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: 84218
  • *Latest: RhineX

  • *Total Posts: 897395
  • *Total Topics: 15816
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 4
  • *Guests: 19
  • *Total: 23

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder  (Read 269493 times)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Here's where it get complex, for me, as long as you remain in our "Relative" standard.  SOL is constant, for, say, a radio transmission.  If you are moving away, at the SOL, and you transmit back from point A, and at the same time you transmit back from point A in a non-moving object, the two signals are at the same speed heading to us.  Simple enough.  Here's where I start to disagree.  "Standard" relativity states that if "Craft" one is moving left to right at SOL and Craft two is moving Right to Left at SOL, then the two crafts approach each other at SOL.  Why? 

Apologies again to any who are not interested in theory.  Loner I've been going over and over this point.  I can't see why there's any confusion?  Clearly I'm not clever enough.  Here's how I see it.

Craft A is travelling at light speed as is craft B.  The distance between them is being covered at 2C - but each craft is still travelling at light speed?  And any signal transmitted by either craft to the occupant of the other craft - would be simultaneous with that speed.  Effectively the signal will reach the occupant at the other craft at the same time that their crafts precisely juxtapose each other - hopefully NOT in a head on collision.  If the conversation between those occupants were extended over time - then one hopes that they both have some means of encapsulating all that talk into some kind of instant storage device as the most of it will otherwise be lost.  Then the recording device needs to be left on.  As the conversation will be 'backwards'.  They'll need to hit the rewind to make any sense of it at all.  Because the only time that chat will be in a co-incident timeframe is when they're really up close and personal.  And if they really shared the same path then the force of that collision would be at 2C which I reckon would be somewhat catastrophic.  And in the hopes that they sidestep a head on collision and simply pass each other - then if they continued trying to 'chat' through some kind of radio signal' then their conversation would have greater and greater pauses that time being exponentially increased as 'time goes by' and as the distance between them is increased.  LOL  The good news is that they'd be able to make better sense of the conversation as it would now be recoverable in a logical 'forward' time sequence.  It would just take an awfully long time to listen to it all. 

What becomes more complex is us - as a third party eavesdropper to that conversation.  And here I'd propose that we'd pick up that dialogue as the signal reaches us at light speed.  So.  It depends on the point at which that first signal was propogated.  Hopefully they take it in turns to talk.  Else it will all be simultaneous.  And we'd get to know about that conversation in a timeframe that takes as long as it takes depending on it's locality when it was first sent out. 

So.  In my book there's nothing that 'obscure' about the concept of time being another and critical fourth dimension.  And I agree that it's variable and locality dependent.  Unless I'm way off beam - I do think that Einstein was on the money here.  But I also grant you that I've probably entirely missed the significance of any subtleties.  My preferred 'mode of thinking' is keeping everything simple.  Not actually so much a PREFERENCE.  In my case it's a necessity required by the 'slowness' of my own thought processes.  LOL

 ;D

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

added
BTW If the occupant of Craft A was trying to signal Craft B to 'GET OUT OF THE WAY OF MY FLIGHT PATH' then it would have been a wasted warning.  Craft B would only get that signal LONG AFTER that collision.  LOL.  They'd need to find a way to signal at faster than light speed - or Craft A would need to take the initiative and make a small turn - OR he'd need to slow down a bit.  LOL
« Last Edit: October 30, 2010, 07:27:03 AM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
And guys, while I appreciate that a general discussion on time may appear to be irrelevant - indeed it is not.  There is MUCH to be understood regarding this.  I've said it over and over and I hope that sooner or later it will be understood.  IF ANYTHING moved faster than light speed - and provided also that it was SMALLER than a photon - then we would NEVER BE ABLE TO FIND THAT 'THING'.  Not ever.  It would, effectively be entirely INVISIBLE.

We need light to discover the properties of matter.  Or we need something to 'bounce' off something - to determine these proposed particles that may indeed exist.  Think of it as something as slow and big as a tortoise - trying to chase something as small and elegant as a wasp or a butterfly.  Both would always and easily be able to stay out of reach.  And my proposal is simple.  Perhaps our 'fields' comprise particles that move at velocities that EXCEED light speed.  And as a consequence they are elusive, never to be found - DARK.

In any event - that's the basis of my thesis.  The point being that that velocity would - in fact - introduce another dimension.  Our dimensions are length, breadth and depth.  And all is relative to a time frame relative to light speed.  If something exceeded light speed then it may perhaps share our dimensions of length, breadth and depth - but it would NOT be evident in our time frame.  It would be like the occupants of those space crafts - travelling at light speed but signalling each other when they'd passed each other.  The signal depends on light speed.  But the rate at which they're moving apart apart exceeds light speed.  In point of fact their 'chat' would never ever reach each other unless they slowed down to light speed.  Or unless they described an orbital and co-incident flight path. 

In effect - we cannot and never will be able to access something that exceeds light speed.  It's a boundary constraint.  It would need to slow down for us to prove its existence - at all.

I keep hoping I'll say something that 'resonates' somewhere.  LOL  My actual proposal is that velocity relates to 'size' and therefore - these particles may indeed be smaller than photons.  If velocity and size are related then the smaller the faster - the bigger the slower.  So.  If something is half the size of a photon?  Then perhaps it moves at twice the speed of a photon.  Something on those lines - in any event.

Regards,
Rosemary

Offline Harvey

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 143
And guys, while I appreciate that a general discussion on time may appear to be irrelevant - indeed it is not.  There is MUCH to be understood regarding this.  I've said it over and over and I hope that sooner or later it will be understood.  IF ANYTHING moved faster than light speed - and provided also that it was SMALLER than a photon - then we would NEVER BE ABLE TO FIND THAT 'THING'.  Not ever.  It would, effectively be entirely INVISIBLE.

We need light to discover the properties of matter.  Or we need something to 'bounce' off something - to determine these proposed particles that may indeed exist.  Think of it as something as slow and big as a tortoise - trying to chase something as small and elegant as a wasp or a butterfly.  Both would always and easily be able to stay out of reach.  And my proposal is simple.  Perhaps our 'fields' comprise particles that move at velocities that EXCEED light speed.  And as a consequence they are elusive, never to be found - DARK.

In any event - that's the basis of my thesis.  The point being that that velocity would - in fact - introduce another dimension.  Our dimensions are length, breadth and depth.  And all is relative to a time frame relative to light speed.  If something exceeded light speed then it may perhaps share our dimensions of length, breadth and depth - but it would NOT be evident in our time frame.  It would be like the occupants of those space crafts - travelling at light speed but signalling each other when they'd passed each other.  The signal depends on light speed.  But the rate at which they're moving apart apart exceeds light speed.  In point of fact their 'chat' would never ever reach each other unless they slowed down to light speed.  Or unless they described an orbital and co-incident flight path. 

In effect - we cannot and never will be able to access something that exceeds light speed.  It's a boundary constraint.  It would need to slow down for us to prove its existence - at all.

I keep hoping I'll say something that 'resonates' somewhere.  LOL  My actual proposal is that velocity relates to 'size' and therefore - these particles may indeed be smaller than photons.  If velocity and size are related then the smaller the faster - the bigger the slower.  So.  If something is half the size of a photon?  Then perhaps it moves at twice the speed of a photon.  Something on those lines - in any event.

Regards,
Rosemary

Will my freedom of expression be censored here? Probably, but here goes:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=faster-than-light-electric-currents-2010-06-18

Food for thought.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
How I conceptualise this is by looking at a standard permanent magnet and then trying to envisage those lines of force.  It's not possible in reality.  Certainly not with my poor eyes.  But one can see it in the mind's eye - sort of.  In any event.  When I did this - then it became relatively comfortable for me to envisage the full scope of the field. 

And having done this - then the seduction of all those patterns - those moving parts - may indeed occur to you as it has, somewhat obsessively, occurred to me.  There is just SO MUCH that is entirely compelling in thinking about that moving field.  I found the easiest means to get familiar with its structure was simply by imposing what's known about the field as an innate property of each particle.  Just to see if the correspondence could be maintained.  At the risk of boring you all to tears - here's how it goes.

There's a north and a south end of each magnet.  Therefore there would be a north and south of each particle.  That then would, presumably, be like a 'charge' property.  Which would make the particle a magnetic dipole.
Within a critical proximity magnets 'join up' or 'attach' their unlike poles.  This implies that the field prefers to conform to proximate fields - else they would not move together at all.  In the same way the particles would move together to extend the length of their 'necklaces' and thereby increasing the range of their orbits. 
Magnets align north to south.  Therefore these strings would align north to south.  If the field is moving ONLY north to south - as it appears to be doing - and assuming that it's moving at all - then it's actually just moving in one direction.  That means that it's got an orbital justification - from north to south - or from on to off - or from plus to minus.  Which means that each particle would also be moving in that single direction.
If those strings describe an orbit - first moving from the north to the south on the outside of the magnet and then from the south back to the north on the inside of the magnet - then the field describes a full 360 degree turn.  Then each particle would also move through that 360 degrees.  And each string would in fact be like a spinning necklace but spinning or orbiting in a field of other necklaces.
If that necklace actually spins through 360 degrees then one half of the field is always moving in an opposite direction to the other half of the field.  If those two 'directions' that cancel each other out are also the measure of the 'charge' property of the field - then the entire field is neutral as would be the magnetic dipole itself.  So.  The field would be neutral - the particle would be neutral - but both would have an orbital justification.
The orbital justification appears to be fixed as it is impossible for a magnet to simply change it's north/south alignment but must move it's entire body to align with proximate fields.  In the same way the field must also have a 'fixed' orbital path or justification.   
The magnet does not appear to gain or lose weight as a result of the field - therefore if the field comprises these little magnetic dipoles - then their mass must be fixed or their number must be finite - assuming that the particles 'lend' or 'add' to the weight of the entire magnet.

Which is more than enough to be going on with.  Hopefully you 'catch the drift'.  And for those who know all this from my field model - sorry to repeat it.  It's just that the vast majority of members here are entirely unfamiliar with these concepts - so I'm presuming to restate some points. 

Regards,
Rosemary

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Rosemary, I am really surprised that you are still spreading distortions about the published circuit in the Quantum article. Not only did many others, including Joit, reproduce the circuit and find that I am entirely correct about the duty cycle, YOU YOURSELF acknowledged this fact, as Glen has pointed out in some other posts.
Plus, the circuit and the article are still available for anyone to build or even simulate for themselves, to see that I am right and you are wrong about the duty cycle that it produces.

I also resent the statement that I rarely deal with specifics. I think that you will find that EVERYTHING I SAY is backed by specific research, most of which is still up on YouTube and is preserved in comments made when I was actively doing the research.

I sincerely hope that the students who are currently researching your conjecture will have recourse to my work. It might save them some time, and give them some ideas.

As an aside, why anyone would NOT want their controversial COP>17 device definitively tested in a precision calorimeter, by an agency experienced in these matters, is something that I simply do not understand. Unless, that is, there may be some real fear in the inventor's mind that the test might not show OU at all.

Again, on the matter of the Quantum circuit duty cycle: I encourage anyone who may still be interested to look up the circuit and build it for themselves.
In addition, of COURSE the whole premise and the whole foundation of your claim has to do with the duty cycle of the signal that is fed to the mosfet. You continue to have an apparent misconception about the relationships between Time, Charge, Voltage, Current, Power, and Energy. Unfortunately it does require some appreciation of the Calculus to comprehend fully -- or even approximately -- these relationships.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2010, 06:56:26 PM by TinselKoala »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Hello TK.

Always nice to hear from you.  But you're getting tediously repetitive and I'm not sure that I'm prepared to let these spurious comments of yours dominate this thread - as much as you may require this.  I am very well aware how your particular brand of 'trollmanship' requires the monopoly of my time by answering these entirely false allegations.  The intention is to distract me and to take the attention away from the theme of this thread.  If I'm obliged to keep answering you then you will indeed be wasting my time.  Clearly your objective.

I'm of the opinion that you,  like Harvey, would prefer it that I do not elaborate on the thesis which is why you are both now 'elbowing in' - so to speak.  Self-evidently you also see the need to repeat this complaint of yours on no less than two threads - twice on this and once on that - and God alone knows how many times on the COP>17 thread at EF.com and your own thread here.  But this, like ALL your allegations are pure fabrication.  We both know that Joit in fact reported that he'd DISPROVED YOUR POINT.  Unfortunately his post was not clear. Here's the link.

http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-17.html#post60251
Neither I nor Donovan could work out what he was trying to say so I simply gave you the benefit of the doubt.  Here's that link.
http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-18.html
Whereupon Joit answered me here
http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-18.html
where his opening statement in that post is as follows

it only prooves, that you are RIGHT and Tinselkoala is WRONG, and all his discreding and debunking Post here and at OU.com.

He never DID support your findings.  I notice that Glen very carefully prevents anyone actually reading his links in context.  He relies on this as he could not otherwise continue with his allegations any more than you could.  But where you take this to dizzy new dimensions is that your own allegations are ENTIRELY UNTRUE.  The proverbial 'bald faced lie'.  Where Glen 'alleges' you simply go for the gullet and FABRICATE.  LOL.

And it is not only a lie but it is NONSENSICAL to state that the basis of our claim depends on the duty cycle.  Our claim is based on close analysis of the voltages measured across the shunt resistor.  Go read our Quantum paper.  It'll may help.  That would NEVER have been published without the editor being fully au fait with the data required - albeit it was too cumbersome to publish.

And TK if you persist in dominating this subject with historical irrelevancies then I'm afraid I will need to delete your posts.  So.  If you like Truthbeknown - want to preserve them for prosterity  ::) LOL I'd advise you to copy them and post them where they belong - which is on Glen's thread.  For God's sake discuss something new.  I am happy with discussions.  I am absolutely NOT happy to have you rake up those sad little tests that you performed - NOT ONCE getting the required resonance - NOT ONCE doing a detailed wattage analysis.  I'm not sure that you even knew how to.  Neither I nor anyone was EVER in a position to access the data and do an independent analysis.  Notwithstanding your access to enough instrumentation to bury us all in actual experimental results.  I have never in my life seen such a parody of attempt at a replication.  Frankly  my own opinion is that either you did not know how to to those dumps or you did not dare.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary


Offline happyfunball

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 405
The woman is going through the trouble of University testing her circuit and publishing the results, yet has relentless detractors. Delete all the negative garbage Rosemary and carry on.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
The woman is going through the trouble of University testing her circuit and publishing the results, yet has relentless detractors. Delete all the negative garbage Rosemary and carry on.

Hi Happy.   ;D  So nice to be reminded that there are those who actually do tolerate me.  In any event I've taken your advice and deleted Glen's garbage.  These guys know full well that academics read here and I suspect they rather rely on it.  The truth is that it's those very academics who often advise me as to the spurious nature of their arguments.  LOL.  But I must admit that I tend to feel rather embarrassed at all these interventions.  I guess - whatever else is my lot - popularity is NOT one of them.  More's the pity.

LOL

Rosemary

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Hi Guys.  I'm able to report on some preliminary tests related to inducing current flow in an independent circuit off a spinning rotor.

As I understand it classical physics requires that the amount of energy that is extracted from a system should equal the amount of energy first supplied.  Donny has a unique prototype on a motor that I'm sure will be fully described - in due course - but it depends on a rotor that comprises some hefty magnets arranged that they have a shared north/south justification effectively inducing a spin from a monopolar field.

My earlier statement was that if we threaded copper through the armature it would generate a current flow.  In point of fact this is wrong.  It appears that absolutely NO current is induced - where I anticipated a DC type current.  It may be that we need to rearrange those magnets - and, in due course - will test this.

However, what is of interst is that he has 3 x trifilar windings on coils arranged around that rotor and he only requires the one to generate that rotor spin.  Our preliminary tests indicated that the other two are able to generate a significant voltage without any compromise to that rmp.  What we will test in two weeks time is putting a bridge rectifier on the other two coils and route this back two flat batteries to measure the rate of current flow and recharge.  The object being to get some conclusive measurements of that motor's efficiency which is otherwise snarled in debates.  The point is that if the amount of energy that is routed back to the batteries to recharge them is equal to or greater than the amount of energy delivered by the battery to spin that rotor - then we'll have CONCLUSIVE evidence of some rather controversial facts.

Hold thumbs and we'll be reporting as soon as we've got answers.  Unfortunately we're both knee deep until Sunday fortnight.

Regards,
Rosemary
« Last Edit: October 31, 2010, 05:19:28 PM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #759 on: November 01, 2010, 08:46:03 AM »
Guys,  it seems our first magnet will be cut today.  Can't wait.  I'll let you know.  We have to do that first bit to see if the 'gunk' is manageable. 

I should be able to report back by 4'ish this afternoon.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #760 on: November 03, 2010, 04:26:47 AM »
Truthbeknown, the reason I have been given moderator status is because my history on these forums have been plagued with posters who variously attempt to defame, abuse, harass, stalk and threaten me.  The idea is that I can then delete their posts that they do NOT clutter this thread with their irrelevancies.  Far from abusing this right I have NEVER deleted a single post without first ensuring that there was a COPY somewhere on this forum.  I note with some amusement that Glen claims that I have deleted 8 of his posts.  What he forgets is that the record of deletions are available to Harti - and this lie will be very quickly apparent.  There is, indeed, one post that I deleted by Ramset - as it was in rather bad taste relating as it did to X rated material.  And there was another that I deleted by accident which was submitted by Shruggedatlas.  My deletions of my own posts are no more nor less than any member's rights and there are those times where I've hit the delete button by accident and those times when it was intended.

You will need to make a copy of your own post above, as I have every intention of deleting it when I've concluded this post.  But - indeed.  Your reminder is timely.  I should have come back with the report on the cutting of those magnets.  I trust I can be forgiven - in the light of those multiple distractions that have occupied my attention on another thread and for far too long. 

Guys,

The news here - sadly - is that ferrite magnets CANNOT BE WIRE CUT.  The fields seem to repel the wire - that it simply cannot make the required contact to generate a spark.  I have, however, now taken the magnets to a privately owned firm, Remlaw - who are going to apply precision grinding to get those shapes resolved.  It may take a while but what is good news is that the material responds well to grinding.  And the down side is that we will probably NOT be able to construct the sphere out of those complex pentagrams.  There is also a required modification to the design as the grinding process needs a base to hold the structure - and cannot grip on the sharp angles of the pyramid - without possibly first building a jig of some sort.  In any event - it's doable even if there's a marginal asymmetry involved.  We should have something to work with within a week or so.

What we're doing in conjunction with this is building those same shapes in plastic to increase the 'range' of options in assembling the structure.  And the whole construct will be encased in a plastic box.  The plastics will be cut after the six pyramids have been completed. 

Regards,
Rosemary

BTW Truthbeknown - you will need to ensure that you make your own copies of your posts as, in future, I intend deleting them.  Your harassment is now entirely untenable.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #760 on: November 03, 2010, 04:26:47 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #761 on: November 03, 2010, 04:36:59 AM »
And guys, it's a condition of this forum that original work MAY NOT BE PATENTED.  This is why I have taken the trouble to ensure that the details of that construct are posted here.  It puts the information firmly in the public domain.  I acknowledge that it's not exactly 'on topic' but as it relates to a method of proving my thesis there is, indeed, a relevance.

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

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #762 on: November 03, 2010, 04:00:15 PM »
Poynty,  I think I'm understanding your question better from your last question in that thread.

First off, refer to the thesis.  Everyone assumes that the energy that is delivered by a battery is stored energy.  Conversely, the thesis proposes that the energy that is delivered by the battery simply goes back to the battery.  I'll explain this more fully hereafter - but the idea is that current flow comprises not electrons - but strings of magnetic dipoles.  They are extraneous to the atomic structure and simply BIND atoms together in a liquid or solid amalgam.  When they're in an environment with an intrinsic imbalance - such as in a battery - then they 'share' that imbalance.  And they can only move to establish a required balance IF there is some kind of inductive or conductive material in a circuit path that they can use.  Then they use this material to  forge a path through the circuit in order to alter their spin.  Think of it like a magnet.  One magnet can only attach to another magnet by moving through space to present the appropriate 'charge' to the second magnet.  It can't just change it's predetermined innate magnetic justification.  In the same way, these fields of particles can only alter their spin if they first describe an orbit that they re-enter the material from a 'different side' so to speak - or with a different justification.  Then they can look to 'rebind' or 'rehouse' those atoms into different molecular structures - thereby re-establishing a balance. 

That proposes therefore that current flow simply comprises these invisible particles that move through a circuit as a field - with a shared path.  And they they simply 'go back home' - through the back door, so to speak, through whatever path is made available.  Thus far there is NO  transfer of any mass from it's own material source anywhere at all.  NOTHING therefore has been transferred.   However - in it's passage through that circuit they interact with other little fields that are also binding the atoms of the circuit material.  This initial current flow (fields of magnetic dipoles) - which comprise what is referred to as current - then generate a corresponding imbalance in those very same fields that hold the circuit material bound.  And depending on the valence condition of that circuit material - and on its inductive or conductive condition - then these same binding fields that hold the circuit material bound do exactly the same thing.  It adjusts against an experienced imbalance - measured as voltage - and then returns it's own fields back to it's own source - through that same circuit material.  But it needs must send this the 'other way' because it's initial imbalance is precisely opposite to the first cycle of experienced imblance.  This effectively routes it through the supply and in doing so, recharges what was previously 'discharged'.  All that is required - is an interruption to allow this energy a 'chance' to return to its source - be it the battery in the first instance - or the inductor or resistor in the second instance.  And strictly in line with conventional requirement - the amount of energy delivered - is also then returned.

It's that simple. 

Now.  You tell me how many ways it's possible to configure a circuit to return that energy.  I'm not sure of the number but it would be pretty jolly big - given the variety of switches, the variety of resistors - the variety of component parts and the huge variety of people who are capable of assembling a circuit.  In any event - that much will secure some value greater than 1 provided that there are not too many potential 'losses' through that material.  You see the resistive element is likely to 'heat up' as a consequence of it's 'broken fields' and they can then move into different 'abodes' different 'housings' away from the iron or copper or whatever it is where they were first housed.  This degrades that circuit material.  It can literally lose - not mass from the atom - but mass from the binding of those atoms. 

I certainly have NEVER scorned those who vary the circuit.  On the contrary I've gone to some considerable lengths to advise all and sundry to try all and every possible configuration.  But there's a small caveat.  To MAXIMISE the return - one must find that 'resonating' potential between the supply and the resistor/inductor in its path.  Thus far - that 'resonating' condition is managed at low levels of 'heat dissipation'.  Not ideal if we're to up our wattages.  But certainly ideal if we're to conserve charge.  Therefore, of necessity, we need to explore a variety of resistors that will generate the required 'voltage' AND heat.  The 'standard type' resistor is simply our 'starting block' or 'kick off' STANDARD - and from here we will need to explore many many more.  But this is something that will only be established empirically.  Hence the need for further tests.

The patents that were applied for but were NEVER registered - were only done to ensure that the knowledge remained in the public domain.  And the circuits were broadly chosen to cover the most of the means to generate this 'effect' that 'replicators' do not then give themselves the right to claims of independent discovery with it's attendant rights to patent.   ???

So.  In truth, replication is a broad requirement - needing nothing more than a switch and some means to return the energy to its source - through both cycles of a switching circuit.

I do hope that clarifies things.  And please Poynty.  I do hope you realise that there are NO PATENT RESTRICTIONS - NO CHANCE OF RETROSPECTIVELY CLAIMING ROYALTIES.  Unlike EF.com - posters here are contractually precluded from patenting original work.  Therefore do I SO MUCH PREFER OVERUNITY.COM.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

ADDED




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #763 on: November 04, 2010, 03:13:12 AM »
Guys .  I keep close tally on the 'reads' here and have just realised that the readership on this thread is now exceptionally low.  What a pleasure.  I was about to pull out - thinking that Glen et al were entirely destroying this technology.  In fact, they can do their damndest.  What I now have is precisely that quiet little unobtrusive thread that I was always hoping for - just to keep due record.  I shall regard this as my own kind of 'diary' update.  And I know that - unless Harti bans me - I'll have my own story which will resonante in the future where their own will stand as an example of the victimisation that us poor eccentric thinkers are subjected to.  Inadvertently Glen and Harvey and Icestorm, Truthbeknown and even exnihiloest -  have done me a very real service.  So.  Let me rabbit on.  Even if I'm talking to myself.  Frankly I much prefer it.  I have MUCH that I'd like to keep on record and with this effective destruction of members' interest - then I can do so relatively unobtrusively. 

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

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

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

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

Regards Rosemary

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #764 on: November 04, 2010, 03:16:45 AM »
So guys.  For the record.  It was of paramount importance to Glen that he refute his earlier findings.  But this can't be done - without first saying that the results from his TDS3054C scope was FAULTED.  His frequencies were WELL within the capabilities of that instrument.  What he did was this.  He first called for the use of a more sophisticated instrument.  Then he CAREFULLY tuned the circuit to AVOID that 'negative' value.  Then he rather crowed that his earlier findings were wrong.  If you note his 'time line' you will see that this all happened when his agenda changed from promotion to demotion.  Unfortunately he's caught between a rock and a hard place.  IF the subsequent findings are WRONG - then he needs must WITHDRAW his paper from SCRIBD and he must publicly advise you all that there is NO MERIT IN THE MOSFET SWITCHING CIRCUIT.  That way his work will be relegated to the historical dump yard where it would then belong.  Then in all good conscience - he must earnestly require that no-one waste their time here.  ELSE he must say that his earlier work is correct and that his subesequent tests were wrong.  He really can't have it both ways.  Right now his message is ambivilent.  It's something on the lines of 'There's something there - but hold your horses while I sit around wasting my time by attacking Rosemary. When that exercise is finished and I've buried her - then I'll pull a rabbit out of the hat and THEN.  Howdy Folks.  May I introduce you to myself.  I'm the guy who FOUND THAT RESONATING FREQUENCY and RESCUED OU from the clutches of con artist."

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

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

 

OneLink