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

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And may I add.  Without that required measuring instruments - then the resonance must be accidentally achieved and the actual measure of the energy delivered and dissipated will only ever be a thumb suck.  It is NO WONDER it's eluded detection for so long.  I realise now that the likelihood of it EVER being shown is almost zero to nothing. 

The thing is that I expected this result so went to the trouble of getting the right scopemeters that could be DC coupled precisely to show that value.   You've got to expect it to first measure it.  Else it can be happening - all over the place - without there being the slightest recognition of the fact.  In other words - it's been with us since day dot.  It's just not been seen.  Resonance is NEVER a desirable condition in the applictions that switching circuits are used for.  It's only reference that I know of is as an 'aperiodic Hartley oscillation' and that's buried in text books closely followed by advice as to how to 'get rid of it'. 

Harvey tries hard to befuddle you all about the complexities of measurement - Glen tries hard to keep the results from public view.  Both of them go to absurd lengths to shout obscenitites about my character, my motives, my abilities - or lack of them, but they're only following an agenda.  They're trying very hard to kill this technology - or they're trying to disassociate me from it's disclosure.  Unfortunately whether they convince you or not - the TRUTH WILL OUT.  This is not rocket science.  It's simple, really SIMPLE science - easily measured within the constraints of the correct scopemeters and easily proved against the performance of batteries against their watt hour ratings.  I see my contribution to all this as being sufficiently SIMPLE MINDED to expect precisely this result.  I am and was not clever enough to find the reasons for it NOT TO WORK.

And while I may have harboured untold doubts about the accuracy of the circuit schematic as it related to the 555 - I have NEVER doubted the efficacy of this RESONANCE.  It's been evident from nearly the very beginning of all our tests. 

Regards,
Rosemary 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

The reasons that I am now exploring other ways of 'showing' this energy is because I realise now that the whole CONCEPT of current flow relating to electrons and stored energy - is SO entrenched - that it would need a bulldozer to move it.  The slim hope is that the campus test results will be that bulldozer.  But even if it isn't - what we will have, and it WILL, I think, be a first, is the unequivocal proof of that COP>1 from a forum that is entirely respectable.  This much has been lacking.  But I also foresee the kind of debate that goes on here - obviously with more articulation and relevance as the debate will be amongst experts.

My overriding interest however is in the thesis.  All I'm actually doing - at this stage of this exercise is to try and get you all to understand that there's this field - all over the place - that simply keeps outside our eyeshot.  Can't be seen.  Can't be measured.  But it's there - in 3 different forms.  1 dimensional fields are those active little numbers that held the early hydrogen atoms together in those early suns.  This is the source of the electromagnetic force.  2 dimensional fields that hold the nucleus and the electrons together as energy levels.  This is the source of strong nuclear force.  They also hold solar systems together and - writ large - whole galaxies together.  Then there are those 3 dimensional fields that describe the magic of the torus.  Here is the SOURCE of our gravitational force.  The torus moves the atoms.  It is the magnetic field construct that generates our gravitational field.  But all three are simply different magnetic fields - or different sizes of magnetic fields.  Sort of like BUBBLES WITHIN BUBBLES.     

I'm now trying to find those experiments that can prove the WHOLE of that thesis rather than only the first.  That first is just WAY TOO CONTENTIOUS.  If I can find the right configurations of magnetic fields - then their proof will, I hope, be more readily understood.

Regards,
Rosemary

ADDED

[Rosemary Ainslie]

LOL  I see that Glen is posting the whole of these comments on his own thread.  This because he does not have that innate originality to vary his own posts.  Else all you'd be seeing is more and more of those repetitive highly coloured shouts that point to blocked links or deleted posts. 

I need to discuss something here which has only really hit me since I've been banned from Energetic Forum.  I've logged in there under the name Gabriel.  That way I can - at least - access my own earlier work to read it and - probably to copy it but not from the message text.  In any event.  Here's the thing.  As a registered user I can access the work - but I CANNOT access any links.  This means that readers there are also not able to access those links.  Now. I have always written for the benefit, not so much of the members - but for the benefit of the readers.  It's apparent that not only are there many more such.  But they don't comment.  They just read.  And I've always seen this very much in line with our 'silent majority' who - unlike the NOISY MINORITY who simply shout the odds - they are in fact the representative majority with a democratic authority.  In effect - that readership is the real value of these forums.  That's where there's always a chance that the 'message' can be spread - or understood. 

Now.  Let's put speculations out of the equation as to what Glen's motives are - for the time being.  Let's just look at the facts.  IF indeed that silent majority cannot access the 'links' as I cannot access the links - then there's an enormous percentage of the reading public who are ALSO now entirely removed from that data.  Effectively by removing all those posts as Glen did -  he's effectively also removed ALL SIGHT OF THAT DATA from the majority of the reading public there.  Whatever the motive - he's INDEED been able to HIDE all that good news from the vast majority of readers there - and yet he can PRETEND that he has not done so.  LOL

I also know that he's REALLY good on the internet.  He has admitted as much to me.  So again.  Without speculating let's again look at the 'facts' of his refusing to post his work here.  Original work posted on OU.com cannot be patented.  That's the fact.  Therefore - if he were to post his work on these forums then he would not be able to patent it.  Therefore, I put it to you that he is refusing to post this because he is witholding to himself - the right to patent that as original work.  I can't think of ANY other reason for him witholding that data.

There was a time when we were best of friends.  I often asked him to post the data on OU.com as this was as required a vehicle of promoting that work as was EF.Com, OUR.com or indeed any dot com that could advance this.  He would lapse into muttering about bandwidth and space availabiltiy and explained that it was IMPOSSIBLE.  Being a confirmed ignoramus on the internet I believed him.  That is - I believed him until Wilby showed - with such impeccable skill - what a load of unsubstantiated BS Glen was indulging.  But Wilby's comments here were immediately followed by some entirely irrelevant graphics intended to throw the comments off the page and out of focus.  It's not that Glen does not know how to format.  He simply pretends that he cannot when it he needs to hide the argument - very much as he does with my posts.

In any event - back to the argument.  My considered opinion is that Glen knows EXACTLY what he's doing by not posting original work here.  He DARE NOT.  Else he'd need to put paid to it as open source property.  I think, what I need to do - is to post it for him.  As he claims that it IS open source - then I don't think he'd have any valid objections to my doing so.  Certainly I would need to acknowledge it as his own work.  But that's it.  And IF he HOWLS with objections - then here's my question.  Why would he?  Is he not interested in advancing these desirable technologies?  Or is it because he thinks it does not work after all?  Certainly he's not coming out clearly on either side of that heavily loaded argument.  And he really needs to.

Regards,
Rosemary
BTW I've now written to Harti to find out what our rights are here.  My personal opinion is that there's actually NOTHING to prevent that posting of original work - as Glen insists that his interests regarding this are to benefit OPEN SOURCE.

ADDED

[Rosemary Ainslie]

What I need to add here is this.  Glen achieved what I never did.  He knew how essential it was to publish waveforms.  I, unfortunately, did not realise this.  I think, in retrospect, had I also included waveforms in that paper of mine it may have been more readily advanced to review.  But I am - unfortunately - an amateur, or as I prefer to think of it - a dilletante - in matters scientific.  Therefore I did not know better.

And while I'm at it - he had heavenly instrumentation to do just this.  But by the same token - I rather suspect that he actually never knew how to use it to maximise the required results.  He tuned it to a certain required level of voltage over the load resistor - where he knew that the resonance was then in line with a required gain.  But he should have tuned it to the DC coupled value of the voltage over the shunt.  He also seemed to labour under the delusion that it required LONG leads to the battery.  This is entirely NOT required - but it does - allow more material in the circuit to afford a resonance.

And I also need to pay tribute to his skills at a build.  They are impeccable.  Indeed - they're the finest builds I've seen on the forum - with the possible exception of one other member at EF.com who unfortunately does not post here that often.  Which is none of it intended to detract from the manifold skills of those many, many talented members here. 

Regards,
Rosemary

BTW It is my considered opinion that this is the reason he was not able to duplicate the same level of efficiencies that we were.

ADDED

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And Truthbeknown - I do not THINK that academics are reading here.

Rosemary.