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

[twinbeard]

Golly Twinbeard.  Seems there's not much you can't do here.  I need to give all this more thought.  But I really like the option and would be very glad to explore its implications more closely.  Perhaps an early documentary type movie with a supporting explanatory text - and then - onwards and upwards. 

You are too kind, Rosemary... I am but a humble hacker who has been in the business for a while and made some friends.  Video does seem to do very well as a medium to attract people to a project.  The linux.com video article on the SolarNetOne drew more emails than I could reasonably handle.

I do have the thesis written but have learned - to my cost - that it's as clear as mud.  I need to make it simple.  It IS simple.  It's just difficult to put concept into words.  But, as I've seen now, a picture really is worth a thousand words.

But the thesis needs refinement.  If one can get the actual mapping of fields on a bipolar sphere then one would have some kind of an early start of those algorithms.

Here you go:

http://www.kjmagnetics.com/magfieldsphere.asp?pName=SY0

At this stage the fields are speculated - or evaluated from empirical evidence.  Not ideal - if we're to break new ground.  But I'm reasonably certain all this is doable.  Certainly it will need much more talent than I can bring to the table. 

What was the line from the film 'Field of Dreams'... "Build it and they will come." 

But I can certainly justify the composite state of particles - in terms of their interaction with a 'field'.  In other words, there appears to be a consistency with what is known when I simply 'grow' the stable particles from those dipoles.  And while we don't yet know the constituent of the particles themselves - if it conforms then there's a least some supporting logic. 

It might be less a case of growing them and more of polarizing in space the free particles that already exist everywhere, even in the "void" between recognized sub atomic particles, then harvesting them as they depolarize and seek equilibrium again. 

Delighted to have you on board Twinbeard.  I'll be in touch.  I just need to get these videos behind me.  And I'm delighted to learn that all this is doable.  I see it as essential to tap in those with the talent and the interest in this field.  And it's potentially SO vast.  There's no one contributor can do it justice - is my humble opinion. 

It took the efforts of tens of thousands of people in concert to put a man on the moon;)

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

ADDED Just as a reminder to all.  If the aether IS magnetic in its fundamentals - then this will be time very well spent. 

Agreed.  And if they are magnetic, they are also electric.  I found the filamentary structures I was referring to in the other thread as appearing similar to Leedskalnins representation of north and south "individual magnets."  I had forgotten they were named after Birkeland.

There are short videos (10-15 seconds) showing Leedskalnins ideas on "individual magnets" here:
http://www.leedskalnin.com/

And a few images and background info on Birkeland currents:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cygnus-loop.gif
http://www.lucistrust.org/en/arcane_school/the_electric_bridge/sundry/the_electric_gods
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/birkeland.gif

'In 2007, NASA's THEMIS (Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms) project "found evidence of magnetic ropes connecting Earth's upper atmosphere directly to the sun," noting "that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms and auroras," thus reconfirming Birkeland's model of solar-terrestrial electrical interaction. NASA also likened the interaction to a "30 kiloVolt battery in space," noting the "flux rope pumps 650,000 Amp current into the Arctic!"'

Cheers,
Twinbeard

[Rosemary Ainslie]

It might be less a case of growing them and more of polarizing in space the free particles that already exist everywhere, even in the "void" between recognized sub atomic particles, then harvesting them as they depolarize and seek equilibrium again.

I can't comment on this.  All I've proposed is that the structure of all particles can be resolved in terms of a proposed composite of that fundamental magnetic dipole.  You must remember that Bell's theorems conclude the ABSOLUTE requirement for consistency on a very fundamental level.  And I wonder if particles can simply be 'depolorised' at all.  I think what we need to find is that underlying 'pattern' if that describes anything.  It's a really big subject Twinbeard.  I'm sure you appreciate this. 

Agreed.  And if they are magnetic, they are also electric.

Again.  I acknowledge that there's an electromagnetic interaction.  Who could argue this?  But I don't know that a magnetic field requires an electric field.  I'm actually proposing that the magnetic field may be the fundamental source of all matter and all energy in matter.  I absolutely DO NOT argue the function of electrons within an atomic structure.  How could I?  It's well researched and evidence is empirical.   But I certainly argue that the magnetic force is dependent on an electric force.

... There are short videos (10-15 seconds) showing Leedskalnins ideas on "individual magnets" here:
http://www.leedskalnin.com/

I'm a great fan of Leedskalnin.  I buy into his 'little magnets' entirely.  But I CANNOT see the possibility of magnetic monopoles holding a 'field structure'.  It is my opinion that 'like charges' will always repel.  But the thing is that the resolution of the AC force does NOT need monopoles.  It only needs a 'field effect' with orbiting 'dipolar strings'.  If the AC was as depicted in those opposing coils - then the net force from them would be zero.  But that's just my opinion.   

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Sorry Twinbeard - I'm losing posts all over the place.  I meant to have this one precede the previous and it seems I can't do this.

In any event - I'll just write this again.  Regarding that 'shared' development of the thesis - it's going to be tricky but certainly preferred.  And any assistance you can give here would be much appreciated.  But I'll get back to you on this.  I first need to get some draft where the concepts can be better understood.  I keep stating that the concepts are simple.  They are.  But they're not easy to explain in language. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[twinbeard]

I can't comment on this.  All I've proposed is that the structure of all particles can be resolved in terms of a proposed composite of that fundamental magnetic dipole.  You must remember that Bell's theorems conclude the ABSOLUTE requirement for consistency on a very fundamental level.  And I wonder if particles can simply be 'depolorised' at all.  I think what we need to find is that underlying 'pattern' if that describes anything at all.  It's a really big subject Twinbeard.  I'm sure you appreciate this. 

Perhaps my choice of words was not as discriminatory as required... but please, let me know if my logic or operational assumptions are incorrect, in your opinion.  I further understand that perhaps you truly cannot comment, although likely not through unwillingness or lack of ability to do so.  I, however, am not in a position whereby I could potentially encounter any problems by making such statements, so here goes:

When we energize a coil, we create a magnetic dipole.  This much, I'm sure you will agree, is fundamental.  Any charged particle, or particle capable of developing such a charge inductively, which has mobility within the b field of that magnetic dipole will be repelled by one pole and attracted by the other, depending on charge state.  Also relatively fundamental, and what I was referring to with the term polarization.  Without the coil (or other influencing force) present, these particles naturally exist together in a state of equilibrium... a net zero charge when considering a decent sized sample.  That equilibrium is disrupted by the creation of the magnetic dipole.  When the disruption ceases; in this case when the coil is de-energized, nature seeks to restore its equilibrium.  When the disruption/cessation of disruption cycle happens above a critical frequency, and particularly with sharp gradients (absolute value of slope close to 1 in the graph described as voltage level on the y axis and time on x axis), __equilibrium__ thermodynamics is violated, and we can extract more energy from our open loop system than it takes to create the condition that is resonating our particles.  I making an assumption that you are well aware of this property of hard on and off switching... hence the IGBT's instead of MOSFETS;)  Nice choice on the wirewound resistor, also.  I have a few Ohmite variable models of similar construction that my father gave me.  What a great place to hide an aircore inductor.. in a heatsink!  At high frequency... wowie, look at that.  That resistor went negative on us!

An interesting panel on the 2nd law as applied above:
http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/520

An interesting article concerning your reference to Bell:
http://news.discovery.com/tech/teleportation-quantum-mechanics.html

I came across the latter (actually the original Chinese announcement) while conducting ongoing research concerning the possibility of using quantum entanglement as a Layer 1 for TCP/IP transmissions, and the possibility of this method having the quality of superluminal propogation for the purpose of latency free communication with devices orbiting nearby celestial bodies.  My hopes on that are to create a better backbone for our "Interplanetary Internet" than the present hertzian wave
store and forward method we are presently using.

Per the "underlying pattern,"  you may find this interesting:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/08/superconductor-fractals/


Yes, I am borderline autistic, and yes, I am pulling the majority of this out of my memory., and yes, I do tend to be very verbose!

Again.  I acknowledge that there's an electromagnetic interaction.  Who could argue this?  But I don't know that a magnetic field requires an electric field.  I'm actually proposing that the magnetic field may be the fundamental source of all matter and all energy in matter.  I absolutely DO NOT argue the function of electrons within an atomic structure.  How could I?  It's well researched and evidence is empirical.   

I am not sure that I am arguing its function either... just its structure.

But I certainly argue that the magnetic force is dependent on an electric force.

You will get no argument from me there!

I'm a great fan of Leedskalnin.  I buy into his 'little magnets' entirely. 

Me too, actually.  So much so that I am arranging a "field trip" for my girls to his home.
You are aware of the ruins off Yonaguni? 

http://www.google.com/images?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=yonaguni&oe=utf-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=-qOATNnuIIKKlwemqrCcDg&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CD8QsAQwAw&biw=1440&bih=627

Particularly:
http://www.city.ishigaki.okinawa.jp/en/engnews/ishigakitimes/yonaguni.jpg
Notice the star shaped raised dias on the right. 

Does it look familiar:
http://here4now.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341d171f53ef010536451be7970b-450wi

I just look for patterns... 

But I CANNOT see the possibility of magnetic monopoles holding a 'field structure'.  It is my opinion that 'like charges' will always repel.  But the thing is that the resolution of the AC force does NOT need monopoles.  It only needs a 'field effect' with orbiting 'dipolar strings'.  If the AC was as depicted in those opposing coils - then the net force from them would be zero.  But that's just my opinion.   

Regards,
Rosemary

Cheers,
Twinbeard

[twinbeard]

Sorry Twinbeard - I'm losing posts all over the place.  I meant to have this one precede the previous and it seems I can't do this.

In any event - I'll just write this again.  Regarding that 'shared' development of the thesis - it's going to be tricky but certainly preferred.  And any assistance you can give here would be much appreciated.  But I'll get back to you on this.  I first need to get some draft where the concepts can be better understood.  I keep stating that the concepts are simple.  They are.  But they're not easy to explain in language. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

No problem Rosemary.  Just let me know and I will turn on a mailing list for you, and we can sort out
the other pieces and parts, at your convenience and discretion, of course.

Cheers,
Twinbeard