Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

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 857135 times)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #510 on: February 01, 2012, 08:40:06 PM »
Please DO go get taught by somebody.
 
Your basic knowledge of electrical and electronics theory is abysmal.

Poynt.  We've got a situation here - where you have proposed that I bring our equipment to you to measure our energy.  I'm GAME.  In fact I'm delighted.  NOW.  What you need to do is either CONFIRM that the measurement protocols outlined in our paper is correct.  Or they're not.  If you have ANY OBJECTION to what we've detailed - THEN YOU NEED TO EXPLAIN THIS. 

That's all.
Regards,
Rosie 

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #511 on: February 01, 2012, 08:45:03 PM »
Poynt.  We've got a situation here - where you have proposed that I bring our equipment to you to measure our energy.  I'm GAME.  In fact I'm delighted.  NOW.  What you need to do is either CONFIRM that the measurement protocols outlined in our paper is correct.  Or they're not.  If you have ANY OBJECTION to what we've detailed - THEN YOU NEED TO EXPLAIN THIS. 

That's all.
Regards,
Rosie

Sorry Rosemary, but it's not possible for you to understand your own measurements (nor anyone's measurements for that matter), when you can not even understand basic DC theory. DC theory is as simple as it gets, and you don't get it that the power polarities of the battery and load resistor in a simple DC circuit are OPPOSITE.
 
I gave you the opportunity to prove that you understood this, and you failed. The diagram and "problem" was simple and you failed.
 
Therefore, it is IMPOSSIBLE to enter into any wager with you since you would be arguing from a standpoint that is well below or laterally way off the required target.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #512 on: February 01, 2012, 08:52:34 PM »

Sorry Rosemary, but it's not possible for you to understand your own measurements (nor anyone's measurements for that matter), when you can not even understand basic DC theory. DC theory is as simple as it gets, and you don't get it that the power polarities of the battery and load resistor in a simple DC circuit are OPPOSITE.
 
I gave you the opportunity to prove that you understood this, and you failed. The diagram and "problem" was simple and you failed.
 
Therefore, it is IMPOSSIBLE to enter into any wager with you since you would be arguing from a standpoint that is well below or laterally way off the required target.

You are getting vague Poynt.  Let me remind you.  We have already outlined the test parameters applied - in our paper.  IF THEY ARE WRONG - OR IF YOU INTEND APPLYING ANY OTHER MEASUREMENTS then let us know WHAT WHERE AND WHY.

Do NOT second guess what may or may not be in my mind or anyone else's. We need to look at the protocols that you INTEND APPLYING.  It's not confrontational.  It is NOT A WAGER.  It is a simple attempt at establishing those 'goal posts' that they don't get moved through this exercise.  I am MOST ANXIOUS to assure you that we are MORE THAN READY TO LET OUR APPARATUS BE SCRUTINISED MEASURED AND TESTED.  But we need to know EXACTLY what you intend testing - and what you consider as proof.  That is REASONABLE.  And I'm sure, Poynty Point that you're a reasonable sort of person.

As ever,
Rosie Pose

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #513 on: February 02, 2012, 12:07:39 AM »
I'm not being vague at all Rosemary.
 
In fact I'm being quite specific as to what minimum level of understanding YOU must have before I enter into any formal agreements with you.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #514 on: February 02, 2012, 04:08:05 AM »
I'm not being vague at all Rosemary.
 
In fact I'm being quite specific as to what minimum level of understanding YOU must have before I enter into any formal agreements with you.

This is getting laughable.  If you're going to evaluate our circuit Poynty - then the MINIMUM REQUIREMENT IS TO KNOW WHAT MEASUREMENTS YOU INTEND APPLYING.  That has NOTHING to do with my understanding or lack of it.  It's the HONEST AND OPEN REQUIREMENT OF ANY OPEN SOURCE NEGOTIATION where the CLAIMANT MUST AT LEAST know what measurement is to be applied.   ANYTHING that I DON'T understand - TRUST me - I'll ASK.

I am not an Itseung who - poor soul - trusted his circuit to a prayer.  And then submitted it to  your's and Professor Steven E Jones' MERCY - to CRUCIFY both it and him to your heart's content.  Where you both indulged in a series of measurements that had the added disgrace of being void of ANY DEFINED TERMS WHATSOEVER.  Where his constant appeals to you both to re-evaluate those numbers is ENTIRELY IGNORED.  And this the fruits of his own hard work spanning God knows how many years.  And this just another example of the victimisation of yet another poor claimant attempting to alert you all to his work.  Where the only WONDER is that he persists in his requests with a courtesy and constraint - with a degree of politeness - that is EXEMPLARY.  Itseung is just one of the MANY claimants that you have managed to DISPATCH in a welter of obtuse arguments rendered mostly in utterly undefined ACRONYMS.  God knows why you rely on this over use.  It's removes an argument of any sense while you shroud all with implication that you're accessing some kind of HIGHER KNOWLEDGE.  All this while you do that dance of the 7 veils.

NOW.  Define your intended measurement protocols - or WITHDRAW YOUR OFFER OF A PRIZE IN ITS ENTIRETY.  I'll tell you WHY Poynt.99 RECURRING - INTO INFINITY.  It's because you may otherwise accept our measurement protocols - but reserve the right to apply your own UNDEFINED PROTOCOLS.  AS YOU PREFER.  And then.  FAG my understanding - or lack of it.  We, the readers here and your own members - will then KNOW that you're not exactly either OPEN OR ABOVE BOARD.

This nonsense about requiring that I first understand science according to POYNTY POINT.  If that is the EXPLICIT requirement then ADD THAT to your conditions of qualification.  Let's all SEE this mockery of criteria that you that you NOW require in order to DEFEAT another valid claim for that Prize of yours.   

OR if you're now saying that I DON'T qualify for your prize because I am not credentialed.  Don't worry too much.  There are many even amongst our GREATS who managed insights to progress science - without any credentials AT ALL.  And its not as if we're dealing with a major variation to the STANDARD MODEL HERE POYNTY.  Nor are we asking you to understand the thesis.  You couldn't anyway.  What we're asking you to do is simply EXPLAIN your intended measurement protocols.  THAT'S MOST CERTAINLY REQUIRED.

Regards,
Rosemary

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #515 on: February 02, 2012, 04:14:23 AM »
The essential message is this:

I have no intention of entering into any formal agreement with you UNTIL YOU DEMONSTRATE that you have an understanding of the DC power problem I gave you. That includes knowing what polarity of power is assigned to the battery and load, and WHY. I'll also expect to NOT hear any gibberish about source and load powers alternating, or some such nonsense. If you conquer that problem, we'll move on to others more complex until I am satisfied you are at a level of competence sufficient to speak intelligently about your circuit and the measurements involved.

Alternately, you can choose someone who DOES have the competence in electronics theory and power measurement to represent you. They too must demonstrate that they have the level of competence required to speak intelligently in the matters of power measurement and electronics theory. We'll start with the DC power problem I gave you, then move on from there if they are successful.

About that list of protocols etc., when and if you're ready (based on the above), then we'll talk. But NOT before!

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #516 on: February 02, 2012, 04:19:57 AM »
The essential message is this:

I have no intention of entering into any formal agreement with you UNTIL YOU DEMONSTRATE that you have an understanding of the DC power problem I gave you. That includes knowing what polarity of power is assigned to the battery and load, and WHY. I'll also expect to NOT hear any gibberish about source and load powers alternating, or some such nonsense. If you conquer that problem, we'll move on to others more complex until I am satisfied you are at a level of competence sufficient to speak intelligently about your circuit and the measurements involved.

Alternately, you can choose someone who DOES have the competence in electronics theory  power measurement to represent you. They too must demonstrate that they have the level of competence required to speak intelligently in the matters of power measurement and electronics theory. We'll start with the DC power problem I gave you, then move on from there if they are successful.

THIS IS RICH.  Now I must first bend my mind around that PAPER? of yours.   Do we first do an analysis of THAT?  So that I can demonstrate to you that not ONLY do I understand it - but that it's an assemblage of the most PITIABLE criteria that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH STANDARD MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS.  I'm more than happy to ENGAGE.  Where do we start.  Page 1.  Or do we refer to those diagrams where you don't even describe where you signal ground goes?

I'M READY STEADY GO - TO GIVE THIS MY BEST SHOT.  Do I post that first page of arguments?  OR DO YOU?

Regards,
Rosie Posie

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #517 on: February 02, 2012, 04:23:34 AM »
I was NOT referring to my document called: "detailed_analysis06.pdf".

I was referring to the simple DC power problem I gave you a number of pages back. I will try to find it and post the link...

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #518 on: February 02, 2012, 04:31:49 AM »
The essential message is this:

I have no intention of entering into any formal agreement with you UNTIL YOU DEMONSTRATE that you have an understanding of the DC power problem I gave you. That includes knowing what polarity of power is assigned to the battery and load, and WHY. I'll also expect to NOT hear any gibberish about source and load powers alternating, or some such nonsense. If you conquer that problem, we'll move on to others more complex until I am satisfied you are at a level of competence sufficient to speak intelligently about your circuit and the measurements involved.

Alternately, you can choose someone who DOES have the competence in electronics theory and power measurement to represent you. They too must demonstrate that they have the level of competence required to speak intelligently in the matters of power measurement and electronics theory. We'll start with the DC power problem I gave you, then move on from there if they are successful.

About that list of protocols etc., when and if you're ready (based on the above), then we'll talk. But NOT before!

LET ME SEE THAT ARGUMENT OF YOURS.  AND THEN I'LL GET BACK TO THIS POST.

Rosemary

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #519 on: February 02, 2012, 04:42:57 AM »
Here is the simple DC power problem I gave you before:

Please provide the calculations for power delivered by the battery, and power dissipated by RLOAD. BE SURE TO INCLUDE THE POLARITY OF EACH RESULT.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #520 on: February 02, 2012, 05:05:13 AM »
Here is the simple DC power problem I gave you before:

Please provide the calculations for power delivered by the battery, and power dissipated by RLOAD. BE SURE TO INCLUDE THE POLARITY OF EACH RESULT.

Nothing wrong with what you're showing there.  Now.  What is your point? 

Here's what I see.  The battery is able to release the flow of current through the load resistor - in this example in a clockwise justification.  This current flows back to the battery negative terminal thereby reducing the potential difference at that battery supply.  No problem.  BECAUSE there's a flow of current - then the amount of energy delivered by that battery is based on an analysis of wattage, which, in turn is the product of the battery volts and the amperage flow over time.  And all things being equal - because the wattage is from the battery - that number is represented as a positive number.

THEN. ONLY WHEN THAT CURRENT FLOW IS INTERRUPTED - the induced potential difference over the circuit components - including the LOAD resistor that you show, is able to discharge its 'stored' potential energy.  BUT.  That voltage that was INDUCED across that Load resistor - is in ANTI PHASE to the applied voltage from the supply.  Therefore - in relation to the supply that voltage is NEGATIVE.  IT THEN DISCHARGES that potential difference and this induces a current flow that is in anti phase to the previous flow of current.  Therefore the current flow is negative. Therefore a product of a negative voltage and the negative current flow would result in a POSITIVE SUM? Is that your argument?  I have no problem.

BUT.  You cannot argue that the power that is dissipated as a result of the collapsing fields in that element has been DISCHARGED BY THE BATTERY SUPPLY.   It MAY have been first delivered by the battery  But it is now moving in a counter clock-wise direction.  It does not DISCHARGE the battery.  If anything it RECHARGES the battery.

So.  What is your point?

Rosemary
added

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #521 on: February 02, 2012, 05:12:24 AM »
Nothing wrong with what you're showing there.  Now.  What is your point? 

Here's what I see.  The battery is able to release the flow of current through the load resistor - in this example in a clockwise justification.  This current flows back to the batter negative terminal thereby reducing the potential difference at that battery supply.  No problem.  BECAUSE there's a flow of current - then the amount of energy delivered by that battery is based on an analysis of wattage, which, in turn is the product of the battery volts and the amperage flow over time.  And all things being equal - because the wattage is from the battery - that number is represented as a positive number.

THEN. ONLY WHEN THAT CURRENT FLOW IS INTERRUPTED - the induced potential difference over the circuit components - including the LOAD resistor that you show, is able to discharge its 'stored' potential energy.  BUT.  That voltage that was INDUCED across that Load resistor - is in ANTI PHASE to the applied voltage from the supply.  Therefore - in relation to the supply that voltage is NEGATIVE.  IT THEN DISCHARGES that
potential difference and this induces a current flow that is in anti phase to the previous flow of current.  Therefore the current flow is negative.  Therefore a product of a negative voltage and the negative current flow would result in a POSITIVE SUM? Is that your argument?  I have no problem.

BUT.  You cannot argue that the power that is dissipated as a result of the collapsing fields in that element has been DISCHARGED BY THE BATTERY SUPPLY.   It MAY have been first delivered by the battery  But it is now moving in a counter clock-wise direction.

So.  What is your point?

Rosemary

First of all, you seem to think that the circuit I posted is related to YOUR circuit somehow, am I correct?

That is NOT my intention, nor is that the case when you look at the circuit. There are no switches, there are no transistors or MOSFETs, there is no inductance. What we have there is simply a pure DC voltage supplied by the battery, connected to a pure resistive load RLOAD.

Care to try again?

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #522 on: February 02, 2012, 05:20:29 AM »
First of all, you seem to think that the circuit I posted is related to YOUR circuit somehow, am I correct?

That is NOT my intention, nor is that the case when you look at the circuit. There are no switches, there are no transistors or MOSFETs, there is no inductance. What we have there is simply a pure DC voltage supplied by the battery, connected to a pure resistive load RLOAD.

Care to try again?

In which case you have the flow of current from a battery supply that is consistent with the applied voltage from the BATTERY SUPPLY SOURCE and the Ohm's value of the resistor.  I can't remember if you specified a resistive value.   but IF R = 10 and Vbatt = 12 - then you've got the measure of the current flow as v/r=1.2 amps or thereby.

If you do have a point - please explain it.  I suspect it's to do with the fact that the voltage over the resistor is established in anti phase to the battery supply voltage.  But since the resistor is NOT delivering any current from that applied potential difference - then the amount of energy that it's delivering back to the supply - is ZERO.  Until, obviously, that current from the battery is interrupted.

Rosemary

Added and changed.

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #523 on: February 02, 2012, 05:27:54 AM »
In which case you have the flow of current from a battery supply that is consistent with the applied voltage from the BATTERY SUPPLY SOURCE and the Ohm's value of the resistor.  I can't remember if you specified a resistive value.   but IF R = 10 and Vbatt = 12 - then you've got the measure of the current flow as v/r=1.2 amps or thereby.
The values are as follows:
VBAT = 50VDC
RLOAD = 10 Ohms

Quote
If you do have a point - please explain it.  I suspect it's to do with the fact that the voltage over the resistor is established in anti phase to the battery supply voltage.  But since the resistor is NOT delivering any current from that applied potential difference - then the amount of energy that it's delivering back to the supply is ZERO. Until, obviously, that current from the battery is interrupted.

My question once again was this:

Please provide the actual value in Watts and polarity for:

a) the battery power and
b) the load power.

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #524 on: February 02, 2012, 05:41:52 AM »
Until, obviously, that current from the battery is interrupted.
What 'obviously' happens if the current from the battery is interrupted in my circuit?