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 857158 times)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #615 on: February 10, 2012, 03:11:55 AM »
Well.  I've woken up to a clean slate. How nice is that?  Hopefully the day nears that this thread can FINALLY be concluded.  Much needed.  The level of counter argument is now regressing to the point that only intelligent input is my own.  And, as we all know, I have none.  Which means that the rather preposterous reach in our experimental evidence is likely to fold under the weight of nothing more onerous than the light relief afforded by it's potential comic value.   :o Which was never the intention.  I had rather hoped that this claim of ours would merit some EARNEST consideration.   8)

Since the subtleties of the circuit performance entirely ELUDE my protagonists - and since they can only repeatedly SHOW how they've missed the POYNT - and since this debate is likely to rage on and continue to confuse the hell out of everyone involved here - then here's my proposal.  Actually it's NOT my proposal.  It's Magsy's.

Was thinking   :o

If Rose sets up her circuit and is able to figure how much power(watts) is spent into heating the water, then we could come up with an equivalent load and a second set of batteries for that load.

Now run both setups together. Which battery pack drains first.  :o   
Seems fair enough.

Mags


I'll set up the required controls.  I'll re-run the test by 'swapping batteries'.  I'll do this a 3rd time IF required - SUBJECT ONLY TO THIS.

That Professor Emeritus Steven E Jones find us 2 or even 3 EXPERTS in electrical engineering - to CONFIRM that this test is then conclusive subject obviously to a close description of the test vs the control - and to the comparative values of both tests.

That those academics are prepared to stake their reputations on the outcome - which means that the monitoring of these results will need the added supervision of someone HERE IN SOUTH AFRICA - who will be considered a credible witness to those results.

I think that Professor would be able to find us some candidates for this endorsement as its likely he has some colleagues in the engineering department.  And those colleagues will likely know someone here is a SA academy -  who may then 'adjudicate' those tests.

Failing which, UNFORTUNATELY - both Poynty and Professor will simply have to concede our claim by DEFAULT.  Or alternatively they must acknowledge our protocols and then witness a demonstration.  I see no other viable option.  And if NONE of these options are considered then we'll call on them both to 'cough up' that prize money - or those coins - or both - as we've WON BY DEFAULT.  We're rather keen on getting some transfer of ownership here. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie. 

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #616 on: February 10, 2012, 04:04:07 AM »
Rosemary Ainslie, you did NOT produce free energy or achieve anything other than making yourself look foolish.  This is good news, since you no longer need to piss away your food stamp money on worthless contraptions.

I am recommending "Physics For Dummies" for you to read.
www.amazon.com/Physics-Dummies-Math-Science/dp/0470903244

You do not understand even the most basic concepts of physics.  You don't know how to take proper measurements either.  A free energy machine would NEVER need batteries to run.  Just the fact that your contraption uses batteries means that it does not work.

Hello again replaced.  Delighted to see your input.  IF you are right - then CERTAINLY our PROPOSED EXPERIMENT WILL FAIL.  Which means that you will be VINDICATED.  And I'm sure you'd enjoy that.  And I'm reasonably sure that you're enough of a scientist to KNOW how important is experimental evidence.  So.  Let's see what some actual tests demonstrate.  Then neither you nor I need to gainsay those results.  Or are you rather frightened that those results will prove you wrong?  Don't be alarmed.  If popular opinion is anything to go by - then you're in really good company.

As ever,
Rosie Pose

And might I add (AMIA) - AGAIN - (AMIAA) - that I do not, nor ever have, subscribed to Free Energy.  I don't even know what could be meant by free energy.  No such thing. 

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #617 on: February 10, 2012, 04:12:15 AM »
Your experiment will fail, so running it is absolutely pointless.  I know this ahead of time due to the laws of thermodynamics. 

First tell me which thermodynamic equation is wrong, because if the equations are correct then your experiment will never work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_thermodynamic_equations

I'm not sure that I'm about to oblige you in a long discussion about anything at all.  If you are interested then read our paper.  If you are simply sharing your opinion - feel free.  If you think that I'm about to engage in any kind of discussion with you - then disabuse yourself. I'm already in a discussion.  And that's with Poynty and with Professor Emeritus Steven E Jones.  They need to evaluate some experimental evidence.  Failing which they need to cough up with some rather desirable properties related to their prize.  And that prize is NOT for FREE ENERGY.   It's for proof of over unity.

Regards,
Rosemary

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #618 on: February 11, 2012, 01:21:41 AM »
Ok Guys,

I'm going to assume that I've been given permission to post extracts from our second paper - directly to this blog.  Not sure, as I've not heard from Stefan.  But I'll risk it. If it's frowned upon - just know that it's intended to advance the standard model.  Which should keep our purists happy.  And it's only intended as an offer of our own modest concepts - which may, or may not be appreciated and may or may not warrant further discussion.  In the unlikely event that it gets there - then hopefully we can continue this on another thread.

Before I get there - just a quick reference to MileHigh who, rather endearingly, assumes that if it's in black and white - and if it comes from his own key board - then it's most certainly 'CORRECT'.  His opinions about his own 'knowledge' is refreshingly untrammeled by any need to impose logic on any proposal that he makes.  Whereas, in point of fact, and as Poynty describes it  - 'he errors'.  All over the place. 

My dear MileHigh.  That 'signal terminal' as you've taught me to refer to it - from the function generator - includes a ground terminal.  The TWO TERMINALS ARE NOT CONNECTED other than through 3 or 4 optional signal signal settings - including, among others, a square wave output signal.  THAT's the signal we apply.  Now.  Follow my lead.  The connection is from that ground terminal - through approximately 1000 Ohms of resistance and wiring - then BACK through about 50 Ohms of resistance in the signal terminal and then to the GATE OF Q1.

IF you are proposing that the current is flowing from the battery supply to that that negative terminal and then back through to the positive terminal - effectively breaching upwards of 1050 Ohms of resistance - then the resulting waveform from that signal generator would show a voltage upwards of 70 volts.  At the risk of merely using the evidence of the waveform itself I'll take the trouble to post YET ANOTHER DETAIL of the ACTUAL WAVEFORM taken at the GATE of Q1.

ALTERNATIVELY - IF you are proposing that the current from the battery flows onto the negative terminal and then skips that circuitry in the signal generator and simply 'flies through the air' onto the signal terminal - then it would need to breach all that plastic insulation coating those terminals.  And I suspect, that we would then need to see some evidence of arcing. 

IF you are assuming that we have NOT taken careful measurement of the heat that has been dissipated at the element resistor - then think again.  Our paper refers. IF the significance of this ELUDES YOU then NOTA BENE.  If the temperature of the load resistor exceeds 70 watts or thereby - then we have recorded the temperature as it relates to boiling point of the water in which that element resistor is immersed.

Why is it that I'm the ONLY one who is managing any kind of valid argument?  The only comfort, at least, is that both Poynty Point and Professor Steven E Jones have run out of both objections and excuses. Which means that they both need to OFFICIALLY WITHDRAW THAT PRIZE AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IT'S JUST A RUSE AND WILL ONLY EVER BE CONSIDERED AS QUALIFYING FOR THAT PRIZE AS APPLIED TO THOSE DEMONSTRATIONS THAT THEY KNOW THEY CAN DISPROVE - IN ADVANCE.  Anyway.  I'll try and download that detail and hope to hell that you understand the significance of this.  Then I'll try and close up with a final argument.  And then I'll post over that paper.  And then HOPEFULLY - I'll be able to get on with my life.

Kindest regards MileHigh.  Your writing style is superb.  Your arguments are BASELESS.
Rosie

Edited
changed you're to your.  I'm getting seriously OLD.
added '...TO THOSE DEMONSTRATIONS THAT THEY KNOW THEY CAN DISPROVE - IN ADVANCE.'
and then again added 'AS QUALIFYING FOR THAT PRIZE AS' ostensibly to make the point clearer - and actually to emphasise this.

 :D 8)
« Last Edit: February 11, 2012, 03:41:36 AM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #619 on: February 11, 2012, 01:43:24 AM »
So now temperature is measured in Watts.

And we see another uninterpretable oscilloscope trace that shows neither a 3.5 percent duty cycle nor an integration of an instantaneous power curve.

Rosemary, you really are incompetent. In just the last two pages, you have erred : in the definition of energy and power; the units of each; the math relating Watts, Joules, and time; how to get power from current and voltage traces; how to interpret a simple algebraic equation; what "C" means in reference to a capacitor; and now you have temperature measured in Watts.

And you have accused me of being an incompetent experimentalist. Please... I have posted YT videos of many of my experimental sessions looking at your various claims. Please... point out EXACTLY where I have exhibited incompetence in my experimentation. Give a link to the particular experiment and the time. If you cannot support your accusation of incompetence with factual references, you really should withdraw your characterization.


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #620 on: February 11, 2012, 02:00:06 AM »
So now temperature is measured in Watts.

And we see another uninterpretable oscilloscope trace that shows neither a 3.5 percent duty cycle nor an integration of an instantaneous power curve.

Rosemary, you really are incompetent. In just the last two pages, you have erred : in the definition of energy and power; the units of each; the math relating Watts, Joules, and time; how to get power from current and voltage traces; how to interpret a simple algebraic equation; what "C" means in reference to a capacitor; and now you have temperature measured in Watts.

And you have accused me of being an incompetent experimentalist. Please... I have posted YT videos of many of my experimental sessions looking at your various claims. Please... point out EXACTLY where I have exhibited incompetence in my experimentation. Give a link to the particular experiment and the time. If you cannot support your accusation of incompetence with factual references, you really should withdraw your characterization.

LOL.  What lengths you go to TK.  Your efforts are TIRELESS.  But I'll pass - if you don't mind. I'm rather reluctant to look at your videos. They're boring at best.  And we've already dealt with the problem of your poor aptitudes.  Quite apart from which - I prefer to watch videos by those who I respect and admire.  But I think you've already advertised your work in an earlier post.  If you feel the need to repost this?  Then PLEASE.  Feel free.  Do so again.  I'm sure Harti will give you the space.  And I certainly don't begrudge it.  It's not as if it makes a blind bit of difference.

Regards,
Rosie Posie


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #621 on: February 11, 2012, 02:15:07 AM »
LOL.  What lengths you go to TK.  Your efforts are TIRELESS.
On the contrary... I am getting seriously tired of your prevarication, mendacity, and willful incompetence -- not to mention your profound disrespect for others, who have spent a lot more time than you have on their academic and other credentials. A high-school dropout with no math, no physics, no chemistry, no electrical engineering.... no patent.... no publications..... nothing but delusions.... trying to discuss electronics issues with the experts.... it would be laughable if it wasn't so boring.
Quote
But I'll pass - if you don't mind. I'm rather reluctant to look at your videos. They're boring at best.
I invite anybody reading here to take a look at my "boring" videos. Which is the most boring.... I think it's got to be one of the two where I educate Err-on about the state of the voltage at the Drain of your mosfet when it is turned ON by gate drive. They are pitched at about 6th grade level so Err-on and you might have a chance of understanding.
Quote
And we've already dealt with the problem of your poor aptitudes. 
Again.... I double dare you.... point out just where my "aptitudes" are "poor". I'm a good teacher. Again, I invite anyone reading here to look at my demonstrations and critique them.
Quote
Quite apart from which - I prefer to watch videos by those who I respect and admire.
You mean those who agree with you. Who is left in that group? Certainly not Aaron or Harvey or others who once believed in your mendacity and errors.
Quote
But I think you've already advertised your work in an earlier post.  If you feel the need to repost this?  Then PLEASE.  Feel free.  Do so again.  I'm sure Harti will give you the space.  And I certainly don't begrudge it.  It's not as if it makes a blind bit of difference.

Regards,
Rosie Posie

Stefan sees my videos and occasionally comments there. I'm surprised that you are abusing his good graces in the way that you do.  Once again... I offer my TinselKoil for testing. Use exactly the same tests and protocols and analysis that you use for your circuit. My TKoil is basically your circuit with a different load and some other "minor" improvements, so your test procedures IF THEY ARE VALID for your device will also be valid for mine. You've seen what the TKoil will do.... it outperforms your silly circuit by a factor of at least 10,000. Why are you afraid to apply your measurements and analysis to it? I know why... it is because NOBODY is claiming that the TKoil is OU or has a COP over 1. Yet when measured in your manner, the COP comes out extremely high... even infinite if you like... and it does it while making a 4-inch long power arc that's so energetic that it actually burns the air gases into a plasma.
Meanwhile you can't even show your device boiling water... like I did.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7zQdplnCA8

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #622 on: February 11, 2012, 02:37:32 AM »
My dear Tinsel Koala,

You have most certainly NEVER managed our tests related to our paper.  From your insistence on these rather antiquated references, I'm not sure that you're even on the same page.  But even if you are - who cares?  I don't.  And nor do I care WHAT you think.  Nor is there any legislation required to FORCE me to care.

I get the general impression that you actually don't think that much of me OR my abilities.  Fortunately your opinion doesn't really matter.  Not to me - anyway.  If the readers here are concerned - then?  Just don't bother to read here - is what I'd propose.  It's not as if it's COMPULSORY.  And I keep advising you.  If you feel the need to advertise yourself?  Feel free.  I'm sure Stefan will give you all the space you need.  Meanwhile - if you don't mind - I'll rabbit on about our ACTUAL experiment and our ACTUAL paper.  It is, after all, the topic under discussion. 

Take care TK, and try and reign in all that EGO.  It shows a want of moderation and balance.  Which is required if you want to promote the general impression that you're not neurotically competitive - or wildly obsessed.  Not sure which.  Either way - your work as you keep referencing it - has absolutely NOTHING to do with our paper, our claim, or even the subject of this thread.  It's just OFF TOPIC.  Unfortunately.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Posie 

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #623 on: February 11, 2012, 02:50:14 AM »
   
Guys here's that second part of that 2-part paper.  I'll split it into as many posts as are required.  Hopefully it'll engage some of you.

PROPOSED VARIATION TO FARADAY'S LINES OF FORCE TO INCLUDE A MAGNETIC DIPOLE IN IT'S STRUCTURE.

A PAPER prepared by Rosemary Ainslie, Donovan Martin, Evan Robinson, Mario Human, Alan Macey, Riaan Theron
 Abstract[/i]-A heat by product of an oscillation has an exploitable potential as this relates to the efficient use of energy, which is the subject of the first part of this two-part paper. This second part looks at the implications of that oscillation as it confronts certain assumptions related to current flow. An oscillation is induced on a circuit that then enables a reversing current flow that exceeds the circuit restrictions to this flow. This is explained using an extension to Faraday’s model of Lines of Force to include a dual charge in the material property of current flow. These explanations are nonstandard and form a small part of a magnetic field model that predicted and required these results. The analysis concludes that energy can be sourced from the inductive and conductive circuit material.

INTRODUCTION.

  A circuit (Fig 1) is designed to reliably induce an oscillation that is enabled for the duration that a negative signal is applied to the gate of the MOSFET Q1. The level of that oscillation can be varied through adjustments to the duty cycle and to the applied signal at the gate of the transistors. The waveforms (Figs 2 & 3) are typical examples of these oscillations that are induced from voltage measured across a current sensing resistor, (RSHUNT) and the battery supply. The oscillations are robust and they represent a current flow that continually reverses direction. This results in a wide swing of the battery voltage that climbs and falls, well above and below its rated capacity. Also, of interest is that there is no circuit path afforded for this discharging period of each cycle within the standard reference, as its path is blocked, both by the transistors’ body diodes and the negative signal applied at the transistors’ gates. Nor indeed have the transistors been compromised to allow for this half of each oscillation. This raises the questions as to what there is in the property of current flow relating to this oscillation that is able to exceed the circuit components’ physical restrictions to this flow and what accounts for the extreme range of the battery voltage resulting from this oscillation.
 


These questions can be answered within a classical context as it relates to the both the Laws of Charge and Inductive Laws, here modelled with a modification to the standard reference. The modifications are to concepts related to Faraday’s lines of force (Fig 3) that are extended to incorporate a dual charge in a proposed material property of current. Effectively the proposal is made that while multiple lines of force comprise a magnetic field, each line is structured from magnetic dipoles that are naturally organised at 180 degrees to each other. It is then argued that voltage is an imbalanced, open condition of a magnetic field and that current flow is the transfer of those fields through a circuit and back to its terminal source. By returning to the source it is then able to reduce that charge imbalance by closing those open lines or strings. In this way, the justification or direction of current flow is then led by either a positive or a negative charge depending on the applied voltage and the material source of that voltage. And this charge presentation can then be either repelled by, or attracted to, the ionised condition of various transistor materials or to the charge presented at the transistor’s gates. This would then allow for the flow of current or not, depending on the negative or positive charge presented to the circuit and circuit components that are in the path of that flow of current, and on the polarisation of the voltage that has induced that current flow.
...continued

 

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #624 on: February 11, 2012, 02:54:31 AM »
The question that remains outside the scope of this study, relates to the location of this source of this energy if it is not, in fact, coming from the battery supply source. This question goes to the heart of a thesis that was developed around a non-classical magnetic field model that predicted these results. The relevant aspect of that model is that it requires this oscillation as a result of the exchange of energy that is supplied by the circuit material. The proposal is that the voltage and the resulting reversing flow of the induced current from the oscillation itself, is led by an opposite charge to the battery primary supply and that the material property of charge is from the circuit material itself. These results are measured in tests that relate to the first part of this two-part paper. What is here intended is to model the current comprising magnetic dipoles and to show that the circuit paths would then allow that current reversal without a discharge of energy from the primary battery supply source

11 THE CIRCUIT APPARATUS

The experimental apparatus comprises a simple switching circuit (Fig. 1). 6 x 12 volt lead acid batteries are in series with both a heating element (RL1) and the Q-array of 5 MOSFET transistors (Q1 & Q2 x 4 in parallel). A signal generator drives the transistors. 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. Circuit components are listed in Table I.

A.  The Circuit Operation
The circuit is designed to allow a secondary current flow that is induced from the collapsing fields of inductive components in the material of the circuit, during the OFF period of the duty cycle and as a result of counter electromotive force (CEMF). A reverse current path is enabled by the paralleled Q-array positioning of MOSFETs (Q1 & Q2) that are configured to enable their body diodes to allow a counter clockwise current flow driven by a negative charge applied to the gate of Q1. This allows a current flow generated by CEMF, that returns to the battery supply source to recharge it. The oscillation occurs at a natural resonating frequency determined by the impedance of the circuit components. The adjustment to the offset also requires careful tuning to regulate the level of power required to be dissipated at the load.
...continued

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #625 on: February 11, 2012, 03:26:25 AM »
It seems I need to interrupt this to reference MileHigh's latest concerns.

My dear MileHigh.  OF COURSE the load current must flow through both the power supply and the function generator.  But this little interaction between the two currents is ONLY managed when the circuit is CLOSED that the battery is able to discharge any current at all.  Then INDEED the voltage at the gate of the signal generator increases.  I'll post YET ANOTHER example where the increase in the voltage is clear.  AS EVER. Follow the BLUE TRACE and relate that to the ORANGE trace.  BUT during the period that the circuit is OPEN when the battery cannot supply any current - THEN?  You will notice that the signal at the gate of Q1 defaults to below zero.  THEN it is EVIDENTIAL that the load current is NOT flowing through the function generator from that battery power supply.  ELSE it would be GREATER THAN ZERO.  IT IS NOT.

WHY am I having to show you this?  I'm meant to be the ignoramus here.  Come on MileHigh. You need to do MUCH better than this. And this posted here as your rather optimistic REBUTTAL - which is not a rebuttal at all. Here's that reference for those who don't read OUR.com

Another limitation of using this method is that the current available to your load is limited to the output current of the function generator you choose, since the load current must flow through both the power supply and the function generator. Also, most function generators have a 50-ohm output impedance, meaning any load current will flow through this resistance. This resistance will form a voltage divider with your load impedance, so be sure to adjust the DC power supply output voltage accordingly.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #626 on: February 11, 2012, 05:40:41 AM »
It's too bad that "oscilloscope abuse" isn't a crime. You'd be safely in jail by now.

Did you even bother to read the .pdf I linked on power supply measurements using oscilloscopes? Somehow I don't think so. You wouldn't have understood it anyway....

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #627 on: February 11, 2012, 07:40:13 AM »
And MORE interruptions.  MileHigh, Mags, giantkiller, PhysicsProf, Poynty  - to all my tireless detractors.

Let me presume to give you ALL an elementary lesson in the workings of your standard  N CHANNEL MOSFET TRANSISTOR.  Which is as boring as hell - but very obviously REQUIRED.  And for now you'll all have to overlook the irony of who is presuming to teach who - and just address the OBVIOUS NEED to explain this - IN SIMPLE TERMS.  Luckily for us all.  I'm SIMPLE MINDED. Therefore I'm OVER QUALIFIED for the task in hand.

Under standard circuit conditions - when a battery is applied to a circuit it is able to deliver potential difference.  Convention determines that this is delivered in the form of current flow and that the current flows from the positive terminal of the battery supply source to it's negative terminal.  That current flow results in a loss of potential difference from that supply.  Now.  Convention has ruled that the flow of current is consistent with the applied voltage.  Given a positive voltage the current is positive - ABOVE ZERO.  Given a negative voltage the current is negative - BELOW ZERO.  Convention also determines the that POSITIVE FLOW of current is shown to be CLOCKWISE.  And correspondingly the NEGATIVE FLOW of current is shown to be ANTI CLOCKWISE.  ALL, obviously, relative to the plus and minus terminals of that battery.

PROVIDED ONLY that the positive terminal is CONTINUOUSLY linked to the negative terminal of that battery supply source - PROVIDED that there are no GAPS in that circuit - and PROVIDED that there is enough POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE to breach any resistance in that circuit - THEN - as day follow night I can recommend that you can stake everything that you own - on a certainty.  Which is that we can confidently predict a systematic depletion of potential difference while the battery discharges a current flow that moves clockwise through the circuit FROM the positive terminal to the negative terminal.  I am not even THINKING of what makes up that current.  Just dealing with what's KNOWN.

NOW.  If we apply a transistor in series with that circuit then what that transistor IMMEDIATELY manages is to BREAK that CONTINUOUS LINE of circuitry.  It STOPS the flow of current IN IT'S TRACKS.  For as long as that transistor simply sites there - it has disconnected the battery terminals.  NO LONGER can that current be discharged to reduce the potential difference at the supply.  Again.  For as long as that transistor simply sits there - it has EFFECTIVELY BROKEN the circuit.  It has disconnected the positive terminal of the battery from the negative terminal of the battery.  And now.  You I can recommend that you can stake everything you own of the fact that there will be absolutely NO CURRENT FLOW

The MOSFET typically has three legs.  It has a DRAIN LEG which is linked to the POSITIVE TERMINAL of the battery.  And it has a SOURCE LEG which is linked directly to the NEGATIVE TERMINAL of the battery.

I didn't mean to but I see I HIT the post button.  Just as well.  This is getting rather long.  I'll continue this argument in the next post.
R

ADDED N CHANNEL. Sorry.   :o
« Last Edit: February 11, 2012, 03:38:47 PM by Rosemary Ainslie »

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 #628 on: February 11, 2012, 08:47:32 AM »

A heat by product of an oscillation has an exploitable potential as this relates to the efficient use of energy, which is the subject of the first part of this two-part paper. This second part looks at the implications of that oscillation as it confronts certain assumptions related to current flow. An oscillation is induced on a circuit that then enables a reversing current flow that exceeds the circuit restrictions to this flow. This is explained using an extension to Faraday’s model of Lines of Force to include a dual charge in the material property of current flow. These explanations are nonstandard and form a small part of a magnetic field model that predicted and required these results. The analysis concludes that energy can be sourced from the inductive and conductive circuit material.

INTRODUCTION.

  A circuit (Fig 1) is designed to reliably induce an oscillation that is enabled for the duration that a negative signal is applied to the gate of the MOSFET Q1. The level of that oscillation can be varied through adjustments to the duty cycle and to the applied signal at the gate of the transistors. The waveforms (Figs 2 & 3) are typical examples of these oscillations that are induced from voltage measured across a current sensing resistor, (RSHUNT) and the battery supply. The oscillations are robust and they represent a current flow that continually reverses direction. This results in a wide swing of the battery voltage that climbs and falls, well above and below its rated capacity. Also, of interest is that there is no circuit path afforded for this discharging period of each cycle within the standard reference, as its path is blocked, both by the transistors’ body diodes and the negative signal applied at the transistors’ gates. Nor indeed have the transistors been compromised to allow for this half of each oscillation. This raises the questions as to what there is in the property of current flow relating to this oscillation that is able to exceed the circuit components’ physical restrictions to this flow and what accounts for the extreme range of the battery voltage resulting from this oscillation.

These questions can be answered within a classical context as it relates to the both the Laws of Charge and Inductive Laws, here modelled with a modification to the standard reference. The modifications are to concepts related to Faraday’s lines of force (Fig 3) that are extended to incorporate a dual charge in a proposed material property of current. Effectively the proposal is made that while multiple lines of force comprise a magnetic field, each line is structured from magnetic dipoles that are naturally organised at 180 degrees to each other. It is then argued that voltage is an imbalanced, open condition of a magnetic field and that current flow is the transfer of those fields through a circuit and back to its terminal source. By returning to the source it is then able to reduce that charge imbalance by closing those open lines or strings. In this way, the justification or direction of current flow is then led by either a positive or a negative charge depending on the applied voltage and the material source of that voltage. And this charge presentation can then be either repelled by, or attracted to, the ionised condition of various transistor materials or to the charge presented at the transistor’s gates. This would then allow for the flow of current or not, depending on the negative or positive charge presented to the circuit and circuit components that are in the path of that flow of current, and on the polarisation of the voltage that has induced that current flow.
...continued


I'm in agreement with the portions I highlighted in bold on the above quote made by Rose.

An electron is an integration of electromagnetic waves.  We can define the electron as deformed magnetic space, propagated in wave form.  Now an electron, as a wave form, is moved in an (anti)clockwise circle. In this spiraloid movement it has a discontinuous wave surface rather like a spiral spring. The movement itself is not discontinuous, but only appears so by virtue of its spiraling movement. It also shows a magnetic phenomenon cancelling out the charge on one side which gives an observer the impression that the energy moves in jumps. Further, it is subject to the outcome of the difference of charge due to this magnetic effect, as well as the result of its rotation.

The so-called orbits K-L-M'0 are nothing but stationary electrical waves in the field of the atom, each having its particular wave structure and frequency. It is known that waves of varying length do not interfere with one another as is shown by radio, even though they occupy the same area of space.

Below is a quote I made earlier in this thread.  This issue must be settled before we know how to correctly measure the device, IMO.

Rosemary,

Thanks for the invite and for including me in this discussion.

Using the right hand and pointing the thumb in the direction of the moving positive charge or positive current and the fingers in the direction of the magnetic field the resulting force on the charge points outwards from the palm. The force on a negatively charged particle is in the opposite direction. If both the speed and the charge are reversed then the direction of the force remains the same. For that reason a magnetic field measurement (by itself) cannot distinguish whether there is a positive charge moving to the right or a negative charge moving to the left. (Both of these cases produce the same current.) On the other hand, a magnetic field combined with an electric field can distinguish between these, such as the Hall effect.

Until this distinction is made, then I have nothing more to say about this nonsense.

Gravock


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #629 on: February 11, 2012, 08:51:24 AM »
AS I WAS SAYING/...

The MOSFET typically has three legs.  It has a DRAIN LEG which is linked to the POSITIVE TERMINAL of the battery.  And it has a SOURCE LEG which is linked directly to the NEGATIVE TERMINAL of the battery.  Nothing too extraordinary.  BUT between these two legs it also has a GATE leg. And this gate is ALWAYS LEFT OPEN.  This is the point at which the circuit is BROKEN that the positive battery terminal has no CLUE how to find it's negative.  HOWEVER.  There is another property to that gate.  PROVIDED IT IS FED WITH A POSITIVE SIGNAL - which is in 'SYNCH', so to speak, with the that discharge of current flow from the battery - then VOILA it provides a BRIDGE to span that gap - that current can, indeed, flow.  Then the battery current can cross that bridge and move back to its source.   So the discharge of that energy from the battery supply source moves from the positive terminal - through the DRAIN LEG - onto the BRIDGE provided by that positive signal at the GATE LEG - and then through to the SOURCE LEG and back to the negative terminal of the battery.

Effectively, the function generator has applied a small potential difference to that Q1 gate.  Which - in turn, generates a small current flow.  And - in our function generator - this little bit of energy comes from a grid supply.  The generator pulls off a small amount of energy from the plug - induces a positive secondary voltage from this energy.  Which results in a small positive current flow.   And then it applies this at its signal terminal - to the gate leg of the MOSFET.  And since we're talking about our circuit - then all of this is managed at Q1.  Then this small current resulting from this applied positive voltage moves FROM the signal TERMINAL - through the gate leg of Q1 - through the source leg of Q1 ... and THEN BACK to the GROUND TERMINAL OF THE SIGNAL PROBE.

NOTA BENE. It does NOT send this energy back to the negative terminal of the battery but back to it's own ground.  And it ENDS UP at the PLUG OF THAT UTILITY SUPPLY SOURCE.  And HOW DO WE KNOW THIS?  It's simple.  If it the function generator could NOT return this current to its OWN source - then it would not be able to generate any current from an applied voltage. Any more than the battery can deliver current flow from ITS POSITIVE terminal if it cannot also return this current to ITS NEGATIVE terminal.  And this little bit of voltage and this little bit of current applied by the function generator - is the BRIDGE.  Which is constructed as a VIABLE  and SHARED current path that the battery USES to connect its own negative and positive terminals.  Then the battery can discharge its energy.  So.  That bridge has effectively CLOSED the circuit to enable a battery supply.

NOW.  Here's the thing.  It only takes a relatively SMALL signal in the form of an applied positive voltage - to manage that link.  To do this - we apply a signal from a function generator.  We set the signal probe of that function generator to the GATE of Q1 and apply a positive voltage in the form of a square wave.   And this positive voltage - as explained - generates a current that flows from the signal terminal to the gate of Q1 to the source leg of Q1 to the signal's ground - and back into the signal generator and back to the utility supplier.  And while it does this then, somehow, the current flow from the battery can 'piggy back' a ride on this current - and move from it's positive terminal to the Drain leg of Q1 - through to the gate - over the bridge provided by that signal terminal - through to the source - and back to ITS own battery negative terminal.  For a brief moment in time - those current flows are very much together - married - until the one separates into the signal's ground terminal and the other separtes onto the source rail of the battery to return to its negative terminal.

NOW.  All things being EQUAL.  When we CHANGE THAT SIGNAL at the gate to a NEGATIVE SIGNAL...

I'm posting this because I think it's long enough. 

Added some ... or that last sentence makes no sense.
Corrected to Q1 (wrote to Q2 - erroneously)
« Last Edit: February 11, 2012, 03:57:04 PM by Rosemary Ainslie »