I was well aware of the unpopularity of the claim.

After this, and after yet another public demonstration of the test I put it all the apparatus into a cupboard and realised that I personally could do nothing further.  But the weight of that disappointment was most almost more than I could manage.  Some 5 years after this, that depression was extreme.  My son realised this.  Really to see if it might ignite some interest on the internet he eventually posted my blog.  And there it indeed 'took fire'.  That's when I learned, for the first time - that there was any interest at all in challenging conventional restrictions related to energy transfer. 

My involvement on these forums has been extremely turbulent.  But I am not that sorry as I also think that it served to add to the general interest.  But EVERY time a reader concludes that there is/was no benefit - then it has failed - DISMALLY.  And that is precisely what Glen and Harvey are here trying to imply.  Alternatively they are trying to imply that I am a liar and am not responsible for this circuit in the first instance.  I suspect that Harti may endorse this opinion as he even allows this thread which is clearly intended to work against all that I am trying to promote.  I just don't know. 

What I ASSURE you all is this.  It is INDEED easy to breach the so called energy barrier.  That barrier was errected MISTAKENLY and is based on entirely ERRONEOUS assumptions - which, frankly, I think Maxwell himself refuted - Tesla entirely DISPROVED on electric applications - and Leedskalnin DISPROVED on gravitational applications.  BUT.  Because the more extreme values are the result of resonance - those values are not easy to prove.  It requires sophisticated measuring intruments - always.  Unless, as we've now determined we can prove this on a specialised circuit that a colleague of mine has built.  But - on the whole - the debate that rages should really - after all this time be put to bed.

That was the intention of the test replication that I assisted Glen with.  Unfortunately - for whatever reason - he has tried to assert ownership of that data and to distance my involvement in it.  He claims that I have patent interests knowing full well that this is nonsense.  What is of concern is why he and Harvey need to claim this at all?  My interests in this technology are always - in truth - in the thesis.  I am reasonably satisfied that the thesis can resolve all the forces into a single magnetic field - with a magnetic dipole as the particle in that field.  That is my contribution.  What comes from this new perspective will, I think be a complete renaissance to physics.  And then those really clever people out there will make very good sense of it.  All I have done and can do it point at a skeleton or frame of what may well be the whole body of aether.  But do take a look.  And please do not believe the nonsense that both Harvey and Glen are promoting.  I stand to make nothing from this.  If we ever manage to up the wattage on our heating application, as we're intending - then even that will be quickly superceded by far more sophisticated and intelligent ways of applying this energy.  If I wanted a monopoly I would hardly be sharing all that I do.  And if I wanted fame and recognition I'd be doing my damndest to publish.  I simply want to share some rather interesting insights that I feel may well promote a new perspective on this problem of proving our aether energies.

Regards
Rosemary

Sorry all.  I had to apply some hefty editing here.  I have never in my life read such unadulterated bombast - in the way it had been phrased. If there's a moral here - it's this.  Don't try and write in the early hours of the morning when you're also exhausted.  LOL.

EDITED

[fuzzytomcat]

Howdy reading members and guests,

This is a continuation from Reply #90 on October 29, 2010 http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9898.msg262403#msg262403

Hi everyone,

Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie ( Over Unity Forum Thread  )
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.0    ( 189 pages - 2825 Replys )

Reply #2824 on: February 03, 2010
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg226495#msg226495

    Well Rosemary it would have been nice to have the FULL story that during this whole 8 month testing and evaluation exercise of the Quantum "Mosfet Heating Circuit" device that in fact "YOU" presently have in your possession "in storage" withheld from all experimenters .....

    1) Working models of the Quantum "Mosfet Heating Circuit" device
    2) Components of the Quantum "Mosfet Heating Circuit" device
    3) Photographs of the Quantum "Mosfet Heating Circuit" device
    4) Documented information from BP
    5) Documented information from ABB

     And this was nothing but a Chinese Fire Drill for any and all experimenters with only moral support from you, not divulging that you have done this in a attempt of a "independent verification" of any findings on the Quantum article for your thesis "ONLY" nothing else.

     This has been nothing but duping the "Open Source" community for help in creating a Academic paper to promote your thesis on your Magnetic Field Model nothing else.

This was a post of mine on February 03, 2010 and I left it alone because of the in your own word's "Quotes" that are available in several Open Source Forums postings that verify Rosemary's comments or claims all outlined in my publicly posted claim above and thought readers would be able to find the quoted words but it appears not, there's to many posts 1000's to sift through ..... I have no pleasure repeating them again, but really need too now.

The word Rosemary uses loosely always concerning the rejected IEEE paper submittal of "WE", is not in my word's and at best misleading, I can speak for myself on my Tests.

Items 1 through 5 will be referenced one at a time to avoid the hundreds of pages and thousands of responses in the thread, many will be from Rosemary Ainslie in a attempt to bury the evidence in pages of nonsense postings hiding the truth from the members and reading guests.

ITEM NUMBER 1 has been covered now in POST #91 http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9898.msg262460#msg262460 and POST #106 http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9898.msg262544#msg262544 on Rosemary Ainslie withholding a "Complete WORKING "QUANTUM" COP>17 EXPERIMENTAL DEVICES" knowing and willfully has hidden it from the Open Source Community after July, 13 2009

This is without a response of any kind a quick attack, misrepresentation or allegation somehow defending her "HER OWN QUOTED WORDS" from a Energetic Forum post #551 http://www.energeticforum.com/60279-post511.html  on July 13, 2009

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ITEM NUMBER 2

WORKING COMPONENTS OF A "QUANTUM" COP>17 EXPERIMENTAL DEVICES WITHHELD FROM OPEN SOURCE

http://www.energeticforum.com/59541-post322.html    POST #322  07-07-2009

witsend
Senior Member

Guys, I think the need to at least display our waveform is taken on board. I have no idea how to do this and will have to impose on my co-author's time which is already massively constrained. So don't hold your breath but I will try and get this.

I will also, subject to my son's return - try and get some video information our on our own circuit. It is the same as the box that was sent to ABB for their replication purposes. Some years after their tests, they contacted me and asked what they were to do with that box. I was in correspondence with someone - can't remember who - and asked them to ship it to him. But it is feasible to replicate the circuitry. I'm just not sure who will do this. I certainly can't. But I could, at least, ask around. It's just that the guys who worked on the circuit are now drowning in other work and one of them has left for Durban - so is not easily reached.

But, as I see it, all that is needed is some accurate assessment of the energy returned to the battery. Is it that difficult to get hold of the correct measuring instruments? Perhaps Aaron you could advise me here. I can't see any other way of working out the energy in that 'spike' without the meter that can tell the difference between the two current cycles.

I will also, subject to my son's return - try and get some video information our on our own circuit. It is the same as the box that was sent to ABB for their replication purposes. Some years after their tests, they contacted me and asked what they were to do with that box.

Why were the October 2002 Quantum COP>17 experimental components knowing and willfully hidden from the Open Source Community after July 07, 2009 ??

    1) It's not a COP>17 device
    2) It's being hidden because of "errors" in the Quantum article electronic diagram, electrical calculations and recorded data
    3) It's being hidden because of Intellectual Property Rights of Rosemary Ainslie, Investors or others involved in South Africa
    4) It's being hidden because of a requirement for a 100% "Independent" verification of any experimental device close to the self authored October 2002 Quantum article context or content for a self serving Academic thesis paper
    5) Secret hidden alternative motives
    6) ??

    TAKE YOUR PICK - 1 through 6 ( or all )

Again, some would try to lead you in belief of destroying, dismantling or even loosing a incredible device components that has a COP>17 ..... who in their right mind would do something as stupid as this,  especially anytime "AFTER" the date of July 07, 2009 of the Open Source posting ....


.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I believe Glen, that you were well aware of the dismantling of that device when and as it occurred and that niether you nor any member on EF.com advised against this.  This was to secure the Fluke 123 Scopemeter for Aaron - as well as those platinum based probes, my multimeter and the rest.  NO-ONE advised on the importance of keeping that apparatus.  But there's no loss.  It's really SIMPLE apparatus to assemble, as you well know and, indeed have shown us.  If it were an 'effect' that was dependent on solar flares, or vague and eccentric attributes in exotic component material - then INDEED - it would have been CRITICAL to keep that apparatus.

And nor do I need to prove anything at all beyond what is already proven.  What you need to do is DISPROVE my claim.  Unfortunately for you I have a barrel load of evidence to hand that rather contradicts your best efforts here.  LOL.  More would have been more readily available had you not deleted your own data from EF.com.

I acknowledge that there are certain aspects of both acquiring the necessary resonance - and evaluating the output that can only be achieved with the use of good measuring instruments.  But the circuit is really just any and every SIMPLE SWITCHING CIRCUIT.  When more people test it - with the required scopemeters to expose these benefits - then MORE AND MORE people will be aware of this effect.  Nothing exotic here Glen.  Nothing at all.  It's only you who keeps trying to imply that it is.   And our circuit does not need to be EXACTLY duplicated.  There are MANY ways of skinning this cat.  It's the understanding of where that benefit comes from that's required.  But that there is a COP greater anything allowed by conventional assumption - is ABSOLUTELY NOT arguable.

I think the real reason you keep going on and on about this is because you want to establish this invention as your own.  Feel free.  But there's not a living soul who'll believe you.  Even in the unlikely event that they believe these unsubstantiated, rather absurd allegations that you keep throwing up against me.  Your credibility is ENTIRELY suspect.  Where, may I ask - is your own development of this technology?  More to the point - where is all that data that I actively assisted you in finding?  But rattle on.  Please.  Any publicity is good publicity.  And the more publicity this technology gets - the better.  And for my own part - if you do manage to convince the world and it's wife that I am anything at all as you're ALLEGING - then so what?  I don't think my reputation is the issue.  It's irrelevant.  The ONLY thing that matters is that this technology is progressed and that it's better understood and that it becomes widely applied.  For the rest I really do not care.

Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And guys, readers, all - to anyone who is still following this tired little thread - that started with such pomposity and now dying for want of attention - here's the thing.

Open source carries many dangers.  It is possible that jealous replicators will try, again and again, to claim their replications as a discovery.  So this little incident of Glen's will probably happen again as time goes by - and as other claims are tested.  All that's happening - as I see it - is that the aether energies are beginning to intrude on universal consciousness - and the proof of this is now getting overwhelming.  And.  As the technology is clearly desirable - then there are those who will want to own it.  But there's a simple principle supporting all this.  The technologies required to expose this energy are way too easy to copy.  And the energy itself is just way too plentiful.  It'll have no scarcity value.  No-one can effectively patent something that relies on a simple coil, a battery and a switch - whether or not it runs a motor.  And even Harvey - a prime mutterer of this retrospective denial - has had to concede that not even he can account for SO MUCH more energy available than is evident and measured in heat. 

We're at the early stages guys.  Right now it's only important to measure and measure and measure.  We're all doing our bit.  I confidently believe that we'll have all this in the bag within the next few months.  And the excitement then will make all this nonsense entirely IRRELEVANT.  And I'm not sure that our own circuit will be the focus of attention at all.  It's rather clumsy - albeit effective.

Regards,
Rosemary

[fuzzytomcat]

Howdy reading members and guests,

I believe Glen, that you were well aware of the dismantling of that device when and as it occurred and that niether you nor any member on EF.com advised against this.  This was to secure the Fluke 123 Scopemeter for Aaron - as well as those platinum based probes, my multimeter and the rest.  NO-ONE advised on the importance of keeping that apparatus.  But there's no loss.  It's really SIMPLE apparatus to assemble, as you well know and, indeed have shown us.  If it were an 'effect' that was dependent on solar flares, or vague and eccentric attributes in exotic component material - then INDEED - it would have been CRITICAL to keep that apparatus.

And nor do I need to prove anything at all beyond what is already proven.  What you need to do is DISPROVE my claim.  Unfortunately for you I have a barrel load of evidence to hand that rather contradicts your best efforts here.  LOL.  More would have been more readily available had you not deleted your own data from EF.com.

I acknowledge that there are certain aspects of both acquiring the necessary resonance - and evaluating the output that can only be achieved with the use of good measuring instruments.  But the circuit is really just any and every SIMPLE SWITCHING CIRCUIT.  When more people test it - with the required scopemeters to expose these benefits - then MORE AND MORE people will be aware of this effect.  Nothing exotic here Glen.  Nothing at all.  It's only you who keeps trying to imply that it is.   And our circuit does not need to be EXACTLY duplicated.  There are MANY ways of skinning this cat.  It's the understanding of where that benefit comes from that's required.  But that there is a COP greater anything allowed by conventional assumption - is ABSOLUTELY NOT arguable.

I think the real reason you keep going on and on about this is because you want to establish this invention as your own.  Feel free.  But there's not a living soul who'll believe you.  Even in the unlikely event that they believe these unsubstantiated, rather absurd allegations that you keep throwing up against me.  Your credibility is ENTIRELY suspect.  Where, may I ask - is your own development of this technology?  More to the point - where is all that data that I actively assisted you in finding?  But rattle on.  Please.  Any publicity is good publicity.  And the more publicity this technology gets - the better.  And for my own part - if you do manage to convince the world and it's wife that I am anything at all as you're ALLEGING - then so what?  I don't think my reputation is the issue.  It's irrelevant.  The ONLY thing that matters is that this technology is progressed and that it's better understood and that it becomes widely applied.  For the rest I really do not care.

Rosemary

Again, some would try to lead you in belief of destroying, dismantling or even loosing a incredible device components that has a COP>17 ..... who in their right mind would do something as stupid as this,  especially anytime "AFTER" the date of July 07, 2009 of the Open Source posting ....

Provide "PROOF" - PM's, E-mails or Forum posting locations including "LINKS"

http://www.energeticforum.com/93746-post74.html      POST #74   May 02, 2010

FuzzyTomCat   
Senior Member
        

Originally Posted by Harvey
Thanks Glen,

As always I am impressed by your work

I was trying to do some basic calculations on how long your two batteries can sustain a 5.5 watt load. I come up with about 104 hours, does that sound right? They are each 12Ah batteries so there is 24Ah of charge in them. A basic DC breakdown is 5.5W / 24V = 0.229A. 24Ah / 0.229A = 104 hours.

So all we need to do now is run for more than 104 hours on those batteries and we have pretty good proof that we have extra energy coming from somewhere else And that's not even counting the lost energy in MOSFET or CSR to heat. Good Stuff!

ETA: Oh, I almost forgot - if we conclude that those Gel-Cell (edit: wait, those or Liquid Acid?) batteries are discharged when they reach 10V each, then that would be a drop of 4V over the 104 hours. That would give us a 0.0385V (38.5mV) drop per hour. So for the 5 hours we would have expected a minimum of 193mV drop not counting the energy spent on the MOSFET and CSR. Our results show only 110mV drop in that time frame, 83mV short of the linear projection. So you can see why we think we are getting energy from somewhere. Either that, or our battery discharge is not linear And BTW, it only gets better for us if we conclude the battery voltage should be lower than 10V when discharged (of course we all know that the battery voltage needs to be measured under specific load conditions)

Hey Harvey,

I'm sorry it took so long to do a detailed overview of the "LIVE" broadcast I did in the "Open Source Research and Development" channel on the January 9, 2010 5 Hour non stop video recording.

This video as you are aware is one of the best ever recorded representation of the preferred mode of operation but only in a non stop 5 Hour video. I'm sure that many members and guests don't realize the difficulty in capturing this effect for the purpose of recording the data properly and if given the time looking at the recorded video everyone can see the problems that we face in getting accurate data.

The constant 24 volt battery bank voltage fluctuations going up and down the Mosfet "drain" spike oscillating from 500 to 900 volts, battery voltage down the Mosfet spikes, battery voltage up the Mosfet voltage to normal operating range, back and forth over and over.

I have tried to get as close to this mode of operation in Test #13 which was used in the IEEE submittal Open Source Evaluation of Power Transients Generated to Improve Performance Coefficient of Resistive Heating Systems the team including yourself did, and in Test #22 but never being able to record the data scientifically correct because of the circuits complex oscillating waveforms. I don't think everyone, members and guests understands that the Test #13 was done with a Tektronix TDS 3054C which has a maximum resolution of 10K of data spread over a 10 x 10 grid or divisions so each one has 1k of data samples separately for each of the 4 channels. The data collected in Test #22 was with a Tektronix DPO 3054 which has a maximum resolution of 5M of data, but I used the 100K which is spread over the same 10 x 10 grid or divisions so each one has 10k of data samples separately for each of the 4 channels ..... ten ( 10 ) times the data of the TDS 3054C used in Test #13.

The problem being we need to find a method of capturing the data continuously in real time, there's nothing wrong with Tektronix TDS 3054C or the DPO 3054 these are the finest instruments I've ever used and are extremely accurate, but if you push the acquire button at the wrong time you can appear to get conflicting or skewed data, not the case .... were you before the spike, during the spike or after the spike when the data was collected. I had a allotted dedicated set time to record the data, It was the time frame I used with the 6 minutes or as fast as the data could be physically collected with the finest equipment I had at my disposal.

I am in total agreement with you that something "good" is happening in the Mosfet Heating Circuit and can be plainly seen in the recorded videos, we just need to somehow get a streaming real time data recording. Maybe by somehow obtaining a Real-Time Spectrum Analyzers from Tektronix or some other method to verify the data findings as you suggested, the equipment I previously used as good as it is, just isn't enough to totally capture what is occurring during the preferred mode of operation.

Best Regards,
Glen

I am in total agreement with you that something "good" is happening in the Mosfet Heating Circuit and can be plainly seen in the recorded videos, we just need to somehow get a streaming real time data recording. Maybe by somehow obtaining a Real-Time Spectrum Analyzers from Tektronix or some other method to verify the data findings as you suggested, the equipment I previously used as good as it is, just isn't enough to totally capture what is occurring during the preferred mode of operation.


.