No wonder the function generator gets overloaded,
if the one MOSFET puts about 60 Volts onto the
function generator output.

So Rosemary,
please let us know, what your circuit should be really.

Should it now have 5 MOSFETs in parallel or
should it be like the last one with the false
polarised MOSFET that might destroy the function generator ??

So was this made on purpose that you posted a wrong circuit
diagram first or what

Have they made another error with this "corrected" simulation diagram?

They have drawn the Source of Q2-Q5 connected to the shunt. But in the photo of the underside of the perf-board, you can clearly see that Q1's Source is connected to the shunt, and the Source of Q2-Q5 is not.

The function generator is driving Q1's Gate (per the photo of the actual build), but they are not showing that now in the new simulation diagram.

Take a look at the correct connections again guys.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg282472#msg282472

WTF? 

.99

No wonder the function generator gets overloaded,
if the one MOSFET puts about 60 Volts onto the
function generator output.

So Rosemary,
please let us know, what your circuit should be really.

Should it now have 5 MOSFETs in parallel or
should it be like the last one with the false
polarised MOSFET that might destroy the function generator ??

The choice is yours and any experimentalist's.  If you use one MOSFET you will get the standard spike that we all know so well.  What we have shown is that if you use the one - standard positioning - and then parallel others - non standard with the gate transposed with the source of the MOSFET then you get that extraordinary oscillation.  The advantage of the oscillation is that it is simply showing us the FULL POTENTIAL of that spike.  I am ASBOLUTELY NOT SURE WHY YOU CLAIM THAT THIS WILL DESTROY THE FUNCTIONS GENERATOR.  We do not get the kind of voltage that you are assuming - anywhere NEAR the value that is likely to destroy anything at all.

So was this made on purpose that you posted a wrong circuit
diagram first or what

My dear Steve

I have written you an email where I EXPLAINED THIS.  Did you read it?  I also copied you on a private message that I sent to Neptune.  Did you read that?  What you're doing here is forcing me to make a full public disclosure.  I'm hoping that there will be some benefit.

I am on record.  I actively attempted to DISSUADE anyone at all from replicating because - in truth - I did not expect anyone to find that oscillation.  When Poynty's simulation showed it - then I thought that perhaps that there were other ways of doing this.  Or had he made my same early mistake?  I absolutely was not sure.  I still don't know.

What I do know is that my intention was to get endorsement by EXPERTS at a public demonstration.  There are many who read these threads and these forums.  But it's still a drop in the ocean.  The public are largely and entirely unaware of what goes on here.  So.  We needed Doctors and Professors to endorse the anomaly.  With that endorsement we would have been able to go PUBLIC in the true sense of the word.   We need to get these facts to the broad public through the wider media channels.   This because I KNOW, not SUSPECT - that there are those interested parties who read these threads.  They LURK.  Unlike those of us on this forum - they already KNOW of the benefits to this technology.  The most of the readers here are still DEBATING the possibility even of OU - for goodness sake.  I assure you that there are those interested parties who are already actively structuring and canvassing licensing rights.

So.  Here was my 'hope' shared by us all.  We demonstrate this to our EXPERTS.  We explain the early 'freak' misalignment of those FET legs.  We then show the resulting waveform which, at its least is a continual oscillation and which MOST CERTAINLY defies classical assumption.  We use this as proof of a second current source on our circuit.  This speaks to the thesis.  Then physicists may be prepared to publish either the thesis or the circuit.  Either way - publication in a reviewed journal puts the technology SQUARELY in the public domain - with every reason to progress it.  Then there can be NO REASON WHATSOEVER to apply any kind of license - as the principles applied are just too easily breached.

We did not get those experts - therefore no media exposure - therefore no easy road to PUBLIC acceptance of that dual current.  Therefore I saw it as required that we hold back on that transposition until we - at its least - get our experts to the table. 

I have absolutely no quarrel with the facts having been disclosed by Poynty.  I actually think that all is this moving in directions over which none of us have any real control.  BUT.  I absolutely and heartily object to his INSISTENCE that there is nothing here.  We continue with that attitude AT OUR PERIL.  There is most certainly interest in this technology.  And it is most certainly with at least one highly reputable academic institution.  And FAR from making that research publicly available - I see no mention of it.  And that's alarming.

So.  You can quarrel with my motives here.  I am not sure that I shouldn't perhaps have challeneged Poynty on how he managed that oscillation.  I certainly did NOT intend letting the facts out before we had PUBLIC acknowledgement of anomaly.   And that was not to insult anyone here but to protect that information from being claimed 'elsewhere'.  I think the truth is that I was precipitous with the disclosure of that oscillation in the first instance.  I trust I can be forgiven.  It was and is very exciting. 

But.  I say this again.  You do not need that oscillation to get those benefits.  It is EASILY obtained with the standard 'spike' which we used before.  It also results in COP infinity.  It is just NOT as elegant in its effect nor as eloquent in what it's showing.  And it's not as amenable to heavy duty current.  What none of us need is to have this thread disrupted by Poynty and Cheeseburger - reminding us - time out of mind - that there's nothing here. 

Sorry all.  It's been a disaster.  And I am well aware of the part I played in this.  I think the truth of the matter is that it would have been better to show the full hand.  Which is my fault and no-one else's.  But it's out now.  And somehow I think that was meant.  There is no-one to blame here except me in as much as I imposed my own wishes on the team - which, I may add, was done with relative ease as the concerns are shared and the team members here fully cogniscant of that INTEREST. 

Kind regards,
Rosemary

And guys - that simulation was done some time back.  It was done in an attempt to see if this could be simulated at all.  There have been others - I believe.  I just don't know.  I see that Poynty is still disrupting this.  I have lost all appetite for answering is posts.  Surely you see that what is required is that we get to an  understanding of what is happening here?  This discussion is otherwise going nowhere.

Rosemary

Why are you posting "old" simulations then and passing them off as "present" results?

I think the folks here would be quite interested in seeing your schematic and simulation of the actual present circuit.

What are you trying to do, confuse and obfuscate more than you have already?

 

.99

Seems to me you could clear up all doubt by hooking a probe to the heating element and one on the batteries and letting it just run indefinitely. Not sure why you're not doing that already. It would quickly become pretty clear if it's legit or not. Unless you are concerned about 'exploding batteries' as you mentioned. If that's the case, then what exactly is the point of any of this

I am not concerned about exploding batteries and I could, indeed, just hook it up and let it run.  I am happy to do so IF that would result in unequivocal proof of what we're claiming.  IT WOULD NOT.  There are at least two examples of perpetual motion for public view.  The one is a chemical interaction.  The other is a mechanical interaction.  Niether have made a blind bit of difference to public perceptions nor to academic denial of over unity.  And we have NEVER claimed perpetual motion. 

Do you even read these posts Happy?

Rosemary

We are well able to prove that the batteries outperform their watt hour ratings.  We've done so.  Ad nauseum.

Just hook it up, slap a few meters on it, and let it run on a webcam for a few months. It's not the same as some weird old chemical cap battery (whatever it is) or the ball on the track. This would be continuous generation of energy in the form of heat. Just do it, it would absolutely go a long way toward proving your claim and would cost basically nothing. It would be necessary to do this if the device is to be used in the real world. Just do it.

Eya adding new members to new knowledge.






_______________________________________________________________________________________

แทงบอล-บาคาร่า-คาสิโน-คาสิโนออนไลน์-sbobet