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: 897283
  • *Total Topics: 15811
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 6
  • *Guests: 9
  • *Total: 15

Author Topic: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.  (Read 769442 times)

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1875 on: April 07, 2012, 03:41:34 AM »
Yes TK.

That gradual ON and OFF is what I mentioned earlier on about your wave forms getting close, but without that characteristic. You didn't understand what I meant then, but you do now.

With the use of your delayed time base, the evidence is there, you got it. ;)

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 #1876 on: April 07, 2012, 03:53:31 AM »
I understand more and more every day, but less and less of it makes any sense at all.

Offline picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1877 on: April 07, 2012, 04:46:54 AM »
Rosemary,

I see at the beginning of this thread that some tests were performed using three drained batteries and a single MOSFET in only the Q2 position.

I have a few questions regarding those tests.

1.  Do you know what the bulb number was that was used to discharge the batteries?

2.  When you say the batteries were discharged until the bulbs went out, was this completely out as in cup your hands around them or observe in the dark "out" or until they were just too dim to observe in a normally lit room?

3.  Was the somewhere around 10.06 volts figure given the voltage of the batteries with the bulbs still connected or was this the open circuit voltage taken after disconnecting the bulbs?

4.  If the answer to 3 above is the open circuit voltage, was the voltage measured fairly soon after the bulbs were disconnected?

Thanks,
PW

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1877 on: April 07, 2012, 04:46:54 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1878 on: April 07, 2012, 05:06:48 AM »
Hi guys,

As we all know now there is two (2) device schematics shown in the two (2) papers that Rosemary sent out to some accredited journal or magazine for a peer review from both engineers and academics with a possible publication of the "CLAIM" of COP>INFINITY on her invented device(s).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Experimental Evidence of a Breach of Unity on Switched Circuit Apparatus  ( ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf )
ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF_Q2_x4_Q1_.PNG

Proposed variation to Faraday’s Lines of Force to include a magnetic dipole in its structure  ( ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf )
ROSSI-JOP-2-PDF_Q1_Q2_x4_.PNG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


There is one "SCOPE SHOT" a ..... "LeCroy" 50s - 500k - 4 Channel - Dated 2011/03/02 - Time 07:54:13  shown in both papers .... SCOPE_SHOT_ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF_FIG3__ROSSI-JOP-2-PDF_FIG2_.JPG

Experimental Evidence of a Breach of Unity on Switched Circuit Apparatus  ( ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf ) Figure #3
Proposed variation to Faraday’s Lines of Force to include a magnetic dipole in its structure  ( ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf ) Figure #2

Given there are two different device schematics one for each paper is this "SCOPE SHOT" wave form even possible for both papers or only one paper ?  ???

Cheers,
FTC
 ;)

Offline picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1879 on: April 07, 2012, 05:46:18 AM »
FTC,

Both schematics should perform similarly.  There would be differences in current handling capability for different portions of the FG waveform and possibly some AC differences (osc freq, etc).  But essentially they would perform the same.

The MOSFET(s) whose gate is connected to the FG output (common source) will turn on when the FG output swings positive moreso than the MOSFET threshold voltage.  The MOSFET(s) whose gate is connected to the CSR (common gate) will bias on into a "linear" region of operation when the FG output swings negative.

The scope shot you posted is the same as from Test 1/FIG 3 in the first paper and was discussed somewhat last night.  The indicated gate drive during the positive portion of the FG output is more than sufficient to turn on Q1 (schematic of first paper) while the CSR trace indicates that Q1 is not turning on.  One must assume that Q1 was either defective or disconnected during the test performed for this scope capture.

Long story short, both schematics should perform similarly.  Also, we have been assured that the second paper schematic was merely a typo and that the first paper schematic is the correct one.

PW

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1879 on: April 07, 2012, 05:46:18 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1880 on: April 07, 2012, 05:54:39 AM »
you are right, the full positive or full negative signal only turns on the corresponding mosfet(s). It is when the bipolar pulse swings +/- at least 5 v that every transistor turns on.
Really TK?  And you deduce this how?  From your test results?  Could you perhaps show us your report on this?  Alternatively could you give us another link to one of your 'educational' videos?  Alternatively could you substantiate this argument with reference to our own waveform downloads that show the applied voltage of the signal during the oscillation phase?  Or alternatively could you post a picture of your own related to this waveform during the oscillation phase?  Something?  Anything at all?  Otherwise your more discerning readers will all be rather disinclined to treat your statement with any of the 'gravitas' that you seem to be expecting.
Usually I monitor heat but now that the circuit has changed _again_ it's easy to get confused.
Really TK?  You monitor that heat?  Or do you just casually reference it here and there when you imply and infer that you ONLY get the heat when you 'twiddle' with the 'knobs' as you put it?  And all before it gets into oscillation moed?  Is there a report out on the 'results' of any of those experiments?  Taken over time?  Or do you confine your observations to the 10 minutes of badly filmed film as the 'test period under review'.  In which case any conclusions that you may draw can only be based on inference and speculation.  I'm not sure that qualifies as a scientific argument.
I have done the extremely basic FG offset demo some time ago; I'll see if I can find it, it's contained in one of the TarBaby clips somewhere I think. I set the FG to "DC" output and show how the offset puts it positive or negative as desired, and of course the same with a waveform.
Again.  I think we all need to see this.  Else it will seem like nothing more than an idle boast presented in the rather forlorn hopes that any such video exists.  And when you do eventually manage to give us a link - then perhaps you could also ensure that your camera is aimed at those 'knobs' you're turning at the same time as the 'screen' that you're showing.  That way we'll all be more inclined to believe you.
That won't prove anything though: there's no incentive for the offset to "sneak past" the oscilloscope unless a NERD circuit is hooked up.
On the contrary.  I'm sure we'll all be really interested to see how you manage this.  I certainly would.  Just ensure that you're plausible at the kick off - with clear filming and good lighting - and less reference to your preferred brand of lager. It's as tedious as your continual 'asks' for pickles when you posted as Hamburger or Humbugger.  One or the other.
BTW, I've built "every" variation that seems to be extant, including a couple of my own.
The single mosfet circuit shown on the early Ainslie photo
The single mosfet circuit shown (but NOT demonstrated) in the video
The 5x parallel mosfet circuit that was "claimed" to be the one shown in the video
The actual circuit shown in the video, with and without gate input resistance
The actual circuit shown in the video, but with the FG minus at the common minus, rather than where it is shown on the diagrams
The circuit given in the first unpublished paper
and now
The circuit given in the second unpublished paper.
We all know this.  Your attempts at our previous circuit were dogged with the persistent lack of the appropriate waveform.  And these latest are bereft of any decent report on your results.  If there is something that yet remains hidden - then I can understand these boasts of yours.  Perhaps you could make a concession to open source and can point us to a link?  That would be very nice.

Rosie Poser

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1881 on: April 07, 2012, 06:17:06 AM »
That's not going to fly.  You can't present a report on an experiment and say, "we need long wires between the power source and circuit board."  Honestly, you are just 'absorbing' the wild voltage swings into your argument as a coping strategy.
No MileHigh.  We don't 'present a report' based on any such conclusions.  And we are not 'absorbing' wild voltage swings as a 'coping strategy' neither for our argument - nor for our tests. 

The "battery voltage" makes no sense and the current waveform in negative oscillation mode makes no sense.  If TK and other replicators move forward and do some more testing you will probably see these things explained.
I agree.  Which is why we propose that it's an anomaly and that we propose our experts determine what gives.  Which is also why we wrote those papers.

Your fundamental argument is that your circuit is using the "potential only" as supplied by the batteries and the net current and net power consumption of the device is negative while it heats up the load resistor (and the MOSFETs big time!).
Absolutely.  This is entirely correct.

Your entire argument is centered on what the DSOs are telling you.  You have been deluged with information recently telling you that your DSO input data is incorrect.  It's NOT the DSO's themselves, they are working properly, it's the data that you are presenting to them that's the issue.
Not actually MileHigh.  Those DSO's are collating the data with no extraneous interference from ourselves.  And I have NOT been deluged with information.  I've been presented with some clumsy disinformation that was insultingly transparent in its argument coupled by an insulting lack of proficiency in its delivery.

You didn't understand how the circuit actually worked when you did your testing and wrote up your reports.  You have been learning how it actually works whenever there is an active thread.  It feels like WWII and we are fighting up the boot of Italy, fighting for each olive orchard one by one.  But the Allies will win in the end.
It is indeed a world war that's raging.  But it's a war of scientific evidence versus scientific assumption.  And I most certainly do learn how these strategies are applied - with every new thread.  But the theme is mostly the same.  I'm accused of stupidity - lunacy - mendacity and incompetence while the opposition prove their own stupidity lunacy and mendacity - with a remarkable degree of competence.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1881 on: April 07, 2012, 06:17:06 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1882 on: April 07, 2012, 06:24:43 AM »
FTC,

Both schematics should perform similarly.  There would be differences in current handling capability for different portions of the FG waveform and possibly some AC differences (osc freq, etc).  But essentially they would perform the same.

The MOSFET(s) whose gate is connected to the FG output (common source) will turn on when the FG output swings positive moreso than the MOSFET threshold voltage.  The MOSFET(s) whose gate is connected to the CSR (common gate) will bias on into a "linear" region of operation when the FG output swings negative.

The scope shot you posted is the same as from Test 1/FIG 3 in the first paper and was discussed somewhat last night.  The indicated gate drive during the positive portion of the FG output is more than sufficient to turn on Q1 (schematic of first paper) while the CSR trace indicates that Q1 is not turning on.  One must assume that Q1 was either defective or disconnected during the test performed for this scope capture.

Long story short, both schematics should perform similarly.  Also, we have been assured that the second paper schematic was merely a typo and that the first paper schematic is the correct one.

PW

Howdy PW,

So Rosemary has indicated the device schematic from paper 2 ( ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf ) is wrong and the "correct" device schematic is in paper 1 ( ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf ) a typo.

Did she indicate that the device schematic in paper 2 ( ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf ) the same device schematic posted in Rosemary's BLOG site http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/109-simulated-circuit.html ( Simulation Schematic.jpg ) were these device schematics used at "ALL" in her papers 1 & 2 or some other testing ? I can't seem to find that link from whom ever .... things get buried fast in this thread.

I see your also curious about the "DEAD or FLAT" battery test Rosemary posted in very first posting here in this thread http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg304941/#msg304941 I'd love to see this in a video or more details about it as there appears to be several people there at the time it was done.

Cheers,
FTC
 :)


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1883 on: April 07, 2012, 06:29:44 AM »
@ PW, Fuzzy: Yes, in terms of waveforms the two will perform about the same, but in terms of load sharing it makes more sense to have the Q2 stack seeing the "plus" lead of the FG because when they are using the positive going drive, for big load heat, the load (and power dissipation) is shared by the four instead of just the one. The second diagram makes more sense from that viewpoint. But are we being told now that the FIRST one is correct? That's just because I have built the second one now. Watch... when I go back to the first one and again show the exact waveforms Rosemary shows, and she denies it... ANOTHER circuit will surface from somewhere.

In that recent scopeshot it again looks like no current is flowing in the CVR during the non-oscillation phase, yet there is a positive gate pulse of 12 volts or more. The magic offset knob is sneaking its offset past the scope again !!

And there will still be no testing forthcoming from Rosie Poser, nor will anyone get coherent answers to their questions.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1883 on: April 07, 2012, 06:29:44 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1884 on: April 07, 2012, 06:34:06 AM »
FTC,

Those simulation schematics are indeed more representative of the schematic in the second paper.  I have no additional info or comments regarding them, you will have to ask Rosemary.

Possibly .99 and/or I misunderstood, but I thought it was decided that the schematic in the first paper, with Q1 a single device and configured common source was the correct one.

Possibly Rosemary can again clarify this point...?

PW


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1885 on: April 07, 2012, 06:35:09 AM »
Rosemary,

I see at the beginning of this thread that some tests were performed using three drained batteries and a single MOSFET in only the Q2 position.

I have a few questions regarding those tests.

1.  Do you know what the bulb number was that was used to discharge the batteries?

2.  When you say the batteries were discharged until the bulbs went out, was this completely out as in cup your hands around them or observe in the dark "out" or until they were just too dim to observe in a normally lit room?

3.  Was the somewhere around 10.06 volts figure given the voltage of the batteries with the bulbs still connected or was this the open circuit voltage taken after disconnecting the bulbs?

4.  If the answer to 3 above is the open circuit voltage, was the voltage measured fairly soon after the bulbs were disconnected?

Thanks,
PW

Hello Picowatt
These are not my experiments to comment on.  Unfortunately.  It belongs wholly to my colleagues.  And they're not prepared to engage in a discussion of this on these utterly corrupted forums where the agenda to deny is based on anything but professional or sensible scientific argument.

Regards,
Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1885 on: April 07, 2012, 06:35:09 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1886 on: April 07, 2012, 06:39:11 AM »
TK,

It got pretty late last night, possibly I misunderstood which schematic is the correct one.  I thought it was decided that the schematic in the first paper is the correct one.

Rosemary, if you would, please let us know which schematic is the correct one, the first (Exp Evidence..) or second paper?

PW

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1887 on: April 07, 2012, 06:39:53 AM »
Probe skew, Rosemary. Why do you think the scopes have an adjustment for probe skew?

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1888 on: April 07, 2012, 06:49:41 AM »
TK,

It got pretty late last night, possibly I misunderstood which schematic is the correct one.  I thought it was decided that the schematic in the first paper is the correct one.

Rosemary, if you would, please let us know which schematic is the correct one, the first (Exp Evidence..) or second paper?

PW

@PW:
I would be very happy to stipulate that the first schematic is the "correct" one. Then, when she does her "high heat" test with a positive gate drive signal and 6 x 12 volt batteries...  and the mosfet on that cute little heatsink as shown in the video... I want to see the scope traces, one at the very beginning of the test, switch-on time.... and another after, say, ten minutes of operation at 72 volts into 14 Ohms total resistance. You might have missed the as-yet unexplained (by Rosemary) removal of a battery-- to make a 48 volt battery instead of 60 volts-- for the "high heat" portion of the video... which certainly used the first schematic (even though it showed a different one) and a positive gate pulse with clear evidence of good current in the CVR trace. Why was a battery removed for this test? I think I know. I think you might know too.

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1889 on: April 07, 2012, 07:04:39 AM »
PW, guys,

I've already stated my interpretation of Rosemary's reply to me, and that is paper 1 has the correct diagram.

Hi Poynty.   It makes not a blind bit of difference as it comes to the same thing.  But the Q2 on the right of the schematic has been corrected and replaced on the left on a corrected paper submitted for review.  This was pointed out by the editor and corrected.  But either way - as TK has shown - it gives precisely the same result.

Thanks Poynty - if you can correct the copy on your published - then do so.  If not - it really doesn't matter.  It doesn't constitute a misrepresentation - but an erroneous transposition - as picowatt explained.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

 

OneLink