Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[MileHigh]

Rosemary:

Yes college is the same as university.  You are correct about my attitude, it is a double-edged sword.  I may indeed miss out on some new knowledge.  All that I can do is hope that I am right most of the time.

Glen:

I think we were discussing at one time that if one end of the load resistor was pointed only at the mosfet within it seemed 30 degrees , the circuit went a little wacky ...... thus the CW CCW winding direction question thing .....

Well, if you "bathe" the MOSFET in an AC magnetic field coming from the end of the load resistor and the gate input resistance is at a very high setting, you will start to induce an AC voltage on the MOSFET gate input which could create a feedback mechanism that will indeed affect the operation of the circuit.  If you were to rotate the resistor around and go back to bathing the MOSFET in an AC magnetic field then the induced AC voltage will now be 180 degrees out of phase as compared to the first case, and this could also affect the operation of the circuit.  So this has nothing to do with the winding of the coil.  It would just be good practice to try to have the magnetic field generated by the coil not get too close to the MOSFET because it can have a very sensitive input.

As far as the winding of the coil goes to make your load resistor, you may be aware that there are web sites with "coil calculators" on them that have formulas that will compute the inductance accurately enough as long as your coil dimensions fall within certain proportions.  Getting the 10 ohms total resistance is easy, but then getting your inductance to be a certain target value is tied up in the coil dimensions.  You didn't mention that and I don't think you have to worry about it anyways.   One thing for sure is the more closely spaced the windings are the higher your inductance.  I don't know if you measured the inductance of the first glass load resistor you made.

Keeping it simple, my thoughts are the first one you made looked fine, so just do the same thing again.  If you know for a fact that your inductance is higher than what Rosemary specified, then spacing the windings further apart will lower the inductance a small amount.

MileHigh

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary:

You are correct about my attitude, it is a double-edged sword.  I may indeed miss out on some new knowledge.  All that I can do is hope that I am right most of the time.

MileHigh

How can it be double-edged?  It's single bladed.  I want you to get it double-edged.  That way there's more 'cut and thrust'.  Could make for an interesting discussion.  I get it that you hate pretension. But most of the pretension is actually from mainstream - believe it or not.  They decide on 'acceptable physics' by popular vote and blow the consequences.  Fortunately there's a drift of the really exceptional adherents towards 'fringe science'.  It's just such a SLOW drift. 

But come on MH.  Look at facts.  Gravity cannot explain how galaxies stay together.  No-one has found a particle needed to account for dark matter.  And no-one knows what 'force' makes 'dark energy'.  Add to that the paradoxes and conundrums related to superluminal communication - the inability to find the 'unifying principle' and  Heisenberg's uncertainty principle - to name just a few.  Then try and resolve current flow with Pauli's exclusion principle - let alone with the weird mishmash of nonsense in Wiki.  God alone knows what's taught in colleges.  And while both quantum and classical physics are extraordinary - they are hardly in synch.  All you trained fellows bend your mind around the most illogical of arguments and far from simplicity and clarity - the more complicated an explanation the more likely it is that it'll be used.  And then you complain that it's us eccentric free energy enthusiasts who are dealing with 'pie in the sky'.

The simple truth is that there is a force out there - accepted by most thinking scientists - that is clearly in defiance of known forces.  That it is useable is not at question.  How to access it is.  And it's widely accepted that it may be apparent in the 'small effects' such as the casimir effect.  My own take is that it's simplest exposure would be to resolve, for once and for all, whether the inductive load is returning stored or generated energy from a switched cycle.  But anomalies abound.  The trio I referenced are just one example.  This forum offers many others.  So does energetic forum.  Classicists still refute it on the basis of bad measurement.  But check out Harvey's, Fuzzy's and Aaron's  latest posts - to name just three on one thread.  And I defy you to claim that that's bad measurement or bad analysis.  So you see.  We're doing our bit to shift the paradigms that you seem to want to enshrine in cement.

But I suspect I'm getting way too earnest.  I just keep wishing MH.  What a challenge you are.   

[hoptoad]

snip...
But come on MH.  Look at facts.  Gravity cannot explain how galaxies stay together.  No-one has found a particle needed to account for dark matter.  And no-one knows what 'force' makes 'dark energy'.

snip.... 
All you trained fellows bend your mind around the most illogical of arguments and far from simplicity and clarity - the more complicated an explanation the more likely it is that it'll be used.  And then you complain that it's us eccentric free energy enthusiasts who are dealing with 'pie in the sky'.

Sorry to continue off topic, but....

Simplicity underscores the Electric (Plasma) Universe theory. No need for mysterious forces and strange matter, when you accept that the electrostatic force plays a much greater role than gravity, in the binding and motion of the galaxies and universe as a whole.

In spite of recent numerous experiments showing that charged bodies will rotate in synch (orbit) around a common axis point when exposed to "static" high voltage fields, (even in a complete vacuum) the Electric Universe theory is still relegated to the fringe, even though it can easily (and more convincingly) explain the motion of Galaxies and the orbits of stars, planets etc.

Cheers..   P.S. I love the civility of debate occurring in this thread.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hoptoad - Hi.  There's a definite problem with Electric (Plasma) Universe theory.  It does not explain the interactive medium.  Herein lies the possibility of some chaos.  And we can't have chaos if we have a stable universe - as evident.  It's indeed and elegant solution.  It's just not quite enough.  Close but not quite.

So nice to find that that this isn't a monologue.  I think MH has bowed out.

EDIT And are we off topic?

[hoptoad]

snip...
And we can't have chaos if we have a stable universe - as evident.  It's indeed and elegant solution.  It's just not quite enough.  Close but not quite.

So nice to find that that this isn't a monologue.  I think MH has bowed out.

EDIT And are we off topic?

Stability as a whole does not exclude localized chaos. It is an assumption that chaos cannot exist in a stable environment, or that a stable environment cannot exist with chaos. It is also an assumption that the universe is stable in the first place ... LOL

Ironically, the big bang theory (religious fantasy) requires chaotic scaled fractal behaviour to occur in the first few picoseconds of creation to create the extremely unevenly distributed matter that fills the skys today. If the big bang had been a perfect explosion, then the order of condensed matter we now see would be a completely different order. The stars and galaxies might never have formed at all, if the gravity distribution between quanta was perfectly even and stable throughout the expanding event.

After applying Occam's razor, The Electric Universe theory seems to need the least number of assumptions.
I agree, it probably needs more .. though I suspect any theory will always be one answer short for curious people LOL.
More information please ! LOL

And I think I'm definitely off topic LOL. Sorry.

Cheers