COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[Joit]

Congratulations! Skywatcher

[poynt99]

Confirmation of findings

Just for Fun
3 new Pictures, i dont go and make a Vid just for some Tinkerer and a new Pot of dirt over my Head.

Upper Channel is at the Transistor, lower Channel at Pin3/Timer, Source 12V.
Every Time it been new adjusted to ~2.4 khz.

Edit And well, the Transistor is a IRF640A

Joit,

If the bottom trace is the 555 pin 3, then you have indeed confirmed that the duty cycle is 96% or so. The upper trace is clearly showing a low duty cycle, but that being the MOSFET Drain, it's not what Rosemary has stated as the desired drive.

Put simply, the 3.7% duty cycle needs to be on the MOSFET Gate, and a 3.7% duty cycle means you want very short 12V pulses. The scope shot you posted shows very long pulses on the MOSFET Gate.

These are the same findings as my own and that of a number of others' as well.

.99

[Joit]

The Transistor is switching at the upper Line., it means it goes off and on.
And you see at the first Pictures cleary, that it is OFF for 90%
What you see at the lower Line is the complete Puls, but not, what triggers the Transistor, and that is only the upper Peak from the Pulse.
Either you did measure it wrong or got something else wrong.
The Line nearly the middle at the upper channel is the ZERO Line, not the On Time, as you are guessing.
ON is the Peak from the upper Line, its not a Spike.

[Joit]

For understanding the 555 Timer, stolen from OU.com Thanks to OS
555 Timer Tutorials

[poynt99]

Joit,

As I would guess that English is not your first language, and for ease of discussion, I suggest that either only the transistor OR the 555 timer output be discussed to keep things as clear as possible.

If you are agreeable, I would suggest that the 555 timer output be the focus for now. If necessary, we can discuss the transistor switch as well at a later time.

So, if you agree, can we talk about the 555 timer output? If so, my only question to you is can you please do another scope capture of only your 555 timer pin 3 again, and this time spread the time base out so that only 3 or 4 pulse are showing?

If not, could you please tell us what the pulse from the 555 timer pin 3 looks like? Is the line longer on the top of the trace or the bottom of the 555 output trace?

.99

[jas_bir77]

receive alerts of new messages

hi, i was wondering can i receive alerts of new messages posted in this post as and when they are posted, like in ou.com
thanks

[Aaron]

subscribing to threads

Hi Jas,

Visit the control panel:

http://www.energeticforum.com/usercp.php

Then in the left column, select Edit Options:

http://www.energeticforum.com/profile.php?do=editoptions

Scroll down to Messaging & Notification section.

The second section in that section is the Default Thread Subscription Mode.
Dropdown the box and choose instant, daily or weekly.

You have to add the thread to your subscriptions and you can manage them here:

http://www.energeticforum.com/subscription.php

[witsend]

.99 and Joit, Guys, please let's drop this now. The thread is NOT ABOUT the 555 switch in the quantum article.

Joit, you have done a wonderful thing on so many levels. You've actually proved that, notwithstanding any possible error in the Quantum representation - that the SWITCH WORKS and can apply the required duty cycle. And it shows how you live up to your motto. Experiments matter - not theory. It's like my own motto. Theory must give way to experimental evidence. And much more important than any of this - you've also shown that you'll stand up to some pretty hefty criticism which shows remarkable intellectual courage. But, in truth that criticism was aimed at me. And you took up the cudgels because, I think, you knew I could not read that complex circuitry. That is something that features as an extremely significant moment in my life. It will stay in my memory for as long as I've got one. And I love remembering such moments.

But one thing that I've learned - there is no value in arguing. Our readers are not fools. Everyone knows why this rather irrelevant point was made in the first instance. And they'll make up their own minds on this. Just don't be tempted to justify your finding or you'll be playing into TK's objects.

And .99 we were rather hoping that you'd concentrate on the experimental results given by the contributors and doing some measurement analysis of the data presented. I see that as a talent that is much required by all of this on this thread - not because you've got a monopoly on this ability - but precisely because you are a classicist. Please put this matter to bed. We are not here to discuss a possible faulty presentation of a 555 switch. That is simply a distraction. We are trying to prove the claim in the paper referenced in this thread.

[EgmQC]

.99 and Joit, Guys, please let's drop this now. The thread is NOT ABOUT the 555 switch in the quantum article.

Joit, you have done a wonderful thing on so many levels. You've actually proved that, notwithstanding any possible error in the Quantum representation - that the SWITCH WORKS and can apply the required duty cycle. And it shows how you live up to your motto. Experiments matter - not theory. It's like my own motto. Theory must give way to experimental evidence. And much more important than any of this - you've also shown that you'll stand up to some pretty hefty criticism which shows remarkable intellectual courage. But, in truth that criticism was aimed at me. And you took up the cudgels because, I think, you knew I could not read that complex circuitry. That is something that features as an extremely significant moment in my life. It will stay in my memory for as long as I've got one. And I love remembering such moments.

But one thing that I've learned - there is no value in arguing. Our readers are not fools. Everyone knows why this rather irrelevant point was made in the first instance. And they'll make up their own minds on this. Just don't be tempted to justify your finding or you'll be playing into TK's objects.

And .99 we were rather hoping that you'd concentrate on the experimental results given by the contributors and doing some measurement analysis of the data presented. I see that as a talent that is much required by all of this on this thread - not because you've got a monopoly on this ability - but precisely because you are a classicist. Please put this matter to bed. We are not here to discuss a possible faulty presentation of a 555 switch. That is simply a distraction. We are trying to prove the claim in the paper referenced in this thread.

Witsend,

The thing you dont seem to realy understand about the 555 problem is people USE it to try to duplicate your circuit. When i see the screeshot that Joit posted, i see a guy who didnt make the replication you wanted because the circuit is not acting like you made it.We clearly see 96.3% duty cycle in the screenshot he posted, its about impossible to miss.

What is realy important for this thread is to follow what YOU think is the good circuit,and more importantly , how it should work as you designed it.In that way all data you will collect from all replication will maybe have variation but all will be based on the same circuit.At the end the conclusion will be simple to make, it work or it didnt work, no Maybe.

Best Regards,
EgmQC

[witsend]

EVERYBODY - this post by Fuzzy is really important. I'm duplicating it because of it's significance. The guy has been testing this 'reticulated' current principle and acknowledges it as 'zero point' energy. He's also a skilled experimentalist. PLEASE WADE THROUGH IT. He's been testing - in effect - our own principles and, I believe, a close approximation to GOTOLUC's experiment. Also significant is that he has found a simple way to prove it using one of those computer simulator programmes. But he looked far and wide to find one that was not modified to suit classical norms. More to the point he's been familiarising himself with overunity claims - either in this forum or OU.COM? GREAT NEWS

Thanks yet again to that really 'clued up cat'. THIS IS REALLY SIGNIFICANT

Hi all'

A member at OU.com named "NerzhDishual" has a paper that has been posted in french ..... I have a translated version in English you may like .......

An electronic circuit to free energy

Best
Glen

[poynt99]

Offering electronics help...is it to be discouraged here?

Rosemary,

A very integral part of doing research involving electronics and electrical theory is understanding the basics and knowing how to use the various tools of the art in performing good design and utilizing solid testing techniques. This is especially true when free energy research and electronics are combined.

I offer my assistance whenever I am able, and usually it is happily, or at the very least apathetically accepted. I've been on several free energy forums for quite some time, and the large public venues such as this one and overunity.com for example often attract folks that only dabble in the art and have no formal background in it. This is great as it gets everyone thinking, learning and experimenting, and some such as gotoluc rather excel at it.

Offering my assistance to an individual that seems to have misunderstood something is not an uncommon thing for me to do. Are we not here to help each other from time to time? Some however do become overly defensive, and it is these that one must just "release the reins" so to speak. If the horse wants to drink, it will (no offense Joit ).

My understanding was that this issue was in fact put to bed. Joit's recently posted scope shots and apparent misunderstanding of what they mean indicate otherwise.

As you say, folks can make their own judgment, and I will leave it at that.

.99

[witsend]

Hi EgmQC - your point is taken. Help me out here. Can I ask OU.COM to kindly refer to my IET paper submission? Or could you do that for me? I'm so sorry it was ever made the primary reference document. It was never intended as such. If there is any confusion over the 555 then I must insist that people make their own. It is not part of the 'claim' or the experiment. But I fail to see that it matters if the 555 works. In any event. I'm not an expert. Please deal with this as you see appropriate. I'm reasonably certain that followers on this thread use their own or a function's generator. And apart from TK I know of no-one who has followed that circuit.

Sorry EgmQC - it's the best advice I can give.

EDIT Had I known about OU.COM's interest - I would have been able to comment sooner. I never knew there were such a plethora of forums and I certainly had no idea that my experiment was being tested. When it was finally pointed out to me I couldn't access the thread. This is evident in the Naked Scientist Forum where I'm a member. But I see no-one else there duplicating the 555 circuitry except for TK.

[witsend]

Rosemary,

A very integral part of doing research involving electronics and electrical theory is understanding the basics and knowing how to use the various tools of the art in performing good design and utilizing solid testing techniques. This is especially true when free energy research and electronics are combined.

I offer my assistance whenever I am able, and usually it is happily, or at the very least apathetically accepted. I've been on several free energy forums for quite some time, and the large public venues such as this one and overunity.com for example often attract folks that only dabble in the art and have no formal background in it. This is great as it gets everyone thinking, learning and experimenting, and some such as gotoluc rather excel at it.

Offering my assistance to an individual that seems to have misunderstood something is not an uncommon thing for me to do. Are we not here to help each other from time to time? Some however do become overly defensive, and it is these that one must just "release the reins" so to speak. If the horse wants to drink, it will (no offense Joit ).

My understanding was that this issue was in fact put to bed. Joit's recently posted scope shots and apparent misunderstanding of what they mean indicate otherwise.

As you say, folks can make their own judgment, and I will leave it at that.

.99

Thanks very much .99. It's as I understood your interests. Any input regarding that measurement analysis will be very much appreciated. And, possibly belatedly, may I welcome you to this forum. We really need that impartial mind.

[Hoppy]

Okay, no problem Hoppy ...Oh, got to go! someones knocking at the door

Luc

Luc

Tiredness got the better of me, so now refreshed, I would like to say that there was a point in me asking you to do the rather entertaining test with the two light bulbs. The point is this. Do you really believe that the power in the input circuit is vitually zero, when the output bulb lights brightly. I can think of no other way to try to convince others that this is not OU or even remotely unity. I will not take you further down the road to a full explanation without boring you with a lot more EE theory in these threads as Poynt99 has sensibly already done this by posting a PDF link in your thread for those interested enough to understand more about what is really going on in yours and Rosemary's circuits. It is now up to others to reach their own conclusions.

This has been a most enjoyable and productive thread and I congratulate you for the excellent series of videos that you have presented.

Back to the boring stuff - earning a living.

Regards
Hoppy

[Aaron]

importance of this thread

Hi Rosemary,

I didn't know how much trouble my exciting synchronicity was. I was searching online for resistors and started searching away. The first page that came up had some article and quantum was mentioned. I didn't know what it was about but was interested since it came up with my resistor search. It was some Quantum magazine, I scrolled down and Rosemary Ainslie's name right there at the top.

I had to post it since it was obviously related and included it in a full document with every R.A. document I could find, which is basically everything Peter had plus the Quantum article.

Anyway, it seems things falls out of the sky when I think about them but I guess that doesn't mean they'll always stimulate love, light and happiness like I intend. lol

Anyone already reading this thread is already aware of this issue.

Rosemary, if you wish, I can edit the first post in this entire thread and state in bold red letters that the exact circuit to use is xyz.

I think it should recommend a 555 circuit since anyone can build one for a few bucks and not everyone has a function generator.

If I can get a good image of the exact 555 circuit schematic that was used in the experiment in the paper, I'll make sure everyone sees it.

The principle of this circuit is too important to have any unnecessary distractions.

I already had promising experiences with my resistor today and clearly saw an increase in temp by simply placing a small string of diodes from the ground of the resistor back to the top - amongst other things.

There are too many other exciting things I want to share but will do it after I convince myself to get some sleep sometime in the near future.

Until then,