Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder

[nul-points]

  I'll have to try and get hold of some of those magnets.  Where does one buy them?

i expect Google and eBay will be your friends here! 


i haven't seen anything like this before - but when i stumbled on this video yesterday it reminded me immediately of the zipon models in your Scribd paper

i thought you might interested to have some to make physical illustration of different stable configurations


all the best
sandy


PS.  in the video the presenter uses a credit-card to separate the magnets: ...probably not a good idea to use a card whose magnetic stripe contains important information!

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello again Fritz,

I get it that you're recommending that we redo all those tests?  And check the measurements?  Interesting.  And your recommendation is that we go back to the 'third para to check or 'identify the feedback mechanism which is causes that jittering oscillation...' !  This simply indicates that, like so many others, you are assuming either an incorrect measurement or attributing a measurement to an incorrect cause. 

This actually goes to the heart of the problem with all OU claims.  Frankly I'm tired of answering these questions - but see that it's required.  And I'm not sure that anything I write here will make a blind bit of difference.  The simple truth is that this OU claim, as with so many others - is met with rank - and, probably, very appropriate scepticism.

It must be reasonably obvious to all readers here that my knowledge of circuitry is somewhat scant.  I really cannot stress how little I know.  But the learning curve associated with the design and type of switches is not that steep.  I'm reasonably sure that with a bit of application I could probably wrap my mind around it.  I'm not sure one first has to be Einstein to understand them or apply them.  I deliberately keep my knowledge vague - for a variety of reasons.  If this post doesn't stress everyone's attention by being a bit lengthy then I'll explain it better.  I'm rather anxious to demystify physics generally.  I really need to keep it simple.

But to begin with I'll try and point out where I started.  I developed a magnetic field model - without ever picking up a book that explained current flow or any applied electrical engineering.  I simply read the Dancing Wu Li Masters.  A really brilliant book that tackles the explanation of physics from purely conceptual terms.  Had this not been my introduction then I very much doubt that I'd have had a handle on the subject at all.  The point is this.  I had an edge that qualified physicists don't yet understand.  Physics is perfectly advanced from a conceptual standpoint.  Possibly better understood like this than through the abstractions of mathematics.  It must be remembered that Pauli - as an example - defied that the atom could ever be conceptualised and recommended that it remain in pure pure abstract mathematical terms.  Our quantum mechanics rather depend on this.  The second advantage I had was that the only text book on physics that I could ever understand was written by Paul Dyson.  Another marvel of clarity.  In effect these two writers managed what most physicists don't.  They wrote the subject in simple concept.  They did not lapse into those dry and bewildering abstractions that generate a slew of unanswerable questions where the 'general picture' is lost in ever deepening cycles of obscurity.  To follow an argument in physics as rendered by your average physicists it to first require a romp into equations and symbols that are as meaningful to the average layman as those symbols of magic must have been to the layman in Medieval times.  Think of the authority that must have given the Merlins of that time.  It's the same authority that our mainstream academic have wrested from us, the lay public.  I wonder to what extent they would be 'laughed out of court' should physics ever become SO simple - that your average 6 year old can follow the most of it and your average teenager the whole of it.  And what then if not one single part of it requires a mathematical equation.  THAT would be to commit a kind of heresy.  It would be deemed to be sacrilege.  It would need some skilled witch hunting.  A burning at the stake.  It would need to be addressed in terms of utter contempt and dismissal.  Else, all that nonsense associated with the 'abstractions' and 'deep imponderables' would be seen as a kind of wild pretension aimed at controlling all that knowledge or - God forbid - hiding a lack of it.

Actually.  That's what I propose is the case.  Really profound questions have still to be answered by mainstream.  I am firmly convinced that the actual essense of physics is that simple that your first lessons should be advanced at your early grades and your final lessons in your first year of high school.  Everything after that is FUN.

Which is - at the risk of sounding somewhat ridiculous - my mission here and on these experiments.  And which is why I am anxious to keep my explanations simple and unpretentious.  No-one told me that the flow of current was the flow of electrons.  I had to work it out from the term 'charge' as referenced by both Dyson and Zukov.  But when I finally understood that mainstream considered current flow to be the flow of electrons - then I had a real PROBLEM.  How is this possible in the light of Pauli's exclusion principle?  And anyway.  By now I was knee deep in my experiments and I had already determined that current flow comprised the flow of magnetic fields.  Then - because I KNEW this - then I also KNEW that I could return this to the battery to recharge the battery.  That was my early test.  I used inductors with diodes and routed current flow back to the battery to recharge it.  But the problem with those early tests was this.  The result was not extreme enough to be conclusive enough.  I needed a more dramatic result.  That's when I discovered the property of the mosfet with it's strategically placed body diode.  There was my path.  Once I found this I could switch at speed and then... finally, the result was dramatically and clearly evident.

The circuit was first presented to some physicists at UCT - Professor Violie and Professor Klaymans (apologies if I've spelled their names wrongly) - in and around the year 2000.  That was just to express the logic.  In other words the objective was to return inductance back to the battery to recharge the battery.  In effect - I was proposing that the equivalence principle would be challenged if - indeed - a battery could recharge itself.  They both acknowledged that the test would be conclusive - one way or the other and even suggested that their own lab technician do the test.  The technician declined.  He said he was not prepared to get involved with 'over unity' tests.  The downside was that nor were they prepared to evaluate the circuit when I finally achieved that effect.  I was told that they were theoreticians.  They would NOT evaluate experimental apparatus as it was outside their field of expertise.  LOL

But the reaction form our academic engineers - where the measurement of energy IS indeed in their expertise - was that they roundly assured me that the battery COULD NOT RECHARGE ITSELF.  Simple.  Period.  They would not waste their time.  That started a kind of 'dialogue' if such it could be called - where the entire engineering fraternity on three local campuses - effectively learned to put the phone down on me if and when I called.  At this stage my argument was simply - 'just take a look at the experiment'.  I eventually gave up and took the experiment to industry.  There - obviously in view of a more pragmatic interest in applied energies - there was enough curiosity to at least attend a demonstration and apply their own measurements or test parameters.  Whatever new 'angle' they required - I tested it.  If they told me to jump a foot - I jumped 2 feet.  BP wanted battery duration tested with carefully established controls.  Sasol were happy with a demonstration.  ABB Research (North Carolina) wanted the entire apparatus and then to do the tests as they chose.  Spescom used ever more specialised measuring instruments.  The more specialised the instruments the better the result.  And whichever test was required it was performed.  I say this everywhere.  Sasol even offered UCT a bursary award to take the study further which offer was politely declined due to an overarching lack of interest. 

What I'm trying to show you here Fritz is this.  Every test that could possibly be required to prove this result has been performed.  I absolutely WILL NOT be persuaded to redo proof of concept.  It's been done to death.  I've mentioned 4 companies here only because they're all quoted on our local bourse.  But there were many other engineers.  Many, many both as individuals and as companies.  2 solid years of my life was devoted to promoting this proof.  My final push was to get a paper published in an academic reviewed journal.  Needless to say I failed.  So I did the next best thing.  I published in a technical journal.  I also put the apparatus on display for a week at MTN Sciencentre in continuous demonstration mode in the hopes of interesting physicists at a conference being held there.  This at the request of the admin at that Centre.  Needless to say not one person attended a demo nothwithstanding it's being well publicised.  And then I just gave up.  My son - bless him, saw this as a cause of my deepening depression and, knowing something of the internet he put up my blogspot 8 years after these sorry events.  Then the subject took fire and the rest is history.

But it's history repeating itself in many ways.  I would remind you of my article 'IF I WAS A TROLL' which I'll append for those of you who may not yet have read it.  It's my experience on open sourcing this.  Some of my experience in any event.  I've yet to write chapter 2. What I'm trying to tell you is this - and I cannot stress it enough.  Yet I'm committed to Open Source.  I keep hoping that those with insight and with the ability to understand that simple, simple model - will be able to develop it as required.

The RESULTS are REQUIRED in terms of a magnetic field model.  The results have been MEASURED according to exacting measurements protocols established by those very same academic engineers who for all these years would NOT LOOK at the principles.  The battery depletes at the rate that is measured across the shunt resistor.  And the resistor cooks at a level of wattage dissipation WELL IN EXCESSS of the energy seen and measured to be delivered by the battery.  NOW.  I really do need to move on.  We all do.   

Regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33937867/IF-I-WAS-A-TROLL

[fritz]

I get it that you're recommending that we redo all those tests?

I´dont know what tests you have done. If there is some more data needed (for the process to scale it up) which cant be derived from the already performed tests - its probably necessary to do further tests. I remember that I suggested to check the wiring - because we want to have more amps .....

And check the measurements?

why not. Everytime I exchange a component or modify something I make my measurements. piece by piece.
Because I want to improve or even maintain the already achieved performance - if some change degrades the perfomance I want to know and identify that as early as possible.

  Interesting.  And your recommendation is that we go back to the 'third para to check or 'identify the feedback mechanism which is causes that jittering oscillation...' !

What is the feedback mechanism ? special anti-matter phenomenon within NE555? no.
If you have to replace NE555 and mosfet with different circuit to scale up the amps - you probably don´t want to break the already working feedback.
So you have to investigate it - and replace it by something workable with the scaled up version.

  This simply indicates that, like so many others, you are assuming either an incorrect measurement or attributing a measurement to an incorrect cause. 

paranoia ?

I trust your measurements and the effect. If it comes to your theory - well I don´t understand it - why should I comment it - or question it ?
Do I need to believe it if I cannot understand it ? no.  I think thats a fair approach.


peace.

rgds.

fritz

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I trust your measurements and the effect. If it comes to your theory - well I don´t understand it - why should I comment it - or question it ?
Do I need to believe it if I cannot understand it ? no.  I think thats a fair approach.

I agree.  I've defined the first phase of this procedure to test until we get the required waveform.  Thereafter - phase 2 - optimising it.  All measurements confined to energy delivered by the supply compared to energy dissipated at the load.  There is NO need to rerun proof of concept.  And there is no need to redefine the measurement parameters.

I'm not paranoid Fritz.  I'm tired.

Regards,
Rosemary

[fritz]

There is NO need to rerun proof of concept.  And there is no need to redefine the measurement parameters.

somhow you don´t understand me.