Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[poynt99]

Thanks Bill.

It's much appreciated.

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I just wanted to take this opportunity to say that I think that Darren (Poynt) has gone out of his way with these PSpice simulations, something he did not have to do.  I, for one, appreciate his efforts as I know they take time, a lot of time.  Thank you Darren for dedicating your time to do this.

Bill

Indeed.  Above and beyond - and considering Poynt's refutation notwithstanding the evidence - then that is a remarkable tribute to his intellectual honesty.  I am reasonably certain that there is no part of this 'unfolding' that sits comfortably with the members here - but it is a fact that this evidence is easily proved on simulation software.  And that is a far easier route to evaluate this 'effect' than evaluation of the experimental apparatus.  There is only one way to measure the energy that is delivered by a supply source.  And that is precisely as is shown in Poynt's schematics.  If that protocol is correct then it points to the fact that there is an alternate energy supply source in standard electric circuitry that has not been fully exploited before now.  And the really extraordinary fact is that this also seems to be sufficiently abundant to generate Infinite COP. 

So Poynty.  Whatever our own contributions - YOURS is considerably more effective, efficient and useable.  I'm also reasonably certain that you wont enjoy my gratitude - but it is, nonetheless, heartfelt and has earned my enduring respect.  If there are hidden errors then I am reasonably certain that this will be exposed through the wide dissemination of your schematics.

I would also like to pay tribute to Stefan.  He has clearly not moved in support of this evidence yet nor has he disallowed these posts of mine.  It speaks to a remarkable tolerance and fair mindedness which it would be as well for other forum owners to emulate.  Because, in essence - it's allowed this knowledge to remain Open Source - and that is where it needs to stay - regardless of it's popularity or otherwise.

I am almost inclined to apologise for the prosaic nature of this new energy - as this run counter to the requirements of both mainstream physics and the more popular concepts of energy that are widely endorsed on these 'free energy' forums.  But there are two points here that need to be understood.  The first is that it is NOT my work - but the work of many, many people associated with both the thinking and the experiment.  I am not about to apologise for their amazing contributions.  And secondly is the fact that it does not CONFLICT with known physical paradigms.  Which is an eloquent endorsement of the amazing insights and achievements of our GREATS.  Never a bad thing.

The thesis depends on Einstein's mass/energy equivalence - and on the possibility that inductive/conductive material is able to generate an electromagnetic energy potential as a result of Faraday's inductive laws.  The results point to the fact that this may, indeed, be correct.  What may now be considered is that the electromagnetic force is a secondary phenomenon and that the magnetic field may, indeed, be a primary force.  If this is correct then it also points to the possibility that the magnetic field itself may comprise magnetic dipolar tachyons that have - thus far - been largely overlooked.  If so - and if the thesis is correct - then it also means that there is a vast abundance of this energy pervading and, indeed, structuring all of space.  I do hope it's correct - because then there is a wealth of potential that is not confined to the electromagnetic force.

And again Poynty Point.  Thank you very much.  But I KNOW that there will be many, many others who will be paying tribute to this excellent work of yours - and I would also put on record - that there may yet be an alternate explanation.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[poynt99]

The schematics and scope shots in this post illustrate the dynamic involved by moving the battery voltage probe from the original nodes V7-4, closer to the battery terminals. In the two additional schematics, the GREEN battery voltage probes are moved progressively to the left along the RED and BLACK "wire components".

This is the only change for each simulation run. What can be observed is the decreasing peak-to-peak swing in "VBAT" voltage, and the resulting decrease in computed negative average wattage in the battery array.

Summary of results thus far:

Original full wire length: -106W
2/3 battery wire length: -77W
1/3 battery wire length: -48.5W

More to come...

.99

[poynt99]

Continuing with the battery voltage probe placement closer and closer to the battery array, the results continue to show a declining negative average power in the battery array.

The first test run in this installment is with the voltage probes placed across the battery array and CSR (V1-3), completely eliminating the long battery wire leads. The power computation comes to -20W.

The second test run is with the battery voltage probes across nodes (V1-2), which eliminates the voltage across the CSR, and is therefore directly across the battery array and the associated battery jumper wires. This power computation comes to -17.5W.

More to follow.

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Continuing with the battery voltage probe placement closer and closer to the battery array, the results continue to show a declining negative average power in the battery array.

The first test run in this installment is with the voltage probes placed across the battery array and CSR (V1-3), completely eliminating the long battery wire leads. The power computation comes to -20W.

The second test run is with the battery voltage probes across nodes (V1-2), which eliminates the voltage across the CSR, and is therefore directly across the battery array and the associated battery jumper wires. This power computation comes to -17.5W.

More to follow.

.99

lol  How does one get a wattage value without the computation of current?