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

Custom Search

### Author Topic: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.  (Read 787085 times)

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1009
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #105 on: January 15, 2012, 03:45:28 AM »
snip.. BUT PLEASE NOTE. Power is NOT watts. It is simply BASED ON WATTS. It first needs to factor in TIME. snip...
Definitions are funny things. While watts are generally considered to be a measure of instantaneous power, and watt hours or watt seconds are a measure of power over time (energy), it must be recognised that time is already factored into the definition of a watt. How so? Power is Voltage times Current. - Yeh Since charge is measured in coulombs and time is measured in seconds, 1 AmpÃ¨re is the same as 1 Coulomb per second. That is, Current (Amps) is Coulombs per second, therefore Power is Voltage x (Coulombs per second -  for 1 second). So 1 watt can be the equivalent of 1 Volt x 1 Coulomb per pecond, for 1 second. Hmmm, no wonder confusion over power or energy measurement occurs Cheers from Hoptoad

#### Rosemary Ainslie

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3968
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #106 on: January 15, 2012, 03:58:45 AM »
Dear Curious Chris

This last post of yours - like Alice's disappearing feet - is losing all relevance to our paper and to our claim and is a gross misrepresentation - not only of our intentions in promoting this technology - but in what I have said about this technology.  'Curiouser and curiouser' is I think how Alice described it.  And since it is ENTIRELY about our claim - I think it would have better been addressed to me.

Here's a list of where your observations err - Curious Christopher

We do not have a simple switching circuit.  Unless it is a simple feat to leave a battery disconnected while upwards of 5 amps is generated through a circuit?

Far from not wanting others to test this circuit I am MOST ANXIOUS that they do.  Which is why we wrote those papers.

We have tested those batteries way beyond their capacities over a period of 12 months without any measurable discharge of voltage from those batteries and with NO recharge other than from the circuit itself.

I do NOT want you to believe it.  Nothing could be further from my interest.  We want academics to evaluate it.

It is UTTERLY OUTRAGEOUS to demand that we separate a current from it's source and then expect it to continually circulate through a circuit into perpetuity.  Yet you demanded that as PROOF.

The signal generator has been replaced with a 555 and delivers an entirely UNINTERRUPTED CURRENT FLOW FOR THE DURATION that the negative signal is applied to the gate.  THIS HAS BEEN TESTED AND SHOWS PRECISELY THE SAME RESULTS AS RESULTS FROM THE FUNCTION GENERATOR

Frankly I'd far rather that you NEVER believe our circuit works - for personal reasons.

I am NOT condescending.  I am FRANK

We MOST CERTAINLY HAVE submitted the paper to a reviewed journal.

And I have explained why I've rescued this thread.  It is to CHALLENGE POYNTY POINT FOR HIS PRIZE that he claims is on offer for an overunity result.

Can I impose on you to simply stay out of this?  Your posts are getting increasingly irrelevant.

Regards,
Rosemary

#### CuriousChris

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 261
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #107 on: January 15, 2012, 04:03:45 AM »
@poynt99

Coming late to the party has not, done me any favours I know.

But I am not sweating it its just a glaring cause of conscern that could be so easily accounted for.

I don't know how a variable DC supply could provide signal required to cause the cct to oscillate unless you are relying on the capacitance and inductance of the cct to make it self oscillate, the variable DC supply only providing the 'bias'. but this would be very difficult to control or even specify. If you are talking about making the variable DC supply part of the oscillator as in the voltage 'varies' due to a feedback mechanism.

Whatever mechanism is chosen to initiate and maintain the oscillations, it needs to be accounted for.

@David

Upon what basis do you give your support to Rosemary? Do you have some insight you could share with us. or is it just wishful thinking? You are correct physics will continue to amaze us for as long as we exist. but that's not an excuse to believe something someone say just because we want to believe it.

CC

#### MrMag

• Hero Member
• Posts: 754
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #108 on: January 15, 2012, 04:16:57 AM »
Hahaha, I thought this thread was closed a long time ago. Here it is a year or so later and people are still trying to get rosie to understand what a watt is. It's also hard to beleive that she hasn't been able to get any "Acedemics" to review her circuit yet. I wonder why that is??

Keep up the good work rosie

#### Rosemary Ainslie

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3968
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #109 on: January 15, 2012, 04:28:32 AM »
Definitions are funny things. While watts are generally considered to be a measure of instantaneous power, and watt hours or watt seconds are a measure of power over time (energy), it must be recognised that time is already factored into the definition of a watt. How so? Power is Voltage times Current. - Yeh Since charge is measured in coulombs and time is measured in seconds, 1 AmpÃ¨re is the same as 1 Coulomb per second. That is, Current (Amps) is Coulombs per second, therefore Power is Voltage x (Coulombs per second -  for 1 second). So 1 watt can be the equivalent of 1 Volt x 1 Coulomb per pecond, for 1 second. Hmmm, no wonder confusion over power or energy measurement occurs Cheers from Hoptoad

Well put hoptoad.  And thanks for this.  In all that toing and froing - I missed this.  lol.

Actually I've just looked it up.  There's an outside chance that P can indeed represent watts per second.  But we used this in our paper and were advised to amend this to - Energy.  But who cares?  The point is that those POUT and PIN terminologies have been bandied around the place with reckless imprecision -  hopelessly ambiguous.  It ALWAYS needs definition.

Take care, and glad this has amused you.
Kindest as ever,
Rosie

#### Rosemary Ainslie

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3968
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #110 on: January 15, 2012, 04:31:59 AM »
Hahaha, I thought this thread was closed a long time ago. Here it is a year or so later and people are still trying to get rosie to understand what a watt is. It's also hard to beleive that she hasn't been able to get any "Acedemics" to review her circuit yet. I wonder why that is??

Keep up the good work rosie

Indeed.  I thought our threads were all getting a bit tired. Hopefully this will give it some impetus.

Thanks MrMag,
Rosie

#### poynt99

• TPU-Elite
• Hero Member
• Posts: 3582
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #111 on: January 15, 2012, 04:38:26 AM »
@poynt99

Coming late to the party has not, done me any favours I know.

But I am not sweating it its just a glaring cause of conscern that could be so easily accounted for.

I don't know how a variable DC supply could provide signal required to cause the cct to oscillate unless you are relying on the capacitance and inductance of the cct to make it self oscillate, the variable DC supply only providing the 'bias'. but this would be very difficult to control or even specify. If you are talking about making the variable DC supply part of the oscillator as in the voltage 'varies' due to a feedback mechanism.

Whatever mechanism is chosen to initiate and maintain the oscillations, it needs to be accounted for.

Indeed, it is the parasitic inductance and capacitance in the circuit causing it to oscillate, once the appropriate amount of voltage bias is applied to Q2.

Agreed, any power sources such as those providing bias or an oscillation should be accounted for to be most accurate.

The thing is this, Rosemary is claiming that the circuit produces over 100W of average power going back into the battery, and I know from the simulations that the function generator is contributing about 3W.

Once the measurements are taken properly (which they haven't been to date, despite what Rosemary thinks) , it becomes quite evident that the circuit is actually consuming about 30W of power from the battery, and in this case the 3W contributed by the function generator is a little more significant by comparison.

.99

#### Rosemary Ainslie

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3968
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #112 on: January 15, 2012, 04:40:11 AM »
hi rose, dont worry, very soon you will be vindicated. i know you are correct and there is more to physics than we ever thought possible. we as a human race, if it can be imagined it can be DONE. dont be discouraged! stay in touch

And David.  I couldn't work out who on earth Curious Chris was referencing.  Thanks for this.  You're right of course.  Physics is WEIRD in it's potentials - and that's just working within the standard model - assuming there's any such thing.

Thanks for your support - as ever,
Rosie

A small spelling correction.
Good heavens.  I wrote Curiouser Chris.  For some reason this must have been on my mind. Golly
R

#### Rosemary Ainslie

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3968
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #113 on: January 15, 2012, 04:46:52 AM »

Indeed, it is the parasitic inductance and capacitance in the circuit causing it to oscillate, once the appropriate amount of voltage bias is applied to Q2.

Agreed, any power sources such as those providing bias or an oscillation should be accounted for to be most accurate.

The thing is this, Rosemary is claiming that the circuit produces over 100W of average power going back into the battery, and I know from the simulations that the function generator is contributing about 3W.

Once the measurements are taken properly (which they haven't been to date, despite what Rosemary thinks) , it becomes quite evident that the circuit is actually consuming about 30W of power from the battery, and in this case the 3W contributed by the function generator is a little more significant by comparison.

.99

Poytny Point,  I can't comment on this.  It has absolutely NO BEARING on anything that we've claimed or tested.  Would it be asking too much to email me your file?  I think I really should give it some attention.  In case you've lost it - my email address is ainslie@mweb.co.za

Alternatively we could, perhaps, just stick to that earlier post of yours where you proposed to multiply the voltage across the load with the voltage across the battery to ascertain it's power?

As ever,
Rosie Posie

Edited again.  Took out a question mark.  My eyes are now REALLY tired guys.  I'm going to get some much needed sleep.

#### aether22

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1055
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #114 on: January 15, 2012, 12:27:41 PM »

First, do I understand correctly that there is a current in these circuits that not only is against the direction applied by the battery and the collapse, but that it moves through diodes/transistors in the wrong direction without apparent damage?

Actually, that really is the only question I had.

I am interested in replicating one of these circuits, what is the most robust preferred embodiment and parts?

Also for what it's worth I certainly know part of how these types of circuits work and I think I probably know enough to make them produce more power if you are interested. (and I'm not just blowing smoke)

Thanks,
John

#### Rosemary Ainslie

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3968
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #115 on: January 15, 2012, 01:22:54 PM »

First, do I understand correctly that there is a current in these circuits that not only is against the direction applied by the battery and the collapse, but that it moves through diodes/transistors in the wrong direction without apparent damage?

Actually, that really is the only question I had.

I am interested in replicating one of these circuits, what is the most robust preferred embodiment and parts?

Also for what it's worth I certainly know part of how these types of circuits work and I think I probably know enough to make them produce more power if you are interested. (and I'm not just blowing smoke)

Thanks,
John
Hello John.  If you can open those files that I posted you should get all you need on this subject.  I'll go back and see if I can repost it.  You've more or less got the gist of the claim - but it's rather more comprehensive.  Anyway - hold fire.  I'll see if I can find it.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

It took me forever to get back here.  Something's seriously wrong with this new system Harti. In any event John - here are those links.
Again - all the best.  Let us know if you do a replication.

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=13.0;attach=6766

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=13.0;attach=6767
« Last Edit: January 15, 2012, 03:08:19 PM by Rosemary Ainslie »

#### gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3279
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #116 on: January 15, 2012, 01:41:05 PM »

#### gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3279
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #117 on: January 15, 2012, 03:00:40 PM »
Definitions are funny things. While watts are generally considered to be a measure of instantaneous power, and watt hours or watt seconds are a measure of power over time (energy), it must be recognised that time is already factored into the definition of a watt. How so? Power is Voltage times Current. - Yeh Since charge is measured in coulombs and time is measured in seconds, 1 AmpÃ¨re is the same as 1 Coulomb per second. That is, Current (Amps) is Coulombs per second, therefore Power is Voltage x (Coulombs per second -  for 1 second). So 1 watt can be the equivalent of 1 Volt x 1 Coulomb per pecond, for 1 second. Hmmm, no wonder confusion over power or energy measurement occurs Cheers from Hoptoad

By using the true electrical units, this hidden factor, which has been the author of confusion, is now clearly exposed.

q = kg.
A = m/s^2
Z = seconds

Energy, work, quantity of heat = Joule or qA^2 Z^2 while,
Power, radiant flux = Watt or qA^2 Z

Electromotive force, potential difference = Volt or qA
Electric Current = Amp or AZ

Electric Resistance = Ohm or q/Z
Electric Charge, quantity of E = Coulomb or AZ^2

Gravock

#### poynt99

• TPU-Elite
• Hero Member
• Posts: 3582
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #118 on: January 15, 2012, 05:01:49 PM »

Alternatively we could, perhaps, just stick to that earlier post of yours where you proposed to multiply the voltage across the load with the voltage across the battery to ascertain it's power?

WTF, I proposed no such thing.

Your fundamental problem in all this is that you either don't have the capability to correctly understand and interpret these simple technical diagrams and the salient points being made about them, or you are intentionally trying to cloud them with your nonsense. Which is it?

.99

#### Rosemary Ainslie

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3968
##### Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #119 on: January 15, 2012, 07:19:02 PM »
WTF, I proposed no such thing.

Your fundamental problem in all this is that you either don't have the capability to correctly understand and interpret these simple technical diagrams and the salient points being made about them, or you are intentionally trying to cloud them with your nonsense. Which is it?

.99

Golly Poynty Point,

You're parading all that exasperation again.  It's becoming seriously repetitive.  But if it helps you to pretend that you can barely tolerate my intellectual incompetence - my willful and deliberate obfuscation - feel free.  I suspect you'll need every trick in the book now.  You'll need to find cause for denying us our claim for your prize.  And you're hoping against hope that a scornful dismissal - may yet cut it.   But it's an unfortunate choice to refer to that curious post of yours.  I doubt it will survive scrutiny.  However.  Since you insist - then I, MOST reluctantly, MUST engage.  Let's see exactly where this argument poynts - no pun intended.

Here's the post
The electric field across an electric power SOURCE is always in OPPOSITE polarity to the direction of current through the power source when the power source is supplying current in the circuit. Therefore when a power calculation is performed on the power source in such case, (V x I), the two possible scenarios are the following, either:

1) +V x -I, or
2) -V x +I.

In either case, the result of the product is a NEGATIVE value.

The electric field across an electric power LOAD is always in EQUAL polarity to the direction of current through the load when the load in the circuit is dissipating energy. Therefore when a power calculation is performed on the load, (V x I), the two possible scenarios are the following, either:

1) +V x +I, or
2) -V x -I.

In either case, the result of the product is a POSITIVE value.

Although outlined in the detailed analysis06, the simple example below illustrates these facts quite well also. Note the difference in the direction of current and potential difference across each component.

.99

If I can manage the schematic I'll post it later.  Meanwhile.  What you STATE is that the 'electric field across an electric power SOURCE is always in OPPOSITE polarity to the direction of current through the power source when the power source is supplying current in the circuit.'  If - by this - you're proposing that the potential difference imposed on the circuit materials has an opposite polarity to the applied current flow from the source - then who's arguing?  Therefore -  for instance - if the battery is delivering a POSITIVE current flow - then the measured voltage across the load - the wires - and so on - will be NEGATIVE and vice verse. Again.  Who's arguing?

But then you state that therefore 'when a power calculation is performed on the power source in such case, (V x I), the two possible scenarios are the following, either: 1) +V x -I, or 2) -V x +I.  Golly.  We know that the watts (dare I use that term?) is determined by the product of the voltage across the battery supply - in the schematic example that you use -  and the direction of that current flow through the circuit (per second and so on).  AND.  You've agreed that IF the voltage measured across the circuit components is negative then you can put MONEY on it that the current flow is POSITIVE.  BUT YET?  With a 'flick of the wrist - so to speak - with a tan tan tara - with all the flamboyance of a magician - pulling the rabbit out the hat - you THEN propose that that current flow must be given a NEGATIVE VALUE. There it is.  As written in your first example.  1) +V x -I.

AND.  As if that's not enough!  You do it AGAIN - A SECOND TIME - to include a second option.  That - 2) - V x + I? What can I say?  What can any of us say?  Except that if this is a serious proposal then - you are grossly unaware of your own contradiction. OR. You've somehow managed to GROSSLY underestimate - what we both know - is my rather average intelligence.

I put it to you Poynty Point - that the direction that current flows is ALWAYS consistent with the polarity of the applied voltage form its source. Therefore IF the voltage is positive then the current flow is positive.  And IF the voltage is negative then the current flow is negative.  And if the applied voltage across those circuit components is NOT negative when the flow is positive or correspondingly, if the applied voltage is NOT positive when the flow is negative - then we can all RETHINK the standard model.  It will mean that you have, indeed, discovered something that diametrically contradicts everything that we have all rather come to depend on.

Kindest as ever
Rosie Posie