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 807947 times)

Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #990 on: March 14, 2012, 05:16:34 AM »
Howdy members and guests,

Here is another boo boo on the video from "dooziedont" on the CUPT demonstration on 12 March 2011 ............. where they had 15 qualified electrical engineers view the historical event of COP INFINITY  ( http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg284366/#msg284366 )


This monumental error was from what I remember detected by poynt99, and he may first want to comment on this.

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315141/#msg315141    Reply #888 on: March 12, 2012, 06:53:29 AM    ( schematic diagrams )
« Last Edit: March 14, 2012, 08:35:20 AM by fuzzytomcat »

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #991 on: March 14, 2012, 05:29:26 AM »
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.

Let me add this.  I think you have some considerable intellect there Poynty Point - which is sorely lacking in the most of our trolls.  What you lack
is the 'professional touch'.  Do you - any of you - realise how EFFECTIVELY you could have killed off this technology - with the application of a
little constraint?  Fortunately that's NOT going to happen.  Glen keeps posting and TK tries to occupy the moral high ground by trying to knock
the foundations from my own.  You guys are REALLY CLUMSY.  Thank you God.

Rosie 

P.S
What I'm really trying to say is this.  If 'hitting below the belt' doesn't work - shouldn't you 'regroup' and try another tactic?  Like hitting above
the belt?  You all know my weakness.  It's electronics.  SO.  Argue what you know.  Let's indulge the rare event of topical discourse.  That would
be so much more entertaining.  And that way you'll no doubt be able to PROVE whatever it is that you're trying to prove.

Again
Rosie Pose

P.P.S
Because what you're doing at the moment just isn't working.  Surely you see that by now?
« Last Edit: March 14, 2012, 01:42:56 PM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #992 on: March 14, 2012, 06:32:16 AM »
Hi members and guests,

As per Rosemary's ( aka witsend, aetherevarising, dooziedont .... ) her admissions ..... for the record in all fairness her disclosure without any disagreement from me on whats quoted.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg291932/#msg291932    Reply #1533 on: June 21, 2011, 07:04:38 AM


Golly.  I'm not sure that the English education system is correctly described as 'alternative'.  I think that anyone qualifying for the O levels and GCE's and M levels would be inclined to protest.  I was held back for a year as it was considered that I was just too emotionally immature to cut it so I wrote my M levels 'university entrance to SA universities' when I was 15.  I then went to university - only because I was too young to get a job. BUT when I was old enough to make my OWN decisions I LEFT UNIVERSITY.  That was after 2 years when I FINALLY turned 18.  And 1 year before my finals.  And from then until now I worked for myself - first in catering then in property development and finally in trading.  Since NONE of these endeavors included science they are also ENTIRELY irrelevant.   And since all of them require some measure of a functioning intelligence I think you can largely discount Poynt's assessment of me being an outright moron.  But since I still post here then even I'm inclined to doubt this.

This is also a lot of baloney.  I was VERY CAPABLY TAUGHT by the writings of Gary Zukov, Murray Gell Mann - and a list too long and too boring to include here.  AND most specifically - I was also taught by Dyson in that IMPECCABLE STUDY OF CONCEPTUAL PHYSICS.  SO.  I was taught DIRECTLY by the masters or by brilliant writers ABOUT the master - not through the fractured muddles of those who teach the MASTERS.  And my lack of knowledge as it pertains to ELECTRONICS PERSISTS.  I only USE circuit components in a VERY LIMITED APPLICATION to prove my thesis.  I STILL do not know how a capacitor works.  AND I wont know until I've finally taken one apart and worked it out for myself.  I cannot be accused EVER to taking anyone's word for it on any issue at all - unless I've also UNDERSTOOD the issues.  That's the downside in being me.

.............

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #993 on: March 14, 2012, 07:13:46 AM »
Guys, here's the thing.

There are a lot of factors that motivate the denial of over unity.  First off is that it simply is not allowed in terms of our standard model.  Then
there's the unarguable evidence of those who have tried to capitalise on claims that were not actually substantiated.  Which is not exactly
ethical.  Then there are those who offer 'slim' evidence or evidence that is intuitively gauged - rather than measured.  And what drives the 'nay
sayers' is anyone's guess.  I very much doubt - in TK's instance - that it's because he's in the pay of vested and competing interests.  His videos
are not exactly 'high definition' professional numbers.  And one would expect him to be able to access better equipment - if he was also being
richly compensated for his efforts.  The same goes for Poynty. 

So.  What drives them?  I can only conclude that it's based on the preferred belief that IF there's any proof of over unity - then it should properly
come from their 'school'.  Those that they can identify with.  People who - at its least - earn a living from applied electrical engineering - or such
like.  But that's not true either.  There are many claimants who not only manage proof but who clearly are NOT qualified in engineering.  And as
often as not their claims are NOT always vociferously challenged.  Itseung is a case in point.  Lasersaber another.  They're tolerated.

I think the distinction is drawn when a claimant has the unhappy combination of being 'unschooled' - and stating unequivocal proof - AND being a
mere female.  Something like that?  Just don't know.  But what I do know is that the attack has been never ending, well orchestrated - and, in
the light of all the hard work that's gone into this nay saying - rather expensive - both in time and output.  Which begs the possibility that there
is some kind of vested interest that keeps their protests coming - which is also rather well funded.  But I don't know.  I can only surmise.

What I do know is this.  We are trying to show you all a means whereby you can access a - heretofore - hidden source of energy.  It's very
simple.  It's in the bound state of  coalesced structures.  What that means is that when you have any bound atomic material - such as in a stone
or a cup or anything at all - then the thing that binds those atoms is where this energy is from.  Assumption has been that these structures are
bonded as a result of the weak interaction between the atoms themselves.  We actually PROVE that it is NOT.  It is something that is OUTSIDE
those atoms.  NOW.  If this is true - which is certainly what our experimental evidence shows - then it also means that we're well able to access
this energy.  It's simply been rather overlooked.  And the real advantage is this.  Any such proposal DOES NOT CONFLICT with the standard
model.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2012, 01:37:41 PM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #994 on: March 14, 2012, 07:14:49 AM »
I am driven to try and show this.  And I cannot explain my commitment to this 'drive' other than to assure you that it is not related to
self-promotion.  I freely acknowledge that this is NOT mine nor any of my collaborators' discovery.  It is just something that has been 'passed
over' as a result of two things.  The one is that research funding is usually from vested interests.  There would be no single beneficiary to this
finding therefore there would be very little funding and therefore very little interest.  And the other reason is the result of assumptions related to
the way material is bonded.  I would much prefer it that you understood the implications of this than the applications.  I'm not an
experimentalist.  If anything - I'm an amateur theorist.  BUT.  In the face of the evidence - then I think the value in its applications should and
would be better progressed if this thesis was also better understood.
 
Which brings me back to the problem of our trolls.  Until they desist with this rather absurd indulgence in character assassination - then the
understanding of the model - or the application of that model - will be continually subject to evaluation on grounds that are less than scientific.
Fortunately the time has now long passed where readers are persuaded by the 'bias' of a poster.  We're all of us somewhat more discerning.
And the force of 'protest' which is applied against me has now reached a dimension that is utterly void of any kind of  moderation or good
sense.  It shows a want of professionalism and with it a want of good judgement.  And general discernment is far more sophisticated than it was
in the days when TK was thought of as latter day Che Guevara championing the cause of the utterly naive.  His methods of address - and those of
Poynty - and those of all the 'trolls' who post here - are now seen for what they are.  Gratuitous and excessive. 
 
This is my appeal to them to 'clean up their act' even if it's just in the interests of generating some much needed credibility.  I LONG for some
decent exploration of the anomalies that we've shown.  And I LONG for some understanding of the insights that we're proving.  Anything - rather
than this tedious need for me to address their rather fatuous attentions.  It's too easy to show them up for what they're doing.  And the entire
exercise is beginning to bore me to tears.  Just how many ways must I expose their somewhat infantile - and somewhat less than appropriate -
and somewhat less than ethical methodologies.  Trolling needs to be revised if it's EVER going to be effective again.  Really we need to elevate
the tone here.  I think they should try and be a little more adult. 
 
Kindest regards,
Rosemary 
 
« Last Edit: March 14, 2012, 01:36:31 PM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #995 on: March 14, 2012, 09:04:01 AM »
Howdy members and guests,

You all wonder "WHY" this is a very good question.

If you were Stefan and woke up every day to PM's and e-mail threats of forum closures and multi million dollar "LAWSUITS" from Rosemary ( aka witsend, aetherevarising, dooziedont ...... )

What would you do ..... make sure without a doubt firm ground why to close threads and ban that person ?


Talk about the high road ??  :P

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg294073/#msg294073    Reply #1790 on: July 06, 2011, 11:01:11 AM
Hi,
as this topic is now too controvers and I was threatened with lawyers,
I will lock now all the Rosemary threads.
Also there was no recent updates of any sorts about the technology and
the only postings I see here are about bitching about the old outdated papers
and scribd files etc..
So it is only annoying.
I have put all the members who got into this flame war into moderation now
and will delete new topics, if they should start again this topic...
Regards, Stefan.

P.S: All further issues about this circuit can be discussed at Ms.
Aisnley´s blog:

http://newlightondarkenergy..blogspot.com/

but not anymore over here.


Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #996 on: March 14, 2012, 11:23:36 AM »
Howdy members and guests,

As you may have noticed I do not need hundreds of posting to make my point clear for you.

Most every posting of mine came without debate starting at page 53 but all buried by Rosemary with huge multiple response reply's to others a thesis and other nonsense  ..... no facts.

Below is a recap of my postings of FACTS ...... 


___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315425/#msg315425          "Asking Why"

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315417/#msg315417          "Rosemary's Background"

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315412/#msg315412          "12 March 2011 DEMO - Mosfets CIRCUIT Shown Incorrect"

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315410/#msg315410          "12 March 2011 DEMO - How many batteries ?? Five (5) or Six (6)"

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315246/#msg315246          "Thesis or Device - My Personal Feelings"

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315234/#msg315234          "12 March 2011 - Demonstration at CUPT YouTube video"

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315141/#msg315141          " Incorrect device schematic at blog and forum postings"

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315103/#msg315103           "12 March 2011 DEMO - 15 Engineering Experts There or Not"

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315084/#msg315084           "555 Circuit Test - Yes or No"

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg314975/#msg314975           "HUGE Math Error related to Device / Batteries / Joules"

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg314793/#msg314793           "12 Volt Soldering Iron VAPORIZES Solder"

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg314745/#msg314745           " PRIZE AWARD WINNER !!! "

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg314721/#msg314721           "CLAIM and REPRODUCTION for VERIFICATION"

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #997 on: March 14, 2012, 01:33:53 PM »
Hi members and guests,

As per Rosemary's ( aka witsend, aetherevarising, dooziedont .... ) her admissions ..... for the record in all fairness her disclosure without any
disagreement from me on whats quoted.

Reply #1533 on: June 21, 2011, 07:04:38 AM


Golly.  I'm not sure that the English education system is correctly described as 'alternative'.  I think that anyone qualifying for the
O levels and GCE's and M levels would be inclined to protest.  I
was held back for a year as it was considered that I was just too
emotionally immature to cut it so I wrote my M levels 'university entrance to SA universities' when I was 15.  I then went to
university - only because I was too young to get a job. BUT when I was old enough to make my OWN decisions I LEFT
UNIVERSITY.  That was after 2 years when I FINALLY turned 18.  And 1 year before my finals.  And from then until now I worked
for myself - first in catering then in property development and finally in trading.  Since NONE of these endeavors included science
they are also ENTIRELY irrelevant.   And since all of them require some measure of a functioning intelligence I think you can
largely discount Poynt's assessment of me being an outright moron.  But since I still post here then even I'm inclined to doubt
this.

This is also a lot of baloney.  I was VERY CAPABLY TAUGHT by the writings of Gary Zukov, Murray Gell Mann - and a list too long
and too boring to include here.  AND most specifically - I was also taught by Dyson in that IMPECCABLE STUDY OF CONCEPTUAL
PHYSICS.  SO.  I was taught DIRECTLY by the masters or by brilliant writers ABOUT the master - not through the fractured
muddles of those who teach the MASTERS.  And my lack of knowledge as it pertains to ELECTRONICS PERSISTS.  I only USE circuit
components in a VERY LIMITED APPLICATION to prove my thesis.  I STILL do not know how a capacitor works.  AND I wont know
until I've finally taken one apart and worked it out for myself.  I cannot be accused EVER to taking anyone's word for it on any
issue at all - unless I've also UNDERSTOOD the issues.  That's the downside in being me.


I did some page editing here too.  It's a fair summation of my lack of training.  Courtesy Glen

LOL
Regards,
Rosie.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #998 on: March 14, 2012, 02:17:13 PM »
Golly.  Hopefully those posts are now more readable.  In any event, guys, in the interests of keeping this topical - here's what I propose as the
basis of a test to FINALLY get this proven.  If any of you can think of anything that may have been omitted then let me know.

. We run a test switched from a 555 - and powered from the supply batteries to show an identical oscillation
. The same test must also show a negative wattage in the computation of energy delivered by the battery
. The dissipated heat must be sufficient to be greater than any reasonable and applied error margins - as required
. We run that same test from a function generator applied to drive the switch.  We must achieve equivalent results over both tests
  this to prove that there are no grounding issues and that the function generator is not responsible for the extra energy.
 
. Then we nominate a test that dissipates not more than 50 watts.  From experience I know that the settings default and the test can get out of control.
. Then we either buy 6 x 12 volt new identical batteries or use the 6 batteries to hand.  Either option is acceptable.
. It is possibly preferred to use batteries with a lower rating in order to expedite the test.
. Then we apply our element to a variable power supply source
  this to determine the rate of current flow required to heat the element resistor to 50 watts under standard series conditions from a 36 volt ouput.

. Then we apply an appropriate resistor in series with those 3 batteries to represent the control.
. The three other batteries are applied to our experimental apparatus.
. We must be able to monitor the temperature over the element resistor AND the voltage on the batteries on the control and the experiment - continuously
. We run the test until the voltage over either the experiment or the control or both - reaches 10 volts.  Which will be when both experiments are complete.
. We then recharge all those batteries.
. We swap the control batteries with the test and the test with the control.
. We re-run those tests. 
  this to prove that the results are not due to battery vagaries.

I think that covers the test procedure.  We'll need to work out how to run the supervision.  Let me know if any of you have more refinements required for this.

This should be fun. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #999 on: March 14, 2012, 02:30:46 PM »
Hi members and guests,

It appears we have more of the same from Rosemary going on again.

Here is a posting from Stefan with his request for the billionth time and never not one part done.


I'm Tired of this and have a web site to finish and will be recommending the closure of this thread and the "BANNING" of Rosemary Ainslie for the posted reasons made.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg285971#msg285971   Reply #1224 on: May 12, 2011, 07:28:48 PM


hartiberlin
Administrator

Hi Rosemary,

why don´t you do this ?

1) All COP > INFINITY device information in one place in one post not spread out over ninety (90) pages.

2) A accurate circuit diagram of the claimed COP > INFINITY device .... there are five (5) at least that I know of .... and "AGAIN" the one on your blog is incorrect (FALSE) http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/109-simulated-circuit.html#links

3) All sequenced oscilloscope screen shots and data dumps from the day of the test not days before or after for over a minimum of one hour at 6 minute intervals for a total of eleven (11) verified recordings of the COP > INFINITY device.

4) The complete parts list of all the components used to do a scientific replication to verify the results in a verifiable scientific manner of the COP > INFINITY device

5) All the settings of the Function Generator in Hz or Mhz .... including ....  the setting of the DC offset switch ( -10 VDC to + 10 VDC )

6) A complete photographic image set available for verification and review including the top and bottom of any circuit board of the COP > INFINITY device at the time under or during test .



To get scientific approval you NEED to do these scientific test and exact report documents.

As you have done it with mixed up circuit diagrams and mixed up scope shots
from different mixed ups testings , where one does not know,
which scopeshot belongs to what test, is not scientific.

Before I opened your account and before your demo you promised to release all
data in an open source format and well presented, but what you did present was only all mixed up
and shuffled data so nobody can really see, what it is all about or if there were
measurement errors done and then you suddenly had a wrong circuit diagramm, etc, etc....

So maybe you should quit for a while, do again some more testing and then document
it the way shown above very exactly.....?

Otherwise you will be again ridiculed and laughed at and ignored by the scientific community...

Regards, Stefan.


___________________________________________________________________________________

Enough said for the moment  :P

Offline energy1234hope

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 32
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1000 on: March 14, 2012, 02:42:58 PM »
Troll alert more rubbish from the trolls its rosemarys thread, heard all your crap before you and your cut and paste crap go away.It was peaceful until you turned up.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1001 on: March 14, 2012, 03:16:58 PM »
Troll alert more rubbish from the trolls its rosemarys thread, heard all your crap before you and your cut and paste crap go away.It was peaceful until you turned up.

Hi energy123
I noticed your earlier comment on this.  I'm afraid this goes with the territory.  It seems that all my threads get flamed - sooner or later.  I think
the trick is to apply that scroll button.  And if anyone posting here could remember to press that shift button.  Else your posts fall of the page.
Which is the general intention.

The only decent thing is that Stefan won't just close this thread again.  Which is comforting.  But it would be so nice if he could do something
about Glen's attempt at wrecking it's readability.  It's no good applying to Glen.  He has no basic understanding of professional conduct.  I think
he's under the delusion that this is all assisting in is promotion of some internet live programming - or something.  It's confusing.
His language skills are not up to par which means that whatever it is he's trying to advertise is rather lost.  Which is also why he needs to cut and
paste.  He can't simply 'write' an original post.  BUT.  Frankly, between you and me, I'm rather sorry for him.  I'm not sure that his behaviour can
be considered balanced.  I think he's been 'beset' by the 'green eyed monster'.  But do what I do.  Just try and ignore his posts.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Offline hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8001
    • free energy research OverUnity.com
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1002 on: March 14, 2012, 05:02:28 PM »
I won´t ban Rosemary , I just want to see, if she will finally do
 the battery tests...
 
 Also TinselKoala did some new Youtube videos about the oscillations
 and they seem to depend on the used function generators...

So probably these oscillations will capacitively input energy from the function generator into the circuit and thus
into the batteries.

So a battery test with just a 555 timer powered by the main battery is a must.

Just forget the function generator for precise Energy efficiency calculatiions...
 This is just flawed...

 Regards, Stefan.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1003 on: March 14, 2012, 05:17:54 PM »
I won´t ban Rosemary , I just want to see, if she will finally do
the battery tests...
 
Also TinselKoala did some new Youtube videos about the oscillations
and they seem to depend on the used function generators...

So probably these oscillations will capacitively input energy from the function generator into the circuit and thus
into the batteries.

So a battery test with just a 555 timer powered by the main battery is a must.

Just forget the function generator for precise Energy efficiency calculatiions...
This is just flawed...

Regards, Stefan.
Stefan - thanks for the undertaking.  I think it was agreed the last time I was re-instated.  But I wonder if you could impose on Glen to curtail
all that extraneous 'cut and paste' nonsense.  It's overwhelming this thread.  Conservatively he dominates approximately one third of each page
in his efforts to discourage readership.  I don't think you're giving me a fair chance here - with respect.

Then.  Regarding the function generator.  I have designed a test that will first be run to prove whether or not the function generator is responsible
for this extra energy - as you claim.  Where would we be if we did not allow experimental evidence to guide us?  I would have thought?

Regarding TK's videos - they only prove that the function generator CAN supply energy - provided that he maintains a closed circuit - which he
manages with those diodes of his.  You'll notice that the applied voltage from the generator is at a whopping 10 volts - while the circuit only has
3.  And the only resistance in the way of that applied voltage is that little inductor of his.  Hardly enough to resist all that applied potential
difference.  Frankly, under those conditions - I'd be rather amazed that the function generator did NOT manage to apply its energy.  But it's
hardly consistent with either our tests or our claim.  I'm intrigued to see that you think it is.  In any event.  Whether it is or not - will be easily
demonstrated with our proposed test of the 555.  I don't think we'll ever be able to dissipate the required 50 watts unless we use the function
generator.  And anything short of that is a waste of time.

And guys, Poynty - all - PLEASE advise if I've left out any considerations in that proposed test.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Offline powercat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1004 on: March 14, 2012, 06:04:08 PM »
@ enrgy123hope
You accuse Fuzzy of being a Troll, at least Fuzzy has built and tested the circuit unlike you, so who is the real troll ?
why don't you build the circuit ?