Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.  (Read 933230 times)

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #750 on: March 04, 2012, 02:04:36 PM »
SRM,

Rosemary won't perform that test (or ANY for that matter) for any number of excuses, we've seen many.

Anyone making a wild claim like hers ought to have the sense of mind to validate their claim on their own by at least one other method. But alas, Rosemary has not provided corroborating data from an additional test of any sort.

My dear Poynty Point,
As ever you - 'error'.  We've validated our claim through 'multiple' alternative tests - all detailed in our paper.  We've proved all the corroborating data required - to prove our experiment under review - which are NOT those multiple alternative tests.  And I am MORE THAN WILLING to conduct the battery draw down test.  Just make it worth my while to go to that trouble.  Here's the condition.  That having completed the test then NO ACADEMIC anywhere - will argue the relevance of our result.  You see.  I'm tired of the multiple alternative tests that you want us to engage in to simply 'while away my time'.  It needs to be a conclusive test - like the battery draw down test that Schubert proposed - and Magsy.  And you SURELY know what our conditions are to doing that test?  They're a REASONABLE minimum requirement to engage at all. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #751 on: March 04, 2012, 02:06:54 PM »
And lest that answer to Schubert is now off focus - here it is again.
R.
Hi Schubert,
In your circuit presented a few page ago it doesn't show pulsing,
Interestingly - it sort of performs as Poynty claimed it would - that there is ALWAYS a path for the battery through either Q1 or Q2's gate to source.  That's where the diagram errs - or as Poynty puts it - 'errors'.  Q2 has no source leg for the discharge except through Q1's Gate.  And Q1's gate has an applied negative signal that would repel any discharge from the battery.  Can you model that too Schubert?  It would be most interesting - but calls for an 'unconventional' MOSFET diagram.  I'll post the schematic again.  Q2 is on the left Q1 on the right.
seriously does Q2 is so important to pulse your inductance ?
No.  It's only required that there's a negative signal applied continuously to the gate of Q1.  It works fine to generate that oscillation.  Which is extraordinary - because under these conditions - ie with the use of just one FET with ONLY an applied negative signal - then the battery is unarguably NOT delivering any energy.  The question then is HOW does the positive half of each oscillation develop?
In conventional science you can't get OU by simply pulsing an inductor because inductor store energy and the R of the wire dissipate it...
EXACTLY.  Which is why we claim an anomaly.  We get MORE energy returned to the supply than delivered.  AND we've got some pretty hefty heat signatures over the workstation - RL1.
So the sole effect to get OU is that the collapsing EMF will recharge your battery like a Bedini ?
I'm well aware of Bedini's claims.  Our's is ONLY different in that we've got this on a solid state system - with heat dissipated rather than motors.  It seems that the 'recharge' to the battery is still the same.  Not sure because I've never tested this on motors.
1) Take two same and charged battery.2) Running one circuit directly...3) Running at the same time your pulsed circuit...4) Comparing in how much time your battery die.5) If the pulsed circuit last longer or doesn't die --> HOURA, BRAVO !!!6) If not, time to try another things...7) It's not a pure scientific measurement but at least you can see if it's OU or not...8 ) END.
This is PRECISELY the battery draw down test that I keep proposing to Poynty.  I'll do this gladly.  But I would need to know that I'm not wasting my time when I run this test.  The last thing any of us want is another DEBATE.  It needs to be acknowledged that this will be FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE.  And to get it there - we'd need the test parameters and protocols defined by an academic expert.  Poynty et al do not have the required expertise - unfortunately.  Not that they're not experts.  They possibly are.  But they're not experts in Power Engineering - which is what's required to get these results acknowledged.   

Let me know if you can vary that design against this diagram that I'm attaching Schubert.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary

SchubertReijiMaigo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 343
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #752 on: March 04, 2012, 02:36:07 PM »
Just one question why applying a negative signal to Q1 !?
Sorry but I don't understand NMOSFET require a POSITIVE voltage to activate it (Generally +5 V)...
A negative voltage doesn't activate it !!!


For the test that I have proposed, I will support your claims when the battery will survive  significantly  the other battery...
The significantly (two times, three times, ten times ? ) must be determined before the test.
Be sure that batteries are the same and equally charged, a test like this can be easily falsified...

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #753 on: March 04, 2012, 02:44:26 PM »
Just one question why applying a negative signal to Q1 !?Sorry but I don't understand NMOSFET require a POSITIVE voltage to activate it (Generally +5 V)...A negative voltage doesn't activate it !!!
WE KNOW THIS Schubert.  We put this 'Q-array' together by accident.  They were intended to be paralleled.  Purely due to my own stupidity - I got them attached 'wrongly'.  But - we were all SURPRISED at the result.  And there is no conventional explanation.  Can you do a sim on this 'alternate' config?  If so - PLEASE.  I'd love to see your result.

For the test that I have proposed, I will support your claims when the battery will survive  significantly  the other battery...The significantly (two times, three times, ten times ? ) must be determined before the test. Be sure that batteries are the same and equally charged, a test like this can be easily falsified...
I'll detailed my own proposed parameters for these tests when we've got the engagement of some experts - as mentioned.

Thanks for those efforts on your sim - Schubert.  Much appreciated.  Let me know if you can change the MOSFET config - or simply use the one with a continually applied negative signal.  I'd be most interested in the result.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

SchubertReijiMaigo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 343
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #754 on: March 04, 2012, 06:07:15 PM »
Ah Damn, the forum eaten my message again, look like they are some bug out there...



Quote
WE KNOW THIS Schubert.  We put this 'Q-array' together by accident.  They were intended to be paralleled.  Purely due to my own stupidity - I got them attached 'wrongly'.  But - we were all SURPRISED at the result.  And there is no conventional explanation.  Can you do a sim on this 'alternate' config?  If so - PLEASE.  I'd love to see your result.



So, it was just an error...


Quote
I'll detailed my own proposed parameters for these tests when we've got the engagement of some experts - as mentioned.


Ok, I wait for the result, maybe also for measuring the temp with a "laser probe" if you can find one     ...


Quote
Thanks for those efforts on your sim - Schubert.  Much appreciated.  Let me know if you can change the MOSFET config - or simply use the one with a continually applied negative signal.  I'd be most interested in the result.


Thank you, but let me clarify this:


1) So I continue to pulse Q1 normally.
2) The negative voltage is applied to Q2: it's the negative voltage of the FG or the battery ?
3) The input signal is an AC type or a pulsed DC.
4) I have tested my sim with a AC type because with the pulsed DC it return me a bug (Q2 is the cause of the bug of course).


SRM.

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #755 on: March 04, 2012, 06:32:55 PM »
Sorry Schubert,  I missed this. 

1) So I continue to pulse Q1 normally.
It works - experimentally - when we apply a continual negative pulse at Q1.  NO Q2 REQUIRED. 

3) The input signal is an AC type or a pulsed DC.4) I have tested my sim with a AC type because with the pulsed DC it return me a bug (Q2 is the cause of the bug of course).

Maybe just try it with a continual negative at the gate of Q1?  It works experimentally.  Just a thought.

Thanks again Schubert.
Rosie

SchubertReijiMaigo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 343
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #756 on: March 04, 2012, 07:21:41 PM »
Removed Q2 and negative pulsed Q1: as expected it does nothing...


Source code:



$ 1 5.0E-6 10.20027730826997 50 5.0 50
w 272 176 272 128 0
w 272 128 320 128 0
r 320 128 368 128 0 20.0
l 368 128 448 128 0 0.1 1.199999758805723E-7
w 448 128 528 128 0
w 528 128 528 176 0
f 496 208 528 208 0 1.5
w 528 176 528 192 0
w 528 224 528 288 0
w 528 288 528 336 0
w 528 336 528 400 0
w 528 400 272 400 0
w 272 400 272 304 0
r 272 304 272 224 0 0.1
v 272 224 272 176 0 0 40.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
w 528 336 400 336 0
v 400 336 400 288 0 2 50.0 -2.6 -2.5 0.0 0.5
w 400 288 432 288 0
w 432 288 496 208 0
o 14 64 1 291 7.62939453125E-5 9.765625E-5 0 -1
o 16 64 1 291 7.62939453125E-5 9.765625E-5 1 -1
o 2 64 1 291 7.62939453125E-5 9.765625E-5 2 -1
o 16 64 0 35 10.0 9.765625E-5 3 -1


Don't know in real world mode what happen. Here I can't say something since I haven't tested (and I have over other work currently cannot test... )


SRM.


poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #757 on: March 04, 2012, 07:27:39 PM »
See, the thing is SRB,

You and I (and most everyone else) knows that Q1 can not be active with a negative voltage applied to its Gate, but Rosemary thinks it is. She is STUCK on this error in her thinking and knowledge. How could anyone take her seriously about her claim when she clearly does not understand how the circuit works?

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #758 on: March 04, 2012, 07:27:56 PM »
Thanks Schubert,

Well.  It goes to show that something's missing from the software in those sims.  It works fine in the real world.  LOL.  I'll ask someone to do that 'click download' thing and take a look at in the morning.

All very interesting.  I seem to remember that Poynty can get this to oscillate on his Pspice software.  Not sure though.   I know he gets it to work with the Q1- Q2 array number.  And we've got lots of sims on that config. 

In any event.  Many thanks Schubert.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #759 on: March 04, 2012, 07:32:53 PM »
See, the thing is SRB,

You and I (and most everyone else) knows that Q1 can not be active with a negative voltage applied to its Gate, but Rosemary thinks it is. She is STUCK on this error in her thinking and knowledge. How could anyone take her seriously about her claim when she clearly does not understand how the circuit works?
Poynty Point - can I impose on you to just hold back on your propagandising for the moment and show Schubert your sims.  Not your results.  Just your oscillation.

Then you can get back to these rather tedious references to my poor abilities.  It seems to give you some kind of relief - and it does me no harm - so I've no objection.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie Posie.


poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #760 on: March 04, 2012, 07:58:58 PM »
SRB is inquiring about and discussing Q1 and the issue of whether it can be active or not with a negative Gate voltage.

The way this is supposed to work Rosemary, is I inform SRB how it actually works (which happens to confirm his findings), then YOU try to defend YOUR awkward position on the matter.

SchubertReijiMaigo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 343
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #761 on: March 04, 2012, 09:28:19 PM »
Or maybe it was just the revers: a P channel, which is activated by a  -5 Volts...
P and N are nearly indistinguishable physically... They are all TO3 or TO220 look alike...

Flux It

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #762 on: March 04, 2012, 09:43:37 PM »
Removed Q2 and negative pulsed Q1: as expected it does nothing...


Source code:



$ 1 5.0E-6 10.20027730826997 50 5.0 50
w 272 176 272 128 0
w 272 128 320 128 0
r 320 128 368 128 0 20.0
l 368 128 448 128 0 0.1 1.199999758805723E-7
w 448 128 528 128 0
w 528 128 528 176 0
f 496 208 528 208 0 1.5
w 528 176 528 192 0
w 528 224 528 288 0
w 528 288 528 336 0
w 528 336 528 400 0
w 528 400 272 400 0
w 272 400 272 304 0
r 272 304 272 224 0 0.1
v 272 224 272 176 0 0 40.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
w 528 336 400 336 0
v 400 336 400 288 0 2 50.0 -2.6 -2.5 0.0 0.5
w 400 288 432 288 0
w 432 288 496 208 0
o 14 64 1 291 7.62939453125E-5 9.765625E-5 0 -1
o 16 64 1 291 7.62939453125E-5 9.765625E-5 1 -1
o 2 64 1 291 7.62939453125E-5 9.765625E-5 2 -1
o 16 64 0 35 10.0 9.765625E-5 3 -1


Don't know in real world mode what happen. Here I can't say something since I haven't tested (and I have over other work currently cannot test... )


SRM.

Try this not sure if its correct I just changed the trigger a bit-

circuit

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #763 on: March 04, 2012, 11:04:24 PM »
Or maybe it was just the revers: a P channel, which is activated by a  -5 Volts...
P and N are nearly indistinguishable physically... They are all TO3 or TO220 look alike...

Schubert, she's definitely using a N-channel MOSFET. P/N is IRFPG50. She just hasn't got a clue how they work, that's all.

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #764 on: March 05, 2012, 04:50:06 AM »
Hello Poynty Point,

Delighted to see your 'presumption of authority' on all matters related to our technology.  By the way - (BTW)  8) :o   How goes it with that 'test' that you promised us?  I've just read through a sad liturgy on the annihilation of 'cold fusion' led by a certain Dr Vest.  It seems he had a 'vested interest' and I'm concerned that you and he share much in common.  If I can find it I'll post a link.  He too led the 'pack' against allowing any kind of respectable reference to a new and emerging technology.  The co-incidence goes further.  But I'll spare our three readers further reference.  LOL.  It may otherwise seem that I'm alerting them to some kind of an agenda.  And that would not be politic.

Now regarding this...
SRB is inquiring about and discussing Q1 and the issue of whether it can be active or not with a negative Gate voltage.

The way this is supposed to work Rosemary, is I inform SRB how it actually works (which happens to confirm his findings), then YOU try to defend YOUR awkward position on the matter.

I have nothing to defend other than experimental evidence.  And, as you know, experimental evidence always TRUMPS 'allegation' and 'presumption'.  Thank God.  Else science would be corrupted by all kinds of fraudulent claims.  Which brings me back to our Poynt.  Were these schematics and waveforms 'fruadulent'?  Surely not?  I'll attach as much of it as I can that our members can - perhaps - try this out for themselves.  It may be of interest. 

Kindest regards Poynty Point,
May the breeze blow softly at your back....

Rosie Posie.

PS (post script) I'll do the attachments in the next post.   :-\ 8)