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

[truthbeknown]

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #768 on: Today at 04:36:59 AM »

    * Reply with quoteQuote

And guys, it's a condition of this forum that original work MAY NOT BE PATENTED.  This is why I have taken the trouble to ensure that the details of thatconstruct are posted here.  It puts the information firmly in the public domain.  I acknowledge that it's not exactly 'on topic' but as it relates to a method of proving my thesis there is, indeed, a relevance.

And as a reminder to you all.  The project that is being done on campus is driven by students
whose work is very heavily prescribed.  They 'fit in' when and as they can - and I am only grateful that there is any interest at all.  It does seem, however, that there will be LOTS of free time available from next week and we all hope to dedicate more time to this.  I never anticipated these many delays and I realise that it must have taxed everyone's patience.  But as there is much to cover regarding this general subject then I have tried to make good use of that time.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

So now we know your "Loophole." You cannot patent the original work but you fully intend to protect the current work. So it makes sense as to why you have not been sharing with the Open Source Community the details of your "Trade School" experiments.

If this is incorrect and you do intend to divulge ALL details of your current work, will the Open Source Community expect to be able to manufacture devices based on YOUR  current works free of any royalty attachment?

Now there is a question for Posterity.
What are the odds of this NEVER getting answered? Any Bets?

J.
Truthbeknown

[fuzzytomcat]

Hi reading members and guests,

I just had to bring these misrepresented allegation quotes by Rosemary Ainslie over to this thread where the proof of the truth exists in one location, using Rosemary's "in your own words" quotes from Forum postings, PM's and e-mails, where the thread is not moderated by her a member that uses the edit and delete key at a whim.

Guys .  I keep close tally on the 'reads' here and have just realised that the readership on this thread is now exceptionally low.  What a pleasure.  I was about to pull out - thinking that Glen et al were entirely destroying this technology.  In fact, they can do their damndest.  What I now have is precisely that quiet little unobtrusive thread that I was always hoping for - just to keep due record.  I shall regard this as my own kind of 'diary' update.  And I know that - unless Harti bans me - I'll have my own story which will resonante in the future where their own will stand as an example of the victimisation that us poor eccentric thinkers are subjected to.  Inadvertently Glen and Harvey and Icestorm, Truthbeknown and even exnihiloest -  have done me a very real service.  So.  Let me rabbit on.  Even if I'm talking to myself.  Frankly I much prefer it.  I have MUCH that I'd like to keep on record and with this effective destruction of members' interest - then I can do so relatively unobtrusively. 

Let me start with the required 'method' of achieving resonance and please note that this can be done on just about any switching circuit provided only that you either route the energy back to the battery or to an alternate battery.  Assuming that you are following our simple circuit and that the energy is being returned to the source supply battery then the following applies.  You need to MEASURE the energy that is first delivered by the battery and the energy returned.  The required method of establishing that rate of current flow is to use a non-inductive shunt - something that is likely to reliably measure the voltage without adding any distortions.  Actually, having said that, we've only seen a marginal difference between non-inductive and inductive shunts - but for those purists - the argument is better upheld with non-inductive shunts.  The shunt must be posititioned in series either at the positive or the negative terminal of the battery.  Preferably the negative as it will NOT then interfere with the required resonating frequency.

Here's the 'not so easy' part.  You need a reliable means of measuring the DC average voltage across that shunt.  And here's the thinking.  A battery delivers a postive current flow.  Therefore any energy measured above ground will be reflect the amount of energy delivered by that battery.  Any energy returned by the system will be measured below ground.  The amount of energy actually delivered will be the difference between those two values.  So.  To get this value - then one must get a scopemeter that is able to do that sum and at speed.  Therefore - unfortunately - it can ONLY be disclosed with the use of fairly sophisticated scopemeters.  That's the only downside to this application.  In other words - for the most of you who do not have scopes that do this - then - if you DO get to the required resonance - it'll be an accident.  This is why I had to send my own scopemeter to Aaron who convinced me that he was well able to do the required.  What happened here is a story all on it's own which I'll address in due course. 

Back to the 'method.  Then.  Set your zero reference point on the scope - and just PLAY with the duty cycles those 'on off' switches.  Until you see the DC voltage readings begin to default to the 'negative'.  That's the point when the system is in the required resonating mode. At really high frequencies of resonance you will find that there's some major RF which your radios will pick up.  It's also characerised by a fairly loud 'hum'.  The thing is this.  Any one resistor will have varying moments where it falls into that resonance mode.  In other words - the resonance is NOT frequency dependent.  I am reasonably satisfied that just about any conductor/resistor is able to generate that resonance - provided only that it is not entirely overpowered by the supply.  To ensure as wide a range as possible - then it's preferred to use thick guage wiring in either the copper or the iron that you're using.  And it's required that you use sensitive pots that you can increase the 'range' to find that truly optimised resonance. Also preferred is that you test it on coils with a wide hollow girth.  But how wide that girth, and how thick that wire?  That's exactly what we're planning on testing.

The 'moment' when the reading falls below zero is a very 'quick' moment.  Too little or too much in either direction and you're back to losses. 

Regards Rosemary

So guys.  For the record.  It was of paramount importance to Glen that he refute his earlier findings.  But this can't be done - without first saying that the results from his TDS3054C scope was FAULTED.  His frequencies were WELL within the capabilities of that instrument.  What he did was this.  He first called for the use of a more sophisticated instrument.  Then he CAREFULLY tuned the circuit to AVOID that 'negative' value.  Then he rather crowed that his earlier findings were wrong.  If you note his 'time line' you will see that this all happened when his agenda changed from promotion to demotion.  Unfortunately he's caught between a rock and a hard place.  IF the subsequent findings are WRONG - then he needs must WITHDRAW his paper from SCRIBD and he must publicly advise you all that there is NO MERIT IN THE MOSFET SWITCHING CIRCUIT.  That way his work will be relegated to the historical dump yard where it would then belong.  Then in all good conscience - he must earnestly require that no-one waste their time here.  ELSE he must say that his earlier work is correct and that his subesequent tests were wrong.  He really can't have it both ways.  Right now his message is ambivilent.  It's something on the lines of 'There's something there - but hold your horses while I sit around wasting my time by attacking Rosemary. When that exercise is finished and I've buried her - then I'll pull a rabbit out of the hat and THEN.  Howdy Folks.  May I introduce you to myself.  I'm the guy who FOUND THAT RESONATING FREQUENCY and RESCUED OU from the clutches of con artist."

Fortunately, even if this post is never read it will be here as a record.  I don't think Harti will delete it.  Even if he bans me.  And the fact is that that 'negative voltage' is achievable with just about ANY resistor - even standard immersion type resistors. In other words.  THIS IS REALLY EASY TECHNOLOGY.   

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

And may I add.  Without that required measuring instruments - then the resonance must be accidentally achieved and the actual measure of the energy delivered and dissipated will only ever be a thumb suck.  It is NO WONDER it's eluded detection for so long.  I realise now that the likelihood of it EVER being shown is almost zero to nothing.

The thing is that I expected this result so went to the trouble of getting the right scopemeters that could be DC coupled precisely to show that value.   You've got to expect it to first measure it.  Else it can be happening - all over the place - without there being the slightest recognition of the fact.  In other words - it's been with us since day dot.  It's just not been seen.  Resonance is NEVER a desirable condition in the applictions that switching circuits are used for.  It's only reference that I know of is as an 'aperiodic Hartley oscillation' and that's buried in text books closely followed by advice as to how to 'get rid of it'. 

Harvey tries hard to befuddle you all about the complexities of measurement - Glen tries hard to keep the results from public view.  Both of them go to absurd lengths to shout obscenitites about my character, my motives, my abilities - or lack of them, but they're only following an agenda.  They're trying very hard to kill this technology - or they're trying to disassociate me from it's disclosure.  Unfortunately whether they convince you or not - the TRUTH WILL OUT.  This is not rocket science.  It's simple, really SIMPLE science - easily measured within the constraints of the correct scopemeters and easily proved against the performance of batteries against their watt hour ratings.  I see my contribution to all this as being sufficiently SIMPLE MINDED to expect precisely this result.  I am and was not clever enough to find the reasons for it NOT TO WORK.

And while I may have harboured untold doubts about the accuracy of the circuit schematic as it related to the 555 - I have NEVER doubted the efficacy of this RESONANCE.  It's been evident from nearly the very beginning of all our tests. 

Regards,
Rosemary

*HIGHLIGHTED* IN YELLOW - BAD ADVISE from one that has "NO" knowledge of electronic circuitry or electronic component operation or capability of construction of a electronic circuit



ANY ALLEGATIONS FROM ROSEMARY AINSLIE MUST HAVE "PROOF" FROM PM's, E-MAILS OR OPEN SOURCE FORUM POSTING "LINKS" - IF SHE DOESN'T HAVE "PROOF" THERE LIES AND FABRICATIONS AND WILL NOT BE ANSWERED


.

[truthbeknown]

Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #772 on: Today at 04:07:52 AM »

 

And may I add.  Without that required measuring instruments - then the resonance must be accidentally achieved and the actual measure of the energy delivered and dissipated will only ever be a thumb suck.  It is NO WONDER it's eluded detection for so long.  I realise now that the likelihood of it EVER being shown is almost zero to nothing.

The thing is that I expected this result so went to the trouble of getting the right scopemeters that could be DC coupled precisely to show that value.   You've got to expect it to first measure it.  Else it can be happening - all over the place - without there being the slightest recognition of the fact.  In other words - it's been with us since day dot.  It's just not been seen.  Resonance is NEVER a desirable condition in the applictions that switching circuits are used for.  It's only reference that I know of is as an 'aperiodic Hartley oscillation' and that's buried in text books closely followed by advice as to how to 'get rid of it'.

Harvey tries hard to befuddle you all about the complexities of measurement - Glen tries hard to keep the results from public view.  Both of them go to absurd lengths to shout obscenitites about my character, my motives, my abilities - or lack of them, but they're only following an agenda.  They're trying very hard to kill this technology - or they're trying to disassociate me from it's disclosure.  Unfortunately whether they convince you or not - the TRUTH WILL OUT.  This is not rocket science.  It's simple, really SIMPLE science - easily measured within the constraints of the correct scopemeters and easily proved against the performance of batteries against their watt hour ratings.  I see my contribution to all this as being sufficiently SIMPLE MINDED to expect precisely this result.  I am and was not clever enough to find the reasons for it NOT TO WORK.

And while I may have harboured untold doubts about the accuracy of the circuit schematic as it related to the 555 - I have NEVER doubted the efficacy of this RESONANCE.  It's been evident from nearly the very beginning of all our tests.

Regards,
Rosemary






SOUNDS PRETTY SLANDEROUS ABOUT HARVEY AND GLEN SHOUTING OBSCENITIES ABOUT YOU WITHOUT SHOWING SOME "PROOF." 

J.

[fuzzytomcat]

Hi reading members and guests,

Here is a quote from Rosemary on how to get into the "Preferred Mode of Operation" which is entirely incorrect .......

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9442.msg262875#msg262875

Back to the 'method.  Then.  Set your zero reference point on the scope - and just PLAY with the duty cycles those 'on off' switches.  Until you see the DC voltage readings begin to default to the 'negative'.  That's the point when the system is in the required resonating mode.

*******************************************************************************

Hi reading members and guests,

I just had to bring these misrepresented allegation quotes by Rosemary Ainslie over to this thread where the proof of the truth exists in one location, using Rosemary's "in your own words" quotes from Forum postings, PM's and e-mails, where the thread is not moderated by her a member that uses the edit and delete key at a whim.

*HIGHLIGHTED* IN YELLOW - BAD ADVISE from one that has "NO" knowledge of electronic circuitry or electronic component operation or capability of construction of a electronic circuit

ANY ALLEGATIONS FROM ROSEMARY AINSLIE MUST HAVE "PROOF" FROM PM's, E-MAILS OR OPEN SOURCE FORUM POSTING "LINKS" - IF SHE DOESN'T HAVE "PROOF" THERE LIES AND FABRICATIONS AND WILL NOT BE ANSWERED

.

BAD ADVISE from Rosemary that has "NO" knowledge of electronic circuitry or electronic component operation or capability of construction of a electronic circuit
Rosemary's Quote -
Back to the 'method.  Then.  Set your zero reference point on the scope - and just PLAY with the duty cycles those 'on off' switches.  Until you see the DC voltage readings begin to default to the 'negative'.  That's the point when the system is in the required resonating mode.


PREFERRED MODE OF OPERATION - 5-Hour "NON STOP" video - TDS 3054C   January 09, 2010
http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment/video?clipId=pla_6d255c76-9e9a-42ae-a565-fbc698e0b6df

http://www.energeticforum.com/93710-post70.html    May 01, 2010

Hi everyone,

This post is a recap of my "LIVE" recording at "Open Source Research and Development" which is the best recorded representation of the preferred mode of operation a 5-Hour non stop video recording on January 9, 2010 using a Tektronix TDS 3054C Oscilloscope.

This 5 hour video recording is from a dead start after the scope calibration as all testing and evaluation of the circuit. Please see Image time bars for actual recorded times in hours, minutes and seconds.

Channel 1 - Mosfet Source Pin
Channel 2 - Mosfet Drain Pin
Channel 3 - 555 Timer Pin 3
Channel 4 - 24 Volt Battery Bank

Scope Trigger - Channel 1 "FALLING" signal slope [ \ ] "IMPORTANT"

"START"

First connecting the 12 Volt battery to 555 timer circuit only, adjust the "ON" potentiometer to minimum resistance (0), adjust the "OFF" potentiometer to maximum resistance (2K), resulting duty cycle is at about 21.48 % 
http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/01_01_09.jpg

http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/01_02_09.jpg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now Connecting the 24 Volt battery bank to the device circuit not touching the "ON" or "OFF" 555 timer Potentiometer again. The circuit now defaults to a 50 - 55 % duty cycle, no further "ON" or "OFF" potentiometer adjustments needed.
http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/01_03_09.jpg
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now adjusting the "GATE" potentiometer "only" using the oscilloscopes 100ns division for minimum Mosfet source Channel -1 Mean mV from 50 to 70 and the four (4) divisions from the 555 timer "OFF" signal to the Mosfet drain or 24 Volt Battery signal "spike" combined with the Fluke 87 DMM highest voltage reading connected to the 24 volt battery bank
http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/01_04_09.jpg

http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/01_05_09.jpg
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now the double checking of the "GATE" potentiometer adjustment "only" using the oscilloscopes 100ns division for minimum Mosfet source Channel -1 Mean mV from 50 - 70 and the four (4) divisions from the 555 timer "OFF" signal to the Mosfet drain or 24 Volt Battery signal "spike" combined with the Fluke 87 DMM highest voltage reading connected to the 24 volt battery bank.
http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/01_06_09.jpg

http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/01_07_09.jpg
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Mosfet circuit is now 100 % fully functional in the preferred mode of operation and under "load" the 24 Volt Battery bank Voltage is now at 24.70 DC Volts with no further adjustment to be made on any of the circuit potentiometers.
http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/01_08_09.jpg
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A now recorded 24 Volt battery bank voltage increase seen on the Fluke 87 from the starting voltage of 24.70 to 24.72 DC volts.
http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/01_09_09.jpg
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"FINISH"

Now after approximately 5 Hours of continuous operation the 24 Volt battery bank voltage has dropped from the starting voltage of 24.70 to 24.59 Volts DC, a total decrease of .11 Volts DC , maintaining a constant 140 to 145 + degree F temperature on the "Load Resistor" which is about 5.5 watts continuous load.

http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/01_10_09.jpg
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Best Regards,
Glen

EDIT - added images listed in quote

[Harvey]

The circuit is simple yes, but performing proper measurements and obtaining reliable data to work with is not so straight forward, and that is the essence of the problem.

Further adding to the problem, is what constitutes a valid replication? This has never been adequately clarified to my satisfaction, and in fact liberal amounts of scorn have been issued to those deviating slightly from published diagrams. And now, as before, there is talk that the replication does not need to be exact, and that AC power supplies are in fact valid as an example. Another is the resistor design. Surely the one being used in Rose's new heater is drastically different from the one Glen used in test #13, however it must be deemed valid if Rose and her team are currently using it.

.99

Hi .99,

That is a good question regarding "Replication". I recall this subject being very deeply discussed surrounding TK's OCMPMM. My input on the matter drew attention to the distinction between a duplication and a replication. A duplication will not only match the original physical parameters with some measure of precision, but it should also function within the same parameters of the original. A replication on the other hand does not necessarily have to match both. For example, a good 'Replica' may be completely non-functional but still maintain the physical characteristics in looks, texture size etc. Alternatively, a good 'Replica' may also have absolutely no similar physical characteristics, but the function may be absolutely precise. Thus, you can purchase a quarter scale "Replica" of your favorite vehicle, but you don't expect it to function like the original. On the other hand, you can acquire a software emulator that functions as a replica of the actual hardware in the original.

So when we are using the term "Replication" we do need to define what part of the original we are "Replicating" - what exactly are we expecting our replica to do?

Without question, the thing attempting to be replicated was excess energy to the specification of the ratio 17:1. This was the original claim, for each single joule of energy taken from the batteries, 17 joules of energy were dissipated as heat. Truthfully, that is the only defining parameter in the specification of a replication of the original device and it is the minimum requirement, the "Bar" that had to be met as Rosemary once told you in the previous thread.

So, if my device has absolutely no magnetic components at all, and a purely resistive load, but still produces the 17:1 ratio would it be considered a replica? The simple answer is yes, because that is what we are trying to replicate, that energy ratio. Granted, it does nothing for Rosemary's thesis, but it would qualify as a replica.

On the other hand, a duplicate device with identical components that does not function as the original fails to qualify as a functional replication. In other words, it may qualify as a visual replication, or a physical replication, but it would fail to meet the industry requirement of "Independent Replication" which carries with it the understanding of a "Functional Replication". Failing to reach the "bar" of 17:1, would disqualify it as an Independent Replication.

But what if the device is 'similar' in physical characteristics and similar in functional characteristics but it only meets a 7:1 bar? Is it then a replication? Sadly no. At best, it is only a replication attempt that failed to meet the 17:1 bar. IIRC, if two devices are different by a minimum of 10%, they are considered to be different devices entirely.

Consider Glen's Mosfet Heating Circuit. The goal in building and testing that circuit from the beginning was to reach that 17:1 bar by what ever it would take. He tested a variety of resistors in different shapes and sizes and inductance. He experimented with various frequencies and duty cycles. The circuit has been modified a great deal from the original defunct Quantum schematic. Resistor values, capacitor values etc. And his load resistors are completely custom. In fact, the original specifications on the resistor simply are not available and those printed are in gross error. I did find a patent from Rosemary that showed a 100 ohm resistor instead of the 10 ohm that was allegedly calibrated. But the sizing, windings and values just don't add up in her documents. Add to these glaring differences the fact that his circuit functions quite differently than the original. Notice the original waveforms in the document attached. Glens waveforms are clearly different. Also the frequencies are very different. What is the same, or nearly so, is the calculated input power (not energy) in both cases being between 1 and 2 watts average. However, we discovered later that the method used did not correctly handle the AC current in the system. But this error exists in the original data as well as in Glen's data.

Therefore, at best, Glen's device is a failed attempt at  replication.

So the question is, what is required to meet the bar? How do we tell the universe to give us 17 joules back for every joule we give it? Is it thicker wire? Different coil winding capacitance? Multiphasic frequencies? What is the best method for knocking those 'little magnets' around so they give up energy to our system? And what is the cost if any?

There I go again with more questions than answers.

Cheers,

Harvey

Larger Image:http://urad.net/forums/gallery/albums/userpics/Patent_App_6.JPG