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

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Here's where it get complex, for me, as long as you remain in our "Relative" standard.  SOL is constant, for, say, a radio transmission.  If you are moving away, at the SOL, and you transmit back from point A, and at the same time you transmit back from point A in a non-moving object, the two signals are at the same speed heading to us.  Simple enough.  Here's where I start to disagree.  "Standard" relativity states that if "Craft" one is moving left to right at SOL and Craft two is moving Right to Left at SOL, then the two crafts approach each other at SOL.  Why? 

Apologies again to any who are not interested in theory.  Loner I've been going over and over this point.  I can't see why there's any confusion?  Clearly I'm not clever enough.  Here's how I see it.

Craft A is travelling at light speed as is craft B.  The distance between them is being covered at 2C - but each craft is still travelling at light speed?  And any signal transmitted by either craft to the occupant of the other craft - would be simultaneous with that speed.  Effectively the signal will reach the occupant at the other craft at the same time that their crafts precisely juxtapose each other - hopefully NOT in a head on collision.  If the conversation between those occupants were extended over time - then one hopes that they both have some means of encapsulating all that talk into some kind of instant storage device as the most of it will otherwise be lost.  Then the recording device needs to be left on.  As the conversation will be 'backwards'.  They'll need to hit the rewind to make any sense of it at all.  Because the only time that chat will be in a co-incident timeframe is when they're really up close and personal.  And if they really shared the same path then the force of that collision would be at 2C which I reckon would be somewhat catastrophic.  And in the hopes that they sidestep a head on collision and simply pass each other - then if they continued trying to 'chat' through some kind of radio signal' then their conversation would have greater and greater pauses that time being exponentially increased as 'time goes by' and as the distance between them is increased.  LOL  The good news is that they'd be able to make better sense of the conversation as it would now be recoverable in a logical 'forward' time sequence.  It would just take an awfully long time to listen to it all. 

What becomes more complex is us - as a third party eavesdropper to that conversation.  And here I'd propose that we'd pick up that dialogue as the signal reaches us at light speed.  So.  It depends on the point at which that first signal was propogated.  Hopefully they take it in turns to talk.  Else it will all be simultaneous.  And we'd get to know about that conversation in a timeframe that takes as long as it takes depending on it's locality when it was first sent out. 

So.  In my book there's nothing that 'obscure' about the concept of time being another and critical fourth dimension.  And I agree that it's variable and locality dependent.  Unless I'm way off beam - I do think that Einstein was on the money here.  But I also grant you that I've probably entirely missed the significance of any subtleties.  My preferred 'mode of thinking' is keeping everything simple.  Not actually so much a PREFERENCE.  In my case it's a necessity required by the 'slowness' of my own thought processes.  LOL



Kindest regards,
Rosemary

added
BTW If the occupant of Craft A was trying to signal Craft B to 'GET OUT OF THE WAY OF MY FLIGHT PATH' then it would have been a wasted warning.  Craft B would only get that signal LONG AFTER that collision.  LOL.  They'd need to find a way to signal at faster than light speed - or Craft A would need to take the initiative and make a small turn - OR he'd need to slow down a bit.  LOL

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And guys, while I appreciate that a general discussion on time may appear to be irrelevant - indeed it is not.  There is MUCH to be understood regarding this.  I've said it over and over and I hope that sooner or later it will be understood.  IF ANYTHING moved faster than light speed - and provided also that it was SMALLER than a photon - then we would NEVER BE ABLE TO FIND THAT 'THING'.  Not ever.  It would, effectively be entirely INVISIBLE.

We need light to discover the properties of matter.  Or we need something to 'bounce' off something - to determine these proposed particles that may indeed exist.  Think of it as something as slow and big as a tortoise - trying to chase something as small and elegant as a wasp or a butterfly.  Both would always and easily be able to stay out of reach.  And my proposal is simple.  Perhaps our 'fields' comprise particles that move at velocities that EXCEED light speed.  And as a consequence they are elusive, never to be found - DARK.

In any event - that's the basis of my thesis.  The point being that that velocity would - in fact - introduce another dimension.  Our dimensions are length, breadth and depth.  And all is relative to a time frame relative to light speed.  If something exceeded light speed then it may perhaps share our dimensions of length, breadth and depth - but it would NOT be evident in our time frame.  It would be like the occupants of those space crafts - travelling at light speed but signalling each other when they'd passed each other.  The signal depends on light speed.  But the rate at which they're moving apart apart exceeds light speed.  In point of fact their 'chat' would never ever reach each other unless they slowed down to light speed.  Or unless they described an orbital and co-incident flight path. 

In effect - we cannot and never will be able to access something that exceeds light speed.  It's a boundary constraint.  It would need to slow down for us to prove its existence - at all.

I keep hoping I'll say something that 'resonates' somewhere.  LOL  My actual proposal is that velocity relates to 'size' and therefore - these particles may indeed be smaller than photons.  If velocity and size are related then the smaller the faster - the bigger the slower.  So.  If something is half the size of a photon?  Then perhaps it moves at twice the speed of a photon.  Something on those lines - in any event.

Regards,
Rosemary

[Harvey]

And guys, while I appreciate that a general discussion on time may appear to be irrelevant - indeed it is not.  There is MUCH to be understood regarding this.  I've said it over and over and I hope that sooner or later it will be understood.  IF ANYTHING moved faster than light speed - and provided also that it was SMALLER than a photon - then we would NEVER BE ABLE TO FIND THAT 'THING'.  Not ever.  It would, effectively be entirely INVISIBLE.

We need light to discover the properties of matter.  Or we need something to 'bounce' off something - to determine these proposed particles that may indeed exist.  Think of it as something as slow and big as a tortoise - trying to chase something as small and elegant as a wasp or a butterfly.  Both would always and easily be able to stay out of reach.  And my proposal is simple.  Perhaps our 'fields' comprise particles that move at velocities that EXCEED light speed.  And as a consequence they are elusive, never to be found - DARK.

In any event - that's the basis of my thesis.  The point being that that velocity would - in fact - introduce another dimension.  Our dimensions are length, breadth and depth.  And all is relative to a time frame relative to light speed.  If something exceeded light speed then it may perhaps share our dimensions of length, breadth and depth - but it would NOT be evident in our time frame.  It would be like the occupants of those space crafts - travelling at light speed but signalling each other when they'd passed each other.  The signal depends on light speed.  But the rate at which they're moving apart apart exceeds light speed.  In point of fact their 'chat' would never ever reach each other unless they slowed down to light speed.  Or unless they described an orbital and co-incident flight path. 

In effect - we cannot and never will be able to access something that exceeds light speed.  It's a boundary constraint.  It would need to slow down for us to prove its existence - at all.

I keep hoping I'll say something that 'resonates' somewhere.  LOL  My actual proposal is that velocity relates to 'size' and therefore - these particles may indeed be smaller than photons.  If velocity and size are related then the smaller the faster - the bigger the slower.  So.  If something is half the size of a photon?  Then perhaps it moves at twice the speed of a photon.  Something on those lines - in any event.

Regards,
Rosemary

Will my freedom of expression be censored here? Probably, but here goes:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=faster-than-light-electric-currents-2010-06-18

Food for thought.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

How I conceptualise this is by looking at a standard permanent magnet and then trying to envisage those lines of force.  It's not possible in reality.  Certainly not with my poor eyes.  But one can see it in the mind's eye - sort of.  In any event.  When I did this - then it became relatively comfortable for me to envisage the full scope of the field. 

And having done this - then the seduction of all those patterns - those moving parts - may indeed occur to you as it has, somewhat obsessively, occurred to me.  There is just SO MUCH that is entirely compelling in thinking about that moving field.  I found the easiest means to get familiar with its structure was simply by imposing what's known about the field as an innate property of each particle.  Just to see if the correspondence could be maintained.  At the risk of boring you all to tears - here's how it goes.

.  There's a north and a south end of each magnet.  Therefore there would be a north and south of each particle.  That then would, presumably, be like a 'charge' property.  Which would make the particle a magnetic dipole.
.  Within a critical proximity magnets 'join up' or 'attach' their unlike poles.  This implies that the field prefers to conform to proximate fields - else they would not move together at all.  In the same way the particles would move together to extend the length of their 'necklaces' and thereby increasing the range of their orbits. 
.  Magnets align north to south.  Therefore these strings would align north to south.  If the field is moving ONLY north to south - as it appears to be doing - and assuming that it's moving at all - then it's actually just moving in one direction.  That means that it's got an orbital justification - from north to south - or from on to off - or from plus to minus.  Which means that each particle would also be moving in that single direction.
.  If those strings describe an orbit - first moving from the north to the south on the outside of the magnet and then from the south back to the north on the inside of the magnet - then the field describes a full 360 degree turn.  Then each particle would also move through that 360 degrees.  And each string would in fact be like a spinning necklace but spinning or orbiting in a field of other necklaces.
.  If that necklace actually spins through 360 degrees then one half of the field is always moving in an opposite direction to the other half of the field.  If those two 'directions' that cancel each other out are also the measure of the 'charge' property of the field - then the entire field is neutral as would be the magnetic dipole itself.  So.  The field would be neutral - the particle would be neutral - but both would have an orbital justification.
.  The orbital justification appears to be fixed as it is impossible for a magnet to simply change it's north/south alignment but must move it's entire body to align with proximate fields.  In the same way the field must also have a 'fixed' orbital path or justification.   
.  The magnet does not appear to gain or lose weight as a result of the field - therefore if the field comprises these little magnetic dipoles - then their mass must be fixed or their number must be finite - assuming that the particles 'lend' or 'add' to the weight of the entire magnet.

Which is more than enough to be going on with.  Hopefully you 'catch the drift'.  And for those who know all this from my field model - sorry to repeat it.  It's just that the vast majority of members here are entirely unfamiliar with these concepts - so I'm presuming to restate some points. 

Regards,
Rosemary

[TinselKoala]

Rosemary, I am really surprised that you are still spreading distortions about the published circuit in the Quantum article. Not only did many others, including Joit, reproduce the circuit and find that I am entirely correct about the duty cycle, YOU YOURSELF acknowledged this fact, as Glen has pointed out in some other posts.
Plus, the circuit and the article are still available for anyone to build or even simulate for themselves, to see that I am right and you are wrong about the duty cycle that it produces.

I also resent the statement that I rarely deal with specifics. I think that you will find that EVERYTHING I SAY is backed by specific research, most of which is still up on YouTube and is preserved in comments made when I was actively doing the research.

I sincerely hope that the students who are currently researching your conjecture will have recourse to my work. It might save them some time, and give them some ideas.

As an aside, why anyone would NOT want their controversial COP>17 device definitively tested in a precision calorimeter, by an agency experienced in these matters, is something that I simply do not understand. Unless, that is, there may be some real fear in the inventor's mind that the test might not show OU at all.

Again, on the matter of the Quantum circuit duty cycle: I encourage anyone who may still be interested to look up the circuit and build it for themselves.
In addition, of COURSE the whole premise and the whole foundation of your claim has to do with the duty cycle of the signal that is fed to the mosfet. You continue to have an apparent misconception about the relationships between Time, Charge, Voltage, Current, Power, and Energy. Unfortunately it does require some appreciation of the Calculus to comprehend fully -- or even approximately -- these relationships.