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

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rose:

That reminds me of my first physics professor in college who said that the speed of light was the fastest thing we could imagine.  To which I replied "what about twice the speed of light?"

He was not amused.

Bill

LOL.  That's really good.  I've had my first laugh for yonks.  Take good care Bill.  And go to bed.

Rosie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Took too long typing.  Twice the speed of light.  Not Amused!  I like that one too!

Not to bring up "Bad" things, but anyone consider the radical concept of reverse time in wave conjugates?  Beardon likes it, but that opens up too many questions for me.  Anyone else subscribe to that?  Just wondering....

Loner - I LOVE this subject.  Can you open a thread?  Then we can rabbit on at our heart's content and I don't think I'll be irritating all and sundry with the multiple interests already extant in this thread. 

Just a thought. It would be so nice.  I know how self-effacing you are in all your posts.  I personally think your observations are really good.  I've followed the most of them.  It would be so nice to have a topic which we could get to grips with.  And God knows I've got a HUGE learning curve to cover in this.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Good stuff Loner.  I take it you won't be into starting a thread.  In any event - perhaps Bill will oblige.  Delighted to get your input when and as you can.  Take care.  Hopefully we'll meet on this subject again.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[poynt99]

Thanks for the advice - but frankly Poynty, I'd prefer to rest on the advices of those experts that I'm working with - is my first point.  And you state - unequivocally that the overriding of the duty cycle is the result of 'interference'?  That's an opinion.  I've already explained that the 555 is NOT subject to interference.  We're doing our switch tests without a load.  So.  Where then is that 'interference' coming from?  The 555 seems not to be efficient.  Certainly not at the level we're looking for.  So.  While you're happy with your opinion there are those of us who simply don't agree.
Again.  I'm grateful for your lenience here in 'allowing' us to do the required.  But I'm not sure that it's appropriate to give us advice. We'll do the tests under the advisement of experts.
Are you indulging us here Poynty Point -  by 'allowing' us to do these tests but that your OPINION is that it won't work anyway?  In which case would you sooner we not even try this?  I'm really not sure that I care that much whether you think it may or may not work.  We'll do the tests that we need to satisfy our own curiosity about this matter - if you don't mind.

I read that you were going to do an Ainslie Circuit debunk?  May I assure you that you'll need to do this on an alternate thread and better yet - in your own forum - where you first proposed this.  I do not want this thread dominated with a debate on efficacy of the device.  This thread is to present the data when we do those tests.  You can debate that data elsewhere.  Else I suspect that you'll systematically errode the confidence of any readers here very much as Harvey and Glen have managed on their own thread at EF.com.  It's hard enough as it is - bringing this kind of data to the table - without the gratuitous involvement of 'debunkers' no matter their pretended interest in the technology.

R.

By "over-riding" frequency and/or duty cycle, my impression was that this was the desired mode of operation and a goal to achieving the desired results. This was a constant theme throughout the threads from the beginning, and is mentioned in the Quantum paper I believe.

My advice has been towards this goal, as it was assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that this was one goal of your team as well.

This quasi-stable mode of operation likely won't occur without a driven load. Without the inductive kickback there will be very little interference back to the 555 to destabilize it.

If your team's goal is to completely avoid this quasi-stable mode of operation (i.e. the varying duty cycle and/or frequency mode), then disregard what I've said.

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rose:

OK, one more post before bed.

If you and I were on a train, and you walked forward on the moving train traveling at say 50 mph, inside the car, I would clock you at about 2 miles/hour.  This is how fast you were moving relative to my position on the same train with you.

Now, someone outside the train looking through the windows also clocks you....guess what?  Their speed of you is calculated at 52 miles/hour from their position.  Both answers are exactly correct.  But, that can't be right?  One of Albert's main points was that velocity was relative based on the frame of ref. of the observer.

I will write more when I check my books.  This is all I can recall at this time.

Bill

That example of yours makes sense Bill.  If the observer was stationery then presumably the train stroller is moving at the speed of the train plus the speed of his stroll.  And if the observer was moving in an opposite direction?  Then his rate of velocity/time/distance would need to be related to the the train/train stroller's velocity/time/distance.  So?  Maybe in truth everyone's 'time frame' is marginally different to everyone else's.  Boggles my poor mind.  It's rather a relief that the most of us stay put in our sleep.  That way - some section of the global population ocassionally share a co-incident time frame.  LOL.