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

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.  (Read 933338 times)

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #345 on: January 25, 2012, 02:57:58 PM »
Here's that circuit again.  Look closely.  The Source of Q2 IS NOT CONNECTED to the NEGATIVE BATTERY VOLTAGE  or, a I call it,  to the SOURCE RAIL of the battery.


poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #346 on: January 25, 2012, 03:08:37 PM »
Rosemary,

First of all, slow down, calm down and READ WHAT I SAID. I DID NOT say the scope was measuring incorrectly, I have said this a dozen times, every time in fact that you MISINTERPRET what I say in this regard.

I said that the scope probes are placed at the wrong locations to make the measurement, and THAT is the reason the measurements are not valid.

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #347 on: January 25, 2012, 03:15:13 PM »
Rosemary,

First of all, slow down, calm down and READ WHAT I SAID. I DID NOT say the scope was measuring incorrectly, I have said this a dozen times, every time in fact that you MISINTERPRET what I say in this regard.

I said that the scope probes are placed at the wrong locations to make the measurement, and THAT is the reason the measurements are not valid.

POYNTY - Trust me I'm calm.  You have advised us that a CORRECT measurement is only possible if the probes of the oscilloscope are placed directly across the battery terminals.  WE HAVE DONE THIS.  REPEATEDLY.  NO CONNECTING WIRES OTHER THAN THE CIRCUIT WIRES.  We've applied ENTIRELY different circuits switched by 555's - and still used our batteries - with LESS THAN 16 inches of wire in those ENTIRE CIRCUITS including the connection to the battery.  WE ALWAYS GET THAT VOLTAGE SWING.  I keep telling you this.  Somehow you keep ignoring it.  Not only did we do this test - but we did it publicly - HERE ON THE FORUM.  I downloaded the data.  I cannot get those scope probes more directly onto the battery - a SINGLE BATTERY - short of soldering them directly to the terminal.  THEY ARE NOT THE RESULT OF OUR PROBES BEING IN THE WRONG POSITION

You need to look deeper Poynty.  I'm trying to show you where to look.

Kindest as ever,

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #348 on: January 25, 2012, 03:19:45 PM »
NOW.  LOOK AT THAT CIRCUIT DIAGRAM.  The difference between Q1 and Q2 is this.  Q1 has it's source (Q1S) - soldered to the common battery source rail - or as you like to call it - to the negative terminal of the battery.  Q2 conversely - HAS NO CONNECTION TO THAT common battery source rail - or, as you put, to the negative terminal of the battery.

Again.  I thought - through those endless questions that you had FOUND a connection.  In truth you hadn't seen its lack.  This is what I'm trying to point you to.  Check it out.

Kindest as ever
R
changed 'he' to 'you'. 
« Last Edit: January 25, 2012, 04:36:48 PM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #349 on: January 25, 2012, 03:32:22 PM »
SO.  Here's the thing.  IF I apply a positive signal at the Gate of Q1 then the current can flow from the Q1 Drain through the Q1 Gate to the Q1 source.  AND BACK TO THE NEGATIVE TERMINAL OF THE BATTERY.  Well and good.

Now I apply the positive signal to Q2.  It can conduct from the Q2 Drain through the Q2 Gate -  AND THEN?  To the Q2 source - TO WHERE?  THE SIGNAL GENERATOR?  Because that's it's ONLY connection.  It can't go BACK TO THE NEGATIVE TERMINAL OF THE BATTERY.

Do you see this yet?  The CIRCUIT IS OPEN.  It is not connected by Q2 - notwithstanding the positive signal at the gate of Q2.  It can go nowhere.  The source leg of Q2 OR Q2S FLOATS.

Rosemary

Added
And other emphasis. 
And more emphasis.  Sorry guys.  I think I managed my point - finally.

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #350 on: January 25, 2012, 04:29:31 PM »
NOW.  If that much is clear - then let me propose our own interpretation - FOR DISCUSSION.

Effectively what has happened - possibly as a first in the history of electronics - we have engineered a circuit that is not POWERED by the potential difference at the supply - BUT by the circuit components - all on their own.  BECAUSE, during that oscillation it is IMPOSSIBLE for the battery to deliver any energy at all.  The circuit is simply NOT THERE to conduct any current from that battery supply. 

Which is brilliant.  Because that means that the energy that is self-evidently 'sloshing about' as TinselKoala likes to call it - is most assuredly NOT the result of a the transfer of energy as this transfer is understood within the standard model.

And it would have been even MORE brilliant had we designed this deliberately.  We freely confess.  It was a design flaw - AND, NEEDLESS TO SAY - the fault was predictably and ENTIRELY my own. 

Which is also why we've presumed to 'press on' with the proposal that this is all very good news.  Because the results are consistent with a magnetic field model that CONFORMS to the standard model in EVERY RESPECT - saving the proposal of a magnetic dipole as the 'carrier particle'. 

Kindest again
Rosemary

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #351 on: January 25, 2012, 07:15:49 PM »
No comment?  Poynty? 

I've made some really challenging claims here.  Are you conceding this argument?

Regards,
Rosemary

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #352 on: January 25, 2012, 08:23:21 PM »
No comment?  Poynty? 

I've made some really challenging claims here.  Are you conceding this argument?

Regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary,

May I remind you that I work full time and that I am on the other side of the globe? I am at work right now, just decided to check in here. I can't always be near my computer during the day, and nor should I be.

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #353 on: January 25, 2012, 08:29:34 PM »
You have advised us that a CORRECT measurement is only possible if the probes of the oscilloscope are placed directly across the battery terminals.
Correct.

Quote
WE HAVE DONE THIS.  REPEATEDLY.  NO CONNECTING WIRES OTHER THAN THE CIRCUIT WIRES. 

If you will indulge me, I will make a drawing of your setup and would ask that you identify precisely where the probes were located.

Yes I understand that you have TOLD me this already, but I want to SEE it visually on a diagram which I will provide and number for convenience.

Until I SEE where you have identified the measurement points on a build diagram, I can not be assured the correct measurement points were used.

Do you agree to identifying the measurement points on a diagram I will provide?

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #354 on: January 25, 2012, 08:36:46 PM »
A simple test to prove the battery voltage can not and does not fall to 0.5V.

Take the load resistor out of your circuit and place it DIRECTLY across one (or all) of your batteries. Meanwhile, have a DC voltage meter DIRECTLY across the battery terminals.

NB. The load resistor must be connected DIRECTLY to the battery (or batteries) with no more than 18 inches of heavy wire.

Note what the battery voltage was before connecting the load, and what it is after connecting the load.

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #355 on: January 25, 2012, 08:43:04 PM »
A simple test to prove the battery voltage can not and does not fall to 0.5V.

Take the load resistor out of your circuit and place it DIRECTLY across one (or all) of your batteries. Meanwhile, have a DC voltage meter DIRECTLY across the battery terminals.

NB. The load resistor must be connected DIRECTLY to the battery (or batteries) with no more than 18 inches of heavy wire.

Note what the battery voltage was before connecting the load, and what it is after connecting the load.

Poynt - I am not good at following complex circuitry.  I would prefer it that you simply take our own schematic.  IT IS EXACTLY AS OUR APPARATUS IS SET UP.  Then - if you need to add probes from the scope - if that's what you're proposing - go for it. 

But those switches CANNOT be represented any other way.  They're EXACTLY RIGHT. 

Regards,
Rosie

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #356 on: January 25, 2012, 08:46:15 PM »
A simple test to prove the battery voltage can not and does not fall to 0.5V.

Take the load resistor out of your circuit and place it DIRECTLY across one (or all) of your batteries. Meanwhile, have a DC voltage meter DIRECTLY across the battery terminals.

NB. The load resistor must be connected DIRECTLY to the battery (or batteries) with no more than 18 inches of heavy wire.

Note what the battery voltage was before connecting the load, and what it is after connecting the load.

Why?  I don't see the point of this.  I assure you I'll not see that oscillation.  And that's what we're discussing.

Regards,
Rosie

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #357 on: January 25, 2012, 09:39:51 PM »
A simple test to prove the battery voltage can not and does not fall to 0.5V.

Take the load resistor out of your circuit and place it DIRECTLY across one (or all) of your batteries. Meanwhile, have a DC voltage meter DIRECTLY across the battery terminals.

NB. The load resistor must be connected DIRECTLY to the battery (or batteries) with no more than 18 inches of heavy wire.

Note what the battery voltage was before connecting the load, and what it is after connecting the load.

Actually Poynt.  With respect.  I cannot tell you how much this sort of post irritates me.  WE ALL KNOW that a load directly in series with a battery supply does not induce an oscillation.  But we don't have a load in series with a battery supply.   HOW WOULD THIS CONSTITUTE PROOF OF ANYTHING AT ALL?  I am claiming that the voltmeter DOES NOT READ THE BATTERY VOLTAGE AS THE BATTERY IS DISCONNECTED.  IT IS ONLY READING THE VOLTAGE OR POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE AT THE LOAD.  Chalk and cheese Poynty.  They're just SO different. 

PLEASE THEREFORE DO NOT TRY AND SAY THAT 'I've thereby proved to you that the battery voltage is not able to show 0.5 volts.'  WE KNOW THIS.  You're arguing our own point.  If I can get around to it I'll point you to that part of that post of mine WHERE IVE SAID THIS.  Do you ever read what I write?

Regards again
Rosemary

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #358 on: January 25, 2012, 09:51:08 PM »
HERE IT IS - JUST WRITTEN TODAY.

POYNTY - Trust me I'm calm.  You have advised us that a CORRECT measurement is only possible if the probes of the oscilloscope are placed directly across the battery terminals.  WE HAVE DONE THIS.  REPEATEDLY.  NO CONNECTING WIRES OTHER THAN THE CIRCUIT WIRES.  We've applied ENTIRELY different circuits switched by 555's - and still used our batteries - with LESS THAN 16 inches of wire in those ENTIRE CIRCUITS including the connection to the battery.  WE ALWAYS GET THAT VOLTAGE SWING.  I keep telling you this.  Somehow you keep ignoring it.  Not only did we do this test - but we did it publicly - HERE ON THE FORUM.  I downloaded the data.  I cannot get those scope probes more directly onto the battery - a SINGLE BATTERY - short of soldering them directly to the terminal.  THEY ARE NOT THE RESULT OF OUR PROBES BEING IN THE WRONG POSITION

You need to look deeper Poynty.  I'm trying to show you where to look.

Kindest as ever,
R

And to make it perfectly clear - here it is again.

I cannot get those scope probes more directly onto the battery - a SINGLE BATTERY - short of soldering them directly to the terminal.

Hopefully now that is clearer.  The probe was positioned directly on the battery positive terminal - the Drain rail.  The ground can't quite reach the negative terminal - but with 2 inches of wiring from the neg to the probe's ground - it gets there. 

Then we did an arrangement with short wires connected 2 batteries in series - and the probes placed directly over both terminals.  I think it was Groundloop or someone who explained how to do this.  Can't you remember?

Regards
Rosie


poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #359 on: January 26, 2012, 01:24:32 AM »
Yes we are discussing the oscillation of what you are calling the "battery voltage", and I am trying  to take steps in order to formulate my argument. However, you seem determined to sidetrack my efforts in this regard. I can not have a meaningful discussion with you if you insist on doing this.

Where did I say that one should expect the simple circuit I explained, to oscillate? One of YOUR arguments is that the battery voltage falls to 0.5V during certain points of the oscillation, correct? With the simple DC test I explained, you will see that when fully loaded with the load resistor, the battery voltage will remain around the 12V mark, perhaps it may drop a volt or maybe 2 if it is already almost completely discharged. You agreed that the worst case load for the battery is the 11 Ohm load resistor, and that is what I am asking for in the test, a simple direct connection, no oscillation, no complex circuitry. This will illustrate that even when loaded with the worst case current, the battery voltage WILL NOT fall to 0.5V

So once again, PLEASE SLOW DOWN, AND STOP READING INTO MY POSTS, just read them for what they are. A little breathing room would be appreciated as well.

Now, will you indulge me and pinpoint the exact probe placements on the diagram that I'll draw up if you agree?