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 933262 times)

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #720 on: March 01, 2012, 01:53:41 AM »
So it needs a new documentation with precise measurement protocols.
WHY?  They do not form any part of the required range of results required for our paper.  They were ONLY done to obviate complaints against grounding issues.

Also you need to disconnect all grounded scopes from the circuit during the longer tests as this could also have this ground current loop problem.
Not actually.  Also explained in that reference.  Please read it.

Also you need to probe the batteries before and after with a battery capacity meter to see their charge status.
Had we taken the trouble to do this - then we would NOT have been able to include this in our paper as a Professor Jandrell from WITS university advised us that ANY evaluation of the battery was IRRELEVANT to the claim.

Please quit posting your old measurement results when the function generator was used as this was enough debunked already.
Stefan - THIS STATEMENT IS NOT ONLY INCORRECT - it is damaging. Do I take it then that you're trying to DISMISS the claims in our paper?  Notwithstanding the fact that we have entirely PROVED every single point that you raise as a possible objection? And if so then WHY?

Regards,
Rosemary[/quote]

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #721 on: March 01, 2012, 02:12:05 AM »
And Harti - AGAIN

I am more than happy to do this test provided only that the protocols are approved by a couple of academic experts.  Else any further tests are a waste of time.  We've been at this 'second generation' - so to speak of this circuit for FAR TOO LONG.  I am not doing any more tests.  I'm of the opinion - with respect - that it would not make an iota of difference and it would be demanded of me that I can run around in circles addressing whatever whimsical requirement occurs to you all.  And it's not as if these tests are requested.  You seem to think that you can demand them.  The onus is on me and me only - to prove these claims under definitive conditions.  We have done this except for the final battery draw down test.  I'm more than happy to do this.  But ONLY if it CAN be considered definitive.  I would have thought that Professor Jones would easily find the required expertise to get this endorsement.

Regards,
Rosemary

Well.  I've woken up to a clean slate. How nice is that?  Hopefully the day nears that this thread can FINALLY be concluded.  Much needed.  The level of counter argument is now regressing to the point that only intelligent input is my own.  And, as we all know, I have none.  Which means that the rather preposterous reach in our experimental evidence is likely to fold under the weight of nothing more onerous than the light relief afforded by it's potential comic value.   :o Which was never the intention.  I had rather hoped that this claim of ours would merit some EARNEST consideration.   8)

Since the subtleties of the circuit performance entirely ELUDE my protagonists - and since they can only repeatedly SHOW how they've missed the POYNT - and since this debate is likely to rage on and continue to confuse the hell out of everyone involved here - then here's my proposal.  Actually it's NOT my proposal.  It's Magsy's.
 

I'll set up the required controls.  I'll re-run the test by 'swapping batteries'.  I'll do this a 3rd time IF required - SUBJECT ONLY TO THIS.

That Professor Emeritus Steven E Jones find us 2 or even 3 EXPERTS in electrical engineering - to CONFIRM that this test is then conclusive subject obviously to a close description of the test vs the control - and to the comparative values of both tests.

That those academics are prepared to stake their reputations on the outcome - which means that the monitoring of these results will need the added supervision of someone HERE IN SOUTH AFRICA - who will be considered a credible witness to those results.

I think that Professor would be able to find us some candidates for this endorsement as its likely he has some colleagues in the engineering department.  And those colleagues will likely know someone here is a SA academy -  who may then 'adjudicate' those tests.

Failing which, UNFORTUNATELY - both Poynty and Professor will simply have to concede our claim by DEFAULT.  Or alternatively they must acknowledge our protocols and then witness a demonstration.  I see no other viable option.  And if NONE of these options are considered then we'll call on them both to 'cough up' that prize money - or those coins - or both - as we've WON BY DEFAULT.  We're rather keen on getting some transfer of ownership here. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie.

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #722 on: March 01, 2012, 02:15:11 AM »
And Poynty point.  DELIGHTED to see that you're actually doing a replication?  Is that what you're showing?  You need to tell us how you're going to determine the optimum settings required.  I'm afraid it's NOT possible without access to those scopes that can do math trace.  Else you'll spend an awfully long time trying to find the required settings.

Let me know.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #723 on: March 01, 2012, 02:38:05 AM »
Not a replication of hardware, rather I'll be replicating your wave forms and measurements with my own circuit, which has already been published on this forum.

The scope is not a problem, I'll be using my own most likely.

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #724 on: March 01, 2012, 02:48:45 AM »
MileHigh - I have been assured that there's always a marginal drop in voltage across a capacitor when it's disconnected from its charge source.  Is that what you're relying on?  Which makes which of the two us 'morally bankrupt'?

And you need to substantiate your claim that a battery can discharge current through any transistor at all without passing through its source leg.  Alternatively IF the discharge is through the source leg of Q2 to the Gate of Q1 - then you also need to argue how it IGNORES the negative charge applied to the Gate of Q1. 

Don't repeat your claim.  Argue it.  Otherwise you have NO credibility with this claim of yours that the battery is discharging through it's Q2's source leg to the gate of Q1.  And it really doesn't matter how indignant you pretend to be when you 'claim' that this happens - IT SIMPLY DOES NOT.  It CANNOT.  Unless it can bypass Q1 which is where the signal probe is sitting.  And that applied signal is NEGATIVE.

Regards,
Rosemary

hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8154
    • free energy research OverUnity.com
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #725 on: March 01, 2012, 06:57:34 AM »
Rosemary,
where is the circuit diagramm of the 555 timer test ?

Did I miss this ?

Please post again the links to it and to your latest PDF papers...
Thanks-

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #726 on: March 01, 2012, 03:43:38 PM »
Stefan,

My investigation into the FG issue revealed that it's important to consider whether the bias is set to a negative or positive value. This determines which MOSFET is active, and which is not. In either case, the MOSFETs require a good AC path to ground, and it appears the FG is providing that in one case. I doubt very much that the FG is supplying the 30 some Watts of power going to the load however, especially considering there is a 50 Ohm resistor on its output.

If Rosemary does a test with a 555 timer as the driver, I would like to see a 50 Ohm resistor connected to its output as well. This way, we'll see if the circuit still oscillates. Without the resistor, I am quite sure it will.

The real issues are 1) Rosemary's battery energy calculations (per TK), and 2) her battery voltage measurement, which I intend to clear up soon.

It would be far more productive imho, if the focus was on some of the tests we have suggested in the recent and distant past, which would provide definitive evidence that the circuit is underunity.

.99

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #727 on: March 01, 2012, 04:31:57 PM »
Guys

We've got a very sick member of the family.  I need to rally.  I'll post here at the weekend - hopefully.

Regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #728 on: March 02, 2012, 02:06:48 AM »
Harti,

Again.  The circuit is per out schematic included in our paper.  I'll see if I can download again.  The differences are ONLY in the applied signal.  Not from a function generator - but a 555.  And there is only 1 x Q1 and 1 x Q2.   Do you get it yet?  If not, then let me know.  If you want a circuit diagram of a 555 - there are many available on the internet.  They all work - with varying levels of efficiency.  THEN.  Where you see 'load' RL1 - just picture - in your mind's eye - that we've got a battery operated solder iron in place of the element resistor that we reference in our paper.  And OBVIOUSLY the shunt resistor.  This is still 0.25 Ohms ... I think.  Actually - it may have been 0.2 Ohms.  Can't actually remember. 

I'm not sure that I ever did download the waveforms.  And I'm not about to wade through those multiple pages of 'flamed' threads to find them.  I do, however, have some downloads where this was tested from our own batteries.  I'll try and find them.   

Rosemary,
where is the circuit diagramm of the 555 timer test ?

Did I miss this ?

Please post again the links to it and to your latest PDF papers...
Thanks-

About our papers.  I have sent you copies of these per email.  Have you lost these?  If so, again.  Let me know.  I'll send them again for your private perusal.  I've been advised NOT to publish these here until such time as they're published as reviewed papers.  Which is immanent. 

Regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #729 on: March 02, 2012, 02:23:16 AM »
Hello Poynty Point

May I impose on your to clarify these comments.

My investigation into the FG issue revealed that it's important to consider whether the bias is set to a negative or positive value.
What setting to what 'negative bias'? 

This determines which MOSFET is active, and which is not. In either case, the MOSFETs require a good AC path to ground
When does a MOSFET require an AC PATH?  And what GROUND are you referring to?

and it appears the FG is providing that in one case.
In WHICH 'case' are you referring to?  And how exactly is this managed?

I doubt very much that the FG is supplying the 30 some Watts of power going to the load however, especially considering there is a 50 Ohm resistor on its output.
Where EXACTLY is that 50 Ohm resistor in any of our schematics.  And when does a MOSFET ever OUTPUT anything at all?

If Rosemary does a test with a 555 timer as the driver, I would like to see a 50 Ohm resistor connected to its output as well.
Are you now requiring us to increase the applied resistance - and IF SO WHY?  Quite apart from which can you NOT REMEMBER that I've already said I won't be doing more tests?  Not until you have provided guarantees that ANY SUCH TEST will be conclusive for our claims for your PRIZES? Do you remember this Poynty?  The WHOLE purpose of my reopening this thread was for purposes of CLAIMING YOUR PRIZES.

This way, we'll see if the circuit still oscillates. Without the resistor, I am quite sure it will.
Why should we do this test 'without the resistor'?  It seems somewhat pointless. 

The real issues are 1) Rosemary's battery energy calculations (per TK),
Is this yet more 'INFERENCE' to a small mistake I made in calculations?  And can I thereby construe that you abusing it's value in order to detract from the actual claim as detailed in that paper?

and 2) her battery voltage measurement, which I intend to clear up soon.
WHAT battery voltage is that?  I am not sure that we have CLAIMED anything at all about the battery voltage in our paper.  In point of fact we ONLY stressed that we have NOT considered battery voltage.  Do I need to explain this as well?  Again? May I IMPOSE on you to keep your comments RELEVANT TO OUR CLAIM.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #730 on: March 02, 2012, 02:35:57 AM »
Guys,

I'm not sure whether it's deliberate.  But I'm beginning to see the 'technique'.  Here it is.  It is ALLEGED that the claims have been discounted - AS PRESENTED.  I argue this through 40 odd pages of internet correspondence.  Those arguments are IGNORED.  The allegation is made that my claims have been discounted.  I ARGUE THIS THROUGH 40 odd MORE pages of internet correspondence.  Those arguments are IGNORED.

And so it goes.  I'm not sure that our poor little claim will ever make it on these forums.  The good news however and God willing - is that the papers are about to be published.  And doubly EXCELLENT is that they'll be reviewed by acknowledged EXPERTS.  This TEDIOUS prattle presented with all the pretensions of actual 'KNOWLEDGE OF THE ART' - is utterly DESTRUCTIVE to any claims related to over unity - let alone claims of INFINITE co-efficient of performance.

And Guys.  NOTA BENE.  We have on offer a definitive test related to battery draw downs - which I am MORE THAN HAPPY to conduct - SUBJECT ONLY TO THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT by no less than 2 ACADEMIC EXPERTS - that this test will be considered DEFINITIVE.  That is ALL that's required.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

added
And also NOTA BENE.  For some reason that offer of a battery draw down test is UTTERLY IGNORED.  Golly.  If I had to draw a conclusion from this - I'd say that there's some CRYING NEED to ignore that challenge.

 :'(
Rosie Pose.

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #731 on: March 02, 2012, 03:53:23 AM »
And MileHigh,

IF we're going to 'talk' about 'moral bankruptcy' then may I propose something.  You want me to do a test that you suggests will show 'under unity'.  I cannot argue - because I'm NOT about to do that test.  What I WILL DO, AGAIN, is a full on 'to duration' comparative test between a control and our own system.  Here's my conditions.  Get me any two academic experts who will go PUBLIC with such a test as being definitive - and I'll do those comparative draw down tests - over and over - AND IN FULL PUBLIC VIEW - for as often as it takes to prove this efficiency.  That way I won't be wasting my time - which is what you're hoping to engage me in.

SURELY - with all that KNOWLEDGE of yours and with your apparently 'well accredited' background - you'd be well able to rally a couple of academics to this?  Surely?  IF not you then Poynty?  And IF not Poynty - then Professor Steven E Jones?  And then?  IF we can't show the advantages of a switched system using our technology  - over standard and conventional circuit application  - YOU'LL BE PROVED RIGHT.  ::) And how nice would that be? ;)

So.  MilesUpThere - HOW ABOUT IT?

Regards,
Rosemary

SchubertReijiMaigo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 343
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #732 on: March 02, 2012, 06:28:56 PM »
Seriously, after studying I wonder why everyone lose their time with this...


A test in Falstad will show the weird behavior of that circuit, I cannot imagine finally how this circuit can be OU  :o  .
OMG, Q2 do literally nothing  :o  It just short Q1:


When Q2 is on the current go from the battery to the the inductive resistor Q2  the function generator (if you want to burn it, it's the best circuit :(  ) the shunt and go back to the battery...
Something goes wrong here, in my simulation the inductance is not even pulsed  :o  ...


I post the source code to see yourself...



$ 1 5.0E-6 10.20027730826997 50 5.0 50
w 272 176 272 128 0
w 272 128 320 128 0
r 320 128 368 128 0 20.0
l 368 128 448 128 0 0.1 0.12250020577367378
w 448 128 528 128 0
w 528 128 528 176 0
w 528 176 400 176 0
w 400 176 400 192 0
f 432 208 400 208 0 1.5
f 496 208 528 208 0 1.5
w 528 176 528 192 0
w 528 224 528 288 0
w 528 288 528 336 0
w 528 336 528 400 0
w 528 400 272 400 0
w 272 400 272 304 0
r 272 304 272 224 0 0.1
v 272 224 272 176 0 0 40.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
w 400 224 400 288 0
w 528 336 400 336 0
v 400 336 400 288 0 2 50.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
w 400 288 432 288 0
w 432 288 496 208 0
w 432 208 496 288 0
w 496 288 528 288 0
o 17 64 1 291 5.0 9.765625E-5 0 -1
o 20 64 1 291 0.625 9.765625E-5 1 -1
o 2 64 1 291 2.5 9.765625E-5 2 -1




www.falstad.com


Can someone explain what's wrong here !?
SRM.

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #733 on: March 03, 2012, 01:18:09 AM »
Hello Schubert,

I'm afraid I can't help you.  I have no idea how one does these simulations.  But I'm delighted that you're exploring this.  Can we at least see a picture of your waveforms?  I know that this waveform has been simulated by a number of people - including Poynty Point.  I get it that you don't get any oscillation at all? Or is it that you get something that's always greater than zero?

Either way - it would be nice to see what you do get.

Kindest regards
Rosemary

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #734 on: March 03, 2012, 01:38:12 AM »
My dear MileHigh

I keep hoping to post something to the effect 'FINALLY - NO MORE COUNTER ARGUMENT.  ALL IS SILENCE'.  Instead of which I get your background prattle.  Hopefully this post will do the trick.  Your following three nominated conditions refer.

1) If the capacitor decreases in voltage, the batteries are outputting a measurable amount of net energy going into the load after ten seconds.

2) If the capacitor does not change in voltage, the batteries are showing no measurable amount of net energy going into the load after ten seconds.

3) If the capacitor increases in voltage, the batteries are receiving a measurable amount of net energy from the rest of the circuit after ten seconds, i.e.; they are being recharged.


All three conditions depend on any claim at all that suggests that there is either MORE or LESS  power going to the battery which somehow will be proven by replacing one of those batteries with a capacitor.   This has nothing AT ALL to do with our CLAIM. 

Here is our claim.

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.

-/...