Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 84250
  • *Latest: Aslet21

  • *Total Posts: 898048
  • *Total Topics: 15837
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 2
  • *Guests: 15
  • *Total: 17

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder  (Read 271603 times)

Offline nievesoliveras

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1996
@rosemary

Forgive, forget and keep up living.

Jesus

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
You're right Jesus.  I waste way too much time on this subject probably.  But it scares me that this work will all just eventually get buried. I'll write this out to better explain things - in due course.  Right now I'm still smarting. 

It's not a question of forgiving.  It's the rank connning of the general public that gets me.  If their readers knew one half of what goes on behind the scenes there they'd be rather surprised.  And that sanctimous facade!  That needs to be shown for what it is.  Both by the forum administrators and by both Glen and Harvey.  But I get it that our members and readers are actually not that easily fooled.  Certainly I'm beginning to see a 'sea change' here and there in the attitudes of their posters.  EDIT.  The downside here is that they're then banned and no reference to their banning.  Very strange.  It's the ultimate censorship.  Say what we want to hear and NOTHING else - else we won't let you post.  LOL.  If they made an open admission to banning me or - indeed - anyone - then that would be some kind of guide.   

Kindest regards
Rosemary

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Hi Rosemary,

I don't know if I should do this because I don't want to give you the feeling that I'm some kind of adversary (notwithstanding the fact that I only recently learned of your interesting experiments). On the contrary, I know we're on the same side of the barricade in this conceptual revolution in physics and that makes me still the more convinced that I should have the obligation to correct my fellow fighters where I think they err.

I feel that I have to correct you on these statements:

Quote
No-one told me that the flow of current was the flow of electrons.  I had to work it out from the term 'charge' as referenced by both Dyson and Zukov.  But when I finally understood that mainstream considered current flow to be the flow of electrons - then I had a real PROBLEM.  How is this possible in the light of Pauli's exclusion principle?  And anyway.  By now I was knee deep in my experiments and I had already determined that current flow comprised the flow of magnetic fields.

Forgive me for the strong words (I mean no offense) but this is a gross misunderstanding of the nature of electric current and that's very easy to demonstrate. You only need to consider, say, copper deposition from CuSO4 solution to find out your understanding is incorrect. You can carry out an experiment and you will inevitably determine (provided you do the experiment correctly) that Faraday's first law of electrolysis holds without a doubt. You will always have one mole of Cu deposited by passing of two moles of electrons. That's a law of Nature, written in stone, testable anytime and anywhere.

Notice, the above proof that electricity is due to flow of electrons is an experimental fact and has nothing to do with Pauli's exclusion principle. If it had anything to do with that Principle then the principle in question (not the experiment) would be overthrown. The experiment above, however, like I said, has nothing to do with the Pauli's exclusion principle because that principle is only applicable for bound electrons, that is, electrons in an atom. The electrons lowing in a conductor are not bound electrons and current is certainly due to flow of these electrons.

I should mention also, that there had been extensive legitimate attempts to reduce the electromagnetic field to just one type of phenomenon -- electric. That's the attempt by Weber as opposed to Maxwell. To put it simply, Weber denied the existence of magnetism altogether and attributed all the electromagnetic phenomena solely to electricity. There may be something rational in Weber's theory but I don't think we should get into that esoteric fine print at this point. Much more important is to see as to whether or not there really is a basis to claim experimental evidence for OU. Never mind scaling it up. Never mind its practical application. This will come later and it's inevitable once the reality of OU is established.

You probably would like to know what my answer to that is. I do think I have definitive proof that there is OU in electrical systems and that OU is inherent in these phenomena under certain circumstances. This can be proved purely theoretically and has been missed so far. As for the experiments, I've determined that the accuracy of determination of the current-voltage phase shift is of dramatic importance and it is very likely that some of the OU seen experimentally is only seeming, due to subtle errors in measuring the said phase shift. That notwithstanding, I reconfirm that OU is inherent in the electric phenomena under certain circumstances and that can be determined also experimentally provided one uses not only high-end (14 bit) scopes but also the current ans especially voltage probes are of high-end quality.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Hello Omnibus.  Rather intimidated by such a veteran poster.  Crowding 4000 posts.  That's hefty. 

Forgive me for the strong words (I mean no offense) but this is a gross misunderstanding of the nature of electric current and that's very easy to demonstrate. You only need to consider, say, copper deposition from CuSO4 solution to find out your understanding is incorrect. You can carry out an experiment and you will inevitably determine (provided you do the experiment correctly) that Faraday's first law of electrolysis holds without a doubt. You will always have one mole of Cu deposited by passing of two moles of electrons. That's a law of Nature, written in stone, testable anytime and anywhere.
I'm not sure that electrolysis has anything at all to do with this argument.  Take your average motorised generator and - with absolutely NO chemical interactions one can generate the flow of current. 

Notice, the above proof that electricity is due to flow of electrons is an experimental fact and has nothing to do with Pauli's exclusion principle.
I suggest - with the utmost respect, that you have only proved that electrolysis results in a variation of molecular and atomic arrangement in a chemical mix.  Therefore, indeed it has nothing to do with Pauli's exclusion principle. 

If it had anything to do with that Principle then the principle in question (not the experiment) would be overthrown.
Not sure what you mean by this.  Pauli's exclusion principle determines that NO TWO ELECTRONS CAN SHARE THE SAME ORBIT.  It refers to the atomic arrangement of electrons in their different energy levels.  It was one of those miraculous insights that eventually enabled the unfolding of the periodic table.  But the principle holds true.  Electrons have a 'like charge' and they are therefore inherently repulsive.

The experiment above, however, like I said, has nothing to do with the Pauli's exclusion principle because that principle is only applicable for bound electrons, that is, electrons in an atom. The electrons flowing in a conductor are not bound electrons and current is certainly due to flow of these electrons.
I'd be happier with this assertion if you could also prove this.  There are two classical explanations for current flow - as determined by WIKI which are mutually exclusive.  I've referenced them both. If it's the 'domino effect' of transfer - then it would take about 10 minutes for the average current to reach your average light bulb to light it.  That's assuming a distance of about 1 meter between the plug source and the light itself.  If it were the result of 'free electrons' extrapolated from the 'air' around the circuit - then there's a problem of ingress and egress through the wire's insulation.  And if it were the transfer of electrons from the source - then there are not enough electrons from your average generator to fire up all the appliances in your average household from your average supply grid.  Just statistically impossible.  It is simply impossible.  Which is why the purist will only refer to current as the flow of charge.  Definitely avoids reference to electrons.

I should mention also, that there had been extensive legitimate attempts to reduce the electromagnetic field to just one type of phenomenon -- electric. That's the attempt by Weber as opposed to Maxwell. To put it simply, Weber denied the existence of magnetism altogether and attributed all the electromagnetic phenomena solely to electricity. There may be something rational in Weber's theory but I don't think we should get into that esoteric fine print at this point.
I'm aware of this development especially as it relates to EU theories.  But THAT is definitely unproven.

Much more important is to see as to whether or not there really is a basis to claim experimental evidence for OU. Never mind scaling it up. Never mind its practical application. This will come later and it's inevitable once the reality of OU is established.
Again, with the utmost respect, may I impose on you to read the link hereunder and advise me where you still require that OU still needs to be established?  I rather suggest that we'll need establish our own time lines here for the practical applications of this technology - lest we be held up for any time at all while you familiarise yourself with these results. 

You probably would like to know what my answer to that is. I do think I have definitive proof that there is OU in electrical systems and that OU is inherent in these phenomena under certain circumstances. This can be proved purely theoretically and has been missed so far. As for the experiments, I've determined that the accuracy of determination of the current-voltage phase shift is of dramatic importance and it is very likely that some of the OU seen experimentally is only seeming, due to subtle errors in measuring the said phase shift. That notwithstanding, I reconfirm that OU is inherent in the electric phenomena under certain circumstances and that can be determined also experimentally provided one uses not only high-end (14 bit) scopes but also the current and especially voltage probes are of high-end quality.
Again - while I'm delighted to see you intend to verify this - we are. nonetheless, satisfied with our own verification - again with the utmost respect.   Our proof is based on the accurate measure of energy delivered by a battery compared to the amount of energy dissipated at the load.  The dissipated energy far exceeds the energy delivered.  And indeed there's a theoretical reason for this.  It's explained in my own magnetic field model and is required.

Regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33988924/DARK-MATTER-MFM

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Hi Rosemary,

As you've probably sensed from my earlier post I'm not one bit interested in the practical application of discoveries. There is science and there is application of science called technology. The latter is outside of my interest.

As for the flow of electrons, the example from electrochemistry is a simple but a very telling and appropriate example regarding whether or not current is indeed flow of electrons. Notice, you yourself are using a battery, that is, an electrochemical system. The example I gave you should leave you with no doubt that the electricity in the leads from your electrochemical source is indeed a flow of electrons and nothing else. Try to understand that no matter what, the anode of the battery you're using will lose exactly the amount of gram moles which will correspond to the current you measure to have flown through the leads for the given time. That's exact. It's an experimental fact and can't be denied due to Pauli's exclusion principle which pertains to something completely different, having nothing to do with flow of current along a conductor. Once you get comfortable with that aspect (your electrochemical source losing the exact amount of moles corresponding to the measured current for a given time) you'll be able to understand why the current in an average motorized generator also amounts to flow of charges per unit time. No need to repeat, you can test that by, for instance, carrying out an electrochemical reaction among other ways.

Regarding Pauli's exclusion principle, notice you yourself are mentioning sharing "the same orbit" or "periodic table". Pauli's exclusion principle indeed pertains to these notions and does not pertain to flowing of free electrons in a conductor. As to why repelling electrons in a conductor keep going in one preferred direction, that's a matter of a mechanism of that flow. I think there may be more research needed to understand how this really happens but the fact remains (experimental fact at that) that the electric current is indeed flow of electrons. Think about of the flow of electrons (they are electrically charged particles indeed because they can be diverted in a magnetic field) in a Crooke's tube. No electrochemistry there, right?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Regarding the experimental proof, I see you're insisting you have such but my experience shows that experiments with even the high end Tektronix 7000 scopes and up may still not be enough to guarantee that what is being measured is the true voltage and current through the studied circuit even with a simple sine wave let alone a complex wave form. Thus, purely experimental evidence isn't enough at this stage. No one would believe it, the least the honest critics would. You probably know of the superb replication of eOrbo of Steorn by @Omega_0. He is the first to have replicated Steorn's claims. Unfortunately both in his results and in the results of the originators from Steorn the tricky question of accurately measuring the I-V phase shift may be the culprit and that's very difficult to sort out even with the best equipment there is nowadays. I'm, of course, talking about purely electrical measurements which should be sufficient to resolve the problem if done right. Calorimetry brings in incredible additional mess and should be avoided altogether. So, something additional is needed, alongside the electrical measurements but calorimetry isn't it. What one can do is analyze the situation purely theoretically, based on the nature of the phenomena, and demonstrate that OU is inherent in the very essence of these phenomena under certain circu7mstances. Those who have followed the Steorn thread know my argument to that effect.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Hi again Omnibus.


As you've probably sensed from my earlier post I'm not one bit interested in the practical application of discoveries. There is science and there is application of science called technology. The latter is outside of my interest.
Even if you don't have interest in the practicalities you SURELY rely on experimental evidence.  We base all these claims on experimental evidence.  Notwithstanding your prediction that there will inevitably be a loss - we have a battery undergoing a 'recharge' cycle that is absolutely empirically evident.  This rather flies in the face of the assumption that we are losing an electron on a continual basis.

And I assure you the ONLY reasonable explanation for an electron current flow is the continual displacement of the outer valence electrons in a kind of 'domino effect'.  The speed required for this would leave the most of us in the dark for about 10 minutes to half an hour while those electrons nudged themselves towards the light bulbs.  Just does not happen.  Current flow is known to be at or close to light speed.

As you say, electrochemistry is indeed capable of generating a current flow - but if that flow were the result of a transfer of electrons from the one terminal to another - then again - it would take a significant amount of time before it impacted on the resistors in series with that flow.  And far from satisfying me that the current is therefore a flow of electrons - I assure you - it is better answered as a flow of charge.  What comprises that 'charge' is still at question.

So Omnibus - we need to agree to disagree - unless you can explain how the electrons are transferred from one terminal to another.  It is ABSOLUTELY NOT scientifically proven that current flow comprises electrons.  It's only assumed.  It's a MODEL or a CONCEPT - albeit widely held.  But it would be as well to remember that it was also once a widely held concept that the Earth was flat.   And I'm afraid that your example does NOTHING to explain the electron  current flow from a motorised generator.

And Pauli established his principle based on a simple truth.  Like charge cannot share a path - anywhere.  Current flow relies on the concept of a shared path as that much is empirically evident.  It flows in a consistent direction.  It can reverse direction.  But always flows distinctly from or towards the cathode - the one to discharge it the other to recharge it.

regards,
Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Regarding the experimental proof, I see you're insisting you have such but my experience shows that experiments with even the high end Tektronix 7000 scopes and up may still not be enough to guarantee that what is being measured is the true voltage and current through the studied circuit even with a simple sine wave let alone a complex wave form. Thus, purely experimental evidence isn't enough at this stage.
Golly Omnibus.  Experimental evidence NOT ENOUGH?  Then what?  You're now arguing that experimental evidence is irrelevant.  I have NO argument against that - any more than Sir Walter Raleigh would have been able to argue with the flat earthers.  This is getting absurd - with respect.

No one would believe it, the least the honest critics would. You probably know of the superb replication of eOrbo of Steorn by @Omega_0. He is the first to have replicated Steorn's claims. Unfortunately both in his results and in the results of the originators from Steorn the tricky question of accurately measuring the I-V phase shift may be the culprit and that's very difficult to sort out even with the best equipment there is nowadays.
I have never presumed to comment on the Steorn devices.  All I can comment on is my own experiments.  We measure a heat dissipation that is up to 17 times greater than the energy delivered by the battery.  The results are conclusive.

I'm, of course, talking about purely electrical measurements which should be sufficient to resolve the problem if done right. Calorimetry brings in incredible additional mess and should be avoided altogether.
Actually this is lapsing into a bit of nonsense - with respect.  Calorimetric measurements are absolutely UNARGUABLE.  And our protocol was determined by academics with a far more strongly vested interest in disproving these results than your own.  And possibly a little more authority.

So, something additional is needed, alongside the electrical measurements but calorimetry isn't it. What one can do is analyze the situation purely theoretically, based on the nature of the phenomena, and demonstrate that OU is inherent in the very essence of these phenomena under certain circumstances. Those who have followed the Steorn thread know my argument to that effect.
I absolutely agree.  It is a result that calls for a re-evaluation of the properties of current flow.  This argument is definitely getting circular.  Like I say, Omnibus - I would recommend that you read our experimental evidence - or that you read my thesis - or you provide some explanation for these results that are somehow justified as the flow of electrons.  I'd be happy with any of these options.

Regards,
Rosemary

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Hi Rosemary,

I guess, by reading your arguments, that we can agree on current being the directed flow of charge rather than concretely of electrons. That picture is quite plausible -- recall (again electrochemistry, sorry) current in an electrochemical cell is in fact directed flow of ions, not electrons. However, how are you going to explain away your concern that like charges repel and therefore, as far as I understand you, such like charges can't flow together in one direction?

As for the experimental results, I expressed my concerns and I do hope they are without basis although my own experience tells me they more likely are legitimate. I'd like to test your device so that I can have some concrete things to say but I don't know how this can be done. I have a Tektronix DPO 2014, Hall effect based current probe Tektronix TCP 0030 and the standard passive 1X and 10X probes. Also, I have a Hewlett Packard pulse generator and a Keithley 2000 DMM.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Hi Omnibus,

I absolutely agree with you.  Current flow is best described as the 'flow of charge'.  In fact those purists among our mainstream theorists actually do use this term.  My own grounding in physics was based on the writing of Dyson and Zukov - and they neither of them mentioned the flow of electrons as the cause.  So, two years down the line and already knee deep in experiments it came as a shock to see that anyone at all thought of current flow in terms of the flow of electrons. Then the second suprise was that electrical engineers rather relied on this concept.  Since my experiments were really designed to prove the thesis - then I was hoping to speak to theoretical physicists.  So I never really addressed this concern with our engineering fraternity.  There was quite enough contention in claiming the numbers that we were claiming without also confronting them with an explanation.  That is, until I came to these forums.   ::)  Again.  Anyone who holds to the flow of electrons as a cause is in REALLY good company.  Those of us who confront this are in a really small minority.  Fortunately that number is rising.  People, regardless of their training, are thankfully, very much open to logical argument and evidence.

You ask how I explain that 'charge' is not the same thing?  You're right - again.  Charge specifically speaks to some polar property.  But if one proposes a 'bipolar' charged particle - as opposed to a neutral particle - then it would enable the 'shared path' as it would not defy Pauli's exclusion principle.  My own proposal is that we are dealing here with a magnetic dipole that 'binds' amalgams.  This broad definition of the term 'amalgams' includes liquid amalgams. In other words the atoms themselves have a field of magnetic dipoles that are extraneous to the atom and that that binds them together.   But the 'field' is proposed to be extraneous to the atoms that they bind.  The 'holding together' of those amalgams is then easily determined based on the valence condition of those atoms in the amalgam.  Effectively the field can spin to the left or to the right - north or south - on or off - whatever is required to 'balance' that amalgam.  And where they can't find a preferred balance, such as in a strong acid or alkaline mix, then they remain 'restive' or 'energetic' until they can find some medium - some circuit path - to forge a 'realignment' of the atoms.  Then they move to reach that preferred 'balance'.  In the process of electrolysis - I'm proposing that the re-arrangement of those molecules and atoms are determined by these fields that move the atom.  And in an electric circuit - I'm proposing that these same fields literally detatch from the atomic structure - congregate at the terminals - and, at a critical density - they then forge through the circuit material to re-enter the amalgam with an alternate spin or charge - or bias.  That way they can re-establish the required balance.  And that way they also adjust the electrolytic mix to a condition of neutrality.  In effect, current flow may then be seen as the flow of charge and this current flow is then accessed in ALL material.  But electric current flow through standard circuitry relies on the mass or the material from inductive circuit components.  In other words the mass of the resistor comes into the equation as does the mass from the battery or any supply source.

To introduce the concept of these fields is also perhaps justified as an explanation of the Casimir effect.  Here it is known that on a really small scale - material is able to bond.  If these fields simply conjoin atoms then they would - indeed - promote that bonding.

You see.  The explanation is actually not that bizaar.  Our theoreticians are looking for a 'dark' or 'invisible' particle to explain certain anomalies that are apparent related to gravity.  Such a field of 'binding' particles would indeed be 'invisible' provided only that they exceeded light speed and provided that they were smaller than known tachyons.  And we know that in the process of 'current flow' the only thing that is 'stressed' is the bound condition of resistive loads.  They tend to degrade.  So.  The proposal is that they degrade to the extent that these fields are able to move through space thereby compromising that bound condition.  Our filaments break.  Our resistive loads get hot.  And so on. 

That may help in understanding the proposals of the thesis.  I do hope so.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Hi Rosemary,

I still don't get it. What does a picture, right or wrong, as to what electric current is have anything to do with experiments supposedly showing energy disbalance? The problems regarding the reality of the experimental results are of different character than the problems to examine the nature of electric current. In the experiments we measure the values of the current independent of what we think its nature is as we do in measuring voltage. These measurements allow us to judge for the energy spent as well as the energy obtained and the only problem we have is whether or not the values we get are indeed the true values of these parameters for the system at hand. If correct, these measurements leading to finding out what the energy balance is will be unaffected by our ruminations on the nature of current even if these ruminations are wrong.These are two separate sets of activities and I don't see why you seem to think they are interdependent.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Hi Rosemary,

I still don't get it. What does a picture, right or wrong, as to what electric current is have anything to do with experiments supposedly showing energy disbalance? The problems regarding the reality of the experimental results are of different character than the problems to examine the nature of electric current. In the experiments we measure the values of the current independent of what we think its nature is as we do in measuring voltage. These measurements allow us to judge for the energy spent as well as the energy obtained and the only problem we have is whether or not the values we get are indeed the true values of these parameters for the system at hand. If correct, these measurements leading to finding out what the energy balance is will be unaffected by our ruminations on the nature of current even if these ruminations are wrong.These are two separate sets of activities and I don't see why you seem to think they are interdependent.

Omnibus,  What this entire thread topic is about - whether the thesis or its application - is the simple fact that there is an apparent anomaly in the measurements indicated, precisely because more energy is dissipated than delivered.  The simple art of measuring energy is of very little interest outside it's context of efficiency related to any particular application.  And when there's an equivalence between what is delivered and dissipated, then it simply falls within classical prediction.  If there is an overunity result - one needs an explanation.  We do indeed measure over unity.  I'm going to some lengths to explain that this is NOT an anomaly.  But there is very little point in devoting a thread to the methods and protocols associated with that measurement when it's already been exhaustively referenced in our paper and widely applied in all standard measurement protocols.  What is not so widely understood is that thinking that required for what you euphemistically term energy 'imbalance'.  I see a need to explain this.  You are under no obligation to read that explanation. 

Regards,
Rosemary

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Rosemary, I beg to differ regarding the importance of the measurements. The reality of the energy imbalance measured is the pivotal question. This is exactly what isn't accepted by the conventional science. Explaining it, practically applying it etc. are secondary to that main, central problem. What needs to be done, I think, is to concentrate all our efforts in convincing the scientific community in the reality of the effect itself prior to any attempts to explain or apply it. It is exactly the experimental results in question which the scientific community is vehemently opposing to accept. That's the Gordian knot which we have to solve with a bold stroke. Unlike your impression, however, I don't think this has yet occurred.

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Now, again, I still don't understand why do you need experiments in overunity in order to promote your idea of what the nature of current is. One may consider your idea of current in conductors such as copper as being controversial enough to be supplemented by another controversial idea such as the claim for OU. It seems you can choose some well accepted system where current flows and work out your thesis there. Why do you need OU at all for sustaining your thesis?

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Rosemary, I beg to differ regarding the importance of the measurements. The reality of the energy imbalance measured is the pivotal question. This is exactly what isn't accepted by the conventional science. Explaining it, practically applying it etc. are secondary to that main, central problem. What needs to be done, I think, is to concentrate all our efforts in convincing the scientific community in the reality of the effect itself prior to any attempts to explain or apply it. It is exactly the experimental results in question which the scientific community is vehemently opposing to accept. That's the Gordian knot which we have to solve with a bold stroke. Unlike your impression, however, I don't think this has yet occurred.

I was with you through this whole post until your final sentence.  "Unlike your impression, however, I don't think this as yet occurred."  What exactly?  Are you saying that we have NOT achieved OU?  Or are you saying the scientific community are not yet on board to evaluating this?  In any event, both options are simply wrong.  We HAVE CONCLUSIVELY measured OU.  And we are getting this assessed on campus so the scientific community will certainly be 'on board' - if only to evaluate those measurements really, really carefully.  That 'bold stroke' - is the courage of an academy that has finally - if somewhat belatedely, decided to determine these claims from the experimental evidence.  No small achievement I might add. That's a really, really bold move.  And the courage not mine - but theirs. 

And Omnibus - if I left it to the scientific community to explain it then they would first have to dismantle the entire structure of physics.  It may be quicker if I simply suggest my own proposals that required this result - is all.  Golly.  In any event - my explanations conform to ALL KNOWN PHYSICS.  No exceptions there.  Nothing NEW.  The only thing that is new is that I've presumed to locate that 'dark energy'.  And it's long overdue that the engineering fraternities, everywhere, revisit that delusion related to the 'flow of electrons' as representing current flow.

Regards,
Rosemary

 

OneLink