Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[poynt99]

btw Rose,

Part two of my post above is not the explanation of the negative power you referred to in part one. Part two was simply an explanation as to why a source's power normally has a negative sign associated with it.

All loads however, including CSR resistors, would normally have a positive power associated with them, and the fact that the CSR resistor in your measurements AND in my simulation are showing a MEAN NEGATIVE voltage, would seem to indicate that a net current is flowing into the battery, or in other words it seems to be either supplying no net energy at all, or it is getting charged, depending whether the MEAN CSR voltage is 0V or negative, respectively.

If in fact there is current going back into the battery, and it is in the same direction as the battery's electric field (contrary to the norm), then indeed the sign associated with the measured battery power would be positive.

.99

Edit: sp cor.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys, I'm actually going to address this post to the general members here at OU.com.  I've referred to this OFTEN but I really need everyone here to be fully cogniscant of the facts.  From the get go this technology of ours has been attacked.  With scorn and ridicule and absolute rejection.  And it was not enough to just reject the technology.  What was also needed in this sacrificial celebration was my good name along with it.  That's immaterial - because I really DO NOT HAVE ANY SCIENTIFIC REPUTATION to protect.  But you see for yourself that the maligning the one without the other would possibly lose all that compounded force.  It is no accident that the talents of Pickle and TK and MileHigh and Poynty and others et al - et al - an on and on - were enlisted for this purpose.  Just remember how consistently I was getting booted off one forum after the other.  THAT was the object.  They did whatever was needed to get me away from here. 

Now.  Here's the thing.  Never in history has there been a new idea brought to the table - that it was NOT FIRST SCOFFED and the bringer - so to speak - maligned along with that idea.  I'm in really good company.  But the joke is that I'm BRINGING NOTHING.  All we've done is uncovered a property in electric energy that has been entirely OVERLOOKED.  HOWEVER - to get to that property - to the actual magic of the electromagnetic interaction - also needed an analysis of the actual properties of the electric condition and the magnetic condition.  That - of necessity - required a field analysis - and FIELD PHYSICS is a grossly under-evaluated branch of science.  In fact the ONLY people who have a handle on this is our string theorists.  And they're thinking is so COMPLEX - their math that obscure - that not even their expert colleagues can understand them.   

That's where I committed the heresy.  I made it simple.  Or I thought I did.  Apparently there are still those who have difficulties here and I intend changing that to make it ever simpler.  But I should not have been able to comment at all.  It simply doesn't fit with the profile of all that required high IQ and general brilliance - coupled with a first class training.  I'm the first to acknowledge this.  But but the same token I'm delighted to acknowledge it.  Here's why.  If I - who am representative of all that is average - can get MY head around it - then ANYONE CAN.  And that's my comfort.  Because the truth is this.  We have allowed our EXPERTS full license to comment on physics and - by default - on ENERGY which is the holy grail of physics.

And they, in turn, have been reluctant to ask questions - but rather to ONLY provide ANSWERS.  And even here - I suspect it's because we, the public imposed that condition on them.  It was 'the deal' in that relationship.  That way we also relinquished our own responsibility to get familiar with all the conceptual reasoning behind physics.  We 'left it' to them.  And in doing so we also relinquished our responsibility to ENGAGE in what was and is evidently a mushrooming energy crisis.  We are polluting our Mother Earth and giving it toxic scabs and poisoned lungs - and acres upon acres of poles of wires to scar it's beauty.  We're INTRUDING on a natural condition to impose our own greedy desire for energy and more and more and ever more of it.  Nothing wrong with that need.  Everything wrong in the manner in which we're trying to do this.  And while all this abuse suits the pockets of those who actually get enriched by all this, if we do NOT stem the tide of all this pollution - then I absolutely agree that Nature both can and will get rid of us.  This world is way too perfect for her to allow a lasting damage.  And she can, most certainly, recover what she wants and reject what she doesn't. 

Which all is a circuitous way of pointing out that we really need to explore this energy.  The good news is this.  Possibly for the first time ever we're in the happy position of proving a claim with MEASUREMENT.  That's a first.  Up until now, we've been told that the measurements don't support it.  But NOW THEY DO.  So.  Let's concentrate on all that measurement.  Because this goes to the  HEART of their denials and to the quintessential essense of all that required PROOF.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[WilbyInebriated]

As I said Rose, I thought that an indication of current flow back to the battery in a simulation would be of interested to you. This IS what I have shown. Are you interested?

If so, where do we go from here?

.99

i have an idea. probably not the most popular idea ever but...

you could get some fpga's, take the software instruction that tells this programmable hardware (fpga's) how to wire itself up as and look on that software instruction as a genetic algorithm chromosome. mutate it randomly and evolve the hardware... this has been done for over a decade and you (poynt) appear to have the skills to get the hardware part of it done. and there appears to be plenty of people on your forum (and this one) who could probably help out with the coding. hell, i might even help you out with the coding. you can even do 'extrinsic evolution' on a computer (i know you love your sims... ) instead of intrinsic evolution on an actual hardware fpga. you could do this for ainslie device, the tpu, or anything you can imagine.

are you interested in such a route or would you prefer continue to defend your hallowed and incomplete classical electrodynamics and pretend that you doing such is a benefit to us all?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

i have an idea. probably not the most popular idea ever but...

you could get some fpga's, take the software instruction that tells this programmable hardware (fpga's) how to wire itself up as and look on that software instruction as a genetic algorithm chromosome. mutate it randomly and evolve the hardware... this has been done for over a decade and you (poynt) appear to have the skills to get the hardware part of it done. and there appears to be plenty of people on your forum (and this one) who could probably help out with the coding. hell, i might even help you out with the coding. you can even do 'extrinsic evolution' on a computer (i know you love your sims... ) instead of intrinsic evolution on an actual hardware fpga. you could do this for ainslie device, the tpu, or anything you can imagine.

are you interested in such a route or would you prefer continue to defend your hallowed and incomplete classical electrodynamics and pretend that you doing such is a benefit to us all?

Hi Wilby.  What is an fpga?

[WilbyInebriated]

Hi Wilby.  What is an fpga?

a field programmable gate array. the logic elements that constitute its most elementary workings can be changed at will by reprogramming the bits in the chip’s memory, known as configuration bits. gates, for example, can be changed to and gates or not gates, input wires can be reprogrammed to be output wires, and so on.

edit: look at the config bits as genetic algorithm chromosomes and we can 'evolve' circuits. circuits that do some amazing things.