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 933364 times)

hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8154
    • free energy research OverUnity.com
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #735 on: March 03, 2012, 01:42:19 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.   

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.
it seems you have not really done a documented test with the 555 timer,
otherwise you could just post the complete circuit diagram of it  and how it was connected to your
circuit and how it was driven ? Did you use a different battery or did you use the 5 x 12 =60 Volts batteries ?
A 555 timer will not run on 60 Volts supply, so you need to lower the supply voltage.

Also your 2 PDF files did not contain any 555 circuit, just your old outdated circuit with the
function generator and the ground loop and measurement problems...

Also no battery status tests .

For a real test you need to see the status of your batteries before and after the tests....


So try to run these tests, document them in detail and then come back here...
all other postings without doing new tests are just wasted time...

Did you yet met GotoLuc in South Africa ?
Maybe he can help you setup the measurements the right way.
He also knows how to post it to youtube.

Many thanks.

Regards, Stefan.

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #736 on: March 03, 2012, 02:13:43 AM »
Harti - I have answered this.  But let me try this again.

Rosemary.
it seems you have not really done a documented test with the 555 timer, otherwise you could just post the complete circuit diagram of it  and how it was connected to your circuit and how it was driven ? Did you use a different battery or did you use the 5 x 12 =60 Volts batteries ?
A 555 timer will not run on 60 Volts supply, so you need to lower the supply voltage.
We most certainly DID do that test.  It was required to counter the claim that the use of the function generator was somehow responsible for that oscillation and/or it's apparent benefits.  We most certainly did NOT need to reference an alternate schematic.  It's EXACTLY the same schematic as our detailed in our paper which I added to my previous post to you.  The ONLY DIFFERENCE IS that the signal generator is now a 555 switch.  And the work load RL1 was a battery powered solder iron.   

It seems that no matter WHAT I write the answer is ignored.  Could I impose on you to actually READ this reply Stefan?  We ONLY included a REFERENCE to that test - AS REQUIRED - so that anyone reading our papers could duplicate the test - as required.  Then they too will see the same oscillation and the same benefits.  Since that 555 test is NOT the experiment under review it does not require a separate schematic.

Now.  Perhaps I can get back to my intentions in posting here.  I revived this thread in order to challenge Poynt.99 and Professor Steven E Jones - to claim their prizes for proof of over unity.  I have offered an entirely CONCLUSIVE TEST for their consideration - by defining a comparative battery draw down test or our test apparatus vs a control.  That is all that's needed.  AND then INDEED - we would need to do a very public 3rd test to show that the 555 switched circuit DOES NOT ADD ENERGY to the circuit.  But that's the ONLY context in which it would be needed to this test.

Believe it or not - these 40 odd pages of thread are ONLY the argument that we HAVE A VALID CLAIM FOR THOSE PRIZES.  And this, for some reason is DENIED?  :'( SO.  In order to put ALL ARGUMENTS TO BED - I've proposed that we run these final and DEFINITIVE TESTS.  I am more than happy to do this.  But it will take some time.  And it will involve me in some expense.  Therefore, I need to KNOW that IF I run these tests - IF we can show that the batteries under test conditions have lost NO CHARGE AT ALL - while the batteries under a control - DISCHARGE ALL THEIR ENERGY - then we will have proved our claim. 

But I will not do ANY more testing - until such time as this is conceded as being CONCLUSIVE PROOF and that this opinion is shared with at least two academic experts.  That way - my time and money is NOT wasted.  Because, IF a couple of academics endorse this as conclusive proof and IF I run these tests under the required supervision - then there will never again be any academic or any person anywhere at all who would be able to JUSTIFY denying this claim.  And that would be MOST desirable.

I am TIRED of arguing the merits of our claim.  I want to PROVE IT.

Regards
Rosemary

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #737 on: March 03, 2012, 03:31:27 AM »
And MileHigh - this is reference to the balance of your post.

Quote from: MilesUpThere at OUR.com
The test I proposed is not designed to "suggest under unity."  That's ridiculous, it's designed to simply show the truth
Truth?  Golly.  I rather suspect that what you're proposing is that we do a test that is entirely irrelevant to our claim - in the hopes of thereby disproving our claim.  Which means that the term 'truth' as applied by you - is only what you truly hope will be the result.

Quote from: MilesOffTheMark at OUR.com
Now, the simple fact is that I know for certain that the voltage on the capacitor will decrease after ten seconds.  If your "COP infinity" fantasy is true, then the voltage on the capacitor will increase after ten seconds.
WOW.  This is when that 'truth' becomes relative to - a 'kissing cousin of' pure fantasy.  To the best of my knowledge there is no means by which a capacitor can INCREASE it's voltage when it's disconnected from a supply.  And I have been assured that MOST capacitors are subject to 'leakage' when they're disconnected. 

Quote from: MilesFromThePoint at OUR.com
So what are you afraid of Rosemary?  In theory, my proposed test will either confirm or deny that your fantasy is true and it will only take 10 seconds to do so.
I'm only 'afraid' that you've missed the point of our paper.  Nothing new here.

Quote from: MilesOfNothingButPropaganda at OUR.com
Don't bother mentioning that you would have to double-check this first with "academic experts."  The test is real so don't try some amateur deflection nonsensical foolishness.  Don't hide under that
Nothing to do with amateur deflection nonsensical foolishness.  Everything to do with keeping tests within the context of our claim.

-/...

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #738 on: March 03, 2012, 03:32:54 AM »
Quote from: MilesFromAValidArgument at OUR.com
My test will take 10 seconds.  The comparative battery draw-down test is a complicated and difficult to do affair that will take days and days to do properly and will not necessarily be conclusive.  The battery draw-down test will easily generate another 50 pages worth of debate.  I have no confidence that you or anyone on your team could do the tests properly and document the tests properly.  It's just another quagmire waiting to happen.  It's so easy to see that coming.
I would DEPEND on the stipulated test parameters approved by EXPERTS.  And unlike your test which only goes to the measure of capacitor leakage - our test would be CONCLUSIVE of benefit to our application.
 
Quote from: MilesOfMisdirection at OUR.com
All that you need to do is double check your power measurements that were done with the DSO.  The scientific method calls for double-checking measurements with an alternative method, especially when the first round of measurements are suspicious, as yours clearly are.  The capacitor test will do that for you in 10 seconds and it has millions of times more resolution than the DSO.  This is a simple fact.
The 'first round' of tests are over 100 independent tests strong - each showing an INFINITE co-efficient of performance.  The capacitor test is only a test on the capacitor's ability to retain charge - OR NOT.  Can't see the relevance.
 
Quote from: MilesOfGratuitousInsults at OUR.com
But after seeing your postings yesterday, one thing is abundantly clear:  Because you have no background in electronics and you still can barely express yourself when it comes to electronics and energy, you have almost no capacity whatsoever to learn and retain material that has been taught to you multiple times.  Knowledge rolls off your back and out of your brain like water rolls off the clean and oiled feathers of a duck.  So there is just no point, you are a blank slate that repeatedly blanks itself out over time.
It continually intrigues me that with my evident lack of training - my alarming and profound lack of intelligence - and the vacuity of my mind - that I am nonetheless able to counter every single argument put forward by all you 'nay sayers' - with comparative ease and with surprisingly adequate articulation.  Which only goes to show that it's possibly preferred to be quite as stupid as I clearly am.  In any event.  I don't mind it one little bit.
 
Quote from: MilesOfIdleBoasts at OUR.com
Hence it's time to throw the towel in and listen to music instead.
If this is the advice you're giving yourself - far be it from me to dissuade you.  PLEASE.  Feel free. 
 
 Kindest regards,
 Rosie Pose

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #739 on: March 03, 2012, 06:17:58 AM »
You're still dodging, Rosie. Perhaps you simply do not understand the issue.

Let's break it down. Is this or is this not a correct statement? THAT is a YES or NO question. It only takes a single word to answer it.

Quote
We ran that test for 90 minutes.  Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104.  We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes.  Ambient was at 16.  Joules = 1 watt per second.  So.  Do the math.  4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.  Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.  Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.

Is a Joule = 1 Watt per second? THAT is also a YES or NO question. It only takes a single word to answer it.

Just answer that much, for goodness sake.

Flux It

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #740 on: March 03, 2012, 03:30:36 PM »
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

Heres a link to the circuit-

circuit sim


Its a simple drag and drop tool, and very basic but you can also use it to create schematics of a working circuit with a 555 and all the correct values. The sim itself may not show your effect but its a great way to experiment without letting the smoke out of components  ;D

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #741 on: March 03, 2012, 04:40:56 PM »
Heres a link to the circuit-

circuit sim


Its a simple drag and drop tool, and very basic but you can also use it to create schematics of a working circuit with a 555 and all the correct values. The sim itself may not show your effect but its a great way to experiment without letting the smoke out of components  ;D

Thanks for this Flux It.  Very intriguing. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary 

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #742 on: March 04, 2012, 01:36:11 AM »
Guys, I've re-read the last four pages.  Tediously repetitive doesn't begin to describe it.  It's surprising that there are even 3 readers here - as Poynty claims.  I'll see if I can get this argument back on track.

We claim that test results shown on over 500 screen downloads - and over 200 different settings to the applied duty cycle to our circuit - results in a NEGATIVE WATTAGE.  This 'negative wattage' has no meaning.  It is a term that has absolutely NO RELEVANCE of any kind WHATSOEVER to our standard model.  And this because wattage must ALWAYS result in some value equal to but never greater than '1'.  So.  Either our measurement protocols are incorrect - OR - we have an alternate energy supply to the battery supply source.  Since our protocols conform to standard requirements then we explore the second option.  We propose that energy is, indeed, REGENERATED through Back Electromotive Force.  We've put that question to our academics in the two-part paper.

What you guys want to know is this.  IS there, IN FACT, proof of any kind of energy efficiency evident in the batteries?  Do they exceed their watt hour rating?  Now.  This is not something that needs to be debated.  It NEEDS TO BE TESTED.  BUT.  There is no point at ALL in testing this without academic endorsement.  This is because these forums are NOT the ultimate arbitrator of any such outlandish claim.  Open Source experiments and opinions are IGNORED.  And the objective surely - is to engage our mainstream scientists.  Therefore.  We'll GLADLY do a battery draw down test - that we can prove this - or not - provided ONLY that it actually engages our academics.  IT SHOULD BE VERY EASY for Professor Jones, for Poynty, for MileHigh, for all these 'vaunted' and 'so called' EXPERTS to solicit the engagement of just 2 of our academics.  I CAN'T.  I've tried but failed.  But then again.  I HAVE NO ACCREDITATION.  While THEY, on the other hand, most certainly do.  They must know SOME academics?  SURELY? One would expect that they would be able to pick up the phone and chat to their esteemed and revered from their various Alma Maters?  These 'forum personalities' should be able to get into this kind of engagement?  One would think?

So.  Poynty Point - Professor Jones - MileHigh - whoever - here's what's needed.  Either engage the active participation of 2 academic experts to evaluate the protocols for the battery draw down tests - OR - acknowledge our claim on the merits that have been presented - which means that we deserve your prizes BY DEFAULT - OR - attend a demonstration of our own experiments.  Your arguments 'against' this evidence have been thin and wanting in any scientific merit or evidence.  Ours on the contrary - have the indisputable merit of experimental EVIDENCE.

Regards,
Rosemary
edited - changed had to 'hand'
« Last Edit: March 04, 2012, 02:52:39 AM by Rosemary Ainslie »

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #743 on: March 04, 2012, 01:58:26 AM »
My,

It's a good thing arguments like yours don't usually stand up in court, otherwise there would be twice the number of criminals running around on the loose than there already are.  ::)

You can't get any academics to jump on-board with you eh? Well THAT should tell you something. Use your noggin.

How about we ask YOU to provide two accredited academics with fully disclosed credentials who back you up, to come forward endorsing your measurements and claims? THEN we can look at considering your application for the prizes.

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #744 on: March 04, 2012, 02:44:43 AM »
As ever, Poynty Point - your argument depends on definition.  This time what's needed is a definition of 'criminal'...
My.  It's a good thing arguments like yours don't usually stand up in court, otherwise there would be twice the number of criminals running around on the loose than there already are.  ::)
Are you suggesting that the claim for the prize is criminal - or the refusal of that prize in criminal.  There are two sides to this argument.  LOL .  And, in any event, with either option, it would result in rather more than less criminals 'running around on the loose' if the claim doesn't 'stand up in court'.  This, because you also aver that any such claim/counterclaim - whatever - is advanced by criminals.  You see this I trust.  Your argument is 'fallacious' - spins around a load of nonsense - pivots on a poynty point.

You can't get any academics to jump on-board with you eh? Well THAT should tell you something. Use your noggin.
You're right.  Of course you are.  Our academics are most reluctant to engage.  And I get it that they won't engage with you either.  Golly.  That's tough.  BUT ALL IS NOT LOST.  I'll put money on it that this will be widely tested once our papers are published.  Then INDEED - if we get that much needed 'replication' after publication - THEN INDEED - we'll be able to come to you for our prize.  Retrospectively.  That's fine.

How about we ask YOU to provide two accredited academics with fully disclosed credentials who back you up, to come forward endorsing your measurements and claims? THEN we can look at considering your application for the prizes.
I'll try this again.  It's true that I'm now aware of many more sympathetic academics.  But I'm not sure that I want to expose them to the 'flak' they'll get for engaging prior to publication.  So.  I'll wait patiently.  It shouldn't be that much longer now.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Posie

edited 'now'

hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8154
    • free energy research OverUnity.com
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #745 on: March 04, 2012, 04:01:15 AM »
Harti - I have answered this.  But let me try this again.
We most certainly DID do that test.  It was required to counter the claim that the use of the function generator was somehow responsible for that oscillation and/or it's apparent benefits.  We most certainly did NOT need to reference an alternate schematic.  It's EXACTLY the same schematic as our detailed in our paper which I added to my previous post to you.  The ONLY DIFFERENCE IS that the signal generator is now a 555 switch.  And the work load RL1 was a battery powered solder iron.   



Regards
Rosemary


What where the components connected to the 555 chip ?

What RC values and frequency was set ?

You really need a circuit diagram and a measurement protocol and
a battery status test before and after the test run...

Again, this all was not provided and is still missing and you did not send me any circuit digramm
which shows how the 555 chip and R and C components was used in there...

Get your facts straight and do a scientific measurement with protocolled test runs
and post the COMPLETE circuit diagramm and the frequencies you used, etc...

The most import thing is the battery status test that you also did not do.

Regards, Stefan.

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #746 on: March 04, 2012, 05:31:19 AM »

What where the components connected to the 555 chip ?

What RC values and frequency was set ?

You really need a circuit diagram and a measurement protocol and
a battery status test before and after the test run...

Again, this all was not provided and is still missing and you did not send me any circuit digramm
which shows how the 555 chip and R and C components was used in there...

Get your facts straight and do a scientific measurement with protocolled test runs
and post the COMPLETE circuit diagramm and the frequencies you used, etc...
These points have been answered. 

The most import thing is the battery status test that you also did not do.
I agree that this is the most important thing.  But it can only be answered CONCLUSIVELY by doing a comparative analysis of the battery draw down tests.  I am happy to engage.  But it will cost both time and money.  Therefore to do this test we would need some unequivocal undertaking that these tests will be considered CONCLUSIVE.  That means that more than 1 and not less than 2 academic experts need to confirm the protocols for that test.  I can't get this.  Can you?  If you manage it - then we will GLADLY do that test.  It is the ONLY CONCLUSIVE TEST that I know of to prove that our claim results in any kind of energy efficiency.

Regards,
Rosemary

SchubertReijiMaigo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 343
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #747 on: March 04, 2012, 12:08:17 PM »
In your circuit presented a few page ago it doesn't show pulsing, seriously does Q2 is so important to pulse your inductance ?


In conventional science you can't get OU by simply pulsing an inductor because inductor store energy and the R of the wire dissipate it...


So the sole effect to get OU is that the collapsing EMF will recharge your battery like a Bedini ?
A good comparison will be:


1) Take two same and charged battery.
2) Running one circuit directly...
3) Running at the same time your pulsed circuit...
4) Comparing in how much time your battery die.
5) If the pulsed circuit last longer or doesn't die --> HOURA, BRAVO !!!
6) If not, time to try another things...
7) It's not a pure scientific measurement but at least you can see if it's OU or not...
8 ) END.


Regards, SRM.

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #748 on: March 04, 2012, 01:54:35 PM »
SRM,

Rosemary won't perform that test (or ANY for that matter) for any number of excuses, we've seen many.

Anyone making a wild claim like hers ought to have the sense of mind to validate their claim on their own by at least one other method. But alas, Rosemary has not provided corroborating data from an additional test of any sort.

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #749 on: March 04, 2012, 01:57:39 PM »
Hi Schubert,
In your circuit presented a few page ago it doesn't show pulsing,
Interestingly - it sort of performs as Poynty claimed it would - that there is ALWAYS a path for the battery through either Q1 or Q2's gate to source.  That's where the diagram errs - or as Poynty puts it - 'errors'.  Q2 has no source leg for the discharge except through Q1's Gate.  And Q1's gate has an applied negative signal that would repel any discharge from the battery.  Can you model that too Schubert?  It would be most interesting - but calls for an 'unconventional' MOSFET diagram.  I'll post the schematic again.  Q2 is on the left Q1 on the right.
seriously does Q2 is so important to pulse your inductance ?
No.  It's only required that there's a negative signal applied continuously to the gate of Q1.  It works fine to generate that oscillation.  Which is extraordinary - because under these conditions - ie with the use of just one FET with ONLY an applied negative signal - then the battery is unarguably NOT delivering any energy.  The question then is HOW does the positive half of each oscillation develop?
In conventional science you can't get OU by simply pulsing an inductor because inductor store energy and the R of the wire dissipate it...
EXACTLY.  Which is why we claim an anomaly.  We get MORE energy returned to the supply than delivered.  AND we've got some pretty hefty heat signatures over the workstation - RL1.
So the sole effect to get OU is that the collapsing EMF will recharge your battery like a Bedini ?
I'm well aware of Bedini's claims.  Our's is ONLY different in that we've got this on a solid state system - with heat dissipated rather than motors.  It seems that the 'recharge' to the battery is still the same.  Not sure because I've never tested this on motors.
1) Take two same and charged battery.2) Running one circuit directly...3) Running at the same time your pulsed circuit...4) Comparing in how much time your battery die.5) If the pulsed circuit last longer or doesn't die --> HOURA, BRAVO !!!6) If not, time to try another things...7) It's not a pure scientific measurement but at least you can see if it's OU or not...8 ) END.
This is PRECISELY the battery draw down test that I keep proposing to Poynty.  I'll do this gladly.  But I would need to know that I'm not wasting my time when I run this test.  The last thing any of us want is another DEBATE.  It needs to be acknowledged that this will be FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE.  And to get it there - we'd need the test parameters and protocols defined by an academic expert.  Poynty et al do not have the required expertise - unfortunately.  Not that they're not experts.  They possibly are.  But they're not experts in Power Engineering - which is what's required to get these results acknowledged.   

Let me know if you can vary that design against this diagram that I'm attaching Schubert.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary