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

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Truthbeknown, the reason I have been given moderator status is because my history on these forums have been plagued with posters who variously attempt to defame, abuse, harass, stalk and threaten me.  The idea is that I can then delete their posts that they do NOT clutter this thread with their irrelevancies.  Far from abusing this right I have NEVER deleted a single post without first ensuring that there was a COPY somewhere on this forum.  I note with some amusement that Glen claims that I have deleted 8 of his posts.  What he forgets is that the record of deletions are available to Harti - and this lie will be very quickly apparent.  There is, indeed, one post that I deleted by Ramset - as it was in rather bad taste relating as it did to X rated material.  And there was another that I deleted by accident which was submitted by Shruggedatlas.  My deletions of my own posts are no more nor less than any member's rights and there are those times where I've hit the delete button by accident and those times when it was intended.

You will need to make a copy of your own post above, as I have every intention of deleting it when I've concluded this post.  But - indeed.  Your reminder is timely.  I should have come back with the report on the cutting of those magnets.  I trust I can be forgiven - in the light of those multiple distractions that have occupied my attention on another thread and for far too long. 

Guys,

The news here - sadly - is that ferrite magnets CANNOT BE WIRE CUT.  The fields seem to repel the wire - that it simply cannot make the required contact to generate a spark.  I have, however, now taken the magnets to a privately owned firm, Remlaw - who are going to apply precision grinding to get those shapes resolved.  It may take a while but what is good news is that the material responds well to grinding.  And the down side is that we will probably NOT be able to construct the sphere out of those complex pentagrams.  There is also a required modification to the design as the grinding process needs a base to hold the structure - and cannot grip on the sharp angles of the pyramid - without possibly first building a jig of some sort.  In any event - it's doable even if there's a marginal asymmetry involved.  We should have something to work with within a week or so.

What we're doing in conjunction with this is building those same shapes in plastic to increase the 'range' of options in assembling the structure.  And the whole construct will be encased in a plastic box.  The plastics will be cut after the six pyramids have been completed. 

Regards,
Rosemary

BTW Truthbeknown - you will need to ensure that you make your own copies of your posts as, in future, I intend deleting them.  Your harassment is now entirely untenable.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And guys, it's a condition of this forum that original work MAY NOT BE PATENTED.  This is why I have taken the trouble to ensure that the details of that construct are posted here.  It puts the information firmly in the public domain.  I acknowledge that it's not exactly 'on topic' but as it relates to a method of proving my thesis there is, indeed, a relevance.

And as a reminder to you all.  The project that is being done on campus is driven by students whose work is very heavily prescribed.  They 'fit in' when and as they can - and I am only grateful that there is any interest at all.  It does seem, however, that there will be LOTS of free time available from next week and we all hope to dedicate more time to this.  I never anticipated these many delays and I realise that it must have taxed everyone's patience.  But as there is much to cover regarding this general subject then I have tried to make good use of that time.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Poynty,  I think I'm understanding your question better from your last question in that thread.

First off, refer to the thesis.  Everyone assumes that the energy that is delivered by a battery is stored energy.  Conversely, the thesis proposes that the energy that is delivered by the battery simply goes back to the battery.  I'll explain this more fully hereafter - but the idea is that current flow comprises not electrons - but strings of magnetic dipoles.  They are extraneous to the atomic structure and simply BIND atoms together in a liquid or solid amalgam.  When they're in an environment with an intrinsic imbalance - such as in a battery - then they 'share' that imbalance.  And they can only move to establish a required balance IF there is some kind of inductive or conductive material in a circuit path that they can use.  Then they use this material to  forge a path through the circuit in order to alter their spin.  Think of it like a magnet.  One magnet can only attach to another magnet by moving through space to present the appropriate 'charge' to the second magnet.  It can't just change it's predetermined innate magnetic justification.  In the same way, these fields of particles can only alter their spin if they first describe an orbit that they re-enter the material from a 'different side' so to speak - or with a different justification.  Then they can look to 'rebind' or 'rehouse' those atoms into different molecular structures - thereby re-establishing a balance. 

That proposes therefore that current flow simply comprises these invisible particles that move through a circuit as a field - with a shared path.  And they they simply 'go back home' - through the back door, so to speak, through whatever path is made available.  Thus far there is NO  transfer of any mass from it's own material source anywhere at all.  NOTHING therefore has been transferred.   However - in it's passage through that circuit they interact with other little fields that are also binding the atoms of the circuit material.  This initial current flow (fields of magnetic dipoles) - which comprise what is referred to as current - then generate a corresponding imbalance in those very same fields that hold the circuit material bound.  And depending on the valence condition of that circuit material - and on its inductive or conductive condition - then these same binding fields that hold the circuit material bound do exactly the same thing.  It adjusts against an experienced imbalance - measured as voltage - and then returns it's own fields back to it's own source - through that same circuit material.  But it needs must send this the 'other way' because it's initial imbalance is precisely opposite to the first cycle of experienced imblance.  This effectively routes it through the supply and in doing so, recharges what was previously 'discharged'.  All that is required - is an interruption to allow this energy a 'chance' to return to its source - be it the battery in the first instance - or the inductor or resistor in the second instance.  And strictly in line with conventional requirement - the amount of energy delivered - is also then returned.

It's that simple. 

Now.  You tell me how many ways it's possible to configure a circuit to return that energy.  I'm not sure of the number but it would be pretty jolly big - given the variety of switches, the variety of resistors - the variety of component parts and the huge variety of people who are capable of assembling a circuit.  In any event - that much will secure some value greater than 1 provided that there are not too many potential 'losses' through that material.  You see the resistive element is likely to 'heat up' as a consequence of it's 'broken fields' and they can then move into different 'abodes' different 'housings' away from the iron or copper or whatever it is where they were first housed.  This degrades that circuit material.  It can literally lose - not mass from the atom - but mass from the binding of those atoms. 

I certainly have NEVER scorned those who vary the circuit.  On the contrary I've gone to some considerable lengths to advise all and sundry to try all and every possible configuration.  But there's a small caveat.  To MAXIMISE the return - one must find that 'resonating' potential between the supply and the resistor/inductor in its path.  Thus far - that 'resonating' condition is managed at low levels of 'heat dissipation'.  Not ideal if we're to up our wattages.  But certainly ideal if we're to conserve charge.  Therefore, of necessity, we need to explore a variety of resistors that will generate the required 'voltage' AND heat.  The 'standard type' resistor is simply our 'starting block' or 'kick off' STANDARD - and from here we will need to explore many many more.  But this is something that will only be established empirically.  Hence the need for further tests.

The patents that were applied for but were NEVER registered - were only done to ensure that the knowledge remained in the public domain.  And the circuits were broadly chosen to cover the most of the means to generate this 'effect' that 'replicators' do not then give themselves the right to claims of independent discovery with it's attendant rights to patent.   

So.  In truth, replication is a broad requirement - needing nothing more than a switch and some means to return the energy to its source - through both cycles of a switching circuit.

I do hope that clarifies things.  And please Poynty.  I do hope you realise that there are NO PATENT RESTRICTIONS - NO CHANCE OF RETROSPECTIVELY CLAIMING ROYALTIES.  Unlike EF.com - posters here are contractually precluded from patenting original work.  Therefore do I SO MUCH PREFER OVERUNITY.COM.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

ADDED

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys .  I keep close tally on the 'reads' here and have just realised that the readership on this thread is now exceptionally low.  What a pleasure.  I was about to pull out - thinking that Glen et al were entirely destroying this technology.  In fact, they can do their damndest.  What I now have is precisely that quiet little unobtrusive thread that I was always hoping for - just to keep due record.  I shall regard this as my own kind of 'diary' update.  And I know that - unless Harti bans me - I'll have my own story which will resonante in the future where their own will stand as an example of the victimisation that us poor eccentric thinkers are subjected to.  Inadvertently Glen and Harvey and Icestorm, Truthbeknown and even exnihiloest -  have done me a very real service.  So.  Let me rabbit on.  Even if I'm talking to myself.  Frankly I much prefer it.  I have MUCH that I'd like to keep on record and with this effective destruction of members' interest - then I can do so relatively unobtrusively. 

Let me start with the required 'method' of achieving resonance and please note that this can be done on just about any switching circuit provided only that you either route the energy back to the battery or to an alternate battery.  Assuming that you are following our simple circuit and that the energy is being returned to the source supply battery then the following applies.  You need to MEASURE the energy that is first delivered by the battery and the energy returned.  The required method of establishing that rate of current flow is to use a non-inductive shunt - something that is likely to reliably measure the voltage without adding any distortions.  Actually, having said that, we've only seen a marginal difference between non-inductive and inductive shunts - but for those purists - the argument is better upheld with non-inductive shunts.  The shunt must be posititioned in series either at the positive or the negative terminal of the battery.  Preferably the negative as it will NOT then interfere with the required resonating frequency.

Here's the 'not so easy' part.  You need a reliable means of measuring the DC average voltage across that shunt.  And here's the thinking.  A battery delivers a postive current flow.  Therefore any energy measured above ground will be reflect the amount of energy delivered by that battery.  Any energy returned by the system will be measured below ground.  The amount of energy actually delivered will be the difference between those two values.  So.  To get this value - then one must get a scopemeter that is able to do that sum and at speed.  Therefore - unfortunately - it can ONLY be disclosed with the use of fairly sophisticated scopemeters.  That's the only downside to this application.  In other words - for the most of you who do not have scopes that do this - then - if you DO get to the required resonance - it'll be an accident.  This is why I had to send my own scopemeter to Aaron who convinced me that he was well able to do the required.  What happened here is a story all on it's own which I'll address in due course. 

Back to the 'method.  Then.  Set your zero reference point on the scope - and just PLAY with the duty cycles those 'on off' switches.  Until you see the DC voltage readings begin to default to the 'negative'.  That's the point when the system is in the required resonating mode.  At really high frequencies of resonance you will find that there's some major RF which your radios will pick up.  It's also characerised by a fairly loud 'hum'.  The thing is this.  Any one resistor will have varying moments where it falls into that resonance mode.  In other words - the resonance is NOT frequency dependent.  I am reasonably satisfied that just about any conductor/resistor is able to generate that resonance - provided only that it is not entirely overpowered by the supply.  To ensure as wide a range as possible - then it's preferred to use thick guage wiring in either the copper or the iron that you're using.  And it's required that you use sensitive pots that you can increase the 'range' to find that truly optimised resonance. Also preferred is that you test it on coils with a wide hollow girth.  But how wide that girth, and how thick that wire?  That's exactly what we're planning on testing.

The 'moment' when the reading falls below zero is a very 'quick' moment.  Too little or too much in either direction and you're back to losses. 

Regards Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

So guys.  For the record.  It was of paramount importance to Glen that he refute his earlier findings.  But this can't be done - without first saying that the results from his TDS3054C scope was FAULTED.  His frequencies were WELL within the capabilities of that instrument.  What he did was this.  He first called for the use of a more sophisticated instrument.  Then he CAREFULLY tuned the circuit to AVOID that 'negative' value.  Then he rather crowed that his earlier findings were wrong.  If you note his 'time line' you will see that this all happened when his agenda changed from promotion to demotion.  Unfortunately he's caught between a rock and a hard place.  IF the subsequent findings are WRONG - then he needs must WITHDRAW his paper from SCRIBD and he must publicly advise you all that there is NO MERIT IN THE MOSFET SWITCHING CIRCUIT.  That way his work will be relegated to the historical dump yard where it would then belong.  Then in all good conscience - he must earnestly require that no-one waste their time here.  ELSE he must say that his earlier work is correct and that his subesequent tests were wrong.  He really can't have it both ways.  Right now his message is ambivilent.  It's something on the lines of 'There's something there - but hold your horses while I sit around wasting my time by attacking Rosemary. When that exercise is finished and I've buried her - then I'll pull a rabbit out of the hat and THEN.  Howdy Folks.  May I introduce you to myself.  I'm the guy who FOUND THAT RESONATING FREQUENCY and RESCUED OU from the clutches of con artist."

Fortunately, even if this post is never read it will be here as a record.  I don't think Harti will delete it.  Even if he bans me.  And the fact is that that 'negative voltage' is achievable with just about ANY resistor - even standard immersion type resistors. In other words.  THIS IS REALLY EASY TECHNOLOGY.   

Kindest regards,
Rosemary