COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie | Part 2

[EgmQC]

Harvey is right with his question Rosemary. Empirical evidence are fact, and repeatable everytime, your thesis should be able to explain your point of view with the fact that we know. Misconception can exist even with empirical evidence but you need to show "HOW" its wrong from what we have as fact.That don't mean your wrong but you should slow down in writing thing that you cant explain VS empirical evidence, Else its only idea wrote on paper, nothing else and can get questionable , if you cant answer there no need to wrote no ?.

Best Regards,
EgmQC

[witsend]

Harvey is right with his question Rosemary. Empirical evidence are fact, and repeatable everytime, your thesis should be able to explain your point of view with the fact that we know.

Hi EgmQC. I don't think I'm varying from known facts - not thus far anyway. Nebulae are well studied and known. I've suggested nothing new in a magnetic field other than it may be particulate. I have not deviated from observed known science to the best of my knowledge. And as far as repeatability of experiments - I think that's now reasonably well established.

Misconception can exist even with empirical evidence but you need to show "HOW" its wrong from what we have as fact.That don't mean your wrong but you should slow down in writing thing that you cant explain VS empirical evidence, Else its only idea wrote on paper, nothing else and can get questionable , if you cant answer there no need to wrote no ?.

I'll gladly slow down Egm - but the applicability of this thesis is to a departure in the understanding of current and I first have to describe where I propose it comes from. It's circuitous but necessary. I only ask that you bear with me. I assure you it will all fall into place. But I simply cannot advance the concepts of current without this 'background'. I've tried to make the writing clear and simple. If there's confusions please advise me. And I'm not too far away from the the real object here which is to show where this extra energy may be found.

[EgmQC]

Hi EgmQC. I don't think I'm varying from known facts - not thus far anyway. Nebulae are well studied and known. I've suggested nothing new in a magnetic field other than it may be particulate. I have not deviated from observed known science to the best of my knowledge. And as far as repeatability of experiments - I think that's now reasonably well established.


I'll gladly slow down Egm - but the applicability of this thesis is to a departure in the understanding of current and I first have to describe where I propose it comes from. It's circuitous but necessary. I only ask that you bear with me. I assure you it will all fall into place. But I simply cannot advance the concepts of current without this 'background'. I've tried to make the writing clear and simple. If there's confusions please advise me. And I'm not too far away from the the real object here which is to show where this extra energy may be found.

Its up to you Rosemary , i didn't say "You should slow down" in a bad way. But if others come here and see a incomplete version and begin to ask question and never get any answer with evidence, crap thing will happen. Maybe better to have a complete version of your thesis to avoid flame war ,at least you will have all the answer needed to show evidence. I can argue for years that the universe is infinite and not finite , but without clear evidence , ill waste my time explaining to others how my view is the good one.

Best Regards,
EgmQC

[witsend]

Just to recap. The proposal is that light is the boundary limit of our measurable dimensions. I've argued that if something is both smaller and faster than light itself it cannot find it and it is therefore invisible to photons. The question now is what would happen when a string is broken and all those little magnetic dipoles congregate together? The first obvious consequence is that they would lose that orbital velocity. If they now become relatively stationary in space - then light would be able to interact with that 'relatively' stationary - or slower moving - particle and we would 'know' of it's existence. It would no longer be outside the boundary of our measurable dimensions. At its least it would have to be slower and bigger which suggests that it was first smaller and faster. Therefore the proposal is that there is an inverse proportional relationship between velocity and mass, or this case, 'volume'. Again. It would suggest that the bigger the particle, the slower it's velocity. And conversely, the smaller the particle the greater its velocity. Decrease in velocity would transmute to increase in volume (or mass) and increase in velocity would transmute to a decrease in volume (or mass). And this also suggests that the actual quantity of potential energy in each particle is fixed. It is only its expression that varies in relation to its volume. And that, in turn, may render it either visible or invisible within the constraints of light speed which is the limit to our measurable dimensions.

[witsend]

Its up to you Rosemary , i didn't say "You should slow down" in a bad way. But if others come here and see a incomplete version and begin to ask question and never get any answer with evidence, crap thing will happen. Maybe better to have a complete version of your thesis to avoid flame war ,at least you will have all the answer needed to show evidence. I can argue for years that the universe is infinite and not finite , but without clear evidence , ill waste my time explaining to others how my view is the good one.

Best Regards,
EgmQC

Point taken EgmQC. I agree. I'll get to the relevance soon. Right now I have to try and establish the basic argument. It fits in remarkably well with all known science - I assure you. And it has the added advantage of explaining why this extra energy is available and where it comes from. Not difficult concepts to follow. Just a bit laborious to cover the fundamentals. Sorry if it's tedious.

[FuzzyTomCat]

Redirect to - Rosemary Ainslie | Magnetic Field Model

I placed all the Thesis and or Theory stuff to it's proper place in Energetic forum in order that everyone interested could make some heads or tails out of it ..... it just confuses the hell out of me, and it's way off topic in this thread.

Rosemary Ainslie | Magnetic Field Model POST #109 - #110 - #111 - #112

Fuzzy

[witsend]

So. I think I've covered the main postulates needed to relate this to the 'extra energy' that I've pointed to and that has also been proven in the experimental evidence. From hereon I'll mainly refer to the conclusions of the model rather than the thinking that led to the conclusions. The model actually now goes into a justification for composites of these magnetic dipoles making stable particles and I will spare you the arguments as they are only relevant to the possible proof of these proposals to the field model. This, because it was possible to explain the difference in the size ratios of the proton to the electron.

To start with - I have proposed that the magnetic field is hidden. We cannot see it. We can only see how particles and various other matter react to it. I've then proposed that, in point of fact the field may comprise particles and that these particles move in a field and that they move at velocities in excess of light speed. When they lose the integrity of the field they become manifest in our dimensions and they lose their velocity at the expense of their invisibility. But what exactly are they? And how can I prove this?

[FuzzyTomCat]

Off Topic - Again

So. I think I've covered the main postulates needed to relate this to the 'extra energy' that I've pointed to and that has also been proven in the experimental evidence. From hereon I'll mainly refer to the conclusions of the model rather than the thinking that led to the conclusions. The model actually now goes into a justification for composites of these magnetic dipoles making stable particles and I will spare you the arguments as they are only relevant to the possible proof of these proposals to the field model. This, because it was possible to explain the difference in the size ratios of the proton to the electron.

To start with - I have proposed that the magnetic field is hidden. We cannot see it. We can only see how particles and various other matter react to it. I've then proposed that, in point of fact the field may comprise particles and that these particles move in a field and that they move at velocities in excess of light speed. When they lose the integrity of the field they become manifest in our dimensions and they lose their velocity at the expense of their invisibility. But what exactly are they? And how can I prove this?

I placed all the Thesis and or Theory stuff to it's proper place in Energetic forum in order that everyone interested could make some heads or tails out of it ..... it just confuses the hell out of me, and it's way off topic in this thread.

Rosemary Ainslie | Magnetic Field Model POST #109 - #110 - #111 - #112

Why do you keep disrespecting Aaron when he made a thread just for your Thesis or Theory almost a year ago .....

Have you actually read everything together as posted ??? It really rambles on ....

[witsend]

I placed all the Thesis and or Theory stuff to it's proper place in Energetic forum in order that everyone interested could make some heads or tails out of it ..... it just confuses the hell out of me, and it's way off topic in this thread.

I am not discussing the thesis. I am leading to a discussion on current flow. It is entirely topical. When this is established I will then show why the results in the COP 17 circuit were inevitable. I then hope to point out where the future development of this circuit may be best explored. The level at which I am writing is understandable to any high school student let alone the skilled technicians and engineers that read here. If you will explain which parts confuse you I will try and enlighten you. But you are the only one who has complained that you do not understand it.

May I remind you that you have disassociated yourself from this thread by starting another. As I understood it your objective in starting that thread was to do further experimentation. What is stopping you? The more so as experimentation here is definitely stalled, hopefully until I've finished those explanations. Which also means that the two threads are not even in conflict. How is it then that you keep prescribing what I may or may not discuss on this thread? There is NOTHING that forces you to read here. And - to the best of my knowledge - you are not a monitor on this forum let alone on this thread. I do not even read your thread and nor do I advise you what you may or may not put in it. Can I impose on you to extend that same courtesy to me.

And I do not want to repeatedly refer to this. But here's the thing. The mosfet heating circuit and the Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 circuit have now been thoroughly explored. The subject is virtually closed. All that is required now is to point to the reasons that predicted those results. That way the talent on this forum will be better able to continue the experimentation - ideally without the haphazard assemblage of components in the hopes of 'finding something'. I am hoping that their skills will then be advanced as a logical extension of some basic concepts rather than otherwise. This will very quickly put paid to this thesis of mine - or not. And not all experimentalists have the natural aptitudes and genius of Mike and others. Some guidance here may help.

Therefore is the subject very much topical to this thread and no other. It is the natural extension from the first thread which belonged to the replication of the circuit. I think that a democratic or even handling of this subject calls for a continuation of both threads. If there were no interest in either they will simply die. I am well aware of the readership here. And it is far and away in excess of the 34 that Harvey pointed to. If you do not like what is written here you have the very real option of reading elsewhere. I also put it to you that if you wish to post or discuss your own experiments here you are welcome. So is anyone. We've already had an advance of a schematic that is mindboggling - from one member. Nothing is prescribed here other than to advance our understanding and to learn from one another. That's in the interest of open source. Why are you trying to silence me? Is it because you hope then to turn attention to your own thread? Or is it to separate me from my circuit entirely? I assure you there is nothing left to explore in that simple circuit. What's now needed is to understand the thinking and get these principles onto applications. And I hope to enable this advancement by sharing the thinking that first required the extraordinary results in that circuit.

[FuzzyTomCat]

To everyone

I apologise to all readers that for the excessive rudeness of both Harvey and Glen. I can do nothing about it. Glen is trying to find cause for closing this thread for obvious reasons. He is currently using the technique of 'flooding'. I ask that you simply ignore their posts. I will continue with my own thesis in an around these posts that are designed to detract. The thesis will be written in Blue.

Golly. It seems I must always somehow 'fight' to get this knowledge to open source. Always there are those who try to prevent it.

The youtube diagrams are uploading as we speak. Not sure how long it takes but will post the link when it's completed.

WOW ... I must be missing something here again ???

http://www.energeticforum.com/85687-post289.html

I am not discussing the thesis. I am leading to a discussion on current flow. It is entirely topical. When this is established I will then show why the results in the COP 17 circuit were inevitable. I then hope to point out where the future development of this circuit may be best explored. The level at which I am writing is understandable to any high school student let alone the skilled technicians and engineers that read here. If you will explain which parts confuse you I will try and enlighten you. But you are the only one who has complained that you do not understand it.

Anything wrong with this picture ??


.

[witsend]

If I was advancing the thesis - I assure you it would be somewhat more turgid than anything that I have written here. I am only giving an outline of the thesis in broad brushstrokes. I have learned that the readers here are not into pure logic. I am therefore dealing with concepts only.

You are not forced to read here. You are advancing the mosfet heating circuit. I am not sure why that required a separate thread - but for reasons that you and Harvey understand - it was required. This thread is about the COP17 Rosemary Ainslie circuit. And right now it is to do with a discussion on current flow which may assist in future experimentation. There is no such room for a discussion on your thread. It has nothing to do with pure theory. And it is required for the advancement of this particular effect into wider applications.

[witsend]

To start with - I have proposed that the magnetic field is hidden. We cannot see it. We can only see how particles and various other matter react to it. I've then proposed that, in point of fact the field may comprise particles and that these particles move in a field and that they move at velocities in excess of light speed. When they lose the integrity of the field they become manifest in our dimensions and they lose their velocity at the expense of their invisibility. But what exactly are they? And how can I prove this?

I've copied the above to give relevance to what follows. It was just so high up on the page I'm afraid the readers here may have forgotten.

I would like, for now to sort of work backwards. I'll go from a known effect and analyse that in terms of known science and then get into a discussion about the effect. Let us, for now look at how a stick of wood burns. Apply an initial flame or apply friction to generate a spark and all things being equal - given enough oxygen in the air - then the stick will gradually decay from its bound condition to a pile of disassociated carbon atoms - possibly some trace minerals - and it may release moisture as steam into the air together with some gas atoms or molecules. Some carbon atoms may also be released into the air and combine with other atoms, such as oxygen to form various molecules and, in some cases - compounds. That fire, or flame, is understood widely to be the result of a chemical reaction. That's its known classical definition.

[witsend]

What we know about the atom is that it is comprises a nucleus, energy levels, and a distribution of electrons in those energy levels that, in turn, relates to the number of protons in its nucleus. The difference in those numbers of electrons to protons, corresponds to the differences between all atoms. And these have been scheduled in the periodic table. We know nothing about the actual constituent make up of those energy levels. The model proposes that these energy levels simply comprise orbiting fields of magnetic dipoles that belong to the atom in the same way that orbiting magnetic dipoles belong to a permanent bar magnet. They are an intrinsic property of each atom and their numbers and the number of energy levels also corresponds to that atomic number. In other words, these energy levels precisely reflect the charge distribution of the atom. And this, in turn, would reflect the ionisation of that atom. Imbalanced electrons - either too many or too few, would also indicate an imbalance in the energy levels.

[witsend]

This model proposes that yet more fields are extraneous to the atomic struture. It binds the atoms by interacting with the atomic energy leves. They are themselves simply magnetic fields that have somehow become disassociated from the surrounding magnetic fields of our earth and they have entered into the body of living twig and they simply hold the atoms together. A stick is a complex life form. It has many varieties of cells. Each cell comprises uncountable numbers of atoms. The atoms in turn may form complex molecules and compounds. All I am pointing to here is that the cells themselves comprise atoms and molecules and the 'thing' that binds these atoms and molecules are precisely these extraneous invisible magnetic fields that move, always, to ensure a balanced charge distribution of the atoms inside an amalgam

[b4FreeEnergy]

And I do not want to repeatedly refer to this. But here's the thing. The mosfet heating circuit and the Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 circuit have now been thoroughly explored. The subject is virtually closed. All that is required now is to point to the reasons that predicted those results.

Not exactly motivating to try and rebuild or duplicate this circuit. How many successful replications of this circuit were done?
Anyway I went out for a long run in the snow during lunchtime, my endorphins level is way up and curiosity on its own will be motivation enough to see if I can have the same results if I build it. I have all I need except for the proper resistance wire. I ordered some in the local electronics shop but what I got is really thin wire. I understood thicker wire would improve the process so I’m trying to get my hands on some.

Sjalom,
B