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

[nievesoliveras]

@rosemary

Forgive, forget and keep up living.

Jesus

[Rosemary Ainslie]

You're right Jesus.  I waste way too much time on this subject probably.  But it scares me that this work will all just eventually get buried. I'll write this out to better explain things - in due course.  Right now I'm still smarting. 

It's not a question of forgiving.  It's the rank connning of the general public that gets me.  If their readers knew one half of what goes on behind the scenes there they'd be rather surprised.  And that sanctimous facade!  That needs to be shown for what it is.  Both by the forum administrators and by both Glen and Harvey.  But I get it that our members and readers are actually not that easily fooled.  Certainly I'm beginning to see a 'sea change' here and there in the attitudes of their posters.  EDIT.  The downside here is that they're then banned and no reference to their banning.  Very strange.  It's the ultimate censorship.  Say what we want to hear and NOTHING else - else we won't let you post.  LOL.  If they made an open admission to banning me or - indeed - anyone - then that would be some kind of guide.   

Kindest regards
Rosemary

[Omnibus]

Hi Rosemary,

I don't know if I should do this because I don't want to give you the feeling that I'm some kind of adversary (notwithstanding the fact that I only recently learned of your interesting experiments). On the contrary, I know we're on the same side of the barricade in this conceptual revolution in physics and that makes me still the more convinced that I should have the obligation to correct my fellow fighters where I think they err.

I feel that I have to correct you on these statements:

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.

Forgive me for the strong words (I mean no offense) but this is a gross misunderstanding of the nature of electric current and that's very easy to demonstrate. You only need to consider, say, copper deposition from CuSO4 solution to find out your understanding is incorrect. You can carry out an experiment and you will inevitably determine (provided you do the experiment correctly) that Faraday's first law of electrolysis holds without a doubt. You will always have one mole of Cu deposited by passing of two moles of electrons. That's a law of Nature, written in stone, testable anytime and anywhere.

Notice, the above proof that electricity is due to flow of electrons is an experimental fact and has nothing to do with Pauli's exclusion principle. If it had anything to do with that Principle then the principle in question (not the experiment) would be overthrown. The experiment above, however, like I said, has nothing to do with the Pauli's exclusion principle because that principle is only applicable for bound electrons, that is, electrons in an atom. The electrons lowing in a conductor are not bound electrons and current is certainly due to flow of these electrons.

I should mention also, that there had been extensive legitimate attempts to reduce the electromagnetic field to just one type of phenomenon -- electric. That's the attempt by Weber as opposed to Maxwell. To put it simply, Weber denied the existence of magnetism altogether and attributed all the electromagnetic phenomena solely to electricity. There may be something rational in Weber's theory but I don't think we should get into that esoteric fine print at this point. Much more important is to see as to whether or not there really is a basis to claim experimental evidence for OU. Never mind scaling it up. Never mind its practical application. This will come later and it's inevitable once the reality of OU is established.

You probably would like to know what my answer to that is. I do think I have definitive proof that there is OU in electrical systems and that OU is inherent in these phenomena under certain circumstances. This can be proved purely theoretically and has been missed so far. As for the experiments, I've determined that the accuracy of determination of the current-voltage phase shift is of dramatic importance and it is very likely that some of the OU seen experimentally is only seeming, due to subtle errors in measuring the said phase shift. That notwithstanding, I reconfirm that OU is inherent in the electric phenomena under certain circumstances and that can be determined also experimentally provided one uses not only high-end (14 bit) scopes but also the current ans especially voltage probes are of high-end quality.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello Omnibus.  Rather intimidated by such a veteran poster.  Crowding 4000 posts.  That's hefty. 

Forgive me for the strong words (I mean no offense) but this is a gross misunderstanding of the nature of electric current and that's very easy to demonstrate. You only need to consider, say, copper deposition from CuSO4 solution to find out your understanding is incorrect. You can carry out an experiment and you will inevitably determine (provided you do the experiment correctly) that Faraday's first law of electrolysis holds without a doubt. You will always have one mole of Cu deposited by passing of two moles of electrons. That's a law of Nature, written in stone, testable anytime and anywhere.

I'm not sure that electrolysis has anything at all to do with this argument.  Take your average motorised generator and - with absolutely NO chemical interactions one can generate the flow of current. 

Notice, the above proof that electricity is due to flow of electrons is an experimental fact and has nothing to do with Pauli's exclusion principle.

I suggest - with the utmost respect, that you have only proved that electrolysis results in a variation of molecular and atomic arrangement in a chemical mix.  Therefore, indeed it has nothing to do with Pauli's exclusion principle. 

If it had anything to do with that Principle then the principle in question (not the experiment) would be overthrown.

Not sure what you mean by this.  Pauli's exclusion principle determines that NO TWO ELECTRONS CAN SHARE THE SAME ORBIT.  It refers to the atomic arrangement of electrons in their different energy levels.  It was one of those miraculous insights that eventually enabled the unfolding of the periodic table.  But the principle holds true.  Electrons have a 'like charge' and they are therefore inherently repulsive.

The experiment above, however, like I said, has nothing to do with the Pauli's exclusion principle because that principle is only applicable for bound electrons, that is, electrons in an atom. The electrons flowing in a conductor are not bound electrons and current is certainly due to flow of these electrons.

I'd be happier with this assertion if you could also prove this.  There are two classical explanations for current flow - as determined by WIKI which are mutually exclusive.  I've referenced them both. If it's the 'domino effect' of transfer - then it would take about 10 minutes for the average current to reach your average light bulb to light it.  That's assuming a distance of about 1 meter between the plug source and the light itself.  If it were the result of 'free electrons' extrapolated from the 'air' around the circuit - then there's a problem of ingress and egress through the wire's insulation.  And if it were the transfer of electrons from the source - then there are not enough electrons from your average generator to fire up all the appliances in your average household from your average supply grid.  Just statistically impossible.  It is simply impossible.  Which is why the purist will only refer to current as the flow of charge.  Definitely avoids reference to electrons.

I should mention also, that there had been extensive legitimate attempts to reduce the electromagnetic field to just one type of phenomenon -- electric. That's the attempt by Weber as opposed to Maxwell. To put it simply, Weber denied the existence of magnetism altogether and attributed all the electromagnetic phenomena solely to electricity. There may be something rational in Weber's theory but I don't think we should get into that esoteric fine print at this point.

I'm aware of this development especially as it relates to EU theories.  But THAT is definitely unproven.

Much more important is to see as to whether or not there really is a basis to claim experimental evidence for OU. Never mind scaling it up. Never mind its practical application. This will come later and it's inevitable once the reality of OU is established.

Again, with the utmost respect, may I impose on you to read the link hereunder and advise me where you still require that OU still needs to be established?  I rather suggest that we'll need establish our own time lines here for the practical applications of this technology - lest we be held up for any time at all while you familiarise yourself with these results. 

You probably would like to know what my answer to that is. I do think I have definitive proof that there is OU in electrical systems and that OU is inherent in these phenomena under certain circumstances. This can be proved purely theoretically and has been missed so far. As for the experiments, I've determined that the accuracy of determination of the current-voltage phase shift is of dramatic importance and it is very likely that some of the OU seen experimentally is only seeming, due to subtle errors in measuring the said phase shift. That notwithstanding, I reconfirm that OU is inherent in the electric phenomena under certain circumstances and that can be determined also experimentally provided one uses not only high-end (14 bit) scopes but also the current and especially voltage probes are of high-end quality.

Again - while I'm delighted to see you intend to verify this - we are. nonetheless, satisfied with our own verification - again with the utmost respect.   Our proof is based on the accurate measure of energy delivered by a battery compared to the amount of energy dissipated at the load.  The dissipated energy far exceeds the energy delivered.  And indeed there's a theoretical reason for this.  It's explained in my own magnetic field model and is required.

Regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33988924/DARK-MATTER-MFM

[Omnibus]

Hi Rosemary,

As you've probably sensed from my earlier post I'm not one bit interested in the practical application of discoveries. There is science and there is application of science called technology. The latter is outside of my interest.

As for the flow of electrons, the example from electrochemistry is a simple but a very telling and appropriate example regarding whether or not current is indeed flow of electrons. Notice, you yourself are using a battery, that is, an electrochemical system. The example I gave you should leave you with no doubt that the electricity in the leads from your electrochemical source is indeed a flow of electrons and nothing else. Try to understand that no matter what, the anode of the battery you're using will lose exactly the amount of gram moles which will correspond to the current you measure to have flown through the leads for the given time. That's exact. It's an experimental fact and can't be denied due to Pauli's exclusion principle which pertains to something completely different, having nothing to do with flow of current along a conductor. Once you get comfortable with that aspect (your electrochemical source losing the exact amount of moles corresponding to the measured current for a given time) you'll be able to understand why the current in an average motorized generator also amounts to flow of charges per unit time. No need to repeat, you can test that by, for instance, carrying out an electrochemical reaction among other ways.

Regarding Pauli's exclusion principle, notice you yourself are mentioning sharing "the same orbit" or "periodic table". Pauli's exclusion principle indeed pertains to these notions and does not pertain to flowing of free electrons in a conductor. As to why repelling electrons in a conductor keep going in one preferred direction, that's a matter of a mechanism of that flow. I think there may be more research needed to understand how this really happens but the fact remains (experimental fact at that) that the electric current is indeed flow of electrons. Think about of the flow of electrons (they are electrically charged particles indeed because they can be diverted in a magnetic field) in a Crooke's tube. No electrochemistry there, right?