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 933097 times)

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #435 on: January 29, 2012, 09:39:26 AM »
And again, Guys - girls,

Unfortunately - when and IF you post on this thread - then you'll probably get a private message from one or more of our 'detractors'.  This communication - which is conducted in 'secrecy' and behind 'closed doors' is not only an abuse of the forum facility - but an abuse of OPEN SOURCE.  May I ask you to please ignore the communication - or ask that the opinion is aired on the forum.  Else - I'm fighting shadows.  And that's simply not fair.  We've been heavily compromised by ALLEGATION.  And allegation that is also conducted through whispers in dark corners?  That we can't fight.

Better still ignore the communication.  Or - if you want to check any facts that you may be inclined to believe.  Then just ask.  Before I end this thread - hopefully soon now - then I will MOST CERTAINLY give a cogent list of those abuses against this technology - so that you can all see the extent to which this group of detractors has gone - to frustrate this technology.  And you REALLY need to ask 'why'?

Regards again
Rosemary

powercat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #436 on: January 29, 2012, 12:19:02 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!

Well said 99 my hat off to you sir for your perseverance,
if there was an award for contradiction and twisting of the truth Rosemary would have won it years ago.
Most of us remember a nice member called Fuzzy tomcat  that used to post here until he got involved with Rosemary's claims and I think it almost drove him insane.

Sadly I don't think Rosemary can ever admit her flawed judgement after-all what would she have left in her life if it wasn't for her extravagant claims.
it's a shame we have these arguments but it's important that People understand the truth.

And for anyone new here that thinks I am part of a conspiracy, please please click on Rosemary's name and then look through all her previous post and see the truth yourself.
Over the many years it always comes down to the sad fact that her claims of OU are just that claims and nothing but claims.

Rosemary's determination to carry on claiming her circuit produces free energy is now legendary

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #437 on: January 29, 2012, 01:41:34 PM »

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...

This is another intriguing question.  You will notice that our paper is a collaboration between myself and 5 others.  One of those collaborators is partially qualified but, as a mature student he's now working on his Electrical Engineering degree. The other four are credentialed.  One is even working on his doctoral thesis - in an unrelated matter.  One has a Masters degree and another and Honours degree.  None of them are interested in going 'open source'.  This, because the dialogue tends to become confrontational - as you've seen.  And all the more so - when the claim is as confrontational as ours.  The requirement therefore is to write a paper.  Put our findings in clear terms - and let the academic expert iron out the issue.  We all are in perfect consensus.

However.  What we're pointing to is a breach in the unity barrier that should not, technically, be possible.  There is nothing comfortable about looking at evidence that flies in the face of general academic understandings - the more so as these men are our authority.  They're actually TEACHING us all we know about electrical engineering.  Now.  It's generally acknowledged amongst electrical engineers that current flow is the result of the flow of electrons.  I'm not sure if you've read my comments about this.  But - just for the record - here they are.  You don't have to read the whole thing.  The pertinent points are in the first two pages or thereby.  And what it shows is that, actually, even in the application of this widely applied and most profoundly simple concept is a mishmash of contradictions that beggar belief.  Here's that link.

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2010/11/more-on-inconvenient-truths.html

So.  When an entirely uncredentialed rather old woman - from the back of beyond - comes up with proposals that electric current flow may be the movement of magnetic particles - then - appropriately - there's a howl of protest.  What you and I are listening to - here and on every thread that I've been involved in - is that howl of protest.  It is the nature of the claim.  NEVER in the history of science - has any profoundly different explanation been imposed on any aspect of science - without that HOWL.  And the louder it is - it is precisely proportionate the level of 'difference' associated with that thinking.

Which is why I have been careful - always - to assure all and sundry - that INDEED - this is NOT in contradiction to known physics.  Save that it would mean an abundance of energy that has, heretofore, been associated only with Dark Energy - and, by definition therefore, it is neither perceptible - nor accessible.  When you put that particle in a magnetic field construct - then it EXPLAINS all the forces.  And it makes this energy supremely tangible.  Then it appears that this 5th force, that has been marching alongside our known 4 forces, rather quietly and unobtrusively, looking to be seen, is actually the PRIMARY source of our energy.  And what it also begs is the possibility that the electromagnetic interaction is only a secondary phenomenon. As indeed are the strong and weak nuclear force and gravity.

Now, I'm not going to allude to any history.  Because that would be an open invitation for a renewed attack.  In any event I don't need to.  All that is needed is to state that IF indeed, this concept is right, then frankly, we have solutions to our energy problems that are not resolved by this technology, not even by LENR - but by both these and many, many much more simple applications that require nothing more than the careful shaping of magnets   And this would deliver an abundance of energy that will put our nuclear power supplies, our coal burning or whatever generators, our cars, our aeroplanes, the entire thrust of our extant technologies - into the dark ages.

But it's not easy to introduce new concepts.  God knows.  I try.  And the ONLY reason I keep doing this in full view of the public - exposing myself thereby to the full force of that 'attack' - is because this knowledge NEEDS MUST GO TO EVERYONE.  Else we'll be trapped in that horrible condition where we rely on the EXPERT for our right to engage in science.  The rather noble art of science relies NOT on authority - but on enquiring minds.  Else it simply wont evolve.  And enquiring minds are likely to confront science with uncomfortable and inconvenient truths.  I would not recommend anyone follow in my footsteps if they're anxious to promote their popularity.

Regards,
Rosemary.

PhiChaser

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 256
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #438 on: January 29, 2012, 05:19:34 PM »
Thanks for the reply Rosemary!
Yes, PC is just fine. (My real name is Derrick just for the record.) Glad I got it almost right.
I can see that those 'body diodes' are what is unique about those MOSFETS. Regarding those: Your circuit still looks like it has a mobius loop in those MOSFETS to me. 
In reference to the battery questions earlier, I KNOW that you need a completed circuit to the source to extract that potential. I thought perhaps you had somehow 'moved' that potential into your MOS 'grid' (which is why I had all those 'broken' ways to wire the circuit, see?).
I should step back a bit and keep reading (as always). As far as explanations go (sorry to jump around, I just woke up), I've always found it beneficial to come to a consensus before advancing the next proposal. Lots of proposals around here but not much consensus.
Rosemary, have you tried building the same circuit using off-the-shelf parts?? Seems to me like that would be the best way to truly solidify your claims. Open forum projects are great until the parts start becoming too exotic/expensive... How much do those things cost?
If you could build your circuit with cheap-o parts there would be a greater likelihood that more experimenters would try to verify your results. Makes sense right?
Again, great fun reading your threads! I need more coffee...
I am SO glad the project I'm working on doesn't have any electronics LOL!!! (At least so far heh..)

PC

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #439 on: January 29, 2012, 07:07:06 PM »
Poynt, if you're still there.  I wonder if you could ask MileHigh to get his head out of those clouds and his feet on the ground.  He's seriously proposing that upwards of 5 amps can flow into the ground rail of the probe - through all the circuitry of the signal supply source, nuke the most of those rectifiers, fry the delicate potentiometers, burn up most of that circuitry of that really sensitive instrument, that is decidedly NOT designed to take high amperage.  And he then proposes that it can come out on the other side at the probe of the signal generator - to confront an applied negative signal at the Gate of Q1.  It needs to reach Q1's source rail.  So it IGNORES that signal?  It simply overrides the applied charge and slips onto the source leg of Q1S.  And then it flows unobstructed to the supply source or negative rail of the battery.  That's unlikely.

If he's suggesting that the current from the battery can simply flow through the Q2 transistor at Q2's Drain through to Q2 Gate - AND THEN DIRECTLY ONTO THE CIRCUIT at it's  source rail (or the negative battery terminal thing) then it would need to bypass it's own Source Q2S leg.  Which means that we'd see a very visible arcing sparking flow of current in mid air, as it tries to find safe landing on a really slim landing site all of which is to managed while the current is in a kind of free fall.  That's also unlikely. But both options are interesting on a speculative level.  Especially as it would introduce some utterly exotic, if somewhat improbable, physics.  And show him the schematic again.  Here it is.

Q2s or the source leg of Q2 has NO CONNECTION AT ALL with the circuit battery negative.  IT FLOATS.  I really need a shot of this to show you guys.  Hopefully soon. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Small edits.  Can't remember them all.

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #440 on: January 29, 2012, 07:32:48 PM »
I'll need to answer your post later tonight Derrick.  Hopefully you don't mind if I drop that PC.  I get caught up on the need to be politically correct.  And I'm evidently not much good at that.  It's a constant reminder. 

BRB (be right back)  :-\
Rosie

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #441 on: January 29, 2012, 11:48:59 PM »
MH has responded at OUR. He is correct in what he is saying. I said the same thing long ago.

There is indeed a path to ground through the FG output.

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #442 on: January 30, 2012, 12:45:16 AM »
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 ?

Hi Schubert.

I speculated wrong. The averaging method does not work for your scenario. Why? Because we are not starting with a pure DC supply such as would be the case with a battery. See the post here for a few more details:
http://www.overunity.com/10564/measuring-input-power-accurately-and-with-no-oscilloscope/msg311079/#msg311079

.99

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #443 on: January 30, 2012, 03:22:15 AM »
Hi Derrick,

Apologies for the delay. 

Your circuit still looks like it has a mobius loop in those MOSFETS to me.
You've mentioned this before.  I'm going to have to read up about a mobius loop.  I'm not sure what it is.  But if it's simply that 'continuous loop' described by Wiki - then indeed.  I think you're right.  It's a wild voltage swing that never finds a balance.  But I'll check it out more thoroughly - when I've finished here.

In reference to the battery questions earlier, I KNOW that you need a completed circuit to the source to extract that potential. I thought perhaps you had somehow 'moved' that potential into your MOS 'grid' (which is why I had all those 'broken' ways to wire the circuit, see?).
Yes.  I see that.  What has now proposed that this current flows from the battery through the signal generator.  Which, in effect, is in line with your proposal.  I'll get back to this argument.

I've always found it beneficial to come to a consensus before advancing the next proposal. Lots of proposals around here but not much consensus.
Fair comment.  But my reference to those 'inconvenient truths' is simply to remind you that the basics of current analysis (literally and figuratively) has not been resolved.  Not by a long shot. And a purist would NEVER refer to current flow as a flow of electrons.  My reference to 'inconvenient truths' is a reminder to everyone that electron current flow is not so much a theory as it is an abuse of logic.  It's rather tiring reading everyone's reference to this with a kind of God like authority when it's about as appropriate as stating that the sun circles the earth.

Rosemary, have you tried building the same circuit using off-the-shelf parts?? Seems to me like that would be the best way to truly solidify your claims. Open forum projects are great until the parts start becoming too exotic/expensive... How much do those things cost?
Of COURSE - it can be built.  And it's a relatively cheap build.  I think the most expensive item are those IRFPG50's.  But, if you're seriously proposing to do this build - then email me your address - and I'll simply post you a couple.  I'm not doing any more experimenting and I've got some spare.  We over supplied as we anticipated a need.  In fact those little transistors are relatively robust.  And the only other thing I want to do related to this circuit - is a demonstration for Poynty Point and Professor Steven E Jones, when I claim their prize money. 

If you could build your circuit with cheap-o parts there would be a greater likelihood that more experimenters would try to verify your results. Makes sense right?
INDEED.  Provided only that we 'iron out' the significance of that oscillation - which is relatively easy to replicate - then it would be WONDERFUL.  It's the best possible way of getting this to the table.  Then you guys can work out how to apply it.  THAT - would be excellent.  You see, experimentation is NOT my thing. I am your ultimate clutz.  It's my only failing.  ;D

Kindest and best Derrick
Rosie
Copious changes, including switching paras and punctuation and - I think - some spelling.  Apologies. It's this early morning light and my poor eyes.  We struggle.

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #444 on: January 30, 2012, 04:06:18 AM »
Hi Derrick,

I've now gone through that 1st part of that 2-part paper.  You're right.  We've not stressed that battery disconnect thing.  When it comes back from review I'll see if we can put it in.  Should be doable as it's a small edit.  Many thanks for pointing this out.  It's more or less the 'theme' of the second part of that paper.  But I think it should at least be added to the intro of the first part.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie

added
 And I've now looked up that mobius strip.  It's mind boggling.  And strangely apt as an analogy.  A sort of bending of space.  Nicely symmetrical.  I've actually just cut a strip of paper to test it.  Can't see where it's relevant to the toroid which, apparently, is the logical extension.  But it certainly argues the logical reversal of current flow.  If that's in the context that you're seeing it.   If they could design a roller coaster like this then we'd all get a second ride for free - before we could 'dismount'.  Nice.

PhiChaser

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 256
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #445 on: January 30, 2012, 05:40:21 AM »
Rosemary,
A torus would need to be wound in M. Rodin's fashion to make it a mobius loop. If you haven't heard of a Rodin (or Rodin's) coil, you should take a peek.
Surprised you haven't heard of a mobius loop?!? (Fun ideas to fall asleep to!)
Yes, a funny sort of 'feedback' circuit that oscillates back and forth. Also, it really does look like an infinity symbol if you had to draw it one dimensionally. (M.C. Escher drew a great one with ants...)
Or it could be drawn as a loop within a loop...
I have a question about your circuit: Is your signal generator an AC device? If it is then you can't use DC circuit theory (exclusively anyway) to do your math. An AC oscillation can show up on a DC circuit right?
Cheers,
Derrick

Edit: Changed function to signal.

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #446 on: January 30, 2012, 05:51:19 AM »
Rosemary,
A torus would need to be wound in M. Rodin's fashion to make it a mobius loop. If you haven't heard of a Rodin (or Rodin's) coil, you should take a peek.
Surprised you haven't heard of a mobius loop?!? (Fun ideas to fall asleep to!)
Yes, a funny sort of 'feedback' circuit that oscillates back and forth. Also, it really does look like an infinity symbol if you had to draw it one dimensionally. (M.C. Escher drew a great one with ants...)
Or it could be drawn as a loop within a loop...
I have a question about your circuit: Is your signal generator an AC device? If it is then you can't use DC circuit theory (exclusively anyway) to do your math. An AC oscillation can show up on a DC circuit right?
Cheers,
Derrick

Edit: Changed function to signal.
Nice to see you there Derrick.

We don't use DC theory at all.  And the signal generator is an AC device.  But I'll get back here when I FINALLY get around to answering MileHigh's points.  I'm struggling.  :(
 
BBL ((variation of BRB - intended to represent be back later) also intended to keep fully defined acronyms which is their preferred use)   :o And, btw (by the way) there's a great deal I haven't heard about.  But I HAVE heard about Rodin's coil.  I get it NOW that that's a mobius loop.  I'm not the brightest button in the box - as they say.  lol
 
 Rosie

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #447 on: January 30, 2012, 10:00:42 AM »
My dear PoyntyPoint and MileHigh,

MH has responded at OUR. He is correct in what he is saying. I said the same thing long ago.

There is indeed a path to ground through the FG output.

You'll both need to forgive my use of logic to counter your rather imaginative proposal.  I know you both find this rather unpalatable.  But it's all I've got to argue my case - unfortunately.  And.  Trust me on this.  It's that thing that most of us rely on to advance science.  I know it's rather prosaic.  Certainly in comparison to the wild speculations that you seem to prefer.  Not that I don't appreciate the FLAMBOYANCE of your proposals. This being that the current from the battery supply can intrude onto the circuitry of the functions generator through that generator's ground terminal and straight through that machine.  Effectively you're proposing that in the process of locking the front door, so to speak, we're opening the back door to the welcome intrusion and incursion of anything lurking in that general vicinity.  It's an open invitation to 'come on in'.  'Make use of these facilities'.  'To your heart's content' ...  Not literally.  :o   OBVIOUSLY.  But you get the drift - I hope.  This is where one relies on that imaginative reach.  Which you both seem to have to some extraordinary excess.  Golly.

As it relates to current flow, what we now have is a veritable torrent of positive current streaming from the positive terminal of the battery supply.  And that, in absolute DEFIANCE of that 'offset' switch.  You recall?  We can set that switch to prevent any current flow.  Which means that those batteries couldn't - by rights deliver any current at ALL.  Or so one would hope.   >:( Certainly that's in line with the specifications - those idle  boasts - of all four function generators that we've EVER USED.   Anyway.  So.  Notwithstanding it's best efforts - that offset switch is simply IGNORED.  Clearly.  This particular battery has a mind of its own.  It DISREGARDS instructions.  If something says 'STOP' then it says 'NO'.  Or 'NO WAY HOZAY'  And when that switch tells it  'DO NOT DISCHARGE ANY CURRENT' - then it braces itself for a confrontation.  It exercises it's freedoms of expression.  It says 'I MOST CERTAINLY WILL DELIVER CURRENT'.   And as good as its word it then spits out enough current flow to drown out all protest.  It comes out in full force.  Demanding RECOGNITION.  It's current flow with a difference.  With a personality.  It's determined.  And that poor function generator?  Well.  That's it's 'bitch'... in a manner of speaking.

So.  It storms the front door - Q1G - finds it locked.  Then turns tail and tries the back door.  Q2G.  This is OPEN.  Whereupon it rides roughshod over any or all of those wires inside his bitch's house and then through a miracle of some considerable dimension it wangles its way back to the function generator's signal terminal.  Now.  That function generator -  that poor bitch, had applied a really modest negative signal here.  Under normal circumstances this would have been enough for that current to turn tail and RUN.  But not now.  No SIR.  Now it overpowers that sad little protest at the gate of Q1 - opens that 'locked door' through a miraculous 'coincidence of good timing'.  AND without breaking a sweat.  AND THEN?  It simply marches back to the negative terminal of the battery to the tune of 'Born Free' and under your star spangled banner.   And that poor little negative signal at the Gate of Q1?  That 'thing' that usually stops all that current from the battery - IN ITS TRACKS?  This now just DISAPPEARS  Somehow.  It just 'folds' - 'melts away' - in the face of this onslaught from the rear end? It's a wonderful theme.  A triumph against all odds.  The overcoming of all resistance.  Good over evil.  Et cetera.  Et cetera.  Positively epic.

And by the way (btw) 8) Thank you for acknowledging that it is not feasible for that charge to simply leapfrog over from the gate of Q2 to the source rail of Q1.  At least that argument's been put to bed.  And MileHigh thank you for teaching me the proper terms for the function generator's signal and ground terminals.  Glad you made sense of the argument - notwithstanding.  It's a tribute to your flexible mind which only seems to experience rigor mortis when it confronts proof of over unity.  It's a shame.  Otherwise you'd be a good potential candidate for the cause.  lol.  or lololol

Kindest regards to you both,
Rosie Pose.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2012, 11:11:22 AM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #448 on: January 30, 2012, 11:03:04 AM »
Sorry - I should also have added,

IF indeed, the current from the battery can intrude through that circuitry of the signal generator then it needs must flow CONTINUOUSLY - as there is no evident resistance in it's way.  In which case there would be no oscillation.

IF, in the unlikely event that current flowed at all, and that it still manages upwards of 5 amps - despite the added resistance presented by the components in the signal generator - then it would need an applied voltage well in excess of that supplied by the batteries at the supply.

IF the current indeed DID reach the gate of Q1 - then it would not be able to exceed the applied negative signal at that gate - assuming that the generator still was able to apply any signal at all - after that incursion.

IF in our Test1 the current was flowing despite the offset 'setting' then the fault is with signal generators.  All 4 of them. Actually it's would also need our Tektronix and LeCroy oscilloscopes to LIE about its voltage readings.  Because they also can't pick up any evidence of a current flow.

I think that's a fair summary.  IF I think of any other points I'll add them here.

Again, regards,
Rosemary

SchubertReijiMaigo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 343
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #449 on: January 30, 2012, 12:17:00 PM »
@ .99 Thank you for your input, for measurement method.
(I reply here because I can't reply in your topic, the forum have no reply button don't know why...)