Here is that "mosaic" I promised.
...
Fig2_prog.png shows [...] circuit but with Q3 - Q5 omitted.
...
Fig5_prog.png [...] replace the function generator with a negative DC source of about -5V. [...] moved [...] under the Q2 Source
...
All questions welcome.

.99

ok, i see your transformation - comfortable with that
(holding 'Q1' gate-disconnect assumption to be valid)

nice work! 


a couple questions right off the bat:

 - asymemtrical behaviour of any oscillation across L2/Rl1 & CSR to be expected due to 'Q1' body diode
(eg. supporting ~6.25V peak -ve excursions on CSR)

   does the data suggest a major player in supporting the ~1.8V peak +ve excursions on CSR - eg. C12, Q2 Cdg, etc?

 
 - do you feel that there are any significant differences in the sim results between the Fig2 prog and the Fig 5 prog versions wrt net energy draw?


am i picking up on a general consensus for a way ahead here?
(glad the question re: optimum no. 'feedback' MOSFETs seemed to contribute to recent considerations)


thanks
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com
 

Rose , you seem much happier today , and with good reason . I predict that your technology will move forward more in the next month than it has in the last two years . I am very pleased to see the part that poynt99 is playing in moving the job forward, so praise where it is due . It is a shame that he feels that he can not speak to me , but hey , this is about the future of energy,not petty disagreements .Let us all drink to the future of "Free Energy".

Hello Neptune

My own hope is that the emphasis will get off the 'ra' circuit - because - in truth - it's nothing but a generic kind of prototype that only serves its purpose to point at the ease with which those negative numbers can be found.  There are just so many other variations already on the internet.  And here we have more.  And the guys I'm working with have got others.  And so it goes.  In the limited range of that functions generator we can also find an almost infinite range of variations.  And we're only just beginning.  And that's where I find the most comfort.

And indeed it's timeous - if indeed Poynty's efforts have breached some credibility barriers here.  But all of this is only on the internet.  It's audience is just the smallest of small fractions of where it needs to go.  If we were all to tell all our friends - say 20 each, and they then tell their frineds - another 20 each - then we're still hardly at 0.0001% of the global population.  Meanwhile our lurkers are already working on trying to secure licensing rights.  And I know for a fact that this is/has been discussed at a very prominent academy in England where its presentations were considered most seriously. 

So.  We've still got a long walk to get this to publication - and if we get THERE then there may well be way forward.  And then, I sincerely hope that it won't be referred to as the RA circuit.  Because - in truth - it is not.  But I would most certainly like to be associated with that paper - only because that way the thinking behind all this may get some kind of consideration.  And I'm reckless enough to think that all those concepts may yet be proved to be correct.  I do hope so.  Because that, in turn - points to a limitless supply of energy that even this little circuit is just the smallest of small tokens of all that potential.

So.  Indeed.  Exciting times.  Just I'm not sure that it'll all be smooth sailing.  But I don't think it's progress could have been much choppier than has already been evident on these forums.  LOL.  It's still belated - but I think we're getting there.  And we DEFINITELY need all the talent that's available here to move this forward.  Every bit helps.

Kindest regards,
Rosie     

Congratulations, Rosemary & Poynt99!

I know .99's critical skepticism frustrated you, but he only gives credence to your circuit and your theory, Rosemary. 

And for your part, .99: playing the villain is by definition the least popular of sports.  Kudos to you also, for sticking with it.

Thanks to both of you; this has been a most fascinating thread. You've provided me with an exciting first-foray into the field of circuits.   

Regards, Mark.

@Rosemary Ainslie : There are just so many other variations already on the internet.
Could you name a few of these variations? (Currently I am not questioning the effect.)

Congratulations, Rosemary & Poynt99!

I know .99's critical skepticism frustrated you, but he only gives credence to your circuit and your theory, Rosemary. 

And for your part, .99: playing the villain is by definition the least popular of sports.  Kudos to you also, for sticking with it.

Thanks to both of you; this has been a most fascinating thread. You've provided me with an exciting first-foray into the field of circuits.   

Regards, Mark.

Aphasiac - I don't think you're entirely familiar with the level of 'attack' that was actively encouraged.  I've just spent a couple of hours going over some of this.  And it's been a salutary reminder.

But you're right.  There is a  tribute to be paid here and it's certainly with our Poynty Point.  If I could trust him better I'd be glad to leave all this to him - quite frankly. 

So Poynty?  How about it?  This thread is mostly read by you guys who do experimenting and who know considerably more about circuits than I'll ever be able to learn.  Perhaps I can leave all this to you and just post here as and when we get updates?  I'd be glad of this - if you can spare the time.  At the least you'll be able to answer questions.  The best I can do is refer them to our team. Just a real concern that Pickle is not let loose because he's utterly committed to denial.  And I'm not sure that I could actually rest easy under those circumstances.

I have nothing really to contribute except that I know my way around the power measurents and can help out if anyone wants a particular test done.  I would so like to concentrate my time on advancing this to our academics.  And then I also want to start preparing a paper in earnest.  Actually Poynty - I think we could make good use of your sims in that paper as well.  If you're really on board - it would be a great help.  Let me know. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie

I am having a glitch here on getting this to you all.   I feel all gains in magnetics and other physics happen occur when beta decay happens and either a proton or neutrino are created.
AND I am happy to see your postings again Rosey.     Island life has changed, gotten closer to a the gospel and this is good for me.

Hello Twin.  I missed this entirely.  Ideally what's needed is a strong negative signal applied continuously at the gate - but with that transposed condition of the MOSFETs.  Actually from Poynty's hard work here - it seems that we don't need that many put in parallel.  And if you hold fire there - it's also possible that we don't need a functions generator at all.  Let's see what our boffins come up with.  I really am not qualified to answer this.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

That's correct Rose; to achieve constant oscillation, all one needs is a steady negative potential on Q1's Gate. However, as illustrated in the progression from the original 5-MOSFET version down the the single-MOSFET equivalent, the Q1 MOSFET is essentially inactive in the process, and is required only for it's channel capacitance and body diode. This renders Q1 unnecessary if one replaces it with a capacitor and diode as I have depicted. You can utilize Q1 though if you do not wish to replace it with the equivalent diode and capacitor.

So, when you look at the final circuit configuration and drawing, you see that the function generator (or fixed negative DC source) is actually effectively only applied to Q2's Source, and it is this negative Source-bias which partially turns Q2 ON which in turn causes the start-up and maintenance of the circuit oscillation.

.99

That's correct Rose; to achieve constant oscillation, all one needs is a steady negative potential on Q1's Gate. However, as illustrated in the progression from the original 5-MOSFET version down the the single-MOSFET equivalent, the Q1 MOSFET is essentially inactive in the process, and is required only for it's channel capacitance and body diode. This renders Q1 unnecessary if one replaces it with a capacitor and diode as I have depicted. You can utilize Q1 though if you do not wish to replace it with the equivalent diode and capacitor.

So, when you look at the final circuit configuration and drawing, you see that the function generator (or fixed negative DC source) is actually effectively only applied to Q2's Source, and it is this negative Source-bias which partially turns Q2 ON which in turn causes the start-up and maintenance of the circuit oscillation.

.99

Ok Poynty Point.  Here's my take.  Let me know if it's wrong.   Through a miracle of misapplication - through the most fortunate of accidents - I set up the circuit with the Gate transposed directly onto the source rail.  Through a second miracle of good timing I'm now using a functions generator and it is able to apply a negative signal.  A combination of both these events induces a 'hitherto' unknown negative potential to develop through the circuit?

Now.  Clearly - that is not the only way to 'expose' this current.  You and others are working on more ways to get the job done.  Which is a very good thing.  And nor is it the only way to expose the benefit in this back emf.  Bear in mind that the traditional one MOSFET plus spike - does the job.  But it's restricted to the tolerances of that transistor.  And - historically - these are not set at a required high value. 

As I see it - traditional understanding of that 'spike' is that it's stored energy.  But under these new applications it appears to become an energy supply source - all on its own.  So.  The questions are 'what' and 'why'?  All I know is that if I have the circuit fully connected - yet I leave the functions generator off - then there is absolutely NO current flow.  That generator acts to provide a 'bridge' which, in turn, then closes that gap and thereby closes the circuit.  That applied signal is positive.  And it's applied to the drain of the circuit. This then allows the flow of positive current.

Then - back to that accident.  The signal then defaults to 'negative'.  But now - just as that earlier 'Positive' signal closed the loop to let the battery deliver it's current flow at the drain - we then see that there has been a hidden source of negative current flow that is now fully enabled.  And that negative signal also closes the loop to allow that negative current to  'bridge the gap' at the source.  And this allows the flow of a negative current.  We know negative current flow cannot be coming from the battery.  And our numbers prove that nor is it coming from the generator. 

So.  What I think has actually happened is that the negative component was always there - but was, traditionally 'SNUFFED' as it was never required and certainly never anticipated.  And I propose that this is that energy in the material of the circuitry - that I rather hoped was there from the get go.  And that - only because it conformed to the thesis prediction.  In other words it's gross evidence of the fact - where under traditional applications it was not.

Is that fair comment? 

Kindest regards,
Rosie

edited