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: 84086
  • *Latest: Harper77

  • *Total Posts: 895484
  • *Total Topics: 15752
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 2
  • *Guests: 10
  • *Total: 12

Author Topic: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.  (Read 754487 times)

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #240 on: January 21, 2012, 04:48:29 PM »
And I MOST CERTAINLY DO NOT STATE THAT THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS POSITIVE.
Sorry deary, by default, that is your answer.
Quote
LOOK AGAIN.  It is absolutely NOT in reverse.
I would suggest you look again, and not just assume. Even one "blind as a bat" can see that the two MOSFETs have their Gates and Sources reverse-connected.

Quote
If Q2 is ON when Q1 is OFF then it is getting it's positive signal via the SOURCE.  That would be a non-standard application at BEST.
Q1 is NEVER ON. Q2 is ON when the FG applies the positive signal across G-S.

Quote
Are you even aware of the circuit?  I though you knew it.
Quite so. Better than most I expect.

Quote
After all you simulated our resuts.  PERFECTLY
I did indeed. That should tell you something.

Quote
WHAT -5 or even +5 volts are you referring to.  We have NEVER APPLIED that much voltage anywhere at all.  At the most there's 2 volts applied.
Indeed? You've no doubt tried a whole range of offset and pulse voltages, one of which I know for some time was -5V. Several voltage levels will work, as long as Q2 is biased ON.

You should have a look at your own first paper, FIG.3. The blue trace, channel 3 is set for 10V per division, and the signal appears to cross almost two full divisions. Using your impeccable math skills, what does "2 x 10" equal in your world?

Quote
CONCENTRATE POYNTY.  The probe from the signal generator is applied DIRECTLY to the gate of Q1.  The GROUND of the probe from the signal generator is applied directly to the SOURCE.  THEREFORE - when the signal from the probe reverses to apply a negative at Q1 - then at that moment the POSITIVE signal would be applied directly to the source - which is NOT THE GATE OF Q2.
Golly, that is so FUBAR'd. You have no idea how the hell anything works. Q1 NEVER GETS TURNED ON. IT CAN"T! You are always applying a negative or zero VGS to Q1, therefore it can never be turned ON. And open your eyes; Q1's Source is most definitely connected to Q2's Gate.

Quote
You are attempting to persuade all and sundry that there is an applied positive signal at the GATE of Q2 because the MOSFETS are REVERSED.  They are not.  That would call for an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CIRCUIT CONFIGURATION TO THE ONE THAT WE'VE DISCLOSED AND INDEED THAT WE USE.
Look again. You are the only one that can not see it Rosemary.

Quote
Explain, if you can, how it is that the THE APPLIED NEGATIVE AT THE GATE OF Q1 generates a positive at Q2 given that those FETS ARE NOT REVERSED AS YOU'RE PROPOSING?  Because they assuredly ARE NOT.
They are indeed reversed; how many times must you be advised? Surely at least one of the three readers here could oblige to assure Rosemary of this fact?

.99

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #241 on: January 21, 2012, 04:51:50 PM »
For clarification - let me add this.

FAR FROM BEING REVERSED. 
.   The GATE OF Q1 is connected DIRECTLY to the GATE OF Q2.
.   The DRAIN OF Q1 is connected DIRECTLY to the DRAIN OF Q2
.   The SOURCE of Q1 is connected DIRECTLY to the SOURCE OF Q2.

What you're proposing is that
.   The GATE OF Q1 is connected DIRECTLY TO THE SOURCE OF Q2
.   THE DRAIN OF Q1 is connected DIRECTLY to the DRAIN OF Q2
.   The SOURCE OF Q1 is connected DIRECTLY to the GATE OF Q2.

IF it were the latter configuration - then your argument would hold.  I trust that makes it clearer.  In effect when we apply a negative to the gate of Q1 it is SIMULTANEOUSLY being applied to the Gate of Q2.

Go check that configuration again Poynty.  After all - it was you who brought it to everyone's attention.  Which did NOT do the damage that I suspect you hoped.

Kindest again,
Rosie Posie

Good grief, what is wrong with you?! Could someone please advise Rosemary that she has made some serious errors here?

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #242 on: January 21, 2012, 05:02:35 PM »
For clarification - let me add this.

FAR FROM BEING REVERSED. 
.   The GATE OF Q1 is connected DIRECTLY to the GATE OF Q2.
.   The DRAIN OF Q1 is connected DIRECTLY to the DRAIN OF Q2
.   The SOURCE of Q1 is connected DIRECTLY to the SOURCE OF Q2.

What you're proposing is that
.   The GATE OF Q1 is connected DIRECTLY TO THE SOURCE OF Q2
.   THE DRAIN OF Q1 is connected DIRECTLY to the DRAIN OF Q2
.   The SOURCE OF Q1 is connected DIRECTLY to the GATE OF Q2.

IF it were the latter configuration - then your argument would hold.  I trust that makes it clearer.  In effect when we apply a negative to the gate of Q1 it is SIMULTANEOUSLY being applied to the Gate of Q2.

Go check that configuration again Poynty.  After all - it was you who brought it to everyone's attention.  Which did NOT do the damage that I suspect you hoped.

Kindest again,
Rosie Posie

Here is the diagram from your first paper. It clearly shows the configuration that "I am proposing" according to you. I am not proposing anything at all, as you can see it simply IS how it is.

.99

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #242 on: January 21, 2012, 05:02:35 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #243 on: January 21, 2012, 05:11:41 PM »
Rosemary Quote:
"The MOSFET is an 'N' type.  Therefore a negative signal at the gate OPENS the circuit.  The battery is then DISCONNECTED.  NOTWITHSTANDING WHICH we get a CONTINUOUS OSCILLATION DURING THE PERIOD THAT THE SWITCH IS OPEN - or - THE BATTERY IS DISCONNECTED."

OK OK, the circuit is open but oscillation continue = natural oscillation due the LCR oscillator
There is no known LC oscillator that can continue to oscillate indefinitely.  They all diminish at varying rates due to damping.
 
C is the stray capacitance of the MOSFET L you inductance, R the wire of that inductance...
So in theory the "excess"  energy dissipated will come from oscillation...
It may be Schubert.  I just don't know.  But I do know that if I reduce the wires to almost nothing - that oscillation persists.

Note that you can have capacitance coupling with your MOSET !!!
Indeed.  But we'd need a level of stray capacitance associated with an IRPG50 that beggars belief.

But problem effectively as noted by .99 your -5V is in reality from the battery !!! It depend how you measure the signal in rapport with the 0V...
I think Poynt was trying to infer that the signal generator was 'adding' 5 volts to the mix.  It's neither here nor there.  We're measuring double the battery voltage at the peak of each oscillation.  And that's far in excess of what the signal is using.  Quite apart from which, check our claim.  We have measured this voltage and it is negative as it relates to the battery.  Which means the supply should be REDUCED by that amount. 

Floating point, and floating measurement can give induce the experimenter in error sometimes, especially in electronic circuit !!!
.  INDEED.  But we have NO FLOATING POINTS - that we've been able to find.

So I will still skeptic for now, but continue to study.
We are not looking for converts.  We're looking for discussions.  Nice to see that you're still prepared to look into this further.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #244 on: January 21, 2012, 05:15:50 PM »
MY DEAR POYNTY POINT

It is IMPOSSIBLE to use standard circuit representations as per our ACTUAL MOSFET - Q-Array as we refer to it.  The closest way to describe the configuration is this.

There are two MOSFETS in parallel.  The signal is applied to the common gates BETWEEN the two.  Which is an atypical application.  Therefore while they are technically in parallel - there is an eccentric positioning of the probe from the signal generator.  The explanation for the benefits to this configuration are explained in part 2 of that 2-part paper.

Here is the diagram from your first paper. It clearly shows the configuration that "I am proposing" according to you. I am not proposing anything at all, as you can see it simply IS how it is.

.99

Regards again
Rosie Pose

I might add.  I distinctly recall GroundLoop giving us all a FULL DIAGRAM of the configuration.  And when I ventured to draw the configuration as I thought would be more appropriate - you used it as an opportunity to advise the world and his wife - YET AGAIN - that this was another example of how little I understood about anything at all.  More's the pity.  You'd have honed into the problem.  But quite apart from which, there has been NO ACADEMIC who has expressed the SLIGHTEST difficulty in understanding the implications of that circuit configuration as drawn.  It seems to have been not only appropriate - but more than sufficient for a description of this eccentric positioning.

Again,
Regards. 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #244 on: January 21, 2012, 05:15:50 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #245 on: January 21, 2012, 05:43:01 PM »
You are avoiding the facts and the issue. In effect, you're up to your "silly-bugger" games again. Stop muddying the facts with that rubbish rhetoric and stick to the salient points.

Your diagram clearly shows the connections how they were for your test. I've annotated the diagram to show ONE of the reverse Gate and Source connections....kindly explain how that contradicts with my "proposal" of how the circuit is connected.

Then, we're all still waiting to hear what your calculated Gate voltage is wrt your scope shot on the Gate probe.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #246 on: January 21, 2012, 05:46:43 PM »
Guys, I'm withdrawing from this conversation.  I have no intention of acknowledging - let alone answering any posts from Poynty Point.  I will NOT be around for any more abuse.

Regards,
Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #246 on: January 21, 2012, 05:46:43 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #247 on: January 21, 2012, 06:15:51 PM »
Guys, I'm withdrawing from this conversation.  I have no intention of acknowledging - let alone answering any posts from Poynty Point.  I will NOT be around for any more abuse.

Regards,
Rosemary

Well, that's it then folks. By running away from the real salient points, Rosemary is admitting defeat, and that she has been wrong all along. She finally realizes she can not argue with what's obviously and squarely in her face...the facts.

We trust also then Rosemary, that you'll cease with your unfounded and incessant demands for the OU prize until you have ACTUAL proof of it.

It's been real. ;) Chau.

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #248 on: January 21, 2012, 06:21:05 PM »
I would add that I would be very happy to continue this conversation with anyone other than Poynty.99.  I will no longer tolerate his abuse.

HE IS MOST CERTAINLY IS LIABLE FOR THE FULL PAYMENT OF HIS OU PRIZE.  That he resorts to abuse in his efforts to deny this is a self-evidently a facile attempt at denying his liability.

Regards,
Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #248 on: January 21, 2012, 06:21:05 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #249 on: January 21, 2012, 07:03:56 PM »
HE IS MOST CERTAINLY IS LIABLE FOR THE FULL PAYMENT OF HIS OU PRIZE.

I am most certainly obliged to pay forward the OU Award to anyone who is successful with their application. Unfortunately for you however, you were and remain unsuccessful in that regard.

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #250 on: January 21, 2012, 08:19:05 PM »
Guys, Now that I'm a little calmer I'll explain this for the benefit of those who are trying to understand the complexities of this Q-Array.

You will notice that the circuit only shows the positioning of the probe from the signal generator.  It is NOT showing the applied signal.  You will also note that it is applied directly to Q1.  WHEN the applied signal from the generator is POSITIVE then the circuit is closed and the battery supply can deliver a current flow.  BUT.  In our first test example we effectively set this signal that the applied signal is NEGATIVE.  Therefore the battery is NOT ABLE TO DELIVER ANY CURRENT FLOW.  Notwithstanding which the waveform first ramps up - reaches an optimum peak - and then moves freely from positive to negative in a self-sustaining oscillation.

The question then is what enables the current from the battery supply?  Or better said - what enables the positive half of each oscillation - when the applied signal at the Gate of Q1 is NEGATIVE and the ground of the probe is on the source rail of the circuit?  What Poynty is trying to argue is that IF the signal at the gate of Q1 is negative - or open - then the signal at the gate of Q2 is, correspondingly positive or closed.  And then the current from the battery supply - that part of the oscillation that is seen as being above ground - or clockwise, can EASILY move either through the source or the drain - as required through either Q1 or Q2.

But the signal at neither of the gates, Q1 nor Q2 IS EVER POSITIVE during this oscillation phase.  It is ONLY an applied NEGATIVE signal.  The signal generator's GROUND is connected to the source rail.  NOT TO THE GATE OF Q2.  Now it can be argued that IF the applied signal from the generator is negative - then relative to this the signal at the ground of that probe MAY be positive.  INDEED.  It may.  In fact we rely on this.  But I'll get there.  Meanwhile - NOTA BENE - IF the source rail now has an applied POSITIVE SIGNAL with respect to the battery voltage - then it will BLOCK the anti-clockwise or negative flow of current from the induced counter electromotive force.  This in the same way that a negative signal at the gate of Q1 will block the positive or clockwise current flow from the battery supply.  Therefore.  Not only would there be no flow of current from counter electromotive force - but there neither could nor would be any evidence of any oscillation at all.

SO.  What is it that enables that oscillation?  It flows in both directions through the circuit.  We see it across the load.  And we see it across the shunt at the source rail of the battery.  And the only way that this can be resolved is to apply a dual charge potential to current itself.  This certainly resolves the question.  And its explanation is detailed in that second part of that 2 part paper.

There is absolutely NO positive current flow enabled in our very first test example.  Not only this - but we have done this test - at Harti's suggestion - by applying a continual negative charge at the gate of Q1 - AND YET WE GET THAT OSCILLATION.  And again.  IF that second half of each oscillation is enabled somehow by a relative and corresponding POSITIVE charge applied to the SOURCE rail of the circuit through the signal generator's ground  - then that same CONTINUAL CHARGE APPLICATION would needs must BLOCK the counter electromotive force that is unquestionably generated by collapsing fields in the circuit components.  It's charge presentation would OPPOSE the flow from CEMF.

This rather reckless hope and simplistic objection of Poynty's to deny our claim because there's a corresponding positive signal applied at Q2 is entirely fallacious.  There MAY be a positive signal applied at the source.  BUT IT IS CERTAINLY NOT APPLIED TO THE GATE OF Q2.  And it is NOT a standard application - because it would also, most certainly prevent the flow of all that negative current during the second stage of the oscillation where the waveform moves below zero.  What Poynty is trying to do is to find some reason to REFUTE the evidence.  He would need to keep his argument within the bounds of what is EVIDENT.  He can't fabricate some baseless reason to deny the evidence - because it's convenient.  Actually he can.  But he can't do it and still hope to make his argument plausible.  Nor can he argue that there's a positive signal applied to the gate of Q2.  IT IS NOT.  There MAY BE an applied positive signal but it's at the SOURCE.  Not at that gate of Q2. NOT EVER.

Regards,
Rosemary 



Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #250 on: January 21, 2012, 08:19:05 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #251 on: January 21, 2012, 08:25:44 PM »
And just to keep the circuit in focus I'll see if I can copy it here.

Ok it took.  Now PLEASE NOTE the signal from the generator goes directly to Q1.  It can be set to - as near as dammit - permanently negative - OR OPEN.  Which indeed is one of the many tests we've recorded.  But note.  Its ground is permanently connected to the source rail - BEFORE THE SHUNT AND BEHIND THE GATE of both Q1 and Q2.

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #252 on: January 21, 2012, 08:40:03 PM »
The signal generator's GROUND is connected to the source rail.  NOT TO THE GATE OF Q2.

Pure BS. So is the rest of that post.

The FG negative, Q1-Source, and Q2-Gate are all commoned together. A child can see this.

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #253 on: January 21, 2012, 08:47:52 PM »
Pure BS. So is the rest of that post.

The FG negative, Q1-Source, and Q2-Gate are all commoned together. A child can see this.

.99


I rest my case.  Poynty is not able to argue his position.  He can only PRETEND that he has an argument.  And he does that by being characteristically loutish.  He has learned well from the TK's of this world.

Regards
Rosemary

And let me add that the line that he's now penciled in red  -  IS PRECISELY THE POINT AT WHICH COUNTER ELECTROMOTIVE FORCE WOULD HAVE NO PATH TO FLOW TO REACH THE LOAD RESISTOR - ELEMENT - DRAIN.  That is PRECISELY our point.  In any event.  It is indeed a no win argument.  We didn't expect to.  The ONLY benefit is to remind you all that Poynty has NO INTEREST in sincerely evaluating any claim at all.  His raison d'etre is to DEFEAT any claim based on any pretext he chooses.  And that he has the manners of lout - is self-evident.

As far as we're concerned - being all of us collaborators - the most of whom are considerably better qualified than Poynty - there is a DESPERATE requirement for Poynty et al to DENY and DENY and DENY.  It's all he can do.  What he can't do is 'argue' his position.  Because then he'd have to talk science.  And his foundational knowledge is shaky - as is patently evident in his earlier refutation when he took that wild romp into analytical absurdities.  I've done with talking to Poynty.  I'll stick to talking about him as needed.

Again
R

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #254 on: January 21, 2012, 08:53:22 PM »
Poynty is not able to argue his position. 

On the contrary, I just did. The evidence proving you are clearly wrong and possibly seriously ill of mind, is staring you right in the face.

 

OneLink