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.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 893740
  • *Total Topics: 15703
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 1
  • *Guests: 22
  • *Total: 23

Author Topic: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.  (Read 741959 times)

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1530 on: March 24, 2012, 10:50:39 PM »
TK:

I hope that my comments will help with the caveat that I am not going to be digging into the low-level nuts and bolts of the circuit, I have been there and done that.

What the RAT team focused on was the oscillation that took place specifically when the function generator was outputting -5 volts.  So they had the function generator negatively offset such that the square wave was outputting 0 volts and -5 volts.  They slowed the function generator down to see longer bursts of oscillation at -5 volts.

So what that means is that the function generator has absolutely nothing to do with the actual operation of the circuit.  When you look at the schematic you will see that with -5 volts output, that Q1 is always off and the Q2 array will be in oscillation with the only path for the current to complete the loop being through the function generator itself.  So I don't see a possible solution with opto-isolators.

So, you could completely eliminate the function generator with a 5-volt battery in series with a 50-ohm resistor.

What you will notice if you follow the voltage drops as you go around the main loop, is that the function generator's -5 volts is added to the main battery bank's voltage.  So if we assume five 12-volt batteries the total voltage that's powering the circuit is (5 x 12) + 5 = 65 volts.   In other words, 7.7% of the power provided to the circuit comes from the function generator itself.  There are three main power dissipation points in the circuit; the inductive resistor, the Q2 MOSFET array, and the 50-ohm resistor inside the function generator.

It just occurred to me in looking at Poynt's reference schematic in posting #1505, that you notice that the current flow completely bypasses the 0.25-ohm CSR.   Is it possible that this observation slipped through the cracks?  If yes it would mean that the CSR data is useless and all of Rosemary's DSO calculations are invalid.  I am not sure if this is true but it may need to be investigated.

So the bottom line is this:  -5 volts from the function generator will induce a forward bias on the Q2 array's gate-source voltage and the Q2 array will switch on.  Since MOSFETS are prone to oscillation, and not forgetting the stray inductance in the wires, and not forgetting the 50-ohm output impedance of the function generator, the gate input of the Q2 array is just itching to be 'tickled' and all of the ducks are lined up to tickle.  So you get spontaneous oscillation.

As we know, spontaneous oscillation is more an annoyance than anything else, but Rosemary thought that she discovered something.

All in all, it's a nonsensical circuit.

I hope my little treatise helped.

MileHigh

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1531 on: March 24, 2012, 11:11:18 PM »
@MH: what you say here agrees with my own findings, except that I don't believe the part about them only having the FG set for negative output. She has said that they used the offset control, and as my work has shown the scope trace won't reflect the true output that the circuit sees when the FG is loaded down by it. If you watch my latest video you can see what happens with symmetrical square wave, positive going only, and negative going only offsets. There IS a region right in the middle where ALL the mosfets are being turned on and the oscillations are present on both phases of the signal. This can be seen in the video, and the current measured from the battery by a simple inline DMM..... which WE HAVE NEVER SEEN FROM ROSEMARY....... duh, why hasn't anyone insisted on this?----- shows just under 2 amps at that moment, and the mosfets-- all of them-- get hot fast since they are improperly heat-sunk. FFS, I just superglued the heatsinks to the backs of the mosfets !! While the more typical settings that make traces that look just like hers give me a typical 170-200 mA from the battery... and yes only the Q2 mosfets are turning on, as attested to by my burnt fingertips. Oh...and the noncontact IR thermometer too.

It should be clear by now that the main function of the function generator is to... wait for it.... turn OFF the oscillations. You can clearly see that when the FG's output goes HIGH in my system's scope shots... and in Rosemary's too, the blue trace is her FG...the oscillations go off.

(And yes.. I certainly did notice, and have mentioned before, that the CVR isn't properly seeing all the current flows in the system. Of course her "data" here is invalid.)

ETA: I've been reading the thread on the other forum from exactly one year ago. It is like an exact image of this thread here and now, except that I am playing the "humburger" role with parts instead of sims, and all the other cast members are nearly the same. It's very eerie. I suggest starting with page 10 or 11; there's no need to go all the way back to 2009. Just start where the discussion of the video starts... and you will think you are here again, but without the troll crone Red Queen shouting "off with their heads" at the slightest provocation.

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1532 on: March 24, 2012, 11:18:41 PM »
TK:

I think that it's worth it to mention that Rosemary and her whole team worked on this circuit for months, and once they discovered the oscillations when the function generator output -5 volts all of the focus was on this event.  All of the data captures for this most recent incarnation of the RAT circuit were related to this oscillation only.

Rosemary thought that she had some 'secret sauce' and hid the actual configuration of the schematic from the public when she presented her new circuit.  I believe it was Point that reverse-engineered the circuit from the demo clip and then Rosie Posie fessed up.

So, that means for months and months neither Rosemary or any of the other members of the RAT team were even aware of how the circuit was actually operating.  That's why I called them a nasty name suggesting gross incompetence in an earlier posting and I think that it was justified.  That's why I have very little faith that they could do a fairly complicated battery draw-down test properly.

MileHigh

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1532 on: March 24, 2012, 11:18:41 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1533 on: March 24, 2012, 11:29:15 PM »
TK:

I think that it's worth it to mention that Rosemary and her whole team worked on this circuit for months, and once they discovered the oscillations when the function generator output -5 volts all of the focus was on this event.  All of the data captures for this most recent incarnation of the RAT circuit were related to this oscillation only.

Rosemary thought that she had some 'secret sauce' and hid the actual configuration of the schematic from the public when she presented her new circuit.  I believe it was Point that reverse-engineered the circuit from the demo clip and then Rosie Posie fessed up.

So, that means for months and months neither Rosemary or any of the other members of the RAT team were even aware of how the circuit was actually operating.  That's why I called them a nasty name suggesting gross incompetence in an earlier posting and I think that it was justified.  That's why I have very little faith that they could do a fairly complicated battery draw-down test properly.

MileHigh

Interesting spin you put on it. Very charitable.

I think they simply had no idea that they wired the circuit wrong in the first place. They tried a single mosfet first, then someone pointed out that it could never handle the current required for decent heat in the load, so they decided to add the other 4. Look at the board: it is NOT the single mosfet that is installed "wrong".... actually it is the 4 on big heatsinks !!  Then they saw the massive oscillations, creamed their jeans, and probably did not realise the difference in schematic diagrams until  .99 pointed it out and MADE her acknowledge it.

Of course they aren't going to do any tests at all, much less properly. The excuse will be either that Rosemary can't find two "academics" that she approves of to participate, or that she and .99 can't agree on some fundamental point of interpretation of instrument readings. This is my prediction.... PROVE ME WRONG. Please.


Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1534 on: March 24, 2012, 11:31:36 PM »
TK:

Yes I agree that if you have a positive swing in the function generator output you get oscillations also and this time the current flows through the CSR.  Magic oscillations abound!

You may want to double-check with Rosemary, I think the only analysis that she is interested in is when the function generator outputs -5 volts.

It sounds like there was always was and there is a real possibility of blowing the 50-ohm resistor inside the function generator.  I think it's two one-watt 100-ohm resistors in parallel.

MileHigh

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1534 on: March 24, 2012, 11:31:36 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1535 on: March 25, 2012, 01:41:11 AM »
Then why use an FG at all? As humburger showed a year ago, all you have to do is poke the circuit once and it will oscillate until you "unpoke" it.  Just set the thing up, and give the Q2 gates a little pulse of positive. The thing will start ringing and won't stop until you turn those gates off again with a corresponding ground or "negative" pulse to drain the charge away.
Without seeing what the FG is set to, UNLOADED, I don't think it's possible to actually say or determine from scope traces what the circuit is actually getting from the FG the way it's hooked up here.


But what about my optocoupler idea? Would the addition of the optocouplers preserve the oscillations and mosfet switching? I know it would take the FG out of the loop as current source.
I think this: The optocouplers might work as I anticipate, but Rosemary won't accept the circuit built that way even though it oscillates and makes all the other effects... because it won't charge the batteries.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1536 on: March 25, 2012, 03:23:58 AM »
(snip)
You may want to double-check with Rosemary, I think the only analysis that she is interested in is when the function generator outputs -5 volts.
(snip)
MileHigh
What does this mean? If the FG is "set" to "output -5 volts" at, say, one cycle per ten seconds, and I check the terminals with a voltmeter, what am I going to see? And then if I reverse the terminals at the voltmeter, what am I going to see?

Or even simpler: make an LED pair, parallel but anode of one to cathode of the other one and vice versa. Let's call this a "backtoback pair". Now hook your pair to the output of the FG set to make an "output of - 5 volts". What do you see? Turn the LED pair around, what do you see? You will see that one LED lights in each case.... the one with the ANODE towards the "negative" output lead of the FG. What this means is that there is a 5 volt potential difference between the terminals of the FG.... only the reference level has changed. The FG will still put out "positive" wrt the other terminal of itself. How could the LED light at all if the FG was putting out "- 5 volts" ?

So the one lead of the FG's output swings from -5 volts to zero volts WRT the other lead. The second lead of the FG's output must therefore be at a POSITIVE 5 volts ABOVE the - 5 volt setting when it is at "zero" or ground potential. I know this is confusing and I'm not explaining it well, nor do I yet know what it does in the circuit. But try the back-to-back LED pair in your favorite FG or sim and you will see what I mean. All it really means IF THE FG IS TRULY FLOATING is that the red and black wires exchange sign. When the FG is NOT floating, as in the Ainslie case, I'm not certain YET what the effect is but I doubt if it has any effect on the oscillations EXCEPT to confine them to one or the other set of mosfets. I can put the oscs in either q1 or q2 or both, make them large or small, whatever, depending on the FG's amplitude and offset.

In the Ainslie circuit, the FG's "negative" lead is connected to the common grounds of everything else, either directly or thru the shunt resistor.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1536 on: March 25, 2012, 03:23:58 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1537 on: March 25, 2012, 03:58:50 AM »
TK:

Some more thoughts and some history for your consideration.

Poynt simulated the circuit and removed the function generator completely and substituted a voltage source for the function generator like I mentioned.  He added some inductance to account for the wire lengths, he may have added some stray capacitances, and the circuit oscillated just fine with a comparable waveform to Rose's setup.  Naturally the virtual power probes showed the real power consumption of the simulated circuit but I think Rosie refused to acknowledge this part of the simulation.  She was in a tizzy to see the oscillation though.

You mentioned the function generator unloaded vs. loaded in the circuit.  I have been simplifying that in my head and didn't really consider that which was a mistake.  Part of the reason is that Rosie's unlabelled 'waveforms' in the DSO captures almost give me a headache to look at.  However, if we suppose that Rosie and the RATs were looking at the CSR and the voltage across the CSR was just a junk inductive/capacitive coupling waveform, and not the true current waveform, then that would be a *BOMB* for the RATs.

But then why not use the function generator as the CSR itself?   When you look at the unloaded function generator voltage you see the true voltage being output by the high-quality negative-feedback amplifier on the far side of the 50-ohm output resistor.  That voltage is always rock steady no matter what.  So if you scope the voltage at the function generator output when it is outputting "-5 volts" under the circuit load, then you have the current waveform!  You also have to assume that the 50-ohm resistor + interconnects inside the function generator form a near-zero inductance path.

Of course you might have to export a data dump (not sure if you have that level of equipment) and then just process it in a spreadsheet to compensate for the offset and resistor value to get the true current waveform when the Q2 MOSFET array is a quivering and in delicious spastic feedback mode.  Then you have the elusive true current waveform without having to "change the setup."  Because we know that if you change anything "all bets are off."

MileHigh
« Last Edit: March 25, 2012, 05:47:37 AM by MileHigh »

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1538 on: March 25, 2012, 04:08:11 AM »
Can you remind me again why " I " need the exact CVR waveform?

 8)

(I have not yet even _begun_ to roll out the heavy artillery..... )

(And yes, fwiw, included in the arsenal is a top of the line TEK DPSO with math and export capability, but how many shovels do you need to rebury a zombie anyway?)




Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1538 on: March 25, 2012, 04:08:11 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1539 on: March 25, 2012, 04:30:00 AM »
TK:
 
 I'll try respond to the issues that you raised.
 
 Agreed that there is no need for the function generator at all.  Rosemary and the RATs simply did not realize that.  Agreed on unloaded vs. loaded and that prompted me to do my previous posting.
 
 With respect to the optocoupler, don't you think it's a moot point since we know the function generator serves no real purpose?  The real way to take the function generator out of the loop is to have the proper voltage source and a 50-ohm resistor, i.e.; exactly what Poynt did when he simulated the circuit.  That way you preserve the path for the current to flow.
 
 However, the other side of that argument is that Rosie Posie might go bonkers if you removed the function generator.
 
 When I say that the function generator is outputting "-5 volts" that's the center-conductor signal terminal relative to the outer ground terminal on the BNC connector.  So the ground shield connection is "0 volts" and the signal terminal is "-5 volts" while the function generator is outputting the low component of a sloooow negatively-biased square wave.  Note relative to Poynt's reference schematic in post #1505, the function generator is not floating.  It's tied to a common ground point along with the battery set and the scopes.
 
 I hope that is clear to you.  For the two back-two-back LEDs, let me shift gears on you.  Since the LED pair cause a relatively minor voltage drop relative to the battery set + function generator total voltage supplied to the circuit, it would be fun to insert them in series into the main current loop to get the "LEDs of Doom" effect where they clearly show that the batteries are draining as they power the RAT circuit.  To do a quick and dirty test to show which is the dominant direction for the current flow.
 
 One last comment; everything I am saying is based on the Q2 array quivering only because of the negative voltage output by the function generator.  So I confining myself to "RAT oscillation mode."  If you want to explore what happens when Q1 switches on, that's your show!
 
 MileHigh

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1540 on: March 25, 2012, 04:39:52 AM »
@MH... you hope that it's clear to me.

It's perfectly clear to me. Is it clear to you?


Check the latest video, Electric OU: Supplement: Function Generator Positive and Negative Outputs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz4o37g8XmI

If the results from the INSTEK are different, I'd like to see it. Consider the implications for the CVR current trace. I'm not sure if I grasp them totally yet.... but if the performance of the circuit can be derived from electrical parameters AT ALL.... well, see the last photo I posted.

And what happens when the Q1 switches on instead of the Q2 array is that the device can't carry as much current, so at the same gate drive settings you get less power to the load and more dissipated in the single mosfet. You can still have oscillations on this drain signal too, if you like, it's not a problem, even though that transistor might not have long leads, as in my case. There's no other major difference that I can see.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1540 on: March 25, 2012, 04:39:52 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1541 on: March 25, 2012, 04:47:44 AM »
You have amazing toys that go Boom!

Yes, you don't need to crunch DSO captures to show that there is no RAT magic.  "That old RAT magic la daa la daa...."

I am still contemplating this notion that the whole time the RAT team was looking at the wrong waveform for the current because the CSR was out of the main current loop.

Looking back at Poynt's diagram you can see the entire wire that includes the CSR, the Q1 source, and Q2 array gate inputs would all be super high impedance except for the tie to ground on one side.  So it's possible considering the high frequencies involved that they were picking up capacitive-inductively coupled junk the whole time.

Hmmmmmmm....

MileHigh

P.S.:
Quote
There's no other major difference that I can see.

You are forgetting that there is no longer a 50-ohm resistor in the loop, so with Q1 on you will likely dissipate more power in the inductive resistor assuming the single MOSFET can handle it.

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1542 on: March 25, 2012, 05:36:48 AM »
TK:

I groked the function generator video.  It's a really nice function generator by the way.  It has that late-70s look to me, when they made "real stuff."   :)

Anyway, not sure if you will replicate all the way, but what the RAT team did of course was crunch the battery voltage times battery current calculation and got "COP infinity."  Of course the battery voltage measurements were suspect the whole time because of the cable lengths and Poynt showed Rosemay simulations of how varying inductance/wire length changed the power measurements but Rosie Posie refused to accept this.

I am still not sure about this potential issue I am raising about the fact that the CSR on the schematic is not actually showing the actual current in the circuit when the Q2 array is in defib.  I would not be surprised if I am missing something and am wrong and Poynt will correct me.

But, to go out on a limb, here is a thought experiment:

Rosie's setup now shows "COP infinity" when they crunch the DSO data dump. (Or the DSO crunches it directly, I can't remember.)  Let's assume the primary problem is the junk voltage data across the CSR and the battery voltage measurement is also an issue.

So, with the same setup, they instead use the function generator trick described a few posts back to get the correct current waveform.  They also follow Poynt's recommendations for proper probe positioning for measuring the battery voltage.  They then crunch the new DSO data and get under unity with the batteries discharging into the load.

Ya never know.....   Then the fat lady sings....

That old RAT magic had me in its spell....
That old RAT magic that they weaved so well...
Icy fingers up and down my spine....
The same old witchcraft no longer sublime...
 
 8) 8) 8)

MileHigh

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1543 on: March 25, 2012, 05:56:51 AM »
@MH: I know what they did with the spreadsheet data dumps... they "think" they generated an instantaneous power data set by having the spreadsheet multiply the voltage data by the current data (really the voltage drop across the CVR as registered by the scope... and using a value of "0.25 ohms" exactly for the value of the CVR. I would have expected a true value within 5 % of that, but exact.. from sand resistors... OK, fine, maybe they spent some time matching, never mind). So they did VxA at every timeslice of their sampling interval. Then presumably they again multiplied this by the length of the timeslices and added these up to get an approximate numerical integration of the power data-- for the energy flow.
Why oh WHY did they not simply use the scope's math functions to do this and display it in real time? Shall I tell you? First, because they don't understand how to do it or what it  means, and second... because it probably won't support their claims, if the raw data is measured right, that is.

A couple more videos are being processed right now: dependence of oscillations on load, aluminium heat sinks, RF emissions from the circuit.

 8)


ETA: How do you do any arithmetic operations on real numbers in a spread sheet and wind up with an "infinity" in your result? Think about it.....

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1544 on: March 25, 2012, 06:12:02 AM »
We had better take our compact reel-to-reel audio tapes now and do that hissy white smoke thing with them.

Cue that Mission Impossible Black Edition music....    8)

lol

 

OneLink