Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 84255
  • *Latest: romeos69

  • *Total Posts: 898191
  • *Total Topics: 15837
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 1
  • *Guests: 30
  • *Total: 31

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011  (Read 639296 times)

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1290 on: May 16, 2011, 05:08:12 AM »
And for Poynty - when you get back here.  You just need to keep adding to that inductance to get it to a positive value.  And that inductance in turn, relates to the 'added' material to the circuit.  So.  It is my opinion that the actual quantity - the actual material mass of those 'inductive/conductive' components INCLUDING the wire - that allows for more or less 'returned' energy.  Therefore the mass of the circuit components comes into the equation. 

So Poynty.  Perhaps just keep adding inductance to the wires - and maybe you'll get the same results on your sim.  Worth trying perhaps?  Just know that we've actually measured the inductance on the wires to and from the battery to be 3.3 micro Henries.   And I think you can add to the inductance where you replaced the CSR - because clearly that comes into the equation.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

Rose,

You may notice that I have been using a total of 4uH of inductance in the battery leads (2uH each side). So I think I am in the ball park. Unless you mean it should be 3uH each side, then I can make the adjustment.

In terms of the wire inductance in Q2's Gate, I've added the same amount I used for the CSR when it was located there in the previous circuit based on the demonstration video, i.e. 200nH. Without that parasitic inductance, the circuit will not oscillate.

You may also notice that the present circuit is essentially equivalent to the previous one. The only major difference being that the CSR is now located in the negative leg of the battery.

Also, I've left out the 200nH of inductance associated with the CSR, but I will show in my next post its effect. In summary, the CSR's inductance has no marked effect on the net average voltage across it.

.99

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1291 on: May 16, 2011, 05:31:08 AM »
WELL DONE POYNTY.  Really good work.  I see now that your results aren't so beneficial.  Does it make any difference if you just up the frequency?
The results are what they are. The frequency is determined by the parasitic components, and is in line with your results as well I believe. The net average CSR voltage is +128mV (equating to about 37W from the battery), so it is leaps and bounds from any negative "benefit". Changing the components to alter the frequency won't change the polarity on the CSR I'm afraid.

.99

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1292 on: May 16, 2011, 06:01:19 AM »
Here are the sim results when including 200nH of inductance in the CSR. The net average CSR voltage is again about +128mV.

I've included a trace for the voltage across the wire inductance. Notice its net average polarity is negative.

.99

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1292 on: May 16, 2011, 06:01:19 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1293 on: May 16, 2011, 07:29:02 AM »
Thanks Poynty.  I looked at the 'average' that your got across the CSR and to me, just eyeballing it - it's more negative than positive.  Can't make it out so clearly across the actual waveform. But the average CERTAINLY should be tending to  a negative result.  Can't think why it doesn't add up accordingly.

The only other adjustment I could recommend is that you take the shunt replacement wire to 2.2 nano Henries.  And if there's still nothing - then, at it's least, the waveforms are remarkably similar. And that there's that 'self generated' oscillation at all is a remarkable correspondence.   Meanwhile I think we just need to sit tight.  I know that there are others who are working on this who also use PSpice.

Thanks Poynty.  I must now just sit back and wait.  I'll post my amended schematic to my report - if I can and I'll download that here today.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

BTW

Each wires' total, I think, is 3.3 micro Henries on each side of the battery terminal.  But I will need to confirm this.  Interesting to see that the oscillations at the wire are all more negative.  I'm sure you just need to factor in more copper.

ALSO - Changed micro to nano


Just posted some nonsense related to the inductance over the shunts.  Hope no-one noticed.  :o
 lol.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2011, 11:26:17 AM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1294 on: May 16, 2011, 06:56:33 PM »
Thanks Poynty.  I looked at the 'average' that your got across the CSR and to me, just eyeballing it - it's more negative than positive.  Can't make it out so clearly across the actual waveform. But the average CERTAINLY should be tending to  a negative result.  Can't think why it doesn't add up accordingly.
You're welcome.

The net average is determined by the sum of the areas of the curve above and below zero. I've painstakingly filled in the POS and NEG areas for you to show this. If you were to cut out these areas from a sheet of paper and weigh them, the red paper would weigh slightly more than the blue paper. This tells us that the net average is slightly positive. See the attached scope shot.

Quote
The only other adjustment I could recommend is that you take the shunt replacement wire to 2.2 nano Henries.  And if there's still nothing - then, at it's least, the waveforms are remarkably similar.
I will try changing the wire inductance to 2.2nH from 200nH, but I don't think it will result in a negative average across the shunt.

.99

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1294 on: May 16, 2011, 06:56:33 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1295 on: May 16, 2011, 07:05:19 PM »
You're welcome.

The net average is determined by the sum of the areas of the curve above and below zero. I've painstakingly filled in the POS and NEG areas for you to show this. If you were to cut out these areas from a sheet of paper and weigh them, the red paper would weigh slightly more than the blue paper. This tells us that the net average is slightly positive. See the attached scope shot.
I will try changing the wire inductance to 2.2nH from 200nH, but I don't think it will result in a negative average across the shunt.

Check out this one with your 'paper test'.  To me it looks predominantly NEGATIVE.  Sorry I wrote positive.  I'm definitely aging - at pace.

Sorry Poynty.  I've just seen it's 130.  I thought it was zero.  Ignore this post.

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1296 on: May 16, 2011, 07:20:09 PM »
Check out this one with your 'paper test'.  To me it looks predominantly NEGATIVE.  Sorry I wrote positive.  I'm definitely aging - at pace.

Sorry Poynty.  I've just seen it's 130.  I thought it was zero.  Ignore this post.


Indeed Rose.

And that is already the averaged value, so there is no need to apply the "area test" to it.

.99

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1296 on: May 16, 2011, 07:20:09 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1297 on: May 16, 2011, 07:30:30 PM »
Good stuff Poynty.  Just out of interest.  Do an average power delivered.  Depending on the value of the resistance you'll apply to the  CSR at that frequency.   My rule of thumb is R =  0.9 Ohms.  But I know you argue it as R - 1.2 Ohms.

Meanwhile Poynty - check your email.  You need to get this nailed.  Somehow. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie

NOT MY NIGHT.  MORE ERRORS I HAD TO DELETE.  Golly.  Sorry guys.

CORRECTED

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1298 on: May 16, 2011, 07:40:55 PM »
As I expected, the circuit would not oscillate with only 2.2nH of wire inductance.

Keep in mind that wires exhibit anywhere from 20nH to 60nH of inductance per inch of wire, so it is impossible to have only 2.2nH of added inductance on any of the MOSFET pins.

.99

Time to go climb up Diamondhead volcano. ;)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1298 on: May 16, 2011, 07:40:55 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1299 on: May 16, 2011, 07:44:13 PM »

Time to go climb up Diamondhead volcano. ;)

lol.  That's energy well spent.  Have fun.

R

Offline vonwolf

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 144
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1300 on: May 16, 2011, 08:32:29 PM »
You're welcome.

The net average is determined by the sum of the areas of the curve above and below zero. I've painstakingly filled in the POS and NEG areas for you to show this. If you were to cut out these areas from a sheet of paper and weigh them, the red paper would weigh slightly more than the blue paper. This tells us that the net average is slightly positive. See the attached scope shot.

.99


   poynt99;
    Don't you have to take into account that the blue negative aria goes almost to neg 4.55v while the red positive aria only reaches + 2.5v? It seems that the neg. has more power
    Pete

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1300 on: May 16, 2011, 08:32:29 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1301 on: May 17, 2011, 02:33:31 AM »

   poynt99;
    Don't you have to take into account that the blue negative aria goes almost to neg 4.55v while the red positive aria only reaches + 2.5v? It seems that the neg. has more power
    Pete

Indeed Pete, it appears that the NEG side has more uummmff than the POS side, but it is evidently not so.

The POS peaks at about 2.5V, and the NEG peaks at about -4.5V, but you might notice that the width of the NEG side is smaller than the POS side?

The total area enclosed by the trace above and below the zero reference is what determines the net average. So both the amplitude AND time have to be considered in this computation. Since the wave shape is not rectangular or trapezoidal, it is difficult to eyeball the results, especially when the two areas appear so close. The POS side is "short" and "wide" while the NEG side is "tall" and "narrow".

When we pass this wave form through an averaging filter (i.e. low-pass filter) it automatically does an analog computation of the net average for us. This is what I have shown in the scope shots labeled as "average", and this also explains why there is still some small ripple there. Given more time or more heavy filtering, the average will eventually show a smooth dc value.

I'll also mention that the value used for the CSR "resistance" when we apply this averaging is still 0.25 Ohms. Remember that the averaging filter nulls out most of the high frequency components, and therefore we need not take into account the impedance contributed by the CSR inductance when computing the current. NOTA BENE as Rose would say, that the average voltage was about +128mV in both cases; case one with a pure 0.25 Ohm resistor, and case two with the 0.25 Ohm resistor in series with a 200nH inductance.

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1302 on: May 17, 2011, 08:04:58 AM »
Guys - as a general appeal - I wonder if I could, admittedly at a rather late stage in this development - ask you all to refer to the NERD circuit as opposed to the Rosemary Ainslie Circuit.  NERD stands for New Energy Research & Development.  It's not a registered trade mark - or anything like that.  I just am getting rather irritated that anyone ever refers to the circuit in my name when it is simply a generic description of a simple circuit layout intended to generate counter electromotive force.  NERD's is what we call our little 'gathering' of like minds which is also loosely referred to as 'the team' in my postings.  I'm going to revise my own schematics accordingly.  Except that the circuit schematics developed by my friend will be called 'The Macey schematics of the NERD 'Q-array'.

Another point that needs identification is a profoundly interesting discovery made by another friend of mine related to the 'growth' of the two dimensional circle.  But it's off topic here and I simply refer to it as it's the logical basis of the 'field' description and therefore much required.  And this requirement is based on Bell's Theorem where he concludes that 'quantum theories cannot be upheld by local hidden variables' - which is itself - paraphrased.  And all it means is that gross measurable physics needs a consistent underlying structure - or all would be chaos.

What I'm trying to get to is that I really need to step back from all of this.  There are many players involved who have the required skills.  All I can contribute is some real interest in tying up some loose ends related to everyone else's discoveries. 

Which brings me back to Poynty's contributions.  I think we can leave these sims in his capable hands.  I don't need to remind you all that he 'ferreted out' the actual circuit related to that oscillation.  No mean feat I assure you - especially when you bear in mind that our own configuration was the result of my incompetence.  Frankly I think the Good Lord intervened as He's probably growing tired of my own and others myopia.  And I'm satisfied that IF the numbers can be supported on a simulation that are evident experimentally - then he'll find it.  ... Poynty that is.  Not God.  LOL.  ;D   

The only other thing that is of real interest to me is this.  We have another simulation in the offing that indicates a gradual but consistent INCREASE in the voltage levels across the load and the shunt.  But no negative values yet.  It's been designed around a 555 because his software doesn't support an functions generator.  And I do not have his permission to make this public - yet - but will do so when I get the all clear.

I'm saying all this now because I think we're getting to a point of better clarity as to where all this will go.  I think the real drive from hereon in will be with those sims.  Mainly because that's where the breakthroughs will come.  I will certainly do a full report on my water to boil test together with a video of these results.  And then I will also publish the earlier 12 March report as required by Stefan. 

I think we're getting to some sort of real conclusion - which is a relief.  Else we'll spend another year - frittering around on debates.  And tempus is fugitting - and I REALLY want to get back to the field model.

So.  This is just my 'summation' of where we're going.  Where we're AT is at a really exciting junction.  Not only is there that rather challenging evidence put forward by RomeroUK - but we have our not so small evidence which is irrefutable and repeatable.  It's just a question now of trumping every denial of this event with more and more evidence.  And if we keep working at it then it HAS to - eventually - scale those lofty and elusive academic ivory towers. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Edited.  Sorry I wrote 'oscilloscope'.
And another addition because I rather suspect I was taking God's name in vain.  Just so funny.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1303 on: May 17, 2011, 10:29:36 AM »
And guys.

Here's another variation of the Q-Array - per Macey the marvel.  lol.  An elegant study in simplicity. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1304 on: May 17, 2011, 07:39:30 PM »
This is extremely odd and unprecedented for any inventor to supply a electronic circuit diagram for a "FINDING" on a device with a efficiency claim of COP> INFINITY called "Rosemary Design1.jpg"

AND THEN POSTING .....

..... "NEW" information from a replicator working supposedly totally independently and exhibited through the inventor a electronic circuit diagram on a device called "Macey circuit config of NERD Q-array 2.jpg"


These two electronic circuit diagrams are exactly connected the same way just shown pictorially differently called a variation .... whats with the two diagrams and the odd changes ... why ?   ???


Fuzzy
 :o

 

OneLink