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.
 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

Custom Search

Author Topic: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.  (Read 874482 times)

gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3287
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #150 on: January 17, 2012, 12:43:22 PM »
Good gracious.  Poynty Point - WHAT ARE YOU THINKING

When I've finished here, I'll take take the trouble to argue each and every statement that you've referred to in your last post - not because it's deserved - but because I'm ALARMED.  I'm alarmed that no-one is coming forward to say 'POYNTY ARE YOU MAD?'.   Bubba - Gravityblock - HopToad - EVERYONE has a sense of competence when it comes to the definitions of energy.  But they say NOTHING about this nonsense?  Have you FOOLED THEM TOO?  REALLY?  You really BELIEVE this rubbish?  You ACTUALLY, SINCERELY BELIEVE YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE VALID?

Rosemary,

Thanks for the invite and for including me in this discussion.

Using the right hand and pointing the thumb in the direction of the moving positive charge or positive current and the fingers in the direction of the magnetic field the resulting force on the charge points outwards from the palm. The force on a negatively charged particle is in the opposite direction. If both the speed and the charge are reversed then the direction of the force remains the same. For that reason a magnetic field measurement (by itself) cannot distinguish whether there is a positive charge moving to the right or a negative charge moving to the left. (Both of these cases produce the same current.) On the other hand, a magnetic field combined with an electric field can distinguish between these, such as the Hall effect.

Until this distinction is made, then I have nothing more to say about this nonsense.

Now, more to the point.  Why didn't you notice that all of our SI units are off by a factor of velocity relative to the true units?  How can this be?  Acceleration is the root core of velocity (acceleration * time).  The c in Einstein's equation E = mc^2 hasn't been reduced to acceleration * time.  Also, E=mc^2 states that it is light which has the velocity.  This is the inverse of reality.  Equations that are not reduced to their smallest possible factors will always include and enable an equal yet inverse half-correct solution.

A = Gravitational Acceleration
Z = Time of Particle (Electron) Orbit
A x Z = Velocity of Light (Velocity of Gravity)

In scientific circles, a calculation that has not been known is that the product of;

Wavelength  *  Frequency  =  Speed of Gravity
AZ^2 * 1/Z = AZ

is parallel to

Gravitational Acceleration  x  Orbit Time  =  Speed of Gravity
A * Z   =   AZ

The results are exactly equal, however the units are not.

In the true energy equation, Wavelength is comparable to Gravitational Acceleration (A) and Frequency is comparable to Orbit Time (Z).  When Frequency (1/Z) is changed into Orbit Time (Z) the Wavelength is not also just flipped to the inverse, rather the AZ^2 of Wavelength is then changed into Acceleration (A).  Wavelength is represented by Orbit Diameter (AZ^2)

Earth's Gravity (9.80175174 m/s^2)  x  earth's Orbit Time (30,585,600 seconds, exact lunar year)  =  the Velocity of Gravity and Light (299,792,458 m/s).

The Scientific Community is not yet aware that Wavelength = Orbit Diameter = Acceleration of Gravity x (Orbit Time)^2

The Scientific Community is not yet aware that Frequency = 1/Orbit Time

A monumental law in True and Pure Physics that Albert Einstein did not realize is that equations that are not reduced to their smallest possible factors will always contain and enable an equal yet inverse half-correct solution.

Gravock

SkyWatcher123

• Hero Member
• Posts: 841
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #151 on: January 17, 2012, 01:33:34 PM »
Hi folks, Hi rose, I notice you say that leds can be used with the pulse circuit.
Is that all that was in the circuit or was an inductor in line also or inductive resistor, I am guessing some kind of inductance is needed to get an oscillation, thanks.
I remember these discussions over at EF awhile ago.

If the intent is to prevent a flamed discussion, then I would suggest not throwing fuel on the fire.
peace love light
tyson

Rosemary Ainslie

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #152 on: January 17, 2012, 02:41:08 PM »
Dear Schubert,

I must thank you for that introduction to Reiji Maigo.  I've been reading up on it in wiki.  How INTRIGUING.  I'll look around to find more on this subject. And thanks for resolving my dilemma. Schubert will do nicely.  I have a friend who's  named her son 'Beethoven'. It's so nice.

Regarding this ...
To respond to your earlier comment: Have you tried to hook up for example 5 heater in parallel the five heater will produce 500 watts, As I recall correctly you can find as low 150-200 watts Stirling engine...
'No' is the short answer.  But I think I see your point.  In other words we simply put more resistors in parallel?  Is that right?  Would they work off the same switch?  That Q array?  Because then my concern is that with so much current, those transistors would melt.  But either way.  I do not have the interest nor the time nor the money.  Perhaps it's something you could explore - if you're up for it.  Unfortunately I must pass.  I'm reasonably satisfied that there's a solution.  But I certainly won't be finding it.

Most intrigued with that 'fable'.  I keep going back to it.  I'll need to get some of those books.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary Ainslie

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #153 on: January 17, 2012, 03:17:52 PM »
My dear Gravock,

I puzzled over your previous table - and am bowled over by this last post of yours.  Clearly we're dealing with some heavy duty intellect.  Golly.  I absolutely cannot make sense of it.  But I nonetheless acknowledge that this is a significant contribution.  Rare INDEED, that we have members who share such extraordinary insights.

Regarding my complaint against Poynty.  I am well aware of the niceties of a charged property to current flow.  That, after all, is the basis of my thesis.  But - as I understand it - the standard model does NOT allow for a charged property in an electric current. EVER.  In fact,  all convention has determined is that current flows in the direction of the greatest applied potential difference.  All potential difference is relative.  But convention has ALSO determined that a battery supplies a positive voltage.  Therefore, relative to that, then the resulting flow of current over the circuit material - will be positive.  For some reason best understood by himself - Poynty proposes that this current must be computed as a negative current because the measured voltage across the load is negative.  Which is nonsense and an entire travesty on standard measurement protocols.  That induced voltage over the circuit components will make not a blind bit of difference to the direction of current flow from the battery.  Unless and until the circuit is open - the battery is disconnected - and the collapsing fields can then generate that negative current flow - which is then consistent with this applied NEGATIVE voltage.

But I don't think you're arguing.  And regarding all this?  I am absolutely in awe Gravock.  I'm posting the whole thing as a tribute to your work here - but I must confess.  It is way over my head.

Now, more to the point.  Why didn't you notice that all of our SI units are off by a factor of velocity relative to the true units?  How can this be?  Acceleration is the root core of velocity (acceleration * time).  The c in Einstein's equation E = mc^2 hasn't been reduced to acceleration * time.  Also, E=mc^2 states that it is light which has the velocity.  This is the inverse of reality.  Equations that are not reduced to their smallest possible factors will always include and enable an equal yet inverse half-correct solution.

A = Gravitational Acceleration
Z = Time of Particle (Electron) Orbit
A x Z = Velocity of Light (Velocity of Gravity)

In scientific circles, a calculation that has not been known is that the product of;

Wavelength  *  Frequency  =  Speed of Gravity
AZ^2 * 1/Z = AZ

is parallel to

Gravitational Acceleration  x  Orbit Time  =  Speed of Gravity
A * Z   =   AZ

The results are exactly equal, however the units are not.

In the true energy equation, Wavelength is comparable to Gravitational Acceleration (A) and Frequency is comparable to Orbit Time (Z).  When Frequency (1/Z) is changed into Orbit Time (Z) the Wavelength is not also just flipped to the inverse, rather the AZ^2 of Wavelength is then changed into Acceleration (A).  Wavelength is represented by Orbit Diameter (AZ^2)

Earth's Gravity (9.80175174 m/s^2)  x  earth's Orbit Time (30,585,600 seconds, exact lunar year)  =  the Velocity of Gravity and Light (299,792,458 m/s).

The Scientific Community is not yet aware that Wavelength = Orbit Diameter = Acceleration of Gravity x (Orbit Time)^2

The Scientific Community is not yet aware that Frequency = 1/Orbit Time

A monumental law in True and Pure Physics that Albert Einstein did not realize is that equations that are not reduced to their smallest possible factors will always contain and enable an equal yet inverse half-correct solution.

Gravock
Kindest regards,
Rosemary

SchubertReijiMaigo

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 343
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #154 on: January 17, 2012, 03:26:51 PM »
Dear Schubert,

I must thank you for that introduction to Reiji Maigo.  I've been reading up on it in wiki.  How INTRIGUING.  I'll look around to find more on this subject. And thanks for resolving my dilemma. Schubert will do nicely.  I have a friend who's  named her son 'Beethoven'. It's so nice.

Ahah, sorry but Schubert it's not my name, just my pseudo. If you want to call me by my true name it's Jonathan !!!

Just that i'am fan of classical music and Japanese culture (especially their comics).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You all right the transistor would be melted, but sorry can't test your idea at this time because i'am on another project (Transverter or Resonant Magnetic amplifier).

Problem in real life you can't make everything at the same time, else, you fail !!!

Regards Jonathan.

Rosemary Ainslie

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #155 on: January 17, 2012, 03:36:27 PM »
Schubert - good heavens.  I'm well aware of the fact that this is not your actual name.  You said as much.  You explained that it was appropriate simply because you are a pianist.  Golly

Among Zimbabwians  - there's a rich tradition of naming ones children after exotic historical personalities - which is why I mentioned Beethoven.  lol.  There are other names.  Saint Theresa - Winston Churchill - Clever Girl - and on and on.  It's possibly not as prevalent now as it was when I was young.  But it's charming.

Ahah, sorry but Schubert it's not my name, just my pseudo. If you want to call me by my true name it's Jonathan !!!
Just that i'am fan of classical music and Japanese culture (especially their comics).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You all right the transistor would be melted, but sorry can't test your idea at this time because i'am on another project (Transverter or Resonant Magnetic amplifier).

Problem in real life you can't make everything at the same time, else, you fail !!!
Regards Jonathan.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

Rosemary Ainslie

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #156 on: January 17, 2012, 03:51:47 PM »
Hi folks, Hi rose, I notice you say that leds can be used with the pulse circuit.
Is that all that was in the circuit or was an inductor in line also or inductive resistor, I am guessing some kind of inductance is needed to get an oscillation, thanks.
I remember these discussions over at EF awhile ago.

If the intent is to prevent a flamed discussion, then I would suggest not throwing fuel on the fire.
peace love light
tyson

Hello tyson,

Nice to hear from you again.  INDEED.  Nothing other than those LED's but arranged in two banks to take both directional flows.  Surprisingly it only works in the one direction but it's ON continuously.  No breaks - no flickering.  And the beauty of this test is that it does not need heavy duty current.  Plenty of questions related to the 'flow of current' though.  But test it out.  It's easy enough.

I definitely DO NOT want flaming ever.  But nor do I want to ignore some really bad science adjudicating our experiments.  Which, I fondly believe, can be resolved by 'DISCUSSION'.  One does not have to AGREE with another person.  That's not the point of our forums.  But nor does one need to resort to 'hate speech' when an argument can really only be resolved with reason and logic.   And a bit of politeness also helps.

Golly tyson.  I do hope you don't also think that I'm that 'high heeled troll' that is bandied about.  I prefer to think that I'm quintessentially reasonable.

Kindest as ever, and really nice to see you around.
Rosie

hartiberlin

• Hero Member
• Posts: 8092
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #157 on: January 17, 2012, 05:34:16 PM »
A new replication by Woopy !

He is getting nice negative current spikes flowing back tp the power supply.

Rosemary Ainslie

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #158 on: January 17, 2012, 07:57:15 PM »
A new replication by Woopy !

He is getting nice negative current spikes flowing back tp the power supply.

Bravo Woopy,

That was very well managed.  Very clear commentary and very well filmed.  You are, indeed, a gentleman and a scholar.  What a pleasure to see you showing us your experimental skills.

And thank you Harti for alerting us to this.

Kindest and best
Rosie

SkyWatcher123

• Hero Member
• Posts: 841
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #159 on: January 17, 2012, 09:52:26 PM »
Hi folks, Hi rose, thanks for sharing the information.
I have a basic stamp 2 microcontroller that I was using to test M. Jones tesla switch and can use it to pulse mosfets, pulse width is very adjustable by computer programming it, down to 2 microsecond pulse width.
I may give a try and see what i can see.

Troll, please, even if you were, doesn't bother me, live and let live.
Though I have direct experiential proof, that in my own life, when we focus or feed an energy, it increases.
peace love light
tyson

woopy

• Hero Member
• Posts: 608
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #160 on: January 17, 2012, 10:51:28 PM »
Hi Rosemary

First of all, i wish you and your team ,a happy new and continous succesfull year  in your research and work.

Thank's for compliments, but i am not sure to merit them because i simply replicate your very clear shematic and try to understand what is going on.

I was impressed by the simplicity of this replication, which gave almost at once really  interesting results, (the negative current wave curve).Which is very encouraging

So now i am thinking of using battery to avoid the power supply which seems not able to manage the negative current (not made for this).

And also i will probably have to invest in a more powerfull Signal Gen because mine is really a basic  one.

And perhaps i can  make a 555 square pulse, when i know the frequency and dutycycle for my setup.

Anyway thank's for sharing

@ Stephan

yep man your are faster than light, a real neutrino

Thank's for posting my video link before i did it.

I will try your suggestion anyway, as usual.

good luck at all

Laurent

just as a remember    http://youtu.be/f9PL7ioHFWY

Rosemary Ainslie

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #161 on: January 18, 2012, 12:52:16 AM »
Dear Laurent,

Clearly this circuit is intriguing you.  Personally I'm delighted that you're doing these tests.  It's easily managed with a 555.  And you don't really need to apply a hefty power source.  Smaller outputs are easily managed - from smaller batteries.  If you use a 555 you'll be in the happy position of being able to apply a continuous negative signal at the gate.

When it comes to 'fine tuning' you really need to do the math.  I have a friend who was telling me about an extraordinary little oscilloscope that he bought.  He's away at the moment but is back by the weekend.  I'll let you know more.  It may be more easily accessed in Europe (which I guess is where you're from).  And it's already relatively inexpensive here in South Africa.  I'll let you know.

So Woopy.  Well done and welcome on board.  Very pleased and flattered that you're working on this.

Kindest and best regards,
Rosie

Rosemary Ainslie

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #162 on: January 18, 2012, 01:47:29 AM »
Dear Poynty Point,

With reference to this statement of yours...
Once again, nice try Rosemary.
I explained that my exposure of your fallacies took no effort and that it was simply a waste of time.  What I HIGHLIGHTED was that your arguments against our claim are based on a slew of rather adventurous and illogical postulates that have nothing to do with science and everything to do with your need to deny our claim.  Bearing in mind that you may have overlooked this post - let me schedule that list of your counter arguments -  AGAIN - lest you try very hard to disassociate yourself from them.

.    Energy is NOT conserved but somehow POWER is conserved
.    A battery supply source is capable of delivering a negative current
.    The direction of current flow is consistent with the voltage measured across circuit components and NOT consistent with the voltage at the supply
.    In defiance of convention it is preferred to measure a negative voltage across a battery supply
.    And correspondingly a positive voltage can deliver a negative current flow as can a negative voltage deliver a positive current flow
.    Which argument is repeated - over and over
.    Which then leads you to propose INCOMPREHENSIBLE equations that diametrically oppose standard measurement protocols
.    In no way limited to the inappropriate proposal that the computation of energy delivered may be positive while energy dissipated may be negative
.    No need to factor in stored energy in the computation of energy
.    You then offer copious assurances that one can measure a negative voltage across the battery in order to manage a negative wattage
.    And notwithstanding the evidence of a negative wattage computed - THIS MAY BE IGNORED - as it's your personal preference
.    together with the data and the measurements in support of that evidence
.    All based on your own evaluation that everything that we show - which you have also simulated - is due to stray capacitance.

So.  In the light of this comment from you...
My position stands; you have not provided convincing evidence of overunity, therefore your application for the OU award at OUR is rejected.
then my problems are manifold.  If you require me to apply YOUR LOGIC then I could, with a wide freedom of choice impose any result I choose on my data.  And while that may satisfy your agenda - it would hardly stand up to scrutiny in the academic world.  And that's where our paper is focused.  Alternatively, I could apply the required measurement protocols AS INDEED WE DO - and then I would not satisfy your qualification requirements for your prize.  You see for yourself.  I am between the Devil and the deep blue sea.

And as for this...
Please cease and desist with your applications until you can provide credible evidence.
I AM MOST HAPPY TO PROVIDE YOU WITH CREDIBLE EVIDENCE.  INDEED.  I AM MORE THAN HAPPY TO GIVE YOU A FULL DEMONSTRATION OF OUR DEVICE.  But you see this Poynty Point?  What earthly good would there be in showing you the evidence when you seem more than prepared to DENY the evidence?  You have now given us to understand that you will impose your own math.  And it's not only in the miscount of the numbers of readers of this thread that you show a rather poor aptitude for this.  It's also grossly evidenced in those arguments of yours that you're trying so hard to make us all believe.

Help me out here Poynty.  We're trying to progress this technology.  It would be a crying shame to think that you could suppress this by simply denying our very easily demonstrable results.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Posie

edited.  Added the word 'by'.

poynt99

• TPU-Elite
• Hero Member
• Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #163 on: January 18, 2012, 03:46:48 AM »
A question for Rosemary:

What polarity of voltage do you need to apply to the Gate (Gate to Source really) of an N-channel MOSFET to turn it ON?

.99

Rosemary Ainslie

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #164 on: January 18, 2012, 06:00:34 AM »
A question for Rosemary:

What polarity of voltage do you need to apply to the Gate (Gate to Source really) of an N-channel MOSFET to turn it ON?

.99

Hello Poynty Point,  yet again.

I'm rather hoping that the day will come when you'll follow my impeccable example and actually address your questions to me directly. I've just woken up - at the respectable hour of 6.30 am - which is the first for a LONG TIME.  Which means that if I factor in the three hours where I was awake - roughly between the hours of 1 and 3.45 - that I've slept a TOTAL of 10 hours or thereby.  Which is AMAZING.  So nice to tackle these keyboards with my fingers relaxed by an entire sufficiency of - SLEEP.  What a pleasure.  It's a state of consciousness that I can rarely indulge.

Now Poynty Point - I suspect talk of my insomnia may not be of interest to you.  I only reference it as it seems that I have taken a relatively long time to get back here.  So.  Back to your question.  Actually I'm not sure that I'm BRAVE enough to answer it at all.  I'm inclined to think that you're in the process of springing a 'trap' of sorts.   It seems LOADED with SUGGESTION.  There's the implicit  suggestion that I've boobed. Somewhere?  And for the life of me I can't think where?

I suppose, under the circumstances I'll just have to confess that I don't understand your terminology.  IS A MOSFET ACTUALLY SWITCHED ON when it opens or when it closes the circuit?   Clarify that and then I'll be able to point you to our part two of our paper - where I explain ALL in very clear terms. Meanwhile may I remind you that there's a couple of questions that I've also posed.  And unlike mine, they can't be explained by your 'paper' if such it is.  They ARE your paper.

Take care Poynty.  And if this is all being written while you're asleep - then I trust you sleep well.  You see this?  I'm setting an example all over the place.  Unlike you - I do not need to endorse my argument against you by also flaunting a disproportionate dislike of you.  I keep my feelings where they belong.  And then I just exercise COURTESY AND RESTRAINT.  It's easy when you get the hang of it.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Posie

EDITED - the paragraphing.
and changed the word 'spent' to 'slept'
Actually a whole lot of relatively minor things as well.  Too boring to list.