Author Topic: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology. (Read 939435 times)

AbbaRue · « **Reply #1020 on:** March 15, 2012, 05:08:36 AM »

This fellows measurements shown on the following video show a substantial amount of power from
the signal generator is bypassing the MOSFETS and getting to the heater load.
In fact once the power from the battery is connected the power entering the Heater load actually drops drastically.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK9TNFuvM2k&feature=autoshare

Magluvin · « **Reply #1021 on:** March 15, 2012, 05:19:16 AM »

Seamonkeys are cool.

Mags

poynt99 · « **Reply #1022 on:** March 15, 2012, 05:42:23 AM »

Rose,

I have what I think are a good couple of ideas:

1) Open source this testing. Meaning? Get a number of folks involved, even if they can not be there to witness the tests. A few members here from OU (Wilby, Mags, Gyuala, Stefan perhaps), a few from OUR, and a few of your folks. We hammer out an acceptable test protocol and decision factors we are all happy with.

2) There is a much easier, cheaper and quicker way to settle the COP question. And if all agreed, I would be willing to consult with Stefan, Steven Jones, and the contributors to the OUR Award to seriously consider this as a "GO" test for the prizes. No academics required. I would like to have an electrical engineer there to be a non-biased judge/observer of the test to verify the outcome. This could be a hired professional from the Cape Town area.

The method I propose is the dual light bulb idea I described some time back. Two power diodes and two 60W or 100W light bulbs are placed in series with the positive lead from the batteries. I would suggest as a prerequisite, you confirm first that with these diodes and bulbs installed, the apparatus still exhibits the same or similar infinite COP measurement you are seeing now. I would strongly suggest too that the two light bulbs be fully covered with a cardboard box for this prerequisite test.

Once you have confirmed that your measurement is still COP infinity, then the clearly labeled bulbs can be revealed and it should be immediately evident which direction the greatest current is passing, i.e. either from the battery (underunity), or to the battery (COP infinity).

What are your thoughts?

.99

Magluvin · « **Reply #1023 on:** March 15, 2012, 05:54:18 AM »

Quote from: AbbaRue on March 15, 2012, 05:08:36 AM

This fellows measurements shown on the following video show a substantial amount of power from
the signal generator is bypassing the MOSFETS and getting to the heater load.
In fact once the power from the battery is connected the power entering the Heater load actually drops drastically.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK9TNFuvM2k&feature=autoshare

Question....

So, the "waveform" is larger without the battery? What is that trace connected to or across to get that top waveform? And without the battery in the circuit, look at the schematic in the vid, There can be no current flowing in the load if the battery is out of the circuit. Thus NO power getting to the load without the battery in the circuit.

Now, think about this. The loop in the circuit is open when the battery is disconnected. I didnt see any jumper put in to close the loop so current can flow into the load. The load is only connected by 1 lead, because the battery is out of the circuit. So if the battery is disconnected, and the waveform is huge, that is because the rest of the circuit is out of the circuit. There is no load on the gen. thus a huge wave form. All because the battery is not in the circuit.

But what does that show us?

That is, if the circuit shown in the vid is what is on the table.

Mags

Magluvin · « **Reply #1024 on:** March 15, 2012, 06:13:11 AM »

10v from the generator, into 3v of AA. Would that draw some current from the gen? Load it down any?

lets see, 6 12v batteries=3v AA .

If you were to use 6 12v batteries, just round it off to 72v, what would you be setting your gen voltage to then? 237v?

Mags

Magluvin · « **Reply #1025 on:** March 15, 2012, 07:33:32 AM »

These oscillations. Do they have anything to do with the inductor/transformer? Battery in or out.
If so, then how does current flow through it at all in oscilation form if the battery is out of the chain or loop, as the circuit is broken without the battery? What circuit are you representing exactly?

Would not putting an led(a diode by nature) across the primary(said inductor) cause issue with bidirectional current through the primary(said inductor)? Does current choose to flow through the led/diode or does it flow through the Primary(said inductor) when they are in parallel and current is in the direction that would bias the led?

And, having the other led on the secondary(not the said inductor) would cause the inductance of the primary(said inductor) to change drastically because of the load on the secondary when currents are in the proper direction to do so.

So you have in one current direction, current flowing through the primary side LED, and if the led lights then there is no current flowing in the primary(said inductor) during that phase. So the said inductor is not in the circuit during that phase of oscillation.

This is not the circuit shown on paper in the vid. Far from it actually.

Those leds are not in the Rose circuit the way you are presenting TK
This is not representative of Roses circuit. That said inductor is only in the circuit during 1 phase of operation, as the primary led takes all the circuit current instead of flowing through the primary during one phase of operation, being that the led/diode is in parallel with the primary.

And with the other led conducting on the secondary during the other phase of operation, any inductance values assumed on the primary are no longer valid.

And to say that those circuit modifications dont really matter..... Then why do you have an inductor at all? Why one that is unidirectional, disfunctional one from the Outer Limits? Why not the prescribed circuit on the paper, with 6 silver oxides, and then what, will you set on the generator for 500v and say it is an accurate replication?

Why did you change the circuit and clearly represent it as what is on the paper?

Stand before a Judge in court and pull that crap and say so long to your self being credible any longer. Isnt this the kind of stuff you try to debunk? People faking it?

Lets just connect some 4 awg cable from the positive of the 3v batteries to the negative and call it an accurate replication of the circuit on that paper in the vid.

Mags

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #1026 on:** March 15, 2012, 07:37:57 AM »

LOL. Hello Seamonkey,

Such a welcome relief to read your post. Thanks for the encouragement. But the battle's nowhere near won. But it's nice to see that my poor efforts are appreciated. And you're right. There's a patent inability for these 'men' to relate to a woman in the context of science. All men, as a rule, are more competitive than women. And I think our trolls are more competitive than most men. I'm looking forward to day when they wake up and see that I'm NOT actually in competition. I couldn't be - even if I tried. I lack the motivation, training and skills. I'm only pointing to a technology that - if they took the trouble to test it - would allow them to compete rather well - in all kinds of ways.

But it's always nice to see support. God knows there's been very little evidence of it.

Kindest regards SeaMonkey.
Rosemary

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #1027 on:** March 15, 2012, 07:47:27 AM »

Quote from: AbbaRue on March 15, 2012, 05:08:36 AM

This fellows measurements shown on the following video show a substantial amount of power from
the signal generator is bypassing the MOSFETS and getting to the heater load.
In fact once the power from the battery is connected the power entering the Heater load actually drops drastically.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK9TNFuvM2k&feature=autoshare

Hello AbbaRue
If you look at the context of these last 3 pages or thereby - you'll see we've been discussing this at length. Indeed it appears that this fellow is getting more power from the function generator than from the battery. It's ingenious. You'll also notice that he's reconfigured the entire circuit by changing the MOSFET legs in that last little Q2 variant. There's no apparent limit to his skills. We all need to follow his work rather closely.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Magluvin · « **Reply #1028 on:** March 15, 2012, 07:55:25 AM »

Ok. Those 3 posts were written in 3 separate posts for a reason.

They each make a point, in the order I wanted them to.

It all boils down to this.

This vid is not credible. It is a misrepresentation of the RA circuit.

So how do we know if any of the rest of the setup in the vid includes other changes
also like the ones I clearly exposed?

Do we take his word for it?

Magsleeps good at night

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #1029 on:** March 15, 2012, 07:59:03 AM »

Quote from: Magluvin on March 15, 2012, 07:55:25 AM

Ok. Those 3 posts were written in 3 separate posts for a reason.

They each make a point, in the order I wanted them to.

It all boils down to this.

This vid is not credible. It is a misrepresentation of the RA circuit.

So how do we know if any of the rest of the setup in the vid includes other changes
also like the ones I clearly exposed?

Do we take his word for it?

Magsleeps good at night

Hi Magsy.
As ever your posts are GOLD. The more so as they always leave me smiling. I'll get around to answering them soon. Good night Magsy. You've done good. As always,

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Magluvin · « **Reply #1030 on:** March 15, 2012, 08:08:04 AM »

Hey Rose

Its the post before that one you will like.

Night Rose
Mags

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #1031 on:** March 15, 2012, 08:14:05 AM »

Quote from: Magluvin on March 15, 2012, 08:08:04 AM

Hey Rose

Its the post before that one you will like.

Night Rose
Mags

LOL I'll check it out. Take care there and sleep well,

Rosie

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #1032 on:** March 15, 2012, 09:02:34 AM »

Poynty Point,

I thought I made this clear. I am NOT proposing to do these tests to convince you or even the readers here - that we've achieved COP infinity. As desirable as that may be - my objects are far more comprehensive. And they're NOT negotiable. The overriding intention is PRECISELY to engage our academics for a variety of reasons. One is that it would be a way of bringing this proof of over unity to the attention of our boffins. Another is that I would be entirely satisfied that they'd be impartial and intellectually honest. Another is that their engagement will - hopefully - encourage their own independent research into the reasons for this 'effect'. Another is that IF there is a basis of validity in the results - that we may have a desirable technology to progress. Which, with due respect to the copious talents available on these forums - is still not likely to be as exemplary and as thorough as their own work in this regard. They have the skill sets, the test equipment and the authority of mainstream. That's where this progress is required.

Then. I am ONLY testing the claims that are detailed in our papers. Anything extraneous to that will not re-inforce the evidence that those papers refer to. And those papers are the record of some very hard work that has been applied here. Not only that - but the proposed test is considerably more definitive than the test you proposed. This because you are making the assumption that if the one light is stronger than the other light - then it is, correspondingly, being powered by the supply. Which diametrically opposes - not only our evidence - but the thesis in support of this evidence. I am rather concerned that you KNOW this and yet you are proposing to IGNORE this. I am on record. We KNOW that the one rail stays lit while the other does not light at all. Are you trying to 'skew' the test here Poynty? I'll deal with this in a follow up post. The argument needs more space than I care to give here.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

poynt99 · « **Reply #1033 on:** March 15, 2012, 01:31:04 PM »

Rosemary,

I proposed this test because you seem open to a method other than used in your paper, i.e. the battery drawdown test. This is what you have already proposed we do to settle the debate.

I am simply proposing a method that is much easier and quicker, and won't cost a bundle of money or people's time such as the battery drawdown tests will.

I don't understand technically, what your objection is to it. Technically, this method is sound. I invite any and all readers to comment on this method, good or bad. Presented to any academic, this method would also satisfy their requirement for scientific rigor and exactitude.

The only thing I can not guarantee beforehand, is if it will affect your COP infinity measurement. I don't believe it will, but you would need to try it first of course. I will try it in my simulation and post the results.

Anyway, I am trying to help out here, not make things more difficult. I am most certainly not trying to trick anyone, and that's part of the reason I propose this be done open source. Any "foul play" can be weeded out immediately.

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #1034 on:** March 15, 2012, 01:58:42 PM »

Quote from: poynt99 on March 15, 2012, 01:31:04 PM

Rosemary,

I proposed this test because you seem open to a method other than used in your paper, i.e. the battery drawdown test. This is what you have already proposed we do to settle the debate.

I am simply proposing a method that is much easier and quicker, and won't cost a bundle of money or people's time such as the battery drawdown tests will.

I don't understand technically, what your objection is to it. Technically, this method is sound. I invite any and all readers to comment on this method, good or bad. Presented to any academic, this method would also satisfy their requirement for scientific rigor and exactitude.

The only thing I can not guarantee beforehand, is if it will affect your COP infinity measurement. I don't believe it will, but you would need to try it first of course. I will try it in my simulation and post the results.

Anyway, I am trying to help out here, not make things more difficult. I am most certainly not trying to trick anyone, and that's part of the reason I propose this be done open source. Any "foul play" can be weeded out immediately.

Poynty - I'll try and get back here later tonight. I'm bushed. I'll explain the problem. But I've actually already tried to point it out. Just read back on that oscillation and how it effects a dual rail of diodes. Did you even read it? Anyway. I am so tired I can hardly type. I'll try and get back here later.

Regards,
R

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology. (Read 939435 times)

AbbaRue

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

Magluvin

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

poynt99

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

Magluvin

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

Magluvin

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

Magluvin

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

Magluvin

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

Magluvin

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

poynt99

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.