another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Better contrast.

Groundloop - you're an angel.  Thanks for that.  Even I can read it now.  Golly.

Come to think of it - that schema may have been yours and not Poynty's.  Sorry if I should have given you the credit.  I know you were among the first to spot the error in our earlier report on this.

Thanks Groundloop.  You're always there.  And it's always a comfort.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

[poynt99]

The schematic (brown background) is mine. This was not your circuit per se; it was a rendition that eliminated the FG. I was reducing your circuit down to its most basic form, and that was the last step. The FG was removed and therefore the circuit oscillates continuously rather than in burst mode. The second schematic is from your crew I believe when they simulated the circuit.

I think only one person discovered your "error" before you actually revealed it, and it was "you know who".

Regarding my test, yes coming along nicely. Batteries are still charging. They are being charged one at a time, and there are 10 total. I want 5  or 6 good batteries to start.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

The schematic (brown background) is mine. This was not your circuit per se; it was a rendition that eliminated the FG. I was reducing your circuit down to its most basic form, and that was the last step. The FG was removed and therefore the circuit oscillates continuously rather than in burst mode. The second schematic is from your crew I believe when they simulated the circuit.

I think only one person discovered your "error" before you actually revealed it, and it was "you know who".

Regarding my test, yes coming along nicely. Batteries are still charging. They are being charged one at a time, and there are 10 total. I want 5  or 6 good batteries to start.

Hello Poynty Point. 

I'm rather puzzled that you didn't or don't show Schubert - and anyone else who may be interested - more on your sims?  Golly Poynty.  Any more of this and we'll all think that you're NOT doing your best to progress this technology.  Whatever next?  Anyway.  It's probably as well that the guys do their own thing here.  They may come out with some relevant insights.  Which would be much appreciated. We're all trying to find some answers.

Now.  Poynty Point.  About your battery tests.  I think I must put this down - for the record - lest you get carried away with your 'presumption of authority'.   The 'settings' for that switch - are CRUCIAL.  Too much to the left, too much to the right - too much 'on', too much 'off' - fractionally too much resonance, too little - ALL make an ENORMOUS DIFFERENCE to the measured benefit.   Which is why the results are more dependable on a function generator to drive the 'switch'.  It holds its setting better.  And it has a wider range of options.  THEN. Short of doing a whole load of detailed spreadsheet analysis on each setting - there's no 'quick' guide to that negative wattage value.  UNLESS you use a more sophisticated oscilloscope.  I would strongly recommend that you try and get one - even if you do this on loan - as we do.  It doesn't compute amperage  - OBVIOUSLY - as it would first need to know the value of the shunt resistor.  It only reads the voltage across that resistor.  But a product of this and the battery voltage is a 'quick guide'.  And IF this results in a negative product - then you can rest easy that the setting's good.  And then you can do your own spreadsheet analysis and do the required adjustments related to the impedance at whatever frequency.  But whichever way you then cut it - you'll still have that curious anomaly of a NEGATIVE WATTAGE.    And as we all know by now.  That negative wattage has absolutely no MEANING.  It's something that has not been fully explored by our learned and revered.

And again.  THAT negative wattage number - is the ENTIRE focus of both the first and the second part of our two-part paper.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And guys,

Just in case it's not clear WHY this negative wattage number is significant - it's this.  We apply standard measurement protocols to the amount of energy delivered by the battery against the amount of energy returned to the battery.  The delivered energy is represented as a positive value as the amperage flow is greater than zero.  The 'returned' energy is represented as a negative value as the amperage flow is less than zero.  The two values are then summed.  IF Kirchhoff's rulings are RIGHT - then we should NEVER get a result that is anything less than 1.  In other words the amount of energy delivered will ALWAYS exceed the amount of energy returned.  And under ideal circumstances we should be able to PRECISELY relate that difference to the amount of energy that is dissipated - as heat or motion or both - over the circuit components.  What should NEVER happen is that the amount of energy returned exceeds the amount of energy delivered.

The minute this is evident - then we're into a new ballpark.  It means this.  Either our measurement protocols are essentially FLAWED.  Or it means that there's an alternate supply of energy on the circuit.  There are NO OTHER OPTIONS.  Now.  There are those of you who read here who will recall that we've done this test where we measured 'apparent' gains resulting in some value greater than Unity.  But until we configured this circuit we've NEVER seen values that actually EXCEED the amount of energy first delivered.  And that's why this new generation of our switching circuit is so very intriguing.  And why it's so deserving of 'review'.

And of interest.  I've been to some pains to explain that we've FOUND NOTHING NEW.  And indeed we haven't.  This result is 'required' by those Dark Energy enthusiasts who have measured a 'binding' force in our galaxies.  And it's required by our string theorists who have required an all pervasive universal force that exceeds our known forces.  The only reason that this has remained hidden for so long  is because no-one before looked for that evidence in an electric application.  And this was largely due to the expectations which relied on Kirchhoff's assumptions.  Fortunately I was that 'unschooled' that I actually saw some relevance in testing this.  And that's because our own little thesis entirely supports our Dark Energy theorists.  And this should sit well with the most of you.  Because it conforms to those insights by Tesla and I think we're all Tesla enthusiasts here.

I hope that makes the relevance of all this clearer.  Because - IF INDEED - there is this 'negative wattage' then it also means that we're grossly UNDERUSING the potentials in the delivery of electric energy.   And that way - we can - hopefully - do better.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[poynt99]

I'm fairly confident I'll be able to obtain a negative battery wattage, right "out of the box".

I got the negative wattage with the simulation, so I see no reason I won't with the actual build.