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

[Rosemary Ainslie]

<This was put together by our resistor manufacturer - the only thing that was non-standard was the wiring inside it.>

So this non-standard wiring is described in this document?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS
I think not.
If anyone convinced that following this link will lead to replication success, he /she should confirm this.
This thread is a promotion thread ,nothing else.

This post is so disappointing on so many levels.  In the first instance, someone  who signs himself Bob Potchen also uses the avatar 'The Cell'.  I assume it's the same poster here.  In which case I am rather a fan of yours and enjoy the acuity of your posts and the rap you had going with Farrah.  I admire Farrah - very much and have much to thank you, Farrah and HairBear for the high standard of posting and for the little I managed to learn about electrolysis.  Farrah also seems to have disappeared from EF.com.  But I think that was rather by choice.

One aspect of my disappointment is based on the fact that you discount the results of that replication.  I take it that you're familiar with the earlier paper and the history here?  In which case why is it that you doubt those results?  I am indeed using this thread to post results on the scaled up version of this 'proof of concept'.  But that's intended to be very much public - whether it fails or succeeds.  Hopefully the latter.  But proof of  concept is widely acknowledged.  I simply do not understand why I should try and promote this.  It's easily promoted on its own merits.  I'm only trying to keep public record of the results in the hopes of furthering OU.  And by keeping the results public - then that's very much in the interests of Open Source - surely?  If there's a learning curve associated with this - which is inevitable, given that we're trying to scale up the effect - then rather let the facts fall where they will.  It's better to be put on record than otherwise.  And I cannot be accused of holding back on disappointing results.  Nor will I.  Ever.

Then the second aspect of my disappointment is that I know you research your topics - if your posts at EF.com are your standard.  In which case - what gives?  Clearly there's some want of familiarity with the subject here.  The element in question has nothing to do with the proof of concept tests referred to.  These are designed for the scaled up version on the application.  And it's NOT standard - albeit that the element itself is.  There is absolutely NOTHING standard about the wire used inside that resistor.  But nor is it anything like the resistor we used in our proof of concept.  And NOR is it likely to be anything like the resistor we'll end up using in our application.  It was simply intended to see how the standard element effects the resonance that we require.  If it works then it'll take it to application phase that much more quickly.  If it does not work then we'll find that out too.

Finally - I'm 61 years old.  It would be absurdly ridiculous for me to waste what little time I have left to try and advance something - some technology - if I did not, at least, know that it works.  I am many things, from absurdly optimistic to absurdly pessimistic and all shades in between.  But Bob Potchen, if that's whom I'm actually addressing here - this thread is intended to advance my thesis - the concepts - and the proof of concept to application phase.  I suppose - in that way - it is, indeed, a promotion exercise.  In which case then I'm guilty.  But I take it that's not the sense in which you intended the term.  And please read this thread as it relates to that element.  Indeed it has ABSOLUTELY NO relevance to the paper published on Scribd.  But nor did I ever claim as much.  Not anywhere.

I think what's really disappointing here is that I rather admired your own efforts and am really sorry to discover the contempt you feel for mine.  But there you go.  One never really knows how one comes across.  This post of yours has certainly been a slap in the face.

Rosemary (aka witsend)

 

[nievesoliveras]

I dont know why people try to disappoint you all the time.
To this moment you seem a good person.

Follow your dream. Criticism means that you are going in the right direction.

Jesus

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Follow your dream. Criticism means that you are going in the right direction.

Jesus

I certainly hope so Jesus.  MANY THANKS for this.  It's always nice to know that not everyone thinks that negatively about these my efforts.  But there's that about my claim, my postings - perhaps about the general threat to known paradigms - that seems to generate an enormous amount of confrontation.  It's followed me everywhere.  And by now I should be well used to it.  But the strange thing is this.  I'm always knocked for a six.  I have simply not learned to 'grow that thick skin'.  Maybe I'll get there - one day.     Bob W?  Are you reading here?  LOL.

kindest regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys,  I've been approached by someone who has proposed that we do a 3D movie on the concepts of the thesis.  This may be a really good thing because I know that some people find that writing a bit complex.

In any event, some good news at last.  Watch this space.     I wonder if this is what TC refers to as promotion?  LOL.  If so, then I guess he's right.   

Regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33988924/DARK-MATTER-MFM

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi Guys,  I decided to publish this as I think it gets to the heart of the problem we all share.  This as part of an ongoing dialogue.

Dear Doctor xxxxx,

The thesis that required this result is based on a concept of current flow from magnetic fields and not from the flow of electrons as it taught today.  I'll explain my thinking regarding the flow of electrons.  You must forgive the elementary nature of my argument.  But I think you may see the logic.

To begin with electrons have a 'like charge'.  Effectively therefore - and according to Pauli's exclusion principle - no electrons can 'share a path'.  Current flow, in its essence requires a 'shared path'.  If current flow comprised electrons then they would repel each other and this would not allow that 'shared' path.  The argument to qualify this concept is then advanced that valence electrons are 'nudged' one against the other in a kind of graduated adjustment of those electrons in the outer energy levels of atoms.  This allows for the systematic transfer of those particles.  But they also know the rate of that 'required' adjustment.  Effectively if one turned on a light switch and if the light was, say 1 meter away from the switch - then it would take about 10 minutes for this 'nudged' process of current flow to reach the light filament to make it shine.

Then there's another problem with the concept of electrons flowing anywhere at all.  Say one charges a flat battery from a wall plug.  Then the idea is that the battery will be replenished with electrons to reconstitute the charged property of the electrolytes.  But any chemist will assure you that there has been no loss of electrons in the mix.  They have just been re-ordered in the molecular arrangement through that electrolytic process.  Then, if indeed the plug replenished the electrons then the question is do electrons replenish the supply to produce light, motorised energy, heat from our stoves, our appliances, and on and on?  Clearly if your average utility supply grid had to supply all those electrons then there are simply not enough electrons from the source to enable that very big demand.  It would be quantifiably impossible for any average generator regardless of whether it's a nuclear or coal burning source to supply whole cities with that many electrons.  So the supporting theory is that there are 'free electrons' that are floating in the air and these are somehow 'borrowed' from the environment and these come into play.  Which is absurd - given that most wiring is insulated which would prevent electrons from entering the material.  And there are not - to the best of my knowledge - free floating electrons anywhere.  Nature is not that chaotic nor that liberal. 

Wiki incorporates both explanations as a definition of current flow.  But both options are mutually exclusive.

My own grounding in physics was based entirely on conceptual physics advanced by Gary Zukov in the 'dancing wu li masters' and by Paul Dyson in 'conceptual physics'.  Both authors assert that current flow cannot be based on the flow of electrons.  Dyson references the term 'charge'.  So - when I entered this field with my experiment I simply did not realise that most electrical engineers used the concept of 'electron' current flow.  But the simple fact remains.  Our electrical engineers still continue to use the concept of electron current flow.  And it must be acknowledged that our electrical engineers have developed the art of electromagnetic interactions more ably than any other field of physics.  So the 'electron' flow concept seems to work.  And it is only amongst the theoretical physicists that this is challenged - and apparently, not very loudly.

My thesis simply proposes that current flow comprises the movement of magnetic fields that are extraneous to the atoms.  They are invisible and I also propose that this is the dark energy that our astrophysicists require.  These bind atoms but their spin depends on the charge of the atoms.  If they are imbalanced - as would be the case in a predominantly acid or alkaline mix - then they too have an imbalanced spin.  Like all magnetic fields they move to a state of balance.  Therefore they order the electrolytic process by moving through the circuit components as current flow.  This allows them to change that spin.  This then neutralises the imbalance in the 'mix'.  It's more fully explained in the thesis that I sent you.  I see these fields as being responsible for the Casimir Effect.  And I also see these fields as being responsible for imparting 'weight' to an object - being a magnetic pull.

I would be very interested to hear your view of this.  I must say the reason I wrote to you at all is because I could see the rare ability to challenge conventional thought. 

.....that is most earnestly required to introduce these so called 'anomalous' results that are evident in our experiment.  You will see, I trust, that if the energy is then based on these fields - then the same fields are in our circuit's inductive components.  They too are 'bound' into a solid three dimensional amalgam.  Effectively they then also become an energy supply source - precisely because their own 'binding fields' are influenced by an applied voltage - and that influence is then in proportion to the applied current flow from the supply in the first instance.  Therefore it challenges the equivalence principle.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary