For the following reasons, I don't see the need to post all my simulations again:

1) They've been posted in this thread to some degree, and in your "demonstration" thread also on this forum. There is also a document posted that goes through the measurement analysis. So it's all here already.

2) No one here is asking for these simulation posts, except you. And you've already seen them all.

I'm sure the 3 readers here are much more keen on seeing my actual test results, as they'll be much more convincing than the simulation.

Is Schubert 'no-one'?  You saw him trying to put this together - unsolicited.  You know he would not have bothered if he was aware of your earlier efforts.  So?  Surely the trick is to rally?  Poynty Point?

Perhaps if you could just provide a link to that 'document of denial' - it would be something.  Then anyone at all can decide whether or not to look into this any more deeply.  It would be appreciated - I'm sure.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Sorry - I put in the wrong reference. 

Guys - apologies for repeating this post but there's an important emphasis on this paragraph.
The amendments are highlighted.  I'm trying to stress the fact that we have NOT made a measurements error.  We've only used standard protocols.  Therefore.  Again.  Here's the situation.  Our standard measurement protocols - all those sums related to conventional power analysis MUST EITHER BE FLAWED  -  OR -  there's an alternate energy supply source.  And it's the existence of an alternate energy source that's the theme of the 2nd part of our two-part paper.  And that alternate energy source is proposed to be in a field that is extraneous to the atom - but is responsible for binding all coalesced matter.  In other words - among other things - it's also a 'binding' force.   

Regards,
Rosemary

Yes, Rosemary, your measurements are flawed... or rather, your understanding of what your are measuring and what to do with the measurements is flawed.

I'll keep on posting this until you deal with it. Either tell us it's correct, or it's wrong. If it's wrong, correct it and explain what's wrong.

[cite] Rosemary Ainslie[/cite]NOW.  Let's look at your 'self-runner' demands.  We have never recharged those batteries - with one exception.  Two caught fire and BOTH were fully recharged.  We've had those batteries since January 2010.  We've been running them since August 2010.  I've now FINALLY checked their rated capacities.  They're 40 ampere hours each.  We've used 6 of them continually since that time.  According to this rating they are each able, theoretically to dissipate 12 volts x 40 amps x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 1 hour x 6 batteries.  That gives a work potential - a total potential output of 10 368 000 JOULES.

According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade.  We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade.  We ran that test for 90 minutes.  Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104.  We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes.  Ambient was at 16.  Joules = 1 watt per second.  So.  Do the math.  4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.  Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.  Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.  All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating.  And that was just one test.  Now.  Over the 10 month period that those batteries have been running at various outputs - which, when added to the output on just this one test - then I think its safe to say that the evidence is conclusive.  Those batteries have outperformed. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH.  They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.

For the other two readers: Note that this calculation contains Rosemary's ENTIRE CLAIM OF EXCESS BATTERY LIFETIME AND RECHARGING within it, in addition to including at least two major conceptual errors involving power calculations.  A Joule is NOT a "watt per second" and until you realize that, and what it means, you are ALWAYS going to get the wrong answers, Rosie dear.

DO THE MATH.

And guys, at the risk of boring you all to death - perhaps I should remind you what our ACTUAL CLAIM encompasses - lest you're inclined to believe any biased 'representations'.  The claim is fully defined in our papers.  Nothing outside of what is written in those papers applies. 

We have measured proof of INFINITE COEFFICIENT OF PERFORMANCE.  This, by definition, means that there's every evidence of some energy supply source that has not been factored into classical analysis of electrical power delivery.  Not only that - but we have evidence of a waveform that is not explicable in terms of the standard model - in any context at all.  This requires a revision of our measurement protocols.  And it requires a revision of the properties of current flow that may not be entirely in line with conventional assumptions.

IF our claim also related to the performance of batteries - then we'd have to evaluate their chemical performance exclusively.  That is outside the scope of the authors' expertise.  And therefore battery draw down rates are NOT a part of our 'official' or 'written 'claims'.  However, since this is pertinent to the evaluation of efficiency - we are MORE THAN HAPPY to do any test required to evaluate this as well - with the caveat that such tests will be considered conclusive.  We anticipate a marked improvement in battery performance over its rating.

Meanwhile - what we're looking at is the potential to deliver significant levels of energy that appears to come from the circuit material exclusively.  This also needs full experimentation and evaluation.  Because IF this proved to be correct, then we have found a 'source' of energy that is highly exploitable.  And this, if anything, is an understatement of its potential.  Which is why I propose that competing interests would see MORE CAUSE to discredit us than even LENR.  Which is also why I run such enormous risk in posting this on Open Source.  And the reason that I continue to do so is because Open Source has the indubitable merit of 'spreading the word'.  This is the more so when the technology and I are both subjected to continual 'attack'.  Because most readers align themselves on one or other side of a confrontation.  And that level of engagement is preferred over indifference.

It's just a pity that one has to deal with polarised opinions.  But if that's the cost - then I'll pay it gladly.

Regards,
Rosemary

 

It's sad over several years and 6000 to 7000 of her personal posts in many forums that Rosemary Ainslie (aka witsend and aetherevarising )at ...  http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/      (banned) The Naked Scientists Forum - Index                             (banned) Thunderbolts Forum • Index page                         (banned) OverUnity Research - Index                                        (ran away) Free Energy - Freie Energie - energia libre - OverUnity.com     on her way out .....

OMG... 

And guys, of interest - I carry the unique distinction among all posters that I was actually BANNED from a forum before ever even joining.  That may give you some indication of the level of 'anxiety' our technology seems to solicit.

Golly.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

I don't really understand why you guys keep harassing Rosemary.  She has done a lot of hard work and has probably developed the first overunity device in history.  And with COP of infinity, this is not just slightly over unity but quite an invention.  Just let her work and publish her results in peace.  If you don't like her device, you can make your own, or is this jealousy because you have not developed an over unity device yourself yet?

Do you research into the subject that you make comments on, It has been clear for many years that Rosemary circuit is not OU.
Clearly you would say I am wrong. Okay then show us all your working OU replication. I didn't think you could,
nobody credible has been able to do that because all Rosemary has is a claim and nothing but a claim,
it is now legendary as is her stubbornness to face reality.

Do you research into the subject that you make comments on, It has been clear for many years that Rosemary circuit is not OU.
Clearly you would say I am wrong. Okay then show us all your working OU replication. I didn't think you could,
nobody credible has been able to do that because all Rosemary has is a claim and nothing but a claim,
it is now legendary as is her stubbornness to face reality.

Guys when I get powercat, Fuzzy AND TK - on one page - then I've got the 'trolls from hell'.    It seems that Harti has really 'Let loose the dogs of war'.  LOL.  In any event, IF there were any truth in this post of powercat's - then I'm afraid that Fuzzy himself has rather proved the lie.      For those who are NOT aware of the history here - then this is the link.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems

You may notice for yourself that this details a REPLICATION of our earlier test.  Confusingly Fuzzy now denies that he replicated anything at all.  But nor is he prepared to withdraw that paper.  Which is all rather irregular.  In any event.  That paper is of interest as it details the 'second generation' so to speak of this technology.  It was an open source effort - which speaks rather sadly of open source efficacy.  I'll not try THAT again.  I've never got to the bottom of Fuzzy's objections.  All I can tell you as a fact is that the paper claims to be a replication of our earlier published test.  And that claim seemingly is endorsed by Fuzzy in as much has he has not withdrawn it.  In any event.  I'm only referencing this that those of you who are NOT familiar with the history - can check out that alternate method of getting to efficiencies..  In other words, the efficacy is also easily proven on a purely 'switched circuit' without the Q-array of the 'third generation' so to speak - of this circuit.  But it does not result in INFINITE COP.  And nor does it go to the heart of the issue as do our final tests of this.  But it most certainly is still very much a replication.  I believe Harvey Gramm - who was responsible for writing one third of that paper - proposed that the entire paper was written by himself and that the test detailed in  it was actually Fuzzy's 'discovery'.  This largely based on the fact that Fuzzy only managed COP>6 and not COP>17 as we did.  And this because, apparently - our earlier paper had some error in it associated with the resistor details.  Ahhhh.  It's all too tedious to repeat.  And the motives of denial - somewhat embarrassingly transparent.

I'm afraid I've been trying to distance myself from that entire event as it reminded me that involvement of forum members in a replication is NOT to expect the involvement of professionals.  Little did I know.  And this particular effort of mine was heavily tarnished by its lack.  But check out the paper.  It's interesting. 

Thanks for your efforts there eatenbyagrue.  I'll see if I can get this thread on track again. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

edited.

Anyway - moving on.

We're likely to be published as we've been called on to do some minor editing of our paper.  And the collaborators have been asked to present CV's.  This is very promising.  But I'm not sure that I can, therefore, publish our own paper here - until that's been finalised.  But what I can do is print out the appendix in that paper - as that is not the 'meat' of the claim.  And it may assist you all in seeing what it is that we're trying to point to.

I'll do it in a series of posts that - hopefully - won't be interrupted with more of those contributions from our trolls. It's likely to take up a whole lot of pages - but I'll try and keep each post reasonably short.

Here's the first download.

  A.  Magnetic Dipole

            It seems that much is known about the conditions required to sustain a fire or flame, while little is actually understood about its material properties. For instance, it is known that fire requires oxygen in the atmosphere for it to burn, but a nuclear fire, such as in the sun, does not require this. The following simplistic and hypothetical experiment is used to explore the property of fire and, by extension, the material property of the magnetic field.

            Place a pile of wood under a ceramic pot holding iron filings. Then set the wood alight. Flames would heat the ceramic pot and this heat would then transfer to the environment inside that pot. With a required sufficiency, the heat would then melt the filings to form a liquid. This experiment would conclude precisely when the fire extinguishes which, in this theorized example, would also be precisely when the filings will have coalesced into a liquid. Then the ceramic pot would cool and the liquid iron solidify, and in the process of solidifying it would also shrink in volume compared to its liquid state.

            Assume also that, at the beginning of that experiment, a detailed account is made of the number and type of atoms and molecules in the wood, in the ceramic pot and in the iron filings. Then at the end of that experiment all those atoms and molecules associated with that energy exchange during the fire, would still be fully accounted for. For instance, some of the carbon atoms in the wood may have combined with oxygen in the atmosphere to form carbon dioxide. Yet other exotic gas molecules may have escaped. The small volumes of moisture in the wood may be vaporized into steam. But the structure and weight of the ceramic pot would remain substantially the same except that it may show evidence of cracking and heat fatigue. The amount of the iron would match its quantity as filings. And the most of the carbon atoms in the wood would be there in the loose ash condition of its burnt out state.