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: 897287
  • *Total Topics: 15811
  • *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 769466 times)

Offline Bubba1

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 80
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #255 on: January 22, 2012, 04:01:36 AM »
... then it will BLOCK the anti-clockwise or negative flow of current from the induced counter electromotive force...

Rosemary:

What "... anti-clockwise or negative flow of current from the induced counter electromotive force."?
Are you saying that current runs clockwise through the circuit and through the inductor, then when the current suddenly stops, it somehow tries to reverse and run counterclockwise due to the collapsing field in the inductance?  If you are, then that IS new science.

Bubba1

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 #256 on: January 22, 2012, 05:01:57 AM »
Gahh.. I can't believe this. Rosemary, .99......

Has anyone actually done the test, with a FLOATING ground function generator set to produce an "AC" square wave as illustrated in the little FG symbol on the diagram? In other words, if the "ground" lead from the FG is connected only where the diagram says, and the circuit has no other connection to ground..... and the signal from the generator goes from +5 V to -5 V as measured at its output..... then it looks to me like the mosfets do flip-flop. On the other hand, if the FG signal is strictly DC pulses, from 0 to +5, then .99 is right and one never turns on.

Is it possible that the two of you are arguing over a misunderstanding about the FG's output?


Rosemary, now you need to learn what "Q" refers to in an oscillating RLC circuit. The larger the Q the longer the oscillation from a single "strike"; in other words, the lower the losses to resistance (heat) and radiation (RF) and the longer the energy stays sloshing around in the circuit. Remember my TinselKoil? Using a full H-bridge instead of the half-bridge in your circuit, and with a deliberately high Q, I am able to produce power amplification that you only dream about. By your measurement methods the TinselKoil is so far overunity that I expect the Men in Black to arrive with the suppression tools at any moment.

ETA: Here's a simple test. Take 2 LEDS and hook them "back to back", that is, anode of one to cathode of the other and vice versa. Now hook up your FG, ground to one anode-cathode pair and "hot" to the other. Can you make them both flash alternately? Of course you can.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #257 on: January 22, 2012, 06:08:20 AM »
Rosemary:

What "... anti-clockwise or negative flow of current from the induced counter electromotive force."?
Are you saying that current runs clockwise through the circuit and through the inductor, then when the current suddenly stops, it somehow tries to reverse and run counterclockwise due to the collapsing field in the inductance?  If you are, then that IS new science.

Bubba1
NO Bubba - absolutely NOT.  I am saying that the voltage waveform across the shunt indicates a reversing polarity during the oscillation.  It is our standard model that tells us that current flows in the direction of the greatest applied potential difference.  Therefore RELATIVE to our circuit - IF the applied voltage is positive then the current flow will be greater than zero.  And IF, the applied voltage is negative then the current flow will be less than zero.  If you are presuming that when the current flow from the battery is interrupted and that CEMF is generating a NEGATIVE voltage potential  but YET the current flow does NOT reverse polarity - then this is NOT EVIDENT.  This is not the best proof - because a clamp meter can't measure accurate amperage at high frequencies.  BUT.  IF and when you apply those clamp type ammeters across the source rail - it shows a zero DC current - and only registers an amperage if it is sent on AC.

I have heard that there's a school of thinking that needs that current to flow in the same direction notwithstanding the reversal of the applied voltage. We have NOT found evidence of this.  Certainly not on our circuit.

Regards,
Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #257 on: January 22, 2012, 06:08:20 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #258 on: January 22, 2012, 07:51:33 AM »
Actually guys - this may be a better way to explain the anomalies and it may also get to the heart of Bubba's objection.  The oscilloscope probes are placed directly across the batteries that ground is at the source rail and the probe is at the drain.  Which is standard convention.  Then. During the period when the oscillation is greater than zero - in other words - when the battery is DISCHARGING - then it's voltage it falls.  And it SERIOUSLY falls.  It goes from + 12 volts to + 0.5.  Given a  6 battery bank, for example, then it goes from + 72 volts to + 3 volts.  At which point the oscillation reaches its peak positive voltage.  And this voltage increase is during the period when the applied signal at Q1, is negative.  WE KNOW that this FAR EXCEEDS THE BATTERY RATING.  In order for that battery to drop its voltage from + 12V to + 0.5V then it must have discharged A SERIOUS AMOUNT OF CURRENT.  Effectively it would have had to discharge virtually it's ENTIRE potential as this relates to its watt hour rating.  We EXPECT the battery voltage to fall during the discharge cycle.  But we CERTAINLY DO NOT expect it to fall to such a ridiculous level in such a small fraction of a moment AND SO REPEATEDLY - WITH EACH OSCILLATION.

Now.  If we take in the amount of energy that it has discharged during this moment - bearing in mind that it has virtually discharged ALL its potential - in a single fraction of a second.  And then let's assume that we have your average - say 20 watt hour battery.  For it to discharge it's entire potential then that means that in that small fraction of second -  during this 'discharge' phase of the oscillation it would have to deliver a current measured at 20 amps x 60 seconds x 60 minutes giving a total potential energy delivery capacity - given in AMPS - of 72 000 AMPS.  IN A MOMENT?  That's hardly likely.  And what then must that battery discharge if it's rating is even more than 60 watt hours?  As are ours?  And we use banks of them - up to and including 6 - at any one time.  DO THE MATH.  It beggars belief.  In fact it's positively ABSURD to even try and argue this.

NOW.  You'll recall that Poynty went to some considerable lengths to explain that the battery voltage DID NOT discharge that much voltage.  Effectively he was saying 'IGNORE THE FACT THAT THE BATTERY VOLTAGE ALSO MEASURES THAT RATHER EXTREME VOLTAGE COLLAPSE'. JUST ASSUME THAT IT STAYS AT ITS AVERAGE 12 VOLTS.  Well.  It's CRITICAL - that he asks you all to co-operate on this.  And in a way he's right.  There is NO WAY that the battery can discharge that much energy. SO?  What gives?  Our oscilloscope measures that battery voltage collapse.  His own simulation software measures it.  Yet the actual amount of current that is being DISCHARGED at that moment is PATENTLY - NOT IN SYNCH. 

But science is science.  And if we're going to ignore measurements - then we're on a hiding to nowhere.  So.  How to explain it?  How does that voltage at the battery DROP to +0.5V from +12.0V?  Very obviously the only way that we can COMPUTE a voltage that corresponds to that voltage measured across the battery - is by ASSUMING that there is some voltage at the probe of that oscilloscope -  that OPPOSES the voltage measured across the battery supply.  Therefore, for example, IF that probe at the drain - was reading a voltage of +12 V from the battery and SIMULTANEOUSLY it was reading a negative or -11.5 volts from a voltage potential measured on the 'other side' of that probe - STILL ON THE DRAIN - then it would compute the available potential difference on that rail +0.5V.  Therefore, the only REASONABLE explanation is to assume that while the battery was discharging its energy, then simultaneously it was transposing an opposite potential difference over the circuit material.  WHICH IS REASONABLE.  Because, essentially, this conforms to the measured waveforms. And it most certainly conforms to the laws of induction.

OR DOES IT?  If, under standard applications, I apply a load in series with a battery supply - then I can safely predict that the battery voltage will still apply that opposing potential difference - that opposite voltage across the load.  Over time.  In fact over the duration.  It most certainly will NOT reduce its own measured voltage other than in line with its capacity related to its watt hour rating.  It will NOT drop to that 0.5V level EVER.  Not even under fully discharged conditions.  So?  Again.  WHAT GIVES?  Clearly something else is coming into the equation.  Because here, during this phase of the oscillation, during the period when the current is apparently flowing from the battery - then the battery voltage LITERALLY drops to something that FAR exceeds it's limit to discharge anything at all.  And we can discount measurement errors because we're ASSURED - actually WE'RE GUARANTEED - that those oscilloscopes are MEASURING CORRECTLY.  Well within their capabilities. 

SO.  BACK TO THE QUESTION?  WHAT GIVES?  We know that the probe from the oscilloscope is placed ACROSS the battery supply.  BUT.  By the same token it is ALSO placed across the LOAD and across the switches.  It's at the Drain rail.  And its ground is on the negative or Source rail.  And we've got all those complicated switches and inductive load resistors between IT and its ground.   Could it be that the probe is NOT ABLE to read the battery voltage UNLESS IT'S DISCHARGING?  UNLESS it's CONNECTED to the circuit?  Unless the switch is CLOSED.  IF there's a NEGATIVE signal applied to the GATE then it effectively becomes DISCONNECTED?  In which case?  Would it not then pick up the reading of that potential difference that IS available and connected in series - in that circuit?  IF so.  Then it would be giving the value of the voltage potential that is still applicable to that circuit.  It may not be able to read the voltage potential at the battery because the battery is DISCONNECTED.  It would, however, be able to read the DYNAMIC voltage that is available across those circuit components that are STILL CONNECTED to the circuit?  In which case?  We now have a COMPLETE explanation for that voltage reading during that period of the cycle when the voltage apparently RAMPS UP.  What it is actually recording is the measure of a voltage in the process of DISCHARGING its potential difference from those circuit components.  Which ONLY makes sense IF that material has now become an energy supply source. 

It is this that is argued in the second part of that 2 part paper - as I keep reminding you.  Sorry this took so long.  It needs all those words to explain this.  The worst of it is that there's more to come.   ::)

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #259 on: January 22, 2012, 08:53:53 AM »
Hello again TK

Nice to see that you're coming into this discussion.

Gahh.. I can't believe this. Rosemary, .99......

Has anyone actually done the test, with a FLOATING ground function generator set to produce an "AC" square wave as illustrated in the little FG symbol on the diagram? In other words, if the "ground" lead from the FG is connected only where the diagram says, and the circuit has no other connection to ground..... and the signal from the generator goes from +5 V to -5 V as measured at its output..... then it looks to me like the mosfets do flip-flop. On the other hand, if the FG signal is strictly DC pulses, from 0 to +5, then .99 is right and one never turns on.
I see this now.  Poynty Point is either right - or?  He's right?  That's an interesting take.  But you see this TK.  We get that SAME oscillation with the application of a 555 switch with the supply shared with the same circuit battery supply.  There are no differences - except in our range of testing options.  THEN.  If either one or other MOSFET was conducting current from the battery - how exactly do you EXPLAIN that extraordinary voltage swing that is measured at the batteries?  It goes from fully charged to NOTHING - and, on some higher applications of applied energies - TO A NEGATIVE VALUE?  Do you, like Poynty, prefer to think that it is capable of discharging its potential - to such EXTRAORDINARY EFFECT?  That's an awful lot more energy measured over the circuit than we can reasonably account for.

Rosemary, now you need to learn what "Q" refers to in an oscillating RLC circuit. The larger the Q the longer the oscillation from a single "strike"; in other words, the lower the losses to resistance (heat) and radiation (RF) and the longer the energy stays sloshing around in the circuit. Remember my TinselKoil? Using a full H-bridge instead of the half-bridge in your circuit, and with a deliberately high Q, I am able to produce power amplification that you only dream about. By your measurement methods the TinselKoil is so far overunity that I expect the Men in Black to arrive with the suppression tools at any moment.
What can I say TK?  Except that, as always, your experimental skills are monumental.  Unfortunately - my own are more pedantic.  And I prefer to stick to the point.

ETA: Here's a simple test. Take 2 LEDS and hook them "back to back", that is, anode of one to cathode of the other and vice versa. Now hook up your FG, ground to one anode-cathode pair and "hot" to the other. Can you make them both flash alternately? Of course you can.
That's a comfort.  If I get around to doing this test - I"ll let you know.  We have, indeed, used two banks of LED's to our circuit in place of that element resistor number.  And surprisingly, the one bank stays permanently lit - no flashing - while the other stays dark.  Also rather puzzling.  But also in line with what we predicted in terms of a reversing current flow. 

Kindest as ever
Rosie

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #259 on: January 22, 2012, 08:53:53 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline SchubertReijiMaigo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 343
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #260 on: January 22, 2012, 11:54:53 AM »

Tinselkoala:
Quote
Rosemary, now you need to learn what "Q" refers to in an oscillating RLC circuit. The larger the Q the longer the oscillation from a single "strike"; in other words, the lower the losses to resistance (heat) and radiation (RF) and the longer the energy stays sloshing around in the circuit. Remember my TinselKoil? Using a full H-bridge instead of the half-bridge in your circuit, and with a deliberately high Q, I am able to produce power amplification that you only dream about. By your measurement methods the TinselKoil is so far overunity that I expect the Men in Black to arrive with the suppression tools at any moment.


Yeah, Good to see that the Q amplification theory is already tested and according to you claims Working !!!!
Can't wait to build my MRA now...
According their claims successful MRA was  reproduced by Joel McCLAIN & Norman WOOTAN and Gregory HODOWANEC...
I have designed to have Q = 10 in load the Q is only limited by the saturation of the core...
If the core would not saturate, the circuit would have a Q of 7900  :o :o in unloaded state !!!


Yeah, it's so exciting now !  ;D





Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #261 on: January 22, 2012, 04:55:30 PM »
Ok.  Now.  As a summation.  Poynty has dismissed our claim based on HIS claim that there's a commonality at the source rail that then applies a positive signal directly to the Gate of Q2 when the negative signal from the signal generator is applied to Q1.  It's that 'flip flop' condition that TK referred to.  My counter argument is that IF this were the case then that positive signal at the source would, in turn, REPEL the NEGATIVE signal from those collapsing fields.  What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.  You can't pick out one condition and then ignore it in another.  But ACTUALLY the argument goes deeper yet.  It involves a discussion of the standard concept of how current flows and - indeed - what is it?  I won't bore you all with our proposals on this.  You know them.  They're in that second paper of ours.   :D

In any event - in order to confirm his own counter proposal - he first needs to IGNORE that wild swing of the battery that simply cannot be explained if the battery was indeed connected at either Q1 OR Q2.  Unless of course he could argue that the circuit was conducting upwards of 72 000 amps per second per battery.  And that's also assuming that he's using a 20 amp hour battery and not the monsters that we're actually using.  Which, obviously would take that amperage flow to the outer reaches of our stratosphere.  You see the problem?  It is the REQUIREMENT to dismiss anything in reach - as rudely as possibly - that possibly smells of an over unity result.  And it's never enough to just dismiss the claim.  It requires a parade of abuse that your average citizen would be shy to expose - privately OR publicly.  Nor is there any attempt at any kind of discussion around any pertinent evidence.  The discussion is CLOSED.  And I put it to you - that this is PRECISELY the point where our forums are CORRUPTED.  And how our nay sayers get away with INTELLECTUAL MURDER.  How is anyone ever to progress anything at all - when the measured evidence is IGNORED or, alternatively, DENIED?  Just can't be done. 

Which is sad really.  As reasonable discussion would probably add some valuable development of this energy source that we're all of us so interested in.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary

edit.  I need to stress this.  That curious oscillation - that is perpetuated for the duration that a negative signal is applied at the gate of Q1 is the absolute PROOF that the energy that is being delivered in that circuit is from an alternate supply to the battery supply source. Which is also precisely our object in using that circuit configuration for our analysis.

another edit.  Which means that Poynty Point STILL needs to evaluate our evidence in line with standard protocols.  OR PAY UP. 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #261 on: January 22, 2012, 04:55:30 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #262 on: January 22, 2012, 07:41:37 PM »
...and the signal from the generator goes from +5 V to -5 V as measured at its output..... then it looks to me like the mosfets do flip-flop. On the other hand, if the FG signal is strictly DC pulses, from 0 to +5, then .99 is right and one never turns on.
The MOSFETs don't flip-flop. The tests seem to indicate they operate the device in two slightly different modes; one where Q1 is always OFF and Q2 alternates between ON and OFF, and a mode where the opposite occurs (lower battery voltage and offset setting). I've analysed the mode where Q2 is active and Q1 not. In this case, the FG offset is set to the NEGATIVE side (offset knob pulled and turned ccw), such that the FG output is never positive enough to turn Q1 ON, but because Q2-G is connected to the FG negative, this does turn Q2 ON (two negatives make a positive wrt Q2's VGS).

Quote
Is it possible that the two of you are arguing over a misunderstanding about the FG's output?
I'm arguing that Rosemary does not know how to read a diagram (she can't see the common connections I listed), nor does she know how MOSFETs operate.

Incidentally Rosemary, a correction to your paper; you erroneously list the FG model as this:

IsoTech GFG 324

The correct model number of the FG used is this:

Instek GFG-8216A

You're welcome ;)

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #263 on: January 22, 2012, 11:46:26 PM »
I wonder if I could impose on any one of those three readers that Poynty Point actually talks to? Rather cryptically, I might add.  That's during those brief spells that he's not rather publicly trying to horsewhip REALLY old women.  Someone needs to explain to him that we are all indeed VERY grateful that he's proposed that 'correction' to our paper.  DELIGHTED to see that it's the only proposed correction.  And, under usual circumstances I, and indeed, ALL the collaborators would gladly oblige.  But we would then need to pretend that we were using an  -   Instek GFG-8216A.  Our model is - in fact a IsoTech GFG 324.     
 
 
Incidentally Rosemary, a correction to your paper; you erroneously list the FG model as this:

IsoTech GFG 324

The correct model number of the FG used is this:

Instek GFG-8216A

You're welcome ;)

.99

Regards,
Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #263 on: January 22, 2012, 11:46:26 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #264 on: January 23, 2012, 12:05:16 AM »
Right,

Please post a link to the user's manual or glossy, or web page advertisement for the GFG 324. Or better yet, post a pic of your test apparatus used for the data etc. in the paper. ;)

The unit you used in your video demo was the one I mentioned, the Instek GFG-8216A. Isotech does however make the same model as Instek, i.e. in the 8200 series.
http://www.iso-techonline.com/products/iso-tech-oscilloscopes-function-generators.html

If you've changed FG's since that time, then my mistake, however I've not found a model 324. I believe 324 is the model number for your LeCroy scope.

First pic is from your video, second is from ad.

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #265 on: January 23, 2012, 12:16:56 AM »
And there's more?  Golly.

The MOSFETs don't flip-flop. The tests seem to indicate they operate the device in two slightly different modes; one where Q1 is always OFF and Q2 alternates between ON and OFF,
Yes indeed.  I SEE this now.  This means that somehow the applied signal at the Q2 would be positive and then negative and then positive and so on.  That would INDEED explain EVERYTHING.  Which also would mean that our signal generator is simply NOT FUNCTIONING.  I'll need to take this up with the manufacturers.  Not a good thing.  Not a good thing at all.  What ever next?

... and a mode where the opposite occurs (lower battery voltage and offset setting).
  Which would mean what?  That the signal at Q1 would then be positive and then negative and then positive and so on?  While Q2 just sits in the sidelines and sulks?  Good thinking.  It's about as reasonable an explanation for this anomaly as ANY rather frantic disclaimer would need.  It's not however, STRICTLY in line with the evidence.  Unless, of course there's anything more than deliberate ambivalence in that reference to 'offset setting'.  Does he mean that the offset is then also correspondingly lower?  Or does he mean that the offset is then 'higher'?  Either way.  It's wonderfully confusing.  Tell him from me that this is very well done indeed.

Regards
Rosemary

took out the balance of this post as it's falling into a black hole.  I don't want to be sucked in.   8)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #265 on: January 23, 2012, 12:16:56 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #266 on: January 23, 2012, 12:31:31 AM »
Right,

Please post a link to the user's manual or glossy, or web page advertisement for the GFG 324. Or better yet, post a pic of your test apparatus used for the data etc. in the paper. ;)

The unit you used in your video demo was the one I mentioned, the Instek GFG-8216A. Isotech does however make the same model as Instek, i.e. in the 8200 series.
http://www.iso-techonline.com/products/iso-tech-oscilloscopes-function-generators.html

If you've changed FG's since that time, then my mistake, however I've not found a model 324. I believe 324 is the model number for your LeCroy scope.

First pic is from your video, second is from ad.

.99

My question here is WHO EXACTLY is Poynty talking to?  I'm confused by his rather uncharacteristic use of the word 'PLEASE'?  That's SURELY NOT our Poynty Point?  Good heavens.  In any event - I certainly don't have the wherewith all to post any pictures.  I have no camera at the moment.  More's the pity.  And even if I did - there's no need.  The usual practice is for the collaborators to SIGN OFF on the details of the paper when they're all satisfied that the facts are clearly and correctly presented.  And we've all signed off.  But as a rule, those readers of those papers usually take the representations at face value.  There is a presumption that there is no deliberate effort to misrepresent the facts.  And it would be a rather trivial FACT to distort - when that distortion may negate the entire paper.  I would have thought?

Regards,
Rosemary

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #267 on: January 23, 2012, 01:09:02 AM »
Now guys - just to keep the argument in full focus.  There are more confusions.  If there WERE a 'flip flop' condition where the battery simply used either Q1 OR Q2 - as was made available - then - we must also acknowledge that the battery would then ALSO be delivering it's current with very little interruption ALL THE TIME.  At worst there would be a 'spike' as it moved from the path of the one transistor and then to the other.  On the whole though the waveform would show a voltage that is CONTINUOUSLY greater than zero.

Which is why we are now hearing the argument that there's a mystical 'on one moment' 'off the next' and so on - so that it has a CHANCE for the circuit to construct that waveform - that oscillation. I see the problem now.  And it would have helped if I'd both seen it and mentioned it before.  This is when our 'naysayers' for want of a more polite term - actually serve science well.  They hone into the problems of their own counter proposals.  And gradually the questions are THRASHED OUT.  Never a bad thing.  Just an enormous pity that it cannot all be done more courteously.  It would, on the whole, encourage a greater participation. 

I only say this because I am in receipt of an inordinate amount of mail from those who do not participate on these forums.  I suspect that - given a less fraught environment - then they would be more ready to engage.  Much needed.  As there of many really excellent arguments that I hear from them.  And indeed, proposals for different kinds of tests.  It's  something that - perhaps - we should all work on.  Since I see that Poynty is trying to converse - albeit through TK and not myself - then perhaps too - it would be as well that I also desist with my sarcasm.  But then Poynty Point - you need to reign in your appalling manners.  They're shameful.

Regards,
Rosemary

edited
had to change 'there's' to 'there are'.  It was irritating me.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #268 on: January 23, 2012, 01:32:42 AM »
This is the argument that I was trying to reference earlier...

The MOSFETs don't flip-flop. The tests seem to indicate they operate the device in two slightly different modes; one where Q1 is always OFF and Q2 alternates between ON and OFF, and a mode where the opposite occurs (lower battery voltage and offset setting). I've analysed the mode where Q2 is active and Q1 not. In this case, the FG offset is set to the NEGATIVE side (offset knob pulled and turned ccw), such that the FG output is never positive enough to turn Q1 ON, but because Q2-G is connected to the FG negative, this does turn Q2 ON (two negatives make a positive wrt Q2's VGS).
Note this part of the concluding sentence.  '...but because the Q2-G (presumably G stands for GATE) is connected to the FG negative....'  Just that.  We were given to understand that it was NOT.  I proposed that it WAS.  My proposal was blasted with a blistering reminder that I KNEW NOT WHEREOF I SPOKE.  Why then are YOU now proposing this?  And IF INDEED it IS connected to the negative - then HOW DO YOU PROPOSE TO ARGUE THAT THE BATTERY IS ABLE TO DELIVER ANY ENERGY? 

I'm arguing that Rosemary does not know how to read a diagram (she can't see the common connections I listed), nor does she know how MOSFETs operate.
ON THE CONTRARY.  I have a fair and working knowledge of how MOSFETS work and I most CERTAINLY CAN SEE THOSE COMMON CONNECTIONS. 

Regards,
Rosemary


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #269 on: January 23, 2012, 01:38:44 AM »

If the core would not saturate, the circuit would have a Q of 7900  :o :o in unloaded state !!!


Yeah, it's so exciting now !  ;D

Yes, exactly. So a non-saturable core material is preferred, as each "slosh" as the energy goes between inductance and capacitance is an opportunity for energy to enter the system from outside and reinforce the resonance. Careful selection of your resonant frequency is also important here.... if you push the "swing" at too fast or too slow a rate you won't get optimal coupling of your input power to your resonant storage, so if you're looking to pick up energy from outside the system you need to have some idea of how to match its frequency. (My little contribution to the general theoretical BS around Tesla and MEGs and so on.)
Air (vacuum) works pretty good for a core material at the energies we are using. I hope you've had a chance to look at my TinselKoil videos on YT. I am using a similar switched-mosfet circuit as Rosemary does (except that I use a full bridge -- 4 mosfets -- instead of essentially 2), but because I know a bit about what I'm doing, I've gotten much better results.

@Rosemary, you seem to have trouble accepting that circuits like these can have current peaks in the multi-kiloAmpere range. Let me assure you this is not only very possible but common. POWER, as you have finally figured out, is the rate of energy dissipation. As a rate, it incorporates a time dimension. If the time duration of a high-current spike is small, there will be little POWER in it, hence little heating of conductors, and so on.

@.99-- yes, I can see that now-- the mosfet behaviour will be sensitive to the relationship between the battery voltage and the FG's output voltage level, and the mosfets will interact through the circuit's capacitances. It would be interesting to apply the FG's signal through an appropriately chosen series capacitor, to assure only AC coupling.
It's clear from the blather above that Rosemary really still doesn't understand her circuit, nor the basics of power measurement, and most especially artifacts induced by measurement probes and other wiring. Still--- isn't it relatively easy to build this circuit, or sim it, and show how it actually behaves?

 

OneLink