Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[nul-points]

Here is that "mosaic" I promised.
...
Fig2_prog.png shows [...] circuit but with Q3 - Q5 omitted.
...
Fig5_prog.png [...] replace the function generator with a negative DC source of about -5V. [...] moved [...] under the Q2 Source
...
All questions welcome.

.99

ok, i see your transformation - comfortable with that
(holding 'Q1' gate-disconnect assumption to be valid)

nice work! 


a couple questions right off the bat:

- asymemtrical behaviour of any oscillation across L2/Rl1 & CSR to be expected due to 'Q1' body diode
(eg. supporting ~6.25V peak -ve excursions on CSR)

   does the data suggest a major player in supporting the ~1.8V peak +ve excursions on CSR - eg. C12, Q2 Cdg, etc?


- do you feel that there are any significant differences in the sim results between the Fig2 prog and the Fig 5 prog versions wrt net energy draw?


am i picking up on a general consensus for a way ahead here?
(glad the question re: optimum no. 'feedback' MOSFETs seemed to contribute to recent considerations)


thanks
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com

[neptune]

Rose , you seem much happier today , and with good reason . I predict that your technology will move forward more in the next month than it has in the last two years . I am very pleased to see the part that poynt99 is playing in moving the job forward, so praise where it is due . It is a shame that he feels that he can not speak to me , but hey , this is about the future of energy,not petty disagreements .Let us all drink to the future of "Free Energy".

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rose , you seem much happier today , and with good reason . I predict that your technology will move forward more in the next month than it has in the last two years . I am very pleased to see the part that poynt99 is playing in moving the job forward, so praise where it is due . It is a shame that he feels that he can not speak to me , but hey , this is about the future of energy,not petty disagreements .Let us all drink to the future of "Free Energy".

Hello Neptune

My own hope is that the emphasis will get off the 'ra' circuit - because - in truth - it's nothing but a generic kind of prototype that only serves its purpose to point at the ease with which those negative numbers can be found.  There are just so many other variations already on the internet.  And here we have more.  And the guys I'm working with have got others.  And so it goes.  In the limited range of that functions generator we can also find an almost infinite range of variations.  And we're only just beginning.  And that's where I find the most comfort.

And indeed it's timeous - if indeed Poynty's efforts have breached some credibility barriers here.  But all of this is only on the internet.  It's audience is just the smallest of small fractions of where it needs to go.  If we were all to tell all our friends - say 20 each, and they then tell their frineds - another 20 each - then we're still hardly at 0.0001% of the global population.  Meanwhile our lurkers are already working on trying to secure licensing rights.  And I know for a fact that this is/has been discussed at a very prominent academy in England where its presentations were considered most seriously. 

So.  We've still got a long walk to get this to publication - and if we get THERE then there may well be way forward.  And then, I sincerely hope that it won't be referred to as the RA circuit.  Because - in truth - it is not.  But I would most certainly like to be associated with that paper - only because that way the thinking behind all this may get some kind of consideration.  And I'm reckless enough to think that all those concepts may yet be proved to be correct.  I do hope so.  Because that, in turn - points to a limitless supply of energy that even this little circuit is just the smallest of small tokens of all that potential.

So.  Indeed.  Exciting times.  Just I'm not sure that it'll all be smooth sailing.  But I don't think it's progress could have been much choppier than has already been evident on these forums.  LOL.  It's still belated - but I think we're getting there.  And we DEFINITELY need all the talent that's available here to move this forward.  Every bit helps.

Kindest regards,
Rosie     

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Whenever I see the word/s EXPERT/S, I can't help chuckling to myself. 

That's because one of my father's favourite expressions has always been:
An EX-SPURT is just a drip under pressure. 

He was a plumber ! 

Sorry, off topic again .... KneeDeep

Cheers

  - interesting definition hoptoad.  LOL.

[Aphasiac]

Congratulations, Rosemary & Poynt99!

I know .99's critical skepticism frustrated you, but he only gives credence to your circuit and your theory, Rosemary. 

And for your part, .99: playing the villain is by definition the least popular of sports.  Kudos to you also, for sticking with it.

Thanks to both of you; this has been a most fascinating thread. You've provided me with an exciting first-foray into the field of circuits.   

Regards, Mark.