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.

GDPR and DSGVO law

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.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 83535
  • *Latest: Fritzman

  • *Total Posts: 514382
  • *Total Topics: 15304
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 10
  • *Guests: 10
  • *Total: 20

Author Topic: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.  (Read 665133 times)

Offline hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7937
    • free energy research OverUnity.com
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #60 on: January 13, 2012, 02:26:46 AM »
P.S: Rosemary,
how do we know, that your function generator is not broken and it will
put all the additional power into the circuit?

If you don´t use a digital
kill-a-watt type  digital power meter to the measure the input power
you really can´t say anything and
it also might have ground current loops from the multiple ground lines
in the circuit  and scope probe and function generator grounds interferring ?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #61 on: January 13, 2012, 03:19:44 AM »
There you go Poynty Point

Isn't this so much better than simply insulting a challenger for your prize in your efforts to deny them this?  Well done.  And well done for referencing the ONLY probe positioning in your confusing set of schematics that is readable. 

 ;D

Now.  Let's reference that schematic and your manifest confusions related to this.

The electric field across an electric power SOURCE is always in OPPOSITE polarity to the direction of current through the power source when the power source is supplying current in the circuit. Therefore when a power calculation is performed on the power source in such case, (V x I), the two possible scenarios are the following, either:

1) +V x -I, or
2) -V x +I.

In either case, the result of the product is a NEGATIVE value.

The electric field across an electric power LOAD is always in EQUAL polarity to the direction of current through the load when the load in the circuit is dissipating energy. Therefore when a power calculation is performed on the load, (V x I), the two possible scenarios are the following, either:

1) +V x +I, or
2) -V x -I.

In either case, the result of the product is a POSITIVE value.

Although outlined in the detailed analysis06, the simple example below illustrates these facts quite well also. Note the difference in the direction of current and potential difference across each component.  ;)

.99

You show the simple configuration of a circuit that applies a DIRECT CURRENT to a load with the bias of the probes CORRECTLY ILLUSTRATED.  So far so good.  NEXT. You establish the current flow having a NEGATIVE VALUE.  This is INCORRECT.  Let me see if I can explain this.

In order to determine the amount of power that is dissipated at the load and delivered by the battery - both - one first needs to determine the RATE OF CURRENT FLOW.  To find this number - this 'rate of flow' a Mr Ohm determined that you can take the applied voltage from the source and divide it by the resistive value of the load itself.  Then.  Then one can PREDICT that the amount of current that flows from that battery will be something less than the amount of voltage potential at the battery supply source.  And the actual wattage is then a product of this voltage x that current.  Since the flow of current is IN THIS INSTANCE coming exclusively from the battery then correctly the product is POSITIVE.

NOW.  In order to CHECK that value - or to determine it MORE ACCURATELY - then one can simply place the probes across the load resistor and measure the voltage across that and divide that by the resistive value of the load.  This will also give you the rate of current flow, possibly more accurately.  But to measure a potential difference across that resistor with a second probe and at the same time as one measures the voltage across the battery then one would need to position the probes as you have shown.  ELSE YOU WILL NOT SEE ANY POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE.  The fact that it shows a negative potential is IRRELEVANT.  That negative voltage is NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CURRENT THAT IS FLOWING THROUGH THE CIRCUIT.  NOR DOES IT INDICATE THE POLARITY OR JUSTIFICATION OF THAT CURRENT FLOW. Under closed conditions the ONLY current flowing through the circuit is FROM THE BATTERY.

I am not sure what you're trying to point to.  But I assure you that it is fair and reasonable to determine that the flow of current is determined by the potential difference at the battery and convention has ALWAYS required that to be represented as a positive current flow.  I think, if ANYTHING you are trying to lend some credence to the entirely fallacious argument that - because one measures a negative voltage across the load resistor then the current flow must be negative.  It may be negative - provided ONLY that this potential difference can generate back or 'counter' electromotive force (CEMF).  But to do this the circuit would first need to be OPEN.  As represented - and as you've shown it - that BATTERY is the sole source of power.  And it CANNOT magically simply return energy to itself or generate a negative current flow.

I wonder if we can  refer  - NOT so much to your own analysis - but to our paper.  It has the merit of being more conventionally dependable.  Please advise us where you have objections to our applied protocols.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary 

Added this for clarification.
with a second probe and at the same time as one measures the voltage across the battery
and this
NOR DOES IT INDICATE THE POLARITY OR JUSTIFICATION OF THAT CURRENT FLOW.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2012, 05:36:21 AM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #62 on: January 13, 2012, 03:47:10 AM »
Dear Harti,

Thank you for getting back to me.  And compliments of the season.  I trust you had a good holiday.


I have scanned now your 2 PDF files
and can not find any measurement results of the input power into the
Functiongenerator  IsoTech GFG 324 from the grid.
If I understand this correctly you're asking where we measured the power FROM the generator in the application of that signal at the transistors.  If this is right we explained this in the paper.  We measured the amount of power and found it to not only be negligible but to have a negative value in relation to the supply.  Therefore it would served to DEPLETE rather than to ADD to the energy coming from the battery.  In any event the current value is that negligible that it can be comfortably factored into the margins for error. 

So these measurements are still missing and you certainly need to
add them to your other measurements and also use noninductive shunts.
Not these high inductance wire shunts !
We used high wattage resistors PRECISELY because we were generating HIGH CURRENT.  No doubt it would be preferred to use those highly calibrated shunt resistors but, unfortunately, they were and are outside our budget.  HOWEVER - the problems associated with the small inductances on those resistors are only relevant if our measurements of energy are marginal.  This is not the case in any of the examples included in that paper. 

As long as these measurements are not provided, it could all also be measurement
errors, cause you don´t know, how much power the Functiongenerator  IsoTech GFG 324
puts into the circuit.
Margins for error has been factored in and most certainly IS referenced in that paper.

Also it would be very wise to "unground" the Functiongenerator  IsoTech GFG 324,
so there will be no shielding ground current loops available, that could add power
from the shielding case ground currents.
We tested this on a 555 switch.  Reference again in that paper.  The results are the same.  And our results were measured using a Tektronix oscilloscope meter in conjunction with the LeCroy.  They give precisely equivalent results.  The Tektronix is not grounded.  Therefore the LeCroy results are confirmed not be influenced by ground.  We only used the LeCroy screen downloads for the paper because they are clearer and gives a fuller account of the circuit values.

So I would urge you to finally just do a circuit with a negative bias voltage onto the  Mosfets
and use a tap switch to a higher voltage spike to start the oscillation
and thus remove the Functiongenerator  IsoTech GFG 324 completely from the circuit.
We have done this on independent tests.  I am more than happy to send you the downloads.  The problem is that while this is your requirement it is not that of the electrical engineers whom we consulted.  It's difficult to conform to everyone's requirements Harti.  And our own tests needed to conform to the requirements of those experts.

Also as this whole unit inclusive batteries is over 20 Kg it can not apply for the overunity prize.
See the OU prize conditions again.
I read this.  There may be a way around it as there are some tests that can be managed with less applied voltage.  This can still be discussed.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #62 on: January 13, 2012, 03:47:10 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #63 on: January 13, 2012, 03:54:53 AM »
Regarding this post script

P.S: Rosemary,
how do we know, that your function generator is not broken and it will
put all the additional power into the circuit?
Because we have used no less than 4 - interchangeably - and because all 4 are calibrated.

If you don´t use a digital
kill-a-watt type  digital power meter to the measure the input power
you really can´t say anything and
I think that both LeCroy and Tektronix would claim CONSIDERABLY greater accuracy than the accuracies provided by a kill-a-watt digital power meter - with respect. 

it also might have ground current loops from the multiple ground lines
in the circuit  and scope probe and function generator grounds interferring ?
Not sure what you're referring to here.  The functions generator?  Or the oscilloscopes?  Either way - I addressed these concerns in our previous correspondence.

Again,
Regards,

Rosemary

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3586
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #64 on: January 13, 2012, 05:38:00 AM »
Dear three readers of this thread,

I sincerely hope Rosemary's analysis of my last post is not taken seriously. It's a shame when even Ohm's law can be so carelessly butchered.

Evidently, Rosemary has an innate ability to severely FUBAR even the most incredibly simple and clear circuit.  :-\

.99

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #64 on: January 13, 2012, 05:38:00 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #65 on: January 13, 2012, 05:45:16 AM »
Dear three readers of this thread,

I sincerely hope Rosemary's analysis of my last post is not taken seriously. It's a shame when even Ohm's law can be so carelessly butchered.

Evidently, Rosemary has an innate ability to severely FUBAR even the most incredibly simple and clear circuit.  :-\

.99

Dear Poynty Point,

I've already explained this.  Harti's system here allows for the actual rate of hits on this and any thread.  Check it out sometime.  Your math is appalling. 

THEN.  May I again ask you to 'stick to the point'.  IF you find that there's something I have written that is WRONG - you really need to point out WHERE.  Else we - all of us who read here - will simply assume that you're trying to 'duck the issue'.  Possibly you remember that 'fooling the people all the time' thing?  It still applies.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Posie

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3586
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #66 on: January 13, 2012, 05:46:42 AM »
I wonder if we can  refer  - NOT so much to your own analysis - but to our paper.

How the hell do you expect anyone to have a productive discussion with you about your paper, circuit and test results, when quite obviously (based on your analysis of my simple circuit) you don't even have a solid grasp of Ohm's law?

.99

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #66 on: January 13, 2012, 05:46:42 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #67 on: January 13, 2012, 05:49:11 AM »
Dear Poynty Point,

How the hell do you expect anyone to have a productive discussion with you about your paper, circuit and test results, when quite obviously (based on your analysis of my simple circuit) you don't even have a solid grasp of Ohm's law?

.99

You ALLEGE that I do not have a solid grasp of Ohm's Law.  I PROVE that you do not have a solid grasp of power computation.  I challenge you to PROVE your point.  We're all rather tired of your allegations.

Again,
Rosie Posie

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #68 on: January 13, 2012, 12:34:51 PM »
Guys,

I've split this into two posts because the following is seriously long.  But here are the niceties of the argument - for those who are interested.

Poynty is proposing to use terms such as POUT AND PIN.  "P" as used  to represent power in the context of the energy moving OUT AND IN to a circuit.  Now.  Let's go over the various properties that are required for the measure of power.

In analysing the amount of energy delivered by a supply source, one first needs to establish the amount of potential difference available at that source.  This is to get some measure of the 'force', so to speak, of the energy available to be transferred.  This potential difference is measured as voltage.  Then one needs to establish the 'rate' at which this potential difference is transferred.  That's a measure of the current flow.  And, as mentioned in my previous post,  the rate of current flow - in turn - is determined by the Ohms value of resistance in the path of that potential difference.  There are factors that vary this - related to the inductance on the circuit and to speed of applied switching frequencies.  But we're here dealing with his schematic represented in his earlier post.  No switches.  Not complexities.  Therefore V (source voltage) over the Ohms value of the resistor determines I (that rate of current flow).  Technically therefore - this product also  represents the measure of energy flowing through the circuit every second.  And this is represented as Wattage.  The calculation of power - out or in - is then the product of that instantaneous wattage over time which is the power delivered by that system.  And because time is now factored in then and that number is represented as JOULES. 

Time out of mind - in this extraordinary analysis applied to his simulation programs - and in EVERY SINGLE COMPUTATION that he has ever attempted in his analysis of this and any circuitry - he then detours into a major departure from the conventional measurement practices.  He proposes the terms POUT (POWER OUT) AND PIN (POWER IN) and proceeds to represent that number as WATTAGE.  Which is a horribly flawed and a rather abused misuse of the term power.  POWER IS NOT WATTAGE.  So WHY does he use the term POUT or PIN or anything like this - AT ALL -  when WOUT - OR WIN - if anything - would be more appropriate?  And even that is debatable.  But I'll get there.  For now, just know that these terms have little - if any relevance to their use as determined by ALL standard or conventional terminologies.  His use of them - his invention of these terms POUT AND PIN are only a reflection of his own rather eccentric misunderstandings of the term power.  It has absolutely no support, whatsoever. in any conventional analysis.  Power is ALWAYS REPRESENTED AS JOULES which is vi dt.  Else it's NOT POWER.  It's WATTAGE - or vi.

NOW.  To that OUT AND IN nonsense.  The energy delivered by the battery is expected to deplete the amount of potential difference at that battery supply source.   It can, indeed, be argued that it comes out of that supply source.  BUT.  By the same token another reader can determine that actually he means IN - as the energy delivered INTO the circuit.  And then.  What comes OUT of the circuit as work - must be the energy that was first put IN?  You see the problem I trust?  It is TOO AMBIGUOUS a reference to justify any kind of classical endorsement. EVER.  Science has a proud tradition of clarity.  While there are those who prefer to be obtuse in the forlorn hopes of thereby sounding clever, it is not a practice that our scientists will indulge.  They need PERFECT CLARITY.  While one can, with the best will in the world - recommend any variations to our standard references - it must first be understood that those variations will clarify - rather than confuse - our argument.  When and if they simply cloud the issue - when they befuddle clear science with ambiguities and pretentious muddled thinking  - then they're better avoided like the plague.  There is nothing wrong with standard terminologies.  Energy is delivered by a supply source and it is dissipated over a circuit.  It's that simple.

Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #68 on: January 13, 2012, 12:34:51 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #69 on: January 13, 2012, 12:40:09 PM »
This is the second part of that argument.

Now.  Back to the determination of the current that flows as a result of potential difference  as it applies - to his circuit schematic.  It is understood that current from a battery supply MUST be first sourced from the potential difference at that battery supply.   It is - self evidently - the SOURCE of the energy that can then be applied to the workstation of the circuit.  Now here's the thing.  The voltage or potential difference that is measured across that work station - that resistor - is transferred - somehow from the battery to that circuit component during the flow of current.  This is standard.  But in that transfer the voltage across that workstation is always in ANTI POLARITY OR ANTI PHASE to the applied voltage from the source.  And while that circuit is closed and while that current is allowed to flow - then it will REMAIN THERE - FIXED AND UNVARYING - except as it may reduce in synch with the reduction in the voltage from the battery supply.  Which - in turn - is determined by the rate of current flow.  And the amount of potential difference at the battery is measured as watt hours.  IT DOES NOT GENERATE A NEGATIVE CURRENT FLOW ITSELF.  EVER.  It simply is an induced voltage that is measurable.  That's it. 
 
SO. The amount of energy that is delivered by the battery supply source is NEVER a product of the negative voltage measured across the load resistor.  That has absolutely nothing to do with the current flowing through a circuit.  And this and indeed those unusual and preferred acronyms of POUT AND PIN are the source of Poynty's confusions.  And these confusions  have littered his analysis of all power measurements to date.  And that is the justification that he relies on to REFUTE OUR CLAIM.  It is unfortunate.  The more so as he has assured you all that it is OUR WORK that is flawed and that it is my efforts that are laughable.  And it is precisely the Ramsets of this world who are thereby convinced that our analysis is GROSSLY FLAWED and therefore there is NO EVIDENCE TO DATE OF OVER UNITY.  INDEED THERE IS.  Lots of it.  Ours is just another example.
 
Which is also why I was most anxious to have this public discussion with Poynty Point.  Frankly I'm getting rather tired of all his scoffing the more so as it seems that those pretentious scientists on his forum seem to assume any kind of authority at all - in their analysis of energy.  The worst of it is that there are many members here who they convince.  It's tragic.  That such unscientific protocols ever carry any kind of credence at all.  Which is why I'm increasingly alarmed when I see them look to more and more victims to denounce as pretenders.  When all the while it is THEY who are simply pretending to any kind of authority at all using the established scientific protocols in any misapplication that they choose.  And then POURING SCORN on those of us who PROTEST.  Golly.
 
It intrigues me too that they assume that such criticisms could be prejudicial to their reputations.  None of them disclose their real names.  And to a man - they are willing to allege any kind of abuse on those such as me and our good names.  And they get away with it.  Extraordinary. Worst still - they're effective.  I'm reasonably satisfied that Ramset has been entirely convinced by them that our claims are false.  It's a crying shame.  They simply are not. Our measurements are unarguable. 
 
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
 

Offline CuriousChris

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 261
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #70 on: January 13, 2012, 02:06:02 PM »
The answer to this argument is simple.

place some very large capacitors in parallel with the batteries
place a switch in series with the batteries such that when the switch is open the batteries are disconnected from the circuit, but the capacitors are still connected to the circuit.

Start the oscillator. When you are happy the oscillator is running stably. turn the switch off. the capacitors are now supplying the current.

If your circuit is indeed OU then the capacitors should remain charged and the circuit should continue to oscillate. if instead the circuit is UU then the voltage across the caps will quickly dissipate and the cct will stop oscillating.

If the cct continues to oscillate congratulations. If not the cct is not OU.

If you believe that capacitors don't support the oscillation due to fundamental differences between caps and batteries you must be able to put forward a cogent explanation of why. Once you have that fundamental explanation then you can alter the cct to allow for those differences and then make it work using the caps.

If you cannot make it work using the caps. then it serves no useful purpose. as long as it needs batteries it will never be considered OU.

CC

P.S.

I have often wondered if I crack the OU puzzle how would I get the message out. For me the answer is simple. Create a kit, sell it on Ebay with a say 60 day warranty. This lets others test it and validate it for you. If the kit doesn't work you will quickly learn about it in negative feedback and paypal will refund the peoples money.

If your kit works you wont need to worry about refunds.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #70 on: January 13, 2012, 02:06:02 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #71 on: January 13, 2012, 05:09:34 PM »
Hello Chris

I wonder if you could perhaps take the trouble to read the papers.  We cover that point about capacitors.

Regards,
Rosemary

Offline CuriousChris

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 261
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #72 on: January 14, 2012, 02:30:47 AM »

I had read it but I wanted you to cover it again for your own sake

Quote
Therefore, to test whether this retained
potential difference is  a  required condition to enable the
oscillation, capacitors were applied to the circuit during
operation when the oscillation was fully established. The
batteries were then disconnected leaving the capacitors in
series with the circuit and the oscillation then collapsed to  a
zero  voltage. This evidence may support the conclusion that
the retained potential difference at the primary supply source
is required, if not entirely responsible,  for driving this
oscillation.

The conclusion is correct. In that one paragraph you have proved the device is not OU.

If any current was SOURCED from the device it would have recharged the capacitor(s) and provided the necessary potential difference to keep the cct running.

This simple test showed that any current you were seeing "flowing back into the battery" was little more than leakage current caused by the breakdown of the Zener diodes. Because you used an inductive load, when Q2 was switched off by the signal generator, the flux around the inductor collapses and causes a voltage spike (cemf). The voltage quickly exceeds the zeners breakdown voltage of 1000V and current flows back to the battery, because the voltage is quite high it 'recharges' the battery, but only by a very small amount.

I won't enter the discussion on the signal generator being the source of energy because I could not find any details about it. In any real test it must be factored into it. it sources current into the system so that MUST be taken into account. In general signal generators are quite low impedance as well, some I have seen as low as 50 ohms, which means that current can flow through the generator in ways that needs to be accounted for.

If you still fail to see your own test as proof the system is UU. The next test is not so much harder.

Supply a large source of liquid (preferably repleneshing i.e. from a tap) place your heater element in the liquid (flow).
Calculate the watt hours the battery can give you
Calculate the wattage used by the heater element (remember to use Vrms or determine your duty cycle and use that to calculate the watt hours your load consumes)
Properly heatsink your mosfets so they don't fail during the test. (perhaps use the same water supply? you can buy liquid cooled heat sinks. just look up liquid cooled PC's)

Turn your device on

Wait n hours (till the batteries have consumed their calculated watt hours). Smile you are 1/3 of the way there.

Wait another n*2 hours (if you have true OU it won't matter how long you wait, but it should be this at a minimum)

If its still running return to the capacitor problem and try and work out a "COGENT" explanation for why it failed. If you can't explain it in a simple scientific way don't try to make Shit Up. Just accept you don't know why the capacitor test failed and let the physicists determine why the caps failed.


If you reach this point then do as I suggest. market your device in kit form. it will both generate an income for you and silence your critics.

I will be the first to buy one, provided it is suitably guaranteed of course.

On to the flame wars you are having with poynt99. It is doing you no favours, You are behaving in such a condescending manner, and your verboseness indicates you seem to relish in it. What does that say about you as a person?

Just agree to disagree with Poynt99 and leave it at that.


CC


Offline Bubba1

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 80
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #73 on: January 14, 2012, 04:22:22 AM »
... POWER IS NOT WATTAGE....  Power is ALWAYS REPRESENTED AS JOULES which is vi dt. 

Rosemary

OMG!
Rose, how many times can you get this wrong????
JOULES IS NOT POWER!!!!!

Offline hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7937
    • free energy research OverUnity.com
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #74 on: January 14, 2012, 05:00:51 AM »
Dear Harti,

Thank you for getting back to me.  And compliments of the season.  I trust you had a good holiday.
If I understand this correctly you're asking where we measured the power FROM the generator in the application of that signal at the transistors.  If this is right we explained this in the paper.  We measured the amount of power and found it to not only be negligible but to have a negative value in relation to the supply.  Therefore it would served to DEPLETE rather than to ADD to the energy coming from the battery.  In any event the current value is that negligible that it can be comfortably factored into the margins for error. 




No, I meant to measure the power into the function generator at the grid input of the function generator, so at the 230 Volts AC side with a digital power meter.

Quote
We used high wattage resistors PRECISELY because we were generating HIGH CURRENT.  No doubt it would be preferred to use those highly calibrated shunt resistors but, unfortunately, they were and are outside our budget.  HOWEVER - the problems associated with the small inductances on those resistors are only relevant if our measurements of energy are marginal.  This is not the case in any of the examples included in that paper. 
Margins for error has been factored in and most certainly IS referenced in that paper.


You can build yourself very cheaply NONINDUCTIVE Shunts for high power by using a parallel and serial circuit of
SMD shunt resistors. These are noninductive then.

Quote
We tested this on a 555 switch.  Reference again in that paper.  The results are the same.  And our results were measured using a Tektronix oscilloscope meter in conjunction with the LeCroy.  They give precisely equivalent results.  The Tektronix is not grounded.  Therefore the LeCroy results are confirmed not be influenced by ground.  We only used the LeCroy screen downloads for the paper because they are clearer and gives a fuller account of the circuit values.

Lets exactly see the circuit diagram then on this and also a new video with this.
How is the 555 circuit powered ?

Will the circuit then also put out these power levels without any scope
or measurement gear connected ?
Just the 12 Volt car batteries and the circuit alone ?

Also you should use a professional battery capacity meter so see the
remaining energy still stored inside the batteries.

 

OneLink