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 933224 times)

SchubertReijiMaigo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 343
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #420 on: January 28, 2012, 08:02:57 PM »
Cool stuff, this method work with a modified sine-wave inverter ?
(I need to measure the input power from the DC side for my resonant amplification experiment: all measure will be in DC to avoid error...)
Can I use it for a rectified unfiltered DC OUPUT ?


Edit: I have also a scope (DSO 2090) to get REAL power including AC (distorted dephased sine wave of course), I can use the Math function ChannelA mean * ChannelB mean ?



poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #421 on: January 28, 2012, 08:12:59 PM »
Cool stuff, this method work with a modified sine-wave inverter ?
(I need to measure the input power from the DC side for my resonant amplification experiment: all measure will be in DC to avoid error...)
Can I use it for a rectified unfiltered DC OUTPUT ?

Hi Schubert.

Yes I believe it will also work when using a rectified unfiltered output. To confirm, I will do a simulation on it and see. The worst case scenario if this did not work, would be to utilize some large filtering caps on the rectified output. But again, I don't think it will be necessary. Are you using a CSR as well?

.99

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #422 on: January 28, 2012, 08:31:49 PM »
What are you going on and on about Rosemary?

I'll say it again: I AM A PROPONENT OF FREE ENERGY / OVERUNITY / COP>1. I WANT TO SEE IT IN MY LIFE TIME, AND I STILL HAVE HOPE I WILL.

It is folks like yourself however that give a really bad name to this research. Quite frankly, its embarrassing.

Stefan is a lot less stringent on what he allows to be posted on his forum in regards to BOLD claims, and that is fine, it's his decision, but it doesn't make it any less deplorable that nonsense such as that which you tout, even has a venue for such.

I let your nonsense go some time ago, because it is only a matter of time before folks see the truth, In fact, you hardly have an audience these days in comparison, so things have already changed. It's only because you started demanding the OU Award from OUR that I re-engaged you in discussion, or at least an attempted discussion.

So, in how many ways and by how many people does it take before you get the message Rosemary?

YOUR APPLICATION FOR THE OUR AWARD IS REJECTED BASED ON THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE NOT PERFORMED YOUR MEASUREMENTS CORRECTLY, AND THAT YOU DO NOT EVEN HAVE THE CORRECT UNDERSTANDING OF HOW YOUR CIRCUIT OPERATES. FURTHERMORE, YOU HAVE REFUSED TO PERFORM SEVERAL OTHER TESTS PROPOSED BY VARIOUS PEOPLE HERE AND ELSEWHERE, INCLUDING TODAY. YOU SHOW NO DATA TO PROVE YOU'VE DONE ANYTHING EXCEPT WHAT IS IN YOUR PAPER, AND THAT PAPER IN ITSELF IS FLAWED BEYOND DESCRIPTION.

THE EVIDENCE OF YOUR FLAWED MEASUREMENTS HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU STRAIGHT AND CLEAR A NUMBER OF TIMES. THAT YOU REJECT THAT EVIDENCE WHICH COUNTERS YOUR OWN, IS YOUR DECISION AND IN FACT YOUR PROBLEM. GET YOURSELF TRULY EDUCATED IN ELECTRONICS, OR FIND SOMEONE WHO ALREADY IS.

NOW, PLEASE, KINDLY, AND FOR THE LAST TIME, GET OFF MY BACK ABOUT THE OUR AWARD!

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #423 on: January 28, 2012, 08:40:41 PM »
What are you going on and on about Rosemary?

I'll say it again: I AM A PROPONENT OF FREE ENERGY / OVERUNITY / COP>1. I WANT TO SEE IT IN MY LIFE TIME, AND I STILL HAVE HOPE I WILL.

It is folks like yourself however that give a really bad name to this research. Quite frankly, its embarrassing.

Stefan is a lot less stringent on what he allows to be posted on his forum in regards to BOLD claims, and that is fine, it's his decision, but it doesn't make it any less deplorable that nonsense such as that which you tout, even has a venue for such.

I let your nonsense go some time ago, because it is only a matter of time before folks see the truth, In fact, you hardly have an audience these days in comparison, so things have already changed. It's only because you started demanding the OU Award from OUR that I re-engaged you in discussion, or at least an attempted discussion.

So, in how many ways and by how many people does it take before you get the message Rosemary?

YOUR APPLICATION FOR THE OUR AWARD IS REJECTED BASED ON THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE NOT PERFORMED YOUR MEASUREMENTS CORRECTLY, AND THAT YOU DO NOT EVEN HAVE THE CORRECT UNDERSTANDING OF HOW YOUR CIRCUIT OPERATES. FURTHERMORE, YOU HAVE REFUSED TO PERFORM SEVERAL OTHER TESTS PROPOSED BY VARIOUS PEOPLE HERE AND ELSEWHERE, INCLUDING TODAY. YOU SHOW NO DATA TO PROVE YOU'VE DONE ANYTHING EXCEPT WHAT IS IN YOUR PAPER, AND THAT PAPER IN ITSELF IS FLAWED BEYOND DESCRIPTION.

THE EVIDENCE OF YOUR FLAWED MEASUREMENTS HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU STRAIGHT AND CLEAR A NUMBER OF TIMES. THAT YOU REJECT THAT EVIDENCE WHICH COUNTERS YOUR OWN, IS YOUR DECISION AND IN FACT YOUR PROBLEM. GET YOURSELF TRULY EDUCATED IN ELECTRONICS, OR FIND SOMEONE WHO ALREADY IS.

NOW, PLEASE AND KINDLY GET OFF MY BACK ABOUT THE OUR AWARD!

My dear Poynty Point.  Where EXACTLY have you proved that our measurements are erroneous?  And shouldn't you WARN Schubert that his test has nothing to do with our circuit?  And even less to do with proving over unity?  Is he aware of your agenda?  And shouldn't you and he and whoever else wants to - continue to engage on your revived thread?  I'm not sure that this new venture into a new misdirection is going to help anyone other than you and your 'friends'.

As I see it I've gone to some considerable lengths to PROVE that your arguments are neither logical nor scientific.  I can happily go through all those arguments again.  I see NO evidence of that you've disproved anything at all.  On the contrary you have NOT been able to counter a single argument.  And you MOST CERTAINLY are required to DISPROVE THOSE ARGUMENTS.

Regards,
Rosie





Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #424 on: January 28, 2012, 09:37:23 PM »
Actually - this post of yours should be framed - as a sample of what happens when you run out of argument and find yourself with a mouthful of teeth.  Anyway Poynty - here's my answer.  BTW I've just seen the frightening length of it.  I'll need to split these posts AGAIN. 

What are you going on and on about Rosemary?
I believe I'm claiming a prize that you've got on offer - is what I'm going on about.

I'll say it again: I AM A PROPONENT OF FREE ENERGY / OVERUNITY / COP>1. I WANT TO SEE IT IN MY LIFE TIME, AND I STILL HAVE HOPE I WILL.
I'd be glad to pretend to believe you - if it helps at all.  But the evidence rather speaks against this.

It is folks like yourself however that give a really bad name to this research. Quite frankly, its embarrassing.
That's rich.  We've had a parade of the most atrocious measurement analysis applied to utterly unscientific assumptions - and you say that YOU'RE embarrassed.  You should be.  It's disgraceful.  I'll take the trouble to list them ALL in a separate post.

Stefan is a lot less stringent on what he allows to be posted on his forum in regards to BOLD claims, and that is fine, it's his decision, but it doesn't make it any less deplorable that nonsense such as that which you tout, even has a venue for such.
The ONLY thing in science that can be considered nonsense - must FIRST be based on the lack of experimental evidence.  We have an ENORMOUS amount of evidence.

edited.  Took out the word 'scientific'

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #425 on: January 28, 2012, 09:39:08 PM »

2/continued
I let your nonsense go some time ago, because it is only a matter of time before folks see the truth, In fact, you hardly have an audience these days in comparison, so things have already changed. It's only because you started demanding the OU Award from OUR that I re-engaged you in discussion, or at least an attempted discussion.
I have NEVER been concerned with the 'size' of an audience.  That's your department.  And with good reason.  Your subscription rate on your own forum is rather sad.  I think the public are rather tired of all that repetitive self-absorbed nonsense - flaunted as 'higher knowledge'.  It's essentially a bit too dry.  I doubt that there are many who are that concerned about my views either.  Ever.  But it doesn't stop a stream of correspondence that I get.  So there's SOME interest.  But.  It's not a popular digest.
 
So, in how many ways and by how many people does it take before you get the message Rosemary?
I'm not sure Poynty?  Certainly if you and Gravock and MileHigh and TK and Humbugger and others are counted in that number I'd say that the dozen or so of you obviously don't cut it.  Certainly NOT when I have the entire strength of the standard model behind our thesis and our experimental evidence.

YOUR APPLICATION FOR THE OUR AWARD IS REJECTED BASED ON THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE NOT PERFORMED YOUR MEASUREMENTS CORRECTLY,
I agree.  But the problem is in your definition of CORRECT.  This is another little exercise that I'll detail later - which I KNOW will conform.  Then INDEED - you'll agree.

AND THAT YOU DO NOT EVEN HAVE THE CORRECT UNDERSTANDING OF HOW YOUR CIRCUIT OPERATES.
This is actually funny.  Here I was thinking it was YOU who had overlooked that Q2S thing.   ;D    You've got to laugh Poynty Point.  It's really rather funny.  And all the time I thought you'd seen it.  Again, as MileHigh puts it.  'lololol' 

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #426 on: January 28, 2012, 09:41:13 PM »
3 continued/
FURTHERMORE, YOU HAVE REFUSED TO PERFORM SEVERAL OTHER TESTS PROPOSED BY VARIOUS PEOPLE HERE AND ELSEWHERE, INCLUDING TODAY.
Again.  All I can say is that you're AMAZING.  You asked us to perform a test which we'd done.  Surely you don't want us to simply go on and on repeating everything you DEMAND - when there's so little sense in it.

YOU SHOW NO DATA TO PROVE YOU'VE DONE ANYTHING EXCEPT WHAT IS IN YOUR PAPER,
Again.  I'm still laughing.  It's preposterous.  I have over 230 tests completed and over 560 downlaods and they're all available.  Anytime you want.  Call for some data.  I'll show it.  We've got loads.

AND THAT PAPER IN ITSELF IS FLAWED BEYOND DESCRIPTION.
This falls into the category of an ALLEGATION.  So.  Unless you show us where it's flawed - I'm afraid we're inclined to dismiss this as another attempt at 'scraping that barrel'.

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #427 on: January 28, 2012, 09:44:00 PM »
4 continued.
THE EVIDENCE OF YOUR FLAWED MEASUREMENTS HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU STRAIGHT AND CLEAR A NUMBER OF TIMES.
Not actually.  What was presented was the evidence  The measurements related to that evidence is confirmed as detailed in that paper.  The applied protocols conform to standard requirement.

THAT YOU REJECT THAT EVIDENCE WHICH COUNTERS
YOUR OWN, IS YOUR DECISION AND IN FACT YOUR PROBLEM.
We ALL, that is the collaborators, the most of the scientific community find that the evidence conforms to your own.  And that is NOT as you're now trying to present it. 

GET YOURSELF TRULY EDUCATED IN ELECTRONICS, OR FIND SOMEONE WHO ALREADY IS.
For my part I'll pass on this.  My interests are in the theory.  BUT.  The collaborators are MORE than competent at this, considerably more than yourself.  And it's their endorsement that I depend on.  Not yours.  After all.  You REFUSE to even evaluate the evidence on offer.  How scientific is that?

NOW, PLEASE, KINDLY, AND FOR THE LAST TIME, GET OFF MY BACK ABOUT THE OUR AWARD!
NO. Absolutely NOT.  Not until you manage a single cogent argument against our data.  Then I'll sit up straight and take notes.

Which, leaves me in the unhappy position of putting on record that you either need to evaluate the evidence that we've presented - in the context in which we've presented it.  Or acknowledge, by default - that you owe us your prize money.  And I would be most anxious to get hold of this.  God knows.  I could make a donation of it to someone with experimental skills so that they could advance over unity. 

LOL.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Posie

PhiChaser

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 256
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #428 on: January 28, 2012, 10:41:42 PM »
Hello again PhiChaser
We do disconnect the battery.  There is no question that the battery is not able to deliver energy.  Again - read that paper.  We propose that the battery is playing a passive role.  I'll see if I can find the extract.

However, the distinction is drawn that the battery primary supply is a passive component during this oscillation. And while it is evident that it fluctuates in line with the applied current flow from the oscillation, yet its average voltage does not appear to rise significantly above its rating either during or after these tests which would be proof of a recharge in the oscillation cycle. But nor is there evidence of a loss of voltage. In fact these results point to an energy supply potential in circuit material that may be exploited without a corresponding loss of energy from the battery supply source. This requires a fuller study, which is the overarching intention of this publication

Were does it say you disconnected the battery and it kept working?!?

Quote
And that was proved by our test that we conducted with the use of capacitors.  In other words, for that oscillation to be that robust and self-supporting  it also needs access to the potential difference at the battery supply.  It does nothing to the battery voltage itself.

How?  How does one expect a battery to play any part at all in the oscillation - when it's not even connected to the circuit?

Good question! I didn't say it did. Your circuit diagram DOES have batteries connected to it.

Quote
If you're proposing to put those batteries in parallel...
Nope, didn't propose that. I propose just taking current FROM one battery to supply the 'connected' part of your circuit and pOUT to ground, or another battery, or anything else BUT the other side of your battery.

Quote
If you entirely disconnect the Drain rail - or positive terminal - then how does the circuit material take advantage of the potential difference that we've determined is required?
You said it powered itself, not me...

Quote
The potential difference in the circuit is STILL being supplied by the battery.
Right on.
Quote
But it is NOT DISCHARGING CURRENT.
Shazam!!! There is where things get interesting. Okay, I get that.   
Quote
And this because there is some aspect of electric current flow that has been overlooked.
What I see is a function generator connected to an interesting mosfet circuit with some resistors and powered by batteries... (Just curious: Are your results the same if you use a .25ohm resistor instead of four 1ohm resistors in parallel?)
 
Quote
I can only assure you that we have NEVER recharged the 6 batteries that are now powering our circuit.  That's now over a period of nearly 18 months I think it is.
Now THAT is worthy of study, no doubt about that. HEAT = WORK. Free heat = free work.

Quote
We have anomalous test results that require detailed and thorough research to a level of expertise and budget that none of us collaborators can afford.  Therefore we have put all this evidence in a perfectly clear paper for this to be evaluated by experts. 
Perfectly clear? If it was perfectly clear WHY is this particular discussion going on for this long??? (My own contribution notwithstanding..) As far as experts to research your findings, why don't you go to your local college and find some grad students to look at what you've got. My point is don't just look here...

Quote
The problem is that Poynty is posing as an expert.  And that is dangerous.

If he works in the field for a living, I would say that would make him a professional. An expert in the field of OU? Not sure there is such a thing. I suppose that if he has tried his best to duplicate your circuit (and everything else that came down the pike) and hasn't had the same results, then you two should collaborate to figure out what the deal is. I can see you're both smart enough to know we're on the same team... (At least I hope we are...)
Again, my take on your circuit Rosemary: If you have stumbled across a circuit that generates heat without ever discharching your batteries then is seems like COP=INFINITY... Hmmm, that is a pretty bold statement! ;)
Get on with your bad selves!!!!
Kindest and all that...
PC

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #429 on: January 29, 2012, 06:43:44 AM »
Were does it say you disconnected the battery and it kept working?!?
In the paper?  The introduction to the second part states

'The oscillations are robust and they represent a current flow that continually reverses direction.  This results in a wide swing of the battery voltage that climbs and falls, well above and below its (here referring to the battery supply source) rated capacity.  Also of interest is that there is no circuit path afforded for this discharging period of each cycle within the standard reference, as its path is blocked, both by the transistors' body diodes and the negative signal applied at the transistors' gates.'

But I've just had a cursory read through the First Part.  You're right. I can't see a direct reference to this.  I'll need to re-read it. THANK YOU PhiChaser.  If it's not stressed then it may be as well to do so.  I'll check through that paper later today and with my collaborators.  It reminds me how valuable is Open Source.

Good question! I didn't say it did. Your circuit diagram DOES have batteries connected to it.
When a negative signal is applied to the gate of Q1 - and if those transistors are working - then what has happened is that the batteries are disconnected.  That's not speculative.  That's FACT. That's what that switch does.  It's either 'on' or 'off'.  Think of it as a light switch.  But an amazing switch that can turn on really, really quickly.  The question is ONLY this.  If Q1 is 'off' is Q2 then 'on'?  In other words are we simply allowing the current to flow through another switch?  We can certainly claim that the batteries are NOT connected at Q1.  But?  Are they still perhaps connected at Q2?  Definitely doable BUT ONLY PROVIDED that the switch at Q2 has a full path to conduct that current back to the battery.  But.  It doesn't.  It's also OFF.  To take the analogy further - its connection to that battery is BROKEN.  Technically it CANNOT enable a flow of current from that battery.  There is no connection of Q2 source to the Source rail or battery negative - during this period.  That's as good as leaving the switch 'off'.

However, just in case we've made a mistake - we build another circuit - take OUT Q2 and simply apply a negative signal at the Gate of Q1.  NOW.  NO QUESTION.  The batteries are DISCONNECTED.  That switch if 'off'.  And what we found is that the oscillation STILL persists.  And NOW?  Hopefully you see this PhiChaser.  The battery is NOW unarguably DISCONNECTED.   And, because we still see that oscillation - then?  Wherever it may be coming from - it ain't from that battery. This isn't an obtuse argument.  It's very simple and very simply proved.  That was the point of those series of questions that spanned about 10 pages of this thread.   Firstly Poynty missed the fact that there was no connection at Q2S.  Then, he proposed is that there's an 'on' moment and an 'off' moment - so that there would be a kind of two step - dance step between switches.  But he's wrong.  We're all familiar with the shape of the waveform from a standard switching circuit.  And if the battery is permanently connected - then we know what that waveform looks like. There would be absolutely NO EVIDENCE of that oscillation. Then he proposed that we were lying about that test using just the one switch.  That's always his fall back. 

It worries me that you didn't follow this in those arguments outlined earlier to Poynt in this thread.  If you're reading here and clearly you're reading carefully - then how many others have made the same assumptions you have?  Poynt's last argument was based on the fact that the transistors operate in 'flip flop' mode - or something like.  I countered then that oscillation would NOT BE POSSIBLE.  Because then the battery would then be continually CONNECTED.  And it would also continually discharge energy through either Q1 or Q2.  Back to the light analogy.  The light would stay on.  Which means that there could not be any oscillation at all - certainly not to sustain the second half of that waveform.  And that's not MY argument.  It's the inevitable consequence because that's what those transistors do.  If they're opened or 'off' - they can't conduct current.  If they're closed or 'on' they do conduct.

The only time - historically - that this waveform has been seen - is in a parasitic oscillation - which is the hellish result of paralleled transistors.  BUT even then - that oscillation has NEVER been seen to persist over time.  Ours does.  It persists for the duration that there's an applied negative signal at the gate of the MOSFET.  So.  We can validly claim that we are generating a robust current flow from somewhere.  It is self-sustaining.  It can cook the element resistor.  And it sure as hell is NOT from the battery supply.


I'm ending this post here.  I'll pick up on your other points later.  Hope this clarifies that really important question.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Swapped paras around for emphasis

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #430 on: January 29, 2012, 07:42:55 AM »
Nope, didn't propose that. I propose just taking current FROM one battery to supply the 'connected' part of your circuit and pOUT to ground, or another battery, or anything else BUT the other side of your battery.
I can't follow this at all.  Can you also perhaps draw a circuit?  If there is no connection to the battery supply then that battery can't supply.  If there IS a connection then there has to be some commonality between batteries.  If they're paralleled then all terminals would be connected and we'd have the same conditions that we see.  If they're not - then either one or the other would be supplying - which by default means that one or the other is discharging. 

This same questions persists through all the following quotes PhiChaser.  And I think they're argued in that earlier post.  If not - then let me know.

.   You said it powered itself, not me...
.   Right on.Shazam!!! There is where things get interesting.
.   Okay, I get that.
.   What I see is a function generator connected to an interesting mosfet circuit with some resistors and powered by batteries

Regarding this question
(Just curious: Are your results the same if you use a .25ohm resistor instead of four 1ohm resistors in parallel?)
Not on our circuit.  On others where we generate considerably less voltage.  Then it's within their tolerance levels.  We anticipate that the use of ours will introduce a margin of error which is factored in. But as we're not dealing with marginal evidence, in fact we've got huge energies being dissipated - then that potential margin of error is indeed marginal.  We only use those resistors because we need to accommodate the high current flow.

Now THAT is worthy of study, no doubt about that. HEAT = WORK. Free heat = free work.
I'm not sure that it's 'free'.  What we find is that it's ridiculously cheap.  Certainly far, far cheaper than our paradigms allow for.

Again, kindest
Rosemary

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #431 on: January 29, 2012, 07:57:28 AM »
Actually - back to this question and my reply...

I can't follow this at all.  Can you also perhaps draw a circuit?  If there is no connection to the battery supply then that battery can't supply.  If there IS a connection then there has to be some commonality between batteries.  If they're paralleled then all terminals would be connected and we'd have the same conditions that we see.  If they're not - then either one or the other would be supplying - which by default means that one or the other is discharging. 

I'm taking the trouble to post over Poynty's schematic.  Not sure if it's what you had in mind.  But if it is, then, as mentioned - we've tested this.  Except that we used LED's in place of lights.  What we found was that the one rail stays lit.  The other not.  Poynty asked which one stayed lit.  I can't for the life of me - remember.

PhiChaser

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 256
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #432 on: January 29, 2012, 08:07:19 AM »
Rosemary,
Thanks for taking the time re-word it and put it more plainly for me. It does make more sense when worded that way maybe... I really do try to keep up, I just don't know much about transistors/MOSFETS (although I'm trying to learn, honest I am!).
Not sure your light switch analogy holds since you can still get oscillation from an open circuit. A cheap AC tester will beep near 'hot' wires (current oscillation) whether the light switch is 'on' or 'off'.
But I think I really DO get it now, and please correct me if I'm wrong (again)...
To use your switch analogy you really need two switches correct? So... Let's see if PC really does 'get it' or needs another 'explanation'!

Let's say that Q1 is the breaker (switch) in the panel that opens and closes the circuit from the power company (battery source). When the breaker (Q1) is turned on, power can go (from source through Q1) to the light switch (Q2) which is turned off. As soon as Q2 gets power from Q1 it turns on completing (closing) the circuit to the light bulb (turning it on) AND trips the breaker (turning Q1 off) at the same time. Even though the circuit breaker (Q1) is in the off position the bulb stays lit and you can see the bulb/light switch circuit oscillating but the supply (current) running from source to Q1 is ZERO??? Do I get it now?

PC

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #433 on: January 29, 2012, 08:37:09 AM »
Rosemary,
Let's say that Q1 is the breaker (switch) in the panel that opens and closes the circuit from the power company (battery source). When the breaker (Q1) is turned on, power can go (from source through Q1) to the light switch (Q2) which is turned off. As soon as Q2 gets power from Q1 it turns on completing (closing) the circuit to the light bulb (turning it on) AND trips the breaker (turning Q1 off) at the same time. Even though the circuit breaker (Q1) is in the off position the bulb stays lit and you can see the bulb/light switch circuit oscillating but the supply (current) running from source to Q1 is ZERO??? Do I get it now?

PC
PC?  Is that what you're prefer to be called? Anyway.  Regarding this explanation. It's NEARLY right.

Let's say that Q1 is the breaker (switch) in the panel that opens and closes the circuit from the power company (battery source). When the breaker (Q1) is turned on, power can go (from source through Q1)...
This is right.

BUT this, not so much...
to the light switch (Q2) which is turned off. As soon as Q2 gets power from Q1 it turns on completing (closing) the circuit to the light bulb (turning it on) AND trips the breaker (turning Q1 off) at the same time. Even though the circuit breaker (Q1) is in the off position the bulb stays lit and you can see the bulb/light switch circuit oscillating but the supply (current) running from source to Q1 is ZERO?

Here's an even easier explanation. Current is dynamic.  It always moves.  And it always moves from its source, wherever that is - back to its source - wherever that is.  IF it CAN'T get back to its source - then it simply CAN'T flow.  There would be NO CURRENT.  That's a GIVEN.  No-one would presume to argue.  Various forms of Flux can flow away from its source.  CURRENT CAN'T.  So.  If you use a breaker, or whatever you want - if you OPEN the circuit - you're preventing the current flowing FROM its source BACK to it's source.  Which means that there's simply no current.  Now - we also KNOW that if current is NOT flowing - then there's NO ENERGY BEING DELIVERED.  Which means that a disconnected power supply - is simply NOT able to deliver any energy at all. 

Which is why the energy delivered is measured in voltage - x - the amount of current flow - x - the period of time over which that current flowed.  The voltage or potential difference at the supply source - CAN DO NOTHING - unless it can deliver current.  And it can't deliver current through a circuit that is OPEN - or DISCONNECTED. 

PC.  I am DELIGHTED to explain this.  If you're asking - and you're really bright - then how many others are asking the same thing?  This is the problem with these forums and the beauty of Open Source.  We never know if we're entirely understood.  In any event.  You see this now?  When  Q1 has a negative signal applied to the gate - then that circuit is OPEN.  The voltage potential at the batteries can do NOTHING.  They're passive.  The same applies to Q2.  Unless it's connected to that 'battery negative' - it also can't deliver any current.  Simple really.  And there's no connection to the battery from Q2S to the negative terminal of the battery.  Therefore it can't deliver current.  Which means that regardless, when Q1 has a negative applied signal then there's NO OPEN PATH FOR THE TRANSFER OF ENERGY FROM THOSE BATTERIES.

What's intriguing about those MOSFET transistors - or switches - is that they have what is called a body diode.  This is biased to allow current flow to move in an OPPOSITE direction.  It's dielectrics are designed to take an 'opposing' current to the current that is first applied.  We use that.  Because - here's the thing.  When current flows its also induces an IDENTICAL AMOUNT OF POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE OVER THOSE CIRCUIT COMPONENTS.  But.  Most importantly.  That potential difference is PRECISELY opposed to the supply.  Now.  If the circuit is OPEN and the battery can't deliver a current from a positive potential difference (that battery voltage) - but there's a body diode that's pointing in the right direction - to be loaded with a whole lot of negative voltage - then it CAN find a path - THROUGH THOSE BODY DIODES.  So.  The circuit can take current from one direction.  But it can't take current from another.  The traditional supply source - being the batteries - have been taken out of the equation.  There's very clear evidence of current flow.  So.  It MUST therefore, be coming from the circuit material. 

Are you there yet?  Let me know.  This is really nice.  I'm feeling rather smug that I can explain this.  It's a first that anyone has asked me.  LOL.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

ADDED - for clarity
and changed 'delivered' to 'transferred'

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #434 on: January 29, 2012, 08:58:14 AM »

Here's an even easier explanation. Current is dynamic.  It always moves.  And it always moves from its source, wherever that is - back to its source - wherever that is.  IF it CAN'T get back to its source - then it simply CAN'T flow.  There would be NO CURRENT.  That's a GIVEN.  No-one would presume to argue.  Various forms of Flux can flow away from its source.  CURRENT CAN'T.  So.  If you use a breaker, or whatever you want - if you OPEN the circuit - you're preventing the current flowing FROM its source BACK to it's source.  Which means that there's simply no current.  Now - we also KNOW that if current is NOT flowing - then there's NO ENERGY BEING DELIVERED.  Which means that a disconnected power supply - is simply NOT able to deliver any energy at all. 

Just another quick point.  If you think of the flow of current like the flow of a river - then that's good.  Except.  Don't presume that Q2 can act like a dam wall.  It can't.  It can't store the flow of current.  Not even a capacitor can store charge unless it is also first charged by the 'moving current' flow.  Which means that it too - needs to provide some path for that current to get back to the supply source that's charging the cap.

And if you've refreshed the page to read this - then read back over the previous - because I've added some highlights.
Regards
Rosemary