Experimental Evidence of a Breach of Unity

by
Rosemary Ainslie, Donovan Martin,
Evan Robinson, Mario Human,
Alan Macey, Riaan Theron

Abstract
This First part of a two-part paper deals with results from a circuit that was designed to determine whether the amount of energy dissipated in a circuit could exceed the amount of energy delivered from a battery supply. If so, then this result would prove the basis of a magnetic field model that predicts an exploitable non-conservative field condition. This model is the subject of the second paper.
The distinction is drawn that the energy that is dissipated in a circuit is sourced from the induced potential difference in the circuit material itself.
Correspondingly then, the proposal is that the circuit material itself may be used as a supplementary and secondary energy supply source that has not, typically, been factored into the analysis of power conversion.
This raises the question as to whether Kirchhoff’s Laws exceed Faraday’s Laws of Induction. And if not, then there is also a potential for the conservation of potential difference at a supply that may be exploited to enhance energy efficiencies.
Test results show that this is, indeed, possible and that the inductive and conductive components of circuit material may be factored in as a potential energy supply source depending on the circuit design and intention.

190 comments to Experimental Evidence of a Breach of Unity

  • TO Hank Mills
    In reply to your letter – June 7th, 2012 at 1:45 PM

    Dear Hank,

    There are many of us who are indebted to your hard work in bringing the knowledge of Rossi’s work to the table. And we are all of us well aware of the level your integrity, which endorses this. Thank you very much indeed for your efforts. It is a comfort to realise that these somewhat confrontational claims are advanced by those with your own high caliber of principle.

    I also know something about that level of attack that follows on the heels of any claims that defy standard predictions. I think the precedent was set when Dr Vest went to some considerable lengths to deny the early evidence shown us by Fleischmann and Pons in their Cold Fusion tests. In effect he and his cohorts were able to set the clock back by about 20 years. Sadly effective. And that through the simple expedient of associating any such unity breach with what they termed a ‘pathological science’. Which then, as now, was intended as a criticism of both the claimant and the claim.

    And sadly too, both our academics and our media – have appropriated this general criticism of generalised pathologies. There are only a few brave souls who publicly support this in our academies. And none, thus far, who have come out in support in our media. But the tide is turning. And we have our Rossi’s experimental genius to thank for this. Eventually the litmus of experimental proof will again be applied to our science. Which is most desirable. Because that way we can evaluate the actual Laws that govern our physical universe. Theory has never cut it. It has never yet managed to give us a complete picture. And when any experimental evidence denies the theory – then, correctly, the theory needs revision. Not that experimental proof. Therefore, that call for unusual levels of proof should, correctly, be applied to those theories rather than to the evidence that Rossi has uncovered.

    Kindest regards,
    Rosemary

  • Francesco
    June 7th, 2012 at 3:50 AM

    Dear Rosemary Ainslie
    I thank you for your kindness.
    I have already simulated the circuit via software and i have seen that the results (theoretical) are respected. Now i just rebuild the circuit in my laboratory and hope for a positive result. I will ask you via e-mail the important physical characteristics of the resistance to rebuild in my laboratory.
    Warm Regards.
    F.T.
    Dear Francesco,

    Delighted to see that you simulated this. It is indeed surprising that simulation software can allow for a negative wattage product. But also very encouraging to those of ;us who are trying to advance evidence of this new and emergent science.

    Kindest regards,
    Rosemary

  • H. Hansson

    Dear Mr Rossi,

    Have you ever thought about the broader concept what effect your eCat will have on such things as the tax system?

    Today, the State tax system is very much based on the concept of carbon and various types of energy taxes (save the earth taxes). Citizens are willing to pay these taxes because they believe that money goes to environment-saving purposes, in full.

    But in fact, tax revenues are used to run the daily activities (Hospitals, police, government agencies etc.).

    Your invention will enable local, off grid, production of clean energy. The moral arguments for the energy tax will be void. International trade agreements preventing high import duties. The Governments will receive no income.

    Do you have any thoughts on how Governments are going to fend off such income losses?

  • Herbert Gillis

    Re: “Rediculous demands for excessive Ecat proof”;
    Hank Mills:
    I agree with you. No additional demonstrations are necessary, and are not likely to change the situation. The commercialization of the working LENR product (Ecat) is what is needed. Although this has already happened to a limited degree with the 1 MW plant, there do not appear to be any customers who are willing to act as references. Please correct me if that situation has changed. It might help for the short term if the military customer of the first 1 MW plant could be persuaded to come out in public and act as a reference. I don’t undstand the reason for the secrecy about the name of the customer. It is frustrating. It is, in my opinion, understandable that a “secret” commercialization is not satisfactory to many people. The 1 MW plant is expensive and the market is quite limited. The commercialization of the smaller (“household”) Ecat will open up tremendous interest. What concerns me is if there are major delays in getting regulatory approvals (certifications) for the sale of the smaller units. If that happens it could be a major blow to the credibility of LENR in general. Regulatory approvals are too often a matter of politics, not science. In politics the truth counts for very little.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Larry Jameson:
    0- it is not true: I never said we take orders for 4 months delivery. We accepted pre-orders, with no money paid, that will be turned into orders only after we will be able to put the domestic E-Cats in the market. To do this we need a certification, whose timing does not depend on us.
    1- Not yet, the certification process is in course
    2- We manufacture in the USA the modules for America
    3- Yes
    4- About half million
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Larry Jameson

    Dear Eng. Rossi

    Your website says that orders are now being taken for your low temperature commercial ecats for 4 months delivery.

    1. Have you received whatever certifications are necessary to install these
    commercial ecats in the US or are you confident the certifications will be in place by the time you need to ship.

    2. Have you shipped any commercial reactors in the US yet and if not by when would you hope to.

    3. Have you found a commercial customer willing to use your commercial ecat in a way that it could be demonstrated to the public.

    4.Can you say how many pre-orders for Home ecats you now have on your books.

    Dying to see it happen.

    Larry Jameson

  • Hank Mills

    The Ridiculous Demand for Excessive E-Cat Proof

    I enjoyed following the E-Cat saga in the year 2011. Although I still enjoy following it to this day (things are really getting exciting with 600C steam), last year was particularly interesting. Just about every month there was a new TEST of an E-Cat. Each test seemed to utilize a new scientist, a new design of E-Cat, or a new test method. The conclusion after each of these tests was that the E-Cat worked, and produced a huge amount of excess power. Both tests with steam and tests with hot water as an output confirmed the huge amount of excess energy produced. It was also calculated that the huge amount of excess power could not have been produced by any non-nuclear, hidden power source.

    As the tests continued, things got more and more exciting as the test of the one megawatt plant neared. That test also turned out to be a success. It was conducted according to the guidelines of the engineer (with 30 years of experience in thermodynamic systems) chosen by the military customer. The one megawatt E-Cat plant ended up producing almost 500 kilowatts of power for several hours. What was even more exciting, was that the customer’s consulting engineer signed off on the results. He agreed the test was a success. The only negative he noted was that there were a few leaking gaskets.

    To any reasonable person, the tests in 2011 were proof that the E-Cat technology was capable of producing large amounts of excess energy via novel nuclear reactions. However, for multiple reasons, certain individuals tried to belittle the technology. Some went so far as to claim all the tests were failures, and that Andrea Rossi was a fraud. They spread the disinformation via interviews, blog posts, articles on their websites, and comments on various blogs. they tried to create every problem they could to come up with an explanation convincing enough to make people doubt that the E-Cat was real and worked.

    Now, some of these individuals may have been honest skeptics who for some reason thought Andrea Rossi was conning innocent people. However, I think the most vocal of the critics had a specific agenda to discredit the E-Cat technology. In my opinion, it was because some of them were competitors. By dismissing and attacking the E-Cat technology far and wide (over and over again) some people would start to question the success of the tests. Sadly, their efforts worked to a degree, and many people were influenced by the propaganda.

    To this day, there are individuals who are calling for Rossi to perform additional tests. I am all for additional tests, but the problem is that they are claiming the previous tests were not open, did not have third party scientists present, and for multiple reasons were not valid. This is very far from the truth.

    Actually, many scientists and engineers participated in the tests of the E-Cat. Just a few that come to mind are Christos Stremmenos, Dr. Focardi, Dr. Levi, Mats Lewan, and the engineering consultant of the military customer. There were many others too, I just cannot remember them off the top of my head. These third party scientists watched the tests, observed the tests, took measurements, were involved in how the test was conducted, calculated the input/output, and did the math to determine the results. To say that no third party tests have been performed is simply not accurate. In addition to the public tests, there were private tests as well. The DOD, DOE, Ampenergo, and Defkalion all performed successful tests of E-Cats.

    Yes, perhaps there has not been a test in which an E-Cat was placed in an underground lab, filled with the top scientists from a hundred universities around the world testing it for weeks or months. However, it has been tested over and over again by qualified individuals. We have the results of many of these tests, and they prove the E-Cat works.

    However, all the tests in 2011 are not good enough for some individuals. They want new extensive tests of the E-Cat, because they cannot accept that the previous tests show the E-Cat works. I think that there is nothing wrong with wanting additional tests, but demanding them to “prove” the E-Cat works is an excessive demand for proof.

    There is a mindset out there — inspired by some of the worst cynics on this planet — that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This idea is false, ridiculous, and absurd. A claim of something extraordinary can be proven with the same amount of evidence as a claim of something that is not extraordinary. If you want to test a car with an internal combustion engine to see if it works you can put gasoline in it, drive a few miles, and easily determine the vehicle works. To prove a cold fusion powered car worked there would be no reason to do anything different. However, the cynics would have someone drive the cold fusion powered car ten thousand miles before they admitted it “may” work.

    As I have said before, there is more than a reasonable amount of proof that the E-Cat works, and produces huge amounts of excess energy via novel nuclear reactions. I just can’t see how any reasonable person can think otherwise when it has been tested repeatedly, has been tested by multiple scientists, has been tested by multiple companies, and of course nickel-hydrogen cold fusion has been proven as a real phenomenon for well over ten years.

    The following are a few of the thoughts I have had when considering the evidence in support of the E-Cat technology. Maybe they will benefit some of the honest skeptics (there are many) that simply are sitting on the fence. I do realize that nothing will change those competitors and cynics who have an agenda.

    1) EXISTING TECH – Nickel-Hydrogen fusion is a real phenomenon that was proven before Rossi came along. It is not like it is a totally new concept. There have been many tests of Ni-H systems before the E-Cat was invented, but none of them could produce practical amounts of power. Actually, it is pretty easy to produce excess energy with Ni-H systems, but the output is usually small.

    2) MULTIPLE SCIENTISTS INVOLVED – There have been countless tests of the E-Cat by many different scientists and engineers. I refuse to believe that these scientists and engineers from many different parts of the world, from many different universities, and with years of experience could all be totally wrong about the E-Cat.

    3) MULTIPLE TYPES OF TESTS – The types of test performed were different from each other. Not only one type of test was performed. Some tests utilized the production of steam, and others utilized the production of hot water (phase change verses no phase change). Large gains of energy were detected in both types of tests.

    4) SELF SUSTAINING OPERATION – In many tests the E-Cat self sustained for extended periods of time with almost ZERO INPUT WHATSOEVER. Kilowatts of output were produced with perhaps a hundred watts or less of input power, which was only used to power the radio frequency generators, sensors, etc. This is simply phenomenal. In one test Dr. Levi produced an average of 15 kilowatts of output for 18 hours with only about 100 watts of input power. At one point, the output spiked up to 120 kilowatts, and the output had to be reduced.

    5) DIFFERENT MODELS ALL WORK – Different sizes, shapes, and types of E-Cat units were tested. The first E-Cat units were large, with a reactor core of one liter. Then smaller ones were made with reactor cores of 50cc. these were tested as well, and proven to work. Later on, the modules for the one megawatt plant were built that utilized flat plate reactor cores. They also produced excess power. It seems like every design of E-Cat just works, despite the changes made.

    6) OUTSIDE COMPANIES CONFIRM RESULTS – Multiple companies tested the E-Cat and have admitted it worked as claimed. This includes Defkalion, Ampenergo, and the military customer. Also, I know that the DOE and DOD have performed or at least participated in tests that showed huge gains of energy.

    7) NO REASON TO LIE – Andrea Rossi is risking his reputation, career, financial well being, and future on this technology. He has sold everything he has to support the development of the E-Cat, and would be literally throwing his life away if it did not work. In addition, he would be risking the future of his wife and family.

    8) HOME E-CATS EXIST – Certain scientists have reported seeing the home E-Cat units that are being tested, and they claim they are totally stable and work great. They are not fictional or made up. They are being developed and are headed towards the market place.

    9) TRANSMUTATION PRODUCTS – Samples of the material from inside of the E-Cat have been tested and determined to contain copper, when none should be present. The metal the reactor core is made out of is a kind of steel that does not contain copper, and there is no where else for the copper to come from.

    10) DEFKALION’S CLAIMS – I don’t like writing or speaking about Defkalion, but they claim to have produced large amounts of excess heat utilizing nickel and hydrogen. I do not think they are anywhere close to producing the amounts of excess heat the E-Cat has produced, but I think their experiments (if verified) provide additional confirmation for Ni-H fusion. Of course we have zero proof they have produced any excess heat at all, because they refuse to post test results.

    11) WANNABE COMPETITORS EMERGING EVERYWHERE – Although Ni-H fusion has been around for over ten years, it is only since Andrea Rossi allowed the first test of the E-Cat that a new wave of companies are emerging and making claims. It seems that since the E-Cat came on the scene, Ni-H fusion has became extremely popular. Also, I know by first hand experience there are competitors that are going around trying to attack the E-Cat, slander Rossi, and promote their own company’s research. Their own words make it clear that they think the E-Cat works, but they want to figure out how it works so they can claim it as their own.

    To any reasonable person, I think there is more than enough proof to conclude that the E-Cat works as claimed. To say we need more proof that the E-Cat works is being cynical. Some healthy amount of critical thinking is a good thing, but demanding even MORE proof when you already have an abundance is downright silly.

    The one thing holding this technology up from being accepted by the mainstream media is not the need for more evidence, but excessive skepticism. Those who have been manipulated by the competitors and cynics who have attempted to “muddy the waters” are now making the situation even worse. However, the good news is that the MARKET will settle this issue, and when the E-Cats are being sold across the USA the truth will be obvious to everyone.

    What I am looking forward to is the data from the extended test of the new high temp E-Cat that produces 600C steam. Although I am already convinced that the E-Cat works, this data will be exciting to study.

  • Francesco

    Dear Rosemary Ainslie
    I thank you for your kindness.
    I have already simulated the circuit via software and i have seen that the results (theoretical) are respected. Now i just rebuild the circuit in my laboratory and hope for a positive result. I will ask you via e-mail the important physical characteristics of the resistance to rebuild in my laboratory.
    Warm Regards.
    F.T.
    rosemary ainslie
    June 6th, 2012 at 7:58 PM

    Dear Francesco,

    Thank you for your interest in replicating this. Please email me at ainslie@mweb.co.za and I’ll gladly supply you with the information that you’re asking for.

    Kindest regards,
    Rosemary

  • Francesco

    Dear Rosemary Ainslie:
    I ask you kindly to still have a moment of patience. I have looked upon with more attention the waveforms shown in figure 3 and 4; i therefore realized that I have done many questions inappropriate.
    I do a ‘RESET’ on all the questions, because i think i have understood that the generator produces only one short spike positive every 2.7 minutes. Continuous simulations via software, then I will try in the laboratory and let you know if I have come to the same results.
    I think I understand that via software the phenomenon does not occur, but this is need to see the conditions of operation static and dynamic without reaction of nikelcromo.
    Warm Regards
    F.T.
    Thanks again for your patience.
    Cordialità
    F.T.

  • To Koen Vandewalle

    Dear Koen,

    I have also heard and seen many claims related to motors. I believe that there are strong similarities in the results between this solid state device and motors using interrupted power supplies. This solid state device has the advantage of the results being more easily measured. What we’re recommending is that our experts determine whether or not this back electromotive or counter EMF is the result of generated or stored energy. Our own results indicate that it is generated. If this is proved to be correct – then there’s a wealth of potential energy that we’ve all rather overlooked in our applications of energy from switched circuits.

    Kindest regards
    Rosemary

    Koen Vandewalle
    June 6th, 2012 at 8:51 AM

  • Dear Francesco,

    Thank you for your interest in replicating this. Please email me at ainslie@mweb.co.za and I’ll gladly supply you with the information that you’re asking for.

    Kindest regards,
    Rosemary

    Francesco
    June 6th, 2012 at 2:47 AM

    Dear Rosemary Ainslie
    Excuse me yet but i would tell you, in addition, that by simulating the circuit with a program evolved, the generator leaves a strong current that you certainly added to the supplied to the load, as the configuration of Q2 and the common-gate. Needless to say, all this happens if the signal generator has an internal resistance very low.
    This is the reason why, in the previous message, i’m asking precise operating parameters of the signal generator.
    Again, thank you!
    F.T

  • Koen Vandewalle

    Dear Rosemary,
    is this the solid-state version of the same origin/source as the magnetic motors with the switched coils and reed-contacts to synchronize the on-off timing of the coils ?

    Any computer simulation on that phenomenon seems pointless to me, unless one integrates the phenomenon in the simulation software.

    About direct conversations with God, I could write a lot, but the problem is that most humans only accept paper and signatures of other humans that are given authority from again other humans, depending on their interests. Real proof in experiments is often omitted.

    The phenomenon I have seen, and which used more or les the same source, was with an electric motor that was braked with chopped DC-current. Unfortunately, the machine has been dismantled and has been replaced by an inverter-driven version for reasons of unstability. It is only since the actual descriptions of this phenomenon that I was thinking about these “problems” we had some decade ago. The original circuits do not exist anymore.

    The phenomenon has probably something to do with our position and absolute speed in the magnetic fields in space. We live on a complex system of rotations and magnetic fields. It is believable that we can tap into that energy.

    Kind Regards,
    Koen

  • Francesco

    Dear Rosemary Ainslie
    Excuse me yet but i would tell you, in addition, that by simulating the circuit with a program evolved, the generator leaves a strong current that you certainly added to the supplied to the load, as the configuration of Q2 and the common-gate. Needless to say, all this happens if the signal generator has an internal resistance very low.
    This is the reason why, in the previous message, i’m asking precise operating parameters of the signal generator.
    Again, thank you!
    F.T

  • Francesco

    Dear Rosemary Ainslie

    I thank you for the explanation of the circuit. Considered your kindness, I ask you to help me to understand some of the parameters of the circuit, since i play it in my lab.
    1) Make and model of the function generator;
    2) the frequency that allows the maximum effect of the phenomenon;
    3) the duty cycle ( %) of the signal;
    4)The maximum value of the off set negative ( -V) allowed by the generator used; 5)amplitude of the output signal from the generator of functions;
    6)the internal resistance (in ohms) of the storage battery used.
    Sorry so much Rosemary but i don’t speak english very well and so I need a summary of these parameters so as fast and direct.
    The matter what fascinates me is very much and I would like to understand more clearly the extent of the phenomenon.
    Thank you very much for your patience.
    Cordial greetings.
    F. T.

  • Dear Wlad,

    I was amused at your contribution hereunder. I know nothing about Javier’s conversations with God related to matters scientific. However, I’m reasonably certain that God Himself requires us to be guided by experimental evidence. He set the benchmark in the creation of our universe. And until we can emulate His skills in this regard – then I think we’d do well to be guided by that experimental evidence. It has the advantage of being measurable and repeatable – if not entirely explicable as yet. Hopefully in due course, God can explain this to us all as well. It’s much required.

    Kindest regards,
    Rosemary

    Wladimir Guglinski
    June 5th, 2012 at 4:07 AM

    A. Javier M. Martinez wrote in June 4th, 2012 at 8:58 AM

    “No one of those components, nor the MOSFETs, nor the Resistance, nor the Inductor, can give more energy than they take.

    NO.”

    Dear Rosemary Ainslie
    you have to trust what Javier claims.

    God told him that it’s impossible.

    Regards
    WLAD

  • Guru Gurovic

    For long time i have this idea for some refinement of reactor:

    a) highly polished surfaces of inside wall of reactor or some mini mirrors inside reactor focused to reflect to center of reactions or deflect IR, visible and other EM waves to second chamber of second/tandem reactor

    b) nano particles of silver showed some stunning effects when exposed to EM waves, maybe nano particles of silver may be useful inside advanced next gen e-cats: http://engineering.stanford.edu/news/quantum-plasmons-demonstrated-atomic-scale-nanoparticles

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    A. Javier M. Martinez wrote in June 4th, 2012 at 8:58 AM

    No one of those components, nor the MOSFETs, nor the Resistance, nor the Inductor, can give more energy than they take.

    NO.

    Dear Rosemary Ainslie
    you have to trust what Javier claims.

    God told him that it’s impossible.

    Regards
    WLAD

  • To all readers of this JONP Blog,

    Dear sirs
    I must draw your attention to the fact that the published paper is only the first part of a 2-part paper. For reasons not fully understood the second part of that 2-part paper has been omitted.

    Here is the abstract of that second part.

    “Abstract – A heat by product of an oscillation has an exploitable potential as this relates to the efficient use of energy, which is the subject of the first part of this two-part paper. This second part looks at the implications of that oscillation as it confronts certain assumptions related to current flow. An oscillation is induced on a circuit that then enables a reversing current flow that exceeds the circuit restrictions to this flow. This is explained using an extension to Faraday’s model of Lines of Force to include a dual charge in the material property of current flow. These explanations are nonstandard and form a small part of a magnetic field model that predicted and required these results. The analysis concludes that energy can be sourced from the inductive and conductive circuit material.”

    The circuit essentials are easily replicable and can also be simulated to show identical results. This points to the fact that our standard model may have erred in assuming that electrons are the carrier particles of electric energy – as these results can only be resolved with the use of a bipolar tachyon. But that consideration is outside our expertise. All we have attempted is to show that applied standard measurement protocols do not resolve the measured heat signatures that are enabled on this and on small variations to this circuit. It seems that most variations of this oscillation result in an over unity performance. We therefore propose that these questions be more widely researched – which was the object of that publication.

    The second point is that these heat signatures are exploitable and point to a real benefit in our general search for alternate energy supplies. It does not supply the extraordinary level of benefits that are enabled through the use of the E-Cat, But the fact that these measurements persist – also points to some possible explanation for the advantage in LENR technology that has not – to date – been seriously considered. We modestly propose that the existence of this material property to a magnetic field – may go some way to resolving LENR or any such measurement of COP>1. But – as ever, this is offered with the caveat that this requires serious research and some serious mathematical modeling. We hope our paper will be a catalyst to this cause.

    Kindest regards,
    Rosemary

  • Dear Francesco,

    Your comments hereunder refer.

    The arrangement of those MOSFETs was the result of an accidental misalignment. That unusual persistent oscillation was the result. We retained that full circuit in our paper, notwithstanding – in order to highlight this happy ‘accident’. But you are absolutely right. You do not need 4 MOSFETs at Q2 in parallel. Indeed 1 is more than enough at Q1 and Q2. In fact, on variations of this circuit – it is only required to use 1 MOSFET from a single battery supply source. All this work will be fully open sourced in the near future. Subject to Andrea’s permission I will include the link to that work here.

    Kindest regards,
    Rosemary

    Francesco
    June 4th, 2012 at 12:32 PM

    Dear Rosemary Ainslie
    Sorry but it is not clear how many mosfets are placed in parallel in each branch of the circuit. On the left side is indicated Q2x4 while on the right-hand side is not indicated. In addition published schema configuration of Q2 (signal that enters the source) it seems to me abnormal. Can you clarify? Thanks
    F. T.

  • Dear Javier,

    Your comments hereunder refer.

    We do NOT propose that any of the circuit components are ‘giving’ as you put it, ‘more energy than they take’. We are only attempting to draw expert attention to the fact that there is repeated and measured evidence of this. How our experts resolve this anomaly is yet to be determined. We required this measured result as proof of a magnetic field model that conforms entirely to Faraday’s Lines of Force. The only proposed variation to this is to the inclusion of a bipolar tachyon. This is proposed as the material structure of those lines of force.

    Again – our second part of that two part paper refers. And here again is that link.
    http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php?p=/plugin/page/paper2

    Kindest regards,
    Rosemary

    Excuse me, but to tell, from this simple circuit, that a breach in the unity of energy is reached, seams not very …………………… very real.

    No one of those components, nor the MOSFETs, nor the Resistance, nor the Inductor, can give more energy than they take.

    A. Javier M. Martinez.
    June 4th, 2012 at 8:58 AM

    Well, I have seen the circuit.

    Excuse me, but to tell, from this simple circuit, that a breach in the unity of energy is reached, seams not very …………………… very real.

    No one of those components, nor the MOSFETs, nor the Resistance, nor the Inductor, can give more energy than they take.

    NO.

    Is the first time I see this blog, and I thought this ‘start paper’, does not say very much on its scientific value.

    If you think I am wrong, well, we can talk, and I can do any circuit like this (They are absolutely elemental circuits, very simple).

    But …… excuse me, this has nothing of serious.

    Best Regards.

    Javier.

  • Dear Pascal,

    Your question hereunder refers.

    What is significant about that circuit configuration is that the Q2 source leg is indeed only connected to the negative rail of the battery through the terminal probe of the function generator. And this has an impedance of 50 Ohms as you’ve stated. May I impose on you to read the second part of that two part paper. We have proposed a path for the flow of current to enable the oscillation. Which has the dubious advantage of conforming to the predictions of our thesis related to this. The thesis is appropriate precisely because the measured results to not indicate that current is in any way restricted by 50 Ohms of resistance. Which also indicates that it is not flowing through the function generator.

    We propose therefore that the anomalies related to these measurements cannot be fully explained within the standard model. And these measurements in that paper are based on standard protocols. All we’re trying to bring to expert attention is the persistence of a negative wattage measured that has no relevance within our standard paradigms. We propose that these results are pointing to the existence of an energy supply source that has been rather ‘over looked’ and yet conforms precisely to Einstein’s mass energy equivalence. We therefore propose that there is nothing unconventional in our proposed solution to this anomaly other than the requirement therefore, of a material property to magnetic field. Which then entirely resolves this question.

    Here again is that link to the second part of the two part paper. I trust that the link to this paper will eventually be provided by JONP – but until then – here it is again.

    http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php?p=/plugin/page/paper2

    Kindest regards,
    Rosemary

    Pascal Baijot
    June 4th, 2012 at 6:18 AM

    Dear Rosemary,
    As an electronic and software engineer I could reproduce your experiment with some other components and tell you about my results.
    But something seems strange to me in the circuit schematic : the source current flowing through the Q-array Q2 has to flow through the function generator which has an output impedance of 50 ohms.
    Is there something wrong in the drawing of the schematic ?

    King regards,
    Pascal

  • Joe

    Rosemary Ainslie,

    1. Are you saying that your circuit can achieve overunity?

    2. If so, then what is the provenance of that excess energy?

    a) the scavenging of environmental EM radiation

    b) low-level chemical combustion of the circuit elements

    c) low-energy nuclear transmutation of the circuit elements

    3. What is your definition or description of electric charge?

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Joseph Fine

    Rosemary,

    Can you connect two or more of these circuits in series?

    If one system has a power ratio of 2, four systems in series would have a gain of 16. And sixty-four of these in series would require a lot of MOSFETS.

    Seriously, do the batteries ever run down? If not you have infinite gain.

    Joseph

  • Francesco

    Dear Rosemary Ainslie
    Sorry but it is not clear how many mosfets are placed in parallel in each branch of the circuit. On the left side is indicated Q2x4 while on the right-hand side is not indicated. In addition published schema configuration of Q2 (signal that enters the source) it seems to me abnormal. Can you clarify? Thanks
    F. T.

  • Well, I have seen the circuit.

    Excuse me, but to tell, from this simple circuit, that a breach in the unity of energy is reached, seams not very …………………… very real.

    No one of those components, nor the MOSFETs, nor the Resistance, nor the Inductor, can give more energy than they take.

    NO.

    Is the first time I see this blog, and I thought this ‘start paper’, does not say very much on its scientific value.

    If you think I am wrong, well, we can talk, and I can do any circuit like this (They are absolutely elemental circuits, very simple).

    But …… excuse me, this has nothing of serious.

    Best Regards.

    Javier.

  • Pascal Baijot

    Dear Rosemary,
    As an electronic and software engineer I could reproduce your experiment with some other components and tell you about my results.
    But something seems strange to me in the circuit schematic : the source current flowing through the Q-array Q2 has to flow through the function generator which has an output impedance of 50 ohms.
    Is there something wrong in the drawing of the schematic ?

    King regards,
    Pascal

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Joe:
    Exactly,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi
    June 3rd, 2012 at 4:31 AM

    Dear Rosemary Ainslie:
    Please continue to send all the further links you want, we will publish them immediately. We published your comment with the links exactly as it arrived to us. If there is some missing part, please send it again,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Dear Andrea,

    Could I impose on you to publish and reference the abstract of the 2nd part of that two-paper as well as the first. Else there’s no completion to this publication. I’m attaching a link to the second paper again.

    Kindest regards,
    Rosemary

    http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php?p=/plugin/page/paper2

  • Joe

    Dr Rossi,

    Forgive me for not specifying that my previous comment concerned the circuit in the latest article on JONP at the top of this page. (It is obvious that the E-Cat producing 10kW for 4400 hours does not have as its source the combustion of a few grams of circuit elements.)

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Mauro Rossi
    June 3rd, 2012 at 4:49 AM

    Hi all,
    I have a few question for Rosemary

    Have you tried your experiments with coils of different materials? Nickel-Chrome (this you tried for sure), but what about copper, aluminium, tungsten (it’s easy to obtain rods)?

    In my undestanding of the circuit, it is similar to a resonant Switching Power Supply, however an overheating of that magnitude should at least been noticed in thermal engineering/dimensioning of resonant SPS.
    Note that coils of SPS are usually made of copper o aluminium, well resistors are made of Nickel-Chrome but but currents have a very small ripple (small by design) .

    Are you suggesting that the effect is related to Nickel or it is a property of CEMF to return more heat to every kind of coil?

    Have you tried a frequency sweep to determine if the heat delivery is frequency dependent?

    This phenomenon is so curious.

    Thanks
    Dear Mauro Rossi
    We do not think that this effect relies on the use of nickel materials. It is more a property of CEMF. There was an earlier publication done some 10 year ago where we managed to measure a COP>17. I’ll publish that link in due course subject to Andrea’s approval.

    Regarding your question about frequency. We have certainly recorded in that 1st part of the 2 part paper – the evidence that higher switched frequencies seem to enhance the benefits – substantially.

    I also think that this may be some way to supplement the required power for initiating the LENR effect that Andrea Rossi requires – but we will need to get that power output to higher values. The good news is that if this works then the E-Cat could, perhaps be operated entirely off grid. Which would possibly be a good thing. This technology is not patented. So for those experimentalists who read here – this may be an avenue worth exploring.

    Kind regards,
    Rosemary Ainslie

  • Eric Olsson
    June 2nd, 2012 at 3:40 PM

    Really awesome paper. I even managed to replicate some of the results (boiling water) although I do not have the equipment to check the waves and stuff. I did not understand the details though – is the excess heat due to nickel in the heating element? I do not know what material my heater is made from but perhaps it is nickel. I guess this effect can be used to boost the input of the e-cat and increase the COP further.

    Kind regards,

    Eric

    Dear Eric,

    I think the second paper will clarify this for you. We have tested many different resistors on this and similar switched circuits to obtain significant heat signatures without measuring energy to have been delivered by the battery supply. It is not an effect that relies on the use of nickel. I think the second paper will clarify the thesis better. The first part only deals with the measured anomalies.

    Delighted to see that you’ve already replicated the effect. It is indeed easy to generate that waveform.

    Kindest regards,
    Rosemary

    Here again is that link to the second part of this two part paper.
    http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php?p=/plugin/page/published2

  • Mauro Rossi

    Hi all,
    I have a few question for Rosemary

    Have you tried your experiments with coils of different materials? Nickel-Chrome (this you tried for sure), but what about copper, aluminium, tungsten (it’s easy to obtain rods)?

    In my undestanding of the circuit, it is similar to a resonant Switching Power Supply, however an overheating of that magnitude should at least been noticed in thermal engineering/dimensioning of resonant SPS.
    Note that coils of SPS are usually made of copper o aluminium, well resistors are made of Nickel-Chrome but but currents have a very small ripple (small by design) .

    Are you suggesting that the effect is related to Nickel or it is a property of CEMF to return more heat to every kind of coil?

    Have you tried a frequency sweep to determine if the heat delivery is frequency dependent?

    This phenomenon is so curious.

    Thanks

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Rosemary Ainslie:
    Please continue to send all the further links you want, we will publish them immediately. We published your comment with the links exactly as it arrived to us. If there is some missing part, please send it again,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Rosemary Ainslie:
    Thank you very much for the appendixes to your interesting paper.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Dear Andrea,

    I have just seen your comment related to the private and confidential status of my earlier correspondence. Indeed, you are right. There is absolutely no need to keep anything confidential. It is just that, for some reason, there is no link to the second part of that 2 part paper – which I assume was an oversight.

    Thank you very much indeed for publishing this Andrea. I am hoping that these proposals will go some way to explaining LENR without affronting our classicists. We are all of us very grateful for your publication of this.

    Kindest regards,
    Rosemary

  • Dear Rosemary:
    Please send the link to these papers by means of a comment to the blog of
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com
    Your article is fresh, so these adjournments have to be read now.
    We will publish your comment , in which you explain the correction and the connections to your article, immediately.
    Warm Regards,
    JONP

    In answer to this – the two papers can be accessed here
    http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php?p=/plugin/page/published2

    and here
    http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php?p=/plugin/page/published1

    The second paper refers to the thesis that is in support of evidence in the first part of that paper. We would stress that these papers are proposals only and have been published to encourage our experts to overview the explanations and the results that were predicted by that field model. We also modestly propose that they conform to the standard model with a minor exceptions related to the material nature of electric current. With the theoretical proposal that these fields are responsible coalesced matter and that composites of these fundamental dipoles form our particles – then this would also reconcile some outstanding questions related to both these anomalous results evidences in our tests as well as to some profound questions still unresolved by that model.

    Kind regards,
    Rosemary

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Joe:
    The circuit elements have a weight of few grams…and if they burn the E-Cat stops to work.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Rosemary Ainslie:
    Excuse me, but I do not see why your comment has to be confidential, it is clear and clean and gives me the chance to make the following consideration, which, I think, can interest all the Readers. We have published your article as it has been given to us from the Peer Reviewer, but you are very welcome to send to this blog all the links to all your complementary papers and explications. Personally, I deem your work interesting. We do never interfere in the work of the peer reviewers, but every comment regarding the published papers is very welcome on this blog.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL

    Dear Amdrea

    Could you please advise us whether the 2nd part of that 2 part paper was deliberately omitted? And thank you very much for publishing this. It was above and beyond and much appreciated. I’ll send you the two papers again per email. The first paper has a required correction. The second is the thesis in support of the first. No new science there Andrea. Just Faraday’s lines of force. But we suspect that it may go some way towards the explanation for LENR. But that’s for you and other experts to determine. Ours is only a modest proposal.

    Kindest regards,
    Rosemary

  • Dear All,

    I just updated my web site. For those who are interested about the Strongest indications (or evidences) of Aether’s existence through the theory and experiments, you are welcome to visit my Web Site: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/

    Aether’s Direct Detection Experiments: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/AetherDetection/

    The above link is also placed on the main Web Site.

    Ioannis Xydous

    Electronic Engineer

    Switzerland

  • Joe

    Can we be certain that the excess power does not come from simple, low-level combustion of circuit elements?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Eric Olsson:
    I am a little bit confused: can you explain better?
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Eric Olsson

    Really awesome paper. I even managed to replicate some of the results (boiling water) although I do not have the equipment to check the waves and stuff. I did not understand the details though – is the excess heat due to nickel in the heating element? I do not know what material my heater is made from but perhaps it is nickel. I guess this effect can be used to boost the input of the e-cat and increase the COP further.

    Kind regards,

    Eric

  • Hamdi Ucar

    Experimental Evidence of a Breach of Unity:

    The sentence starting as “The batteries’ rated capacity is” at the end of the page 5 does not appears to continue on the next division.

    The phenomenon, appearing the base of many self powered and over-unity devices having coils or purely working with permanent magnets, the principle, I think, would be a fundamental property. There are examples that the anomaly is also accompanied with gravitational anomalies too which can be related to ‘collapse’ of the magnetic field. The magnetic and the gravitational field which considered as ‘static’ classically, might incorporate the time parameter in their equations.

    One should also consider the CEMF phenomena, either in magnetic or in electrical field parts may affect the measuring equipment in totally unexpected ways. It is equally important the catch this manifestation and analyzing it, instead of ride of the interference on the equipment.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Piotr:
    If you want, we can put you in contact with our Poland Licensee. If you want so, please contact
    info@leonardocorp1996.com
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Piotr

    Hello Mr. Rossi,
    I’m a 26 years old student from Poland that watches this site for any updates. I follow your project from the beginning and any news about it always make a smile on my face. You see I’m a school teacher – actually I’m a substitute teacher since the woman I’m replacing is pregnant. But that’s enough about me. I’m really fascinated (like you) with energy and methods of “making” it. I was wonder if when (not “if” but “when”) you make your first production version of e-cat would you be interested in looking a hmm… worker or a partner in Poland? I know I’m a bit straight right now but I’m also SO FASCINATED and desperate… that I hope you excuse me.
    Truly the E-Cat can be considered “fire of the new millennium” and I wish to somehow represent you sir. I know that getting an answer from you would be a bit like winning a lottery but I finally decided to write to you. Please Mr. Rossi if you find some free time write back to me in private at pil11@op.pl
    I really hope to hear from you.
    Piotr L.
    pil11@op.pl

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Gerard Dubosson:
    Yes, is interesting.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Prof. Joseph Fine:
    Thank you for your interesting comment,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Joseph Fine

    In the Maximum Power Transfer Theorem [1], Wikipedia describes the maximum power transfer ratio (Power delivered to the Load/Power available from source).

    In their new paper, authors ‘D. R. E. A. M. & R.’ convert battery power into a burst oscillatory waveform that delivers power to load impedance RL1. The Max. Pwr. Transfer theorem states that at a condition of maximum power transfer there is 50% efficiency. That is, the power delivered to a load is usually less than or, at best, equal to the power lost (e.g. heat dissipation) in the source.

    Increased efficiency can be realized by reducing source resistance (or impedance) to near zero and/or increasing load resistance (or impedance) to near infinite. Of course, that drops the power transferred to the load.

    If more than 100% of source power can be delivered to a load, the authors should be congratulated for more than doubling the maximum power previously available.

    References
    [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_power_transfer_theorem

    Joseph Fine

  • Gerard Dubosson

    Dear Mr Rossi,

    It is a very interesting article. Many thanks indeed for putting it on your blog: this really helps to move progressively from nano cracks to micro ones in the nuclear physics glass ceiling… I particularly appreciated (i) that the article is a reminder that a “COP” greater than 1 is infinite and, (ii) that the resistor used during the experiment is made of Nickel-Chrome.

    Best wishes and good luck!

    Gérard Dubosson

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>