COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie | Part 2

[CaptainScat]

The reality is, electrons do move in wires...

i'm getting the idea that you are suggesting that electrons are discrete particles, surely this isn't what you are suggesting is it?

[witsend]

Please answer the question! When have electrons been ascribed to current flow in ANY PUBLISHED THESIS.???

SCRATCH THAT.

edited. When has current flow been PROVEN TO BE A FLOW OF ELECTRONS IN ANY PUBLISHED THESIS?

[CaptainScat]

Of course electrons are discrete particles. Those are the little things that strike the inside of a CRT and react with the phosphor to produce photons. They are controlled by magnetic fields called yoke coils. The little heater in the 'Electron Gun' in the neck of the CRT is an 'Emitter'.

These discrete particles are accelerated at the High Voltage Anode because they have an electrical charge near unity while the Anode has an electric charge of about 15KV. So when they strike the phosphor they have a pretty good velocity and that velocity is converted to light from the impact.

It is the particle found in the lower left corner of this chart:




I hope that helps

doesn't help in the least... how then do you reconcile 'renormalisation'? you must assume finite dimensions for the particle, else the spherical electromagnetic waves would reach infinite fields strengths when the radius of the spherical electromagnetic waves tends to zero. subtracting infinity from infinity is as feynmann described... a dippy process.
"But no matter how clever the word, it is what I call a dippy process! Having to resort to such hocus pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self consistent. ... I suspect that renormalisation is not mathematically legitimate." Richard Feynman
maxwell's equations cannot describe a spherical electromagnetic wave because there are no wave solutions of maxwell's equations in spherical co-ordinates... the electron, just like the photon is a mathematical construct to describe energy exchange.

what's next? are you going to expound on the paradoxical concept of the particle / wave duality?

"What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances). The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist." Erwin Schrodinger

"Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of motion." Albert Einstein

have you ever seen an electron?

[witsend]

Eric,

Just in case you missed it by Rosemary's burying technique I brought it up front. But I wanted to add that if you have any questions I'll try to answer them as quickly as possible, but this thread is very time consuming and quite unproductive so I don't read here much anymore unless I'm directed to specific posts that need my attention. I'm sorry if you have asked these things before and I missed your questions.

WHO IS THIS ERIC? schpankme is NOT ERIC DOLLARD. Or if he is - abject apologies. ERIC DOLLARD is a genius experimenter who has managed to duplicate most if not all of Tesla's experiments. I understood that schpankme was simply quoting eric dollard.

[witsend]

Well the way you keep flipping back and forth between what you mean it's hard to keep up.

Ok, so you do say that Zipons get hot when they slow down. Good.

My hypothetical machine which I hypothetically built for less than one hundred hypothetical dollars grabs your hypothetical Zipons and slows them down so they get real hot. And then it smashes them into a hypothetical Graphene plate that outputs the thermal energy by infra red radiation.

So, if this does not have anything to do with your thesis then fantastic. I guess I can hypothetically start production right away because it must be a hypothetical new discovery.

Go for it. And good luck.

[admin]

Attention

Without taking the time to read through hundreds of posts, but just looking at the last few pages, it appears that a REMINDER is needed.

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...uncements.html

Energetic Forum is a place for the sharing of positive uplifting ideas, technologies, modalities and discussion.

We believe that all humankind is connected at a fundamental level...

We believe that each of us is responsible to conduct ourselves, individually, and in relation to all humankind, in a manner that reflects only light.

Questionable posts that threaten to disrupt the purpose, flow and good nature of this forum will not be tolerated.

It is important to follow these simple rules so as not to jeopardize your account.


READ THE RULES BEFORE POSTING (public posts AND/OR Private Messages)

1. DO NOT post messages that could be considered offensive, inflammatory or that are aimed at starting problems with other members.

2. DO NOT post messages that might infringe upon the intellectual property rights, privacy rights, rights of publicity, or other proprietary rights of others.

3. Do not SPAM this forum with Messages or unsolicited advertisements for products or services.

4. Do not create multiple accounts. Each member should only have 1 account for themselves that they post from. Multiple accounts from one IP must be cleared with the Administrators.

The Administrators of this forum reserve the right to remove any messages or users from this forum for any conduct that they deem to be outside, or against, the positive nature of this forum.

The Energetic Forum Community is a powerful force for discovery, self-help, and change. Every Member is equally important and valuable.

We understand that anyone may make mistakes, respond in a negative emotional manner, lose their temper, etc., however if someone repeatedly acts in a manner that is non-productive, unfortunately, we will need to take action.



We do NOT want to lock this thread, we do NOT want to have to send out PM warnings or ban anybody.


Please keep your posts to sharing of positive
uplifting ideas, technologies, modalities and discussion.

[admin]

Fresh Start

FRESH START

So that we do not have to go through every post in this thread and determine which ones comply with Forum Policy, we are asking that starting with this post a FRESH START.

No personal attacks, defenses, innuendo's.

That does not mean that questions and discussions cannot take place, just make sure they are respectful of all parties.

If you cannot post with respect to all other members, then don't make the post.

Have fun, and lots of us are looking to the members of the Renewable Energy sub-forum to make some substantial changes in the way we all buy, store and consume energy!

[ashtweth]

Thank you Admin a fresh start is what we all need.

[witsend]

THANK YOU CATLADY

Have paged through the entire thread from the beginning and see an awful lot related to the 'paper'. Not sure that it's relevant. I've taken a full copy of this thread so have any record that may be required.

I've also attempted to revise or delete any posts of mine that are clearly unnecessarily confrontational.
THANK YOU AGAIN.

[witsend]

Here's my 'fresh start'. The following is an extract from a letter sent to one of our learned and revered. I'm still pressing on - pressing on. I trust the arguments are valid. LOL.

Dear Professor,

Classical physics assumes that when you use a battery, for instance, as the supply of electric energy to any circuitry, then that is the sole source of energy to that circuit. In other words, should the battery deliver, say 10 watts of energy and 5 watts are then dissipated on the circuit as heat, then only 5 watts are then available as stored energy. Mainstream argument variously allows that this 5 watts can be returned to the supply source. But even then - it prescribes that ONLY 5 watts may be returned. What we prove is that closer to 10 watts of energy is returned to the battery supply source. This should not be possible and suggests that there is an alternate source of energy. This is the whole of my thesis and always has been.

I am trying to point to the fact that energy is available in conductive and inductive circuitry. The circuit material itself is a potential energy supply source. This is why this circuit was used to prove that thesis. The proof is unequivocal. I have been trying to alert academics to this for many years. We. the public, are assured that science is always based on experimental evidence. That academic electrical engineers would not replicate nor would they attend a demonstration to show this gain, speaks to a certain contradiction here. Their belief, based as it is on the limitations in the exchange of energy, is paramount. There was an apparent determined need to frustrate any evidence that may contradict this, their 'belief'. On the whole, I would have thought that this attitude would be more appropriate to a study of philosophy or religion, rather than science. Had I simply 'said' that it is possible to crash through this energy barrier their objections would be valid. As it is I 'showed' this evidence. And they would not 'look'. This includes Professor *****. Again. No academic electrical engineer that I approached, in all of South Africa, was prepared to evaluate the evidence based as it was on a full disclosure of the experimental apparatus and its results. Various public companies however, were prepared to look. I had five such independent accreditations from 5 different public companies all of which are listed and quoted on just about every stock exchange in the world. Sasol even offered UCT a bursary award to take this study further. That award was politely declined due to an entire want of interest.

The good news however is that this entrenched attitude to resist this claim is gradually changing. I have record now that 5 academic electrical engineers will evaluate the experimental evidence when we get the appliance up and running at 2 kilowatts. Why the principle is any different if the value is 5 watts or 2 kilowatts, eludes me. But I am grateful for whatever interest they show. But the facts are that the measurement at 5 watts is valid, unequivocal and is within the constraints of the most sophisticated measuring instruments and is probably more accurately dependable than wattages in the kilowatt range. However, that aside, the fact is that I'm grateful for any accreditation. However, any paper that is published on this experiment still requires the 'lower' wattage levels. The average tektronix equipment simply cannot deal with the high voltage levels that will be generated at this larger scale. It would destroy that equipment. And the average utility watt meters available do not perform within the required range of accuracy.

But 5 potential accreditors is 5 more than I ever managed before. But that's only repesentative of 2 campuses. My target here is all local universities. All 5!!!!

[witsend]

And here's a preliminary revised evaluation of the tests taken on Glen's replication

TEK00000 - 0.00 WATTS
TEK00002 + 3.59 WATTS
TEK00004 + 2.46 WATTS
TEK00006 - 0.87 WATTS
TEK00008 - 0.04 WATTS
TEK00010 + 4.91 WATTS
TEK00012 - 0.17 WATTS
TEK00014 - 0.09 WATTS
TEK00016 - 0.71 WATTS
TEK00018 - 0.42 WATTS
TEK00020 - 0.12 WATTS

average performance over the entire test period was, therefore 0.822 watts.
Heat dissipated was an average of 5.5 Watts.
THEREFORE COP > 6.23 OR 669%

No heat profile was conducted on the mosfet arrangement and the attached heat sink nor on the shunt resistor. Yet there was clear measured evidence of heat being disipated at both points. Temperature measured at both points was higher than evidenced at the load. If these values were also factored in as wattage dissipated at a conservative three quarters of the wattage at the load then the actual wattage dissipated as heat would have been 5.5 * 75% plus 5.5 being 9.62 Watts. This would place COP at anything between 6.23 and 11.7.

It is not an ideal test evaluation. Ideally the test should be run and data logged continuously over an extended period of time. But this was not possible given the equipment available. However, what is significant is that there were any records at all of negative wattage delivered. This should not be possible according to mainstream predictions. Yet it is clearly a predominant condition of this circuit. It is also evident in the occassional recharge of the battery which is not typically known to climb when run under load conditions.

What is signficant is that any value of wattage that is recorded to be greater than COP 1 is quite simply not expected within classical prediction on this circuitry. And measurement of temperature rise is widely considered to be sufficient proof of the wattage dissipated. Therefore, in all cases and under all possible conditions, this circuit is capable of exceeding classical prediction even under the most conservative assessment. And this using classical measurement protocols.

These measurements were confined to multiple waveform sample range which is required for 'proof' of data. Faster time scales or fewer samples fall outside the range of accuracy required by Tektronix.

[witsend]

@Glen.

The wattage recorded in the previous post really needs to be shown against the waveform - especially as this relates to the harmonics that can be seen in those scope shots.

May I please ask you to post the appropriate waveforms that our readers can see the significance of the results against those 'patterns'. Else may I have your permission to do this?

[witsend]

No answer yet from Glen? In the absence of such I'll assume it's OK. I'll try and get these posted over the weekend if I can't manage it sooner.

I've had a bit of a set back and am still smarting. The Professor who I wrote to, above, is a phsycist. He advised me that he simply 'does not believe' that we acheived those numbers. He stated that we've made a 'measurements' error and it is entirely 'improbable' that the test results are anything like the disclosed.

I countered that - in the event there was a 'clear' error in measurement then this would have been seen by the electrical engineering experts and that they would not have hesitated to point it out to us. I advised him that their expertise in measurement is greater than his own. He conceded this. Nonetheless. He is ADAMANT. There MUST be a measurements error. He BELIEVES that there is a measurements error. On this basis he will NOT do anything at all to recommend the advancement of the technology.

It seems that 'belief' is still the predominant factor in the evaluation of ANYTHING AT ALL. I had the dubious satisfaction of stating that this is NOT SCIENTIFIC based as it is on 'belief'. He put the phone down on me.

I shall complain about this attitude to the Dean of the Faculty and to the Assistant Registrar of the university. Personally I think this attitude is a disgrace and it should NOT BE ADVANCED BY ANY ACADEMIC PURPORTING TO TEACH SCIENCE. Surely there is some moral imperative that experimental evidence is still the 'acid test' of science.

[admin]

We apologize for letting this thread get out of hand. We had not been monitoring it.

We are committed to maintaining a good-natured atmosphere here at Energetic Forum where people are free to discuss, challenge, learn, and explore, but respect must be shown at all times. No derogatory comments will be permitted and any posts that contain them will be deleted.

It took us several hours to clean up this thread. We believe we deleted all posts that did not follow forum guidelines, but if any were missed, please message us and let us know.

Unfortunately, many posts containing derogatory comments also contained valuable information which also was deleted. Lets keep it clean and positive so that this does not happen again.

We are excited about the fresh start. Have fun. Keep exploring.

[b4FreeEnergy]

So many ‘interventions’ of ‘admin’ and that in such a short time?

Things said in this thread were not always nice and beautiful but what I always wonder in such ‘intervention ‘cases is: “who will be the judge”?
Will it be the administrator just because he’s the administrator and based on what, his infallible judgment? How do you choose between something that is ok and something that is not ok? When is it censure and when is it well done? I was not always happy about the ‘style’ used in this thread but I don’t have a good feeling about those interventions either, a thread will be self-regulating in the end anyway.
If anything written or posted here can be wiped away just like that how can you ‘trust’ this site and will it be any better than government ‘secretizing’ I don’t know what? People sometimes differ in opinions and sometimes it gets rough but that’s part of it. It’s not that nobody reacted on such things and there was no change in behavior. Now it’s not even possible to read it all again and make up your own mind. Some pieces are still there, some are wiped away. Some people saved what was there already off-line, etc, etc...
A really thin line to walk on!
Best regards,
B