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 Members: 84250
  • *Latest: Aslet21

  • *Total Posts: 898044
  • *Total Topics: 15837
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 1
  • *Guests: 12
  • *Total: 13

Author Topic: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.  (Read 780584 times)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1800 on: April 06, 2012, 07:36:54 AM »

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

Picowatt - I am delighted that you're preparing to investigate this for yourself as, from what I've read,  I'm inclined to trust to your impartiality and expertise.  You really do not need 20 of those IRFPG50's - but possibly 5.  In any event - that's your choice.

Provided only that you have some kind of 'offset' function on your signal generator - then you'll be able to understand how it is that we 'block' the flow of current during the period when there's voltage applied to the gate of Q1 or anywhere at all.  I have always understood that this is well known as we also used it in the application of our earlier circuit variation - albeit without the same range of efficiency that our function generator offers.  The function generator also offers a wider choice of duty cycle settings which - at it's outside extreme can switch every 3 minutes.  This is useful.

Test 1 - figure 3 - depends on the widest duty cycle setting possible - and the explanation for this, as detailed in the 2nd part of that two part paper - depends on the fact that no current is delivered by the battery but that the circuit components do have a transfer of the potential difference from the battery supply.  Then the only other variation from any standard models at all - is the proposal that current flow actually comprises a 'charge' which can only be valid if there is some particle related to this.  And we propose that this is indeed there  - in any magnetic field.  The effect is fully qualified if the particle is a tachyon - velocity of 2C - with a dual charge rather than a neutral charge.  That's broadly described in that second part of that paper.

Kindest regards again,
Rosemary

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 #1801 on: April 06, 2012, 07:38:31 AM »
@picowatt: I am glad that someone is going to build the actual circuit, besides me ... and I've built ALL of the various variations discussed here. I hope you are aware of the Tar Baby thread and all the testing I've done there.

Could you give us a rundown on the equipment you intend to use? What do you think of the proposed "dim bulb" test for Ainslie's claims? Why do you think she isn't just rushing to get it or some other good test done, and end all this useless debate?

I would be especially interested to know if you find any significant differences between the IRFPG50's performance in the circuit (whichever one you might choose to use) and the IRF830a's performance.

Offline picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1802 on: April 06, 2012, 07:39:23 AM »
Rosemary,

It is also a truth that when the scope shots indicate that the gate voltage applied to Q1 is positive, Q1 should turn on.

As the inventor and claimant, I would think this simple fact would merit more discussion from you than the answers given.  I am not discussing your claim, the oscillations, the battery charging, or anything nearly that "complex".  I am for now only simply focused on why Q1 turns on properly in one of three tests and not two others.

The simple fact is that the scope shots are saying that in Test 1 and Test 3 the gate drive indicated is more than sufficient to turn on Q1.  The Rshunt channel is showing that Q1 is not turning on.  This cannot be.

I am not trying to debunk anything, I am trying to read your paper.  Schematics and scope shots are read by the likes of me as is text by most everyone.

The only possible explanation I can arrive at as to why Q1 is not turning on, if the schematic and scope shots are indeed correct, is that Q1 is defective or has been inadvertantly disconnected during the two tests in question.

If you have another explanation, I would like to hear it.

PW

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1802 on: April 06, 2012, 07:39:23 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1803 on: April 06, 2012, 07:40:17 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.

My dear TinselKoala
I do not need your permission to test.  Nor do I need to use your test parameters.  My only concern is that I'd be anxious to not only see the conclusion to your test but some evidence that you've EVER actually tested our circuit.  And then I'd like to have some kind of access to this 'report' that you tell us has been made available?  Could you provide a link?

Regards,
Rosie Pose

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1804 on: April 06, 2012, 07:40:54 AM »
Quote
The effect is fully qualified if the particle is a tachyon - velocity of 2C - with a dual charge rather than a neutral charge.  That's broadly described in that second part of that paper.

Look out, picowatt... she's about to explain why her "thesis" is superior to QED.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1804 on: April 06, 2012, 07:40:54 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1805 on: April 06, 2012, 07:46:30 AM »
My dear TinselKoala
I do not need your permission to test.  Nor do I need to use your test parameters.  My only concern is that I'd be anxious to not only see the conclusion to your test but some evidence that you've EVER actually tested our circuit.  And then I'd like to have some kind of access to this 'report' that you tell us has been made available?  Could you provide a link?

Regards,
Rosie Pose
No, Rosie, all you need to do is TEST, somehow or other. But we know you aren't going to, and you will blame me for it. But how can I POSSIBLY be preventing you from testing?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hrmh7MM0eps

Offline picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1806 on: April 06, 2012, 07:54:19 AM »
Rosemary,

Please let me know if you do not intend to answer any of my questions directly.  I will stop asking.

I was glad you showed up tonight as I hoped you would discuss the Q1 issue with me.

Trust me, I fully understand the operation of my eight function and programmable waveform generators as well as all my other signal sources (pulse, sine, RF and HD vid).

I also fully understand that if apply a zero or negative voltage to the gate of Q1 relative to its source, Q1 will not turn on.  But I also understand that my scope channel connected to the gate of Q1 will show that my generator is applying a zero or negative voltage to the gate of Q1.

The scope shots for Test 1 and Test 2 do not show this.  They show a positive voltage in excess of the Q1 threshold voltage and Q1 should/must turn on.  The Rshunt channel does not reflect this.  It can only be an error.

PW


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1806 on: April 06, 2012, 07:54:19 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1807 on: April 06, 2012, 07:54:52 AM »
Rosemary,

It is also a truth that when the scope shots indicate that the gate voltage applied to Q1 is positive, Q1 should turn on.
What do you want me to comment on?  All I know is that the 'offset' is able to override the applied signal to frustrate the delivery of current in its entirety.  If and when you replicate you will see that your own signal generator should have the same 'function'.  I am not sure how this is managed.  Only that it is indeed - manageable.  And with all the hands on involvement of those many many experts in this technology - you are absolutely the very first person to find this to be a discrepancy.  I simply can't argue.  I'll try and find out - during the course of the day - if this is indeed an exceptional event.  But I assure you that no-one before you has even mentioned the fact.  Therefore my assumption has always been that this is precisely why that function was included in the first place.  In other words it determines the amount of applied current from the source by imposing an opposite signal to the applied energy source - with a varying and optional level of that amount.

As the inventor and claimant, I would think this simple fact would merit more discussion from you than the answers given.  I am not discussing your claim, the oscillations, the battery charging, or anything nearly that "complex".  I am for now only simply focused on why Q1 turns on properly in one of three tests and not two others.
Again.  It is simply the rather prosaic application of the 'offset' adjustment applied by function generator.  I have no other explanation.  I can adjust that offset through an extensive range to restrict or allow the flow from the supply. 

The simple fact is that the scope shots are saying that in Test 1 and Test 3 the gate drive indicated is more than sufficient to turn on Q1.  The Rshunt channel is showing that Q1 is not turning on.  This cannot be.
Same question - same answer.  Sorry.  I'll see if I can do better by asking around. 

I am not trying to debunk anything, I am trying to read your paper.  Schematics and scope shots are read by the likes of me as is text by most everyone.

The only possible explanation I can arrive at as to why Q1 is not turning on, if the schematic and scope shots are indeed correct, is that Q1 is defective or has been inadvertantly disconnected during the two tests in question.
I assure you that they are not.  The transistors have not been compromised - in any way at all.

Picowatt.  When you test this you'll see it for yourself.  I have always understood that this overriding function of the 'offset' was widely understood and widely applied.  I assure you our papers have been vetted by some highly esteemed academics.  If I didn't know it would compromise their reputations by association - I'd even mention which.  And no-one - at all - has questioned this aspect of the test.  What's significant is that notwithstanding this restriction to the flow of current we are able to generate that oscillation at all.  I would have thought?

Anyway.  I'll get back when I know better how to answer you here.  Right now I have absolutely no idea why you're surprised at this.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1808 on: April 06, 2012, 07:57:53 AM »
Look... she is able to hook her probes up to this circuit without placing them on or near junctions, she says. That can only mean that there ARE no junctions.... a neat trick.

And, by some "offset button" magic, her function generator is able to make a gate drive trace on the oscilloscope that is DIFFERENT from what the mosfet it is driving is seeing, even though the mosfet, the FG, and the probe leads are all hooked up at the same JUNCTIONS.

Or, alternatively... it means that she is once again just making stuff up out of her head.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1808 on: April 06, 2012, 07:57:53 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1809 on: April 06, 2012, 08:01:44 AM »
Quote
Again.  It is simply the rather prosaic application of the 'offset' adjustment applied by function generator.  I have no other explanation.  I can adjust that offset through an extensive range to restrict or allow the flow from the supply. 

Guppies in a fishbowl.

Offline picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1810 on: April 06, 2012, 08:08:27 AM »
Rosemary,

To turn off Q1, the generator output must be below the threshold voltage of Q1.  SImply stated, it must be at zero or a negative voltage.  That "zero" or "negative" voltage would then be indicated by the channel 3 scope traces.  The channel 3 scope traces indicate that Q1 has to be turning on, as its gate voltage is well in excess of its threshold voltage.  The Rshunt channel says that Q1 is not turning on in Test 1 and Test3 as it should/must do as per its indicated gate drive.

If you have no explanation, than just say so.  And please do "ask around".  I think all with a basic understanding of the operation of a MOSFET will have to agree that something is wrong with Q1, the schematic, the scope shots or something, because Q1 is not turning on in these two tests when indeed it should.  It is performing exactly as one would predict in Test 2, and the scope depicts the expected data.

PW

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1810 on: April 06, 2012, 08:08:27 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1811 on: April 06, 2012, 08:31:57 AM »
Rosemary,

To turn off Q1, the generator output must be below the threshold voltage of Q1.  SImply stated, it must be at zero or a negative voltage.  That "zero" or "negative" voltage would then be indicated by the channel 3 scope traces.  The channel 3 scope traces indicate that Q1 has to be turning on, as its gate voltage is well in excess of its threshold voltage.  The Rshunt channel says that Q1 is not turning on in Test 1 and Test3 as it should/must do as per its indicated gate drive.

If you have no explanation, than just say so.  And please do "ask around".  I think all with a basic understanding of the operation of a MOSFET will have to agree that something is wrong with Q1, the schematic, the scope shots or something, because Q1 is not turning on in these two tests when indeed it should.  It is performing exactly as one would predict in Test 2, and the scope depicts the expected data.

PW

My dear picowatt

This is the 7th time that you have posted this same question with an over reliance on certain assumptions that you have made which I shall be at some pains to dispel during the course of the day.  This night alone there have been a total of 42 new posts to this thread which would require me to have the typing and reading speeds of superwoman - to address.  Added to which you actually - during the rather repetitious demands to have this question answered - even complained, rather rudely that I'm 'ignoring' your question.  I've only just read THAT post and it seems that you consider me guilty of only answering this same question only three times - with varying levels of failure. 

I assure you that the offset of most signal generators are well able to restrict the flow of current.  I've now taken the trouble to check some wiki references to this.  Perhaps you could take the trouble yourself.  I will, however - make sure that I get this confirmed by an acknowledged expert - if I can manage it during the course of the day.  And then I will indeed get back to you.  With pleasure.  The applied signal at the gate is as shown.  The applied signal from the offset overrides it.  But let me get this confirmed.  In which case I've answered you at the first answer.  And it seems that you have managed - together with our other three members here - to expand this thread by another 4 pages or so with some rather repetitious posts.  I was rather hoping that at least you were both impartial and polite.  It seems not.

Rosemary

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1812 on: April 06, 2012, 08:47:07 AM »
And guys lest this post of mine fall out of focus let me get this back on the table.

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 Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1813 on: April 06, 2012, 08:54:08 AM »
Golly MileHigh
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
I love your assumptions.  They're all delivered with a reckless freedom of fact and a wild application of fantasy.  I pride myself on NOT being emotionally concerned about these posts by you trolls.  Believe me I welcome them all.  I would have LOVED to see some technical issues raised.  I keep hoping.  I am glad that you believe that you or I have pulled the wool over yours/my eyes.  And I'm REALLY sorry that you can't magically appear in our lab while we're testing.  That would have been nice.  Considering how far you can project into space - couldn't you at least try and reach across our Atlantic?  As I see it there's not that much more that's separating us.  Then you could deliver your explanations and then too I would be 'dumbstruck'.  How nice would that be?

Rosie Pose

Offline picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1814 on: April 06, 2012, 09:01:01 AM »
Rosemary,

I did not intend to come off rude.  In between posting I am machining parts on the lathe whilst checking on some client circuits that are burning in on the bench.

I asked three simple yes or no questions and received no direct answer to them.  It is frustrating.  If you want replicators to take the time to replicate your circuit, or evaluators to evaluate, it seems only fair that we be allowed to ask you questions and should expect to receive direct answers to those questions.

For the umteenth time, I fully understand that you can set the FG output to a positive value to turn on Q1 and turn off Q2-5 or alternately set the FG for a negative voltage to turn off Q1 and bias Q2-Q5 ito inear operation.

What I am asking about is why the Test1 and 2 scope shots reflect that the generator is outputting a positive voltage in excess of the Q1 gate threshold while the Rshunt traces for those tests indicates that Q1 is not turning on.  All is as it should be with Test2.

PW


 

OneLink