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

[Omnibus]

Regarding the experimental proof, I see you're insisting you have such but my experience shows that experiments with even the high end Tektronix 7000 scopes and up may still not be enough to guarantee that what is being measured is the true voltage and current through the studied circuit even with a simple sine wave let alone a complex wave form. Thus, purely experimental evidence isn't enough at this stage. No one would believe it, the least the honest critics would. You probably know of the superb replication of eOrbo of Steorn by @Omega_0. He is the first to have replicated Steorn's claims. Unfortunately both in his results and in the results of the originators from Steorn the tricky question of accurately measuring the I-V phase shift may be the culprit and that's very difficult to sort out even with the best equipment there is nowadays. I'm, of course, talking about purely electrical measurements which should be sufficient to resolve the problem if done right. Calorimetry brings in incredible additional mess and should be avoided altogether. So, something additional is needed, alongside the electrical measurements but calorimetry isn't it. What one can do is analyze the situation purely theoretically, based on the nature of the phenomena, and demonstrate that OU is inherent in the very essence of these phenomena under certain circu7mstances. Those who have followed the Steorn thread know my argument to that effect.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi again Omnibus.

As you've probably sensed from my earlier post I'm not one bit interested in the practical application of discoveries. There is science and there is application of science called technology. The latter is outside of my interest.

Even if you don't have interest in the practicalities you SURELY rely on experimental evidence.  We base all these claims on experimental evidence.  Notwithstanding your prediction that there will inevitably be a loss - we have a battery undergoing a 'recharge' cycle that is absolutely empirically evident.  This rather flies in the face of the assumption that we are losing an electron on a continual basis.

And I assure you the ONLY reasonable explanation for an electron current flow is the continual displacement of the outer valence electrons in a kind of 'domino effect'.  The speed required for this would leave the most of us in the dark for about 10 minutes to half an hour while those electrons nudged themselves towards the light bulbs.  Just does not happen.  Current flow is known to be at or close to light speed.

As you say, electrochemistry is indeed capable of generating a current flow - but if that flow were the result of a transfer of electrons from the one terminal to another - then again - it would take a significant amount of time before it impacted on the resistors in series with that flow.  And far from satisfying me that the current is therefore a flow of electrons - I assure you - it is better answered as a flow of charge.  What comprises that 'charge' is still at question.

So Omnibus - we need to agree to disagree - unless you can explain how the electrons are transferred from one terminal to another.  It is ABSOLUTELY NOT scientifically proven that current flow comprises electrons.  It's only assumed.  It's a MODEL or a CONCEPT - albeit widely held.  But it would be as well to remember that it was also once a widely held concept that the Earth was flat.   And I'm afraid that your example does NOTHING to explain the electron  current flow from a motorised generator.

And Pauli established his principle based on a simple truth.  Like charge cannot share a path - anywhere.  Current flow relies on the concept of a shared path as that much is empirically evident.  It flows in a consistent direction.  It can reverse direction.  But always flows distinctly from or towards the cathode - the one to discharge it the other to recharge it.

regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Regarding the experimental proof, I see you're insisting you have such but my experience shows that experiments with even the high end Tektronix 7000 scopes and up may still not be enough to guarantee that what is being measured is the true voltage and current through the studied circuit even with a simple sine wave let alone a complex wave form. Thus, purely experimental evidence isn't enough at this stage.

Golly Omnibus.  Experimental evidence NOT ENOUGH?  Then what?  You're now arguing that experimental evidence is irrelevant.  I have NO argument against that - any more than Sir Walter Raleigh would have been able to argue with the flat earthers.  This is getting absurd - with respect.

No one would believe it, the least the honest critics would. You probably know of the superb replication of eOrbo of Steorn by @Omega_0. He is the first to have replicated Steorn's claims. Unfortunately both in his results and in the results of the originators from Steorn the tricky question of accurately measuring the I-V phase shift may be the culprit and that's very difficult to sort out even with the best equipment there is nowadays.

I have never presumed to comment on the Steorn devices.  All I can comment on is my own experiments.  We measure a heat dissipation that is up to 17 times greater than the energy delivered by the battery.  The results are conclusive.

I'm, of course, talking about purely electrical measurements which should be sufficient to resolve the problem if done right. Calorimetry brings in incredible additional mess and should be avoided altogether.

Actually this is lapsing into a bit of nonsense - with respect.  Calorimetric measurements are absolutely UNARGUABLE.  And our protocol was determined by academics with a far more strongly vested interest in disproving these results than your own.  And possibly a little more authority.

So, something additional is needed, alongside the electrical measurements but calorimetry isn't it. What one can do is analyze the situation purely theoretically, based on the nature of the phenomena, and demonstrate that OU is inherent in the very essence of these phenomena under certain circumstances. Those who have followed the Steorn thread know my argument to that effect.

I absolutely agree.  It is a result that calls for a re-evaluation of the properties of current flow.  This argument is definitely getting circular.  Like I say, Omnibus - I would recommend that you read our experimental evidence - or that you read my thesis - or you provide some explanation for these results that are somehow justified as the flow of electrons.  I'd be happy with any of these options.

Regards,
Rosemary

[Omnibus]

Hi Rosemary,

I guess, by reading your arguments, that we can agree on current being the directed flow of charge rather than concretely of electrons. That picture is quite plausible -- recall (again electrochemistry, sorry) current in an electrochemical cell is in fact directed flow of ions, not electrons. However, how are you going to explain away your concern that like charges repel and therefore, as far as I understand you, such like charges can't flow together in one direction?

As for the experimental results, I expressed my concerns and I do hope they are without basis although my own experience tells me they more likely are legitimate. I'd like to test your device so that I can have some concrete things to say but I don't know how this can be done. I have a Tektronix DPO 2014, Hall effect based current probe Tektronix TCP 0030 and the standard passive 1X and 10X probes. Also, I have a Hewlett Packard pulse generator and a Keithley 2000 DMM.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi Omnibus,

I absolutely agree with you.  Current flow is best described as the 'flow of charge'.  In fact those purists among our mainstream theorists actually do use this term.  My own grounding in physics was based on the writing of Dyson and Zukov - and they neither of them mentioned the flow of electrons as the cause.  So, two years down the line and already knee deep in experiments it came as a shock to see that anyone at all thought of current flow in terms of the flow of electrons. Then the second suprise was that electrical engineers rather relied on this concept.  Since my experiments were really designed to prove the thesis - then I was hoping to speak to theoretical physicists.  So I never really addressed this concern with our engineering fraternity.  There was quite enough contention in claiming the numbers that we were claiming without also confronting them with an explanation.  That is, until I came to these forums.     Again.  Anyone who holds to the flow of electrons as a cause is in REALLY good company.  Those of us who confront this are in a really small minority.  Fortunately that number is rising.  People, regardless of their training, are thankfully, very much open to logical argument and evidence.

You ask how I explain that 'charge' is not the same thing?  You're right - again.  Charge specifically speaks to some polar property.  But if one proposes a 'bipolar' charged particle - as opposed to a neutral particle - then it would enable the 'shared path' as it would not defy Pauli's exclusion principle.  My own proposal is that we are dealing here with a magnetic dipole that 'binds' amalgams.  This broad definition of the term 'amalgams' includes liquid amalgams. In other words the atoms themselves have a field of magnetic dipoles that are extraneous to the atom and that that binds them together.   But the 'field' is proposed to be extraneous to the atoms that they bind.  The 'holding together' of those amalgams is then easily determined based on the valence condition of those atoms in the amalgam.  Effectively the field can spin to the left or to the right - north or south - on or off - whatever is required to 'balance' that amalgam.  And where they can't find a preferred balance, such as in a strong acid or alkaline mix, then they remain 'restive' or 'energetic' until they can find some medium - some circuit path - to forge a 'realignment' of the atoms.  Then they move to reach that preferred 'balance'.  In the process of electrolysis - I'm proposing that the re-arrangement of those molecules and atoms are determined by these fields that move the atom.  And in an electric circuit - I'm proposing that these same fields literally detatch from the atomic structure - congregate at the terminals - and, at a critical density - they then forge through the circuit material to re-enter the amalgam with an alternate spin or charge - or bias.  That way they can re-establish the required balance.  And that way they also adjust the electrolytic mix to a condition of neutrality.  In effect, current flow may then be seen as the flow of charge and this current flow is then accessed in ALL material.  But electric current flow through standard circuitry relies on the mass or the material from inductive circuit components.  In other words the mass of the resistor comes into the equation as does the mass from the battery or any supply source.

To introduce the concept of these fields is also perhaps justified as an explanation of the Casimir effect.  Here it is known that on a really small scale - material is able to bond.  If these fields simply conjoin atoms then they would - indeed - promote that bonding.

You see.  The explanation is actually not that bizaar.  Our theoreticians are looking for a 'dark' or 'invisible' particle to explain certain anomalies that are apparent related to gravity.  Such a field of 'binding' particles would indeed be 'invisible' provided only that they exceeded light speed and provided that they were smaller than known tachyons.  And we know that in the process of 'current flow' the only thing that is 'stressed' is the bound condition of resistive loads.  They tend to degrade.  So.  The proposal is that they degrade to the extent that these fields are able to move through space thereby compromising that bound condition.  Our filaments break.  Our resistive loads get hot.  And so on. 

That may help in understanding the proposals of the thesis.  I do hope so.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary