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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.     

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.

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