Free Energy

*
User Menu
movieclipsfree
movie clips free
Emergencyunit
Emergencyhelper
Statistics

  • *Total Posts: 255792
  • *Total Topics: 9053
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 18
  • *Guests: 128
  • *Spiders: 0
  • *Total: 146

cropcircles
*
Theme Selector
*
Renewable E.
Ecofun
SunPower
10 % Off
Great Hosting
*
Google Search

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder  (Read 41920 times)

Pirate88179

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4836
  • Attempting to know the unknown
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
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

Free Energy

  • Reply with quoteQuote
Sponsored links:

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
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

Free Energy

Loner

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 828
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
I do read a little of this, and I'm seeing the basic confusion about time all over again.  I'm hoping that "Standard" concepts are in use, as I don't fully agree with all of them, but am aware of the concepts original doctrines.

The value "Velocity" IS distance per unit of time, so how can there be confusion, at lower velocities?  As to the time change at higher velocities, this has been proven, both by the orbital experiment and by a lesser known experiment having to do with instant travel.  (Yes, that's proven as well.)

Here's where it get complex, for me, as long as you remain in our "Relative" standard.  SOL is constant, for, say, a radio transmission.  If you are moving away, at the SOL, and you transmit back from point A, and at the same time you transmit back from point A in a non-moving object, the two signals are at the same speed heading to us.  Simple enough.  Here's where I start to disagree.  "Standard" relativity states that if "Craft" one is moving left to right at SOL and Craft two is moving Right to Left at SOL, then the two crafts approach each other at SOL.  Why?  This is where the "Time" alteration comes into play as "Where" do you measure the speed from?  That's why it's called relativity, as the speed and time are relative to the measuring point.  Measurement methods have a huge impact as well.  (Just think way back to the original SOL check videos from MIT, via radio to the hill, etc.) I'm sure it obvious where my disagreements are but to fully describe it more would take hours, pages, and probably would get me banned as there are implications in standard electronics for the orbital changes during resonance of "Energy" that directly apply to this.  Standard electron motion doesn't apply as the physical "Electrons" aren't moving that fast.  EM and Voltage pulses are another story.  (Many miss that aspect of electrical analysis, as the time alteration can have signals meeting themselves in different time frames, and I'm already confusing many with just this basic example.)

I'm just tossing in my two cents worth, as this was a major argument in the early 70's when my physics professors drummed me out of  things for proving certain things wrong via experiment.  Didn't go over well and I learned what lines to not cross in public.  (Even this is too public, but no-one really cares about "Theory", as Rose has so eloquently stated.)

There are many facits to the whole "Relativity" area, and this "Time" situation is only a small part, but, while some is wrong, some of the experimental data does support parts of it.  A guy named Einstien stated himself, that parts of his equations were in error.  ("Cosmlogical Constant was the worst thing I ever did."  Direct Quote, but possibly not perfectly accurate as to language, tenses, etc.  It's been a few years....)  Knowing which parts and being able to make use of this level of knowledge can be very dangerous.  Think atomic weapons and EM bursts....  I'll stop blabbing now so the "Standard" guys can laugh at me some more.  Just felt like typing and giving the "True Physics" people a chuckle.

It all makes for interesting reading.

By the way, the orbital part is simple as well.  Orbital speed, with no thrust applied, is exactly determined by inertia required to compensate gravitational force on the object.  Too little, orbit decays, too much and the object pulls away.  I hope that makes sense, as the math can get a little long, as was noted.  For any orbital distance, there is the "balance" speed, which will maintain that orbit, again, eliminating thrust from the equation.  (That's where heavier math comes in....) 

That's where geosync height comes in, or geosync speed, as they are the same when talking a stable orbit.  I.E. if IN a stable orbit, at Geosync height, you will find that you are at geosync speed.  If IN a stable orbit, at geosync speed, you will find that you are at geosync height.  OK, now I'm sounding like a third grader trying to impress my classmates, so I'll remove foot from mouth and shut up.

Loner

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 828
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
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....

Free Energy

  • Reply with quoteQuote

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
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

Loner

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 828
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
I'll be the first to admit that my learning curve is still pretty steep, myself.

I'm still coming to terms with the "Wave Theory of Matter", which is so much better that anything else I have come across, that I try to spend as much free thinking time (relative, of course...) as possible on that subject.  It seems that very few "Mainstream" people will even discuss it, even though unification is much easier from that standpoint...

I actually try to limit my posts around here to experimental data, as I really don't like to commit to things unless I have seen them myself, or at least seen the paper put out by someone who did work I consider acceptable.  That my be an arrogant way of doing it, but I don't trust data from unknown sources.

The whole thing gets way deep for me.  I must be in the correct "Mood" in order to think clearly on such things, and that happens very infrequently these days, but maybe I can chime in as I am able, if I have something useful to add.

At this moment, being that it's 5:30 AM and I haven't slept yet today, I'm calling it a morning and catching a little sleep.  Large job to be done in a couple hours, so I afraid I can't think anymore for now.  It's a "Nerve-racking" job, so this was a "release" for me, and I thank-you for the break, but my break time has ended for a day or so.  I promise to try and catch back up when I next check my e-mail.  (All posts of threads I watch go there, like everyone else...)

By the way, the original thread topic....  What page/post is the actual "Circuit" on.  I haven't read from the beginning, and it's long enough that I may never get to doing that.  I'd be interested in what it actually does/is.  Replication of a basic 555 ckt is a 5 minute process on a breadboard, which I have a few, and I have plenty of experience with the older style.  I don't use the CMOS versions much, but could, if required.  Just curious, as I always am.

Free Energy

  • Reply with quoteQuote
Sponsored links:

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
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

Free Energy

  • Reply with quoteQuote

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1109
  • It's not as complicated as it may seem...
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
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
« Last Edit: October 13, 2010, 03:17:12 PM by poynt99 »

Free Energy

  • Reply with quoteQuote

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
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.

Free Energy

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
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.
Yes.  The object is to get the coil tuned to an optimum frequency where the coil and the supply seem to move into what we called a 'preferred oscillation mode'.  All it means is a self-regulated, self-induced resonance.  The 555 allowed us to explore that required frequency.  You will recall that I made frequent reference to the fact that the oscillation mode was not 'frequency' dependent.  In other words that preferred oscillation mode could be seen at a variety of frequencies and at a variety of duty cycles.  It seemed to happen when it happened.  What we need to do is to determine a relationship between it happening - the materials used to enable it to happen - the duty cycles and the frequencies - in order to establish some kind of pattern.  These things can only be established empirically - because at this stage there's no blue print.  And if we're to take full advantage of the skills and expertise afforded us by this institution then - it's best to get an oscillator that offers the widest range possible of frequency and duty cycle to get this.  If it pans out that the preferred mode of oscillation actually depends on the properties of the 555 or somesuch transistor - then we need to establish exactly what properties.  If it's exploitable then it also needs to be fully understood.  For this we need to make multiple comparative measurements.  I'm reasonably sure that the information will be boringly and tediously dry.  But it should all advance our understanding.   

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.
We know this.  But the fact is that the circuit designed and used by Glen seems to be unstable without a load.  Our concern here is that this is possibly why his numbers were never as good as our own.  We have copied that circuit twice.  It remains unstable.  Whatever we do we will need a better 555 circuit than that shown in the paper's schematics.  It appears to be inherently FAULTY.

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.
I've answered this - I think.

Poynty.  The thing is this.  I know your declared intention to 'debunk' as you've stated.  You've also advised me that it is your opinion that our results are based on measurement errors.  You have NEVER shown where or why - and yet you reserve your rights to this opinion in the face of measurements that are empically evident and have been extrapolated from machinery that heaven itself would give a badge of honour.  I am sixty two years old and frankly I'm sick to death of defending my corner.   It's hard enough as it is to dedicate one's free time to advancing these much needed technologies.  Really a thankless task.  But I've run out of patience in tolerating unreasonable objections and I'm simply not going to tolerate any such here.  So.  Please feel free to comment and debunk on another thread - another forum - or both.  But not here.  This intention of yours hangs over my head like the sword of Damocles.  I've long given up expecting such qualities as friendship and loyalty from forum members.  That's a rare event.  But as you are neither a friend nor an objective impartial poster - then that's more than I can manage. 

Regards,
Rosemary

Free Energy

  • Reply with quoteQuote
Sponsored links:

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
By the way, the original thread topic....  What page/post is the actual "Circuit" on.  I haven't read from the beginning, and it's long enough that I may never get to doing that.  I'd be interested in what it actually does/is.  Replication of a basic 555 ckt is a 5 minute process on a breadboard, which I have a few, and I have plenty of experience with the older style.  I don't use the CMOS versions much, but could, if required.  Just curious, as I always am.

Sorry Loner.  I missed this question.  Here's a link to the paper which we're referring to.  What we're now doing is to get this technology onto a 'higher' output mode - hopefully retain the advantage of less input - and see if we can get something 'usable'.  Our needs in Africa more than justify the development of this on a 'smallish' hot water cylinder.  I see it, potentially, as being supplemented with solar panels - but the required number will be reduced.  The panel is still much more expensive than a battery.  And cost here is of an essence.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Edited.  LOL  Completely forgot to add the link. 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS
« Last Edit: October 13, 2010, 05:32:57 PM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Free Energy

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1109
  • It's not as complicated as it may seem...
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Poynty. 

Please feel free to comment and debunk on another thread - another forum - or both.  But not here.  This intention of yours hangs over my head like the sword of Damocles.

Regards,
Rosemary

I've offered only help towards achieving the elusive quasi-stable mode of operation. No such notions of "debunking" nor "intentions" here in my last several posts.  ???

But as you wish.

.99

Free Energy

Loner

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 828
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Very Interesting paper, and results are even more so.

I can't offer any opinion yet, as there is a "Lot" more going on than just simple switching.  IT might be valuable to check out the information on "Switching power supply instabilities" that is available, as these two concepts have certain effects in common.

I Must re-read and study this for a while to really wrap my head around it.  Good or bad, the data does show that "Something" is going on.....

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
    • View Profile
    • Personal Message (Online)
I've offered only help towards achieving the elusive quasi-stable mode of operation. No such notions of "debunking" nor "intentions" here in my last several posts.  ???

But as you wish.

.99

Poynty - on a personal note.  I never actually know if I'm talking to Poynty the Brat, Poynty the bigot, Poynty the soul of reason and tact, Poynty the gentleman,  There are so many of you.  Right now I'm feeling guilty - but I had the unhappy experience of seeing your declared intentions which was then followed by your input here.  My concerns may very well be unjustified.  I grant you that your comments were innocuous on the face of it.  But all that emphasis on the 'unstable' condition of the 555 made me start wondering if this was going to be your area of 'attack'.  If I'm super sensitive - then allow, at least, that I've had just cause to be so.  Of course you're free to comment and engage.  I'm very aware of how constructive your advice can be.  But then - you'll also need to retract that 'debunk' intention.  It hovers.  Right up front and personal.  And I can't seem to let it go.

Regards,
Rosemary

BTW - I draw a very real distinction between an analysis intended to disclose any incorrect assumptions - and a 'debunk'.  One debunks 'frauds' and 'tricksters'.  Mylow springs to mind.  So.  I find it a rather 'heavy' burden to feel that you need to 'debunk' when it would have been so much more appropriate to say - 'explore' or 'investigate' or even, 'find out the truth for myself in a replication'.  It's that unhappy association which immediately puts you in league with those insensitive horrors who monopolised my time for the better part of 6 months.  I've shared way too much time with them.  I need to share time and this thread with those who are not already predisposed to dismiss these results - however they pan out.

Free Energy

  • Reply with quoteQuote

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1109
  • It's not as complicated as it may seem...
    • View Profile
    • Email
    • Personal Message (Offline)
Quote from: poynt99
Having some real bench time is going to be a treat, as I quite enjoyed it when I was testing/debunking the RA circuit...

I agree, "verifying" would have been a better choice of word than "debunking". Consider it retracted, bye.

.99
 

Hi All,

please add on your site a link to OverUnity.com

and get back great targeted traffic..

Please click here to go to
Link-Submit-Page

Many thanks in advance.
Regards, Stefan. (admin)

Page created in 0.213 seconds with 28 queries.