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

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

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: 84218
  • *Latest: RhineX

  • *Total Posts: 897395
  • *Total Topics: 15816
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 3
  • *Guests: 22
  • *Total: 25

Author Topic: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.  (Read 775208 times)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #135 on: January 16, 2012, 03:56:19 PM »
THEREFORE when you state as you do here...
 
Once again, nice try Rosemary.
 You've proved nothing at all I'm afraid, other than you can whip up a hell of a bullshit salad when you're hungry enough.
then I put it to you that the bullshit salad you claim that I'm trying to toss - is actually your own recipe.  It is INDEED - a load of codswallop.
 
 And here ...
 
I would encourage you to stick to the arts...you've been gifted in that regard, but in technical aspects such as those you've clumsily ventured into, you're hopelessly lost...actually.
where you seem to think you can adjudicate my talents - or lack of them?  I'm afraid you're somewhat under qualified. 
 
 And here...
 
My position stands; you have not provided convincing evidence of overunity, therefore your application for the OU award at OUR is rejected.
And MY position stands.  Unless you apply those rather quixotic and nonsensical and unscientific parameters - then ACTUALLY, as you put it, OUR CLAIM IS VALID.
 
 We are ALL of us most anxious - to hear a VALID scientific argument to refute our claim
.  Unless of course you prefer it that we do YET MORE ANALYSIS on that EXTRAORDINARY document of yours that you keep hoping has put our claim to bed.  Happy to oblige.  It's LONG OVERDUE that our members get familiar with these TACTICS of yours POYNTY POINT.
 
 As ever,
 Rosie Posie

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Cloxxki

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 825
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #136 on: January 16, 2012, 05:02:05 PM »
People, people...
 
What is the efficiency of energy conversion? Yes, it varies, but it's not bad.
So much we know about it. We get pretty good efficiencies, is we set our minds to it.
 
A loop should be possible is there is signficant OU going on in any form of energy, which every the intermediate conversions and by-effects of the technology might be. Light seems to be the most difficult to convert from, motion the easiest? I am far from a specialist on energy conversion, I just observe.
 
Without a full loop as part of the invention, OU is only claimed, not proven.
 
So if you MUST run off a battery, use the output of your technology to charge a battery bank. This bank should first have been well-drained by the technology itself, used as mere input without feedback, and for good measure also other charge draining technologies. Switch batteries, and repeat, and repeat. Of course while still putting out useful work as well, accumulation to a greater and greater figure whille never adding batteries.
 
If you can invent an OU technology bringing more than a dozen percents of OU, you are well capable of looping it. This is also your duty, and should proceed any claim of OU. Forums such as this will offer free advise on how to achieve such a loop. Insulation, direct torque, regeneration, etc.
If you can't loop at this stage, then improve your effiency until you notice that you can keep a large device running on small batteries being switched (electronically) around. Smaller is better.
 
Ad hominem attacks may seem the core of our existence sometimes, but it sure won't bring us OU.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #137 on: January 16, 2012, 05:28:03 PM »
Hello Cloxxki and Schubert Reiji Maigo,

You both claim that there can be no over unity unless one gets what you call a 'self looping' system.  By this, I presume you're first requiring the system will continue to deliver work - forever - without any losses of any kind.  The Perpetual motion machine.  If it's a motor then the motor will forever spin - and if it's a standard heating application - that it will forever remain hot.  And YET at no cost of any energy at all.  I'm afraid that far exceeds our own claim - or indeed any reasonable criteria - unless one first discovers a form of energy that diametrically opposes the standard model.

Our own technology depends on the standard model.  And in line with this we both predict and measure losses.  All that we're proving is that the energy that is being delivered CANNOT be from the battery supply.  If, as we argue, that energy is coming from the work station of the circuit - from our resistor element - then the obvious conclusion to be drawn is that there is a potential here for the transfer of energy that will GREATLY enhance energy efficiencies.

And we attempt to give a rather detailed account of the thesis in support of this, in the second part of that two-part paper - if you'd care to dip in there.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #137 on: January 16, 2012, 05:28:03 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #138 on: January 16, 2012, 05:42:55 PM »
And ether

I am not arguing with trolls.  I am trying to get you all to realise that Poynt.99's evaluation of science is absolutely NOT standard.  He has made it his mission on these forums to what he calls 'debunk' claims.  As a result there have been many victims with perfectly valid claims that have fallen to this eccentric motive and equally eccentric methodology of his.   Nor would I care that much - except that I see how effective are his ploys.  Certainly without his direct interventions then those - such as you and even Curious Chris - would have been aware of ours and others good efforts and these technologies would then have ADVANCED.  Meanwhile I see it as REQUIRED that our forum members discover the full extent of those fallacies that he's promoting.

Your own thesis in support of these results is interesting and I realise that echoes of it are repeated everywhere on these forums.  Our own thinking is strictly in terms of the standard model.  I personally would be very reluctant to deviate from this.  It's explained, as mentioned in our previous post - in that second paper.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Offline Cloxxki

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 825
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #139 on: January 16, 2012, 05:58:12 PM »
Of course there will be losses. When these are subtracted fromt he energy multification, they should still suffice to be looped back to source, and leave some amount of output available for useful work. Be it keep the tea water warm indefinately, or powering a train that just goes around in circles and won't stop until the wheels come off.

Let's say it is established that a battery can over give 100 united of electric energy.
If you get 200 of heat out, then that's amazing.
Spend 50 on conversion losses (somewhat pessimistic for cutting edge technology), get 150 units of EE out.
50 units are used for powering a downgeared crane, lifting a very large weight.
100 are used to keep the battery charged.
 
Simplicistic yes, and room to wiggle, but this is my current view burden of proof for overunity.
Any thing less is only trying to reach the level of a pendulum with a magnetic pivot bearing swinging inside a vacume chamber.
 
Unless you can't or won't loop, you'll be only in the race for brightest AA powered bicycle light, best AA powered drumming bunny, efficient water heater (everyone has 2 or 3 of those in various forms), etc. OU has nothing to do with it.
Any type of energy can be converted. We humans are masters at it. If you get enough of the one, you can make enough of the other. Looping takes away the need for measurement discussions. Does YOUR car run forever on half a charge? Loop it, end discussion, and see Avenue Albert Einstein be renamed to yours. Even Tesla Square.
 
If you're not getting enough output to dream of looping it, yet claim OU, you're obviously going to be in a measurements discussion, or better: be ignored. Just 10% OU for instance, that's going to be pretty hard to loop. Will require the pinnacle in energy conversion to loop with significant output. It's not impossible though, and shall be your next step towards realizing OU. 10%, that's something I'd fight for.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #139 on: January 16, 2012, 05:58:12 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #140 on: January 16, 2012, 06:13:09 PM »
Cloxxki - If its burden of proof you're looking for then maybe it should be in that the batteries outperform their watt hour rating?  And  we MOST ASSUREDLY prove that.  We also PROVE that there is an energy supply potential in the material of the circuit components themselves that has, heretofore, been somewhat neglected.  IF indeed that claim is valid - then, theoretically - we should be able to enhance efficiencies WELL beyond nuclear efficiencies.

I modestly propose that this may be a good start.

But actually Cloxxki - I think this technology of ours is already outmoded.  What Rossi has got in his E-cat is way more than enough to meet our energy concerns.  I am only trying to focus the attention here on the the agenda that flirts behind every hopeful claimant.  It's led by the Poynty's of this world.  Who knows?  Instead of feeding some pack dogs their daily kill - we could actually get round to discussing science.  I know that this small departure of Poynt's is a FIRST.  Hopefully he'll keep to the argument - in between those noisy complaints he makes against my intelligence, lack of comprehension, madness, delusions and whatnot.

Kindest again,
Rosemary

Offline SchubertReijiMaigo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 343
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #141 on: January 16, 2012, 08:44:58 PM »
Thank you for responce Rosemary,


Quote
You both claim that there can be no over unity unless one gets what you call a 'self looping' system.  By this, I presume you're first requiring the system will continue to deliver work - forever - without any losses of any kind.  The Perpetual motion machine.  If it's a motor then the motor will forever spin - and if it's a standard heating application - that it will forever remain hot.  And YET at no cost of any energy at all.  I'm afraid that far exceeds our own claim - or indeed any reasonable criteria - unless one first discovers a form of energy that diametrically opposes the standard model.



A long time ago you have claimed COP 17 heater: very good, but even with (at the best) 35 -40 % of energy transformation you can self-loop the things:   35% of 17 will give you around 6 of COP with a steam engine...


You can:
1) Boil water with your COP 17 heater.
2) Power a steam engine.
3) Run an alternator with belt and pulley...
4) Convert back into electricity power itself and even still remaing energy to do work !!!
5) The ultimate proof to close the mouth to all "debunker"
6) Seriously, it's nearly impossible to debunk this !!! (Until you hide a battery or a sector plug...)


SRM.
         

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #141 on: January 16, 2012, 08:44:58 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Cloxxki

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 825
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #142 on: January 16, 2012, 11:29:06 PM »
SRM, you got it.
COP 17 is too easy an example even.
I wonder which is the lowest number for every given input and output media that would be considered loopable.
COP 3? If you had it, could you loop it? Battery power in, heat out. Have a steam fanatic build the ultimate steam-to-EP generator. With Stirling sub-circuit to suck the last bit of energy out of the steam. Super insulated systems with aerogel. I bet a true COP 2 (could be simulated) could be looped with a bit of useful work being done.
Thinking of cars and the most basic HHO on demand. If you get only get COP (or Faraday's limit) x1.5 , a few percents of you engine power goes to the wheels. The rest goes to a huge alternator, sucking up >90% of output, to be able to send back in the full 100% needed. A supercar engine of 800bhp would be loud, and make very few miles to the gallon of water, but it would net a decent city car's performance. I'd totally accept that as OU. A loud, water thirsty engine that barely gets a small car going. Seriously.


Rosemary,
e-Cat is great, and I tend to believe this or similar technology is a possibility. There's bound to be some matter on earth that's just not settled on the lowest energy level, just like not every rock has fallen off it mountain yet.
e-Cat will not win the OU award money though, as far as I remember the rules?


Until we all have a $500 e-Cat securing our household power supply for years on end, all the power companies out of business, there is reason to keep researching. e-Cat need to be prodeced also. There may be cleaner and cheaper power out there still. It may be wind or solar.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #143 on: January 17, 2012, 02:04:29 AM »
Thank you for responce Rosemary,

A long time ago you have claimed COP 17 heater: very good, but even with (at the best) 35 -40 % of energy transformation you can self-loop the things:   35% of 17 will give you around 6 of COP with a steam engine...

You can:
1) Boil water with your COP 17 heater.
2) Power a steam engine.
3) Run an alternator with belt and pulley...
4) Convert back into electricity power itself and even still remaing energy to do work !!!
5) The ultimate proof to close the mouth to all "debunker"
6) Seriously, it's nearly impossible to debunk this !!! (Until you hide a battery or a sector plug...)

SRM.

Hello again Schubert Reiji Maigo

Just a small point.  I have difficulties addressing people by their initials.  Fact is I have difficulty addressing anyone at all by a pseudonym - which is the preferred convention on these forums.  I'm sort of compromising here - but is your name Schubert?  And then can I use that instead of your initials?  Just a small thing.  But it would save me a good 5 minutes embroiled in this ridiculous internal debate every time I answer your posts.

In any event.  Your points are entirely valid.  But there are a couple of downsides to our own technology that needs to be addressed.  We have only generated upwards of 100 watts.  IF we are to reach significant levels to take this technology to application, then we would need to prove that we can produce mega watts - as does Andrea Rossi.  To do this we need to generate a voltage across those transistors that, in turn, have a tolerance measured in the 10 000 volt range.  Thus far - they're not available to the market.  And if we used any transistor that does not have that intrinsic body diode - then we would need to embark on an entirely new path and explore the efficacy of applying external diodes.  Again.  It's probably doable.  BUT.  It would involve me, personally, in yet more experimentation and I have very little appetite or interest in this side of things.  More to the point.  I have also 'run out of budget'.  But even more to the point is that my interest is in 'thesis' which is my only overarching obsession.  Frankly - experimentation bores me to tears.  Which is where I kept hoping that all you talented experimentalists would take over the question and develop the required. 

Which is NOT to say that there is no merit or indeed, no 'need' to get familiar with the thesis.  You see.  Unless the thinking behind this energy is more fully understood - then we are all trying to make our way in the dark.  Just stabbing at possibilities.  Nothing actually understood.  Not an easy way to progress a new science that clearly NEEDS to be progressed.  What we have managed is to take existing proof of Dark Energy and locate this dark 'matter' in a 'field'.  But 'field' theory has never been fully developed or explored.  It has been mathematically JUSTIFIED by our string theorists.  But their math is obscure - even to qualified mathematicians.  And their reliance is on a fixed and immovable 'structure' rather than the highly charged highly mobile structure that we require in terms of our magnetic field model.  Hopefully, in due course, these questions will be addressed.  In fact I'm reasonably satisfied that this will soon become the full focus of our new physics.  ether - has already hinted at this.  And by his chosen 'nom de plume' it's likely he realises that this is the aether energy that was required by Tesla - and indeed - many of you here.  But that 'thinking' is considered eccentric if it is not incorporated into the standard model.  Which is where our own small contribution may have assisted this general drive.  Because we rely on this.  There is no marked departure of our proposals from KNOWN physics.

For some reason that is possibly better understood by Poynty - there is a neurotic frenzy to deny this.  BUT to deny it requires the outright dismissal of the thesis, the experimental proof of the thesis and the rather PUBLIC denouncement of my qualifications to comment.  The attack has been at all those levels.  And since I cannot personally take this product to significant market application - then I haven't minded that much.  UNTIL NOW.  When I realise that EVEN IN THE FACE OF ROSSI'S remarkable breakthroughs - these efforts in DENIAL not only persist - but they persist effectively.  I REALLY assumed that, for once, our 'nay sayers' would TAKE NOTE.  They haven't.  They're still at it.  And I now intend to challenge them ON THEIR OWN ARGUMENTS - that over unity AT ITS LEAST is ACKNOWLEDGED.  And I'm NOT equipped to argue Rossi's technology.  But I'm overqualified to argue my own.  Which is why I've revived this thread.

I do hope that's made it clearer.  If you - or anyone at all - wishes to progress this technology of ours - that may be a very good thing.  As Cloxxki says.  Any progress will only improve the situation.  But I - personally - must pass.  My mission now is to challenge our nay sayers on their own grounds and as it relates to our own evidence.  You have, many of you here, all presumed - for far too long now - that there's no proof of over unity.  This is wrong.  We have AMPLE proof.  I intend making you all aware of that fact.  That unity barrier has indeed been breached.  In fact it's a broken artifact that needs to be housed in a museum.  It has absolutely no further relevance except as an interesting theoretical constraint imposed - for too long - on our science.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #143 on: January 17, 2012, 02:04:29 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #144 on: January 17, 2012, 02:29:19 AM »
Rosemary, all you've proved is that you still don't understand how to measure energy flows in circuits, nor do you know how to measure battery capacity. As cloxxi says, even if you did, as you claim, "prove" that your circuit gets energy from somewhere other than the battery and uses it to increase the battery's amp-hour capacity, you could use part of the charge on one battery to completely charge another identical battery, and eventually accumulate charged up batteries for free, thus CLOSING THE LOOP. You continue to prevaricate as well by changing the definition of what an overunity device is.... you want a definition that fits your device, even though your device runs down and can't power anything.

It's rather amazing to me that you are still at it... after all these years.... and yet, you are still on the grid at home. At least you've learned a bit along the way. I can remember when you didn't know what integration was, what a capacitor did, the importance of floating "grounds" on your scope channels.... what aliasing does to your display.... I remember when you got kicked off of Naked Scientists for trying to tell switching power supply engineers how mosfets work, and claiming that you had a patent. And you are still at it, and you still haven't got anything to show for it, except a few rejection notices from IEEE.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #145 on: January 17, 2012, 02:36:05 AM »
Rosemary, all you've proved is that you still don't understand how to measure energy flows in circuits, nor do you know how to measure battery capacity. As cloxxi says, even if you did, as you claim, "prove" that your circuit gets energy from somewhere other than the battery and uses it to increase the battery's amp-hour capacity, you could use part of the charge on one battery to completely charge another identical battery, and eventually accumulate charged up batteries for free, thus CLOSING THE LOOP. You continue to prevaricate as well by changing the definition of what an overunity device is.... you want a definition that fits your device, even though your device runs down and can't power anything.

It's rather amazing to me that you are still at it... after all these years.... and yet, you are still on the grid at home. At least you've learned a bit along the way. I can remember when you didn't know what integration was, what a capacitor did, the importance of floating "grounds" on your scope channels.... what aliasing does to your display.... I remember when you got kicked off of Naked Scientists for trying to tell switching power supply engineers how mosfets work, and claiming that you had a patent. And you are still at it, and you still haven't got anything to show for it, except a few rejection notices from IEEE.

TK   ;D - HOW NICE IS THIS?

It's always a comfort to me to see that you're concentrating on my history.  And INDEED - I've learned MUCH.  Golly. 

Did Ramset get hold of you?  He needs you to adjudicate in yet another 'debunk' related to cavitation? energy? - something?  He seems to think that you'd be the best choice to advance this knowledge.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

By the way.  Did you read those arguments against Poynty Point.  I've rather made mincemeat of his nonsense.  Did he ask you to come to his rescue?  I fully understand why.

 :-*

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #145 on: January 17, 2012, 02:36:05 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #146 on: January 17, 2012, 03:35:35 AM »
Now, TinselKoala - lest you think I'm ducking the issue - let me explain this again.

Rosemary, all you've proved is that you still don't understand how to measure energy flows in circuits, nor do you know how to measure battery capacity.
IF I do NOT understand how to measure the energy flowing in a circuit - then rest assured.  My collaborators do.  And they have endorsed the measurements based on the data from our oscilloscopes.
As cloxxi says, even if you did, as you claim, "prove" that your circuit gets energy from somewhere other than the battery and uses it to increase the battery's amp-hour capacity, you could use part of the charge on one battery to completely charge another identical battery, and eventually accumulate charged up batteries for free, thus CLOSING THE LOOP.
I've explained this.  In that paper.  We do NOT recharge the battery.  What we manage is to NOT DISCHARGE IT.  The assumption is that we can get an endless supply of current flow.  IF ONLY.  But to do that we'd need to perform feats of magic.  IF, as we propose, current flow actually comprises the material of a magnetic particle - then the downside is that particle cannot 'give birth' to more and more particles - which would be required - if we were ever to simply recharge more and more batteries.  For some reason, TinselKoala, you are expecting us to perform FEATS OF MAGIC.  We are, all of us collaborators, mere mortals.  We cannot therefore oblige.
You continue to prevaricate as well by changing the definition of what an overunity device is.... you want a definition that fits your device, even though your device runs down and can't power anything.
This is uncharacteristically obtuse.  What are you complaining about?  That I'm prevaricating - when I have explained PRECISELY why we not only CANNOT comply - but would not be able to - under any conditions whatsoever.  It exceeds our claim and is - in my opinion - beyond the capabilities of a mere mortal to perform.  I have NEVER changed the definition of an 'over unity' device.  There is nothing ambiguous about the term to require definition - in the first place.  And how can you say that our device is not able to power anything?  We've taken water to boil from batteries that are entirely disconnected to the circuit which technically means that they should be incapable of delivering energy.
It's rather amazing to me that you are still at it... after all these years.... and yet, you are still on the grid at home.
I've explained this.  I cannot run my household appliances on 100 watts.  Just NOT DOABLE.
At least you've learned a bit along the way. I can remember when you didn't know what integration was, what a capacitor did, the importance of floating "grounds" on your scope channels.... what aliasing does to your display.... I remember when you got kicked off of Naked Scientists for trying to tell switching power supply engineers how mosfets work, and claiming that you had a patent. And you are still at it, and you still haven't got anything to show for it, except a few rejection notices from IEEE.
THANK YOU TK.  Nice to see that you acknowledge my personal progress.  You see how I apply myself?  You should try it.  Does wonders for the soul.

Kindest regards again,
Rosie

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #147 on: January 17, 2012, 03:53:37 AM »
And BTW (by the way)  8) just to get the record straight.  We have submitted a total of 5 papers to the IEEE.  ONLY 1 WAS EVER REJECTED - and that was closely followed by an appeal to RESUBMIT.

You're casting those 'nasturtiums' - TinselKoala.  If I didn't know better I'd be inclined to think you had an agenda.

But kindest regards, nonetheless
Rosie



Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #148 on: January 17, 2012, 07:14:41 AM »
And to all of you who read here - PLEASE feel free to comment.  But here's the reminder.  I am NOT about to perform any more tests until I do this for Poynty Point, Harti and Steven E Jones.  And then it will simply be a repeat of the 4 tests that were shown in our paper.

I am more than happy to answer any concerns related to errors of measurement - especially if those concerns have not been answered in our paper.  If we've overlooked something then we most certainly need to look into it. 

And on this side of over unity claims - I would strongly urge any of you who want to - to try and put our apparatus together.  It does not need to have the PRECISE resistor.  I personally know of it being applied to a solder iron, a bank of LED's and even a standard shop bought 1000 watt ceramic resistor.  And a duplication of that oscillating waveform, is very easy to replicate.  The minute you find this - then you are looking at the evidence of a current that has NOT been generated by the battery supply source - regardless of the measurements.  I assure you all.  You will be surprised.  If you configure the circuit as Harti has recommended - with a negative signal applied continuously to the gate of the FETs you will get a continuous oscillation for the duration - which oscillation is NOT parasitic.  It's TOO STRONG to be explained away so easily.

The only thing I would add is that - while it is relatively easy to find that waveform - it is not always easy to establish the measurements.  To get it to the required NEGATIVE wattage value - then you really need to fine tune it.  And for that, unfortunately, we need sophisticated instruments. - So, if you're game, ether22 or anyone at all - this is NOT a black art.  It's a really simple circuit configuration.  And you can generate that oscillation EASILY

And on the other side of over unity claims - those healthy sceptics amongst you all - the MR MAGS and the like - then I recommend that you try the same. Certainly before you deny the evidence which we've gone to such lengths to record.  And please remember that it takes very little effort to publicly denounce anything at all.  But one hopes for a modicum of impartiality here on these forums else we'll be working AGAINST what may well be a new science - related to new insights. And all this may then ADVANCE rather than REGRESS our global best interests - and INDEED the best interests of science itself.  It helps NOTHING to simply dismiss the evidence for the hell of it.  That's not science.  That's medieval. 

And then for the balance of you.  That small but very noisy minority - who SHOUT their denials with rather less restraint than they should.  I put it to you that you have all been monopolising our scientific commentary to the detriment of a new science and at the cost of any reasonable analysis.  It will ALWAYS be a tribute to the efforts of these forums that so many people have had the COURAGE to challenge conventional science on its own terms.  Experimental evidence.  It is ABSOLUTELY a first - in our scientific history.  And I fondly believe that it's awakened an interest in this field of energy that has been outlawed - historically - by our own academics.  Therefore.  With the utmost respect.  IF you feel compelled to comment on whatever grounds at all - BUT ESPECIALLY when you offer PRIZES for evidence of breach - then I would strongly recommend that your ANALYSIS REMAIN APPROPRIATE TO SCIENTIFIC PROTOCOLS - and not to the SUPRIOUS RUNNING COMMENTARY about the character, stupidity or credentials of the proposer.  JUST STICK TO SCIENCE.  It would be enormously gratifying.  And it would be some tribute to the respect that one hopes you have for the proud history of science.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Offline SchubertReijiMaigo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 343
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #149 on: January 17, 2012, 12:03:05 PM »
Hello again you can just call me Schubert (It's the name of great composer since I'm pianist...) and Reiji Maigo something like Midnight's Child (a fictional apparatus in a Japanese Manga that can produce unlimited spiritual energy, it recharge itself every midnight...) It's a perpetual motion machine...


To respond to your earlier comment: Have you tried to hook up for example 5 heater in parallel the five heater will produce 500 watts, As I recall correctly you can find as low 150-200 watts Stirling engine...




In any case good luck to your research !!!

 

OneLink