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: 83537
  • *Latest: Skyrob

  • *Total Posts: 514441
  • *Total Topics: 15310
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 1
  • *Guests: 12
  • *Total: 13

Author Topic: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.  (Read 665607 times)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #75 on: January 14, 2012, 05:06:52 AM »
Let's get back to your original comments here Chris

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.
Where has anyone, ever, in this proud history of quantum electromagnetic engineering - ever been able to isolate an electric current - store it in a capacitor - away from its source - and then use it to continuously supply an electric current?  Are you seriously proposing that we first perform feats of magic where we deplete all potential difference on a circuit - and then expect current to 'magically' ignore this lack and still operate under conditions required in term of inductive laws?  Because, I assure you - that FAR exceeds our claim.  Our reference of that test - in our paper - was PRECISELY to PROVE that a retained potential difference is REQUIRED.  I believe this conforms to the KNOWN conditions required to generate electric current flow.

Therefore - where you state that ... 

If the cct continues to oscillate congratulations. If not the cct is not OU.
in order to first PROVE OU - is somewhat outside our mere mortal capabilities.  We have only determined that current flow carries properties of charge.  We most certainly do NOT claim that this charge can isolated from its source.  ON THE CONTRARY.  :o

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.
And we most certainly DO propose that capacitors are fundamentally different to batteries.  We proved this precisely by that test.  The batteries retain their potential difference.  Capacitors DO NOT.  Again.  That is precisely why this test was referenced in that paper.

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 only.   ;D   Perhaps you can propose a solution.  That would be much appreciated by not only us - but by the entire global community.  You would, however, have to rewrite science.  We DO NOT presume to go to such extraordinary lengths.  Indeed - we ONLY use standard physics within the standard model.

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.
Interesting conclusion Chris.  I suppose we could - as you suggest - simply pretend that the retained potential difference in the battery has no value.  It would be a really novel take on energy efficiency.  But, at a stretch - I suppose we could ALL manage this - if we tried hard enough.  Clearly you've set us a good example.

And then to your post script.
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.
Feel free.  You know how to put the circuit together.  So?  Try it out and then sell those units.  Personally I'm more into promoting the thesis - which logic somehow eludes you.

Kindest regard,
Rosemary

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 #76 on: January 14, 2012, 05:30:50 AM »

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.
No we've not done this - but I'll attend to it. 

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.
I have no intention of changing the conditions on the existing artifact.  But I'll certainly do a second build and include these shunts if you require them.  If I can't source them  - then presumably you can.

Lets exactly see the circuit diagram then on this and also a new video with this.
How is the 555 circuit powered ?
I'm afraid I lost my camera on holiday.  I'll be replacing it when and if I get an insurance refund and that may take a bit of time.  However - the circuit is described in the paper and in the circuit diagram in Peswiki.   And the 555 can be powered by an independent supply or by connections straight to the supply batteries of the apparatus.

Will the circuit then also put out these power levels without any scope or measurement gear connected ?
No.  Here we have a problem.  We tune it according to the value in the math trace of the LeCroy.  It's a critical measurement.  Can you access an equivalent scope?  If not then I may be able to rally.

Just the 12 Volt car batteries and the circuit alone ?
Another small problem.  We may actually need more batteries that your stipulated maximum.  Is this negotiable.  It would be a shame to take the trouble to demonstrate this without the energy required to take water to boil.

Also you should use a professional battery capacity meter so see the
remaining energy still stored inside the batteries.
It would be nice to do a full evaluation of the battery.  I agree.  I have NOT gone that route because there's a warning on our batteries that their efficiency is compromised if they're opened.  So I've left them sealed as I can't afford to let them degrade.  They're way outside my budget to replace. Again.  We can make a plan.

Regards,
Rosemary
edited.  Added the word 'source'.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #77 on: January 14, 2012, 05:36:18 AM »
OMG!
Rose, how many times can you get this wrong? ???
JOULES IS NOT POWER!!!!!

I agree with you Bubba.  Always have.  Joules certainly IS NOT POWER.  It is the measure of power dissipated. 

Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #77 on: January 14, 2012, 05:36:18 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline CuriousChris

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 261
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #78 on: January 14, 2012, 06:46:30 AM »

It's sad Rosemary I was hoping that you were in fact a serious researcher. obviously you are not, in fact it appears you are little more than a troll. You pick and choose what you wish to respond to and ignore other comments.
Rather than pay heed to those who wish to help, if they don't agree implicitly with you you denigrate them as fools. The only true fools on this forum are the ones who do not question another's claims.

OU is simple to prove, Pin < Pout. Its not beyond mere mortals. My second form of proof is beyond reproach which is obviously why you ignored it.

You claim infinite OU, Err sorry infinite COP, by that definition your one cct should be able to power every device in the world and still be hardly touched.

I don't doubt you will continue with your rant. Good luck with that. Its a shame because you are obviously very intelligent and your ability with the written word is outstanding. In any other circumstance I would admire you.

CC

P.S.
1 Watt = 1 joule / 1 second
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt

Offline hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7937
    • free energy research OverUnity.com
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #79 on: January 14, 2012, 06:55:15 AM »
Rosemary, at least get such a battery tester or simular one,
it is not too expensive.
You can read the customer recommendations on Amazon about it.



Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #79 on: January 14, 2012, 06:55:15 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #80 on: January 14, 2012, 07:52:19 AM »
My dear Curious Chris,  I have just read your last post and have not yet answered this.  Give me a break.  I have only two hands and - according to Poynty Point - a seriously impaired mind to operate with.  I was indeed going to get around to this post.  It's ALARMING - on so many levels.

I had read it but I wanted you to cover it again for your own sake
Kind of you to keep my own interests in mind.  It's a first from one such as yourself.  Thank you - INDEED.

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.
I've covered this point.  Unless you want to add to it?  Happy to consider all alternatives here.  Who knows?  Perhaps you know something about the properties of current that is NOT widely understood.  If so, then please advise us.

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.
If those diodes are leaking then it's a SERIOUS leak.  Upwards of 5 amps.  Golly.


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.
Which is why we took the trouble to measure it.

This next comment is the source of my concern.
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)
We HAVE done this test.  Did you miss this in our papers?  What we did NOT do was test the battery to its duration.  Nor will we.  Because that's for comment and analysis by Chemistry experts.  None of the collaborators are chemists.

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.
So well put Curious Chris.  Couldn't have managed it better myself.  INDEED.  We DO NOT EXPLAIN THIS.  INDEED WE APPEAL TO OUR ACADEMICS TO EXPLAIN THIS.  INDEED WE DO NOT MAKE SHIT UP.  We have gone out of our way to ensure that the assessments for the observed anomalies are addressed by our academic experts.  It's in the paper.  Again.  Did you read it?

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.
If you don't mind I'll pass on this.  But feel free to build your own kit.  I'm not that anxious to sell you anything at all.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #81 on: January 14, 2012, 08:16:24 AM »
Golly I'm getting seriously old.  I missed this comment entirely.


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


Flame wars?  Is that how you describe my hard fought efforts?  I don't think so.  A 'flame war' is NEVER RESOLVED.  By definition it comprises a slew of unsubstantiated allegations that are not logically argued.  It requires the heavily polarised opinion of all who engage.  It is confrontational and entirely destructive.  I hope that I NEVER engage in such nonsense.  It's not my style.  I prefer to keep things either clear - logical - or amusing.  If I rant - then I own up to it.  And I try - to the best of my ability - to stick to the POYNT.

On the other hand!  It seems to be the preferred tactic of Poynty Point.  He does NOT engage in argument as he simply CANNOT.  His grounds are too thin - brittle - shaky.  So.  He indulges in some rather facile attempts at posing either 'exasperation at my continuing stupidity' or 'indignation at my apparent lack of logic or understanding' and he DARE NOT ARGUE ANYTHING AT ALL.  This is because he cannot.

May I remind you Curious Christopher - that Poynty Point has replicated our experiment on his own simulation program.  That he saw precisely the same results.  And that he then proceeded to amass the most curious analysis that has ever confronted standard physics and conventional thinking - by seriously proposing to multiply a positive voltage - with a negative voltage to substantiate what was meant to be an outright refutation of that proof.  And NO ONE, to the best of my knowledge, confronted him with any arguments against those utterly fallacious conclusions.  THEN.  As if that was not enough - he proceeded to endorse, allow and even engage in the most serious exercise in slander that has ever disgraced these forums.  Nor would I have done anything EXCEPT THAT he then also encouraged a renewed attack on yet another hopeful experimentalist.  That he ignored the evidence of Rossi's extraordinary technology and yet will engage in these facile attempts at pack hunting claimants as his daily forum diet was actually more than I could stomach. I decided - FOR ONCE - to challenge him on his own grounds.  And that challenge still holds.  Clearly he is unable to answer it.  I can stomach any personal insults.  But I most certainly will NOT allow his continuing agenda to deny evidence in the face of that evidence.  If he is seriously looking for OU - then ARGUE OUR CLAIM.  We have measured proof.

Regards,
Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #81 on: January 14, 2012, 08:16:24 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #82 on: January 14, 2012, 08:25:55 AM »
It's sad Rosemary I was hoping that you were in fact a serious researcher. obviously you are not, in fact it appears you are little more than a troll. You pick and choose what you wish to respond to and ignore other comments.

are you really that asinine? you accuse rose of what you have just committed...  ::)
as evidenced by the record...
Let's get back to your original comments here Chris
Where has anyone, ever, in this proud history of quantum electromagnetic engineering - ever been able to isolate an electric current - store it in a capacitor - away from its source - and then use it to continuously supply an electric current?  Are you seriously proposing that we first perform feats of magic where we deplete all potential difference on a circuit - and then expect current to 'magically' ignore this lack and still operate under conditions required in term of inductive laws?

you cherrypicked and completely avoided answering her...  i submit you are the troll. i assume you will continue to cherrypick and avoid an answer...

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #83 on: January 14, 2012, 08:37:18 AM »
And as for this nonsense.

It's sad Rosemary I was hoping that you were in fact a serious researcher. obviously you are not, in fact it appears you are little more than a troll. You pick and choose what you wish to respond to and ignore other comments.
Rather than pay heed to those who wish to help, if they don't agree implicitly with you you denigrate them as fools. The only true fools on this forum are the ones who do not question another's claims.
When I need help from the likes of you - Curious Chris - then I'll ask for it.

OU is simple to prove, Pin < Pout. Its not beyond mere mortals. My second form of proof is beyond reproach which is obviously why you ignored it.
I did not ignore it.  Kindly refer to my previous post.

You claim infinite OU, Err sorry infinite COP, by that definition your one cct should be able to power every device in the world and still be hardly touched.
That would, indeed, be very nice.  IF ONLY.  But it is NOT our claim - and NOR IS IT FEASIBLE.  May I remind you.  Our arguments conform to the standard model.  I'm not sure it allows a simple capacitor to power the whole wide world.  But again.  Wouldn't that be nice. ;D

I don't doubt you will continue with your rant. Good luck with that. Its a shame because you are obviously very intelligent and your ability with the written word is outstanding. In any other circumstance I would admire you.
I can ASSURE YOU that my intelligence is DECIDEDLY AVERAGE.  It does NOT take exceptional intelligence to either UNDERSTAND the standard model of physics or to argue the simple requirements in power analysis.  THAT is the issue.  Not my abilities. 

If I was looking to win a popularity contest then there's an outside chance that I'd fail.   ;D   But my popularity or otherwise is NOT THE ISSUE. The issue is that we have an over unity claim based on experimental evidence - that Poynty Point is denying.  And I most urgently require that to be addressed.  Unless, of course, you recommend that I simply say nothing and allow a valuable potential technology to be BURIED by POYNTY and his pack of protesters?  I'm not inclined to oblige you.

And regarding this postscript? What exactly is your point?  I don't think I've argued against it.
1 Watt = 1 joule / 1 second

Kindest regards
Rosemary

ADDED  ;D

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #83 on: January 14, 2012, 08:37:18 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #84 on: January 14, 2012, 08:45:41 AM »
WILBY - just seen your post.  THANK GOD YOU'RE STILL THERE.  It's been lonely here.  THANK YOU.

Kindest as ever
Rosie

Offline Bubba1

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 80
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #85 on: January 14, 2012, 05:12:58 PM »
I agree with you Bubba.  Always have.  Joules certainly IS NOT POWER.  It is the measure of power dissipated. 
Rosemary

Watts is a measure of power.
Joules is a measure of energy.
Power and energy are related the same way speed and distance are related, and you keep getting power and energy mixed up.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #85 on: January 14, 2012, 05:12:58 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #86 on: January 14, 2012, 05:44:33 PM »
Watts is a measure of power.
Joules is a measure of energy.
Power and energy are related the same way speed and distance are related, and you keep getting power and energy mixed up.

Bubba why are you plugging this?  I took the trouble to look up the definition in wiki.  Here it is
 In physics, power is the rate at which energy is transferred, used, or transformed. For example, the rate at which a light bulb transforms electrical energy into heat and light is measured in watts—the more wattage, the more power, or equivalently the more electrical energy is used per unit time

NOTE - it uses the word EQUIVALENTLY.  And I've used both words in precisely these contexts.  But I'll check with someone who  really does know and will get back to you.  Maybe by Monday.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary


Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3586
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #87 on: January 14, 2012, 09:28:36 PM »
Dear three readers of this thread,

Watt (W) is the UNIT of power (P).
Joule (J) is the UNIT of Energy (E).

Rosemary in her ignorance is rallying to have "P" thrown out entirely, and have "W" put in it's place for power equations.  ::) How absurd!

Here is the nonsense I'm referring to:
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.

Rosemary will next be rallying to have "I" for current changed to "A" for Amperes, since Amperes is the unit of current. ::)   Imagine this, instead of I=V/R, she would have it as A=V/R.  ???

The terms Pin and Pout are most certainly not my invention. But then most folks here already know this, even the amateur experimentalists. Complaining about using shortened versions of "input power" and "output power" when it is quite clear what they mean, is you playing "silly-bugger". When calculating the efficiency of an electrical device, one common method of determining "n" (efficiency) is to divide the output power in Watts by the input power in Watts, i.e. n=Pout/Pin. So if you have a problem with this commonly-used and accepted terminology, then it is your problem alone. Get over it.

"Power is always represented as Joules" according to Rosemary. Incorrect!

Power is given in Watts, and Energy is given in Joules. Watts and Joules are UNITS for power and energy respectively.

Rosemary, you are hopelessly confused about power and energy measurements. Please stop spreading your nonsense. Oh, and don't always count on Wiki as being a reliable source for correct information.
.99

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3586

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #89 on: January 15, 2012, 01:21:17 AM »
Hello again Poynty Point

Always a pleasure to hear from you.

Unless Harti's 'view' rates - as recorded - are GROSS misrepresentations of this, then I think we both know that there's upwards of 600 hits here a day.  In fact, by tomorrow this time I'll be able to give you an EXACT count.  I have a friend who keeps record.  Which leaves us with a problem.  Which of those three readers of that > 600 or thereby who are reading here, are you addressing?  Personally I get the distinct impression that you're rather relying on the fact that there ARE only 3 readers.  But we all of us realise that you're not inclined to allow mere facts - or raw data -  shape your opinion.  So.  I have a small problem?  What to do?  Find out who you're appealing to and ask them to answer you?  Or simply answer you myself?  Since I doubt that there are any telepaths reading this that they can inform us all, and in view of the URGENCY of the matter - frankly, it's probably better that I deal with this.  Else everyone reading here will assume that there's ever any merit at all in applying those grossly erroneous conventions of PIN AND POUT. 

In any event I've split the following posts into one each for each reference.  Else the page just looks confusing.

R

 

OneLink