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

[Rosemary Ainslie]

    
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Guys, I've lost a post. No idea if I deleted it or what? I've not heard from Admin yet - so can't explain it. In any event I need to redo this post. I'm trying to show that the 'effect' - that extra energy - is actually REQUIRED by mainstream science based, as it is, on e=mc^2. Here's the argument.

All energy is traditionally seen as being, or based on, the mass of a material be it particulate or gross. In other words - and at the risk of being fatuously simplistic - take your material be it photons, electrons, protons, neutrons, your average pebble, rocks and the rest. If it's made of matter - and if it's measurable - then it's got energy. And the amount of energy available depends on the amount of that matter or that mass.

Traditionally our electric energy is generated from potential difference. Potential difference is measured as a voltage. This 'difference' is ascribed to various properties but it essentially measures a magnetic imbalance that also relates to the valence condition of an applied energy source. So - very broadly, one can say that electric energy is generated by a 'valence imbalance' that is then conducted through circuit material or any medium that allows a path for current flow. This enables a discharge of that imbalanced valence condition. But it is yet and quite simply - an energy supply source based on the material of that supply. In other words it still conforms to Einstein's famous equation. It is still the sum of the mass of that supply source. Therefore the amount of energy that is discharged cannot exceed the amount of energy or mass available from that supply. That's the basis of the 'elusive' energy barrier. This is still the agument used by Newton and Farraday and Maxwell. Our Giants.

However. If the discharge of that energy from the supply source then generates another imbalance in material that is in the 'path of' that discharge - then it is evident that we get ANOTHER measurable voltage imbalance, a kind of transferred potential difference. Classically this is regarded as STORED ENERGY. And when it too finds a path - it too will discharge that energy. In other words, the amount of material in that 'path' determines the rate at which energy is transferred through that path, or the rate of discharge from the energy supply source. BUT, interrupt that path and - depending on the material used and the amount of imbalance that energy flow generated or 'stored' or 'transferred' then that material itself can generate it's own flow of current depending only on an available path for discharge and on the 'break' or 'chance' or opportunity - afforded by interrupting that first flow from the primary energy supply source.

So. Let's look at the actual condition on this or any switching circuitry. The rate of energy discharged from the supply was determined by the resistance in the path of that primary energy supply source. If it discharged or delivered - for example - 1 Joule of energy in current flow, then classically the circuit can only dissipate 1 Joule of energy or it can store and dissipate some value that is precisely proportionate to that 1 Joule that was first delivered. The primary energy supply source has now 'transferred' it's own potential difference to the material of the resistor - in the process of establishing it's own balanced valence condition or potential difference.

But here's the thing. In point of fact, when one actually interrupts that current flow from the source, and provided one allows a path to discharge that energy - it can be routed back through the supply source to re-energise it. AND it has dissipated energy in the form of 'heat' over that resistor. Not only that - but the amount of energy that is returned to the supply can equal, (And as Aaron and others have shown) even exceed the amount of energy that was first delivered. The question then is this. Have we defied Einstein's equation that determines the limit in the amount of energy that is available in the mass of our supply source. The answer is emphatically NO.

The fact is that the material in the resistor - now comes into the equation. It's mass has been energised. It has adopted the same but opposite valence condition of the supply source. And it has generated heat. Therefore the proposal is that the heat is a measure of the resistance of the material to the applied potential difference from the supply source. And the measured voltage across the resistor is also now a measure of it's own potential difference which precisely matches or depending on the mass of the resistor can even exceed the potential difference at the supply.

The point is this. The mass of the battery or the supply source has been determined by Maxwell as the primary energy supply source. But Einstein's equation incorporates the mass of the resistor as well as the supply source. Therefore the resistive mass is also a potential energy supply souce dependent only on its mass, the inductive and conductive components in that mass and it's ability to 'find' a path to discharge that energy. But it FIRST needs its 'own' moment to become an energy supply source. A switching circuit affords it that moment. Therefore there is no real conflict between this result and the result required in terms of mainstream thinking.

That the thesis attributes current flow to anything at all - is immaterial to this argument. But for the record, the proposal is that current flow itself is the transfer of magnetic fields and not electrons as required by mainstream argument. But in all other respects, this proposal conforms to the quintessentially proven requirement that E=mc^2.

Perhaps those who are testing this circuit can use this argument in support of the proven gains on a switching circuit of this kind. It's certainly the basis of the thesis.

posted by me 02.05.2010

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys, could someone help me.  I've been trying to post over pictures from my photobucket and I can only get links.  What's required here?  I'd be glad of assistance.

Here are the links for now. 





Jesus?  Could you open these for direct view?  Be most obliged.

[WilbyInebriated]

hi rosemary, to post pictures use the 'attach' field(s) at the bottom of the reply form.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

WILBY.     HOW NICE IS THIS.  I had an idea you'd been banished?  Obviously not.  You have NO IDEA how much I've missed your critical input.  They're badly in need of a Captain across at EF.  He's needed to steady that ship.  Right now it's been appropriated by MIB's who are pretending to all kinds of accreditation and goodness knows what.  If it weren't so ominious it would be laughable.

WELCOME INDEED.   

BTW  Many thanks for that posting.  I'll try it later.  Many more to post across.
I'M SMILING FOR THE FIRST TIME IN DAYS.  Seems like we've got a 'shared tenure' at last.  LOL 

[rensseak]

This are the pictures of Rosi