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

[TinselKoala]

Whatever, Rosemary.

But if it were me, or if I were a co-author on that paper, I wouldn't be so proud of something that's been rejected, what, 5 times now by the same sets of journals. That's got to be telling you something.

And as far as teeth go... well, time will tell which one of us is right, and about what.

Congratulations on your 200 MHz LeCroy. I can't recall if that model does integration as part of its math package or not. I know both of my LeCroy scopes do, but they are 1 GHz bandwidth, a little higher up the food chain than your borrowed scope. The on-board integration over time, to give a direct reading of the energy flow (as I illustrated long ago) is the correct way to use the capabilities of these fine instruments. Downloading data to a spreadsheet and analyzing it there is very error-prone and the results depend strongly on assumptions and choices made by the user.

But what happened to your favorite Fluke ScopeMeter? The Fluke-o-Scope has one feature that is actually almost necessary to test your circuit: the channel grounds are isolated and can be at different reference voltages. This is one reason that the Fluke ScopeMeters gave you the results you got, early on.

This is not the case for the LeCroy. All channels have the same ground reference on these scopes.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi TK.  I'm not proud of the fact that the paper has been rejected.  The process is that a paper is submitted - the editor then forwards it to reviewers - experts - who comb through it for obvious errors and if and when it passes a review process the editor then considers publishing.  The rule is the more radical the experiment the more newsworthy and the more inclined are the editors to publish. 

What we have achieved is the rejection of the paper prior to review on every single submission.  And our papers show experimental evidence that one can trash the unity barrier with ease.  It's very obviously newsworthy.  In fact, if this were ever published it would dominate scientific attention everywhere.  It would certainly be newsworthy.  Just not that popular.  This because it would also require the systematic deletion of most of the text in ALL of their text books and would deny the 'foundation of their faith' - so to speak.  There is a simple truth.  Science can be wrong on small issues and history can adjust their perspectives - as needed.  But it CANNOT be wrong on big issues.  And the unity barrier is definitely a BIG ISSUE.

Another BIG ISSUE is Dark matter.  The real reason that they're all hoping to find a particle to account for this apparent abundance of energy - is that if they don't - then they're nailed on some critical arguments related to relativity.  And Dark Energy has finally managed to leak past their editorial desks and into public awareness.  That took 80 years or thereby - for God's sake - just to make it to mainstream.  Our public are still not aware of the significance of it.  And there are still those dinosaurs who also STILL deny all that evidence.  And if you want to know what keeps all this back?  Why they need to MUFFLE the truth?  I'll tell you.  It points to that same need to re-think and re-write an awful lot of archaic assumption.  I suppose one could be indulgent and say that it's all very understandable as livelihoods and God knows what else is on the line.  But it says NOTHING about the integrity of science if scientific reality needs to be sacrificed to pragmatic concerns.

Science is based on experimental evidence.  If they refuse to look at the evidence then science is not about experimental evidence any more.  It's about 'creed' and 'belief' and 'philosphies' and 'religion' and 'opinion' and 'popular sentiment' and 'majority view points' and all kinds of corrosive disgusting things that I had always been assured would NEVER taint the purity of science.  So.  While I'm sorry we've not been 'reviewed' I'm not sorry that we're disassociated from today's sad state of science by 'opinion'.  It's certainly NOT science.

The good news is that this attitude is entirely exempt from some rare and special academies.  And I'm intensely proud to be associated with such.

Regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38315399/MORE-INCONVENIENT-TRUTHS

[Rosemary Ainslie]

@rosemary

I know you will like this link:

http://www.richieburnett.co.uk/indheat.html

Jesus

Hi Jesus.  Nice to hear from you.  I tried that link but those colour combinations defeat my bad eyesight.  I'll try it again later today when the light is better.  But thank you. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi guys.  I've been browsing through the threads here again - and am struck by the amount of interest and time that all spend in shaping ever more complex coils.  The results appear to be haphazard - not always as expected - but the exploration is fascinating.  Especially the work that's advanced by Mark - Mk1 - I think is his internet name.  I'll look for the link.  Here it is.

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8878.0

Fascinating work - geometry in the 'round' so to speak.  It is almost as if there is some deep seated geometric shape that everyone is trying to find - that will provide the 'answer' the 'holy grail' to that elusive 'energy from nothing'.  Compelling shapes and compelling questions.  It's like one's tongue searching for an elusive flavour of something that's somehow there - but also somehow 'lost'. 

I have a recurring dream - one of those archetypal numbers that are strong enough not to be able to dismiss - even if it's significance is only in its symbolism.  I'm standing in a circle with a group of us around a monolith.  And there's a kind of holy communion between us.  It's telepathic and it's an emotional link that escalates - or grows in crescendo - or just gets stronger and stronger - until it's almost overwhelming.  Probably something close to bliss.  But at it's conclusion - this is the point - I then realise that we've LOST this knowledge.  It's an unbearably sad realisation.  And, somehow, I think that this realisation is also possibly true.  I wonder if, just perhaps, we - 'once upon a time' had a kind of telepathic sense that has been erroded out of our gene pool - or been superceded by way too much 'language'.  Our insects - bees, ants, birds - all seem to have a knowledge of geometry - certainly enough to construct what they need to construct - and they communicate very well without language.  Geometry is a kind of logic - and, whether insects access this knowledge on a subliminal or instinctive level - or whether they are conscious of the value of their work  - we'll never know.  I've seen female weaver birds destroy their partner's nests until he finally comes up with a 'safe' build.  To me that seems that there's an active critical faculty at play.  Just don't know the answer.  But I'm reasonably sure that we're all looking for that 'geometry'.  And I suspect, that when we find it - it'll be much more 'readable' and more logical - than anything we've suspected.

I'm not at all sure that this is on topic - but as it's my thread - I just thought I'd indulge in this observation and comment.

Regards,
Rosemary     

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Back on topic, I have found a magnet to 'shape' into our pentagonal sphere.  Unfortunately it's ferrite - the only appropriate shape I could get.  But the dimensions are pretty exactly what's needed to shape the first cut.  We're only doing this first piece of what will be 12 pieces - to see if the structure of the magnet is still smooth when we carve it into that five sided diamond.  In a way it's probably as well that it's not neodymium - as I think those rare earth numbers may be too strong to assemble. 

Anyway - it's with the designer.  When the numbers are determined it'll go to another shop and may then be ground or spark erroded - or some combination of both - to see if it's got a consistent structure inside as out - and whether or not to go ahead with all 12 cuts. 

When I find the required shape I'll do the same with a pyramid construct - 6 pieces assembled in a cube with a single pole buried in the centre. 

Regards,
Rosemary

Added.  And I'll be back on campus today so will take photos of the LeCroy in operation - I hope - and also hopefully, will start exploring it's different operating functions.  Can't wait.