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.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 892944
  • *Total Topics: 15675
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 4
  • *Guests: 5
  • *Total: 9

Author Topic: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.  (Read 737077 times)

Offline picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1965 on: April 08, 2012, 08:48:21 AM »
TK,

In the scope shot you posted "bigheatann1", that screen appears to be from March 2011.  Is that correct?  What is the date?  I can't see past one of your reference lines.  Q1 appears to be functioning in that capture.

Also, can you tell what the postive voltage is for the gate drive trace and the CSR trace value in that capture?  It looks like about 8 to10 volts to the gate and the CSR trace is indicating about 2.4 amps (about .6 volts across the CSR).  Do you agree?

PW








Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1966 on: April 08, 2012, 08:54:47 AM »
TK,

Did you just now do that test?

Dang,

PW

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1967 on: April 08, 2012, 09:05:13 AM »
TK,

In the scope shot you posted "bigheatann1", that screen appears to be from March 2011.  Is that correct?  What is the date?  I can't see past one of your reference lines.  Q1 appears to be functioning in that capture.
The date is the 12th March, 2011, the date of the demo. I think this is a "live" capture, not a stored memory trace like the ones in the papers.
Quote
Also, can you tell what the postive voltage is for the gate drive trace and the CSR trace value in that capture?  It looks like about 8 to10 volts to the gate and the CSR trace is indicating about 2.4 amps (about .6 volts across the CSR).  Do you agree?

PW
Gate drive looks like about  8 to ten V to me too. My items 14 and 15. Cursors... foiled again. When I made the annotations I measured as best I could and that's about what I came up with too (but I can't find my annotation captions right now...)
The CVR trace looks like at _most_ 1 and a half minor divs above baseline, for a voltage of 1.5 x .5 or 0.75 V which would be around 3 Amps.
This is one of the very few scopeshots that shows the mosfet common drain trace, the green trace. You can see the voltage drop there as the Q1 mosfet turns on with the positive gate pulse.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1967 on: April 08, 2012, 09:05:13 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1968 on: April 08, 2012, 09:12:10 AM »
TK,

Did you just now do that test?

Dang,

PW
Yup, and it's still running, load oil is at 104 F, inline ammeter 190 mA, batt voltage in-circuit 36.4 V, opencircuit 36.7 V.

My load cell consists of the resistor load, inside a "Fleaker" flask of 300 mL nominal capacity, with 250 mL USP mineral oil. This is capped  with the Fleaker's heavy rubber cap, the wires leading thru drilled holes in the cap, ditto the thermometer. This Fleaker is wrapped with a double layer of thermal barrier material and inserted into a larger 1 L standard beaker which is itself wrapped with a half-inch thick layer of heavy foam rubber material, and then there's a little cap of the thermal barrier stuff for the very top. It's a pretty well-insulated system, unlike what Ainslie used: the naked water heater element.
I have a water heater element that I can use, but just hanging it up and measuring its temperature in the air somehow seems wrong.


Offline picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1969 on: April 08, 2012, 09:13:43 AM »
TK,

Excellent write up of that last test.

So, I am now more confused as to why Q1 seems to be performing as expected sometimes, and not so much at other times.  In the captures where Q1 does not seem to be turning on, the gate drive appears higher than the captures where Q1 is obviously functioning.  The higher gate drive should turn it on harder.

Any thoughts?

PW

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1969 on: April 08, 2012, 09:13:43 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1970 on: April 08, 2012, 09:33:01 AM »
TK,

Excellent write up of that last test.

So, I am now more confused as to why Q1 seems to be performing as expected sometimes, and not so much at other times.  In the captures where Q1 does not seem to be turning on, the gate drive appears higher than the captures where Q1 is obviously functioning.  The higher gate drive should turn it on harder.

Any thoughts?

PW
Thanks. Rosemary might not agree with you though.

You bet I have thoughts. She is operating with a blown mosfet and doesn't realize it (it is easy to do... I know whereof I speak here), they've gotten their filenames mixed up, and there isn't anything except the oscillation heating happening in those traces. The high-heat traces that are verifiable all show operating mosfet(s) like the annotated shot above.
At various times she has claimed that the mosfets don't get warm during operation, and that several mosfets had to be replaced. Putting two and two together.... we find one obvious answer.

The problem with Rosemary's program, as I've said before, is that it is NOT difficult to reproduce most of her data. It is when she starts doing "math" on stuff that she goes astray, and also there's that fundamental pig-headedness that prevents her from seriously considering that she might be wrong about _anything_. So she collects data, and when you finally figure out under what crazy conditions that data was collected, you can do it too, easily. But when you collect the _right_ data to answer the fundamental questions, you find standard circuit behaviour accounts for all the data that at first seemed so crazy... and of course the fundamental claim breaks down at that point.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1971 on: April 08, 2012, 09:40:54 AM »
I forgot to mention that the inline ammeter indicates zero current as the DC offset is increased from 0 going negative, until the oscillations begin at around -3 or -4 volts or so. Then the ammeter jumps up to around 10-20 mA at oscillation onset, and as I increase the FG offset to around -12 volts the ammeter indicates a smooth rise to 200mA, and could go higher if the FG is set more negative.
Going positive it takes a full +5 volts to turn on the Q1 and it's pretty much fully on at 7 volts, no oscillations of course.

Load is at 110 F, batt voltage 36.3   :-\   still running 200 mA on the inline meter.

So it seems clear that the amplitude of the oscillations can set the level of the small current passing around the circuit, and this level in turn is set by the negative bias on Q2's source pins from the FG's negative voltage excursions, or in the present test, straight DC. Looking at the drain trace at 50 v/div and cranking the FG max negative so there are 340 mA on the inline meter, I see apparent oscillation amplitude of 120 V p-p.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1971 on: April 08, 2012, 09:40:54 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1972 on: April 08, 2012, 09:47:48 AM »
TK,
That would mean a blown mosfet was replaced between March 2 and March 12 2011, and then another Q1 failure happened before April 30.

Do you really think that's possible?  I would've thought that if and when a blown mosfet was noticed, that would have triggered a review of the data to find out when it happened.  Possibly the mystery is as simple as you say, but still, somewhat difficult for me to believe. 

PW

Offline picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1973 on: April 08, 2012, 09:53:29 AM »
I forgot to mention that the inline ammeter indicates zero current as the DC offset is increased from 0 going negative, until the oscillations begin at around -3 or -4 volts or so. Then the ammeter jumps up to around 10-20 mA at oscillation onset, and as I increase the FG offset to around -12 volts the ammeter indicates a smooth rise to 200mA, and could go higher if the FG is set more negative.
Going positive it takes a full +5 volts to turn on the Q1 and it's pretty much fully on at 7 volts, no oscillations of course.

Load is at 110 F, batt voltage 36.3   :-\   still running 200 mA on the inline meter.

So, it is possible that the bias current can be as low as 10-20 ma and still oscillate.  Then depending on Rosemary's FG settings, it is possible the bias current discussed is much lower in some of the tests.  I note only one test in the paper where it was specifically stated that the FG was set to its full negative offset.

PW

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1973 on: April 08, 2012, 09:53:29 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1974 on: April 08, 2012, 10:07:22 AM »
TK,
That would mean a blown mosfet was replaced between March 2 and March 12 2011, and then another Q1 failure happened before April 30.

Do you really think that's possible?  I would've thought that if and when a blown mosfet was noticed, that would have triggered a review of the data to find out when it happened.  Possibly the mystery is as simple as you say, but still, somewhat difficult for me to believe. 

PW
I added a paragraph to that last post you  might not have seen yet.

What is more difficult to believe, considering the gaffes we've already uncovered, and Rosemary's general attitude and mode of discourse: that they blew mosfets and didn't notice it, or that they have discovered a self-recharging battery heating system that makes energy out of 2c tachyons somehow?

In the case of the COP>17 device, the mystery was as simple as an inverted duty cycle caused by them thinking that HIGH drain voltage meant the mosfet was ON. And it took me literally months to convince Rosemary that the cycle of the simple timer was indeed inverted. She still doesn't believe it, but everyone who actually built it found the same thing.

As to the Q1 failures: look at the history. The first instantiation used only the single Q1 mosfet on a small uchannel heatsink. And they were claiming to use a 72 volt battery pack at that time. High heat mode, positive gate drive == blown mosfet under those conditions. So they reduced their battery pack to 60 volts and added 4 more mosfets in strict parallel to handle the current, and placed them on big heatsinks. BUT THEY WIRED THE 4 IN WRONG accidentally and the story of the Q2 oscillations begins. Q1, remember, is still on a small heatsink, the Q2s are in backwards, the negative pulses make small heat by oscillating the Q2s while Q1 is resting, out of the circuit, or open completely. They do go open, or as the one I've got, go partially shorted, as well as completely shorted.  Now they still think they are operating with 5 mosfets in strict parallel-- view the video for the diagram and the narration. So now, when they go again for high heat mode.... they now stress Q1 again, and if it's blown it doesn't heat, so they look and replace it and put a little better heatsink on it... but they still think they are in strict parallel, so they go again... and it blows again, with the 60 volt pack. So... and I believe this is the smoking gun that justifies this chain of reasoning--- they pull out yet another battery, leaving only 48 volts to use for the high heat mode, and the Q1 survives, barely.
It was only later on, well after that March demo, that the "mistake" was discovered and the correct schematic, showing the separation of Q1 and the Q2s, was figured out by .99, I think.
So yes, I believe they blew the Q1 mosfet several times, from overheat stress, which could leave it open, which wouldn't even show up in the low heat, Q2 oscillating mode.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1975 on: April 08, 2012, 10:08:45 AM »
So, it is possible that the bias current can be as low as 10-20 ma and still oscillate.  Then depending on Rosemary's FG settings, it is possible the bias current discussed is much lower in some of the tests.  I note only one test in the paper where it was specifically stated that the FG was set to its full negative offset.

PW

Don't forget my data right now is from 830as. They might be easier to turn on than the PG50s and they do have a lower Rdss.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1975 on: April 08, 2012, 10:08:45 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1976 on: April 08, 2012, 03:49:35 PM »
Picowatt

If I am to have any kind of confidence in your impartiality then I need some kind of assurance that this gross disinformation does not actually convince you.

I  think there is some heating of the load in this mode, consistent with your determinations of the current to be expected. What I believe is the following "uncharitable" interpretation, considering the casual attitude towards raw data and accurate reporting shown by the NERD team.
I believe the "five watt" figure comes from the math trace "numbers box" on the LeCroy. She is simply multiplying the raw CVR voltage drop by the battery voltage to obtain the math trace, thinking this gives her an instantaneous power curve. The data box reports the parameters selected for this trace in units of "VV", since that's what whoever set the math up told the scope the probes were used for. With her demonstrated deficiencies in observation and eyesight, it's plausible that she interpreted this VV as W and again took the boxed numbers at face value. In the LeCroys I use, the math user can tell the scope if a probe represents a current value and also THE VALUE OF THE CVR SHUNT, so then the scope's parameters box will display the correct units of "VA" or even "W". If a true current probe is in use, like in my JT demo, the scope autodetects it and displays its values in Amps instead of volts, and the calculation of the power curve will be using the right units. Garbage values in this case, but at least the right units. So... she's reading "VV" as "W" off the math trace parameters box, and not accounting at all for the 0.25 ohm value of the CVR. I think this is the case, but she denies it.
Not only do we detail how we established the heat profiles - carefully recorded in our paper - but there is NOWHERE ON RECORD that I have EVER determined any wattage levels at all from the math trace.  I am tired of answering this.  I shall not do so again.  Please note - if you are not prepared to acknowledge the obvious calumny and misrepresentation applied here - then our readers most CERTAINLY do.

I'm afraid Picowatt - that if you do not address this point openly and honestly - then I'm unfortunately not able to engage in any discussion with you further and I propose that you and TK continue with this discussion about our circuit on his own thread.

Regards
Rosemary

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1977 on: April 08, 2012, 04:29:59 PM »
Guys here's the actual situation that I find myself in.  Harti has proposed - in principle to allow me moderation of my own thread - provided only that I do NOT use that thread to publish any test related to the proposed definitive battery draw down test using the function generator.  He claims that any results there will be skewed by the energy put into the system via the signal generator.  I may ONLY test the 555.  The down side of this is

.  It does not give the range of test parameters as applied in our paper.
.  It does not give the same extremes required in the applied duty cycles
.  It does not give the same control over the offset
.  It would not definitively prove the claim in our paper which represents 2 years of hard work.

However - I personally think that his point should be evaluated.  If indeed, the function generator is responsible for putting energy into a system then that would not be desirable and it should - indeed - be evaluated.  Therefore I've proposed that we do a series of tests applying the signal from a 555 switch and the tests, in turn to be evaluated against a control detailed in that definitive battery draw down test.  When these are completed then we should run a corresponding test to evaluate the results when the test is run from a signal generator.  IF indeed there is evidence that the function generator is inputting energy into the system then his point is valid.  IF there is no evidence of any major differences between these two - then we continue to do those definitive draw down tests applied to our circuit apparatus detailed in our paper.

Right now, if I were to impose any new test results from our existing apparatus based on the results from a function generator - then I will be 'banned' and ALL my hard work on this thread and previous threads - deleted.

Frankly I was only encouraging the continuation of this thread with the certain knowledge that the level of flaming would become so extreme and so obvious that their tactics would backfire for want to constraint.  That much is more than evident.  Thank you God.  That and rather thin hope that either picowatt or Poynty or indeed anyone - was indeed going to replicate.  I see now that Picowatt is relying on TK to do his testing and as we all know TK's commitment is to denial.  Which means that they are free to engage in any discussion they please.  But not on my thread.  It's not our work.  It's TK's preferred reference to our work.  Frankly I'd prefer it that TK manage this continuing discussion with Picowatt on TK's own thread.  Poynty's been promising us a replication for some time.  I'm not sure that he's anywhere near ready for this.

Hopefully I'll hear from Stefan soon.  When I do I'll let you know.  Meanwhile Picowatt - I'll wait to see if you actually endorse the rather obscenely incorrect allegations in TK's previous post.  If not then we need to part company.  I do not have the time to engage with anyone who is that obviously partial.

Kindest regards
Rosemary
ADDED
By the way - I can do nothing to stop that discussion on my thread - but I will distance myself from it with the authority of it being entirely based on deliberate misrepresentation.  And it will show us all that picowatt shares TK's partiality.  Which will be a shame.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1978 on: April 08, 2012, 05:20:51 PM »
Note the values listed for the Math trace in the parameters box. (Unfortunately not indexed by my annotation, but clearly visible anyway.)

And listen to the narrator and Rosemary's prompting at this point in the video, as the presenter gestures towards this oscilloscope display.

Rosemary at that point thought that the multiplication of the Current trace and the Battery Voltage trace--- the operation performed by this math trace -- yielded an answer in Watts (Which it would if only done properly). The oscilloscope is multiplying a "current" times a "voltage".... and is displaying the exact "negative Wattage" value that she has often cited, and is displaying the units "VV" which looks very much like W to old tired eyes like mine.... and yet I can see my own wire color codings on my videos perfectly well.

She thinks that she can determine power dissipation wattage by attaching a thermometer directly to a chunk of heating element hanging in the ambience and looking at the temperature, then raising the load to the same temperature using a DC power supply. And of course we all know that she did this delicate measurement accurately. Don't we.


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1979 on: April 08, 2012, 05:34:03 PM »
I see that my NERD test preventer is working better than ever today.

We've been discussing tests and data... and then when Ainslie wakes up, she immediately turns on the one person left who is trying to carry on a reasonable discussion with her... just because he talks to me too.
She packs up, threatens to go away, invokes the holy name of the Moderator. Watch out, picowatt.... she will start mentioning lawyers before long, if you keep watching my videos and become corrupted by them.

No real talk of testing, but only more garbage BS about the 555 timer, and still no test schedule.

YOU DON'T NEED the 555 timer, Rosemary, and Stefan will come to realise this as well. JUST DO THE EXACT THING YOU DID IN THE DEMO VIDEO.
Charge a bunch of batteries equally with an ordinary automatic charger. Set some aside, and use some others to heat an external load to 190 degrees C using the high heat, positive going gate drive. Only, go ahead and use your FULL battery pack of 72 volts for it. Or even just the 60 volt pack. Run in that mode for 48 hours and show proof of that; a time-lapse video is acceptable to me. Then perform the DIM BULB test, comparing your "not depleted"  test batteries with some unused ones.

You could have done this test FIVE TIMES since the thread was re-opened. But you won't and can't. However, that's not stopping ME from testing a device, which although it is not a replication (or IS IT?), is identical to your device in every significant way.

Oh... wait... you DO need the 555 timer, because that is the ONLY plausible reason you have for delaying testing. I say duplicate the feat of the video, then test your batteries. But you aren't going to... and can't.... because I am preventing you from doing it.
And if you want to know how...... just look at my YT channel for the latest alt.snakeoil report.



NOTE WELL: It is extremely important to do the HIGH HEAT test with several amps showing on the CVR trace. Why? Because the function generator can easily supply 200 mA to the load like it gets in oscillation heating mode, even without the Ainslie circuit AT ALL.

I am currently looking at my load cell hooked DIRECTLY to my F43, supplying it with negatively offset DC from the FG, indicating 200 mA from the series ammeter, and heating the load, slowly but surely, just as last night.

So... with the inline ammeter in series with the FG and hooked to the circuit normally except for that, I can set the oscillations using gate drive offset to allow 200 mA to flow here. And with the ammeter set in strict series with the battery supply, ditto. And... with JUST the function generator, no TarBaby at all, I can also heat the load at 200mA on the ammeter with power supplied by the function generator. (In this case it's not so much the accuracy of the meter that counts, it's the precision and repeatability of the measurement.)
So the function generator can be allowed, as far as I am concerned, as long as HIGH HEAT mode , positive gate drive pulses, for the test.

If "low heat mode" using 200 mA (from oscs or ? ) must be used, then some means of preventing the FG... OR the 555 timer circuit ... from providing power to the load must also be used.

 

OneLink