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

[Omnibus]

Hi Rosemary,

I still don't get it. What does a picture, right or wrong, as to what electric current is have anything to do with experiments supposedly showing energy disbalance? The problems regarding the reality of the experimental results are of different character than the problems to examine the nature of electric current. In the experiments we measure the values of the current independent of what we think its nature is as we do in measuring voltage. These measurements allow us to judge for the energy spent as well as the energy obtained and the only problem we have is whether or not the values we get are indeed the true values of these parameters for the system at hand. If correct, these measurements leading to finding out what the energy balance is will be unaffected by our ruminations on the nature of current even if these ruminations are wrong.These are two separate sets of activities and I don't see why you seem to think they are interdependent.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi Rosemary,

I still don't get it. What does a picture, right or wrong, as to what electric current is have anything to do with experiments supposedly showing energy disbalance? The problems regarding the reality of the experimental results are of different character than the problems to examine the nature of electric current. In the experiments we measure the values of the current independent of what we think its nature is as we do in measuring voltage. These measurements allow us to judge for the energy spent as well as the energy obtained and the only problem we have is whether or not the values we get are indeed the true values of these parameters for the system at hand. If correct, these measurements leading to finding out what the energy balance is will be unaffected by our ruminations on the nature of current even if these ruminations are wrong.These are two separate sets of activities and I don't see why you seem to think they are interdependent.

Omnibus,  What this entire thread topic is about - whether the thesis or its application - is the simple fact that there is an apparent anomaly in the measurements indicated, precisely because more energy is dissipated than delivered.  The simple art of measuring energy is of very little interest outside it's context of efficiency related to any particular application.  And when there's an equivalence between what is delivered and dissipated, then it simply falls within classical prediction.  If there is an overunity result - one needs an explanation.  We do indeed measure over unity.  I'm going to some lengths to explain that this is NOT an anomaly.  But there is very little point in devoting a thread to the methods and protocols associated with that measurement when it's already been exhaustively referenced in our paper and widely applied in all standard measurement protocols.  What is not so widely understood is that thinking that required for what you euphemistically term energy 'imbalance'.  I see a need to explain this.  You are under no obligation to read that explanation. 

Regards,
Rosemary

[Omnibus]

Rosemary, I beg to differ regarding the importance of the measurements. The reality of the energy imbalance measured is the pivotal question. This is exactly what isn't accepted by the conventional science. Explaining it, practically applying it etc. are secondary to that main, central problem. What needs to be done, I think, is to concentrate all our efforts in convincing the scientific community in the reality of the effect itself prior to any attempts to explain or apply it. It is exactly the experimental results in question which the scientific community is vehemently opposing to accept. That's the Gordian knot which we have to solve with a bold stroke. Unlike your impression, however, I don't think this has yet occurred.

[Omnibus]

Now, again, I still don't understand why do you need experiments in overunity in order to promote your idea of what the nature of current is. One may consider your idea of current in conductors such as copper as being controversial enough to be supplemented by another controversial idea such as the claim for OU. It seems you can choose some well accepted system where current flows and work out your thesis there. Why do you need OU at all for sustaining your thesis?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary, I beg to differ regarding the importance of the measurements. The reality of the energy imbalance measured is the pivotal question. This is exactly what isn't accepted by the conventional science. Explaining it, practically applying it etc. are secondary to that main, central problem. What needs to be done, I think, is to concentrate all our efforts in convincing the scientific community in the reality of the effect itself prior to any attempts to explain or apply it. It is exactly the experimental results in question which the scientific community is vehemently opposing to accept. That's the Gordian knot which we have to solve with a bold stroke. Unlike your impression, however, I don't think this has yet occurred.

I was with you through this whole post until your final sentence.  "Unlike your impression, however, I don't think this as yet occurred."  What exactly?  Are you saying that we have NOT achieved OU?  Or are you saying the scientific community are not yet on board to evaluating this?  In any event, both options are simply wrong.  We HAVE CONCLUSIVELY measured OU.  And we are getting this assessed on campus so the scientific community will certainly be 'on board' - if only to evaluate those measurements really, really carefully.  That 'bold stroke' - is the courage of an academy that has finally - if somewhat belatedely, decided to determine these claims from the experimental evidence.  No small achievement I might add. That's a really, really bold move.  And the courage not mine - but theirs. 

And Omnibus - if I left it to the scientific community to explain it then they would first have to dismantle the entire structure of physics.  It may be quicker if I simply suggest my own proposals that required this result - is all.  Golly.  In any event - my explanations conform to ALL KNOWN PHYSICS.  No exceptions there.  Nothing NEW.  The only thing that is new is that I've presumed to locate that 'dark energy'.  And it's long overdue that the engineering fraternities, everywhere, revisit that delusion related to the 'flow of electrons' as representing current flow.

Regards,
Rosemary