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: 896206
  • *Total Topics: 15779
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 2
  • *Guests: 13
  • *Total: 15

Author Topic: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.  (Read 761580 times)

Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1785 on: April 06, 2012, 06:42:03 AM »
WHERE HAVE I EVER SAID THAT THE MATH TRACE IS SHOWING A WATTAGE? Your over reliance on this piece of misinformation is tedious - IN THE EXTREME.  IF there was ever any confusion it was NOT of my making but of your own.  I have NEVER been guilty of saying, implying or assuming that the math trace was doing anything more nor less than giving a product of the voltages.  IT IS USED AS A GUIDE ONLY.  When we get that negative product then - WE WILL ALSO, INEVITABLY AND OBVIOUSLY AND LOGICALLY - GET A NEGATIVE WATTAGE. 

Rosie Pose

WHERE HAVE I EVER SAID THAT THE MATH TRACE IS SHOWING A WATTAGE?

http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg292765/#msg292765          Reply #1615 on: June 25, 2011, 09:28:30 PM

Quote

Yes Happy.  I can.  Unequivocally.  There is  NO drop in battery voltage.  And the math trace showed zero wattage from the battery - and the mean average showed a negative product and the heat at 80 degrees C was sustained for a period of not less than 80 MINUTES - and then it was taken to an even higher value of 104 degrees C  over a period of another 8 or thereby minutes.  And then I HAD to stop that test, because the last ten minutes indicated that it was now running at runaway wattage values.  And, frankly, I was getting nervous.  But AT NO STAGE WAS THERE ANY EVIDENCE OF ANY WATTAGE DEPLETED BY THE BATTERY.  EVERYTHING STAYED AT NEGATIVE VALUES.  Therefore UNEQUIVOCALLY NO ENERGY WAS EXPENDED FROM THE SOURCE.

Regards,
Rosemary



And the math trace showed zero wattage from the battery


Liar .....   :o


FTC
 :P

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1786 on: April 06, 2012, 06:42:31 AM »
And MilesOffThePoint
I too could show how that voltage changes when I apply the probe to junctions - behind junctions - anywhere I chose.  It doesn't take genius. It only requires artifice.  It is used HERE to imply that the scope values are wrong.  I am ENTIRELY satisfied that LeCroy would have MUCH to say about this gross and deliberate distortion when it's intended to cast doubt on their machines' ability to compute a simple voltage.  OUR Scope probe positions are NOWHERE NEAR A JUNCTION.  There is therefore NO CONFUSIONS about our results.
Rosemary:

TK's clip showing the pitfalls of measurement is simply something that you have never been able to understand.  He demonstrating how the inherent inductance in the wire can cause a voltage spike to appear.  That's something that's beyond your comprehension.
And deliberate attempts to cast aspersions is absolutely NOT beyond my ability to understand.  The only difference here is that TK went to some considerable trouble to DENY the benefits in the Joule Thief.  There is no evidence of over unity that he can allow.  And he does not rely on science to deny it.  The difference is this.  No one, before me, and possibly Wilby - has challenged our TK on his manifold and deliberate misrepresentations.  Which makes me question rather urgently - what misrepresentations were applied to Mylow.  And what is still to come related to cold fusion.  And then WHY?  Has he really got all that investment in oil?  Or is he just as determined as you to put a lid on real scientific research - just for the hell of it?
PW:With respect, I am going to pass on the scope shot analysis - there is too much uncertainty in the air and I view it as a moot point.
LOL Why not just 'fess up and admit that was NOT your analysis.  You're not capable of that much.  My guess it was Poynty's contribution.  I doubt TK would manage it.
Please note that just earlier tonight Rosemary denied that the circuit diagram that I marked up was the true circuit demoed in her clip.
Really MileHigh?  I denied that it was demonstrated?  Or did I deny that it was the circuit that applied to our claim?  I'm not sure that our own circuit schematic has those shunts positioned as you've shown them in your reference to someone's?... not sure whose... annotations.
Hence the annotated version of the screen capture of the bottom of the pegboard to prove that the diagram that I am using is indeed the correct schematic diagram for the circuit.  Hence you get the current flow bypassing the current sensing resistor in negative offset oscillation mode.
It is CORRECT for the demonstration.  Our demonstration only RELATES to our claim.  Our CLAIM is ONLY detailed in our paper.  That CLAIM does not rely on that ANNOTATED VERSION of your clip board.  If you don't understand this - then I'm satisfied that our readers most certainly WILL.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1787 on: April 06, 2012, 06:43:20 AM »
I agree that there is a more robust path through the CSR when in oscillation mode.  However, that current is due to an oscillator that is being powered by the current flow through, and the voltage drop across, the Q2-Q5 MOSFET array. 
Which means what?  Exactly?  Never seen so much twaddle following up on so much twaddle since you lapsed into an analysis of particles that respond to a gravitational field. 
So the AC through the shunt resistor is derived from the net DC through the Q2-Q5 MOSFETs.
?  ??  ???  Still utterly incomprehensible Miles&MilesOffTarget.  Please explain this.
The negative half of the AC cycle times the battery voltage (which is also corrupted)...
LOL.  I want to know about this 'corrupted' voltage.  Do you mean morally?  Or even significantly?   
appears to be power being returned to the battery.  That must be the root cause of the net negative wattage measurements by the scope averaging.  However, when the AC shows negative current, the actual current going through the function generator is almost certainly positive.
LOL.  And you determine this how?  By the waveform across Q1?  Q2?  Or just logically?
It would just have to be verified.
What would need verification?  Your analysis?  Or the waveforms?
The true current waveform powering the circuit is most likely pulsing DC that is almost exclusively unidirectional.  The true voltage powering the circuit is certainly a steady DC without the wide voltage fluctuations shown on the scope capture.  If you could actually capture the correct data, everything would check out.
LOL That would be nice.  I also want to see a steady DC current through Q1 or Q2 either during the on or off time of the duty cycle.  And no doubt - we we could get rid of all measuring instruments - all oscilloscopes - either my own, or TK's - anywhere and everywhere - then we'd be able to surmise that there's indeed a steady DC voltage and that these oscillations are figments of our imagination.
Ultimately, as has been mentioned several times before, this is an example of garbage-in garbage-out.
INDEED.  This is post of yours MileHigh is a PERFECT example of garbage - IN OR OUT.

 Rosie Pose

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1787 on: April 06, 2012, 06:43:20 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1788 on: April 06, 2012, 06:45:20 AM »
Rosemary,

Please, let's focus...

Do you agree that the voltage indicated by channel three in the scope shots depicts the voltage applied to the gate of Q1?

Do you agree that any positive voltage of +5 volts or greater applied to the gate of Q1 as indicated by the channel 3 in the scope shots should cause Q1 to turn on?

Why does Test 2/ FIG 5 indicate that Q1 is functioning correctly and as expected while Test 1/FIG 3 and Test 3/FIG 6 indicate that Q1 is not functioning correctly?

I would appreciate any answers you can give to these three questions.

PW


 

Offline evolvingape

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 478
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1789 on: April 06, 2012, 06:48:53 AM »
@PW

With respect to possible blown MOSFETs see post #461:

http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/461/

added

Just had a diagnosis.  2 of the MOSFETs blown.  Interestingly it's enough to block that oscillation.  Seems that they all need to work but still not sure if all 5 are required.  I'll let you know.  They're to be replaced - hopefully - by Monday.
  « Last Edit: March 31, 2011, 03:21:14 PM by Rosemary Ainslie » 



Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1789 on: April 06, 2012, 06:48:53 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1790 on: April 06, 2012, 06:54:41 AM »
Quote
OUR Scope probe positions are NOWHERE NEAR A JUNCTION.  There is therefore NO CONFUSIONS about our results.

NO? Rosemary, ALL your scope probes are at or near junctions.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1791 on: April 06, 2012, 06:57:12 AM »
Well, thats what I thought the reopening of this thread was all about. "RosePoynt"  But look what it has turned into. Just like it was before the thread was locked.

Mags

My dear Mags

I assure you that if I did not see some considerable merit to allowing TK and Glen Lettenmaier and MileHigh to discharge their blunt ordinance from their depleting arsenals - then I would have been out of here - long back.  I rely on it.  For my own good reasons.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1791 on: April 06, 2012, 06:57:12 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1792 on: April 06, 2012, 07:02:34 AM »
Evolvingape,

Thanks for that reply, it is indeed one possible explanation for Q1 not turning on as the gate drives in the scope shot are saying it should be.

However, I was hoping Rosemary may have another explanation.

PW


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1793 on: April 06, 2012, 07:03:49 AM »
NO? Rosemary, ALL your scope probes are at or near junctions.

AGAIN TK.  You are referring to the demonstration.  Our demonstration only RELATES to our claim.  Our claim is detailed in our paper.  It is not the data that is used in relation to the demonstration.

I think that if you applied yourself you may even understand this.  Or are you simply hoping to confuse our readers?  And you're hoping that they're all idiots?

Rosie poser

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1793 on: April 06, 2012, 07:03:49 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1794 on: April 06, 2012, 07:06:44 AM »
Here's the comment Stefan left on my JT video showing the effect of inductance on the trace:

Quote
  Well done TK,
yes, with high frequency every cm of wire counts as an inductance,
so it is really advised not to use croco-cables as these add too much inductances.
So better solder all your circuits with short leads and use stranded cables for better RF conduction.
Regards, Stefan.
    overunitydotcom   1 year ago


I don't think he saw what you think you saw, Rosie poser. And nobody else who watches that video sees what you think you see; they see what I am presenting.

BESIDES... it's all there in living color. Build the thing yourself and show a DIFFERENT RESULT, if you think I'm "faking" something.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1795 on: April 06, 2012, 07:10:49 AM »
AGAIN TK.  You are referring to the demonstration.  Our demonstration only RELATES to our claim.  Our claim is detailed in our paper.  It is not the data that is used in relation to the demonstration.

I think that if you applied yourself you may even understand this.  Or are you simply hoping to confuse our readers?  And your hoping that they're all idiots?

Rosie poser
So you are now claiming that you used a DIFFERENT APPARATUS, not just a different circuit, and you positioned your probes.... where?

If "our readers" are confused.... let's ask them by whom.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1795 on: April 06, 2012, 07:10:49 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1796 on: April 06, 2012, 07:14:25 AM »
People,

This is getting ugly....

@Rosemary,

OK, I understand we are only to focus on the two papers, correct?

That is what I am trying to do.  I have 20 IRFPG50's on there way here via a slow boat.  I take it replicators are to focus only on the data in the two papers.  That is what I am trying to do.

Once we were all told that all other data only "relates" to your claim (not exactly sure what that means), I switched my focus to the papers.  I began reading the first paper and the scope shots and noted a discrepancy as to the operation of Q1.

Before reviewing the data further, or performing a replication, I would appreciate some explanation as to why Q1 is not performing as it should in Test1 and Test 3.

We can discuss at some point the finer points of Q2-Q5 operation while i noscillation, but surely you and everyone else has a good understanding as to the operation of Q1.

A positive voltage applied to the gate of Q1 equal to or greater than +5 volts should cause Q1 to turn on.  Are we in agreement at least with regard to this point?

PW




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1797 on: April 06, 2012, 07:17:33 AM »
Evolvingape,

Thanks for that reply, it is indeed one possible explanation for Q1 not turning on as the gate drives in the scope shot are saying it should be.

However, I was hoping Rosemary may have another explanation.

PW

Picowatt - it is a truth that this circuit was both developed and demonstrated rather extensively at one of our local colleges.  It had the hands on input and advice from some highly skilled people - but unfortunately none in power engineering.  If there were an explanation then it would, by now, have been to hand.  There was a serious proposal to 'disprove' our claim which will, eventually be required.  And when and if we either get this comprehensively demonstrated with the involvement of academics or alternatively when we get this paper published with review - then I will certainly advance this apparatus to them.

Meanwhile we are relying on the well established scientific protocols that allow a claim to be thoroughly investigated and researched which can only happen with impartial and judicious consideration of the facts that have been put forward.  And with as wide an engagement of replicators - as possible.  We are all well aware of the unfortunate consequences to a debunk as applied to our poor Fleischmann and Pons who were the unhappy victims of some rather excessive denials that have, subsequently, had to be withdrawn.  And while they were the victims - much more seriously compromised were our global interests related to the urgent need for new energy sources.  In the same way TinselKoala and Glen Lettenmaier and MileHigh have been denying our own claim based on the wrong references and on their badly applied, so called, replications.  TK hasn't even noticed the issues.  If he has he's been to some lengths not to reference them.

And it is absolutely immaterial what their opinion of my abilities are.  I am only anxious to get all our claims thoroughly tested and demonstrated and proven.  But then I rely on some attention to our actual claim and not the assumptions related to our claim.  As that would, indeed, be a waste of everyone's time.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1798 on: April 06, 2012, 07:23:34 AM »
Rosemary:

At this point I can't really be bothered to respond in detail to your last two postings to me.  When you get high-strung in your responses and start accusing me of not knowing what I am talking about it's a sure sign that you are totally stressed out over your proposition.

Everything I said I stand by.  Your histrionics in your postings to me are rooted in the fact that you can't understand my technical points about your circuit.

I am satisfied that I have proved that you completely pulled the wool over your own eyes and spent months and months analyzing a circuit that in fact was not doing what you thought it was doing.

If I had magically appeared in your lab while your testing was going on it would have taken me a maximum of a few days to understand your circuit,undo all of the false assumptions, and redo the measurements and show you the truth.  You would have been dumbstruck.

MileHigh

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1799 on: April 06, 2012, 07:30:04 AM »
@Mags... how long has it been since Rosemary has even _mentioned_ performing a draw-down or Dim Bulb test, other than to say that she won't be doing one as long as there are Trolls on the Internet?

And yet.... whenever I can get away from correcting her mistakes and lies and sheer nonsense, I try to encourage her to TEST.
I have even stated that it's OK for her to use the FG, as long as she is showing a HOT LOAD over 190 degrees C, using a positive going gate pulse as she has shown IN THE PAPERS , in that poorly insulated container, for 48 hours. Then do a simple dim bulb test, not even using any test equipment or anything fancier than a clock and a webcam. She has never said WHY she won't do this simple test.

But we know why.

 

OneLink