COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie | Part 2

[witsend]

This thread is only relating to the thesis because you and Glen have appropriated the experiment to another thread. And this, I believe, is to ensure that the experiment is considered an independent discovery bearing no material relationship to the Rosemary Ainslie circuit nor the thesis that required that circuit for proof. And this in defiance of evidence to the contrary.

Hi all,
You will note that this is my rule set and has information in it that will not be found in the original magnetic model published by Rosemary, such as particle spin and temperature.

Temperature is most assuredly referred to in the blogspot as is spin.

But it should be noted, that her thesis is not an open source project and the IP contained in it solely belongs to her. Therefore, any improvements seen here are hers to keep. Likewise, if someone else picks up the torch here be advised that your efforts are a gift to the thesis unless otherwise agreed to prior.

I have no idea if this is true. To the best of my knowledge the only copyright on this was secured for me by Peter Lindemann. But I'm open to correction. I always assumed that the thesis was available for open source. But that does not mean that it can be corrupted by open source - I hope. Just don't know that much about copyright generally.

The MMRA is a model or a thesis both terms being interchangeable. It is not a theory as it requires mathematical modelling. I would remind you all that Faraday himself did not do the modelling of the Laws of Induction although perfectly proven and expressed in concept prior to Maxwell's input. That elevated Farraday's thesis to Maxwell's theory.

And while your points in the notes on MMRA are interesting it contains one error. The original model, described in the blogspot - certainly points out the calorific property of the zipon. But what your notes also seem to lack is the reference to this one fact. The zipons are always in a hidden field. Transient imbalances can induce it to enter our dimensions. Effectively the field becomes disturbed. Else all interactions of all particles with the field occur in this hidden dimension. And justification for the particle and the field in which it manifests is based on deductive reasoning which is precisely akin to quantum values ascribed to measurable particles. In other words - the thesis fits the facts.

Thank you for your well wishes. I am sorry they resulted in such an dearth of evidence of so much expressed good will. The most glaring departure is that you have ascribed the experiment to some accidental and fortuitous departure from the Rosemary Ainslie circuit - which has not anywhere been substantiated - and is in defiance of the legal and expert advices to which I have referred - repeatedly.

[witsend]

I have to disagree with you on the temperature there Rosemary.

I just searched The Blogspot and the word 'Temperature' does not exist anywhere on the page.

Speifically and fully defined in relation to 'fire' and 'flame' and elsewhere.

I also searched The Unifying Field Model and it too does not contain the word.

Same reference

Also, to my surprise, neither one contains the word "hot" with reference these magnetic particles either. Because I distinctly remember reading "slow and hot" somewhere which led to our extended conversations and dialog on trying to get that once sorted out since empirical evidence almost always demonstrates "Fast and Hot".

Quite possible - as I distinctly remember seeing an error there and couldn't then find it to correct it.

As regards spin I can find nothing in your thesis in either location that attributes the magnetic properties of your zipons to the individual spin of each individual zipon. All of the references deal with the 'spin' or rotation of entire strings of zipons or the axial spin of things like the planet Earth. We must rely on you to clearly point out how this is stated and what it means.

Copiously explained as a spin 'on a shared and spinning axis' - developed as an interactive association rather than the 'crude' spin envisaged by most engineers. Required for arguments related to symmetry which, in turn, are required by Bell to justify 'quantum' observations on a small and large scale.

[FuzzyTomCat]

Rosemary Ainslie | A Magnetic Field Model - Thread

Hi everyone,

I would like to make a suggestion that being it appears absolutely no research and development is going on in this COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie | Part 2 thread anymore and only a thesis or theory discussion is with the unneeded extras and selective editing going on. That this thread should be closed and all "Magnetic Field Model" discussion go to the already existing thread started in 03-29-2009 ....

Rosemary Ainslie | A Magnetic Field Model

Best Regards,
Glen

[witsend]

I think the time is long overdue to cut to the chase. The wide interest that was evoked by this circuit was not only the fact that the results were demonstrable but that there was an intention to submit this to mainstream for professional review. Glen's overriding need to appropriate the circuit as his own discovery put paid to that intention. Frankly I was amazed at this - never actually realising what his manifold objections were relating to the paper written for TIE.

But be that as it may, my objects are to write this paper. That has not varied. The only difference now will be the subject which, of necessity, must concentrate on the thesis. So far these efforts are promising - but there is much work needed on the thesis. That will still be forwarded as an Open Source collaborative effort - and I hope to salvage some of the inroads I've made in this regard.

And frankly - my own take is this. All these forums are looking to crash through the energy barriers. This little circuit is not a forerunner. But it has the decided advantage of being easily measurable and provable on a demonstration or working model. That makes the argument persuasive. And it is still my quest to get that argument to mainstream - one way or another - or die trying. I'd be sorry to have those objects frustrated for want of a thread that is inclusive of further experimentation in line with that thesis. And there is still a need for experimentation - especially as it relates to the resitors used. And as mentioned Glen denies the thesis. Which will put paid to any access to such experimentation that may become available here.

[RonL]

Question from the first thread

I'm sorry to see these efforts, for whatever reasons, descend into so many bad feelings.

In the first thread, I ask a question about, turning the resonance of this circuit into a mechanical motion by the use of two coils acting on a single plunger.
The rise and fall of a magnetic field in each coil being timed to push and pull on the plunger, the results of this action would work as a bouncing between two gas pockets, which in turn would drive the gas in a flow cycle as in a heat pump.
As heat will drive a gas to higher pressure and this pressure can be the drive power for turning a generator, this can be a means of complete heat loss recovery as well as eliminating loses of battery charging.

My discription might not be well worded and sound a little confusing but I think some might see where my thoughts are going.
I'm not a believer in overunity, but I do believe 100% efficiency can reached in a mechanical system and this can open the door to heat extraction from the environment we live in.

Words from anyone are welcome.

Ron

[witsend]

Hi Ron,
I think you're describing a closed system here - which in my book is still COP>1 - at least. It's a unique solution - but have no idea if it will work. Like all such, the idea seems feasible - but there may be some flaw - somewhere. Presumably the current from the supply is switched? In which case could a diode not return the second half of each 'off cycle' from the inductors back to the battery? That may help with the recharge. Not sure if I've got the whole picture, but in any event - to me the idea seems pretty jolly amazing.

[RonL]

Hi Ron,
I think you're describing a closed system here - which in my book is still COP>1 - at least. It's a unique solution - but have no idea if it will work. Like all such, the idea seems feasible - but there may be some flaw - somewhere. Presumably the current from the supply is switched? In which case could a diode not return the second half of each 'off cycle' from the inductors back to the battery? That may help with the recharge. Not sure if I've got the whole picture, but in any event - to me the idea seems pretty jolly amazing.

As I understand things in a limited way, I think what needs to happen is a nanosecond resonance being changed to a microsecond plunger action. Capacitors might work, but as I say my knowledge in electronics is quite limited.

[FuzzyTomCat]

Quantum - COP>17

Glen.

I believe that your thread is to do with a mosfet heating circuit. This thread is still to do with the COP 17 Rosemary Ainslie circuit. You claim that the two are different. Why then do you want to restrict any experimentation currently advanced on the Rosemary Ainslie circuit? Are you hoping to bury its existence in a locked thread?

I suggest that the readers take their pick which thread they read. That seems decidedly more democratic and considerably more even handed. And frankly Glen - the circuit is simple and proven. I think it's subject has been exhausted. There is just so much that can be said about the circuit. What is now needed is wider experimentation. I modestly propose to share the thinking that required this 'effect' that the talented members here can use those concepts and apply them better. And it will always be in relationship to this thread topic no matter how often you try to claim it as your own discovery - with respect.

And since I have never even read your thread let alone posted there - could I ask you to extend the same courtesy to me?

Your correct the Quantum - October 2002 The Journal for Electronics Professionals "Transient Energy enhances Energy Co-Efficients" article that was written by "you" with "NO" Editorial Review, if I'm not mistaken, and it says there's documented proof and basically a guarantee of a COP>17 using "your" circuit and parts list in the "Quantum" October 2002 article ......



PARTS LIST


Good Luck !!

Glen

[RonL]

Hi Ron,

I must have missed your previous post - sorry for that.

Yes, the proposed apparatus would be a good way to apply resonant magnetic interactions to motive force while scavenging as much of the thermal energy as possible. It would be interesting to map out the Carnot cycle of such a system. It sounds a lot like a magnetic Sterling Engine of sorts.

As far as Rosemary's application of the International Rectifier Test Circuit (See International Rectifier HEXFET Power MOSFET Designers Manual HDM-3 September 1993, pg 1120 Fig. 12a) can be applied to such an apparatus I think it would fail. The reason for this is that the aperiodic mode that she has claim to is not resonant and probably would not work well in such an application.

I would suggest you use a couple voice coils from old speakers and attach them to your piston in a push pull fashion and see what you get. I predict the result would be very chaotic or the preferred mode of oscillation that Rosemary's application demands would simply fail to be present or effective.

IMHO, I don't think Rosemary realized that the engineer she hired to fabricate her circuit copied it right out of the public domain - otherwise I doubt she would have tried to patent it. I think it would have been better if she had patented the 'process' required in the applied method instead of trying to corner the market for herself by trying to patent the method of using BEMF - somthing that was already in use in the public domain for half a century before her application for patent.

Now, if you want to get very complex with your apparatus, you could use her process to initiate the raw energy and then filter each harmonic out and apply that to a series resonant systems working in tandem at their prescribed frequencies. This is the old concept used in spark-gap oscillators from decades past. Such events are rich with poly-frequency superposition.

Cheers,

Thanks Harvey,
What drew me to this thread is the simularity to the tank circuit described in an electronics book from the 1960's, The comment in the book that caught my minds eye was, this is electronics version of a flywheel effect that is near perpetual motion.

The other thing that has been in my mind, is a field trip with a local engineering group, through Advanced Power's plant in Austin Tx. where we saw a 400 pound flywheel supported in a magnetic field and only about 40 pounds resting on a thrust bearing.
The speed of the flywheel being about 7,600 rpm, needless to say I was impressed.
This is what has prompted the thinking that a plunger solonoid can be used in a mechanical process.

Thoughts are cheap so I keep churning them out.

Again thanks for your reply

Ron

[witsend]

IMHO, I don't think Rosemary realized that the engineer she hired to fabricate her circuit copied it right out of the public domain

The only thing that was copied from the public domain was the switching circuit. The IET paper and the first IEEE didn't even include this as we were advised by exerts that the switching circuit is not relevant.

... otherwise I doubt she would have tried to patent it. I think it would have been better if she had patented the 'process'

You KNOW that we never tried to patent anything at all. The object was to put this intellectual property in the public domain. I was twice invited to register it and twice declined. This is on public record and can be verified on application to the patenting offices. You know this too. So why are you implying that I'm protecting intellectual property? And to the best of my knowledge the patent deals with a process and not any particular circuit. You also know this.

...required in the applied method instead of trying to corner the market for herself by trying to patent the method of using BEMF -

I was rather under the impression we were using CEMF

... somthing that was already in use in the public domain for half a century before her application for patent.

To the best of my knowledge there is absolutely no prior art that is able to use this simple switching circuit to exceed COP>1. Again. You know this. What gives here Harvey? Are you suffering from memory loss? Or are you indulging in the art of inference - innuendo - implication - and allegation. And if so - to what end? You keep advising everyone that you're anxious to help me? One would almost be inclined to doubt you.

[witsend]

Hi guys,

The only thing more boring than an evaluation of the circuit itself is this boring discussion as to who has made what discovery. In the light of Harvey's denial that Glen has made a discovery - then I have no quarrel with anyone. I am anxious to refute this as Glen's discovery on two grounds. The one is that the circuit was designed to prove a thesis. It is not therefore the anomaly that he, Jibbguy and Harvey are claiming. The second is that should Glen claim this as a 'discovery' then he is also entitled to claim intellectual ownership - and that's a viper's nest - all on its own. The more so as both Glen and Harvey have 'reserved their rights' all over the place.

It is my opinion that both claims by the two of them, are false. But that's only my opinion. You need to establish the facts for yourselves - if you care that much. And my suspicion is that, in point of fact, no-one actually does care that much. Frankly - nor do I. I am reasonably satisfied that, by now, you all know that I have no commercial interests in advancing the intellectual ownership. In fact I've gone to some lengths to ensure that neither I nor anyone can. But in the unlikely event that this leads to publication in a reviewed journal as an 'anomaly' then I care very deeply and I, in turn, reserve my rights in this regard.

In point of fact it is critically important to note that this was predicted. It was first proposed as 'proof' of extra energy in the opening chapters of my association with this circuit. And I've said it often. If these concepts are correct, and if you guys, talented as you all are at experimenting - can bend your mind around the concepts - then the applications will 'fall into place'. As Harvey has mentioned. I am most anxious to advance applications.

And I am going to follow on with some concepts of the thesis that are related to current flow. It may be slightly circuitous but I'll spare you the dialectic. That seems to interest no-one other than logicians, mathematicians and physicists.

And another appeal to Harvey and Glen to stick to discussion in their own threads. This one is how to advance the project - not how to obsessively view the initial 'small' evidence.

[witsend]

I think that most readers on this thread have agreed that extra energy is evident. Some extraordinary work has been done by Aaron, Dr Stiffler, Bedini and many others to prove this. The question at issue is 'where does this energy come from'. Generally most people point to zero point energy but that does little to actually describe what it is nor it's precise location in space.

And the confusions related to current flow are everywhere. Some highly respected academics still attribute this exclusively to a flow of electrons. Others more conveniently simply refer to 'charge' flow - but are not able to describe the properties of that charge. Charge is associated with the properties of particles and they are always positive, negative or neutral. Charge does not occur without this particle association. So. To refer to charge without describing what is charged is no better than pointing at wind without reference to atomospheric pressure or even to the atomic or molecular components and densities in the air itself.

The question is this. What is the particle that is responsible for current flow if current flow actually also has the property of charge. In other words, what exactly is charged?

[witsend]

To answer this question the model proposed that all things are essentially particulate. They can be divided, and sub divided - forever - until it's final basic structure - the atom. And after this is the proof of particles inside that atom. But that's it. In terms of mainstream science that's the Ground Zero of all matter. And the evidence of this is everywhere. The atoms have been unravelled and their particles have been seen or measured or traced. Nothing smaller.

But this leaves questions because gravity, which is not seen, also seems to control anything the size of an atom or larger. And everything smaller than an atom - those particles - respond to magnetic fields to show that they have, themselves, an innate charged property of sorts. What then is there in a magnetic field or in an electromagnetic field that induces this reaction in particles?

[witsend]

Using the dialectic, or as some have called it 'inductive' reasoning - the model argues that in the same way as all bound matter can be subdivided into its essentially smallest part being the particle, so can a magnetic field be subdivided into smaller parts. The difference is this. Those parts of a magnetic field? They need to be inferred. And this, because they remain hidden. But, the arguement goes like this. If the definition of the parts is consistent with what is seen - then the argument may be valid.

And why the interest in a magnetic field rather than an electromagnetic field as it was finally modelled by Maxwell? Well. The argument is simple. An electric field always has a magnetic field associated with it. A magnetic field need not have an electric field. Therefore - using that self same tools of dialectic argument, the thesis suggests that a magnetic field may, therefore, be an independent and fundamental force and the electromagnetic interaction - by comparison - a secondary phenomenon of this single force. Therefore, if more can be disclosed by 'inferring' or 'ascribing' material or particulate properties to this force, then we may hopefully advance our understanding of the field as a whole and the part it plays to induce particles to bend or twist or 'spin' as it is referred to. We will, hopefully, better understand the 'charge' property of particles and something more about the charge in a magnetic field itself.

[witsend]

So I took your average permanent bar magnet and made observations. Bottom line, a magnetic field always has a north and south pole. If it's got particles then they must be a magetic dipoles. A field cannot change it's north to south and vice versa. Therefore the magnetic dipoles must comprise two opposite but distinct properties the south or negative being distinct from the north or postive. And albeit different and opposite - yet somehow they complement each other. This also suggests that monopoles don't exist in the magnetic field.

Then to the shape of a field. Particles aren't known to move as a field. Photons irradiate in straight lines away from its source. Pauli's exclusion principle claims that electrons cannot share an orbit - or a path. Electrons from cathode ray tubes are known to irradiate in a similar way to photons. Particles, of themselves, may fill a specific area but they do not comprise the smoothness that is supposed to be the distinguishing feature of a 'field'. And a magnetic field does indeed appear to be smooth. It's north and south pole apear to be equal though opposite in strength and it's influence through space is constant. Therefore there may be some feature of those magnetic dipoles that create the field effect that is not possible in dissassociated particles.