COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[MileHigh]

Rosemary:

> They are indeed energised and de-energised, as you put it. But with what? Have they been energised with something that is not potential difference that is then discharged as something that is also not potential difference? If, indeed they are the same thing - then is that not potential difference - now called a state of being energised? Is this a form of energy that has entirely eluded any definition within the scientific framework perhaps?

That's a tough question for myself and .99 to answer. Honestly we are teetering now, a bit drained by that question. I would just pass the same message that I passed onto Aaron, read the last 10 pages of this thread while you hunt around on Google with a separate browser tab for background information. You still haven't seen the "classicist" side yet.

MileHigh

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, Why is it that these conversations are starting to sound like the old good cop-bad cop scenario. And the main theme running between the conversations is a debunking of magic and things magical. Why is this, doesn't anyone here think there are things in this universe that cannot be quantified or kept track of, or retaining complete control over. The microsecond instant turn on effect Tesla discovered seems to be highlighting this I think, and I sure hope there exist scenarios in the universe that cannot be dominated and some might view these things as magical because they cant grab it and put a meter on it and charge people, lol.
peace love light

[poynt99]

Rosemary.

I think we can agree on the "how do we know when a coil is energized" right? It's when the coil exhibits a field of magnetic flux. If we place a permanent magnet near the end of our coil, it will either be repelled or attracted to the coil. Let's say for example that the magnet is attracted to the coil.

So that is the "when". Now the "how" and the "what". How do we energize a coil? What do we apply to the coil terminals in order to "energize" it?

Will a DC voltage source energize a coil? YES.

Will a DC current source energize a coil? YES.

Is this REALLY true? NO.

All coils have an associated DC resistance. It is unfortunate, but a fact of nature for the time being.

When you connect a resistance to a voltage source, it becomes a current source. If you do not know this and do not believe me, then I suggest you look it up or experiment with it yourself.

So, in REALITY, regardless of whether we attach a voltage source or a current source to a coil to energize it, it is current that is energizing the coil.

So current is what energizes a coil. All real world coils have DC resistance, and it is because of this that a voltage source can energize a coil. If you actually had a superconducting coil and you tried energizing it with an ideal voltage source, you would not want to be any where near these devices at the time of contact closure. However, if you connect a current source to your superconducting coil, all will be as it should be. Your coil will become energized with the set current and there will be no explosion as far as I know. Incidentally, if you placed your voltage meter across the terminals of this superconducting coil that was being energized by the current source, you would measure almost zero volts. Does that make sense?

So, I suspect that I have failed once again to answer the question to your satisfaction, but that is the best I can do right now. As MileHigh said, we're running on empty here.

One last thing. Above in the example where the energized coil is near a permanent magnet and it is attracted, what will happen to the interaction between the coil and magnet at the instant we disconnect the DC current feeding our coil?

.99

[MileHigh]

.99:

I just have to correct you on two things and get nitty-gritty technical just for the hell of it. Others do not read this, you have been forewarned! lol

> If you actually had a superconducting coil and you tried energizing it with an ideal voltage source, you would not want to be any where near these devices at the time of contact closure.

It's actually the other way around. In this case the coil is performing it's integraton of the voltage over time resulting in current flow. The current will start at zero and increase linerally over time, i.e.; a ramp function that will continue increasing on and on.

"The current through a coil is equal to 1/L x ( the integral of v(t) dt from time t=0 to time t=t )."

In this case v(t) is a constant and the solution to the integral is "trivial": i(t) = (1/(2L) x V x t), where "V" is the supply voltage. You get a ramp function for the current amps that keeps on increasing linearally as t increases.

> However, if you connect a current source to your superconducting coil, all will be as it should be.

This is the scary one.

v = L di(t)/dt

"The voltage across an inductor is the value of the inductor times first derivative of the current through the inductor with respect to time."

Look at the ideal case for fun. Start by connecting an ideal current source that is initially switched off across the terminals of your ideal inductor. When you switch the ideal current source on, it is supposed to instantly generate current. The current source wants to make di(t)/dt infinity, i.e.; to go instantly from zero amps to one amp like a "step" function. Looking back at the equation for the voltage across the inductor, it looks scary. Even if it is a more-real-world current switch-on waveform with a 5 microsecond rise time, it still looks very scary.

In this ideal hypothetical case, and this will sound familiar, the current source will generate a spike of voltage to "kick' the inductor into starting getting current flowing through it instantly. This will take an infinite amount of voltage over an infinitely short time to make this happen.

In the real world, you call these supuer-short-duration spikes "impulses" and simply forget about trying to characterize the voltage or the pulse duration and simply talk about the energy in the impulse a.k.a. spike.

So going back to the example, turning on the current source connected across the inductor would generate a brief impulse of ultra high voltage to get the coil moving. That might be dangerous to be around.

MileHigh


P.S. I have a Zen moment:

A coil integrates voltage over time resulting in current though the coil.
A capacitor integrates current over time resulting in voltage across the capacitor.

If you don't know what integration is start clicking! lol

See Joit! See all of the Yin Yang harmony and symmetry going on!?

[poynt99]

Indeed you are correct MH

That's what happens when I try to stay on top of all the posts in one day. I think I did 27 posts today..and I know you know what I mean when I say they're darn tiring to compose

Gotta stop runnin' on them fumes

Hopefully the post did some good anyway.

cheers, and good night.

.99

[Aaron]

voltage source

When you connect a resistance to a voltage source, it becomes a current source. If you do not know this and do not believe me, then I suggest you look it up or experiment with it yourself.

When you connect a battery (resistance) to a voltage potential source (spike moving back to battery), it becomes a current source. If you do not know this and do not believe me, then I suggest you look it up or experiment with it yourself.

You suggest doing experiments, but I don't see you doing them.

These potentials in the battery generate their own internal charging CURRENT that don't come from the spike.

Your comments reinforces what we already know and apply in unconventional ways.

[poynt99]

When you connect a battery (resistance) to a voltage potential source (spike moving back to battery), it becomes a current source. If you do not know this and do not believe me, then I suggest you look it up or experiment with it yourself.

I would respond but I do not understand what you're saying here. I became reactionary because everything we say is disputed. I was trying to preemptively convey that I am not interested in going in to detail of this fact.

You suggest doing experiments, but I don't see you doing them.

Every step of the way, you and Rosemary simply resist what is said rather than considering what it means. Contrary to what you believe Aaron, some things really are simple, non-mysterious and do operate as per the classical view. Not everything in electronics needs a "new age" view to explain it. Some things really are what you see, such as Ohms law, or is that one full of malarkey too If you are going to argue that a voltage source with a series resistor is not a current source, then I'd like to know what you are basing your argument on.

I suggested looking it up or trying it because I know that it is so already, from 25 years of empirical measurements and calculations. I do not need to experiment with it to prove this to myself. We have explained and explained things until out of gas and yet still it is not understood and more questions of the same sort keep rolling in. Rosemary has conceded several times that she is not well trained in electronics and needs our help to understand the classical view. This is what we are attempting to provide, but are cut off at the pass (just as you have done here) at every attempt.

These potentials in the battery generate their own internal charging CURRENT that don't come from the spike.

OK.

Your comments reinforces what we already know and apply in unconventional ways.

Again, I do not know what you are trying to say here.

.99

[poynt99]

I think a self-imposed ban is in order. I've lost too much valuable personal time here...again

Chau and good luck.

.99

[Aaron]

criticism

99,

If you read from the beginning, virtually EVERYTHING has been slandered and denounced by you know who and from you and MH - all we hear is how he "rightfully" showed what he showed. You considered him a peer and you have always quickly been willing to point out your disagreements with what we say. Yet, you find no reason to correct or keep your own peer accountable for his own claims, which is your obligation if you consider him your peer, especially if you want to claim he knows what he is doing.

First the 97% duty cycle won't make it work.
I made it work with 99%.

Then the mosfet doesn't oscillate.
But I made it oscillate.

Everything on my scope was false triggering.
My mosfet really was oscillating and you know who confirmed it
over and over in 3+ very specific word for word sentences.

Then the battery doesn't have anything going back to it.
Then it does. Then it doesn't then it does, etc...

The battery doesn't get the spike.
But if it does it is ringing.
I show how to take out the ring.
But that isn't proof of recharging.

It is enough to give someone whiplash. The fact is that
almost every significant point any of us have made has
been battled by you all. That includes you and MH and
others that can remain unnamed.

And with the voltage potential spike returning to the battery
and I got sucked into the conversation about you trying
to show there is no current moving to the battery. duh!
I'm almost ashamed I didn't even notice this.

So many distractions from what is actually happening that
it is almost difficult to focus on the facts.

Yes, there are plenty of things where typical conventional
explanations are valid. I recognize that and if it wasn't
true, my volt meter couldn't show me anything trustworthy.
I realize the validity of plenty of standard calculatons and
you know what I use to find out the inducance of coils
based on the gauge and resistance of wires with other
known variable? I go to the nice friendly online calcultors
where I can plug in all the known variable and it gives me
the answer, based on very classic conventional understanding
and it serves me well.

Contrary to what you may believe about my EE experience,
I am very resourceful, I know how to ask experts that I trust,
I know how to use the calculators and I get the exact answers
that any trained EE will get because I am educated.

You know what that means to be EDUCATED? Does that mean
I have a degree in EE? No. Does that mean I memorize all
the equations? No. Does it mean I know all the
concepts of the classical understanding and throw it out
the window? No.

Educated or education means:
WikiAnswers - What is the Latin root word for education

"'Education' is known to have several root words. It is popularly known to be derived from the Latin root 'educo' meaning to 'educe'- to draw out. It also has root words, 'educare' and 'educere'. "educare' means to 'rear or to bring up' and it refers to child rearing, whereas, 'educere' which is derived from two roots 'e' and 'ducere' means to 'draw out from within' or to 'lead forth'. "

The bottom line means resourceful to be able to go find the answers needed. That means to have the "wherewithall" to be able to do something. This all requires THINKING and not just simple memorization and regurgitation of "facts."

Here is where arguments of "credentials", experience with EE topics, etc... go flat:


"...Henry Ford was called "an ignorant pacifist." Mr. Ford objected to the statements, and brought suit against the paper for libeling him. When the suit was tried in the courts, the attorneys for the paper pleaded justification, and placed Mr. Ford, himself, on the witness stand, for the purpose of proving to the jury that he was ignorant.....Mr. Ford was plied with such questions as the following: "Who was Benedict Arnold?" and "How many soldiers did the British sent over to America to put down the Rebellion of 1776?" In answer to the last question, Mr. Ford replied, "I do not know the exact number of soldiers the British sent over, but I have heard that it was a considerably larger number that ever went back."....in reply to a particularly offensive question, he leaned over, pointing his finger at the lawyer who had asked the question and said, "If I should really want to answer the foolish question you have just asked, or any of the other questions you have been asking me, let me remind you that I have a row of electric push-buttons on my desk, and by pushing the right button, I can summon to my aid men who can answer any question I desire to ask...why should I clutter up my mind with general knowledge for the purpose of being able to answer questions, when I have men around me who can supply any knowledge I require?"

Many people in this forum do not have "credentialed" EE experience but always seem to have the knack to be able to do things that EE's can't do. Period. AND, we help each other out and there is enough collective experience to get RESULTS...RESULTS that conventional EE training says is impossible. I've seen it too many times so please don't even think of going there.

There are actually many people here with EE background and they're open enough to see that it doesn't apply across the board and that there is simply the other side of the fence that really does go against what the textbook says. With their training in conventional EE coupled with real open mindedness, they help to advance these projects and not nitpick them to death.

Don't forget. John Bedini was a Devry graduate originally and then with enough experience he saw the training was a bunch of (I can't post in this forum what the quote is).

Do NOT think for a second that because I don't have a degree in EE or anyone else that I (we) do not have the ability to find out anything I (we) want to find out as it applies when it applies or how it applies.

There are 4 areas of consciousness.

1. Conscious competance - we know what we know.
2. Unconscious competince - we don't know what we know.
3. Conscious incompetance - we know what we don't know.
4. Unconscious incompetance - we don't know what we don't know.

99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999%+ of all knowledge and information is in area 4 for 100% of all human beings.

I'm consciously aware of this fact and it is taken into consideration in all that I do. And being EDUCATED allows one to shine light into the blind spots of area #4 faster and quicker and more effectively than anyone that is not even aware of the distinction that most of what there is remains in the blind spots.

Do not think for a moment that lack of EE experience has ANY bearing whatsoever for many of us that are resourceful and have the wherewithall to use our intuition, EDUCATION and common sense and so on in any of these non-classical electrical projects.

This applies to ME and anyone else that wants to put themselves on the list of people that don't have EE experience but gets results. The classical EE training has been one of the primary causes for the lack of results in this field because quite simply, anyone that is only trained in classical circuits and belives it applies to ALL circuits simply has no qualifications to analyze non-equilibrum circuits. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

Yes, classical training is good for MANY things with these circuits. For example, I showed how to dampen the ring on the spike returning to the battery by increasing resistance at the gate. That should have been something classical training should have been able to pick up on but it takes me - a non trained EE to figure that out and show it?

Classical training should have let you know who make the mosfet oscillate on demand but it takes my lack of credentials to make it work.

And so on...

So what is the point of the training in relation to these circuits if it hasn't even shown to be useful in producing better results in the circuit and has only been used to nitpick possibilities of how something can't happen or isn't happening?

I get it, I really do. But if you want to ever see over 1.0 in an electrical circuit, FORGET all your training, KNOW NOTHING, and look with fresh eyes and you'll see it. If it doesn't show you something, what do you lose? You can always snap your fingers and pop back into the conventional mindset can't you?

I'm able to snap my fingers and place my belief into any perspective I want in the blink of an eye and either make myself believe something at will or see something with absolutely no preconceived ideas regardless of what my memory has recorded.

The ONLY scientific way of looking at something is without a bias attached. You think myself and others automaticlly see some "overunity" circuit and start slobbering and have our minds open so much our brains fall out?

That isn't the case. If I have a friend come to me and tell me that he has a time machine in his garage, I'm able to, without bias or emotional reaction based on my recorded memory, go look at his garage with no judgement. I just want to see what I see as it is and not how any mental filtration process will overlay on something that I know absolutely nothing about.

You know what? By simply seeing things as they are, I actually have been able to experience quite a interesting life with many things that "skeptics" will never experience in a million years!

You can be skeptical all you want and you expectations of what this is ALREADY all about will simply give you results that correlate with your expectations.

There is no such thing as scientific skepticism. Looking at something unbiased is the only true scientific way of seeing something. Fresh each time. Not throwing everything else out the window but not using it as a filter to look at something new either!

[Aaron]

criticism 2

Anyway...

Ohm's Law? Use it to predict what the load sees here:
http://www.feelthevibe.com/free_ener...ighcurrent.jpg
Sorry to bust your bubble, but Ohm's law also only
applies to conventional closed loop systems or
in an open loop system where you measure these pulsations
like in the Ainslie circuit. Ohm's law is incorrect or you have
to admit it doesn't always apply to unconventional
circuits. It only strictly applies in relevant circumstances.

A permanent magnet outright violates ohm's law.
You have current but there is zero voltage. That is the
simplest example of magnetism without the electrical
component...just straight magnetic current. the magnet
is a negative resistor but that is another topic.

In your definition, a charged up or energized coil violates
Ohm's law because if there is current and zero voltage,
where is this proportionate voltage or indirect proportionate
voltage?

Or maybe you can admit that if there is no voltage across
the coil with the magnetic field, you can admit that
there is no voltage in a permanent magnet either meaning
there is no electric field in a magnet and not claiming
that I understand Rosemary's magnetic field model but
your claim points in the direction that her model is based
on a strong foundation. There is no electric field in a magnet.

If I got that wrong - Rosemary, feel free to correct me.
It is all in the thread on her model.

Look at this graph:


Negative resistance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is what some transistor do. 2n2222, mjl21194,
and a few others that I know of. That negative
resistance range.... current goes DOWN as
voltage goes UP. That happens at certain stages.
Mjl21194 around the 1 amp range and associated
voltage, the current will drop with increase in voltage!

A complete and total violation
of ohms law. Explain if it is a "LAW" how any
of these transistors can violate it? How does
certain carbon fibers violate ohms law? How does
a negative resistor in a battery formed by
voltage potential impulses violate ohm's law if
it is a "LAW"

How does a longitudinal impulse of pure electrostatic
potential that travels at 6 times the speed of law
with zero associated "current" violates ohms law?

And, nowhere did I say that a voltage source
with a series resistor is not a current source.
I showed you that your own claim on this, which
I agree with to a point shows that you must
also accept that voltage potential spikes (voltage
source) moving back to the battery (series
resistor - and it does have measurable resistance),
is a current source - meaning that your argument
SUPPORTS the fact that the front battery gets
charged!

Also, if you want to see a
"perfect inductor" my diagram with the high voltage
mixing with high current seems to make the impedance
disappear in a coil since the cap discharge time
decreases an incredible amount (negative resistance
in the coil).

You can decide if you want to be a constructive part
of this thread or not. You are part of the skeptical bunch
that wants to say that if this kind of circuit is put forward
that we need to be able to stand the criticism.

Well, consider this post an equal opportunity to receive
just as much criticism from the non-classical viewpoint.

[Michael John Nunnerley]

Mike - I saw your post re 'threats'. I'm scared for my personal safety for the first time in my life. I'm menaced on and off the forum. Who's doing this? Is it government? And how are they going to stop this truth from reverberating just everywhere? It's getting too widely understood. So why the menace to the few. It's making martyrs surely?[/QUOTE]

Hi Rose,

Yes I was threatened and paid off, the latter is hard to admit to all, but I had my reasons as it was mixed up with a very nasty divorce at the time and I needed the money to start a new life in another country.

At the time myself and a partner whom is EE, we developed a crued prototype of a jet engine which was self maintaining as long as you fed it with water. We went to our bank for futher funding to bring this into some sort of production engine, we demonstrated it running to the bank and, we did not know at the time, two other persons. It was found out afterwards that the other two were cientists from a very important plc company, not to mention names. Well to cut a long story short it went to the top, HMG, and thats when the ceiling fell in and I now live in another country.

I now continue with my work but down a different avenue so as not to renage on the agreement and cause problems for my ex partner and myself, you might say keeping my head down and at the moment not rocking the boat.

Mike

[Joit]

About Voltage at a Resistance.
You know, a resistor like thick Wire/less Ohm - smaller Wire more Ohm speeds Voltage up, because it s a restriction.
If there would be no measurable 'Something' between induction Parts, else there would be no induction.
Looks more like, some EE's do miss to measure and consider something ?
Other Resistor slows down all the Flow, but cause Heat, what is still flow. You see, there are more kind of Resistance to consider.
And beside, you overlook the overall Flow in that case, just to say, between this Points is no resistance and therefor no Voltage, dont works.
Like, put your 2 Hands into a River, and tell us, there is no flowing because, there is no Resistance between your 2 Hands.
Or better, put your hands between 2 HV conductions and be grounded, like the Scope is, and then tell, there is no Current through.

About Caps and a Coil storage, actually i did compare it with Batterie and a Coil, but anyway, what i would point at, is that, this Ying and Yang, as you seems to see it is like the 2 Potentials, Plus and Minus.
And i got a good translator for anything, lol.

Beside a Cap do store Energy with Alloy, where we know, it do concentrate Magnetism at the inner Core.
Other Storages store it with chemical Reaktions, you see, there are more Cases, what cause Energy.
But classical Terms only say, it is all the same, because they can 'calculate' it.
Then Current as actually only a calculated Value, but no real Thing.

And as you know, Voltage cause Magnetismus, not Current.
They calculate it as Current, and give it the new Name, what is misleading in that case.
Even the case 'calculate' is such something like, do Simulations or a real Experiment, the Sim is only the half Proof.
I can tell you, why it do match, because they did know the Case, that there is a Magnetic Field, where they could start from.
But even its not researched, what a Magnetfield is or cause, and there is another Hole at the Science.
Just saying, it are aligned Parts is somehow to simple.

About the Science, there are a lot of Formulas, to calculate something, you can even find matching results there,
but seems right now its more like teaching Childrens, you think you do all right, but at last, it turns out all different, as you did want it too.
There are a lot Formulas what are right, but anywhere are a lot of 'this little Errors' what stop to come into Progress.
The Basic View of the Terms of Energy is wrong, but for the Rest, they did do build up a big Science over it.
And now, they are to lazy, to turn the Things right again, because some are scared to lost her Reputation.

It even can be that quite a lot been right, they only dont tell and teach or deny some missing Parts, what is neccessary to connect the Dots,
So still, at the Moment nothing what you can be proud of.

Skywatcher, yes, lol, some Peoples need to measure and calculate anything and need a Explanation for it, or it isnt real, and cant be proofed.

And btw, i think you can see, that you can get missleaded too,
even when you think you can all measure and calculate, but when you dont have the Right Values.
A classical Expressions from our EE's here is, Who do measures, measures Crap.
Translated from 'Wer misst, misst Mist'

[witsend]

thanks Mike for the answer. I just cannot understand the reason for the menace. Is the object to get everyone who's close to some answers here to 'shy away'? How does anyone seriously propose that this OU knowledge is going to forever elude mainstream attention?

To judge from the crisis attack from TK one must assume that the truth is beginning to build up and develop some serious pressure. And I wonder if video demos will ever actually relieve this? We so need to engage in a discussion with our academics. MileHigh and .99 are typical of a certain 'dye hard' mind set - but there's some serious questions being asked here and there - and some of them from our most esteemed and learned.

My own efforts have been to keep 'plugging' the aspect of the 'regenerated' 'reticulated' 'recirculated' redefined second cycle current flow. Our numbers make a mockery of the concept of stored energy. And returning energy to the battery defeats this explanation in any event. Nor can that return be denied - if one simply checks out the results on battery life extension. The hope is that this can be seen as 'new age' - neo classical - who knows? Maybe a renaissance? A society no longer on it's knees to get warmth, internet access, a bit of electric lighting?

I guess the truth is that it will also constitute a radical departure from the norm both from an intellectual and a physical perspective. If there's no reliance on a centralised power grid - then will future development be so essentially tied and knotted to dense urban living requirements? That kind of starts challenging centralised governmental controls? It also calls for a spread of good fortune that will reduce the have and have not ratios pretty substantially. Maybe a form of chaos? No idea. But. In my view the truth of this surfeit of energy is going to leak out - one way or another. And I, personally, have confidence in the aspirations of our civilization to believe that we'll move in the general direction that evolution needs. At the moment we're definitely out of synch. I think we all know that from a deep place inside us all.

Interesting to see where this will lead.

[witsend]

Hi Joit. Just seen your post. I agree but am not sure that the 'omissions' in teaching are deliberate. It's just - that strange truth - academics will settle for explanations from other academics. Not from anyone else. We need to point these things out to our academics and hope that someone will come up with a paper that will describe a test that defeats OU - by using a switching circuit - applied to an inductive resistor in series with a battery supply source. That paper will then be accepted by IEEE's or IET and published in an acceptable journal. Then magic of magic - they can take the credit for the discovery and, with luck - we can FINALLY get some permission to study this as central instead of fringe science.

I don't think academia will be able to avoid a little bit of egg on the face - but I also know that there's a pool of intellectual honesty there that we can all rely on. It's just a question of trying to widen the size of that pool. EDIT like across the pond and then across the Pacific - then everywhere. Begins to sound like Noah's flood.

[Joit]

Hi witsend, i think, the Omissions are partially done by a few Peoples,
you know, all the Books are writen censored and controlled by a few Peoples,
for what Reason ever, if it are Things, what are not clear for now, or they censor Things, what you not should know,
and for the Rest,
well, there is a lot of Stuff to learn about it, i dont think anyone can proof anything Point by Point.
I even Think, you cant, at the same Moment, when you are learning them.
And if, your Teacher will deny it greatly, that he can be wrong, because its all established, and they cant be faulty.
Its the general missleading, what is just accepted from all.
An easy simple Truth even, and we mostly get teached, to dont ask uneasy Truths.
Just funny, when you show your Teacher some unexpected Things like Magnets what attract non magentic things, or the Permanent Magnet Holder from Ed Leedscalin.

I am even not complete sure, if that is MH' s and Poynts 'Fight' for 'her' Truth or serious torpedo our Progress here( to open a Gate for someone else?),
or just her View of Things out from her Window.