Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[ltseung888]

Dear Rosemary,

Do not get frustrated.  You are working on resonance circuits which are difficult to understand and reproduce.  There will be unfamiliar waveforms.  Poynt99 and MileHigh totally dismissed my FLEET waveforms also - claiming that those are wrong and worthless.  They are NOT qualified and WRONG. 

Posting on the Internet is different from submitting to established academic journals.  In established academic journals, they have qualified reviewers.  Just ignore the comments on the Internet and continue your good work with your team.

The TRUTH cannot be suppressed forever.  You can check the Lee-Tseung Lead-out/bring-in energy theory thread at energetic forum for the detailed theory on LCR circuit resonance.  There is no mystery in your resonance circuit bringing-in electron motion energy.

Lawrence

Quick Summary of the three Divine Revelations

Revelation 1 â€" Bringing-in kinetic energy of air molecules.  This is the simplest of all the experiments and such experiments have been done thousands of times already.  Strike one tuning fork.  One or more identical tuning forks nearby will go into sympathetic vibrations.  The resulting sound is louder and last longer.  The extra sound energy comes from the kinetic energy of air molecules.  Resonance condition is required.  At present, this Revelation is used for theoretical understanding.  No product based on this Revelation is planned.

Revelation 2 â€" Bringing-in gravitational or magnetic energy.  A horizontally pulse-pushed pendulum can bring-in gravitation energy.  The COP for small angles is approximately 1.5.  So long as there is tension in the string, gravitational energy can be brought-in.  If we replace the pendulum bob with a magnet and place other magnets around, we can bring-in magnetic energy.  Magnetic energy is better because it can be greater, have different directions and can be turned on or off.  The oscillation can be replaced by pulsed rotation (resonance pulsing).  The secret is in the exact turning on and off of the pulsing that depends on the load.  Precision engineering and computer programming is needed for best results.  Examples include Tong, Newman, Bedini, Adams, Wang, Liang, 225 HP wheels, etc.

Revelation 3 â€" Bringing-in Electron Motion Energy.  We can use LCR circuits to produce resonance or oscillation circuits.  A LCR circuit can be thought of as a tuning fork.  We can have multiple LCR circuits in resonance and electron motion energy can be brought-in.  The use of two oscilloscopes to display Input and Output waveforms and Power simultaneously is best.  Examples include FLEET, Joule Ringer, Steven Mark Device, Stan Meyer HHO generator, Rosemary Circuit etc.  This line of products is expected to mushroom quickly as it has no moving parts and the size can be much smaller.:cheers:

With the three Divine Revelations, the mystery of Bring-in Energy devices is clarified.  The water has been turned into wine.  We just need more servers to interpret and produce products for the Masses.  Amen.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Lawrence.  Thank you for your encouragement - but please do NOT assume that there is any similarity between your thinking and the thinking behind this circuit of ours.  They are diametrically opposed.  And I do not have the benefit of God's personal endorsement as you seem to enjoy.  For now the thesis is based on logical argument and NONE OF IT MINE.  I have just introduced some minor variations to a 'field' - that can, perhaps be considered non classical.

So.  I'm genuinely delighted to have your words of encouragement.  By the same token I am alarmed to think that you assume this is all intended  show whatever it is that you think is responsible for whatever over untiy your own circuit may have shown.  I absolutely do not agree that electrons have anything whatsoever to do with current flow.  For you to promote your own thinking here shows an entire disrespect for the work that I've done and the circuit that we've used to prove this.

Nor am I about to get into a dialogue with you on this.  It is entirely irrelevant to the interests of our forum members and - right now - I am trying to promote results that defy classical restraints.  That's hard enough to do - all on its own.  I've told you all this before.  Perhaps you could take the trouble to get more familiar with my own thinking here - starting with the attached.

Thank you
Rosemary

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/101-repost-of-8-inconvenient-truth.html

and here's another that may be more to the point

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/01/33-in-general-and-in-particular.html

And lest any of you read these links and think that I'm not a classicist - here's yet another.

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2010/11/belated-tribute-to-our-scientists.html

[poynt99]

From Rose's blog:

"2 - I will not filter anything. It will interfere with that required oscillation. I realise that's what you and Poynty et al - require. I'm not about to oblige you."

Once again, solid technical advice is misinterpreted. Inserting a simple RC filtering circuit either off the battery voltage or CSR voltage measuring points will have very little effect, if any, on the circuit's oscillations.

To prove the point while monitoring with the scope probe, insert a RC network, and begin with a 10M resistor value. Incrementally decrease the value of the resistor say from 10M, 1M, 100k, 10k, 1k. Do the oscillations change at all?

.99

[utilitarian]

I absolutely do not agree that electrons have anything whatsoever to do with current flow. 

This part blows my mind a little bit.  I sort of figure that the entire reason we can even have this discussion on the Internet is that scientists have figured out how to properly control electrons in integrated circuits.  They are making circuits about 10 atoms wide and so I think they must have a pretty good idea of what's going on, since CPUs and other micro circuits work pretty much as expected.

If electricity is not the flow of electrons, what do you propose it is?  This really does blow my mind and if you could point to some research you have done establishing this I would greatly appreciate it.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

This part blows my mind a little bit.  I sort of figure that the entire reason we can even have this discussion on the Internet is that scientists have figured out how to properly control electrons in integrated circuits.  They are making circuits about 10 atoms wide and so I think they must have a pretty good idea of what's going on, since CPUs and other micro circuits work pretty much as expected.

If electricity is not the flow of electrons, what do you propose it is?  This really does blow my mind and if you could point to some research you have done establishing this I would greatly appreciate it.

Utilitarian - AT LAST A GOOD QUESTION.  Thank you.  I keep pointing to my links and to my blog.  If you're really interested then it's all there.  I'll take the liberty of reposting those links.  I assure you that there's nothing wrong with what scientists know and measure as electrons.  I am NOT disputing their existence - as has been widely assumed.  I am just disputing that they're the carrier particle of electromagnetic forces.  Believe it or not - there's a respectable school of theoreticians that deny that electrons can be the material property of current flow.  It's just that they do not, as a rule, speak up that loudly - and they're very much in a minority.  I can give you two names - at least - where it's acknowledged that the use of this is simply to assist in conceptual grasps of the general concepts related to current flow.

Here's my own discourse on this - again
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/101-repost-of-8-inconvenient-truth.html

And if you're up for it - here's the thesis - or possibly better described as the concepts related to the field model.
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/03/98-model.html

I might add that Poynty et al rely on this refutation to remind all and sundry that I must be both deluded and dimwitted.  Little do they realise that to support the concept of electron current flow is to support something that has absolutely NO logical foundation.  It's just one of those many aspects of physics that have been brushed under the carpet - not by our theoreticians so much - but by our electrical engineers.  And I am not sure that their skills are theoretical - as a rule.  The fact is that no-one has ever been able to determine what material is responsible for current flow.  It's possibly best referred to as 'charge'.  Or safest to refer to it as charge.  My own take is that it's magnetic dipolar tachyons.  But I'm in a minority of possible 6 at the most. 

It's a comfort to think that most new ideas were considered mad - together with their proponents.  And not all new ideas were defeated by the then 'popular opinion'.  So there's hope.  And I think that the field model at least proposes a solution that is both self consistent and logical.  But no-one's under any obligations to 'buy in'.  I just offer it for consideration.  Just - once you wrap your mind around this - then it's likely to point to some abundant energy sources that - thus far - have been studiously ignored.  LOL

Kindest regards,
Rosemary