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.

GDPR and DSGVO law

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

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.  (Read 831170 times)

Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5886
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1035 on: March 15, 2012, 02:20:07 PM »
Cmon. I figured someone would say"hey Mags, the gen was set at 20v, not 10v, get your facts straight!" by now.  :o

YEAH, dats right dere mugsy. Ya gots 20v bein loaded downs tru da tree volts battary.

Now. From that video, can we absolutely 100% say that the circuit operating in the vid, does not maybe also have hidden wires, configuring it in a way to give a desired show, to the 3 people reading this thread?

The blatant changes using the transformer to represent the inductor in Roses circuit, and installing the leds across it, not inline, as in Roses circuit shown on the paper in the vid, Thats a big, in your face difference.

Why did you choose to do it that way TK?
Why did you clearly present the schmatic and then literally show something different, and find your case conclusive to you views? 
How long were you thinking that nobody would see what was happening here?

There are a lot of people that watch your stuff.   ;)

Mags

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1036 on: March 15, 2012, 02:25:52 PM »
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

Yes, I've read it Rosemary, but I can't say I fully understand the implications, as you've not gone into sufficient detail to get that.

Also, do you consider it a valid test? If not, why did you perform it?

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1037 on: March 15, 2012, 08:24:25 PM »
Poynty Point,

Here's your proposed test
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?

Now when you first posted that circuit I answered that we'd already tested it.  I told you the results which I subsequently repeated here.
NO Poynty.  Where's all that intellect I've accused you of?  We have two rails of LED's.  The one takes current from the battery supply.  The other takes current from CEMF.  TWO OPTIONAL PATHS.  Now.  We've got an oscillation.  Voltage moves equally - above and below zero.  Therefore, correspondingly, the current flows above and below zero in each oscillation.  Therefore - one would expect the current to move through either one or other of those rails - depending on that polarity.  NOW.  NOTA BENE.  There is NO CORRUPTION OF THAT OSCILLATING WAVEFORM - ON EITHER SIDE OF THOSE LED's.  YET.  Only ONE RAIL STAYS LIT.  And the other doesn't even turn on.  Not EXACTLY what our standard model would predict.  I would have thought?
 Rosie Pose
 

IF you understood this post WHY then are you now proposing to design any kind of definitive test around this circuit of yours?  Either you're ignoring this post.  Or you haven't understood the implications of this post. Or you're pretending not to understand them.  Because I find it extraordinary that you'd nominate to use PRECISELY this ANOMALY - to DISPROVE our claim.  What you're IMPLYING is that IF the one rail stays lit then the energy is from the battery supply.  And what I'm telling you is that IF this is coming from the battery supply then the battery is delivering an alternating current flow.  Which is unlikely.

Regards,
Rosemary

added
I still haven't made this clear enough - possibly?  The voltage across the shunt shows that current is flowing clockwise and anticlockwise through the circuit.  Therefore one would expect the LED's in our tests - to alternate - first the one rail - then the other - depending on the current polarity.  But what actually happens is that ONLY the one rail stays lit.  Is that clearer?


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1038 on: March 15, 2012, 08:55:24 PM »
Yes, I've read it Rosemary, but I can't say I fully understand the implications, as you've not gone into sufficient detail to get that.

Also, do you consider it a valid test? If not, why did you perform it?
And Poynty,

Let me explain why we performed this test.  We have a thesis that suggests that current flow does not comprise the flow of electrons.  Our proposal is that it may, in fact be the material of magnetic dipoles that assemble as a field condition in 'strings'.  These fields are essentially structured from magnetic dipoles.  They have both a north and south pole - like a little magnet.

So here's what a broken string looks like.                             -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+
Then.  If the applied voltage is positive it moves clockwise     -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+ like this >>>>> GREATER ZERO
And if the applied voltage is negative it moves anticlockwise  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+  -+ like this <<<<<  LESS THAN ZERO   

Which would explain how the oscillating waveform can move through a single rail of LED's by presenting alternate charges depending on the applied voltage. And this, indeed - is what seems to be happening. 

Which also means that IF we simply used your proposed circuit and IF then the one light stayed permanently lit - then we'd be proving our thesis. But STRANGELY you're also then proposing that it would disprove our Infinite COP claim. 

Is that any clearer?
Kindest regards,
Rosie
       
added

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1039 on: March 15, 2012, 09:07:48 PM »

The blatant changes using the transformer to represent the inductor in Roses circuit, and installing the leds across it, not inline, as in Roses circuit shown on the paper in the vid, Thats a big, in your face difference.

Why did you choose to do it that way TK?
Why did you clearly present the schematic and then literally show something different, and find your case conclusive to you views? 
How long were you thinking that nobody would see what was happening here?

There are a lot of people that watch your stuff.   ;)

Mags

Magsy - I'm inclined to agree with you.  There was an evident need to PROVE that the energy powering our circuit is exclusively from the function generator.  Since we dissipate wattage in excess of 100 watts - then this claim is patently absurd.  But one must hand it to him.  He gave it his best shot.  8)

Kindest regards,
Rosie
 ;D

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1040 on: March 15, 2012, 09:43:55 PM »
Now.  Back to your proposals here Poynty Point,
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.
Frankly I'd be more than happy to settle for any proposals at all that are made by Wilby.  And I've effectively structured the entire test around the proposals made by Magsy.  Stefan's only concern is with the use of the function generator.  And since his concerns here relate to the grounding issues - we can obviate this very easily - as I explained.  Gyuala is a latecomer to the arguments but I'm also happy with his input.  And indeed with any proposal made by anyone at all.  Provided only that they relate to our circuit and the apparatus detailed in our paper.  And that the proposals are reasonable or doable within the constraints of the equipment that we can access. But your point 2 here - Poynty Point.  That's been explained now.  I hope. 
2) There is a much easier, cheaper and quicker way to settle the COP question...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.
We can't do this as a definitive test.  But if required we can include a small test showing this effect.  We ran our own test off a 555.
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.
Actually we'll pas on this.  We're none of us really interested in these prizes.  For a variety of reasons.  But perhaps we could propose that you donated this - on our behalf - to one of our better experimentalists here - for the purchase of some zut measuring equipment.  Or better still give it to someone to take their studies further - like a scholarship award - so that one of our worthy members can study further.  Something like that?  I'm sure you'll find some worthy cause.  I only used that 'claim' for your prizes to force acknowledgement of our claim.  LOL.  God knows.  There was no other way to get you guys to take us seriously. And as for this...
   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.
This is a non-starter.  It's a critical condition to engagement here Poynty Point.  You well know why.  But trust me on this.  We'll get those academics on board.  If not before our papers are published - then certainly AFTER.  And I'm rather hopeful that this may also be 'before'.  We'll see.  God knows I tend to way too much optimism.  But I'll certainly give it my best shot.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1041 on: March 15, 2012, 10:08:15 PM »
The voltage across the shunt shows that current is flowing clockwise and anticlockwise through the circuit.  Therefore one would expect the LED's in our tests - to alternate - first the one rail - then the other - depending on the current polarity.  But what actually happens is that ONLY the one rail stays lit.  Is that clearer?

Rosemary,

Yes it's clear now what your objection to this test is based upon.

You believe that since the battery current appears to be fluctuating both above and below ground reference level, that both LEDS should be lit.

There is an explanation why both LEDs are not lit. You would agree that in order for power to be dissipated in a circuit element, that the voltage difference across the element and the source current must be in-phase to some degree, correct? The closer the voltage and current are in-phase, the more power will be dissipated in that element, up to a maximum when the voltage and current are perfectly in-phase. This is a power factor of "1". In the situation when the voltage and current are 90 degrees out-of-phase, there will be zero power dissipated in that element, and is a result of a power factor of "0".

So, although the current is fluctuating both above and below the ground reference level when viewed on the scope trace across the shunt, the voltage and current considered together are in-phase only for one direction of current, and as a result, only one LED remains lit. The one that is lit indicates which direction real net power is coming from, i.e. either from the battery or from the circuit.

If there was equal power from the battery and the circuit, then both LEDs would be lit.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1042 on: March 15, 2012, 10:14:45 PM »
Yes it's clear now what your objection to this test is based upon.

You believe that since the battery current appears to be fluctuating both above and below ground reference level, that both LEDS should be lit.

There is an explanation why both LEDs are not lit. You would agree that in order for power to be dissipated in a circuit element, that the voltage difference across the element and the source current must be in-phase to some degree, correct? The closer the voltage and current are in-phase, the more power will be dissipated in that element, up to a maximum when the voltage and current are perfectly in-phase. This is a power factor of "1". In the situation when the voltage and current are 90 degrees out-of-phase, there will be zero power dissipated in that element, and is a result of a power factor of "0".

So, although the current is fluctuating both above and below the ground reference level when viewed on the scope trace across the shunt, the voltage and current considered together are in-phase only for one direction of current, and as a result, only one LED remains lit. The one that is lit indicates which direction real net power is coming from, i.e. either from the battery or from the circuit.

If there was equal power from the battery and the circuit, then both LEDs would be lit.
Not actually Poynty Point.  You're ASSUMING that the battery is delivering power in the first instance.  How can it?  It's disconnected.  Certainly during the oscillation phase. Therefore where is there any phase shift considerations at at all?  Golly.

Regards,
Rosie

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1043 on: March 15, 2012, 10:20:08 PM »
You're ASSUMING that the battery is delivering power in the first instance.
Am I? Where?

Quote
How can it?  It's disconnected.  Certainly during the oscillation phase. Therefore where is there any phase shift considerations at at all?  Golly.

Phase shift is evident in all parts of this circuit. There is inductance and capacitance, and a high frequency oscillation. In fact if it weren't for a significant degree of phase shift, the circuit wouldn't oscillate at all.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1044 on: March 15, 2012, 10:28:12 PM »
Here's where you claim that the current is from the battery - Poynty Point.
There is an explanation why both LEDs are not lit. You would agree that in order for power to be dissipated in a circuit element, that the voltage difference across the element and the source current must be in-phase to some degree, correct?
There is NO current flow from that SOURCE.  Unless you mean something entirely different by the use of the word 'source'?

Rosie Pose
ADDED - FOR EMPHASIS

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1045 on: March 15, 2012, 10:37:07 PM »
Here's where you claim that the current is from the battery - Poynty Point.There is NO current flow from that SOURCE.  Unless you mean something entirely different by the use of the word 'source'?

Rosie Pose
ADDED - FOR EMPHASIS

Strictly speaking, I should have said  "the voltage difference across, and the current through" the element.

Just because the battery is connected doesn't mean the current has to be coming from it; it can also be going to it.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1046 on: March 15, 2012, 11:00:00 PM »
Guys,

It's rather disheartening to argue a condition through pages and pages of thread discussion - only to find oneself back at the starting line.  The kick off argument. We've got an oscillation that is PERFECTLY in phase as shown in Poynty's oscillations and our own waveform downloads.  I'll post a sample of this when I've done here. The battery and the voltage and the current flow through that battery - in either direction - are perfectly 'in phase'.  They're in lock step.  Not a shadow of a variation from 'true'.  If they were 'out of phase' then that oscillation would degrade in no time at all.  It simply DOES NOT DEGRADE.

 Now.  What I know - very, VERY well - is that Poynty is also really, really bright.  So when he posts something like this..
Phase shift is evident in all parts of this circuit
and this...
There is inductance and capacitance, and a high frequency oscillation. In fact if it weren't for a significant degree of phase shift, the circuit wouldn't oscillate at all.
then I need to know why he states something so profoundly erroneous.  As this diametrically opposes the evidence.  And he is too bright to not know this.

Gravely confused.  Hopefully he'll explain himself.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary

 

Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1047 on: March 15, 2012, 11:08:11 PM »
Guys,

It's rather disheartening to argue a condition through pages and pages of thread discussion - only to find oneself back at the starting line.  The kick off argument. We've got an oscillation that is PERFECTLY in phase as shown in Poynty's oscillations and our own waveform downloads.  I'll post a sample of this when I've done here. The battery and the voltage and the current flow through that battery - in either direction - are perfectly 'in phase'.  They're in lock step.  Not a shadow of a variation from 'true'.  If they were 'out of phase' then that oscillation would degrade in no time at all.  It simply DOES NOT DEGRADE.

 Now.  What I know - very, VERY well - is that Poynty is also really, really bright.  So when he posts something like this..and this...then I need to know why he states something so profoundly erroneous.  As this diametrically opposes the evidence.  And he is too bright to not know this.

Gravely confused.  Hopefully he'll explain himself.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary

 

I wonder exactly which electronic schematic went with the "SCOPE SCREEN SHOT" dated 2-11-2011 ........... "Prior" to the world renowned COP>INFINITY demonstration ??

 8)

added - http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/dlattach/attach/96507/   ( another P'rat example.png )
 

Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1048 on: March 15, 2012, 11:25:38 PM »
It must be this one ......

 8)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1049 on: March 15, 2012, 11:54:44 PM »
I'm trying this again Poynty
Strictly speaking, I should have said  "the voltage difference across, and the current through" the element.
If the phase shift only applies to to the current through and the voltage across the element resistor - then that will be measured as the heat dissipated over that resistor.  The greater the phase shift the less the heat dissipated.  Now.  What has that to do with the oscillation?  The current flow below zero can be explained as the energy being returned TO the battery.  The current flow greater than zero can be explained as the energy delivered BY the battery.  We're only trying to determine the amount of energy that is delivered by the battery. But the problem is that current delivered BY the battery is from where?  Because the battery is disconnected.  Do you see the problem yet Poynty Point?  There is no reasonable explanation for the source of the potential difference that is responsible for each positive half of each of those oscillations.   

And PLEASE do not advise all and sundry that the oscillations are due to phase shifts.  That perpetuating oscillation is enabled PRECISELY because there ARE NO PHASE SHIFTS.  You surely know this?  If there were phase shifts happening across that battery then there would be no oscillation.  Or it would be very 'brief' at best.

Just because the battery is connected doesn't mean the current has to be coming from it; it can also be going to it.
We know that the current can be returned to the battery.  We don't know how the it can be coming FROM it.  Unless it's from CEMF.  BUT.  If it's from CEMF then that second half of each oscillation is actually REGENERATED from the material of the resistor element and from the inductance on the circuit components.  It simply CANNOT be coming from the battery supply.  Which means what?  Does this then indicate that CEMF is not so much 'stored' as 'regenerated'.  In which case?  That also means that - quite possibly - over unity is actually a REQUIREMENT in terms of inductive laws.  And then, possibly, this eccentric Q-array is simply exposing the second half of CEMF that is usually resisted under normal switching configurations?  I suspect so.  I think that potential has always been there but has never been fully explored.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
added