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

User Menu

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.  (Read 831794 times)

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #960 on: March 13, 2012, 05:38:22 AM »
Poynty Point.  You say OF COURSE?  That means that your accede that the the current is flowing in both directions through the that rail of LED's notwithstanding their polarity?  Because what I'm telling you is that NOT ONLY does only that one rail light up.  It also STAYS permanently lit.  Even TK's video sample showed evidence of this.  Not sure why you should all find this of so little interest?  But there you go.  One can take the horse to water - but that's about it.

Kindest regards as it's much needed
Rosie Pose.

You don't understand.

No that's not what I said. Read it again:

Of course only one LED stays lit, the one pointing to the circuit.

The one (or many) pointing to the circuit is the one that lights when current is being DELIVERED by the battery.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #961 on: March 13, 2012, 05:41:50 AM »
You don't understand.

No that's not what I said. Read it again:

The one (or many) pointing to the circuit is the one that lights when current is being DELIVERED by the battery.

I DO understand.  That same one STAYS LIT when the current is NOT being delivered by the battery - is my point.  Poynty Point.  Pay attention.

Rosie Pose,

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #962 on: March 13, 2012, 05:46:05 AM »
If there is no current being delivered by the battery, and the diode is pointing towards the circuit, then the LED would not be lit.

Since it is always lit and it is directly in series with the battery, current is always being delivered by the battery.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #963 on: March 13, 2012, 06:05:17 AM »
If there is no current being delivered by the battery, and the diode is pointing towards the circuit, then the LED would not be lit.

Since it is always lit and it is directly in series with the battery, current is always being delivered by the battery.

NO Poynty.  Where's all that intellect I've accused you of?  We have two rails of LED's.  The one takes current from the battery supply.  The other takes current from CEMF.  TWO OPTIONAL PATHS.  Now.  We've got an oscillation.  Voltage moves equally - above and below zero.  Therefore, correspondingly, the current flows above and below zero in each oscillation.  Therefore - one would expect the current to move through either one or other of those rails - depending on that polarity.  NOW.  NOTA BENE.  There is NO CORRUPTION OF THAT OSCILLATING WAVEFORM - ON EITHER SIDE OF THOSE LED's.  YET.  Only ONE RAIL STAYS LIT.  And the other doesn't even turn on.  Not EXACTLY what our standard model would predict.  I would have thought?

Rosie Pose

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #964 on: March 13, 2012, 06:07:58 AM »

 NO Poynty.  Where's all that intellect I've accused you of?  We have two rails of LED's.  The one takes current from the battery supply.  The other takes current from CEMF.  TWO OPTIONAL PATHS.  Now.  We've got an oscillation.  Voltage moves equally - above and below zero.  Therefore, correspondingly, the current flows above and below zero in each oscillation.  Therefore - one would expect the current to move through either one or other of those rails - depending on that polarity.  NOW.  NOTA BENE.  There is NO CORRUPTION OF THAT OSCILLATING WAVEFORM - ON EITHER SIDE OF THOSE LED's.  YET.  Only ONE RAIL STAYS LIT.  And the other doesn't even turn on.  Not EXACTLY what our standard model would predict.  I would have thought?
 
 Rosie Pose

And when you've digested this much - then refer to our second paper.  There's a full on proposed explanation.  It's what this claim is all about.  LOL.

Again, and ever,
Rosie posie pose.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #965 on: March 13, 2012, 06:23:25 AM »
And guys,

While this is on my mind - let me explain something about TK's video.  You'll notice that he applied a mere 3 volts or thereby to the circuit while applying 10 volts or thereby from the signal generator.  The components were thereby intended to be 'stacked' that the applied signal would overpower the supply.  This certainly accounted for the entire lack of evidence of an oscillation in the first video.  But it leaves MANY unanswered questions in the second.  My personal opinion is that there's some 'connectivity' in the circuit that's either intentionally or otherwise - not being disclosed.  I cannot - otherwise - reconcile the fact that he gets any oscillation over the circuit components.  Unless he's deliberately routing the signal onto the only inductance available on that entirely undefined inductive load of his.  That would develop a potential difference - at least.  In which case it may explain why the signal waveform reduces.  But there would need to be some path available.  And I can't see this from his circuit.  It's simply not clear how that wiring is done.  That inductor is also on the breadboard that holds the Q-array. 

The other thing that he's trying to 'brush under the carpet' is the fact that his oscillation is never more than NOISE.  He seems to think that this is either robust or continuous.  It's neither.  Certainly NOT as is evident when he CLAIMS that the battery is disconnected. The one thing that was spot on - is that the applied signal over the battery is indeed sensitive to the 'off set'.  And albeit weak - that waveform across the battery was consistent.  But the 'off set' is simply a means by which the signal is applied in conjunction with a potentiometer that can - thereby - add to the resistance.  It's not 'negative' or 'positive' so much as 'higher' or 'lower'.  But INDEED.  That waveform is consistent with what we find.  But it most certainly is NOT possible without an applied signal.  And that signal does NOT need to come from a function generator as he's ALLEGING. 

Anyway.  That's food for thought.  Hopefully TK will make things clearer as time goes by.  I was rather hoping for more force in all that argument of his - and more rigour in that rather sad little summation he offered. I'm rather inclined to think he was trying to trivialise everything.  I think we need some more transparency in his approach - if he's really going to manage a DEBUNK.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

added

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #966 on: March 13, 2012, 08:15:38 AM »
@Glen Lettenmaier

I would caution you to acknowledge your sources - IF you're going to post over copious copies of information about batteries.  Else you're exposing Harti to unnecessary risk of litigation.

It's one thing to STEAL my paper.  It's an ENTIRELY different thing when you 'carte blanche' steal ownership of anyone else's.  Surely you've got SOME measure of professionalism there?  We'd all be glad to see some evidence of it.

Rosemary

spelling
« Last Edit: March 13, 2012, 04:24:12 PM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #967 on: March 13, 2012, 08:31:23 AM »
@Glen Lettenmaier

I would caution you to acknowledge your sources - IF you're going to post over copious copies of information about batteries.  Else you're exposing Harti to unnecessary risk of litigation.

It's one thing to STEAL my paper.  It's an ENTIRELY different thing when you 'carte blance' steal ownership of anyone else's.  Surely you've got SOME measure of professionalism there?  We'd all be glad to see some evidence of it.

Rosemary

Reading members and guests,
 
For the record a re-post that I am now a "THIEF" as shown by Rosemary Ainslie ...... again without any proof of e-mails or forum postings references of the stated allegation only slander !!!!

Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #968 on: March 13, 2012, 08:42:45 AM »

Offline energy1234hope

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 32
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #969 on: March 13, 2012, 08:56:13 AM »
Go away troll IT was interesting readiing before you stuck your nose in.

Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #970 on: March 13, 2012, 09:28:04 AM »
Howdy members and guests,

I personally want to thank everyone for the enormous response being totally unaware of the many
individuals interested in contributing information and documentation related to context of this
thread in regards to Rosemary Ainslie and/or her "COP" devices.

Please note that all items of utmost interest must have a original signed "NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT"
on each submission for publication at Open Source Research and Development for legal reasons
or it can not be used.

I can be e-mailed at - ExecutiveProducer@OpenSourceResearchandDevelopment.org

Regards,
Fuzzy
 :)

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #971 on: March 13, 2012, 01:16:22 PM »
Rosemary, you are completely misinterpreting my video demonstrations.... as I knew you would.

But that's all right, because everyone reading here who DOES understand electronics... and capacitors.... knows what I've shown.

The oscillations you and I are seeing in our circuits --- identical, even down to the frequency of over 1 MHz --- is indeed a type of noise: it's FEEDBACK. And it's caused by the DC current path through the function generators: yours and mine. When this DC path is blocked by inserting a series capacitor the feedback stops. The capacitor is perfectly capable of passing the FG's square wave output along to the mosfets, so they switch normally... and cleanly.

I assure you that there is no hidden trickery going on... no more than in your own demonstration, which does include the same "hidden" DC current path that I illustrate in my videos. In my circuit and yours, the FG is providing considerable power to the circuit. Because I am using lower voltages in the battery pack, the FG's contribution is obvious. In your circuit with your higher voltage, it is not so obvious but it's definitely there, and you can prove it in the same way I have done: by capacitively coupling your FG to eliminate the DC component.

I suppose I'll have to make another video illustrating the capacitive coupling and its effect.

There are many other falsehoods and incorrect interpretations in your "analysis" of my videos. You show your abject ignorance in many ways, and in combination with your overweening arrogance and your continual self-contradictions it does become rather tedious.

And by the way.... the LEDs light up because the FG is providing them with power. With the DC blocking cap in place, the FG switches the mosfets just fine, but the LEDs don't light up

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #972 on: March 13, 2012, 04:07:23 PM »
My dear TK.  I feel positively intimidated when I see a post actually addressed to me that doesn't also relate to my poor math abilities. I hardly know how to respond.  However I see that your personal comments - your gratuitous insults -  are still all over the place.  Strangely it's enormously comforting.  I'd be very sorry if you thought highly of me and even sorrier if you acknowledged any merit in our technology.  I rather depend on your apparent neurotic need to deny us both as it's my personal measure of value.  I see it in the context of Hitler giving unequivocal support to Gandhi.  Or better still.  Gandhi giving unequivocal support to Hitler.  There's a certain lack of commonality - notwithstanding which of two occupies the moral high ground.  Which is NOT to imply that I'm Hitler - or even that you're Gandhi.  But you get the drift?  And TK.  You need to wise up.  Your 'attacks' are hopelessly disproportional and your propaganda is losing its edge.  That reliance on my stupidity and general moral irrectitudes may satisfy you and your 'four'? is it? ...'friends'.  I'm not sure that everyone is so readily convinced.  Anyway.  Far be it from me to teach you how to be effective.  I'm rather grateful that you're not..
 
The oscillations you and I are seeing in our circuits --- identical, even down to the frequency of over 1 MHz --- is indeed a type of noise:
Not actually TK.  It's a question of scale.  Noise is never 'robust'.  Nor are your oscillations. 

it's FEEDBACK. And it's caused by the DC current path through the function generators: yours and mine.
In which case you'll have to explain why it oscillates from a 555 switch with no function generator in sight.  And it works when that switch is powered by the same batteries as the supply.  And it works when its simulated.  And we even get that oscillation with the continual negative signal applied at Q2.  You see the problem?   Whichever way you cut it.  It just keeps on keeping on.

When this DC path is blocked by inserting a series capacitor the feedback stops. The capacitor is perfectly capable of passing the FG's square wave output along to the mosfets, so they switch normally... and cleanly.  I assure you that there is no hidden trickery going on... no more than in your own demonstration, which does include the same "hidden" DC current path that I illustrate in my videos.
Really?  Then how is it that you get any voltage at all across the batteries when the batteries are disconnected?  Not only that - but those disconnected DC batteries seem to measure a negative and positive voltage which is EXTRAORDINARY.  A miracle of some considerable magnitude.  But.  Since your scope probe and your signal terminal probe are at a co-incident position - a shared junction - then I'm inclined to suspect that you're showing us the voltage across the switch.  Which is really, really clever - considering what you're trying to imply.  As Poynty says.  You ROCK.

edited a pronoun.  LOL
« Last Edit: March 13, 2012, 05:47:45 PM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #973 on: March 13, 2012, 04:08:42 PM »
In my circuit and yours, the FG is providing considerable power to the circuit.
Not actually.  But in YOUR circuit - whatever it is - there's MORE voltage applied from the signal generator than is available from the supply.  Under such absurd test conditions I would expect the signal generator to become an active participant in all that applied potential difference.  Wouldn't you?  That's certainly the ONLY justification in using such a paltry pack of batteries.

Because I am using lower voltages in the battery pack, the FG's contribution is obvious. In your circuit with your higher voltage, it is not so obvious but it's definitely there, and you can prove it in the same way I have done: by capacitively coupling your FG to eliminate the DC component.
During our switching period - when the oscillation is in full swing - the applied voltage from the function generator is zero.  As you keep saying.  Do the math. It's a REALLY easy exercise to measure the amount of current discharged by the function generator.  Our own results point to MORE energy being RETURNED to the generator - than supplied.  AND. Until you replicate that measurement then you have NOT replicated our circuit.

I suppose I'll have to make another video illustrating the capacitive coupling and its effect.
By all means.  That would be nice.  But what you ACTUALLY need to do is replicate our actual results.  Anything short of this is simply YET ANOTHER exercise in misdirection.  It reminds me of those tests conducted at MIT to disprove cold fusion.  I believe it was led by a Dr Vest.  To their shame.  They forgot that the ONLY way to disprove a claim is to NEVER replicate the experiment.  And - of course.  That can never be done.  Unless of course Time simply stops.  That's where we have the edge TK.  Unfortunately it's a bitter pill - and you needs must swallow it.
 

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #974 on: March 13, 2012, 04:09:12 PM »
There are many other falsehoods and incorrect interpretations in your "analysis" of my videos.
There it is again.  You don't IMPLY that I'm lying.  You come out and say it.  LOL.  My dear TK.  Wake up.  I'm way too old to waste my life in trivialities.  And 'lies' or 'falsehoods' as you put it - are absolutely not going to add to the quality of my life.  If you want to 'allege' this - then do us all the courtesy of pointing out which falsehoods you're referring to. 

You show your abject ignorance in many ways,
Very likely TK.  But I have nowhere near your talents for displaying stupidity.  The most glaring evidence of this is in your reliance on everyone else's. 

and in combination with your overweening arrogance and your continual self-contradictions it does become rather tedious.
I'm not sure that you're under any obligation to tolerate it.  All you need to do is move away.  I for one would be sorry.  I'm beginning to enjoy this exercise in 'debunking'.  It's as valuable as Poynty's earlier arguments in fundamental physics. 

And by the way.... the LEDs light up because the FG is providing them with power. With the DC blocking cap in place, the FG switches the mosfets just fine, but the LEDs don't light up
Golly. Who would have thought. ::) :o 8)

Kindest regards TK,
Rosie Pose.

 ;D