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 857159 times)

Offline JouleSeeker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 685
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #585 on: February 08, 2012, 04:56:48 PM »
Professor,

It is well known that the SPICE program does not lie or error. It is simply a computer pogram, and it produces results based on the INPUT to the program. "Garbage in, garbage out" is the old adage, and it applies here too.

However, let's see what the SPICE program "PSpice" produces as a result for power computation of the battery VBat and the load resistor R1 in our simple example. This is an extremely simple circuit, and nothing "strange" is applied to its input. The resulting scope traces are straight forward, and speak clearly to the polarity issue. See the following pictures:

Regards,
.99

So I see this result, and let me comment (without having read the entire thread!).
SPICE is a simulation package with Kirchoff's laws and conservation of energy built into the code (no doubt).

I see nothing surprising with the SPICE result .99 displays -- which says that the power dissipated by the resistor is supplied by the battery. 

Now we turn to a real device -- just a simple battery and resistor circuit as shown by .99, and run the darn thing for 30 minutes, say.   The voltage on the battery right after the run will be down from the initial voltage, showing that it has lost some chemical-reserve energy; but from experience I know the battery will thereafter recover some of its voltage, in a rather short time.  So, I don't like this type of measurement as an absolute or particularly reliable way to measure the energy delivered by the battery, the input energy.

Rose, in an ou device, the output energy will be greater than the electrical input energy -- that's what we mean by ou.  (I think we can agree to that straightforward definition for starters.)  But a simulation package like SPICE cannot be expected to show an ou effect -- an ou effect has to be measured empirically in a reliable manner.

So to me the question of semantics regarding the "negative wattage" supplied by a battery in .99's simple circuit is rather an unimportant issue.  Call it what you will -- and move on to measurements using methods that we can rely on and quantify.

For input energy, I suggest use of a capacitor, as non-leaky as possible, then the input energy can be MEASURED in a straightforward way:

Einput = 1/2 C * (Vfinal**2 - Vinitial**2).

For the output energy, I like either charging a capacitor and using the above equation, OR using calorimetry.  Here, heating water in a well-insulated container is perhaps the easiest method, unless you have a calorimeter available to you.  With water-heating by the load, one can use:

Q = C(H2O) * mass * (Tfinal - Tinitial),
Where C(H2o) = 4.186 J/g-DegC for liquid water.

Best wishes for your success in your empirical measurements.
Steven J

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #586 on: February 08, 2012, 04:58:20 PM »
Professor,

It is well known that the SPICE program does not lie or error. It is simply a computer pogram, and it produces results based on the INPUT to the program. "Garbage in, garbage out" is the old adage, and it applies here too.

However, let's see what the SPICE program "PSpice" produces as a result for power computation of the battery VBat and the load resistor R1 in our simple example. This is an extremely simple circuit, and nothing "strange" is applied to its input. The resulting scope traces are straight forward, and speak clearly to the polarity issue. See the following pictures:

Regards,
.99

This is NOT a CONVENTION.  Your P-Spice program is designed to ACCURATELY ACCOUNT FOR THE LOSS OF POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE TO THE BATTERY.  In the same way that IF some circuit component then DISCHARGED counter electromotive force - then it would show the VBAT WATTS as POSITIVE and the discharge of potential difference as NEGATIVE.  You are looking at the SUM.  NOW.  IF you're inclined to believe this SUM - which is ON THE MONEY - then WHY do you ENTIRELY DISCOUNT THIS WHEN IT SHOWS YOU YOUR OWN RESULTS SITTING AT A NEGATIVE WATTAGE SUM over our oscillating circuit?  And again.  Why are you even arguing this point?

And DON'T then try and argue that the battery is DELIVERING a negative wattage.  IT SIMPLY CANNOT.  It's SUM is RESULTING in a reduction of potential difference.  That's an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT MATTER. It is INCAPABLE of delivering a negative wattage.  UNLESS CURRENT IS BEING RETURNED TO THAT BATTERY to RECHARGE IT.  Now can you see why your PIN POUT REFERENCES are so utterly meaningless without a DEFINITION?

And Poynty Point.  This is NOT debatable.  What's at issue is that INDEED your P-spice does not ERR.  What errs is your own ASSUMPTION of the significance of that SUM.  You've ASSUMED a DISCHARGE OF NEGATIVE CURRENT FLOW from a battery supply.  Can't happen.  No such animal.

Regards,
Rosie Pose

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #587 on: February 08, 2012, 05:17:15 PM »
So I see this result, and let me comment (without having read the entire thread!).
SPICE is a simulation package with Kirchoff's laws and conservation of energy built into the code (no doubt).
Not actually Professor.  This is what's so surprising.  It appears to have been encoded with nothing more than Faraday's Laws of Induction.  Because when it simulates our circuit it actually DOES result in a NEGATIVE WATTAGE SUM.  Which, as we've explained in our paper - HAS NO RELEVANCE TO KNOWN PHYSICAL PARADIGMS - AND EVEN LESS WITH OUR CONSERVATION OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS.  I emphasise this because it's very significant.  It means that those simulation software programmers have entirely conceded that FARADAY trumps KIRCHHOFF - which was the subject of an inconclusive debate on Ponty's forum - led by the pretentious blathering of some one whose name escapes me. 

I see nothing surprising with the SPICE result .99 displays -- which says that the power dissipated by the resistor is supplied by the battery.
EXACTLY.  It represents the SUM of depletion of potential difference.

Now we turn to a real device -- just a simple battery and resistor circuit as shown by .99, and run the darn thing for 30 minutes, say.   The voltage on the battery right after the run will be down from the initial voltage, showing that it has lost some chemical-reserve energy; but from experience I know the battery will thereafter recover some of its voltage, in a rather short time.  So, I don't like this type of measurement as an absolute or particularly reliable way to measure the energy delivered by the battery, the input energy.
Well again, not actually.  You will find that over time a battery will perform in line with it's watt hour rating.  And that much is ENTIRELY dependable.  The difference is only in that some batteries are designed to reliably discharge low current flows.  And others aren't that picky.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #588 on: February 08, 2012, 05:34:36 PM »
And before we entirely lose the significance of this.  Here's the thing.  In order for P-Spice to accurately compute the loss of potential difference at the supply it represents the SUM of the discharged current as a LOSS against the SUM of the energy dissipated at the load GAIN.  In the example that Poynty has used the SUM would be zero - which is in line with prediction and in line with Kirchhoff's unity requirements.  Else any sums that are done on this circuit would otherwise be misreprented.  In the same way if it were computing the energy RETURNED to the battery through counter electromotive force then it would COMPUTE the GAIN in potential difference at the supply and the loss of potential difference stored on circuit components.  It is showing NOT the polarised condition of a current flow but the EFFECT of that current on that all important SUM.

SO.  Back to our claim.  Your own simulation program - Poynty Point - shows you that when you do that SUM - the difference between the AMOUNT OF ENERGY THAT IS DISCHARGED compared to the AMOUNT OF ENERGY THAT IS RECHARGED - then there is a CLEAR AND EVIDENT GAIN to the battery supply.  I won't here argue the validity of that SUM.  JUST THAT IT'S EXTANT AND CORRECT. 

WOW.  That took 27 pages to argue.  Who'd have thought?  And this argument was presented as a JUSTIFICATION to deny us our PRIZE. 

Regards,
Rosie Pose

added

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #589 on: February 08, 2012, 06:31:44 PM »
Now Professor, to the balance of this post.  By the way (BTW) thank you for addressing this question as expeditiously has you have managed.  I suspect that had you been involved in the early chapters of this thread - as we had asked - then this question would have been put to bed much, much earlier.  But the truth is too, that I didn't realise the extant of Poynty's argument until he gave that confusing account which I posted on your own thread.   In any event. Ever onwards - and hopefully more to the poynt.

Rose, in an ou device, the output energy will be greater than the electrical input energy -- that's what we mean by ou.  (I think we can agree to that straightforward definition for starters.)  But a simulation package like SPICE cannot be expected to show an ou effect -- an ou effect has to be measured empirically in a reliable manner. 
Sorry.  We've covered this.  Again, rather surprisingly P-Spice DOES compute a negative wattage.

So to me the question of semantics regarding the "negative wattage" supplied by a battery in .99's simple circuit is rather an unimportant issue.  Call it what you will -- and move on to measurements using methods that we can rely on and quantify.

For input energy, I suggest use of a capacitor, as non-leaky as possible, then the input energy can be MEASURED in a straightforward way:

Einput = 1/2 C * (Vfinal**2 - Vinitial**2).
Professor.  I need to alert you to the confusions that result from this kind of 'equation' if that's the right term.  Einput is what?  The energy delivered by the battery?  Or the energy that is returned to the battery from counter electromotive force?  And that 1/2 represents what?  A half? Or is it merely '1 Einput' divided by '2 Einputs'?  And 'C'?  Does that represent degrees centigrade or 'C' as in the constant related to the speed of light?  And what is Vfinal?  And why is this **2? Is that the interim final of Einput and does ** represent squared as does '^'?  In which case where does Vfinal differ from Vinitial?  You see my problem.  I'm a CLUTZ.  And I only know rather pedantic and simple terms that are recommended for those whose understanding is heavily compromised by lack of standard training.  So.  I wonder if I could impose on you to simply follow this convention that has the very real merit of complying to standard protocols - albeit somewhat more simplistically than I suspect you require.  Indulge me.

For wattage or units of power delivered by the battery - then we use volts * amps divided by delta time or vi/dt.  That way we get the accurate average of watts delivered per second and we can use that as a base unit of power to represent the energy delivered by the battery supply source.

THEN. For wattage or units of power delivered back to the battery supply - then we use volts * amps divided by delta time or vi/dt.  And here we'll get an average of the watts delivered per second and we can then use that as a base unit of power to represent the energy delivered back to the battery supply source.

Just that much.  I'll get to the consideration of the energy dissipated at the load resistor thereafter.  Because the problem here is this.  We have more energy being returned to the supply source than was first delivered.  Which we've defined as INFINITE COP.  And the confusions are then even more extreme.  Because there is absolutely no energy that is being delivered by the battery as we've got open circuit conditions.  And as we all know, a battery CANNOT discharge energy unless it is connected to the circuit. 

You see.  There's nothing simple about this problem.  Perhaps if you could familiarise yourself with our paper you'll see the scope of the anomalies that we deal with.

Kindest regards, and thank you for applying yourself to this. Much needed if we're going to evaluate our results for that coveted over unity prize.
Rosie.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #590 on: February 08, 2012, 07:39:35 PM »
And Professor,

Here's a list of those claims - just to keep this in focus and lest anyone assume that this claim is trivial.

. We have a circuit that generates a ROBUST self-sustaining oscillation that persists for the duration that a battery is entirely disconnected from the circuit. 
. This oscillation results in a measurable dissipation of energy at the circuit workstation - notwithstanding the lack of energy from a supply source.
. Subject to variations at the switch it can increase the amount of energy dissipated at the load - to the point that it can boil water.
. And over more than 250 individual settings tested there is absolutely no energy measured to have been delivered by that supply source.
. All of which measurements have been 'double checked' by downloading the data to spreadsheets for analysis
. Nor have we measured any depletion of potential difference to the 6 batteries that we've used continuously over an 18 month period
. All of which flies in the face of classical prediction

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Offline Bubba1

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 80
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #591 on: February 08, 2012, 08:01:14 PM »
For wattage or units of power delivered by the battery - then we use volts * amps divided by delta time or vi/dt.  That way we get the accurate average of watts delivered per second and we can use that as a base unit of power to represent the energy delivered by the battery supply source.

"watts delivered per second"? ??? ?

Rosemary: you STILL don't get it.  There is no such thing as watts per second.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #592 on: February 08, 2012, 08:11:24 PM »
"watts delivered per second"? ??? ?

Rosemary: you STILL don't get it.  There is no such thing as watts per second.

Bubba you're getting tedious in the extreme.  Correctly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second - then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE.  Which is ALSO explained in WIKI.  Much more important is that you answer your earlier concern that a battery can deliver a negative current flow - which seems to be something you really CAN endorse.  Somehow? 

I'm not going to answer any more of your posts Bubba.  They're getting too tedious.  And they've got absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic.

Rosemary

Offline SchubertReijiMaigo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 343
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #593 on: February 08, 2012, 08:17:35 PM »
A negative wattage mean that the power is REMOVED from the source...
Make a sim of a DC source and a resistor you will see for example -10 watts at the source side and  10 watts at the load side:
 (-10) + 10 = 0
In this circuit energy still conserved...


Sims have they own method to display result...



Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #594 on: February 08, 2012, 08:20:40 PM »
I see nothing surprising with the SPICE result .99 displays -- which says that the power dissipated by the resistor is supplied by the battery. 

 ;)

.99

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #595 on: February 08, 2012, 08:31:14 PM »
A negative wattage mean that the power is REMOVED from the source...
Make a sim of a DC source and a resistor you will see for example -10 watts at the source side and  10 watts at the load side:
 (-10) + 10 = 0
In this circuit energy still conserved...


Sims have they own method to display result...

Schubert, did you miss this post?

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg312064/#msg312064

.99 ;)

Offline gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3286
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #596 on: February 08, 2012, 08:55:56 PM »
Bubba you're getting tedious in the extreme.  Correctly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second - then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE.  Which is ALSO explained in WIKI.

Rosemary

The scientific community does not yet have some of the SI Units down to their basics.

For example, an Ampere's units are really Meters/Second, but this is not yet understood and so they continue to just use Amperes because they do not realize that "Charge" (Coulomb) is actually a unit of "Distance" (Electron Orbit Diameter).  The now accepted "Charge per Second" (Ampere) is really "Distance per Second" which is the same as Velocity.  The same mis-information applies regarding a Weber and a Tesla.  The units for a Tesla are Kilograms/MeterSecond but they continue to use Kilogram/AmpSec2 or Weber/Meter2.  The community also does not yet realize that a Henry is a unit of Electrical-Mass (Kilogram).  The true electrical units can be easily and clearly viewed on EinsteinElectricity.com

Gravock

Offline Bubba1

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 80
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #597 on: February 08, 2012, 09:42:21 PM »
Bubba you're getting tedious in the extreme.  Correctly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second - then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE.  Which is ALSO explained in WIKI.  Much more important is that you answer your earlier concern that a battery can deliver a negative current flow - which seems to be something you really CAN endorse.  Somehow? 

I'm not going to answer any more of your posts Bubba.  They're getting too tedious.  And they've got absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic.

Rosemary

I agree, it's getting very tedious.  But, if you cannot get the units right, then I don't see how you can get anything else right.  This is very basic.

Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #598 on: February 08, 2012, 11:11:20 PM »
It is well known that the SPICE program does not lie or error.

but previously you posted this:
Quote from: poynt99
Disregard the small green doughnut near S1, it's an error message from PSPICE. See "burst_osc_schematic01.png" for the schematic.

so it's rather obvious that spice 'errors'... or was that green doughnut 'garbage in'?  ;)

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #599 on: February 08, 2012, 11:32:52 PM »
but previously you posted this:
so it's rather obvious that spice 'errors'... or was that green doughnut 'garbage in'?  ;)

You are correct, it was "garbage in". The S1 switch I placed there was for the purpose of updating the schematic, for the benefit of those wanting to build it. You see, there is no SPICE model for that switch, so PSpice was telling me that it could not "do anything" with that component.

It had absolutely no impact or affect on the results of the simulation results I posted, hence the message to ignore the green doughnut. It was a known garbage INPUT, and it is a "don't care".

But thanks for bringing this to our intention, there may have been others wondering something similar. Hope that explains it well enough.

.99