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.

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 857131 times)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #465 on: January 30, 2012, 09:41:16 PM »
I think we'd all like to see the credentials of your so-called "experts" Rosemary. Please do indulge us.
Frankly PoyntyPoint - I prefer it that you doubt my presentations.  Because when these things come to light - which they inevitably will - then that will be a sweet victory.  Meanwhile I enjoy seeing your public denials - your own rather sad and inappropriate disbelief aired with such incautious abandon.  It will come back to bite you.

Yet again,
Rosemary

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #466 on: January 30, 2012, 09:46:09 PM »
You're unwilling to wager anything, nor comply with any requests. Deny, deny deny, that's all you ever do.

You can't expect anyone to make concessions when you're unwilling to make any yourself, do you?

That's rather selfish and narcissistic don't you think?

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #467 on: January 30, 2012, 09:48:14 PM »
Frankly PoyntyPoint - I prefer it that you doubt my presentations.  Because when these things come to light - which they inevitably will - then that will be a sweet victory.

Indeed it will. :) ;)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #468 on: January 30, 2012, 09:51:32 PM »
Actually Poynty.  I see no further justification for this dialogue.  I won't be answering any more of your posts.  Not until there's a complete concession related to our applied measurement protocols.  That's all that's at issue.
 
 I'll now concentrate on concluding this thread - because I can see where this is going.  Which is nowhere.  And there's a few loose ends that I need to include here.  Then I'm done.
 
 Regards
 Rosemary

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #469 on: January 30, 2012, 09:55:43 PM »
Agreed, you're not doing well in this discussion, best throw in the towel before it gets worse.

Offline PhiChaser

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 256
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #470 on: January 31, 2012, 12:19:16 AM »
Hello again all,
Rosemary, I hope you don't consider me a loose end in this conversation but I'm inclined to agree with Poynt99 that you should maybe throw in the towel. You haven't really 'proven' to me that you have 'discovered' or 'invented' anything new.
I have to call BS for the following reasons:
You claim robust currents and voltage swings and also claim that your batteries don't discharge/recharge.
(Would love to see the video!)
Regarding your 'oscillation', you have a SIGNAL GENERATOR applying a signal (read voltage) to your circuit. Others have mentioned ways to take more reliable measurements without changing your circuit AT ALL yet you have refused to do so. They did this so that you could SEE where YOUR ERROR IN TAKING YOUR MEASUREMENTS are.
Beyond that...
You claim that your circuit is self-powering yet you can't disconnect the battery from it and keep it running. If you can't plug it into iself (after you get it running anyways), it is NOT OU!! If you can do that, why don't you do it? Some BS excuse that you have found all this 'dark power' that we can't use because of a strange scope oscillation?
I hate to say it Rosemary, but your 5th dimension dark yammerings discredit you as an experimentalist. Your continual refusal to employ other testing methods or to even entertain the possibility that (gasp!) maybe one or two of those people could actually KNOW the reason you're seeing that oscillation on your scope (besides YOUR interpretation).
And, forgive my bluntness a bit here Rosemary, but WHERE are the rest of the 'us' and 'our group' you keep referring to?
I'm sure the rest of us would love to hear from your collaborators. I just don't buy it.

Kindest regards,
PC

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #471 on: January 31, 2012, 02:10:35 AM »
Dear Poynt and Professor Jones,

What is now required is some acknowledgement that - should our measurements be replicable in a demonstration - then those measurements represent an over unity result.

I have no doubt whatsoever that I can and will replicate and demonstrate your measurement. And just because I can, this does NOT "represent an overunity result". Once I proceed to demonstrate the CORRECT measurement, it will confirm that YOUR measurement is erroneous.

Offline Bubba1

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 80
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #472 on: January 31, 2012, 03:40:32 AM »
Rosemary:

I didn't realise there was a time limit, so before you go, let me write a few things down.

I still think that you misunderstand classic theory.  I would love to know where you get your information, so I can read it for myself.

I have done a little research, and the books that I have read all say roughly the same thing about electron velocity.  In a copper wire at room temperature, the RMS velocity of the free electrons is about 117,000 meters per second.

Are you thinking about electron drift, which is much slower, and occurs when there is a dc electric current in the wire.  A 16 gauge wire (approximately 1.3 square millimeter area) carrying a steady direct (not AC) current of 10 amperes would have an electron drift velocity of roughly 0.4 millimeters per second, which is not very fast.

Lastly, I would like to ask: Do you really think scientists over the last 200 years have not been able to come up with a theory that explains observed behavior, such as NOT taking 30 minutes for a light bulb to turn on, or a power station NOT running out of electrons?

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #473 on: January 31, 2012, 06:26:52 AM »
Hello Derrick,
... but I'm inclined to agree with Poynt99 that you should maybe throw in the towel. You haven't really 'proven' to me that you have 'discovered' or 'invented' anything new.
Yes.  I see your point.  If I don't convince either of you that we have a claim for Poynty's prize money - then, we really should, as you propose 'throw in the towel'.  Cease and desist.  Own up to defeat.  It makes very good sense.  Especially as there seems to be no point in relying on mere experimental evidence to prove well argued measurements and results.  Science should, in terms of your proposal here - be determined by your opinion and Poynty's opinion.  I'll consider that proposal very carefully.  Certainly - on the face of it - you both appear to constitute a representative majority.  And as the claim is essentially frivolous - with no possible value to society in general - then - no doubt - I'm rather imposing on your good time. 
 
I have to call BS for the following reasons:
You claim robust currents and voltage swings and also claim that your batteries don't discharge/recharge. (Would love to see the video!)
If you could be satisfied by the evidence of a video on this then you'd be unique amongst our forum members.  When, in the history of these forums, has any video satisfied anyone at all - of experimental evidence of over unity?  If you could advance just 1 example where this has satisfied the criteria for a claim - then I will gladly release a half hour run - which would be time enough to include all 4 examples that are included in our paper.   

Regarding your 'oscillation', you have a SIGNAL GENERATOR applying a signal (read voltage) to your circuit. Others have mentioned ways to take more reliable measurements without changing your circuit AT ALL yet you have refused to do so.
WHAT?  If you're trying to make me believe this then I'd need to ignore those multiple proposals where I continue to test irrelevant criteria into perpetuity.  I assure you that EVERY RELEVANT proposal of a test variation - has ALSO been tested.

They did this so that you could SEE where YOUR ERROR IN TAKING YOUR MEASUREMENTS are.
You're generalising Derrick.  Rather broadly I might add.  And those 'errors' that you reference are based on WHAT?  Poynty's unique proposal to simply invert our probes?   He's right.  That would iNDEED - upend our argument.  That would 'cut it'.  So would his extraordinary corruptions of the standard measurement protocols that he applied rather recklessly to that 'paper' of his - as he refers to it.

Beyond that...
You claim that your circuit is self-powering yet you can't disconnect the battery from it and keep it running. If you can't plug it into iself (after you get it running anyways), it is NOT OU!! If you can do that, why don't you do it? Some BS excuse that you have found all this 'dark power' that we can't use because of a strange scope oscillation?
BS?  Derrick?  That's strong language.  And what 'strange scope oscillation?  Do you even know what you're talking about?  Dear God.  If this is the level of counter argument then I'm wasting my time.  What you're proposing would require pure magic.  I keep saying this.  We are NOT magicians.  No-one in the history of science - has ever been able to separate a current from its source and managed to keep it flowing into perpetuity.  It would require properties in matter - that no scientist would ever seriously propose.  Not even if that current flow comprised electrons. 

I hate to say it Rosemary, but your 5th dimension dark yammerings discredit you as an experimentalist.
I see this now.   To propose a thesis that conforms to the standard model - yet extends it - is 'yammering' - IF it is also accompanied by the FOLLY of experimental evidence as PROOF of that thesis.  To use mere experimental proof to determine a thesis would most certainly therefore CORRUPT science.  What was I thinking? 

Your continual refusal to employ other testing methods or to even entertain the possibility that (gasp!) maybe one or two of those people could actually KNOW the reason you're seeing that oscillation on your scope (besides YOUR interpretation).
I do not have an interpretation.  Established scientific measurement protocols establish that interpretation for me.

And, forgive my bluntness a bit here Rosemary,...
Not sure if you're asking that I forgive only some of your bluntness - or or that I must only partially forgive you.  Either way.  There's nothing to forgive.  Your input has been invaluable. On many levels.  But probably not as you intended.

but WHERE are the rest of the 'us' and 'our group' you keep referring to?
They're here in South Africa.

I'm sure the rest of us would love to hear from your collaborators. I just don't buy it.
This is extraordinary.  What don't you buy?  That there are any?  Are you seriously proposing that I've 'invented' them?

Let me explain why they don't engage.  Derrick - there is no greater cesspool - than these forums.  It is corrupted - from inception - when 'anonymous' posters propose that anything they say - could ever be taken seriously.  In general - one is accountable for what one says.   It is the measure of a man.  If he claims something - then he 'stands up to and makes that claim' PUBLIC.  Exactly where do any of those anonymous 'posters' that HOWL their objections in the wake of our claim - WHEN DO THEY EVER OWN UP TO THEIR IDENTITIES?  Therefore they are NOT accountable.  Therefore they can say anything.  The abuse of these forums will be perpetuated while those who subscribe are reluctant to both OWN UP TO WHO THEY ARE AND WHAT THEY STAND FOR.  It is EXTRAORDINARY.  Who cares what an anonymous anybody THINKS?  It's IRRELEVANT.  And it is ENTIRELY irrelevant what any member thinks - until they are prepared to STAND UP and claim it.  They don't.  They're cowards.  When forums are conducted on the basis of complete exposure of those engaging in any discussion - is REQUIRED - then you may see the level of debate and the quality of the discourse IMPROVE BEYOND RECOGNITION. 

My ONLY interest in promoting anything at all on these forums is because I am aware of a silent readership who engage on an ENTIRELY different level.  And it is that for that readership that I write.  Trust me on this. 

Kindest regards as ever
Rosie.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #474 on: January 31, 2012, 06:51:10 AM »
Rosemary:

I didn't realise there was a time limit, so before you go, let me write a few things down.

I still think that you misunderstand classic theory.  I would love to know where you get your information, so I can read it for myself.

I have done a little research, and the books that I have read all say roughly the same thing about electron velocity.  In a copper wire at room temperature, the RMS velocity of the free electrons is about 117,000 meters per second.

Are you thinking about electron drift, which is much slower, and occurs when there is a dc electric current in the wire.  A 16 gauge wire (approximately 1.3 square millimeter area) carrying a steady direct (not AC) current of 10 amperes would have an electron drift velocity of roughly 0.4 millimeters per second, which is not very fast.

Lastly, I would like to ask: Do you really think scientists over the last 200 years have not been able to come up with a theory that explains observed behavior, such as NOT taking 30 minutes for a light bulb to turn on, or a power station NOT running out of electrons?

Bubba - I nearly missed this post.  Regarding the imposition of an electron as the 'carrier particle' of current flow - I ASSURE YOU - this is only a 'model' - or a 'concept'.  It has NEVER been proved. The interaction of one valence electron with another valence electron - as the transfer of energy - through copper wire - is a velocity that is KNOWN.  And that would take considerably more time than instantaneous - which is what we see when we flick a light switch.  The argument that the transfer of current is based on this interaction between valence electrons is THE ONLY ARGUMENT that would wash as a COMPLETE explanation.  Because it would NOT then require the evidence of spare electrons in any circuitry - WHICH THEY HAVE NEVER FOUND.  It is the lack of evidence of electrons that is the baffling factor.  And the need of so many that our grid supplies would never be able to supply the required amount to keep our cities lit - our houses warmed.  The question is - WHERE ARE ALL THOSE ELECTRONS?  Because the concept of current flow being the flow of electrons NEEDS ALL THOSE ELECTRONS.  The general rule is that electrons are housed inside or near to their atoms.  They don't float around the place.  There aren't any 'spare' electrons.  They are always FULLY ACCOUNTED FOR.

But Bubba - it's irrelevant what you or I think.  What's relevant is the experimental evidence.  That's really the only science that counts.  And our experiments seem to show that we don't need electrons to account for current flow.

Kindest regards Bubba - I've always enjoyed your input.  Even though we disagree.  And especially since your knowledge of power engineering has much that I can learn from.

Rosemary

Edited punctuation.  And grammer
« Last Edit: January 31, 2012, 09:14:54 AM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #475 on: January 31, 2012, 07:14:12 AM »
And MileHigh,

Provided only that you conceded that IF THERE ARE NO MISREADINGS and ERROR MEASUREMENTS - then our claim STANDS - then I'm happy.  A simple demonstration of this would then be all that's required.  Then we could all be happy.

You are trying to second guess what CANNOT be second guessed.  It needs hands on exposure and evaluation.  Why the HELL do you think that we're trying to get this to the academic forum?  It's precisely because all that precious evidence will be TRASHED if its survival depended on the 'opinion' of anonymous posters of dubious skills who are happy to DISMISS whatever they like - with or without an agenda and on grounds that have nothing to do with standard measurement protocols.

Science CAN ONLY BE PROGRESSED THROUGH EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE.  That's all that matters.  And MileHigh - you need to drop that argument of yours that the current from the battery is flowing through the functions generator.  I'm hoping - soon - to get you a full comment from a technical expert who designs those machines.  Pro temp - I assure you that this is IMPOSSIBLE.

And thanks for your input.  I mean that most sincerely.  It all helps the cause. 
Kindest as ever,
Rosie   

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #476 on: January 31, 2012, 02:34:16 PM »
And MileHigh - you need to drop that argument of yours that the current from the battery is flowing through the functions generator.  - I assure you that this is IMPOSSIBLE.

It is NOT impossible. It DEPENDS on the mode of operation. I alluded to the fact that the circuit can be operated in two slightly different modes; mode1 where Q2 is active, and Q1 not, and mode2 where Q1 is active and Q2 not. Mode1 is achieved by using a -5V to 0V pulse train on the FG, and mode2 by using a 0V to +5V pulse train on the FG.

IF the device is operated in mode2, (0V to +5V pulse, Q1 is active) then in fact the established current path is through the Q1 Source, and NOT the FG. The oscillation occurs when the FG is HI, or at +5V.

Once again however, there is confusion and errors with that paper. It's clearly stated that a NEGATIVE offset is used in the FG (mode1), but when FIG.'s 3 and 5 are examined, it is clear that about +8V is measured on the Q1 Gate in both, which means mode2 was actually used for the test.

In this case, the FG would not be providing that path, the path is through the Q1 Source when it is ON. BUT THERE IS A PATH ROSEMARY! It's through the Q1-S.  ::)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #477 on: January 31, 2012, 03:23:24 PM »
May I propose that you just take a deep breath and LOOK AGAIN.  Take a look at the level of current enabled during the ON TIME of the duty cycle - when the applied signal at the gate of Q1 is POSITIVE and current flow is - under normal circumstances ENABLED.  For 18 seconds of each 180 seconds or thereby of each of those switching cycles - a positive signal is applied at the Gate of Q1.  During this time, notwithstanding the application of that positive signal, there is no current flow from the battery supply.  Here you need to refer to the Channel 1 (ORANGE TRACE) and look where at the current sits.  IT'S AT ZERO.  Again.  during this period when the applied signal is POSITIVE which would enable the flow of current - THERE IS NO CURRENT FLOW FROM THE BATTERY.  Therefore the 'offset' setting is doing what it was meant to do.

Fig5 is a different kettle of fish.  An entirely different test.  Here the offset was adjusted to enable the flow of current during that 'on' period of each duty cycle.  Nothing surprising.  When the signal's applied it is INTENDED to ENABLE a short period of current flow from the battery.  This increases the level of dissipation at the element resistor.  Predictably.

I'll deal with the details in your post after this.
Rosemary

I'll try and download those screenshots.  WHY DO I NEED TO EXPLAIN THIS?  WHY DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND IT?  This is absolutely NOT the level of engagement that I expected.

Offline PhiChaser

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 256
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #478 on: January 31, 2012, 04:40:43 PM »
Rosemary,
 You are indeed correct in that I don't really know what I'm referring to regarding your 'oscillation' so I respectfully withdraw from this conversation.
I agree, I am NOT qualified to argue how your circuit works (or why it works a certain way or why you have your 'oscillation').
There are others here who ARE qualified to do so. In trying to satisfy my curiosity, it seems I have reiterated Poynt99s 'point'. 
 I will say that there were certain parts of your paper that sparked my imagination, and some things actually made a decent amount of sense. I liked your little drawings! :)
My statements about being blunt or rude were intended to convey that I hold no animosity or ill-will towards you (or anyone else here). Believe me, my posting was made after MORE research, NOT just taking someones word for it...
I see a stubborn person who refuses to accept (from any direction) that she just might be wrong.
I agree with you that forums like these can become a 'sesspool' at times, but I also think that there are those who frequent these places (like myself) who are curious about what is going on in the experimentalist/hobbyist/researcher/etc world and are looking around to find others with similar interests. 
I don't have a Ph.D. or M.A. (apparently you don't either) so how much am I (or you?) likely to be listened to in those 'other' more 'legitimate' types of discussion groups?? Certainly not as an equal. Since I don't have your expertise in electronics, I wouldn't consider myself your 'equal' so why would you deem listen to me, an uninformed observer in this one? I concede.
From your point of view we're all 'uninformed' when it comes to your circuit and your testing methods and your 'results'. Let's meet your colleagues and see your videos! I'm game. If they 'believe' in your results then they shouldn't have any fear of 'coming out' here... Lame excuse for no other 'collaborators' posting here...
So, as much as I'd like to repeat myself (like everyone else here apparently) ad nauseum, I will keep reading (and laughing) and learning, I will keep building and experimenting, and I will keep posting.
Just not on this particular thread.

Cheers!
Derrick

Offline Bubba1

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 80
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #479 on: February 01, 2012, 02:31:51 AM »