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

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I would upscale & verify the original setup in a very careful way:

1.) Optimize the wiring to shortest possible connections with perfect contacts avoiding loops using   upscaled     diameters.
     (we don´t want to be fooled by EMF or contact issues)

This would determine if the 'effect' is the result of vagaries associated with the wiring.

2.) Analyse the effect with an entire lot of batteries observing chemistry

This would determine if the 'effect' of a recharge may not be consistent with actual recharge.

3.) Identify the feedback mechanism which is causes that jittering oscillation.
     This could be EMF, power spikes - but probably its the load spike coupled via drain-gate capacity via R1      pot - NE555 output - NE555 internal protection diodes - finally shifting NE555 comparator levels causing jittering oscillation.

This would determine if the switch is responsible for what we claim is 'self resonance' or 'preferred oscillation.

4.) Try to galvanically isolate pulse generator from power circuit using opto-coupler.
     Maybe its possible to get the effect on feeding _ANY_ jittering oscillation with similar frequency.

This would determine if the resonance can be 'imposed' on the circuit

5.) Identify the role of R1 as consequence of the 3.) - 4.)

     Is the role of R1 just to maintain that jittering oscillation using parasitic feedback from backEMF coupled via DS-cap ?. Is the role of R1 to limit the slope of charging the gate - or both. Would it work with outside jittering control signal - or is the feedback from the physical  load needed ?

Not sure what a DS-cap is.  I take it that R1 is the load resistor.  The control signal DOES NOT jitter. I take it - nonetheless - that would determine whether the load inductance was responsible for the oscillation.

6.) Based on 5.) it should be possible to design a robust system with properly driven mosfet (eliminate R1), operating independent from mosfet type and "instant on" operation. (maybe adaptive controller needed)

Not sure what you're recommending here.  Presumably whether or not it could be determined if the switching circuit alone could generate the 'effect'.

7.) Now it would be the right time to upscale batteries, currents, mosfets.
     Is this effect upscalable ? is there a maximum current depending on battery type ?

... and so on.
find the apropriate questions - and get your answers.

This would not work for the reasons that I've explained.  We've 'scaled it' as far as it can go with the MOSFET.  We've tried MOSFETS in series.  It's too brittle.

just replacing that mosfet with igbt, scr, ss-relay would change the way how this operates by 5 dimensions, with the only outcome that it doesnt work. Even if you could achieve same operation- you would restart at 3) seeing 5 other effects to explain.

a predicted change in '5 dimensions'.  'Go back to 3'. 'the only outcome that it doesnt work'.  What part of this is experimentally relevant and how much of this is determined as required precisely because of that predicted outcome 'it doesn't work'? 

What you have listed here Fritz are the very questions that were addressed by our accreditors.  The experimental evidence was required in terms of the thesis.  The experimental results speak to the thesis.  There is NO other interpretation.  Else we would not have got that accreditation.  This is precisely why I do not want to waste more time on this thread with more experiments related to proof of concept.  And exactly what is it that I still do not understand?  What is as clear as daylight is that you doubt the results related to proof of concept.  I could spend another year researching this to your satisfaction and still you would have doubts.  It's the nature of the claim that causes this.  Those results.  They do NOT make sense in the context of known physics.  The ONLY time that these results will be accepted is when we have our appliance up and running.  Proof then will be both demonstrable AND commercially exploitable.  Everyone understands their bank balance and how this may impact on their bank balance.  Or alternatively - it may be accepted when and if the model that predicted these results is accepted as an explanation.  Those are the only two remaining hopes to getting this and possibly all OU technologies accepted. 

Regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And guys,  apologies for consecutive posts - but there's another point I should highlight.

I have discovered NOTHING.  The explanation for this energy is already well argued within mainstream science.  It's Dark Energy - related to Dark mass.  It simply means that our string theorists are RIGHT.  So are all theses related to the God particle.  So are all those who anxiously promote aether energy.  It's the same thing as dark energy.  The only difference is this.  I've presumed to locate all that energy in a magnetic field.  I saw no reason to go any further.  It provides a perfect reconciliation of all the forces which include - the strong and weak nuclear force, the electromagnetic force and gravity.  The fields separate into three distinct divisions - based in the varying field manifestations.  One dimensional and they bind matter.  Two dimensional they are isolated into atomic structures associated with the atoms' energy levels.  Three dimensional and they belong to toroidal fields.  Small scale are magnets.  Large scale - it is proposed to shape the entire universe.  In effect I've presumed to define energy itself.  HUGELY presumptuous.  But someone had to do it.  And better it comes from an ignoramus than a learned.  I have no reputation to lose.  LOL

[fritz]

This would determine if the 'effect' is the result of vagaries associated with the wiring.

No !
You definitely need wires to connect your parts.
If you want to upscale your device for higher currents and load - you will need more diameter for the wire.
20Ah batteries have an internal resistance of 15mOhms. Thats almost in the range of the wiring.
For an upscaled device - you probably want to choose 100Ah or 400Ah batteries.
Whats the resistance of the wires in the demo device ? Do you know ?
Maybe there is a minimum resistance needed for save operation ? Do you know ?
Wires are inductors - what inductivity have the wires in the demo setup ? Do you know ?

If you´re engineering something - you have to deal with all that stuff.
Whats wrong with it ?

This would determine if the 'effect' of a recharge may not be consistent with actual recharge.

No !

As already mentioned different batteries have different internal resistance, depending on temperature, charge condition and pulse durations involved.
Actual batteries are not rated for that purpose - means you have no data nor guarantee that values will be different - for the same lot - or the same battery model. So you have to collect the data on your own. Even if the effect is proven - it is of no value if it works just with a single battery.
So if you want to build lots of things like that - you have to get a grip on your key components. The battery is a key component.
You may add overvoltage and deep discharge circuits and so on...

This would determine if the switch is responsible for what we claim is 'self resonance' or 'preferred oscillation.

What I have seen on your scope traces is a sporadic 50MHz glitch introducing a "short" cycle.
All "normal" cycles don´t have this glitch. This glitch comes initially from the NE555 power supply rail.
But how does it come there ? inductive coupling ? On experimenting - you can find out.

This would determine if the resonance can be 'imposed' on the circuit

This would be prefered, because you cannot solder 10 NE555 on top of each other to increase the drive level to drive more mosfets with increased gate charge.
So you probably want to replace that NE555 with something that automatically adjusts and seeks the right properties for that oscillation.

Not sure what a DS-cap is.  I take it that R1 is the load resistor.  The control signal DOES NOT jitter. I take it - nonetheless - that would determine whether the load inductance was responsible for the oscillation.

The gate of a mosfet has almost infinite resistance against source and drain.
But the gate forms mutual capacitors with source and drain.
This capacitor ranges from 100pF up to 100dreds of nF depending on the used part, how much in parallel and so on.
This capacity is somewhat determined in the datasheet - but has significant tolerances.
In a "professional" design - you want to get rid of those uncertain conditions.
In your demo circuit - the gate capacity plays an important role - because it forms an RC low-pass with R1.
This is why you would have to match R1 every time you change the mosfet.
In first order - the gate capacity against source (in combination with R1) limits the amount of time needed to charge up the gate and to discharge it - which finally controls the figure of the output resistance varying with time on switching on and off.

Otherwise we  have that mutual drain-gate capacity (DS was a typo). If you discharge the gate capacity (turning off) - the back-emf of the inductive load will lift off together with the drain voltage. Because of the DG capacity - we have a flow of charge from drain to gate on switching off.
In a normal circuit you overcome that by having a low resistor from gate to ground - and an extra protection diode to protect the gate.
You can break the mosfet by having a higher gs voltage than rated - typical 15 volts.
If you would switch an inductive load with a mosfet - and would disconnect the gate immediatley on turning off - the back emf on the drain will lift the gate via drain-gate capacity - and the mosfet would be dead.;-(((

But this means that the DG capacity can operate as a feedback path.

Not sure what you're recommending here.  Presumably whether or not it could be determined if the switching circuit alone could generate the 'effect'.
This would not work for the reasons that I've explained.  We've 'scaled it' as far as it can go with the MOSFET.  We've tried MOSFETS in series.  It's too brittle.
a predicted change in '5 dimensions'.  'Go back to 3'. 'the only outcome that it doesnt work'.  What part of this is experimentally relevant and how much of this is determined as required precisely because of that predicted outcome 'it doesn't work'? 

The only proof would be to try it out. (using tunable external pseudo-random oscillator).
Getting rid of that 555 and the mosfet and the tuning of R1 is essential for scaling up.
If the mosfet (dg-capacity)+ R1 + coupling spike back into 555 is the feedback path - then you will run into problems changing that configuration.
(because that path is broken then)
If the outcome of further investigation is that you have to insert a short cycle if there is a special signature in the load current (already mentioned 50MHz glitch) - then we can design a circuit for that triggering as huge mosfets banks as needed.
But right now the chicken and egg thing isn´t clear.
If this glitched is caused by an intermittant NE555 output stage overload effect - well a pseudo random oscillator would do the same job.

What you have listed here Fritz are the very questions that were addressed by our accreditors.  The experimental evidence was required in terms of the thesis.  The experimental results speak to the thesis.  There is NO other interpretation.  Else we would not have got that accreditation.  This is precisely why I do not want to waste more time on this thread with more experiments related to proof of concept.

And exactly what is it that I still do not understand?

That there is a different point of view.
You found something, invented something, there is a proof of concept.

But transforming that to an easy replicable and scalable "technology" is a job on its own.
If I use my oscilloscope to find an intermittant glitch crashing my controller - this doesn´t mean that I dont´t trust proof of concept.

  What is as clear as daylight is that you doubt the results related to proof of concept.  I could spend another year researching this to your satisfaction and still you would have doubts.

Is it necessary to wipe away my doubts if I just want to help you with the driver stage ?
A hands-on experience would wipe away doubts anyway if they really exist.

  It's the nature of the claim that causes this.  Those results.  They do NOT make sense in the context of known physics.

OK there is something, a battery, a load, a switch, excess energy. A miracle happens.
But BTW: I don´t think that there is a bubble in spacetime which surrouds your circuit causing everything to work completly different.


In that case I cant help you anyway because I dont know how electronic components in a spacetime bubble operate.



Regards,
Fritz

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello Fritz,

I've struggled through various attempts at answering your post.  I think I need to cut through to the chase.  In the first instance - if we are dealing with a 'glitch' as you call it then that 'glitch' was required and predicted.  Here's the logic.  I've written this before.  I'd be glad if you could read this again, or for the first time.  Whichever.

It is a little known truth that no person - not even amongst our greats - has ever been able to state unequivocally what comprises electric current.  They've seen arcing, sparking, lights burning, heating, and God knows what all.  But NO-ONE has ever been able to definitively state what makes electic current.  It is attributed to 'the flow of charge' - per our purists.  It's widely ascribed to the flow of 'electrons' by our electrical engineers.  BUT.  IF it was the flow of electrons then that's the REAL miracle.  Far, far greater than the 'miracle bubble' that you so contemptuously refer to in our experiment.  Here's why.  Electrons simply cannot 'share a path'.  They cannot go down the same road - together.  They have a 'like' charge.  The inherent repulsion between these particles is such that they would 'part company'.  It's an acknowledged truth and entirely explained in Pauli's Exclusion Principle.  Simply put.  Current flow CANNOT be the flow of electrons.

NOW.  There are those electrical engineers who also know this.  So.  They get around this by suggesting that there is an interaction in the outer boundaries of the atom's energy levels where the electrons perform a kind of adjustment akin to a domino effect.  The one adjusts - then the neighbour adjusts - and so on.  Down the line.  Until the final electron is 'transferred' to the supply terminal - effectively creating a kind of path - albeit they have not 'shared' a path and therefore have not 'defied' Pauli's exclusion principle.  This would be a really good explanation.  But the downside is this.  That 'domino' effect - that graduated series of adjustments requires more time than is known to be required for current to flow through a circuit - known to be at light speed.  The domino effect simply takes up too much time.  Therefore current flow cannot be attributed to that domino effect.

That puts paid to the only reasonable explanation available to our engineers.  But there are other problems related to the 'flow of electrons'.  Think of it.  If we recharge a battery from a utility supply source - in other words we've got a battery recharger supplied by a plug - feeding what? electrons? into a flat battery?  That means that there's the physical transfer of electrons from the supply grid through the battery recharger and into the battery.  In the same way, presumably, when we turn on our lights we get the transfer of electrons from the supply grid through the wire and into the filament of the lights to light those lights.  And when we turn on our stove we transfer more electrons through our stove - and so on.  This means that there must be an inexhaustible amount of electrons being supplied from your average supply grid to cater to the continuous requirement of multiple appliances from multiple users on that single supply grid.  There are not that number of electrons available from any generator known to be built by man.  Again.  This would require a logistics miracle that nature is simply unable to supply.  To get around THIS problem - the proposal is that there are 'free electrons' that are extrapolated from the air and then somehow incorporated into the conductive components of that wire and those component parts that allow for the HUGE number of electrons required.

Both these proposals are incorporated into WIKI in their definitions and explanations of current flow.  Both concepts are mutually exclusive and both concepts are horribly flawed.  The question is why these concepts persists - NOTWITHSTANDING.  The answer is simple.  It's because it's a CONVENIENT concept.  That's all.  I have spoken to many mainstream physicists and electrical engineers in my life.  The purists amongst the physicists acknowledge that it's a concept.  I've yet to meet an electrical engineer who acknowledges this.  Somehow - notwithstanding the obvious fact that it is NOT their field of expertise - they speak with some authority when they state - unequivocally - that current flow is the flow of electrons.  I know why the engineering fraternity is not challenged on this.  There is - thus far - and to the best of my knowledge - no alternate explanation.  And I also know that quantum electrodynamics is a field of science that is head and shoulders above any other in terms of the effectiveness of their applied technologies.  It would be grossly presumptuous to advise them of these intrinsic flaws in the light of these - their achievements. But the fact remains.  Current flow cannot be the flow of electrons.  It's that simple.

NOW.  If one proposes - as I've presumed to do - that all mass has energy related - not to the intrinsic mass itself - but to a hidden field that 'binds' that mass - then, with a small adjustment in perspective - one can still adhere to all known properties of energy - of conservation of charge - of conservation of mass.  BUT one would then be able to account for the flow of current in a shared path and at light speed.  That's not a miracle.  It does not require 'operation' in a miracle bubble.  It simply accounts for current flow.  BUT.  Once one goes down this road - then one's talking 'dark' energies.  Mass is now not confined to the supply but to all circuit components in the path of that supply.  Indeed E still equals mc^2.  But the mass of all parts of the circuit come into the equation.  Then one is actually talking about something that no longer is bound to the equivalence principles that 'electron current flow' requires.   

So.  I put it to you that the only thing that actually requires a 'miracle' as an explanation - is conventional concepts of current flow comprising the flow of electrons.  What I'm proposing, on the other hand, actually conforms to all known requirements in the transfer of energy. And in the conservation of charge.

I do hope you read this and understand it. 
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33988924/DARK-MATTER-MFM

[Elisha]

Hi Rosemary

Leedskalnin - Also discover that dont exist electron current, he make some very interestin and simple experiemnts, he call the current, Magnetic Current, and also have a similar theroy like you, this was like 70 years ago ¡¡¡

Leedskalnin also make the first and only until know, monopole, yes only one pole, you can do it !!, the monopole of leedskalnin is very easy to duplicate.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/242432/Ed-Leedskalnin-Magnetic-Current-Illustrated

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wItXxuEf2zo&feature=related
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In another works, this men in canada allready have a product that give a long life to Pb-acid battery, also use pulsed battery

“Pay to the order of Chris Hunter,” the oversize novelty check reads. The amount? $10,000.

Inventor Chris Hunter sits inside the empty engine compartment of a 1993 Geo Storm he is converting to an electric vehicle of his own design. Hunter won $10,000 in the Arctic Innovations Competition last year.

Hunter won that prize during last year’s first Arctic Innovations Competition. The winning idea was designed for people who live off the electrical grid and rely on batteries to store electricity.

“It extends the life of lead-acid batteries 10-fold,” he said.

How it does that is kind of technical and complex. Perhaps it’s best just to listen to how Hunter came up with the idea one night at home in Wasilla.

“It all started in a power outage during our nice springtime hurricanes,” Hunter said.

When the power went out, Hunter went out to the garage and started grabbing batteries and testing them. One he tested was perfect when switched on but died soon after. He started flipping the tester on and off and noticed that spike of electricity kept coming back.

He figured if an essentially dead battery can put out that much juice, a device to “spike-discharge” a charged-up battery while keeping current to appliances constant could be very useful to off-grid power users.

Hunter said he’s gone through a number of iterations of the device. It took more than a dozen before he got one that worked. Size-wise, that first working prototype was somewhere between a pack of cigarettes and a paperback novel. His latest, Hunter said, is smaller than a credit card.

http://frontiersman.com/articles/2010/06/20/local_news/doc4c1d99946d200627727825.txt