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: 893879
  • *Total Topics: 15705
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 2
  • *Guests: 14
  • *Total: 16

Author Topic: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.  (Read 742830 times)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1590 on: April 03, 2012, 10:11:23 AM »
My dear hartiberlin

Many thanks indeed for giving me access to this thread, which carries the fruits of the hard work applied to this research both by myself and my collaborators.  Unfortunately it still hold copious evidence of a level of traducement and slander that, at its least, is libelous.  As progress of this technology to proof - under any conditions at all - also relies on the engagement of academics and professionals, and since this thread is the base reference - then, unfortunately, it is unlikely that any of our revered and esteemed are likely to engage.  This because professionals, as a rule, do not like their names to be associated with such gross and unprofessional lack of constraint in any context at all.  Therefore, unless those offending posts are deleted or transferred to an alternate thread - then you have done nothing at all to enable the progress of this to any reasonable discussion, or even to proof of experimental evidence that I was hoping to manage.

I would add that the history of my contributions to this and, indeed, all threads in all forums where I have engaged, have been dogged by that same level of intervention and conducted, more often than not, by precisely those same individuals, under varying Internet personas and with a liberality of abuse that not only defies any reasonable forum guidelines, but that is indeed criminally abusive.  Therefore, should I continue to post here and should I not be given moderation rights - then I will have no 'on going' protection from precisely that attack.  In which case history will simply repeat itself - and I may yet again find that our technology is argued on the basis of allegation and opinion instead of in the cold light of reason and good argument which is required by science.

Then too my initial engagement on your forum was never stipulated or contracted on 'special' conditions outside forum guidelines. On the basis on nothing more demanding that those 'forum guidelines' and your own invitation to engage - I accepted your offer to re-engage here - both on the penultimate occasion when this thread was locked and on at least 3 previous occasions.  But my engagement on your last invitation was accepted on the basis of trust in your desire to explore the further proof of our experimental evidence - and the implicit understanding that you would not lock my threads.  Frankly I did not anticipate that you would also couple this allowance with the open invitation to MileHigh, tinselkoala, powercat, and Glen Lettenmaier (aka fuzzytomcat) to appropriate ownership of my thread to comment with that liberality to which I referred.  As mentioned - this has put this thread address outside the range of any acceptable reference which makes it impossible to progress this to the proof required - associated as it is with academic comment.

Therefore, it is my considered opinion that in order to salvage this technology from the slurs that have been imposed on it by this wanton engagement of some of your members I would need to have the right to monitor my own thread or that you would need to appoint an impartial monitor from amongst your members.  I am reasonably satisfied that wilby's impartiality to the test results would qualify as such but am not at all sure that he's prepared to engage.  Alternatively, perhaps eatenbyagrue... or someone.  I'm sure we can both agree on some choice and that there may be this impartial moderator who may have the time and the interest to deal with this.

And coupled with this active moderation would be the requirement to remove a great many posts that slander my good name, diminish the technology and indeed relate to matters that are entirely extraneous to this topic or written in defense of that calumny.  This just to ensure that this thread address does not remain the embarrassment that is its present state.  If you are reluctant to delete those offending posts may I propose that they are removed to an alternate thread address.  I'm sure that you would then be able to retain the income that you enjoy related to your advertisements that are included in our threads. 

Then indeed we can revert to that early intention which is progress this claim even beyond any claims made thus far - which is to explore the efficacy of this technology related to battery draw down tests.  And we can then all address the anomalies that are related to the claims in our paper.  I personally, and the collaborators collectively, feel that this may merit some considerable interest as it is also very much in the interest of wider public and thereby deemed to be in the good of the public.  Certainly thorough evaluation of the evidence would be required lest the public be misled.  And equally, the evaluations that are then exposed through discussion and experimental evidence would need some protection lest the benefits to the public be denied.  And when these matters are finalised - then I would strongly propose that the thread is locked.  But only then.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary Ainslie

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1591 on: April 03, 2012, 11:23:04 AM »
My dear hartiberlin

Many thanks indeed for giving me access to this thread, which carries the fruits of the hard work applied to this research both by myself and my collaborators.  Unfortunately it still hold copious evidence of a level of traducement and slander that, at its least, is libelous.  As progress of this technology to proof - under any conditions at all - also relies on the engagement of academics and professionals, and since this thread is the base reference - then, unfortunately, it is unlikely that any of our revered and esteemed are likely to engage.  This because professionals, as a rule, do not like their names to be associated with such gross and unprofessional lack of constraint in any context at all.  Therefore, unless those offending posts are deleted or transferred to an alternate thread - then you have done nothing at all to enable the progress of this to any reasonable discussion, or even to proof of experimental evidence that I was hoping to manage.

I would add that the history of my contributions to this and, indeed, all threads in all forums where I have engaged, have been dogged by that same level of intervention and conducted, more often than not, by precisely those same individuals, under varying Internet personas and with a liberality of abuse that not only defies any reasonable forum guidelines, but that is indeed criminally abusive.  Therefore, should I continue to post here and should I not be given moderation rights - then I will have no 'on going' protection from precisely that attack.  In which case history will simply repeat itself - and I may yet again find that our technology is argued on the basis of allegation and opinion instead of in the cold light of reason and good argument which is required by science.

Then too my initial engagement on your forum was never stipulated or contracted on 'special' conditions outside forum guidelines. On the basis on nothing more demanding that those 'forum guidelines' and your own invitation to engage - I accepted your offer to re-engage here - both on the penultimate occasion when this thread was locked and on at least 3 previous occasions.  But my engagement on your last invitation was accepted on the basis of trust in your desire to explore the further proof of our experimental evidence - and the implicit understanding that you would not lock my threads.  Frankly I did not anticipate that you would also couple this allowance with the open invitation to MileHigh, tinselkoala, powercat, and Glen Lettenmaier (aka fuzzytomcat) to appropriate ownership of my thread to comment with that liberality to which I referred.  As mentioned - this has put this thread address outside the range of any acceptable reference which makes it impossible to progress this to the proof required - associated as it is with academic comment.

Therefore, it is my considered opinion that in order to salvage this technology from the slurs that have been imposed on it by this wanton engagement of some of your members I would need to have the right to monitor my own thread or that you would need to appoint an impartial monitor from amongst your members.  I am reasonably satisfied that wilby's impartiality to the test results would qualify as such but am not at all sure that he's prepared to engage.  Alternatively, perhaps eatenbyagrue... or someone.  I'm sure we can both agree on some choice and that there may be this impartial moderator who may have the time and the interest to deal with this.

And coupled with this active moderation would be the requirement to remove a great many posts that slander my good name, diminish the technology and indeed relate to matters that are entirely extraneous to this topic or written in defense of that calumny.  This just to ensure that this thread address does not remain the embarrassment that is its present state.  If you are reluctant to delete those offending posts may I propose that they are removed to an alternate thread address.  I'm sure that you would then be able to retain the income that you enjoy related to your advertisements that are included in our threads. 

Then indeed we can revert to that early intention which is progress this claim even beyond any claims made thus far - which is to explore the efficacy of this technology related to battery draw down tests.  And we can then all address the anomalies that are related to the claims in our paper.  I personally, and the collaborators collectively, feel that this may merit some considerable interest as it is also very much in the interest of wider public and thereby deemed to be in the good of the public.  Certainly thorough evaluation of the evidence would be required lest the public be misled.  And equally, the evaluations that are then exposed through discussion and experimental evidence would need some protection lest the benefits to the public be denied.  And when these matters are finalised - then I would strongly propose that the thread is locked.  But only then.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary Ainslie

This isn't a battery draw down test I see that you posted, just more of the same bloviating on your merit of the collaborators that are all in hiding and refuse to back a single statement of yours even your claim of COP>INFINITY.

It be better Rosemary to get the known professional of the lot of your NERD RAT team, that being Donovan Martin as you Rosemary Ainslie have lost all credibility in your ability to discuss electronic circuitry, testing or evaluation of the data you have provide as a method of or to your claim of COP>INFINITY ..... COP greater than INFINITY. Where are all these people you always say are behind your findings .... dead or on some remote island ??

You Rosemary have even refused a offer of mine to show your COP>INFINITY device LIVE on my streaming broadcast web site, that says volumes in itself to me and the countless others .... so that offer is gone for you.  ???

I'm sure Poynt99 will not touch your battery draw down test with a ten foot pole now that there is still problems shown in your YouTube video like what schematic for the device shown was used in the video, plus how in the hell to verify anything you do Rosemary being you fail to document everything that may negate your "THESIS" through a proper scientific experiment, like to the one just done by TK that your running and hiding from the results.

From what I've heard directly you didn't even verify that Poynt99 was still interested or even willing to do "ANY" testing with you again, does Stefan know that ??  :o

I'm going to do anything and everything I can to contact Donovan Martin to verify his collaboration with you, his 100% agreement on the findings of a COP>INFINITY in documents you sent to some accredited journals or magazines for possible publication and answers to the questions posted in this thread you refuse to answer concerning the schematics, video, scope shots, test data.

FTC
 :P


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1592 on: April 03, 2012, 02:21:43 PM »
Where's the test?

I thought this thread was opened to discuss the test that RA is going to perform.

Where is this test? Where is the discussion of the test?

I have shown exactly how such a test can be performed, in a short amount of time, in an unequivocal manner. No "academics" or other professionals, no instrument readings or interpretations need be performed. Show the NERD RAT device heating a load to 190 C as in the video, for 48 hours, then do the Dim Bulb test. Use the Function Generator, I don't care.

Just DO THE TEST.

Or perhaps... ROSEMARY AINSLIE is trying to suppress dialog and testing of a FREE ENERGY DEVICE. She certainly is trying to suppress ME.




AN OPEN LETTER TO THE ATTORNEY OF ROSEMARY AINSLIE:

Dear Sir or Madam:

Please review the following video, as it contains the heart of the Ainslie matter. Ainslie has given this video and the demonstration contained therein as evidence that her device qualifies for a monetary award. There are some things that you should understand about this video. I ask you to have Ainslie herself explain certain matters in the video to you...then have an electronics professional or electrical engineer explain the same points to you.

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

It is my position that this video of Ainslie's makes substantial misrepresentations as to the performance of her device. Since she is applying for a monetary prize, these misrepresentations need to be addressed. It is my hope that you, as her attorney, will familiarize yourself with the complete issues, including her abusive postings on internet sites, her continual mistakes and errors of fact, her refusal to perform comprehensive testing of her device, and her attempts to gain a monetary award based on her unsubstantiated claims.

Please ask Ainsile if the circuit diagram shown in the video is ACTUALLY the circuit which is demonstrated, or a different one.

Please ask Ainslie if the no-load voltage on a fully charged 12-volt battery is expected to be "12 volts" ... or a higher number. Note that the presenter uses the "12 volt" figure as evidence that the batteries are still fully charged--- when it is no such thing.

Please ask Ainslie why one battery was removed from the set of six before the second part of the demo. This has never been explained. I believe I know why, and I will explain and even demonstrate why if necessary (although it will likely result in damage to a component.)

Please ask Ainslie if there was any substantial current flowing in the second part of the demo where a load is heated to nearly 200 degrees C, and if so, whether this current flows during the Oscillations, or during the NON-oscillating portion of the waveform. (Ainslie has claimed repeatedly that the heat in the load cannot be accounted for by the current from the battery and that the batteries recharge and do not deplete during the operation of her circuit. )

Please ask Ainslie to explain the "five or six Watts" figure that the presenter cites at one point, gesturing to an oscilloscope display which shows no such reading.

And further, please get an electronics professional to help you evaluate the oscilloscope displays presented in that video. I have done comprehensive evaluations, but I ask that you get your own, independent, reliable evaluations. Mine can be used as a guide if you like, and your own consultants can confirm or falsify my several points of notice on their own, and explain to you just what these oscilloscope displays indicate.

I protect my identity on the Internet because of threats to myself and those close to me, some of them made by Ainslie herself. If you, Ainslie's attorney of record, would like to know my contact information this can be arranged. However, I fear for my safety and security should Ainslie get hold of this information, therefore I will need some signed paper from you, her attorney of record, stating that my personal information will remain confidential and most especially will not fall into her hands. She has threatened me!

Attached below are screen grabs of oscilloscope displays from the Ainslie video. Each point that I have indicated with a number is a salient point of data that should be described and understood by anyone attempting to evaluate Ainslie's various claims. I am not including my own comments on these points..... they are easily found, though. Anyone who is skilled in the art of oscilloscope usage can look at these points and explain/interpret them for themselves. Note that Ainslie herself has been asked about some of these points and has declined to explain or interpret them.

Sincerely,
the internet poster known here as TinselKoala

As I said, if this attorney needs to know who I am in real life, I will gladly reveal it, under strict non-disclosure agreement, in correspondence between Ainslie's attorney and mine.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2012, 03:29:14 PM by TinselKoala »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1592 on: April 03, 2012, 02:21:43 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1593 on: April 03, 2012, 03:52:31 PM »
Meanwhile.... allow me to point out that a certain device, the Tar Baby, IS being tested, as we speak, in many different ways, and all the testing is documented on cameras and posted to the internet, on this forum, YouTube, and elsewhere. All the testing being done on Tar Baby is applicable to NERD....

The Tar Baby is identical to the NERD RAT device in almost every way, notable exceptions being the white pegboard, the clipleads, and the erroneous markings on the pegboard that the NERD device has. Tar Baby does not have white pegboard, clipleads, or erroneous and misleading markings--- therefore it is NOT a replication of the NERD device.   

Or is it? Does the battery charging effect claimed by the NERDs depend on white pegboard? Clipleads?  I do have some pegboard and white paint on hand, and I'm sure I can find some clipleads around here somewhere, if Wilby insists.

Tar Baby uses the same circuit diagram that has been agreed upon as was used by the device shown in the NERD demo video. It uses the same components and component values (except for its lower capacity batteries). It is driven by a function generator in the same 2 manners that the NERDs show in the demonstration video and it produces the same oscillations and the same oscilloscope displays and readings. It heats a load strongly in the second mode and weakly in the first mode, just as the NERD device does. It has been subjected to many tests that others have come up with and suggested for the NERD device, many that I myself have thought of, and it has even been subjected to the Dim Bulb test. Time-temperature profiles comparing Tar Baby's efficiency as a heater  with a straight DC supply at the same INPUT power levels have been performed (although not yet posted) which show Tar Baby is inefficient and wastes power heating the mosfets. In addition, the Dim Bulb test showed that Tar Baby is not recharging its batteries enough to offset the current drain imposed by the load and the mosfets themselves. Which might seem strange... since it does EVERYTHING ELSE that NERD has actually been shown to do.
(ETA: Even the SOURCE of the oscillations has been tracked down, first in the simulations of the NERD device by .99, humbugger, and others, then in the excellent verbal analyses by MileHigh and .99, and finally by me, experimentally and documented on YT using the Tar Baby device.)

All of this building and testing was performed by me, working alone but with advice and comments and discussion from interested posters and friends, in the two or three weeks previous to this post.

So... I ask again.... WHERE IS THE CORRESPONDING TESTING showing that Ainslie's claims are correct with respect to HER device... but somehow aren't when applied to Tar Baby. I have even offered Tar Baby herself, for side-by-side testing against NERD, with analysis to be performed by the same methods for each. (And of course, BOTH WAYS, her analysis methods and mine).

WHERE IS THE NERD TESTING?

OK... I'll withdraw now and get back to work, testing and explaining the Tar Baby, and looking hopefully for some kind of a real test from Ainslie. But I'm not going to be holding my breath....

Offline eatenbyagrue

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 203
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1594 on: April 03, 2012, 06:04:04 PM »
Guys, I think I have a solution which will satisfy everyone.  I do not know that much about the laws of physics as they apply to electricity.  I know a little about weight and linear motion equations, but here I have to say I am out of my element.  But I do know about the law in general, so I think we can just come to some compromise.


I think Rosemary just needs to lay out her laws of physics as they need to apply to her device in order to achieve overunity.  So like with that quibble you guys had over the heat calculations, Rosemary should just lay out her givens here.  If a joule is a watt per second to Rosemary, and that is what she is basing her device on, I do not think it is proper for you guys to change around her givens.  I mean, this is her formula, and she entitled to rely upon it.  You guys can come up with your own formulas and make your underunity devices, but Rosemary's formula gives her overunity, so I think she deserves recognition for this.


Rosemary, if I had an overunity prize to give, I would give it to you.  Also, I do not really think it matters whether Rosemary's laws of physics match up exactly with our understanding of them, because laws change all the time, and her interpretation may very well be valid.


Maybe you guys are just reluctant to hand out your overunity prizes because you only have one of them, and you are not yet ready to part with them.  So how about we create a new overunity prize category?  Something like the Free Energy World First, something like that.  We just make a website, award Rosemary the prize for the device she has poured her life work around, and she can maybe preface it with the laws of physics as she sees them and how the device creates energy under those laws, and I think everyone will be happy, no?  Probably no monetary award, but at least she will get the recognition she deserves.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1594 on: April 03, 2012, 06:04:04 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline powercat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1595 on: April 03, 2012, 06:48:12 PM »
@eatenbyagrue
 Have you actually seen the terms and conditions for the OU prize ????
 If you have problems with pdf Please see the second post.
 http://www.overunity.com/5707/overunity-prize-conditions-for-1-watt-device-pdf-file-attached/
 
 We are not looking for a fantasy device we need a real device that works and that can be developed to run a home or car.
 

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1596 on: April 03, 2012, 07:24:02 PM »
Eatenbyagrue:

Quote
If a joule is a watt per second to Rosemary, and that is what she is basing her device on, I do not think it is proper for you guys to change around her givens.  I mean, this is her formula, and she entitled to rely upon it.

Your statement above is simply ridiculous, right out of the Bizarro Universe.  We are here.  Standard units and measurements will work here, and on a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri.  They can't be changed.

Going back to Rosemary's setup, one of the key things that was learned and is very important and worth repeating again is the following:

1.  In normal negative offset oscillation mode the battery current that is powering the device flows through the function generator, it does not flow through the current sensing resistor.
2.  In normal negative offset oscillation mode what actually flows through the current sensing resistor is an AC-coupled signal that comes from an oscillator that is running in the Q2 MOSFET array.
3.  In normal negative offset oscillation mode the voltage measured across the battery has a huge AC waveform superimposed on top of the actual DC voltage.  This AC waveform is not to related to the DC output from the battery bank which is the true voltage that is powering the circuit.

If you accept points 1, 2, and 3 above as being true, then it means that all of the DSO waveform analysis done by Rosemary and the NERD team is invalid because they were looking at junk data.

If Rosemary completely ignores this posting then my opinion is that she is in denial, and everything that she does to try to advance her proposition will be an exercise in futility.

There are some important principles at stake here that go above and beyond Rosemary's NERD project.  The analysis of electronic circuits is either rooted in logic and reason, or else it's just a nonsensical exercise in wishful thinking.

MileHigh
« Last Edit: April 04, 2012, 12:59:04 AM by MileHigh »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1596 on: April 03, 2012, 07:24:02 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1597 on: April 03, 2012, 09:16:14 PM »
Cultural relativism, moral relativism, and now we have the good Counselor arguing for mathematical relativism. If I didn't believe he was pulling your leg I'd think he was serious.

All that is as it may be, but you cannot run your cookstove or refrigerator or jacuzzi or automobile on mathematical relativism.

It's a good thing that her utility provider doesn't calculate the way she does, or she'd be in the poorhouse after a single batch of oxtail soup.

But what does that have to do with testing? I have proposed, and even illustrated, a simple test that does not require any mathematics, relative or otherwise, other than flipping a coin to randomize the batteries. Other tests have also been proposed, but since we seem to have trouble with math and measurements on this project, why not do without them? Just run the circuit in load heating mode, getting near 200 degrees C on the uncovered resistive load, for a couple of days. Then do a dim bulb test comparing the running batteries with the set-aside batteries.

 No new apparatus is required other than a simple automatic automotive battery charger and a handful of brake light bulbs. I think we can take up a collection to buy you those items, Rosemary, if it will help you get started with your testing.

Oh, wait... what's the matter with me, I'm supposed to be _suppressing_ the technology...... oops. What will my Oil Baron Bosses say when they find out that I am actually encouraging the tests to begin?

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1598 on: April 03, 2012, 09:37:42 PM »
There's one more thing glaringly wrong with eatenbyagrue's mathematical relativism argument. And that is: if it can apply to the NERD device, it can also apply to Tar Baby..... that is, if RA can use the definitions and techniques that result in HER calculations of overunity.... so can I. And.... since I am actually testing and publishing right now, and she is not..... well, do the math.

Oh, wait.... the Tar Baby batteries ran down before the set-aside one did. Well, that proves that Tar Baby is overunity, since in my mathematically relative calculation, negative power drain should produce negative run times, and 103 - 22 is 64.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1598 on: April 03, 2012, 09:37:42 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1599 on: April 03, 2012, 09:57:17 PM »
Using #1157 automotive bulbs with both filaments in parallel, one per battery, and figuring the maximum capacity that has been mentioned for the NERD batteries of 60 Amp-Hours..... the matter could probably be settled in three hours or less in the Dim Bulb test. Those bulbs put a heavy drain on the supply, having a cold-state resistance of only about half an Ohm. This could be shown completely in a five-minute time-lapse video. (ETA: Well, perhaps a bit longer. The bulbs draw about 2.7 Amps from 12 volt supply when warmed up. So use two or three per battery.)

So, allowing one day for charging with the automatic charger, two days running in load heating mode, and half a day for the Dim Bulb test, that is 3 and a half days PER test, so in, er, 14 days, someone could perform 14/3.5 = 4 entire complete tests, randomizing the batteries each time, and the only measurement anyone would have to make or interpret would be reading a clock and flipping a coin. Schedule one more and make it 3 out of five for the Big Win.

Of course we need to make sure that the device is in "big heat" mode, as shown in the second half of the NERD video, heating that load to 190 degrees C, for the duration of the 48 hour runtime on the circuit.

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1600 on: April 04, 2012, 01:10:51 AM »
Just to be sure nobody misses it, here is a second posting of the annotated diagram showing how the current flows in the NERD RAT circuit when it is running in negatively offset oscillation mode.

The green shows the pulsed clockwise DC current flow that powers the circuit.  What causes the current to pulse is the Q2-Q5 MOSFET array acting like an oscillator.

The orange shows the AC-coupled current flow that flows back and forth between the Q2-Q5 MOSFET oscillator and the battery ground via the 0.25-ohm current sensing resistor.  For simplicity, only this AC current flow path is being shown.

The key point is that while the NERD circuit is running in negatively offset oscillation mode, the current that the DSO sees is NOT the battery current.  The current that the DSO sees is due to the AC-coupled output from the MOSFET oscillator.

Therefore, all of Rosemary's DSO scope captures that show "COP infinity" are invalid because the RATs are looking at the Q2-Q5 oscillator current when in fact they should be looking at the battery current.

MileHigh

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1600 on: April 04, 2012, 01:10:51 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1601 on: April 04, 2012, 01:32:46 AM »
I think Rosemary just needs to lay out her laws of physics as they need to apply to her device in order to achieve overunity.  So like with that quibble you guys had over the heat calculations, Rosemary should just lay out her givens here.  If a joule is a watt per second to Rosemary, and that is what she is basing her device on, I do not think it is proper for you guys to change around her givens.  I mean, this is her formula, and she entitled to rely upon it.  You guys can come up with your own formulas and make your underunity devices, but Rosemary's formula gives her overunity, so I think she deserves recognition for this.


Rosemary, if I had an overunity prize to give, I would give it to you.  Also, I do not really think it matters whether Rosemary's laws of physics match up exactly with our understanding of them, because laws change all the time, and her interpretation may very well be valid.


Maybe you guys are just reluctant to hand out your overunity prizes because you only have one of them, and you are not yet ready to part with them.  So how about we create a new overunity prize category?  Something like the Free Energy World First, something like that.  We just make a website, award Rosemary the prize for the device she has poured her life work around, and she can maybe preface it with the laws of physics as she sees them and how the device creates energy under those laws, and I think everyone will be happy, no?  Probably no monetary award, but at least she will get the recognition she deserves.

I like your rules there eaten. Shouldn't we ALL be allowed to do the same and claim all the prizes being offered? It would be soooooo easy according to your terms and conditions. Everyone would be a winner! How would you manage all these winners?

I as well as most others here I assume are quite curious to hear this. Please enlighten us.  :)

I can't imagine your sort of argument holds up too well in court battles (and I most certainly hope you don't try it there). Wouldn't you be laughed out of court for trying to pass off re-written laws to benefit your client?

Why would you want to re-write the time-proven laws which govern electrical physics?
 

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1602 on: April 04, 2012, 02:34:28 AM »
@MH, .99: Thanks for that.... it's very clear to me. I can even pull the Q1 mosfet right out of its socket while Tar Baby is running in that mode and it doesn't affect anything at all.

However..... when the NERD circuit is running in the mode you describe, even the RATs only claim that the "heat at the load relates to 5 Watts", which of course comes from the bogus scope math trace... and the load barely warms at all, since the oscillations don't ever turn the mosfet on properly.

BUT... and this is extremely important.... in the second part of the demo video, the NERD circuit is NOT operating in this mode.

They are using a POSITIVE going gate drive pulse, from zero volts to around 4 or more volts _positive_ as shown by the scope displays, the narrator's voiceover, and the heat in the load. This mode, while still making oscillations in the Q2-Q5 array, also turns on the Q1 mosfet _WITHOUT_ oscillations, and turns it on nearly fully. This is shown by the scope traces and the load heating. It is in this mode that the battery will drain over a reasonable time interval. In the first mode, described by .99, there is so little real current flowing to the load that it will take a long time, perhaps even weeks, for a fully charged 60 volt nominal pack to deplete "noticeably".

The Q1 mosfet is on during the NON-oscillating portion of the NERD device's cycles in this second, "big heat" operating mode, as shown in the NERD demo video.

The explanation for that odd removal of one battery from the stack, leaving 48 nominal volts, I have posted elsewhere, and that is very telling also.

Here below is the Tek scope shot showing the gate drive signal from the second part of the NERD demo video. Note how they have it displayed... very clever and misleading, with the TOP of the trace at the scope's centerline where one would normally display a baseline level of a single trace. Look at the left side of the display, where the channel's zero baseline marker is. The oscillations are sitting at the _bottom_ of the trace and the pulse is going to at least 4 volts _positive_. The other traces have been turned off because they give too much information... but later, on the Le Croy display attached below, the telltale signs are all there: substantial current shown on the CVR trace in the NON oscillating portions (Items 1 and 2), a drop in the common drain voltage during the NON oscillating portions (5, 6 and 10, 11, 12), and of course the gate drive signal itself (14, 15), clearly showing the positive drive pulse with no or minimal negative excursion.

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1603 on: April 04, 2012, 02:51:15 AM »
TK:

I actually haven't looked at the RAT video since it was released and you are more familiar with the claim than me.  So indeed, I am only discussing the negatively offset oscillation mode.

I was under the impression that the claim was centered around this mode but I could be wrong.  It's also possible that when Rosemary was talking about the big heat being generated that she was not aware that Q1 was switching on.  In fact that you made mention of the fact that Q1 was likely only switching partially on, which is something one assumes they would have wanted to avoid at all costs.  I am chalking this up to ignorance on the part of the NERDs unless informed otherwise.

But, a picture is worth a thousand words....   :)

MileHigh

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1604 on: April 04, 2012, 03:11:51 AM »
Well, look at the CVR trace, the yellow, top trace in the LeCroy shot. The channel is set to 2 volts per big division (16). The zero baseline is at my number 2, and the level of the trace during the non-oscillating bits is sitting at, as best as I can tell, about 1 and a half minor ticks above the baseline. So if a minor tick is 2/5 of a  volt (there are 5 minor ticks per big division) the current trace is showing a drop across the CVR of 3/5 of a volt or 0.6 volt. Since the CVR is 0.25 Ohms..... by Ohm's law we are seeing a current of I = V/R = 0.6/0.25 or about 2.4 amps.  From a 48 volt supply (one battery inexplicably pulled for this part, remember)  with 14 ohms total circuit resistance (mosfet fully on) the current should be close to I = V/R = 48/14 = a bit over 3.4 amps. So I think the Q1 mosfet is nearly fully on, but not quite. Another volt on the gate drive input amplitude or positive offset will turn it on fully. And... if they had kept the 60 volts of battery... it would pop from thermal runaway. Check the data sheet for the max current and dissipation, and look at the tiny heatsink on the NERD board for this lone mosfet.

ETA: This has implications for testing. Clearly, if five or six batteries are used, giving 60 or 72 volts,  and the "big heat" mode is required, that mosfet just isn't going to survive. (72 volts divided by 14 ohms is over 5 amps.... when the mosfet gets hot it will fail.) Perhaps if it was on a big heatsink with fan cooling it might survive, but it is still flirting with its absolute maximum current when hot, even at 48 volts. (Why use a high-voltage mosfet when you need a high-current one instead? Because they are magic, of course.)

 

OneLink