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

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder  (Read 317842 times)

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Rose:

That reminds me of my first physics professor in college who said that the speed of light was the fastest thing we could imagine.  To which I replied "what about twice the speed of light?"

He was not amused.

Bill

LOL.  That's really good.  I've had my first laugh for yonks.  Take good care Bill.  And go to bed.

Rosie

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Took too long typing.  Twice the speed of light.  Not Amused!  I like that one too!

Not to bring up "Bad" things, but anyone consider the radical concept of reverse time in wave conjugates?  Beardon likes it, but that opens up too many questions for me.  Anyone else subscribe to that?  Just wondering....

Loner - I LOVE this subject.  Can you open a thread?  Then we can rabbit on at our heart's content and I don't think I'll be irritating all and sundry with the multiple interests already extant in this thread. 

Just a thought. It would be so nice.  I know how self-effacing you are in all your posts.  I personally think your observations are really good.  I've followed the most of them.  It would be so nice to have a topic which we could get to grips with.  And God knows I've got a HUGE learning curve to cover in this.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Good stuff Loner.  I take it you won't be into starting a thread.  In any event - perhaps Bill will oblige.  Delighted to get your input when and as you can.  Take care.  Hopefully we'll meet on this subject again.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Thanks for the advice - but frankly Poynty, I'd prefer to rest on the advices of those experts that I'm working with - is my first point.  And you state - unequivocally that the overriding of the duty cycle is the result of 'interference'?  That's an opinion.  I've already explained that the 555 is NOT subject to interference.  We're doing our switch tests without a load.  So.  Where then is that 'interference' coming from?  The 555 seems not to be efficient.  Certainly not at the level we're looking for.  So.  While you're happy with your opinion there are those of us who simply don't agree.
Again.  I'm grateful for your lenience here in 'allowing' us to do the required.  But I'm not sure that it's appropriate to give us advice. We'll do the tests under the advisement of experts.
Are you indulging us here Poynty Point -  by 'allowing' us to do these tests but that your OPINION is that it won't work anyway?  In which case would you sooner we not even try this?  I'm really not sure that I care that much whether you think it may or may not work.  We'll do the tests that we need to satisfy our own curiosity about this matter - if you don't mind.

I read that you were going to do an Ainslie Circuit debunk?  May I assure you that you'll need to do this on an alternate thread and better yet - in your own forum - where you first proposed this.  I do not want this thread dominated with a debate on efficacy of the device.  This thread is to present the data when we do those tests.  You can debate that data elsewhere.  Else I suspect that you'll systematically errode the confidence of any readers here very much as Harvey and Glen have managed on their own thread at EF.com.  It's hard enough as it is - bringing this kind of data to the table - without the gratuitous involvement of 'debunkers' no matter their pretended interest in the technology.

R.

By "over-riding" frequency and/or duty cycle, my impression was that this was the desired mode of operation and a goal to achieving the desired results. This was a constant theme throughout the threads from the beginning, and is mentioned in the Quantum paper I believe.

My advice has been towards this goal, as it was assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that this was one goal of your team as well.

This quasi-stable mode of operation likely won't occur without a driven load. Without the inductive kickback there will be very little interference back to the 555 to destabilize it.

If your team's goal is to completely avoid this quasi-stable mode of operation (i.e. the varying duty cycle and/or frequency mode), then disregard what I've said.

.99
« Last Edit: October 13, 2010, 03:17:12 PM by poynt99 »

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Rose:

OK, one more post before bed.

If you and I were on a train, and you walked forward on the moving train traveling at say 50 mph, inside the car, I would clock you at about 2 miles/hour.  This is how fast you were moving relative to my position on the same train with you.

Now, someone outside the train looking through the windows also clocks you....guess what?  Their speed of you is calculated at 52 miles/hour from their position.  Both answers are exactly correct.  But, that can't be right?  One of Albert's main points was that velocity was relative based on the frame of ref. of the observer.

I will write more when I check my books.  This is all I can recall at this time.

Bill

That example of yours makes sense Bill.  If the observer was stationery then presumably the train stroller is moving at the speed of the train plus the speed of his stroll.  And if the observer was moving in an opposite direction?  Then his rate of velocity/time/distance would need to be related to the the train/train stroller's velocity/time/distance.  So?  Maybe in truth everyone's 'time frame' is marginally different to everyone else's.  Boggles my poor mind.  It's rather a relief that the most of us stay put in our sleep.  That way - some section of the global population ocassionally share a co-incident time frame.  LOL.


Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
By "over-riding" frequency and/or duty cycle, my impression was that this was the desired mode of operation and a goal to achieving the desired results. This was a constant theme throughout the threads from the beginning, and is mentioned in the Quantum paper I believe.
Yes.  The object is to get the coil tuned to an optimum frequency where the coil and the supply seem to move into what we called a 'preferred oscillation mode'.  All it means is a self-regulated, self-induced resonance.  The 555 allowed us to explore that required frequency.  You will recall that I made frequent reference to the fact that the oscillation mode was not 'frequency' dependent.  In other words that preferred oscillation mode could be seen at a variety of frequencies and at a variety of duty cycles.  It seemed to happen when it happened.  What we need to do is to determine a relationship between it happening - the materials used to enable it to happen - the duty cycles and the frequencies - in order to establish some kind of pattern.  These things can only be established empirically - because at this stage there's no blue print.  And if we're to take full advantage of the skills and expertise afforded us by this institution then - it's best to get an oscillator that offers the widest range possible of frequency and duty cycle to get this.  If it pans out that the preferred mode of oscillation actually depends on the properties of the 555 or somesuch transistor - then we need to establish exactly what properties.  If it's exploitable then it also needs to be fully understood.  For this we need to make multiple comparative measurements.  I'm reasonably sure that the information will be boringly and tediously dry.  But it should all advance our understanding.   

This quasi-stable mode of operation likely won't occur without a driven load. Without the inductive kickback there will be very little interference back to the 555 to destabilize it.
We know this.  But the fact is that the circuit designed and used by Glen seems to be unstable without a load.  Our concern here is that this is possibly why his numbers were never as good as our own.  We have copied that circuit twice.  It remains unstable.  Whatever we do we will need a better 555 circuit than that shown in the paper's schematics.  It appears to be inherently FAULTY.

If your team's goal is to completely avoid this quasi-stable mode of operation (i.e. the varying duty cycle and/or frequency mode), then disregard what I've said.
I've answered this - I think.

Poynty.  The thing is this.  I know your declared intention to 'debunk' as you've stated.  You've also advised me that it is your opinion that our results are based on measurement errors.  You have NEVER shown where or why - and yet you reserve your rights to this opinion in the face of measurements that are empically evident and have been extrapolated from machinery that heaven itself would give a badge of honour.  I am sixty two years old and frankly I'm sick to death of defending my corner.   It's hard enough as it is to dedicate one's free time to advancing these much needed technologies.  Really a thankless task.  But I've run out of patience in tolerating unreasonable objections and I'm simply not going to tolerate any such here.  So.  Please feel free to comment and debunk on another thread - another forum - or both.  But not here.  This intention of yours hangs over my head like the sword of Damocles.  I've long given up expecting such qualities as friendship and loyalty from forum members.  That's a rare event.  But as you are neither a friend nor an objective impartial poster - then that's more than I can manage. 

Regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
By the way, the original thread topic....  What page/post is the actual "Circuit" on.  I haven't read from the beginning, and it's long enough that I may never get to doing that.  I'd be interested in what it actually does/is.  Replication of a basic 555 ckt is a 5 minute process on a breadboard, which I have a few, and I have plenty of experience with the older style.  I don't use the CMOS versions much, but could, if required.  Just curious, as I always am.

Sorry Loner.  I missed this question.  Here's a link to the paper which we're referring to.  What we're now doing is to get this technology onto a 'higher' output mode - hopefully retain the advantage of less input - and see if we can get something 'usable'.  Our needs in Africa more than justify the development of this on a 'smallish' hot water cylinder.  I see it, potentially, as being supplemented with solar panels - but the required number will be reduced.  The panel is still much more expensive than a battery.  And cost here is of an essence.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Edited.  LOL  Completely forgot to add the link. 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS
« Last Edit: October 13, 2010, 05:32:57 PM by Rosemary Ainslie »

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Poynty. 

Please feel free to comment and debunk on another thread - another forum - or both.  But not here.  This intention of yours hangs over my head like the sword of Damocles.

Regards,
Rosemary

I've offered only help towards achieving the elusive quasi-stable mode of operation. No such notions of "debunking" nor "intentions" here in my last several posts.  ???

But as you wish.

.99

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
I've offered only help towards achieving the elusive quasi-stable mode of operation. No such notions of "debunking" nor "intentions" here in my last several posts.  ???

But as you wish.

.99

Poynty - on a personal note.  I never actually know if I'm talking to Poynty the Brat, Poynty the bigot, Poynty the soul of reason and tact, Poynty the gentleman,  There are so many of you.  Right now I'm feeling guilty - but I had the unhappy experience of seeing your declared intentions which was then followed by your input here.  My concerns may very well be unjustified.  I grant you that your comments were innocuous on the face of it.  But all that emphasis on the 'unstable' condition of the 555 made me start wondering if this was going to be your area of 'attack'.  If I'm super sensitive - then allow, at least, that I've had just cause to be so.  Of course you're free to comment and engage.  I'm very aware of how constructive your advice can be.  But then - you'll also need to retract that 'debunk' intention.  It hovers.  Right up front and personal.  And I can't seem to let it go.

Regards,
Rosemary

BTW - I draw a very real distinction between an analysis intended to disclose any incorrect assumptions - and a 'debunk'.  One debunks 'frauds' and 'tricksters'.  Mylow springs to mind.  So.  I find it a rather 'heavy' burden to feel that you need to 'debunk' when it would have been so much more appropriate to say - 'explore' or 'investigate' or even, 'find out the truth for myself in a replication'.  It's that unhappy association which immediately puts you in league with those insensitive horrors who monopolised my time for the better part of 6 months.  I've shared way too much time with them.  I need to share time and this thread with those who are not already predisposed to dismiss these results - however they pan out.

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Quote from: poynt99
Having some real bench time is going to be a treat, as I quite enjoyed it when I was testing/debunking the RA circuit...

I agree, "verifying" would have been a better choice of word than "debunking". Consider it retracted, bye.

.99

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
I agree, "verifying" would have been a better choice of word than "debunking". Consider it retracted, bye.

.99

Thanks Poynty Point.  Very much appreciated. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Very Interesting paper, and results are even more so.

I can't offer any opinion yet, as there is a "Lot" more going on than just simple switching.  IT might be valuable to check out the information on "Switching power supply instabilities" that is available, as these two concepts have certain effects in common.

I Must re-read and study this for a while to really wrap my head around it.  Good or bad, the data does show that "Something" is going on.....

Hi Loner.  I missed this post of yours.  Glad you find it interesting.  As you're into 'theory' you may want to concentrate on the abstract and certain statements in the introduction.  And if you're still interested - I could point you to the thesis.

Let me know if you find anything 'amiss' in the that presentation.  It's never been reviewed and I think they dropped the topic like a hot potato - precisely because they could not find errors.  I actually believe they would have preferred to 'reject' the paper after review - but then they'd have to justify that rejection and I rather fondly believe that they couldn't find due reason. 

You'll note that the analysis points to a COP>4.  It's actually COP>7.  It is my opinion that one of the collaborators was trying to sabotage the paper to prevent publication.  And he depended on putting in erroneous analysis to achieve this.  But I inserted a sentence - prior to submission - which stated words to the effect that the analysis was deliberately averaged to present a conservative value.  Which put paid to that objective.  It is a truth that one of our collaborators was actually anxious to prevent publication rather than otherwise.  He managed to trick us all.  You may see now why it is that I'm wary of who post and what's posted. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

By the way - here's a faithful account of that 'sabotage effort'.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33937867/IF-I-WAS-A-TROLL

edited

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
And guys, for those who are in the slightest bit interested in that 'time' question - I think the argument is nailed in standard physics.  Distance is the sum of the space between two or more points.  Velocity is the measure of the amount of time taken to cross that space.  But that leaves us with the question as to what is time.  If we use it to measure velocity - then it implies that there's a 'standard time' somewhere that we're sort of depending on to make that sum valid.  And I think what Einstein was showing us is that that 'time' relates to light speed and not the rate at which we circle our axis or the sun.  But I also think that Pirate's take is right.  What about 2C or greater?  We may have a standard in light speed - but I'm not sure that it's the actual standard.  But I'm also inclined to think that we share a standard time in our axial spin and in our annual solar orbit.  So.  Maybe time is localised, never variable and potentially greater than light speed?

Then.  To take this one step further.  If the actual standard time is greater than light speed - then it implies that it precedes us - which puts us in its 'wake' so to speak.  That would imply that the future is somehow 'carved out'.  Like a road that we follow.  Anyway.  I personally find it very interesting.  But I realise that I'm probably just talking to myself.  And since it's way off topic I'll drop the subject.

Regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Guys, I've been waiting around for news about our scope.  Apparently it's arrival at the point where I can collect it will be Monday morning.  Delighted that it's en route - a little disappointed that it's not here for the weekend - but hey.  It's just around the corner.  I'll give you all copious photos when it's to hand.

I'll post more on the progress of those numerous oscillators? that the guys are putting together - later on today.  I hope Poyny Point notices that I'm using some really appropriate terminology there?    ;D

And more on our magnets.  We've got to get a different size together - something bigger.  I'm going through to our supplier later on today.  I'll see what options are available for working on.  I think our 'designer' also needs to work of an actual size.  At this stage he's just discovered the ratios needed for that construct.  No mean feat I might add.  It's not that easy organising the 'fit' as those pentagons diminish in diameter.

Regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Rosemary, there must be some mistake. I don't know anything about skepticism, free energy, or critical thinking, but I do know this much:

When I click on the scribd reference you frequently give that links to a paper you and some others wrote, I immediately see the IEEE banner, and I see the IEEE journal name on every page of the paper.
Yet, I have heard from others that the IEEE journal(s) have rejected this paper, as many as 5 times, and it has definitely NOT been accepted for publication.
Hence, the mistake. It seems to me that EITHER the paper HAS been accepted, and thus your continuing use of IEEE in the link and on the paper is legitimate and legal and not a violation of IEEE copyright --- OR my other informants are correct, the paper has NOT been accepted, and thus the use of the IEEE initials and so forth is ... a mistake.
But everyone who clicks through to that paper is likely to believe that IEEE has endorsed it somehow, since you are using their initials AS IF they had actually accepted it for publication.

Is that right?

TK.  If you're going to follow me around this forum with this one sad little observation - then let me answer it here - and have done. 

If and when I claim that I have had a paper PUBLISHED at IEEE then you are free to insinuate or accuse me of a gross and fraudulent misrepresentation which self-evidently, is your objective.

Meanwhile I reserve the right to reference our submission of a paper at the IEEE, at TIE and the IET as often as is practical and as often as is required.  It serves the dual function of being a faithful record of the experiment and the thesis that preceded it.

Regards,
Rosemary

Very weak TK.   ::) Have you lost your teeth?

BTW - http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS