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 933248 times)

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #375 on: January 26, 2012, 04:56:51 PM »
Ok Poynty Point,

Here's the thing.  You need to somehow explain how the battery voltage is wrong.  No good saying that the wires are skewing the results.  The simple fact is that I could have an absurd length of upwards of 20 meters of heavy duty wire leading from that battery to some circuit apparatus - AND STILL THOSE SCOPES WOULD MEASURE THE BATTERY VOLTAGE ACCURATELY.   I can apply a switching circuit at the end of that >20 meters - AND apply a really fast switching frequency.  But provided that frequency is within the scopes broadband width - it's fine.  And those scopes deal with frequencies at mega hertz.  Nothing like the speed of that oscillation.   And even with an impedance from HELL - STILL THOSE SCOPES WOULD MEASURE THE VOLTAGE ACCURATELY.  AND it would accurately show the that waveform - regardless of its complexity.  I may not get much amperage through that wire - and the further from the appliance then the greater restriction to that flow of current.  If there are spikes - it'll show those spikes.  But it will always give PRECISELY the correct waveform across that battery, or THOSE batteries, whatever.  And that scope will give PRECISELY the correct voltage.  IMPEDANCE DOES NOTHING to the voltage that is measured as potential difference from the supply.  When impedance kicks in is when you compute the AMPERAGE based on a measured voltage.  Why do you not know this?  It's elementary.

QUITE APART FROM WHICH - because you went on and on about this being the REASON  our battery voltage is being DISTORTED - I went to some considerable trouble to apply the probes across two batteries in series with their terminals positioned that the scope probe could reach DIRECTLY across the positive and negative terminal.  WE GOT PRECISELY THE SAME RESULTS.  TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE THIS WAS POSTED ON OUR THREAD.  Then.  One of the collaborators took the trouble to reply to you on your hate blog.  He EXPLAINED that he had done this test on ENTIRELY DIFFERENT APPARATUS USING A 555 switching circuit.  Go back there and see if you can find it.  Posted there on the 10 November 2011.   Your own comments follow hot in that wake.  (Glad to see you've deleted this year's comments BTW (by the way)).  here's that link.  http://rosemaryainslie-publicblog.blogspot.com/  It begins 'Hey guys, stop stuffing around with blogspots and build this thing, I did and it worked.'  So.  We've tested this on MULTIPLE CIRCUITS using ENTIRELY DIFFERENT LOADS - with or without the use of a single battery from our own bank of batteries or even when using other lead acid or alkaline batteries.  And there's one thing that follows as day follows night.  It's THAT OSCILLATION.  And with the required tuning - THAT NEGATIVE WATTAGE NUMBER.

SO.  Kindly REFRAIN from calling me a LIAR.  Or a FRAUD.  Those tests were DONE AND DUSTED.  And you most CERTAINLY were informed about them.  Quite apart from which - it was seriously the most absurd waste of time that anyone of us has ever engaged in.  It was done ENTIRELY to indulge YOU so that you could put your objection to bed.  It is IRRELEVANT.  You don't need our assurances.  You've got the LeCroy instruments that show us what that waveform is doing.  It's all that's needed. 

What I find particularly painful - is the fact that you go to such extraordinary lengths to advise the world and his wife - that I do not understand basic electronics.  And yet this very basic fact related to elementary measurement protocol - COMPLETELY eludes you.  Or does it?  Are you hoping that the readers here will believe you?  Is this part of that disinformation program?  Those are the ONLY 2 options available to explain this Poynty.  Hopefully it's that you really don't understand elementary measurement protocols.  In which case - WHY DO YOU KEEP ADVISING ME THAT I'M IGNORANT?  Shouldn't you, perhaps, take a look in that mirror you're holding up?

And I assure you I am NOT a FRAUD.  I DO NOT LIE ABOUT OUR RESULTS.  I CAN'T.  I'm just not clever enough.  I RELY on the measurements from those instruments.  And frankly - I don't think it would be POSSIBLE to tamper with results from the LeCroy.  What's shown is what the data IS. 

Regards
Rosemary


woopy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 608
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #376 on: January 27, 2012, 12:34:49 AM »
I all

hope not to disturb :)

some cents of my experiments

hope this helps :)

good night bat all

Laurent

http://youtu.be/9IE2myPJPzY

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #377 on: January 27, 2012, 01:17:13 AM »
Laurent,

If and when you are interested in obtaining a similar wave form to Rosemary's let me know. I'm certain I can help you get there.

Do you have a 10 Ohm power resistor? The only other thing you'll need is some wire, a diode (or the other MOSFET you have there), and your signal generator. It's quite simple, and you're almost there already. Also, you'll need to use at least 24V, but it works better with higher voltages. Your supply goes to 60VDC?

.99

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #378 on: January 27, 2012, 03:42:58 AM »
I all

hope not to disturb :)

some cents of my experiments

hope this helps :)

good night bat all

Laurent

http://youtu.be/9IE2myPJPzY

Many, many thanks for trying this woopy.  I am always bowled over by your videos.  You come across as being the most courteous and kindly of people.  I could learn much from you and intend trying.

I'm not sure why you're not getting that oscillation.  I suspect it's that your Q2S is actually not floating.  You need to make sure that it's not connected to the supply source or Battery negative.  When I get my camera - soon now - I'll post some pictures of this. 

Meanwhile you'd be better advised by Poynty and others.  The feasibility of getting the oscillation is absolutely NOT at question.  It's the analysis of that oscillation that's somewhat fraught.

The very kindest of regards to you woopy.  And many, many thanks for your work.  You have no idea how deeply appreciative I am.  I don't think you could intrude on a discussion - EVER.  You're simply not capable of it.

Rosemary

By the way - woopy.  It's interesting that the LED stays LIT despite that voltage reversal.  It implies that there's a continual steady current.  Which is intriguing.  We found this ourselves when we provided two alternate banks to check if the two lines of LED's would alternate on and off.  We found that only one line stayed lit, and it was steady.  No flickering even.  It was intriguing.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2012, 04:59:00 AM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #379 on: January 27, 2012, 04:41:32 AM »
Poynty - now, to continue.

I trust that you understand the significance of that oscillation.  It MOST ASSUREDLY applies to the voltage that the oscilloscope is reading.  And PATENTLY it is NOT reading the battery voltage.  We both agree.  The battery CANNOT be discharging virtually its entire capacity at every half swing' of each oscillation.

IF the MOSFETS Q1 and Q2 are always alternately on - in a 'flip flop' condition - then one could claim that therefore there is a path to enable the continuous flow from the battery.  I agree.  BUT.  Then we would also need to prove that there's a path through Q2S or through the Source Leg of Q2s to the common Source Rail or battery negative.  And then too.  If the path was ALWAYS thereby enabled - then it would show us a waveform that steadied at whatever the battery voltage was - save for the occasional spiking at each transition.  In other words if the battery voltage was 12 volts then it would remain at 12 volts and only diminish as it reduced its potential.

And.  Not impedance nor capacitance nor inductance from anywhere on that circuit material - will alter the actual potential difference that the scope meter is reading.  The voltage is what it is.  The computation of AMPERAGE CURRENT FLOW would need to be mathematically adjusted - in line with that measured voltage.  We accommodate that calculation - when we determine the rate of wattage delivered.  And we are always left with a NEGATIVE WATTAGE.

And what that voltage reading is telling us is that - whatever else it is measuring - it is NOT the battery voltage.  Somehow, through the application of a negative signal at the gate of Q1 - the battery voltage reading is replaced by - or becomes the sum of - the energy that is being delivered elsewhere on that circuit.

To resolve this question first requires some analysis of the potential paths that ARE available.  And then an interpretation of current flow in line with the standard model.  This is the thrust of the analysis in our paper.  BECAUSE - the question of available paths is ENTIRELY RESOLVED IF one applies a dual charge potential to the properties of current flow - that is also then consistent with the measured potential difference from the applied voltage.

Please feel free to comment.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Edited.
took out a sentence as it was repetitive

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #380 on: January 27, 2012, 04:49:28 AM »
And.  At the risk of putting too much on the table at once - there's that other nagging question related to the circuit that Harti encouraged us to use.  Which is the use of ONLY a continual negative current applied ONLY to the Gate of the MOSFET - when we also only used one switch.  Here there is no argument that the oscillation persists. 

Kindest again,
Rosemary

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #381 on: January 27, 2012, 07:26:07 AM »
So.  Poynty, In SUMMATION

It is evident that there is no valid argument to dispute our measurements that also CONFORM to what our standard measurement protocols require.  The fact that I questioned a 'block circuit' is hardly justification to ignore our claim.  If the concern is that this may have INSULTED your intelligence - then it does not.  What is at question is whether or not you can upend our evidence or even our results.  Let me remind you.

We are able to power a circuit with no energy measured to have been delivered by an energy supply source.  As energy is applied during the brief on periods, and depending on the settings at the switch, that power can be high enough to take water to boil and - with a more robust transistors the evidence is that the circuit can also operate in booster converter mode.  This flies in the face of classical prediction and it entirely satisfies your criteria for consideration of your prize - offered for proof of over unity.

In which case we need to negotiate the venue in order to demonstrate this proof, which will be based on the measurement parameters that are outlined in the paper and that are further justified in this rather extensive dialogue between ourselves.

I await word and put it to you that should you refuse to engage - then there is an EXPLICIT acknowledgement of our Claim. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary Ainslie

edited
FOR EMPHASIS

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #382 on: January 27, 2012, 07:34:39 AM »
And guys, may I add.  I have not heard from Professor E Jones.  He has expressed every interest to get this tested.  If he also does not engage - then presumably he also concedes defeat.  It could be that he's busy during the week.  In which case it's fair and reasonable to leave this open until Sunday.

And regarding Harti's interest.  We none of us have ANY INTENTION of claiming Harti's over unity prize.  This because his prize offer is motivated by a sincere effort to find proof of over unity.  I trust you see the distinction.  But we are more than willing to demonstrate our device to Harti - any time he wishes - preferably from here in SA.  This may satisfy him that Over Unity Breach is 'done and dusted'.  What's at issue now is to check how better to apply this than my own poor efforts.  And I KNOW that he and, indeed, all our experimenters here - would manage this better than me.  I would also add that it may now be as well to re-explore those prior claims by various members - that may have been disqualified in terms of Poyny's measurement analysis.  They're proven to be somewhat flawed.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #383 on: January 27, 2012, 07:54:43 AM »
And while I'm at it.  Guys.  I know that the most of all readers and especially all experimenters in this field - are more interested in the electromagnetic interaction as it relates to motorised energy.  OF COURSE you are.  I've said it before.  It's a sexy application.  It's visually evident.  And, if you could get that motor running, forever, then WHO on God's earth - could argue? 

It is my opinion that actually, the excess, that energy that we access every time we put it to work - relies on a disturbance to the magnetic field.  Which essentially - in terms of the thesis - actually requires the release of heat.  This is always going to be the catalyst to work that energy.  And to access that heat - one way is through the Induction process.  But it is the HEAT itself that is required.  It needs an IMBALANCED or CHAOTIC magnetic field - before any work at all - can be released.  And we propose that in its chaotic condition then it is always measurable and quantifiable - as heat. 

Not sure that this is entirely understandable.  And I'm certainly not sure that this is correct.  But what I do know is that THIS ENTIRELY RESOLVES the question.

Again, regards,
Rosemary

This may explain it better.  The magnetic dipoles assemble in a field condition.  That's in line with Faraday's Lines of Force.  Out of that field condition they are in a transitional chaotic state.  That's when we can measure their heat - most grossly evident as 'flame'.  Then they decay back into their field condition.  That's when the heat dissipates.  And that decay is simply the result of their reassembly or restructuring back into the field condition.  That's when their orbital velocity exceeds light speed.  Which renders them invisible.  And then they're no longer interacting with the material in coalesced matter.  In a field condition they can only interact with those atoms' energy levels.  Which are also invisible magnetic fields.  Which also orbit at 2C.  Effectively the particle in the field is invisible.  Then it's in a structured field condition.  Out of the field condition they're visible.  Then they're simply in the process of getting back into their preferred field condition.  Which conforms PRECISELY to the properties required and attributed to DARK ENERGY FROM DARK MATTER.

In other words.  Every time we see a spark - then we are looking at the magnetic particle that is chaotic and manifest because it's outside it's preferred field condition. 
« Last Edit: January 27, 2012, 08:55:06 AM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #384 on: January 27, 2012, 02:07:04 PM »
I have just been cautioned that there are those who are still approaching members who posts on this thread - through the personal messages.  May I please ask you to ignore those advices or challenge them to make their opinion public.  This is an OPEN SOURCE FORUM.  And it is an abuse of that message system.

Kindest again,
Rosemary

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #385 on: January 27, 2012, 02:18:27 PM »
So.  Poynty,
[snip]
I await word and put it to you that should you refuse to engage - then there is an EXPLICIT acknowledgement of our Claim.

And guys, may I add.  I have not heard from Professor E Jones.  He has expressed every interest to get this tested.  If he also does not engage - then presumably he also concedes defeat.

How quaint.  ???

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #386 on: January 27, 2012, 02:53:49 PM »
How quaint.  ???

Pointy - may I say.  I find your comment here to be lacking in relevance or indeed argument.  You're in the unhappy position of either needing to defend your stance or endorse our claim.  In the absence of engaging then I assume that you have none.  Or that you can't.  Either way I think you need to publicly withdraw your offer of a prize as clearly it was a RUSE to lure our poor unsuspecting claimants into a trap.  I rather suspect that they relied on you to give a scientific dissertation - or at its least - a scientific argument.  Actually, I think we all did.  And as it turns out - not only can you NOT do a standard exercise in power analysis but that your commitment is to deny and deny and deny.  Which is unfortunate.  But - thankfully - this little exercise has exposed that motive.

Take care Poynty Point.
Kindest regards, as ever,
Rosie Pose

Here's a more adequate and impartial analysis of what has actually been going on.
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2012/01/more-niceties-related-to-that.html


poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #387 on: January 28, 2012, 12:34:33 AM »
Rosemary, I have a question for you. It doesn't directly pertain to the oscillation, but it is related and I am curious to know how you think about this.

Here it is:

If we could separate the connection to the battery positive terminal from your circuit into 2 connections, one only allowing the battery to discharge (current from the battery), and one only allowing it to charge (current to the battery), based on your theory that the battery is receiving a net charge overall, what would we expect to see in terms of current flow on those two paths?

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #388 on: January 28, 2012, 02:05:52 AM »
Rosemary, I have a question for you. It doesn't directly pertain to the oscillation, but it is related and I am curious to know how you think about this.

Here it is:

If we could separate the connection to the battery positive terminal from your circuit into 2 connections, one only allowing the battery to discharge (current from the battery), and one only allowing it to charge (current to the battery), based on your theory that the battery is receiving a net charge overall, what would we expect to see in terms of current flow on those two paths?

Poynty.  I have no idea.  And I'm not sure that it will serve anyone that I now start to speculate.  I wonder if I could impose on you to answer a SLEW of questions that I've put to you related to your counterclaim?  That would have the very real merit of being 'on topic'. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie


poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #389 on: January 28, 2012, 03:11:58 AM »
Poynty.  I have no idea.  And I'm not sure that it will serve anyone that I now start to speculate.  I wonder if I could impose on you to answer a SLEW of questions that I've put to you related to your counterclaim?  That would have the very real merit of being 'on topic'. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie
I see.  :o

I had the distinct impression that you felt you had a rather good handle on the current flow into and out of the battery, since your entire claim seems to ride on the notion that more current (and hence charge) goes back to the battery than what comes out of it. Isn't part of your claim that your COP= INFINITY? I guess I was mistaken.