Author Topic: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology. (Read 865319 times)

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #1470 on:** March 23, 2012, 11:12:49 PM »

Quote from: eatenbyagrue on March 23, 2012, 06:49:20 PM

I am not as smart in electronics as you and some of the others, but I remain cautiously optimistic about the circuit and think you deserve the full opportunity to prove it. I think you are very close, but my layman math arrived at a slightly different formula. But I am just a layman here, so I could be wrong. I was just going by what I have studied on the internet.
So I hope to be pro en wrong and look forward to seeing your self running circuit. Once you get it to self-power, all these people will shut up, I promise you.

I very much look forward to your finished product.

Well that's fair. Thanks. But there are subtleties at play here eatenbyagrue. You are expecting something to self-power? Not sure what you mean. We certainly need the battery voltage potential but from what we see - we actually never access it's current. I have no idea how this is likely to impact on an battery draw down test - only because we've never seen any battery drawn down. One of my colleagues has certainly done a replication where there was a reduction in battery voltage. But he did his setting 'blind' and when we tested this on the LeCroy - it was NOT actually set at that negative wattage number. So. There's magic in that resonance - but it needs to be combined with some optimisation of the actual applied duty cycle and switching frequency.

I would be very reluctant to assert this claim without the evidence of the battery outperforming it's watt hour rating. You must remember that we've had these batteries now for more than 2 years - and have used them continuously for 18 months on various tests on virtually, a daily basis. And in all that time we have not even had a single drop in voltage over these 6 batteries. Two of them were taken out of the equation because they caught fire and needed recharging. But we've not touched this remaining six with a recharger. Ever. And their voltage is EXACTLY where it was when we took delivery. In any event. As Poynty has pointed out. This needs to be tested. The sooner the better.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

May I add it would be much sooner if I was not required to defend my back from this 'troll attack from hell'.

MileHigh · « **Reply #1471 on:** March 23, 2012, 11:20:43 PM »

Rosie Posie,

You have gone from LOL's to a passive disinterested deadpan delivery. Same difference, you are nervous and uncomfortable. It's all just a tit-for-tat game you are playing right now.

The only thing that matters is the truth. You deny all attempts to arrive at the truth with the one exception of the battery draw-down test. So it would seem that we have to rely on you and whomever it is that's going to assist you to do the draw-down test?

Certainly you are not capable of doing it yourself. If you are going to rely on the same team, Team Ainslie-Buffoon, then I have very little hope that it will ever get done properly. The current loop in your nonsensical arrangement of MOSFETs does indeed flow straight through the function generator when the output waveform is negatively offset, I assure you.

Remember, you had a freak-out when Poynt asked you to analyze a circuit consisting of a battery connected to a single resistor. What chance do you have to do a draw-down test and analyze that?

Rosie Posie's Flying Circus.

MileHigh

fuzzytomcat · « **Reply #1472 on:** March 23, 2012, 11:21:01 PM »

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 23, 2012, 04:11:24 PM

so Guys,

This is how these threads of mine trend. For some reason Tinsel Koala, Powercat, MileHigh, Glen Lettenmaier - and sundry - are free to entirely misrepresent our circuit - our claim - our waveforms - anything they choose, without any kind of accountability at all. If TK were obliged to show his identity then he would be considerably more cautious as he would then know he could be held accountable. Glen I'm not concerned with. He is - self-evidently - utterly unprincipled and - by rights - should not be allowed on any self respecting forum. His flagrant breach of confidential information and the level of his sad attempts at traducement are that excessive that they're positively vulgar. But please note. Harti is positively encouraging this. And that is something that I cannot wrap my mind around. One would have thought he'd allow any claim a fair chance. As it is I would be grossly embarrassed to refer any academic to this thread - where I'm soliciting their involvement. I suspect that Harti's fully aware of this. And I'm inclined to suspect that's precisely why he allows this.

I'm afraid that Harti will be obliged to lock this thread and I suspect that is precisely why he's encouraged this troll attack. You must all of you draw what conclusions you may. Bear in mind that he took Glen Lettenmaier off moderation precisely to encourage this. And strangely - he also then invited MileHigh to join in. Both have long been antagonists of this technology. This is all way past acceptable. I can only conclude that they'll persist in this abuse in order to get this thread locked. And all this in order to prevent our definitive draw down test. Then in due course I'll be invited back. And the same will occur. What they cannot tolerate is to give a fair chance for some really interesting technology to ever see the light of day.

SO. For the record. We are more than happy to engage in a definitive draw down test that will conclusively prove the anomalies related to our circuit. And we strongly anticipate that the evidence will conform to the measurements over our circuit as detailed in both our papers. And unless I am given some reasonable chance to do that demonstration - then our trolls have won. And that with Harti's active assistance. Go figger.

What these trolls are attempting - with some considerable efficiency - is to prevent that demonstration from being held on these forums. It will be way too definitive for their comfort - where the obvious intention is to frustrate experimental proof and rely on allegation, allusion, insinuation, or just plain traducement to win their argument. Which goes to show. Over unity is not to be defeated by intelligent argument - or even by experimental proof - but simply by sheer force of opinion. What is particularly galling is that everyone will then assume - as ever - that over unity has not been proved. It most certainly has been. It's just that Harti seems anxious to keep that knowledge away from this thread. Else why would he allow this flagrant abuse of forum guidelines. I ask you?

Regards,
Rosemary

Hi guests and members,

As you can see the delusional mind of Rosemary's so deranged, and disturbed not one person comes to her defense ..... NO ONE !!

There is not one academic, engineer or someone involved in any of her projects that's been around not one comes to her defense.

The only ones from here are those whom have never tried to make a "magical" Rosemary device ..... possibly even Rosemary posing as someone else here at OU as she did in a previous thread as "Doozie" from what I remember.

These threads go on and on with her BS for at least 120 pages or more and if everyone is tired of this like most of us here please e-mail Stefan the owner and moderator at hartiberlin@googlemail.com

FuzzyTomCat

Other members may want to add Stefan's e-mail address in the body of their posts ...... "stop the madness"

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #1473 on:** March 23, 2012, 11:24:57 PM »

That's more like it MileHigh. Better prose, more adventurous insights, more subtle innuendos. Now. Do that analysis. Let's see your explanation. Even if you're claiming the current comes from the function generator. Remember to apply the known resistances.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose

Quote from: MileHigh on March 23, 2012, 11:20:43 PM

Rosie Posie,

You have gone from LOL's to a passive disinterested deadpan delivery. Same difference, you are nervous and uncomfortable. It's all just a tit-for-tat game you are playing right now.

The only thing that matters is the truth. You deny all attempts to arrive at the truth with the one exception of the battery draw-down test. So it would seem that we have to rely on you and whomever it is that's going to assist you to do the draw-down test?

Certainly you are not capable of doing it yourself. If you are going to rely on the same team, Team Ainslie-Buffoon, then I have very little hope that it will ever get done properly. The current loop in your nonsensical arrangement of MOSFETs does indeed flow straight through the function generator when the output waveform is negatively offset, I assure you.

Remember, you had a freak-out when Poynt asked you to analyze a circuit consisting of a battery connected to a single resistor. What chance do you have to do a draw-down test and analyze that?

Rosie Posie's Flying Circus.

MileHigh

MileHigh · « **Reply #1474 on:** March 23, 2012, 11:45:52 PM »

Well, when the electrons hit the fan everybody psych yourself up for about a week's worth of profuse apologies and digital sniffles and tears from Rosie Posie. There was an incident like that about two years ago, I think it had to do with whether or not there was a diode in the original circuit.

Rosie will swoon when the truth comes out and the tears will flow and flow in a giant burst of under unity in all it's glory. You will all be smothered in apologies and apologies and apologies and then we can all collectively mourn the end of the era of delicious oscillations.

Next stop Sterling Allen! lol

poynt99 · « **Reply #1475 on:** March 23, 2012, 11:54:22 PM »

Here is the output path for the Instek GFG-8216A, courtesy Kenenth Ho at Instek America. I received this Jan 30th.

The switches are for 20dB attenuation, but are shown in the normal unattenuated position. I don't believe Rosemary was using the attenuation setting (which would be a pulled AMPLITUDE knob).

.99

TinselKoala · « **Reply #1476 on:** March 24, 2012, 12:27:44 AM »

Thanks for posting that from the INSTEK circuit, .99. Of course, nobody that can read that diagram pretends that Rosemary is correct in her claims.... and Rosemary can't read that diagram or interpret it at all.

What's the green trace Rosemary?

For someone who accuses me of trying to silence you.... you are remaining awfully silent on this issue.... except of course to say that I'm wrong. But you WON'T EXPLAIN why the diagram and the presenter and the actual physical circuit show that the GREEN TRACE is the mosfet common drains... unless of course, as at 0:42 of the video... something ELSE is also connected there which is NOT SHOWN on the circuit diagram.

You have ample opportunity to ANSWER MY DIRECT QUESTIONS about these contradictions and impossibilties but you REFUSE to do so time and time again.

YOU ARE THE ONE IMPOSING A CONE OF SILENCE ABOUT THE ACTUAL PARAMETERS AND BEHAVIOUR OF YOUR INDUCTIVE CLAMP TEST CIRCUIT. Open Source Project? Again.... a redefinition of words by Rosemary Ains-lie.

The GREEN TRACE. What does the GREEN TRACE represent?

TinselKoala · « **Reply #1477 on:** March 24, 2012, 12:52:12 AM »

Now... eatenbyagrue, you think you aren't sophisticated enough in electronics to be able to evaluate her circuit.
But actually... you are.

Have you ever experienced a loose or corroded positive battery cable in your automobile? Most any driver has, and knows that any loose connection here will interfere with the charging system and also will not be able to carry the current necessary for the starter. Now... the Source and Drain connections of a power MOSFET are kind of like the battery cables in your car. They must be securely attached to whatever they are attached to, and the connections must be of low resistance themselves. The internal "ON" state resistance of the IRFPG50 mosfet is 2.0 Ohms. Have you ever touched and felt the temperature of a loose battery cable after you've tried to start your car and run the battery down doing so? Feel that heat? That is (P=I squared R) heat, aka Joule Heating. The resistance of the loose connection is high and with high current flow, much power is dissipated at the loose connection in the form of heat... and this power isn't getting to your starter.

Now... take a look at the construction of Rosemary's demonstration circuit. See all those ALLIGATOR CLIP LEADS, clipped to long pieces of ALLTHREAD ROD or long screws to make the parallel connections and further on through the circuit. ALLIGATOR CLIPLEADS on long bits of wire, connected by spring tension only to something that isn't even designed to be an electrical conductor.

Now... take her claim of supplying 26.5 million Joules to something in 100 minutes (6000 seconds.) Since we know (some of us) that a WATT is a JOULE PER SECOND, we can take the 25.6 MILLION JOULE figure and DIVIDE BY the number of seconds to arrive at a WATTAGE figure that must have been applied CONTINUALLY for the entire 6000 seconds in order to transfer that much energy. That wattage figure is over 4200 Watts, continually. Since this power was supplied at 60 or 62 Volts we can determine the AMPERAGE necessary, since P=V x A, so we have A (or I for current) = P/V or.... wait for it..... over 70 AMPS, continuously, for the entire 600 seconds without interruption. If her system is only supplying power during the ON part of a 50 percent duty cycle... then it must supply 140 AMPS during those periods, since that means that the power is actually only on for half the 100 minute timespan.

Now... can those cliplead connections carry SEVENTY AMPERES of current? If the MOSFET's internal ON state resistance is 2.0 Ohms, how much power MUST be dissipated within the mosfet with 70 amps (or even 1/4 of 70 amps in the stack of 4) flowing through it? This is given by the relation P= I squared x R, or, P = (70)(70)(2), or a whopping 9800 Watts heating up that single mosfet, or a quarter of that for each in the stack of 4. That is the power that must be dissipated IN THE MOSFET ALONE at a current of 70 amps through a 2 ohm mosfet. Of course the transistor itself can only carry about 4 amps maximum before it blows up. So to claim the performance that she has claimed and defended over and over requires that you swallow such a linked chain of absurdities that it is entirely IMPOSSIBLE, even if her circuit actually COULD work as claimed. There is no way that the apparatus itself could sustain the power levels required.

The true current levels in Rosemary's apparatus will be limited by the ability of the mosfets to handle the current. The single MOSFET can handle a bit more than 4 amps when COLD and less when at operating temperatures. Multiply by 4 for the behaviour of the stack, so at BEST, her circuit might be able to handle 16 amps for a short time. And her claim equates to a claim of 70 amps for 100 minutes continuously, or 140 amps at a 50 percent duty cycle.

And she says "Do The Math", in her overweening arrogance and willful ignorance.

Note that she can't claim that the power is made "in the load" somehow and dissipated there without affecting the mosfets ... .since she's used the ELECTRICAL PARAMETERS of the rest of her circuit to derive her bogus 25.6 megaJoule figure and her other "evidence" of OU performance.

ETA: attached the IRFPG50 mosfet data sheet.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #1478 on:** March 24, 2012, 01:14:46 AM »

I said earlier,

Quote

The green trace is set at 100 volts per division and is AC coupled in order to display on the screen and not shoot up above it. Since this is the drain signal, it should be HIGH when the mosfets are off... and it should be LOW when they are on... so one should see the same kind of up and down jump, with oscillations on the on portion, as we see in the gate drive signal, I think. Only this jump's magnitude should be near the battery's voltage. I don't know if the scope's AC coupling is flattening this out or not. The scope is telling us that the oscillations have a 44 volt p-p amplitude. No surprise there.

And Rosemary Ains-lie replied,

Quote

Yet more of those egregious violations. LOL. This trace has absolutely NOTHING to do with the drain signal. Not even close. It's a shame that so much presumption is also based on all that pretension.

And further,

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 23, 2012, 09:01:21 AM

Guys, I think this is the reference TK's asking me about. If so, then I've said all I intend to say about this. I certainly won't indulge him a free lesson in the art of waveform analysis - albeit much required. In fact I'm not sure that there's any point in answering any of his posts ever. I think he's guilty of egregious violations - all over the place. Puts me in mind of Hitler. Or Savonarola. They were both rather self-righteous - and it's tediously inappropriate to a science forum.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

There... you see... she lies about the trace and then compares me to Hitler and Savonarola for asking her to explain her assertions.

Everything I've said is backed up with external references. Where are the references to support what she says? Take a look... they ALL come from her.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #1479 on:** March 24, 2012, 01:33:28 AM »

I saw this heating element in the surplus store today so I picked it up to try. Note that it is a Camco 02142, rated 1500 Watts at 120 V. This is a water-heater element, one of a pair that's normally installed in a 40-gallon home water heater. It has a resistance measured on my Simpson of just over 10 Ohms. At 120 V and 10 Ohms, Ohm's law says V=IR, so I=V/R or 120/10.1 = 11.88, call it 12 amps. So the power dissipated in the element at a supply of 120 Volts must be P = I^2R, or (12)(12)(10.1) or... 1454 Watts, close enough... that is, within the accuracy limit of my resistance measurement.

I haven't measured its inductance or tried it with the Ains-lie circuit.... yet.... but I'm sure it will be interesting when I do.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #1480 on:** March 24, 2012, 02:13:35 AM »

Note these photos from Ains-lie's demo video. To get from the backside to the front, just rotate the backside right to left, like turning the page of a book.

There are 8 scope probes connected to the various parts of the circuit, with all their GROUNDS connected to the single point (or rather chain of points) labelled "B", as in the diagram and the narration show. Also connected here is the "negative" or shield lead of the INSTEK function generator's output with a black alligator clip, and a RED alligator clip... the only one shown.... is the "positive" output or center lead of the FG's output cable. And it is connected where? Well... on the diagram SHOWN IN THE VIDEO it's supposed to be connected to point "C". But it is actually connected to the point labelled "F" on the board, along with two scope probes and the red-sheathed lead from the lone mosfet....
From looking at the blurry shot of the back side of the board, one can determine that the 4 mosfets on the big heatsinks are connected "backwards" with gate and source pins connected to the source and gate pins of the lone mosfet. This is a separate issue from the mislabelling of points "F" and "C" on the board, which is relatively harmless although confusing. So the board shows the point labelled "F" is actually connected to the gate of the lone mosfet and the source pins of the other 4. Note the red wires from these mosfets which go to the bottom right length of threaded rod. Now flip the board over, and see that this connection is labelled "source" and is indeed connected to the source pin of the lone mosfet. But it's the gates of the group of 4.
I realize this has been gone over before and it's a bit complex. But it's clear that the circuit presented on the video is NOT the circuit depicted in the paper diagram shown beneath it in the video. The revised, 2-mosfet diagram which was presented to us AFTER the errors had been pointed out...... is the correct configuration EXCEPT that it does not correct the "F" and "C" points confusion. The "corrected" diagram also seems to be in error though... isn't the FG's "minus" lead connected at the same point as all the other ground leads in the actual circuit in the video? Yet the "corrected" diagram shows it connected on the other side of the shunt resistors.

And clearly.... the common drains (the middle pins) of all the mosfets are indeed being monitored by two scope probes, one from the Tek and one from the LeCroy. Which channel on the TEK is being used to display the common drain signal? Let's see.... the purple trace is the battery voltage, the yellow trace is the voltage drop across the CVR (shunt), the blue trace is the signal from the FG (***taken from the point on the actual board marked "F", not C***) and the other trace.... of some other strange color that we won't mention.... is taken from the common drain connection, which is connected to the board at the point labelled "C" (***NOT "F"***), and this is where its probes are connected.

Usually, scope manufacturers give you little colored markers that you can place onto the probes themselves so you can keep this stuff straight. There are a few of them on Ains-lie's probes but the color is washed out and I can't tell what they are. But the behaviour of the traces themselves tells the story, to anyone who knows how to read an oscilloscope.
ETA: I believe the LeCroy probes are the more delicate, slender ones with the colored collar markers. But of course.... who knows if the markers are on the correct color channel probes in the first place. Knowing this bunch of clowns who can't even get their demonstrations straight... somehow I doubt it.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #1481 on:** March 24, 2012, 02:38:50 AM »

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on March 23, 2012, 11:12:49 PM

(snip)
I would be very reluctant to assert this claim without the evidence of the battery outperforming it's watt hour rating. You must remember that we've had these batteries now for more than 2 years - and have used them continuously for 18 months on various tests on virtually, a daily basis. And in all that time we have not even had a single drop in voltage over these 6 batteries. Two of them were taken out of the equation because they caught fire and needed recharging. But we've not touched this remaining six with a recharger. Ever. And their voltage is EXACTLY where it was when we took delivery. In any event. As Poynty has pointed out. This needs to be tested. The sooner the better.
(snip)

How about you get that little video camera of yours out, and instead of pointing it at YOURSELF, point it at two or three of these "virtually daily" tests you are talking about, and SHOW IT BEING DONE.

And just how does a sealed silver calcium lead acid battery "catch fire"? There is one certain way to do it: short it out with a low-resistance current path, like dropping a tool onto the terminals and having it weld itself there.

Or are you claiming that your circuit magically overcharged them to the point of exploding? I'm so tired of laughing at you my face hurts.

And now batteries are rated in "Watt hours". I suppose that's a SA thing... around here (and in the rest of the world) batteries have an Amp-Hour rating. To get to "watt hours" one must do some arithmetic... which is beyond your capacity, Rosemary Ains-lie.

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #1482 on:** March 24, 2012, 07:22:54 AM »

Hello eatenbyagrue - and everybody

You'll all be pleased to read this.

I think my problem here is that I only ever asked anyone to comment on a principle. Here's how I explained it. "If joules is determined as watts per second then the total in joules is also then factored over the entire test period? And then either in writing or conversation - I also ONLY got absolute confirmation. That this is indeed correct. On request I subsequently forwarded the actual sum as it applied to that battery analysis.

I have FINALLY had a written reply to my actual sum - and I've also FINALLY understood that math error. Abject apologies everyone. I see now what I did wrong was to multiply my product by 60 minutes - once too often. It just goes to show what I prize idiot I am. Actually I know this has irritated the hell out of some of you. But I was so certain I was right. And indeed I WAS right in principle. Just not so much in fact. In fact - I was out by a whopping factor of 60. Why didn't any of you explain this? Surely it was OBVIOUS where I was going wrong?

Anyway eatenbyagrue. You're math is considerably better than my own. Everyone's is. And guys, readers everyone - abject apologies for being quite that pig headed. I really thought that TK was - rather typically - misleading you all. But when it comes to this extraordinary example of my mathematical ineptitude - then actually he was spot on. But I'm also reasonably sure that he's delighted with this error of mine. He's taken such good advantage of it.

It may seem somewhat irreverent but I've been greatly amused. A nice way to start the day. But I know that there are possibly those who view this as all as a serious attempt to mislead you. It's not. Trust me on this. Just an example of my really, really bad aptitude for math. You'll be pleased to know that our paper was NEVER reliant on my own math input. I leave that to my collaborators. And that battery claim was entirely my own nonsense. I'm rather ashamed that I was so insistent on being correct. I was far from it.

Anyway. I was indeed WRONG. PROFOUNDLY SO. I do apologise to all of you who, like me, were then subjected to the occasional reminder of this by TK. It made his complaints somewhat TEDIOUSLY repetitive. And I'm sure that's not about to change. LOL.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

ACTUALLY - the person I REALLY need to apologise to is our Poynty. You certainly alerted me to this. And I think I may have ridden rough shod over your objections. I'm sorry Poynty Point. Indeed I am. I did not do good there. Not at all.

But you're that much of a gentleman that you DID NOT exploit this. WELL DONE INDEED. I'm learning ever greater respect for you.

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #1483 on:** March 24, 2012, 07:39:54 AM »

Quote from: MileHigh on March 23, 2012, 11:45:52 PM

Well, when the electrons hit the fan everybody psych yourself up for about a week's worth of profuse apologies and digital sniffles and tears from Rosie Posie. There was an incident like that about two years ago, I think it had to do with whether or not there was a diode in the original circuit.

Rosie will swoon when the truth comes out and the tears will flow and flow in a giant burst of under unity in all it's glory. You will all be smothered in apologies and apologies and apologies and then we can all collectively mourn the end of the era of delicious oscillations.

Next stop Sterling Allen! lol

Golly MileHigh. In your dreams. But nice to see you waxing poetic.
Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose..eo

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #1484 on:** March 24, 2012, 08:14:01 AM »

Now guys,

On a more serious note. I need to disabuse you of the 'emphasis' that TK is trying to apply to our demonstration. The entire purpose of that demonstration was to alert EXPERTS to the evidence of a negative wattage computed over a circuit - which negative wattage is anomalous. Historically there has NEVER been that computation allowed through conventional measurement protocols. Factors greater than a co-efficient of 1 have been argued. Even demonstrated. And in certain heat pumps - even accepted. But not a negative wattage. Because that cannot be explained without the evidence of an alternate energy supply source.

But our claim was NEVER related to battery efficiencies. That's yet to be proved. And, with luck, and if TK could resist this clamorous need for attention - then hopefully we can progress to that test. I ask you to review his earlier attempt at a replication - that DOMINATED whole chapters of this thread. There is absolutely NO similarity between what he shows and what we show. I think he's given up trying to replicate this because he quite simply hasn't got the experimental aptitudes. He could never even manage that oscillation which was our first early evidence of this. And he most certainly hasn't got even close to showing either the oscillation or its significance on this new generation of that waveform. Frankly, it's my opinion that he hasn't even got the intellectual wherewith all to understand it. Else he's trying a rather poor exercise in diminishing this. He needs to lay off and let me and Poynty argue this without distractions. Clearly he has not got the competence. I'd be more inclined to believe he's 'on topic' if I could see an appropriate experimental replication. Short of this it's just way too much bombast and way too much posing in an effort to prevent that demonstration from taking place. Or to diminish its significance when we do.

I'm trying to alert you all to our explanation for this oscillation and at least have that much understood. Because that is most certainly an intrinsic part of the claim and of the planned demonstration. And he's trying very hard to keep me from doing this.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
by the way (btw) it seems that he is now dominating more than 8 tenths of each page. And this is meant to be my thread. Clearly he's hungry for attention. It is my opinion - in fact I'd put a small wager on it - that, like Hitler, TK not only sports a moustache but he's rather short of stature. Actually I think that's also like Mussolini. Lots of precedents. They tend to moralise, somewhat inappropriately. And they REALLY need attention. If TK had his own thread - then no-one would read it. And he dare not take that risk. Because historically that's what happened. So. He's joined this thread and trying very hard to take it over. As ever, PLEASE apply your scroll function. Liberally. All that noise. And NONE OF IT related to our claim.
R

Cookie	Origin	Persistency	Information and Usage
ecl_auth	overunity.com	Expires after 30 days	This cookie contains the text "EU Cookie Law - LiPF cookies authorised". Without this cookie, the Forums' software is prevented from setting other cookies.
SMFCookie648	overunity.com	Expires according to user-chosen session duration	If you log-in as a member of this site, this cookie contains your user name, an encrypted hash of your password and the time you logged-in. It is used by the site software to ensure that features such as indicating new Forum and Private messages are indicated to you. This cookie is essential for the site software to work correctly.
PHPSESSID	overunity.com	Current session only	This cookie contains a unique Session Identification value. It is set for both members and non-members (guests) and it is essential for the site software to work correctly. This cookie is not persistent and should be automatically removed when you close the browser window.
pmx_upshr{NAME}	overunity.com	Current session only	These cookies are set to records your display preferences for the site's Portal page if a panel or individual block is collapsed or expanded
pmx_pgidx_blk{ID}	overunity.com	Current session only	These cookies are set to records the page number for the site's Portal page if the page for a individual block is changed.
pmx_cbtstat{ID}	overunity.com	Current session only	These cookies are set to records the expand/collapse state for a CBT Navigator block content.
pmx_poll{ID}	overunity.com	Current session only	These cookies are set to records the id for the current poll in a multiple Poll block.
pmx_{fadername}	overunity.com	Current session only	These cookies are set to records the state for a Opac-Fader block.
pmx_LSBsub{ID}	overunity.com	Current session only	These cookies are set to records the current category and the state for a static Category block.
pmx_shout{ID}	overunity.com	Current session only	These cookies are set to records the current state of a Shout box block.
pmx_php_ckeck	overunity.com	Page load time	This cookie will probably never see you. It is set, if a Syntax check on a PHP block is initiated and will be deleted if the function executed.
pmx_YOfs	overunity.com	Page load time	This cookie will probably never see you. It is set on portal actions like click on a page number. The cookie is evaluated on load the desired page and then deleted. It is used to restore the vertical screen position as before the click.

1	We are aware that Google uses additional cookies it stores on your PC and when you browse our site and all other sites. These are used to target advertising and Google currently does this without seeking your permission. Four of these cookies we know about are named "rememberme", "NID", "PREF" and "PP_TOS_ACK" and are stored in Google's cache on your computer.
2	If you are accessing this site using someone else's computer, please ask the owner's permission before accepting cookies.
3	Your browser provides you with the ability to inspect all cookies stored on your PC. In addition your browser is responsible for removing "current session only" cookies and those that have expired; if your browser is not doing this, you should report the matter to your browser's authors.
4	We regret and apologies for any inconvenience this causes to members and guests who are accessing our web site from outside the European Union. It is not currently possible for us to interrogate your browser and obtain geographic location information in order to decide whether or not to prompt you to accept cookies.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology. (Read 865319 times)

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

MileHigh

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

fuzzytomcat

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

MileHigh

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

poynt99

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

TinselKoala

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

TinselKoala

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

TinselKoala

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

TinselKoala

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

TinselKoala

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

TinselKoala

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.