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 857153 times)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #525 on: February 02, 2012, 05:43:12 AM »
In which case you have the flow of current from a battery supply that is consistent with the applied voltage from the BATTERY SUPPLY SOURCE and the Ohm's value of the resistor.  I can't remember if you specified a resistive value.   but IF R = 10 and Vbatt = 12 - then you've got the measure of the current flow as v/r=1.2 amps or thereby.

If you do have a point - please explain it.  I suspect it's to do with the fact that the voltage over the resistor is established in anti phase to the battery supply voltage.  But since the resistor is NOT delivering any current from that applied potential difference - then the amount of energy that it's delivering back to the supply - is ZERO.  Until, obviously, that current from the battery is interrupted.

Rosemary

Added and changed.

Sorry.  I used the wrong term.  I amended it in this post.  NOT zero DISSIPATION which is nonsense.  It now reads - AS IT SHOULD - Zero discharge of current.  But I'll get back to your question.  I'm having difficulties getting a 'nested' quote number.

Be right back.
R

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #526 on: February 02, 2012, 05:49:50 AM »
The values are as follows:
VBAT = 50VDC
RLOAD = 10 Ohms
 :o
Please explain in greater detail why the resistor is dissipating 0W?
Reference my previous post.  This is explained. It most certainly is dissipating energy.

My question once again was this:

Please provide the actual value in Watts and polarity for:

a) the battery power and
b) the load power.

a) Given that the battery voltage is 50 V and the resistor 10 - then amperage = 50/10 = 5 amps.  Therefore 50 volts x 5 amps = 250 Watts.
b) The dissipated energy at the load = i^2r.  Therefore the amount of energy dissipated at the load is 5 x 5 x 10 = 250 Watts.
c) or the dissipated energy can be calculated as V^2/r.  Therefore 50 x 50 / 10 = 250 Watts.

Where does polarity come into this? 

Rosemary 

added emphasis - and included ^'2' - which was a small oversight
And added another option because I'm getting bored waiting for a reply

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #527 on: February 02, 2012, 08:17:00 AM »
Poynty Point

This is here for when you wake up.  I think I know what you're trying to point to.  Your argument is that there's a voltage over the load resistor is in antiphase to the applied voltage from the battery supply.  This is unarguable. But when a battery delivers it's current flow then that flow returns to that supply.  And in so doing it diminishes the potential difference.  When an element resistor or any load in series with that supply - dissipates energy in the form of heat and as a result of an 'exchange of energy' between it's components and that current flow - then this heat is irradiated outwards - from a source.  It has no polarity.

When and IF one interrupts the current flow from a battery supply - then - and ONLY THEN - can the potential difference across the load resistor - generate any current flow at all.  And then it DOES have a polarity.  And this is in terms of inductive laws where the induced magnetic fields then 'collapse' thereby generating counter electromotive force.  Which we all know so well.  But in the discharge of that energy - we have a more complex problem  Because in terms of that discharge - some energy is returned to the battery to 'recharge' it - which must be factored into that power analysis.  And some of that energy is ALSO dissipated at the resistor element, load.

So.  Polarity of that voltage across the element resistor - load - whatever - has NO BEARING on the rate of current flow from the supply NOR the rate at which energy is dissipated - in our example - as heat.  Voltage across the resistor is NOT responsible for the energy dissipated at that workstation.  The current from the supply source IS.

Rosemary

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #528 on: February 02, 2012, 02:22:11 PM »
You are getting close, however you're still struggling with the polarity.

Your own clue was that something is in anti-phase when comparing the battery and load, TRUE.

Explained in words, the power dissipated or supplied by any component (resistor OR battery) is the product of the voltage across it and the current through it.

Now, have a close look again at the diagram. The current is clockwise. Convention is that voltage "drops" across a load in the direction of the current (i.e. + to -).

Therefore both the current and voltage are "in-phase" when considering the load resistor. So we have:

PRLOAD = +V x +I = W (a POSITIVE polarity)

The battery however is a different story. By observation, one can see that the current and voltage are NOT "in-phase", therefore ONE of them MUST have a negative sign associated with it. Since the current has not changed direction, the negative sign must be assigned to the battery voltage, therefore:

PVBAT = -V x +I = -W (a NEGATIVE polarity)

So the answers to the question are:

a) Battery Power = -250W
b) RLOAD Power = 250W

Understood? Agreed?

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #529 on: February 02, 2012, 04:52:42 PM »
Poynty. 

This last post of yours is the most astonishing piece of nonsense that I have ever had the misfortune to read.  What is alarming is that you are patently serious.  And my dilemma is that IF I argue it at all there will be the general impression that there's an OUNCE of argument worth arguing.  Which there isn't.  But what is REALLY worrisome - is this.  Not one of our members is actually saying anything.  Which means that they're 'undecided' - at best.  Or they're entirely bored with the argument in the first instance.  If you are seriously proposing to REPLACE standard protocols with this illogical nonsense - I assure you that you will FAIL.  No amount of 'academics' protesting in that paper - will endorse this Poynty.  I saw this as your argument.  I referred to it repeatedly in my own posts.  I then thought that - just maybe - I'd misunderstood you.  And I now see that you are actually EXPECTING us - not only to buy into this - BUT TO SERIOUSLY PROPOSE TO REPLACE OUR STANDARD MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS with this?

You are getting close, however you're still struggling with the polarity.
I am NOT struggling with polarity.  I'm struggling to believe that you're actually serious.

Your own clue was that something is in anti-phase when comparing the battery and load, TRUE.
WHAT?  What do you mean by 'comparing the battery and load?  There's NO MAGIC THERE.  It's a FACT.  The voltage from a supply generates a current flow that is consistent with the voltage measured at the supply.  What it does do is generate an opposing VOLTAGE across the circuit components.

Explained in words, the power dissipated or supplied by any component (resistor OR battery) is the product of the voltage across it and the current through it.
Absolutely NOT.  The power delivered anywhere at all be it from a resistor or circuit component or battery supply - or even a GRID PLUG - is the product of the APPLIED VOLTAGE AND the rate of current flow. And current ALWAYS FLOWS relative to it's supply.  Therefore a negative voltage induces a current flow that is less than zero.  And a positive voltage induces a positive current that is greater than zero.

And since you've got a resistor there and NOT a motor - then your load will DISSIPATE HEAT which has absolutely NO POLARITY AT ALL.  it will be seen to irradiate outwards away from its source.  THAT'S IT.

R   

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #530 on: February 02, 2012, 05:03:01 PM »
Here your terms, as ever are vague and confusing.  But let me see what I can make of them.

Now, have a close look again at the diagram. The current is clockwise. Convention is that voltage "drops" across a load in the direction of the current (i.e. + to -).[/qupte]Convention most certainly does NOT STATE THAT VOLTAGE 'DROPS' ACROSS A LOAD in the direction of current.
What NONSENSE. What do you even mean?  By drop?  By any of it?  Convention holds that a the applied current through a load generates a voltage across that load.  And that voltage is in antiphase to the applied voltage.  Since current flows relative to its applied voltage then the voltage established across that load must therefore be in antiphase to the applied voltage.  NOTHING TO DO WITH 'DROPPING' anything at all.  On the contrary.  It's value is RELATIVE TO ZERO - and relative to the flow of current.

Therefore both the current and voltage are "in-phase" when considering the load resistor.
Current and voltage where?  From the supply?  From the circuit you've drawn?  If you're referring ONLY to your circuit then the CURRENT IS NOT ONLY IN PHASE WITH THE SUPPLY IT'S IN LOCK STEP.  AND ITS PHASE RELATIONSHIP TO THE VOLTAGE INDUCED ACROSS THE RESISTOR IS IRRELEVANT.  The current from the battery will ALWAYS be greater than zero.  IT IS A FACT THAT the voltage established across that resistor is in ANTIPHASE TO THE FLOW OF CURRENT.  But that voltage across the resistor DOES NOT GENERATE CURRENT - NOT in that circuit.  Therefore - while the measured voltage across that resistor is NEGATIVE until it generates a current flow its POWER IS ZERO.  IF ANYTHING - what we ACTUALLY HAVE IS a POSITIVE current flow and a NEGATIVE VOLTAGE ACROSS THAT LOAD.  That's not SPECULATIVE.  That's FACT.  And that diametrically OPPOSES the conclusion in that adventurous little equation of yours.

PRLOAD = +V x +I = W (a POSITIVE polarity)
Which makes this little sum the single most extraordinary piece of illogical deduction that has ever been visited on science.  The POWER that is dissipated at the load is the product of the APPLIED VOLTAGE FROM THE SUPPLY which, in your circuit is your battery - and the rate of current flow through that load.  That's it.  The fact that there's an opposite voltage induced across the load resistor - is irrelevant to the power dissipated by that resistor.  That voltage CAN DO NOTHING - UNLESS AND UNTIL THE CIRCUIT IS OPENED.  You've shown us a standard circuit supplied by a battery.  NO SWITCHES.  When I proposed a switch you patiently advised that you WERE ONLY LOOKING AT THAT CIRCUIT.  Therefore?  There is no power whatsoever in the voltage that is induced across that load.  BECAUSE THERE IS NO CURRENT FLOW INDUCED BY THAT VOLTAGE.  IT IS only potential difference.  IT IS NOT POWER UNTIL THERE'S A FLOW OF CURRENT. P=VI 


R

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #531 on: February 02, 2012, 05:05:00 PM »
Hopefully we're nearing the end of your arguments.

The battery however is a different story. By observation, one can see that the current and voltage are NOT "in-phase", therefore ONE of them MUST have a negative sign associated with it. Since the current has not changed direction, the negative sign must be assigned to the battery voltage, therefore:
Franky this is just utter nonsense.  You INSISTED THAT WE ONLY REFERRED TO THAT CIRCUIT OF YOURS.  In that circuit THEREFORE, if the current flow from the battery was not in phase with the voltage from the battery then you have a unique and HISTORICAL event that has absolutely no bearing on known physics.  Which makes the balance of this post UTTERLY ABSURD and I'm only copying it here that it can stand for the record.

PVBAT = -V x +I = -W (a NEGATIVE polarity)
 
 So the answers to the question are:
 
 a) Battery Power = -250W
 b) RLOAD Power = 250W
 
 Understood? Agreed?
And I most certainly NEITHER UNDERSTAND THIS NOR AGREE.  You'd need to UPEND known physics to try and carry this rubbish.  I just hope to God that there are readers here who are aware of it.  But what I DO see is the dearth of understanding related to power computation. 

God help us all.  I wish I could get some glimpse into your motives Poynty Point.  Either you KNOW that the readers here are fools and able to believe this claptrap - or you HOPE they are.  Or - which is even more alarming - you actually believe all this.  I give up.  I really do.  It's one thing to plough through your earlier nonsense.  This is elevating it to the outer limits of reason and entirely out of reach of the standard model.

Regards,
Rosemary[/quote]

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #532 on: February 02, 2012, 05:15:49 PM »
Reference my previous post.  This is explained. It most certainly is dissipating energy.

a) Given that the battery voltage is 50 V and the resistor 10 - then amperage = 50/10 = 5 amps.  Therefore 50 volts x 5 amps = 250 Watts.
b) The dissipated energy at the load = i^2r.  Therefore the amount of energy dissipated at the load is 5 x 5 x 10 = 250 Watts.
c) or the dissipated energy can be calculated as V^2/r.  Therefore 50 x 50 / 10 = 250 Watts.

Where does polarity come into this? 

Rosemary 

added emphasis - and included ^'2' - which was a small oversight
And added another option because I'm getting bored waiting for a reply


HERE IS THE ACTUAL WATTAGE AS PER THE STANDARD MODEL.

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #533 on: February 03, 2012, 01:25:47 AM »
My my, you sure got yourself worked up into a tizzy there Rosemary. Kinda reminds me of the hissy-fits my sister used to have when she was a girl.  :o

You must be right about me and about what I've posted, after all, what chance of being correct would a person who has 27 years experience in electronics have against someone with no formal training at all?

What was I thinking?  ::)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #534 on: February 03, 2012, 03:53:53 AM »

You must be right about me and about what I've posted, after all, what chance of being correct would a person who has 27 years experience in electronics have against someone with no formal training at all?

What was I thinking?  ::)

My dear Poynty Point,
Perhaps you could advise me how my lack of training in electronics has anything, whatsoever, to do with elementary power analysis and fundamental physics.  And I really need to stress this.  I am MORE THAN HAPPY to concede to my IGNORANCE related to circuitry - circuit components - and the myriad complexities that are associated with electronic engineering.  What you guys do is mind boggling.  But DO NOT THEN ASSUME that you can UPEND known protocols in the analysis of SIMPLE POWER COMPUTATION.  If that hasn't been working as well as it has for the last century or so - then we would all be sorely BEREFT of those miracles that our electronic engineers have managed.  But PLEASE.  Do not presume that you can CHANGE THE FUNDAMENTALS OF PHYSICS. 

The joke of all this is that  I am widely accused of the most serious departures from the standard model.  And this has been the bases of those 'attacks' that have been personally abusive, unwarranted, inappropriate and even criminal - relying, as they do, on traducement and slander.  For some reason, best understood by yourself and your 'friends', there is this overwhelming need to INSIST that I am stupid.  Well.  I may not be that bright.  Actually I have no interest whatsoever, in disabusing you of my lack of intelligence or otherwise.  In fact.  I am PROUD to say that I believe my intellect is DECIDEDLY BUT BARELY AVERAGE.  Then I put it to you - that IT DOES NOT NEED AN ADVANCED INTELLIGENCE to wrap one's mind around the basics of physics.  And I rather suspect that those abstractions that you appear to indulge - are probably the result of a corruption resulting from too much unnecessary complexity - applied to SIMPLE CONCEPTS.  And this, I see as a real problem.  You and your friends are trying to appear to be 'clever'.  It's NOT RELEVANT.  Your level of intelligence, my own level of intelligence?  They're irrelevant.  The only thing that IS RELEVANT is SCIENCE.  And for some reason, best understood by yourselves, you have all tried to promote yourselves by indulging in these absurd abstractions - with the use of terms and arguments that are THAT OBSCURE that they're now OUT OF REACH.  It would be as well to get back to basics. 

Anyway. I need to wrap this up.  Or I'll just be boring you all with yet another rant.
Regards,
Rosemary

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #535 on: February 03, 2012, 04:35:00 AM »
Ok Guys,

One of the many complaints against me is that I have taken all these thousands of words to argue my case.  WELL.  That's what's needed.  You see, from the OUTSET there was an entire lack of courtesy and constraint - in the evaluation of a really simple proposal.  Which is this.  IF you impose the theoretical condition of a particle in a magnetic field - then you will find that the field - as known and described in terms of Faraday's Lines of Force - will be seen to be a PRIMARY FORCE.  In other words, its interaction with all matter that is measurable - would then correspond to the known forces of gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear force.  That's a SIMPLE proposal.  It does NOT conflict with the standard model - and it is PROFOUNDLY significant because if it's even HALF RIGHT - it shows the potential to access a copious supply of energy that has, heretofore, been OUT OF REACH.  Certainly that's where it points.

The irony is this.  We were able to PROVE a COP>17.  That resulted in that 'howl' that I referred to earlier.  But from that day to this, there has not been a SINGLE attempt to understand what was meant by that field model.  And THAT - is the unfortunate consequence of the ASSUMPTIONS and ALLEGATIONS that are permitted in these forums.  Where one assumes that we're to have a discussion on physics - we're actually doing nothing more than engaging in - as it's described here - a 'pissing' contest.  And that is UTTERLY inappropriate.  And the ONLY thing that was entirely outlawed was a serious discussion about the fundamentals of that initial proposal.  And THAT was my entire interest.   I've ALWAYS known that our own little demonstration is really just a small, SMALL token to this potential.  God knows.  Even Rossi's extraordinary breakthroughs are just the first opening of that door.

What beggars belief is that there are those members who ASSUME that I may not comment because I have no CREDENTIALS.  I am reasonably satisfied that it would be a relatively easy exercise to write some exams and thereby BECOME credentialed.  But that would most CERTAINLY then promote me as an EXPERT - or WORSE.  What benefit is there in promoting a concept that we all need to wrap our heads around - when it is first required that this is OUT OF REACH unless you're an expert?  This UNDUE deference to qualification.  We are all of us qualified to comment on sscience.  And the wider the engagement the better.  It has, heretofore, and rather unfortunately, been shrouded in mystique.  But fortunately for us all that mystique is now considerably lessened by the hard efforts of those EXPERTS who have tried to explain all of physics in layman's terms.  And if you have assumed that it's difficult and impossibly abstract - let me assure you.  It really is NOT.  It is simple - and actually rather beautiful.  it calls for a study of symmetry - so, it's possibly essentially - geometrical - or mathematical.  But it is NOT out of reach. Not even to my grandchildren.

Anyway.  That's my appeal.  I really need to wrap up this thread.  I'll deal with that over the weekend.

Regards,
Rosemary

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #536 on: February 03, 2012, 06:10:51 AM »
And MileHigh,

As ever, you are MilesOffTheMark.  In answer to your latest nonsense.  Where in our paper do we claim a recharge of that returning energy?  On the contrary.  If you're going to try and argue any part of this then - at its least - one would expect you to refer to our ACTUAL claim.  Not to what you ALLEGE or ASSUME.  One day, I hope, you'll actually make your comments both topical and appropriate.  But that would mean that you'd need to familiarise yourself with what we're ACTUALLY stating.  And I'm not sure that you're quite capable of quite that much.

Regards,
Rosie

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #537 on: February 03, 2012, 02:13:36 PM »
Where in our paper do we claim a recharge of that returning energy?
Below are several instances taken from your paper, which I posted a little while back:


Quote
This results in an oscillation that is robust and generates strong current flows that reverse direction, first flowing from and then back to the source and thereby alternately discharging and recharging the battery supply.

Quote
What may now be required is a revision of classical power analysis as the computation of wattage returned to that supply results in a negative value, which has little, in any, relevance within classical paradigms.

Quote
A current sensing resistor (RSHUNT) on the source rail of the supply determines the rate of current flow both to and from the battery supply source.

Quote
This allows a current flow generated by CEMF, that returns to the battery supply source to recharge it.

Quote
Because the sum of the energy returned to the battery is greater than the energy delivered, these test results appear to contradict the requirement of a co-efficient of performance (COP) equal to 1.

Quote
Infinite COP is defined as the condition where more energy is measured to have been returned to the energy supply source than was first delivered.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #538 on: February 03, 2012, 03:59:52 PM »
Below are several instances taken from your paper, which I posted a little while back:

I THINK we need to establish our TEST measurement protocol before we take this discussion further.  Could you please elaborate on that SECOND optional method of analysis?   Or were you proposing those extraordinary protocols that you detailed above?  We've still to establish what is REQUIRED for PROOF for our demonstration.  Remember?

And I am most certainly NOT about to engage in a discussion of sentences that are isolated out of context. 

Regards,
Rosie Pose

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #539 on: February 03, 2012, 05:22:52 PM »
AFAIAC,

The discussion is already finished.