Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[MileHigh]

Hi Rosemary,

Unfortunately the link is not working - I just realized you mentioned the person's name, I will search later.

For my amalgam, the "billiard balls" are the whole molecules including the electron shells banging into each other, in case that was not obvious.  I read your stuff two more times, it looks to me like you are "hiding" the zipons.  I think that you are too magnetic field obsessed, for lack of a better word.  Most molecules do not have a magnetic dipole and you seem to be indicating that there is a kind of magnetic field based overlaying fabric on top of everything, like a sticky fishnet.  Things like some stuff "slipping back into the Earth's magnetic field" goes back to the long chains of zipons realigning themselves or something like that?  I am not sure what you really mean, just trying a few straws.

I think that all of the action is really in the electric fields associated with the outer shells of molecules.  That's how things are glued together and that's where the energy interactions take place for the most part.

You asked me about current, I will go classical on you - electrons hopping and skipping across the outermost electron shells of molecules.  Some molecules are very conducive to this, like metals.  A moving electron creates a magnetic filed.

I can't tell you precisely why it creates a magnetic field, I can't tell you what an electron really really is, I can't tell you what a magnetic field really is.  I can to point to the building blocks of matter as we understand them in terms of quantum physics and atom smashing research and all of that good stuff.  They tell me they dig huge underground caverns deep deep in the Earth and fill them with water and wait for things to happen to find out about stuff like that.  There is a neutrino flux coming from the sun as well as from all directions, and so on.  I try to pay some attention.

On the macro scale, physicists and engineers do things like answering the question:  "What is the magnetic field like from an infinitely long wire with a radius of r?"  What is the force between two infinitely long wires with a one amp current flow in each wire?

It's about understanding how current works in the real, macro or micro world.  That applies to these types of experiments.

I know that you are looking at a model for a deeper understanding, and think that the model holds a key to take advantage of certain properties of matter and current and voltage to produce extra energy and it is somehow tied into broken symmetries and stuff like that.

You are up against the classical models, where all that you have to do is throw some calculus at the modeling as you understand it to get results that are accurately reflected in the real word.  The assumption is that an awareness of the way the Universe works in terms of energy and matter has come to humankind in a series of intellectual milestones.  Milestones that have added to each other over the past 400 years or so, increasing the level of understanding and the knowledge base.

Classical thinking can be rethought or reworked or added to.  A classic example is radio astronomy.  It didn't even exist 60 years ago.  Dark matter (and by that I mean it's just an unknown in a "black box" for now from what I have read) and the acceleration of the expansion of the universe are the biggies now - what's going on??  lol

What's really cool is that there are something like 250+ known extrasolar planets now.  We grew up where that was a total unknown, and many legit scientists stated that it was possible that there was only a single solar system in the Universe.  Sound's crazy now because we have enough data to conclude that there are "billions and billions" of planets out there.

I am rambling, but that was my "current treatise" for you.

MileHigh

[fuzzytomcat]

Fuzzy:

I looked at your pictures and for your standard Ainsley circuit project you should try suspending your new load resistor in mid air vertically.  I know that I am repeating myself here but there are sound reasons for doing that.  If you ask I will tell you why.

MileHigh

Hi MH,

I'm up for your suggestion but in all fairness ..... these forums are "open source" and all the information posted is for the members and "GUESTS" that come and go. It's very difficult for me when members post on a subject and withhold data or information that can further a project such as what TK did ...... a replication is "exactly" that a replication (whether or not the data provided is 100% accurate) ...... substituting battery types, load resistor, Mosfet, omitting information on a insulator between the Mosfet and heat sink to eliminate RF ........ then indicating that the device doesn't work and disappears ..... because of "Williby" ......

My point is ..... if knowing something pertinent to the thread that may further the knowledge and quest of the task at hand, maybe I do know the answer, but does that mean everyone reading or participating in this thread does .... certainly not. You have proved to many that your ability's are worthy of making comments that relate to the subject at hand .... but I would appreciate a explanation that anyone reading this thread young or old, member or guest with the meaning behind your posting and a explanation to "all" what your talking about ...... just remember "open source" and the real meaning and idea behind that statement, the inventors and replicators that believe in it ....

Fuzzy   

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello MileHigh - I finally found the right link.  I think you can check it out now.  You'll find it interesting - especially the rodin coil that only has one apparent pole?  Not fully explored yet but the indications are there.

Regarding the model.  All I'm trying to suggest is that neither classical nor quantum have got the answers yet.  When you appreciate that you'll see that even my zipon nonsense is better.  Whether or not all is magnetism?  I hope so.  If it is it resolves quite a lot of outstanding questions in physics.  But I must admit - on a probability scale - it's highly unlikely that it'll cut it.  Sadly I know it's right.  But then - I'm happy to point out that I'm in a minority of one - who knows this.   

Regarding the electron current flow theory.  Don't go there.  It's an embarrassment.  The electrons move too slowly - and communicate even more slowly to account for the speed of current flow.  Trust me on this.  I've checked it out.

Are we now talking to a MileWithinReach?     Quite a nice guy.  Hopefully he'll hang around for a bit? 

[MileHigh]

Glen:

It can be hard to write so that it works for "all" readers "all" of the time, but the point is well taken.

For the resistor, if you leave it sitting on your bench while you test, some of the heat generated is obviously going to go into the bench.  That is like a "heat leak" that could ultimately disturb your measurements over a time span of a few hours.  If the bench itself heats up by five degrees over two hours, then the "heat leak" will be slower then as compared to when you started.  This will screw up your measurements.

If you suspend the resistor vertically by one of the wires or perhaps a string, then you will have no heat leaks.  The second benefit is that you get a chimney effect, that draws the heat away from the resistor in a very consistent manner.  This will give you a stable repeatable measurement system.

Any time you want to deviate from the original replication you have to be able to argue that there is a rational reason for doing so.  As long as you can do that you should be fine.  There is a rational argument for stating that as long as the resistor is about the same resistance and inductance you should be fine.  Making it out of different materials should not really matter.  Setting up your own stable thermal test environment (hanging the resistor or whatever you want to do) is also fine, there is no rational reason for this affecting the results.

Obviously the less you deviate from the original setup the better but the resistor that you made should be absolutely fine.  I suggest that you follow .99's strategy and do the 3% duty cycle test first.

MileHigh

[fuzzytomcat]

Glen:

It can be hard to write so that it works for "all" readers "all" of the time, but the point is well taken.

For the resistor, if you leave it sitting on your bench while you test, some of the heat generated is obviously going to go into the bench.  That is like a "heat leak" that could ultimately disturb your measurements over a time span of a few hours.  If the bench itself heats up by five degrees over two hours, then the "heat leak" will be slower then as compared to when you started.  This will screw up your measurements.

If you suspend the resistor vertically by one of the wires or perhaps a string, then you will have no heat leaks.  The second benefit is that you get a chimney effect, that draws the heat away from the resistor in a very consistent manner.  This will give you a stable repeatable measurement system.

Any time you want to deviate from the original replication you have to be able to argue that there is a rational reason for doing so.  As long as you can do that you should be fine.  There is a rational argument for stating that as long as the resistor is about the same resistance and inductance you should be fine.  Making it out of different materials should not really matter.  Setting up your own stable thermal test environment (hanging the resistor or whatever you want to do) is also fine, there is no rational reason for this affecting the results.

Obviously the less you deviate from the original setup the better but the resistor that you made should be absolutely fine.  I suggest that you follow .99's strategy and do the 3% duty cycle test first.

MileHigh

Hi MH,
Thanks for your understanding plus explanation and will try your suggestion as soon as my new "Borosilicate Glass Tube" ( Pyrex ) prototype "Quantum" resistors are ready. I'm also going to use my Frequency Counter and the method of looking at mV - uV "mean" measurements that .99 mentioned with my older Tektronix 2445A oscilloscope, to help with the next go around of testing prior to collecting data dumps again.

Fuzzy