COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie | Part 2

[witsend]

Now I have to take a detour. Bear with me. It's been suggested that a magnetic field may contain particles but we have never seen those particles. Not ever. But why should they be invisible? Here's what the model argues. If any particle were smaller than a photon - and if they were faster than a photon - then photons, or light itself, would never find those particles. They would remain hidden from view. The analogy drawn is to wind that we can't see blowing a balloon that we can see. Just forever out of reach. This means that light is not so much the limit of all that is measurable. Just that light is the boundary limit of WHAT we can measure. The speed of light may simply be the boundary limit of our measurable dimensions.

A particle that exceeds light speed is a tachyon and they are purely theoretical. They are not actually presumed to exist. The model argues that this magnetic dipole is a tachyon and that they do indeed exist and they exist in a field.

[witsend]

So back to magnets. They will always conjoin with other magnets and, given ideal circumstances, the north of one magnet will conjoin to the south of another. That's its strongest connection. So these magnetic dipoles may align north to south. That means they'd all line up to make a string. But if the string were to stay 'open' with the first and last magnetic dipole somehow unconnected - then that string would not be strong. It's best - it's most symmetrical arrangement would be to form a loop where the last magnet in the string would join up with the first magnet in that string. And that would then describe a closed loop or a circle. This is in line with Faraday's 'lines of force' which he used to conceptualise the shape of the field.

[witsend]

And another point about magnets. They always move in a straight line away from or towards another magnet - depending on their polar or charge positions. This indicates that they also obey the laws of charge. In the same way it is proposed that these magnetic dipoles also obey the laws of charge.

It has been proposed that the magnetic dipoles are moving at pace - so much so that light itself cannot find them. In as much as it is proposed that they form closed strings then these strings must be orbiting - and orbiting at some extreme velocity that outpaces a photon. Something more than 300 000 kilometers per second. But more to the point. If the north stays north and the south stays south then those fields must also be orbiting in the same direction. To keep to that coherence of charge that is evident in a magnetic field then there must also be a shared justification. They must thereby move in synch and in step always from the north and to the south and then through the magnet from the south and to the north - and so on. Forever.

But why move at all? Could it be that the field is somehow steady and having reached a rest state - some condition of perfectly balanced charge distribution then the field simply becomes static? This would conflict with the evidence. If the field were static we would be able to find those particles. Light would, of necessity bounce off them in some way to expose them. Therefore it is proposed that it is their velocity combined with their size that renders them invisible. So the question then is what is it in the field that renders it unable to reach this 'rest state'.

[witsend]

And here we return to those laws of charge. If the strings themselves have a perfect charge distribution being north to south - head to toe - all the way along the length of each circle then the adjacent strings would also have that same distribution. If the one magnetic dipole were aligned with an adjacent string where its magnetic dipole corresponded with that of the first string - then the two norths and the two souths - placed as they would be, shoulder to shoulder, would repel each other. The one may move away from that 'like charge' and in moving it also moves all the magnetic dipoles in that string. This need to adjust and re-adjust would involve a cascading series of interactions that would propel all the strings in the entire field to continually orbit. In effect the field, compring more than one closed string of orbiting magnetic dipoles may be compelled to continually adjust its position and the combined effect would induce that extraordinary velocity that keeps the particles themselves from detection by light.

[witsend]

Which all seems to indicate much about a magnetic field but says nothing about the relevance to current flow. Indulge me. I have tried to describe current flow in isolation and the exercise failed. It seems the links in these arguments are required.

As a brief overview it's been proposed that a magnetic field may comprise magnetic dipolar tachyons that orbit in coherent and structured fields that comprise strings that conjoin to form circles which then orbit with a single justification. These particles obey the laws of charge.

Now I need to reference the actual orbit itself and must do so with reference to Bell's theorems. I know nothing about the math. All I understand with perfect clarity - is his conclusion. 'The statistical predictions of the quantum theories ...cannot be upheld with local hidden variables.' What this says is that unless there is some perfect symmetry - something that is invariably applied at the most profound and elementary level - then quantum mechanics would have failed. And it has not failed. Their predictions are precisely accurate in all aspects and to extraordinary degrees of accuracy. Therefore the question is this. What is that 'invariable' condition of the field that calls for the consistency required to make quantum theories so accurate?

[witsend]

And as suggested in the previous paragraph, this is related to the effect of an orbiting field and the relationship of each particle in the field. In effect it describes a symmetry that is really jolly profound. The particles would all be moving in one direction or with a single justification. This justification relates to the charge of the field. Always forwards, never backwards, always right to left or left to right. Never does it move in two directions - else there would not be the clear distinction between the north and south poles of a permanent magnet and these two properties are always perfectly defined.

But the orbit itself holds a paradox. There is that within an orbit that suggests perfect neutrality. If one drew a line through the centre of an orbiting magnetic field - anywhere at all - and provided it always goes through the centre of the field, then one half on the orbit would precisely oppose the other half. If one half goes forwards the other half goes backwards. If the one half is moving to the left the other is moving to the right. This suggests that the field is neutral but the justification of each magnetic dipole also presupposes a 'charge' property - or a single direction in space. So any magnetic field would also have a perfect charge distribution and that would render the field neutral. But its particles, assuming they comprise the field, would in fact be charged. Each part of the field is therefore charged. Yet the entire field is also entirely neutral.

[witsend]

I see some of you reading here. I'm going to take a break and see if I can get this all illustrated. I can only upload videos so will try and get it posted on youtube. Then I'll post a link. But it's getting dark - and I stuggle with the keyboard at nights. So bear with me. I think it'll take a while to get completed.

[b4FreeEnergy]

After reading all the discussions going on here, I wonder what was in fact the maximum COP reached in any of the replications made here? Nobody reached more than 4? Only Rosemary and those companies that did an official replication did?

[witsend]

After reading all the discussions going on here, I wonder what was in fact the maximum COP reached in any of the replications made here? Nobody reached more than 4? Only Rosemary and those companies that did an official replication did?

Hi b4FreeEnergy,

Apologies for not getting back here sooner.

Correct data analysis on Glen's test show results well in excess of COP>4. In some instances it gives results where more energy is returned to the battery than delivered. This is consistent with my own findings. COP>4 was the result of some extraordinary measurement parameters that were incorrectly established.

What is actually extraordinary about my accreditors is that they allowed reference to their names at all. Those that I listed are public companies. They would not, therefore, risk an association with what is widely considered to be 'fringe science' as this holds the real danger of reflecting badly on their credentials. That they allowed reference was, I think, a result of their genuine desire to get academic comment and research. And remember. At the time, I knew nothing about these forums' discussions on this subject. I repeatedly advanced the evidence to academics. To date not one academic has attended a demonstration nor investigated these findings. I have, nonetheless, been engaged in dialogue with 9 of them from our local universities alone and that dialogue spanning many years. I think their refusal to see the evidence will be an enduring indictment on their claim to require experimental proof as a basis for all theory. They've been somewhat hypocritical here. It takes less than half an hour to establish the facts of any demonstrated experiment.

[witsend]

Glen,

With respect. What you call bloviating is actually just the simple use of simple english. I've answered your questions. You need to answer mine. And until you do, I needs must get on with my life and my objects here.

[witsend]

Rosemary,
Why don't you show Glen and everybody else for that matter your own measurements and a picture or two of your setup? You’re not obliged to do that and you may have your reasons which I’m not able to understand because I certainly don’t have all the information and I just recently started reading this thread, true, but it would end this quarrel in the blink of an eye no?

Hi again b4FreeEnergy. All I have is some articles from our local paper that my son kept. They are newspaper photos. I have no idea how to upload them onto the internet. It's just a lot of patter about me and the circuit and whatnot. Frankly it does nothing to advance the science. And I certainly don't want my photo splashed everywhere on the internet. The measurements of the test experiment are recorded clearly in the Quantum paper. Other measurements relate to other tests but we've not even got to those configurations. Hopefully we'll get there soon. But my experimental days are over. I sent a very valuable scope meter to one of the replicators here for his use in advancing this technology. At the same time I dismantled the apparatus. I also needed to send him the probes for temperature measurement and what not. That left me with nothing but some resistors and some carefully wound inductors - all of them with multiple winding options. That found a home with some friends. My interest now is in the theory and in advancing the knowledge. What Glen and others are really after is the written approval of ABB and other accreditors. I only have this on email instruction copied at my attorneys. I need to keep it that way as I was never given permission to publish their names in that correspondence. Only to use their firm's names in the paper.

Apart from that, those independent entities, did they not publish what they reviewed and measured? (Their names are even listed in the Quantum article)

No. They certainly did not publish. Like all such lab studies - they belong to the company. I don't think any such company sees a moral imperative to make their research widely known. Certainly I've never found one.

About those men in black, a few times already I tried to start a conversation about them with a few colleagues at the coffee machine as well as about free energy and it perhaps being available for a long time already and being suppressed. As soon as I do they start looking at me as I’m in need for urgent medical assistance or even worse I see them thinking about those man of the nut-house removing me from the facility with a straitjacket. No matter who you talk to about this, they immediately give you that funny look on their face …

LOL. I rolled with laughter when I read this. I know that look very well. Some comfort though. I've seen the change from rank disbelief to reluctant credibility - and latterly - believe it or not - SOME ACTUAL INTEREST. But this was very funny b4Free. I think we all know that look.

Anyway, if this circuit of yours has the potential of bringing the big energy brothers in danger because they wouldn’t be needed anymore the best those MIB working for them could wish for, is to have the people knowing enough about it to make it happen rolling on the floor fighting with each other

Indeed. This is also a source of comfort in a strange and perverse way. I'm sure you can see why. I find it extraordinary that anyone should object to its being associated with a thesis at all. Who cares. It only makes it less arguable when it finally gets to the academics. I think there's alarm bells being rung that I may end up being famous. But that's absurd. Our mainstream scientists are more than able to appropriate this as their own - and with much more flair and panache than us poor members. But I'm happy - provided only that it's not wrongly presented. We all know where our quantum theories and even, with the greatest respect - our classical theories ended. Instead of being science they're now elevated to a creed. I'd like to remind people about the simple logic that actually is the basis of all science. Nothing dramatically difficult to understand. Science has become shrouded in a kind of technobabble that renders it impossibly obscure. I rather think that people like to exploit this in the hopes of sounding clever. The thesis is so simple that it offends just about everyone. LOL

[witsend]

Hi Guys,

Finally managed an upload. Had to reduce the numbers of frames so the talk over is a little out of synch. Anyway. Hope it helps.

YouTube - aetherevarising's Channel

I think that's it.

Thanks

[witsend]

According to Bell, quatum theories need an underlying symmetry or some fundamental rule that is required - else their sums wouldn't work. I've said this before. What is now evident is that the magnetic field may provide just such a uniform field - a single particle moving in one direction inside an orbiting string with many such strings making that field. There is certainly a breathtaking symmetry - not only to the strings, but in their inter relationship with each particle and with each particle in that bigger field. Just a whole lot of necklaces of magnetic dipoles spinning in space and moving at speed and simply distributing their particles in a really balanced way to ensure that the whole field has a balanced charge.

Now I need to suggest something else. Let us assume that 'in the beginning' there was nothing but this great big toroid - a whole universe of these particles. Imagine, if you will, that each string is so long that it wraps around and inside all of space. It takes the shape of an enormous toroid and this is the boundary, so to speak, of all that is or was. Just a great big magnetic field. The question is this. What would happen then if through some chance event one of those dipoles separated from each other and became free moving magnetic monopoles? Or what would happen if one of those strings broke - or if God Himself reached in and simply snipped one of those necklaces apart? Here's the proposal. Those little dipoles are simply little magnets. They'd be somehow expelled from that very uniform arrangement - that balanced condition inside the toroid - and the string would simply tumble together, like the magnets they are - and they would congregate in some form or some condition that no longer was able to 'manage' that orbit - that uniform charge distribution - in the initial magnetic field. In effect it would generate a 'singularity' and it would result in something that looks like a nebula.

[witsend]

And then the next question? What form would those dipoles take once they are outside the whole of the field? To get to this answer I need to digress. Just for now - imagine that we have a machine that throws stones. Here's the rule. The force of the throw is constant. And there are no extraneous conditions of air resistance or wind or anything at all. It throws these stones inside a vacuum. That means, that all things being equal, then the bigger the stone the shorter the distance thrown. And conversely, the smaller the stone the further the distance thrown. That's logical. I'll get back to this point. But what I actually need to first concentrate on is an 'interactive constraint'. If the stone were too big then the machine could not lift it to throw it. And in the same way, if the stone was too small then the machine could not detect it to throw it. That's what the model refers to as a boundary constraint. The condition of size would threby limit the interactive capability of the machine. In the same way I'm proposing that if these little magnets in a broken string - tumbled out of the field and congregated into vast nebulae then what makes them visible and would it then be 'out of range' or 'outside the boundary constraint' of the magnetic dipoles in the field surrounding the nebula?

[witsend]

I acknowledge that I've made some extraordinary leaps of logic. We do not know that the universe is toroidal or that it is structured by strings of magnetic dipoles. There may, in fact, be no associative relationship to nebulae with this 'background' structure. But I am only suggesting 'what if'? And - along these lines of argument - I am then proposing that, in as much as we can see nebulae - we can even determine if they comprise mostly iron, or hydrogen, or space dust - or anything at all. Whole stars have been seen spinnng away from those clouds, clearly having been manufactured from inside the nebula which seems to be some vast, really vast collection of disassociated matter - a kind of farm, or seeding ground of suns and maybe even whole galaxies.

Back to the question. What then makes this matter visible and readable while the magnetic field, assuming that there is one in the background, remains entirely invisible?