Dear Reader,
Only 5 working days left and I have a mountain of chores. Right now I feel like a rabbit caught in the headlights.
I just need to make comment on Professor Lewin's Non-Conservative Fields. I am not sure that his lectures, related to this, are still available on youtube. If they are I'll ask my friend to upload the link. If they've been withdrawn it's because there was an error in the configuration of his circuit. Unless it was deliberately included - simply to highlight a potential. I don't know. In effect, he had two resistors in parallel on a closed loop. And he had two oscilloscope probes placed that they shared a common ground rail - one on either side of those resistors. Effectively the oscilloscopes were in antiphase to each other. Then he applied an induced voltage to that circuit. And the voltage readings across both resistors were - predictably - shown, the one as a negative and the other as a positive. Then he claimed that this was evidence of a breach in Kirchhoff's Laws. Clearly they were not. But. What he actually highlighted was this simple fact. If and when you get two currents in antiphase to each other on two separate rails of a single circuit - then you would, inevitably breach Kirchoff's assumption of conservation.
So. Again. When and if you have this configuration - if a single simple circuit has two distinct and opposing currents - then you are definitely in breach of that conservation number. But - as he also pointed out - one would not be in breach of Faraday's Laws. That, dear Reader, is what our circuit shows. We have something that clearly shows that Faraday's Laws hold - even when Kirchhoff's don't. Therefore are our results still allowable within Classical reference. And Kirchhoff's Laws - hopefully, will be relagated to a 'rule' rather than a Law. And Kirchhoff's argument conforms to a required co-efficient of performance that is limited to 1. Faraday never imposed any such restriction. His Law simply defines the Laws of Induction. And our experiment shows us that Faraday's Law exceeds Kirchhoff's rule.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Thursday, March 3, 2011
85 - This is another post for Poynty.
Dear Poynty,
There is a puzzle. The measurements and the waveform show absolutely NO energy being delivered by the battery when the gate voltage is positive. Something is blocking that current flow. As you've pointed out it's probably due to the offset. Remember that we have 6 x 12 volt batteries being applied during the 'on' time. That's a pretty hefty kick and there's a clean voltage waveform across the gate.
The thing is that when it then goes into 'burst oscillation mode' as you put it - then there is absolutely NO restriction to the flow of energy from the battery. That is also evident in the waveforms and in the voltages measured. But if the battery is then delivering current from an induced voltage it is also getting it back. Then again. Nota bene Pointy. If we disconnect the power for a period of 3 minutes - there is a dramatic drop in the heat measured at the element. But that 'oscillation burst', conversely, is sustaining that temperature and even increasing it. Nor does it decay. Not even by a fraction. The only time that there is clearly some distortion to that waveform is when we apply a switching frequency in the Megahertz range. Otherwsie it remains - as steady as a rock - evidently doing some useful work. And it is NOT NOISE. You can see it for yourself.
Also. It then appears to return more energy from the circuit than was applied. To my way of thinking that means that there is more potential difference induced in all those circuit components than was delivered as current flow from the battery source. For some reason - which I simply cannot understand - you require us to reduce the amount of wiring. Why? If this is all adding to that inductance? The wires used are only as long as is required to reach the circuit apparatus and its sundry components. And there is no question that there's inductance over the heat sinks and the resistor itself. (Still to be measured by the way. Hopefully tomorrow.) There's potential for inductance all over the place. But nothing out of the ordinary has been added. It's not 'smoke and mirrors' as Humbugger claims.
Another point. The battery voltage is CERTAINLY showing those changing values. Not as quick as the scope shows us - but the DMM used cannot operate at the same frequencies. But it moves up and down - just as one sees when one's recharging a battery through a standard recharger. And at some settings that variation can be extreme. And the DMM IS precisely at the positive and negative of the supply.
So. Here's my question. If the circuit requires a certain level of inductance in the element - or even a certain size heat sink at the transistor - or even long wires, which in any event is an inevitable requirement on any application - and if all this is adding some critical value to that 'negative' potential - then how does eliminating them disprove their value? Unlike usual applications - this particular example is intended to exploit that 'burst oscillation'. It clearly depends on induced voltages in circuit material. And hopefully, we'll find a way to test this with even longer periods between each switch. I think what's needed is some way of initiating the first trigger to get it to oscillate. And then just sit tight and let it do it's thing? It probably sounds preposterous. But the indications are that it will just keep on keeping on. We need to find out how long it can manage this.
Then. Regarding the measurements. You must appreciate by now, surely, that our measurements are about as precise as can be managed. Our DSO's are top of the range and - fully calibrated - they carry the manufacturers' ratings. So. When it shows a voltage reading - I think one can pretty well bank it. Otherwise one must give up on measurements altogether. I have no idea what's happening at the battery. I simply cannot tell you if it's discharging or recharging or even sustaining a charge. But I can certainly advise you and all classicists that - on the face of it - there's evidence of a very real potential - thus far overlooked. I've said this before. We just need to take an average AC supply - channel the positive to one application - the negative to another - and then send all that extra energy back to the plug and to the grid supply. Not that this is realistic. Just that this is the logical consequence of where this result is pointing.
In any event. This is CERTAINLY one of the 'effects' that we hope to demonstrate. I'd be much more encouraged to actually see the question answered after the required research. All we can do is show it experimentally. And I must add this. There is evidently some very real and exploitable energy in all that negative potential.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
There is a puzzle. The measurements and the waveform show absolutely NO energy being delivered by the battery when the gate voltage is positive. Something is blocking that current flow. As you've pointed out it's probably due to the offset. Remember that we have 6 x 12 volt batteries being applied during the 'on' time. That's a pretty hefty kick and there's a clean voltage waveform across the gate.
The thing is that when it then goes into 'burst oscillation mode' as you put it - then there is absolutely NO restriction to the flow of energy from the battery. That is also evident in the waveforms and in the voltages measured. But if the battery is then delivering current from an induced voltage it is also getting it back. Then again. Nota bene Pointy. If we disconnect the power for a period of 3 minutes - there is a dramatic drop in the heat measured at the element. But that 'oscillation burst', conversely, is sustaining that temperature and even increasing it. Nor does it decay. Not even by a fraction. The only time that there is clearly some distortion to that waveform is when we apply a switching frequency in the Megahertz range. Otherwsie it remains - as steady as a rock - evidently doing some useful work. And it is NOT NOISE. You can see it for yourself.
Also. It then appears to return more energy from the circuit than was applied. To my way of thinking that means that there is more potential difference induced in all those circuit components than was delivered as current flow from the battery source. For some reason - which I simply cannot understand - you require us to reduce the amount of wiring. Why? If this is all adding to that inductance? The wires used are only as long as is required to reach the circuit apparatus and its sundry components. And there is no question that there's inductance over the heat sinks and the resistor itself. (Still to be measured by the way. Hopefully tomorrow.) There's potential for inductance all over the place. But nothing out of the ordinary has been added. It's not 'smoke and mirrors' as Humbugger claims.
Another point. The battery voltage is CERTAINLY showing those changing values. Not as quick as the scope shows us - but the DMM used cannot operate at the same frequencies. But it moves up and down - just as one sees when one's recharging a battery through a standard recharger. And at some settings that variation can be extreme. And the DMM IS precisely at the positive and negative of the supply.
So. Here's my question. If the circuit requires a certain level of inductance in the element - or even a certain size heat sink at the transistor - or even long wires, which in any event is an inevitable requirement on any application - and if all this is adding some critical value to that 'negative' potential - then how does eliminating them disprove their value? Unlike usual applications - this particular example is intended to exploit that 'burst oscillation'. It clearly depends on induced voltages in circuit material. And hopefully, we'll find a way to test this with even longer periods between each switch. I think what's needed is some way of initiating the first trigger to get it to oscillate. And then just sit tight and let it do it's thing? It probably sounds preposterous. But the indications are that it will just keep on keeping on. We need to find out how long it can manage this.
Then. Regarding the measurements. You must appreciate by now, surely, that our measurements are about as precise as can be managed. Our DSO's are top of the range and - fully calibrated - they carry the manufacturers' ratings. So. When it shows a voltage reading - I think one can pretty well bank it. Otherwise one must give up on measurements altogether. I have no idea what's happening at the battery. I simply cannot tell you if it's discharging or recharging or even sustaining a charge. But I can certainly advise you and all classicists that - on the face of it - there's evidence of a very real potential - thus far overlooked. I've said this before. We just need to take an average AC supply - channel the positive to one application - the negative to another - and then send all that extra energy back to the plug and to the grid supply. Not that this is realistic. Just that this is the logical consequence of where this result is pointing.
In any event. This is CERTAINLY one of the 'effects' that we hope to demonstrate. I'd be much more encouraged to actually see the question answered after the required research. All we can do is show it experimentally. And I must add this. There is evidently some very real and exploitable energy in all that negative potential.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
84 - 10 days to go - and yet more surprises
Dear Reader,
I have made a gross error on our previous calculations. It seems that we can sustain that resonance for a period of nearly three minutes which is the the limit that the function's generator can give us for an 'off' time. I've heard that current flow can be perpetuated if it runs in really cold conditions. This does not require cold. But nor do I yet know when, if ever, that resonance will decay. It show very little signs of doing so.
What is intriguing is that the heat from the resistor does not decay during that long 'off' time. If one disconnects the supply then the heat drops dramatically. So it's not the result of any unique properties to the element that it sustains this heat. It can only be due to that resonance. In other words - it's doing work. Also intriguing is that the steadiest heat and voltage levels are still at the faster frequencies - notwithstanding. I'm not sure yet why.
In any event. There's something going on that not even I predicted. I could still buy into the zero loss of energy from the supply. That's in line with the thesis. But I never predicted a condition that these oscillations could be perpetuated over such an extended period. This is good news indeed. But will probably just add to the controversy.
And for Poynty et al. There is no question that - on this new setting - there is absolutely NO energy being passed from the battery to the source rail during the 'on' period of the duty cycle. I am reasonably satisfied that it's due to the resistance offered at the FET and to that variation that we have on this circuit. Just remember that all such self-resonance has been factored out of circuitry as being unwanted. Not required. Here we have a condition where the full value of that resonance is being entirely enabled. Clearly it's deserving of some interest.
I'll try and post a screen shot.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
PS Pointy - please check your emails
I have made a gross error on our previous calculations. It seems that we can sustain that resonance for a period of nearly three minutes which is the the limit that the function's generator can give us for an 'off' time. I've heard that current flow can be perpetuated if it runs in really cold conditions. This does not require cold. But nor do I yet know when, if ever, that resonance will decay. It show very little signs of doing so.
What is intriguing is that the heat from the resistor does not decay during that long 'off' time. If one disconnects the supply then the heat drops dramatically. So it's not the result of any unique properties to the element that it sustains this heat. It can only be due to that resonance. In other words - it's doing work. Also intriguing is that the steadiest heat and voltage levels are still at the faster frequencies - notwithstanding. I'm not sure yet why.
In any event. There's something going on that not even I predicted. I could still buy into the zero loss of energy from the supply. That's in line with the thesis. But I never predicted a condition that these oscillations could be perpetuated over such an extended period. This is good news indeed. But will probably just add to the controversy.
And for Poynty et al. There is no question that - on this new setting - there is absolutely NO energy being passed from the battery to the source rail during the 'on' period of the duty cycle. I am reasonably satisfied that it's due to the resistance offered at the FET and to that variation that we have on this circuit. Just remember that all such self-resonance has been factored out of circuitry as being unwanted. Not required. Here we have a condition where the full value of that resonance is being entirely enabled. Clearly it's deserving of some interest.
I'll try and post a screen shot.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
PS Pointy - please check your emails
83 - 11 days - still counting
Dear Reader,
I spoke to all the recipients of those invitations. Surprisingly amenable to the idea of a demonstration - all round. Some expressed concerns related to the expense of flying down for such a brief visit. I countered that the results may be that significant to warrant this. The more so as it points to some possible solutions to our energy crisis. Not sure if my argument carried weight. I've offered everyone an option of coming to view the test after that official demo, if required, and if they are unable to come down on the 12th for whatever reason. The invite only stressed the need for this phenomenon - or effect - to be thoroughly evaluated. I also stressed, where needed, that there are NO patent restrictions.
Now we need to concentrate on preparing that report and preparing what needs showing at that demo. It is a fact that this resonance is elusive. There are a couple of settings where it shows itself readily. There are others where it will come and then it just disappears again. And nothing we do seems to coax it back. It seems to find its own good time and we're yet to establish what's needed to hold it. This is especially true of those higher wattages where the 'on' time kicks in and then pumps so much energy so quickly - that I panic about the voltage tolerances of the DSO's and turn it off - quick. I have captured a few of these shots. The previous refers. There is only once that I've managed to bring that voltage back down to an acceptable level. Then the resistor just cooked - and the battery voltage just climbed. But it climbed from an earlier dramatic one volt drop.
I am entirely satisfied that our conventional use of DC, or indeed any current, has been grossly inefficient. The only reference I find in Wiki - relates to the 'problems' associated with unwanted 'heat' or corruptions to sundry signals - that result from 'self inductance' as its termed. My own argument is based on the idea that we're dealing with two entirely different sources of voltage and current - and that these are neither able to settle nor fully discharge. That's what generates that resonance. And that resonating condition holds the supply charge at that required high level. I am not sure that it actually adds to it. But. Where it can be induced to 'spike' - which is also a result of the frequency setting - then it most certainly adds to the net charge of the initial supply. And that resonance - that current flow - certainly moves through the entire circuit - first in one direction - and then in the reverse direction. First clockwise then anti clockwise. And while this current moves through the battery in both directions - it does not result in any depreciation of charge from that supply.
Also. Just as an aside. It seems that this resonance - at the slowest frequency setting on the Functions Generator - can induce a resonance that lasts for up to 3 minutes. I would like to know what would happen if one could extend the time between the on and off even more. I personally think we're looking at something that - dare I say it - smacks of perpetual motion. And it's not noise - guys. It sustains those really high voltages. And the evidence is that the temperature at the load just keeps climbing. Slowly - but in excess of 40 degrees centigrade over ambient in the half hour that this ran. Nor is the energy coming from the functions generator.
It's all very intriguing.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
PS I CHANGED 3 SECONDS TO 3 MINUTES. Apologies for that first error.
I spoke to all the recipients of those invitations. Surprisingly amenable to the idea of a demonstration - all round. Some expressed concerns related to the expense of flying down for such a brief visit. I countered that the results may be that significant to warrant this. The more so as it points to some possible solutions to our energy crisis. Not sure if my argument carried weight. I've offered everyone an option of coming to view the test after that official demo, if required, and if they are unable to come down on the 12th for whatever reason. The invite only stressed the need for this phenomenon - or effect - to be thoroughly evaluated. I also stressed, where needed, that there are NO patent restrictions.
Now we need to concentrate on preparing that report and preparing what needs showing at that demo. It is a fact that this resonance is elusive. There are a couple of settings where it shows itself readily. There are others where it will come and then it just disappears again. And nothing we do seems to coax it back. It seems to find its own good time and we're yet to establish what's needed to hold it. This is especially true of those higher wattages where the 'on' time kicks in and then pumps so much energy so quickly - that I panic about the voltage tolerances of the DSO's and turn it off - quick. I have captured a few of these shots. The previous refers. There is only once that I've managed to bring that voltage back down to an acceptable level. Then the resistor just cooked - and the battery voltage just climbed. But it climbed from an earlier dramatic one volt drop.
I am entirely satisfied that our conventional use of DC, or indeed any current, has been grossly inefficient. The only reference I find in Wiki - relates to the 'problems' associated with unwanted 'heat' or corruptions to sundry signals - that result from 'self inductance' as its termed. My own argument is based on the idea that we're dealing with two entirely different sources of voltage and current - and that these are neither able to settle nor fully discharge. That's what generates that resonance. And that resonating condition holds the supply charge at that required high level. I am not sure that it actually adds to it. But. Where it can be induced to 'spike' - which is also a result of the frequency setting - then it most certainly adds to the net charge of the initial supply. And that resonance - that current flow - certainly moves through the entire circuit - first in one direction - and then in the reverse direction. First clockwise then anti clockwise. And while this current moves through the battery in both directions - it does not result in any depreciation of charge from that supply.
Also. Just as an aside. It seems that this resonance - at the slowest frequency setting on the Functions Generator - can induce a resonance that lasts for up to 3 minutes. I would like to know what would happen if one could extend the time between the on and off even more. I personally think we're looking at something that - dare I say it - smacks of perpetual motion. And it's not noise - guys. It sustains those really high voltages. And the evidence is that the temperature at the load just keeps climbing. Slowly - but in excess of 40 degrees centigrade over ambient in the half hour that this ran. Nor is the energy coming from the functions generator.
It's all very intriguing.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
PS I CHANGED 3 SECONDS TO 3 MINUTES. Apologies for that first error.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
82 - 12 days to 'd' day and counting
Dear Reader,
I've been finding more and more and more about this circuit. I've done some searches through Wiki and am reasonably sure that these 'effects' have not been seen or certainly not fully reported - so am confident that the demo will be 'unfolding' some new and, hopefully, interesting facts - admittedly about old, and well known phenomena.
But the full implications of a resonating circuit have not - I think - been fully explored. Aside from this and from the anomalous resulting energy efficiencies - will be a some attempt to give a 'standard' or classical explanation. I'm on the hop. But, as it's said - 'nothing concentrates the mind like a hanging at dawn'.
We're 12 days away from that demonstration. And still so much to do. I'll try and keep a daily update - notwithstanding. Today our invitations go out and I'll precede that with a phone call to the recipients - if possible.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
Just out of interest - that quote. I thought was by that beloved rogue, Sir John Falstaff from Shakespeare's Henry 1V. For some reason Wiki attributes this to Samuel Johnson. Then it's referred to as 'nothing focuses the mind...'. I think it may be erroneous. And I don't have a copy of the play so can't confirm things one way or another. In any event. It may have been incorrectly paraphrased. Either way - it PRECISELY describes how I feel. Something between a convicted criminal and a sacrifical lamb. The hope is that the conviction will be upturned and that there will be no need for that sacrifice.
I've been finding more and more and more about this circuit. I've done some searches through Wiki and am reasonably sure that these 'effects' have not been seen or certainly not fully reported - so am confident that the demo will be 'unfolding' some new and, hopefully, interesting facts - admittedly about old, and well known phenomena.
But the full implications of a resonating circuit have not - I think - been fully explored. Aside from this and from the anomalous resulting energy efficiencies - will be a some attempt to give a 'standard' or classical explanation. I'm on the hop. But, as it's said - 'nothing concentrates the mind like a hanging at dawn'.
We're 12 days away from that demonstration. And still so much to do. I'll try and keep a daily update - notwithstanding. Today our invitations go out and I'll precede that with a phone call to the recipients - if possible.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
Just out of interest - that quote. I thought was by that beloved rogue, Sir John Falstaff from Shakespeare's Henry 1V. For some reason Wiki attributes this to Samuel Johnson. Then it's referred to as 'nothing focuses the mind...'. I think it may be erroneous. And I don't have a copy of the play so can't confirm things one way or another. In any event. It may have been incorrectly paraphrased. Either way - it PRECISELY describes how I feel. Something between a convicted criminal and a sacrifical lamb. The hope is that the conviction will be upturned and that there will be no need for that sacrifice.
Monday, February 28, 2011
81 - here's that test sample example
Dear Reader,
Here's an example of that earlier reference where the math trace product and the mean averages differ so widely that the the one can be positive where the other is negative.
Note also, in this example, the level of that spike over the shunt. It's huge.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
BTW at this level we're dissipating in the region of 40 watts or thereby at the load. It is, nonetheless, not the waveform that will be disclosed at the demonstration. It will only be shown as one example of many more that need to be fully evaluated and fully researched. What we need, most urgently, is academic evaluation of all these anomalies - if such they are.
Here's an example of that earlier reference where the math trace product and the mean averages differ so widely that the the one can be positive where the other is negative.
Note also, in this example, the level of that spike over the shunt. It's huge.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
BTW at this level we're dissipating in the region of 40 watts or thereby at the load. It is, nonetheless, not the waveform that will be disclosed at the demonstration. It will only be shown as one example of many more that need to be fully evaluated and fully researched. What we need, most urgently, is academic evaluation of all these anomalies - if such they are.
80 - the offset to the mosfet
Dear Reader
Another point for our Poynty. You ask if we change the offset. Yes - is the short answer. That's needed to explore the variations in the resonance. Each change will give a new result.
On a personal and entirely irrelevant matter - I suffer from insomnia. And I cannot tell you how often those sleepless nights have been filled by trawling through the internet to find supporting evidence of our own rather exotic 'over unity' claims. Then - like a tongue to a sore tooth - I read of the counter claims. Those tedious arguments against the evidence - argued from the use of protocols that are hard to understand - couched as they are with jargon and acronyms that are presented as scientific. And - precisely because they are not explicit - they are also so much less than what is required. It may yet surprise the Ions and the Humbuggers of this world that their own descriptions of circuit peformance is sub-standard. Loose jargon is NOT scientific. It's what it is. Jargon. To his credit MileHigh does not indulge in this. He's explicit. Tedious - but explicit. Always a pleasure to read your posts MileHigh. Not their substance. Just their clarity.
But - be that as it may. I had long come to the conclusion that there was some kind of agenda to Poynty's forum. And that agenda was to deny the evidence - come what may. It is therefore - with considerable pleasure that I read that Poynty not only defined his protocols but that he came up with a number that exceeds what was previously denied. It may be a fleeting moment. It may be denied or even yet proved wrong. But right now I actually don't even care. I'm over the moon to see that he is that intellectually honest that he openly acknowledges this new result.
So. For me this is momentous news.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Another point for our Poynty. You ask if we change the offset. Yes - is the short answer. That's needed to explore the variations in the resonance. Each change will give a new result.
On a personal and entirely irrelevant matter - I suffer from insomnia. And I cannot tell you how often those sleepless nights have been filled by trawling through the internet to find supporting evidence of our own rather exotic 'over unity' claims. Then - like a tongue to a sore tooth - I read of the counter claims. Those tedious arguments against the evidence - argued from the use of protocols that are hard to understand - couched as they are with jargon and acronyms that are presented as scientific. And - precisely because they are not explicit - they are also so much less than what is required. It may yet surprise the Ions and the Humbuggers of this world that their own descriptions of circuit peformance is sub-standard. Loose jargon is NOT scientific. It's what it is. Jargon. To his credit MileHigh does not indulge in this. He's explicit. Tedious - but explicit. Always a pleasure to read your posts MileHigh. Not their substance. Just their clarity.
But - be that as it may. I had long come to the conclusion that there was some kind of agenda to Poynty's forum. And that agenda was to deny the evidence - come what may. It is therefore - with considerable pleasure that I read that Poynty not only defined his protocols but that he came up with a number that exceeds what was previously denied. It may be a fleeting moment. It may be denied or even yet proved wrong. But right now I actually don't even care. I'm over the moon to see that he is that intellectually honest that he openly acknowledges this new result.
So. For me this is momentous news.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
79 - CONGRATULATIONS POYNTY POINT
Dear Reader,
AT LAST it seems that Poynty is exploring some values on the LT Joule Thief circuit variant - that ACTUALLY challenge those classical restraints required for the transfer of electromagnetic energy. I'll ask my friend to post a link for me later on today.
The tribute is to the intellectual honesty required in applying classical measurement protocols and then reporting on that result - that elusive efficiency number that is doing all that it really should NOT do. It is an enormous comfort to see that he is looking into this with the required rigour.
I confess that I had come to the opinion that any result would be deliberately skewed to deny the evidence. I am DELIGHTED to be proved wrong. He and Professor are breaking new ground here and, in the process, are making history.
Now dare I ask? What price Kirchhoff's rules now? I think that Mr Faraday will yet win this argument. It also seems that this value results from precisely the same protocols that we apply to our own tests.
You're opening doors here Poynty. What a pleasure.
The very kindest and the very best of my regards to you
Rosemary
AT LAST it seems that Poynty is exploring some values on the LT Joule Thief circuit variant - that ACTUALLY challenge those classical restraints required for the transfer of electromagnetic energy. I'll ask my friend to post a link for me later on today.
The tribute is to the intellectual honesty required in applying classical measurement protocols and then reporting on that result - that elusive efficiency number that is doing all that it really should NOT do. It is an enormous comfort to see that he is looking into this with the required rigour.
I confess that I had come to the opinion that any result would be deliberately skewed to deny the evidence. I am DELIGHTED to be proved wrong. He and Professor are breaking new ground here and, in the process, are making history.
Now dare I ask? What price Kirchhoff's rules now? I think that Mr Faraday will yet win this argument. It also seems that this value results from precisely the same protocols that we apply to our own tests.
You're opening doors here Poynty. What a pleasure.
The very kindest and the very best of my regards to you
Rosemary
Sunday, February 27, 2011
78 - what spurious oscillations?
Dear Reader,
If the correct method to compute wattage is in the instantaneous analysis of the shunt and the battery voltage then school classical has a big problem. I want to be very clear what I'm referring to here. I take the first one sample of the voltage across the shunt and then the first one sample of the voltage across the battery. Then I multiply those two values together and divide that product with the Ohm's value of the shunt. Then. I copy that equation to each of those 500 000 plus samples. Then I take the sum of those samples and divide it by that sample number. That's what I do, and that, I believe, is in line with what the math function does and what it shows in the math trace.
Then we have ALWAYS have a negative value - indicating that nothing is being discharged at the battery. Then too, the battery voltage first drops - dramatically - and then it consistently climbs back to a steady high voltage. So MileHigh. If this is the correct analysis then - again - school classical has a problem.
Regarding that 'short' positive spike at the drain. There is no question that this is not breaching the resistance at the MOSFET where, I presume, it would be blocked. It's the fact that it still generates those really high oscillations at all - after the discharge of this small spike - that is of interest. Surely? Because what is also self-evident is that the voltages at the battery and the voltages at the resistor - ramp up to a higher and higher value until the point that it 'levels out'. How does that energy influence the battery voltage? It clearly goes through the battery and through the load as it's also evident at the drain. And the voltage at the drain shows a waveform that is consistent with the battery voltage.
And again. The kicker. One can adjust the offset or the duty cycle - or both - and one can then get the clean 'on time' that you're all looking for. At which stage - depending on the level it's tuned to - one sees the voltage rise, correspondingly, across the shunt. I've shown this but will post this again - later today. Then here's what happens. The mean average and the cycle mean average MAY SOMETIMES default to a positive value. But the product shown by the math trace ALWAYS STAYS NEGATIVE. And this is born out in the close analysis of the instantaneous wattage that you all have determined is the CORRECT analysis. And it certainly does not result in any evident loss of charge to the battery supply source.
THEN. We have the negative oscillation persisting - during the off time. No matter what. There has been prior evidence of a negative triggering - evidenced by Aaron Murakami. If it is the result of stray capacitance then so what? I understand that stray capacitance is seen as a kind of residual charge. On my side, I see it as an induced voltage over circuit material. But stray or spurious oscillations are not expected to be that strong that they can be returned to both the supply source and then back to the load - repeatedly. And every return ADDS to the charge conservation from that supply - a little more with each osciallation.
That it has not been evident before is due to a variation of the circuit. What is enabled is that there is sufficient path made available to the circuit to ensure that the full benefit of the current induced by that negative spike is able to flow. I suspect that all prior circuit configurations blocked this courtesy some resistance in that Zener diode. Access the full range of it's value and it most certainly returns a net energy gain to the system.
This is what we intend showing. However. It is absolutely NOT the only way to 'skin this cat'. One can achieve precisely the same thing as has been shown on previous test replications. But the net return is then more modest. That negative spike invariably rang 'down' not up. COP >1 rather than COP infinity.
And for those who have read it - the explanation is only in line with known Inductive Laws. I keep saying this. What is evident is almost prosaic in it's essence. All that aether energy - and all it turns out to be is the full and proper use of the negative potentials in induced voltages. Which does not minimise this application. The implications are mind bending. It points to the possibility that there is far more potential locked in inductive/conductive material - than has, heretofore, been fully exploited. And that points to the 'thinking' that initiated this circuit design in the first place.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
If the correct method to compute wattage is in the instantaneous analysis of the shunt and the battery voltage then school classical has a big problem. I want to be very clear what I'm referring to here. I take the first one sample of the voltage across the shunt and then the first one sample of the voltage across the battery. Then I multiply those two values together and divide that product with the Ohm's value of the shunt. Then. I copy that equation to each of those 500 000 plus samples. Then I take the sum of those samples and divide it by that sample number. That's what I do, and that, I believe, is in line with what the math function does and what it shows in the math trace.
Then we have ALWAYS have a negative value - indicating that nothing is being discharged at the battery. Then too, the battery voltage first drops - dramatically - and then it consistently climbs back to a steady high voltage. So MileHigh. If this is the correct analysis then - again - school classical has a problem.
Regarding that 'short' positive spike at the drain. There is no question that this is not breaching the resistance at the MOSFET where, I presume, it would be blocked. It's the fact that it still generates those really high oscillations at all - after the discharge of this small spike - that is of interest. Surely? Because what is also self-evident is that the voltages at the battery and the voltages at the resistor - ramp up to a higher and higher value until the point that it 'levels out'. How does that energy influence the battery voltage? It clearly goes through the battery and through the load as it's also evident at the drain. And the voltage at the drain shows a waveform that is consistent with the battery voltage.
And again. The kicker. One can adjust the offset or the duty cycle - or both - and one can then get the clean 'on time' that you're all looking for. At which stage - depending on the level it's tuned to - one sees the voltage rise, correspondingly, across the shunt. I've shown this but will post this again - later today. Then here's what happens. The mean average and the cycle mean average MAY SOMETIMES default to a positive value. But the product shown by the math trace ALWAYS STAYS NEGATIVE. And this is born out in the close analysis of the instantaneous wattage that you all have determined is the CORRECT analysis. And it certainly does not result in any evident loss of charge to the battery supply source.
THEN. We have the negative oscillation persisting - during the off time. No matter what. There has been prior evidence of a negative triggering - evidenced by Aaron Murakami. If it is the result of stray capacitance then so what? I understand that stray capacitance is seen as a kind of residual charge. On my side, I see it as an induced voltage over circuit material. But stray or spurious oscillations are not expected to be that strong that they can be returned to both the supply source and then back to the load - repeatedly. And every return ADDS to the charge conservation from that supply - a little more with each osciallation.
That it has not been evident before is due to a variation of the circuit. What is enabled is that there is sufficient path made available to the circuit to ensure that the full benefit of the current induced by that negative spike is able to flow. I suspect that all prior circuit configurations blocked this courtesy some resistance in that Zener diode. Access the full range of it's value and it most certainly returns a net energy gain to the system.
This is what we intend showing. However. It is absolutely NOT the only way to 'skin this cat'. One can achieve precisely the same thing as has been shown on previous test replications. But the net return is then more modest. That negative spike invariably rang 'down' not up. COP >1 rather than COP infinity.
And for those who have read it - the explanation is only in line with known Inductive Laws. I keep saying this. What is evident is almost prosaic in it's essence. All that aether energy - and all it turns out to be is the full and proper use of the negative potentials in induced voltages. Which does not minimise this application. The implications are mind bending. It points to the possibility that there is far more potential locked in inductive/conductive material - than has, heretofore, been fully exploited. And that points to the 'thinking' that initiated this circuit design in the first place.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Saturday, February 26, 2011
77 - which value is right?
Dear Reader,
I have a problem which I'm hoping will be addressed. It's this. Energy measurement is based on the product of voltage and amperage over time. And energy is measured in Joules which, in turn, is based on wattage which, as mentioned, is vi*dt.
Now. We've been the happy recipient of the use of some really zut DSO's. The one gives us data dumps in the half million and the other in the million sample range. Hugely detailed. Each sample range under observation is really thoroughly accounted. And the dumps are right out of the moment that the sample was captured. How the different DSO's measure their mean averages, or anything else, depends on that initial sample capture. It's that dump that represents an actual record. And we can access that record of samples - right out of the DSO.
Typically on the multiple channels that these instruments provide - it's possible to measure the different points on each circuit. So it is that the battery voltage and the shunt voltage are shown simultaneously. Therefore is it possible to measure them both - to estabish vi - in real time. As they occurred. So. One can take a record of that sample range and then transpose it to the spreadsheet for analysis and do a moment by moment computation of those measurements. For example, one can take the voltage across the shunt, divide it by the resistive value of the shunt and get the instantaneous current measurement. Then one can multiply that current by the measured voltage and that will give the actual measure of that instantaneous sample as it happens, so to speak. And one can do that sum for each of those 500 000, or 1 million samples - as required.
Alternatively, one can take the sum of all those voltages over that entire sample range and divide it by the number of samples to get a mean average of the current flow and a mean average of the applied source voltage and one will then get the average of the amount of energy applied over that time period related to the sample range.
Here's the kicker. The sum of the instantaneous wattage computed against each sample is never the same as the mean average. Those numbers never relate to each other.
I do have an answer - but I'm not sure if it's classical. Poynty, - if you're reading here - or anyone. I'd be glad of some kind of explanation. Which of those two systems is right? Certainly they're NEVER in agreement with each other.
Why this is relevant is because the math trace is the instantaneous product of both the shunt and the battery voltage. At higher wattage outputs the mean average of the shunt voltage defaults to positive but not that instantaneous product - not that math's trace. This remains negative. Interestingly - possibly because of the higher voltages, the battery voltage first dips by a half a volt or thereby and then steadily climbs back to its previous value.
It's puzzling.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
I have a problem which I'm hoping will be addressed. It's this. Energy measurement is based on the product of voltage and amperage over time. And energy is measured in Joules which, in turn, is based on wattage which, as mentioned, is vi*dt.
Now. We've been the happy recipient of the use of some really zut DSO's. The one gives us data dumps in the half million and the other in the million sample range. Hugely detailed. Each sample range under observation is really thoroughly accounted. And the dumps are right out of the moment that the sample was captured. How the different DSO's measure their mean averages, or anything else, depends on that initial sample capture. It's that dump that represents an actual record. And we can access that record of samples - right out of the DSO.
Typically on the multiple channels that these instruments provide - it's possible to measure the different points on each circuit. So it is that the battery voltage and the shunt voltage are shown simultaneously. Therefore is it possible to measure them both - to estabish vi - in real time. As they occurred. So. One can take a record of that sample range and then transpose it to the spreadsheet for analysis and do a moment by moment computation of those measurements. For example, one can take the voltage across the shunt, divide it by the resistive value of the shunt and get the instantaneous current measurement. Then one can multiply that current by the measured voltage and that will give the actual measure of that instantaneous sample as it happens, so to speak. And one can do that sum for each of those 500 000, or 1 million samples - as required.
Alternatively, one can take the sum of all those voltages over that entire sample range and divide it by the number of samples to get a mean average of the current flow and a mean average of the applied source voltage and one will then get the average of the amount of energy applied over that time period related to the sample range.
Here's the kicker. The sum of the instantaneous wattage computed against each sample is never the same as the mean average. Those numbers never relate to each other.
I do have an answer - but I'm not sure if it's classical. Poynty, - if you're reading here - or anyone. I'd be glad of some kind of explanation. Which of those two systems is right? Certainly they're NEVER in agreement with each other.
Why this is relevant is because the math trace is the instantaneous product of both the shunt and the battery voltage. At higher wattage outputs the mean average of the shunt voltage defaults to positive but not that instantaneous product - not that math's trace. This remains negative. Interestingly - possibly because of the higher voltages, the battery voltage first dips by a half a volt or thereby and then steadily climbs back to its previous value.
It's puzzling.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
76 - on negative triggering and its implications
Dear Reader,
This is a very generalised description of the negative triggering and it's results on the waveform that is proposed to be demonstrated.
It is established that current moves through conductive and inductive material. Above zero voltage induces a clockwise directional flow and below zero, conversely, induces an anti-clockwise flow. The direction of current flow then induces a voltage across circuit material that is established in counterphase to that applied voltage.
From a detailed analysis of the data taken from our two digital storage oscilloscopes it is evident that the amount of voltage applied to the element/resistor - from the battery and during that brief 'on' period - is consistent with the amount of wattage that is measured to be dissipated as heat at the resistor.
But it is also evident that the current resulting from that applied voltage did not flow to the negative terminal of the battery as there would be some corresponding evidence of an applied above zero voltage at the shunt resistor. It is proposed that because the gate signal immediately defaults to zero the passage of this current flow is interrupted that it cannot flow through the circuit path to reach the negative terminal of the supply. Again. The time during which the circuit is closed, to enable this flow, is brief. And the resistance from the circuit is sufficient to prevent a 'through flow' of that current.
The voltage applied to the resistor, albeit small, is now in antiphase to the source voltage. And it is consistent with the amount of voltage applied during that brief 'on' period enabled by the duty cycle. The voltage across the element then discharges that small negative voltage through the closed circuit path, through the battery, then through the Zener body diode of the MOSFET and back to the source of that negative voltage being the element/resistor. This results in a discharge of that voltage at the resistor. It is also consistent with a small negative voltage spike measured at the shunt.
But in moving through the circuit that anti-clockwise current flow has increased the battery voltage and it has simultaneously established an opposite positive voltage in the conductive/inductive properties of the circuit material. This postive voltage now has no restriction to enable a current flow path from the circuit as the signal at the gate is now negative. And negative charge signal at the gate of the MOSFET will not repel a postive charge. The source battery voltage is now marginally higher as a result of that brief anti-clockwise current flow. And it is then able to discharge a marginally greater current flow. This combines with the discharge of positive voltage from the circuit material all of it moving as current flow in a clockwise direction. And this, in turn, establishes a marginally greater current flow and a marginally greater negative voltage is again establshed on the circuit components. This then discharges that voltage as current flow in an anti-clockwise. This then again increases the level of voltage in the battery. And so it goes, ramping up to higher and higher voltages in a resonating condition. Until the level of voltage in that resonating condition exactly equals the limit to the amount of voltage induced in those circuit components. At that point it reaches the limit in the level of it's resonance. Then the switch defaults to present an brief closed condition to the supply. And so the cycle is repeated.
In effect, the osciallations that result from the negative triggering are the result of - and limited to - the sum of the voltages induced from the circuit material and not from the source. In the discharge of that voltage there is a resulting conservation of charge at the initial supply source.
What may be proved by this is that potential difference can be transferred to passive circuit components that they, in turn, can become an energy supply source. Certainly the fact that the battery voltage is in antiphase to the voltage measured across the shunt - is indicative of this. As the only way that this antiphase voltage condition across the shunt and the supply, can otherwise be generated is with the application of an alternative energy supply source to the circuit.
There are subtleties in that resonating condition that need fuller explanation. But I think it is outside the scope of this explanation. There are also certain questions that relate to closed circuit conditions that are not here fully explored. These will be partially covered in that report that will result from that demonstration.
Hope that helped.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
This is a very generalised description of the negative triggering and it's results on the waveform that is proposed to be demonstrated.
It is established that current moves through conductive and inductive material. Above zero voltage induces a clockwise directional flow and below zero, conversely, induces an anti-clockwise flow. The direction of current flow then induces a voltage across circuit material that is established in counterphase to that applied voltage.
From a detailed analysis of the data taken from our two digital storage oscilloscopes it is evident that the amount of voltage applied to the element/resistor - from the battery and during that brief 'on' period - is consistent with the amount of wattage that is measured to be dissipated as heat at the resistor.
But it is also evident that the current resulting from that applied voltage did not flow to the negative terminal of the battery as there would be some corresponding evidence of an applied above zero voltage at the shunt resistor. It is proposed that because the gate signal immediately defaults to zero the passage of this current flow is interrupted that it cannot flow through the circuit path to reach the negative terminal of the supply. Again. The time during which the circuit is closed, to enable this flow, is brief. And the resistance from the circuit is sufficient to prevent a 'through flow' of that current.
The voltage applied to the resistor, albeit small, is now in antiphase to the source voltage. And it is consistent with the amount of voltage applied during that brief 'on' period enabled by the duty cycle. The voltage across the element then discharges that small negative voltage through the closed circuit path, through the battery, then through the Zener body diode of the MOSFET and back to the source of that negative voltage being the element/resistor. This results in a discharge of that voltage at the resistor. It is also consistent with a small negative voltage spike measured at the shunt.
But in moving through the circuit that anti-clockwise current flow has increased the battery voltage and it has simultaneously established an opposite positive voltage in the conductive/inductive properties of the circuit material. This postive voltage now has no restriction to enable a current flow path from the circuit as the signal at the gate is now negative. And negative charge signal at the gate of the MOSFET will not repel a postive charge. The source battery voltage is now marginally higher as a result of that brief anti-clockwise current flow. And it is then able to discharge a marginally greater current flow. This combines with the discharge of positive voltage from the circuit material all of it moving as current flow in a clockwise direction. And this, in turn, establishes a marginally greater current flow and a marginally greater negative voltage is again establshed on the circuit components. This then discharges that voltage as current flow in an anti-clockwise. This then again increases the level of voltage in the battery. And so it goes, ramping up to higher and higher voltages in a resonating condition. Until the level of voltage in that resonating condition exactly equals the limit to the amount of voltage induced in those circuit components. At that point it reaches the limit in the level of it's resonance. Then the switch defaults to present an brief closed condition to the supply. And so the cycle is repeated.
In effect, the osciallations that result from the negative triggering are the result of - and limited to - the sum of the voltages induced from the circuit material and not from the source. In the discharge of that voltage there is a resulting conservation of charge at the initial supply source.
What may be proved by this is that potential difference can be transferred to passive circuit components that they, in turn, can become an energy supply source. Certainly the fact that the battery voltage is in antiphase to the voltage measured across the shunt - is indicative of this. As the only way that this antiphase voltage condition across the shunt and the supply, can otherwise be generated is with the application of an alternative energy supply source to the circuit.
There are subtleties in that resonating condition that need fuller explanation. But I think it is outside the scope of this explanation. There are also certain questions that relate to closed circuit conditions that are not here fully explored. These will be partially covered in that report that will result from that demonstration.
Hope that helped.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Friday, February 25, 2011
75 - more detail at the gate
Dear Reader,
Here's a shot of the gate with a small resistor (0.5 Ohm) in series. This to determine if there was perhaps some current moving from the circuit back through the Functions Generator. All looks as it should.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
PS - I should have clarified this point. Channel 3 the gate and Channel 4 the shunt in series with the gate - both waveforms are superimposed - one on the other. I show both.
Here's a shot of the gate with a small resistor (0.5 Ohm) in series. This to determine if there was perhaps some current moving from the circuit back through the Functions Generator. All looks as it should.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
PS - I should have clarified this point. Channel 3 the gate and Channel 4 the shunt in series with the gate - both waveforms are superimposed - one on the other. I show both.
74 - on accreditation
Dear Reader,
I need to disabuse you all of the impression that any of these results of ours are - in any way - accredited by any academic experts at all. All that is available to us is to have our measurements closely analysed by those experts as they unfold. If there is to be any kind of accreditation then it must be from a fairly wide group of academics. Else this accreditation will lack a required representative value.
Also. I need to disabuse you of the idea that these results are comfortably accepted. They are not. They are closely scrutinised and closely evaluated - as it should be. In fact, just about every aspect of this has been challenged and subjected to more and more detailed analysis. We use more than one DSO - and with all those data dumps - I have done very little but test the displayed results against the actual data for some months now. Bear in mind that we now do our dumps from samples ranging from 100 000 to 1 million - then that analysis has been close.
The difference is this. The challenge from those experts is on the results. It has nothing to do with the thesis. And it has even less to do with me as a person. That's the aspect of this that I have, personally, found to be very comforting. And refreshingly so. It seems that the forum invariably confuses the experiment with the experimenter and comments - rather liberally - on both. Fortunately, here, it is only the science that is under scrutiny.
Where tribute is required - and frankly, where I'm enduringly and eternally grateful, is that it's being analysed at all. It is a tribute to the science that it will NOT rest on assumption - but on experimental evidence. And on an entirely personal level - I've been guided into the significance of some of these measurements - as seen by school classical. You must remember that with my own 'concepts' these results were largely self-evident. I have been on a pretty steep learning curve. I also have Poynty and sundry - to thank for some of this. Very grateful guys. To all of you. But I'm deeply indebted to those academics who are looking into this. That's a debt of gratitude that I will never be able to repay. Hopefully we'll all be the beneficiaries.
But again. No-one has accredited anything at all. All that has happened, thus far, is that the measurements and their accuracies are being closely monitored and closely scrutinised. And all that is under consideration is whether there is, in fact, any anomaly at all. And thus far there is simply the need to look at more and more aspects of the experimental data. And as a reminder. I have NEVER claimed that this 'effect' is frequency dependent. There are many, many ways of skinning this cat. Frankly, I'm seeing new waveforms on a daily basis - all variations to the previous. There's a world of variety in this resonance. It's entirely engrossing.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
I need to disabuse you all of the impression that any of these results of ours are - in any way - accredited by any academic experts at all. All that is available to us is to have our measurements closely analysed by those experts as they unfold. If there is to be any kind of accreditation then it must be from a fairly wide group of academics. Else this accreditation will lack a required representative value.
Also. I need to disabuse you of the idea that these results are comfortably accepted. They are not. They are closely scrutinised and closely evaluated - as it should be. In fact, just about every aspect of this has been challenged and subjected to more and more detailed analysis. We use more than one DSO - and with all those data dumps - I have done very little but test the displayed results against the actual data for some months now. Bear in mind that we now do our dumps from samples ranging from 100 000 to 1 million - then that analysis has been close.
The difference is this. The challenge from those experts is on the results. It has nothing to do with the thesis. And it has even less to do with me as a person. That's the aspect of this that I have, personally, found to be very comforting. And refreshingly so. It seems that the forum invariably confuses the experiment with the experimenter and comments - rather liberally - on both. Fortunately, here, it is only the science that is under scrutiny.
Where tribute is required - and frankly, where I'm enduringly and eternally grateful, is that it's being analysed at all. It is a tribute to the science that it will NOT rest on assumption - but on experimental evidence. And on an entirely personal level - I've been guided into the significance of some of these measurements - as seen by school classical. You must remember that with my own 'concepts' these results were largely self-evident. I have been on a pretty steep learning curve. I also have Poynty and sundry - to thank for some of this. Very grateful guys. To all of you. But I'm deeply indebted to those academics who are looking into this. That's a debt of gratitude that I will never be able to repay. Hopefully we'll all be the beneficiaries.
But again. No-one has accredited anything at all. All that has happened, thus far, is that the measurements and their accuracies are being closely monitored and closely scrutinised. And all that is under consideration is whether there is, in fact, any anomaly at all. And thus far there is simply the need to look at more and more aspects of the experimental data. And as a reminder. I have NEVER claimed that this 'effect' is frequency dependent. There are many, many ways of skinning this cat. Frankly, I'm seeing new waveforms on a daily basis - all variations to the previous. There's a world of variety in this resonance. It's entirely engrossing.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
Thursday, February 24, 2011
73 - voltage taken at the drain
Dear Reader,
This is for Poynty who wanted to see the voltage at the drain. Hope it helps.
Kindest as ever,
Rosie
Channel 1 shunt
Channel 2 battery
Channel 3 Gate
Channel 4 Drain
This is for Poynty who wanted to see the voltage at the drain. Hope it helps.
Kindest as ever,
Rosie
Channel 1 shunt
Channel 2 battery
Channel 3 Gate
Channel 4 Drain
72 - yet more on those elusive electromagnetic properties
Dear Reader,
The only thing that I predicted - in terms of the thesis - was that current from the supply would induce a counter electromagnetic effect in a resistor. This could, theoretically, be routed back to the supply to recharge that supply. To my way of thinking this would result in some level of charge conservation at the supply. I am afflicted, as mentioned, with a rather literal turn of mind. Therefore, as I saw it, if current flow is at 90 degrees to the voltage - and if current from the supply induces a corresponding but opposite voltage in the inductive/resistive components of the circuit - then current flow is the electric moment of the electromagnetic interaction and voltage the magnetic moment. As I understood it, as there is a measurable voltage induced in that inductive/conductive resistor then allow that resistor voltage to 'equalise' by interrupting the current from the supply. And it, in turn, will induce an electric moment at 90 degrees - but in counterphase to the energy supplied from the source or initiating supply. And then? Obviously in as much as current is then returned to the supply then the supply would be recharged to the extent that it was first discharged.
What I did not realise is that mainstream were very well aware of this. But the difference was this. They NEVER returned that energy to its source. For some reason this was seen to be of no value - no net gain to the system. I sort of saw it as a recycled current. They didn't. To this day I battle with mainstream concepts and I know that I am barely beginning to understand it. But there are huge differences - obviously. The main one being that I also saw current and voltage as having material properties. In other words, to me, current comprised the same magnetic dipolar particles that voltage comprised. They were the same fields - but separated from ech other by a critical spatial distance. Circuit conditions allowing, then current simply moved to establish a charge balance that first initiated that measurable voltage imbalance.
So. In my book current is the movement of imbalanced fields of magnetic dipoles that are first measured as voltage. But when that current induces other opposite voltages in sundry circuit material - then that material also needs to move to a 'balance' and it, in turn, will discharge current to resolve that imbalance. Therefore that circuit material - that circuit component - is as capable of being an energy supply source as is the energy from the initial supply both being evidently capable of inducing the electromagnetic interaction.
And I know that it's round about now that I've lost the most of my readers. The point is critical but subtle. Voltage is always a measure of potential difference. And current is the means whereby potential difference is discharged. Voltage is localised to sundry components. Current flow is not localised but requires a current path. Both fields are structured from one dimensional fields. These discrete and orbiting fields were previously binding sundry atomic material into solid or liquid three dimensional amalgams. If the valence condition of that amalgam is sufficiently imbalanced and extreme, such as is found in the electrolytic condition of batteries - then these fields split apart. They literally become spatially separate. This partially resolves that experienced imbalance. But it is at the expense of the bound condition of that amalgam. The other half - the remaining fields that have not structured themselves into magnetic fields - are no longer able to bind those atoms. This induces a cascading condition of disorder where those remaining magnetic dipoles - the other half of all those discrete binding fields, then come out of 'orbit' - out of their balanced condition. Their thermal properties are then locally evident and measurable.
However, if there are circuit paths to enable the discharging voltage/current to be returned to that localised voltage imbalance - then that imbalanced 'hot' condition can resolve itself back to it's cooler bound condition at the expense of voltage imbalance. The magnetic dipoles, moving as current, can then resolve themselves by losing that imbalanced 'field condition' to split back into discrete parcels of one dimensional strings that re-establish their orbital interaction with the atoms - specifically, with the atomic energy levels. In effect voltage is the measure of imbalance. As a field it can move as current flow. If it can do this it can then recombine a more balanced bound condition with the atoms. Magnetic fields always move to promote a condition of balance.
I keep saying all this. I just wish it could be understood. I keep hoping I'll stumble on the right way of explaining it.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Added. Perhaps this image will explain it better. Imagine that voltage is a continual line of magnetic dipoles that arrange themselves in a series of concentric rings around a specific component. Then imagine that this spring is released into a long line that moves through the circuit to effectively reach back to itself. That spring is the voltage. That dispersion through the circuit is current flow. But that spring is actually only the sum of one half of another field that is not able to 'orbit' or structure itself as a 'field'. The material in that spring and their other halves need to 'join up'. If they can do this then they can again split into discrete little orbits - join up with those separated isolated packets that are hot and bothered without their other half. When they join up they can then go about their work of binding atoms together. Then they again become balanced orbits and then they're again invisible and cold - both.
The only thing that I predicted - in terms of the thesis - was that current from the supply would induce a counter electromagnetic effect in a resistor. This could, theoretically, be routed back to the supply to recharge that supply. To my way of thinking this would result in some level of charge conservation at the supply. I am afflicted, as mentioned, with a rather literal turn of mind. Therefore, as I saw it, if current flow is at 90 degrees to the voltage - and if current from the supply induces a corresponding but opposite voltage in the inductive/resistive components of the circuit - then current flow is the electric moment of the electromagnetic interaction and voltage the magnetic moment. As I understood it, as there is a measurable voltage induced in that inductive/conductive resistor then allow that resistor voltage to 'equalise' by interrupting the current from the supply. And it, in turn, will induce an electric moment at 90 degrees - but in counterphase to the energy supplied from the source or initiating supply. And then? Obviously in as much as current is then returned to the supply then the supply would be recharged to the extent that it was first discharged.
What I did not realise is that mainstream were very well aware of this. But the difference was this. They NEVER returned that energy to its source. For some reason this was seen to be of no value - no net gain to the system. I sort of saw it as a recycled current. They didn't. To this day I battle with mainstream concepts and I know that I am barely beginning to understand it. But there are huge differences - obviously. The main one being that I also saw current and voltage as having material properties. In other words, to me, current comprised the same magnetic dipolar particles that voltage comprised. They were the same fields - but separated from ech other by a critical spatial distance. Circuit conditions allowing, then current simply moved to establish a charge balance that first initiated that measurable voltage imbalance.
So. In my book current is the movement of imbalanced fields of magnetic dipoles that are first measured as voltage. But when that current induces other opposite voltages in sundry circuit material - then that material also needs to move to a 'balance' and it, in turn, will discharge current to resolve that imbalance. Therefore that circuit material - that circuit component - is as capable of being an energy supply source as is the energy from the initial supply both being evidently capable of inducing the electromagnetic interaction.
And I know that it's round about now that I've lost the most of my readers. The point is critical but subtle. Voltage is always a measure of potential difference. And current is the means whereby potential difference is discharged. Voltage is localised to sundry components. Current flow is not localised but requires a current path. Both fields are structured from one dimensional fields. These discrete and orbiting fields were previously binding sundry atomic material into solid or liquid three dimensional amalgams. If the valence condition of that amalgam is sufficiently imbalanced and extreme, such as is found in the electrolytic condition of batteries - then these fields split apart. They literally become spatially separate. This partially resolves that experienced imbalance. But it is at the expense of the bound condition of that amalgam. The other half - the remaining fields that have not structured themselves into magnetic fields - are no longer able to bind those atoms. This induces a cascading condition of disorder where those remaining magnetic dipoles - the other half of all those discrete binding fields, then come out of 'orbit' - out of their balanced condition. Their thermal properties are then locally evident and measurable.
However, if there are circuit paths to enable the discharging voltage/current to be returned to that localised voltage imbalance - then that imbalanced 'hot' condition can resolve itself back to it's cooler bound condition at the expense of voltage imbalance. The magnetic dipoles, moving as current, can then resolve themselves by losing that imbalanced 'field condition' to split back into discrete parcels of one dimensional strings that re-establish their orbital interaction with the atoms - specifically, with the atomic energy levels. In effect voltage is the measure of imbalance. As a field it can move as current flow. If it can do this it can then recombine a more balanced bound condition with the atoms. Magnetic fields always move to promote a condition of balance.
I keep saying all this. I just wish it could be understood. I keep hoping I'll stumble on the right way of explaining it.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Added. Perhaps this image will explain it better. Imagine that voltage is a continual line of magnetic dipoles that arrange themselves in a series of concentric rings around a specific component. Then imagine that this spring is released into a long line that moves through the circuit to effectively reach back to itself. That spring is the voltage. That dispersion through the circuit is current flow. But that spring is actually only the sum of one half of another field that is not able to 'orbit' or structure itself as a 'field'. The material in that spring and their other halves need to 'join up'. If they can do this then they can again split into discrete little orbits - join up with those separated isolated packets that are hot and bothered without their other half. When they join up they can then go about their work of binding atoms together. Then they again become balanced orbits and then they're again invisible and cold - both.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)