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

[TheCell]

@Rosemary Ainslie

Myself TheCell is located in Germany and has nothing to do with
FuzzyTomCat / Glen Lettenmaier. I switched my attendance mode from believing to critic observer lately , because of being fooled again (Kapagen).
The purpose of this thread is now clear to me. I know offensive Thread's and persons (specially in German automobile forums ) who argue with everyone, that do not share their opinion. Compared to them it was a little critic level that I have chosen, with the attempt to get the desired information in a short efficient way.
This attempt has failed. Nevertheless there is no need to apologize.

Greetings BK

[Rosemary Ainslie]

@Rosemary Ainslie

Myself TheCell is located in Germany and has nothing to do with
FuzzyTomCat / Glen Lettenmaier. I switched my attendance mode from believing to critic observer lately , because of being fooled again (Kapagen).
The purpose of this thread is now clear to me. I know offensive Thread's and persons (specially in German automobile forums ) who argue with everyone, that do not share their opinion. Compared to them it was a little critic level that I have chosen, with the attempt to get the desired information in a short efficient way.
This attempt has failed. Nevertheless there is no need to apologize.

Greetings BK

Greetings BK.  I indeed do need to apologise.  My immediate assumption was that Glen Lettenmaier was that poster - so abject apologies to Glen.  It seems that I was entirely wrong and too quick to jump to conclusions.

I need to ask you to reconsider your 'name' as TheCell as it is already used and rather widely.  I wonder if you could - perhaps - think of a variation.  TheCell is a chemist who has worked extensively on HHO and his work is immediately identifiable with some considerable history associated with it.  It would be considered an enormous favour.  If you look at the email you'll understand this better.  I believe that neither of you would want to be confused the one with the other and TheCell's work has an extensive history going back some many years.

It would be very much appreciated.

Meanwhile I'm delighted to hear from you and the more so as it seems you've retracted those rather harsh criticisms.  There is much scope for improvement in our work.  But we're doing our best and certainly we have absolutely resolved the experiment to proof of concept.  As I say.  Every bit helps.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi guys,

Just a final post before I sign off for the night.  This is a follow up on the previous correspondence related to current flow.  Again.  It's only for those who are interested in the thesis. 

'...Regarding the extra energy.  You see ***** - the potential difference is the sum of the 'charge imbalance' from the source.  But in transferring that energy from one terminal to another that charge imbalance is 'transferred' to the copper wire - and then to the resistive wire.  The copper wire does not 'mind' that imbalance - as it does not dislodge those binding fields.  The north's 'say' are extruded from the copper wire.  But the 'norths' from the battery supply source simply take over their function.  In moving through the circuit wire it simply maintains that bound condition which remains 'mostly' satisfied. But in the resistive wire there is no required balance available to that material structure. We're here dealing with imbalanced fields.  Imbalanced valence electrons.  This, in turn, indicates imbalanced energy levels.   Here the binding fields, those 'string's, are actually BROKEN when the 'north' current flows through it.  This unravels the atoms that they WERE holding together.  And that bound condition becomes compromised.  It results in a gradual and continual weakening of the resistive structure as these binding zipons systematically leave the structure in the form of radiant energy.  The break in the light filament.  The gradual weakening of your toaster wires.  The slower but ultimate 'break' in the wire in your heating elements.  And so on.  The atoms have NOT changed.  Nor has their number changed.  All that's CHANGED is the condition or integrity of their BOUND state.  They've lost their bonding - their glue - because the binding fields have systematically 'left the building' so to speak.

But in transferring that voltage  - when the north (say) current runs through the wire - then it extrudes ALL the norths or, depending on the direction of current flow - ALL the souths in all the wires.  Two norths just cannot share any kind of immediate proximity.  The current flowing through the wire  does not discriminate in terms of quantity.  Therefore - provided more norths are extruded than are replaced by current flow - then the voltage across the resistor will be greater.  It may therefore result in MORE fields extruded than supplied by current flow depending on the quantity of material available - or to put in simply - it depends on the thickness  or the mass of the wire.   The force of voltage times amperage in the returning cycle can then equal or EXCEED the energy that was first applied.  The transferred imbalance first allows the material to become a potential supply source for current flow because it's innate balance has been disturbed (as in the battery) but the amount of that imbalance can equal or exceed the energy first delivered - provided only that there's enough mass.  The excess is slight.  But it's enough.  My own prediction is that - subject to a better organisation of the switching cycle - to better control - we should be able to retain the voltage level at the supply to precisely it's pre-discharge value.  But we are nowhere near that yet as the default oscillation is still rather costly to each cycle.

In effect E still = MC^2.  But the mass of resistor itself now also comes into the equation.  But the mass relates to the measure of its newly acquired voltage potential.  Effectively the resistor itself becomes an energy supply source.  This has been discounted by mainstream.  Indeed - when I first presented the circuit design I was WIDELY advised both on forum and by our academics - that it is IMPOSSIBLE to generate enough energy away from the supply to recharge the supply.  Our experimental evidence has put paid to that assumption.  And I see now that this concept of recharging a discharging battery is more readily accepted - especially amongst us OU enthusiasts.

I am SO looking forward to you understanding these things *****.  They're simple.  Really, really simple.  But like all maps - one must first get familiar with the geography.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi guys,  I debated whether or not to include this email - but have decided to do so in the interests of full record.  At least it will keep those interested in step with developments.

Dear *****,

There are only about 10 people who fully understand the concepts in the thesis.  I find it SO simple.  But that's because I'm seeing in in the mind's eye and I'm obviously not communicating clearly.  I am entirely satisfied that this can be explained in simple 3d representation of concept.  Really it will not be difficult.  It would make the 10 dimensional aspect so immediately clear. In this I'm speaking exactly the same language as the string theorists.   I've been working on the 'script' and provided these can be shown as I envisage it then it will make much more sense when it's represented pictorially or visually. Indeed we can reference the impossibility of electron current flow.  I'd love to do that.  Perhaps 3 to 5 minutes of brief reference.  But that production depends on our chat tomorrow afternoon.  I've been doing a bit of homework here and it's coming together - at least enough to find out what *****'s constraints are in what he'll need to do.

Regarding the extra energy.  You see ***** - the potential difference is the sum of the 'charge imbalance' from the source.  But in transferring that energy from one terminal to another that charge imbalance is 'transferred' to the copper wire - and then to the resistive wire.  The copper wire does not 'mind' that imbalance - as it does not dislodge those binding fields.  The north's 'say' are extruded from the copper wire.  But the 'norths' from the battery supply source simply take over their function.  In moving through the circuit wire it simply maintains that bound condition which remains 'mostly' satisfied. But in the resistive wire there is no required balance available to that material structure. We're here dealing with imbalanced fields.  Imbalanced valence electrons.  This, in turn, indicates imbalanced energy levels.   Here the binding fields, those 'string's, are actually BROKEN when the 'north' current flows through it.  This unravels the atoms that they WERE holding together.  And that bound condition becomes compromised.  It results in a gradual and continual weakening of the resistive structure as these binding zipons systematically leave the structure in the form of radiant energy.  The break in the light filament.  The gradual weakening of your toaster wires.  The slower but ultimate 'break' in the wire in your heating elements.  And so on.  The atoms have NOT changed.  Nor has their number changed.  All that's CHANGED is the condition or integrity of their BOUND state.  They've lost their bonding - their glue - because the binding fields have systematically 'left the building' so to speak.

But in transferring that voltage  - when the north (say) current runs through the wire - then it extrudes ALL the norths or, depending on the direction of current flow - ALL the souths in all the wires.  Two norths just cannot share any kind of immediate proximity.  The current flowing through the wire  does not discriminate in terms of quantity.  Therefore - provided more norths are extruded than are replaced by current flow - then the voltage across the resistor will be greater.  It may therefore result in MORE fields extruded than supplied by current flow depending on the quantity of material available - or to put in simply - it depends on the thickness  or the mass of the wire.   The force of voltage times amperage in the returning cycle can then equal or EXCEED the energy that was first applied.  The transferred imbalance first allows the material to become a potential supply source for current flow because it's innate balance has been disturbed (as in the battery) but the amount of that imbalance can equal or exceed the energy first delivered - provided only that there's enough mass.  The excess is slight.  But it's enough.  My own prediction is that - subject to a better organisation of the switching cycle - to better control - we should be able to retain the voltage level at the supply to precisely it's pre-discharge value.  But we are nowhere near that yet as the default oscillation is still rather costly to each cycle.

In effect E still = MC^2.  But the mass of resistor itself now also comes into the equation.  But the mass relates to the measure of its newly acquired voltage potential.  Effectively the resistor itself becomes an energy supply source.  This has been discounted by mainstream.  Indeed - when I first presented the circuit design I was WIDELY advised both on forum and by our academics - that it is IMPOSSIBLE to generate enough energy away from the supply to recharge the supply.  Our experimental evidence has put paid to that assumption.  And I see now that this concept of recharging a discharging battery is more readily accepted - especially amongst us OU enthusiasts.

I am SO looking forward to you understanding these things *****.  They're simple.  Really, really simple.  But like all maps - one must first get familiar with the geography.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Sorry - just btw.  This thread dropped off the front page and I could not find it.  Had to go back to a previous link.  How does one find the other pages on the forum?  Can someone help me here?

Kindest regards,
Rosemary