75 - more detail at the gate

Dear Reader,

Here's a shot of the gate with a small resistor (0.5 Ohm) in series. This to determine if there was perhaps some current moving from the circuit back through the Functions Generator. All looks as it should.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

PS - I should have clarified this point. Channel 3 the gate and Channel 4 the shunt in series with the gate - both waveforms are superimposed - one on the other. I show both.

74 - on accreditation

Dear Reader,

I need to disabuse you all of the impression that any of these results of ours are - in any way - accredited by any academic experts at all. All that is available to us is to have our measurements closely analysed by those experts as they unfold. If there is to be any kind of accreditation then it must be from a fairly wide group of academics. Else this accreditation will lack a required representative value.

Also. I need to disabuse you of the idea that these results are comfortably accepted. They are not. They are closely scrutinised and closely evaluated - as it should be. In fact, just about every aspect of this has been challenged and subjected to more and more detailed analysis. We use more than one DSO - and with all those data dumps - I have done very little but test the displayed results against the actual data for some months now. Bear in mind that we now do our dumps from samples ranging from 100 000 to 1 million - then that analysis has been close.

The difference is this. The challenge from those experts is on the results. It has nothing to do with the thesis. And it has even less to do with me as a person. That's the aspect of this that I have, personally, found to be very comforting. And refreshingly so. It seems that the forum invariably confuses the experiment with the experimenter and comments - rather liberally - on both. Fortunately, here, it is only the science that is under scrutiny.

Where tribute is required - and frankly, where I'm enduringly and eternally grateful, is that it's being analysed at all. It is a tribute to the science that it will NOT rest on assumption - but on experimental evidence. And on an entirely personal level - I've been guided into the significance of some of these measurements - as seen by school classical. You must remember that with my own 'concepts' these results were largely self-evident. I have been on a pretty steep learning curve. I also have Poynty and sundry - to thank for some of this. Very grateful guys. To all of you. But I'm deeply indebted to those academics who are looking into this. That's a debt of gratitude that I will never be able to repay. Hopefully we'll all be the beneficiaries.

But again. No-one has accredited anything at all. All that has happened, thus far, is that the measurements and their accuracies are being closely monitored and closely scrutinised. And all that is under consideration is whether there is, in fact, any anomaly at all. And thus far there is simply the need to look at more and more aspects of the experimental data. And as a reminder. I have NEVER claimed that this 'effect' is frequency dependent. There are many, many ways of skinning this cat. Frankly, I'm seeing new waveforms on a daily basis - all variations to the previous. There's a world of variety in this resonance. It's entirely engrossing.

Kindest regards
Rosemary

73 - voltage taken at the drain

Dear Reader,

This is for Poynty who wanted to see the voltage at the drain. Hope it helps.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie

Channel 1 shunt
Channel 2 battery
Channel 3 Gate
Channel 4 Drain

72 - yet more on those elusive electromagnetic properties

Dear Reader,

The only thing that I predicted - in terms of the thesis - was that current from the supply would induce a counter electromagnetic effect in a resistor. This could, theoretically, be routed back to the supply to recharge that supply. To my way of thinking this would result in some level of charge conservation at the supply. I am afflicted, as mentioned, with a rather literal turn of mind. Therefore, as I saw it, if current flow is at 90 degrees to the voltage - and if current from the supply induces a corresponding but opposite voltage in the inductive/resistive components of the circuit - then current flow is the electric moment of the electromagnetic interaction and voltage the magnetic moment. As I understood it, as there is a measurable voltage induced in that inductive/conductive resistor then allow that resistor voltage to 'equalise' by interrupting the current from the supply. And it, in turn, will induce an electric moment at 90 degrees - but in counterphase to the energy supplied from the source or initiating supply. And then? Obviously in as much as current is then returned to the supply then the supply would be recharged to the extent that it was first discharged.

What I did not realise is that mainstream were very well aware of this. But the difference was this. They NEVER returned that energy to its source. For some reason this was seen to be of no value - no net gain to the system. I sort of saw it as a recycled current. They didn't. To this day I battle with mainstream concepts and I know that I am barely beginning to understand it. But there are huge differences - obviously. The main one being that I also saw current and voltage as having material properties. In other words, to me, current comprised the same magnetic dipolar particles that voltage comprised. They were the same fields - but separated from ech other by a critical spatial distance. Circuit conditions allowing, then current simply moved to establish a charge balance that first initiated that measurable voltage imbalance.

So. In my book current is the movement of imbalanced fields of magnetic dipoles that are first measured as voltage. But when that current induces other opposite voltages in sundry circuit material - then that material also needs to move to a 'balance' and it, in turn, will discharge current to resolve that imbalance. Therefore that circuit material - that circuit component - is as capable of being an energy supply source as is the energy from the initial supply both being evidently capable of inducing the electromagnetic interaction.

And I know that it's round about now that I've lost the most of my readers. The point is critical but subtle. Voltage is always a measure of potential difference. And current is the means whereby potential difference is discharged. Voltage is localised to sundry components. Current flow is not localised but requires a current path. Both fields are structured from one dimensional fields. These discrete and orbiting fields were previously binding sundry atomic material into solid or liquid three dimensional amalgams. If the valence condition of that amalgam is sufficiently imbalanced and extreme, such as is found in the electrolytic condition of batteries - then these fields split apart. They literally become spatially separate. This partially resolves that experienced imbalance. But it is at the expense of the bound condition of that amalgam. The other half - the remaining fields that have not structured themselves into magnetic fields - are no longer able to bind those atoms. This induces a cascading condition of disorder where those remaining magnetic dipoles - the other half of all those discrete binding fields, then come out of 'orbit' - out of their balanced condition. Their thermal properties are then locally evident and measurable.

However, if there are circuit paths to enable the discharging voltage/current to be returned to that localised voltage imbalance - then that imbalanced 'hot' condition can resolve itself back to it's cooler bound condition at the expense of voltage imbalance. The magnetic dipoles, moving as current, can then resolve themselves by losing that imbalanced 'field condition' to split back into discrete parcels of one dimensional strings that re-establish their orbital interaction with the atoms - specifically, with the atomic energy levels. In effect voltage is the measure of imbalance. As a field it can move as current flow. If it can do this it can then recombine a more balanced bound condition with the atoms. Magnetic fields always move to promote a condition of balance.

I keep saying all this. I just wish it could be understood. I keep hoping I'll stumble on the right way of explaining it.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Added. Perhaps this image will explain it better. Imagine that voltage is a continual line of magnetic dipoles that arrange themselves in a series of concentric rings around a specific component. Then imagine that this spring is released into a long line that moves through the circuit to effectively reach back to itself. That spring is the voltage. That dispersion through the circuit is current flow. But that spring is actually only the sum of one half of another field that is not able to 'orbit' or structure itself as a 'field'. The material in that spring and their other halves need to 'join up'. If they can do this then they can again split into discrete little orbits - join up with those separated isolated packets that are hot and bothered without their other half. When they join up they can then go about their work of binding atoms together. Then they again become balanced orbits and then they're again invisible and cold - both.

71 - the actual anomaly that we're hoping will be addressed

Dear Reader,

BP's accreditations of these tests, back in 2001 or thereby - were based on the draw down rate of batteries against a control. In effect they required us to run two sets of tests simultaneously - then recharge the batteries - swap the control to the test - and run the same experiment again. This to ensure that battery vargaries weren't the cause. The first was to evaluate the amount of energy required to heat the resistor to an equivalent value. The second was to run the control at the equivalent current that we were measuring. The second gave a draw down commensurate with the experiment. The first depeleted long before there was any kind of significant discharge from our supply battery. These tests took forever to complete. The good news here is that this actually generated a report. But I cannot, for the life of me, find it.

Notwithstanding I used this protocol in our COP>17 experiment. We always ran the control with the experiment. But - for reasons which I have never fully understood, we were not allowed to reference those controls. Therefore did our schedule of results simply hold what was seemingly an arbitrary test duration period. That duration related to the time it took to run the control to below 10 volts per battery used. At which stage the batteries on the test experiment had barely lost a fraction of a volt.

However, having said that - I must acknowledge that, to the best of my knowledge, I have never run any tests with zero discharge from the battery. I have certainly seen battery voltage climb but then it drops. And with these new results - technically we should only ever be showing a recharge or, alternatively, a stable voltage. In fact, I'm reasonably sure that this is the case. We have never used any kind of battery charger on the bank of batteries that we're using. And they've been operational daily for the last 3 months or so. Today was the first time that I actually looked at the effect on the battery voltage and saw that it continually swings between 0.5 volts up and down. No evident entirely 'upward' swing. But by the same token nor was there a downward swing. On some resonances there's a wild swing and an immediate drop to plus/minus 10 volts each from the 12 volts that should be available. But under these circumstances there's a steady climb back to the start voltage - so I assume it's some kind of charge balance that kicks in when the resonating condition is established. Under 12 volts is certainly not representative of the battery's actual charge.

We will be using an hydrometer to test the actual battery condition - just to see if there's any evidence of recharge through our system. But. And here's the caveat. I absolutely do not depend on the battery condition to assert our claim. We would first need to evaluate whether the recharge can be reasonably accomplished at all - at the high frequencies that we use. I just don't know. I've never studied the process closely enough to know what's required.

The claim is only this. We have both a negative mean and cycle mean average over our shunt that indicates that there is more energy returned to a supply than was first delivered. This is unequivocal. And it's a result that can be found at multiple frequencies and with a variety of settings from the functions generator. And this while the temperature over the resistor reaches a level indicative of 5 watts or greater being dissipated - depending on the frequency and setting at the switch. This result is absolutely NOT in line with classical prediction. If this can be acknowledged as an anomaly - then the questions - those many many questions that we've all be asking for so long - may well get the attention they both need and deserve. In other words - if we had a pure DC supply source - then what's evident is that we could return enough energy to that supply that would be measurable. In effect, if we used our grid supply and rectified the current to DC - then we could return enough energy that we could bill our utility suppliers - subject to them allowing this through their watt meters. It will - at its least, require a revision to the protocols applied to standard measurements. There is nothing exceptional on our circuit. Nothing out of the ordinary. It is only these results that need a full investigation and full analysis.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

70 - infinite co-efficient of performance

Dear Reader,

Lest anyone - especially MileHigh - missed this. Please note that the point at which these results move away from all classical prediction is when the mean average, the integral and the cycle mean averages of the shunt voltage shows a negative voltage. This is the moment when there is also clear evidence that the supply source is - at its least - conserving its charge. Proof is in the math trace that computes the product of the battery and shunt voltages.

Just to remind you. Here it is again. And given that this is 50 seconds worth of data - then it also appears that this is not an accidental result of some momentary aberration in the data capture. Again. Mainstream require that power comes only from the supply - in this case - from our batteries. How then can more energy be returned to that supply than was first delivered?

And Poynty - to answer your questions - our probe is unquestionably across the shunt. (added) B is connected to ground - and we have a short wire to enable the probe connection at the FET.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

69 - This is for MileHigh

Dear Reader,

I really need to say something about the propensity of some sad forum personalities to continually see the need to belittle or deride this technology.

The fact that their comments are so ill considered and the fact that they indulge in a level of criticism that is entirely inappropriate - is also my comfort. Clearly they have all forgotten that all new discoveries depend on that early derision. It goes something like this. First the idea is scoffed - then it's denied - then it's considered to be self-evident. Fortunately - there are those who are already at the 'self evident' stage of this development. The scoffers are way behind.

What is particularly sad is that this is certainly NOT a new discovery. It depends on those very Laws that have been forged by our Giants in physics. All I have done is suggested that these Laws are, indeed, universally applied. To add to this point is the fact that I would never have been able to progress any part of this had it not been for the impeccable standards of some academicians to apply themeselves to all that experimental evidence. It is an enduring comfort to still find evidence of that pristine level of intellectual integrity - largely missing from the egocentric clamour of the 'forum'. Would that they exercised some kind of professional constraint and then their denials would be so much more credible. As it is their criticisms are discounted, precisely because of their excess.

May I remind those noisy detractors. I have done no-one any harm. I have simply proposed a new perspective on a really old truth. Why is there this need then to mock the idea? There are ideas out there in the world of science that are promoted by experts that are far, far, stranger than anything that I have ever proposed. And if you do not want to be associated with that thinking or any eccentric thinking - then there is always the very real option of dismissing the idea. That's it. Just let it go and move on.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

68 - a partial replication of that earlier surprise

Dear Reader,

Here's that spike that I mentioned earlier. We've at least got this one on a semi-stable setting. The data dump taken off the multiple waveform screen shows a mean average current flow of -0.49amps (negative ie. back to the battery) Not as dramatic as was seen yesterday.

I have not managed to get a repeat on that runaway number. But I'll try again tomorrow.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

67 - something about Einstein's mass/energy equivalence

Dear Reader,

Just a quick reminder about the thesis. This, because one of the questions that was posed is 'how can the energy exceed the supply?'. I need to remind you all that I do not propose that there's any extra energy at all. I'm fully in synch with our classicists. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. The difference is this. All matter has potential energy locked in its structure. That's Einstein's E = MC^2. What is proposed here is that if that structure is largely inductive or conductive - then those inductive and conductive properties can be exploited in the electromagnetic interaction. That way the material of the circuit components then becomes an energy supply source. This because the applied electric current flow 'releases' that locked energy.

Where in that structure this energy is located is then easily answered. Clearly it is NOT in the atoms themselves as they are not themselves 'changed' by that interaction. Therefore it must be outside the atomic structure. And since the only things that become 'changed' in an electromagnetic interaction - are the bound conditions of the molecules in the battery supply and the the bound conditions of the resistor and sundry circuit components - then one may propose that the binding of those material structures - molecular or atomic - is where this energy is actually located. Since we are not aware of anything other than the induced magnetic fields measured as voltage - then perhaps these fields are responsible for that bound condition. And then too, in as much as the atomic structures remain precisely as they were before that interaction, then perhaps they're extraneous to the atom itself. Surely from that premise to the proposal of 'hidden' or 'dark' energy is just a small but logical forward step? That, in any event, is where my own thinking leads.

So. Let's look at an example. We can burn a piece of wood and yet we would not alter any single atom in that entire structure. We'd only effect it's bound condition. We'd be left with a heap of ash - at best. Perhaps - in burning - those binding fields, like Elvis, just 'left the building'. Maybe they are just fields of 'binding matter' - hidden material that has moved from the wood into something else. Maybe they just dispersed in space to find some new 'home' or 'abode'? Some new atoms to 'bind'?

The difference in the electromagnetic interaction - is that these fields don't seem to go too far from the circuit itself. There is no actual 'conflagration' unless the applied current is that extreme. In which case the bound condition of that circuit component can be entirely compromised. But under usual conditions, our filaments - elements - all last a predetermined amount of time. At least long enough to justify their use.

But I do seriously propose that both that 'fire' and that heated element are indeed the consequence of change - not to the atom - but to something outside that atom that has, itself a material property. But these are hidden in a field condition. They're measurable and visible outside a field condition. And then they're experienced as 'fire' - in varying intensities and degrees - depending on the circuit material.

So. Back to that one overriding question. Are we simply referring to 'dark energy'? It would explain much that has been seen and measured by our astrophysicists. And it would certainly explain those questions raised by our string theorists. All that required matter. All those many dimensions. And all of it - entirely invisible.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

66 - yet more surprises

Dear Reader,

We are barely touching on the signifance of these effects. Since Friday I've found yet another waveform. A friend has taken downloads onto his flash drive today and I'll get my own download from this tomorrow. It's extraordinary. Something in the order of spikes at plus/minus 40 volts peak to peak measured across the shunt. Conservatively there's an estimated 80 to 100 amps in that really brief moment. And the battery voltage climbs dramatically.

Then. The flash drive left with it's owner. Another colleague of his came in to consider the simulation requirements. I had, by now, changed the frequency by another small adjustment to the duty cycle. The interval between those waveforms was reduced and the consequence was blow away. The resistor rocketed up to over 156 degrees. I turned off the system when it reached 168 degrees and climbing at speed. Still the values stayed negative. I'm hoping to duplicate that condition tomorrow and get the appropriate downloads. I'll let you know if this can be replicated. Ideally I need to video tape that event. But I'm not sure that I can manage the adjustments and the video taping. Perhaps I can get someone in to assist.

The real beauty of this new little number is that the mean average values still stay glued to those negative values.

I'm hoping that all this is repeatable. If not - it's not of too much consequence as our previous waveform is always there. That's more than enough for the demo. And all these other effects? Provided that our demo motivates enough interest - then I'm reasonably satisfied that it will all become apparent as this project is more carefully researched. Much needed. I have never expected that this energy is just so, so plentiful. But it relies on some careful tuning. I cannot see how this will ever be progressed without having broadband oscilloscopes. I foresee a big future in the market here.

Meanwhile - just to let you all know. I'm looking forward to that demo despite the scare that sits in the pit of my stomach and despite the sleepless nights. I've been largely reassured as the actual demo will be given by someone else. I'm reasonably satisfied I would not be equal to addressing a large group of people.

Kindest regards as ever
Rosemary

65 - some answers to some questions

Dear Reader,

This is just to asnwer some of those questions that have been put to me on forums.

Poynty - we did do a waveform directly across the load resistor - courtesy a very special little DSO. Here's the link. (Blog 54. I see I've incorrectly numbered two of them the same. In any event. You'll see which is which)

The waveforms across the shunt and the load are about 30 degrees out of phase. (sorry I edited this having written 70 degrees - incorrectly) But they follow the same general shape above and below zero. I am not sure of the significance of this but was assured that it was to be expected. My flashdrive was incompatible and I could not download the waveforms. But I hope to have that instrument for the 12th March demo.

TK - no aliasing whatsoever. And we've many downloads on the required 4 cycles. My only concern when we use so few samples is that the mean averages and that math trace become even more apparently advantageous. I prefer the more modest result from multiple waveforms. It seems to trend to a more conservative value that also matches the apparent energy dissipated at the load.

Also for Poynty. There's nothing wrong with our diodes - I assure you.

Many thanks to all those who have written in to show their support. It all helps. I confess to feeling more than a little nervous at the prospect of the demonstrations. But as someone else will be giving the demo then that fear is a partially abated.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

ps. Also to mookie. I read your post with interest. Thank you for your efforts. Rather daunting to think that this could result in a lifetime of derision. But as I'm already so old - then I doubt that would be too long to endure. And I'm not concerned about the consequences to my reputation. I have none. But I would be very sorry if I dealt this science a harmful blow - ever. I doubt that I'd be able to survive that disappointment. I have been entirely seduced both by the logic and this general unfolding. It's been extraordinary. And in the wild hopes that this gets accredited as an anomaly - even then the tribute is hardly to my own efforts. It's very a much a joint endeavour shared by the hard work and hopes of thousands of us poor 'free energy addicts'. It's with some certainty to say that this energy is very much required.

Kindest
Rosemary

64 - a general appeal

Dear Reader,

We're leading up to our demonstration - planned for the 12th March 2011. I've asked both Stefan and Aaron to post news of this. My hope is that it will focus some internet attention on the demonstration and to alert you all to this.

Please may I impose on you all to spread the word. I would be glad if there could be some internet focus on this event. I will be inviting a reporter to the demonstration - but would prefer to keep it prescribed to 1 or 2 at the most. This to ensure that the news is not 'blown' out of proportion and that the reporting itself is handled responsibly.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

63 - the circuit to test for the simulation

Dear Reader,

I suspect I'm boring you all with all this repetition. But I need to make this point as poyntedly clear as possible. To anyone who wishes to simulate that waveform - I propose that it may be achieved if you assume the following circuit.

Two rechargeable batteries are in parallel. A resistor with a small associated inductance is in series with the drain of battery one - with a switch and with a positively biased diode where the cathode is against the positive terminal of battery 2.

A second rail leads from the positive of battery 2. A resistor with a small associated inductance is also placed in series with the drain of battery 2 - with a switch and with a positively biased diode where the cathode is against the positive terminal of battery 1.

The switches work in antiphase that only one battery can deliver energy at any one time. You can use a solid state MOSFET type with a body diode driven by a 555 or by a functions generator. I think you'd need one switch for each rail - but have no idea how you determine the 'on' 'off' time of them both. Hopefully you guys will know.

A common rail links the negative of both batteries. A shunt resistor is in series with both negative rails in order to determine rate of current flow.

I am not sure what is required to ensure that both batteries sustain a different pd to each other. I'm afraid you guys will need to sort that out.

The switches work in antiphase. If the battery 1 is closed, then battery 2 is open. And when battery 2 is closed battery 1 is open.

I'm reasonably satisfied that the waveform across either battery and the shunt resistor will correspond to the this one where the two waveforms are in antiphase to each other

If so, then I'd modestly propose that our own circuit seems to indicate that there's an alternate energy supply source.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary


POST SCRIPT
It seems I've confused everyone. Abject apologies. The circuit described here is only theorised. I've never built it. Our circuit is substantially the same as it's ever been. Here I've proposed that this be tested only to see if a second supply will then generate the waveforms that we're getting. I thought it would be an articulate means of proving that our resistor/element is also an energy supply source. That speaks to the 'thinking' which is my best euphemism for 'thesis'. Apologies for the mix up. Clearly my writing is worse than ever I realised.

What I'm hoping Poynty - is that the waveforms will now move in antiphase. It'll be an interesting study.

62 - how about it Poynty?

Dear Reader,

it seems that Poynty Point will consider anything in his simulator bar the possibility of actually testing the thesis itself. This is a sad tribute to that 3rd school mindset that I've referred to earlier. And if it were a trivial matter I'd still joke about it. But it's not.

Pointy, the art of debunking is - possibly - required. Especially when what is being debunked is obviously being perpetrated as a deliberate fraud. But what is at issue here is not a fraud. I would not have the skills required to fabricate a waveform in any event. All those resistances and what have you in series with the gate of the MOSFET. Golly. I wouldn't know where to begin. We're looking at waveforms that are either the result of some intrinsic corruption in the circuit components - or we're looking at an alternate energy supply source. And there is nothing corrupted in our MOSFETS.

So. Test it Poynty Point. If you don't, I assure you that others will. And then your counter arguments here will be entirely irrelevant. What exactly are you scared of? That you'll duplicate the waveform - and thereby show that the thesis may be correct? And what harm? It would be of riveting interest to the guys at Caltech. and it would be memorable piece of simulation. I rather hoped you'd be equal to all sides of this argument. That's the base requirement for a serious experimentalist. Surely? Failing which, I'm afraid that your integrity will remain questionable. It's one thing to pose as a serious researcher. That's deserving of every respect. But it carries certain obligations that require objectivity and impartiality. I'm not sure that you're equal to it. Sadly.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

61 - just a way to stress those rigid paradigms yet further

Dear Reader,

I've been asked to give a full description of circuit and circuit components. I won't do this prior to the demo. Therefore, technically, it will need to wait until the 15th of March or thereafter. The simple facts are that Fuzzy et al - lurk - with as much menace as ever. Quick to deride or decry - and either way - may well, and again, attempt to usurp or deny these results. Either way I'm not sure that the technology would survive a second attack. And I've run out of the required energy to fight it all again. I want academic accreditation to precede disclosure on the internet. Frankly I have no reason, whatsoever, to distrust mainstream. I only know that they've been indifferent and entirely sceptical. I've learned better than to ever again trust our internet personalities.

But the actual simulation does not depend on precise circuit components. What needs to be tested is this. Assume that there is no body diode. And assume that there's an alternate energy supply source. With those two items factored in - then I'm reasonably satisfied that you'll get a waveform precisely as we manage on our circuit. It will have the added advantage of evaluating the actual thesis which everyone, thus far, has chosen to ignore.

If, indeed, current flow has these properties of 'dual charge' and if there is an energy supply source extraneous to atoms - then the actual beneficiary will be our entire scientific community and their required skills to apply this knowledge. Then - to those who can operate those simulators - here's the carrot. The first person who actually finds this will be in the happy position of proving the thesis. And that proof would be conclusive - provided only that I can then show that our body diodes are in tact.

I would have thought that this could be a desirable test. Certainly with all that promising conservation of charge - the simulation should attract a certain amount of interest.

Just a thought.
Kindest as ever,

Rosie