PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-11-27, 22:38:27
News: A feature is available which provides a place all members can chat, either publicly or privately.
There is also a "Shout" feature on each page. Only available to members.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... 29
Author Topic: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit  (Read 477197 times)
Group: Guest
Hello MileHigh

Thanks for the good wishes.  Sorry to hear you've been laid low, especially over the holiday season.  Hope all gets well. 

How have you managed to be evicted - yet again?  I tried to reach you on 'shout' but you're obviously not on the forum at the moment.  I've written to Stephan to see if I can get some answer from him but I think he may be away?  I think it's a serious mistake for people to try and keep forums altogether without their critics.  But I don't know the context of your latest.  LOL.  Between you and Poynty you're notching up a record of some sort here.  But I guess I shouldn't make too light of this.  My object here would be to try and get you re-instated.  Can't think what's going on?  Ou was exceptional in its extraordinary tolerance of the alternative view point.  Golly.  Something's definitely amiss.

I took the trouble to read the Scribd paper and the schedule you reference is definitely not posted there.  Have alerted Fuzzy.  Must be an oversight.  Apologies for this - the more so as you and Poynty mentioned it some time back.  It'll be attended to in due course I'm sure.

Regarding Aaron's post - I know only too well your attitudes here.  Nor do I intend getting embroiled in a defense.  Just know that everyone has their strengths and Aaron's particular genius is that he is really actively and effectively able to promote knowledge of alternative energy at a layman's level.  That's much more than you or I can ever do and every little bit helps.  Just give people their space MH.  We all have our place in the sun.  And don't underestimate the guy.  He's way more intelligent than you give him credit for and he's passionately involved in the general cause for cleaner greener - which has got to be a good thing.  Personally I'm inclined to give my support to anyone with that much passion.  It takes courage and he's dedicated the best part of his life to issues that I, personally, hold near and dear.

But I'm getting into lecture mode and I guess you'll find that offensive too.  Miss the fun times a bit.  But there's a mood of austerity around - probably due to the harsh economic climate - and winter in the Northern Hemisphere will definitely aggravate this.  The vast majority of the global population are feeling the cold at the moment and not everyone enjoys the mood break offered by Christmas Cheer.  LOL  I'm getting way too prosaic for my own taste here.

Take care of yourself MH.  And I hope you catch up on that sleep.  I know something about feeling the lack as I'm a chronic insomniac. 

Rosemary
   
Group: Guest
Hi Rosemary,

I bookmarked the scribd.com link for where your paper has been posted so that I can check to see if it will be revised with measurement data to back up your COP > 4 claim.

That means you measure greater than four times the thermal power dissipated in the inductive load resistor as compared to the measured electrical power that is supplied to the circuit.  The paper would have to clearly indicate how you made those measurements.

I glance at your discussion group on the EF from time to time and I see no discussion whatsoever about the fact that you don't have any measurement data to back up your claim.  How you can claim that this is an "oversight" is beyond my comprehension.

I am crossing my fingers that by January 31, 2010 I will see that the scribd.com article has been updated with the missing measurement data.  If not, then in my personal opinion this whole exercise has been an eight month long farce, and further ongoing discussions amongst yourself and the rest of the group on EF will be nothing more than theater of the absurd.

I know that I am being harsh and I am sorry.  However, you are making a claim that challenges the laws of thermodynamics and the whole scientific and industrial infrastructure that has been developed over the past 150 years.  It's that infrastructure that makes it possible for people all over the world to exchange information and collaborate in real time.  Every single watt of electrical power that is expended to maintain that infrastructure and keep it running is accounted for and paid for.  Like they say, "There is no free lunch."

MileHigh
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
A first response regarding the IEEE paper submission:

Quote
Date: Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 5:59 AM
Subject: Paper TPWRD-00893-2009, by Mr. Ashtweth Palise, Open source evaluation of power transients generated to improve performance coefficient of resistive heating systems.
To: ashtweth@gmail.com
Cc: pesdecisions@ieee.org, iravani@ecf.utoronto.ca


Paper Title: Open source evaluation of power transients generated to improve performance coefficient of resistive heating systems.

We regret to advise you that the Reviewing Committee is unable
to accept the subject paper for publication as a PES Transactions paper even with possible revisions.

Enclosed please find the comments of the reviewers that should
serve to explain the recommendation of the reviewing committee.
I hope you will find the explanations satisfactory. Although we
could not accept this paper, we hope that you will consider
Transactions on Power Delivery for other papers in the future.

We thank you for your continued interest in the Power Engineering Society.

COMMENTS TO THE AUTHORS:
Editor's Comments:

Editor
Editor Comments for Author:
We suggest this paper to be sumitted for review to the IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics or Industry Applications. This rejection is an administrative decision and not based on the paper content.

Reviewers' Comments:

Reviewer: 1
Comments to the Author
After the initial review we concluded that the paper is more suitable for IEEE Transactions on Industrial electronics and not Power Delivery.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Reza Iravani
Editor in Chief
Transactions on Power Delivery
iravani@ecf.utoronto.ca

So we wait and see what happens if and when the paper is re-submitted to "Industrial Electronics".

.99


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
An article submitted by Rose to OpEdNews.com. It hints at the paper submission and the thesis (and non-main stream ideas in general) in terms of main stream acceptance.


The editor's response, (it is interesting that the article does appear on their web site despite the comments):

Quote
Sorry, but we're going to pass on this article. You may NOT resubmit this or post it, even with modifications, as a diary, poll or comment. See our writers guidelines for more info.

Articles are evaluated by a team of 30+ volunteer editors. We trust and highly value our editors. Any editor abuse by email, comment or diary is cause for banning from the site as a troll.


You submitted an article titled:
THERE' S A LIGHT IN THE DARKNESS - Riff Raff

This article was submitted with category General_News and tags Censorship, Energy, Energy, Energy



Op Ed News Administrator


P.S. Your opinion piece fails to prove its point. You assert that the scientific community with its tradition of peer reviewed journals discriminates against ideas that depart from the main stream.

This does not appear to be the case, in my experience. For example many articles claiming to demonstrate cold fusion, or catalytic fusion, have been published only to be invalidated by subsequent research.

Maybe the "editorial censorship" you imagine is because your attempted submissions lacked the rigor of science and logic necessary to meet minimum standards for publication, as I am sorry to say the present example does.

Your Original Submission is attached to this email

Please do NOT reply to this email; no one will see it.

If you'd like to reply to the editor, you may click the following link
to enter a message for the editor:
OpEdNews - Message Send

I agree with his last statement.

.99


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Here is the brief analysis I did to sort out the measurement problems with the Ainslie circuit and how it was being tested to obtain the data used for the power calculations.

In summary, the test setup itself, in combination with the use of standard single-ended oscilloscope probes, has resulted in a set of inaccurate measurements. The circuit is much more complex than what meets the eye, and special considerations must be made in order to mitigate the measurement errors.

A more complete analysis will be posted later in the "Power Measurements" thread, where the Ainslie circuit will be used as a case example.

.99


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
Group: Guest
Hi MH AND POYNTY POINT

SORRY ABOUT THE CAPS BUT IT MAKES IT EASIER FOR ME TO READ.  I'M BACK ON ANOTHER DEFAULT DISPLAY MODE AND THE TYPING IS - YET AGAIN - OBSCURE.  HERE'S MY EXPLANATION OF THE NUMBERS IN THE PAPER

TO BEGIN WITH I'M ABSOLUTELY UNABLE TO READ THE PAPER IN THE FONT SIZE OFFERED IN SCRIBD.  THEREFORE I HAVE ONLY EVER SEEN THE PAPER IN WORD FORMAT AND WITH BIGGER SCRIPT SIZES.  BUT THE DOWNSIDE IS THAT I CANNOT LOOK AT THE PAPER AS IT IS.  I WILL BE GETTING THIS PRINTED BUT THE ONLY PRINT SHOP I CAN USE IS CLOSED UNTIL MONDAY - (I HOPE`).  WHEN I EXPAND THE PAPER THE TEXT TENDS TO GO HAYWIRE AND I HAVE TO MAKE A BEST GUESS AS TO WHERE EVEYRTHING IS.

THERE IS A SCHEDULE THAT DEALS WITH THE HEAT PROFILING ON THE LOAD RESISTOR
THERE IS ALSO A SCHEDULE THAT DEALS WITH THE ACTUAL MEASURED ANALYSIS FROM THE DATA DUMPS ACROSS THE SHUNT - WHICH REPRESENTS THE POWER DELIVERED BY THE BATTERY

I AM ABSOLUTELY NOT ABLE TO FIND MY WAY AROUND THIS FORUM.  I NEED TO BE ABLE TO READ THE SCRIPT.  I CAN BUT WITH DIFFICULTY.  I LOVE STROLLING AND SCROLLING THROUGH THREADS AND I CAN'T FIND THEM HERE - OR WHEN I DO THEY NEED TO BE OPENED - SOMEHOW - VERY CONFUSING.  I ASK QUESTIONS THAT AREN'T ANSWERED.  AND WHEN THEY ARE I CAN'T FIND THE ANSWER.  AND I'M TERRIFIED THAT THINGS ARE GETTING POSTED THAT REALLY NEED ANSWERING AND I CANT FIND THE POSTS

VERY NERVOUS  -   AND ALL I WAS HOPING FOR WAS SOME FUN DIALOGUE.

I'M SURE IT'LL ALL GET PUT RIGHT IN DUE COURSE.  UNTIL THEN I'M OFF.  LET ME KNOW IF AND WHEN YOU GUYS MANAGE CHANGES.  PETERAE - IT'S NOT A CRITICISM.  IT'S JUST THAT I'VE GOT VISUAL HANDICAPS THAT THIS FORUM HAS MANAGED TO DEFEAT.  - BUT NOTHING WRONG WITH THE FORUM OR ITS INTENTIONS.  JUST MY INTERACTION WITH IT THAT'S SOMEWHAT LIMITED



THIS IS ALL THAT IS REQUIRED FOR THE ACTUAL PRESENTATION OF RESULTS AND DONE IN THE REQUIRED FORMAT FOR THAT JOURNAL
   
Group: Guest
HI ROSE, INSTALL FIREFOX ON YOUR COMPUTER THEN ZOOM IN BY SELECTING "VIEW/ZOOM" IN MENUS.

IT WILL THEN MAKE BOTH THE TEXT AND THE ICONS LARGER.
   
Group: Guest

I agree with his last statement.

.99

I don't.  Nor, fortunately, did the chief editor. 
   
Group: Guest
Hi Rosemary,

I glance at your discussion group on the EF from time to time and I see no discussion whatsoever about the fact that you don't have any measurement data to back up your claim.  How you can claim that this is an "oversight" is beyond my comprehension.

I trust this is explained.  There was no oversight.  All tables duly and properly appended.  

I am crossing my fingers that by January 31, 2010 I will see that the scribd.com article has been updated with the missing measurement data.  If not, then in my personal opinion this whole exercise has been an eight month long farce, and further ongoing discussions amongst yourself and the rest of the group on EF will be nothing more than theater of the absurd.

No update requirements.  You can uncross your fingers.

I know that I am being harsh and I am sorry.  However, you are making a claim that challenges the laws of thermodynamics and the whole scientific and industrial infrastructure that has been developed over the past 150 years.  It's that infrastructure that makes it possible for people all over the world to exchange information and collaborate in real time.  Every single watt of electrical power that is expended to maintain that infrastructure and keep it running is accounted for and paid for.  Like they say, "There is no free lunch."

MileHigh

Not harsh MH.  That hardly describes your attitude.  Just repetitive.  And I entirely agree with you.  There is no free lunch when it comes to the exchange of energy.  

Rosie

EDIT BY THE WAY.  Thank you Fraser for your advice on that zoom number.  You've opened up a new world for me here.  Am able to read all kinds of things. 
   
Group: Guest
Rosemary:

Quote
All tables duly and properly appended.

Nowhere in the paper is there a table that says:

Electrical Power In - Thermal Power Out

1 watt....................4.2 watts
2 watts...................8.7 watts

The electrical power in would be based on analyzing your DSO data or with an analog low-pass-filtering system.
The thermal power out would be based on your heat profiling of the load resistor.

There is nothing like that at all.  You are not presenting any data in the paper to back up your claim.

May I suggest that you forward this message to everyone on your team so they can fix this problem.

MileHigh
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
It is odd that no clear conclusion was given in the paper.

.99


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
Group: Guest
Rosemary:

Nowhere in the paper is there a table that says:

Electrical Power In - Thermal Power Out

1 watt....................4.2 watts
2 watts...................8.7 watts

The electrical power in would be based on analyzing your DSO data or with an analog low-pass-filtering system.
The thermal power out would be based on your heat profiling of the load resistor.

There is nothing like that at all.  You are not presenting any data in the paper to back up your claim.

May I suggest that you forward this message to everyone on your team so they can fix this problem.

MileHigh

Indeed you can suggest anything you like.  But no - I've no intention of forwarding this anywhere at all.  I'm tired of saying this.  There are multiple reasons for not detailing any one result and presentation of results are required by the IEEE as we've done it.  It constantly amazes me that you entirely ignore my answers to you and drill on with the same points with the tediousness of a platitude.  I was initially and only concerned that the schedules were not on the Scribd copy of the paper.  But I've been assured that they're there.  Golly.  
   
Group: Guest
ok MileHigh and Poynty - clearly I need to explain this as I'm dealing with a kind of ???? that is usually only associated with the particularly intellectually challenged.  While you guys are looking for a clear and unambiguous evidence of some proof of COP anything at all - our object was to determine the range of voltage over the shunt and over an extended period - that COP anything at all could be seen as a required and dependable event in the operation of the circuit.  To establish that also needed the experimental run over the 6 hours as a ample sample time span - to show repeated and ample evidence of gains.  A single solitary shot at a number would be meaningless if it only happened once.  We needed to show that it ALWAYS HAPPENS.   To which end we gave multiple samples of multiple waveforms through 6 hour period.

The down side from your point of view is precisely that we no longer can show a single number.  Well.  That requirement would not have met our objects.  What is evident is that the heat signatures were constant at plus/minus 4 watts and the draw down rate from the battery was constant at plus/minus 1.5 watts or thereby.  As this proved the co-efficient value we did not even need to reference the heat dissipated at other points in the circuit which, conservatively would have given a total dissipation of heat over the circuit at something in the order of 9 plus watts. 

I've desubscribed from this thread guys.  I see now, at long last, that this was designed as an opportunity to continue a barage of criticism on our tests.  I'm more than a little disappointed.  It is the first time that open source have made a concerted appeal to mainstream to have an effect tested and analysed and it merits better from the two of you - unless your motives here are so determindly contrary that you will knock what is clearly an exemplary exercise - simply for the benefit of stroking your own egos and thinking yourselves excessively clever.  Clearly neither you nor MH have a clue as to what the test objects are.  And for you to try and pontificate only exposes your want of understanding.

Very disappointed.  On so many levels.   
   
Group: Guest
Rosemary:

Your paper states, "Results indicate that the produced transients enable improvements of performance efficiency well over COP 4.0 in line with the predictions of an alternative field model."

You state this yet you have do data in your paper to back up this claim.  Saying that the attached tables are there means nothing.

You were pretty aggressive in your comments.  Let me give you some context:

You state that you spent 10 years working on your zipon/magnetic field model yet when I got into the thread you had absolutely no understanding of how an inductor works.
Glen is happy to run the DSO but when I read between the lines he would get sick to his stomach or nearly faint if anybody asked him to analyze the data generated by the DSO.  Nor does Glen understand the sampling rate/aliasing issues that you absolutely have to be aware of.
Glen is your so-called "expert" but he had no clue what the tolerance datum for a resistor means.  It was explained to him at least twice but I am still not sure it has sunk in.  Glen is a total amateur, a newbie to electronics and energy with a very limited understanding of the issues.
Harvey managed to get his pet theories about Kirchhoff's current law not holding true all the time and something about current corkscrewing in the opposite direction down the center of a conductor into your paper.  He blatantly shoehorned his pet theories into your paper.
Ash blindly believes anything he gobbles up because I am assuming that he has next to no education in sciences at all and he is the ultimate dupe.
The list goes on but I will stop there.

Your refusal to get your team to back up the COP > 4.0 claim and at the same accuse myself and Poynt of being intellectually challenged is pure theater of the absurd.  I know that you are between a rock and a hard place with respect to your team because of their limited capabilities but there is no room for debate here.  You have to present data to back up your claim and a few paragraphs of contorted logic defending the fact that you have not done this will not get you anywhere with the scientific community.

Your data actually shows that the law of conservation of energy applies to your circuit.  It's buried there in amongst the disparate tables and DSO traces and data dumps.

The paper will never be accepted by any IEEE publication in it's current form.  If the paper never gets updated I think I am done with this issue.  I am the one that is disappointed, your team was unable to finish off the paper and arrive at a conclusion and have been reduced to automatons thinking that they have accomplished something.  The Ainsley group is like a "dot com" company in early 1999 burning through IPO cash without a single tangible product or service to sell and we all know what happened there.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
Rosemary:


I think I am done with this issue. 

MileHigh

I sincerely hope so MileHigh.  I'm overdone.  I have no intention of answering your posts on this matter - ever again.  At least not until they become constructive and interesting.  And if you and Poynty want to ban me - feel free.  I'll be in good company.  LOL
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Perhaps I may be able to shed a bit of light on the situation.

Below I have extracted Tables II and III (Source Power Averages & temperature Baselines respectively) and the Load Resistor temperature logsheet from the paper. In them I've highlighted the pertinent values I believe the Ainslie team may have used to come up with the apparent COP = 4.1.

From Table II we have 1.3W, and from Table III we have 5.33W, giving us the COP of 4.1.

It should be noted that none of these values are either referred to directly, highlighted, or stated anywhere in the paper, and that the reader is tasked to do what I have shown here in order to make a reasonable conclusion regarding the tests results and the claim of improved COP. It is hoped I assume that the reviewers will not only be inclined to perform this task, but that they will also choose the correct values.

IMO it would have been well worth the effort to include basically what I have done here in the paper's conclusion. Surely it could only help in getting one's paper reviewed beyond the conclusion, which is probably where most reviewers go right after reading the abstract anyway.

A few words about Table II. This table consists of a number of measurements or data dumps taken at time base settings of 2us and 40us, every 6 minutes for about an hour's time. From the results, one can see that the values deviate over a range of about 600%, which normally and statistically, would have to be discarded as unusable data. The Ainslie team however feels that several measurements were required in order to capture the existence of a fleeting energy signature (called "the harmonic") that only appears when viewing the scope display at a 40us time base setting, and only when the circuit adjustments are at "optimum". It is this "harmonic" the Ainslie team feels is responsible for the vast deviation in power measurements, and hence the reason for the multiple data dumps and result averaging.

Those who have had experience with a digital Tek scope can tell you that these fleeting wave patterns as observed by the Ainslie team appear all the time, no matter what wave form you are measuring. If the time base is set long enough in comparison to the period of oscillation, they will most likely appear. The resulting pattern character is dependent on the wave form shape and frequency, and the scope sampling frequency.

Also of note is the record length capability of the scope. For the TDDS3054C, the maximum record length is 10k samples. This essentially establishes the sample rate you will get with any given time base setting. As such, lengthening the time base reduces the sample rate, and eventually the scope can not capture and display the measured wave form with any reasonable fidelity. Higher-end scopes have record lengths up to 1MEG, which facilitates more accurate data dumps (and bigger files), and a more accurate real-time display of the wave form (i.e. less "patterning").

.99


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
@Milehigh
Quote
You state that you spent 10 years working on your zipon/magnetic field model yet when I got into the thread you had absolutely no understanding of how an inductor works.
Glen is happy to run the DSO but when I read between the lines he would get sick to his stomach or nearly faint if anybody asked him to analyze the data generated by the DSO.  Nor does Glen understand the sampling rate/aliasing issues that you absolutely have to be aware of.
Glen is your so-called "expert" but he had no clue what the tolerance datum for a resistor means.  It was explained to him at least twice but I am still not sure it has sunk in.  Glen is a total amateur, a newbie to electronics and energy with a very limited understanding of the issues.
Harvey managed to get his pet theories about Kirchhoff's current law not holding true all the time and something about current corkscrewing in the opposite direction down the center of a conductor into your paper.  He blatantly shoehorned his pet theories into your paper.
Ash blindly believes anything he gobbles up because I am assuming that he has next to no education in sciences at all and he is the ultimate dupe.
The list goes on but I will stop there.

I have often wondered what the many farmers and other spectators at Kitty Hawk must have thought while watching the Wright brothers first experiments in powered flight. Common sense would probably tell them that it was impossible or un-natural and they could rest assured that the two bicycle repaimen would never get off the ground. As well there were all the so called experts with their calculations and hallowed "laws" which stated catagorically that this contraption would never fly and most everyone felt confident they were correct because they had no comprehension of how it could be done. It is easy to justify the thought that a fluid substance of little density such as air could never support the weight of an aicraft which would seem to be common sense only because they had no conception of how one could rigidify a gas to such an extent that is could be as hard as rock. As well they had little understanding of how one could control such a craft once it was in the air. They say on the first true flight of the wright brothers airplane there was a farmer watching and I have to wonder what was going through his mind? In one moment his little world of common sense notions and the laws of nature were intact and in the next instant all of this confidence in what he believes to be true has evaporated into thin air. I also have to wonder if this person and others had any remorse that they had judged the Wright brothers as quacks when in fact it was the other 99.99% of the people on this planet who were delusional in some sense of the word for believing it was impossible without having all the facts. Do you think you would have any remorse over judging most everyone here as uneducated bafoons if any one of them found success such as the Wright brothers did with powered flight? Would you have resentment that an uneducated person or one with little knowledge could find success where you with years of experience could not? I understand this is most likely an impossibility in your mind which may be hard to fathom but if by chance any one of these supposedly uneducated and underqualified people did succeed then what? In all my research of the history of invention the one reacurring theme that is consistent is that invention is not about education or the retention of information it is about creativity and determination and anyone can have these qualities.
Regards
AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Group: Guest
Hi Allcanadian,  That's a really nice post.  For some reason there's ample support for contributors on all the threads here - bar this.  Strange how it is that this particular endeavour generates nothing but spite.  But I see, to his credit that Ponty is trying to temper his usual barrage.  But not enough there yet to tempt a reply from me Poynty Point.  Still too many inaccuracies hidden in your usual generalisations.

Regarding MileHigh's 'take' on everyone's weaknesses - I get it that that's how he vicariously endorses his own good opinion of himself.  There must be some value in whipping the whip horse.  It's how small minds pretend that they're bigger than they are.  They just focus their attack to make everyone around them look small.  I would begrudge it if it mattered.  But it doesn't, thank goodness.  It would only matter if his opinion mattered.  And that would only matter if he were a half way decent critic.  He's indecently vitriolic - so who cares?  I don't.
   
Group: Guest
Yes AC the same tired old flat Earth/Wright brothers argument one more time.  There is a great rebuttal to that and I will state it one more time.

In the 19th century a lot of researchers were investigating flight.  They built gliders for people and made thousands of flights to get a basic understanding of aerodynamics.  Many of them did calculations and they realized that if they could have a power source with a certain power to weight ratio it would be possible to have powered flight.  However, at the time the only available power sources were heavy steam engines with an insufficient power to weight ratio.

Then the gasoline engine was developed and many enlightened minds realized that the goal of achieving powered flight was in theory obtainable because of the improved power to weight ratio.  Enter the Wright brothers.  They were very disciplined and did tons of research and broke the problem down into its discrete components.  They developed all sorts of test apparatus and generated all sorts of test data to advance their cause.  They were some of the first researchers to follow a strict scientific methodology to understand the problem of powered flight.  They built a wind tunnel.  The studied and tested propellers.  The even developed an apparatus that allowed them to plot wing lift versus drag for different wing shapes at different air speeds.   Finally after all of their hard work and determination and using a disciplined scientific approach to the problem they were successful in their quest, the first powered flight of an aircraft piloted by a person.

It was the enlightened people with some education and critical thinking skills that believed that powered flight was possible.  They didn't say that the Wright brothers were nuts while they were working away in their bicycle shop at all.

The Wright brothers did not just make struts and build a fame and stretch some canvas over it and try to make a flying machine by trial and error.  They took a scientific approach and really understood what they were doing and continually worked their way up the learning curve, step by step.

So I guess it's all a question of your point of view.  Who are the ignorant farmers in the fields and who are the enlightened people?

How come your computer today as compared to your computer of 20 years ago has a processor that's thousands of times more powerful, and has thousands of times more memory, and has a hard drive that's thousands of times larger?  Those stupid ignorant engineers in their ivory towers are responsible for that.  They were using the laws of Nature.

There is no valid data in the Ainsley paper to back up their claim and that kind of nonsense does not advance science at all.  If you cheer them on anyways, are you the ignorant farmer or are you enlightened?

MileHigh
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
@Milehigh
Quote
There is no valid data in the Ainsley paper to back up their claim and that kind of nonsense does not advance science at all.  If you cheer them on anyways, are you the ignorant farmer or are you enlightened?
I would like to think I am a little of both, if the truth be known I was raised on a farm and intend to retire there. As well I understand your point of view and agree with it for the most part however I would disagree with how you make your point sometimes. Regarding the Ainsley paper---"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"--Albert Einstein.

Quote
They developed all sorts of test apparatus and generated all sorts of test data to advance their cause.They were some of the first researchers to follow a strict scientific methodology to understand the problem of powered flight.  They built a wind tunnel.  The studied and tested propellers.  The even developed an apparatus that allowed them to plot wing lift versus drag for different wing shapes at different air speeds.

I agree with this statement but there is something else we can learn from this, a little perspective. Most of us know perfectly well how an airplane and a wing works from books-- but do we really? I have built wind tunnels and done extensive research in the field of rotary and fixed wing aerodynamics as well as wind turbines and my conclusions may disagree with yours. Did you know a wing does not produce any significant lift due to Bernoulli principle of differential pressure and that the majority of lift is produced by reactive mass alone?, air is forced downward inducing a leading pressure front and large drag forces evolve which is very inefficient. In this case Bernoulli's principle and differential pressure does not produce constructive lift forces it only prevents a reverse flow of the reactive mass upwards. Our idea of "lift" is still based on the principal of a sheet of plywood hanging in the wind pushing air downward, this is not evolution it is madness. I mention this because I personally found it very odd that even in this day and age we still do not completely understand all the forces on a simple wing, in fact we have advanced very little today from what the Wright brothers discovered. Consider that it is only in the last few years that science has actually been able to reproduce the mechanism of flight of a common bird and it is a very primitive reproduction, are we really as advanced as you presume? My point here is that we know what we know and then there is reality but they are not always the same thing.

Quote
How come your computer today as compared to your computer of 20 years ago has a processor that's thousands of times more powerful, and has thousands of times more memory, and has a hard drive that's thousands of times larger?  Those stupid ignorant engineers in their ivory towers are responsible for that.  They were using the laws of Nature.

As an engineer with no ivory tower, I can tell you that what we know today was not developed by engineer's persay-- it was developed by a handfull of brilliant and creative engineer's----- for the most part the rest are just sheep following along collecting their paycheck. This is why the Ainsley circuit and many others in the forum do matter, it is not about what you know it is about what may be possible. It is about exploring new possibilities never considered, this is research and mistakes will be made. The truth is that we do not know what may be possible because it has not been done yet and if you never try you will never know.
Regards
AC
« Last Edit: 2010-01-04, 04:34:56 by allcanadian »


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Group: Guest
@Milehigh
Quote
There is no valid data in the Ainsley paper to back up their claim and that kind of nonsense does not advance science at all.  If you cheer them on anyways, are you the ignorant farmer or are you enlightened?
.... Regarding the Ainslie (name edited as MH persistently refuses to spell this correctly) paper---"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"--Albert Einstein.

Hi AC.  I get it that you're defending us here and am grateful.  But there's an unhappy implication in your chosen quote that leaves one with the impression that we 'don't know what we are doing.'  I beg to differ as the claim here has never been entirely that these heat signatures MAY be evident - but rather - that they WILL be evident.  The initial Quantum paper detailed a circuit configuration that was intended to test a magnetic field model that proposed that all identifiable three dimensional objects - or amalgams - are bound by the very thing that astrophysicists claim 'binds' our galaxies.  They call this energy 'dark energy' and propose that it's from a dark particle.  The magnetic field model claims that this same particle binds amalgams and that it is invisible to light precisely because it is both smaller and faster than light.  In effect the particle that binds the material of conductive wire on a circuit is the particle that is able to extrude the body of that material and adjust its position in space.  In other words the 'thing' or the 'energy' that has been transferred to the atoms in that wire - is simply fields of these zipons as I have presumed to call the particle.

So.  The departure from classical physics is that these fields are extant, in the first instance, and that they are responsible for the apparent exchange of energy in the second instance.  They are the fields that adjust to imposed imbalances - of whatever nature.  And they are plastic and can and do move through space to balance their own charge.  This, in turn, balances the distribution of charge of the actual atoms.  But they only ever interact with the atom's energy levels.  The atoms themselves are invisible to the field just as the field itself is invisible to us.  We can only measure the ionised state of the amalgams.  We cannot see these fields.  We can only measure their effect over time.  Their positional adjustment precedes our own time frame which answers both questions of locality and the apparent and instantaneous measure of voltage across a circuit that has this innate measurable imbalance.  As presumptuous as it is, the proposal is that the change in the distribution and manifestation of these fields is precisely what classicists term and measure as an exchange of energy.  In effect, the proposal is that energy is vested entirely in these fields and that the energy exchange actually occurs at a level that is also entirely invisible to us.  And, in any event, the exchange has come and gone as we can only measure those 'changes' in its wake.

All this would simply constitute an alternative description of classical views of energy exchange - but for one difference. The proposal is that these fields have properties of mass that vary.  If their orbits are broken through some applied imblance their mass changes.  And their mass has innate properties of heat and velocity.  They become fast and small and cold or slow and big and hot in precise and inverse proportion to each other.  Small and cold and fast, they have achieved their balance and interact with atomic energy levels.  Hot and big and slow, they have lost their own balance and manifest in our own dimensions as 'flame'. The proposal is that the flame is simply another manifestation of the zipon that then decays again when it has found another field which may be outside the body of the amalgam that it first bound.  Which explanation confronts classical understandings.

But the simple fact is that if this is correct, as seems to be evident in this circuit's breach of classical norms in the exchange of energy - then the implications are that both thermal and kinetic energies can be far better and more efficiently exploited that is possible in terms of our Thermodynamic Laws.  Which is very good news for those of us who would prefer to cater to our rampant energy requirements. That MileHigh chooses to ignore the evidence in the data that has been so carefully presented in the paper - is not a reflection on this new and emerging technology.  Rather it is a sad reflection on that rigid and inflexible mind that can no longer adjust to new thinking.  I am sure that there are many MileHighs in this world.  Fortunately there are others who are well able to flex their intellects as required and they are also among those many credentialed readers.  It does not constitute an argument to say 'you are wrong' or 'this is nonsense'.  That only reflects on the incapacity of his intellect.  It is usual that this stiffens with age, along with the aging body.  So it is something to be pitied rather than criticised.  

What is alarming is MH's revision of history where he makes some reference to a semi-scientific dialogue in the art of gliding as opposed to motorised flight.  This is so exaggerated as to be entirely fantastical and would require today's level of international discussion through the internet and through forums such as this - to be enabled.  Nonsense indeed.  And it's malicious nonsense, to boot.
« Last Edit: 2010-01-04, 05:08:02 by aetherevarising »
   
Group: Guest
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blearlyflight2.htm

1891 Otto Lilienthal
German engineer, Otto Lilienthal, studied aerodynamics and worked to design a glider that would fly. Otto Lilienthal was the first person to design a glider that could fly a person and was able to fly long distances.

Otto Lilienthal was fascinated by the idea of flight. Based on his studies of birds and how they fly, he wrote a book on aerodynamics that was published in 1889 and this text was used by the Wright Brothers as the basis for their designs.

After more than 2500 flights, Otto Lilienthal was killed when he lost control because of a sudden strong wind and crashed into the ground.

Samuel Langley was physicist and astronomer who realized that power was needed to help man fly. Langley conducted experiments using whirling arms and steam motors. He built a model of a plane, which he called an aerodrome, that included a steam-powered engine. In 1891, his model flew for 3/4s of a mile before running out of fuel.

Samuel Langley received a $50,000 grant to build a full sized aerodrome. It was too heavy to fly and it crashed. He was very disappointed. He gave up trying to fly. His major contributions to flight involved attempts at adding a power plant to a glider. He was also well known as the director of the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, DC.

1894 Octave Chanute
Octave Chanute was a successful engineer who undertook the invention of airplanes as a hobby, after being inspired by Otto Lilienthal. Chanute designed several aircraft, the Herring - Chanute biplane was his most successful design and formed the basis of the Wright biplane design.

Octave Chanute published "Progress in Flying Machines" in 1894. It gathered and analyzed all the technical knowledge that he could find about aviation accomplishments. It included all of the world's aviation pioneers. The Wright Brothers used this book as a basis for much of their experiments. Chanute was also in contact with the Wright Brothers and often commented on their technical progress.

----

On a personal note I suppose that I "pity" people that invest their energy in places that would perhaps better be left alone.  I am all for them doing exciting new things for the benefit of mankind but if they misplace their energy there is the "opportunity cost" of not being able to pursue better and more fruitful avenues of research.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
MileHigh, you have presented a comprehensive list of those early aviators and their interests.   You drew a comparison to the scientific discussion that preceded flight - or at least the Wright brothers mastery of flight.  So.  What was the actual credentialed authority of those early aviators?  Where did this 'scientific discussion' happen prior to the event.  There were no academics joining in that debate.  It was books published by amateurs and read by other amateurs.  And was that not the point of AC's contribution?  In other words while mainstream was pontificating on the impossibility of flight - those amateurs, to a man, simply went ahead and flew?  And that in defiance of mainstream's opinion on the matter.  Academics certainly took no part in that discussion.  And they published no findings on the matter.  And I'm reasonably certain that whatever was published prior to that memorable flight - no academic would have given it his serious regard.  They had already determined and continued to teach that motorised flight was impossible.  Which goes to prove Allacandian's point.  

We are all just pioneering here MH.  And - at its least - we are producing the evidence of extra energy in the same way as the Wright brothers produced evidence of flight.  My continuing objection to your opinion here is that it is not based on an evaluation of the evidence but on some bigotted appraisal of what should be happening rather than what is.  And that's not even scientific - not by a long shot.

« Last Edit: 2010-01-04, 23:44:04 by aetherevarising »
   
Group: Guest
Hi Rosemary:

I am more than happy to simply agree to disagree and turn the page.  My previous posting was simply done to support my statement about 19th century research into flight.  I watched a good PBS "Nova" about the Wright brothers and remembered some facts.

My real thorn in my side about the realm of "free energy" is really about unscrupulous people or companies that steal money from others.  I knew as soon as I started reading your thread that you and basically everyone involved in your project does not fall into that class.

For AC, you often have a different spin on things and I think that they got it right about Bernoulli's Principle.  Don't forget that the finite element analysis modeling of the fluid dynamics for the air flow over a wing is very sophisticated.  Number crunching is cheap and powerful nowadays and the element size can be very small.  You should give the scientists and engineers more respect, I think that they know a lot more than you give them credit for.

If y'all want to get that happy shiny furry feeling, I learned something new this week.  Look up "Burning Man."  Now that paints a picture in my mind.  The "tribes" from EF, OU, and OUR making an annual pilgrimage to Burning Man in Rotoverter-powered dune buggies covered with joule thief LED light shows.  Think Tesla!  I can just see Jibbguy putting his boat on wheels, decorating it up to look like a giant Bedini motor mutant vehicle and cruising around and spreading the word.  Joit can go dressed as a giant coil.  It can't get anymore grass-roots than Burning Man and the seeds can be planted!  The quest for critical mass can start there!  lol

Bring your own Orgone...

MileHigh

P.S.:  I suppose that I just invented a new word:  If Ash went he would have a Burning Managasm.
« Last Edit: 2010-01-05, 12:33:23 by MileHigh »
   
Group: Guest

If y'all want to get that happy shiny furry feeling, I learned something new this week.  Look up "Burning Man."  Now that paints a picture in my mind.  The "tribes" from EF, OU, and OUR making an annual pilgrimage to Burning Man in Rotoverter-powered dune buggies covered with joule thief LED light shows.  Think Tesla!  I can just see Jibbguy putting his boat on wheels, decorating it up to look like a giant Bedini motor mutant vehicle and cruising around and spreading the word.  Joit can go dressed as a giant coil.  It can't get anymore grass-roots than Burning Man and the seeds can be planted!  The quest for critical mass can start there!  lol

Bring your own Orgone...

MileHigh

P.S.:  I suppose that I just invented a new word:  If Ash went he would have a Burning Managasm.

 ;D
« Last Edit: 2010-01-05, 18:29:31 by aetherevarising »
   
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... 29
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-11-27, 22:38:27