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: 895562
  • *Total Topics: 15753
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 4
  • *Guests: 11
  • *Total: 15

Author Topic: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.  (Read 754632 times)

Offline Cloxxki

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 825
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #195 on: January 19, 2012, 03:16:14 PM »
@poynt99 (and others)
I would appreciate your input here. What would you regard the lowest COP that definately can be looped back with significant (let's say 1% of throughput) useful output? Especially for technology such as on topic. 1.5 , maybe even lower?
Might be worthwhile to understand what level of OU is worthwhile designing a loop system for.

Or, expressed differently, which level of OU claim should ONLY be accepted accompanied by a demonstrated loop, since it's such a doable job that there is no excuse to let that "formality" up to replicators?

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 #196 on: January 19, 2012, 05:09:26 PM »
I'm going to ask the same question again but this time with a visual aid, so no one spoil it please. We want Rosemary to have first crack at it. Coming up soon, I need to draw it up.

.99

My dear Poynty,

If we were delay our claim while you scraped that barrel - then this poor little thread would truly die from want of interest.  Until you've answered my own questions - or until you make your questions a little more apposite - I'm inclined to ignore all your further posts.  Meanwhile I would remind you.  You need to 'cough up'.  I'll forward you my the paypal details as soon as you acknowledge this claim of ours.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose


Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #197 on: January 19, 2012, 05:10:02 PM »
Cloxxki,

I would say a minimum COP of 2, preferably 3, with a minimum excess of 1W output.

For the OUR award, the terms require 15W minimum of continuous output above input.

.99

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #197 on: January 19, 2012, 05:10:02 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #198 on: January 19, 2012, 05:11:31 PM »
Now.  The next application is to our very own academic - Professor Steven E Jones.  Could we impose on you to reply to our emails?  We are anxious to enter into some dialogue related to our over unity evidence that is detailed in our paper that I sent to you.

We believe we qualify for your overunity prize and would be glad if you could evaluate our paper as the basis of our claim.
 
 Kindest regards,
 Rosemary
 

Offline SchubertReijiMaigo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 343
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #199 on: January 19, 2012, 05:15:15 PM »
Currently, it's the existential question that I ask to myself...  ::)


IE: 1) You have a device with a COP of 10: Yeah the device is great !!!  ;D
      2) BUT, your device is about only 10% efficiency about the conversion process (Friction, bad   
          coupling, Heat, Impedance mismatching, [put whatever you want here...] )   >:(
      3) Despite your COP 10 when you try to get the juice you have only 1 since 90% of energy is wasted !!!  :o >:( :(
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


IE:  1) You have a COP of 1.5 but 90% efficiency conversion, you get:  :D
       2) 1.5*0.9 = 1.35...    ;)
       3) Despite your 1.5 only COP you have 0.35 totally free, 1 to self loop, and 0.15 in losses...
           8) ;D 8)


SRM


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #199 on: January 19, 2012, 05:15:15 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #200 on: January 19, 2012, 05:18:10 PM »
OK Rosemary,

Which signal would need to be connected to point "G" in the diagram to turn the BULB ON and make it fully glow?

"A" or "B"?

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #201 on: January 19, 2012, 05:24:02 PM »
Currently, it's the existential question that I ask to myself...  ::)


IE: 1) You have a device with a COP of 10: Yeah the device is great !!!  ;D
      2) BUT, your device is about only 10% efficiency about the conversion process (Friction, bad   
          coupling, Heat, Impedance mismatching, [put whatever you want here...] )   >:(
      3) Despite your COP 10 when you try to get the juice you have only 1 since 90% of energy is wasted !!!  :o >:( :(
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


IE:  1) You have a COP of 1.5 but 90% efficiency conversion, you get:  :D
       2) 1.5*0.9 = 1.35...    ;)
       3) Despite your 1.5 only COP you have 0.35 totally free, 1 to self loop, and 0.15 in losses...
           8) ;D 8)

Dear Schubert,

Where do you get those numbers?  From Poynty?  I've explained this.  We measure an INFINITE COP - which means that it FAR EXCEEDS the level required for qualification for Poynty's prize.  And we generate well in excess of 100 Watts - as required and depending on the tuning of the apparatus. 

You are more than welcome to try and 'self loop' that circuit - or some variant.  But to loop any part of it to recharge those batteries that you recommended would require the generation of current out of NOTHING.  Which, I explained, exceeds our claim.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #201 on: January 19, 2012, 05:24:02 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline mscoffman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1377
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #202 on: January 19, 2012, 05:38:56 PM »
@poynt99 (and others)
I would appreciate your input here. What would you regard the lowest COP that definately can be looped back with significant (let's say 1% of throughput) useful output? Especially for technology such as on topic. 1.5 , maybe even lower?
Might be worthwhile to understand what level of OU is worthwhile designing a loop system for.

Or, expressed differently, which level of OU claim should ONLY be accepted accompanied by a demonstrated loop, since it's such a doable job that there is no excuse to let that "formality" up to replicators?


That depends...On whether thermalized heat is part of the gain loop or not. If the input and
output is electricity then only a very small gain will be usable in a loop via a serial connection
of gain units. If too-small a gain, then one has to consider whether environmental sources of
energy are somehow aiding a nearly 100% efficient device.

If heat is in use then you have to consider the inverse Carnot efficiency of a (perfect gas)
heat engine. Carnot efficiency is like a mathematical limit that other technologies,
not dependent on a perfect gas, can generally approach.

Carnot efficiency depends on the difference between the hot side and cold side
reservoir sources and for room temperature low side and a flame high side it
approaches 33% (like an ICE engine). To offset heat engine looses in such a loop
a gain of 3x would generally be sufficient. Heat not participating in 33% conversion
is waste heat that the low side reservoir will need to dispose of to keep it's
temperature from rising. So you can see that the presents of heat in the loop
is generally a very undesirable requirement, if one ultimately wants upgraded
energy.
 

:S:MarkSCoffman

Offline SchubertReijiMaigo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 343
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #203 on: January 19, 2012, 05:39:09 PM »
@Rosemary:

Don't worry this is just an example for Cloxxki.
Even with a ridiculous COP if the efficiency is good, you can do it !!!

If you can get an infinite COP (I guess your input is 0) N / 0  = Infinity... (That's why mathematician say it's "impossible" you have a singularity here)...

Self loop is the finger in the nose you can get even Nobel for that !!!

Regards, Schubert.







Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #203 on: January 19, 2012, 05:39:09 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #204 on: January 19, 2012, 05:40:54 PM »
@poynt99 (and others)
I would appreciate your input here. What would you regard the lowest COP that definately can be looped back with significant (let's say 1% of throughput) useful output? Especially for technology such as on topic. 1.5 , maybe even lower?
Might be worthwhile to understand what level of OU is worthwhile designing a loop system for.

Or, expressed differently, which level of OU claim should ONLY be accepted accompanied by a demonstrated loop, since it's such a doable job that there is no excuse to let that "formality" up to replicators?

Hi Cloxxki,

You're not familiar with Poynty's work.  Look up his paper.  You'll see his own simulations confirm that we're dissipating in excess of 100 Watts with a negative wattage product.

That's why he's had to re-invent science.  He can't deny the evidence.

Kindest again,
Rosemary

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #205 on: January 19, 2012, 05:46:00 PM »
@Rosemary:

Don't worry this is just an example for Cloxxki.
Even with a ridiculous COP if the efficiency is good, you can do it !!!

If you can get an infinite COP (I guess your input is 0) N / 0  = Infinity... (That's why mathematician say it's "impossible" you have a singularity here)...

Self loop is the finger in the nose you can get even Nobel for that !!!

Regards, Schubert.

Ok Schubert.  I thought you were also denying my evidence. 

 ;D

Regards,
Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #205 on: January 19, 2012, 05:46:00 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline SchubertReijiMaigo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 343
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #206 on: January 19, 2012, 05:50:21 PM »
Nothing to that,
I'm skeptic but open minded at the same time, even for things like paranormal, UFO, etc,  and of course FE...

"Impossible" is not in my dictionary but "Improbable" yes...




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #207 on: January 19, 2012, 05:53:54 PM »
Nothing to that,
I'm skeptic but open minded at the same time, even for things like paranormal, UFO, etc,  and of course FE...

"Impossible" is not in my dictionary but "Improbable" yes...

lol.  That's perfectly healthy Schubert.   ;D   Nothing wrong with an open mind.  Provided only it doesn't then accommodate Poynty's extraordinary science.  And nothing wrong with a moderate helping of scepticism. 

Rosemary

Offline Cloxxki

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 825
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #208 on: January 19, 2012, 06:41:31 PM »
I lack all kinds of physics knowledge to begin to understand your respective papers.
 
I can however probably invent a system that will be a kind of capacitor, with accumulated energy (from input) slushing around in controlled flow. Measuring on specific part of this flow will surely offer near infinite COP numbers, if considered to reflect that. Like a tiny engine running a flywheel. Eventually the kinetic energy harnessed equals the capacity of the battery. If you then just measure the weight being lifted on the upside of the flywheel even single second...well you understand.
 
OU is not there if the output cannot be extracted. Like candy in a box you can't eat from, as the mean fairy will make it all disappear instantly. You don't need a real scientist to tell you that.
You've got heat? Great, let it be dissipated by a heat engine. You can make an abundance, after all?
 
Lower you COP claim to 3 and make it happen. Conversion technology is well in place, and can be tailored to your device.
I'll be the first to write to the Nobel Commity to promote your work when it's looped. An OU claim without even an attempt to loop, should be considered borderline fraud, or worse. In fact, it could be considered a crime against humanity, as any OU claim directs brain power away from other projects, which are all more meritable.
 
My limited science background doesn't allow me to see the fine difference between an amazing OU device from lazy inventor failing to loop it, and a capacitor. I'd like to be educated though. for now, I'm with Schubert and Poynt on this.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #209 on: January 19, 2012, 07:50:07 PM »
I lack all kinds of physics knowledge to begin to understand your respective papers.
 
I can however probably invent a system that will be a kind of capacitor, with accumulated energy (from input) slushing around in controlled flow. Measuring on specific part of this flow will surely offer near infinite COP numbers, if considered to reflect that. Like a tiny engine running a flywheel. Eventually the kinetic energy harnessed equals the capacity of the battery. If you then just measure the weight being lifted on the upside of the flywheel even single second...well you understand.
 
OU is not there if the output cannot be extracted. Like candy in a box you can't eat from, as the mean fairy will make it all disappear instantly. You don't need a real scientist to tell you that.
You've got heat? Great, let it be dissipated by a heat engine. You can make an abundance, after all?
 
Lower you COP claim to 3 and make it happen. Conversion technology is well in place, and can be tailored to your device.
I'll be the first to write to the Nobel Commity to promote your work when it's looped. An OU claim without even an attempt to loop, should be considered borderline fraud, or worse. In fact, it could be considered a crime against humanity, as any OU claim directs brain power away from other projects, which are all more meritable.
 
My limited science background doesn't allow me to see the fine difference between an amazing OU device from lazy inventor failing to loop it, and a capacitor. I'd like to be educated though. for now, I'm with Schubert and Poynt on this.

Cloxxki - that was indeed a thoughtful post.  Thanks for that.  I've spent the last half hour trying to answer it and I CANNOT do this without going into that much detail that I may as well just repost our entire paper.  And that you're asking at all - is proof that you can't understand it.  Can I ask you this?  Could you take the trouble to read it and then ask me  precisely what is NOT clear.  That's assuming that you understand any of it at all.  I'd be DELIGHTED to engage.  I know that the thinking has eluded the most of you.  It may help everyone.  Especially me.  Because I never know at which point the logic becomes obtuse.

Very, very broadly, the proposal is that there is a FIXED NUMBER OF these magnetic particles in magnetic fields.  And these magnetic fields comprise the material structure of current flow. Well. Depending on a path allowed for by the circuit - current flow is the movement of these particles, which always return to their source.  This flow is a coherent field condition.  But given an imbalanced field, then it generates heat.  And HEAT is a chaotic condition of the 'field'.  And then these particles can transmute into photons and then irradiate away from that source.  Therefore HEAT is the measurable rate at which these fields are depleted.  And they can't be recovered.  Previously these structured orderly fields bound that circuit material into it's coalesced condition.  Therefore in a chaotic condition, when these photons deplete the number of those binding fields, then the depletion also then compromises the bound condition of the circuit material.

So.  We can move current around - from one battery to another, and we can even generate copious amounts of heat - but we cannot prevent a depletion of those particles as they irradiate away from their source.  And because it's a 'fixed amount' then we cannot recharge batteries without subtracting from the original amount or quantity from that source. 

In short.  All we've proposed is that there's all this potential energy in bound matter - which is in line with Einstein's mass energy equivalence.  And we can use this in inductive and conductive material.  Where we deviate from the standard model ASSUMPTION is in that this suggests that the ONLY source of energy to a circuit is from the source supply.  A battery or some such.  A required source of potential difference.  We PROVE that this potential can be transferred and then USED - EXCLUSIVELY from the material in those circuit components.  Its potential value, therefore, is that we can generate this 'flow' without compromising the potential difference in the battery source supply.  So.  We get a gradual degradation of the circuit material at no attendant cost of the potential difference from the battery.  Which is valuable INDEED.  But it's NOT PERPETUAL MOTION. And strangely, it resolves a lot of questions related to the property of electric energy and voltage and current flow.  In other words - it does NOT conflict with the evidence.  But nota bene.  It also depends on the voltage or potential difference that's enabled in that inductive/conductive material.  This potential will also deplete at a rate that is consistent with the amount of energy that is irradiated away from that source.

But PLEASE.  Do ASK.  As mentioned - I have no CLUE if anything that I write is even vaguely comprehensible.  And I would LOVE to make this clear.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

 

OneLink