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

Custom Search

Author Topic: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.  (Read 933233 times)

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #315 on: January 24, 2012, 03:25:20 PM »
It would be much more feasible to utilize the nomenclature and reference designators as shown on your diagram when discussing your circuit. Agreed?

For example, please only use the word "Source" when referring to that terminal of the MOSFET. There is no "common source".

FG- is certainly a valid reference, as it is also shown on your diagram this way. "FG" means "Function Generator", agreed?

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #316 on: January 24, 2012, 03:31:21 PM »
It would be much more feasible to utilize the nomenclature and reference designators as shown on your diagram when discussing your circuit. Agreed?

For example, please only use the word "Source" when referring to that terminal of the MOSFET. There is no "common source".

FG- is certainly a valid reference, as it is also shown on your diagram this way. "FG" means "Function Generator", agreed?

i use the word 'source' as it's applicable.  Source is designated as one of the legs of those MOSFETs.  it is ALSO standard reference to that part of the circuit that is connected to the negative terminal of the battery supply - behind the switch.  As opposed to the Drain rail that described that part of the circuit that is connected to the positive terminal of the battery supply - in front of the switch.

I grant you one thing though.  However else I've used it - it patently was not clear to you.  But HOPEFULLY.  It now is.

Regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #317 on: January 24, 2012, 05:27:41 PM »
And Poynty,

Let me put you out of your misery regarding that OU claim.  I FREELY CONFESS that my only intention at claiming it at all was to force you to argue the paper and our evidence.  I was more than a little tired of the running commentary on both your forum and that hate blog that you subscribe to - where - regardless of those atrocious insults against me and my good name - is the clear REFUSAL to acknowledge the anomalies that are clearly and unarguably evident in BOTH OUR TESTS.  Had there been any acknowledgement of the fact that there were questions still to be answered - then this may have encouraged you to LOOK DEEPER.  But your overriding anxiety was to REJECT THE CLAIM OUTRIGHT. WHY?  IF there is some kind of evidence - however marginal - then one would expect a thorough investigation.  Instead of which?  All that abuse?  What gives?  It's very probable that I'm as intellectually challenged as you allege.  But I have a more than adequate working knowledge of the basics of physics.  Courtesy some really excellent literature on a conceptual understanding of this.  And especially as it relates to the electromagnetic interaction.  So?  Why the need to paint me more stupid than I actually am?  Is that part of your agenda?  And tell us.  What is that agenda?  Why is it necessary to not only reject a claim - but to then resort to such liberal abuse of that claimant.  Why do you need to parade a knowledge that you actually don't appear to have - in order to diminish my own credibility?  WHY THE ATTACK?  It's not more nor less than the scorn you apply to everyone who dares challenge our physical paradigms.  Personally I'm now prepared to fight it at every level that I can.  And I assure you it's been a struggle.  TIMES HAVE CHANGED.  WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE.

My ONLY interest is in progressing field theory.  But to get there I was ASSURED by some weighty academic physicists - that I would first have to offer some kind of anomalous result to PROVE some kind of merit in that model.  I've been touting that proof around for 13 years now and I ASSURE YOU - there is absolutely not 1 ACADEMIC EXPERT who has come to the table to evaluate that evidence.  The good news is that the application of my technology is NO LONGER CRITICAL.  I am entirely satisfied that Andrea Rossi has taken the pressure off the immediate need for those applications.  His solutions are BRILLIANT.  Our own nowhere NEAR developed enough.  BUT.  I still have that model and I still need to share it.  And it helps not me nor anyone at all - that you try to bulldoze a DENIAL without due consideration.  The more so as - for once on these forums - there's an entirely adequate paper detailing all the results as REQUIRED.  That's been sorely lacking.

You've got a lot to explain Poynty.

Regards,
Rosemary
 :-[
another edit.  It never stops.  'of' to 'off'.

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #318 on: January 24, 2012, 07:13:33 PM »
Poynty - it seems that I owe you an apology. 

I've just read through the most of my posts and it appears that I use the word source and source rail interchangeably.  I've variously spoken a whole lot of nonsense with respect to the ss dd gg number - which, for the life of me I can't understand what I meant.  I must concede that there is not ALWAYS sufficient clarity in my writing. No doubt there's plenty room for improvement.

One of our collaborators has assured me that one can refer to the supply source and then the term RAIL ALWAYS needs to be qualified against the terms source and drain.  Else one must specify MOSFET SOURCE QG - as you do.  More often than not I've referred to source rail - when I meant the source leg of the 'FET.  So.  I own up.  My terminology has not been as precise as required.  Abject apologies.

Regards,
Rosemary

lol  Had to edit those references AGAIN.  :o

and I see that you've all done some serious editing on that hate blog.   ;D   Nice to see the more aggressive posts deleted.  A little more editing and you'd have it very well cleaned.  Was there a complaint?   8)

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #319 on: January 25, 2012, 01:28:39 AM »
No need to apologize Rosemary.

My only hope is that if you wish to have a productive discussion about your circuit, we can "talk the same language" and agree in terms of how the circuit is connected, what the various points in the circuit are "named", and what the polarity is across the FG.

Until we do, it would be extremely difficult for me to answer any of YOUR questions, because I would not understand exactly what you are asking.

So, can we agree to properly use the nomenclature as denoted on YOUR schematic?

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #320 on: January 25, 2012, 02:22:08 AM »
No need to apologize Rosemary.

My only hope is that if you wish to have a productive discussion about your circuit, we can "talk the same language" and agree in terms of how the circuit is connected, what the various points in the circuit are "named", and what the polarity is across the FG.

Until we do, it would be extremely difficult for me to answer any of YOUR questions, because I would not understand exactly what you are asking.

So, can we agree to properly use the nomenclature as denoted on YOUR schematic?

Good.  Thanks for that.  Now.  We've agreed that the terms related to source and drain are this.  If I refer to Source Rail or Drain Rail then I am referring to the circuit connection to the negative and positive respectively.  By the same token if I refer to the source or drain on one of either legs of the transistors - then it is referred to as Q(1 or 2)source or drain.

I may need to go back to one of my posts.  I'll edit it in the light of these terms.  And then I'll repost. 

BRB
Rosie Pose

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #321 on: January 25, 2012, 02:36:33 AM »
If I refer to Source Rail or Drain Rail then I am referring to the circuit connection to the negative and positive respectively.

I can work with "Drain Rail" if I have to (I would prefer Q1-D or Q2-D), but it would be impossible to work with "Source Rail" because the two MOSFET Sources are not connected together. Again, the preference in order to avoid confusion, would be to refer to the MOSFET leg directly, such as Q1-S, which means the Source pin of Q1.

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #322 on: January 25, 2012, 02:36:35 AM »
Poynty - this is just a repeat of my previous post. I've highlighted those places that needed qualification - but otherwise it's exactly the same post.  Would you care to comment here?

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Here's that argument
Actually guys - this may be a better way to explain the anomalies and it may also get to the heart of Bubba's objection.  The oscilloscope probes are placed directly across the batteries that ground is at the source rail and the probe is at the drain rail.  Which is standard convention.  Then. During the period when the oscillation is greater than zero - in other words - when the battery is DISCHARGING - then it's voltage falls.  And it SERIOUSLY falls.  It goes from + 12 volts to + 0.5.  Given a  supply source of 6 batteries for example, then it goes from + 72 volts to + 3 volts.  At which point the oscillation reaches its peak positive voltage.  And this voltage increase is during the period when the applied signal at the gate of Q1, is negative.  WE KNOW that this FAR EXCEEDS THE BATTERY RATING.  In order for that battery to drop its voltage from + 12V to + 0.5V then it must have discharged A SERIOUS AMOUNT OF CURRENT.  Effectively it would have had to discharge virtually it's ENTIRE potential as this relates to its watt hour rating.  We EXPECT the battery voltage to fall during the discharge cycle.  But we CERTAINLY DO NOT expect it to fall to such a ridiculous level in such a small fraction of a moment AND SO REPEATEDLY - WITH EACH OSCILLATION.

Now.  If we take in the amount of energy that it has discharged during this moment - bearing in mind that it has virtually discharged ALL its potential - in a single fraction of a second.  And then let's assume that we have your average - say 20 watt hour battery.  For it to discharge it's entire potential then that means that in that small fraction of second -  during this 'discharge' phase of the oscillation it would have to deliver a current measured at 20 amps x 60 seconds x 60 minutes giving a total potential energy delivery capacity - given in AMPS - of 72 000 AMPS.  IN A MOMENT?  That's hardly likely.  And what then must that battery discharge if it's rating is even more than 60 watt hours?  As are ours?  And we use banks of them - up to and including 6 - at any one time.  DO THE MATH.  It beggars belief.  In fact it's positively ABSURD to even try and argue this.

NOW.  You'll recall that Poynty went to some considerable lengths to explain that the battery voltage DID NOT discharge that much voltage.  Effectively he was saying 'IGNORE THE FACT THAT THE BATTERY VOLTAGE ALSO MEASURES THAT RATHER EXTREME VOLTAGE COLLAPSE'. JUST ASSUME THAT IT STAYS AT ITS AVERAGE 12 VOLTS.  Well.  It's CRITICAL - that he asks you all to co-operate on this.  And in a way he's right.  There is NO WAY that the battery can discharge that much energy. SO?  What gives?  Our oscilloscope measures that battery voltage collapse.  His own simulation software measures it.  Yet the actual amount of current that is being DISCHARGED at that moment is PATENTLY - NOT IN SYNCH. 

But science is science.  And if we're going to ignore measurements - then we're on a hiding to nowhere.  So.  How to explain it?  How does that voltage at the battery DROP to +0.5V from +12.0V?  Very obviously the only way that we can COMPUTE a voltage that corresponds to that voltage measured across the battery - is by ASSUMING that there is some voltage at the probe of that oscilloscope -  that OPPOSES the voltage measured across the battery supply.  Therefore, for example, IF that probe at the drain rail - was reading a voltage of +12 V from the battery  - and SIMULTANEOUSLY it was reading a negative or -11.5 volts from a voltage potential measured on the 'other side' of that probe - STILL ON THE DRAIN RAIL - then it would compute the available potential difference on that rail of +0.5V.  Therefore, the only REASONABLE explanation is to assume that while the battery was discharging its energy, then simultaneously it was transposing an opposite potential difference over the circuit material.  WHICH IS REASONABLE.  Because, essentially, this conforms to the measured waveforms. And it most certainly conforms to the laws of induction.

OR DOES IT?  If, under standard applications, I apply a load in series with a battery supply - then I can safely predict that the battery voltage will still apply that opposing potential difference - that opposite voltage across the load.  Over time.  In fact over the duration.  It most certainly will NOT reduce its own measured voltage other than in line with its capacity related to its watt hour rating.  It will NOT drop to that 0.5V level EVER.  Not even under fully discharged conditions.  So?  Again.  WHAT GIVES?  Clearly something else is coming into the equation.  Because here, during this phase of the oscillation, during the period when the current is apparently flowing from the battery - then the battery voltage LITERALLY drops to something that FAR exceeds it's limit to discharge anything at all.  And we can discount measurement errors because we're ASSURED - actually WE'RE GUARANTEED - that those oscilloscopes are MEASURING CORRECTLY.  Well within their capabilities. 

SO.  BACK TO THE QUESTION?  WHAT GIVES?  We know that the probe from the oscilloscope is placed ACROSS the battery supply.  BUT.  By the same token it is ALSO placed across the LOAD and across the switches.  It's at the Drain rail.  And its ground is on the negative or Source rail.  And we've got all those complicated switches and inductive load resistors between IT and its ground.   Could it be that the probe is NOT ABLE to read the battery voltage UNLESS IT'S DISCHARGING?  UNLESS it's CONNECTED to the circuit?  Unless the switch is CLOSED.  IF there's a NEGATIVE signal applied to the GATE by the signal generator then it effectively becomes DISCONNECTED?  In which case?  Would it, that oscilloscope, not then pick up the reading of that potential difference that IS available and connected in series - in that circuit?  IF so.  Then it would be giving the value of the voltage potential that is still applicable to that circuit.  It may not be able to read the voltage potential at the battery because the battery is DISCONNECTED.  It would, however, be able to read the DYNAMIC voltage that is available across those circuit components that are STILL CONNECTED to the circuit?  In which case?  We now have a COMPLETE explanation for that voltage reading during that period of the cycle when the voltage apparently RAMPS UP.  What it is actually recording is the measure of a voltage in the process of DISCHARGING its potential difference from those circuit components.  Which ONLY makes sense IF that material has now become an energy supply source. 

It is this that is argued in the second part of that 2 part paper - as I keep reminding you.  Sorry this took so long.  It needs all those words to explain this.  The worst of it is that there's more to come.   

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #323 on: January 25, 2012, 02:44:05 AM »
I can work with "Drain Rail" if I have to (I would prefer Q1-D or Q2-D), but it would be impossible to work with "Source Rail" because the two MOSFET Sources are not connected together. Again, the preference in order to avoid confusion, would be to refer to the MOSFET leg directly, such as Q1-S, which means the Source pin of Q1.

NO POYNTY.  That's not the meaning of the term RAIL.  I was given to understand that any reference to RAIL refers to the wire that is connected directly to the supply source being the positive, DRAIN RAIL or the negative SOURCE RAIL of the supply's terminals.  In every context the word source must be referenced either as it relates to the transistor legs - in which case it is Q(1 or 2)S or as Source rail or Drain rail.  That way there are no ambiguities and it allows full circuit reference as required.

Surely?  In any event that's how I've referenced it in the above post.  Take a look in there and see if you can or can't understand it.

Regards,
Rosie

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #324 on: January 25, 2012, 02:51:20 AM »
OK, I see now the Drain rail is actually the battery + (B+). "Drain Rail" is confusing when actually referring to the battery + (B+), but I can work with it if necessary.

"Source Rail" is actually the FG-, agreed? At any rate, I can work with that if it makes it easier for you.

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #325 on: January 25, 2012, 02:54:56 AM »
OK, I see now the Drain rail is actually the battery +. "Drain Rail" is confusing when actually referring to the battery +, but I can work with it if necessary.

"Source Rail" is actually the FG-, agreed? At any rate, I can work with that if it makes it easier for you.

Ok.  That's good.  Because I know of no standard reference to that part of the circuit that is NOT at the drain.  And rail sort of qualifies it.  As opposed to the transistors' legs - in which case we simply refer to source or drain or S and D. 

Thanks,
Rosie

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #326 on: January 25, 2012, 03:02:00 AM »
Ok.  That's good.  Because I know of no standard reference to that part of the circuit that is NOT at the drain.  And rail sort of qualifies it.  As opposed to the transistors' legs - in which case we simply refer to source or drain or S and D. 

Thanks,
Rosie
Using "Drain Rail" is confusing because there is no direct connection to the battery from the Drains; the load resistor is in series. Since what you are referring to is actually the battery+ (B+) when you say "Drain Rail", then that is normally what it is called, "B+".

Regarding your request for comments, could I trouble you to condense your inquiries into a number of clear, concise, specific questions?

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #327 on: January 25, 2012, 03:16:19 AM »
We're 'teetering' here Poynty Point.  Can I ask you to grab onto this 'truce' with both hands and just hang in there?  Pro temp?  Let's see where this goes. ;D

Using "Drain Rail" is confusing because there is no direct connection to the battery from the Drains; the load resistor is in series. Since what you are referring to is actually the battery+ (B+) when you say "Drain Rail", then that is normally what it is called, "B+".
You'll notice a general reluctance that I have in referring to any acronyms at all.  That's because it always takes an argument to some distance, some remove from perfect clarity.  But that's just me.  I've not had science training.  But there are also those readers here who also are not entirely schooled in scientific jargon.  So.  On the whole - I can live with your need for those terms.  But, I'll continue to describe the 'thing'.  It's only important that If you refer to B+ or B- that you allow me my preferred terms.  But you're right again.  Because it is perfectly logical to refer to the battery postive terminal and the battery negative terminal.  That's fine.  I'll pass on amending the references in that post - if you don't mind.

Regarding your request for comments, could I trouble you to condense your inquiries into a number of clear precise questions?
I'm not sure that there are any questions there?  I'm actually asking you to fault the comments.

Regards,
Rosie

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #328 on: January 25, 2012, 03:33:56 AM »
And while I'm at it.  Could I impose on you, Professor - to either come into this discussion - or to comment on the measurement protocols that have been applied in our paper?

For some reason you seem reluctant to engage here?  And, if you are prepared to evaluate our claim it would, perhaps, be as well to get familiar with the extent of the arguments.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Bubba1

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 80
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #329 on: January 25, 2012, 03:49:48 AM »
Rosemary:

I hate to interrupt, but I noticed your reply #273 directing people to your blog.  I read something on your blog that I could hardly believe.  From November 17, 2010:

"...This would certainly account for current flow.  But the problem is this.  Our scientists know the speed at which one valence electron would influence another valence electron.  And it would take up to half an hour for it to travel through the average two meters of circuit wire before it would reach the light to light it or to reach the kettle to heat it.  There would be a required delay between the switching of the switch and the lighting of the light to get that process started...."

Do you believe that standard theory says a light bulb should take up to half an hour to turn on?  I have managed to live my whole life (up to now) without hearing that one.
Seriously, a half hour?

Bubba1