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

[Rosemary Ainslie]

The significance of the previous post is simply that I have long held that current flow is the transfer of magnetic fields through enabling materials in a circuit.  I'll grab at any evidence of this that I can. 

But I do think that the lack of resistance in a permanent magnet may be some proof of this - the more so as - while we do not know what constitutes current flow - we have a shrewd idea what constitutes a magnetic field.  And a magnet on magnet interaction definitely occurs at an angle of 180 degrees.  Also.  A magnet on magnet interaction is not known to induce an electric field - as required in an electromagnetic interaction. 

So.  Here's the proposal.  A toroidal field - such as is proposed to be the shape of flux in a cylindrical bar magnet - has two 'opposite' poles because the one half of the toroid (inside flux flow direction ) will be opposite to the other half (outside flow flux direction).  That would constitute a kind of symmetrical balance.  Which also means that current flow - if it comprises magnetic flux - would have only one direction.  Effectively it would be monopolar.  And it would then find an appropriate justification in a permanent magnet in either one or other of the two paths established in that toroid.

The question then is how does one get a monopolar flux field as proposed to be current flow?  If this relates to the material of the resistor - then let's explore the valence condition of atomic structures to determine this.  But from a very simplisitic beginning - let's start with the hydrogen atom.  We know that the net 'charge' balance of hydrogen is neutral.  The proton - positive is counterbalanced by the electron - negative.  But two hydrogen atoms cannot share the same position in space.  They're mutually repulsive.  Presumably because their outer boundaries are occupied by that electron which will then repel the electrons in the outer shells of adjacent hydrogen atoms.

Yet - our astrophysicists have actually photographed sun's moving out of nebulae.  And those early suns are almost all hydrogen atoms.  Therefore something must have enabled the accretion of that intrinsically and mutually repellent matter.  The proposal here is that every two hydrogen atoms are 'linked' by a small one dimensional magnetic field - or 'string'.  Not an arbitrary choice.  It would enable that 'joining up' or 'gluing' of these atoms very simply.  All that would be needed is to ensure that some interaction is allowed that would be sympathetic to an interaction of two 'like' charges.  And an orbiting 'string' is the simplest means to provide this, the one half of the orbit opposing the other half of the orbit.  Therefore - one orbit would be able to link or 'neutralise' two 'like' charges that they would then be able to 'share' the same space.

Now.  Assume that all material is 'linked' - atom to atom - and that these links can detach from that 'bound' state when they - in turn - experience another 'monopolar' magnetic field - as is proposed to be the substance of current flow.  They move to 'balance' that experienced imbalance.  But they do it at the 'cost' of the bound state of the atoms.  The resistor wire 'shorts' over time.  The light filament 'breaks' - or the material 'catches fire' - all evidence of a 'broken string' which results in some compromise to the bound condition of the material that is exposed to current flow. 

Guys, I'm not sure that any of this is getting across.  I'm simply trying to show that the atomic material is all that we can see and measure.  What we can't see and measure is the re-arrangement of these proposed fields that are outside the atomic structure but that may be responsible for voltage imbalances.  Something extraneous to the atom that moves the atom?  It certainly would allow for perfect balance in energy exchange - if this was incorporated into our conceptual understandings.

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

[exnihiloest]

Hi

I'm interested in third party replications.
Did someone duplicate the Rosemary Ainslie Circuit and confirm a COP>1?
Did someone loop the device? With a COP as large as 17, it should be rather easy.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi

I'm interested in third party replications.
Did someone duplicate the Rosemary Ainslie Circuit and confirm a COP>1?
Did someone loop the device? With a COP as large as 17, it should be rather easy.

Hello exhihiloest.  I've been watching your posts for some time now and you're definitely among the sceptics - which is a really good thing - provided only that you keep and open mind.  I can refer you to our own paper - which is probably a waste of time as I suspect you're not actually that interested in finding replications notwithstanding your 'claimed' and apparent interest.  But there are problems with the measurement which have been understated.  COP is actually in the region of 700% and not 400% greater than the level quoted.  But the measurements were taken off some sophisticated scopes so they're dependable within a very small margin of error

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS

I believe you see it as a requirement that all such claims first be supported by some kind of thesis.  Here is the thesis that required a COP>1. These early tests (some 9 years ago) were record of the first experiments that culminated in tests proving a COP>17.  The thesis was fully disclosed before the experimentation which sequence can be proven - historically.  Here is the thesis.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/33988924/DARK-MATTER-MFM

These earlier tests were accredited by Sasol (SA) - BP (SA) - ABC Research in North Carolina - Spescom (SA) amongst many other individuals and companies.  These quoted are also listed on local and international bourses so are thereby more respectable.  We were entirely unable to get the experiments accredited by academics but there were those who witnessed the test and concluded that there was 'probably a measurements error' - but were variously unable to find it or were not prepared to look for it. 

We have finally found a campus that is prepared to evaluate the results but this on an 'application'.  It is intended to heat a 'hot water cylinder' and research is currently underway to establish the required parameters on a more thorough basis than was previously related to simply 'proof of concept'.  This should establish the conditions required for the required efficiencies and the further hope is to use this thread - not only for a record of all those findings - but to advance the 'concepts' related to the thesis that predicted these OU results.

I trust that answers your question.

Regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Also - regarding your comment that someone should be able to 'loop' the device.  I presume you are now suggesting that it should be a 'perpetual motion' thereby doing away with the supply?  I'm afraid that has never been part of the thesis and is rather a 'simplistic' assumption based on conventional understanding of energy transfers.  I do not DOUBT that a perpetual motion machine can be made - and, I think has been proven all over the place - but it certainly does not apply to electric current flow as determined by that thesis. 

But having said that - I do not, in any way, propose that the thesis is complete.  It is a partial theory at best - and relates to conceptual understandings that support Dark Energy from dark matter.

Again exnihiloest - my regards,
Rosemary

[Pirate88179]

Rose:

I know this has been bantered about in several topics on this forum and it is not my original idea but, it is one that I agree with; electrons orbit around a nucleus in every atom of everything that surrounds us and yet, they do not slow down.  This said, why does conventional science have this attitude toward any perpetual motion device as being impossible?

I mean, these are the same scientists that told us about the atoms but yet, somehow, something that moves without any input energy "forever" is impossible?

This never made any sense to me.  Nature always has it right.

Bill