Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[vonwolf]

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

[poynt99]

   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

[Rosemary Ainslie]

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.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And guys.

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

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[fuzzytomcat]

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