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 832855 times)

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #975 on: March 13, 2012, 04:26:15 PM »
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRYEdJB6bVg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZbkhWalRIs

This is YOUR circuit, Rosemary, using an FG as shown in your diagram and in the video Glen linked. May I remind you that you have NOT shown any 555 timer results of sufficient detail for consideration--- so let's compare my small apples with your bigger ones, not with your grapefruit which we haven't seen.

You can't claim that the mosfet type or the voltage makes any difference until you or somebody else actually shows it. Meanwhile the fact that my scope traces duplicate yours show that the mosfet types DON'T matter at least to first order. And "noise" does not have the sharp voltage envelope that this feedback oscillation has. You will note, maybe, that in both your oscillations and mine, the voltage levels aren't random but oscillate around fixed values and the oscillation is quite sinusoidal when expanded. It's not noise as noise is generally defined.

But we know how you are about general definitions.

Quoting Rosemary in one of her famous ex cathedra pronouncements:
Quote
Correctly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second - then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE.  Which is ALSO explained in WIKI.

You are right about one thing: You are too old to be wasting your brief remaining time on this Earth pushing this nonsense.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #976 on: March 13, 2012, 04:34:30 PM »
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK9TNFuvM2k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZbkhWalRIs

This is YOUR circuit, Rosemary, using an FG as shown in your diagram and in the video Glen linked. May I remind you that you have NOT shown any 555 timer results of sufficient detail for consideration--- so let's compare my small apples with your bigger ones, not with your grapefruit which we haven't seen.

You are right about one thing: You are too old to be wasting your brief remaining time on this Earth pushing this nonsense.

Our circuit is NOT your circuit.  Our results are NOT your results.  Our claims are NOT your claims.  I am under no obligation to show you anything at all.  Nor will I.  But Poynty Point and others have done some valuable work on simulations.  And you really don't need to look much further than that.  The problem is that you cannot see for 'looking' and I'm getting rather tired of trying to guide you. 

And I will do PRECISELY what I wish with my life.  I think that I'll start by ignoring your advice.  I suspect it's loaded with the desire that I stop claiming COP INFINITY - when your own life is dedicated to denying this.  We're fighting the same war TK.  We're just on different sides.

Rosemary 

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #977 on: March 13, 2012, 04:46:06 PM »
Stop making claims that aren't true and that you can't support with experimental evidence. Stop trying to teach physics and math to people who have actually spent time in schools studying the subjects. Stop wasting your own and other people's time by playing on their naive hopes and wishes.

That's what I want you to stop, Rosemary.

Oh... and I think you cut and pasted too soon. That's not the video I intended to link, sorry for the confusion. Check the post again for the correct videos. And at least delay a bit so it seems as though you've had time to watch them and think about them... even though I doubt you will.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #978 on: March 13, 2012, 04:52:28 PM »
You've been editing TK.  Golly.  Let me address this as well.

You can't claim that the mosfet type or the voltage makes any difference until you or somebody else actually shows it.
That's not true.  Any scientist can claim anything they like.  The trick is to back it up with evidence.  I will be more than happy to do this when I finally prepare the protocols for our definitive 'draw down tests'. 

Meanwhile the fact that my scope traces duplicate yours show that the mosfet types DON'T matter at least to first order.
Why should this matter?  It's something that I've been advocating from the kick off.

And "noise" does not have the sharp voltage envelope that this feedback oscillation has.
It most certainly DOES.  It is simply better evidenced the better the resolution of the scope.

You will note, maybe, that in both your oscillations and mine, the voltage levels aren't random but oscillate around fixed values and the oscillation is quite sinusoidal when expanded. It's not noise as noise is generally defined.
WHICH oscillation are you referring to?  The one with the battery disconnected?  When it goes into full on square wave a/c voltage?  LOL.  Or the one where you manage to find 1 volt over 3 where we show typically 90 over 36?

But we know how you are about general definitions.
Indeed.  I tend to get a bit pedantic.

Let me know if you're going to add to that post of yours again.  I'd be sorry to miss anything.

Rosie Pose
 :-*

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #979 on: March 13, 2012, 04:55:06 PM »
My dear TK.  STOP trying to tell me what to do with my life or what to think or what to say.  I'm rather fond of my freedoms - and our own constitution allows for this - as well as yours.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #980 on: March 13, 2012, 05:27:43 PM »
And guys - here's that rather tired and ultimate TROLL JUSTIFICATION.  It's alarming.


Stop wasting your own and other people's time by playing on their naive hopes and wishes.


His efforts here are commendable.  They're not guided so much by a desire to simply STOP the inevitable onward march of new energies from all over the place - they're guided by the overarching requirement to protect you from those such as me who may - wittingly or otherwise - prove the existence of all that energy.  He wishes to disabuse you of your rather naive hopes and dreams for a better future.  He wants to disabuse you of any expectations greater than our energy monopolists manage.  His interventions here are for your own good.  In short - you/we owe him our gratitude.

Otherwise - God knows what will happen.  We'll assume that cold fusion is NOT PIE IN THE SKY - and we may even commit the unpardonable folly of thinking that we can work our electricity bills down to next to nothing.  And that simply by changing the way we apply our electric energy applications.  God forbid.  Because that will most certainly NOT be a good thing.  One must NOT foster unrealistic hopes.  And it really doesn't matter that there's an entire SCHOOL that has PROVED the existence of an abundant energy supply source.  And nor does it matter that we need access to that energy or our lives are going to be horribly curtailed by a confrontation with Nature will most certainly annihilate the most of us.

The thing to do is to silence ME and any rather hopeful evidence that we've garnered.  And that way you can live your lives without hope.  Far more realistic.  And far more in the interests of our energy monopolists.  The last thing that's needed is to change anything at all.  There's some out there who MUCH prefer the status quo - and would MUCH prefer it to let matters stand.  Exactly as they are.  Fortunately TK's there to protect theirs and your best interests.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #981 on: March 13, 2012, 06:30:57 PM »
Rosemary said:
Quote
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. 

How about this big whopper:
Quote
According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade.  We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade.  We ran that test for 90 minutes.  Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104.  We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes.  Ambient was at 16.  Joules = 1 watt per second.  So.  Do the math.  4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.  Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.  Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.  All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating.

Until you retract the claims made in this statement, which anyone with knowledge can see is based on wrong math and wrong ideas about power and energy..... you are a liar, because you are claiming something that isn't true.

I've been dealing with your casual attitude towards the truth ever since the Naked Scientists forum days, when you lied repeatedly about having a patent, when all you really have is a lapsed patent application which was never granted nor pursued. And anyone who has been reading your statments over the years can think of many more instances when you have "stretched the truth".... like these conflicting statements you have made in this very thread:
Quote
"Its a pity though that we cannot get ANY oscillation without the circuit linked to our batteries."

"That oscillation MOST CERTAINLY occurs while the battery is disconnected."

"We have a circuit that generates a ROBUST self-sustaining oscillation that persists for the duration that a battery is entirely disconnected from the circuit."
You're not only a liar but the most inept kind: one with a poor memory.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #982 on: March 13, 2012, 06:41:24 PM »
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVljRuPwrtQ

That will have to be the last one for the morning. If anyone _coherent_ can think of another test I can do with what's there, I'll be more or less happy to do it.

Offline powercat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #983 on: March 13, 2012, 07:15:47 PM »

Yes TK,
can you do a Polygraph test on Rosemary  ;) most of us know the answer, but you can help those who still believe in Santa.

Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #984 on: March 13, 2012, 07:35:04 PM »
Yes TK,
can you do a Polygraph test on Rosemary  ;) most of us know the answer, but you can help those who still believe in Santa.

NOW THAT"S A TEST !!!!

THE ONLY ONE WITH A GREATER THAN INFINITY RESULT !!!

 8)

Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #985 on: March 13, 2012, 10:17:37 PM »
Hi members and guests,

For you reference a image of my comments at YouTube on the testing at CPUT university .....
:o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc   

 8)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #986 on: March 14, 2012, 04:50:01 AM »
DEBUNKING THE DEBUNKER
Guys

Not sure how many readers here are that interested.  But it may be worth your while to look in at TK's last two videos.  I've watched then both - repeatedly.  But I'm only one of about 30 or so,  on the latest -  and only one of about 50 or so on the previous.  Not that well subscribed TK.  :o :'( I wonder why?  In any event - it may be worth your while to dip in there.

Here's his circuit - as CLAIMED.  We've got a battery supply (3 volts or thereby) - I'll refer to that battery plus terminal as (Ref) 1.  This then goes to an inductor (undefined ) that has a diode path in either direction in parallel to that inductor.  I'll refer to that as (Ref)2.  This then goes to the Q-array with the signal terminal presumably applied to the gate leg of Q1.  I'll refer to that as (Ref 3).  So.  We've got 1 in series with 2 in series with 3.  And then this all goes to the common ground which is in series with negative terminal of the battery supply - which I'll refer to as (Ref)4.  Again - 1 (battery postiive) to 2 (inductor with paralleled diodes as LED's) to 3 (gate leg of Q1 of the Q-array) to 4 (the negative terminal of the battery).  All very simple.

Now.  TK's using a dual channel oscilloscope and 2 probes. He has the one positioned at the same junction as the probe terminal of the function generator - Ref 3 - which then shows us the applied signal.  And he has the other positioned - presumably - between the battery positive terminal and the inductor load with it's paralleled diodes or LED's - Ref 1.  I personally can't see any of their grounds - but we can assume that they've been positioned appropriately.  Then he adjusts the output of the signal generator that it has about 10 volts of applied signal - which is not insubstantial.  Then he disconnects the battery and shows us those oscillations - not over the battery because that's disconnected - BUT - across that load inductor of his.  Then he states - correctly - that since the battery is out of the circuit - and since the oscillations are still very apparent - and since they're relatively substantial - and since there's no other supply source - then one may conclude that the power for that circuit is COMING FROM THE APPLIED SIGNAL AT THE FUNCTION GENERATOR.  And he's RIGHT. 

BUT - here's the thing.  ALL that he's actually managed is to prove is that 'optionally' - and with sufficient applied voltage at the signal - and with a nominal resistance at the load - then it is possible to generate a voltage potential from that signal generator that it can power a load.  Which is very interesting indeed.  And not only that but the oscillations at either side of those voltage peaks - are consistent with the 'shape' of our own oscillations.  Not the 'volume' so to speak - but certainly the general shape. 

Where he 'errors' as Poynty puts it - is in his conclusion.  What he then claims - with a rather desperate abuse of generality -  is that THEREFORE THIS IS CONCLUSIVE PROOF THAT WHEN WE GENERATE THAT OSCILLATION IT IS ACTUALLY FROM THE POWER SUPPLIED BY THE FUNCTION GENERATOR.  And this is patently nonsense.  We take the trouble to MEASURE the output from the function generator.  The voltage is nominal and in any event below zero - during the oscillation phase.  At best it means that energy is being 'returned' to that generator rather than 'delivered by'.  Then.  It it true that I have not detailed our 555 tests.  Nor will I until we've done that final battery draw down test.  But you only need to look at the oscillations that are managed through simulations.  No function generator and YET that oscillation is evident. 

I've got more to tell you related to that last diode that he used to replace the previous.  That was truly INGENIOUS.  But I'll get back here. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #987 on: March 14, 2012, 05:03:06 AM »
Ok Rosemary, I think we all get the poynt.

I made an error when I once used the term "errored" instead of "erred".  :'( To err is human, and contrary to what you and Magluvin say, I'm pretty sure I qualify as human.

Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #988 on: March 14, 2012, 05:08:32 AM »
Hi members and guests,

There appears to be some huge problems associated with "dooziedont's" demonstration at CUPT on 12 March 2011 here is one of them ....


The video shows five (5) batteries in a voltage supply bank at 60.4 volts .... but the published schedule of device components shows six (6) batteries which includes most all testing data and documentation using a 72 volt system .....

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #989 on: March 14, 2012, 05:08:41 AM »
Ok Rosemary, I think we all get the poynt.

I made an error when I once used the term "errored" instead of "erred".  :'( To err is human, and contrary to what you and Magluvin say, I'm pretty sure I qualify as human.

Poynty Point.  I KNOW this.  We are all mere mortals.  And hopefully you see how TEDIOUS it is to be constantly reminded of our errors.  At least my reference to your own 'errorring' does NOT IMPLY A LACK OF INTEGRITY.  LOL  Quite apart from which - it's rather nice.  I'm into individuality when it comes to expression.  In a big way.  Surely you realise this by now?

Take care there Poynty Point.  You're invaluable to this over unity drive of ours.  Even if you don't realise it.  And I'm rather fond of you - in a twisted kind of way.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose.