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 Members: 84254
  • *Latest: aaronhdd

  • *Total Posts: 898099
  • *Total Topics: 15837
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 0
  • *Guests: 12
  • *Total: 12

Author Topic: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.  (Read 781011 times)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1980 on: April 08, 2012, 05:36:27 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.

My dear Tinsel Koala

If indeed I referenced the display as representative of 5 or thereby watts - then I'd have rather defeated our own claim.  Because if the the scope is telling us that the battery is delivering 5 watts and I am saying that the heat on the load resistor is dissipating 5 watts - then - what the hell?  But I do appreciate how urgently you need to deny this.  I am FLATTERED at the level of your urgency. 

Rosie Pose 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1981 on: April 08, 2012, 05:41:03 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.

No TK.  Not actually.  I've been advised that should I presume to report on any further tests at all related to our circuit and using a function generator - then I will be banned - and all my threads deleted.  So.  It's not your permission that I'm seeking - and I'm not sure you have that much authority on this forum.  It seems that Harti does not FOLLOW YOUR INSTRUCTIONS.

Kindest again,
Rosie Pose
Added
And may I add that we've discussed this at length.  I think it is long overdue that we revisit various claims that have been repeatedly refuted by yourself and Glen Lettenmaier - and that all prior claims be more thoroughly evaluated - and this time with the real benefit of impartial academic hands on advices and, hopefully, engagement.

Again - and ever,
Rosie Pose

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1982 on: April 08, 2012, 05:57:13 PM »
There has never been anyone who has said so little while talking so much, as you, Rosie poser.

Now it is Stefan and his requirements that are preventing you from testing.

Meanwhile, at least Somebody is testing Something, and I am quite sure that YOU won't be testing anything anytime soon.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1982 on: April 08, 2012, 05:57:13 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1983 on: April 08, 2012, 06:09:47 PM »
There has never been anyone who has said so little while talking so much, as you, Rosie poser.

Now it is Stefan and his requirements that are preventing you from testing.

Meanwhile, at least Somebody is testing Something, and I am quite sure that YOU won't be testing anything anytime soon.

You haven't acknowledged that obvious error TK?  The one where you claimed that I had 20 20 vision and could read the value off the scope trace to confuse it with the heat dissipated at the load.  And indeed.  It is Stefan's requirements that we test this without the function generator.  I'm rather pleased.  It will give us AMPLE opportunity to refute those complicated bases of your earlier denials.  And Glen Lettenmaier's for that matter.  And this time we'll be sure to film everything - copiously.  And we'll use good lighting - as  departure from those bench marks that you've set.  And INDEED.  Subject to Harti's permission - it should take plus/minus a fortnight to get our first tests completed.

How nice would that be?  You'll no longer to able to rely on that rather tired schedule of denials that you require.  The only problem then is who is then going to pay you for your own running 'side by side' commentary that I anticipate?  Or will that by your gratis contribution? To the public good?

ever
Rosie Posie

Added
And it is indeed a pleasure to get the occasional word in - between the multiple posts that you manage in order to dominate this thread.  My concern is that you're neglecting your own.  AND you're neglecting that cold fusion number.  You need to pull finger.

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1984 on: April 08, 2012, 06:32:17 PM »
Rosemary:

The function generator is not putting energy into the batteries in negative oscillation mode.  All that it is doing is assisting the set of batteries while they discharge.  The batteries will indeed die if you run in negative oscillation mode for long enough.

Are you interested in the high heat mode?  Do you think that you are "COP infinity" in that mode?  In that mode as long as you keep the switching frequency of the function generator low, say 100 Hz or less, then the energy put into the system by the function generator will be negligible.  In this mode your batteries will die much more quickly.

So there is no rational reason to not use the function generator and Stefan is wrong.

Alternatively, if you want to use a 555 timer, I am going to presume that your preferred mode to run in is negative oscillation mode.  Then all that you have to do is get another 12-volt battery to power the 555 timer.  With the new battery power the timer so that it runs on ground and -12 volts relative to your setup.  You need a 50 ohm resistor in series with the 555 timer output, and then you will be emulating the function generator.

If you want to make your life easier, add a 12-volt battery to the system to give you  -12 volts like stated above, and connect a 50-ohm resistor between -12 volts and the Q1 gate.  Then the setup will run continuously in negative oscillation mode.

Just forget about the "two academics" nonsense Rosemary, you are never going to get two professors to take you seriously.  If you want to get their attention you have to present your own draw-down data to them first.

Also, not knowing the state of charge of your batteries has always been an Achilees' Heel in your testing.  You have to charge your batteries and first of all do a dim bulb test on all of them.  Then charge your batteries and repeat the process.  Make sure all of the batteries are approximately the same.

Do you get this?  BEFORE you do your draw-down test you should know how long your batteries are expected to run for the dim light bulb test.  Not knowing this information before you start the testing is unacceptable.  You have to start working with good solid and reliable information.  If you do this then you will also know approximately how much energy is stored in the batteries, which is very important.

Then if I was in your shoes, I would then just add an extra battery and the 50-ohm resistor as was explained above and let the whole setup run for however long is necessary in negative offset oscillation mode.  Forget the 555 timer and the function generator, you simply don't need them.  Way back in this thread is was explained to you that the function generator serves no real purpose in your setup.

So, for how long do you run this test?  One more time you have to use you wits and make some intelligent decisions.  Measure the temperature of your load resistor when the setup is running for a short test.  Do a thermal profiling of he load resistor if you have to.  Estimate the power dissipation being burned off in the load resistor from the thermal profiling.

Now here comes the hard part so ask for help if you need to: Calculate how long you have to run the setup to burn off 80% of the energy stored in the batteries.  Of course we know that you believe that the batteries will remain topped-off during this test because you allege that your setup is actually recharging the batteries.

So, supposing that you have to run the setup for 10 days to burn off 80% of the energy stored in the batteries.  Fine, run the test for 10 days and then to the dim light bulb test.

Time for ACTION Rosemary and time for you to get proactive.  This forum itself is an addiction.  Stop arguing about your setup and actually do something that is real.

MileHigh

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1984 on: April 08, 2012, 06:32:17 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1985 on: April 08, 2012, 06:57:29 PM »
This is getting to be like the SKDB, isn't it. Some claims are made, some interested people get involved trying to reproduce the claimed effects but get no real help from the originators... who then appear to have a stable of unpaid and maybe even _paying_ consultants to help them try to develop something that would support their original claims which had no real support in the first place, ashes ashes we all fall down ....

So I'm going to have to make up... literally, ha ha, a 555 timer circuit that will sub for the FG. Then.... since I am using it.... Rosemary won't be able to touch it, because it's contaminated by the truth.

It will take me half an hour or so; I should be able to get it done this afternoon, after I take my feral chowyote dog out to hunt for Easter Egg hunters.

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1986 on: April 08, 2012, 08:19:22 PM »
I ran up one of my simulations of the RAT circuit with two MOSFETs, Q1 and Q2, and you were pretty close PW, the average battery/FG current is about 175mA in my sim running in negative bias mode (Q1 inactive, Q2 actively oscillating).

The average battery power is about -2W, and average FG power about -1W, for a total of 3W to the circuit. I have a 4 Ohm FG resistor, not 50 Ohm. The oscillations don't appear correct if I use 50 Ohms.

It's interesting to note, that in my sim, the VGS does not seem to exceed -4V, even if I set the FG to -9V. Something is limiting it to about -4V.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1986 on: April 08, 2012, 08:19:22 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1987 on: April 08, 2012, 08:54:22 PM »
TK:

Re:  The LEDs of Doom test.  I was keeping it simple.  Indeed you would have to parallel multiple LEDs.  I would default back to my suggestion to put 4 LEDs in parallel back to back with four LEDs in parallel on a breadboard.

If there are any problems with sustaining the oscillation perhaps put the LEDs between the battery positive terminal and the load resistor.

How about a simple Plan B:  Do the Poynt version:  Do the test (negative oscillation mode) using two small incandescent light bulbs back-to back with accompanying diodes that can easily handle 200 mA.

If you measure the voltage across the bulb + diode at 200 mA, then you would know how much you would need to compensate with the function generator by increasing its negative voltage output.

As a reminder to all, this is to show that the current is clockwise in negative oscillation mode and the batteries are discharging.  Rosemary believes that the batteries are charging and the current is running counter-clockwise.

MileHigh

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1988 on: April 08, 2012, 08:54:53 PM »
I ran up one of my simulations of the RAT circuit with two MOSFETs, Q1 and Q2, and you were pretty close PW, the average battery/FG current is about 175mA in my sim running in negative bias mode (Q1 inactive, Q2 actively oscillating).

The average battery power is about -2W, and average FG power about -1W, for a total of 3W to the circuit. I have a 4 Ohm FG resistor, not 50 Ohm. The oscillations don't appear correct if I use 50 Ohms.

It's interesting to note, that in my sim, the VGS does not seem to exceed -4V, even if I set the FG to -9V. Something is limiting it to about -4V.

Which RAT circuit Poynty?  There are so many.  And WHAT is a VGS?
Rosie Pose

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1988 on: April 08, 2012, 08:54:53 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1989 on: April 08, 2012, 09:02:10 PM »
Which RAT circuit Poynty?  There are so many.  And WHAT is a VGS?
Rosie Pose

Rosemary,

It is a circuit with one Q1, and one Q2, connected as per your setup. FG is with 5V negative offset.

"VGS" is read: "voltage-gate-to-source". So this is the voltage measured from/between the gate and source legs of the MOSFET(s).

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1990 on: April 08, 2012, 09:02:14 PM »
TK:

Re:  The LEDs of Doom test.  I was keeping it simple.  Indeed you would have to parallel multiple LEDs.  I would default back to my suggestion to put 4 diodes in parallel back to back with four diodes in parallel on a breadboard.

If there are any problems with sustaining the oscillation perhaps put the LEDs between the battery positive terminal and the load resistor.

How about a simple Plan B:  Do the Poynt version:  Do the test (negative oscillation mode) using two small incandescent light bulbs back-to back with accompanying diodes that can easily handle 200 mA.

If you measure the voltage across the bulb + diode at 200 mA, then you would know how much you would need to compensate with the function generator by increasing its negative voltage output.

As a reminder to all, this is to show that the current is clockwise in negative oscillation mode and the batteries are discharging.  Rosemary believes that the batteries are charging and the current is running counter-clockwise.

MileHigh

My dear MileHigh,

I assure you the batteries are NOT recharging.  I have made full reference to this in our paper.  Perhaps one day you'll bother to read them.  But if you need to claim that I claim that ... then feel free. 

Rosie Posie

And by the way.  I do NOT believe the current is flowing counter clockwise.  I KNOW it's flowing counter clockwise.  Certainly for one half of each oscillation.  So does everyone who knows anything at all about ac waveforms. 

as ever
Rosie

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1990 on: April 08, 2012, 09:02:14 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1991 on: April 08, 2012, 09:07:06 PM »
Rosemary,

It is a circuit with one Q1, and one Q2, connected as per your setup. FG is with 5V negative offset.

"VGS" is read: "voltage-gate-to-source". So this is the voltage measured from/between the gate and source legs of the MOSFET(s).

Ta muchly Ponty Point

R

Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1992 on: April 08, 2012, 09:19:30 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.



Well it appears little miss mosfet the  "SUPER TROLL" has finally read Stefan's posting from over a week ago and e-mail sent to her specifically stating her options, it's about time .... actually it's to late now the future "banning" has been cast.

So .... the mosfet "queen" is now back to the COP>17 experimental device circuit described in the Quantum 2002 article, she should still have at least one somewhere but of course she said they were all taken apart or destroyed even though there are several posting at Energetic Forum that they exist  http://www.energeticforum.com/60279-post511.html  http://www.energeticforum.com/59541-post322.html

I was starting to worry that the Open Source community was being duped again was vetting her work "NOT" using the papers so called collaborators to do the work and getting the papers corrected for the "SUPER TROLL" to re-submit the papers again as her work in a corrected more presentable form.

I've been making PDF's in preparation of the threads being deleted and have proof read many of them .... just the argument on which device schematic was used and where mosfet Q1 was with the (S) source (D) drain (G) gate connections were was over 350 postings just to get one schematic right in the "SUPER TROLLS" eyes.

Then to find out the circuit is only for low wattage loads under 6 amps with a single mosfet and the one device schematic totally trashed and discounted by little miss mosfet was for higher wattage's with four mosfet's in parallel and the possibilities of 24 amps of load ... pretty dumb choice, but that was the "SUPER TROLLS" call 350 posts later, not the list of collaborators which I doubt there are any "NO" professional would screw up that bad in so many respects.


Guys,

Hopefully this post should wrap things up.
 
The one thing that is MOST IMPORTANT to acknowledge - is that unity is a barrier that has been well and truly breached.  And the evidence is absolutely NOT exclusively with any of the experimental evidence that we, on this forum, have brought to the table.  The argument has been settled by Andrea Rossi and his E-cat.  Here's why.  While the evidence speaks to a nuclear reaction it cannot be supported by what is understood within the standard model.  There is absolutely no complete explanation that will allow for this.  Which also means that we will need to revisit our conceptual understanding related to the transfer of energy.  I am of the opinion that the final explanation will be entirely resolved in Andrea Rossi's own description of the E-cat - being 'a new kind of fire'.  And my own proposal, for what it's worth, is that this fire is, as is all fire, generated from magnetic particles that are chaotic.  The proposal, very loosely, is that in their structured or 'field' condition - then they structure themselves along Faraday's Lines of Force.  Out of the field condition they simply become chaotic.  Then they are 'big' and 'hot' and 'localised' within our own measurable time frame and within our own spatial dimensions.  These particles are indestructible and we argue that composites of these particles create a 10 dimensional binary system that is in line with our String Theories.

Now.  Discursive analysis is a valid tool of logic.  When it comes to the careful analysis of science theory - then it can be used to argue concepts.   And, at this stage, and because of the elusive nature of dark matter, it is actually all that we've got.  What I am trying to point to is that the time has now come when we need to establish some new paradigms that are bold enough to encompass a 'field theory' as required by our string theorists.  The reluctance to engage is, I suspect, because they use a kind of math that is bewildering even to expert mathematicians.  And that puts any speculative efforts out of reach of the expert let alone the layman. 

I have been to some considerable pains to assure you that credentials are NOT required to apply logic.  And logic is always and essentially simple.  It's our birthright - for God's sake.  And, if I have a mission, it is to share these insights - that we can ALL of us both understand that background field, and then USE IT.  To far better effect than even Rossi's E-cat.  Rossi's breakthrough technology will, I'm CERTAIN, salvage us from the onslaught that we're doomed to experience if we allowed the continuing abuses of our toxic energy excesses.  That thing that our well fed trolls rather frantically require.  It's a PERFECT interim measure.  But it's only touching on the fringe of all that potential that sits there - for the taking.  And I hope, before I die, that I'll be able to share these insights - with more than just the dozen or so, who, at the moment DO understand it.  And guys.  IT IS NOT MY DISCOVERY.  It has NOTHING to do with anything at all that I've initiated.  It is just that I have the rare privilege of understanding this in a conceptual context - which, I modestly believe, is within the grasp of EVERYONE.  And it really needs to be shared.

The ONLY reason that I took this departure from my usual - was to FINALLY challenge those trolls who lurk under the guise of 'reason' and 'credentialed expertise' to show you how they are FRUSTRATING and not ADVANCING new science.  And they're doing this through increasingly inappropriate methods that are now, simply backfiring.  Their motives are increasingly transparent.  And their deceptions along with it.  It is they and not US who are not only misrepresenting the FACTS - but are applying methodologies of analysis that contravene our established knowledge related to physics.  That's the irony.  They are literally contravening the established science in order to contradict the evidence.  And they DO THIS REPEATEDLY.  There is NOT ONE RELIABLE COMPUTATION ON THIS FORUM THAT HAS EVER BEEN MANAGED BY POYNTY, PROFESSOR STEVEN E JONES, TINSEL KOALA - OR ANY OF THEM.   And, frankly, I've had a belly full.

But to get back to the point.  That challenge.  That need to DO the experiment to DISPROVE our thermodynamic constraints.  That, I believe, is your own intuitive response to a deeper understanding that these BOUNDARIES CAN BE BROKEN.  And that knowledge needs to surface.  But it would - perhaps, be more efficiently used and employed - if there was a conceptual understanding to advance this in the first place.  In any event.  I do hope so.  In order to make a start I'm going to post over the discursive analysis in our own paper.  But I'm not sure that I want to do it in this thread.  I've asked Harti to lock this thread.  I'm not sure if he will as he hasn't answered me. In which case I'll post it over in another thread - in due course.  But I really think that this thread is otherwise and now, and COMPLETELY - DONE.  I do hope so.  Thanks for your patience - to all those who followed this - from both sides of the argument.   

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Hopefully all the blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah from little miss mosfet the "SUPER TROLL" crap will end .....

Cheers,
Fuzzy
 ;)




Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1993 on: April 08, 2012, 09:23:43 PM »
Rosemary:

Quote
I assure you the batteries are NOT recharging.  I have made full reference to this in our paper.  Perhaps one day you'll bother to read them.  But if you need to claim that I claim that ... then feel free. 

Rosie Posie

And by the way.  I do NOT believe the current is flowing counter clockwise.  I KNOW it's flowing counter clockwise.  Certainly for one half of each oscillation.  So does everyone who knows anything at all about ac waveforms. 

I stand corrected.  The circuit is using the "potential only" from the batteries so they are not discharging while the load resistor is heated.  I believe I got it right now?

With respect to the current flowing counter-clockwise, for what seems like the hundredth time I will state it again:  What you are seeing on the CSR is indeed an AC voltage and current waveform.  So there is what appears to be some current flowing counter-clockwise.  However, it is not the battery current.  Please study the attached diagram again.

MileHigh

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.
« Reply #1994 on: April 08, 2012, 09:24:29 PM »
An Easter egg for TK:

 

OneLink