COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie | Part 2

[witsend]

Dear Witsend, you state somewhere that your circuit is 'flirting' with overunity. You managed to have COP>17. Can't we speak about 'over-unity' as soon as we have COP>1 ?

Hi b4FreeEnergy,

I actually don't know the answer to this. I seem to remember Peter Lindemann advising that the term is actually 'infinite' COP - but I'm open to correction. My own understanding is that a coefficient of performance greater 1 still implies some loss of energy from the supply. And - again my own understanding, over unity implies a zero net loss from the supply. The actual measurements on these circuits shows periods during which there is a clear increase in the energy at the supply. The thesis predicts COP>1 and a a potential at zero net loss to the supply. I propose that what's now needed is some research into how to sustain that recharge period. It does seem that there are periods of oscillation when there is an evident loss and this also seems to be associated with the aperiodic waveform without the signature harmonic.

My gratitude to Tektronix equipment is that the waveform is so much more clearly defined than was evident in the Fluke that I used. I only ever saw this on Donovan's Tektronix when he replicated the test to better understand the effect - in order to help me represent the Quantum paper to the IET. But that's the downside to testing this. One needs some access to some expensive equipment to find that that waveform. I saw you may be testing this for yourself. If you do go ahead I would suggest you get a resistor with the gauge at least as thick as the published quantum gauge with a core at least as wide. If you end up with more or less Ohms I don't think it will matter. And - always, try and get a good scope. But best would be to try and access one of those DSO's if you can.

I'd love to hear more if you do go ahead with this.

[witsend]

Guys, just to let you know - I'm highlighting my scribbles on the model in blue. Strictly only there for those who are interested. I've been asked to do this exercise as simply as possible so - to the purists, just bear with the generalisations.

[Guruji]

Heater

Hi Guruji,

What resistor did you use? Is it decribed somewhere for me to duplicate?

Bets regards,
B

Hi b4FreeEnergy first of all I'm posting on Inductive mosfet heater thread.
I did an old atenna tv. Yes it's this circuit from Aaron Marukami. The negative waveform generator circuit.
Thanks

[witsend]

Which all brings this subject back to the mysteries of current flow. Electromagnetism was actually discovered by Orsted in 1821. Faraday was intrigued with the phenomenon but was only able to devote time to this at the death of his mentor Davy, in 1831. He was able to show that a changing electric field induced a magnetic field and, correspondingly, a changing magnetic field would induce an electric field. Faraday was unschooled or self taught so it was left to Maxwell thereafter to do the mathematical modelling of this. The result was the formulation of the Laws of Induction. But while this has been well modelled and extensively used there is very little said on the phenomenon of a magnet on magnet interaction. Given the right proximity two magnets will move apart or together with some considerable force but without necessarily inducing a corresponding electric field. There is no clear evidence that an an electric field is either required or extant. And if an electric field is in fact absent in a magnet on magnet interaction, yet an electric field cannot manifest without a magnetic field, then the implications are profound. It points to the possibility that a magnetic force is somehow a primary force, compared to which an electromagnetic force is merely a secondary field effect. This thesis proposes that indeed the magnetic force is a primary force which is also the model's first departure from classical or mainstream thinking.

[witsend]

The actual intention of this field model was to explore the possibility of there being a single elementary force. Was there something - one simple principle - that somehow governed all the forces - something that could account for the nuclear forces, for the electromagnetic interactions and for the effects of gravity? The possibility that this could be found was and is seductive. It would point to the real possibility that energy itself could be uncovered and that this, in turn would reveal some underlying principle that governed all the forces. And a magnetic force was an ideal candidate precisely because it had been so entirely overlooked. It is a field that is widely used, but little understood, well known in general but mysterious in its particular. What was needed were some tools of logic, whereby the properties of magnetism would be 'inferred' very much in the same way that our mainstream scientists had 'inferred' so much about the properties of atoms and particles. Mainstream, however, had the advantage of dealing with what is measurable and evidential. What was now needed was to unravel the properties of something that remained hidden from view - something invisible - something possibly on a scale of 'small' that even exceeded the miniscule and intangible properties of the atom itself.

[witsend]

Just as an overview - I've covered the fact that there is very little known about the properties of charge or current flow. What is known is 'inferred' knowledge as the actual material of electric current flow remains as 'hidden' today as it was in the times of Faraday. But nor is there any question as to the comprehensive nature of what is actually known about the electromagnetic interaction. The use of this force is, self-evidently, the single most incontrovertibly well understood and well used of all the forces. It has taken us to the moon, to Mars and even beyond our own solar system. It has also enabled the tools of mass communication that has engendered a kind of 'latter day' Tower of Babel. And the tower is high, so high that it stretches beyond our stratosphere and into the delicately exquisite instrumentation in our orbiting satellites. But there is an outstanding question as to whether we are dealing with a secondary force or a primary force. The proposal here is that a magnet on magnet interaction does not invariably induce an electric field. Yet an electric field cannot manifest without a corresponding magnetic field. Perhaps therefore the magnetic field is a primary force. And if so, then - being as it is hidden from view, how can we better extend our knowledge of this force. What tools can be used to expose hidden properties in the field that can be inferred to be consistent with its evident and manifold effects?

[witsend]

To address this the model proposed using a Rule of Correspondence. It's easy. We know everything is the sum of its parts and we know that those parts comprise atoms that have been forged, by nature or through some other artificial means, to represent precisely what it does. Computers, kettles, pots, bricks, rocks all comprise atoms and molecules. Always supposing that this grinding could done, and that it could also be done perfectly, and further supposing that we could collect those grindings in a receptacle of sorts - then theoretically we'd have an unidentifiable mess of atoms and molecules that previously made up the whole of that identifiable three dimensional object. Three things are now evident. Firstly, in their less defined or muddled state of disassociation from each other, the atoms and molecules bear no direct relationship to its previously bound state. Secondly some force or energy must have been applied to shape it into that previously bound and identifiable three dimensional shape. And thirdly and finally we can definitely conclude that albeit different to it's earlier presentation, those atomic and molecular parts indeed made up the whole of that amalgam or object. So. We can therefore conclude that if energy was added to bind the atoms into an amalgam of sorts then, by inference, the least energetic state of an atom is in its unbound state. The sum of its parts are indeed, consistent with the whole. And the evidence is that one can rely of the Rule of Correspondence to prove that particulate and aerosolate nature of all three dimensional amalgams.

[witsend]

And, if this is true, if indeed everything has some particulate - some smaller state than is evident, could it be that perhaps there is something that is even smaller than a particle? What we know about particles is that they can decay - or they can be stable. But always, even if only through the complex appartus of a particle accelerator a particle can be shown to exist and to have precise properties associated with that particle. No one has seen anything smaller and, as a result, this is assumed to be the smallest possible state. Everything can be subdivided down to its smaller part, but the very smallest? That particle? That's the bottom line. It is the most profoundly fundamental potential division of matter to it's most profoundly smallest state. That's where the buck stops. And that is mainstream opinion. With good reason. Science is based on empirical evidence and nothing has been seen to be smaller.

[witsend]

So, the idea is to discover the properties of a magnet and then use that to determine, or infer, the possible particulate state of the magnetic field. There are many types of magnets. Here, to keep to a sense of symmetry and balance and also for ease of reference, I am only describing a simple permanent bar magnet with the north and south pole at either end of its length. Firstly it seems that, given a critical proximity, one magnet will always interact with another magnet. It does not seem to have a neutral property. And no south field and north field occur on their own. Always they occur together. Therefore, in terms of the rules of correspondence - if the sum of the parts create the whole - and if the magnetic field is particulate - then the magnetic field's particle would have to be a magnetic dipole.

[witsend]

The north of one magnet repels the north of another and conversely the south repels anothers south. But a north will be attracted to the south of another and again, a south to another's north. Vagaries of their juxtapositions aside, that movement will reduce to the shortest possible mean average distance which translates into a straight line. This is the direction they take to either attach or move apart. Therefore in terms of the principles of correspondence, and again assuming that the magnetic field may be particulate, then one may conclude that these magnetic dipoles follow the laws of charge.

[witsend]

It seems that a magnet is not able to 'swap' its justification. Once its north and south are fixed then, given a critical proximity the magnet will move the entire body of the magnet to attach north to south or south to north. It seems that these polarities, once applied, are not interchangeable. Again therefore, in terms of the principles of correspondence and again, if the magnetic field is particulate then it seems that a north pole is always a north pole and a south is always a south. Essentially the property of the magnet is actually an interrelationship between two separate and opposite magnetic extremes or monopoles - each entirely distinct one from the other. But just as one does not get a magnetic field without both a north and south justification, then one may assume that the two poles invariably occur together. Therefore the existence of an isolated monopole within a magnetic field would only hold theoretical interest and be substantially irrelevant to a study of the field as a whole or to the parts of the field.

[b4FreeEnergy]

Burns and rash ???

Hi Rosemary,

I've been reading bits and pieces in the "part 1" thread and saw something about Michael John Nunnerly having burns and rash and having to take cortizone tablets??? I have to admid I did not read all and apparently (or I do not know how) you can not search throughout the entire thread, only inside one page. Was he doing experiments on your circuit or was it something else or a deviation/elaboration on the circuit? In any case it is definitely scary to see your computer been taken over just like that! Did he ever show the circuit he was working on? To answer a previous remarck of yours, yes I plan to try to duplicate your circuit, just need to find some time. That resistor and windings are no doubt the tricky part. Cheers, B.

[witsend]

Hi Rosemary,

I've been reading bits and pieces in the "part 1" thread and saw something about Michael John Nunnerly having burns and rash and having to take cortizone tablets???

I actually never followed up on this but will do so. Mike does not follow the circuit at all. He has his own variations and I think they're geered to higher wattages. But I'm open to correction.

I have to admid I did not read all and apparently (or I do not know how) you can not search throughout the entire thread, only inside one page.

This is alarming. I, personally, can page through the entire thread. Could you check this and get back to me. If there is restricted access I'm entirely satisfied it was not intended.

In any case it is definitely scary to see your computer been taken over just like that! Did he ever show the circuit he was working on?

I think one way or another most of the key players in that paper had their computers hacked. My emails to the US are always intercepted - but I keep my files on separate computers now and have installed better firewalls. It helps I'm not sure that there's ever any final protection.

To answer a previous remarck of yours, yes I plan to try to duplicate your circuit, just need to find some time. That resistor and windings are no doubt the tricky part. Cheers, B.

This is just so nice to hear. Let us know how it goes if you get around to this.

Just a reminder. PLEASE GET BACK TO ME if there is, in fact, some restricted access on the locked thread. You are welcome to email me at ainslie@mweb.co.za

[Aaron]

search works fine

The search option works perfect and fetches results for all pages in the
entire thread:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...o_threadsearch

[FuzzyTomCat]

Previous Applications -and- Papers

Previous Applications -and- Papers

Quantum - October 2002 The Journal for Electronics Professionals
Transient Energy enhances Energy Co-Efficients /Authors - RA Ainslie & BC Buckley (PDF) ( "NO" Editorial Review )

EIT paper - IEEE 2009 AFRICON - "ELECTRO/INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE"
COUNTER ELECTROMOTIVE FORCE ENABLES OVERUNITY RESULTS IN ELECTRIC SYSTEMS (PDF) Authors - ROSEMARY AINSLIE / DONOVAN MARTIN

AFRICON 2009

Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Published Application - WO9938247 (A1) - 1999-07-29
HARNESSING A BACK EMF (PDF)

European Patent Application - EP0932248 (A1) - 1999-07-28
Method of harnessing a back-emf, and apparatus used in performing the method (PDF)

Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Published Application - WO03007657 (A2) - 2003-01-23
POWER SUPPLY FOR ELECTRICAL RESISTANCE OPERATED INSTALLATIONS AND APPLIANCES (PDF)

South Africa Patent Application - ZA9900385 (A) - 1999-07-20
HARNESSING A BACK EMF (PDF)



Fuzzy