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

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Sounds a little like a buckyball. About the same configuration they used in the atomic bomb for implosion. Might be a little hard to construct. Got me to thinking if the magnets should be manufactured in the same latitude as the experimental sphere though it probably wouldnt matter.
Ive had a similar idea but using 2 interlocked toroid shapes with one vertical for the magnetic field and the other horizontal for the electric field. Iron would be the magnetic field toroid and a copper winding on the other toroid for the electric field. Maybe a resonant tuning on the coil. Orientation to the earths axis may come into play.  Just a wild idea.
Hope You build this sphere I would like to see it.

Hi Iota.  It's going to be hell to get this together - especially as we've got to keep the magnets really small - otherwise I don't think we'd be able to cope with their repulsion.  My concerns are these.  We may sacrifice too much material in the design and this may reduce the magnetic fields to something that's way too negligible.  Then the fact is that we've still got a very symmetrical shape - a platonic solid - and, it's my experience that magnetic fields resolve themselves where there's symmetries - and they then come to a rest state.  I think, ideally, one needs to incorporate some imbalance.  My hope is to put the bearings at an obtuse angle - not unlike the axial spin away from true north of our earth.  But I strongly suspect that we'll need to rebuild something with one too many north's or souths' and, ideally, the simplest would be a cube constructed from pryamids where one cube would be machined with an opposing field to the other three.  But this is the first step - and also the most expensive - just to get the base parameters established.  I'm not sure how 'true' I need to keep the spherical shape either.  It could be that a flat surface polygon would introduce the required 'sharp' angle to conflict with the earth's smooth field.  Just don't know.  Another thing is that we may have to incorporate magnetic bearings - but my intention at this early stage is to build the 'pins' from magnets - that they oppose whichever surface is exposed in those polygons.  That way I may be able to reduce the friction even if only fractionally.

I love your concept there.  It's just so pure and so simple.  I LOVE SYMMETRIES.  The hell of it would be to hold that construct that all parts could spin if they wanted to.  But that's definitely the geometric design of the electromagnetic interaction.  Very intriguing.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi Guys,

I need to apologise.  There's been delays in the delivery of our Le Croy scopemeter being delivered from Gauteng.  It will, apparently be here on Friday.  Our switch - I believe, is nearly up and running - some small adjustment with a replacement capacitor - and then, God willing, I'll be able to complete our first tests.  My hope is to work there over the weekend. 

Regards,
Rosemary.

[Hope]

  Zee liquid buckey ball, perfect model (and what of surface tension  lol).   I like your thread,  really we strayed a bit but this stuff needs thought and we are working it up well here.   

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi Hope.  I'm only adding the topic about the magnet monopole because it's relevant to the thesis.  But I agree.  It's interesting to find those pure shapes.  Hopefully they'll speak to us.  In any event - here's the status.  A friend of mine has worked up the design using pentagons.  He's got to add a dome to get the sphere.  And it seems that the construct will need bigger magnets than we intended.  The final construct will otherwise be 4 milimeters in diameter.  LOL.  So.  I've now got to source different magnet sizes.  But fortunately we've got a fairly large supplier near us.  Then the idea is to machine this as it may be kinder to the magnet both in terms of the brittle nature of neodymium and in terms of magnetic field itself that may be rather compromised through spark erosion.  In effect we have to machine 12 shapes - look something like diamonds - and then assemble all those pieces that I suspect will probably resist our best efforts.  LOL It's all quite challenging.  The truth is that having finished the one - there's a real possibility that we'll have to build two more - and I'm not sure that they should all be the same size.  It would have been nice to follow a blue print.     Also - we may also try and shape 6 others into a pyramidal structures with the same principle of burying the north or south inside the structure - but this time I'll leave it like a cube.  In any event.  Some interesting experiments and rather challenging to put it all together.

For anyone who's following the switch saga - or the switch/driver/oscillator? whatever - the new oscillator, using the alternate transistor (GS35.24 I think) - is also not giving us the range of frequency that's optimally required.  It's now been proposed that we move to using something called a micro controller unit.  Apparently it runs on software and is able to operate stably - at a far higher frequency ranges - is easy to preset the required duty cycle to ever smaller fractions - and all tests will then become more reliably repeatable.  Since we're waiting for the delivery of our scope meter - we're going to explore this option as well.  My concern is only that I know that part of the required oscillation happens by overriding the duty cycle and all those units that we've put together before - managed this.  I'm not sure if the micro processing unit will somehow prevent this.  We've also ordered the new 'flange' to accommodate a wider range of resistors - for testing.  This will be installed the minute we've finished our base test numbers on our 'semi' standard element.

So.  We're getting there.  Gradually.   

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[poynt99]

For anyone who's following the switch saga - or the switch/driver/oscillator? whatever - the new oscillator, using the alternate transistor (GS35.24 I think) - is also not giving us the range of frequency that's optimally required.  It's now been proposed that we move to using something called a micro controller unit.  Apparently it runs on software and is able to operate stably - at a far higher frequency ranges - is easy to preset the required duty cycle to ever smaller fractions - and all tests will then become more reliably repeatable.  Since we're waiting for the delivery of our scope meter - we're going to explore this option as well.  My concern is only that I know that part of the required oscillation happens by overriding the duty cycle and all those units that we've put together before - managed this.  I'm not sure if the micro processing unit will somehow prevent this.  We've also ordered the new 'flange' to accommodate a wider range of resistors - for testing.  This will be installed the minute we've finished our base test numbers on our 'semi' standard element.

So.  We're getting there.  Gradually.   

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

You'll most likely need the 555, which was stressed in my previous posts. The "over-riding" duty cycle occurs because of interference back to the 555.

But try the microcontroller, it will provide a wide range of frequency and duty cycle outputs. It probably won't like to drive the MOSFET directly though, in which case you'll be utilizing a proper MOSFET driver. I doubt the desired quasi-stable oscillation will be achieved with anything other than the right combination of chips, and the 555 seems up to the task, due to its inherent sensitivity to outside influences.

.99