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 857142 times)

Offline Bubba1

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 80
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #480 on: February 01, 2012, 02:37:16 AM »
...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... 

Rosemary:  again, where are you getting this information that I would like to read for myself?

Bubba

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #481 on: February 01, 2012, 02:54:23 AM »
Rosemary:  again, where are you getting this information that I would like to read for myself?

Bubba

What information do you want to read for yourself Bubba?  Read anything and everything related to physics written for the layman, in some cases even written by our acknowledged leaders in science including Murray Gell-Mann and Hawking.  There is a wealth of informative literature where science is explained 'conceptually' - including Dyson and my particular favourite - Zukov.  But there are MANY such.  The difference between this and technical literature is only that they use simple language as opposed to mathematics - to EXPLAIN - the foundational concepts.  Which, I might add, is apparently and sorely lacking in the standard teaching curriculum of electrical engineers. 

But may I add.  I have NEVER read the proposal that a magnetic field may comprise particles.  So if that's what you're hoping to find - then you'll be disappointed.  I have proposed this - without any authority as there are absolutely no citations.

But if you want to 'skip' all that reading - just ask any theoretical physicist.  One out of every 10 will assure you that current flow is the flow of CHARGE.  Which it is.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary.
And thank you for alerting me to my spelling error.  But I'll pass on re-editing the edit.

Added

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #482 on: February 01, 2012, 03:53:10 AM »
Derrick,


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.

If there are such, here on our forums - THEN WHERE ARE THEY?   ::) Poynty is trying to argue this without any reference to standard measurement protocols.  I still can't decide if this is deliberate.  MileHigh is in the dizzy distance - trying to find some kind of inspiration from the upper reaches of outer space.  TK occasionally comes to the party advertising his youtube nonsense.  And in the background lurks our Professor Steven E Jones who now, rather confusingly, uses the pseudonym Poynt.99  :o   Gravock also appears every now and then to offer some lonely  'applause' to Poynty's contribution.  They all advise me that my ignorance is abysmal based on an entire want of intellect and reason. And while all and sundry are advising all and sundry that I don't understand basic electrical engineering -  the only thing that rings out loud and clear is that - not only DO I understand it - but that I understand it rather better than themselves.

And then - to cap their argument - which is based not on logic, not on the standard model - not even on standard measurement protocols - but based on CONSENSUS - they seriously propose that I cease and desist.  It now seems that their authority comes in the guise of 'majority vote'.  And that enfranchisement needs nothing more than forum membership.  But that forum membership comprises, for the most part - a whole lot of anonymous people who avoid all accountability by NEVER disclosing their identities.  Which means that they are entirely unaccountable for the gross extent of traducements that they liberally, and somewhat incautiously, APPLY.  And for the first time in the history of science - it is earnestly suggested that we determine our paradigms on democratic rather than scientific principles.  Which would be wonderful.  And since I'm then widely advertised as a kook and a half wit - then they/you/all of them - ASSUME the further right to insult me and trash our technology - to their heart's content while they 'vote' no.

I wish I could find it in me to endorse any part of this.  I am left with the options of ignoring it or confronting it.  I've tried ignoring it.  But it seems that WHEN I do they then use those same tactics - that I am now intimately familiar with - on other poor and unsuspecting claimants.  Never will simple evidence 'cut it'.  All must be prejudged and DISMISSED.  Not only that but even when I'm 'not around' I get trashed on a purely personal level by these same talking heads - who offer a quality of abuse that - under normal conditions - would be actionable.  But they're NOT accountable.  They DO NOT POST UNDER THEIR OWN NAMES.  That way - they can say what they like.  And they can indulge this disgusting romp into hate speech - to their heart's content.  I've actually had enough.  I intend seeing this through to its conclusion.  I've had a belly full Derrick.  This has all be excessively abusive.  If I felt there was no merit in this technology I"d have folded - long back.  But I'm in the unhappy position of knowing the harm that they do - the utterly unsubstantiated bases of their arguments - and, very likely - the agenda that motivates it.

Regards,
Rosemary

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #483 on: February 01, 2012, 04:34:07 AM »
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.  ::)

Now - with respect to this post of Poynt's. I posted my argument against - yesterday afternoon.  Immediately thereafter Harti's system when into loop mode - and again, I was not able to complete my reply.

Since it's now the focus of my topic - I've taken the trouble to highlight Poynty's post.  Here's what I refer to...'Once again however, there is confusion and errors with that paper.

Poynty Point.  You state this as a FACT.  Anyone reading here will ASSUME that you know what you're talking about.  Therefore the ASSUMPTION will be made that there ARE indeed CONFUSIONS and ERRORS with that paper.  When in truth - the CONFUSIONS and ERRORS are your own making.  I do not know if this is deliberate.  I only know that what you have just stated is both DAMAGING AND WRONG and it is applied to the hard work of skilled engineers - myself excepted.  I would recommend that you learn a modicum of discretion PoyntyPoint.  Or we'll all start thinking that you're trying to spread the general impression - YET AGAIN - that the Paper ERRS or, alternatively that  the data referenced ERRS  - when, in fact, it's your presentation and interpretation of that data that not only ERRS but is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT.

Regards,
Rosemary

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #484 on: February 01, 2012, 07:01:55 AM »
Now - back to PhiChaser's post and to continue/...

I see a stubborn person who refuses to accept (from any direction) that she just might be wrong.
As it relates to the 'thesis' I freely confess that I may be wrong.  As it relates to the experimental evidence - the question as to my being 'right' or 'wrong' does not come into the equation.  We have experimental proof, clear evidence, supported by close analysis, from more than 500 data dumps - that WE EXCEED UNITY.  The proof is in the continual measure of more energy computed to have been returned and dissipated over a circuit than was EVER DELIVERED IN THE FIRST INSTANCE.  No-one can idly CLAIM that we've 'made a measurement's error'.  IMPOSSIBLE.  Our measuring equipment is top of the range. Our protocols are MORE THAN ADEQUATE.  And the level of energy being measured is NOT MARGINAL.  No ambivalence.  No ambiguities.  It is simply NOT that small that it could be debated in any context at all.

What you're actually 'buying into' is the ASSUMPTION that we've made an error in our analysis.  Certainly.  IF we were applying those absurd proposals of PoyntyPoint - that we compute the negative voltage measured across the inductive components of the circuit (including the element resistor) while the battery is in the process of discharging a current flow through a closed circuit - THEN YOU WOULD BE RIGHT.  Alternatively, if you are proposing that anything up to and including the flow of 5 amps of current from the battery supply can breach more than of 1000K's of resistance in the signal generator to present itself at the signal terminal and then ALSO - simply IGNORE the applied negative signal at that terminal - AGAIN.  YOU'D BE RIGHT.  Alternatively, if you proposed that my eyesight is that poor that I'm 'misreading' the results - and that our LeCroy scope shots are sharing my MYOPIA - AGAIN.  YOU'D BE RIGHT. 

HOWEVER.  Those arguments - are ENTIRELY FALLACIOUS - AND ERRONEOUS.  They have considerably less to do with science than than they have with 'agendas'.  I do NOT know what that agenda is.  But back to my point.  IF it appears that I am STUBBORN when I insist that the results need to be properly CONSIDERED - then I have the full weight of the entire field of science - behind me.  Because those measurements FLY IN THE FACE of what SCIENCE TEACHES US.  If you prefer it that I simply 'fold' and 'go away' which is clearly the preferred option here - then I would need to do this DESPITE the CRYING NEED for some critical evaluation OF THOSE RESULTS.  So.  Forgive what you seem to consider is my 'stubborn' nature.  I am simply trying to progress some rather controversial evidence.

Regards,
Rosemary

Offline energy1234hope

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 32
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #485 on: February 01, 2012, 07:04:14 AM »
give them heaps rosie all the best with the so called experts. The ones like milehigh who was an expert on everything and was just booted off the iaec forum for his comments that he thinks are right and no one else can be right unless they agree with him.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #486 on: February 01, 2012, 07:23:06 AM »
give them heaps rosie all the best with the so called experts. The ones like milehigh who was an expert on everything and was just booted off the iaec forum for his comments that he thinks are right and no one else can be right unless they agree with him.
Thanks for this.  MUCH APPRECIATED.  It's lonely on this front.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #487 on: February 01, 2012, 07:47:59 AM »
So.  Ever onwards/...

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.
If your interests do not also include an interest in over unity then I'd suggest that you're at the wrong forum.  If however, they DO include an interest in over unity, then I recommend you do not dismiss evidence of this based on spurious analysis by what appears to be competing 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??
There is NOTHING to preclude anyone in the whole wide world from presenting any argument related to science that is based on careful measurement and that has the further merit of supporting the required evidence of a thesis.  This INCLUDES reviewed journals, technical journals AND THESE FORUMS.  There is NO REQUIREMENT ANYWHERE THAT ONE HAS A MASTERS DEGREE OR AN HONOURS DEGREE OR ANY CREDENTIALS AT ALL.  ALL that's required is the CLEAR PRESENTATION OF THE ARGUMENT with ADEQUATELY DEFINED TERMS in the description of that argument and UNAMBIGUOUS RESULTS in proof of that argument.  Our field of science is that NOBLE that it knows better than to DEFER to CREDENTIALS.  They are UTTERLY IRRELEVANT TO SCIENCE.  What credentials show is PROOF of expertise.  Nothing else.

So when you say...
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.
then you are WRONG.  Equality has NOTHING to do with CREDENTIALS.  EQUALITY IS ESTABLISHED the minute you are mortal, able to express yourself in a language, and when you have some nominal access to the faculties of logic.  Since all of these TALENTS relate to our BIRTHRIGHT - and since they're shared with billions of us mere mortals on this planet, then INDEED.  We are all WELL ABLE to consider ANYTHING WE WANT up to and including MATTERS RELATED TO SCIENCE.  It is a sad truth that there are those who presume that what they think has no relevance.  Frankly I think we all need to take on the responsibility of exercising our logic.  It is NOT the exclusive property of scientific experts or philosophical experts - for that matter.  It only matters that one ENGAGES.  Else why did God bother to give us our rather SLOWLY EVOLVING brains?  Makes no sense.  Certainly not if we just leave it to others to think for us.  Look at where this has landed us?  For God's sake.  And that because we PRESUMED that our scientists know everything that was left to know about science.  Somehow the 'door was shut' after QED?  I don't think so.
   
Regards,
Rosemary

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #488 on: February 01, 2012, 08:20:43 AM »
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...
NOW.  LET ME PUT THIS TO BED.  We know your name is Derrick.  I do not know where you live and I do NOT know what your work is - NOTHING.  Nor do I know PoyntyPoint's.  Nor do I know MileHighs, nor Gravock, nor TK, nor exnihloest - and on and on.  There's someone called 'the boss'.  There's another called Mookie.  (Actually I DO know who he is).  And so it goes.  OUR DEDICATED detractors.  They say EXACTLY what they want - oceans of unsubstantiated ALLEGATION - with ABSOLUTELY NO NEED TO REFER TO FACT - and this little group have attempted to ASSASSINATE - NOT ONLY the technology - BUT MY GOOD NAME.

Well.  The truth is this.  MY name doesn't really matter.  It doesn't help that they set the stage and teach YOU, for example, how to refer to my work as BS and my thinking as 'TWADDLE'.  Obviously.  But it doesn't impact on my 'livelihood'.  If they were to try and do that with any of our collaborators then there's a real chance that those collaborators would find themselves unemployable.  In the light of this, are you SERIOUSLY proposing that they engage?  When you and I BOTH know what happens to people when the come out in support of a CLAIM?  Just cast your mind back to what happened to Fleischmann and Pons. Those poor men were relegated to ignominy as a result of their efforts.  I WOULD NEVER ask it of them.  That they come and fight this fight on a forum? Which is DOMINATED by anything but science?  Where reputation and opinion matters more than experimental evidence?  And there's NO NEED.  Those rather despicable attempts at cannibalizing on my blasted reputation - would then be more widely spread as they added a few more to that feast.  Bear in mind Derrick, that this is a FIRST.  And it is also for the first time in the history of these forums that ANYONE has challenged Poynty and his 'friends' to support their argument with LOGIC.  The usual diet - stops when they CONCUR that the claimant is a moron.  Easily done.  But as in war.  It is usually better NOT to underestimate the strength of the enemy.  And I suspect that they finally managed to also fondly believe their expressed opinions.  Which is actually quite amusing.

What I've hoped to do - for once and for all - is to show proof that ACTUALLY - we claimants are NOT deluded, NOT inarticulate and NOT illogical.  And, more to the point, our claims are scientifically VALID.

Which I think covers your entire post.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
   
Added
« Last Edit: February 01, 2012, 11:38:22 AM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #489 on: February 01, 2012, 02:18:59 PM »
And MileHigh - this is all that I have to say about your latest objections.  My knowledge of electronics is abysmal.  My knowledge of conceptual physics is more than adequate.  You have all ASSUMED that because I am not au fait with electronics - then I know NOTHING.  That, like so many other bigoted assumptions that you all indulge - is what it is. PURE ASSUMPTION.  I have a video'd example of a HIGHLY QUALIFIED NUCLEAR PHYSICIST who was ENTIRELY unable to distinguish between a circuit that included a 555 switching schematic - and one that did not. That does not make him stupid or less of an expert - BUT IN HIS OWN FIELD.

And may I add - that any advance of 'field physics' will rely ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY on 'concept'.  It's an art in the making.  It is most certainly NOT an established branch of physics.  And, thankfully, it has not, thereby, been corrupted by ASSUMPTIONS that DOG both QED and Relativity.  And it is PERFECTLY developed by our string theorists.  But they're ALSO LOOKING for that particle.

So.  Do NOT try and patronise me.  And kindly refrain from advising the entire world that current can come from the battery and somehow flow through the circuitry of a function generator.  IT IS IMPOSSIBLE.  I am awaiting a detailed account of WHY this is impossible from a TECHNICAL EXPERT.  With his permission I will then post that explanation here.  The ONLY thing that may POSSIBLY be managed is that current will flow between the signal terminal and its ground.  And that CANNOT happen if the applied signal does not correspond with the applied current from the supply - WHATEVER IT IS.

Regards,
Rosemary

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #490 on: February 01, 2012, 02:28:52 PM »
Alternatively, if you are proposing that anything up to and including the flow of 5 amps of current from the battery supply can breach more than of 1000K's of resistance in the signal generator to present itself at the signal terminal and then ALSO - simply IGNORE the applied negative signal at that terminal - AGAIN. YOU'D BE RIGHT.

There are no "1000k's of resistance" looking into the output port of the FG. In fact it is a mere 50 Ohms. If you would like, I can post a schematic of the output portion of that FG which clearly shows 50 Ohms of resistance on its output. So from there, the AC impedance to ground is quite low; on the order of 0.1 Ohms. So the total AC impedance to the ground terminal of the FG is about 50 Ohms, looking in to the output. This AC impedance to ground is the path for the oscillation.

And Rosemary, stop harping on the notion that ANYONE is accusing the instruments of failing to measure correctly; you've been advised several times that it is NOT the instruments that are at fault, it is the operators of the instrument.

Now, let's put to bed this issue of the oscillation and which MOSFET is responsible. The only salient issue is that there IS an oscillation, we can all agree on that. HOW that oscillation is achieved is not important. You've even said it yourself, normally this type of oscillation is an annoyance to designers, and it is to be avoided. So it is not a novel discovery of any sort, MOSFETs are notorious for oscillating, especially when operated in their linear range.

The thrust of the problem is HOW you made your battery voltage measurement. Specifically, WHERE you placed the scope probe. It is NOT correct. That's been clearly proven several times. Now, you say that you tried a scope measurement with a probe much closer to the batteries, and still found significant oscillation on the display. When you did this, did you at the same time remove ALL the other probes that were still on the circuit?

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #491 on: February 01, 2012, 02:57:33 PM »
Poynt.99

HOW you have the bald faced temerity to advise ME or anyone at all - that our probes are POSITIONED incorrectly - when we HAVE shown you that the position of those probes CAN BE PLACED PRECISELY ON THE BATTERY TERMINALS - THAT IT MAKES NOT ONE IOTA OF DIFFERENCE TO THE SHAPE AND SIZE OF THAT OSCILLATION.  We have done downloads of this THIS VERY POINT.  And I've explained that we can prove this on a circuit that ONLY has one MOSFET and ONLY one battery with the probes AGAIN positioned - this time on the one and only battery used as a supply source.

Is this all it takes?  To promote a disinformation program?  IGNORE the counter arguments - IGNORE the proof - IGNORE the statements - and just keep on and on and on - plugging the same RIDICULOUS points - where the sheer repetition will eventually carry the argument? I absolutely WILL NOT ANSWER ANOTHER POST THAT RELATES TO THESE OBJECTIONS.  It is impossible to keep on keeping on saying the same thing.  I've just taken a look back on this thread.  I've been saying this for the last 5 pages - possibly more.


FINALLY.  It is impossible to 'draw the wrong conclusions' from those instruments as you are trying to imply. UNLESS the probes are  inappropriately attenuated or unless they were incorrectly positioned.  AND THEY ARE NOT.   One does not need to get a degree in electronics in order to find out how to work those oscilloscopes.  They're USER FRIENDLY.  Quite apart from which you are also supposing that NONE OF THE COLLABORATORS are competent to take a measurement.  And that falls into the category of traducement and slander.  I AM DONE WITH ARGUING THIS.

Rosemary

EDITED
I removed that rant that is due to get an EXPERT's comment related to the proposed corruption that is enabled by the signal probe.   The rest of this post stands.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #492 on: February 01, 2012, 03:15:59 PM »
Now, Poynt.99 and Professor Steven E Jones,

A simple demonstration of this technology is actually all that is required to prove what we here CLAIM.  We are MORE THAN HAPPY to include the test where we generate the oscillation with the use of only 1 MOSFET and only 1 battery.  That puts the objection to bed related to the positioning of those oscilloscope probes - and this rather outlandish claim where you seem to think that the battery supply is able to chase it's tail through an applied negative signal at the Gate of Q1.

Let me know your thoughts related to a demonstration.  Subject only to this, and to the time required to get these tests up and running and the time when the collaborators would be available - then we're ready to roll.  I think a month from today would be a realistic target.
 
Kind regards,
Rosemary

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #493 on: February 01, 2012, 03:56:56 PM »
Poynt.

Here is a detail of what is happening at the signal terminal of the function generator - during the period that the circuit if OPEN.  Kindly NOTE that the blue trace is the ACTUAL APPLIED VOLTAGE AT BOTH THE SIGNAL TERMINAL AND ITS GROUND.  Where is there any evidence here that this voltage is able to support the flow of upwards of 5 amps.  Because that blue trace DETAIL waveform is evident in EVERY SINGLE OSCILLATION - no matter the setting.

Rosemary

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #494 on: February 01, 2012, 05:07:56 PM »
You've not answered this salient question:
 
You say that you tried a scope measurement with a probe much closer to the batteries, and still found significant oscillation on the display. When you did this, did you at the same time remove ALL the other probes that were still on the circuit?