COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[witsend]

5
As soon as the Mosfet switches OFF, the inductor will do all it can to preserve the flow of current that was already established through itself, and consequently, the rest of the circuit....But still, none of these conditions produces, nor necessitates, any reverse current flowing through the Mosfet (in the body diode).Altair

The last question was 'what would happen if one of those strings broke?' I'm not too concerned as to the cause. It could be due to the unfortunate juxtaposition of two like charges in a chance coincident positioning of two or more zipons. Or, as I've described it in my field model, perhaps God Himself simply snipped one of those threads. In any event - once out of the smooth structure of the field I imagine that the truants would lose velocity and gain mass in an inverse proportion. In other words they would 'slow down' to the speed of light and light, itself, would find the zipon. That change in its manifest nature is likened to, and indeed proposed as - the source of all nebulae in space. Just a lot of zipons that have tumbled out of nowhere to structure into huge piles of manifest zipons.

But, in its state out of the field I've referred to the zipon as a truant. It is still a magnetic dipole but it no longer has the cohesive and coherent condition that it expressed in the field. Just a mass of manifest truants that have tumbled together from the force of a broken string of zipons. Like a pile of sugar - or clouds from a nuclear explosion - or falling leaves from a tree in autumn - or iron filings from a lathe.

However for symmetry - while some truants may have slowed down, equally therefore some truants may have speeded up. Those that have increased their velocity would do it at the expense of their mass in direct opposition to the those that increased their mass at the expense of their velocity. The smaller truant is referred to as the antitruant. And because of the boundary constraint, the zipons in the field can find neither truant. The one is too big and the other is too small. In effect, both truants remain invisible to the field. The field simply closes ranks to compensate for that broken string and they continue their march, ever forward, entirely oblivious to the break in that string and to the loss of the string, to the field.

I want to refer to the next points in a single paragraph - with apologies to purists who would require a fuller description. Again, it is fully described in the field model itself. This is merely a synopsis relating to the conclusions of the model rather than to an account of the logic that precedes the conclusion.

Virtual particles are those particles that lose their mass - regain their velocity and slip back into a string in that background universal structure. Stable particles are those truants that 'link' with their antitruant across the field, the 'ground zero' so to speak or the great divide. The point being that in this movement towards each other brings their mass/velocity back into co-incidence with the field which means that they are no longer invisible to the field. They would then be moved - by the force of the field at that point that they interacted with each other. Therefore, the antitruant is also a quark - here defined as that truant that anchors a composite out of the field. And composite truants can only be stable if they comprise 2, 3 or 9 truants. All other composites between 4 to 8 would variously subdivide into 1, 2 or three composites. The model also determines that 2 composites comprise the photon, 3 the electron and 9 the proton. But I'll return to this point at a much later stage - when and if anyone wants a fuller explanation of the field model. Otherwise a fuller description is largely irrelevant. I think I've covered the more salient features as needed to answer Altair's question.

[witsend]

Aaron - I do, indeed, have difficulty editing longer posts. I found that out with the one that I posted to TinselKoala. I either duplicate or delete. No alternatives. And never an edit allowed. I'm possibly doing something wrong. But it is allowed - for some reason - with shorter posts.

In any event - if you read this when you've slept - whenever that is? then I hope you had a good sleep. Else - have a good sleep. The vagaries of intercontinental communication and it's variable time frames.

And heniec - I'll get to your point. I promise you. The thing is that my study entirely depends on known physics. It is, indeed, an extension. It includes the magnetic field as a primary force. I'll get to the relevance. I think it only takes two more points. Sorry to tax your patience. I learned some time back that yours is an essentially pragmatic nature. I'm a plodder. Please bear with me.

[Michael John Nunnerley]

Rose
I just love the way you write, I am English but have been living here in Spain for nearly 20years and I have lost a lot in my English, I tend to mix with Spanish these days, I'm getting old as well.

I like what you are saying in the posts above, I think I can apply mentally this to the work of Tom Bearden and the MEG, also to Floyd Sweet's VTA amoungst many others, this really opens up the mind, thank you

Mike

[witsend]

Mike, thanks for the kind comments. I never know how the points are received, so any word of encouragement - most welcome. There must be a parallel to others works - especially Bedini in his reference to zero point energy. But the truth is I've never read any other works. And Bedini doesn't really explain. He simply points. If I've got a contribution I think it's that I could prove the mass/size ratio of the proton to the electron. But the real proof is in the experimental evidence of the circuit. That's the litmus test.

That we need to get to this energy source is critical. So any advancement of its properties must help.

In any event. Yet again. Many thanks.

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, Hi Rosemary, I'm glad you came to the forum and your theories are quite interesting. I'm not sure if you read my post it was #14 and in those tests I used a separate inductor in series, however last night i ran a few tests with just the resistor itself and something is definitely happening to cause a much faster rise in temperature within the resistor, maybe it is resonating within itself due to the flyback diode as is being said here. I'm running the 555 timer @ 285 hz @ 6.5% duty cycle @ 12v input w/ a 1 ohm, 10 watt wire wound resistor with what i assume contains the Manganin (Copper/Nickel/Manganese) coiled wire. the resistor part has marked on it ' cp-10 mexico 10W 1ohm 10% dale 9722 '. I used the same thumb method to detect the temp. and when it became too hot for my thumb to remain. amp draw shown on dmm was .37A-.38A, 3 tests with diode flyback and 3 tests without were made.
1) average time to reach same temp. WITHOUT diode flyback - 4min.30sec.
2) average time to reach same temp. WITH diode flyback - 3min.15sec.
Very interesting indeed considering I am only seeing around 40 millivolts on a dmm when measuring separately the flyback voltage off the diode, obviously something like resonance or other effect is occuring to provide this enhanced heat output. Well there ya go.
peace love light

[witsend]

6
As soon as the Mosfet switches OFF, the inductor will do all it can to preserve the flow of current that was already established through itself, and consequently, the rest of the circuit....But still, none of these conditions produces, nor necessitates, any reverse current flowing through the Mosfet (in the body diode).Altair

I think I'm nearing the point where I can finally answer the question. Apologies for taxing everyone by telling them so much more than they may want to know. In any event. The end looms large. Please bear with me. And again to the purists, the following statements need to be argued. But, again, this is just an abbreviated, broad brush stroke account. It is more fully explained in that model.

The next point is this. The truants in that nebulus are still simply very small magnets and they do what all magnets do. They try to congregate in orderly formations. They cannot, however, re-constitute that string. Rather do they cohere or fuse into stable or virtual particles in a series of 'small steps' so to speak. The first amalgam is into photons and electrons. The second more complex step is into the structure of a proton which, with it, comes the first real closed system away from the nebulus and out of the field. But in the accretion or 'fusion' into this hydrogen atom - and really to satisfy the symmetries of 'charge distribution' - it is proposed that the creation of this atom is also accompanied by a field of zipons that decay from truants in the nebulus itself. It is proposed that these zipons form the energy levels or hydrogen lines that are measurably evident. It is these energy levels themselves that it is proposed, maintains the hydrogen atom as the first truly closed system away from the primary fields of the universe itself.

Then further accretion - and the hydrogen atom itself is massed with other hydrogen systematically generating the structure of a new star. However, the actual binding of those atoms and their energy levels is at the cost of yet more traunts and antitruants from that same nebulus. They form fields that circle that atomic structure - holding one atom hydrogen atom away from another. This is the point. The actual material of the star body is held together by an unseen binding force of zipons that decayed from the truants and antitruants to form a kind of glue. This first holds star amalgams together and then - on a more universal scale - all amalgams.

The proposal is, therefore, that in the visible evidence of any gross amalgam, be it battery acid, iron, rocks, whole mountains, buildings, whatever - the thing that actually binds such structures are always zipons. These fields circle the atoms and determine the kind of 'abodes' of such atoms and their alignments in chaotic or structured crystalline formations. We don't see them because they orbit. Therefore, regardless of their justification or direction, the field is neutral. And we cannot find them because their velocity exceeds light speed. They are, therefore, outside the boundary constraints of light itself.

The existence of this field is relevant because it is proposed that it is these fields that move as current in electric energy through circuit components. These same fields manifest as flame in 'fire' which I'll discuss later. I mention it here because it most easily illustrates this particle. But for now, it is just necessary to point to these fields, entirely extraneous to the atomic structure, that are responsible for ensuring the equal distribution of atoms within amalgams. If the atom's basic structure is ionised therefore requiring some equal distribution of charge through the positioning of those abodes - then these zipons align the atoms to achieve that balance.

So it is proposed that current flow is - in fact - the flow, not of electrons that are essentially of like charge and therefore mutually repellent - but of zipons that easily structure into plastic formations, can extend their influence through space, and can adjust their own and other atomic charge by the careful positioning of atoms - one against another and can move to realign molecules and atoms so that the charge distribution is better balanced.

[witsend]

7
As soon as the Mosfet switches OFF, the inductor will do all it can to preserve the flow of current that was already established through itself, and consequently, the rest of the circuit....But still, none of these conditions produces, nor necessitates, any reverse current flowing through the Mosfet (in the body diode).Altair

So here's my take on current flow through the circuit. The material of the battery acid comprises ionised molecules and atoms that essentially have a like charge and are therefore mutually repellent. Between these molecules and atoms are fields of zipons that spin in the opposite direction to those molecules and atoms to counter the ionised condition of those atoms at the source. But having a like spin they themselves are mutually repellent - the one field to the other. Their object is to change their spin - realign this to accommodate their own mutual repulsion. And by so doing they then rearrange the abodes of those molecules and atoms at the source, thereby diminishing the effects of that like charge. In so doing they also diminish the potential difference at the source.

But they cannot simply change their orbits, any more than a flux field from a permanent magnet can change its orbit. However, if they move from one terminal to another they effectively describe an orbit. And then their re-introduction to the field in that amalgam can then also enable that required 'changed spin'. In effect they change their position in space. Just think of a bar magnet. It has to change it's actual physical position to adjust to another magnetic field. The same with these little fields. They also move through space by interacting with the inductive and conductive material of the circuit components themselves. That way they reach the opposite terminal with an opposite spin and can re-introduce themselves into the material at the source with an adjusted spin.

But they do not interact with anything in that circuit other than the circuit's own binding magnetic fields. The zipon is restricted to its own boundary constraint. Anything that moves at light speed is too big and too slow to be seen or detected. Matter iself is invisible to this particle. It simply only sees and only interacts with those binding fields because these binding magnetic fields are precisely the right velocity and mass to enable an interaction. And both the zipon particle and the field of zipons are always neutral. It is just the justification and direction of their spin that determines their charge.

Therefore with the full force of potential difference measured at the supply source, it can overwhelm these binding zipons in circuit components to move them out of the structure of the circuit material or interact with them to move themselves through the circuit. Their only object is to reach the opposite terminal in order to change their justification. And having changed this they also realign the molecules and atoms so that that they no longer repel each other. They simply realign their own spin as it relates to the atoms in the source amalgam. That way they diminish the potential difference of the source amalgam over time.

[witsend]

SkyWatcher - how fantastic. If you've got a resonating frequency - at last then that would be grand. It's an exponential increase to energy efficiency. But the use of a flyback diode in a switching circuit must always result in a gain - obviously within certain frequency parameters.

I think these frequency parameters are between 20Hz and 300KHz. But I'm open to correction.

Great stuff. Really good news.

[TinselKoala]

I see you're having fun answering hard questions. But why don't you answer my easy ones?

1) Did any of your patent APPLICATIONS result in the actual granting of PATENTS, and if so, where are the patent documents available?

2) Was the circuit published in the Quantum article used to generate the data in that article and in the EIT paper, or not?

3) Can you assure us that the energy balance calculations in the article and the paper do NOT suffer from the "duty cycle" problem that I have identified? I mean "assure" not "assert." I'd like to see some original data from the experiment and exact details of calculations. After all, the claim is COP>17. Surely something that robust can survive a little scrutiny.

4) Do you (or other readers) realize that if the data was generated with the Quantum circuit, the energy balance conclusions are Wrong, and so--all theoretical speculation based upon them are, at best, unsupported by evidence..???

Easy questions, straightforward. And all of them are critical this "discussion."

[witsend]

I see you're having fun answering hard questions. But why don't you answer my easy ones?TinselKoala

Because I find your attitude arrogant, your questions spurious and your demand that I answer them objectionable. I am under no obligation to answer any of your questions at all. Nor will I until you have attended to some of mine - starting with this which I copied from a previous post.


The following quote from TinselKoala from the link provided in his last post.

I suppose arrogance is a necessary concomitant of prevarication and mendacity, if one wants to enhance seeming credibility among the credulous. But it's the arrogant liers that are the worst, because they will never never admit that they are wrong and have been shovelling you a line of bs.

TinselKoala - I'm a great admirer of a good turn of phrase. This has got to be up there. Masterful description. If I have a criticism it is just that the terms 'prevarication' and 'mendacity' are a tad tautological. I suppose it can be argued that 'prevarication' doesn't go to the gullet with the same purity of sense as does 'mendacity'. So the two terms could be justified to lend each other more emphasis. In any event. Are these attributes proven to be effective in promoting a lie? Have you used the technique? Can you recommend this? And when you use the word 'lier' do you in fact mean 'liar' - as used in English? The only other question I have is who is it you're describing?

[TinselKoala]

If the shoe fits, wear it.

For example, you have repeatedly referred to your "patents". However, I can only find patent applications. Please correct me if you have actually been issued patents on any of these applications.

For another example, there's that circuit published in the Quantum article with your name on it. The article says it was used to generate the data in the article. Yet it has no flyback diode, nor does the article mention one. But in the EIT paper reporting the same experiment...there it is, and suddenly it's "necessary".

And for another example, if the data was obtained using the Quantum circuit, the duty cycle calculation was wrong and invalidates the experiment. Since there is a very REAL QUESTION about the actual circuit and duty cycle used in the experiment, how can this be described as "spurious"? And why don't you simply answer the question with some details?
It sort of reminds me of the issue of Obama's birth certificate: If all is kosher, why in the world cover it up?

On the one hand you are begging for replications. On the other hand, when someone actually tries to replicate your experiment and finds problems, you freak out and start obfuscating with talk of zipons and antitruants.
Oddly enough, I find this par for the course, and I expected no less. Because, you see, I actually read all your work in the Web before I even started this project.

[witsend]

8
As soon as the Mosfet switches OFF, the inductor will do all it can to preserve the flow of current that was already established through itself, and consequently, the rest of the circuit....But still, none of these conditions produces, nor necessitates, any reverse current flowing through the Mosfet (in the body diode).Altair

Now, finally, I think I can answer your question. The transfer of these fields through the circuit material is proposed to be at twice light speed. The extruded magnetic fields across the resistor is also therefore, instantaneous, with respect to our own time frame. The justification of that extruded magnetic field is determined by the applied potential difference from the source.

So. During that ON period of the duty cycle when the switch is open - these zipons from the battery supply source line up in fields through the circuit material and across the circuit itself to discharge at the opposite terminal. Let's call that justification or path - south/north. And the extruded fieldson the resistor/inductor would then, correspondingly, be north/south.

When the switch is open and the battery can no longer deliver any current, then the extruded fields collapse. Collapsing magnetic fields are simply magnetic fields changing in time. They induce a reversal in the voltage which is also a measure of the newly applied potential difference from the material of the resistor itself. Changing magnetic fields induce an electric field. The justification of the voltage has changed - say south/north so the resultant current will change, let's say north/south. Those same zipons that have not yet discharged at the terminal now do an 'about face' so to speak and move towards the postive terminal of the battery. Their justification is such that they then recharge the material at the source.

In effect, the fields have simply flowed in the reverse direction to recharge the material that they had previously intended to discharge. I don't mean, by the word 'intended' that they sat around and discussed the issue. Just that they are compelled to move in the direction of the applied potential difference. The applied potential difference during the off period of the duty cycle is in reverse to the on period.

The bias of the flyback and the body diode in the MOSFET enables this flow during the off period, as their polarity is now consistent with the flow of current.

The point about the flow of zipons as opposed to the flow of electrons is, the known speed of current flow would be enabled - seen to be at light speed - but proposed herein to be at 2c. The zipon is able to change direction and justification. The zipon is not constrained to the exclusion priniciple as, far from being mutually repellent, zipons would attach, exactly as magnets attach - in long plastic lines through the circuit itself. And their path would be restricted through polarised materials such as the diodes - depending on their justification as they respond to different potential differences. Then the recharge system would simply force the realignment of these same zipons to their previously charged state within the material of the battery itself.

EDIT - And the point about current flow is that it's direction will be determined by the applied voltage. It cannot but move in the required direction. That's my interpretation - and open to correction.

I hope that's answered the question Altair. And if I've told you much, much more than you intended to ask - apologies.

[RAMSET]

Rosemary
Thank you
While you may be put off by TK's candor ,He is not a creep, nor an enemy
He searches for the unexplained with great zeal [and a LOT of smarts,life's experience[and equipment]]

Hopefully your man Donavan can help with the things that have alluded replicators here

Chet

[Altair]

Rosemary, Wow !
That ought to be the most extensive reply I've ever seen on this forum.
No you don't have to apologize for the length of it, this is a fascinating theory. You must have spent the most part of the day on this post, have a rest.
I will have to re-read it a couple times, for sure, because I cannot say that I follow you 100%.
The part I have the most difficulty with, is the sixth one. First, when you refer to the switch (Mosfet) as closed and open, there seems to be a contradiction of terms. The established convention describes a closed switch as one wich conducts current, and conversely, an open switch doesn't conduct. Your text implies the contrary.

Second, I can accept the zipon flow theory, but I still do not see what would generate a voltage of opposite polarity that would then flip the zipon's direction.

But anyway I think that a good test of the theory would be to try in your circuit, a Mosfet that doesn't have the body diode. Then, by placing (or not) a reverse diode in parallel with the mosfet, it would be possible to ascertain the usefulness of that diode. If it was proven to be necessary, that would prove that there is indeed a reverse current going from ground to the top of the circuit.
Thinking about it, it would also be possible to check that current by just placing a shunt in series with the Mosfet and viewing it with a scope. (Unless of course that particular zipon current is undetectable with conventional instrumentation !)

[TinselKoala]

From Google:

Your search - zipon fluxmeter - did not match any documents.

Suggestions:

* Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
* Try different keywords.
* Try more general keywords.
* Try fewer keywords.


Darn.