Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

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

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.  (Read 831715 times)

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1065 on: March 16, 2012, 01:12:40 PM »
I count! Rosemary said I count (at least I used to count...)!! I still read the thread, I just don't comment. I did get a scope but it doesn't have a 'math' feature and I still don't have a function generator so I don't have the basic requirements for building Rosemary's circuit... I'm guessing that 15Mhz is too slow to see what you're seeing? I still would build it if I could... :-X
PC

Your 15MHz scope should be sufficient to see the ~ 1.5MHz oscillation.

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1066 on: March 16, 2012, 01:22:46 PM »
Back to your proposals here Poynty Point,Frankly I'd be more than happy to settle for any proposals at all that are made by Wilby.  And I've effectively structured the entire test around the proposals made by Magsy.  Stefan's only concern is with the use of the function generator.  And since his concerns here relate to the grounding issues - we can obviate this very easily - as I explained.  Gyuala is a latecomer to the arguments but I'm also happy with his input.  And indeed with any proposal made by anyone at all.  Provided only that they relate to our circuit and the apparatus detailed in our paper.  And that the proposals are reasonable or doable within the constraints of the equipment that we can access.

I've asked both Wilby and Magluvin via PM. Wilby replied "been to that vietnam... not going back.", which I assume means he's not interested, and Magluvin replied that he would "think on it".

I've proposed an alternative test that I believe is a far better approach than the battery drawdown tests, for several reasons. You're not willing to entertain this idea, and there has been no feedback from anyone else reading/posting here, neither on the drawdown test, the open source idea, nor my proposed test, so it would seem folks are apathetic about the whole thing in my best estimation. So it will be the same course as before. Steady as she goes.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1067 on: March 16, 2012, 01:29:19 PM »
I've asked both Wilby and Magluvin via PM. Wilby replied "been to that vietnam... not going back.", which I assume means he's not interested, and Magluvin replied that he would "think on it".

I've proposed an alternative test that I believe is a far better approach than the battery drawdown tests, for several reasons. You're not willing to entertain this idea, and there has been no feedback from anyone else reading/posting here, neither on the drawdown test, the open source idea, nor my proposed test, so it would seem folks are apathetic about the whole thing in my best estimation. So it will be the same course as before. Steady as she goes.

Ok.  Then I propose that we leave it as is.  The battery draw down test is cumbersome.  But it's definitive.  I'll set to and see what I can manage.  There's a lot of work required.  And frankly I prefer it because it's the one that we initially used for BP.  The downside was that the data was required to be left out of that Quantum paper - for reasons better understood by Professor Jandrell.  He did - nonetheless explain it as being extraneous to the experiment under review.

Rosemary

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1068 on: March 16, 2012, 01:46:18 PM »
SO  AGAIN.  Here's the proposed with the omission of the 555 test as we'll be using an ungrounded plug for the function generator.

. We nominate a test that dissipates not more than 50 watts.  More than this and the test can become unstable.  Less is not sufficiently significant.
. Then we access 6 x 12 volt new identical batteries with a relatively low rating but a reliable delivery.
. Then we apply our element to a variable power supply source
  this to determine the rate of current flow required to heat the element resistor to 50 watts under standard series conditions from a 36 volt ouput.

. Then we apply an appropriate resistor in series with those 3 batteries to represent the control.
. The three other batteries are applied to our experimental apparatus.
. We must be able to monitor the temperature over the element resistor AND the voltage on the batteries both on the control and the experiment - continuously
. We run the test until the voltage over either the experiment or the control or both - reaches 10 volts.  Which will be when both experiments are complete.
. We then recharge all those batteries.
. We swap the control batteries with the test and the test with the control.
. We re-run those tests. 
  this to prove that the results are not due to battery vagaries.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1069 on: March 16, 2012, 02:31:53 PM »
Allow me to slightly re-format your complete test protocol for better reference. Then I'll address certain points.



1) We run a test switched from a 555 - and powered from the supply batteries to show an identical oscillation.

1.1) The same test must also show a negative wattage in the computation of energy delivered by the battery.

1.2) The dissipated heat must be sufficient to be greater than any reasonable and applied error margins - as required.

2) We run that same test from a function generator applied to drive the switch.  We must achieve equivalent results over both tests this to prove that there are no grounding issues and that the function generator is not responsible for the extra energy.
 
3) Then we nominate a test that dissipates not more than 50 watts.  From experience I know that the settings default and the test can get out of control.

4) Then we either buy 6 x 12 volt new identical batteries or use the 6 batteries to hand.  Either option is acceptable.

4.1) It is possibly preferred to use batteries with a lower rating in order to expedite the test.

5) Then we apply our element to a variable power supply source this to determine the rate of current flow required to heat the element resistor to 50 watts under standard series conditions from a 36 volt ouput.

6) Then we apply an appropriate resistor in series with those 3 batteries to represent the control.

7) The three other batteries are applied to our experimental apparatus.

8] We must be able to monitor the temperature over the element resistor AND the voltage on the batteries on the control and the experiment - continuously.

9) We run the test until the voltage over either the experiment or the control or both - reaches 10 volts.  Which will be when both experiments are complete.

10) We then recharge all those batteries.

11) We swap the control batteries with the test and the test with the control.

12) We re-run those tests. This to prove that the results are not due to battery vagaries.

Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1070 on: March 16, 2012, 02:43:10 PM »
REQUEST FOR ANSWER NUMBER 3


Rosemary,Let me be direct here ....

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315573/#msg315573   Reply #1046 on: March 15, 2012, 11:00:00 PM

FOR YOUR POSTED SCOPE SHOT DATED 11 February 2011

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/dlattach/attach/96507/

IS THIS THE SCHEMATIC DATED 12 MARCH 2011

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/dlattach/attach/96508/



YES OR  NO  ??



Fuzzy
 8)

Offline PhiChaser

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 256
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1071 on: March 16, 2012, 03:05:31 PM »
To the 380 reader in the last 4 hours...  ;)

Does anybody know what its called when you do that?  :o :o :o Anyone? :o

Mags

The word you're looking for Mags (I think) is libel: "libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. This can be also any disparaging statement made by one person about another, which is communicated or published. It is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed"

Yep, that's probably it...

Um, anybody know where to get cheap 12v batteries, mosfets, and signal generators? (Do I NEED the 'math' function for this to work?)
I think because we (our modern world) have the circuit designing software, that not enough people have tried to actually physically build Rosemary's circuit. I would like to satisfy myself on the matter, I just have no idea how I will afford 6 identical 12v batteries. Or a signal generator... How much do the mosfets cost? Do I need two scopes (four channels?)?

A regular reader of this obnoxiously long thread ;)

PC

P.S. It seems like there is the beginning of a consensus here for some 'definitive' tests?

Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1072 on: March 16, 2012, 03:37:18 PM »
Hi member and guests,

For those idiot "PIN" heads that think I don't know what I'm talking about.

A link to my Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 testing and evaluation
https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=6b7817c40bb20460#cid=6B7817C40BB20460&id=6B7817C40BB20460!120

Twenty two (22) scope shots, tests, schematics, photos, equipment used .... EVERYTHING ALL IN ONE PLACE !!!! NOT SCATTERED LIKE DOG CRAP IN A BACK YARD !!!

Fuzzy
 8)

added -

Or how about some five (5) Hour "NON STOP" video's  .....

http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment/video?clipId=pla_6d255c76-9e9a-42ae-a565-fbc698e0b6df
http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment/video?clipId=pla_12671fda-04e2-403e-8560-ab593683a646

Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5886
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1073 on: March 16, 2012, 05:34:08 PM »
Hey Phi, Give me a highphive on that one.  I know what it is. I just wanted to give someone else a chance to "pin" the tail on the donkey. 

Now, let me see what Flapjackbatter this kitty is vomiting here NEXT. If the kitty is wearing these (  8) ), then it shouldnt be that difficult.  Because most of these  8) are lying or bending the truth, to cover up and discourage the truth.  And considering things so far, I choose to follow that pattern. :o   We will see.  ;)   Its just a matter of paying very close attention to the details. And the continuous insults are usually part of that pattern. That is the first sign. ;)

Mags

Offline eatenbyagrue

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 203
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1074 on: March 16, 2012, 06:48:39 PM »
Hi member and guests,

For those idiot "PIN" heads that think I don't know what I'm talking about.

A link to my Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 testing and evaluation
https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=6b7817c40bb20460#cid=6B7817C40BB20460&id=6B7817C40BB20460!120

Twenty two (22) scope shots, tests, schematics, photos, equipment used .... EVERYTHING ALL IN ONE PLACE !!!! NOT SCATTERED LIKE DOG CRAP IN A BACK YARD !!!

Fuzzy
 8)

added -

Or how about some five (5) Hour "NON STOP" video's  .....

http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment/video?clipId=pla_6d255c76-9e9a-42ae-a565-fbc698e0b6df
http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment/video?clipId=pla_12671fda-04e2-403e-8560-ab593683a646



All your posts seem to about proving yourself right, rather than getting to the truth.  It is all about what you have said before, blah blah blah, told you so, etc.  Nobody cares if you are vindicated or not, and only a very narcissistic person would fail to realize this.


People care about the truth.  And if you care about free energy, you would work on trying to prove Rosemary right rather than trying to prove her wrong.  The world is already full of free energy devices that do not work, we do not need another one.  Try to make it work rather than make it fail.  Maybe you can come up with an improvement.  So what if it is only, say, COP=4 rather than COP>17.  Work on making it COP>17.  That is what I am going to do.

Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1075 on: March 16, 2012, 07:37:53 PM »

All your posts seem to about proving yourself right, rather than getting to the truth.  It is all about what you have said before, blah blah blah, told you so, etc.  Nobody cares if you are vindicated or not, and only a very narcissistic person would fail to realize this.

People care about the truth.  And if you care about free energy, you would work on trying to prove Rosemary right rather than trying to prove her wrong.  The world is already full of free energy devices that do not work, we do not need another one.  Try to make it work rather than make it fail.  Maybe you can come up with an improvement.  So what if it is only, say, COP=4 rather than COP>17.  Work on making it COP>17.  That is what I am going to do.

It doesn't work that way for me ....

Anyone makes a "CLAIM" as Rosemary has the engineering is done ready for conformation.

NOT make the "CLAIM" and then do the engineering

I might be interested to send her a "web USB video camera" to stream it "LIVE" on my channel for as long as it takes 24/7 ..... to watch the BATTERIES drain.  That's what my station is for, the burden of proof LIVE.


Fuzzy
 8)

Offline eatenbyagrue

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 203
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1076 on: March 16, 2012, 08:41:31 PM »
It doesn't work that way for me ....

Anyone makes a "CLAIM" as Rosemary has the engineering is done ready for conformation.

NOT make the "CLAIM" and then do the engineering

I might be interested to send her a "web USB video camera" to stream it "LIVE" on my channel for as long as it takes 24/7 ..... to watch the BATTERIES drain.  That's what my station is for, the burden of proof LIVE.


Fuzzy
 8)


Then you are not helping.  Free energy does not need more naysayers.  The whole world is full of you people.  You are not being clever or original.  You parrot what 99.99% of the world's educated community already insists, that you cannot get more out than in, that fundamental laws of the universe do not allow such things, that controlled experiments are needed with "proper scientific methods."


Well I can tell you, I am sick of these proper experiments and proper scientific methods and controls and measurements.  What have they ever gotten the free energy community?  Nothing.  Every device ever tested by "proper" methods has turned out to not produce energy.


So I say put an end to these "tests" and "physics formulas" and "maths."  It is time to engage ourselves with the power of positive thinking and pure human energy and willpower.  That's where the secret of overunity lies, and we can start right here and right now with this clever circuit by Rosemary.




Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5886
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1077 on: March 16, 2012, 11:46:03 PM »
It doesn't work that way for me ....

Anyone makes a "CLAIM" as Rosemary has the engineering is done ready for conformation.

NOT make the "CLAIM" and then do the engineering

I might be interested to send her a "web USB video camera" to stream it "LIVE" on my channel for as long as it takes 24/7 ..... to watch the BATTERIES drain.  That's what my station is for, the burden of proof LIVE.


Fuzzy
 8)

See folks, they will spend years and years bashing Rose. They will buy cameras for her. They will build false circuits, claiming that they are replications. And for what?

"That's what my station is for, the burden of proof LIVE.   

Well Kitty, You will have to bare the burden of truth also to make your claims..

In fact, you would have to build the circuit to spec, get all the recommended equipment, and show just as much data, and more, just to prove your claim. And get that new web camera rolling while your at it. Hey, it was your great Idea to do so. Hypocrite? No?


Otherwise, if you cannot uphold your claims to the standards that you expect from Rose, then what does that say about your claim? Hypocrite comes to mind. Lazy? Or just  8)

So until you have lived up to your own standards, your muttering is, well, just muttering. ;]


I think that is all for now.   :o ;)

Mags

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1078 on: March 17, 2012, 12:37:24 AM »
Rosemary, some points that require clarification:

Quote
1) We run a test switched from a 555 - and powered from the supply batteries to show an identical oscillation.
Please specify what is meant by "an identical oscillation" and anything that my be implied.

Quote
1.2) The dissipated heat must be sufficient to be greater than any reasonable and applied error margins - as required.
How much is sufficient? Maybe you should reference a real number?

Quote
2) We run that same test from a function generator applied to drive the switch.  We must achieve equivalent results over both tests this to prove that there are no grounding issues and that the function generator is not responsible for the extra energy.
Please specify what is meant by "equivalent results" and anything that may be implied.

Quote
3) Then we nominate a test that dissipates not more than 50 watts.  From experience I know that the settings default and the test can get out of control.
So you wish to test at a power at or below 50W, ok. What do you mean by "out of control"?

Quote
4) Then we either buy 6 x 12 volt new identical batteries or use the 6 batteries to hand.  Either option is acceptable.

4.1) It is possibly preferred to use batteries with a lower rating in order to expedite the test.
I would suggest that new batteries be purchased, and that their amp-hour rating be no more than 2 amp-hours (sealed lead acid batteries are available down to 0.8 amp-hour). This way each test run should only require a couple of hours or so to complete.

Quote
5) Then we apply our element to a variable power supply source. This to determine the rate of current flow required to heat the element resistor to 50 watts under standard series conditions from a 36 volt output.
I don't understand this point. Please explain in more detail.

Quote
6) Then we apply an appropriate resistor in series with those 3 batteries to represent the control.
I don't understand this point. Please explain in more detail.

Quote
9) We run the test until the voltage over either the experiment or the control or both - reaches 10 volts.  Which will be when both experiments are complete.
Please, for the record, state what your claim is for this battery drawdown test.

Reason: Your present claim based on your paper, is that there is no measurable loss of voltage (or energy?) in the source batteries, and that the batteries are in fact charged by the circuit. Therefore, is it not implied that the batteries will never lose any voltage?

Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5886
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1079 on: March 17, 2012, 01:05:21 AM »

I would suggest that new batteries be purchased, and that their amp-hour rating be no more than 2 amp-hours (sealed lead acid batteries are available down to 0.8 amp-hour). This way each test run should only require a couple of hours or so to complete.


Reason: Your present claim based on your paper, is that there is no measurable loss of voltage (or energy?) in the source batteries, and that the batteries are in fact charged by the circuit. Therefore, is it not implied that the batteries will never lose any voltage?

In order to have an accurate replication, you or anybody will need those silver oxides Rose used.  Arent we always told that if we are going to replicate a claim, that we should try and not introduce any changes in order to achieve the same results as the original device? Or even to prove it to be a fake, or mistaken claim?

I might have been like, wellll, I dunno, if you had said 12ah or 20ah. But 2AH  na, not even close.

And your assumption that it would take a couple hours or so to complete the test using the 2ah batteries, is just that. You are assuming. But you say it like it is fact.

And the only way you would know that for sure is if you have done a full blown replication with all the goodies, so on and so forth. just as much as Rose. Plus all of the tests that you have requested through the years, as they are important to your case or you would not have posted them. Right?  ;)

Just sayin.  ;D And in the nicest way.  ;)

Mags