another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Bob Smith]

Not only did we get the same level of oscillation but precisely the same level of heat dissipated - related to that oscillation.  Which was proof that the energy in that oscillation is indeed NOT coming from the battery supply.

We have long argued that the battery is a passive component in the circuit.

Rosie,
The above words jumped out at me for reasons I can't get into right now. Suffice it to say that they confirm my long-held belief that this was possible. Great to see you back in action. Looking forward to your posts.
Bob

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosie,
The above words jumped out at me for reasons I can't get into right now. Suffice it to say that they confirm my long-held belief that this was possible. Great to see you back in action. Looking forward to your posts.
Bob

Thanks Bob.  But it's probably only temporary.  The trolls are bound to find me - sooner or later.  And it's their mission to close down all my threads and all this good news.   But while I can - I do as needs must.  But the news is, indeed, all good.  Just we cannot get word from our editors as to the status of that paper.  Still waiting. But somehow the news is spreading.  Which is always a good thing.  And it's certainly not only on our own NERD technology.  Plenty of evidence - and all grist to the mill.  Just so wonderful.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys,

I now have a little more information here.  The heat dissipated was not measured.  That's to be done today.  Nor could they adjust the frequency as they were using a 555 single mosfet in the Q2 position as it relates to the schematic in the paper.  In other words it was a continuous oscillation with the applied negative signal from the 555.  The resistor was, however too hot to handle - therefore it must have been in excess of 45 degrees or thereby.  That means too that it was upwards of 8 watts.  They'll firm up on these numbers sometime today.  Also.  NOTA BENE - the battery voltage was too low to 'light' a standard light.  Yet it makes no difference to the amplitude of that oscillation - nor to the efficiency with which it dissipates heat.  But there was no evidence of a recharge in the battery.  However, and as ever, nor was there evidence of discharge.  Clearly the batteries' contribution is passive - at best.  That's been our suggestion from the get go.  However we've seen a slight rise in battery voltage at high frequencies.  It will be a bonus if the present 'flat' condition of the battery can increase in voltage.

What is significant is that if the batteries are able to secure that perpetuated imbalance in potential difference - then clearly that's their only required contribution.  In other words it seems to add to or to subtract from the potential difference at the load - which then drives that oscillation.  I'll see if I can extrapolate the appropriate from our paper that covers this.  For some reason this does not copy over.  But it's covered in the first three para's under conclusion.  I'll add that link again.

It's all very interesting.
Regards,
Rosemary


http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/08/140-heres-second-paper.html
[/quote]

Actually I've finally managed to copy it over.  Here it is.

The voltages across the battery and RSHUNT are at 180 degrees in anti-phase indicating that the battery is charged and discharged depending on the directional flow of current. When the full oscillation amplitude is established, then the counter-clockwise current is seen to peak when the battery voltage is approximately double its rated capacity. And, correspondingly, the clockwise current peaks when the battery voltage approximates zero (Fig 3). If the CEMF from inductive circuit components, including RL1 and the wire, are in fact the energy supply sources driving this oscillation, then it appears that the amount of energy that it is able to generate is somehow related to and, possibly, indirectly determined by, the amount of potential difference at the battery. This can be explained as the current that is induced from the oscillation, adds to or subtracts from the potential difference at the supply. It thereby imposes the battery supply’s innate imbalance into each phase, which increases the potential difference available to the circuit to drive that oscillation.

Effectively, therefore, the battery primary supply represents the only component on the circuit that has an intrinsic charge imbalance. Therefore at each zero crossing, which is the point when the current entirely discharges the potential difference across the circuit material, then the voltage across the battery moves to its average voltage which, unlike the circuit components, is always greater than zero. Therefore too, the CEMF will add to or subtract from that battery average depending on the applied voltage and direction of current flow. This, in turn, thereby imposes a greater potential difference at the battery than its rated capacity.

A capacitor has no retained potential difference after a discharge of its energy. Therefore, to test whether this retained potential difference is a required condition to enable the oscillation, capacitors were applied to the circuit during operation when the oscillation was fully established. The batteries were then disconnected leaving the capacitors in series with the circuit and the oscillation then collapsed to a zero voltage. This evidence may support the conclusion that the retained potential difference at the primary supply source is required, if not entirely responsible, for driving this oscillation. Which, in turn, points to the need for any applications of this technology that are either restricted to battery supply sources or, if a grid supply is used, that the circuit is applied directly in series with that supply source thereby being able to access the potential difference at that supply.

[evolvingape]

Hello Rosemary,

All past issues aside I enjoyed this news, seems a more scientific and respectful approach is being adopted this time, good to see, and be a part of

(Trolls stay away please)!

I have a few questions:

Would it be possible to run a test on 1 - 6 battery banks applying a Fibonacci sequence (amongst others) to test runs (multiple implications) and comparing the detailed variable precise recorded results in a nice graph (s) ?

If voltage remains constant under load with batteries, and yet capacitor voltage testing trends to zero does it suggest the mechanical-energetic mass of the batteries is critical to maintaining a flow positive excess pressure. ? And if so, does this support your previous claim that the mass of the batteries is absolutely essential to achieving the oscillation event ?

For the record, on this, I think your absolutely correct

My final question, and I must admit also an indulgence, is a simple low cost proposition...

Place a single knackered out old car battery in a crappy old falling down shed, stick your circuit on it, and let it run. Place the heating element in a bucket of water to maintain safe operating temperatures, and your heat-sink provides your cup of tea once a week when you check and record the variables, hydrated only if you condense the steam vapor that is... also I would enjoy some fireworks stacked floor to ceiling in the shed

Cost you one cheap shed, one cheap car battery, one circuit, one heater element, one bucket and some water... + cuppa tea brewing facilities (very important )

If the shed burns down gotta go investigate... If the reports come in regularly and accurately for evermore... you really got something... and a nice cuppa tea to discuss it over with your team!

Potential difference...

RM

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys,

A few more delays here.  The effort is being made to get all this information readable on a standard oscilloscope.  Apparently this is doable.  We'll see.

Also.  For those that can do this - please check out that configuration on simulated software.  As has been pointed out you do not need that Q-array.  Just use Q2 - per the schematic - and add a diode across the switch.  Then apply a negative charge to the gate of Q2.  It should show that same waveform - sinusoidal - crossing zero which is typical of the oscillation.  The point is this.  There is no explanation for the current that moves 'clockwise' through the circuit.  In terms of conventional understandings the current flow - above zero - should represent a discharge from the battery supply.  This is the point.  How come it is discharging when there is no path for that discharge of that current through the switch?  In other words the circuit is 'open'?

This is the real anomaly that we're dealing with.  Simulation software programs allow for it.  I would love to know how come?  Unless the transistor is compromised and - in fact - stays closed.  But it doesn't.  There's nothing wrong with those MOSFETS.

And with reference to RM's post - I am tired of confronting that 'green eyed monster'.  Please be informed.  We have NOTHING that confronts conventional science.  If we did - then we would not be able to replicate this so easily on all that software and on the three or four circuits that the guys have now put together.  Nor does the thesis represent a departure from standard physics.  So.  What's new?  Indeed there's nothing new.  It is very important that you understand this.  The circuit is just one of many, many ways to prove that electromotive force is generative.  In other words back electromotive force is the result of generated and not stored energy. 

This should be of very real interest to anyone who's advancing clean green.  Just remember that time is running out.  We really need this technology.  It's understandable that there are those who seem to dislike me.  But my popularity is NOT the issue.  The technology is.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Here's where I think we at.
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/11/180-golly-i-think-this-may-be-verging.html

And here's a little something for our dear trolls

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/11/182-soft-underbelly-of-forum-and-indeed.html